quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I hope you are not wishing an injured/killed child over a dog. media has nothing to do with this. BOTH parties were in error - human life supercedes animals. anyday. I dont care if the kid pole vaulted into the yard with steaks strapped to itself - the dog loses. kids are kids. they do dumb stuff. they are everywhere. they have little or no knowledge of property. the kid was unattended - the dog was unattended. something bad happened. bye bye doggy. humans rule. that simple.

Not at all. And really, that's largely the problem here. As Ron pointed out earlier, you could "if" and "and" this situation to death. And all that does is avoid the real problem. A situation like this could manifest in a million different ways, and I'm just sincerely hoping one day he (and all the others here who think this situation is reasonable) find themselves being held accountable for something they have no control over, and had no direct cause in creating. Hence, finding themselves victims of their own logic. I hope it won't be anything quite this tragic, but I still hope the day comes. Then maybe they'll get it.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Not at all. And really, that's largely the problem here. As Ron pointed out earlier, you could "if" and "and" this situation to death. And all that does is avoid the real problem. A situation like this could manifest in a million different ways, and I'm just sincerely hoping one day he (and all the others here who think this situation is reasonable) find themselves being held accountable for something they have no control over, and had no direct cause in creating. Hence, finding themselves victims of their own logic. I hope it won't be anything quite this tragic, but I still hope the day comes. Then maybe they'll get it.

But the home owner did have control and was the direct cause.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Because of the bred-in nature of pit bulls, allowing even just the ability for a gate to be opened by a kid is like leaving a loaded handgun on a table in a daycare facility. We know it's not responsible to play with the gun because we're adults and understand for the most part why. Blaming a child for a gun accident in that circumstance would be laughable, I think we all can agree on that, so why would it be any different with a pit bull and a gate that a kid can open? JazzMan

I really don't get this comparison. Owning a pit bull and keeping it fenced in your back yard is like a keeping a hand gun in a daycare? Come on, really?

Keeping a pit bull, or any dog, fenced in your own back yard might be like a keeping a handgun on your own kitchen table. At least that would be a little closer, he didn't keep the pit bull at a daycare. If someone walks into your house and shoots themselves with the handgun, is the home owner liable? This is like the guy that tries to break into your house and breaks his leg trying to crawl through a window and suing the home owner. The whole train of thought is really what's wrong with this country. I feel bad for the little girl, but who was supposed to be watching that girl? Is that person who was supposed to be watching the girl not responsible for the attack more than the homeowner?

[This message has been edited by afRaceR (edited 03-27-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Phranc: But the home owner did have control and was the direct cause.

LOL You just don't get it.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: LOL You just don't get it.

Obviously, so why don't you tell me exactly what I don't get.

I look forward to your reply about how the owner had absolutely no control and had absolutely no direct bearing as to cause.

If you can't figure it out from the obviousness of the situation, then no amount of explanation on my part is going to help you. The fact that you somehow manage to find the owner at fault just makes you of the demographic that tends to deflect responsibility on to others, and promotes irresponsible behavior in people.
As I've said over and over, I hope you find yourself in a similar situation. THEN you'll get it.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: If you can't figure it out from the obviousness of the situation, then no amount of explanation on my part is going to help you. The fact that you somehow manage to find the owner at fault just makes you of the demographic that tends to deflect responsibility on to others, and promotes irresponsible behavior in people. As I've said over and over, I hope you find yourself in a similar situation. THEN you'll get it.

I blame the parents. They should have been supervising the kid. What I keep in my yard is my business.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: If you can't figure it out from the obviousness of the situation, then no amount of explanation on my part is going to help you. The fact that you somehow manage to find the owner at fault just makes you of the demographic that tends to deflect responsibility on to others, and promotes irresponsible behavior in people. As I've said over and over, I hope you find yourself in a similar situation. THEN you'll get it.

So you won't tell me. How will I ever see it your way if you are to lazy or inept of correcting me and putting forth a direct and simple explanation. Thats a really pathetic and irresponsible way to make a point....by not making one. Talk about not taking responsibility.

As you've said over and over you wish harm on others. Good for you. Way to be responsible. With logic like that maybe its a good thing I just don't get what you're saying.

Speaking of obvious its obvious the owner just had to have the most dangerous breed of dog and its obvious he just had to not make sure all precautions were taken. Yup very obvious.

[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 03-27-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Obviously, so why don't you tell me exactly what I don't get. I look forward to your reply about how the owner had absolutely no control and had absolutely no direct bearing as to cause.

Phranc...come on!! The man had a dog. He kept it SAFELY penned in, in his OWN property..and probably had done so, for a reasonable length of time. He had NO reason to suspect a minor, under NOBODY'S (parents especially) control, would take it into her head to open a gate which WASN`T to her home, approach his dog, and maybe do something to the dog it didn´t like ( I have SO OFTEN seen children try to pick up animals in the most reaction-provoking manner, or pull their tail or ears or other things), and it felt threatened. Animals don´t distinguish between babies, children or adults, or even size..they attack something they think is threatening it.Animals DO that, it is their nature. Please, read my analogy in response to Toddster's post.it is equally as legitimate. If it had been an inanimate object, such as a lawn mower left running for two minutes, or a manhole cover left open whilst an inspection was being carried out..would you STILL say the house owner was 100% culpable? I hope not, because that is equally as unreasonable as this case too.
Nick

quote Originally posted by Phranc: So you won't tell me. How will I ever see it your way if you are to lazy or inept of correcting me and putting forth a direct and simple explanation. Thats a really pathetic and irresponsible way to make a point....by not making one. Talk about not taking responsibility. As you've said over and over you wish harm on others. Good for you. Way to be responsible. With logic like that maybe its a good thing I just don't get what you're saying. Speaking of obvious its obvious the owner just had to have the most dangerous breed of dog and its obvious he just had to not make sure all precautions were taken. Yup very obvious.

You aren't looking for an explanation, you're looking for a pissing match. You really think attempting to insult me by calling me lazy or inept is going to provoke me? That's cool. What else is there to say to try and make you understand that hasn't been said by me ot countless others over the course of this thread. You just don't get it. You don't want to get it apparently. Fine, no skin off my butt. I don't really care if you agree or not, your opinion just isn't that important to me that I find it necessary to expend a bunch of effort trying to explain a concept that's so obviously lost on you. Sometimes the only way to learn a thing is to experience it. It's like trying to explain the smell of a rose to someone. You just can't do it.
Harm? No, I never wished harm on anyone. In fact I was quite specific that I hoped it would not be anything this tragic, but, sometimes it is. But I do truly hope it's not when it happens to you. Frankly, the fact that you ignored that part of my statement makes it pretty obvious that you aren't really paying attention, only trying to provoke an argument, and I'm not really interested. You have your opinion and have voiced it, just as I have mine. They differ. I don't really care that they do.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: You aren't looking for an explanation, you're looking for a pissing match. You really think attempting to insult me by calling me lazy or inept is going to provoke me? That's cool. What else is there to say to try and make you understand that hasn't been said by me ot countless others over the course of this thread. You just don't get it. You don't want to get it apparently. Fine, no skin off my butt. I don't really care if you agree or not, your opinion just isn't that important to me that I find it necessary to expend a bunch of effort trying to explain a concept that's so obviously lost on you. Sometimes the only way to learn a thing is to experience it. It's like trying to explain the smell of a rose to someone. You just can't do it. Harm? No, I never wished harm on anyone. In fact I was quite specific that I hoped it would not be anything this tragic, but, sometimes it is. But I do truly hope it's not when it happens to you. Frankly, the fact that you ignored that part of my statement makes it pretty obvious that you aren't really paying attention, only trying to provoke an argument, and I'm not really interested. You have your opinion and have voiced it, just as I have mine. They differ. I don't really care that they do.

LOL you wont take the time to show me your enlightened ways but you will take the time to type all that.

You did wish harm on people. You hoped something similar happened to me. In order for it to be similar some one would have to harmed. Good for you.I really did what you to tell me how exactly I didn't it and what exactly I didn't get. Instead of doing that you danced around and only showed you are incapable. I chalk it up to ineptness. Just like how you were inept in realizing you wished harm on people. Maybe you were confused as to what similar meant. Its ok though I won't blame you. You aren't responsible. Just like the guy with the killer breed dog who didn't lock his gate wasn't.

I love it when people get called out to explain them self and their words and instead make up excuses not to and blame others so they don't have to.

It happens often on here.

Anybody have a link to this story?

I see this as a black, gray or white issue for most folks, the color one sees this as probably reflects their history and obviously, where they live.. I grew up in an agricultural area where the ground we owned was ours and trespassers could be and were prosecuted if they had less than noble intentions. That included the neighbors dogs. If your dog stayed at home, then everyone was happy. Most folks didn't have their dogs penned or chained up. That was consider inhumane but, they were strongly disciplined for roaming. Up to the point of getting shot if they would not stay home. I've shot a few of the neighbors dogs that were chasing our cattle. The neighbors under and didn't get all fussy about it. If you or your kids were to come roaming around at my house, you'd better stay in your vehicle until the pooch was secured in one manner or another. Now, don't take this as an agreement with raising fighting dogs. I don't like them or the people that raise them. They are cruel and almost monstrous. I have no issue killing any dog that wants to hurt anything on my property. I also have my own dogs, I really love having them, one is almost a friend. But, I would also kill that dog if he were to attack someone without good cause. Good cause, always depends on the situation. If someone's kid walks into my unfenced back yard and gets bitten, then, I'll accept some fault but not all, that kid should have been taught early on to enter private areas with permission. If that child is too young to understand, then I blame that child's parent for being extremely stupid. It that same child is old enough to open my gate and come on in to my property, I have a real problem with that because, I don't really know what the child intent was. I have also taken steps to keep the dog secured. Sure, once it's all over, the child only wanted to pet my dog. But , we really don't know and that child could have had a whole different intent. That child may have been actually teasing the dog, we'll never know.

As I said earlier, we can "if" and "and" this to death, we really don't know. I don't like aggressive dogs but, I do realize that there is a need. Does the homeowner share some responsibility, could be, maybe not. Not enough facts in evidence. Not knowing anymore than I do about this specific situation, I have to say the child should have been taught better. Did the dog deserve to be put down, again, not enough evidence to decide. The owner of the dog decided the dog should die, who am I to argue, the owner knows the situation better than I do.

Having said this, I would suggest that if you come visit me, please call ahead.

Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-28-2008).]

First one I could find.


http://www.wsyx6.com/shared...s/wsyx_vid_557.shtml

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Would that safely penned in include a locked gate? No. Then it wasn't safe now was it. If it had been the little wouldn't be in a bad way now would she. Properly? Like with the lock on the gate? Oh wait it wasn't locked. Responsible? Like how it was responsible to lock the gate? Oh that's right it wasn't locked. So the fact is that it wasn't safe, proper or responsible to not lock the gate to ensure people weren't mauled by your killer dog. If it had been an inanimate object instead of a live thinking deadly dog I would hold the same level of fault on the home owner. It is his yard right?

