There is one thing about dogs attacking infants. It seems to me that dogs are more likely to attack when there are two or more of them instead of just a single dog.
What? That doesn’t even make sense. It doesn’t matter the SIZE of the dog. A lap dog can do a ton of damage to an unattended newborn in a matter of minutes, probably mostly with it’s claws.
Also, I’m not a parent, but I sure as heck know you NEVER leave any small child (say, 8 and under) unattended with ANY dog, no matter how familiar they are with each other. That’s just common sense. Dog are still animals, and can be unpredictable, as can kids. The kid decides trying to pull the dogs tail off is a good idea and the dog snaps and bites the kid. The sad thing in those situations is that the dog is the one who ends up paying, usually by being put down.
Yes. I must admit you have some kind of point. People are rushed into their local ERs every day as a result of injuries sustained from being clawed by viscous dogs.
I sure wish more people would investigate having their dogs de-clawed. Many thousands have done that and I know all their friends and neighbors sure do appreciate it. All the neighborhood children feel much safer when the dogs in the neighborhood have all been de-clawed.
???
We are not talking about adults, we are talking about babies. A cat could do serious damage to an infant. They are defenceless against an animal, they can not fight back, they can not raise their arms to protect their faces or necks.
Yup. A yorkie or pug isn’t going to kill an able bodied person–you can kick them off even if you do sustain a bite. But a baby who can’t even walk and has no means of defense could probably be killed by just about any dog. Even a dog that hasn’t shown aggression might attack a baby. Some dogs just freak out or are uncomfortable around them. Why risk leaving them alone together?
Why are you being so obtuse? Hell, a *rat *could kill a newborn baby. A baby is defenseless. It lays there and can’t protect itself. Why do you think the size of the dog matters against an infant?
I have to agree with you about cats.
But then, cats have claws.
Seriously. I have a 3 pound, clawless, 22 year old cat and he could kill a baby by lying down to sleep on its face.
Unattended Pets+Babies=Badness.
BTW, a Pomeranian killed a baby. 
While I don’t necessarily see where the OP is going here I think the size and number of the dogs could theoretically be relevant here. A 100 lbs dog on a rampage determined to get at the baby will not be stopped by the mother if she’s in the room or not. In this regard, it is kind of comparable to an earthquake scenario. In this case, it seems like this is not the case.
No good reason??? She needed a SMOKE!! When I was smoking I would have left a baby on the street if I had to to get a smoke.
Had she stayed and smoked, she might have damaged the baby’s lungs, not to mention smelling up its clothes.
Hmmm… baby lung disease, or eaten by wolves? There is no right answer here, my friends. 
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy and Tear Your Baby To Pieces
Sounds like a sticky situation!
Meanwhile in the UK, twin baby girls were mauled by an urban fox that came in through an open window.
Dogs have claws just like cats, sometimes more blunt, sometimes not. I’ve been scratched many times by dogs.
It’s ok to admit you’re wrong you know, rather then grasping at any thread you can.
There are a number of misconceptions in your post.
It really doesn’t make a difference what size of dog. Justin Mozer was killed by a Jack Russell Terrier.
The dogs in this incident, Huskies, weren’t “attack” dogs. I’m not really sure what an "attack: dog is, unless one is referring to a trained police dog or ine who participates in Schutzhund. Guarding breeds are what many people mean when they say “attack dog.” Huskies are not guarding dogs either.
The presence of the mother in the room makes a huge difference in the dogs’ behavior. All dogs crave and respond to leadership. Huskies are particularly responsive to human presence and strong leadership; most of the troublesome Huskies I have known have simply been badly led. They are strong, active dogs who need something to do and look to humans to provide it. They respond extraordinarily well to nuances of human behavior; you can often stop them from doing something with a stern glance. You’ll note the huskies did not attack while the adult was in the room, but when they were left to their own devices.
Lack of adult supervision is one of the four primary factors in fatal dog attacks (the others being chained dogs, intact male dogs, and territoriality – when someone ignores a dog’s warnings and intrudes on turf a dog is trained or expected to defend.)
It’s also worth noting that unsupervised children manage to die from all kinds of other in-home accidents. The dominating factor in this accident, as in so many others, is taking your eye off the ball.
There’s another thing that I personally suspect may be a factor in dog attacks on infants. This is my own theory, anyway.
As far as I can tell, infants have little scent, unlike active children, who can be quite stinky. Further, we sanitize and perfume infants obsessively. I’d wager a freshly changed and bathed infant doesn’t smell nearly as human as a sticky, stinky child or a sweaty adult. Perhaps dogs have a lot more trouble recognizing them as human pack members in this state, and mistake them for some kind of strange little prey animals.
Maybe it’s bunk, but it would explain why seemingly dependable family dogs sometimes harm unattended infants.
Come on, nobody’s trying to hide anything here. She left the room for a short period, which was sufficient time for the dogs to attack her baby.
You’ll notice that many people, some working in the judicial sector, have already started criticizing the accusations the mother is facing. I think it’s fair to say that this is a case where putting her in jail and leaving her with a criminal record isn’t going to do anything positive. She may have done something negligent, but she’s probably already been punished enough.
I’m not really trying to find additional reasons to charge the mother with anything, but I have heard two different stories (one from the initial reports from the cops/reporters about the child’s death and one from the child’s father who wasn’t there at the time). It probably is the same story, told differently: the two women stepped out for a smoke, and maybe took a few steps towards the garden, or perhaps the garden in question is right by the door, and so “going to look at the flowers” involved just turning their heads or something. Either way, they were outside.
If I were to continue to speculate about what the prosecutor is thinking in laying charges (CSI: St-Hyacinthe, anyone?) then perhaps the women were outside longer than a “moment” (based on completely smoked cigarettes or something). It’s easy to lose track of time or to simply not be aware of the amount of time it really takes to do something.
But all of this is speculation as to why the mother is charged. It does seem like manslaughter is an extreme charge to lay in this situation, and perhaps she has been punished enough. I really don’t know all the facts, so I’m just trying to piece together “why” the woman was charged, and even why it was done before the baby’s funeral (which just seems kind of cruel on the part of the prosecutor).
One other thing to toss into the dog discussion: the dogs belonged to housemates and not to the parents of the baby. In terms of leadership and pack hierarchy, the dogs may not have perceived the mother as being their leader, especially if she wasn’t typically involved in feeding/walking/disciplining them. With her away, the baby became whatever toy/threat/prey the dog(s) who attacked it felt it was. Though my understanding of doggy psychology is about as good as my understanding of criminal law, so really, take everything with a massive grain of salt!
No excuses. You NEVER leave an infant alone in the house, EVER. Not once, not for a minute. Even if there’s *not *a dog there. Sure, lots of bad things can happen even if you’re right there. Lots more and much worse things can happen if you’re not. And yes, plenty of times people get away with breaking that rule. If you don’t, and the worst happens, it is your fault. Period.
This is universal. I have timed people I am waiting on while getting ready to leave the house, and I have timed how long it takes someone who left their dog in the car while “darting into the store for just a second” and I have talked to people who swear they can drive from DC to NYC in 2 hours at rush hour on a Friday night…and my conclusion is that some people are simply bad at estimating time, and all the rest of them are horrible at it. Especially when they are goofing off a bit.