A Landscaper Is Mauled,Sympathy Goes to the Dog

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/nyregion/30journal.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A Landscaper Is Mauled, and an Outpouring of Sympathy Goes to the Dog

PRINCETON, N.J.

It’s man versus beast in Princeton, and the town is in an uproar over a dog on death row.

The curious case of Congo, an 85-pound German shepherd sentenced to die for attacking a Honduran landscaper, is making its way through New Jersey’s courts. Protesters have packed the courtrooms here and have staged rallies waving signs that say “Free Congo!†And the landscaper, Giovanni Rivera, who suffered a six-inch bite wound and other injuries, has been vilified by some of the dog’s supporters in this well-to-do Ivy League town, who have been sending newspapers and blogs angry anti-immigrant slurs.

“The dog deserves an award,†said one posting to The Princeton Packet Web site. “One less Mexican alien is a boost to society.â€

State Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen, a Democrat from Union, has introduced legislation, which he calls Congo’s Law, that could spare the life of Congo and other dogs in similar situations by giving judges more discretion in meting out punishment.

And now, thousands of people from Princeton and elsewhere are petitioning the governor for a pardon. (There is precedent for such things in New Jersey.)

In a letter to The Princeton Packet on Tuesday, a resident, Jonathan Eckstein, wrote: “I urge the State Legislature to vote down this absurd legislation and put the rights of human beings like Mr. Rivera above those of domestic animals, however tragically misunderstood. I would hate my hometown and home state to go down in history as the place where suburbanites valued their dogs above the lives of those they hire to tend their yards.â€

Congo, having been granted a stay of execution, is muzzled and under house arrest, as his owners await a decision on their appeal.

It started in June, when Mr. Rivera, 42, and a crew of day laborers arrived early in the morning at the house of Guy and Elizabeth James, the owners of six shepherds — Congo, Lucia, Shadow, Bear, Hunter and Magnus.

The facts of the attack are in dispute. The Jameses say that the landscapers arrived earlier than expected and that Congo, who is typically kept inside when workers are about, was provoked when Mr. Rivera became scared of the dog and grabbed Mrs. James. It is unclear what role the other dogs played. Mr. Rivera, who received a $250,000 settlement from the Jameses’ homeowners’ insurance company, argued that he was merely trying to get away from the dogs and was using Mrs. James as cover when he was mauled.

The next day an animal control officer took Congo and four other dogs (Magnus was in the woods at the time of the incident and was left home) to an animal shelter, where Congo stayed until he was released pending the appeal. He was sent home two weeks ago after five months in lockup.

The James family argued that while in the shelter, Congo’s health was deteriorating and he was losing weight, even though Mrs. James faithfully brought him his favorite raw beef patties and chicken chewies.

“It’s horrendous what we’ve had to deal with,†Mr. James said as Congo bounded around their kitchen on Saturday, clenching a stuffed cow that was a homecoming gift. “But we are confident, going forward, that we are going to win this war.â€

In State v. James, on Oct. 30, Judge Russell W. Annich Jr. of Municipal Court in Princeton Township declared Congo vicious and the attack unprovoked, a ruling that under the state “vicious dog†law requires the animal to be put down. The judge did note, however, that, “none of the dogs have any documented history of previous violent or disagreeable behavior.â€

And an expert witness for the defense, an animal behaviorist, testified at the trial that Congo was simply doing his job, protecting his owner the way any reasonable canine would under the circumstances. The Jameses also submitted to the court dozens of letters from character witnesses and others who had come into contact with Congo during his 18-month life.

“I have had the pleasure of knowing Congo over the past two years and feel confident in stating that my relations with him have always been friendly and warm,†wrote one friend of the family.

Nevertheless, the judge ruled that Congo was not provoked, and that the attack — initially by Congo and then, the judge said, by the four other dogs — “continuing unabated for three minutes, was a response grossly disproportionate to the prevailing situation.â€

Mr. Rivera received 65 rabies shots after the attack and spent five days in the hospital after a three-hour operation, according to his lawyer. Mr. Rivera declined to comment. The lawyer, Kevin S. Riechelson, said that Mr. Rivera, after serving as a witness for the prosecution, wanted to distance himself from the whole mess after hearing about the anti-immigrant sentiments stirred by the case.

“He’s concerned,†Mr. Riechelson said. “He doesn’t have any ill will toward the dog; he just feels owners should have taken greater responsibility.â€

The Jameses appealed the township ruling to Superior Court in Trenton, and its ruling is expected in four to six months.

“It’s really not about Congo,†Mr. James said. “It’s about everybody and their rights. It’s hit everybody’s nerves.â€

Under the conditions of his release, Congo is not allowed to leave the house, except to go to the vet, and he must wear a muzzle and be leashed if he is outside.

The office of Gov. Jon S. Corzine has been flooded with more than 4,000 telephone calls, letters and e-mail messages on Congo’s behalf, said a spokesman, Jim Gardner. But the governor is not considering a pardon, Mr. Gardner said.

“He said he was prepared to let the court take its course, and he didn’t think this is one of the things a governor ought to be tampering with,†Mr. Gardner said. “He said personally he’d love to see the dog survive because he knows how much people care about their pets.â€

But Mr. Corzine is not the first New Jersey governor to be inundated with pleas for mercy on a canine.

In 1994, Taro, a 100-pound Japanese Akita from Haworth, N.J., who was ruled vicious after biting a child and killing a terrier, was spared the death penalty by Gov. Christie Whitman. Taro was allowed to live, but was ordered to leave the state. He spent his exile in Westchester.

More Articles in New York Region »

[bteague2]

If the guy grabbed the homeowner, I think the dog was fine in biting the guy.

[towerclimber37]

that guy ain't too bright..he grabs the woman?? if he didn't do that, I could understand it. I've had a sheppard before..they're good dogs..but they're totally built for the protection of their owner.

the man got 250k for it. I say let the dog alone

if he grabbed my wife, I'd bite him too ...but with something about .45 cal. in diameter

[andersmg]

that guy ain't too bright..he grabs the woman?? if he didn't do that, I could understand it. I've had a sheppard before..they're good dogs..but they're totally built for the protection of their owner.

the man got 250k for it. I say let the dog alone

if he grabbed my wife, I'd bite him too ...but with something about .45 cal. in diameter

I totally agree!!

[Im Neero]

I agree with you guys. The dog did what the dog is supposed to do.

[Mike.357]

Would any castle type laws here in TN protect a homeowner from a civil suit should their dog protect them in a similar manner?

[Guest Disney]

Why did the guy have to grab the lady to protect himself? It sounds like the dog was showing signs of aggression for him to resort the the human shield tactics. I don't walk into a house where a calm dog resides and start using the homeowner as a shield. Do you?

This was a problem of the homeowner not thinking things through and F'ing it all up. Had they put their attack prone dog up when they were using illegals to work on their house this wouldnt have happened.

Spare the dog, kill the owners.

[Mr. Brooks]

Mr. Rivera received 65 rabies shots after the attack

Why would he get 65 rabies shots when the normal dose is 3-5 shots?

The guy was an idiot who deserved to get bit. I say put him to sleep and save everyone a lot of trouble.

[dariks]

Nevertheless, the judge ruled that Congo was not provoked, and that the attack — initially by Congo and then, the judge said, by the four other dogs — “continuing unabated for three minutes, was a response grossly disproportionate to the prevailing situation.â€

I didn't know that dogs share a humans view of proportional force.

[dralarms]

I deal with strange dogs (unknown dogs, not "strange") all the time and "most of the time" all you have to do is STOP and they will stand there and growl but will not attack. I've known shepherds and although some of the calmest and "friendliest" dogs you don't mess around with their owners or anyone who they have adopted as their own (as in a child, or small person that the dog senses need protection). Now all that is said without knowledge of the dogs training, if the dog is a trained attack dog then it acted purely on training and viewed the man as a hostile when he touched his master.

I also say put the alien to sleep and spare the dog. I also do not believe they should have had to pay 250 grand for a few dog bites.

[Marswolf]

I have to go with the dog in this one.

[jughead]

I have to go with the dog in this one.

me too

[Guest Verbal Kint]

I have to go with the dog in this one.

+1

Illegals, like criminals, should have zero rights IMO. Guy got what he deserves.

[Mr. Brooks]

+1

Illegals, like criminals, should have zero rights IMO. Guy got what he deserves.

I hate to be "that guy" but, did the article ever actually state that he was illegal? Maybe I missed it?

[Guest Verbal Kint]

I hate to be "that guy" but, did the article ever actually state that he was illegal? Maybe I missed it?

Thought it did... but could be thinking of another article, on a different forum, I just read. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong... will have to re-read the article and see.

Let me just say this then, and be more clear... DUMBASS GOT WHAT HE DESERVED FOR GRABBING THE DOG'S OWNER. MORESO IF HE WAS ILLEGAL.

Happy?

EDIT: Article didn't say illegal... just said "mexican alien" per one of the quotes. My misunderstanding.

[Mr. Brooks]

Thought it did... but could be thinking of another article, on a different forum, I just read. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong... will have to re-read the article and see.

Let me just say this then, and be more clear... DUMBASS GOT WHAT HE DESERVED FOR GRABBING THE DOG'S OWNER. MORESO IF HE WAS ILLEGAL.

Happy?

EDIT: Article didn't say illegal... just said "mexican alien" per one of the quotes. My misunderstanding.

No worries... And for the record...I agree with you 100%

[strickj]

dralarms said it.I have owned sherperds,and they are verrry smart,protective dogs.the "mexican alien" should not have grabed the owner!if i go to a house with barking dogs i know better then to grab the owner,its common sense!!if it was my wife i would have put 16 rounds from my carry in to the little f***er after my dogs bit him,and my homeowners ins woud not have to fund an illegal!!!

having been granted a stay of execution, is muzzled and under house arrest

this happened to me once,lol

[Guest Hyaloid]

I wonder how all of you would feel if this were not a hispanic man... interesting to see the response so far.

I think this paragraph is key:

The facts of the attack are in dispute. The Jameses say that the landscapers arrived earlier than expected and that Congo, who is typically kept inside when workers are about, was provoked when Mr. Rivera became scared of the dog and grabbed Mrs. James. It is unclear what role the other dogs played. Mr. Rivera, who received a $250,000 settlement from the Jameses’ homeowners’ insurance company, argued that he was merely trying to get away from the dogs and was using Mrs. James as cover when he was mauled.

The 'facts are in dispute'... yet only one side is presented, and it is the homeowner's side.

I think we need more information before we can judge accurately. But, I'll say this... even the homeowners admit that they have kept the dog inside for the landscaper's prior visits, I wonder why?

We have all seen people who are afraid of dogs, and their behavior is one of panic. It does not appear with the information given that the landscaper was acting aggressively, but rather trying to put SOMETHING between himself and the dog.

Was it wise? No.

Was it even cowardly perhaps? Maybe so.

What troubles me is that there was no assertion that the landscaper was somewhere he wasn't supposed to be, or that he was behaving in any manner other than in a fearful manner of the dog.

The landscaper was brought onto the property to perform a service for the homeowner. The homeowners have a responsibility to keep their dog out of a situation where it *may* act on it's instinct of protection of the owners, and be able to handle or cal off the dog if it becomes aggressive at an inappropriate time.

At the least, the homeowners are guilty of having a dog with strong instincts to protect, and not adequately sequestering the dog from the worker, or providing training for the dog so that it will respond to commands to stop behaving aggressively.

The landscaper is guilty of immigrating to this country (No mention of his legal status in the article), showing up for work on a property earlier than usual, and making a poor decision in panic.

[strickj]

i think the homeowner should have a responsibility here but $250,000???and being hispanic has nothing to do with it.dont grab someone or duh..the dog will attack.

[Guest Hyaloid]

i think the homeowner should have a responsibility here but $250,000???and being hispanic has nothing to do with it.dont grab someone or duh..the dog will attack.

