Forums Forums National News Lancashire man killed by 2 dogs...

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?