Death Penalty for dangerous dog owners?

[Sir Toose]

Firstly, I am a proponent of the death penalty. There are those who simply have no right to draw further breath amidst the decent folk of society. This is not the subject I wish to undertake here, however.

You have heard of the recent trial of the Rottweiler owners whose dogs killed a woman and of their sentences, one to 15 years one to a possible 4 years. Is this enough? The dogs in question attacked several people, should the owners have had the dogs destroyed previous to this most sad event? I think yes, they should have.

I am a strong proponent for taking responsibility for one's own actions. I feel these people, knowing the capability of the their animals, are fully responsible for the death of another. I would not be opposed to establishing a precedent of applying the death sentence to a case such as this. Dangerous dog attacks are happening far too often in my opinion and the owners need to assume ultimate responsibility

[Yoda]

I support the death penalty, HOWEVER, I must take the Bill O'Reilly route by saying that I would not be opposed to taking most dangerous criminals, shoving them away to an isolated prison, and forcing them into HARD labor for the rest of their lives...at least then they can try to give back to the society they have violated. But yes, I think there are some who deserve death...but, I think, if something like DNA evidence is lacking, or something of the sort, send them away and make them work until they die. Sounds harsh, but that's what I believe.

Now, as for dog owners (wacky subject. :D), I'm really not sure. Animals are hard to contain. It depends on the specifics, I think. I Can't say with confidence one way or another in any generic way.

[sadesdrk]

It's horrible what those dogs have done. The sad thing is, Rottweilers don't have to be mean dogs, sure...it's in their blood, but under the right conditions and with careful training, they can be normal dogs.
The owners of those dogs should assume the ultimate responsibilty. Because of them, people are dead and so are those dogs; Why should the owners be able to sit in a jail cell, breathing, while their victims rot in the ground?

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by TWTCommish

Now, as for dog owners (wacky subject. :D), I'm really not sure. Animals are hard to contain. It depends on the specifics, I think. I Can't say with confidence one way or another in any generic way.

What really chaps my hide is that the dogs were known to attack people. It was no fluke. It was a tradgedy waiting to happen and the owners did nothing to prevent it.

[patti]

dog owners are the responsible ones.........dog's that can't be contained and controlled should not be pets in the first place. the victim was their 33 year old neighbor......her throat was torn out for gods sake!! the dog owners were indifferent if not irritated that they were being held responsible!!!!!!!!
there's another news story wherein FIVE rotweillers attacked and killed a little eight(?) year old girl. the parents weren't home and the girl was visiting her friend. perhaps she "squealed" or screamed in play the way little kids do and the dogs thought they needed to protect the girl who lived there? ......the dogs tore this kid apart!!!!!!!! the mom returned home, covered what was left of the girl with a jacket and WALKED to the girl's parents to tell them to come see. she had no phone. she didn't hurry. she was also irritated that she was going to have to deal with what her dogs had done.

how dare these people use the title "human being". :furious:

i LOVE the idea of an isolated prison/island......and hard labor sentences. i think all prisoners should be laboring.

as to pet owners........they must be held responsible for their animals actions. the least these monsters could do, after the fact, is take responsibility and show remorse. they COULD have avoided it in the first place.

[spudracer]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Animals are hard to contain.

Wha!? If you have a role in your animals development and are strict with punishment (a smack on the nose will usually do it). They will know right from wrong.

If you're dog(s) have attacked people before, and you're not an idiot, however much you're attached to them you should destroy them. Because if you don't you're only saying that that type of behavior is alright.

Personally, you can't justify a life takin by taking another life. If it's serious enough, however, I believe that then the person who was responsible for the murder should die.

15 years and 4 years isn't enough. Personally, if you're a married couple, you both raise the dogs, the dogs attack and kill someone, you're both equally responsible.

[Yoda]

There are definitely cases, though, of dogs picked up from the pound that seem all well and good, and go nuts. I'm not saying this case is like that, but I can imagine my family going to get a dog, and it going nuts out of nowhere just ONCE. So, I think it's more of a case-by-case thing.

[thmilin]

hon, no animal is going to display questionable behavior "just once." animals are KNOWN for being incapable of hiding their "feelings" unless trained otherwise. Therefore, if you pick up a dog from the pound that mewls like a kitten and then it "suddenly" tears the throat out of a passing child, you can't say, "but I saw no signs!" the signs are there. The pound will have kept the animal and should have done it's job by being sure of the mental state of the animal. If the animal appears homicidal - euthenasia. By the time that pet gets to your hands, it should be in "fine working order."

Even if a dog doesn't appear vicious, a dog who is 1) afraid, 2) angry, 3) twitchy - all such signs will demonstrate that a dog is not going to respond to humans in a healthy, normal way and therefore should not be around them unless trained in a situation specifically meant to keep dogs in, humans out, and both safe. Ie, training kennels, etc.

As for owners who accept no responsibility - you're d@mned straight they should take responsibility. The dog is like your child - if your kid goes out and shoots someone in a gang, it's your fault too because that's how you raised them. You didn't watch out for them, you didn't groom them to avoid gangs and violence. Of course, that kid should also pay their price, but you are also responsible. In the case of a pet - you are EVEN MORE responsible because you TRAINED the dogs and they DO NOT have their own "free will." Dogs will do what their masters encourage and train them to do.

As you said, they were known to attack people before. If that couple's tender loving care has raised dogs to viciously attack someone who did nothing to provoke it the dogs should have been put down THEN. I can understand a little reluctance, and a second chance with stricter training and higher fences and cattle prods. Unwise, but I can understand. But a 3rd, then a 4th ... those are all MULTIPLE chances to KILL somebody. To pretend, oh, that vicious set of jaws on TWO sets of dogs trained to be attack ISN'T going to harm anybody is foolish and blind. It's like these people owned a gun and said, aw shucks, I didn't MEAN to shoot her, I couldn't help it, it's not my fault ... They COULD have helped it, and it IS their fault.

Terms are iffy here tho. If the couple deliberately sicced the dogs on the woman saying, "kill kill" then yes, they should have the death penalty. I've seen the news clips since this is a local thing I think, but didn' t watch all the details. Then again, if they trained the dogs to kill anyone but them - it IS premeditated murder with an open target on anyone who upsets the dogs. In which case, yes, they should get the death penalty. If, however, the dogs were just badly trained and left to do as they pleased but still went this far- they should definitely have 30 years EACH.

I agree with the hard labor thing. Those who violate society have no right to return to it if the crime is big enough. That doesn't mean they can't at some point be forgiven ... it's just that returning is a PRIVILEGE ... not a right. Taking a human life technically should cost you yours. Eye for an eye and all that.

[firegod]

Let's kill them and then call it euthanasia; that's what we do with dogs. Actually, I'm not serious. I am against capital punishment, but even if I wasn't this would never be a case I would consider for the death penalty. I've only ever heard of the death penalty being used in first degree murder cases, so if someone is proven to have committed first degree murder by using a dog or dogs to kill someone in cold blood, then ok. Otherwise, it is negligent homicide, and I don't think that will ever be a capital crime in an industrialized country on this planet. If it is, then what is next? Cutting off the hands of thieves and cutting out the tongues of liers?

[BrodieMan]

hm.... this is such a sticky issue. i do agree with the death penalty for a lot of heinous acts of crime. there is simply no way some people can be reformed, and i think you have to be a little cynical to say that (which i'm not really proud of). there are horrible, reprehensible freaks that will never become functional members of society. those people absolutely, without a doubt deserve the death penalty.

with animals, i may have to agree with TWTCommish. i don't think the guilty parties were encouraging their dogs to kill people. what's their true crime? neglegence? my heart goes out to the victims of pet attacks, but then my heart goes out to the victims of polar bear attacks, and that's just an act of god, right? you could say that they should keep their dogs on a leash or that they need to get help, but it's tough to guage when an animal may or may not "snap". there are often times when a perfectly normal animal will go nuts and it's not foreseeable.

however, you have the other end of the spectrum, where people are a$$holes and don't train their dogs, don't care for them and ignore repeat problems. those people make me sick. i'm thoroughly saddened for the fate of those dogs and much much more importantly, their victims. :( that's a tragic event and someone MUST be punished for the horrible thing they've done. i would say they need to be put in prison for life (and tried for murder).

but it's a case by case thing. it's too tough to make blanket statements and point fingers. you have to consider each aspect of the case.

[firegod]

It still would only be negligent homicide, and no one will get life for that; not in my country, anyway.

[patti]

i would guess that the number of pet attacks that are "snaps" are a rarity. thmilin said it......they show signs long before someone gets mauled to death. i'm a dog owner.....and i'm almost always disappointed in how other dog owners fail to contain their dog....even if it's a happy jumping retriever........they shouldn't allow them to race up to other people and jump all over them. they should be on a leash, controlled, and trained. they can run free in their own yard, in a dog park, or anywhere where they aren't disturbing other people.

i SO appreciate pet owners that take responsibility for their pets, train them, control them, take care of them and show consideration for other people. my dog has been attacked about ten times. the owners have all said, "i don't know why he did that?! he's usually so nice" like all it warranted was an "oops". :furious: my dog is really passive and gives off a vibe that seems to make some dogs decide to show just how tough they are. i've kicked a few dogs in the ribs to get them off my dog.....they come away with a mouth full of white fur. and what blows my mind even further, is that the owners tend to be all pissy as if it's somehow my fault.

this is a bigtime bone of contention for me. aaarghhhhhhh!!! :furious:

[BrodieMan]

how about this: what happens when circus animals go mad?

a few years ago, the circus was near my town and a tiger sort of lost it and killed his trainer mid-performance. of course you feel sorry..... it's shocking, sad, and disturbing.

but then again, they beat, abuse and starve those animals in order to ensure desired behavior during the show. what about when animals are absolutely at the end of their rope and they hurt audience members? should the trainers be held responsible?

i say yes, just in the same way pet owners who deprive their animals of food should be responsible. my heart bleeds for those beautiful animals that are taken from their habitats and forced to suffer for the rest of their lives. and my heart really really goes out to innocents and victims whose lives are changed or, god forbid, ended the day they go the circus with their families. :(

when i have kids, i swear i'm boycotting the circus on the ground of inhumane practices in animal training. there are studies to back that up, by the way.

[firegod]

Patti,

Absolutely. It amazes me how irresponsible so many people are with their pets. One thing that gets me is that a lot of people get cats, and when they get upset with them, they throw them out in the cold, never letting them back. Many of them freeze to death, and many starve or die of thirst. Makes me sick. :furiousdevil:

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by BrodieMan
my heart goes out to the victims of pet attacks, but then my heart goes out to the victims of polar bear attacks, and that's just an act of god, right? you could say that they should keep their dogs on a leash or that they need to get help, but it's tough to guage when an animal may or may not "snap". there are often times when a perfectly normal animal will go nuts and it's not foreseeable.


The crime comes in the choice of introducing a breed of dog that are known as vicious to an apartment complex. It is entirely foreseeable that a dog who is trained to be vicious, and more to the point, bred to be vicious will one day be a vicious dog. I cannot fault a polar bear for being a polar bear. If one chose to go to the north pole and bring one to a populated neighborhood and the bear kills someone then it is the fault of that person who brought it into that situation. In this particular case there were many warnings. These dogs had attacked before. It is very foreseeable that if a dog attacks once it will do it again. This is a case of complete indifference for the safety of other humans. It's no different than pointing a gun at someone.

[BrodieMan]

in that particular case you're right. i agree with you. let the perpetrators pay.

but it's not always like that. overly opinionated people always assume too much.

[firegod]

A big circus problem, in my opinion, is with regards to elephants. They get extremely depressed and every now and then, one will go on a tear, killing or smashing just a bout anything they run into. I've seen serious depression in zoo elephants as well. If you see an elephant swinging his head back and forth over and over, that is serious depression, and it should never happen.

[BrodieMan]

doesn't that break your heart? don't you feel for that elephant? the poor thing.

and kids will die because Mr. Circus-Tycoon wants to make money. the whole situation disturbs me.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by BrodieMan
. overly opinionated people always assume too much.


:confused: WTF?

[firegod]

Originally posted by Toose
It's no different than pointing a gun at someone.

There is definately a difference. The legal system of every large country I know of recognizes the difference between first degree murder and negligent homicide.

[BrodieMan]

read my WHOLE post. there are specific situations (like the one you named) where people need to be brought to justice. there are also documented cases of dogs that had no foreseeable problems and everyone involved was grief stricken, including the dog's responsible, careful, loving owners.

all i'm saying is don't assume the owners were jerks without knowing the case. animals (unfortunatly) ARE unpredictable.

[Sir Toose]

I think I do know the specifics of this case. And that was what I was arguing. This specific case.

[BrodieMan]

k.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by firegod


There is definately a difference. The legal system of every large country I know of recognizes the difference between first degree murder and negligent homicide.

I'm not talking about the technicalities of law here. I'm talking about common sense.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by Toose


This is a case of complete indifference for the safety of other humans. It's no different than pointing a gun at someone. This is a fact. These dogs are commonly bred to act as weapons. Unleashed, uncaged and left to their own devices, is the equvilent of leaving a gun, with the safety off, in a classroom of children or something. Brodie, you flippantly call that neglegence? Oops, my dogs mauled a lady to her death...slap my wrists.

[patti]

no, first slap them on the wrists, then rub bacon grease all over them and shove them in a room with all the mistreated, overbred, attack dogs.

[firegod]

It's not a fact, and it's not common sense. Saying that what they did is tantamount to pointing a gun at someone's head and pulling the trigger is a ridiculous exageration. Should they be in prison? In my opinion, yes. Should they be killed? In my opinion, no. And quite frankly, I am glad that you two are not making law. No one who does would agree with you on this for one second, and that is something I am thankful for.

[Yoda]

I have to agree that there is most definitely a difference between murder and neglience. Absolutely. The thing is intent. Intent means a great deal. Is it worse to kill someone on purpose, or by accident? I'd say the former; WANTING to kill someone, and doing it, makes you a more immoral person, in general (IMO) than simply being forgetful or careless. It's not just about the outcome; if it were, cutting someone's head off because he looked at you the wrong way and bombing people in a foreign country like Afghanistan would be equivalent, wouldn't they? They're not because of intent.

[patti]

well, if you're talking to me firegod, i'm just kidding about the bacon grease/shove em' into aroom of mad dogs bit. i don't agree with capital punishment.
i've been serious in my posts until my last comment....i was just playin around with sades' slap on the wrist comment.

[firegod]

Originally posted by patti
well, if you're talking to me firegod, i'm just kidding about the bacon grease/shove em' into aroom of mad dogs bit. i don't agree with capital punishment.
i've been serious in my posts until my last comment....i was just playin around with sades' slap on the wrist comment.

Nope; not you.

[firegod]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I have to agree that there is most definitely a difference between murder and neglience. Absolutely. The thing is intent. Intent means a great deal. Is it worse to kill someone on purpose, or by accident? I'd say the former; WANTING to kill someone, and doing it, makes you a more immoral person, in general (IMO) than simply being forgetful or careless. It's not just about the outcome; if it were, cutting someone's head off because he looked at you the wrong way and bombing people in a foreign country like Afghanistan would be equivalent, wouldn't they? They're not because of intent.

