Jump to content
Tempus Fugit

Community rallies to save dog on death row for attacking child

23 posts in this topic

Other reports have said the injury to the child was greater and that the injured child's family are now on the opposing team so I'm assuming that is why the council have taken a stronger approach. It seems everyone agrees an exuberant child was involved and it was an accident on Hank's part so he should not be sentenced to death but due to his size some restrictions around his interactions in public could be necessary? It's a dog lover's worst nightmare - an actual unforseen accident. It could happen to any of us.

 

There is a case in QLD at present (not pet related) where they are trying to work out who to charge with negligence after 1 young child accidentally shot another young child in the face. The gun (not sure why it had to be left loaded) was supposedly stored somewhere secure and the owner was registered for the weapon but the children found and handled it and it discharged so it has to be 'someone's' fault. It seems we can no longer deal with actual accidents without having to lay blame for them. What about just some learnings so that it doesn't happen to someone else if possible? Why can't that be enough? I'm sure Hank's owners have lots of learnings from this unfortunate event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the story is being left out here. The owner did not fully comply with the dangerous dog owner. She failed to get the dog desexed in the six/seven months that she had the dog home with her under the order.

 

It’s very sad for Hank, but I can’t help but wonder if things would be different if the owner had complied with the order. A destruction order can be a consequence for failure to comply.

 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/01/04/17/40/hank-neopolitan-mastiff-community-desperate-bid-to-save-dog-for-injuring-girl-s-face

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Little GiftsI would have to disagree with you on the gun incident as described. That is not an accident. That is a failure of BASIC gun handling skills 101 and storage requirements that have been ignored. I have a gun licence and often have to transport/handle guns for our retrieving trials. We only use blanks but gun safety is paramount. If you have a gun in your possession it is your responsibility to check that it’s not loaded...if you hand it to another person it’s always broken. If you climb a fence, you break it. If you are not using it or are storing it you unload the damn thing. And lock it up. Separately from the ammunition. There would have been laws broken for this to happen. That’s why the USA is rife with cases like this and it’s a rarity here. Guns and kids just don’t mix. 

 

Apologies for the OT. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying TSD. I am not a gun person so have little knowledge about requirements for such things. I did think it unusual to store it loaded but again I know nothing about gun handling either or the reason this person kept a weapon. Media has said it was stored appropriately, hence why it is still being debated who to charge. If there was negligence by adults I think it would be easy to determine blame?

 

As for Hank - none of the news reports I have read said they didn't desex him.  I hate how important pieces of information are often omitted. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Little Gifts said:

 It seems we can no longer deal with actual accidents without having to lay blame for them. What about just some learnings so that it doesn't happen to someone else if possible? Why can't that be enough? I'm sure Hank's owners have lots of learnings from this unfortunate event.

I agree there is a lot of blame mongering.  But IMO a lot of 'accidents' happen because someone left a booby trap...and someone else fell into it.  Especially with dogs.  Sadly the dog often suffers and the irresponsible turd who set up the accident comes off unscathed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only spotted this today and wanted to say that there is a lot about this story that was not as it was presented by the owner and supporters.  The dog was seized because the owner had failed to comply with all of the required conditions and more non-compliance came to light during the court proceedings.  This dog is not the innocent victim he was painted as and the RSPCA identified possible signs of aggression in this dog.  If you've seen photos of the injury it wasn't anything like a bump where a tooth got caught.  It was awful.

I started looking into this particular situation when the photos of the injury were published and I read extensively about it, including court documents and I can tell you I came to the conclusion that there was a heck of a lot of deception involved in the campaign to save the dog.  The dog would never have been seized when it was if the owner had simply complied with requirements.  There is so much more to this story than what you have seen.  I was very glad to finally see the mother of the child speaking out and to hear her side of things.  If you're interested in finding out more then visit here   https://www.facebook.com/pg/Lizzie-the-child-bitten-by-Hank-the-Neo-Mastiff-1238293666309697/about/?ref=page_internal

It's a very new page with loads more info still to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...OT again .

In this day & age ,if firearms are stored securely ..no child should ever be able to get to them . That's the whole idea :(  and ammunition needs to be stored in a separate locked compartment.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coogie   
On 11/12/2018 at 7:28 PM, attaboysmum said:

I only spotted this today and wanted to say that there is a lot about this story that was not as it was presented by the owner and supporters.  The dog was seized because the owner had failed to comply with all of the required conditions and more non-compliance came to light during the court proceedings.  This dog is not the innocent victim he was painted as and the RSPCA identified possible signs of aggression in this dog.  If you've seen photos of the injury it wasn't anything like a bump where a tooth got caught.  It was awful.

I started looking into this particular situation when the photos of the injury were published and I read extensively about it, including court documents and I can tell you I came to the conclusion that there was a heck of a lot of deception involved in the campaign to save the dog.  The dog would never have been seized when it was if the owner had simply complied with requirements.  There is so much more to this story than what you have seen.  I was very glad to finally see the mother of the child speaking out and to hear her side of things.  If you're interested in finding out more then visit here   https://www.facebook.com/pg/Lizzie-the-child-bitten-by-Hank-the-Neo-Mastiff-1238293666309697/about/?ref=page_internal

It's a very new page with loads more info still to come.

The page isn’t there any more. Even though Hank is home I get the feeling that MBRC and the parents won’t rest until he is dead. They were on ABC local radio recently pondering their next move. The whole situation has pretty much divided the Community with not great behaviour on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   
On 11/12/2018 at 8:46 PM, persephone said:

...OT again .

In this day & age ,if firearms are stored securely ..no child should ever be able to get to them . That's the whole idea :(  and ammunition needs to be stored in a separate locked compartment.

although it can be a problem, woke up one morning to discover one of my mares down and obviously in pain and dying, by the time we had everything back together, the firing pin was in one place, ammo in the safe, the rifle in the gun cabinet, all locked.  she had died by then..  same problem if we spot a fox. half the time they have gone with the chook's before its all assembled.

 

before that they was under the phone table and ready for use and I can tell you our kids knew to NEVER touch the rifles or shotgun... but today kids are not taught decent respect anyway or safety, so tragic that boy who died because his brother had taken his dads rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, asal said:

although it can be a problem, woke up one morning to discover one of my mares down and obviously in pain and dying, by the time we had everything back together, the firing pin was in one place, ammo in the safe, the rifle in the gun cabinet, all locked.  she had died by then..  same problem if we spot a fox. half the time they have gone with the chook's before its all assembled.

 

before that they was under the phone table and ready for use and I can tell you our kids knew to NEVER touch the rifles or shotgun... but today kids are not taught decent respect anyway or safety, so tragic that boy who died because his brother had taken his dads rifle.

heartily agree!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

come to think of it, our ammo was still away's locked in the safe ....

 

 

was out riding with a friend one day and spotted six cop cars patrolling our street as we headed our for our ride... so couple of miles from home hailed one of them and asked whats going on?

turned out three escaped prisoners  had been spotted in our area, Julia and I looked at each other in horror and high tailed it for our homes to hide our rifles and shotguns... just in case.

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/01/2019 at 9:01 AM, coogie said:

The page isn’t there any more. Even though Hank is home I get the feeling that MBRC and the parents won’t rest until he is dead. They were on ABC local radio recently pondering their next move. The whole situation has pretty much divided the Community with not great behaviour on both sides.

I'm sorry but what page isn't there any more?  If it's the page about the child then it's still there, the link worked when I clicked on it.

From what I heard MBRC have decided on no further action, though they reportedly now have a no tolerance approach to dog bites in the region. 

