Colleen’s claims have been extensively debunked please follow the links to further detail……
Colleen created dogsbite.org
There’s not one canine or animal expert that supports or is engaged by this site they’re all ex-psychics, Dj’s, topless reporters, washed up journos, bartenders etc etc not one actual dog or animal expert to be found…..
Merrit Clifton supplies all their so called “statistics” but the fact is Merrit has had no formal training and/or education in either data collection or data correlation and he’s “stats” are a complete joke among the legitimate science world…..
Merrit clifton also has been extensively debunked here’s a few links to follow if you want more details…..
Dogsbite propaganda the actual statistic is 35% as 11 of the 31 fatal dog attacks in America in 2016 were alleged to have involved pit bulls whereas 20 (65%) of the fatal attacks actually involved either non pit bull type dogs or mixed breed mutts…..
Dogsbite regularly misrepresents fatalities to pit bulls when in fact the dogs were mutts as you can see (below) they were either bulldog or bully mixes which is typical from dogsbite their so called statistics are about as accurate as a 2 dollar watch and even less useful…..
They claim to be support by the majority whereas all the evidence indicates they have relatively little support from the broader community as you can see in six months of fundraising they were able to raise just over 2,000 dollars…..
Dogsbite followers have to download and print their own brochures and pamphlets, so where do all the donations go as they claim to be a victims advocacy whereas they don’t have even one active program actually focused on victims…….
The site recently celebrated 10 years of being active in spite of having very few followers…..
As you can see Dogsbite has a relatively small following considering there’s over 300 million citizens in America alone they have just over 5,000 followers and I can guarantee the majority of them are fake accounts as a visit to the page confirms very little actual traffic on the site…..
As you can see they really do struggle for donations indicating they have very little actual support from the community at large…..
In their site terms they in essence say if you disagree with anything on their site you don’t have permission to view or use their site and I am aware of people who have contacted them in relation to correcting incorrect information on the site only to be ignored and/or blocked…..
Now when you look at this little section of their site terms it appears as though dogsbite feels the law does not apply to them declaring the right to post the personal details and contact information of anyone that contacts them with what they consider to be “abusive feedback”…..
Source….. Dogsbite Site Terms
The reality is it’s illegal to publish a persons private contact details without their permission in most Countries…..
When you publish information about someone without permission, you potentially expose yourself to legal liability even if your portrayal is factually accurate. Most states have laws limiting your ability to publish private facts about someone and recognizing an individual’s right to stop you from using his or her name, likeness, and other personal attributes for certain exploitative purposes, such as for advertising goods or services. These laws originally sprang from a policy objective of protecting personal privacy; the aim was to safeguard individuals from embarrassing disclosures about their private lives and from uses of their identities that are hurtful or disruptive of their lives. Over time, the law developed and also recognized the importance of protecting the commercial value of a person’s identity — namely, the ability to profit from authorizing others to use one’s name, photograph, or other personal attributes in a commercial setting.
Specifically, there are two types of legal claims that relate to unauthorized publication of personal and private information:
- Publication of Private Facts: The legal claim known as “publication of private facts” is a species of invasion of privacy. You commit this kind of invasion of privacy by publishing private facts about an individual, the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. This legal claim can only be successful, however, if the facts in question are not legitimately newsworthy. So, for instance, if you disclose the fact that your neighbor has an embarrassing health condition, you might be liable for publication of private facts. If, however, this medical condition is particularly relevant to some topic of public interest — say, your neighbor’s fitness to serve in public office, a court might find that your publication is lawful. Determining what facts are of legitimate public concern is often difficult to determine, so you may want to get permission before disclosing potentially embarrassing information about an individual you interview or write about. If your work sometimes involves this kind of publication, then you should see the Publication of Private Factssection for further details.
- Using the Name or Likeness of Another: The legal claim known as “misappropriation of name or likeness” is a species of invasion of privacy. Over time the courts also recognized a legal claim for violation of the “right of publicity,” which is closely related. You commit misappropriation and/or violate the right of publicity when you use an individual’s name, likeness, or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose. These legal claims usually apply to the use of a name or image in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities, but they may apply anytime you take advantage of another person’s identity for your own benefit. However, individuals cannot stop every mention, discussion, or reporting on their lives or activities, and many states explicitly exempt news reporting and other expressive activities from liability. For example, if you advertise your website using the photograph of a famous rival blogger (or even an unknown rival blogger) without permission, then you might be liable for misappropriation of that person’s likeness. (Another way of saying this is that you might be liable for violating the blogger’s “right of publicity.”) But, if you write an article commenting on the posts of that same blogger and include his picture, you generally won’t be liable for using the blogger’s name without permission or including the photograph for illustrative purposes. If you are interested in using the names or photographs of others, especially celebrities, you should consult Using the Name or Likeness of Another for further details.
Source….. Digital Media Law Project
Dogsbite is not a legitimate site when it comes to anything pit bull related as the site’s creator claims to have been attacked by a pit bull and displays extreme prejudice and bias against both pit bulls and their owners…..
Please follow the link below to a radio interview in which Colleen Lynn admits that it was thought that killing pit bulls would automatically lower both dog bites and dog bite related fatalities but she admits that hasn’t happened…..
Colleen hates pit bull owners……
Colleen claims she helps victims which isn’t quite accurate…..
The harsh reality is Colleen helps herself more than any victims as I’ve said there’s not one active program initiated by Dogsbite for victims other than their “pet rock” program where they paint rocks for victims which are of little consolation to victims given their circumstances……
Colleen Lynn profits from the deaths of hundreds of thousands of pit bulls through her hosting of all the hate pages and sites…..
All of the anti pit bull activist pages and sites are hosted by Colleen’s media group which is the only organization making money or gaining anything out of the anti pit bull advocacy…..
This is the type (above) of activity that Colleen and her followers promote and applaud they’re not victims advocates they’re pit bull haters and they’ll say and do anything they have to in order to achieve their goals of making pit bulls extinct and Dogsbite.org is an integral part of their plan.
One quick look at these people is all it takes for a reasonably intelligent individual to discern that they are all fanatics promoting dangerous disinformation all under the guise of acting in the interests of the community.
One only has to view Colleen’s “Maul Talk Manual” where she attacks and berates pit bull owners and she makes up an extensive list of made up words reffering to both pit bulls and their owners…..
Link to….. “Maul Talk Manual”
These people are fanatics and they’re obviously dangerous……
More to come…..