fair sentence?

[sargentlard]

Why should the grandmother have to deal with the negligence of the neighbor?
Because her grandkids life is at stake?

Why does she keep the kid from running into the street? I'm not arguing that the neighboor was not negligent, but knowing that a big dog is out front, and letting the boy walk over to it is ALSO negligent. This is not placing all the blame on the grandmother, but to claim "the neighbor is at no fault in this" is in my opinion very short sighted.

Shortsighted?

Well to be fair to anyside the clear and complete facts have to be present to make a valid judgement but I still think that the neighbor is at fault.

As for the sentence - It seems more vindictive than fair. Making the convicted look at the picture constantly won't really achieve anything. Either you remind the woman of her mistake daily and let the guilt take over or worse get her sensitised to the whole incident and make her forget or not care one least bit about it anymore.

I doubt this girl had any malicious intent towards anyone let alone a 5 year old so jail time seems unneccessary. It was a horrible mistake she won't soon forget and the real abomination: the dog should be dealth with in a stern manner. This should be a warning to all those that own fairly dangerous dogs.

Or a possible push towards strict laws for those who own such dogs.

 

[Rappaccini]

The dog was the property and, thus, the responsibility, of Laster.

It was not the responsibility of the grandmother. She didn't buy the dog, of course; Laster did.

The child was the responsibilty of the grandmother, and the woman did her part and kept the child on her land. No fault there.

The fault lay in the owner, Laster, by whose negligence the dog, her charge, not her neighbor's charge, was able to trespass onto the grandmother's land.


The grandmother had no control whatsoever over that dog. It was not her possession. Therefore, legally, the grandmother cannot be held responsible.

Laster's property, the dog, did the dirty deed; she must pay for it.

 

[Persol]

Well to be fair to anyside the clear and complete facts have to be present to make a valid judgement but I still think that the neighbor is at fault.
Agreed that she is MORE at fault, and that we don't have enough info.. I don't think she is the only one though.

As for the sentence - It seems more vindictive than fair. Making the convicted look at the picture constantly won't really achieve anything.
Also agreed.

The grandmother had no control whatsoever over that dog. It was not her possession. Therefore, legally, the grandmother cannot be held responsible.
No control over the dog, but she sure as hell should have had control over the child ESPECIALLY knowing that the dog was there and how far it could reach. Leagally she can not be held responsible, but she still shares it.

 

[Raithere]

First off, keeping a wolf-hybrid in one's backyard (chained or not) is negligent. Wolf-hybrids are forbidden in many areas precisely because they are extremely unpredictable and often attack. The dog has been bred for thousands of years as a companion to man, a wolf has no such heritage. To combine the two and keep it as a pet is asking for trouble. To keep a wolf-hybrid in your back yard is the next thing to keeping a cougar and I doubt if we would be discussing culpability as stridently if the woman's 'pet' cougar mauled a child.

Secondly, the neighbor is culpable, pure and simple. Any animal would be considered an attractive nuisance in such a case. As such it is the owners responsibility not only to keep the animal within her property but to take measures to prevent someone coming on to her property and getting hurt. If you don't believe me ask anyone who owns a pool.

Regardless even of this, any dog and particularly a wolf-hybrid is a dangerous creature. Again the onus is upon the owner to secure dangerous items from the public and particularly children. If I leave my pistol on my front step I can assure you it is my fault if some child picks it up and shoots himself.

Last, in regards to the punishment, I don't find that the article gives enough information to warrant a decision. Perhaps this incident was an utter and devastating shock to the neighbor, in which case I would find the extra punishment severe. But perhaps the neighbor had been warned before, perhaps the wolf had even bitten people before and she continued to be neglectful. Or perhaps she was belligerent and unapologetic about the child death, placing the blame on him. In either of these latter cases I would find the judge's punishment just.

~Raithere

 

[15ofthe19]

If you don't believe me ask anyone who owns a pool.

Per usual, excellent point Raithere.

I almost bought a house with a pool a few years back. It had a nasty looking chain link fence around it, and it wasn't the perimeter of the property. After looking into it with the realtor, we discovered that this is code where I live. Not necessarily chain link, but it must be fenced at the perimeter of the "pool area".

Certainly wasn't the only reason I didn't buy the place, but it was a factor. I don't want the hassle.

No one is a bigger fan of the wolf than I, but I have no desire to try and domesticate one, or own a "hybrid" for that matter. I understand too much about wolf behavior to presume that I could pimp one out as a safe and reliable pet. Tragic story all the way around.

 

[Bells]

Why does she keep the kid from running into the street? I'm not arguing that the neighboor was not negligent, but knowing that a big dog is out front, and letting the boy walk over to it is ALSO negligent. This is not placing all the blame on the grandmother, but to claim "the neighbor is at no fault in this" is in my opinion very short sighted.

The kid was not in the street but was mauled in the Grandmother's yard. So by your reckoning, no one should have been allowed to walk in the Grandmother's front yard because the owner next door was too dumb to chain the dangerous dog properly.

No control over the dog, but she sure as hell should have had control over the child ESPECIALLY knowing that the dog was there and how far it could reach. Leagally she can not be held responsible, but she still shares it.

Please tell me you are joking. The child was playing in HIS grandmothers yard, where he is quite allowed to go. He was not trespassing on the neighbours property. The dog is the one who trespassed on the grandmothers property. What if this child was walking in the yard on his way to see the grandmother and he was mauled then? To use your argument, the grandmother should not allow anyone to walk in her front yard because the dog next door could attack them. She is responsible for the child, yes that is true. However she should not be held responsible for the actions of the neighbours pet. The child was playing in her yard and no one elses, a yard where he had every right to be in, the dog on the other hand had no right to be there. The article does not say if he was supervised or not. Regardless, she and her guests have EVERY right to enjoy ALL of her property without interference from others, including their rabid pets. What if this child had been attacked while walking on the footpath and the chain allowed the dog to reach said path? Would anyone else have been responsible? NO! Why should anyone be restricted in how they use all of their property because of some dumb and idiotic neighbour? If this dog had never attacked anyone before, why should the grandmother have been wary that it could attack on that particular day? The only one to blame in this sad and tragic case is the dog owner, who was irresponsible and plainly dumb to not ensure that HER dangerous dog remain on HER OWN property and not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the neighbours property.

Persol, to use your argument as an example... I could be out in my own yard shooting at targets. You are in your yard half a block away and know that I sometimes shoot at targets in my yard. I miss one target and the bullet reaches your property and hits a child playing in your front yard, killing that child. If I were to use your blind argument Persol, I could say that you were responsible for the child in your yard and that you should share some of the blame as you were aware that some stray bullets could come whizzing by as you know that I sometimes shoot in my backyard. See how silly it sounds?

 

[alain]

jail has two purposes; punishment of the guilty, and prevention of it happening again
As far as punishment goes, it is effective, yet evil, the kids death would already have haunted her for the rest of her life, prevention is already achieved, rubbing salt in the wounds therefore must only be as a punishment.

As to, the woman being evil because she let the dog reach into the neighbours yard. Dogs arent just murderers, they are also pets, maybe the kid liked the dog and the Grandmother asked for the dog to have a longer lead, please, be more careful before you label anyone evil

 

[Raithere]

As far as punishment goes, it is effective, yet evil, the kids death would already have haunted her for the rest of her life, prevention is already achieved, rubbing salt in the wounds therefore must only be as a punishment.

You're assuming this.

I know quite a few people in the Veterinary industry and I assure you there are plenty of people who absolutely do not think that it's their responsibility if their dog attacks someone. I know of one case where a woman found it 'ridiculous' and was quite pissed that she had to pay for her dog to be under rabies observation for 10 days after biting a child on the hand without provocation (the 2 year old wanted to pet the 'doggy' that was on the front lawn). The dog was so violent that it had to be sedated for the Dr. to even examine it. The Dr. informed her that she was in denial and unless she brought the dog to training she would probably be coming back. The woman did not care.

Like I said, there isn't enough information in the article to be sure. She may have been devastated by the incident or she may not have given a shit except for the trouble she was in. Perhaps she needs to be reminded every day that a child died because of her neglect.

~Raithere

 

[cosmictraveler]

Whoever owns a dog is the person that is responsible for its behavior and will have to suffer the consequences of the dogs deeds even on their own property. If a postal employee were to go onto the yard where a dog is chained and were to be bitten that dogs owner will be held liable for the attack and whatever monies that it may cause in damages to the postal carrier.

Anyone who has animals are responsible for them and when children are around them more care should be given to insure the safety of the children. Just because the owner isn't around or the animal escapes doesn't let the owner off the legal "hook".

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

If giving her a photo's too weird for you guys then how about we tie her to a stake and burn her while poking her with pitchforks on 8 ft poles?

 

[FNG2k4]

No no she could be a witch. We have to tie her up and throw her in a pond to see if she floats first. Perhaps the hybrid wolf was her familiar

If she does then we can do that.

If giving her a photo's too weird for you guys then how about we tie her to a stake and burn her while poking her with pitchforks on 8 ft poles?

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

No no she could be a witch. We have to tie her up and throw her in a pond to see if she floats first. Perhaps the hybrid wolf was her familiar. If she does then we can do that.

Yes, yes. I was assuming that she had ALREADY been proven a witch otherwise she wouldn't be in gaol. But in the meantime, do you mean the Swedish pond test or the English one? In one version you float if you're a witch because you can fly, and are therefore light, another if you SINK then you're a witch because you're weighed down with sin.

Or perhaps we could just chuck her in the water and make it up when we see the result? heh heh... sounds good!

 

[FNG2k4]

We'll just test both. If she sinks obviously shes a really bad witch and we have to be careful, if she floats shes still a witch just not as sinful.

 

[zanket]

The length of the chain hardly matters. You can’t put a tripwire attached to a shotgun on your property and then blame a trespasser for getting blown away. The dog’s owner is responsible for taking reasonable measures to protect others from the dog. Many owners take the risk for docile dogs (e.g. letting them roam). If your dog mauls someone, you better hope the person climbed over your fence.

As far as the sentence goes, it would not be cruel if, for instance, the judge were including the photo in lieu of a longer or full-time sentence. Judges have some leeway to impose an unusual sentence if they feel it will work better than a normal sentence.

 

[desiredleo2000]

I knew the woman who was the dog owner. Her dog was the sweetest dog ever. She had told the neighbors to keep away from the dog and had signs posted every where to beware the dog. The child's parents were stupid enough not to watch their child. The kid had food in his hand and the dog wanted it. He did not mean to hurt the kid. He loved kids. It is unfair how court works these days. I miss my friend and i hate the kid's parents for not being responsible for their child!!!!

 

[zanket]

Your hatred is unfounded. Dogs that can hurt a kid--even if they don't mean to--belong behind a fence. The dog owner was irresponsible.

 

[Everett_]

In this case I would think a guardian would be equally, if not more, responsible. If a canyon has been gouged into one's backyard one doesn't allow their child to toe the line--similarly, if one is aware that there is a dangerous animal next door they should know to take precautions. Tackling the problem head-on (discussing her concerns with the neighbor, alerting higher authorities) would have been sufficient. Theoretically it's fine to say that the dog is entirely the neighbor's responsibility, but the brutal fact of the matter is, if you live by it, it's your problem whether you like it or not. Ignoring a situation that breeds so much concern simply because you feel you 'shouldn't have to deal with it' is absurd and equally irresponsible. If punishment is truly necessary, the woman should be saddled with an albatross relevant to the crime; hanging a picture of the boy in her cell is not going to shorten the chain or assuage the guilt of either party.

 

[Bells]

I knew the woman who was the dog owner. Her dog was the sweetest dog ever. She had told the neighbors to keep away from the dog and had signs posted every where to beware the dog.

Hmmm... if the dog was the "sweetest dog ever" why would she have the beware signs and why had she had to warn the neighbours? But this does not matter in this case. It was the dog who approached the child and attacked, not the other way around.

The child's parents were stupid enough not to watch their child.

The child was in his grandmother's back yard. The parents could have been sitting right next to their child and that dog could still have attacked him. There are countless reports of dogs attacking children in the presence of their parents. Maybe the dog owner is the stupid one for not having better control on 'puppy'. The dog entered another person's property and attacked a child. Not the other way around.

The kid had food in his hand and the dog wanted it.

Huh? So the child is not allowed to eat outside in his grandmother's yard because the dog next door might want it and jump the fence? What in the hell kind of mentality is that? The child had food in his hand and was in his grandmother's yard. One would think that he should be free to do so. One would expect that the owner of the dog would keep her animal on her property. Whether the dog wanted the food in the child's hands is irrelevant. The dog should not have been there for the simple reason that the dog's owner was irresponsible and failed in her duty of care in keeping the dog on her property and away from others and away from the property of others. You claimed above that this dog was the sweetest dog ever, yet this dog attacked a child because he had food in his hands. Yeah real sweet.

He did not mean to hurt the kid. He loved kids.

If he did not mean to hurt the kid, then why did he jump the fence and attack a child? Because the child had food in his hands? Attacking a child because they have food in their hands does not show love. What it does show however is that your friend's dog was a rabid menace and your friend was an irresponsible owner who should have kept her dog within her yard. Putting up signs about the dog is not enough. The dog must also be restrained so that he does not pause a harm to the general public. Such restraints could take the form of adequate fencing that the dog cannot jump over or dig under or a lead. When you own a dog, it is not for the public to protect themselves against your dog, it is for you to protect them against your dog.

It is unfair how court works these days.

Tell me something, would your reaction be the same if it were your child that dog had mauled?

I miss my friend and i hate the kid's parents for not being responsible for their child!!!!

Well your friend would still be around if she had been a responsible dog owner. It was your friend's dog that entered the neighbours yard and attacked a child, because as you have claimed, the child had food in his hand and the dog wanted it. And you call the parents irresponsible? What should they have done? Locked the child in the house while he ate? Should the grandmother not allow anyone to eat in her yard in case the dog next door wants the food and attacks? The dog owner was completely irresponsible, not the parents.