|
Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: RecycleMichael on July 17, 2007, 11:59:56 am This from KOTV...
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=131701 "First-Bite" Dog Legislation Filed OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ A bill being filed by a state lawmakers would allow dog owners to be charged with a felony the first time their animal attacks someone. The bill by state Representative Paul Wesselhoft is being called ``first-bite'' legislation and calls for at least one year in prison and fines of up to ten-thousand dollars. Wesselhoft says prosecutors have operated under a principal of ``the first bite is free'' and not charged dog owners the first time their animal attacks. He says the bill would only apply to attacks outside the pet owner's property that cause serious injury requiring medical attention. The proposal is to be considered by the state Legislature next year. Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: cannon_fodder on July 17, 2007, 12:11:58 pm I'm not even sure that would be legal. Without any knowledge that the animal is dangerous, on what grounds could you take away the persons freedom? It would basically be a crime to own a dog that got mad one day. And making it a felony?
This is not a criminal matter. Without the intent to injure or at least criminal negligence... it is not a crime. Walking a dog that has no history of problems that happens bites someone is not willful nor criminal negligence. It is not a crime. or at least, it should not be. Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: NellieBly on July 17, 2007, 12:28:10 pm This guy is just anti-dog.
Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: sgrizzle on July 17, 2007, 01:13:16 pm When a german shepherd chews through a fence and eats a kindergartener, I would prefer the owners not be told "next time, you could get in trouble."
Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: cannon_fodder on July 17, 2007, 01:52:16 pm They aren't, they are sued civilly because it is a civil matter.
What crime took place? What criminal intent or criminal negligence are the owners guilty of? Owning a dog - legal fencing a dog - legal having dog escape from fence - nuisance law (not criminal) dog chews face - not an act of the owner If a dog shows a propensity to violence and then the owner fails to take additional steps to prevent injury, it could be criminal. Basic premise of criminal law is that things are made crimes to discourage the activity. What activity is discourage by filing felony charges when a dog bites someone? It discourages dog ownership and/or socializing of ones animal. If I am in fear of going to prison, losing my bar license, my job, my house and everything else for walking my damn dog... I'm not likely to do so. Which would result in a less social animal and a higher risk of a bite should it ever encounter people. What good will this accomplish again? Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: sgrizzle on July 17, 2007, 02:19:26 pm quote: Every dog I've owned, I was 100% sure it wasn't going to rip someone's face off before I let it play with the public. Not because I was afraid of punishment, but because I didn't want someone's face ripped off (except a few politicians.) If you can't be sure your dachshund isn't going to maul someone, don't let it out of a controlled space. Law or no law. Showing "propensity to violence" in animals would be nice, but not very possible. They don't have chihuahuas who cut themselves, beagle arsonists or pit bulls in therapy. There is very little way a court can prove a propensity to violence. As the author said, pit bull owners constantly complain becuase "their breed is being victimized" and "why not hold the owners to blame" so he finally did. Full story: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070716_1__OKLAH63322 Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: cannon_fodder on July 17, 2007, 02:37:47 pm Dogs can easily show a propensity for violence. Nipping at people. Previous bites. Growling. Or in certain instances, the breed. All are commonly used factors in dog bite cases.
I can never be sure that my Australian Shepard and Lab/Weimaraner will not bite someone. They have never bit someone outside of play before. They go to my sons school all the time. I take them to the river parks for music all the time. They have been to TU football games, Driller's games, local bars and Summer's 5th Night. No problems to date. In fact, I would bet that I could give a 4 year old a piece of hose and have him beat on my dogs with no ill effects to the child. But I will never be 100% sure that they will not bite someone. Dogs are animals, with brains, attitudes, and emotions. I can not 100% guarantee they will or will not do anything, and neither can you. One can be fairly certain of their actions, but certainly not 100%. In reality, it will do nothing to discourage irresponsible dog owners and do nothing to help the victims of any dog attacks that do take place. It wont pass anyway, with one of the highest dog ownership rates in the nation... Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: cannon_fodder on July 18, 2007, 08:26:04 am Last night my absentee neighbor two doors down had his two collarless and untrained pit bulls get lose and romp around the neighborhood. I always do my best to track down the owner of the dog and bring them home and/or call and hold them in my backyard. It is what I would want someone to do with mine.
Much harder with a pair of pitbulls with no collars. First, since they are NEVER walked nor socialized I didnt even know where they lived. I only figured it out when the gate was open and several neighbors confirmed they get out all the time. So I had to heard them back to their yard (a good 20 minute process involving a large stick to shoo them like sheep and a hot dog to lure them...) and then tease them back into the back yard. Then wedge something in so the gate would remain closed. Sheesh! The dogs seemed nice enough but remain entirely untrained. No sit, come, down... didn't even look when I called 'hey dogs' or 'good boy' or whatever. Needless to say a fair number of neighbors scurried inside or stayed in their cars (5:30ish). Poor dogs just wanted to get inside the house apparently as they kept going to the front door. Anyway, ironic that a pair of pitbulls run into my yard the day we have this discussion. Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: buckeye on July 18, 2007, 12:00:54 pm ...sounds like more "safety" legislation that's "for your own good".
Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: Admin on July 18, 2007, 09:12:46 pm Personal bickering (you know who you are) removed.
Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: RecycleMichael on July 19, 2007, 07:04:14 am Tulsa World weighs in...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?articleID=070719_7_A16_hFirs83086 By World's Editorial Writers 7/19/2007 First-bite law could bite dog owners Oklahoma, seemingly the land of lots of vicious dogs, has chased its tail for years over what to do to dog owners who don't control their animals. Now, Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, R-Moore, is suggesting that dog owners could be charged with a felony the first time their animal attacks someone. "First-bite" legislation could result in a felony charge against the owners of dogs that seriously maul, maim or kill on the first attack. Oklahoma has experienced an epidemic of serious dog attacks in recent years, particularly from pit bull terriers. But prosecutors have operated under the "first bite is free" rule, with dog owners rarely facing charges on the first incident. His proposed law, which would be introduced next legislative session, "marks a paradigm shift, a dramatic change, in canine jurisprudence," said Wesselhoft, who has filed bills in the past to ban pit bulls and other dangerous dogs. Those measures failed. His latest proposal is not breed specific. Convictions would be punishable by a mandatory year in prison, but fatal attacks could lead to longer sentences. Offenses would also carry fines of $10,000. Wesselhoft said safeguards in the bill would assure that "little Fluffy and Fido don't get on the 'doggy's most wanted list' for something as innocent as an errant nip or a playful bite." Wesselhoft's bill would only apply to attacks outside the pet owner's property that cause serious injury. Negligence or prior knowledge of aggression would also result in charges. Wesselhoft contends that he doesn't want to criminalize every dog bite and only wants to address truly dangerous animals "that people have failed to take responsibility for that are wreaking havoc throughout our state." Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that some breeds tend to be more unpredictable than others. While owners of these dogs may experience only gentle behavior from their pets, they should not discount instinct or what a dog will do when threatened. Under the right circumstances, any dog can bite at any time. Dog-bite legislation is tricky business. Oklahoma may not need a new law to address this problem. Do we really want to start locking up people for first-bite offenses? A steep fine, with wages garnisheed?(cq), would seem a more reasonable and productive approach. Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: cannon_fodder on July 19, 2007, 08:12:28 am Under current law, if an owner is criminally negligent it is a crime. As the article states, "any dog can bite anytime." My fear is that it has the potential to make anyone who has dogs and tries to socialize them into a felon.
Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: Sangria on July 19, 2007, 10:37:14 am The guy behind the bill loves dogs - hates PitBulls.
I have always had dogs and have always kept them under control. They are not allowed to run around loose - ever. When people come to my house with kids i put them out of contact because sometimes kids are not very nice. So, I don't understand why everyone can't maintain their dogs - for the protection of their pet as well as other people. Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: buckeye on July 21, 2007, 10:43:45 am "...canine jurisprudence..."
...a black velvet painting of dogs in a courtroom. Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: sgrizzle on July 21, 2007, 12:09:52 pm quote: This bill doesn't discriminate against breeds and also, in your case, would not effect you. At best it might highlight the negligence of owners and maybe reduce blame on the breeds (or at least keep stupid people from buying potentially violent pets. Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: Rowdy on July 21, 2007, 12:24:47 pm What's next, hamsters?
Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: Trams on July 21, 2007, 03:22:28 pm The dog is man's best friend, until it bites the hand that feeds him. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there.
I'm surprised about the one-bite legislation. I hate mean dogs too -- and truly think "pit bulls" should be deleted as a species. But, felonious harboring of a dog with unknown violent propensities? Seems a bit much, dog-gonit. Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: Der Teufel on July 22, 2007, 01:49:04 am Does that mean if a "German Shepard" bites someone, the headlines will read "Immigrant Dog Attacks?" Seems like everything else in this town is focused on the immigrant situation....
Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: sgrizzle on July 22, 2007, 01:04:45 pm quote: I'm pretty sure you'll find a disparately high number of chihuahuas having their immigration status checked. Title: No more warnings for dogs that bite? Post by: azbadpuppy on July 22, 2007, 02:22:30 pm quote: What it would do is hopefully discourage people from breeding and owning known vicious dogs, and properly training and keeping their animals leashed. What about the basic freedoms of the victims of these dog attacks? Why should I have to worry about walking around my neighborhood and being the victim of a dog attack? When are the dog owners rights to personal freedom more important than mine? Owning a dog is a priveledge and a huge responsibility- if you can't control or train your dog properly then you have no right to own it. Also, if you aren't willing to deal with the consequences of the actions of your animal (which you have complete responsibility for) then you have no business owning it. BTW, this legislation applies to serious injury attacks outside the owner's property. This means the dog is either unproperly trained, unleashed, is prone to attacking people or (most likely) all of the above. The owner should be charged with a felony IMO. |