91 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 30 January 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

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...they can draw up a reasonable picture of events, and whether it was a prolonged attack by the dog or not using all sorts of modern methods. To simply say that if a man is found dead with his throat ripped our by fido and there's no other witness's but the dog owner then they can't prosecute is laughable and inaccurate.

What does the person being armed or otherwise able to fight the dog have to do with prosecuting the dog owner?   That has nothing to do with the dog owner.   What does forensics matter?   Let's say the dog chewed on his neck for five minutes.  That's what the forensics will conclude.  And so what?   What does any of that have to do with the decision to prosecute?  Absolutely nothing in the realm of common sense, that's for sure.  

Sorry, but in order for anything you're saying to be the first bit relevant to any prosecution, they would have to prove that the dog owner was PRESENT, was CONSCIOUS, was AWARE of what was happening, and was CAPABLE of stopping the dog from finishing the job, to have any chance at all in pressing charges. The ONLY way they're going to be able to determine that, short of a stupid dog owner incriminating himself, is with an eyewitness.   Digressions about forensics are irrelevant to the potential to prosecute without those conditions being met first.   As I said, if there were eyewitnesses available then a prosecution would be possible, and even then, it would still require all the extra burdens of proof you're talking about above.  

But, if that's somehow not the case, then UK law is deranged, and those pet owners in Wales have plenty of reason to fear for their beloved pets and their own freedom because some burglar breaks into their home.

Edited by Yamato, 30 January 2013 - 12:47 PM.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 30 January 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

What does the person being armed or otherwise able to fight the dog have to do with prosecuting the dog owner?   That has nothing to do with the dog owner.   What does forensics matter?   Let's say the dog chewed on his neck for five minutes.  That's what the forensics will conclude.  And so what?   What does any of that have to do with the decision to prosecute?  Absolutely nothing in the realm of common sense, that's for sure.  

Look, I know you're struggling to understand this, but the guidelines (if you'd bothered to read them) are referring to 'reasonable force' so if the person has a shot gun and set your dog on them then that is reasonable force, if they are unarmed and cowering on the floor then allowing your dog to maul them to death is unreasonable force. That's what the police do, asses the evidence available to see if a case can be made. You saying it has nothing to do with common sense means nothing, other then you don't understand the law.

Quote

Sorry, but in order for anything you're saying to be the first bit relevant to any prosecution, they would have to prove that the dog owner was PRESENT, was CONSCIOUS, was AWARE of what was happening, and was CAPABLE of stopping the dog from finishing the job, to have any chance at all in pressing charges. The ONLY way they're going to be able to determine that, short of a stupid dog owner incriminating himself, is with an eyewitness.   Digressions about forensics are irrelevant to the potential to prosecute without those conditions being met first.   As I said, if there were eyewitnesses available then a prosecution would be possible, and even then, it would still require all the extra burdens of proof you're talking about above.  

But, if that's somehow not the case, then UK law is deranged, and those pet owners in Wales have plenty of reason to fear for their beloved pets and their own freedom because some burglar breaks into their home.

Yep, finally you get it, at last, they asses the evidence available, and if there is enough to prosecute, then they do, if not, they don't. I'm glad you finally got that important part.

Edited by Sky Scanner, 30 January 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 30 January 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Look, I know you're struggling to understand this, but the guidelines (if you'd bothered to read them) are referring to 'reasonable force' so if the person has a shot gun and set your dog on them then that is reasonable force, if they are unarmed and cowering on the floor then allowing your dog to maul them to death is unreasonable force. That's what the police do, asses the evidence available to see if a case can be made. You saying it has nothing to do with common sense means nothing, other then you don't understand the law.



Yep, finally you get it, at last, they asses the evidence available, and if there is enough to prosecute, then they do, if not, they don't. I'm glad you finally got that important part.

I never didn't get it.  You just strangely refuse to understand that an eyewitness is necessary for a prosecution of the scenario I provided.   Forensics by themselves are meaningless towards any chance of a prosecution.

