a measly 1 year sentence for abusing a dog and letting it maul a man to death. 1 year for another person's life? 1 year? WTF?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-27679092
Irresponsible people like this deserve everything they get, and do not need a softy lefty judge or CPS to dumb down charges and sentencing. Can anyone explain why this isn't at least manslaughter?
Personally I'd throw the pair of them in an alligator pit and walk away.
But - there is a weird break in the line of blame. Traditionally it is the dog cops the blame for an attack on humans, no matter how stupid and careless the owner is. Precedent is a powerful thing.
Well, police only investigate, gather evidence and forward it to the CPS .... who then have to charge in accordance with both available laws, which have just changed, and charging principles.Originally Posted by wasabi
Bit unfair, in this case, on the judge, don't you think? After all, he can't sentence them for charges that weren't made, or that they either didn't plead guilty to or were gound guilty of by a jury.
As for why it wasn't manslaughter, you'd have to ask the CPS. I can hazard a guess though. But it's eorth pointing out that the judge expressed the opinion that they were "lucky" not to be charged with that.
So, why not? Here's the guess. Given the circumstances, it is not manslaughter in the conventional sense, as the defendents didn't kill in person. That means the options are limited to one of a couple of subsets, those being gross negligence, or the relatively new "unlawful act" manslaughter. In the first situation, gross negligence would have to be proven, which requires satisfying the Adomako test, including that the risk of death would have been obvious to "reasonable person" in the defendant's position.
So, horrible as the treatment of the dog was, and horrible as the outcome was, would that reasonable person have foreseen the risk of this outcome? I'd say it's impossible to say without seeing all the evidence, but given that the dog managed escape his own garden and get into the neighbours, who was then airing jis kitchen, post-cooking,with his back door open, I'd suspect there's at the least reason to think it questionable that prosecutors could have proven that, to the jury.
A similar rationale applies to the unkawful act manslaughter option. It requires, to quote the CPSAgain, as the CPS are required to believe there's a realistic prospect of conviction, they'd have to be reasonably confident they could prove that to make that charge. Without seeing all the evidence, it's hard to draw a view on that.... where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, ...
And finally, at the time, the MAXIMUM sentence available to the judge was two years. Any sentence is supposed to follow sentencing guidelines, which takes account of factors like whether the accused pleads guilty, or forces a trial to the bitter end. Without a payback for pleading guilty, and doing so early, nobody would, putting the courts under the strain of having to spend days, maybe weeks or months, going through the motions. The couple also apparently expressed "sincere" regret at the outcome.
So, given that, and the two year maximum, one year is about right.
Of course, one year for an act that led, albeit perhaps somewhat unpredictably, to a man's horrible death seems trivial, but the problem is the two year maximum. Which has now changed. To 14 years. So if that same ratio applied, had the new rules been in force and applicable, as they now are, the sentence would have been seven years.
If I had to bet, personally, I'd suspect the notion that not feeding, caring and keeping this dog under control would lead to a man's horrific death would genuinely have horrified this pair of idiots. At least part of the problem is that anyone can buy and keep animals which, by their nature are capable of inflicting horrible damage, and SOME of those owners are obviously intellectually and/or emotionally incapable of responsibly discharging that obligation. And, maybe, it's that certain types of dogs are seen by some as a de rigeur fashion statement.
ANY dog is capable of turning. So especially with big and/or powerful ones, owning it should come with a responsibility to, first, exercise proper care and control, and second, to be sure you understand the animal, and the risks.
But sadly, it often doesn't, and these attacks are all too common, with either horrible injury, or more rarely, death, resulting. Hopefully, in future incidents, a few examples of people getting much closer to that 14 years will focus owner's minds.
Idiot mother I used to work with left her 2 year old with landlord's large pitbull type (I forget precise breed TBH) dog unsupervised in a closed yard round the back of a pub while she nattered with landlord. Kid got attacked - dog probably provoked but nobody can confirm - and luckily got away with his iife - just. Dog got put down. She got no blame, landlord got in some minor trouble. Whose fault?
Last edited by wasabi; 04-06-2014 at 01:11 PM.
I live rurally and it is fairly isolated so, for protection as much as anything else, we have 2 German shepherds kept outside. They are fully trained and are incredibly protective of their property and us. It’s actually amazing to watch in that if me and the kids are playing on the lawn they will happily lay about in the sun and ignore us but, if a stranger comes onto the property, they will instantly move towards the children and take up a protective position, always keeping themselves in between the kids and stranger (something that I didn’t train them to do, which means they are doing so out of instinct) till me or my wife give a calm command (which I did train them to do) at which point they will relax. I have never, once, seen them act in any way aggressively towards us or the kids and yet I would NEVER leave them alone with them, under any circumstances. No matter how well trained a dog is, as our 2 are, can you ever be 100% sure that a dog won’t turn. How many times has there been a mauling, and the family then say words to the effect of ‘the dog has never acted that way’?
Part of the problem in the UK, IMO, is the lack of regulation on dog ownership. Here in Ireland, you still have to pay for a licence for each dog and, much to my surprise when we had a warden visit us, it is actually policed & enforced. You also need to have a clear identification tag on the dog with your details on it. I know they are only a couple of small measures, and fairly easy and inexpensive to comply with, but it does at least, IMO, make you feel from the outset that there is a degree of responsibility in owning a dog.
100% agree.
A friend of mine has two rather large white GSDs. They're indoor dogs, but similarly well-trained and VERY protective. I know the dogs, and they know me. They'll both quite happily accept a fuss, including (if they can get it) a tummy rub IF they know you. But, when I visit, I'm under no illusion about my position, in the dog's view, in their pack ... or that they would act to protect my friends, if they saw me as a threat. I'm very fond indeed of those dogs, but I have a healthy respect for them as well, and am more than aware of what they're capable of, should I be daft enough as to present as a threat.
