Tramp
New Member
Originally posted by The Mom
I don't think Tramp was implying that they weren't responsible, just that the charge was excessive according to legal precedent!
Thanks Marcia....
the only point I was trying to make was that "15 years to Life" is a HARSH sentence for someone who did not have malice or forethought at the time of the killing...(at least that wasn't proven)
you're definition of manslaughter fits this crime like a glove, as it would for a drunk driver who's car possesses the same characteristics as the vicious dog...
...I have no sympathy for these people but I worry that a dangerous legal precedent is being set that should make every dog owner shake in his boots, especially if his/her dog has any inclination toward taking a nip out of someone's ankle.
3-5 years in prison with huge civil penalties....yes..........NOT 15 years to life....the punishment does not fit the crime in this case.