Talk:Dog attack/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article seems very biased. For example, the legality of shooting an attacking dog. The right to self defense exists in every jurisdiction. If you are in fear of of your life or person from a cat, dog, man or woman, you can shoot it. Of course you can't shoot and then lie that you were being attacked nor can you shoot if your fear is entirely unreasonable. Even the section concerning the behavior of dogs seems biased. This is more apparent if you compare it to the articles concerning bear attacks and cougar attacks. Unlike bears and cougars, dogs are (usually) owned by someone and that someone is fully responsible for their actions. There are articles that seem to keep the factual sections away from the subjective sections. Maybe this article would be better if it presented the facts concerning the law, insurance and the legal responsibilities and liabilities of the owners, then the tips on avoiding or defending against an attack. Including gouging the dogs eyes out if that works. And finally a small, and I mean small, criticism section. That seems to be the pattern that works best for other articles. I meant to simply rate the article but did not see much in way of rating the nature (biased) of the article. In any event, I like dogs, but at the same time there is an already long and rich legal precedent that can be talked about factually. The only portion related to "dog attacks" that I see as having much room for subjective criticism is the banning of certain breeds. Even that topic should be approached with facts first (there is already a growing legal precedent) followed by the small subjective section allowing the reader to follow leads to articles written more in the tone of a discussion (like this) rather than an encyclopedia.Syscore 05:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)