Father Shoots Dog that Mauled Daughter, Charged With Animal Cruelty

A father faces multiple charges after fatally shooting the dog that viciously attacked his 4-year-old daughter last Saturday, reports local media.

Nevaldo Ford was inside his grandmother’s Phoenix, Arizona, home when he heard the blood-curdling screams of his daughter Zaynah. Ford ran outside to find his dog, a pit bull named Tobin, latched onto the child’s head.

“My baby is bleeding, I can’t even see her face, I don’t know where all the blood is coming from, I just see a big hole in her head … I pulled him off my daughter; I threw him, as soon as I threw him I grabbed my daughter and ran inside,” said Ford.

Ford called 911 and while waiting for ambulance grabbed his grandmother’s rifle and walked back outside, shooting the dog four times while it was inside its kennel.

“I didn’t even know him at that point. He wasn’t the dog I raised,” said Ford. “I just knew he was going to attack someone else.”

But Ford has been previously convicted of identity theft, a felony, and is not permitted to own or have access to firearms. When the police arrived, they arrested Ford and charged him with animal cruelty, endangerment, felony possession of a weapon by a prohibited person, assault by a vicious animal and discharging a firearm within city limits.

Nevaldo survived the attack but suffered serious injuries, including a punctured skull and doctors say she will be permanently disfigured.

“No matter who shows up, the ending result is still gonna be this: A dog attacks a child, you think he’s gonna live?” asked Ford.

What are your thoughts on this case? Was he right to shoot the dog even though he was a prohibited person?

(This article was written by freelance writer Brent Rogers)

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 18 comments… add one }
  • Mike September 13, 2016, 6:22 pm

    As the dad of the victim and owner of the dog he was the most responsible person to get aid for his daughter and put the dog down. His conviction for a non violent crime and subsequent loss of 2A right only points up how stupid our lawmakers and judiciary are, but then brains are not a qualification for elected office, charisma seems to be the major qualification. I’m unconcerned with how he dispatched the dog, only that his actions were appropriate for the circumstances.

    • e March 3, 2018, 3:36 pm

      Extenuating circumstances! There needs to be a distinction between violent felonies and non violent felonies. If I write a check in someone else’s name, its not the same as I want to maliciously harm someone physically. Not saying that a heavy sentence shouldn’t be part of non violent crime, but perhaps the ability to get ones rights back for certain felons. When an individual can show they really have changed. A person who sold a baggy of marijuana in a college dorm or a late teen that has a fist fight with his father. Isn’t always a threat for life. 10, 20, 30, 40 years later and no more violations not even a speeding ticket and he still isn’t able to defend his family? Just an example that I’m sure happens all the time. Not to mention this individual may live in a lower class neighborhood because of the damage a felony puts on your future job opportunities. This should be without the high cost of a lawyer, just some paperwork, an extensive back round check, and perhaps a small court cost fee. Not all felonies are equal the punishment shouldn’t be either.
      I’m not saying this guy fits my criteria, but this doesn’t sound that over the top to me. Plead! “temporary clarity from political correctness.”

  • Jack September 13, 2016, 5:41 pm

    Identity theives should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Pit bulls are extremley dangerous animals because of their strength and their unpredictability, which unfortunately has been proven once again. This man has had some tough lessons. Lets hope he learned something.

  • Nolan July 29, 2016, 6:02 pm

    The man should not have been a prohibited person. Identify theft, however I might not like it, is not a violent crime. As far as I am concerned only violet criminals should be prohibited their second amendment rights. And if a dog, an dog, even my own, attacks someone, specially my child, you better believe that I am going to insert some lead in him!

  • Yoder July 17, 2016, 10:11 am

    Totally appropriate all around. Dog needed to be taken down, and this man saved the city a lot of resources in doing it old-school. The felony-ban on firearms is also appropriate (I don’t know where else to draw the line on firearms; somewhere between never-done-wrong and prior-murder-conviction). This is a case that will be left up to our legal system, and that’s why I vote. Those in the criminal justice system will have to have a talk about how appropriately this gentleman acted. Hopefully the judge will throw it out if it gets that far.

  • DL August 10, 2015, 11:41 am

    A man enters his home to find a scum-bag intruder assaulting his family, a fight ensues and the bad-guy drops his gun. Homeowner gets the gun and kills the bad-guy, police show up and arrest the homeowner becasue of a prior (long time ago) felony conviction. This carries mandatory prison time, this is BS, there must be an acception to every rule. I’m not saying this is that exception but I have never agreed with the lifetime ban on individual rights that follow a felony conviction, in the first place.

    • Ron August 3, 2016, 10:56 am

      It isn’t a lifetime ban. You can go court and have the ban lifted.

      • Bill in Lexington, NC January 12, 2018, 10:24 am

        In my opinion, the ban on voting and firearm ownership should come with a definite ending date as part of the original sentencing and should be set as discrete dates not affected by parole, etc. and not requiring a separate petition. If a weapon was used in the crime being sentenced for, then that right should be specifically forbidden until the person has turned 65 (and is presumed a likely victim too feeble to mount an unarmed defense.)

