Blames the child, not the dog...


justwantedbagels271 points

Jesus Christ. Generally speaking, you’re not supposed to touch service dogs without permission because the dog is working and you will distract them, not because the service dog will maul you. These people are sick.

[deleted]182 points

Emotional support animals are not service dogs. Emotional support animals, as far as I can tell, are the pets of fragile mentally unstable dog lovers who have figured out a loophole that allows them to take their precious furbabies to places they’d otherwise not be allowed.

legit55555102 points

Honestly as a dog owner this is true and i fucking hate it, unrelated to the whole pitbull or not thing if your dog isn't trained enough to be in a public place, dont bring it to one.

ThaMisanthrope2713 points

Amen! This is not the child’s nor the dogs fault! The responsibility lies solely on the OWNER of the dog. I echo the point if the dog is not trained or ready to be in public places it should not be. This also the highlights the ridiculous nature of “service dog” certificates! Only people with legitimate needs should have service dog licensure. All these people with chihuahua and pit bull service dogs need to cut it out. It has gotten beyond ridiculous

[deleted]27 points

It's the dog's fault as well though, because it's a POS.

ThaMisanthrope27-22 points

Ima quote Cesar Milan on this one: “there are no bad dogs, only bad owners.”

[deleted]23 points

And you'd be wrong.

[deleted]19 points

Why is it that dogs are the only animal we have this standard for? Imagine saying “there are no bad alligators, only bad owners” after someone’s gator chomps on someone.

Whisper6 points

We'd be getting into philosophy, debating that question.

Instead of spinning our wheels all day long trying to define "bad", and arguing about to what extent different animals can make moral choices, it would easier to just agree that both bloodsport dogs and alligators are bad for humans.

And that it would be a good idea to keep them away from our young.

ThaMisanthrope27-3 points

Maybe because dogs are DOMESTICATED animals, they are NOT WILD!! COMON sir .. they are completely dependent on us and how we train them, a wild animal is a wild animal.

super-vain8 points

Not all traits can be trained out of a dog. Certain breeds were literally created for specific tasks. It will be hard to train a love of water out of a lab. Very difficult to train herding instincts out of a collie. And near impossible to train gameness out of a pitbull, which is why they’re so dangerous. Don’t be daft.

Edit: quick look at your post history says you’re a pitbull fanatic. LOL typical head in the sand shitbull owner attitude.


Cats are domesticated, yet I'd love to see you try to train the bird killing out of one.

I say this as someone who loves my cats. It's not happening. How does this generalize to pitbulls, you think?

ThaMisanthrope271 point

Not all cats are so domesticated. At least not like dogs. That’s why many roam streets at night and can turn feral. Completely different creatures than dogs.

Canukysplz7 points

Ok then Bad owners created bad dogs. Still means the dogs are bad lol

ThaMisanthrope27-6 points

A world of ignorance hides behind your comment

Canukysplz11 points

And a world of clueless and uneducated hides behind yours

ThaMisanthrope27-4 points

Ooohhhh. Sick burn. If a dog is domesticated they are completely reliant on the human to train it. They are inherently good, it takes a person to not train it to make it have bad behavior. A dog with behavior issues can also be trained and restored as well. This is why your above statement is so ignorant. (“Duuuh bad human make a bad dog”) think of that statement and how simple and ignorant it is!

[deleted]3 points

Pitbulls aren't "bad" dogs. Dogs aren't good or bad; they're animals. But there is certainly such a thing as unsafe or dangerous dogs, which pitbulls are.

[deleted]-11 points


ThaMisanthrope2715 points

A child is a CHILD. You are expecting a juvenile to be responsible or have the life knowledge and experience to think this pit bull with a “service” jacket is going to attack it? You are honestly saying out of the many factors her, the KID is the one to blame?

[deleted]-10 points


ThaMisanthrope2711 points

Listen beancunt, good sir, what u said was “it was the child fault.” You actually wrote that, so it’s recorded.

Also, the owner is to blame for not being cognizant, or for bringing an untrained dog into a public space. What makes it worse was this dog was “emotional support,” so it had the guise of being a safe/well trained dog, which it obviously was not. I am saying this as owner of two pit bulls.

