Uncle Charged After Dog Mauls 13-Year-Old

August 28, 2013

A 43-year-old man appeared in Magistrates Court this morning [Aug 28] after his dog attacked his 13-year-old nephew leaving him with injuries described as “horrific.”

Reuben Waldron pleaded guilty to keeping a Rottweiler dog that caused serious injury to a person and to having an unlicensed dog.

He was fined $7,000 dollars, ordered to pay compensation up to $10,000; and Senior Magistrate Archie Warner ordered that the dog must be destroyed.

The Court heard that Mr Waldron and his nephew — the 13 year old who was attacked — frequently walked the dog together, along with a smaller female dog.

They were walking the dogs on the PHC field on 30th July, when the male dog attacked the 13-year-old.

The Court heard that the dog attack resulted in the 13-year-old sustaining wounds to various areas on his body including his face, stomach, and arm.

The injuries have required extensive medical attention, and Crown Prosecutor Cindy Clarke described them as “horrific.”

Photos of the injuries were used as evidence in Court, and they showed various bite marks, scratches and blood on various parts of the 13-year-old’s body.

Mr Waldron asked for time to pay the $7,000 fine and asked if the dog’s life could be spared. The Senior Magistrate declined his request about the dog, and maintained his order that the dog be destroyed.

Read More About

Category: All, Court Reports, Crime, News

Comments (36)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Truth (Original) says:

    Sad all the way around.

    • LOL (original TM*) says:

      This was a rotti not a pit people like you keep the hate for the bread alive. Lets be real hear any dog can be a terror even the small yappy ones.



      • LOL (original TM*) says:

        I ment “here’

        • Um Um Like says:

          You meant “meant”

          • pwndwg says:

            The problem hear is a failure to communicate. Hate the game not the playa. Blame the dough, not the breed. I bet that both the dog owner and the kid were being irresponsible. A 13yr year old is deemed responsible enough to babysit but not walk a dog? But the sentence is way too harsh.

            • Sandy Bottom says:

              Yeah. The 13 year was probably walking, or waving, or something. He asked for it. Obviously anyone walking or waving has got to expect to be attacked by an aggressive dog, it’s just asking for it. Let him pay his own medical bills. Why make the poor owner responsible for his dog? It’s barbaric. What was going through the judge’s mind.

              • are you serious says:

                Sandy Bottom – I am praying that you are being sarcastic in your entry above, otherwise you are extreemly ignorant.

          • mixitup says:

            LOL – SO busy trying to be smart…

  2. youtmon says:

    Dumb ***** always wanna dis pitbulls quick.. **** off with that **** .. stupid *****

  3. Silly Rabbit says:

    It’s okay to put down a dog who injures someone but those people who KILL someone else are given a slap on the wrist and allowed to walk free after a few years. Put them down as well !

  4. Always Watching says:

    Damn shame on both ends..

  5. smh says:

    $7000 fine and destroy his dog?? Sad on both ends. I’m sure this wasn’t a deliberate attack on the young boy who obviouly knows the dog as he walks him. Something had to have spooked the dog. Sad. Too bad the dog has to be put down.

    • micro says:

      Exactly. Something had to have provoked the dog.

      Tho there really is no excuse for the dog not to have been licensed – which is probably a big portion of that $7000. They did just have a amnesty for unlicensed restricted breeds.

    • andre says:

      IMO opinion this is ALL the fault of the owner. I have seen him with his dogs and have never been impressed. Was a situation wanting to happen by someone who should not have had such a powerful animal. JMHO

  6. Deliverance says:

    People! The ignorant uncle should be put down.. not the dog! The uncle didn’t even have the dog licensed!…. Put the uncle IN JAIL!

  7. john says:

    what an evil judge,,does it have to be destoyed?

    • longtail says:

      Why call the judge names??? It was the dog that attacked the boy, not the judge. You wanting to walk this dog the next time????

    • Fruity says:


    • Sandy Bottom says:

      Yeah. It only attacks and nearly kills children. Why would anyone think it’s a dangerous animal? It’s a basic human right for someone to keep aggressive animals that cause children horrific injuries. These magistrates just don’t understand. What next.

  8. kieth,n says:

    its an animal,i dont think it was premeditated,
    its the same as someone with a mental impairment would be spared death,,,death??
    out of compassion,,,fine the owner

  9. kieth,n says:

    just my opinion

  10. Fruity says:

    WTH the dog gotta be killed?!?!?!?!???? ARGH! Sorry to the boy and family who had to deal with the result of injury but geez!!

    • Sandy Bottom says:

      Yeah. After all, the 13 year old boy was only left with horrific injuries. It’s only children that this dog attacks and nearly kills. Not like it’s a big deal. What was the magistrate thinking, making the poor guy pay a fine and contribute to the kid’s medical bills. He should have let him keep the poor misunderstood dog and make the 13 year old pay his own bills. He probably provoked the dog by waving or something.

    • dzyre wainwright says:

      With all due respect he was stupid. He only wants the dog alive because the puppies will be 10 grand and she hasn’t bred yet. Why would you even breed an unliscenced dog?! And that’s my cousin and he has known that dog since a puppy. The dog has to be put down by law.

  11. sage says:

    Weren’t rottweilers removed from the dangerous dogs list?I’m surprised the media even reported this case since it didn’t involve a pit bull,the breed the new Minister S.Richards has vowed to eradicate.I hope the youth is alright.Lets try concentrating efforts on responsible ownership and stop blame shifting with breed specific bans.

  12. kieth,n says:

    evil, with no compassion,,thinks with his power, not his heart

    • Seriously says:

      When it is the pit getting blamed everyone says blame the deed not the breed. Here is a deed that is getting the blame and you still aren’t happy!!?? WTF Would you prefer it was your child? Would that make it different, would you then say put it down? SMH!

  13. Nuffin but da Truth says:

    more of Warner’s B/S.

    time this crackpot magistrate was removed!

  14. Dajaun says:

    N pitbulls r bann? Dnt blame the breed

  15. a family member says:

    For all those that have plenty of thoughts on what happen and were not there and to the people that talk like they were there but really were 9 parishs way simply @#$^ off.

    To those that think the punishment for the dog and the owner were to harsh (kiss my @ss)

    This all could have been avoided if the owner really did his part on all accounts. The dog in the end has to be put down no matter what as it attacked a human without command.
    The owner has to pay the fines due to the dog not being licensed, court fees, and the warden.

    …………Dumb A$$es……… or should I just call you the blind eye witness. ……

  16. D B says:

    it’s sad that this happened I feel sorry 4 both the child & the owner & the dog nobody wins . I hope the boy comes through this ok, I still think they should keep big dogs around for the people who would like to protect their property. In that case it should have been some one trying to get in his house.

  17. Rockfish#1and#2 says:

    Again—when will the dog warden stop the Corrections Officer(IN UNIFORM) from exercising his unleashed pitbulls in the CHILDRENS playground next to the Lorraine Rest Home?

  18. Questioneer says:

    For years , the mailman , grannys , mothers , fathers and children have complained and cried about these varied crazy dogs near and successful attacks ! Now someone has done something about the problem and tried to put a stop to certain dogs being on this island period to ensure YOUR SAFETY and now because you want some dog for vanity purposes , this is the price you have to pay !? The question is …. What value do you have for your family ? That dog would not have made it through the night < that little boy will be scarred for life and what will he be thinking of his family now ? Cha ! Does my family value that dog more than me ? It's a real Shame * LOVE right ~ Talk is cheap