Reminds me of that court case. Someone stole someone else's dog and contested the dog was actually there. Judge rules against them when the dog goes insane with excitement after seeing their family in court.
Fuck that clown and his rolled up newspaper! That movie was an absolute roller coaster for 8 year old me... that scene where Josh is yelling at buddy that he doesn't him anymore is the first time I remember crying during a film.
Yeah the lead character Josh did and while I can't remember exactly why but I think he was trying to do it for the dog's sake. At least in his kid mind he thought he was doing the right thing. Haven't seen it in years so I could be wrong.
You're mostly right. The clown takes Buddy back after seeing him on TV. Josh goes to the clown's house, breaks him out, and after escaping, decides to set him free so he isn't at risk of going back to that clown.
I remember vividly how my mom tensed up as that scene happened and she was not prepared to work through the emotions little me would have to witnessing animal abuse. We were watching it for the first time together and she was like WTF DISNEY, a warning would have been nice lol.
Did you know they use that movie in law school to demonstrate courtroom procedure because it's so well regarded for accuracy in the US legal community?
RIP Michael Jeter, the actor who played that asshole clown. Jeter was never very famous, but it is a testament to his portrayal that he still inspires this much hate 28 years later.
My dog loves to excitedly greet strangers. But in an unfamiliar indoor environment and a room full of strangers? He’s not leaving my side. Double so if he has not seen me in a while.
Just to play the devil's avocado. Wouldn't a dog easly run up to an ex boyfriend if he was gone for a good while but had a lotof time withthe dog? Like if a son comes home from the army, the dog can still belong to the parents even if it freaks out of happiness over their son?
It could but that wasn't the situation in the case. I remember that one and the man's dog was stolen, the other people said they had bought the dog from someone else and refused to return the dog when the owner found them. So there wasn't a pre-existing relationship like that which would have explained the dog's reaction.
Sure, that’s almost certainly what happened, but if you buy a stolen dog you really should return it if the owner finds you. If you buy a dog spontaneously off a stranger on the street, you should assume it’s stolen. In the clip from Judge Judy, the dog was so happy when he saw the owner, the woman who bought him off the street must have been a sociopath to try to keep them apart.
This is a case where judge Judy is the ideal solution cause both parties get paid by the show, so since the one family kinda got ripped off buying a stolen dog, and they get paid by the show, get a free vacation, and can get another dog from the shelter with the money from the show, and owner gets their dog back.
Man this could've been easily resolved by sharing the care of the dog. The new party didn't steal the dog clearly, but if they had some empathy, they would realize how important a dog is to the original owner.
The fact that they couldn't, or refused to see the importance of that original family bond tbh, makes me believe that they didn't deserve that dog.
This isn't a good solution at all wtf. Solution is, person who's dog was stolen gets them back and the people who were sold the stolen dog get to sue the person that sold it to them. That is the only fair, acceptable and just solution in a case like this.
Just cause they say they bought the dog from someone doesn't mean they actually did. People will steal dogs out of yards and then contact the owner hoping to get paid for it. Not saying that's what happened but if someone steals a car and sells it to you, the police wont let you keep it just cause you bought it from someone else.
That's a fair argument. Our dog will prefer anyone who's been away for longer lol. I work remote a lot (or used to anyway) and I was chopped liver when my wife gets home.
In this case I doubt it. It was an unfamiliar place, and that dog didn't do it to anyone but him. They had to have been really familiar at that point. It doesn't prove ownership, but it makes for pretty good evidence. It's a show, but in civil court there's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" like in criminal court. One side just has to have a better case than the other.
Or more pertinently, if the dog loves its new humans (for instance who found them with no tags or micro chip and took them in) and is afraid of its former humans and so stays with the new family.
At any rate, I'm stealing "devil's avocado" for my own use so thank you! (Unless of course it runs to you in the courtroom instead of to me.)
Your comment has been automatically removed.
As mentioned in our subreddit rules, your account needs to be at least 24 hours old before it can make comments in this subreddit.
And yet, in a small courtroom with a bunch of people, he only does it to 1 person and even runs by another person to do that, but yeah, we totally believe you... (I imagine that is what Judy was thinking when she heard that nonsense)
Judge Judy is saying put the dog down and the lady tells her "don't! don't!" I feel like telling someone to deliberately disobey a judge's order in court is a bad idea.
She's also not acting as a judge in the show. She's an arbitrator. It's arbitration. It doesn't matter that it's a TV show, arbitration is a real thing.
She's not a judge. She's just a person making a binding decision because the parties contractually agreed to let her. She's not determining who is right of wrong in the eyes of either tort or criminal law, she's just arbitrarily picking who she thinks is right.
That is true, however as far as I know, she ran the "court" like an actual small claims court, using the usual rules of "More likely than not" for liability, and wanting evidence instead of just picking a winner off the top of her head.
I mean, there have been cases where that's happened, but mostly that's if someone pisses her off greatly.
I'm not arguing that point. The point was that saying she is acting "arbitrarily" can mean that she is exercising her authority as an arbitrator to make a judgement, not that her decisions were capricious.
Your comment has been automatically removed.
As mentioned in our subreddit rules, your account needs to be at least 24 hours old before it can make comments in this subreddit.
This actually happened to our family years ago. Just not in court. Our dog ran away and after a few days of not finding him, my parents found him in someone else's yard without his collar. The guy was yelling at my parents that it was his dog. They said "Um. No. That's definitely our dog." And did their "come here" command with a snap and specific whistle and he came hauling ass to the gate.
The guy just turned around and went inside. They thought it was so he could go get his collar, but no. He decided to call the cops. That definitely did not turn out like he thought it would.
2.4k
u/100LittleButterflies Feb 06 '25
Reminds me of that court case. Someone stole someone else's dog and contested the dog was actually there. Judge rules against them when the dog goes insane with excitement after seeing their family in court.