SF Dog Mauling Case - Guilty On All Counts

Great Debates
1

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.

It now appears the civil suits will start. Having now been convicted in criminal court, the defendants will suffer civil procedureas against them. However, they apparently are now broke so the suits may be directed against the owner of the apartment building - anyplace where there may be money.

If you have been following the trial, do you think the guilty verdicts, including murder, are justified? If you own a large and “dangerous” dog, especially in California, should you be concerned?

Personally, based solely on the media reports in this case since the attack more than a year ago, 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.

2

Well, according to my best friend, who lives in LA (site of the trial), rumor is that it was the dog that did the screwing :eek:

Anyone else hear this or a similar rumor?

3

A very small point - but I hope the statute regarding “mischievous” dogs is changed to update the language. Those dogs were “mischievous” in the same way that Godzilla was “cranky”.

Naughty, naughty dogs…

4

I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard the verdict. Maybe people will start taking some responsibility for the pets under their ownership. This case had quite a few disturbing elements, what with the couple adopting an incarcerated felon, raising dangerous dogs in an apartment, and casting aspersions against the victim herself. I hope that after all their appeals are exhausted, that they both spend several long, thought provoking years in jail. JMHO:D

5

Felony conviction for uncontrollable, vicious dog - Fair and just.

Felony conviction for manslaughter - More than fair and just.

Felony conviction for Murder, 2nd Degree - Now hold on just one cotton-pickin’ minute there, buster!

Murder, as defined in the courts, involves three things: killing, malice and premeditation. Killing, sure. Malice… well, from the coverage I’ve read I don’t see a lot of malice directed towards the victim personally. Yes, they obviously seem to be homophobic idiots, and they obviously didn’t like her personally, but active malice? I’m doubtful. Finally, premeditation. Was there any evidence that they had trained the dogs to specifically attack small, blonde women? If not, I don’t see how premeditation could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, I think this falls short of murder. But I have only read one story on the case, so maybe there’s evidence I haven’t heard.

Lastly… Lawsuits that don’t hurt the couple with the vicious dogs but hurt the apartment building - Utterly moronic. I hope they get tossed out of court.
-Ben

6

There was an article about this in Rolling Stone magazine a few months back. Some of the other facts in the case were even stranger than the widely known ones – other than the alleged pictures of sexual congress with the dog, even. They were associated with a white supremacist doing life for, among other things, stabbing a DA during a trial where he was a witness. The dogs may have been intended for a breeding program to guard meth labs, and they almost certainly had some kind of aggressiveness training.

The female owner of the dog didn’t call 911, and didn’t even check to see how the victim was doing. The male owner tried to save the other dog even after the first was put down after the attack – saying “neighbors be damned” cite.

These people had a wanton disregard for human life bordering on the bizarre and deranged. I have no sympathy whatsoever for them, actually. They should be sent up the river for the maximum possible time.

And ModernRonin – you don’t need premeditation, just reckless disregard for the consequences of your actions. You don’t have to intend to hurt someone to be guilty of murder, depending on what you’re up to at the time.

7

Do you have a cite for that. Max? It’s not that I doubt you much, it’s just that I went and looked up the legal definition of 2nd degree murder and it doesn’t seem to fit. 2nd Degree Murder may be different in California; I can’t find a cite on Google. I know it’s Section 189 of California Penal Code, but I just can’t find a listing online anywhere.
-Ben

8

ModernRonin2:

To answer your questions:

First of all, second degree murder does not require premeditation. That’s the difference between second and first degree murder.

As for malice, here’s a quote from the judge:

“If the person realized the risk, malice is implied and the crime is murder.”

What that means is that if a person acts in a reckless and dangerous manner, and he or she KNOWS that the action is reckless and dangerous, then malice is implied, and a conviction for murder is possible.

Ed

9

ModernRonin2, I aim to please. Getting out my criminal law book, I found 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.

I’m not sure if Berry was actually convicted of second degree murder, because he was actually seeking a pre-trial dismissal of the murder charge against him in this case. Still, it shows that murder charges against the owners of dogs that kill are not unprecedented, especially in that jurisdiction.

And what suranyi said.

10

Hm, looks like you’re right!

Here’s the actual California law that I (finally) found. In short, in California, Murder 1st degree requires killing, malice and premeditation but murder 2nd degree requires only killing and malice.

Never mind. Guilty on all three counts.
-Ben

11

Now that we have general agreement on the guilty verdict for all three criminal counts…

What if it is proved in court:[ul]
[li]The apartment building owners knew the dogs were dangerous, even deadly dangerous[/li][li]The owners received repeated complaints about the dogs from other tenants[/li][li]The leases required dogs to be on a leash at all times outside the apartment[/li][li]The dog owners often violated the above bullet[/li][li]The apartment owners were made aware of the violation of the above bullet[/li][li]The apartment owners took no effort to rectify[/li][/ul]Couldn’t/shouldn’t they be found liable due to negligence?

12

Isn’t premeditation what differentiates between first and second degree murder? I didn’t think it was necessary for all degrees of murder. However, IANAL. Anyone that can clarify?

13

musicguy: Well unfortunately the laws vary from state to state. I don’t know what the general case is. I was assuming that it was what the site that I gave in my second post to this thread was, viz: 1st degree means harsher punishment, and that’s all. But that’s obviously not true in California, and so I suspect it’s not true in other places as well. Guess this is why you shouldn’t take legal advice off the Net.

AZCowboy: I would almost say “no” on all counts except for the part about the violation of the lease conditions. Basically, so long as the tenent does not violate the lease, then I see no even remotely plausable argument to make the landlord responsible for the tenants actions. But if the tenants violate their lease and the landlord knows about it, then yes the landlord should take some action. A warning letter for the first offense, then escalating from there. That said, it’s still generally moronic to sue a landlord for the actions of a tenant. Particularly in this case since suing the landlord won’t help redress the wrongs done.

The responsibility for the death lies at two feet: First, the person who trained the dog to be vicious. (Dogs do not attack people unless they are trained to - a scared dog might bite and run, but it won’t stay and chew up a body unless it’s been trained to.) Second, the two defendants who let them get out of control. The landlord bears, at best, 1% responsibility. If the damages awarded to the prosecution would be 1% of what the jury awarded, would they even bother to sue? Nope. Wouldn’t even cover court costs, much less lawyer fees.

Suing the landlord because someone had a vicious dog at the building is like suing McDonalds because you spilled hot coffee on yourself. It’s a manifestation of the sue-happy and eternal victim mentalities so annoyingly pervasive in modern America.
-Ben

14

Somebody have a link to the debunking of the McDonald’s case?

:rolleyes:

My server’s too slow to search, sorry.

15

Debunking of the McDonald’s case:

http://www.atla.org/CJFacts/other/mcdonald.ht#anchor887148

When I first heard about the case (“woman sues McDonald’s for being burned by hot coffee”), I too thought it was ridiculous, but after having read through the facts, I think she was perfectly justified in suing. Just my opinion, of course, but there is more to the story than it appears at first.

16

I heard that too, and apparently it’s true. A search of the Knoller/Noles’s apartment turned up photos and tapes.One of the reasons that the judge refused to let anyone bring anyone’s sex life into the case.

So, does Marjorie get conjugal visits in prison?

17

I was so pleased that they were found guily on all counts.

I am confused about one thing though. I was surprised that Marjorie was found guilty of both involuntary manslaugther and second-degree murder. I thought that she would be found guilty of one or the other (or neither), but not both. Aren’t both of these charges just different levels of the same charge (i.e., killing of a human)? Can anyone explain this to me?

18

Marjorie, by all accounts, was present when the attack occured. IMHO, she could have stopped the dog if she had wanted to.

Saying things like “No! Bad Dog!” in a low, stern voice can be remarkably effective.

Dogs, unless rabid or in other rare circumstances, do not attack their owners. My last dog snapped at me to avoid being disciplined(When we came home and Goliath was hiding under a table instead of running up to greet us, we knew he’d left a mess on the rug). Once Goliath had a clear shot at escape, he ran. Th defence claimed that Marjorie tried to shield the victim with her own body. Clearly, she had no fear of being attacked by her own dog.
She could have used force. The dog weighed roughly 200 pounds. Marjorie could punched and kicked it repeatedly without fear of causing serious harm. She could have bitten the dog. Most breeds retain excess skin on the back of the neck. Marjorie could have bitten there, or several other places, and caused the dog pain without causing injury.

Dogs are mammals. Thus, a male dogs testicles are in the same unprotected position as a man's. Kicking, punching, or squeezing the testicles will get even an elephant to stop any activity and pay attention.

Marjorie could have even gone inside and gotten a large, blunt object. I’ve never hit a large dog with a frying pan, but I think it would distract the dog at the very least.

She did none of these things. Which, to me at least, indicates Marjorie made no attempt to stop the dog. She stood by and allowed the attack to happen. Murder in the second degree sounds about right.

19

I have no sympathy for the dog owners, and don’t mind seeing them sent off to prison.

But it still baffles me why they waited so long to express anything like sympathy for the victim, or simple remorse. These two were LAWYERS, for Pete’s sake! They should have known better than anyone how bad their angry, defiant, accusatory stance would make them look before a jury.

Whenever they spoke to the press or appeared on television in the year before the trial, they repeatedly blamed the the victim for the attack (sometimes, they claimed she’d provoked the dog, sometiems they suggested her menstrual scent had agitated the dog, other times they suggested she was simply too stupid to escape when she had the chance), and to insult the victim’s girlfriend. They never stopped defending their dogs, and their demeanor said, “This whole case is a waste of our time- and we resent the inconvenience we’re suffering here.”

Then, worst of all, they hired an obnoxious shrew of a courtroom attorney who went out of her way to slander the victim, her girlfriend, her family, and her neighbors.

By the time the defendants FINALLY showed a little bit of contrived sorrow and regret on the stand, it was already far too late. It was obvious to everyone, on the jury and off, that they weren’t a bit sorry for what had happened- indeed, they regarded THEMSELVES as the wronged party in this case.

But even if these are genuine sociopaths, or just plain evil people, wouldn’t you think they’d be smart and cynical enough to shed a few crocodile tears early on, to feign sympathy for the victim? How dumb do you have to be to act so cold and hostile, especially in front of a jury?

20

200 lbs dog! Whoo! Now that would be a monster. Weigh more than me, and I’m 6’ tall (though skinny).

The news report here says it was 120 lbs. Which is still an enourmous dog. But it’s not a tiger. (Thank god.)
-Ben