Allow your dog to bark in someone's face, get 3.5 years in Prison

[SteveGrenard]

So who's supporting our troops when this is the thanks they get? Is this even a crime?
With a stipulated possible maximum penalty of 3.5 years?

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/06/02/ap2789664.html

(Note: The army dog handler actually got 90 days but at hard labor)

[Rob Lister]

Yes, it is a crime. It is the equiv of putting a loaded (or even unloaded) weapon to a prisoner's head.

[shemp]

So the lesson is, never stick a loaded dog in someone's face? Just remember, loaded dogs don't bark at people, people bark at people!

[bigred]

...but it's OK to molest a child if you're short.

www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/2...index.html

I thought our legal system was simply a joke. I was wrong.

It's quite insane.

[rocketdodger]

So who's supporting our troops when this is the thanks they get? Is this even a crime?
With a stipulated possible maximum penalty of 3.5 years?


Hey genius, I know you are eager to play the "support our troops" card, but you overlooked the fact that this guy is being punished BY THE MILITARY, in accordance with MILITARY LAW.

Whoops, guess you won't get to play that card this time...

[epepke]

Hey genius, I know you are eager to play the "support our troops" card, but you overlooked the fact that this guy is being punished BY THE MILITARY, in accordance with MILITARY LAW.

On the other hand, we will probably see a dozen or so posts saying that the US always lets its troops off lightly.

[WildCat]

On the other hand, we will probably see a dozen or so posts saying that the US always lets its troops off lightly.
Or that Rumsfeld himself ordered him to do that, while defending the incompetent Gen. Karpinski who was supposed to be in charge of the prison.

[BPSCG]

So the lesson is, never stick a loaded dog in someone's face? Just remember, loaded dogs don't bark at people, people bark at people!Should have threatened the guy with an alligator.

[WildCat]

Should have threatened the guy with an alligator.
Yeah, this guy (http://www.mugshots.com/Criminal/Violence/David+Havenner.htm) should join the army.

[Kerberos]

So who's supporting our troops when this is the thanks they get? Is this even a crime?
Yes, non-crimes denerally don't carry maximum sentences of 3,5 year.[/QUOTE]

[Kerberos]

...but it's OK to molest a child if you're short.

www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/2...index.html

I thought our legal system was simply a joke. I was wrong.

It's quite insane.
COuld you explain what's wrong with the verdict? Should guards be allowed to do threaten prisoners whenever they feel like it?

[WildCat]

beh

[SteveGrenard]

beh you say? This was case clearly was a violation of the dog's natural inclination to communicate. This soldier had a lousy lawyer who paid little or no attention to the scientific basis of the barking or why it was beyond the defendent's capability to control if he was given a dog that was not trained to stop talking on command. It was the army's fault, not the soldiers. My dog barks; he barks whenever he wants something, when someone aproaches the house, when he wants my attention. He is not signalling he is going to bite, he is not menacing me or uttering any kind of threat. Yet obviously the judge or judges in this case in their sweeping ignorance of canine behavior somehow equated a barking dog with a loaded or unloaded gun. I am really concerned that my dog's communicating could be construed by a court as some sort of threat, calling for a prison sentence of 3.5 years. This dog was clearly pictured as barking, not growling. Barking is not a threat, growling is.



Did you know that dogs can communicate by using ten different types of sound, ranging from whimpering to growling.?

By varying the tone of those sounds, they can convey no less than 39 different meanings. For example, a dog can use one type of growl if it's being defensive, and a slightly different growling sound if it intends to be aggressive. The complete repertoire of canine audible communication is grunting, whining,yelping, screaming, howling, growling, tooth snapping, panting as a form of play soliciting and a type of cough that is some times used in defence, or as a threat. What most dogs excel at, of course, is barking. Dogs bark for a variety of reasons. The only time dogs won't bark to communicate, is when they are displaying submissive behaviour.

http://www.priory.com/vet/vetbark1.htm (http://www.priory.com/vet/vetbark1.htm)






I was amazed to find a dog's bark, in English, which is woof, woof, has equivalents in many languages including Arabic



Woof is the conventional representation in the English language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) of the barking of a dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog). As with other examples of onomatopoeia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia) or imitative sounds, other cultures "hear" the dog's barks differently and represent them in their own ways. Some of the equivalents of "woof" in other European and Asian languages are as follows:

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

[AmateurScientist]

Why do dogs feel the need to repeat themselves? I understand "woof" just fine.

AS

[Pyrrho]

It isn't the behavior of the dog that was the problem. It was the behavior of the soldier who controlled the dog; the soldier used the dog to terrorize a prisoner. The dog's opinion at the time is irrelevant.

[SteveGrenard]

It isn't the behavior of the dog that was the problem. It was the behavior of the soldier who controlled the dog; the soldier used the dog to terrorize a prisoner. The dog's opinion at the time is irrelevant.

If the dog was not trained to stop barking on command, an issue that did not enter in this case, then it would be impossible for the soldier controlling the dog to control for barking. Barking is a natural, non-threatening form of verbal communication for dogs. Clearly this dog did not growl, did not gnash his teeth and did not bite this prisoner. If the prisoner was terorized by a barking dog as no doubt many people are, then the problem is the prisoner's, not the dog's or the soldier's.

At all times the dog was held over 3 inches away from the prisoner. This case was a joke, it makes a mockery of the military justice system.

[slingblade]

If the dog was not trained to stop barking on command, an issue that did not enter in this case, then it would be impossible for the soldier controlling the dog to control for barking. Barking is a natural, non-threatening form of verbal communication for dogs. Clearly this dog did not growl, did not gnash his teeth and did not bite this prisoner. If the prisoner was terorized by a barking dog as no doubt many people are, then the problem is the prisoner's, not the dog's or the soldier's.

At all times the dog was held over 3 inches away from the prisoner. This case was a joke, it makes a mockery of the military justice system.

I didn't see any of that info in the linked article. Where is this info located, please?

[richardm]

Barking is a natural, non-threatening form of verbal communication for dogs ... If the prisoner was terorized by a barking dog as no doubt many people are, then the problem is the prisoner's, not the dog's or the soldier's.


Guard dogs are trained to bark precisely because humans find it so intimidating. Guard dogs have also been trained to attack humans. If you were the prisoner, would you be so sanguine, I wonder?

[Rob Lister]

At all times the dog was held over 3 inches away from the prisoner. This case was a joke, it makes a mockery of the military justice system.

It seems clear to me, the court, and the jury that the dog was used specifically to terrorize the prisoner.

You don't think having a military guard dog violently barking 3-inches from the face of a constrained prisonor is terrorizing? Okay, but I think you are in the minority.

The case was valid and the guy got far less than he deserved.

[Meffy]

SteveGrenard, have you ever been barked at, then attacked by, this type of dog? Having had that experience, I find your trivializing this incident more than a little sickening.

This was not some morsel-nibbling poodle yapping at a bypasser's ankles on the street. It was a calculated attempt to terrify and intimidate, and as others have pointed out it has been found to be against the law and appropriate punishment will be administered. (I know some people who think "a dog for a dog" would be better punishment -- give him what he dished out -- but I don't see that as likely to rehabilitate this criminal. IMO returning cruelty for cruelty like that doesn't help anything or anyone, it just spreads evil.)

P.S.: I won't even address the damage this... person and his torture-happy ilk have done to America's reputation among world powers. Separate issue.

[SteveGrenard]

I didn't see any of that info in the linked article. Where is this info located, please?

That's just it. I said we don't know if the dog was trained properly. What
we do know is that barking is a dog's natural form of oral communication.
None of this was brought up .... it was a quickie show case type of
prosecution that will be hailed as demonstrating the military punishes
its soldiers who behave badly toward the enemy by prosecuting barking dog cases.