Wrong..maybe we should have locks on our gates in case we have a housefire? WHERE is the LAW which says you are obliged to have a lock on your gate? IS there one? There sure isn´t here in Spain. Maybe you do in the US..but I doubt it.Yes,it is his yard. And he is entitled to do whatever he chooses in his own yard, providing it isn't illegal, or likely to harm somebody OUTSIDE his personal, private property. If it harms somebody ON his property, who had every right to be there, then he is at fault and culpable, if that person is injured. As far as I am aware, the only people who have the RIGHT to enter somebody else's property uninvited, are Police, firemen and medical workers..and even then, there is some doubt as to whether they have the right, without a legal warrant, or 'just reason'. It is a tacit understanding that people who have a good reason to enter somebody ele's property, enter at their OWN risk, if not invited by the owner.And you bandying around the 'killer dog' is unsubstantiated, as far as I can see..a dog only becomes a 'killer dog' once it has killed. So drop the 'killer' bit in your argument..it is not factual..it is rhetoric.It smacks of the OTHER nonsense about you are more likely to be mugged by a black man.The MEdia chose to sensationalise a few incidents, and make it seem to be prolific. If it WERE a killer dog, it sure as heck wouldn´t be round to kill again, I'll bet. They just got that nomenclature because of idiot gangsters and drug-dealers, who mistreat their dogs to be vicious, courtesy of the Media sensationalism. In the UK, it used to be alsations and dobermans, because of films depicting them to be 'vicious' guard dogs. They got to be boring, because they couldn´t find enough instances of those particular breeds attacking people, so the decided to widen the field of potential 'killerdogs', to sustain their lurid nonsense. Google how many doberman dogs there are in the UK, and then google how many have attacked people. They are THOUSANDS to one..so they don´t deserve the name tag any more than poodles or Rhodesian Ridgebacks..the Media decided to focus on a few incidents, and built up a ridiculous myth. As did the Media. And selective reports such as this one just build it up even more.
Nick

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Wrong..maybe we should have locks on our gates in case we have a housefire? WHERE is the LAW which says you are obliged to have a lock on your gate? IS there one? There sure isn´t here in Spain. Maybe you do in the US..but I doubt it.Yes,it is his yard. And he is entitled to do whatever he chooses in his own yard, providing it isn't illegal, or likely to harm somebody OUTSIDE his personal, private property. If it harms somebody ON his property, who had every right to be there, then he is at fault and culpable, if that person is injured. As far as I am aware, the only people who have the RIGHT to enter somebody else's property uninvited, are Police, firemen and medical workers..and even then, there is some doubt as to whether they have the right, without a legal warrant, or 'just reason'. It is a tacit understanding that people who have a good reason to enter somebody ele's property, enter at their OWN risk, if not invited by the owner.And you bandying around the 'killer dog' is unsubstantiated, as far as I can see..a dog only becomes a 'killer dog' once it has killed. So drop the 'killer' bit in your argument..it is not factual..it is rhetoric.It smacks of the OTHER nonsense about you are more likely to be mugged by a black man.The MEdia chose to sensationalise a few incidents, and make it seem to be prolific. If it WERE a killer dog, it sure as heck wouldn´t be round to kill again, I'll bet. They just got that nomenclature because of idiot gangsters and drug-dealers, who mistreat their dogs to be vicious, courtesy of the Media sensationalism. In the UK, it used to be alsations and dobermans, because of films depicting them to be 'vicious' guard dogs. They got to be boring, because they couldn´t find enough instances of those particular breeds attacking people, so the decided to widen the field of potential 'killerdogs', to sustain their lurid nonsense. Google how many doberman dogs there are in the UK, and then google how many have attacked people. They are THOUSANDS to one..so they don´t deserve the name tag any more than poodles or Rhodesian Ridgebacks..the Media decided to focus on a few incidents, and built up a ridiculous myth. As did the Media. And selective reports such as this one just build it up even more. Nick

Shifting through all your straw men was a daunting task.

The killer breed in my post is about a breed of dog breed to kill. Pitbulls are breed to kill. They are the most dangerous breed of dog in America. A breed responsible for more mauling and killings then any other. These aren't rare events. This isn't hyped up. Its real. They are killers.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Shifting through all your straw men was a daunting task. The killer breed in my post is about a breed of dog breed to kill. Pitbulls are breed to kill. They are the most dangerous breed of dog in America. A breed responsible for more mauling and killings then any other. These aren't rare events. This isn't hyped up. Its real. They are killers.

Any dog, if trained to do so, CAN be a killer. Pit bulls are not naturally killers unless bred and trained to do so. As FieroFetish mentioned before, the "killer dogs" used to be dogs like dobermans and rottweilers. Dogs have always been bred for a certain purpose, they are tools for a specific task. One main trait for all dogs, is they are loyal and try to please their owner. Depending on how the dog is trained, is the main factor with how dangerous a dog will be. To label an entire breed of dog as a killer rediculous. Most pit bulls if socialized correctly are really good with children and people in general.

