http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...739551,00.html

"Dog mauls football boy" is sky's headline...It describes a vicious
dog attack on a boy who jumped over a wall into his neighbours yard to
retrieve a ball. However if you read the wording it seems to only be
telling half the story .

Now i sympathize with this boy injuries...and i would be horrified if
it happened to my son but I cant understand why the boys father
expects and has convinced sky that the dogs should be put down.

If it had been a burgler who had jumped over and been attacked would
anybody question if the dogs had any fault? Why is this situation
different? the boy was trying to take a ball from the neighbours
property. How were the dogs to know that the boy presented no threat
to the dogs owner and that the ball didnt belong to the dogs owner?

Mr Knowlden is planning to bring civil proceedings against the owner
of the dogs. I am looking forward to this trial. The father will have
quite a job proving that the dogs owners were neglegent ... if i were
the judge i would charge the father as the negligent party.

I would have renamed the headline to "Father allows boy to jump into a
yard guarded by vicious dogs".

Regards,
Sam

Note the caption beneath the second picture. Not the dogs that
attacked, either. Just "a pit bull terrier".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...name_page.html
If it had been a burgler who had jumped
over and been attacked would anybody
question if the dogs had any fault?
They would here. Happens a lot. Burglar breaks in. Dog attacks poor
burglar. Shyster and burgler sue owner. Shyster and burgler collect.
BTW, I'm sick of the word 'vicious'. Anthropomorphism at its worst.
Here, Animal Control requires you to file a 'Vicious Dog Complaint'.
You are not allowed to file a "Stupid Owner Complaint."

Note the caption beneath the second picture. Not the dogs that
attacked, either. Just "a pit bull terrier".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...name_page.html
If it had been a burgler who had jumped
over and been attacked would anybody
question if the dogs had any fault?
They would here. Happens a lot. Burglar breaks in. Dog attacks poor
burglar. Shyster and burgler sue owner. Shyster and burgler collect.
BTW, I'm sick of the word 'vicious'. Anthropomorphism at its worst.
Here, Animal Control requires you to file a 'Vicious Dog Complaint'.
You are not allowed to file a "Stupid Owner Complaint."

"Chris Williams" wrote in message
...
Note the caption beneath the second picture. Not the dogs that
attacked, either. Just "a pit bull terrier".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...name_page.html
If it had been a burgler who had jumped
over and been attacked would anybody
question if the dogs had any fault?
They would here. Happens a lot. Burglar breaks in. Dog attacks
poor
burglar. Shyster and burgler sue owner. Shyster and burgler
collect.
BTW, I'm sick of the word 'vicious'. Anthropomorphism at its
worst.
Here, Animal Control requires you to file a 'Vicious Dog Complaint'.
You are not allowed to file a "Stupid Owner Complaint."


How about a Stupid Parent complaint?
The article says the kid climbed into the neighbors yard over a fence
that the dogs were being kept behind. That right there tells me that
as unfortunate as the situation is the kid was wrong.
I'm sorry, I have both kids and dogs and if one of my kids decided to
go against my rules and go into someone else's yard and ended up
getting bitten by a dog, I just can't see a way to justify being angry
with or suing the owner of the dog if it were being kept properly. 7
Years old is old enough to know better than to just go climbing other
people's fences. He should have been taught by his parents that you
need to go knock on said neighbors front door and ask them politely to
retrieve the football. It's stupid that the kid was there in the first
place and even stupider that he got bitten by a dog that was in it's
own yard behind it's own fence.

Jen

"Chris Williams" wrote in message
...
Note the caption beneath the second picture. Not the dogs that
attacked, either. Just "a pit bull terrier".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...name_page.html
If it had been a burgler who had jumped
over and been attacked would anybody
question if the dogs had any fault?
They would here. Happens a lot. Burglar breaks in. Dog attacks
poor
burglar. Shyster and burgler sue owner. Shyster and burgler
collect.
BTW, I'm sick of the word 'vicious'. Anthropomorphism at its
worst.
Here, Animal Control requires you to file a 'Vicious Dog Complaint'.
You are not allowed to file a "Stupid Owner Complaint."


How about a Stupid Parent complaint?
The article says the kid climbed into the neighbors yard over a fence
that the dogs were being kept behind. That right there tells me that
as unfortunate as the situation is the kid was wrong.
I'm sorry, I have both kids and dogs and if one of my kids decided to
go against my rules and go into someone else's yard and ended up
getting bitten by a dog, I just can't see a way to justify being angry
with or suing the owner of the dog if it were being kept properly. 7
Years old is old enough to know better than to just go climbing other
people's fences. He should have been taught by his parents that you
need to go knock on said neighbors front door and ask them politely to
retrieve the football. It's stupid that the kid was there in the first
place and even stupider that he got bitten by a dog that was in it's
own yard behind it's own fence.

Jen

We may not love every law in the society we live in, but we certainly have every
opportunity to know about them ahead of time, before a tragedy happens. In the
case of the dogs behind the fence, the law is on the side of the children. Dogs
aren't supposed to kill children even if the children aren't where they're
supposed to be. Thoughtful dog owners protect their dogs by making sure this
sort of thing doesn't happen. Towards that end, police bomb sniffing dogs are
trained to alert their trainers to the presence of bombs, not kill children who
wander into their kennels. I would certainly hope police departments wouldn't
keep anything so dangerous as a dog who would kill a child unless, under
whatever bizarre circumstances, was commanded to do so by its handler.

--Lia

We may not love every law in the society we live in, but we certainly have every
opportunity to know about them ahead of time, before a tragedy happens. In the
case of the dogs behind the fence, the law is on the side of the children. Dogs
aren't supposed to kill children even if the children aren't where they're
supposed to be. Thoughtful dog owners protect their dogs by making sure this
sort of thing doesn't happen. Towards that end, police bomb sniffing dogs are
trained to alert their trainers to the presence of bombs, not kill children who
wander into their kennels. I would certainly hope police departments wouldn't
keep anything so dangerous as a dog who would kill a child unless, under
whatever bizarre circumstances, was commanded to do so by its handler.

--Lia

This happened in the UK, right? The same place where a farmer killed a
housebreaker who WAS IN HIS HOUSE with a shotgun? And the farmer was just
released from prison? Right or wrong, bet the father wins. jdoee

----------
In article ,
(S) wrote:


http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...739551,00.html

"Dog mauls football boy" is sky's headline...It describes a vicious
dog attack on a boy who jumped over a wall into his neighbours yard to
retrieve a ball. However if you read the wording it seems to only be
telling half the story .

snip

This happened in the UK, right? The same place where a farmer killed a
housebreaker who WAS IN HIS HOUSE with a shotgun? And the farmer was just
released from prison? Right or wrong, bet the father wins. jdoee

----------
In article ,
(S) wrote:


http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...739551,00.html

"Dog mauls football boy" is sky's headline...It describes a vicious
dog attack on a boy who jumped over a wall into his neighbours yard to
retrieve a ball. However if you read the wording it seems to only be
telling half the story .

snip

"Julia Altshuler" wrote
snip
Dogs
aren't supposed to kill children even if the children aren't where they're
supposed to be. Thoughtful dog owners protect their dogs by making sure
this
sort of thing doesn't happen.

While I agree that this is a serious situation (child wasn't killed, FWIW),
I also think that there are many, many laws that are plain stupid. In some
states in the US, if you have a swimming pool that is completely fenced off
and out of view but a child tresspasses and drowns, the property owner can
be sued. I find this ludicrous. You can't save people (or children) from
themselves.

Obviously something is very wrong with what happened to this boy. Perhaps
the dogs are highly dangerous, perhaps there's more to the story that was
left unreported. But in all reality, I as a dog owner cannot really do much
more to protect my dogs than I have already done. They are friendly, well
socialized and behind a 6ft estate fence. I am home most of the time. If a
kid climbed into my backyard (and I've seen some come at least part way up
but I told 'em to scram), I cannot swear that one of my dogs would not bite
him under the right circumstances. Would they nearly kill him? I hardly
think so. But it only takes a nip for some folks to sue and try to get your
dog killed.
--
-Andrea Stone
Saorsa Basenjis
http://home1.gte.net/res0s12z/
The Trolls Nest - greenmen, goblins & gargoyle wall art
www.trollsnest.com