Man Charged With Murder

[WillowTree]

four pit bulls maul and kill a woman, the owner is charged with murder, this should happen every time a pit bull kills a human.



Man Slapped with Second-Degree Murder Charge in Fatal Pit Bull Mauling

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/05/murder-charged-in-fatal-pit-bull-mauling/

 

[bodecea]

good

 

[Yurt]

He said that police found other people who had similar stories about the dogs attacking people.

if that is true, he is in violation of the law. no way he goes to trial, plea out to some form of manslaughter, out in a few years.

 

[Missourian]

Doubt if this will stick...negligent homicide at worst.

Not saying he doesn't deserve it, but the way the law is written I don't think murder in the second degree can me sustained.

 

[Connery]

According to California law Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being... with malice aforethought.

"[Malice] is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."
CA Codes (pen:187-199)


Based on the rendition of facts reported this just may fit with what the prosecutor is pursuing.

 

[Connery]

Moved to proper forum

 

[J.E.D]

Why should this happen everytime a pitbull kills someone? What if a pit kills while protecting it's owner? Pits aren't any more aggressive than other "dangerous" breeds. I have had pits here that are the sweetest things ever. The owner is to blame, not the animal.

 

[Noomi]

The man didn't murder anyone. Charge him with not keeping his dogs locked up, or something.

 

[Esmeralda]

Why should this happen everytime a pitbull kills someone? What if a pit kills while protecting it's owner? Pits aren't any more aggressive than other "dangerous" breeds. I have had pits here that are the sweetest things ever. The owner is to blame, not the animal.

Isn't that the point? The owner is being blamed.

 

[westwall]

The DA's around the country are trying to do with some of these dog owners what they are doing with drunk drivers. If they can show a willful disregard for the known dangers then they believe they have grounds to show malice.

 

[Connery]

The man didn't murder anyone. Charge him with not keeping his dogs locked up, or something.

There are simply times when "the law" needs to step in and charge the owner for the severity of the acts committed by their pets.

For example,

• "A San Francisco woman was convicted of second-degree murder after the Presa Canario dogs she was walking attacked and killed a woman in the hall of the apartment building they both lived in. Affirming the conviction, the appeals court wrote that the dog's owner knew that the dog that attacked "was a frightening and dangerous animal: huge, untrained and bred to fight" and had endangered others by keeping it. (People v. Noel, 128 Cal. App. 4th 1391, 28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 369 (2005).)
• A California woman who ordered her Doberman pinscher to attack someone was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. (People v. Nealis, 232 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 283 Cal. Rptr. 376 (1991).)
• A California court sentenced a dog owner to 90 days in jail and fined him $500 for failing to keep his dog on a leash, as ordered by the county after the dog attacked two people. (San Francisco Chronicle, June 16, 1988.)
• An Ohio man was convicted of failing to confine a vicious dog, a felony in that state. His dogs, an American pit bull terrier and a rottweiler, had attacked and killed a toddler. The pit bull was presumed to be a vicious dog under Ohio law. (State v. Ferguson, 76 Ohio App. 3d 747, 603 N.E.2d 345 (1991).)
• In 1987, a Georgia man was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after his three dogs, which he had allowed to run loose, attacked and killed a four-year-old boy. He was sentenced to five years in prison and five years of probation. (One of the conditions of the probation was that he not own any dogs.)
• A California man whose chained dog mauled to death a two-year-old in 1987 was charged with murder. He was convicted of a lesser charge, involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to three years in prison. ("Pit Bull Owner Handed Three-Year Prison Term," San Francisco Recorder, Feb. 20, 1990.)"

Criminal Penalties for Owners of Dangerous Dogs

 

[Esmeralda]

The man didn't murder anyone. Charge him with not keeping his dogs locked up, or something.

Because his negligence led to this woman's death. He knew the dogs were vicious and had attacked other people. Dog owners need to be responsible for their pets' behavior. I agree, however, with another poster. Murder charges will probably not stick. It should be negligent homicide. It's like dangerous driving that results in a death.

 

[Noomi]

The man didn't murder anyone. Charge him with not keeping his dogs locked up, or something.

Because his negligence led to this woman's death. He knew the dogs were vicious and had attacked other people. Dog owners need to be responsible for their pets' behavior. I agree, however, with another poster. Murder charges will probably not stick. It should be negligent homicide. It's like dangerous driving that results in a death.

If the dogs had attacked other people, why wasn't he charged and ordered to surrender the animals? Why was he allowed to keep animals that had already proven to be dangerous?

Seems to me that this is a problem with appropriate charges not being laid from the start - that could have prevented this.

 

[Esmeralda]

good

The man didn't murder anyone. Charge him with not keeping his dogs locked up, or something.

Because his negligence led to this woman's death. He knew the dogs were vicious and had attacked other people. Dog owners need to be responsible for their pets' behavior. I agree, however, with another poster. Murder charges will probably not stick. It should be negligent homicide. It's like dangerous driving that results in a death.

If the dogs had attacked other people, why wasn't he charged and ordered to surrender the animals? Why was he allowed to keep animals that had already proven to be dangerous?

Seems to me that this is a problem with appropriate charges not being laid from the start - that could have prevented this.

Read the link. Apparently people didn't report the other attacks. If the attacks are not reported to the police, the authorities won't issue charges. However, as a dog owner myself, you know what kind of dog you have and if the dog is under your control, if the dog has a propensity to go after people, etc. No way this guy was oblivious about what his dogs were like, and he didn't control them: the fence was not high enough to keep them in the yard and they ran after people. An owner would be aware of that, unless he is retarded.

 

[Noomi]

^but whose fault is that? If you are attacked by a dog, would you just let it go unreported?
Because the previous attacks were not reported, they shouldn't be counted against the dogs or the owner.

 

[Esmeralda]

^but whose fault is that? If you are attacked by a dog, would you just let it go unreported?
Because the previous attacks were not reported, they shouldn't be counted against the dogs or the owner.

Why do you defend the most heinous things? A responsible pet owner KNOWS what their animals are like; just like a responsble parent knows what their kids are like. Get some common sense!

 

[Noomi]

^but whose fault is that? If you are attacked by a dog, would you just let it go unreported?
Because the previous attacks were not reported, they shouldn't be counted against the dogs or the owner.

Why do you defend the most heinous things? A responsible pet owner KNOWS what their animals are like; just like a responsble parent knows what their kids are like. Get some common sense!

I am not defending him, I am simply pointing out that if no charges were laid previously, due to attacks not being reported, those attacks cannot be used against the dogs or the owner, because the owner was never convicted.

If the guy gets a lawyer, this is exactly what the lawyer would say.

 

[Connery]

^but whose fault is that? If you are attacked by a dog, would you just let it go unreported?
Because the previous attacks were not reported, they shouldn't be counted against the dogs or the owner.

Why do you defend the most heinous things? A responsible pet owner KNOWS what their animals are like; just like a responsble parent knows what their kids are like. Get some common sense!

I am not defending him, I am simply pointing out that if no charges were laid previously, due to attacks not being reported, those attacks cannot be used against the dogs or the owner, because the owner was never convicted.

If the guy gets a lawyer, this is exactly what the lawyer would say.

At which point the lawyer should put his malpractice carrier on notice of claim sounding in negligent representation. Prior conviction is not a requisite element to the charges levied against this man.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

It's so sad. If that woman had simply carried pepper spray, she'd be alive today. : (

I walk five dogs at once and we have been charged by pitbulls on two occasions and by a rottweiller and husky another time. Pepper spray dispatched them just fine, although the owners of the dogs were pissed at me for pepper spraying their dogs, if you can imagine that.

Two of my dogs are dobermans and would gladly engage with the pitbulls, but as a responsible owner I can't let it happen. So I carry pepper spray.

Some people will say, oh, pepper spray won't stop a pitbull, they are so vicious, etc. etc. Bullshit. Worked for me, pepper spray turned them around immediately.

 

[Noomi]

Pepper spray doesn't always stop a human, so it may not stop a vicious dog, either. You just can't be sure.
The owner should have taken more care to keep his dogs locked up, because he didn't, a woman is dead.