Quoted: Quoted: Humans are not animals. Animals are not humans. Something I think pet owners forget. 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.

I agree.

Why is the "Responsibility of Dog Ownership" somehow higher than the responsibility of parenting?

It's not my job to keep track of other people's kids.  If my Bengal Tiger is inside a 20 foot fence and a kid comes over it looking for  a frisbee I fail to see how I'm at fault.  

It's my "Responsibility as a Dog Owner" to keep my dog in the fence or on a leash.  It's your responsibility as a parent to do the same with your kids.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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? 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. 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 pol of jurors for the plantif's attourney. 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).

You'd be suprised at what people think about zoo animals.  I've been in the field for 9 years.  The level of ignorance and the things I've seen at work would amaze you.  Well maybe not you since you were a LEO in the past.

Tigers in zoo's aren't in cages.  You can get into most exhibits by climbing in.  Same goes with a fenced in back yard.  The animal digging out or escaping via an unlatched gate is not the same issue as your example of someone climbing over into the yard.  An escaped animal/loose animal is a whole different ball of wax vs an animal behind a fence.   You are trying to make the two issues the same when they are not.  

vague question.

I'd be happier if people who raped, injured or killed humans were jailed for their actions for a suitable amount of time.

+1 drakich

When I was a kid and jumped fences....I made sure I was faster than the dog

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why should it matter? Kid jumps your fence and your dog kills him, you should go to jail. Pretty simple to me. If you do not have your swimming pool fenced in you are responsible for deaths. But a swimming pool is not a living thing. It's not going to escape, seek out and hurt someone all on it's own Wow Bama seems to me you are using a double standard there. If my dog is in my back yard fenced I should go to jail if someone jumps the fence and gets bitten. If someone jumps your fence and drowns in your pool you should not have to go to jail because your yard is fenced. BTW lets just go under the assumption that this is taking place in our back yards not out on the street (my dog is never allowed out without being under control). I don't see it as being a double standard. The pool cannot attack. It just sits there. An animal has a will of it's own and can attack. So what?  The kid who drowns in your pool is just as dead. 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.

Under you view if your child were to run into the street and a car swerved to miss him killing the driver you should goto and be charged with manslaughter.   The "animal belonged to you and it has caused a death.  

If someone broke into a lions exhibit at the zoo and is killed is the zoo keeper responsible? No

In line with the mythical pool or the (real) mauled perp in Compton either case the obstacle that caused death of the trespasser was something which was contained within a secured property that the trespasser could not overcome.   That fence was a safety barrier.  When he began to breach that barrier he waived the safety the barrier offered and paid for it with his life.   ---> . <-- worlds smallest violin.      

When one chooses their profession they accept certain inherent risks, if one feels those risks are too great then it's time to change professions.

 I have no pitty for a criminal getting attacked or killed whilst committing a crime.  I don't care how many kids he needed to feed or how broke he is.   The human herd is 5+billion,  We can afford to lose a few to Darwin.

What if the animal was provoked, like being stabbed with a pocketknife?

Or shot with a pellet gun?

Should not an animal have a right to attack and defend itself from a person out to do it harm?

Quoted: What if the animal was provoked, like being stabbed with a pocketknife? Or shot with a pellet gun? Should not an animal have a right to attack and defend itself from a person out to do it harm?

Bama doesn't care.  His stance is that if a dog attacks a human the owner should go to jail no matter what lead up to the attack.

His poll is using a blank question with no room for circumstance.   I could start a "Should Sex offenders be castrated" poll and get at least a 95% yes vote.   Problem is in some states being seen taking a leak behind a tree is all it takes to become a sex offender.  Not a crime that fits such a punishment.

In the other thread Bama's stance is the owner of a Steel yard in Compton should be jailed for manslaughter because his 3 pit mix guard dogs mauled to death a thief who entered the property by climbing over a 8 foot barbed wired fence.

He probably thinks it would be the bears fault for attacking someone who climbed into it's den and started poking it with a stick.

Actually, I agree that in general people should be accountable for their animals. But, there has to be some limits for really stupid or (especially) illegal behavior.

