More Concern for Dog Than Mauled Kid? Typical.

Mom of Mauled Boy Says People More Concerned About the Dog

The Arizona mother of a small boy who was mauled by a dog is upset that people seem to be more concerned that the dog was given a “life sentence” in a cell than about her badly injured son.

Kevin Vicente, 4, was attacked by a pit bull named Mickey in February and the dog severely damaged the boy’s face.

A Phoenix judge decided to keep the dog alive instead of being euthanized. The dog will be defanged and remain in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office MASH unit for the rest of his life without any chance of being adopted, according to Melissa Gable, a spokeswoman for the Maricopa County Animal Care and Control. Sheriff Joe Arpaio took custody of the dog Thursday.

“A lot of people didn’t want the dog to be put down and this sparked a Facebook page called ‘Save Mickey’ in which over 70,000 people have already liked,” Gable said. “It’s a little surprising that people are showing so much support for Mickey and not so much Kevin.”

Kevin’s mother, Floridalma Vicente, wants Mickey to be put down, is taken aback by the online support to keep Mickey alive and opposed to having the dog serving a “life sentence.”

“It feels really bad, it feels horrible that there is more support for a dog than your kid,” Vicente said, according to ABC News’ Phoenix affiliate KNXV.

One woman worried that the dog “hasn’t seen the sun, he hasn’t been able to go on walks.”

The boy’s mother replied, “She must not have any children at all because if that happened to her child I don’t think she would say the dog wouldn’t see the light of day when my child will be scarred for the rest of his life.”

Kevin sustained serious injuries, leaving scars on his face and forcing his right eye to remain closed.

“He’s going to start therapy so he can learn how to chew again and the food doesn’t fall out of his mouth,” Vicente told KNXV.

The boy’s mother had to quit her job to take care of Kevin, whose medical bills from the ordeal have topped $30,000.

2,372 Comments  (see link above to read AR comments and more)
PD:   Whenever we see stories like this, where 70k people get on Facebook to support a biting dog, and no one seems to worry about the kid, we can first look to WHY and HOW that kid was in someone’s backyard, REGARDLESS of whether dog was chained, not chained, tethered, or with another dog.
In CA due to strict liability, ordinarily owner is guilty if one’s pet harms a person, however, there are exceptions. We often read about trespassers and wonder whether that trespasser was actually a trespasser or not. We often hear of animals that are in the owner’s car and someone sticks their head into the car at the dog’s eye level and gets bitten. We hear about handlers that put their own hand between two dogs in an altercation. There are unlimited fact patterns that can arise in animal bites.
We do not know the facts of this case other than what we saw in the paper. Often the paper does not have all of the correct facts. In any event, when a parent might be negligent or is in fact negligent, the government can go after the parent. There does not appear to be any facts stated on the mother’s negligence. So we don’t know how or why the kid got into another’s backyard.
As for the dog, unless it had already bitten a person or otherwise caused harm, we are guessing the dog owner may not have been in big trouble, since the judge only ordered the fangs to be removed, not to put the dog down. whether the dog being chained had anything to do with it is speculation and we won’t go there since we don’t have actual facts but just what is in newspaper. The breed is not relevant.