Tricky Scenario At The Park

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/boy-16-struck-and-killed-by-train-warreneip-near-ballarat/story-fn7x8me2-1226281598516

A variation on our theme of save the dog vs save the child has happenned.

A TEENAGER has been killed by a train while running after a dog near Ballarat last night.

It's believed the 15-year-old boy was attempting to get to the dog when he was struck by the Ballarat-bound V-Line train at Warrenheip about 9pm.

The accident happened on the tracks beneath the Warrenheip Rd railway bridge about 9pm.

It isn’t known whether the dog had escaped from a nearby property.

The boy, from Ballarat, died at the scene.

Police are encouraging anyone with information about the tragic incident to come forward.

Personally I don't think all children are angels. A badly behaved child (doesn't matter why) - would be dangerous to try to save from most any situation, if you're in it, you'd have to decide quickly. I imagine the child's mum would probably try and an emergency worker would but it's not advisable for a member of the public to do it. I've done enough first aid courses to know that the first aider should not put themselves in danger - because it only makes things worse.

And here's my judgemental bit - based on the opening post - I think it's most likely the child's mother that had the problem, not necessarily the child (though it often runs in families). This is based on how slow she was to react to a series of potentially dangerous situations the child was in.

PS the train, dog, child thing is horrific and I make no judgement on who was at fault or what I would have done if I had been there. I don't think I would have jumped on the tracks in front of an oncoming train though.

Raz - at least you'd make the call - some people don't even do that.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[k9angel]

I remember when I went to walk Ellie (the poor shep x left tied up in a yard before finding her forever home), we had this little kid on one occassion just come running up to us wanting to pat her. I don't know who startled more, me or Ellie. He came out of no where.

Ellie had not grown up around kids so I wasn't sure how she'd react. Thankully she was ok, but if she hadn't of been, it could of ended in disaster and ofcoarse, poor Ellie would of been the one to pay the ultimate price - her life.

I often have kids wanting to pat mine when I am out walking. As soon as they see a husky, it's like "Snow dog, snow dog" and they come running. Some ask to pat, but many don't. And worse, in many instances, the parents cannot be seen any where.

I still cannot understand how they include just about everything else in school curriculums, unyet something as vital as teaching kids to meet and interact with dogs safely, isn't.

I know these things should be taught at home and from a young age, but it's clear to see that the kids are not being educated. Heck, many of the parents don't have a clue about dogs themselves so how are they suppose to teach their kids?

I just bought a book for Jacks kindy class called "May I pet your dog". (still waiting for it to arrive). I am either going to ask if I can do a talk to the class and read it as part of my presentation, or donate it to the class for the teacher to read to them, and hopefully pass it around to the other classes to read. IMO If it gets the message through to one child even, it's worth it. It's just a shame they don't include this sort of thing as part of their everyday learning... or at least an hours lesson on the subject once every month or even every 6 months. Surely it couldn't be that hard??

Here is the book description for anyone interested.

Book Description

Publication Date: April 16, 2007 | Age Level: 5 and up | Grade Level: K and up

Children encounter dogs wherever they go: in the park, on the sidewalk, at their friends’ homes. Sometimes it’s love at first sight, on both sides—but not always. The right way for a child to approach a dog to ensure that the first connection is a complete success begins with this question to the owner: “May I pet your dog?” Using Harry the dachshund as a gentle guide, Stephanie Calmenson addresses this valuable yet overlooked topic with care and precision, and Jan Ormerod’s warm illustrations portray a wide variety of breeds and personalities and depict situations that are realistic but never scary. Unique and straightforward, this is the essential guide to bringing children and dogs together—for kids and parents alike.

http://www.amazon.com/May-Pet-Your-Dog-How/dp/0618510346

[BlaznHotAussies]

Eek I would be quite horrified if something like that happened to me with my dog!

Although, I was once at football in my small town with my dog (I'd had him about 6 weeks and even though he was 3, hadn't had much socialisation so I was getting him out and about to give him more confidence) and he was on a lead and everything. I was talking to someone and he was lying on the grass behind me when about 8 kids under the age of 10 came running up to pat and cuddle and climb all over him before I even had time to think or speak. Luckily for me, he actually seemed to enjoy it. And I was super relieved (and found out that YES my heart can beat that fast). He's come even further since then and even likes cuddles from me (not just sitting there waiting for it to finish........)

I do think that as dog owners we need to get our dogs used to "interesting" situations. But in the case of an older dog, some can tend to have issues that cause them pain when petted in certain places (my Aunty used to have an olllld little dog called Lucky who would snap if you touched his back) and you have every right to be upset/angry about a strange kid coming up and trying to get your dog. For the dog's sake and the child's!!

Just my 2 cents (Off to do my intro post now )

Edited February 26, 2012 by Scootaloo

[mr.mister]

But its ok to label a child as mentally disabled based on one incident?

And for the record, I personally never labelled anyone as a psychopath or said they should never have children (although I think that is a moot point given the opinions of some in this thread). I said that the course of action based on concious choice was criminally negligent. As the law states that if someone dies as a direct result of a choice you made then you are held accountable (i.e. mansluaghter, negligence causing bodily harm, negligence causing death etc) then that choice is actually a criminal act that carries a significant peanalty.

Sorry, don't really know where I've said it's okay to do that. I certainly haven't labelled the child in question. I know other people have, but I haven't, and I haven't condoned it either.

You may not have called others psychopaths but others have on here, and why is it a moot point? When it comes down to personal attacks it's just not okay.

Edited February 26, 2012 by mr.mister

[Red Fox]

I can't believe this thread is STILL going!!

If a building was on fire then 99% of people would save only one person - THEMSELVES.. Either way, what is a hypothetical strangers child doing in your hypothetical burning down house? Odd.... but anyhow....

Re the OP, the mother could have at least apologised for the little shits behaviour. Her behaviour and lack of responsibility is worse than the kid! And we all know who would have been "at fault" if the dog retaliated. My dog? I would have roared at the bloody kid and high-tailed it out of there. Perhaps I would have made him cry, or angry? Who cares it's better than having part of his face removed by a terrified dog.

[StaceyB]

If you are in a burning building and make a concious choice to save a dog over a child, then yes, you do have a duty of care and legal responsibility for allowing that person to die because of a choice you made.

Really?

could you please cite the relevant sections of legislation?

You have legal no duty of care if someone has a heart attack in the street, even if you are in the medical profession, and it could be said that you are making a concious choice to allow them to potentially die.

Obviously if you are a firefighter or something and you choose to not help them or rescue an animal first, then you could be held legally responsible.

I really don't see how, as an average person, you could possibly be held responsible for another persons accidental death even if you decided to get your own family (including pets) out of harms way first.

Australian Criminal Code - Sect 115.2

And since the original statement that has gotten most peoples backs up refers to a burning house where their dogs are kept it is a reasonable assumption that this would be your own home, therefore there is an implied duty of care for any child (as a legal minor) left in your care.

But its ok to label a child as mentally disabled based on one incident?

And for the record, I personally never labelled anyone as a psychopath or said they should never have children (although I think that is a moot point given the opinions of some in this thread). I said that the course of action based on concious choice was criminally negligent. As the law states that if someone dies as a direct result of a choice you made then you are held accountable (i.e. mansluaghter, negligence causing bodily harm, negligence causing death etc) then that choice is actually a criminal act that carries a significant peanalty.

Sorry, don't really know where I've said it's okay to do that. I certainly haven't labelled the child in question. I know other people have, but I haven't, and I haven't condoned it either.

You may not have called others psychopaths but others have on here, and why is it a moot point? When it comes down to personal attacks it's just not okay.

Its a moot point about the "they shouldn't have kids" statements flying around. People with strong negative options towards children are unlikely to have them (because if you dislike children that much you would do anything you can to avoid having them), therefore the statement is moot.

My statement about it being ok to label a child was in response to others saying its not ok to label people as psychopaths. Same principle. If one is ok, why not the other? This is not aimed specifically at you Mr.Mister. There are a whole lot of generalisations and BS flying around this thread.

[Greytmate]

What a stupid thread this has become.

Stacey B, as if I would ever look after somebody else's kid. Keep your kids out of other people's burning houses and away from their dogs and you will be fine. If ever my house burns down and your kids are anywhere nearby, they will be reported to police.

[grumpette]

Australian Criminal Code - Sect 115.2

And since the original statement that has gotten most peoples backs up refers to a burning house where their dogs are kept it is a reasonable assumption that this would be your own home, therefore there is an implied duty of care for any child (as a legal minor) left in your care.

This refers to deaths outside Australia

115.2 Manslaughter of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

(b) the conduct causes the death of another person; and

© the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

(d) the first-mentioned person intends that the conduct will cause serious harm, or is reckless as to a risk that the conduct will cause serious harm, to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person.

[raz]

[There are a whole lot of generalisations and BS flying around this thread.

Sure are. I dont recall anyone in this thread saying they hate children but if I'm wrong I'll happily have you point it out to me.

[StaceyB]

What a stupid thread this has become.

Stacey B, as if I would ever look after somebody else's kid. Keep your kids out of other people's burning houses and away from their dogs and you will be fine. If ever my house burns down and your kids are anywhere nearby, they will be reported to police.

And seeing as how you live on the other side of the country and my oldest child is 2 I'd be wonder WTF they were doing there too

Just because a child is nearby doesnt automatically mean they did anything either, Id be more interested in finding out what caused the fire before I start pointing fingers.

[StaceyB]

Australian Criminal Code - Sect 115.2

And since the original statement that has gotten most peoples backs up refers to a burning house where their dogs are kept it is a reasonable assumption that this would be your own home, therefore there is an implied duty of care for any child (as a legal minor) left in your care.

This refers to deaths outside Australia

115.2 Manslaughter of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

(b) the conduct causes the death of another person; and

© the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

(d) the first-mentioned person intends that the conduct will cause serious harm, or is reckless as to a risk that the conduct will cause serious harm, to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person.

It refers to harming Australian Citizens. As this is the Australian Criminal Code it doesn't apply in other countries as they have their own laws.

Section B covers the scenario.

And Raz, no-one has said specifically that they hate children (that I am aware of). But they have made their feelings clear on the subject, they obviously do not like children. There are many here who don't. Not everyone has to like kids, but if you make comments that you would leave a child to die in a burning house on a public forum then you'd better expect to cop some sh!t over it.

ETA - just for the sake of clarity - that was a general 'you' not a specific 'you'.

Edited February 26, 2012 by StaceyB

[Acacia]

I can't believe this thread is STILL going!!

If a building was on fire then 99% of people would save only one person - THEMSELVES.. Either way, what is a hypothetical strangers child doing in your hypothetical burning down house? Odd.... but anyhow....

Re the OP, the mother could have at least apologised for the little shits behaviour. Her behaviour and lack of responsibility is worse than the kid! And we all know who would have been "at fault" if the dog retaliated. My dog? I would have roared at the bloody kid and high-tailed it out of there. Perhaps I would have made him cry, or angry? Who cares it's better than having part of his face removed by a terrified dog.

I would risk burning to death in a fire trying to save my babies. 99.054378% of dentists would agree. There is no point saving only myself if my children are dead, because to me, that would be worse than death itself.

[Greytmate]

Just because a child is nearby doesnt automatically mean they did anything either, Id be more interested in finding out what caused the fire before I start pointing fingers.

No way.

If I see that my house is burning, and there are some kids are in it, I'm going to be pointing some fingers. But I would save my dogs first. Then call police. I would never approach a suspected arsonist of any age.

[aussielover]

Australian Criminal Code - Sect 115.2

And since the original statement that has gotten most peoples backs up refers to a burning house where their dogs are kept it is a reasonable assumption that this would be your own home, therefore there is an implied duty of care for any child (as a legal minor) left in your care.

This refers to deaths outside Australia

115.2 Manslaughter of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

(b) the conduct causes the death of another person; and

© the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

(d) the first-mentioned person intends that the conduct will cause serious harm, or is reckless as to a risk that the conduct will cause serious harm, to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person.

It refers to harming Australian Citizens. As this is the Australian Criminal Code it doesn't apply in other countries as they have their own laws.

Section B covers the scenario.

That is incorrect. However tbh, I really can't be bothered explaining it to you because this has gone so far off topic and is totally not relevant. What does saving a child from a burning house even remotely have to do with letting a child approach your dog...

I don't hate kids, I actually really like them but if it came to saving some random over my faithful dog who I love very much, I'm really not sure what I would do.

As Raz pointed out no one really knows what they would do in such a situation.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

so back to the opening post...

That child placed itself in danger in many different ways - but I suspect if OP had touched the child at all to help the (unwilling and pushy) child to safety, the mother and the child would have screamed blue murder and the OP would have been in trouble - not the mother for letting her child play in the car park and harass unfamilar dogs and people.

So if you take the burning building out of it, there is nothing much the OP could have done in this situation apart from keep an eye out for children and make sure she kept her distance - which in my situation at our local park - would have required sprinting from the area.

If you put the burning building back in - again - you can't help a child that won't listen to you when you say "don't touch" and then gets physical. The why of it - doesn't matter. I wouldn't make assumptions about the child being autistic or otherwise. Badly trained - definitely.

[ILFC]

Pretty simple solution. Body block child to your dog, turn and walk off. Or, while blocking, ask mum to grab child, saying dog not friendly. While annoying, it's no big deal. If child persists while waiting for mum to intervene, a firm no will suffice. Building scenario is ridiculous.

[rusty&biscuit]

Back to the original post, I had some children walking on the beach come up to Rusty and start pulling at his tail, the parents just smiling :/ I told the children not to and said to the parents to watch their children, they were annoying half the dogs on the beach. Their response "They need to get bit to learn their lesson" But hey, this is the first time something like this has happened, thankfully. Every other kid says "Can I please pat your dog", which is excellent, I let them do so and thank them for asking :)

[Simply Grand]

Back to the original post, I had some children walking on the beach come up to Rusty and start pulling at his tail, the parents just smiling :/ I told the children not to and said to the parents to watch their children, they were annoying half the dogs on the beach. Their response "They need to get bit to learn their lesson" But hey, this is the first time something like this has happened, thankfully. Every other kid says "Can I please pat your dog", which is excellent, I let them do so and thank them for asking :)

Oh how very annoying! What about they need their parents to tell them not to do that to learn their lesson...

The other day I told a little kid at the dog park not to pull his own dog's tail.I didn't even mean to, I'd just been keeping a close eye on him as he was running round the park stirring up the dogs, including Quinn and I was trying to stop her jumping up on him and scratching or knocking him over (I was slightly annoyed that the mum was just letting her two little boys carry on). Anyway, he ran up to his own dog and grabbed her by the tail and I just yelled out "don't pull her tail!" Kid looked at me in surprise, mum paid no attention.

[hortfurball]

Only on page three but have to post now 'cos I have quoted so many posts...

I totally understand that it is much more difficult for parents with children on the autism spectrum and don't expect they will always have their child behaving as they would like, or as most people would expect. If however your child is known to get physical when denied access to something then you have a responsibility to ensure they don't have the opportunity to get physical with strangers. Regardless of whether a dog was in the equation or not, it is just not acceptable for someone to push, hit or kick a stranger. The parent in this instance was negligent and should have immediately rushed to her child as soon as it was apparent what was going on.

As to the person who said the owner of the dog is at fault, I'm not sure what world you live in but I don't think it's the same one the rest of us inhabit. If the OP's dog was lunging at people to attack them that would be a different story but everyone is entitled to say no to someone who wants to pat their dog. My dog loves people, will do anything for a pat and has never shown an ounce of human aggression but if I said no to someone who wanted to pat him for whatever reason and they started carrying on and shoving me I have no idea how my dog would react. What if he bit the person because he thought he had to protect me from being attacked? The child would suffer, I would suffer and most importantly my dog would suffer if not actually lose his life over the incident, yet I fail to see how any of it would have been my fault or his?

I want a 'like' button for this entire post!

How about bloody parents keep their uncontrollable children on lead.

I think I just fell in love with you for this comment.

I've been saying that for years but always get slammed for it!

Had a very disabled child scream in excitement at my horse once, the child was in a wheel chair too and the horse was a nervy sort. Instead of getting a fright my horse let out this amazing whinny and moved towards the child. Was very interesting.

And then what Jules? Did your horse and the child actually interact or did you guide your horse away?

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.

I would like to think it is the second, but legally I'm not sure.

As a mother of an Autistic child, now 22, I'll give my 2 cents worth.

*snipped for brevity*

I am so grateful the owner didn't yell at my daughter (then aged about 6), he just had this big smile on his face....I couldn't say sorry enough, the owner said most people are afraid of such a huge dog, that it was nice to see a child so eager to hug.

Please don't blame the mother totally, though I would have been shocked if my daughter had done what this child had done, and as the mother I would have said sorry. But its not the childs fault they don't feel fear, most Autistic children have tunnel vision, they see it they want it and its hard to steer them away.

I'm sorry you were treated that way, I would never have done this, but its hard raising an Autistic child.

Lynn

BlueFairy, the difference here is that you would have reacted and apologised, the woman in the OP did not. Accidents happen, I don't think any anger or blame is directed at the child here, and nobody expects a parent to NEVER lose track of their child, but this woman is having the finger pointed at her because of her lack of reaction to what amounts to assault. I wouldn't blame the mother for a moment's lack of concentration if she took responsibility for it, but I can tell you if I was in the OP's shoes I'd not be happy with her complete disregard for her child's actions once noticed. She should have been running over at the speed of light, apologising profusely, not casually strolling in her own good time. She's lucky the OP doesn't want to press charges.

What I find absolutely amazing in all of this is that it appears quite OK for this forum to diagnose a child as autistic from the scant details in the intial post and then judge the parent/carer accordingly. On the other hand if anyone dares to make a suggestion about animal behaviour without the benefit of a behavioural consult it seems that the sky is about to fall.

Actually, the OP was the one who suggested the child might have been autistic, and as they were there in the flesh, we have to take for granted that their impression was correct. As I said above, I'm sure nobody would have judged the parent had she seemed to have taken any interest in the fact that her child was assaulting a stranger and hurried over to apologise and remove the child.

I dont allow any child to interact with my dogs without a guardian there. To me the childs status is irrelevant the guardian should have gone into damage control.

It is quite clear that Lynn would have been over like jack flash to take control of the situation had it been her own child but thats not what the OP described.

And that makes all the difference in the world.

[hortfurball]

If someone brings their children to my place and either the dogs or the children won't cope - guess what, the dogs are locked in the back yard, not the kids.

Really? I just ask them not to bring their children if they don't like dogs. My girl is great with kids, why should she be turfed out of her home and shut outside when she's not used to it?

I am astounded at the people who do not think it is completely reasonable to expect to be able to walk your dog without being physically attacked. If this hadn't been a child in the scenario but an adult I bet people would have been saying the OP should have charged him with assault.

Said it better than I could've.

My dog is not a child to me, but I am responsible for his wellbeing. I am not responsible for the wellbeing of complete strangers, their children or their dogs.

Nicely said Jaybeece, I feel exactly the same.

every time this topic comes up the sheer vitriol astounds me).

I think the problem is you have some frightened people backed into a corner. While it is a good thing that society tries to protect children, the pendulum of responsibility has swung too far in one direction and there is an expectation from parents that their children should be at extremely low risk, even while they fail to supervise them properly in public. The weight of consequences is also mostly on the side of the dog owner and they are hefty even for minor infractions.

It is not that most people don't care about strange children, but they are part of a faceless mass of humanity and not a fully realised creature with their own personality in the same way that your dog is. (Especially when they are theoretical internet children.)

I don't see it happening anytime soon, but some more balance on this issue would be better. If people, weren't afraid that their dog would be put to sleep on the basis of a single bite, particularly if the bite was provoked, then there would be far less fear and anger all round. It would probably translate to calmer dogs too.

Pretty much summed up all of these 'child vs dog' threads in a couple of paragraphs. MY LOVED dog vs UNKNOWN HYPOTHETICAL child.

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.

I don't by any means think that it would be an easy decision, I would be distraught and devastated to lose my dog but at the end of the day I simply don't think my dog's life is worth more than that of a child's.

That's why I said it's a personal decision. My dog's life is worth more to me than a stranger's. My dog was my life line through a very traumatic time in my life and I honestly believe that I wouldn't be here today if not for him. I couldn't bring myself to sacrifice him for someone I don't know.

I'm with Snook on this one. Those you know and love come first. Also, I'm another who probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for my dogs. Although if my dog was not in danger, of course I'd save a child's life if I was able.

Easy choice for me. My dog vs your child? Where are you?

Exactly.