Not too far from my hometown a few days ago, a little boy was mauled to death by someone’s half-wolf (or maybe it was coyote?), half-dog critter. (To the best of my knowledge, his grandmother’s yard adjoined the owner’s yard, and he wandered just slightly into the owner’s yard, and the dog, who was chained, broke the chain and attacked.)
Neighbors had asked her several times to get rid of it, as it was apparently vicious and a threat to peoples’ safety. She refused, and now a kid is dead.
She’s being charged with reckless homicide.
Should she be? Is it always a dog owner’s fault if their dog hurts or kills someone, or are there exceptions (say, dog attacks after someone taunts/hurts it)? Should the punishment be worse if the owner’s neighbors had expressed their wish for them to get rid of the animal in days past?
Short of my dog attacking someone who has broken into our home and is threatening us, I am absolutely responsible for any harm my dog does to another animal or a human being - and that includes children who wander into our yard to collect balls, or people who come to read the gas and electricity meters.
If you need to have your dog on a chain, you have a completely inappropriate dog for the environment in which you are keeping it, IMO.
I would say, under the facts you give, yes, she probably should be indicted. A wolf/dog hybrid can be potentially more dangerous, IIRC, than a purebred wolf due to a lessening of instinctual fear for man combined with a wolf’s greater predatory nature. Merely keeping such an animal could have put a reasonable person on notice that the dog was dangerous. If neighbors alerted her to the dog’s vicious behavior or she had observed it herself there’s a strong argument she either was on notice or should have been that someone’s life could be endangered.
I don’t know the law in your state, but generally, reckless homicide calls for “extreme indiffererence to human life”. Involuntary manslaughter involves a lower degree of recklessness. On the facts you’ve given it seems prudent to submit the question to a jury.
If your friendly happy family dog kills someone, you have been negligent, and caused the death of a human being. If your actions in any particular during the dogs life fail to show immediate concern for the safety of humans which you dog might encounter, you should be considered to have been criminally negligent. It’s a dog. Dogs bite. People are not required to safeguard themselves from your dog. This is just another kind of wolf. A predator, and a killer. You decided to keep this animal, and you bear every single consequence for its entire life personally.
If you own a dog that you know has been trained to attack humans, and the dog attacks and kills a human, you should be charged with second degree murder. If the dog attacks, but does not kill a human, you should be charged with aggravated assault, and battery. The fact that you chained, or locked up the dog, or any other such defense should have no bearing. You owned the dog, you go to prison for many years. The dog dies. If you own other dogs, those dogs die as well. If you were present and failed to make every possible effort to prevent the attack, in my opinion, it becomes first degree murder.
If you train a dog to attack humans, and that dog attacks a human you should be considered an accessory before the fact to assault and battery, or second degree murder, even if you never met the current owner. You taught the dog to commit the crime. If the dog did not act as responsibly as you might wish, that is a foreseeable consequence of your action. The dog dies, you go to prison for a long time, and the owner does too.
Of course, I tend to hold people to be more responsible for their own behavior than most state legal codes.
Tris
“I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” ~ John Locke ~
A person should be held responsible for what the dog does ONLY to the extent that they failed to take reasonable precautions.
If you have your yard fenced, with “beware of dog” signs, somebody trespasses, and the dog attacks, too bad. They were violating your rights by being where they didn’t belong. They were reasonably warned, and should have no recourse. If they hadn’t been in your yard, there would have been no problem. (and if they don’t have the common sense not to climb into a fenced yard with a big dog, then they deserve what they get, and our gene pool gets that much more pure).
If a gentle, friendly dog suddenly freaks out for no apparent reason and kills somebody, after giving no warning and no reason to believe that it might happen, then it’s an unfortunate accident (and the incident should be thoroughly investigated. Was the dog teased? Attacked?).
If you keep a mean dog and let it run loose in the neighborhood, and it kills somebody, then it’s fully your responsibility and fault.
There are varying degrees in-between.
Simply the fact that it was A’s dog doesn’t mean that A was necessarily at fault. All the facts should be examined.
Why, because you wouldn’t be able to safely trespass in his back yard?
(Should I bother to point out that trespassing is illegal? I’ve always found it ironic when someone does something illegal and likely very stupid and then tries to blame someone else for his own stupidity.)
As for the proposed scenario, there doesn’t seem to be enough info to make a really informed decision. It says people said the dog was a threat to people, but we don’t really know if it is. In any case, the grandmother of the little boy is at least in part responsible (As bad as that sounds), as he was under her care at the time. By the sounds of it, the owners of the dog could potentially be charged with negligence, if it’s true that the dog was a high risk. And if it was in a fenced yard that the dog couldn’t get out of (Even better with “beware of dog” signs), then while it’s a regretable situation, I don’t think they should be held responsible (Think about it; If you run out onto the freeway, is the driver that hits you criminally responsible for your dumb action?).
The fact that trespassing is illegal doesn’t mean that we’re entitled to devise and inflict our own punishments. You can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser, but you would not be justified in (say) tearing the face off a child who was trespassing in your yard in order to recover a ball; such an attack on a child who is trespassing does not become justified because it is perpetrated by your dog rather than by you directly.
Those who keep dogs do so for their own benefit, whether that be a commercial benefit, company, a feeling of security, or whatever. They cannot expect others to bear the downside risk so that they can enjoy the advantages of dog ownership.
All dogs are potentially dangerous, even those who are well-trained and have never attacked before. The risk of an attack may be small, but it exists. If you do not want to accept responsibility for that risk, don’t create it by keeping a dog. You have no right to insist that you can create risks which others must bear.
Dog owners should be liable for everything their dog does if they would have been liable had they done it themselves. That ranges from defacating on the pavement to killing small children. “Taking reasonable precautions” should not be a defence.
It says people said the dog was a threat to people, but
I have observed that dogs being chained, makes them mean. I am not sure about a “wolf-dog” but I think dogs are not aggressive animals, usually. The key is to take the time to socialize them properly. I hate hearing about “guard” dogs. I think having a dog attack trained is inhumane. This kind of training sets the dog up for trouble. Dogs can be dealt with in a variety of ways by people with criminal intentions. Drugs, poisons, or just a tossed weenie could prevent a dog from protecting or guarding. One could probably get a security system for less than the cost of a)attack training b)vet bills c)food and supplies.
If someones dog attacks and causes injury, yes, the person should be held accountable.
So, if I was to extend your arguement (and put words in your mouth), as long as I have a fence and warning signs, I could put hidden pit traps with punji sticks in my yard, maybe wire up a couple of crossbows or guns to tripwires, and that would be okay because I warned people?
Basically the highly publicized ‘Dog Mauling/Killing’ of a woman in San Francisco brought this very topic to light nationally and internationally. The woman who was killed, lived in an appartment complex and was mauled in a hallway when the owner of the 2 Bull-Mastifs was present. The owner could not help the women because the dogs just went bizerk and they out weighed her by 200 pounds…
Basically the judge over turned the guilty verdict ( 2nd degree murder) stating that on the morning of the attck the owner of the dog did not know they would later that day kill a woman in the hallway of their appartment complex. So its not murder basically it’s being irresponsible, and involuntary manslaughter…sad any way you look at it…
Who needs a dog that is half wolf?
And I’ll weigh in with my opinion, as well. I think what they’re charging her with is right on target. She’s lucky it wasn’t my kid, she might not get to see her trial.
When we ask if a person is responsible for their animals’ actions, do we mean (a) civilly responsible or (b) criminally responsible?
I believe a person is civilly responsible for everything their animal does. If, despite their best precautions, a dog escapes from my neighbors yard and tears up my professionally manicured lawn, the dog owner owes me for the cost of fixing my lawn. He is responsible regardless of what precautions (if any) he took. Period. Likewise, if an animal kills a person, the victim’s family should be able to sue for monetary damages for wrongful death. Call it the inherent risk of pet ownership.
Criminal responsibility is a different story. For criminal responsibility, I believe that if a person took reasonable precautions, then they are not criminally responsible for the actions of their animal. Thus, if a neighbor’s baseball breaks Joe’s window, allowing Joe’s dog (Spot) to go free and Spot then injures and/or kills someone, I would not hold Joe criminally responsible, since he took reasonable precautions. If, however, Joe allowed Spot to roam the neighborhood all day and there was a reasonable possiblity that Spot could attack someone, then Joe, IMHO, could be held criminally responsible.
In the case presented in the OP, I would hold the person criminally responsible. Keeping a wild animal (wolf, coyote or even a half-breed of these animals) can reasonably be considered dangerous to themselves and other people in the community, and, in that sense (especially since the animal was described as “vicious,” they should have considered themselves forwarned and kept a better leash on it.
What? You can shoot dead a child who comes into your yard to recover a ball? I find this surprising, but I don’t live in West Virginia, so I’ll defer to your greater knowledge.
The issue isn’t what a HUMAN would do but what an ANIMAL will do. As a HUMAN, I should be held to what a reasonable response is to the situation. For a trespasser, if I feel that my life or a member of my family is in danger, I can use whatever means necessary for protection (including lethal force). The courts (and a jury) will have to determine whether my level of response was reasonable based on the circumstances.
As an ANIMAL, reasonableness can’t be used. Animals are territorial and very protective of their owners. When they feel threatened, either by someone intruding in their territory or by a perceived threat to their owner, they will act out based on instinct and training. Some animals make lots of noise but never attack. Other animals go straight for the throat.
The question the OP asked is whether it’s reasonable to hold an owner accountable for the actions of a pet. I really think you have to look at it on a case by case basis. To answer the OP above, as tragic as the story sounds, we don’t know all the facts. Was the grandmother keeping the dog for another family member (dog sitting)? Was the chain in good working order? Was there plenty of food, water, and shade available (ie, was the dog properly cared for)? You may disagree with how the dog was being raised but I’m not ready to convict the lady yet.