        Making someone petition for restoration of their rights is an unjust extension of the original sentence because it continues an air of uncertainty about their future and continues to place their rights to citizenship in the hands of another. It also requires payment for the exercise of a right and that contradicts the very notion of a “right”.

        A felon should know, as they walk into prison, that their rights will be restored on a particular date if there is no additional conviction. There should be an end to the tunnel.

        • ron March 2, 2018, 7:02 am

          How about the asshole think about the consequences for committing a felony and then live with the results.

          • e March 3, 2018, 4:26 pm

            Think it that easy, you just solved the worlds problems… I’m not a felon and don’t condone, but come on!? You really think every single Felon is a danger for life? We as a gun community want reasonable restrictions. Not everyone that made a bad choice is a bad person for life. Not every gun is a scary weapon of ultimate death and destruction. I’m not even talking about this specific individual and I don’t think you are either. I’ve been hacked 3 times and lost a lot of money. I don’t appreciate it nor condone it. I also don’t think whomever did it shouldn’t be able to legally defend their family’s lives once they are returned to society and have proved they are rehabilitated. Never giving someone hope for a normal future and something to strive for is a mistake. The persons I’m talking about are first timers or have maybe a couple non violent issues. Not life long criminals.

  • Gary August 10, 2015, 10:15 am

    He should have been arrested for endangering the welfare of a child. And the weapon discharge.
    What’s the difference if he shoots the dog, or he pays to have it put to sleep? Either way, dead dog. (Which was his PROPERTY by the way.) That is what makes him responsible for what the animal does.
    But let’s face it, any FATHER or mother here for that matter would have done the same thing. I KNOW mine would have.
    ANY professional dog trainer will tell you to NEVER leave a small child alone with ANY dog. No matter how long you have owned it.

    • Bill in Lexington, NC January 12, 2018, 11:00 am

      1) Grandma owned the dog and the kennel. Her dog, her kennel, her responsibility.
      2) Great grandma said nothing about the dog being able to leave the kennel at will (if she even knew).
      3) Dad allowed his daughter to play in the yard … dog was in the kennel at the time and should have posed no risk.
      4) Granny was supposed to have her firearms locked up when she knew that her felon grandson was coming to visit. <<— this is a chargeable offense which the police ignored.
      5) the dog retreated to the kennel when disciplined.
      6) Dad shot the dog in anger — that's where he made HIS mistake — because his whole focus should have been on getting his child to the emergency room ASAP, if not before. Possibly he ran outside and shot the dog while waiting for EMS to show up.
      7) Frankly, I think the cops should have turned their heads and looked the other way. Seriously … except that granny should have been cited about the dog and the kennel, this breach of the law should have been ignored and Granny told, in no uncertain terms, to get that firearm locked up.

      I see that what I am writing contradicts what a lot of people have said. I do not believe that they have used good sense, so I am comfortable with contradicting them.

      They write as if the dog belonged to the man. It did not.
      They write as if he carelessly let his child play where a large dog was roaming free. It would appear that the dog was kenneled at the time the child was first placed in the yard.
      They write as if it were somehow his fault that the dog escaped the kennel. Not his dog, not his kennel and he had no reason not to trust the kennel to contain the dog.

      They act as if the letter of the law is the more important thing and the lack of a sense of justice was little more than collateral damage. It is not.

      This guy picked up a firearm … but he lacked felonious intent. I doubt if he even realized, in the commotion of the moment, that he was violating the law. All he was doing was killing a dangerous dog which had escaped the kennel once already and tried to kill his daughter.

  • For the love of all that is reasonable July 24, 2015, 5:33 pm

    Dog attacks child . . .
    Dog dies . . .
    No questions . . .
    Any who say otherwise hate children

  • momoflittleones July 1, 2015, 12:30 pm

    He was right in shooting the socalled puppy. However, he should not have kept such a potentially lethal dog, and kept it loose to boot. This is what justifies arresting him.

  • Lying Bastard June 22, 2015, 8:07 am

    Don’t they shoot lions that “tasted human flesh”?

  • John June 20, 2015, 8:41 am

    No, he was wrong to shoot that poor animal that mauled the vicious four year old. Instead, he should have skinned the dog alive and made a coat for his daughter to wear. I think he was right, sure, the cops were right to cite him for the possession, but could have likely let the discharge and animal cruelty BS slide.

    • OldMan June 24, 2015, 6:55 am

      He was Right YOU ARE WRONG…………… To shoot his dog was ..imo The appropriate action. Skinning Alive”””??? You have to be kidding right? If not ..YOU NEED SOME PSYCHIATRIC HELP SIR. There is NO need to be cruel. Unless your a sadistic $hit that takes pleasure in such perversion.

    • Lui August 10, 2015, 4:59 am

      Kinda stupid to be waiting around for the cops to find him in possession of a firearm, He someone else could a took the blame. Then all you would have left is the animal cruelty charge. But probably use another method to kill the dog.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend