boingboing at July 3rd, 2014 18:57 — #1
bzishi at July 3rd, 2014 20:08 — #3
This story is kind of old but it appears that the grandmother and aunt were trying to game the system. To KFC's credit they didn't revoke their earlier donation for the kid's medical bills. The reason she was disfigured was because of her grandfather's and his girlfriend's pit bulls attacking her (they've been arrested and charged). This is a really, really sad story where it appears that nobody in her family was caring for her and all they wanted to do was profit off of her disability.
TL;DR: big corporation did the right thing while the family tried to profit off the pain of the child
shuck at July 3rd, 2014 20:22 — #4
The story had a few holes in it from the beginning - such as the specific KFC to which they claimed to have gone having closed several years previously... The fucked up thing is that the child will likely be affected by the hoax as if it were true, because there's no way she's going to be completely insulated from the claim.
I wonder if the story was started just as a means of drawing attention to the family's fundraising to deal with medical bills. Either way, it's pretty sad.
logruszed at July 3rd, 2014 22:12 — #5
How many outrage-generating bullshit scams does that make this year?
sockdoll at July 3rd, 2014 22:13 — #6
It's kind of weird that Boing Boing's intro to the story states...
Back in May, a 3-year-old girl disfigured by a pit bull attack was asked to leave a KFC restaurant because her facial scars disturbed other customers.
As though it were undisputed fact, instead of saying that the girl's family only claimed that it happened - especially since previous coverage of this story gave evidence that it was a false claim, and Boing Boing's own story eventually repeats those week-old reports to the contrary.
flugfrei_jones at July 3rd, 2014 22:25 — #7
right, but aren't you thinking to yourself "oh, yeah, kfc's own "internal investigation", pfft yeah right."
i mean, if you aren't, it almost seems like the story here isn't making it's point.
boundegar at July 4th, 2014 07:14 — #8
Well, some of us said, "pfft." Some of us clicked through and read more.
go_robot_go at July 5th, 2014 10:49 — #9
Do we need to call it out as "a pitbull attack"? Isn't that a little like specifying that someone was shot "by an African-American man" when race is otherwise not relevant?
peregrinus_bis at July 5th, 2014 11:36 — #10
Oh, dozens more than in any other year.
peregrinus_bis at July 5th, 2014 11:39 — #11
Yes, because pit bulls are a specific dangerous breed. Do you have some kind of statistics to show that they do not present a higher danger to people (children) than chihuahas?
Let's not make the uncommon error of drawing equivalence between the fight for racial equality and smearing the reputations of dog breeds, eh?
go_robot_go at July 5th, 2014 12:44 — #12
That doesn't really answer the question. The girl was disfigured by a dog attack. Is it really relevant what breed of dog it was? What purpose does it serve to include that information other than to further propagate the pigeonholing of the breed as naturally vicious?
peregrinus_bis at July 5th, 2014 15:35 — #13
You write as if pitbulls are character actors in a drama not of their making. It's not light entertainment.
Do you think governments and animal societies around the world, especially in the animal-adoring UK, illegalise pitbulls as some kind of sop to the public's vividly frightened imagination?
I mean, I don't know, maybe the English legal system had nothing else to then spend a mass of time drafting legislation and passing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991.
Clearly you're a pitbull fan. So be it. From where I sit, they're aggressive, dangerous animals, that all too many people train to be more aggressive, and dangerous.
gilbertwham at July 6th, 2014 16:19 — #14
The RSPCA disagrees. Also there's this and this, which cite a study showing attacks in the UK by breed (sadly no links to the study, and I'm too hungover to do more googling). Some people are fucking dickheads, and train/allow their dogs to be vicious, but it's not the dog's fault. I've known many, many big, scary-looking dogs, all of whom were absolutely lovely, gentle creatures, and plenty of horrid, bitey little fuckers in various flavours of lapdog/stupid crufts-looking hairbags. Dogs just basically want to be loved and belong, and to know you think theyre a good dog. It's the owners that are a menace
l_mariachi at July 8th, 2014 05:14 — #15
“Oust?” Was she the CEO or something?
falcor at July 8th, 2014 05:49 — #16
This topic is not about pitbulls, get back on topic. If you want to discuss that aspect, start a new thread.
boingboing at July 8th, 2014 18:57 — #17
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.