English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

20 answers

You mean, when Saddam killed people, why didn't the international community hold the US government responsible, as they were propping him up?

Excellent question. We did try ...

2007-01-02 00:57:03 · answer #1 · answered by Minmi 6 · 2 1

Well, what you suggest is a bit drastic, but I take your point. The Dangerous Dogs Act was meant, amongst other things to prohibit the breeding and sale/exchange of pit bulls. So the mere possession of a pit bull at this time, a whole fifteen years after the law came into effect, means either it was an old dog or the owner was breaking the law.

I am sure you are thinking about the very sad case in St Helens yesterday. The fact that it was the owner's daughter will probably mitigate the sentence, on the grounds that he has suffered quite enough already. If so, that would be most unfortunate for society.

Here in the USA many local councils have banned certain breeds, not only from living the locality, but even from travelling through it. I have never lived in any of those localities but from what I hear, the ordinances are enforced.

2007-01-01 23:59:20 · answer #2 · answered by skip 6 · 0 0

I would be in favor, but the main problem is the dog, is an animal and does not know any better, but the owner does, and the owner should face more of a punishment that the dog. But of course this woul dnever fly, but still I hope the owner goes to jail for a long time, t think about it. At least 10 years, automatically.

2007-01-01 10:20:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Killing the dog's owner may be a little harsh, but someone can definitely be sued if their dog attacks or kills someone. Such cases are particularly likely to be successful if there is any proof whatsoever that the owner had even an inkling that the dog might be dangerous.

2007-01-01 09:43:26 · answer #4 · answered by jdphd 5 · 0 0

Usually, if there is reason to believe that the owner caused the dog to become dangerous, they can be banned from owning another dog.

2007-01-01 09:37:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

because you could own a dog train it in obedience and to kill on demand , then you could sell it to some one you praps dont care much for as a security dog and have it kill someone ,so then the person you dont like would then be removed from society .

one of many examples of how this could be used by sadistic people ,why ask this question has a dog killed someone you know? i think the owner of the dog is much to blame as the dog yet i wouldnt say they should lose there life over it ,but then how would they pay for it? thats when your question starts to resemble something of sanity yet is totally wrong. laters

2007-01-01 09:36:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

i wish you noted as the authorities and suggested a case to them. The vendors might want to be fined with the inability of life of your loved pug and your retriever. inspite of the indisputable fact that your spouse might want to have killed their pit, there is not something that you'll do. Your spouse change into protecting the existence of you puppy. merely keep in thoughts, that you're the mirrored image of your canines. perhaps your neighbor's pit did not have ideal socialization. even if it hadn't died, you may want to've made a case of the canines, making it a achievable danger to others, making it vicious and unsafe. yet, have self assurance me, i'm worried with pit bulls. My saying is with Villalobos. If it aint bit, it aint ****. i understand how the temperament of those canines might want to be. this is not your fault. lower back, merely call the authorities and tell them your challenge. you'll both bypass to courtroom, or you may want to not. it truly is something that your friends might want to've prevented. If those 'gangsters' come when you, you may consistently call the authorities lower back and characteristic a restraining order hostile to them. i wish I easily have eased your concerns.

2016-12-01 09:59:00 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The dog may be dangerous but that does not make the owner dangerous too.

2007-01-03 21:31:58 · answer #8 · answered by The Dude 2 · 0 1

A bit harsh, but why the hell do people have pit-bulls running around the house with their infants?? Its so careless!

2007-01-01 09:39:49 · answer #9 · answered by leon 3 · 1 0

they used to at one time,

2007-01-01 11:18:25 · answer #10 · answered by trucker 5 · 0 0

cos sometimes the dog can turn for no reason, then it wud not be the owners fault, but if the owner knows its evil, they shud get rid of the owner too.

2007-01-01 09:33:58 · answer #11 · answered by blank 2 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers