• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dog owner responsibility

Should a dog owner be punished?


  • Total voters
    44
I'm not trying to shift blame to the victim. I'm just educating people on what they should do when they encounter a dog that is aggressive. It may help keep them from being attacked. If there is a way to prevent an attack wouldn't you want to know how?

Owning a dog is not like making a decision to drive under the influence of alcohol.

Owning a dog is not like committing arson.

Owning a dog is not like illegally firing a gun into a bar.

I'm not trying to say that owning a dog is exactly driving drunk, arson, or firing a gun into a bar. I'm just educating dog owners that dogs, as loyal as they are, can also be dangerous. And, when you take on the responsibility of putting something potentially dangerous out into the world, the fact that you didn't intend it to harm isn't a sufficient defense to take away your responsbility.

Being drunk in your kitchen is not dangerous to others. A fire in your fireplace is not dangerous to others. A gun under your mattress is not dangerous to others. A dog in your living room is not dangerous to others. Once you take these things out into the world, you may not intend for someone to get hurt, but if they do, you're responsible. Given the correct precautions, there is nothing more tame and useful than fire. But, the larger it is and less care taken, the more dangerous it becomes.
 
You don't seem to read for comprehension, the question was simply; what type of service to pit bulls do? Some dogs are seeing eye, others are alerting, others are fetchers and I'm sure there are more types. So what do pit bulls do as service dogs? What are they suited towards?
 
I'm not trying to say that owning a dog is exactly driving drunk, arson, or firing a gun into a bar. I'm just educating dog owners that dogs, as loyal as they are, can also be dangerous. And, when you take on the responsibility of putting something potentially dangerous out into the world, the fact that you didn't intend it to harm isn't a sufficient defense to take away your responsbility.

Being drunk in your kitchen is not dangerous to others. A fire in your fireplace is not dangerous to others. A gun under your mattress is not dangerous to others. A dog in your living room is not dangerous to others. Once you take these things out into the world, you may not intend for someone to get hurt, but if they do, you're responsible. Given the correct precautions, there is nothing more tame and useful than fire. But, the larger it is and less care taken, the more dangerous it becomes.

I believe in responsible dog ownership. I just realize that sometimes unforseen things happen and people shouldn't have their freedom revoked because of it. They should be held accountable financially or in instances of negligence/abuse, have their right to own animals revoked.
 
You don't seem to read for comprehension, the question was simply; what type of service to pit bulls do? Some dogs are seeing eye, others are alerting, others are fetchers and I'm sure there are more types. So what do pit bulls do as service dogs? What are they suited towards?

Speaking of reading comprehension, my link contained reading material. :lol:

They can do anything.

Pet Pitbull - Positive Press

Pit Bull Service Dogs - The Peanut Butter Sniffing Dog | Pit Bull Dogs Information - Save A Bull

Pit bull saves owner - National Dogs | Examiner.com

I've gotta go, I'll find more if you would like tomorrow.
 
come to my house and you have two options, I'll even let you choose. I can shoot you or I can turn my pitbull loose on you. take your pick
 
come to my house and you have two options, I'll even let you choose. I can shoot you or I can turn my pitbull loose on you. take your pick

Until National Geographic Channel has a Bullet Whisperer program, I'll take the pit bull.
 
I believe in responsible dog ownership. I just realize that sometimes unforseen things happen and people shouldn't have their freedom revoked because of it. They should be held accountable financially or in instances of negligence/abuse, have their right to own animals revoked.
I realize you are probably a great dog owner. And, my point probably would never apply to you or your dog at all - hopefully never. The point being:
But, all punishment should be on the table and distributed justly.
So, if you train your dog well, restrain it correctly, and do the things that a resonsible owner should do - then the "justly" part would mean that you probably wouldn't face jail time. But, if you buy a strong agressive breed, train your dog to attack little things that squeal and move, and don't keep it behind a fence or on a leash - then when it attacks someone, the "justly" part would mean, in my opinion, that you might serve jail time.

Either you're responsible for your dog or you're not. If you are, then whether or not you intentionally harmed someone isn't the only factor when it comes to crime. If you are not, then when your dog leaves your property it no longer becomes your dog- it's just some animal wondering around. I can't hunt squirrel on your property without your permission, but if a squirrel comes in my yard I can trap and kill it. The squirrel isn't your responsibility - it doesn't belong to you. We all know that dogs are different. It's your dog - it belongs to you. You are responsible for it. I am not allowed to take it from you (without process), and hurting it in any way would be damaging to you. But, you can't have it both ways - either it belongs to the owner when it's attacking someone or it doesn't belong to the owner when it leaves the owner's yard.
 
I hate them when I see them walking/running loose when I am on my bike... I hate them when people are walking them unleashed around the park (illegal where I live) and getting in the way where I and others are running... I hate the dogs on the floor below mine that bark during the night... I truly hate and loathe the creatures...

It sounds like you actually hate bad dog owners.
 
come to my house and you have two options, I'll even let you choose. I can shoot you or I can turn my pitbull loose on you. take your pick

Depends. How good of a shot are you and how aggressive is your pitbull? If you are a terrible shot and you have an extremely aggressive pit, I might take my chances with you shooting at me. If you are a halfway decent shot or better, I'll take my chances with the dog, regardless of how aggressive it is.

And If you pit is anything like mine, I don't care how bad of a shot you are, send the dog.
 
First off, this dog was "part pit bull terrier". Funny how they don't mention what the other parts were. The sensationalistic media isn't interested in golden retriever attacks.

Secondly, the worst thing you can do is run from a dog you think may be aggressive. You should stand still. Any movement may trigger the dog's prey drive or be seen as threatening to the dog.

Lastly, unless the dog's owner sent the dog out to attack, they should not serve jail time. I think fines should suffice. No one owns a dog with the intent of the dog killing children.

I agree with everything but the last bit, Thor. If a dog has a history of violence, especially towards humans, the owner should be held liable for it getting out again and committing violence. If it kills a child after having attacked another human, for example, the owner should be charged with a felony offense. Obviously the owner did nothing to prevent an attack despite knowing such an attack was possible.

If there is no history of violence with the dog, I'd agree wholeheartedly with your statement, though.
 
I agree with everything but the last bit, Thor. If a dog has a history of violence, especially towards humans, the owner should be held liable for it getting out again and committing violence. If it kills a child after having attacked another human, for example, the owner should be charged with a felony offense. Obviously the owner did nothing to prevent an attack despite knowing such an attack was possible.

If there is no history of violence with the dog, I'd agree wholeheartedly with your statement, though.

I agree with this. Although, I guess I still question the "history of violence" part. As lovable as dogs are, it could be said that dogs, in general, have a history of violence. If my gun has never hurt anyone and then one day it does, does the history mean I automatically get a pass the first time something happens?

I'm not saying that everytime something happens someone has to go to jail. But if a dog does something that 12 jurors say the owner should've (not just could've) prevented, then the owner should be held responsible. Saying "well, the dog bred to attack and maime never did it before" seems like a weak defense to totally erase all responsibility - it might mitigate it, but it shouldn't elliminate it.
 
I agree with this. Although, I guess I still question the "history of violence" part. As lovable as dogs are, it could be said that dogs, in general, have a history of violence. If my gun has never hurt anyone and then one day it does, does the history mean I automatically get a pass the first time something happens?

I'm not saying that everytime something happens someone has to go to jail. But if a dog does something that 12 jurors say the owner should've (not just could've) prevented, then the owner should be held responsible. Saying "well, the dog bred to attack and maime never did it before" seems like a weak defense to totally erase all responsibility - it might mitigate it, but it shouldn't elliminate it.

I was specifically referring to a history of violence from the individual. Your analogy isn't an accurate one because guns are inanimate objects. If you allowed one person with a history of violence to use your gun and another person with no histpry of violence to use your gun,, it would be a more accurate comparison.
 
What do you have against dogs?

Bit by one as a kid, chased by them on occasion while on my bike, almost had one cause an accident on the bike leg of a half-iron triathlon this spring, dogs in our building bark at all hours, and a friend of mine was attacked by one earlier this year on a LSD run in the mountains...
 
I was specifically referring to a history of violence from the individual. Your analogy isn't an accurate one because guns are inanimate objects. If you allowed one person with a history of violence to use your gun and another person with no histpry of violence to use your gun,, it would be a more accurate comparison.
I realize my comparison's not ideal. But, a comparison of one person with a history of violence who owns a dog and another person with no history of violence who owns a dog would be more like your suggestion.

Lots of things, if taken care of improperly, can lead to unintended damage to others. Whether or not you intend for the damage to occur is not the only consideration for criminal liability. If you're reckless/negligent with your gun, someone can get hurt. If you're reckless/negligent with your dog, someone can get hurt. The gray area is what defines recklessness/negligence with the gun (or automobile or fire, etc.) vs. what what defines recklessness/negligence with a dog. You own a dog - it's yours. You're responsible for it. Reason and justice should be used in any accountability, but there is no reason to take jail off the table just because you didn't command your dog to hurt someone. If you know your dog is capable of violence (definition of a dog), and you know that said violence can result in injury (definition of some dogs), and your dog injures someone, then everything else just amounts to degrees of punishment.
 
I realize my comparison's not ideal. But, a comparison of one person with a history of violence who owns a dog and another person with no history of violence who owns a dog would be more like your suggestion.

Not at all. The comparison is about the degree of negligent ownership. In either instance in each comparison (both dog and gun owner), the owners are being negligent (You don't loan out your gun to people, nor should you allow your dog to escape the yard).

But in both comparisons, there is one owner who is more negligent than the other (the one who's dog has a history of violence, and the one who loans his gun to a peron with a history of violence).

In truth, the comparison I made is an identical comparison, the only difference is that the specific thing being owned negligently is different (and thus, the criteria for negligent ownership change as a result of this).

Lots of things, if taken care of improperly, can lead to unintended damage to others.

Exactly. The issue isn't about negligent ownership in general, it is about the degree of negligence displayed.

...but there is no reason to take jail off the table just because you didn't command your dog to hurt someone.

I never said anything like that. I said the opposite, actually.

If someone commands their dog to attack, they should be charged with murder. That would be identical to shooting someone. The history of violence with the dog would be totally irrelevant in such a case.
 
Last edited:
I agree with everything but the last bit, Thor. If a dog has a history of violence, especially towards humans, the owner should be held liable for it getting out again and committing violence. If it kills a child after having attacked another human, for example, the owner should be charged with a felony offense. Obviously the owner did nothing to prevent an attack despite knowing such an attack was possible.

If there is no history of violence with the dog, I'd agree wholeheartedly with your statement, though.

If the bolded is the case, then I can see supporting it being a criminal offense, but a felony would have to depend on the circumstances. My wife was bit breaking up a dog "fight". Actually, she wasn't bit, a tooth caught her thumb and broke the skin. Some places would see that as committing violence. She's the first to admit that was her own fault. These dogs weren't even our dogs. I don't think the dog should be punished in that situation either. I think that decent people can attempt to be responsible, yet fail due to ignorance. I don't think society needs to be protected from these people by placing them in prison. I think a ownership ban should suffice. Some dogs can surprise you and get loose. A collar can come undone. A leash can break. A child could not properly close a door. But there are people that should be incarcerated for not caring enough to attempt to fix their situation.
 
If the bolded is the case, then I can see supporting it being a criminal offense, but a felony would have to depend on the circumstances. My wife was bit breaking up a dog "fight". Actually, she wasn't bit, a tooth caught her thumb and broke the skin. Some places would see that as committing violence. She's the first to admit that was her own fault. These dogs weren't even our dogs. I don't think the dog should be punished in that situation either. I think that decent people can attempt to be responsible, yet fail due to ignorance. I don't think society needs to be protected from these people by placing them in prison. I think a ownership ban should suffice. Some dogs can surprise you and get loose. A collar can come undone. A leash can break. A child could not properly close a door. But there are people that should be incarcerated for not caring enough to attempt to fix their situation.

The situation you describe with your wife getting essentially scratched by a tooth isn't what I'd consider violence against a human either. I'm thinking more along the lines of the attack I received and mentioned earlier where the dog attacked me with the intent to harm me.

And you provide good examples of non-negligent escapes, but if a dog has displayed the degree of aggressive violence I am talking about (a serious effort to actually attack a human -not one that was trespassing, though- as opposed to an accidental biting/scratching like the one you described), the owner should be taking far more strict precautions that would prevent such escapes.

That being said, I think that more common sense attitudes need to be taken for defining a history of violence, though.

Now, I bolded the ownership ban because that needs to be in place for any person who has a dog that has had multiple attacks (real attacks), regardless of how damaging the attacks are. They don't deserve to own a dog if they let it happen multiple times, IMO.

But if someone dies or is permanently maimed by the second attack, I think it deserves a more severe punishment because a simple ban on pet ownership doesn't punish them enough for their negligence. If someone who is banned from ownership and illegally has a dog that kills someone, they should be treated just like a murderer.

Bad owners deserve to be punished. Ignorant ones can be taught.
 
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?

Case-by-case basis is the onlly thing that makes sense. I'm not sure where you got your information that the all a dog owner will receive is a fine, since the article itself says:

Penalties for an owner or person in control of a dog that attacks or bites any person depend on the seriousness of the attack and whether the dog had been declared to be dangerous before the attack began, according to Victoria Legal Aid.

Here in the US, a dog does not have to have been declared dangerous. Gross negligence or harboring a dog with a biting history is enough to get criminal charges. I could certainly picture a person in the US being charged with negligent homicide depending upon the circumstances of the death. I'm not sure there's really enough information in the article to assume that the dog's owner will simply be fined. And, again, here in the states, there would be a civil suit that would probably award HUGE damages.
 
Bit by one as a kid, chased by them on occasion while on my bike, almost had one cause an accident on the bike leg of a half-iron triathlon this spring, dogs in our building bark at all hours, and a friend of mine was attacked by one earlier this year on a LSD run in the mountains...

I have been bit and chased by dogs while riding bicycles and I do find their bark to be annoying but I still like dogs.
 
I have been bit and chased by dogs while riding bicycles and I do find their bark to be annoying but I still like dogs.

once, while jogging, I was bitten by a border collie. ran out from the owners yard and nipped me on the back of the heel. I stopped and beat the **** out of him. from that day on, every time I jogged by that dog ran and hid under the porch.
 
Dog owners that are care-free about what they'er beast is doing around the neighborhood, should be held accountable. If they'er beast destroys someones property, hurts somebody, craps or pisses in someones property. The owner should be fined for it.
Or, like in some places the beast is captured, and used for hunting as gator or bear bait.
 
Your wrong about dogs not attacking people for nothing Oscar...pit bulls do it all the time in florida...and right behind me a Sheriffs Deputy had her k9 atack dog penned and the dog was recently taken from her for attacking and biting two neighbors and the sheriffs dept having two lawsuits on them.
In fla there are constant reports of unprovoked dog attacks....something has to be done to control DOG OWNERS and make them more responsible for the pets they are responsible for....people shouldnt be afraid to go to their mailbox or walk their pets or ride a bike or walk their neighborhold...

Nothing ever happens FOR NO REASON. There's always a reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom