Canine Comeuppance
Some guy in New Mexico wrote a law to hold dog owners feloniously liable if their dog attacks someone. Guess what happened next:
So, shouldn't he be in jail, instead of the hospital? Not according to the law's co-author:
If the law doesn't apply equally to all, then it's not a real law. Throw him in jail. It'll give him some time to contemplate the proverb concerning stones and glass houses.
(Hat-tip to Pete K)
The author of a new state law that allows felony charges against owners of dangerous dogs was hospitalized over the weekend after his own dog attacked him.
So, shouldn't he be in jail, instead of the hospital? Not according to the law's co-author:
The law was designed to make dog owners accountable, said Sen. Sue Wilson Beffort, who worked with Schwartz to pass the bill.
"But I guess when it happens in your own family, that's another story," she said.
If the law doesn't apply equally to all, then it's not a real law. Throw him in jail. It'll give him some time to contemplate the proverb concerning stones and glass houses.
(Hat-tip to Pete K)
posted by Jar(egg)head at 13:52
3 Comments:
I don't have an issue with a policy against a dangerous dog. The issue is how do you determine the dog is dangerous. The claim that a breed is all that is needed to meet the requirement is what bothers me.
Sweet irony, nothing comes close.
From a purely logical and legal perspective, the gold standard for determining if the dog is dangerous would be if it attacks and hospitalizes someone without provocation.
It's the same standard applied to humans in court: you can't say that everyone who is black is dangerous. You have to show in court that a given person assaulted another and caused harm, regardless of their race. Any other standard is racism, and justice is supposed to be blind.
Again, this guy should be in jail, and his dog put down. By his own law.
Screw him. Any judge with a sense of justice should throw the book at him.
Post a Comment
<< Home