Home » Elgin News

‘Threatening’ pit bulls shot by Elgin police

7 May 2011 Elgin Illinois 9 Comments

Read the full story (external link)

Elgin police officers shot and killed two loose pit bulls after the dogs demonstrated “threatening behavior,” and their owner has been charged, the Elgin Police Department said tonight. A resident on the 300 block of Elm …

Possibly related posts:

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
Loading ... Loading ...

9 Responses to “‘Threatening’ pit bulls shot by Elgin police”

You can subscribe to these comments via RSS.

  1. RS says:

    The dogs’ owner, whose name was not released, was charged today with two counts each of having a dog at large, biting and attacking, and dangerous animal behavior, police said.

    At least nobody was hurt.

  2. Combos says:

    Keep shooting ‘em, Elgin police. Every damn one of them. The more, the better. The tickets still have to be paid whether their pit bull is filled with lead or not.

    • LFG-A says:

      Ooo COMBOS, that last comment has you more towards “Jalapeño Cheddar Tortilla” - AKA… I have no soul flavor! Your snackies are deadly!

  3. raingirl2 says:

    Shame on you Combos, and shame on the happy to shoot anything elgin cops its not the dog’s fault they could have shot them with a tranquilizer and still fined the dog owner the dogs are innocent All dogs want is love of which they give back 100%.

  4. One Vote says:

    It seems that many young adults in town simply must have a pit bull for the image it gives them.
    They don’t give a damn about owning or caring for a dog.
    Perhaps it is best to put those dogs out of their misery rather than release them back to someone who uses them as a weapon.

  5. Craig says:

    Wow, not a lot of give either way in this debate.

    Were the owners of the dogs negligent in letting their dogs roam where they shouldn’t? Probably.

    Did the police use excess force in killing both dogs? From the eyewitness I’ve talked to, it certainly sounds like it.

  6. Terry Gavin says:

    The great debate on “Pit bull ban”. When I first heard about the ban I called my friend Councilman Prigge to advice him against it. For over a hour we discussed his plan & reasoning for it. His intentions were & are obviously good, stop future maulings/injuries/death caused by vicious dogs. I tried to tell John that a ban wouldn’t work for a couple of reasons. First having served on the council during the 90’s we had an encounter w/ pet ordinance’s & even though a much less serious proposal then a breed ban it drew a slew of public out cry against new rules. In essence the political blowback would be severe. Second reason I advised against a “ban” is that it wouldn’t work. As someone who was raised w/ dogs & raised & trained rottwielers for 20 yrs. I know something about dog’s behaviours. I told John that people who get pit bulls for dog fighting or as a status for gang toughness will still have those dogs ban or no ban. In fact the breed is NOT the problem the owners are. Criminals that abuse those dogs will break any new laws. Instead I urged John to crack down on the bad owners in conjunction w/ laws already on the books both state & county.

    Needless to say my advice was not taken & a vote was taken, which lost. As a good councilman John compromised & no ban was passed but new generic laws governing aggressive or attacking dogs did pass. The process in dog court is in my opinion flawed after experiencing a
    hearing first hand but that will be another post.

  7. Terry Gavin says:

    Part 2,Elgin’s new aggressive/attacking dogs ordinance. My criticisms of the new rules as well as hearing process. First a little background last summer my sister-in-law was sighted for multiple violations of city’s new ordinances. In a nutshell 2 female dogs got out of the house, one a pit bull the other a chihuahua, the small dog started barking & growling at 2 people passing the house. The pit bull stayed behind the chihuahua simply barking. Well someone called 911 & animal control came out. By the time officer arrived the dogs were back inside the house. Officer took complaint from “victims” knocked on my sister-in-laws door & wrote multiple tickets something like 16 different violations most minor, no one was bitten. In fact the pit bull was not the aggressor.

    A court date was assigned & my wife’s sister asked if I might come w/ her since she couldn’t afford a lawyer of course I agreed. On date of dog court we met & went in the hearing room. Several cases were heard
    some serious some not. Finally a city attorney summoned us to meet in private asking us to basically agree to most of the charges. The chihuahua was to be classified as AGGRESSIVE labeling her forever along w/ hundreds of $ in fines. We declined the city lawyers offer & went to “trial”. When standing before the hearing officer, of course a lawyer, not a true judge he informed me that I couldn’t speak to the case because I wasn’t a lawyer. Not wanting to hurt my sister-in-laws case I shut up. During the “victims’ statement I stood there shaking my head & smiling this hearing officer verbaly attacked me about my so called comments. I told him sternly I hadn’t uddered a word which ended that but he went on w/ no real proof of a dangerous dog attack from a 8 lb. older female dog & found my sister-in-law guilty of almost all charges & most of the fines which was in the hundreds. I’ve read the definitions of the new ordinance & they’re quite flawed but the fines are oppressive even if charges are less then a real attack. But lastly the hearing officer was a tyrant w/ not just me but other people who stood before him. I tried to get some satisfaction from 3 different council people but was told staff said everything was handled properly. I disagree & feel stongly the council needs to revisit the “dog ordinance” & make it more citizen friendly for those whose dogs haven’t bitten anyone.