FLORIDA -- In September, the Flagler County Commission spent nearly two hours discussing the fate of Bacchus, a family dog that attacked and bit an 8-year-old Palm Coast boy in the face, before deeming the animal to be "dangerous."
On Monday, commissioners are expected to remove the "dangerous" classification as part of a proposed settlement between county attorneys and lawyers representing the family that owns Bacchus.
A quasi-judicial hearing, during which commissioners are expected to vote on the settlement, is listed as on Monday’s agenda. The meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m. in the board chambers at Government Services Building 2, 1769 E. Moody Blvd., Bunnell.
According to county documents, the proposed settlement retracts the legal classification of “dangerous” from Bacchus, an 80-pound chocolate Labrador retriever owned by Jay and Dawn Sweatt. The 2-year-old dog lives with the couple and their two children in a home on the south edges of the county.
The ruling stems from a July 5 attack that took place when 8-year-old Rickey Westfall entered the Sweatts' home on Remington Road to visit his friend Rage, the family’s 8-year-old son. That’s when Bacchus grabbed Rickey's right cheek with his teeth and slammed the boy to the floor, according to testimony during a special hearing in August. The bite left Rickey with puncture wounds down to the bone that required him to receive 44 stitches.
Westfall’s mother sued to have the dog declared dangerous under state statute, eventually leading to the commission’s decision. County commissioners voted 4-1 to classify Bacchus as dangerous following a lengthy hearing during the board’s Sept. 9 meeting.
Vincent Lyon, the Sweatts' attorney, filed a motion in October in Circuit Court appealing the County Commission’s decision, and a judge signed an order in November to return the case to the County Commission.
That set the stage for Monday’s hearing. But records show that Lyons and County Attorney Al Hadeed have reached terms for a settlement.
The amendment to remove the dangerous classification means the Sweatts would no longer face third-degree felony charges if Bacchus is accused of biting someone else.
So when this dog attacks someone else, nothing will happen to these owners.
According to the proposed settlement, the Sweatts also would no longer have to build an enclosure in which to exercise Bacchus. The agreement would also remove all restrictions concerning Bacchus being around children.
The September ruling imposes other restrictions on Bacchus, such as annual vaccinations, warning signs on the Sweatt home and permanent identification either by tattoo or electronic implant. State law also requires dangerous dogs to be and under the direct control of an adult owner whenever outside, as well as leashed and muzzled when off the owner’s property.
The Sweatts would be required to notify Flagler County Animal Services in the event that Bacchus gets loose, attacks another person or animal, moves to another address, dies, or someone else takes ownership of him.
What's the point of notifying animal control if nothing will be done about it? It already says that they changed their minds about declaring the dog dangerous and that the owners won't be facing criminal charges... so why bother? Just let them take the dog back and go on with their lives. And when the dog mauls someone else, then do nothing about it. JUST LIKE YOU'RE DOING NOW. NOTHING.
(Daytona Beach News-Journal - Dec 20, 2015)
Earlier:
- Boy's mom wants dog that bit him to be declared dangerous
- Boy, 8, describes dog attack to hearing officer
- Dog Bites 8-Year-Old Boy: Should It be Declared Dangerous, Or Does Castle Doctrine Apply? County Commission Will Decide.
- County Declares Dangerous Dog That Bit 8-Year-Old Boy, Rejecting More Clement Recommendation
In light of such obvious corruption, one despairs of ever having public servants really serve the public. All that's left is to hope that we get more Darwin attacks and less attacks on innocent children, bystanders, and pets.
ReplyDeleteI just found an update to the story. They say they were expecting to remove the designation but thankfully 4 of the commissioners saw what a stupid idea it would be... boo to the 5th one who voted for removal of the designation. Doubt he would want his kids living next door to this dog.
Delete