Leeds dog attack: Man released on bail(Dogs kill pregnant woman)

Yorkshire Evening Post ^ | 12 December 2013 | Sam Casey

[Colonel Kangaroo]

A man who was arrested under the Dangerous Dogs Act after a pregnant mother was mauled to death in Leeds has been released on bail.

The 33-year-old was arrested yesterday morning after 27-year-old Emma Bennett’s death on Tuesday.

Miss Bennett, a mother of four, suffered fatal injuries in an attack by at least one of a pair of dogs - thought to be American pit bulls - at her home on Dawlish Avenue, East End Park, on Monday afternoon.

A West Yorkshire Police spokesman said: “The man, who was arrested yesterday following the death of 27-year-old Emma Bennett, was released on bail last night pending further enquiries.”

It emerged yesterday that Miss Bennett was expecting her fifth child at the time of the attack.

Her boyfriend posted a message on Facebook saying “RIP Emma and our bump”, adding that she would “always be in my heart and on my mind to the day we meet again”.

In a statement, Miss Bennett’s family spoke of their heartache.

It said: “We are all very deeply upset at Emma’s death, not just because she has been taken from us so suddenly but because of the horrific circumstances and the fact she was on her own at the time she was injured.”

They said Miss Bennett “had some issues” but loved her children. The statement added: “She was a lively person who had a great sense of fun but she was also strong-headed and had her own opinions.

“We are all devastated at Emma’s death but the whole family has pulled together and are really supporting each other. We are grateful to everyone who has sent messages of sympathy and support.”

Officers believe the animals are American pit bulls, which are restricted under the Dangerous Dogs Act. But further tests were being carried out to establish their breed.

Neighbours told the Yorkshire Evening Post there was no indication the dogs could have turned violent.

Chris Roebuck, 42, said he had petted one.

“I still can’t understand why your own dogs would attack you,” he said.

“I stroked one of them and he was more interested in licking my face than anything else.”

He added: “It’s horrible to hear what happened.”

A woman, who did not want to be named, said one of the dogs was “playful”. “It wasn’t the sort of dog that would just attack you,” she said.

[Mastador1]

No, it was shitty owners teach them to do.

The pitbulls I know are dangerous only because of friendly enthusiasm.

God forbid that she was killed by “Staffordshire” Bull Terriers. They had to be “American” Pit Bulls! Brits like Obama are never responsible for their failures.

[Little Ray]

Pit Bulls just don’t have any idea how strong and dense they are - solid blocks of muscle!

[ChildOfThe60s]

Dog responsibility laws should be uniform, not breed specific.

Do you feel it's reasonable that black on white crime is targeted less than white on black crime? Breed specific?

How about SUV owners getting $500 tickets and compact cars $50 tickets for the same offense? The SUV will cause more damage in an accident.

Dog poop laws. Poodles have smaller turds than Huskies. So maybe we should fine violators based on the size of the dog's turd. Or turds under a certain size should be exempt when left in your front yard.

Obviously I could go on and on. Yes, dog owners should most definitely be held responsible for their dog's behavior. ALL dog owners - equally.

[oldenuff2no]

"Dog responsibility laws should be uniform, not breed specific."

Every person should be held responsible for their animals, cat and dog owners in exactly the same way, but, and this is a big but, following your line of thought it should be exactly the same to own a .50 cal browning machine gun as it is to own a .22 revolver. A little ankle biter will not be able to do the same damage as a pit bull. Those who chose to own the animal/weapon with the much greater potential to do damage have to be held to a higher accountability. The alternative to this is to outlaw owning the .50 cal browning or the more dangerous animals.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Those who chose to own the animal/weapon with the much greater potential to do damage have to be held to a higher accountability.

You're not going to sell me on that line of reasoning. That is a very slippery slope that creates massive problems the further down it we go.

A Hummer runs a red light and kills another driver should get twice as much time in jail as a Prius owner that runs a light and kills another driver? The danger here is not the size of the car, it is the person piloting the vehicle. For all practical purposes that principle applies to dogs/owners. Although I admit a large number of FReepers would seriously disagree with me.

We are not allowed to kill people with a gun, regardless of the caliber. I don't know how you change the "accountability" aspect of my .22 rifle versus my 30-30.

Nonetheless, I imagine that more people would agree with you than me. But on this subject I won't change my mind.

[oldenuff2no]

"I don't know how you change the "accountability" aspect of my .22 rifle versus my 30-30."

Because we draw lines about guns with laws in this country and the line in my analogy is between automatic and semiautomatic weapons. This line was drawn according to the direct potential to inflict a lot of damage quickly. The 30-30 has a very limited internal magazine,comparably a very slow rate of fire and does not land on the other side of that line. It is a bad example to support your argument.

A small economy car is more likely to allow injury in a collision than a larger vehicle but most larger vehicles still meet all of the required safety standards and are allowed with the correct state certifications for both vehicle and driver. That does not mean all larger vehicles are legal on our highways. An 18 wheeler running over 80K is not legal without special permit and then is limited as to when, where, and by whom it can be driven. That line has also been established by law and is enforced every day.

It does not matter if you like it or not or agree with it or not these thresholds exist. We make those judgments in our society all the time with thousands of laws. Every day when you drive you must be covered by an insurance. Your policy charges/rates will vary according to age, type of vehicle you drive, and how moving citations you have received. All around you government, private companies and individuals make these judgments and define the lines of what risk we can accept and what risk we will not accept every day.

We decide what these risks are from collected data. The numbers in this discussion are from the CDC. The numerical facts on dog attacks and K-9 homicides by breed exist and are not going to go away. From this data risk will be assessed, policies and fees established, and laws will be passed just like in all other aspects of our lives.