Does something need to be done about dogs?

[ttaskmaster]

Yeah already addressed this - the police can shoot a terrorist during a terror attack, that doesn't mean they can execute them in some holding cells later.

Once seized, the Police, a vet or the local authority may order the destruction of the animal if they judge it to present a threat- This includes the Police and the staff that work with them (such as DLOs, kennel staff and so on).
Stop thinking this only applies to Police on the scene at the time of an attack. It applies just the same if they already have custody of the dog and deem it too dangerous to return to the owner, and there are Acts other than the DDA under which a dog may be legally destroyed.

The dog was seized, you're just getting confused here by referring to guidance re: dangerously out-of-control dogs but we're talking about a dog that has been seized by police!

And if they give it back it would again be considered dangerously out of control, hence the powers to retain the dog.

That's incorrect - they require a court order!

Only once they have custody and the dog no longer poses a threat.
If it's still flipping out or is believed to still pose a threat then a destruction order can still be issued locally.

This is why they had to asked the owner and then when the owner refused they handed back the dog, if they could have just taken the decision to put it down themselves they'd not have needed to ask the owner!

They didn't need to ask the owner, they needed approval from a responsible authority, such as a vet or local authority, unless a prosecution was proposed, whereupon they then need the owner to surrender the dog for destruction.

 

[dowie]

Only once they have custody and the dog no longer poses a threat.

They did have it, they literally seized it - you're just making the same mistake again as pointed out twice now:

Police can shoot terrorists in the street - police (generally) can't shoot a terrorist in the cells. Sure on some convoluted scenario where the terrorist starts attacking people in the custody suite then maybe ditto to the dog but this is just you reaching/defleting from the point.

The point was that they'd seized the dog and would have required a court order or the owner's permission to destroy it - the owner didn't give permission and they handed it back - the point you're unable to address is that now with the XL Bully being banned the threshold for such action at court is lower.

 

[ttaskmaster]

They did have it, they literally seized it - you're just making the same mistake again as pointed out twice now:
Police can shoot terrorists in the street - police (generally) can't shoot a terrorist in the cells. Sure on some convoluted scenario where the terrorist starts attacking people in the custody suite then maybe ditto to the dog but this is just you reaching/defleting from the point.

If the dog is judged to still present a threat, a destruction order can be issued locally, even if the dog is in custody.
Yes, even if they have it, even if they literally sieze it.

If a prosecution is intended, which is usually the route they go down, then the dog is retained pending either CPS decision to go ahead and/or court outcome of said prosecution.
If there is no prosecution possible, then a destruction order is sought from a local magistrate or other authorised person under Section 4B DDA or under Section 2 DA 1871, the costs of which are usually borne by the owner.

The point was that they'd seized the dog and would have required a court order or the owner's permission to destroy it - the owner didn't give permission and they handed it back - the point you're unable to address is that now with the XL Bully being banned the threshold for such action at court is lower.

The threshold is different, it's not lower.
The dog is seized under Section 1 instead of Section 3.
The burden of proof that the dog is not dangerous, or is not of the prohibited type, is still on the owner. It is presumed dangerous under Section 1, rather than being found dangerous under Section 3.

 

[dowie]

The threshold is different, it's not lower.
The dog is seized under Section 1 instead of Section 3.
The burden of proof that the dog is not dangerous, or is not of the prohibited type, is still on the owner. It is presumed dangerous under Section 1, rather than being found dangerous under Section 3.

Nearly there despite yet another deflection attempt - that it is presumed dangerous is the point! That does lower the threshold for action - under section 3 courts might be more willing to consider restrictions etc.. and try to avoid destruction + it needs to be shown to be dangerous - under section 1 the dog is already presumed to be dangerous + already under restrictions by nature of being a banned breed! Ergo the point made many posts back that you've danced around/avoided.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That does lower the threshold for action - under section 3 courts might be more willing to consider restrictions etc.. and try to avoid destruction + it needs to be shown to be dangerous

A Section 3 offence does need to be proven, but given the behaviour qualifying for 'dangerously out of control' that is not exactly difficult, and in the case of the first incident where it bit the owner it is automatically upgraded to an aggravated offence.

"Prosecutors should remind the court of the statutory presumption for the destruction of a dog following a conviction for a section 1 or an aggravated section 3 offence unless the Court is satisfied the dog does not constitute a danger to public safety".

So again, either way, the threshold is different, but not lower.

- under section 1 the dog is already presumed to be dangerous + already under restrictions by nature of being a banned breed!

