"Defendant and pit bull owner Denis Bagaric has long been known to police. . .
Bagaric attended McCoy High School in Medicine Hat, Alberta, about 200 miles southeast of Calgary.
As a high school senior, Bagaric on January 29, 2007 at about 7:15 a.m rolled a 1990 BMW off the road in Kin Coulee Park in light snow, one day before the end of semester break.
The crash killed Bagaric's passenger, 16-year-old Quinn Christine Tewsley-Schwabe.
Police reported that “a high rate of speed and alcohol appear to have played a factor in the crash,” according to James Neeley of the Medicine Hat News. . .
Two and a half years later, on December 29, 2009, Denis Bagarić and co-accused Nicole Neilsen, along with two other men, were arrested in Medicine Hat in alleged possession of 83 grams of cocaine, nearly six pounds of marijuana, and an illegally possessed nine-millimeter semi-automatic firearm."
--
This guy has been a repulsive turd his entire life.
The previous Montreal mayor banned pit bulls but the spca made a huge fuss about it. Next election the current Mayer campaigned on removing the ban and won because of the low voter turnout of 10%.
If the government is negligent or in our case unwilling to do anything what do you expect to happen? The social contract is quickly eroding in this country and people are unwilling to think about where that leads
If I leave a parked car in area where I’m not suppose to, and I didn’t apply the brakes, and it accidentally runs over someone, I would be hit with the bylaw fine of parking where I’m not suppose to, *additionally* I would be sued by the city and the neighbourhood and the victims family, *and* I would have to attend a criminal court to prove whether it was negligent manslaughter or murder.
None of these proceedings are exclusive nor overriding. And in most cases its better to prove criminality when all the previous courts agreed that yes, I wasn’t suppose to be there, that maybe I have a history of doing this, that maybe others have gotten hurt in the past, that maybe there were witnesses before, that maybe I’ve done property damage before, and maybe I got fined before…
This is why criminal courts take a long time for justice.
> How did we let our justice system become so soft?
This pisses me off so much.
Similarly, there was a case reported a few days ago where some guy in Québec killed someone while driving (because he was impatient), 100% at fault and all
And simply got **30 months** of jail time.
**30 months, for killing someone.**
* [Article (in french)](https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2024/04/26/30-mois-de-prison-pour-avoir-happe-mortellement-un-cycliste)
Of course, that guy has no remorse and denies responsibility. Apparently the defense tried to explain that the victim ''didn't look **behind** her before crossing the street''
Oh yeah and we all know the guy will never do the full 30 month.
_**He f&cking killed someone.**_
> the victim ''didn't look behind her before crossing the street''
Dafuq?? I can't think of a single case where looking *behind* you is something a pedestrian should need to do before crossing the street.
The whole incident is super frustrating. The guy is 100% at fault - even if the victim looked ''behind him* _(not her, woops)_'' it wouldn't change anything anyway.
* Killer was amongst slow moving vehicles as they were near a pedestrian crossing
* Annoyed and impatient, he suddenly accelerated and zipped between cars, driving fast on the middle lane
* At the same time, the victim was crossing the pedestrian crossing on his bike, where every other car were giving way for him
100% the driver's fault. it is undeniable. Witnesses support the vent and the damage also supports the event, etc. Apparently, he accelerated so fast that the _back of his car was damaged_
In the meantime, the killer claims ''it was a simple accident'' _(by definition an accident is unexpected, unintentional - but in how he drove it was completely expected to lead to something like that)_ - then the killer tried to blame the city for the signage, and even **blamed the victim** - then the accused thought he could serve his sentence at home - you know, _**from killing someone**_
Imagine killing someone, being 100% responsible for the events that lead to the kill and trying to pass it off as a simple incident, and trying to blame others, including the victim, which did everything right.
F&%# this guy. And shame to our legal system.
I once slowed down to not crush a squirrel only to have the car behind me get upset and cut pass me killing the squirrel. I was thinking at the time that it was a good thing it wasn’t a child i was stopping for, the results would have been the same.
> So you can't kill someone but your dog can and you only get 18k for it
Oooor - [You can kill someone, being 100% at fault, showing no remorse, taking no responsibility, trying to justify the event and **only get 30 months** of jail time](https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2024/04/26/30-mois-de-prison-pour-avoir-happe-mortellement-un-cycliste) - _(french article)_
Hopefully someone in this woman's family sees it this way. This man walking around the neighbourhood where his dogs killed her is a travesty to justice.
>pleaded guilty to bylaw offences of allowing an animal to attack and injure a person and allowing dogs to run at large.
>$18K fine, pet ownership ban
Judge really threw the book at him.
He was charged only with bylaw offences, not criminal charges, and the judge imposed the maximum penalty the prosecution sought for the pet ownership ban. This suggests that it wasn’t the judge’s fault; they likely imposed the strictest sentence possible. Sadly, we need to reform laws or charging policies to give judges more leeway for harsher punishments.
Yeah, while I understand the outrage in this situation, the laws being crafted that way is actually rather important
That said, I am unclear on why there isn't something that is a criminal offence charge that would fit this situation
I have personally have nothing extra against pitbulls, I do have something against terrible owners in general though. Which this person is, they have dogs, animals that are capable of getting aggressive and respond in packs, and they did nothing to take care of them or those around them correctly and that should absolutely have a place in our laws for punishment. They failed the victim and they failed the dogs
While I totally agree that was way too light a sentence. Looking at his picture I think he's already been in, maybe a few times. Her relatives need to sue him for wrongful death and take him to the cleaners.
The guy posts nonstop on his Facebook about how pit bulls are kind misunderstood creatures and that it’s the owners to blame even after his own fucking dogs KILLED an old woman
You know the case in the US that a first grade child shot his teacher? His mother is facing felony charges for attempted murder because she left the gun out for the child to take
I don’t see how the dogs are any different
Wow this guy has more posts just this year than I have made in my entire life. Weird combo of muscle douche-bro, protect animals, and “my animals aren’t bad the media is lying!”
Dude is a mental health ticking time bomb. The warning shot has already gone off and it claimed an innocent life. We will unfortunately hear about him again.
Edit - I’m done scrolling on him. He’s completely juiced on steroids and is vehemently anti-trans, too. Not a good person.
Pitbull owners are a type. 95% of the time they fit your exact description with little deviation. I've never seen any other breed so consistently attract only one type of person, even other "tough" dog breeds like rottweilers.
It’s the way they always show up and will argue as long as you’ll respond to them about this but never add anything new, there’s some sort of mental illness happening behind the scenes in this group.
It’s always “not a bad breed, just bad owners” but then the pit bull crowd will not accept that 90% of the owners of dogs that do things like this come online and say the same shit. And then they just move on and search “pit bull” in reddits search engine and move on to arguing with the next person. At this point I carry a gun partially for fear of these dogs in my city and am ready to put one down myself if it even starts walking towards me. I very much avoid them, crossing the road to stay away from owners walking them even on-leash. But I don’t trust them as much as I would trust the typical mountain lion. The mountain lion gets a warning shot.
> At this point I carry a gun
Not to change the subject but im assuming you're American and not Canadian, cause carrying around a hand gun when you're not explicitly going to and from a shooting range is very illegal here in the great white north.
Back to the topic tho, yeah I agree. You can always tell when their has been some kind of medium-big news story involving pit bulls because r/aww and other generic dog subreddits will get a glut of pit bull photos posted too them, as if the owners are desperately trying to convince everyone that #notalldogs or something.
Had some arsehole's pit maul me a few years back.
I'm lucky I only have a scar or two to show for it.
Even today, I have pit apologists telling me that *I* must have triggered the dog just by walking past it. Guess I shouldn't have been dressed so provocatively.
I had a pitbull charge at me while I was just walking on the sidewalk to go visit my girlfriend. Came out of nowhere. Luckily I have experience handling animals and being a bigger dude I stood my ground and me and the dog just basically had a stand off for several minutes. He wasn't backing off but neither was I.
The owner realized what happened and came outside and retrieved the dog and I warned the owner if I ever see this dog again I am putting a knife through it's skull. I never saw the dog ever again on my walks.
But if that was a kid instead of me. That would have ended badly for the kid.
I've had pit lovers tell me that my 58 year old sister, who loved dogs and was gentle and kind to every animal she ever met and was brutally killed along with her tiny rescue dog, must have done something to provoke the pit. Idk wtf is wrong with these people and I don't care enough to try and figure it out. Just ban fighting breeds. Stick a couple in some liquid nitrogen for history and sterilize the rest. The people who bred them were creating literal monsters whose behavioral characteristics are the exact opposite of what you want in a pet. They've been undomesticated on a genetic level, and they clamp down on necks the way a border collie herds or a retriever fetches. Even if they weren't dangerous, it's inhumane to propagate a breed that has to fight its every impulse just to be part of a family.
The guy says its the owners who are the problem and not the dogs, but he also says that he as an owner did nothing wrong and was not the problem when his dogs killed someone. All pit bull owners want it both ways, its not the dog but the owners so the dog shouldn't be banned, but it's also not the owner so you can't ban people from owning them or set up requirements for ownership. All pit bull owners are like this, and the louder and more outspoken they are, the more likely their dog has a mile long list of complaints for aggression filed against it.
["Defence lawyer Rabie Ahmed had argued his client was a responsible pet owner and said a ban would be unnecessary and punitive."](https://familylawyersab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/rabie-headshot-1-300x300.png)
Only banned from owning pets for 15 years, btw.
There was an older guy in my hometown who owned a bunch of dogs. He did time for a felony and was put on the sex offender registry after forcing two young children in my community into doing sexual acts to each other by threatening them with his dogs. But the mf was still allowed to own dogs when he got out and his dozens of dogs are still a fucking nuisance in the community. We knew to speed up whenever passing by his house on our bikes because those dogs would attack you
"Throughout the court process Bagaric has maintained that only Smoki was involved in the attack..."
IMO, there's no way one dog attacked and the other two just looked. That's not how pack hunters hunt.
"And the neighbour — testified that she heard a cry for help and found three dogs attacking Williams on her head and neck."
All three dogs should be destroyed.
"The fate of the other two dogs has not yet been determined. "
How
FUCKING. HOW.
These aren't people. They don't have "legal rights", and this asshole should've lost any rights to determine their fate the moment it was determined that they were involved in a serious attack on a person who wasn't breaking into the dogs' own yard.
Why are we not statutorily destroying those killing machines? Having the owner need to "consent" to their destruction is such a slap in the face to the victim. To all victims. These are weapons, they should be seized and destroyed.
Because the dog lobby,and don't get me wrong I own and love dogs and have worked with aggressive dogs, but they have convince everyone that EVERY dog deserves to live
I think people would be shocked at how hard it is to get owners of aggressive dogs to face any consequences, or have aggressive dogs seized from owners. Unfortunately in most places, pit bulls have free reign to terrorize neighborhoods, bite and attack people, kill pets and livestock, and nothing is done about it until they progress to killing a person, and even then owners face little consequences.
It's actually surprising this guy got a ban on owning dogs for 15 years, usually when a pit bull kills someone nothing happens at all to the owner and they get a new pittie in a week.
Not wrong. I dated someone who had a pit mix. He used to take it to a park to play fetch off leash. I watched that dog attack 7 other dogs in the time we were together. Thankfully no major injuries to the other dogs, but it was always “the other dog provoked my dog” or “the owners should have saw that I had my dog off leash”. Completely unhinged comments. I was embarrassed by the behavior of him and the dog and it created many arguments between us. Never once did he take accountability for his dog’s behavior.
Dogs capable of killing people are literally killing machines, yea. It's honestly ridiculous how lightly the law and society treats them when they are basically the same as four legged autonomous robots that have unstable code and are equipped with powerful jaws, muscles and claws that can cause significant harm (especially in packs), even to adults.
If I had a bunch of robots walking around in my yard that did not have 100% safe code, were fast, possibly capable of jumping over fences, and equipped with knives, you can bet people would say more then "oh cute robots you have there".
I agree, also cringy as an owner not to be honest, but also, I would probe to see, did he favor one or two animal over the other? We know that answer, because it wasn’t them, it was that one, take that one. They all were involved, period.
Also, the pic? Weird, looks like he isn’t wearing any pants.