[SteveGrenard]

Guard dogs are trained to bark precisely because humans find it so intimidating. Guard dogs have also been trained to attack humans. If you were the prisoner, would you be so sanguine, I wonder?

I wouldn't be bothered because I have large dogs that bark on occasion
including at me when they want something .... I have never met a restrained dog that frightened me. But I agree this is not true of most people and that prisoners might be intimidated by this. The last thing guards should do is intimidate prisoners. Heaven forbid. Prisoners, of course, can intimidate the guards if they wish.

If the Army gave this soldier a dog that was trained to attack the prisoner then the army is at fault, not the soldier who was given the dog and ordered to use it for this purpose.

[slingblade]

That's just it. I said we don't know if the dog was trained properly. What
we do know is that barking is a dog's natural form of oral communication.
None of this was brought up .... it was a quickie show case type of
prosecution that will be hailed as demonstrating the military punishes
its soldiers who behave badly toward the enemy by prosecuting barking dog cases.

No, I'm talking about where you said, unambiguously:

At all times the dog was held over 3 inches away from the prisoner. This case was a joke, it makes a mockery of the military justice system.

And I want to know how you know this. You didn't say "if," and you didn't ask if this is what happened. You stated it as fact. Where is this information found?

[Meffy]

"Just following orders." Righty, bye now.

[Rob Lister]

Steve, I just don't get you. I don't get your point and I don't get your reasoning. Perhaps the training wasn't brought up in the trial because it was quite silly and irrelavent and pitiful and stupid. The soldier WAS trained and clearly knew what he was doing. Thus, the agreement of the military, the judge, the jury, me, everyone else but you, and even the guy's lawyer.

[SteveGrenard]

It seems clear to me, the court, and the jury that the dog was used specifically to terrorize the prisoner.

You don't think having a military guard dog violently barking 3-inches from the face of a constrained prisonor is terrorizing? Okay, but I think you are in the minority.

The case was valid and the guy got far less than he deserved.

If that was an admission fine. He actually got 90 days of no-jail time, forfeit of rank, pay and I guess leave, and he has to wake up every morning and go to work at hard labor which I guess is heavy lifting, cleaning latrines or maybe even peeling potatoes. On second thought he
may be the winner here.

All dogs violently bark; how do you characterize "violently" ..... they're basically yelling. Again, if the army gave this man a badly trained dog, it is not his fault.

As far as me personally is concerned, no, strange barking dogs don't bother me, especially if on a short leash and 3 inches or more away. But that's me as I have always had rotties which are very talkative but if well trained are basically pussy cats.

[SteveGrenard]

No, I'm talking about where you said, unambiguously:



And I want to know how you know this. You didn't say "if," and you didn't ask if this is what happened. You stated it as fact. Where is this information found?

The dog was held 3.5 inches away from the prisoner. This was in the press accounts. Nowhere was it indicated the dog had any direct physical contact with the prisoner. Nowhere in the
press accounts did it indicate there was any physical injury or bite to the prisoner. Please
don't continue to ask me to prove something I concede was not present in the press account.
I could go on and continue researching this but won't. Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Pyrrho]

If the dog was not trained to stop barking on command, an issue that did not enter in this case, then it would be impossible for the soldier controlling the dog to control for barking. Barking is a natural, non-threatening form of verbal communication for dogs. Clearly this dog did not growl, did not gnash his teeth and did not bite this prisoner. If the prisoner was terorized by a barking dog as no doubt many people are, then the problem is the prisoner's, not the dog's or the soldier's.

At all times the dog was held over 3 inches away from the prisoner. This case was a joke, it makes a mockery of the military justice system.
The crime was the use of terror on a prisoner.

The tool, in this case a dog, is irrelevant.

[slingblade]

Then can you please link to one of these press accounts? The one you did link to mentioned none of this, so it's misleading of you to quote information the source of which is unknown.

[WildCat]

beh you say?
Actually the "beh" was because I made a post and then changed my mind about it, and as you know I can't actually delete the post.

Sorry for the confusion.

[SteveGrenard]

Steve, I just don't get you. I don't get your point and I don't get your reasoning. Perhaps the training wasn't brought up in the trial because it was quite silly and irrelavent and pitiful and stupid. The soldier WAS trained and clearly knew what he was doing. Thus, the agreement of the military, the judge, the jury, me, everyone else but you, and even the guy's lawyer.

The training of the dog is absolutely relevant to this case. How you can deny that is something I don't understand. It goes to the motivation of the soldier charged with this heinous dog barking crime, it goes to the knowledge the soldier had as to whether the dog was controllable and it goes to the motivation of the army's dog trainers and the orders they receive.

You seriously don't believe that the chain of command (military, judge and jury=all military)won't support itself while it sacrifices the grunts doing the work? Pleeze. I am glad you are on their side.

[Rob Lister]

No, you're right Steve, not at all terrorizing 3.5 inches from your face...close enough to see the tarter on teeth and smell the breath.

[LW]

The training of the dog is absolutely relevant to this case.

Yes, it is. Absolutely relevant. I agree 100%. In particular that part of training that consist of attacking on command.

I don't think that the guy was convicted because jury and judge believed that he endangered the prisoner because his dog was not in control. It most probably was 100% under control for the whole time. But he was convicted because he threatened to command the dog to attack the prisoner. A command that the dog would have immediately obeyed because it was, after all, under command.

You say that you wouldn't be worried about a dog barking at you from 3 inches distance. Fine. But would you be worried if you knew that the dog would attack you immediately if its handler commanded it to do it and you had some reason to believe that he just might to do it?

[slingblade]

You seriously don't believe that the chain of command (military, judge and jury=all military)won't support itself while it sacrifices the grunts doing the work? Pleeze. I am glad you are on their side.

Of course this happens. All systems can fail. But you haven't yet provided any info which proves this system did fail in this case.

You are withholding the information from which you drew your conclusions, but are expecting us to arrive at the same conclusion without benefit of this information. Disingenuous at best.

Again, can you provide links to articles which provide the info you seem to have? The link you did provide was inadequate.

[SteveGrenard]

No, you're right Steve, not at all terrorizing 3.5 inches from your face...close enough to see the tarter on teeth and smell the breath.

Are you siccing a pit bull on me? That's not fair. :) Actually this dog did bite a prisoner but it is not the case for which the handler was convicted. Here is a more complete account of the case as requested:

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/26/ap/national/mainD8HRO9E00.shtml

[slingblade]

Thank you for providing that information, although a link would have been more appropriate than quoting the whole article.

However, I do not see any mention of "three inches," or of "3.5 inches," nor do I see the soldier's actions limited to merely "allowing" his dog to bark. The dog also bit someone, twice. Your limiting the incident to barking, but not revealing the biting, is deceptive.

The article says the handlers "had their dogs bark." This means a command was issued, and the dogs obeyed. "To command" is different from "to allow."

The article also does not say, as your thread title explicitly says, that the dogs were barking in anyone's face.

I'm asking this because it seems important to the entire debate: it is disingenuous to change the tenor or tone of a discussion by providing false or misleading information. My point about this "three inches" is that nowhere is this specific distance explicitly stated. So, again, how do you arrive at this figure, and why should I consider your position sound, based as it is on information to which I am still not privy?

[varwoche]

The dog was held 3.5 inches away from the prisoner. This was in the press accounts.
...
I could go on and continue researching this but won't. I conducted a brief fact-checking exercise. I examined the first 5 articles by mainstream news sources displayed by google news. None of them mentioned how many inches the dog was from the prisoner.

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/06/03/abu_ghraib_dog_officer_is_given_hard_labor/)
LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abuse3jun03,1,4633897.story?coll=la-headlines-nation)
WA Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060200882.html)
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/02/dog.handler.ap/)
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/5041946.stm)

(Not that the # of inches matters btw.)

[Rob Lister]

Sling, it appears to be a different case...if so, I don't know why he is raising it except as an attempt to change the tread topic...which he started.

[SteveGrenard]

Of course this happens. All systems can fail. But you haven't yet provided any info which proves this system did fail in this case.

You are withholding the information from which you drew your conclusions, but are expecting us to arrive at the same conclusion without benefit of this information. Disingenuous at best.

Again, can you provide links to articles which provide the info you seem to have? The link you did provide was inadequate.


The only thing disingenuous is the decision by the military court to sentence a soldier for his dog barking. He may've and probably was guilty of other violations, far more serious ones and in retrospect got off easy.
I don't know.

The fact that the military continues to shield its higher ranking officers and civilian bosses (e.g. GW, DC, DR and underlings) from any responsibility is the real problem here. I am sorry nobody here can see that. How utterly pathetic not to recognize that this war is being micromanaged from a five sided building in Arlington Virginia and a oval shaped office in Washington D.C. but that nobody at these addresses is willing to allow the buck to stop with them.

There are over 700 news accounts about this prosecution on Google News(tm). I posted above a fairly comprehensive account at your request which was deleted for a rules violation at warp speed but you are welcome to visit the link to read it.

I draw my conclusions from the obvious fact that a dog barking at a prisoner was construed as a violation for which a soldier was found guilty. That there were other acts, not prosecuted (probably because they would implicate some higher ranking officer or civilian) is telling.

Now that the military has cleared one civilian massacre as being not their fault, we will have to wait see what happens with Hadithra.

[slingblade]

Rob, I don't think so...both articles were about Sgt. Santos Cardona, but the CBS article said he faced 16.5 years, not 3.5 years.

This whole thread seems misleading to me.

[Rob Lister]

The only thing disingenuous is the decision by the military court to sentence a soldier for his dog barking. He may've and probably was guilty of other violations, far more serious ones and in retrospect got off easy.
I don't know.

The fact that the military continues to shield its higher ranking officers and civilian bosses (e.g. GW, DC, DR and underlings) from any responsibility is the real problem here. I am sorry nobody here can see that. How utterly pathetic not to recognize that this war is being micromanaged from a five sided building in Arlington Virginia and a oval shaped office in Washington D.C. but that nobody at these addresses is willing to allow the buck to stop with them.

There are over 700 news accounts about this prosecution on Google News(tm). I posted above a fairly comprehensive account at your request which was deleted for a rules violation at warp speed but you are welcome to visit the link to read it.

I draw my conclusions from the obvious fact that a dog barking at a prisoner was construed as a violation for which a soldier was found guilty. That there were other acts, not prosecuted (probably because they would implicate some higher ranking officer or civilian) is telling.

Now that the military has cleared one civilian massacre as being not their fault, we will have to wait see what happens with Hadithra.


Why are you raising these strawmen? We're talking about one case, the one regarding the topic of this thread which you started. Let's get that resolved first.

[slingblade]

The only thing disingenuous is the decision by the military court to sentence a soldier for his dog barking.

Again, disingenuous. The dog also bit, according to the CBS article:

He said Cardona told Graner to push Bollendia away and then released his dog, which bit the prisoner's right leg, grazing the skin. Bollendia again jumped on Graner and Cardona again released the dog, which bit the prisoner's left leg deep enough to draw blood, Frederick said.

It's about more than barking. You can't just cherry pick and expect to be taken seriously. At least, not by me.

(bold emphasis mine)

[Rob Lister]

Rob, I don't think so...both articles were about Sgt. Santos Cardona, but the CBS article said he faced 16.5 years, not 3.5 years.

This whole thread seems misleading to me.

Something is wrong here. Either Steve is not lucid or he is intentionally not being honest. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

[SteveGrenard]

Why are you raising these strawmen? We're talking about one case, the one regarding the topic of this thread which you started. Let's get that resolved first.

Hardly strawmaen. Dead bodies are not strawmen, barking dogs are.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/04/news/raid.php

[slingblade]

Was Santos Cardona involved in these deaths?

If not, this is a strawman, or red herring, or other fallacy. Start a new thread on this latest link, but don't poison the well by dragging it into this one.

[SteveGrenard]

Something is wrong here. Either Steve is not lucid or he is intentionally not being honest. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

I am sorry I did not read all 800 press accounts for you guys and then distill that down into one thesis of a few hundred pages. Every account says something different. From the way I understand it the dog barking charge is the one he was convicted on, not the other charges. They were dropped. I did read in one or more of the 800 accounts the dog was held over 3 inches away from the prisoner when it was alleged to terrorize the prisoner by barking at him (in arabic: "woof woof" is "haw haw").

The sum total of all the charges he originally was charged with called for 16 or whatever years in prison. The dog barking charge, alone, by itself, called for a possible maximum sentence of 3.5 years in prison.

What I am questionning is whether dog barking is a crime, in any venue, that is
subject to a possible maximum sentence of 3.5 years in jail. Simple as
that.

As it turned out the dog soldier got 90 days, no jail, at Ft. Bragg where his daily job will be some kind of hard-labor decided upon by his CO. Whatever the case, he was punished because his dog barked at a prisoner. Not because of any other crime he was charged with.

Equating a barking dog with a loaded gun is a precedent I would not like to see but apparently there are others who disagree.

[SteveGrenard]

deleted due to duplication

[Rob Lister]

Steve, if there is any confusuion, I can assure you it is your fault.


Equating a barking dog with a loaded gun is a precedent I would not like to see but apparently there are others who disagree.


Equating a barking dog with a loaded (or unloaded) gun is an excellent analogy. Precedent plays a part only after attempted.

[slingblade]

I am sorry I did not read all 800 press accounts for you guys and then distill that down into one doctororial thesis of a few hundred pages.

You don't need to. You simply need to show me the one article in which the distance is actually mentioned so I know how you arrive at that figure. Just the one article, not 800. (And how did your figure suddenly jump from 700 to 800? Did you, in the last few moments, find 100 more articles? Or are you exaggerating just a wee bitty? Hmmm?)

Every account says something different. From the way I understand it the dog barking charge is the one he was convicted on, not the other charges. They were dropped. I did read in one or more of the 800 accounts the dog was held over 3 inches away from the prisoner when it was alleged terrorize the prisoner by barking at him (in arabic woof woof is haw haw).

I just need to see that one article. And the Arabic is a non-sequitur.

The sum total of all the charges he originally was charged with called for 16 or whatever years in prison. The dog barking charge, alone, by itself, called for a possible maximum sentence of 3.5 years in prison. What I am
questionning is whether dog barking is a crime, in any venue, that is
subject to a possible maximum sentence of 3.5 years in jail. Simple as
that. As it turned out the dog soldier got 90 days, no jail, at Ft.
Bragg where his daily job will be some kind of hard-labor decided upon by his CO. Whatever the case, he was punished because his dog barked at a prisoner. Not because of any other crime he was charged with.

It apparently must be a crime under these particular circumstances in the military. Your mistake is in isolating the offense, removing it from its context, and then claiming the only problem must have been that the dog barked, because that's all the soldier was convicted of.

Equating a barking dog with a loaded gun is a precedent I would not like to see but apparently there are others who disagree.

A trained attack dog qualifies as a dangerous weapon every bit as much as your fists do, or your car does. The dog did more than bark, whether the soldier was convicted of it or not. The reduction of charges doesn't make the incident imaginary. Your logic fails. Next!

[SteveGrenard]

Steve, if there is any confusuion, I can assure you it is your fault.




Equating a barking dog with a loaded (or unloaded) gun is an excellent analogy. Precedent plays a part only after attempted.

It is your analogy and you are entitled to it. I happen to disagree. Think of other behaviors that this opens doors to as being equated with that of a fire arm. How about some drunk raising his arm and swinging his fist around? No, wait a minute, Howard Dean did that already. Will that be equated to holding a gun to you? Or about yelling? Is that holding a
gun on somebody?