Again, my scenario is lethal force.  If you're not in control of your animal (for a million different reasons that you couldn't be) then how is that ultimate example of force unreasonable?   This is the heart of the derangement of British doggie burglar bite law.   Again, the burglar/robber is dead in a pool of blood, his throat ripped out all over the floor.   Again, there is no way to determine what was "allowed" of the dog without an eyewitness.  If you're telling me that a prosecution is still possible with no witnesses, I need a better explanation of how that is even possible than "forensics" and now "the guidelines if you bothered reading them".  If you know so well what the guidelines are, you've yet to produce one that's even relevant.  

At this point it's curious that you're so defensive with me over this.  If other people share in your attitude about this kind of scenario,  this is a danger to homeowners with protective dogs all over Britain and they are correct to be as concerned as we've recently read they are.    When the subject is rape you understand that you never blame the victim; somehow when the crime is burglary you're more than willing to cover up the fact that the burglar's accomplice will need to testify in court against the dog owner/victim to divine what "control" the dog owner had.    If a woman is about to get raped and she blows the rapist's head off, don't hand me crap about "the guidelines" that the police are going to do forensics on the rapist's headless corpse to decide what charges to press against the woman.   I mean seriously.  This is borderline insanity.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 30 January 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I never didn't get it.  You just strangely refuse to understand that an eyewitness is necessary for a prosecution of the scenario I provided.   Forensics by themselves are meaningless towards any chance of a prosecution.

Again, my scenario is lethal force.  If you're not in control of your animal (for a million different reasons that you couldn't be) then how is that ultimate example of force unreasonable?   This is the heart of the derangement of British doggie burglar bite law.   Again, the burglar/robber is dead in a pool of blood, his throat ripped out all over the floor.   Again, there is no way to determine what was "allowed" of the dog without an eyewitness.  If you're telling me that a prosecution is still possible with no witnesses, I need a better explanation of how that is even possible than "forensics" and now "the guidelines if you bothered reading them".  If you know so well what the guidelines are, you've yet to produce one that's even relevant.  

At this point it's curious that you're so defensive with me over this.  If other people share in your attitude about this kind of scenario,  this is a danger to homeowners with protective dogs all over Britain and they are correct to be as concerned as we've recently read they are. When the subject is rape you understand that you never blame the victim; somehow when the crime is burglary you're more than willing to cover up the fact that the burglar's accomplice will need to testify in court against the dog owner/victim to divine what "control" the dog owner had. If a woman is about to get raped and she blows the rapist's head off, don't hand me crap about "the guidelines" that the police are going to do forensics on the rapist's headless corpse to decide what charges to press against the woman.   I mean seriously.  This is borderline insanity.

You have gone off on a complete tangent, that has nothing to do with anything I said. I'm not interested in what scenarios you dream up to see if a prosecution would happen, as was pointed out earlier, unless you are part of the court process then you are not privvy to all the evidence that's collected in any given case - so your opinion on whether a conviction would take place based on what little evidence the media have reported, or what ever scenario you have dreamed up in your head is not relevant to anything. And I haven't "strangely refused to accept that eye witness testimony is necessary"...because unless you are in receipt of all the evidence they have collected then you don't know what grounds the CPS are thinking a prosecution is likely.

I posted the guidelines for reasonable force in this country - I haven't said they're infallible, all i've said is they have worked pretty well up to now....and that if you want to know where the law stands - then read them.

Quote

If a woman is about to get raped and she blows the rapist's head off, don't hand me crap about "the guidelines" that the police are going to do forensics on the rapist's headless corpse to decide what charges to press against the woman. I mean seriously. This is borderline insanity.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you genuinely not understand simple points. I'll say it simpler - guidelines guide the law, they are not set in stone as points of law, it is a guide line to work with when assessing each individual case on it's own merits, hence the title "Guidelines"

Edited by Sky Scanner, 30 January 2013 - 05:22 PM.

[freetoroam]

Free jelly shot boys, its got vodka in it.

[Sky Scanner]

freetoroam, on 30 January 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

Free jelly shot boys, its got vodka in it.

Now you're talking

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 30 January 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

You have gone off on a complete tangent, that has nothing to do with anything I said. I'm not interested in what scenarios you dream up to see if a prosecution would happen, as was pointed out earlier, unless you are part of the court process then you are not privvy to all the evidence that's collected in any given case - so your opinion on whether a conviction would take place based on what little evidence the media have reported, or what ever scenario you have dreamed up in your head is not relevant to anything. And I haven't "strangely refused to accept that eye witness testimony is necessary"...because unless you are in receipt of all the evidence they have collected then you don't know what grounds the CPS are thinking a prosecution is likely.

I posted the guidelines for reasonable force in this country - I haven't said they're infallible, all i've said is they have worked pretty well up to now....and that if you want to know where the law stands - then read them.



Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you genuinely not understand simple points. I'll say it simpler - guidelines guide the law, they are not set in stone as points of law, it is a guide line to work with when assessing each individual case on it's own merits, hence the title "Guidelines"

Well pardon me for being hypothetical and you not approving.  You're not interested in my scenarios but you tried hard enough to respond to them until it became too difficult.    You keep repeating yourself that the police are going to collect as much evidence as possible.   I'm not disputing that so you're not even following what I'm saying.   There's nothing in your guidelines that can determine guilt in my scenario short of an eyewitness. If there was, you would have found it already.   If you think that a dog owner that was asleep, or unconscious, or upstairs watching TV, or in the bathroom, or not at home, or a hundred other things during a break in is going to be judged guilty by your police because of a forensics test, then you have completely lost the plot and my tangent has sufficiently demonstrated the insanity of UK law.   This presumption of "control" that we've discussed in prior posts and that you're imposing on my hypothetical here is what pet owners in the UK are so worried about.   This is a very disturbing trend, reflected by your inconsistency of blaming the victim depending on what crime the victim was victimized by.   There is no excuse for burglary, period.   If your cops are taking testimony from not-dead burglars to prosecute victims due to what control they have over their dog that someone would have to BE THERE to know, that is just ridiculous.   You understand your own erroneous thinking with rape well enough.  When it comes to burglary you keep talking about the letters in the books as some kind of rhetorical shield to duck my questions and ignore the points I've raised.

Also it's very curious that we all just up and agree that this robber's death is perfectly legitimate.  Well where did your "guidelines" help you there?   What's the cause of death?  Where's the forensics at?   Apparently sitting on someone's face until they're smothered to death is immediately acceptable to you but God forbid Fido jumps on some goon's neck while you're on the toilet!

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 31 January 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

Well pardon me for being hypothetical and you not approving.  You're not interested in my scenarios but you tried hard enough to respond to them until it became too difficult. You keep repeating yourself that the police are going to collect as much evidence as possible.   I'm not disputing that so you're not even following what I'm saying.   There's nothing in your guidelines that can determine guilt in my scenario short of an eyewitness. If there was, you would have found it already.   If you think that a dog owner that was asleep, or unconscious, or upstairs watching TV, or in the bathroom, or not at home, or a hundred other things during a break in is going to be judged guilty by your police because of a forensics test, then you have completely lost the plot and my tangent has sufficiently demonstrated the insanity of UK law.   This presumption of "control" that we've discussed in prior posts and that you're imposing on my hypothetical here is what pet owners in the UK are so worried about.   This is a very disturbing trend, reflected by your inconsistency of blaming the victim depending on what crime the victim was victimized by.   There is no excuse for burglary, period.   If your cops are taking testimony from not-dead burglars to prosecute victims due to what control they have over their dog that someone would have to BE THERE to know, that is just ridiculous.   You understand your own erroneous thinking with rape well enough.  When it comes to burglary you keep talking about the letters in the books as some kind of rhetorical shield to duck my questions and ignore the points I've raised.

Also it's very curious that we all just up and agree that this robber's death is perfectly legitimate.  Well where did your "guidelines" help you there?   What's the cause of death?  Where's the forensics at?   Apparently sitting on someone's face until they're smothered to death is immediately acceptable to you but God forbid Fido jumps on some goon's neck while you're on the toilet!

I'm going to point this out to you one last time, since you either can not follow the conversation, or you're trolling. I posted previously an example involving one man, whereby one person dies of 11 stab wounds, and the knifeman was found not guilty, the other person died of 2 stab wounds, and the knifeman was found guilty. That was posted to show that the reasonable force law has nothing to do with the injuries sustained, but the scenario in which they were sustained - they are all centered around a basic stance of common sense, i.e if you have the chance to not inflict injury on someone, then you should take that option. None of what you have posted above, has any relevance to any points i've made, since I have never sided with the victim or the attacker, merely pointed out where the law stands on such issues.

In your childish hypothetical scenarios either outcome could apply, since until further detail is known it's not possible to draw a conclusion, that's why you keep needing reminding that further investigation is needed until either there are grounds for a prosecution, or it is dropped as there are no grounds for a prosecution. To break that down simpler for you, as no doubt you still won't get it - in your dog scenario, where there is no witnesses, or the owner is out etc, you're extremely unlikely to be prosecuted as there will be insufficient evidence (OBVIOUSLY). But if the evidence suggests the burglar was cowering on the floor, unarmed, not moving and of no threat at that moment, yet you encouraged your dog to maul him to death, and if upon further investigation it was shown that there was either a witness, home security camera footage, or something else that indicated the above, then you could well find yourself in court for using unreasonable force, and will be for a jury to decide who's right or wrong.

As for the guidelines, they are not "my guidelines" as you say, they are just the guidelines, and the reason they were posted (AGAIN) is because you asked what they were.

Now I hope that is clear enough for you, and you don't feel the need to imply things that haven't been said again, because I really don't think I could break it down any simpler for you. However, if you're still not sure, or you think that your way is a better way then hundreds of years of refined law making then firstly you need to actually read up on UK law, as that will stop you putting your foot in mouth about such scenarios as rape victims (who are not mentioned in reasonable force guidelines at all), then when you understand exactly what it is you're ranting about, you can make a more informed post.

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 31 January 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

I'm going to point this out to you one last time, since you either can not follow the conversation, or you're trolling. I posted previously an example involving one man, whereby one person dies of 11 stab wounds, and the knifeman was found not guilty, the other person died of 2 stab wounds, and the knifeman was found guilty. That was posted to show that the reasonable force law has nothing to do with the injuries sustained, but the scenario in which they were sustained - they are all centered around a basic stance of common sense, i.e if you have the chance to not inflict injury on someone, then you should take that option. None of what you have posted above, has any relevance to any points i've made, since I have never sided with the victim or the attacker, merely pointed out where the law stands on such issues.

In your childish hypothetical scenarios either outcome could apply, since until further detail is known it's not possible to draw a conclusion, that's why you keep needing reminding that further investigation is needed until either there are grounds for a prosecution, or it is dropped as there are no grounds for a prosecution. To break that down simpler for you, as no doubt you still won't get it - in your dog scenario, where there is no witnesses, or the owner is out etc, you're extremely unlikely to be prosecuted as there will be insufficient evidence (OBVIOUSLY). But if the evidence suggests the burglar was cowering on the floor, unarmed, not moving and of no threat at that moment, yet you encouraged your dog to maul him to death, and if upon further investigation it was shown that there was either a witness, home security camera footage, or something else that indicated the above, then you could well find yourself in court for using unreasonable force, and will be for a jury to decide who's right or wrong.

