Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
First question that comes to my mind is.... what exactly had been done to the dogs to make them do that? No dog in their right mind attacks their owners like that, unless they've been badly abused or something.
Do you think the dead man will be kicked out of his apartment?Although it appears the man with the crossbow won't be prosecuted, in the course of a criminal investigation I suspect the authorities will be asking the same question about two dogs normally kept in cages. Though I know how their tenant or homeowners insurance underwriters would feel about such an exposure.
Do you think the dead man will be kicked out of his apartment?
Although it appears the man with the crossbow won't be prosecuted, in the course of a criminal investigation I suspect the authorities will be asking the same question about two dogs normally kept in cages. Though I know how their tenant or homeowners insurance underwriters would feel about such an exposure.
Isn't it true that the type of dog - or other pets - is considered by insurers in setting the price of homeowners premiums? People with pit bulls pay more than people with sheepdogs, etc. because of the increased risk of an insurance claim.
It varies widely with the carrier and area. The real issue for insurers lies with their actual aggregate loss history. With the company I once underwrote for, the most offending breed was also one of the most common- Labrador Retrievers. Of course such statistics can easily change from year to year. But the greatest exposure to loss didn't usually mean the most aggressive breed of canine either.
Dogs aren't considered to be an exposure an insurer or their policyholder can effectively control. That in my time, in the event of a dogbite it meant exclusively non-renewal. Not simply raising premiums. Unless of course the policyholder elected or was forced by the authorities to euthanize their pet. Not an option insurers would offer themselves.
I just recall an old case in the Bay Area involving a Pressa Canario that mauled a neighbor in their San Francisco apartment building. The dog's name was "Bane", and yes- was trained to fight. The poor woman who died was essentially ripped apart by the dog. The dog was destroyed, and both owners went to prison for a few years.
I remember that case, too. The dog owners were prison inmates, and the couple who were taking care of the dogs in an apartment building were attorneys. I think there were two dogs involved. Horrible death for the lady who was attacked.
My husband was bitten on the nose by a Chihuahua.
Don't ask why his nose was in the proximity of the Chihuahua. Okay, I'll tell you. He was trying to kiss the Chihuahua. And they hadn't even been properly introduced.
You are setting yourself up for a fall if you think one breed is psychologically unbalanced as opposed to another one read any dog's body language not the breedSaw a horrible scar from Akita breed. The child was hyper also probably freaked out the dog. Doberman is another breed that insurers aren't happy about.
I saw a pitbull dog when l lived on the res. One day it parked itself under our car. I instinctively knew to stay away, that is built like a powerhouse dog. The dog gave off a strange energy. His human parents, where kicked off the res, because the Fed employee lied about a university degree they didn't have when working for the Indian health services hospital. Don't lie to Uncle Sam.