[lazide]

Welcome to reality. Entirely within their rights to do, regardless of how you feel about it. Once is a history, when it’s bad enough.

If someone was arrested for beating their spouse, you’d have no issues saying they had a ‘history of domestic violence’, no?

And plenty of folks would argue they would be irresponsible and abusive to their kid to not do it.

Maybe there would be better ways to handle it, maybe not. Maybe there were things they could have done to prevent it (probably), maybe not. Not our circus, not our problem.

[pdonis]

> Entirely within their rights to do

Legally, you are correct, they are the owners and the dog is at their mercy. But I feel sorry for the dog who is at the mercy of these people.

> plenty of folks would argue they would be irresponsible and abusive to their kid to not do it

The irresponsibility was theirs, for not handling the situation properly when they brought a kid into their home where the dog had already been for, by my count, three years.

To make the dog pay with his life for their irresponsibility does not strike me as a good choice.

If they can't handle having the dog in the house, and don't have a friend or neighbor who will take him, they can take him to a shelter who will find him another home. He would still be paying for their irresponsibility, but at least he would get a chance to be with better people.

[RhysU]

I would not want to be the owner who had a second kid injured from one specific animal. Fool me once, twice, etc.

Guilt aside, the civil liability from a second potential attack (for any owner) can be family destroying.

[pdonis]

> I would not want to be the owner who had a second kid injured from one specific animal. Fool me once, twice, etc.

If they are really worried about their kid, they can find the dog another home. Either a friend or neighbor, or take him to a shelter. Not kill him.

As for "fool me", they were the ones who fooled the dog, by having him in their home for six years and gaining his trust, and then proposing to kill him over something that was really their fault. Bringing a kid into a home where a dog already lives is, as I have already pointed out elsewhere in this thread, stressful for a dog no matter what breed. It was their responsibility to manage that situation. They failed. And now they want the dog to pay for their mistake.

[RhysU]

> If they are really worried about their kid, they can find the dog another home.

Right! They should transfer the liability to someone else! So that new, possibly unaware owner can get their pants sued off if the dog attacks someone in the future with a demonstrable past of injuring people. Clearly, risking the financial well-being of the new owner and a possible future second child's life is the compassionate, responsible choice. /s

I love dogs. I own one, and I will rub her belly in 15 minutes when I get home. But if she went apeshit on a kid I would thank the stars for the umbrella policy we carry. Then I would euthanize my dog.

[pdonis]

> Right! They should transfer the liability to someone else!

As I've already said in the post you responded to, if they can't find a friend or neighbor who will take the dog (and that might well be the case, I get that), they can take the dog to a shelter, whose job is to find suitable homes for pets. And who would be expected to do a better job of that than these people did. That is what I would do if I owned a dog that I realized I could not keep in my home.

[lazide]

And this is why we can’t have nice things.

That is so grossly irresponsible, I’m glad to hear that you seem to have never had a dog.

No shelter is going to take a dog with a history of attacking people, let alone a kid.

At the point a dog is doing that, regardless of nature vs nurture, or who is ‘at fault’, it’s too late. They are an active hazard to everyone around them.

Does that suck? Yes.

Does pretending it’s not the case make it better? No, it compounds the damage and makes everything worse.