As for the guidelines, they are not "my guidelines" as you say, they are just the guidelines, and the reason they were posted (AGAIN) is because you asked what they were.

Now I hope that is clear enough for you, and you don't feel the need to imply things that haven't been said again, because I really don't think I could break it down any simpler for you. However, if you're still not sure, or you think that your way is a better way then hundreds of years of refined law making then firstly you need to actually read up on UK law, as that will stop you putting your foot in mouth about such scenarios as rape victims (who are not mentioned in reasonable force guidelines at all), then when you understand exactly what it is you're ranting about, you can make a more informed post.

OBVIOUSLY, so what's "childish" about it?   If you had admitted that in the first place, I wouldn't have found this quite as disturbing as I do.   "An eyewitness, home security camera footage (an eyewitness), or 'something else'"?   WHAT ELSE?  That's the question I'm asking here.  

"Reasonable force law has nothing to do with the injuries sustained", but forensics do.  And I wasn't the one that brought up forensics from the beginning thinking it was relevant.  You did.  It's absolutely ludicrous to prosecute pet owners for their dogs' unreasonable force without first proving that the dog owner was in a position to be in control of his dog.  None of your suppositions in your replies were enlightening to my scenario which requires (or at least should require) eyewitness testimony to determine guilt to be able to prosecute.

Yes they are your guidelines.  You live in the UK.  I don't.  As well, you brought them up.  You can't accept that my scenario was presented in light of the guidelines, not in ignorance of them.   I asked you in the interest of good discussion to point out how the guidelines can prove guilt in an investigation of a death-by-dog short of an eyewitness and I never received an answer.  By repetitively appealing to authority you've only frustrated yourself and now you're sounding hostile to me for no good reason.

Let's cool our jets and act like mature and friendly adults here, okay?

You should be able to accept that I'm simply asking a question here, not imposing any implication upon you personally, and not "ranting" either, so much as making observations that I find curious, and trying to stick to a scenario that I find disturbing for pet owners, and all that came about because I read more, not less, about the laws in Britain.  In the mutual interest of acting like mature adults here, you don't have to get personal with me if you don't like my question.  I'm asking my questions to the community in general, not to you in particular because I thought you're some kind of great legal scholar.  You didn't have to respond to me in the first place, so don't accuse me of trolling you.

I suppose the reason why different crimes don't have to be distinguished in reasonable force scenarios is because the reasonable force was used by a person, and prudent law enforcement can find a single standard that's good enough to apply to all scenarios generally, before investigating the particulars, and every knife-wielder in the country who's stabbing someone can apply.  I agree with you on that tertiary point.   The problem is you don't seem to have a healthy enough respect for the distance between a person and a dog, acting like the leash is permanently attached, or the dog is merely an extension of someone's arm, to be able to determine a person's guilt over a dog's force.  If UK law concurs with you on that, then no matter how many times you belittle me, I find that disturbing and disgusting.  For the victims' sake.

[Yamato]

Quote

In the case in this thread, it's simply the case that if he was just restrained, and died for some reason then no charges are brought

And died for some reason then no charges are brought?   Is that what we determined from the guidelines, too?   How about investigating what the cause of his death is, and if it's determined that it's suffocation which is highly plausible, then investigate the suffocators and prosecute them for involuntary manslaughter, gross negligence, wrongful death, or all of the above?   It's just amazing to me how we can overlook the people in the OP who seem to have zero presumption of control over their own bodies in this case, yet in other cases like the changes in Welsh laws that we discussed earlier, a person can expect prosecution for the actions of their animal because the animal is deemed out of control?   That the new law according to the article "would also mean a dog is considered "dangerously out of control" if there is "reasonable apprehension" that it will attack."   This disparity in British law is fascinating.   As a dog owner, just because I have a Rottweiler in Wales trained to protect my home, I shouldn't have to expect charges when I get home from the grocer and find a dead burglar in my living room lying in a pool of blood (much less a poor burglar getting bit on the rump on the way out the door when I'm standing across the room).

Thank you for protecting us Rottie!  Good girl!  
*Woof!*

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 31 January 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

OBVIOUSLY, so what's "childish" about it?   If you had admitted that in the first place, I wouldn't have found this quite as disturbing as I do.   "An eyewitness, home security camera footage (an eyewitness), or 'something else'"?   WHAT ELSE?  That's the question I'm asking here.

Admitted what? there's nothing to admit, it has been pointed out time and time again that until you know all the circumstances behind any scenario then you can't make a call on it. "WHAT ELSE?" Oh I don't know, how about forensics, you know that thing that you say further down in this post is not relevant to your point, well that would be classed under "something else".

Quote

"Reasonable force law has nothing to do with the injuries sustained", but forensics do.  And I wasn't the one that brought up forensics from the beginning thinking it was relevant.  You did.

That's right, I did bring it up, because you asked what other factors come into play, forensics comes under other factors. So you say at the start of this post that you didn't bring up forensics as being relevant, you ask what other stuff could come into play, i say forensics, you say it isn't relevant then say again that all you're asking for is what other stuff comes into play.......and you seriously expect me to believe you're not rolling now??

Quote

  It's absolutely ludicrous to prosecute pet owners for their dogs' unreasonable force without first proving that the dog owner was in a position to be in control of his dog.

Exactly, no body has said it is reasonable for pet owners to be prosecuted without proving if they were in a position to control the dog first. The only person who keeps repeating that is you, yet everytime you say it it is then pointed out to you that that is what an investigation is for, to determine such facts. So why you keep repeating this error of yours is bewildering.

Quote

Yes they are your guidelines.  You live in the UK.  I don't.  As well, you brought them up.

Of course I brought them up, because you asked what they were, hence bring them up.

Quote

You can't accept that my scenario was presented in light of the guidelines, not in ignorance of them.   I asked you in the interest of good discussion to point out how the guidelines can prove guilt in an investigation of a death-by-dog short of an eyewitness and I never received an answer.

And it has been been pointed out to you numerous time that unless you have the full facts of any given case you can't apply the guidelines to it to determine what the outcome would be.

Quote

By repetitively appealing to authority you've only frustrated yourself and now you're sounding hostile to me for no good reason.

I haven't frustrated myself at all, merely bemused as to why you need the same questions answering time and time again before it sinks in.

Quote

Let's cool our jets and act like mature and friendly adults here, okay?

You should be able to accept that I'm simply asking a question here, not imposing any implication upon you personally, and not "ranting" either, so much as making observations that I find curious, and trying to stick to a scenario that I find disturbing for pet owners, and all that came about because I read more, not less, about the laws in Britain.  In the mutual interest of acting like mature adults here, you don't have to get personal with me if you don't like my question.  I'm asking my questions to the community in general, not to you in particular because I thought you're some kind of great legal scholar.  You didn't have to respond to me in the first place, so don't accuse me of trolling you.

I stated my position, time and time again, you quote my post and say I am favouring one aspect over another. I point  out you have read it wrong, you repeat the same error, I point out again you have read it wrong, you repeat the same error. You are either posting to get a reaction (trolling) or you simply don't understand that when people post an opinion, or they post a link showing guidelines, it is not your right to assume they meant something completely different, and then when you're corrected on that to carry on making that accusation.

Quote

I suppose the reason why different crimes don't have to be distinguished in reasonable force scenarios is because the reasonable force was used by a person, and prudent law enforcement can find a single standard that's good enough to apply to all scenarios generally, before investigating the particulars, and every knife-wielder in the country who's stabbing someone can apply.  I agree with you on that tertiary point.   The problem is you don't seem to have a healthy enough respect for the distance between a person and a dog, acting like the leash is permanently attached, or the dog is merely an extension of someone's arm, to be able to determine a person's guilt over a dog's force.  If UK law concurs with you on that, then no matter how many times you belittle me, I find that disturbing and disgusting.  For the victims' sake.

Firstly, I have not belittled you, if anything I have been pretty restrained with your antics up to now. Secondly, saying I don't have a healthy enough respect for the distance between a person and a dog is another case of you reading what isn't written in the first place. All I have done is say what happens according to the law.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 01 February 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

And died for some reason then no charges are brought?   Is that what we determined from the guidelines, too?   How about investigating what the cause of his death is, and if it's determined that it's suffocation which is highly plausible, then investigate the suffocators and prosecute them for involuntary manslaughter, gross negligence, wrongful death, or all of the above?   It's just amazing to me how we can overlook the people in the OP who seem to have zero presumption of control over their own bodies in this case, yet in other cases like the changes in Welsh laws that we discussed earlier, a person can expect prosecution for the actions of their animal because the animal is deemed out of control?   That the new law according to the article "would also mean a dog is considered "dangerously out of control" if there is "reasonable apprehension" that it will attack."   This disparity in British law is fascinating.   As a dog owner, just because I have a Rottweiler in Wales trained to protect my home, I shouldn't have to expect charges when I get home from the grocer and find a dead burglar in my living room lying in a pool of blood (much less a poor burglar getting bit on the rump on the way out the door when I'm standing across the room).

Thank you for protecting us Rottie!  Good girl!  
*Woof!*

I guess it's a difficult law to get right in all circumstances really - i'm not to sure what the right approach is with animal ownership in regards to someone being attacked by them on your grounds or in your home. I can see good arguments from either side, i'll be interested to see how the Welsh angle plays out in years to come.

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 01 February 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

Admitted what? there's nothing to admit, it has been pointed out time and time again that until you know all the circumstances behind any scenario then you can't make a call on it. "WHAT ELSE?" Oh I don't know, how about forensics, you know that thing that you say further down in this post is not relevant to your point, well that would be classed under "something else".



That's right, I did bring it up, because you asked what other factors come into play, forensics comes under other factors. So you say at the start of this post that you didn't bring up forensics as being relevant, you ask what other stuff could come into play, i say forensics, you say it isn't relevant then say again that all you're asking for is what other stuff comes into play.......and you seriously expect me to believe you're not rolling now??

Exactly, no body has said it is reasonable for pet owners to be prosecuted without proving if they were in a position to control the dog first. The only person who keeps repeating that is you, yet everytime you say it it is then pointed out to you that that is what an investigation is for, to determine such facts. So why you keep repeating this error of yours is bewildering.




Of course I brought them up, because you asked what they were, hence bring them up.



And it has been been pointed out to you numerous time that unless you have the full facts of any given case you can't apply the guidelines to it to determine what the outcome would be.

I haven't frustrated myself at all, merely bemused as to why you need the same questions answering time and time again before it sinks in.



I stated my position, time and time again, you quote my post and say I am favouring one aspect over another. I point  out you have read it wrong, you repeat the same error, I point out again you have read it wrong, you repeat the same error. You are either posting to get a reaction (trolling) or you simply don't understand that when people post an opinion, or they post a link showing guidelines, it is not your right to assume they meant something completely different, and then when you're corrected on that to carry on making that accusation.



Firstly, I have not belittled you, if anything I have been pretty restrained with your antics up to now. Secondly, saying I don't have a healthy enough respect for the distance between a person and a dog is another case of you reading what isn't written in the first place. All I have done is say what happens according to the law.

Holy furballs now this is just getting dizzy.  You still haven't answered the question.  I'm a how and why guy, and so appealing to authority to evade a How-question didn't work.  The question is still and has been from the beginning: HOW are forensics going to prove guilt in a dog-bite killing?   You haven't even begun to answer that question despite your word count.   All you've done is appealed to authority using hundreds of words assuring me of how reasonable and smart and great the authorities are over there.  I'm sure your police are the best in the world and it doesn't answer my question.

