Zhou Xuanyao

People just go to the extent of reporting things like dog fighting to the council whereas they would not have bothered in the past, it's not evidence of any increase in incidents or even that the level of incidents are high in their own right. These intimidation laws are absurd in my view as well, if a dog is barking it's guts out at you when you walk past it's property carry on with your life and mind your own business as has always been the case, now such things have the potential to be counted as attacks and often are.

Oh yep one of those 40kg Pitbulls again. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. We're not talking about other cases, we're talking about BSL. I would contribute my evidence but would not wish it to look like 'axe grinding', if you would really like me to present you with my case please start another topic or PM me

What evidence have you got to show that breaking BSL laws won't help get them changed? I'd suggest the evidence is stacked in favour of the opposite premise. Besides that, they need not necessarily be changed if they're not being enforced because the resistance they're up against makes it too unrealistic/morale draining/intimidating to bother. How it makes us look depends on the observer, its relative. Not too worried about what you think, my concern is with liberty and outcome

I don't consider complying with relevant legislation to be the right thing to do, it's the opposite that is true. Near enough nobody complies with it to the communities credit, if they did the government would have won and Pitbulls would have become extinct or close to it in most parts of this country by now. Is that a good thing? I think not. The reality is that isolated spikes and resurgencies in government resolve aside, years of a collective middle finger has seen BSL broadly fizzle to little more than text on a stamped piece of paper, but there's still plenty of work to be done. The abolition movement is winning and the only time the legal system is taken into account is when it can be used to undermine the government.

If the declaration was a factor as speculated then as much as I may see merit under some circumstances, given the balance of interests I can't support this prosecution or others like it; for me, doing so would be digging the discriminitive hole Pitbulls and their owners are in even deeper. Having said that, it's true that the majority of council officers, at least in my experience, don't take the restricted breed rules seriously, but I'm not comfortable about putting my faith in that tacit discretion, the only thing that goes far enough is the official abolition of BSL.

That's right, what I mean is that a restricted dog is (effectively) a dangerous dog, but a dangerous dog isn't necessarily a restricted dog.

In NSW, I understand that all restricted breeds are also dangerous dogs. For evidence, it can be noted that the requirements for keeping a dangerous dog are the same, as far as I can tell, as those for keeping a restricted breed. So, in the event that the previous dangerous dog declaration had a role in the outcome of this case, it makes sense that the precedent is a good fit for restricted breeds

The problem here, potentially, is that the dog was previously declared dangerous. I wonder if that was a decisive factor in the issuance of the fine and the conviction. I'm tentatively in support of action being taken against the owners of dogs that attack under certain circumstances, but not if it's contingent on prior dangerous dog declarations by council as their declarations are a load of bunk, for example Pitbulls are dangerous dogs straight off the bat, so it would create more bias against Pitbull owners

This is 'what they want you to think'. The onus is not on us to do a god damn thing about Pitbulls or their breeders, the whole thing was based on a false and unjust pretence in the first place, and in the face of relentless derision, rebellion and non-compliance the government will back down here just as they have around the world. Pitbull owners and stakeholders have no special responsibility to anyone, it's a bit like a movie about slaves I saw recently; the black guy who'd been kidnapped appealed to his captors, 'but here's my papers!!!'--we don't co-operate much less appeal to their cruel laws in any way, the laws are a reflection on their grubbyness not us.

Our way is a 'proper' way, making rational appeals to irrational people is the futile way, if anything is childish here that's it there--abject niavity

When a young child is throwing a tantrum and demands his or her way, do we play by their rules in the hope that one day they''ll see it our way? No, we impose our own and we do not try to reason with them because they're impervious to it--the government is the same. There will be no reason, and co-operating in the hope that the laws are reversed is as backward and naive a proposition as I'v ever heard. They don't hold any power we just let them think they do, what goes is the will of the people and if people stopped snivveling up to them and censoring their peers who reject their unjust laws BSL would have been buried 20 years ago.

The best way is to make them feel overwhelmed, impotent, intimidated. CO's here no longer say boo to us because they know that we'll rain a shit storm down on them, but it's only working because just about everyone is ignoring the law, mass rebellion is precisely the sort of aggressive direct action we need. A law can exist on paper but if the grunts in the ground are helpless or unwilling then that's good enough for me.

Yes. Pitbulls are today arguably more ubiquitous than they've ever been; we'lI fight these laws every step if the way until they're dead in the water and our breed will emerge better than ever. You don't protest law buy obeying it.

Beautiful, that's more like it

And they expect us to take them seriously and treat them as peers. If the president is so concerned about 'losing face' on the world stage perhaps he should have a look closer to home for who to blame.

Fair point

Stans Mum, I understand that if your dogs killed one of the cats the neighbours may have the audacity to complain, and the council may in turn have the audacity to dub your dogs dangerous and so forth, however that can just equally well be attributed to council policy as it can to roaming cats. If the result if the complaint was 'bad luck' then the roaming cats cease to cause an inconvenience. I prefer to er toward less legislation not more. Having said that, in a neighbourhood full of cats we have never had one in this yard as they know it would be suicide, it's odd that any would venture into your yard with your dogs loose.

I don't consider roaming cats a big deal. Having said that, just as when dogs are loose sometimes harm comes to them, whether it be in the form of cars, dogs, people or otherwise, that's just how it goes. I think running a story about a dog attacking a cat is just a bit absurd.

Yeah right, it's a dog not a cyborg, if it's dead it won't carry on doing anything. My list of various likes and dislikes are irrelevant--my central point is that the handler of a dog who wilfully encourages it to intimidate and attack people is responsible for any injuries it incures, and that's beyond sensible dispute. What suppose I do carry around a knife and that I'm a criminal--non sequitur.

The consequences are collective. Suppose the suspect doesn't quite 'feel like' 'coming forward', the handler still uses the dog to intimidate or attack, whether or not the victim co-operates with police instruction is irrelevant, it takes nothing away from the fact that the handler wilfully put it in danger by using it as a weapon.

Dunno, you tell me (???). That was a response to Steph who made a general observation about police dogs, to which I offered a reply about the general nature of people's reactions when under imminent threat. In this case in particular though, defending oneself against the dog is still inevitable as I think we can safely infer from the info that it was in very close proximity, he was trapped, and it was menacing him.

It's a dog attack, it's reflexive; people have a tendency to just react when they're panicked and under such serious threat. The central point is, as Daffy says, defending oneself against the dog is inevitable. I reckon disembowelling it would get it off pretty quick Lhok. Steph I'd say I'd be pretty well game to try it if it bit me like it did this guy, beats the alternative. If a cop mutilated a guys penis in the course of an arrest there'd be justified accusations of brutality flying in thick and fast, but if he sets his dog on someone and it does it not only isn't it considered brutality, but he isn't responsible either! Lol

It's only life because 'that's what they're there for', and they're only there because the police put then there. I'm not necessarily opposed to the use of the dogs, I'm just opposed to the police not believing they're responsible for any harm that comes to them, that's obviously absurd.

I'm commenting on the way these dogs routinely have their welfare seriously compromised by their handlers despite the reflexive and predictable reaction by the victims, the inherent negligence, and the backwardness of deflecting blame from themselves, not on whether or not I 'want' to be chased by a police dog.

Power legs, they send the dogs in to do their jobs for them all the time, mainly when they consider it to dangerous for themselves.