This is OUTRAGEOUS

One of the Nazi lawyers whose attack dogs ripped apart poor Diane Whipple because she was a lesbian is on the brink of being granted parole! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/01/BAGBD423DJ1.DTL

Welcome to Bush's America -- kill a lesbian with your dog, get less than two years in prison. Talk to someone "suspicious," go to Guantanamo for life.

Democratic presidential candidates should be getting on this immediately and saying it's proof that Bush and the GOP are soft on crime, not "law and order" like they claim.

In an interview with The Chronicle, Schneider said he had urged Knoller and Noel to apologize for Whipple's death.

"They didn't want to," he recalled. "They said it would be kissing ass, or making an admission of guilt."

:mad:

Unbelievable. And people wonder why we march!

I was looking up some information about this case and came across this DISGUSTING site. Oh, my GOD! This is just an OUTRAGE! I'll snip just a tiny bit because it's just too aweful to actually reprint:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/whipplememorial.html

<snip>
Diane Whipple, a filthy dyke, died in her sins on Jan. 26, 2001, as a result of being mauled by two dogs. God used literal dogs to kill a figurative dog - sodomites being likened unto dogs for beast-filthiness (Deut. 23:17, Mat. 7:6, Phil. 3:2, 2 Pet. 2: 7,8,12,22; Rev. 22:15)...
<end snip>

Is this even legal??? How does one go about finding out who the company is that let this DIRTBAG print this horrible filth??? What can we do about this???

OMG... I'm so disgusted I could gag.

<On edit: get rid of that smilie that has no business popping up the middle of something so gross>

notorious pseudo-christian and definite closet case.

We should get a pool of funds up for the first genuine picture of Fred in a compromising position with a flaming drag queen! I'm in for five bucks!!

...and Fred is gonna be rudely disappointed when he gets to the pearly gates and Saint Peter says, "Fred WHO? Hahahahah! Sorry!"

is that the sales of Canario dogs increased substantially when people found out how vicious they are. Go figure.

And here's a lovely photo of the dog's owner. Do you think someone with this attitude on her face will ever express regret?

The jury found her and her hubbie guilty of 1st degree murder and ordered life in prison for both.

The JUDGE overruled them and gave them both crappy little sentences. Now Knoller, less than three years after killing poor Diane, will walk the streets a free woman. Why? I'm sure the fact that Diane Whipple was a lesbian had nothing to do with it. :eyes:

This is why we need hate crime laws. Without them, gay people get the short end of the stick on cases like this.

You think we NEED Hate-Crime laws?!

So, you're telling me, as a straight, white male under the age of 40, my life is worth LESS than Ms. Whipple's life? If someone's dogs maul & kill me, the owners should receive only 3 years in prison for manslaughter -- but if I were gay, or black, or old, they should get 25-to-life for 1st degree murder? That's the very reason we DON'T need Hate-Crime laws...

One life is NOT worth more than another -- whether that person is gay, straight, white, black, old, young, male, female, etc...

Laurence MacNeill
Atlanta, GA

Otherwise everyone would get the same punishment if they caused someone's death, whether accidental or not. Is someone who was dead because of 2nd degree murder worth any less than someone dead because of a 1st degree murder? If I accidently run over someone who ran in front of my car, do I get Murder 1? Does that mean their life was worth less because I don't go to jail, or only go for a short time? Punishment does not always speak to the worth of the victim.

I used to hold that same opinion. But, hate crime legislation acknowledges that sometimes people are killed simply for being a member of a minority. It is a form of terrorism, and enacting special laws for that are necessary and right.

it reminded me of this...



And while these are intended to be cute - some trolls are said to have a nasty spirit... making the match seem a bit closer.

:loveya: well done

because she was a lesbian?

How much time should someone who is convicted of involuntary manslaughter recieve? 25 to life? Perhaps you'd be happier if she had recieved the death penalty....I'm sure Mr. Bush would agree.

But they have already paid the price and received the death penalty. I think that the sentence for the dogs' owners should be some time in jail for owning such vicious animals and not keeping them under restraint.

and I certainly don't think there was intent to kill because the victim was gay.

It was a horrible, horrible accident which could have been avoided; not a murderous hate crime.

The dogs regularly menaced the 98-pound Whipple, when with their owners. Another time, the dog chased her into her apartment and the male in that disgusting couple LAUGHED. The dogs regularly lunged for her, growled, etc. In letters to their adopted Nazi "son" in prison, they joked regularly about the dyke down the hall who was terrified of their dog.

There was a pattern of threatened violence and then the violence happened.

A dog, trained to kill, attacked a poor lesbian woman in a high-density apartment building in a city where attack dogs are illegal. This was no "accident."

This was an accident.

A woman was mauled by dogs, the dogs were put to sleep.....but SOMEONE had to pay; afterall, the 'victim' was a LESBIAN, so therefore it MUST have been a hatecrime.

Enter two disheviled, white trash, easy to demonize dog owners, add immense pressure from gay rights groups, and viola you have a murder trial.

They TRAINED their dog to terrorize this poor woman.

They wrote to their "adopted son" in prison and joked about funny it was to terrorize that "dyke down the hall" with their dogs.

Then, finally, the dog attacked and killed her.

That's murder.

This is not an effort to "villainize dog owners." If you train your dog to terrorize a person, and that dog finally kills that person, YOU ARE A MURDERER. Period.

...but damn it, my partner lives in San Francisco. I also happened to be there when these dogs killed Dianne.

It doesn't matter that Dianne was a lesbian in the end result. These dogs were trained to kill. Dianne and her partner were both terrified of these dogs. Other people in the apartment building were terrified of these dogs. The ruthless owners of these dogs knew they had a couple of weapons with these dogs. The used to terrify people in the neighbourhood with these dogs.

You obviously don't know the full extent of the case, otherwise you would understand, that the whole court case was suspicious, and the killing itself was suspicious.

Now, Dianne happened to be a well respected lesbian in the community. The owners of these dogs did in fact write some slanderous things to their "son" about the dyke down the hall. It also came out that this couple was indeed homophobic.

All the facts are to be found if you read about the story, my friend.

No one is going off about dog owners at all. But these two were irresponsible with their dogs. Since when do you lock such big dogs up in an apartment?

When you have irresponsible dog owners, then this is when these kinds of things do happen.

And for the record, I happen to be a dog lover. I have also been the owner of some dogs, one in particular was trained to not allow anyone on the property without a member of the household present. I certainly was very cautious with that dog, because I knew if she got out, and attacked, it would be my head. And rightly so, I am her owner.

you'd be charged with Manslaughter.

Just like these two were.

...that you specifically trained the dogs to kill and they did exactly that.

Not every dog mauling is a murder, in fact, most aren't.

The dogs are simply the weapon used to commit the crime. Are you really trying to argue that it's impossible that the dogs could have been used as a murder weapon?

the jury's verdict is immaterial, and shouldn't be used over and over again to bolster this argument; the defendants were convicted of Manslaughter. Damn.

When have I said anything about what these dogs 'could' have been used for? I'm saying they WERE NOT used to 'murder' Diane. You however seem to insist that you 'know' that they were. And further that you just 'know' that this was a hate crime directed at Diane because she was a lesbian.

Did they ever walk up to Diane and say "I hate you because you are a Lesbian?" Unless the definition of a hate crime is thinking racist or homophobic thoughts and expressing them to your family, then where is the evidence?

...but they were charged with MURDER. And murder was proven, but the judge backed down.

We are talking about a queer judge here, who truly let down the LGBT commnunity.

Are you queer, my friend?

...if my dog got out, and killed someone, yes I would be held accountable, and charged with manslaughter. BUT, if I trained my dog to kill, and I would terrorize the neighbours with that dog, so my dog didn't know any better. Then my dog out and killed, I would again be held accountable, only this time, I would be charged with murder, because I used my dog as a weapon.

made that way by humans

And the jury found that Knoller DIDN'T call off the dogs when they attacked.

But I guess it's OK to have your dogs who are trained to kill actually kill people. If they're lesbians.

The judge overruled the jury and tried to argue it wasn't murder. So now someone who murdered someone goes free.

The irony being, if someone had stolen Whipple's car, he'd STILL BE IN JAIL. You don't think that's screwed up?

In fact I think the only reason that there was any prison time at all, was because a gay person was killed and the 'defendants' were easy targets.

and saying that the couple did NOT repeated let their dog terrorize "the dyke down the hall" or do you accept that description and still believe that there should have been no prison time?

Read the details of the case below in these short articles on the case:

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=19349

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=19218

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=19365

that who cares whether or not these people thought this woman was a Lesbian, there isn't enough evidence to convince me that they knowingly trained their dogs to attack and kill Diane because of this fact (or any other fact for that matter)......if there was, then it would be murder; in my view it was an unfortunate accident, which should have been prevented. The owners of the dog were negligent and got what they deserved.

For this to be murder there would have to be malice aforethought on the part of the owners, in the absence of such, the most this is is an accident.

I simply refuse to elevate this accident to a murder commited in the name of hate, just because the victim happened to be gay; which is what Brian appears to want everyone to do.

The fact that the prosecutors went with Murder as the original charge comes as no surprise given the climate surrounding the case at the time and the fact that prosecutors routinely overcharge in hopes of getting the defendant to plea out to a lesser charge.

that who cares whether or not these people thought this woman was a Lesbian, there isn't enough evidence to convince me that they knowingly trained their dogs to attack and kill

One of the findings was that the dogs were trained to attack and kill. The question was whether they knew they'd kill even when not ordered. The jury ruled that the constant encouragement of the owners to the dogs to lunge at and menace Whipple amounted to an inducement to murder. The judge disagreed.

It is clear that they knew Whipple was a lesbian, it was also clear they knew Whipple was regularly threatened by the dogs (who regularly lunged, attacked, etc.) They also knew Whipple took a separate elevator just to avoid the dogs.

After the attacks, their lawyer even tried to say Sharon Smith, Whipple's partner, must not have loved her enough to protect her because she knew the dogs were threatening her but refused to change apartments. In other words, Noel and Knoller's lawyer even admitted in court that they knew their dogs were regularly attacking and threatening Whipple, but that it was Smith's responsibility to protect Whipple from being killed by them, not theirs. See this link for more details: http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=19349

Here's a quote:

Judge James Warren chastised Ruiz and ordered her to appear in May to face contempt charges for violating court issued gag-rule guidelines and for publicly attacking the credibility of a witness.

The week previous, Ruiz elicited gasps in the courtroom when she asked Smith under cross examination if she didn't share part of the blame for Whipple's death by not calling in complaints on the animals.

In her closing statement, Ruiz held up a bag containing a bloody, shredded sleeve from the sweatshirt that Knoller was wearing the day of the attack, Jan. 26, 2001. The defense introduced the torn sleeve as evidence Knoller attempted to intervene in the attack against Whipple.

"Why would he (prosecutor James Hammer) hide this from you?" Ruiz demanded. "Maybe he wants to curry favor of the homosexual and gay folks who are picketing at 2398 Pacific (where Whipple lived) and demanding justice for Diane Whipple. Maybe that's his excuse."

Disgusting.

They didn't call in complaints on the animals and refused to change apartments?

Now that's interesting.

It was implied by the defense attorney, who was subsequently chastised by the judge, that the victim's partner refused to change apartments or complain about the animals. Not the victim herself. They are two separate entities.

doesn't matter who brought it up.

If she did all that she could do to report and get away from the dogs, then that's one thing; but if not, then that's something entirely different.

about the fact that no-one did anything to save Diane?

Why aren't you demanding that the property manager be tried for murder as well? After all they could have done something to avert the danger, could they not?

But it was the hatred towards Whipple by the murderers, who encouraged their dogs to attack her, that did her in.

As I posted earlier, the dog owners were both lawyers and we all know lawyers have many different ways to block actions that they disagree with.

Until I know conclusively that the building owners did nothing to try and get rid of the dogs, then I have to assume that legal wrangling temporarily prevented them doing so.

in this thread, I'm surprised assumptions are being considered.

No one seems to question the assumption that these owners knowingly commited a hate crime, and yet there it is, just an assumption.

It's a proven fact in court that was accepted unanimously by a jury who were convinced by the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution and convicted Knoller of murder.

their verdict was thrown out and replaced with the proper verdict.

:party:

When you consider their correspondence and statements to the press, not to mention their association with white supremasists, why would you question their such obvious hate towards the victim? They expressed it quite succinctly in their letters to their adoptive son.

As far as hate crimes go, I see quite a split on this thread. Your assumptions about everyone/no one is as irrational as the assumptions you claim everyone else is making.

Republicans at the moment (I might even be considered a Democratic Supremacist), but it doesn't necessarily follow that I want to see them dead.

Which assumptions of mine are irrational?

I remember following this story as I have a large dog myself and was naturally curious about this whole affair. The one thing that was very odd about this case is that with all of the people that testified about the bad behavior of the dogs, no complaints were ever filed by anyone with the police or animal control. In fact, the mother of Diane Whipple lost her suit against the landlord for that reason. Diane was bitten on the hand by one of the dogs in the days or weeks before the attack that killed her and she never made a complaint to anyone that could be verified in any way. Diana's partner, Sharon, never made any complaints either.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/20/cf.00.html

Carlson - Questioner
Cardoza - Prosecution
Ruiz - Counsel for Defendant, Knowler

CARLSON: But how many reports were filed with the police? None. Animal control? None.

CARDOZA: OK. Let's talk about that.

CARLSON: I mean, you say reports, but are they really reports? Nobody notified the authorities of these dogs' aggressive behavior.

CARDOZA: They don't have to notify the authorities. Let's talk about that. A dog almost bites you, almost bites one of your children? You report that to the police? I was a district attorney for over 13 years. I've tried over 30 homicides, both as a defense attorney and as a prosecutor. I know what happens. You report that to the police, the police go wait a minute. "You're telling me you were almost bitten. Thanks for the report and see you later."

CARLSON: Now wait, Mr. Cardoza, you can blame the police, if you like, but the fact is...

CARDOZA: I'm not blaming the police.

CARLSON: People believe these dogs were a threat to human life, somebody it stands to reason, would've reported it, correct?

RUIZA: These people didn't even phone their -- these people didn't phone the building manager.

CARDOZA: Go ahead, Nedra, keep going. This is like court. They're you go again. Here is what Noel and Knoller knew.

RUIZ: These people didn't even tell the building manager.

CARDOZA: They knew of all the people in the world that there were instances...

RUIZ: How could they know if people didn't complain to them?

CARDOZA: Nedra, they were there, that's how they knew. I know that you might...

RUIZ: They were there restraining the dogs.

CARDOZA: You're right, they were restraining the dog, which put them on notice.

Like I said, you must read carefully. The aspersions that were cast by the defense were aimed at the victim's domestic partner, blaming her for not making complaints. The victim herself did make complaints regarding the dogs.

but if in fact the threat was so real, why didn't the partner make complaints and decline to move out of the apartment next door to such an obvious danger?

Her partner felt that it was wrong and unreasonable to expect them to vacate their apartment because of another's disregard of the law?

Maybe moving would have been safer, but once again, blaming the partner for not wanting to smacks of blaming the victim.

but if I am in the same shoes as Diane and her partner and the threat was as clear and present as is being presented here then I think I would do whatever was necessary to stay safe.

If in fact they didn't feel it was imperative to get themselves out of harm's way by any means necessary, then why should we believe that they felt so endagered in the first place?

That since the victim did not behave as you would have that the incident is her fault? Wouldn't it be reasonable for the victim to believe that the owners would not willingly allow their dogs to maul her to death while one of them watched?

