“If a dog determined to be dangerous kills someone, that owner could be charged with a felony.”
++++++++++++++++
“Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course but unless there’s intent to commit a crime; there is no crime.”
______________________________________________________
You have made eleven statements here, and each one deserves a response.
________________________________________________________
1) EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION OF COURSE BUT UNLESS THERE’S INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME; THERE IS NO CRIME.
___________________________________________________________
This is an incorrect statement. If there is a human death caused by another person, it can be 1) accidental, 2) negligent, 3)intentional. Intentional can be 1) self-defense, 2) manslaughter, or 3) Homicide. Homicide can be 1) justifiable or 2) Non-justifiable )
This is far from a complete list, and I am not a legal professional, but the statement you made is incorrect.
I am willing to address your other statements in later posts, as I believe that you are sincerely looking to understand the issue.
(It may be helpful to stay with one statement and subject at at time in order to keep from overloading people who wish to respond to a portion of your comment, but cannot decide which part.)
But first there must be intent. Even negligent homicide which could be considered an accident still has the element of intent. If someone shoots at a napkin on the floor with the permission of the person next to him but then that bullet ricochets and hits the person who gave their permission to shoot the napkin in the forehead and kills them; there's still an element of intent. A reasonable person should know to not shoot that gun in the confined space not knowing where that bullet may end up. There was no specific intent to kill the other person but they did intend to shoot the gun in the confined space therefor there is intent. Call it felony stupid or whatever you like.
Law is weird but suffice to say in this context of someone's dog hurting someone else; it would be necessary to show some kind of intent of the owner of the dog to cause harm or some kind of negligence. If no intent then no crime but that doesn't let the dog owner off the hook. There's still civil law to deal with.
I am willing to address your other statements in later posts, as I believe that you are sincerely looking to understand the issue.
Oh, I understand the issue just fine, what I don't understand is why you keep posting this nonsense when everyone in the world already knows dogs can be dangerous under certain circumstances. You have an obsession bordering on insanity. Nothing good can come from these threads that beat up dogs. Nothing.
I'm seriously wondering if you should be committed to a 90 day psychiatric hold for you own good. I'm leaning hard to toward the affirmative.