I guess I should elaborate further on the three year old reference. Would you trust a three year old child alone in a fenced in back yard for several hours a day? I wouldn't, because kids want to be with people or other kids and will also attempt to get back with them. Be it climing the fence or fiddling with the gate. We have all read stories where someones toddler ended up dead in the pool because the sliding door wasn't latched. Kids and dogs test boundaries, regularly. They, as lou said, are gamblers. If you can't be with them they need to be in a secure area. Something they can't climb out of, or slip out a gate....

Dobeon,
We don't KNOW what this guy knew about his dog's propensities. Leaving the gate unlocked could have easily been an act of omission, whether or not his intention was that someone would get hurt or not, it could still be negligence under criminal law. Plus, specific laws apply to dog owners, so there may be something there. In the article, it said that the guy could be fined. That implies responsibility under criminal law.

Regardless, ANY dog is capable of biting, not just certain breeds. My Labrador is very affectionate and friendly, but if he got loose and someone tried to corner him, he may very well bite. I just don't know. Dogs can be unpredictable when they have to make decisions for themselves, and whether or not you know your dog is likely to bite seems irrelevant to me.

Dobe,

My mistake. I didn't know it was a criminal matter.

In any case, it's clear as day that anyone worth his salt in any enterprise will neccesarily be that enterprise's worst critic. A high-tide raises all ships as they say.

I don't know if it's neccesarily always a good thing, since you just can't (shouldn't) legislate things like intent and stuplidity...but legality and morality don't often mesh. It's up to people behaving like adults.

...and I spelled stupidity wrong. :rolleyes:

dobeonguard writes:

"The owner must have specfic knowledge that his animal is dangerous and has shown dangerous propensities in the past"

This is the fuel for the breed specific legislation that is gaining popularity in the USA and has been seen in Europe. By labeling all dogs of a certain breed dangerous, our legal system can go ahead and hang each owner for any oversight, because their breed is known to be dangerous. It makes things a little edgy for us responsible owners <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> . Accidents are avoidable if the owners become more aware of how serious their responsibilities are when owning the larger, strong prey driven dog. And they usually don't become aware until it's too late. Shame on them. Their ignorance and lack of competence will cost us all dearly. Susan

Just because we as dog handlers and trainers know what our animals are capable of does not mean a lay person does. I will give an example. When it comes to deadly force a police officer is held to a much higher standard as when it can be applied. But for a civilan they are held to a much lower standard. Why? Because they are not expected to know and have all the training a police officer does. This applies in its own way when it comes to animals. I have been going through some caselaw when it comes to animals.
Negligence cause of action arises when there is ineffective control of an animal in a situation where it would reasonably be ecpected that injury could occur, and injury does proximatly result from the negligence. The amount of control required is that which would be exercised by a resonable person based upon the total situation at the time, including the past behavior of the animal and the injuries that could have been reasonably forseen.
And any fines that could be imposed would be a civil fine by a civil court. Because if there is a case that can not be made in a criminal court for negligence, a criminal court can not impose fines. Animal regulations are not criminal laws, they are whats called an administrative code or an ordinance.

Dobe,

I often get into discussions with law students. Here's the problem I often encounter. They never get off the explanations of how things are, and they never quite explain how they think things SHOULD be. They seem to get off on all that "stuff" they know. As such, they take very simple things and make them very complicated.

The case here is a guy failed to contain a dog and it bit someone. You're angry about how an upset mother quoted the disposition of your favorite breed, and seem to be trying to draw some conclusion which doesn't quite put all the blame on he how owned the dog who bit a kid. The reality of the situation is that the only way to minimize the prejudices against certain breeds is to minimize the occurences, and if that's not possible, humbly accept the punishment; or better yet go above and beyond the call of duty. Lean over the plate and take one for the team. It's better in the long run.

I'll go out on a limb and speak for others when I say, nobody cares about the distinctions between the whatever punitive measures will be taken against the guy. He is fully to blame. I don't care if it's negligence, criminal negligence whatever. Again, see the last sentence of the first paragraph.

That comment about use of force and the layperson/police thing is total bullshivik.

If fact I don't understand what exactly your argument is? The parents of that kid are gonna take that owner to the bank, you follow the case. I'll put big money bets on it.

And another thing, I hope they ban Doberpunks anyway. Waste of Alpo. . . <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

(Dopie owners can e-mail death threats to the address below. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> )

Well VanCamp my comment about the use of force is not BS. Its the truth. But thats for another topic and another board. Running electric is not a reasonable measure. It would be if you were containing dangerous wildlife such as lions, tigers and bears. Having a roof is not a reasonable measure. Not to say I would not do either one but for the ordinary person. You don't ask what this particular person was thinking you ask what everyone that owns dogs across the board was thinking in this scenario. And a majority of dog owners do not have razer ribbon around their compound. (VanCamp I really would like to see your version of Alcatraz.) :rolleyes:
The majority of dog owners do no take these measures. Most don't even lock their gate. Yes this is very bad for the breed. Just for publicty sake. His actions have to be unreasonable compared to all other dog owners. Just because you would have taken more measures does not mean that the measure he had taken were not enough. Yes any dog can bite, I know that you all know that and this guy didn't think about it. No one knew this dog was even there thats how quite he was. I will keep you updated. Yes breed specific laws are crap. I have worked with some of the most dangerous dogs that people are teriffied of. I have worked with all breeds. The only dogs I have been biten by was a daschund and a poodle???? Go figure

Having a roof is not a reasonable measure. Not to say I would not do either one but for the ordinary person.

I've got a 10'X 20' kennel in my back yard made up of 6' X 8' chainlink panels (9 gauge). The top has 5' X 10' panels all clamped together. Even if my dog tunneled out during the day (which would take cosiderable time), he would find himself inside my fenced backyard. Guess what....I'm more normal than I care too admit. Your argument sucks...give it up and start a new topic. I'm more concerned about dogs drowning in my pool than getting out in public (one of my customers lost a pup in thier pool). <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />