So so so mad

[JulieB361]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey everyone,

I am in such a crappy situation with my dog. She is a very sweet boxer mix who is well trained. As a soon to be vet student I do everything I can for her including vaccines, heartworm prevention, even enrichment toys. Our housing development does not allow fences so we have invisible fence.

Two days ago a neighbor kid cut through our back yard carrying a very large folded up soccer goal with poles sticking out of it. She saw him in the yard and ran up to him with my mom's two dogs. She is never aggressive to people in our yard or in general but she was barking. He panicked and hit her with the goal thing and she let out a loud yelp and then bit his leg.

I am supposed to move to North Carolina for the summer on Monday to spend the summer with my boyfriend who just got home from a deployment. I got a letter in the mail today that says she has to be confined to my yard for 10 days and then checked by a vet before she can go even though she is up to date on vaccines. We wouldn't be able to move until Saturday. I understand why they have to have this policy, but I am just so mad at this kid. It would have been so easy to just walk on the street and stay out of my yard and none of this would have happened.

Has something like this every happened to any of you?😡

 

[Trilt]

Not my personal story, but a teacher of mine had her GSD poisoned 😱 by her neighbor after she (the dog) bit their backyard-traveling, outdoor cat. People are insane.

 

[pawprints]

That must be so frustrating, and I empathize with you...If your neighbour had just respected private property, and walked the extra few steps, this whole situation could have been avoided...Hopefully he's learned his lesson!

ps. Is your dog ok after being hit with the pole???

 

[BR549]

I'm sorry for the misfortune. I think the 10 days is protocol, regardless of vaccination history. We have kept dogs at the vet's office that bit people for the 10 days.

My cousin shot my 12 year old dog because he blamed her for his aggressive Florida Curr getting hit in the road (He was running across the road to jump on my dog!😡) They also shot one of my male ostriches after he attacked a man that was walking (trespassing) through our pasture. At least you don't have to have her put down.

I'd of bit him too, if he hit me with a stick!😉

 

[vnair2]

That kid is a real dick. You should demand that he be confined to his yard. I dont know if I would want a stick wielding trespasser wandering all over my neighborhood.

 

[1Vista1Grey]

I'm sorry for the misfortune. I think the 10 days is protocol, regardless of vaccination history. We have kept dogs at the vet's office that bit people for the 10 days.

My cousin shot my 12 year old dog because he blamed her for his aggressive Florida Curr getting hit in the road (He was running across the road to jump on my dog!😡) They also shot one of my male ostriches after he attacked a man that was walking (trespassing) through our pasture. At least you don't have to have her put down.

I'd of bit him too, if he hit me with a stick!😉

No offense.. but your cousin sounds like a dick

 

[ckgilabert]

That kid is a real dick. You should demand that he be confined to his yard. I dont know if I would want a stick wielding trespasser wandering all over my neighborhood.

I agree. I think it's stupid that YOUR dog is being blamed for staying in HIS backyard and PROTECTING himself!

stupid people shouldn't breed.

 

[vnair2]

stupid people shouldn't breed.

I have never agreed with any statement more.

edit:

No offense.. but your cousin sounds like a dick

I was thinking that, but I didnt want to say it. BR549's cousin needs a solid beating to set him straight. I would volunteer if I wasnt so small, weak, and afraid of him shooting me.

 

[CatVet2Be]

That's awful! 😡 The dog shouldn't be blamed for defending herself. I can guarantee if it had been my dg she would've bitten him too. Hell, so would I if I got hit with a stick. Did his family call animal control or was it at the doctor's office? If his family did then I would call his parents and talk with them about their son trespassing on your property, or if they're real jerks about it I would consider filing trespassing charges on him.


Kind of related story, we had a client with one of the sweetest pits you will ever meet. We had to sedate him to look up his nose because he'd been sneezing blood and one of the techs was bitten while holding his mouth open to intubate him. Totally not his fault but since she had to see the doctor it got reported to animal control. We made it clear the dog was under anesthesia and did not do this on purpose in any way but he still needed to be quarantined for 10 days. Unfortunately the owner in a panic called her home insurance because her friend told her they were going to raise her rates and as a result of reporting a pit bull bite, they dropped her from her home insurance. 😱 Talk about making a bad situation worse.


And on a personal note, many years ago our GSD bit one of the neighbor kids on the butt as he was riding his bike in front of our house. His dad came over that night livid at us until I explained that she went after him because he used to run over her tail on purpose when she was a puppy. Suddenly dad wasn't so mad at us anymore. 🙄

 

[Pandacinny]

To clarify a little, the quarantine period has absolutely nothing to do with "nice" vs "mean" dogs or with intentional vs unintentional bites. It's a public health thing. Animal bites that break the skin = quarantine just in case. Nice animals can still carry rabies and rabies is a pretty dangerous disease, so the quarantine rules seem to go with a "better safe than sorry" approach. The quarantine period may differ by area, depending on your state or county laws.

