quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: There's video on this page that goes along with the story. They even show the dog. Sure doesn't look like a "killer" animal to me... http://www.10tv.com/live/co..._attack.html?sid=102

So your point is that you don't think the dog actually chewed up the girl, or are you saying that he did but without malice? Maybe you are arguing that he wouldn't do it again under similar circunstances or that the circumstances were so unusual as never to happen again. Dogs never look like killers when their mouths are closed. It's when their teeth are sunk in you that you begin to have doubts as to their gentleness. Polar Bears don't look like killers either. Neither did Jeffery Dahmer.

Are you suggesting that not every dog on the face of the planet is capable of attacking someone under certain circumstances? Why not just prevent any possibility at all, and just kill all dogs today and alleviate all possible risk? If the dog had been left alone, this never would have happened, but then, that is a circular argument here which returns to who's ultimately responsible. Which I've already explained my position in every conceivable way.

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

why does the dog not need to be watched?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: God I love Ron White...

I guess that is because you haven't noticed that everybody is pointing at you when the laughing starts.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Which I've already explained my position in every conceivable way.

It sure looks like the majority, here at least doesn't agree with you. Most think there are degrees of fault in this case.

Seeing we are a democratic society and are ruled by the majority you lose. As did the dog owner in the eyes of the law.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: why does the dog not need to be watched?

Uh, because he was confined to his yard by a fence?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Are you suggesting that not every dog on the face of the planet is capable of attacking someone under certain circumstances? Why not just prevent any possibility at all, and just kill all dogs today and alleviate all possible risk? If the dog had been left alone, this never would have happened, but then, that is a circular argument here which returns to who's ultimately responsible. Which I've already explained my position in every conceivable way.

I thought I made it clear that I thought all dogs are capable of attacking under certain circumstances, but if not, there, I just did. I think it would be great idea to prevent as many dogs from attacking as possible, that is why I think a lock on the gate would be a good idea. I don't think we would have to kill any of the dogs, that seems extreme to me, do you think we should? I have posted repeatedly that the dog shpuld NOT have been killed. I don't think the dog owner should have been so irresponsible as to risk having his dog killed by not placing a lock on the gate. Why do we need to decide who is ULTIMATELY responsible?! The title of this thread is "more lunacy from our civilization". This thread is a wonderful example thereof. Our civilization today is more concerned about placing blame than excepting responsibility, more concerned about fault than solutions. If every one involved in this incident would except responsibility for their mistakes INCLUDING the dog owner there would be no need for court battles or anything else. There are two victims here: The girl first and the dog second, everyone else did something wrong. I hope this clarifies MY position yours is certainly clear.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Uh, because he was confined to his yard by a fence?

so, how did someone get attacked?
dogs need supervision also. again - BOTH dog & child were unsupervised.
sorry - where I live - dogs are either indoors, or attached to owners by leashes. there are no "loose animals".
just as you are crying "watch your kid" - I am crying "watch your dog"
BOTH need supervision. a fenced yard is a fine start. but - it is by no means supervision. I've seen plenty of dogs clear a fence. both over & under.
I've seen plenty kids enter yards. just opening the back door, and letting the dog out, and going back to watch TV is insufficient.

we all know what all the items here are capable of. nothing which happened is a mysterious circumstance.

I agree the kid should have been watched also. no doubt about it. and - again - and again - BOTH dog & child were unsupervised. child wins. dead doggie.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: It sure looks like the majority, here at least doesn't agree with you. Most think there are degrees of fault in this case. Seeing we are a democratic society and are ruled by the majority you lose. As did the dog owner in the eyes of the law.

No, I don't lose. We all lose. Because you guys are where it comes from. When some solicitor trips on your sidewalk and sues you, now you know why. When some dipstick sues the airlines because terrorists crashed their planes into his buildings, you now know why. Whenever some thief sues you for your dog attacking him while he's trespassing on your property, you can only blame yourselves, because you are the demographic that makes up those juries, people who think just like you.

.

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

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: SO you're saying in Michigan it's no longer legal to let your dog run around in your fenced in yard? You either have to have it indoors or on a leash? Man, I bet there are some farmers pissed off about that.....

no, in the city, you dont have yards. yes, when you get to single family residences, there are homes with yards. and dogs too.
and - I highly doubt this happened on a farm.
either way - watch the dog. same as watch your kid. both need supervision. just as you are claiming "go outside and play" is not enough - just letting the dog out the back door is not enough. fences are insufficient. both dogs & children can pass them.

.

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

Nobody likes my Idea huh?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: No, I don't lose. We all lose. Because you guys are where it comes from. When some solicitor trips on your sidewalk and sues you, now you know why. When some dipstick sues the airlines because terrorists crashed their planes into his buildings, you now know why. Whenever some thief sues you for your dog attacking him while he's trespassing on your property, you can only blame yourselves, because you are the demographic that makes up those juries, people who think just like you.

Do we all really lose in a safer society because we have laws?

No

If someone falls in my yard because of my negligence, yes I am responsible and liable.

If someone comes and lets one of our dogs out I am liable legally if not morally for not having that gate secured.

I carry liability insurance, any home owner should. Even if it is not the law, it is common sense. As Cliff said earlier I think he almost lost his farm because a cow got out and he didn’t have insurance.

Somehow you feel it is alright to do whatever YOU want on your property no mater what the laws are. It’s not.
If you put other people in danger.
Keeping a know vicious dog on your property carries with it certain responsibilities, moral and legal.

I had a problem with my new neighbors recently. They were burning trash within 25’ of our barn. Burning trash make toxic fumes, it filled our barn.

So is that alright for him to do? Even though it is illegal by state and federal laws? It is on his property right?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: No, Nick, I should not have added that, that is your opinion and as much as I respect your opinion I fundamentally disagree with it and consider it to be incorrect. The only logical end to the line of reasoning that you and taijiguy are on is to essentially imprison kids physically, either with shackles and chains or in cages. The sad part is that there are parents who actually do that to their children. What taijiguy and apparently you believe is that someone who knowingly broke the law and as a result knowingly created a dangerous situation should be exempted from being responsible for the consequences of that knowingly illegal act because the child was unsupervised at the time she opened the illegally unlocked gate. I disagree with that fundamentally because it absolves the person who broke the law from being responsible for the results of that illegal action. It would be like me saying that even though I caused a major accident with injuries because I ran a red light and t-boned another driver I should be absolved of responsibility for the accident because the other driver's license was expired and if he had obeyed the law and not been driving he wouldn't have been in the intersection when I ran the red light and hit him. My running the red light would be analogous to the dog owner breaking the law by not having a lock on his gate, and the expired license would be analogous to the parents not being in direct line of sight supervision of the child at the moment she opened the unlawfully unlocked gate. To me, a more accurate analogy would be that the person with the expired license is sitting at a light minding their own business and they get rear-ended. OK, sure, had they not been there driving without a license, it might not have happened, but if the other person had not caused the rear-end collision in the first place, no one would have been harmed. If I cause an accident by ignoring a red light I should be held accountable regardless of the other driver having an expired license because it was my breaking the law that actually caused the collision. That's common sense, Nick. JazzMan

Well first, I've never asserted any of those things about keeping children contained, but parents have to be responsible for them, period. But a couple of points. First, as I've said repeatedly, I'm not arguing the law. I'm arguing the SENSE of that law, but not that the law exists, or that this guy broke it. Secondly, then OK, let's run with "the law", isn't trespassing illegal? Why isn't someone not the owner being held accountable for that violation of the law? Doesn't law require that it be applied equally in all situations?
As for your analogy, I see this little girl opening the gate as analogous to running the light, as if she had not done that, then this never would have happened. I see the owner as the guy without the valid license, as he (and his dog) were just minding their own business when someone else came along and caused the disruption.
Edit, I *can* understand where one might see things the way the analogy was presented, but I don't really think that's as accurate as the other way around. Just my perception.

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

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.

not a bad approach - but - all dogs can be violent. and, due to the easy nature of creating a dog breed, all you need to do is a little cross breeding, and now you have something which is not technicaly a Pit Bull, yet still just as, or maybe even more so, dangerous. the russians went ahead and created there own special breed just for bomb sniffing. just keep an eye on your dog. and your kid.

I have a hard time imagining that someone who choose to get a PitBull did not know what he was getting. I am under the impression the aggressiveness is the very reason for the choice. I guess this is where "reasonable" definitions begin to vary. This is not a Jack Russell. Your average backyard is NOT gonna contain mid to large sized dogs. average fences & gates just dont do. this is for ANY mid to large dog.

I am in no way against PitBulls, or any other dog breed. Get whatcha want. just do it responsibly. and take responsibility for what your animal does.

I had to go all the way back to page one to find your idea.

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.

Part wolf dogs are legal in some states, here for example. They do have to be registered as such though.
Wolf hybrids.
It is legal in some stated to keep wild animals, I think it was roger who said he can keep a big cat in Ohio. Tennessee also allows it. But all those states have regulation regarding the confinement of such animals.

They are dangerous, as was this dog.

We have yet to hear anyone say if this dog has done this before. Most states allow one bite, Maine does, unless there are other circumstances. The dog is let free, maybe fined. Second time the dog is put down.

Now who is to say this dog has not done this before? Seems reasonable that this dog has bitten before if it was just put down without due process.

There was no claim that this dog had any history, They had only gotten the dog last Christmas. You can be sure the media would have been all over it had this happened before with this same dog.

Dam that dog grew real big real quick. Sounds like someone else couldn’t handle it and got rid of it.

How about this, you never answered this.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: I had a problem with my new neighbors recently. They were burning trash within 25’ of our barn. Burning trash make toxic fumes, it filled our barn. So is that alright for him to do? Even though it is illegal by state and federal laws? It is on his property right?

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Dam that dog grew real big real quick. Sounds like someone else couldn’t handle it and got rid of it. How about this, you never answered this.

Well, if I recall on that subject I held back any judgments as far as "right or wrong". It seemed there was more to the story. And, without trying to provoke anything, I'll go back to my comments about how you do come across (towards me anyway) as being pretty quick with the trigger. I can't count the number of times you've attacked me without any real provocation. And before you get defensive and hostile, I'm not making any judgments or criticisms, just an observation. Frankly, I think I'm a pretty easy going guy, but if I was your neighbor, and you approached me IRL the way you have so often on this forum, you can be sure we would have danced. If you approached me in a reasonable manner and wanted to work together to solve our differences, I would be completely open to that. But I don't care what I'm doing, legal or otherwise, if a neighbor comes over and tries to bully me, there IS going to be a pissing match. I have NO IDEA what your approach was to them, and tone of voice and facial expression is EVERYTHING in personal communication, none of which did I have the benefit of observing. And I can only draw on my own personal experience with you, which aside from the more recent civil nature of this conversation hasn't been all that great. So even in giving you the benefit of the doubt, I still can't draw any conclusions on that situation based solely on the information provided, I just can't.
I'm not clear on the relevance of that comparison anyway?

Oh, I just re-read the question, but I'm still not sure I can answer. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm not arguing the existence of the law. I'm not arguing that the law may be in place, nor that the dogs owner didn't comply with those laws, However, neither registering the dog, nor the insurance would have in any way shape or form prevented this from happening. Would a lock on the gate have prevented it? I give it 50-50. My argument is the reasonableness of the law. I see that law as just a perpetuation of how our society is creating laws that compel other people to have to do things, or create environments where other people who should be responsible for their own actions can do things they shouldn't, and not be held accountable or responsible. And like I said, you guys who endorse these laws and don't see the girl or her parents as being directly responsible for this entire situation are exactly the people who further that mindset. It's that attitude of "it's not my fault" that encourages and rewards absurd lawsuits and deflection of personal responsibility.

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

So in your eyes it is OK to brake the law as long as it is on your property, even if it endangers others?

You have gone down this road before.

responsibility applies to dog ownership also.
and, in a push - humans win over animals.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: responsibility applies to dog ownership also. and, in a push - humans win over animals.

No disagreement there, the question is, to what extent must one go to protect people from themselves, whether you're talking about as it refers to an animal, a car, a home loan, or another person. THAT is where the argument lies, as I believe that we coddle way too much to people who should probably be removed from the gene pool anyway. Yes I know that's a bit extreme, but I'm just making a point.

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

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: No disagreement there, the question is, to what extent must one go to protect people from themselves, whether you're talking about as it refers to an animal, a car, a home loan, or another person. THAT is where the argument lies, as I believe that we coddle way too much to people who should probably be removed from the gene pool anyway. Yes I know that's a bit extreme, but I'm just making a point.

of course. as I said from the get go - BOTH the dog owner & the parents were lacking.
I am 100% for letting failures fail. and - this little girl failed. lesson learned. whatever you wanna call it. she wont soon forget.
ANY dog that attacks ANY person is suitable for termination in my book.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: No disagreement there, the question is, to what extent must one go to protect people from themselves, whether you're talking about as it refers to an animal, a car, a home loan, or another person. THAT is where the argument lies, as I believe that we coddle way too much to people who should probably be removed from the gene pool anyway. Yes I know that's a bit extreme, but I'm just making a point.

It's a good point and applies to the dog owner as well as to the parents. However if we remove everyone from the gene pool who has done something stupid all of us highly intelligent people would be pretty lonely. Helmet laws, seat belt laws, dog laws, most laws in fact, do very little to protect us. A little empathy and human decency would go a lot further, especially in this case.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: It sure looks like the majority, here at least doesn't agree with you. Most think there are degrees of fault in this case. Seeing we are a democratic society and are ruled by the majority you lose. As did the dog owner in the eyes of the law.

That is unfortunate as the majority is rarely right. Look at the finalists for president of the U.S.
They happen to be the worst of the bunch.

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

.

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

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: If I commit a criminal act that results in a serious injury to a child I'll want you and people like you on my jury, hehehe... JazzMan

That depends on whether the act is actually criminal or not. If this guy had let the dog run the neighborhood, or left the gate open, or somehow otherwise contributed to this, then I would have a very different attitude. But as it is, I just don't think he did anything "wrong" enough to be considered guilty of any crime.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: That depends on whether the act is actually criminal or not. If this guy had let the dog run the neighborhood, or left the gate open, or somehow otherwise contributed to this, then I would have a very different attitude. But as it is, I just don't think he did anything "wrong" enough to be considered guilty of any crime.

