Woman in hospital after dog attack (From Oxford Mail)

I think the law holds the owner of a domestic dog responsible for it's acts.

When will charges of assault be made?

xjohnx wrote:
I think the law holds the owner of a domestic dog responsible for it's acts.

When will charges of assault be made?

Your quick to comment about what others put. Do you know facts of this case. It mite be the dog turned on its owner before we all know

dant40 wrote:

xjohnx wrote:
I think the law holds the owner of a domestic dog responsible for it's acts.

When will charges of assault be made?

Your quick to comment about what others put. Do you know facts of this case. It mite be the dog turned on its owner before we all know

Couldn't agree more. Until more information is known, no-one can comment on what should or shouldn't happen. She might have been robbing the house in which case the dogs would not be to blame.

Its too early to know whats gone on until we have the facts, but in most cases it is irresponsible owners.

my aunt went out to help a child and got attacked herself by 2 pitbulls, that belonged to a neighbour. Her wounds are awful and very deep and she is having to undergo emergency plastic surgery. May be her wounds would have been less serious if she was helped quicker.

MissHa wrote:
my aunt went out to help a child and got attacked herself by 2 pitbulls, that belonged to a neighbour. Her wounds are awful and very deep and she is having to undergo emergency plastic surgery. May be her wounds would have been less serious if she was helped quicker.

Sorry I it was a girl she went to help not a child.

Time to ban pit bulls and their cross breeds outright.

bart-on simpson wrote:
Time to ban pit bulls and their cross breeds outright.

It's their owners that need banning.

couldnt agree more, i had a dog which was ment to be a dangerous dog and he was a soppy git! German shepard dogs are a prime example of agressive dogs yet police have them, pitballs the army used to use! end of day its how you teach a dog.

bart-on simpson wrote:
Time to ban pit bulls and their cross breeds outright.

Too many people quick the blame the breed of dog. Its true that you never hear of a poodle out attacking people. But when is the last time you saw a chav with a poodle as a pet??? Ban careless, uneducated, idiots from owning dogs and problem will be sorted!

But the police and army do no have them for pets and are highly trained and kept under complete control.

Interesting sociological perspectives of the connections between humans and dogs - I have heard of the common phrase that owners often look like their dogs, but not actual behaviourial connections - so many university researchers on this comment list.

Regardless of individual events and personal feelings. The law is clear.

Owners must control their dogs and are responsible in law for their actions.

If by failing to train or failing to control a dog, someone or thing is hurt or damaged, the owner is responsible to the law of the land.

xjohnx wrote:
Regardless of individual events and personal feelings. The law is clear.

Owners must control their dogs and are responsible in law for their actions.

If by failing to train or failing to control a dog, someone or thing is hurt or damaged, the owner is responsible to the law of the land.

Unless said failings occur on property owned by the keeper of the dog, when it can and has been reasonably argued that the dog is protecting the property or owner.

If in doubt muzzle any dog with any aggression issues, never leave a dog unattended with a child and always keep your dog under control i.e. on a lead when in public, simple rules but idiots today don't seem to be able to keep to them.

In reply to whether certain dangerous breeds should be banned, yes they should. Dangerous dogs like guns are only dangerous if not handled properly, and like some owners of guns, some dog owners are also dangerous, so certain breeds should go the way of guns, banned.

Easy to forget, but that cute 'family pet' which 'wouldn't hurt anyone' is actually a direct family relative of the Wolf - as could be some of the humans who keep and breed dogs which have been bred for fighting and attack. Dog owners are responsible for how their animals may behave, and reality - rather than sentimentality by dog lovers - is that dogs bred for fighting, attack and defence, are genetically even more liable to violent behaviour, than otherwise 'harmless' pooch, the adorable family pet. How many babies, children an adults have to be killed, maimed or injured before known dangerous breeds are banned?

Myron Blatz wrote:
Easy to forget, but that cute 'family pet' which 'wouldn't hurt anyone' is actually a direct family relative of the Wolf - as could be some of the humans who keep and breed dogs which have been bred for fighting and attack. Dog owners are responsible for how their animals may behave, and reality - rather than sentimentality by dog lovers - is that dogs bred for fighting, attack and defence, are genetically even more liable to violent behaviour, than otherwise 'harmless' pooch, the adorable family pet. How many babies, children an adults have to be killed, maimed or injured before known dangerous breeds are banned?

This is very true and with this incident 3 people were injured, my aunt being worse off.

Why do police always 'detain' the dogs in these cases? At vast expense.

Send armed officers, and shoot them then and there!

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:

xjohnx wrote:
Regardless of individual events and personal feelings. The law is clear.

Owners must control their dogs and are responsible in law for their actions.

If by failing to train or failing to control a dog, someone or thing is hurt or damaged, the owner is responsible to the law of the land.

Unless said failings occur on property owned by the keeper of the dog, when it can and has been reasonably argued that the dog is protecting the property or owner.

If in doubt muzzle any dog with any aggression issues, never leave a dog unattended with a child and always keep your dog under control i.e. on a lead when in public, simple rules but idiots today don't seem to be able to keep to them.

Even then you have a duty of care which still holds you resposible for the actions of your dog.

Plenty of burglars sue and get compensation. Depends on difficulty of access, signage etc.

The injured lady is not a dog owner so its not her dogs, she was just on her way to work, great start to a monday morning bless her.

Owners of dangerous dogs ususally have a lower IQ than the dogs.

magcas wrote:
The injured lady is not a dog owner so its not her dogs, she was just on her way to work, great start to a monday morning bless her.

It happened on Saturday and she was not on her way to work. My aunt went outside to see if another neighbour was ok, unaware that the dogs were outside.

sorry yes it was on saterday, I since got the right info, I hadnt actually read it in the paper at that time, I recieved a message from a colleague at work yesterday telling me what had happened, so I wrongly assumed it was yesterday and she would of been on her way to work at that time. I just hope she will be ok she is a lovely caring lady.

i dont usually comment on oxford mail stuff but i had too ,yes u were attacked by a dog and put in hospital it may be hard and very scary now but in short time u will be ok how do i know? well i got attacked by a pittbull/staff dog and it was ragging me round like a toy doll i was in hospital and was on cruthes for about 3 or 4 weeks but im ok now and so will u be too BUT i strongley dissagree with the comments about how its the dog owners fault but thats not so true dogs have there own minds and can switch at anytime and yes the dog should be put down but as for the owner dont u think its hard enuff for them to let there dog go there my point