5 month old baby killed by two rottweilers

[wyattabby]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/24/uk.rottweilers.reut/index.html

where were the parents?!?!

[DiggityDogs]

apparently not paying attention to the kid OR the dogs!

[wyattabby]

doesn't sound like they were their dogs but the article is kinda vague.

[BelovedJuggernaut]

Where were the dog owners?

Article doesn't say the dogs were theirs, who the hell was watching this kid & the dogs?!

[SmoothCollieluver]

WTF? a Pub? the roof? There is so much wrong with all of that I don't know where to start. I feel bad for the baby, the dogs, and the parents.

[StarfishSaving]

Wha...? Dragged onto the roof of a pub? Attacked by dogs... oh my... wow.

[Rottweilerlvr]

Sad, isn't it??? Irresponsible dog owners, and irresponsible parents... Where were either when this was happening?

[SmoothCollieluver]

my guess. Baby was sleeping somewhere...obiviously not very safe place. It would make sence if they were their guard dogs and got out of wherever they normally kept them.

[ClarkFarm]

Accidents sometimes happen and I do not think it is fair to blame the parents. They just had the worse punishment already given. Something or someone could have aggravated the dogs and the entire situation probably took only moments.

The horse I trail ride unexpectedly killed a pygmy goat that I had bottle-fed since he was born due to medical reasons. She had never displayed any aggression towards smaller animals and my own children often brushed her and handled her at that time. That day, she simply lifted her hoof and stomped my little goat directly on his skull. He died within seconds. There was no warning or signs of aggravation. She showed no alarm nor did she behave differently before or after. She had made a split second move for whatever reason and a life was killed because of it.
It was a rude awakening to me and I have since learned to respect the power an animal has and to never assume it will be safe around anything. I still trail ride her but she is off-limits to children and smaller animals though she still has never shown any difference in behavior. Sometimes we just do not know what makes an animal tick.

[DiggityDogs]

Accidents sometimes happen and I do not think it is fair to blame the parents. They just had the worse punishment already given. Something or someone could have aggravated the dogs and the entire situation probably took only moments.

The horse I trail ride unexpectedly killed a pygmy goat that I had bottle-fed since he was born due to medical reasons. She had never displayed any aggression towards smaller animals and my own children often brushed her and handled her at that time. That day, she simply lifted her hoof and stomped my little goat directly on his skull. He died within seconds. There was no warning or signs of aggravation. She showed no alarm nor did she behave differently before or after. She had made a split second move for whatever reason and a life was killed because of it.
It was a rude awakening to me and I have since learned to respect the power an animal has and to never assume it will be safe around anything. I still trail ride her but she is off-limits to children and smaller animals though she still has never shown any difference in behavior. Sometimes we just do not know what makes an animal tick.

It was absolutely the parents fault! Unless they were paying close attention to their baby and these two dogs came out of nowhere and attacked- it is absolutely their fault. Like you said, you learned never to assume that an animal is safe. They should NEVER have assumed ANY dog would be safe around a 5 month old baby. You can't put the blame on the baby and say it could have done something to aggrivate the dogs when it's 5 months old and doesn't know better- it's the parents job, their BIGGEST job, to think safety for the baby since it can't do it on it's own.

[ClarkFarm]

I never placed the blame on the baby nor would I.
Accidents happen even when parents are present. I was present when my horse stomped my goat and there was no time to prevent anything. It could have been one of my sons she decided to stomp if the goat had been in traded places. That is a scary thought and I no longer allow her near children.

The only way I would blame the parents is if the baby was left for some extended period of time without being checked on. For all we know, the baby could have been sleeping and the dogs roamed into the room. For all we know, the baby could have thrown up and Mom or Dad ran into the room next door to get a towel and here come the dogs then in that exact moment. There is not enough information to judge anyone in that story.

[DiggityDogs]

Accidents happen even when parents are present. I was present when my horse stomped my goat and there was no time to prevent anything. .

Accidents happen, yes. However, you even said that you assumed that this horse was safe, but have since learned not to do so for the safety of your children. this is something that any parent should take into consideration. While you couldn't have known that it would happen, you admitedly made the mistake of assuming it was fine. Do I think you're a bad person? no. Do I think you should feel guilty? No. I do, however, think that in this situation it is your place to accept responsibility for it. I suppose knowing more of the facts would help, but like it or not, much like if you accidentally killed someone in a car accident- when something like this happens, it's still your fault. In this case you can't blame the animals, or the baby, so who's left... the parents. In most cases I say live and learn- but this was a big accident... and unfortunately their child doesn't get to reap the benefits of this parental lesson.

[wyattabby]

well i went looking for an update to the stories and the dogs have been put down :( i know the parents are devastated by this but they should be held liable for neglect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/5375520.stm

add the pub owner to the list as well

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/5377986.stm

[ClarkFarm]

There are many, many deaths ruled accidental and in those cases, there is no one to blame.

So the baby was napping. And the dogs seem to have had a bad reputation for quite some time. It seems to me even more strongly so that the parents did nothing wrong. Most parents do not sit and watch their child sleep for the duration of each nap. That is not neglect imo. If there is proof of the dogs' aggression (witnesses, previous bite/death cases), I think the dogs' owner would be neglectful if anyone is in that situation.

I would have had dogs with those levels of aggression promptly euthanized as well.

Why is it that a dog that has killed a 5 month old baby can evoke pity when it is euthanized but yet when a human burned some kittens (a different thread), the responses were strong and hateful? And I don't buy the philosophy of the dog just doesn't know better because that is blasphemy. A normal dog does not attack and kill a sleeping 5 month old baby just as a normal human does not burn kittens.

[DiggityDogs]

I would find the parents even more at fault since it was a known fact that those dogs were aggressive. It would not be the dog owner's fault in this case because he was not present- the dogs were left in the parents care and control. If it was known that the dogs were that aggressive and everyone was afraid of them, why in gods name did they ever allow the dogs access to that baby? Ever? It is not the dogs fault because the dog was not born aggressive. Just like children are not naturally serial killers. It's a shame that the dogs and the baby had to pay with their lives because the parents were not taking the proper precautions with dogs that were not even their own.

I'm not sure what you meant about the kittens- I'm pretty sure the strong hateful replies you're talking about were aimed at the man who burned them, not the kittens, just like in this situation- it's the human's fault.

[ClarkFarm]

Actually, in PA anyway, the dog owner is still liable for any damages done, no matter if the dog was left in someone else's care or not. I do not know what the laws are concerning that in England.

The parents may not have been aware of the dogs' aggression (it doesn't say if they are local or not to that particular area I don't think) or perhaps the owner or someone else had "secured" the dogs away from the humans but they still got out.

It is interesting how we percieve the situation differently. I find the dogs and their owner at fault and I think the dogs' euthanasia was justified.

[BelovedJuggernaut]

When I still worked at the mortuary, a couple came in whose baby was mauled to death by their dog. They had just laid the baby down for a nap, the dog was an inside dog, and they didn't shut the door to the babies nursary all the way.

They went into the kitchen and were making dinner/relaxing, then they heard the baby cry and y the time they walked to the other end of the house, their dog had gotten into the crib, started to drag the baby towards the slider door, and snapped its neck.

All the dog was trying to do was comfort the baby and play with it, but it ended up doing more damage then good. The owners put the dog down immediately, the baby came to us with over 150 puncture marks, and the parents were devistated.


The way I see it, it wasn't their fault. They had no intention of leaving the dog alone with their child. It was an accident, and they do happen more often then not.
Now in this case with the 5 month old, I don't know the details or the couple, but I think the parents are probably feeling more guilt then anyone can imagine. I think giving them the benefit of the doubt instead of blaming them for something they may or may not have been able to prevent is harsh. Since we don't know any details, I think it is only fair that no one gets blamed.

[DiggityDogs]

I think the euthanasia was justified as well. But I think it was unfortunate. I think the owner was at fault for the dogs death because there was certainly something he could have done if it was obvious that they were aggressive. In the death of the baby, I still think the parents were at fault- we have dog bite laws in texas too that say you're responsible because you're the owner, but criminal liability and civil liability are two different things, and I highly doubt that the owner of a dog who was not present would be convicted, fined, or otherwise punished for something his dogs did when he was not there. I'm going to check my dog bite law website and see what it says.

[ClarkFarm]

The argument against the dogs' owner (if he was prosecuted) would probably be to prove he knew the dogs were aggressive beforehand and still did not take precautions to ensure they did not bite or kill another being.

It sounds like a mess anyway.

[DiggityDogs]

this is from dogbitelaw.com

''Now, you might wonder whether you are liable if (a) you are not the owner of the dog, but the dog lives at your house, (b) the dog injures another animal, not a person, or (c) the dog injures a person by jumping on him, not biting him. In each case, the answer is possibly YES. This is because all people who own, care for and house dogs are responsible for their own negligence with regard to the dog. Consequently, the victim is entitled to make a claim against anyone who unreasonably failed to restrain a dog under their care, or forgot to warn a house guest that a dog had a bad habit of jumping on people, to name just a couple of common examples.''

Of course any law can be construed by a lawyer to go one way or the other, so it's not 100%

and it's probably different in England.

I think that with the case of the napping baby beloved is talking about, I still lay blame on the parents. Dogs should never be allowed unsupervised access to children- especially that young. They could have simply closed the door and their baby would still be alive. I understand that they are going through immense amounts of grief, but that doesn't change the facts. I'm not being harsh to them because I don't know them. I would never point the finger and personally attack them knowing the grief they are going through, but that doesn't change the facts or how I feel about the situation, much like when you know a family member has screwed up royally but you don't say anything because you know they feel bad enough as it is. I hope that they learn that it's not safe to leave a dog alone with a child, and I hope that others learn from their mistakes, but in my opinion, it IS still their fault.

[BelovedJuggernaut]

this is from dogbitelaw.com

''Now, you might wonder whether you are liable if (a) you are not the owner of the dog, but the dog lives at your house, (b) the dog injures another animal, not a person, or (c) the dog injures a person by jumping on him, not biting him. In each case, the answer is possibly YES. This is because all people who own, care for and house dogs are responsible for their own negligence with regard to the dog. Consequently, the victim is entitled to make a claim against anyone who unreasonably failed to restrain a dog under their care, or forgot to warn a house guest that a dog had a bad habit of jumping on people, to name just a couple of common examples.''

Of course any law can be construed by a lawyer to go one way or the other, so it's not 100%

and it's probably different in England.

I think that with the case of the napping baby beloved is talking about, I still lay blame on the parents. Dogs should never be allowed unsupervised access to children- especially that young. They could have simply closed the door and their baby would still be alive. I understand that they are going through immense amounts of grief, but that doesn't change the facts. I'm not being harsh to them because I don't know them. I would never point the finger and personally attack them knowing the grief they are going through, but that doesn't change the facts or how I feel about the situation, much like when you know a family member has screwed up royally but you don't say anything because you know they feel bad enough as it is. I hope that they learn that it's not safe to leave a dog alone with a child, and I hope that others learn from their mistakes, but in my opinion, it IS still their fault.


I respect your opinion, however you DON'T know all the facts, so how could you say it is their fault?

My dog can OPEN doors, it is scary. What about people who have a doggy door and put their kid down for a nap? What if they go to the bathroom for 2 minutes, and the dog comes in without them knowing? So many different situations, and none of us know what really happened. I just don't think it is fair to blame someone when facts are not known.

As for the parents of the child that I worked on, the dog had opened their slider door and it had never done that before. All the mom kept saying to me was, "I should have locked the door..."
maybe she should have, but who would have honestly thought that situation could have happened? These were good parents, and placing blame on them for an accident would be a horrible thing to do.

[DiggityDogs]

The argument against the dogs' owner (if he was prosecuted) would probably be to prove he knew the dogs were aggressive beforehand and still did not take precautions to ensure they did not bite or kill another being.

It sounds like a mess anyway.

When leaving them in the care of another person the liability lies in whether or not he made the caretakers aware of the dogs aggression, and usually the caretaker is at fault for any injuries or damages caused to the caretaker or to anyone else- if your dog bites the daycare worker you're not liable because you weren't there, same with the vet, etc, etc.

[DiggityDogs]

I respect your opinion, however you DON'T know all the facts, so how could you say it is their fault?

My dog can OPEN doors, it is scary. What about people who have a doggy door and put their kid down for a nap? What if they go to the bathroom for 2 minutes, and the dog comes in without them knowing? So many different situations, and none of us know what really happened. I just don't think it is fair to blame someone when facts are not known.

As for the parents of the child that I worked on, the dog had opened their slider door and it had never done that before. All the mom kept saying to me was, "I should have locked the door..."
maybe she should have, but who would have honestly thought that situation could have happened? These were good parents, and placing blame on them for an accident would be a horrible thing to do.

Well, in my eyes, I bet this mom learned from this and next time- if there is a next time- she WILL lock the door. Just because someone puposely does or doesn't do something does not absolve them from fault, just like not knowing the laws about dog bites does not absolve you from fault if your dog bites someone. No one's saying the parents did anything purposely wrong- that would be criminal. There is still fault in making a mistake, whether you call it 'blame' or whatever- it's still there.

[Rottweilerlvr]

The rottweiler's were guard dogs, and the baby was in front of a pub... No mention of parents being there. CNN has also done a report on this story, if I can find it, I will post it here. Here is the updated story.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006440423,00.html

[SmoothCollieluver]

It is not the dogs fault because the dog was not born aggressive. Just like children are not naturally serial killers. .


I have to disagree. I have seen an 8 week old rott try to maul me and the vet. Some people an animals are just off from the get go.

[BelovedJuggernaut]

I have to disagree. I have seen an 8 week old rott try to maul me and the vet. Some people an animals are just off from the get go.


Agreed.

And some children are sociopaths, which can lead to various acts of violence or other dangerous events. Some people are born bad, same with any animal.

[wyattabby]

The rottweiler's were guard dogs, and the baby was in front of a pub... No mention of parents being there. CNN has also done a report on this story, if I can find it, I will post it here. Here is the updated story.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006440423,00.html

that picture is awful. and the headline "fearsome..a savage rottweiler dog" and from the article "The devil dogs pounced on helpless Cadey-LeeGlaze as they were guarding her family's pub" doesn't paint a pretty picture about the breed at all just on that pic and title alone...granted it was a random act but people who have never been exposed to the breed may be influenced by this...and they very well might be the ones who are voting on your rights to own your dog in your town.

[SmoothCollieluver]

Ya I feel bad for the rep of Rotts when things like this happen. If people only knew..I mean it's in the breed standard that Rotts love kids. You have to blame BYB for most of the problems associated with Rotts.

[Rottweilerlvr]

that picture is awful. and the headline "fearsome..a savage rottweiler dog" and from the article "The devil dogs pounced on helpless Cadey-LeeGlaze as they were guarding her family's pub" doesn't paint a pretty picture about the breed at all just on that pic and title alone...granted it was a random act but people who have never been exposed to the breed may be influenced by this...and they very well might be the ones who are voting on your rights to own your dog in your town.

Yes, it is a very bad picture of the rottweiler breed and us the responsible owners, get really "p'd" off, when we see things like this. Half is because of bad breeding, and the other is lack of training, and some, just want them because of guard duties, which was the case for these dogs. And yes, it's stories like these that cause people to fear the breed... People fear what they don't understand, or what they don't know. I feel bad for all parties in involved in this.

[Rottweilerlvr]

Ya I feel bad for the rep of Rotts when things like this happen. If people only knew..I mean it's in the breed standard that Rotts love kids. You have to blame BYB for most of the problems associated with Rotts.

Thank you for standing up for the breed I love!!

[SmoothCollieluver]

NP I like them too. The gentics have gotten really bad. People need to go back to good breeders. For gosh sakes look at the normal size you see compared to the breed standard. That goes for alot of breeds. Look at chows,huskys, german shep...ect. Purebred doesn't mean well bred.

[Rottweilerlvr]

NP I like them too. The gentics have gotten really bad. People need to go back to good breeders. For gosh sakes look at the normal size you see compared to the breed standard. That goes for alot of breeds. Look at chows,huskys, german shep...ect. Purebred doesn't mean well bred.

Going back to my "hick" roots, I can understand why some people wouldn't want to get a dog from a good breeder because their prices are so high for a dog. Some people just don't understand or feel that a dog should cost as much as they do from good breeders. This is why your BYB and puppy mills continue to do so well year after year, is because their prices are reasonable for a dog in their eyes. I think sometimes people and the "ethnical" breeders forget this... I know the majority of Americans would have a hard time justifying spending $1500 on a quality pet rottweiler or any breed. It's really easy for us to sit hear and say, well if people would get a dog from a good breeder, well we probably wouldn't be having all these problems with dog attacks and dog bites, but the fact remains that you could get a dog that was royally breed, but if the people aren't dedicated in training and raising the pup right, then it will still have the same issues as any other dog. I can think of a rottwieler, right off the top of my head, of a lady who gets this dog, who is royally bred, and I mean champions after champions on both sides, but she doesn't do anything with this dog. The dog ends up biting her mother who is like 60 years old, and she has to go to the hospital and get stitches and checked out. While, yes, I agree totally that people need to start buying puppies from good breeders, we also need to understand that sometimes people can't justify spending their good, hard earned money on a pet quality dog that's going to cost them more than a $1000.

[DiggityDogs]

In my years of training I've seen one or two agressive pups- so yes, I agree that CAN happen, but if we're not to assume that the parents weren't watching their baby, why should we assume these dogs were naturally aggressive? I still think they were justified in euthanizing those dogs, BUT I don't blame the dogs for what happened.

I like rotties a lot, too, IF they're properly bred. I used to work for this ''master trainer'' who at one time bred rots, and he still had two when I met him. They were a 150 lb female and a 180 lb male! Massive! And extremely mean- but my boss, being a 'master trainer' had trained them as protection dogs. Not safe IMO to put that kind of training on a dog that big...