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

2sides2everystory

You know a few people that have rotties??? Or you know of such people?

I don't. Most people don't.

Irrespective of whether they appear on a legally recognised list, rottweilers are clearly dangerous animals and anyone that owns one clearly needs their head testing.

I know of a few humans that are a bloody nuisance and cause anti-social disturbances on a frequent basis in my area. The police are pretty impotent in dealing with them. Thesedays I fear for my own safety if I am in their presence, especially after dark.

I understand there are people that know these same individuals who will say they are some of the friendliest, softest types you could ever meet.

Yeah right.

That dog that attacked magoogy's friend's little girl should by now be dead.

The police are not fit for purpose right now, so it isn't. Neighbours must now live in fear of the bloody thing. Bit of a common problem.

I hope we get a decent new Commissioner very soon.

shaun_from_Africa

You know a few people that have rotties??? Or you know of such people?

I know the people personally. If you are ever in the Reigate area, go along to Earlswood common around lunchtime and you will probably meet one or two of them walking their dogs.

rottweilers are clearly dangerous animals and anyone that owns one clearly needs their head testing.

But you yourself admit that you don't know anyone that owns one, so how can you state that they are all "clearly dangerous"?

That dog that attacked magoogy's friend's little girl should by now be dead.

I'm in total agreement with this.

I know that Rottweilers have attacked and injured or killed people, but so have many other breeds.

Jaden Mack was killed during an attack by the grandmother's Staffordshire Bull terrier and Jack Russell.

The child was attacked by the animal, thought to be a Rhodesian Ridgeback

A Leeds City Council spokesman described the two dogs they were holding as "bullmastiff types".

Lara has called for the dog to be destroyed, saying: "It's likely to do it again."
The police are investigating. Labradors are well known as family friendly dogs.

MackemPunk

I'd be tempted to get a claim against the dog owner to pay for the fence to be improved so it doesn't happen again and pay for any extra treatments the bairn may need.

fluffnutter

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

What's wrong with that?
If there was a proven vicious, unrestrained dog in the garden next door, and it could easily get to your kids, what would you do?
You can't possibly watch them every single moment that they are outside.

There's a lot wrong with that. It's not the little girl that needs close supervision, it's the dog. Why should the victim of a crime have to change his or her behaviour rather than the perpetrator?

It reminds me a little of the 'Reclaim the Night' campaigns in the 70s which were a response to the suggestion that if women didn't want to be raped, they should simply not leave the house at night.

Humphrey10

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If there was a proven vicious, unrestrained dog in the garden next door, and it could easily get to your kids, what would you do?

Replace the fence with one that would keep the dog out?

shaun_from_Africa

There's a lot wrong with that. It's not the little girl that needs close supervision, it's the dog. Why should the victim of a crime have to change his or her behaviour rather than the perpetrator?

I agree, but we don't live in an ideal world and unless I knew for sure that the dog was being supervised or suitable restrained, I certainly wouldn't be letting my kids in the garden.

It's a bit like saying why should someone have to lock up their house or car?
Surely the thieves should be the ones to change their behaviour and not the potential victims.

Replace the fence with one that would keep the dog out?

If you have the money to do that it would be a good idea, but if not, what then?

showmethemoneyuk

fluffnutter wrote: »

So the dog attacks the little girl and the solution is she never plays in her garden again? Hmm.

Unfortunately, if the dog remains in the garden next door after being reported, you either let that child play nearby and take the risk, with a dog that has attacked him or her in the past, or you dont. Thats common sense. If the law will do nothing to protect that child, then with a once harmful dog next door, the parents should be watching that child far more than before when outside. Unfortunately it may seem that the law is on the dog owners side until it either attacks more than once or causes major harm, but thats just the way it is. The law arent going to monitor the owner on how they look after their pet and get them to pay for a more protective wall or fence after such an attack, even though most people would agree thats how it should work, if the dog isnt taken away from them. If the parents currently do not have the money to pay for a more protective area, and do not want the child playing next to the dog any longer, there are usually parks in a town or city to play in that a parent can take their child to on occassion when they are not playing indoors, or playing in a relations or friends garden, instead of where they are now, to be in a far safer environment for the time being.

pulliptears

When I was a child I was viciously attacked by a poodle.

There is no such thing as a bad dog, merely a bad owner.

vax2002

the Local press will be most interested in this story if you will do a pic.
The police will come round begging all forgiveness once it hits the paper.
Trust me I know how they work, as long as it is under the carpet, they are happy

Humphrey10

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If you have the money to do that it would be a good idea, but if not, what then?

Four adults who are close relations to the child were mentioned in the OP's post, I would hope that between them they can afford a fence.

Anyway the neighbour should pay if the fence is needed to keep his dog in, you never know they might agree to pay if asked. I don't know if there is any way to force them to pay.