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.

a six year old. kindargarden, 1st grade. most of us dont even remember our 1st grade teacher. I cant know what you do & dont remember - but - it does sound like you are mixing up your adolescent years with your childhood years. there is ALOT more expected of a 10 year old over a 6 year old. and even 10 year olds will hop fences and cut thru yards.

kids are kids. they will go over each others houses & play. they will run thru the neighborhood and play. thats what they do.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Understood. As the owner of a 140 lb. sobbering but loveable Bullmastif, I can understand why some folks would prefer to scale down. Ron

Now there is something that would be freaky looking a mini bullmastif

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Underneath all that fluff yes it is.

Yes but it is near impossible to get blood out of a poodle's hair. No you don't want to know how I know that!! Again if I got mauled by a poodle I would have to go somewhere and die of embarrassment.

.

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

If the dog owner was in violation of a law that required a Locked versus Latched Gate, then clearly, he bears responsibility for breaking that law. Whether I agree with that law or not is mute. If there was no such law, then we might have a different discussion.

Though I do feel sympathy for the child in this case, that child and that child's parents also bear some responsibilty based on what was reported initially. The follow on reports may be accurate, don't know.

Ron

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Not really. Adult creates a known danger (bomb like a toy; unlocked gate with known dangerous breed of dog behind it), child is told not to (open other people's gates; pick up strange toys; go near strange dogs), child does what children do (forgets, makes bad child-like decision to pick up toy, open unlocked gate to pet pretty doggie) and suffers injury as a result of his/her actions. If the facts as presented so far are accurate then the dog owner was negligent because he failed to lock the gate and therefor was in clear violation of the law. There is a world of difference between latched and locked, by the way, in legal as well as common sense terms. Is there anyone here who honestly believes that six year olds are capable of making adult decisions often enough to matter? JazzMan

Then why is that child not supervised by an adult to help them make better choices, rather than punishing innocent neighbors (and dogs) who are overall, minding their own business? Why are you holding them responsible for the actions of what has already been determined is a child incapable of making decisions that won't potentially cause them harm, and not the parents of that child who should know that the child is incapable of making those choices? Yes, kids will be kids, and will do kid things. I just think the responsibility of those actions is being deflected to the wrong person.

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! 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?"

Maybe all the kids should have been mauled, not just the little girl. I wonder why the dog chose her? She was probably the most ferocious. Or maybe she LOOKED like a trespasser. Now wait a minute, so this occured on the sidewalk! Who owns the sidewalk? Was she on private property. If she wasn't on private property and didn't open the gate, is the person who opened it a trespasser? Who should have been mauled here?

Just how long does it take to open one of those gate latches?

1 second
Just how can any of us say if there was or wasn’t an adult present, non.
If there was an adult present, watching from a lawn chair, just how long would it take that adult to get to that gate?

A lot longer than that dog.

We have a sign on one of the gates to one of our pastures that reads,

I can make it to the fence in 1.2 seconds, how about you.

The owner broke at least 2 state laws that we can agree on, unlicensed dog, no liability insurance. How many LAWS do you need to brake to make you responsible?

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Just how long does it take to open one of those gate latches?

195 milliseconds

As the hunting guide told his bear hunting clients. I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: The owner broke at least 2 state laws that we can agree on, unlicensed dog, no liability insurance. How many LAWS do you need to brake to make you responsible?

Neither of those laws would have made a single bit of difference, unless you think the license or insurance would have slowed the dog down. So what possible difference would they make?
I'm a bit surprised that you seem to think the dog's owner was responsible. I'm pretty sure I could pull out a post or two about your former neighbors where you bragged about your dogs and how they would defend your property. Do you think you should be held responsible if they came on your property and one of your dogs lit their ass up? What's the difference?

.

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

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Neither of those laws would have made a single bit of difference, unless you think the license or insurance would have slowed the dog down. So what possible difference would they make? I'm a bit surprised that you seem to think the dog's owner was responsible. I'm pretty sure I could pull out a post or two about your former neighbors where you bragged about your dogs and how they would defend your property. Do you think you should be held responsible if they came on your property and one of your dogs lit their ass up? What's the difference?

HOW MANY KIDS DO YOU HAVE?

IS THAT LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU?

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

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 03-28-2008).]

How is that relevant to my question?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: How is that relevant to my question?

It's not. It's more emotion.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: How is that relevant to my question?

Because from the way you talk you don’t have kids. You have no comprehension of how they act.

No 6 year old is the way you think they are.

Yes my dogs would defend me, Melanie, Amanda, and our stock with their lives. As they are supposed to. They would not as I have already stated hurt a child unless that child was trying to hurt one of the above.

They are obviously more intelligent than you.

Now go back to your meaningless consumer driven life.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Because from the way you talk you don’t have kids. You have no comprehension of how they act. No 6 year old is the way you think they are. Yes my dogs would defend me, Melanie, Amanda, and our stock with their lives. As they are supposed to. They would not as I have already stated hurt a child unless that child was trying to hurt one of the above. They are obviously more intelligent than you. Now go back to your meaningless consumer driven life.

What exactly did I do to elicit that kind of response? I asked you an earnest question, which you still haven't answered. Instead of actually responding to the question you resort to insults and personal attacks? And exactly to what end? Do you feel more powerful now, having said those things? Do you now think you're smarter or tougher than me? Being an e-thug is easy, isn't it? If you don't want to answer the question, then just ignore it or just don't answer it, but don't perpetuate the dialog and resort to schoolyard tactics when confronted with a challenging question. This kind of aggressive unwarranted kind of response is why I think you are partly responsible for the problems you have with your neighbors.Oh, I'm sure you'll use that as a reason to further insult me or take pot shots, which is fine, because apparently you don't actually need a good reason.

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

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: So what possible difference would they make?

Anyone who would not follow the laws regarding one aspect of the laws regarding dangerous dogs would find it easy to not follow any laws regarding his dog.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I'm a bit surprised that you seem to think the dog's owner was responsible. I'm pretty sure I could pull out a post or two about your former neighbors where you bragged about your dogs and how they would defend your property. Do you think you should be held responsible if they came on your property and one of your dogs lit their ass up? What's the difference?

Yes I am responsible for anything any of our animals do, it’s the LAW.

Would they hurt someone for no reason, NO. our dogs need a reason to attack someone. As posted earlier we have handicapped kids here every year that frolic in the fields with the dogs, under our close supervision.

And as I said before the most fault lies with the dog owner.
Why?
Because it is the law. We have laws that should be followed. Whether or not we agree with them.

I never said it was completely the dog owners fault, but I also said the owner is more at fault because he obviously thought it was ok to just not follow any laws related to the ownership of a dangerous dog.

Now there I answered your questions, how about answering mine.

Do you have kids?

------------------
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 Phranc: 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......... [...

I just quoted what the "animal control officer" stated in the article...... I would assume that they might have a realistic take on the subject.

I have no numbers but I can take a guess that the high number of attacks might be due to the high rate of ownership, they have become extremely popular to own these days and as the animal control officer also said the “Unfortunately, it's a breed that's popular with a lot of irresponsible owners,” Kinda goes hand in hand I think. The free pet section on graigslist is crawling with them.

Don't get me wrong, I am not sticking up for the pit bull in particular here, I personally do not like the way they look and are one of the worst smelling dogs a guy can own. heh

My X and I used to breed and show Rottweilers, I know all about dog discrimination. Though I will admit I have met some spooky ones.

Edit: Oh, and that is NOT my wife, that nice lady was the AKC Judge. In the picture, me at 30 and big Aug at 10 months winning best puppy working class! At the Tacoma Dome June 10th 1989.

[This message has been edited by Red88FF (edited 03-29-2008).]

If I had a pet Bengal Tiger (which some Ohioans do have btw) in a cage in my back yard, and you let him out and he attacked some people, who would be responsible ? Anyone go to jail or get sued ? Ohio law allows you to keep one. The only thing making it any different from a pit bull is its size which actually is immaterial to the issue.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Yes I am responsible for anything any of our animals do, it’s the LAW. Would they hurt someone for no reason, NO. our dogs need a reason to attack someone. As posted earlier we have handicapped kids here every year that frolic in the fields with the dogs, under our close supervision. And as I said before the most fault lies with the dog owner. Why? Because it is the law. We have laws that should be followed. Whether or not we agree with them. I never said it was completely the dog owners fault, but I also said the owner is more at fault because he obviously thought it was ok to just not follow any laws related to the ownership of a dangerous dog. Now there I answered your questions, how about answering mine. Do you have kids?

