[from occupied ga]

The problem is that a jury won’t convict an owner usually for this kind of thing, and also, in many cases the owner really did have little warning that the animal was dangerous. I

They won't convict if the owner is never charged which seems to be the pattern. They should be charged and brought to trial every time. If they get off, then they get off, but I suspect that someone whoe dogs mauled a person and was facing 5 years in prison even if he/she wasn't found guilty would think twice about owning that sort of dog again, and it might just put a damper on other vicious dog lovers as well

Read the link to the pdf file about how pit bulls are far and away the worst about injuries. I would think that just the fact of ownership of a pit bull would be enough to legally say that the owner knew the dog was dangerous.

[Brilliant]

Nah, I don’t think so. The problem is that despite all the chatter about it not being the dog’s fault, but rather the owner’s fault, you really can’t convince a jury of that.

And any smart lawyer is just going to point out that yorkies and labs don’t often kill, so that it must be the breed’s fault. And it’s not illegal to own the breed, so if that is the only thing the owner did wrong, how can he be convicted?

[CommerceComet]

I would think that just the fact of ownership of a pit bull would be enough to legally say that the owner knew the dog was dangerous.

I agree. I also think that this is enough to require all owners of pit bulls to obtain liability insurance in case their dogs do some damage.