Quote:
Originally Posted by Joborule
But if we're playing a game of chances, and the chance of the now dead dog was very low to occur (since people who determine if the dog should be killed or not decided death wasn't necessary), why are we taking the chance with other dogs, where there is the same low chance of those killing a baby no matter the circumstances?
Wouldn't you figure benefit of the doubt should be a factor here? It's not like the dog mawl this baby down and tore it to shreds. It was trying to help and nurse it based on reports (I guess that's evil and it must burn in hell). If you want to take precautions with the dog so this doesn't happen again, is placing the dog in a household which doesn't house a infant still not enough to negate the chance of the dog doing this a second time?
|
There's a big difference between taking the chance with a dog who has no history of this sort of thing and taking the chance with a dog that has killed before. Can you imagine the story if that ever happened?
"Dog Kills Second Child"
It doesn't matter what the circumstances of the original incident were. The backlash and cost would be enormous. Original owners vilified. Family of the second child either outraged or emotionally crushed, depending on if they were the new owner or not. On and on down the line.
The cost of eliminating the chance of this very specific and horrifying scenario from ever happening is one dog's life. Worth killing the dog to take it off the table.