Well, I suppose therein lies the main issue. I'm not arguing the law. To me in this case, the law is irrelevant except from the standpoint of who will ultimately be held responsible in the eyes of the law. Morally, ethically, and intellectually, I see the guy as without fault or guilt. Your scenarios about inviting kids over is completely different, as has been all of the scenarios painted here- they all offer scenarios where kids or friends or others are *invited*. In this case, there was a young child who apparently should not have been unsupervised, and that position is upheld primarily be everyone here. Yet for some reason those same people find the dog owner at fault, more so than the parents who were obviously negligent in tending to this child who it has been proclaimed by you and others to not know any better than to open the gate. And that mystifies me. I'm not arguing "the law", to me this law is just another fear-based stupid law designed to protect stupid or irresponsible people from themselves. That's a business I think government and law needs to stay out of. It ultimately (such as case in point) makes one responsible for the stupidity or ignorance of others. Besides, if you want argue that the owner was "breaking the law", then what about trespassing? Isn't that also against the law?
That's just my position, which obviously differs from some, aligns with others.
That isn't to say I don't regret this happened to this girl. The real shame to me is that this happened, and absolutely no good will come from it. The dog has been killed, the owner will more than likely be charged with some absurd pointless crimes and eventually be sued, and the only lesson this girl will learn is that she can do things like this, and expect someone else to be held accountable for her actions, and indeed, possible even profit from her own negligence or ignorance.

No, I have no kids, although I still fail to see the relevance of that. I've been around kids my whole life, I WAS a kid and remember quite clearly what it was like, and the things I did, (largely my reason for NOT having kids!) and the things I learned. I'm sure my claims of learning things like respect and responsibility at an early age are met with doubt and suspicion. But I can assure you, my father was absolutely a disciplinarian, and I'm grateful for that. And I think it's unfortunate that most parents today are spineless wimps who get pushed around by their kids out of fear of being accused of being "abusive". Just my own little bit of commentary there.
My parents didn't just one day say, OK, you're old enough to start learning these things. It was something I grew up experiencing and being taught from the very earliest stages of my life. I can never remember a time in my life when I wasn't being taught respect for others, and their property. It wasn't something that just suddenly happened "one day". And if I EVER did anything in violation of those principals my dad was trying to teach me, I suffered the consequences not only of my actions, but through punishment from my dad. I assure you, if it had been me that did what this girl did, that dog would not have been put down, the owner would not need to be concerned about litigation, and I would have learned a VERY valuable lesson. But then, my parents were responsible.

The dog owner has a moral responsibility to the human race, as we all do. I bet even he understands this. I would much rather the law didn't have anything to do with it. His dog hurt a kid. The kid did not open the gate, and if she did she's six years old. If it was possible to be a responsible person at six she would be allowed to vote and sign contracts. A $3.50 lock would have kept this kid from getting hurt. If the owner doesn't have insurance and he doesn't lock the gate doesn't this at least make the owner stupid? Or does he just not give a darn? Should anyone expect the six year old to be more responsible than the owner? What did his parents teach him? He has every right to own a dangerous dog, just as I have to own a dangerous weapon, but we both have a responsiblility make a reasonable attempt to not allow these things to hurt innocents. The dog should not have been killed, the dog was just being a dog. All dogs have the potential to be dangerous even the best trained and well mannered ones. The owner needs a boot. There is one way to keep kids from doing anything stupid and that is to restrain them or fill their lives with supervision. One causes severe adult emotional trauma, the other causes the inability to make reasonable choices. The best any parent can do is try to be the right place in between and hope for the best. Mistakes do not make a six year old or an adult evil they are just mistakes. Everyone has to pay for their mistakes in the end. The girl is paying physically (although seemingly the only mistake she made was being in the wrong place at the wrong time), the parents (if their any parents at all) are paying emotionally and monitarily if the owner doesn't have insurance. It is definatly not too much to ask for the owner to pay a part. This is not about fault or law or blame. It is about honor and responsibilty to mankind.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Well, I suppose therein lies the main issue. I'm not arguing the law. To me in this case, the law is irrelevant except from the standpoint of who will ultimately be held responsible in the eyes of the law. Morally, ethically, and intellectually, I see the guy as without fault or guilt.

