Girl killed by pit bull terrier

kitten_caboodle · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:44

phykell said:
Fault perhaps not, responsibility, definitely.

True, I guess we need to know more about the case but I've yet to hear any reasonable excuse for owning such a dog.

I agree completely but the parents didn't own the dog. It wasn't their house. That's my point.

phykell · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:46

kitten_caboodle said:
I agree completely but the parents didn't own the dog. It wasn't their house. That's my point.

Yes, as I said we probably need to know more facts but I imagine the parents must have known about the dog. Placing the child under the grandmother's care simply shares the responsibility, it doesn't absolve them of it.

PrOdiGy1 · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:46

kitten_caboodle said:
I agree completely but the parents didn't own the dog. It wasn't their house. That's my point.

but they left the child in that environment. that was their choice

dirtydog · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:47

kitten_caboodle said:
The parents don't own the dog - how can they be responsible or guilty of manslaughter?

I was working on the assumption that they did - as I did say earlier, I don't know whose dog it was because the article doesn't say. If it isn't theirs then I agree that it is different.

(as phykell says)

kitten_caboodle · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:48

PrOdiGy1 said:
but they left the child in that environment. that was their choice

and as yet we don't know the circumstances so we shouldn't be judging. They left the child with someone who they no doubt thought was a responsible adult (the mother of either the child's Mum or Dad). I doubt most people would hesitate to leave their children with their parents, and if they are told that the enviroment is suitable, and if there is a dog - then it is locked away in a run - then how are they to blame if the person supposedly looking after their kid letse them down? You don't expect your parents to put their grandchild in danger do you?

cheets64 · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:49

Detectives understand Ellie's parents were not in the house at the time of the attack.

Police believe Ellie's parents went out to celebrate New Year's Eve, leaving Ellie with her grandmother and when they returned, Ellie asked to stay there.

They are then thought to have left the property about 3.40am, shortly before the attack.

According to police, Ellie's uncle - who is thought to own the dog - was not at home when the attack happened.

The attacked happend at the uncles house.

So its suppose to be her uncles dog and her uncle was not supervising the dog, if he is allowed the dog as a guard dog for work he is going to do time as he should have been with the dog at all times.

Ignorance is bliss.

A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ('the handler') who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.

I would never let my child near a dog unless I am there, I dont care what dog it is if they attack you need to be there to safe the child from certain death, a dog which was a cross of a st bernard went for a child in the street and it only had chance to bite her face a tiny bit, the owners wife and the childs grandma was there to stop it attacking her anymore, the dog was put down and it just caused so many problems in the street with friendship.

I dont care if the dog has been round 100s of children and is soft as a brush, they cannot be trusted.

kitten_caboodle · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:49

dirtydog said:
I was working on the assumption that they did - as I did say earlier, I don't know whose dog it was because the article doesn't say. If it isn't theirs then I agree that it is different.

(as phykell says)

No I'm fairly sure from that article that it isn't theirs. It says the dog lives at the house with the grandmother and Aunt and Uncle (who is believed to be the owner of the dog). It later says that the child wanted to stay with her grandmother rather than go home with her parents to a house just outside the town.

I just want to get this clear - I 100% disagree with 'dangerous' dogs of any nature being around kids - I'd never leave my dog alone with my god-daughter (who is 3) and she's soft as anything and has never bitten or gone for a person in her life. They play together but I am never out of reach. At the end of the day my dog is a pack animal and will act on instinct which in some cases could be dangerous - especially if I'm not around and she sees my god-daughter as an inferior member of the pack.

I feel sorry for the parents, that's all. As they actually came back for the girl last night I'm fairly sure they thought she was safe, and in good hands. I feel sorry for the wave of judgement that is already coming at them when they are facing what will surely be the most awful time of their lives. They will never forgive themselves, when in actual fact it is probably the fault of someone else - they entrusted their daughter to her grandmother - and she died because the person who owned the dog wasn't around to control his dog when it attacked.

PrOdiGy1 · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:51

cheets64 said:
I dont care if the dog has been round 100s of children and is soft as a brush, they cannot be trusted.

as a dog owner i have to agree. they are just as prone to losing it for no particular reason as any human is, but they tend to do more damage.....

dirtydog · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:51

I see

PrOdiGy1 · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:52

kitten_caboodle said:
and as yet we don't know the circumstances so we shouldn't be judging. They left the child with someone who they no doubt thought was a responsible adult (the mother of either the child's Mum or Dad). I doubt most people would hesitate to leave their children with their parents, and if they are told that the enviroment is suitable, and if there is a dog - then it is locked away in a run - then how are they to blame if the person supposedly looking after their kid letse them down? You don't expect your parents to put their grandchild in danger do you?

i take your point, but if this was the case and they were "told" that the environment was suitable, then that has turned out to be a rather costly assumption

cheets64 · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:54

I feel so sorry for there parents now, if only they had taken the girl home none of this would have happend.

Richdog · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:54

Pit Bulls are not family dogs... they aren't bred for it and no matter how many ears they act sweet for there is always the chance they wll turn on a person... it's in their nature, and while not technically "their fault", all dog owners should be fully aware of all of the characteristics of the breed when they buy them.

As for those crying "the parents should be done for manslaughter", get a grip for goodness sake that's a ridiculous thing to say. It was a tragic and unforseen mistake, the parents obviously believed their child was in safe hands with their grandmother and if they'd have had the remotest fear for their childs life they wouldn't have left her there. They certianly don't need to be punished further to what they are now undoubtedly experiencing.

It's tragic and very sad, but a lesson to all other dog owners about how aware they should be of these issues before others suffer the same.

kitten_caboodle · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:55

PrOdiGy1 said:
i take your point, but if this was the case and they were "told" that the environment was suitable, then that has turned out to be a rather costly assumption

very much so

I've added some more to my previous post to explain better what I mean

PrOdiGy1 · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:57

PrOdiGy1 said:
as a dog owner i have to agree. they are just as prone to losing it for no particular reason as any human is, but they tend to do more damage.....

i think i worded this wrong. i was trying to point out (mainly from from personal experience) that for whatever reason, if a dog gets moody it doesnt go in another room and sulk or take it out on their spouse like we do - it tends to get cranky and i have known them to sometimes give you a little warning nip to LANGUAGE!

dirtydog · 1 Jan 2007 at 13:58

Richdog said:
As for those crying "the parents should be done for manslaughter", get a grip for goodness sake that's a ridiculous thing to say.

Maybe

I didn't read the story properly so I agree it was a little OTT. I do think people shouldn't be allowed to own such dogs if they have kids, but on this occasion these parents don't own the dog so I got that wrong.

kitten_caboodle · 1 Jan 2007 at 14:00

dirtydog said:
I do think people shouldn't be allowed to own such dogs if they have kids, but on this occasion these parents don't own the dog so I got that wrong.

but your intended point is entirely correct.

dalepearson · 1 Jan 2007 at 14:02

The owner of the dog is to blame really.
I have a dog, and she is great. However all animals like humans can get angry.
Young children and dogs should never be left alone, only takes the child to anoy the dog and you have an accident.

Its all a shame, I know they shouldnt have this dog, but it is anoying when people always blame the dogs. Its an animal, and its owners are responible for the training and ownership.

dirtydog · 1 Jan 2007 at 14:03

I wouldn't blame the dog, any more than I'd blame a loaded gun if a child picked it up and shot herself with it.

abruzz1 · 1 Jan 2007 at 14:03

Such a needless death.

There are too many dog attacks and fatalities at the minute. Just like the amount of car accidents here in N.Ireland along with hit and run incidents.

RIP

n3crius · 1 Jan 2007 at 14:08

dogs like this should not be in peoples homes.

the girl died terribly. all this bull about ' they don't normally do that, normally lovely dogs, can't blame the dog '. i don't trust them one bit. dumb, aggressive, and much bigger than a kid that can't defend itself.

really sad to see.