I hardly know where to start.
The head, the body, the gait...this is not what they were supposed to be.
It really does look like an egg.
Posted on 08/31/2014 5:57:16 PM PDT by xzins
Edited on 08/31/2014 6:26:22 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A jury on Friday found a man guilty of murder after his pit bulls mauled a woman to death in a high desert town in California where residents said they carried rocks and guns for protection against packs of dogs.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Sure the owner is likely guilty of murder. But can’t he claim diminished capacity? After all he is a Pit Bull owner.
Perhaps the pressers need a dog breed primer, and a bingo card for which breed to hate today.
” Fashion and idiot judges gave us the over-done “egg shaped” head we see, now.”
Oh great, now I have “egghead dog” stuck in my mind.
And it will pop to mind next time I see the neighbors mobile water spigot.
(Seems to suffer a slobber condition, the dog drools as if a faucet blew out.)
Are you going to man up and have this discussion or wimp out?? You always end up doing the liberal thing and just calling people names when you can not support your arguments with provable facts and factual truth.
Typical of one who opines on unsupported passion and not rational thought and facts.
He was completely negligent in not keep them contained on his property thus allowing them to do what they are well known to do, kill and maim.
If you choose to own dogs that are of a breed known to kill and maim at a rate much higher than any other breed and then negligently allow them to escape confinement and attack innocent people then yes, you should be held accountable exactly as if you had done their deeds with your own hands.
It is clearly his fault in every way. It is his fault, and on one else's, for owning them, not securing them, and therefore allowing them to kill this lady. She would still be alive if not for his bad decisions and negligence.
Every single step in this is exactly his fault.
I agree.
But it is best to admit it is still criminal!
I hardly know where to start.
The head, the body, the gait...this is not what they were supposed to be.
It really does look like an egg.
Dude killed a freaking bear with a pocketknife.
“Wimp” is a pejorative that should definitely ~never~ be used in his presence.
“Aww..look at the omelette on legs!”
Yeah, that is..
Mental images here are terrible.
This is the absolute mildest picture of Pit Bull victim I could.
Most others are horror show material (Or as Pit nuts would call it "erotica")
Find him on YouTube and watch him “move”.
Words cannot describe it.
Sure seems like you enjoy that “erotica” more than Pit owners, since you spend so much time searching for it.
Tell me, does it annoy you that I don’t even have one?
Did you know that the #1 cause of childhood death is their own *mothers*?
“Frankensteins monster has better locomotion”?
It was a GENEROUS SENTENCE considering what the poor victim went through. I would have hanged the bastard and his dam brother.
Agree.
No. Manslaughter, yes. Criminal negligence yes. Genuine murder, no.
Dogs are not the same as guns. If one can be negligent with guns, one sure as heck can be with a being that moves on its own and has a mind of its own.
Since he was running a pot farm, the odds are he trained the dogs to be mean. And then he didn’t control them.
Bull Terriers are pit-bull/bull types. However, unlike some breeds, they have had the aggression and untrustworthiness bred out. Regardless of their heads, they are better dogs than their cousins. Same applies to Bulldogs, and Boston (Bull/dog) Terriers. Proof that breeding with a purpose can remove that aggression.
Yes, but I doubt he deliberately wanted to kill someone, even in the heat of the moment. He was not there, apparently. He is criminally negligent or some such.
Beware of how you wish to punish people. It will turn on you.
If you train an animal to attack, and then it attacks, then you did intend for it to do harm.
I read above the definition of 2nd degree murder, and it specifically uses the word ‘causes’. So, the law is saying that there is something beyond criminal negligence that isn’t you pulling the trigger, but does allow for you to be the ‘cause’.
What you say about criminal negligence I agree with. What the law tries to distinguish is not someone who ignored something they shouldn’t have ignored, but who also established a situation that would have reasonably led to the death of another person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.