Death Sentence for Shepard Protecting it's Family

thebeachbumm33 · Post by **thebeachbumm33** » November 11, 2007 5:08 pm

I really feel the judge got it wrong, the owner was assaulted and the dog came to her rescue

You would also think the insurance company would have fought this

Moonie · Post by **Moonie** » November 11, 2007 5:19 pm

I hope there's enough public outcry to save the dog...he only did what he was expected to do...

why weren't they trespassing since there were on the property before they were supposed to be.

The Lost Manatee · Post by **The Lost Manatee** » November 12, 2007 2:04 pm

Having grown up with German Shepherds I can attest to their loyalty and their protective nature. I do question the judge's decision since grabbing and throwing the wife to the ground would clearly be viewed as an attack by most people I know, let alone a dog. Also beating on a dog is likely to cause a negative reaction.

It is clear to me that the owners were aware that their dogs could be a threat to other people by their statements concerning wanting to get the dogs inside before allowing the landscaping crew to get to work. However I believe that when the owner gave instructions to the crew to remain in their vehicle until such time as they were instructed to get out, the owner had taken reasonable steps to insure the safety of the crew. By not following the instructions given to them by the owner the crew placed themselves at risk. Then by interfering with the wife they made a bad situation into a terrible one. I believe that the crew share a great deal of the responsibility for this incident.

Carolinadreamin' · Post by **Carolinadreamin'** » November 12, 2007 2:51 pm

This would not have happened had the lawn people stayed in the car as instructed until they were told the dogs were secured.

I have a 9 lb chihuahua mix and I have no doubt that if someone knocked me to the ground in my yard he would start chewing the leg of said person.

flipflopgirl · Post by **flipflopgirl** » November 12, 2007 3:02 pm

WTF?!?!? What a bunch of BS!

brahmafear · Post by **brahmafear** » November 12, 2007 6:21 pm

This is just wrong. The landscapers got what they deserved from the dogs. They did not deserve money. I certainly hope an appeals court overturns this verdict.

karat · Post by **karat** » November 12, 2007 6:35 pm

brahmafear wrote:This is just wrong. The landscapers got what they deserved from the dogs. They did not deserve money. I certainly hope an appeals court overturns this verdict.

Agree 200%!

My dogs would protect me as well. And EVERYONE KNOWS... if the dog is barking and coming after you... you should not be there!

I pray the dogs will be okay! And cheers to the puppies!

blackjack · Post by **blackjack** » November 12, 2007 10:54 pm

Good dog!

I hate that NJ is becoming so liberal. Blech!

The dog was just protecting and obviously is not a "vicious" dog based on the testimony from eople in the community.

CaptainP · Post by **CaptainP** » November 12, 2007 10:56 pm

So the Dog didn't attack when the landscaper was HITTING IT WITH A RAKE....but when the landscaper GRABBED THE WOMAN, it did. So it has to die.

Yeah.

That's like getting arrested for spitting on a cop after he's tazered you and raped your wife.

sonofabeach · Post by **sonofabeach** » November 13, 2007 12:25 am

There's got to be more details to this story.
I was cornered by two mean rottweilers poised to attack at my friends house and I wished I would have had a rake. Not sure how much good it would have did though. Luckily my friend came up and saved me. I know it's pc to automatcally jump on the dog's side but remember it is an animal. I would think that even if you are on someone else's property the dog owners should still be able to control their dogs. "You were on my property so it's okay that my dogs attacked you" does not really make sense to me. Especially if you were there with no ill intentions to begin with. The impression I got was that the workers were approached by the dogs and tried to fend them off which made the owner mad and it all went downhill from there. It doesn't makes sense to me that they arrived and decided to harrass some big dogs out of the blue although I guess it's possible.

The Lost Manatee · Post by **The Lost Manatee** » November 14, 2007 2:07 pm

sonofabeach wrote:There's got to be more details to this story.
I was cornered by two mean rottweilers poised to attack at my friends house and I wished I would have had a rake. Not sure how much good it would have did though. Luckily my friend came up and saved me. I know it's pc to automatcally jump on the dog's side but remember it is an animal. I would think that even if you are on someone else's property the dog owners should still be able to control their dogs. "You were on my property so it's okay that my dogs attacked you" does not really make sense to me. Especially if you were there with no ill intentions to begin with. The impression I got was that the workers were approached by the dogs and tried to fend them off which made the owner mad and it all went downhill from there. It doesn't makes sense to me that they arrived and decided to harrass some big dogs out of the blue although I guess it's possible.

While I wholeheartedly agree that owners of dogs need to control them and being cornered by two dogs is not a fun thing. The issue in this case really isn't only about the owners controlling the dogs but includes the failure of the lawn crew to follow directions and grabbing and wrestling to the ground a family member. According to all accounts the dogs were not biting, scratching or otherwise attacking anyone until the guy grabs the wife and takes her down to the ground. The issue is whether or not that constitutes provocation or not.

The judge ruled that it did not and yet from my experience of growing up with German Shepherds I can tell you in the eyes of the dog, it certainly was a provoked attack. Grabbing a family member is viewed as a hostile act by the dog, wrestling the family member to the ground is clearly an attack. I would have to say that if you were to grab my daughter or wife and wrestle either one of them to the ground, you better hope that it is only the dog that gets to you because I would certainly consider it an attack and would take the appropriate action.

As a dog owner I keep my dogs in a fenced yard and when we go anywhere they are on lead. I do not inflict my dogs on other people because I am aware that they may not like dogs. Likewise, I expect people who come into my house and into my fenced yard to have enough sense not to panic and ignore simple instructions, like "stay in the house until I can put the dogs away." Failure to follow reasonable instructions strikes me as a mitigating circumstance.

pirate@43 · Post by **pirate@43** » November 14, 2007 5:49 pm

Unfortunately the paper is only reporting one side of the story. I've heard other sides to the story. Here's the latest report
http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf? ... xml&coll=5

pirate@43 · Post by **pirate@43** » November 15, 2007 5:29 pm

More Info on Congo

http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf? ... xml&coll=5

Congo goes home
http://www.nj.com/centraljersey/index.s ... congo.html

flipflopgirl · Post by **flipflopgirl** » November 15, 2007 5:48 pm

YEY CONGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

flyboy55 · Post by **flyboy55** » November 15, 2007 5:52 pm

pirate@43 wrote:Unfortunately the paper is only reporting one side of the story. I've heard other sides to the story. Here's the latest report

http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf? ... xml&coll=5

If this family had been responsible pet owners, they would have anticipated problems and isolated the animals before strangers came on to the property.

If the situation were reversed and ten year old Hannah James had been mauled by a dog while selling Girl Scout Cookies on Giovanni Rivera's property, would there be the same outcry to save the dog?

No, I think in that case the mob would be out front of Mr. Rivera's house demanding the dog's destruction.

Post by **SMLCHNG** » November 15, 2007 6:00 pm

flyboy55 wrote: If this family had been responsible pet owners, they would have anticipated problems and isolated the animals before strangers came on to the property.

According to the article and link in the very first post, they were.

The landscaping crew had arrived before 7 a.m., about an hour before they were expected.

James, who was about to take a shower, called out a window to them in Spanish, telling them to get back in their car and wait because the dogs were in the backyard being fed.

While the dogs, two 2 1/2-year-old German shepherds and their four 6-month-old puppies, had not had problems with people on the property before, James said in an interview that he didn't want them to interfere with the workers. Also, he wanted the workers to wait until he was dressed so that he could tell them what to do, he said.

Instead, Rivera and another worker got out of the car after a few minutes and the dogs began to bark. That worker began to hit the dogs with a metal rake and Elizabeth James, Guy James' wife, yelled for him to stop. Meanwhile, Rivera, who was afraid of the dogs, grabbed her from behind and pulled her to the ground, causing her to scream. At that point Congo began to bite and scratch Rivera and some of the puppies joined in.

