Prime example of why I hate other parents...

On 12 Aug 2006 21:57:57 -0700, "L." wrote:


Barbara wrote:

Yes, and I'll also bet that both they and their parents were glad that
there was a phone easily accessible so that they could summon medical
attention. Of course I'm sure everything would have been just fine if
they'd had to walk several blocks to locate a pay phone, or had to
explain their need for a phone to a gatekeeper who could determine
whether or not it really was an emergency.

Barbara

Just ignore her. She's just being her usual idio,t ****y self and
proving the the world once again that she has no reading comprehension
skills. No one ever said a cell phone would prevent an incident.

But the truth is, if older children have cell phones, the cell phone
may enable them to call for help and save their lives. One can bleed
to death in a matter of minutes (even from a dog attack) and access to
a cell phone can be critical in saving a life.

-L.

You're so charming.
Can nobody even take a freakin' joke?

Damn.

Nan

"L." wrote in message
oups.com...

Barbara wrote:

Yes, and I'll also bet that both they and their parents were glad that
there was a phone easily accessible so that they could summon medical
attention. Of course I'm sure everything would have been just fine if
they'd had to walk several blocks to locate a pay phone, or had to
explain their need for a phone to a gatekeeper who could determine
whether or not it really was an emergency.

Barbara

Just ignore her. She's just being her usual idio,t ****y self and
proving the the world once again that she has no reading comprehension
skills.

It's funny you say that ..... lol


No one ever said a cell phone would prevent an incident.

But the truth is, if older children have cell phones, the cell phone
may enable them to call for help and save their lives. One can bleed
to death in a matter of minutes (even from a dog attack) and access to
a cell phone can be critical in saving a life.

-L.

"L." wrote in message
oups.com...

Barbara wrote:

How absurd.

From just a 2 minute web search:

Let me make something else abundantly clear. The parents' negligence
in no way absolves the dog owners' responsibility.

if a parent were negligent, how does that make the dog/its owner
responsible? or is the parent entirely responsible due to "negligence"? but
if the owner is entirely responsible as you've also said, how can the parent
have been negligent? if the two parties (e.g. provocative, teasing child and
fear-aggressive dog) have _both_ had a part in the situation, surely that
means they're both responsible for the situation, therefore the parent isn't
negligent _nor_ the owner responsible for the deed...? (did you think this
through at all or were you just having another rant?)

The animals should
be destroyed and the owners (I use this word because they definitely
are not "guardians") should be charged with assault and attempted
murder, in cases where a known biter is allowed to bit again.

heh. so... you don't know much about kids or parents OR animals, eh? :-)

fortunately, in the real world, the authorities generally try to determine
what actually happened before anyone gets the needle. admittedly it leaves
less scope for hating random humans (or animals) on usenet, but there you
have it, we do what we can.

Any
person who owns a biting dog has the responsibility to keep the animal
under control, away from others *and* muzzled.

-L.

god help us all, i agree with you there, rare though a recidivist biting dog
statistically is. (although after the dog's been put down & the humans
jailed for assault/attempted murder(!) in lyn's brave new world, i'm not
sure who would be keeping, controlling and muzzling what....)
kylie

In article .com, L. says...


Barbara wrote:

Yes, and I'll also bet that both they and their parents were glad that
there was a phone easily accessible so that they could summon medical
attention. Of course I'm sure everything would have been just fine if
they'd had to walk several blocks to locate a pay phone, or had to
explain their need for a phone to a gatekeeper who could determine
whether or not it really was an emergency.

Barbara

Just ignore her. She's just being her usual idio,t ****y self and
proving the the world once again that she has no reading comprehension
skills. No one ever said a cell phone would prevent an incident.

:::WHHHhhhoooooooOSH::


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

L. wrote:
Barbara wrote:

Where were her parents? My kid sure as hell doesn't sit outside
unattended, especially in front of a home where a known vicious dog
lives. "Neighbors said it wasn't the first time the dog has been
violent." So in other words, the parents simply don't give a ****
about the kid and let her hang around a home where there is a pitbull
known to bite humans. It's really elementary, Babs.

Snip

Where were the parents? The Grandparents did notuing to stop the
attack. The parents knew there was a vicious rotty living NEXTDOOR,
yet allow the children outside with no means of defense. Natural
selection at work.

Actually, in this case, I think you are being unfair - if you had read
the stories, you would realize that in neither case was the child
unattended. The girl's aunt was there with the little girl, and the
grandparents were with the boy - and not only did they fight the dog
off, but they dragged the little boy inside, in an attempt to get him
away from the dog, and the dog lunged inside and continued attacking.
There is also no information in either article what the parents could
or should have known about the dogs ahead of time.

You cannot eliminate all risk from a child's life. Most parents do
what they can to take reasonable precautions. Blaming a parent or
guardian for being somewhere at the wrong time as in the cases above,
is a bit akin to blaming the parents of a child (who was in a
properly-installed child-safety seat) killed in a car accident, for
putting that child in a car in the first place.

Cathy Weeks

0tterbot wrote:

Let me make something else abundantly clear. The parents' negligence
in no way absolves the dog owners' responsibility.

if a parent were negligent, how does that make the dog/its owner
responsible? or is the parent entirely responsible due to "negligence"? but
if the owner is entirely responsible as you've also said, how can the parent
have been negligent? if the two parties (e.g. provocative, teasing child and
fear-aggressive dog) have _both_ had a part in the situation, surely that
means they're both responsible for the situation, therefore the parent isn't
negligent _nor_ the owner responsible for the deed...? (did you think this
through at all or were you just having another rant?)

Do I really need to spell it out for you? Are you seriously that daft?
The free dictionary.com:

Noun 1. culpable negligence - (law) recklessly acting without
reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or
death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)

They're both culpable. The dog owner is legally and criminally
*liable* for the actions of the dog.


The animals should
be destroyed and the owners (I use this word because they definitely
are not "guardians") should be charged with assault and attempted
murder, in cases where a known biter is allowed to bit again.

heh. so... you don't know much about kids or parents OR animals, eh? :-)

fortunately, in the real world, the authorities generally try to determine
what actually happened before anyone gets the needle. admittedly it leaves
less scope for hating random humans (or animals) on usenet, but there you
have it, we do what we can.

*Any* dog that attacks like these dogs attacked needs the be put
down.... I suppose you think Bane in the SF dog mauling case should
have been spared, as well?


Any
person who owns a biting dog has the responsibility to keep the animal
under control, away from others *and* muzzled.

-L.

god help us all, i agree with you there, rare though a recidivist biting dog
statistically is. (although after the dog's been put down & the humans
jailed for assault/attempted murder(!)

IMO, anyone who harbors a known biter without taking FULL precaution
that the animal cannot attack again is guilty of attempted murder when
that dog attacks a child.

-L.

Cathy Weeks wrote:

Actually, in this case, I think you are being unfair - if you had read
the stories, you would realize that in neither case was the child
unattended. The girl's aunt was there with the little girl,

....at a home where a vicious Pit Bull was known to live. If my sister
wants to take my toddler to a home where a known vicious Pit Bull
lives, the answer would be "NO". Actually I wouldn't let her take him
to any home where a Pit Bull lives. (Not that I think the breed is
inherently bad - I simply have absolutely no idea if the dog is
friendly or not.) If the parent didn't know there was a vicious dog at
the home, she should have. My kid goes no where unless I know who and
what is in the home - and that includes people, animals and guns. If
the Aunt took the child there without the parent's permision, then the
Aunt is culpable.



and the
grandparents were with the boy - and not only did they fight the dog
off, but they dragged the little boy inside, in an attempt to get him
away from the dog, and the dog lunged inside and continued attacking.
There is also no information in either article what the parents could
or should have known about the dogs ahead of time.

There were three dogs who lived in the house of the neighbor - and were
kept in a fenced yard. Do you seriously think that these people didn't
know their neighbors had three dogs, including a rotty? The dog was
known in the neighborhood for killing other animals, so it obviously
had been rogue on more than one occasion. If you live in a
neighborhood where rogue dogs roam - especially breeds that are known
to be agressive - would you NOT take precautions when walking in said
neighborhood?


You cannot eliminate all risk from a child's life. Most parents do
what they can to take reasonable precautions. Blaming a parent or
guardian for being somewhere at the wrong time

**** just "doesn't happen". This was no accident. It was an *easily*
forseeable incident.

as in the cases above,
is a bit akin to blaming the parents of a child (who was in a
properly-installed child-safety seat) killed in a car accident, for
putting that child in a car in the first place.

But that's just it - there was no figurative "car seat" used in either
of these cases.

-L.

0tterbot wrote:

now it's "like these dogs attacked" rather than attacks in general? well,
fair enough! there are entirely different situations where dogs (or other
animals) attack humans (or other animals). exactly.

We are talking about *repeat* biters, no?


IMO, anyone who harbors a known biter without taking FULL precaution
that the animal cannot attack again is guilty of attempted murder when
that dog attacks a child.

or an adult, one assumes. at least for most of we adult-likers.

however, to get back to the first theme, there are different types of "known
biters". hence my point. one bite does not a "biter" make, unless one knows
exactly what happened.

One bite does make a "biter" - in terms of the law as I have
encountered it. Repeat bites makes for a dead dog, and a guilty owner,
AFAIC.

-L.

"L." wrote in message
ups.com...

0tterbot wrote:

now it's "like these dogs attacked" rather than attacks in general? well,
fair enough! there are entirely different situations where dogs (or other
animals) attack humans (or other animals). exactly.

We are talking about *repeat* biters, no?

well, perhaps, but not necessarily. with "like these dogs attacked" it's
more about dogs forming into a pack & attacking from aggression, rather than
anything else. on the other hand, a dog which "attacked" someone because
that person was frightening, hurting or torturing them (i.e. it didn't
attack, it simply defended itself) is _entirely_ a different case. to label
a dog which bit in self-defence "a biter" pure & simple is _completely_
unreasonable. so to say that all "biters" should necessarily be put down
&/or its owners charged is a common thing for people who don't know dogs
(which unfortunately includes some dog owners) to say. but it doesn't make
it fair, nor really correct either. the _massive_ majority of dogs will
never bite anyone, ever. of those that do (or have) there can be a variety
of reasons for why that happened, so making blanket statements that biters
should be put down & their owners charged is really quite unnecessary, and
rather silly. still, people do say it. and some dogs really should be put
down for their own sake as well as everyone else's, i don't dispute that (i
really don't think extremely fear-aggressive or extremely psychologically
disturbed dogs have a quality of life that is worth living, for example).
but it's not as simple as "it bit! kill it!" because really, that's too much
like the unfortunate meerkats, isn't it?

when something happens such as a small child being bitten when nobody can
really determine exactly what happened, & such behaviour is entirely out of
character for the dog, i'd give the dog the benefit of the doubt - because
we all know what small kids can be like with animals.

One bite does make a "biter" - in terms of the law as I have
encountered it.

shrug we have different laws.

Repeat bites makes for a dead dog, and a guilty owner,
AFAIC.

well, that's your black-and-white view i suppose. i'm not into that sort of
thing.
kylie

I have to say I understand both sides of the children in restaurants
arguement.

I have five kids and we regularly eat in restaurants with them all. ten
years ago we had just the four all under 8 and we still took them to
restaurants both family and regular restaurants and sometimes it was ok
other it was horrible and we left. Its not so hit and miss now the
girls are 18, 15, 14, 11, and nearly 3.

But never did we forget that we were the adults at the table and not at
a family 'do' where everyone in the room had a connection and tolerance
to bad behaviour. Every person eating in any situation have a right
not to be as disturbed as far as possible, but in return should show
tolerance to the families trying to enforce good behaviour from unruly
children. I have seen families showing manners I have felt were
disgusting but also thought those kids can't learn better restaurant
manners without going out to eat.

Tolerance is a great word for this topic everyone one of us could cite
a story of bad behaviour in this type of situation and not just from
our own children but other families as well.

I personally don't agree with young family areas within restaurants for
several reasons, the turnover of tables is so high in these areas the
cleaning is very much a quick wipe over and not I would say to a high
standard (clean table messy floor is not my idea of fun) but also I
believe that children can learn so much from circumstances and
enviroment that eating in normal areas or 'posher' restaurants is a key
part of table manner teaching and social graces.

I think as parents we can be blinkered to how our famillies look when
out in public i look at my children and on the whole they look to me
well behaved with good manners but that is by my standards other people
may see them as brats with manners of swine. While I think my view is
the only one that really counts I do try to see my world in the way
others do. When I look in so to speak at my family we are quite loud,
not screaming but boystrus (hope thats spelt right) we debate and laugh
and generally enjoy our company but how many others have we disturbed
by just being ourselves????

and just for the record my child would have been punished badly for
causing those animals to die.........consequences of actions is a key
phrase in my life. They also would have had the shots to learn a major
life lesson as well as for medical reasons.

Sharon

mum to 5 daughters
UK