Dog Attacks Passenger on 4 Train

[kosciusko]

30 minutes ago, Deucey said:

You can't compare the two,

I'm not comparing the two. You're arguing a point I never made.

26 minutes ago, Deucey said:

1 You're definitely a youngster.

2You 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.

1 I'm in my early 20's, so maybe by your standards, sure I'm a youngster.

2 Lawyers tend disagree with that, and I couldn't find any cases where someone successfully sued a property owner for a dog bite that occured on premises. Law isn't my specialty, I'm not shitposting I genuinely am not aware of the legality regarding this.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/would-a-store-that-allows-dogs-inside-be-liable-fo-550569.html

https://ask-a-lawyer.freeadvice.com/law-questions/dog-bites-fellow-shopper--48645.htm

41 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

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.

I don't really understand what you mean by this, dogs don't just carry and spread salmonella wherever they go.

https://www.merckvetmanual.com/digestive-system/salmonellosis/overview-of-salmonellosis

Also, very few dogs are infected with salmonella.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/06/fda-releases-some-findings-from-study-on-salmonella-in-pets/#.WuC0FchG2Rt

41 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

If the dog has any bacteria and it gets in any food, you could have a serious problem on your hands.

What if a human has bacteria that gets in any food? Should we ban sick people from entering grocery stores?

20 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

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.

Don't pet random dogs you see on the street, simple as that. You wouldn't pet a human would you?

[Deucey]

2 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

I'm not comparing the two. You're arguing a point I never made.

 

 

You can't lie to me about that which I have evidence. Just take the Loss, say "sorry" and move on.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

9 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

1. I'm not shitposting I genuinely am not aware of the legality regarding this.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/would-a-store-that-allows-dogs-inside-be-liable-fo-550569.html

https://ask-a-lawyer.freeadvice.com/law-questions/dog-bites-fellow-shopper--48645.htm

I don't really understand what you mean by this, dogs don't just carry and spread salmonella wherever they go.

https://www.merckvetmanual.com/digestive-system/salmonellosis/overview-of-salmonellosis

Also, very few dogs are infected with salmonella.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/06/fda-releases-some-findings-from-study-on-salmonella-in-pets/#.WuC0FchG2Rt

What if a human has bacteria that gets in any food? Should we ban sick people from entering grocery stores?

2. Don't pet random dogs you see on the street, simple as that. You wouldn't pet a human would you?

1. I suggest you learn more about lawsuits and liability before continuing to run your mouth on this because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm not dismissing your opinion, but you've pretty much admitted that you aren't so sure about the issue.  I used to work in Construction in the Insurance Area and have been to various sites and meetings, so I know all about the liability and lawsuits.  Hell even when I left the industry, I've even had to get insurance for meetings just in case someone happened to slip and fall while walking on the premises, and you think that a dog attacking a passenger on  property doesn't open up any liability issues? LOL

2. Well which is it? You claimed that well trained dogs don't attack for any reason, and on top of that you seem to be all for pets being in stores and on the subways without being in carriers, so that means people should be able to pet them or bump in to them on the train accidentally and all should be ok... 

 

[Deucey]

10 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I'm not dismissing your opinion, but you've pretty much admitted that you aren't so sure about the issue.  I used to work in Construction in the Insurance Area and have been to various sites and meetings, so I know all about the liability and lawsuits.  Hell even when I left the industry, I've even had to get insurance for meetings just in case someone happened to slip and fall while walking on the premises, and you think that a dog attacking a passenger on  property doesn't open up any liability issues? LOL

Not to mention that not only am I a life & health insurance agent, I'm now a Property and Casualty Insurance agent to go along with the real estate license.

@Via Garibaldi 8, why do these folks try so hard to insist we professionals are wrong about our own industries because they googled something?

[kosciusko]

7 minutes ago, Deucey said:

You can't lie to me about that which I have evidence. Just take the Loss, say "sorry" and move on.

Reading comprehension, not once did I mention the  in that post.

9 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Well which is it? You claimed that well trained dogs don't attack for any reason, and on top of that you seem to be all for pets being in stores and on the subways without being in carriers, so that means people should be able to pet them or bump in to them on the train accidentally and all should be ok... 

I don't really see how those two are mutually exclusive, that shih-tzu was probably not well trained. I don't see how advocating for dogs in public places also means I support people having a right to bump into them and approach them at random. It's common sense not to pet a dog you see unless you ask the owner for permission, for that exact reason. You don't know if a dog is well trained or not, so don't take the risk.

I've been threatened by far more humans after bumping into them then I have been by dogs.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, kosciusko said:

I don't really see how those two are mutually exclusive, that shih-tzu was probably not well trained. I don't see how advocating for dogs in public places also means I support people having a right to bump into them and approach them at random. It's common sense not to pet a dog you see unless you ask the owner for permission, for that exact reason. You don't know if a dog is well trained or not, so don't take the risk.

 

The point is that by allowing dogs into spaces that can be controlled, you open yourself to issues that can be avoided.  So you support dogs being in public places where they can be banged into accidentally or petted by anyone, but admit that some dogs aren't trained well enough to be in such spaces in the first place for such things to happen... I don't need to say anymore because you're making my point for me.  By limiting risk, you essentially limit liability.  When you learn how lawsuits work and insurance works, you'll understand that comment.

[Deucey]

5 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Reading comprehension, not once did I mention the  in that post.

I gave you a link and a screenshot to what you said that started my repeated going in on you for saying something offensively stupid, and now you're trying to bring into it.

It's not me that needs to work on reading comprehension...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

10 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Not to mention that not only am I a life & health insurance agent, I'm now a Property and Casualty Insurance agent to go along with the real estate license.

@Via Garibaldi 8, why do these folks try so hard to insist we professionals are wrong about our own industries because they googled something?

I know... We live in the USA where people will sue for anything and everything... I still remember this lady on the X10 express bus.  It's raining outside, the bus is going down Richmond Avenue at a good clip and suddenly the driver has to slam on the breaks.  Drivers always tell passengers NOT to stand up while the bus is in motion to avoid injury.  Well she's standing up in the aisle like nothing is going on, then goes flying when the bus stops short.  What does she do for HER actions? She blames the  of course, so she stays on the bus to file a complaint and you know what the next step was.  We had to all get off in the pouring rain and wait for the next bus because of HER actions, but it's the  's fault because I suppose she thought the driver didn't have to stop short and was reckless causing her to fall and injure her arm, even though she was the one standing up when she shouldn't have been while the bus is motion. No one else on the bus was injured because we were seated accordingly. Goes back to what I said before... You limit liability by limiting risk.

[Deucey]

10 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You limit liability by limiting risk.

And idiot-proofing the system so if an injury occurs, it's most likely deliberate.

It's why there's always some employee next to a door at stores telling people to tie their dogs outside - no store liability, and if the dog bites a passerby (thinking of the stores on Kent Av in W'burg), it's the dog-owner's fault only.

[kosciusko]

7 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I gave you a link and a screenshot to what you said that started my repeated going in on you for saying something offensively stupid, and now you're trying to bring into it.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but you're misunderstand the point I was making. I was never trying to connect those events in history to the 's policy regarding dogs. I was bringing those up to p3f's assertion that that people shouldn't be able to break laws if they deem them unjust. That was my only point.

11 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The point is that by allowing dogs into spaces that can be controlled, you open yourself to issues that can be avoided.  So you support dogs being in public places where they can be banged into accidentally or petted by anyone, but admit that some dogs aren't trained well enough to be in such spaces in the first place for such things to happen... I don't need to say anymore because you're making my point for me.  By limiting risk, you essentially limit liability.  When you learn how lawsuits work and insurance works, you'll understand that comment.

My point is that those issues can be avoided while simultaneously allowing dogs into a given space. Some humans aren't trained enough to be able to function in public spaces, dogs. Banning dogs outright is not the solution. The solution is holding people accountable, be it the owner for not training his dog properly, or be it the victim, who attacked or provoked the dog. Just like with humans.

31 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

1. I suggest you learn more about lawsuits and liability before continuing to run your mouth on this because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm not dismissing your opinion, but you've pretty much admitted that you aren't so sure about the issue.  I used to work in Construction in the Insurance Area and have been to various sites and meetings, so I know all about the liability and lawsuits.  Hell even when I left the industry, I've even had to get insurance for meetings just in case someone happened to slip and fall while walking on the premises, and you think that a dog attacking a passenger on  property doesn't open up any liability issues? LOL

Like I said I'm not claiming to be an expert on the legality. The sources I provided said that the property owner generally isn't liable if a dog bite occurs on their property. That's all I'm going off of. I'm not trying to prod at you here, but if you have any sources claiming the opposite I'll gladly read them.

 

 

[RR503]

@Lance clean up in aisle three...

Yes, it’s unjust to the dog owner for them not to be able to bring their companion on the train. I would argue that it’s much more unjust for the passengers to have to deal with dog shit, yapping, and attack’s like these. Everything is a balance, and unlike in those examples you brought up, that balance is quite clear here. 

[Deucey]

8 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Maybe I wasn't clear, but you're misunderstand the point I was making. I was never trying to connect those events in history to the 's policy regarding dogs. I was bringing those up to p3f's assertion that that people shouldn't be able to break laws if they deem them unjust. That was my only point.

Even in that, you're asserting a connection, or an equivocation.

Had you compared it to breastfeeding in public - because people do it and it isn't mandatory while it causes concern amongst the non-breastfeeding public, you'd have no issue from me.

But you didn't.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

17 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

1. My point is that those issues can be avoided while simultaneously allowing dogs into a given space. Some humans aren't trained enough to be able to function in public spaces, dogs. Banning dogs outright is not the solution. The solution is holding people accountable, be it the owner for not training his dog properly, or be it the victim, who attacked or provoked the dog. Just like with humans.

2. Like I said I'm not claiming to be an expert on the legality. The sources I provided said that the property owner generally isn't liable if a dog bite occurs on their property. That's all I'm going off of. I'm not trying to prod at you here, but if you have any sources claiming the opposite I'll gladly read them.

 

 

1. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but dogs are not humans. They are animals and thus their actions simply cannot be predicted, regardless of how much training they may have.  Restricting dogs in certain places limits such possible events.

2. My sources are the experience I have working in the Insurance Department directly with the Insurance company that provided our coverage.  That alone is enough.  lol Feel free to read the link I provided earlier.  Home Depot banned dogs after their employee was attacked by that dog because they wanted to limit such things from happening in their stores again, opening them up to potential lawsuits and overall bad publicity. The first thing that a customer could argue was, I came to Home Depot to shop and suddenly was attacked by a dog or witnessed someone being attacked by a dog and I'm never going back there again.  This incident could've been prevented because this is Home Depot's store and they can control what takes place on their premises, which is absolutely correct I may add.  Home Depot also assumes some responsibility of protecting their customers from such acts.  Customers have certain reasonable expectations when entering such establishments and that's exactly what a lawyer would argue.  This is also true in the  situation.  

[B35 via Church]

17 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Maybe I wasn't clear, but you're misunderstand the point I was making. I was never trying to connect those events in history to the 's policy regarding dogs. I was bringing those up to p3f's assertion that that people shouldn't be able to break laws if they deem them unjust. That was my only point.....

You can rebel against and/or break any laws you want... Just don't be surprised when there's consequences that come your way if or when you get caught....

3 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I'm sorry to break the news to you, but dogs are not humans. They are animals and thus their actions simply cannot be predicted, regardless of how much training they may have.  Banning dogs outright limits such possible events.

To even further the point, as insensitive as it might come across as being, dogs in this state are considered property.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

55 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

To even further the point, as insensitive as it might come across as being, dogs in this state are considered property.....

They really are. That guy in the video I'm sure felt his dog was like a human being.  It's "inhumane" to carry my dog in a carrier.... No way!

---

Looks like the cops are looking for the dog owner likely to charge him and we have the full story of what happened below:

WATCH: Pit bull attacks woman's foot on Lower Manhattan subway

Updated 1 hr 12 mins ago

LOWER MANHATTAN (WABC) --

Police are searching for the owner of a pit bull that latched on to a 22-year-old woman's foot on the subway in Lower Manhattan Friday.

It happened around 4 p.m. Friday following a dispute between the pet owner and a woman on the downtown 4 train and was recorded by witness TahSyi Kyng, who was riding with his girlfriend to pick up their kids.

In the video, the pit bull can be seen latching onto the woman's shoe and refusing to release until the sneaker came off. Then the owner throws the shoe at the other riders before exiting the train at the Wall Street station.
EMBEDMORE NEWS VIDEOS

Police are investigating a pit bull attack on a subway (video courtesy TahSyi Kyng)

"You should've had your dog in a bag, kennel, muzzle," Kyng said. "It wasn't a service dog."

Eyewitnesses believe the people were the problem, not the pet.

Kyng said the man sat down and put his dog on the seat, and as the dog lay down, it bumped the female passenger.

"She was like, 'The dog don't belong on the seat, that's an animal, people belong on the seat, put the dog on the floor,'" Kyng said. "And he looked at her like, I'm not moving my (expletive) dog.'"

From there, it went downhill quickly. Kyng said the woman first pushed the dog off the seat. The owner put him back up, and she shoved the dog off again. The owner responded with fists.

"He was like, 'Don't touch my dog,' and he started hitting," Kyng said. "They started fighting, and everybody tried to break it up. The dog latched onto her."

In the struggle to get the dog off, other passengers are heard yelling at the owner to have the dog release. The dog eventually let go, and the man threw the shoe.

After the man left, the conductor eventually came into the car to assist the female passenger.

"That dog was not vicious," eyewitness Denise Leon said. "It was just an incident that could have been avoided."

The MTA confirms non-service animals must be inside containers when riding mass transit and called this "a clear violation" of their rules.

Source: http://abc7ny.com/pets-animals/watch-pit-bull-attacks-woman-on-lower-manhattan-subway-/3389499/

[T to Dyre Avenue]

8 hours 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.

 

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.

 

 

If that’s not the argument you’re making, then what’s the point in referencing all those events in history? And no, breaking a law just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it right. When you jaywalk or exceed a speed limit, you are putting other people’s lives at risk, in addition to your own. Last Wednesday, I nearly got hit by a woman speeding down Utopia Parkway in Whitestone in her car. I didn’t jaywalk; I crossed at the corner. Maybe she didn’t think pedestrians should have the right of way. Maybe she felt she should be able to drive over 50 mph in a 25 zone, I don’t know. But it’s still wrong.

And so was this man for bringing his pitbull on to a crowded rush hour subway train. He put himself ahead of everyone else, including his own dog. I mean, not only did he put this woman’s life and potentially other passengers’ lives in danger, he also put the dog’s life in danger. It was a crowded train on a Friday during the afternoon rush. What if someone accidentally stepped on the dog’s tail or paw while he was getting on the train, even before he and the dog sat down? Then what?

[kosciusko]

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Kyng said the woman first pushed the dog off the seat

-assault animal

-animal retaliates

"wow how could this have happened, dogs should be banned from public places"

-nyc transit forums users

 

What would you do if someone pushed you off a seat on a train?

4 hours ago, Deucey said:

Even in that, you're asserting a connection, or an equivocation.

I'm not, you need to re-read the thread. I brought those points up to revoke a single and separate point you're just putting words in my mouth.

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

1. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but dogs are not humans. They are animals and thus their actions simply cannot be predicted, regardless of how much training they may have.  Restricting dogs in certain places limits such possible events.

2. My sources are the experience I have working in the Insurance Department directly with the Insurance company that provided our coverage.  That alone is enough.  lol Feel free to read the link I provided earlier.  Home Depot banned dogs after their employee was attacked by that dog because they wanted to limit such things from happening in their stores again, opening them up to potential lawsuits and overall bad publicity. The first thing that a customer could argue was, I came to Home Depot to shop and suddenly was attacked by a dog or witnessed someone being attacked by a dog and I'm never going back there again.  This incident could've been prevented because this is Home Depot's store and they can control what takes place on their premises, which is absolutely correct I may add.  Home Depot also assumes some responsibility of protecting their customers from such acts.  Customers have certain reasonable expectations when entering such establishments and that's exactly what a lawyer would argue.  This is also true in the  situation.

1. If animals and their actions cannot be predicted as you claim, we should also ban service dogs because, as you say, they are animals and their actions cannot be predicted.

Additionally how are the actions of humans any more/less predictable? Humans are also animals, and humans tend to get into fights.

2. Fair enough, I won't debate you on that point.

[Deucey]

2 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

I'm not, you need to re-read the thread. I brought those points up to revoke a single and separate point you're just putting words in my mouth.

I already linked and screenshot the post for you.

Lying about and denying easily verifiable facts is not a good habit to get into.

[B35 via Church]

22 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

-assault animal

-animal retaliates

"wow how could this have happened, dogs should be banned from public places"

-nyc transit forums users

 

What would you do if someone pushed you off a seat on a train?

You're arguing this point as if anyone's justifying the woman physically laying hands on that man's dog.....

What she verbally told the guy, 100% right.... The f*** are you putting the dog on the seat for?

Her emotional reaction after the fact however, 100% wrong..... Mighty funny how you're apparently oblivious to the dog bumping the female passenger before she foolishly pushed that dog.... Yes, because I'm sure that woman woke up that morning to expect someone's god damn dog bumping into her on the subway while seated next to it....

[Deucey]

22 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

You're arguing this point as if anyone's justifying the woman physically laying hands on that man's dog.....

What she verbally told the guy, 100% right.... The f*** are you putting the dog on the seat for?

Her emotional reaction after the fact however, 100% wrong..... Mighty funny how you're apparently oblivious to the dog bumping the female passenger before she foolishly pushed that dog.... Yes, because I'm sure that woman woke up that morning to expect someone's god damn dog bumping into her on the subway while seated next to it....

It’s akin to seeing a truck get stuck on under an overpass on a Parkway and saying “trucks need to travel too.”

[kosciusko]

43 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

You're arguing this point as if anyone's justifying the woman physically laying hands on that man's dog.....

 What she verbally told the guy, 100% right.... The f*** are you putting the dog on the seat for?

Her emotional reaction after the fact however, 100% wrong..... Mighty funny how you're apparently oblivious to the dog bumping the female passenger before she foolishly pushed that dog.... Yes, because I'm sure that woman woke up that morning to expect someone's god damn dog bumping into her on the subway while seated next to it....



Obviously the dog shouldn't have been on the seat, but that doesn't mean you assault the dog.  She was asking to get bitten.

[B35 via Church]

7 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Obviously the dog shouldn't have been on the seat, but that doesn't mean you assault the dog.  She was asking to get bitten.

The narrative that you're trying to paint of your detractors on here is disgusting.... That woman didn't just up & shove the dog, unprovoked.

Yeah, she should have gotten bit; you f*** with the bull, you get the horns....

Again though, who is defending her shoving the dog, dude?

[kosciusko]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

The narrative that you're trying to paint of your detractors on here is disgusting.... That woman didn't just up & shove the dog, unprovoked.

Yeah, she should have gotten bit; you f*** with the bull, you get the horns....

Again though, who is defending her shoving the dog, dude?

My point is that this isn't justification for banning dogs in public places, clearly the owner is at fault for allowing the dog on the seat that's, just as much as the women is at fault for pushing the dog. But my point is that the dog isn't at fault. It's the responsibility of people to be accountable for their own safety.

People who are at fault: The women who was bitten, and the owner of the dog. That's it.

[Deucey]

5 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

My point is that this isn't justification for banning dogs in public places, clearly the owner is at fault for allowing the dog on the seat that's, just as much as the women is at fault for pushing the dog. But my point is that the dog isn't at fault. It's the responsibility of people to be accountable for their own safety.

People who are at fault: The women who was bitten, and the owner of the dog. That's it.

There isn’t a ban. There is a ban on dogs that are not in carriers.

I even posted ’s response on Twitter for you to show that.

I’m trying hard to understand why that fact, along with the other one we’ve been going back and forth on today, is so difficult for you to acknowledge and accept.

[Harry]

2 hours ago, kosciusko said:

"wow how could this have happened, dogs should be banned from public places"

-nyc transit forums users

"this topic is now locked"

-nyc transit forums owner