View Single Post
Old 07-24-2010, 08:37 PM   #4
Mister Bent
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
.
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: .
Posts: 2,905
Thanks: 4,151
Thanked 5,825 Times in 1,722 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Mister Bent Has the BEST ReputationMister Bent Has the BEST ReputationMister Bent Has the BEST ReputationMister Bent Has the BEST ReputationMister Bent Has the BEST ReputationMister Bent Has the BEST ReputationMister Bent Has the BEST ReputationMister Bent Has the BEST ReputationMister Bent Has the BEST ReputationMister Bent Has the BEST ReputationMister Bent Has the BEST Reputation
Default

As Corkey states, murder speaks to the killer's state of mind and intent, neither of which can be known of the dog.

However, it's not the dog being prosecuted. The dog is, in effect, the "weapon." And just as a gun owner has a responsibility toward proper handling of his firearm, so does a dog owner of their dog. I believe owners of dogs that kill should be prosecuted with whatever laws are relevant to the circumstances. Unless it can be proved the dog owner intentionally used their dog to kill, I would think they should be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Any dog has the potential to bite, but the natural drive, tenacity and structure of some dogs makes them potentially more dangerous than others, and carry with them a greater level of responsibility, on par with a gun owner's culpability for accidental discharge of their firearm. At the very least, increased owner accountability under the law might result in more responsible dog ownership and handling.
__________________



Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
- H. L. Mencken

Last edited by Mister Bent; 07-24-2010 at 08:42 PM.
Mister Bent is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Mister Bent For This Useful Post: