BBC News reports that a woman accused over a fatal dog attack on her five-year-old granddaughter has been found not guilty of manslaughter.
OK, this woman was supposed to be responsible for a 5 year old child. By her own admission she had consumed two bottles of wine, and smoked ten joints - that alone likely means she would have been in no fit state to responsibly look after a child. But, she then chose to allow a dangerous pit bull dog into the house, which then killed the little girl.
The dog was illegal (under the Dangerous Dogs act) and had already been involved in two previous attacks. The dog’s owner has been given a prison sentence but the woman has been cleared of manslaughter by criminal negligence. Why? Did she really think that allowing a vicious dog (pit bull terriers are banned precisely because they are vicious, dangerous dogs bred to fight) was a good idea?
0 Responses to “Woman cleared of criminal negligence in dog attack”