Elgin, Illinois, City Council members this week discussed what to do after an incident in which a 9-year-old boy was apparently pinched by one of two “pit bulls” a week ago today in Elgin’s Festival Park.Â I say “pinched” because that’s what the Chicago Tribune called it.Â Interesting that this incident went from an “attack,” to a “bite,” to a “pinching,” as if the media is now back-pedaling.Â Will we soon find out that the dogs, barely out of their puppy phase, were just trying to play with the boy?Â It’s also interesting too that while the owner of the dogs, Ms. Sonia Torres, is asking how the dogs got out of their cages while on her property, which sounds like she too thinks they were stolen, the Tribune is reporting today that the dogs “escaped from their cages.”Â Yet, this is how the scene was described by the Courier News on June 1:
Torres had left her house to pick up her kids and upon her return found the gates to the dog’s cages open and a hole in her fence.
Sounds like they were stolen, and yet Ms. Torres was charged with having two dogs at large?Â Why?
In the aftermath of the Festival Park pinch, Elgin City Council members have wisely decided not to pursue another divisive breed-specific amendment to their existing dangerous dog law; the dangerous dog law that hadn’t even taken effect yet when the incident occurred.Â However, Councilman John Prigge, who initially pushed breed-specific legislation (BSL) in February and March and who was the cause of the resulting division in the first place, just couldn’t resist a parting shot at his fellow council members.Â He told the Chicago Tribune:
It’s clear now that my colleagues do not agree a 9-year-old being attacked is worth revisiting…
Oh it’s worth revisiting alright.Â Indeed, it’s worth investigating whether Prigge had a hand in it.Â Why?Â Because it appears as if few believe that it’s just coincidence that there would be another “pit bull” attack so soon after Prigge’s breed-specific ordinance proposal was shot down in March.Â Especially after he made these very revealing comments:
I do believe somethingâ€™s going to happenâ€¦I think itâ€™s inevitable. I just pray to God itâ€™s not a tragedyâ€¦We need to have another occurrence to happen – hopefully itâ€™s not a tragedy – and then thereâ€™s no turning back.
Do others think that quote potentially implicates Prigge too?Â We certainly thought so back when he originally said it!Â In fact, we called it ridonkulous it was so ridiculous!
And look what Prigge said last Sunday:
I knew we would be back hereâ€¦I’m rearing to go on this.
How did Prigge know Elgin “would be back here” and so soon after his BSL proposal was shot down in March?
At this point, does anyone believe in the likelihood of there having been this many “pit bull” “attacks” in Prigge’s one year in office?Â And since Prigge cites a radical animal rights group that is in favor of breed-specific legislation, maybe he also shares the animal rightist modus operandi of staging “pit bull” attacks.Â And no, that theory isn’t far-fetched judging from the comments to this blog lately.Â Look what some have said:
…this whole scenario,I beleive was contrived by Prigge and co.and should be fully investigated by independants…The bottom line Prigge must be investigated and removed.
…it has long been the theory of many bull breed owners that â€™stealth attacksâ€ by some sort of unknown dog who is never seen again have been set ups…
And judging from our stats lately, Prigge’s abuse of power is known worldwide at this point.Â He has cast a pall on Elgin and has made the city a focus of derision and disgust.Â Clearly Elgin is no longer “a community to call home” and won’t be for as long as Councilman John Prigge is playing fascist.
He has abused his power and committed political malfeasance such that we can now officially call for an investigation of Prigge for corruption.Â As Prigge himself notes, a boy was injured, and in addition, a woman’s dogs were stolen; innocent dogs that are now dead!Â So whoever was behind the theft of those dogs who dumped them off in, or chased them to, Festival Park for the sole purpose of having the dogs attack an innocent person or people, is potentially guilty of what?Â Assault?Â Attempted manslaughter?Â Attempted murder? Think about that!Â And are the police investigating?Â Are they???
So I’ll ask again.Â Why does John Prigge, and only John Prigge, have a police scanner?Â What was he listening for?Â It looks like Prigge may have already violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act with his motion denying people the right to speak against his breed-specific proposal at a prior meeting.Â That alone is outrageous and unconscionable, but if he had a hand in hurting that 9-year-old at Festival Park, he ought to be immediately removed from office and investigated for corruption!Â Given Prigge’s track record so far, an investigation should already have been undertaken.Â So what’s it gonna take???