91 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 01 February 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

Right, this is my final point to you on this - Nobody has said forensics alone will determine anything, so stop implying things that have never been said, it has been pointed out to you more times then I can count that ALL the available evidence is used - NOT ONE PART OF IT.

Now i've kept my cool with you in this thread, and I shall continue to do so, but you're getting dangerously close to over stepping the mark with your insistence on point scoring over matters that haven't been implied by me.

Here's some advice, I suggest you take it on board - if you want to debate matters that have no relevance to what has been said by someone, make your posts stand-alone posts, so those interested in your angle can debate them with you. Do not quote someone's post, then make accusations about their view that are not present in their post. That's the end of the matter regarding you misinterpreting my posts - if you got a problem with that I suggest you pm me.

No, you didn't just imply it sir, you flat out said it.  Here is just one example:

Quote

Of course it's not the only possible way if they have a eye witness, that's just one scenario, they can use forensics and injuries sustained, blood splatters, whether the person was armed and therefore able to fight the dog etc.

Sorry but no, you are wrong.  Having an eyewitness isn't just one scenario.  It's the ONLY WAY, short of self-incrimination, that the authorities are going to establish guilt and have a case to prosecute in my scenario.  Forensics are moot, period.   The authorities would have to establish guilt by eyewitness first, and only then could forensics become relevant.

It matters to me, not because I'm a bad person or have bad intent here, but because this false belief that you don't need an eyewitness to establish guilt in a dog-bit killing and can somehow just look at wounds and blood splatter or whatever the "entirety of the evidence is" in spite of an eyewitness to prosecute someone is the most disturbing legal notion I've ever heard of.   It's completely insane to the dog owner, to the dog, and in light of the abject nonchalance I witnessed about the OP story in this thread about the dead guy laying on the floor, it's even worse.  But it's even worse than that.  Because in the case of a home invasion, the only witness is likely going to be the home invader.  So prosecution of the victim of a crime for something his dog did is outlandish on its face when it relies on criminal testimony to prosecute the victim of a crime.  I got accused unfairly for "blaming the victim" in the provocative clothing thread, and the pot is calling the kettle on this one in spades.   Good day sir.  

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 01 February 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

No, you didn't just imply it sir, you flat out said it.  Here is just one example:



Sorry but no, you are wrong.  Having an eyewitness isn't just one scenario.  It's the ONLY WAY, short of self-incrimination, that the authorities are going to establish guilt and have a case to prosecute in my scenario.  Forensics are moot, period.   The authorities would have to establish guilt by eyewitness first, and only then could forensics become relevant.

It matters to me, not because I'm a bad person or have bad intent here, but because this false belief that you don't need an eyewitness to establish guilt in a dog-bit killing and can somehow just look at wounds and blood splatter or whatever the "entirety of the evidence is" in spite of an eyewitness to prosecute someone is the most disturbing legal notion I've ever heard of.   It's completely insane to the dog owner, to the dog, and in light of the abject nonchalance I witnessed about the OP story in this thread about the dead guy laying on the floor, it's even worse.  But it's even worse than that.  Because in the case of a home invasion, the only witness is likely going to be the home invader.  So prosecution of the victim of a crime for something his dog did is outlandish on its face when it relies on criminal testimony to prosecute the victim of a crime.  I got accused unfairly for "blaming the victim" in the provocative clothing thread, and the pot is calling the kettle on this one in spades.   Good day sir.  

No you see i'm not wrong, you just don't understand the law. My wifes brother is 20yrs in the Met, I own a dog, i know what the law expects me take responsibility for as a dog owner Eyewitness testimony isn't the only way to prosecute, and using your example isn't good enough simply because no case would be decided upon on the simple terms of the scenario you stated.

You can continue to insist your scenario is relevant, and your assumption of what constitutes evidence is correct as many times as you wish, the reality differs from your view though.

Also, I haven't blamed any victims here, so again you are assuming things that were never said.

Good day to you too

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 01 February 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

No you see i'm not wrong, you just don't understand the law. My wifes brother is 20yrs in the Met, I own a dog, i know what the law expects me take responsibility for as a dog owner Eyewitness testimony isn't the only way to prosecute, and using your example isn't good enough simply because no case would be decided upon on the simple terms of the scenario you stated.

You can continue to insist your scenario is relevant, and your assumption of what constitutes evidence is correct as many times as you wish, the reality differs from your view though.

Also, I haven't blamed any victims here, so again you are assuming things that were never said.

Good day to you too

I shared your current sentiments in the other thread then, believe me.    

My scenario is plausible, so in that, it's relevant.  The OP is what invoked my curiosity about the glaring disparity in the UK law that I've questioned here between the treatment of this  actual killing and the proposed treatment of a dog bite in Wales.  I really faired up the comparison by stretching the evidence all the way from mere biting to having someone's neck ripped out, good sportsman that I am.

And regardless of all that, the elephant in the room is that my question still remains unanswered.  How can dog-owner guilt in a burglar's death be determined without a witness?  We can keep repeating that it's possible; it doesn't answer how it's possible.   Take care.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 01 February 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

I shared your current sentiments in the other thread then, believe me.

My scenario is plausible, so in that, it's relevant.  The OP is what invoked my curiosity about the glaring disparity in the UK law that I've questioned here between the treatment of this  actual killing and the proposed treatment of a dog bite in Wales.  I really faired up the comparison by stretching the evidence all the way from mere biting to having someone's neck ripped out, good sportsman that I am.

And regardless of all that, the elephant in the room is that my question still remains unanswered.  How can dog-owner guilt in a burglar's death be determined without a witness?  We can keep repeating that it's possible; it doesn't answer how it's possible.   Take care.

It has been answered how it's possible, since it has been explained to you that the law over regarding the ownership of pets is mainly centered around common sense. What you fail to realise is that it is only determined that is a burglar after the event (under your scenario). The reason people are expected to take responsibility for their dogs actions is because of those examples where it turns out to not be a burglar. Example - I always leave my porch door unlocked, it's because I get lots of mail etc, so the postman knows to just leave it there, occasionally I have forgotten to lock the inner door when going out, my previous dog could open that door, so the postman could have opened that door and got attacked by my dog, police arrive, man laying there with his throat ripped out, no witnesses (as per your example)...I am still responsible for what my dog did.

The reason the law in wales is being amended, is because the current dangerous dogs act does not cover land, so again, anyone visiting who is attacked is not covered under the dangerous dogs act, by default, it would mean anyone breaking and entering is covered, as the distinction isn't always made until after the event...i'm sure if there are a flood of compensation claims from burglars (which I doubt) then it will be revised again to exclude breaking and entering. As the laws are merely at the proposed stage, there is plenty of time to debate and amend.

[Beckys_Mom]

Sky Scanner, on 01 February 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Example - I always leave my porch door unlocked, it's because I get lots of mail etc, so the postman knows to just leave it there, occasionally I have forgotten to lock the inner door when going out, my previous dog could open that door, so the postman could have opened that door and got attacked by my dog, police arrive, man laying there with his throat ripped out, no witnesses (as per your example)...I am still responsible for what my dog did.

Indeed you would be, your dog, your responsibility   It would be no different if you owned a vicious dog and he got out of the house by accident.. He bites a child, you face the music...... It's the same with children .. If my young daughter went out and caused trouble at a neighbors home   ( which alone would make me hit the roof ) ..and she is caught.. Police take her to my house and tell me what has happened..  I am fully responsible for her, it will be me that has to deal with it, and pay for any damages caused...It's a given

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 01 February 2013 - 03:32 PM.

[Wyrdlight]

ExpandMyMind, on 26 January 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Aye, that's a bit silly isn't it? This country has no self-defence laws at all. Literally, if someone is attacking you, you are not allowed to defend yourself with, say, a punch. Even if the guy has a knife. And by our laws, even a push on someone can see you charged with assault.

Madness.

Im sorry but thats nonsense. There is ample provision under British law for self defence, even pre-emptive strikes are permissable.

[freetoroam]

Beckys_Mom, on 01 February 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

Indeed you would be, your dog, your responsibility   It would be no different if you owned a vicious dog and he got out of the house by accident.. He bites a child, you face the music...... It's the same with children .. If my young daughter went out and caused trouble at a neighbors home   ( which alone would make me hit the roof ) ..and she is caught.. Police take her to my house and tell me what has happened..  I am fully responsible for her, it will be me that has to deal with it, and pay for any damages caused...It's a given

To a certain extent......if the dog is at home alone and he is a guard dog and there ARE warning signs, then the owner is not responsible if an intruder broke in, OR anyone entered without taking notice of the signs and the dog attacks them.
Obviously if the dog gets loose and attacks someone outside its guarding and signed zone, then the owner is responsible.
I think this is what you are saying, just checking?