I totally get why it's divided the community, if things were as the dog's side had put it I'd be up in arms against the mother too.  I'd think think she was just a vindictive evil cow out to get revenge for a minor bump but that's not how it was at all.  Team Dog put their side forward early on and kept pushing it so now a whole lot of people are convinced their story is the right one but a little fact checking shows different, but once people are set on their opinions it's hard to change them.

I don't believe there's anything anyone can do now but in the interests of the child, who has not only been put through hell thanks to the dog but also the ongoing campaign to save him, the owner should either move location entirely or move the dog to her parent's  home.  I believe it was they who, during the court process offered to house him at their place.

What bad behaviour has the mother displayed that can be substantiated?  Quite a bit of poor behaviour from Team Dog can be proven.

ETA:  if the bad behaviour is that she changed her story from it being an accident to it being a bite, that's something the mother denies and the fact that the 000 transcript identifies the injury as being from a bite, and the mother reporting it to Council promptly as a bite does make it look like she didn't believe it was an accident.  

If the bad behaviour from the mother is that she allowed her daughter to visit the dog after the bite, she denies this.  She does say that she and her daughter continued to visit the house where the dog now lives but he didn't live there at the time, and that she did once visit the house where he now lives at a time when the owner and the dog weren't there.  The fact that the court record shows in amongst the uncontested facts a mention of the child being afraid of dogs also calls into question the credibility of the claim that the child visited the dog.  If the child did then why would her fear of dogs not be contested, instead of it being accepted in court?

Edited by attaboysmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lhok   
16 minutes ago, attaboysmum said:

Team Dog put their side forward early on and kept pushing it so now a whole lot of people are convinced their story is the right one but a little fact checking shows different but once people are set on their opinions it's hard to change them.

I hope that if the dog attacks another person Team Dog will step up and pay for that person's medical bills and be the responsible party.

--Lhok

Share this post


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

I hope that if the dog attacks another person Team Dog will step up and pay for that person's medical bills and be the responsible party.

If they're complying this time then there should be no one at risk except the owner and her partner.

Hopefully this time they're keeping the dog away from the children in the extended family, who they had been happy to have play with the dog after it was declared dangerous and before he was seized (the owner admitted this in court and showed photos of the dog with the children).

I don't know if you saw the photo of the injury but that was no nudge with a tooth getting caught. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way

35 minutes ago, Powerlegs said:

Can someone tell me what Team Dog did?

In what way?

They ran a very public campaign telling a story that downplayed the injury,   often depicting it as a bump, a nudge or a collision incurred while the dog and child played, they even said that the Council was misleading the public by saying the child had horrific injuries.  In many ways what they put to the public wasn't what they agreed to in court.

Nobody disputes that the dog caused the injury to the child but they contended that it was an accident and not a vicious attack.  It clearly wasn't a mauling, that much we can all see.  But it looks like a bite to me and I think it would take some creative thinking to believe otherwise. 

Anyway the dog was declared dangerous and they were meant to comply with certain conditions, one of which was to desex the dog within 90 days.  They didn't and the dog was seized and a destruction order taken out because of concern about any future non compliance.  It turned out the Council officer who had investigated the bite had given them a verbal extension to the legislatively based 90 day time frame 8 days before the it expired, although, the owner's partner gave a different date which would have been after the 90 day time.  From my reading of things he didn't have the authority to override the legislation by granting an extension but I'm no expert on that.  It was something like another 74 days from the initial 90 days before the dog was seized.  I think there was also something about concern that the owner was allowing other people to be put in a position of risk, and it turned out she was allowing kids within her extended family, and her step children, to play with the dog.  This is all in the court papers but very few people have bothered to look at them and check if what Team Dog was saying was true or not, and they painted the mother of the child in a very bad light.   I don't believe it was made public until after the dog was home but it is in the court record that the dog had an ear infection at the time.  There is also some interesting wording around the dog never showing aggression before when in his usual environment which made me wonder why you'd include the words 'usual environment', does that mean there were displays of aggression outside of that?  A spokesperson for the facility he stayed in is on the record for saying something about possible signs of aggression and his behaviour limiting options for exercise.

