Woman Gets Criminal Record for Petting Dog

From Guardian Online:
Friday March 12, 2004 1:46 PM


SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - All Tamar Sherman wanted to do was pet a dog and give it some water. Sherman's act left her with a criminal record. A few months ago, Sherman was walking near her South San Jose home and encountered a dog left outside in the cold while its owners were inside. Sherman, a member of a national group called Dogs Deserve Better, decided to pet the dog on a few occassions and once gave it water. That didn't please the dog's owner.

``When I went out there to fill up the dog bowl, this woman was standing in my back yard,'' attorney Ron Berki told the San Jose Mercury News. ``My response was, `Who ... are you?' She told me, `I'm here to pet your dog.'''

For that, Sherman pleaded guilty this week to two misdemeanors - trespassing and prowling - and was sentenced to 75 hours of community service and a year of probation. She also was ordered to stay at least 100 yards away from Berki's home. ``I just wanted to find out if a dog that seemed to be in distress was OK,'' Sherman told the paper. ``I do not think my actions were a crime in comparison with abuse or neglect of animals.'' Berki denies that his dog, Bailey, was abused or neglected, saying the dog sleeps inside with him every night. ``If Miss Sherman was so concerned about my dog, it would have been easy to come to my front door and speak to me directly,'' he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3852832,00.html

Now here's a mess for Arnie to sort out....

But Ms. Sherman sounds like a real fucking loony-tune. "I'm here to pet your dog"??? I agree with the complainant: If she was concerned about the dog she could have knocked on his door. Failing there, she could call state authorities.

This nut was a hairs-breadth away from a dog-knapping. What a skootch!

There was a lounge thread earlier this week.

Would she have said, "I'm here to pet your pussy?"

Just asking...

My daughter goes out of her way to say hello to dogs and cats whenever she gets an opportunity. Does that make her a nut who should get a criminal record?

Some people on this board need a sense of perspective. Or maybe just some sense, period.

:grr:

san jose just doesn't get very cold so this rationale is bs. the dog's owner is quite correct.

...the elements. This is about people who have dogs and leave them outside all day, ignoring them.

Dogs, being pack animals, crave companionship, and to deny them that companionship can be just as cruel as physical abuse.

I aplaud Sherman for attempting to make the doggie's life a little brighter, and condemn the owner of the dog for gross over-reaction.

First, in order to be convicted of trespass, you have to be told to leave the premises, and refuse to. If the guy came outside, saw her, told her to leave, and she did, it's not trespass unless the property was posted no trespassing.

Secondly, she pled guilty, which means she admitted to being guilty of both charges.

In my state, property does not have to be posted for you to commit trespass. You may only enter my property unsolicited long enough to seek permission. She didn't enter the property to seek permission. She entered the property to pet the dog. Whether or not the law is the same in her state, she showed a disregard for her neighbor's property rights. If the dog was in distress, then she should have called the police. If she was truly interested in the dog's health, then she should have befriended her neighbors and sought permission to visit with the dog as she desired. She could have offered to check in on it during the day when they were at work.

I would have to question her motives, were she my neighbor.

He does not get along with my other male (the outsider is an alpha) and because he is a collie w/ long hair, I did not have the time or money for a long time to groom him. He had acquired deep traumas from the home he was rescued from by the Colie Rescue; and at least he was better off than before. He is still making progress, but it is slow. I am in Tennessee and this dog has experienced weather down to 18 degrees but he has a house, a big thick fur coat and a temperature control waterer.

It amazes me how many dogs are ignored by their owners. Dogs are highly dependent on interaction from their owners, being pack creatures. I think Berki went w-a-y overboard by having Sherman charged with trespassing, when all she wanted to do was make his dog happy.

My neighbor has a dog who is tied out all day long, and no one plays with him. Sure, my neighbor brings him in at night, but the poor dog is out all day long without any sort of companionship. I've gone over and played ball with him, and fortunately my neighbor hasn't complained, although she's home and must know I'm doing it...

that the "dog petting" was not just an excuse to case the joint before a potential burglary? Show up in my yard, uninvited, and I might do the same as the man in this story.

Of course not, so, unfortunately your point is moot. :hi:

The owner over-reacted, probably embarassed that his neglect was exposed...

homeowner knew that she was not going to do so before the fact, how?

If someone is standing in my yard petting my dog, I would say hello, NOT automatically assume they're trying to rob me.

The dog's owner let his paranoia get the best of him, if he believed she was "casing" his house...

"cases" a house, one does not bring burglar's tools with them. How does a burglar look? White? Black? Male? Female? Anyone could look like a burglar. The point is, the homeowner doesn't KNOW what her real reason for being in his yard is; therefore he may think it prudent to have her charged with trespassing. That is all.

...could be a potential burgular. Do you have them all arrested for trespassing?

is a lot different from being IN MY BACKYARD!

...on someone petting your dog is NOT an over-reaction.

Did she steal from this guy? Did she vandalize his property? No and no... She merely pet his dog.

She did trespass but the state oversteped by charging her with prowling.

the state didn't have to prove their case.

This makes me think that either the woman was very stupid (to plead guilty) or there was something else going on.

She'd have gotten the same treatment from me. There's no way she can know how much interaction the dog got. Unless she really was prowling.

Poor mut fondled by a canine good samaritan....

Perhaps she has a mental problem. If there was animal abuse, why would she not call the proper authorities? How would petting the dog and giving it water 1 time be the appropriate response? What gives her the right to trespass? Who does she think she is, the Rainman?
"Who are you and what are you doing in my living room"..."I'm Raymond, 3 minutes till Judge Wopner."

:eyes:

Because she thinks she can just tresspass on other folks' properties becuase their dog is outside.

...did she vandalize his property? Did she steal anything from the dog's owner? No... she was merely petting his dog. Having her arrested for trespassing is a gross over-reaction. I've stopped and petted dogs that were chained in yards. Are you saying I have a mental problem by doing so? :eyes:

right to do that? And that the owner can ask you to get your ass off his property? What happens if the dog bites you? Are you gonna then sue the owner?

...as he has the right to have you arrested for trespassing. I'm not arguing the legalities of this, just that the owner of the dog grossly over-reacted.

This woman apprached the dog knowing that a dog bite was possible - I doubt she'd sue the owner for that. Nice try at a straw man, though...

it's a valid point. Don't trespass on people's property to pet their dogs.

...the gist of my post was that the dog owner overreacted, not about his legal rights, which he was well within his rights to have her arrested (but, given the lack of threat by the dog-petter, the dog owner overreacted).

However, it sounds to me that his ego was bruised because someone was being kinder to his dog than he was, so he thought he'd get even by having her arrested.

when he saw the woman in his yard...

I agree.. he did overreact, given what has been posted on the story. Now if there is much more to clarify the dog owner's experience, then I'd like to see that.

she's gone into his yard repeatedly (the article states she did so) and he told her not to, but she kept doing it anyway. When he found her on the porch, that was too much for him so he had her arrested.

This scenario fits all available facts.

pah-leese! not in this sue happy society. people have sued over less than that! trespassing is trespassing regardless of the intent!

...but you cannot say for sure she would definitely sue if she were bitten, so I was correct in displaying doubt about whether she would sue.

Logic... :hi:

Her insurance company would force her to sue(or sue on her behalf) for medical compensation so that they wouldn't have to pay for it themselves. (On edit: that's how insurance companies work. To get the full benefits you're entitled to, you almost always have to sue.)

In fact, my local hospital asks if anyone else may be responsible/liable for your injuries when you visit. It appears that they will force the issue as well, wanting to make sure they get compensated for costs associated with your care.

Whether or not she would sue for damages beyond physical care is another issue entirely. But she certainly has that right. Just as the property owner has the right to protect himself from claims by trespassers.

You also don't know what has gone on in the past between these two neighbors. What may not appear in the article is the fact that these neighbors have long-standing issues and his charging her with trespass was an attempt to draw an unmistakeably concise line between them.

the yard must be posted "no trespassing" in accordance with state law, or else she had to have been asked to leave and refused to.

Just stopping to pet a dog isn't trespass, UNLESS either of those two conditions were met. If I found you in my yard petting my dog and asked you to leave, I'm sure you'd leave. But if you refused to leave, I'd be within my rights to have you arrested.

My guess is, walking up someone's front lawn to their front door, etc, is not tresspass. Entering their backyard via a gate or over a fence probably is. In this case the local courts agree with me.

If you think it's your legal right to just enter anyone and everyone's back-yard without permission....well then more power to you. My guess is you're going to get arrested or shot in no time flat. And yes, if you go around doing that...you're nuts.

