Marjorie Knoller received four years minus time already served for manslaughter. Her and her DH's dogs mauled to death a neighbor in SF.
Do you think this is justice served?
Today on the news the judge read past testimony that she perjured herself numerous times. She also has not shown any remorse. I think the sentence should have been longer, since she knew her dogs were vicious, yet didn't take any responsibility in restraining them when she left her residence.
What do you think?

By Kym on Monday, July 15, 2002 - 10:35 pm:

From what I understand she was punished to the full extent of the law, meaning that is the maximum scentence for the crime she was charged with, involuntary manslaughter. This in my opinion is justice served. She was also ordered to pay restitution to the victims partner.

By Melanie on Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 03:42 pm:

I do believe justice was served. It's true that she knew her dogs were vicious and would likely attack someone. But did she know the dogs would kill someone? The judge didn't think there was sufficient evidence to prove that she did, which is why he reduced the charge. She was clearly negligent and had to be held responsible. Like Kym pointed out, she received the maximum she could for the charge against her. I believe our justice system worked exactly how it should have in this case.

By Annie2 on Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 06:48 pm:

The judge also read from the transcripts of the trial that the dog had bitten someone near the elevator in the rear end previously and she denied it.
I think people need to be responsible with the red flags they are presented and in their behavior; whether through intention or negligence.
If this happened to my DH, child, sister, grandmother, I would want the persons to be held accountable for more than four years.

By Colette on Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 07:09 pm:

What kind of restitution could she possibly pay for losing a life partner? I understand she got the maximum penaly allowed but what a shame it's only four years. It's to bad they didn't put the owners down when they put the dogs down.

By Melanie on Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:48 pm:

Annie, although the dogs had shown themselves to have an aggressive nature, they had never before caused significant injury to anyone. Therefore the judge could not in good conscience say the owners knew the dogs were capable of killing someone.

I think these owners showed incredibly poor judgement. They kept large, aggressive dogs in an apartment in a highly populated area. Obviously that is not a good combination. But did they know this would result in someone's death? No, I don't think so. Again I say I believe justice was served.

And I agree, Annie, that if it was one of my loved ones attacked, I would want the owners to get more than four years. But the courts have to operate without that kind of passion and emotion.

By Annie2 on Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:19 pm:

Melanie,
These dogs or at least the one named Bane, bit a person in the rear end by their elevator. The judge read that today from the transcripts from the trial.
These dogs were once owned by a convicted inmate and they were raised for "cock fights".
I am not saying these dogs barked at the neighbors, showed their teeth as protectors of a home or family, these dogs were killers, and the owners knew it. Plain and simple.
Just last week a man in CA was sentenced to 4 years in prison for killing his dog.
I guess I am mad because this woman did not have to die, but did, and died a horrible death.

By Melanie on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 07:58 pm:

I understand the dog has bitten before. But the dog did not cause significant injury. And yes,they were raised for cock fights. But the judge was unable to find any evidence that the dogs were involved in the killing of any animals.

So the dogs had no traceable evidence of any murders of animals and had never caused significant injury to a human. So how could the judge then say that Marjorie and her husband knew the dogs would murder someone? He couldn't, so he sentenced her to involuntary manslaughter.

You are right. She didn't have to die. This never should have happened. Even their vet told them these dogs did not belong in a SF apartment. I don't know what made them think that keeping these dogs in a populated area was a good idea. But I don't think they ever thought the dogs would kill someone. Yes, they need to be punished. But I think it needs to be for involuntary manslaughter, not murder.

By Melanie on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 08:41 pm:

BTW, Annie, I had the exact same opinion as you until I listened to the judge the day he changed the charge to involuntary manslaughter. I listened to his chain of reasoning and it made sense. Given the evidence he was presented with, I think he made the right decision.