posted on September 25, 2003 02:26:42 PM new
Remember the lawyer couple that went to jail because their 2 dogs killed a girl in the hall of her apartment building? The husband's been let out after 2 years, and she gets out in March 2004. Do you think they got a fair sentence?
posted on September 25, 2003 03:43:05 PM new
No, I don't think they did. They should, imo, have served many more years because of their actions before and after this attack took place.
We've had two friends who's dogs attacked a young neighborhood child and a teenage who was playing football. IMMEDIATELY after the attacks both had their dogs put down. And that's what I think should happen to any dog who attacks a human.
We, dog owners, all love our dogs, but they are not human...they are animals. It is we humans who attribute human characteristics to them, which they don't really possess.
posted on September 25, 2003 03:47:43 PM new
i think dogowners like auto drivers should take a course,they dont seem to know that some folks are afraid of barking dog,black dog or ferocious looking dogs.they tend to get defensive in defending their dog's behavior.
posted on September 25, 2003 04:02:18 PM new
I'll bet they don't have another vicious dog for a pet.
I think that their arrogant attitude at the trial resulted in the prison sentence. They were both blaming the victim for such things as wearing perfume or taking steroids or not closing the door to avoid the attack.
posted on September 26, 2003 04:03:01 AM new
I currently own what would be considerd by most to be a viscious dog. He will attack anyone that he doesn't know that comes on our property, or crosses his path in general. Now, it was people that made him that way. People that hit him with fists, kicked him, beat him with a belt (or whatever was handy), and locked him in a dark basement when people came over so he didn't become familiar with them. I don't feel that he is so far gone that he deserves to be put down just because humans messed him up.
We took him because he is a good dog aside from this. By the time we got him, he was 4 and we were his 4th owner. We are careful about him. We have a high solid fence, warning signs, have spoken to the neighbors about him (and we don't sugarcoat it) and when he goes outside, so do we. Toward us, he's a great dog and you'd never guess these things had happened.
Dogs generally attack because of a human...abuse at the hands of a human, poor breeding (again by a human), incompentent attempt to make a dog into an attack dog (again by a human), and the like.
Being a responsible dog owner, I wouldn't have a problem with taking a class to prove I can be a responsible owner. But, how many people would be willing to take a similar class in order to have children?
And Linda...Thank God dogs don't have human characteristics. Why would God want to make the same mistake twice?
posted on September 26, 2003 05:22:09 AM new
ckivebarkerfan, tha is commendable that you are doing that, however there are too many people that don't....
Yes I do agree that you should take a class to own a pet and/or have children
posted on September 26, 2003 06:19:57 AM new
taking one class is not enough for raising children.
most parents read and learn on their own anyway,some do take classes.
-sig file -------The thrill is gone!!
posted on September 26, 2003 08:05:26 AM new
Most if not all cities have a law that a dog will be put down if it attacks and bites anyone.
If a person owns a vicious dog and it gets free and kills someone then that owner should do some hard time in prison. Why would anyone want to risk hard time in prison just to own a vicious dog?
-------------- sig file ----------- Most costume jewelry is unsigned. After all, the vast majority of it was made to be worn a few times, then discarded. It wasn't made to be durable. --- The Fluffster
posted on September 26, 2003 10:42:58 AM new
AA - Some people (we've noticed a major increase in Chicago) enjoy the threat that a viscious dog brings. They also use these dogs for pit fighting. Recently, there have ben two cases of pit bulls being tied to a fence and lit on fire. Those were the losers.
The rampant poor dog breeding that goes on nowadays by owners as well as puppy farms has resulted in too many bad breedings. Remember the issues with Doberman Pinschers in the '70's, and the Rottweilers in the '90's? These dogs were bred poorly so you end up with over agressive, stupid, too big dogs that are sold to the wrong owners and end up biting someone. That's the case with the "pit bulls" of today.
Taking one class does not give you a well trained dog. I've been training and showing dogs since I was 12. My mom took our oldest sheltie to training every week (and shows) from the age of 3 months until he passed away at 16.
I do believe that a dog owner should be responsible for their dogs actions. But, I also believe that parents should be held accountable for their children also.
posted on September 26, 2003 11:37:31 AM newBut, I also believe that parents should be held accountable for their children also.
I believe that to a certain extent. Some kids are just bad seeds though and can not be controled by their parents.
I'd love to see a simple disown your kid(s) form for parents of bad seed children. It would relieve the parents of all responsibility and take the kids away from them completely. To do that now is a lot of legal cost and time. I'd bet such a setup would get a lot of takers.
-------------- sig file ----------- Most costume jewelry is unsigned. After all, the vast majority of it was made to be worn a few times, then discarded. It wasn't made to be durable. --- The Fluffster
posted on September 26, 2003 11:44:17 AM new
AA - Sorry, I'm not for your idea. I understand where you're going but just as I believe that if you agree to bring an animal into your life (dog, cat, whatever) it's your responsibility for its life span, I believe if you decide to procreate, the result of that is also your responsibility.
I'm tired of taking in the strays of the animal society just because some dimwitted human can't make an intelligent decision. And I'll be d*mned if I'm going to start doing it because a parent decides that children don't "fit" into their lifestyle.
posted on September 26, 2003 11:51:14 AM new
In most places dogs are required to be on leashes when not confined. The cases where my two friends put their dogs down, the children were playing in the street, in front of houses. The dogs were running unleashed in front too. These were both family dogs who had previously shown absolutely no aggressive tendencies. And as a matter of fact, one of the dogs had played with the same group of kids. The boy who was attacked had been one of them. He and other boys were just outside in the street playing football.
You just never know when a dog who has been absolutely wonderful will decide to bite someone.
The dog owners both paid all the medical bills for the children, which imo, was the right thing to do. Then they prayed they wouldn't be sued by the parents.
Just yesterday I received an email from my FIL saying he had to put one of his dogs down too. A tiny little dog that had jumped their 4' front fence, for the first time ever, and attact another dog of a woman who walked her dog by their house everyday for years. They have no idea why their dog went after this other dog....but he did. They live in Prescott, AZ where their community rules state if your dog attacks anything or anyone you are required to put it down. They are, of course, very very sad and completely surprise by their dogs behavior.
posted on September 26, 2003 12:10:52 PM new
And you never kno when a person that has been absolutely wonderful will snap either.
In your first example, I have to say it was the dog owner's fault. The dogs were off leash. They broke the law.
Not knowing the full situations, I cannot really comment further on either instance.
I can say though I do find it amazing how quick we "advanced beings" are to quickly kill an animal, yet we let human killers live. A good friend of mine had a dalmation. One day his 6 year old is sitting in front of the dog head butting the dog (lightly, and this wasn't found out until after everything happened). Dog got tired of it and nipped at the child. The dog didn't do it for any other reason but to teach the child what she was doing was wrong. The dog can't speak, and the occasional nip is the way they teach the young ones in their pack. So, the state made him get rid of the dog, even though he didn't want to. Even the girl knew it was her own fault. There were no physical or emotional scars, that is until they got rid of the dog.
posted on September 26, 2003 12:14:24 PM new
By the way, I'm having a problem with a neighbor who insists on letting his dog walk without a leash. Recently, they got a 1.5 pound 8 week old puppy. Puppy fits under my fence. Puppy isn't on a leash. I warned our neighbor that puppy will become a snack for my dog if it gets under the fence (ok, I stretched the truth, our dog is usually in the house). If my dog has to die because of it, I will see him in court and own his house.
Puppy is now on a leash. Older dog still isn't and messes in my front yard.
posted on September 26, 2003 12:32:09 PM new
It's good to see you, clivebarkerfan! I wonder what the psychology is here? Why do people go mental when they are asked to be responsible for what they own, their kids, or themselves? If you ever confront someone, they act like you've committed the worse sin imagineable, then it's payback time. I kept thinking it was low I.Q., but now I'm convinced it's a disease - a rapidly spreading one to boot.
posted on September 26, 2003 02:07:42 PM new
I still believe it is totally wrong to hold the parents responsible for the actions of their badseed kids.
If a mother in the inner city tells her kid to be home at a set time and the lawless brat will not mind her what recourse doees she have? If she spanks or hits a child she's in deep stuff these days. Many parents have zero control of their kids and there is almost zero love between them. Why make a good parent pay for a bad child? The reason why my proposal of an easy form for a parent to disown their brat is that it would cost the taxpayers money. They rather see the entire families lives ruined. If I'm on a jury in a case like that I let the parent get off without penalty if they have sufficient character witnesses saying they tried to rein in the kid.
-------------- sig file ----------- The Fluffster --- a true scrounger
posted on September 26, 2003 03:31:44 PM new
What parents should do, is when they have a child and see one is a handful, don't have anymore! Seems simple to me.
posted on September 26, 2003 03:55:34 PM new
yes, but often these are the same people that end up not having their pets fixed so they have litter after litter of unwanted puppies that end up being given away or kept only to be abused and ending up right back where this conversation started!
I wonder what the psychology is here? Why do people go mental when they are asked to be responsible for what they own, their kids, or themselves? If you ever confront someone, they act like you've committed the worse sin imagineable, then it's payback time. I kept thinking it was low I.Q., but now I'm convinced it's a disease - a rapidly spreading one to boot.