It’s a rainy afternoon and I am still mulling the conviction of the San Francisco attorneys whose dogs killed a neighbor in the hallway of their apartment building.
Court TV aired only opening and closing arguments and reading of the verdict, between which legal experts debated endlessly the merits, probable outcome, ramifications and, ultimately, the prospect of appeal.
Most of those experts were not in the courtroom to hear the testimony on which jurors based their decision. They did know of certain other bizarre facts, withheld from jurors, that came from the Grand Jury, which indicted the couple on five counts: both were charged with owning a mischievous animal that kills a person and involuntary manslaughter.
The wife, Marjorie Knoller, was also charged with second-degree murder, as she was in charge of the dogs at the time of the attack. Her husband, Robert Noel, was not there.
I’m still having trouble with legal terms like “mischievous.” To me, a mischievous dog is one that chews your slippers, digs up your bulb garden and maybe harasses the cat.
The defense protested the dogs, named Bane and Hera, were friendly, harmless pets, who were welcome in local shops when walked on leash by Noel. The jury wisely recognized that even a vicious dog could have its moments of friendliness and charm.
Jury selection had been arduous. Hundreds of prospective jurors filled out questionnaires designed to weed out those who would be prejudiced against dogs, dog owners or the victim. However silly the questions may have seemed (Have you ever donated to an animal rights organization? Have you ever been snapped at by a dog?), the result did justice to the system.
Jurors afterward said they didn’t believe Knoller’s testimony and they did believe 30 witnesses who testified they were lunged at, bitten, or otherwise intimidated by the dogs. Experts testified Knoller’s injuries weren’t consistent with her story that she tried to protect the victim by throwing herself over the body. Demonstrated dramatically, if ineptly, by defense attorney Nedra Ruiz flinging herself on the courtroom floor. If the dog was on top of the victim, how could she have gotten between them? And if she could pull the dog off, why didn’t she pull him back into her apartment? None of it made sense. Another juror said the defendants didn’t seem like very nice people. That’s like calling Mike Tyson a bit nippy. The couple’s conduct before and after the attack seemed exactly what the law describes as “depraved indifference.”
This was not a “dog-bite” case. What that 120-pound Presa Canario did to that woman was not a bite. He attacked, knocking her down, grabbing her by the throat with such force that her windpipe was crushed and her jugular vein severed. I do believe Knoller could not stop him. I also understand that she might have been afraid to try. What I don’t understand is that neither of them showed any remorse, either at the scene (when she might have been in shock) or later when there’s no explanation for their cold response. They tried everything to put the blame on the victim: She provoked the attack by wearing perfume. She could have just gone inside her apartment and closed the door.
“That’s what I would have done,” Knoller said.
Of course, it’s hard to get inside your flat when a dog that weighs more than you is sitting on your chest tearing your throat out.
In the last few weeks, other dog owners have been sentenced to jail in dog mauling deaths of children. In Wisconsin, a couple’s six Rottweilers killed a 10-year-old girl while she played with their daughter. In Kansas, three Rottweilers charged into a group of children at a bus stop, chased two brothers up a tree, caught one of them and killed him. The owner had let the dogs outside and was watching TV.
In Kern County, two pit bulls attacked a 12-year-old boy at a school playground. The boy survived, but needed four hours of surgery to repair his right hand. The owner was sentenced to a year in jail and has settled a lawsuit for $100,000 brought by the families of the boy and another who was bitten in the attack.
Though some breeds are more inclined toward aggressive behavior, many individuals are sweet natured. A well-trained dog, confined to a fenced yard or walked on leash, is rarely a threat. Two dogs running loose are going to find trouble sooner or later. A veterinarian told me every spring he sees newborn foals attacked and killed by dogs.
“A German shepherd and one other dog is a pack,” he said. “And in a pack, they will do things they wouldn’t do on their own.”
Does everyone who owns a dog that may have bitten someone once-whether out of fear, excitement or protectiveness-have to worry about criminal prosecution? Probably not.
The judge in the Knoller/Noel case advised jurors to decide if there was sufficient evidence to assume “implied malice.” The defendants lost because they seemed so callous, so indifferent, they showed a “conscious disregard” for the safety of others.
But the case also showed that people are often reluctant to press charges or complain to authorities or apartment managers. Of the 30 witnesses, only one had reported the dogs as a threat.
So do we all have to trade in Rambo and Satan for a cocker spaniel?
That’s a stretch. But if your dog weighs more than you do, can drag you down the street at will, or growls and lunges at your neighbors or their dogs, it’s time for serious training. If that fails, you probably should trade down to something more manageable.
Oh, and if your husband says, “Bye, Honey. Don’t forget to walk the dogs,” I would seriously consider moving out.