SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Aoami]

wot?

 

[BloodOmen]

If someone gets bolt cutters and gets their way into a Lion enclosure at a Zoo, and the Lion has a nice snack, I think the zoo-owner and all the staff should be executed by chimpazees with spud guns.

that's just plain silly Gwadien, no one would trust your family with spud guns

 

[BloodOmen]

On a completely sidetracked note;



Completely disagree with this thought and i think it's the problem with humans in general. Sometimes sh*t just happens and you don't have to blame someone.

Way to miss the point entirely all I can say is I think you, Raven, Scouse and Gwadien need to have a read of it properly rather than jumping to the conclusion that every single incident will end with a life sentence, that's not what the law change is about.

 

[Scouse]

jumping to the conclusion that every single incident will end with a life sentence, that's not what the law change is about.

I don't see the need for an increase in sentence. No point whatsoever.

Most of these incidents are horrifying for the owners themselves - so to add a harsher jail sentence for something that is probably completely out of their control anyway just adds to injustice.


If my sister's dog went batty and killed my girlfriend then my sister would commiserate with me. I wouldn't blame her I'd blame the dog.

If my girlfriend's family then pushed for a prosecution and jail sentence for my sister that would compound the problem - not make it better.

 

[BloodOmen]

I don't see the need for an increase in sentence. No point whatsoever.

Most of these incidents are horrifying for the owners themselves - so to add a harsher jail sentence for something that is probably completely out of their control anyway just adds to injustice.


If my sister's dog went batty and killed my girlfriend then my sister would commiserate with me. I wouldn't blame her I'd blame the dog.

If my girlfriend's family then pushed for a prosecution and jail sentence from my sister that would compound the problem - not make it better.

Still missing the point, do you think the court doesn't take the circumstances into consideration or something? do you think they'll just have a little roster of cases entitled "The book of life sentences!" then give them out like mindless robots? fact of the matter is they can go to prison now for it so even if this wasn't introduced your "sister" could go to prison now, the only differences is if that incident was soooooooooooooo serious as in a dog from the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 breed list/ she didn't have have it on a lead or a muzzle on its mouth then yes she'll likely be held accountable and probably receive a longer sentence.

 

[soze]

Most of these incidents are horrifying for the owners themselves - so to add a harsher jail sentence for something that is probably completely out of their control anyway just adds to injustice.

For most cases you might be right but in this case I disagree. This lady is know to have bread aggressive dogs and loads of complaints had been made. So yes the dogs acted out of character by attacking that particular girl the woman still knew the dogs were aggressive and was proud of that.

She and people like her deserve a nice long stay in prison.

 

[BloodOmen]

For most cases you might be right but in this case I disagree. This lady is know to have bread aggressive dogs and loads of complaints had been made. So yes the dogs acted out of character by attacking that particular girl the woman still knew the dogs were aggressive and was proud of that.

She and people like her deserve a nice long stay in prison.

Scouse disgrees sadly, he just doesn't understand what the law is aimed at. As for that story yes, its a sad one, I remember reading it when it happened and its the exact type of thing the longer sentences are aimed at.

 

[Scouse]

Still missing the point

I think both you and soze are missing the point and are quite hysterical. Not an accusation I'll make lightly - and I'll justify it below.

Look at the example you gave, and then we'll look at the scenario soze posted:

she didn't have have it on a lead or a muzzle on its mouth then yes she'll likely be held accountable and probably receive a longer sentence.

For most cases you might be right but in this case I disagree. This lady is know to have bread aggressive dogs and loads of complaints had been made. So yes the dogs acted out of character by attacking that particular girl the woman still knew the dogs were aggressive and was proud of that.

She and people like her deserve a nice long stay in prison.

For a start lets look at the quoted case.

1) The girl was on her own. The owner wasn't present.
2) The article shows the owner had had one of her dogs castrated to calm it down - an effort to remove some of the dog's aggression.
3) Dogs are pack animals. Just like wolves. If one goes batshit it's highly likely others would follow.
4) The article doesn't talk about "loads of complants" - or any complaints.
5) Dogs bark all the fucking time when people walk past. Both my past two neighbours and my current neighbour have dogs that bark every time I walk past. Yes - I do hate it. But WTF eh? My sisters dog is normally quiet but barks at birds for some reason.

So. Despite the police saying that "the full circumstances aren't known" and that the article doesn't support soze's accusations, both you and soze would throw this woman into prison - despite the fact she wasn't even present.

I'm pretty sure that she'll already be devestated that her daughter's friend has been killed by her dog. She'll feel absolutely terrible. How would extending a prison sentence that will probably be passed anyway help? I mean - how will extended prison time make this situation better?


Now, coming to my example BloodOmen - soze's case is similar to the one I proposed. Sister's dog goes crazy and you countered with "muzzle and lead". But most of these dog attacks happen in the home - and who keeps a dog muzzled and on a lead at home?


You're both leading with your emotions - you have seen chavs you don't like with their ugly barky dogs that you hate and you want them to hurt. But the law doesn't work like that - it ends up hurting people who don't deserve it.

Just like some random, previously peaceful dogs can, and do.


Man up and get some perspective. Pet ownership can be dangerous. The law is already harsh enough. Unless people are deliberately setting their dogs on people then there is zero need for harsher prison terms.

its the exact type of thing the longer sentences are aimed at.

Harsher prison sentences for people who weren't even present when their dogs went nuts?

Nice one

 

[soze]

Seeing as you can be charged for putting broken glass on the top of your wall to cut people trying to break in I see no problem charging a lady who breeds dogs to be aggressive when they finally attack someone. She chopped the balls off one of them but there are still plenty of other stories where her neighbors say the dog is still dangerous but far from caring she bragged about it on her Facebook page. Knowing these dogs were dangerous she let this kid go into her home where the dogs killed her.

She trained them so is responsible for them being so aggressive and then she failed to control them. They did not break out of her house and attack people she let this girl go into a situation that was dangerous because of her actions.

I am getting bored of this discussions with you never go anywhere so it is agree to disagree time.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Way to miss the point entirely all I can say is I think you, Raven, Scouse and Gwadien need to have a read of it properly rather than jumping to the conclusion that every single incident will end with a life sentence, that's not what the law change is about.

I said on a completely sidetracked note

I understand the point you're making and i understand it doesn't mean that if little timmy gets bit by a chihuahua the owner of the "dog" gets sent to prison for life every time. I simply disagree on A: that being fair unless the owner is directly responsble for the attack(see example on kids) and B: everything doesn't require a blametarget (completely different topic).

Not to mention; i speak for myself, not for raven, gwadien and certainly if scouse and me agree on something there's a Freddylaw that the argument is resolved

 

[Scouse]

I am getting bored of this discussions with you never go anywhere so it is agree to disagree time.

You're just raging. Not answering points. Thats why "discussions" don't go anywhere...

How would the extended jail time help?

 

[DaGaffer]

Harsher prison sentences for people who weren't even present when their dogs went nuts?

I don't think her being present is relevant tbh. If you have a 14 year old in your house, you have a duty of care to look after them. If you happen to have fucked off down to the shops your duty of care isn't rescinded, if you know she's there. Which, in this particular case, might be the reason why the woman wasn't charged; it looks like the girl left, but then came back when there was no-one in the house. We have no idea from the article where the dogs were kept.


But the point is, you shouldn't just be able to say "I wasn't there so its not my problem"; it wouldn't be a valid defence if you left a bear trap on your front porch and it took someone's leg off, so why would it be in relation to a dangerous dog?

 

[Scouse]

I don't disagree with you on that - but:

dangerous dog?

Like I said - ALL dogs are potentially dangerous, just like all men are potentially rapists.

The papers like to paint "dog attacks" as if it's almost exclusively chavs with angry mutts. But that simply isn't the case. And still nobody has even addressed the question of how a harsher sentence will help a situation where everybody is distraught...

 

[DaGaffer]

I don't disagree with you on that - but:


Like I said - ALL dogs are potentially dangerous, just like all men are potentially rapists.

The papers like to paint "dog attacks" as if it's almost exclusively chavs with angry mutts. But that simply isn't the case. And still nobody has even addressed the question of how a harsher sentence will help a situation where everybody is distraught...

Semantics; the minute a dog does something dangerous it is a de facto "dangerous dog". It actually doesn't matter why, and it doesn't matter that the owner is upset. I'm sure plenty of gun owners are upset when they left their Glock on the dressing table and their kids blow their own faces off, and I'm sure plenty of factory owners are distraught when an employee sticks his arm in an unguarded power-saw, it doesn't alter the fact they're responsible for the gun and the saw.

 

[soze]

How would the extended jail time help?

Seeing ans the majority of scum bags are not scared of prison it most likely would not help at all in terms of being a deterrent. But for victims families it might give a sense of justice. And might deter some of the scum bag getting these dogs that they can't control.

 

[rynnor]

Seeing ans the majority of scum bags are not scared of prison it most likely would not help at all in terms of being a deterrent. But for victims families it might give a sense of justice. And might deter some of the scum bag getting these dogs that they can't control.

But they can easily leg it - not like their dogs wear collars with ID or are microchipped.

This is a nothing change thats from the 'seen to be doing something' rule of politics like much the coalition does.

I pretty much guarantee no one will ever get life - nor should they really - sentences should be about half of the equivalent offence if comitted directly by a person.

The idea that you will get a worse punishment if your dog bites a burglar than if you shot him yourself is a bit crazy...

 

[Scouse]

Seeing ans the majority of scum bags are not scared of prison it most likely would not help at all in terms of being a deterrent. But for victims families it might give a sense of justice. And might deter some of the scum bag getting these dogs that they can't control.

Proven failed outdated thinking tbfh.

 

[Scouse]

Semantics; the minute a dog does something dangerous it is a de facto "dangerous dog". It actually doesn't matter why, and it doesn't matter that the owner is upset. I'm sure plenty of gun owners are upset when they left their Glock on the dressing table and their kids blow their own faces off, and I'm sure plenty of factory owners are distraught when an employee sticks his arm in an unguarded power-saw, it doesn't alter the fact they're responsible for the gun and the saw.

Disagree, strongly. It's certainly not an argument about "semantics".


A gun doesn't shoot a kid in their face by themselves. A saw doesn't saw off a moron's arm off by itself.

A dog, which has no previous at all, can turn around and maul someone on its own cogniscence. It has a mind of its own.

...

 

[BloodOmen]

And once again Scouse illogical way of thinking rules the day. Just give it up Soze, I honestly think none of them will understand until one of their family members is torn apart by a dog and it's owner gets away with a slap on the wrist or a measly fine while you are robbed off a family member. Until that happens they'll just keep going "OH BUT ITS NOT FAIR BOO HOO" well that's life, life isn't fair, deal with it.

 

[Scouse]

And once again Scouse illogical way of thinking rules the day. Just give it up Soze, I honestly think none of them will understand until one of their family members is torn apart by a dog and it's owner gets away with a slap on the wrist or a measly fine while you are robbed off a family member. Until that happens they'll just keep going "OH BUT ITS NOT FAIR BOO HOO" well that's life, life isn't fair, deal with it.

If I lost a family member to a dog I wouldn't be baying for the owner's blood like some demented idiot.

My mother would love to see anyone at fault in a car accident get life in prison - this after my dad was killed in a car accident. She's a moron for that idea and has lost perspective. It's the same for the tiny number of people who lose their kids to dog attacks.

 

[BloodOmen]

If I lost a family member to a dog I wouldn't be baying for the owner's blood like some demented idiot.

IF you lost a family member to a pack of dogs that were poorly kept by the owner and knowingly released by the owner DESPITE knowing they were vicious and were likely to attack someone you would want to see that owner punished, to say you wouldn't is simply stupid and I don't believe you quite frankly.

 

[CorNokZ]

The easy solution is to just get a cat instead

 

[BloodOmen]

The easy solution is to just get a cat instead

Oh god don't bring cats up, you'll set Scouse off on a crusade to get cats under the same law so dogs can have equal rights.

 

[Madmaxx]

800 pages of glorious spam \m/

 

[BloodOmen]

800 pages of glorious spam \m/

We shall hit 1000 this year!!11one

 

[Scouse]

IF you lost a family member to a pack of dogs that were poorly kept by the owner and knowingly released by the owner DESPITE knowing they were vicious and were likely to attack someone

In that fantasy scenario the current laws would suffice.

 

[Madmaxx]

We shall hit 1000 this year!!11one

oh no doubt, especially if you ladies carry on like you have been in the last few posts

 

[BloodOmen]

In that fantasy scenario the current laws would suffice.

So your telling me you could happily see someone go to jail for 2 years and be out in 1 year if say for pure example your 5 year old sibling was killed by a pack of dogs? I'm quite disappointed in you if so.

 

[BloodOmen]

oh no doubt, especially if you ladies carry on like you have been in the last few posts

Blame Scouse

 

[Gwadien]

So your telling me you could happily see someone go to jail for 2 years and be out in 1 year if say for pure example your 5 year old sibling was killed by a pack of dogs? I'm quite disappointed in you if so.

I wouldn't leave my 5 year old sibling in the company of a dog on their own.

Common sense kicks in.

Or do we really need laws to make up for stupidity?