|
A recent local case shed some light on this topic. The details of the case are not as important as the arguments over whether the owner was criminally liable for the acts of the dog. One of the defense's arguments was that the dog had NOT been trained to attack and was not under the owner's total control. In short, the defense won on the basis that the dog had a mind of its own and acted on its instincts, but the dog was incapable of criminal intent.
|