Three American Bully dogs maul 70-year-old man to death

[spidermike007]

3 hours ago, LukKrueng said:

The American Bully is a modern breed of dog that was developed as a companion dog, and originally standardized and recognized as a breed in 2004 by the American Bully Kennel Club (ABKC). Their published breed standard describes the dog as giving the "impression of great strength for its size". ...

The fact that they are a recognized dog by this association means absolutely nothing. It means about as much as saying that suicide bombers are recognized by Al Qaeda as being heroes. 

[NoshowJones]

On 7/27/2024 at 1:08 PM, harryviking said:

That is true most of the time, but is no excuse for not putting the dogs down to avoid another incident. I guess banning the owner from ever keeping a dog again is not easy in a "wildlings" country like Thailand, but it works in other countries.

Thai vets in most cases will not put down animals religious reasons, or so they say, but I say in some cases if an animal is sick and dying the Vet gets paid for treating and supplying medicine so he/she gets paid so therefore will not put the animal down.

[NoshowJones]

On 7/27/2024 at 2:19 PM, Stevemercer said:

Other stories said the lady owner went out, but forgot to lock the driveway gate. The gate is one of those light swinging types and easy to knock open if not locked. The old guy rode by on his bicycle as he often does. The dogs would rush out to bark at any passing bicycle, but the gate is normally locked. This time when the dogs rushed the gate it bumped open and the old man was defenceless.

 

An accident waiting to happen, in my view.

The dogs should be put down end of story. Whether the gate opened accidently or not the old guy was only riding his bicycle, not bothering the dogs.

[BangkokReady]

On 7/27/2024 at 10:23 AM, webfact said:

They met with the dog owners, a local teacher named Mr. Sakon, 49, and his wife, Mrs. Saowanee, 46. Officials stressed the importance of managing aggressive pets and implementing precautionary measures such as visible warning signs and secure enclosures around the property.

 

It's amazing the way Thai people deal with extremely dangerous and even deadly situations.  You would think something very minor happened.

 

Destroy the dogs.  That's it.

[NoshowJones]

On 7/27/2024 at 2:36 PM, Matrosen said:

Well he opened the gate & walked into private property. What charges is there to press?

"Well he opened the gate & walked into private property."

Did I read something wrong here? I thought he was riding past on his bicycle.

[NoshowJones]

On 7/27/2024 at 3:30 PM, proton said:

Any dog they shorten the name of seems to be dangerous, Rottie, Staffie, Pittie etc. Rotties are high up on the list of dogs attacking people. 

Lab's?

 

[Elkski]

Got to be the worst way to die. 3 strong dogs chewing and ripping your life away!    A fear of mine.  I would prefer a World without these breeds and  a dog that shows aggressive behavior one time, should be out down.    So nice of them to pay for the funeral.  Did they promise a months party and food?

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Well the reality is that if the law is not going to take the immediate and necessary execution of these malicious animals into its own hands, then the neighbors certainly have a right to do so. These nasty dogs have revoked their right to live by committing such a heinous act. 

First let me say that, what is advocated  by some is highly illegal in Thailand and I was under the impression that suggestions for illegal activity is against the rules of this forum. 

The law is the second  step, The first step is to talk to the village headman, he would have a visit with the dog owner . We had an issue with a neighbor that hot a couple of roosters , that were crowing all day. And the roosters were gone, I did not ho and poison the roosters. 

But if the head man fails to persuade . the call the cops. If none of these actions are affective, then one might have to take matters in their hands, 

If the dogs are aggressive against people , calling the police might have to be the first step. One can't wait until some kid is killed. 

   But be careful taking the advice of some forum two bit Rambo.  and "taking matters in your own hands" , as I said it's illegal and one might find themselves back in farangland or worst. 

 

[JensenZ]

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

It's amazing the way Thai people deal with extremely dangerous and even deadly situations.  You would think something very minor happened.

 

Destroy the dogs.  That's it.

Vets normally use Nembutal to put dogs down. It's painless and puts them to sleep. This is the gold standard drug for euthanasia of humans. Put those dogs to sleep so the rest of the neighbourhood can sleep.

Edited July 28 by JensenZ

[Captain Monday]

If people insist on keeping their wonderful loving pitties and apparently nothing can be done to stop it

these owners of canine time bombs should be held responsible under law as if they committed  the crime themselves

 

 

 

[sungod]

On 7/27/2024 at 3:30 PM, proton said:

Any dog they shorten the name of seems to be dangerous, Rottie, Staffie, Pittie etc. Rotties are high up on the list of dogs attacking people. 

Are Staffordshire Bull Terriers aggressive?

Staffordshire Bull Terries have often had an unjust reputation for being aggressive, but this simply isn't true. According to a 2020 study by the Royal Veterinary Collage, researchers reported no significant difference in the risk of aggression between Staffies and non-staffy breeds.

 

https://www.countryliving.com/uk/wildlife/dog-breeds/a42433904/staffordshire-bull-terriers/

[MalcolmB]

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

It's amazing the way Thai people deal with extremely dangerous and even deadly situations.  You would think something very minor happened.

 

Destroy the dogs.  That's it.

Yeah, tough no nonsense people who don’t make a fuss these Thais.

 

Their country, their laws, if you don’t like it there are flights out every few minutes.

 

a lot of media hype about these dogs. I have never known anybody to be killed or even attacked by one personally. But I have known plenty of people who have them.

 

Two day ago an American stabbed an Aussie. Do we ban Americans because they are dangerous?
Humans kill more humans than dogs do.

[Captain Monday]

12 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

Yeah, tough no nonsense people who don’t make a fuss these Thais.

 

Their country, their laws, if you don’t like it there are flights out every few minutes.

 

a lot of media hype about these dogs. I have never known anybody to be killed or even attacked by one personally. But I have known plenty of people who have them.

 

Two day ago an American stabbed an Aussie. Do we ban Americans because they are dangerous?
Humans kill more humans than dogs do.

Great. I gave up arguing with dangerous breed  apologists. The owners knew the risk. Only they  could have prevented their dangerous livestock getting out of their property.

In my opinion the mans death was their choice as clearly as if they picked up a machete and did I themselves, but they are definitely responsible. Certainly no fault of the dogs.

 

 

 

 

(Example 1: ‘GBH murder’ Under English criminal law, a person can be convicted of murder when she: (i) caused the death of another person and (ii) intended to cause that person really serious bodily harm – also known as grievous bodily harm, or GBH. Murder is a common law crime, meaning it is defined by the courts, and not found in a statute passed by Parliament. The above definition of murder was confirmed in a case called Cunningham in 1981. The decision in Cunningham about what the law of murder is raises important questions about what the law of murder should be. Should people be held liable for murder only where they intended (or at least foresaw) that they might cause the death of another person? Or should some unintended and unforeseen killings be included within the definition of murder? On the one hand, it can be argued that people should only be blamed for things they have chosen to bring about, or at least chosen to risk bringing about. This conception of blame relies on an argument about individual autonomy and control: if a choice is made, control is exercised, and individual autonomy is on display. Without choice, there is no such control and individual autonomy is not displayed. This choice-based account might limit murder to cases where the defendant intended to bring about death, or at least foresaw the risk of killing another person. This is because it cannot be said that there is a choice to bring about death, or risk causing death, where there is ignorance of the possibility that someone might die. In cases where the defendant intended only to cause GBH, and did not intend to kill, or foresee the risk of causing death, liability for a lesser crime than murder (for instance, manslaughter) might more accurately reflect the defendant’s responsibility and culpability, whilst respecting the defendant’s choices and individual autonomy. On the other hand, it can be argued that it is not simply ‘bad luck’ when the victim of an attack intended to cause GBH dies. Rather, it is a foreseeable result of such serious attacks (and part of the reason why such attacks are criminalised and punished severely, even where death does not result). As such, the defendant made her own (bad) luck in choosing (autonomously) to intentionally cause the victim GBH, and should be liable for murder where death results, even if she claims credibly that there was no intention to kill, or even foresight of the risk of death. Which argument do you find more compelling, and why? Are there any other arguments for or against ‘GBH murder’?)

 

[JensenZ]

43 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

 Two day ago an American stabbed an Aussie. Do we ban Americans because they are dangerous?
Humans kill more humans than dogs do.

That's a poor analogy.

 

If there were as many dangerous dogs running around as there are Americans, I'd bet the dogs would be killing a lot more. 

 

A better analogy would be to liken a dangerous dog breed to a loaded gun.

 

It's irrelevant that you haven't personally witnessed any dog maulings or deaths. How does that prove anything? You haven't seen so it doesn't happen? 

 

Deaths and maulings by these dog breeds happen a lot globally. Do a Google search. 

[atpeace]

I'm an owner of a mean dog but he isn't large enough to cause much damage to an adult.  He is adorable when he is not being an idiot and would have hard time putting him down.  I do keep a close eye on him when very young children are around which is extremely rare. 

 

These people knew what type of dog they brought into their home.  Something isn't right with these types of people.  Maybe they are just ignorant but regardless not a type a person I would hang around. That cage in the picture is sad.  What type of person thinks it is humane to keep big animals in that tiny depressing cage.  If it has to be cages like that then definitely don't own such a creature.

Edited July 28 by atpeace

[MalcolmB]

11 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

Deaths and maulings by these dog breeds happen a lot globally. Do a Google search. 

I just searched and the results gave in that I am more likely to be killed by an American person than an American Bully.

 

 

[Captain Monday]

13 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

I just searched and the results gave in that I am more likely to be killed by an American person than an American Bully.

 

 

And if that happens the American person is held responsible under law. long jail, even execution in some countries. If an American Bully does same the dog might get put down, when it is just being itself by following it’s instinct or training and the human owner suffers no consequences other than maybe paying money.

That makes sense to you? 

 

Edited July 28 by Captain Monday

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

That's a poor analogy.

 

Of course.  MalcolmB is a troll.  He only says things that he thinks will aggravate people.

Edited July 28 by BangkokReady

[MalcolmB]

40 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

And if that happens the American person is held responsible under law

How is that going to help me?

I will dead.

[MalcolmB]

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Of course.  MalcolmB is a troll.  He only says things that he thinks will aggravate people.

Still hurting over being proved wrong are we?

[Roo Island]

On 7/27/2024 at 6:32 AM, ryandb said:

Not a Rottie which are very sweet natured by the way, I grew up with them never had one incident with the 10 my mother has had over the multiple decades

 

It's a fairly modern breed, there were 19 deaths in the UK between 2021 and 2023 10 were caused by the breed.... They are on the dangerous dogs list in the UK

 

The huge issue with these type of dogs is the people who are attracted to owning them, the typical "pitbull" or rottie owner is an aggressive male who wants to act as a tough guy and will not be responsible enough to handle them and usually teaches them to be more violent than they'd naturally be

Rotties are just as dangerous.

 

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2019.php

[Roo Island]

1 hour ago, MalcolmB said:

I just searched and the results gave in that I am more likely to be killed by an American person than an American Bully.

 

 

Ridiculous comparison

[JensenZ]

1 hour ago, MalcolmB said:

I just searched and the results gave in that I am more likely to be killed by an American person than an American Bully.

 

 

You are slow on the uptake. If 330 million dangerous dogs were getting around, you wouldn't last long at all - you'd be dog food before the end of the day.

Edited July 28 by JensenZ

[MalcolmB]

5 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

You are slow on the uptake. If 330 million dangerous dogs were getting around, you wouldn't last long at all - you'd be dog food before the end of the day.

No, there are approximately 100 million dangerous breed dogs in the world but I am 13 times more likely to be killed by an American person. 
 

Sorry I didn’t explain it simply enough for you the first time.

[GoodieAfterDark]

On 7/26/2024 at 9:12 PM, MalcolmB said:

Take a video and post it here

No need to show his face. You can blur your face, little red dots will do it.

[Luuk Chaai]

On 7/27/2024 at 12:24 PM, Will B Good said:

Not only that, they tend (due to their cretinous owners),to  lead lives of hell....caged, rarely if ever walked, constantly struggling in this climate to remain cool....no wonder they attack people.

hypothetical ....     the dogs.. obviously a breed of significant size and strength ..  coupled with a lack of proper training and neglect

 ( a time bomb waiting to go off )     were probably scheduled for obedience and training classes.  but the owners had brake failure,, and could not take them

[digger70]

23 hours ago, JensenZ said:

We're not discussing small dogs which can bite, but certain breeds that are known killers. We are also not talking about people being nipped by angry Chihuahuas, but dogs that bite to kill.

All that  I am saying is that the size of the dog does't matter .

All dogs can be Vicious at a certain time in their life.

I Agree that Some can Kill Some Can't kill a person. 

[JensenZ]

1 hour ago, digger70 said:

All that  I am saying is that the size of the dog does't matter .

All dogs can be Vicious at a certain time in their life.

I Agree that Some can Kill Some Can't kill a person. 

Some of those dangerous breeds are small in stature. I'm not talking about size, but breed. Cats are small, but they can be ferocious.

 

I get a laugh at seeing some cats at the vet. For amusement only...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAunIuGLdUk

 

 

[Anonymous2]

Thai people are really easygoing. I do not think that we should blame the dogs. Dogs are just pet, but it doesn’t mean all pet would be friendly. The thing that owner should do is to teach since the first day that the owner brings it into the house. If the owner could not handle the dogs, may just let it be in some dog camp. 

[huangnon]

On 7/27/2024 at 12:32 PM, ryandb said:

 

The huge issue with these type of dogs is the people who are attracted to owning them, the typical "pitbull" or rottie owner is an aggressive male who wants to act as a tough guy and will not be responsible enough to handle them and usually teaches them to be more violent than they'd naturally be

 

They are white trash fighting dogs. Pitbulls. The "pit" part is a hole in the ground where the dogs fight to the death against each other, cheered on by neanderthals for bets. They are bred for strength, ferociousness, and huge bite power. Who in their right mind would consider one for a pet..?

 

Pitbull = <deleted>bull.

<deleted> dogs for <deleted> people.

Edited July 29 by huangnon