Intellectually?

His dog destroyed a kid. Off hand I'd say the phrase "BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD" can't be over stated here. Where was his intellect involved in this set of precautions he took?

We can't protect out kids from every conceivable event but keeping your vicious dog secured is kind of a no brainer. And by secured I mean that if a 6 year old can gain easy access to the dog then that AIN'T SECURE. Try applying the same standard they use for childproof medicine caps and you'll see the err of your logic.

God I love Ron White...

.

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

Once again, James..you have provided an answer which you chose not to give here directly, and probably unwittingly;

"You keep assuming that children have common sense, obey their parents at all time, and are responsible enough to know what and what not to do.
That is a fallacious asumption...."


Perhaps you should have added...

'AND..that is why children should never be allowed anywhere without parental or adult supervision..LINE OF SIGHT vision....because if that had happened, and the child was supervised, nothing would have happened either. Swings both ways, James...Sue the parents too, for neglect..Parents are the foundation of 90% of the terrible things that happen to children nowadays...and the damage they do in later years.When I was young, there was only about 5% of children who caused problems, or were hurt..nowadays it is a LOT higher...and that isn´t because dog owners aren´t being responsible..PARENTS aren´t..too damned busy earning more money to finance their purchases of consumer crap.And that is more important to many, than their child's welfare.
I have to state that I agree 101% with Taijiguy here.
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 03-31-2008).]

lol - so, when your kids goes to play with its friends, you go along?
and when joey tells his mom he's going over sams, and sam says he going over joeys, and they both end up at nick's.....

you are nutz if you think a kid can be watched 24/7. who here cannot/couldnot ditch their parents? they teach you how on Nickalodeon.

but....I suppose I have heard of a few people who may have been raised under the constant watchful eye of a dominating mother. I think "serial killer" is the technical term....

Sorry Nick but here is one we disagree on.

Well in part anyway.

Even if the child is in line of sight of the parent, just what constitutes line of sight? 10’,20’,50’?

At any of those distances a dog can out run you.

I am not saying the parents of the child are not at fault to a degree, they are, but not anywhere near the amount this person who kept a dog in an unlocked enclosure.

As I said before if I had to assign %s of fault, I would say the man with the dog who knowingly broke the law is 90% at fault. Then the parents of the child are 10%. It could be 80/20 but no more than that.

We have laws, everyone has to obey them. We cannot pick and chose what laws we feel we should obey, well we can, but if we do that then we are responsible for our actions.

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

I believe that it was the parents fault. While I question the dog owners competence for properly securing his property, I cannot fault him. It appears that the dog was secure within his property. Now if the animal escapes his property and injures someone then he would be 100% at fault. In this case the parents neglected the childs safety, by allowing the child to go unsupervised.

Stating that children are a bear to raise and control is an excuse. If you can't handle the responsibility (raising children is a huge one) then
you shouldn't have had any. Far too many people shirk personal responsibility and believe that society should pick up the slack, which should never be the case as it evolves into the society that we have now.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Dude, was this your dog? The dog owner broke the law. (Didn't lock the gate.) As a result of breaking that law, a situation was created that allowed a child to open the illegally unlocked gate. If the dog owner had obeyed the law like any other law-abiding citizen, such as yourself and me, then the child would not have been able to open the gate and we would not be having this conversation right now. You keep assuming that children have common sense, obey their parents at all time, and are responsible enough to know what and what not to do. That is a fallacious assumption, one that you should stop making because continuing to state it is hurting your credibility. The law was put into place to prevent just this kind of situation from happening, the dog owner broke the law, creating this situation as a direct result, and you're assuming that he bears little to no responsibility? I stand by what I said, and I presented well-reasoned arguments that completely support my statements in this thread. I've seen no rational, logical reasons presented in this thread so far to change my mind. JazzMan

