Should a Dog Die Because a Man Can't Read?

I found this article amusing. Thought you might all alike to learn it. There was an article in the New York Daily News about how a man was "mauled by three vicious pit bulls when he entered a fenced yard to go out menus" even though there was a signal that clearly read "Beware of Dog." The man, Chinese immigrant Xiu Ming Li who has lived in Us for 26 years, was bitten on his legs, arm, and mind and had an earlobe chewed off.

The man's daughter, outraged, argued that her father couldn't read English; therefore, the house was useless. The three dogs were taken into custody, where one died, presumably of a heart attack due to the incident. The story mainly focuses on the man and the injuries he suffered, but, call me unsympathetic, my heart really goes out to the dog that was killed. And, yes, I am using the son killed because that's what happened. The owner clearly had a warning sign, cautioning visitors (unwelcomed or not) of the presence of guard dogs - dogs who are territorial and will go at lengths to protect their family. The guy had been living in Usa for 26 years . I'm sorry, but there is no understanding why he shouldn't have learned the words by now. Not to note that entering a fenced-in area, regardless of warning signs, is considered trespassing in most states. And if you want to unlatch a gate to enter a property, it probably means you shouldn't be passing in there in the foremost place. Literary knowledge isn't required to recognize that - it's called common sense. In my opinion, the dogs were just doing their job. The torah for dog attacks vary from land to state, but for the majority, they learn something like this: The proprietor of any dog that has bitten a man being shall give the responsibility to take such reasonable steps as are essential to hit any danger presented to other persons from bites by the animal. Whenever a dog has bitten a man existence on at least two separate occasions, any person, the district attorney, or city attorney may get an action against the possessor of the creature to decide whether conditions of the discussion or restriction of the dog or other circumstances existing at the sentence of the bites have been changed so as to take the risk to other persons presented by the animal. This action shall be brought in the county where a bite occurred. The court, after hearing, may take any rate it deems appropriate to keep the return of such an incident, including, but not express to, the removal of the creature from the area or its destruction if necessary. BUT . Nothing in this part shall authorise the delivery of an action pursuant to subdivision (b) based on a snack or bites inflicted upon a trespasser, or by a dog used in military or police work if the bit or bites occurred while the dog was actually playing in that capacity. Trespassing - which is allegedly what the man was doing, since he came into a fenced-in property, uninvited. And though the law have no plans to commit the dog owner (and she'll get her two dogs that did go back as farsighted as she produces registration papers), one dog died in this incidental and naught is being done. Should animal rights not be considered in this site? If somebody came onto a property, uninvited, and caused a man to die during a struggle when protecting their home, you bet your ass the intruder would be charged. What do you consider should have happened in this position? Do you believe the fact that he couldn't read lets him off the hook (or puts the province in the owner's hands)? Or do you think Xiu should be charged?Should a Dog Die Because a Man Can?t Read? | The Stir