[freetoroam]

Wyrdlight, on 01 February 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Im sorry but thats nonsense. There is ample provision under British law for self defence, even pre-emptive strikes are permissable.

yes, there are, but what we have seen over the years is the rise of the human rights brigade, the race card and the woe onto me`ers getting their way because of judges or juries too afraid to stand up and properly stand up for the victim.
Too many people and our government our one prime example, are scared of being called racist in cases where the criminal is not English, because the human right brigade lawyers have threatened people with these stupid race cards.
NOT ONLY the race card, but we have have too many people out there trying to "help" the criminals by coming out with the "poverty" excuse and for some extremely strange reason, the judges has been falling for it!

[Sky Scanner]

freetoroam, on 01 February 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

To a certain extent......if the dog is at home alone and he is a guard dog and there ARE warning signs, then the owner is not responsible if an intruder broke in, OR anyone entered without taking notice of the signs and the dog attacks them.
Obviously if the dog gets loose and attacks someone outside its guarding and signed zone, then the owner is responsible.
I think this is what you are saying, just checking?

i've had conflicting advice on the issue of signs, from policeman no less...one said if you put a 'beware' sign up you are admitting you have a dangerous dog you can't control, and a court will likely prosecute, another said that without a sign you are not forewarning anyone so likely for prosecution :-/ This was a few years ago though, so not sure if the sign issue has been sorted since then!

[Sky Scanner]

Just to add - Just read that Guard Dog signs don't always work either, since apparently a guard dog requires a handler by law, and if there isn't one it needs to be securely restrained.

[OverSword]

Hmmmm......criminal with gun, law abiding citizens without....Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?  If this had been a one on one situation the guy with the gun would win.

[freetoroam]

Sky Scanner, on 01 February 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

i've had conflicting advice on the issue of signs, from policeman no less...one said if you put a 'beware' sign up you are admitting you have a dangerous dog you can't control, and a court will likely prosecute, another said that without a sign you are not forewarning anyone so likely for prosecution :-/ This was a few years ago though, so not sure if the sign issue has been sorted since then!

I was told that I had to have a sign up or could be up for prosecution.  It would be surprising if you could be prosecuted for having a sign up because they are easy to buy and no one asks any questions.
I can not see how a beware sign is admitting to the dog being dangerous, it just means there is a dog on the premisses, there are many people who are frightened of dogs, no matter what breed. Also I understand a lot of muslims do not like dogs, that came from a muslim. So if the postman or gas man were muslim, they would be warned in advance....not to come near my house.

[freetoroam]

Sky Scanner, on 01 February 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Just to add - Just read that Guard Dog signs don't always work either, since apparently a guard dog requires a handler by law, and if there isn't one it needs to be securely restrained.

And I should hope so too, but I have seen many a teenager with Staffs who were most certainly not "handlers". Thankfully, changes have been made to this in many areas.

[freetoroam]

OverSword, on 01 February 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

Hmmmm......criminal with gun, law abiding citizens without....Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?  If this had been a one on one situation the guy with the gun would win.

Unless the gun is a fake.......but its best not to take any chances though and if given the chance, do exactly what these people did and take him down.

[Sky Scanner]

freetoroam, on 01 February 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

I was told that I had to have a sign up or could be up for prosecution.  It would be surprising if you could be prosecuted for having a sign up because they are easy to buy and no one asks any questions.
I can not see how a beware sign is admitting to the dog being dangerous, it just means there is a dog on the premisses, there are many people who are frightened of dogs, no matter what breed. Also I understand a lot of muslims do not like dogs, that came from a muslim. So if the postman or gas man were muslim, they would be warned in advance....not to come near my house.

Yep, what he said baffled me too...I did wonder after if he just didn't know the answer to my question, so advised me against both options to cover himself lol...but I have heard ohers say the same too...seems one of those areas they could do with clarifying.