Poor dog mauls boy, please don't kill it :(

[H4run]

I think we agree the real problem is with bad dog owners.

And the solution seems quite simple. Make pet owners criminally responsible for any violent act just as though they did it themselves.

how can we materialize that to become an action? make a petition maybe can be good. Or agitate the animal lover organization to do so? my sister is a former animal lover activist but I think if the movement coming from the west the issue can easily becoming more international. I mean I really want to see there are some regulation regarding this.

I really satisfy that there is a law regarding animal cruelty, Indonesia for example, just recently an idiot who for fun killing cats and post the picture in facebook now already jailed as far as I can follow. If there is another law that regulated pet owner responsibility to the pets, that will be splendid.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think we agree the real problem is with bad dog owners.

And the solution seems quite simple. Make pet owners criminally responsible for any violent act just as though they did it themselves.

Part one doesn't carry through the conclusion you reach in part two. Particularly the "just as though they did it themselves" bit. If you kill a child by biting them(assuming the insanity defense doesn't hold) I'm pretty sure you are all the way up on murder charges. Our system builds in mens rea for a reason. We don't need more strict liability BS for major crimes in our system.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think opposite is clearly true. Far too many people buy dogs with the specific goal of turning them into potential killers. So if they do end up doing so, the owner should be held criminally responsible for that death.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think opposite is clearly true. Far too many people guy dogs with the specific goal of turning them into potential killers. So if they do end up doing so, the owner should be held criminally responsible for that death.

Still doesn't matter. You can build a trebuchet to launch 50lb pumpkins in your backyard but should a toddler launch themselves two blocks and die while you aren't watching it you still are not guilty just as if you launched them intentionally yourself. We really do not need more strict liability BS.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only it clearly isn't "strict" in the least in regard to criminal liability. Take this particular case, for instance. This owner should be facing a very lengthy prison term, instead of simply deciding that he no longer really wants an animal quite capable of killing chained to his property any longer.

 

[Farm Boy]

Only it clearly isn't "strict" in the least in regard to criminal liability. Take this particular case, for instance. This owner should be facing a very lengthy prison term, instead of simply deciding that he no longer really wants an animal quite capable of killing chained to his property any longer.

I know what it isn't. My example is taking issue with your previous assertion that owners of animals should be guilty of criminal actions just as if they acted as their animal did. I at no point said there should be no liability, be it civil or even perhaps criminal. But the scale of that liability is something upon which I probably do not agree with you.

 

[Mouthwash]

Dogs are not legally culpable for their actions. I don't see why that's a difficult concept.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I don't think there should be strict liability, but if you train your dog (any breed) to be violent, you should be responsible.

 

[bhsup]

Why is everyone here, when talking about legal responsibility, not talking about the legal responsibility of theSTUPID AND I MEAN BEYOND STUPID parents who taught their kid that it was cool to take a bone from a dog's mouth (which is basically what happens if you are not pro-actively teaching them not to do that stuff.)

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I mentioned that this morning. A well trained dog is submissive to the humans, but

1 dog was on a chain, so odds are if it had any training it was to be aggressive
2 not all kids are taught how to act around dogs, and bos to read them

 

[Formaldehyde]

I know what it isn't. My example is taking issue with your previous assertion that owners of animals should be guilty of criminal actions just as if they acted as their animal did.

Again, what I meant was that if their dog killed or maimed a human being that it should be treated as though they did it themselves. This has nothing at all to do with them biting someone.

I think it is blatantly obvious that pet owners are not sufficiently criminally responsible at present for the acts of the animals they intentionally made vicious. YMMV.

Why is everyone here, when talking about legal responsibility, not talking about the legal responsibility of theSTUPID AND I MEAN BEYOND STUPID parents who taught their kid that it was cool to take a bone from a dog's mouth (which is basically what happens if you are not pro-actively teaching them not to do that stuff.)

You mean besides the fact that I did mention it?

 

[Mango Elephant]

theSTUPID AND I MEAN BEYOND STUPID parents who taught their kid that it was cool to take a bone from a dog's mouth

Citation needed.

 

[bhsup]

You mean besides the fact that I did mention it?

Yeah, sorry, I should have pointed that out. You (and Warpus IIRC) seem like the only voices of reason in this thread.

 

[Farm Boy]

Again, what I meant was that if their dog killed or maimed a human being that it should be treated as though they did it themselves. This has nothing at all to do with them biting someone.

Call it malice aforethought or pre-meditated if you like rather than focusing on the teeth? Or would it only be that if the animal displayed a predation response. Would a defending food be non-premeditated murder? Or if in Florida, would the owner be absolved of liability under stand your ground?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Chaining a dog in the yard to keep people away should earn him at least 5 years in prison if a 4-year-old is mauled, regardless of what the child did. And chaining a dangerous dog in the yard in the first place should be a misdemeanor with mandatory jail time and the dog taken away.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Perfection]

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...ll-mauling-phopenix-boy-debate-over-fate.html

According to a county report on the attack, Kevin was playing with other children in the yard where his baby-sitter had taken him when he ran past Mickey, who was chained. Kevin walked within the radius of the 18-foot chain. The dog caught the boy from behind, took him to the ground and attacked his face, according to the report. Adults were present and pulled the dog off.

In my mind this is a pretty foreseeable action that a tot might run within that radius.

Anyways, must be parent's fault.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Why is everyone here, when talking about legal responsibility, not talking about the legal responsibility of the STUPID AND I MEAN BEYOND STUPID parents who taught their kid that it was cool to take a bone from a dog's mouth (which is basically what happens if you are not pro-actively teaching them not to do that stuff.)

So the owners whom starved and abused there dog have no responsibility ?
You know to feed the dog and teach there dog not to attack curious 4 year olds ?

Take a look at the back bone and structure of the dog. He hasn't been fed properly. He's obviously been abused. He defended food and the child wasn't properly supervised. Whereas a many dogs won't defend food or a bone, a dog that starved or abused will. He shouldn't be killed for that. People who are starved and abused have altered behavior, too and often violent.

 

[Kyriakos]

^The owners (in this case, judging from the above posts) also should be punished, maybe even with some jail time (or similar). But the dog cannot be considered a non-menace even if it is taken away and attempts are made to re-train it. No one is arguing the dog is legally accountable for the mauling, but exactly since it is not a human but an animal it would be very careless to allow it again in any situation where it can attack.

I suppose they could just keep it somewhere, away from trouble. But i still am of the view that there has to be some very clear legal action taken in light of what happened to that 4-year old. And personally i don't really see putting the dog down as excessive at all, in this context (animals are killed on a daily basis for much less or even just so that people can eat their parts, so the is no high-ground here anyway for an animal which has caused serious harm to a human).

Re Perfection's post: indeed, a chain with that sort of ratius can very obviously grant a 4-year old the false sense of security. The 4-year old is not that likely to do math and visualise the space where the dog may still reach

 

[Formaldehyde]

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...ll-mauling-phopenix-boy-debate-over-fate.html



In my mind this is a pretty foreseeable action that a tot might run within that radius.

Anyways, must be parent's fault.

No bone, eh?

And the woman who was babysitting him is one of the owners? Hmmm.

This version of the events sounds far more credible. I can certainly see a 4-year-old accidentally running within an 18 foot radius than him walking up to an apparently violent and vicious dog and trying to steal his food. I was wondering how he could have even gotten close enough to do so without the dog attacking him.

 

[Yeekim]

I know what it isn't. My example is taking issue with your previous assertion that owners of animals should be guilty of criminal actions just as if they acted as their animal did. I at no point said there should be no liability, be it civil or even perhaps criminal. But the scale of that liability is something upon which I probably do not agree with you.

I thought about whether to quibble with that aspect, but let it slide. Ultimately, it might be more sensible to frame their responsibility as "due to negligence" rather than "with intent", but these are small details.
What is important is that there is responsibility: unless the owner can really prove that his dog was actually properly trained, that he had taken all reasonable precautions and that the victim really only has himself to blame. Say, like someone climbed over a fence into his yard and poked the dog in the eye.