Before we can be responsible for our dogs, we must accept responsibility for our own actions and the consequences that they incur.

If I jump off a bridge and break my leg, I'm not going to sue the people that built it for building it so high!

If I lay hand on a woman in a manner that is inappropriate and there is a physical consequence, the responsibility for that consequence is my own.

Be very careful not about what you think, but about how you think. It is a dangerous thing to hold accountable anyone who harms another person, when the harmed person may have brought that harm on themselves.

Discussions of philosophy are certainly outside of the purview of this forum, and I wouldn't bring it up if I didn't think that the way you approached the problem didn't betray an underlying pattern of thinking that could be very dangerous for you, as a person, struggling to make sense of not just this incident, but the world.

Each person must take responsibility for their own actions. With that in mind, should he have gotten $250,000? Take out all the other factors, ignore the rake, ignore the situation. A man dragged a woman to the ground, and that womans dog bit him. The company that protects that woman from liability accepted fault for the attack, on her behalf. Is that right? A reasonable man should take umbrage at that $250,000 reward.

 Quote: david eagle

...If I jump off a bridge and break my leg, I'm not going to sue the people that built it for building it so high!

Reminds me how my wife's nephews like to tell their dad (a little short Polish guy), "Dad, you should sue the city for building the sidewalk so close to your a$$!' (and then they'd run like hell)

Mike

The following was in today's issue of The New York Times with regard to Congo. I sent off a letter to the reporter, I don't think she was sympathetic enough to the dog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/nyregion/30journal.html?ref=nyregion

 Quote: marj remland

... I don't think she was sympathetic enough to the dog.

That's an understatement, but then, my experience is that reporters don't let the facts interfere with a good story.

And "65 rabies shots"? That's a new one.

Mike

Am I the only unsympathetic b!+ch who sees it as a tresspassing and battery case? I would highly doubt if he'd leave my house looking much different (if he left at all) under the same circumstances. I really object to how she tried to put an immigrant spin on it by quoting some jack@$$ on a website's comment. Dirty ploy to bring sympathy to a moron who doesn't deserve it, IMO. I half wonder if he did it purposely for the money.....who in their right mind goes against instructions where large dogs are involved unless they smell money? Also, I am shocked that the insurance company doesn't have some clause that would help them out of this one...

 Quote: Jenni Williams

Am I the only unsympathetic b!+ch who sees it as a tresspassing and battery case? I would highly doubt if he'd leave my house looking much different (if he left at all) under the same circumstances. I really object to how she tried to put an immigrant spin on it by quoting some jack@$$ on a website's comment. Dirty ploy to bring sympathy to a moron who doesn't deserve it, IMO. I half wonder if he did it purposely for the money.....who in their right mind goes against instructions where large dogs are involved unless they smell money? Also, I am shocked that the insurance company doesn't have some clause that would help them out of this one...

No, you are not the only one....the dumbass should have stayed in his vehicle. LIKE HE WAS TOLD!!!

If that gardener had brought me down he would have had some seriously damaged body parts. I'm a veteran of the NYC subways long before people knew the terms "personal space", etc.

I think I still have pretty good aim with my knee and I used to be truly dangerous with spike heels.

But I am hi-jacking the thread. I send an email off to the reporter; I think even she is suprised at the pro-Dog sentiment and I am sure that mine was not the only letter she received.

I agree that it appears that Congo is likely a fine dog, but a few things about the way this owner and family deal with dogs bother me:

-6 dogs total;
-mulitple dogs unsupervised by owner when landscapers coming onto property;
-multiple dogs loose in an area where invitees could be expected to encounter the dogs;
-sends dogs away for training rather than put in the time and build the bond, and learn about the character of dogs.
-Congo, at 18 months, is a dog at the prime time in his development to show unexpected levels of dominance and aggression. Perhaps this should have been foreseen.

The owner never should have left the dogs unattended. When he went inside he should have put the dogs away.

The owner never should have had Congo and the pups loose together on his property where invitees could encounter them.

I think it is a given that he couldn't control the untrained puppies and Congo together.

He clearly was negligent. However along with everyone else I am astonished at the $250K settlement: never this much in Canada for the injuries I saw...

The way the owner managed his dogs was a recipe for a dog bite.

So while I am rooting for Congo, and on balance think he can probably safely return to this family, I think it is important to recognize that this accident was avoidable.

I also think people should can the immigrant comments.

********

Another thing: this incident, especially after reading both of the Delise books on dog attacks, point out the many limitations and risks of putting dogs in a position to protect us or our property, whether trained for this purpose or not. Generally speaking it is an excellent idea never to allow a dog to be in a position to "think" for itself about protecting us, unless it is a highly trained dog with a professional grade handler.

rgds andrew may

 Quote: Andrew May

So while I am rooting for Congo, and on balance think he can probably safely return to this family, I think it is important to recognize that this accident was avoidable.

Andrew, I still stand where I stand, however I must admit, you do bring up some good and valid points in this saga. Especially about, sending dogs out for training and running loose in a pack with no leader there to supervise.
I cannot really argue those points.

Nice post.

 Quote: Andrew May

So while I am rooting for Congo, and on balance think he can probably safely return to this family, I think it is important to recognize that this accident was avoidable.

I agree with this. I personally think the landscaper bears the blunt of the blame, but I also agree with your points about the owner, Andrew. The outrageous settlement aside, the only one that acted 100% spot-on in this whole fiasco was Congo!