Kim Richards: No Escape from Witch Mountain

[film noire]

Did that happen because Kim is an alcoholic?

Yes. If she were sober (either not using, or not a dry drunk) the dog would never have been returned to her home, but instead given to someone in the rescue community who works with troubled dogs. If she were sober, Kim would put the actual need of others (the dog & anyone potentially endangered by a dog with a bite history like his) above her passing desires. If Kim were sober, she would never have blamed the bites on her niece, instead of on herself for owning a dangerous animal. Could all of this have happened if Kim were a sociopath or narcissist? Sure -- so hooray for KIm -- she's either a viciously selfish dry drunk, a spiritually toxic monster (regardless of the substances let loose in her system) or both. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by film noire

[Higgins]

Yes. If she were sober (either not using, or not a dry drunk) the dog would never have been returned to her home, but instead given to someone in the rescue community who works with troubled dogs. If she were sober, Kim would put the actual need of others (the dog & anyone potentially endangered by a dog with a bite history like his) above her passing desires. If Kim were sober, she would never have blamed the bites on her niece, instead of on herself for owning a dangerous animal. Could all of this have happened if Kim were a sociopath or narcissist? Sure -- so hooray for KIm -- she's either a viciously selfish dry drunk, a spiritually toxic monster (regardless of the substances let loose in her system) or both. 

Didn't Kyle know about the dog's aggression issues? Why did she have her daughter there? Seems to me she has blame too.

[motorcitymom65]

Didn't Kyle know about the dog's aggression issues? Why did she have her daughter there? Seems to me she has blame too.

Blame the victim, or the victim's mom. Whatever. Maybe that is what Kim is going to do at the reunion. "you knew my goddamn dog is a killer-in-training. Why did you allow her to come visit me to begin with"? 

 

Kyle's daughter is 19. She was home from college for the weekend and decided to go visit her aunt. Kyle wasn't with her. 

[quinn]

Hmmm.  Maybe that's the smoking gun.  Alexia attacked Kim and Kingsley was protecting her.  So help me dog, there better be a smoking gun or at the very least a explanation of what Kim meant while pointing her finger at Kyle.

 

So, Kim blaming Alexia has not been substantiated?  I've read it so many times here I just took It for granted that it was probably true.  But now y'all got me thinking about the evil doings of Kim Richards and what exactly is behind them.

 

It is a matter of interpretation, in the statement that Kim released she said that she told Alexia and whomever else was in the house not to go into her bedroom where Kingsley was, Alexia went into the bedroom and Kingley bit her. IIRC Kyle said that Alexia is a dog whisperer type and I assume that Alexia had interacted with Kingley before and she liked him.

Edited March 25, 2015 by quinn

[CaughtOnTape]

Blame the victim, or the victim's mom. Whatever. Maybe that is what Kim is going to do at the reunion. "you knew my goddamn dog is a killer-in-training. Why did you allow her to come visit me to begin with"? 

 

Kyle's daughter is 19. She was home from college for the weekend and decided to go visit her aunt. Kyle wasn't with her. 

 

I'm crying right now.  LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

How the hell did a dog biting her daughter when she wasn't there became Kyle's fault?  WTF?

[Higgins]

Blame the victim, or the victim's mom. Whatever. Maybe that is what Kim is going to do at the reunion. "you knew my goddamn dog is a killer-in-training. Why did you allow her to come visit me to begin with"? 

 

Kyle's daughter is 19. She was home from college for the weekend and decided to go visit her aunt. Kyle wasn't with her. 

The dog had a history, right?  Logic would tell you to do something about your dangerous dog but logic would also tell you to stay away from a dangerous dog. The only thing I can say in Kim's defense is she loves the dog so her logic, although often clouded, was skewed by her love for him. They didn't have that issue and knowing the dog was dangerous, I think they are somewhat responsible too.

[CaughtOnTape]

Does that mean you thought Kyle was wrong to be upset with LisaR over her tweets about Kim?

