Dog Attacks Passenger on 4 Train

[Lawrence St]

Ok ok, let's look at it from another perspective.

Let's say the man in this video was the dog. Would the same outcome have happened?

[B35 via Church]

Something stinks about this whole thing.... This lady should be walking around with one hand missing right now, f***ing around with some a**hole on the train w/ a pitbull..... I'm not defending anyone in the video, from the dog owner to the person that recorded this.....

[P3F]

8 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Yeah that's literally how societies work idiot.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attica_Prison_riot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_apartheid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_European_anti-Communist_insurgencies

The list goes on...

Ok man, go start the revolution. Or maybe the rights movement. See where that gets you.

[Deucey]

8 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Yeah that's literally how societies work idiot.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attica_Prison_riot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_apartheid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_European_anti-Communist_insurgencies

The list goes on...

You're really comparing revolutions due to oppressive practices of the ruling elite to banning dogs on the subway.

 

I'm failing to see how a rule aimed at preventing dog bites and unsanitary conditions caused by pets - with pet ownership being an opt-in demographic, is on par with:

• A racial caste system that decided black people couldn't drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools as white people because they were born black;
• A racial caste system that decided that black people would till lands and grow crops for white overlords, be subject to beatings, punitive castrations and mutilations, rapes, death and other "punishments" for disobeying a white person or resisting forced slavery
• Starvation due to rationing by governments that spent profligately on themselves and their royals
• Being forced to pay taxes and obey laws of a King's government on the other side of the world while not being allowed to participate because of where one resided

[Via Garibaldi 8]

8 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

If we really are going to fight over if a dog is on the subway, and if it's really that serious just do this and call it a day.

(To be clear idgaf about the law of animals on subways nor is it relavant to me. I'll probably still get the usual forum argument treatment though.)

You don't have to care about the law of animals on subways. It's pretty cut and dry. If they aren't service dogs and they aren't in a carrier, they don't belong on the subway. The issue here is the not enforcing the rules that it sets and as a result passengers being injured. So in this case supposedly the dog was attacked. If the dog were in a carrier as it should've been problem solved. 

Rules followed=Civilization. 

 

[Interested Rider]

9 hours ago, SevenEleven said:

When the culture being garnered that the public can do whatever they want with zero consequences, stupid stuff like this will happen.

This is true. 

I was working door control at the polls on election day one year and a person who was walking her German Shepherd dog comes into vote with the dog which was clearly not a service animal. I disappeared faster than a speeding bullet as I fear dogs. Thankfully she was stopped at the door and told to return to vote without the dog.

I have found that there are many dog owners who respect those of us who have a fear of them and I am proud to know them. The problem is that there will always b people who will try not to follow the law in different situations as they figure that they will get away with it and in many cases they do Yet these individuals are the first ones to cry and yell when they are caught committing the violation.. What they do not realize is that their actions create the clamor for more laws that would have not been necessarye if they  just followed the law in the first place, 

[Deucey]

15 minutes ago, Interested Rider said:

This is true. 

I was working door control at the polls on election day one year and a person who was walking her German Shepherd dog comes into vote with the dog which was clearly not a service animal. I disappeared faster than a speeding bullet as I fear dogs. Thankfully she was stopped at the door and told to return to vote without the dog.

I have found that there are many dog owners who respect those of us who have a fear of them and I am proud to know them. The problem is that there will always b people who will try not to follow the law in different situations as they figure that they will get away with it and in many cases they do Yet these individuals are the first ones to cry and yell when they are caught committing the violation.. What they do not realize is that their actions create the clamor for more laws that would have not been necessarye if they  just followed the law in the first place, 

The problem is that people can and are so arrogant that they feel like everyone should accommodate them without justification.

IDGAF if your St Bernard is your fur baby - it doesn't belong on the train if it can't fit in a carrier. OAN, if you feel the need to have a big ass dog and a vet 8 miles across town from your apartment, maybe it's time you really rethink your life choices.

[kosciusko]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

You're really comparing revolutions due to oppressive practices of the ruling elite to banning dogs on the subway.

Of course I'm not, that was never the argument I was making. But the same logical principle applies. If people don't like a law, they won't follow it. See, speed limits, drug laws, jaywalking, etc.

1 hour ago, P3F said:

Ok man, go start the revolution. Or maybe the rights movement. See where that gets you.

I'm just responding to your point.

Quote

So anybody can just go break laws if they believe they are unjust? Right...