For example, I live in a high crime area in Chicago. I could move elsewhere, but for many reasons, I choose not to. Now, if I'm walking up to my house and I am shot dead by a drug dealing gang-banger who mistook me for another drug dealing gang-banger he's fighting with, is it my fault because I live there? Does it matter if I was a member of neighborhood watch, or if I called police regularly to complain about the dealing on my corner? Does it change anything if I took every precaution possible short of moving to insure my safety? Either way, I'm still dead and the drug dealing gang-banger still killed me.

What you would choose to do in her situation is not necessarily what others would choose. Once again, using yourself as a barometer of reason is not an objective or accurate analysis of the situation.

If not myself and my own experiences?

If I lived in a situation like you do, and for whatever reason didn't get myself out of the line of fire and something happened to me, then on some level I would have to share the responsibility of what happened.

No one is making you stay where you are, and you fully recognize the potential danger of your situation. If in fact you've taken every precaution avilable (calling the police etc.), and still you were not safe, but you neglected to do the one thing that would ensure your safety (moving to a better area), then yes you would be partially responsible for your getting killed.

Kinda like when you know the oven is hot, and yet you insist on touching it....more likely than not you will get burned.

There is no such thing as a safe place, particularly in an urban environment. Bad things happen everywhere and often times, more violent crime occurs in neighborhoods where it is not expected. An example of this is Chicago's recent wave of rapes in two more upscale communities. Your metaphor about the stove would only apply if I engaged in reckless behavior and continued to do so after being hurt. Since supposedly, I exercised caution and prudence, the comparison is not valid.

To follow your arguments logic, then everyone is responsible for everything that ever happens to them, as they could have either been somewhere else, done something different or made a different choice. Unfortunately, we do not live in a vacuum and other people's choices and decisions also affect what happens to us.

It's also very presumptious to assume that I do not have valid reasons for not moving. Since you do not know me or much about my personal situation, you couldn't possible judge my reasons for staying here as valid or invalid. Think beyond yourself your own experience, and try to imagine why someone might choose to continue living in a neighborhood that is considered dangerous.

People have a right to expect not to be shot as they enter their homes, no matter where they live. Women have the right to expect to not be raped, no matter what neighborhood they live in or what clothes they wear. Finally, people have a right to expect not to be mauled to death by their neighbors dogs when they come back from the grocery store. End of story.

I was responing to a situation that you laid out for me in which you painted a picture of living in a dangerous neighborhood and the possibility that living there could result in you being killed because of a mistaken identity made by a drug dealer. I suggested that if faced with a similar situation I would (after having exhausted all other options) leave and move somewhere else where the prevalence of such an event occuring is minimized.

And yes, we are responsible for a great deal that happens to us, and to pretend otherwise is irresponsible.

Further, I could care less about YOUR particular reasons for not moving; you asked ME what I would do in similar circumstances, and MY answer is what you got.

Of course people have the rights you listed, when did I ever say they didn't?

Thank you for ending the story for me, that was very kind of you.

"responsibility" part.

I don't agree with any of his other points, but on this he is, unfortunately, correct.

What people here are confusing is "responsibility" with "blame" or "fault".

We are entirely in control of our lives. Hense the responsibility. It is not the same thing as being "at fault" or "to blame". And I am talking about adults interacting with other adults. It's not applicible to the circumstances of one's birth, or childhood, which one has little, if any control over.

Example:

If I didn't choose to go to a certain ATM, in a certain neighborhood, or at a certain time, I wouldn't have been robbed/raped/or shot. It was my choice to be at that place at that time. It's that simple.

Is it my "fault" I got robbed/raped/or shot? No. Is it horrible. You bet. But I made the choice. It was therefore my
"responsibility".

I can "choose" to stay and fight instead of run, but it is my
"choice", therefore, since no one else can make my choices for me, it is my choice, hence, my responsibility for making the decisions I do. No one elses.

In that narrow definition, BDL is technically correct.

Was it a hate crime. Definitely. These people are monsters.

Instead of insisting on being "right" or fighting for her rights, and remaining in that apartment after the history of these horrible creatures, the women involved are entirely responsible. Doesn't mean they should be the ones to move. They are just responsible.

Did these creatures in effect use these dogs to kill that woman, like a gun or poison or a knife, you bet. They should have been locked away for life. The intent to kill, or at least cause bodily harm, is proved by the refusal to limit what their dogs did, to try to rectify the situation once it began, and to do nothing till the dogs "completed" their task to the satisfaction, yes, satisfaction - the outcome was celebrated, of their owners.

I sure don't. Though I do disagree with you somewhat.

We would be in complete control of our lives if we lived in a vacuum. However, other people can and do affect what happens to us, no matter what we do. How could the citizens of Hiroshima have avoided getting bombed? Sure they could have lived somewhere else, but their choice of residence had nothing to do with the choice of another person(s) to drop a nuclear bomb on them.

Our choices affect our lives, they do not always control them, since we cannot control or at times, even predict what others will do. Whether you like it or not, other people impact our lives, sometimes with devastating effects. Your choice to use the atm in the "certain neighborhood" could have just as easily resulted in no crime being committed. I live in such a neighborhood and use an atm all the time. It was the other person's choice that makes the difference. And you have no control over that person's actions, no matter how much you might wish you do.

Personal responsibility cannot be extended to include other's decisions and actions unless you are expertly able to determine what actions others will undertake and even that is never certain. I may think the guy walking down the street while I'm at the atm is a mugger and make my choices accordingly. It wouldn't mean I was right about him, or that I would be able to stop him from mugging me if he so chose.

It's the victim's fault, she didn't move.

It's the victim's fault, she didn't slam the door.

It's the victim's fault, she didn't force the police to force the perps to stop encouraging their dogs to attack her for their amusement.

It's the victim's spouse's fault, she didn't complain to the police after the victim made numerous complaints.

It's the SF gays' and lesbians' fault, they "forced" the prosecutor (in Los Angeles, NOT San Francisco, where the crime took place) to bring up harsh charges.

It's not the perps' fault, despite the fact they taught their dogs to kill.

It's not the perps' fault, though they took pleasure in Whipple's terror and encouraged the dog to be hostile and attack her.

It's not the perps' fault, though they used to walk their dogs whenever they heard Whipple's door open, to continue terrorizing her.

It's not the perps' fault, despite the fact that the dogs savaged Whipple for 10 minutes before Knoller intervened or called police.

The only innocent people in this case are the poor defendants, who should not take responsibility for their actions. It's everyone else's fault!

Whipple and her partner had made multiple complaints to the police (and nothing was done). They also complained to the property rental company (and nothing was done). The dogs were there illegally (SF law forbids dogs trained to kill), and also in violation of the rental agreement.

Further, I recall hearing that the Whipple-Smith family lived in the building before Noel and Knoller moved in with their dogs.

Nuf said.

The fact that the dogs were trained killers and were known to terrorize the victim coupled with the known homophobia of the couple is enough, thank you, to establish intent. It shows that there was a pattern involved, and these are NASTY dogs we're talking about here. I wonder if you would go up to Diane's loved ones, friends, and neighbors and tell them that this was "an unfortunate accident that could have been avoided."

It says something when in this country someone can get more time for possession of a kilo of pot than murder.

And one of them went off "accidentially" and killed a neighbor.

What's the difference between that and owning two illegal dogs trained to kill in a high-density apartment building in San Francisco?

Why can't more Democrats support personal responsibility in cases like this and understand that yes, it IS murder? The jury had no trouble seeing that fact -- before they were overruled by the judge.

keeping your ass away from a 100 pound 'attack' dog.

So if someone moves into your building down the hall with an ILLEGAL attack dog and menaces you, and you complain and nothing is done, when you eventually are killed, it's your fault and the people who trained the dog to kill, thought it was funny when the dog tried to attack you in the past, and refused to call it off after it attacked are blameless. Great. :eyes:

because we all know that gay people are perennial victims and can't possibly do things like call the f**king police about the illegal attack dog.

I was a f**king accident.

You're right. The dog they trained simply to attack and terrorize the poor woman BECAUSE she was a lesbian finally "accidentally" killed her, but it wasn't because she was a lesbian. OMG.

