rottweiler attack - police useless........

shaun_from_Africa

Originally Posted by pulliptears
People are defending dogs because ultimately its NOT the dogs fault, its the fault of the stupid OWNER.

Reply by by mumps
That is not always true...
..
Maybe you have never met a dog that is mad or bad but they do exist.

But surely the 2 examples still go together.
If a "mad or bad" dog is not kept restrained and attacks someone it is still the fault of the owner for not restraining the animal.
You yourself stated that:

I had to admit defeat and have him put down a few weeks later, I couldn't take the chance of him hurting a child and so I couldn't let him off the lead as he got bigger as he just couldn't be trusted.

which shows that although you couldn't trust or control the dog in question, you still acted responsibly over it.

mumps

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But surely the 2 examples still go together.
If a "mad or bad" dog is not kept restrained and attacks someone it is still the fault of the owner for not restraining the animal.
You yourself stated that:

which shows that although you couldn't trust or control the dog in question, you still acted responsibly over it.

I hope I was responsible, I see what you mean, I read the other quote as meaning dogs aren't bad it is just stupid owners not training them properly and I know its not that easy. Thanks for the explanation, I was being a bit paranoid I think.

mikey72

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But surely the 2 examples still go together.
If a "mad or bad" dog is not kept restrained and attacks someone it is still the fault of the owner for not restraining the animal.
You yourself stated that:

which shows that although you couldn't trust or control the dog in question, you still acted responsibly over it.

No, if you can't trust it, and can't control it, the only responsible thing to do is to have it put down.