Killer of Bichon Frise Sues Dog's Former Owner

The BBQ Pit
#1

Andrew Burnett, you are a loser. First you kill a innocent dog by grabbing him from his owner’s lap and throwing him into fast-moving traffic so the poor scared little dog gets run over. Fast forward to you being convicted and having to serve a three-year prison sentence. Now you have the audacity to sue that dog’s former owner and the San Jose Mercury News?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/02/28/state1339EST0072.DTL

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1437987.stm

I can see why for a while you had the title of “the most hated man in America”.

#2

I wondered what attorney would tell him he had a case, then I saw that he was representing himself. oh. Probably on a contingency basis…

#3

Let him have the million dollars. Oh, the hitch? It’ll be in pennies dropped out of an airplane at 20,000 feet. If he catches it and lives, he can keep it.

#4

That is several shades of fucked up.

#5

I’m sitting here with tears in my eyes. What a monster that man is, and I feel so bad for the poor dog’s owner, and the poor little pup. Animal cruelty makes me so mad, and it’s so sad.

He’s a pathedic, moronic excuse for a man.

#6

He killed a dog and now he’s killing time.

#7

But three years? See the good that PETA does?

#8

I was searching for possible updates to the Andrew Burnett dog killer story, and came across this:

http://www.drivenbyboredom.com/keithor/fuck_puppies.htm

WTF?! I noticed the sicko who uploaded this disgusting web page left no means for visitors to e-mail him to tell him what a sick hateful individual he is.

Angry Keith, you are one scary sick piece of shit! People who love to hurt/kill animals are also capable of hurting/killing human beings! I hope if you do something heinous that you get caught and then locked up forever!

#9

If indeed he did suffer injuries from the initial accident, why should he be barred from seeking damages? As far as I see it, he has the right (like anybody else) to be compensated for his injuries. This should be a completely seperate issue to the killing of the dog. He is currently serving time (and rightly so) but does that mean he has no ethical right to petition the courts for redress, both from the dogs owner and the newspapers?

For his sake though, I hope he has plenty of medical evidence to back his claim.
:smiley:

#10

Oh for goodness sake FairyDust. It’s meant to be humorous, y’know…funny…tongue-in-cheek and all of that.

Sheesh.

#11

I hope your’re right.

How do you know that for sure? Can you say for a certainty that there is not some sick person out there who feels that way?

#12

I tend to agree with kambuckta, FairyDust – this Keith Newall seems to be more a smartarse than a serious threat to little doggies and kitties everywhere.

Exhibit A: His junk mail rant.

#13

Yes! I am CERTAIN that there is not one person out there that feels that way.

I thought three years for killing a dog was a bit much, but the guy is clearly an ass, no doubt about that. The woman was a bit wierd too, refering to the dog as her child and such.

#14

Oh, I’m sure there are many sickos out there who get their jollies out of hurting animals. Of course, I can’t know for sure, but this guy just doesn’t strike me as actively promoting animal cruelty. Anyway, I gotta agree with him when he says that if it will fit in a glove-box, it isn’t a dog. :smiley: :smiley:

#15

As an animal lover, I did not find Angry Keith’s rant to be humorous at all, if it was indeed meant to be a tongue-in-cheek piece. It was in very poor taste.

I doubt very much that the former owner of poor Leo would find it funny either. Angry Keith ripped into that poor woman, too with his ugly comments.

Joking about killing a poor helpless innocent dog is no more funny than joking about lynching a black man. What if someone wrote a rant about that? Are we supposed to just assume it’s tongue-in-cheek?

The only person who knows for sure if it was meant to be humorous is Angry Keith. And how convenient for him that he doesn’t allow any way for people to ask him that so he can respond and tell what he really meant.

#16

There are a lot of pet-owners out there who do just that, Rhum Runner. Nothing particularly weird or especially notable about that.

And yes, FairyDust, there are loads of arseholes out there who think that cruelty to animals is a cool thing. It’s just that, in the case you cited, the author was after black-humoured shock value, nothing much more.

#17

For fuck’s sake, where do you people come from? I love dogs and most animals in general (no cats, thank you very much), but I would never liken killing a dog to lynching a black man. It’s just silly to even try to make the comparison.

#18

Let’s just say that we agree that on this subject we disagree and leave it at that.

#19

I suppose you are right there Wolfy, but this woman was just a little bit more attached than is probably healthy. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be outraged if someone did this to one of my dogs, and I think some criminal charges were warranted. But comparing the dog to a child, to my mind, is a bit demeaning to the importance of human life, but to each his own.

#20

Hmm. I don’t think it’s a matter of “comparing” the dog to a child, Rhum Runner, as it is that the owner may have (and I haven’t seen cites confirming this) equated her feelings as that of a parent to a child.

I agree, it’s a bit of a worry, given the dog’s relatively short natural life-span, and the endless grief cycles that would come of that particular kind of attachment to her pets.

I personally look on all life as having importance, but that’s another debate altogether.

Whatever. The road-rage guy from th’ OP is a bastard, and a money-grubbing one at that. Hopefully, most of us here can agree on that.