View Poll Results: Should a dog owner be punished?

Voters
102. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, with jail time.

    32 31.37%
  • Yes, with a fine

    16 15.69%
  • No

    54 52.94%
Page 12 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 356

Thread: Dog owner responsibility

  1. #111
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Dog owner responsibility

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    Over here we've had a recent incident where a dog escaped its yard, broke into the neighbours house and killed a 4 year old. Under current laws all the dog owner receives is a fine, and there's a debate over whether the owner should receive jail time or not. So what do you think, should there be a charge of negligent homicide or something like that for owners who allow their dogs to escape and cause death?
    How did the dog break into a house and get to a 4 year old child?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #112
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,891

    Re: Dog owner responsibility

    The door was open.

  3. #113
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Dog owner responsibility

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    How did the dog break into a house and get to a 4 year old child?
    Isn't the correct question "How did the dog get loose and why what would make the dog vicious enough to attack a human"?
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #114
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Dog owner responsibility

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    The door was open.
    Or window.Maybe it somehow got into the back yard and went through the back door. Who knows.It is not relevant and it does not alleviate the dog's owner of any responsibility.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  5. #115
    User lardbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    10-09-11 @ 03:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    140

    Re: Dog owner responsibility

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkie View Post
    I suppose.

    Seems silly, but okay.
    What it is, is nondiscriminatory. Pitbulls are not especially aggressive dogs and I would rather my freedoms not be restricted by ignorant persons like you because of stupid bastards like the dog owner in the news article.

  6. #116
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,443

    Re: Dog owner responsibility

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I don't hate chihuahuas but they are a difficult breed. If you're lucky enough to get one that's not a nipper, he's sure to be a yapper.

    Pugs are great! But only if you can deal with their stubborness and their food obsession. Be prepared to secure your garbage can. :-)
    We are back to generalizations with the Chihuahuas.

    My friend has 9 of them, and yes they bark like every other dog when the ice cream truck comes by, but they are really no different than other types of dog.

    Keep in mind I think they are rats, but not as cute as real rats, but the dogs live together and they do not exhibit the kind of behavior problems that one would that lives alone and is coddled by the owner.

    The owner creates the problem, it is not inherent in the dog.

  7. #117
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Dog owner responsibility

    Quote Originally Posted by lardbeetle View Post
    What it is, is nondiscriminatory. Pitbulls are not especially aggressive dogs and I would rather my freedoms not be restricted by ignorant persons like you because of stupid bastards like the dog owner in the news article.
    Most people who want these stupid animal bans don't know squat about the animal in the first place and believe all sorts of wives tales about the animal. You would think that if there were going to ban a animal then they would at least do their homework first.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #118
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,590
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Dog owner responsibility

    I'm against breed-banning on principle. I am, however, all for banning individuals who have proven to be piss-poor dog owners from ever owning dogs again... and making them register, just like sex offenders! (I'd put a smilie here, but seriously, I'm not kidding.)

  9. #119
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Dog owner responsibility

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    actually it is. simply because you assume what the final conclusion is.
    No. people make statements and then refuse to take those statements to a logical conclusion. For example, mentioning the open door: here are the logical conclusions to why you brought that up. Either one, you are partially blaming the parents for the attack on their children; or you are absolving the dog owner of responsibility for the attack. The only other possibility is that no one is to blame. All three conclusions are incorrect. And ignorant.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    First of all, the first article gives little info on the attack itself.

    Second, the question was based on that situation but was given as a general question, not just the specific incident.

    In regards to the incident specifically, the dog should most definitely be put down, as it most likely was. There is little doubt now that the dog was too dangerous to be a pet, especially in a neighborhood with children. But it isn't because of the breed or the size of the dog but rather because of this incident. If there were other incidents before this one, not just comments on how aggressive/mean the neighbors think the dog was, but actual violent incidents in the past, then the owner should have taken more precautions to ensure the dog did not get loose.

    Another thing here would involve whether anyone aggravated the dog, especially people near the house where the child was, before the attack. This is a thing anyone wanting to blame the owner for in any pet attack should keep in mind. You can't say the owner should have kept better control over a dog if someone else is aggravating, hitting, or taunting the dog in ways that a reasonable person could assume might cause a dog to attack.

    I have had relatives who had their dog chained on their property, when a couple of neighbor kids went onto the property and were taunting and hitting the dog til the dog bit one of the boys. The dog got put down because of the incident although there is no doubt that he only attacked in defense.

    There is a lot of reasoning that goes into determining what happened. There is the reason behind why a particular dog attacked. Was the dog taught to attack people? Was someone trying to aggravate the dog to attack? If so, who? Then there are questions about what the owner did to prevent the dog from hurting anyone and whether the dog had a history of aggressive behavior. Did the dog escape from the property/owner before? How high was the fence in relation to the dog? What was the fence made of? Was the dog secured behind the fence? What was the dog secured with? Had the dog attacked anyone before? If so, was it provoked/unprovoked, on the person's property/in public/on someone else's property? Is there any evidence to suggest that the owner purposely trained the dog to attack people, especially people who would not normally be viewed as a threat, or small animals (I could see a child being mistaken for a small animal if the dog was trained to hunt more than just specific animals).
    Fair enough. However, the reasons for why the dog became vicious is irrelevant. The owner is still responsible for the dog's actions. If i owned a dog and it killed one of my neighbor's kids, I would accept responsibility for that. And I would kill the dog myself. I would also not be surprised (or upset for that matter) when action was taken against me. My dog. My responsibility. It's that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post

    I would say very, very few dogs are inherently unstable irrespective of breed type. As has been pointed out a true PB should most definitely NOT show aggression to humans. A 'game-bred' Pitbull should show no sign of aggression when his handler has to apply medical attention (usually with next to no anesthetic or pain relief). The trouble with the American Pit bull is actually most are nothing like the original. Its gone away from the true characteristics and has morphed (with many out-crosses) into some grotesque 'big-heavily over muscled' machine.



    As you rightly say education is the key. Many owners buy into a breed not knowing the first thing about 'dogs' let alone breeds that have certain characteristics. I am a firm believer in 'horses for courses'. If you buy a Doberman' its far more inclined to have in its DNA traits conducive to guarding/protecting (not all but most). So to expect this new 8-week old bundle of fun to become a well behaved, obedient dog without the correct training is, in my opinion, to have a weapon with the safety catch broken.

    As an owner of two American Bulldogs both weighing in at around 80pounds i know full well the obligation i am under. Fortunately my dogs not only are family pets/guardians but form an integral part of my hobby. I attend quite a few field trials entering them in activities ranging from 'Weight-pulling' to 'hardest hitting' (which is sleeve work).

    Just thought i'd add a couple of pics





    Paul
    Great post. One of my first dogs was an American Pit. Buddy was one of the best dogs I have ever had, but my parents took up a lot of time with him, and he was well trained. I was my daughter's age when my parents divorced, and I never saw Buddy again. But I still remember riding on his back, while holding on to his ears. He was kind and gentle. And extremely protective. Once, my dad had a friend over, and he put Buddy in the house. The guy harmlessly reached down to pat me on the head, and Buddy came through the window. Luckily my dad was able to control him- only because buddy was well trained. That's where people usually go wrong. They get these large breeds, and don't bother to train them or even spend time with them. IMO, getting a dog and then keeping him chained up in the yard with no human interaction is not only cruel, but it is irresponsible. Dogs need that interaction, and they need to be apart of the family. Also, large breeds need to be highly socialized with children and other pets.

    As I keep saying, it comes down to responsibility. The OWNER's responsibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Or window.Maybe it somehow got into the back yard and went through the back door. Who knows.It is not relevant and it does not alleviate the dog's owner of any responsibility.
    Yes. Exactly!
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  10. #120
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Dog owner responsibility

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    Over here we've had a recent incident where a dog escaped its yard, broke into the neighbours house and killed a 4 year old. Under current laws all the dog owner receives is a fine, and there's a debate over whether the owner should receive jail time or not. So what do you think, should there be a charge of negligent homicide or something like that for owners who allow their dogs to escape and cause death?
    In Victoria, according to a council survey taken about four years ago, there were said to be about 3300 dog attacks reported in one year.
    Obviously there's a lot that lacks in regard to adequate ownership, training and overall keeping and responsibilities (etc) over there. That seems ridiculous and excessive.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

Page 12 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •