Grrr, dog owners !

[Easy_Rider]

Really, are we discussing telling teacher a dog barked at me!

 

[highlandsflyer]

Steve, you could have been prosecuted.

I am not saying I agree with the law, and nor I think is IDB1, only noting the facts.

If my dog jumps at someone and snarls, even on the lead, I could face similar charges.

The police have guidelines for this type of thing, and I would presume their initial approach would be of the cautionary nature.

Were your dog to do that to every passing pedestrian, I am sure a prosecution would follow.

 

[We_are_Stevo]

Suggest you look here for the likelyhood of actually being prosecuted for something so innocuous...

...if I'm walking down the street and someone dislikes the look of me and deems it necessary to cross the road to avoid me, without me even being aware of it, I could be charged with 'Common Assult' - but what do you think the likelyhood of that would be :?:

It's just as relevant!

 

[highlandsflyer]

Suggest you look here for the likelyhood of actually being prosecuted for something so innocuous...

...if I'm walking down the street and someone dislikes the look of me and deems it necessary to cross the road to avoid me, without me even being aware of it, I could be charged with 'Common Assult' - but what do you think the likelyhood of that would be :?:

It's just as relevant!

Regarding your, or anyone else's dog, the likelihood of prosecution increases massively if there are further complaints.

This is how a lot of laws are implemented; and it is common sense.

 

[IDB1]

Steve, you could have been prosecuted.

I am not saying I agree with the law, and nor I think is IDB1, only noting the facts.

Very true.

Which I sort of touched on in a further post

If everyone reacted to the letter of that law, and the judicial system complied there would be a hell of a lot of prosecutions and substantially less dogs.

I know it's off topic from the original thread but I still think it's relevant. People, dog owners especially, should be aware of this stuff simply because 95 year old Mrs. Jones with her 15 year old, and cranky, Yorkshire Terrier could (unlikely but potentially) face prosecution. No dogs are 100% safe.

I think (a lot of) dog owner are complete tools. Especially when having to dodge dog crap whilst walking across a recreation field that kids use every day.
Wouldn't dare tar them all with the same brush.. mainly because I have more dogs than kids

 

[Neil]

Suggest you look here for the likelyhood of actually being prosecuted for something so innocuous...

...if I'm walking down the street and someone dislikes the look of me and deems it necessary to cross the road to avoid me, without me even being aware of it, I could be charged with 'Common Assult' - but what do you think the likelyhood of that would be :?:

It's just as relevant!

Regarding your, or anyone else's dog, the likelihood of prosecution increases massively if there are further complaints.

This is how a lot of laws are implemented; and it is common sense.

He raises a fair point, though, just because there's potential for action, doesn't make it tenable.

I truly doubt that what's tantamount to thought crime has been successfully prosecuted. Is there any legal precedent for one-off allegations, not substantiated or corroborated, being actually heared, never mind successful?

 

[highlandsflyer]

This is nothing to do with thought crimes.

There are material facts.

A dog displayed aggression, or what could reasonably taken as such, towards someone.

There are thousands of examples out there, if you want to look for them, of convictions based on the 'perceptions' of victims.

Bottom line, take care not to let your dog display aggression to a person as a matter of course.

 

[IDB1]

Is there any legal precedent for one-off allegations, not substantiated or corroborated, being actually heared, never mind successful?

I think I have someone I can ask, who should know. Be interested to find out myself.

 

[Neil]

This is nothing to do with thought crimes.

There are material facts.

That was in relation to this:-

Y'know.. even if you think a dog may bite you (or your children, if any are with you), even if it is on a lead, you can report it and the owner may be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dog Act.

In that scenario, there are no material facts, merely opinion and supposition.

A dog displayed aggression, or what could reasonably taken as such, towards someone.

That's not a material fact. That's an interpretation - an opinion. If it's not substantiated by anybody else, or by something like CCTV, or other general testimony that they've witnessed similar, it's merely "he said, she said".

There are thousands of examples out there, if you want to look for them, of convictions based on the 'perceptions' of victims.

That, there may be.

However, what I'm questioning is - the single opinion of one person, making a claim, not substantiated by anything more than merely their one-off opinion and testimony, not corroborated by any other evidence (ie other witness statements, CCTV, anything else...). And that person not being "special". If that's produced convictions under the Dangerous Dogs Act, then by all means, cite them.

Bottom line, take care not to let your dog display aggression to a person as a matter of course.

I suspect nobody is arguing against that point.

The point I am disputing, though, is just because there's something mentioned in law, doesn't mean in isolation, and by itself, it's in any way tenable to prosecute. Sure, on occasion, there's an extreme example or something exceptional - but in general practice, what stemmed from that original statement, right at the top that I'm drawing comment on, whilst maybe is the detail, doesn't mean it's possible to practically enforce.

Else what's to stop somebody with a dislike, or grudge, simply saying "That bloke over there ---> he was walking Rongo, and the dog looked at me funny, and I've never liked Mr Chicken-Caesar, I demand you have the dog put down, and Mr Chicken-Caesar pay me lots of thought-crime damages..."

 

[IDB1]

Y'know.. even if you think a dog may bite you (or your children, if any are with you), even if it is on a lead, you can report it and the owner may be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dog Act.

In that scenario, there are no material facts, merely opinion and supposition.

Whether it's opinion or not, the fact remains that you could report it and, under the letter of the law, the dog owner has committed the offence.
As you say, though, he chances of it anything actually happening could be minimal.

Slightly o/t but still in a similar vein.. if someone shouts at you and you feel threatened, the offence is assault and you may be arrested and prosecuted as such.

So this woman (driving her car, using her phone) comes very close to hitting my Brother on his motorbike.
He's a little vexed and tells this woman what he thinks, without swearing but in a raised voice (he is wearing a crash helmet, after all), she reports him and he gets a visit from plod later, at his place of work, suggesting he either apologises to this woman or be arrested for assault.
No witnesses or other evidence, just this womans word.