A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 27, 2024, 05:19:15 pm
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: No more warnings for dogs that bite?  (Read 3351 times)
RecycleMichael
truth teller
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12913


« 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.
Logged

Power is nothing till you use it.
cannon_fodder
All around good guy.
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9379



« Reply #1 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.
Logged

- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
NellieBly
Guest
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2007, 12:28:10 pm »

This guy is just anti-dog.
Logged
sgrizzle
Kung Fu Treachery
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16038


Inconceivable!


WWW
« Reply #3 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."
Logged
cannon_fodder
All around good guy.
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9379



« Reply #4 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?

Logged

- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
sgrizzle
Kung Fu Treachery
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16038


Inconceivable!


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2007, 02:19:26 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

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?



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
Logged
cannon_fodder
All around good guy.
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9379



« Reply #6 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...
Logged

- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
cannon_fodder
All around good guy.
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9379



« Reply #7 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.
Logged

- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
buckeye
Guest
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2007, 12:00:54 pm »

...sounds like more "safety" legislation that's "for your own good".
Logged
Admin
Administrator
Philanthropist
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2007, 09:12:46 pm »

Personal bickering (you know who you are) removed.
Logged
RecycleMichael
truth teller
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12913


« Reply #10 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.
Logged

Power is nothing till you use it.
cannon_fodder
All around good guy.
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9379



« Reply #11 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.
Logged

- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
Sangria
Guest
« Reply #12 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.
Logged
buckeye
Guest
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2007, 10:43:45 am »

"...canine jurisprudence..."

...a black velvet painting of dogs in a courtroom.
Logged
sgrizzle
Kung Fu Treachery
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16038


Inconceivable!


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2007, 12:09:52 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by Sangria

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.



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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org