October 27, 2009

Crime Beat

Information is from Mission and Ingleside District San Francisco Police Station newsletters.
October 26, 2009

Attempted Homicide
-- 8:05am. 300 blk of 27th Street Officers Martinez and LaRocca were sent to investigate a man yelling for help. When the officers arrived they were met with officers Najarro, Smethurst and Muro to assist them. The officers discovered that the victim was in the hospital and responded to interview. The victim told the officers that he was at home with the suspect who is a friend of his. The victim said that he was annoyed that the suspect’s dog was out of control. The suspect became angry and knocked the victim to the ground then hit him with an object on the head. The suspect was still at the house and was arrested. This case is still under investigation.


Anonymous said...

All of the people of the world need to chill out.

Godot said...

Dog owners don't seem to like being called to account for the actions of their annoying pets...

The bottom line is that dog owners - especially in a densely populated neighborhood like Noe Valley - MUST control their dogs if they want to maintain fair relations with their neighbors! No barking outside at night; no poop left anywhere (I've seen "no dog pee" signs on bushes outside peoples' front doors here too); on leash at ALL times. Some of us think they have no business existing in a city at all ... and I bet they'd agree if they could talk.

Not Waiting for Godot said...

Godot seems to think that the suspect was acting reasonably -- and in fact, was simply holding a dog owner "to account" -- when he knocked the man to the ground and then hit him on the head with an object, sending him to the hospital.

Actually, that's not holding someone to account. That's assault, battery, and potentially attempted homicide.

Yes, Godot, let's talk about who has no business existing in a densely populated neighborhood like Noe Valley. How about unstable people who become violent when angry? I would like them to leave, thank you. They would do much better out in the uninhabited countryside, with no one to annoy them and no one to violently attack (except, perhaps, themselves).

If dogs could talk, by the way, they would tell you to give up any hope of becoming a dog-whisperer. (The position of ass-whisperer is available, however, and you are uniquely qualified.)

Incidentally, if you don't like dogs, then I question the quality of the research you conducted before moving to Noe Valley. That's as absurd as living in the Castro and being irritated by "all the gay stuff." (You probably detest babies, too. All that crying just makes you want to bludgeon someone, doesn't it?)

Has anyone seen the play Waiting for Godot to Make a Persuasive Argument? Don't bother -- it's really a bore. The characters just keep on waiting and waiting and waiting.

Unknown said...


snarkiness aside, i do think it's a mistake to use this crime as a platform for anti-dog silliness.

i hope the person recovers fully, and the two friends(?) can make amends.

Anonymous said...

Hey Not, I think you have your "victim" and "suspect" backwards. The "suspect" owns the dog and hit the "victim" who was mad about the dog.

I bet you own a dog. See?

Anonymous said...

Maybe Not Waiting should have waited to finish reading the report... Yes, it's the dog owner who beat the victim.

I think the actual syllogism is that dog owners don't have "business existing in a city". I think dogs are fine. I call them "the city's reserve meat supply for the Big One".

Anonymous said...

This is not what happened at all. I was there and called the police on these two guys fighting.

I heard all of the convo and it was about a broken window not a dog.

It's like a game of telephone up in this place.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the dog went out of control and broke the window. The man attacked the dog, the dog owner attacked the man. There, now everyone's POV is right.

wfcrusty said...

& they do it with the crusts on!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.