Yet another Pitt Bull attack (2 Viewers)

[beavers]

One of the pit bulls rescued from the dogfighting ring bankrolled by Eagles quarterback Michael Vick has died.Officials at the Best Friends Animal Society, where nearly two dozen of the Vick dogs were rehabilitated, said Ellen, an 11-year-old pit bull, was euthanized last weekend after a bout with an unknown illness that caused her to lose weight rapidly.Ellen was considered one of the biggest success stories among the Vick dogs. Soon after the dogs were seized from Vick's property in 2007, some experts from humane societies said Ellen and other Vick dogs would be better off dead because they had a small chance of living normal lives.But after several months at Best Friends, Ellen was regarded by people there as one of the friendliest dogs at the sanctuary.

RIPShe never made it out of the sanctuary?

 

[beavers]

One of the pit bulls rescued from the dogfighting ring bankrolled by Eagles quarterback Michael Vick has died.Officials at the Best Friends Animal Society, where nearly two dozen of the Vick dogs were rehabilitated, said Ellen, an 11-year-old pit bull, was euthanized last weekend after a bout with an unknown illness that caused her to lose weight rapidly.Ellen was considered one of the biggest success stories among the Vick dogs. Soon after the dogs were seized from Vick's property in 2007, some experts from humane societies said Ellen and other Vick dogs would be better off dead because they had a small chance of living normal lives.But after several months at Best Friends, Ellen was regarded by people there as one of the friendliest dogs at the sanctuary.

Sorry for your loss. May she RIP. She never made it out of the sanctuary?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Wait, so you would hurt or even kill the owner? Why? I thought these dogs were killers and the owner isnt at fault?

Link to where I wrote that the dogs were killers and the owner isn't at fault?

I thought you were one of the people in this thread that was so bent on it being the breed and not the owner. I might have confused you with someone else. My apologies.Regardless, I think murdering someone because their pet hurt your child is just a tad bit nuts.

No worries at all.Perhaps you misread the rest of my post. I'm not murdering someone if their dog bites my kid. If their dog kills my kid....well, watch the #### out.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Para was wrong when he called me out. This thread has been about legislation from the beginning. I disagree with him about breed specific legislation but both his and my arguments about which legislation would work are very much a part of what this thread has always been about.

Uh, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

So you don't know what a red herring is and you didn't read the OP. Got it.

para has already responded...but here is another definition: "something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand." Unless you are some bizarre literalist, that very closely matches your proposal.btw - I agree with you that breed-specific legislation won't fix the issue. The same morons who own & improperly raise pitbulls will just pick a different breed to screw up. Until people learn to take responsibility for their animals, I'll continue to default to....if a dog attacks (unprovoked) and injures my kid, I'll respond based on severity of injury. That could absolutely include killing the dog and maiming the owner.

WTF? I provided that very definition twice. If you're not going to actually read my posts it becomes difficult to accept that you are reading enough in this thread to have an informed opinion about what is or isn't a distraction.Let's start here so I can understand where you are coming from: In your opinion what is the issue?

What is the issue?- Morons who have serious issues own dogs...that are powerful and can be.....mistreated in a way that makes the dog very dangerous- These morons will find a way to own a dangerous, powerful dog regardless of legislation- I'll continue to default to a) teach my kids how to behave around dogs including staying away from strange dogs, b) don't live in a neighborhood with morons who own large, powerful dogs, c) be on the lookout for uncontrolled/untrained dogs in my 'hood, d) if a dog even remotely injures my kid, I'm going MOP on the ownerAll that said, there is really no compelling reason to own a pitbull. It's like gun rights advocates who don't want sensible gun control. Does anyone really need to own hand grenades? No, not really. Flip side: as a libertarian-leaning person, I'm of the mindset that if morons want to own pitbulls, they have the right to do so. And if said pitbull injures my kid severely, I have the right to kill the dog and beat the owner severely enough that he/she never walks again.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Any new killings today?

Nope, but there's a red herring beating a dead horse over in the corner. Grab a nipple.

Pit bulls kill horse

Just as they are supposed to...and then about 30 minutes later... “When they arrived, the white pit bull dog was still attached to the horses bottom lip. The black pit bull was attached to the neck of the animal,” Waters said.

Functioning as intended.

Yeah, that's ####### normal behavior for a dog. Holy ####.

 

[Chaka]

Para was wrong when he called me out. This thread has been about legislation from the beginning. I disagree with him about breed specific legislation but both his and my arguments about which legislation would work are very much a part of what this thread has always been about.

Uh, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

So you don't know what a red herring is and you didn't read the OP. Got it.

para has already responded...but here is another definition: "something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand." Unless you are some bizarre literalist, that very closely matches your proposal.btw - I agree with you that breed-specific legislation won't fix the issue. The same morons who own & improperly raise pitbulls will just pick a different breed to screw up. Until people learn to take responsibility for their animals, I'll continue to default to....if a dog attacks (unprovoked) and injures my kid, I'll respond based on severity of injury. That could absolutely include killing the dog and maiming the owner.

WTF? I provided that very definition twice. If you're not going to actually read my posts it becomes difficult to accept that you are reading enough in this thread to have an informed opinion about what is or isn't a distraction.Let's start here so I can understand where you are coming from: In your opinion what is the issue?

What is the issue?- Morons who have serious issues own dogs...that are powerful and can be.....mistreated in a way that makes the dog very dangerous

- These morons will find a way to own a dangerous, powerful dog regardless of legislation

- I'll continue to default to a) teach my kids how to behave around dogs including staying away from strange dogs, b) don't live in a neighborhood with morons who own large, powerful dogs, c) be on the lookout for uncontrolled/untrained dogs in my 'hood, d) if a dog even remotely injures my kid, I'm going MOP on the owner

All that said, there is really no compelling reason to own a pitbull. It's like gun rights advocates who don't want sensible gun control. Does anyone really need to own hand grenades? No, not really.

Flip side: as a libertarian-leaning person, I'm of the mindset that if morons want to own pitbulls, they have the right to do so. And if said pitbull injures my kid severely, I have the right to kill the dog and beat the owner severely enough that he/she never walks again.

Well the bolded part is silly but I am presuming it's hyperbole, otherwise you and I are completely on the same page.

 

[PitbullTD]

Para was wrong when he called me out. This thread has been about legislation from the beginning. I disagree with him about breed specific legislation but both his and my arguments about which legislation would work are very much a part of what this thread has always been about.

Uh, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

So you don't know what a red herring is and you didn't read the OP. Got it.

para has already responded...but here is another definition: "something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand." Unless you are some bizarre literalist, that very closely matches your proposal.btw - I agree with you that breed-specific legislation won't fix the issue. The same morons who own & improperly raise pitbulls will just pick a different breed to screw up. Until people learn to take responsibility for their animals, I'll continue to default to....if a dog attacks (unprovoked) and injures my kid, I'll respond based on severity of injury. That could absolutely include killing the dog and maiming the owner.

WTF? I provided that very definition twice. If you're not going to actually read my posts it becomes difficult to accept that you are reading enough in this thread to have an informed opinion about what is or isn't a distraction.Let's start here so I can understand where you are coming from: In your opinion what is the issue?

What is the issue?- Morons who have serious issues own dogs...that are powerful and can be.....mistreated in a way that makes the dog very dangerous

- These morons will find a way to own a dangerous, powerful dog regardless of legislation

- I'll continue to default to a) teach my kids how to behave around dogs including staying away from strange dogs, b) don't live in a neighborhood with morons who own large, powerful dogs, c) be on the lookout for uncontrolled/untrained dogs in my 'hood, d) if a dog even remotely injures my kid, I'm going MOP on the owner

All that said, there is really no compelling reason to own a pitbull. It's like gun rights advocates who don't want sensible gun control. Does anyone really need to own hand grenades? No, not really.

Flip side: as a libertarian-leaning person, I'm of the mindset that if morons want to own pitbulls, they have the right to do so. And if said pitbull injures my kid severely, I have the right to kill the dog and beat the owner severely enough that he/she never walks again.

Pitbull owner, and fully on board with this.

 

[Chaka]

Question because there seem to be a few "I'll kill the dog and owner" types in here: Do we think that killing the pit bull owner if his/her dog kills your child is on the same level as the father in Texas who killed his 5 year old daughter's rapist but was not prosecuted?

I completely support the Texas dad and I absolutely agree with not prosecuting him. He walked in and found his daughter being raped, any man (or woman likely) would see red in that situation and the rapist deserved to die. And I can completely understand any person seeing their child get attacked by a dog killing the dog. It's instinct to protect your child. As I have stated I am all for holding dog owners criminally responsible for the actions of their animals (and increasing said punishments) however the step between killing the dog and then attacking the owner no longer seems like a crime of passion to me. Does the dog attack father deserve the same protection as the Texas father received in the eyes of the criminal justice system if he attacks and kills the dog owner? It's a tough one for me and I am very open to having my mind changed here but my initial thought is, no he doesn't deserve the same protection even if the dog killed his child. It just seems like there is a big enough step between killing the dog and attacking the owner that it is no longer an act of passion and merely becomes vigilante justice.

 

[PitbullTD]

Question because there seem to be a few "I'll kill the dog and owner" types in here: Do we think that killing the pit bull owner if his/her dog kills your child is on the same level as the father in Texas who killed his 5 year old daughter's rapist but was not prosecuted?I completely support the Texas dad and I absolutely agree with not prosecuting him. He walked in and found his daughter being raped, any man (or woman likely) would see red in that situation and the rapist deserved to die. And I can completely understand any person seeing their child get attacked by a dog killing the dog. It's instinct to protect your child. As I have stated I am all for holding dog owners criminally responsible for the actions of their animals (and increasing said punishments) however the step between killing the dog and then attacking the owner no longer seems like a crime of passion to me. Does the dog attack father deserve the same protection as the Texas father received in the eyes of the criminal justice system if he attacks and kills the dog owner? It's a tough one for me and I am very open to having my mind changed here but my initial thought is, no he doesn't deserve the same protection even if the dog killed his child. It just seems like there is a big enough step between killing the dog and attacking the owner that it is no longer an act of passion and merely becomes vigilante justice.

Well put Chaka, I'm also interested in hearing some thought out responses to this. penmind:

 

[beavers]

Question because there seem to be a few "I'll kill the dog and owner" types in here: Do we think that killing the pit bull owner if his/her dog kills your child is on the same level as the father in Texas who killed his 5 year old daughter's rapist but was not prosecuted?I completely support the Texas dad and I absolutely agree with not prosecuting him. He walked in and found his daughter being raped, any man (or woman likely) would see red in that situation and the rapist deserved to die. And I can completely understand any person seeing their child get attacked by a dog killing the dog. It's instinct to protect your child. As I have stated I am all for holding dog owners criminally responsible for the actions of their animals (and increasing said punishments) however the step between killing the dog and then attacking the owner no longer seems like a crime of passion to me. Does the dog attack father deserve the same protection as the Texas father received in the eyes of the criminal justice system if he attacks and kills the dog owner? It's a tough one for me and I am very open to having my mind changed here but my initial thought is, no he doesn't deserve the same protection even if the dog killed his child. It just seems like there is a big enough step between killing the dog and attacking the owner that it is no longer an act of passion and merely becomes vigilante justice.

Really? Perhaps this is the only way to truly hold pit owners accountable. If this was law (i.e. if we killed pit owners if their dogs killed), would you still own and advocate for pits?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Any new killings today?

Nope, but there's a red herring beating a dead horse over in the corner. Grab a nipple.

Pit bulls kill horse

Just as they are supposed to...and then about 30 minutes later... “When they arrived, the white pit bull dog was still attached to the horses bottom lip. The black pit bull was attached to the neck of the animal,” Waters said.

Functioning as intended.

Yeah, that's ####### normal behavior for a dog. Holy ####.

Its a normal mindset for a pitbull once the attack/fight starts. Thats for damn sure.

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

 

[Chaka]

Question because there seem to be a few "I'll kill the dog and owner" types in here: Do we think that killing the pit bull owner if his/her dog kills your child is on the same level as the father in Texas who killed his 5 year old daughter's rapist but was not prosecuted?I completely support the Texas dad and I absolutely agree with not prosecuting him. He walked in and found his daughter being raped, any man (or woman likely) would see red in that situation and the rapist deserved to die. And I can completely understand any person seeing their child get attacked by a dog killing the dog. It's instinct to protect your child. As I have stated I am all for holding dog owners criminally responsible for the actions of their animals (and increasing said punishments) however the step between killing the dog and then attacking the owner no longer seems like a crime of passion to me. Does the dog attack father deserve the same protection as the Texas father received in the eyes of the criminal justice system if he attacks and kills the dog owner? It's a tough one for me and I am very open to having my mind changed here but my initial thought is, no he doesn't deserve the same protection even if the dog killed his child. It just seems like there is a big enough step between killing the dog and attacking the owner that it is no longer an act of passion and merely becomes vigilante justice.

Really? Perhaps this is the only way to truly hold pit owners accountable. If this was law (i.e. if we killed pit owners if their dogs killed), would you still own and advocate for pits?

Yes, really. We have had more than a few people say they would kill the dog and the owner without hesitation, and said that even if the dog didn't even kill the child they would kill both dog and owner.Putting aside, for the moment, philosophical and ethical questions about the death penalty and its effectiveness does the father of a child killed by a pit bull deserve the same leniency as we saw in the Texas rape case?ETA: Why would my stance change if we stiffened penalties? My only issue would be that I would want to see that law extended to all breeds as breed specific legislation is ineffective.

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

You will get "yes" votes. I don't see that as a problem for dedicated owners that take the necessary precautions.

Not following....the claim by most of the people I am asking the question of is that it's an owner problem. What is the "necessary precautions" angle you're going down here?

 

[beavers]

Question because there seem to be a few "I'll kill the dog and owner" types in here: Do we think that killing the pit bull owner if his/her dog kills your child is on the same level as the father in Texas who killed his 5 year old daughter's rapist but was not prosecuted?

