• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dog owner responsibility

Should a dog owner be punished?

  • Total voters
    44

I have raised and trained 3 service dogs in my life, helped trained others, and owned several other dogs as personal pets. Owner ignorance and laziness results in poor behavior in dogs. Unless you didn't raise your dog yourself, then you have absolutely no one to blame for your dogs behavior besides yourself.

That said, I don't know the circumstances of this story and I'm not comfortable enough to say that there aren't exceptions and extenuating circumstances. BUT, if this dog is violent and untrained then the owners are fully responsible and should be punished accordingly.
 

I haven't read through this thread, so it's possible that someone's pointed this out already, but under common law, a dog owner is only liable as described above for the first time the dog attacks a person. "Attack" could mean killing a child, or it could mean biting someone on the leg. If the dog ever does so again (even if it goes from biting to killing), the owner is entirely liable for whatever civil penalties the dog has created. This emphatically does not mean that the dog owner is subject to criminal penalties, and that probably makes sense, for the simple reason that criminal punishment almost invariably requires deliberate, intentional action by the person being punished.
 
Pinkie said:
It's not their disposition (though that can be an issues); it's their configuration. Few other dogs have the jaw strength of a pitt.

I'd like to see dog/wolf hybrids outlawed as well.
Click to expand...

sorry...pits have the same "pounds/pressure per square inch" bite as any other dog of its size.....and there jaws do not lock either...all myths


i knew this was going to turn into a pitbull bash.....im glad to see the majority on here are well educated about the breed
 
Last edited:
I definitely think it's a negligent homicide because your dog went out and killed someone.
 


...what? We've owned pitbulls and their bite is far stronger than other dogs their size. And yes their jaws don't let go when they mean to bite. That is not a myth.

Pitbulls are bred to be dangerous. That behavior is bred into them. In addition, they are also "trained" to be aggressive in that heavy chains are put around their necks, etc.

I love pitbulls, but only if they're raised from a newborn pup and given loving care, and if they're female, preferably. The red-nosed Staphenshire is my favorite.

People must not be misled on the dangerousness of pitbulls. Their bite force is tremendous and they don't let go.
 

That was such nonsense the even you contradict yourself. You say that they're bred to fight, but that breeding disappears if they're raised right

Utter and sheer nonsense

PS-female dogs tend to be more likely to be aggressive. There's a reason we call them "bitches"
 

They're bred to be aggressive. That aggressive quality is bred through their instinct.

Never argued that female pitbulls were less aggressive. My female staffordshire was a runt that was given much love and attention. Nevertheless, there are times when that instinct, that trait, comes out.
 

No, some of them are bred to be aggressive TO OTHER DOGS, not to people.
 
sangha said:
Oy vey!!

"Breeding" (a verb) is different from "breed" (the noun form)

Click to expand...

What?

There are breed restrictions because certain breeds have been bred to be quite aggressive.
 

Yeah, what pits DO have is an effective muscle/leverag combination that allowa them to hold a bite easil for a long time, hence the ability to hang from a rope for an hour. What they don't have is an inbred aggressiveness towards PEOPLE. They would be useless for fighting if this was so.

If they had ever seen CeNedra guarding the new babies (any species) they wouldn't hold the beliefs they do. She was bithch of the house, but kittens couls and did crawl all over her. And no one was getting intp the babies room without permission. She simply blocked the doorway, no biting required!
 

Several other breeds can do the same thing. My dobie used to be able to do that too. Boxers, bulldogs and others can also do it. Nothing special about that
 

because the owner is responsible for the dog's actions. At the very least, the owner needs to be charged with negligence.

Kal'Stang said:
Which is a form of assumption. Logic does not work correctly if you assume.
Click to expand...

There are three options to choose from concerning Oscar's original statement about the open door. All three were logical conclusions. But I noticed that no one bothered to address those. If you actually read through the thread instead of making drive by posts, you might have noticed. I don't really care either way. I have grown weary of people's dishonesty.
 

It depends, as a few have already stated. If the owner was responsible and the dog went out of control for some reason, then a fine or community service or something would be appropriate. IF the dog was just allowed to roam, as many owners let their dogs do, then negligence is in order and a harsher punishment is due the dog owner.

I never thought about this issue until I had kids. They are small and weak and unable to protect themselves against a dog. Many adults too, meaning they are unprepared or unsure as to how to handle the attack.

On a separate note, all Pit Bulls should be rounded up and killed. Wipe the species out completely.
 
evanescence said:
because the owner is responsible for the dog's actions. At the very least, the owner needs to be charged with negligence.
Click to expand...

really? some times things happen that people have no control over. why do you insist on assuming that this dog owner did not do everything humanly possible to ensure the dog did not escape the yard? the freakin neighbor (you know the one who was convinced the dog was "quite aggressive") had never even seen the dog in the 3 years she'd lived there. don't you think that if the dog wasn't being contained she would've seen the damn thing at least once in 3 years?


. I have grown weary of people's dishonesty.
Click to expand...

except, apparently, of your own. :roll:
 
Bodhisattva said:
IF the dog was just allowed to roam, as many owners let their dogs do, then negligence is in order and a harsher punishment is due the dog owner..
Click to expand...

one neighbor had lived there for 3 years and had never seen the dog a single time. doesn't sound like the dog was allowed to roam.
 
OscarB63 said:
one neighbor had lived there for 3 years and had never seen the dog a single time. doesn't sound like the dog was allowed to roam.
Click to expand...

I was speaking in general. This owner may have been a great owner. I know that we had a Golden Retriever that once climbed some bushes and over a fence during the 4th of July fireworks since she was freaked. She was out for two days before we found her. What if somebody tried to get her, seeing her scared, and she bit them? What if some kid did something and she bit the kid. She would almost assuredly have just run away, but you never know. We did nothing wrong and I would see that, even though some innocent person was hurt, we should not be blamed. Well, she went into the wetlands and somebody found her and called us. No bites.
 

I had a white german shepherd like that. we kept her in a fenced in yard. 6 foot wooden privacy fence, with a solid concrete foundation so she couldn't dig under, "hot wire" along the top so she wouldn't climb over. one night during a thunderstorm, she was so paniced she chewed through a couple of the fence slats and got out. fortunately she just went and hid under the front porch. but, other than locking her is a lead vault, we had done everything reasonably possible to keep her contained.

I just find it annoying that so many people automatically jump to the conclusion that the dog owner was irresponsible.
 
I never said "negligent". I said "strictly liable".

Your dog? Your responsibility if it kills.
 
Pinkie said:
I never said "negligent". I said "strictly liable".

Your dog? Your responsibility if it kills.
Click to expand...

Strict liability doesn't apply to domestic dogs.
 
OscarB63 said:
really? some times things happen that people have no control over.
Click to expand...

Except poverty, I guess. But if someone's dog kills a four year old, permanently injures another child, and an adult- you're like: oh well. That's not the dog owner's fault. It was beyond his control :roll: Bull ****. If someone's dog kills my kid, I will kill their dog and forcefully feed them its intestines. **** that "it's not his fault" bs.


I don't care if the damn thing was contained for 3 years. It got out. It killed a child. End of story. Case ****ing closed. He is liable.



OscarB63 said:
except, apparently, of your own. :roll:
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Answer my question about the three conclusions from your comment about the open door.

*crickets*

yeah i thought so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…