And under all the same sections as for other offences, this is also entirely contingent on the court being satisfied that the dog does not present a danger to the public, hence Section 4B wherein various control and contingent destruction orders can be applied.

Ergo the point made many posts back that you've danced around/avoided.

The salient point is still that Police can get the authority to destroy a dog already in custody without having to go to court, and seemingly have done so in the case of the second incident.

 

[dowie]

A Section 3 offence does need to be proven, but given the behaviour qualifying for 'dangerously out of control' that is not exactly difficult,

Except it was in this case - courts often don't want to destroy dogs and like control orders etc.. in this case they were stuck as the owner refused:

"A spokesperson for Kent Police said: 'The owner was asked to voluntarily surrender the dog to officers for destruction, but declined to do so.

'There were no legal grounds for officers to retain the dog in the circumstances, but the owner was asked to agree to accept the conditions of a police order which included keeping the dog secure and supervised.'"

The salient point is still that Police can get the authority to destroy a dog already in custody without having to go to court, and seemingly have done so in the case of the second incident.

The salient point is that they wanted to destroy it a year ago after the first incident but weren't able to as the owner refused, the XL bully being a banned breed now makes that easier!

 

[chrcoluk]

The problem with that car anology is that design or manufacturing defects can be addressed directly in a relatively short period of time, usually at the manufacturer's expense.

Addressing this problem with dangerous dogs requires getting through to the idiot owners and probably a ridiculous amount of taxpayer resources to make sure said owners do what's required.

Fixing a problem, or at least significantly reducing the problem, can also be done through prohibition. No one is suggesting that it can be fixed 100%, as there will always be people who completely disobey the law. It needs to be nipped in the bud at the root instead of trying to enforce bans on certain breeds when there are already tens of thousands of them in the country.

When I was a child I usually only seen dogs of the lead in parks, and the owners would keep to the edges of parks away from the path way. Dogs also seemed to be far less common place.

Now days its become almost fashionable to have dogs strolling around off leads on streets, and other places with lots of people, they far more common place, and the powerful breeds seem to be the most popular choice.

I think a major problem is lack of enforcement, as a tradition we are a country that likes to promote individual power, we dont like to force things on people, or to legislate. I have seen public places where there is signs all dogs must be on a lead, and yet people are in those places with dogs off the lead, this is evidence that even if rules exist, they typically dont get obeyed.

Which leads to enforcement, and breed banning. If we enforce dogs on lead, muzzles etc. That obviously costs money, need people patrolling areas or on call with quick response to make it effective. Fines would need to be at a level its a proper deterrent. Aside from the problem of cost and effort required, this would do nothing to solve incidents in back gardens and homes, private property. So there needs to be a degree of breed banning.

Look at this for how much people seem to be addicted to powerful breeds.

Therese Coffey receives death threats over American bully XL ban

Suffolk Coastal MP Therese Coffey introduced the ban in her former role as environment secretary.

www.bbc.co.uk

Bring back the old neighbourhood watch, the number they can all man it 24/7 with quick response, require muzzles and leads in "any" public space, and ban some more breeds. No one is suggesting we kill any dogs that are not currently aggressive, we just want more safety and people (and other living things) not feeling threatened in public places.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Dear God, make it stop.

 

[chrcoluk]

So, I just got bit by an XL bully type dog.

Went into my local after a 12h shift at work, someone sat at the bar with their dog, no lead, no muzzle on it. Held out my hand so it could sniff me and it just went mental and bit me on the stomach.

I had a right go at the owner who barely even acknowledged it had happened, then I saw a muzzle on the bar (that they had removed, after telling staff it's a bit bitey) and thew it at her, telling her to put it on (amongst some other choice words). She did but put it on wrong. As she was leaving it fell off again and again I had a go at her, at which point she squared up to me and tried to threaten me

I took photos of the wound, the dog and the work shirt the owner was wearing but apparently that's not enough evidence for the police to pursue it, I need their name, DOB, pic of their face etc. for them to even bother investigating.

I'm just hoping the idiot owner doesn't endanger a child or something with their dog.

Ignore the fact I'm fat AF, but this is what it looks like an hour or two after:

Belly

I'm honestly more annoyed at the police for being so ****ing useless. Your job is to investigate crime but unless I do the work they give zero ****s.

Yeah policing has major issues. They dont seem to want to do work unless it fits a high profile crime criteria, or they dont have much to do (caught on camera etc.).

 

[dowie]

Dear God, make it stop.

I promise not to reply to him till the new year!

 

[Worthy]

Yeah that all went a bit bonkers. Come on chaps you’re better than that.