There is a lot more to it than that but if I only get to choose from a or b, it's clearly b.
The dog was trained to protect the family and wasn't supposed to be a show piece. The small child owns the dog and didn't understand it was going to be protective of her. Both of them (eis and the kid) were told not to go outside with the dog, a warning neither of them felt carried enough weight to actually listen to.
When they got outside the dog was perfectly content to stare at eis until she moved forward, in which case it bit her hand and stomach, without barking or growling. Was it playing or defending? We'll never know.
While it's kind of stupid to try to assign a "blame hierarchy" for anyone that was there it's pretty simple to see it's not 1 person's fault. Who takes on the most culpability? The little girl. Who's next? Probably eis or myself.
The "trainer" of the dog, as much as he's the first person I WANT to blame, fall at the bottom of the list. He wasn't home, he warned against letting people see the dog, put up signs to keep people away from the yard, and took great care to raise an animal that does as it's told, protects the family, and generally doesn't cause trouble. He's an asshole, sure, but he's not to blame here.
I think the hard question for the trainer is whether the dog should have had the ability to understand and distinguish threats. It's very difficult to blame the animal in these situations - typically they are acting out what they believe they have been trained to do.
The reason why I think the trainer is most likely the fault point - and yes, I think you have to have a level of accountability so there is a blame that needs to be assigned - is that the trainer should have been aware that the animal would be in the company of a family including young children. In those circumstances the flow of events that occurred the other day is to be expected - and it's unfortunate that the training didn't take that into account.
That said - 9 year olds don't follow directions, visitors like to make friends with animals, and an animal handler won't always be there to keep folks away.
There's some fault there, but the trainer stands out in my mind. Is there a reason why you think the trainer is absolved completely?
The trainer falls to the bottom of my blame list because he took every reasonable measure to keep people away from the dog. You can only do but so much. On top of that, the dog isn't MEANT to be socialized. It's not a "family pet." It's a guard dog that happens to be used to the family.
There is a definite need for it to be more aggressive. I don't think that the trainer is legally blameless, nor entirely "morally" blameless. But if you're going to start stoning people over it you start with the people who actually had the opportunity to stop it at the time.
The dog was trained to protect the family and wasn't supposed to be a show piece. The small child owns the dog and didn't understand it was going to be protective of her. Both of them (eis and the kid) were told not to go outside with the dog, a warning neither of them felt carried enough weight to actually listen to.
When they got outside the dog was perfectly content to stare at eis until she moved forward, in which case it bit her hand and stomach, without barking or growling. Was it playing or defending? We'll never know.
While it's kind of stupid to try to assign a "blame hierarchy" for anyone that was there it's pretty simple to see it's not 1 person's fault. Who takes on the most culpability? The little girl. Who's next? Probably eis or myself.
The "trainer" of the dog, as much as he's the first person I WANT to blame, fall at the bottom of the list. He wasn't home, he warned against letting people see the dog, put up signs to keep people away from the yard, and took great care to raise an animal that does as it's told, protects the family, and generally doesn't cause trouble. He's an asshole, sure, but he's not to blame here.
Reply
The reason why I think the trainer is most likely the fault point - and yes, I think you have to have a level of accountability so there is a blame that needs to be assigned - is that the trainer should have been aware that the animal would be in the company of a family including young children. In those circumstances the flow of events that occurred the other day is to be expected - and it's unfortunate that the training didn't take that into account.
That said - 9 year olds don't follow directions, visitors like to make friends with animals, and an animal handler won't always be there to keep folks away.
There's some fault there, but the trainer stands out in my mind. Is there a reason why you think the trainer is absolved completely?
Reply
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Asbury+Park&state=NJ
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Middletown+Township&state=NJ
There is a definite need for it to be more aggressive. I don't think that the trainer is legally blameless, nor entirely "morally" blameless. But if you're going to start stoning people over it you start with the people who actually had the opportunity to stop it at the time.
Reply
Leave a comment