Not only did Whipple call the police, multiple times, but she also complained to the building owner about the illegal attack animals. Nothing was done. But that's her fault -- she should have just moved (despite not being able to break the lease) rather than have her civil rights respected. And when the trained attack dog who was encouraged to terrorize her finally killed her, it was her fault. OMG.

you actually believe they trained this dog to attack Diane because she was a lesbian?

It regularly attacked people.

They allowed it to attack and menace Diane several times BECAUSE she was a lesbian.

Finally, when it attacked and killed her, they claimed it was an "accident." The jury didn't agree.

These animals were menacing killers trained to kill, who regularly lunged at and attacked people. They were encouraged to menace Diane Whipple, the "mousy blonde" dyke. Finally, they KILLED her.

No offense but you have no idea what you are talking about. In some neighborhoods, the police, animal control, or whoever won't do a damn thing about terrorizing dogs. On my street, the neighbors across me have two huge violent dogs and the neighbors next door have ten to twelve dogs that turn over trash, chase children down the street, and tear up things. The police, sheriff, and animal control said they won't do anything unless someone is bitten or killed. Keep in mind these dogs just roam around the street unrestrained, there is no fence, or whatever. How is it my fault that THEIR dogs run around the neighborhood doing whatever?

Some people think the right to own vicious attack dogs that have a history of attacking people and that murder someone outweighs the right of other people to be safe in their homes and on the streets.

Personally, if any dog menaces my children, me, my partner, or anyone else I see, that dog will end up dead and buried and NOBODY will know what happened to it. After all, look at what happened to poor Diane, regularly menaced by the dog (whose owners allowed it and JOKED ABOUT IT because she was a lesbian).

It looks like I clicked on the wrong name when I responded. I didn't mean to tell you that "you have no idea what you are talking about."

you clicked on the right name.

And you're right, I don't have any idea what I'm talking about.

I agree with.

..if I were your neighbor and a threatening dog disappeared in the neighborhood, not only would I not care what happened to it..I'd help dig the hole.

Communities stick together against threats. That's what America is all about. :)

nothing like clogging up the courts with nonsense and then being pissy when things don't go your way.

Not only was the victum at fault for being killed, according to you, she is also to be blamed because there was a trial.



___
You must be getting quite a kick out of all the attention you are getting for being so ridiculous.

it was the victim's reponsibility to hide in her home.

You're being unreasonable. Her right to not be threatened, lunged at, menaced, and mauled to death unfairly trumps the rights of dog owners. :eyes:

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

but the original post to which I responded referred to personal responsibility, which means taking responsibility for one's actions.

Whenever I see a giant dog that doesn't look particularly friendly I stay away form it......lo and behold, I haven't been eaten by one.

That that would be rather hard to do in a small apartment hallway with the dogs living two doors away from your door.

While I don't necessarily believe that all the assessments of the case that are being recounted here, I do believe that there was intentional malice in the dog owner's actions before and during this woman's death. Whether it was because she was gay or because of some other random reason, I couldn't say.

Having read extensively about the case, I do know that the victim did contact authorities regarding the animals, as well as complaining multiple times to the landlord and property managers. I think to suggest that she should have merely just "stayed away" from the dogs is unrealistic at best and offensive at worst. In an urban living situation, it is relatively impossible to avoid your neighbors. Suggesting that it was her fault by not getting away from them is frighteningly similar to suggesting that a rape victim is responsible for their rape, since they were wearing provacative clothing, or walking in the wrong neighborhood. Blaming the victim tarnishes us all.

According to the defenders of the dog-owners, the fact that Whipple is a lesbian has NO RELEVANCE -- until the actual case. Then they screamed their heads off about how the evil Pink Mafia was forcing the prosecution to persecute these two fine, upstanding citizens and encouraged the jury to send the powerful "gay and homosexual" lobby a message by acquitting them.

Lovely.

Their attorney was quite a piece of work. She appeared willing to say anything to get her face on the evening news. She was truly revolting.

I do remember quite a lot of letters being introduced into evidence that mentioned the victim's sexuality. The dog owners were white supremasists, so I would have to assume that they pretty much hated anyone except themselves.

While the victim was a gay woman, I would tend to believe that it could have just as easily been a black person or any a member of any other group they considered "sub-human". To me, that's the soul of the problem with specific hate-crime laws. Isn't all murder a "hate-crime"?

sounds about right.

I am (was) wrong.

If in fact as you suggest Diane contacted the authorities, landlord and property manager then why is none of this 'murder' blame being spread around? The above mentioned people were clearly in a postion to make sure that an accident such as this never happen, so why did they do nothing?

Or should all of the blame rest on the shoulders of the dog owners?

My experience with lawyers has been that they are excellent at dragging things out and eventually getting what they want. Who knows what legal maneuvers they pulled to keep the dogs in their apartment?

Just so you know, I am still torn by my feelings towards this case. Being a responsible dog owner, I do tend to blame the two lawyers for the victim's death. I do agree that animal control and the property owners should share some of the blame for allowing the couple to reside in a two bedroom apartment with a couple of dogs that are larger than many people.

From what I gleaned about the couple, they were very much in tune with their dogs (somewhat too in tune, if certain pictures of the wife and the dogs are considered) and knew fully what their dogs were capable of and encouraged it. Legally, I don't know if that constitutes murder, but emotionally, it sure feels like it to me

Emotionally yes, it does feel like they should be more responsible than they were found to be, but in reality (and according to the law) they were not.

I think this is why people react so strongly one way or the other when this case is brought up; it's sad when someone dies accidently, especially when it was senseless and could have been easily prevented.

Perhaps I'm arguing semantics, but I don't feel that this really qualifies as an accident, since the dog owners were fully aware of the violence their dogs were capable of and appeared to welcome and encourage it. Perhaps "gross negligence" or "manslaughter" is more appropriate.

1) Trained their dogs to kill. . .

2) Encouraged their dogs to attack Diane Whipple and took great pleasure in her fear because she was a lesbian. . .

3) Claimed that when the dogs attacked and killed Diane Whipple (as they were trained to do when attacking) that it was an "accident."

Some "accident."

involuntary though it may have been, they were still found guilty in the death of another human being.

I think they got what they deserved, not less.

Doing nothing except watching for ten minutes while your dogs viciously maul another human being could be construed to mean they wished her harm and/or death, couldn't it?

but having never watched my dog rip apart another human being, I have no idea what was going through the owners head, or why nothing was done; any idea put forth regarding what was going through her head is a guess.

But to answer your question, I believe it was involuntary because there was no evidence to suggest that these particular owners planned to end the life of another person via their dogs. Having dogs that could potentially cause great harm doesn't make you guilty of anything. If those same dogs do indeed cause such harm, then I can see how you could be sentenced to manslughter....which is what happened in this case.

The dogs chewed and bit and tore for 10 minutes, with Whipple's shrieks echoing throughout the apartment. Knoller sat and watched, and didn't try to intervene until after Whipple was dead, at which point the dogs tore at her sleve.

Whipple's windpipe was crushed and bitten through by the dog that Knoller and Noel taught to kill and then encouraged to growl, lunge, and attack Whipple every time she went outside of her apartment, in an effort to terrorize her due to her sexual orientation.

as you've illustrated, complete with a vicious wild-eyed 600lb trained killer dog, what would you have done to end the attack? Was not the owner also a woman and not a 230lb man?

Should the owner have smacked the dog with a newspaper to end the attack?

. . . calling off the 140 lb dogs before they attack the 98 pound woman?

Or calling the police and asking for help, rather than leaving a passer-by to call the police?

The reason she didn't do the former was because Knoller was letting the dog attack, lunge at and intimidate Whipple as she and Noel normally did. They enjoyed seeing her scream and run away -- they got a kick out of teaching that lesbian a lesson.

It's just that day, rather than just growl, lunge, and bite a few times as usual, the dog killed her.

your numbers keep changing.