They went through 3 court hearings before the dog was allowed back home but there was a very public campaign where the child victim would have been subject to images of the dog around her community with 'Save Hank' across them (posters and stickers were sold to raise funds and public awareness)

Edited by attaboysmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, attaboysmum said:

In what way
They ran a very public campaign telling a story that downplayed the injury,   often depicting it as a bump, a nudge or a collision incurred while the dog and child played, they even said that the Council was misleading the public by saying the child had horrific injuries.  In many ways what they put to the public wasn't what they agreed to in court.
 

Thank you for the information. I'm not very FB aware and did see a campaign or page at some point 'Save Hank' or something like that. Just didn't know what part Team Dog played in it (as they were mentioned here but there were no details). I've seen them but don't know much beyond the bull breed advocacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coogie   
14 hours ago, attaboysmum said:

I'm sorry but what page isn't there any more?  If it's the page about the child then it's still there, the link worked when I clicked on it.

From what I heard MBRC have decided on no further action, though they reportedly now have a no tolerance approach to dog bites in the region. 

I totally get why it's divided the community, if things were as the dog's side had put it I'd be up in arms against the mother too.  I'd think think she was just a vindictive evil cow out to get revenge for a minor bump but that's not how it was at all.  Team Dog put their side forward early on and kept pushing it so now a whole lot of people are convinced their story is the right one but a little fact checking shows different, but once people are set on their opinions it's hard to change them.

I don't believe there's anything anyone can do now but in the interests of the child, who has not only been put through hell thanks to the dog but also the ongoing campaign to save him, the owner should either move location entirely or move the dog to her parent's  home.  I believe it was they who, during the court process offered to house him at their place.

What bad behaviour has the mother displayed that can be substantiated?  Quite a bit of poor behaviour from Team Dog can be proven.

ETA:  if the bad behaviour is that she changed her story from it being an accident to it being a bite, that's something the mother denies and the fact that the 000 transcript identifies the injury as being from a bite, and the mother reporting it to Council promptly as a bite does make it look like she didn't believe it was an accident.  

If the bad behaviour from the mother is that she allowed her daughter to visit the dog after the bite, she denies this.  She does say that she and her daughter continued to visit the house where the dog now lives but he didn't live there at the time, and that she did once visit the house where he now lives at a time when the owner and the dog weren't there.  The fact that the court record shows in amongst the uncontested facts a mention of the child being afraid of dogs also calls into question the credibility of the claim that the child visited the dog.  If the child did then why would her fear of dogs not be contested, instead of it being accepted in court?

I have repeatedly tried the link and it doesn’t work, so maybe only open to some or is a group you need to join? I didn’t say the Mother behaved badly, but that both sides behaviour had not been great. When I said sides I mean the two factions, pro Hank and anti Hank. I don’t feel I need to substantiate my observations, I live in the area in question and much of what I observed is not reported anywhere accurately,or otherwise so I cannot reference it for you sorry. MBRC have always had a no tolerance policy when it comes to dog bites and have low tolerance for dogs in general, there are a lot of dog related issues here. 

E6A5F72A-6D87-4E52-98F4-097FDA03A578.thumb.jpeg.b991619abbff055f135923b4be21c78d.jpeg

Share this post


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

I didn’t say the Mother behaved badly, but that both sides behaviour had not been great.

Sorry, I misunderstood.  I've just seen so many nasty accusations about the mother that have been repeated over and over again as fact and I presumed that's what you were talking about.  

I'm not sure how much tolerance a community should have around dog bites, but IMO it seems reasonable to have declared Hank dangerous and either have him put down or kept under strict conditions, the latter of which wouldn't fit with my interpretation of a zero tolerance policy.

I look at my big guy and the thought of having him put down if he bit someone is heartbreaking, thankfully he truly is a big gentle giant.
 

 

Edited by attaboysmum

Share this post


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

×