If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Belfast City Council orders dog put down because of its resemblance to a pit bull. Evil Roy Gato seen chuckling and twirling mustache   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 98
    More: Fail, Belfast City Council, Belfast  
•       •       •

4548 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2012 at 9:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-11 09:11:21 AM
Assholes
 
2012-07-11 09:12:09 AM
It's not news, it's... no really, it's not news. Most breed ban laws reasd pretty much like this:

"How do you knooowwwwwww that she is a biatch? Of the pitbull variety that is."
"Well she looks like one!"
"BURN HEERRRRRR!"
 
2012-07-11 09:15:40 AM
This story is proof that some individuals deserve to die of cancer.
 
2012-07-11 09:15:43 AM
www.mezzacotta.net

I didn't get the headline, now I do.
 
2012-07-11 09:17:29 AM
Pitbull owners are always the ones saying my dog won't do that till they bite. Useless breed own by useless owners
 
2012-07-11 09:19:09 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Pitbull owners are always the ones saying my dog won't do that till they bite. Useless breed own by useless owners


You trollin'. Also, this dog isn't a pitbull, it just looks like one.
 
2012-07-11 09:19:19 AM
If only this dog was owned by a hot lesbian teacher who sleeps with her students and been euthanized by and HOA, this would be the ultimate fark thread.
 
2012-07-11 09:20:08 AM
www.tuttozampe.com

" Pendejos !!! "
 
2012-07-11 09:21:57 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Pitbull owners are always the ones saying my dog won't do that till they bite. Useless breed own by useless owners


I thought you zaid zat your dog doez not biate?

That's not my dog.
 
2012-07-11 09:22:30 AM

tetsoushima: Mid_mo_mad_man: Pitbull owners are always the ones saying my dog won't do that till they bite. Useless breed own by useless owners

You trollin'. Also, this dog isn't a pitbull, it just looks like one.


I know its not a pit. Just expressing my hate for em
 
2012-07-11 09:23:23 AM

Flakeloaf: It's not news, it's... no really, it's not news. Most breed ban laws reasd pretty much like this:

"How do you knooowwwwwww that she is a biatch? Of the pitbull variety that is."
"Well she looks like one!"
"BURN HEERRRRRR!"


It's more interesting in Canada where pitbull is not a recognised breed. They seem to ignore the whole common law burden of proof is on the state thing.
 
2012-07-11 09:26:14 AM

beefoe: If only this dog was owned by a hot lesbian teacher who sleeps with her students and been euthanized by and HOA, this would be the ultimate fark thread.


HOA headed by Glenn Beck, who was having a gay love affair with Rick Santorum... NOW we're set.

There will be blood in the streets.
 
2012-07-11 09:27:23 AM

Rhames: I didn't get the headline, now I do.


3/17 to 7/2 = 1 year?
 
2012-07-11 09:28:41 AM
That's stupid. Condemming a mixed breed animal because it resembles another. That's like condemming Obama because he resembles a black man.
 
2012-07-11 09:29:04 AM

Flakeloaf: It's not news, it's... no really, it's not news. Most breed ban laws reasd pretty much like this:

"How do you knooowwwwwww that she is a biatch? Of the pitbull variety that is."
"Well she looks like one!"
"BURN HEERRRRRR!"


"She gave me a newt!"
"A newt?"

veedeevadeevoodee: [www.tuttozampe.com image 500x375]

" Pendejos !!! "


Estoy pensando más de "coñazos"...pero lo que prefieras....
 
2012-07-11 09:31:30 AM
Wait, there has to be something more. Is the town councils in Dublin usually in the habit of choosing random dogs or entire species to be put down?
 
2012-07-11 09:32:44 AM
My problem isn't with the pitbulls. Its with the owners. Why is it that pitbulls always seem to have a raging douchbag for an owner? Is that the *only* dog that douchebags are allowed to buy?

When you pick-up your pitbull puppy, do you also get issued a free wife-beater, a gold chain, and a coupon for a free arm-sleeve at the local tattoo parlor?
 