I completely support the Texas dad and I absolutely agree with not prosecuting him. He walked in and found his daughter being raped, any man (or woman likely) would see red in that situation and the rapist deserved to die. And I can completely understand any person seeing their child get attacked by a dog killing the dog. It's instinct to protect your child. As I have stated I am all for holding dog owners criminally responsible for the actions of their animals (and increasing said punishments) however the step between killing the dog and then attacking the owner no longer seems like a crime of passion to me. Does the dog attack father deserve the same protection as the Texas father received in the eyes of the criminal justice system if he attacks and kills the dog owner? It's a tough one for me and I am very open to having my mind changed here but my initial thought is, no he doesn't deserve the same protection even if the dog killed his child. It just seems like there is a big enough step between killing the dog and attacking the owner that it is no longer an act of passion and merely becomes vigilante justice.

Really?

Perhaps this is the only way to truly hold pit owners accountable. If this was law (i.e. if we killed pit owners if their dogs killed), would you still own and advocate for pits?

Yes, really. We have had more than a few people say they would kill the dog and the owner without hesitation, and said that even if the dog didn't even kill the child they would kill both dog and owner.Putting aside, for the moment, philosophical and ethical questions about the death penalty and its effectiveness does the father of a child killed by a pit bull deserve the same leniency as we saw in the Texas rape case?

If there are going to be stronger laws for owning a pit bull, why not? If my daughter was brutally murdered by a pit bull (and since most arguments are the fault of the owner), why not eye for an eye, ... ?So if I see a pit bull attacking my daughter, why not shot both the dog an owner to save her?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

ETA: Why would my stance change if we stiffened penalties?

Yours, who knows. Owners in general? Expect a big change when forced responsibility occurs.

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

You will get "yes" votes. I don't see that as a problem for dedicated owners that take the necessary precautions.

Not following....the claim by most of the people I am asking the question of is that it's an owner problem. What is the "necessary precautions" angle you're going down here?

I guess I am in the camp that it is "mostly" an owner problem (75/25). If a law was passed like you mentioned, I don't see why that would deter "responsible" people who love the breed from owning the breed. Sure they might be more cautious, just like people putting a fence around their swimming pool or putting a net around their trampoline. The stakes get higher if the law is passed. We never had nets around trampolines in the 80s and 90s, but you see them now because of the liability (people suing if their kid gets hurt).I have no problem with people owning tigers as long as they are responsible.I am all for harsher penalties for owners of dogs that cause injuries/deaths. The dog is their property and responsibility. I would also be in favor of coming up with a way to keep any dog out of the hands of irresponsible people. I am just not sure how that would be accomplished.

I should have been clearer. I was speaking to all those "it's not the breed, it's the owner" folks, not the logical folks who understand it's a mix of owner and breed.

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

You will get "yes" votes. I don't see that as a problem for dedicated owners that take the necessary precautions.

Not following....the claim by most of the people I am asking the question of is that it's an owner problem. What is the "necessary precautions" angle you're going down here?

I guess I am in the camp that it is "mostly" an owner problem (75/25). If a law was passed like you mentioned, I don't see why that would deter "responsible" people who love the breed from owning the breed. Sure they might be more cautious, just like people putting a fence around their swimming pool or putting a net around their trampoline. The stakes get higher if the law is passed. We never had nets around trampolines in the 80s and 90s, but you see them now because of the liability (people suing if their kid gets hurt).I have no problem with people owning tigers as long as they are responsible.I am all for harsher penalties for owners of dogs that cause injuries/deaths. The dog is their property and responsibility. I would also be in favor of coming up with a way to keep any dog out of the hands of irresponsible people. I am just not sure how that would be accomplished.

I should have been clearer. I was speaking to all those "it's not the breed, it's the owner" folks, not the logical folks who understand it's a mix of owner and breed.

I should have been clearer also. I is %100 the owner's responsibility. Any time you own a powerful animal you have to take precautions. You wouldn't let a horse roam around freely in a kindergarten classroom.

We keep switching topics. I wasn't talking responsibility. I was talking cause/fault.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game. And as an owner of multiple guns, I'd be happy if this law covered firearms as well.

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

You will get "yes" votes. I don't see that as a problem for dedicated owners that take the necessary precautions.

Not following....the claim by most of the people I am asking the question of is that it's an owner problem. What is the "necessary precautions" angle you're going down here?

I guess I am in the camp that it is "mostly" an owner problem (75/25). If a law was passed like you mentioned, I don't see why that would deter "responsible" people who love the breed from owning the breed. Sure they might be more cautious, just like people putting a fence around their swimming pool or putting a net around their trampoline. The stakes get higher if the law is passed. We never had nets around trampolines in the 80s and 90s, but you see them now because of the liability (people suing if their kid gets hurt).I have no problem with people owning tigers as long as they are responsible.

I am all for harsher penalties for owners of dogs that cause injuries/deaths. The dog is their property and responsibility. I would also be in favor of coming up with a way to keep any dog out of the hands of irresponsible people. I am just not sure how that would be accomplished.

I should have been clearer. I was speaking to all those "it's not the breed, it's the owner" folks, not the logical folks who understand it's a mix of owner and breed.

I should have been clearer also. I is %100 the owner's responsibility. Any time you own a powerful animal you have to take precautions. You wouldn't let a horse roam around freely in a kindergarten classroom.

We keep switching topics. I wasn't talking responsibility. I was talking cause/fault.

I understand, but still think it fits into the original question. Why would this law deter responsible owners? I am grouping the "pit owners/advocates here" as responsible owners. Which is why I am saying you would get "yes" answers to your question.

Ok. Let's see what they say. Should be interesting.

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game. And as an owner of multiple guns, I'd be happy if this law covered firearms as well.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game. And as an owner of multiple guns, I'd be happy if this law covered firearms as well.

Sorry, I was agreeing that I'd be happy with a law like that.As a pit advocate, yes I would still hypothetically own one.Note: I don't own a Pit and probably never will simply because I prefer other breeds.

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game. And as an owner of multiple guns, I'd be happy if this law covered firearms as well.

Sorry, I was agreeing that I'd be happy with a law like that.As a pit advocate, yes I would still hypothetically own one.Note: I don't own a Pit and probably never will simply because I prefer other breeds.

What is it about pits that keeps them from being tops on the list? Just wondering.

 

[Joe Summer]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game.

And who gets to be the arbiter of what's considered "unwarranted"?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game. And as an owner of multiple guns, I'd be happy if this law covered firearms as well.

Sorry, I was agreeing that I'd be happy with a law like that.As a pit advocate, yes I would still hypothetically own one.Note: I don't own a Pit and probably never will simply because I prefer other breeds.

What is it about pits that keeps them from being tops on the list? Just wondering.

Just not my preference. I prefer longer haired dogs for the most part. Top 3:1) German Shepherd2) Border Collie3) Golden Retriever

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game.

And who gets to be the arbiter of what's considered "unwarranted"?

Anyone who has functional use of common sense.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game.

If someone comes in to your yard uninvited it's fair game to murder them?

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game.

And who gets to be the arbiter of what's considered "unwarranted"?

Anyone who has functional use of common sense.

This really doesn't work and I think we all know that. Say a kid owns a dog like this and he invites his friend over. The kid walks in the back yard, friend follows. Friend gets attacked. You're assuming the animal understands the concept of welcome vs not welcome. Good luck with that.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game.

And who gets to be the arbiter of what's considered "unwarranted"?

Anyone who has functional use of common sense.

This really doesn't work and I think we all know that. Say a kid owns a dog like this and he invites his friend over. The kid walks in the back yard, friend follows. Friend gets attacked. You're assuming the animal understands the concept of welcome vs not welcome. Good luck with that.

Then it is the owners fault for allowing kids in his yard unsupervised with his animal. Not that complicated.

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game.

And who gets to be the arbiter of what's considered "unwarranted"?

Anyone who has functional use of common sense.

This really doesn't work and I think we all know that. Say a kid owns a dog like this and he invites his friend over. The kid walks in the back yard, friend follows. Friend gets attacked. You're assuming the animal understands the concept of welcome vs not welcome. Good luck with that.

Then it is the owners fault for allowing kids in his yard unsupervised with his animal. Not that complicated.

So to be clear....you're fine with this scenario:1. Kid invites friend over to house while his parents are away.2. Friend gets attacked.3. Parent gets the chair.Why on earth would anyone in their right mind own an animal that could put them in this situation?

 

[eoMMan]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

"You and the animal die"....that's a bit much, don't you think?There are plenty of murderers out there who aren't on death row and who killed people THEMSELVES.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

"You and the animal die"....that's a bit much, don't you think?There are plenty of murderers out there who aren't on death row and who killed people THEMSELVES.

Not a bit much at all. Pittbulls are "a bit much" as a household pet.

 

[gandalas]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game. And as an owner of multiple guns, I'd be happy if this law covered firearms as well.

Sorry, I was agreeing that I'd be happy with a law like that.As a pit advocate, yes I would still hypothetically own one.Note: I don't own a Pit and probably never will simply because I prefer other breeds.

What is it about pits that keeps them from being tops on the list? Just wondering.

Honestly, I love pits, but I would never own one, most likely. They are simply too small for me. I prefer a dog that I don't have to bend down to pet. My current Mastiff/Lab mix fits the bill exactly. I consider Pits to me more "medium" than "large" breeds, although I am sure that will go against popular opinion on here...

 

[eoMMan]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

"You and the animal die"....that's a bit much, don't you think?There are plenty of murderers out there who aren't on death row and who killed people THEMSELVES.

Not a bit much at all. Pittbulls are "a bit much" as a household pet.

So I can go kill a guy with my bare hands and not be put to death, but my dog can go kill a person and I THEN get put to death?You really don't see how this makes absolutely no sense?

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

"You and the animal die"....that's a bit much, don't you think?There are plenty of murderers out there who aren't on death row and who killed people THEMSELVES.

