"Security" Dog Harness

kirving

I don't own a dog, so this doesn't really apply to me, but had a thought about it today.

Lidl are selling day harnesses that have "Security" written on a velcro patch. It would seem to me, a very bad idea for someone to actually have their dog wear one of these.

Say an otherwise friendly family dog bites a random member of the public. It could be argued, fairly, that the owner had no idea the dog was capable of attacking someone.

But in the same situation, where the same dog is now wearing the "security" harness, could it be argued that the owner had prior knowledge of the dog's capability to bite someone?

I have no idea either about possible penalties for the owner of a dog in such a scenario, but would the be based on the pure facts of the case, or would other factors be considered?

The high horse brigade

What. Anyone with a dog is fully responsible for the dogs actions whether the dog has security or Tinkerbell on its collar

kirving

The high horse brigade wrote: »

What. Anyone with a dog is fully responsible for the dogs actions whether the dog has security or Tinkerbell on its collar

Did I say otherwise?

Gatling

It's a novelty item don't see how it could suggest the dog is anything but a pet

ganmo

Gatling wrote: »

It's a novelty item don't see how it could suggest the dog is anything but a pet

There are very different legal standards for guard dogs and pets.

Discodog

I bought one & it's perfect for a psychopath dog as you can have "Best Friend" on one side & "Security" on the other. Even better you can buy the labels online including Narcotics dog, Search dog etc. Assistance dog is useful if you want to bring it into shops etc

It used to be said, in the UK, that a "Beware of the Dog" sign was risky as it implied that the dog is dangerous.

kirving

Discodog wrote: »

It used to be said, in the UK, that a "Beware of the Dog" sign was risky as it implied that the dog is dangerous.

That's what I was getting at really.

Say a farmer accidentally shoots a person (that he didn't even know was there) while shooting foxes. One of those joke signs that say "trespassers will be shot" would do him absolutely no favours.

To put the question another way, could someone be charged with a more serious crime than otherwise (assault, criminal negligence, I've no idea?) if their dog attacked someone else AND it could be shown that they had prior knowledge of their dog being dangerous.

ganmo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

That's what I was getting at really.

Say a farmer accidentally shoots a person (that he didn't even know was there) while shooting foxes. One of those joke signs that say "trespassers will be shot" would do him absolutely no favours.

To put the question another way, could someone be charged with a more serious crime than otherwise (assault, criminal negligence, I've no idea?) if their dog attacked someone else AND it could be shown that they had prior knowledge of their dog being dangerous.

The guard dog regulation requires signs etc

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1988/si/255/made/en/print

Del2005

Kevin Irving wrote: »

To put the question another way, could someone be charged with a more serious crime than otherwise (assault, criminal negligence, I've no idea?) if their dog attacked someone else AND it could be shown that they had prior knowledge of their dog being dangerous.

It wouldn't matter if you have a sign or not. If you know that the dog is dangerous you are responsible to ensure the safety of others and could be in trouble for not controlling it.