User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 2:26:27 PM EDT
[#1]
I don't know a lot about pits or chows, but the Rotts I've known don't fit your stereotype. Mine used to try to do what he was bred to do, but he seems to have given up on herding. They're very trainable dogs, and you can make them into attack dogs if you work at it, but it not what they do naturally. they'll push or charge and use their bulk to intimidate, but biting really biting isn't their thing. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 2:30:22 PM EDT
[#2]
My Rott's gotten out of the yard, but he's never made any aggressive moves towards any person. On the other hand, a hurricane knocked a big ass pine tree in my yard onto the neighbor's jungle gym and smashed it like it was made of toothpicks. If I didn't keep those damn big trees.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 2:31:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Rotts are right behind pit/pit mixes in number of human kills. Per CDC. I've known Rotts to be as gentle as a gerbil, and I've also seen them mean as an x-wife. My point is if you own one and it mauls or kills someone. You as the owner should go to jail. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 2:34:06 PM EDT
[#4]
So what? The kid who drowns in your pool is just as dead. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 2:39:57 PM EDT
[#5]
I know what your point is, and it makes about as much sense as saying that you should go to jail if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun and shoots someone with it. If you make a choice to keep a dangerous instrument like a gun in your house and something bad happens as a result, you belong in jail. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 2:40:11 PM EDT
[#6]
But it would be the fault of the kid. Same kid killed by a dog is the fault of the dog and it's owner for having an animal capable of killing. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 2:42:58 PM EDT
[#7]
Dogs are not inanimate objects such as guns. Apples and Oranges |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 2:45:01 PM EDT
[#8]
Just give it up, Bama.
We've plowed this ground too many times. Owners of big vicious dogs, will come along and cry till there is snot hanging down to their waist saying that "my dog is different" and "only mean people cause bad dogs", and "my dog is like a child to me". There is no reasoning with these types. Until they see a child with his face mostly torn off (as I have) by a Pit Bull that "had never harmed a flea" before. Then they just change the subject. Their dog is different. In Old_Painless's world, if your vicious dog kills an innocent person, you hang. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 2:45:49 PM EDT
[#9]
But it would be the fault of the kid. Same kid killed by a dog is the fault of the dog and it's owner for having an animal capable of killing. So there is that double standard. Either way the kid is dead in MY back yard because he broke the law and come onto my property without permision. Pools kill many many kids every year. Why are pools not banned and hated like dogs. BTW I own a black lab not a pit so I am not defending the breed (could care less I judge dogs on a single dog basis not on the breed) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 2:48:20 PM EDT
[#10]
I know but it has kept the poll in the spotlight. Amazing 62% in favor of jailing dog owners who animals kill or maul. I personally did not think it would be that high. ETA: I'm done. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2006 3:31:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Per CDC, there are, on average, fewer than 15 deaths per year in the US from dog bites. The CDC also tells us that over 30,000 people are killed with guns in the US just in 2003. And the American Lung Association says second hand smoke causes 3000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year. About 4000 people drown in residental swimming pools each year. Per NOAA, on average 67 people are killed each year in th US by lightning strikes. Bee stings and fire ant bites kill about 50 people per year in the US. Peanuts kill 50-100 people per year. So why the hell do otherwise semi-rational people get so worked up about the comparatively insignificant risk associated with dog ownership? |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 7:28:02 AM EDT
[#12]
bump. so more can vote.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 9:36:05 AM EDT
[#13]
I posted in the other thread, but no response.
Quoted: Again if you choose to own an animal be it a Pit, Tiger, Lion or whatever that mauls or kills someone the owner should go to jail. There have been cases of people crossing barriers at Zoo's, animal parks, etc. and getting close to dangerous animals and getting mauled. Am not aware of anyone getting killed, but it may have happened. People have been seriously mauled and could have been killed. Are these "owners" responsible/liable? Should they be? If not, what is the difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 9:38:52 AM EDT
[#14]
Good question. If you stick you arm in the tiger cage and it gets ripped off. No. If the owners are negligent and the animals escape. Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 9:49:31 AM EDT
[#15]
Clearly, I was not referring to escaped animals. What if the dog is in the house and intruder is mauled/killed? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 9:53:03 AM EDT
[#16]
That's fucking stupid. If a kid jumps your fence and locks himself in your trunk and dies should you be jailed? The kid's parents should be jalied for allowing him to wonder off unsupervised. I can smell the sheep from here. B-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-n the pit bulls. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 10:02:30 AM EDT
[#17]
The Bama-Shooter is against Personal responsiblity, say its not soooooo.
Its about personal responsiblity by the dogs owners and those around them. Let the court decide just like every other case of law. You should know you cant police stupid out of people and stupid should hurt its the way of the world. I have been to court to defend a $750,000 lawsuit against me and my pups. It was because someone who was tresspassing on my CLEARLY MARKED AND GATED property was bitten. I had no fear walking into the courtroom and I left the same way. A jury of my peers decided I was not at fault. What is wrong with that ? Is it your postion I should have been jailed ? In VA, CO and some other states have laws that state that you are responsibly for your animals. Here is a recent one in VA www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032902411.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 10:08:30 AM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 10:11:21 AM EDT
[#19]
My dog gets a reward for that. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 11:30:41 AM EDT
[#20]
Waht about other animals? If someone jumps a fence on your property and is gored by a bull or kicked by a horse should the owner of the animal be arrested.
 IMO, people have the personal responsabilty to stay the fuck on the outside of other's fences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 11:42:15 AM EDT
[#21]
This thread is a good example of why dog owners shouldn't be able to vote, etc.
1) Your dog is roaming around in my yard and I kill it. You, thinking this is your "equal" and "family member" believe you are 100% justified in taking out me and possibly members of my family. 2) Your dog mauls my son to death in your yard. It was "the first time the dog did anything like that" so both you and the dog should go free, and that would be 100% justifiable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 11:49:23 AM EDT
[#22]
Too much common sense involved, it'll never work. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 11:55:44 AM EDT
[#23]
I can answer that poll yes or no depending on which set of circumstances you give me. To answer it without circumstances would be giving information that would likely be used to fit a pre-conceived agenda or conclusion.
For example in the "man jumps fence, gets killed by pack of pit bulls" thread, I blame the man who jumped the fence. If I answered the yes that this poll question begs, you could apply it to show evidence that I felt that the dogs/owner was responsible. This would not be true. Do you work for the media? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 11:55:52 AM EDT
[#24]
Shoot the dog, throw the guy in jail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 12:09:21 PM EDT
[#25]
A child's face isn't a dog owner's test target.
Your dog injures someone, you are responsible. One free bite is nuts when the majority of the time what's bitten is a child's face. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 12:32:41 PM EDT
[#26]
http://www.bradycampaign.org says you stole their logic and they want it back. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 4:15:49 PM EDT
[#27]
More words of wisdom from OP. But I don't mind being the whipping boy in this deal. Apparently more think like me. They just don't want to get bit. BTDT. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 4:32:23 PM EDT
[#28]
It depends upon the actions of the dead person.
I dont know any breed of dog that wont fight back if provoked enough. If you pull my Jack Russells ears he will take your finger off. If you pull his tail he will bite your nose. If you grab his leg without him shaking your hand he will bite your hand. If you assault my little dog he will bite you. If you play nice he will too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 4:53:35 PM EDT
[#29]
Sorry, but I think your "scientific" determination of breed agressiveness is full of shit. As a matter of fact, I place it up there with global warming. The most aggresive and bitting prone dogs I have ever met were smaller "lap dogs". The true answer is that dogs are a direct product of their owner. Rots and the like have been singled out because many people breed them to fight. But they could have just as easily picked standard poodles, Irish wolf hound, saint bernard, lab, ect. My brother owns 2 wolves. They are the most obedient dogs I know. My sister in law has a German shepard that I will shoot if it comes near me. She and my brother are irresponsible and full of shit when it comes to training dogs. My good friend owns a rot. He is the biggest pussy dog I know. You can pull on his ears and he wouldn't do anyting. Yes, I think owners should pay for their dogs behavior. But it is not due to the breed in any way. Just like bad kids are a product of their parents, so goes their pets as well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 4:58:05 PM EDT
[#30]
if it was reasonable to expect that the mauling would happen.....yes, the owner should be prosecuted.
If the dog is a pit bull or similar, the threshold for reasonable expectation should be lower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:04:49 PM EDT
[#31]
If the dog is loose or gets loose and attacks someone - Yes - whether or not it is the first time.
If it is in a fenced yard with posted signs and someone crawls over a fence and trespasses - No I don't care if it is a terrier or a boerbel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:09:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Why jump the fence three times?  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:13:19 PM EDT
[#33]
An unsupervised child trespasses onto someone else's fenced in property and is mauled by a dog.
Some of you seem to think the dog owner should be responsible for this. Why not the parent of the child? The child is out of place in this scenario. The dog is right where it's supposed to be. It's easier to talk about hanging dog owners than watching your trespassing kids, I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:13:33 PM EDT
[#34]
 How is that? If a kid jumps a fence and gets mauled I kinda have to say "tough @#%%" for the kid. It was the parents responsibilty to keep their kid "leashed" But I feel the same way about a dog in my yard. I'll kill it. Your dog is your responsibility. Period. People have a responsibility to control their animate living possesions which can't really think for themselves. Unfortunately all too many dog owners think their unleashed potentially lethal dog running around the neighborhood is "cute". It is like giving a 5 year old a loaded handgun and telling him "don't shoot anything but go ahead and play 'draw down' on the neighbors, I'm going to the grocery."* Its just plain stupid. I don't really think Brady wants that at all? ETA * this would not be dangerous because my 5 year old has never killed anyone, and is very gentle unless provoked. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:16:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Out of curiosity, are you a police officer? (Sorry, someone had to.) 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:17:19 PM EDT
[#36]
That's where I am too. I don't understand your logic in this, Bama. Let me start with this though: You are correct. There's plenty of people in this thread saying "My big dog wouldn't hurt a flea." Just the same as every other dog owner whose dogs tore some kids face off. With that said, I don't own a big dog because I don't yet have a fence. When I do finish my fence around the back yard, what if I WANT a big dog to maul trespassers? By having an animal patrol my property for me, I should go to jail when some little shit tries to get in my shed again and gets bitten? Sounds to me like we're blaming the crime on the resolution. A little backwards, to my way of thinking. By the same token, if I have a big, mean dog that gets out and attacks my neighbors little girl, that's due to my negligence, and, by all means, I should be jailed or sued. I agree with you to an extent, but I think you've got a knee-jerk reaction here that I can't get over. Maybe there's something I'm misunderstanding? Help me out if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:36:01 PM EDT
[#37]
No, but like all of us here at ARFcom I love and respect all law enforcement officers, including but not limited to all local PD, all state PD, the ATF, the FBI, the DEA and any other various faceless government agencies busting their asses every day to keep us safe from those who would wish to do us harm. I trust them blindly because I know they are only looking out for me.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:36:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Don't be silly; LEOs make housecalls for that sort of stuff. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:54:51 PM EDT
[#39]
It's quite simple. Some people own animals who have the ability to severly injure or kill humans. If you choose to own an animal that is capable of severly injuring or killing a human and said animal severly injures or kills a human the owner should go to jail. I don't care if the kids knock a baseball into your yard, a kid hops the fence to retrieve the ball and get's eaten by your pet alligator (named Elvis), which by the way has never bitten anyone before, the owner should go to jail. The owner made the decision to own an ANIMAL (note not an inanimate object such as an AK or a swimming pool) that has the ability to inflict severe damage or death on a human. The owner knowingly has such animal that he does not controal at ALL times. IE a cage. Because if such animals are not in a secure CAGE when the owner is not present the animal is NOT CONTROLED. Animals dig out from under fences, they jump fences, they escape throuh gates. To me it would seem that owners of these so called docile animals would want this to happen. They keep sayin it's the owners not the breed. So punish the owners, If owners were truly punished then owners who do not control their animals would be the only ones who should be worried. Because we all know its the OWNERS not the BREED. Right? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:58:13 PM EDT
