According to foxnews.com, a Chicago man is now deceased after being brutally mauled by his daughter’s pit bulls. According to the report, the daughter told authorities she came home Sunday night and found her father lying on the living room floor, covered in blood. Our thoughts are prayers are with the family.
I have blogged many times in recent years about various dog bite incidents which have at times incensed various breed advocates. In each and every circumstance it seems the dog is not to blame whereas the owner is.
While I’m sure there may (we do not know the full facts) owner issues here, one cannot dispute the fact that certain breeds cause more human carnage than others. There may be circumstances but I’m not aware of a Chihuahua killing a grown man. However, I am aware of many circumstances of adults and children alike being viciously mauled by these larger breeds.
So my question is if breed shouldn’t be a factor in dog bite incidents, what should be? As I write this I’m speaking solely as a lawyer interested in the opinions of others who do not believe that certain breeds pose a higher risk for incidents. I am also a big believer in personal responsibility. So if we are, as some suggest, to hold the owner rather than the dog fully accountable (in other words we are leaving no avenue that some breeds are inherently more dangerous than others), should there be mandatory laws or educational classes required before ownership of dogs whose bite may cause more harm than others? Further, should some sort of criminal penalty apply to people who own dogs that harm others and should we apply that penalty uniformly without regard to breed?
Now speaking as a father of three beautiful girls (you need to understand that protective does not begin to describe how I regard my children’s health), I don’t care what scientists, dog enthusiasts or anyone else say about certain breeds propensity to cause harm. When I’m walking with my children and see Pug growling at me, I’m not near as fearful as when I see a pit-bull growling at me. Not once when confronted with such circumstances have I thought that the pit-bull is not dangerous to me or my children.
I must admit that I look forward to any commentary our readers may have. Can we really state with certainty that certain breeds pose no more of a risk to children than
The Legal Examiner and our Affiliate Network strive to be the place you look to for news, context, and more, wherever your life intersects with the law.
2 Comments
PH
Two sites for you to visit:
www.DogsBite.org
www.pitattacksbystate.blogspot.com
Then ask the questions:
What were border collies bred to do?
What were hounds bred to do?
What were pit bulls bred to do?
To continue to place blame on an owner of a pit bull when the pit does what it is bred to do, is denying what this particular breed was bred to do. Deny that and you deny whatever else dogs were bred to do. Last week was the 83rd piticide in the last four years, more than any other breeds have ever done. It's not the owner, it's the dog doing what man made it to do.
Tim
For me the answer to the pit bull question is obvious. Pit bulls should be regulated in the same way that firearms are. 1.) They should be registered. 2.) Owners should pass a test showing that they know how to be a responsible owner. 3.) Felons should not be in possession of one.
We do not make a big deal about people owning BB guns or Pellet guns even though someone could shoot you with one. We get more excited about people owning 9mm and 45cal, etc. because they are more dangerous if you get shot with one. The same argument can be made for pit bulls.
Comments for this article are closed.