Poll of the Day > 35 y/o Wisconsin Mom is DEAD after her OWN Pitbull TORE her ARMS OFF!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

35 y/o Heather Pingel from Wisconsin and motehr of 2 has died 8 days after suffering severe injuries when she saved her 4 y/o son from being brutally kiled by the family's PITBULL!!

She suffered kidney failure, lung damage and both of her arms were AMPUTATED after the pitbull viciously attacked her and her son, Damian on Dec. 8. The dogs tore her arms so severely that doctors had to amputate both.

She was rushed to Aspirus Wausau Hospital where she died of her injuries while Damian received 70 stitches to his leg

Her sister, Shannon said "I just want people to know she died a hero. I hate that this happened, but i'm thankful she saved my nephew..she is the best mom. She did everything for her babies. If you saw Heather you saw the kids too, especially Damion. From the day he was born he was attached to his mom's hip. Such a mommy's boy. She will always be our hero and forever will be missed"

Shane Bernarde, her bf came home in the afternoon and saw the violent scene after realizing the family dog was attacking them. He grabbed the dog and pulled it outside and shot it dead where he was bitten in the process.

Shannon said the couple feared the dog would be killed or get taken to a shelter even though he had signs of aggression and believe the attack started when Damion fell down the stairs and started crying since the dog hated skittish noises.

A gofundme was raised for funeral costs which also revealed Shane lost his job just a day before the attack

Do you have something against pitbulls?

https://i.imgur.com/V8NrBbE.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/eubLE6D.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/mlBmbV6.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/m1gJ0Gb.jpg

I saw this story.

Look, Pitbulls are amazing pets. Loyal, fun, and extremely loving.

But at the end of the day, having one that has had a negative past around your family/children is grossly irresponsible. They can be rehabilitated but Ive seen this story way too many times before and that task should be left for someone without children.

HornedLion posted...

They can be rehabilitated

It's INCREDIBLY difficult.
And yeah, definitely a no-no for a house with children.
Fuck everyone who wants to kill them all though. If you raise one from puppyhood and treat it with love it will act like any other dog.

@Kimbos_Egg

Where are all the murderous Shiba stories?

thanks stephen.

@EvilMegas

Yes, I do. I hate them and their owners.

HornedLion posted...

I saw this story.

Look, Pitbulls are amazing pets. Loyal, fun, and extremely loving.

But at the end of the day, having one that has had a negative past around your family/children is grossly irresponsible. They can be rehabilitated but Ive seen this story way too many times before and that task should be left for someone without children.

This is pretty much all that needs to be said on the subject. Categorically hating the breed is unfair, and efforts should be made to help those that have been rescued from bad situations, but those efforts need to be made by people that know what they're doing and in controlled environments. Otherwise, it becomes a very dangerous situation for everyone involved.

kind9 posted...

Yes, I do. I hate them and their owners.

Eat shit.

Oh look...Another day, another news article about a pit bull killing someone.

My take: pitbulls can be great pets. So can golden retrievers...and just about every other breed of dog. Anyone who chooses a pitbull among all of the options out there is doing so at least in part because of the notoriety of having one. Anyone making this choice is taking a risk, especially if the dog is adopted at an older age. There are people qualified to take that risk, but many are not.

They should exist and there are people that they're probably the right fit for, but there are way the heck too many of them filling up adoption centers/etc.

Fuck pit bulls. Absolutely no reason to have such a dangerous animal.

Why call her a hero? That's like calling a pyromaniac a hero for saving people from a fire they started.

Lokarin posted...

Where are all the murderous Shiba stories?

Buried with all the stories of Poodles biting children or mauling people to death since no one would bother to read them as they don't fit the narrative of violent dogs.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Why call her a hero? That's like calling a pyromaniac a hero for saving people from a fire they started.

Because she sacrificed her personal safety and ultimately her life to save somebody else. That she created the situation in the first place doesn't change the bravery needed to intervene like that.

Lokarin posted...

Where are all the murderous Shiba stories?

We get murderous chihuahua or dachshund stories instead.

kind9 posted...

Yes, I do. I hate them and their owners.

No you don't.

wpot posted...

My take: pitbulls can be great pets. So can golden retrievers...and just about every other breed of dog. Anyone who chooses a pitbull among all of the options out there is doing so at least in part because of the notoriety of having one. Anyone making this choice is taking a risk, especially if the dog is adopted at an older age. There are people qualified to take that risk, but many are not.

They should exist and there are people that they're probably the right fit for, but there are way the heck too many of them filling up adoption centers/etc.

My neighbor has two. I am not afraid of them.

adjl posted...