Forensics aren't going to do accomplish what you keep repeating they will, and the reason why they won't is because they are entirely independent of a dog owner's presence, knowledge, consciousness, thoughts, speech, actions and control in light of the mauling.   They're independent of everything you or the authorities need to prove guilt.   Or by all common sense, they should be.   How ridiculous can this get to think that forensics alone are in any possible way going to result in charges and prosecution of a dog owner?   They can't unless you're trying to float a claim that somehow proving that the dog owner had control of the dog is unnecessary to the prosecution of the dog owner, which would be the most disturbing law against the virtues of self defense and the protection of property I've ever heard of.  That makes the article of the prior discussion about Wales sound reasonable!    So I reject this circular roundabout banter that this discussion has sadly devolved into above, and will conclude regardless of whatever you think, in my goodwill that UK law actually has some common sense attached to it, that control of the animal must be proven, and that requires an eyewitness, period.  Forensics evidence is a moot point.  But thanks for insisting on it, retreating from it, and now circling the wagons again and trying in vain to impose it on me again when I'm simply not going to accept it.

Whatever you have to say from here, you can keep to yourself because this thread has gotten past the point of useful mature discussion and it's descended into something ugly and not worth my time.  Have a good day.

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 01 February 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

I guess it's a difficult law to get right in all circumstances really - i'm not to sure what the right approach is with animal ownership in regards to someone being attacked by them on your grounds or in your home. I can see good arguments from either side, i'll be interested to see how the Welsh angle plays out in years to come.

The case above is easy!  There are eyewitnesses.  And nobody but me is asking for an investigation?   Interviews of those eyewitnesses?   A forensics test?   An autopsy?   We're just going to up and think that everyone is reasonable and there's a dead guy lying on the floor.   Methinks there's a gaping hole of double standard here between death by what is most likely deliberate asphyxiation in a room full of eyewitnesses vs. death by what can't be proven as deliberate doggie bites in a room with no eyewitnesses.   So I'll keep thinking that the forensics actually matter in the former scenario and you can keep thinking that forensics matter in the latter.   And we will agree to disagree on this one, put that in the bank.   Good day sir.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 01 February 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

Holy furballs now this is just getting dizzy.  You still haven't answered the question.  I'm a how and why guy, and so appealing to authority to evade a How-question didn't work.  The question is still and has been from the beginning: HOW are forensics going to prove guilt in a dog-bite killing?   You haven't even begun to answer that question despite your word count.   All you've done is appealed to authority using hundreds of words assuring me of how reasonable and smart and great the authorities are over there.  I'm sure your police are the best in the world and it doesn't answer my question.

Forensics aren't going to do accomplish what you keep repeating they will, and the reason why they won't is because they are entirely independent of a dog owner's presence, knowledge, consciousness, thoughts, speech, actions and control in light of the mauling.   They're independent of everything you or the authorities need to prove guilt.   Or by all common sense, they should be.   How ridiculous can this get to think that forensics alone are in any possible way going to result in charges and prosecution of a dog owner?   They can't unless you're trying to float a claim that somehow proving that the dog owner had control of the dog is unnecessary to the prosecution of the dog owner, which would be the most disturbing law against the virtues of self defense and the protection of property I've ever heard of.  That makes the article of the prior discussion about Wales sound reasonable! So I reject this circular roundabout banter that this discussion has sadly devolved into above, and will conclude regardless of whatever you think, in my goodwill that UK law actually has some common sense attached to it, that control of the animal must be proven, and that requires an eyewitness, period.  Forensics evidence is a moot point.  But thanks for insisting on it, retreating from it, and now circling the wagons again and trying in vain to impose it on me again when I'm simply not going to accept it.

Whatever you have to say from here, you can keep to yourself because this thread has gotten past the point of useful mature discussion and it's descended into something ugly and not worth my time.  Have a good day.

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.

Edited by Sky Scanner, 01 February 2013 - 10:40 AM.