Guilty on all counts - I can't believe it.

You can't believe what?  That a California jury would actually CONVICT a defendant when there's plenty of evidence of guilt?  Now THAT's hard to believe.  They're guilty.  Now let's see if they get what they deserve.

Thank god...perhaps dog owners in this state will stop and consider wtf they are getting into before getting or keeping a dog.  If you can't control the dog by yourself, then why in the hell do you have it?  

My wife and I are working with a new dog, right now we aren't sure if we are going to keep him due to some behavioral problems.  If she can't get him to obey her, then he's gone.  Obviously, Mrs. Knoeller didn't have enough common sense to consider that when they got their dogs.  

In this case, justice may yet be served.

Oh, and if you're not keeping your dog in a secured enviornment, then you may well be next....and don't be suprised when it happens to you.  

Hmm...maybe I have a troublesome situation here because I have a 50 pound Aussie who won't always obey instructions.  Sometimes I have to tell her twice to get off my lap and stop licking my face!

She's dangerous to burglars because there's a danger that the burglar may hurt himself when he trips over a sleeping mostly black dog late at night.  She sleeps in the traffic pattern.

[:D]

CJ

I had a Spitz (before she died of cancer) who most likely would have not only licked a burglar to death, she probably would have shown him where everything was.  There was one time, however, when she was about a year old that she body slammed a guy who made a threatening gesture towards me in my own yard.  She didn't bite him, she just launched into him and knocked him on his ass.  I was chastizing him for coming through my yard and he spun around with a fist balled up and she lit into him.  It was pretty funny.  You should have seen the look on his face.  If she had taken to biting him or clamped on to him, I would have gotten her off even though he would have deserved it.  The above is a case where there was no instigation and an attack by dogs known for ferocity.  I have no sympathy for the owners being prosecuted.  The hallway was not their property.

[url]http://www.trnonline.com/stories/03172002/regional_news/30283.shtml[/url]
 Honestly, if you love your dogs, take care to supervise them as if they were your children. in the article, for those interested, local dog pack are costing the rancher lots of money, and believe me, the ranchers treat them as varmints. As in "shoot on sight"....fullclip

HOORAY!

These A-hole lawyers who knew they had killer dogs should rot in prison.

The evidence against them was overwhelming.  Thank God they didn't get off like O.J.

Who woulda thunk that guilty people would actually be found guilty in California.

This thing is definitely being appealed.  I predict a new trial and new evidence will come out that had been previously suppressed by the DA of SF, KA.  Also the judge seemed quite biased to me.  Yes, judges can be biased.  Anyone recall that asshole penfield jackson-jackass?

What evidence? The only evidence suppressed the first time was their involvement with the Aryan Brotherhood and Biker Gangs. That they practiced beastiality with the dogs.  That they had previously expressed hostility to homosexuals.

Just what has gotten into you Narden, what redeeming quality do you see in these people?

I agree with you 100% sfoo. I view pets as a responsibility and a luxury - valued family members.

I hope things work out with your Bullett. [:(]

Tyler

I'll have to look up specifics of the evidence in question.  But I know there is some, really.  

It just seemed like they were going about their everyday normal business and WHAM!...look what happened.  I certainly don't believe for one minute that they actually wanted the lesbo dead.

Reedeeming quality?  I guess they can make my new license plate when I get a new car.

I really have to go now, I'll check back later.

Ban Dogs.... Its for the children.

... As a kid growing up on a mini-farm I remember my dad killing our family dog only an hour after it bit a neighbor kid.

... At the time I didn't understand but I do now.

Bullitt's ok, we have another dog, Stumpy.  (http://www.snedegar.net/images/dogs/stumpy/)

He's 98% wonderful, but he's 1yr. old, and the scars on him make me think he's had some rough times behind him.  We'll see how he works out...I hope he'll be good.  If not, then he's outta here. [:(]

Sorry to disagree here, but...

I think [u]2nd degree murder[/u] is an excessive charge here. [u]Involuntary manslaughter[/u] seems more appropriate. I didn't note specific intent to inflict harm. Recklessness? Stupidity? Absolutely. But not specific intent to cause serious injury. Sympathy for the victim obviously effected the decision.

This case stands a good chance of being overturned. Before I get railed for for making light of this, I'm not. The defendants are idiots; and their lawyer was sheerly stupid in attempting to lay blame on the victim. The con who did all the manipulating, who the dogs allegedly belonged to, should also be held responsible.

I promise not to cry any crocodile tears for the defendants, but methinks the specific charge didn't fit the crime. They should have charged involuntary manslaughter, and put the con on trial for any applicable, additional charges.

Some criminals may be stupid, but stupidy isn't a crime.
[grenade]
There should be a law.

My $0.02

A friend of mine's dog attacked another friend, her face is ruined for life. After the incident my friend (the dog's owner) took his dog outside and shot it dead with a 45. This is the only way to deal with dogs like this and I am a dog lover.

from [url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=759379288+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve[/url], here's the state definitions of both.  (189 defines 1st and 2nd, 192 defines manslaughter)  My quick reading makes me think it could go either way (2nd degree or manslaughter), and in this case for the volume of media attention, they chose 2nd.  IANAL, and I don't play one on TV or the internet.  I don't feel it's horribly inappropriate, see my statements above.  


189.  All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to
penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any
other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which
is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate,
arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train
wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a,
or 289, or any murder which is perpetrated by means of discharging a
firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside
of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the
first degree.  All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.
  As used in this section, "destructive device" means any
destructive device as defined in Section 12301, and "explosive" means
any explosive as defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety
Code.
  To prove the killing was "deliberate and premeditated," it shall
not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully
reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.

192.  Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice.  It is of three kinds:
  (a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
  (b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection.  This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed
in the driving of a vehicle.
  (c) Vehicular--
    (this section deleted about vehicluar)

  "Gross negligence," as used in this section, shall not be
construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under
Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious
disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon
facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California
Supreme Court in People v.  Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

I agree, While the defendants were negligent, I dont believe the punishment fit the crime. Manslaughter? definately. Murder? I think that's a stretch. Maybe they should have had Johnny Cockring[:D] for defense.

The prosecuter stated "Why do we need big dogs in our society". Sound familliar? (why does anyone need an AR-15?)
Does this mean we will ban dogs over a certain size or weight?[rolleyes]

I have three German Shepherd Dogs and eight rough Collies.

The only time I woould be concerned is if some asshole tried to gain entrance to my home.
Of course some people shouldn't be allowed to own dogs just like some people shouldn't be allowed to have children.

Did you all catch the statement by the prosecuter that this judgement will send a message that [B]PRESECANARIOS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN AREAS OF CLOSE RESDIENCE OR ANYWHERE CHILDREN MAY BE ENCOUNTERED.[/B]

I guarantee within the next few months the socialist kaliban legislature in its infinite tyranny will introduce a bill that contains a list of "dangerous breeds of dogs" which will be subject to registration or outright banning of possession within the state. It will be just like the "assault weapon" ban and sheeple will cheer it on. Oh yes, when german shepherds are banned, don't worry. There will be a law enforcement exemption as usual.

What HAS gotten into you?  There is no evidence suppressed except what the defense was able to suppress.  You just KNOW there is some.  NO YOU DON'T.  Why are you defending these white supremeist assholes?  They weren't going about their everyday business.  These people got off on frightening all their neighbors.

I don't normally do this, but some of you seem to be having trouble with understanding this case in plain English. Perhaps you will understand it in a OLDER language.



Oh, and it doesn't list any exceptions for sodomites either... Nor does there appear to be any wiggle room in saying it wasn't a ox but a dog this time... This couple in Cali got off easy compared to what a old testiment judge would have done to them...

Try to imagine, that you have a robot with an IQ of 30 wandering around your yard with a MAC-10 and it kills some poor guy walking down the side walk.

Do you think you would not be charged with 2nd degree murder? Because thats what a dog like that is.

[:D]

This was not the first time for Felony convictions or 2nd degree murder.  [url]http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/01/7/UScourt0701.html[/url]

U.S. courts reshape dangerous dog law

SAN FRANCISCO--Legal experts and news media commented on how unusual the charges were back on March 27, 2001, when a San Francisco grand jury indicted lawyer Marjorie Knoller, 45, for alleged second-degree murder. The grand jury also indicted both Knoller and her husband and law partner Robert Noel, 56, for alleged involuntary manslaughter and failure to control an animal.

Both Knoller and Noel have been jailed since leading police on a 200-mile car chase later on March 27, under suspicion of trying to escape the jurisdiction of the court.

Knoller and Noel were custodians of two Presa Canario dogs owned by prison lifers Dale Bretches, 44, and Paul Schneider, 38, whom police identify as reputed leaders of the white supremacist Aryan Nations gang.

On January 26, the two dogs broke away from Knoller and killed neighbor Diane Whipple, 33. The dogs had a history of attacking people and animals, witnesses testified, and one dog had allegedly injured Noel.

At the time, felony charges in dog mauling cases were still so rare that only one previous California manslaughter conviction was identified, and only a handful of other felony convictions nationwide.

By the time Knoller and Noel go to trial, probably in late 2001 or early 2002, the legal landscape will be changed. Felony prosecutions and convictions in dog mauling cases have abruptly become common.

In two recent cases, the dogs were allegedly used as weapons:

* Jason Joe Swift, 27, of Stead, Nevada, is to be sentenced on August 16 after pleading guilty on July 17 to a felony charge of owning and keeping a vicious dog who caused substantial bodily harm to someone else. Swift allegedly set a pit bull on Juan Baca on December 19, 2000, after Baca accused Swift of stealing his stereo. Swift and Samantha Darcy then allegedly beat Baca. Darcy already drew 35 days in jail on two counts of misdemeanor battery.

* Debbie Gamiel, of New York City, pleaded guilty to assault on July 5 for allegedly setting three Belgian Malinois attack dogs on author Shawn Considine in 1998. Gamiel's husband, Norman Schacter, is charged with conspiring to beat up Considine and plant illegal substances in his apartment.

cont.

Felony convictions

However, in other recent dog attack convictions, the crime was seen by the court as a preventable accident:

* 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.

* Benjamin Curtis Duke, 29, of Faulkner County, Arkansas, on April 25 drew three years in state prison and a fine of $10,000 for allowing four pit bulls to run at large, three of whom seriously injured Matt Schneider, 10, in June 2000. The charge was second-degree battery.

* Jared Pollock, 22, of Frankford, Pennsylvania, on April 9 drew 30 days under house arrest and two years on probation for allowing two pit bulls to maul Greg Fox, 12, in July 2000. Both dogs were shot by police. The charge was reckless endangerment, reduced from aggravated assault.

* Jerry "Buster" Allen McTaggert, 48, of Tunnel Hills, Georgia, on April 2 drew seven years on probation for reckless endangerment in allowing Dakota "Cody" Randolph, age 3, to wander into proximity to two Rottweilers who killed the boy while McTaggert was in bed with his mother, Serena McConley Randolph, the day after Christmas 1997. Ms. Randolph drew a probationary sentence earlier, but broke the probation and served the final two months in jail. An autopsy showed that her son, partially disemboweled, was still alive for two hours after the attack, but his cries were not heard. Sentencing on misdemeanor charges linked to dog attacks is also getting tougher:

* Rogelio Velasquez, of Wasco, California, was sentenced on July 25 to serve a year in the Kern County jail for owning dogs trained to attack and cause injury. Velasquez is also to make restitution to Garrett Mozingo, 9, and Cody Roberts, 11, who suffered disabling injuries when Velasquez' two pit bulls stormed into an elementary school playground.

* Heredia Lomas, 36, of San Dimas, California, on April 9 drew a month in jail and his wife Susan, 31, got three years on probation, for harboring a pit bull mix who attacked three people in a year. Heredia Lomas was also convicted of illegally removing the dog prematurely from quarantine at the Inland Valley Humane Society. In felony cases still pending:

* Judith Galland, of Rochester, New York, was on March 7 hit with two counts of third-degree assault and one count of reckless endangerment for allowing her two pit bulls to bite a utility worker.

Cont.

* Andre Huskey, 30, of Kansas City, Kansas, was on March 15 indicted for aggravated battery, after his two Akitas in November 2000 mauled 4-year-old Anthony England, as the Akitas ran at large for the second time in two days. Just a month earlier, Huskey was among several people who pulled a Rottweiler/German shepherd mix off of a severely injured 3-year-old--which the prosecution argues is evidence that he knew the risk of allowing his dogs to escape from his yard.

* Dean A. Fowler and Andrew Richard Owen, of Bozeman, Montana, were on March 16 charged with negligent endangerment and owning a vicious dog. In February, after Cade Lohss, age 3, fell on ice, two German shepherd/Lab mixes owned by Fowler and Owen allegedly tore the boy's clothes off, tore his left ear off, tore away part of his scalp, and caused him to lose half the blood in his body. Emergency personnel were able to save his life.

* Chris Shearer, of Bell-ingham, Washington, was charged with reckless endangerment in July for letting his 16-month-old son Zachary wander unseen toward a newly acquired Rottweiler on June 18. The boy nearly lost a leg and at latest report remained hospitalized. "The dog was licking Zach. There was no reason for me to fear the dog was going to attack," said Shearer, echoing the words of Robert Noel, who testified at a hearing on the fate of one of the Presa Canarios who attacked Diane Whipple that the dog was "a sweetheart" who "might lick you to death."

Similar words have been uttered by almost everyone with quotes on record whose dog has killed or maimed someone.

Cont.

Fed up

Across the U.S. and around the world, grand juries, prosecutors, and judges are serving notice that they are fed up with exponentially increasing dog attack deaths and maulings--and are especially fed up with excuses and accidents involving not just dogs of known risky disposition, but any dogs of high-risk breed type. Contrary to stereotype, few of the dogs involved in the recent surge of deaths and maimings have been verifiably abused or trained to fight. The Rogelio Velasquez case was an exception, the Knoller and Noel case is allegedly another, and a third possible exception was a June 18 attack by three pit bulls on Shawn Jones, 10, of Richmond, California, as he rode a new bicycle he had just been given for getting good grades. Jones lost both ears and almost all the skin and muscles on both sides of his face.

The dogs' owners, Benjamin Moore, 27, and Jacinda Lynn Knight, 33, also of Richmond, were initially arrested on suspicion of keeping dogs that caused injury or mayhem. Moore was charged with two misdemanor counts of concealing evidence, for abandoning the dogs at large after the attack, and may face stronger charges, pending the outcome of an ongoing investigation. Neglect is a common element in dog attacks, including prolonged chaining, non-neutering, and sometimes underfeeding and lack of socialization--but these were the all-too-common lot of millions of dogs long before the number of bites requiring hospital treatment rose anywhere near the present level. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that U.S. hospitals new treat about 334,000 dog bites per year.

Further, for every possibly neglected dog involved in an attack, there are others who were reportedly pampered pets. The surge in killings and maimings by dogs has, however, coincided with the rising popularity of pit bull terriers, Rottweilers, and--to a lesser extent--wolf hybrids, Akitas, and exotic "fighting" breeds such as Presa Canarios, File Brasieros, and Japanese tosas.

Cont.

The rise in severe dog attacks began in the mid-1980s. Bite records kept by Minneapolis, Allentown, and Miami show that for 15 years, 1977-1992, pit bulls delivered just 4% of the bites requiring hospital treatment, and Rottweilers only 1%. Chows were the most dangerous breed, at 10%. By 1996, both pit bulls and Rottweilers accounted for 9%. Chows were still at 10%. By 1999, pit bulls accounted for 21% and Rottweilers for 12%. Chows were at 11%.

The ANIMAL PEOPLE log of life-threatening and fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada, kept since 1982, has always shown pit bulls accounting for about half of the total number of attacks and Rottweilers accounting for about 25%, with wolf hybirds at roughly 4% and chows, German shepherds, huskies, and Akitas all around 2%--but the attack volume has recently increased so rapidly that of 1,193 attacks qualifying for inclusion, 19% have occurred since October 2000, including 20% of the 559 life-threatening and fatal attacks by pit bulls and 18% of the 258 by Rottweilers. Attacks by fighting dogs and guard dogs are excluded from the ANIMAL PEOPLE log--like the July 23 killing of intruder Alexandro Caballero Mendoza, 50, at the Paradise Distributing pottery storage yard in Phoenix. A multi-time convicted drug offender, Mendoza was reportedly torn apart by a pair of unlicensed pit bulls belonging to All Breed K-9 Security, which according to Maricopa County Animal Control Services spokesperson Julie Bank had no kennel permit.

Cont.

Legislation

The first legal response to the rising numbers of attacks, beginning in the mid-1980s, was a global wave of attempted breed-specific legislation. Bans on pit bulls and other "fighting breeds" sharply lowered the incidence of fatal attacks and maimings in Britain and The Netherlands.

France banned pit bulls and look alike breeds in 1999, strengthening the legislation earlier this year. Two German states adopted similar legislation after two pit bulls rushed into a schoolyard on June 26, 2000, and killed Volkan Kaya, age 6. The dogs' owner, Ibrahim Kulunc, 24, on January 16 was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 42 months in jail. His girlfriend, Silja Wilms, 19, drew one year on juvenile probation.

Thailand banned Rottweilers in December 2000, and charged Nakhon Maha-Ittidol, 41, with manslaughter, after his Rottweiler killed his niece, Ornjira Suksawat, age 3. Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Spain are also reportedly close to adopting bans of pit bulls and other dangerous dog breeds.

In the U.S., however, although communities in 36 states have passed breed-specific legislation at various times, most enforcement efforts have been defeated and much of the legislation has been undone by the combined clout of dog owners, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and animal advocacy groups led by the Humane Society of the U.S., whose policies admit no behavioral distinctions among breeds.

Cont.

Court cases against breed-specific ordinances have emphasized the difficulty of legally defining "pit bulls" and "wolf hybrids," for which no formal breed standards exist.

The American Dog Owners Association is now suing Yonkers, New York, seeking to overturn an ordinance requiring pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Dobermans to be muzzled in public. The inclusion of Dobermans is a weak point in that ordinance, as despite a reputation for ferocity as Nazi prison camp guard dogs during World War II, Dobermans have never been prominent in U.S. breed-specific attack data.

Property insurers and landlords learned meanwhile that the surest way for them to exclude liability from reputedly dangerous breeds while avoiding discrimination lawsuits was to refuse to insure or rent to anyone with any kind of large dog.

Attempts to strengthen exclusions of reputed dangerous breeds continue, including in Portland, Maine, where the city housing authority on July 1 banned possession of pit bulls and Rottweilers after giving tenants 60 days to either get rid of pits and Rotts or move. The housing authority acted under pressure from an insurer after two pit bulls belonging to tenant Kun Vorn mauled another resident. Vorn was fined $500 for letting the dogs run at large. Whether the Portland housing authority will succeed in making a breed ban stick awaits an expected court challenge.

Cont.

Courts step in

Meanwhile, courts are rewriting the jurisprudence on dog attacks. Most notably, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled on June 5, 2001 that the common law tradition that dogs are allowed "one free bite" before being deemed dangerous should not apply to breeds and breed types with a "propensity" to do injury. The appellate court upheld an award of $250,000 to sheetrock installer Richard Ray Hill of Lincoln County, and $7,000 to his wife, for damages suffered after a Rottweiler belonging to Lake Norman residents Stephen T. and Patricia Williams tore off his ear in 1994 as he worked on their home.

"The case develops a negligence theory for owners of certain breeds of dogs," explained attorney Fielding Clark, of Hickory, who represented Hill. "It's crazy to give a dog owner one free mauling via his dog," Clark continued, to Raleigh News & Observer staff writer DeMorris Lee.

"This is one of the more significant rulings in the realm of negligence law," confirmed Mike Dayton of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly. "It's a significant shift in the law. You can, through expert testimony, show that a breed is likely to bite. You don't have to wait for it to bite the first time. Will it apply to pit bulls? Probably."

The North Carolina verdict may offer an important precedent for the late Diane Whipple's life-partner, Sharon Smith of San Francisco, in a wrongful death lawsuit against Knoller and Noel. California courts have previously not recognized same-sex partners as legitimate plaintiffs in wrongful death cases, bur Superior Court Judge A. James Robertson II on July 27 allowed the Smith suit to proceed

Cont.

Liability

The known upper-end liability verdict in a lawsuit resulting from a dog attack was until recently the $425,000 paid in 1991 by the Panhandle Humane Society of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, to the family of a four-year-old boy who was killed by a wolf hybrid in 1988, two hours after the shelter sent the dog to his fourth home in under four months. The attack and aftermath forced the humane society to close.

On April 27, 2001, however, a jury in Charleston County, South Carolina, awarded $335,000 in actual damages and $162,000 in punitive damages to Donald E. Webb, in a lawsuit against the Evanston Mobile Home Park for not enforcing a rule against dogs running free. Webb was severely mauled in March 1999 when he tried to tell a neighbor that her free-roaming Rottweiler was a potential menace. Webb also sued the neighbor, who settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

