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.