First the dog weighed 120lbs, and now it's up to 140; you also keep referring to Diane as weighing 98lbs and yet in one of your links she was reffered to as weighing as much as the dog (120lbs). Not that that's incredibly important or anything but it does get on one's nerves, just not nearly as much as your constant references to the 'fact' that Diane was killed because she was a Lesbian.

Heal thyself.

Though it's telling you jumped to semantics when I suggested that Knoller's refusal to call off the dogs led to Whipple's death. That's what the jury decided too, since Knoller and Noel let the dogs often run free or loose-leashed to terrorize Whipple.

Who cares what the Jury thought? They were (correctly) overturned by a Judge who objectively looked at the facts of the case and corrected what would otherwise have been a miscarriage of justice. The jury was probably filled with people like you who see a hate crime everytime someone cuts in front of you in line at the grocery store.


PS I only mentioned the 600lb dog because I wanted to help you gain more support for your agenda. ;-)

maybe even jumped on it, screaming in its ear to 'STOP'. This is assuming that they wanted the person to live.

I own a very mean dog, he would probably kill anyone that jumped the fence in my backyard. If this were to happen and lets say I was outside and saw it...and did nothing...then I let my dog kill someone for trespassing. Should I be charged?

I feel that there was plenty of evidence to suggest that they intended their dogs to harm people. The dogs were in training to attack and kill, add that to their extremely aggressive nature (as testified to by their breeder) and their owner's encouragement of it, I do believe there is adequate reason to assume that the owners intended their dogs to behave as weapons, specifically to attack and kill tresspassers.

Possessing the dogs was not the crime they were being tried for, allowing and encouraging their dogs to commit violence is. They were shown to consistently either command, encourage or allow their dogs to harm other people and animals. This hardly makes the consequences involuntary.

I do believe that manslaughter was the correct charge, as murder in this instance would be very hard to prove. However, they stated, in writing, that they were encouraged and were pleased by the dogs' threatening and violent behavior, particularly where the victim was concerned. I believe that negates any "accidental" or "involuntary" judgement. Obviously, your feelings may differ. Legally, dog owners are considered responsible for their dog's actions, particularly if they are the cause.

to attack and kill trespassers, and training a dog to kill a defenseless neighbor. People buy large dogs very often with the idea that such a dog will protect them.

The trouble is, that what they're intent in obtaining such a dog is hard to prove on way or the other. It's highly questionable that they bought the dog so it could kill Diane. There is no question that having one of these dogs is dangerous, especially in an apartment where the dog will have to come in contact with other people.

Being pleased that their dog acted 'mean' toward other people in no way negates the 'accidental' or 'involuntary' judgement that these two had to face. If I bought what I thought was going to be a guard dog for the express purpose of protecting my home and family, and every time it saw a stranger it's tail began to wag and it only wanted to kiss someone to death then I'd be fairly disapointed.

The dog was allowed and encouraged to attack Diane. The dog was trained to guard meth labs and to "sic on command." It wasn't trained to kill only Diane.

They encouraged it to attack her regularly because she was a lesbian, which is why Knoller was so "shocked" when it started to kill her. She allows it to attack as usual, and then acts shocked when sooner or later, as is likely with any violent animal trained to kill, it decided to kill.

In the letters written to their convict "son" and conversations they had with others, the Noel/Knoller couple regularly bragged about how the dog had the little lesbian down the hall in absolute fear, how the dog used to lunge at her, bite her, and menace her to the point where one time she lost bladder control -- just a few weeks before it killed her. But they were "shocked" when the dog took their encouraged attacks to the next level they trained it to do? Give me a break.

That you have not bothered to read the court transcripts as of yet. The dogs were trained to be far more than guard dogs, they were trained to be killers. There training included commands in Germans, so that no one but the owners could call them off, were they to attack. They were also trained to attack and kill at their owners' command.

This is well beyond what is expected of guard dogs, which are trained to attack and repell tresspassers and attackers, while being quite able to wag their tail and kiss someone to death, if that person is not perceived to be a threat.

Bane and Hera's owners were fully aware of what their dogs were, they made them that way. They may not have bought the dogs so that they would kill Diane Whipple, but they did buy them so that they would kill someone. Why else would one of them stand by while their dogs mauled their neighbor to death?

to kill Diane, but that they did buy the dogs to kill someone? Another Lesbian perhaps?

Are you further asserting that they stood by and watched one of these dogs maul her to death beaming in the pride of a job well done? The completion of their mission? The culmination of their Dark Master Plan?

I had assumed that you were well informed about this case. I see that I was mistaken and apologize for confusing you.

If you care to take the time to read the court tv transcripts, the many myriad articles in the San Francisco Chronicle, NY Times, etc., etc., regarding the "extracurricular" activities of the dogs' owners, as well as their incarcerated adoptive son, then perhaps we could discuss this further. Unfortunately, since you don't seem to be aware of the background and details of this case, it is really pointless for me to continue to argue with you.

For if you had read the transcipts, evidence and public statements made by the couple, you would know that they did indeed take great pleasure in the misery their dogs inflicted
and bragged about their actions.

And yes, being white supremasists, it is reasonable to expect that the did actually have a "dark master plan" as you so sarcastically put it. As a matter of fact, "dark master plans" seem to be their modus operandi, wouldn't you say?

Either way, I've had enough of this argument. I prefer to discuss and debate with people who do their homework, rather than just keep spouting reheated libertarian anger. Peace out.

I feel so...so...defeated.

Make sure you check under your bed prior to going to sleep tonight, there might be a group of Gay Bashing White Supremacists with Really Big Dogs under there waiting to do you in.

But since I'm white, heterosexual and have my own dog, I don't see that I'm in very much danger.

BTW, libertarian criticism is not libertarian hate. It is a very inefficient debate technique to cry "hate" or "bashing" every time someone expresses criticism, as I'm sure you've already discovered.

Sayonara!

It would seem that for me to have Libertarian anger (or Libertarian anything for that matter), I'd probably have to actually be a Libertarian. In the abscence of such a political leaning I'd have to confess that I have no idea where you got that from.

But I do appreciate the label.

Sayonara to you too!!!!!

:hi:

Read the transcripts.

Interview the neighbors and victum's partner.

You just don't get it.

And I'm not happy that Hinkley is getting out, either, for the same reasons.

and then doing little or nothing to prevent them from killing anyone, and in fact even using them to induce fear, is, at the very least, manslaughter. People have been convicted of murder before, for the very same thing. A woman had a rotweiler (sp?) who killed a little boy. The dog had been specially trained to kill, and had repeatedly gotten lose and the woman had been told to reinforce the fence containing it. She did not, and a little boy died. She was, i fact, convicted of murder and got quite a lengthy sentence. Was it the parents fault for not moving? People have a right to live without fear of being mauled by a dog, period.

If you're going to have a trained attack killer dog, it is your responsibility to take every precaution to make sure they are safely contained, and also not live in a close environment such as an apartment building where doing that becomes more difficult because of close proximity to other people. If you don't take those precautions, and someone dies because of it, it is NOT an accident, it is gross negligence, in the same vein that driving drunk is.

Someone holding a killer attack dog that they allow to attack other people because they're blind or gay and which eventually kills someone it attacks is like a drunk driver. Both claim their own actions aren't responsible for the situation and that "it was an accident."

Both are usually rightly convicted of murder when they kill someone too.

And the argument of some on the board that such a ruling "hurts the rights of dog owners" is like saying drunk driving laws "hurt the rights of alcohol drinkers." It is a bogus argument.

The defendents were guilty of manslaughter, and manslaughter is what they got.

do you keep insisting that this was merely an accident? You seem to think, and in fact stated, that the dogs being put to death should have been enough punishment. Also, their sentence was reduced to nothig, which negates what they were convicted of. What is the point of sentencing someone if they aren't going to do the time?

I think that Involuntary Manslaughter fit the bill nicely, for which they are doing time.

I keep insisting this was an accident because that's what it was.

why would you agree with the manslaughter charge?

You keep insisting this was an "accident". Do you really think the owners had no responsibility to make sure this didn't happen? Do you really think they took every precaution, and an unfortunate event happened anyway? Look, I know accidents happen. Sometimes, despite our best efforts, bad things happen. But, that isn't what happened here.

The owners of those dogs needed to do either one of two things after the first menacing threat happened. They either needed to get rid of those dogs, or move to an area where they weren't in such close proximity to other people. They didn't, because they didn't CARE that those dogs were terrorizing others. They were indifferent to the fact that they were putting other's lives in danger. They even stated such in a letter. Then a death happened. It was THEIR fault! Not an accident. Not an unfortunate incident. It was a grizzly death that should have easily been prevented by the owners.

Main Entry: involuntary manslaughter
Function: noun
Date: circa 1879

: manslaughter resulting from the failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life, from the commission of an unlawful act not constituting a felony, or from the commission of a lawful act in a negligent or improper manner

Makes sense no?

and why did you say in another post that you thought the death of the dogs was enough? Why do you keep insisting it's only a accident? Man, are we going in circles here. You still haven't addressed why you think it's only an accident. You seem to think that the owners are merely the victims of unwarranted prosecution. After all, it was their dogs, not they themselves, that actually killed her. You've been contradicting yourself.

Frankly, I disagree that this is even a case of manslaughter. In the absence of those letters gleefully mocking and taking joy in the fact that the dogs were terrorizing her, I would agree with it. But, I really think it goes beyond that. I think they were intentionally terrorizing her with those dogs. I don't know if they actually intended for her to be killed, but it was clear they didn't care. If you beat someone up, and they die as the result of the injuries, you still get socked with murder. Not manslaughter. Therefore, I think the case could have been clearly made that they intended to harm the victim. In harming her, a death resulted. Therefore, they are murderers.

this isn't murder because no-one planned Diane's death. If so, it would have been murder. Since no one planned her death, and yet she died because of the actions or inactions of others it is manslaughter.

Noone said these people were good people, wanting to terrorize someone with a dog isn't nice, but it doesn't mean they planned to murder her. If you suggest that because they enjoyed instilling fear in someone through their dogs makes them guilty of murder then you'd make a poor prosecutor.....you would need actual evidence.

You can think whatever you want, if you think they are murderers, great. I don't and neither did the judge.

Like I said before, if you're committing another crime and someone dies, whether you intended for them to die or not, you've committed murder. In most places, if you do something with complete disregard for whether or not it can kill somebody, that's a type of murder. Intent is not always required for murder. You are flat out wrong. It's not a matter of me "thinking whatever I want". That is a fact. You and the judge happen to be wrong in this case.

If this had been the first incident, particularly if the owners hadn't made their pleasure known about the terror they were inflicting, then you'd have a stronger argument. They would certainly still be negligent, however,but not to such a criminal extent.

She was a lesbian so what? Was she killed because she was one? no. She just happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time. If your upset because the crime doesn't fit the punishment, thats one thing, but using thes tactic is shameful on the gay community.

Just my two cents.

The fact that someone who murdered another person got less than three years in jail is "sensationalism"?!?

Unreal.

I'm starting to be glad I've moved to the UK, if this is the attitude in the United States towards violence against gay people.

What does being a lesbian have to do with it? Can you at least please answer that question?


on edit: Matthew Sheppard was outrageous, this is just nonsense. You do know who Matthew Sheppard is don't you?

But you don't have as many straight women having sentences of their murderer reduced because, as Nedra Ruiz said, "their community is determined to put these innocent people in jail."

Have you read clips from the letter the male wrote to his "son" in jail, joking about how his dog has the "mousy dyke down the hall quivering with fear"? Anyone who does that to ANYBODY should go to jail.

The reason he did that to poor Diane wasn't because she was a woman -- it was because she was a woman who lived with and loved another woman.

God, it pisses me off so much when people pretend that anti-gay violence doesn't exist. That dog was trained to kill her and allowed to lunge at and terrorize poor Diane for MONTHS, because she was a LESBIAN and they thought it was funny to terrorize a lesbian.

"That dog was trained to kill her and allowed to lunge at and terrorize poor Diane for MONTHS, because she was a LESBIAN and they thought it was funny to terrorize a lesbian." this is probably rhe biggest untruth I have seen on DU.

Being part of the Gay Community that happens to be fighting "in America" for Gay rights, what you have stated isn't mentioned anywhere. If you have anything to prove me wrong please feel free to share it with us.

The reason the jury found them guilty of murder was because there was a pattern of them allowing the dog to lunge at and menace Whipple. They even bragged in letters to their convict-in-prison adopted neo-Nazi son about how funny it was.

If you have anything to prove me wrong please feel free to share it with us

I always have to do work for other people. But OK:

http://eatthestate.org/06-13/NaturePolitics.htm

One letter from Noel to Schneider expresses amusement at an attack by Bane on a blind woman. Another ridicules Whipple as "a mousy little blonde," who was terrified of Bane after an earlier confrontation.

This dog had a history of attacking Whipple AND numerous other people. This was not a one-time deal, and in several letters, Noel chuckled about how he was able to scare the little girl down the hall with his dog.

But it was an "accident."

it was involuntary manslaughter.......not really an accident, but not murder either.

Whipple was decribed as "a mousy little blond", not "a demonic lesbian that must be destroyed". Murder....right.

Who heard the case and decided, unanimously, that it was MURDER.

But I'm sorry you think that Knoller should spend less time in jail than someone who smokes a joint.

I just disagree with you.

If it's your kid or spouse or friend or you who gets attacked by a dangerous dog who is trained to attack after being terrorized by it for a few months, with the owners writing letters talking about how delighted they are that their dog has that Democrat down the hall all scared.

hopefully the dog owners won't figure out that I'm a lesbian, because if they did they'd most certainly train their dogs to kill me.

They'll just let it menace you until it finally does kill you, joking the whole time about how terrified of it you are until the "unfortunate accident."

a 'mousey blond'?

Do you think I'll have any chance of survival?

Me, I wouldn't allow it to go that far. After just one lunge at my partner, child or other person in the neighbourhood, that dog would "mysteriously disappear," never to be seen again (except by some worms) and I would know nothing about it. Nothing at all.

for animal cruelty.

When did gay people become so hostile to animals?

The moment the dog attacks humans, it's dead. Period.

If you own a creature that attacks other humans, don't move into my neighbourhood. Your right to be a dog owner does not trump my right and my childrens' right to walk the streets free from threats by a slathering sharp-toothed beast.

And you'd never find the body to prove "cruelty" either. I will let you in on a little secret -- irresponsible dog owners who allow their animals to attack people are VERY unpopular. I'd have a lot of help and nobody would talk.

were put to sleep.

Sorry that's not enough for you.

As this thread goes on you seem to be getting more and more bloodthirsty, what with all of this 'dog-killing' talk.

The irresponsible owners knew they were ticking time bombs and should spend the rest of their lives in jail for murder.

It's ironic that someone who accuses me of "bloodthirst" would excuse people who trained their dogs to kill, regularly let them attack people, and then acted "shocked" when the dog finally killed.

I happen to think human life is more valuable than animal life and the rights of people to be secure in their person are more valuable than the rights of irresponsible people to own savage, killer-trained animals in an inner-city apartment high-rise.

you just seem overly excited at the prospect of killing dogs.

You should just go out and kill dogs whenever you get the chance, that way we can all sleep more soundly at night knowing that the 'Anti hate crime dog killer' is keeping us safe.

I guess in your neighborhood you'd be the first one to go see when someone puts up a 'Lost Dog' sign.

I'm curious what you would do in the following situation.

You and your wife are regularly terrorized by a large vicious dog trained to kill. The dog is owned by your neighbors, who think it is all really funny. You've called the police and they won't do anything about it. Moving is not financially an option for you. What do you do? Brian_Expat would kill the dog himself. Lacking any other alternative (I would refuse to live in terror), I might do the same. What other alternative am I missing?

Weighs more than your partner/spouse, and regularly lunges, bites and attacks your spouse to the point where (s)he has to take a separate elevator to avoid meeting up with the dog.

And that your neighbour thinks it's hilarious you're afraid of his trained killers, joking about your sexual orientation, or race, or religion, or some other characteristic in letters to a convict in prison when he brags about the attacks.

and if you really want to, go ahead and kill the dog you are being terrorized by if that's what you think you need to do....you would then be a Hero, and an accident such as the one that happened in San Francisco would never have happened.

You are just being willfully ignorant and obtuse.

Dog threatens me or my children or my family that results in injury - it's gone - not surrpetitiously, or secretly, but then and there. It's a former dog. End of story. I will not wait for another incident.

But then again, here in Vegas, the local authorities all agree wtih me. That dog is history. And I own the all the assets of the jerkoffs who trained such a monster.

lesbian? Were all the numerous other people lesbians?

Talk to the hand because the rest ain't listening anymore.

So I'm not that disappointed.

Of course, the fact they're bigoted against the handicapped as well and encouraged the dogs to attack them automatically absolves them of motive in the one death their out-of-control killers caused. :eyes:

That actually has fact in it that can be proven. Untill then...

This statement Of course The name has been withheld, just to get a response & to be able to post those back over here.

The statement "God, it pisses me off so much when people pretend that anti-gay violence doesn't exist. That dog was trained to kill her and allowed to lunge at and terrorize poor Diane for MONTHS, because she was a LESBIAN and they thought it was funny to terrorize a lesbian."

Let me know when the people from IndeGay Forum show up. :)

A wonderful gay site.

Wow. I'm sure we'll get great commentary from there.

I've posted on Playboy.com to get the heterosexual perspective too! :eyes:

Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. :eyes:

It is adult Gay men that get together to talk and not just about porn either. I do happen to know that a couple of the members are also members here on DU.

Once again...

Badpuppy.com is a pay site, is this a pay service? If so, please provide a link to the forum in question, I'd be interested in checking it out. Surfing through the site, all I see are efforts to sell porn.

The reason he did that to poor Diane wasn't because she was a woman -- it was because she was a woman who lived with and loved another woman.

Bullshit. Your attempting to pass off conjecture as fact lessens the importance and impact of acts that actually are targeted against individuals because of their sexuality, when they occur.

God, it pisses me off so much when people pretend that anti-gay violence doesn't exist.

It pisses me off when people cry 'wolf' and there isn't one.

I would just like to point out not all are crying Wolf. Seems to be just one here. As a Gay man I find it shamefull!

Who thinks it's OK to menace lesbians with dangerous dogs?

The dog regularly menaced and lunged at Whipple.

Noel and Knoller ENCOURAGED it because she was a lesbian. They joked about it with friends and in letters to their "son" in jail.

Surprise, surprise, the dog eventually got free and killed her.

men in white coats outside your door... they are there to help you... they are nice men and won't hurt you... just listen to what they say... yes, they are taking you away for awhile... but it is to help you...

place, was because of the attitude in the United States towards violence against gay people.

If Diane was a black heterosexual woman, you would never had even heard about this.

Here comes the gay-baiting. The Pink Mafia made this a court case! :eyes:

I LOVE GAY PEOPLE!!!!!

If you actually believe that the fact that the victim was a Lesbian had nothing to do with this case and it's high profile, then you are being really dishonest.

If she wasn't a Lesbian, then it wouldn't have been a hate crime and you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.....it would have been what it was; and unfortunate accident.

Owners are liable for the actions of their dogs. When the dog is trained, and encouraged too target one individual, that dog knoows what is expected of him. If Whipple was a straight man who was killed by Bane and Hera (nice cuddly names, aren't they?), his wife could expect to collect damages...the only thing about this particular trial that made it famous is the fact that Whipple's partner wasn't married to her, because gay people aren't allowed to marry, and that challenged the rule for damages, and/or justice in the wrongful death of a spouse.

Knoller let it happen. Shhe stood there in that hallway, and did nothing while HER dogs killed that woman. But then of course, it was all just an "accident", wasn't it?":eyes:

it was a cold-blooded pre-meditated murder, by gay hating Nazis.

:eyes: right back at 'ya.

Until the judge stepped in and decided to override the verdict out of a soft-on-crime focus.

I've provided links, and everything I said in the previous post is in the court transcripts. If you refuse to believe that, or deny any vindictive motives, when it was all part of the evidence presented, then it says a lot more about your attitudes than our Brit friend here.

"Let's cry for the poor, ignored straight guy. These gays are taking over the airwaves.":eyes:

Why don't you come right out and say that she deserved what she got?

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

Bush has introduced mandatory laws that would jail pot-smokers, "suspected terror assisters" and car theives for longer than a person whose illegally trained attack dog murdered someone IN FRONT OF THE PERSON.

You don't think that's outrageous?

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

I am attacking the climate he has created in the US that says "smoke pot or interact with someone we think is a terrorist, go to jail forever, kill someone, no big deal."

I'm a little worried that more Democrats aren't worried about this trend.

I can't believe the media missed this, those dogs were trained to kill lesbians! Your "law and order" remark, is even funnier.

As written in their letters to their "son" in prison, who made fun of her fear of the animals.

One day, the menacing dogs got free and killed Whipple.

Oh, but it was an "accident." Unreal.

Your points are clear as a bell to me.

I am just sad that so many Democrats, including "gay men" are willing to overlook violence against gays and handicapped folks AND irresponsible dog owners who allow their crazed beasts to maim and kill other people.

I've owned dogs in the past and I understand that my right to own the animal does not overrule the rights of other people to walk the streets safely. I also understand that the actions of my dog are essentially MY actions. I don't understand why that's such a scandalous concept for some.

No more than the actions of a child are 'essentially' the actions of the parents.

What really bothers some people (well me really), is that just because the victim in this case was gay, an accident automatically becomes a hate crime against gays.

I'm just surprised that the National Alliance of People with Mousey Brown Hair aren't up in arms about this obvious hate crime directed at them.

I can't say if it was 2nd degree murder, very least it was willful indifference, and I find it incomprhensible that the owner had so very little control over the dog, that she did nothing to stop it. Having lived next to unfriendly straits, I can see a case for murder, since much of the venom is un voiced, but obvious to the target.

In letters and conversation according to multiple witnesses.

Their attorney Nedra Ruiz tried to play the gay card and paint Noel and Knoller as victims of the Pink Mafia. These people were just despicable.

Check out some of this coverage of the case if you want to be sick:

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=19349

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=19218

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=19365

If Diane Whipple or her partner had killed this dog after it menaced Diane but before it killed Diane, the dog-killer would probably still be in jail, under "animal cruelty" laws!

This case is a banner example of why we need legal reform in this country.

Legal reform and all....hopefully cases like this won't waste the time of our legal system once it's reformed.

With proper legal reform, these dogs would have been destroyed LONG before they killed someone else. Preferably after their first attack on someone.

this ACCIDENT would never have taken place.

The "accident" was a direct result of training dogs to attack and encouraging aggression against humans by the dogs against a poor woman who weighed less than the dogs.

Like I said, if you think it's perfectly OK for your dog to attack people, don't move into my neighbourhood -- your dog will disappear before an "accident." And that's not just me.

A neighbourhood I lived in in Montréal ended up putting down a dangerous pit bull the authorities wouldn't touch after it ripped almost all the clothing off of a poor 5-year-old. Fortunately, it was winter, so most of the damage was confined to the clothing, and the poor kid took only a few bites to the face.

The owner was irresponsible, let the dog wander and threaten others, and refused to control it. So my dad and a few other neighbourhood men went out, and after they came back, the dog was never seen again. They're heroes as far as I am concerned.

fit; just make sure that the poor animals you kill aren't gay because then you'll be faced with a hate crime trial.

just make sure that the poor animals you kill aren't gay because then you'll be faced with a hate crime trial

Well, well, well, I think I've found the core motivation here. Buh-bye.

you're leaving? I was having so much fun.

Then again, you did find me out......I'm squarely on the side of rabid lesbian-killing attack dogs.

Reveal true intent.

You think I'm in favor of performing hate crimes?

Is that what you're suggesting?

C'mon... I know he's the bane of all evil, but don't blame stuff on Bush that he has no control over.

And that's reflected in the lack of proportion in our laws.

Just my theory. "Bush's America" is a place where you get 20 years for stealing a housewife's SUV, but only two if your dog trained to kill rips apart someone.

and I haven't seen one shred of evidence even connecting Bush to this case... or even one shred of evidence saying he even knew it was going on. Why would a president of the United States waste his time on some insignificant case like this?

. . . under the Bush administration, IMO.

I am very fearful for gay friends of mine in the USA, particularly friends who don't live in major cities. There's a definite uptick in anti-gay violence there -- both times I got bashed were after Bush came to power -- and both times happened in the "gay friendly Bay Area."

plus, Bush isn't the first president to cash in on fear... look at America throughout the last 60 years!

Believing Bush to be evil... that's fine. I do. But don't connect him to every little issue in America. And Bush isn't inspiring gay violence. If you can show me some evidence, then fine. But until then, save the conspiracy theories. :D

Oh my god! Michael Jackson is arrested! That's Bush's fault...:eyes:

I've already illustrated how the climate has changed for GLBT people in America since Bush's ascent to power. This is just more of an example of those changes.

Further, I thank you not to accuse me of "conspiracy theories," considering the graphic in your sig. ;)

are you arguing against me ;)

plus, there's a lot of credible evidence suggesting war in Iraq is about oil...

also, my sig line is a joke :D

I'm not sure if the climate against GLBT has changed towards the right in America... in fact, I tend to agree with Michael Moore in "Dude Where's My Country" when he says America is as liberal as ever.

I know the mass media likes to scare the hell outta everyone, but be realistic here. In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy laws in Texas (among other states)... and gay marriage is being talked about as a major issue (with it becoming legal in more states as we speak). How do you support your opinion that America is becoming more anti-gay?

Just Curious. :D

The victories in liberal places like Massachusetts are wonderful advances and I am thankful for them. The victory in the SC was actually opposed by a majority of Americans, unfortunately!

And there's a definite uptick in anti-gay sentiment, attacks, etc. out there. It's scary.

Did you know after the SC ruling, most Americans think homosexuals should be illegal? It's true, unfortunately -- and that's a change from before the Supreme Court ruling -- the latest polls show a "backlash" with a majority saying we should be illegal and a strong majority of white men saying the same. :(

personally I think it's pure propaganda from the corporate media... perhaps there are margins like that in South Carolina and the rest of the Bible Belt... but I don't agree with the notion that the majority of America wants to lock gays up.

sorry, but I just don't agree with your pessimistic view of the direction America is heading in terms of tolerance of homosexuality. My generation (I'm 23) is much, much, much more liberal than older generations. And I don't see a drastic change any time soon.

So yes, I believe them. Just like I believe that the UK and rest of Europe is a much more tolerant, equal and free place these days, based on both polls and my personal experience.

by loudly complaining that everyone doesn't immediately recognize everything as a hate crime.

Nice.

but true.

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

;)

I could understand if this were a federal case being handled by John Ashcroft... but it isnt'... and he's nowhere near it. Plus, the Bush junta have more important things to do... like planning the New World Order and locking up and/or deporting more muslims.

"The New World Order"?

And you folk are accusing ME of lunacy? :wow:

;)

You mean Clinton wasn't responsible for the death of James Bird?

I mean it DID happen when he was in office, AND it was a hate crime.

Or do you deny this?

PS -- Gay people are accustomed to being referred to as "loons," "crazy," etc. so don't think that's going to dissuade me. :)

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

George Bush isn't responsible for it... and things are getting better in America. That's my point. Did I miss something? Was America a bastion of tolerance and happiness, and then Dubya took office and turned us into West Texas? Matthew Shepherd was murdered during the Clinton years... the events surrounding the movie "Boys don't Cry" happened during the Clinton years. And even though such cases received more public attention... such cases have GONE DOWN in the past few decades. And increase in "hate crimes" in the past few years can't be blamed on Bush, necessarily. We're in tough economic times (which can be partly blamed on Bush), and poverty and increased fear and uncertainty are far greater catalysts to crime than an ignorant dope of a president.

Plus, it's not that I don't agree with "hate crimes" legislation. It's that I don't understand why it is necessary. I mean, if someone brutally attacks someone, or commmits murder... what difference does it make what the motive is? Why should the punishment be worse for someone who beats up a gay person because they are gay, rather than beating someone up because they owe money... or commited adultery... or stole something.

It's not that I don't want harsh punishments for "hate" criminals. It's that I want harsh punishments for ALL criminals. ;) Why give the other one's an easier time just because their motives weren't bigotry and hatred?

George Bush isn't responsible for it... and things are getting better in America. That's my point. Did I miss something? Was America a bastion of tolerance and happiness, and then Dubya took office and turned us into West Texas?

After years of advances, Bush got elected.

Now we're facing more federal anti-gay legislation, a majority of Americans saying gays should be illegal (up from a minority during Clinton's last few years), an upswing in hate crimes, and more hostility towards gays (and immigrants, arabs, muslims, Jews, etc.)

Whether Bush is a cause or a manifestation of the deeper problem is less important to me than recognizing it's a problem.

If anything, you just conceded we were seeing more PROGRESSIVE legislation and that public opinion was what was changing. Which is it?

Plus, if you are like most Dem's here. Bush wasn't "elected". America wanted Gore.

Even IF you are correct about the increasing "climate" of hatred... which I don't buy... blaming Bush is even more of an absurd assertion. And you haven't presented one bit of evidence supporting anything you've said. ;)

oh... a few polls by the corporate media... blah... give me something with some substance.

this isn't anything new... :eyes:

none of this crap will pass, anyways... not even a constitutional amendment for marriage would pass.

These guys are declaring war, and Bush is with them all the way. Bush definitely supports the legislation of what I speak, which sorta validates my points about how his administration is creating a hostile climate for gay people.

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

Legal discrimination is.

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/opinion/polls/main589551.shtml

The public has reversed itself on the overall question of same-sex relations. Half now think homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be legal -- a reversal of opinion from the summer, when a majority of Americans thought they should be legal.

. . . snip. . .

At 49 percent, the percentage that thinks homosexual relations should not be legal is the highest recorded since the CBS News/New York Times Poll started asking the question in 1992. As recently as July, 54 percent thought such relations should be legal, while 39 percent thought they should not. Now, 41 percent think homosexual relations should be legal.

Slightly more than 50% think homosexuals should be illegal, versus just 41% who think they should be legal. This is a major change since the Clinton years.

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

They were used by his partner's estranged family to clean out the apartment and take everything from him, despite the fact that his partner's estranged family hadn't talked to them for 15 years. When his partner died, he was a legal stranger to the law, and the judge was more than happy to let his partner's family make his life a living hell.

Bush adroitly gobbles up the less extreme Dems who just can't see voting for someone as radical as Dean

If you're stupid enough to vote for Bush, you deserve him. Gay people are survivors, we'll last. I just don't want to hear any whining when all those Democrats who vote for Bush lose their jobs, schooling and health care.

Duplicate deleted.

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

As to whether or not I'd find a hostile climate if I were to walk through your downtown holding hands with you (Yes, I'm male), all I can say is that that's really unfortunate and one day I hope you can walk through any street in America and hold hands with another man without feeling any hostility.

But in the mean time, I cannot, because of. . . the hostile climate!

I just don't see how it has anything to do with Bush.

Oh, I dunno. . . he's said we're "sinners," his CDC has ceased funding any anti-HIV program that caters to or mentions gay men or gay sex, he's advocating an amendment to the constitution that would make gays permanent second-class citizens, he's advocating the removal of funds from secular treatment facilities and giving those funds to "providers" who refuse to minister to gay people, etc.