I'm sure you all know this, but there are a lot of "He wasn't even trying to bite and he still got quarantined" and "my dog was just defending himself!" comments going on, so I figured I'd toss that out there.

 

[CatVet2Be]

I understand the reasons behind the quarantine laws. My issue is more on the stigma and that dogs will have a "mark" agains them in animal control records. The records don't always reflect what really occurred in the situation and sometimes all someone needs to hear is "so and so" bit a person and that dog is now tagged as aggressive. Imagine you're a neighbor that finds out the (insert controversial breed) dog 2 houses down is being quarantined because of a bite.

 

[Pandacinny]

Right, I get what you're saying, too. It just didn't look that way in the original post so I was clarifying. We get a lot of new people on this site who might not be aware of quarantine rules and how they work.

It may be because I live in a pretty well populated, busy area, but I wouldn't know if my neighbor's dogs were quarantined. Everyone near me keeps to themselves more or less and if I didn't see my neighbor's dogs for a few days, I wouldn't think twice about it. I can see where this would be more of a problem if you had nosy neighbors or something like that. In a situation like you described, I'd be sure to ask the vet if he or she would write something up regarding the circumstances of the bite. That way, if my dog's temperament was ever called into question, I'd have something to indicate that she didn't just attack someone with no notice.

Unfortunately, dealing with these types of issues is just a part of owning some breeds. 🙁

 

[sumstorm]

Unfortunately, dealing with these types of issues is just a part of owning some breeds. 🙁

And living in areas that don't allow real barrier fences that keep the obnoxious creatures out while keeping the beloved creatures in.

I understand it isn't an option for the OP at this juncture of their life. We have a rule in our household; if there isn't a barrier likely to keep aggressive or obnoxious creatures (including humans out) all dogs are leash walked or only allowed in the yard with direct supervision. I realize it sounds unreasonable, but I knew of way too many similar incidents (or far worse) while living in the commuter region of NYC.

 

[No Imagination]

Two things to the OP.

One - Why did the dog bite? I am not saying I don't agree with the dog. Not saying the kid didn't deserve to be bitten. Not saying I blame the dog... BUT, most dogs, especially boxers, would rather run away when confronted that bite back.

Just a personal thought, i've never seen a non-aggressive dog bite someone when they were not A) cornered, B) being restrained, C) in pain/restrained, D) protecting their "turf".

Your story doesn't paint any of those scenario's in my mind.

Two, you are lucky you are not being sued. Doesn't matter who was right or wrong, Dog vs. Kid, kid wins, Dog/owner pays +95% of the time.

 

[dgm]

Just a personal thought, i've never seen a non-aggressive dog bite someone when they were not A) cornered, B) being restrained, C) in pain/restrained, D) protecting their "turf".

Your story doesn't paint any of those scenario's in my mind.

Really? I'd think it would fall into category "D". The kid walked into the OP's yard (dog's turf), and then hit the dog. The dog biting back sounds a lot like an attempt to protect its turf, to me...

 

[No Imagination]

Really? I'd think it would fall into category "D". The kid walked into the OP's yard (dog's turf), and then hit the dog. The dog biting back sounds a lot like an attempt to protect its turf, to me...

Dunno,

She is never aggressive to people in our yard or in general but she was barking...

It could be category"D", but if thats the case, then the OP should have known that their dog would react that way, and not let the dog loose without being leashed, their property or not - As "who is right" doesn't always equal who we be faulted...

 

[Catnapper]

Doesn't matter who was right or wrong, Dog vs. Kid, kid wins, Dog/owner pays +95% of the time.

Unfortunately, this is so typical--little kids (boys) throwing rocks at dogs, taunting dogs, walking through dogs' yards, and who pays? The dog. Because children = precious, infallible treasures who are beyond all discipline.

 

[Ninnerfish]

Ugh. Most children reaffirm my belief that abortion is wasted on the unborn.

 

[eatpinkpenguins]

Dunno,



It could be category"D", but if thats the case, then the OP should have known that their dog would react that way, and not let the dog loose without being leashed, their property or not - As "who is right" doesn't always equal who we be faulted...

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think most dog owners have strangers run into their dogs yards and hit them with sticks, just to be sure they wouldn't react aggressively

 

[dgm]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think most dog owners have strangers run into their dogs yards and hit them with sticks, just to be sure they wouldn't react aggressively

LOL. Why ever not? How irresponsible of them! 😉

...But I do understand the point others are making. Right or wrong, if a parent decides to push the issue, kid trumps dog almost every time, even when the dog's actions seem pretty darn reasonable. In that respect, it sounds like the OP may be lucky to be dealing with somewhat reasonable people here. And Sumstorm's idea about having a physical fence or always walking the dogs on-leash, while something of a PITA, also sounds like a very good way to limit liability.

 

[No Imagination]

DGM, You pretty much nailed it on the head, push comes to shove, kid is going to win.

And the KID should win... 100% of the time, like it or not.

In this case, it was Kid on Property, Kid Hits Dog, Dog Bites (sounds minor)...

But like it or not, the OP and the dog are at fault IMO. What if... and it could have happened... What if the dog KILLED the kid?!

Sounds extreme, but a dog that bites is also able to bite on the neck, cause an embolism, who knows or cares, that dog, could have killed that kid.

Having a dog is a LIABILITY in this day an age, and we (owners) needs to treat them as such. The law is not as black and white or as fair as you think. Just because it is 'your' property, doesn't mean you can use lethal force to keep people out or off it (a for instance, no lethal 'traps' are allowed in your house or outside to get burglars).

In this situation, yeah, the kid was wrong, the dog was justified, BUT - legally, and I think if we all think about it, the kid/parents can and should win a lawsuit (at minimum to have the dog declared dangerous).

10 days survallence is getting off easy, but from now on, i'd make sure signs are posted or whatever, because you now know the dog is capable of attacking someone, provoked or otherwise.

 

[Trilt]

DGM, You pretty much nailed it on the head, push comes to shove, kid is going to win.

And the KID should win... 100% of the time, like it or not.

In this case, it was Kid on Property, Kid Hits Dog, Dog Bites (sounds minor)...

But like it or not, the OP and the dog are at fault IMO. What if... and it could have happened... What if the dog KILLED the kid?!

Sounds extreme, but a dog that bites is also able to bite on the neck, cause an embolism, who knows or cares, that dog, could have killed that kid.

Having a dog is a LIABILITY in this day an age, and we (owners) needs to treat them as such. The law is not as black and white or as fair as you think. Just because it is 'your' property, doesn't mean you can use lethal force to keep people out or off it (a for instance, no lethal 'traps' are allowed in your house or outside to get burglars).

In this situation, yeah, the kid was wrong, the dog was justified, BUT - legally, and I think if we all think about it, the kid/parents can and should win a lawsuit (at minimum to have the dog declared dangerous).

10 days survallence is getting off easy, but from now on, i'd make sure signs are posted or whatever, because you now know the dog is capable of attacking someone, provoked or otherwise.

The kid/parents "can" win a lawsuit, but I strongly disagree that they "should."

Like it or not, the kid was walking on someone else's property, even when another path was completely available. That kid, when approached by three barking dogs, did not back off or act calm... he decided it would be intelligent to hit the dog with a soccer goal. If these parents think that their son is old enough to travel outside without their supervision, and he makes the decision to whack a dog who was greeting him with a pole... yeah, I think the dog's owner "should" win in court.

This is especially considering that the OP says her housing development doesn't allow real, b&m fences- the parents should be more responsible with their child. The dog owner was fully responsible for her dog (on her property,) and is in no way at fault here.

...because you now know the dog is capable of attacking someone, provoked or otherwise.

Every animal is capable of attacking someone.

 

[No Imagination]

The dog owner was fully responsible for her dog (on her property,) and is in no way at fault here.

I disagree.

What if the dog attacked and killed the kid...

Every animal is capable of attacking someone.

This is true, but having a record that it has happened before is different and what I meant to convey.

Slightly different analogy but I believe if fits,

If you have a swimming pool, and a kid runs through your yard, takes a midnight dip, whatever, and ends up drowning, you are NEGLIGENT, and are LIABLE. Even if you have 100 signs posted saying "STAY OFF" "NO TRESPASSING", "NO SWIMMING", "GET OFF MY LAWN".

If you have a swimming pool, least in NY and NJ (and I assume most other states), you need a +8' fence and a LOCKED gate.

I don't see whats different about a dog then a swimming pool...

 

[dgm]

I disagree.

What if the dog attacked and killed the kid...

If you have a swimming pool, and a kid runs through your yard, takes a midnight dip, whatever, and ends up drowning, you are NEGLIGENT, and are LIABLE. Even if you have 100 signs posted saying "STAY OFF" "NO TRESPASSING", "NO SWIMMING", "GET OFF MY LAWN".

If you have a swimming pool, least in NY and NJ (and I assume most other states), you need a +8' fence and a LOCKED gate.