...to file a complaint. I'm sure he knew exactly what his rights and options were, given that he's an attorney. My entire argument for defending this woman has been, throughout this thread, based on an opinion that the homeowner overreacted to the woman's kindness to his dog. Man, some people even went as far as saying that the woman was mentally ill for showing kindness to a dog she thought was being ignored. If I thought a dog was being ignored by its owner - and there's not a big difference between physical abuse to a dog and emotional abuse, in the form of separation anxiety a dog feels when its being ignored by it owner, due to the intensely "pack" nature of dogs - I would do the same thing. It's called compassion and kindness, not mental illness...

And, this is purely speculative on my part, I can only assume why he felt he had to press charges. One - his ego was bruised because someone thought he wasn't being good to his own dog. Two - by filing a criminal complaint, he can set himself up to later file a civil suit against her (maybe he's one of those "creative lawyers" like the ones at FauxNews who sued Franken over the "fair and balanced" thing), or three - he might've wanted to protect himself from possible civil liabilities.

Of course, I'm willing to say that my judgment on this subject might be biased due to the fact I'm a dog owner who loves his dog.:hi:

You know I think some of my Daughters classmates in school don't get enough attention from their parents, but that doesn't give me the right to INTRUDE ON THEIR FREAKING PRIVACY!!!!!

If psycho-lady had a beef she should have reported it to the appropriate authorities. The lady is a freaking idiot in case you haven't figured it out by now. She had no right to do what she did, period.

I am saying perhaps she is simply simple. You have no right in my yard, you have no right to feed my dog, you have no right to play with my dog. What if the dog had bit her? Would I be responsible?

At best her actions and attitude was naive.

P.S. I would be interested in seeing the legal definition of prowling.

In that case the owner was neglecting the dog. Lots of people have pets that should not have them.

This dog owner should have civilly questioned Sherman, and upon learning she is essentially a neighbor... and gotten to know her better. So both sides are amiss here.

What came out of it? Alienation and an excuse for the most incarcerated society in the world to manufacture another criminal.

Guardian readers are concerned about this type of thing because they know Blair has turned America into a religion, and that he is taking the U.K. in this direction.

Is that you don't enter another's property without permission. Most of us learned this at age 5 or 6.

Is that you don't enter another's property without permission

Your Honor, the prosecution rests.

COMING IN FROM THE COLD

ADVOCATE PROMOTING INDOOR HOMES FOR DOGS

By Renee Koury

Mercury News


Tamar Sherman couldn't stand seeing the Australian shepherd penned up all day in the tiny back yard of a condo near her San Jose apartment. The skinny dog barked constantly and whined pitifully.

Finally, Sherman worked up the nerve to knock on the owner's door.

``She said it was her uncle's dog, that he just left it with her, she didn't want it and it was incontinent in the house,'' Sherman said. ``People who chain their dogs, they all have reasons why they can't bring the dog into the house. But it's so cruel to the dog.''

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/7386070.htm

I doubt I'd press charges, but if a woman were with my dog, on my property and without my knowledge, I'd probably be quite pissed.

Yea, I'd be irritated. But I would try to solve the problem without pressing charges... for example... giving a warning... "Do this again, and I am going to press charges for tresspassing."

Why waste tax payer money on court and police costs as the first resort?

If she does this again somewhere else or is caught breaking into a home, then that establishes her record.

Frankly, I would have come out into my yard and chased her away with a gun -- of course I live a long way from a police station.

I think it was stupid and intrusive, but had it been me, I don't think it would have necessarily been criminal, so I wouldn't have seen the need to establish a criminal record.

But then we have folks cut across our land regularly, go mushroom hunting on our land (which both drive our dog nuts), and don't consider it criminal tresspassng. Unless it is a serious problem - I see no need to waste taxpayers dollars on trivial things.

OK, trespasser means me harm -- bad result.
Trespasser is injured -- sues me, bad result.
Trespasser steals dog -- bad result.

then one reacts accordingly.

Not my frame of reference. Me: what the heck is going on?

Silly that I even think such a rational thought.

Me: this person must mean to harm me, sue me and steal my dog... I must take pre-emptive action and get criminal charges so it can serve as this person's "first strike" and maybe if they have two other minor violations in todays society than can be thrown in jail permanently... and if there was no danger to me, my property, or my dog... oh well... it coulda been so still better start the motion (and charge all the costs to all of my neighbors through taxes) towards 3-strikes!