2012-07-11 09:36:04 AM
From the relevant council website:

"In the legislation, dangerous dogs are classified by type, not by breed. This means that if a dog is considered a dangerous type, and ownership is not allowed, will depend on a judgement about its characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited type. This assessment of the characteristics is made by a court. However, if the prosecution alleges that a dog is a banned type, the court will assume it is, unless the owner can provide the court with sufficient evidence to the contrary."
 
2012-07-11 09:36:29 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Wait, there has to be something more. Is the town councils in Dublin usually in the habit of choosing random dogs or entire species to be put down?


I don't know, but Belfast city council are the coonts here.
 
2012-07-11 09:37:04 AM

LemSkroob: My problem isn't with the pitbulls. Its with the owners. Why is it that pitbulls always seem to have a raging douchbag for an owner? Is that the *only* dog that douchebags are allowed to buy?

When you pick-up your pitbull puppy, do you also get issued a free wife-beater, a gold chain, and a coupon for a free arm-sleeve at the local tattoo parlor?


Dang funny. Forget the mma t shirt
 
2012-07-11 09:40:26 AM
That city council doesn't know a thing about dogs and didn't bother to educate themselves.
They probably don't know much about running a city either.

/Dispose of the lot of them.
/They look like politicians and politicians can't be trusted.
 
2012-07-11 09:40:28 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: From the relevant council website:

"In the legislation, dangerous dogs are classified by type, not by breed. This means that if a dog is considered a dangerous type, and ownership is not allowed, will depend on a judgement about its characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited type. This assessment of the characteristics is made by a court. However, if the prosecution alleges that a dog is a banned type, the court will assume it is, unless the owner can provide the court with sufficient evidence to the contrary."


Guilty until proven innocent in other words.
 
2012-07-11 09:42:24 AM

LemSkroob: My problem isn't with the pitbulls. Its with the owners. Why is it that pitbulls always seem to have a raging douchbag for an owner? Is that the *only* dog that douchebags are allowed to buy?

When you pick-up your pitbull puppy, do you also get issued a free wife-beater, a gold chain, and a coupon for a free arm-sleeve at the local tattoo parlor?


this post contains great truth and merit.
 
2012-07-11 09:43:16 AM

Spiralmonkey: Satanic_Hamster: Wait, there has to be something more. Is the town councils in Dublin usually in the habit of choosing random dogs or entire species to be put down?

I don't know, but Belfast city council are the coonts here.


Doh. The Dublin tag at the top stuck in my mind for some reason.
 
2012-07-11 09:45:01 AM
If I were a Belfast city councilperson, I'd seriously be in fear for my life.

/Never mess with a man's dog. They aren't considered man's best friend for nothing!
 
2012-07-11 09:46:04 AM
Scumbag family buys a dog. Scumbag family uses the dog as a "weapon dog" (it's a gang thing). Scumbag family and their proven-to-be-dangerous dog comes to the attention of the police due to the behaviour of their scumbag family and their dog. Dog gets taken away. Scumbag family puts out a sympathetic story that omits all of the pertinent details and goes viral.
 
2012-07-11 09:49:17 AM

MasterPython: It's more interesting in Canada where pitbull is not a recognised breed. They seem to ignore the whole common law burden of proof is on the state thing.


Ontario Dog Owners' Liability Act

Definitions

1. (1) In this Act,

"pit bull" includes,

(a) a pit bull terrier,
(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,
(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,
(d) an American pit bull terrier,
(e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); ("pit-bull")

(2) In determining whether a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act, a court may have regard to the breed standards established for Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers or American Pit Bull Terriers by the Canadian Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club or the American Dog Breeders Association. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (3).

. . .

(10) If it is alleged in any proceeding under this section that a dog is a pit bull, the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull lies on the owner of the dog. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (13).

Normally the burden of proving all the elements of the offence rests on the Crown. A reverse onus was put in here, probably because it's wholly impractical to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a dog is or is not a pit bull based on the vague legal definition of the dog (a problem that somehow managed to survive a constitutional challenge), so they just compare the dog to the breed standard and if the collar fits they can't acquit. After all, we can't have the province responsible for getting blood warrants and DNA tests and genetic experts and vets onside to prove a so-so ticket written under a bullcrap law. That would be fair.

