but he didnt set the dog on the child or use the dog as a weapon (in this case), and he wasnt even there... i would always hope no one would ever put a child in the presence of a dog who they thought would do such a thing.

but the bloke who had 2 gsd's wasn't charged with manslaughter
and the outcome of that court case was Accidental death

but i would of thought he is responsible for the dog .whether he meant it to happen or not,it was his dog.

but he wasnt even there...

its like, if you own a gun and while you are away someone kills someone with it... does that make you guilty of manslaughter? that person should be responsible for that gun, but is it fair to charge them with that when they didnt do anything...

if the dog was legal, would he have done anything wrong?

i don't know it's all very confusing imo

but there has been evidence given that he used the dog to intimidate. plus, there may be more evidence that we (joe public) aren't aware of.

i think he did use the dog as a weapon. regardless of whether he was there or not, it was his dog that killed a child. his dog that he had trained to be aggressive. his dog that he knew to be so aggressive it should not be allowed into the house with the child there.

i truly hope that he is convicted over this. he used that dog as a dangerous weapon and he should pay for that.

ETA it should make no difference what breed the dog was. if it was a standard poodle trained to be aggressive towards people, the owner should be held responsible.

i think if the dog has been trained to be aggressive it should be manslaughter no matter what breed, but just in terms of any dog attacking and killing (obviously with no training), i dont think it should be if it isnt an illegal breed.

i agree the wee boy shouldnt have been around the dog, but he wasnt there to prevent that. from what i have heard so far about this guy, i am sad to say he probably wouldnt have tried to prevent it ('it' being the wee boy being around the dog), but coz he wasnt there we wont ever know...

it says at the bottom of this article that many of these dogs used for fighting or even just to look aggresive and mean ar given steroids. these drugs can tip any person over the brink so imagine what it would do to a dog.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html

Just a guess:

I think the manslaughter charge relies on the defendant's knowledge that he possesed an illegal dog. In this context illegal is synonymous with dangerous and he was therefor negligent in not ensuring that people were not exposed to that danger whether he was there at the time or not. Like leaving something dangerously unsafe when one knows that other people will encounter it.

Had the dog been a legal breed then a prosecution for manslaughter could only occur if the prosecutor could prove that the dog was known to be dangerous. Otherwise there would not be any criminal negligence.

A prosecution under the Dogs Act 1871 would still be possible but that is civil not criminal.

that what i thought, although you said it much better lol. i just mentioned him not being there in terms of thinking about if the dog was a legal breed... but dont think it makes a difference if he was there or not when the dog is illegal (or apparently illegal)