Actually, you're mistaken on a few points there. First, I've specifically stated that I'm not arguing the law, nor that the owner broke those laws. I explained my position on those laws. My argument is that those laws are irrational, and that two of the three would not have prevented this situation, and that there's only an assumption that the third law would have. My argument is that those laws, (particularly the third about the lock) is just ANOTHER example of how we've created a society that makes other people responsible for protecting people from themselves, only perpetuating this trend of deflecting personal responsibility.
Next, I have NEVER asserted that all children do any of those things. I assert that in order for children to LEARN those things, they have to suffer consequences for their actions and be held accountable. The parents of the child rather than seeking damages from the homeowner (which I don't know that they have or will, but I won't be surprised) should be apologizing to the dog's owner for their child's actions, and the resulting harm caused the owner.
My opinion is that the owner of this dog did NOTHING to create this situation. The dog did not enter the child's home and attack her. The dog did not escape it's containment and attack the child, and the owner of the dog didn't invite the child into his house or yard. No, in fact just the opposite, the child(ren) came into the DOG's house, (yard) and either the child, or one of her friends, or someone without permission to do so released the dog. Why isn't THAT person, or the parents of the child not being called out on this? That's one question none of you have addressed, and makes me think you're opinions are based more on emotion than ration.
I'm sure you find your argument to be rational, and that's fine, I just disagree, and find it completely irrational.
Yes or No: Had the child not gone onto property that was not their own, and opened a gate that was not their own, and/or had the parents of that child been supervising that child, would this situation have been 100% avoided?

quote Originally posted by aji: As a parent you are responsible for your child; period.

of course. not saying otherwise.
and same applies for the dog owner.
but when it comes time to choose - human or animal - guess who loses. animal. everytime.
this was unattended dog & unattended child.

Then we can agree to disagree in this case as to who is more at fault and more responsible.

Laws are made, for the most part to protect people.

No one can be with their child 24/7, no one.

Are parents ultimately responsible for their children until they reach a certain age, yes that is the law.

As I said to Nick, even keeping the kids in line of sight that dog could out run you.

OK lets make this even more fair.

Dog owner 70% at fault,
Child who opened gate 20% at fault,
Childs parent 10% at fault.

No one is free of fault here.

------------------
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 84fiero123: Then we can agree to disagree in this case as to who is more at fault and more responsible. Laws are made, for the most part to protect people. No one can be with their child 24/7, no one. Are parents ultimately responsible for their children until they reach a certain age, yes that is the law. As I said to Nick, even keeping the kids in line of sight that dog could out run you. OK lets make this even more fair. Dog owner 70% at fault, Child who opened gate 20% at fault, Childs parent 10% at fault. No one is free of fault here.

I can agree to disagree, especially with those percentages. I say the owner had zero culpability. Again, not arguing the law, simply arguing my perception of "right" and "wrong". And even then, I don't know that I actually see any right or wrong here at ALL. I only take issue with this because it appears to be so damned important that BLAME be assigned, and in this situation, a child was hurt, and a domestic animal was KILLED as a result. Frankly, this was an unfortunate ACCIDENT. Avoidable? Of course, ALL accidents are technically avoidable. But we're humans (and animals) and as adults we don't always take the safe route and kids will be kids and more often than not, make dumb choices. So really, I don't think ANYONE was at fault. I would be the first to say that kids are kids and will do kid things, and while they are ultimately a parent's responsibility, you still have to let them be KIDS. You have to let them get out and experience the world. And certainly, when they're out there roaming around you can only hope they are safe, but sometimes bad things happen and they get hurt or worse. But that's life, stuff happens, even to kids. And the owner, well, his only mistake was not taking a precaution designed to make him presponsible for protecting people from themselves, which I think is unreasonable in the first place. I only pick "sides" because I think the responsibility is being laid on the wrong person, and *if* blame has to be assigned, then the parents need to assume that responsibility for not teaching their child better, or for not maintaining better supervision of a child that may not have been emotionally prepared to face the world on her own, and make appropriate choices. That's not the responsibility of anyone but them, and they made the choice to release that child into the "world" unsupervised, poor choices and all.
Frankly, in a more advanced society, everyone would see it for what it really is: a friggin' accident. "Everyone shake hands and go home." "How about putting a lock on that gate?" "I bet your child learns a valuable lesson from this one."