Very curious as to what was going through the dog's head.
I also find it curious that there are so many cries for the dog's blood. I'm not saying whether I agree or not, I just find it kind of interesting. If a man had done that, he'd not be sentenced to death, whether he was capable of understanding the morality of his actions or not. But even if the death penalty for this act was an option, it would appear from recent cases that some sort of mental defect or an incapability of understanding the morality of one's action is some kind of defense from prosecution. A dog, I think most would agree, is not really capable of understanding the morality of its actions... So why the death penalty for a dog. It'd be much cheaper to imprison a dog for its crimes than a human. Obviously the dog's life is considered less valuable, and that's a difference, but I think there's more than just that. I think that people have been heavily conditioned to be almost accepting or somehow understanding of people that commit obviously atrocious crimes. Maybe they over-compensate for that unnatural feeling in cases like these. Not sure where I'm going with this, it just struck me that something was weird with people's bloodthirsty reaction.