Verdict Reached in Dog Road Rage Case

[Rick Stephens]

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.

OJ killed two human being and he didn't even spend a night in jail. What do you know? This is America after all...

"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]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KCWolfman [/i]
[B]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. [/B][/QUOTE]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[QUOTE]My dog is a member of my family and is treated as such[/QUOTE]

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 [B]EXACT[/B] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.