The most notable portion of the meeting focused on the testimonies regarding Milo, a rescue dog with a history of severe physical trauma, including a missing jaw segment and chipped teeth. Multiple witnesses, including a friend of the dog’s owner, described Milo as consistently non-aggressive towards humans. The owner detailed Milo’s medical history, explaining that the dog had been shot in the face, resulting in significant dental and jaw damage. This history was used to argue that Milo’s physical condition made it unlikely for him to inflict intentional harm.

The city attorney presented the case under the dangerous dog ordinance, emphasizing that the legal definition hinges on severe injury, which was reportedly supported by the victim’s need for stitches. The city argued that the law does not consider the dog’s physical condition or intent in determining dangerousness. However, the magistrate questioned the lack of direct testimony from the victim and considered the dog’s physical limitations relevant to the assessment of the incident.

Ultimately, the magistrate ruled against declaring Milo a dangerous dog, citing the consistent testimonies of his non-aggressive behavior and the context of the incident. The ruling included a cautionary note for the dog’s owners to ensure Milo is not put in situations that might provoke unintended reactions due to his physical challenges. The magistrate acknowledged the city’s duty to protect public safety but found the evidence insufficient for a dangerous dog declaration.