Man whose pit bull attacked woman on Manhattan subway charged

[Via Garibaldi 8]

MTA Vows to Crack Down On Dogs Being Brought onto Subway

Updated 54 mins ago

LOWER MANHATTAN (WABC) --

http://abc7ny.com/video/embed/?pid=3391799

Police have located and charged the 53-year-old owner of a pit bull that latched on to a 22-year-old woman's foot on the subway in Lower Manhattan Friday.

Ruben Roncallo, of Brownsville, Brooklyn, is charged with reckless endangerment and assault. Authorities say the dog is, in fact, a service dog and remains in Roncallo's custody. It is believed the animal is being cared for by family.

It happened around 4 p.m. Friday following a dispute between the pet owner and a woman on the downtown 4 train and was recorded by witness TahSyi Kyng, who was riding with his girlfriend to pick up their kids.

In the video, the pit bull can be seen latching onto the woman's shoe and refusing to release until the sneaker came off. Then the owner throws the shoe at the other riders before exiting the train at the Wall Street station.

Eyewitnesses believe the people were the problem, not the pet.

Kyng said the man sat down and put his dog on the seat, and as the dog lay down, it bumped the female passenger.

"She was like, 'The dog don't belong on the seat, that's an animal, people belong on the seat, put the dog on the floor,'" Kyng said. "And he looked at her like, I'm not moving my (expletive) dog.'"

From there, it went downhill quickly. Kyng said the woman first pushed the dog off the seat. The owner put him back up, and she shoved the dog off again. The owner responded with fists.

"He was like, 'Don't touch my dog,' and he started hitting," Kyng said. "They started fighting, and everybody tried to break it up. The dog latched onto her."

In the struggle to get the dog off, other passengers are heard yelling at the owner to have the dog release. The dog eventually let go, and the man threw the shoe.
After the man left, the conductor eventually came into the car to assist the female passenger. She lost her cell phone in the confusion, but no injuries were immediately reported.

"That dog was not vicious," eyewitness Denise Leon said. "It was just an incident that could have been avoided."

Source: http://abc7ny.com/pets-animals/man-whose-pit-bull-attacked-woman-on-subway-charged/3395521/

[Via Garibaldi 8]

And what did I say about a lawsuit... At the end of the video, they report that the lady who was attacked is consulting a lawyer, so if she can she is definitely going to sue the .

[P3F]

13 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

And what did I say about a lawsuit... At the end of the video, they report that the lady who was attacked is consulting a lawyer, so if she can she is definitely going to sue the .

Really, though, what can she actually sue the for? Allowing service dogs into the system?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

15 minutes ago, P3F said:

Really, though, what can she actually sue the for? Allowing service dogs into the system?

Recklessness endangerment and assault... He's being charged with that.  Any lawyer will argue that service dog or not, historically pitbulls have a history of being vicious and dangerous, and given that, his owner should've taken precautions to prohibit what occurred.   rules say that dogs are supposed to be in carriers. This dog was not, and even though he was a service dog, what occurred could've been prevented, so I'm sure the lawyer will say she was severely traumatized by the event and how can you argue that she wasn't? The video shows it all!! I mean sure she could sue him, but the man lives in Brownsville, so I doubt he's sitting on any money, so logically you sue the . They'll likely want to settle out of court and make this go away. Mark my words.

Any service dog that I've ever seen prior to this was instructed to sit on the floor out of the way from everyone else.  Instead this owner put his dog on the seat (did the dog pay $2.75 to sit on the seat?) NEXT to the passenger, had the dog banging into her, and then the owner assaulted her when she complained about the dog sitting on the seat banging into her and pushed the dog away.  It comes down to this:

When you enter into the subway, you're on  property, and passengers should expect a certain level of safety, which falls on the to provide. They certainly don't expect to be attacked by pit bulls I can tell you that much.  That's why Lhota acknowledged that it was not acceptable what occurred and said that enforcement of the rules would be stepped up.  It opens the  up for all sorts of lawsuits if this sort of thing becomes the norm.

[N6 Limited]

According to the story she pushed the dog off the seat, more than once. If she had not done that, the owner (and the dog) would not have "assaulted" her.  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

5 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

According to the story she pushed the dog off the seat, more than once. If she had not done that, the owner (and the dog) would not have "assaulted" her.  

Yes because as she said, the dog should not be sitting on the seat.  That dog was taking up seats from paying passengers, so do you as a paying passenger want to stand because some guy has his dog hogging a seat? Crazy...  As Lhota said, if you're going to bring your dog onto the train, they should be out of the way, not sitting next to passengers banging into them.  I mean really, some people are allergic to dogs or just don't want dogs on them, and on a train that is just inappropriate.  Of late when I have seen dogs, when the owner takes a seat, the dogs sits under the seat where the owner is, this way people can still sit and stand and no one is banging into the dog and vice versa. In other words, don't make a whole big scene like this guy did, and 9 times out 10 you won't have a problem.  This guy treated his dog like he was a human.  Put the dog on the floor!

[Lance]

This is an unfortunate incident and yet another instance where rule enforcement needs to be improved. With that said, should the victim sue the MTA for assault, the case would almost certainly be dead on arrival. For that kind of a crime, you have to prove intent to cause harm, which is not there despite the events that occurred. The MTA may be negligent in running their services and managing themselves,  but they are not actively trying to harm riders, which would be the crux of any assault case. Negligence due to a lack of rule enforcement would be the better way to go and even then, it would be a flimsy case as the MTA has no control over the actions of the dog beyond ensuring they are properly secured. This would be tantamount to a person suing the city for falling on an icy sidewalk instead of the property owner.

As for the latest developments on this, no one involved is completely innocent here, but we already knew that. The lady should not be provoking the dog like that and not expect the inevitable to happen. You don't poke a lion with a stick and not expect to get mauled. On the flip-side, one should not have to anticipate being attacked by a dog on the subway, which is partly why the carrier rule is in place. If one cannot expect their pets to behave and remain docile in a crowded environment, their owners should look into other ways of transporting them around, which is why she has a real case against the dog owner here.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

7 minutes ago, Lance said:

This is an unfortunate incident and yet another instance where rule enforcement needs to be improved. With that said, should the victim sue the MTA for assault, the case would almost certainly be dead on arrival. For that kind of a crime, you have to prove intent to cause harm, which is not there despite the events that occurred. The MTA may be negligent in running their services and managing themselves,  but they are not actively trying to harm riders, which would be the crux of any assault case. Negligence due to a lack of rule enforcement would be the better way to go and even then, it would be a flimsy case as the MTA has no control over the actions of the dog beyond ensuring they are properly secured. This would be tantamount to a person suing the city for falling on an icy sidewalk instead of the property owner.

As for the latest developments on this, no one involved is completely innocent here, but we already knew that. The lady should not be provoking the dog like that and not expect the inevitable to happen. You don't poke a lion with a stick and not expect to get mauled. On the flip-side, one should not have to anticipate being attacked by a dog on the subway, which is partly why the carrier rule is in place. If one cannot expect their pets to behave and remain docile in a crowded environment, their owners should look into other ways of transporting them around, which is why she has a real case against the dog owner here.

While you are correct, having sat on a jury myself, if the lawyer presents the case well I wouldn't be shocked if he did win against the .  No the  isn't actively trying to harm riders, but they have a rule in place for a reason as you said, so the argument in play would be that this could've been prevented had the rules been followed, then you focus on the end result of what happened to the passenger.  As I said, trauma, whatever she suffered or will claim to suffer from... lol It's certainly worth a shot.  Get the to settle out of court if you can... 

Years ago there was a case where a kid fell down a manhole. The family sued the City I believe (I forget where) citing negligence and won, despite it being the kid's fault for not looking when they were walking. Crazier things have happened. lol

[Deucey]

2 hours ago, Lance said:

Negligence due to a lack of rule enforcement would be the better way to go and even then, it would be a flimsy case as the MTA has no control over the actions of the dog beyond ensuring they are properly secured. 

That’s where the negligence leads to  liability. Because it didn’t enforce the rule, it created a situation where it’s liable for the act.

Service dog or not, if there is anyone else victim of a pet or animal attack on a train, this woman will have a great chance of prevailing because negligence claims are bolstered by patterns.

The bad thing about the lawsuit is that the reaction to it and the video means disabled persons using service animals are going to be treated shabbily by  to prevent future animal liability claims.

[CDTA]

Glad to know that if I don't like somebody all I have to do get then arrested is go after their service dog 👍

/s

That reckless endangerment charge is absolute bollocks, who does this chick know that she got someone charged for bringing their legal service dog on the train? I hope this guy lawyers up because that seriously sounds like an ADA violation. Of course he won't though because he's just a poor folk from Brownsville, thanks New York City for showing that yes, you are still courrupt and have no problem harming innocent people as long as you're able to spin it, not like anyone thought otherwise.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

17 hours ago, CDTA said:

Glad to know that if I don't like somebody all I have to do get then arrested is go after their service dog 👍

/s

That reckless endangerment charge is absolute bollocks, who does this chick know that she got someone charged for bringing their legal service dog on the train? I hope this guy lawyers up because that seriously sounds like an ADA violation. Of course he won't though because he's just a poor folk from Brownsville, thanks New York City for showing that yes, you are still courrupt and have no problem harming innocent people as long as you're able to spin it, not like anyone thought otherwise.

Innocent? This man? Seriously?

