[News] 17month old killed by Staffie dog

[WATFORD zero]

I like Staffies but they are a powerful breed and I think it's madness to have one (particularly one you have known only for a week) around a 17 month old child. Madness.

"Although thought to be a Pitbull, the American Bully is actually not and was first bred to remove the aggressive traits which can be carried through Pitbull breeds. Because of this, the Bully breed is now a very loyal and friendly companion that does especially well in family homes with children" yet still a very powerful animal.

View attachment 146278

I'm no expert, but has that dog had something weird done to it's ears

And, if it has, whoever's dog that is should be stopped from owning dogs.

 

[m20gull]

I'm no expert, but has that dog had something weird done to it's ears

And, if it has, whoever's dog that is should be stopped from owning dogs.

It's had them cropped. Illegal to do it in the UK thankfully but still popular with some owners (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9283877/Jack-Fincham-SLAMMED-fans-buying-dog-cropped-ears.html) but legal if imported.

 

[Swansman]

Never been a fan of the combination small kid + dawg. Obviously 999 times out of 1000 nothing happens but its just a bit like playing with fire... once Kiddo pulls the ear of Dawg a bit too hard or something, shit can go very bad.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Is that not largely down to the fact that staffies are the dog of choice for likely negligent owners?

It's a bit of both i'd say.

It's in the breeds nature to begin with which is why it's such a common occurrence compared to other breeds. They literally trace their lineage back to purpose bred fighting dogs.

 

[NorfolkGull]

Confirmed as American Bully XL, a legal dog

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-60866899?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Confirmed as American Bully XL, a legal dog

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-60866899?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

It's a wannabe gangsta pimp bitch ho gunz drugz status dog.

FFS.

 

[zeemeeuw]

View attachment 146300

It's a wannabe gangsta pimp bitch ho gunz drugz status dog.

FFS.

Aaahh ... what a lovely little bundle of fluff he looks, if I had a toddler at home he would be just the kind of playmate I'd be looking for.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Now we have established it is the owner, let's see the cretins prosecuted.

 

[Triggaaar]

Now we have established it is the owner, let's see the cretins prosecuted.

I've not looked into the case, because it will just depress me. The basics seem to be that a family got a new dog (breed pictures above) and left it with their 17 month old child. That's upsettingly stupid. Whether it's wilful neglect or just plain stupidity isn't obvious without knowing a lot more, so I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that they need to be prosecuted, given that they've already paid an awful price. I imagine you've seen more evidence than I have, and if there's enough there that they should be prosecuted, fair enough.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I've not looked into the case, because it will just depress me. The basics seem to be that a family got a new dog (breed pictures above) and left it with their 17 month old child. That's upsettingly stupid. Whether it's wilful neglect or just plain stupidity isn't obvious without knowing a lot more, so I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that they need to be prosecuted, given that they've already paid an awful price. I imagine you've seen more evidence than I have, and if there's enough there that they should be prosecuted, fair enough.

I understand your point, and initially felt 'let's not jump to conclusions' but unless someone onther than a member of the family contrived to leave the dog alone with the child then of course the family are responsible. However, I suspect they are not responsible in law. There is a tacit understanding in the UK that people lave a 'right' to own 'legal' (but potentially lethal by dint of size, relative to a human infant) dogs and that if something 'unfortunate' happens this is 'very sad' and 'unfortunate'. In America they have much the same attitude to the ownership of the guns that are 'found' in the home by children resulting in 'unfortunate' and 'very sad' events. I have my views about all this and think I'd best leave it there.

 

[WATFORD zero]

View attachment 146300

It's a wannabe gangsta pimp bitch ho gunz drugz status dog.

FFS.

If I saw that thing in a park, I'd leave the the Park. In what sort of world could anybody think that putting that and a toddler in the same house was a good idea

 

[Triggaaar]

If I saw that thing in a park, I'd leave the the Park.

In what sort of world could anybody think that putting that and a toddler in the same house was a good idea

Particularly one they hadn't owned for long

 

[drew]

I understand your point, and initially felt 'let's not jump to conclusions' but unless someone onther than a member of the family contrived to leave the dog alone with the child then of course the family are responsible. However, I suspect they are not responsible in law. There is a tacit understanding in the UK that people lave a 'right' to own 'legal' (but potentially lethal by dint of size, relative to a human infant) dogs and that if something 'unfortunate' happens this is 'very sad' and 'unfortunate'. In America they have much the same attitude to the ownership of the guns that are 'found' in the home by children resulting in 'unfortunate' and 'very sad' events. I have my views about all this and think I'd best leave it there.

I'm not so sure the law will be so forgiving. Regardless of the legality of the breed, they negligently left a dog that they were unfamiliar with alone with a defenceless child. No doubt any investigation will look at how long the child was left. It's one thing to leave the room just to fetch a glass of water and another to leave them whilst you did some work in another part of the house or even leave the house altogether.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm not so sure the law will be so forgiving. Regardless of the legality of the breed, they negligently left a dog that they were unfamiliar with alone with a defenceless child. No doubt any investigation will look at how long the child was left. It's one thing to leave the room just to fetch a glass of water and another to leave them whilst you did some work in another part of the house or even leave the house altogether.

Let's hope so.

I regard this sort of thing as an avoidable attack/death. If you own a dog and somehow contrive to fail to prevent it attacking someone, and in the worst case kill a child, it should be manfatory jail time, no ifs and buts.

It will be hard to get over the 'yes but' and 'this is a dog-loving society' bollocks, though.

When I did an advanced driver course 20 years ago in lieu of 3 points for speeding, one thing we were told (about car 'accidents') is there is no such thing as an accident. It is always someone's fault. That was a sobering thought.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'm not so sure the law will be so forgiving. Regardless of the legality of the breed, they negligently left a dog that they were unfamiliar with alone with a defenceless child. No doubt any investigation will look at how long the child was left. It's one thing to leave the room just to fetch a glass of water and another to leave them whilst you did some work in another part of the house or even leave the house altogether.

We don’t really know the details. Negligence is knowingly doing something. We don’t know they were keeping dog and toddler separate, but another child opened a door by mistake, or some other accident. Negligence has a burden of proving whether enough of your peers in the same situation could make the same mistake? This is quite a difficult test in law as the law allows a human being to make a mistake without them being negligent.

 

[Napper]

Parents like them need to be castrated + wombs removed

Rocks for brains

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

When I did an advanced driver course 20 years ago in lieu of 3 points for speeding, one thing we were told (about car 'accidents') is there is no such thing as an accident. It is always someone's fault. That was a sobering thought.

That is a load of bollox, I have been in several accidents.

 

[Spiros]

If I saw that thing in a park, I'd leave the the Park. In what sort of world could anybody think that putting that and a toddler in the same postcode was a good idea

Corrected for you

 

[Spiros]

We don’t really know the details. Negligence is knowingly doing something. We don’t know they were keeping dog and toddler separate, but another child opened a door by mistake, or some other accident. Negligence has a burden of proving whether enough of your peers in the same situation could make the same mistake? This is quite a difficult test in law as the law allows a human being to make a mistake without them being negligent.

I'm sorry but even owning a dog like that when you have a small child is negligent in the extreme, unless you permanently keep said animal at a different address. It's an accident waiting to happen

 

[The Optimist]

That is a load of bollox, I have been in several accidents.

Car accidents where nobody involved did anything wrong? That seems unlikely, but I’m open to hearing the details. Like HWT I have also heard the ‘no such thing as an car accident’ line. It was on a driver improvement scheme I attended after being in car collision that was my fault.