Someone who comes through my gate, into my yard and is messing with my stuff is automatically assumed to be trespassing. The question isn't whether they are acting illegally or not. The question is how far they intend to go since they have already broken the law.

I wouldn't do it to others and expect, no, demand the same in return.

even if its over nothing. We live in such fear today. Damn shame.

You are putting words into my mouth. I said I would assume she was a criminal since she had already committed the crime of trespass. Shooting, likely, would not be needed.

used the phrase... though some on the thread have expressed the more literal meaning of the phrase.

And yes, I'm sure the outcome of that does seem odd (if not draconian) to many outside the U.S.

They are well aware we are turning into a prison society, you know. These incidents (and your attitude) reinforce that view.

Pretty much most of the world accepts the right to property. Even "Communist" China has private property.

...and the fascist 'assume hostile intent' attitude that goes with it.

The answer to one extreme is not to embody the other.

It's actually quite rational. The woman had no right to be where she was. She knew it. That leaves two possibilities. She was either very stupid or up to no good. Either one means I don't want her in my yard.

It is not absolutist to expect a certain amount of respect of your rights.

then remind me never to make you angry! :evilgrin:

I am African-American male living in a rural area. People don't just happen by into my yard. If they do, then they are up to no good. And when I lived in the city, it was much the same. People in your yard meant theft at best.

I identify with your situation; when I read about you running people off your lawn at gunpoint I knew exactly what ya meant.

It comes down to rationality, rights, and a black-and-white decision.

Despite what your rights are, that combination of law and attitude is heavy handed and profoundly anti-social.

And I will come right out and say it: The American system sucks. Culturally and legally, arrest is the answer now for all sorts of situations that are essentially victimless. Americans feed their own fear, and cannot manage conflict well; the desire and the skills generally aren't there.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She trespassed and invaded someone else's property. She is the bad guy here, not the homeowner.

This was NOT a victimless crime. As a crime victim (car stolen, home burglarized once), I can tell you that you become more cautious and intolerant of additional criminal acts.

The answer for crime is and should be arrest.

We have four dogs. They have a huge, fenced dog run with a dog house inside the run. They have a doggie door into the garage, where they have a fenced area with their food, water and a heated, raised platform to lounge on. PLUS, they have access to the entire backyard, which is also fenced. When we're home, they're in the house with us.

Our dogs are safe, happy and well-cared for.

Nonetheless, some anonymous "do-gooder" decided that wasn't good enough. So the city came out, left a report (saying basically that everything "appeared" OK). Then we had to confirm receiving the report, show proof of registration, vaccination, etc. Grrr...

These people simply have to have a "cause" to draw attention to themselves, and animals make a good project for them. These people become "victims" by proxy, and make everyones life a living hell including the animals. Trouble makers and busybodies are not well liked anywhere in the world, and before they start trying to run other peoples lives, they should to try to grasp one of their own.

That lady is a whack job. We all know similar whack jobs. If one cannot see that she is a whack job, then you too my friend are a whack job.

This guy is over the top. He is the one who needs help.

But if you go over to someones back yard and offer the little kids a glass of water and some food, and then try to "pet" them,,, I think you'd get a severe lesson on "boundaries"

eom

People who think there's something wrong with this woman because she cares about the wellbeing of dogs...ugh.

It would be a helluva lot better world with more Shermans and fewer Berkis.

I thought most of the people here were against trespass (a criminal act), not caring for dogs...

Even on DU, if the concept of absolute property rights is challenged, people turn into instant freepers. Sue your neighbor for walking into your back yard and petting your dog.

What's not clear is whether Sherman was asked to stay away and them came back. It doesn't seem that way.

I think the Brits reading this will see an anti-social Rightwing response toward a non-threatening social situation.

I am legally liable for this soft headed fool. I also have worked very hard to both purchase the property and the animal. I also am taxed daily for the "privelidge" to own both, through property taxes and licsence fees. I also am liable for the health and wellbeing of my animal.

If she cares about animals so much BUY ONE. Stop acting like a feebleminded child and running into other's yards because "I want to pet the doggy" popped into her mind.

...calling her feeble-minded? :shrug:

I guess you have to know dogs lovers to understand where this woman was coming from (I'm a dog lover, so naturally I feel empathy towards her and the dog) and still feel the owner overreacted to an act of kindness towards his pet.

without asking permission. This is an act of respect. Some people do not allow others to pet their animals. Some are training them to be protective of house and home. Others, like seeing eye dogs, should not be petted by strangers because they are "on the job". There are numerous reasons for someone not to take it upon themselves to trespass and feed someone else's animals. Respect is but one of them.

I have a feeling you don't know this judging by your adamant defense of her.

Agreeing to disagree - some people don't mind if someone pets thier dog, others do, I guess... :hi:

It's impossible to know a stranger's intentions before they act. And she had set precedent before by knocking on a neighbor's door when she thought their dog was in distress. Why didn't she do it here? There's more to this story.

...is a consumer transaction.

Why does there have to be ANY blame here? Trespassing doesn't HAVE to result in a criminal charge.

I would much rather have neighbors being nosy than cops.

Is this law going to be peculiar to Cali. or a generic law? Thanks.

If your dog is chained up in your fenced yard, and hasn't bitten anyone, you're not responsible for an adult coming in and getting bitten.

if you trespass into somebody else's yard and get bit, the owner of the animal IS liable.

An adult enters a fenced yard and is bitten by a chained dog?

If that's the case, the twerp--a lawyer--was really taking a big risk, wasn't he? Leaving the dog outside when he's home and the dog could be indoors, I mean?

or just in a fenced yard?

It would most likely fall under the category of an attractive nuisance, the same as a quarry or lake.

I'm wondering if he had his property posted.

a very HIGH fence a sufficient deterrant to the dog's urge to roam.

Here's another article: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/2004/03/11/news/8158715.htm
According to it, she pled because she didn't want to risk jail time if the judge was anti-animal welfare (and given the sentence she got from him, that seems like her caution was justified).

As to the 'attractive nuisance' thing, I'd always been under the impression that attr. nuis.s only apply to children--that adults are considered to have better self-control and a sufficient appreciation of danger. ("There is normally no particular care required of property owners to safeguard trespassers from harm, but an attractive nuisance is an exception. An attractive nuisance is any inherently hazardous object or condition of property that can be expected to attract children to investigate or play (for example, construction sites and discarded large appliances). The doctrine imposes upon the property owner either the duty to take precautions that are reasonable in light of the normal behavior of young children--a much higher degree of care than required toward adults--or the same care as that owed to "invitees"--a higher standard than required toward uninvited, casual visitors (licensees)" http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/attractive-nuisance-doctrine.htm )

"Sherman, a member of a national group called Dogs Deserve Better, decided to pet the dog on a few occasions and once gave it water. That didn't please the dog's owner."

b : inclined or intended to injure or exploit others for personal gain or profit <predatory pricing practices>

same time everyday. We do this with Jessie everyday. If someone were to walk by our house everyday at that time, i.e. a parent picking a child up from the bus stop, they could possibly come to the conclusion that we leave Jessie out all the time. Which is not true. I would have a problem with that person coming into my yard. Think of my liability if that person were to be bitten. Many times it would be a story of Sherman suing Berki then. Do I think the judgment is a bit much, sure...but I'm okay with the stay away part of it. Just my 2 cents. :hi:

mind your own business! I would have had her arrested too. She actually should be glad that the home owner didn't shoot her.

let her go. Maybe she's a Democrat they want to prevent from voting.

don't prevent voting. That's what she pled guilty to.

the owner overreacted also if this was based on one incident. She shouldn't be marching into people's yards and petting strange animals. And how does she know the dog didn't have water? What if the dog had attacked her? Would she then have tried to sue the owner? OTOH once the owner sees that the woman is just concerned about the dog's welfare he should have thanked her, explained how he takes care of the dog, and let it go. But if she has been making a nuisance of herself and the dog is being well cared for, then this may have been the only way to get her off of his back.

One other thing about this story that is kind of goofy - It doesn't get that cold in San Jose so I don't see how that could have been a problem for the dog - maybe the reporter just added that part to "spice up" the story?

but I definitely would have turned the hose on her. A good hose-soaking should focus her mind to respect other people.

the two parties (all the attorney had to to was TALK to the woman and establish a cause) the extreme is taken. I know some people are just plain hostile (would love to shoot someone on their 'property'), but really...why didn't he just ASK her, "hey look - I'm really taking good care of my dog, if ya wanna pet it in the future than ring the door bell." I guess people in this day and age would rather hate than love. :(

...people feel the need to disrupt each others lives , I guess.

It's not like the dog was howling or hurt. Some people are getting a bit bold, imo.

99.95 no ups no extras