Damn well said.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by firegod
It's not a fact, and it's not common sense. Saying that what they did is tantamount to pointing a gun at someone's head and pulling the trigger is a ridiculous exageration. Yeah, an exageration that you made. I never said put a gun to someones head and pull the trigger; I said," Leave a loaded gun in a classroom with the safety off." There's a BIG difference. The owners didn't sick their dog on that woman, but they damn well didn't take any extra precautions...jail time is easy. Being mauled by dogs until you die is not the easiest way to go.; those people should suffer the way the victim did.

This is all debate, too, firegod. If it was honestly up to me...and I would be responsible for actually putting the dog owners down, I wouldn't. So there.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by firegod
It's not a fact, and it's not common sense. Saying that what they did is tantamount to pointing a gun at someone's head and pulling the trigger is a ridiculous exageration. Should they be in prison? In my opinion, yes. Should they be killed? In my opinion, no. And quite frankly, I am glad that you two are not making law. No one who does would agree with you on this for one second, and that is something I am thankful for.

Happy to incense you so. I realize that this couple probably did not intend for the dogs to kill someone. To me though they were gravely irresponsible to the tune of getting someone killed. Does this make them any less culpable? They KNEW their dogs were capable of killing someone and they LET them run free in spite of this knowledge. They are cold hearted people and expressed anger at being held responsible for their dog's actions and showed absolutely no remorse. I'll take your point though... it's not exactly like pointing a gun at someone but it is like Sadie's representation of leaving a loaded gun in an inappropriate place. I stand my ground here. These people need much more punishment than what is being discussed, much more. Death? I'm not sure, that's why I threw it out there.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by Toose


These people need much more punishment than what is being discussed, much more. Death? I'm not sure, that's why I threw it out there. Exactly. firegod, you're making this sound like a Judge Judy case. We are talking about a woman who was slowly mauled to death by dogs. Not just some random dogs...dogs who were known to act out in a vicious way, before. Some kind of justice needs to be delt. More than just a few years behind bars.

[Yoda]

Give firegod some credit, guys. His PRIMARY argument has been that murder and neglience are not the same thing. I'm sure he'd agree that your opinions on this particular case are reasonable (even if he doesn't agree fully). He's only really gone to bat for that one argument, however...which is a good one, IMO.

[Sir Toose]

His viewpoint is definitely valid and I'm sure more popular than mine. I have conceded his point that pointing a gun at someone is not the same thing. He did choose to take an offhand comment and dispute that as my entire argument. I have conceded that point, it's not the same thing, lets move on to other issues.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Give firegod some credit, guys. His PRIMARY argument has been that murder and negligence are not the same thing. Murder isn't the same thing as negligence? No. Really? :rolleyes:
We are talking about the actions that resulted in murder. Guess what? Negligence is a legitimate action that led to a murder. Just like a lie can lead to murder, a betrayal, a robbery...you understand?

[Yoda]

Of course I understand; I'm not a fool. :) What I don't understand is just why firegod is receiving so much flack. Looks to me like he was just clarifying something early on...and people sort've argued with him, but not REALLY. Kinda confusing, to be perfectly honest. And yes, I know that it may lead to the same event; but, as we all know, it's not just about the event, it's about the intent as well.

Anyway, I'm with Matt; we've exhausted this specific subject. I'm game to move on to something else; like the death penalty in general, for example.

[sadesdrk]

Whatever. Move on.:)

I just think some of us are pussyfooting around the issue. You damn well know if someone's @sshole dogs came and chewed one of your family members to death...you'd be singing to the tune of justice.

But,
Moving on.:)

[Yoda]

I'm not denying that I'd feel any differently if it happened to me. I don't think I've said I disagree with Matt's view at all, even. :) Defending firegod is not the same as agreeing with all he says. :nope:

[sadesdrk]

I don't think anyone needs to defend firegod. He can defend his own opinion. No one even was on his case, all that much.


Anyhoo...

[Sir Toose]

I singled Firegod out because he made a personal crack at both Sadie and I versus arguing the issue.

[Yoda]

I don't think anyone needs to defend firegod. He can defend his own opinion.
Sure, he doesn't need to be; but I agreed with some of what he was saying, so I defended him. Ain't nothing wrong with that. :)

I think he took issue with you because Matt said this, and Sadie said she agreed:

This is a case of complete indifference for the safety of other humans. It's no different than pointing a gun at someone.
He originally disagreed with that last sentence...I believe that's how this started.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by firegod
In my opinion, no. And quite frankly, I am glad that you two are not making law. No one who does would agree with you on this for one second, and that is something I am thankful for. Oh yeah, this little gem?:)

[firegod]

Hmm. Some interesting stuff since I've been gone. Well, I hate to disappoint Toose, but I have never been incensed on these boards. I guess I rubbed a couple people the wrong way with my lawmaking crack. If one supports the death penalty for this kind of crime, then I stand by what I said for that person. No need to get miffed, folks; we are all just expressing our opinions here.

Originally posted by Toose
I singled Firegod out because he made a personal crack at both Sadie and I versus arguing the issue.

Actually, I'm quite sure I did both.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by firegod
If one supports the death penalty for this kind of crime, then I stand by what I said for that person. No need to get miffed, folks; we are all just expressing our opinions here.



I'm not miffed. I'm just astounded no one has made you judge and jury of the world, yet. I mean, sh*t, you got all the answers, right?
So, I'm just curious, does all my hard earned money really go towards the special treatment of criminals taking up space in our jail cells? I mean, I want the very best for our society's scum of the earth. Let's spend large amounts of tax dollars on child molesters, murderers, rapests; they should have warm, nutritious meals, television, visitation rights...oh and for those really unique cases, like that couple that owned those dogs that killed a woman...let's make sure they can back to their normal lives as soon as possible.:)

[Yoda]

C'mon now. Look at what he originally took issue with: Matt said it was no different as pointing a gun at someone. And you agreed...he disagreed heavily (I do, too). I don't think firegod is being arrogant; just firm. Let's not get too upset one way or another...won't do any good.

Anyway, you all know what I think about the death penalty in a generic way. I'm in no mood to argue with my friends here...so I may bow out at some point.

[firegod]

Originally posted by sadesdrk
I'm not miffed. I'm just astounded no one has made you judge and jury of the world, yet. I mean, sh*t, you got all the answers, right?
So, I'm just curious, does all my hard earned money really go towards the special treatment of criminals taking up space in our jail cells? I mean, I want the very best for our society's scum of the earth. Let's spend large amounts of tax dollars on child molesters, murderers, rapests; they should have warm, nutritious meals, television, visitation rights...oh and for those really unique cases, like that couple that owned those dogs that killed a woman...let's make sure they can back to their normal lives as soon as possible.:)

Yep. Let's give them all a fruit basket, and make sure they all have the best down comforters and all the movie channels on satelite TV. What an obvious next step from my asserting that someone guilty of negligent homicide shouldn't get the death penalty. :)

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Let's not get too upset one way or another...won't do any good.

Anyway, you all know what I think about the death penalty in a generic way. I am so not upset. C'mon, Chris...you know as well as I do that I debate for the fun of it. Sometimes I take personal issue with some of the topics, but I never get all hot and bothered over it.:) ( Well, that's a debate in it's self)

Anyhoo...

My final word on the matter is simple. Criminals have way too many rights. Everybody is so afraid of being too harsh on crime. I understand that our justice system was designed in such a way, that if you really didn't commit the crime, there are ways of escaping punishment. I understand that. However, the reverse side of that coin, is that our system can be bent so easily to cater to the guilty. Criminals can get off scott free on a technicality, on a loop-hole...faulty police work...a minor detail.

I'm tired of hearing about stories like we've been discussing, and people defending the actions of total @ssholes. Really kinda makes me sick.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by firegod


What an obvious next step from my asserting that someone guilty of negligent homicide shouldn't get the death penalty. :) Oh...Oh-Kay. How 'bout this then. Woman doesn't feel like taking her kids with her to the grocery store, you know, they just get in the way. So she decides to let her 3 and 5 year old stay home by themselves. She figures she won't be gone long enough for anything to happen, and she locks the doors, so know one can get in. Then she goes about her shopping trip. While she's gone, a fire starts in an ajoining apartment. No worries though, everybody gets out safetly. Except the children who don't know how to unlock the doors. They burn to their deaths.


Negligent homicide on the part of the mother. 4 years jail time.
Good call firegod.:rolleyes:

[firegod]

Originally posted by sadesdrk
I'm tired of hearing about stories like we've been discussing, and people defending the actions of total @ssholes. Really kinda makes me sick.

No one here has defended their actions. Some have said they shouldn't be put to death, though.

[firegod]

Originally posted by sadesdrk
Negligent homicide on the part of the mother. 4 years jail time.
Good call firegod.:rolleyes:

Another fantastic deduction of my standpoint on an issue. Actually, 4 years is too harsh. I think she should get a suspended sentence and a 1 year membership at a health spa. :rolleyes:

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by BrodieMan

with animals, i may have to agree with TWTCommish. i don't think the guilty parties were encouraging their dogs to kill people. what's their true crime? neglegence? Defense? Excuse?

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by firegod


Another fantastic deduction of my standpoint on an issue. Actually, 4 years is too harsh. I think she should get a suspended sentence and a 1 year membership at a health spa. :rolleyes: Whatever. Clarify your stance one more time on negligent homicide, then. Because this falls right in line with what you've been saying. Fantastic or otherwise.


sorry for the double posting. We are posting right on top of each other.

[firegod]

What I am saying is that it is obviously negligent homicide. If the sentences are too light, then we need to change that, but jumping from that to the death penalty is pretty wild.