Because she sacrificed her personal safety and ultimately her life to save somebody else. That she created the situation in the first place doesn't change the bravery needed to intervene like that.

It absolutely does, she did as human guilt should force her. If she didn't make that move, she'd be an even bigger piece of shit, it doesn't absolve her of her original action.

Pitbulls are not good dogs to have for the average person, only professionals like conservationists running facilities for say wolves and other wild dogs and zoos should have them.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It absolutely does, she did as human guilt should force her.

Do you really think that the thought process of "my kid's getting mauled by the dog, I need to save him" actually takes long enough to process such a complex emotional response as "now that I consider the risks associated with adopting a rescue pit bull, I recognize that I bear responsibility for this current crisis, and because of that guilt, I'm going to intervene even though I stand a good chance of being injured"? That's not how brains work, dude. If you want to flippantly dismiss literally sacrificing her life as being a simple emotional response, at least suggest that it was maternal instinct. That's still a ridiculous way of looking at things (since you're actively trying to come up with an excuse to not applaud somebody for meaningfully risking her life, and that's never going to not be absurd), but at least it's remotely plausible.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

it doesn't absolve her of her original action.

It doesn't have to. You can screw up and also be heroic. Had she survived, her heroism wouldn't change the fact that she shouldn't be able to adopt another dog like this, but it would nonetheless have been heroic to intervene.

Anyways I'll never get a pitbull.

This is a sad story, it's such a shame that so many people raise their dogs like shit, fuck the original owner

Lokarin posted...

Where are all the murderous Shiba stories?

Aren't they too small to actually harm anyone besides maybe an infant?

Most states have laws against keeping crocodiles as pets yet pitbulls kill far more people every year.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I kinda want a pet crocodile. And yes, I'm aware that there are smaller crocodilians, but it's just not the same.

Zeus posted...

Most states have laws against keeping crocodiles as pets yet pitbulls kill far more people every year.

To be fair, there are considerably more pitbulls being kept as pets than crocodiles. That distorts the comparison as bit.

adjl posted...

Do you really think that the thought process of "my kid's getting mauled by the dog, I need to save him" actually takes long enough to process such a complex emotional response as "now that I consider the risks associated with adopting a rescue pit bull, I recognize that I bear responsibility for this current crisis, and because of that guilt, I'm going to intervene even though I stand a good chance of being injured"? That's not how brains work, dude. If you want to flippantly dismiss literally sacrificing her life as being a simple emotional response, at least suggest that it was maternal instinct. That's still a ridiculous way of looking at things (since you're actively trying to come up with an excuse to not applaud somebody for meaningfully risking her life, and that's never going to not be absurd), but at least it's remotely plausible.

I was noting the moral justification, so regardless of instinct she was additionally responsible for solving the problem. Instinct will happen regardless and says nothing of her character, it's simply that if she didn't do that, she'd be even worse than anybody else.

adjl posted...

It doesn't have to. You can screw up and also be heroic. Had she survived, her heroism wouldn't change the fact that she shouldn't be able to adopt another dog like this, but it would nonetheless have been heroic to intervene.

You can't heroically intercept your own screw up, that's your moral obligation, to not try to fix it is immoral. The fact she didn't deal with it earlier makes her worse than someone who didn't create the problem and thus didn't need to act, not better.

Heroism requires that you are doing beyond what is expected of you, this is the bare minimum after what she did.

Full Throttle posted...

Shannon said the couple feared the dog would be killed or get taken to a shelter even though he had signs of aggression and believe the attack started when Damion fell down the stairs and started crying since the dog hated skittish noises.

So they irresponsibly kept a dog that wasn't trained to be around children and are shocked this happened? While it's sad the mum and dog had to die or be killed this should have been avoided.

Do you have something against pitbulls?

I'm wary of most dogs but no not in general. I do however have something against bad owners.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I was noting the moral justification,

The question is about the moral justification, it's about courage. Having the courage to step in and risk (and ultimately give) her life is a matter of a split-second judgement, not any post facto moral justification process. That's the basis for calling her a hero; there's no need to read any further into it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You can't heroically intercept your own screw up, that's your moral obligation, to not try to fix it is immoral. The fact she didn't deal with it earlier makes her worse than someone who didn't create the problem and thus didn't need to act, not better.

Heroism requires that you are doing beyond what is expected of you, this is the bare minimum after what she did.

That you think anyone has a moral obligation to sacrifice their life to fix a mistake is more than a little concerning, especially on this sort of relatively minor scale. That's not a remotely reasonable way to solve problems.

