Thursday, December 22, 2005
Dogs and Lawyers
Pit Bull Owner Convicted of Manslaughter
Large's attorney contended that prosecutors never proved her ownership of the pit bulls that attacked Sullivan, and that Large had no knowledge that her dogs were dangerous.
Another dog bite case. This time it was an 82 year old woman who was shredded by the dogs. But what gets me is the lawyer's statement. What he's saying is that not only can't you prove Large owned these dogs, but that she didn't know her dogs (which she might not own) are dangerous.
Why is there a need to prove that she didn't know her dogs were dangerous if they weren't her dogs in the first place?
And yes, while I will agree not all Pit Bulls are dangerous, why do their names come up so often in dog attack cases? Really, when's the last time you read about someone's beagle or golden retriever or gerbil tearing someone's face off?
