The poor kid killed by a dog

zzzzz said:
Probably another one that 'wouldn't hurt a fly'

Poor child will be affected for life, horrific.

Another Staffie attack.
Click to expand...

Now in the article it says:

A 60-year-old woman has been detained on suspicion of possession of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury.

She has been released with a caution.

Officers said they believed the dog had managed to get out of his owner's home without her knowing.

If I am reading that right she was arrested and let off with a caution???

If that is what has occurred that is the problem right there. Causing injury like that on a child should result in jail time and a ban on keeping any animals for life. How does the dog get out accidentally FFS???
 
As has already been mentioned several times and the head in the sand dog owners are refusing to acknowledge is that there is no way to control every single situation and some dogs are more dangerous than others due to their size, particularly relevant when you look at their size compared to a child. You can be the most responsible dog owner in the world but you can't stop things acting upon instincts and dogs will instinctively defend themselves when they perceive a threat and children in particular are curious and will do things that annoy a dog like poking it.

There is no such thing as a safe dog just like there is no such thing as a safe knife or gun. All dogs, knives and guns can be handled responsibly but as soon as you put one in a situation with a child it is no longer safe. For the majority of dogs there will never be an issue but not being able to even admit to yourself that there could be an issue just proves that you are not a responsible dog owner. Every single dog has the potential to be dangerous. The very small ones probably won't do any damage even if they do attack but one that is physically stronger than a child most definitely can.

If you can't even admit that your dog could be a danger then you should never be allowed to own one.
 
Nano said:
. The very small ones probably won't do any damage even if they do attack
Click to expand...
There's ZERO reason not to have them on a lead so they can't
MolteniArcore said:
very much like @outoftown suggests in his post:
Click to expand...
Agree in the main except with ZERO public spaces where they don't have to be on a lead - the council shouldn't be able to allow anywhere it should be a government made nationwide law
 
zzzzz said:
I do believe that those breeds originally bred to be aggressive are a lot more likely to be.
The number of attacks from those breeds speak for themselves.
Their size and strength make them even more deadly.
You simply can't escape facts.
It's the reason why some breeds are banned.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the obvious logic that's escaped some views on here.

I've seen the evidence of a great many dog attacks in which serious injuries (or worse) have been caused and its exclusively the breeds that are referred to in this thread.

Attacks by pitbulls and similar breeds (some of which are defined as 'dangerous dogs') in my experience tend to not just bite, but do so repeatedly and often over a long period. Trying to stop the attack can be very difficult, firstly because their jaws are so strong and secondly because its almost impossible to stop them.
 
TeessideCleveland said:
There's ZERO reason not to have them on a lead so they can't
Click to expand...
I agree. I was more making the point that the consequences of leaving a big dog like an XL bully and a small dog lie a chihuahua where an attack can happen is comparable to leaving an Uzi and a spud gun on a coffee table. I wouldn't give a toddler a spud gun either but the owners of Uzis have to be extra vigilant compared to spud gun owners because in the result of an accident the Uzi will almost definitely cause serious damage and the spud gun likely won't.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
This seems to be the obvious logic that's escaped some views on here.

I've seen the evidence of a great many dog attacks in which serious injuries (or worse) have been caused and its exclusively the breeds that are referred to in this thread.

Attacks by pitbulls and similar breeds (some of which are defined as 'dangerous dogs') in my experience tend to not just bite, but do so repeatedly and often over a long period. Trying to stop the attack can be very difficult, firstly because their jaws are so strong and secondly because its almost impossible to stop them.
Click to expand...
Question I've sometimes wondered. If a dog is attacking a child (for example) and won't let go. Would attacking the owner make it change it's mind?

So if you viciously attack the dog's owner could you somehow save the child?
 
Dybuk said:
Question I've sometimes wondered. If a dog is attacking a child (for example) and won't let go. Would attacking the owner make it change it's mind?

