A pit bull attacked a Lawrence Police officer Friday night in the 300 block of Mississippi Street, according to a report.
The officer, Warner Stumpenhaus, was called to the area about 8 p.m. because two pit bulls were running loose. He found the dogs and made contact with their 44-year-old owner. They then started to take the dogs around the back of the man's home.
As they were walking around the home, a third dog appeared and lunged at Stumpenhaus. He raised his arm to defend himself and the dog bit him on the forearm, according to a report.
When he was able to shake the dog off, the owner chased it down and put it inside the home. The owner was cited for charges, including having an animal at large and no proof of vaccinations. The dog was quarantined.
Stumpenhaus went to Lawrence Memorial Hospital for treatment.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
aeroscout17 (anonymous) says…
Uh oh, here come the pit bull arguments again....
law (anonymous) says…
Officer Stumpenhaus should have shot that dog.
captainmatt03 (anonymous) says…
It's not the dogs fault, that owner should have a lot more done to him than "cited for having an animal at large". If they want to crack down on these dogs running loose causing all this trouble, make that "animal at large" fine about $1,000, then these losers who aren't responsible dog owners will sure as heck keep them under control. They make the rest of us look bad.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
would he have gotten the ticket if the third dog had not bitten the cop? sounds like he was just rounding up the dogs and getting them back inside with the owner, then chomp time then the ticket.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Yay! Another "responsible pit bull owner"....
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
no dog I have ever had liked cops, or people they did not know walking into the yard, had a lab try to bite an srs worker one time not sure why she was a nice lady.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
well the lady did just walk up unknown to the dog and reach in her fence to pet her, and you should never approach a dog you do not know that way is common sense.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
powershopper - the story probably doesn't have all the details, but (given what they present) did the 'responsible pit bull owner' tell the policeman that there was another one loose in the back yard? In addition to the TWO that were running loose (the responsibility of the owner)? The dog that bit the officer was only defending his territory - how do you blame that one?
The blame is on the alleged nimrod that didn't tell the policeman about the risk he was walking into.
Besides the fact that your analogy is completely nonsensical in this context.
armyguy (anonymous) says…
how bout pitbull for dinner? Isn't there a ban on pitbulls in Lawrence? The city has banned most everthing else, I am supprised they haven't banned pitbulls.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"I have crossed paths of MANY dogs on their own territory and never once been attacked."
Good for you! Have you ever thought of a career in law enforcement, perhaps animal control? Lawrence needs that kind of public servant that quells the aggressive urges of it's four-legged citizens.
" Is it the owner of the dog, or are Pitbulls, by nature, more territorial thus more dangerous?"
A fallacious question at best. Looking at this situation, what does any of that have to do with a dog in someone's back yard biting a police officer, who was apparently not warned by that dog's owner that a dog was loose there? Nothing.
"Please elaborate as to how my analogy is completely nonsensical. As far as I am concerned, I thought it made perfect sense. I am, however, completely open to any opinion you have, as long as you elaborate."
Of course you do - or you wouldn't have used it. For your analogy to make sense, the "other woman" must be the owner, and the offender must be "the husband". "The wife" viewpoint isn't represented by anyone.
That is the opposite of what I am pointing out - the dog is just doing what dogs do to protect their territory. The owner failed in his duty to inform the policeman that a loose dog was in that yard - whether the dog was aggressive or not is not the issue at all.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"The "wifes" viewpoint is represented by those of "you" saying it is the owners fault and not the dogs."
Ah, perhaps then that is a little closer - I'll give you that one then. Or perhaps even more clearly would have the other woman as the external observer, blaming the wife for the husband's actions.
If your analogy is correct, then you seem to blame the dog (which was not loose and outside it's owner's ability to control or warn others about), rather than the owner.
Your question is fallacious in that it deflects from the real issue by presenting a question about territoriality of a specific dog breed. I could care less about the breed - the situation at hand is an irresponsible dog owner not performing his duty to inform the policeman of possible danger, as he led the policeman into this dog's territory.
I've also entered many dogs 'territory' w/o attack or physical altercation. That has nothing to do with this situation or even the concept that dogs may defend their territory if inclined to do so.
If personal experience is to be used, I would rather ask if you have experience as a dog owner, making sure that your animal is under control around strangers in your home/yard/dog-territory, and if not under immediate control (as in this case) warn them of the presence of the dog? That is the relevent personal experience, in regards to my assertion.
Berserk (anonymous) says…
Just so you A**holes know, if I see a pitbull roaming around in my yard, or anywhere around public places where there are children...
I am going to kill your dog right there.
I am so tired of these IDIOTS with pitbulls.
Pitbulls have distemper, thier brains become suffocated and squeezed by thier skulls, which do not stop growing, they become angry without cause as they get older.
Keep your dog in your home, or it will suffer for your lack of controll.
You can bet on this promise.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Labs, Great Danes, Bull Terriers, various pointers and setters, mutts...have been around 'em forever. Apparently, only Dachshunds and a St. Bernard felt the need to try and kill me in the past - the former I put to out-of-control ambition and the latter was fully capable of doing so!
Have no great love for pitbulls - what bothers me most about this whole thing is that completely different breeds tend to get lumped in with APB's - such as Staffordshire and English Bull terriers, which are absolutely the babies that many APB's defenders claim their dogs to be.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Berzerk-
Good luck, especially if you live in city limits, where it's illegal to discharge a firearm (which oddly enough includes crossbows and bows). You can get in much deeper trouble for the method you use, rather than the destruction of the dog.
conservative (anonymous) says…
Give the pitbulls to the bunny killers. They're too incompetent to hurt the dogs, but I really wouldn't mind what the dogs would do to those two.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"English or American Bulldog."
Another fantastic breed - great kids dog, but a little prone to those 'mushed-nose' issues.
Boxers are an absolute hoot, if you can keep up with them.
badger (anonymous) says…
Yeah, Berserk, I'm curious as to your definition of 'distemper' and the logic of that whole 'brain-squeezing' thing?
Perhaps you could clarify?
Mostly, the burning question on my mind right now is:
How does 'Stumpenhaus' fit on one of those little name badges? Does he have to have it specially made longer than, say, Officer Smith? And what sort of unkind parent saddles a child with the moniker 'Warner Stumpenhaus'? We're lucky he joined the police force instead of finding a clock tower...
joemite (anonymous) says…
I completely agree with CraZyBeaUtiFuL0707. I know several Pitbulls that are as friendly as any other dog. Unfortunately, many Pitbull owners have ego problems and make up for it by keeping and encouraging mean dogs. Likely some form of animal abuse is happening. Don't ban Pitbulls, punish the owners who neglect their animals.
jrlii (anonymous) says…
Any dog which delivers a bite to a human requiring hospital care, should be shot then and there: No quarantine, no court hearing, just bang.
I realize that would require the victim to make the choice between taking painful rabies shots and taking their chances.
Owners of mean and/or unsocialized dogs are the cause of most of the restrictive regulations urban dog owners (and their dogs) are subjected to.
While I have met some very nice dogs from "dangerous breeds" there have been about as many that my first inclination is to shoot.
I know people who have warned their neighbors who have a vicious dog that if their critter were to attack them it would be shot. Self defense trumps discharging a weapon in the city.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"Self defense trumps discharging a weapon in the city."
Maybe in cases where a person is being attacked - to just plug 'em while they're poking around the yard will just as likely get you a nice little firearms violation on your record.
justsomewench (anonymous) says…
"Mostly, the burning question on my mind right now is:
How does 'Stumpenhaus' fit on one of those little name badges? Does he have to have it specially made longer than, say, Officer Smith? And what sort of unkind parent saddles a child with the moniker 'Warner Stumpenhaus'? We're lucky he joined the police force instead of finding a clock tower..."
badger wins!
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
BTW, you fundamentalist Christian conservative Republicans are getting your asses kicked, and good, all across our beloved state.
Life is good, and it's getting better. Find a quiet corner and go wait for your dead Galilean to return, and try not to bother anyone else with your skewered political/social beliefs.