From The Metro:
Owners of dangerous dogs which attack members of the public will receive tougher penalties. This could include up to 18 months in prison, as the government sets out new guidelines to clamp down on irresponsible animal owners...
Good stuff.
It strikes me that there's no reason why dog owners are not vicariously liable for absolutely everything their dogs do: if the dog bites someone, the owner should be charged and sentenced as if he had bitten that person; if the dog behaves in such a manner as to make people scared for their safety, the owner should be charged with assault; if a dog kills someone, the owner should be tried for murder, and so on. This saves us the faff of deciding which breeds of dogs are inherently "dangerous" or not (itself a nonsensical exercise as all dogs are the same species).
It's no different to treating somebody's car as an extension of the owner/driver, if you knock somebody down, there's not much point pleading that it wasn't you, it was the car etc.
I Don't Know Why They Call Them 'Thinktanks'...
2 hours ago
12 comments:
"If the dog behaves in such a manner as to make people scared for their safety, the owner should be charged with assault.."
However irrational the fear or supposed threat?
Now I being an 18st, tattooed skinhead, just walking down the road during the long dark winter evenings instill in quite a lot of people a "Fear for their safety". Should This piece of legislation be extended to people as well as dogs? If not, why not?
If you truly support this piece of legislation, you haven't so much strayed into git territory, you've actually gone and bought a house there and moved in.
B, it's a question of degree and trying to draw sensible parallels.
Man has bought new carving knife and is taking it home = no crime. Man is waving knife in your face and you are scared = crime.
Dog sitting or walking peacefully at owner's side = no crime. Dog is baring its teeth and snarling in your face = crime.
Being an 18 stone tattooed skinhead = no crime. Being an 18 stone tattooed skinhead and stopping and threatening passers by = crime.
And so on.
And if your dog bites a burglar or attacker while defending you? Is that "reasonable force"?
"Man has bought new carving knife and is taking it home = no crime.".
Oh I beg to differ...
No such thing as "Degree" in poorly legislated pieces as this.
To use your example, Frail old woman come out of supermarket having purchased a brand new bread knife, WPC clotheslines her and drops her to the floor.
Landscape gardener (down the west country I believe) hauled before the courts for possession of offensive weapons (his tools of the job) in back of his pickup.
Man from my home town (Retired electrician) stopped by Police, a 3" lock knife found in glove box, hauled before the courts on possession of offensive weapons charge.
See how these things escalate out of hand? What's more not a drug dealing chavvy scumbag amongst them.
FT: "if your dog bites a burglar or attacker while defending you? Is that "reasonable force"?"
Yes of course, your house, your rules.
B, perhaps you should re-read the heading to the post. I'm perfectly aware of this stupid stories about people being nicked for having a knife with them or in their car, and seeing as nobody was in any way threatened by, or even aware of the knife. common sense dictates that wasn't a crime. You know that, I know that.
Budvar, S139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 defines what's permissible when carryinbg a knife in public. A folding knife without a lock with a sharpened esge not exceeding 76mm may be carried at any time without having to show good reason. Carrying a carving knife in public isn't an offence if you can show good reason - like you're a chef going to work, or you've just bought it and are carrying it home. Obviously it that case it'd help if it's wrapped but it doesn't have to be; if you insist on waving it about though, you'll be nicked.
Landscape gardeners carrying bladed items will NOT be caught by the Act if they're travelling to or from, or engaged in, their work. They have good reason. If they keep the items in their car / van when they head off to the pub that evening, they'll be nicked if caught as a car is a public place in the meaning of the Act, and they have no good reason for carrying them.
Likewise if I'm going fishing and carry a 9-inch filleting knife with me, that's a good reason and no crime is committed. If I wave it around in public, I'm nicked.
A 3 inch locknife can legally be carried if the person carrying it has good reason - your electrician, being retired, had no good reason and got nicked - but he would have had good reason if he'd carried it in a toolbox and said he was off to do some wiring for a mate. As he would had he had a Stanley knife in his glove box.
But for stuff like that you have to be a bolshie / lippy bastard or get a grumpy copper to end up charged. He should have got himself a better solicitor, and the desk sergeant should have exercised a little judgment.
I don't by the way disagree that it's all stupid in principle. Sooner or later there'll be a test case involving a caravanner, carrying a selection of kitchen knives in his towed caravan (a public place) without good reason....
FT, ta for extra examples. That's possibly a stupid law - I fail to see how carrying a knife out of sight of the public can be in any way an offence, unless you're in a gang on the way to a riot etc. What you don't know can't hurt you, sort of thing.
I don't think there's any "possibly" about it. Budvar's right about it being ill-thought-out; it generally catches those law-abiding people who aren't a problem and converts them by prosecution or caution into people who mistrust and despise the Police.
The people who're the problem get charged under other statutes, it seems to me. No knife-specific law was needed; it was necessary only to use the offensive weapon provisions already there. Anything can be deemed an offensive weapon, depending on how it's being used which, when you think on it, is pretty much the way it is. If I carry home a bottle of bleach in my shopping, no crime. If I take the top off it and threaten you with it, bang - offensive weapon.
It's this little clause "If the dog behaves in such a manner as to make people scared for their safety, the owner should be charged with assault.." that concerns me.
I live next to a kids playground, when I let the dog out in the garden, little kids are throwing stuff into garden at him, barking, and kicking football against fence. I then get the "Hey mister, can you take your dog in, he frightens us" routine.
Once this law comes into effect, how long before this is going to be used as another stick to beat us with?
Agreed on that one too. We are supposed to love their dogs just as we should their little sprogs in all their behaviour.
It's hard to reason with a dog owner. I was at a school rugby match and shouldn't have worn my good trousers but I did and some woman's dog fancied them to chew on.
The woman accepted zero blame and laid it on the school. Good one. So, no one ended up accepting responsibility.
FT, Ok then, that knoife-specific law is a bad law, you're the expert. I never said it was a good law.
And I didn't say that we needed a dog-specific law either, what i said was that I see no reason why a dog should not be treated like a (potentially) dangerous object like a knife, a car, a bottle of bleach or whatever under general rules, and the owner made liable for everything the dog does automatically.
B, that's a problem of proof on either side. Given those facts then it's the children who are in trouble.
JH, ta for back up.
Agreed. There's always exceptions, eg I was once bitten by a dog, whose paw I accidentally stood on, so I wouldn't expect the owner to be charged for that...but the Police can apply common sense, and if not, the courts can throw it out, if no evidence exists.
Post a Comment