Monday, September 22, 2008


Donate to DogsBite.org
Please donate to support our work

DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »


posted by   |  permalink  |  6 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

6 comments:

Anonymous Anonymous  |  8/23/2008 9:21 PM  |  Flag  
I happened to be on Court Television at the time of this trial. My own story deals with an attack by two fighting dogs that were pit bulls. Presa Canario is also a dog that may be fought. This woman deserved to die. The original jury was correct. Before we have Presa Canario support groups this dog should go. Their breeders say this dog is a great family dog, intelligent, protective. Where have you heard this before---the pit bull owners.
The pit maulings continue after twenty two years.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  8/24/2008 9:32 AM  |  Flag  
Presa Canario dogs were NEVER created to be pets. They are dangerous animals, almost exclusively used by criminals to guard drug ops. These are NOT family dogs....this madness has to end. We need to redefine what exactly a "pet" is...its not an instrument of protection, its not a weapon.

No one needs a pit bull or Presa for a companion animal...these dogs should be exceedingly rare, owned only by those posessing a license to own them, under strict regulations.

Anonymous David  |  8/24/2008 10:34 AM  |  Flag  
I do not beleive a case like this will deterr pit owners. These people are not concerned with the law. Most are already law breakers and are not concerned in the least with breaking one more. The only real answer is to ban them completly from private ownership.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  8/24/2008 2:54 PM  |  Flag  
The Superior Court's judgment in this case was excellent, and the ruling has garnered unprecedented public support. Of considerable importance is the court’s application of murder rather than manslaughter.

Homicide is prosecuted along a scale of statutes, but things like malice/malice of forethought and intent, vs. ignorance and negligence are critical points. In this case, the higher court made a determination that the defendant understood the violent propensity as well as the dogs’ physical ability to attack and kill.

In terms of precedent, the ruling is landmark. This is a slam-dunk on tangential arguments that, “all dogs bite.” The court wasn’t fooled and made the defendant accountable for the envelope of breed attributes, particularly as exhibited by these individuals. There was no sustainable defense that anyone was ignorant about the form and purpose of the breed. The defendant’s continuous harboring of the animals made her culpable to the degree of murder.

Bravo!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  8/25/2008 3:18 AM  |  Flag  
Excellent post anonymous...I like the term "Malice of forethought", particularly when a certain breed of dog has killed 45 Americans in the past 30 months. How can one not know the risk?

Anonymous Anonymous  |  8/25/2008 3:24 AM  |  Flag  
"For a muzzle, Diane Whipple would be alive today and they chose not to do it."

Post a Comment »

archives: