• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CA Dog Mauling Trial - Guilty on all 5 counts (incl. murder!)

yay! finally some justice🙂 not like that stupid joke of a yates trial,, these people were SANE and EVIL!

if you've followed this and are from norcal.. sickening sh*t. just imagine those evidence photos..🙁


sickos that have white supremist friends, and screw dogs😛 makes me want to snipe any attack(rottwielers etc) i see😛 attacks are too common, just a month or so after that attack a young boy had his face ripped off by rottwielers.
 
murder seems like a stretch to me, but I'm not all that familiar with the specifics of the case. Maybe they will appeal.
 
To me, murder two is balancing on the line. But I agree with the manslaughter charge. They probably won't get anything much longer then 20, 25 years will parole in 8.
 
Good. Knoeller and Noel are both complete wastes of space. Now they can spend lots of quality time with their adopted white supremacist "son" in the slammer.:|

Fausto
 
If you followed the case,youwould know that the owners knew these dogs where dangerous. The charge and verdict fits the crime. A lovely young lady was mauled to death at the teeth of these vicious animals. The owners knew the dogs where agresive and bread as killers.

The wife,who was an attorney, at 49, will get 15 to life for 2nd degree murder. The manslaughter and other charge will probably run concurrent,and she will be eligable for parole after 12 years.

her husband, 60, will get 4 years and probably have to serve every day. I think he should have got the 2nd degree murder conviction too. That is because I view the man as the patriarch of the home and fully responsible for what goes on in his home. California law does not agree.
 
Ok, I'll play the devil's advocate...

I haven't followed this case too closely but nothing I have seen has shown that the defendants "sic'ed" the dog on the victim. Certainly, they were negligent in allowing the dangerous dogs to run loose, and manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge to me, but murder implies intent.
Also, can someone please explain to me how a defendant's personal political views have anything to do with the severity of their conviction? How do you rationalize that thinking in a (supposedly) free country? Bear in mind that I have no love (or even respect) for white supremacists, neo-nazis, or other intolerant groups, but I simply do not see how their personal political views should change the verdict or conviction. Don't any of you see how the injustice in that? A crime is a crime is a crime. Justice should be blind.
Let's change the tables. For example, what if the defendants had another (sometimes) unpopular political view, say communism or they were a hardcore limbaughite. Does anyone see my point?
Ah, never mind. I'm sure that there are quite a number of people here who plan on using this case as a platform in having dogs outlawed. :disgust:
 


<< Knoller testified for three days, crying, shouting and insisting she never suspected her beloved dogs could be killers.

Her lawyer, Nedra Ruiz, contributed to the courtroom drama by crawling on the floor, kicking the jury box and crying during her opening statement. In closing arguments, she accused prosecutors of trying to "curry favor with the homosexual and gay folks." >>

Remind me never to seek the services of Nedra Ruiz.
 
>>>I'm sure that there are quite a number of people who plan on using this case as a platform in having dogs outlawed.<<<

Vicious killing dogs in apartment buildings with shared space, yep you may be right. But knowone I have seen or heard has ever advocated "dogs" being "outlawed".

This was a just verdict. You worry about the damn dog. WTF? does the fact a young women was killed just elude you?

:disgust:
 


<< Good!!! Those dogs were a deadly weapon. >>


Yes, and so is a gun.
However, if you shoot someone on accident, or even on purpose while in a fight, the worst you will likely receive is manslaughter.
Had facts been presented that said that the defendents are ordered the dogs to attack the victim, then I would agree with the murder charge. I have, however, heard nothing to that effect. So far the crime seems to be that they kept dangerous dogs (bear in mind here that I don't even own a dog at this time and have never owned a "dangerous" dog in the past) and that they, through negligence, allowed the dogs to run loose and someone was killed. Sorry, but that's a clear-cut case of manslaughter.
Maybe I'm mistaken somewhere, I haven't followed this trial all that closely.
 


<< >>>I'm sure that there are quite a number of people who plan on using this case as a platform in having dogs outlawed.<<<

Vicious killing dogs in apartment buildings with shared space, yep you may be right. But knowone I have seen or heard has ever advocated "dogs" being "outlawed".

This was a just verdict. You worry about the damn dog. WTF? does the fact a young women was killed just elude you?

:disgust: >>



Where were you able to read in that I was worried about the individual dogs in this case? I neither made nor implied anything of the sort. As for "vicious killing dogs in apartment buildings with shared space," I don't think that it would be a bad idea to put more controls on them. But, I think that would best be done by increasing the amount of liability on the property owners and managers, not by an outright ban.
And where you able to read in that I did not care about the young woman that was killed? I very clearly advocated manslaughter in this case. Murder convictions do not bring people back from the dead. I merely pointed out that I felt that the conviction of murder may have been excessive (IMHO, given the information I have) and that basing or justifying an excessive conviction due to the defendents' unrelated political views is (once again, IMHO) contrary to the ideals of a free society.
 
this is not a case where you can really have a good opinion unless you've been following it. theres too much evidence against the couple, its not an ordinary dog mauling case by any stretch😛

but finally some justice. Even as Russel yates goes prowling for another brood mare carry back to his converted bus, californias jury shows some back bone.
 
those people knew their dogs were vicious. they knew the dogs were dangerous and unpredictable. they knew the dead woman had complained about the dogs before. they must be held accountable for what the dogs did. i am very happy with the jury's call. those people needed to be punished and an example needed to be set.
 
didnt these two show no remorse after the attack.. but when they went to court to spare the life of their other dog, Marjorie Knoller was shedding some tears..

they got what the deserved..
 
I think if you stand by while your dog is killing a person, second-degree murder is ok.

Second degree murder does not mean that the person WANTED to kill the victim, but was involved in killing the victim - okay I can't put this well.
I hope you get what I mean anyway.

I personally am rather happy about the outcome - I cannot imagine what it feels like to be bitten to death, but I CAN imagine that it is not pleasant.
 
Hmm... I just read about 10 articles on this case and I still see manslaughter (although voluntary, or 1st degree, manslaughter would have been appropriate). The dogs had clearly shown dangerous tendencies in the past and probably should have been destroyed before this happened.
Murder requires intent. 2nd degree murder usually means that you had not planned on killing, but had planned on committing another crime that then led to the killing. For example, if one robs a bank and ends up shooting the guard, that is 2nd degree murder.
Gross negligence is all over this case, but I still haven't seen any intent.

/edit: now one thing that disturbs me is that the dogs had not been destroyed before. Apparently, there was a biting incident a few weeks before the death and, in my experience, a biting dog, especially a large and dangerous dog, should always be immediately destroyed.
Court testimony does not say that that the woman stood by and did nothing during the attack. Now that would be murder. Eyewitness testimony says that she tried to restrain the dog, to no avail.
 
Sorry, but that's a clear-cut case of manslaughter.
No, it's a clear-cut case for second-degree murder.
Manslaughter is if you get in a fight with someone, and accidentally kill them.
If you wield a gun, and accidentally shoot someone, it can be second-degree murder.

If you drive drunk and kill someone, it can also be second-degree murder.
 
Hey PSYWVic: do some digging and read up on the case a little. There was quite a bit of evidence that those dogs were being trained as attack/guard dogs. They found literature in the owner's home on how to train such a dog, as well as shreds of cloth in the dog's stomach that were not from the victim (implying the dog had been through some "attack" training and had ingested some of the padding to protect the trainer). There was also some evidence that they may have been training them on their "son's" behalf to protect meth labs. They were essentially creating canine weapons that Knoeller could not control (Bane actually weighed more than her IIRC). I'm not saying this to throw gas on the fire or anything, I'm honestly just urging you to read what you can on the case as it may answer some of your questions.

And I'm not sure what you were getting at with the "having dogs outlawed" bit....I think most people know that (speaking generally here) a dog is only as dangerous as it is trained to be. Some are surely more unpredictable than others (I worked as a vet tech for years, I knew which ones to watch out for😉) but only through training can any dog become truly dangerous to all but his handlers..or even his handlers.

EDIT- you were reading while I was typing🙂

Fausto
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top