PDA

View Full Version : Verdict Reached in Dog Road Rage Case


Rick Stephens
06-19-2001, 01:42 PM
San Jose, Cal., 2:43 EDT June 19,2001--A San Jose jury convicted Andrew Burnett of animal crulety for tossing a little white dog into traffic to its death.

The jury deliberated for about 45 minutes Tuesday morning. Burnett could be sentenced to as much as three years in prison.

Burnett was convicted of killing a bichon frise named Leo, following a minor traffic accident with the car driven by the dogs owner.

The dogs owner claimed that after the fender bender, Burnett reached throught the open car window with both arms and grabbed the dog.

But Burnett's attorney says his client instictively snached the dog from the car after being bitten on the hand.

Today(7-13-01) he was sentenced to the maximum sentence under California state law. Three years in the state prison.

BIG_DADDY
06-19-2001, 01:54 PM
BIG DADDY predicts 6mo. + 2 1/2 years probation. If he did it to my dog that would be the least of his worries.

Bwana
06-19-2001, 07:47 PM
"If he did it to my dog that would be the least of his worries."

What you said.....

The guy would be following fluffy into the traffic. What a hump.

Logical
06-19-2001, 07:55 PM
Folks I am not advocating throwing a dog into traffic, but have you ever been bit by a dog or a cat. My first reaction is to drop kick the animal across the room and in the case of my sisters cat I did.

That cat never came near me again. I could see if a dog bit me that my reaction would be to yank it through the window and toss it. I doubt if the guy intended for the dog to get run over.

Seems to me the guy ought to buy the dog owner a replacement dog and that would be the end of it, maybe a probationary period in the event he had a history of animal cruelty.


My God it is just a dog, why did this even need to go to court?

This entire opinion is predicated on the dog having bit the guy.

Rick Stephens
06-19-2001, 08:15 PM
Logical,

This has been a big case here in California. People collected a $120,000 reward for the arrest of this guy and there were witnesses who actually saw him grab the dog and throw it into oncoming traffic. The dog never bit him and the jury was right in convicting him for his actions. This was a guy out of control and now he is faced with the prison time which he deserves.

Bwana
06-19-2001, 08:16 PM
Jim: I haven't followed this case minute by minute and this is the first I have heard of the dog taking a hack out of the guy. Something tells me it is all a load of BS, but even if it it isn't and the dog did take a steak out of the the guys hand, so what?

Something tells me if this was indeed the case, the dog was trying to protect its owner from some half crazed SOB that was all bent out of shape with road rage and looking to "do something about it."

I have NEVER warmed up to the small yard dog, fluff ball type of dogs and own a couple of yellow labs myself, but I don't condone giving scruffy a lob into on-comming traffic. The fact the guy "reached into the car" is enough to make me think he was not patting the lady on the back and telling her "things are cool, what's the name of your insurance agent?"

Chiefs Pantalones
06-19-2001, 08:22 PM
You just don't do that to dogs or any animal, just because its "just a dog" (understatement, BTW) nothing, not nothing deserves to be treated like that. Thats sick.

CG

how would you feel if someone took your dog and threw him out the window, and get ran over. OR...have someone throw YOU out the window and YOU get ran over?

Pets are like family members...you don't let no one step on your family

Chiefs Pantalones
06-19-2001, 08:35 PM
Jim,

This wasn't directed towards you, I was just using your phrase in your post.

CG

just wanted to get that across

DaWolf
06-19-2001, 10:38 PM
I heard on the radio today that the reason the defense attorney abruptley ended his defense so early was because the judge was going to allow evidence to be entered showing that this guy was no first time offender when it came to being phisically abusive to dogs...

Logical
06-19-2001, 11:29 PM
To each of you that responded,

Please note my last statement in my earlier post was:

This entire opinion is predicated on the dog having bit the guy.

I will stand by my statements in that regard, but I admit that the details are sketchy, did the dog reach out the window and bite the guys hand, did the guy stick his hand in and then the dog bit it those scenarios change the picture slightly. If he was sticking his hand in the window why was he doing it?

Having said all that, no matter what Jail time at taxpayer expense is not the answer. If the guy hates animals sending him to jail will not change that and will probably make it worse. Wasting between 10K and 20K of taxpayer money to put some guy in prison for six months will accomplish nothing.

If the guy has done what is said and he is completely guilty, make him buy the owner a new dog, make him pay for the dog receiving proper obedience training so that new dog will not bite anyone whether the old one did or not is not the point. Then make the guy do Public Service in an animal shelter for some period of time. It is more likely to have a positive effect on him than sending him to jail with true criminals who rape, murder, steal. It is a proven fact that jail is a great training ground to take someone from a petty criminal to hardened criminal in no time. Seems counter productive over an animal.

Rausch
06-19-2001, 11:37 PM
To be honest, I'd be more forgiving if he'd of tossed the lady into traffic....

Seriously...

THere is a big difference between animals and people: ANIMALS NEVER PISS OFF A PERSON ON PURPOSE. PEOPLE DO IT EVERY DAY!


I have to regretably say that I've liked more animals that I've met than people. The dog wasn't driving the car, the lady was.


And I must say that most idiots on the road should be given leathal injection. They are just STUPID!

And I don't care for the "people are more important than animals" line of bs....I'll take a man eating lion over Hitler ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!

Logical
06-20-2001, 12:06 AM
Brad,

If I did not know you and respect you. I would not believe what you just said, the line about Hitler was hilarious. I doubt if you intended it to be it just was. Have a good night.

DanT
06-20-2001, 01:01 AM
That little lap dog could not have possibly bitten the man unless he had his arms somewhere they shouldn't have been. If that's the best the defense could come up with, I don't doubt that the defense attorney for the sick bastard wanted to cut the case short.

DanT
06-20-2001, 01:09 AM
Logical,

Not to sound trite but, in my opinion, the value of a beloved pet is not the cost of buying a "replacement" animal. Similarly, the value of a masterful painting is not the cost of the canvas and paints of which it consists.

Rausch
06-20-2001, 02:52 AM
Logical,

yes, yes my friend, that was deeply hidden sarcasm...


But in all seriousness, why hurt an animal because the owner is a total freak? I don't get that part...

Yeah, no person was declared at fault from what i read. But if it was the woman, why kill her dog? Really?


I could understand killing her, being what human nature is, it happens all the time....But kill her dog? He didn't mean to get revenge, or act out of instinct, that was purely to make that poor(and i do mean poor) driver suffer. Logic doesn't apply to our aggression anymore. That's my point. We don't even make logical illogical decisions, if that makes any sense. You trashed my yard, so i burn your roses. Your dog doddied on my lawn, so i set your pet can on fire?


Eh?

Phobia
06-20-2001, 10:08 AM
For those little dog haters, I used to be one of you. I thought little fluff dogs were worthless and only good for companionship for homebound elderly. My idea was if a dog isn't big enough to catch a frisbee or ball, it's of no use to me. I had labs and golden retrievers until my g/f bought a Maltese. When properly trained (not to yip all day), this one is actually a ball of fun with a great personality. I never thought I could be swayed like this, but in the past year, my attitude has completely changed.

Logical
06-20-2001, 11:34 AM
Dan,

Though I respect your opinion, it seems to me sentimental value can never be compensated for and it should not be a goal. First it cannot truly be measured, heck an owner could actually hate their pet and yet claim it was a member of the family and their precious baby. Who could prove otherwise.

I do agree as stated below that the reason for sticking his arm into the car in the first place is a central question.

Either way I stick with the replacement cost for the dog, paying for obedience training and community service in an animal shelter as stated in below

If the guy has done what is said and he is completely guilty, make him buy the owner a new dog, make him pay for the dog receiving proper obedience training so that new dog will not bite anyone whether the old one did or not is not the point. Then make the guy do Public Service in an animal shelter for some period of time. It is more likely to have a positive effect on him than sending him to jail with true criminals who rape, murder, steal. It is a proven fact that jail is a great training ground to take someone from a petty criminal to hardened criminal in no time. Seems counter productive over an animal.

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2001, 11:48 AM
Seems to me the guy ought to buy the dog owner a replacement dog and that would be the end of it, maybe a probationary period in the event he had a history of animal cruelty.

My God it is just a dog, why did this even need to go to court?

You must not own a dog. My dog is not expendible and cannot be replaced at all. He is a member of the family. (as someone else has already stated) I will defend him as if you had thrown any other member of my family into traffic to their death.

The entire bay area was looking for this guy after the incident and if he HAD been bitten I am sure he would have come forward instead of fleeing from the scene. He would of had to have been living in a cave to have not known everyone was looking for him. Furthermore, he had no scar or record of medical treatment for said biting incident. I also do not buy that it is a natural reaction after being bitten to reach back in the car, risking getting bitten again to throw the dog into traffic. His defense is weak and he deserves what he gets at the very least. Like I said before, his sentence would be the least of his worries had he done that to BIG DADDY'S dog.

Clint in Wichita
06-20-2001, 11:55 AM
Anyone that buys a fuggin' bichon frise is asking for it. Crappy little rats!

If you're walking through my yard, be careful. If you step on my baby....I mean pet earthworm, you just might end up getting raped in prison!!

BIG_DADDY
06-20-2001, 12:03 PM
Clint,

BTW, I have an English Bulldog not a frizzy whatever. Are you suggesting that her choice of dog should be held against her?

Logical
06-21-2001, 12:14 AM
Big Daddy,

I have had pets all through my childhood and again for my kids. Currently I am not a pet owner.

However, thank goodness my whole life I was taught an animal is an animal, it is property and it has its uses. I was taught that you never elevate any animal to the level of a human. Our society is so screwed up that many people place animals ahead of humans. I have long since lost my tolerance for such foolishness. It is fine to love an animal, but to use the criminal justice system to protect one is just plain silliness and a waste of resources. A civil trial with penalties would be fine, I was I believe first in suggesting the guy get community service at an animal shelter to possibly help him with his problem. I will not stand down on the idea that using the criminal justice system is an abuse and waste of taxpayers money over an animal.

If this offends you it is not my intent, it is what I believe and how I was raised. Peace.

Rick Stephens
07-13-2001, 03:10 PM
Today in this case Andrew Burnett was sentenced to the maximum under California law, three years in the state pen. There was justice for Leo. He was deemed to be a danger to the community. Plus he was involved in a similar incident while in the navy.

Iowanian
07-13-2001, 03:27 PM
WAY TOO FRIGGIN MUCH FOR A D-O-G.....and Bingo was his name-o.


make meth----probation
kill a dog.....prison.

WisChief
07-13-2001, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Clint in Wichita
Anyone that buys a fuggin' bichon frise is asking for it. Crappy little rats!

If you're walking through my yard, be careful. If you step on my baby....I mean pet earthworm, you just might end up getting raped in prison!!


Dang - I can't stop laugh'n!!! You kill me!!! :D

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

Michael Michigan
07-13-2001, 06:33 PM
-Jim's Quote-

"make him pay for the dog receiving proper obedience training so that new dog will not bite anyone"

That's the dog's gig. His work...his livelihood.

He gets food, water, love and you throw him a friggin' bone every once in a while and in exchange he defends you to his death.

He bites, scratches, claws, whatever he needs to do to protect his master.

Sure he was a little mop dog owned by a gal who seems to be whacked out, but he died protecting her.

Good dog.

No wonder you have such an attitude about animals, you don't understand their worth.

KCWolfman
07-13-2001, 06:59 PM
Let me preface my comments by stating that I own several animals. Probably more than most of you.

I think it would be a travesty of justice if a man went to prison for killing a dog in a fit of rage. I don't advocate what he did (although some of you will undoubtedly attempt to paint my response that way), but there is no animal on this planet that is worth three years of a human being's life. Fact is that I would kill my dogs, your dogs, and every stray I found to save the life of one solitary human being. There is no argument that can be made to convince me that a dog, a cat, a dolphin, a seal, a bird, etc. is as important as a person.

Strictly because one person prizes an animal to eccentric proportions is not a reason to lock a man up. In fact, if the man were locked up it would not be due to the fact that an animal was killed, but rather that a person was attached to that animal. Thus we are jailing a man because someone's feelings were hurt. That is a ridiculous reason to lock a person in a prison.

Sue him, force him to counselling, make him clean up roadsides. But jailing him is the pentultimate politically correct thing to do - no substance, only feeling.

Rick Stephens
07-13-2001, 07:09 PM
Wolfman,

Today he got the maximum under California state law. He will be spending three years in prison. That's the sentence, he may get parole late next year. He got what he asked for by tossing the dog to it's death.

KCWolfman
07-13-2001, 07:20 PM
Rick - So a precendent is set. But hardly complete. Do you believe that he will not contest the verdict?

And does this mean that anyone who kills an animal deserves to be locked up for three years?

Finally, you gleefully announce his incarceration yet avoid all my points on the topic. You prove positive that this is not about an animal at all, but rather a person's feelings toward that animal.

DanT
07-13-2001, 07:32 PM
I think putting the guy in jail following a fit of rage is perfectly appropriate, even if all he had done was to throw a $600 piece of pottery into traffic. Property-destroying and threatening hotheads like that don't need to be out in the general population, as far as I'm concerned.

The fact that he was in a fit of rage isn't an excuse. If anything, it's an aggravating circumstance. What the hell was he so mad about, that his truck got bumped? Because the idiot wasn't able to control himself, he increased the chance of something bad happening to others--other drivers, responding police officers, and pedestrians have better things to do than to have this dumbass's drama infringe on their lives. The stupid punk, having a conniption over something stupid like a low-speed traffic accident.

WackyRuss
07-13-2001, 07:36 PM
3 years jail time for a dog? that judge needs to shot to death.

KCWolfman
07-13-2001, 07:42 PM
Dan - If he were jailed for destruction of property, I would agree with you. He was a hazard on the highway and a thief to take the dog. Is that worth three years imprisonment, no.

Clint in Wichita
07-13-2001, 07:46 PM
I don't get it. It's OK to wipe out a species so that lumberjacks can keep their jobs, but if you throw a dog into traffic you get arse-raped for 3 years?!

If there is a God, that dog's owner should have some serious explaining to do when she's being judged!! :mad:

Michael Michigan
07-13-2001, 07:49 PM
Russ (kcw)-

The law was on the books. He broke the law. He has now been sentenced for it.

Let me preface this next point by saying I own a few homes. Probably more than most of you.

I don't advocate what arsonists do (although some of you will undoubtedly attempt to paint my response that way), but there is no house on this planet that is worth three years of a human being's life. Fact is that I would burn my house, your house, and every unoccupied house I found to save the life of one solitary human being.

There is no argument that can be made to convince me that a house, a condo, a townhouse, a mobile home, etc. is as important as a person.

Sue an arsonist, force him to counselling, make him clean up roadsides. But jailing him is the pentultimate politically correct thing to do - no substance, only feeling.

Jim Hunter
07-13-2001, 07:49 PM
If some dude reached into my car & threw my dog into traffic , 3 years in the pen would have seem like a picnic comparitively.

DanT
07-13-2001, 07:55 PM
There are people killed as the direct result of arsons ALL THE TIME. It's entirely appropriate, in my opinion, to punish arsonists to try to deter their life-depleting activity.

DanT
07-13-2001, 07:57 PM
If a dumbass is tossing rocks into traffic from a highway overpass, the dumbass deserves serious punishment whether his rocks actually land on the cars below or not.

KCWolfman
07-13-2001, 08:05 PM
Michigan makes a valid point that is difficult to argue. However, the person was charged with the death of a dog, not the loss of property. Had he been charged with theft, I would partially agree with you. However, the value of the theft would be misdemeanor at most. Let me ask this:

Let's assume my wife had a tumor removed and she was killed in a horrible fire, and all I had left was the tumor. Let's continue to assume that I was in an accident and the man I hit came to my car and threw the tumor in the road to be squashed by oncoming traffic. That was the last living part of my wife. Does the man deserve 3 years prison for killing it?

Dan - He was not charged with being a hazard on the highway, he was charged with killing a dog.

Michael Michigan
07-13-2001, 08:27 PM
russ-

michigan's post was a parody of your rambling "I own more animals than you" reply.

Obviously a poor one.

The point was...you are wrong.

The law is on the books he broke it...off to jail.

Don't pass go, don't collect $200.

DanT
07-13-2001, 08:31 PM
KCWolfman,

We can't know for certain unless we do the experiment, but-taking a WILD GUESS here-I'd say that there's a hell of a lot more motorists that would swerve to avoid hitting a dog than would swerve to avoid a tumor.

The different values that the society at large puts on these two objects is part of the reason why there was a law on the books that says that this particular ******* could get three years for what he did.

Similarly, the society at large probably--taking another WILD GUESS--tends to regard a person that beats up other peoples' dogs as different than a person that beats up other peoples' tumors.

Michael Michigan
07-13-2001, 08:39 PM
Dan-

Perhaps Russ could lobby the legislature on behalf of tumors and get the law passed.

;)

DanT
07-13-2001, 08:48 PM
Aw man, I can't believe I didn't catch that Michigan's post was a parody. I didn't think that a journalist would use "pentultimate" (sic) like that, but I figured it was just a fluke and kept plowing ahead!

I'm the second guy in the last day or so to fall for this. Over on the Pen, raiderhader mistook one of Hank's parodies as a serious post. Oh well, at least I'm in good company! ;)

Michael Michigan
07-13-2001, 08:59 PM
Dan-

:)

I just copied and pasted not really carefully reading myself.

I'm now hoping that I won't be sued for plagiarism and blatantly horrible parody.

:D

KCWolfman
07-13-2001, 10:04 PM
Dan - Again, He was not charged with endangering motorists. He was charged with killing someone's property. I just dont see how killing property is a felonious response for prison time. It is simply not logical..

Michigan - I agree, a law is a law is a law. But when animals are protected to the same levels as humans, then the law is wrong and needs to be changed.

KCWolfman
07-13-2001, 10:06 PM
Dan - And you are stating that my love for my wife and her remaining parts that serve no purpose are less valid than the love for a tiny dog that serves no purpose other than to please her owner.

KCWolfman
07-13-2001, 10:13 PM
Michigan - Believe me, my tumor analogy sounds no sillier to you than someone believing that a dog is worth 3 years of a human life to me.

WackyRuss
07-13-2001, 10:18 PM
OJ killed two human being and he didn't even spend a night in jail. What do you know? This is America after all...

WackyRuss
07-13-2001, 10:33 PM
"I think that a violent crime like this against animals who, next to children, are the most vulnerable residents here on Earth," she said. "I think <b>10 years is the minimum animal cruelty conviction</b>"

This woman is in shane. Does she eat meat?

DanT
07-13-2001, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by KCWolfman
Dan - And you are stating that my love for my wife and her remaining parts that serve no purpose are less valid than the love for a tiny dog that serves no purpose other than to please her owner.

Far be it from me to comment on the validity of your love for your hypothetical examples. I'm merely saying that this clown broke a law and, because of the way he broke the law, he deserved the maximum penalty for breaking the law. I consider the "fit of rage" to be an aggravating factor.

I don't have any problems with this particular law or its provisions for punishment. That's not to say that I would not support your right to lobby the lawmakers of California for extensions and/or modifications of the law so that it protects hypothetical tumors from your wife in a manner that comports with your particular sense of logical relevance and equitability. ;)

Rick Stephens
07-13-2001, 10:41 PM
K C Wolfman,

You state that he was charged with just killing a dog. No he was charged with animal cruelty which is againt the law. Are we not a nation of laws. These laws were put in place to protect animals who can not defend themselves from people like this guy. It is against the law to rob a bank but by your logic all one does is steal money therefore let him pick up trash along the highway to pay it back. This guy was a repeat offender he had killed a dog while serving in the navy. And he had no right to reach into the womans car and take the dog and pitch it into oncoming traffic.

You say that you would kill all dogs, birds cats, ect. to save one persons life. What have the animals done to deserve a death sentence other than live their life. Under your logic you would kill all these animals to let a person like Tim McVeigh live. I don't believe that is reasonable logic as these animals have commited no crime. Tim McVeigh broke the law the same as Mr. Burnett did, one killed people while the other killed a defenseless dog. One pays with his life while the other spends time in prison. The bottom line is that both commited crimes againt our society.

tommykat
07-13-2001, 11:03 PM
Rick Stephens
Just curious.....do you not think pets feel and know what is going on around them? At this point and time I won't go into details, BUT I ASSURE YOU THAT THEY DO!
You put them where you will, I choose<<notice I make a choice, to believe that yes they feel, and know what is going on. I'd like to say I'm sorry, BUT it is all I can do to hold my tongue right now.:mad:
People that are into meth spend little time in jail....YOU KILL someone and most of the time you are out within 7 yrs. I'd rather see this person rot where he is now than see him do this again.

What if.........he did this to an animal, do you suspose he could not do it to a human?<<My answer to this would be a BIG yes.:rolleyes:

Rick Stephens
07-13-2001, 11:21 PM
TommyCat,

I believe animals are very smart. They know what is happening around them yes. My dog is a member of my family and is treated as such. Anyone who would attack my dog is attacking my family and I will defend and protect him as such.

I believe that anyone who would commit this type of crime would also grab a small child and throw them into traffic in a fit of rage. Studies have shown that people who kill small animals move on to commit more violent crimes.

.

KCWolfman
07-13-2001, 11:28 PM
My dog is a member of my family and is treated as such

Dan - Rick's quote above is the problem with this law. I am sure that his love is great and wide, but it is without any type of logic. To state that a dog is treated as a family member is a generous thing. But to will that I should feel the same way for his dog is ridiculous.

Rick - Exactly - cruelty to animals. Which, IMHO, should be nothing more than a misdemeanor.

To any of you. At what level do we determine animals to be so valuable? Must they have a tail? Must they live in our home? Our Barns? What is the EXACT determination to use to decide that the animal's life is worth 3 years of a human life? More importantly, how did you come to that decision.

DanT
07-13-2001, 11:42 PM
KCWolfman,

You seem to be trapped in some notion of jurisprudence that equates punishment with the value of the thing harmed. That's not how the system works. You can get locked up for merely walking into someone else's home with the intent to steal stuff, even if you don't actually take anything.

There's a gigantic difference between a child who ruins $200 radios by taking them apart and doing destructive testing on their components to learn their properties and a child who ruins $200 puppies by beating them to death for his own amusement.

Some behavior is simply unacceptable. Being cruel to dogs is not wrong just because some dogs have price tags on them and their monetary value might be lessened by the act of cruelty.

stevieray
07-13-2001, 11:44 PM
I asked this before, and will ask again...Was this dog in her lap WHILE she was driving? If dogs are as important as family members, why is the dog not in a dogseat? or a safety belt?

Double standards.

KCWolfman
07-13-2001, 11:49 PM
Dan - No, I merely do not go to your extreme and believe that animals deserve any types of sliding scale rights.

Merely because Fluffy was lucky enough to be bred and dropped into Mrs. LonelyHearts lap, the man gets three years. If he did the same to a stray cat, deer, dog, snail, ant, etc, then he wouldn't have spent one day in jail, let alone gone to trial.

Stevie has an excellent point. If Fluffly wasn't buckled up and he was family, Mrs. LonelyHeart needs to be fined for allowing her child to ride without proper protection.

Rick Stephens
07-14-2001, 12:20 AM
Wolfman,

Do you love you wife or girlfriend? For you to will that I should feel the same way is ridiculous. Show me the logic here. Are you saying that my dog is no more important to me than a member of your family is to you. You are saying that my dog is just a dog and I am saying to you that to me your wife or girlfriend is no more important to me than my dog is to you. It still a matter of the law. The law says that I can't go around killing people just like it says you can't go around being cruel to animals.

splatbass
07-14-2001, 12:24 AM
I happen to be in San Jose today on business, and they just announced he was sentenced to 3 years in prison (the maximum). The people here are almost unanimous in agreement that this is the appropriate sentence. If he had gotten less than the maximum, there would have been a public outcry like you never heard before. I wouldn't have been surprised to see rioting in the streets. I agree with the locals here, he got what he deserved.

Rausch
07-14-2001, 12:26 AM
I will post one statement, again, on the animals vs. people arguement.


I have no knowledge of, nor have i even heard a rumor of, an animal ever p!$$!ng off a person ON PURPOSE....


'Nuff said.


:cool:

splatbass
07-14-2001, 12:28 AM
"a tiny dog that serves no purpose other than to please her owner"

This is just sick. Dogs are living, breathing animals with feelings. To believe that only humans are worthwile is the ultimate arrogance. Get over yourself.

KCWolfman
07-14-2001, 01:14 AM
Rick - That is exactly what I am saying. You will never have a relationship with a nonsentient being that I will with humans. That is a fact, plain and simple.

Bass - There is nothing to get over. Your arrogance is in believing that one animal HAS RIGHTS to a pleasured existence while another can be your meal. How do you choose? Where does your God Complex begin and end?

BTW - I noticed no one was brave enough to answer my question earlier.

KCWolfman
07-14-2001, 01:16 AM
Brad - If that is the case, then Jesus Christ had no reason to die as well, did he?

Logical
07-14-2001, 01:25 AM
I am hugely against this as it is a terrible waste of taxpayer money to support this guy in jail. Now we all know that for a 3 year sentence he will likely only serve 3 to 6 months before parole, especially in CA with our extremely overcrowded prisons, but why should the taxpayer pay this burden over a dog. Especially when serious criminals with true felonies like sex offenders are being released early due to overcrowding. I still say that this man should have got community service in a animal shelter as his punishment.

This decision is non-sense. My guess is this is an example of a Prosecutor and a Judge scoring points for their political careers. This is definitely not a victory for society as a whole!


On the subject of giving special attention to likable animals let me say that giving special attention to any animal that would put humans in jail (unless habitual offenders say for killing animals without the proper licensing) is a joke. No matter what all of you say they are still animals and your own species she should always come first. It is that way in the wild and so it should be between humans and animals.

Besides putting anyone in jail is likely to turn them into a form of animal as prison creates some of the most vile criminals of all. So putting him in prison will likely only result in one more true criminal in the world, instead of a guy who probably just made a mistake in the heat of the moment.

Logical
07-14-2001, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by DanT
KCWolfman,
..........There's a gigantic difference between a child who ruins $200 radios by taking them apart and doing destructive testing on their components to learn their properties and a child who ruins $200 puppies by beating them to death for his own amusement............


Dan, this is one time I totally and completely disagree with you. I would be just as mad over having my $200 property defined as a radio ruined as I would be my property of a dog. I would expect the same result $200 to replace the ruined property. I think that was one of the worst and poorest arguments I have ever heard you make. Clearly you were arguing based on emotion and not reason.

People who do not realized that dogs, cats, rats whatever are just property really annoy me. I am as emotionally attached to my Big Screen TV or my Jaguar (actually probably more to the Jaguar) than I ever was either during childhood or as an adult to an animal.

In fact if my dog had ever bit one of my kids he would have been at the animal shelter to be put asleep the next day. Yet if my radio shocked my kid and burnt him I would just have it fixed, not got rid of it.

Rausch
07-14-2001, 02:09 AM
you are quickly approaching Proctor status.



Which means that I can totally agree with you on one topic, and completely disagree with you on another...:D


I don't think the question is "what ARE animals or pets", but "what do those animals or pets MEAN to their owners."


I have two ferrets. And while they don't even come close to the relationship I have with most family or friends, they are as much as my family to me as any other member. MY ferret LITTLE BEAR needs an operation that will cost me $550. I make only $950 a month where I work now. He is worth it, without question.


He is a life, no matter how insignificant, that I am responsible for, and love. I will provide the best existance possible for that animal. I will not allow it/him to suffer simply because most people allow money to come before sentiment.

I would pay for this operation for my brother, my pet, or for you. He has cancer and it has affected me as much as when my grandmother was diagnosed. It is a painful and unhealthy development in the life of someone/thing I love. Wrong or right, that animal is family. And that is what I believe.


Make no mistake, i would treat any action against that animal as if it was another family member. Because to me, it is...

DanT
07-14-2001, 02:09 AM
Jim,

That example was trying to illustrate the comparative unacceptability of two types of behavior, each of which resulted in the same amount of property damage. I would be way more the hell concerned with unacceptable behavior from a dog-torturing child than I would be from a child who seems to be aspiring to a career as a quality-control engineer at Motorola.

The monetary value of the dog isn't the issue, it's the unacceptability of the behavior.

We definitely seem to disagree on this one. I consider the road rage to be an aggravating factor. You seem to regard it as something of an excuse. In my opinion, the laws should be enforced so that it's very clear that if a person is enraged, they should make damn sure they don't get out of their cars and walk back to other people's cars to inflict harm.

KCWolfman
07-14-2001, 02:20 AM
Brad - I don't think the question is "what ARE animals or pets", but "what do those animals or pets MEAN to their owners."

PRECISELY

Now, how in the world can we jail someone on what a pet MEANS to someone else?

If you kill a cat do you deserve more jail time if someone owns him? Do you deserve more jail time if I love my cat more than my neighbor does? How do we measure the amount of love so that the punishment is accurate?

I think it is pathetic that an owned creature somehow is more important than a stray.

We should never NEVER NEVER lock someone up because we hurt someone else's feelings. This is as close to a mind crime as it gets without crossing the line.

I agree with Jim, what a nice way to advance a political career.

