http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Lancashire-man-killed-in-double.5229547.jp

A Lancashire has died after being attacked by two Alsatian dogs.
The victim, a 21-year-old man, had gone into his back yard at 8pm on Friday to try to separate a fight between two Alsatians, which belonged to his housemate.

But the dogs turned on him and mounted a "sustained attack" which left various bite marks to his upper body.

Insp Simon Atkinson of Lancashire Police, said: "He was in the process of trying to separate the dogs.

"Both dogs turned on him and launched a sustained attack in which he received numerous puncture bite marks on his upper body."

The ambulance was called to his home in Reads Avenue, Blackpool, and he was treated at the scene but later died.

Insp Simon Atkinson, said the victim may have fallen and banged his head during or after the attack.

He added: "We cannot dismiss that he has died as a consequence of falling in this incident."

The dogs have now been destroyed at the owner's request.

What a horrible way to go! Sad story that

What?

Wheres the manslaughter charge to the owner???

Depends whether he fell and head injury caused death or it was the dogs' attack alone.

It boils down to the "but for" test - "but for" the dog attack, he would not have fell so the owner may be open to criminal prosecution.

Sad though

What about, but for him interfering he would not of got attacked. Don't see why the owner of the dogs should be held responsible. After all dogs do fight and we try to separate them at our own risk.

That's the way it will be looked at I'm afraid. I don't write the Law I doubt it will come to that though to be honest.

Simple - if you possess animals which are capable of a "sustained attack" and "numerous puncture bite marks" then YOU have to take responsibility

- it wasn't me that shot him, it was my gun your lordship!

I don't suppose we will ever know but it would be interesting to find out how he tried to separate them. probably the time old method of giving them a good kick. If he did then no wonder he was attacked. If he didn't interfere he would still be alive now.

Hmmm, i asked the question due to the grandmother of the child that got attacked by a dog last year, she was charged with manslaughter.

Whats different about this?

They are both human beings although one was younger, does that constitute a none manslaughter charge for this guy because the victum was an adult???

some people cant win can they, if he did not interfere everyone would call him all the bitchs under the sun. there should be more men like him not afraid to step in and help someone or somethink

Only the animal rights freaks would call him all the bitches under the sun.
Dogs are not supposed to be pets, people seem to forget that.

These dogs have obviously grown up together so they would of been fine left alone.

I don`t think there should be a manslaughter charge, hence why i asked the question

This `does` araise issues from the similar case i mentioned does it not???

The difference being the baby had no choice, the baby was attacked, as far as we know for no reason. The man had a choice, didn't have to get involved. I think it would be totally different if the man was minding his own business and was attacked, but by all accounts he wasn't.

Bollocks, your right in one way but how (unless the dog/dogs were ordered to attack) is it the owners fault?

This is different from stepping in to help someone getting robbed etc, this is a dog fight.

Who said it was the owners fault ?

Get on topic burt, i was on about my previous comment/question...

Why is the owner not getting charged with manslaughter?

IIRC, it is not considered to be a criminal matter if the attack was on private property. I'd have to try and find the specific bit of legislation that covers it.

I know that under the Dangerous Dogs Act, anyone allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place – or a private place where the dog was not permitted to be - was guilty of an offence. If the dog actually injured someone, the person in charge of the dog was guilty of an aggravated offence.

I think that the problem lies with the fact that under the DDA, if the attack happens in the dogs "home" then the owner cannot be prosecuted as it's not a criminal offence. It was his housemates' dog, therefore it was also the dogs home. Unfortunate but that's the Law. There would also not be a destruction order made, although he made that decision himself.

same thing in my eyes.

I'm on topic ste, Who said it was the owners fault, its not in the news report, On the other the grandmother was responsible for the baby.

Thanks PJ

You know what i`m talking about burt....



I did point that out to you before


Do you own a Canine burt?



BTW PJ has answered my question, but hey, don`t let me stop you

What about the legislation before DDA, did any of that survive?

If the person was left in charge of the dogs, willingly, then it would appear the owner can't be done for manslaughter, but this leaves a massive loophole in the law as this case shows - you can even admit that the dogs were dangerous and could probably kill someone and still get away with it, hmmmmmm

You know what i`m talking about burt....



I do and have had dogs all my life, including German Shepherds.

Good point DD

I don't think so hon, I'd have to have a nose.

Exellent, i too grew up with a German Shepherd At the parents house, my cause for concern was due to me, also being a dog owner.
I own a Rottwieler, these dogs are highly overrated to be aggressive and nasty, thats bullshit, it depends on who has brought them up.
But, if anything did happen and my dog did something wrong it would be plastered all over the news and exaggerated a lot.
Then i`d be done for manslaughter.

PJ has set my mind at rest now anyway, lol

Whats being forgotten here is these 2 dogs may not even been considered dangerous, even by the person who tried to separate them, hence the reason he tried, but it should be made clear to anyone who considers separating fighting dogs, you in turn become the potential enemy.

Yes, as i said before, people seem to forget that dogs are not supposed to be `pets`

Let that be a lesson to you all!

Bravo

I think another issue is the fact that the dogs may not have seen him as "higher up in the pecking order" so to speak. My dog sees me as the one in charge - what I say goes. She only sees 3 other people like that. Someone on here (I think it was Token) has a Mother who trains dogs I believe, so would be able to either tell me I'm right or wrong on that front.