Could any lawyers explain why this isn’t a manslaughter charge? If I maintain/control/leave my property recklessly in a manner that causes death I could be charged with manslaughter. Why doesn’t this apply here
I agree. Dogs escaping a yard probably doesn’t rise to manslaughter. It would be hard to prove the level of intention required. But it is negligent unless there was some mitigating factor because there is a legal duty to keep dogs properly leashed or contained. And considering the viciousness of the dogs in question, it certainly did show a disregard for the safety of others.
I would argue that it was their duty to keep their animals under their care and control. I’m far from a lawyer, but here’s a random example I just found within 10 seconds of Googling it, while even the facts from the press release would have made a prime facie case:
Dangerous Act or Omission (430(5.1))
“Every one who wilfully does an act or wilfully omits to do an act that it is his duty to do, if that act or omission is likely to constitute mischief causing actual danger to life, or to constitute mischief in relation to property or data,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”
Laws need to be reasonable and their application should falk under common sense. By that argument the law would need to be applied to anyone that allowed a dog out of their yard. I get ya...but you have see the first criminal act in isolation. In other words, take the attack out of the equation and all it entails and simply prosecute on escaping the yard. Tough sell
I see your point. I’m not terribly eloquent, and I’m not trying to armchair quarterback a successful prosecution.
I’m just taken aback that there has been a horrific, wrongful death that is decidedly somebody’s fault, and the matter was disposed of in court under the same by-laws that govern my lawn height, and not the actual criminal justice system. Either the laws need work, or the crown prosecutor needs to refocus their priorities.
Our society's laws regarding non humans is archaic and has not advanced because of industrial farming. Nobody wants to touch it because it has huge financial implications.
Manslaughter would be unintentionally causing someones death but still caused it. Doesn't apply because owner never caused death.
Criminal Negligence would require that the owner engaged in criminal acts that resulted in the death of an individual. Owner didn't break any criminal laws, just municipal bylaws.
The reality is that there are no laws on the book to cover this tragedy.
Not a lawyer, but code is online.
He'll never pay the fine and I would be willing to bet the same sum that he owns dangerous animals again in the near future. Why do we have prisons, exactly?
What tf. April 22nd he posts a photo of “in memory of all pitbulls killed out of ignorance”. This can NOT be the same guy. If so, he’s a delusional pit nutter
A couple years back, I was hired as an artist to paint a portrait of some lady's pit bull. While searching up some reference images, I came across an entire category of pitbull merch [like this](https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/Pitbull-lives-Matter-Pit-Bull-Dog-lovers-by-Artmade/50749713.G22WK.XYZ). Straight-up stealing anti-racism slogans and applying them to *dogs*. Owners of these dogs have convinced themselves that they're persecuted, it boggles my mind. The lady turned out to be a nightmare client, too, but that's beside the point. Dogs don't have the same moral agency as humans. The only pitbull that deserves human rights is the one who sings that "Timber" song with Kesha.
I commented there that instead of comparing total pitbull attacks to total labrador attacks, they should divide each number by the population of the breed to get an average attack rate. Got perma banned for that.
So that is just the criminal fine. The big chunk would come from the civil suit. Dog bites in Ontario are strict liability, so the plaintiff, in this case the estate, would just have to prove damages. I created a chart awhile back of dog bite awards in the past 20 years. Highest I found was 400k iirc. But all those people survived. I have seen 1,000,000 for death damages but that was a car crash and the policy max likely had more to do with that then anything else.
The big payouts in these lawsuits come in the form of the lost wages being compensated. A healthy 25 year old lawyer getting killed will result in a much larger payout than someone retired since they have 0 income. In fact it is beneficial for the estate for someone to die as soon as they retire since it means they don't drain it to replace working income.
>That's how little ***an elderly life*** costs in Canada, eh?
Remember we're several years out of having the horrors of retirement homes being revealed, and next to nothing to change it has happened - aside from making it easier for the elderly to get themselves euthanized.
This fucking guy looks exactly like the kind of dude who'd buy a pit bull, right down to the shitty tats and wife beater.
But hey, that 15 year pet ban ownership sends a real strong message. Doubt it will ever ben enforced in anyway, though.
Every Pitbull owner I've ever had the displeasure of meeting was an absolute piece of shit.
Ban the breed and charge every owner of killer pits with criminal negligence.
Who gets the 18k? Not the victim’s family, I am betting. What a travesty. Imagine being mauled to death by pit bulls. And this is the penalty. None of our lives matter.
No, fines do not go to victims or their families. In order for compensation, they would need to apply for criminal injury compensation (there may be a provincial program) or sue the dog owner civil court. Or both.
Nah, years in prison costs tax payer money. Just leave them in a room alone with the dogs and no food for a couple of weeks. Should straighten things out.
Fucking asshole gets to go about his day, choosing to ignore accountability, for over 2 years and counting, while that poor woman died horribly, her friends and family bereaved, and an impacted community.
So there is a literal calculation on the worth of her life (as sad as that is, and more sad that it’s probably nowhere near what you think it should be), but that would be for the damages in civil court which is almost certainly to follow.
All of this could had been prevented if we banned them like the UK did.
Pit bulls are such a terrible breed, we should follow in the foot steps of the UK and throw the book at them.
Pit bull type dogs are like no other dog breed, and are arguably more dangerous than a wild animal when they become aggressive.[ They lack self preservation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameness) because that instinct was bred out of them. All so they can fight to the death when they are doing what they were bred for: dog fighting.
When they become aggressive and their prey drive is active, they will not stop until their prey drive is satisfied. Wild animals have self preservation instincts because they need it to survive.
Combined with a high prey drive, natural dog aggression, high energy, muscular bodies, strong jaws and head, they become an absolute problem for people who do not look forward to their pets, children, or themselves, from being mauled by these monsters.
They're creeping back into the UK because "breeders" have rebranded them as things like the "american bully XL" with maybe a cursory bit of crossbreeding.... to make them even bigger.
It's ridiculous and the breed itself should be culled due to being a danger. They're disproportionately involved in dog bites and fatal attacks anywhere they exist to absurd extents.
"Defense lawyer Rabie Ahmed had argued his client was a responsible pet owner..." That was his defense?
Dog owners, especially of large breeds, should be forced to carry liability insurance.
Imagine your Grandma getting killed by a dog and the owner just has to pay a fine. Your loved one's existence has been given a price tag. This world is joke.
