Family dog kills one-year-old boy

Pigman II

padi89 wrote: »

When that french woman had to have the first face transplant because her labrador tore her face apart did you have the same reaction?

Too true.

And any time a toddler kills a one-year-old rottweiler you never get this kind of reaction either. Double standards in the media I reckon.

Jumpy

padi89 wrote: »

When that french woman had to have the first face transplant because her labrador tore her face apart did you have the same reaction?I bet you didn't and it was the exact same as the media, a bit pick and choose don't ya think?

Thats a bit different, that labbie didnt do it from agression, she fell asleep and he was craving some face for brekkie.

padi89

Pigman II wrote: »

Too true.

And any time a toddler kills a one-year-old rottweiler you never get this kind of reaction either. Double standards in the media I reckon.

What kind of kids do you sprout?

Acid_Violet

Troublesome wrote: »

pet rottweiler

Says it all. There's a good reason why some breeds of dogs are banned in certain countries.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Acid_Violet wrote: »

Says it all. There's a good reason why some breeds of dogs are banned in certain countries.

Where are Rotties banned?.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Update from the BBC;

Mr Payne said the boy's aunt, aged 16, was caring for him and two girls, aged six and seven, in the house.

The 16-year-old girl was upstairs when the seven-year-old carried the baby outside to stroke the dog.

Mr Payne said: "Without any warning, the dog snatched the baby from the youngster's arms and carried him into the yard."

He said the 16-year-old tried to rescue the baby but was unable to do so, despite striking the dog.

Paramedics and police arrived within six minutes following an emergency call to police at 1530 GMT, he said.

The baby was taken to Pinderfields General Infirmary where he was pronounced dead.

The boy's parents were at a nearby property at the time.


I've never owned a Rottie however I've got a Staff/Pitbull X. He's the most loveable dog ever, but I'm fvcked if I'd leave him in the care of children.

Like a lot of these dog attack stories the fault once again lies with bad ownership.

Oh, a little clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odi0XlI-4_g

One more; WARNING PIT BULL VICIOUSLY ATTACKS BABY. SHOCKING.

Acid_Violet

Mairt wrote: »

Where are Rotties banned?.

In the UK certain breeds are banned, for pet ownership at least me thinks, and if this is the case there certainly is bannage in place in other countries too.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Acid_Violet wrote: »

In the UK certain breeds are banned, for pet ownership at least me thinks, and if this is the case there certainly is bannage in place in other countries too.

Which breeds are banned, and do you know what your talking about?.

Dyr

from memory :
pitbulls
tosas
"bandogs" that dont actually exist anyway lol
and coupla others breeds

biko

"[P]it bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs"
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/breedlaws.html#court

"One City's Experience: Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed-Specific Legislation is Justified"
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/pitbullDenver.pdf

arybvtcw0eolkf

biko wrote: »

"[P]it bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs"
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/breedlaws.html#court

"One City's Experience: Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed-Specific Legislation is Justified"
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/pitbullDenver.pdf

I don't know what your point is.

Anyway a responsible owner will always have a properly socialised dog. Will always have the dog under control, have the dog leashed and muzzled out in public.

This should be true of most dogs, not only Pitbulls.

Chucky the tree

Mairt wrote: »

Update from the BBC;

Mr Payne said the boy's aunt, aged 16, was caring for him and two girls, aged six and seven, in the house.

The 16-year-old girl was upstairs when the seven-year-old carried the baby outside to stroke the dog.

Mr Payne said: "Without any warning, the dog snatched the baby from the youngster's arms and carried him into the yard."

He said the 16-year-old tried to rescue the baby but was unable to do so, despite striking the dog.

Paramedics and police arrived within six minutes following an emergency call to police at 1530 GMT, he said.

The baby was taken to Pinderfields General Infirmary where he was pronounced dead.

The boy's parents were at a nearby property at the time.


I've never owned a Rottie however I've got a Staff/Pitbull X. He's the most loveable dog ever, but I'm fvcked if I'd leave him in the care of children.

Like a lot of these dog attack stories the fault once again lies with bad ownership.

Oh, a little clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odi0XlI-4_g

One more; WARNING PIT BULL VICIOUSLY ATTACKS BABY. SHOCKING.

Is that actually a clip of a child being mauled by a dog? Not gonna watch it till i know for definite. But if it is, is it not gonna be taken down?

Acid_Violet

Mairt wrote: »

Which breeds are banned, and do you know what your talking about?.

If you believe that I'm not making this up off the top of my head, the answer is yes.

If you think I'm spouting out rubbish, jfgi.

Pigman II

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Is that actually a clip of a child being mauled by a dog? Not gonna watch it till i know for definite. But if it is, is it not gonna be taken down?

Nah it's just a clip by some dog lover who needs to calm down a bit.

Clip 1's general theme is to accuse the media of being liars.

Clip 2's general theme is to blame dog owners rather than dogs.

Anyway the fact that dogs killing toddlers is extremely newsworthy doesn't seem appeal to the creators sensibilities? In similar vein perhaps the news should stop reporting on Lotto winners too just because it will never happen to the other 99.9999% of people?

Dyr

The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that

"that thars a dangeerus dawg huck huck! fetch mah rifle junior!!"

peasant

What most people don't seem to understand is the simple fact, that the dog (a dog) cannot be held responsible for its actions.

A dog is an animal (or like some posters here like to call it "a dumb animal") it is not capable of conscious decision making, it does not have a conscience, neither does it have complex (human) emotions or thought processes.

A dog is led by its instincts, by its training (or lack thereof) and by routine/habit.

It is therefore ALWAYS the humans in whose care the dog is (or isn't, as the case may be) who have to shoulder the full responsibility for the actions of the dog.

wyk

I have a Hungarian Komondor(amongst many many other dogs). They are a breed of dog that protect livestock. The breed has a LOT to do with how a dog behaves. I would say more so than the dog's training when it comes to beig out of it's environment, or presented with a situation out of the ordinary, which is often how many attacks occur. My Komondor is well looked after. I have several decades of experience with dogs, and do not let anthropomorphisms and unprofessional advice color my treatment and education with canines. My Komondor would, and has, instantly attacked, and has killed, most anything that came into my property(in Texas) that wasn't there when he grew up or was trained with(such as sheep, friends, and other dogs). That is what the breed does - protects it's stewards and owners to the death, and that is why I got him - to protect the livestock. I lso have Greyhounds that keep the vermin away, but that's another story.

The Komondor is a dog I would never think of keeping in a densely populated area, even with proper training. Because it is not when your guard dogs are under your direct control that most of these attacks happen. It is often when the dog out is of control - regardless of how well it has been trained. A dog bred to work and to guard is far far more likely to act like a guard dog than one that is bred to hunt or to herd. And any dog outside of it's comfort environment runs a higher chance of acting like a wild animal, and defend itself or act aggressively. Sort of like some of my old girlfriends.

The bottom line is you can preach all the training you like, but so long as there is a large dog on scene, and the owner isn't directly controlling it, you run a chance of there being problems. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that simply stating 'it's the owner and not the dogs' won't solve the problem, either.

In this case, since the family lost a member, I am not so sure they need to be punished any further by law. I think they learned their lesson and were punished plenty by their dog and it's owner. Hopefully, other's will learn this lesson vicariously and not have to suffer so.

http://clubs.akc.org/kca/aboutthe.htm

WYK

thelastangryman wrote: »

Let me make this clear. A well looked after and cared for dog will be a lovable pet regardless of breed.

Sonnenblumen

peasant wrote: »

What most people don't seem to understand is the simple fact, that the dog (a dog) cannot be held responsible for its actions.

A dog is an animal (or like some posters here like to call it "a dumb animal") it is not capable of conscious decision making, it does not have a conscience, neither does it have complex (human) emotions or thought processes.

A dog is led by its instincts, by its training (or lack thereof) and by routine/habit.

It is therefore ALWAYS the humans in whose care the dog is (or isn't, as the case may be) who have to shoulder the full responsibility for the actions of the dog.

Surely this belongs in the dumbed down psychoanalytics forum?

Owner to Dog: Why did you attack that child?
Dog to Owner: Well for starters, you haven't trained me not to kill, and besides even if you have, I've no recollection of why I attacked that child.
Society to owner: Dumb irresponsible ****.

peasant

Are you really that obtuse or are you just trolling again?

Sonnenblumen

^^^I didn't know propagandist?^^^

nesf

thelastangryman wrote: »

Let me make this clear. A well looked after and cared for dog will be a lovable pet regardless of breed.

A dog from a decent/responsible breeding line, sure.

Genghiz Cohen

This report (PDF) Shows the breeds of dogs that caused fatalities in America between 1979 and 1998, it shows pit bull and rottweiler type dogs, (Pure-Breed and cross) are the most dangrous.

Top 3 shown here:
Death-based approach Dog-based approach
Breed Purebred Crossbred Total Purebred Crossbred Total

Pit bull-type 66 11 76 98 20 118
Rottweiler 39 6 44 60 7 67
German Shepherd Dog 17 11 27 24 17 41
(A bit hard to make out, but it's copied straight from the report)
So Pit bulls and rottweilers ARE more likely to kill people.

peasant

wyk wrote: »

. ..My Komondor would, and has, instantly attacked, and has killed, most anything that came into my property(in Texas) that wasn't there when he grew up or was trained with(such as sheep, friends, and other dogs). ....

The Komondor is a dog I would never think of keeping in a densely populated area, ....

Err, correct me if I'm wrong ...but aren't you keeping said Komondor in Clondalkin now?

