Grover Beach man dies from dog attack

December 17, 2016
David Fear and his wife Terry Fear

David Fear and his wife Terry Fear

The Grover Beach man attacked by a police officer’s dog died Friday evening. He was 64 years old.

On Tuesday afternoon, the dog attacked Betty Long, 85, in her front yard. Long’s neighbor, David Fear, went to assist the woman and the officer’s Belgian Malinois attacked him.

Fear lost six pints of blood as a result of the attack. The dog bites severed two arteries in his arm, and Fear developed an infection from the bites.

Fear is being described as a hero who possibly saved the life of his neighbor. Long suffered a broken pelvis, broken shoulder and head wounds during the attack. Long is expected to be released from the hospital on Saturday.

An Animal Services investigation is ongoing. The Grover Beach officer who owned the dog is cooperating with investigators, according to the agency.

The officer turned over the Belgian Malinois to authorities, and the dog has already been euthanized. The dog was also tested for rabies.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Never understood why people have aggressive dogs. Be it a PitBull, German shepherd or what have you, you’re playing Russian roulette and taking a chance the dog is a ticking time bomb

Dogs do maim and kill humans all by themselves as this horrific tragedy clearly illustrates. Being inanimate objects, firearms do not. Yet if the lawmakers here in California treated dogs like guns we would have the following:

* Some breeds of dogs would be completely banned from California.

* Dogs over a certain weight/size would be banned from CA.

* One would have to take a test a pay for a license to even be eligible to buy a dog.

* Actually buying a dog would require an FBI background check and a fee.

* Their dogs would have to be muzzled at all times, even at home, unless they were eating or biting someone (hopefully in defense.)

* All dogs would have to be on a leash or tethered at all times, even at home.

* Taking a dog out in public would require an expensive and difficult-to-get license that was issued at the whim of the local chief of police or sheriff.

* Even if one had the above license, there would still be numerous “dog free zones” under the guise of making things safer.

* No one could sell or give away a dog unless they did through a licensed veterinarian.

* Internet sales of dog food would be banned.

* Depending on the type of collar it wears, your dog might be outright banned

The big difference is that the gun user makes the choice whether to fire the gun or not; no gun ever ran down the block on its own and shot someone. Dogs? An uncontrolled dog will do what it pleases, or what it’s trained to do. Let’s face it: many people are stupid and/or irresponsible; many laws out there are designed to control people’s stupidity. If I walk down the block with a dog off leash, law enforcement does not care. If I were to walk down the street holding a gun, the police would be on me in a flash. It’s a double standard that we’ve learned to live with.

I’m impressed that you’ve derived the gun control debate from a dog attack incident.

Actually, that was LARamsFan, below, about ten comments down this page.

No Kevin/Sam/?, that would be “laftch”

Hey Kevin! I mean Sam, I mean Kevin, ahhh Shit! Hey Sam! I’m sorry but the two of you sound so alike it’s hard to actually tell if the two, or three, of you are actually NOT the same person. Know what I’m sayin’?

Must have guns on your brain 24/7/365, huh? The only time you rear your NRA subversive indoctrinated head is when others bent on that agenda, no matter the circumstances or relivance, run into folks who think your agenda doesn’t belong in the conversation and need thier local “Hero”! And now that the NRA is a political power (something you’ve always contended they were not), with the advent of NRA-PVF, you (and Kevin, or Kevin and you or Kevin is you or you are Kevin), must be auditioning for a spot on their “team”.

There are communties in California who can and do restrict the type of dog a person can or can’t have, mostly those breeds that are considered aggressive. Rightly so too! Don’t you think? Would you support “gun free” communities; communities that have decided that their right to Life, Liberty and The Persute of Happiness is more compelling then the right to have a gun? Probably not, right? Not only would you not approve you’d show up with gun in hand cryin’ “From My Cold Dead Hands”!?

A dog killed a man, no gun was involved so lets try and stick to that…

It’s one thing to have false suspicions. It’s another to publicly demonstrate your ignorance.

Both of which you/Sam/? do often, right? Expert analysis from the expert(s)…

Stop whining. I was showing just how inconsistent and ridiculous CA gov’t tends to be.

This case is no different than when a cop loses his gun and it is used to kill someone. The officer could lose his job and be personally sued by the victims family. After the city and the dept is sued by the victims family the city could then sue the officer as well. The dog is not just a dog it’s a lethal weapon.

Dave Congalton will host a show about dangerous dogs Monday evening at 5, on KVEC am 920.

Maybe a better show would be on dangerous dog owners?

It would be interesting to know what makes some dog owners dangerous.

One word, irresponsible.

* Limited intelligence.

* A feeling of entitlement.

* Arrogance.

Much like some gun owners, right?

That can be said about any group, vehicle owners, teachers, police officers, public employees, politicians…. Any group you want to leave off the list?

Nope! You?

This should NEVER have to happen.

To the Fear and Long families, my heart goes out to you and yours. Mr. Fear did a courageous act when he could have turned a blind eye and paid the ultimate price, that is a HERO.

May the Fear family find peace in the fact he did the right thing for someone else. I wish the Long family peace and healing both spiritually, physically and emotionally.

I hold good thoughts in my heart for ALL involved in this sad situation.

Absolute immunity won’t work here for that officer. He is 100% liable.

Home owner’s insurance can cover the dog owner if their dog bites someone, many will cancel the policy if they learn of a vicious dog. Insurance companies certainly limit their risk and dogs are considered to be part of the risk factor unless formally excluded.

One vote down? Really? Care to say why you voted that way? And please do not say because he is an officer he should be granted immunity. That dog was his responsibility.

If some people would read and understand someone posts well trained in th use of weapon that is what they mean (well trained) not some one that has never fired at and hot moving target or walking on uneven ground firing and hitting a target. Go to SV hospital and you will see two P O or two CO with a prisoner in restraint gear. If the prisoner tries to run are they going to start shooting in the hospital?

The owner of the dog could be held responsible, but since he is a member of the protected class noting will be done. Double standard yes.

I agree. The law says they are excluded but its my understanding that means if the dog is working. I think I read that no one was home when the dog got out, I might be wrong about that. But this is the CA penal code

§ 3342. Dog bites; liability of owner; military or police work excluded; limitations

(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.

(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following:

(1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect’s involvement in criminal activity.

(2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.

(3) In the execution of a warrant.

(4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply in any case where the victim of the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work.

(d) Subdivision (b) shall apply only where a governmental agency using a dog in military or police work as adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work enumerated in subdivision (b).