[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.