Put that dog in a house without newborns and with competent owners and the chance it kills a newborn again is 0%. 0. Not 0.00000000000000001. It's 0%........ 'cuz
If the dog had competent owners to start with it wouldn't matter if there was a newborn in the home or not. It all comes to down lack of responsibility and it was easier for them to blame the dog and kill it than to blame themselves for this accident. To me it sounds like a revenge kill more than them thinking it would save lives in the future.
__________________
2012.02.24 Hemsky signs a 2 year $10,000,000 contract:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champion
A lot of character Hemsky has shown. He could have easily got a long term UFA contract. He knows what's brewing up here and wants to be a part of it. It can be contagious.
So if the dog hadn't been put down, there's a one in a billion shot that it's involved in another incident like this one in the future. On the one hand we have the life of a dog. On the other hand we have an almost zero, but not nonexistent, chance that a dog that has killed before (regardless of intent) kills another human. I'd say the choice is pretty clear.
Kill the dog.
To follow through on your logic...
Dogs are instinctual animals and therefore subject to drives that are beyond their/our control, particularly if they have bitten before (you know... taste of human flesh and blood and all that). Chances are probably higher than 1 in a billion that someone else will die because of a dog attack... (not just this dog..) and particularly if its a Pit Bull.
Lets start killing the Pit Bulls now to improve humanities chance of survival... then we can work our way down the list to Huskies.... and then the Golden Retrievers (did you know that GR's are very high up on the bite list?)
Any dog that can bite is a threat to us.... particularly if we are only 2 days old...
The world would be a safer place if all dogs were extinct. Start the killing now. Why take the chance?
Kill the dogs!
...... stupid, stupid, stupid...
The Following User Says Thank You to Rerun For This Useful Post:
If the dog had competent owners to start with it wouldn't matter if there was a newborn in the home or not. It all comes to down lack of responsibility and it was easier for them to blame the dog and kill it than to blame themselves for this accident. To me it sounds like a revenge kill more than them thinking it would save lives in the future.
I am so done with the crap you have been spewing in this thread. You have absolutely no clue how competent the owners are because you have no freakin clue what happened that day. You have made #### up and called it "fact" several times in this thread.
I know for an ACTUAL FACT that these owners have owned dozens of dogs and treat them very well. I also know FOR A FACT that the father has professionally trained other owners and dogs how to act around and deal with newborns. The incident that resulted in the child's death happened in seconds. No warning, no nothing. It is a tragic event that the owners will have to live with for the rest of their lives. Could that have been avoided by keeping the new born away from the dogs? Sure, but where do you draw the line? I guarantee more babies die in car accidents every year. Should the parents stop driving now as well?
I actually feel sorry for a person like you that has so much hate in his heart that he feels it is acceptable to berate a couple that has gone through something like this. It's pitiful.
Could that have been avoided by keeping the new born away from the dogs? Sure, but where do you draw the line? I guarantee more babies die in car accidents every year. Should the parents stop driving now as well?
Exactly my point on why the dog shouldn't have died. Accidents happen.
Say whatever you want but the reason they killed the dog was selfish, people who work with this situation every day believe this dog was not a threat to anyone else, especially in a situation without newborns, because it was an ACCIDENT!
I do feel for the family because they lost their baby, but killing another living thing is not the answer and will not bring back their baby.
Also please don't feel sorry for me, I don't care or need it. I'm actually a pretty happy go lucky guy but I just hate seeing death just because.
__________________
2012.02.24 Hemsky signs a 2 year $10,000,000 contract:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champion
A lot of character Hemsky has shown. He could have easily got a long term UFA contract. He knows what's brewing up here and wants to be a part of it. It can be contagious.
Exactly my point on why the dog shouldn't have died. Accidents happen.
Say whatever you want but the reason they killed the dog was selfish, people who work with this situation every day believe this dog was not a threat to anyone else, especially in a situation without newborns, because it was an ACCIDENT!
I do feel for the family because they lost their baby, but killing another living thing is not the answer and will not bring back their baby.
Also please don't feel sorry for me, I don't care or need it. I'm actually a pretty happy go lucky guy but I just hate seeing death just because.
Okay, was it an accident or was it just a dog doing what comes natural?
You're not following through on my logic. I'm talking about a very specific single dog entity that has killed a person. To follow through on my logic, you would say that my position is that any animal that has killed a person for any reason should be killed.
You're not following through on my logic. I'm talking about a very specific single dog entity that has killed a person. To follow through on my logic, you would say that my position is that any animal that has killed a person for any reason should be killed.
And I would agree with that.
Your logic is flawed.
Say you are standing on the edge of a cliff. Your dog jumps up on you, as dogs are inclined to do. By jumping up on you, your dog accidentally pushes you over the edge of the cliff. Your dog just killed you.
By your logic, someone should then kill your dog.
I suppose that is a legitimate scenario. So let's say the dog is not killed. It is then adopted by another family and a very similar series of events occur and the dog knocks another person to their death. There is a chance that the dog has some predisposition to this type of accident. I don't think that the chance should be taken that it could happen again. I suppose I would have to say that the dog should be killed.
I suppose that is a legitimate scenario. So let's say the dog is not killed. It is then adopted by another family and a very similar series of events occur and the dog knocks another person to their death. There is a chance that the dog has some predisposition to this type of accident. I don't think that the chance should be taken that it could happen again. I suppose I would have to say that the dog should be killed.
The chance of two similar accidents happening the same way are so infintesimally small that you have a better chance of seeing a flying pig. Trust me... whoever adopted the dog would be safe. If they are concerned about dieing they should spend their time worrying about dieing in other ways.... car accident, plane crash, boat sinking, cancer, or heart attack.
The dog should have been allowed to live. It wouldn't have killed another human being. Nothing was solved or prevented by taking the dogs life.
We agree to disagree. You have your beliefs and I have mine.
There is something solved by taking the dog's life. The animal, which has killed a human being, is no longer alive and a potential threat to kill any more human beings.
You see, human beings are far more important than a dog will ever be. Human > mutt.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
There is something solved by taking the dog's life. The animal, which has killed a human being, is no longer alive and a potential threat to kill any more human beings.
You see, human beings are far more important than a dog will ever be. Human > mutt.
All large dogs are a potential threat to human beings whether or not they have already killed or not.... they are, after all, just animals.
Shouldn't we just kill them all, before they even get the slightest chance to do harm... since, as you said (and I don't disagree with this) humans are more important than dogs, thereby eliminating one more threat to our existance?
To me, two things really stand out in this issue:
1. The baby was two days old, alone and crying to the extent it alerted the dog
2. The dog had enough time to somehow break out of a kennel, enter an open room and attempt to pacify the child without alerting any adult in the home?
How this situation even occurs without some negligence is beyond me. This is not the behavior of reasonable people.
Therefore, to me, a dog was "euthanized" (which is a stretch of the word here) by its owners to pacify negligence. Legally speaking, as "property", actions by dogs bring strict liability to the owner. Your dog bites someone, you're liable. You face charges. That simple.
Surrendering the dog was the right thing to do. Killing it, to me, is nothing more than an emotional impulse decision, and passing the blame on a non-culpable animal deemed safe to humans to mask their own fault in this tragedy. The family should never have had the choice. Animal Control should have taken it away from them. Killing that dog doesn't make this situation better. Period.
Last edited by Thunderball; 03-02-2012 at 11:30 PM.
To me, two things really stand out in this issue:
1. The baby was two days old, alone and crying to the extent it alerted the dog
2. The dog had enough time to somehow break out of a kennel, enter an open room and attempt to pacify the child without alerting any adult in the home?
How this situation even occurs without some negligence is beyond me. This is not the behavior of reasonable people.
Therefore, to me, a dog was "euthanized" (which is a stretch of the word here) by its owners to pacify negligence. Legally speaking, as "property", actions by dogs bring strict liability to the owner. Your dog bites someone, you're liable. You face charges. That simple.
Surrendering the dog was the right thing to do. Killing it, to me, is nothing more than an emotional impulse decision, and passing the blame on a non-culpable animal deemed safe to humans to mask their own fault in this tragedy. The family should never have had the choice. Animal Control should have taken it away from them. Killing that dog doesn't make this situation better. Period.
Depends on your jurisdiction, there are multiple States that do not impose strict liability, and even those that do may have certain carve outs. I have no idea what the law says in Alberta tho.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
Dog experts who routinely order the execution of dogs determined this dog was not a future danger to humans and gave the family a choice.
I'm not sure how that qualifies as an irrational decision.
I'm in favour of euthanizing dogs that have attacked humans and have supported those decisions in the past. I'm just not seeing the "attack" aspect in this particular, isolated and unusual case and apparently the professionals evaluating this particular dog are in agreement.
The decision by the family to euthanize the dog appears to have been the emotional reaction and, from appearances, irrational given the advice of professionals.
They have that right as owners of this "property," but lets call it what it is.
Cowperson
Just gonna quote this post again because I think it's very very well written, and encapsulates what the "dog defenders" are thinking.
The owners have every right to make the decision legally, as it is their property. The decision itself is what I don't agree with. It's purely an emotional response to get some vengeance or closure for a tragic accident. Additionally, they had many other options - according to the original article, people offered to adopt the dog, I'm sure at least one person offered to pay for it as well. Yet, they chose to kill it - a completely irrational and emotional decision.
Nothing good came of killing the dog. I don't think it's possible to make the argument that a dog that has been deemed safe, did not actually "attack" the baby, and did not actually intend (to the best of our superior human brain's knowledge) to harm anyone...is any more dangerous or different than ANY other dog in the world.
