"Congo's Law"

Sponsored by: Assemblyman NEIL M. COHEN District 20 (Union) Assemblyman PATRICK J. DIEGNAN, JR. District 18 (Middlesex)

SYNOPSIS Revises vicious and potentially dangerous dog law; designated Congo’s Law.

CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT As reported by the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on December 6, 2007, with amendments.

AN ACT concerning vicious and potentially dangerous dogs and designated as Congo’s Law, and amending 1and supplementing1 P.L.1989, c.307.

Quite an interesting blog.

ANY dog is “potentially” vicious - under the right circumstances. Most men are “potentially” killer under the right circumstances.

In this particular situation, the gardeners - the guy who was bitten was an illegal invader - were specifically told NOT to come on the property as the dogs were being fed and one of them did and did assaulter said dog with a rake when it barked at him and did grab the dog’s owner when she came to its defense and did grab her and attempt to use her as a shield which the dog, not unreasonably interpreted as an attack and reacted appropriately.

Congo is, at least based on this incident, not a vicious dog. He was doing what any German Shepherd would have done under the circumstances. They are by nature protective and territorial. That doesn’t make them necessarily a danger to the community.

New Jersey is a weird state and the impact of this case extends beyond Congo and his fate. In New Jersey, the use of deadly force is not permitted to protect one’s property or even one’s person as long as an individual is provided with an avenue to escape from a threatening intruder. New Jerseyites have no right to self defense except in the most extreme circumstances.

I see this as related to the warped, perverted, unnatural and depraved state of the legislation enacted by that socialistic left-wing, liberal bastion of krytocracy and supernumerary attorneys.

I appreciate your augmentation to the story. At least the story as covered on the Blog post. My tale was based on one newspaper report and the details of the gardeners’ relationship with the dogs was not at all clear.

I did question this NJ law about labelling dogs as “potentially vicious”. Weird law, that, huh? I find that law so vague and intrusive as to be unconstitutional.

i couldn’t agree more about the theft of New Jerseyans right to protect themselves. Sheesh, you have to determine if you have a method of “escape” before defending yourself?

New Jersey politicians must not have anything better to do than to sit around creating new and unique laws to better get in your face.

“New Jersey politicians must not have anything better to do than to sit around creating new and unique laws to better get in your face.”

Most New Jersey Legislators are attorneys or connected to them.

That is sort of like being a doctor and being able to invent diseases.

The legislators make as many, as complicated, and as convoluted laws as possible, generating enough business to keep them all well fed (New Jersey has more attorneys per capita than any other state in the Union. The U.S. has more attorneys per capita than any other country on earth. Therefore there are more attorneys in New Jersey than anywhere else in the world.

Sort of explains a lot.

In response to the insane, inane introduction of “Congo’s Law” - a law that will send a vicious dog and many more like it back into the community - courageous NJ legislators will soon introduce a tougher version of “Lillian’s Law” (Texas H.B. 1355) in NJ. Lillian’s Law will provide a much needed balance to “Congo’s Law”.

According to NJ Asm. Cohen, the sponsor of “Congo’s Law”, the problem of dogs viciously attacking people and children is with the OWNER of the dog.

Therefore, it only makes sense to hold the owners of vicious dogs accountable for the actions of their dog - especially when the dog guesses wrong in determining friend or foe!

NJ is considering expanding “Lillian’s Law” law to include ANY owner of a dog that attacks - not only the owners of already known dangerous dogs. This is a much needed improvement to the existing “Lillian’s Law”

Texas H.B. 1355 would charge a dog owner with a THIRD-DEGREE FELONY if the dog causes serious bodily injury to a victim in an unprovoked attack. A third-degree felony is punishable by two to 10 YEARS IN PRISON and a possible $10,000 fine.

The crime would be a SECOND-DEGREE FELONY, punishable by up to 20 YEARS IN PRISON, if a victim dies a result of an unprovoked attack.

In Texas, in 2002, a total of 546 severe animal attacks or bites were voluntarily reported to the Zoonosis Control Division of the Texas Department of Health. The majority of cases, 485 cases, involved domestic dogs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.