The Lost Manatee · Post by **The Lost Manatee** » November 16, 2007 6:31 pm

Thank you for beating me to response. The owners were being responsible by telling the crew to stay in their vehicle until the dogs could be put away.

thebeachbumm33 · Post by **thebeachbumm33** » April 4, 2008 3:09 pm

Good News all

A plea bargain approved Thursday will spare the life of a dog sentenced to die after mauling a gardener at a Princeton Township home.

Under the deal, dog owner Elizabeth James pleaded guilty to a municipal ordinance barring residents from allowing their dog to threaten or bite others and agreed to pay $250 in fines.

More serious charges against her related to the attack by Congo, a German shepherd, were dropped by the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office as part of the deal.

The James family had already reached a settlement with the victim, Giovanni Rivera, that paid him $250,000.

Lawyers for the family and Rivera said they are satisfied with the outcome. A call to a listing for the James family rang unanswered.

A message left after business hours seeking comment from the prosecutor's office was not immediately returned.

The plea agreement, approved by state Superior Court Judge Mitchel E. Ostrer in Trenton, ends a case that provoked outcry from animal lovers and prompted state legislators to draft a law that would have given Congo a reprieve.

The office of Gov. Jon S. Corzine said it got over 10,000 pleas on the dog's behalf, through telephone calls, e-mails, letters and faxes. Corzine said he would leave the matter to the courts.

The case also brought debate about immigration issues because Rivera came from Honduras.

Prosecutors contended the attack in June was unprovoked and a Princeton Township Municipal Court judge ruled the dog had to be put down. The order was stayed so the family could appeal, and Congo was returned home under security precautions.

However, Elizabeth James and her husband, Guy James, maintain the dog was provoked before attacking, said their lawyer, Robert E. Lytle.

They agreed to the deal because, "It strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of all that were involved," he said.

Under its terms, the family - which has four other German shepherds - must continue to maintain signs that warn of a "potentially dangerous dog" and maintain the fencing around their property.

The dogs must be muzzled and leashed when taken outside of the enclosure, and the family must maintain insurance coverage and notify the township animal control officer and police if the dogs escape, according to court papers.

In an interview with The Associated Press last year, Guy James contended that Rivera and other gardeners arrived early while the dogs were eating, and disregarded his calls for them to stay in their vehicle. He said Congo attacked Rivera after the panicked gardener grabbed his wife from behind and pulled her down, causing her to scream.

Rivera's lawyer and the municipal prosecutor have disputed that account: They said the gardener never pulled her down and that James' wife couldn't control the animal.

The gardener was in the hospital for five days after suffering "hundreds and hundreds of cuts," a prosecutor has said.

Rivera's lawyer, Kevin S. Riechelson, said he had not yet been able to reach his client to discuss the plea bargain, but said, "I think it's a reasonable settlement."

Rivera is still in New Jersey, Riechelson said, but the lawyer did not know if he had resumed working.

blackjacks wife · Post by **blackjacks wife** » April 4, 2008 4:13 pm

I agree with my husband.

Good Dog.

We don't own a dog for many reasons - but if we did, we would want a dog just like Congo.

If the landscaper was afraid of dogs as stated, and the homeowner told him, in Spanish, to stay in the car until the dogs were secured, why would the landscaper exit his truck and anger the dog?

If you ask me - the landscaper was looking for a settlement from the get go.

Good Dog.

blackjack · Post by **blackjack** » April 4, 2008 4:48 pm

flyboy55 wrote:
pirate@43 wrote:Unfortunately the paper is only reporting one side of the story. I've heard other sides to the story. Here's the latest report

http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf? ... xml&coll=5
If this family had been responsible pet owners, they would have anticipated problems and isolated the animals before strangers came on to the property.

If the situation were reversed and ten year old Hannah James had been mauled by a dog while selling Girl Scout Cookies on Giovanni Rivera's property, would there be the same outcry to save the dog?

No, I think in that case the mob would be out front of Mr. Rivera's house demanding the dog's destruction.

Typical liberal (yes, there's that word again) response. Speaking before knowing all the facts.