I don't see whats different about a dog than a swimming pool...

The fact that a law says something, or that a precedent has been set in previous lawsuits, does not necessarily mean that thing is "right". I am able to make a distinction between how things are and how I think they should be. I think that if the dog had attacked and killed the kid, the dog should probably be put down, but I don't think that the owners should be responsible to the kid's parents beyond that.

The law SAYS you are liable for kids who wander into your pool, but I happen to think it is BS that pool owners can be held responsible for a kid taking a dip uninvited and then drowning. Some kids live near rivers or lakes; I assume that in those cases, their parents are expected to watch their kids and make sure they don't do anything stupid. I really don't think that it should be any different if you happen to raise your kids near a pool.

But I guess we're getting way off topic now. 🙂 We probably all can agree that this is an unfortunate situation for the OP to be in!

 

[Trilt]

Dgm hit on my response already- I was arguing between "can" and "should." The legal system's opinion on midnight drownings has no impact on how I believe a dog's owner "should" be held responsible. It does have an impact on how it "can" be.

(And if you personally believe a person "should" be held liable for a punk taking a midnight dip and subsequently drowning in their pool in the middle of the night... wow, we have some serious differences in perceptions.)

Also, what if the kid was killed? That doesn't change the fact that his parents should have been watching him, and that he shouldn't have been traveling through the yard of someone who has a dog capable of doing so. I'm honestly not even sure that I agree the dog should be put down. I believe that human life has a higher value than animals, but I don't justify killing an animal for defending itself (after being attacked on its own turf!)

Mmm, and let me clarify that. If the dog bit from self defense and happened to hit something important, I don't 100% believe it should be put down. In the case of a dog purposefully mauling a human... yeah, perfectly justified there.

 

[sumstorm]

I disagree.

What if the dog attacked and killed the kid...

If you have a swimming pool, and a kid runs through your yard, takes a midnight dip, whatever, and ends up drowning, you are NEGLIGENT, and are LIABLE. Even if you have 100 signs posted saying "STAY OFF" "NO TRESPASSING", "NO SWIMMING", "GET OFF MY LAWN".

If you have a swimming pool, least in NY and NJ (and I assume most other states), you need a +8' fence and a LOCKED gate.

I don't see whats different about a dog than a swimming pool...

I realize it has been a few years since I lived in NJ and NY, but there was NOT a statute requiring 8' fences in any of the areas I lived in. There were ordinances (at the county level) requiring fences, but most didn't define height. Most pool fencing contractors advertise 5' fences, and many offer 3' as well. Could you provide a citation for the ordinance?

Also, trespassing statutes and ordinances vary by state, county, and municipality, as do dog bite statutes and ordinances. Blanket statements create confusion and are misleading.

I personally dislike invisible fences, as noted previously. I also dislike the assumption that everyone in the world is responsible for a child who is not their own, and should do everything possible (including not having dogs, or pools, or any other potentially dangerous thing like, oh, cars) to protect a child whose own parents are not training or educating their child in how to properly conduct themselves.

I had to sit through a court ruling on a child's death because my former sister-in-law ran over child who rode her bicycle between 2 cars on her parents property and straight into the driveway that my sister-in-law was driving down (steeply sloped.) The child died. It was the worst day of SIL's life. It was not, morally or legally, her fault.

This child was NOT killed. I assume the bite wasn't a horrific mauling, or animal control or police would have announced the confinement in person on the day of the incident, not by mail 2 days later. If it was really bad, they would probably have seized the dog pending court action. There are cases where bites happen and the child's poor choices do not outrule the dog's inability to defend itself with means other than biting and the dog has not been deemed dangerous, destroyed, increasingly restricted or otherwise. Many dangerous dog laws specifically site an exception when the dog is on the property of the owner and/or defending the property. There is a reason for that.

Obvsiouly, the child made a poor choice, and the dog responded poorly to being hit. Hopefully the dog will relocate with it's owner to a place where a solid fence can be used, and the child has learned a valuable lesson. While there are places that have draconian rules about solitary bites of tresspassers, there are also places where breeds are banned. Because it is true of one place does not make it true or valid of all places.

 

[No Imagination]

As you guys already mentioned, I too was referring to Can vs. Should vs. Ought in my argument. All I wanted to stress, to the OP and overall, was they (OP) was getting of very easy... could have been worse.

Kids do stupid things - some of them pay dearly for it, others learn their lessons the hard way. We don't know enough about the situation to make specific judgments, granted, but just wanted to express how (especially in cities), it becomes YOUR responsibility to protect your ***** and Assets.

Sum... 8' fence is NYC. I know a very similar law/ordinance is in Redbank NJ. As you mentioned, it is probably a City/Ordinance level law, but it is also probably a "To cover your own ***** law" as well.

 

[Airborne Vet]

If someone struck me with a weapon after I told them to get off my property...I'd probably hurt them too.

Sorry this popped up with everything else going on in your life. Tell your boyfriend we said thank you for his service.

 

[sumstorm]

Sum... 8' fence is NYC. I know a very similar law/ordinance is in Redbank NJ. As you mentioned, it is probably a City/Ordinance level law, but it is also probably a "To cover your own ***** law" as well.

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/code/currpoolreq.htm

That was what we had to abide by for a NYC commuter home. The requirement was 4', but I dont' know about the heart of NYC....I don't remember many pools outside of buildings.

 

[JulieB361]

Thanks everyone for your support. I completely understand the necessity of the 10 day confinement for public health reasons and I am not angry with this rule. What I am angry with is the crappiness of the situation and the terrible timing. Just to clarify, she bit his leg and then backed off immediately. The kid went to the doctor and didn't even need any stitches but the doctor reported it because they had to. There is nothing stopping the people from suing at this point and I hope that they don't. Also, the kid is 13 and over 5 feet tall. He is not a small child and she is only 35 lbs. The invisible fence stuff doesn't even matter anymore because once we move we will not have it anymore.

In respone to no imagination you can put the incident in whatever category you want. I was not aware that my dog would react that way because she has never shown any kind of aggression before. However, she has never been hit by a stick before. Obviously I will take every precaution I can to avoid this in the future. I am also aware that anything my dog does is completely my responsibilty.

I mainly just started this thread because I was upset and wanted to vent about it. I figured many people in this community would at least know people who had been in similar situations.

 

[BR549]

No offense.. but your cousin sounds like a dick

Yes, he is!! And a meth addict to boot!

 

[BR549]

Just a personal thought, i've never seen a non-aggressive dog bite someone when they were not A) cornered, B) being restrained, C) in pain/restrained, D) protecting their "turf".

This list is misleading. I think that we must remember that animals, are just that, animals. They do not have the cognitive ability that (most😛) humans possess. An animal will react naturally (without "thinking") to certain stimuli. An animal that is hit unexpectedly may react instinctively and snap/bite someone. The dog did not hold on or bite again, so I would say that no aggression was displayed. Also, fear biters may react to sudden movements (e.g. A 100 pound plus, 5 ft.+, boy with a big stick hovering over a smaller 35 pound frame). The dog was probably more shocked and scared than actually hurt and reacted instinctively.

We could "what if" all day, but that would not change the facts of the incident that actually occurred. The animal did NOT kill the boy or inflict major wounds. I don't think that the animal acted aggressively, just instinctively. IMHO.

 

[jglovicz]

I'm so sorry! Your situation is really tough...

but from now on, i'd make sure signs are posted or whatever, because you now know the dog is capable of attacking someone, provoked or otherwise.

I've actually heard that this is the wrong thing to do. When I moved to CA (it may be a state thing), I was told that if you have a "beware of dog" sign, you are admitting that you have a 'vicious/man-eating/dangerous' dog and admitting 'negligence' if something were to happen. It might make the situation worse--that said, if I have a "no trespassing" sign on my property, and someone falls and breaks their leg when they are trespassing, I could still be sued...isn't America wonderful?

 

[Ninnerfish]

This may not be a popular opinion, and I'll probably get flak for it, but whatever. I'm tired of the notion that everyone's children are "precious" and we all have to sacrifice to keep them safe from themselves even when their own parents are too stupid to take care of them or teach them common sense. If a kid has shoddy parents who don't bother teaching them how to not do stupid, life-endangering things and the kid dies or gets maimed by doing one of those things, I consider it natural selection. People who choose not to have children shouldn't be held responsible for raising or watching out for someone else's offspring and certainly shouldn't be prosecuted for injury caused to said child when that child does something foolish on their property. It sucks that our legal system is set up to coddle *****s.

 

[sumstorm]

I've actually heard that this is the wrong thing to do. When I moved to CA (it may be a state thing), I was told that if you have a "beware of dog" sign, you are admitting that you have a 'vicious/man-eating/dangerous' dog and admitting 'negligence' if something were to happen. It might make the situation worse--that said, if I have a "no trespassing" sign on my property, and someone falls and breaks their leg when they are trespassing, I could still be sued...isn't America wonderful?

I have been advised to post 'cute' dog signs rather than warnings. So, at the gate, we have 'Old dog, young dog, and several stupid dogs live here, drive slowly please.' It lets people know there are multiple dogs on the property. We also have a gate that can't be opened without a security code.

The liability stuff is changing....then again, law is typically a dynamic process.

 

[sumstorm]

An animal that is hit unexpectedly may react instinctively and snap/bite someone. The dog did not hold on or bite again, so I would say that no aggression was displayed. Also, fear biters may react to sudden movements (e.g. A 100 pound plus, 5 ft.+, boy with a big stick hovering over a smaller 35 pound frame).

Actually, bigger and wider.... thanks to the addition of the bike and the goal. Dogs don't always generalize that odd looking humans are still humans...and I bet a person on a bike carrying a goal would look pretty odd to most of us if we were only given a silhoute (not saying that is how the dog saw it, but that when things are 'off' they are more discomforting to must creatures, dogs and humans included.) I keep thinking of some of the more extreme body modifications like spikes inserted on the head and how someone might react if they found that person running across their yard... maybe they would shout for them to get away, and react poorly if smacked with a stick. Alien conspiracy, anyone?

 

[jglovicz]

I have been advised to post 'cute' dog signs rather than warnings. So, at the gate, we have 'Old dog, young dog, and several stupid dogs live here, drive slowly please.' It lets people know there are multiple dogs on the property. We also have a gate that can't be opened without a security code.

The liability stuff is changing....then again, law is typically a dynamic process.

Haha, that's a good point 🙂...it's a good idea to post "cute" signs--because you aren't saying anything about "you need to be careful because my dogs might be vicious". PS, I love that sign...I wonder if there is one like that for my kitties🙂

 

[InfiniVet]

This may not be a popular opinion, and I'll probably get flak for it, but whatever. I'm tired of the notion that everyone's children are "precious" and we all have to sacrifice to keep them safe from themselves even when their own parents are too stupid to take care of them or teach them common sense. If a kid has shoddy parents who don't bother teaching them how to not do stupid, life-endangering things and the kid dies or gets maimed by doing one of those things, I consider it natural selection. People who choose not to have children shouldn't be held responsible for raising or watching out for someone else's offspring and certainly shouldn't be prosecuted for injury caused to said child when that child does something foolish on their property. It sucks that our legal system is set up to coddle *****s.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Awesome!! =)

 

[dgm]

Actually, bigger and wider.... thanks to the addition of the bike and the goal. Dogs don't always generalize that odd looking humans are still humans...and I bet a person on a bike carrying a goal would look pretty odd to most of us if we were only given a silhoute

Where did the bike come from? I must have missed that part.

 

[StillDreaming]

ugh this totally sucks, but honestly doesn't surprise me...

It's just like the story (so often told because its ridiculous) about the woman who spilled her hot coffee on herself and sued McDonalds (or some other fast food chain) for not telling her it was hot when she bought it 😕...

The parents sound like they are just looking for someone to blame because they can't blame their poor innoncent sweet child... (please note i type this with HUGE sarcastic undertones... just thought i would clarify 🙂)

sorry about this, that really sucks

 

[No Imagination]

This may not be a popular opinion, and I'll probably get flak for it, but whatever. I'm tired of the notion that everyone's children are "precious" and we all have to sacrifice to keep them safe from themselves even when their own parents are too stupid to take care of them or teach them common sense. If a kid has shoddy parents who don't bother teaching them how to not do stupid, life-endangering things and the kid dies or gets maimed by doing one of those things, I consider it natural selection. People who choose not to have children shouldn't be held responsible for raising or watching out for someone else's offspring and certainly shouldn't be prosecuted for injury caused to said child when that child does something foolish on their property. It sucks that our legal system is set up to coddle *****s.

Ok - I guess I will be the one to come out against this statement (not personally), but I see a lot of "^" and "QFT", so... and I do love a good argument

"Have you never done anything stupid, despite what your parents (or common sense) has taught you otherwise"? Maybe I was just a bit more rambunctious and cavalier in my youth, but being a kid means doing stupid things, its a part of having fun as a child and growing up - Perhaps the midwest has a different opinion on it then where I grew up in Brooklyn, but their, everyone looked out of everyone else's kids - regardless if you had/have one of your own. I imagine, if you found a kid lost and wandering (and trespassing) in your corn field, you would not "Well, parents should have taught him to use a compass", and released the hounds.

I think its funny that the "big bad city" has such a different opinion on the matter.

and yes, society as a whole has a responsibility to protect children - who do stupid things. Children do not equal adults, which is why they are not allowed to drink, drive, vote, ect. They are not little people - we do not hold them to the same levels as adults for that very reason.

'm tired of the notion that everyone's children are "precious" and we all have to sacrifice to keep them safe from themselves even when their own parents are too stupid to take care of them or teach them common sense.

Of course we have to sacrifice. We all have to slow down while driving when approaching a school or playground - not because they (kids) don't know better, but because they are kids and they do stupid things (despite being taught otherwise) like running into the street without looking.

People who choose not to have children shouldn't be held responsible for raising or watching out for someone else's offspring and certainly shouldn't be prosecuted for injury caused to said child when that child does something foolish on their property.

And people who choose not to have offspring shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools...

The penalty for trespassing (esp. when no fences are up), should not be death (either by dog or gun). Some of these statements go so far from accepted sociological norms, that it is frightening. Like it or not, as a member of 'this' society, you DO have a responsibility to look out for other peoples children (to an extent), otherwise, their would be no orphanages.

I have a feeling that the post is a bit exaggerated and perhaps even sarcastic, but still wanted to set the record straight that it is a bit extreme, and upon review, not one that I believe should be taken literally.

Maybe I am mistaken, and you believe exactly what you typed, if so, then we can further debate the issue 🙂

 

[Ninnerfish]

Natural selection. Of course, if a kid ran in front of my car, I'll brake for him just like I do for squirrels, but I think his parents should be beaten about the face and neck for not keeping an eye on him and I certainly shouldn't be held responsible for hurting him if I did hit him.

And people who choose not to have offspring shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools...

I never said that. Education funding is necessary regardless of whether you have children or not because educating kids makes *some of them* not dumb.

The penalty for trespassing (esp. when no fences are up), should not be death (either by dog or gun). Some of these statements go so far from accepted sociological norms, that it is frightening. Like it or not, as a member of 'this' society, you DO have a responsibility to look out for other peoples children (to an extent), otherwise, their would be no orphanages.

But if a neighbor's dog runs onto your property (at least where I live), you have a right to grab your gun and shoot it. I am NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, pro-gun, but if that logic applies to random animals on your property, at the very least a human trespasser should not be able to hold you responsible for injury they incur during the act of trespassing.

If your picture of the kid-raising commune of NYC is the ideal to be embraced by us all, then it follows that I should be allowed to discipline others' children as I see fit since I'm supposed to look out for them and help raise them. So next time I see some screaming brat running loose in a restaurant while his parents sit idly by, I'm going to give him a good spanking and put him in time out with his nose in a corner and see how that goes over with the 'rents. I doubt they'll see it as "it takes a village to raise a child". No. I refuse to take responsibility for someone else's horrible little uterine dumplings nor should I be forced to. If I saw a kid being abducted or drowning, would I help it? Yes. But if something unfortunate were to happen to said child in my backyard, where that child had no permission to be, it's not my fault and to say it is is merely a reflection of the litigious society we live in where it's okay to blame your own intellectual shortcomings on other people.

 

[Mylez]

Ninnerfish, you rock.

As the owner of a fear aggressive dog, I make every effort to keep her safe and to protect myself from a lawsuit. She is always leashed until we are fenced and away from other people. She wears a bandanna requesting that people not pet her in big, bold letters.

If someone comes onto my property (fenced, mind you) and is attacked by her, I had better not be sued. Child or not - it's my property, and I shoudl feel safe to leave my dog out in my own yard. Similarly, if I am out walking my dog and I request that you not pet her and you persist and I can't keep her away from your wandering hands, and you get bit - you had better not sue me (even though I know that you can, which is such BS!) Similarly, if your kid runs over to me and tries to grab my dog without asking and she bites them, you have no right (IMO) to sue me for the bite. I make every effort to keep my dog safe from children, but she has been grabbed a handful of times by wayward, obnoxious kids whose parents never taught them to not pet strange dogs without permission. Thankfully I've managed to hand muzzle my dog when the incident occurs and she hasn't bitten a child, but should I really be responsible for your kid if I make every effort to keep them off the dog? (Please don't pet my dog. She is not nice. Here's a bandanna saying so. I am blocking you from the dog)...

If the yard isn't fenced, obviously she's on a leash and it's not a problem.

I have a friend who works animal control - and it really sounds like the parents may have nothign to do at all with this case. They took their kid in to have the bite examined, and the doctor is REQUIRED to report all animal bites, regardless of cause. If the animal control officer thought the dog was actually aggressive, there'd be an aggressive dog offense.

 

[CatVet2Be]

I refuse to take responsibility for someone else's horrible little uterine dumplings nor should I be forced to.

🤣OMG! I love you!

I also think we've created a society where people don't take responsibility for their own actions and that's led us into HUGE messes. And it begins as kids. In general kids get way too coddled and if they do something wrong we're taught that someone else is at the root of it, not the chid itself. As far as I'm concerned if my kid trespasses into someone's yard and is bitten in the process, not only will I not be blaming the dog but my kid will be apologizing for trespassing and will be held responsible for his/her irresponsible actions.

When I was 6 I accidentally stepped on a dogs tail while running on the sidewalk (I thought the dog was a mop he was such a mess) and I was promptly chased and bit in the a**. My parents response: "next time watch where you step", not "vicious dog, let's go after the owners".

 

[sumstorm]

Perhaps the midwest has a different opinion on it then where I grew up in Brooklyn, but their, everyone looked out of everyone else's kids - regardless if you had/have one of your own. I imagine, if you found a kid lost and wandering (and trespassing) in your corn field, you would not "Well, parents should have taught him to use a compass", and released the hounds.

Grew up in midwestern cornfield country, parents still own midwestern cornfields. If a kid wanders onto your property and damages the corn, there is a word for what happens next: RESTITUTION. Often in the form of hard labor on that farm. A community can only raise a child if there are accepted standards of behavior. If a kid comes onto the property, harasses the alpacas, and a guardian dog bites it, in the community I grew up in the kid would be in MAJOR trouble at home. Here is what I knew growing up; IF for ANY reason an adult in the community had a problem with you, they would either settle it with you or call your parents (often offering you the option of which) and 90% of the time, you were better off taking the punishment, sincerly apologizing, and praying that your parents didn't find out from another source and when you told them (because eventually they would find out) they thought the punishment was suitable.

I have lived in NYC and in midwestern farm communities. I think the issue is the same; if one is responsible for a child, then they are responsible to both assist and discipline that child. We as a society have lost the latter. We expect children to be protected at all costs but we as a society don't expect them to play a role as responsible citizens from an early age.

The penalty for trespassing (esp. when no fences are up), should not be death (either by dog or gun). Some of these statements go so far from accepted sociological norms, that it is frightening. Like it or not, as a member of 'this' society, you DO have a responsibility to look out for other peoples children (to an extent), otherwise, their would be no orphanages.

Orphanages and animal shelters were originally created for the same purpose; to protect the health and well being of society, not specifically the individuals (human or pet) that went through that system. I am not saying there isn't a balance between providing for children in society and children participating in society, but the reality is that shelters and orphanages were not originally developed to help the lost find homes, but rather to prevent the lost from harassing people. Historically, many orphanages (possibly most) used children as a form of labor to provide for their upkeep. An even more interesting fact, in the UK the first child protected from abuse was done so under animal cruelty laws.

Also, if we are talking about a child old enough to be traveling around town without parental supervision, we are talking about a child old enough to know better. It is not my job to supervise someone else's child just as it is not their job, if I let my dog roam, to insure that she is not harmed on their property. If the kid isn't responsible enough to travel on roads and property where he or she has permission, they aren't responsible enough to be unsupervised.

 

[sumstorm]

Where did the bike come from? I must have missed that part.

My bad! A trainer on another forum is part of a somewhat similar situation, except a bike is involved and the kid was carrying street hockey gear. I mixed the two.

However, the point is the same. For some dogs if you take a conspecific and alter it enough (big hat, odd clothes, odd scent, etc) they will react as if it is not a representative of known quality.

 

[Mistoffeles]

Perhaps the midwest has a different opinion on it then where I grew up in Brooklyn, but their, everyone looked out of everyone else's kids - regardless if you had/have one of your own.

I'm just wondering where in Brooklyn you grew up . . . because I had the exact same experience, in Park Slope and then Ditmas Park, in the late 1970's and early 1980's.

Of course, in Park Slope, everyone looked out for everyone else's car at alternate side parking time as well . . . 🙂

 

[No Imagination]

I'm just wondering where in Brooklyn you grew up . . . because I had the exact same experience, in Park Slope and then Ditmas Park, in the late 1970's and early 1980's.

Of course, in Park Slope, everyone looked out for everyone else's car at alternate side parking time as well . . . 🙂

LoL - Sarcasm? Bay Ridge, then my time was split between Manhattan Beach/Conney Island and Staten Island.

 

[Airborne Vet]

I agree with No Imagination.

 

[nyanko]

I did my fair share of stupid and impulsive things as a kid, such as jumping off of the roof of my 3 story house, trying to jump creeks on my bicycle, getting hit by a car, etc...

And I agree for the most part with Ninnerfish. I've learned to choose my battles when it comes to talking about it, though.

My mom was very pro-letting me make my own mistakes, and I think it's a big part of why I am so independent nowadays, and a lot of what makes me who I am (which I like!). This kid learned a lesson by getting bit, and perhaps he wouldn't have learned that lesson otherwise, so whatever.