Pit Bull Bites Child, Dog Euthanized

NBC 4
updated 3:15 p.m. ET, Thurs., March. 27, 2008
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A 6-year-old child was bit by a pit bull Wednesday on the city's Southeast Side, NBC 4's Mikaela Hunt reported.
The bite occurred at 298 Upton Rd. The dog's owner lives at that address, and the child lives nearby. The child was hospitalized because of her wounds.
The dog was euthanized.

Victor Smith, the dog's owner, did not have dog licensed, Hunt reported. If charges were filed, that would be the least charge pursued. Witness interviews also will help determine if further charges need filed.

Is this the story?

By Donna Willis
E-mail | Biography
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A 6-year-old child was bitten by a pit bull Wednesday on the city's southeast side.
The incident occurred outside a home on Upton Road, NBC 4's Tom Brockman reported.
According to witnesses, several children were playing near a fenced area when someone opened the gate. Inside was a pit bull. That's when, officials said, the dog attacked one of the children.
A neighbor ran across the street just after the incident occurred.
"She has her fingers cut, her cheek, her lip, inside her mouth," said Danielle Jones, an area resident.
The girl was taken to Nationwide Children's Hospital, where she was treated and released.
The dog has since been euthanized, and officials with the city attorney's office said the dog's owner may face charges including failure to license the dog and failure to maintain vicious dog insurance.
The owner declined to comment to NBC 4.
The incident was the second pit bull attack in Columbus in the last 15 days.
On March 12, a 6-year-old boy was attacked on the far east side. The owner of that dog may face charges as well, officials said.
In Ohio, it is law that owners of so-called vicious dogs must carry $100,000 in insurance. If outside, the dogs must be contained in a locked area and it must be registered as a pit bull, kept on a leash and walked only by an adult.
Stay tuned to NBC 4 and refresh nbc4i.com for more information.
To send a news tip or submit a story idea, e-mail stories@nbc4i.com.

So someone, doesn’t say who, opened the gate and the dog attacked. Doesn’t sound good. If you have a gun do you put it in a desk drawer without a lock? Would that be safe with a house full of kids. Same thing with a unlocked gate that houses a vicious dog.

This is no different in my opinion.

------------------
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 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?

Pyrthian, I enjoy reading your posts, and even if I don´t always agree with them, I rarely feel indignant enough to reply to them, this one is beyond the pale!! Dogs don´t NEED to be supervised 24/7, in their own grounds, providing they can´t escape and do harm!! IT IS THE TREASPASSERS WHO HOLD 100% RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS::NOBODY ELSE!! Sorry to shout but jeesh..if a child is unsupervised, and falls down a freaking cliff, who ya gonna sue THEN?? The cliff is unsupervised, and so is the child...there is only one culpable party...PARENTS:

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?

Oh come on, you can't be serious. You really mean to tell me that when I let my dog run loose in my own fenced in private property that it's actually expected (by you anyway), realistic, and reasonable that I'm supposed to watch him the entire time to make sure he doesn't attack someone who might trespass on my property????? There is just simply no way you can really believe that. I guess if I leave the front door to my house unlocked and the dog kills someone who comes in when I'm not around that it's my fault for not locking the door, or am I supposed to be there watching the dog then too? Where is the boundary for when it's OK to leave my dog unsupervised? At what point on my own private property am I allowed to be comfortable with a certain degree of privacy and security. How about if the dog is in the garage and that door is unlocked? My car? Where is the boundary?
Do you suppose Fiero123 up there should be out watching his dogs 24/7 while they protect his farm animals? How about other guard dogs, are their ownders also supposed to be there watching the dogs?

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

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Pit bulls were bred for one reason, to fight and kill each other in dog fighting pits. Like any dog, however, they can be trained and treated such that they aren't a threat under most circumstances. Any dog under the right circumstances can be a lethal threat to others. The problem is that so many people keep pit bulls and don't bother with the necessary training and maintenance to make them safe to others around them, and because the consequences of that irresponsible behavior by owners can have such lethal results due to the way pit bulls are bred I don't have a problem with them being licensed or banned outright. Sucks for the legitimate owner but the blame lays squarely at the feet of the irresponsible owners. 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. 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? I don't know the details that led to the decision to euthanize the pit bull, it could have been policy or perhaps the dog had previous history of violent behavior, it may be that pit bulls are more prone to repeating attack behavior once they've done it once, I don't know. For that matter, the decision may have been made by the owner to placate the other family. If I were on a jury to decide liability in this case, knowing only what's been presented here which is not likely anywhere near the complete facts of the case, I would tend to find against the dog owner for having a gate that was apparently capable of being opened by a child. Theoretically, the situation symmetry would allow the dog owner to sue the parents of the child for trespass and the resultant loss of the dog due to the circumstances resulting from that trespass, but no jury would buy that argument simply because they would say the child and parents have suffered enough. Personally I think that parents should be held responsible for the actions of their children on exactly the same principle that says pet owners should be held responsible for their pets' actions, but I already know I'm not wired like so-called normal people. In todays day and age it would be fairly hard for me to believe that any pit owner could be ignorant of the physiological and behavioral traits that pits have become bred and known for. JazzMan

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: 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

Must just be me after re-reading your original post the only ones you say should be held responsible is the dog owners and the child's parents. And children only make really bad decisions when they are to young to understand what a decision is or there parents were just to irresponsible to teach them. If your 6 - 10 year old child is wandering around the town with out your direct supervision these days then you as a parent are the only one to blame for what ever happens to that child.

I think this says it all.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: In Ohio, it is law that owners of so-called vicious dogs must carry $100,000 in insurance. If outside, the dogs must be contained in a locked area and it must be registered as a pit bull, kept on a leash and walked only by an adult.

Case closed.

------------------
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.

What constitutes a locked gate (It's not specified that it actually has to have a "lock") As in these particular definitions of the word "lock": b: to fix in a particular situation or method of operation. 3 a: to make fast, motionless, or inflexible especially by the interlacing or interlocking of parts
If I have a gate with a latch, and the latch is engaged, then I would consider that gate locked.
Especially if there's a pit bull on the other side of it.

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

quote Originally posted by FieroJam: 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.

Understood. As the owner of a 140 lb. sobbering but loveable Bullmastif, I can understand why some folks would prefer to scale down.

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Wrong Jack, I've been waiting for such an opportuntiy for several years now. That's why I make it stay in the shop. Damn thing is always making messes I have to clean up. Seems to screw up every poroject I try to teach it. Nope, one more mess and it's a goner. Ron

Well if the neighbor's pool comes in your back yard and tries to burglurize your lawn mower and makes your saw mad and he trys to maul the pool and drowns you may have may have to go to a court presided over by Alice of Wonderland. If that happens I'd unload the gun on the table and beat the dead saw to death with the unlocked gate. Be careful of those cruelty to dead saw activists though! Hey I was wondering, why would anyone own a Dewalt saw anyway a Milwaukee is vicious enough!?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: What constitutes a locked gate (It's not specified that it actually has to have a "lock") As in these particular definitions of the word "lock": b: to fix in a particular situation or method of operation. 3 a: to make fast, motionless, or inflexible especially by the interlacing or interlocking of parts If I have a gate with a latch, and the latch is engaged, then I would consider that gate locked. Especially if there's a pit bull on the other side of it.

See this is where you are wrong. A latched gate is not a locked gated. We have kennels that have those latches like you are talkig about. They are not locked, there is a hole for a lock.

Some dogs we have know how to open that latch so we have to put a clip threw the hole for the lock to keep them from being able to get out.

Besides if you read further the owner is supposed to have the dog licensed. He didn’t.

The owner is supposed to have liability insurance of at least $100,000. He didn’t.

I’m not saying the kids parent are not somewhat at fault, but if I had to give a percentage.

90% owner 10% kids parents.

------------------
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 Cadillac Jack: [QUOTE]Originally posted by blackrams: Wrong Jack, I've been waiting for such an opportuntiy for several years now. That's why I make it stay in the shop. Damn thing is always making messes I have to clean up. Seems to screw up every poroject I try to teach it. Nope, one more mess and it's a goner. Ron

Well if the neighbor's pool comes in your back yard and tries to burglurize your lawn mower and makes your saw mad and he trys to maul the pool and drowns you may have may have to go to a court presided over by Alice of Wonderland. If that happens I'd unload the gun on the table and beat the dead saw to death with the unlocked gate. Be careful of those cruelty to dead saw activists though! Hey I was wondering, why would anyone own a Dewalt saw anyway a Milwaukee is vicious enough!?
[/QUOTE]



This is getting weird. Notice how it's quoted? Second time it's done that in the last week or so.

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

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Oh come on, you can't be serious. You really mean to tell me that when I let my dog run loose in my own fenced in private property that it's actually expected (by you anyway), realistic, and reasonable that I'm supposed to watch him the entire time to make sure he doesn't attack someone who might trespass on my property????? There is just simply no way you can really believe that. I guess if I leave the front door to my house unlocked and the dog kills someone who comes in when I'm not around that it's my fault for not locking the door, or am I supposed to be there watching the dog then too? Where is the boundary for when it's OK to leave my dog unsupervised? At what point on my own private property am I allowed to be comfortable with a certain degree of privacy and security. How about if the dog is in the garage and that door is unlocked? My car? Where is the boundary? Do you suppose Fiero123 up there should be out watching his dogs 24/7 while they protect his farm animals? How about other guard dogs, are their ownders also supposed to be there watching the dogs?

with a dangerous animal - there is no end to the supervision.
zoos put moats between the public and the dangerous animals. that maybe a fine start. dbl fences. NO GATES. only access thru locked steel doors.
and - guard dogs - are behind some mighty tall fencing. locked & chained gates. and - they are also highly trained. and there is a supervising person. and, they are not in a subdivision where kids play.

sorry dog owners - take some responsibility for your animals. they are after all, animals. humans take priority any day of the week. and - yes, if you had a cliff in your backyard, I'd expect reasonable precautions. tho, I'd be more confused by how you got a cliff....somehow, I'd expect it more to be described as a deep hole, or a well. and guess what? wells get the same response. and yet kids still find their way to the bottom, and the owner gets screwed.

keep your dangerous stuff away from kids. thats it. its your stuff. kids are a fact. they exist. if you cant handle your dangerous stuff - dont keep it. and all the thoughtless items - like the classic refridgerators. who'd a thunk a 'fridge is dangerous. but it is. and you WILL get reemed on that one.

everything that exists, does so, so children can thrive. they are #1.

Maybe a sign on the fence warning that "this gate is locked because it is latched" would help. But then we would have to difine the word "is". Well I'm not sure that would have prevented the girl from getting mauled by the Pit Bull or not. I'm not sure she could read. But I guess that's all silly because the girl deserved it anyway because she was trespassing. Well I hope if the owner of the Pit Bull doesn't have insurance maybe the parents will have medical insurance that way the taxpayers won't have to pay the medical bills.

Just one question for you Taijiguy

Do you have kids?

It seems those here who do think a lot differently than you because we have kids.

quote In Ohio, it is law that owners of so-called vicious dogs must carry $100,000 in insurance. If outside, the dogs must be contained in a locked area and it must be registered as a pit bull, kept on a leash and walked only by an adult.

Cut and dry in the eyes of the law and public.
Like I said the owner should have covered his assets better.
I'm not going to debate right and wrong, I feel bad for the child and the dog.

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

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: keep your dangerous stuff away from kids. that's it. its your stuff. kids are a fact. they exist. if you cant handle your dangerous stuff - don't keep it. and all the thoughtless items - like the classic refrigerators. who'd a thunk a 'fridge is dangerous. but it is. and you WILL get reemed on that one. everything that exists, does so, so children can thrive. they are #1.

While I agree with this to a huge extent, I do have to say that those kids are the responsibility of the parents first and foremost. This has similarities to another thread ongoing right now where the owner of the WTC is suing Boeing and others for the loss of the WTC. We seem to be sue crazy and that needs to stop.

Yes, ownership does require responsibility but transgressing or trespassing onto my property and getting hurt is the transgressors fault much more that mine. As I've said previously, I don't like aggressive dogs and have no issue killing one that comes after me of anyone else but, if you or your child come onto my property, then you need to call ahead.

Some states and localities have passed laws and ordinances against owning Pit Bulls. Whether I agree with that or not really doesn't pertain to this discussion but, if that were the case here and the owner of the dog was required to keep the animal behind a keyed locked fence/gate, then, some responsibility could be placed on the owner of the dog. If not, then, it would be my opinion that the dog owner is not at fault based on what the articles have stated. I don't blame the dog owner for putting the animal down but, I also don't hold him responsible for injuries to the trespassing girl. I do feel badly for the girl. But................................
It doesn't matter why she was there, she was there and the dog was inside his boundaries. End of story.

quote Originally posted by FieroJam: Poodles were bred and used as hunting dogs for a very long time is this the face of a killer?

Underneath all that fluff yes it is.

Ron I have to disagree with you on this one.

From the story I posted no one went on the property, the gate was opened by someone. If the gate had been properly LOCKED as is required by Ohio law it could not have been opened.

Also the Ohio law states that the owner needs to have the dog licensed and have liability insurance, nether of those the owner did.

Having the farm we carry a half million dollar liability policy and have been considering increasing it because of,

If a horse gets out and someone hits it with their care we are responsible. There are many other reasons for our carrying such a high liability policy for us. I don’t believe Maine has a law stating that we have to carry it, but we do.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: with a dangerous animal - there is no end to the supervision. zoos put moats between the public and the dangerous animals. that maybe a fine start. dbl fences. NO GATES. only access thru locked steel doors. and - guard dogs - are behind some mighty tall fencing. locked & chained gates. and - they are also highly trained. and there is a supervising person. and, they are not in a subdivision where kids play. sorry dog owners - take some responsibility for your animals. they are after all, animals. humans take priority any day of the week. and - yes, if you had a cliff in your backyard, I'd expect reasonable precautions. tho, I'd be more confused by how you got a cliff....somehow, I'd expect it more to be described as a deep hole, or a well. and guess what? wells get the same response. and yet kids still find their way to the bottom, and the owner gets screwed. keep your dangerous stuff away from kids. thats it. its your stuff. kids are a fact. they exist. if you cant handle your dangerous stuff - dont keep it. and all the thoughtless items - like the classic refridgerators. who'd a thunk a 'fridge is dangerous. but it is. and you WILL get reemed on that one. everything that exists, does so, so children can thrive. they are #1.

This is ridiculous. Zoos are PUBLIC, this guy's property is PRIVATE. Zoos expect people to be pressed up against the fence. They actually CHARGE an admission fee for people to be able to. They provide a level of protection in accordance with the expectations of exposure of their animals to the public. To me, having your dog regardless of the breed confined within a fence on your own property is just as responsible, given the expectation that people won't come in uninvited and violate the security of the fence. And if someone does, just as if they climbed the fence at the zoo, they should be liable and responsible. Holy hell, when did it become anyone else's responsibility to make sure another person doesn't do something stupid? And this guy didn't expose his dog to the girl, as in "keep your dangerous stuff away from kids", she SOUGHT OUT THE DOG! She went to the DOG, the dog didn't go to her, and the dog didn't even hurt her until SHE violated the security of the confinement of the dog! The dog didn't jump the fence, he didn't say "hey little girl, want a piece of candy?" "Open the gate and come in, I won't bite." The dog didn't lure her into the yard. No. She did that of her own accord.

The dam gate was not locked as required by law,
The dam guy didn’t have the dog licensed as required by law,
The guy doesn’t have liability insurance as required by law,
The girl did not go on the property from what I read in the story I posted, someone opened the gate.

So he broke 3 laws and he should not be held liable?

http://www.nbc4i.com/midwes...2008-03-27-0006.html

------------------
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.

Good grief. If "someone" (and we all know that "someone" was one of these kids) hadn't opened the gate in first place, none of this would have ever happened! What is so complicated about that? Would licensing the dog or insurance on the dog have prevented this? Would a lock on the gate have prevented it, maybe, but what business did "someone" have going over and opening the gate in the first place?
Uff.


My new motto:
"Does being the last sane man on Earth make me crazy?"

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Ron I have to disagree with you on this one. From the story I posted no one went on the property, the gate was opened by someone. If the gate had been properly LOCKED as is required by Ohio law it could not have been opened. Also the Ohio law states that the owner needs to have the dog licensed and have liability insurance, nether of those the owner did. Having the farm we carry a half million dollar liability policy and have been considering increasing it because of, If a horse gets out and someone hits it with their care we are responsible. There are many other reasons for our carrying such a high liability policy for us. I don’t believe Maine has a law stating that we have to carry it, but we do.

Steve, as I said in an earlier post, not enough facts known to really make a decision. I don't know which story is true.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I swear, I wish I didn't know as much as I do about the world we have created. Has everyone gone completely stupid? Apparently yesterday some little girl was trying to pet a pit bull that was safely in his own back yard which was completely fenced in. The girl opens the gate and ends up being attacked by the dog. She goes to the hospital where she will recover, and they PUT THE DOG DOWN last night! WHY?????????????????? This dog was bothering no one one, the stupid kid came into its territory, breaching the security of a fenced yard, and somehow this is the DOGS fault???? And what's more, everyone is asking if the dog's owner has insurance, and apparently he's being cited for not having a license on the dog. Are you shi77ing me???????WTF is wrong with our society! Why isn't someone bitchslapping the parents for not teaching the kid to stay away from unfamiliar animals, or to stay out of yards that aren't thier own unless invited? GAH! Someone just shoot me now, I've had about as much of this rampant idiocy as I can handle......

The TV Reporter didn't provide a whole lot of insight either except to say the dog wasn't registered as required by law.
Now, I don't know what the law states in Columbus, that does make a big difference in who is at fault here. Based on the information provided at the start of this thread, I can't hold the dog owner responsilbe for someone entering his property and getting mauled. According to the TV News Reporter, the little girl was trying to pet the dog and was reaching over the fence. Who knows what really happened.

My point is that if the little girl did come on the property and was attacked, then, I can not hold the owner of the dog responsible. Does the law in fact require the animal to be in a locked cage, if so, then the owner bears some responsibliity. These things are never as simple as they may seem.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: The dog didn't jump the fence, he didn't say "hey little girl, want a piece of candy?" "Open the gate and come in, I won't bite." The dog didn't lure her into the yard. No. She did that of her own accord.

That is why I asked earlier if the law views a dog as an attractive nuisance, a swimming pool is considered an attractive nuisance (meaning irresistible, almost like bait) which is why you can sued for some kid drowning when you are not home.

I think a locked gate requirement is ridiculous BUT if that is in fact the law then the guy is screwed. Not to say I think it is right, In my opinion the parents have been weighed and measured and came up short, and this will only fuel their desire to place blame anywhere else they can.
I have found that where blame is laid by the law or civil action and what I consider very basic ideas of right and wrong and who should be to blame rarely match up these days.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: This is ridiculous. Zoos are PUBLIC, this guy's property is PRIVATE. Zoos expect people to be pressed up against the fence. They actually CHARGE an admission fee for people to be able to. They provide a level of protection in accordance with the expectations of exposure of their animals to the public. To me, having your dog regardless of the breed confined within a fence on your own property is just as responsible, given the expectation that people won't come in uninvited and violate the security of the fence. And if someone does, just as if they climbed the fence at the zoo, they should be liable and responsible. Holy hell, when did it become anyone else's responsibility to make sure another person doesn't do something stupid? And this guy didn't expose his dog to the girl, as in "keep your dangerous stuff away from kids", she SOUGHT OUT THE DOG! She went to the DOG, the dog didn't go to her, and the dog didn't even hurt her until SHE violated the security of the confinement of the dog! The dog didn't jump the fence, he didn't say "hey little girl, want a piece of candy?" "Open the gate and come in, I won't bite." The dog didn't lure her into the yard. No. She did that of her own accord.

again - its a kid. I'd give ya some slack if it was a burglar - but it was not. its a kid.
public/private means NOTHING to a kid.
both were unsupervised.
and - yes - keep your dangerous stuff away from kids.
if you want to put up lollipop trees, and sorround them with landmines - just saying "its in my gated yard" will not do.
kids are not a new menace. they have been around a long time. its no big secret. keep your dangerous stuff away from kids.

news flash: kids hop fences, and cut thru yards. who here hasn't?

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Ron I have to disagree with you on this one. (snip) If a horse gets out and someone hits it with their care we are responsible. There are many other reasons for our carrying such a high liability policy for us. I don’t believe Maine has a law stating that we have to carry it, but we do.

Been there Steve, had a 800 lb. heifer get hit and killed, almost cost us the farm. Let's say that someone decided to come onto your property without your permission and ride one of those horse, again, without your permission, gets bucked off, sustains major back injuries. Your fault????

AS I said before, we can "if" and "and" this death. I'm sure some attorney will help work these things out.

Ron

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

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-05-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Good grief. If "someone" (and we all know that "someone" was one of these kids) hadn't opened the gate in first place, none of this would have ever happened!

If the gate had been properly secured this would have never happened. If the owner didn't have a killer dog to begin with this would have never happened.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: If the gate had been properly secured this would have never happened. If the owner didn't have a killer dog to begin with this would have never happened.

Here we go with the "killer dog thing again.

Snipped from Steves link

"Despite this recent incident and similar attacks that have made news, animal control officers said pit bulls pose no particular threat.

“Unfortunately, it's a breed that's popular with a lot of irresponsible owners,” said Liz Lucas, a Middletown animal control officer."

There you have it,,,,,,,,,,,,

I was severely bitten by a St. Bernard when I was a kid, sitting on my bike out in the road, the thing bit a hunk out of my right leg, dropped it on the ground, looked at me right in the eyes, then ate it!. Now those dogs are not normally considered "killer dogs" either.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: That'll get you shot where I grew up and in TX.

well, this may shed much light with the disagreement and how this should be handled.
city? suburb? rural? country? these do have different lifestyles and attitudes.
being a fenced yard - right from the git-go implies city/suburb, maybe rural.
and maybe much the problem if rural - many rural people think they are in the country.
I myself am city. so, I am used to thinking of dogs as 100% owners responsibility. 100%. the dog basicly does not exist when the owner is not present. never see a dog without the owner. then this tapers away to country - where a dog may live its entire live without owner supervision.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Sorry Toddster, but I have to disagree.8 years old? A panicking dog? No way would you know what you were doing. You SHOULD have run for an adult straight away. ANY adult. The owner was guilty of tethering a dog in a way that could, and DID, cause the animal harm. He was not responsible for the dog biting you, and could never have even guessed that the dog would get tangled up, causing a young child to trespass on his property..and that is what you did!, no matter that your intentions were honourable. The owner was NOT responsible for your actions, laudable as they were, in any way at all. Suppose the house was catching fire, and you decided to get a bucket of water to put it out, and you were badly burned? Is it the house owner's fault that the house caught fire, and you came along and tried your VERY best to do the right thing? No, because it would have been the WRONG thing to do.GET AN ADULT to do an adult's job. Nick

You're trying to impose rationalism on a child Nick. THAT is the problem with this entire discussion. Children need our protection because they don't act rationally.

You an I are old enough to know the score and can recognize a potential threat. A child just sees a cute little pupppy who needs a friend. He doesn't see the need to get an adult because a child doesn't see the threat in the first place. That is the point.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: again - its a kid. I'd give ya some slack if it was a burglar - but it was not. its a kid. <snip>

Why should the liability be different? I don't think you can bring the intent of the trespasser into it, that's irrelevant. If it's a "kid" who may not know better, than where are his/her parents? And why aren't THEY solely responsible for the well-being of their child? I believe if it's a kid whose parents believe is old enough to be out unsupervised, than I believe those parents take on the sole responsibility for anything that may happen to that kid. I resent paying school taxes for kids I don't have, and I won't design my life around protecting kids who have no business on my property in the first place, and I think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect that of me. (Or anyone else)

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Why should the liability be different? I don't think you can bring the intent of the trespasser into it, that's irrelevant. If it's a "kid" who may not know better, than where are his/her parents? And why aren't THEY solely responsible for the well-being of their child? I believe if it's a kid whose parents believe is old enough to be out unsupervised, than I believe those parents take on the sole responsibility for anything that may happen to that kid. I resent paying school taxes for kids I don't have, and I won't design my life around protecting kids who have no business on my property in the first place, and I think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect that of me. (Or anyone else)

burglar has a concept of property. a burglar can drive a car. burglar can vote. burglar can drink alcohol. burglar can have sex. there is a large gap in law & liability between kids & adults. adults ONLY job in life is to create children & protect children. that is it. everything else is selfish luxury.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Why should the liability be different? I don't think you can bring the intent of the trespasser into it, that's irrelevant. If it's a "kid" who may not know better, than where are his/her parents? And why aren't THEY solely responsible for the well-being of their child? I believe if it's a kid whose parents believe is old enough to be out unsupervised, than I believe those parents take on the sole responsibility for anything that may happen to that kid. I resent paying school taxes for kids I don't have, and I won't design my life around protecting kids who have no business on my property in the first place, and I think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect that of me. (Or anyone else)

Don't you see? it takes a village! heh

Seems the usual ideological seperation around here, surprising it is from people I would not have expected.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Glad to see you were so much more advanced than the rest of us at 6 to 8 years of age. I was just a kid prone to do 'kid-like' things and needing the protection of responsible adults. Sorry you can't see the need for the rest of us since you were so enlightened at such an early age.

