Some People's Dogs
Thirty Bills Unpaid
Posts: 16,881
Here's a problem:
Two idiots in Liverpool own a dog and raise it very poorly. They don't feed it for a couple of days and, hungry, it attacks a neighbour and tries to eat him- check that- it does eat him:
The Presa Canario dog, which originated in Spain's Canary Islands, is renowned as a large powerful breed but is not banned in the UK. The court heard that the "wild" and "out of control" Presa Canario sank its teeth into Mr Clarke's arm and dragged him around his garden. The dog effectively chewed his arm off and also mauled his other arm. Mr Clarke died from multiple injuries and blood loss.
Have no fear and don't worry too much for the owners though:
Two women have been jailed for 12 months each after the pensioner was "literally eaten alive" by their dog.
The poor, poor dog owners. That's pretty stiff you know... getting a year in prison. It's not their fault a man lost his life in horrific fashion is it? They knew their dog was dangerous, but they probably didn't think it was... like... gonna eat someone though:
Last month, Hayley Sulley, 30, and Della Woods, 29, pleaded guilty to an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act of allowing a dog to enter a place where it was not allowed to be and where it injured a person. Today, both women wept in the dock at Liverpool Crown Court as Judge Mark Brown told them Mr Clarke's death was "entirely avoidable".
I get a kick out of the judges comment "entirely avoidable". Duh. Do ya think?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-women-jailed-after-dog-3639842
Two idiots in Liverpool own a dog and raise it very poorly. They don't feed it for a couple of days and, hungry, it attacks a neighbour and tries to eat him- check that- it does eat him:
The Presa Canario dog, which originated in Spain's Canary Islands, is renowned as a large powerful breed but is not banned in the UK. The court heard that the "wild" and "out of control" Presa Canario sank its teeth into Mr Clarke's arm and dragged him around his garden. The dog effectively chewed his arm off and also mauled his other arm. Mr Clarke died from multiple injuries and blood loss.
Have no fear and don't worry too much for the owners though:
Two women have been jailed for 12 months each after the pensioner was "literally eaten alive" by their dog.
The poor, poor dog owners. That's pretty stiff you know... getting a year in prison. It's not their fault a man lost his life in horrific fashion is it? They knew their dog was dangerous, but they probably didn't think it was... like... gonna eat someone though:
Last month, Hayley Sulley, 30, and Della Woods, 29, pleaded guilty to an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act of allowing a dog to enter a place where it was not allowed to be and where it injured a person. Today, both women wept in the dock at Liverpool Crown Court as Judge Mark Brown told them Mr Clarke's death was "entirely avoidable".
I get a kick out of the judges comment "entirely avoidable". Duh. Do ya think?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-women-jailed-after-dog-3639842
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
Comments
The gun proponents say there are no bad guns only bad gun owners... just as you say something similar about dogs.
It's fair to say that certain breeds carry much more risk than others. The dog in this scenario, a Presa Canario, is a large, strong, powerful dog that is suited for a rural setting. It is hardly an appropriate animal for cramped quarters, much less surrounded by so many people. It is a massive risk and in my opinion, there is no need for it as a 'pet'. It's a working dog and, upon becoming anxious and aggressive, capable of tearing a man apart.
People are going to get on here and say, "My Rottweiler wouldn't hurt a flea!" Just as some gun owners are going to say, "My AR-15 has shot nobody!" To both of these types, I commend them for their responsible ownership; however, the fact remains that too many people are not as responsible, and, as such... considerable risk is assumed by society when we do not take any steps to limit or restrict ownership.
There is no place for such an animal in a cramped urban setting. I feel it is selfish for people to own such large dogs when they are unable to offer them the conditions their genetic blueprint requires. Making it worse... too many people are simply ill-equipped to be a dog owner: they don't have the first idea how to raise them and don't deserve them.
If this was for Brian... I agree!
Do you take exception to the bad dog owner and would you demand the same prudent measures to avoid the 'unfortunate accidents' we read of too much... such as dog bans like Ontario has with pit bulls? Or do you reserve such measures for guns?
Can just anyone go purchase a Presa Canario?
I see where you're going with the dog/gun comparison and it makes a bit of sense but the urgency of the two issues is vastly different. We could say the same about cars and bees and mayonnaise. I think you're better off focusing on one issue at a time. Having wound up unconscious for three days in the late 80's in the hospital from food poisoning, I'm more concerned about bad mayo than I am bad dogs, but I know more people who died from gun shots than have died from dogs bits or rotten food. Also, all working guns are made to kill whereas most dogs are made to lick your face and shit on the lawn.
Ah shit, man, it's late- I've gotta get some rest. Remind where we left off, ok?
As a parallel is drawn between the ownership of pets and guns - responsibility - I believe the same could be done with parenting. Some people just have no business being in that position; they're either not able or willing.
The "but I want one!" mentality.
(as to pits, I love them! I respect their strength too. And yes, most properly raised and treated are incredibly loving and loyal)
I would speak similarly to dog ownership. I grew up with dogs and would love to have one at this very moment. Despite the fact that I do have adequate space, the problem is I don't have the time to raise one properly. I would not be able to be a good dog owner because of this fact. Way too many people get dogs without really thinking about whether or not they will be able to raise it and train it. As a result, people suffer.
The story I have cited speaks to this. My wife and son have been attacked and needed medical attention (I've said this before somewhere in this forum). And there are countless other stories that speak to the simple fact that- just like owning guns- many people are incapable of responsibly owning a dog. As such, just as I would suggest limitations on gun ownership... I would for dog ownership as well.
If someone is getting a little Yorky... no problem- have at it (the most vicious Yorky couldn't bite through paper); but if someone wishes to purchase a pitbull or German Shepherd... prove you have the space and means to raise it properly. I know people that live in an apartment, leave their pitbull at home all day while they work, and are too tired to take it for exercise when they get home from work. This is not a good situation in my mind.
Ontario has banned pitbulls, but perhaps screening owners and having them take a course as part of the licensing process might be a better way to try and deal with the problem bad owners consistently present us with?
We knew we had the means to give him a good home and life.
*edit to address your last point - absolutely agree. Why should pits be banned when much of the problems are due to their owners?
as far as banning a specific breed is concerned, I think that's straight ignorance. no different than saying I don't want to associate with blacks because they steal and sell drugs or I don't want to be friends with Mexicans because they are here illegally and are affiliated with a drug cartel. if you let a fraction of a percentage contaminate the whole for guns and specific dog breeds, then I for the life of me don't get why you don't do it with cars, alcohol, tobacco, knives, fast food, and all the other bull shit.
Yes, bad owners often play a role in these incidents. But that is NOT always the case. It's a mistake to boil it down to poor dog ownership.
He bit friends gf other day.
Certain breeds are wired to behave aggressively when certain stimuli presents itself- making them unpredictable. And, these 'breeds' have a long and growing history of attacks, regardless of the individual dog's personal history. In many cases... the dog's aggressiveness has not manifested itself yet.
I'll always have to accept people's choice of dog for a pet. I think that people should be accountable for their animals though and not with little bitty by-law tickets and stern frowns from others. I think, such as in the case cited to initiate this thread, that if your dog injures or kills someone... you should be held criminally responsible. Haphazard dog ownership is no different than recklessly speeding with a car through a residential neighbourhood. Those two women should have received lengthy prison terms... not one laughable year.
With exceptions of course, then watch people make careful selections for pets and take the necessary precautions to ensure their dog doesn't become a hazard to their neighbours.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Your entire logic is based on speculation, first with guns, now with dogs.
What's next on your agenda?
Hmmm. Dogs and guns.
I'll take "What are 2 things that if put into the wrong hands can be quite dangerous if not lethal", for $1200, Alex.
Not everyone should be allowed to buy a gun. Not everyone should be allowed to own a dog. Especially dogs with a proven track record of violence if not trained and handled properly.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I can name a thousand things that could be lethal in the wrong hands, this business of people telling other people what they can or can't have is ridiculous. Where do you guys get the right deciding what I can own if I am not harming anyone?
Where do you think you have the right to own whatever you want when it poses a threat to those around you?
In most cases involving dogs hurting someone- and guns for that matter- the dog was not harming anyone right up to the moment it bit a child's face off.
Why do you think trying to take precautionary measures to ensure people's safety is to violate someone's rights? Don't people have a right to walk safely to their mailboxes or school without someone's rabid pit bull attacking them? Do people's rights to do whatever the fuck they wanna do trump public safety?
It says be accountable. What the fuck is wrong with that? Have I touched a nerve?
Maybe you had a dog that's bit a kid's face off? Maybe you don't want to be responsible for the 'accident'? Maybe you have used the "It's neeevveeeeer done anything like that before" excuse as an ambulance has taken a child to emergency?
I don't know. I'm just speculating because why would anyone argue against holding an owner accountable for their big, bad dog that they irresponsibly raised in an urban setting.
When people share roads and sidewalks and water lines and other services... they make sacrifices to ensure everyone's quality of life is not compromised. Raising a wolf in an apartment complex is selfish and foolhardy. If someone wants to beat their chest and cry freedom... then go fucking live in the bush and do whatever the hell you want there given your idea of freedom doesn't violate anyone else's need for general safety.
Mentally unstable people who own a gun are completely harmless, until they're not.
Dog owners who have no business owning a dog with a track record of violence when not cared for properly are completely harmless, until their dog lashes out.
And to address your first paragraph: some people should not breed. There's no real ethical way to address this, but the world would be a better place if people who are completely unfit to have children actually remained childless. Just as the world would be a better place if people who were too unstable to own a gun or who were unfit to train a potentially vicious dog properly were unable to obtain the respective thing mentioned.
Freedom to do as you please sounds great until others are at risk. I'm all for individual liberties, but we live in a society that suffers when unfit people are given equal access to things that could potentially be deadly. Unfortunately the only way to address this is to place restrictions on things; be it guns, dogs, etc.
We live in a society. it's an overly restrictive society in MANY cases, but I'd prefer restrictions over anarchy. Sorry, but your idealistic libertarian stance is simply not feasible.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I'm not surprised... I mean, its not rocket science. It's just common sense- pure and simple, good old common sense.