It's a precedent because a court of military justice has determined it was some sort of criminal act punishable by a guilty plea and possible jail time or other punishments.

We will see if barking dogs are involved in further prosecutions or not.

[Rob Lister]

Okay, that's it. Unless I get a PM from one of the other posters that this thread is back on track, I'm outta here. This is a crap waste of time. Might I recommend that Steve start all over with a whole new thread wherein he puts forth an accurate and honest argument and references in the opening post.

[SteveGrenard]

A trained attack dog qualifies as a dangerous weapon every bit as much as your fists do, or your car does. The dog did more than bark, whether the soldier was convicted of it or not. The reduction of charges doesn't make the incident imaginary. Your logic fails. Next!

Indeed. Here in NYC we are trying to get the guns off the street. A columnist in the Post recently wrote that arguments should be settled with words, and at best, with fists. Why? Because it will eliminate all the
tragic shootings (and deaths) of innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with the people in the conflict.

Sorry, the conviction was for dog barking. Nothing else. The other charges were dropped because why? The only logic here is to state what happened. Dog barks, guy with hand on leash gets charged with a crime. Found guilty. Gets punished. Moral of story: don't let your dog bark.
Perhaps vocal cord removal or one of those pleasant electric shock collars will work.

[slingblade]

(Not that the # of inches matters btw.)

Not to the case, but it does matter to the veracity of the thread-starter.
If he can't prove one small detail, why should I trust him with the bigger ones?

[rocketdodger]

Sorry, the conviction was for dog barking. Nothing else. The other charges were dropped because why? The only logic here is to state what happened. Dog barks, guy with hand on leash gets charged with a crime. Found guilty. Gets punished. Moral of story: don't let your dog bark.


No, the moral of the story is "don't join the military if you consider logic as the highest authority."

Are you in the military Steve? Have you ever been? I don't think you realize just how much of a "joke" the system really is. I agree that it may be a shame that this poor guy gets punished so badly, if he doesn't deserve it. But the fact of the matter is that justice and logic have nothing to do with the military.

[Moochie]

Are we sure it was a dog and not a dingo? Were there any reports of missing infants?

M.

[slingblade]

It is your analogy and you are entitled to it. I happen to disagree. Think of other behaviors that this opens doors to as being equated with that of a fire arm. How about some drunk raising his arm and swinging his fist around? No, wait a minute, Howard Dean did that already. Will that be equated to holding a gun to you? Or about yelling? Is that holding a
gun on somebody?

I don't know about yelling, but swinging your fist can kill. Don't know much about law, do you? Deadly weapons are not determined by their ability, or inability, to fire a projectile. Cars are weapons, and they don't fire bullets. Well, 007's does, but he's imaginary. Fists are considered deadly weapons, especially if the person who owns the fists is trained in defense, as the dog was trained.

It's a precedent because a court of military justice has determined it was some sort of criminal act punishable by a guilty plea and possible jail time or other punishments.

We will see if barking dogs are involved in further prosecutions or not.

Uh, yeah, I guess we will. Are you serving non-sequiturs for lunch, or dessert?

[SteveGrenard]

I guess in the U.K. dog barking is an offence:

http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/pubs/publications/noisebarkingdogs.pdf.pdf (http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/pubs/publications/noisebarkingdogs.pdf.pdf).



live and learn.... see bottom page 7.

And this commentary from the Telegraph re the above:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/17/ndog17.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/17/ixuknews.html

[varwoche]

Not to the case, but it does matter to the veracity of the thread-starter.
If he can't prove one small detail, why should I trust him with the bigger ones?Agreed.

When I google-news dog "abu ghraib" inches there are many pages of results, none of which specifies a number of inches (on the google summary).

[CFLarsen]

I can't find any references to the 3.5 inches either.

Steve, where did you find this piece of information?

Do you have a source, or did you just invent it?