|
freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/2/2015 5:55:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Let me get this straight, a dog being mistreated abused and bites the person doing it is put down in Australia? That's civilized?
I don't live in Australia jlf.
And generally, yes.
If a dog, any dog, is reported to have bitten anyone (obviously proof is needed), it is generally put down.
It isn't always the case but the majority of times the poor dog doesn't get a say in it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
In the US, there are laws against animal cruelty, a person beaten by a dog that he/she was mistreating or abusing is going to jail with a fucking felony.
They would here too.
But generally, the dog would still be put down.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
A few other points on this, a person breaking into a home and is attacked by the homeowner's dog has no legal recourse, and the dog is not in any danger of being called dangerous.
Unfortunately, as much as I agree with this, it's not the law here.
quote:
Source: http://www.dfordog.co.uk/blog/amended-dangerous-dogs-act-2014.html
In May last year we reported on proposed government measures intended to tackle irresponsible dog ownership - Please see Queen's Speech 2013 - Extension of Dangerous Dogs Legislation
The intention was to close a loophole in the law that makes it difficult to prosecute dog attacks that take place on private property, following a string of attacks on private land.
The amended Dangerous Dogs Act came into effect today, 13th May 2014. It applies to all dog owners and all dog breeds in England and Wales, so please read on to find out how it affects all of us.
The main changes are:
It is an offence to own or be in charge of a dangerously out of control dog in a public place and now also on private property (including in your home and garden).
If a pet attacks a guide dog or other assistance dog, this is now covered by the amended dangerous dogs legislation.
Dog owners can now be prosecuted if their dog attacks or threatens to attack a person, even if it is on private property.
Animal welfare minister Lord de Mauley says "Irresponsible dog owners will not only face longer prison sentences, but will also be liable for prosecution regardless of where an attack takes place, even in their own home. This will give protection to those who provide vital services in the community - postal workers, nurses, utility workers - as well as people visiting family and friends."
It is important to be aware that being 'dangerously out of control' covers, and has always covered, not just actual biting or harm but also threat of harm.
Last year when the amendments were first proposed, concerns were raised regarding where dog owners stand if their dog attacks a burglar. This has been addressed. Burglars attacked by a dog in the household will not be protected by the amended act.
Interestingly quote:
Source: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q524.htm
Amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act mean it is now an offence for a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place and on private property.
Though intruders would generally not be covered by the amendments, all the circumstances will have to be considered and each decision will be judged individually. For example if you deliberately set your dog onto the intruder and they then suffer injury, you may be liable for prosecution and the dog ordered to be kept under control. However, if you are not home and your dog attacks, it is unlikely that you would be liable for the attack.
So... If you are not home and the dog attacks the intruder - you're Ok.
If you happen to be at home when it happens, you aren't, so you're prosecuted.
I didn't know that little bit and it sounds very fucked up to me.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
I catch someone abusing my dog, I have the legal right to use a fire arm to stop them, at least in Texas. Actually, if I catch someone abusing any animal I own, i have the legal right to use a gun to stop them.
I would feel the same way too.
Although I wouldn't use a gun, I'd beat the living shit out of them fer sure.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
When my Pit Bull attacked the man that was physically abusing my niece, I was asked by the officer answering the call why I called him off, my answer was because I wanted a clear shot.
What the hell good is having a dog for protection if he protects you by biting someone he is put down?
That has got to be the shittiest thing I have heard coming from down under, and I am counting Mel Gibson.
Yeah, some parts of it are fucked up.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
The more I hear about that country from you folks, the more I get the impression that either you people are full of shit, or that country has really gone off the deep end.
In some instances, I fully agree with you.
I don't agree with all our laws, but I do agree with the very strict gun laws that we have.
Until recently, many burglars were able to sue the home-owners if they injured themselves in the course of their burglaries.
Some even sued if the home-owners tackled the burglar and the burglar got injured.
WTF?? Yeah. That's very fucked up.
A couple of years ago, two burglars tried to rob a house in Peterborough where I used to live.
The home-owner took them to task, beat the living shit out of the pair of them and threw them out onto the street. He then called the cops and reported them for try to rob him.
They tried to take him to court for compensation for their injuries.
The judge saw the other side of the coin and the burglars got 2 years in jail for their crimes and quite a hefty fine for intimidating the home-owner and they were ordered to pay compensation to the home-owner.
Yay!! That fuckin' worked! And about f'n time too!!
We don't often hear of criminals claiming compensation these days and I think they've changed the laws a bit so the criminal doesn't get to make a claim.
If there was a dog that attacked both burglars in this particular case, I think he would have gotten away with it. But alas, the new extension to the 'dangerous dogs act' came into force about 18 months ago.
|
|
|
|
