Verdict Reached in Dog Road Rage Case - Page 5

Rick Stephens · 07:11 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.

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

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

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

[B]PRECISELY[/B]

Now, how in the world can we jail someone on what a pet [B]MEANS[/B] 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 [B]NEVER[/B] 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

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

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

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Logical [/i]
[B]

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 [i]the two actions show different levels of disrespect[/i] 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. [/B][/QUOTE]

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.

06-19-2001, 01:42 PM
Rick Stephens #1 Chiefs Collector Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Garden Grove, California Casino cash: $10004900	Verdict Reached in Dog Road Rage Case 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. Last edited by Rick Stephens; 07-13-2001 at 07:11 PM..
Posts: 291

07-14-2001, 01:16 AM	#61
KCWolfman Fall down 7 times, get up 8 Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	Brad - If that is the case, then Jesus Christ had no reason to die as well, did he? __________________ How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! Samuel Adams
Posts: 15,469

07-14-2001, 01:25 AM	#62
Logical Screw U if U can't take a joke Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	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.
Posts: 31,579

07-14-2001, 01:34 AM	#63
Logical Screw U if U can't take a joke Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DanT [/i] [B]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............ [/B][/QUOTE] 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.
Posts: 31,579

07-14-2001, 02:09 AM	#65
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4091711	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.
Posts: 4,251

07-14-2001, 02:20 AM	#66
KCWolfman Fall down 7 times, get up 8 Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	Brad - [QUOTE]I don't think the question is "what ARE animals or pets", but "what do those animals or pets MEAN to their owners." [/QUOTE] [B]PRECISELY[/B] Now, how in the world can we jail someone on what a pet [B]MEANS[/B] 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 [B]NEVER[/B] 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. __________________ How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! Samuel Adams
Posts: 15,469

07-14-2001, 02:35 AM	#68
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4091711	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. Last edited by DanT; 07-14-2001 at 02:38 AM..
Posts: 4,251

07-14-2001, 02:56 AM	#70
Logical Screw U if U can't take a joke Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	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.
Posts: 31,579

07-14-2001, 03:01 AM	#71
Logical Screw U if U can't take a joke Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DanT [/i] [B]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. [/B][/QUOTE] 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.
Posts: 31,579

07-14-2001, 03:03 AM	#72
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4091711	Brad, Assume that you have complete discretion (i.e. all necessary laws to inflict your idea of a fair punishment are in place).
Posts: 4,251

07-14-2001, 03:17 AM	#74
Logical Screw U if U can't take a joke Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	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.
Posts: 31,579

07-14-2001, 03:18 AM	#75
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4091711	[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Logical [/i] [B] 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 [i]the two actions show different levels of disrespect[/i] 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. [/B][/QUOTE] 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.
Posts: 4,251