Florentine_Pogen Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 What I cannot understand is a legal / justice system whereby if I personally assault someone and cause them GBH / scar them for life, I will receive a serious custodial, and rightly so. However, if I own a devildug and let it off leash and it causes the same amount of damage as per above, I'll probably receive a fine and dug gets the big needle / a police bullet. It's a ludicrous situation. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDuffman Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 It says that these dogs aren't getting put down, so where are they going? If the both of these bams are no longer allowed to keep dogs anymore, whats going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 6 hours ago, ICTChris said: It's been reported that the dog was rehomed from England to Scotland following the ban. This is apparently the dog that was involved in this attack, since shot dead by police. Sounds like the police marksmen could do with a bit more practice. https://www.facebook.com/kris.mackinnon1/videos/792248322743902/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 13 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said: What I cannot understand is a legal / justice system whereby if I personally assault someone and cause them GBH / scar them for life, I will receive a serious custodial, and rightly so. However, if I own a devildug and let it off leash and it causes the same amount of damage as per above, I'll probably receive a fine and dug gets the big needle / a police bullet. It's a ludicrous situation. Aye, being responsible for the Police having to shoot actual guns on the streets should in itself be something that comes with severe penalty. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRover Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 16 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: Aye, being responsible for the Police having to shoot actual guns on the streets should in itself be something that comes with severe penalty. It generally does if your skin tone is wee bit more dusky, although more so in the U.S. than over there 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: Aye, being responsible for the Police having to shoot actual guns on the streets should in itself be something that comes with severe penalty. There is. The dogs deid. These police are paid - quite handsomely - to be prepared for being called upon. I wouldn't trust the ones I know/have met with a can opener. To have the rest of your life or financial future dictated by the actions of one of these rockets is a massive no no. Edited February 20 by Derry Alli 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 minute ago, Derry Alli said: There is. The dogs deid. These police are paid - quite handsomely - to be prepared for being called upon. I wouldn't trust the ones I know/have met with a can opener. To have the rest of your life or financial future dictated by the actions of one of these rockets is a massive no no. The loss of a violent dog can't be considered a penalty IMO. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Blades Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 7 minutes ago, Derry Alli said: There is. The dogs deid. These police are paid - quite handsomely - to be prepared for being called upon. I wouldn't trust the ones I know/have met with a can opener. To have the rest of your life or financial future dictated by the actions of one of these rockets is a massive no no. Aye, that’s a strange hill to plant your flag on! Are cops in general a bit dickish? Yeah. Are cops shooting dogs who are bred purposefully to be aggressive, who have just proven their bred traits by attacking other dogs or humans correct in shooting them, absolutely! Theres a more nuanced discussion, polis are acting correctly under the law, and I for one, wouldn’t like to face one of these beasts with a friendly manner & a nightstick. Cops are c***s & these dogs & their owners are c***s isn’t a paradox. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 minute ago, Brother Blades said: Aye, that’s a strange hill to plant your flag on! Are cops in general a bit dickish? Yeah. I've never said cops are c***s. I've said the ones I know hold little to no common sense. I work with them, I've seen them jam big roller doors open in armed parts of Aberdeen AND Dundee and walk sway leaving guns etc in the open cars and lockers unattended. If that's how comfortable they are with what may or may not occur due to their actions then I for one wouldn't want the rest of my life decided by them when there is an actual situation on the go. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Blades Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Derry Alli said: I've never said cops are c***s. I've said the ones I know hold little to no common sense. I work with them, I've seen them jam big roller doors open in armed parts of Aberdeen AND Dundee and walk sway leaving guns etc in the open cars and lockers unattended. If that's how comfortable they are with what may or may not occur due to their actions then I for one wouldn't want the rest of my life decided by them when there is an actual situation on the go. Ok, maybe I’ve picked up the wrong end of the stick but I assumed your first sentence was making an argument of losing a dog whose attacked someone was a punishment for the owners? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s not the way it comes across. If you want to debate whether our police forces & certain officers in particular aren’t fit for purpose, set up a poll & I’ll agree with you wholeheartedly. This is a thread particularly about these dogs & in general I agree with the shooting of these dogs if they’ve caused injury. Your first sentence set the entire tone of how I read your post, and by @Bairnardos post, don’t think I was alone in that. ETA- I never said, you said police were c***s, you didn’t. I’m only saying that polis being c***s & owners of these dogs also being c***s isn’t a mutually exclusive situation. Edited February 20 by Brother Blades 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 hours ago, ICTChris said: This is allegedly the advert for the Bully XL that's been shot. The breeder, Sammy Wilkinson, rehomed numerous XL Bully's. Seems like this dog ended up with an 18 year old female who lost control of it. Reading the summary of the beast's characteristics, they could have changed the "advert" could just have said... "This evil fekker needs put down". Basically the dude is saying "anyone want a shark on legs?