Judge tosses murder conviction in dog mauling case

here is the full story:


Dog mauling conviction tossed

I just read that on Netscape. I had wondered about the murder conviction because my friend used to be a police officer and she didn't agree with the verdict. She said that there are certain elements that make a murder a murder and this case just didn't fit that.

I don't know enough about the law to form an educated opinion but she said that even the lawyers were surprised about the murder charge. I am surprised that the judge threw it out since I hadn't heard anything about the case in so long but I do hope that the couple get the maximum time allowed in jail for what they did.... or didn't do.

Amazing - what the !@#$@$#@% are they smoking?

Wow! I hadn't heard anything in awhile about that...I just assumed that she was convicted and in jail or something. They should spend at least some time in jail for what happened.

They said on Headline News that they can get a maximum of 4 years in prison with the convictions that stand.

What I'm unclear on is that if there was no support for 2nd degree murder then why was that offered to the jury as a choice? I could understand the conviction being overturned on appeal, but this is just the sentencing phase. Silly me, but I thought that the judge was supposed to sentence for the conviction that the jury imposed, not decide on a different verdict.

I think that the laws for this kind of thing should be much harsher than they are. The dogs were bred and trained to kill, period. The owners/breeders were well aware of this, and basically are getting away with having a lethal weapon walking around. The dogs were destroyed, true, but do you think that these two won't do the same thing (owning, breeding and training killers) once they get out?

Heidi: I would tend to agree with you. People have to learn not only to take responsibility for their pets but also for their pets actions. I am also unclear as to why the charge was reduced from second degree murder. I think we are missing some key info

Valanhb: In my opinion "those two" will go right back to owning ferocious dogs as soon as they can. Hopefully they're now so notorious that everyone will give them a hard time if they try to conduct anything shadey ..... To me, that couple seems extremely angry at the world for whatever reason , and instead of having guns in the house, they chose preso canario dogs....Just my 2 cents but the Government needs to impose a Big Brother type registration-plus-frequent-and-close-monitoring of people who own preso canario's and other ferocious type dogs.

And now, a moment of silence for Miss Diane Whipple :angel2:
Rest in peace Diane

I'm sorry but I do NOT agree with the goverment butting into any more of our buisness and I certainly do not agree that the goverment should keep tabs on owners of "dangerous" dogs because there is no way to define that term by breed. While most people feel these dogs and other's from the mastiff family are vicious and dangerous it is not an educated opinion.

I know of a man who trains Golden Retrievers to attack because they are an unsuspecting looking dog and they do quite well at it. It is not the dog who is dangerous it is the person behind the dog.

It is awfull what happened to that poor woman and I hope that the 2 people get everything they deserve. I hope that maybe this will serve as a warning to anyone thinking of owning or training a vicious dog that the law will not tolarate it. I also do agree that the 2 dogs should have been put to sleep.

c1atsite, I am not attacking you at all I just feel very strongly about goverment issues and dog breed related predjudice.

I have a German Shepherd, I guess that would be classified maybe as a ferocious type dog, and I would hate to have the government butting into my business and checking on my dog. I agree, it is the PEOPLE behind the dogs who are at fault. Just like with the gun control issue, it's not the guns, it's the people who own them.

And that's one of the cool things about the USA... different opinions.

Sad and unfair to those golden retrievers and whatnot .....they're just loyal animals following their "Dad" ,however twisted he may be

I am against any kind of "Big Brother" activities. Most municipalities have ordinances that cover "nuisance animals". These dogs were on record, attacking people. They should have been dealt with, before someone was killed. ANY dog will bite, if provoked. Its the ones that will do it, without provocation that need to be removed. Any person who, knowingly, keeps a vicious dog should be prosecuted. I would say that, in this case, criminally negligent homicide probably fits the circumstances.

While I don't think that the government should keep tabs on certain breeds, I do think that they should keep tabs on certain people. If felons can't own guns, then people convicted of using an animal as a weapon (i.e. knowingly keeping a dangerous animal) shouldn't be allowed to own dogs.

The city and county of Denver banned Pit Bulls after some attacks in the 1980s. Guess what...there are still dog attacks in Denver. Now the only people who have these wonderful dogs are using them as drug attack dogs, or for dog fighting rings. And when they find them,usually abused and/or abandoned they pretty much automatically put them down, even little puppies that have not been trained to attack. This is one of those hot button issues for me, and one of the reasons that I refuse to live in the city and county of Denver.

Pit bulls get all of the publicity but, the number one breed for the most bites is the German Shepherd. When my son, Mark, was three he was bitten twice, within a month by a cocker spaniel. Labs are supposed to be the best-tempered dogs but, my parents have one that nobody but them can get near. My Dalmatian, Ike is a very placid dog but, if someone came in our yard without Bill or me, he would go after them. Of course, if someone comes into my yard, without permission, they deserve to get dogbit! I would never, knowingly keep a bad-tempered dog, though. My next-door neighbor had relatives over, recently. Ike barked at them, at first. They had several children. Of course, the kids came to the fence, to see Ike. I was concerned that the toddler would reach through the fence and Ike would defend his turf. We put Ike in the house, just in case. We didn't expect the little one or Ike to show good judgement, so WE took resposibility for our dog. Ultimately, the blame does fall on the owner.