XL bully owners

[EppingIsFun]

Kelcie Reed has been given a suspended sentence after her XL Bully dog killed her cousin, Morgan Dorsett.

AIBU to think that if you choose to own a dangerous, restricted-breed dog, the penalty if it attacks (or in this case, attacks and kills) someone needs to be a lot higher?

This isn't justice, and it certainly isn't an adequate deterrent.

We can't afford to put people in prison and the cheaper option of putting down any dog that has a jaw like an XL bully is considered mean. Apparently some very lovely and responsible people choose to keep unsuitable dogs as pets and we can't upset them just because a few people might get killed.

Where would you put her? Prisons are full.

I agree people shouldn't own these dangerous dogs, but imprisoning someone who herself suffered injuries trying to stop the attack, while it seems both her and the victim were under the influence of illegal drugs, and who later admitted full responsibility doesn't seem like a case that's sufficiently in the public interest to take up a prison space which is needed for someone who's committed a more severe crime. The dog is rightly destroyed.

I don't think I agree with the idea that it's acceptable for sentences to be more lenient at times when there's greater pressure on the prison system. That's a problem that needs fixing, for sure... prison overcrowding.

As to your point about illegal drugs and her trying to intervene... my point is that if you take the entirely stupid decision to own this kind of dog, you should be held properly responsible, and that should include a prison sentence in this case. This attack wouldn't have happened if she hadn't decided to keep a dangerous dog as a pet.

No one agrees with criminals having lesser sentences due to overcrowding, it's just a harsh reality. I would rather she be walking around than a murder or rapist.

She likely got the dog before the law changed. The whole situation was a mess, the girl who died was high and started screaming at the dog when it wasn’t doing anything, and ultimately it attacked her, the owner tried to stop the dog but couldn’t. So with prisons being full a suspended sentence makes sense.

AIBU to think that if you choose to own a dangerous, restricted-breed dog, the penalty if it attacks (or in this case, attacks and kills) someone needs to be a lot higher?

Correct it for you, OP;

AIBU to think that if you choose to own a dangerous dog, the penalty if it attacks (or in this case, attacks and kills) someone needs to be a lot higher?

It doesn't matter if it's a restricted breed. Any dog that is dangerous enough it kills or seriously harms someone should be PTS and the owner should be heavily fined (prison won't work - ultimately, they'll be out in 4 months if that).

There are of course situations where a dog attacks where repeated warnings are ignored (i.e. a child crawls into a dogs crate whilst it's asleep and the dog bites the child). Those require a different sort of response, of course.

It's not acceptable, no, but it is the reality facing judges at the moment.

Her conviction does carry a prison sentence. Given the context, this was suspended.

Lots of things wouldn't happen if X person hadn't done Y. That is not in itself an indication of criminality nor does it indicate a risk to the wider public.

As far as I am aware it’s only men’s prisons that are full.