How? I was just trying to be funny at the end (I laugh at my own jokes.) I was just pointing out that as a dog owner one should expect to have expenses concerning the dog. And if one time there is an outside party involved, my opinion is that they shouldn't try and put it on someone who is innocent, it's just moralistically wrong in my mind, that's all I meant to say. I can't believe I'm even defending myself against you.
Since when do dogs open car doors she left the window down, common sense will tell you the dog can jump out, especially a bigger dog.
How is she innocent? She knew the dog was agressive and took him back to a dog shelter unrestrained...with the windows down, by herself. That's like saying a driver is completely innocent if they decide to drive their defective toyota after the defect has been confirmed to them.... The only other option is to also sue the shelter if they were negligent as well when they let the lady take the dog. Make each pay half or a certain percentage, but in no way should the OP cut anyone a break and have to pay bills when he did nothing wrong, he's the one who is truly innocent.
TomTom says every time you turn it on that the directions change and that you are responsible for driving properly, and that you should plug your TomTom into the computer to get updates. If the GPS tells me to turn right and there's a train coming, I'm not going to drive onto the train tracks. I expect to pay out of pocket expenses for my vets' bills for neutering/spaying. Heart worm. Flea medication. Yearly shots and vaccinations. My cat, most recently, was an inside/outside cat. He came and went as he pleased. He was attacked by another cat and it became infected. He got necrosis that began eating away his skin. He had to be put under to undergo surgery to remove the bacteria and the skin, which left him with medications and spray and hospitalization bills. As the cat was outside on his own we footed that bill because that was our decision. But if I take my dog to a public place (where animals frequent often) and it's attacked by a dog owned by another person, I'd be demanding they pay for his bills. Or you're right, you can just do what my mother's neighbor did. Her landlord owned a bunch of lots out in the middle of nowhere, save one lot in the middle of his. He let his large aggressive dog(Sport) roam the entire property, even the lots of his rentors. My mother had to foot the bill for the fence to keep Sport out. He was even aggressive towards people. The one neighbor who owned his own land had his own fence. Sport was able to pull the dog through the fence and it died at the vets the next day. Since the landlord felt as you did he didn't offer or pay for anything. In retribution, the neighbor took a shotgun to Sport. I don't think that's fair to anyone, because they still had to foot the bills for their dog before he died.The lady knew the dog was aggressive. She should have kept her windows rolled up or something.
This is exactly why, what should the lady have done then? Simply keep her windows up? Sounds like such a simple thing doesn't it? This quote shows that you people don't even know what other things she should have done to prevent this, she's just as clueless as we are, that's all I'm trying to point out. Then why does such a simple thing such as keeping them down make it completely her fault, and make it reasonable give no compassion towards her whatsoever?
1) She could have cracked the windows 2) She could have leashed the dog and walked with him 3) She could have leashed the dog to the inside of the truck (close) and left the windows down (and by close, I mean close so that it didn't jump out the window and hang itself) 4) She could have kept the windows up and kept her car running (I doubt anyone would steal that sucker with a Rott in the backseat) 5) She could have brought someone with her to handle the dog when she went inside There are plenty of things she could have done to better handle the situation. But you said it yourself, Expect responsibilities when you own a pet. That was her pet and she's responsible. London was being responsible by having his dogs on leashes and obeying the law (If they've a leash law). I may feel sorry for the lady but that doesn't keep me from wanting her to pay for the bills.
So you're saying because her mistake was so stupid and easily preventable that it's not her fault? This is the most ass backward logic I've ever seen.
That wasn't how I wanted one to take it. If you look at it that way, then maybe you'll get my point. She made one small, stupid mistake, and a little dog got hurt by a big dog. So that gives us the right to demand her to pay for it? This isn't a car accident, we're dealing with animals. Where is the HUMAN compassion here? It's just sickening how easy people will try and negatively affect another so quickly, once a cute cuddly animal is involved.
woman gets a rottweiler and returns it because it's aggressive.....if that doesnt scream "she has no idea what she's doing", then i dont know what does....maybe her problem was plain stupidity or being naive, either way her actions caused this issue. Its like if a short woman takes out a huge SUV at carmax and then backs into a kid because she's unable to see high enough and the SUV is too wide. Would you say she's completely innocent because she didnt own it yet, had a 7 day "bring it back" warranty, and it wasnt her fault the SUV doesnt accomodate extremely petite women??? It's her fault for getting a car that's over her head and then not being careful with it once it was in her posession.
Seriously, how old are you? The way you don't understand responsibility makes me think you're still in high school or something. Just because a situation is unfortunate doesn't mean someone isn't at fault. The point is she made a mistake (even if tiny) while the OP made NO mistake. This is the last time I'm bothering with this. I'm starting to believe you're just trolling at this point.
I never said she wasn't a fault homie. I was saying it shouldn't be completely her fault, yes she was mistaken in leaving the window down. But it still doesn't make sense to make it completely her fault, that an animal attacked another, nature is also at fault. With that taken into consideration, I find it shocking that people would compassion away so quickly. Why would you even try to claim it's some backwards ass logic? I wasn't trying to attempt to be logical I was trying to express a view, in a situation like this there is no logic to be discussed. A dog attacked another, which was London's and he asked for opinions on what he should do on a public forum. Obviously he was reaching for some sort of incentive to sue her cause that's what he wants to do obviously, but also he needed incentive because he also knows thinks maybe the lady shouldn't have to pay because it wasn't completely her fault.
mistake #1: getting too big of a dog mistake #2: getting an aggressive breed mistake #3: no restraint on dog thats at least 3 mistakes there, and all 3 are anything but "small". It can be the difference between the life and death of a HUMAN, not just another dog.....thats your human compassion right there. What if the dog would have jumped out and attacked the OP directly? What if the lady stopped to put gas and the dog jumped out and attacked a child? Very irresponsible on her part...
If my three year old, while in a public place where other children frequent, walks up to a baby (say one who just started crawling or something) and my child swings his arm and bashes the infant in the face with a toy and that infant was hurt enough to where he'd have to go to the hospital. I would pay for bills. My child is my responsibility. If I don't keep him under control or to behave correctly, that's my fault. Not his, for he's only three and doesn't fully understand. So you're right about the Rott not understanding being in trouble or at fault. But the lady was responsible, no matter who got hurt. Or should I just smile at the parent as blood pours out of the infants face, shrug my shoulders and say, "Eh, kids will be kids?"
Now you're starting to troll lol. All I'm asking for is human compassion, where is it at? Why can't we let a lady slide? She was looking for a dog, she was doing something great in adopting one for the shelter, but she realized she couldn't handle an aggressive dog, so she was doing something responsible and taking it back, then a chance accident happens, when she makes a small mistake. And now she has even more on her hands than disappointment in her having to return the dog because of her inability. Sure we feel really bad for a little cute dog being attacked, but y'all don't have any compassion for the other human being?
The OP was also there being compassionate, adopting another animal. So we should feel compassion for the lady who made the mistake and not for OP? He's the one whose dog could have ended up dead and now has to go into surgery? Where's his compassion? Yeah. It sucks for the lady, but like I said...she was responsible for the dog.
This is what is really bothering me. You CANNOT compare humans and animals period. I'm sorry once I read "kid" I knew that analogy was going down the ****ter. But other than the difference in species, she didn't even own the dog for 3 years to have it trained. And one day is obviously not enough to make a rott un-aggressive. It might be her fault if it was actually her dog for three years, then she should be experienced in how to handle an aggressive dog, but she wasn't. Of course if you had a 3 year old, and it attacked another it would be the consensus that your 3 years of bad parenting contributed a lot to to this, but to compare to a woman who adopted a dog for a night? C'mon...
My point was not what my kid did, but my response to it. It was her dog, even for a night. I'm not faulting the dog. He is that way because of his nature and/or environment prior to hers. I am faulting the owner for not being responsible with the dog. That's what it amounts to...Does it suck? Yeah, but that's what you have to deal with when you make a mistake.
