Allahu Mick-Bar my Friends!
When a dog offends against a person or another animal, who is at fault? The dog? The owner? Another entity entirely?
The current politically correct atmosphere demands that the victim and/or the complainant is to blame. ALWAYS to blame. This stems from the cultural First Principle that dogs and dog owners are always the agents of Good. Therefore, both dog and owner are automatically removed from blame, accountability and responsibility in any scenario.
An interesting case popped up the other day where a pit bull dog apparently killed the individual giving CPR to the owner. Dogsbite.org has the details. Both men are dead as a result. I refer to this as a "TwoFer" as the dog's behavior likely resulted in BOTH deaths.... if the dog had not killed the man giving CPR to it's owner, both may still be alive. If I were to kill someone in the act of saving YOUR life, would I not be accountable for YOUR death as well?
Hilarity ensued when the Apologista horde came out of the woodwork granting absolution to the dog.
"So sad. A very freak and tragic happening. The dog was being loyal & thought he was protecting his incapacitated owner. I will pray for the families of both the heart attack victim and the victim that was attacked by the dog".
The above sort of mental vomitus has spewed forth in every news article and forum reporting the incident. The prevailing attitude is that a dog killing someone who is trying to save the life of the dog's owner is acceptable dog behavior. Hell, not just ACCEPTABLE, it is COMMENDABLE! [EDIT: Click on this!]
Yawn. Hey, its OK for the dog to bark at people in their OWN (not the dog's) YARDS, and attack invited guests, so whats the big deal about this? Wouldn't YOU want YOUR dog to kill me if I was in the act of saving your life? Fido is always the better judge of things, better just leave everything up to him!
Moving along, who IS to blame for dog attacks, endless barking and the like? I take the minority opinion that it is generally NOT the fault of the complainant and/or the victim. Further burdening victims with multiple household rules, consecutive disruption laws, one bite rules and the like is not conducive to solving the problem.
I hold that both dog and owner are at fault and affirmative action should be taken against both parties. However, it is the owner who is responsible and accountable for the act(s).
The owner is at fault because it is THEY that created the risk. If you can't be held accountable for what your pet does, you can not have one. For those who want to place all the blame on the dog, consider this: Why was the dog there in the first place? Who put him there? Who is allowing him to act as he does? The owner created the scenario that led to injury via a series of deliberate acts.
The dog is at fault, or to be more accurate HAS a fault, because it will use violence or engage in some type of destructive behavior to meet its needs. There is no place in human society for an animal like that. They do not have rights, nor do they contribute to society in any meaningful way.
In closing, I would like to add that there is one more party to blame. Ultimately, the fault is with our corrupt, degenerate dog worshiping culture. A culture that automatically grants absolution to these anti-social and destructive acts, and lays the groundwork for the acts to continue.
The Cult of Dog demands endless worship, you infidel!
ReplyDeleteLOL See, now YOU get it.
DeleteOnly DOG Almighty is worthy of incessant excuses and regularly feigned offense by its brain damaged followers.
DeleteI still blame the owners more. They're the ones choosing to own dogs. I have pets too, and any of mine could bite, but probably won't. That being said, since they're small, caged animals, if you're stupid enough to stick your fingers through the bars after eating something and they smell it, that's your fault if they bite you. If you try to grab them by the tail, they'll probably bite, they don't have any other way to tell you they're being mishandled. I make it a point to not let little kids reach into the cages, and only allow them to pet them while I hold them. My own seven year old can get any of them out at any time, the only restriction being no getting males and females out together. He knows how to handle them, and knows not to let his fingers smell of food or grab them wrong. So if my rats, or gerbil bite you, it will be your fault for not following simple safety rules. If your (generic pronoun) dog comes at me trying to bite me when I'm doing nothing more than walking by your yard, it is your fault if the dog bites me. I didn't stop to try and pet or play with it, I didn't yell at it to shut up, I just walked by. When you failed to see what the commotion was, you became guilty, your dog is just an animal, not capable of forethought or intentional malice. If my son were to come in your yard uninvited and swinging something at your dog, and got bit, I would be at least partially at fault as the parent who let him. If your dog gets loose and attacks my son while he's playing outside, again that's your fault for not being responsible.
ReplyDeleteSo, people are stupid and your pets are animals. Okay, got it.
DeleteI'll concede that anyone dumb enough to stick their fingers through the bars of a caged animal probably deserves to get bit. Its like sticking a paper clip in an electrical outlet.
DeleteI'm not sure what this Gilpin is trying to say. She sounds like a covert pit fan -- ït's always the owner".
DeleteHere's my take on it. If a dog is roaming, that's on the owner. If a dog is chronically barking, that's on the owner. If a dog is roaming and DECIDES TO MAUL OR KILL, that's on the f*cking DOG. Only the roaming is still on the owner.
Sputnik - the problem with your POV is that it is the base rationalization for letting the owners of maulers and killers off the hook with a citation. That is NOT good enough. THEY create the risk, THEY pay the price. Sure, maybe its not Murder One, but reckless endangerment or negligent homicide would fit nicely.
DeleteIf you don't want to own that risk, don't get a pet capable of killing somebody.
Sputnik, dogs are not capable of forethought, only following training, or instinct. The person choosing to own a potential mauler or killer is the one responsible. I don't agree with saving the dog, it should be put down. I do believe the owner should always be held accountable, sue them, jail them, make examples of them. My only sympathy for a dog like Mickey is that he's still alive because miscreants must save him at all costs. We all know, it would be less cruel to put him down, instead of having him live life in a cell. He's not a human, he shouldn't be serving a life sentence. As a lesser animal, he should be gone by now. If Kevin were my son, I would sue the idiots who owned Mickey and the state and county for keeping the animal that destroyed my son's sweet little face alive. I think AC is right about the charges the owner should face, and it should be every single time. Every time one of those dogs attacks, be it on their property, or jumping a fence, breaking a window, or invading a home through a doggy door.
DeleteAs for being a pit fan, I don't automatically hate all pit bulls. My ex's dogs were ice cold and nice enough pets. The staffy around town is no problem. She seems to be cold, as long as she stays that way, I have no problems with her. There are enough other types of pit bulls in town, I know what they're capable of, and I'd rather avoid them, whenever possible. I like dogs in general, provided they're quiet, normal and friendly, with good owners. The ones who clean up after their pets, and if the dog does bark, stops it right away, feeds and shelters them and doesn't let them be a problem. I like the dog living in the apartment behind me, even though our building is no dogs allowed. The dog is great, and quiet, the owners are the problem. They seem to think they don't need to clean up after him, I won't narc them out. If myself or my son step in his mess, we'll make sure to wipe our shoes all over their steps for them, who are they going to complain to? The boyfriend, and owner is supposed to be moving out next week. I hope so, reporting them would lead to a homeless 9 year old, and I can't be that mean, but the landlord would evict them, after all it's in the lease.
DeleteExactly but people walking by should have nothing to fear, nor people being introduced to them. Dogs should be the same way, but they're not, and it's not the fault of the person walking by on the sidewalk, or the innocent person who stops to pet a seemingly friendly dog. Granted, most normal dogs don't suddenly turn vicious and bite friendly people. If they're barking and the owner does nothing to stop it, then it's a bad owner. It would be my fault if I trusted a younger child alone and they got bit, but anyone over the age of 6 should be able to listen and keep their fingers away.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it is mostly the owners fault. First, they make a poor decision getting a dog to begin with. They work 40+ hours a week and commute 10-20 hours a week and have no time or energy left for it. Then they compound the mistake by making a stupid choice of breed-like a husky when they're a couch potato and have a 50 square foot back yard, or a pit bull or some other 'macho' dog they can't handle; they fail to do any research to find out what the breed is really about (and not just from breeders-if you're not hearing ANY negatives you're not really doing the research), they then fail to train, socialize, exercise, play with, and DISCIPLINE the dog, all of which takes time and energy they didn't have in the first place, so the dog is bored, under stimulated, under exercised, desperate for companionship, and then they blame everyone else when their dog is the neighborhood barker or biter, instead of consulting a professional and figuring out what is wrong and how to fix it. http://thedogsnobs.com/2013/06/15/owner-profile-in-over-their-head-ignoramus/
ReplyDeleteIf you can't handle dog ownership responsibilities, then don't have a dog. Remember, it's OKAY to be pet-free!
Delete"Cult of Dog" aside, this is a HUGE issue in contemporary ownership. People feel they need a dog for some reason or another, and get one when they can't or won't take care of it. Choosing an appropriate breed is VITAL to make things work out but that freaking "all dogs are the same" motto---uggggggghhhhhhhhhh!
DeleteAll dogs are NOT the same. At a technical level, dogs are a man-made creature genetically diversified to perform certain tasks. Each dog possesses physical characteristics that help with their task, that's why they look so different. Waterproof double coat for Labs, heavy coats for outdoor livestock guardians, droopy ears that drag scents to bloodhounds' noses, etc. So logically dogs would also have different, breed-based behaviors. Labs have tireless energy, livestock guardians are usually reserved at best, bloodhounds get distracted with tracking. People generally agree on these things.
But when the dog culture comes into dispute, it's suddenly possible to erase genetics and turn the dog into what the owner wants. If that were the case we wouldn't have breed books or even breed classes. Spitzes wouldn't be horrible neighborhood barkers, terriers wouldn't raze your gardens, and Molossors wouldn't top statistics for fatalities and life-altering injuries. Because we could magically love and train the breeding out of the dog!!!! (???????)
There's also a point made about looking for downsides when researching breeds. Most of the time I only see positive things being said about pit bulls. The "obligatory negatives" are usually quickly glossed histories and vague statements about how they have the potential for animal aggression and can be dangerous in the hands of a wrong owner...........now please elaborate, how dangerous?
I'm annoyed by the common result when something DOES happen, with any breed, doesn't have to be an attack. Because a lot of people are quick to say it's ONLY the owner and has nothing to do with the dog at all. While I can see why they'd place more blame on the owner, I feel it's a way of shutting down those who have an issue with the dog culture. We can't address it directly even when it's right in front of us--I've been through this.
Ah, yes. The dog culture. Whatever we do, we are NOT to have an issue with the dog culture.
DeleteAddendum: If the incident is a mauling or killing, then I blame the dog more than the owner.
DeletePit bulls are the number ONE breed for human (and animal) fatalities, severe life altering injuries, and rampage attacks. A "rampage attack" is an instance of a dog attacking multiple people or animals during a single incident. http://dogbitelaw.com/dangerous-vicious-dogs/serial-attacks-and-rampage-attacks
ReplyDeleteKa D, aren't they also number one in home invasion attacks? I seem to see an awful lot of stories where they break through a doggy door, screen door, or even window to attack and often kill a dog inside a home, or attack, and badly injure the people inside. I really don't understand how those dogs are returned. I say charge the owner with criminal home invasion, and sue the shit out of them for any and all property and emotional damages. No dog should ever enter a home without the head of household's permission.. They especially shouldn't be breaking in to maim innocents.
ReplyDeleteAnd number one shot by police, and number one for turning on their owners. And number one turned over to a shelter-every year two thirds of the nearly MILLION pit bulls euthanized in the US are OWNER surrendered. Doesn't this say these dogs are failing epically at being a PET animal?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe only part of this that is the owner is the part where some idiot chooses a pit bull type dog. All the rest of it is down to the UNdog that the pit bull type dog is.
DeleteIt's still humans who are at fault for creating pit bulls. They didn't appear naturally, they were created for disgusting bloodlust, and then unleashed on unsuspecting people as pets. It all boils down to who made who, and mankind is at fault for creating the dog.
DeleteUltimately, the responsibility lies with the owner. THEY created the risk, THEY own what happens AND that includes criminal liability.
DeleteI don't debate the genetic tendencies of Pit Bulls to indulge in certain behavior. However, the fact that the dog was "defective" does not make the dog owner as pure as the driven snow. NOBODY gets to be surprised when an attack dog attacks somebody. Nobody should be surprised when an attack dog attacks somebody.
Owning ANY animal with inherent capability to take down a grown man, or cause significant injury to ANYONE is a BIG responsibility, even if it does not belong to a breed/species with a tendency to do so.
