- UID
- 99537
- 热情
- 3100
- 人气
- 4701
- 主题
- 5
- 帖子
- 5752
- 精华
- 8
- 积分
- 6846
- 分享
- 0
- 记录
- 0
- 相册
- 0
- 好友
- 24
- 日志
- 0
- 在线时间
- 5057 小时
- 注册时间
- 2006-12-3
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 最后登录
- 2024-10-8
 
升级    36.92% - UID
- 99537
- 热情
- 3100
- 人气
- 4701
- 主题
- 5
- 帖子
- 5752
- 精华
- 8
- 积分
- 6846
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 注册时间
- 2006-12-3
|
本帖最后由 fatality 于 2013-7-29 13:33 编辑
There are a few things we need to clarify:
1. it is an offence to injure someone with your dog, intentional or unintentional, it doesnt really matter. it is an offence. however, an offence does not necessarily incur any legal action or punishment.
2. exaggerating / fabricating the facts to draw more attention of the public is not an offence (at least in this case).
the only argument or paradox, we should say, is that there is a third party in this case, the dog.
Now, here is what I think:
1. in terms of the old lady who got involved:
she is legally responsible for the attack, because she failed to control her dog which led to the tragedy. However, because the Victim had been at fault (trespassing a private property) in the first place, I cannot agree with her getting punished by any serious legal actions.
2. in terms of the victim:
We should be sympathetic, even empathetic towards them, as they are the victims of this case. the pain and fear are real, no matter what they have fabricated. We cannot say they deserve it. No one deserves any physical harm in this world.
however, shit happens everyday, they need to learn how to deal with it. Everyone will be a victim at some stage of their lives and most of us know how to cope with the shit optimistically without lying. They should learn from it. More public attention does not make your pain go away or make your victimization more sympathy-worthy.
from a moral perspective, although it is incomparable for emotional harms and physcial harms, people normally feel more angry being cheated rather than unintentionally injured. That is why the victims of this case are not so worthy of our good wishes. Raising the case up to a racist level is totally unnecessary and this must be criticized and condemned.
But please be rational and dont let our anger outweigh our humanity. after all, they are victims.
3. the dog:
very innocently responsible. again, from a moral perspective, I dont agree it should be destroyed. the dog was merely doing her duty to protect herself, her family and her territory. it is her instinct and we could not blame her for it. There is nothing morally wrong with it.
however, the law is there. in this case the law is the thing that distinguishes us with other animals. so the dog, together with her owner, is legally wrong, not morally wrong. (On the contrary, the victims are morally wrong, not legally wrong)
Some legal actions must be adopted to ensure the safety of the majority of the society. The person who deals with this case must take this into consideration. The owner should be punished as well as the dog. I would suggest dog remedial classes or intensive supervision restrictions rather than euthanasia. An apology from the old lady is inapproriate.
personal opinions. |
|
发表于 2013-7-27 21:01:34