My question is just how many pit bulls have you actually seen attack someone? And if you have actually seen one attack, how were those dogs raised? Was their anything that provoked the dog?

I've seen a few dogs attack people and other dogs, never seen a pit bull attack anyone. Most dogs that do attack are smaller dogs or dogs that were cornered.

quote Originally posted by afRaceR: Any dog, if trained to do so, CAN be a killer. Pit bulls are not naturally killers unless bred and trained to do so. As FieroFetish mentioned before, the "killer dogs" used to be dogs like dobermans and rottweilers. Dogs have always been bred for a certain purpose, they are tools for a specific task. One main trait for all dogs, is they are loyal and try to please their owner. Depending on how the dog is trained, is the main factor with how dangerous a dog will be. To label an entire breed of dog as a killer rediculous. Most pit bulls if socialized correctly are really good with children and people in general. My question is just how many pit bulls have you actually seen attack someone? And if you have actually seen one attack, how were those dogs raised? Was their anything that provoked the dog? I've seen a few dogs attack people and other dogs, never seen a pit bull attack anyone. Most dogs that do attack are smaller dogs or dogs that were cornered.

So pitbulls aren't specifically breed to be killers? To be aggressive? So were they breed to be lap dogs with mellow dispostitions? That must be why they make such great fighters and killers.I love hearing about the nice pitbulls that are great with children. You know until the rip a kids face off. And you always hear the same crap about how they were perfect dogs that just snapped.


http://www.google.com/searc...k&btnG=Google+Search
For such sweet dogs there are a lot attacks in just one city. Id hate to try and wrap my head around the national numbers.


I have seen a pit bull rip a little girls face off. Her name was Jasmin. We were playing cards and the baby had been asleep for about two hours. Next thing you know there were screams coming from the other room. Sweet dog that just snapped for no reason one day. No provocation.

The problem is, this isn't about what breed the dog is. The dog could just as easily have been a dalmatian, a rotweiler, or any of a thousand other breeds that are all capable of attacking a person. Working for the cable company I was chased down by all breed of dogs, none of them pit bulls or rotties now that I think about it. Border collies and shepherds were the worst. The actual issue is that this child either knowingly or not did something she absolutely should not have done, and as a result she got hurt, the dog was put down, and the owner is being held liable. The unfairness of the situation arises from the homeowner not being allowed a reasonable expectation of privacy, and being unreasonably expected to foresee a situation where some person, child or adult, would violate the confines of his back yard and expose themselves to harm.
This (to me) is 100% about people doing dumb things (like going into a neighbors yard where their dog is) and getting hurt or worse, and not being held personally accountable. It's about any of a million other similar scenarios where someone does something dumb, ignorant, or malicious, gets hurt, and then tries to blame someone else.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 03-27-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: This (to me) is 100% about people doing dumb things (like going into a neighbors yard where their dog is) and getting hurt or worse, and not being held personally accountable. It's about any of a million other similar scenarios where someone does something dumb, ignorant, or malicious, gets hurt, and then tries to blame someone else.

Yes, it most certainly is!

Again, dogs are/were bred for a specific purpose. Some were for defense, hunting, working livestock, and some were bred for fighting. If you take dogs that show lots of aggression and you breed them together, you are creating a line of dogs with more chance of being aggresive. Doesn't mean ALL dogs of the breed are aggresive. You can do it with pit bulls, rat terriers, and dachshunds. The pit bull breed was bred to be a very strong powerful dog. But it is very loyal, and like most dogs territorial. Doesn't mean they will attack everything that moves. Children, especially, have a way of approaching animals where they appear aggresive. Dogs can and are used as weapons, GI's used Alsations and Rottweilers in Viet Nam in the tunnel complexes.

Here is a quote that describes the pit bull breed very well:

quote At one time, the Pit Bull was a much loved, trustworthy companion. People who chose to train these dogs to fight are chiefly responsible for the banning and witch-hunting that has been sweeping the U.S. The media, however, should not go unmentioned, for it is also responsible for escalating isolated incidences in a relentless and attention-getting way. In a lot of cases when the media is reporting about a Pit Bull attacking, it is indeed not even a Pit Bull at all, but a mixed breed of some sort, or another bull breed all together. In fact, one time there was a report on KYW news in Philadelphia about two Pit Bulls attacking a person. I called the news station and asked if they knew the dogs were in fact a purebred American Pit Bull Terriers, or another bull breed of some sort, or a mutt for that matter. They told me they did not know, I would have to call the police station to verify that information. I asked them how they could report something that they were not sure of. They had no answer for me and they were not sure of the dog's breed. Even after admitting that to me on the phone, they kept calling it a Pit Bull. The Pit Bull's future has been perhaps irreparably undone and everyone is to blame except the dog itself. This very loyal dog is too set on pleasing his owner, and ironically this is the root of his own undoing. Accompanying this need to please are remarkable abilities of all kinds. Jack Dempsy, Teddy Roosevelt and Jack Johnson are just a few people who have owned Pit Bulls. Pit Bulls excel in practically every canine task including herding, guarding, hunting, policing, cart pulling and ratting. A Pit Bull, named Banddog Dread, holds more canine working titles than ANY other breed. The owner's name is Diane Jessup and you can reference her book, "The Working Pit Bull." It tells you all of Dread's accomplishments. These dogs are truly capable of many tasks. The difference between Pits and American Staffordshire Terriers is a difficult one. Even breeders can't agree. The main difference is the bloodline. Amstaffs are show dogs and dog fighters won't use dogs with Amstaff blood. As time progresses there will be more of a difference. Many are duel registered as Amstaffs with the AKC and Pits with the UKC.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: doesnt matter. BOTH were unattended.

Huh? No, the child was unattended. The dog was apparently in a fenced yard. Contained. On private property. At least until an unattended child decided to breach the perimeter.

Hmmm. When I was a child, we were taught what fences were for. Even if we hopped a fence to retrieve a lost ball, we knew that we were not supposed to. We did it, and tried not to get caught. When balls got "lost" in yards with dogs, those balls tended to stay "lost." (Or we went and knocked on the door, and politely asked if it would be possible to get our ball.)

If this child was too young to know better, she should have been attended. If she was old enough to know better, then her parents failed her. Miserably. Because they did not teach her any better.

It's people of my profession that are supposed to be the ambulance chasers, seeking to assess blame where none exists. Yet you people scare me. (Pyrthian and Jazzman, not the least, but you have company). Let's assume the over-generalizations about "pit bulls," and uneducated statements about their origins, to be true. (heck, even a look at wikipedia would give more educated information than is here)(try it; search "pit bull" there)(and bother to read the article). It is the parent's responsibility, before letting a child run loose, unfettered, and unsupervised, to bother teaching something about the rules of society.

Now you can call me a wacko, because we Texans still take our fences seriously. I have a fence. By law, I do not have to post "no trespassing" signs. If you cross my fence line without permission, it is at least misdemeanor trespass. I don't have to warn you, nor tell you to leave. You are simply subject to arrest, as any criminal. In some circumstances, I may legally shoot you, but if you scream "I'm on the Forum!!!" quickly enough, it might stay my hand.

My dogs are under positive control at all times. But, while they are fenced in (while they go outside without our presence), we don't have huge locks on every gate. And we expect our dogs to be dogs. They're territorial. EVERYONE with any intelligence knows this.

Yesterday I watched a kid on a bicycle damn near run straight into traffic, against the light. At the last second, he stopped, though he was pedaling like mad up to then. If he hadn't stopped, the driver of a car turning left (!!with the light!!) might have hit and seriously injured, if not killed him. Had that happened, should we have had the car's driver put down? After all, they were both "unattended."

quote Originally posted by Shyster: Now you can call me a wacko, because we Texans still take our fences seriously. I have a fence. By law, I do not have to post "no trespassing" signs. If you cross my fence line without permission, it is at least misdemeanor trespass. I don't have to warn you, nor tell you to leave. You are simply subject to arrest, as any criminal. In some circumstances, I may legally shoot you, but if you scream "I'm on the Forum!!!" quickly enough, it might stay my hand.

I'll try to remember that when I visit the Lone Star State.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Having said this, I would suggest that if you come visit me, please call ahead. Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-28-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Children can't be held legally responsible for their behavior and decisions, and for perfectly good reasons. They're children! They don't have the depth of experience and judgement to make good decisions, and are very prone to arbitrary choices based on nothing more than whims. This neighbor apparently either lacked that knowledge of children or chose to ignore it when implementing a fence that a child could physically be capable of opening. In other words, it would have been smarter for him to make the gate childproof rather than assume the child would be responsible enough not to open the gate. I agree that holding adults responsible for their actions is the best approach, but children must be treated differently, that's only common sense. JazzMan

Ok I have to disagree with this statement unless you are talking about a toddler. In my opinion by the time a child is at the age they should be able to go wandering around all over the place unsupervised (early teens) their parents should have instilled some common sense of right and wrong in them. Then yes they should be held responsible for any stupid thing they decide to do how else are you suppose to learn to make good decisions if you are never held responsible for them? Children under the age of 10 should not just be running all over the place unsupervised ever!

Sorry I have dial up and have not read all the posts here.

I have to say without knowing the whole story that we really can’t say the owner was at fault, or the little girl, or the little girls parents.

Without knowing the whole story it is hard to take one side or the other being a dog owner myself.

Pitbulls have a bad reputation, it is because they do attack without provocation.

They are one of the reasons for many places enacting bad dog laws. I am reserving my, who is more at fault here until I here more.

Has the dog bitten others before?
Was the girl really unsupervised?

Funny thing is those laws they are making for pitbills are also including dog like our Great Pyrenees. They are inside fenced in pastures guarding our animals.

Yet if a child goes into one of those pastures to play with the Pyrs they don’t attack the child, unless of course the child tries to hurt the animals the dogs are guarding.

We have fields with as many as 4 dogs in them and have the other kids in Amanda’s special needs class over here every spring for a picnic every year. They are allowed in those pastures with the goats and dogs, with an adult present. We have never in 10 years had any type of problem. The dogs know the kids mean no harm and are handclapped. We even let the smaller kids ride the dogs.

Pitbulls have a bad rep, deservedly YES. They are a breed that IS dangerous even to their owners.

In this news story it says the kid didn’t go inside the fenced yard.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/14254479/detail.html

MIDDLETOWN, Ohio -- A Middletown girl was bitten over the weekend by a pit bull terrier that broke free from its chain.
Two-year-old Jahnial Johnson was playing outside a home on Eleventh Avenue, her grandmother said, when the dog chased down the toddler, locked its jaws onto her head and dragged her across the porch

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: The dog owner should not be liable in this case I agree. Neither should Bartenders have to tell you when to stop, its your responsibility. In this case the kids parents. Here is a wild idea that would help but not solve the problem, fine people who have Pit Bull puppies and declare them illegal pets. They are usually as unpredictable as a dog that is part wolf and I think that is technically illegal to have for a pet right? Its our own stupid faults for allowing this to begin with, not to mention the dog fighting that still goes on underground. Sure alot of people love Pit Bulls, they can keep theirs until they die of old age, they can be "grandfathered in". But really its like having a wild animal for a pet. They are by far the most abused dogs, alot of them just chained inthe back yard as guard dogs. It is sad. Ok bring on the "its everyones right to have a dangerous pet if they want to" arguments.

Actually all dogs were and still are wild animals. We have just taught them to live with us and a lot of them do so with little problems. But you take any dog and put it back into a wild kill or be killed environment and they will revert back to being a pack animal willing to kill their prey. Remember no matter how cute and cuddly we make then they are still not humans but animals that generally run on instinct not intellect.

quote Originally posted by FieroJam: Quite a few dogs that people keep as pets today were originally bred to do a different job like my Pomeranian that was originally bred to pull sleds. Personally I couldn't see my cute little girl lugging a sled across some frozen land but that is what she was originally bred for until someone decided she would be better as a personal companion instead. My point to make again is that all dogs are instinct driven animals that can be trained to live with humans but are still capable of reverting to wild animals.

All I can say is, it must have been a small sled. Or, there was one heck of a lot of tiny foot prints in the snow!

Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-28-2008).]

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: <snip> In this news story it says the kid didn’t go inside the fenced yard. http://www.wlwt.com/news/14254479/detail.html MIDDLETOWN, Ohio -- A Middletown girl was bitten over the weekend by a pit bull terrier that broke free from its chain. Two-year-old Jahnial Johnson was playing outside a home on Eleventh Avenue, her grandmother said, when the dog chased down the toddler, locked its jaws onto her head and dragged her across the porch

Different story. The one I was referring to was in Columbus.

quote Originally posted by FieroJam: Ok I have to disagree with this statement unless you are talking about a toddler. In my opinion by the time a child is at the age they should be able to go wandering around all over the place unsupervised (early teens) their parents should have instilled some common sense of right and wrong in them. Then yes they should be held responsible for any stupid thing they decide to do how else are you suppose to learn to make good decisions if you are never held responsible for them? Children under the age of 10 should not just be running all over the place unsupervised ever!

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I specifically said that they couldn't be legally held responsible, I in no way said that children shouldn't be held responsible to the extent that they legally can be. Because children are well-known for being irresponsible and making decisions that we as mature adults find stupid and often reckless, it stands to reason that we as mature adults hold some responsibility to protect our children from their bad decision-making abilities. Nobody in their right mind (except maybe pedophiles) assumes that children can make adult decisions and take on adult responsibilities.

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Its also your responsibility.

I'd say having the dog in a fenced in yard with a locked gate that IT couldn't open was me exercising my due diligence. The parents need to supervise their child.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: I'd say having the dog in a fenced in yard with a locked gate that IT couldn't open was me exercising my due diligence. The parents need to supervise their child.

and the owners need to supervise their dog. BOTH were unsupervised. or did the owner watch the dog maul the kid? this would add quite a bit to the story, wouldnt it?

If Bush didnt waste so much money in the middle east, all pit bull owners would be able to get free training for their dogs from the government.... (thats the best I could come up with on short notice)

If the dog's owner is responsible for his dog attacking someone that broke into the back yard, then I guess that a burgular can sue also for his hospital bills and hurting himself (pain and suffering) in an attempt to carry all your stuff away after breaking in to your house. Back injuries are expensive you know.

Ron

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: and the owners need to supervise their dog. BOTH were unsupervised. or did the owner watch the dog maul the kid? this would add quite a bit to the story, wouldnt it?

I'd be arguing the exact opposite way if the child was playing unsupervised in its own back yard which was reasonably secured and a dog jumped the fence (not necessarily a pit bull obviously). If you come on my property, without checking with me first, I will not be held responsible for what happens to you. I expect the same from you. I see two problems here, one: the child was unsupervised, this is a very common issue with parents these days. And B: the child wasn't taught to properly respect other people's property, which is a symptom of my first point.

Note, if the reverse situation was true, I would argue exactly the reverse point, that the owners of the dog would be held responsible for letting their dog get into someone else's yard. Now I'm not saying that a child SHOULD be unsupervised. But you can't expect dog owners, when they've done their best to secure the dog INSIDE their property, to supervise it 100% of the time.

Let me put it to you this way, say I lived in the country with a bunch of land, and my dog is always outside on MY land (for the sake of argument there's an invisible fence type product, but there doesn't have to be) and someone comes up to my house, the dog acts aggressively towards that person and the person continues to come toward the house, this isn't on the periphery of my property but right in the centre. The person continues to come closer and the dog mauls them. Who is responsible in that case?

quote Originally posted by blackrams: All I can say is, it must have been a small sled. Or, there was one heck of a lot of tiny foot prints in the snow! Ron

Actually she is kind of on the large side for a Pomeranian. Dogs like this today were breed to be smaller to make a better pet they were not always as small as they appear today.