Same here. And if it involved the violence of the former scenario, it would surely have made the news. Probably the leash, in which case there is no indication of viciousness. Wonder why they didn't specify?
There must be a Golden somewhere that has chomped on a kid (no breed is perfect, and some , but talk about being WAY outside the norm. . . .
I think the reason the writer didn't elaborate was because the reasons for the death were outside his train of thought. He used it as an example of excessive affection for animals, thinking that a case involving the death of a child would be the most extreme example. But if no fault is involved on the part of the dog, it's not a good example. A better example would be a dog who had deliberately harmed a child, even if not fatally, and the owners refused to put the dog down. I know I have read in the news about cases like those . . . .
“Probably the leash, in which case there is no indication of viciousness. Wonder why they didn’t specify?”
Propaganda is funny like that.