PDA

View Full Version : Immigration debate ignited after gardener mauled by dog



johnnymk
11-29-2007, 04:41 AM
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NEWS03/711290402/1007/

PRINCETON ? A dog scheduled to be put down after mauling a gardener from Honduras has ignited a debate over immigration and dog owners' rights in this university town.


The gardener, Giovanni Rivera, was attacked in June by a German shepherd named Congo and four other dogs at a Princeton home where he did landscaping. Charges were filed against the family who owned the dogs, and Rivera received an insurance settlement of $250,000.

But it's a judge's decision that the dog must be put down that has drawn criticism from some animal lovers and the dog's owners, who say Congo was protecting their property and family.

"It's just insanity what we're going through," Guy James said, sitting in his Princeton home with his wife, Elizabeth, as Congo and another German shepherd sat nearby. The James said the judge's decision to put Congo down has been "horrendous" for the couple and their four young children.

James contends the men showed up early when 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, Kevin S. Riechelson, said his client, who is still in New Jersey, did not want to speak about the incident because he was scared after the public outcry over the decision to put the dog down. But Riechelson and Kim Otis, the prosecutor who handled the case, described the attack as unprovoked, saying Rivera never pulled Elizabeth James down to the ground.

In addition, Riechelson said the men were told by their temp agency to show up for work early that day.

Rivera, who was hospitalized for five days, sustained "hundreds and hundreds of cuts," including a deep gash in his right thigh, according to Otis.

"They basically bit and clawed him for about three minutes," Riechelson said.

Public debate over the incident has even reached the office of Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who said last week that while he sympathizes with the dog, he's leaving the animal's fate up to the courts.

The governor's office has received more telephone calls, e-mails, letters and faxes about Congo than about any other issue since the governor took office. Almost everyone has demanded Congo be freed, a governor's spokesman said.

Much of the public discussion has centered on Rivera's immigration status. Neither Riechelson, the James family, their lawyer, or the prosecutor said they know whether Rivera is here legally, nor do they care, saying that it wasn't relevant to the case.

Otis described some of the comments directed at Rivera as "very disturbing" and questioned whether public opinion would be different if the victim had been a child or a non-immigrant.

That thought was echoed by some Hispanic immigrants in Princeton.

"Maybe they would have killed the dog already," said Oscar, a Guatemalan immigrant who didn't want to give his full name because he's in the country illegally. "This country values Americans."

The James' have appealed the judge's ruling that the dog be put down. Until the appeal is heard, Congo is permitted to stay with his family with some restrictions such as wearing a muzzle while he's outdoors.

James said he's rejected a plea deal that would allow Congo to escape euthanasia, provided the pet be labeled "potentially dangerous." He said his dog is not dangerous, and admitting so would be wrong

cheapie
11-29-2007, 05:04 AM
not sure why his legal status has anything to do with it.

Jeffbx
11-29-2007, 05:57 AM
I'm a HUGE fan of dogs (everyone should have one!) but any, and I mean ANY dog that attacks unprovoked should be put down.

This is wrong on so many levels. Typical rich suburbanite is more concerned about the wefare of his dog than the safety of the public? And now it's a big debate because of the immigration status of the person who was attacked?

How is the dog NOT dangerous if he put this guy in the hospital? What if that was a little kid instead, or this guy's elderly mother - would his response be different then?

As a former resident of NJ, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize on behalf of the residents who are NOT asshats.

TruckStuff
11-29-2007, 07:08 AM
I'm writing a letter to the AP demanding that they give me back the two minutes of my life that I wasted reading that article. Just f-ing stupid... :shake:

Is there some contest that I don't know about where you win by seeing how many different ways you can shoe-horn immigration into completely unrelated topics? Surely there must be a website for it.... :rolleyes:

cruelpupet
11-29-2007, 07:10 AM
How is the dog NOT dangerous if he put this guy in the hospital? What if that was a little kid instead, or this guy's elderly mother - would his response be different then?

No dog should be put down for attacking someone on private property. Its one thing when dogs leave the property and attack, but according to the article the gardeners showed up early, and disregarded the owner when he said stay in your car.

The dog did nothing wrong, and theres nothing wrong with having an attack dog for home protection.

Jeffbx
11-29-2007, 08:59 AM
I disagree. The owner should be controlling the DOG, not whether people enter his property. A properly trained dog would have backed down at his owner's command. If he can't conrol the dog, it's a danger.

Having an attack dog is not much different than owning a gun. Useful if you know what to do & know how to handle it, but can be extremely dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.

oblongmelon
11-29-2007, 10:10 AM
Always having been a dog owner, I can vouch for the fact that even if a dog obeys your commands at all times, if it feels like it's owner is in danger it WILL protect its surroundings somehow. Remember, they are still animals and still have animal instincts. Just as they are fiercely protective of their young, they are also protective of their homes, and the people who they trust and if they feel threatened -it's best if you stay out of the way. Even the sweetest of dogs (like labs) have been known to attack when they feel threatened.
The gardner didn't listen to the owner when he told him to stay in his car. You can't blame the dog(s) for his definance. I say-LET THE DOG(s) LIVE!

cheapie
11-29-2007, 10:24 AM
nobody should have a dog that is so dangerous that folks run the risk of getting mauled if they get out of their car while it is eating.

who knows what really happened. :shrug:

oblongmelon
11-29-2007, 10:44 AM
nobody should have a dog that is so dangerous that folks run the risk of getting mauled if they get out of their car while it is eating.

who knows what really happened. :shrug:

Food aggression is a behavior that is found quite often in animals. It's not abnormal. I do believe though that dogs should be kept in a fenced area if they are prone to this.

YellowCoffee
11-29-2007, 11:23 AM
Food aggression is a behavior that is found quite often in animals. It's not abnormal. I do believe though that dogs should be kept in a fenced area if they are prone to this.

And they should be leashed as well IMO.

cruelpupet
11-29-2007, 11:25 AM
I disagree. The owner should be controlling the DOG, not whether people enter his property. A properly trained dog would have backed down at his owner's command. If he can't conrol the dog, it's a danger.

Having an attack dog is not much different than owning a gun. Useful if you know what to do & know how to handle it, but can be extremely dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.

Even professionally trained police dogs dont always listen to the commands.

Now while I do feel it is 100% the owners fault, since he did invite the gardeners to come to his property, and it was his responsibility to chain up, or lock up his dog. The dog has 0% fault, so put the owner down instead.


Food aggression is a behavior that is found quite often in animals. It's not abnormal. I do believe though that dogs should be kept in a fenced area if they are prone to this.


I would assume though, that it was a fenced in area, otherwise anyone walking by would get mauled too.

Maarchk
11-29-2007, 01:13 PM
Shoot i have food aggression! Someone tries to look at my cheetos funny and boom, i'm gnawing on their nose...

I think... that they are reaching for the fact that the gardener did not understand english very well and therefore did not understand what the owner was telling him. Hence the incident perhaps got further than it would have. that is the only possible link i can make and its a stretch at best.

I agree that the AP and most news sources in general are applying immigration and other issues where they need not go. What i thought was going to be the issue was how do you issue a settlement to an illegal immigrant if that were in fact the case. That would have at least been an interesting conversation to have... This is just dumb...

uncledaddy
11-29-2007, 02:22 PM
I'm with cp and obby on this one.

I agree, whole immigration issue is a totally different subject.

Personally I applaud the dog for protecting the family as he didn't know the difference between a scared landscaper hiding behind the dog owner or a rapist attacking. I don't think the dog should be put down for it. :disa:

Maarck also makes a good point that the landscaper probably didn't understand English enough to heed the owners instructions to stay in their vehicles. ( Wait, did I say another subject? :D :shrug: )

zippyjuan
11-29-2007, 02:44 PM
Again, change the description of the victim from "immigrant" to "child" and the outcry would be in the opposite direction.

cruelpupet
11-29-2007, 09:34 PM
Again, change the description of the victim from "immigrant" to "child" and the outcry would be in the opposite direction.


Not with me. For me thats natural selection, provided the dog ddint get loose and it was on the owners property.

ShawnLee
11-29-2007, 11:44 PM
Immigra-huh? Illegal or not, this guy's still a human.
Now, whether he's an idiot or not for not listening to the owner - or the owner's a freakin' jerk for caring more about his dog?
No matter what I say, I have no basis for judgment because I can't know the details off of a simple article like that. That said, my initial leaning is to put the dog down.

eSDee
11-30-2007, 12:31 AM
I'm impressed and relieved that the people here at G|A are realizing that the immigration status is a non-issue, and having compassion for the victim in this case. If this article would have been published here in San Diego on the Union Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/) website, the page would have been loaded with racist remarks. The immigration subject is so inflamatory here in SD, since we're a border county, and since we're all affected by it so much. It is disgusting the things that I read on that website, and it has really jaded me as far as giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to not being racist. I've never felt so much hatred.

That said, I think the dog should be spared but the owner should be fined heavily in addition to the settlement. But I am a dog lover, so I am biased. The dog just did what it thought it was supposed to do, and the owner was negligent in not securing the animal immediately.

Jeffbx
11-30-2007, 04:47 AM
Now while I do feel it is 100% the owners fault, since he did invite the gardeners to come to his property, and it was his responsibility to chain up, or lock up his dog. The dog has 0% fault, so put the owner down instead.



Wait, I didn't know that was an option -

+1

Napoleon54
12-01-2007, 07:35 AM
[devil's advocate]

But if we can lock non-citizens up in Guantanamo and treat them like the have no rights, then what rights does an illegal immigrant, who also is NOT a US citizen, have in this country? Guantanamo prisoners can't demand rights because they're not citizens. How can the government entertain a grievance from an illegal immigrant who was attacked by a dog if other non-citizens aren't even protected from the government itself? If we follow the federal governemnt's lead on this one, the guy should be so lucky as to be simply deported without regard to his wounds. He's not a citizen and he's a law-breaker; obviously he has no rights, much less access to our legal system for suing someone.

Sure he's a human being. But since he's not a US citizen, an elite class of human, then he might as well be an animal. If he's an illegal, then he's nothing better than dog food.

I smell some hypocrisy.

[/devil's advocate]

cheapie
12-01-2007, 10:18 AM
he's also not an enemy combatant.

Napoleon54
12-01-2007, 10:53 AM
he's also not an enemy combatant.
True. He's a foriegn criminal of a different kind, one that is in this country illegally.

des1969
12-01-2007, 11:24 AM
I also don't get why his immigration status is an issue??

But having been a victim an unprovoked dog attack, I feel sympathy for the man. Dogs sometimes will act out, despite how their owner controls them. You just never know what some will do.