As you might expect, the story of a 2-year-old killed by a pit bull is getting a lot of attention locally:

HUNTINGTON, W.Va. (AP) — The dog, a pit bull named Brutus, was wild-eyed when the firefighters walked into the house. They watched it — the hair on its neck standing on end — ram the door like a bull.

Inside, Jason Price and his co-workers found a toddler mauled by the animal that had bitten a neighbor earlier this month. Before they could get to the girl, though, they had to subdue the animal. It took a fire extinguisher to do the job.

There isn’t a single doubt in my mind that having this dog put down is the correct course of action. It had chased down and killed two other dogs last year. It was in the house because it was under quarantine for attacking someone last week. In fact, I would’ve readily defended anyone who wanted to put the dog down after it attacked the other dogs last year, to say nothing of attacking a person last week.

What bothers me is that people seem to be blaming the dog owner for this attack. The dog was, undeniably, dangerously aggressive, but he was in the owner’s house. According to the news report linked above, the owner had warned people to stay out of the house:

“The girl, her mother and at least two other people were apparently hanging out on the house’s porch,” Sgt. Dan Underwood said. “The homeowner apparently told them all to stay out of the house where the dog was.”

The former mayor of Huntington was on the radio just a few minutes ago, complaining that they needed stronger laws, laws that would require that dogs that are members of breeds known to be dangerous be confined by a fence anytime they’re outside without a leash.

Even ignoring the fact that the news article says that the law already requires pit bulls, Rottweilers, and wolf-dog hybrids to be muzzled when they’re outside, how does the law that the former mayor discussed help in a situation where the dangerous dog is already in the owner’s house, with signs warning about the dangerous dog and a warning from the homeowner not to go in?

According to a prosecuting attorney who was just on the radio, the man in question could face criminal charges of child neglect resulting in death. While I’m sure his understanding of the law is better than mine, that just doesn’t seem right. Charge him in response to the last attack? Sure. Charge him with the property damage because the dog had killed other dogs? Absolutely. Charge him because his dog, in his house, with plenty of notification to the mother, attacked a kid? I can’t quite support that.

When I heard about this attack, my first thought was to wonder where the attack took place. When I learned that it was within the owner’s house, I wondered what the kid was doing there, and where the mother was. (Rumors are swirling that there was significant drug activity in the house, but that’s not been confirmed, to my knowledge.)

Given the facts as I know them right now, all the fault seems to lie on the little girl’s mother.