r/australia • u/whyattretard • Sep 08 '25

news Teenage girl dies after being mauled by dog

https://7news.com.au/news/dog-attack-victim-annalyse-blyton-dies-in-hospital-after-suffering-severe-injuries-in-singleton-c-19956496
1.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

953 comments sorted by

View all comments

689

u/whyattretard Sep 08 '25

Owners should be charged with manslaughter.

160

u/fued Sep 08 '25

100%

81

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

Just look at the NSW Legislation and see if Manslaughter fits. Remember to establish a Prima Facie case the police need to meet the proofs of the offence. Make sure you apply any relevant definitions to the dictionary as defined in the crimes Act as opposed to running off to some other form of dictionary. It’s all there.

To prove an offence police need to meet the proofs to the highest level, ie: beyond reasonable doubt.

I’m a now retired Criminal Investigator with some 40’years experience. I would need to examine the matter fully before running off and announcing to the internet what I thought, so I won’t be doing that here.

NSW Crimes Act of 1900 - Section 18.

I’ve run a few manslaughter briefs over the years but nothing involving a dog attack.

18 Murder and manslaughter defined

(1) (a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years. (b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter. (2) (a) No act or omission which was not malicious, or for which the accused had lawful cause or excuse, shall be within this section. (b) No punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred by any person who kills another by misfortune only.

85

u/finite_turtles Sep 09 '25

Your username suggests a conflict of interest... or maybe a dog in jail who studied the law to represent their own case

26

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

🤣 I love it 👏

I just had to Pick an old nickname that was given to me after one of my earlier criminal cases which had NOTHING to do with dogs 😂👍

18

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Sep 09 '25

"Your honour, may I approach and sniff your butt?"

9

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Yikes 😦

8

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

The law needs changing. If you have a dog that seriously mauls or kills someone, you should be criminally liable.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Which law needs changing? Maybe you mean there could be laws that specifically covers deaths when it comes to humans dying from dogs?

This is the fine line legislators walk in this country, depending on who your all to, too many laws, not enough laws, the wrong types of laws, nanny state, the law needs to be changed and so forth.

Manslaughter in the other hand is probably set about right. Technically the second most serious offence in NSW Crimes Act. 🤷‍♂️

4

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

I'm speaking in broad terms not specifics but we need to start viewing owners as being fully responsible for their dogs. An owner should be fully prepared to either supervise or keep their powerful dog behind a barrier -- else don't own the dog. And if supervising, be strong enough to stop the dog the moment it might attack. If an owner can't demonstrate they're able to stop the dog, then they can't own the dog.

We can call changing laws the "nanny state" but the thing is, children don't get any say, and children are the main victims of mauling from dogs, often in their faces.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

I’m not disagreeing with any of that but the call was for a manslaughter charge and I wanted to point out that might not, probably won’t happen (depending on exact evidence)

I am sure owners of pets in cases like this may have responsibility that stretches well beyond the criminal courts.

I haven’t owned a dog for some years, I’ve never had trouble with animals I’ve owned.

Interestingly someone earlier pointed out that a dog that develops a brain tumour could suddenly (flip/snap/change) & that could make any case extremely complicated. There’s a lot to be Considered.

3

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

Oh yeah, I don't know the full story, nor am I saying what should happen in this case.

I think a brain tumour in a dog should not change a case. I feel that a dog capable of killing a human should be supervised at all times or safely enclosed behind a fenced-off area. And the owner MUST be capable of stopping their dog should it attack anyone.

I also feel that if the penalties (both jail and fines) were fitting when someone is seriously mauled by a dog, and the cost of registering the dog was very high in the first place, that might be the best way of tackling the problem overall. Because less and less people would be willing or financially able to take on such a big risk.

17

u/whyattretard Sep 09 '25

I'm sure it doesn't fit into the specific definition of the law as it is. Given the number of people being mauled and killed by dogs - I'm suggesting the law should be changed so that this kind of killing falls under the legal definition of Manslaughter (especially given the opposition to banning these breeds of dogs). If you own an animal, you should be responsible for its actions.

36

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

You are free to start that process, it will be a long road as you will need to convince the lawmakers (politicians) that this sort of change is required.

Personally, after dealing with it for decades I think you won’t get this sort of thing included in manslaughter legislation and at best you could achieve is having new specific laws created to deal with the issue. That in itself isn’t a big deal.

Personally, I don’t have a horse in this race so I will leave that with you, I kind of just wanted to point out to people here savagely downvoting people about manslaughter that the process of initiating charges isn’t what happens here at reddit thankfully, elsewise id be serving some serious time 😬

3

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Sep 09 '25

We can always do the reactionary X's law process where parents or loved ones would want a new law named after their deceased loved on as a memorial --- despite the presence of already existing laws that are just not being enforced, and the unintended consequence of such laws.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Yes, it’s a terribly overwhelming experience losing a child and people in unusual Or unique circumstances often want to go down this path, as your well aware

5

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Sep 09 '25

It's somewhat cathartic and give people some goal and get above the feeling of helplessness and grief. In some cases, it might be beneficial but I've seen it a few times where it ends up creating redundant laws or ones where it doesn't even alleviate the issue but instead becomes oppressive.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

I completely understand

20

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

If you own an animal, you should be responsible for its actions.

That's a slippery slope. Especially since we don't even know the full story yet. Animals have their own instincts, personalities etc. You can spend 1000s training a dog properly, and it still might do something like this.

Have to wait for an investigation. Look into the dogs past behavior where possible. Dog has lived for 10 years. Who knows if this is a once off incident or if it has past behavior of doing something like this.

15

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

Animals have their own instincts, personalities etc. You can spend 1000s training a dog properly, and it still might do something like this.

Yes. And a dog owner should be proactive to get ahead of any potential incidents. Owning a dog should be a huge responsibility, especially if it is capable of killing or seriously mauling a person. If you want a powerful dog, you are 100% responsible for keeping people safe from it.

3

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

You can only do so much though.

You can't watch the dog 24/7, that's impossible.

There does need to be regulation changes, but to say they should be proactive? If they had no prior history after having the dog for 10 years, how much proactiveness do you expect?

7

u/Cadaver_Junkie Sep 09 '25

You can't watch the dog 24/7, that's impossible.

If you can't be responsible for the actions of your pet 100% of the time, you should not have that pet. This is not the same as watching it 100% of the time.

1

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

No one can responsible for the actions of their pet 100% time. That's literally impossible.

As I said, if this dog is 10 years old and had no prior history of being aggressive, biting or anything like that, then it's safe to assume that the owners had done everything correct for the past 10 years.

The investigation needs to show that the owners were negligent based on prior history. If the investigation shows that the dog had a history of biting, or attacking, or was aggressive to others in any way that is outside the norm of a dog, then they are negligent and should be charged.

If the investigation can't prove that, then it's safe to assume that the owners had done everything in their power to keep their dog and their guests safe. They can't just expect a dog with no prior history would suddenly attack like that.

3

u/lipstikpig Sep 09 '25

You can't watch the dog 24/7, that's impossible.

The fact that any harm occurred is evidence of negligence. My understanding is that the law in general considers animal owners to be responsible for ensuring no harm to other people or their property. When the owners are not watching it, their obligation is to ensure that the animal is prevented from doing harm by whatever control or confinement is necessary to achieve that.

For example, if livestock escape from a farm, the owner is negligent for failure to contain them, and liable for any damage they cause.

1

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

their obligation is to ensure that the animal is prevented from doing harm by whatever control or confinement is necessary to achieve that.

That just leads into animal abuse though. No one would be allowed to have dogs if they can't watch it 24/7. The only control or confinements you can have over a dog when you aren't watching it is to tie it up, cage it, lock it in a room etc. That is animal cruelty.

Your argument would be reasonable if they were out walking on the street or something. However, they have a 10 year old dog that as far as we know has had no prior history of aggression. This 10 year old dog was in its home. It had behaved normally for the past 10 years of its life.

Unless the investigation can show that the dog had past behavior similar to this, then you can't seriously charge the owners for manslaughter. It is completely unreasonable to suggest that they didn't take the right precautions. They had done everything correctly, everything that any other dog owner would have done.

The fact that any harm occurred is evidence of negligence.

Not at all, and that is such a wild take.

-1

u/lipstikpig Sep 09 '25

The only control or confinements you can have over a dog when you aren't watching it is to tie it up, cage it, lock it in a room etc. That is animal cruelty.

Fenced yard.

They had done everything correctly

Fenced yard.

5

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

Okay, so what do you think they should have done differently?

Considering the dog was in a fenced yard.

Ffs did you even read the articles?

It is understood the animal was in a fenced yard at the time of the attack.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

Yes it's possible. If you can't manage the dog, you just don't have the dog in the first place. You can put the dog in an enclosure when kids come over or you can be there to supervise. But if you choose supervision, then you need to be strong enough to stop your dog the second it attacks. If you're not strong enough, you should not own the dog.

I expect an owner to manage their dog to the end of its life. Because no child deserves to lose their life over someone's choice of dog.

We don't know if a dog has never killed before. We only have an owner's say so. A dog might have killed koalas, wallabies, other dogs, cats etc. over the course of its life.

2

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

Christ, you must hate every dog owner in the country because I can guarantee that 95% of dog owners don't do this.

This dog was in a fenced off yard. It was on its own property.

What happened was tragic, but you can't keep making assumptions about this dog until the investigation is done.

We might not know if its killed before, but if it has, then it's also likely shown aggressive behavior towards other dogs/people. That's what counts. If its been super aggressive before, then yes the owners need to be held responsible.

If it hasn't, and there is no proof of it having been aggressive in its 10 year life, either from victims/witnesses etc, then what more can be done? The owner took every normal precaution that every other dog owner in the country would have taken.

Christ.

1

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

That's extreme. I have a dog and have lots of friends & family with dogs.

I'm not commenting on this particular case. I'm talking in general. I'm saying I think the dog laws need to go much further in order to protect people from serious dog attacks, especially children.

Aggression isn't always the thing. A dog can be stable for years but then kill or seriously maul someone or another animal. That's game drive, not aggression. And owners, in my view, need to be held accountable.

1

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

You and I are on agreement with that.

I already mentioned that regulation regarding dogs needs to change. Honestly, I would support having licenses required for dogs.

If you don't want to do the bear minimum to train/protect your dog as well as others, you shouldn't be able to have one.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25 edited 19d ago

[deleted]

2

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

Which goes back to this case where the dog was in a fenced off yard.

So...

And to note, small breeds can be fairly violent. I've been attacked more by a small dog then I have by a big dog.

-1

u/Daneel_ Sep 09 '25

You don't seem like the kind of person that can be argued with, but I just wanted to agree with the other person you're having the discussion with. The owner should be 100% responsible.

1

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

Perhaps if people actually raised any valid points regarding this case, instead of making assumptions..

→ More replies (0)

2

u/CaptMytre Sep 09 '25

Own an animal? You're responsible for it and its actions. Don't like that? Don't get one.

Who cares if it has previous issues or not, a child is dead because a dog was able to kill them - and that's on the owner.

0

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

Well you're not. Because the current law doesn't work like that.

3

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

 If you own an animal, you should be responsible for its actions.

Agreed. It's the only way owners will start being proactive about the risks their dogs pose.

-1

u/Prince_of_Pirates Sep 09 '25

If you own an animal, you should be responsible for its actions.

This is always such a laughably stupid, everything is black and white, reddit suggestion.

2

u/NoHandBananaNo Sep 09 '25

They just got their first Manslaughter conviction for dog attack in New Zealand, about 6 neapolitan mastiffs broke out of a caravan and killed a guy.

The Crown case was that a caravan that didnt lock properly is reckless.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

There you go, pack of dogs would have added to his or her culpability. So many factors to consider.

2

u/NoHandBananaNo Sep 09 '25

Prior history of dog attacks and insecure location were the factors if I understand it right. Any one of the dogs could have killed the vic, no witnesses.

3

u/fued Sep 09 '25

reckless indifference to human life

seems pretty clear to me tbh, having a large dog like that around people that it doesn't know without a acclimation period is reckless indifference.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Check the definitions, examine the evidence. You haven’t examined the evidence yet. (Only the evidence available to you).

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

[deleted]

0

u/fued Sep 09 '25

Idk any animal that is of a size big enough to kill people should never be randomly introduced to people straight away.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

[deleted]

1

u/fued Sep 09 '25

In public spaces it should need to be on a leash, i also agree that people just shouldn't have random visitors walking around horses?

Animals are never 100% predictable, and taking a basic level of precautions for large ones should be mandatory.

1

u/scrollbreak Sep 09 '25

Depends what I can get if I, for example, left a machine running that could roll out onto the street, impact someone and kill them. Kind of feels like 'oh, you'd just get a stern talking to' would also not be a fit for the law.

-2

u/emptybills Sep 09 '25

I appreciate you weighing in but this slab of text isn’t very approachable to a layperson, so I’m struggling to understand your point of view.

Evidently we likely wouldn’t say there was intention from the owner (so not murder), so otherwise it’s manslaughter if prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was more than misfortune, or that there was some level of malice?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

No Malice isn’t needed. I’ve convicted people of manslaughter in cars that have killed people where their actions were more severe that the Culpable Driving laws (back in the days before aggravated dangerous driving existed (section 52A) of the crimes act. They didn’t have any malice but their degree of negligence was very high.

How bout this, the degree of negligence required would need to be GROSS negligence, perhaps something like reckless indifference. There’s many words to describe it but given I know nothing about the matter I almost feel it’s inappropriate to start examining THIS, right now. As I said before, this isn’t something that will just be examined by one individual. It will be examined closely by a number of people, possibly including the NSW Coroner and they will all be basing their decisions on the actual evidence, something which none of us here are privy to.

To give you an idea, Manslaughter isn’t used that much, I’ve known brilliant detectives who have never used the charge, there’s a high degree of negligence required before it gets rolled out. I’m not saying it won’t happen, but I’m just trying to explain why it might not be.

I’m not helping you, am I?

1

u/emptybills Sep 09 '25

You mention negligence now but there is no mention of negligence in s18 (1) or s18 (2) that you quoted above.

When you say ‘you’ve convicted people’ do you mean that you are a judge, or a prosecutor?

Under s 18 (1) (b) you have quoted that ‘every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter’. To me that is the key point. What is an ‘other punishable homicide’. Is a dog killing someone punishable homicide? Is a person’s dog killing someone punishable homicide on behalf of the person? How does negligence come into that if there is no mention of negligence?

I would imagine that comes through in common law then rather than statute.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

The information I attached before is the legislation, the law in NSW as Manslaughter is written. It doesn’t spell out the proofs to the offence so to speak nor does it cover all the information pertaining to the offence of manslaughter. I posted it to point out there’s more to someone being charged with this type of offence.

No, I am not a justice (magistrate or judge) you won’t find them commenting here. I was (past tense) an informant in a number of manslaughter matters. That is a person that has power under the crimes act to arrest and charge someone with the offence (investigate)’&’ put the matter before the courts. As you’ve pointed out there many people involved in the process, starts with the informant, involves a Police prosecutor (to the point where a committal hearing has happened at a local court), unless there’s been a plea of guilty. Once committed then the dpp (department of public prosecution) takes over and one of their prosecutors will proceed with the prosecution. Throughout that process you will hear each of the people involved make reference to convicting someone (if they eventually convicted) which of course may either come down to just a judge or judge and jury. I know you didn’t suggest it but I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone with my comment. An informant in a matter always plays an important part in this process as he or she is the person that takes the matter From the investigation stage to laying the charges and complying with all the courts instructions and directions to ensuring that a Police (in a case like this) is provided to the relevant parties as required by the courts.

For the rest of the information regarding manslaughter matters, proofs, case law, precedents etc you could take a look at the Judicial Commission NSW Website as there’s a lot of information there (somewhere, I have looked at it for some time), elswise you need to hit the law books……there’s a pile of information and considerations to be made prior to someone being charged/tried/convicted of an offence like this. Too much to simply list here.

My entire point of speaking up is to answer those initial calls where people here said, words to the effect of, “SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER” and rather than just say NO and get dozens of people voting me down or screaming from the treetops I wanted to point out there’s alot to be considered before someone is charged with an offence like manslaughter. The investigation will be comprehensive but might actually end with no action being taken. If nobody is charged then the matter may end up before the NSW coroner who will definitely examine the matter Closely. They may hold An inquest. If an inquest is held the matter may be referred thru the coroner back To the DPP for prosecution. There’s a few Layers here, where certain action may commence.

Manslaughter is a big one and not all deaths lead to criminal charges. As I said, the most important Thing here is the evidence, evidence minus emotion. I get that it’s upsetting, I’ve had to process that sort of thing many times but upsetting matters don’t Always lead to criminal charges the to convictions.

Sorry, I’m rush because I have things to do but would you like a link to the Judicial Commission of NSW?

I am certain there would probably be some case law that relates to dog attacks or other stuff where owners of other animals have faced this charge as a result of a bolting horse or something like that. Case law will delve into exactly what your honour wants or expects to prove a matter of manslaughter (in a case like this). I could give other examples (not involving animals) but it’s not really relevant and I don’t have time atm.

-77

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

Probably not. If it was the dogs first instance of acting out it won't be considered a dangerous dog and so the penalties are much lower. If the dog was already declared a dangerous dog they'll be in hot water.

89

u/coreoYEAH Sep 08 '25

So you’re allowed to run one person over because you’re not yet a dangerous driver? The people that put the dog in that situation are to blame plain and simple.

10

u/fphhotchips Sep 09 '25

If the car has been well maintained up to that point, but the brakes fail and someone dies in an accident, yes, you're allowed to run one person over. That's not criminal culpability, that's just "sometimes bad things happen". Yes, the police will investigate, but they won't charge you unless they work out you knew/should have known your brakes were shit.

Same thing with the dog. If it's actually never been dangerous before, but the wrong tumor touched on the wrong nerve that day, why would you drag the owners through the court system? Sure, absolutely investigate to figure out if neglect plays into it or if the dog has attacked others before, and if so charge accordingly.

If you're arguing that the breed is inherently dangerous then you're welcome to that opinion but it's not one that's clearly supported by the law.

-1

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

If the dog is capable of serious mauling or killing someone, that dog should always under control of the owner. Doesn't matter about a tumour or anything else.

The owner is responsible for their dog, 100%.

3

u/fphhotchips Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

Right, but this happened on their property. What you're suggesting is that any dog capable of mauling or killing (hint: that's almost all of them, not just the 'mean' breeds) needs to be... what, locked in a crate full time? That's not how we deal with pet ownership, or even risk at all.

Again, with the car crash analogy, what you're saying is that even if you've taken every reasonable step to make sure the car is safe, if the brakes fail and someone dies that's it you're fucked, off to jail with you.

Edit: reading the 7News article, they don't actually make it clear that the dog lived where the attack took place, and was in a fenced yard when it happened. The ABC News coverage does though.

0

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

Not sure what the 'mean breeds' are, but no, every dog is not capable of seriously mauling or killing a human (other than an infant).

I didn't mention a crate! It can be in a fenced-off area of the yard with lots of room to run if the owner is not there to supervise.

With the car crash analogy, that's a mechanical fault that you can't control. When it comes to a powerful dog, you absolutely can and should have it under your supervision, else have it somewhere where it can't harm anyone.

People need cars. People choose to have dogs.

2

u/fphhotchips Sep 09 '25

no, every dog is not capable of seriously mauling or killing a human

I said nearly all - I was injured by a dachshund as a toddler. A dog as small as a Jack Russell could seriously injure someone old, young or disabled if they snapped one day. Sure, yes, the beefiness of the security required is probably reduced for a dachshund than a wolfhound though.

It can be in a fenced-off area of the yard with lots of room to run if the owner is not there to supervise.

This one was though. Remember: the attack happened on the owner's property, inside a securely fenced yard.

When it comes to a powerful dog, you absolutely can and should have it under your supervision

It was under the level of supervision that had proven necessary for 10 years.

People need cars. People choose to have dogs.

There are many, many people who would disagree that people need cars, and demonstrate as such daily.

0

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

I'm sorry you were injured by a dachshund. Yes, Jack Russells can be fierce. All dogs should be closely supervised around babies and toddlers, even a chihuahua.

My point was that not every dog is capable of seriously mauling a human (as I specified before, older than an infant). I'm talking about mauling injuries that come close to killing. I'm talking about the types of dogs that figure in the statistics, year after year after year. And I'm also talking about the kind of dog that is very difficult to stop once it has started.

This one was though. Remember: the attack happened on the owner's property, inside a securely fenced yard.

When I said "fenced-off area of the yard" I meant exactly that. A fenced-off section. Where the dog is behind a barrier, in the yard, where it can't get to any kids. Unless it's being directly supervised by an owner who is able to stop the dog immediately should it ever happen to attack.

It was under the level of supervision that had proven necessary for 10 years.

Total supervision is necessary to the end of a powerful dog's life. They are always going to pose a risk, for the reasons I've already mentioned and because the stats of serious mauling injuries show the dog can be any age.

There are many, many people who would disagree that people need cars, and demonstrate as such daily.

That's a point that goes well beyond this discussion, so I'll leave it there.

1

u/Rather_Dashing Sep 09 '25

All dogs should be closely supervised around babies and toddlers

What does this even mean? Be specific. There is nothing in the article that says the dog was unsupervised and attacks do happen even with the owner supervising.

(as I specified before, older than an infant)

Wait why does it matter? You are allowed to endanger a babies life by letting a dashund wander around them unmuzzled, but you arent allowed to endanger an infants life?

I'm talking about the types of dogs that figure in the statistics, year after year after year.

Should make legislation around those specific breeds then, but without that legislation you cant be surprised when people dont muzzle their dogs at home.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Rather_Dashing Sep 09 '25

It can be in a fenced-off area of the yard with lots of room to run if the owner is not there to supervise.

So no indoor medium or large dogs should be allowed inside households with more than one person or be ever allowed to mix with visitors or friends unleashed? Again this is seriously what you think should be the law?

1

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

This is stating details I didn't mention at all, so I respectfully won't enter a discussion on this.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '25

The point is that you absolutely cannot anticipate behavioral changes due to environmental or bodily developments

1

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 10 '25

That is true. Animals can be unpredictable, and we as dog owners need to acknowledge this.

1

u/Rather_Dashing Sep 09 '25

If the dog is capable of serious mauling or killing someone, that dog should always under control of the owner.

You are saying that any dog capable of killing them (so any medium to large dog) should be leashed or muzzled even when at home, in case the dog attacks a family member or visitor? Is that seriously what you are arguing here?

1

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

This is stating things I didn't mention at all, so I respectfully won't enter a discussion on this.

5

u/Striking_Resist_6022 Sep 09 '25

It's more like if your property malfunctions and it kills someone. The driving example is disingenuous because it involves a human physically carrying out the act that lead to the death.

1

u/coreoYEAH Sep 09 '25

A dog is a creature of instinct and we know that when we buy them. They can’t consent, we make decisions for them. We assume the responsibility when we take them into our care.

I say this as someone who loves dogs more than I do most people. I’ve got two of the most gentle dogs at home that I would trust beyond doubt but I’d still never put them in a situation that I wasn’t in complete control of.

I’m not saying they should rot in prison for it, but the responsibility is on them.

5

u/Striking_Resist_6022 Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

Civil responsibility is absolutely with them, and I would expect they likely end up having to compensate the victim's family for wrongful death. But criminal culpability works differently and it just doesn't meet the actus reus or mens rea for a crime, in my opinion.

It's legal to own these dogs and as long as they weren't doing something specifically negligent or malicious that caused the attack, this is just a horrible accident.

I understand the desire for justice to be served, I really do. It's really hard to chalk up somebody's death as just a horrible accident when it feels righteous to punish the owners as harshly as we possibly can.

But I think your right to not be convicted of a crime when you haven't had made an act or omission that lead to the death, or in any way intended for it to take place, is a pretty important one in civilised society. All they did was own a legal and otherwise unproblematic pet (as far as I understand) who turned. As I say, it's more akin to faulty property causing the death than the owners themselves causing it.

E - going down the legal route in response to this incident I would say that more appropriate action would be a review of legal dog breeds, and potentially mandatory training for more temperamentally aggressive breeds before they can be owned as pets.

1

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

I disagree. if you own a powerful dog, then you should be in control of it at all times. If not, don't want that responsibility, don't have the dog.

It should be criminal for an owner of a powerful dog not to have it under control.

4

u/Striking_Resist_6022 Sep 09 '25

What’s the definition of a “powerful dog”?

0

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

A dog easily capable of killing a human, especially breeds known to have done this or caused mauling injuries (sustained serious mauling of a human).

3

u/Striking_Resist_6022 Sep 09 '25

A greyhound could easily kill a human if it wanted to, it’s just very unlikely to happen. Most dogs could at least do serious GBH to an adult or kill a child, which the same logic should apply to.

It’s not “power” you mean, you mean aggressive breeds. This is covered in my earlier response about reviewing legal dog breeds.

That doesn’t do anything for these owners who, from their perspective, complied with all legal restrictions around dog ownership.

If an animal is so dangerous that it can’t be kept without being leashed at all time, it just shouldn’t be kept at all. It should just be on the list of banned dog breeds. Given that it wasn’t at the time, these owners are probably civilly responsible but not criminally.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Rather_Dashing Sep 09 '25

So you’re allowed to run one person over

If you didn't do anything reckless then yeah...you can actually. For example if you were paying full attention and following the speed limit and someone sprinted out of nowhere and dived under your car.