What’s so innocent about this man putting his dog on the subway seats? Bad enough we got people (homeless and not) who lie down on the seats. Now we’ve also got to have people putting their dogs up on there too? What’s so innocent about him (the man, not the dog obviously) punching the woman? And what’s so innocent about this man throwing the woman’s shoe at the other passengers as he and the dog finally exited the train? 

Ok, the dog was determined by authorities to be a service dog. Nothing wrong with that. So what condition(s) did this man have that warranted him to have a service dog? Clearly he isn’t blind if punched one person and threw her shoe at others. He certainly isn’t feeble since he was able to do both of those things. Emotional support? Well, you’re still supposed to be able to keep the dog under control, which he did not do. And you're not helping yourself when you yell "I'm not moving my f-----g dog!" to a fellow passenger who isn't comfortable with a pit bull sitting next to her. Maybe someone in family required the dog’s services. Nothing wrong with that either. Perhaps he needed to transport the dog. Ok, so then why do it on a crowded rush hour subway train? Why not find another way to transport the dog? And I’m not buying “he’s just a poor folk from Brownsville.” That’s not an excuse not to use common sense when transporting a dog not in a carrier on the subway during rush hour. No, sorry, but Ruben Roncallo is to blame here and he does deserve to be charged with a crime. Several, in fact.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

31 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Innocent? This man? Seriously?

What’s so innocent about this man putting his dog on the subway seats? Bad enough we got people (homeless and not) who lie down on the seats. Now we’ve also got to have people putting their dogs up on there too? What’s so innocent about him (the man, not the dog obviously) punching the woman? And what’s so innocent about this man throwing the woman’s shoe at the other passengers as he and the dog finally exited the train? 

Ok, the dog was determined by authorities to be a service dog. Nothing wrong with that. So what condition(s) did this man have that warranted him to have a service dog? Clearly he isn’t blind if punched one person and threw her shoe at others. He certainly isn’t feeble since he was able to do both of those things. Emotional support? Well, you’re still supposed to be able to keep the dog under control, which he did not do. And you're not helping yourself when you yell "I'm not moving my f-----g dog!" to a fellow passenger who isn't comfortable with a pit bull sitting next to her. Maybe someone in family required the dog’s services. Nothing wrong with that either. Perhaps he needed to transport the dog. Ok, so then why do it on a crowded rush hour subway train? Why not find another way to transport the dog? And I’m not buying “he’s just a poor folk from Brownsville.” That’s not an excuse not to use common sense when transporting a dog not in a carrier on the subway during rush hour.

 

The comments that I've seen that were hilarious was that the guy has a "service dog" and it's a pit bull of all breeds... Like I've never heard of a service dog being a pit bull, which is why a lot of people are saying that it's BS. LOL

[T to Dyre Avenue]

33 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The comments that I've seen that were hilarious was that the guy has a "service dog" and it's a pit bull of all breeds... Like I've never heard of a service dog being a pit bull, which is why a lot of people are saying that it's BS. LOL

Yeah, I was going to ask who has a pit bull for a service dog, but I really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt here since police stated it. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Yeah, I was going to ask who has a pit bull for a service dog, but I really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt here since police stated it. 

I'm glad someone else noticed... We both know that certain dogs tend to do certain tasks.

[kosciusko]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The comments that I've seen that were hilarious was that the guy has a "service dog" and it's a pit bull of all breeds... Like I've never heard of a service dog being a pit bull, which is why a lot of people are saying that it's BS. LOL

They give those out like candy these days, service dog is a meaningless qualification.

[Lance]

The problem is that the ADA mandate itself says that any breed can qualify as a service animal.

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html - scroll to Q22

Another problem is that you cannot question why a person has a service animal or if it's for a legitimate reason. I understand the reasoning behind this since, for the folks who actually need a service animal to deal with physical or mental problems, it could be something too stressful and/or embarrassing to bring up in casual conversation. However, such loose restrictions make it very easy for anyone to claim their pets as service animals or therapy pets. That case with a passenger trying to bring their peacock on a plane recently comes to mind. I'm also reminded of when I worked retail and had a customer come in with her yap-yap dog (also claimed as a therapy pet). Maybe it's me, but if my dog was barking almost constantly the entire time I was in a store, I'd be more stressed out, not less, but whatever.

Of course, I'm not against people having service dogs, therapy pets or whatever you want to call them if they're needed. The animals just need to be trained to act as true service pets and remain under the control of their owners at all times, even in situations where the animal can be provoked. Also, owners cannot simply hide behind the ADA mandate because they cannot bear to leave their dogs at home. It really puts a bad spotlight on the whole thing and makes it all the more difficult for those who really need these animals around them.

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, Lance said:

Another problem is that you cannot question why a person has a service animal or if it's for a legitimate reason.

Of course HIPAA applies to this, but I always thought one had to display the certification when asked. Like showing the disabled placard when law enforcement requests to verify one is parked legally.

They don’t have that for assistance and service animals?

[Lawrence St]

What is he charged with?