Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Dog owners could be liable if dog bites a burglar!

57 posts in this topic

Posted

What's you're thoughts on this? The article from the Daily Fail says that dog owners could be liable for up to a £5,000 fine and up to 2 years in jail if your dog bites a burglar while you're not home. Now I know it's the Daily Fail so I did some research and have also linked the Proposal Bill for the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

It basically says that they want to change the act so that a person is liable if their dog is not under control and attacks someone on any property in England and Wales whether it is public or not. So that means that if your dog is uncontrolled in your home while you are out, you could possibly be in trouble. There are subsections that say that you are not guilty of an offence if you are in a building or part building which is a dwelling and the victim is trespassing or if you believe they are trespassing.

So basically if you're out and your dog attacks a trespasser, there is now no longer an exception for you, IF this proposal gets passed.

Daily Fail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320468/Dog-owners-forced-tie-pets-case-bite-burglar.html

Proposal Bill (page 7 is the relevant page: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm86/8601/8601.pdf

Thoughts??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I prefer the way things are in America. If somebody enters your home you can just shoot the fecker dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What if you dog is perfectly under control, it is just trained to bite cvnts who break in to steal your tele :lol:

However:

1a - A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case that is a householder case.

1b - For the purposes of section 1a, a 'householder case' is a case where:

b-D is not a trespasser at the time the dog is dangerously out of control??

So if a person is not guilty if it is a house holder case. And a house holder case is where 'd' (a person) is NOT a trespasser, is this saying if the person is a trespasser and your dog attacks you will be guilty, however if the person is a friend and invited into your home then you aren't? Sounds a bit backward to me that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I prefer the way things are in America. If somebody enters your home you can just shoot the fecker dead.

You can do this in Scotland under certain circumstances too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What if you dog is perfectly under control, it is just trained to bite cvnts who break in to steal your tele :lol:

However:

1a - A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case that is a householder case.

1b - For the purposes of section 1a, a 'householder case' is a case where:

b-D is not a trespasser at the time the dog is dangerously out of control??

So if a person is not guilty if it is a house holder case. And a house holder case is where 'd' (a person) is NOT a trespasser, is this saying if the person is a trespasser and your dog attacks you will be guilty, however if the person is a friend and invited into your home then you aren't? Sounds a bit backward to me that.

It is only a householder case if you're in as well!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It is only a householder case if you're in as well!!

Yes mate that's what im getting at. You are not guilty if you are in and the person is NOT a trespasser. But that says to me if you're laid in bed, couple of fellas break in, your dog attacks one, then you are liable, as they are trespassers?? that's nuts to me! I'd prefer the dog to attack whilst im in so I don't have to get out of bed naked and attempt to pathetically grapple with a few blokes in balaclava's!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Load of b0ll0cks. If it happened i'd bite the burglar myself and say i caused all the wounds myself. Self defence or something. Anyways, my dog wouldn't bite anyone. Shame because a burglar would deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The whole bloomin Dangerous Dogs Act needs to be totally rethought anyway. Breed Specific Legislation (Banning certain dogs based on breed alone) does nothing to prevent attacks. Better controls to be had are in having dog licences, and recognising that the problem is usually at the other end of the leash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's because that staffy ? Bit that woman last year and they couldn't do anything as was private property.

Surely it should be trespassers you can be punished for but then if someone who is attacked on your property (friend etc) they should be allowed to press charges / have the dog killed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Luckily my dog is a wimp, all mouth when theres a dog by the back gate, but if I got burgled it wouldnt even get out of bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If you invite someone into your house/ property and the dog attacks then you should be fined/ jailed etc.

If someone breaks into your property/ house then they have already commited an offence and if a guard dog/ dog/ pet bites/ attacks/ guards the property/ house/ owners then its the intruders own fault.

Two words come to mind.......common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Surely this rule cant pass, wouldnt this make police officer liable for police dogs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Surely this rule cant pass, wouldnt this make police officer liable for police dogs?

No because its different rules and laws for them. If you touch a policeman, like my friend did, you can be arrested for assault. Where as a Policeman can basically do what they want. The law IS on their side remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes mate that's what im getting at. You are not guilty if you are in and the person is NOT a trespasser. But that says to me if you're laid in bed, couple of fellas break in, your dog attacks one, then you are liable, as they are trespassers?? that's nuts to me! I'd prefer the dog to attack whilst im in so I don't have to get out of bed naked and attempt to pathetically grapple with a few blokes in balaclava's!

The way I am reading it is this;

You are in your house, dog attacks trespasser/ suspected trespasser you are fine.

You are in your house dog attacks friend you are in trouble.

You are out of your house, dog attackes anyone you are fvcked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No because its different rules and laws for them. If you touch a policeman, like my friend did, you can be arrested for assault. Where as a Policeman can basically do what they want. The law IS on their side remember.

That is not strictly true. Anyone can press charges against someone else for assault Which includes just touching someone. The problem is in cases like that it's your word against theirs. Whereas a police officer is deemed to be More trustworthy. Plus if the police are serving a warrant on your house They are not deemed as trespassers.

bigmitch69 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The way I am reading it is this;

You are in your house, dog attacks trespasser/ suspected trespasser you are fine.

You are in your house dog attacks friend you are in trouble.

You are out of your house, dog attackes anyone you are fvcked.

Maybe I'm wrong but

you are not guilty if not trespasser = you are guilty if trespasser

So I'm reading it as 'you are in your house, dog attacks trespasser you are guilty of an offence?

I'm probably just rubbish at interpreting the law! I'll leave it to the judges to set a precedent if the bill gets passed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How bizarre!. It is clear as mountain air the clause is in FAVOUR of protecting households who's dogs attack an intruder.

The amendment in clause 1 extending criminal liability for dog attacks to all places is drafted to

ensure consistency with the UK Government’s position on householders defending themselves

against intruders in the home. In the Crime and Courts Bill currently before Parliament, there is a

provision which will give householders a greater level of legal protection in such circumstances.

We want a similar level of legal protection if a householder’s dog attacks an intruder, and have

taken account of your Committee’s recommendation on this issue to ensure that the law does

not protect trespassers. The clauses outline that a householder will not be prosecuted under

the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 should their dog attack a trespasser that has entered or is in the

process of entering the home.

Someone should send the mail employees back to school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Someone should send the mail employees back to school.

The Daily Fail should just be shut down IMO and all the "journalists" should never be allowed into print ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How bizarre!. It is clear as mountain air the clause is in FAVOUR of protecting households who's dogs attack an intruder.

The amendment in clause 1 extending criminal liability for dog attacks to all places is drafted to

ensure consistency with the UK Government’s position on householders defending themselves

against intruders in the home. In the Crime and Courts Bill currently before Parliament, there is a

provision which will give householders a greater level of legal protection in such circumstances.

We want a similar level of legal protection if a householder’s dog attacks an intruder, and have

taken account of your Committee’s recommendation on this issue to ensure that the law does

not protect trespassers. The clauses outline that a householder will not be prosecuted under

the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 should their dog attack a trespasser that has entered or is in the

process of entering the home.

Someone should send the mail employees back to school.

But according to that document you have to be in the house to be protected otherwise there is room for someone to argue that your dog was uncontrolled. It specifics states that you have to be inside or part inside a building used as a dwelling. Or am I reading it wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

post-70816-143614703848_thumb.jpg

This was my mastiff when she was a pup. She's now 5x the size and strong as a bull. If you look through my window and see this looking back at you and still decide to enter, then you have got a ****ing screw loose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Basically I think that if you are breaking the law then you shouldn't be covered by the law at that time. So if you break into someone's house for whatever reason and homeowner severely beats your ass then you are unable to press charges for assault/damages etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the only thing my dog defends us from is the moon and the occassional pigeon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The key is to have a dog that wont just take a bite but that will eat the fcuker whole and leave no evidence lol

post-56689-143614703866_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What's you're thoughts on this? The article from the Daily Fail says that dog owners could be liable for up to a £5,000 fine and up to 2 years in jail if your dog bites a burglar while you're not home. Now I know it's the Daily Fail so I did some research and have also linked the Proposal Bill for the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

It basically says that they want to change the act so that a person is liable if their dog is not under control and attacks someone on any property in England and Wales whether it is public or not. So that means that if your dog is uncontrolled in your home while you are out, you could possibly be in trouble. There are subsections that say that you are not guilty of an offence if you are in a building or part building which is a dwelling and the victim is trespassing or if you believe they are trespassing.

So basically if you're out and your dog attacks a trespasser, there is now no longer an exception for you, IF this proposal gets passed.

Daily Fail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320468/Dog-owners-forced-tie-pets-case-bite-burglar.html

Proposal Bill (page 7 is the relevant page: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm86/8601/8601.pdf

Thoughts??

In real terms, its so when the next door neighbours 10 year old kid climbs over the fence to get the ball and the dog mauls him to death, you cant defend your dog on the basis that the kid was trespassing. Or if say a fireman hears your smoke alarm going off, climbs in through the window after calling 999, and gets attacked by your dog.

imo whatever a dog does, the owner should be prosecuted as if they had done it, and punished as if they had done it. Simple rules that should keep dog owners honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0