Verdict Reached in Dog Road Rage Case - Page 9

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 · 07-15-2001, 07:54 PM

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

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

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

07-15-2001, 07:54 PM	#121
KCWolfman Fall down 7 times, get up 8 Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	[QUOTE]No need for a felonious perjury conviction. He has already been tried and sentenced under California's animal cruelty laws.[/QUOTE] Yes, I suppose you are right, if Machiavellian law is what you are looking for. __________________ How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! Samuel Adams
Posts: 15,469

07-15-2001, 08:46 PM	#122
Michael Michigan scribe Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	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.
Posts: 2,762

07-15-2001, 09:39 PM	#123
KCWolfman Fall down 7 times, get up 8 Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	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. __________________ How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! Samuel Adams
Posts: 15,469

07-15-2001, 10:55 PM	#124
Michael Michigan scribe Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	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."
Posts: 2,762

07-15-2001, 11:05 PM	#125
California Injun Bucs 48 Raiders 21 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: San Andreas, CA. USA Casino cash: $10004900	If only this guy went those Arizona boot camps when he was a teen.... __________________ I just made $13,000 on the Chiefs!!! Once they win the Super Bowl I'll be counting my winnings. (13:1 @ Lake Tahoe Horizon Sportsbook).
Posts: 522