Judge rules that rottweiler goes home

A judge has ruled that the rottweiler that attacked Chloe Grayson is not a dangerous dog and is to be returned to his owner.

I don't have this story at all because it's been on Calendar tonight but with no explanation as to why the dog was ruled not to be dangerous and no explanation as to what actually happened and caused the dog to attack.

The judge has ruled that the dog was under control at the time of the attack and that it merely scratched the girl's face (doesn't look like a scratch to me, but then a rottie could do more damage if it actually wanted to).

I just wondered if anyone had the full story because I don't know what to think as there's no full story behind it!

Cheers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/7175812.stm

there you go hun!

but one thing......

Wow could there be more emotive language

This was the last I'd heard about it. Of course, they're not going to make a big a deal over a dog being proved innocent as a dog being proved guilty because Rottweilers are savage and dangerous and should all be destroyed you know! We can't have the public thinking for themselves
I'd be interested to hear any more details too, if they're out there though

I wish they would at least get the basics right in their reports!!!

10 stone Rottweiler???? I'm yet to meet a Rottie of such size and really do find it frustrating when the press and all involved exaggerate.

Plus if the mother of the child is so aware of how vicious and dangerous rotties are, what was she doing at her neighbours with her child when a vicious rottie was roaming about the house????

I once attended a Rottie only championship show in Wales and there were 150 dogs present. I didn't see one act of aggression in any shape or form or one irresponsible owner in sight. So what does that tell you???

this appears to be the latest-
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/...ave.4264726.jp

the child has certainly suffered an injury, but it doesn`t appear to be a bite. It is difficult to see just how bad in the photo as it hasn`t been cleaned. It is also difficult to take a balanced opinion as the only comments have come from the girl`s mother(who is understandably upset and angry). I understand this was a party, and several people were also present. The appeal overturned a destruction order for the dog.

Thanks guys,

Wow... seems a load of cobblers to me...
Yeah right! She'd have no face left!

I can see how if she unwittingly gave a command to jump up, with her being small, he'd have scratched her face. It's upto the owners now to get proper training for the dog and to realise that you don't teach a dog that size to jump up on a cue which can easily be misgiven!

On the tv the other night, Chloe was on there saying she wanted the dog destroyed and it was just so obvious that she was saying it because her parents had said it. They go on about how terrified she is of going out but if the parents had turned around and said 'no they're going to get real training for the dog now so you don't need to worry' instead of telling her the only way to deal with it was by destroying the dog she wouldn't be so terrified!

I agree with TalentedMrRiply - why did the mother allow the child near such a vicious dog if she felt the way she said she did? (Because it only mattered once it was her child, that's why).

Definitely looks like a scratch to me, there's no puncture wounds or anything, funny how they have left on the dried blood to make it look worse, would like to see a pic of her now and how bad the scarring is? Sounds a load of rubbish to me too...

the judge stated the dog didnt bite or attack. he agreed it was damage by the paw, an accident. 2 behaviour experts put the dog thru some physical assessments. the dog was declared friendly. the appeal judge did not hear the defence case as he felt the prosecution had made their case for them and gave the dog the all clear.

Well done to a judge who judged on the evidence not on emotive remarks.

All I can say is thank god Judge Robert Moore looked at the situation in a fresh light and realised that the injury was not caused by a dog that was attacking the child, but was in fact just a claw mark.

It now makes me wonder how many other innocent dogs have been put to sleep because the magistrates haven't looked at the evidence properly.