General Chatter

Yvonne · Apr 3rd, 2007, 16:46 PM

That little girl that got attacked to death but the pit bull on new years eve, it was her uncles dog.
Her grandmother was babysitting- i have just read that she has been charged with manslaughter,

WHY?

I may not have read the full story previously

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/6522105.stm

Imi · Apr 3rd, 2007, 16:50 PM

I think it was because the dog had been wound up and she new this??

Forgotten ... !!
xxx

Wobbles · Apr 3rd, 2007, 16:54 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/6225205.stm

Post-mortem tests showed the dog was a pit bull terrier-type breed, prohibited by the Dangerous Dogs Act. Two previous complaints had been made about the pet.
....

The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act imposed conditions on the ownership of four types of dog.

Lord Baker, who introduced the act when he was Home Secretary, said it was intended to get rid of pit bull terriers from the UK.

He said: "That sort of dog should not be available to be owned in the UK and that was the purpose of the Act."

He also called for other breeds, including Alsatians, to be registered and muzzled in public.
It has emerged that the dog's owner, Ellie's uncle, was warned by St Helens Council last June about the animal's behaviour after it attacked another dog.

A second letter was sent after the council received a complaint about the dog's barking.
Several neighbours claimed the dog had violent tendencies and one man, who did not want to be named, said he had been attacked by the animal.

Yvonne · Apr 3rd, 2007, 16:59 PM

But surely the uncle should have been done for manslaughter then for still having this dog- i know the grandma shouldn't have had it in the house but i would have thought that the uncle would have got worse than the gran.

Oh well, thankd for that wobs- its clearer now!

Wobbles · Apr 3rd, 2007, 17:00 PM

I think its because its her house therefore it was her decision to hav ethe dog there - her permission ...

It does seem rather harsh. I wonder what the LO's parents make of it.

Helen · Apr 3rd, 2007, 21:05 PM

I was a bit confused by this too. The Grandmother might not have even known about the previous issues with the dog. There must be more to this than they are saying...

beanie · Apr 3rd, 2007, 21:19 PM

Well she is also charged with possession of diamorphine, but I can't see if she was under the influence at the time, so she could have been negligent in charge of the child therefore guilty of manslaughter. She might have also omitted to do something - a failure to protect her grand daughter etc could also result in a charge of manslaughter

Yvonne · Apr 3rd, 2007, 21:20 PM

it just makes my blood boil, that poor girl!!!

beanie · Apr 3rd, 2007, 21:23 PM

found this on wilkopedia

I would imagine she has been charged with involuntary manslaughter - she didn't intend to cause serious harm or death but it occured whilst the child was under her care. This might help explain

Quote:

[edit] Involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

[edit] Criminal negligence

Negligence consists of conduct by an individual which is not reasonable -- that is, the individual did not act with the care and caution of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. This "reasonable person" is fictitious, of course, but reflects the standard of conduct which society wishes to impose. Violation of this standard may lead to civil liability for the consequences of the negligent behavior.
Negligence rises to the level of criminal negligence where the conduct reaches a higher degree of carelessness or inattention, perhaps to the point of indifference.

[edit] Recklessness

Recklessness or willful blindness is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be throwing a brick off a bridge onto vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill, consequently a resulting death may not be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject him to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of danger to others and willfuly disregarded it.
In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.
In some jurisdictions, such as Victoria, recklessness is sufficient mens rea to justify a conviction for murder.

General Chatter

Can someone explain this to me?

Lounge Area

Can someone explain this to me?