Dangerous dogs...

[David Bailey]

I've been following the news recently of the trial of Jacqueline Simpson, the grandmother of the 5-year-old Ellie Lawrenson who was killed by a pit bull terrier in Liverpool.

She's being charged with manslaughter, basically for the (admittedly very stupid) decision to let the dog inside the house because it "seemed scared". Yes, it was very dumb, and yes, she may have been drugged-up, but she clearly had no intention of causing any harm to her grandchild.

It's a very difficult moral dilemna, but to me, the responsibility lies mainly with the dog's owner, Kiel Simpson. He was jailed for 8 weeks for owning an illegal dog, but as the maximum penalty is 6 months', it makes you wonder what your dog would have to do, to get that penalty - if killing a child isn't enough, what is? He bought the dog, trained it (presumably for illegal fights), fed it, and refused to get rid of it when it attacked his own sister a few weeks previously - she needed hospital treatment for that.

So to me, he's just as responsible as if he'd left a loaded handgun lying around in the house. And it seems strange that the focus of prosecution - especially for manslaughter - is on the carer.

[Barry Shnikov]

So to me, he's just as responsible as if he'd left a loaded handgun lying around in the house. And it seems strange that the focus of prosecution - especially for manslaughter - is on the carer.

Well, you sank your own argument with the handgun comparison. If someone picked up the handgun and shot someone else with it, who gets charged with murder and who gets charged with a firearms offence?

It's a question of responsibility. It seems even grandma (who by the way had had a drink and a toke at the time in question...) admits that it was a rule that the dog stayed outside. She broke the rule and let the dog in, so the law applies the but for... test. But for her act of letting the dog in the house, it would have stayed outside and the little girl would still be alive.

An 9 week jail sentence is not to be lightly dismissed, by the way; he shot right over fines, community service and suspended sentences, went right to jail. OK, given his milieu it's unlikely to have affected him as it would me or you.

[Achaeco]

Im with you DJ.
Yes the gran should be done for letting the dog in but the dog was not born that way. A dog only becomes this way if the owner wants it. My sister-in-laws mother owns a pitbull and bull terrier rescue and they can and mostly are friendly dogs.
The owner should face the same or a stiffer punishment but we all know how stupid our laws are.

Barry if you think 9 weeks in jail is a punishment you are wrong

[Barry Shnikov]

Im with you DJ.
Yes the gran should be done for letting the dog in but the dog was not born that way. A dog only becomes this way if the owner wants it. My sister-in-laws mother owns a pitbull and bull terrier rescue and they can and mostly are friendly dogs.
The owner should face the same or a stiffer punishment but we all know how stupid our laws are.

Er, duh. Learn about the inherited behavioural characteristics of pit bulls. You don't need to train them to be vicious - they've been bred that way for generations. You think if you get a tiger cub and are really nice to it that it will be nice and gentle all its life?

Barry if you think 9 weeks in jail is a punishment you are wrong

OK, you do nine weeks in jail then, if it's no punishment. You seem to suggest its no different from living nine weeks at home, so pack your bags and off you go.
Say hello to Bubba for me.

[David Bailey]

The point is, this guy effectively created a lethal weapon, then refused to get rid of it despite evidence that it was a lethal weapon.

I heard (I could be wrong) that it was deliberately raised to be (extra) vicious, as either a status symbol or for dogfighting. So why are the penalties for this so much less than the penalties for handgun ownership?

And I believe the handgun analogy still applies - basically, the granny was negligent in not securing the danger, but to charge her with manslaughter seems OTT - to me, it implies that she wanted her grandchild dead, when clearly she didn't, and she suffered injuries herself trying to save the child. I'm sure she'll be haunted by those memories all her life - and frankly, I think the police are going after the wrong person.

We don't know the case details yet of course - but it still seems unfair to me.

[Martin]

I own 2 fighting pit bulls, they do very well, not something I declare on tax returns, but they provide a good income...

BUT, I would never let them in the house when visitors are here - how stupid is that?

They are trained to do a task, they are not "pets"..

Would you let a guard dog in the house?

[Isis]

it implies that she wanted her grandchild dead, when clearly

If she had wanted the child dead she would be guilty of murder. She did not want the child dead but her actions caused the death, hence the charge of manslaughter.

[David Bailey]

If she had wanted the child dead she would be guilty of murder. She did not want the child dead but her actions caused the death, hence the charge of manslaughter.

Ah, yes, I've just looked it up, and the actual charge is "manslaughter through gross negligence." In other words, it's a charge of involuntary manslaughter - I was thinking of voluntary manslaughter. Duh...

Of course, most news organisations just say "manslaughter". That'll teach me to listen to the news in future

I still think the dog owner got off lightly, however - he's at least as much to blame as she is, to my mind.

[Barry Shnikov]

I own 2 fighting pit bulls, they do very well, not something I declare on tax returns, but they provide a good income...

BUT, I would never let them in the house when visitors are here - how stupid is that?

They are trained to do a task, they are not "pets"..

Would you let a guard dog in the house?

It would appear from your post that you have dogs which you use to fight other dogs for entertainment.

If that is so I decline to interact further with you in any way whatsoever.

If I misunderstood, I apologise.

[Barry Shnikov]

Ah, yes, I've just looked it up, and the actual charge is "manslaughter through gross negligence." In other words, it's a charge of involuntary manslaughter - I was thinking of voluntary manslaughter. Duh...

Of course, most news organisations just say "manslaughter". That'll teach me to listen to the news in future

I still think the dog owner got off lightly, however - he's at least as much to blame as she is, to my mind.

You're entitled to your opinion, but if you're interested the legal theory behind it is that for the most serious offences some type of act of will must be concerned that is directly related to the incident. It may be an action, or an inaction. But a simple state of affairs is generally not sufficient to fix the most serious types of criminal liability.

I haven't seen anything about what the father did with the dog - if he was trying to make it more brutal then he's always going to know that he was partly responsible for his own daughter's death. But the rationale of the law is that the very temperament of certain types of animals makes them unsuitable for the role of 'pet'. Parliament heard evidence that even with the most docile and easy-going of pitbulls there's always a substantial risk of a 'trigger' making the dog revert to type.

[David Bailey]

You're entitled to your opinion, but if you're interested the legal theory behind it is that for the most serious offences some type of act of will must be concerned that is directly related to the incident. It may be an action, or an inaction. But a simple state of affairs is generally not sufficient to fix the most serious types of criminal liability.

So what about the guy's inaction about the dog in the 6 weeks between the attack on his own 19-year-old sister, and the attack on his 5-year-old niece?

I haven't seen anything about what the father did with the dog - if he was trying to make it more brutal then he's always going to know that he was partly responsible for his own daughter's death.

It was the uncle, not the father. But yes, one would assume he's going to feel at least some remorse.

But the rationale of the law is that the very temperament of certain types of animals makes them unsuitable for the role of 'pet'. Parliament heard evidence that even with the most docile and easy-going of pitbulls there's always a substantial risk of a 'trigger' making the dog revert to type.

Yeah. I'm also quite about Martin's comment...

Dangerous dogs are dangerous. They're illegal, but I was amazed to hear how slackly the law was enforced.

[Isis]

I own 2 fighting pit bulls, they do very well, not something I declare on tax returns, but they provide a good income...

I have worked smart in the past and retired at 37.

Is that what you define as working smart? - making money out of something horrific and cheating The State and your fellow citizens by not paying your taxes!

It would appear from your post that you have dogs which you use to fight other dogs for entertainment.

If that is so I decline to interact further with you in any way whatsoever.

[Martin]

It would appear from your post that you have dogs which you use to fight other dogs for entertainment.

If that is so I decline to interact further with you in any way whatsoever.

If I misunderstood, I apologise.

hey chill, I was taling the p*ss, just kidding around.

Sorry if you took me serious.

I thought it was so absurd, to be laughable....

[Achaeco]

Er, duh. Learn about the inherited behavioural characteristics of pit bulls. You don't need to train them to be vicious - they've been bred that way for generations. You think if you get a tiger cub and are really nice to it that it will be nice and gentle all its life?

OK, you do nine weeks in jail then, if it's no punishment. You seem to suggest its no different from living nine weeks at home, so pack your bags and off you go.
Say hello to Bubba for me.

Agreed, they have been bred that way for a very long time and those days are slowly going but you seen like a clever fella so i dont think for a second your telling me all of these dogs are the same.
I know its old but there is a Mrs Woodhouse who wrote several books on dogs (think she still leads the feild in some categories) who states "there is no such thing as a aggressive dog only dogs who think they are aggressive" but obviously you know better.


Oh and i have been in prison, not proud of it and would never bragg about it but it does give me an oppinion of what 9 weeks is like. Just so you know, i dont think 9 weeks is long enough for housing a dog in that condition, it should have been put down on the first attack.

Just out of curiosity are you a criminal lawyer?

[Barry Shnikov]

Agreed, they have been bred that way for a very long time and those days are slowly going but you seen like a clever fella so i dont think for a second your telling me all of these dogs are the same.
I know its old but there is a Mrs Woodhouse who wrote several books on dogs (think she still leads the feild in some categories) who states "there is no such thing as a aggressive dog only dogs who think they are aggressive" but obviously you know better.

I don't know about 'knowing better' but I would vigorously disagree with that statement of Mrs Woodhouse's. Dogs are pack animals and as everyone kno descended from wolves. A pack animal's usual way of resolving tension is to attack if the other animal is lower down the 'pecking order', and to submit if it is higher up the order. Experiments have shown that after an animal submits it experiences less tension and is more comfortable. However, it has been frequently observed that where the tensions are extreme or where the animal is unwell it may well attack animals further up the order and even fail to acknowledge the submission of an animal lower in the order.
Even intelligent and experienced sheepdogs have been known to suddenly revert to type and kill a few sheep. And they have been bred for generations to herd, whereas terriers were bred for generations to attack larger animals, and to some extent as fighting dogs. One terrier will live it's entire life as meek as a labrador and another will suddenly attack. In retrospect the attack might make perfect sense but it may have been impossible to predict all the same.

Oh and i have been in prison, not proud of it and would never bragg about it but it does give me an oppinion of what 9 weeks is like. Just so you know, i dont think 9 weeks is long enough for housing a dog in that condition, it should have been put down on the first attack.

I am happy to accept that you know whereof you speak; on the other hand most hang'em and flog'em comments are made by people who'd struggle to spend a night away from their duvet never mind one in prison...My mother had a collie, she was a smashing dog, beautiful, affectionate and very bright. But a dustman kicked her when she was a puppy, and after that, she was usually aggressive towards scruffy men (Bit of a problem for my sister's boyfriends...) and once attacked a dustman. He danced out of the way but it could have been worse for him.
My mother's way of dealing with that problem was to ensure that the dog was always inside on bin day, and careful to keep her on the leash when scruffy men were about.
The attack on the teenaged girl might well have been a warning that the owner should have taken more seriously, I'm just saying things are not always as clear cut at the time as they are in retrospect. If grandma had kept the dog outside we would never have become aware of any of it.
What's worse is the idea that little girls are in the care generally of women who are brain addled with a cocktail of alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs - never mind the dangerous dog, that's a dangerous grandparent!

Just out of curiosity are you a criminal lawyer?

No, my knowledge of criminal law comes from doing it at law school. Why - have you re-offended?

[Achaeco]

I don't know about 'knowing better' but I would vigorously disagree with that statement of Mrs Woodhouse's. Dogs are pack animals and as everyone kno descended from wolves. A pack animal's usual way of resolving tension is to attack if the other animal is lower down the 'pecking order', and to submit if it is higher up the order. Experiments have shown that after an animal submits it experiences less tension and is more comfortable. However, it has been frequently observed that where the tensions are extreme or where the animal is unwell it may well attack animals further up the order and even fail to acknowledge the submission of an animal lower in the order.
Even intelligent and experienced sheepdogs have been known to suddenly revert to type and kill a few sheep. And they have been bred for generations to herd, whereas terriers were bred for generations to attack larger animals, and to some extent as fighting dogs. One terrier will live it's entire life as meek as a labrador and another will suddenly attack. In retrospect the attack might make perfect sense but it may have been impossible to predict all the same.

I am happy to accept that you know whereof you speak; on the other hand most hang'em and flog'em comments are made by people who'd struggle to spend a night away from their duvet never mind one in prison...My mother had a collie, she was a smashing dog, beautiful, affectionate and very bright. But a dustman kicked her when she was a puppy, and after that, she was usually aggressive towards scruffy men (Bit of a problem for my sister's boyfriends...) and once attacked a dustman. He danced out of the way but it could have been worse for him.
My mother's way of dealing with that problem was to ensure that the dog was always inside on bin day, and careful to keep her on the leash when scruffy men were about.
The attack on the teenaged girl might well have been a warning that the owner should have taken more seriously, I'm just saying things are not always as clear cut at the time as they are in retrospect. If grandma had kept the dog outside we would never have become aware of any of it.
What's worse is the idea that little girls are in the care generally of women who are brain addled with a cocktail of alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs - never mind the dangerous dog, that's a dangerous grandparent!

No, my knowledge of criminal law comes from doing it at law school. Why - have you re-offended?

My excuse for killing a man was i desend from cavemen who were savage in their day just like dogs come from wolves. If you beleive what you say, we are all pack animals.

Oh and not for a very long time.

[David Bailey]

I guess my main problem is that I feel the media has an agenda with the granny - all this stuff about "prescription drugs" (shock!), "may have drank wine and lemonade" (horror - especially the lemonade!), and "may have smoked cannabis" (wooo). It all looks like pre-judgement to me.

Compare and contrast the attention given to the parents of Madeleine McCann - both carers made highly questionable decisions, both of which resulted in the loss of a child. They both feel terrible remorse, and both have publicly said so. But only one of them - the working-class one, note - is on trial. And I haven't seen any debate about the McCann's drinking habits or similar on the night of her disappearance either.

There's always more to these things than meets the eye - for example, this story:
BBC NEWS | England | Merseyside | Ellie's grandmother accepts blame

Reading between the lines, I suspect that she only got lumbered with babysitting duties at the last minute - hence her celebratory drinks / tokes (New Years Eve, remember?). And it appears Kiel Simpson (the dog owner) and other family members may have subjected the dog to some form of abuse in the past. So it's never that simple...

[Barry Shnikov]

My excuse for killing a man was i desend from cavemen who were savage in their day just like dogs come from wolves. If you beleive what you say, we are all pack animals.

Well it's a good point but it's not as strong as it might appear.

We've been breeding dogs for a couple of thousand years.

First, the human race is nearly a million years old. So we've come much further from our origins than dogs have.

Second, and far more importantly, human beings have developed cognition and will, and dogs have not. This is such an important difference that it would be almost impossible to overestimate its impact.

Why it is a good point is that sometimes we don't realise how much we are still conditioned by our origins. The human brain evolved to be good at functioning automatically in relatively small groups with relatively simple relationships. When dealing with large numbers, large ranges of options and so forth we have to switch off the automatic functions and carefully engage the higher thinking areas. Something Daily Mail readers, for example, appear to be very bad at.

[stewart38]

No, my knowledge of criminal law comes from doing it at law school. Why - have you re-offended?

You did a fair attempt of discribing vicarious liability well done

I
Compare and contrast the attention given to the parents of Madeleine McCann - both carers made highly questionable decisions, both of which resulted in the loss of a child. They both feel terrible remorse, and both have publicly said so. But only one of them - the working-class one, note - is on trial. And I haven't seen any debate about the McCann's drinking habits or similar on the night of her disappearance either.


Reading between the lines, I suspect that she only got lumbered with babysitting duties at the last minute - hence her celebratory drinks / tokes (New Years Eve, remember?). And it appears Kiel Simpson (the dog owner) and other family members may have subjected the dog to some form of abuse in the past. So it's never that simple...

Good example i didnt read that the doctors were out on the **** , did they have one two or three glasses of wine etc ? Will see what the outcome of there re -interviews will show

[Twirly]

And I haven't seen any debate about the McCann's drinking habits or similar on the night of her disappearance either.

Just because you've not seen it doesn't mean it hasn't been there

A quote from the McCann's in the Times this week

It was published that we had 14 bottles of wine.”

“In an hour between us,” interjects Kate. “I’d have been impressed with that in my student days. Not only that, they qualify it by saying eight bottles of red and six of white, as though it gives it more credibility. You just want to scream.”

Possibly slurs from the Portugese press - maybe ours have been kinder.