Well.. it takes a thread like this to provide insights into the way different people think eh....

Dear Foxy says:

"1/I was always taught not to pat
strange animals. I'm surprised that
you did,
2/clearly sending the wrong
message to the dog.
3/And, then you kick the animal for doing
what comes naturally (and encouraged by you)."

(no Foxy, what comes NATurally is the desire to greet/sniff)

Foxy.. I prefer to seek 'friendship' with animals before confrontation.

In case u've not noticed.. MOST dogs which are not aggressive just love to 'greet' strangers. There is a beagle which absolutely adores me.. it runs up.. tail wagging.. smiling a doggy smile..and just revels in my pats and hugs....

But foxy.. you want me to re-arrange the universe and change the time I go for a walk.. just because of a woman committing an illegal act..
-2 chances!

Further.. you blame me for 'encouraging it's aggression'? now.. submerged in that is the assumption that
a)I was harrassing the animal.(rather than it harassing me)
b)It only started 'chewing/biting/mauling' me after I 'harrassed it'.

Truuuuly mind boggling.

Evo..thanx for the support mate.

Banjo.. now you have a valuable perspective.. the aged pensioner.. I absolutely assure you.. if a pensioner or otherwise frail person was given a dose of this particular dog.. it would be horrifying and traumatic. So.. I'll follow your advice there and at least get the rego numbers of the cars in the car park if they are around again.. then report it.

Examinator.. me...in breach of the Crimes act? :) utter and complete rubbish old son. Self defense is alway lawful.
I spose I could have grabbed it and BIT its paw or something eh :)

The only limitation is reasonable force. The defense in cases of human assaults is that reasonable force is used. That's the law. i.e.. if some bloke comes to king hit you.. ya caynt thump him with a chunk of 2x4... you can only try to restrain..and that could include a very hard thump to the nose.

Polly: "So.. I'll follow your advice there and at least get the rego numbers of the cars in the car park if they are around again.. then report it."

GOOD

And stop infecting this forum with your inability to cope with day to day problems.

Dear Polycarp,

If you really believe that dogs prefer to
"sniff" first by way of "greeting."
And if you really believe in "greeting"
rather than "confrontation," then why didn't
you practice what you believe?

You should have "sniffed" the dog, instead
of patting him.

Then there wouldn't have been a problem!

According to your logic.

Poylcarp

Au’contraire
You are looking at it through your prism of your sense of unctuous Self-righteousness .

Your knowledge of dog behaviour is either unreasonably poor or you have anger management issues would be their argument.

Your knowledge of the law is also ill founded. If the woman was devious enough, intimidated enough or just plain vindictive you could be in bother.
I agree COMMON PRACTICE suggests that you maybe safe enough, most people would simply shrug off your behaviour as that of an arse.

Your actions were ill advised, posting them foolish. Your confrontation (threat) with the owner opened you up to Assault.
Under the crimes act Assault is abuse, threats etc. (Physical attack is “battery”).

Charges for cruelty to animals are possible. Your previous actions on the day and in the past may be used against you.
Had you actually caused damage to the dog (vet bills) your defence argument may not have held.

If it had broken the skin then you have either a dangerous dog claim to the police and or the council which was the correct way to go. The fact that you didn’t pursue the matter (the actual nature of the injury) and posted your apparent moral indignation rather than “fear” your actions would probably be seen as simple retaliation and reflect badly on you. Hence my apocryphal sayings.

In truth YOU are more than partially at fault. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Her breach of By-laws or the dog's 'attack?' self defense didn’t licence your actions. I would have taken the incident as a personal learning experience not as cause to confirm any assumed 'Superior' moral beliefs. Despite your somewhat extreme views at times I thought you were smarter than that

The day of the dog is dead. Dog owners are accountable for their dogs actions, no mater what the circumstances. Council take great delight in fining people with unrestrained dogs, Give them a shot from ya mobile and they will act on it. People that allow dogs off in public places deserve everything the law allows for. If you can't abide by the law you can't have a dog.

I agree with Polycarp.

Dog owners are under a legal obligation to control their pets.

It is not the responsibility of the general public to keep themselves safe from harm, it is the responsibility of the dog owner to keep the public safe from the mouthing and savaging of their pets.

Quiet a few years ago, I rented an unit where I lived with my daughters. A new tenant moved in with dogs (despite being against the landlords rules), a pit bull and something big (not sure but about the size of a ridge back) and the communal garden arrangement was immediately taken over by these hounds. I walked out of my back door with daughter and we were faced with these beasts pounding down toward us.

If I'd had a pick axe handle to hand, I would have fixed the problem there and them, similar to Polycarps boot, I could not, I phoned the landlord and got the scumbags evicted, along with their dogs.

You wanna dog, you are 100% absolutely responsible for the conduct of the dog.

I fail to see how any nong can dispute that fact.