he s apparently been jailed. and help me on this one, guys, for mischief, reckless endangerment, and possession of explosive devices, but the sheriff says he s not going to charge him with animal abuse, because he says that the dog could not possibly have suffered. it s a completely misapplication and misinterpretation under the law. because the level of suffering is not the beginning and end of the question when it comes to animal abuse. it s did you commit an intentional act that caused physical injury or in this case, death to an animal? and that is exactly what happened here. it is a class c felony, it is animal abuse in the first degree. the act itself is the abuse, not the suffering. so this is a complete misapplication of the law here. and that s what i thought. john, i thought, i read that, a lot of people say, premeditated murder, if you just bring out the gun and fire, it can t possibly be premeditation, but you can have premeditation in
videotape here. yes, it s a novel way to interpret the law, but if you look at the video and this woman is exhibiting severe signs of clear intoxication, which is what they re arguing, she s not standing up properly, she s not if you thinking, you can clearly see it in the video, and this defendant is serving her, repeatedly, alcoholic bnchs. it s disgusting just looking at the video of her stumbling around and him trying to dance with her, but i m going to come to this guy s defense for a minute, pardon me, but it s not illegal to get somebody drunk. the only thing i can imagine that makes him particularly culpable was if he walked her to her car after serving her and then watched her as she teetered away and then drove away. so, where am i crazy in not being able to connect that dot? because if you can t connect that dot to me, as a juror, do i want to find myself in that situation as well one day? i ll put that to you, john? you re absolutely right. there s no proximate cause
out in montgomery county, texas, just north of houston. 29-year-old cambiz will face the judge in what s being called a groundbreaking case. i want to bring in john manuelian is live with us, and faith jenkins is with us live as well. john, let me begin with you. i mean, wtf is the first thing that comes to mind, but it seems that it would stand to reason if the woman had that much to drink and he was handing them over, kind of sounds like it s fair game. could he fight this? i think so. we have something like this in california called the teen alcohol safety act. if you give an alcoholic beverage to anyone who s under 21 and they cause any kind of injuries, you could be liable. but there s a public policy exception that we understand. in this case, how are we going to police this? if i m at a bar and buy somebody a drink, am i conduct an
friend with the parents of these young men and he said he considered them to be like his own children, with these boys. and so it s really unfortunate situation. you re really looking at civil liability here, when you have an inherently dangerous animal like this snake, you re looking at strict liability, which mean he doesn t have to be at fault. he could have had five locks on this cage. if the snakes escaped and they caused injury or in this case death, he s liable. okay, so john, apparently these two boys were his best friend s kids. this is what he has told one of the canadian broadcasters that interviewed him. so they were in his care and that snake is his snake. so what faith says stands to reason. he s liable no matter what. but doesn t that up the game when it comes to crime? well, sometimes things like this are statutory, which means that if there are specific laws which make this an animal an inherent dangerous animal, then as faith talked about, the
can pull out your gun and blow them away. i m sure that is know the what the law is in florida. i think that they need to show more than simple just bumps and bruises and a fight that occurred that mr. zimmerman believed that he was losing. by the way as far as this witness goes, i want to add, that the fact that she is inconsistent, look, she is a 19-year-old kid. she s scared and question of course she wants to say things that are going to be helpful to trayvon martin s family, that is understandable. it doesn t mean that everything she says is just completely discredited. there is value in her testimony, and she is not a biased witness beyond the fact that she is a scared kid, she is trying to do the right thing, she is not going to win the case, she is not going to lose the case but you have to take what she is saying seriously and you can t just completely discount it. rick: we will see what the jury this is about it. steve racer r john manuelian, thank you very much. we ll be rig