[Sir Toose]

Call it "Negligent Homocide", call it "Murder" give it any legal mumbo jumbo name you want to call it and it still boils down to someone being dead because of someone else. I recognize your argument of "intent" and in this specific case the intent matters to me not at all. They knew it could happen and they didn't prevent it... it's beyond something I would term as negligent. The first time the dogs attacked someone it was negligent. The second time it was probably negligent but this was the third time for gods sake! How many warnings did they need? When does it become not negligent and become intentional? Draw the line in the sand for me please because I'm having trouble making the distinction.

[thmilin]

Alright, I'm a Libra - this is my jurisdiction! ;)

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I have to agree that there is most definitely a difference between murder and neglience. .... It's not just about the outcome; if it were, cutting someone's head off because he looked at you the wrong way and bombing people in a foreign country like Afghanistan would be equivalent, wouldn't they? They're not because of intent.

I agree, it's about intent. But your comparison there ignores the issue of OUTCOME. If no one is HARMED by a negligent act (looking at someone wrong) then no, they shouldn't be getting any punishment regardless. If someone looks at someone knowing their dog will not like the person they look at knowing their dog will ATTACK the person, and the dog does so, what then?

Now, negligence vs. intent to kill.

The distinction, I believe, is manslaughter vs. homicide. Note that in our justice system both will deliver severe penalties and I support the sometimes need for death of the perpetrator for HOMICIDE. I agree - if they didn't INTEND and deliberately SEND their dogs to attack somebody, then, no, it wasn't outright coldblooded murder.

HOWEVER - the level of "negligence" here is the same as can be applied to manslaughter. "I didn't mean to do it ..." But, you did it. There lies the body, and the blood is all over your apartment halls AND the dogs you TRAINED to attack people with. Therefore, you should get the highest amount of jail time that will suck the majority of your life away, just as it would for manslaughter. Not death, UNLESS you sicced the dogs on somebody and told them to kill.

Back to the gun issue. Chris, you slipped very easily into Firegod's twisting of Sades' metaphor. The dogs are a LOADED gun with SAFETY off in a room full of innocents. NOT "a gun pointed to someone's head." We are not talking deliberate homicide. We are talking leaving something dangerous in a place where everyone is a target OF that dangerous thing.

The gun is going to go off and no one else will have any control over when or how. To the circus discussion - the animals are ABUSED so it is PERFECTLY reasonable to expect them to snap. It is stupid not to. Oh, i mistreat this animal, it'll NEVER bite my hand. Yeah right. So, a dog that is TRAINED to attack. Oh, it'll NEVER bite anyone. Bull.

If you don't like the gun idea, how about this - a tank full of pet SHARKS and a person in the tank with them? Much better. If you can say, but it's a shark's nature to attack and eat humans, so no human should be in the tank with them - then you say the same d@mned thing for those rottweilers.

I agree, it's a case by case thing. In this case, there are certain GIVENS. These are NOT innocent pups. They were TRAINED to be attack dogs. Trained by who? Their owners, who have, by training them, created a weapon. On top of that, they created a weapon MEANT to harm PEOPLE. On top of that, they PLACED that weapon IN an apartment complex FILLED with people. On top of that, they let the weapon LOOSE and did not lock it away or remove the threat when it was determined this weapon would act on it's own, having been trained to attack at will when a threat was felt.

When an animal is trained to see threat EVERYWHERE but in it's owners, all people become targets. ALL. There is no "but he's nice to the mailman when he comes by on Sunday, I never thought he'd maul the next door neighbor ..." It's not pick and choose. ALL people are targets. And YOU set the gun out to sight them. You should be held as accountable as if you had killed them ... without actually having done so. The closest distinction is, therefore, manslaughter.

[firegod]

Originally posted by thmilin
HOWEVER - the level of "negligence" here is the same as can be applied to manslaughter. "I didn't mean to do it ..." But, you did it. There lies the body, and the blood is all over your apartment halls AND the dogs you TRAINED to attack people with. Therefore, you should get the highest amount of jail time that will suck the majority of your life away, just as it would for manslaughter. Not death, UNLESS you sicced the dogs on somebody and told them to kill.

Agreed

Back to the gun issue. Chris, you slipped very easily into Firegod's twisting of Sades' metaphor. The dogs are a LOADED gun with SAFETY off in a room full of innocents. NOT "a gun pointed to someone's head." We are not talking deliberate homicide. We are talking leaving something dangerous in a place where everyone is a target OF that dangerous thing.

I was referring to what Toose said, and what Sades agreed with, as Commish has already said more than once. I was not referring to Sades' example.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by firegod


Agreed



I was referring to what Toose said, and what Sades agreed with, as Commish has already said more than once. I was not referring to Sades' example. You must have played a lot of dodgeball as a child. You're quite good at sidestepping and missing the point.

[firegod]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I thought I would point out what Thmilin was obviously missing.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by firegod
I'm sorry you feel that way. I thought I would point out what Thmilin was obviously missing. Yes, exactly, as an alternitive to answering any questions.

[firegod]

What questions did you want me to answer?

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by Toose
How many warnings did they need? When does it become not negligent and become intentional? Draw the line in the sand for me please because I'm having trouble making the distinction. Here's one. There's been several others that you kinda passed right over. For instance, you mentioned that no one defended the owner's actions, I quoted a defense/excuse...you just posted right over it.

Do you just address issues if they support your arguement?

[firegod]

Originally posted by sadesdrk
How many warnings did they need? When does it become not negligent and become intentional? Draw the line in the sand for me please because I'm having trouble making the distinction.

If it is negligent, it is negligent. Repeat offenses should cary bigger sentences, but I certainly don't see a case here for purposeful murder.

Here's one. There's been several others that you kinda passed right over. For instance, you mentioned that no one defended the owner's actions, I quoted a defense/excuse...you just posted right over it.

I really don't think that Brodie was defending them. If he was, then ok, someone in this thread defended their actions, and I stand corrected.

Do you just address issues if they support your arguement?

No.

[sadesdrk]

I'm being a bitch. Forgive me.:)

[firegod]

Nah. I really did think you were angry, but that is a harsh characterization! No forgiveness needed. :)

[sadesdrk]

Your avatar is intimidating, I must admit. Betty is quivering in her heels...:laugh:

[firegod]

Originally posted by sadesdrk
Your avatar is intimidating, I must admit. Betty is quivering in her heels...:laugh:

Lol! Well, that's good to know. Think of how scary it would be if I used a real photo of me! *shiver*

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by firegod


Think of how scary it would be if I used a real photo of me! *shiver* That statement is scary in it's self.:goof:

[Yoda]

Back to the gun issue. Chris, you slipped very easily into Firegod's twisting of Sades' metaphor. The dogs are a LOADED gun with SAFETY off in a room full of innocents. NOT "a gun pointed to someone's head." We are not talking deliberate homicide. We are talking leaving something dangerous in a place where everyone is a target OF that dangerous thing.
Noooo, I'm referring to something else. :) It wasn't Sades, but Matt; he said it was no different from pointing a gun at someone's head. That's how this started. I think it was Sades how said it was more like leaving the gun lying there with the safety off. The two gun analogies, being similar and all, have caused a lot of confusion. :)

This is truly a bizarre thread.

[patti]

now that everyone's chillin, i want to see Toose's avatar go up against firegod's avatar.......TO THE AVATAR RING!!!!!
:p

[Sir Toose]

Noooo, I'm referring to something else. It wasn't Sades, but Matt; he said it was no different from pointing a gun at someone's head. That's how this started. I think it was Sades how said it was more like leaving the gun lying there with the safety off. The two gun analogies, being similar and all, have caused a lot of confusion.

Again, I did say this, but it was an offhand comment. The point I was trying to make was actually more eloquently stated and defined by Sadie's comment.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by patti
now that everyone's chillin, i want to see Toose's avatar go up against firegod's avatar.......TO THE AVATAR RING!!!!!
:p Matt's avatar would kick that thing's @ss! Look at that hideous weapon!:eek: (It's got blood on it too.:p)

[Yoda]

Oh, now it's on! Sorry, my money's on Satan over the Grim Reaper.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Oh, now it's on! Sorry, my money's on Satan over the Grim Reaper. Satan's wearing earrings, man! Matt's man would slice that sissy in half!

[Yoda]

Matt's man hasn't even shown his face! And if he gets to use that sickle, Satan gets to hurl fire at him. It's only fair. Sorry, I've got Satan taking him down in the second round. It won't even be close.

[sadesdrk]

Did you see Satan's earrings?

One look at Matt's guy, and Satan's going to run home, crying in his hanky. I bet just beneath where that avatar stops, Satan has a checked-print apron on...and he's offering us blueberry muffins!
Satan-Boy is going down.

[firegod]

LOL!! :yup:

[sadesdrk]

Boy, this poor thread has really gone to the dogs.



D'oh! Bad joke. My bad.:p


What shall we turn this thread into? Seems a shame to let it die...

[patti]

Mwahaaaahaaaaaaa......satan in an apron ....that's rich sades.

toose has the advantage of a steed, but firegod's eyes are beams of firelight.......i wouldn't be challenging him that's for sure.


now...this sissy and earring stuff? i've got 8 in one, 3 in the other and one in my belly...i'm not a sissy........perhaps a fool, but not a sissy. :laugh:

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by patti
now...this sissy and earring stuff? i've got 8 in one, 3 in the other and one in my belly...i'm not a sissy........perhaps a fool, but not a sissy. :laugh: Well...I've got earrings too, but Satan's earrings look like radioactive clusters of grapes...he looks like Betty Crocker, possesed.

Patti, you are SO not a sissy! I chose you to fight alongside me.:yup:

[thmilin]

nooo, Satan ain't gonna win, he's a little bed-beeyatch! i know you saw South Park ... he's sensitive and likes to play with rubber toys. i'm afraid is @ss kicking abilities are rather limited considering how much he seems to enjoy bending over and getting it on the receiving end.

whoops! did I say that? :blush:

[patti]

yep, ......you said it allright. :rotfl:

[sadesdrk]

Sonofabitch. This thread is good for some laughs. mwaha.

[thmilin]

see! there, i made ya laugh! that will cost $200 dollars please. help an unemployed mofo.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by thmilin
see! there, i made ya laugh! that will cost $200 dollars please. help an unemployed mofo. :kiss:
You are swell, thmmie.:blush:

But no way you're gettin' 200$, now, shoo!;D

[thmilin]

*grumbles*

stingy @ss mofos!

[patti]

oh oh, if i have to start paying for all the laughs i get in Mofo......i'm gonna be forced into a life of crime....robbing banks to support my habit!
:yup:

**Mofo you would most like to be your partner in robbing a bank?.....oops wrong thread.
heh heh:p

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by patti
now that everyone's chillin, i want to see Toose's avatar go up against firegod's avatar.......TO THE AVATAR RING!!!!!
:p

My Song for my Avatar:
With axe held high he wages war
though it's song he does abhor
the slinging blood, the clotted gore
the warrior's heart he can't ignore
on bloodstained wings his soul does soar
tween black and white his visage tore
heart for peace does cry out for
still trapped in war for evermore...

The construction of the heart it is forever despite our will to change it.


And Patti? Did you kill my thread? The raven is most often on the shoulder of the warrior why has it lighted upon fair ground this day?

Ah well... I shall owe you one... :D

[sadesdrk]

I love this little poem, Matt. Very cool. Not surprising...you probably rattled it off in a few minutes.:)

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by sadesdrk
I love this little poem, Matt. Very cool. Not surprising...you probably rattled it off in a few minutes.:)

Off the cuff and quite off topic but it's my topic so I have squatters rights...


A poem for your avatar...

Sadiebelle, our Betty Boop
The warmest soul within our group
She flits about with depth and grace
we hold her in our warm embrace
she has a style no one can match
and to her star we do attach
we trail behind, we hold on tight
we gasp for breath and shoot through night
she takes us up into her sky, and with hers our hearts do fly
we sail and swoop as if in dream
sliding on moon’s gauzy beam
take our hands, Sadie love
show us all your stars above…

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by Toose


A poem for your avatar...

Oh wow. WOW. I'm so blushing right now...:blush:

[patti]

Originally posted by Toose

And Patti? Did you kill my thread? The raven is most often on the shoulder of the warrior why has it lighted upon fair ground this day?

Ah well... I shall owe you one... :D

what? sorry, i'm confused......didn't mean to kill anything........aaarghhhhh....i'm a thread killer?
and if so, why do you owe me one?, and owe me what? or should i not ask? :eek: sadie.....hhhheeelllpppp?! :laugh:

[Sir Toose]

Yeah, you started the whole avatars in the squared circle thing. I was just yanking your chain. Hey, since this thread is uh, gone to the dogs (thanks Sadie, for the term ;D ) tell me about your signature Patti. What does it mean?

[thmilin]

hmm, that reads a bit like a sonnet there, Toose ...

look at ya Sades, got folks writing love poetry for you on mofo! dirty birdies! go get a room!

;)

[patti]

toose, my sig say's "one dances alone, one dances alone."
it's from a french song i woke up singing.....a song from a dream....."dans cette monde de la purité, on dance seul, on dance seul."
.........in this world of purity, one dances alone, one dances alone.

i've used it in my art....on ceramic tiles, and such. it has to do with my yearning to be pure; see purely, express purely, experience deeply and honestly- to be real and natural. :cool:




and i'm sorry i sent your thread (s) to the dogs, but dogs have to eat too.

[sadesdrk]

Ah, the injustice. Just thought I would update this thread with this sad news:

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- Prompting outcries from the victim's friends and family, a judge Monday threw out the second-degree murder conviction of a woman a jury deemed responsible for the dog mauling death of her neighbor.

~CNN- June 17th.

That sucks. Read this:


The five-week trial, moved to Los Angeles because of pre-trial publicity, gripped much of the nation as prosecutors described a horrific attack in which Whipple was bitten all over her body -- her throat ripped, her clothes torn off -- by one of the dogs.
It's shame these people won't get a harsher prison sentance. They will only recieve a maximum of 4 years. Easy time for playing a major role in a brutal, wrongful death. :furious:

[Yoda]

I hate this kinda sh*t.

Part of my hatred for it stems from the fact that it could completely happen to me, or my family. We live next door to a guy who owns three Rottweilers. They jump and snarl from behind the chain link fence that used to seperate our two yards. The kids were afraid to get anywhere near the thing. We've since had a larger fence constructed to ease the problem, but the things are still completely vicious.

We once told him to put his dogs on chains so we could walk along the gate in peace. He told us to "chain our kids." The nerve! :frustrated: I don't even see the appeal in owning such a dog...let alone the logic behind taking anything less than the utmost precautions if you do.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by sadesdrk
Ah, the injustice. Just thought I would update this thread with this sad news:



~CNN- June 17th.

That sucks. Read this:



It's shame these people won't get a harsher prison sentance. They will only recieve a maximum of 4 years. Easy time for playing a major role in a brutal, wrongful death. :furious:

Screw the rights of the dog owners... if they harbor dangerous dogs they need to burn.

[The Silver Bullet]

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

I HATE PEOPLE.

[Yoda]

Well, personally, I only hate SOME people. :D

[The Silver Bullet]

Yeah, but you know me...