SF Dog Mauling Case - Guilty On All Counts

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by goofyfish, Mar 22, 2002.

  1. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    The two defendants in this case have been found guilty of all five counts.
    • Both convicted of having a mischievous dog - a felony.
    • Both convicted of manslaughter - a felony.
    • The woman, who was present during the actual attack, guilty of second degree murder - a felony.
    As a dog owner and trainer, I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard the verdict. Maybe people will start taking some responsibility for the pets under their ownership. Based solely on the media reports on this case since the attack more than a year ago, it seems as though the defendants screwed themselves. Instead of just apologizing for the attacks and making some type of restitution, they began their own warped campaign, even before being charged. They dug themselves into a hole and made it easy for the State to charge them.

    I hope that after all their appeals are exhausted, that they both spend several long, thought provoking years in jail.

    It now appears the civil suits will start. Having now been convicted in criminal court, the defendants will suffer civil procedures against them, but they apparently are now broke. Not to worry, this is America! I'll bet you that suits will be directed against the owner of the apartment building - and anyplace else that is even remotely related - where there may be money.

    Peace.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. justagirl Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    I saw a "Law and Order" once where they had problems convicting a dog owner of a dog that had killed in Central Park. It was frustrating but they got him smiles..but guess this was real lfe and I love pets but lets face it some dogs can kill
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    In truth, any dog over 35 or 40 lbs can present a lethal hazard to humans based on strength and reflexes alone. But the real issue is people who either do not discourage or worse, encourage, aggressive behavior in their animals. The "bite inhibition" should be instilled in puppies from the start. That playful nipping that seems cute now can lead to disaster.

    Peace.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Two cents

    Mischievous Dog: I see enough of this to hold with this idea in principle.

    Manslaughter/Murder: I must disagree with this. Quite simply, it's a little different than an act of will. Does anyone remember the Beavis & Butthead fire case? A child, knowing no better, playing with fire, kills someone. Given the facts in the case, the mother should have been convicted of murder; while attempting to blame the behavior on the television show, it is hard to overlook the fact that a 5 and 3 year-old were left unattended for hours on end in a house that was known to be littered with viable matchbooks and cigarette lighters.

    So the line I'm tripping over is holding someone responsible for another entity in the world.

    My cat, for instance. I refuse to punish her with any form of violence. As a kitten, she used to signal her displeasure with the way you handled her by biting and clawing. Any cat owner expects to bleed profusely on occasion.

    Or a friend's cat, which loves to be petted, but throws a fit if you touch her behind her shoulder blades.

    After a while, of course, my way of doing it works. Why? Because while she still will put her teeth on me to communicate, she's learned not to clamp down, pull and tear, or otherwise draw blood. I never had to smack her throw her, or anything. I just stopped petting her and when she meowed for more attention, said, "What?"

    However, when she puts her teeth onto other people, they twitch and "attack" the cat, causing her to clamp down.

    Frankly, this sets a precedent for me or my friend to be charged with felony assault if the cats claw someone.

    And my cat doesn't need provocation, either. It's not like she's mean in any sense, but if I'm walking by, she'll reach out and snag me if she wants something. And yes, if she misses my cuff, she gets the skin and usually opens a small wound.

    Assault? Seriously, get two witnesses (easily done) to say my cat has scratched them, and she will be put to sleep and I will be convicted of felony assault.

    And while we're speaking of pet laws, did you know that if that dog had killed my cat, there would be nothing the law could do? When they steal your cat, even if its tagged, there's no prosecution. Animals aren't property by many states' laws. So if I defended my cat from a dog, I could be charged with animal cruelty because it could not be shown that the dog was committing any criminal act. I found that out a few years ago when it came up with a friend of mine's pets.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Incidentally ...

    What is the legal definition of Murder 2 in California? Anyone? Anyone? (I will, here, repeat my condemnation of askjeeves.com for the ridiculously poor search results, and I've got a lot of google-slogging to do, so if anyone can fill me in and shortcut that process, I'd appreciate it greatly.)

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Dogs are predators. Hunters. They have many millions of years of ripping apart animals in them. Maybe a few tens of thousands of years of dealing with humans. We made a deal with dogs thousands of years ago to get along and help each other out. But dogs still live by dog rules, even if they try to get along in our world. Our responsibility, because we took them in and domesticated them and asked them to hunt for us. It's up to us to make sure they can get along in our world. It's not their fault if they bark and such; that's what dogs are supposed to do. But to facilitate co-existence, we need to take responsibility and teach them when and how they can kill. In most cases, people simply try to eradicate those millions of years of evolution and smack the poor dog about when they growl at something, rather than allowing the dog to get out some of its predatory urges on harmless non-living targets. Very dumb. People look at dogs and see fuzzy little house-toys, ignoring their history. My family has always trained our dogs to focus their predatory urges in the right directions rather than try to squash them into nothingness. Our dogs protect us and our farm, but have never once attacked any person or other domesticated animal (they do knock off the occasional snakes and lizards and such). An old dog of ours (now deceased) used to wander around our fenceline late at night, followed to fence all the way around our property, checking that all was okay and safe. Damn clever dog.

    Anyway, the problem is that many people are too stupid to handle dogs properly. Their predatory urges should not be crushed or encouraged (some idiots like to think it's good to encourage their dogs to act vicious at people, without realising that the dogs don't know what "act" means), but should be guided in such ways that they can live with us, as they have for many thousands of years.
     
  10. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
  11. justagirl Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    quote...

    In truth, any dog over 35 or 40 lbs can present a lethal hazard to humans based on strength and reflexes alone. But the real issue is people who either do not discourage or worse, encourage, aggressive behavior in their animals. The "bite inhibition" should be instilled in puppies from the start. That playful nipping that seems cute now can lead to disaster

    -------------------------------------------

    Oh I agree and I even add if you decide to have a breed of a dog that has killed before you have taken responsibility for its actions. I don't feel" well I didn't think it would kill your child "is a valid excuse with the media attention showing it could . I feel most of it is the owners fault as a dog can be taught things. I have even played with two lions that were pets. They had been taught not to bite and respect my puny size. Now I admit, I wouldn't want to play with the same lions if they were "hungry".
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Adam ... thanx ...

    Excellent links ...

    But I've got CNN telling me Murder 2. From the lawschool/lexis link:
    This is what Knoller was convicted of? I'm starting to feel the first wave of protest rising in my gut.

    But I should probably do some more reading before I let the protest spill forth.

    Thanx much for the links,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    Felony conviction for uncontrollable, vicious dog - Fair and just.

    Felony conviction for manslaughter - Fair and just.

    Felony conviction for Murder, 2nd Degree – This is our question.

    Here's the California law that I found. As I read it, in California, Murder 1st degree requires killing, malice and premeditation but Murder 2nd degree requires only killing and malice.

    There is a case that's actually quite similar to this case (and also from California, strangely enough): Berry v. Superior Court, 208 Cal.App.3d 783. In that case, the defendant had a vicious dog tied up to guard his marijuana plants in an area where he knew children played, and sure enough a child got mauled to death while he was away. He actually was involved in dog fighting with the dog in question, so he knew it was dangerous. In that case, citing People v. Love 111 Cal.App.3d 98, there are two prerequisites for an unintentional killing to be second degree murder: (1) extreme indifference to human life; there is a high probability of causing human death and (2) either knowledge that the conduct is dangerous or that the conduct is contrary to law. This case established an exception to the general rule where the California court found defendant’s conduct so outrageous that it allowed “life endangering conduct” in combination with “conduct that it is unlawful” to supplement the normal requirement of “recklessness showing extreme indifference.”

    Peace.
     
  14. *stRgrL* Kicks ass Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,495
    I believe this case will be appealed. Anyone wanna make a wager on it????

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page