Plum pit bull owner faces charges after attack
Joe Martinez got a grisly greeting when he recently returned to his Shearer Road home in Plum.
Martinez, 70, said a pit bull came after him and growled as he started up the steps to his home at about 12:30 p.m. Jan. 13.
And the situation got worse.
Martinez said he retrieved a 20-gauge shotgun from his truck and fired at the pit bull as it came after him a second time. He missed the dog, and it ran off.
The next image Martinez saw will stay with him forever, he said.
Martinez said he saw another pit bull standing over Rocky, his 13-year-old German shepherd/husky mix who was chained in the yard.
When the second pit bull ran off, Martinez realized that Rocky had been killed.
"There was a big chunk of meat out (of Rocky) and puncture marks on him," Martinez said.
Horrified, Martinez ran off after the dogs but couldn't catch them.
Martinez then called his daughter-in-law, who summoned Plum police.
The officers, with Martinez and the borough's animal control officer, Gary Hoffman, searched for the dogs.
Before the dogs were located, Martinez said a man later identified in a police report as Richard Borowski, 27, of Hemphill Hollow Road, about 1 1⁄2 miles from the Martinez home, drove up to them on Webster Road and asked the searchers if they had seen his dogs. They told Borowski what occurred.
Contacted for this story, Borowski had no comment. Borowski had reported the dogs missing to Plum police on Jan. 12, according to a police report.
Borowski's lawyer, Paul Zavarella, could not be reached for comment.
Several hours later, the dogs were found on a porch on Rosewood Drive near Plum High School, according to the police report.
Hoffman said he took the pit bulls to the kennel, and Martinez identified them as the dogs that attacked Rocky.
Allegheny County dog warden Steven Stoehr said the police were prohibited from shooting the dogs because, according to state law, dogs cannot be put down unless they are in pursuit of another domesticated animal or a person.
"We don't want to put a dog down," Stoehr said. "We want the owner to be responsible."
The pit bulls were returned to Borowski who is required to keep them under control and muzzled if they leave his home, Stoehr said.
Charges are pending against Borowski for the Jan. 13 incident, Hoffman and Stoehr said.
The latest incident is not Borowski's first contact with authorities over his pit bulls.
Borowski was cited in 2003 for confinement of dogs (running at large). Plum District Judge Linda Zucco found him guilty, according to records in her office. Borowski paid a $53 fine.
Last year, Borowski was cited for failure to confine the dogs within his premises, have the dogs vaccinated for rabies, and have the dogs licensed. Borowski plead guilty and paid a $74 fine.
Hoffman filed both sets of charges.
"It shows an ongoing problem," Hoffman said.
Stoehr said if dogs are declared "dangerous" and the owner wants to keep them, according to state law, the owner is required to keep them in the home. If the dogs stay outside, the owner must build an enclosure that is fenced in and has a roof. The area also would have to be posted that a dangerous dog lives on the premises, Stoehr said.
Also, the owner is required to register the dogs through the state and buy a permit for $500 per dog per year. The owner also must obtain a $50,000 bond from an insurance company.
Martinez said he doesn't want to see the dogs put down.
He does want $300 in compensation for his dog and $100 for burial expenses.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.