79-year-old man loses arm after being attacked by a neighbor’s dog in Chonburi

[robblok]

16 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

This is the correct answer.

Then guard dogs have a short life span if that is the correct answer. I would certainly say that in this case gaps in the fence make the lady liable. But if a property is fenced of and signed and the person has no legal rights to be on the property then its the individuals problem.

 

In this case the ladies problem for not fencing the dogs in properly and providing signage.

 

I am all for putting free roaming dogs who attack people down. Not dogs that protect their property inside a property that is fenced of. My dog oldest dog bit someone too (minor nip did not really penetrate) but the guy who got bit was asking for it.. sneaking up behind my gf and grabbing her as a joke. How the hell did the dog know it was a joke. Someone it never seen before. 

 

But was a small nip a warning without breaking the skin had she wanted it would have been much worse. She was by no means an aggressive dog just protecting her owner against a stranger.

 

Its not always a dogs fault can often be the one who is bitten too. I don' talk about dogs roaming free but dogs in a fenced of area with signage. Then its the intruders fault (trespassing).

 

This case ladies fault no signage and a fence that does not really keep anyone from sticking their hand in.

[IvorBiggun2]

55 minutes ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

But you could rightfullly  argue  that youmshouldnt  be able to stick  your  hand thru the fence, could  have been a  child, should  have been a gate/wall with no gaps  in.

So now it's the property owners fault because the gaps in the gate were too far apart. Get real. There'd have to be a law passed to cover that. You never know what you should have until <deleted> happens. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Edited August 21, 2021 by IvorBiggun2

[bbabythai]

Brain dead dog owners who Im assuming dont bother to give their dogs any daily exercise. Just locked up in cages. Its not the dogs fault. I would ask for 3 million minimum

[Mr Meeseeks]

These dogs mangled a 79yo man's arm causing it to be amputated. They bit him on both arms.

 

He was a frequent visitor to this house, so he would have been known to the dogs. He has delivered fruit to the house many times before.

 

The dogs are vicious and dangerous, and they should be destroyed. 

 

Warning signs and other platitudes after the fact don't cut it.

[RichardColeman]

Makes you think you know, one of the most dangerous jobs in Thailand must be mobile hot dog and fried kabab vendor that comes up your street 2-3 times a day

Edited August 21, 2021 by RichardColeman

[IvorBiggun2]

3 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

He was a frequent visitor to this house, so he would have been known to the dogs. He has delivered fruit to the house many times before.

So that should make it okay for him to stick his arm through the gate? In his situation I assume you'd have done exactly the same as he did?

[Mr Meeseeks]

1 minute ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

So that should make it okay for him to stick his arm through the gate? In his situation I assume you'd have done exactly the same as he did?

From watching the video, I am going to assume he was attempting to tie a bag of fruit on the gate. and did not expect to get bitten as he had done this before and was known to the dogs.

 

Savaging an elderly man's arms is a good enough reason to have the dogs destroyed, certainly in any civilised society where human life is sacrosanct and held above that of mere animals.

 

 

[IvorBiggun2]

6 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

From watching the video, I am going to assume he was attempting to tie a bag of fruit on the gate. and did not expect to get bitten as he had done this before and was known to the dogs.

 

You are 'assuming'. So on that alone makes you right? You do not know he had tied fruit to the gate on other occasions. You assumed that. Yes he had taken veg etc to the property before but may well have been when the dogs were in their secure shelter as in the photo.

[pacovl46]

19 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Yes, delivering lemons to the neighbours is clearly punishable by loss of an arm. 

 

The dogs should be destroyed. 

 

Irrelevant what type of dog it is, if it has proven it will attack a person it should be put down. 

 

Yes, there are mitigating circumstances, i.e. someone attacking its owner etc, but this was a guy dropping lemons inside the fence... What if it was a kid who’s mum had send them round to deliver a parcel dropped off with the neighbour... etc etc etc...

 

It is tragic that dogs should pay the price for poor owners with their life, but humans must come first in such circumstances. 

 

Here we go again….kill, destroy, exterminate!!! 
 

Why must humans come first? Are we something special? Every living being has the same right to be on this planet and live its life as much any other living being! 

Edited August 21, 2021 by pacovl46

[richard_smith237]

18 hours ago, robblok said:

18 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I disagree Rob....  A sign doesn’t absolve the owners of any responsibility or fault for being extremely poor owners. 

 

Strawman argument warning: If I had bear traps in my front yard and put a sign up, that wouldn’t absolve me of responsibility should someone get hurt.  I know, a silly and extreme example, but dangerous dogs that will attack people ‘should’ not be there, their owners failed to train them. 

 

Any warning sign of dangerous dogs is just owners admitting they have failed to train their dog properly, those owners should never have had dogs in the first place. 

 

 

 

 

Expand  

I disagree if its a fenced off area and you climb to get in with signs showing dangerous dogs then your at fault. I am talking about a fenced of area with signs saying beware dangerous dogs. Then for sure the person climbing over and getting attacked is at fault.

 

Is a zoo liable if you climb into the polar bear pen ?

That is a ’strawman argument’ - someones house is not a zoo.

 

But, yes, in a country which exercises greater accountability and responsibility, a Zoo might be held accountable if someone ‘could’ easily get inside the fenced, gated, moated off area.

 

Using your argument Rob, IF a house had a Polar bear and it attacked / mauled / killed a delivery man, with the owner be absolved because he had a sign ?

 

 

Bringing in Private Property adds an element of ‘grey area’ when it comes to pets and guard dogs etc. 

 

There is also a responsibility by the owner to ensure that innocent people cannot get hurt by their pets and guard dogs: 

Thus, IF a burglar climbs over a 6 ft wall and gets bitten, fair enough.

 

But, IF a child slips through the gaps in a fence, or a guy places something through the gaps in a gate the owner has not take adequate care to ensure that innocent members of the public are protected. 

 

Then of course there is the additional facet that dogs which attack can also escape and attack, as we have seen numerous times. 

 

Ultimately, a sign does not absolve the owner when an innocent visitor, delivery man etc gets mauled - the failure lies solely with the owner. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IvorBiggun2]

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Ultimately, a sign does not absolve the owner when an innocent visitor, delivery man etc gets mauled - the failure lies solely with the owner. 

If it the sign says 'Danger, dangerous animals inside' and the delivery man proceeds to go into the property then I'd say it was his own fault. He was warned. You can't deny that. 

[Thingamabob]

19 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Yes, delivering lemons to the neighbours is clearly punishable by loss of an arm. 

 

The dogs should be destroyed. 

 

Irrelevant what type of dog it is, if it has proven it will attack a person it should be put down. 

 

Yes, there are mitigating circumstances, i.e. someone attacking its owner etc, but this was a guy dropping lemons inside the fence... What if it was a kid who’s mum had send them round to deliver a parcel dropped off with the neighbour... etc etc etc...

 

It is tragic that dogs should pay the price for poor owners with their life, but humans must come first in such circumstances. 

 

Humans must come first ? Amazing arrogance. 

[richard_smith237]

32 minutes ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

47 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Ultimately, a sign does not absolve the owner when an innocent visitor, delivery man etc gets mauled - the failure lies solely with the owner. 

If it the sign says 'Danger, dangerous animals inside' and the delivery man proceeds to go into the property then I'd say it was his own fault. He was warned. You can't deny that. 

 

I can and I am.... A sign which says danger does not absolve the owners of a dog of blame when that dog attacks an innocent person. 

 

There are many reasons a person may need to enter the house, delivery workers, emergency workers responding to a call etc.

 

There are also many reason person may not even see the sign.. i.e. the sign is poorly placed, the sign is in a language the visitor is not familiar with, the person cannot read, the person visiting is a child running an errand, fetching a ball etc etc etc.... 

 

There are a lot of reasons that simply ‘placing a sign’ does not make it ok to have dogs which will attack people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

23 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Humans must come first ? Amazing arrogance. 

Interesting that you place a dog (and animal) over those of your loved ones. 

 

 

 

I am wholly against animal cruelty, but I am more for protection of innocent people from getting hurt - if you can’t see the logic there and instead choose to call it ‘arrogance’ then I understand why you may consider dogs more important than yourself. 

 

 

[clivebaxter]

2 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

These dogs mangled a 79yo man's arm causing it to be amputated. They bit him on both arms.

 

He was a frequent visitor to this house, so he would have been known to the dogs. He has delivered fruit to the house many times before.

 

The dogs are vicious and dangerous, and they should be destroyed. 

 

Warning signs and other platitudes after the fact don't cut it.

Most dogs are vicious and dangerous given half a chance, sneeky deceptive animals. They should be, but wont be put down and highly likely to attack again, ripping kids to bits is their favorite target. Some dogs are worse than others of course, top of the list are Pit Bulls, bred for violence along with Rottweilers. 

[clivebaxter]

33 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Humans must come first ? Amazing arrogance. 

Says a poster who almost certainly eats animals and fish on a regular basis ????

[steven100]

2 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

He has delivered fruit to the house many times before.

the next delivery should be sausages with grenades' in each one. 

[richard_smith237]

58 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Here we go again….kill, destroy, exterminate!!! 
 

Why must humans come first? Are we something special? Every living being has the same right to be on this planet and live its life as much any other living being! 

 

I agree with you up to a point, but we don’t live in a world where there is a perfectly placed line between right and wrong. Unfortunately, some humans create a mess. In this case the humans (owners) have created this mess. 

 

We have owners who have not adequately trained their animals and have not adequately secured their property so that someone cannot get hurt. For the benefit of the animals and everyone else these owners should never be allowed to own dogs. 

 

IF and owner cannot train their dog properly, why should the be allowed to have them? 

 

We now have a situation where there are animals which are known not just to bite, but to attack with sufficient severity that a person who was simply ‘delivering an item(s)’ lost a limb.  

 

Is this not enough of a warning ?....  Next time it could be a child retrieving a ball, next time the gate may not be fully closed and the dog(s) escaped, run out in to the street and mail a child playing - then we face the moronic arguments (that we saw in another thread) where posters argue that a child should not be in the street.

[in the example above, a dog ran out and mauled a child playing less than a couple of meters away from her parent]

 

So, why I agree, in a perfect world the dog should not be punished for doing what comes naturally to an animal (protecting its territory), it should either be ’trained’ or removed so that it cannot attack again. 

 

The owners are most definitely responsible for this man being attacked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RJRS1301]

20 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

What a shame not one mention of it being a Pit Bull for the Pit Bull haters. 

Sure they were not very high jumping Jack Russels?
 

[Captain Monday]

 

Old man Kaeng put his arm into a gate that's why he was savaged

He'll have to take some jabs you know in case the dogs are rabbed

Not to worry, never again, their masters duly noted

 

"Beware of dogs" reads the sign that now shall soon be posted

 

 

 

[KannikaP]

2 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Here we go again….kill, destroy, exterminate!!! 
 

Why must humans come first? Are we something special? Every living being has the same right to be on this planet and live its life as much any other living being! 

Are you a veggie?

[Rampant Rabbit]

4 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

So now it's the property owners fault because the gaps in the gate were too far apart. Get real.

Yep quite  real there,  should be no way to get your  hand or  anything inside, if  it was  your  kid who stuck his  hand in youd  be squealing like a pig  about  it.

[IvorBiggun2]

1 hour ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

should be no way to get your  hand or  anything inside, if  it was  your  kid who stuck his  hand in youd  be squealing like a pig  about  it.

So in your opinion what width should those gaps be bearing in mind that you're talking about a child's hand or fingers.  

Edited August 21, 2021 by IvorBiggun2

[richard_smith237]

20 minutes ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

So in your opinion what width should those gaps be bearing in mind that you're talking about a child's hand or fingers.  

You’ve answered your own question... small enough that a child's hand or fingers can’t get through. 

 

Ultimately, if people want to have dogs in their yard as either pets or security, or both - there really need to be a few precautions to prevent innocent people (and children from getting hurt). 

 

 

 

 

[IvorBiggun2]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’ve answered your own question...

Do not feed the troll.

[JonnyF]

On 8/20/2021 at 7:10 PM, IvorBiggun2 said:

What a shame not one mention of it being a Pit Bull for the Pit Bull haters. 

Yep, this could have been a 10 pager if it was a bulldog mixed with a street dog/ridgeback that some ignorant sensationalist reporter thought resembled a PitBull. 

 

The chicken littles will have to keep their powder dry for now. Maybe next time guys. ????

[HeijoshinCool]

Update:

 

The owners have placed a sign on the gate:

 

Warning: Our dogs hate lemons!

[JensenZ]

 

 

On 8/20/2021 at 8:04 PM, robblok said:

If there would have been a sign it would have been the mistake of the guy now its the mistake of the ladies. Certainly not of the dogs they just did what they are trained to do.

 

Probably not a popular post with the dog haters here. But anyone who gets on a dogs territory by going over a fence is at fault. If it is of course properly visible with signs that the dogs are dangerous.

Certain breeds shouldn't be kept at all, anywhere. Not long ago a dog killed it's owner (did you forget?). Dangerous dogs inside gates can get out. They are deadly weapons.

[JensenZ]

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I agree with you up to a point, but we don’t live in a world where there is a perfectly placed line between right and wrong. Unfortunately, some humans create a mess. In this case the humans (owners) have created this mess. 

 

We have owners who have not adequately trained their animals and have not adequately secured their property so that someone cannot get hurt. For the benefit of the animals and everyone else these owners should never be allowed to own dogs. 

 

IF and owner cannot train their dog properly, why should the be allowed to have them? 

 

We now have a situation where there are animals which are known not just to bite, but to attack with sufficient severity that a person who was simply ‘delivering an item(s)’ lost a limb.  

 

Is this not enough of a warning ?....  Next time it could be a child retrieving a ball, next time the gate may not be fully closed and the dog(s) escaped, run out in to the street and mail a child playing - then we face the moronic arguments (that we saw in another thread) where posters argue that a child should not be in the street.

[in the example above, a dog ran out and mauled a child playing less than a couple of meters away from her parent]

 

So, why I agree, in a perfect world the dog should not be punished for doing what comes naturally to an animal (protecting its territory), it should either be ’trained’ or removed so that it cannot attack again. 

 

The owners are most definitely responsible for this man being attacked.

 

Very well put. I'd add one thing to that, certain breeds should be outlawed and never be allowed to live in a community of humans. They can be dangerous inside and outside of gates.

[The Old Bull]

On 8/20/2021 at 5:35 AM, steven100 said:

the dogs would get a yummy marinated steak after that if i was the neighbor who was bitten

or broken bottle hamburger