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 hours ago, ICTChris said: This is allegedly the advert for the Bully XL that's been shot. The breeder, Sammy Wilkinson, rehomed numerous XL Bully's. Seems like this dog ended up with an 18 year old female who lost control of it. 'Sammy Wilkinson' looks like a guy capable of handling himself as well. If he's getting knocked over by one of those brutes, then there's little hope for most of the population. It ought to be a warning. He's avoided the fighting pedigree stuff that some of the tossers breeding these things bang on about, but the advert tells you everything you need to know: this dog is a disaster waiting to happen. It even states that the dog is known to be aggressive! He should also have had it neutered, which would probably have reduced the aggressive behaviour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted February 20 Author Share Posted February 20 https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24131700.thamesmead-xl-bully-attacked-2-people-not-dangerous-says-owner/ Quote But Judge Anya Lewis KC ruled that Hugo does present a risk to the public and should be destroyed. Legemah cried out “please no, he’s my son” before booting a rubbish bin down the hall as she left the courtroom. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanburn Dave Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 4 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said: Basically the dude is saying "anyone want a shark on legs?" Sharks get a bad press but only kill about 10 people per year Dogs kill about 30,000 per year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 10 minutes ago, Deanburn Dave said: Sharks get a bad press but only kill about 10 people per year Dogs kill about 30,000 per year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkst Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 7 hours ago, ICTChris said: This is allegedly the advert for the Bully XL that's been shot. The breeder, Sammy Wilkinson, rehomed numerous XL Bully's. Seems like this dog ended up with an 18 year old female who lost control of it. That beast is to a pet dug, what a black panther is to a domestic cat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 7 hours ago, Florentine_Pogen said: What I cannot understand is a legal / justice system whereby if I personally assault someone and cause them GBH / scar them for life, I will receive a serious custodial, and rightly so. However, if I own a devildug and let it off leash and it causes the same amount of damage as per above, I'll probably receive a fine and dug gets the big needle / a police bullet. It's a ludicrous situation. I was thinking about this point the other day. I'm surprised gangland warfare isn't getting carried out by XL bullys, less risk than using a knife or a gun! As you say, it is ludicrous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, ICTChris said: https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24131700.thamesmead-xl-bully-attacked-2-people-not-dangerous-says-owner/ Something in that article triggered a thought I’ve had for a while but never investigated. As far as I know the law basically says your dog has to be under control at all times? Part of her defence was she tripped and that’s how the dogs got loose. Is she still liable for that? What if someone tripped her? What if she tripped over someone’s lapdog? What if she let go of her dogs because she was being attacked by another dog? What if the dogs were in her garden and some random decided to open the gate and let them out? What if someone walking past her on lead dog decided to volley it and the dog took a chunk in retaliation? Where does the liability stop? I’m not talking about this particular case, just hypotheticals. ETA in the case of the 18 year old lassie in East Kilbride. Will she get off because she’s too young and daft to realise fully the implications of her actions? Edited February 21 by Left Back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Left Back said: Something in that article triggered a thought I’ve had for a while but never investigated. As far as I know the law basically says your dog has to be under control at all times? Part of her defence was she tripped and that’s how the dogs got loose. Is she still liable for that? What if someone tripped her? What if she tripped over someone’s lapdog? What if she let go of her dogs because she was being attacked by another dog? What if the dogs were in her garden and some random decided to open the gate and let them out? What if someone walking past her on lead dog decided to volley it and the dog took a chunk in retaliation? Where does the liability stop? I’m not talking about this particular case, just hypotheticals. ETA in the case of the 18 year old lassie in East Kilbride. Will she get off because she’s too young and daft to realise fully the implications of her actions? This is getting into VAR levels of micro-analysis. If the defence are pursuing this route then presumably it's safe to say that tripping would be an acceptable reason for not having the dog under control. The most reasonable way to deal with this is to establish if her claim that she tripped can be reasonably disproved after a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances. If it can't, she should be given the benefit of any remaining doubt. That's a personal perspective, I have limited understanding of how the courts and so on work. I accept people will try to exploit these aspects of the law and she may be lying and perhaps that's why the defence are pursuing this line, but the alternative is probably a worse where her guilt is presumed. Edited February 21 by 2426255 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlandmac Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 12 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said: Dunno about "utter vermin", No,I'm good with that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.