Cat saves boy from being mauled by dog

[skjl47]

The difference is the temperament of the dogs in question. Yes the dog acted on its own no one is denying that. But the reason I say the fault is the owners is they either where unaware or simply didn't care to fully understand their dog. This dog lacked a stable temperament and possibly socialization around kids. I agree with you that vicious dogs should be put down but where we differ is I've studied varying temperaments, I've seen the examples of temperaments that aren't safe due to bad breeding and lack of socialization, training and simple management on the owners part. I hold people accountable because dogs are animals. To hold a animal to the same standards in regards to decision making is ludicrous. To do so shows a lack of understanding canine behavior and the forces driving it.Sent from my VS840 4G

Hello; You are correct, dogs do not think like people. I do not hold a dog to the same standard as a person. That you have studied dog temperment is good for you and you are lilely to have more insight because of this.
For many of us it is a much more simple situation. Basically if a dog bites, then it should die. There are some special circumstances that can qualify as exceptions. Police or military dogs, a dog protecting a person from attack and such. Outside of these limited circumstances, dogs are expected to not bite us or attack our children.

My take on the dogs around and observation of them and their owners is that very few owners actually have trained dogs. The large majority have mininal control over their dogs. That being the case, it is left up to the dog as to if they will decide to bite or attack.

I wonder how many of those who consider themselves a "good /responsible owner" have had a dog that bit someone. Does this automatically jump them into the irresponsible owner category?

 

[Crazy mike]

Hello; You are correct, dogs do not think like people. I do not hold a dog to the same standard as a person. That you have studied dog temperment is good for you and you are lilely to have more insight because of this.
For many of us it is a much more simple situation. Basically if a dog bites, then it should die. There are some special circumstances that can qualify as exceptions. Police or military dogs, a dog protecting a person from attack and such. Outside of these limited circumstances, dogs are expected to not bite us or attack our children.

My take on the dogs around and observation of them and their owners is that very few owners actually have trained dogs. The large majority have mininal control over their dogs. That being the case, it is left up to the dog as to if they will decide to bite or attack.

I wonder how many of those who consider themselves a "good /responsible owner" have had a dog that bit someone. Does this automatically jump them into the irresponsible owner category?

A untrained animal biting someone and getting blamed not a good argument. That likes blaming a dog that was incorrectly trained for bite work or wasn't suitable for that kind of training and work. In that instance I definitely blame the owner for allowing their untrained or incorrectly trained animal to get in a situation where it could do harm. The average domestic pet dog for the most part. I'm honestly confused by what you mean its the dog decision? Please explain because I'm honestly having a difficult time understanding the meaning behind that statement.

Sent from my VS840 4G

 

[lp85253]

Hello; Please be more clear. This reads as thou you mean that the dog has no responsibility at all to do with the attack. Only the owner is 100%responsible?
My guess is that the dog had the kid's blood on it's mouth, not the owner. The owner is 100% legally responsible, but the dog decided to attack a child for whatever reason.

my philosophy ...and the take of every LEGITIMATE legal jurisdiction in our country puts 100% responsibility on the owner ... THE PART YOU AREN'T GETTING, is that IT DOESN'T MATTER what the dog was thinking..the OWNER can't let a dog (his dog) be in a position to do this , it really is that simple....the OWNER is in charge , not the DOG...THE only mitigating circumstance would be that this is the first time the dog has acted aggressively ..EVER... that being said , putting the dog down would be my first reaction

 

[FMA4ME]

The dog and the boy were neighbors. What if the young boy harrased the dog thru a usually closed gate? What if the boy bounced a ball against a common wall they shared with the dog and the boy didn't realize he was irritating the dog?? These cases could be made for the dog, but the owner would still be liable for letting his dog get loose.

 

[West1]

Wow, just seen this!
That cat is awesome! He knew exactly what he was doing to save the boy. Either thats one smart kitty cat or I underestimate cats. Thank God nothing worst came of the stitches. Thats a parents worst nightmare to watch your child mauled or murdered on video.

 

[jaws7777]

So you watched the video, and somehow missed the mom slightly out of frame watering plants. The second the attack starts she drops her hose (as you can tell but the water spraying into frame)and comes flying into the frame. Now ask yourself, if a child has his mother nearby....is he "alone." You stated you would never leave your child alone outside, which is irrelevant because neither did this parent. I, as a parent, have the ability to multitask. I myself would feel perfectly comfortable letting my son ride his bike in a similar fashion to the way the victim was if i was nearby watching. Once you educate your children on the dangers of the street and make them aware, as long as they are obedient then I don't find it necessary to hover over them. But different strokes I guess.

P.s. krich took it for the joke it was, just saying...

Dude honestly didn't notice the mom. Im kind of nuts with the kids live in the city so no where near the street is safe for me the vid on my phone isn't great so i dont doubt she was their either way poor kid

By the way didnt mean any offense was typing back at 4ish am sitting in traffic

Sent from my SPH-L710 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[skjl47]

my philosophy ...and the take of every LEGITIMATE legal jurisdiction in our country puts 100% responsibility on the owner ... THE PART YOU AREN'T GETTING, is that IT DOESN'T MATTER what the dog was thinking..the OWNER can't let a dog (his dog) be in a position to do this , it really is that simple....the OWNER is in charge , not the DOG...THE only mitigating circumstance would be that this is the first time the dog has acted aggressively ..EVER... that being said , putting the dog down would be my first reaction

Hello; I conceded the legal liability/responsibility of the owner many posts ago.

 

[skjl47]

A untrained animal biting someone and getting blamed not a good argument. That likes blaming a dog that was incorrectly trained for bite work or wasn't suitable for that kind of training and work. In that instance I definitely blame the owner for allowing their untrained or incorrectly trained animal to get in a situation where it could do harm. The average domestic pet dog for the most part. I'm honestly confused by what you mean its the dog decision? Please explain because I'm honestly having a difficult time understanding the meaning behind that statement.

Sent from my VS840 4G

Hello; The dog made decisions from the time it awoke that day. It likely decided to drink sopme water, scratch itself, where to urinate and so on. The dog was not some mindless creature. The dogs concept of right or wrong may be different than people but the dog somehow decided to chase down and bite the child. Unless the owner deliberatly trained the dog to chase kids, which seems very doubtful, then it follows that by whatever criteria the dog used to make decisions, it chose to chase and bite the child. At some point the issue has to boil down to the dog and not the owner. The owner is legally responsible, no doubt. That dog somehow picked that particular time to chase down and bite a child. The dog made a choice.
Whether any dog has no training, some training or extensive training seems to me to have little to do with the notion that some make an independent decision to bite. My comments in that previous post were to point out that most people I know give little training training to their dogs and many allow them to run free. Most dogs do not bite people regardless of training. Those that do bite, trained or not, are responsible for their actions in my opinion.

 

[lp85253]

Hello; I conceded the legal liability/responsibility of the owner many posts ago.

ok, fair enough

 

[Crazy mike]

Hello; The dog made decisions from the time it awoke that day. It likely decided to drink sopme water, scratch itself, where to urinate and so on. The dog was not some mindless creature. The dogs concept of right or wrong may be different than people but the dog somehow decided to chase down and bite the child. Unless the owner deliberatly trained the dog to chase kids, which seems very doubtful, then it follows that by whatever criteria the dog used to make decisions, it chose to chase and bite the child. At some point the issue has to boil down to the dog and not the owner. The owner is legally responsible, no doubt. That dog somehow picked that particular time to chase down and bite a child. The dog made a choice.
Whether any dog has no training, some training or extensive training seems to me to have little to do with the notion that some make an independent decision to bite. My comments in that previous post were to point out that most people I know give little training training to their dogs and many allow them to run free. Most dogs do not bite people regardless of training. Those that do bite, trained or not, are responsible for their actions in my opinion.

Yes the dogs are capable of making decisions no one denies this fact. My problem with the way you state this is you're making it in way that makes it seem like the dog knowingly committed a immoral or wrong act. Animals don't have morals or right or wrong. No one is saying the dog isn't going to have a punishment as a result of its actions, it's getting euthanized. The reason I still fail to understand you is that the way you state your position and please correct me if I'm wrong is that owners or people are not responsible for the dogs under their care. Since before that dog was born its very existence was the result of people and by extension its temperament, genetics, socialization and so on. One thing vast majority of dogs owners lack a understanding of is temperament and how their behavior directly shapes and effects their dogs. Intentional or not every time you interact with a dog you are altering and shaping its behavior. Reason I still blames owners is they allowed a dog to roam. I don't care weather or not they've had a hundred dogs before hand who roamed and did nothing, each dog is unique its mind unique its genetics unique. And when people fail to see and identify a dog that may do something such as this it is squarely their fault.

Sent from my VS840 4G