Who me? I didn't do it!
Posted on 05/19/2003 6:26:01 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
And thanks for the lesson. One of our guys had to use his .45 to get a pit bull off of a girl. A neighbor tried to hit it over the head with a steel bar or baseball bat but that didn't work. The .45 did the trick. I don't recall where he placed the muzzle.
It burns me up when our dog warden takes these dogs from irresponsible owners and a day or two later they get them back. It's not long before they are running at large again.
Further, "bad people" are also likely to raise them improperly, conditioning them toward violence. "Pit Bulls" are Staffordshire Terriers, and suffer a very bad rap from the many irresponsible practices of some owners. A properly reared and trained Staffordshire is a fine companion and guard dog. One mis- or mal-treated dog, however, can be very anti-social to the extreme, as witnessed by this story - and the many that go unreported.
Michael
They all get the needle. Kind of sad.
Drive down any residential street in Detroit and that pit bull in the yard will be the LEAST of your worries. Inner-city Detroit is not far removed from Manhattan in "Escape From New York."
Michael
What was the dog doing in the hospital in first place????
I stopped counting the wineo's on the drive to get back to the freeway.
Labs and Goldens by far the most popular dogs in America, but we NEVER hear about this sort of thing happening with them. Gee, I wonder why? Are ALL the owners of those breeds of dogs responsible? Hardly. But the dogs themselves are far superior breeds [than Pits] for just about everything but dogfighting.
My 7-yr-old Golden "Andi" was the star of an impromptu party in a neighbors yard yesterday as she frolicked with a gaggle of kids aged 3-8. There's nothing like a Golden - once you've lived with one, you'll never be without a Golden Retriever again. Andi's nickname is Velcro, because she's with me pretty much 24/7 and wants it that way.
Michael
You don't know what the little girl may have done to the dog. My neighbor has a dog fenced into his front yard. Every school day the same little gang of hoodlums comes by and teases the dog unmercifully.
This could explain why the owner claimed the dog was not aggressive. And maybe the dog was not aggressive unless provoked.
Then again pit bulls should be banned. I have noticed so many little gangsters with pit bulls lately.
The counter-arrgument is that the breed alone is notice enough, since it has that reputation. IIRC, some jurisdictions have followed this line of reasoning and others haven't... not surprising when you read the thoughtful and reasonable (on both sides) FR threads on the topic. The pit owners and dog-lovers defend them, and many others despise them. There's no reason for thinking and reasoning judges to be any different.
Who me? I didn't do it!
Gosh I never heard of that < /sarcasm> Stupid law. Do I get one free assault? no. Do I get one free robbery? no. Why should a dog owner be allowed to have an animal that gets one free bite? Or supposing that the owner has a couple of dogs. Does each dog get one gree bite? Furthermore how do you know the dog hasn't bitten someone before. Is there a tattoo on the dog? no. Are records kept? no. It only makes sense that if a dog attacks someone that the dog be terminated asap.
Others may not have. I hadn't before this past semester. Personally, I enjoy sharing what I learn in Law School here. I hope others don't find it too annoying.
Do I get one free assault? no. Do I get one free robbery? no. Why should a dog owner be allowed to have an animal that gets one free bite?
Because the owner may not know that there is any danger from the animal. The law doesn't like to punish those who do not have the requisite criminal mental state (called means rea). Since any dog can bite and injure (recall the Great Danes who hurt (killed?) the SF woman in the apartment hallway), but the overwhelming majority do not, it seems only fair to give the owner a chance to find out if that individual dog might bite (unprovoked, of course) before holding them accountable for owning a dangerous animal. (Non-domesticated animals are assumed to be dangerous, and get no such freebie. The owner is held accountable immediately.) The alternative, making all dog ownership illegal due to the (very slight) danger, is not feasible.
Or supposing that the owner has a couple of dogs. Does each dog get one gree bite?
Yes. The owner shouldn't assume that all dogs are biters just because one does. I've had two+ dogs at many times in my life. If one does bite, that does not mean that I should assume that the other will as well.
Furthermore how do you know the dog hasn't bitten someone before? Is there a tattoo on the dog? no. Are records kept? no.
Records are kept. Police reports, court proceedings, hospital records, etc. all verify testimony to that effect. However, the important thing isn't that the victim or neighbors know of previous bites, only that the owner knows. Again, the issue I'm talking about is whether to hold the owner liable for the damage caused by an individual dog. When a dog has bitten before, the owner has sufficient notice that they should take greater care to insure the safety of others. Otherwise, they have a much smaller duty of care, and won't be found to have breached that duty for a dog that hasn't shown any propensity to unprovoked biting before. (The differences in Tort law regarding the duty of care owed to trespasser, licensees, and invitees follow similar reasoning.)
It wouldn't surprise me, however, for local poiticians to score major points by mandating a database of dogs who have bitten before, similar to the Megan's Law public listing of child-molesters. However, if a dog does attack, I doubt there'd be a single person within numerous blocks that would not aware of it within a few days. Word travels fast for things like that.
It only makes sense that if a dog attacks someone that the dog be terminated asap.
Now we're on to how we will hold the individual canine accountable. That's different, and I'm sure every jurisdiction has different bechmarks for when a dog should be destroyed. I would assume that the main factors would include whether it has bitten before, if the attacks were provoked, and possibly even if the dog might be rehabitable.
Except of course for law abiding gun owners who are assumed to be criminals for daring to own guns.
Since any dog can bite and injure (recall the Great Danes who hurt (killed?) the SF woman in the apartment hallway), but the overwhelming majority do not, it seems only fair to give the owner a chance to find out if that individual dog might bite (unprovoked, of course) before holding them accountable for owning a dangerous animal.
It seems only fair that the owner be held responsible for any dog that does bite, since as you pointed out, most of them don't. I don't advocate wholesale elimination of dogs, but rather the elimination of dogs that bite people. I don't beleve that dogs should get one free bite. This policy values a dog over the person who was bitten I read somewhere that one of the most common ER admission is dog bite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.