Wednesday October 10, 2012, 12:24 pm
grat news Buffy dear but I am mad at the police who took him azay from his owners, is the police always so stupid that they called a dog without teeth called dangerous
Wednesday October 10, 2012, 6:58 pm
I'm glad to hear that Buster may soon be going home if he isn't there already. It seems crazy to me that the owners had to jump through so many hoops to be able to satisfy the government that this toothless dog would not be harmful to society. Thanks for the update Buffy!
Thursday October 11, 2012, 5:50 am
Thanks so much for the awesome update - God does answer prayers - this is one of them. How on earth could they have taken him in the first place, and that with no teeth!!! How could he possibley have been a danger to anyone. Poor dog - hope he lives a peaceful life now with an abundance of love and kindness.
Thursday October 11, 2012, 8:25 am
Another example of where a petition has appeared to have made a major difference. Is there a term for breed ism-hmmm pitbullism-no no such word-but this breed specific form of intolerance is rediculous-the dog has no teeth and health problems and yet just because of his breed was labled dangerous-come on now-how could he be-people need to stop holding an entire breed responsible for the misconduct of a small percent and then that small percent was largely in part in how they were raised and bred-lets not tolerate pitbullism.and no i dont own a pitbull i have a toy poodle.
Thursday October 11, 2012, 12:20 pm
Noted. Thanks so much, Buffy. This is awesome news. How they thought a dog with no teeth could be dangerous is beyond me. I think it's ridiculous that the owner has to jump through so many hoops to keep Buster. However, I'm glad Buster is going to a loving, safe, forever home.
Thursday October 11, 2012, 12:27 pm
Great news, but so sad to think that any owner of pit bulls only gets a fair break by owning a pit bull with no teeth. There were two pit bulls recently that were unfairly executed without a proper investigation and they were trained service dogs!
Thursday October 11, 2012, 1:51 pm
This shows how dumb the pathetic uneducated cops are.I hope the family take leagl action and litigate the arseholes who seized this poor gentle dog on false pretences
Thursday October 11, 2012, 3:28 pm
Just a great pity that this outcome wan't the same for Lennox, who wasn't even a pit-bull dog. Lets hope Buster's new owner complies with all the regulations so he can enjoy the remainder of his years in peace, with a loving, caring family. RIP, Lennox, you NEVER got a second chance.
Thursday October 11, 2012, 3:42 pm
This is yet another example of why breed bans and BSL is bull hockey. Suffolk Co should ban breed bans and compensate Shirley for the false fine and the trouble caused by stealing his dog!
Thursday October 11, 2012, 5:25 pm
Glad he's finally home, and to think one of his neighbors turned him in. These bans are bad, this is an old dog that had to sit in a kennel since July? It's so wrong.
Thursday October 11, 2012, 5:29 pm
Glad to read that Buster is back home. An 11 yr old dog without teeth and mobility problems yet they have to muzzle him, etc. what a ridiculous situation. At least he lives with people who love and will care for him in his golden years.
Thursday October 11, 2012, 5:48 pm
What was Buster going to do gum them to death. How pathetic that the police act like this. I realy think they need training on how to handle animals. They are very good with guns. The bans on certain dogs is stupid. GET REAL.
Thursday October 11, 2012, 6:34 pm
the law may have teeth, but poor Buster doesn't. Must have been some jerk neighbor with an axe to grind. What is going to happen next, turn Buster in for barking? making obscene phone calls? loitering in his back yard?
Thursday October 11, 2012, 8:24 pm
Thank God!! Yay victory!! Im so glad Buster's returned to his home. Bless the judge who ruled in his favour. He definitely saved humans from some embarrassment! A pitbull with no teeth as "Dangerous Dog"!!! What kind of sh#* would that be!!
Thursday October 11, 2012, 8:39 pm
I was concerned why he didn't have any teeth. Don't buy the age thing, but I guess there could other reasons. None the less, I'm glad this dog was saved. Rather than ban the dog's, they should have the owners register their dog's. If an owner doesn't, then fine them $10,000 and offer a reward to those that turn these irresponsible owners in. Make the humans responsible and not the innocent.
Friday October 12, 2012, 5:23 am
So far I have never come across any pit bull that:
1. Invented or uses AK47's
2. Nuclear weapons
3. Sends young pit bulls to die in useless foreign wars
4. Gets drunk and parties loudly until 4AM
5. Becomes a politician or a lawyer or a PR consultant or a journalist or a serial killer
6. Tries to sell me useless junk at an inflated price
I find put bulls generally to be very civilised and pleasant compared to the species that (a) selectively bred them and (b) now persecutes them.
Monday October 15, 2012, 11:11 am
Obviously some mean spirited busy body called the police as soon as they found out about toothless old Buster, no knowing anything about him other than his breed, aka "stereotyping or profiling", if it were a human.
These people must be "very proud" of themselves knowing that they turned in an old, non-aggressive, harmless, toothless and mobility impaired old dog. No profiles in courage there!
Thank goodness and bravo to the Judge overseeing this had the wisdom and judicial discretion to release Buster back into his caretakers custody. No doubt the police have better things to do than to haul off people's beloved, innocent and harmless pets wasting their time, the court and judges time and taxpayer's money.
The people that reported this dog ought to be fined for frivolous and wrongful reporting of an innocent being.
This is why a specific breed ban should never come to be or overturned. It gives alot of disgruntled and trouble making people a platform to cause trouble and worse.
Each dog and its owners ought be judged on a case by case basis-- just like with people. The law is to adjudicate fair and equitable situations, not for furthering one owns private agenda.