fair sentence?

Woman must hang mauled boy's pic in her jail cell

discuss

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i was hoping the rest of you would discuss it

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why don't you start the discussion so we can get understand what you think about it first?

 

Moronic, is what comes to my mind,
It's indeed negligence to alllow the dog to kill the child.
Second, its just that, life isn't always fair and people die.
Its cruel and unusuall punishment to me. The girl didn't want the boy to die.
She shouldn't have to look at him also. The girl should be going thru enough grief

 

It's not like she's going to get up every day and stare assiduously and remorsefully at that 8 by 11 picture.

It's easy to ignore something that's only 88 square inches on a surface that's probably at least 17280 square inches.





Do I know everything that hangs on my walls? ... not really.

 

I must admit that from the story, it doesn't seem very negligent. It seemed the dog was on a chain, and the child got too close. Personally, if I had a big dog living next door, I'd know extactly how far it could reach... and wouldn't let a little kid under my watch get that close.

I guess it depends on how everything was layed out.

 

It's seems like cruel and unusual punishement.

 

I don't think it is cruel, but most certainly unusual. I also don't see at all what the judge hopes to accomplish. If she doesn't realize that little kids being attack by dogs is bad, the picture isn't going to do anything.

 

I never really got the point of having a really big dog if your going to chain it up. In fact I hate chains period the only time my dogs "locked up" is when Im at work and no one else is at the home but I try to keep that to a min. I have also never had a dog that seriously mean. Even when we had a pitbull he was nice.
There is a place for that dog and thats out of city limits where theres more space and an actually use for that kind of dog like hunting or guarding your property. In the city or even small town there really isn't a need for a dog like that get a lab not a wolf hybrid.

Was she wrong obviously the court thinks so. I tend to agree with having a dog like that she should be held responsible for her dog if she can't get the dog mellow enough that it can live in a city the dog should not be in a city.

But I still think its wrong to hang a pic of the boy up there I would get so pissed seeing that pic everyday. That can't be to useful its more torture then punishment. Hanging that pic on her wall is like saying "hey witch look what your stupidity did you idiot....etc". Nothing but insults.

 

This reminds me of a case i read about a few years ago in which a father was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his son, who was killed by the airbag in his car when they got into an accident. The father was negligent in not disabling the airbag for his child passenger.
The sentence was that he would spend two days in jail: the anniversary of the accident and his son's birthday.

This sentence, like that one, is cruel and unusual punishment.

http://archive.lp.org/rel/19981217-airbag.html

 

i'm not exactly sure why she is being jailed for her dog's actions. we're going to assume the dog didn't know any better (because it's a dog!). i don't see any evidence that she purposely turned the dog on the little boy. it was chained within her yard. but maybe she was a careless and irresponsible pet owner and needs to be taught a lesson. the picture is a bit much. i'm sure she didn't want to see the boy killed.

 

Well, she does deserve a jail sentence, assuredly.

The dog was able to cross over to someone else's property and did. That should not happen, ever.

 

The dog was able to cross over to someone else's property and did.
This in itself is not worthy of a jail sentence. I have dogs shit on my lawn all the time. I'm not going to ask that the owners be sent to jail. Unless the dog was able to reach the pathway from the street to the door, this is not a huge threat. If anything, it should have been handled as a civil matter BEFORE someone got hurt/killed.

 

Dude...

... you say what I'm knowin', right?


The fact that the dog was over the property line is not itself the crime, but it is the factor which demands that jail time be given.


Drift my get, yeah?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually, no... I don't.

Lets say you have a crack in your sidewalk (lets say a large crack). Your neighbor knows exactly where it is, and steps over it everyday. One day, for whatever reason, they don't step over it, fall, hit their head, and die. Do you deserve jail time?

Both situations should have been fixed. Both were known about and should/could have been avoided.

 

Well, if the sidewalk is my property, I should have been maintaining it to ensure against such occurrences. However, I am not liable for my neighbor's injury anyway, seeing as he or she was trespassing on my property.



This dog case is completely different. The owner of the dog must've known that the chain was too long, allowing the animal access to the neighbor's lawn.
Thus, the death of the child did not take place because of any trespassing on the part of said child, but, instead, because of the irresponsibility of the dog's owner, Latasha Laster.

This certainly wasn't intentional, but crimes do not have to be intentional; manslaughter never is.

 

The owner of the dog must've known that the chain was too long, allowing the animal access to the neighbor's lawn.
And the owner of the said lawn must have also known, and shares in this responsibility. I see no reason that this crime deserves jail time, let alone the picture in question.

 

I disagree. Why should the grandmother have to deal with the negligence of the neighbor? Who was too lazy to measure the distance and get a chain of appropriate length. The dog is solely the owners responsibilty, that includes his actions and his indiscretions (do dogs have any?). The neighbor is at no fault in this, a 5 year old is a handful foranyone let alone an elderly woman so a constant eye can not be expected.

 

Why should the grandmother have to deal with the negligence of the neighbor?
Because her grandkids life is at stake?

Why does she keep the kid from running into the street? I'm not arguing that the neighboor was not negligent, but knowing that a big dog is out front, and letting the boy walk over to it is ALSO negligent. This is not placing all the blame on the grandmother, but to claim "the neighbor is at no fault in this" is in my opinion very short sighted.