Yes, people won't follow laws if the general will deems them unjust.

 

Anyways my key point has still not been addressed: It's said in the video that the lady attacked the dog, if she hadn't had attacked the dog, this wouldn't have happened. If you attack a dog, there will be consequences for you. Just like if you attack a human.

 

 

[P3F]

12 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Of course I'm not, that was never the argument I was making. But the same logical principle applies. If people don't like a law, they won't follow it. See, speed limits, drug laws, jaywalking, etc.

I'm just responding to your point.

Yes, people won't follow laws if the general will deems them unjust.

Ah yes, and people who believe that disallowing unenclosed dogs on the subway is a good idea due to sanitary and safety reasons are idiots for not following your purported general will. And yes, you were comparing those revolutions to the  not allowing dogs on the train, by stating that they are "examples" of people not following unjust laws, which is quite clearly your opinion of the dog rule.

 

Your "key point" has been addressed fairly well above:

Quote

You don't have to care about the law of animals on subways. It's pretty cut and dry. If they aren't service dogs and they aren't in a carrier, they don't belong on the subway. The issue here is the not enforcing the rules that it sets and as a result passengers being injured. So in this case supposedly the dog was attacked. If the dog were in a carrier as it should've been problem solved. 

Rules followed=Civilization. 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

The problem is that people can and are so arrogant that they feel like everyone should accommodate them without justification.

IDGAF if your St Bernard is your fur baby - it doesn't belong on the train if it can't fit in a carrier. OAN, if you feel the need to have a big ass dog and a vet 8 miles across town from your apartment, maybe it's time you really rethink your life choices.

Or get a f-ing car... How about that... It's really crazy what I've been seeing on the subways of late... Just people bringing anything and everything on the subways... People dancing practically naked.  There are no limits anymore...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

9 minutes ago, P3F said:

Ah yes, and people who believe that disallowing unenclosed dogs on the subway is a good idea due to sanitary and safety reasons are idiots for not following your purported general will. And yes, you were comparing those revolutions to the  not allowing dogs on the train, by stating that they are "examples" of people not following unjust laws, which is quite clearly your opinion of the dog rule.

 

Your "key point" has been addressed fairly well above:

 

This kosciusko person may not even be an adult.  I mean if you're an adult and you don't see the problem with this dog being on the subway, then I don't know what to say. 

[Deucey]

43 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Of course I'm not, that was never the argument I was making. But the same logical principle applies. If people don't like a law, they won't follow it. See, speed limits, drug laws, jaywalking, etc.

No it doesn't.

For the same principle to apply, you'd have to equate dog owners being forced to abide rules with people rebelling because of systemic oppression. Dog owners can walk or buy a car or sell their dog. Slaves, serfs and oppressed ethnic groups and demographics cannot and could not get out of their status without overthrowing the system oppressing them.

 

 

[Deucey]

30 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Or get a f-ing car... How about that... It's really crazy what I've been seeing on the subways of late... Just people bringing anything and everything on the subways... People dancing practically naked.  There are no limits anymore...

When I saw the hipster going from 14th St to Hells Kitchen - Moving - with his mattress on the  , I knew that these folks who only knew NYC from SATC and Friends just took NYC's "devil may care" attitude about personal behaviors too far.

And I spent enough time here as a kid to be qualified to say that.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 minutes ago, Deucey said:

When I saw the hipster going from 14th St to Hells Kitchen - Moving - with his mattress on the  , I knew that these folks who only knew NYC from SATC and Friends just took NYC's "devil may care" attitude about personal behaviors too far.

And I spent enough time here as a kid to be qualified to say that.

That's the other thing.  I mean when did people start moving with their mattress on the damn subway??? Like I just don't understand it, and there's no enforcement either. It's like we have people moving here and natives alike that just go down in the subway and test the limits. Why not? No one is going to say anything aside from pulling out their cell phones to record it.  No sense of class or pride anymore. I took the subway one stop yesterday from 57th to 42nd.  There was this guy on the  talking out loud about all of his personal business... When he was getting his welfare check, and how much money he had collected begging, etc.  It was just crazy.  I think we also have so many mentally disturbed people walking around and on the subways. I've never seen it this bad before.

De Blasio claimed more cops would be patrolling underground... Well where are they? I haven't seen any difference.

[Deucey]

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's the other thing.  I mean when did people start moving with their mattress on the damn subway??? Like I just don't understand it, and there's no enforcement either. It's like we have people moving here and natives alike that just go down in the subway and test the limits. Why not? No one is going to say anything aside from pulling out their cell phones to record it.  No sense of class or pride anymore. I took the subway one stop yesterday from 57th to 42nd.  There was this guy on the  talking out loud about all of his personal business... When he was getting his welfare check, and how much money he had collected begging, etc.  It was just crazy.  I think we also have so many mentally disturbed people walking around and on the subways. I've never seen it this bad before.

De Blasio claimed more cops would be patrolling underground... Well where are they? I haven't seen any difference.

Not gonna see more cops underground until you bring back NYCTA Police, or make PD expand it's ranks from the railroads and ticketing toll evaders.

One of the great things about NYC and SF was that they were the two places in America where - within reason - you could do whatever you wanted and folks would leave you alone. And there was a delicate balance to it - so long as what you were doing didn't cause harm to someone else, you were okay.

It's how folks strutted nude around SF, how folks would smoke in subway stations, buy porn at NY subway news stands, etc.

Even the artists dancing and playing music was "welcomed."

I remember being a teenager visiting the Bx and seeing folks rap and sing on the subway and get signed to labels because the A&R folks at PolyGram and Atlantic would be on the train or street corners and be like "you're good."

 

But now you got these kids I grew up with in the burbs coming out here with their suburban tendencies - myopia/selfishness, homestead mindset, combined with NY's permissiveness, and you get this excess of "do what I want and fuck your feelings."

And they're charging this high ass rent. I miss NY in the 90s before Giuliani and Mikey "fixed" everything.

[kosciusko]

47 minutes ago, P3F said:

 Ah yes, and people who believe that disallowing unenclosed dogs on the subway is a good idea due to sanitary and safety reasons are idiots for not following your purported general will. And yes, you were comparing those revolutions to the  not allowing dogs on the train, by stating that they are "examples" of people not following unjust laws, which is quite clearly your opinion of the dog rule.

12 minutes ago, Deucey said:

No it doesn't.

For the same principle to apply, you'd have to equate dog owners being forced to abide rules with people rebelling because of systemic oppression. Dog owners can walk or buy a car or sell their dog. Slaves, serfs and oppressed ethnic groups and demographics cannot and could not get out of their status without overthrowing the system oppressing them.

I'm not comparing those revolutions to the , I was bringing them up to refute your point about societies following rules. The fact that people are bring dogs onto the subway shows that there is a will for people to do so, and the laws and regulations of the government should conform to that will. It's been shown that there is a non-insignificant amount of people who will break the 's rules and bring dogs onto the subway, that's a fact, what is and isn't allowed are arbitrary distinctions in this scenario. Most people don't care whether or not people bring dogs onto the subway. People's fear of dogs doesn't take precedence over the fact that dog owners need to transport their dogs from A to B.

Like I said before, if the women hadn't attacked the dog, this event probably wouldn't have happened. Just like you wouldn't attack another human, you shouldn't attack a dog.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

47 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Not gonna see more cops underground until you bring back NYCTA Police, or make PD expand it's ranks from the railroads and ticketing toll evaders.

One of the great things about NYC and SF was that they were the two places in America where - within reason - you could do whatever you wanted and folks would leave you alone. And there was a delicate balance to it - so long as what you were doing didn't cause harm to someone else, you were okay.

It's how folks strutted nude around SF, how folks would smoke in subway stations, buy porn at NY subway news stands, etc.

Even the artists dancing and playing music was "welcomed."

I remember being a teenager visiting the Bx and seeing folks rap and sing on the subway and get signed to labels because the A&R folks at PolyGram and Atlantic would be on the train or street corners and be like "you're good."

 

But now you got these kids I grew up with in the burbs coming out here with their suburban tendencies - myopia/selfishness, homestead mindset, combined with NY's permissiveness, and you get this excess of "do what I want and fuck your feelings."

And they're charging this high ass rent. I miss NY in the 90s before Giuliani and Mikey "fixed" everything.

Yes, the rents are definitely out of control. Don't know if you're still in the game, but you should see what they are charging in the hood areas of the Bronx... I saw a one bedroom for basically $2,000 a month right off of Grand Concourse by 173rd street.  Anyone who is in the know knows that is the ghetto. Smh...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

I'm not comparing those revolutions to the , I was bringing them up to refute your point about societies following rules. The fact that people are bring dogs onto the subway shows that there is a will for people to do so, and the laws and regulations of the government should conform to that will. It's been shown that there is a non-insignificant amount of people who will break the 's rules and bring dogs onto the subway, that's a fact, what is and isn't allowed are arbitrary distinctions in this scenario. Most people don't care whether or not people bring dogs onto the subway. People's fear of dogs doesn't take precedence over the fact that dog owners need to transport their dogs from A to B.

Like I said before, if the women hadn't attacked the dog, this event probably wouldn't have happened. Just like you wouldn't attack another human, you shouldn't attack a dog.

 

So in other words, the  should be more willing to open themselves up to lawsuits.  I don't see the point in having any rules or laws if the laws are just going to be broken.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

11 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

I'm not comparing those revolutions to the , I was bringing them up to refute your point about societies following rules. The fact that people are bring dogs onto the subway shows that there is a will for people to do so, and the laws and regulations of the government should conform to that will. It's been shown that there is a non-insignificant amount of people who will break the 's rules and bring dogs onto the subway, that's a fact, what is and isn't allowed are arbitrary distinctions in this scenario. Most people don't care whether or not people bring dogs onto the subway. People's fear of dogs doesn't take precedence over the fact that dog owners need to transport their dogs from A to B.

Like I said before, if the women hadn't attacked the dog, this event probably wouldn't have happened. Just like you wouldn't attack another human, you shouldn't attack a dog.

 

So suddenly dog owners MUST take their dogs from A to B using the subway? Gee, I wonder what previous dog owners did when they had to take their dog somewhere because this whole thing with people bringing their dogs on the subway is a new thing. Before you only saw service dogs or dogs tiny dogs in carriers or a purse or a bag and they were out of the way.

[kosciusko]

11 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

So suddenly dog owners MUST take their dogs from A to B using the subway? Gee, I wonder what previous dog owners did when they had to take their dog somewhere because this whole thing with people bringing their dogs on the subway is a new thing. Before you only saw service dogs or dogs tiny dogs in carriers or a purse or a bag and they were out of the way.

I don't know what you mean by suddenly, they've always had to take their dogs from A to B. I've been seeing large dogs on the Subway for as long as I can remember. Of course, there are more small purse-sized dogs in NYC, but there is still a decent amount large ones.

19 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don't see the point in having any rules or laws if the laws are just going to be broken.

Yeah that's literally my point. The dogs in crates rule is stupid because nobody is going to follow it if they have a large dog. 

19 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

So in other words, the  should be more willing to open themselves up to lawsuits.

I don't see how this would open up the  to lawsuits, for example, if you were to get bitten by a dog in a Duane Reade, you wouldn't have grounds to sue Duane Reade.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

21 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

1. I don't know what you mean by suddenly, they've always had to take their dogs from A to B. I've been seeing large dogs on the Subway for as long as I can remember. Of course, there are more small purse-sized dogs in NYC, but there is still a decent amount large ones.

2. Yeah that's literally my point. The dogs in crates rule is stupid because nobody is going to follow it if they have a large dog. 

3. I don't see how this would open up the  to lawsuits, for example, if you were to get bitten by a dog in a Duane Reade, you wouldn't have grounds to sue Duane Reade.

 

1. I've only been seeing these large dogs on the subway in the last few years. Prior to that if I saw large dogs, they were service dogs or small dogs in carriers or purses.  People have always had to take their dogs from A to B, as if there are no Ubers, or cars.  Give me a break. I have several neighbors with dogs. When the dogs have to go to the vet, they take them by car.  If people are so broke that they have to carry these big dogs around on the subway when they are clearly prohibited then they shouldn't have them because they can't afford to do so.

2. Dogs in crates is a rule for a reason. You should think about why the rule exists...

3. You really don't?  What planet are you from?

Quote

Bill Marler, the most prominent food-borne illness lawyer in America, said, “It’s common sense that dogs carry bacteria that can be harmful to people. There are lots of reports of dogs carrying salmonella.”

Not to mention the fact that some people are allergic to fur floating away as the dog breezes by, taking in the scents of the meat department.

The Internet is filled with stories of dogs biting people in stores, having accidents in the aisles or getting into fights with other dogs. There are also people raging about the injustice of it all after they were told their pet dog could not be in the store.

“Service dogs are usually so well behaved, they are not likely to cause an accident in the grocery store. The bottom line is, these kinds of behaviors are potentially risky. I understand people love their pets and get all upset and that their pets are like their children,” Marler said.

“I understand that grocery stores want to be happy places, but ultimately, they have a responsibility to consumers to make sure nobody is introducing a contaminate into the grocery store,” Marler said.

Source: https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/business/pet-dogs-not-allowed-grocery-stores-owners-bring-them-anyway/2BQHchpumLvbzQ8qcNFHhP/

Because most stores have a no pet policy so they avoid any potential lawsuits and harm to their customers, and yes people would have grounds to sue Duane Reade because Duane Reade has a duty to protect its customers from harm - things that it can prevent, just like the .  You have customers that are severely allergic to certain animals, and there's also the hygiene issue. I've been in Whole Foods and have seen dogs walking around and I was not happy to say the least.  If the dog has any bacteria and it gets in any food, you could have a serious problem on your hands. Dogs are nice, but they have a place, and they don't belong everywhere, and that includes subways, not unless they are legally allowed.  The problem is people have become obsessive compulsive treating dogs like they are humans and their kids.  In the case of the  people expect to have a safe ride. They don't expect dogs to attack them while riding the subway, regardless of why.

I understand people being attached to their dogs, but there are limitations as to where they can and cannot go.  The sooner people understand that, the better it'll be for everyone.

[Deucey]

35 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

I'm not comparing those revolutions to the , I was bringing them up to refute your point about societies following rules. The fact that people are bring dogs onto the subway shows that there is a will for people to do so, and the laws and regulations of the government should conform to that will. It's been shown that there is a non-insignificant amount of people who will break the 's rules and bring dogs onto the subway, that's a fact, what is and isn't allowed are arbitrary distinctions in this scenario. Most people don't care whether or not people bring dogs onto the subway. People's fear of dogs doesn't take precedence over the fact that dog owners need to transport their dogs from A to B.

Like I said before, if the women hadn't attacked the dog, this event probably wouldn't have happened. Just like you wouldn't attack another human, you shouldn't attack a dog.

 

You can't compare the two, is what I'm saying - they're not the same. The revolutions are about actual injustices that denied people freedoms and privileges rightfully theirs.  People bringing dogs on trains in contravention of the rules to use a publicly-provided service isn't an injustice. Why?

Because unlike the revolutions, dog owners using an alternative mode to transport their dogs won't result in beatings, death or other crimes against the person. And there is no right in law to own a dog.

And if these people want to take their dogs on trains - the rules require the dog to be in a carrying device - a dog carrier or bag. So they're NOT BEING DENIED the privilege, they're choosing to not follow the rule because the inconvenience to them is more important than the inconvenience or safety concerns of others. Which is what the video (and the tweet reply sent me) shows:
 

That's why your comparison is so freaking wrong. It can't equate to the struggles of the revolutions because there is no struggle. No one's being oppressed by the rules of how pets can be transported on the subway.

So stop with the ignorance.

[Deucey]

24 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

I don't see how this would open up the  to lawsuits, for example, if you were to get bitten by a dog in a Duane Reade, you wouldn't have grounds to sue Duane Reade.

You're definitely a youngster.

You get bit by a dog in Duane Reade, Duane Reade is liable because EVEN if they have a sign posted saying no dogs, they have a controlled environment (the doors) where they need to enforce the policy and if they don't, their liability insurance is paying a claim.

Even if a place has a dog-friendly policy, if someone's bit by the dog, that place is a controlled environment, and is liable.

[B35 via Church]

28 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

I don't see how this would open up the  to lawsuits, for example, if you were to get bitten by a dog in a Duane Reade, you wouldn't have grounds to sue Duane Reade.

Oh jesus christ, are you trolling us here or what...... You don't see how the subway is MTA property?????

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 minutes ago, Deucey said:

You're definitely a youngster.

You get bit by a dog in Duane Reade, Duane Reade is liable because EVEN if they have a sign posted saying no dogs, they have a controlled environment (the doors) where they need to enforce the policy and if they don't, their liability insurance is paying a claim.

Even if a place has a dog-friendly policy, if someone's bit by the dog, that place is a controlled environment, and is liable.

Even places that once allowed dogs now ban them in some cases due to dogs attacking people in the store.  Here's an example:

Quote

Home Depot banned pets from its Canada stores in 2011 after a dog bite incident. A Home Depot employee leaned forward to pet a customer’s Shih Tzu, who jumped up and bit off a part of her nose. The employee needed seven stitches, and consequently, Home Depot Canada decided to ban pets in their stores with the exception of service animals. U.S. stores followed suit.

Source: https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/pet-policies-in-stores/

I'm sure he'll just say that the dog was poorly trained.