I believe they are not showing remorse becuase of the pending civil trial.We all find them repulsive for a number of reasons. The more I think of it,I would use the territorial argument.Which murder do you consider worse this one or the hockey dad?

Milt

They can show remorse without admitting guilt. It would be a sincere condolence that the daughter/partner died. It doesn't mean they are admitting any guilt. Though my personal opinion is that true remorse is admitting guilt and taking the punishment.

I dont know about anyone else, but if someone harmed or murdered my loved ones "sorry" doesn't cut it.It would mean absolutely nothing.

milt

Milt,

So true.

No, "sorry" doesn't cut it. But speaking from experience, getting absolutely no indications of remorse from the perpetrator does make a difference. No apology can make up for the harm done to, or the loss of, a loved one. But when a person who does such harm is not even humane enough to express any remorse at all, it compounds the pain and anger. Believe me, an apology/show of remorse DOES matter to the families of victims.

In California, there is now a law that makes it possible to say "sorry" without admitting any legal liability. The problem arises because in English, unlike many other languages (e.g. German) it is not possible to easily distinguish between sorry-responsible and sorry-empathy (verzeihen or entschuldigen vs. et tut mir leid, if I remember right).

More news on this front, from the San Jose Mercury News:

"A year after San Francisco's infamous dog attack left a young woman dead and prompted the immediate destruction of one of the animals, the second Presa Canario mix involved in the mauling was put to sleep.

"About 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, Hera was given a lethal injection at the city animal shelter where she had been housed since the Jan. 26, 2001, attack.

"Hera's death came after a protracted legal battle by her owners, lawyers Robert Noel and Marjorie Knoller, to overturn a city officer's death order."

I feel sort of sorry for the dog. Not that she was euthanized; that had to be done. But that she spent more than a year alone in a small cage. Like they say, it shouldn't happen to a dog.

Just her owners.

Los Angeles (AP)... Jurors will not hear about allegations of sexual conduct between a couple and their two dogs during the couple's trial for the fatal mauling of a San Francisco woman...

The judge probably thought it had no bearing on the couple's ability to control the dogs. Ignorant ass...that goes well beyond letting 'em sleep on the bed.

Bunch of -F-ing savages out there.

I'll say.

Along those lines, I recently read of a dog abuse case here, of a sort all too common: a guy brought a 7-year old GSD into the Santa Cruz SPCA, said it was sick and he wanted it euthanized. It weighed 45 pounds and couldn't stand up. The poor dog later died at the pet hospital; the vet said it must have been suffering for months without medical care.

I think I could execute someone like that dog owner without any regrets at all. Just show me the button.

There it is, folks!

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/21/dog.mauling.trial/index.html