I'm not saying I was so much more advanced than anyone else. Apparently I was more disciplined and taught what is and isn't acceptable behavior. I was taught to respect other people's property, and to leave things the hell alone that didn't belong to me. My parents also didn't expect anyone else to be responsible for me, they assumed that responsibility as entirely their own. And if I did something stupid, they blame someone else for creating a situation where I could do something stupid, they blamed me for doing it.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF:no particular threat .

Yet they constitute a majority of deadly attacks. Yup perfectly safe dogs. Breed to be nice loving lap dogs with no aggressive tendencies what so ever............

So if these dogs are just as safe as any other why aren't there as many stories of other breeds killing people? Attacking children? No these are just misunderstood peaceful creatures.........

http://pit-bulls.christianfunfair.org/attacks.htm
Start clicking some of those links.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/P...danger.htm#homicides
Notice how many are pit bulls?

Yeah no problem here at all........
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/D...202006%20Clifton.pdf
Scroll down to pitbull. If these were just as dangerous as any other dog and "no particular threat" why are the numbers so disproportionately high?

Nah nothing to see here at all. Just as safe as any other dog..........

"On November 4, one-year-old Allen L. Young died after he was mauled at home by his dad's four pit bulls, which took the boy from his bed at night."

"On May 13th, Celestino Rangel, a 90-year-old man in San Antonio, Texas, was killed by two pit bulls that had broken into his home and attacked him."

Nope nothing to worry about. Just ignore the facts that pitbulls are more likely to attack and kill then any other breed of dog...................

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I'm reminded of the bombs that are disguised as children's toys that have been used in the past. Of course it's the child's fault for picking up the bomb and being blown to pieces, they should have known better. That'll teach them the lesson not to pick up strange toys. [/sarcasm] JazzMan

An intentional act of cowardice against a child is different than what occurred in this situation. No Sarcasm intended.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I'm not saying I was so much more advanced than anyone else. Apparently I was more disciplined and taught what is and isn't acceptable behavior. I was taught to respect other people's property, and to leave things the hell alone that didn't belong to me. My parents also didn't expect anyone else to be responsible for me, they assumed that responsibility as entirely their own. And if I did something stupid, they blame someone else for creating a situation where I could do something stupid, they blamed me for doing it.

I was responsible too. Hell my mother's psych professor described me as 10 going on 30. But that is not the point. Kids, no matter how smart they are, are still kids, prone to peer pressure, uncertain of the multidimentional parameters of right and wrong, and are emboldened with a sense of immortality that those of us whove been around a while have long since gotten over. Hormonal changes and psychological immaturity are thrown into the mix to make for a giant cocktail of uncertainty in decision making. It has nothing to do with how smart or dumb, good or bad, strong or weak our kids are, they are KIDS! That is why we have laws AND a need to protect them. They are going to hopefully be self governed citizens who accept personal responsibility one day but when they are young, especially in their adolescent years, they are vulnerable and we need to take extra precautions with them.

Are there extreme cases for kids? sure. I saw a show on Tru TV just last night where a 15 year old kid was pulled over by a cop driving a car and SHOT the cop twice in the chest. Was he a wanted fugitive? No, was he running from the law? No. Did he have drugs or booze on him? No. He was just a dumbass kid who didn't want to get a ticket and go to juvy. In this case even a 15 year knows he screwed-up! I mean HELLO! Shooting a Cop....bad! No gray area here. But when a little kid of 6 (or in my case 8) goes up to a dog, a pet, a domesticated animal, and animals are our friends (as we teach kids) then who is at fault if the child is hurt? The owner.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, this may shed much light with the disagreement and how this should be handled. city? suburb? rural? country? these do have different lifestyles and attitudes. being a fenced yard - right from the git-go implies city/suburb, maybe rural. and maybe much the problem if rural - many rural people think they are in the country. I myself am city. so, I am used to thinking of dogs as 100% owners responsibility. 100%. the dog basicly does not exist when the owner is not present. never see a dog without the owner. then this tapers away to country - where a dog may live its entire live without owner supervision.

Well now, I wouldn't go quite that far, cause us country folks do feel responsible for what our dogs do. Again, this may depend your definitions such as what supervision is defined as but, I think you're pretty much on target with this post.

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