How far should you take accountability in pet attacks?
In the Case of Bane and Herra, 2 dogs who killed their neighbor, the apartment was the one responsible because there were no pets allowed in the building in the first place. I agree in this situation, bu it other cases, who would be responsible for the attacks and how far should their accountability be taken? For example, the owner of Bane and Herra tried to make them stop biting the neighbor. I think that this was the most she could have done on her part because of the aggression and the massive size of these dogs. However, I think if she just stood there watching, then she should be held accountable. If the apartment complex was not the one to be held accountable, who would be?
i think no matter what they will always put the dog owners held accountable because they are the owners of the dogs and they should know how to control them or at least know what their capable of doing. However in this case I think it was difficult because there was no other witness besides her and Diane. So maybe if there was someone else who saw the situation there would be more evidence in what really happen because the dog owner can say whatever she wants to save herself but maybe we will never know what really happened that day.
ReplyDeleteI believe that owners should be held accountable for their animals. However, in a simialr way to children, you can't blame them for all of their pets actions. If someone kills someone else, you don't go charging the parents for murder. However, there should be come accountablity. We saw this in the San Francisco Dog murder case. . The jury found the owners of the dog guilty of 2nd degree murder. Which essentially means, that in the heat of the moment, the owners wanted the dog to kill Diane Whipple. Which, when you look at it, is absolutely absurd. Yes, the court proved that the dog owner were negligent, citing the numerous people who had complained about the violent and attack prone dogs. However, that doesn't prove that they knew the dog would go out and kill someone. In the trial, they even showed how Marjorie Knoller protected Diana Whipple from the dogs in the heat of the moment, far from trying to kill her. In the end, this case shows a lot about the power of public opinion. Part of me feels that the jury solely found her guilty of murder due to the outrage of public opinion that was there at the time.
ReplyDelete