Rausch
07-14-2001, 02:28 AM
Have no doubt that politics is not in my future.
THis is not a political statement.

What I AM saying is that this animal means as much to me as a family member. It should be treated as such. Just as a quilt passed down four generations and 200 years is not really worth a felony, but should be prosecuted as such due to what that theif has ACTUALLY stolen. He stole a part of their life. That is a part of their being.


To you it is simply cloth and stitches, to them it is their heritage and their history.


I don't ask you to agree, only to empathize. If a person was to purposely end my pet's existance for no apparent reason, I would probably act with equal ignorance and anger and end theirs.

Argument, religon, and "morals" are all relative. You believe important what I might think is insignificant. I don't belittle your beliefs or ask you to change them, but only to realize the conviction I have in mine.

DanT
07-14-2001, 02:35 AM
Who deserves a more severe punishment?

a) The manager who, while arguing a call, kicks dirt onto the umpires shoes and pants, resulting in an additional laundry and shoe shine expense of $15

or

b) The player who, while arguing a call, spits into the umpire's face, resulting in an expenditure of 2 cents for a disinfectant-treated kleenex to wipe the spit off.

Rausch
07-14-2001, 02:55 AM
All depends on what judge has the authority to rule......

Logical
07-14-2001, 02:56 AM
In this debate it would be interesting to know how many people who grew up on a farm or had parents who had been farmers have the view that animals are just property and it is way over blown to treat them as any thing much more than property. I know that my experience is based on values passed on to me from parents who grew up on farms and every farmer I have known has pretty much this same view, not all but most.

Dan I on the other hand would view the child that did not respect my property i.e. radio as a uncontrolled destructive little miscreant no better or no worse than the other little miscreant that killed some dog or cat that was my property, they both do not have the proper respect for my property. Neither one is better or worse than the other in my eyes. A dog is no more valuable than a radio of the same dollar value, that is just the way I was raised. I do not condemn you for your view it just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

I have got to go with those who point out that a dog, versus a pig, versus a cat, versus a snake they are all just lifeforms that man has learned to dominate or contain and use for one purpose or another. They are worth no more or less than one another and in the great food chain of life they fall under mans domain as items man dominates and uses for the purposes that best serves that man. They are nothing more and people who try to turn them into beings on par with man, in my opinion are creating a false idol to worship. Each of us has a right to live our lives and hold our beliefs but I draw the line at putting men in jail over animals. That is just a sad misplaced use of our judicial system over an object that is to be used by mankind as property.

The penalty and crime for breaking a $300 dollar TV should be no more or less than for killing a dog, cat, or pig. The penalty for stealing a $300 dollar TV should be no more or less than for killing a dog, cat, or pig. Finally the penalty for keying my car and slashing my tires should be no more or less than for physically damaging a cat or dog in terms of how much it costs to repair the car vs. have the vet make the animal better. It is simple because it is property.

The argument about the quilt fits this nicely, because the courts will only have a person pay what the monetary value to replace the quilt is, not what the sentimental value is, that is a perfect corrollary with how it should be with an animal.

Logical
07-14-2001, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by DanT
Who deserves a more severe punishment?

a) The manager who, while arguing a call, kicks dirt onto the umpires shoes and pants, resulting in an additional laundry and shoe shine expense of $15

or

b) The player who, while arguing a call, spits into the umpire's face, resulting in an expenditure of 2 cents for a disinfectant-treated kleenex to wipe the spit off.

Dan,

People are involved and that changes all the rules, no matter, what this amounts to is that the umpire is an authority figure and the two actions show different levels of disrespect for the authority baseball wants to vest to the umpire. So the penalty is based on that part of the equation not on the damage invoked.

Sorry that example does not fit this debate in any sense. Little surprised you made the argument, again it tells me that you are arguing from your emotional side instead of your rational side.

DanT
07-14-2001, 03:03 AM
Brad,

Assume that you have complete discretion (i.e. all necessary laws to inflict your idea of a fair punishment are in place).

Rausch
07-14-2001, 03:10 AM
DanT,

then both parties would be punished equally. Intent was to both desecrate the person and his possessions.



And yes, intent does determine punishment.

Logical
07-14-2001, 03:17 AM
Something no one talks about is that after prison it is quite likely that this guy will seek to gain revenge against this woman for ruining his life. I personally cannot say I would blame him. I would send him back to prison, but I would do so with the understanding that this biatch finally got what she deserved as well for ruining a mans life over a stupid piece of property. In the end I sort of hope Karma comes down on her the judge and the prosecutor and some sort of disaster befalls them and ruins there lives as well. If there really is justice in the world this should happen.

DanT
07-14-2001, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Logical


Dan,

People are involved and that changes all the rules, no matter, what this amounts to is that the umpire is an authority figure and the two actions show different levels of disrespect for the authority baseball wants to vest to the umpire. So the penalty is based on that part of the equation not on the damage invoked.

Sorry that example does not fit this debate in any sense. Little surprised you made the argument, again it tells me that you are arguing from your emotional side instead of your rational side.

The italicized part, Jim, is my point. The outrageousness of the behavior does not have anything to do with the property damage involved. There are two different levels of outrageousness here and the most outrageous level is the one that has the least amount of property damage involved. The same would hold true if the argument were between two golfers competing against each other in a "friendly" match. If one of them spit on the other one, it would be considered a hell of a lot more outrageous than if he just kicked dirt and sand on the other one's shoes.

Californians have a law that punishes behavior toward animals that a jury and judge would find to be unjustifiable cruelty to animals. The dogkiller in this case got punished based on that law. If the lady didn't even really care about the dog (e.g. she was on her way to drop it off at the pound), the guy might well have gotten punished for his behavior the same way. This is not a civil suit between the lady and the dogkiller; it's a criminal case for the state versus the dogkiller.

Logical
07-14-2001, 03:34 AM
Dan,

The difference is one is a private organization and they can choose to set the standard based on the level of disrespect not outrageousness (there is a difference and I know you know it).

The other is in the domain of criminal intent where outrageousnous is not supposed to enter into the equation, only degree of illegality is. Lawyers are good at manipulating juries with this very technique, but it is not supposed to be the issue. Severity can enter into the equation but again that is not the same as outrageousnous.

Again I beliieve you are off your normally lucid ratianale game tonight Dan and I think it is because for some reason you are emotionally vested.

Logical
07-14-2001, 03:39 AM
Dan,

The law is flawed I have said that before,but that is not the issue tonight. If she had refused to press criminal charges it is unlikely the prosecutor could have achieved jail time so I still blame her for not dropping the charges as will he. Yes for the publicity he could have pursued the case but it would then have been transparent as the political power ploy forthe prosecutors career advancement and highly unlikely to achieved more than a slap on the guys wrist and some civic duty punishment.

DanT
07-14-2001, 03:53 AM
The degree of illegality is often a pure function of the outrageousness of an action. There's a big damn difference between coldcocking someone who just said, "Hello!" to you versus coldcocking someone who just insulted your parents. The notion of "fighting words" is just one example where the outrageouness of an action comes into play when assessing the illegality of an action.

Some societies regard killing female babies differently than other societies do. Two different societies might agree on whether a particular set of parents had formed a criminal intent to end the female baby's life, but that doesn't mean they're going to punish the parents the same way.

These are just two examples where the outrageousness of an action affects how the society will punish it.

DanT
07-14-2001, 04:03 AM
Jim,

I think we're not completely catching each other's points. I'll probably be a better interlocutor later, after I get some sleep! Talk to ya' soon!

