Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/19/2002 5:12:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 5:19:41 PM EDT by UlysseNardin_1846]
That stupid a-hole DA in SF caved in to public pressure and relunctantly filed charges. I bet no charges would have been filed had the victim not been a lesbo in San Francisco of all places. Her "partner" so they call it claims she was bitten by the dog previously. She's a lying sack o'sht. Dangerous Aryan Brotherhood Pelican Bay Prison fighting dog connection my ass! Some conspiracy. Oh ya, I think they will be found guilty because that's justice for ya. If they want you bad enough you're gonna get it. Oh ya, Sarah Jessica Parker is ugly as hell and I'm sick of seeing her everywhere I look. Sorry for the rant...
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:18:42 PM EDT
You don't think there should have been charges filed? An apartment building hallway is the scene of one neighbor's dogs killing a person and you don't think the neighbor dog owners should be charged? You're kidding, right?
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:21:33 PM EDT
Unless it can be proved the pair had ordered fight training for the dogs. I don't think they did that. At least I have never heard proof of that.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:25:18 PM EDT
a person was killed by dogs. you don't think the people in charge of the dogs are responsible? your high.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:26:22 PM EDT
How about the fact that they should maintain control of their goddamn dogs! It doesn't matter if she was a lesbo. It had to be a slow, painful death. As I said, they should be able to control their dogs. The BS about fighting training is just that, BS. There was no reason for those dogs to attack. If you live in an apartment building, control of your dogs is even more important, as you live in much closer proximity to your neighbors. Would you be spouting this same crap if the victim was someone you cared about?
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:30:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rainman: a person was killed by dogs. you don't think the people in charge of the dogs are responsible? your high.
View Quote
About as high as you were when you started the Confederate flag thread.[whacko]
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:31:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 5:37:28 PM EDT by UlysseNardin_1846]
Originally Posted By LARRYG: How about the fact that they should maintain control of their goddamn dogs! It doesn't matter if she was a lesbo. It had to be a slow, painful death. As I said, they should be able to control their dogs. The BS about fighting training is just that, BS. There was no reason for those dogs to attack. If you live in an apartment building, control of your dogs is even more important, as you live in much closer proximity to your neighbors. Would you be spouting this same crap if the victim was someone you cared about?
View Quote
Second degree murder charges are unheard of in a case like this. Wreckless endangerment ya, but murder, no. Do we really want precedents like this to be set? What will be next? Example: Providing a pal with reloads you made when all of a sudden, it blows his head clean off when he tests them out. Clearly you didn't intend for it to happen. I'll be back later...
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:35:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 5:43:09 PM EDT by JU88]
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 5:53:10 PM EDT
I thought manslaughter charges might be appropriate until I heard the persecutor, err prosecutor speak on TV. She claimed that any reasonable person that owned a hard to train 140# dog would assume it was eventually going to kill someone. I don't know about you, but I can't remember hearing about that many dogs killing humans. I can only remember three before this, and they were all children. Why would a reasonable person just assume a large, unruly dog is a going to kill someone, especially considering how rarely it happens? A reasonable person would assume the dog would hurt someone and should be better trained or put to sleep, but killing someone? That's a large jump in assumptions to go from potential for injury to the potential for death.z
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 6:21:33 PM EDT
The only reason people are objecting to the prosecution of these creatures for murder is because the woman who was killed was a lesbian. If she was a strait housewife no one would be complaining. And the only purpose they got these dogs from one of their "clients" was to terrorize the lesbians down the hall. They knew that the dogs had been raised to be fighting dogs and otherwise hadn't been trained. They wanted to terrorize their neighbors and I beleve this lesbian couple in partiuclar. This is why they went for second degree murder over manslaughter, the DA could also see there was premeditation.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 6:38:21 PM EDT
a person should be responsible for their dogs. where were the owners while they were doing the killing? just watching? both dogs should have been shot the day of the killing
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 6:38:45 PM EDT
And the only purpose they got these dogs from one of their "clients" was to terrorize the lesbians down the hall. They knew that the dogs had been raised to be fighting dogs and otherwise hadn't been trained. They wanted to terrorize their neighbors and I beleve this lesbian couple in partiuclar.
View Quote
Why did they want to terrorize their neighbors? BTW, if my neighbors had a history of threatening me with two large, aggressive dogs, I'd give some serious consideration to being armed in the building.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 7:12:26 PM EDT
Ulysse, You can't be serious. Yeah, the media coverage is too much. But - those people should do hard time. A person DIED. For what? Because someone had a weapon they could not control. Time people recognize it. Large powerful dogs such as these, or pitbulls, or Akitas can KILL people. These are living breathing weapons. They've been bred for generations to kill. Part of that breeding includes more powerful jaws, and an instinct to finish the job. If you live within shooting range of neighbors these animals are not appropriate pets. If you choose to take the risk of owning a large dog (with other peoples life and limb), be prepared to spend part of your life in jail for it. Period. I hope this is an example and people with large dogs recognize their responsability. James
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 7:33:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
And the only purpose they got these dogs from one of their "clients" was to terrorize the lesbians down the hall. They knew that the dogs had been raised to be fighting dogs and otherwise hadn't been trained. They wanted to terrorize their neighbors and I beleve this lesbian couple in partiuclar.
View Quote
Why did they want to terrorize their neighbors? BTW, if my neighbors had a history of threatening me with two large, aggressive dogs, I'd give some serious consideration to being armed in the building.
View Quote
The lady who was killed and her roomate were gay Renamed. That is why the defendants got the dogs to terrorize them, they don't like gays. There is not enough evidence to stand up in court for a hate crime. But it is the reason why the 2nd degree murder charge was filed.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 7:36:04 PM EDT
what is your opinion of the lowly chauffer killed by a shotgun blast from the rich, famous basketball star/announcer? since the victim was only a common shuttle jockey, his life has no value? since the dog mauling victim was a carpet muncher, her life had no value? it is ok to blast innocent victims while playing with a shotgun? it is ok to let vicious dogs chew a person to death because you don't like what they do in the privacy of their own home? i think you need to rethink your position on this.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 9:08:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 9:23:50 PM EDT by reddobie]
AVMA states 12 - 18 people died each year from dog bites. [url]http://www.avma.org/press/dogbite/messpoints.asp[/url] Here are some links to fatal dog attacks [url]http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Jones.htm[/url] [url]http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm[/url] During 1995-1996, at least 25 persons died as the result of dog attacks (11 in 1995 and 14 in 1996). Of the 25 DBRFs, 20 (80%) occurred among children (three were aged less than or equal to 30 days {neonates}, one was aged 5 months, 10 were aged 1-4 years, and six were aged 5-11 years), and five occurred among adults (ages 39, 60, 75, 81, and 86 years). Most (18 {72%}) DBRFs occurred among males [url]http://www.rockawave.com/news/2002/0105/Front_Page/B-Two_Mauled_in_Attack_by_Wild_Dogs0105.html[/url] [url]http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/dog06152001.htm[/url] [url]http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2000/Jun-29-Thu-2000/news/13872535.html[/url] [url]http://www.justiceforfamilies.com/mauling_victim.htm[/url] [url]http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/zoonosis/resppet/POOCHES/pooches.asp[/url] Woman found guilty of unintentional second-degree murder [url]http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v102/sp/n082/news/news-verdict-henderson.html[/url] some Felony convictions for animal attacks [url]http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/01/7/UScourt0701.html[/url] * Wayne T. Newton, 45, of Yellowwood State Forest, Arkansas, on July 6 drew three years in prison and his companion Joan Latvatis, 38, got 18 months in jail, for harboring a pack of 20 dogs, 10 of whom are believed to have killed U.S. Census Bureau worker Dorothy Stewart in June 2000. The dogs then partially consumed her body. Stewart, 71, was a longtime dog rescuer, whose knowledge of animal behavior was not enough to save her. Newton and Latvatis pleabargained convictions for criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon * James Chiavetta, 54, of New-berry Springs, California, was found guilty of manslaughter on May 16 for leaving a Rottweiler unchained who killed Cash Carson, 10, in April 2000. First charged with murder, Chiavetta could get up to four years in prison. Sentencing has been repeatedly postponed. There are more, in Nevada about 5 to 7 years ago a woman was killed by her 2 Dobermans. This yaer a young boy found in a park in St Louis being eat by pack dogs. There are many more but this is all I could find in a short time.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 9:19:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 10:00:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DarkHelmet: [:K] ALERT!!!! Don't give him fuel for his fire. He's just bitter since finding out his High School sweetheart is a lesbian too.
View Quote
Hehehe..
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 10:17:28 PM EDT
The woman who was killed was probably the least wacked of all of them. I heard -unconfirmed- that the reason those people adopted the convict was to make their encounters more kinky. And the radio reports after the attack were that the DA's office had a hard time figuring out how to bring charges. I think it took a couple of weeks of creative figuring till they could file charges.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 10:24:29 PM EDT
What's the problem here? The accused are lawyers. They knew that accepting custody of these dogs from their White Aryan clients meant that they were responsible for the behavior of some large aggressive dogs. The dogs mauled a woman to death, they are responsible – end of story! We all know how the system works: If the D. A. did not think he could prove the case for 2nd degree, the accused (I repeat, who are lawyers) would have copped to a lesser charge. The accused believe that they can beat the chatge – let's see! It's the jury that have heard all the facts – unlike ourselves who have little more than T.V. and personal prejudicies to rely on. Let the system take its course. If you don't like listening to it, switch it off.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 10:34:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2002 11:01:41 PM EDT by mattja]
The only thing about this case I'm not sick of is... [img]www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2002/01/25/mn_dog01.jpg[/img] [img]sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2001/05/06/guilfoyle-closeup.jpg[/img] [url]sfgate.com/cgi-bin-END Of Object Attempt-
.cgi?paper=chronicle&file=MN58982.DTL&directory=/chronicle/archive/2001/05/06&type=news&object=/chronicle/pictures/2001/05/06/guilfoyle-closeup.jpg[/url] SF prosecutor and ex-lingerie model, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom. Now they say the Aryan Brotherhood put a contract out on her. Weird stuff.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 10:35:14 PM EDT
So was she having her period at the time? I know of one dog that tears into the trash when there's a used tampon and no one's around.
Link Posted: 3/19/2002 11:43:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rainman: a person was killed by dogs. you don't think the people in charge of the dogs are responsible? your high.
View Quote
No, he is not high, just stupid. [:)]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 12:50:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JU88: It is about personal responsibility, if you have a pair of dogs that are capable of killing a person and you are not able to control them, then you are responsible for whatever they do. Just like anything else in life you should be held responsible for your actions and descisions. I am very sick of the hearing about the trial but, I don't think this woman should be let free either.Hey look at it like this, who do you blame when your neighbors St. Bernard takes a crap in your yard, do you shrug and say oh well dogs will be dogs, or do you think that jackass should clean this mess up? I guess the next thing will be a wave of accountabe adults. Any person who uses reloaded ammunition and does not understand the inherient risk is acting in a reasonable and sensible fashion. The person you gave your reloads to would be taking a known risk, walking down the hallway of your own apartment building does not constitute a choice to be out into danger.
View Quote
I’m all for personal responsibility but this is just taking things a little too far. Should have known, should have known…sounds like the stinking anti’s talking about Navegar ( Tec-9 )and their guns. Navegar should have known that Luigi Ferri was going to take two Tec-9’s and blow away those lawyers down at 101 California St. in San Francisco back in 1993. Luigi Ferri took responsibility for his actions, he blew himself away. The California Supreme Court ruled that they can’t be held liable for the criminal use of their products but that is just one case of many. Do you agree? Should Navegar have known their Tec-9 would be used to gun down lawyers? It’s foreseeable to me even though I can’t exactly give you a timeframe. Shouldn’t Navegar have known? Surely they must have known that a percentage of their guns will end up in a plastic evidence bag. There are countless scenarios I can conjure up. The owner of the dog that made “Son Of Sam” kill and so on… Where do you draw the line? Like I said, this is setting a dangerous precedent. And I’m not talking about the exploding head guy getting mad, I’m talking about murder or manslaughter charges being filed against you. You should have known that there was a .00000001% chance of a defective primer or whatever. Careful shooting at that indoor target range next time. You might “accidentally” hit the hanger and cause a ricochet. Inadvertently striking a bystander and causing death. Be prepared to take “personal responsibility” for your actions even though you were engaged in a legal activity. Don’t be surprised if the DA charges you with murder or manslaughter. Should have known this could happen since guns are inherently dangerous. And you can be killed anywhere these days. Luby’s Cafeteria, hallway, church, school, etc…
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:04:56 AM EDT
I think this case is very different from the example you give. There's a big difference between what you could expect of Navegar/Tec-9 (virtually no way for THEM to know that the guy would go off) and what you could expect of these people, who lived with the dogs and had every reason to be familiar with their behaviour (and were). My opinion is that they knew the dogs were out of control and didn't contain them. Then the woman goes out and walks them both at the same time. I could go on but I'm dead tired. I don't think this case is going to ruin things for us. Funny, as the trial started, my neighbor had a new dog - turned out he'd been running loose for a long time. I had that sense that the dog was going to bite someone soon - I warned them. Sure enough, he bit the neighbor who was visiting.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:06:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: The only reason people are objecting to the prosecution of these creatures for murder is because the woman who was killed was a lesbian. If she was a strait housewife no one would be complaining. And the only purpose they got these dogs from one of their "clients" was to terrorize the lesbians down the hall. They knew that the dogs had been raised to be fighting dogs and otherwise hadn't been trained. They wanted to terrorize their neighbors and I beleve this lesbian couple in partiuclar. This is why they went for second degree murder over manslaughter, the DA could also see there was premeditation.
View Quote
If this is true it would put things in a different light. How did the DA prove the dogs had been trained to fight? By the simple fact the remaining dog was aggressive while being kept in an isolated holding cell? Many dogs might become aggressive if kept under those conditions. Hell, my dog was aggressive towards the vet. We had to put a muzzle on her just to receive shots! She even lunged at the vet while she was in the hospital under observation for two days. She knocked the lid off the garbage can and ate chicken bones. Very, very bad for dogs. I saw the vet notes on the invoice. Does that mean she was trained to fight? Hell's no!!!! Did the couple admit to knowing the dogs were fighting dogs? And did the lesbo duo file police reports alleging doggie harrassment?
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:08:03 AM EDT
Yes you can get killed all kinds of ways today, but having a dog rip you up is one that shouldn't happen, unless you have it coming. It could have even been easier for a kid to get killed - would that make it any different for you?
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:09:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By walttx: a person should be responsible for their dogs. where were the owners while they were doing the killing? just watching? both dogs should have been shot the day of the killing
View Quote
One owner wasn't there and the other tried to help the victim. She got messed up a bit but the prosecution wouldn't want you to hear that. All her clothes were bloodied up.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:10:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:19:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jimmybcool: Ulysse, You can't be serious. Yeah, the media coverage is too much. But - those people should do hard time. A person DIED. For what? Because someone had a weapon they could not control. Time people recognize it. Large powerful dogs such as these, or pitbulls, or Akitas can KILL people. These are living breathing weapons. They've been bred for generations to kill. Part of that breeding includes more powerful jaws, and an instinct to finish the job. If you live within shooting range of neighbors these animals are not appropriate pets. If you choose to take the risk of owning a large dog (with other peoples life and limb), be prepared to spend part of your life in jail for it. Period. I hope this is an example and people with large dogs recognize their responsability. James
View Quote
Ya, I’m serious and the media does suck! Wonder how many would agree with this one:
If you choose to take the risk of owning a large dog (with other peoples life and limb), be prepared to spend part of your life in jail for it. Period.
View Quote
Just don't let congress see this one. Just my .02 cents.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:35:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FL_BOY: what is your opinion of the lowly chauffer killed by a shotgun blast from the rich, famous basketball star/announcer? since the victim was only a common shuttle jockey, his life has no value? since the dog mauling victim was a carpet muncher, her life had no value? it is ok to blast innocent victims while playing with a shotgun? it is ok to let vicious dogs chew a person to death because you don't like what they do in the privacy of their own home? i think you need to rethink your position on this.
View Quote
I would have to see the facts of this case before I could formulate an opinion. But it sounds like the guy should have at least taken the shell out of the weapon. Common shuttle jockey’s life has no value? Don’t worry. I’m sure his family will be paid handsomely by the basketball guy. That’s how people pay for human life these days. With $$dollar$$ signs. The carpet muncher might not be able to sue in civil court for millions because she was a carpet muncher and not entitled to sue for wrongful death because of her domestic partner status. No, it’s not ok to blast innocent victims with a shotgun. But we still have few facts to go on so I’ll have to hold back until then.
it is ok to let vicious dogs chew a person to death because you don't like what they do in the privacy of their own home?
View Quote
I would like to see this proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this was the sole reason. So because she was a lesbo the dog was sicked on her huh? If that’s the case, surely there must be an easier way to dispose of someone. And no, I will not rethink my position unless there is direct evidence that Marjorie Knoller purposely “sicked” the killer dogs on Whipple that fateful day. I have yet to hear anything like that.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:37:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DarkHelmet: [:K] ALERT!!!! Don't give him fuel for his fire. He's just bitter since finding out his High School sweetheart is a lesbian too.
View Quote
Ya, this is what I thrive on.[whacko] I need more fuel!!!![flame][flame][flame][flame]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:43:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Axel: The woman who was killed was probably the least wacked of all of them. I heard -unconfirmed- that the reason those people adopted the convict was to make their encounters more kinky. And the radio reports after the attack were that the DA's office had a hard time figuring out how to bring charges. I think it took a couple of weeks of creative figuring till they could file charges.
View Quote
Ya, her domesticated partner ( Sharon Smith )sure seems like a whacko alright. Her comments made after the incident made me sick. I still think DA Hallinan caved into public pressure by filing these charges.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:57:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stcyr: What's the problem here? The accused are lawyers. They knew that accepting custody of these dogs from their White Aryan clients meant that they were responsible for the behavior of some large aggressive dogs. The dogs mauled a woman to death, they are responsible – end of story! We all know how the system works: If the D. A. did not think he could prove the case for 2nd degree, the accused (I repeat, who are lawyers) would have copped to a lesser charge. The accused believe that they can beat the chatge – let's see! It's the jury that have heard all the facts – unlike ourselves who have little more than T.V. and personal prejudicies to rely on. Let the system take its course. If you don't like listening to it, switch it off.
View Quote
The dogs mauled a woman to death, they are responsible – end of story!
View Quote
Guess it’s pretty clear cut to you huh? While sober and obeying the traffic laws you somehow got in a car accident and killed a poor little old lady. Take your pick, murder or manslaughter? Guess I shouldn’t be calling it an accident? I hope they beat the charge. Teach that scumbag DA a lesson for wasting taxpayer money on this politically motivated BS trial. Ya, let the system take its course. We all know how wonderful it is. [whacko] Switch it off? Where will I get my daily fix of media propaganda. [whacko]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:59:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Rickyj:
Originally Posted By rainman: a person was killed by dogs. you don't think the people in charge of the dogs are responsible? your high.
View Quote
No, he is not high, just stupid. [:)]
View Quote
Nah, just high.[whacko]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 2:08:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By meshuggah: I think this case is very different from the example you give. There's a big difference between what you could expect of Navegar/Tec-9 (virtually no way for THEM to know that the guy would go off) and what you could expect of these people, who lived with the dogs and had every reason to be familiar with their behaviour (and were). My opinion is that they knew the dogs were out of control and didn't contain them. Then the woman goes out and walks them both at the same time. I could go on but I'm dead tired. I don't think this case is going to ruin things for us. Funny, as the trial started, my neighbor had a new dog - turned out he'd been running loose for a long time. I had that sense that the dog was going to bite someone soon - I warned them. Sure enough, he bit the neighbor who was visiting.
View Quote
Sorta different cases but the foreseeable element is present. This is what I was trying to point out. I would sure like to see some evidence that the couple knew the doggies were lean, mean, killing machines like the DA suggests.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 2:15:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By meshuggah: Yes you can get killed all kinds of ways today, but having a dog rip you up is one that shouldn't happen, unless you have it coming. It could have even been easier for a kid to get killed - would that make it any different for you?
View Quote
Different? Uh, no. Ban [i]presa canarios[/i] for the children!
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 3:55:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:35:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2002 4:36:36 AM EDT by 223Rem]
Ulysse.... Got any kids or a wife. How about a little brother or sister? My neighbors have some pitbulls that need new playmates. Interested? 223REM
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:56:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless: These nitwits felon lovers knew those dogs were killers and even tried to blame the poor girl they killed, until they ended up in court. These wierdos tried to ADOPT one of their felon buddies-[puke] Who gives a flying you know what that the girl who got chomped by these jerks' dogs was a lesbian? IF the prosecution can prove that these shyster scumsuckers knew these dogs were bred to kill people let 'em spend some time with their felon buddies.
View Quote
I don't exactly know the reason Paul "Cornfed" Schnyder was adopted by this pair, but it is bizarre. And I still haven't seen any solid link between the defendants and their knowledge of the alleged Aryan Brotherhood drug or dog fighting ring. But if all the court papers were ever released I would like to eyeball them. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv, but I don't think merely having knowledge of the dogs alleged fighting capability should be enough for a second degree murder conviction. There are a lot of dogs who fight "instinctly".
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:57:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2002 1:58:50 PM EDT by UlysseNardin_1846]
Originally Posted By 223Rem: Ulysse.... Got any kids or a wife. How about a little brother or sister? My neighbors have some pitbulls that need new playmates. Interested? 223REM
View Quote
Are they cute and cuddly? Promise to play nice? If so, send them to my brother in NY.[BD] He could use a couple good guard dogs. I saw Death Wish I-V.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 2:53:16 PM EDT
Come on man. Seriously. Let's say that I have a pet Tiger. It eats your daughter because I am letting it roam the halls. What should happen? You going to be asking for me and my Tiger to go free then? Hmmm?
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 3:03:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2002 3:07:09 PM EDT by UlysseNardin_1846]
Originally Posted By Rickyj: Come on man. Seriously. Let's say that I have a pet Tiger. It eats your daughter because I am letting it roam the halls. What should happen? You going to be asking for me and my Tiger to go free then? Hmmm?
View Quote
Your tiger should be kept in a special wildlife habitat in accordance with special endangered species guidelines. What it shouldn't be doing is roaming the halls. Need a better example. Oh, tigers are not domesticated animals. Even professional tiger handlers get killed. Tigers are inherently dangerous and always will be.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 3:07:48 PM EDT
And the verdict is in and will be read tomorrow.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 3:55:25 PM EDT
The dog mauling isn't OK. The point is responsibility. Unlike guns, which have [b]no[/b] [u]behavioral[/u] nature, some dogs are "bad", though not by their own design. [b]When it comes to dog-related violence, a bad owner is often the culprit.[/b] The only exception might be a rabid/scared stray. Good natured dogs only bite if/when afraid. These dogs are a case of stupid operator error. Given this, the sympathy card is being overplaying. Involuntary manslaughter would have been a more appropriate charge; 2nd deg. murder is excessive. If I were a juror, I'd only find them guilty of a lesser charge. If that option doesn't exist, then I'd probably have to find them innocent. I don't see any [u]violent intent[/u] here. Just plain disregard. And a large dose of sheer stupidity. Stupidity kills. [grenade] There should be a law.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:18:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:30:21 PM EDT
If she needs a body guard I would like to offer my services, of course I would have to stay with her at night. Maybe I could pose as her boyfriend to make it look convincing.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:42:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jimmybcool: Time people recognize it. Large powerful dogs such as these, or pitbulls, or Akitas can KILL people. These are living breathing weapons. They've been bred for generations to kill. Part of that breeding includes more powerful jaws, and an instinct to finish the job. If you live within shooting range of neighbors these animals are not appropriate pets. If you choose to take the risk of owning a large dog (with other peoples life and limb), be prepared to spend part of your life in jail for it. Period. I hope this is an example and people with large dogs recognize their responsability. James
View Quote
Large dogs are compared to weapons? WTF? If you don't teach a dog to be mean, most will be nice pets. I have owned a German Shepard, Pitt Bull and I currently own an Akita and Akita/German Shepard mix. They ARE aggressive dogs, and like to play, but they have NEVER bothered people. None of the dogs I have owned have bit a person. They are gentile around children. Treat them well and they will be well mannered. Nothing like stereotyping those breeds that "look" scary! If you base on the ability to "kill" than many dog breeds should be banned for "hunting tendencies". An unarmed human is no match for most dog breeds. Av.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 7:20:56 PM EDT
I would have to be dead or unconsious to not try to stop a dog I own from killing someone that was doing nothing more than standing in a hallway. If I couldn't stop it I would probably kill it.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 5:41:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Avalon01: Large dogs are compared to weapons? WTF? If you don't teach a dog to be mean, most will be nice pets. I have owned a German Shepard, Pitt Bull and I currently own an Akita and Akita/German Shepard mix. Nothing like stereotyping those breeds that "look" scary! If you base on the ability to "kill" than many dog breeds should be banned for "hunting tendencies". An unarmed human is no match for most dog breeds. Av.
View Quote
Looks have nothing to do with it. This is as stupid as the gun banners and their "looks scary" rifle bans. It has to do with capability. And the breeds you mention have the capability to injure or kill. The average cocker spanial is not much of a threat regardless of intent. The worst a beagle can do is cause you to get stiches - and wipe his brains off your shoe. It is potential (size and jaw strength). The other issue is some breeds have a more agressive nature. For example, the average Golden Retriever might have the size and jaw strength to hurt a human, but would probably lick the hand of a burglur entering it's own home in the middle of the night. The Akita/Shepard/Pitbull would probably act differently. You do seem to have missed the primary point however. The point is this: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY In plain language, you are responsible for your actions. If you choose to keep large potentially dangerous pets - IF they harm someone you are responsible. This means if the dogs were Golden Retrievers in the identical setting the same charges would apply. Now, in the case of this trial, the defendants CHOOSE to keep two large agressive dogs in an apartment. This causes problems in that the dogs do not have the space they need for exercise (inadequate excercise can stress a dog), and it puts them in close proximity to neighbors. There is also a record of these dogs snapping at other tenants. Clearly agressive behavior. Bottom line, the owner of these dogs created a dangerous situation, then ignored warning signs. Someon DIED due to their failure to act responsibly. Hang 'em high. James
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 12:50:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2002 12:53:31 PM EDT by reddobie]
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020321/ap_on_re_us/wisconsin_dog_attack_5[/url] Wis. Couple Charged in Dog Attack Thu Mar 21,10:22 AM ET By SARAH WYATT, Associated Press Writer MAUSTON, Wis. (AP) - On Valentine's Day (news - web sites), 10-year-old Alicia Lynn Clark was at a friend's house doing one of her favorite things: playing with the family's dogs. Hours later, she was mortally wounded, the victim of a vicious mauling by six Rottweilers that had answered her affection with violence. The dogs' owners, who were not home during the attack, have been charged in the case, which echoes a dog mauling in San Francisco last year that left a woman dead. The owners in that case are on trial for charges ranging from murder to keeping a mischievous dog. According to authorities, Alicia was pulled from a living room couch, dragged from room to room and bitten to death — despite her 11-year-old friend's attempts to kick and pull the animals away. After about 15 minutes, Alicia lay on the dining room floor as her friend sat by her, keeping the dogs away, while waiting for her mother, Shanda McCracken, and McCracken's boyfriend, Wayne Hardy, to get home, a criminal complaint said. Hardy, 24, and McCracken, 32, were charged with being parties to several crimes: homicide resulting from a vicious animal, reckless endangerment and child neglect. Hardy and McCracken pleaded innocent to the misdemeanor counts of child neglect, but did not enter pleas to the felony charges. They were released on $10,000 bonds. Both declined comment on the case as they left the courthouse Wednesday. Cont.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top