Jump to content

Kodi: why is this forum quiet about it?


Recommended Posts

While dog owners in Tasmania and across Australia are raising a storm to change dog laws, so that what happened to Kodi doesn't happen again, I'm surprised to see no topics related to Kodi except one news article.

 

Kodi was a German Shepherd who was viciously stabbed in his own backyard by two boys. In self defence he bit one of the 11 year old boys who had to be airlifted for treatment.

These boys deliberately took knives and arrows and climbed over double fences to attack Kodi. But Kodi was declared dangerous and, confined to his cage, he sunk into deep depression and had to be euthanized last week.

 

While the Tasmanian Dog Control Act 2000, section 19(7) specifies that:
"(7) It is a defence in proceedings for an offence under this section if the defendant establishes that –
(a) the dog was being used in the reasonable defence of any person or property; or
(b) the dog was being teased, abused or assaulted;"...

This defence could not be used since there were no witnesses to the trespassing or the stabbing. I wonder why the mere fact of the dog being stabbed and those kids' presence in a backyard they had no reason to be in wasn't enough to establish trespassing and abuse. A really dangerous dogs would have mauled these kids to death before they had a chance to stab him. Only a very gentle natured dog would allow seven stab wounds before reacting.

The kids were considered innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt. Kodi was given no such consideration. He was considered guilty until proven otherwise.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Maddy, unlike the majority of people, I do not believe human life is sacrosanct. Quite a few million less humans on this planet would do a great deal of good IMO   Regardless of the facts an

Totally unnecessary       

Those boys had to clamber over an outer perimeter fence AND a house yard fence on the property. (Gates were padlocked).Yes, they were trespassing, and armed, just why was never raised. The dogs owner

I've been a member of Kodi's Army for about six months now. Sharing all the ups and downs of Vicki and Kodi as this formerly well-socialised boy struggled with trauma from the attack and having to be caged and muzzled when his owner was at work, rather than roaming the house yard as he did before. 
In spite of every sort of treatment, he could not recover and tragically had to be given final peace recently.
We are all bereft and will work harder then ever to ensure that the laws in Tasmania are altered so that each case can be judged on its own merits rather than a blanket response of a dangerous dog order. We don't want what happened to Kodi to ever be repeated.

Edited by RuralPug
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard plenty about it and frankly, I think the case is actually a good example of why we need dangerous dog laws- to protect the general public from irresponsible dog owners.

The owner was not present at the time of the incident, yet the public accepts her side of the story as absolute fact. The FB group screams down anyone who dares to question her version of events and then there's all the dodgy crap going on in the background- like the fact that the owner used him to breed from (I guess with his newfound fame and the fact that his puppies are now limited editions, they wouldn't be cheap to buy).

Cases like this serve to only muddy the waters as far as the legislation goes. Tasmanian dog law has other areas that urgently need reform (such as the fact that theoretically, your dog could be declared dangerous for something as trifling as menacing a mouse) and yet here we are, with people arguing that a dog which has seriously bitten a person (leaving aside all other allegations, as none were actually proven) should not be declared a dangerous dog. 

Tasmanian law already has provisions for the dog to act in reasonable defence of property or self, the fact that council elected to declare the dog dangerous suggests to me that they know something we don't.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, persephone said:

First I've heard about it ... :(:cry:

 

Same here, had no idea.  But Maddy's post does underline that you can't believe anything in the press or news broadcasts because the facts as reported generally bear no relation to the truth.  And that even less should social media be a trusted information source.  Trying to sift out shifty journalism and crackpot-book kneejerk posts is probably impossible.  Double sad.  Poor victim dog.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd never heard anything about it...

Sad, regardless of how the story actually went. Kids had to go to hospital, a dog was terribly injured and traumatised and had to live a life in confinement then get pts. 

If those kids did stab that dog, that is absolutely disgusting and heartbreaking. Awful to think those children have that mindset, they are going to grow up into sick dangerous criminals unless a lot of work of teaching them morals gets done now! They better learn their lesson :cry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maddy said:

I've heard plenty about it and frankly, I think the case is actually a good example of why we need dangerous dog laws- to protect the general public from irresponsible dog owners.

The owner was not present at the time of the incident, yet the public accepts her side of the story as absolute fact. The FB group screams down anyone who dares to question her version of events and then there's all the dodgy crap going on in the background- like the fact that the owner used him to breed from (I guess with his newfound fame and the fact that his puppies are now limited editions, they wouldn't be cheap to buy).

Cases like this serve to only muddy the waters as far as the legislation goes. Tasmanian dog law has other areas that urgently need reform (such as the fact that theoretically, your dog could be declared dangerous for something as trifling as menacing a mouse) and yet here we are, with people arguing that a dog which has seriously bitten a person (leaving aside all other allegations, as none were actually proven) should not be declared a dangerous dog. 

Tasmanian law already has provisions for the dog to act in reasonable defence of property or self, the fact that council elected to declare the dog dangerous suggests to me that they know something we don't.

Is there doubt that the boys stabbed the dog on the dog's (owner's) property?

 

I've heard a little bit about the incident when it happened but haven't followed the aftermath.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Simply Grand said:

Is there doubt that the boys stabbed the dog on the dog's (owner's) property?

 

I've heard a little bit about the incident when it happened but haven't followed the aftermath.

From an evidence point of view I'm not sure. But no one is releasing any information from the boy's side. However, it is reported that the police have dropped all charges against the boys saying "boys will be boys"!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Maddy said:

I've heard plenty about it and frankly, I think the case is actually a good example of why we need dangerous dog laws- to protect the general public from irresponsible dog owners.

The owner was not present at the time of the incident, yet the public accepts her side of the story as absolute fact. The FB group screams down anyone who dares to question her version of events and then there's all the dodgy crap going on in the background- like the fact that the owner used him to breed from (I guess with his newfound fame and the fact that his puppies are now limited editions, they wouldn't be cheap to buy).

Cases like this serve to only muddy the waters as far as the legislation goes. Tasmanian dog law has other areas that urgently need reform (such as the fact that theoretically, your dog could be declared dangerous for something as trifling as menacing a mouse) and yet here we are, with people arguing that a dog which has seriously bitten a person (leaving aside all other allegations, as none were actually proven) should not be declared a dangerous dog. 

Tasmanian law already has provisions for the dog to act in reasonable defence of property or self, the fact that council elected to declare the dog dangerous suggests to me that they know something we don't.

How do you know the owner was irresponsible? Yes, the owner was not present. But the dog was clearly stabbed. And was in a secure yard with double fences. How is that irresponsible? Shouldn't one question why the boys were trespassing on that property with knives and arrows?

 

Just because the council declared the dog dangerous doesn't mean they know something. It is more likely that there was no evidence to prove that the boys stabbed Kodi. Kodi was considered guilty until proven innocent.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Odin-Genie said:

How do you know the owner was irresponsible? Yes, the owner was not present. But the dog was clearly stabbed. And was in a secure yard with double fences. How is that irresponsible? Shouldn't one question why the boys were trespassing on that property with knives and arrows?

 

Just because the council declared the dog dangerous doesn't mean they know something. It is more likely that there was no evidence to prove that the boys stabbed Kodi. Kodi was considered guilty until proven innocent.

Is it not just as possible that the dog was stabbed by two young boys trying to defend themselves from an attacking dog? Any actual evidence, either way, seems to be entirely lacking. It seems the vast majority of people have just accepted one side of the story and aren't willing to consider that there may be another, very different side.

As for the owner being irresponsible.. would you say that breeding from a declared dangerous dog is a responsible thing to do? Never mind that it was backyard breeding (which many would agree is generally not a responsible thing to be doing). 

 

I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened so besides the backyard breeding bit, everything else is just conjecture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those boys had to clamber over an outer perimeter fence AND a house yard fence on the property. (Gates were padlocked).Yes, they were trespassing, and armed, just why was never raised. The dogs owner felt that they had been punished enough when the dog finally turned on them after being stabbed several times. But she was devastated that the AUTOMATIC response was to declare the dog dangerous with absolutely no avenue of appeal. I am not clear on whether some of those stab wounds were caused by arrow shot and some by knife I suspect it was a mixture.

This is not about individual people or individual dogs, this is about changing the law so that a victim is not being automatically punished for defending him/herself against grievous bodily harm.

How would you feel if it was your dog in that situation? If your dog was stabbed repeatedly in his own yard by intruders and finally cornered? Would you accept that he had to be thereafter muzzled and caged? Or would you expect him to accept the extreme pain and torture without defending himself?

I know where I stand on the matter.

Edited by RuralPug
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you RP. Everyone seems to be making reasonable comments but yes, how would you feel if it was your dog. And honestly what were two young boys doing with knives and arrows. 

What is the world coming too. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "outer perimeter fence" was just regular stock fencing, from what was reported. Not exactly a stretch.

Of course kids shouldn't trespass but equally, your dog shouldn't attack someone who enters your property. Maybe it's a trespassing kid, maybe it's someone from a utilities company who has legal right to enter your property without being hurt by dogs.

As for the dog turning on them after it had been stabbed, again, CONJECTURE. We have zero proof of this. For the sake of having a reasonable discussion, let's stop assuming allegations are fact.

 

Quote

Would you accept that he had to be thereafter muzzled and caged? Or would you expect him to accept the extreme

Lol? I'm a greyhound owner, my dogs spent a good portion of their lives in cages. They have to wear muzzles when they go out in public, this is no great, terrible thing to deal with.
No one expects a dog to sit there and be stabbed, this is why the law has the provisions it does: defence of property or self, right there in the Act. The council determined, based on information they gathered, that the dog did not meet the criteria for exemption. Most Tasmanian councils will not lift a finger to declare a dog dangerous unless they absolutely have to. Dogs who attack other dogs are ignored, wandering dogs are ignored, councils seem incredibly reluctant to enforce the Act unless failure to do so would leave them liable. And if Kodi wasn't as innocent as is claimed and he went on to bite again, guess how many people would be raging at the council for not protecting the public? How many people would be demanding a crack-down on "dangerous" guarding breeds, like GSDs? Public pressure is what worries politicians and if they think they can buy votes with rushed, stupid legislation to appease the torches-and-pitchforks brigade, they will do it. 

I trust that the council made the right decision, based on the available information. There was an option to appeal (Section 31 of the Act), your claim that the owner had " absolutely no avenue of appeal" is also not fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what if they entered the property to burgle, the dog came at them, attacked and they stabbed it in defence to stop it attacking. Only those horrible kids know what happened.

 

An anecdotal story. I was dog sitting for a friend once. A nova scotia duck tolling retriever. I knew the dog from when he was a puppy, saw him pretty much every weekend and we were buddies. I arrived to feed horses and dog. Dog was on verandah. I thought he might like a pat, so I started to cross the driveway. BIG mistake. We met half way across and stopped in a stalemate when he started growling, hackles up. I mistakenly took a step backwards. Realising what I'd done and not wanting to spend days trapped in the feed shed with no mobile reception, I squared myself up and ordered him back to his bed. Thank god that worked. After that we had an accord. I did my duties but did not approach him. He left me alone.

 

When his people got home, we were buds again.

 

So it is entirely possible the dog above took exception at strangers in it's yard.

 

If it were my dog I'd be out for blood as they shouldn't have been there in the first place. I'd certainly be persuing trespass charges if they did indeed cross locked gates.

 

Rural pug, from what was posted above, the defence of provocation / self defence by the dog already exists. In this case the issue would be knowing what actually happened. CCTV would have been their only supporting evidence for the dog defending itself. If a burgler breaks into your property, trips over a hose and hurts themselves, they can sue you. Given that, the dog stood no chance unless the little s*its admitted to hurting it until it defended itself........

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it odd that people who are upset about the dog being "guilty until to proven innocent" are so happy to jump straight to the conclusion that the kids are "horrible" and/or deserved to be mauled. Seriously.

And all based on hearsay, too.

 

How about this one.. what if it was YOUR kid who was being demonised in a case with no clear evidence? What if it was your child people were threatening to stab? What if your child's name had been made public so that some crazy dickhead who spends all day on FB can find out where your kid goes to school and maybe hurt them, or worse?

The entire case is a very sad example of how people can take something awful and make it infinitely worse.

 

Anyways, I'm afraid I'm out. I've said my piece and I'm not really up for a Friday night of flogging a dead horse in the hopes that it will understand my point. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maddy, unlike the majority of people, I do not believe human life is sacrosanct. Quite a few million less humans on this planet would do a great deal of good IMO

 

Regardless of the facts and who attacked who first, those children had no right to be in that yard. Their self centeredness has cost a cognisant being it's life. I hope they feel bad for the rest of their miserable lives.

 

the laws that need changing are the ones that give criminals more rights than their victims. If you trespass on a property, you should have to accept the consequences of that trespass. Legally that isn't the case and that is the issue.

Edited by karen15
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like it is unproven allegations either way - if there is no evidence to prove that the kids provoked the dog first there is also no evidence that the dog attacked first.

 

What IS evident (unless the boys or a witness claim the dog was outside the house yard, which doesn't seem to be the case) is that the boys were trespassing and were armed.

 

So if there is no evidence one way or the other, it is presumably just as possible that the boys committed criminal animal cruelty as that the dog behaved dangerously but neither could be proven. It therefore seems unfair that a definitive decision to declare the dog dangerous was made - and I mean legally unfair on the owner because obviously dogs don't have the rights humans do. 

 

ETA I am however strongly against naming and shaming children on social media when the information was not made public though the legal process, if that is what has happened

Edited by Simply Grand
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...