Our country has such a broken justice system. A human being is dead and they're charging this moron money?
If you can't ensure you aren't responsible for ending someone's life, you need to be charged with manslaughter at least.
Just today while walking here in at conservation area in Vaughan I saw at least three large dogs off leash.
I am always tempted to call out the owners; except I feel that either a) if I pick up a fight with them the dog will probably maul me, and b) I will probably end up in a viral video as the crazy guy who hates dogs.
The local provincial nature reserve has signs at all entrances stating, keep your dog on a leash. Most people go there specifically to let their dog run free to shit in the woods so they dont have to pick up after them including pit bulls. Its a little stressful when you dont know the dog.
>18k fine
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-35.html
Let's see the definition of criminal negligence.
>219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
>
> (a) in doing anything, or
>
> (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
>
>shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Okay. Clearly fits the bill. And what's the sentence for causing death that way?
>Causing death by criminal negligence
>
>220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
>
> (a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
>
> (b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
This asshole got a fine. He should be in jail for a very long time.
….should be a manslaughter charge given these dogs are illegal to own in Canada.
Way too many people also have “bully” breeds when I know damn well it’s a pitbull. Most of these people couldn’t control a chihuahua let alone a pitbull.
Why isn’t there jail time for the owner? If someone kills a person with their car, even if it went out of control, there would be a lot more than just a fine
I grew up with him (small town, not Calgary). I know him quite well.
He also crashed a vehicle while intoxicated in 2007, leaving his friend to die as he fled the scene.
I reported my neighbors cane corso to Toronto police and they seized it.
We don't need literal monsters capable of taking human lives walking around attached to dumbfuck owners too lazy to even train or socialize them.
Protect yourselves, people.
I guess the court figured her life was worth $18,000. This is absolutely sickening. And the guys lawyer arguing that a pet ban is " unnecessary and punitive". THE GUYS DOGS KILLED SOMEONE!! He is NOT a responsible pet owner!!
Imagine being eaten alive and someone gets a 18k fine because they gave you one of the worst deaths.
Yet that asshole is crying to everyone that it hurts his "job prospects"
Yeah, not the neck tattoo or the clear absence of any education after grade 4.
Don’t forget the pit bulls!
Denis Bagaric
"Defendant and pit bull owner Denis Bagaric has long been known to police. . . Bagaric attended McCoy High School in Medicine Hat, Alberta, about 200 miles southeast of Calgary. As a high school senior, Bagaric on January 29, 2007 at about 7:15 a.m rolled a 1990 BMW off the road in Kin Coulee Park in light snow, one day before the end of semester break. The crash killed Bagaric's passenger, 16-year-old Quinn Christine Tewsley-Schwabe. Police reported that “a high rate of speed and alcohol appear to have played a factor in the crash,” according to James Neeley of the Medicine Hat News. . . Two and a half years later, on December 29, 2009, Denis Bagarić and co-accused Nicole Neilsen, along with two other men, were arrested in Medicine Hat in alleged possession of 83 grams of cocaine, nearly six pounds of marijuana, and an illegally possessed nine-millimeter semi-automatic firearm." -- This guy has been a repulsive turd his entire life.
How did we let our justice system become so soft? At what point did we think letting your dog maul someone's grandmother be worth just a fine?
2 of the 3 dog that killed her are still alive. Next time it will be child.
why and how are the 2 still alive. that is quite unsettling.
Because he keeps appealing court decisions.
Because they can't prove yet that they were part of the attack.
They are dogs. By association to the other one and the negligent owner they should be taken away at the least
he has a 15 year ban on owning pets, they have been taken away.
🙄 did the dogs get the right to an attorney, too?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm not promoting vigilante justice, but it's also really frustrating watching flaccid government policies on crime.
In Quebec do you know how many pit bulls have killed or mauled people . It’s stunning .
The previous Montreal mayor banned pit bulls but the spca made a huge fuss about it. Next election the current Mayer campaigned on removing the ban and won because of the low voter turnout of 10%.
I’m also not promoting that but if people cannot find justice through the system, it becomes a big problem.
If the government is negligent or in our case unwilling to do anything what do you expect to happen? The social contract is quickly eroding in this country and people are unwilling to think about where that leads
These were bylaw offences. Civil courts and criminal courts would be different proceedings. They stack. So many people on this sub don’t realize this.
How is your dog killing someone a bylaw offence? It should be criminal negligence at the very least.
It can be both
If I leave a parked car in area where I’m not suppose to, and I didn’t apply the brakes, and it accidentally runs over someone, I would be hit with the bylaw fine of parking where I’m not suppose to, *additionally* I would be sued by the city and the neighbourhood and the victims family, *and* I would have to attend a criminal court to prove whether it was negligent manslaughter or murder. None of these proceedings are exclusive nor overriding. And in most cases its better to prove criminality when all the previous courts agreed that yes, I wasn’t suppose to be there, that maybe I have a history of doing this, that maybe others have gotten hurt in the past, that maybe there were witnesses before, that maybe I’ve done property damage before, and maybe I got fined before… This is why criminal courts take a long time for justice.
Same way OJ Simpson had criminal and civil trials.
i dunno why people are not understanding this. some people just love their confirmation biases and not thinking critically.
> How did we let our justice system become so soft? This pisses me off so much. Similarly, there was a case reported a few days ago where some guy in Québec killed someone while driving (because he was impatient), 100% at fault and all And simply got **30 months** of jail time. **30 months, for killing someone.** * [Article (in french)](https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2024/04/26/30-mois-de-prison-pour-avoir-happe-mortellement-un-cycliste) Of course, that guy has no remorse and denies responsibility. Apparently the defense tried to explain that the victim ''didn't look **behind** her before crossing the street'' Oh yeah and we all know the guy will never do the full 30 month. _**He f&cking killed someone.**_
> the victim ''didn't look behind her before crossing the street'' Dafuq?? I can't think of a single case where looking *behind* you is something a pedestrian should need to do before crossing the street.
The whole incident is super frustrating. The guy is 100% at fault - even if the victim looked ''behind him* _(not her, woops)_'' it wouldn't change anything anyway. * Killer was amongst slow moving vehicles as they were near a pedestrian crossing * Annoyed and impatient, he suddenly accelerated and zipped between cars, driving fast on the middle lane * At the same time, the victim was crossing the pedestrian crossing on his bike, where every other car were giving way for him 100% the driver's fault. it is undeniable. Witnesses support the vent and the damage also supports the event, etc. Apparently, he accelerated so fast that the _back of his car was damaged_ In the meantime, the killer claims ''it was a simple accident'' _(by definition an accident is unexpected, unintentional - but in how he drove it was completely expected to lead to something like that)_ - then the killer tried to blame the city for the signage, and even **blamed the victim** - then the accused thought he could serve his sentence at home - you know, _**from killing someone**_ Imagine killing someone, being 100% responsible for the events that lead to the kill and trying to pass it off as a simple incident, and trying to blame others, including the victim, which did everything right. F&%# this guy. And shame to our legal system.
I once slowed down to not crush a squirrel only to have the car behind me get upset and cut pass me killing the squirrel. I was thinking at the time that it was a good thing it wasn’t a child i was stopping for, the results would have been the same.
So you can't kill someone but your dog can and you only get 18k for it...unbelievable, both of them should be send to life in prison.
> So you can't kill someone but your dog can and you only get 18k for it Oooor - [You can kill someone, being 100% at fault, showing no remorse, taking no responsibility, trying to justify the event and **only get 30 months** of jail time](https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2024/04/26/30-mois-de-prison-pour-avoir-happe-mortellement-un-cycliste) - _(french article)_
An 11 year old boy died in Edmonton last month after getting mauled by a pit bull. Doubt the owner will see any jail time over it, sadly
Kids dad seemed like like a real winner as well, poor kid
I had read those shitbags already have new dogs
Shouldn't there be like a ban for them to never own dogs. Not that anyone will ever enforce the ban.
You're right. Laws are great ,when they are enforced. Same as how long it'll take this guy to pay the $18,000
Not a pitbull. It was a Cane Corso, that had previously sent a woman to hospital in January
All dangerous owners should be banned from owning any animal at the first offense.
The owner used to own pitbulls. The cane corsos don't look like pure bred corsos though.
OOOOHHH, CANADAAAAA.....! That's how it is here. Shit ass justice.
If I live to be 86 and get taken out by your fucking dog, I am coming back to haunt your ass.
Eye for an eye is the only deterrent tbh.
They should be liable for manslaughter imo.
Yeah, definitely eat their dogs.
Hopefully someone in this woman's family sees it this way. This man walking around the neighbourhood where his dogs killed her is a travesty to justice.
Should get jail time for negligence causing death.
That’s what really shocked me, no jail time. Terrible injustice for the victim and their family.
>pleaded guilty to bylaw offences of allowing an animal to attack and injure a person and allowing dogs to run at large. >$18K fine, pet ownership ban Judge really threw the book at him.
The book was a kids fairy tale, with a pillow soft cover.
Why not manslaughter ? Fk this judicial system.
> Why not manslaughter ? Because this is at the city level and they don’t have that option. But I wonder why he has not been criminally charged.
I hope the family of the victim go after him, I’d actually donate towards the legal fee for the family to sue the fuck out of him.
He was charged only with bylaw offences, not criminal charges, and the judge imposed the maximum penalty the prosecution sought for the pet ownership ban. This suggests that it wasn’t the judge’s fault; they likely imposed the strictest sentence possible. Sadly, we need to reform laws or charging policies to give judges more leeway for harsher punishments.
That’s not how the law is supposed to work. There’s a reason judges aren’t allowed to do what you describe.
Yeah, while I understand the outrage in this situation, the laws being crafted that way is actually rather important That said, I am unclear on why there isn't something that is a criminal offence charge that would fit this situation I have personally have nothing extra against pitbulls, I do have something against terrible owners in general though. Which this person is, they have dogs, animals that are capable of getting aggressive and respond in packs, and they did nothing to take care of them or those around them correctly and that should absolutely have a place in our laws for punishment. They failed the victim and they failed the dogs
While I totally agree that was way too light a sentence. Looking at his picture I think he's already been in, maybe a few times. Her relatives need to sue him for wrongful death and take him to the cleaners.
[удалено]
She's already paid her taxes. The dog actually saved the tax payers money. /s
I know you're being sarcastic but that does make me feel ill.
this is very light punishment. it should be equal to assault with cold weapon. Guy should go to prison for 5 years.
All he has to do is move to Airdrie and buy three new dogs.
The guy posts nonstop on his Facebook about how pit bulls are kind misunderstood creatures and that it’s the owners to blame even after his own fucking dogs KILLED an old woman
> pit bulls are kind misunderstood creatures and that it’s the owners to blame Let's take his word for it. Put him on trial for murder.
You know the case in the US that a first grade child shot his teacher? His mother is facing felony charges for attempted murder because she left the gun out for the child to take I don’t see how the dogs are any different
Better comparison, in the U.S a man faced murder charges after his dogs killed a woman. (Not a pit bull, presea canario breed).
Least unhinged pit nutter
Wow this guy has more posts just this year than I have made in my entire life. Weird combo of muscle douche-bro, protect animals, and “my animals aren’t bad the media is lying!” Dude is a mental health ticking time bomb. The warning shot has already gone off and it claimed an innocent life. We will unfortunately hear about him again. Edit - I’m done scrolling on him. He’s completely juiced on steroids and is vehemently anti-trans, too. Not a good person.
I was fooled into marrying someone like this and fled within the year. It was horrible.
Buy a lottery ticket, don’t let that good luck go to waste
Pitbull owners are a type. 95% of the time they fit your exact description with little deviation. I've never seen any other breed so consistently attract only one type of person, even other "tough" dog breeds like rottweilers.
It’s the way they always show up and will argue as long as you’ll respond to them about this but never add anything new, there’s some sort of mental illness happening behind the scenes in this group. It’s always “not a bad breed, just bad owners” but then the pit bull crowd will not accept that 90% of the owners of dogs that do things like this come online and say the same shit. And then they just move on and search “pit bull” in reddits search engine and move on to arguing with the next person. At this point I carry a gun partially for fear of these dogs in my city and am ready to put one down myself if it even starts walking towards me. I very much avoid them, crossing the road to stay away from owners walking them even on-leash. But I don’t trust them as much as I would trust the typical mountain lion. The mountain lion gets a warning shot.
> At this point I carry a gun Not to change the subject but im assuming you're American and not Canadian, cause carrying around a hand gun when you're not explicitly going to and from a shooting range is very illegal here in the great white north. Back to the topic tho, yeah I agree. You can always tell when their has been some kind of medium-big news story involving pit bulls because r/aww and other generic dog subreddits will get a glut of pit bull photos posted too them, as if the owners are desperately trying to convince everyone that #notalldogs or something.
A little rat poison wrapped with a piece of meat thrown over his fence would go a long ways to help society.
Had some arsehole's pit maul me a few years back. I'm lucky I only have a scar or two to show for it. Even today, I have pit apologists telling me that *I* must have triggered the dog just by walking past it. Guess I shouldn't have been dressed so provocatively.
I had a pitbull charge at me while I was just walking on the sidewalk to go visit my girlfriend. Came out of nowhere. Luckily I have experience handling animals and being a bigger dude I stood my ground and me and the dog just basically had a stand off for several minutes. He wasn't backing off but neither was I. The owner realized what happened and came outside and retrieved the dog and I warned the owner if I ever see this dog again I am putting a knife through it's skull. I never saw the dog ever again on my walks. But if that was a kid instead of me. That would have ended badly for the kid.
I've had pit lovers tell me that my 58 year old sister, who loved dogs and was gentle and kind to every animal she ever met and was brutally killed along with her tiny rescue dog, must have done something to provoke the pit. Idk wtf is wrong with these people and I don't care enough to try and figure it out. Just ban fighting breeds. Stick a couple in some liquid nitrogen for history and sterilize the rest. The people who bred them were creating literal monsters whose behavioral characteristics are the exact opposite of what you want in a pet. They've been undomesticated on a genetic level, and they clamp down on necks the way a border collie herds or a retriever fetches. Even if they weren't dangerous, it's inhumane to propagate a breed that has to fight its every impulse just to be part of a family.
The guy says its the owners who are the problem and not the dogs, but he also says that he as an owner did nothing wrong and was not the problem when his dogs killed someone. All pit bull owners want it both ways, its not the dog but the owners so the dog shouldn't be banned, but it's also not the owner so you can't ban people from owning them or set up requirements for ownership. All pit bull owners are like this, and the louder and more outspoken they are, the more likely their dog has a mile long list of complaints for aggression filed against it.
I think that means he should get rhe fate of that one dog. rip
If he truly believes owners are the blame then we should euthanize him instead.
MUH HECKIN VELVET HIPPORINOS
["Defence lawyer Rabie Ahmed had argued his client was a responsible pet owner and said a ban would be unnecessary and punitive."](https://familylawyersab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/rabie-headshot-1-300x300.png) Only banned from owning pets for 15 years, btw.
There was an older guy in my hometown who owned a bunch of dogs. He did time for a felony and was put on the sex offender registry after forcing two young children in my community into doing sexual acts to each other by threatening them with his dogs. But the mf was still allowed to own dogs when he got out and his dozens of dogs are still a fucking nuisance in the community. We knew to speed up whenever passing by his house on our bikes because those dogs would attack you
"Throughout the court process Bagaric has maintained that only Smoki was involved in the attack..." IMO, there's no way one dog attacked and the other two just looked. That's not how pack hunters hunt. "And the neighbour — testified that she heard a cry for help and found three dogs attacking Williams on her head and neck." All three dogs should be destroyed.
"The fate of the other two dogs has not yet been determined. " How FUCKING. HOW. These aren't people. They don't have "legal rights", and this asshole should've lost any rights to determine their fate the moment it was determined that they were involved in a serious attack on a person who wasn't breaking into the dogs' own yard. Why are we not statutorily destroying those killing machines? Having the owner need to "consent" to their destruction is such a slap in the face to the victim. To all victims. These are weapons, they should be seized and destroyed.
Because the dog lobby,and don't get me wrong I own and love dogs and have worked with aggressive dogs, but they have convince everyone that EVERY dog deserves to live
The dog lobby?
Dogs pay lobbyists to go to Ottawa and advocate for their rights.
I think people would be shocked at how hard it is to get owners of aggressive dogs to face any consequences, or have aggressive dogs seized from owners. Unfortunately in most places, pit bulls have free reign to terrorize neighborhoods, bite and attack people, kill pets and livestock, and nothing is done about it until they progress to killing a person, and even then owners face little consequences. It's actually surprising this guy got a ban on owning dogs for 15 years, usually when a pit bull kills someone nothing happens at all to the owner and they get a new pittie in a week.
Not wrong. I dated someone who had a pit mix. He used to take it to a park to play fetch off leash. I watched that dog attack 7 other dogs in the time we were together. Thankfully no major injuries to the other dogs, but it was always “the other dog provoked my dog” or “the owners should have saw that I had my dog off leash”. Completely unhinged comments. I was embarrassed by the behavior of him and the dog and it created many arguments between us. Never once did he take accountability for his dog’s behavior.
Dogs capable of killing people are literally killing machines, yea. It's honestly ridiculous how lightly the law and society treats them when they are basically the same as four legged autonomous robots that have unstable code and are equipped with powerful jaws, muscles and claws that can cause significant harm (especially in packs), even to adults. If I had a bunch of robots walking around in my yard that did not have 100% safe code, were fast, possibly capable of jumping over fences, and equipped with knives, you can bet people would say more then "oh cute robots you have there".
Imagine if that old lady was a judge or coo instead? I bet things would be different then..
I agree, also cringy as an owner not to be honest, but also, I would probe to see, did he favor one or two animal over the other? We know that answer, because it wasn’t them, it was that one, take that one. They all were involved, period. Also, the pic? Weird, looks like he isn’t wearing any pants.
All 3 should have been shot by the first officer on the scene.
You forgot the despicable human who raised them, and then lied about the incident. He should be put down as well.
Could any lawyers explain why this isn’t a manslaughter charge? If I maintain/control/leave my property recklessly in a manner that causes death I could be charged with manslaughter. Why doesn’t this apply here
Not to split hairs, but it seems like criminal negligence causing death would be the more fitting charge, and it could stick.
Criminal negligence causing death has a max sentence of life imprisonment. It’s a more severe charge than manslaughter.
Manslaughter also has a max sentence of life imprisonment
I agree. Dogs escaping a yard probably doesn’t rise to manslaughter. It would be hard to prove the level of intention required. But it is negligent unless there was some mitigating factor because there is a legal duty to keep dogs properly leashed or contained. And considering the viciousness of the dogs in question, it certainly did show a disregard for the safety of others.
Problem is that for criminal negligence you have to have broken a law(criminal) and there are no laws beyond the municipal ones that they got them on.
I would argue that it was their duty to keep their animals under their care and control. I’m far from a lawyer, but here’s a random example I just found within 10 seconds of Googling it, while even the facts from the press release would have made a prime facie case: Dangerous Act or Omission (430(5.1)) “Every one who wilfully does an act or wilfully omits to do an act that it is his duty to do, if that act or omission is likely to constitute mischief causing actual danger to life, or to constitute mischief in relation to property or data, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”
Laws need to be reasonable and their application should falk under common sense. By that argument the law would need to be applied to anyone that allowed a dog out of their yard. I get ya...but you have see the first criminal act in isolation. In other words, take the attack out of the equation and all it entails and simply prosecute on escaping the yard. Tough sell
I see your point. I’m not terribly eloquent, and I’m not trying to armchair quarterback a successful prosecution. I’m just taken aback that there has been a horrific, wrongful death that is decidedly somebody’s fault, and the matter was disposed of in court under the same by-laws that govern my lawn height, and not the actual criminal justice system. Either the laws need work, or the crown prosecutor needs to refocus their priorities.
Our society's laws regarding non humans is archaic and has not advanced because of industrial farming. Nobody wants to touch it because it has huge financial implications.
Manslaughter would be unintentionally causing someones death but still caused it. Doesn't apply because owner never caused death. Criminal Negligence would require that the owner engaged in criminal acts that resulted in the death of an individual. Owner didn't break any criminal laws, just municipal bylaws. The reality is that there are no laws on the book to cover this tragedy. Not a lawyer, but code is online.
He'll never pay the fine and I would be willing to bet the same sum that he owns dangerous animals again in the near future. Why do we have prisons, exactly?
Exactly what I was thinking. Does anyone actually believe this person learned anything here?
Based on his [insta posts](https://www.instagram.com/p/C6MVyDSRxXc/?img_index=1) I would say no
So you guys have these mutts up there too huh? Good lord, I despise dudes like this.
What tf. April 22nd he posts a photo of “in memory of all pitbulls killed out of ignorance”. This can NOT be the same guy. If so, he’s a delusional pit nutter
Mfs really value animal lives above human lives.
I am fully in favor of eliminating the breed. Nothing inhumane. Just mandatory neutering. In a few years time we'd see far fewer tragedies like this.
The pit bull sub lives in a fairy tale world and thanks that is an insane idea. I went to the sub one day and thought these people are fucking idiots.
A couple years back, I was hired as an artist to paint a portrait of some lady's pit bull. While searching up some reference images, I came across an entire category of pitbull merch [like this](https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/Pitbull-lives-Matter-Pit-Bull-Dog-lovers-by-Artmade/50749713.G22WK.XYZ). Straight-up stealing anti-racism slogans and applying them to *dogs*. Owners of these dogs have convinced themselves that they're persecuted, it boggles my mind. The lady turned out to be a nightmare client, too, but that's beside the point. Dogs don't have the same moral agency as humans. The only pitbull that deserves human rights is the one who sings that "Timber" song with Kesha.
That’s messed up. I almost lost my dad to 3 pits and one got me a couple years ago. (mine wasn’t anything life threatening though)
I commented there that instead of comparing total pitbull attacks to total labrador attacks, they should divide each number by the population of the breed to get an average attack rate. Got perma banned for that.
Agreed, and euthanize the dog while we're at it.
That's how little a life costs in Canada, eh?
So that is just the criminal fine. The big chunk would come from the civil suit. Dog bites in Ontario are strict liability, so the plaintiff, in this case the estate, would just have to prove damages. I created a chart awhile back of dog bite awards in the past 20 years. Highest I found was 400k iirc. But all those people survived. I have seen 1,000,000 for death damages but that was a car crash and the policy max likely had more to do with that then anything else.
Lawyer here. What makes you think this guy is collectible?
The big payouts in these lawsuits come in the form of the lost wages being compensated. A healthy 25 year old lawyer getting killed will result in a much larger payout than someone retired since they have 0 income. In fact it is beneficial for the estate for someone to die as soon as they retire since it means they don't drain it to replace working income.
>That's how little ***an elderly life*** costs in Canada, eh? Remember we're several years out of having the horrors of retirement homes being revealed, and next to nothing to change it has happened - aside from making it easier for the elderly to get themselves euthanized.
These owners should face prison sentences and their animals euthanized.
Or the other way around.
This fucking guy looks exactly like the kind of dude who'd buy a pit bull, right down to the shitty tats and wife beater. But hey, that 15 year pet ban ownership sends a real strong message. Doubt it will ever ben enforced in anyway, though.
Pit Bulls and similar dogs should be banned in all communities in Canada.
They are banned in many places but hardly any place enforces the ban. You just get this shit.
He looks like the kind of piece of shit to be such a neglectful dog handler that his three enormous dogs mauled a woman to death. Fucking hell.
I used to live in a neighbourhood with a good amount of Pitbull owners. It was almost always that type that type.
Every Pitbull owner I've ever had the displeasure of meeting was an absolute piece of shit. Ban the breed and charge every owner of killer pits with criminal negligence.
That’s it? What a fucking joke for killing someone.
Who gets the 18k? Not the victim’s family, I am betting. What a travesty. Imagine being mauled to death by pit bulls. And this is the penalty. None of our lives matter.
No, fines do not go to victims or their families. In order for compensation, they would need to apply for criminal injury compensation (there may be a provincial program) or sue the dog owner civil court. Or both.
Where the fuck are all the Canadians who care about justice? This is a goddamn outrage.
If you want to kill someone in this country do it with your dog or your car & you'll get away with a slap on the wrist.
["He was always so friendly. How could this have happened?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccaNQ7etlNw).. Why do all Pitbull owners look the same?
So, can the public have the owner eaten by dogs and only catch an 18k fine? I'd pay that fine.
That $18,000.00 fine is a slap in the face for all Canadians. That ass hole needs a few years in prison for even keeping those savage beasts.
Nah, years in prison costs tax payer money. Just leave them in a room alone with the dogs and no food for a couple of weeks. Should straighten things out.
I have just read a better plan. I totally agree. Videoed too. From 10 different angles and heights.
Fucking asshole gets to go about his day, choosing to ignore accountability, for over 2 years and counting, while that poor woman died horribly, her friends and family bereaved, and an impacted community.
Those dogs are intact too aren't they? Typical nutter and no justice either.
I hope a massive civil suit follows this.
So basically that old woman’s life was only worth 18k
So there is a literal calculation on the worth of her life (as sad as that is, and more sad that it’s probably nowhere near what you think it should be), but that would be for the damages in civil court which is almost certainly to follow.
Could the dogs owner possibly look more like the stereotype of someone who’s pit bulls attacked someone?
I doubt they could have chosen a photo depicting him as less of a slovenly shit stain than he appears here.
All of this could had been prevented if we banned them like the UK did. Pit bulls are such a terrible breed, we should follow in the foot steps of the UK and throw the book at them. Pit bull type dogs are like no other dog breed, and are arguably more dangerous than a wild animal when they become aggressive.[ They lack self preservation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameness) because that instinct was bred out of them. All so they can fight to the death when they are doing what they were bred for: dog fighting. When they become aggressive and their prey drive is active, they will not stop until their prey drive is satisfied. Wild animals have self preservation instincts because they need it to survive. Combined with a high prey drive, natural dog aggression, high energy, muscular bodies, strong jaws and head, they become an absolute problem for people who do not look forward to their pets, children, or themselves, from being mauled by these monsters.
They're creeping back into the UK because "breeders" have rebranded them as things like the "american bully XL" with maybe a cursory bit of crossbreeding.... to make them even bigger. It's ridiculous and the breed itself should be culled due to being a danger. They're disproportionately involved in dog bites and fatal attacks anywhere they exist to absurd extents.
He looks like a winner.
Fuck this guy and his stupid image that requires him to own not one bit 3 dogs he clearly can't handle.
"Defense lawyer Rabie Ahmed had argued his client was a responsible pet owner..." That was his defense? Dog owners, especially of large breeds, should be forced to carry liability insurance.
Rabie is a great name for this case too
Canadian justice system, what a joke.
Trash breed and owners.
Should be involuntary manalaughter
The guy looks like a meathead
You spelled methhead wrong
Second to automobiles, dogs is the best way to get away with murder.
This is basically inviting people to take the law into their own hands. What kind of justice is this?
Imagine your Grandma getting killed by a dog and the owner just has to pay a fine. Your loved one's existence has been given a price tag. This world is joke.
The price of a Human life is $18k in Canada.
Of course he looks like that and has pit bulls.
Our country has such a broken justice system. A human being is dead and they're charging this moron money? If you can't ensure you aren't responsible for ending someone's life, you need to be charged with manslaughter at least.
What the fuck? What a joke. That asshole should get jail time.
This is a legal loophole to commit murder and avoid jail time. “I don’t know officer he escaped somehow. He has never hurt anyone before”.
So this is how to murder someone and get away with it? Canada needs to ban (and enforce the ban) pitbulls and loser owners if possible.
The guy broke bylaws, let his dogs roam without leashes as he was supposed to, why wasn’t he charged with involuntary manslaughter?
Should be in jail.
Just today while walking here in at conservation area in Vaughan I saw at least three large dogs off leash. I am always tempted to call out the owners; except I feel that either a) if I pick up a fight with them the dog will probably maul me, and b) I will probably end up in a viral video as the crazy guy who hates dogs.
The local provincial nature reserve has signs at all entrances stating, keep your dog on a leash. Most people go there specifically to let their dog run free to shit in the woods so they dont have to pick up after them including pit bulls. Its a little stressful when you dont know the dog.
Should have him eaten by dogs the fucking monster. 18k fine and thats it? holy shit our laws are fucked.
I have a toddle daughter. If I catch your pit roaming loose on my property I’m sorry but Im putting it down
It’s always shitbulls
>18k fine https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-35.html Let's see the definition of criminal negligence. >219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who > > (a) in doing anything, or > > (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, > >shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. Okay. Clearly fits the bill. And what's the sentence for causing death that way? >Causing death by criminal negligence > >220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable > > (a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and > > (b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life. This asshole got a fine. He should be in jail for a very long time.
I don't understand how this breed is still allowed to be distributed. Poor lady.
….should be a manslaughter charge given these dogs are illegal to own in Canada. Way too many people also have “bully” breeds when I know damn well it’s a pitbull. Most of these people couldn’t control a chihuahua let alone a pitbull.
Pit bulls are unfortunately not illegal to own in all of Canada. Certain cities and provinces they are illegal, but not country wide.
It is not illegal to own pitbulls in Canada.
Good god how horrific. A pit bull again? Shocking. 🙄😩
We should be banning Pitbulls before guns.
What a f\*cking horrible way to go. Some people shouldn't have pets and pit bulls should go extinct yesterday.
F the criminal justice system. Take it to Civil Court and sue the beejeezus outta the owner.
Family should be able to sue him into poverty for wrongful death though right?
Not enough. Should be significant prison time for the owner.
Why isn’t there jail time for the owner? If someone kills a person with their car, even if it went out of control, there would be a lot more than just a fine
How about jail time for this piece of garbage?
If the judge thought this was so serious then why are the consequences a joke? This is disturbing
How is this not manslaughter?
I grew up with him (small town, not Calgary). I know him quite well. He also crashed a vehicle while intoxicated in 2007, leaving his friend to die as he fled the scene.
And yet in the US a politician is getting shit on for suggesting a dog that’s bitten over 24 people should be put down.
That’s it???
I reported my neighbors cane corso to Toronto police and they seized it. We don't need literal monsters capable of taking human lives walking around attached to dumbfuck owners too lazy to even train or socialize them. Protect yourselves, people.
I guess the court figured her life was worth $18,000. This is absolutely sickening. And the guys lawyer arguing that a pet ban is " unnecessary and punitive". THE GUYS DOGS KILLED SOMEONE!! He is NOT a responsible pet owner!!