$250,000 was a settlement from the insurance company, not the homeowners. It doesn't take that long to run up a huge bill at the hospital.

As a settlement, this is likely LESS than the insuranc company felt it would have lost had it contested the claim... I don't think they'd do that without some sort of justification.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

I wonder how all of you would feel if this were not a hispanic man... interesting to see the response so far.

The same way. Obviously you missed my statement, followed by saying moreso if he was illegal. The moron got what he deserved regardless of being mexican, black, white, american indian, etc. Don't bring the race card into this. We have the ****ing ACLU for that BS.

But, I'll say this... even the homeowners admit that they have kept the dog inside for the landscaper's prior visits, I wonder why?

Probably cuz they were a lot like me... they realize this country is full of ignorant *******s who will spin a situation in a moment's notice to try and make a buck. "OMG! Your dog growled at me, bit me, took a dump on my shoe, <insert any other vile act here> I'm sueing you!" Pretty funny how Jorge now has a $250,000 settlement to get rich on, instead of demanding enough money to cover medical bills. Sorry, but I feel more sympathy for the dog -- which was doing his damn job. It doesn't matter if it was a family pet, or a trained attack dog, this pedigree and breeding is for defense and protection.

It does not appear with the information given that the landscaper was acting aggressively, but rather trying to put SOMETHING between himself and the dog.

Was it wise? No.

Was it even cowardly perhaps? Maybe so.

Assualt is assault. When he placed his hands on the owner, he got what he deserved. Ignorance, nor fear, does not justify him freaking out and latching onto the woman.

The landscaper was brought onto the property to perform a service for the homeowner. The homeowners have a responsibility to keep their dog out of a situation where it *may* act on it's instinct of protection of the owners, and be able to handle or cal off the dog if it becomes aggressive at an inappropriate time.

This I totally agree with. The owners do have a responsibility to control any potential harms or dangers on their property. It would be interesting to hear if they had any "Beware of Dog" signs on their property... or things might be different. Guess we'll have to wait and see how the case unfolds.

At the least, the homeowners are guilty of having a dog with strong instincts to protect, and not adequately sequestering the dog from the worker, or providing training for the dog so that it will respond to commands to stop behaving aggressively.

Wait... what? They're guilty of owning a German Sheppard vs a Dachsund? That's the stupidest statement I've heard yet. I re-read the article again, and may have missed it, but where does it say that the owners didn't pull the dog off... or that the dog ignored verbal commands to release the landscaper after he was bitten? It doesn't say one way or another. The only thing they're guilty of is a) potentially not having warning signs posted... and not having the dog locked inside -- as they normally did. And even that is questionable, as the landscaper showed up when he wasn't expected. The dog could have been let out to take a whiz, before being kenneled up, in anticipation of the landscaper.

The landscaper is guilty of immigrating to this country (No mention of his legal status in the article), showing up for work on a property earlier than usual, and making a poor decision in panic.

He showed up early. This much we know. Was the yard fenced in? Did the guy let himself into the area, unannounced, if so? All of these questions are unknown at the time. But if he did walk into the yard, earlier than expected, unannounced, and thus got attacked by the dog... that's no different than some stranger walking through your neighborhood and getting attacked while cutting through your yard. Either way, they aren't supposed to be there -- regardless of previous experiences or justifications.

[strickj]

yes,but the homeowner is still out.dont forget about the deductible,higher ins rates,and the death of a dog that was simple protecting his owner.its the dogs instinct

[dunndw]

If ANYONE laid hands on my wife..no matter what the reason...the dog would be the LEAST of his problems.

[dralarms]

If ANYONE laid hands on my wife..no matter what the reason...the dog would be the LEAST of his problems.

Exactly.

[Guest Hyaloid]

The same way. Obviously you missed my statement, followed by saying moreso if he was illegal. The moron got what he deserved regardless of being mexican, black, white, american indian, etc. Don't bring the race card into this. We have the ****ing ACLU for that BS.

Nope. I caught your statement. Sorry, but I wasn't the one who first brought up race, and was merely posing a question. Glad you think it is BS though!

