Flexistentialist Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) "TWO dogs responsible for a savage attack on a Sunshine Coast jogger were “looking for an artery” as they bit at the fallen victim, a court has heard. Dog owner Christopher Mark Ryder was today dealt a severe $13,000 fine for the frenzied mauling in bushland on May 23 which left the victim with broken bones and injuries all over his body. It is only the second time a Queensland council has successfully prosecuted a pet owner on the higher charge of grievous bodily harm, following a similar case in Caloundra less than a month ago." http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/two-dogs-responsible-for-savage-attack-on-sunshine-coast-jogger-looking-for-artery/story-fnn8dlfs-1227144737461 Edited December 4, 2014 by Flexistentialist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbedWire Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 The fine should be bigger or the owner should do time in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 glad he at least received a worthwhile penalty . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Would $13,000 even cover the medical costs? What about the time the poor guy is off work? Pain and suffering? Being mauled by a couple dogs is on the severe end of GBH. I'm glad to see the GBH charge stick. People are responsible for the actions of their dogs. But it would be good to see some jail time along with the fines. And it would be good if some of the fines went to victim compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 I wonder does the fine go to the victim ? It says fine not compensation. It is good that the owner suffered consequences for their neglect & stupidity however I don't agree with jail time if this is a first occurrence. The owner is not a danger to society as I presume they don't own these dogs any more & jail is clogged up enough. They may not have known the dogs would do this & the reporting of looking for an artery is sensationalist. They can't read dogs minds. They also need to be free to earn the money to pay the fine. $13000 sends out a good message to control & contain your dogs. The victim must have been terrified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavNrott Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 I agree a large fine is in order but definitely not jail time. Jail is for criminals and this person is a negligent owner of dangerous dogs. I doubt he deliberately set the dogs on the victim. It would have been a good idea had the courts banned him from owning any more dogs. I hope the poor victim was adequately compensated for pain and suffering and is receiving the best of care and counselling for the terrible injuries, both physical and mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Her Majesty Dogmad Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Personally I think a bit of jail time is a good idea, this owner allowed 2 large aggressive dogs to roam freely during the day, he did chain them up at night - big deal. He doesn't sound like a good dog owner at all and anyone who puts others at risk in this way deserves to have the book thrown at them. I don't believe there's any excuse for this happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffyluv Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Would $13,000 even cover the medical costs? What about the time the poor guy is off work? Pain and suffering? Being mauled by a couple dogs is on the severe end of GBH. I'm glad to see the GBH charge stick. People are responsible for the actions of their dogs. But it would be good to see some jail time along with the fines. And it would be good if some of the fines went to victim compensation. The victim could sue civilly for his pain and suffering. Although not a lot of point if the offender doesn't own anything or have the money to cover the compensation that could be awarded. Sad but true. I am guessing he could go for victim compensation from the state as well?? I think jail time is only appropriate if the person actually told their dogs to attack another person. Hefty fines are good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Would $13,000 even cover the medical costs? What about the time the poor guy is off work? Pain and suffering? Being mauled by a couple dogs is on the severe end of GBH. I'm glad to see the GBH charge stick. People are responsible for the actions of their dogs. But it would be good to see some jail time along with the fines. And it would be good if some of the fines went to victim compensation. The victim could sue civilly for his pain and suffering. Although not a lot of point if the offender doesn't own anything or have the money to cover the compensation that could be awarded. Sad but true. I am guessing he could go for victim compensation from the state as well?? I think jail time is only appropriate if the person actually told their dogs to attack another person. Hefty fines are good! Justice for criminals is so hard to arrange. Jail time doesn't need to be long to send a message (at least to some people . .. but then, other people might brag about it). You can't get blood out of a turnip. If the guy doesn't have any money, he won't pay the fine anyway. Sigh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Rusty Bucket Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) This article is about fatal dog bites but the list has a lot of common factors in it... https://positively.com/articles/fatal-dog-bites-share-common-factors/ the jogger was not known to the dogs The dogs were not contained. And the owner was not there to supervise. The jogger was really lucky someone was there to help. And this. This makes me think the owner should not own dogs ever. I'm not surprised he didn't see it coming, he chained his dogs up at night and let them wander during the day. Actually train them? Nope. Give them some human time? Nope. Socialisation? Nope. #5: The dog is not kept as a family pet (76.2%)We've all seen a "backyard dog"--the dog who barks incessantly at all hours of the day and night and who has minimal interaction with people or other animals. Dogs who live in this way are much more prone to aggressive behavior since they live most of their life without any positive social interaction. This is why chaining and tethering is such a bad idea--it breeds the pent-up frustration that is often a precursor to aggression. One interesting thing about the news article - is there is no description of the dogs, not how big they were, whether they resembled any particular breed. The only time I see something like this happen is when the breed is not the typical "shark attack" breed eg not a pitbull or Rottweiler etc but maybe something more unexpected like Labrador or golden retriever or poodle cross. Or the reporter has suddenly heard all the complaints from dog owners about the misinformation on dog breeds and dog attacks. Hmm, must do some googling. http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/dogs-face-euthanasia-after-viciously-mauling-jogge/2268431/ bull mastiff? Edited December 10, 2014 by Mrs Rusty Bucket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crazydoglady99 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Holy Moly!!! I feel for the runner - what an awful thing to happen As for the dogs owner.. sheesh!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now