I am never appalled at the depths that people will go to defend a heinous act against a weaker being.
Whatever the species.
Get active folks, you can "discuss" it until doomsday, but until your actions speak as loud as your words, it's all pixels on the computer screen.
posted on June 20, 2001 01:15:56 PM new
I'm not defending his actions, but I do think it's silly to extrapolate them into this guy being a potential serial killer, and then conclude that a 3 year prison sentence is appropriate because of what he might do later. Judge him on this occurrence. It was ugly, horrible, yes, but it wasn't premeditated, it happened under a moment of extreme stress.
Here's another educational link - Is three years of this appropriate?
posted on June 20, 2001 03:27:57 PM new
The man should be tossed naked out onto the same expressway where he threw the dog, while the story is covered live on national television. Then, if he lives, he should be thrown to a pack of pit bulls. I hope that lousy #($*%& doesn't sleep one night the rest of his life. And, if there is any justice on God's green earth, I hope he gets the maximum three year sentence, and winds up as the girlfriend of a prisoner named Bubba.
posted on June 20, 2001 07:18:12 PM new
You GO Murial!!!
I agree!
Squeal Like a Pig!
Only fitting.
And Donny, I'd feel for him, but I just can't reach him.
You play a power game with a small animal? You lose a power game over a pack of zigs in stir.
Shucks!
posted on June 20, 2001 08:31:59 PM newDonny:Judge him on this occurrence. It was ugly, horrible, yes, but it wasn't premeditated, it happened under a moment of extreme stress.
And what will he do the next time he's under stress? Everybody experiences times of extreme stress, yet the vast majority of us refrain from throwing small dogs to their deaths in traffic. Or doing serious bodily damage to anything or anybody.
What does he do when he gets *really* angry? Do you want to be there to find out for yourself? I wouldn't.
posted on June 20, 2001 09:18:02 PM new
"What does he do when he gets *really* angry? Do you want to be there to find out for yourself? I wouldn't."
Nope, I sure wouldn't, but you shouldn't punish people for things they haven't done. Once you get past the emotionalism of the cute furry animal picture, and refrain from attributing to this guy all sorts of terrible actions that he might do in the future, what you're left with is this one incident, and it's only on this one thing that he should be judged. Which one of us would like to be examined and then punished today for actions that we haven't committed, but might in the future, based on our profile? Not me, and we wouldn't think that was just.
"You play a power game with a small animal? You lose a power game over a pack of zigs in stir."
Sure, if it's a cute animal, one that shows up in greeting cards peeking adorably out of a basket, everyone's outraged. Animal activism, hurray! You never see a cockroach peeking adorably out of a basket on a Hallmark card, and few people would think twice about stomping one if they saw it in their kitchen.
"I am never appalled at the depths that people will go to defend a heinous act against a weaker being. Whatever the species."
If you go around with a mask on all the time, like some Buddhists, to prevent yourself from accidentally inhaling the smallest bug, you have a valid position. If you don't, you're just making noise.
posted on June 21, 2001 01:00:16 AM new
"Is something going wrong when we have more compassion for animals than our fellow man?"
You are absolutely right here. Part of his character comes into play though. He has spent time in jail before. He worked for GTE and stole money and thousands of dollars worth of tools from them.
posted on June 21, 2001 07:53:36 AM new
1st off, even though a cockroach is categorized in the animal kingdom, it is an insect. A insect that will outlive humans if a fatal disaster ever occured. I'm sure there are alot of people who love insects would try there best not to harm them. There are several animals that are on the endangered species list because of our negligence and stupidity. It is that "there just animals" mentallity that needs to be changed.
up to 3 years in jail is the punishment for the crime he commited. I feel he should get the max. Not for what he could do, but for what he has done.
I read in my local paper today that he cut her off and as a result she rear-ended him.
posted on June 21, 2001 01:56:48 PM new
In contrast here's another story where a boy was badly mauled (both ears torn off, left in critical condition) by 3 pit bulls. The reward being offered for information on the 3 pit bulls, $10,000.00 (1/12th the amount raised for the little dog.)
posted on June 21, 2001 05:42:22 PM new
They don't need to offer a bigger reward. They know who dogs' owner is. And they know the general area the owner hid the dogs in after the attack. It will not take over a year to bring the person/dogs to justice.
I am hoping the dog owners get the book thrown at them. They trained the dogs to be vicious, then were so stupid as not keep them securely locked in their own yard.
But that won't happen. The dog owners will get a slap on the wrist & have to pay a fine. The dogs (who, in a way, are also victims in this) will be destroyed. The child will have to suffer years of plastic surgery. Who comes out the winner? The dog owners. Makes me furious.
I personally know a lot of pit bull terriers (& their alias's American Staffordshire Terriers). And I've encountered many over the years. Quite a few come to our dog park & play with the other dogs with nary a problem. And I can say that it is the *owners* who make them vicious. Every time I see an idiot who thinks it's "macho" to have a dog that lunges & growls at other dogs & at people or who encourages aggression "so it'll be a good guard dog," I want to whack them over the head.
And it's not just pit bull terriers--people do this with quite a few dog breeds. Usually to bolster their own "macho" image.
posted on June 21, 2001 06:15:57 PM new
I am confused. Why would the owners be set "free" if the dogs aren't found. Witnesses saw what happened, the owner admitted that the dogs were covered with blood. Surely the owners will be held accountable even if the dogs aren't located, won't they? Why were these dogs not restrained. In our state dogs must be in a secure enclosure or on a leash at all times.
Does California have any laws like that? So many questions so few answers. If this child was riding his bike (not on the dog owners property) and these dogs attacked him surely they are responsible. Can anyone shed any light on this for me?
posted on June 21, 2001 06:22:27 PM newZilvy: there have been other cases like this. Usually the dog owner has to pay a fine and/or do community service. & the dogs are destroyed, but no jail time is involved. Yes, the owner is held responsible, but not to the extent of jail usually. It *is* against the law in California for dogs to run loose, regardless of the breed & there are leash laws, BTW.
Jail comes into play in cases such as the one recently where the woman was *killed* by loose dogs who had also been trained to be vicious (not pit bulls in that case, but a Mediterranean type of mastiff).
posted on July 13, 2001 04:22:57 PM new
I live near where both of these events took place and listen to a local radio station that had a huge hand in the 'rewards' for both of these cases....
It is indeed true that within 24 hours of the death of Leo the dog, this radio station alone had raised at least $50,000 for the arrest of the man responsible. The talk show host who started the fund had a Bishon Frise as a family pet and felt strongly when hearing the woman speak about the incident.
In the case of Shawn Jones - the boy who was mauled by the dogs, this same radio station within 3 weeks or so raised *$303,000* to go to the family of the boy for his medical expenses and to assist his family through this.
I think people should be allowed to contribute to whatever cause tugs at their heart strings, and not be judged as to why they supported one cause over another - it's all very personal and private. Some contribute to PETA, others to cancer research, still others to the local little league. To each their own.
posted on July 13, 2001 06:51:10 PM new
uaru - I would have to make sure that did not stand if it were my family. At the very least I would follow the creep until he was drunk behind the wheel again and have him arrested because you KNOW it will happen again. If it happens often enough he will serve some time. The judge needs to be followed also. He is saying there goes me if I were not careful. They could become agressive with you given a little luck. You could find yourself in front of them on the road and give them a reaction time test after they leave the bar. Drive something BIG.
posted on July 13, 2001 07:33:50 PM new
Three years. I can appreciate the need to get this bozo off of the streets but I sincerely hope that no one here actually thinks that this will in any way have a deterrent effect on him when he is released. We will place him in a cage and treat him like an animal (no pun intended) for three years. Just how do you think he is going to behave when you let him out? That the thought of returning to prison will somehow make him decide not to commit crimes anymore? Even him being someone's girlfriend for three years will do nothing more than make him even more resentful and bitter. Just how much would you like to live in this guy's neighborhood when he's released?
Fact is, ofenders like this are statistically not rehabilitatable. I know since I just so happen to deal with the criminal element every day I go to work.
Deterrence, ladies and gentlemen, comes in two forms even though most nice folks (such as the vast majority of people on AW) don't recognize that. 1st - General deterrence. "If we as a society punish the wrongdoers, then the rest of society will learn from that example and not do it" . 2nd - Specific deterrence. "If we punish this offender for his act than by God he won't do it again".
Rubbish.
Since I don't want to drift too far off of the topic and get really ramped up on my soapbox , suffice it to say that this bozo will reoffend about 16 seconds after he gets out of jail, and society as a whole is no more or less likely do throw a dog into traffic as a result of what happened to this guy.
posted on July 14, 2001 05:54:23 AM new
uaru, you're justified in your anger. I think that judges, cops, and the system in general are easy on drunk drivers because "everyone drinks." It's horrible that your sister in law's husband lost his life, and that the judge involved didn't think that warranted a more severe punishment.
We're so busy punishing people for substances in this culture, that we're not punishing them for truly punishable acts. I hope that at least your sister in law can pursue this in civil court and make the guy who did this a pauper. It won't bring back her husband of course, but losing all his assets would make the killer miserable.
posted on July 14, 2001 08:54:26 AM new
Well of *course* drunk drivers aren't given appropriate punishments when they maim & injure others--they have a disease you know, they can't help it.
What a bunch of crock. Someone may be addicted to alcohol, yes, but they still have a choice about whether to drive a car when they're drinking. And what about those who *aren't* alcoholics...what excuse do they have?
What is *really* disgusting are the repeat offenders--they get the slap on the wrist & then go right out & do it again. Rescinding their licenses does no good--they drive anyway. Of course, we can't take their car away because they need it to get to work! More BS. Take the car. Then give them a roll of quarters, a schedule, and show them where the bus stop is.
edited cuz "good" needs a "d"
[ edited by bunnicula on Jul 14, 2001 08:55 AM ]
posted on July 14, 2001 11:18:13 AM new
When I first heard about this incident, I was in favor of life without parole. But after reading the information provided here and reading the links, I believe that no good purpose can be served by jailing this individual other than retribution. since he will not be rehabilitated in such an environment, a class in stress management would be in everybody's best interest.
posted on July 14, 2001 12:57:56 PM new
posted on June 19, 2001 08:36:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to another article, a Navy supervisor testified that he beat a stay dog to death without any reason while serving in The US Navy. He is way out of control.
Helen
******************************************
Helen, I think you are a wise and kind woman.
I agree that he should get anger management
but, what about the item you showed previously "without any reason" he evidently is sadistic as well as uncontrolled. The sentence of three years, in my opinion, is also needed and anger management too.
Then upon release, I don't want him near my pets, kids, or in my neighborhood...because I firmly believe once you are an abuser you are always an abuser. It is a power thing!
That is taken from personal experience and I have no written article to back up this statement. But, I have experienced the bruises and witnessed them on others so I can attest to my statement.
Also, in regard to drunk drivers, who keep driving drunk...since they like to play roulette with their automobiles I think I may have the perfect solution for the multiple offender....can you guess what it is?
posted on July 14, 2001 03:48:45 PM new
B-b-b-but Helen, what will we do with all the homeless....I mean the people the ex cons
run out of their homes?????