 

I think I stated that pretty clearly.  Being angry about someone speaking the truth is ridiculous.  I don't care who's doing it.  

Besides, Kyle being upset about something doesn't necessarily mean she's gonna go off screaming about it.  That's Brandi's MO.  If she's upset about it, she can discuss it with Lisa R.  I don't care one way or the other.

The dog had a history, right?  Logic would tell you to do something about your dangerous dog but logic would also tell you to stay away from a dangerous dog. The only thing I can say in Kim's defense is she loves the dog so her logic, although often clouded, was skewed by her love for him. They didn't have that issue and knowing the dog was dangerous, I think they are somewhat responsible too.

 

IMO this is a very very very dangerous viewpoint.  I understand not liking Kyle but to make her responsible for her sister's aggressive dog is ridiculous and reaching.  Not to mention, taking the responsibility away from Kim, who IS to blame for what happened.  Period.

I own a dog who had aggression issues when I got him as a puppy.  He was terrified of other people and other dogs.  I took him to training classes and I socialized him very slowly.  Point here is that I took the time to handle the problem.  I listened to the trainers who told me all it would take was a little TLC and he'd eventually calm down.  He did.  He has hiccups here and there but for the most part now he's fine.  I still do not allow children or other people he doesn't know to approach him when we're out for walks.  And when people are at my house he gets dropped off at my dad's to avoid anything happening.  THAT is how you deal with a dog who has aggression issues.  However, if something goes down and he ends up biting someone?  That is still my fault.

Edited March 25, 2015 by CaughtOnTape

[zoeysmom]

Did that happen because Kim is an alcoholic?

I think it could be argued that Kim did not exercise prudent judgment in continuing to house a vicious dog.  Whether this is due to some type of effect on her brain from years of alcohol use and abuse or just a genetic or fostered sense of entitlement it is viewed as strict liability and would be up to the trier of fact to weigh that as a defense.

Edited March 25, 2015 by zoeysmom

[Higgins]

I'm making her responsible for her actions not for the dog. We can't control others, we can control our actions. If it were my daughter and I knew the dog was dangerous I'd say, don't go over there.

[CaughtOnTape]

I'm making her responsible for her actions not for the dog. We can't control others, we can control our actions. If it were my daughter and I knew the dog was dangerous I'd say, don't go over there.

 

And Kim is responsible for her actions which include not getting rid of a dog after it already bit someone so severely she was sent to the emergency room.

As much as I love my dog, if he does end up biting someone, he's done.  He'll get put to sleep.  

 

Kim is not a responsible dog owner.  Alexia is 19 and allowed to do what she pleases.  

[Higgins]

We already established that. Kim sucks at everything. That doesn't mean that we don't have responsibility for our own safety and we don't have to use reason to guide our choices when we put ourselves in dangerous situations. If one doesn't, they are pretty stupid IMO.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Higgins

[Trooper York]

It remains to be seen how Kim responds to the fact that her vicious dog mauled her niece. If she tries to blame the victim in any way shape or form then she needs to be fired immediately. That dog was a loaded weapon. It had already went off and viciously mauled an elderly woman. Kim begged and pleaded and promised and deflected and did all the nonsense you always does to cover up her screw ups. But this is different. There is no excuse. No explanation. To blame the victim is  not just ludicrous it is offensive.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Trooper York

[shoegal]

We already established that. Kim sucks at everything. That doesn't mean that we don't have responsibility for our own safety and we don't have to use reason to guide our choices when we put ourselves in dangerous situations. If one doesn't, they are pretty stupid IMO.

Well, I'm sure Alexia won't be so stupid as to visit her aunt again!

You know that old saying...once bitten, fuck Kim Richards.

[WireWrap]

Didn't Kyle know about the dog's aggression issues? Why did she have her daughter there? Seems to me she has blame too.

First, Alexia is an adult that comes and goes as she pleases. Second, Kim has control of who she allows into her home, not Kyle. Third, the producers built a kennel outside Kim's house for the dog and Kim should have placed Kingsley in that Kennel but chose not to do so. Fourth, blaming Alexia, or Kyle, is blaming the victim for the actions of a dangerous dog and it's selfish reckless owner and is , IMO, ridiculous.

[LotusFlower]

We are only talking about Kingsley as a vicious attack dog because of the vicious attack. Before that, we saw him as a dog that needed training. It's so unfair to expect Alexia to know that her Aunt's dog was going to maul her hand, let alone blame Alexia's mother for that. Sole responsibility rests with the dog owner. (That's certainly my opinion, but I think it's the legal opinion as well).

[Trooper York]

Mauricio needs to lay down the law and demand that Kyle disengage from Kim. Kim still has the dog right? Are they going to wait until the dog kills Portia? Screw that noise. The attack on their child changes everything. Everything. It's not fun and games and Bravo bullshit anymore.

This dog savaged Alexia's thumb that required two operations. Have you ever damaged your thumb? Nowadays the way these kids text I bet they would rather be blind or something.

[SFoster21]

The dog had already hurt KR right? Took off half her arm before Alexia visited?

[Higgins]

Well, I'm sure Alexia won't be so stupid as to visit her aunt again!

You know that old saying...once bitten, fuck Kim Richards.

 

Hopefully!

We are only talking about Kingsley as a vicious attack dog because of the vicious attack. Before that, we saw him as a dog that needed training. It's so unfair to expect Alexia to know that her Aunt's dog was going to maul her hand, let alone blame Alexia's mother for that. Sole responsibility rests with the dog owner. (That's certainly my opinion, but I think it's the legal opinion as well).

He had attacked before. The law is only applicable after the fact so good judgment goes a long way before the fact.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Higgins

[Avaleigh]

What has Kim put Kyle through?

 

How about the constant worry about whether or not Kim is going to finally take it too far and OD one day? Kyle has definitely talked about how worried she's been for Kim over the years and wondering if a late night phone call was going to be news that something horrible had happened to Kim. I don't think it's at all farfetched that Kim has worried multiple members of her family through her actions and behavior that she could be at risk of OD'ing one day. The Ken period was particularly bad where Kim was driving around without a valid license and clearly under the influence at certain points like during Game Night. (It's still scary that she drove over to Dana's that night in that condition.)

 

Kim constantly has unreasonable expectations of Kyle. She expects for Kyle to cover for her, to defend her, to lie for her, to help her financially, etc. Kim has lied to and about Kyle, she has repeatedly yelled at Kyle, she's accused Kyle of theft and lies, she's accused her of being a bad sister, she fails to defend Kyle (while expecting Kyle to defend her--that's what makes it so frustrating), she's trashed Kyle's husband, she happily befriends a woman who frequently goes out of her way to say horrible things about her sister, etc. Kim hasn't seemed to have the proper concern about Alexia and Kyle wrt Kingsley.

 

Kim is also a regular embarrassment, I don't care if it isn't nice to say so. If I had a sister who was regularly embarrassing me in front of over a million people on a regular basis I feel like that would get old after awhile and I'd want to say something to her about it.

[Higgins]

Why does it have to be black and white? That's not the way life works. There is blame to go around. Many mistakes were made. I never said Kim didn't have responsibility. I said that ultimately, we need to use reason and logic to protect ourselves too because others don't always do so. It's good practice for anyone, anytime.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Higgins

[SFoster21]

Higgins, you repeated my post about changing and said it applied to Kim.

So, although you fault others for calling Kim an "addict,"'a term she has used about herself, you don't believe that her change has occurred? Because she insists that it has. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

[CaughtOnTape]

Why does it have to be black and white? That's not the way life works. There is blame to go around. Many mistakes were made. I never said Kim didn't have responsibility. I said that ultimately, we need to use reason and logic to protect ourselves too because others don't always do so. It's good practice for anyone, anytime.

 

Blaming the victim, unfortunately, is black and white.

