Pitbulls To Get Bad Name Again

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

If the police are not able to enter a property where they believe a crime is being committed then why have a police force?

indeed.

[Jed]

Whilst I believe it is worse than appalling that this dog bit someone on the face - at the gate, inside the gate, outside the gate - it makes no difference. There are no excuses, it doesn't matter what the breed is, or that the dog was abused, or sniffing coke, shooting up heroin, or smoking marijuana. Or simply having a bad day.

No one should own a dog like that. And I agree the poor dog was probably abused.

Tralee is correct about what I said some years ago - rules for entry to property are based on Semaynes case (England) in 1604 - these words are the most important

"That the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose.

"(But) in all cases when the King is party, the Sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K.'s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors."

The police may enter to issue a warrant.

Plenty vs Dillon (High Court, Australia 1991) reinforced Semaynes case - as quite a few court cases over the years have.

A constable or citizen can also enter premises if a felony has been committed and the felon has been followed to the premises. A constable or citizen can also enter premises to prevent a murder occurring

And there is a sign, which, if attached to the entry gate, legally prevents entry, citing Plenty vs Dillon case as the reason. I have forgotten exactly what it says.

That information was provided to assist owners of bull breed dogs who were faced with illegal entry by council officers, not to argue about whether police could enter or not.

seriously this is NOT correct.

the police can enter a property without a warrant if they have sufficient reason to believe someone is in danger and (i think) if they believe a crime is being committed

it is nonsense to suggest a sign would keep them out of a drug lab

Seriously, Jaxxs Buddy, can you provide references for your belief?

There are results of many court cases which prove what I wrote. Before you call me a liar again, you might like to do your own search? You might also like to re-visit what I actually wrote.

And I don't recall saying anything about a drug lab? Troy asked members to keep on topic. Where does a drug lab figure in this story?

Edited February 21, 2011 by Jed

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Whilst I believe it is worse than appalling that this dog bit someone on the face - at the gate, inside the gate, outside the gate - it makes no difference. There are no excuses, it doesn't matter what the breed is, or that the dog was abused, or sniffing coke, shooting up heroin, or smoking marijuana. Or simply having a bad day.

No one should own a dog like that. And I agree the poor dog was probably abused.

Tralee is correct about what I said some years ago - rules for entry to property are based on Semaynes case (England) in 1604 - these words are the most important

"That the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose.

"(But) in all cases when the King is party, the Sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K.'s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors."

The police may enter to issue a warrant.

Plenty vs Dillon (High Court, Australia 1991) reinforced Semaynes case - as quite a few court cases over the years have.

A constable or citizen can also enter premises if a felony has been committed and the felon has been followed to the premises. A constable or citizen can also enter premises to prevent a murder occurring

And there is a sign, which, if attached to the entry gate, legally prevents entry, citing Plenty vs Dillon case as the reason. I have forgotten exactly what it says.

That information was provided to assist owners of bull breed dogs who were faced with illegal entry by council officers, not to argue about whether police could enter or not.

seriously this is NOT correct.

the police can enter a property without a warrant if they have sufficient reason to believe someone is in danger and (i think) if they believe a crime is being committed

it is nonsense to suggest a sign would keep them out of a drug lab

Seriously, Jaxxs Buddy, can you provide references for your belief?

There are results of many court cases which prove what I wrote. Before you call my a liar again, you might like to do your own search?

And I don't recall saying anything about a drug lab? Troy asked members to keep on topic. Where does a drug lab figure in this story?

i can. i will ask my friends in the police force, in several states and federally to provide them

i was on topic thank you

also i did not call you a liar i said that the information you posted was not correct

[Janba]

We don't even know if there was a sign on the gate - none of the media reports say there was.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

victorian law on police entering property

link http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/1881.htm

Searches of private property

The police usually need a search warrant to enter and search private property – for example, your home. However, the police may go into private property without a search warrant when:

* you let them in

* they have a reasonable belief that a serious offence will be or has been committed and they need to go into the house to arrest someone

* they need to stop a ‘breach of the peace’ – for example, a fight

* there has been a breach of an intervention order (see ‘Intervention orders’, link below)

* they are chasing someone who has escaped from prison or police custody

* they have a warrant to arrest someone

* they have a reasonable belief that illegal drugs are on the property.

The police can also search your home without your knowledge if they reasonably suspect that a terrorist act will be or has been committed. See ‘Terrorism laws’ (link below).

Edited February 21, 2011 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[gillybob]

I think the laws are the sam ein NSW and Queensland.

If they think there is reason they can enter.

How do you reacon they bust people?

If they couldnt enter without warrants.

[poodlefan]

Seriously, Jaxxs Buddy, can you provide references for your belief?

There are results of many court cases which prove what I wrote. Before you call me a liar again, you might like to do your own search? You might also like to re-visit what I actually wrote.

And I don't recall saying anything about a drug lab? Troy asked members to keep on topic. Where does a drug lab figure in this story?

I have already provided references to the NSW legislation that enables police to enter properties in that state and in particular in response to incidents of domestic violence.

Legislation will trump case law every time unless a court reads it down.

No one's calling you a liar Jed. In this case you are simply misinformed.

Edited February 21, 2011 by poodlefan

[raz]

There wasnt a sign on the gate. That was a red herring. According to the article the Police were called because some dipshit was in breach of a DVO twice. A policeman who responded then had half his face ripped off by a dog as he tried to open the front gate. The dog is now dead. Good - the dog should have been shot before he jumped the gate! The dipshit owner is now in prison awaiting facing court.

[Jed]

Seriously, Jaxxs Buddy, can you provide references for your belief?

There are results of many court cases which prove what I wrote. Before you call me a liar again, you might like to do your own search? You might also like to re-visit what I actually wrote.

And I don't recall saying anything about a drug lab? Troy asked members to keep on topic. Where does a drug lab figure in this story?

I have already provided references to the NSW legislation that enables police to enter properties in that state and in particular in response to incidents of domestic violence.

Legislation will trump case law every time unless a court reads it down.

No one's calling you a liar Jed. In this case you are simply misinformed.

I thought you at least would do the research, Poodlefan! Or at least read my post!!

I really don't care who thinks what, I was responding to Tralee's post

[J.H.M]

Here is a good link, see page 26 for property entry summary of police powers in QLD

[Akayla]

Hmm wow what an interesting thread

First off in regards to the sign or no sign they can also be a liability. One must be careful when advertising they KNOW their dog is dangerous in case they ever need to go to court. Any kind of sign errected that implies that due to the dog it is unsafe to enter does not mean they CANT enter but that the owner could be legally at risk.

I agree with most and have no respect for people that keep dogs that are as over the top HA. A healthy animal gives warning first.

Non of us were there but by what has been written I would say that the owner of the dog is 90% responsible. There are a few things people can do in an attack situation (assuming they see it coming) but its hardly reasonable to expect most individuals to have such an intense knowledge of canine (and human) behaviour.

I understand people defending their dogs ect but in this case given the dog was not secured properly and caused such harm we need to stand accountable and say yes THIS dog needs to be PTS'd and its owner punished by law. If a guard dog who is this violent can attack outside it property at will and is defended it only shows bias.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Blaming a dog for anything, under any circumstance, is absurd, much less blaming one for offending the latest trends in cultural sensibilities.

Humans bare all the responsibility for how dogs are kept, how we interact with them, and to what and whom they have access. The only bias in defending a dog against blame is the bias toward reason.

Perhaps folks would like to phone the central office of canine criminal masterminds and ask them to send their members a memo advising that they ought not bite intruders because as of the last 5 minutes the practice has begun to fall out of favour.

[geo]

Great link, I think it would be advantageous to some dog owners to have signs stating, "enter at your own risk", or "no public entry". I would never put up a sign saying "dangerous dog" that's just asking for trouble imo.

[Jed]

Great link, I think it would be advantageous to some dog owners to have signs stating, "enter at your own risk", or "no public entry". I would never put up a sign saying "dangerous dog" that's just asking for trouble imo.

Hi, Geo, the sign says something like "Permission to enter this property is expressly forbidden. AHC1991". It says nothing whatsoever about dogs. Icould probably find it if I needed to, but a lock also works.

If you are interested, I will send you a link to the complete topic. I researched, and counsel's opinion was sought before I posted anything.

What I actually posted in this thread was

That information was provided to assist owners of bull breed dogs who were faced with illegal entry by council officers, not to argue about whether police could enter or not.

And that referred to the thread 6 years ago.

[Akayla]

Blaming a dog for anything, under any circumstance, is absurd, much less blaming one for offending the latest trends in cultural sensibilities.

Humans bare all the responsibility for how dogs are kept, how we interact with them, and to what and whom they have access. The only bias in defending a dog against blame is the bias toward reason.

Perhaps folks would like to phone the central office of canine criminal masterminds and ask them to send their members a memo advising that they ought not bite intruders because as of the last 5 minutes the practice has begun to fall out of favour.

I shouldnt laugh but that gave me the giggles

When I say bias I mean bias between humans. The dog of course damaged or not is only reacting to stimuli. So if we the owners show bias saying that people will just have to be at risk we dont look credible. Save a dog within reason. What would a dogs like thats life be? basically locked in a cage 24/7 unless muzzled and restrained - and even then sounds a bit risky given its level of aggression. There are few people able to reablitate a dog that HA (going off the info I saw here). As much as people have a right to protect their property they have a right to be safe too. Thats where the law comes in.

If this was a dog that had bitten someones arm after growling and rushing a fence Id feel different but you know what as always non of us were there so its all just talking. Any one can exaggerate.

The dog also may have a genetic reason for the aggression or a health issue. So no amount of training will fix that. Its behaviour (by description only) shows a very OTT aggression with no warning. A dog like that shouldnt be in a yard period.

Now a healthy dog will defend and even bite but the behaviour would be different. Im not talking about a normal dog biting someone that has intruded on its property. Again from description this dogs behaviour goes beyond that.

All this is just my opinion of course and worth a grain of salt. Hopefully the people involved are honest and not biased.

[poodlefan]

That information was provided to assist owners of bull breed dogs who were faced with illegal entry by council officers, not to argue about whether police could enter or not.

Lets not forget that police have access to powers that council officers do not have.

I have done my research Jed. The police in this incident were responding to a domestic incident for which they have express powers to enter premises. I provided a copy of those powers.

I don't doubt that you've got the law relating to council officers entering premises to look for dogs weighed off but it doesn't apply here.

Tralee asserted that no one had the power to enter premises without owner permission. He was wrong.

Edited February 22, 2011 by poodlefan

[geo]

Thanks for that info Jed, i will be looking at getting a sign for my gates. Not that I foresee any issues as plenty of friends walk straight in my yard with no incident.

Akayla, No mention of the dogs behavior was given before the incident. The dog may have been riled up by the domestic that was going on, also the cop may have missed any warning signals that the dog may have given.

People who are not familiar with dog behaviors often say that the dog "just attacked for no reason", when the majority of the time there's always a trigger or warning.

I think that's what many of the posters who've copped a bit of flack on this thread were possibly trying to get across..

[poodlefan]

Thanks for that info Jed, i will be looking at getting a sign for my gates. Not that I foresee any issues as plenty of friends walk straight in my yard with no incident.

Akayla, No mention of the dogs behavior was given before the incident. The dog may have been riled up by the domestic that was going on, also the cop may have missed any warning signals that the dog may have given.

People who are not familiar with dog behaviors often say that the dog "just attacked for no reason", when the majority of the time there's always a trigger or warning.

I think that's what many of the posters who've copped a bit of flack on this thread were possibly trying to get across..

The trigger in this case appears to have been an attempt to open the gate. The fact that dogs rarely attack for no reason does not mean that these attacks should be excused or attempts not made to prevent them.

Here's the thing:

There are a number of professions that may need to access your home without your permission or without notice. If you believe your dog might be a threat to the safety of such people then my advice is to contain the dog in such a way that it cannot attack people entering the property to access your front door.

If you don't want to do that then lock your bloody gates, add a 'beware of the dog' sign and accept that your dog may be shot if entry is required in an emergency.

Edited February 23, 2011 by poodlefan

[Diva]

The trigger in this case appears to have been an attempt to open the gate. The fact that dogs rarely attack for no reason does mean that these attacks should be excused or attempts made to prevent them.

I hope you are missing a negative in there pf

[poodlefan]

The trigger in this case appears to have been an attempt to open the gate. The fact that dogs rarely attack for no reason does mean that these attacks should be excused or attempts made to prevent them.

I hope you are missing a negative in there pf

Ah yes. Will fix.