CSB: When I wrote to the Ontario Minister of Justice to complain about this bill before it became law, I gave him my honest opinion as one of his own that the law was severely flawed. He sent me back a reply thanking me for my support of the bill. Jackass.
 
2012-07-11 09:51:10 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: LemSkroob: My problem isn't with the pitbulls. Its with the owners. Why is it that pitbulls always seem to have a raging douchbag for an owner? Is that the *only* dog that douchebags are allowed to buy?

When you pick-up your pitbull puppy, do you also get issued a free wife-beater, a gold chain, and a coupon for a free arm-sleeve at the local tattoo parlor?

Dang funny. Forget the mma t shirt


and a rolled up sock to shove down their pants.

as a side-note, I was at an outdoor show last week and every second dog on a leash was a pit bull, with a guido or trailer trash apecimen at the other end of it.
 
2012-07-11 09:53:40 AM

mister aj: Scumbag family buys a dog. Scumbag family uses the dog as a "weapon dog" (it's a gang thing). Scumbag family and their proven-to-be-dangerous dog comes to the attention of the police due to the behaviour of their scumbag family and their dog. Dog gets taken away. Scumbag family puts out a sympathetic story that omits all of the pertinent details and goes viral.


You said scumbag twice a lot
 
2012-07-11 09:58:49 AM

tetsoushima: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: From the relevant council website:

"In the legislation, dangerous dogs are classified by type, not by breed. This means that if a dog is considered a dangerous type, and ownership is not allowed, will depend on a judgement about its characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited type. This assessment of the characteristics is made by a court. However, if the prosecution alleges that a dog is a banned type, the court will assume it is, unless the owner can provide the court with sufficient evidence to the contrary."

Guilty until proven innocent in other words.


Yep.

But I'd have to admit that it actually makes more sense--accepting for the sake of argument the premise that dogs with certain observable characteristics are dangerous--to ban dogs based on those observable characteristics rather than trying to evaluate some mutt's family tree.

/what kind of assholes insist on killing the dog when the owners are asking to be allowed to exile it
//also, from that same website, it is possible to let a so-called dangerous dog be given a reprieve if kept under restricted conditions, and their dog apparently hasn't done anything wrong...
///really kinda sounds like someone with the council has an axe to grind
 
2012-07-11 10:01:28 AM
I do not condemn the killing of any dogs, especially pits, as they are as sweet as can be, as long as someone raises them right. But, for the sake of argument, can't they do a DNA test on the poor dog?
 
2012-07-11 10:02:03 AM
I know a lot of very highly-educated, law-abiding individuals who own/show/breed stunning "pit bulls" - not just the APBT but the AmStaff, Staffy Bull and Bull Terrier. They're amazing dogs with the strength and intelligence to do whatever is asled of them. It's tragic that people have taken this trait and used it to create dogs that attack other dogs and people, but that is the fault of the owners, not the breed. Pit bulls were once the all-American breed, dogs brave enough to go into a war zone but sweet enough to be called "nanny dogs" and star in movies with young kids. Is it really worth throwing that away and eradicating the breed because some asshole owners decided to adopt them as symbols of bad-assery? Do you really think that if you get rid of pit bulls, those assholes won't just pick up with another breed - Dobermans, German Shepherds, Rotts? Wouldn't it be better to go after the PEOPLE responsible for the dogs and punish THEM?
 
2012-07-11 10:02:16 AM
I do condemn dammit!
 
2012-07-11 10:03:12 AM

mister aj: Scumbag family buys a dog. Scumbag family uses the dog as a "weapon dog" (it's a gang thing). Scumbag family and their proven-to-be-dangerous dog comes to the attention of the police due to the behaviour of their scumbag family and their dog. Dog gets taken away. Scumbag family puts out a sympathetic story that omits all of the pertinent details and goes viral.


Maybe so...I notice that "has not attacked anyone" is an awfully low standard for someone to offer up when they're trying to persuade everyone how safe their dog is.
 
2012-07-11 10:03:53 AM

Flakeloaf: MasterPython: It's more interesting in Canada where pitbull is not a recognised breed. They seem to ignore the whole common law burden of proof is on the state thing.

Ontario Dog Owners' Liability Act

Definitions

1. (1) In this Act,

"pit bull" includes,

(a) a pit bull terrier,
(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,
(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,
(d) an American pit bull terrier,
(e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); ("pit-bull")

(2) In determining whether a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act, a court may have regard to the breed standards established for Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers or American Pit Bull Terriers by the Canadian Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club or the American Dog Breeders Association. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (3).

. . .

(10) If it is alleged in any proceeding under this section that a dog is a pit bull, the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull lies on the owner of the dog. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (13).

Normally the burden of proving all the elements of the offence rests on the Crown. A reverse onus was put in here, probably because it's wholly impractical to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a dog is or is not a pit bull based on the vague legal definition of the dog (a problem that somehow managed to survive a constitutional challenge), so they just compare the dog to the breed standard and if the collar fits they can't acquit. After all, we can't have the province responsible for getting blood warrants and DNA tests and genetic experts and vets onside to prove a so-so ticket written under a bullcrap law. That would be fair.

CSB: When I wrote to the Ontario Minister of Justice to complain about this bill before it became law, I gave him my honest opinion as one of his own that the law was severely flawed. He sent me back a reply thanking me for my support of the bill. Jackass.


Meh. The history of sexual assault law in the UCMJ... Now THERE'S something to get sick over...

/Fark Resident ex-Army "legal-beagle"
//No, but it's not like the title is already taken or anything.
 
2012-07-11 10:05:18 AM

mister aj: Scumbag family buys a dog. Scumbag family uses the dog as a "weapon dog" (it's a gang thing). Scumbag family and their proven-to-be-dangerous dog comes to the attention of the police due to the behaviour of their scumbag family and their dog. Dog gets taken away. Scumbag family puts out a sympathetic story that omits all of the pertinent details and goes viral.


First of all, scumbag troll might want to get his story straight before spouting off. I have been following this story since the beginning. And it bears NO resemblance to your version. Let's try again:

Responsible family acquires a dog. The dog becomes a family pet. They take it to the vet - get it fixed, vaccinated, microchipped - all the things a responsible dog owner would do. Dog becomes the beloved pet of the family's children. Unfortunately, the dog happens to "look" like a banned breed. DNA tests prove otherwise.

The story goes in May 2010 the Barnes family got a knock on the door, it was a group of police officers accompanied by a dog warden. They claimed their dog, Lennox was an illegal breed and was a danger to the community, they had a warrant for his seizure and they hauled Lennox of in a van, leaving the Barnes family with a piece of paper work explaining how a dog that is dangerous or an illegal breed like a pitbull is to be seized and euthanised right away.

The problem? Lennox was neither a danger to the community nor a pitbull, he was an american bulldog lab mix who had a habit of barking at strangers walking past his house. But, he had no record of aggression to humans or other dogs and had never bitten anyone. Then, one day someone called the police because they found Lennox either intimidating or irritating. A dog warden was sent to the house, and he simply stood in front of the house and watched Lennox bark at him, then without entering the house, speaking to the Barnes or even getting to meet to the dog, the warden came to the conclusion Lennox was a pitbull. Soon after the police were contacted by the warden and Lennox was seized and sent to be euthanised. The Barnes pleaded that Lennox was neither dangerous nor a pitbull, they gathered testimonies from neighbors and Lennox's former owners, so the case remained open for a time, but Lennox was still considered a pitbull. By this time the media got hold of the story and people all across the UK were rallying support for the Barnes family and their dog, they got thousands of people to sign an online petition and even paid for a very expensive D.N.A test to be done on Lennox, all the while Lennox spent the rest of 2010 and 2011 in a kennel somewhere, where he was muzzled if anyone needed to handle him. The D.N.A test proved he was an american bulldog x lab.

All legal appeals were exhausted. There were even offers to rehome him. All were ignored.

And this morning, a little girl's dog was executed. For nothing.
 
2012-07-11 10:05:21 AM

sandi_fish: I do not condemn the killing of any dogs, especially pits, as they are as sweet as can be, as long as someone raises them right. But, for the sake of argument, can't they do a DNA test on the poor dog?


DNA tests are unfortunately unreliable, especially for mixed-breed dogs. It also wouldn't matter - the law says "looks like", not "actually is", so it's pretty vague and favors the prosecution.
 
2012-07-11 10:07:38 AM

bextraordinary: Do you really think that if you get rid of pit bulls, those assholes won't just pick up with another breed - Dobermans, German Shepherds, Rotts? Wouldn't it be better to go after the PEOPLE responsible for the dogs and punish THEM?


We could do that, but we don't have time for rational solutions.
 
2012-07-11 10:08:29 AM
The Dangerous Dogs Act requires that a dog is of a certain breed, *and* has been proven to be dangerous before it can be proven to put down. So it's not just that the dog is of a certain breed. The council has proven to the court that the dog *is* dangerous, on multiple occasions across multiple appeals, using expert witnesses. This is not a cavalier process.

But the owner says that the dog isn't dangerous, so everyone involved must be lying!
 
2012-07-11 10:09:52 AM
owning a pit bull is like owning a wolf or a tiger. they are adorable, intelligent, powerful, beautiful animals but they need to be taught to live politely with other animals and humans. When things go wrong it's their human owners who need to be neutered for being idiots. An untrained pitbull is like a loaded gun.
 
2012-07-11 10:12:35 AM
Reality is a Rott or German shep or mastiff is way more likely gonna mess you up than any pitbull.
 
2012-07-11 10:12:58 AM

LemSkroob: My problem isn't with the pitbulls. Its with the owners. Why is it that pitbulls always seem to have a raging douchbag for an owner? Is that the *only* dog that douchebags are allowed to buy?

When you pick-up your pitbull puppy, do you also get issued a free wife-beater, a gold chain, and a coupon for a free arm-sleeve at the local tattoo parlor?


You mean like Helen Keller, Jon Stewart, Teddy Roosevelt and Rachel Ray?
 
2012-07-11 10:13:32 AM

Flakeloaf: bextraordinary: Do you really think that if you get rid of pit bulls, those assholes won't just pick up with another breed - Dobermans, German Shepherds, Rotts? Wouldn't it be better to go after the PEOPLE responsible for the dogs and punish THEM?

We could do that, but we don't have time for rational solutions.


Obviously not - not when there's so much glorious dog-killing to be done!

Ugh. Gonna hug my American Bulldog extra-tight tonight and bond with my friends who have pitties titled in weight pull, agility, obedience and even therapy dog work. They're amazing dogs. Nothing steals my heart like a bully breed.
 
2012-07-11 10:14:13 AM

GlassNinja: mister aj: Scumbag family buys a dog. Scumbag family uses the dog as a "weapon dog" (it's a gang thing). Scumbag family and their proven-to-be-dangerous dog comes to the attention of the police due to the behaviour of their scumbag family and their dog. Dog gets taken away. Scumbag family puts out a sympathetic story that omits all of the pertinent details and goes viral.

First of all, scumbag troll might want to get his story straight before spouting off. I have been following this story since the beginning. And it bears NO resemblance to your version. Let's try again:
_snip_

Doesn't sound like you got your info from a particularly impartial source. Try being more skeptical of the things you read. Consider that an impartial source has judged this on multiple occasions, so even somebody at the council with an axe to grind isn't going to get away with derailing justice.
 
2012-07-11 10:17:12 AM
All the more reason to hate humans.
 
2012-07-11 10:18:07 AM
It's also quite hard to convince a court that your family and dog aren't tied up in gang violence when death threats and petrol bombs have been sent to council employees over the last couple of years.
 
2012-07-11 10:20:37 AM
There are sooooo many ways the Politics Tab Portal to Hell could be opened in this thread...
 
2012-07-11 10:22:06 AM
He's dead, Jim

RELIGION OF PEACE
 
2012-07-11 10:26:29 AM

mister aj: It's also quite hard to convince a court that your family and dog aren't tied up in gang violence when death threats and petrol bombs have been sent to council employees over the last couple of years.


I'm not disagreeing with you, I just need a source.
 
2012-07-11 10:26:31 AM

veedeevadeevoodee: [www.tuttozampe.com image 500x375]

" Pendejos !!! "


Nice. Saving that one for future use.
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report