My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Weekly Roundup -- Week Ending 3/11/12 | Main | Hiding behind the word "adoptable" »

March 12, 2012



What a tragedy. I blame the parents.

Dianne R.

This really makes me angry. The parents were aware of the dog and viewed him as dangerous. Yet they allowed a 17 month old child to go unsupervised -- for even a moment. He could have as easily drowned in a bucket.

Someone Youdontneedtoknow

always blame the parnts. had the parents HAD BEEN RIGHT THERE, you dont think that rottweiler wouldve been quicker had it got off its chain? what if it had taken the child from its own yard... you people would be saying "the dog didnt know what it was doing" i blame the OWNER for using a beast as an alarm system...stop victimizing the victims.



There is certainly plenty of blame to go around. As I noted in the article, wandering 17 month olds have no limit to the trouble they can find -- swimming pools, ledges, auto traffic, dogs, creeks. So yes, the parents do deserve some blame for the unattended toddler.

This does not leave the dog owners off the hook -- who also have a responsibility to responsibly care for their animal in a way that the animal doesn't become aggressive through poor socialization, improper training and being inappropriately tethered 24/7 as its sole form of containment.

As is usually the case in these situations, there is plenty of blame to go around.


I'm a bit behind on the blog - even Eric Clapton had a toddler that fell out of a high-rise window when he went through a screen. This is someone that had all the money in the world to pay someone to watch that child 24/7. Having watched my sister's children I can honestly say it's a full time job. My nephew was the worst. If I took my eye off of him for a split-second he could find some tiny piece of a plastic toy in the carpet and stick it in his mouth. How he never choked is beyond me.

I'm not really sure why people think dogs are a good way to protect your stuff. That's a mentality that goes back to the middle ages and Merry Old England (when it was anything but "Merry"). It worked great when you could turn mastiffs lose on your estate or inside a walled compound and they could kill poachers and intruders without fear of reprisal. Today, at least in most of the industrialized world, it's just not a good idea. your insurance company would rather replace all of your stuff than pay for a civil action on a dog attack or fatality.

Last week I saw yet another woman (middle aged) whose son had purchased a Cane Corso puppy for her "for protection". I have three words for these idiotic, well-meaning children: "Home Security System". Far easier than a dog and more reliable.

Arpin Thiel

Oh! This is so bad. I felt sad about this. I felt sorry for the victim. Parents should watch over their child.

Ruck Backus

Yes, it is really a tragedy. For me, I have to blame the mother of the child. It's her responsibilty for the child who is very innocent things may happen aroun him. He should be followed and guided wherever he goes. That's a depressing tragedy.

Henrickson Council

Poor child. Although this is a pure tragedy since both the child and the dog are innocent but still the mother is really the one who blame why this happened. She has the whole responsibility to keep the child safe from any danger.

Sindelar Derrick

My heart bleeds as I read this news. So sorry for the little baby. The parents and the owners of the dogs must be liable for what had happened. It is the parents’ obligation to make sure of the safety of the child. Moreover, the owner of the dog is liable for such incident. Though they are not around, but it is their obligation to keep the dog away from people so that it will not do any harm to any person or property.

The comments to this entry are closed.