3 ms·
First of all, its hard to swallow, but YES there was a period humans were bred similarly and recently. Like very recently. Second of all this is an argument ab
by beepbopboopp 2y ago
First of all, its hard to swallow, but YES there was a period humans were bred similarly and recently. Like very recently.
Second of all this is an argument about the fallacies of correlation and causation when reading data and how hardcore emotional takes like yours tend to be from a misunderstanding of the data.
Also, the part that makes me the most disappointed is you are on here trying to regulate other peoples things and dont even bother to do a quick google search or educate yourself on the fact that all the things you are crying about already exist.
//// Under California Penal Code Section 399 PC, a person may be criminally liable if a dangerous animal he or she owns injures or kills another person. While this offense typically applies to dangerous dogs, it can apply to any animal owned or kept by a person. ///// Also the civil liability is off the chart.
The most liberal state in the whole US even has the laws you claim dont exist. Your fear is understandable, but your crusade without even spending a second on the issue is beneath the spirit of this website.
- Teever 2y agoAccording to this site[0] the maximum penalty for breaking this law is a 3 year sentence and a $10,000 fine. I'm suggesting something far different from what this law implements. I'm suggesting that people who own a high-risk dog that maims someone should be charged with assault, and if that animal kills someone they should be charged with manslaughter. [0] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/399/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/399/
- beepbopboopp 2y agoAgain, a simple search would show that 2-4 year sentence is standard for heavy assault and/or involuntary manslaughter. Your wish is literally already the reality of dog ownership, but you are still committed to vilifying other peoples choices.
- Teever 2y agoThe law you cited seems to only apply in cases where the owner knows their animal is dangerous and does nothing to prevent harm. It’s about negligence. What I’m suggesting is that if a person’s dog — regardless of prior warnings or known aggression — causes severe injury or death, the owner should face charges similar to assault or manslaughter, not just negligence. Current laws often only apply in cases where the owner had prior knowledge of the danger. I’m arguing that severe outcomes from owning inherently high-risk dogs (like certain breeds prone to aggression) should carry more serious consequences regardless of prior knowledge. And while sentences for assault and involuntary manslaughter may be similar to what I’m proposing (which I oppose because I feel that sentences for violent crimes should be far higher), the distinction is that I’m advocating for this standard to be applied to all severe cases involving high-risk animals, not just those where negligence can be proven. So no, this isn’t ‘literally already the reality’ — there’s a meaningful gap between negligence laws and what I’m suggesting.
- beepbopboopp 2y agoOk, youre arguing that we should ascribe character to the statistics. So answer my question about what we should do with group of people who commit more violent crimes.