Dog Owner Breaks Silence After Fatal Queensland Mauling

[Deeds]

https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/dog-owner-breaks-silence-after-fatal-queensland-mauling/news-story/ea35314f2cf220ac72ec66d4641717e1

[Loving my Oldies]

He should be charged at the very least with negligence causing death. He deliberately and knowing broke the law with three dogs he knew were aggressive.  I can’t understand how he gets away with a fine.  

[Amazetl]

I think possibly because he cooperated with authorities, was remorseful and had no intention of something like that happening so I guess maybe they couldn’t charge him with more? He can’t have known that someone was going to come into the backyard of his friend’s who he put the dogs there just for a day or hour or whatever it was, but if he knew they were aggressive then owners should take measures to lock them up properly, however it doesn’t seem that worked in the little boy’s case at the motel. 

 

Because they were unregistered and not chipped and if he knew they were aggressive and didn’t take proper measures like he didn’t, I would have thought it should be a much stronger penalty. I suspect it was how he was so cooperative and remorseful and the lawyers worked it out. Absolutely horrible and yes he did cause a death through negligence. 

 

The thing is, this kind of thing could happen easily, you for whatever reason need to have your friend mind your aggressive dog/dogs for a day or maybe longer and someone who comes around through the side gate to the backyard unknowingly the dogs are there, it’s a recipe for disaster. If you know your dog even has a chance of acting aggressive like that, they need to be in a secure enclosure, one where no child can accidentally get into either. I think in cases like that, the person probably just thinks, oh it’s only for a day, it’ll be fine. And can’t be bothered doing the correct thing. I really do think going forward there should be harsher penalties in cases like these because if you have a dog, let alone an aggressive dog, it’s your duty (to other people and to your dog too) to not let your dog hurt anyone. It baffles me at how lazy some owners are. 

[Diva]

I think he got off very lightly. If you know your dogs are highly people aggressive they should never be behind an unlocked gate. Dogs that are willing to maul, not just a single bite but full on maul,  someone for coming into a yard that isn’t even theirs are pretty full-on aggressive. I don’t think there is any way an owner wouldn’t know their character. That’s negligence not just an ‘accident’.  

[Deeds]

I'm guessing but the dogs were probably in the friend's yard for a reason i.e. in case of a council visit because they had already been reported to council for something else. Or had already been declared as Dangerous Dogs.

 

Absolutely it is a tragedy but it is a tragedy that could have been prevented if the dogs had been properly secured.

[asal]

I bought a dog yard that the owner no longer needed as they dog had died of old age. I remember him saying its a fully enclosed dangerous dog yard. When I picked it up it was two panels long and one wide so 8 x 16 and had spring hinges and full wire roof panels as well.

 

with concrete floor or paving it sure is dog proof all right.

 

so such pens are made and available

[Amazetl]

I believe if a dog is declared dangerous they have to meet all these pen requirements and they get checked. This person’s dogs were not registered so would not have been on the dangerous list. I think it was so that nobody knew they ‘existed’ because he wasn’t allowed to have dogs where he was living. So when there was an inspection the dogs went to his friends home and it never occurred to him that one of his friend’s friend’s might go through the backyard to the house unknowing that dogs were there. Also, he may not have thought the dogs would be aggressive outside of their own property, or more likely he just didn’t think at all as it was only going to be for a short while. 

 

It is actually amazing the serverity of the attack given that the dogs weren’t even on their own property, suggesting that these dogs were known by him to be aggressive in nature with any other person. 

 

Given the information we have, it’s surprising he didn’t receive harsher penalties. Maybe there’s more to the story that we don’t know or something. 

[Loving my Oldies]

16 minutes ago, Amazetl said:

..... or more likely he just didn’t think at all as it was only going

He DID think.  He put the dogs in another person's yard to keep them hidden.  He knew he was doing something illegal.  He knew he was in the wrong.  

 

He should have been given a custodial sentence and refused permission to ever own anotherdog.  

 

I'm so angry with these judges and magistrates who give piss-weak sentences for people who have caused shocking harm, including death, and ruined the lives of those still living.   

[Deeds]

And it was a tragedy of HIS own making. 

 

To say "It was just a tragedy , that's all" and admitting he knew which of the dogs was the MOST aggressive tells me it was more than a tragedy.  It was a tragedy that was absolutely preventable .

[Amazetl]

Yes he planned it out quite well but I doubt the thought crossed his mind about the dangers of having them there just for the afternoon or however long it was. What he was doing was illegal but it wasn’t illegal in a strict punishment sense.

 

He was ‘only’ trying to hide the dogs from being found out because he wasn’t supposed to have them there. He hadn’t registered them for the same reason and since they weren’t registered council didn’t know about them and no chance of them being put on an aggressive list where they must take extra measures. What he did was very wrong but there was never any intention of causing any harm to anyone. He thought he was being clever by evading authorities and had he been found out would have been evicted and probably fined, or maybe just a warning to register them. 

 

He probably thought having them at his friend’s for the time of the house inspection would be just easy and quick and didn’t think further. Unless he knew people often climbed the fence or went through the gate to the backyard then why would it have occurred to him? Therefore he didn’t have any intent and that’s how the law sees it. He still caused her death through negligence and was very wrong but the law didn’t see it to give out a prison sentence, for whatever reason. 

 

So while he did plan it out and possibly had done it before, he would never have thought that would happen. So probably just thought he’d put them there for a short time and thought nothing more of it. Even if he knew they were aggressive to strangers or people in general, he put them secure behind a fence. How could he know what was going to happen?

 

I’m cross too but just saying that seems to be the way the courts saw it, plus with him cooperating and being remorseful, however I feel no sympathy for his quote about how it was ‘just a tragedy and that’s all’.