Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Dog attacks boy

162 replies

GhoulsAreLoud · 30/11/2009 13:35

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8386023.stm

Sorry, this is a disturbing story. As a parent and dog owner is absolutely chills me.

I wonder what more can be done to prevent these kind of incidents?

OP posts:
nooka · 01/12/2009 07:13

I think that are both breed characteristics which may mean that some kinds of dogs (in general) need more skillful trainers. There is also a tradition of breeding dogs to look and act tough, even when they are not specifically bred to fight. I don't think that the combination of a dominant/guard dog breed + irresponsible training for aggression is a good one, and the impression in this case is that is exactly what was going on. We live in Canada and there are frequently pit bull crosses in the shelters, and I wouldn't touch one with a bargepole to be honest. The other day when I was walking my pup we came across a dog with the biggest head ever. He could have quite easily eaten my pup in a gulp (I'm only exaggerating a bit, seriously he had a huge head). I am fairly steady wit dogs, but I really was quite frightened. I would never want to have a dog that most people were afraid of, even if s/he was lovely. Of course all dogs can do damage (my pup has bloody sharp teeth), but there is no doubt some can do more damage than others.

What struck me more about the case though was how incredibly sad/depressed this poor little boy looked in that photo.

ceres · 01/12/2009 07:51

absolutely awful - poor child. unfortunately yet again it appears there is more to this than meets the eye i.e it doesn't appear that the dog was a family pet.

incidentally, my aunt was badly bitten last week..........by a labrador. an 8-year-old family pet who was with it's owner while out walking. my aunt was lucky - although she was badly bitten and had to have 2 lots of stitches, if it had been a child it could have been fatal. that dog has now been pts.

valhala - irish dog legislation is a joke! i think it was written by somebody who had never SEEN a dog!

such a shame about all the poor staffies abandoned - and i know many are abandoned for not being 'hard' enough for their thuggish owners.

RealityMNTVStar · 01/12/2009 08:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

RealityMNTVStar · 01/12/2009 08:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ilovemydogandmrobama · 01/12/2009 10:11

Agree with Roger Mugford that the dog should not have been destroyed immediately until more is known about the dog forensically.

thedollshouse · 01/12/2009 10:29

Why should the dog not have been destroyed immediately? It doesn't need to be kept alive to establish its breed.

ilovemydogandmrobama · 01/12/2009 10:31

I didn't say it for to establish breed?

here

thedollshouse · 01/12/2009 10:38

I don't understand where the animal psychologist is coming from. How could it have helped the investigation if the animal was kept alive. Presumably the police are more clued up on the best way to conduct the investigation rather than the animal psycholgist.

NorkyButNice · 01/12/2009 10:57

As I understood it, he was saying that they would be able to investigate whether the dog had any triggers for violence which may have led to the attack.

Eg, had the owners trained it to be violent, or did it react to having its ear pulled, or was it hungry?

Once the dog is dead they only have the grandmothers word for what triggered it.

expatinscotland · 01/12/2009 11:25

I cried when I read the BBC article about how his teacher and staff had to take out his school tray.

I have a little girl in P1 and a nearly-4-year-old at nursery and they love their wee trays.

My god, when will people STOP breeding these animals? It's not fair on the dogs, and it's certainly not fair that young children continue to die like this.

BalloonSlayer · 01/12/2009 11:45

God how awful. Poor little boy.

As an aside, what a peculiar ending sentence:

"Merseyside Police held a dangerous dogs amnesty after her death in which more than 80 illegally-held dogs were seized. "

Isn't an amnesty in this sense where you allow people to surrender their illegal dogs without fear of prosecution. What "seizing" would there be in an amnesty?

ilovemydogandmrobama · 01/12/2009 11:51

A lot isn't known about the dog, nor the behavior. If the dog had been kept alive, experienced dog behaviorists might have been able to learn about the dog, the breed and possibly be able to investigate more about the dog's nature. This could have been useful in order to prevent other tragic events.

Yes, the dog should be put down humanely as it cannot be trusted to live in a domestic environment, but the other scenario is that the dog was possibly trained to fight. There will be no independent evidence for this and will have to rely on the family of the boy.

Sassybeast · 01/12/2009 12:24

Alwayslookingforanswers - thanks for posting the link that confirms that little Ellie was killed by a pit bull terrier.

Sassybeast · 01/12/2009 16:07

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm

What a surprise.

bangandthedirtisgone · 01/12/2009 16:34

It was an illegal breed.

The fucking muppetry of these people is unbelievable.

Absolute fucking wankers the lot of them. Those who bred this klling machine and the idiots that let children be around it.

Another poor little child lost to the idiocy of it's own family.

Arsed · 01/12/2009 16:54

The family ought to be up on manslaughter charges.

Poor poor boy. What a waste.

AnyFucker · 01/12/2009 16:56

words fail me

so I will second what bang said

Sassybeast · 01/12/2009 17:03

Ilove my dog - in the light of the police reports that this was an illegal breed, do you still think the dog should have been kept alive to allow it's behaviour to be studied ? Because I think that funds would be better spent on prosecuting the scum who bred and kept this dog and then locking them up for avery long time. Perhaps 'that' might prevent further incidents. Or do you think the feral thugs who keep these dogs would listen to a nice doggy psychologist ? I know I sound dead arsey and I'm not having a go at you personally - in fact I even understand the logic of what you said. But does it still stand ?

Those little boys eyes in that photo are absolutely haunting

sweetkitty · 01/12/2009 17:19

It's like leaving a 4 year old in a room on their own with a loaded gun.

This was a dangerous animal and it should have been NOWHERE near a 4yo, adult there or not, there was an adult trying to intervene and it still did not prevent this little boy dying.

When will these idiots learn?

ilovemydogandmrobama · 01/12/2009 17:26

It was a pit bull terrier type. I don't know what that means, but could include lots of cross breeds. Not all pit bulls are illegal.

I am wasn't suggesting for a second that the dog shouldn't be destroyed. Of course a dog that kills children should be put down.

Nor am I suggesting that the person who owned this dog shouldn't be prosecuted. Manslaughter sounds about right.

By destroying the dog immediately also means that evidence is lost. For instance, the defendant may suggest that the dog was docile etc, and now there isn't anything to dispute it. If the dog hadn't been destroyed, observed and put through various tests by experts, then someone could perhaps explain, from an independent stance, what caused the dog to turn nasty, and there's always a reason why a dog attacks, whether it's fear, hunger, guarding etc.

Am so sick of hearing about dangerous dogs who seriously injure/kill children and the owners wax lyrical about, 'what a lovely nature' the dog had. It would be great to hear from an expert that the dog had been independently examined and definitely the aggression wasn't just a once off event.

Sassybeast · 01/12/2009 18:03

But the evidence is irrefutable. The defence can't say 'oh the dog was docile' It's not about the dog being docile - the dog was ILLEGAL. So it's not about what may or may not have provoked it. It's about the fact that someone was keeping an illegal dog. A dog that is 'illegal' because of a number of cases in which people have been killed by the same/similar dogs.

clam · 01/12/2009 18:17

And the dog clearly was not docile. Whatever its history. Doesn't even matter whether it had ever attacked before. Dogs like that are lethal and can turn. I don't reckon that a dog psychologist coming to the conclusion that on this occasion it was provoked would be very helpful. All that does is to provide an excuse to other owners to say "Ah, but my dog wouldn't be provoked" to legitimise ownership.

Sounds morbid, I know, but I can't help wondering what's going through the mind of that dog's owner at the moment. The one who deliberately bred it to be aggressive.

luckyblackcat · 01/12/2009 18:40

Surely even if it is a Golden Retriever and it had killed a child it should still immediately be destroyed? Wasting time and effort into what may have triggered the attack is just crazy. The only evidence that should be taken into consideration is the dead body of the child, not if the dog was hungry/frightened.

I'm a dog lover, owner and volunteer at a rehoming centre.

Sassybeast · 01/12/2009 18:47

Ilove - you also say that 'not all pit bulls are illegal' ?www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/ukpga_19910065_en_1.htm - the opening sentances of the act suggest otherwise ?

MamaLazarou · 01/12/2009 18:59

Terrible tragedy. Stories like this make my blood run cold: my sister's MIL owns a Pitbull, and my one-year-old niece regularly plays near it. I live in constant fear that she will meet a similar fate to this poor innocent wee boy. I have reported the dog to the police, but they only seem to be interested in prosecuting the breeders, not owners, of illegal dogs.

Swipe left for the next trending thread