• 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
Few people realize that dogs of any type are about one click away of going bug nuts. Even Poodles bite a lot of people.

The more "pure" the blood line the more likely they are to have problems.

I once had two dogs who were half Pit Bulls but they were afraid of their own shadows, and never had a chance to go nuts, before I got rid of them.

I will never have another dog, even though I have had dogs from the time I was 5, and I can't stand cats because they have an attitude.

If you can't control your dog 100% you are responsible for what ever that dog does.

I say hit the owner where it hurts.

Vicious+Poodle.jpg


http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/canine-homicides-the-dog-bite-epidemic-do-not-confuse-them.html

There have been many news reports about deaths caused by dogs in the USA. The attention given to the homicides has put the spotlight on pit bulls and Rottweilers. There is a very good reason for focusing on these two breeds: in recent years, they have usually been the number one and number two canine killers of humans.
 
because the owner is responsible for the dog's actions. At the very least, the owner needs to be charged with negligence.

And you say that you're trying to be logical? Going by your logic here then a parent should be held responsible and charged for negligence for thier child jumping off mid swing on a swing set at school and breaking thier leg in the process despite you telling them not to do so. Accidents happen. You cannot control every single little thing. Sure you can do your best and try and account for everything..but it is impossible to do so.

There are three options to choose from concerning Oscar's original statement about the open door. All three were logical conclusions. But I noticed that no one bothered to address those. If you actually read through the thread instead of making drive by posts, you might have noticed. I don't really care either way. I have grown weary of people's dishonesty.

See, you make an assumption here. One that was already disproved by the very post that you respond to here in your post. Heck, you even bolded it. Don't you think that the sentence you bolded implies that I HAVE read this thread? Don't you think it's kind of odd that I would make such a post without having read the thread? Kind of hard to make such a post if I didn't know what people had talked about in this thread...don't you think?

Also your "logical conclusions" failed to account for the fact that Oscar was not trying to place blame or absolve blame. It was a tangent question that he posed, nothing more. Which is also why your 3 conclusions were and are being ignored.
 
Except poverty, I guess. But if someone's dog kills a four year old, permanently injures another child, and an adult- you're like: oh well. That's not the dog owner's fault. It was beyond his control :roll: Bull ****. If someone's dog kills my kid, I will kill their dog and forcefully feed them its intestines. **** that "it's not his fault" bs.

And you would definitly deserve prison time for such actions.

I don't care if the damn thing was contained for 3 years. It got out. It killed a child. End of story. Case ****ing closed. He is liable.

So i'm sure that you'll accept responsibility for your kid (assuming you have one or will have one eventually of course) if your child plays with a gun and shoots the neighbor kid. After all, you are responsible for your child....
 
And you say that you're trying to be logical? Going by your logic here then a parent should be held responsible and charged for negligence for thier child jumping off mid swing on a swing set at school and breaking thier leg in the process despite you telling them not to do so. Accidents happen. You cannot control every single little thing. Sure you can do your best and try and account for everything..but it is impossible to do so.

That is not even comparable.When the child is at school then the child is in the care of that school not the parent and is not a child running around loose. So anything that happens to the child at school is the responsibility of the school. A child running loose in the neighborhood is the responsibility of the parent and if that child is caught vandalizing any property then it is the parent that pays for that just as a dog running loose around a neighborhood attacks someone then the owner is responsible.
 
That is not even comparable.When the child is at school then the child is in the care of that school not the parent and is not a child running around loose. So anything that happens to the child at school is the responsibility of the school. A child running loose in the neighborhood is the responsibility of the parent and if that child is caught vandalizing any property then it is the parent that pays for that just as a dog running loose around a neighborhood attacks someone then the owner is responsible.

I'm just going by evanescence's logic. According to her the owner (parent) is fully responsible for the dogs (childs) actions for reasons of security and training. IE there is no excuse valid enough for her to not accept that the dog owner (parent) is not always responsible for the actions of the dog (child). That is the comparison that I am making. The child could just as easily have broken his/her leg in the park with the parents right there. Be it by simply running or in a swing set. With this in mind according to evanescence the parent should be jailed for neglect.
 
such as leaving your door open?


not, in any way, trying to absolve the dog owner of responsibility. just sayin....if the house had been secure, the dog would not have been able to just "run in" and attack anyone. I live in the boonies and always make sure the doors and windows are secure, don't want any stray critters getting in.

Seriously? It's their fault that their child died because they left a door open on THEIR property? god damn.

that's not what I said. knee-jerk much?

According to Oscar's statement, because the door was left open, the child was attacked.

You clearly said that if the people had not left their door open, the dog wouldn't have been able to attack. Yeah, so? What's the point of that statement? The dog was on their property, unleashed and out of control. Thus THE OWNER is completely responsible for its actions. Case closed.

you are the one who brought up carelessness. who is to blame is irrelevent. it is careless to leave your dwelling unsecured, for a variety of reasons.

Who is to blame is relevant. Someone has to be responsible for this horrific death.

So you are, in fact, saying that it was the parent's fault for having their door open. And no-who to blame is VERY relevant.

If this isn’t the case, why bring up their so called carelessness in the first place?

Am I careless when I leave my front door opened in order to carry in groceries from the car? What if one of the neighbors Dobermans got loose, ran into my house attacking me or my kids? -is that my fault because I was careless? Let me guess-**** happens. :roll:

no, it was the dog's fault. however, the parent was careless for having their door open so any pet, wild animal, criminal off the street, etc could just walk in. there is a difference

No, it wasn’t the dog’s fault. The dog is an animal, and therefore cannot be at fault for its actions.



also, there is no way of knowing from the info in the article whether or not the dog's owner was careless. you just assume it to be so. you have no idea what measures the owner had taken to secure the dog.

I don’t care if they did everything right up until the very day the dog got loose and killed the child. The owner is still responsible. A little girl died a horrific death. Dogs don’t just bite the jugular. They rip their prey apart. You’re alive when they begin to eat you.

really? how about an adult who is present in a car and a kid falls out because the parent didn't lock the door or ensure the kid was in a child restraint? merely "being there" doesn't mean you are not careless.


they could have been smoking a crack pipe in the back room for all you know.

I can’t believe people approach this type of situation with this sort of reasoning. Not locking a kid into a car seat, or smoking a crack pipe has nothing to do with this situation.

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.

So which is it?

1.) The dog owner is completely innocent, and should face no charges.

2.) The parents are to blame for their carelessness, because after all, they shouldn’t have left their door open.

Or is it:

“ **** happens.”


And you say that you're trying to be logical? Going by your logic here then a parent should be held responsible and charged for negligence for thier child jumping off mid swing on a swing set at school and breaking thier leg in the process despite you telling them not to do so.

What a load of crap. How do those situations even compare? A child jumps off a swing and breaks her leg. A child is ripped to pieces by the neighbor’s dog in her own house.

Don’t compare that nonsense to my logic. It’s not even close.

Accidents happen. You cannot control every single little thing. Sure you can do your best and try and account for everything..but it is impossible to do so.

And people pay for their mistakes. If I accidentally hit someone else’s car, I am not responsible? Of course I am. It may have been completely unintentional. It may have even been beyond my control. There is still fault. And there are still consequences.


See, you make an assumption here. One that was already disproved by the very post that you respond to here in your post. Heck, you even bolded it. Don't you think that the sentence you bolded implies that I HAVE read this thread? Don't you think it's kind of odd that I would make such a post without having read the thread? Kind of hard to make such a post if I didn't know what people had talked about in this thread...don't you think?

No one has disproved a single thing I have said in this thread.

Also your "logical conclusions" failed to account for the fact that Oscar was not trying to place blame or absolve blame. It was a tangent question that he posed, nothing more. Which is also why your 3 conclusions were and are being ignored.

When one claims that someone was being careless, and that carelessness caused the negative result: they are, indeed, placing blame. Try to “semantics” your way out of that one.

And you would definitly deserve prison time for such actions.

I would gladly take prison time. My life would be worthless without them anyhow.


So i'm sure that you'll accept responsibility for your kid (assuming you have one or will have one eventually of course) if your child plays with a gun and shoots the neighbor kid. After all, you are responsible for your child....

Yes, I would. Absolutely.
 
I'm just going by evanescence's logic. According to her the owner (parent) is fully responsible for the dogs (childs) actions for reasons of security and training. IE there is no excuse valid enough for her to not accept that the dog owner (parent) is not always responsible for the actions of the dog (child). That is the comparison that I am making. The child could just as easily have broken his/her leg in the park with the parents right there. Be it by simply running or in a swing set. With this in mind according to evanescence the parent should be jailed for neglect.

Are being willfully illogical? or is this normal for you?
 
Few people realize that dogs of any type are about one click away of going bug nuts. Even Poodles bite a lot of people.

The more "pure" the blood line the more likely they are to have problems.

I once had two dogs who were half Pit Bulls but they were afraid of their own shadows, and never had a chance to go nuts, before I got rid of them.

I will never have another dog, even though I have had dogs from the time I was 5, and I can't stand cats because they have an attitude.

If you can't control your dog 100% you are responsible for what ever that dog does.

I say hit the owner where it hurts.

View attachment 67115854


http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/canine-homicides-the-dog-bite-epidemic-do-not-confuse-them.html

If by one "step" you mean one round of intense torture, then sure. I really, really doubt that my dog may randomly snap one day and attack me. That's ridiculous.
 
Few people realize that dogs of any type are about one click away of going bug nuts. Even Poodles bite a lot of people.

The more "pure" the blood line the more likely they are to have problems.

Pitbulls' jaws make them different, IMO.

I have myself seen grown men kicking at one's jaws, some wearing steel-toed boots, but the dog didn't let go of the calf. When a pit "gets this way," only a bullet will stop it. And generally not just one. I have also seen this for myself.

It's not the dog's fault; it's the breeding. Members of my family own them, and every pit I've known personally, I've loved. They can be wonderful dogs. But they are what they are. And there is a reason why in my town, most landlords won't even rent to pitbull owners.
 
According to Oscar's statement, because the door was left open, the child was attacked. .

simple question, yes or no: If the door had been closed would the dog have gotten into the house?
 
simple question, yes or no: If the door had been closed would the dog have gotten into the house?



If two men rushed into a house and robed ,rapped and killed the home owner/tenant. Does it matter if the home owner's door was open,door was not locked or simply did not have bars around the window? Do any of these factors lessen the punishment of these two men? Doe the jury or judge say oh the defendants are innocent by reason of the fact the home owner/tenant's door was open or they only get a slap on the wrist or only community service because the door was not locked or because there were no bars one the windows and doors? Whether or not he door was open or closed is irrelevant. This does not change the fact that the dog's owner is still responsible because dogs are not supposed to be allowed to roam the neighborhoods.
 
Last edited:
If two men rushed into a house and robed ,rapped and killed the home owner/tenant. Does it matter if the home owner's door was open,door was not locked or simply did not have bars around the window? Do any of these factors lessen the punishment of these two men? Doe the jury or judge say oh the defendants are innocent by reason of the fact the home owner/tenant's door was open or they only get a slap on the wrist or only community service because the door was not locked or because there were no bars one the windows and doors? Whether or not he door was open or closed is irrelevant. This does not change the fact that the dog's owner is still responsible because dogs are not supposed to be allowed to roam the neighborhoods.

yes or no.



a closed door will not stop robbers or rapists(who possess opposable thumbs), it will stop a dog.
 
Last edited:
simple question, yes or no: If the door had been closed would the dog have gotten into the house?

:roll: So if I'm carrying groceries into my house, and my door is left open during that process, I am at fault for a dog running into my open door and attacking my kids. That is truly illogical and ignorant. I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word.
 
:roll: So if I'm carrying groceries into my house, and my door is left open during that process, I am at fault for a dog running into my open door and attacking my kids. That is truly illogical and ignorant. I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word.

who said anyone was at fault? I just asked a simple question. one you refused to answer...which, of course, is answer enough.
 
yes or no.



a closed door will not stop robbers or rapists(who possess opposable thumbs), it will stop a dog.

Yes a closed door will stop a dog assuming the door is strong enough and there are no open windows.However that is not relevant. A secured dog will not harm anyone outside its yard. A dog period is not supposed to be allowed to run loose period. A homeowner/tenant is free to leave their front door,back door and or window open. The fact a home owner or tenant has these open is irrelevant to the fact a dog owner allowed their dog to run loose and that dog killed a human being. We do not go oh the woman shouldn't have been going to her car late at night so we only give a slap on the wrist to the rapist. Or bob shouldn't have answered his do so we only give slap on the wrist to the people that murdered him,raped his wife and daughter and ransacked the house. We do not say oh the bank should not have had money in it so we only give slap on the wrist to the bank robber. In other words we do not blame the victim for the criminal's behavior. Now if the mother tossed her child into the yard that had a dog in it and that dog killed the child then yes it would be the fault of the parent and as such the parent should be thrown in prison and executed for murder assuming the parent knew that the dog was in the yard.
 
Last edited:
I don't favor an outright ban. Just strict liability for the owner. If your dog is leashed in the yard and taunted by kids, where are YOU?

I think owning an animal large and powerful enough to kill a human carries with it some responsibility.

If your kids are taunting a leashed dog, where are YOU?

I think raising a child carries with it some responsibility.
 
Yes a closed door will stop a dog assuming the door is strong enough and there are no open windows.However that is not relevant. A secured dog will not harm anyone outside its yard. A dog period is not supposed to be allowed to run loose period. A homeowner/tenant is free to leave their front door,back door and or window open. The fact a home owner or tenant has these open is irrelevant to the fact a dog owner allowed their dog to run loose and that dog killed a human being. We do not go oh the woman shouldn't have been going to her car late at night so we only give a slap on the wrist to the rapist. Or bob shouldn't have answered his do so we only give slap on the wrist to the people that murdered him,raped his wife and daughter and ransacked the house. We do not say oh the bank should not have had money in it so we only give slap on the wrist to the bank robber. In other words we do not blame the victim for the criminal's behavior. Now if the mother tossed her child into the yard that had a dog in it and that dog killed the child then yes it would be the fault of the parent and as such the parent should be thrown in prison and executed for murder assuming the parent knew that the dog was in the yard.
all well and good EXCEPT for the fact that neither dog nor owner is a criminal. your analogies are therefore interesting, yet invalid. :shrug:
 
Details are sparse it seems, but generally speaking I'd say as long as the owner took reasonable precautions to keep the dog from getting loose, he isn't responsible. If neighbors haven't even laid eyes on the dog in 3 years, I have a feeling the owner was taking reasonable steps to keep the dog from getting loose. If the dog was constantly seen roaming free due to inadaquete efforts to contain it or the owners had abused it in some way to make it aggressive towards humans, then then criminal and civil charges are completely called for. Otherwise its just a tragic accident. Sometimes those happen even when all parties involved took reasonable precautions.

And breed bans are just flat out ridiculous. Well bred and well trained dogs of any breed are not a threat to people. Poor breeding and/or poor training/treatment is what leads to dangerous dogs. The responsibility lies with the individual breeder and owner, not with a breed as a whole.
 
all well and good EXCEPT for the fact that neither dog nor owner is a criminal. your analogies are therefore interesting, yet invalid. :shrug:

A dog is the soul responsibility of its owner.It is the dog owner's duty to make sure that dog is properly secured. If the dog damages property the dog owner pays. If the dog harms a human being the owner pays for the medical bills. If the dog kills a human being then the dog owner pays for it especially if the dog owner allowed the dog to run loose or was negligent in making sure his or her dog was properly secured.
 
a closed door will not stop robbers or rapists(who possess opposable thumbs), it will stop a dog.

Actually, that's not entirely true. My dog opens doors all the time. She uses both paws to twist the knob if it's a round knob, but if it's a handle she pops it open by just hooking her paw in it.

I actually have to buy door locks that won't open from the inside if they are locked and keep my doors locked at all times. If someone doesn't have their door locked, my dog could get into their house even if they closed their door.

Just sayin'.

My dog is part pit, BTW.
 
I didn't answer the poll because I feel it depends on whether the owner took reasonable measures to keep his dog under control. If it was a well constructed high fence without obvious escape routes as is typical of most dog owners, the dog had no history of violence, and the dog wasn't considered a dangerous breed illegal to own or requires special precautions by law that weren't taken (like pitbulls in many areas), I think a fine and payment of related costs would be reasonable.
 
I didn't answer the poll because I feel it depends on whether the owner took reasonable measures to keep his dog under control. If it was a well constructed high fence without obvious escape routes as is typical of most dog owners, the dog had no history of violence, and the dog wasn't considered a dangerous breed illegal to own or requires special precautions by law that weren't taken (like pitbulls in many areas), I think a fine and payment of related costs would be reasonable.

apparently some people think that simply because the dog was a pit, the owner should rot in prison forever. :roll: nevermind the FACT that the dog was so well contained that the neighbors had never even seen the dog in 3 years.
 
Actually, I didn't read beyond the original post and didn't notice if the dog was a pitbull or not. But yeah, if it's illegal to own a pitbull, or ownership of the dog legally requires certain precautions that weren't taken, then yes, the owner should go to prison.
 
apparently some people think that simply because the dog was a pit, the owner should rot in prison forever. :roll: nevermind the FACT that the dog was so well contained that the neighbors had never even seen the dog in 3 years.

The dog was well contained? I don't care if the fence is 20 foot high and sits on a concrete footing, bottom line the dog was not on it's owners property and was not controlled on a leash, it does not matter if it was a pit bull a rotte or lassie dogs are not responsible for thier actions their owners are and should be held responsible for the actions of thier dog this is man sluaghter and should be treated as such
 
The dog was well contained? I don't care if the fence is 20 foot high and sits on a concrete footing, bottom line the dog was not on it's owners property and was not controlled on a leash, it does not matter if it was a pit bull a rotte or lassie dogs are not responsible for thier actions their owners are and should be held responsible for the actions of thier dog this is man sluaghter and should be treated as such

so even though the owner may have done everything within his power to keep the dog on his property, he should spend 20 years in prison because the dog escaped?

there is more to this story than meets the eye. dogs, even trained attack dogs, don't just attack people for no reason. someone/something triggered this attack.
 
Back
Top Bottom