About a month later a jury in Contra Costa County, California, awarded $400,000 to Adam Corona, age 6, who was mauled by a Belgian Malinois police dog in October 1997, after the dog escaped from an unlocked patrol car. The dog less seriously injured a three-year-old a year earlier. Bigger awards are believed to have been made in cases settled out of court. A potential Canadian record-setter is anticipated in Park Head, Ontario, where on July 9 Tim Lizmore brought home a newly adopted Rottweiler named Cuno Von Brickenstein and left him tied to a porch pillar in care of his daughter Chantelle Lizmore, who was visiting with an infant and her five-year-old daughter Haileigh. Hailegh gave Cuno treats until he nipped at her. Chantelle picked her up and then tried to pick up the infant, who was in a car seat, out of reach of Cuno. Cuno tore Haileigh from Chantelle's grasp, tearing open Haileigh's face, crotch, buttocks, and back, and severing muscles, ligaments, and nerves in Chantelle's left arm. Born in Germany, Cuno was brought to Canada by one Todd Goodfellow. Goodfellow gave Cuno to Carol Glynn, then one of his employees, now working for the Grey-Bruce Humane Society. Glynn offered Cuno to Lorna Vanderploeg of the Keppel Creek Animal Shelter, who refused to accept him because she judged him unadoptable. Cuno was instead passed on to Philly Hennessey, owner of Philly's K-9 Team Inc., who kept Cuno just two weeks before giving him to Tim Lizmore.

Cont.

Wrote Jonathan Sher of the London Free Press, "Both Tim Lizmore and Vanderploeg said they were told that a previous owner had hoped to train Cuno for law enforcement, but had not because he was not aggressive enough."

"There's nothing wrong with that dog. If it would save him, I'd take him into my own home," Grey-Bruce Humane Society investigator Joan Thompson said. Vanderploeg, who hadn't wanted anything to do with Cuno, ended up having to hold him through a mandatory 10-day quarantine and then euthanize him.

--M.C.


[b]Fin[/b]

[url]http://www.inlandempireonline.com/de/dogattack/dogattack033001.shtml[/url]

[b]Barstow trial opens in boy's death[/b]

[b]Pit bulls fatally mauled Cash Carson, 10. The dogs' caretaker is charged with second-degree murder.[/b]

By Richard Brooks
The Press-Enterprise
BARSTOW

On the last day of his life, 10-year-old Cash Carson cooked lunch for his mom, played outdoors -- and made a fatal mistake: He tried to ask permission to build a fort on a neighbor's property.

Before he could ask the question, his neighbor's two pit bull dogs attacked him, ripping open the boy's neck so badly that his spine was exposed.

On Thursday, Cash's mother sat in a Barstow courthouse where:

· Jurors listened to opening statements in the second-degree murder trial of James Chiavetta, the dogs' caretaker, who investigators say negligently failed to adequately restrain animals that he knew were dangerous.
· A wrongful-death lawsuit was filed against Chiavetta and the dogs' owners by a lawyer who is seeking so much money he had to define the astronomical amount: $10 googolplex. A googol is the number 1 followed by 100 zeros.
· A pretrial hearing is scheduled today for the dogs' owners, Michael Caldwell and Gilbert Garcia, who are charged with owning a dog that caused a death, a felony punishable by three years in prison.

"This isn't a dog-bite case," said Becky Carson. "My son was murdered."

She holds Chiavetta responsible.

"He knew what these dogs were capable of," she said. "He knew the gates were open -- and he went to sleep."

Cont.

She wants to ban dangerous dogs in California.

"Pit bulls have really been bred for the last 100 years to be attack dogs," Santa Monica personal injury attorney James Devitt said on Carson's behalf. "Obviously it's really the owners that are at fault, rather than the dog."

But many owners of aggressive dogs act irresponsibly by walking their dogs without a leash or even letting them run wild, said Devitt. So he's asking for $10 googolplex in damages to help attract attention to the problem, he said.

In his view, owners should have to register aggressive dogs as if they were guns and be required to carry at least $1 million in insurance. Among the dogs Devitt considers dangerous: pit bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, German shepherds and chows.

Becky Carson is scheduled to testify when the trial resumes today. On Thursday, she spoke outside the courtroom of her only son's death along a dusty road in Newberry Springs, east of Barstow.

Inside the courtroom, Chiavetta used a walker to shuffle to his seat at the counsel table. Two weeks ago, his lawyer said, the 54-year-old government worker underwent heart surgery to implant a defibrillator after his pulse dropped to 20 beats per minute while he was in county jail.

A key question in the trial: Did Chiavetta know the dogs were dangerous?

"He said he was afraid of the dogs for the first several months he was living there," Deputy District Attorney Steven Sinfield said in his opening statement.

The dog that medical experts say inflicted the fatal injuries is believed to have killed its own sire by ripping out its throat, Sinfield told the jury. Known as Bear, the dog usually was kept leashed to an overhead chain stretched between two trees.

Yet last April 29, Chiavetta "intentionally left the gate open and intentionally left Bear off his chain," said Sinfield, adding that the caretaker then took a nap.

Cash Carson and playmate Daniel Gonzalez planned to ask to build a fort on the property Chiavetta was overseeing, Sinfield said. As they neared the fence, they noticed the dogs coming toward them and tried to retreat, the prosecutor said.

Cont.

Sixty feet from the gate, both dogs grabbed young Cash and Bear pinned him to the ground, Gonzalez later told investigators. Cash sent his companion for help. When the playmate returned, Bear and his victim were much closer to the gate -- with the dog biting the boy's neck.

"I think I'm dying," the boy told rescuers.

Later in the trial, Chiavetta is expected to testify in his own defense.

"He never had any indication that these dogs would ever hurt a human being," Hesperia defense attorney Robert J. O'Connor said in an opening statement.

Chiavetta initially feared the animals because he had never been around dogs, his lawyer said. The dogs had lived on the property eight years and had never attacked anyone, said O'Connor.

Bear was kept on a chain only because he was being used to help protect a shed used for the storage of motorcycles, he said.

"You won't hear any evidence that these dogs (had ever before) attacked any person," O'Connor said.

The trial is expected to continue for six weeks before San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Thomas Glasser.


[b]Fin[/b]

Follow up to above dog mauling case.

[url]http://www.vvdailypress.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1001817373,18874,[/url]

[b]Judge throws book at killer dogs’ caretaker[/b]


By TAMMY J. SCHOLL/Staff Writer

BARSTOW — Emphasizing how defenseless a 10-year-old boy was against two pit-bull mix dogs that mauled him to death, a judge on Friday sentenced the animals’ former caretaker to the maximum prison term.

Barstow Superior Court Judge Thomas Glasser said little Cash Carson was “particularly vulnerable” to the dogs, which “calls for and justifies” sentencing 54-year-old James Chiavetta to four years in prison for involuntary manslaughter.

“Cash Carson had no ability to fight the dogs off,” Glasser explained. “The dogs weighed more than the boy.”

Cash died on April 29, 2000, after Chiavetta unchained one of the dogs he was paid to care for and let it run loose in a yard on the 36600 block of Newberry Road in Newberry Springs.

“The defendant’s actions caused the victim to be mauled by dogs,” Glasser said. “The terror Cash Carson must have suffered ... is just unimaginable. The defendant’s actions set into motion every child’s worst nightmare ...”

Glasser broke with a probation officer’s recommendation for a three-year sentence, a move that Deputy District Attorney Steve Sinfield said is uncommon.

Glasser said Chiavetta has failed to take responsibility for his actions and has not displayed remorse for his “callous” actions.

Gloria White, Cash Carson’s grandmother, was the only member of the victim’s family present. She cried as the judge issued his findings.

“It’s over. That is a good thing,” she said after wiping her eyes with a tissue.

Chiavetta, a Barstow resident, showed no reaction to Glasser’s decision.

Hours earlier, Chiavetta’s lawyer, Robert O’Connor, urged Glasser not to be swayed by the emotional issues surrounding this case.

Cont.

“Society will not benefit from his incarceration,” O’Connor said. “We should not be a system that puts a person in prison if they have no criminal intent because of (the) terribly tragic result to the victim. Putting him in prison does not bring (Cash Carson) back.”

Probation Officer David Karstetter, who wrote Chiavetta’s probation report, was initially against sending Chiavetta to prison because he showed “no criminal intent.”

“However,” Karstetter wrote, “because of the terribly tragic results for the victim in this case, it is the opinion of the probation officer that probation should be denied and the defendant receive a state prison sentence.”

After the sentencing, O’Connor requested his client be released until Oct. 5 so he could put his affairs in order. But Sinfield, who was clearly pleased with the judge’s decision, objected to any further delays.

Chiavetta had ample opportunity to get his affairs in order during the four months between his conviction and sentencing, the prosecutor said.

Glasser ordered the defendant be taken into custody immediately.

Chiavetta moved slowly, leaning on his walker as the bailiff escorted him out of the courtroom.


[b]Fin[/b]

I'll just wait for "The Great Dog Mauling Trial Part II".