DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - Should a person be charged for their dogs actions?

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/)

- Pets Forum (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/pets-forum/)

- - Should a person be charged for their dogs actions? (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/pets-forum/213348-should-person-charged-their-dogs-actions.html)

Attarderb

01-27-2011 01:39 PM

Quote:

I took the question to not mean responsibility ending at covering costs, but owners being charged with aggrivated assault or grevous bodily harm or something if their dog were to attack someone else. Unless there were mitigating circumstances then I say go for it. Treat the actions of the dog as if they were the actions of the owner. It won't hurt those who are responsible enough to safely own a dog.

If an attack warrents it,yes.I find the owner legally responsible.I am NOT including breaking up a dog fight and getting bit,nor bites from a dog protecting it's home during a home invasion.I am speaking of an attack with INTENT to harm someone when the attack is due to true owner negligence.Examples are: at large dog who attacks humans or animals or in the case of a child being left unsupervised resulting in an attack,not obeying leash laws and a resulting attack,encouraging the dog to attack, dog running loose by fault of insecure/inadiquate confinement, etc.

overavantstandard

01-27-2011 01:40 PM

Quote:

I took the question to not mean responsibility ending at covering costs, but owners being charged with aggrivated assault or grevous bodily harm or something if their dog were to attack someone else. Unless there were mitigating circumstances then I say go for it. Treat the actions of the dog as if they were the actions of the owner. It won't hurt those who are responsible enough to safely own a dog.

Agreed.

rikdpola

01-27-2011 05:33 PM

Yep. And eventually....once folks realized that they can actually get in deep doo doo for having "behaviorally challenged" dogs, they'd start to write 'em off as too much of a liability to bother with.

So yeah...I think it would weed out the iresponsible and ignorant owners that are behind virtually ALL dog attacks, regardless of breed owned.

attackDoold

01-27-2011 06:36 PM

The only issue I have would be the correlation people would draw to dogs and weapons. If a dog attack is equal to a knife attack, I don't see that as helping the BSL cause. "Oh, well your pit bull is more dangerous than a gun!" is already an argument (though false) used against pit bull owners.
Should owners be held responsible? Yes. Should the be charged with assault? No. If you can murder a person from a dog attack, how does that look for this breed? "Pit bulls attack the most people, therefore they're more dangerous than the guns in this city! Kill them all!" That's how that would go.
Also, for those speaking of responsible owners- it hurts everyone. Attacks have been reported from a dog jumping up and scratching someone. People would then be charged assault with a deadly weapon for that.
It's a slippery slope IMO.

Ruidselisse

01-27-2011 08:33 PM

If I believed that our judicial system was indeed just... and believed that prosecutors looked for facts and the truth and not just a win...then I would say yes....but that would mean that lawyers and judges would have to understand dogs and their behavior... not going to happen....
the fact that the threat of BSL even exits reminds me not to expect rational and reasonable behavior from folks...
the daily reads, even on dog forums, of the behavior of too many dog owners, keeps me from expecting most folks to be responsible, before or after an incident...

wmzeto

01-27-2011 08:34 PM

Without a doubt yes. Animals are not responsible for their actions because they are animals! Animals are not capable of evil and do not have a mission to destroy humans and cause them harm. It is quite ignorant to think that way. Irresponsible owners need severe consequences.

Paladin

01-27-2011 08:37 PM

If it was the first time, and the owner was not negligent then (criminal) no, but civil (yes).
If the owner had prior indication or was negligent, then yes on both.

ChicasCams

01-28-2011 03:04 AM

http://www.pitbull-chat.com/images/smilies/frown.png But shouldn't blame the owner for this one. http://www.pitbull-chat.com/images/smilies/frown.png

Pontotoc County man dies following pit bull attack - WTVA.com

Bromikka

01-28-2011 03:28 AM

Quote:

Not capable of evil? are you not familiar with cats?

wentscat

01-28-2011 03:58 AM

Quote:

I too believe the owner should be held accountable for their pets actions.

Not if that cat is roaming. IMO the cat owner would be equally as responsible and guilty for the cats death.

I agree.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 AM.

First <<

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page