Sorry, but the human ADULTS did not kill that baby.

The dogs did.

But surely you agree that the humans are responsible? It is simply not fair to blame the dogs ... Dogs are not born killers of babies, it is simply not in their nature

Who would take the dogs on?

They couldn't go back to the original family - they would be hated.

Could they go elsewhere? There aren't many who would take on a dog that had killed a baby.

Would it be responsible to place these dogs? In my opinion - no, it would be asking for trouble

Whatever belief there is on who is to blame, there could be no other outcome for the dog that killed the baby

Dogs killed the baby - not the parents. That's it.

If training your dogs not to kill babies was a legal requirement - maybe these parents could be prosecuted for that.

Anyone who thinks they have not SUFFERED ENOUGH for whatever 'fault' might lie with them is, in my opinion, a blinkered fool.

They loved their dogs, they trusted their dogs.
They lost their baby.
Their trusted dogs KILLED their baby.

When I read a report of a baby killing a dog I will agree with you that it was the parents' fault for giving birth to the baby or something similar. Or similarly insane.

Exactly. When a GSD was put down for attacking my then 5 yr old son, the owners said it couldn't be 'proved' which one of the TWO GSDs they owned was responsible.

This was about 30 yrs ago. The Police response to that was 'OK they will BOTH be put down' - owners quickly owned up to which dog did it.

But if both had had to be put down I wouldn't have lost sleep over it. I'd have lost a lot of sleep for the rest of my life if the damage inflicted on my son (which was bad enough - eye socket, eyebrow mouth and gums) had been even worse or fatal.

No such thing as a bad dog or an aggressive dog yeah yeah yeah - just keep saying that over and over and perhaps one day (in lalaland) it will be believed.

Hey why put any humans in prison? Whether they maim or kill or steal or whatever, why not just blame the parents and set them free to continue to maim and kill.

The dog that attacked my son was awaiting coming up in a court case for doing just the same to another innocent 5yr old boy at the time (as I discovered after) now, if it REALLY IS ALWAYS just the OWNERS - how come the other GSD never attacked anyone ever? Same owners, same household, same treatement etc.?

It is immaterial who is ultimately responsible.

The facts as so far published are that the dogs - either one or both killed the baby.

The parents did not.

Same could be said for humans. We are not born killers either,it's not in our genetic makeup,doesn't mean we are not capable of it We absolutely are.Only have to turn on the t.v or open a newspaper to see that.
Dogs DO Kill,these two dogs did.As incomprehensible and horrific as that is,it is a fact.
In my opinion the parents unintentionally provided these dogs with opportunity,the consequences of that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives
None of us know the full details,as far as I know they haven't been made public,so I don't know if this is a case of neglect or irresponsibility.Can only imagine the thought process was the same as is with alot of dog owners.." My dog or dogs wouldn't do that" ...Regardless of your relationship,experience with or faith in your dog,I think it is a huge mistake to think for one second that your dog isn't capable of it.Unfortunately believing otherwise could and does,as in this case,end in devastation.

Same as I am sure there are some dogs who would never harm a human under any circumstances (some who'd never even defend themselves against other dogs).

Sadly these two dogs - whether individually or collectively - were not dogs who could be said to fall into that category.

Some people who are behind bars have had a lot said about their 'upbringing' being responsible for how they turned out. They are still behind bars - the 'awful' parents who experts or others might consider to be responsible for how they turned out are not. And many who call for the 'death sentence' to be brought back for some of those killers - even if their 'upbringing' does seem to have been responsible for how they turned out. They still 'committed the crime'.

The law is the law. If you disagree with any law, you have the right to campaign to get it changed.

I won't be adding my signature to any petitions to allow dogs who kill or maim for life to be reprieved and rehabilitated.

I'm sure if it could be proved that a dog owner purposely set about training their dog to kill on command and it subsequently did - that owner would be in a lot of trouble too.

Would some be happier to see a mitigated sentence for a dog that killed - life imprisonment for the dog (same as for humans?) I think the dog would, in that case, be better off PTS.

My thoughts on this ...in no particular order are that the baby, and then the dogs paid the ultimate price for the human adults allowing the situation to have happened....and now they will be living with that dreadful knowledge for the rest of their lives. Devastating all round.

Dogs kill, end of...they kill animals, and it should never be assumed that a dog knows that a baby is the same as adult humans and that it is not prey. They do not look like, smell likes, sound like, smell like or behave like an adult, or even child human. Which I think a lot of people would assume.

Having volunteered for rescue centres, and worked as a dog trainer...plus now as a dog walker I've learnt that your average dog owner knows almost nothing about dogs. How often have we seen the most basis questions being asked on here, and it's great they are asking, but surely people should do that BEFORE they get a dog. It's extremely rare to find an owner who responds in the correct way to their dog growling, rather than chastising them...and very very few of them have any knowledge abut lip licking and yawning and signals of a dog feeling uncomfortable.

This is not about this case in particular but, aggression is always presumed to be how the baby died, and I wonder if in some cases it isn't so much aggression as an accidental death.

I'm sure most of you know that, although being the softest dog and despite me preparing Tonks for the birth of my first daughter as much as I could, when the two finally met I was not happy with the amount of interest Tonks was showing Merryn. 100 mph interest while Merryn was in my arms...and when we moved her away slightly she then began to scream and bark and strain and try to drag my partner across the floor to get nearer to us. I don't know what other people would have done, some would rehome immediately, but I sent her away, phoned my behaviourist friend (very handy to have a friend like that) and arranged a behavioural assesment.
Although he was almost certain that she was not deliberately trying to hurt Merryn he was absolutely certain that without restraint, management and training she would seriously hurt Merryn. 4 stone of muscly enthusiasm against 6 lbs of baby is no contest. So followed four months of training, Tonks not being allowed in the same room as Merryn unless on a harness and Paul holding her and me armed with clicker and treats, baby gates in every door way of our one bedroomed flat, and me a hormonal new mother trying to get to grips with breast feeding while also shaping Tonks into a "settle" from the other side of a baby gate and chucking treats at her. Hard work but worth it, a year later when Carys was born Tonks wasn't interested at all ....but obviously was always closely monitored.

I don't like to think the worst of dogs, and often think that we don't give them enough credit, but when babies and dogs come together I think it's always best to hope for the best in the long run but prepare for the worst. But accidents can easily happen, whose to say that one of the other children didn't open the nursery door and the dogs got in that way. The truth will probably never be known.

I have just one thing more to say.

If my beloved Pereg ever killed a baby I would not wait for her to be gently pts - I would kill her myself.