August 6th, 2012

This legislation is looking a bit dog-tired

Posted in The Job - Comment by 200

I’m not one for shouting about the need for new laws every time some story hits the headlines. I tend to take the viewpoint that most things can be adequately covered within existing laws rather than the creation of new levels of bureaucracy for what appears to be nothing more than political posturing and vote-winning.

Some cases do make you wonder though, for instance the guy who has been found guilty today of owning a dog dangerously out of control in a public place.

Symieon Robinson-Pierre, has been convicted after his pitbull attacked and injured five police officers who were carrying out a raid at his address. The law couldn’t apply in the case of one officer who was attacked by the dog while the officer was in the man’s garden, as the garden is private property.

Of the four charges brought in respect of the other officers, one was a not guilty after it was ruled that a second attack also took place in the garden, the other three charges stood and Robinson-Pierre will be sentenced in September. The dog was shot by officers after it was pinned to the ground with a riot shield.

It does seem strange that someone can be allowed to have a dangerous dog which can inflict serious damage on people who are on private property quite lawfully. Either the wrong legislation is being used or this is one law does need looking at.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0

8 comments

  1. Oi says:

    Mmmmm
    Mixed feelings here.
    Although now retired and far from my old location where I served, I faced my share of 4 legged chewing machines and would cheerfully have shot both the dog and its owner at the time.
    On the other hand, doesn’t the old saying go, ‘Every Englishmans home is his Castle?”
    I have a Shepherd that is confined to a high fenced back yard when not under my direct control.
    As far as I’m concerned, no-one should be in my back yard and if they are, they are the authors of their own misfortune in the unlikely event my dog decides to make an issue of it.
    I dont care who they are. If they are law enforcement, they can either come to the front door or if they feel they must go to the back, then they can figure out a way to do so without harming my dog – who is merely doing what he should, protecting me and my property.
    Leaving aside the reprehensable actions of the scrotes in the article, it seems to me that there was a lack of planning here on the part of the Police. Surely they were aware of the dogs presence, its breed and the propensities of this breed? If not, why not? Why did they not have the means with them to negate it?

    Rhighto – fire away Gents!

    August 7th, 2012 at 02:02

  2. Ex RAD says:

    Whilst I can appreciate the point that Oi is making, I feel sure that when he was in the job he would have felt differently (unless he’s just playing devilas advocate).

    It is likely that Oi was in the job around the same time as me (70′s/80′s) and the whole thing would have been handled differently, probably with no officers injured.

    I think and equally interesting question is ‘What idiot agreed to the charges using legislation that speficially states public place, not private’?

    August 7th, 2012 at 05:50

  3. Whinger says:

    Oi might feel a bit different if he was still in the job and facing someone’s Pit Bull in their garden.

    Hell of a lot different than an angry German Shepherd.

    I also believe if was a front garden with a small wall where the Officers were attacked, not a sealed off garden with high Walls or fencing with barbed wire over The top, but technically it was his ‘garden’

    August 7th, 2012 at 06:14

  4. Plodnomore says:

    Both Oi and Ex RAD have valid points. The dog would have been protecting its territory. That’s what dogs do. Prior planning, and possibly intelligence input from the local beat bobby (remember them?), could have prevented this shambles of an operation. From my time I recall that dry powder fire extinguishers tended to work quite well on vicious dogs as they prevented them breathing. At the same time Robinson-Pierre had an obligation to stop his dog when he saw it attcking the Police officers and one would suggest he had trained the dog to do just that, just as travellers trained their dogs to pee on the legs of anyone wearing dark trousers. If Robinson-Pierre was using the dog as a weapon, there are other offences which could have been considered where the location being public or private need not be taken into consideration. Not a good day.

    August 7th, 2012 at 08:08

  5. Tony F says:

    Apparently, there’s no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner..

    Personally I would shoot the owner..

    August 7th, 2012 at 17:25

  6. Lw says:

    Think you are missing quite a significant point ………the dog is a pitbull a banned fighting dog . Banned fighting dog for a reason and it’s not because it had a bad owner !

    August 7th, 2012 at 21:08

  7. Lw says:

    Or should I say not JUST because it as a bad owner

    August 7th, 2012 at 21:09

  8. Blueknight says:

    The 1871 Dogs Act works anywhere but only punishes the dog, – muzzle or destroy
    The ‘new’ Dangerous Dogs Act punishes the dog and owner but only works in public, or if the dog is trespassing.

    August 7th, 2012 at 21:12

Leave a comment