Dyr

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

This report (PDF) Shows the breeds of dogs that caused fatalities in America between 1979 and 1998, it shows pit bull and rottweiler type dogs, (Pure-Breed and cross) are the most dangrous.

Top 3 shown here:
Death-based approach Dog-based approach
Breed Purebred Crossbred Total Purebred Crossbred Total

Pit bull-type 66 11 76 98 20 118
Rottweiler 39 6 44 60 7 67
German Shepherd Dog 17 11 27 24 17 41

missed something there.

"We allocated crossbred
dogs into separate breeds and counted them similarly
(eg, if 3 Great Dane-Rottweiler crossbreeds attacked a
person, Great Dane was counted 3 times under crossbred,
and Rottweiler was counted 3 times under crossbred)."

interestingly enough i heard blacks statistically commit more crimes in the US than other groups...follow the logic..

Genghiz Cohen

Bambi wrote: »

"We allocated crossbred
dogs into separate breeds and counted them similarly
(eg, if 3 Great Dane-Rottweiler crossbreeds attacked a
person, Great Dane was counted 3 times under crossbred,
and Rottweiler was counted 3 times under crossbred)."

I think what you're trying to get at is that the numbers don't actually reflect the number of attacks, right? But that only applies to the crossbreed dogs, and in most cases the numbers in the purebreed's column are larger than the crossbreed's column.

Bambi wrote: »

interestingly enough i heard blacks statistically commit more crimes in the US than other groups...follow the logic..

Unless you can find a random PDF file on the internets to back that up.....

:D

thefinalstage

nesf wrote: »

A dog from a decent/responsible breeding line, sure.

Alright, a breed that hasn't had a sister for a mother than.

Demonique

peasant wrote: »

Err, correct me if I'm wrong ...but aren't you keeping said Komondor in Clondalkin now?

Aren't there skangery types living in some parts of Clondalkin? Would it be too much of a tragedy is said Komondor got loose in the skangery areas?


Actually, better still, let it loose in Cabra, there's a little boll*x there called Anto Beane who could do with a good mauling

foxy06

I'm sure pit bulls can make lovely pets when they have good owners but they don't always have good owners. Just like children can turn into lovely adults but they might not have a chance to turn into lovely adults with two scangers for parents. These animals are vicious by nature and any parent that leaves a child in a house with a pitbull or rottweiler under supervision or not is irresponsible tbh.

wyk

peasant wrote: »

Err, correct me if I'm wrong ...but aren't you keeping said Komondor in Clondalkin now?

Though it may be a good idea in Clondalkin, I don't. He is on a farm in Texas, doing his work, as he does. I work at the Greyhound rescues when I can here, and will eventually keep one when I can find a home environment conducive to it. If I find myself living more out in the country, I may keep a guard dog. "Oh my God. Those things are vicious!" <- a response from a Hungarian friend when I mentioned I had a Hungarian Komondor, BTW.

The CDC stats were derived from reports from Veterinarians that worked for the shelters and animal control agencies that took in the dogs after they attack people. As you can see, the amount of attacks by certain dogs that were bred to be guard dogs and fighting dogs is rather high. Another thing to keep in mind is Labradors are, by far, the most popular breed of dog in the US. Something like 2:1 vs the next breed(Yorkshire Terrier) depending on the stats you look at. And the fact they are blamed for about 12X less violent attacks than pit bull types is hard to ignore. Also add in the fact that German Shepherds are 3rd most popular breed in the US, and it is even more interesting that Rotts and pits top the list. While all dogs may have the potential for violence, not all dogs have the ability to dish out the damage a pitbull or a rottweiler can in short order. That's another point worth considering. And don't think it's lost on the authorities that people make it a point to single out owners as bad, VS the breed. Afterall, the law is perfectly capable of singling out ownership and banning that. Afterall, some experts do say it's the owners, as well. So they could have 'expert opinion' backing ownership laws... Hrm....no dogs over 49 lbs allowed in Dublin city centre? That would rule out a lot of guard dogs without having to cite a single breed, and be easily enforced. Be careful whatcha ask for.

I hate to side track, but...

About the blacks committing crimes in the USA; according to the FBI Uniform Crime reports, blacks are arrested at a far higher % rate for violent crimes than all other races. But you can debate just how motivated the arresting officers are when it comes to race, how they qualify a person as being black, etc. Also according to the NAACP, blacks are also convicted at a higher %. And, as a Texan and a Southerner, let me make it clear that racism is alive and well in the US, especially The South - in all forms. The FBI have these stats for city by city, and state by state, as well as by race:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/table_38-43.html#table43a

In 2004, Blacks comprise 13% of the US population, according to the US Census bureau, yet are arrested at a 47.2% rate for murder and manslaughter.
There's the stat you guys were hunting for.

WYK

Dyr

foxy06 wrote: »

These animals are vicious by nature and [\QUOTE]

lollerpalooza, as someone who been on the wrong end of an angry pit more than once i'd take me chances with them over most breeds.