AIBU not to pay for decapitated teddy bear

[RestlessTraveller]

So I have a rescue dog who is lovely but has suffered appalling treatment in the past.
He loves meeting people but is very excitable so I am very careful when he is around people. Today I was sat outside a coffee shop and he was being extremely well behaving sitting beside my chair, a woman with a boy aged about 3 came
and sat at the table next to me. The little
boy asked if he could stroke the dog and I explained it was best not to as he might jump up at him. Cue an almighty tantrum, with him screaming "I want to stroke the puppy", his mother told him not to because the dog was obviously "vicious". I explained that he wasn't vicious just excitable. To which point the child yelled "nasty doggy" and kicked out at him missing my my dog, but very close by. I told him not to do it again and to go back and sit with his mother which he did but minutes later he threw his teddy bear at him at which point my dog looked at this soft toy on the ground, picked it up and promptly ripped it's head off. Whilst trying not to die of embarrassment I apologised but the mother completely flipped out, telling me that it was a dangerous dog and should be put to sleep. She then demanded that I pay for the toy. I told her that if he child hadn't thrown it the dog would never have got his paws on it and walked off. I don't think I was BU but my friend thinks I should have coffed up. What do you think?

Yes, a reasonable mother would have kept their child away from a dog if there was a chance that the child might annoy the dog, especially one where the owner had indicated that it's not fond of playing with children.

It was good that the kid asked. It's normal for a three year old not to like the word no. A reasonable mother would step in and limit the fall out and probably remove the kid from the situation.

So, on that basis, I could understand all this gleeful celebratory bullshit , if the dog had destroyed her handbag. But it didn't. It fucked up the kid's toy.

All this crap spouted by other posters that suggests that this kid got his comeuppance borders on the unhinged.

Artandco You are being ridiculous!

But if the dog can be taught not to savage a baby why can't it be taught not to savage a toy?

This has already been explained but this is how dogs play with toys. From the dog's perspective, it had been given a toy to play with - rather disappointingly, this particular toy was a bit delicate and broke. You could teach a dog not to play with toys, but why would you? I think you're imagining much more 'violence' than occurred: dogs play with things by picking things up in their mouths, shaking them, etc. That's not 'savaging' but it might break a child's toy. My parents' dog once ripped open a free toy Andrex puppy: it happened because it was a mass produced weakly stitched piece of crap that essentially disintegrated in her mouth, not because of the dog's great strength and violence.

Overreaction much, Artandco?

This is a dog under control, and indeed asleep, that chewed a soft toy it had just been offered (in the dog's eyes).

I wouldn't mind betting that the OP has already chipped, fenced, leashed and trained it.

art we're a dog loving nation, you want to go live in a muzzle enforcing country then feel free!

Maybe out of control dogs should be muzzled but this dog was under control - it was the child that went up to it, not the dog to the child.

Well, I am not a dog owner, unfortunately, but attempted to do some shopping at the weekend. I had 4 people try to ram me with a buggy, not looking or assumed I should climb up the shelving in the shop to make room for them when I was already as far out of the way as I could get, then rammed by 2 girls pushing their shopping at me while a woman, assume mother of one of them, was ignoring them, I also was unable to move further out of their way and their shopping made contact with me.

Next I had a small child ride a tricycle into my leg from the opposite side of the pavement, side-on because the parent was not taking any notice, no way could I have seen it coming or moved, and yes it hurt.

Over the same weekend I passed many dogs, none of which bashed into me, and neither did their guardians.

It seems to be the fashion these days to ignore other people and allow children to do what they want in public regardless of age while the parent is engrossed in their phone.

You should have paid. Out of order completely. I really wish I could know the other side of the story to this.

Had an argument with a dog owner sometime ago who like you op, refused to pay. My children were playing football in our local park, and a dog bit the ball and pierced it. I was not happy but according to the dog owner's argument, it was my children's fault as they shouldn't play in that area of the park as there are lots of dogs there, and they had kicked the ball in the general direction of the ball....

Anyway, that said, op you have to take responsibility for your dog and whatever it damages.

Nope, if child throws toy away they risk loosing it, permanently if I don't see her throw it.
Temporarily if she's done it on purpose and I see it.
If the dog gets it tough, its the dogs new toy (I avoid soft toys around dogs anyway)

This child is 3, he is not a brat, child, special snowflake or any other degoratory words that are being used to describe him. He is a tiny kid, barely more than a toddler. I wonder about the mindset of people who are so desperate to defend a dog that they are vile about a human child.

OP you and your dog didn't do anything wrong, he was minding his own business when he got bopped on the head by what he probably thought was something new for him to play with. I would probably have offered to replace the toy because it belonged to an upset 3 year old but I can understand why you didn't feel that you should have to.

Yep, chipped, trained and most of all, much loved.

I don't understand the vitriol for the 3year old. Calling him a little shit and a brat?
3 year olds can't judge a situation as an adult would and sometimes behave appalling. It doesn't warrant them being labelled as shits that need to be taught a lesson.

General direction of the dog!,

myschool - but that's a completely different scenario. Unless you are telling us your boys deliberately kicked the ball at the dog?

Lol, no you shouldn't have paid! Not least because it would have validated their awful behaviour.

MySchool in that situation I would have paid up for the ball no question. But my dog would have never got that close to a ball that's not his.

*I mean you were right not to pay, grammar fail

I don't really understand why people think OP should have replaced the toy for the three year old's sake? Presumably OP didn't have another bear in a pocket so she would have given money? That might have pleased the mother, but I can't see how his mum getting cash would have done anything to please the child?

I'm not a banana. I think you will find that most vets in the uk also think dogs should be muzzled. They obviously like dogs but still think that.

Having a dog at a table where others will be eating And drinking is also not on. Dogs shouldn't be allowed at cafes or restaurants even outside.

You want a dog, that's fine, but you shouldn't make everyone else have to be near it.

No in those circumstances, absolutely not! The mum should have controlled her child, and stop him from intimidating your dog, which he was. You warned her that he was very excitable, any sensible parent would have kept their child at a distance.

I don't think it's a good idea to sit with a dog outside a café.

Artcando I have met a number of vets and really none of them think that all dogs need to be muzzled, and if I met one that did I certainly wouldn't be using their services!

Ohhhh. art is one of those people. Right then, art - cite one source where "most vets" think that.

I would have laughed, and then laughed some more.

YANBU