Sometimes it`s the dog....but in my opinion it "can" often be the child or the
childs parents fault.
You have to remember a dog is a dog and does not rationalise like a human does.
If a child is allowed to tease or abuse a dog constantly, then eventually that dog is going to have had enough and will defend itself, from instinct.
Its up to a childs parent to supervise a child and dog when they are together and to teach a child how to handle dogs properly.
It`s unrealistic to expect any dog to put up with abuse in any form and never ever retaliate to whatever is thrown at it.
Of course, if a dog attacks for no reason whatsoever, then of course the dog is to blame.
You have to look at this from all perspectives and not just one side.
Re:Update 3. You cannot compare human behaviour with a dogs behaviour. Humans know that if they commit a crime what the punishment is liable to be, and this can stop them going any further.
Dogs do not rationalise and think along those lines. They act on instinct at the time of the crime and have no concept of what may be the consequence, unless its been taught to them many times to expect it, for a certain unwanted behaviour.
參考: Gsd owner for 52 years.
Your analogy doesnt hold; men know rape is illegal and therefore wrong, and choose to do it anyway.
Dogs have no choice but to be dogs. If you let your child sit on a dog, stamp on its tail or otherwise cause it pain, you are not being a good parent.
The dog owner that allowed you and your brat near the dog is not being a good owner.
The dog is defending itself, but will probably be euthanased for self defense.
Thats not an attack, so sort out what you are talking about.
A dog that crosses the street to bite a child is attacking a child. Is that what you are talking about?
Dogs are animals and never morally or legally to blame. Their owners may be at fault.
Children are also not morally or legally as responsible for themselves as adults. If a very young child wanders into someone's backyard and gets bitten, that is really fault of their parent to a great extent.
Without details, it's not really possible to answer you so I think you should stop trying unless you give specific scenario.
It depends on the scenario, the age of the child etc. Dogs come with training/and or personality traits of their own. Children do as well. Some children know what they are doing. Some don't. Dogs have very limited sense of right and wrong, but with training, some things can be avoided. However, there are both faults. To the owner AND the parent of the child. The parent for not watching the child enough, and the owner for not setting sufficient conditions to avoid certain situations.
It depends, if a child is purposely doing something to upset the dog, then the child's to blame. If the dog randomly attacks a child, the dogs to blame. There can never be only one answer to this question as there's to many reasons why dog attacks occur.
I've trained German Shepherd Dogs up to SchH II titles. I can say without reservation, a family dog that attacks someone is due to owner neglect to properly train and socialize the dog. If you think otherwise, you are someone that should never own firearms or large dogs.
If an untrained person buys a gun and a kid takes in off the nightstand and shoots himself or another person, it is the ADULTS fault. WEAPON TRAINING is required when owning a weapon .A dog is a weapon. If you don't believe that, look at the dogs teeth. They are designed o be able to survive wilderness.
It would most likely be the owner of the dog's fault. They're the ones that would legally get in trouble. The parent/guardian of the child, to my knowledge, can request that the dog be put down and that decision will be enforced.
ANY clear headed, strong nerved dog will get up and walk away from a child that is bothering it. I have seen it many times with many of my dogs and other dogs I have trained and sold over the last 37 years.
Weak nerved dogs, dogs that have shitty temperament, will bite or snap at anything they perceive to be a threat, real or imagined.
For me, I dont care how good a dog works, how strong it is in temperament, the measuring stick is how well it deals with children.
It was so clearly the child's fault for doing absolutely nothing to provoke the dog, the dog just randomly attacked the child with no provocation at all, the dog is clearly innocent.
The parent can also have her child taken away by welfare officers after he has had 1000 stitches in his leg because she gave him an ounce of freedom out in the fresh air on the lawn, in clear view of the mother.
The mother clearly didn't take care of her child properly to let him go out and play like a normal child on his brand new tricycle.
The owner of the dog will get a meeting date in court to have the dog euthanized despite so many claiming the dogs innocence, the dog will then get away with a warning because it was clearly the child's fault, and then be elected the next year for 'hero dog of the year' award; the owner of the dog will also be sentenced to death because he didn't teach the dog how to talk and act human and not attack an innocent child just because it was clearly angered by the child's provoking attitude.
The dog will then get new owners and care more for the food he receives than the fact that his previous owner was sentenced to death, such is, the way of the dog.
In cases like that in the video, it is the owner's fault and possibly the breeder's (in this case anyone who's dog produces offspring). Good owners usually do not let their dogs run loose on the streets. I understand dogs run away sometimes, and even my dog has run off a few times, but technically well-trained dogs do not run off or will at least come back when called. A well-trained and socialized dog will also not attack a random person for no reason. A bad temperament, attributed to bad genes, will cause some dogs to be aggressive or skittish no matter what. This is on the breeder, but of course no one is ever going to look at the breeder, and not everyone knows where their dog even came from. Breeders who know what they're doing don't ever breed dogs with bad genes, and average joes who don't spay/neuter or supervise their unaltered dogs are bound to create some of these. Either way, it is never directly the dog's fault (this has NOTHING to do with who is more important, are you serious?), but the dog should be euthanized if it is REASONABLY determined that the dog is a real danger and the attack was unprovoked.
Depends. If the child provokes the dog, the child is to blame for hurting and or bothering it, and the parent of the child for allowing it. If the dog attacks the child without a reason to, then the dogs owner is to blame for the way the dog was raised. The dog only does what it's been taught to do, so it isn't at fault although it technically did attack the child.
參考: I've owned 2 pitbulls and 1 husky who were extremely well behaved
The actual "attack" would be the fault of the dog. It is not a conscious decision...it is genetic weakness. The fact that the dog had the "opportunity" to demonstrate his unsoundness, is the fault of the owner. Dog should be euthanized....child should be taken by by DSS,,,,owner should be charged with endangerment, as well as being officially declared "too stupid to ever own another animal".
The dog for being aggressive and the owner for not confining the dog enough and not giving it proper training to not attack.
This is absurd this dog was showing instinctive hunting behaviors, there are really two sides to this, the logical one, and the emotional one, on one side the child is showing physical qualities of potential prey, and like I said, the dog was just filling its role as the predator. On the emotional side the child was minding his own businesses and a dog just came out of nowhere and attacked him. No matter what side you see you are right, this is just you making your decision on your ethics. And whether you analyze things logically or emotionally.
The dog's owner, although its likely the dog will be put down, ie euthanased. The child might well have provoked the dog, or been passive. Either way, owner have a responsibility to control their dogs, and might well be fined.
The owners of the dog are the ones who get penalized. The dog will most likely get put down and possibly fines, legal fees etc.
The child is never at fault that I've ever heard of.
It is not the dog or the child's fault.
The child should be supervised around animals it does not normally come into contact with, and does not know it's general characteristics or personality. Whether a tame or vicious animal, if the dog is not around any owner, the parent is at fault for not keeping an eye on the child for safety at all times (especially if under a set age). Whether in your local neighborhood or back garden, it makes no difference.
If the owner is beside the dog, they should be warning the parent or child not to touch it, or keeping it out of the child's way, and have the dog controlled on a lead. The owner of the dog may be at fault for realising how it may react around strangers but still letting it loose, such as in your video. For a vicious dog that attacks the public in this manner, the owner will receive all of the blame. The owner has the responsibility of bringing a dog up to be both healthy and safe in society.
If the dog is tame, the owner was cautious and controlled, the parent was present, and the child was told they could touch the animal, did so correctly, and the dog gave an odd reaction, then no one was at fault. It is therefore an accident. In any situation, you cannot compare the nature of the male species to an animals wild instincts. Unlike dogs, men are (usually) able to think before acting in any 'wild' unsociable manner, by considering any consequences.
A little bit of everyone but mostly the owner
pets are animals that humans humanized, and they were once all wild. There are things that animals do naturally and should never get blamed for. after all, the human was given a brain to reason things out while an animal just reacts to what's presented to it.
Now if a dog bites a kid it was probably waving it's hands or teasing the dog and didn't know any better, while at the same time the parent should have never left the two alone and should have used their brain. So it's the parent's fault.
Certainly if an animal is vicious the judge will determine it's fate, but the parent still is responsible to keep their kid safe for 18 years while they are responsible for the kid.
The owner of the dog is to blame, period.
The owner decides to buy a dog, decides which breed to buy, decides how it is socialized, and decides how much access to give the public.
It is not the child's fault for being bitten.
Any other attitude is ludicrous evasion of personal duty and care.
The child for agitating the dog !!!!
It really depends on the situation and the age of the child in my opinion. These things are rarely black and white and really that is two different debates there; which is more important to you, the child or the dog? Or who is to blame? Really the former is very person specific. If you asked me which is more important to me then I would say my dog. Because she is my family, the child is not. Whereas the mother of the child would answer very differently. That is like saying who is more important your mom or mine. Obviously we are each going to say our own. The heart is very loyal even when perhaps it shouldn't be.
Who is to blame? I don't really think either the dog or the child CAN hold any BLAME as such, as neither are really capable of assessing and comprehending the situation.
If a parent is letting their child pester or roughhouse with an animal then it is their fault if they get hurt. If the child is old enough to know better, say 10 or older and goes running up to a dog they don't know who is on a leash then it is the child's fault and the parent's fault.
If the dog is unrestrained and unprovoked then obviously it is the owner's fault. Dogs should be under control at all times, not running amok.
My dog for example loves children. Seriously she whimpers when they cry and tries to cuddle and comfort them and has never so much as growled at a child no matter how rough they were with her. She was one of those rare dogs who genuinely didn't have an aggressive bone in her. If I saw a child pulling her about though or any sign that she is not at ease and happy with how she is being handled then it is my responsibility as her owner to remove her from that situation both for the good of the dog and the safety of the child. If I allowed it to continue and she bit the child then that is on me and on the child's mother for allowing our respective charges to get into that situation.
The dog is unable to vocalise it's annoyance or discomfort or fear and does not understand that the child means no harm and a young child does not understand the danger of mishandling a dog or running up to a strange animal. Neither can reasonably be blamed. So as the parents and the owners we are responsible for managing and educating them.
However if my child ran up to a dog they don't know then got attacked it is absolutely my fault because what kind of parenting is that? If my dog just randomly ran up to a child and attacked them. My fault. And the dog would have to be put down because I could not chance that happening again, however much I may love her.
In that video the dog owner is to blame. That dog has a screw loose, no normal stable dog would act like that and there is no way that there were not warning signs and I highly doubt that child was the first person it attacked. A vicious dog must be put down. One attempt made to train it or modify it's behaviour with a behaviourist, if it bites again then you have to. For everyone's safety because as seen there, a dog with an unstable temperament could attack a child and I wouldn't forgive myself if I already knew that dog had issues.
That is my opinion on the subject.
The dog owner is to blame. A dog is just an animal and it just does what it does. Although it is the dog that often has to pay the price by being put to death.
The owner of the dog.
A dog is an animal and therefore can not be responsible for its actions.
A child is a child, he can't act reasonably all the time.
The owner of the dog is responsible for his pet.
Legally - It is always the fault of the owner of the dog.
The liability for dog bites / attacks is absolute in the court system.
Morally - it could fall many ways, depending upon the situation. You can't make blanket statements with out knowing the facts.
It depends on the independent situation, like how well trained the dog is, whether it was on a leash, and the age of the kid. Some kids do stupid stuff and if a well behaved dog bites them because they were pulling their tail or hurting them, then so be it. I hate when a good dog gets put down because of a stupid bratty kid, and irresponsible parents.
The child if it was tormenting/teasing the dog. A dog can attack when provoked. The parents for not supervising the interactions between dog & child. or it could be a combination of all of the above. I think each situation is different. Depending on the temperament of the dog & the child's age could have a baring on what happens .
If you are so sure you're right (right fighter) then your query is moot. You are positive you're point of view is right and god forbid anybody try to pry that steel trap of a closed "mind" open to get you to see another point of view since you're right an any and everybody else who doesn't see things your way is w-r-o-n-g. You clearly think that you have to post your closed minded "opinion" all over the internet to make yourself feel superior. Good luck with being a lonely right-fighter as I'm sure that you and your thinking you're right will be very happy together growing old and LONELY as hell together.
As you can tell I'm not going to waste my time trying to tell you sh*t since you wouldn't gave a damn about it anyway. Hope you enjoy being on that frigging mountain living nothing but a sad existence as that is all your "life" will be.
Depends. If the child frustrates the dog it's the child to blame, if the dog just random bites a child it's the dog owner's fault for bad breeding and not giving the dog sufficient training.
In my opinion it's never the dogs fault.
Depends really. NEVER blame an animal, if the child did something to piss of the dog. Child is to blame (parents too if it's the case) but if the dog attacks for no reason. Owners fault. Never blame the dog. Owners are always to blame for how they bring their pets up
The first thing you need to know is what kind of training you and your dog need. After that locate some good trainers that will take you and your dog, not just the dog. Learn how to train your dog
https://tr.im/JKTdN
In this special presentation you'll discover exactly why it's so important to start training your dog the right way. Important for you, important for your family, and, most of all, important for your dog! And It'll give you some great hints, tips, and advice to help you turn your dog into the best behaved, happiest, running, jumping, slipper-fetching best pal you always wanted.
These are the very same tips that I spent years perfecting, the very same tips that have worked for thousands of dog lovers just like you.
THE PARENTS!
1. The dog should be properly trained and socialized
2. They should have been suppervised.
3. all you can do is be more careful, if every one is okay than its a no-harm no faowl.
4. train the dog, and teach the child not to piss the dog off.
It depends if the child doesn't stand up for himself.
Its not a childs fault but i blame the dog 100% if a dog ever bit my kid u best believe i would sue the owners because they shouldnt agressive in the first place! Ive been bit by two dogs as a kid a big one and small one had stitches both times. And i still have love for dogs but honestly as of the parents i wouldnt let my child play outside without supervison anything could happen! So i dnt blame the child i do blame the parents tho and the dog!
The child is blameless and did nothing to provoke the attack.
The dog is not totally guilty but not 100% innocent either, the dog did commit the deed.
The owner did not tie the dog up or leave him in a safe abundant fenced in yard, also it looks like he is not properly trained.
dogs and little kids should never be in one room kids like to hit yell and have temper tantrums this will annoy anyone and think of a dog who is not a intellectually advanced as humans are so they will lash out if something is bothering them so in my opinion the one to blame is the person putting these two together
It's no ones fault. Dogs that are not trained could attack people. But it's not its fault it's not trained. Unless the child purposely tried to make the dog attack him or her. Then it's really no ones fault.
It honestly depends, a younge child doesn't know any better and that dog probably wasn't trained. The world isn't all black and white, there's always more to it.
The owner of a dog should always be to blame, if you leave ur dog on a leash, he wont be able to attack
It depends on the situation.
The owner takes responsibility for the dog.the dog is not to be blamed
In most states if not all, it is the dog owner. The owner should know their dog is human impaired and should not be put in situations that can lead to such an interaction. Unfortunately many pet owners should not have pets, they don't act as responsible owners, and sometimes accidents do happen that result in a horrible situation for both the child and the dog.
I was attacked by a German Shepard when I was walking to elementary school, I walked around a parked car it was tied to and sleeping beneath, he came out and attacked me from behind. I will never forget the incident, I am lucky to be alive, but I love dogs, and as a pet owner it is my responsibility to protect my dog from being in a position he or she feels threatened, And it is my responsibility to make sure children are always safe as a human being.
depends. But I think the owner of the dogs should do more.
If a dog attacks a child then you basically can blame on the owner of the dog that attacked the child because they should keep their dog tied up on a chain and sometimes even behind a fence and especially for dogs that are considered dangerous in some states, and in extremely rare cases a dog that just happens to bite a person or maul them to death and some are strays that maul persons to death but are and can be rare happenings as such etc. Back to the point if you happen to have a dog that went through terrible things and a terrible life like been through dogfighting it needs to be behind a fence and even tied up by a chain if outside. Just like if you know that your dog acts agreesive at times with strangers and other neighbors then you need to keep it restrained from harming other persons and especially little children and the elderly.
The owner of it of course. unless your dog was contained in the backyard, and somehow the child found a way back there.
In this case, it is the dog's fault (and the owners)
It is an entirely different story if the dog was leashed or in a fence.
we cannot blame one, its mistake of both child and dogs.
The owner of the dog, unless the child was somewhere they should not have been.
"If a dog attacks a child then you basically can blame on the owner of the dog that attacked the child because they should keep their dog tied up on a chain" NOOOO. People can't just go based off of one video. In this video yes the owner of that dog is to blame because it is out and not on a leash. But there are so many scenarios that can go on.. for example, my cousin is 8 and he's a pain in the ass and my dogs hate him. I've told his mother first hand not to let him go near my dogs and at 8 years old he knows damn well what's right from wrong. He always grabs my dogs from their tail and swings them back and forth. You're telling me that my dogs biting him is the dogs fault? NO. In my case, its his mothers fault and his. It all depends on the situation. Yes it can be the owners fault or the person they attacked can be at fault.
If a dog just randomly attacks a child then I'd blame the owner of the dog. But most dog attacks on children are the result of the child hurting the dog. Alot of kids ((not all) will pull a dogs tail, poke it. Some may even jump on it.
I know someone who has a 13 year old German Shepherd. She has really bad arthritis in her back legs. They have a 2 year old who decided to jump on the dogs back. This caused the dog to snap at the child. Would I blame the dog in this situation? No I wouldn't. The child was told multiple times to leave the dog alone, and she didn't listen. She is smart
What they aren't telling you is that the child in the vid is in fact the anti-christ. The dog was only trying to help. The feline servant of evil ran the dog off to protect his masters.
Now that i have that out of my system it seems that the dog owners were letting him run rampant and he was not trained well.
I also blame the parents of the child for reproducing in the first place. This isn't rocket science, once the kid is here they are going to get mauled by something man. The parents are always to blame in every single situation in this way.
The child. I hate children. LOL
Everybody nowadays wants too point fingers at parents, children, animals owners. This is life get over it.
Depends. Either the owner of the dog, or the parent of the child.
Depends in the situation, dogs upbringing etc.
the parents of the child for not being able to see a dog coming at their child (!!) and also the owners of the dog, who should know their pet's temperament.
The child thats in the dogs way!
Often the little demon`s PARENTS are to blame !!! They let the little creep torment the poor animal ........ then when the dog bites their little "precious" he`s put down for something the kid MADE him do !!
both the child and dogs, especially parents
The children's parents for not supervising, whatever happens make sure the dog's left alive, they're much more precious than anyone thats human.
The owner for not properly training and/or supervising the dog, the parent for not supervising the kid and/or not teaching them how to behave around animals (particularly ones which are unfamiliar to them), and in some cases the child (if it's an older child and the parent has tried to teach them how to behave around dogs but they choose not to listen). But the owner is most to blame.
None to blame. Try to save the child from the attack.If the dog has bitten the child, rush her to the Doctor for treatment.
Their owners may be at fault.
Technically, I'd say the child's parents are guilty of Child Endangerment for not supervising the child extremely closely around a dog, or removing the child from the area the dog is in. But unfortunately, the dog usually gets killed for the parents' lack of proper care for their child.
The owner. They failed to keep the dog away from the child. The fact you compared a dog biting a child to someone rapping another shows you need some therapy.
The dog's owner, and sometimes the child, depending on the age and what was going on.
Both. You for not socializing the dog enough for it not to bite and the parent for not supervising the kid around the dog - That's my opinion.
The childs mom and the dogs owner. The mom should watch her child or any parent or guardian, but the owner of the dog should have raised the dog right or give him to a responsible home the blame goes to both sides
The owner,for having a loose dog and for not socializing him.
Depends. If the child did something to piss the dog off then the child
The owner of the dog. For not keeping the dog attended and on a leash, and it is the law that people must keep dogs on leashes. You could take this into court
If you've come to the conclusion the dog is to blame and people who "don't blame the dog are pathetic human beings", why did you post the question? If you can't see how an owner of a dog has the majority of the blame, then you need to educate yourself on dogs and training.