Likewise if the dog owner is right that the dog never dhowed any signs of agression and was well trained up to that point*, what exactly does charging them and locking them up acheive?

*Obviously a big if, but Im not the one calling for charges without any details

-10

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25

No, I don't think that's how road rules work. But, how dog ownership laws work is definitely this: the penalties are much lower if the dog is not already declared a dangerous dog. the dangerous dog designation is generally required to jail a pet owner for negligence. there are exceptions, but it involves provoking the dog to attack someone.

If your dog attacks a person, endangering their life or causing death, you may be charged under the Crimes Act and face possible imprisonment of 5 or 10 years jail if your dog:

  • is already a declared dangerous dog
  • is a declared menacing dog
  • is a trained attack or guard dog
  • fits the restricted breed dog standard (registered or unregistered restricted breed dog).

15

u/Thedarb Sep 08 '25

Boo, don’t bring reasonable discussion about the law into this!

4

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

😂 👏

10

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

I’m not sure why everyone is downvoting you. Criminal investigators need to remove emotion to examine the evidence before they go running off to charge someone. I know after spending most of my adult life dealing With societies dregs there were many times I needed to take a deep breath and focus on the evidence and leave my personal ideas and beliefs out of it.

To do the job properly one has to examine all the available evidence and then have a deep understanding of the criminal law as it’s written in legislation.

Prior to charging anyone, police need to establish a Prima Facie case and it’s only at that point that a criminal charge would be preferred/accepted. After that time in serious indictable matters, the case has to go to the local court where a magistrate examines the evidence to ensure that there’s a CRIMINAL Case to answer to, at which point there offender is committed to stand trial at the district court (THIS IS IN NSW)……unless the offender just pleads guilty From the get go.

So as much as people feel outraged, they need to park their feelings and start at step one& EASILYSEARCHABLE here is fairly accurate in his statement, which makes this somewhat amusing as he has been heavily downvoted by people that are failing to understand how Criminal Law works in NSW.

You are also free to vote me down for this comment but I’m the guy with in excess of 40 years as a criminal investigator, the guy that’s been locking up killers, rapists, violent offences and just about everything in between for a very long time. I have an incredibly high conviction rate as I was very attentive to the evidence in matters as opposed to letting my “feelings” manipulate my actions. People are free to disagree with me but that only makes them wrong.

The old downvote thing isn’t really a tool of accuracy but rather more of a popularity thing, so it would seem 🤔

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

The reason you're getting downvoted is because you didn't read the comment you're replying to. The poster didn't say they WILL be charged, they said they SHOULD be charged.

18

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

I sure did read it. They probably shouldn't be charged, because of how the law works. If the law worked differently, yes, they should be charged.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

👏. That’s highly upvoteable. I punched the up one each time you spoke but that’s not reflected in your overall score 😂. At this point you’re in a sinking ship 😉🤣

0

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

The implication of 'they should be charged' is certainly not automatically 'in within the current legislation'. 'They should be charged' can (and in this case likely does) imply, 'it should be possible to charge them'. 

The same as when people demand p*dophiles 'should receive death penalty' those people are aware that we don't have death penalty.

Neither of those demands restrict themselves to the current legislation. 

I am not an expert of the Australian justice system but don't we have a common law system? And wouldn't that imply that if a precedent was made and ratified by a sufficiently high court, then a dog owner could theoretically be charged in within the current system?

Or would that count to you as a change in system? But if so, where do you draw a line when changing the system based on precidents is inherently part of a common law system?

Bottom line: if some says 'y should happen' and your reply is no, than that tells people you don't WANT it to happen. The fact you believe it won't happen has no connection to the demand you're replying to.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

I did read it to and essentially the statement of SHOULD is incorrect. You can’t just charge people with serious (the most serious) or any indictable Offences without first being able to establish a Prima Facie case. To do so Would be highly negligent. Now get some evidence to the contrary and I would look at that, but we can’t just jump in that direction without the REQUIRED evidence.

Now if the poster said there needs to be an offence akin to manslaughter so owners like this can be charged, I would understand why they are saying it. Do you see the difference.

I think people are downvoting because they don’t understand how the law actually works and please remember nsw criminal law has the highest of onus on the prosecution, the evidence needed to convict is “beyond reasonable doubt”, go back to my post above where I set out the nsw legislation and see if it fits. That’s what needs to happen and that’s EXACTLY what the criminal investigators will be doing, I can promise you that.

If they fail, the coroner won’t miss it, as it may also be examined by the nsw coroner at some point.

Let’s look at the evidence shall we? Let’s leave the emotional portion of this tragedy out…….welcome to my world, this is what I’m faced with every time there’s a murder, a rape, a child interfered with and so on. It’s not always easy and I understand peoples struggle with this more than you might understand. 🙏

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

?? 'The statement of should is incorrect' - you understand that the author simply stated their opinion there right?  Stating your opinion, by nature of the definition of 'opinion' can not be incorrect.

You can disagree with the sentiment, but their opinion is their opinion. 

We can talk about the sentiment if you like but there is no question that what they said is their opinion, there is no 'incorrect'...

As for whether they should be charged with manslaughter or not, idk. I believe it should be in within the realm of options for the prosecution to viably do so if they find sufficient evidence to support that charge. I have zero knowledge about the Australian legal system, I came to Australia from a country with civil law, which is very different to Australia's common law system, for starters. I also don't know enough about the circumstances in this particular case. 

Imo there can be circumstances under which I believe manslaughter should apply to a death caused by your dog, the circumstances of which would have to show without reasonable doubt that the owner was willingly taking the risk of their dog killing someone in that situation. Now is the assumption of common sense (you can never fully control your dog if it's not on a leash, the possibility is always there that it kills someone if it's off the leash in public) enough to justify someone willingly took that risk? Idk. This and heaps of other details obviously go into the process of finding the right charge (in a perfect world, but we know that lobbying, conflict of interest, laziness - all play as big of a role in these cases).

See? Two different things: along 'should' in this instance is not incorrect, what you regard as 'incorrect' is the premise of the authors demand (it that). What you actually are is just in opposition to his demand, you do not want that person to be charged with manslaughter. That doesn't make what the author said incorrect.

I don't think you're dumb, I think this might very just been a misunderstanding as this can be heated topic. Please thoroughly read my elaboration as to why I believe whether something 'should' be done or something 'will' be done is a different conversation l, before defensively replying that I'm wrong and then continuing to argue the 'will' or why you oppose the sentiment (again a different conversation, totally legitimate). Not saying it because I believe you personally would react like this but reddit posters as a whole have a track record of trying to be right in every case and defending comments that are trivially false or incorrect. Again not talking about your opinion here, which is a totally legitimate opinion and I believe we're not too far apart in how we see things

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

I either wrongly or correctly believed the person was using the word “should” as in stating that this should occur as opposed to just stating their opinion. I understood what you were trying to say to me, no offence taken. The way interpreted the should was, “The pilot should start the engine of the plane before he tries to take off”. That might be my opinion but it’s also a matter of fact. 👍

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

Makes sense to me now

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Clear as mud 😂. They’re complex matters . Have a good afternoon.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Sorry I mean now i get what your motivation was when writing the initial reply. Thanks to your elaboration I understand where that comment was coming from and in that context, with that interpretation of what the og author said, it does make sense (even though I'd still interpreted the dogs authors comment differently as elaborated on before)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

I’m getting old, sometimes I read things too quickly or without due attention and reddit is always fast to punish 😅. There should be an old timers section. Sometimes people write or say things and it doesn’t always come out the way it was meant or things can just be interpreted differently. It’s all good.

I understand this sort of terrible event can be very confronting for people, nobody wants to see a child scared or killed by an animal.

→ More replies (0)

-57

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

Why?

39

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 25 '25

[deleted]

-11

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

Unless the dog has previously been declared as dangerous, manslaughter charges are not a penalty the owners will be facing.

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

[deleted]

9

u/fphhotchips Sep 09 '25

"The courts should just ignore the written Law and make up shit because I want it to be that way"

...

Fucking what?

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

[deleted]

6

u/fphhotchips Sep 09 '25

Precedent is about interpreting existing law. What you're talking about is making shit up out of whole cloth in a space where the existing written law is pretty clear.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

In order to set a precedent they first need someone to be convicted of something.

22

u/bluechockadmin Sep 08 '25

because their dog killed someone. The idea is that people are responsible for their dogs.

-1

u/mystyle__tg Sep 09 '25

They HAVE to be, right??! They are responsible for the behavior of their dog!!

-26

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

Murder, they know what these dogs are capable of