I know two people who have retired police GSD's and another who has a rather large Stafforshire. None of these dogs get much free time alone outdoors, partly because of the concerns being discussed here and because of concerns about theft, someone killing the dog, etc. They are always indoors when no one is home and at night. These owners are very responsible and do everything they can to prevent a problem.

There is no doubt in my mind that an intruder is going to get hurt. Do you honestly believe these people should "go to jail"?  

Hopefully you're not talking about this:

Guard Dogs Kill Man Who Jumps Business' Fence

I'd hate to learn you'd grown a vagina overnight.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This thread is a good example of why dog GUN 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. Has this ever happened to you or ANYONE you know of or did it just FEEL like the right thing to say ?  Did you read this absurd statement somewere after you said on the internet you would shoot a dog for walking through your yard ? 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. Once again has this happened ? NO http://www.bradycampaign.org says you stole their logic and they want it back. How is that? FEELINGs nothing more than feelings isnt that how the song goes ? The Bradys are blaming Guns for crime not the criminals. Your saying if someone trespasses and gets bit we should blame the gun errr I mean blame the dog not the criminal committng the crime for getting hurt? 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" Well stupid should hurt But I feel the same way about a dog in my yard. I'll kill it. Your dog is your responsibility. Period. I agree 100% if you feel threatened then take action. I would use this same logic with any creature on my property be it a neighbor, dog,cat, bums,kids. If your threatened and you shoot anyone of them you should have your day in court. If you shot someone or something for just walking across your yard then I bet you broke the law and would be punished like you should be. Once again stupid should hurt. 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."* So a dog walking across your lawn is just like give a loaded gun to a 5 year old I see its exactly the same logic I get from the brady camp. Its just plain stupid. We agree I don't really think Brady wants that at all? Why yes they do ETA * this would not be dangerous because my 5 year old has never killed anyone, and is very gentle unless provoked. Just like most dogs, unless provoked

Brady's dont use logic , they love to work emotions just like your examples.
They dont care about the crime someone commited or crime someone stopped with a gun they just want to twist the facts to appeal to peoples emotions to ban ALL guns, just like your doing with all dogs.

Ban guns Dogs for the children

Kids this and my kids that, why dont you use the case in the news about the thief who broke into a business and got bit ? Why because it doesnt sell.

This sells : KIDS do it for my kids and yours DO SOMETHING for the childern before they get shot eerr um I mean bit.
I can tell your concerned about your kids and afraid they will get hurt by something out of your control so you picked dogs today to take a stand against. Why not guns and cars they kill more kids yearly than dogs ?
Maybe because you have guns and a car so are comfortable around those type of things. Maybe you have a bad dog in your neighborhood that needs to be put down I dont know.
Responsible dog owers just like responsibile gun owners need to take proper care of thier property or be punished. We all agree here right ?
If someone breaks into my house and shoots themself should I be punished ? If my dog bites someone AFTER they break into my property I should be punished ?

I see cars,dogs,guns in the same way if you do something wrong with any of them you will go to court. Responsibilty that is what flys in my world.

Stupid should hurt on both sides of the fence.

Quoted: Quoted: Wow, I'm glad I'm not your neighbor. Your world is just too absolute. Life has risks. GM I have no problems with risks. But if your animal mauls or kills someone you should pay the price. Both with money and time behind bars. If some of these folks whose animals mauled or killed others were locked up. There would be less problems with those type animals.

There oughtta be a law...........

I'm just on pg.2 and this is already getting good.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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.

Now if there was 'shall issue' open and/or concealed carry, these big bad bloodthirsty dogs wouldn't be much of a problem.

I have three questions:
1.) Is there any 'duty to protect' (I'm not exclusively talking about LEOs)
2.) Who is responsible for my safety?
3.) Who is responsible for the safety of others?

Quoted: 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 terrorist or a boerbel burglar.

Fixed?

Quoted: 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.

So could this be a situation where two parents might be better than one?!?

Quoted: Brady's dont use logic , they love to work emotions just like your examples. They dont care about the crime someone commited or crime someone stopped with a gun they just want to twist the facts to appeal to peoples emotions to ban ALL guns, just like your doing with all dogs. Ban guns Dogs for the children Kids this and my kids that, why dont you use the case in the news about the thief who broke into a business and got bit ? Why because it doesnt sell. This sells : KIDS do it for my kids and yours DO SOMETHING for the childern before they get shot eerr um I mean bit. I can tell your concerned about your kids and afraid they will get hurt by something out of your control so you picked dogs today to take a stand against. Why not guns and cars they kill more kids yearly than dogs ? Maybe because you have guns and a car so are comfortable around those type of things. Maybe you have a bad dog in your neighborhood that needs to be put down I dont know. Responsible dog owers just like responsibile gun owners need to take proper care of thier property or be punished. We all agree here right ? If someone breaks into my house and shoots themself should I be punished ? If my dog bites someone AFTER they break into my property I should be punished ? I see cars,dogs,guns in the same way if you do something wrong with any of them you will go to court. Responsibilty that is what flys in my world. Stupid should hurt on both sides of the fence.

First I want to thank you for providing a very comprehensive response. Seriously, that took a lot of time and it is a LOT better than most of the "your daddy is a doo-doo head" crap.

I think in all honesty that we agree for the most part. The biggest problem as I see it is that a lot of dog owners are NOT responsible, whereas the VAST majority of gun owners are very responsible. And unfortunately the law comes down hard on the negligence of gun owners and very little on the negligence of pet owners.

The main experience I have with this situation is a dog in my parents neighborhood. Not all of them, just one. There are a few dogs that run around the neighborhood, which I disagree with altogether, but only one that is a problem. This dog killed another neighborhood dog and the courts response was "keep it penned up from now on". Well the owner doesn't want to hurt its feelings or whatever other bullshit excuse and the dog continues to roam free. This is a vicious dog, and there are small children throughout the neighborhood. It is only a matter of time before one is seriously hurt, or god forbid killed.

The pet owner knows it is a problem. The police know it is a problem. Animal control knows it is a problem. Everyone in the neighborhood knows it is a problem. And nothing is going to be done about it before (or realistically after) someone gets hurt. That is absurd.

Honestly if I had a chance to kill that dog I would. Not because I hate dogs, but because I value the life, or non-bite-deformed face quality of life, of my brother and his friends more than the "right" of this bitch to let her known killer dog roam the neighborhood.



ETA - I didn't say anything about banning dogs. I don't believe that they should be. If you can keep a dog as a pet and keep it in your yard and keep it from hurting someone else that is your right.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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. 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?

Does urban/rural play into your new law () at all?

Is this only in areas where neighbors can reach out the shitter window and touch the glass from their neighbor's kitchen window?

What if I had 10,000 acres and some meth head who had to drive 50mi out of his way was trying to steal my farm chemicals to manufacture meth and my [guard] dog got to him first?  What if the [guard] dog's presence was posted right next each of my 75 "No Trespassing" signs?

Quoted: Quoted: 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? 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.

So how does this jibe with your earlier "Because a person is suppose to expect a tiger to eat you" comment?  Are are you just giving carte blanche to zoos because they're often entities of the State?

There is a young couple in our development with a Rottie that is nothing but pure muscle.  One day she was walking it, and he decided to charge my beagle, dragging the woman face first across asphalt.  The dog finally stopped (thankfully) before getting to us.  

People that can't control their animal irritate the hell out of me, she only weighs probably 115 lbs, no match trying to control an agitated Rottie.  If that dog had killed my beagle or mauled me, you can bet I would spend every dime I had making sure that asshat would be doing time, and paying me everything they and their insurance company are worth...

Quoted: Quoted: Brady's dont use logic , they love to work emotions just like your examples. They dont care about the crime someone commited or crime someone stopped with a gun they just want to twist the facts to appeal to peoples emotions to ban ALL guns, just like your doing with all dogs. Ban guns Dogs for the children Kids this and my kids that, why dont you use the case in the news about the thief who broke into a business and got bit ? Why because it doesnt sell. This sells : KIDS do it for my kids and yours DO SOMETHING for the childern before they get shot eerr um I mean bit. I can tell your concerned about your kids and afraid they will get hurt by something out of your control so you picked dogs today to take a stand against. Why not guns and cars they kill more kids yearly than dogs ? Maybe because you have guns and a car so are comfortable around those type of things. Maybe you have a bad dog in your neighborhood that needs to be put down I dont know. Responsible dog owers just like responsibile gun owners need to take proper care of thier property or be punished. We all agree here right ? If someone breaks into my house and shoots themself should I be punished ? If my dog bites someone AFTER they break into my property I should be punished ? I see cars,dogs,guns in the same way if you do something wrong with any of them you will go to court. Responsibilty that is what flys in my world. Stupid should hurt on both sides of the fence. First I want to thank you for providing a very comprehensive response. Seriously, that took a lot of time and it is a LOT better than most of the "your daddy is a doo-doo head" crap. I think in all honesty that we agree for the most part. The biggest problem as I see it is that a lot of dog owners are NOT responsible, whereas the VAST majority of gun owners are very responsible. And unfortunately the law comes down hard on the negligence of gun owners and very little on the negligence of pet owners. The main experience I have with this situation is a dog in my parents neighborhood. Not all of them, just one. There are a few dogs that run around the neighborhood, which I disagree with altogether, but only one that is a problem. This dog killed another neighborhood dog and the courts response was "keep it penned up from now on". Well the owner doesn't want to hurt its feelings or whatever other bullshit excuse and the dog continues to roam free. This is a vicious dog, and there are small children throughout the neighborhood. It is only a matter of time before one is seriously hurt, or god forbid killed. The pet owner knows it is a problem. The police know it is a problem. Animal control knows it is a problem. Everyone in the neighborhood knows it is a problem. And nothing is going to be done about it before (or realistically after) someone gets hurt. That is absurd. Honestly if I had a chance to kill that dog I would. Not because I hate dogs, but because I value the life, or non-bite-deformed face quality of life, of my brother and his friends more than the "right" of this bitch to let her known killer dog roam the neighborhood. ETA - I didn't say anything about banning dogs. I don't believe that they should be. If you can keep a dog as a pet and keep it in your yard and keep it from hurting someone else that is your right.

It did take me awhile to compose my thoughts because I wanted you to see where I was coming from in my comparing the Brady camp with your first post. I didnt do it to be an ass but emotions can blur logic and anytime you put kids into the mix watch out. Your examples showed you are willing to go to extremes to protect your kids and the soccer moms from the brady camp feel the same about guns and their kids.

I think the vast majority of Dog owners do a good job. The old bad apple will spoil the bunch in any group.

I will not put up with a baddog roaming free either, if its a trouble maker and the owners dont care I have and would again take matters in my own hands to remove the dog. Im surprised animal control isnt all over that they would be in my area.

Good luck

Quoted: There is a young couple in our development with a Rottie that is nothing but pure muscle.  One day she was walking it, and he decided to charge my beagle, dragging the woman face first across asphalt.  The dog finally stopped (thankfully) before getting to us.   People that can't control their animal irritate the hell out of me, she only weighs probably 115 lbs, no match trying to control an agitated Rottie.  If that dog had killed my beagle or mauled me, you can bet I would spend every dime I had making sure that asshat would be doing time, and paying me everything they and their insurance company are worth...

That is why my wife doesn't walk her our my Rottie.  They weigh almost the same (dog weighted 99lbs last vet checkup), only the dog has probably twice the muscle.  My wife's no slouch; she is an avid kickboxer.  But her walking the dog is just plain stupid.  And as we *all* can agree on (at least nominally), stupid should hurt.

As for the guy a few posts up with the killer dog roaming the neighborhood......... I just hope/pray you carry.  If other parents/adults don't, well........ stupid should hurt.  It could be a rapist, child molester, serial killer, etc, just as easily as it could be a marauding dog.  Was nobody in that neighborhood ever a Boy Scout?  Be Prepared............

"If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten.  But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.  If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death."  Exodus 21:28-29

That about covers it.

Quoted: "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten.  But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.  If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death."  Exodus 21:28-29 That about covers it.

<motorhead>
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth /
You all know what I mean /
</motorhead>

Seriously, it goes back to Bama-Shooters whole "tigers" analogy:

Point: Which is particularly apt, since tigers can acquire the capacity to become "man-eaters" and *need* to be put down after an incident.
Counter-Point: Then again, what did the tiger do?  It was just being a tiger, after all..........
Counter-Counter-Point: Putting down an animal that has *proven* itself to be dangerous is just preventive maintenance.......