Thankfully, my dog is far too daft to fight, but if she did - I wouldn't allow anyone else to get involved. She is my responsibility. As much as it would crucify me, if she WERE to ever hurt anyone, I'd have no other choice (personally) but to have her euthanised - but ONLY if she was the instigator and it was an unwarranted attack. The only time this would not apply would be if it involved a child - in that case, she would have to go.

Ste, i grew up with German Shepherds being bombarded by the press, they were blamed for everything that was bad and then they got stuck into dobermans, then rottweiler and now its pit bulls and that type of dog. You can only do your best when bringing them up. Always keep a watchful eye.

If any of my dogs attacked me when I did anything to them, I would have them put down. If it tried a sustained attack on me it would be dead a long time before it was put down, and that is why I disagree with staffs etc, if they attack you, they can get the better of you and that's why they should be strictly controlled - permanent muzzle, or better still, not allowed as a pet.

I had a staff when i left home and got my 1st flat.
Lovely dogs, very playful, no aggresion at all and very good with children.

Until......

Why do we not allow leopards, tigers etc -you can train them to be nice and playfull, until .....

my staff has never got the better of me and never will, he knows whos boss.hes very playful very good with the children and has been for the 8/9 years we have had him no aggresion what so ever. like i have said its the owners not the dog.

No they are in a different league, they are wild hunters.

Hunters - yes - so if they are fed they aren't a danger, until .....

Dogs are pack animals and do have a pecking order and we should be seen as the pack leader, they will from time to time challenge that leadership in there own little way, being disobedient and maybe naughty, that's when they need putting firmly in there place, otherwise they'll walk all over you.

So that child the dog has not met before, the dog has to establish his pecking order.

Quite possible and territory would come in to it also. This is why you see jealousy when the child arrives after the dog.

Ok, my last word on this (until the topic is raised again) ....

As a responsible dog owner, I would want to know that I could physically protect a child should my dog attack, I can do this with all the breeds that I would have as a pet. I could not do that with breeds such as pitbulls, Staffs, Rotts and possibly even alsations.

Nobody can physically open a pitbull's mouth once it is locked on, nobody can stop it shaking the victim.

I love to see these dogs when they are well behaved and soft as mick, but the risk is too high for me. Even dogs have bad hair days.

There are ways round that though. Just because a baby comes into the house does not mean that the dog has to go.

DD - I'm still waiting for your statistics link from the previous discussion

The only group in the UK that collected stats (by accumulating newspaper articles) have apparently been eaten by a group of poodles - or at least their web site is down.

The USA stats which are available are not particularly valid due to the completely different make-up of the quantity of each breed in the states, and the fact that the stats collector are breed haters. In one case they claimed 97% of all attacks were by one particular breed, whilst that strenghtens my arguement, it would be very foolish of me to use it seriously.

I see None reliable then. Don't start me on poodles either - fookin hate the evil little critters!!

I agree, the larger the breed the more damage it can and will do to its victims, but the main aim is not to have any breed bite or attack regardless of its size. It is not always down to how the animal is raised, our problem is we tend to put to much trust in our dogs, what we should remember, most fatal dog attacks take place in the home against family members of the dogs owners. Territorial thing again.

Jaci, when i had my German Shepherds and the press constantly reported bad and untrue things about them, The German Shepherd club in assosiation with the RSPCA and crufts often published a list of dog bites. Even then about 15-20 years ago it was hard to believe, i cant remember the full list but the GS was 7 on the list, i do remember the first 4, LAB, poodle, Doberman, Yorkie, hard to believe i know.

I can't stand poodles - vicious critters!! I've had nothing but bad experiences with them and Jack Russells. I'd rather be in a room with 100 Japanese Tosa's than 10 poodles or Jack Russells!

Hear Hear !!!

People do put too much trust in their dogs, and it is seen as the pack, and terriotorial problem. My Aunt in London has 4 dogs, Rottweiler, Border Collie, Collie Cross and some mongrel thing. George the collie cross is the only male, so its his group, Millie the Rotty is the Alpha Female, and wont hesitate to let Flo the border collie realise this.

When around them, even though they dont see me much, I ensure they know Im in charge, dont take any messing around of them, which is why Millie is as docile as a teddy. However, when she gets excited, she can get a bit nippy, and with 2 young kids and horses around, thats not good. You can have a good dog, or a bad dog, but either way at some point their instincts WILL kick in, whatever the circumstance. Unfortunately with Rottweilers, this usually results in them being put down, as they can be dangerous if they want to be... but other than that they are a gorgeous, docile breed, and Im sure Ste and Wheels can vouch for that.


DiggingDeeper.. in terms of not being able to do anything during an attack, Ive always been told that if a dog attacks someone, make straight for the legs, and snap them sideways. This snaps their ribs, and unfortunately will kill the dog, but Id rather a dead dog, than a dead child. Act first, face the consequences later

This was stated as the way of defending yourself from an Alsation, which is relatively long legged and not particularly strong dog - another reported method with an Alsation is to put your fist down its throat.

With a pitbull these things don't work - the only thing I can think of is the universal animal deterent (homo sapiens excluded in some cases - perportedly) shove something up its bum. But I wouldn't like to try it, but needs must, if a child is being attacked what else could I do? People have hit Pitbulls with hammers before now and the bloomin' things still won't let go!