Dan

Rick Stephens
07-14-2001, 09:10 AM
KCWolfman,

If a dogs life is worth nothing expain to me why people who kill police dogs and drug sniffing dogs are charged with a crime. After all as you state they are just dogs. You kill either one of these types of dogs it is certain you will do jail time. But after all, all you did was to kill a dog. Is it possible that you will do jail time because it is against the law to kill them, just as it is against the law to throw someone else's dog into oncoming traffic. Under animal cruelty laws it can be any animal not just ones which belong to someone. Is it not against the law to murder someone. We have laws in our society and people who break these are punished for doing so.

On your question about other animals being killed and doing jail time. It is against the law to kill wild horses, bald eagles, poach game and gouge the eyes out of a dog or a cat or a horse, ect...there are laws which protect these animals from such acts and if you commit the above acts you can be sentenced to jail. There are laws in place to protect these animals from abuse and cruelty and Mr. Burnett chose to break these laws and for that he is sentenced to jail. His behavior was unacceptable and for this he is paying the price.

Michael Michigan
07-14-2001, 09:15 AM
Jim's quotes--

"this guy will seek to gain revenge against this woman for ruining his life."

Nah Jim, this guy is a criminal and his own actions have landed him in jail. If his life will be "ruined" it will be by his own illegal behavior. Especially if he seeks revenge.

"I personally cannot say I would blame him."

Ouch--perhaps the moniker on animal issues should read--Emotional.

"In the end I sort of hope Karma comes down on her the judge and the prosecutor and some sort of disaster befalls them and ruins there (sic) lives as well."

Gee Jim, why stop there. Those damn lawmakers made the law. And that evil jury passed down the conviction. Shouldn't they get it also?

Brock
07-14-2001, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Logical
I would send him back to prison, but I would do so with the understanding that this biatch finally got what she deserved as well for ruining a mans life over a stupid piece of property.

What a silly thing to say. This "biatch" only did what anyone else would do, report a crime to the police. Speaking of emotionally vested.

philfree
07-14-2001, 12:44 PM
The guys a sicko! But I would rather have him fined and sentenced to community service shovling dog poop at the Humane Society before I would want to pay for his food and shelter for three years while he sits in prison.

PhilFree :cool:

KCWolfman
07-14-2001, 02:53 PM
Brad - Maybe I came off too strong on my position. I agree entirely with you on your last comment. I DO empathize with your feelings. I just don't believe that your feelings are paramount in making laws.

Rick On your question about other animals being killed and doing jail time. It is against the law to kill wild horses, bald eagles, poach game and gouge the eyes out of a dog or a cat or a horse, ect...there are laws which protect these animals from such acts and if you commit the above acts you can be sentenced to jail.

First of all some of your analogies don't fit in this scenario. Laws regarding endangered species are not applicable, nor are laws regarding the torturing of animals. And rarely, if at all, can someone be sentenced to prison time (there is a difference between prison and jail) for such crimes. Burnett did not go to jail, he went to prison.

However, some are strained, yet applicable - such as the police dog analogy.

Again I ask, specifically you this time, If I kill a snail do I deserve prison time? If I kill a pet snail do I deserve prison time? Why or why not?

Cannibal
07-14-2001, 03:12 PM
I completely agree with DanT.

I thought he added logic and definition to an otherwise cloudy issue.

I thought his analogies showing the value of the property, vs. the outrageousness of the actions were right on.

Excellent debate DanT. You are right on in your assesment of this issue.

Michael Michigan
07-14-2001, 03:18 PM
KCW-

First a tumor, now a snail? A pet snail? :rolleyes:

You are reaching.........

KCWolfman
07-14-2001, 03:36 PM
Michael - I understand... you don't like the answerl; therefore, you will not post it.

Why is someone's pet dog more important than my pet snail? And why would a pet be more important than a snail in my backyard? Clint was right on target with his earthworm analogy. Your dog (as much as you may love him) is no more valuable than my pet fish, snail, or earthworm. And strictly because they are a pet should not give them a protected status.

There is only one logical conclusion.... SOLELY because of the owner's individual feelings of the animal in question. I can understand suing someone for hurting your feelings, or giving them misdemeanor charges. But I can honestly say that I have never ever heard of someone being charged with a felony for hurting another person's feelings.

Michael Michigan
07-14-2001, 03:54 PM
russ-

Your question(s) were simple and useless in this debate, but to appease you I will provide definitive answers.

1. Again I ask, specifically you this time, If I kill a snail do I deserve prison time?

A. Depends on the prosecutor and the courts.

2. If I kill a pet snail do I deserve prison time?

A. Depends on the prosecutor and the courts.

3. Why or why not?

A. We are a nation of laws.

If one could convince the legal authorities to prosecute the death of the pet Helix aspersa (or any wild Helix aspersa) :rolleyes: then the wheels of justice would be put in motion.

KCWolfman
07-14-2001, 04:00 PM
Michael - Alright... so you are stating that ANY law on the books is just and should be followed never to be questioned?

Michael Michigan
07-14-2001, 04:09 PM
russ-

no--how did you get that out of my answer?

If a law is unjust and you believe it so--you should lobby to overturn it.

Also--enforcement (police and courts) have the opportunity to enforce different laws how they deem fit.

So---the prosecutor and the court would be able to determine whether the pet snail death should be prosecuted or not.

KCWolfman
07-14-2001, 04:35 PM
Michael - Which is finally leading to my point.

This law is unjust. I don't understand why the value of a dog that lives in a house is more valuable than one who does not. Or more valuable than a snail.

I don't believe the law reflects logic. And if Burnett has a lawyer worth his salt, he should be able to appeal just the above.

Burnett is locked up, and as the law currently stands, one cannot disagree with the actions. However, I cannot be convinced that the law is not wrong in this case.

Michael Michigan
07-14-2001, 04:47 PM
russ-

I understand your opinion, but your arguments have been poor. That's not a shot, you are just on the wrong side of the issue and it's a difficult position to take using reason.

No attorney will get this guy off as no judge will overturn this. In fact this entire case has strengthened this law and you can expect to see more prosecutions and convictions.

But not for snails or tumors.

DanT
07-14-2001, 06:21 PM
One of the things that's particularly galling to me about this action and that demonstrates some of the absurdity of regarding it as merely a "property damage" case is that if Burnett had approached the lady and said, "Gee, I'm especially upset. How much would I have to give you so that I can take possession of your dog and threw him into traffic so that he can run around in terror until some other motorist runs him down and has to live with killing his completely innocent butt?" She no doubt would have refused to name a price and would have declined to make a transaction.

Why should she be forced to conduct a transaction that amounts to her substituting the dog's life for someone else's conception of the monetary value of her dog? Property damage from an accident is one thing. This, on the other hand, was a malicious and completely deliberative act that has no justification from a commerical standpoint. We don't have to tolerate behavior like that. It's not a reasonable and forseeable consequence of any activity that liberty-loving people might need to undertake.

There's no compelling reason why anyone should be forced to conduct "business" transactions with hotheads. Just because some high-and-mightys think they can drive recklessly through neighborhoods and toss gold pieces to any urchins they might injure doesn't mean that the society has to tolerate it. I'm glad that California had a law on the book to codify the outrage they might feel and that they were able to whip the law out on this guy and toss his butt in jail. In a couple of months I'll be joining my sweetheart in California and I know good and well that neither she nor me has any problem that some tiny amount of our tax money will be used to deprive this guy temporarily of his liberty.

KCPHILLY
07-14-2001, 06:52 PM
I thought his analogies showing the value of the property, vs. the outrageousness of the actions were right on.

I also think these are valid points brought up by DanT. It's obvious CA has laws in place for such behavior, but the level of outrageosness of the action weighs heavy in the verdict

Murder cases carry different degrees of severity. If you coldcock a guy for grabbing your wife/girlfriends a$$ and he falls and hits his head, resulting in death, you will do time. If you pummel him to oblivion with a baseball bat, then take a chainsaw and cut off all his appendages and take his hand home as a souvenir, and the courts find it is your 2nd murder offense.... you're done.

The rage issue is disturbing in this case. Keep in mind you will find "fits of rage" and "animal cruelty" in the psychological profile of nearly every serial killer documented... Not saying this guy could be a serial killer, but it's something to consider.
:eek: ;)

California Injun
07-14-2001, 07:05 PM
After reading this verdict, those 3 catfish I caught this morning using treble hooks has me frightened.....:eek:

KCPHILLY
07-14-2001, 07:07 PM
In my last post I am not calling this a murder case or directly comparing it to murder of a human "per say". I am using the " degrees of murder" as an example of the level of the outrageousness of the action in defining the punishment.

It's obvious the publicity surrounding this case also likely weighed in the verdict but this guy will be out in 6 to 8 months with a few years of probation... I have no problem with the verdict.

Maybe this moron will think twice before he commits his 3rd act.

California Injun
07-14-2001, 07:12 PM
This clown better keep his temper in check or Bubba will give him a dose of "Prison rage" before tossing him off his bunk.

WackyRuss
07-14-2001, 08:47 PM
It is OK for men to kill Deers, Turkey, Chickens, cows, ducks, and other animals but not DOGs. Give me a break here, we don't make different laws for different races (White, Black, Yellow, Red) but we make special laws for those dogs and cats.

KS Smitty
07-14-2001, 08:56 PM
Our dog was ran over right in front of our house...with the wife, our kids and neighborhood kids present, by a woman who said the sun was in her eyes. Our street is so tree shaded that the sun never shines in your eyes. One of the kids wasn't much bigger than the dog, it could have been them. She didn't get in any trouble at all, the Mrs. and kids were left feelin guilty cuz the dog wasn't on her leash and I had to bury a dog. It was pretty sh!tty all the way around but Ringo was a dog not a child. The anger is still there but it was a dog. A damn good dog part heeler and part rotti and smart as a whip, the if only's run through our minds all the time. No one in our family would expect that woman to serve jail time for killin our dog. The worst thing was she wasn't gonna stop til the neighbor hollered at her and made her.

Rick Stephens
07-14-2001, 09:31 PM
kcsmitty,

There is a difference in accidently hitting a dog and reaching into someone's car and grabbing a dog and throwing it into on coming traffic. One is an accident and the other is a criminal act according to the law.

WackyRuss
07-14-2001, 09:33 PM
Rick,

How about deer hunting? Is it a criminal act as well?

KS Smitty
07-14-2001, 09:42 PM
Rick, it was still a dog.. and if I remember the statutes correctly inattentative driving is in fact against the law. Mrs. Smitty called the cop, so he could put the dog outta her misery but by the time he showed up Ringo was gone. And an accidental death is as devasting to the pet owner as an intentional one is especially if it is witnessed by the persons' affected by the death.

California Injun
07-14-2001, 09:44 PM
The only crime in deer hunting is letting those bastages know when hunting season starts!!

I swear them bucks have access the to DFG about when we can shoot them because one day there all over the place and the on the opener they disappear.:mad:

Rick Stephens
07-14-2001, 10:02 PM
kcsmitty,

I did not in any way mean to disrespect the love you had for your dog. Being a dog owner myself I was stating that this guy got what he had coming to him. This dog would still be alive if not for a fit of rage by Mr. Burnett. It is a criminal act under California law to reach into someone's car and grab a dog and toss it into oncoming traffic. This dog did not wonder into traffic he was tossed.

Sorry to hear of the loss of you dog. They are always hard to give up no matter how we lose them.

WackyRuss
07-14-2001, 10:08 PM
Do you see the double standard here? It is OK for us to kill other aminals but not the DOgs or cats. I am against killing any type of animals but at the same time, no human being should spend 3 years in jail because of a dog.

American law is made to protect who rich and famous...

California Injun
07-14-2001, 10:19 PM
I don't think it was the dog so much as the act.

I am curious what would have happened had it been a turtle, cat, or a pot-bellied pig. Methinks the attachment most of us had to dogs growing up played a HUGE part ion this decision.

Could you imagine the verdict had this been a snake and the jury was loaded with women?

Rick Stephens
07-14-2001, 10:20 PM
WhackyRuss,

No. Being a gun owner and hunter, deer hunting is not illegal. However, if you shoot one out of season, shoot one from a car or otherwise take one in violation of the law then you should be prosecuted under the law for the violation. There are laws that regulate hunting and if you violate those laws you should be prosecuted. There is not a hunting season on dogs or cats as they are domesticated animals and not game animals.

California Injun
07-14-2001, 10:35 PM
Rick,

Spotlight hunting can getcha in a bit of trouble also.....

Rick Stephens
07-14-2001, 11:04 PM
Cal_injun,

So will taking 50 if I only have a tag for two......

KCWolfman
07-15-2001, 12:33 AM
Dan - Usually you are more logical about a situation. Of course, the owner of the dog would not put a value on it. However the courts never have any trouble doing so, as they do all the time. I may consider my 1971 plymouth baraccuda priceless, but if someone creams it, I will only get a relative value - and certainly not the value I believe it is worth.

And evidently several other guys on this board agree, certain animals with special rights (other than endangered species) is a lame concept. Again, you are attempting to gauge a man's relative value (3 years in this case) by a woman's feelings about a non-sentient organism.

No one can measure that woman's feelings toward her dog, therefore, a felony should not occur. Intangibles are typically only allowed in a civil suit, not a felonious deciding jury.

KCWolfman
07-15-2001, 12:35 AM
Cal - I tried to make just that point (with the snake) as you did with earlier analogies. People are caught up in the EMOTION of a pretty little doggie getting crunched. Emotions should NEVER NEVER NEVER decide a felony conviction.

DanT
07-15-2001, 01:38 AM
KCWolfman,

I'm saying that the attempt to locate this example into an ordinary "property damages" setting is misconceived. The woman's feelings about the monetary value of the dog don't have much if anything to do with the inappropriateness of Mr. Burnett's behavior. California decided before this act took place that it would punish some acts of unjustifiable animal cruelty and that's exactly what it's trying to do. A jury and a judge have decided quite rightly that there is no reason to put up with this kind of behavior.

I don't know if or how the decisions of the jury and the judge would have been different if the woman had offered a finite replacement value for the dog or, even, if the animal had actually survived this incident. My conception of why the guy deserves to go to jail does not depend on making such judgments. The attempt to erect some kind of slippery slope to connect the ridiculous and completely unjustifiable action of throwing a dog into traffic with the loss of other animals' lives and/or damage to other forms of property is misconceived, in my mind. An example of "illogic" is the reasoning earlier in this thread that pretends that the dog's life has been elevated to the same level as human life. Indeed, if Leo had been a human, the punishment for his killer would have been far, far more severe, I expect.

Anyway, it's clear that you and I disagree. Your position seems to be that punishing with jail time any person whose actions might have or did harm an animal that is not on the endangered species list is a bad thing. My position is that there are situations where it is a legitimate thing to do and this is one of those situations.

KCWolfman
07-15-2001, 01:57 AM
Dan - I guess we can agree to disagree. A couple of points of clarification first, if you don't mind.

First: Personally, I don't care if Burnett suffers JAIL time for killing the animal. There is a big difference between misdemeanor/jail and felony/prison. I would have understood a jail sentence and supported it. But Burnett has a felonious conviction on his record now. His killing an animal puts him right up their with drug kingpins, rapists, and murderers - I don't believe that Burnett deserves that qualification.

Second: I never stated that the animal had been elevated to human standards. If you got that conception, it is incorrect. My point (and several others) is that the animal was classified as 'special' and 'more important' than a stray dog, or a pet snake, or a pet tarantula. You believe that it is okay to elevate that dog to a protected status. I disagree with your view, but I do understand it.

DanT
07-15-2001, 02:07 AM
Thanks for the clarifications, KCWolfman.

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that you had made the claim earlier in the thread that this law had elevated animal life to the level of human life. ;)

Rausch
07-15-2001, 02:39 AM
JUst to but in: :D

As far as why the guy should deserve a felony instead of simple weekend jail etc., in my mind is due to intent. The man was not angry at the dog, was not attacked by the dog, the intent was to hurt the woman. His desire for revenge was more important to him than the property/pet of another person. The intent WAS to inflict serious emotional pain in the woman, not the dog.

And he were to have broken her window instead, it would have sent the same message, only a window can be replaced. You may not rate animals high on the importance scale, but that dog had its own distinct personality and character. Each animal is different, and most dog/cat/small animal owners will tell you that. A window is a window, and a lamp a lamp, or a Chevy corsica a Chevy corsica, but there is only one (insert animal name here.)


Hunting? I choose not to, but it's a right each American has and I support that for two reasons:

1)It's legal, like it or not.

2)Most of the wild animals that would hunt deer, rabbit, squirrel, moose, etc. have been eradicated by man. We are higher on the food chain and that is our right of safety. But when you DO eliminate these animals you must accept the responsibility and role they played. If not for hunters Deer populations would reach levels that would upset nature's balance. Hunters are as necessary in America as the mountian lion, bobcat, etc. were before our arrival...

Michael Michigan
07-15-2001, 11:04 AM
russ-

quote---

"Again, you are attempting to gauge a man's relative value (3 years in this case) by a woman's feelings about a non-sentient organism."

Actually a large percentage of the community was outraged.

The dog's owner didn't convict him on his charges, a jury of his peers did. (That would be members of said community.)

The judge then sentenced him.

Those are the rules.

The rules were established before his behavior landed him in prison.

Appeals will fail, and by law he will serve at least half of the three years.

He deserves it for his behavior.

KCWolfman
07-15-2001, 01:00 PM
Brad - Another common misconception.... jail can be up to 365 days, not merely a "weekend"

Michael - I never stated the woman convicted him. And I never stated the law was not on the books. I stated that a jury and a justice system is incorrect when they can gauge a woman's misery and put it in terms of a felony conviction and take away more than a year of his life.

As far as appeals failing, you know more than I, because I would never try and outguess an appelate judge, let alone the possibility of 4 or 5 appelate judges in a continuous row to Washington DC.

Michael Michigan
07-15-2001, 01:38 PM
russ-

quote--

"I stated that a jury and a justice system is incorrect when they can gauge a woman's misery and put it in terms of a felony conviction and take away more than a year of his life."

Where are you getting this idea? I haven't reasearched it but have any of the jurors given that statement?

I have some quotes from the judge and it seems as if he was not happy that this lowlife lied to him.

This was all mailed to me so I don't have a source but the guy is a stringer so I'm sure they are accurate.

On Burnett's claims of remorse for the animal's death, which he still calls an accident. --

"This was no accident," said Superior Court Judge Kevin J. Murphy, who presided over Burnett's trial. "If there was any remorse, it was probably remorse that he's in the predicament that he is now."

As to Burnett's claims the dog bit him--

"To describe his story as unbelievable is being polite," Murphy said. "That's absolutely ridiculous. It is insulting to my intelligence. It is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who thinks. It is preposterous."

On why he went for the max--

"The crime in this case involved a high degree of cruelty, viciousness and callousness," Murphy said. ''It's a case that needs to be dealt with harshly."

The lesson to be learned--don't come into a courtroom and lie to a judge, and you dam* sure don't want to insult his intelligence.

KCWolfman
07-15-2001, 02:05 PM
Michael - You are mixing apples and oranges. If Burnett committed perjury, then lock him up for felonious perjury, I support your stance. However, that is not the topic of this thread.

I never stated that Burnett was not guilty of the crime of killing a dog. I stated that I believe a felonious conviction for killing an animal is wrong.

Michael Michigan
07-15-2001, 03:26 PM
russ-

Hmm, I quoted you by copying and pasting, not sure where I mixed anything.

You stated that he was judged and sentenced by a "woman's misery" and "a woman's feelings about a non-sentient organism."

I find no evidence of this.

I did find evidence of a pis*ed off judge who didn't enjoy being lied to.

No need for a felonious perjury conviction. He has already been tried and sentenced under California's animal cruelty laws.

KCWolfman
07-15-2001, 07:54 PM
No need for a felonious perjury conviction. He has already been tried and sentenced under California's animal cruelty laws.

Yes, I suppose you are right, if Machiavellian law is what you are looking for.

Michael Michigan
07-15-2001, 08:46 PM
russ-

:confused:

I didn't know Machiavellian law meant being tried by a jury of your peers and sentenced by a judge within the parameters of the law.

Has the meaning changed? Did I miss a memo?

;)

Not certain Niccolo would appreciate his name being used in this manner.

KCWolfman
07-15-2001, 09:39 PM
Michael - It is obvious that you get some sort of glee out of the case. I'm not sure why unless you are one of those people that regard house kept animals as some higher being than a deer, a snake, or a snail. Regardless, what ever I post on the subject you have a bone of contention against it. I am sorry we disagree on the matter, but I sincerely doubt that you will change my mind on the subject.

You (I will select my verbage carefully to keep you happy) alluded to the idea that the man's sentence was harsh in part due to a supposed lie to a judge. I am positive that extending a sentence on a crime due to lying to a judge is not ethical or reasonable. You then stated there was no reason to charge him for perjury due to the fact that he already received a harsh sentence.

He lied, but he doesn't need to be convicted of lying as he already got a harsh sentence... Machiavelli in spades. The ends justifies the means. It is not a justice system that I want to be on the defending end of.

Michael Michigan
07-15-2001, 10:55 PM
russ-

Those people? :) Your pet snail route was easily thwarted with a legal answer.

Glee? No--If he was here in AZ I would enjoy the fact that he was locked up, only to keep his hothead off my streets.

Change your mind? Nah--I just wanted to point out how you were on the wrong side of this issue.

Machiavelli in spades? End justifies the means? Hardly. The judge had the obligation to sentence this guy to whatever he deemed fit within the law.

To judge him according to the law.

He did.

I'll stop picking on you--just having a little fun.

As you stated to Dan--

"I guess we can agree to disagree."

California Injun
07-15-2001, 11:05 PM
If only this guy went those Arizona boot camps when he was a teen....

Rausch
07-16-2001, 12:44 AM
I was just attempting to contrast weakest to sternest punishments. If convicted, some people get only weekends, some get prison time....


That's all...:D