A criminal conviction requires that they prove more than that they failed to control it. If that were the only thing that was required, then every owner whose dog killed someone would go to jail because clearly they failed to control it.
Unfortunately, the prosecutor also must prove a mental element, usually actual intent to cause injury, or negligence so gross as to suggest actual intent to cause injury. That is where the problem is. The owner says it has never attacked before, or that it has never caused any injury before, etc., and maybe it’s true.
In most cases, there is no actual crime unless you actually make it illegal to own the breed.
You are wrong.
From the link in post #72
The trial judge reduced Knoller's conviction to involuntary manslaughter, saying the defendant hadn't known her 140-pound Presa Canario was likely to kill someone. A state appeals court overruled the judge and said a defendant who knows he or she is subjecting someone to a danger of serious injury can be guilty of murder if the victim dies.On Thursday, the state's high court rejected both the lower-court standards and said Knoller, or any other defendant responsible for unintentional but fatal injuries, can be convicted of murder if they acted with "conscious disregard of the danger to human life.''
It would appear that although the breed is legal, their known dangerous properites would constititute "conscious disregard" I personally hope the b**ch (appropriate pejorative) goes back to jail.