So if you viciously attack the dog's owner could you somehow save the child?
Click to expand...
It would be a risk to not focus on the child but if someone else was there it would absolutely be an option. If a dog is attacking a child - or a person or another dog - the owner should be allowed to be treated by the public as if they are deliberately attacking the child. Because they have deliberately - let's not give them any benefit of the doubt - put every child in danger by not controlling the dog

But anyway the ban - albeit it should be immediately not in 2025 (though I agree with the amnesty if the requirements are.met) - should reduce this kind of thing
 
TeessideCleveland said:
It would be a risk to not focus on the child but if someone else was there it would absolutely be an option. If a dog is attacking a child - or a person or another dog - the owner should be allowed to be treated by the public as if they are deliberately attacking the child. Because they have deliberately - let's not give them any benefit of the doubt - put every child in danger by not controlling the dog

But anyway the ban - albeit it should be immediately not in 2025 (though I agree with the amnesty if the requirements are.met) - should reduce this kind of thing
Click to expand...
Yes the ethical side of it would come later (not that I would have any hesitation) but as has been said before on this thread - the dogs are bread to defend not attack. So it would hopefully be a good option to get the dog's focus on an adult rather than a child.
 
TeessideCleveland said:
But anyway the ban - albeit it should be immediately not in 2025 (though I agree with the amnesty if the requirements are.met) - should reduce this kind of thing
Click to expand...
Except it won't. I support the ban on these dogs but if you think that banning the "Bully XL" will reduce the incidence of dog attacks you are frankly foolish. The bad owners will simply get another big dog, a Doberman, a Shepherd, or simply a dog that is just outside the "breed definition" and through cruelty and stupidity make it aggressive and dangerous.
 
Muttley said:
Except it won't. I support the ban on these dogs but if you think that banning the "Bully XL" will reduce the incidence of dog attacks you are frankly foolish. The bad owners will simply get another big dog, a Doberman, a Shepherd, or simply a dog that is just outside the "breed definition" and through cruelty and stupidity make it aggressive and dangerous.
Click to expand...
So why exactly do you support the ban then? If these breeds are responsible for most attacks they need banning. If scum try and create monsters out of different breeds then them breeds will have to be banned too
 
Dybuk said:
Yes the ethical side of it would come later (not that I would have any hesitation) but as has been said before on this thread - the dogs are bread to defend not attack. So it would hopefully be a good option to get the dog's focus on an adult rather than a child.
Click to expand...
As I say hopefully there will be enough people to attack the dog and the owner who has deliberately created the situation, so that there are 2 chances of saving the child
 
Bring back the dog licence, and actually enforce it properly.

Ban owners if their dog is involved in an attack on another dog or human.

There should be far stricter restrictions on dog breeding and who can actually do it too, they're currently fairly lax.
 
Muttley said:
It seems necessary politically, it is however pointless.
Click to expand...
It's pointless, because it's both logistically impossible, and the XL status breed will morph quicker than legislation could catch up.

PitBulls were banned a decade ago.
There'll be more pitbulls in Teesside today than serving Police officers.
 
Dybuk said:
Question I've sometimes wondered. If a dog is attacking a child (for example) and won't let go. Would attacking the owner make it change it's mind?

So if you viciously attack the dog's owner could you somehow save the child?
Click to expand...
Absolutely and in many cases it could work. You’d have to make sure the dog could hear or see you doing it as they get a bit zoned out when attacking. Its 100% worth a go and they’d certainly deserve it. Just be ready to defend yourself when it turns, a kick or similar may not suffice with an enraged dog.

The one most people don’t realise is best especially when it’s a dog on dog attack is to lift it by its legs so it’s almost vertical with all its weight on its front legs then start dragging them backwards this will usually make them let go.
 
Last edited:
Dybuk said:
Question I've sometimes wondered. If a dog is attacking a child (for example) and won't let go. Would attacking the owner make it change it's mind?

So if you viciously attack the dog's owner could you somehow save the child?
Click to expand...
I doubt it to be honest, when a dog is in that drive/attack mode I don't think anything will distract it.

In fact, short of killing it, or it becoming exhausted, its often the case it just keeps going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top