what do you think of the case of this dog killing a thief?

Question

This is what happened:
A thief broke in a place that was being watched by a dog. The dog (a Rottweiler) bit him, and the thief bleed to death. Later, a Judge wanted to order that the dog had to be put to "sleep the eternal dream" :).
What you do think?

BTW, this didn't happen in USA, just FYI.

Answer 1

I think it sucks!
Our laws are making it impossible for us to protect ourselves in any way shape or form.The criminals have all the rights.
If someone comes on my property in the middle of the nite when my gates are all closed and I let my dogs out not knowing someones there and my shepherds maul the intruder I'm liable for his injuries according to the law.It does'nt matter that the intruder was rescued by a police officer and found to have a gun or knife and burglar tools on him.Nor would it make a difference if scratches were found on my doors or windows where the poor guy tried to break in.
BSLs requiring certain dogs to be muzzled when in view of the public whether their in an enclosed yard or not are B.S.
A muzzled dog is'nt going to do me any good while I'm being raped or killed in my own home.
Used to be that you had the legal right to protect yourself and your property using any means at your disposal.
I wish they'd just let all the criminals out of prison and put us in.Let them work at crap jobs to support the rest of us and pay for our college educations while we play in the olympic sized swimming pool and have the best gym equipment money can buy.

Answer 2

I think the judge should be "put to sleep". Though my dogs are not "guard" dogs, this is still "their" house. If someone breaks in, and my dogs bite them, and cause physical damage, great. Just like I have a right to defend my property, whether it's my home or my body. If someone is really trying to kill you, you have the self-defense, defense. Same laws should apply to dogs.

It's probably in the best interest of the owner to post "Beware of Dog" signs, as well as "No Trespassing" signs.

Answer 3

That really weird, but the judge made the wrong decision. The dog was self defending himself. The judge may think the dog is too dangerous and it will bite innocent people if it was released. Though, I still think it's just wrong.

Answer 4

They should appeal, the dog did what he was suppose to do. That damn judge is out of his mind. The thief must of been a relative of the judge.

Answer 5

I think it's wrong because the dog was protecting it's property. If someone broke into your house and you shot them it would be considered self defense. It should be the same in the case with the dog.

Answer 6

this is absurbed. A home or place of business is our castle. Were their beware of dog signs?? Even though the person was tresspassing... if the owner had shot the man breaking in he could have been arrested... go liberal army!!!! We have the right to protect our property in the best way we know. personal responsibility needs to make a BIG comeback.. you made your bed lie in it philosophy had better come back or our country is going to be destroyed.

Answer 7

I would put the thief and the judge in the same category.

Answer 8

If the theif would have stayed out of the dogs house...the idiot wouldn't be dead today. Now, the dog should at least earn his death penalty and kill the dumbass judge.

Answer 9

Darn shame. If the owners have the wherewithal, they may want to appeal. The dog was doing what it was supposed to do, which was to stop bad guys.

On the other hand, dogs which kill people shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Answer 10

APPEAL! the guy had had it coming! He was the one who broke in and broke the law first...so he deserved every minute of everything he got!