It seems as though the BSL crowd contains a faction that wants to absolve the owner of any accountability, blame, or responsibility. Why is that?
I echoed.
DeleteSue the shit out of the owners. I like the sound of that. A few big lawsuits against the insurers of properties with pit bulls -- or their owners -- is what's needed. And, the next thing you know, the insurance industry will be all over the BSL advocacy.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the gentleman was a roommate of the owner. I don't know what to make of it that a dog wouldn't recognize a member of its own household, how is this loyal?
ReplyDeleteMy take/make is that its a Pit Bull.
DeleteThis is pit bull loyalty -- when they save their genes for execution upon their own family. This year so far, 100% of killings by pit bull types was committed on people that were 'family'to the pit bull.
DeleteLoyalty* is an abstract, human construct, perverted by the nutters' pathological need to anthropomorphize their animals in dangerous and irrational ways. (Except from when they're using the "animals will be animals"/following instinct argument.) Pitbulls attack their families as much as they attack acquaintances and strangers combined. Almost all of which were well cared for, presenting with no past or present signs of abuse or neglect to animal control. Only a handful of these owner attacks were committed by "rescues" with potentially shady backgrounds. Most were raised from puppies with the family, and the length of bonding time had no impact on the severity, duration, or frequency of attacks... Regardless of having months or many years together prior to the attack. Breeders and breed advocates are ripped apart by the animal they cherish. No one solicits loyalty from pitbulls, not even the people that champion them:
Delete· Rescue Angel Rebecca Carey, 23 dead
· Rescue Angel Mary Jo Hunt, 53 dead
◾BADRAP supporter Darla Napora & her unborn, 6months-along baby dead and dead
◾Feb 2013, Toledo, OH; Pregnant Pit Bull owner hospitalized after her dog attempts a Darla Napora DBRF re-enactment on her. In surgery for wounds to thumb, breast area, thigh and forearm
· Breeder Johnny Wilson, 57 dead
◾Breeder Gerald Adelmund, 60 dead
◾Breeder Raymond Tomco dead
◾Pitbull fanatic/advocate Matt Lebold
"June 2005; Pit Bull owner sets the record straight with his comment number 9016on this Anti-BSL Petition: Matt Lebold said 06/08/05, 9:19 pm (verified) Be responsible. Tell the truth about the breed. Stop using sensationalism and scare tactics to sell your stories
"UPDATE: May 2011; Matt is found dead in his apartment .... His Pit Bull had eaten parts of his face, neck and chest. "
· Breeder Dorothy Carter dead
· Rescue Angel Shelly Loudermilk
· Rescue Volunteer Patricia Agnello
· Pit Protecters/Obfuscators Nicole Farrell and Steve Thompson
· Rescue/Foster "Daddy" Eric Gray
· Rescue Angel Michelle Gonzales
· Celebrity pit advocate Rachel Ray
· Pitbull Advocate Reporter Robert Weller (who instructs/boasts about how to get around BSL)
· Pit fanatic Garry Clark, 43
· Breeder Doug Bowling & 14mo. grand-daughter
· Lifelong pitbull fanatic Bill Lesinski (still persists is disseminating deadly myths evenafter having his nose torn off his face)
◾Dog Whisperer fan/philosopher Amanda McCommons
◾Breeder, Unnamed senior-citizen, Bronx, NY 2012 dead
· Breeder Linda Henry (now rendered a double-amputee by "the most loyal dog on the planet"..http://thecaninegamechanger.blogspot.com/2013/09/pitbull-loyalty-by-jenny-rosenquist.html
"Mickey is facing death because an unsupervised child went onto Mickeys property while Mickey was enjoying his bone. The child tried to take the bone."
ReplyDeleteCOMPLETELY THE FAULT OF THE VICTIM. ALLAHU MICKBAR!
The bone is a lie of pit advocacy. There was a bone in the vicinity but Kevin didn't try to take it. He was attacked from BEHIND FFS and the POS Mickey the Mauler rolled him over to rend his face. Completely the fault of the dogs owners who didn't take it for euthasol after it killed its first victim-a puppy.
Delete