The reason I and others are having such a hard time with what you are saying is because based on clips from the reunion Kim IS NOT taking responsibility for what happened.  "You want me to tell the real story about what happened?" implies that Kim is about to blame Alexia for something.  I'm sorry but no.  My kid goes to your house and gets hurt and you wanna blame her?  Nope.  If I were Kyle, that alone would cause me to cut ties.  

 

And with that, I'm done with this roundabout argument.  It's clear you're not about to change your viewpoint and I'm not either.

[Higgins]

Higgins, you repeated my post about changing and said it applied to Kim.

So, although you fault others for calling Kim an "addict,"'a term she has used about herself, you don't believe that her change has occurred? Because she insists that it has. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

No, I don't think she is cured. I fault others for getting in her business to make a storyline for themselves.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Higgins

[shoegal]

How do we know that Kim even told Alexia that Kingsley was in the bedroom and not to go in the room? Kim has proven that her version of events is not always accurate. Hell, she doesn't even know what day she had a conversation with you!

[Higgins]

Why does it matter if Kim takes responsibility? She never does. That has nothing to do with what I am saying.

[shoegal]

Why does it matter if Kim takes responsibility? She never does. That has nothing to do with what I am saying.

I think it matters because that means she is keeping a dangerous and potentially deadly dog.

[LotusFlower]

Why does it have to be black and white? That's not the way life works. There is blame to go around. Many mistakes were made. I never said Kim didn't have responsibility. I said that ultimately, we need to use reason and logic to protect ourselves too because others don't always do so. It's good practice for anyone, anytime.

What reason and logic should Alexia have applied to the situation? She was visiting her aunt, who lives with her cousins and a family dog, who, to her knowledge, was not violent or harmful. She had no knowledge of the previous attack because Kim asked her friend to keep it a secret (sound familiar?). That puts all responsibilty on Kim, as Kingsley's owner and as Alexia's aunt.

[Higgins]

It has no bearing on my post.

She should have applied the logic that the dog was dangerous and to stay away.

We knew the dog was dangerous last season.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Higgins

[LotusFlower]

It has no bearing on my post.

She should have applied the logic that the dog was dangerous and to stay away.

We knew the dog was dangerous last season.

No, we didn't. We knew the dog needed training. More importantly, Alexia had no knowledge the dog bit people. Kim kept this little secret to herself.

[Trooper York]

That dog won't hunt.

 

But he will bite your thumb off. Why hasn't it been put down already? Does it have to kill someone?

[SistaLadybug]

It's the Kingsley situation more than anything that makes me dislike Kim.  Addiction is hell.  I've seen it in person.  I can have compassion for her.  It is no excuse for her behavior, but I can understand what causes someone high/drunk to act like a complete ass.

 

But I don't think Kim's addiction(s) are to blame for her behavior in the wake of Kingsley attacking her friend and Alexia.  I think what we are seeing is her utter selfishness and contempt for anyone who isn't her.  She puts her needs ... actually, her desires, before anyone else's needs, desires, or even life, it seems.  That she would even try to shift blame to Alexia rather than take responsibility for not properly training her dog or re-housing him after biting others is terrible.  There's no way to be nice about that nor should anyone pussyfoot around it.  Kim has had the benefit of 50+ years of people making excuses for her.  "It's not Kimmy's fault."  It's why she can't stand having her LACK of sobriety talked about.  It's why there's always a piss poor excuse when she inconveniences those around her.  It's why she feels entitled to keep that dog, who is, for all intents and purposes, a weapon.  (And I say this as the former owner of the sweetest pitbull you'd ever meet in your life.  God rest his soul.  RIP Keno.)

 

Kim Richards' dog attacked her NIECE.  A young woman Kim supposedly loves.  And rather than crawl in a hole from embarrassment, rather than wail her apologies to the highest heavens, rather than immediately say, "That dog will never set foot in my house again because what I want most is to protect my family and make them comfortable", she says, "Well, she shouldn't have gone in the room with him."  It's an inexcusable thing to say.  Stop making accommodations for someone who is awful.  Kim Richards is a reprehensible human being and she should be ashamed.

[mbaywife123]

I just had a "My Blue Heaven" moment. Please let Kim and Kingsley both assume new identies and get lost but good. She can also take BG with her and claim that she is her "real" sister KooKoo.

[zoeysmom]

Would it not be enabling Kim to start assigning blame to Kyle and Alexia in the Kingsley incident?  I can readily see Kim or Monty saying Kingsley was misunderstood and his next biting victim detrimentally relying on their statements and the dog biting the person.  I just don't think it is fostering family relationships with Kim blaming her niece for the dog bite.  It is one thing to APOLOGIZE for the harm done by your dog and maybe allow some rationalization for the dog's act, it is another to start blaming the victim.  Kyle said on WWHL back in November that she had no desire for her sister to give up the dog.  So there is no need to assign blame.  I am hoping that Alexia is not bringing an action against her aunt.  If she is that might be a reason to blame the victim.

[Higgins]

I think it matters because that means she is keeping a dangerous and potentially deadly dog.

What does it matter to my point?

[shoegal]

What does it matter to my point?

You asked why it mattered. Not why it mattered for your point. I answered why I think it matters.

[Higgins]

Would it not be enabling Kim to start assigning blame to Kyle and Alexia in the Kingsley incident?  I can readily see Kim or Monty saying Kingsley was misunderstood and his next biting victim detrimentally relying on their statements and the dog biting the person.  I just don't think it is fostering family relationships with Kim blaming her niece for the dog bite.  It is one thing to APOLOGIZE for the harm done by your dog and maybe allow some rationalization for the dog's act, it is another to start blaming the victim.  Kyle said on WWHL back in November that she had no desire for her sister to give up the dog.  So there is no need to assign blame.  I am hoping that Alexia is not bringing an action against her aunt.  If she is that might be a reason to blame the victim.

My point has nothing to do with Kim. It has to do with the lack of judgment of coming around a dangerous dog when you know he has attacked. For instance, if you knew a registered sex offender lived down the street, wouldn't you stay away and recommend your young adult "children" to be aware? If you knew your daughters friend's father had an unsecured firearm in the home, wouldn't you suggest it might not be safe to hang around there?

You asked why it mattered. Not why it mattered for your point. I answered why I think it matters.

I asked why it mattered to my position. One does not negate the other. They can both be right.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Higgins

[sistermagpie]

Didn't Kyle know about the dog's aggression issues? Why did she have her daughter there? Seems to me she has blame too.

 

 

That's more, I think, something that applies if Alexia jumped into a polar bear enclosure at a zoo. Going to a family member's house always comes with an assumption of basic safety--even if you know Aunt Kim's had trouble with her dog. Especially since it seems like her reaction to every incident is to cover it up and play it down and above all never follow the advice for what she's supposed to do. When it comes to dealing with somebody's pet dog you just can't, as an owner, expect anybody to have that level of care if they see it as your pet dog. We've seen Kim play with the dog herself. The dog just becomes a familiar thing at the house and people get a false sense of security. Since Kim seems to have gone to lengths to present the dog as okay I doubt she was playing up the danger.

 

Kyle doesn't seem to have much to do with it one way or another since Alexia's 19. If it were Portia who was hurt Kyle would probably be beating herself up for not realizing the danger (and might not ever have taken her there) but she doesn't have that kind of relationship with a 19 year old.

 

And from people I've known to whom this is happened they're often just as upset if people blame them for it--as people do. There's always something the victim did to get the dog's attention but it's often something completely benign.

[Higgins]

Let me clarify......I don't believe there is ever an expectation of automatic safety. I believe we should all use information to make sound decisions about risk not based on what we want or believe or think should be, but what actually is.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Higgins

[Higgins]

You asked why it mattered. Not why it mattered for your point. I answered why I think it matters.

That is not what I meant. I may have been unclear. I mean how does Kim's lack of rationality discount the responsibility of others in matters of their own safety and well being. We know Kim is not rational so, knowing that the dog had attacked an old woman and a trainer, why wouldn't Alexis and her mother be concerned with her having exposure to an unstable dog?

Edited March 26, 2015 by Higgins

[Almost 3000]

The dog had a history, right?  Logic would tell you to do something about your dangerous dog but logic would also tell you to stay away from a dangerous dog. The only thing I can say in Kim's defense is she loves the dog so her logic, although often clouded, was skewed by her love for him. They didn't have that issue and knowing the dog was dangerous, I think they are somewhat responsible too.

Nope, in the state of California if a dog bites someone the owner is responsible. End of story. Now if Kim's vicious domestic tabby had bitten Alexia you might have an argument because the law is different for cats.

[HunterHunted]

Let me clarify......I don't believe there is ever an expectation of automatic safety. I believe we should all use information to make sound decisions about risk not based on what we want or believe or think should be, but what actually is.

Legally that's not correct. It is the homeowner or host's responsibility to ensure their guests safety. They owe them a duty of care. Being negligent in your duty can open you up to liability. And in some cases, courts have ruled against homeowners when their negligence injured trespassers. So Kim telling her very young niece to not go into the room doesn't necessarily absolve her off any responsibility or culpability.

Kim is an ugly ball of narcissistic need. She's incapable of taking responsibility, incapable of being reasonable, incapable of thinking of others or having any empathy. She is a failure. Truly and utterly.

[Higgins]

I'm not talking about legal responsibility, that falls on Kim no doubt. Kim has plenty of blame in the situation. I'm not discounting that.

[shoegal]

It sounds like Alexia had previous exposure to the dog without incident, so why would she expect anything different than her previous experience? What exactly did Kyle or Alexia know about the previous incidents? Did they know the truth (if they knew anything at all) or did they know Kim's downplayed, whitewashed version of events?

There is no doubt that now, Alexia and Kyle know exactly how dangerous the dog is and will keep their distance appropriately. I think Alexia's injuries are probably enough of a lesson for her to learn to protect herself and stay away from her aunt and the dog without needing to be berated by her aunt or anyone else for not taking the proper precautions to keep herself safe from the dangerous dog that her aunt willingly and knowingly exposes to her family and anyone who comes to her home.

Edited March 26, 2015 by shoegal

[zoeysmom]

That is not what I meant. I may have been unclear. I mean how does Kim's lack of rationality discount the responsibility of others in matters of their own safety and well being. We know Kim is not rational so, knowing that the dog had attacked an old woman and a trainer, why wouldn't Alexis and her mother be concerned with her having exposure to an unstable dog?

I got the impression Kim had implored Kyle to treat her like her healthy older sister. To me with that would come the assumption Kim was making healthy and safe choices about her environment.  This all happened seven months after the previous attack and another dog training session.  It is difficult when a family member has a dog that bites. 

[ryebread]

I think Alexia's injuries are probably enough of a lesson for her to learn to protect herself and stay away from her aunt and the dog without needing to be berated by her aunt or anyone else for not taking the proper precautions to keep herself safe from the dangerous dog that her aunt willingly and knowingly exposes to her family and anyone who comes to her home.

 

I didn't see Kim berate Alexia.  I'm assuming the quotes in US Magazine are really from Kim and I didn't see that.  The mag gave us details of what led up to the attack.  Kim gave an explanation of what led up to the attack.  Let's even call it an excuse for the inexcusable.  But I don't see her berating Alexia and no where do I get the impression that she didn't care that Alexia was injured as suggested upthread.  Also, why hasn't this dog been taken from her yet?

 

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star detailed what led up to the attack, explaining that she warned Alexia that her bedroom — where Kingsley was resting — was off limits.

 

"Alexia has been away from college for months and hasn't seen Kingsley in a long time. Kingsley is used to the home being full of children and since the kids have gone away, the house has become quiet," Kim continued. "While the two have been very close and friendly in the past, the dog has become very protective of me in the meantime. When guests are over Kingsley stays in my bedroom and has been given access to a special fenced-in area in my backyard. Anyone entering the house is made aware that the dog should not be bothered."

[shoegal]

I didn't see Kim berate Alexia. I'm assuming the quotes in US Magazine are really from Kim and I didn't see that. The mag gave us details of what led up to the attack. Kim gave an explanation of what led up to the attack. Let's even call it an excuse for the inexcusable. But I don't see her berating Alexia and no where do I get the impression that she didn't care that Alexia was injured as suggested upthread. Also, why hasn't this dog been taken from her yet?

Ok. I think Kim's quoted statement to the press about the incident that was entirely about what Alexia did wrong and not about her violent dog qualifies as berating, especially when they are broadcast to the world while the girl is dealing with her injuries to boot, but if you don't like the word that's cool. I don't want to get hung up on a word a la Kim and her intervention.

Let's go with criticized.

Edited March 26, 2015 by shoegal

[Watermelon]

I didn't see Kim berate Alexia.  I'm assuming the quotes in US Magazine are really from Kim and I didn't see that.  The mag gave us details of what led up to the attack.  Kim gave an explanation of what led up to the attack.  Let's even call it an excuse for the inexcusable.  But I don't see her berating Alexia and no where do I get the impression that she didn't care that Alexia was injured as suggested upthread.  Also, why hasn't this dog been taken from her yet?

I read that quote.  I think Kim is a lying liar who lies. "Kingsley is used to a house full of children" and then she goes on the contradict that statement because Cujo isn't in fact, used to that anymore.  "Anyone" being made aware is not Alexia being made aware. 

 

I could easily believe dizzy ass Kim thought Kingsley was in the outdoor area and totally forgot to warn Alexia, but I don't think Kim told Alexia Kingsley bites and Alexia ignored her because she's the next Cesar Milan.

[breezy424]

The bottom line is that Kim knows she has a dog with a problem -  a huge problem.  She'd rather blame her niece rather than face the fact that she has an uncontrollable dog.  This tells you all about who Kim is.  It's never Kim's fault nor is it her dog's fault.  She won't deal with the problem that is Kingsley because Kingsley can't talk and therefore can't question anything about Kim's behavior and her actions.  Sad, but true.  Kingsley 'is' her best friend.

[Stinamaia]

Kim Richards is not the kind of person who should own a powerful, energetic, and perhaps dominant dog. I've owned a big, powerful, dominant dog,and even though I've been a dog person all my life, she was a challenge for me at first. This has nothing to do with Kim being a good or bad person, but simply how I observed her interacting with the dog on the show. The sad thing to me is that the dog is the one who pays the price for being mishandled by an owner. I was very aware that it was my responsibility to give my dog the guidance and socialization needed to ensure everyone was safe knowing that her life and not mine would be forfeit should she become aggressive. Sometimes the nicest, kindest people in the world just aren't cut out to train this sort of dog. I don't see Kim as a consistent disciplinarian. That's not a character flaw.

[ryebread]

I read that quote.  I think Kim is a lying liar who lies. "Kingsley is used to a house full of children" and then she goes on the contradict that statement because Cujo isn't in fact, used to that anymore.  "Anyone" being made aware is not Alexia being made aware. 

 

I could easily believe dizzy ass Kim thought Kingsley was in the outdoor area and totally forgot to warn Alexia, but I don't think Kim told Alexia Kingsley bites and Alexia ignored her because she's the next Cesar Milan.

I thought she was clear.  The kids used to be there, now they're not.  He's now used to it just being the 2 of them and gets protective when any one else enters the house.  He was like that when the trainer came over even before all the kids left.  But yeah, who knows if she warned Alexia.  Bottom line is, she got bit. 

 

That dog should be gone.  That said, Kim is a lot of things but I don't think her intention was to criticize, berate or blame Alexia.  And that's likely the last time you'll see me defend Kim Richards.