From what I read of the article, it didn't appear the guy did anything to provoke the dog, but the owner was negligent in controlling the dog and assumed because it had never attacked anyone before it would not do so at that time.

I believe were it me that got bit, I'd be going on a road trip to Seattle soon. Better still, I'd have done him in on the spot, and there'd have been no further question of jurisdiction, or self defense.

I cannot accept that the parents would be that stupid or naive to think that it was okay to take that dog after an attack. I liken that to hit and run.