Family dog kills one-year-old boy

Troublesome

A toddler dies after being attacked by a family's pet rottweiler in the yard at a relative's home.

Read more...

Karoma

...and?

News & Media is usually for discussion about the field, rather than particular articles. I suggest posting it in AH, but I don't really care for threads with a link and one or two lines of the article - that doesn't make for a discussion; it's merely a reprint.

Webmonkey

Didn't this happen last christmas also?

Rb

That's what happens when you leave babies around rottweilers.

Bit of common sense could have saved a life as far as I'm concerned.

alan4cult

It's time for a UK and Ireland wide ban on toddlers.

biko

Waits for the "Blame the deed, not the breed" crowd.

arybvtcw0eolkf

biko wrote: »

Waits for the "Blame the deed, not the breed" crowd.

***cough***

Tha Gopher

biko wrote: »

Waits for the "Blame the deed, not the breed" crowd.

Indeed. Honestly, apart from police/military these dogs have absoloutely no business being in the hands of members of the public. Since the UK clamped down on them Ive noticed a rise in the amount of the fcukers running around my area, and Id hedge a bet it is related to British owners selling theirs off. Skanger accessories that nobody needs to keep. I dont doubt a well trained rottweiller or pitbull is more dangerous than your average spaniel or whatever, but its a risk that is totally unecessary, and its no coincidence that virtually every person you see with one is a scobe. Its like saying bouncers should let in people wearing tracksuits because a majority of tracksuit wearers arent true skangers (even though a majority of owners of what at least on appearance are vicious dogs are scumbags)

peasant

biko wrote: »

Waits for the "Blame the deed, not the breed" crowd.

Elegant, veeery elegant ...

Insult a group of people on the back of a tragic accident, all the while stirring prejudice.

All in one sentence.

Proud, are we, Mr. biko?

Webmonkey

Webmonkey wrote: »

Didn't this happen last christmas also?

Yeah you're right, the thread should be closed.

Tha Gopher

peasant wrote: »

Elegant, veeery elegant ...

Insult a group of people on the back of a tragic accident, all the while stirring prejudice.

All in one sentence.

Proud, are we, Mr. biko?

Oh come on. Its like a campaign by the Law Abiding Burberry/Argos Jewellery Fans of Ireland launching a campaign against door policies.

peasant

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Oh come on. Its like a campaign by the Law Abiding Burberry/Argos Jewellery Fans of Ireland launching a campaign against door policies.

...that would be the prejudice then

nlgbbbblth

The dog involved has to accept at least some of the responsibility here.

Absolving the dog and citing other factors as a cause is a cop-out.

Rb

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Indeed. Honestly, apart from police/military these dogs have absoloutely no business being in the hands of members of the public. Since the UK clamped down on them Ive noticed a rise in the amount of the fcukers running around my area, and Id hedge a bet it is related to British owners selling theirs off. Skanger accessories that nobody needs to keep. I dont doubt a well trained rottweiller or pitbull is more dangerous than your average spaniel or whatever, but its a risk that is totally unecessary, and its no coincidence that virtually every person you see with one is a scobe. Its like saying bouncers should let in people wearing tracksuits because a majority of tracksuit wearers arent true skangers (even though a majority of owners of what at least on appearance are vicious dogs are scumbags)

Agreed.

Sonnenblumen

Agree, shoot them.

uberwolf

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Agree, shoot them.

The scobes? Agreed.
Eminem cancelling that concert was the worst thing that ever happened to Ireland. One well placed napalm and we would have been back dancing at the crossroads.

Dave!

Everyone calls for the dogs to be banned and nobody calls for the parents to be charged. Hmmm. Herald readers?

Sonnenblumen

Yeah lets charge the parents because the dogs cannot read!!

Shoot the dogs and then deal with the parents.

Rb

DaveMcG wrote: »

Everyone calls for the dogs to be banned and nobody calls for the parents to be charged. Hmmm. Herald readers?

Well what can the parents realistically be charged with?

Ban the dogs first and foremost and then prosecute all of those who choose to attempt to house the animals in the future.

thefinalstage

Let me make this clear. A well looked after and cared for dog will be a lovable pet regardless of breed.

Dave!

Leaving a 1 year old in a position whereby they can be mauled by a Rottweiler. Neglect, or something like that. Manslaughter?

If the dog was properly restrained, then it would not have been able to harm the child at all. If needs be, a mussle could be left on it 24/7 bar when it is eating. When it's eating, it can be locked securely and then have the mussle put back on by an adult afterwards. There's a radical approach that would mean that nobody is in any harm bar the adult who owns it. To water it down a bit, you could forget having the mussle on all the time and just enforce a legal requirement of a secure fence (or 2) keeping the animal locked up. Legal requirement that kids aren't allowed in the dog's presence without a mussle on (even at home). The Gardai could also start enforcing the "mussles for restricted breeds" laws already in place for public areas. Why the need to ban dogs because a couple of people have been killed? If you're gonna do that then you might as well bring in licences for kitchen knives, limit car speeds to 20kmph, etc.

Bottom line is alot of things have the capacity to cause great harm if they are not treated with respect and handled appropriately.

Tha Gopher

rb_ie wrote: »

Well what can the parents realistically be charged with?

Ban the dogs first and foremost and then prosecute all of those who choose to attempt to house the animals in the future.

Indeed. These are not family suitable pets. Anyone who keeps such unpredictable dogs in the same home as kids is a gobsh1te by default. It isnt a particularly nice thing to say that virtually all of x y and z breed should be culled, but if its a matter of protecting the public, so be it.

Ill bet most objecting to it like eating meat, like the vast majority of humans. We eat cattle, pigs and chicken because we are intellectually more advanced, and therefore we have the upper hand. Not particularly fair on the poor animals but thats life. Basically if you can happily eat cow meat but think culling poentially dangerous dogs is evil, you really should stop eating meat. Otherwise you are being quite the hypocrite. I do truly feel sorry for the particular animals in these breeds that will never harm anyone, but the fact is that I dont think Ive ever heard of a child being mauled to death by a spaniel or a collie or any of the most common breeds. Rottweillers, pitbulls and bulldogs are, if my eyes are to be believed, a very tiny proportion of our dog population, yet seem to cause a disproportionate amount of trouble. If you want a dog, why do you need one of these? Why wont a more passive breed do you?

thelastangryman wrote: »

Let me make this clear. A well looked after and cared for dog will be a lovable pet regardless of breed.

Really? Ive heard of dogs (of many breeds, not just those mentioned here) who due to abusive or neglectful treatment since birth have been taken on by decent people but have turned out to be completely incapable of being properly domesticated. Sad stuff but its true. And, in all honesty, dogs are like people. Ive known utter scumbags who couldnt have wished for better parents, a fact many themselves would admit. People from familes of 6 or 7 well to do kids where they are the only knack of the lot. Some people, and some animals, are just plain born bad.

Terry

Stare a normally passive dog in the eyes and see what happens.

Tha Gopher

Terry wrote: »

Stare a normally passive dog in the eyes and see what happens.

Every dog can sense fear in those around them, which is why when faced with a vicious looking dog right infront of you its best to indicate by your body language that you couldnt give a ****, or, probably more advisable, that you barely even notice they are looking at you.. Some dogs like to take advantage of it. Unless you have a particularly evil stare the dog will take it as "Im afraid" as opposed to "wtf are you lookin at"

HollyB

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Really? Ive heard of dogs (of many breeds, not just those mentioned here) who due to abusive or neglectful treatment since birth have been taken on by decent people but have turned out to be completely incapable of being properly domesticated.

That's hardly surprising. After suffering from abuse during what is, essentially, the dog's formative years, of course you're going to have some who can't adjust to the idea of being treated kindly and who expect the abuse to begin again at any moment. Leave that dog with a toddler who pulls at its fur and tail, or similar, and it is possible the dog is going to react to a perceived threat.

My dad adopted a dog from a pound, a female about a year and a half old. We were never told for certain, but based on her nervousness and her fears of certain objects, we suspected that she had been mistreated by a previous owner. With my dad, she was never harmed - if anything, she was spoiled rotten - but she would still run away in fright if she saw a sweeping brush being used, and she would panic whenever she got sick. She was never aggressive towards us, but her previous experiences definitely stayed with her.

Dogs, of any breed, who have always been treated with kindness and respect are extremely unlikely to attack.

Jules

Terry wrote: »

Stare a normally passive dog in the eyes and see what happens.

Most of the time they look away.

Do you know the dog most likely to bite a child is a lab! People generalising dogs have not got a clue what they are talking about.

peasant

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

The dog involved has to accept at least some of the responsibility here.

I just asked some hard questions around the house:

The Goldfish has just accepted total responsibility for whatever we want to charge him with, the cat on the other hand just accepts partial responisibility.

:D:D

biko

There is a dog bite epidemic in the United States. There are almost 5 million victims annually, about 2% of the entire population. 800,000 need medical attention. 1,000 per day need treatment in hospital emergency rooms. Approximately 26 die per year. Most of the victims who receive medical attention are children, half of whom are bitten in the face.

From 1979 to 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these incidences.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite
http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%20Statistics/DogBiteStatistics.html

peasant

quoted from your first link:

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.

An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).

Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

and quoted from your second link:

Annually in the United States there are approximately 20 human fatalities directly resulting from a dog attack; this number is miniscule compared with human fatalities caused by gunshot (approximately 12,000 annually), accidents (approximately 100,000 annually) or health related disease processes

Hardly a "dog bite epidemic", now is it ?

padi89

Double post.

padi89

biko wrote: »

Waits for the "Blame the deed, not the breed" crowd.

When that french woman had to have the first face transplant because her labrador tore her face apart did you have the same reaction?I bet you didn't and it was the exact same as the media, a bit pick and choose don't ya think?

Pigman II

padi89 wrote: »

When that french woman had to have the first face transplant because her labrador tore her face apart did you have the same reaction?

Too true.

And any time a toddler kills a one-year-old rottweiler you never get this kind of reaction either. Double standards in the media I reckon.

Jumpy

padi89 wrote: »

When that french woman had to have the first face transplant because her labrador tore her face apart did you have the same reaction?I bet you didn't and it was the exact same as the media, a bit pick and choose don't ya think?

Thats a bit different, that labbie didnt do it from agression, she fell asleep and he was craving some face for brekkie.

padi89

Pigman II wrote: »

Too true.

And any time a toddler kills a one-year-old rottweiler you never get this kind of reaction either. Double standards in the media I reckon.

What kind of kids do you sprout?

Acid_Violet

Troublesome wrote: »

pet rottweiler

Says it all. There's a good reason why some breeds of dogs are banned in certain countries.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Acid_Violet wrote: »

Says it all. There's a good reason why some breeds of dogs are banned in certain countries.

Where are Rotties banned?.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Update from the BBC;

Mr Payne said the boy's aunt, aged 16, was caring for him and two girls, aged six and seven, in the house.

The 16-year-old girl was upstairs when the seven-year-old carried the baby outside to stroke the dog.

Mr Payne said: "Without any warning, the dog snatched the baby from the youngster's arms and carried him into the yard."

He said the 16-year-old tried to rescue the baby but was unable to do so, despite striking the dog.

Paramedics and police arrived within six minutes following an emergency call to police at 1530 GMT, he said.

The baby was taken to Pinderfields General Infirmary where he was pronounced dead.

The boy's parents were at a nearby property at the time.


I've never owned a Rottie however I've got a Staff/Pitbull X. He's the most loveable dog ever, but I'm fvcked if I'd leave him in the care of children.

Like a lot of these dog attack stories the fault once again lies with bad ownership.

Oh, a little clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odi0XlI-4_g

One more; WARNING PIT BULL VICIOUSLY ATTACKS BABY. SHOCKING.

Acid_Violet

Mairt wrote: »

Where are Rotties banned?.

In the UK certain breeds are banned, for pet ownership at least me thinks, and if this is the case there certainly is bannage in place in other countries too.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Acid_Violet wrote: »

In the UK certain breeds are banned, for pet ownership at least me thinks, and if this is the case there certainly is bannage in place in other countries too.

Which breeds are banned, and do you know what your talking about?.

Dyr

from memory :
pitbulls
tosas
"bandogs" that dont actually exist anyway lol
and coupla others breeds

biko

"[P]it bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs"
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/breedlaws.html#court

"One City's Experience: Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed-Specific Legislation is Justified"
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/pitbullDenver.pdf

arybvtcw0eolkf

biko wrote: »

"[P]it bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs"
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/breedlaws.html#court

"One City's Experience: Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed-Specific Legislation is Justified"
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/pitbullDenver.pdf

I don't know what your point is.

Anyway a responsible owner will always have a properly socialised dog. Will always have the dog under control, have the dog leashed and muzzled out in public.

This should be true of most dogs, not only Pitbulls.

Chucky the tree

Mairt wrote: »

Update from the BBC;

Mr Payne said the boy's aunt, aged 16, was caring for him and two girls, aged six and seven, in the house.

The 16-year-old girl was upstairs when the seven-year-old carried the baby outside to stroke the dog.

Mr Payne said: "Without any warning, the dog snatched the baby from the youngster's arms and carried him into the yard."

He said the 16-year-old tried to rescue the baby but was unable to do so, despite striking the dog.

Paramedics and police arrived within six minutes following an emergency call to police at 1530 GMT, he said.

The baby was taken to Pinderfields General Infirmary where he was pronounced dead.

The boy's parents were at a nearby property at the time.


I've never owned a Rottie however I've got a Staff/Pitbull X. He's the most loveable dog ever, but I'm fvcked if I'd leave him in the care of children.

Like a lot of these dog attack stories the fault once again lies with bad ownership.

Oh, a little clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odi0XlI-4_g

One more; WARNING PIT BULL VICIOUSLY ATTACKS BABY. SHOCKING.

Is that actually a clip of a child being mauled by a dog? Not gonna watch it till i know for definite. But if it is, is it not gonna be taken down?

Acid_Violet

Mairt wrote: »

Which breeds are banned, and do you know what your talking about?.

If you believe that I'm not making this up off the top of my head, the answer is yes.

If you think I'm spouting out rubbish, jfgi.

Pigman II

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Is that actually a clip of a child being mauled by a dog? Not gonna watch it till i know for definite. But if it is, is it not gonna be taken down?

Nah it's just a clip by some dog lover who needs to calm down a bit.

Clip 1's general theme is to accuse the media of being liars.

Clip 2's general theme is to blame dog owners rather than dogs.

Anyway the fact that dogs killing toddlers is extremely newsworthy doesn't seem appeal to the creators sensibilities? In similar vein perhaps the news should stop reporting on Lotto winners too just because it will never happen to the other 99.9999% of people?

Dyr

The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that

"that thars a dangeerus dawg huck huck! fetch mah rifle junior!!"

peasant

What most people don't seem to understand is the simple fact, that the dog (a dog) cannot be held responsible for its actions.

A dog is an animal (or like some posters here like to call it "a dumb animal") it is not capable of conscious decision making, it does not have a conscience, neither does it have complex (human) emotions or thought processes.

A dog is led by its instincts, by its training (or lack thereof) and by routine/habit.

It is therefore ALWAYS the humans in whose care the dog is (or isn't, as the case may be) who have to shoulder the full responsibility for the actions of the dog.

wyk

I have a Hungarian Komondor(amongst many many other dogs). They are a breed of dog that protect livestock. The breed has a LOT to do with how a dog behaves. I would say more so than the dog's training when it comes to beig out of it's environment, or presented with a situation out of the ordinary, which is often how many attacks occur. My Komondor is well looked after. I have several decades of experience with dogs, and do not let anthropomorphisms and unprofessional advice color my treatment and education with canines. My Komondor would, and has, instantly attacked, and has killed, most anything that came into my property(in Texas) that wasn't there when he grew up or was trained with(such as sheep, friends, and other dogs). That is what the breed does - protects it's stewards and owners to the death, and that is why I got him - to protect the livestock. I lso have Greyhounds that keep the vermin away, but that's another story.

The Komondor is a dog I would never think of keeping in a densely populated area, even with proper training. Because it is not when your guard dogs are under your direct control that most of these attacks happen. It is often when the dog out is of control - regardless of how well it has been trained. A dog bred to work and to guard is far far more likely to act like a guard dog than one that is bred to hunt or to herd. And any dog outside of it's comfort environment runs a higher chance of acting like a wild animal, and defend itself or act aggressively. Sort of like some of my old girlfriends.

The bottom line is you can preach all the training you like, but so long as there is a large dog on scene, and the owner isn't directly controlling it, you run a chance of there being problems. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that simply stating 'it's the owner and not the dogs' won't solve the problem, either.

In this case, since the family lost a member, I am not so sure they need to be punished any further by law. I think they learned their lesson and were punished plenty by their dog and it's owner. Hopefully, other's will learn this lesson vicariously and not have to suffer so.

http://clubs.akc.org/kca/aboutthe.htm

WYK

thelastangryman wrote: »

Let me make this clear. A well looked after and cared for dog will be a lovable pet regardless of breed.

Sonnenblumen

peasant wrote: »

What most people don't seem to understand is the simple fact, that the dog (a dog) cannot be held responsible for its actions.

A dog is an animal (or like some posters here like to call it "a dumb animal") it is not capable of conscious decision making, it does not have a conscience, neither does it have complex (human) emotions or thought processes.

A dog is led by its instincts, by its training (or lack thereof) and by routine/habit.

It is therefore ALWAYS the humans in whose care the dog is (or isn't, as the case may be) who have to shoulder the full responsibility for the actions of the dog.

Surely this belongs in the dumbed down psychoanalytics forum?

Owner to Dog: Why did you attack that child?
Dog to Owner: Well for starters, you haven't trained me not to kill, and besides even if you have, I've no recollection of why I attacked that child.
Society to owner: Dumb irresponsible ****.

peasant

Are you really that obtuse or are you just trolling again?

Sonnenblumen

^^^I didn't know propagandist?^^^