Owner of dog that killed the little girl?

Question

Should the owner of the dog that killed that little girl be tried for manslaughter because he had already had warnings about the dog

Answer 1

Based purely on what I've read and heard yes.
He should also go to jail for a very long time.
There are too may macho idiots out there who think it's cool to own a vicious dog but haven't the time or the faintest idea how to train and take care of them properly.
My heart goes out for the parents though, I have a grandaughter of similar age and it would destroy me if anything like that happened to her.

Answer 2

From what I've read because of the breed that it was the law states that the owner can be held responsible for the dogs behaviour.

And considering that the owner had already been warned about the dog, yes a manslaughter charge should be brought.

I believe that the conditions for owning such a dog is that it should be muzzled in public, but in this case the dog was in it's own home where does the law stand with that?

Answer 3

Manslaughter if you accept that the owner is responsible.

Should be an offence between murder and manslaughter. Like being in the company of an armed man on a highway roibbery. Even, if you did not fire the shot that killed, you are still responsible.

Answer 4

I think it depends on what the previous warnings were for and how far his negligence fed into the attack on the little girl. For instance, if he was taking all necessary and appropriate actions for safety and something bizarre happened - then no, I don't feel that he should be punished. If however he was being reckless than yes, owners should be responsible for their dogs.

By the way, "Pit Bull" is not a breed. It's a generic term that incorporates several different breeds of dog such as the American Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier. "Pit Bulls" were bred hundreds of years ago to fight other dogs. They were NEVER bred to be aggressive or threatening to humans - it is completely against their nature. I have an AmStaff and she is wonderful and loving and goofy and I completely adore her as do by 3 year-old nephew and 1-year old niece. I also take full responsibility for her. Owners need to take responsibility for their pets and those who don't plan on treating them properly don't need to own one.

Breed specific legislation is wrong!

Answer 5

Considering the dog attacked the little girl in their home it cannot be his fault as the dog would not have needed a muzzle.If it had been someone in the street then yes he should be prosecuted.
I am sure he will feel enough pain and hate possibly from family members..
His warnings were not followed up by teh police, so maybe they should be liable !!

Answer 6

No but they should get a huge fine and some jail time only because they knew their dog was vicious...Its a guarantee they would put the dog down and the owner of the dog would be in jail as for how long is up to the courts....

Answer 7

I feel very sorry for the poor girl and my heart goes out the family, I can understand the way everyone feels about the guy who had the dog, but im sure he will be feeling it too he has to live with this for the rest of his life and who knows what it will do to his head in the future. It is a very sad lesson but i hope other owners see the danger and act on it now before anyone else gets hurt.

Answer 8

Technically Yes

Answer 9

I'm afraid it's the usual CHAV tracksuit brigade if you look at the Pic on television of the uncle laying flowers at the house. This beautiful little girl, her poor little life brought to an end by her CHAV uncles stupidity in having this type of dog because it looks HARD. Sad people have feel the need to have these sort of dogs because it's all about image!

Answer 10

I think he should, definately. He probably only had a mean looking dog so that when he was out with his mates he seemed like a "hard man" with a big, vicious dog. Grr!

Incidentally that happened about 5 minutes from my house! Terrible tragedy, especially on New Year.