Okay, gloves off. I hate dogs. I loathe dogs. I’ve been attacked by dogs, and had their owners lash out at ME for my anger and fear over it.
Then, we have this lunatic and her husband, the other lunatic. Today’s verdict in California finally gives some human justice for the death of humans, because of the actions of dangerous animals bred, trained and cared for by humans.
Frankly I’m glad she got Murder II. I heard an attorney on NPR on the way home who PERFECTLY defined the issue. He said, and I have to paraphrase here, " The Court has shown that they equate this kind of thing with a person waving a loaded gun around a crowded room. The level of responsibility is the same".
She got exactly what she had coming to her. Maybe the next time somebody tries to blame the victim for a dog attack, or defend poor widdy pooky baby, they’ll think twice, IMHO.
The attempt to dodge culpability is despicable. You hold a loaded gun, it goes off, you kill someone, you do the time.
You drive drunk, you kill someone, you do the time.
Now, thank god- at least in California- if your animal kills a human being, you are responsible. You do the time.
Hey, I am a dog owner, and I’m behind these verdicts one hundred percent.
Christ, when my dog even barks at somebody I’m mortified.
I was a little shocked that they got Murder II to stick, but I can’t say I’m not a little pleased that the book was thrown hard at them. Not only were they clearly responsible, but they tried to weasel their way out of it. I was living in SF when this happened, and I remember the news stories about how Noel was saying that the dogs weren’t dangerous, and it must have been a perfume that that the woman was wearing that made them snap.
These two are useless. I think jail will do them a little good. Give them a little perspective on life.
I love dogs, but this is obviously beyond the pale.
Jack Batty: Did you hear Knoller’s interview with Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America a few weeks ago? She made my blood run cold, I s___t you not. She said, and I paraphrase here, “She could have run into her apartment; that’s what I would have done.” JC, I saw some pictures of her injuries and it made me almost physically ill. These people are psychopaths or worse.
Having been both attacked by a dog as a child and allowed my son to be a dog owner as an adult I must say that I agree owners should be accountable for their dogs actions and I agree with and support the verdict. Booker57 and Jack Batty said it better than I could.
It’s the “neighbors be damned” stuff, as quoted in that CNN article I linked to, that just typifies this for me.
I’ve never gotten an apology for my attacks. NO, of course, I’m not dead and have not been serverely mauled. Still, they have happened. It’s the arrogance and contempt for the victim that appalls me.
I am a great dog lover. I’ve even owned “dangerous” breeds (rottweilers). Guess what? I was responsible for everything those damn dogs did, from barking to shitting. Fortunately they never attacked anybody because I took as many percautions as I possibly could to avoid that.
I hate irresponsible, ignorant, dog owners. They deserve the charge. I can’t believe people…I really can’t.
I’m a doglover (currently not an owner), and have been a professional dog trainer. And I agree fully with the verdicts in this case.
I can’t tell you how it infuriates me when an owner raises a dog to be vicious, or simply refuses to raise the dog at all. My favorite thing when I was working more closely with a large number of dogs and their owners were the owners who refused to train their dog because it was unkind, and goes against the dog’s nature. Please. Dogs need and crave and benefit from interaction with the other members of their pack. And if you choose to include a dog in your household, you are that pack.
Training is nothing more than the development of a common vocabulary that allows you and your dog to communicate with each other clearly; it’s not an “unnatural” stifling of a dog’s nature.
Does anybody know more about the prior incidents mentioned in the CNN story ?
It seems as if they are the crux of the thing. If prior incidents had occured, it seems to me to be the owners responsibility to either muzzle or restrain their dogs in some way. If they couldn’t do that, and the dogs were a danger to others, then the owners should’ve put the dogs down long before this incident.
I’m just curious, Cartooniverse, if there were no prior indications of violence, would you feel the same way ? If their dogs had never before exhibited the slightest urge to attack a human, would you still think they deserved this charge ?
I don’t know if it would change Cartooniverse’s position, but that idea was the whole crux of the case.
If there wasn’t the idea that Knoller had ample evidence and knowledge about the dangerous nature of the dog, then manslaughter would have been the strongest charge brought. The prosecution argued that Knoller knew the nature fo the breed, knew the training of the dog, and had previously experienced agression from the dog.
Without that, the story would probably have just been another tragedy.
Yes and No. ( Hey, it’s the Pit !!! ). Yes, on the first two counts- Owning A Dog That Kills ( paraphrased charge, I know ) and Involuntary Manslaughter. But even as upset as I am, and I really am, I’m not an idiot. ( Those who feel I am, here’s yer chance. Free shots ! ).
No, Murder II tells me they had reasonable ability to prevent it based on prior action, and chose not to. If this was out of the blue, I’d be just as upset at the loss of life, but not as upset at the owners. I still feel they would have to do jail time.
Here’s an analogy for ya. If indeed, Jayson Williams, ex-NBA star ACCIDENTALLY shot his limo driver, I’d say he was an idiot for playing with a loaded shotgun, but not guilty of murder. He’s guilty of voluntary manslaughter, IMHO.
As I said in the O.P., I agree with the lawyer who drew the gun analogy.
As many of you know I am owned by 3 Brittanies. Take these two guys. I love and adore dogs of all kinds but if my dogs ever showed any sign of aggression toward humans they would be put down within 24 hours.
As it has been said many times, it’s not the dogs fault. They are born and bred to please their masters. Any behavior they exhibit that makes the master happy is what they will continue to do. The real crime is that what pleased the masters was viscious, violent behavior toward any human other than themselves. And its not like they didn’t know the law, these two were lawyers fer chrissakes. They should be sent to jail with the same inmates they were responsible for convicting.
But on the happy side of the story, Robert and Marjorie will now both be reunited with their beloved son.
(Legally, though, I just don’t see how you get to a murder conviction, which requires an intent to kill. Waving around a loaded gun that goes off only gets you to manslaughter.)
Could the defendants have made themselves look any LESS sympathetic before and during the trial? I don’t envy their attorney’s job, given the stuff these yahoos had said to the press. Maybe they couldn’t get anyone competent to take their case.
I own a dog and like dogs, but have zero sympathy for those two.
Last year a dog at the doggie daycare we patronize attacked and killed another dog. We had some conversations at our house, but one of the things we agreed on 100% was that if our dog ever killed another dog, we wouldn’t fight having him destroyed. And that’s just talking about him killing another DOG.
I love dogs, adore dogs. I dote on my dogs, talk to them like they’re people, give them belly rubs and spoil them rotten. And if I had a dog that I thought was dangerous I’d have it killed ASAP. Dogs that are aggressive towards human beings cannot be permitted to live. They’re a danger to everyone around them.
Dogs are not to be fucked around with. They’re dangerous, strong animals. Lissener is bang on the money; dogs crave heirarchy and direction and group interaction, and given those things with plenty of love they’re wonderful friends. Raised poorly and they can be killing machines. People who allow dangerous animals to roam the streets are courting a murder charge.
Actually, if I remember my Law and Order right, doesn’t Murder 2 also include “depraved indifference to human life”? Not sure if it’s covered in this case, but I don’t think ALL definitions of Murder 2 require intent…
(And please don’t treat me TOO harshly if I’m wrong, here. I’m tired, so sue me!