It's a bit of a stretch. Just trying to gauge how married folks are to the "it's the owner not the breed" philosophy. So far, I have a non-pitbull owner saying he's fine with that and would own the animal. Everyone else is pretty quiet on it.

 

[eoMMan]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

"You and the animal die"....that's a bit much, don't you think?There are plenty of murderers out there who aren't on death row and who killed people THEMSELVES.

It's a bit of a stretch. Just trying to gauge how married folks are to the "it's the owner not the breed" philosophy. So far, I have a non-pitbull owner saying he's fine with that and would own the animal. Everyone else is pretty quiet on it.

Well, I've been one of the pro-pitbull advocates in here and I'm all for harsh penalties/fines for owners of dogs who do serious damage.....OF ANY BREED.I'd even be fine with some sort of manslaughter charge if the owner definitely demonstrated carelessness and a previous knowledge that the dog was dangerous. But I think a full on 1st degree murder charge is too harsh.

 

[Chaka]

Question because there seem to be a few "I'll kill the dog and owner" types in here: Do we think that killing the pit bull owner if his/her dog kills your child is on the same level as the father in Texas who killed his 5 year old daughter's rapist but was not prosecuted?

I completely support the Texas dad and I absolutely agree with not prosecuting him. He walked in and found his daughter being raped, any man (or woman likely) would see red in that situation and the rapist deserved to die. And I can completely understand any person seeing their child get attacked by a dog killing the dog. It's instinct to protect your child. As I have stated I am all for holding dog owners criminally responsible for the actions of their animals (and increasing said punishments) however the step between killing the dog and then attacking the owner no longer seems like a crime of passion to me. Does the dog attack father deserve the same protection as the Texas father received in the eyes of the criminal justice system if he attacks and kills the dog owner? It's a tough one for me and I am very open to having my mind changed here but my initial thought is, no he doesn't deserve the same protection even if the dog killed his child. It just seems like there is a big enough step between killing the dog and attacking the owner that it is no longer an act of passion and merely becomes vigilante justice.

Really?

Perhaps this is the only way to truly hold pit owners accountable. If this was law (i.e. if we killed pit owners if their dogs killed), would you still own and advocate for pits?

Yes, really. We have had more than a few people say they would kill the dog and the owner without hesitation, and said that even if the dog didn't even kill the child they would kill both dog and owner.Putting aside, for the moment, philosophical and ethical questions about the death penalty and its effectiveness does the father of a child killed by a pit bull deserve the same leniency as we saw in the Texas rape case?

If there are going to be stronger laws for owning a pit bull, why not? If my daughter was brutally murdered by a pit bull (and since most arguments are the fault of the owner), why not eye for an eye, ... ?So if I see a pit bull attacking my daughter, why not shot both the dog an owner to save her?

Do you really believe that? The owner is not attacking your daughter, once the dog is dead the threat is over. There are a lot of variables here, if the owner is present the situation is more immediate and I can almost see an argument for a crime of passion in killing the owner. However if the owner is not present, as is often (usually?) the case in these situations, and you track him down and kill him isn't it straight up vigilante justice? Do you support vigilantism?I am all for severe punishment for the owner in these cases but don't you think the owner should be left to the justice system?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game.

And who gets to be the arbiter of what's considered "unwarranted"?

Anyone who has functional use of common sense.

This really doesn't work and I think we all know that. Say a kid owns a dog like this and he invites his friend over. The kid walks in the back yard, friend follows. Friend gets attacked. You're assuming the animal understands the concept of welcome vs not welcome. Good luck with that.

Then it is the owners fault for allowing kids in his yard unsupervised with his animal. Not that complicated.

So to be clear....you're fine with this scenario:1. Kid invites friend over to house while his parents are away.2. Friend gets attacked.3. Parent gets the chair.Why on earth would anyone in their right mind own an animal that could put them in this situation?

So the owner has no control over his kid and his dog? Sounds like negligence to me.

 

[Chaka]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

"You and the animal die"....that's a bit much, don't you think?There are plenty of murderers out there who aren't on death row and who killed people THEMSELVES.

It's a bit of a stretch. Just trying to gauge how married folks are to the "it's the owner not the breed" philosophy. So far, I have a non-pitbull owner saying he's fine with that and would own the animal. Everyone else is pretty quiet on it.

I am more of a doberman guy myself and I would certainly still own one of those even if the laws were more severe so I imagine I would own a pit bull too.

 

[Chaka]

ETA: Why would my stance change if we stiffened penalties?

Yours, who knows. Owners in general? Expect a big change when forced responsibility occurs.

I would hope so.

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game.

And who gets to be the arbiter of what's considered "unwarranted"?

Anyone who has functional use of common sense.

This really doesn't work and I think we all know that. Say a kid owns a dog like this and he invites his friend over. The kid walks in the back yard, friend follows. Friend gets attacked. You're assuming the animal understands the concept of welcome vs not welcome. Good luck with that.

Then it is the owners fault for allowing kids in his yard unsupervised with his animal. Not that complicated.

So to be clear....you're fine with this scenario:1. Kid invites friend over to house while his parents are away.2. Friend gets attacked.3. Parent gets the chair.Why on earth would anyone in their right mind own an animal that could put them in this situation?

So the owner has no control over his kid and his dog? Sounds like negligence to me.

ok. Thanks for the input.

 

[The Commish]

Don't look now but there might actually be a philosophical, productive question here. For the pit owners/advocates here...if the law was "your animal kills a person, you and the animal die" would you still own a pit? If not, why not? Goes for owners of any other animal as well (if you want to weigh in).

100% yes provided the attack was unwarranted. ie. if the animal is in its own fenced yard and someone comes into that yard uninvited? Fair game.

And who gets to be the arbiter of what's considered "unwarranted"?

Anyone who has functional use of common sense.

This really doesn't work and I think we all know that. Say a kid owns a dog like this and he invites his friend over. The kid walks in the back yard, friend follows. Friend gets attacked. You're assuming the animal understands the concept of welcome vs not welcome. Good luck with that.

Then it is the owners fault for allowing kids in his yard unsupervised with his animal. Not that complicated.

So to be clear....you're fine with this scenario:1. Kid invites friend over to house while his parents are away.2. Friend gets attacked.3. Parent gets the chair.Why on earth would anyone in their right mind own an animal that could put them in this situation?

So the owner has no control over his kid and his dog? Sounds like negligence to me.

ok. Thanks for the input.

Which question are you looking for an answer to? The, "would you still own a pit if you could get the death penalty?" or the, "should the parents get the death penalty?" for your hypothetical situation? It seems like two different questions.I am confused. The case would still go to court.

My question was one of clarification on how "ok" he was with the "if the dog kills someone the owner dies too" law. It seems to be pretty black and white to him even though the scenario I presented SHOULD invoke a slight bit of thought to the law. Apparently I was wrong there.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Question because there seem to be a few "I'll kill the dog and owner" types in here: Do we think that killing the pit bull owner if his/her dog kills your child is on the same level as the father in Texas who killed his 5 year old daughter's rapist but was not prosecuted?I completely support the Texas dad and I absolutely agree with not prosecuting him. He walked in and found his daughter being raped, any man (or woman likely) would see red in that situation and the rapist deserved to die. And I can completely understand any person seeing their child get attacked by a dog killing the dog. It's instinct to protect your child. As I have stated I am all for holding dog owners criminally responsible for the actions of their animals (and increasing said punishments) however the step between killing the dog and then attacking the owner no longer seems like a crime of passion to me. Does the dog attack father deserve the same protection as the Texas father received in the eyes of the criminal justice system if he attacks and kills the dog owner? It's a tough one for me and I am very open to having my mind changed here but my initial thought is, no he doesn't deserve the same protection even if the dog killed his child. It just seems like there is a big enough step between killing the dog and attacking the owner that it is no longer an act of passion and merely becomes vigilante justice.

If someone facilitates - intentionally or otherwise - killing my child via a dog, then I'm perfectly comfortable taking action so that dog owner can never facilitate injuring another child again.

 

[Chaka]

Question because there seem to be a few "I'll kill the dog and owner" types in here: Do we think that killing the pit bull owner if his/her dog kills your child is on the same level as the father in Texas who killed his 5 year old daughter's rapist but was not prosecuted?I completely support the Texas dad and I absolutely agree with not prosecuting him. He walked in and found his daughter being raped, any man (or woman likely) would see red in that situation and the rapist deserved to die. And I can completely understand any person seeing their child get attacked by a dog killing the dog. It's instinct to protect your child. As I have stated I am all for holding dog owners criminally responsible for the actions of their animals (and increasing said punishments) however the step between killing the dog and then attacking the owner no longer seems like a crime of passion to me. Does the dog attack father deserve the same protection as the Texas father received in the eyes of the criminal justice system if he attacks and kills the dog owner? It's a tough one for me and I am very open to having my mind changed here but my initial thought is, no he doesn't deserve the same protection even if the dog killed his child. It just seems like there is a big enough step between killing the dog and attacking the owner that it is no longer an act of passion and merely becomes vigilante justice.

If someone facilitates - intentionally or otherwise - killing my child via a dog, then I'm perfectly comfortable taking action so that dog owner can never facilitate injuring another child again.

I know that, you said it already. It is your attitude that spawned the question. I presume your answer is no you don't think a father should be prosecuted for killing the dog and the owner, regardless of whether or not the owner was present at the time.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

My question was one of clarification on how "ok" he was with the "if the dog kills someone the owner dies too" law. It seems to be pretty black and white to him even though the scenario I presented SHOULD invoke a slight bit of thought to the law. Apparently I was wrong there.

Just an FYI, I'm pretty lenient on how I think the death penalty should be used. We have a whole lot of trash that society would be better off without.If you take the same scenario of a kid bringing friends over but replace the dog with a gun, do you think the owner of the gun should be at fault? What type of punishment would be warranted?

 

[The Commish]

My question was one of clarification on how "ok" he was with the "if the dog kills someone the owner dies too" law. It seems to be pretty black and white to him even though the scenario I presented SHOULD invoke a slight bit of thought to the law. Apparently I was wrong there.

Just an FYI, I'm pretty lenient on how I think the death penalty should be used. We have a whole lot of trash that society would be better off without.If you take the same scenario of a kid bringing friends over but replace the dog with a gun, do you think the owner of the gun should be at fault? What type of punishment would be warranted?

The dog and gun aren't analogous so I don't know what you get from bringing it up in this context, but if a kid dies because of a gun in the house, the owner of the gun would be responsible IMO. Again, the gun is an object and the dog is an animal. Two different things as it pertains to this discussion.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

My question was one of clarification on how "ok" he was with the "if the dog kills someone the owner dies too" law. It seems to be pretty black and white to him even though the scenario I presented SHOULD invoke a slight bit of thought to the law. Apparently I was wrong there.

Just an FYI, I'm pretty lenient on how I think the death penalty should be used. We have a whole lot of trash that society would be better off without.If you take the same scenario of a kid bringing friends over but replace the dog with a gun, do you think the owner of the gun should be at fault? What type of punishment would be warranted?

The dog and gun aren't analogous so I don't know what you get from bringing it up in this context, but if a kid dies because of a gun in the house, the owner of the gun would be responsible IMO. Again, the gun is an object and the dog is an animal. Two different things as it pertains to this discussion.

They are different things but negligence of the owner of the dog/gun if what leads to accident/deaths. If a gun owner stores his guns properly, accidents don't happen. If a dog owner trains his dog properly, attacks don't happen.

 

[eoMMan]

My question was one of clarification on how "ok" he was with the "if the dog kills someone the owner dies too" law. It seems to be pretty black and white to him even though the scenario I presented SHOULD invoke a slight bit of thought to the law. Apparently I was wrong there.

Just an FYI, I'm pretty lenient on how I think the death penalty should be used. We have a whole lot of trash that society would be better off without.If you take the same scenario of a kid bringing friends over but replace the dog with a gun, do you think the owner of the gun should be at fault? What type of punishment would be warranted?

The dog and gun aren't analogous so I don't know what you get from bringing it up in this context, but if a kid dies because of a gun in the house, the owner of the gun would be responsible IMO. Again, the gun is an object and the dog is an animal. Two different things as it pertains to this discussion.

They are different things but negligence of the owner of the dog/gun if what leads to accident/deaths. If a gun owner stores his guns properly, accidents don't happen. If a dog owner trains his dog properly, attacks don't happen.

 

[The Commish]

My question was one of clarification on how "ok" he was with the "if the dog kills someone the owner dies too" law. It seems to be pretty black and white to him even though the scenario I presented SHOULD invoke a slight bit of thought to the law. Apparently I was wrong there.

Just an FYI, I'm pretty lenient on how I think the death penalty should be used. We have a whole lot of trash that society would be better off without.If you take the same scenario of a kid bringing friends over but replace the dog with a gun, do you think the owner of the gun should be at fault? What type of punishment would be warranted?

The dog and gun aren't analogous so I don't know what you get from bringing it up in this context, but if a kid dies because of a gun in the house, the owner of the gun would be responsible IMO. Again, the gun is an object and the dog is an animal. Two different things as it pertains to this discussion.

They are different things but negligence of the owner of the dog/gun if what leads to accident/deaths. If a gun owner stores his guns properly, accidents don't happen. If a dog owner trains his dog properly, attacks don't happen.

This is a fallacy.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

My question was one of clarification on how "ok" he was with the "if the dog kills someone the owner dies too" law. It seems to be pretty black and white to him even though the scenario I presented SHOULD invoke a slight bit of thought to the law. Apparently I was wrong there.

Just an FYI, I'm pretty lenient on how I think the death penalty should be used. We have a whole lot of trash that society would be better off without.If you take the same scenario of a kid bringing friends over but replace the dog with a gun, do you think the owner of the gun should be at fault? What type of punishment would be warranted?

The dog and gun aren't analogous so I don't know what you get from bringing it up in this context, but if a kid dies because of a gun in the house, the owner of the gun would be responsible IMO. Again, the gun is an object and the dog is an animal. Two different things as it pertains to this discussion.

They are different things but negligence of the owner of the dog/gun if what leads to accident/deaths. If a gun owner stores his guns properly, accidents don't happen. If a dog owner trains his dog properly, attacks don't happen.

This is a fallacy.

That is your opinion and something that we won't agree on then.