Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any dog is capable of attack but the threat is increased in large to the dogs upbringing and breed. Pitbulls are beautiful loyal and protective dogs but they also have a wild streak. I have a male Cocker Spaniel who is really sweet but he doesn't like other dogs and on rare occasions he gets a chip on his shoulder if you try and take something away from him. One time he found a corn cob out back and brought it in to his bed. I saw it and tried to take it away and it wasn't a pretty scene.
When I was a kid the neighbors had lovely husky dogs but don't let them into the chicken coop. They got out and into our chickens a few times and they killed what they could get to.
Any dog is capable of turning but pitbulls have the tools to do some serious damage so the owners should be required to have extra insurance and be liable. Many insurance companies will not insure if you have a dangerous breed of dog.
Pete the Pup from the Little Rascals was always cool with the kids at least on the program.
Sometimes they can be dangerous too, but that's because of their owners, not because of the dogs.
Other breeds, shepards, rotts, etc. can be just as dangerous as a pit bull if that's the way they are trained and treated.
I think if someone trains their dog to be dangerous, they certainly should have liability in the matter, but keying just to the pit breed is discriminatory.
It nonetheless remains true that:
1) Irresponsible pet owners exist, and
2) If 1000 irresponsible pet owners own pit bulls and another 1000 irresponsible pet owners own chihuahuas and poodles and goldens and great danes and whatever other breeds, the 1000 pit bulls are going to have a significantly higher incidence of hurting and killing people than those 1000 dogs of various breeds.
And all the bleating about how it's the people and not the dogs won't change the fact that - all other things being equal - pit bulls injure and kill people at a much higher rate than any other breed.
For the most part humans shouldn't have access to them. Denver said no "pitt" bulls. There actually is not such breed. The word "pitt"? Are you kidding me?????? We can't handle the breed, so they should be done away with. Shame, because there are nice ones out there, but lets face it, the human race just shouldn't have access to certain things.
The owners should be not only held responsible, but I feel if you own a breed like that, you should be held to a higher standard. Your dog attacks someone, you get double time in the clink. You own one knowing there is a term, "pitt" on the front of your dog's so called breed, you face higher penalties.
One more thought on this. In Pittsburgh at the animal shelter near me, which is HUGE, guess what dog is occupying the animal shelter's space the most? Yep, so-called "pit bulls". Oh, you want to know the percentage? You better sit down! Over 90%!!!!!!!!!! Probably more like 96%, but what does it matter? Goes to show you that humans shouldn't have this breed. They are throw away dogs because losers gravitate to them like flies on crap. Just get rid of them for the most part. Fix them all and just let the die off. Like I said, Denver banned them because of the way so many humans treat them. Just not fair to the dogs themselves to be subject to humans.
Pete the Pup from the Little Rascals was always cool with the kids at least on the program.
Sometimes they can be dangerous too, but that's because of their owners, not because of the dogs.
Other breeds, shepards, rotts, etc. can be just as dangerous as a pit bull if that's the way they are trained and treated.
I think if someone trains their dog to be dangerous, they certainly should have liability in the matter, but keying just to the pit breed is discriminatory.
Discrimination has been inaccurately portrayed as always undesirable, but that is not correct when defined, more appropriately, as the rational act of evaluation and making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category.
Pit bulls are NOT as docile as other breeds as evidenced by statistics and should therefore be treated differently.
Agree with others that ALL pet owners should be held liable for "their" pet actions. After all, a pet under control of it's owner isn't usually going to accost a human. As for the breed, the insurance companies have different rankings for type of dog you have and some even refuse to insure for pit bulls, be it home owners or renters............maybe they've done more research than I. Yes, I was attacked by saying "good boy" to a Rhodesian Ridgeback. Come to find out, the dog had attacked several women, all ages of family, and hated all women yet this man asked me to come give a painting estimate. Thank goodness I was looking down and it got my face instead of neck that it went for
I am sick and tired of hearing and reading about pitbulls killing and maiming children and older people. I think pit bull owners should be tried as an assailant when their dog attacks an innocent person that didn't provoke the dog. The crime should read as assault with the intention of killing or murder.
Any pet/animal owner should be held responsible for their pets. Actually I believe they are held financially responsible as well as criminally responsible in the case of fatality or serious attack.
I am not sure about attempted murder charge. Murder charges usually must show intent. Involuntary manslaughter would probably be the highest charge one could face.
I'm not sure why you would limit this to "pit bulls". Why stop at that particular type? Why not the owner of any dog or animal, why not the guardian of juvenile/dependent children.
I'm sick and tired of hearing and reading about police officers killing innocent civilians too. Have you noticed lately the number of news reports, articles and threads on the subject. One might be led to believe that it was a major epidemic like "pit bull" attacks or one might believe its media hype. Just for the record statistics show approximately 320 deaths by police officer in 2013; death by pit bull 25.
Im a big lover of venomous snakes. Couldnt tell you what it is exactly, but Ive been fascinated by them for a long time. Most states have bans on owning venomous snakes as they "pose a danger". Huh? Theyre caged, kept by knowledgeable people who have all the proper tools and caging, and they even have protocol in place in case of an accidental bite (ie stored anti-venin, etc). Many people are prevented from owning venomous snakes simply because their are laws in place. But any Joe Schmoe can go out and buy a dangerous pit bull, have it rip apart a neighbor kid's face? I think there should be an outright ban to the general public, with the only sales going to people knowledgeable about the breed, who keep them properly, and know what to do in the event of an attack.
I am sick and tired of hearing and reading about pitbulls killing and maiming children and older people. I think pit bull owners should be tried as an assailant when their dog attacks an innocent person that didn't provoke the dog. The crime should read as assault with the intention of killing or murder.
Hmm, interesting legal perspective. Are you proposing this as something akin to the liabilty of a drunk driver in a death or maiming of innocents, or is this just another breed specific rant?
While I agree that ALL dog owners should be held liable for their dog attacking someone (that's why most of us carry liability insurance, by the way), I would be interested in your data source about death and maiming from unprovoked dog attacks, because they are exceedingly rare (like 0.0000001% of the population rare from stats I've found/read that are inclusive of all deaths from dog attacks, maiming may knock a zero out of the number, but this is not the common everyday problem you are presenting it as), so as a criminal matter, each case should be done as an individual case, with the need to prove some combination of: intent, wreckless endagerment, or malice that can be proven in criminal court - my bet is the burden of proof would limit convictions to a miniscule number of an already extremely rare event.
If the dog has bitten before or is known to be aggressive (there are specific tests, by the way, and in many states SPCA or the Humane Society provides a definition of what constitutes an aggressive dog), and the owner does not contain or control the dog, then I would agree, the owner has somewhat more culpability than an owner with a dog that bites out of the blue (and while that can happen, well, let's just say statistically it won't keep me up at night worrying about it!), but again, this should be applyed to ALL dog owners, or would you have a problem applying your proposal to ALL dogs and ALL dog owners?
Owning a dog capable of killing a person is the same as owning a gun.
When a gun can act on it's own, and escape the confines of it's home or yard without an operator, and arbitrarily shoot people, then and only then do you have an analogy.
Also, almost ANY dog can kill a person given the right circumstances (little dogs can kill little children, just like big dogs can. Adults, OK, now dog size starts to come into play)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just for the record statistics show approximately 320 deaths by police officer in 2013; death by pit bull 25.