Probably cuz they were a lot like me... they realize this country is full of ignorant *******s who will spin a situation in a moment's notice to try and make a buck. "OMG! Your dog growled at me, bit me, took a dump on my shoe, <insert any other vile act here> I'm sueing you!" Pretty funny how Jorge now has a $250,000 settlement to get rich on, instead of demanding enough money to cover medical bills.

You know his name is Jorge?

Seems he was trying to make a buck... by showing up early for his landscaping appointment. That bastard!

He had three hours of surgery, I don't think it was a teeny-weeny scrape.

I would think that had the landscaper (dare I call him a VICTIM?) done anything inappropriate, he would have been charged with all manner of things, assault on the homeowner for grabbing her perhaps?

Sorry, but I feel more sympathy for the dog -- which was doing his damn job. It doesn't matter if it was a family pet, or a trained attack dog, this pedigree and breeding is for defense and protection.

I never blamed the dog. I think it is a shame that the dog was performing as it's instincts or training prepared it to. I agree, it is for defense and protection... so are handguns. Do we as responsible citizens bear some duty to use both responsibly, and try to prevent harm from innocent people?

Assualt is assault. When he placed his hands on the owner, he got what he deserved. Ignorance, nor fear, does not justify him freaking out and latching onto the woman.

Assault is assault. Was he charged with such?

If it were a full grown woman, would it still be unjustified in your mind? I mean, assault is assault.

The dog did enough damage to require 3 hours of some type of surgery... I think many would 'freak out' when presented with a large breed dog causing that kind of bodily harm.

This I totally agree with. The owners do have a responsibility to control any potential harms or dangers on their property. It would be interesting to hear if they had any "Beware of Dog" signs on their property... or things might be different. Guess we'll have to wait and see how the case unfolds.

I agree... we probably do need more information. So, if you agree that the owners may be irresponsible here, I don't understand why there is so much ire drawn at the man who was attacked.

Wait... what? They're guilty of owning a German Sheppard vs a Dachsund? That's the stupidest statement I've heard yet.

Hey... thanks for the constructive remark!

Talk about contradiction of statements... so you agree that the owners have a "responsibility to control any potential harms or dangers on their property", then call me to task for pointing out that *gasp* the owners had a German Sheppard! A breed of dogs known for it's protectiveness and used world-wide as guard dogs and such...

'Guilty' here is not used in the sense of committing a crime, but rather as a saying... just as the landscaper is 'guilty' of immigrating to this country... see, not implicating a crime there... ok?

I re-read the article again, and may have missed it, but where does it say that the owners didn't pull the dog off... or that the dog ignored verbal commands to release the landscaper after he was bitten?

They obviously didn't pull it off in time before bodily harm was done.

The key here is 'after he was bitten'. The worker wasn't doing anything illegal (presumably), therefore, the dog should have been controlled or restrained BEFORE he was bitten. Probably why the dog has been inside on all of the other visits by the landscaper...

It doesn't say one way or another. The only thing they're guilty of is a) potentially not having warning signs posted... and not having the dog locked inside -- as they normally did. And even that is questionable, as the landscaper showed up when he wasn't expected. The dog could have been let out to take a whiz, before being kenneled up, in anticipation of the landscaper.

If this dog was not considered dangerous, why would you feel they need warning signs?

My point was nearly the same as yours... they are guilty of lack of control of the dog. It is not the dog's fault, and dare I say, stupidity aside, I don;t think this guy was out to get a lawsuit victory.

He showed up early. This much we know. Was the yard fenced in? Did the guy let himself into the area, unannounced, if so? All of these questions are unknown at the time. But if he did walk into the yard, earlier than expected, unannounced, and thus got attacked by the dog... that's no different than some stranger walking through your neighborhood and getting attacked while cutting through your yard. Either way, they aren't supposed to be there -- regardless of previous experiences or justifications.

I don't disagree with this assessment. I agree we need more information.

As a side note, if my question regarding what the responses would be offended anyone, I apologize as it was not my intent. However, I think race is playing a part on how this case is being processed by everyone, for good or ill.