Verdict in Mauling Case Won’t Solve the Problem

Re “Couple Guilty in Fatal Dog Mauling,” March 22: I’m stunned by the verdict. Marjorie Knoller is now a murderer and deserves to be locked up, possibly for life, because she should have known her pets were dangerous? I thought we locked people up to protect society. If she were to have been acquitted, somehow, I don’t think going out and getting a brand-new puppy would have been the first thing on her mind. If we are to sincerely believe the jurors made the right decision, I only hope that every parent who has a child who kills someone is also locked up for 15 years to life. After all, the only determining factor is that the parent should have known his or her kid was dangerous.

Since that will never happen, how could this not smack of being a vindictive, punishing prosecution? The jurors from Los Angeles never cease to amaze me. I hope everyone is sleeping well over this one.

Ron Melendy

Long Beach

*

Kudos to jurors in the dog mauling case against Knoller and Robert Noel; their guilty verdict has struck a blow for common sense and personal responsibility.

Perhaps most astonishing in the defense’s bizarre case was the claim that Knoller and Noel didn’t know their dogs were dangerous because officialdom hadn’t so notified them. If I watched my teenage son pour gasoline on a neighbor’s car and light it on fire, I wouldn’t require a phone call from Children’s Services to recognize that his behavior was unacceptable.

Imagine the precedent this verdict could set. Perhaps someday we, as a society, will assume responsibility for our own actions, as well as our pets’.

Lila Campuzano

Canyon Country

*

Dog expert Matthew Margolis is correct in his conclusion that it is “not likely” that the guilty verdicts in the dog mauling trial will “solve the problem of death or injury by dog in the future,” as long as we rely on the small percentage of irresponsible dog owners for any remedial action (Commentary, March 22). Irresponsible owners of aggressive dogs cannot be trusted to manage these time bombs, so it is up to the community to impose controls for our own protection.

Now is the time for strong legislation with real teeth in it, so to speak, to restrict ownership of aggressive breeds to those without criminal backgrounds who complete mandatory training and certification and who have adequate facilities, resources and insurance. And penalties for violation should be tough enough to ensure that it is the violators, not members of the innocent public, who face the consequences of irresponsible ownership of aggressive breeds.

Douglas Dunn

Oceanside

*

The recent dog mauling case makes it imperative for the state Legislature to consider outlawing the keeping or breeding of certain dogs. Pit bulls and Presa Canarios are being bred together for the purpose of sport fighting. The more vicious of the animals live longer and are therefore allowed to breed.

The result is that each generation of fighting dogs gets more vicious and unpredictable. Where does it end? As it stands now, if you go out walking in any urban area you have to carry pepper spray and a heavy walking stick, just to be on the safe side.

Something has to be done.

Carl W. Goss

Los Angeles

*

The overlooked guilty party is the breeder. Even an attack dog can and should be trained to stop on the command of the owner. My grandfather’s German shepherd, a watchdog for his two stores, was so gentle that he taught me to walk, my little hand on his collar. The dog could be trusted absolutely, even with our frequent guests. This verdict should remind every buyer of a purebred dog to carefully check the animal’s ancestry. Inbreeding by unscrupulous breeders leads to inferior dogs that have lost the natural instincts on which the dog/human relationship is based.

Lore Dormer

Claremont