[#40]
How can you say that the Zoo is not responsible if someone sticks thier arm in a cage and gets it ripped off but a person should be tossed in jail if someone jumps into their yard and gets bitten by a dog? It is the same thing. The tiger/dog was secured and said person entered that secured area and was injured. I have no dog in this fight, (pun intended) as I do not own a dog. I do have a stake in personal responsibility and abhor attractive nuisence laws. Unfortunately, our society has legislated away personal responsibility so you can be sued and lose because someone falls into your pool and drowns because you didn't do enough to keep said person out of your pool. To answer CMB69's question, yes zoo's have been sued successfully for people jumping into animal enclosures and getting mauled/bitten because the zoo's "Didn't do enough to keep my client from gaining access to the animals." As if the fences, moats, and hot wire weren't enough of a deterent along with the common sensical notion that wild animals such as tigers and bears prefer not to be petted. All it takes is to find twelve other people with zero commmon sence and a total lack of personal responisbility. Judging from the poll results, this place would be a prime pool of jurors for the plantif's attourney. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:06:20 PM EDT
[#41]
I own a 1600# Black Angus Bull. By your logic, if someone climbs over my 5 strand barbed wire fence and gets stomped, it is my fault.
Because we all know, it's the owners fault if he owns an animal that is capable of injuring a human being and doesn't keep it in a cage all the time. On the same note, if it gets out on the road and causes damage, I am most certainly responsible for not keeping it secure on MY property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:08:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Yes, they took on the 'responsibilty of owning a dog'.
ETA: I own a 'viscious Beagle' that will lick anyone to death. Socializing the animal as a puppy is one of the 'responsibilities' of dog ownership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:11:52 PM EDT
[#43]
Because a person is suppose to expect a tiger to eat you. The only way an animal of any kind is secure in a backyard is if the animal is in a LOCKED CAGE. ie. padlocked in a cage. A fenced back yard is NOT secure. Animals jump fences, animals dig under fences, animals escape from opened gates. But according to the experts (which I'm not) a person should not fear animals kept as pets because everyone is suppose to know breeds of animals have no bearing on their propensity to attack. It's the OWNERS not the BREEDS that is the issue. According to the experts (which I'm not). |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:12:09 PM EDT
[#44]
Yeah, if it gets in the road, you're liable to get sued. But the question this thread posed is whether you should go to jail if your potentially dangerous animal hurts someone. There's a huge difference between getting sued and getting prosecuted. Should you go to jail if your bull gets out? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:12:20 PM EDT
[#45]
So if a dog owner is responsible for their dogs no matter the situation, then a parent is as well.
So if your 9 year old kills someone, we as a society should kill the 9 year old and put the parents in jail. Sound alright in your world Bama? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:21:07 PM EDT
[#46]
No. The 9 year old is a human. Not an animal. Humans are not animals. Animals are not humans. Something I think pet owners forget. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:27:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Review the various decapitations the terrorists like to broadcast and rethink your statement above. ETA: The "humans are not animals statement" |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:28:18 PM EDT
[#49]
I don't forget that, I don't own any pets right now either.....but to make a blanket statement like dog owners should go to jail over the actions of their animals with no regard to circumstances is not something I can agree with. I think there are times that it is no one's fault. Shit just happens. We won't agree on this, but we don't have to. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2006 6:29:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Sounds like we're removing the responsibility away from the little fucker that jumps my fence at 0300 and tries to get into my shed, and we're putting it on me that I was so vicious as to put a dog between him and my shit. 
|
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
