Wherever laws restrict guns, the laws create an incentive for citizens to have vicious dogs that are big enough to take down the meanest, largest home-invader or street mugger.
Where laws don't restrict guns, an owner's usual incentive is to own a small dog that only serves to scare away an attacker, or to alert the owner, or to assist the owner, so that the owner can defend himself with a gun. An owner's usual incentive is to have a dog that is smaller than the owner, so that the owner can physically control the dog, if it attacks an innocent human.
Anti-gun nuts reverse the incentives and cause big dogs to become poor substitutes for guns. Real guns don't fire themselves, their triggers have to be pulled. Big dogs fire themselves, and sometimes for no reason, even when the owner is doing everything that is physically possible to stop the dog. Big dogs have legs and can travel independently of any owner.
Anti-gun nuts create another incentive to own guns: for protection against
big dogs. And their owners. Too bad Diane Whipple wasn't carrying a gun.
Libertarians believe that self-defense (and the second amendment) is a fundamental
human right. http://rexcurry.net/bigdogs.html
People v. Marjorie Knoller appeal http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S134543.PDF
Dog Maul Case: The California Supreme Court decided unanimously to send
back to the Superior Court the case of Marjorie Knoller’s second-degree
murder conviction. In January 2001, Knoller and her husband Robert Noel’s
two Presa Canario dogs mauled to death 33-year-old Diane Whipple in the
hallway of their San Francisco apartment building. Knoller and Noel were
originally charged with manslaughter and both paroled from prison in 2004.
If the second-degree murder conviction is restored, Knoller might spend
15 years to life in prison. The court held that, in granting Knoller's new
trial motion, the Superior Court had set the bar for "implied malice murder"
too high, but in reversing that order the Court of Appeal had set it too
low. The remand directs the trial court to reconsider in light of the Supreme
Court's clarification of the standard.
San Francisco Chronicle article http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/01/BAGIPQ5KE51.DTL
for more info on gun rights see http://rexcurry.net/guncom.html
for more ideas on liberty visit http://rexcurry.netBy Rex Curry, 3/25/2002 2:23:56 AM
San Francisco prosecutors abandoned a child-endangerment case Tuesday against the woman whose 12-year-old son was mauled to death by the family's pit bulls after she left him home alone with the dogs.
The decision means Maureen Faibish, 40, will not face a retrial on charges that could have sent her to state prison for as long as 10 years for the death of her son Nicholas on June 3, 2005.
A San Francisco jury deadlocked July 31 after deliberating for more than two days, with 10 of the 12 panelists favoring acquittal on a charge of felony child endangerment against Faibish. A 7-5 split favored conviction on a misdemeanor charge.
Assistant District Attorney Linda Moore told Superior Court Judge Anne Bouliane on Tuesday that prosecutors had nothing new to present in a second trial, and that a second hung jury would be "a possibility, perhaps even a likelihood."
Faibish was not present during the brief hearing. Outside court, her lawyer, Lidia Stiglich said her client was "very relieved'' that the case is over. "I'm confident the D.A.'s office gave this matter due consideration,'' she said.
Faibish has moved to Oregon with her husband, daughter and younger son. She has been free on her own recognizance since shortly after her arrest in June 2005. Stiglich said she was going to "call Maureen up in Oregon and let her know it's done.''
The prosecution had argued during the trial that Faibish ignored warning signs that the family's two dogs were a danger when she left Nicholas alone in their Inner Sunset District home so she could attend her daughter's school picnic.
Putting the boy in a basement with food and video games, but no working toilet, and instructing him not to go near the dogs constituted criminal negligence, prosecutors said.
The boy had been bitten earlier that day by the Faibishes' 70-pound male pit bull. Nicholas had a learning disability and had difficulty following instructions, and his mother should have known he was unlikely to stay in the basement as she asked, the prosecution contended.
The defense, backed up by statements from family friends, neighbors and an animal behaviorist, portrayed Faibish as a loving mother who cared for her son and had not known that leaving him alone would put the boy at risk. They said the dogs had been involved only in minor play-type bites before.
A majority of jurors in her two-week trial concluded the prosecution had failed to show that Faibish knew there was a high likelihood that her son would be seriously injured or killed if she left him with the dogs, the standard for a felony child-endangerment conviction, one of the jurors said afterward.
Faibish told authorities after Nicholas' death that the family's male dog had been agitated because the female was in heat but was refusing to mate with him.
She said that she had given the boy a shovel to prop the basement door shut against the dogs, and that he had snack food to eat and video games to keep himself entertained. When she returned to the family's home on Lincoln Way after nearly three hours, she found the boy's body in an upstairs bedroom.
by Jaxon Van Derbeken at sfchronicle.com
There are two definitions of the phrase "drug dogs":
1) Dogs used by police to sniff drugs and arrest people for recreational non-violent activity between consenting adults and;
2) Vicious, loud, obnoxious, threatening, barking dogs used by drug dealers to threaten violence against non-consenting adults (those victims are often people who live near the drug dealer). http://rexcurry.net/dogs-barking-nuisance-training-ultrasonic-control.html
There have been many examples of drug dealers using dogs to protect themselves. Many are convicted felons who have had their 2nd amendment rights removed due to their supposed potential for violence. They use dogs as substitutes for guns (on a similar topic see the Diane Whipple case).