And while the dogs have known me for years, and accept that fuss, they DON'T let their guard down. They can be apparently asleep but if my friend and I both leave the room, say to go into the garden, one of the dogs always appears alongside my friend. No matter how friendly they are, one always stays betweem him and me.
I do have some understanding of dogs. It was a long time back, but we had a large, long-haired GSD.
50/50 mother and landlord.
They should introduce more potential verdicts, the judicial equivalent of "death by misadventure" from a coroner, something like "**** happens" and "preventable with hindsight".
And this is why I'll never own a dog. I've been at the receiving end of when a dog gets it wrong.
Thankfully it wasn't serious - a few stitches, a tetanus jab and a lot of friction between me and the owner of the dogs (girlfriend at the time).
I don't care what breed or how it's been brought up. Animals, like humans can get it wrong. When they do, especially around kids, the results can be terrible. I've lost count of how many times I've heard someone explain how it wasn't a "dangerous breed" or it was "trained well" after it's attacked someone (kids especially, who are unpredictable by nature).
I'd never, ever let a dog, no matter how "friendly" I'm told it is near any of the kids in the family. People look at me like I'm crazy when a tiny dog is around my nephew and I move them away. I'm sure I wouldn't look so crazy if its jaws clamped down on his fingers.
What annoys me especially is when I'm on in public and people let their dogs run free. "Oh he's really friendly mate"....yeah, sure, like all the others that are in the papers. Keep it on a lead and keep it away from kids. That's not an unreasonable request.
Last edited by Agent; 04-06-2014 at 03:43 PM.
Again, Agent, 100% agree.
I've been on the receiving end, too, though in a very minor way. I visited a colleague's home to pick him up, having never visited before., I rang the bell, he opened the door and a bulldog came flying down the hallway, launched itself and tried to clamp down on my arm. It shredded a heavy jumper I was (fortunately) wearing, but my injuries were minor. So, quick wash, couple of plasters, new shirt and jumper and a tetanus booster later, I was sorted. What triggered to dog? No idea. It had obviously decided to attack before it even saw me, as it thundered down the hallway. The only vague possibility is that it smelled my german shepherd on my clothes, but I think even that is unlikely. And that dog had "never done anything like that before", and "wasn't like that", and was "very friendly".
My injuries were trivial. It drew blood, but barely .... largely becuase he didn't get a good grip, and three big adults pulling him off, too. I didn't push it, and as far as I know, he carried on, happily, as the family pet.
As you said, ANY dog can turn, big or small, aggressive breed or not.
I think, personally, a VERY large percentage of the time, there are warning signs, if the people around the dog "speak dog". You have to read the situation, the dog's body language and actions. And, often as not, owners naively set themselves up for a problem. For a start, dogs are pack animals, and packs have a hierarchy. You MUST make sure the dog knows his place in that .... at the bottom. Miss that, and you're set for trouble, sooner or later.
That was my situation with my friend's two GSDs. They were pack members, and I wasn't. I was tolerated, even affectionately, because the pack leader (my mate) said so ...., provided I didn't overstep the bounds. I was very careful to respect that.
Dogs are dogs are pack animals. My parents inherited a large mongrel which combined most of the big dog types Alsatian / lab / bit of Rotw. / bit of something else a bit thuggish. Big boisterous dog. My mother couldn't control him as an indoor pet and it ended up mostly outdoors on the farm with my brother who definitely was the pack leader and took no fuss. So normally no problem. I hadn't been over to visit family in a year so not seen dog in ages and it immediately tried chewing my feet. So i gave dog a verbal NO - got ignored, so punched dog in the nose HARD. Dog absolutely adored me from then on although put down 3 years later when he attacked the vet while my brother was away on hols.
thats not alwaystrue Sara.. sorry bud, but it's not.
I've known, and owned .. dogs that would take every horrible thing done to them.. and absobed it as their own fault.. for ever.
but the fact is, and you're right to note... that you should TREAT every dog as the wolf in your living room...
but I promise you.. some are not and never will be nasty. Not even in severe adversity. Some take horrible things for many many years without knowing any better and would not turn on anyone.
its' what makes them special for humans.. they display many many traits and are no more trustable or unreliable than your a person in the street on on a battlefield
That’s actually wrong. Any dog is capable of turning, and it’s dangerous to think otherwise because, unless they are mentally impaired, even the most meek & mild and, in the case(s) you are talking about, abused & cowered dogs will retain some degree, no matter how small, of their natural instinct which consists of a plethora of aggressive behaviour. It may be that for some dogs you would need very specific circumstances, or stressors to bring it out of them, but it’s always there, even if hidden from view.
I don't understand how dog owners can be happy to have such an unwelcoming situation for their guests as this ^. It feels, as a non-dog owner, like it takes a certain amount of ignorance to be able to tolerate this and not be concerned about your guests' welfare.
I can only speak for myself, but it's not ignorance on my part. Quite the opposite in fact; it's very deliberate. The simple reason being I would place the safety of my Wife and children far higher than the comfort levels of any guests I might have visit me. And in fairness to Saracen, he did say he is fond of the dogs, so presumably it's not that unwelcoming for him.
Spot on. It’s one of the biggest mistakes people make, and also why so many babies and young children are attacked, because the dog is not having it’s place at the bottom reinforced. The pity is, it is actually quite an easy thing to do, even with dominant dogs. Simple things like ensuring the dog gets fed after everybody else, or making sure you, or whoever is playing with the dog, finishes a game by taking away the toy, work like a charm.
You managed to exemplify stupidity, animal cruelty and cause and effect all in 2 sentences. Bravo.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote