Baby girl killed in dog attack in Daventry

Cobra said:
I can't help thinking what the child went through at the time.
.
Click to expand...

looking on the bright side (if such a thing exists) a dog like that would go for the throat so the child would have died pretty quickly - i'm not saying thats in anyway an acceptable thing, but its better than being torn apart
 
Daventry is rough.... its just awful and i hate it ( sorry if anyone is from there on here)... so it was probably wishful thinking on my part that someone would report it... most of the estates are rough, there are better parts around i am sure like most places, but yes more than likely intimidation or more of the same is probably closer to the truth
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Hmm, seeing that guidline, they will get jail.

I see things on an intent basis, did they proactively intend on their child dying. No. Is jail really the place for people that are negligent, rather than malicious. If you say yes to that, you see jail as appropriate, if you say no, you will not - no matter what the outcome is. It is not a common way to see the world or life and I accept jail will happen. Will it do the public or the family any good. Said dog is gone.

What I think needs to come out of this is a greater awareness of what dogs, or some dogs can be like and perhaps a greater public airing and awareness like the dangers of smoking and being in charge of a car drunk to make people think what a dog can do
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
looking on the bright side (if such a thing exists) a dog like that would go for the throat so the child would have died pretty quickly - i'm not saying thats in anyway an acceptable thing, but its better than being torn apart
Click to expand...
In all honesty, we can't know.
If the dog saw the child as prey, then of course its kill or be killed,
and all over in a couple of seconds.

But if it saw the child as a toy, then we all know how dogs play with toys.
Its too horrible to contemplate TBH
 
andy700 said:
It wouldn't surprise me if there were more owners with illegal dogs on the same estate, and usually they can be quite intimidating pieces of work. As I said in another post, there are estates in towns close to me, where it is very common to see "certain" types out and about with pitbull type dogs.
Click to expand...

that - the sort of people many would think twice about reporting to the police

tbh its not just in towns - one of our tenants had his collie set upon by two out of control lurchers not that long ago, it doesnt bear thinking about if that had been a child instead (the collie was injured and has a confidence problem now, but at least it was better able to defend itself than a toddler would have been)

And yes I know lurchers arent a banned breed and many are lovely dogs etc - i'm thinking more of the sort of owner , who in this case was probably poaching with them , but its all of a part with dog fighting, and indeed badger baiting etc ...

no one in their right mind picks a pit bull because they think it will make a good pet they either get it to fight, or because they think it makes them look well 'ard
 
Cobra said:
I

But if it saw the child as a toy, then we all know how dogs play with toys.
Its too horrible to contemplate TBH
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
ST4 said:
Hmm, seeing that guidline, they will get jail.

I see things on an intent basis, did they proactively intend on their child dying. No. Is jail really the place for people that are negligent, rather than malicious. If you say yes to that, you see jail as appropriate, if you say no, you will not - no matter what the outcome is. It is not a common way to see the world or life and I accept jail will happen. Will it do the public or the family any good. Said dog is gone.

What I think needs to come out of this is a greater awareness of what dogs, or some dogs can be like and perhaps a greater public airing and awareness like the dangers of smoking and being in charge of a car drunk to make people think what a dog can do
Click to expand...

THing is its not negligence, to own a banned breed .. that is a deliberate action , okay so they didnt intend the consequence but thats not a defence - its reckless action not negiligent

Its like driving drunk and running someone over ... it won't be a defence to say "oh i didnt mean to" if you've recklessly caused it to happen

Negligent means something happening by accident because you overlooked something, you can't drive drunk by acident, or buy a pitbull by accident
 
Cobra said:
In all honesty, we can't know.
If the dog saw the child as prey, then of course its kill or be killed,
and all over in a couple of seconds.

But if it saw the child as a toy, then we all know how dogs play with toys.
Its too horrible to contemplate TBH
Click to expand...

Good point - lets hope it thought it was food ... as you say its too horrible to think about
 
big soft moose said:
THing is its not negligence, to own a banned breed .. that is a deliberate action , okay so they didnt intend the consequence but thats not a defence - its reckless action not negiligent

Its like driving drunk and running someone over ... it won't be a defence to say "oh i didnt mean to" if you've recklessly caused it to happen

Negligent means something happening by accident because you overlooked something, you can't drive drunk by acident, or buy a pitbull by accident
Click to expand...

We've been here before. I, am in a minority with this, but think DUI and killing someone is unintentional and negligent. No drunk gets in their planning to kill someone so its always a case of I didn't mean to, because, well, they didn't. The might not even had intendend on getting in the car depending on how drunk they were. My proposal is not to ban drink drivers from cars, but from drink as they cannot be trusted with drink. Alcohol consumption should be licenced.

However, the penalties for owning dangerous dogs are clear, as it is for DUI, so as they say, can't do the time, don't do the crime. I know not a lot of dogs, how easy would it be to establish this was a banned type of dog as opposed to a dog that is not banned? Was it a case of ignorance or deliberately procurement of a dangerous dog? All questions to be answered in the courts methinks.

If the child wasn't killed, but they were seen out with it and it was confiscated, do you think they should be jailed for the mere having it, or are you going on the fact the child is dead, when the illegal action is actually owning the dog?
 
OK you two @ST4 @big soft moose
Lets kill (sorry) the DD /speeding / and any other motoring offences related inferences
before this turns in to another way off topic discussion.
Lets keep this one on track.
Thanks guys :thumbs:
 
you still arent getting the difference between reckless and negligent

Causing death intentionally would imply thast you intended to kill , you saw someone standing in the road and you though I know i'm going to run that prat over

Causing death recklesly would mean that you didnt intend to kill , but your actions in the run up were taken intentionally, like for instance having 11 pints and then getting behind the wheel and then running someone over because you were too p***ed see them

Causing death negligently would imply that your accidental actions caused the death but you should have avoid them occuring , like you lost control and ran them over when the loss of control was caused by a wheel coming off because you hadnt tightened the lugs propperly.

and causing death accidentally would imply that the acident couldnt reasonably have been foreseen or avoided, like running someone over because you swereved to avoid a small child running into the road

In this case the procurement of an illegal breed was almost certainly deliberate so that would make the death reckless.... for it to be negligent they have had to buy a pit bull by accident thinking it was something else, which is vanishingly unlikely

[edit - sorry chris , we posted at the same time, no more motoring references here)
 
ST4 said:
However, the penalties for owning dangerous dogs are clear, as it is for DUI, so as they say, can't do the time, don't do the crime. I know not a lot of dogs, how easy would it be to establish this was a banned type of dog as opposed to a dog that is not banned? Was it a case of ignorance or deliberately procurement of a dangerous dog?
Click to expand...

I suspect that, like most illegal substances / articles, they would have paid a bloody fortune for the dog.
Breeders aren't in it for charity work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I just don't see it that way. You either meant it to happen, or didn't.

Back on topic, do you know if they meant to buy a dangerous dog, or bought it ignorantly. Ignorance is no defense, but its a mitigating not an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Simple question moose, do you think, had the child not been harmed by the dog, but they were caught with an illegal dog that they should go to prison for it. The crime is owning a banned breed? Do you think that crime is enough to jail someone for?

To our legal experts, is there other charges the CPS can bring to the dog owners other than owning a banned breed?
 
Last edited:
@ST4 Yes, the could in theory be charged with Manslaughter by means of breaching Duty of Care.
 
ST4 said:
I just don't see it that way. You either meant it to happen, or didn't.

Back on topic, do you know if they meant to buy a dangerous dog, or bought it ignorantly. Ignorance is no defense, but its a mitigating not an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Simple question moose, do you think, had the child not been harmed by the dog, but they were caught with an illegal dog that they should go to prison for it. The crime is owning a banned breed? Do you think that crime is enough to jail someone for?

To our legal experts, is there other charges the CPS can bring to the dog owners other than owning a banned breed?
Click to expand...

Point is its a two step thing , if you performed an illegal act that led to a death then if you intentionally took the ilegal act the death was at best reckless

on your other points - it would be incredibly hard to buy a put bull ignnorantly as no reputable breeder or rscue centre would supply one , okay so you could buy one off a bloke in pub without knowing, but no responsible parent should be sourcing a dog like that anyway (the death earlier in the year was cased by some f***witt buying an unrily malmute in a pub if you recall)

On the had the child not been harmed thing .. I believe they should have been appropriate punished in those circumstances which probably wouldnt have involved jail but rather a fine and confiscation, but thats irreelevant now if you perform an illegal act and it ends in the death of a child then the punoishment should be harsher than for the same act not ending in someones death.

In terms of other charges if it had occured in scotland "reckless and culpable conduct" might have been an option, but i'm not sure if theres anything similar in English law , I suppose "manslaughter by criminal negligence" might be an option , but I don't know enough about that (except in a corporate homicide context which isnt germane here) to say for sure
 
Last edited:
Ok playing Devil's Advocate here, I have met a few pitbulls and in the right hands they are no different from any other breed,
in fact they have been big softees, I never felt in any danger in their presence
They were not bred to kill human, they were bred to fight each other and certain other animals.
Sadly as with any other breed if not properly trained and socialised they are unpredictable and a danger, banning them along with
certain other breeds was a knee jerk action at the time and as far I I am aware there weren't any fila's in the country (lovely looking dogs)
but there are quite a few other breeds that could have been added to the list
Second problem is as in this case, mostly they are identified by type standards, so any bull breed could be said to be a pit, or you could be
sold one without knowing, being told it's a staffie cross
 
viv1969 said:
I suspect that, like most illegal substances / articles, they would have paid a bloody fortune for the dog.
Breeders aren't in it for charity work.
Click to expand...

Doubt that Ruth, they are more common then you think ;)
 
Doing some research theres a good discussion of gross negiligence manslaughter here http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Gross-negligence-manslaughter.php It is difficult to sumarise as many of the cited cases include the verbotten subject of driving , but have a read if you are interested.

the basic test (after R vs Adomako) is of proving a defendant :

1) Owed a duty of care to the victim 2) Was in breach of duty 3)The breach of duty caused death & 4) The defendant's conduct was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury's opinion to a crime.

in this case imo 1, 2, and 3 are a no brainer but 4 would be very difficult to prove in the absence of independent witnesess.

My personal opinion is that it was , but i suspect that ruth is right that it isnt a likely outcome... its also likely that politics and media pressure would dictate that prosecuting a family who've lost a child would be a non starter ...
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I disagree, the act is the same. I doubt we ever will agree on it, but its the crux of my feelings on it, and yours.
Click to expand...

I suggest we agree to differ at least within this thread (the death of a child is not an appropriate subject for us to be spitting feathers over )
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Gremlin said:
Ok playing Devil's Advocate here, I have met a few pitbulls and in the right hands they are no different from any other breed,
in fact they have been big softees, I never felt in any danger in their presence
They were not bred to kill human, they were bred to fight each other and certain other animals.
Sadly as with any other breed if not properly trained and socialised they are unpredictable and a danger, banning them along with
certain other breeds was a knee jerk action at the time and as far I I am aware there weren't any fila's in the country (lovely looking dogs)
but there are quite a few other breeds that could have been added to the list
Second problem is as in this case, mostly they are identified by type standards, so any bull breed could be said to be a pit, or you could be
sold one without knowing, being told it's a staffie cross
Click to expand...
Yet aren't they responsible for about 65% of all recorded human bites. I agree with the principle, unfortunately too many of these seem to be kept in unsuitable housing and ownership in my opinion. I mean in this case as well, now some more details are becoming clear, it seems highly irresponsible behaviour of the parents, towards all parties involved. And dammit those parties were their own child and family, makes me wonder how they are towards the general public ...
 
dejongj said:
Yet aren't they responsible for about 65% of all recorded human bites. I agree with the principle, unfortunately too many of these seem to be kept in unsuitable housing and ownership in my opinion. I mean in this case as well, now some more details are becoming clear, it seems highly irresponsible behaviour of the parents, towards all parties involved. And dammit those parties were their own child and family, makes me wonder how they are towards the general public ...
Click to expand...

Perhaps of recorded human bites, but how much of that is down to the breed and peoples perception if them ?
A few years back I asked the question of my employers and it came out that collies were top followed by Terrier types then labradors
Not all attacks on our staff are reported, depends on the severity, but I can assure you that in the last year in our office not one has been
by a bull breed dog and we have had a fair few
 
I bet post office recorded "attacks" include dogs that snatch the mail as its posted through the door though which is hardly the same.

My own late dog had this unfortunate habit and it was one we could never break, but she never snapped at anyone under any other circumstances. When the post came she wasn't snapping at the postman, she was snatching the post.

We installed an outside wall mounted post box. Problem solved.
 
I was reading all the comments on fb last night- the chronicle had posted the story and as you can imagine everyone was commenting.. mixed views again but it was/is nice to see a TP thread stay calm compared to the posts there:D
 
viv1969 said:
I bet post office recorded "attacks" include dogs that snatch the mail as its posted through the door though which is hardly the same.
Click to expand...


No Ruth, these are actual bites, when it comes to snatching mail as it's posted we have a handy little device
designed for it, and first time I used one I lost it through the letter box :D
 
Just thinking out loud, I wonder what constitutes a dog bite,,,, I had to have plastic surgery on a finger because one of mine bit me as a pup,,,, completely freak accident by the way,,, but I just wonder whether that would be reported,, if thinks like that are,,, then it would somewhat skew the figures
 
Gremlin said:

No Ruth, these are actual bites, when it comes to snatching mail as it's posted we have a handy little device
designed for it, and first time I used one I lost it through the letter box :D
Click to expand...

Oops :)
 
viv1969 said:
I bet post office recorded "attacks" include dogs that snatch the mail as its posted through the door though which is hardly the same.

My own late dog had this unfortunate habit and it was one we could never break, but she never snapped at anyone under any other circumstances. When the post came she wasn't snapping at the postman, she was snatching the post.

We installed an outside wall mounted post box. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

The outside box sounds considerate for the postie
 
May be she's not too bright... although to be honest ive had dogs in the past that were chewers if left alone ... the answer to that is either not to leave them alone or crate/kennel train them. It doesnt necessarily follow that they are badly trained or inherently dangerous.

Whats may be more pertinent is that she didnt have the pitbull in 2012 , which does beg the question of what sort of blithering f***wit goes out and gets a a banned breed (at any time but especially) when they have a small child/ small child on the way.
 
big soft moose said:
May be she's not too bright... although to be honest ive had dogs in the past that were chewers if left alone ... the answer to that is either not to leave them alone or crate/kennel train them. It doesnt necessarily follow that they are badly trained or inherently dangerous.
Click to expand...

agreed. a bored dog is very likely to chew the arm off the sofa for example.

separation anxiety is actually a thing for dogs, was part of a C4 program:

http://dogs.channel4.com/sad-dogs/separation-anxiety/
 
Last edited:
There's a very aggressive pit bull type in my area, it tries very hard to get to any dog in sight, and threatens humans too - the only thing that stops attacks happening is the owner, who has a constant tug of war with it. The owner is reputed to be a drug dealer.

This particular dog is a disaster waiting to happen, and something needs to be done to stop it - but what can be done? I've reported it to the police, twice, and they've done nothing. Other people tell me that they have reported it too, with the same result.

I sympathise with the police, to some extent, because it's very difficult for them to prove that any particular dog is in fact a member of a banned breed, and they just don't seem to want to put in the necessary resources, but at the same time I see it as being their job to do so, to protect the public. Problem is, every time someone gets killed by one of these dogs there are always neighbours who say that the dog was a menace but that the police ignored all complaints. But, I suppose it's all about resources - if some police forces aren't able to deal with girls being sexually assaulted in their area, then they aren't going to give priority to dealing with dangerous dogs.
 
big soft moose said:
May be she's not too bright... although to be honest ive had dogs in the past that were chewers if left alone ... the answer to that is either not to leave them alone or crate/kennel train them. It doesnt necessarily follow that they are badly trained or inherently dangerous.

Whats may be more pertinent is that she didnt have the pitbull in 2012 , which does beg the question of what sort of blithering f***wit goes out and gets a a banned breed (at any time but especially) when they have a small child/ small child on the way.
Click to expand...


You need a licence to drive a car, but require absolutely no qualifications or common sense to have children:(
 
Garry Edwards said:
There's a very aggressive pit bull type in my area, it tries very hard to get to any dog in sight, and threatens humans too - the only thing that stops attacks happening is the owner, who has a constant tug of war with it. The owner is reputed to be a drug dealer.

This particular dog is a disaster waiting to happen, and something needs to be done to stop it - but what can be done? I've reported it to the police, twice, and they've done nothing. Other people tell me that they have reported it too, with the same result.

I sympathise with the police, to some extent, because it's very difficult for them to prove that any particular dog is in fact a member of a banned breed, and they just don't seem to want to put in the necessary resources, but at the same time I see it as being their job to do so, to protect the public. Problem is, every time someone gets killed by one of these dogs there are always neighbours who say that the dog was a menace but that the police ignored all complaints. But, I suppose it's all about resources - if some police forces aren't able to deal with girls being sexually assaulted in their area, then they aren't going to give priority to dealing with dangerous dogs.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous isn't it, i can understand resources are always limited but when 'something' is a possible danger to people then that should be a necessity, not wait till something awful like this happens...

Maybe everyone reporting to RSPCA would be worth a shot
 
Cg_Girl said:
Maybe everyone reporting to RSPCA would be worth a shot
Click to expand...

You forgot to the the laughing smiley after that Trace.
The RSPCA won't get involved unless the dog is being mistreated
They are next to useless for this sort of thing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top