Richard Garritson And John Garritson, California Joggers, Attacked By Pit Bulls; Dogs Later Killed

VALLEY CENTER, Calif. (AP) -- A San Diego County runner who said he had chunks torn from his legs by pit bulls said he thought he would die during the mauling.

"I was dripping blood from all over - my shirt, socks, shoes," Richard Garritson, 21, told the San Diego Union-Tribune (http://bit.ly/vLBHLf) on Monday after undergoing surgery.

Garritson and his brother were attacked by a pack of pit bulls as they jogged on a trail late Sunday afternoon about a mile from their home.

Garritson said he was running ahead of his sister, Meagan Garritson, when at least eight dogs attacked. One bit his leg and a second grabbed his other leg, knocking him down, Garritson said.

He yelled for his sister to run as he tried to fight off the dogs, which surrounded him. They snapped at his legs and arms. One bit him under his armpit.

"I was terrified," he said. "I thought I was going to die. They just kept biting at my legs and thighs."

Garritson, who already had run three miles, was running out of energy and yelled for his 20-year-old brother, John Garrison, who grabbed a stick and tried to fend off the dogs.

He also was attacked as the dogs kept rushing between the two brothers, Richard Garritson said.

He said the brothers knew where the dogs lived and they yelled for the owner, who managed to get all but three dogs into the house. The owner finally put a leash on one of the larger dogs and the others broke off the attack, Richard Garritson said.

The brothers walked to a neighbor's house and a woman there called county sheriff's deputies.

"We could barely hold ourselves up," he said.

Richard Garritson, who comes from a family of competitive runners, said his doctor told him that he probably will be able to run again even though he lost chunks from his lower legs.

John Garritson suffered less serious bites to his legs. Their two sisters and a 9-year-old niece were not attacked.

Four dogs, all 7-month-old pit bull mixes, were destroyed at the owner's request, county animal control Lt. Dan DeSousa said.

The department continues to investigate and will decide whether to pursue charges against the owner, he said.

---

Comments

[Brianna Cole]

01:47 AM on 12/05/2011

Pitbulls are now where Dobermans, and Rotties were 10 and 15 years ago...

[csunbean]

03:30 AM on 12/03/2011

Pitbulls are the pits. Totally the pits and pitbull owners.. gamblers who deny the statistics because they think a pitbull will make them hip and cool. Yeah prison clothes are cool, huh. Pitbulls turn on a dime after acting sweet and attack innocent people and kill more people and chew them up like this .. pitbulls do this more than any other dog breed. It is the dog NOT THE OWNERS. Ask Darla Napora the pregnant pitbull advocate killed by her own pitbull lovingly raised from a puppy. Pitbulls turn without warning. Owning a pitbull is like wearing a sign on your head: I AM STUPID and needy of attention and I will go to extremes to get it.. cause I am VERY VERY STUPID!

[realitycheck 1]

10:39 AM on 12/01/2011

Can someone help me out with this. I am a dog lover and think that pitbulls are a victim of the press to an extent. However, why shouldn't there be some restrictions on pit bull ownership? Not a ban or anything, but a requirement that owners work with their dogs in some sort of training/socialization environment. Dog's have been bred with purpose and physical characteristics that let them better perform a task. Check these dogs out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Lundehund. Pit bulls are powerful and determined dogs, more so than many breeds - and if they have a tendency to cause problems, especially in groups. Wouldn't some requirement that the dogs go through basic training/socialization discourage people who are not capable of handling such a dog from purchasing or adopting one? At the end of the day, the person on the other end of the leash is completely responsible for their dog, but if a dog may have some tendencies/traits that the average dog handler may not be ready for, seems like they should not own the dog.

[hugatree]

07:03 AM on 12/01/2011

Leave any group of puppies without proper training and supervision, and they will do what canines are hard-wired to do, form packs and exhibit prey drive behaviors. The problem is that Pitbulls just happen to be large and capable of inflicting more damage than a pack of Chihuahuas. What one man is doing with that many dogs who are running loose unsupervised is beyond me. In the end, it's the dogs that lose through no fault of their own.

[Californiagrove]

12:45 AM on 12/01/2011

I love dogs. I have 2 of my own. I am going to say something bold. We should be a hold on this breed today. No more pit bulls. Too much of a risk. All one needs to do is look at the overwelming statistics. If I hear one more family with a pit bull say, " he is the friendliest dog imaginable," I will point to Ted Bundy's Dad who thought his son was a wonderful boy...before he starting eating people.

[rdavid0801]

02:57 AM on 12/01/2011

Ted Bundy hasn't been documented as eating people...Jeffery Dahmer on the other hand did...of course your point is WELL taken...I just didn't want you to be erroneous with your analogy...

[Californiagrove]

04:03 AM on 12/01/2011

OOPS! egg on face. LOL...... Of course it was Dahmer who ate people. I was watching something on Bravo about serial killers and Bundy was featured and he was on my mind.Dahmer killed in prison by another prisoner, and Bundy was electrocuted.

[hugatree]

07:14 AM on 12/01/2011

You negate your own argument by using the example of a human monster. How many human beings do you know who kill and eat other humans? Should eliminate humans because of the actions of Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer? In forty years of training, showing, breeding, and being intensely involved in dogs, I have known NO pitbull monsters. The statistics are NOT overwhelming that pitbulls are any more risky than any other canine. In this era of advanced media technology, simply more reports of bad canine behavior are reaching the public. But actual dog bite statistics show that mixed breed dogs are inflicting the most bites. Any short coated, medium to large dog is being classified by police officers who report bites (and who, like most people, incorrectly identify most dog breeds) as "pitbull" when they are clearly nothing of the sort. Thirty years ago St. Bernards and German Shepherds were doing most of the biting. Twenty years ago it was Rottweilers.Today because of the proliferation of "bully" type animals in ghetto culture, it's a TYPE umbrellaed under the name "Pitbull," which is not an actual breed of dog at all.

[gmb007]

12:38 AM on 12/01/2011

A few weeks ago here in El Paso, a six year old girl was severely bitten in the face by a dog.

A Yellow Labrador Retriever.

"Breeds" do not attack.

Certain individual dogs do.

************

In the meantime* -

What about the Pitbull who saved his owner's life when she fell down the stairs?
Or the Pitbulls who saved a Chihuahua from a coyote attack?
Or the Pitbull who saved a woman from a domestic abuse attack?

Or the K-9 Law Enforcement Pitbulls? (The City of Austin has a whole K-9 program using nothing but Pitbulls.)
Or the Certified Therapy Pitbulls (nursing homes, rehab centers and hospitals)?
Or the Certified Search & Rescue Pitbulls?

Of course, you rarely hear about these tens of thousands of heroic, good citizen, family-loving Pitbulls...or their true history.

The sensational media bias against Pits and it's wholesale, defamatory, irresponsible misinformation regarding this noble, loyal, intelligent breed is sickening; the media is a huge part of the problem with the public's warped perception and misunderstanding of Pitbulls.

Pure, unadulterated IGNORANCE.

* Anyone need links, I've got them.

[gmb007]

01:00 AM on 12/01/2011

CORRECTION. (I was typing and thinking too fast! LOL)

City of Austin has a Pitbull Therapy Dog Program, not a K9 program.

Sorry for the error. Have the link if anyone wants it. :)

[misty107]

03:25 AM on 12/06/2011

Thank you for posting this. I work with animals on a daily basis and Pitt bulls, or rather American Staffordshire Terriers, are the dog breed that people seem to fear and misunderstand the most. People have a hard time believing me when I say I've never been bitten by a Pitt, but I've been bitten by numerous Labs, Golden Retrievers, Shih tzus, Poodles, Yorkies, etc. People who don't know breding of an animal don't understand that a bad temperment can be bred into any breed of dog and that is what has happened to so MANY of the dog breeds today. They have been overbred by people who do not understand how to properly bred a dog.

[B from B]

02:44 PM on 11/30/2011

In at least some states, pit bulls, rottweilers and similar breeds that appear to harbor aggressive tendencies are either banned outright, or deemed by statute as having "dangerous propensities." I love dogs (and am going to adopt one from a shelter when the weather gets warm), but there are some dogs that are inherently aggressive. To be sure, not every rottweiler, pit bull, etc. is aggressive, but it is much more likely, as a general rule, that they will be, and that even the slightest provocation might be enough to cause an attack. And any statement by an owner of a dog that their dog hasn't caused them any problems has to be taken with a grain of salt, since not only will the owner obviously want to favor and protect his or her pet, but also, dogs tend to treat their owner(s) with much more love and deference than towards a stranger. Negligent and/or naive owners who do not carefully monitor their dog or otherwise do not take reasonable steps to prevent their dog from harming others are as culpable, perhaps more so, than the dog itself, since a dog has less ability to cognitively modify its behavior and actions of the depth and level than humans. It's sad when any dog gets put down, but sometimes it's appropriate. Maybe owners who have a history of owning dogs that have attacked others should be precluded or restricted in their ownership of dogs due to prior negligence.

[hugatree]

07:20 AM on 12/01/2011

I have been involved in the showing, breeding, and training of dogs for forty years. I have extensive knowledge of canine behavior and have published numerous articles about canines. The breed of dogs with the most agressive tendencies is not a Rottweiler or a Pitbull (which, by the way, is not even a recognized breed of dog), but a Chihuahua. You are more likely to be bitten by a Husky or a Yellow Lab than the breeds you name. Yes, some municipalities restrict or bann certain breeds as having dangerous propensities, but such laws are rarely based on any actual facts about dog breeds. A dog -- ANY dog -- is only as dependable as the human at the other end of the lead.

[B from B]

12:45 PM on 12/01/2011

I do not doubt your qualifications, and quite frankly, I am impressed by them. And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that any dog 'is only as dependable as the human at the other end of the lead.' However, there are some other particulars of your comment of which I cannot completely concur. First, while Chihuahuas may be more agressive, it is a very small dog, and thus, a seemingly less agressive dog who happens to be much larger can inflict a considerably greater amount of harm than a Chihuahua. Second, I am unclear what the basis is for concluding that one is more likely to be bitten by a Husky or Yellow Lab than a Rottweiler or Pitbull, but if there happen to be more Huskies and/or Yellow Labs than Rottweilers or Pitbulls, then such a measure is based statistically upon population rather than the tendency of the particular breed itself. Third, the laws that ban certain breeds as having dangerous propensities usually have a rational basis--statistics--and such laws have rarely been successfully challenged, if at all, as being without foundation or arbitrary. Finally, a Pitbull and/or Rottweiler may not be classified as a 'breed' in the formal sense, but neverthless are recognized as a particular 'type' of dog that may be identified based upon specific phyiscal characteristics. Nothwithstanding, your points are still well-taken.

[Ecolke]

01:47 PM on 12/01/2011

Thank you! I'm not even close to being a dog expert, but it seems to me that the small breed owners tend to allow their dogs to get away with misbehavior moreso than the bigger breed dog 'owners'.

[Anne Rutherford]

02:17 PM on 11/30/2011

Pit mixes have a potential to be agressive, but so do most breeds including the small and toy dogs. Numerous errors happened here and the outcome, sadly, was appropriate. Letting dogs run in packs, even in rural areas is dangerous because pack mentality takes over. Not socializing your dogs, not containing them - completely irresponsible. The joggers paid in injuries and the dogs paid with their lives.

If you want to have a large breed dog, train it. Socialize it. Medically care for it, which includes spaying and neutering your animals. I have a pit mix - best dog I've ever had (and that covers a lot of years). He is loyal, a complete character who "talks" all the time. That being said, I have a fenced yard - know what a leash is for, and he is never allowed to jump up on anyone. Too many large breed and mixed large breed dogs end up euthanized because that cute little puppy gets harder to handle as they grow up and they end up chained up outside. Let's hope the pups parents get fixed so no one else suffers.

[StephenBP]

12:30 PM on 11/30/2011

When a dog reaches a certain level of size and strength, it can hurt and kill people no? The larger and more muscular the dog, the greater the ability to harm a human, all else being equal, no?
This is maybe partly why cats above the size of a house cat ( bobcats, panthers, bengal tigers, lions,etc.) are generally legally frowned upon as pets, no?

Dogs can be wonderfully intelligent, loving, and protective, and they can also tear people apart.

Owners focus on the dog's human-like values, while fearful non-owners focus on the potential of getting mauled.

Good luck sorting this one out!

[Chad Wheeler]

05:09 PM on 11/30/2011

The large cats you mention are all wild. Wild canids do not make good pets either, for the same reasons.

[StephenBP]

05:57 PM on 11/30/2011

Being on the wrong end of an animal attack is very unpleasant.

[Frosted Flake]

11:42 PM on 11/30/2011

Mr. Wheeler, I am sorry, but you are mistaken.

I am a cyclist in the 4000 mile a year class. My observation is that all dogs have the same instincts. I have been chased by Pugs and by Pit Bulls. So long as all my weapons are pointed down the road, the dog has supreme confidence. I am a surrogate for prey. I symbolize FOOD. Once I turn on the dog it has a reason to become concerned, and always does. Just as when a Stag turns to threaten his pursuer.

So much for explaining the source of my data. My point is, you are off-point. The topic is not "Make good pets". The point is "Physically capable of ripping chunks out of my leg" combined with "Why did this guy have 8 large aggressive dogs and why were they running loose?".

Had I met this pack on my bike, I would be in REAL deep trouble.

Kids. Take it from me. Carry MACE.

[hugatree]

07:24 AM on 12/01/2011

I bred and showed Great Danes for twenty years -- one of the largest, strongest breeds on earth -- also one of the gentlest and most evenly tempered. I would rather be in a roomful of large breed dogs than in a room with 2 or 3 highly strung toys such as Chihuahuas, Pomeranians, Min Pins, etc. Size and temperament are not equalfactors in canines.

[StephenBP]

07:57 AM on 12/01/2011

I love Great Danes. And I do think that some dog breeds or mixes are more even tempered than others. You seem to be adding evidence for just that point. But look out.... I see some pit bull owners approaching!! And what would one of your Great Danes damage me severely if it determined that I was trying to harm you? Isn't one of the charms of having a large dog for a pet the fact that people tend to not mess with you when you are walking it?

This is a tough problem to sort out. Lots of strong emotion involved, lots of emotional bonding between species that goes back thousands of years, lots of personal opinions.

BTW I've never seen a Great Dane that was not well behaved and with regal bearing. Nature? Nurture? And when I look at a pit bull with its huge muscles and over large mouth and neck, I don't get warm fuzzy feelings. Kind of like the difference between an antique musket displayed on a wall, and a loaded Uzi with the safety off on the coffee table with kids running around the house. But that is just me.

[StephenBP]

08:10 AM on 12/01/2011

I definitely of the opinion that nature and nurture are both involved in dog temperment. Someone who can afford a pure bred Great Dane will probably invest in training too. Someone who acquires a pit bull or mix very often never gets the dog properly trained. Should dog training be required? A lot of dog owners would fight it, but I think it would be a step in the right direction. Or maybe dog owners should be required to take out liability insurance. Let the insurance company actuaries sort it out. Discounts for training, maybe discounts for different breeds.

That will ruffle some feathers!!

Peace.

[Tierra 13]

09:00 AM on 11/30/2011

Given the dangers, what kind of fool lets any dog run free - in this instance, an entire pack from the same household. Their owner should still be in jail, the dogs placed with loving, competent caretakers. Unfortunately they were Pit Bulls who, in this decade, do get bad press, first press. Where are the stories of Lhasa Aspsos, Poodles, Labs, et al, who bite? A pack of dogs once came on our property and killed one of our two pet goats;none of them Pit Bulls.

I have a Stafforsdshire Pit - a rescue. They'd left her at the vet to be 'stitched up';abandoned her. When my son brought her home I was a bit leary - I too an ignorant victim of bad Pit press. It didn't take long to realize that he'd rescued an angel. That's what I call her. Angel Doggie. She's 12 now and has never once turned on our other rescues, neither dogs or cats. Quite the contrary. I'm in my 6th decade of life and I can say without reservation that I wish most humans were as intelligent and kind.

When it comes to attempts at BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) lets target 'owners' and not the dogs. Once the concept of 'owner' becomes ' responsible caregiver', there will no longer be a problem, no matter the breed OR the size, which, by the way, Pit Bulls are medium-sized, their pathetic bad press the only aspect that is FAR too large!

[Mtka]

12:57 PM on 11/30/2011

It was the right decision to kill all the dogs.

[Tierra 13]

07:07 PM on 11/30/2011

Kill the animals. All of them. Kill. Kill. Kill. How glib that phrase rolls off the tongue when it comes to animals, especially a Pit Bull. You're a part of the problem, not the solution, a solution which requires insight, not fear and loathing of a perfectly fine breed. IOW, your glib opinion has not, nor will it, convince those of us with experience and open-mindedness.

[gmb007]

11:46 PM on 11/30/2011

The OWNERS are the problems, not the dogs.

[hugatree]

07:27 AM on 12/01/2011

If this man owned a "pack" of Pitbulls and more than one was 7 months old, he had obviously (and ignorantly) bred a litter of puppies to which he gave no training or socialization. The probem we have with dogs in this country is not specific to breeds, it's specific to under educated, ill-informed backyard breeders who fill the streets with untrained, mistreated, poorly bred animals. You are absolutely right. We should be targeting backyard breeders and irresponsible owners, not specific breeds of dogs.

[Frosted Flake]

04:03 AM on 11/30/2011

This is why letting OTHER people own big dogs is a bad idea.

[code2high]

03:56 AM on 11/30/2011

So basically, animal control destroyed the puppies... who I guarantee you were NOT the instigators, not at seven months.... and left the owners with their undoubtedly not fixed parents.

Nice! Let your dogs breed, then pack up and run wild (It doesn't actually matter what breed, that's a problem) and then when they rip a couple of people to shreds, you take the opportunity to have the puppies destroyed. And no one even remarks on it. Not even when the article says that the attack didn't stop until the owner came out and put a leash on "one of the larger dogs."

[Mtka]

12:57 PM on 11/30/2011

ANY dog of ANY size that bites chunks out of people unprovoked needs to be killed. Period.

[code2high]

03:05 PM on 11/30/2011

I seriously doubt that the puppies did the biting, that's the problem. The dogs that did the biting are alive and well, and the puppies... seven months is still a baby... got whacked. They didn't get whacked because they took chunks out people, because it was the bigger dogs that had to be pulled off. If we were whacking dogs for biting, the bigger dogs would be dead, too. Big dogs weren't put down, just the puppies. In other words, they were the ones the owner didn't really want anyway.

[megsy123]

03:43 AM on 11/30/2011

any dog that attacks and is medium to large with short hair and a boxy head is automatically a pit bull. what a joke. love to see the papers on these dogs....

My dog really is an american pit bull terrier..yet he will never be seen in the news.

[Frosted Flake]

04:04 AM on 11/30/2011

"What a joke."

That would seem to indicate that you are the problem.

[Chad Wheeler]

05:11 PM on 11/30/2011

No, that would seem to indicate that megsy123 has an accurate take on the problems of breed identification and the end results of such problems.

[hugatree]

07:40 AM on 12/01/2011

No, that woud indicate that the poster to whom you are responding knows: A). that a so-called Pitbull is not an actual breed of dog, B). that the term is commonly applied to any medium to large, muscular, short coated dog, C). that the general public has very little breed recognition knowledge and almost no canine behavior knowledge, D). that law enforcement officers are responsible for identifying the breed of canines biting human and since most know little more than the general public, just use the term "pitbull" to cover all mixed breeds of a general type. Not too many years ago, most mixed breed dogs were commonly referred to as "terrier mix" or "German Shepherd mix." There are a wde variety of purebred animals that carry the general characteristics of what the public knows as "pitbulls," and none of these purebreds is any more agression-oriented than any other breed. THAT'S the problem.

[IrieMoon]

08:47 AM on 11/30/2011

My dog is a Chihuahua, Pug and Jack Russell mix who is continually mistaken for a Pit puppy because of her muscular body (from the Jack Russell mix) and her gorgeous Brindle markings.

It really goes to show how little most people really know about Pits.

[xargaw]

01:32 AM on 11/30/2011

I know my comments will gain the ire of some dog owners, but I used to take my therapy dog to the children's hospital to visit the children. Several times I saw children that had been biten by their own dogs or a neighbors dog where the bite was serious enough to require a hosptial stay. Invariably, the dog was either a pit bull or a rottwieller. While these dogs can be gentle family members, they can also be unpredictable and turn on a dime. It is dangerous to have them as pets and the liability can be huge, let alone the heartbreak they are capable of. There are so many breeds that do not present a danger, why take the risk?

[IrieMoon]

08:45 AM on 11/30/2011

Of course your comment will gain "ire" of dog owners. Because they're completely false.

Chances are about 99% that the people who told you their child was bitten by a Rottie or Pit don't really know the breed of the dog that bit the child and are simply placing blame on the first breed they could think of that has a bad reputation.

Every single breed of dog presents a danger to children. Even the tiniest Chihuahua can take out the eye of a child.
It is not the dogs responsibility to keep the children away from them. It's the parents responsibility.

[Mtka]

12:58 PM on 11/30/2011

Did you know that almost no insurance company will insure homeowners who own pit bulls or rottweilers? There's a reason for that.

[Chad Wheeler]

05:11 PM on 11/30/2011

You have that backwards. There are only one or two insurance companies that don't; the rest do.

[gmb007]

11:50 PM on 11/30/2011

FALSE.

Where's your links for proof?

[FrankLuchan]

11:45 PM on 11/29/2011

Whoo Boy. This is a tough one.

OK. I think I got it.

OK. Wait a second.

OK. Got it.

Cause: Global Warming.

Whoo. Wow. That was hard.

Oh, and by the way, it's exhausted by last federal grant of $250,000. I need you folks to approve the next one for $350,000. You can't expect me to keep on coming up with reasons for Global Warming for free now do you?