How wrong YOU think something is has no berring on if an act is criminal or not. A criminal act is an act that violates a law. He either broke a law or he didn't.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: That depends on whether the act is actually criminal or not.

I know I'm going to regret asking this but...

What other kind of "criminal acts" are there?

quote Originally posted by Cadillac Jack: How wrong YOU think something is has no berring on if an act is criminal or not. A criminal act is an act that violates a law. He either broke a law or he didn't.

This is the kind of person I expect to disagree with me on this topic.....someone who can't actually read. The rest of you surprise me.
Wow dude. Way to read a thread.

Edit:

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I know I'm going to regret asking this but... What other kind of "criminal acts" are there?

Well, at least he's in good company. And you're actually educated....

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

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Well, at least he's in good company. And you're actually educated....

This is what I read: But as it is, I just don't think he did anything "wrong" enough to be considered guilty of any crime.

Ok I have about had it with this,
Latched is locked argument and would like to end it.

Here is a common gate latch used on one of our kennels. It is also the most common type of latch used on chain link fence gates.

Please look very closely at this picture after clicking on it, to make the picture large.



Note the hole. It is there for a reason, for a lock. See these latches are very easy to open and a lot of dogs learn to open these types of latches very quickly. All you have to do is push up on that latch and the gate is open.

Our kennels that this picture are in the barn. These dogs know how to open these latches, so we have to put a clip through the lock hole to prevent the latch from being opened and letting the dog escape.

Like so.



But this is not locked, simply secured. Keeping the dog from being able to open the pen.

No one knows who opened that gate we are talking about in this argument, it could have been the dog. All the dog had to do is push up on that latch and the gate is open.

.

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

You're right, Taijiguy.

[sarcasm]They should spare the dog and put the kid down.[/sarcasm]

Its a freakin' ANIMAL!
Get it?
When animals attack humans, no matter the circumstances, the animal pays with its life.
Thats the way it has been for thousands of years.
Because we humans run things around here.
Get over it.
You really want to learn about the legal principal of attractive nuisance, because thats why you get sued if a CHILD drowns in your swimming pool or gets eaten by your dog.
I cannot believe that intelligent people argued over this for five pages and any of you still don't get it.

quote attractive nuisance doctrine There is normally no particular care required of property owners to safeguard trespassers from harm, but an attractive nuisance is an exception. An attractive nuisance is any inherently hazardous object or condition of property that can be expected to attract children to investigate or play (for example, construction sites and discarded large appliances, doggies and kitties). The doctrine imposes upon the property owner either the duty to take precautions that are reasonable in light of the normal behavior of young children--a much higher degree of care than required toward adults--or the same care as that owed to "invitees"--a higher standard than required toward uninvited, casual visitors (licensees).

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

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Well, at least he's in good company. And you're actually educated....

Yeah, what was I thinking? Afterall, it was those non-criminal "criminal acts" that let OJ get acquitted. Thanks goodness for the intelligence of the jury to know the difference between criminal "criminal acts" and non-criminal "criminal acts". I would have just convicted him like an ignorant fool.

Who's making the latched/locked argument? And what makes you think that just because you say so it would change my mind? I always ask if the gate is locked, meaning "latched", and until you can show me the section of the law that specifies it has to have either a combination or key type lock on it, I'm going to insist that it's still open to interpretation.
I swear, I suddenly understand you guys a lot better. It seems most of you either don't understand the written language, or just choose to ignore the relevant parts. So let me provide some Cliff's notes for those of you having a hard time following along:
I'm not arguing the laws exist. OK? Got that part? Can you say that out loud and remember it for more than a few seconds?
I believe the laws are absurd, and are there to make second person(s) responsible for first person(s) mistakes. Ya feel me?
Therefore, my entire complaint is the very nature of the laws themselves, and this particular case surrounding the exercise of those laws. My complaint about these laws extends way beyond the boundaries of this particular case out to every lame-brain trying to hold other people accountable for their stupidity, whether it's a dog bite, a home-loan gone bad, a spilled cup of coffee, or any of a million other cases of stupid behavior where the responsible party manages to make someone else the blame. And the juries made up of people just like you guys who find in favor of said lame-brains.
THAT is my argument and my complaint.
And as I have said before, but I'm sure was ignored, (except of course to make accusations of things I didn't say) I only wish with everything I am that you all get to fall victim of your own (il)logic. I hope some uninvited solicitor trips and breaks his leg on your front porch. I hope someone tail-ends you and claims your brake lights weren't working. No, I wish no physical harm on any of you, but I do hope you get to experience the feeling of being held accountable for something you had no real control over. It's the only way you'll ever figure it out.

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