The controversy and support regarding Mickey the Pit Bull continues to grow. The debate focuses on a pit bull named Mickey who attacked a 4-year-old boy in Arizona and severely mauled his face. The boy, Kevin Vicente, suffered a broken eye socket and has undergone multiple reconstruction surgeries. Medical experts believe he will have permanent disfigurement. Now, the debate focuses on whether Mickey the Pit Bull is being unfairly punished for the attack, as he is now in the custody of Maricopa County animal services awaiting what his supporters call an upcoming “death sentence” and “execution.” A hearing is scheduled for March 25, 2014, where a judge will determine what the next course of action for Mickey will be. Meanwhile, as Mickey’s supporters grow to an astounding 45,000 and continue to increase, some are asking where supporters for Kevin Vicente are. Kevin Vicente is suffering and a fund has been established for his care.
The controversy stems on the facts of the case and the insinuation that Kevin Vicente wasn’t properly supervised when he came into contact with Mickey to begin with. Mickey was on a chain, in his yard, and reportedly attacked the child after he grabbed his bone. Food or toy aggression isn’t uncommon in dogs, but it is a behavior that needs to be immediately corrected. If you’ve ever encountered a dog that will growl, bite or attack a human or other animal that comes near its food while he or she is eating, than you’ve witnessed food aggression. It is doubtful that Mickey’s owners weren’t aware their pet had food/toy aggression, but did their response of chaining the dog in their own yard absolve them from culpability?
Most say yes.
For many, the fact that Mickey was in his own yard, whether an aggressive dog or not, indicates that the dog is not at fault in the case. Others disagree. They feel that if the dog was that aggressive, he was dangerous -- chained or not. The exact situation that led to Kevin Vicente being in the yard with Mickey remains up for debate as well. Exactly who is at fault in the case would be determined by a judge, should the case wind up in civil court.
What do you think? Do you think the fact that Mickey the Pit Bull attacked the child is indicative that he is an extremely dangerous dog and should be put to death? Or do you think that the dog needs training and can work through his aggressive tendencies; therefore, he shouldn’t be put to death for the inability of adults to keep a 4-year-old child away from him?
According to an update from the Save Mickey Facebook group, attorneys visited with the dog yesterday and stated he looked happy. The dog is currently being well cared for with food, toys, and shelter. It is unknown if Mickey has exhibited any aggressive behaviors towards the animal control staff caring for him.
What do you think about this story? Do you think the fact that Mickey attacked Kevin Vicente, regardless of the circumstances or fault of the adults at hand, should automatically result in the dog’s death?
Please leave your comments below.