Records show officers responded quickly to 911 calls, and attorneys plan to appeal a ruling to allow the pit bull to stay in the city.
“I know from experience, a minute seems like an hour,” said Lynn Police spokesperson Lt. Chris Kelly. But it doesn’t look there was (the alleged nearly 30-minute) wait time.”
City officials also said appealing a ruling that the pit bull did not have to leave the city was the appropriate action.
“I think the steps are being taken to help the (victims),” said Ward 7 Councilor Rick Ford.
Fenton Avenue residents Susanne and Jack Reynolds told police they were getting into their car when a neighbor’s pit bull ran into their driveway, jumped into the car and began attacking the Reynolds’ Shih-tzu, Oreo, on May 12.
Jack Reynolds said he wrapped his arms around the pit bull and used his body weight to hold it down until police arrived and took control of the dog.
He said he held the dog for 20 to 30 minutes in written testimony he provided for a clerk magistrate’s hearing on the incident. He and Susanne Reynolds both said in interviews that he held the pit bull for 30 minutes while waiting for help.
Animal Control Officer Kevin Farnsworth requested that the pit bull “Bella” be banned forever from the City of Lynn and be killed if found in the city, citing Massachusetts law on dogs “of vicious disposition.”
The pit bulls owners appealed the banishment, and Assistant Clerk Magistrate Stephen Borelli ruled in the their favor. The order states simply that Borelli “decided in favor of Appellant — City of Lynn Police Department decision is reversed.”
A police call log from the day records the incident as called in at 12:25 p.m. Police dispatched three units to the scene, two of which arrived at the Fenton Avenue address at 12:30 p.m. and a third which arrived at 12:34 p.m., according to a computer-aided dispatch incident report. A police report from the incident by Officer John Mackin says the incident was reported at 12:25 p.m. and occurred from 12:15 p.m. to 12:30 p.m.
“When dealing with any type of calls being entered times aren’t always the exact story behind the dispatch, arrival times could have put themselves out after,” Kelly acknowledged. However, due to the location of the incident he said, “In this case, it’s pretty reasonable.”
The Reynolds could not be reached for comment on Thursday.
City officials also said appealing the clerk magistrate’s ruling was appropriate in light of Gov. Deval Patrick signing a law that prohibits breed-specific regulations. This nullifies the city’s previous ordinance that requires pit bulls to be muzzled and registered.
“Short of having every dog muzzled, which would be overboard, I don’t think there’s anything” else we can do, city attorney Vin Phelan said Thursday.
The hearing is scheduled to be held before a judge on Oct. 9. Borelli said he could not speak without permission from the office of the Massachusetts District Court Judge. A Supreme Judicial Court spokesperson said a clerk magistrate could not speak on a pending matter.
Asked if the city needed to better define a “vicious” animal, he said that the definition had never been an issue before.
“The two sole issues in case will be whether proper cause to ban the dog or any bad faith — typically that would mean the dog officer or deputy chief had something against individuals and there was no evidence of that,” Phelan said.
Meanwhile, Phelan noted that the pit bull’s owners have done “everything the animal control officer has asked,” including muzzling the dog when she is outdoors.
Ford said that he has not been approached nor heard discussion among city councilors over whether a new or amended ordinance on dogs might prevent dog attacks in the future.
But he said he will be awaiting news Oct. 9.
“I will be curious to see what comes back with the judge — I will be watching.”
(Item Live - Sept 14, 2012)
Earlier:
