persephone Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Oh, I hadn't seen that post :( How very sad. I know with 100% certainty that if my dog was in a burning house and along with a strange child, I would save my dog first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 He wouldn't listen and got angry, kept shoving me and trying to get to the dog with determination. Then the dog is allowed by law to bite the kid to protect the handler from assault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 My dogs are definitely more important to me than a strange human being, and I know with 100% certainty that if my dog was in a burning house and along with a strange child, I would save my dog first beacuse immaterial of whether they have any rights by law, to me my dogs are like adopted children. And no, my dogs don't get locked away because of guests. If guests can't handle dogs, they are not invited to my house. I'm going to assume you don't have children and somehow don't understand how it would feel for a parent to lose their child. If you had even the remotest idea of how painful it would be, I think perhaps you'd reconsider choosing a dog over someone's child. And that's me ignoring the fact that you even think you could, with 100 percent certainty, let a child burn to death. Such a decision would hopefully land you in jail, and heck, I'd be betting a very very dead dog. Let me be clear, dogs are NOT adopted children. They are nothing like children. The love you have for your dog, is nothing like the love a parent has for a child. NOTHING. I'm not going to pander to the idiocy that is accepted here sometimes and say that oh it's similar and love is love, because it's not. Not similar, not as powerful, nothing. This thread is reason enough why the general public think dog people are loonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Such a decision would hopefully land you in jail, and heck, I'd be betting a very very dead dog. I'd choose the child in the burning building, unless my subconscious took over and then I just don't know. But I am curious as to why you think choosing the dog would lead to a very very dead dog? Nor can I see why you think such a decision would lead to jail time. Social censure no doubt, but why jail? Back when I did such work that I might come across a disaster situation, I was always told that there was no legal obligation to risk one's life to save another's. Child or adult made no difference. You were never required to risk yourself for another. And I am assuming a burning building situation involves some risk to the rescuer. Has that legal position changed? efs Edited February 25, 2012 by Diva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordelia Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 As much as this thread has become full of virtually unbelievable stories about marauding autistic children and teens, touching people's dogs and punching people when they least expect it (Seriously people? WTF!)... there appears to be several psychopaths in our midst. ANYONE who actually believes they could or would leave a child in a building to die to save a dog has something dangerously wrong mentally. Sadly, that sort of person is someones neighbour, family member, co-worker... one can only assume you wouldn't actually have the courage to test that disgusting theory of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sallyandtex Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 this posted in another thread...might lighten the mood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Such a decision would hopefully land you in jail, and heck, I'd be betting a very very dead dog. I'd choose the child in the burning building, unless my subconcious took over and then I just don't know. But I am curious as to why you think choosing the dog would lead to a very very dead dog? Nor can I see why you think such a decision would lead to jail time. Social censure no doubt, but why jail? Back when I did such work that I might come across a disaster situation, I was always told that there was no legal obligation to risk one's life to save another's. Child or adult made no difference. You were never required to risk yourself for another. And I am assuming a burning building situation involves some risk to the rescuer. Has that legal positon changed? I have no doubt if a hypothetical like this happened, that SOMEONE would kill the dog in question. I said I'd HOPE for jail time, but I also have no doubt if this was to happen and a dog was deliberately saved OVER a child and that there was a possibility of saving that child, that every cop involved would go through the summary offences act, crimes act, or case law just to find something to put them away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordelia Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Such a decision would hopefully land you in jail, and heck, I'd be betting a very very dead dog. I'd choose the child in the burning building, unless my subconcious took over and then I just don't know. But I am curious as to why you think choosing the dog would lead to a very very dead dog? Nor can I see why you think such a decision would lead to jail time. Social censure no doubt, but why jail? Back when I did such work that I might come across a disaster situation, I was always told that there was no legal obligation to risk one's life to save another's. Child or adult made no difference. You were never required to risk yourself for another. And I am assuming a burning building situation involves some risk to the rescuer. Has that legal positon changed? I have no doubt if a hypothetical like this happened, that SOMEONE would kill the dog in question. I said I'd HOPE for jail time, but I also have no doubt if this was to happen and a dog was deliberately saved OVER a child and that there was a possibility of saving that child, that every cop involved would go through the summary offences act, crimes act, or case law just to find something to put them away. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Such a decision would hopefully land you in jail, and heck, I'd be betting a very very dead dog. I'd choose the child in the burning building, unless my subconcious took over and then I just don't know. But I am curious as to why you think choosing the dog would lead to a very very dead dog? Nor can I see why you think such a decision would lead to jail time. Social censure no doubt, but why jail? Back when I did such work that I might come across a disaster situation, I was always told that there was no legal obligation to risk one's life to save another's. Child or adult made no difference. You were never required to risk yourself for another. And I am assuming a burning building situation involves some risk to the rescuer. Has that legal positon changed? I have no doubt if a hypothetical like this happened, that SOMEONE would kill the dog in question. I said I'd HOPE for jail time, but I also have no doubt if this was to happen and a dog was deliberately saved OVER a child and that there was a possibility of saving that child, that every cop involved would go through the summary offences act, crimes act, or case law just to find something to put them away. Well if someone did kill the dog in question, they'd be the criminal. I'm pretty sure we get to choose who or what we put ourselves in physical harm's way for, and I dearly hope it stays that way. Even though I'd choose the child, I hold no anger towards those who'd pick their own. Nor for those who'd choose neither. I don't think we have the right to say what people should risk life and limb for, or label them as mentally ill for a different choice to our own. We don't stand in their shoes. Edited February 25, 2012 by Diva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm thinking about the comments posted saying if you have a certain kind of dog (aggressive/fearful etc), you should be in absolute control. The OP asked what would have been the consequence if the child had of been injured in some way, so I'm trying to clarify what reasonable control really means. Having reasonable control seems to be the issue when dogs get into trouble with council. My question is: Does having control of your dog mean that despite any provocation that could be thrown at them, they won't be upset by it, or does having having control mean that you are aware of your dogs strengths and weaknesses and avoid as far as possible situations that may be problematic and minimise the risks if the situation is unavoidable? I am not asking about having a dog who is declared dangerous in a public place, but an average dog on lead. If a dog is tethered or on leash with a handler is 99% defined as being under effective control. If a dog under effective control (leashed/tethered)is provoked into an aggressive reaction or the handler is assaulted where it's reasonable for a dog to assume that the handler is under threat, the dog is exempt from prosecution in the event of an attack under a statutory dangerous dog defence. People need to be educated enough to know that approaching other people's dogs on leash can result in the possibility of getting bitten and do so at their own risk. If they do get bitten in those circumstances which were completely avoidable, no one has to approach or interfere with someone elses dog, it's their choice to do so and if a bite occurs they need to cop it on the chin and accept they made the wrong call and hopefully learn something from the experience. However, if they run to council to have a sook about it and try to have your dog declared dangerous through their own misadventure, you need to get your story right about what happened in compliance with the legislation. You can't undo the bite, but you can save your dog from a DD order with the right account of events. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 It's not that simple. For eg (and just an eg) in the CFA act, a person must contact the authorities on becoming aware of a fire, so it would be an offence to have gone in to save the dogs first, and this could means their conduct could cause the death of the child as the authorities were delayed in getting there. So, while there may not be a law that says you must save XYZ, there will be other related offences. As the poster said with "100 percent certainty" what they'd do, they can expect some 'discussion' about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 It's not that simple. For eg (and just an eg) in the CFA act, a person must contact the authorities on becoming aware of a fire, so it would be an offence to have gone in to save the dogs first, and this could means their conduct could cause the death of the child as the authorities were delayed in getting there. So, while there may not be a law that says you must save XYZ, there will be other related offences. As the poster said with "100 percent certainty" what they'd do, they can expect some 'discussion' about this. I agree such situations are not simple. Unless you are well trained for them, and for all I know even then, they can feel surreal, time moves in odd ways, and decisions may be instinctive rather than conscious and deliberate. Technical offences may be unintentionally committed, but that doesn't mean they'll end in jail time. Fortunately courts get to decide that and the 'fog of war' type of defence comes to mind. I dare say the posters did expect discussion, and criticism. Good on them for being so upfront. They've made me think more than DoL usually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 If a blind child walked into your path, and inadvertently tripped you and startled your dog, would you be as angry? If any child, disability or not, walked into my path and tripped me, let alone the dog, and the parent was letting the child get so far ahead with nary a concern then yes, I'd be angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acacia Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I would hardly count wanting to protect the lives you have taken under your care to be hating fellow humans. For the record I agree with OG. My dogs (ie my family) come first. For me, it is more a case of I don't think I could live with myself if I made the choice to allow a child to die so my dog could live. It's a very personal matter. I personally couldn't live with myself if I let my dog die knowing I'd had a chance to save him, even if it meant I wasn't able to save a person. A very personal matter? wow... it really isn't...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordelia Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I think this thread has to go down as one of the MOST bizarre ones, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I think this thread has to go down as one of the MOST bizarre ones, ever. ;) The alchemy of D O L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whipitgood Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Agreed Willow. I haven't read the whole thread so i'm not sure who said they would do such a stupid thing, but you are an idiot and to say you would leave a child in a burning house to save your dog is not only morally reprehensible but criminal. I sincerely hope you never have children. NO dogs life should come before that of a child, anyones child. To be honest, I think you said it to gain a reaction, because I really don't believe anyone would save a dog first over a baby. Or maybe I am a bit naive and there are more psychopaths like you than I realised! I had to come back again and reply again.....I am so utterly appalled, disgusted and shocked that someone could leave a child to die....as the mother of an almost 2 year old, and a 4 month old, the thought that someone could watch my children dying, go "nah, **** 'em, get the dog instead" makes me want to vomit. I love my animals, but they do not rank above the life of a child. ANY child, be they mine or a strangers. Someone who could do that does not deserve to call themselves human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claireybell Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 If someone willingly choose to save their dog before my child I would be beyond disbelief and despair. As much as I love my dogs, humans take the priority. I can not believe that anyone could be as heartless as to make such a decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.mister Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Such a decision would hopefully land you in jail, and heck, I'd be betting a very very dead dog. I'd choose the child in the burning building, unless my subconcious took over and then I just don't know. But I am curious as to why you think choosing the dog would lead to a very very dead dog? Nor can I see why you think such a decision would lead to jail time. Social censure no doubt, but why jail? Back when I did such work that I might come across a disaster situation, I was always told that there was no legal obligation to risk one's life to save another's. Child or adult made no difference. You were never required to risk yourself for another. And I am assuming a burning building situation involves some risk to the rescuer. Has that legal positon changed? I have no doubt if a hypothetical like this happened, that SOMEONE would kill the dog in question. I said I'd HOPE for jail time, but I also have no doubt if this was to happen and a dog was deliberately saved OVER a child and that there was a possibility of saving that child, that every cop involved would go through the summary offences act, crimes act, or case law just to find something to put them away. Well if someone did kill the dog in question, they'd be the criminal. I'm pretty sure we get to choose who or what we put ourselves in physical harm's way for, and I dearly hope it stays that way. Even though I'd choose the child, I hold no anger towards those who'd pick their own. Nor for those who'd choose neither. I don't think we have the right to say what people should risk life and limb for, or label them as mentally ill for a different choice to our own. We don't stand in their shoes. I agree here... I assume most of those who have called certain people disgusting for their burning building opinion, have children. The replies were certainly understandable - however, I can't say I would ever go so far as to call someone a disgusting psychopath who should never have children over the net. Geez. This is a forum, not an actual burning building. People say things. In reality, no one knows exactly how they'd react in such an incredibly terrifying situation. I have no idea what I would do in that situation, but I can only try to imagine. I doubt I would be in the building in the first place, the coward I am. I am not a parent. I'm sure there are plenty on DOL who aren't. So no, I can't possibly imagine the extent that a parent loves their child. I've never experienced it, so I can only imagine it, but I'm sure it doesn't come anywhere close to what it really is. Until I have children, I'm not going to know this love, only the love I've experienced, which happens to be the love for my pets. Does it make me a psychopath if in my imagined scenario, I might think of my pet, which I love, first? Not because I hate the child in mention or am apparently a closeted serial killer or something, but because I love my animal, and in a high pressure situation like that I doubt I'd be thinking straight at all. Call me a monster all you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Willow Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 .I agree here... I assume most of those who have called certain people disgusting for their burning building opinion, have children. The replies were certainly understandable - however, I can't say I would ever go so far as to call someone a disgusting psychopath who should never have children over the net. Geez. This is a forum, not an actual burning building. People say things. In reality, no one knows exactly how they'd react in such an incredibly terrifying situation. I have no idea what I would do in that situation, but I can only try to imagine. I doubt I would be in the building in the first place, the coward I am. I am not a parent. I'm sure there are plenty on DOL who aren't. So no, I can't possibly imagine the extent that a parent loves their child. I've never experienced it, so I can only imagine it, but I'm sure it doesn't come anywhere close to what it really is. Until I have children, I'm not going to know this love, only the love I've experienced, which happens to be the love for my pets. Does it make me a psychopath if in my imagined scenario, I might think of my pet, which I love, first? Not because I hate the child in mention or am apparently a closeted serial killer or something, but because I love my animal, and in a high pressure situation like that I doubt I'd be thinking straight at all. Call me a monster all you like. You don't have to be a parent to realise that anyone who would abandon a human to die, in order to save a dog, is not quite right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now