Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/21/2002 1:01:36 PM EDT
Wow! I didn't think it would stick.
Dog Owners Guilty on All Counts Thu Mar 21, 4:52 PM ET LOS ANGELES - A woman whose two huge dogs mauled a neighbor to death in a San Francisco apartment building was convicted of murder and manslaughter Thursday. Her husband was found guilty of manslaughter.
View Quote
[url]story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20020321/ap_on_re_us/dog_attack[/url]
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 1:55:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: Wow! I didn't think it would stick. Dog Owners Guilty on All Counts
View Quote
Me either, but we all know how twisted and the whacky jurors in Kalifornia are.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 1:57:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:06:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2002 2:14:32 PM EDT by ThunderStick]
Good news! Read the link to see why I think it's good news. Those dog owners deserve a long sentence. This has been covered in depth by the national print media and TV media. I saw them interviewed on ABC and they are just awful, heartless people. You can't sic large deadly dogs on a tiny woman who did not pose any threat to anyone. Presa Canarios dogs make the meanest Pit Bulls seem like pussycats (they are also much bigger than pit bulls). They were raising these dogs on behalf of a white supremacist in prison (whom they were going to adopt), and they had been warned that these particular Presas were extraordinarily vicious.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:10:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wolfpack: You guys are kidding right?
View Quote
Hell no, those jurors in KA really are whacky.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:15:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2002 2:30:26 PM EDT by UlysseNardin_1846]
Even the lawyer on MSNBC thinks involuntary manslaughter is all they should have got. And I think he's a hell a lot smarter than that POS DA in SF, KA. Those DA's in SF tried to suppress a lot of evidence. But this is typical behavior when they just want to fry your ass. Can you say appeal?
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:16:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:17:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2002 2:27:29 PM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By UlysseNardin_1846:
Originally Posted By Wolfpack: You guys are kidding right?
View Quote
Hell no, those jurors in KA really are whacky.
View Quote
These dog owners got what they deserved. I don't understand some of you guys. We are always talking about taking responsibility for our actions, but here is a good case of it, and you don't like it. What I don't like is on TV, some of the talking heads compared the dogs to a loaded gun. That's BS. Those of you that can't believe this, go read the article from the link above and read what the dog owners said. These were two arrogant, cold blooded assholes. They had been warned by the previous caretaker of these dogs that one of them should be destroyed because it was so vicious. This is not the first time that someone has been convicted of second degree murder because their dog killed someone. The other time was in Kansas in 1997. Again, read the damned article. The pukes on TV keep saying this sets a precedent, but it does not as the precedent was already set.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:21:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2002 2:26:55 PM EDT by talbalos]
Kalifornia or not, these people were the worst type of all: lawyers with a reputation of filing frivolous lawsuits against their neighbors and anyone who crossed them. I live south of San Francisco and various sources were cited during the police and press investigation of this couple. If you think Kalifornia jurors are nuts (And being a native Californian, I would argue that most of the nuts here are not natives like me.), you should see their lawyer. She gives humanity a bad name.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:47:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By UlysseNardin_1846:
Originally Posted By Wolfpack: You guys are kidding right?
View Quote
Hell no, those jurors in KA really are whacky.
View Quote
These dog owners got what they deserved. I don't understand some of you guys. We are always talking about taking responsibility for our actions, but here is a good case of it, and you don't like it. What I don't like is on TV, some of the talking heads compared the dogs to a loaded gun. That's BS. Those of you that can't believe this, go read the article from the link above and read what the dog owners said. These were two arrogant, cold blooded assholes. They had been warned by the previous caretaker of these dogs that one of them should be destroyed because it was so vicious. This is not the first time that someone has been convicted of second degree murder because their dog killed someone. The other time was in Kansas in 1997. Again, read the damned article. The pukes on TV keep saying this sets a precedent, but it does not as the precedent was already set.
View Quote
That this could've been anyone. We're all talking about this sort of stuff when a gun dude get's busted or killed for some trumped up charge.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:49:24 PM EDT
The people who owned the dogs were scum. Bad people with dogs trained to kill humans... They can rot.
Originally Posted By ThunderStick: Presa Canarios dogs make the meanest Pit Bulls seem like pussycats (they are also much bigger than pit bulls
View Quote
Now now... a REAL American Pit Bull Terrier would chew a hole through one of those mutts before it knew what ever hit it. (Tyler iz an APBT freak) [%|]
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:51:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By talbalos: Kalifornia or not, these people were the worst type of all: lawyers with a reputation of filing frivolous lawsuits against their neighbors and anyone who crossed them. I live south of San Francisco and various sources were cited during the police and press investigation of this couple. If you think Kalifornia jurors are nuts (And being a native Californian, I would argue that most of the nuts here are not natives like me.), you should see their lawyer. She gives humanity a bad name.
View Quote
Actually I'm pretty surprised her lawyer put up such a good case. But getting too defensive is probably what got them in the end. Those jurors probably took the anger of the defense lawyer and translated it to the defendants. And the BS media was biased from the start as well. But we all know that already. When her lesbo lover was crying on the stand it was called "crying". When Marjorie Knoller was "crying" on the stand it was billed as "sobbing". I think they were railroaded from the start.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:53:23 PM EDT
Hey, if I don't leave right now I'll never make it to the bank. Later...
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 3:01:54 PM EDT
UlysseeNardin, your posts give you away. Your upset about this verdict becase the deceased is gay. And you like it when gay people get roughed up and the people responsible get away.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 10:11:16 PM EDT
I think the fact Whipple was a lez had a lot to do with the media attention, but I also know people were tired as hell of having to deal with people like those scumbag lawyers. Most everyone lives in apartments or shared rentals in that city, and people like those two can make life a nightmare. Suing their neighbors and crap like that. I mean, look at their attitude. According to them, if you don't like the dogs, you should move. Screw that! They should get the hell out. Man, in all the years I have seen scumbags, I would put those two at the top of my list. They are both educated lawyers, but chose to use their smarts to take advantage of the system, sue their neighbors, etc. A lot of info hasn't come out in the national media, but around here everyone knows what the deal is. Those two are total scumbags and deserve what they got. That being said, my dad, a retired lawyer, said the murder 2 conviction probably won't stand on appeal.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 5:02:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By UlysseNardin_1846: That this could've been anyone. We're all talking about this sort of stuff when a gun dude get's busted or killed for some trumped up charge.
View Quote
I understand about the crap that gun owners have to put with, but that doesn't mean that we have to side with every piece of crap out there who gets busted. These people deserved every thing they got and more. This was not a trumped up charge. This woman died a slow and painful death. It doesn't matter if she is a carpet muncher. Hell, I',m a carpet muncher. Also, every gun owner that gets busted doesn't deserve our sympathy either. Some do, some don't. Some of them just make it harder for us with their stupidity.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 5:24:36 AM EDT
I agreed with the verdict 100%.... The message is very clear....If you are a dog owner who is.....or.....shows irresponsible for your dog action......You will pay.....hard....period! My position is nothing against you dog owners or lovers. You are free to own a pet of your choice. You can own the biggest or the meanest dog .... more power to you. But Let me put bluntly to you this way....If a dog shows aggressiveness toward me or my family....he or she will eat Federal Hydra shock period....You want to sue me?....go ahead and make my day. With the recent dog mauling verdict and dog mauling of children on the rise.....I don't think you have much of a case.....Good luck.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 6:26:04 AM EDT
If I handled my guns as carelessly as they handled their dogs, and someone was killed as a result, I would deserve conviction. So do they.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 6:40:14 AM EDT
Kalifornia cannot fall into the sea soon enough! Owning a mischevious animal that kills someone...guilty Manslaughter...guilty Murder...no f-in way! it is insane.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 6:45:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rustyshackleford: Murder...no f-in way! it is insane.
View Quote
I agree its simply not murder. The law and order freaks on this board are falling all over themselves to convict her. The problem is though that we are a nation of laws, not of feelings. And murder has always required more than negligence, and more than even recklessness. I do not believe that they showed more than recklessness in this case. The fact that the woman who owned the dogs is a scum bag and that she is heartless is not relevant. What is relevant is that she did not take any affirmative act to encourage the dogs behavior at the time when the attack took place. That is why it is only manslaughter and not murder. This is just one more example where our legal system is being turned away from a system of laws into a system of "ought to be's." -SS
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 6:52:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2002 6:54:24 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Here's a few of the problems I have with the criminal/lawyers conduct 1) Who keeps 2 dog weighing a combined 240 in an apt??? 2) They knew the neighbor was scared of the dogs. 3) Why did the 2 dogs and the neighbor meet in the hallway?? Mere coincidence I think not. 4) What was a 120 lb woman doing walking 2 dogs that weighed twice a much as her and were "fiesty"? 5) As a pet owner you have the responsibility to control your pet(s). If you are "walking" your dogs and they kill someone, you have failed miserably. 6)The dogs had gotten "agressive" with other people. I would feel different if this was a first time incident, it was a pattern in this case. 7) Up until they were convicted they continued to blame the person who got ate, should've, could've, and would've's were flying around. They needed to accept responsibility for their failure to control their animals.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 7:20:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 7:28:55 AM EDT
Thanks DVDtracker for the clarification. I believe that the Jury took an extra day of deliberation for the 2nd murder verdict, during which time they have asked a court clerk to read them a statement made previously by the dogs owner. After that they have concluded it was premeditated.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 7:45:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 7:50:05 AM EDT
Ooops! [:D]
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 9:10:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2002 9:29:07 PM EDT by prk]
I believe that they were both guilty of the woman's death. And negligent beyond reckless. The murder charges made sense to me, and I argued briefly with UlysseNardin_1846 on that part. However, I have changed my mind a bit. The premeditation part is a real stretch, so without knowing the in's & out's of the law, the 2nd degree murder may have been excessive. Involuntary manslaughter, I agree with. Now comes the part where I bet it gets thrown out based on the inevitable interviews of the jurors after the fact. What the hell is wrong with these people that they don't know when to tell a reporter to **ck off? Edited to add that in addition to the several jury members who should have kept their traps shut, just like nullification actors should zip their lips, there are many reported problems with the trial, any one of which could the verdict tossed. Wish it had been that female defense attorney chewed up instead.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 9:59:53 PM EDT
Well anyone who saw the antics of that rookie defense attorney has to know that this case is going to be retried. That was a incompitent defense if I ever saw one.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 10:07:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By prk: I believe that they were both guilty of the woman's death. And negligent beyond reckless. The murder charges made sense to me, and I argued briefly with UlysseNardin_1846 on that part. However, I have changed my mind a bit. The premeditation part is a real stretch, so without knowing the in's & out's of the law, the 2nd degree murder may have been excessive. Involuntary manslaughter, I agree with.
View Quote
From what I've been told, the prosecutors went after the 2nd degree charge based on the fact that the dogs have attacked people before and that the owners ignored the complaints. The angle they went after is that the owners kept these dogs knowing they will kill someone someday, and premeditation can be asserted based upon that fact. Just what a prosecutor friend told me.
Now comes the part where I bet it gets thrown out based on the inevitable interviews of the jurors after the fact. What the hell is wrong with these people that they don't know when to tell a reporter to **ck off?
View Quote
That's irrelevant, the case was over. They're free to comment without any bearing on any appeals.
Edited to add that in addition to the several jury members who should have kept their traps shut, just like nullification actors should zip their lips, there are many reported problems with the trial, any one of which could the verdict tossed.
View Quote
Yep, there will be an appeal. Aren't there always?
Wish it had been that female defense attorney chewed up instead.
View Quote
What? WTF?...OK, man, whatever.... I've said it in another thread: This case was very well covered. The owners got EXACTLY what they deserved. If you don't think so, go back and read the coverage or request transcripts. The husband got off easy because he was lucky enough to be somewhere else, but he's also a murderer.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 11:43:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Buddha:
Originally Posted By prk:
Now comes the part where I bet it gets thrown out based on the inevitable interviews of the jurors after the fact. What the hell is wrong with these people that they don't know when to tell a reporter to **ck off?
View Quote
That's irrelevant, the case was over. They're free to comment without any bearing on any appeals.
View Quote
Not irrelevant. The case may be 'over', but the interviews of jurors, will be gone over in great detail for indications of juror misconduct, predjudicial influence of such things as mention of the Aryan Brotherhood being allowed, etc. In other words, they will be looking for any 'evidence' that the verdict was not reached fairly and impartially.
Link Posted: 3/23/2002 3:12:21 AM EDT
I know this. The dogs were originally raised as attack dogs. Members of a prison gang had planned to sell them as "pit bull eaters". The owner of the kennel where they stayed for a while told the scumbags that the dogs were dangerous and should be kept in the country if possible. The scumbags received a letter from the vet expressing grave concern that the dogs were unpredictable, aggressive, and an accident waiting to happen. The scumbags wrote another scumbag in prison stating that the neighbors were scared of the dog and referred to the woman who was killed as a "mousy blond" of something to that effect. The scumbags enjoyed scaring the neighbors and were proud of the fact the dogs made people in the building tremble at the sight of them. Now, here you have two scumbags who know what the deal is, know better than anyone about the legal liability that would result from a bite, find solace in scaring the sh*t out of people, were in the process of adopting a scumbag serving time in a super-maximum security prison, yada, yada, yada. I won't shed any tears for those people.
Link Posted: 3/25/2002 9:54:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: UlysseeNardin, your posts give you away. Your upset about this verdict becase the deceased is gay. And you like it when gay people get roughed up and the people responsible get away.
View Quote
I didn't like all the smack that carpet-muncher Smith was blathering out on all the airways. But I am more pissed about her smack talk than her sexual orientation which is none of my concern. Though it may have seemed that way.
Top Top