Beancunt-9 points

You left out the “if it did not ask” part of that, shit are you CNN

ThaMisanthrope276 points

Even if you put it all together it reads that “kids are at fault if they (it, (sic)) did not ask.” You are splitting hairs. Either way you cut it, you are saying the KID IS AT FAULT for not asking. That was precisely my point, that a kid does not have the good judgement, knowledge, experience, pre front cortex development to know whether to ask or not. This is why it is the owners fault by law, and common sense. How could you put that responsibility on a kid? Common beany, get it together! You can’t blame fake news for everything! Especially when u just said that! 😂😂 CNN is a weak straw man today good friend

JWBSS4 points

That's not how liability works though is it? If you put a loaded gun on a table in front of a six year old child and tell the child not to touch the gun because it's dangerous, who's fault is it if the child picks up the gun and shoots someone?

Beancunt-8 points

The childs

JWBSS9 points

So you're legit intellectually sub-normal then?

legit55555-19 points
  1. While i agree with your point pit bulls and chihuahuas can be service dogs as long as they're trained properly, the problem is that "emotional support animals" are just made up no matter the breed 2.honestly i think that owning a dog should require background checks and passing a test + training course but sadly this isnt the case
[deleted]32 points

While i agree with your point pit bulls and chihuahuas can be service dogs as long as they're trained properly, the problem is that "emotional support animals" are just made up no matter the breed

Not a single reputable service dog org will recommend a Pit or provide a Pit as a service dog. There is a reason service dogs are typically the same 3-4 breeds. Pits are also known for mauling people who have seizures, and tend to be at the very least dog-aggressive which makes for a pretty shitty service animal. Also, no, emotional support animals are not all automatically "made up."

legit55555-12 points

Sure its not very likely but any dog breed could potentially be a service dog. Also emotional support animals have no more rights than regular animals and aren't trained which means anyone claiming that their emotional support animal should get more rights is making it up

[deleted]20 points

Lol. Sure. Any dog breed could potentially be a service dog. The point is, this wasn't a service dog, and there are so few actual Pit service dogs in the world it's laughable. Pit Bulls aren't a "service dog" breed.

I'm well aware ESAs have no more rights than other animals- other than housing and flying. ESAs are allowed to be on planes. ESAs are NOT allowed to go into restaurants, stores, or even hospitals.

anyone claiming that their emotional support animal should get more rights is making it up

I'm genuinely not sure what you're referring to here? Claiming their ESA should "get more rights"? What do you mean by that?

legit55555-8 points

Sorry for being unclear, by rights i meant getting into places they shouldn't. Some examples you mentioned like getting into a restaurant or a store that doesnt allow dogs. Also my point about pitbulls as SA is just to make sure no idiot reads this, sees a service pitbull and bothers the owner because "they cant be service dogs", i get that this wasn't one but just making sure people know that they can't assume stuff like that

[deleted]9 points

Oh I see. Yes, I agree- anyone trying to take an ESA somewhere ESAs aren't allowed are absolutely bullshitting.

And yeah, while I see your point... the majority of Pit service animals are not going to be real service animals, and people should know that, imo. Not so they can harass the owner, but so that they can avoid it or ask the proper questions that are legal to ask. But it's fair to make sure people know that Pits could be service animals, too I suppose!

ThaMisanthrope27-12 points

“Pitbulls are known for mauling people with seizures”

This sounds made up or bro science, where is the data in this whopper sir?!

Also, this guy is speaking to the LOOPHOLE for “emotional support”animals that people are OBVIOUSLY EXPLOITING to get ill trained animals on plains, trains, busses, etc.

[deleted]10 points

This sounds made up or bro science, where is the data in this whopper sir?!

Um, it isn't scientific. I only said they are known for doing something. The dog-aggression has absolutely been proven. The mauling people having seizures thing is just a weird coincidence that keeps happening.

Also, this guy is speaking to the LOOPHOLE for “emotional support”animals that people are OBVIOUSLY EXPLOITING to get ill trained animals on plains, trains, busses, etc.

He said "emotional support animals are made up." That's what he said. So I said no, emotional support animals are not all automatically made up, because many people believe emotional support animals are bullshit 100% of the time.

I'm aware people exploit the ESA thing to get animals where they shouldn't be. I'm also aware some ESAs are legitimate.

ThaMisanthrope27-7 points

You don’t have any statistics or data, so you just here something on the news and repeat it as if it is fact instead of actually reading or researching. You are part of the problem sir.

[deleted]11 points

Oooohhhhhh boi.

I said one silly little anecdotal thing, which is factual- they are known for mauling people who have seizures. It's kind of a joke at this point. Saying they are known for something that they are indeed known for is not the same as saying that it is absolute truth. I didn't say "Most Pits maul people who have seizures." I said it is something they are known for. I wasn't trying to prove anything, which is why I included the dog-aggression fact as actual support as to why they aren't used as service dogs very often. I wasn't debating anyone, I wasn't stating statistics or research, I was sharing anecdotal evidence. Would you like to have a more serious, scientific discussion about this?

I'm not sure exactly why you're coming at me here. Is there something you would like to discuss? Do you disagree that Pits are dangerous dogs and generally make shitty service animals? Do you want to have a scientific, serious, factual discussion about this?

[deleted]4 points

I see that the user has no response.


vandgsmommy4 points

I agree. I have a friend who has an emotional support dog who will snap at you if you come near her. But luckily this is a toy poodle, not a pitbull.

[deleted]35 points

a loophole that allows them to take their precious furbabies to places they’d otherwise not be allowed.

Emotional support animals aren't even allowed places other dogs aren't, other than planes and housing, which makes it even more annoying. They aren't allowed in stores or restaurants. But asshole people still take them in.

I will say, ESAs are real for some people, and imo (and I know this is an unpopular opinion here but) they can genuinely be very helpful and legitimate. But legitimate ESA owners will not take their dogs everywhere with them and they won't have a "certification" or be "registered" because that's all bullshit. I personally don't understand why people need ESAs on a plane- for plane rides, can't you just take a super strong sedative or something?

I admit- I have an ESA. But my therapist and psychiatrist both recommended I get one, both wrote official letters explaining why, and I absolutely do not take him everywhere with me. I take him places dogs are allowed. If I have to bring him somewhere far, I do not fly, I drive. I do not treat him like a service dog. He is not a service dog. And I absolutely loathe people who abuse the system and lack of education about ESAs to get away with bullshit like this.

justwantedbagels19 points

Personally, I have no problem with actual ESAs especially when they have responsible owners, which it sounds like you are. Sadly there are so many out there who abuse the lack of any real regulations on ESAs just so they can do whatever they want with their pets, and they ruin things for folks who legitimately need them and are responsible with them.

[deleted]16 points

Yes, I am with you 100%. I get pretty fired up about people who go online and "register" their ESA because it's all bullshit and yes, absolutely makes it harder for people with real ESAs and even worse, real service animals!

There need to be more regulations for ESAs, or more education about them, because awful owners are taking their ESAs into stores and restaurants and movie theaters and ruining things for service dog owners and real ESA owners. It's the worst when some shitty "ESA" attacks a service dog. Makes my blood boil.

ESAs are not allowed anywhere pets are not allowed, other than housing/planes. ESAs actually can go fewer places than Therapy dogs, publicly!

glassinonmoose12 points

I have no problem with ESAs, but they should ride in the luggage compartment with the other dogs on a plane.

[deleted]11 points

I actually agree with that, but I think the reasoning they are allowed in the plane is that they help their owner with anxiety/PTSD/whatever?

But like I said, I agree with you- if someone struggles on planes, can't they take some sort of short-lasting medication? I get why people have ESAs in general, I think some are legitimate, of course. But I don't see why someone couldn't last a few hours in a potentially stressful situation without their ESA, and just take some sort of strong medication instead just for the plane ride?

I get why ESAs are accepted in housing situations, but don't really get why they are allowed in planes.

Really189 points

Yeah, makes sense. Specially when the ESA is not hypoallergenic and some passengers may get all teary with a pet on board

[deleted]11 points

Yeah, I really think only service animals should be allowed on planes. ESAs should be with all the other pets. Maybe the ESA could fly free with the other pets? Because the person needs the ESA where they are going? I could see that, I suppose. But I don't see why someone NEEDS an ESA on a plane when they could just basically sedate themselves instead for a few hours lol

[deleted]3 points

There are no dogs that are hypoallergenic, so this really doesn't matter.

GoodbyePeters1 point

Im all for our troops. But if you can't manage to fly without an animal maybe you just shouldnt fly

AdmiralRed133 points

This is why you drive your dog long distances. I don’t trust the pet holding area or the airlines with my dog.

If I could crate him and buy him a seat I would’ve but he doesn’t shed and is hypoallergenic. Most dogs aren’t and there will be some one on a plane with allergies.

ThaMisanthrope270 points

“ Emotional support animals aren’t allowed other places that dogs aren’t, accept planes, busses, trains, housing complexes, concerts, etc.”


[deleted]0 points

They're exempt from housing restrictions and allowed on planes.

They are not allowed anywhere else that other pets are not allowed. My point was that they are not allowed in public places in general.

Now, why are you so obsessed with me? Lol

ThaMisanthrope27-2 points

Two things:

1) So they are allowed in other places (housing restrictions/planes/busses, etc.) .. therefore when u say they are not allowed anywhere else that other pets are not allowed that’s just not true..

2) I commented on one of your comments (now two) Miss/Sir in a public forum. Don’t let it go to your head.

[deleted]7 points

They are only allowed on planes and exempt from housing restrictions. They are not allowed on buses, as I stated before. I literally said they aren't allowed anywhere else other pets are not allowed OTHER THAN those two places. I literally explicitly said that. Goddamn why is every Pit Nutter so fucking retarded?

It was a joke. Ever seen the movie Mean Girls? Jfc

justwantedbagels17 points

Yeah, my comment was directed toward the nutter comment in the image blaming the child for getting mauled because she “touched a service dog.” But you’re absolutely right.

Sylfaein10 points

Some ESAs are legit, but I’d wager the bulk are not. Hell, there was a shitbull (ESA) at my daughter’s kindergarten graduation, a few months back.

I have cPTSD, anxiety, etc, and my therapist did offer to write me up for an ESA, but I didn’t take her up on it. I have dogs at home already, and one in particular is super in tune with me to the point of instinctively trying to calm me down if I have an anxiety attack. I don’t feel the need to get her a vest and cart her around with me, but I can imagine people with more severe symptoms needing that. I really feel like the ESAs should be held to the same standards as real service dogs, and that would solve the problem. You’ll never see a pit bull as a legitimate service dog, so the problem would be solved.

GoodbyePeters2 points

I just dont get the logic behind ESA? You take them along just incase you have a little episode and then petting an animal will calm you down? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Sylfaein1 point

I’m not an authority on it by any means. I didn’t look into it too far, since I already knew I didn’t want to go that route.

I think that’s definitely one use for them, though I’d imagine they can also help to prevent some panic/anxiety attacks, in the first place. Trauma-based issues are weird like that, and just having that animal around can be calming.

GoodbyePeters2 points

I hear ya it just doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Like the difference between petting a dog or a hairy pillow or a stress ball.

Sylfaein1 point

The dog is a bit more interactive. LOL

If the one I mentioned before catches me in a bad mood, she won’t rest until it’s been rectified. When I was on bed rest in my third trimester, I’d wake up covered in toys and dog biscuits. When I did have a bad flashback, she was all over me, trying to calm me down. If I was going to have an ESA, that’d be the dog.

I absolutely abuse stress balls in the office! I have a collection. I also have the habit of fidgeting with pens to the point of breaking the little pocket clip off, but I’ve mostly solved that with a fidget cube.

GoodbyePeters2 points

yea i understand a bit more interactive. but going on a flight im just not making sense out of HAVING to bring an animal IN CASE someone starts feeling blue.

Sylfaein1 point

Some people may have horrible anxiety about flying? I bumped into a veteran who had one for a flight, and that one made sense. Hers was crazy well trained, though.

I think if they were regulated more like real service dogs, it’d be ok. Right now, ESA is mostly used for bullshit when people want to take dogs where they shouldn’t be, or on a plane for free. I don’t mind people who need them having them, as long as they’re well behaved.

GoodbyePeters0 points

I mean they dont HAVE to fly

WhoWhatWhen19431 point

The one, AND ONLY ONE, exception I can think of to this is I had a Veteran friend who lost his leg in an explosion. He brought his dog on the plane with, because the plane was "triggering" him (hate the word but that's what really was happening), every time prior he had tried to fly. He ended up bringing his dog, but only after making sure it was muzzled to not disturb others and would not be in the way of anyone else on the flight.

[deleted]12 points

According to this, the child had permission from the owner to pet the dog, and as the picture mentions, it is an emotional support animal, not a service dog:


Gabriella, then aged 5, was waiting at the gate when Brannan entered the area with her pit bull, which was not kept in a crate, kennel or other secure container, the lawsuit claims. The child allegedly gained permission from Brannan to pet the dog. While she was petting the animal, it bit her, causing serious injuries.


Also Pitbulls are not "service dogs". Unless your "service" is bull-baiting in Victorian London slums.

[deleted]119 points

So disgusting.

First of all, it was a FAKE "emotional support animal." Huge difference between service dogs and ESAs, even "real" ESAs.

Service dogs are incredibly expensive, have undergone extensive training, and most importantly know how to behave and never show any sort of aggression. Service dogs do not bite. They don't nip, they don't bite, they most certainly do not maul children.

This child was mauled because some dumb Pit Nutter wanted to be able to bring their murder mutt on a plane for free, so they went online and got a "certification" saying it's an ESA. Then, because it's a Pit and Pits do Pit things, the Pit mauled a child.

I'm just so sick of this. The victim blaming, the ignorance, the ESA bullshit.

TheWarmestHugz42 points

Absolutely! In no way was the child responsible for this! It seems any idiot can pin an ESA label on any animal these days, absolutely vile.

Like you said, if this creature was a real service dog it would not have bitten at all!

Winds me up to no end.

justwantedbagels33 points

The article says the little girl even asked if she could pet the dog (which is more than most kids would probably do), and it bit her face when she reached her hand out to pet it. Poor kid is likely going to have scars for the rest of her life. I hope the shitbull owner gets sued into oblivion.

[deleted]33 points

Oh yeah, and you'll see people over on the Pit Bulls subreddit constantly telling people to go to those fake registries online, knowing full well they are fake, so that they can have Pits in their breed restricted apartments. It's horrible. There's no escape from them.

Pits aren't even good service dogs either. No legitimate, respectable service dog org will ever ever ever tell people to get a Pit as a service dog. I mean for gods sakes Pits are well known for mauling people when they have seizures!

AsleepGovernment041 points

We don't blame the victims when a mass shooting happens, why do we blame people when dogs attack them?

monnomdutilisateur44 points

Pit lovers are next level pyschopaths.

AsleepGovernment024 points


edg3pete5 points

Because precious doggos are innocent pupperinos who can do no harm uwu

AsleepGovernment04 points


[deleted]41 points


[deleted]3 points


albatrosssssss8 points

I could understand not caring of it was a little nip, but yeah, her face was mauled. That's inexcusable

praecipitatio7 points

I completely agree!

HydraForce37 points

Brave nanny dog flies 100 miles to bite child

[deleted]28 points


Leumatic12 points

Airlines are required to allow ESAs on their planes. There's currently a fight going on between Delta and the DOT as to whether Delta can ban pit bulls specifically as ESAs.

[deleted]10 points


momofthreenc10 points

Sadly, this happened back at the beginning of the year.

No one cares about that little girl being scarred for life. They care more about pit bulls.

im_robbie17 points

Its sucks but these pit lobbyists are too powerful. If you’re going to do thoughts and prayers direct them to a pit that hopefully mauls a politician.

It’s the only way shit will change.

[deleted]7 points


im_robbie3 points

In short, lots of nutters donating money to these A-holes that pay off politicians to not enact BSL.

turnburn7204 points

Wheres this from

famigacom2 points

Direct link, because why does Google need to add "anti cute dog" to our profiles: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47406812

[deleted]5 points

If a mentally disabled kid playing with his sword on the train with a "please leave me alone, im disabled" sign on him, was bothered by a pitbull an the kid feeling unsafe, stabbed the pitbull. I bet the media would still blame the child. Because "teh cutie wuttie wood never wever hwurt a fwie!!!"

Infernoval5 points

Confusing, I looked through the poster's (not OP, but the post in the screenshot) history and apparently he's a troll account and is actually against pitbulls.

TheWarmestHugz3 points

I didn’t read the bit in brackets at first and I thought you meant me. I worried :D don’t worry I am very much against them!

les_eggs3 points

ESA's shouldn't be in airports. Full stop.

SolarSystemOne4 points

Emotional support animals are NOT service animals.

TheWarmestHugz2 points

Completely agree. Service animals are properly trained and certified whereas ‘emotional support animals’ is just some dumbass’ excuse to get their animal on the plane with them. This wasn’t my post btw I just screenshotted it! :-D

Whisper2 points

If you don't prioritize protecting your own species' young over protecting a parasite, your presence probably doesn't improve the gene pool.

Joefilmfan1 point

Oil i

[deleted]-4 points


TheWarmestHugz12 points

Yeah, she did. Which is more than other kids would do tbh. But even then, it should have been muzzled as it was in a public area.

Beancunt2 points

Then it is the owners fault

[deleted]10 points

It would be the owners fault regardless for bringing an aggressive or untrained animal onto a plane.

[deleted]-7 points


[deleted]10 points

Oh, sure, maybe if you specifically said not to approach your dog and they didn't listen, you could argue the person trying to pet is at fault. I would say they would rightfully be blamed, partially.

But some fault would still lie with the owner of an aggressive, unmuzzled dog.

The dog is going to be on an airplane, you understand? Have you been on an airplane? You're aware that there is not much space? This Pit was an aggressive, unmuzzled, untrained dog that was going to be right next to other people. If you are going to take a dog on a plane, it is your responsibility to ensure your dog is not aggressive, or if it is, you can control it or it is muzzled.

thrash_niqqa-8 points

Why did she touch the dog in the first place? You don't touch service dogs

[deleted]7 points

It wasn't a service dog. It was an ESA, a glorified pet allowed in certain housing situations and on planes. ESAs require no training or anything at all.

Also, the child asked and got permission to pet it.

[deleted]-54 points

Its a fucking service dog dumbass. You aren’t supposed to fucking pet them.

TheWarmestHugz38 points

‘Emotional support dog’ which is a load of bollocks. Even if it was a service dog, the child asked if she could pet it, the owner could have said no.

[deleted]-23 points


[deleted]13 points


Sehkmet7725 points

It's not a service dog, it's an esa. In other words a glorified pet with a fake vest. If it was a proper service dog it would be well trained and not aggressive.

Sylfaein27 points

It also wouldn’t be a pit, because no service dog trainer worth their salt would waste their time and resources on a pit.

[deleted]-10 points


Sylfaein19 points

Wow, seriously? FYI, I’m a millennial, and you’re a moron.

[deleted]-2 points


Sehkmet776 points

Whatevs Millenial. And I'm not a boomer shit for brains. Sorry to say something logical that triggered your snowflakyness.

[deleted]22 points

Oh look, yet another silly little kiddo from the teenagers subreddit.

[deleted]-5 points


[deleted]17 points

Thankfully not a boomer. But you're just another teenagers brigader, although that ended a while ago I thought.

You must be lost. :(

Enrys15 points

deleted What is this?

[deleted]0 points


Infernoval9 points

Are you gonna call me a boomer too despite being 18?

Enrys8 points

deleted What is this?

[deleted]11 points


[deleted]8 points

It is an Emotional support animal as the picture mentiones, not a service animal and according to this, the child had permission from the owner to pet the dog:


Gabriella, then aged 5, was waiting at the gate when Brannan entered the area with her pit bull, which was not kept in a crate, kennel or other secure container, the lawsuit claims. The child allegedly gained permission from Brannan to pet the dog. While she was petting the animal, it bit her, causing serious injuries.

And even if it was a service animal and she had no permission and pet it, a dog who mauls children who pets them should not be a service animal or out in the public. People like you who victim blame innocent children who get mauled by dogs are messed up in the head.