Yep, I also caught the "again" on the lost dog post.
So you know how we sometimes criticize JJ for jumping to conclusions and making determinations before she hears the actual cases, etc.? Well, today was one of those days where the second I saw the defendant in the dog/chicken case and the bitchy look on her face, I just knew she was guilty of whatever she was being accused of. And she did not disappoint. I'm not a big fan of guns, but I'm also not a fan of loose potentially dangerous dogs, so I had no problem with the Adele-lookalike daughter doing what she needed to do to save the rest of her chickens and ducks. (And she seemed appropriately remorseful.) I live in a residential neighborhood in the suburbs, and one of our neighbor's pit bulls kept getting out, and after the third time, my next-door neighbor dragged it back and cheerfully informed the owners that if the dog showed up on his property again, he'd shoot it. Magically, the pit bull never got out again. (Bonus points to my next-door neighbor because I can count on the fingers of zero hands the number of times his well-behaved goldens have gotten out. Looks like his kids are equally well-trained to make sure the gate is locked.)
Incidentally, just the other day, Facebook Memories reminded me of how entertained I was by a similar case a number of years ago, where the plaintiffs' dead pet chickens had names like Leia, Katniss, and Buffy. Still awesome.
Like all the other two-parters we've had, this one really didn't need to be dragged out over two days. Everyone came off poorly here, and while I would have been satisfied by everyone leaving with nothing, the $400 for the TV was fair. I think the recording of the plaintiff, who had appeared so mild-mannered and reasonable, did change JJ's mind a bit. See, it can be done.