AdamB Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I would like to as a favor of those board members who like myself live in Texas. Rep. Gattis has submitted a bill which will target owners of dogs which cause serious injury or death, and can be punished by up to 20 years in prison. This is the type of law which needs to be passed so that communities can start truely combating the problem of dog attacks without resorting to breed-bans and instead going after those at fault - irresponsible owners. Please contact your local state Rep. and ask them to support the bill (or not if you are against it of course). Thanks!!! Dan Gattis State Representative For Immediate Press Release Contact: Hal Talton, Chief of Staff (State Capitol - February 12, 2007) (512) 463-0309 Gattis Files Dog Mauling Bill ~H.B. 1355 seeks to toughen criminal penalties against owners of dogs that kill State Representative Dan Gattis today filed legislation that aims to send a strong message to irresponsible owners whose dogs cause serious bodily injury or death -- properly secure your dog or face prison time. If Gattis' bill passes, a death from such an attack could result in the owner being charged with a second degree felony, which upon conviction can carry a sentence of two to twenty years. The bill also provides for certain defenses such as for police and service dogs. Commenting on his bill Gattis said, "We have an epidemic in Texas of dogs that horribly disfigure and kill innocent people. This is not just isolated to specific areas. The fact is that these attacks are happening all across our state and many times the victims are children and the elderly. What is especially infuriating is that these tragedies could have been prevented had the irresponsible owners secured their dogs. Their actions are no different from someone who leaves a loaded gun on a street and then walks away." Gattis further said, "My bill does not target a specific breed but rather focuses the attention where it belongs -- on the owners who are in the best position to prevent the harm from occurring. It is also important to note that my bill does not criminalize every dog bite. We are focusing on vicious attacks involving death or serious bodily injury, which is already defined by law as 'injury capable of causing death.'" The bill is entitled "Lillian's Law" in memory of Mrs. Lillian Stiles who was mauled to death in her front yard. "What happened to Mrs. Stiles and so many others is horrible, and we must put a stop to these unprovoked attacks," said Gattis. A link to the actual bill Texas Families Against Dangerous Dogs (TXFADD) TXFADD was started by Marilyn Stiles Shoemaker, daughter of Lilian Stiles for whom the bill is entitled. I was originally concerned when I first heard fo the organization, expecting it to be another "Ban 'em all" type, and was very pleasently surprised after exhanging emails with Mrs. Shoemaker that their goal is not to target specific breeds but to bring the law down on irresponsible owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I will review it further,but I am wary of 20yrs and "properly"securing at first read. There certainly is a need for stronger laws,but I need more info. You can get less for killing someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 I will review it further,but I am wary of 20yrs and "properly"securing at first read.There certainly is a need for stronger laws,but I need more info. You can get less for killing someone. Understandable The bill text itself goes into more detail, such as their definition of "properly secure", etc. as well as instances in which the owner cannot be held responsible. Basically, if a dog attacks and causes the death of a person in an unprovoked attack off the owner's property and/or outside of the secure enclosure, the owner will be charged with a 2nd Degree Felony which can result in 2-20 years. If the attack results in serious injury, it is a 3rd Degree Felony. In both cases, the judge can order the dog destroyed if found guilty. And hey, if you find that you cannot support the bill, by all means please let your State rep know your feelings. Personally, I think it is a step in the right direction, but I know some might not agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Trying to find the new law in Harris county, it seemed reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 i'll support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I wish they were trying to pass a law like this in MD. I was attacked by a pit bull and I might have lost my "boys" if my pants weren't as thick as they were. Dogs need to be taken out of the hands of the retard owner, and this is a good way of doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 Trying to find the new law in Harris county, it seemed reasonable. Okie, I found the Harris County regs for dangerous dogs - Harris County Very reasonable. Where I see a conflict however is that Harris County's regs primarily address dogs declared "dangerous", or dogs which are part of an unprovoked attack causing injury. And I would very much like to see those regs made state-wide. However, from what I could find, there are no specific actions against owners of dogs declared "vicious" (unprovoked attack which causes severe injury or death) beyond siezure of the dog, which is what Gattis' bill addresses. As I understand it, right now in Texas you basically get a free pass as an owner of a dog which severly injures or kills a person, at least legally (I am sure you could get hammered by a civil suit). Until dog owners start to take some responsibilty for their animals, it may be that the state has to go to a much harsher penalty for it to sink in. Its very frustrating as an owner of a breed that many communities have banned, who takes his ownership responsibilties seriously so as to not help give this community a reason to do the same, to then sit and watch stray or allowed to wander (and often sick) pits, rotties, etc. wander up and down the street. Maybe a combination of what Harris County has for dogs labeled "dangerous" with what Gattis' bill outlines (or something similar) for those that fall under the "vicious" catagory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I am fairly certain they passed one last year that included criminal liability, as well as the financial that was already on the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 I am fairly certain they passed one last year that included criminal liability, as well as the financial that was already on the books. Harris County or state? I did see that violations of the "dangerous" dog regs carred a punishment of a Class C misdemeanor, or Class B if previously in violation. However, it did not state what punishments for owners of dog's ruled "vicious". I will hunt around some more and see what I can find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Harris county, but I'm having no luck yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 Ya, they have a very detailed description of the regs concerning "dangerous", but the page for "vicious" is pitiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Well, to start with they have strong enforcement on dogs being loose w/o tags,and any dog that bites is subject to being killed upon review of the court. Not to mention the citizens and cops are not afraid to shoot a threatening dog in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 Ya, but I guess my issue is not how the dog is handled, but what consequences does the owner face if their dog severly injures or kills someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 Well, still cannot find anything Did find that Rep Chisum, the rep. that is the subject of the "Evolution = Jewish conspiracy" thread a few spots up from this one, either is, or was, trying to get "unprovoked attack" defined as any attack off the owner's property even if the dog is being tormented, teased, or attacks to protect its owner. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Ya, but I guess my issue is not how the dog is handled, but what consequences does the owner face if their dog severly injures or kills someone. Aside from financial liability, not much that I can find. As you said,once a dog that has been declared dangerous they get tougher. I still think the 20yrs proposed is too much leeway to trust to a DA or court. Anyone THAT negligent with a dog should just be shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Well, still cannot find anything Did find that Rep Chisum, the rep. that is the subject of the "Evolution = Jewish conspiracy" thread a few spots up from this one, either is, or was, trying to get "unprovoked attack" defined as any attack off the owner's property even if the dog is being tormented, teased, or attacks to protect its owner. :doh: That"s the kind of thing I worry about trusting the legislature with. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 Well, its Felony 2, which means its punishable for 2 to 20 years, not an automatic 20, and they still have to be found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Well, its Felony 2, which means its punishable for 2 to 20 years, not an automatic 20, and they still have to be found guilty. I get your point, but 20 yrs is too high to me unless someone is using the dog as a weapon...which is covered already. I could go for ten max for the criminally negligent,combined with similar dangerous dog standards as we have here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I re-read the proposed law and it appears to be directed SOLELY at owners whose dogs have already been declared dangerous. Is that how it reads to you? ARE A DANGER TO PERSONS SECTION 3. Section 822.001, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (3) and (4) to read as follows: (3) "Dangerous dog," "dog," "owner," and "secure enclosure" have the meanings assigned by Section 822.041. http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.010.00.000822.00.htm Added: NOPE, I read it wrong the second time, All dogs. :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 I re-read the proposed law and it appears to be directed SOLELY at owners whose dogs have already been declared dangerous.Is that how it reads to you? ARE A DANGER TO PERSONS SECTION 3. Section 822.001, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (3) and (4) to read as follows: (3) "Dangerous dog," "dog," "owner," and "secure enclosure" have the meanings assigned by Section 822.041. http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.010.00.000822.00.htm Well, that is different from Gattis' bill, so just read over it quickly. It does appear to mainly apply to owner's whose dogs have already been titled as "dangerous", which is what prompted new bill. I will need to re-read it closer later to make sure though. It did state that it would be a Class A mis. if the dog severly injures or kills someone. I need to see what the possible punishments for a conviction in that case would carry. edit: Actually, it appears that the court can sieze the dog after an attack, but the criminal penalties against the owner only kick in if the dog was previously determined to be dangerous and the owner either fails to fulfill the stated requirements (Class C or B mis.) or if the dog severly injures or kills after being determined dangerous (Class A mis) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I added to my last post, I was wrong ...all dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 ya, edited my post shortly after you did. I hate reading legalese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 :laugh: Yeah the more you read the less sense it makes. My thought is the punishment should be no more than for Criminal negligent homicide. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2005/11/texas_bus_drive.html Criminal negligent homicide is a state jail felony punishable by six months to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine... 20 yrs is just too much for stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 :laugh: Yeah the more you read the less sense it makes.My thought is the punishment should be no more than for Criminal negligent homicide. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2005/11/texas_bus_drive.html Criminal negligent homicide is a state jail felony punishable by six months to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine... 20 yrs is just too much for stupidity. Under normal circumstances I would agree, but unfortunatly I think it needs to be harsher to get it through the heads of some of these owners that they have to be responsible for their dogs. Would you consider 2-5, with a 15K fine acceptable? Or much higher fine with a 1-2 year sentence? Reason I am asking is that I am gonna take some of the suggestions and email Rep. Gattis as alternatives to his plan. THough if it comes down to this bill or either nothing or some of the other ones that are floating around (such as the ability to place bans in places, like, well, Harris County or other counties over 1 million pop.), this one has my full support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.