Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 78978	2007-05-04 08:29:00	Poll - banning pitbulls	qazwsxokmijn (102)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
546980	2007-05-07 07:57:00	The onus is still on the dog owner to ensure that noone gets bitten by their dog. Its like driving a car, the onus is on you not to hit anyone, even if they walk/ride/drive into your path of travel	Myth (110)
546981	2007-05-07 08:43:00	Sweep says the child would have been 7 or 8. I just think 7 or 8 is old enough to be deterred by Sweep's warning. Or maybe you meant to say I have no idea how a kid's mind works, in which case I'd have to say you're probably right? already answered by Myth, but I'd like to add that under NZ law, 7 or 8 is not considered to be an age of responsibility. Some 8 year olds will be fine, where some 12 years olds will struggle. You also need to c9onsider mental and/or physical capacity. You have no idea of what the childs, or any persons, mental capacity is. If the child had been mentally impaired, by your reasoning that makes no difference. How about a mentally impaired adult, same eh! Or a deaf person, how are they supposed to hear warnings? You see, you open up a whole can of worms when owners of animals are unable or unwilling to take total responsibility for the animal and it's environment. And yet, you want other people to be responsible and accountable for the owners and animals actions (or lack in the case of the former), indeed it's ok if they pay a price, it serves them right if their judgement is wrong or impaired. If owners weren't to be held responsible, what next, horses mowing people down on the footpath?	Murray P (44)
546982	2007-05-07 09:45:00	Well, as far as I knew, Sweep had taken precaution by warning the kid; 3 times. Forgive me for being so blunt, but I just thought an 8 year old would understand what 'stay away from the dog' would mean, leaving aside the child's possible disabilities.	qazwsxokmijn (102)
546983	2007-05-07 10:00:00	Young children are not particularly known fore there reasoning skills. It is the duty of the dog owner to ensure that their charge (the dog) does no harm. The fact that an incident took place in full view and under the control of adults, only illustrates that the adults were not taking that duty and the privilege of owning a dog seriously. There is no mitigation in the dog being of a private property, as that property was freely accessible to a child and presumably any child. Well Murray P. Go back to a previous time. I take it that you know what the law was in 1976? I also feel that you should not have attacked qazwsxokmijn in the way you did. If you really want to attack then do it to me. I have broad shoulders and sometimes a chip on both. This means I am well balanced. Possibly we blame the education system? What part of NO! do you not understand for example. If a child walks onto my property for any reason looking for food should I phone CYFS? Should I take the child in? We all make choices at the time an event happens. As you happen to be perfect you make all the correct choices at the right time.	Sweep (90)
546984	2007-05-07 10:20:00	already answered by Myth, but I'd like to add that under NZ law, 7 or 8 is not considered to be an age of responsibility. Some 8 year olds will be fine, where some 12 years olds will struggle. You also need to c9onsider mental and/or physical capacity. You have no idea of what the childs, or any persons, mental capacity is. If the child had been mentally impaired, by your reasoning that makes no difference. How about a mentally impaired adult, same eh! Or a deaf person, how are they supposed to hear warnings? You see, you open up a whole can of worms when owners of animals are unable or unwilling to take total responsibility for the animal and it's environment. And yet, you want other people to be responsible and accountable for the owners and animals actions (or lack in the case of the former), indeed it's ok if they pay a price, it serves them right if their judgement is wrong or impaired. If owners weren't to be held responsible, what next, horses mowing people down on the footpath? Why did the child not go when told to? The child did but came back. Where were the parents of the child? Why did the parents allow the child to go to a fully fenced property next door? There was a gate the child could open. Not padlocked. Rex did not go and open a gate. If you noticed.... A person recently ran a car through party goers and has been charged with Murder rather than Manslaughter. Drivers of cars can run people down. Thank you for your comments!	Sweep (90)
546985	2007-05-07 10:22:00	as i see it, if i own a dog that i see as a threat to people (who aren't intruders) that dog has to go and it's my responsibility. for that same reason i prefer border collies for their intelligence (and other smart dogs but i still like the collie better) ie they can be trained to be useful. you ban pitbulls, some other dog will be the media's target. point being dog owners SHOULD be responsible for what is ultimately THEIR action or inaction. if a mother who crashes her car killing her children can be done for MANSLAUGHTER, why can't a person who has a violent dog be charged for the same? (unless 'victim' was tresspassing, in which case that's why you have the dog) EDIT: and by tresspassing i mean you actually have a properly fenced off property	motorbyclist (188)
546986	2007-05-07 10:26:00	Why did the parents allow the child to go to a fully fenced property next door? There was a gate the child could open. Not padlocked. Rex did not go and open a gate. Ah, good. I had a feeling my point would be justified all along. :p Now, even if it was true - that the kid did not have the ability to fully grasp what Sweep had been saying, Sweep is still the good guy, as Rex the dog was kept in an enclosed property, something the book of law states for a dog. But still, I just don't think an 8 year old would be stupid enough to keep coming back to pat Rex - despite three warnings and constant growling from Rex himself. Provided the kid's fully sane, however. But in this case if Rex killed the child - I don't think Sweep would have been in much trouble, legally. He had Rex in a fully fenced property. Padlocks are not mandatory. Sweep has warned the kid multiple times. As I see it, if it were the case, Sweep and Rex wouldn't be charged at all.	qazwsxokmijn (102)
546987	2007-05-07 10:54:00	Ah, good. I had a feeling my point would be justified all along. :p Now, even if it was true - that the kid did not have the ability to fully grasp what Sweep had been saying, Sweep is still the good guy, as Rex the dog was kept in an enclosed property, something the book of law states for a dog. But still, I just don't think an 8 year old would be stupid enough to keep coming back to pat Rex - despite three warnings and constant growling from Rex himself. Provided the kid's fully sane, however. But in this case if Rex killed the child - I don't think Sweep would have been in much trouble, legally. He had Rex in a fully fenced property. Padlocks are not mandatory. Sweep has warned the kid multiple times. As I see it, if it were the case, Sweep and Rex wouldn't be charged at all. Even back then if Rex had severely bitten the child I would have had hin put down. Rex did not growl at all. I noted that he showed teeth.	Sweep (90)
546988	2007-05-07 11:04:00	Even back then if Rex had severely bitten the child I would have had hin put down. Rex did not growl at all. I noted that he showed teeth. Well, any signs of aggression then. But why would you have put him down?	qazwsxokmijn (102)
546989	2007-05-07 11:42:00	Well, any signs of aggression then. But why would you have put him down? A sign of a agression is when the lips curl up and showing teeth. Rex did not growl. I would have had him put down if he had bitten the whole ear off. Do you not read a post before you reply?	Sweep (90)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15