I love dogs, but pitbulls were literally bred to fight. Yes, you have shithead owners encouraging the behavior, but it's in their DNA. Most will be fine as pets, but there is a risk they pose that other breeds do not.

O_O Holy moly, pitbulls don't mess around. When I was young, I was scared of dogs. Not that I feared that one would bust my arms THAT bad.
Fun anecdote about that: One day it was the other way around: a dog barked on me, but I scolded it so hard it began to whine. Most satisfying. That said, I don't think I could do the same thing to an enraged pitbull.

e: profanity remove, when I get emotional there can be lots of it.

Revelation34 posted...

My neighbor has two. I am not afraid of them.

That wasn't really my point, though, was it? I know at least one, plus some mixes, and I'm not afraid of them either. But the fact that there's even a question of being afraid of them raises the question of why they're around. They were bred to intimidate and fight. They've had some aggression bred out of them so they're not as bad as they used to be, sure, but some of that certainly remains. Are most of them good dogs? I don't doubt it. Are they more likely to attack than any other breed? Absolutely. Are they the ONLY breed that might attack? Certainly not, but yes: most likely.

But the only point that really matters is: there a thousand other types of dogs. Why not a different one? Notoriety/intimidation is the only answer, except for - perhaps - those who know what they are doing and are truly trying to rescue one of the thousands of pits in shelters.

As for "hero"...I dunno. If she let her dog kill her kids she would have been the worst slime imaginable. I say she's a person who made a mistake and died because of it. I can sympathize with that, but I can't honor that as "hero" would imply.

adjl posted...

The question is about the moral justification, it's about courage. Having the courage to step in and risk (and ultimately give) her life is a matter of a split-second judgement, not any post facto moral justification process. That's the basis for calling her a hero; there's no need to read any further into it.

It's not courageous to fix your mistakes, if she wasn't at fault and didn't act she wouldn't be blamed, but the fact she is would get her branded as a coward.

adjl posted...

That you think anyone has a moral obligation to sacrifice their life to fix a mistake is more than a little concerning, especially on this sort of relatively minor scale. That's not a remotely reasonable way to solve problems.

Everybody has a moral obligation to risk their lives to fix a problem they made that threatens other people's lives. This isn't a minor issue, it's a big fucking deal people putting children in mortal danger, your willingness to brush it aside is what's concerning.

adjl posted...

Categorically hating the breed is unfair

I disagree.

Like, why do they have to even exist? They are clearly dangerous to people. They attack people constantly. And on the other hand they are not even remotely helpful to society. Shelters are full of them since nobody wants them. But they keep being bred. By who? Why?

acesxhigh posted...

I disagree.

Like, why do they have to even exist? They are clearly dangerous to people. They attack people constantly. And on the other hand they are not even remotely helpful to society. Shelters are full of them since nobody wants them. But they keep being bred. By who? Why?

Let's just kill everything even remotely dangerous to humans!

Not saying kill them, just ban breeding them. There are plenty of other dogs to choose from. Pit owners are just narcissists, they love the way they can walk around with a pit and feel feared, powerful. While simultaneously they figure themselves to be the saviors of a discriminated race of poor doggos.

I have a pitbull and your being a fear mongering, condescending shit about everything right now.

OH MY GOD, HOW MEANACING!
https://imgur.com/a/IqqEonc

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's not courageous to fix your mistakes,

Courage is a matter of personal feelings and thought processes. She wasn't thinking about fixing her mistake (since that'd be a really weird thing to think about in such a situation), she was thinking about protecting her kid. That's courageous, however badly you want to rationalize it otherwise from the comfort of your computer chair and with the benefit of hindsight.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Everybody has a moral obligation to risk their lives to fix a problem they made that threatens other people's lives.

That really depends on the scale of the threat and how efficient risking their life will be. If it's a matter of just one other life and there's a solid chance that sacrificing herself wouldn't actually save the kid, giving her life is not only not a moral obligation, it's not even a good idea. The optimal course of action would actually have been to lock the dog in with the kid and seek outside help: Same number of dead people, minimal risk of the dog attacking anyone else and fewer injured people overall. She'd likely end up jailed for that, of course, so you've got that consequence for screwing up you wanted, and poor dad's only left with one traumatized kid to raise on his own instead of two.

Sacrificial justice rarely helps anyone. If the only way to solve the problem entails risking her life, then sure, risk her life to get the problem solved, but you seem to be approaching this with the mentality of "she deserved to die for this mistake," and that's just silly and rarely reflects the optimal solution.

We had a pitbull at the shelter I used to volunteer at. She was chained up in some assholes backyard and the chain was so tight it had to be surgically removed. She was very sweet and used to lay on my lap and give me kisses. Later on something must have triggered past memories in her and she bit several people and had to be put down. Such a shame.

imagine being brainwashed by msm into thinking pit bulls are somehow different from any other dog

i bet you cross the street when you see a minority walking towards you

EvilMegas posted...

OH MY GOD, HOW MEANACING!
https://imgur.com/a/IqqEonc

Wonder how many photos just like that they took with their dog before the dog killed the mother. Bears also don't look menacing until, you know, they kill somebody.

100% of cats will eat you

EvilMegas posted...

I have a pitbull and your being a fear mongering, condescending shit about everything right now.

ok, I don't really see it that way.

there is something to be said philosophically about why certain people choose certain dogs, that's all.

tends to be for reasons of vanity, which I think is kind of perverse.

Zeus posted...

Wonder how many photos just like that they took with their dog before the dog killed the mother. Bears also don't look menacing until, you know, they kill somebody.

Mhmm, when it happens I'll be sure to tell you first so you can say I told you so.

McSame_as_Bush posted...

I love dogs, but pitbulls were literally bred to fight. Yes, you have shithead owners encouraging the behavior, but it's in their DNA. Most will be fine as pets, but there is a risk they pose that other breeds do not.

This.

I personally think we just shouldn't have an animal that dangerous legally be allowed to be a pet.

Lokarin posted...

100% of cats will eat you

0%. They're not dogs.

Ah, the internet: where the middle ground goes to die. Just because I'm (apparently) masochistic:

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Everybody has a moral obligation to risk their lives to fix a problem they made that threatens other people's lives.

Also a legal obligation: if she didn't act and it killed her kids she probably would have been criminally liable given that it had shown signs of aggression previously.

acesxhigh posted...

Pit owners are just narcissists,

That's over the top.

mario2000 posted...

imagine being brainwashed by msm into thinking pit bulls are somehow different from any other dog

You can use the source you want, but they all roughly agree that pits and pit mixes cause about 67% of dog attack fatalities in the US. All other breeds cause 33% (with rottweilers making up a good chunk of that). Sure pits are popular (about 20% of the dog population) and many are mistreated, but 67% is...you know, quite a bit more than 20%. And 67% is 67%. And they were specifically bred to be aggressive, unlike other dogs that were bred to be companions. Seems different.

Id still like to know what they mean by pit bull at least, since that covers like a half-dozen breeds.

Cacciato posted...

Id still like to know what they mean by pit bull at least, since that covers like a half-dozen breeds.

It's the AR-15 of dogs lol

EvilMegas posted...

It's the AR-15 of dogs lol

For real.

Hes shooting with an AR-15!
Maam thats a bolt-action .22

EvilMegas posted...

Let's just kill everything even remotely dangerous to humans!

Fairly sure you're anti-gun, so...

adjl posted...

she was thinking about protecting her kid. That's courageous

As you already stated in the beginning, that's an autonomous response. Reflexes aren't courageous.

adjl posted...

That really depends on the scale of the threat and how efficient risking their life will be.

Removing a violent dog before the incident is very efficient and the scale of the threat was fatal.

adjl posted...

If it's a matter of just one other life and there's a solid chance that sacrificing herself wouldn't actually save the kid, giving her life is not only not a moral obligation, it's not even a good idea.

The other life is an innocent child, her life is the one that put the child in danger, her life is waaaaay lower so it's a no brainer she's morally obligated to try, even if she doesn't stop it. We as a society do not tolerate people who bring about death to others, whether intentionally or negligently and our laws reflect that.

adjl posted...

The optimal course of action would actually have been to lock the dog in with the kid and seek outside help

The optimal course of action was to not have them in the same room to begin with.

adjl posted...

She'd likely end up jailed for that, of course, so you've got that consequence for screwing up you wanted

I want the child not in danger in the first place and there to be pressure in place to ensure that this screw up wouldn't happen in the first place. If she just fled, she'd deserve much worse than prison.

adjl posted...

poor dad's only left with one traumatized kid to raise on his own instead of two.

I'd rather two innocent children live than one, that should be the general goal of society.

adjl posted...

Sacrificial justice rarely helps anyone. If the only way to solve the problem entails risking her life, then sure, risk her life to get the problem solved, but you seem to be approaching this with the mentality of "she deserved to die for this mistake," and that's just silly and rarely reflects the optimal solution.

I'm coming from the angle that she should be willing to die to solve her mistake as she should be aware that she is fully responsible for the incident and the child deserves life more than her.

Considering you think the optimal solution is to sacrifice children, I don't think there's any point arguing from that angle, we're not going to come to a consensus.