You be the Judge.......

[StunnedMonkey]

This is obviously an example of bad breeding. The Uncle was being a goof but hey that's life. People do practical jokes all the time and as always, nobody saw Romping Fido as a threat. But yes, the dog has to be euthanized. It may be indirectly the fault of the breeder or even the owners, but the fact is the dog mauled someone, even if the someone was a jerk who was playing a bad joke...

I guess this is the way I see it too. It's terrible for the dog (who is a victim here as well) but in the end it's the dog that is dangerous. If there was a mechanism to punish those responsible for the dog, I'd be all for that as well. They sound like losers.

Yeah the dog might be re-homed, but if you were a parent with little kids, would you want this re-homed dog (which had already mauled an adult) living next door to you? I sure wouldn't, and I'd be inclined to raise a holy stink if it happened.

 

[ToscasMom]

But alas, Renee, even inbred humans have more rights than inbred dogs. Whenever a fool is attacked by a dog, the fool will always have rights over the dog, even though the dog may actually have a higher IQ. That is because rights are written by people. People vote and dogs don't. Now mind you, I am not thinking that people's rights have much to do with brains and/or worthiness, but there you have it. Dogs are expected to fit into a human society not the other way around. This will never change. That means dogs are supposed to discern, even unto actions by humans who have no discernment themselves, much less common sense. If it were the other way around, there would be an echo in America for all the moronic humans we would have to put down. We would have been able to start with the type of guy who thinks it's a great idea to terrify little kids so that they might grow up partially crazy themselves.

 

[~Tucker&Me~]

I agree with OC.

~Tucker

 

[Renee750il]

No need to put the idiots down, just stop looking out for their best interests. They'll take care of thinning their own ranks . . . . Remember, you can't cure stupid. And we need to stop protecting it.

 

[jess2416]

No need to put the idiots down, just stop looking out for their best interests. They'll take care of thinning their own ranks . . . . Remember, you can't cure stupid. And we need to stop protecting it.

Agreed......

 

[ToscasMom]

But Stupid is still protected by the constitution and dogs are not. Some of them even get elected.

 

[Buckshot]

But Stupid is still protected by the constitution and dogs are not. Some of them even get elected.

Where is stupidity protected?

 

[Renee750il]

No, Stupid is protected by too many opinions based on self-serving interpretations of Constitutional law . . . . the more ways we protect Stupid and let him/her (Stupid is trans-gender) hold other beings responsible for making Stupid's life easy the more ways there are for attorneys to make a good living.

The Constitution never promised blanket protection for Stupid. Just that Stupid gets the same starting gate as everyone else.

 

[meco]

Gee's! What a sad story! I'd put the uncle to sleep.. it's his fault the dog flew into defense.. Poor dog had it bad from the start!:yikes:

 

[ToscasMom]

Where is stupidity protected?

I didn't say stupidity. I said stupid. As in stupid human vs. a dog who attacked him. We have to face that dogs simply do not have the same rights at any level of the law that humans have. We tend to miss that point because we don't like it. The facts that are determinant are:

Uncle entered the yard.
Dog mauled him.

Beyond that, there isn't much to be considered when you think about it. Uncle was stupid doesn't count. Uncle has bad taste in practical jokes doesn't count. Uncle was human, has bad taste but meant no harm, dog mauled him. Dog is a mauler and can make a bad call like that again in the future. To assume that we should expect humans to walk on eggs before pets is to make a wish that will never ever happen. This is why BSL is happening. People do not want to feel they have to walk on eggs before dogs. They do NOT want to be trained to accommodate dogs, they want dogs to be trained to accommodate society. That will never change. This is why local laws rarely buy into the "rehab" argument.

Breeder at fault? Sure. But it's still kind of like the axe murderer who reveals his rotten abusive childhood at trial. Is it awful? Yes. Will it get him off? No.

 

[ToscasMom]

The Constitution never promised blanket protection for Stupid. Just that Stupid gets the same starting gate as everyone else.

You are right of course. Except that dogs aren't in the equation at all. Therefore Stupid Person comes before Dog.

 

[Buckshot]

I didn't say stupidity. I said stupid.

You are right, You did say stupid. I stand corrected. Where is stupid protected in the Constitution?

 

[meco]

I didn't say stupidity. I said stupid. As in stupid human vs. a dog who attacked him. We have to face that dogs simply do not have the same rights at any level of the law that humans have. We tend to miss that point because we don't like it. The facts that are determinant are:

Uncle entered the yard.
Dog mauled him.

Beyond that, there isn't much to be considered when you think about it. Uncle was stupid doesn't count. Uncle has bad taste in practical jokes doesn't count. Uncle was human, has bad taste but meant no harm, dog mauled him. Dog is a mauler and can make a bad call like that again in the future. To assume that we should expect humans to walk on eggs before pets is to make a wish that will never ever happen. This is why BSL is happening. People do not want to feel they have to walk on eggs before dogs. They do NOT want to be trained to accommodate dogs, they want dogs to be trained to accommodate society. That will never change. This is why local laws rarely buy into the "rehab" argument.

Breeder at fault? Sure. But it's still kind of like the axe murderer who reveals his rotten abusive childhood at trial. Is it awful? Yes. Will it get him off? No.[/QUOTE
Tosca'mom;; You couldn't have said it better...

 

[Renee750il]

Dog is property . . . I do have Constitutional rights that encompass "things" that are my property. Stupid doesn't have Constitutional rights to screw with my property.

 

[ToscasMom]

Buckshot, see post above. Stupid was The Man. I was calling him stupid. The rest is self explanatory. I tell you true, unless dog lovers get a handle on how they approach these things, BSL is going to mow them down in every state, in every city, in every town. The approach is sincere but the message is never going to fly. We keep assuming that when it comes down to dogs or people (even STUPID people) that dogs have equal rights. They just don't. There is no need to kill the messenger, but it is the truth nonetheless. I would bet a buck to a donut that the town where this happened will be writing up a BSL law really soon. We have to approach this with the knowledge that in the face of a mauled human vs. a dog bred by a fool, the human will always conjur more sympathy. Do we really expect the local police to announce that the guy was a fool and therefore it was ok for the dog to maul him? Just some food for thought. I am not the enemy.

 

[ToscasMom]

Dog is property . . . I do have Constitutional rights that encompass "things" that are my property. Stupid doesn't have Constitutional rights to screw with my property.

That would be a scary argument for the owner of the dog in terms of his/her own liability. More likely we might hear, What Dog? That's Not MY Dog!

 

[Renee750il]

First, we need to be able to strip it down to its bare bones. Once we understand where we can attack all of the entitlement crap, THEN we dress it up in ways that will make it past Stupid and get through to the rest.

I agree that the attacks on BSL aren't, for the most part, being executed strategically.

 

[ToscasMom]

Renee I know you know me enough to recognize that being the devil's advocate on this stuff comes from my heart and from my experience with city legislators. One thing I DO agree would work is to SERIOUSLY punish owners of dogs who do this. But I still do not see how it will ever stop a dog who has done this from being put down. But just maybe, if the fines were HUGE and the punishment was SEVERE, more people would think twice about getting more dog than they can be responsible for.

 

[Renee750il]

That would be a scary argument for the owner of the dog in terms of his/her own liability. More likely we might hear, What Dog? That's Not MY Dog!

It's only scary in the light of all the "I am a victim [of my own stupidity] so everyone else is to blame" set of standards that we've turned our heads and coughed for until we've become overwhelmed.

Time to tell some of these "victims" that "No, you're not a victim, you're just Stupid and you got what you got."

 

[Renee750il]

Renee I know you know me enough to recognize that being the devil's advocate on this stuff comes from my heart and from my experience with city legislators. One thing I DO agree would work is to SERIOUSLY punish owners of dogs who do this. But I still do not see how it will ever stop a dog who has done this from being put down. But just maybe, if the fines were HUGE and the punishment was SEVERE, more people would think twice about getting more dog than they can be responsible for.

I know. The thing is, with your understanding, wit and experience, YOU have the ability to foment changes. They may not be drastic, and they will not happen overnight, but they will not happen if people like you and I and Buckshot and Jess and Amstaffer and Gempress and so many others don't refuse to shrug our shoulders and say "it's just the way things are."