Hot Bench - General Discussion

[Taeolas]

15 hours ago, ElleMo said:

Did anyone see the episode with the baby doll seller?  My TV says it was a new episode but I swear I have seen it before.  Was this on another court show.?

 

There was a similar case before; I think it was on Hot Bench but it was just with a doll seller; not these 'near lifelike dolls' or whatever they were. It played out almost the same I think. I had a real feeling of deja vu watching it, but I'm pretty sure they are two different cases. (but I could be wrong)

[AZChristian]

I'm thinking IMDB should start a new category:  People who have appeared on multiple reality or court shows.  It would make our lives easier to have one repository of information.

[Taeolas]

The farm animal case today was a whopper. The basic case was pretty standard, but that guy was nuts. I hope she gets a restraining order put out on him ASAP because he was not all there. 

[Silver Raven]

2 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

The farm animal case today was a whopper. The basic case was pretty standard, but that guy was nuts. I hope she gets a restraining order put out on him ASAP because he was not all there. 

Didn't he say they live in the same house?

[SRTouch]

14 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

Didn't he say they live in the same house?

Well, we need to know which "she" we're talking about... Cuz that was confusing. Plaintiff's witness said something about living in the same "facility" as alcoholic nutty as a fruitcake self described veteran, while said booze hound said sweety, who he loves dearly, lived in his house... and he would never put dead guinea pigs under her pillow. Uh, anybody think he has his own house? Anyway, seemed to me both plaintiff AND her witness have reason to seek protective orders.

Edited September 21, 2017 by SRTouch

[Hockeymom]

I set my DVR to record new episodes, but I keep getting Judge Faith instead! I get the description of the Hot Bench episode, but the recording is Faith. And it only seems to effect the ones that sound interesting! Bah!!!

[SRTouch]

51 minutes ago, Hockeymom said:

I set my DVR to record new episodes, but I keep getting Judge Faith instead! I get the description of the Hot Bench episode, but the recording is Faith. And it only seems to effect the ones that sound interesting! Bah!!!

Don't know why, but I continue to have trouble recording Hot Bench... well, I know why my DVR has problems, just not why the station that airs Hot Bench doesn't fix the schedule. Don't know if it's the station, or Direct TV. Way back, my station swapped time slots of when it was being aired, but not the published schedule, so my DVR was recording the time slot when the schedule said Hot Bench would be, but like you I would get Judge Faith (at least I think it was Faith, could have been someone else). I checked my schedule, and discovered Hot Bench was being aired when the schedule said Judge Faith.... so when I set the DVR to save Judge Faith - viola now I was getting Hot Bench on the DVR even though the program listing said Judge Faith. Eventually, after a few weeks they switched the published schedule so Hot Bench was on when scheduled.

Ah, but my Hot Bench schedule problems persist to this day, months after it started. I have two episodes scheduled back to back, but both have the same episode info on the svhedule. Poor DVR again confused, as it thinks the same episode is on twice in a row, so it just records one. Nope, actually two episodes are being aired with the same info. If I want both recorded I have to go down the schedule and hit record on each listing manually. Like I said, this has been going on for months.

[AlleC17]

There was an episode from yesterday (9/27) with a woman suing her ex for $5k that she had left for safekeeping...in her glove compartment...of her car.  Skeezy ex stole her car and abandoned it at a bus stop where it was found ransacked and oddly enough, missing the $5k.  As ridiculous as the plaintiff was, I wanted to jump into the TV and pummel the crap out of the fucking dick defendant.  What a coky, arrogant prick.  The plaintiff did not have the evidence, so her case was dismissed and the asshole got to keep the $5k he stole.  Too bad the judges couldn't make him pay $5k to a charity, as the dumbass plaintiff really didn't deserve it either. lol

[SRTouch]

Totally agree - no evidence, but boy I wanted to slam that dude up the head to knock that smug attitude out. But... she wasn't much better with her cross aisle talk after repeated warnings. I sometimes don't like how DiMango weaves tales out of thin air, but I agree with her that neither litigant was credible. I have to agree with Acker, i believe he took the money, but there's no evidence. 

[Florinaldo]

It's too bad that the only thing the judges could do was chastise him with words, because these obviously do not matter to him; he just brushes off the dressing down and keeps flashing his arrogant smile. For her part, the plaintiff was indeed dumb as they come for thinking that her big stash of cash would be safer in a car parked outside rather than in her room (unless she feared her no-good boyfriend would have easy access to it in their room).

[AlleC17]

16 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

It's too bad that the only thing the judges could do was chastise him with words, because these obviously do not matter to him; he just brushes off the dressing down and keeps flashing his arrogant smile. For her part, the plaintiff was indeed dumb as they come for thinking that her big stash of cash would be safer in a car parked outside rather than in her room (unless she feared her no-good boyfriend would have easy access to it in their room).

I think that you hit the nail on the head.  Still, if he is so untrustworthy (as well as being s stupid ahole jerk) why stay with him?  I still hate that he got away with it.

[Silver Raven]

I have to question the sincerity of the brother and sister who are slagging each other over the TV, considering they came to the show wearing color coordinated outfits.

[AngelaHunter]

Today's cases had me scratching my head. Landlord lady was a total witch, trying to sue def. for a can of soup left in a pantry and some wax on the walls - whatever, she was horrid. However, def. is one of those women who chooses not only to be with an abusive man (her "kidses" dad) but to procreate with him. I'm pretty sure he wasn't Prince Charming who turned into an abuser overnight unless he had a psychotic break. If a woman wants to stay with some abusive asshole, that's her business but it's outrageous to bring kids into that mess. Anyway, I don't see how that becomes someone else's problem. Being with him was her choice (the kids have no choice) and it's not like she contracted some deadly illness over which she had no control.

Then we had the battling women. HER baby daddy was "disrespectful" to MY baby daddy (naturally no one ever thinks of getting married before popping out babies) so naturally a fight (scuffle?) ensues. First baby momma suing for a ton of stuff at second baby momma's and thrown out , but gee - she no proof of any kind of what the stuff was or the value of it. She missed two days of work - but no proof of that either

I think I like these shows mostly because they make me feel so good about my own life.

[AZChristian]

15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She missed two days of work - but no proof of that either.

Didn't see the episode, so I'm wondering . .  was there no proof she MISSED two days of work, or was there no proof she'd ever worked two days in her life?

[TresGatos]

I don't know if this was commented on before but on today's repeat Judge DiMango stated they were ready to deliberate but had forgotten all about Judge Corriero. He had to speak up and assert his "personal privilege." It was kind of cute but shows that Judge Corriero is so retiring that he not only doesn't have an individual thread in this Forum, his fellow judges forget he's there! He does seem like a totally decent and kind gentleman. I would almost like to see him with his own talk show while Judges Acker and DiMango co-host a home shopping jewelry and accessory show.

[Silver Raven]

I love it when Acker goes off, she lets the fury fly.

[AngelaHunter]

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 4:40 PM, Silver Raven said:

I love it when Acker goes off, she lets the fury fly.

She certainly did that on the ep I just watched, with the 3 generations of beastly and brutal trashy women. A former nurse? A teacher? OMG. The 4th generation was a little girl who just broke my heart, seeing the environment in which she's being raised and knowing that these smirking hambeasts coached her to lie for them. I hope she doesn't carry on the family tradition of morbid obesity and violent behavior. Great-grandma(and both grandma and great looked very young so I hope the little girl doesn't also follow in their footsteps and start breeding the instant she becomes fertile and turn herself into a sainted single mother). I can just picture the scene during which the assaults took place - a bunch of angry buffaloes charging each other. Oh, that poor child. :(

Judge Corriero seems like the type of judge I've read about, one who wants to let rapists and other low-lifes skate because he feels sorry for them. Good thing the two women are there to keep things in perspective.

[SRTouch]

Hey, this was sort of different. Dude is in hospital, lieing in bed in pain because of a clot in his leg. Doctor visits several times, and eventually has to perform surgery. Guy has insurance, but a very high deductible, so at the end of the day owes over 6 grand to doctor out of pocket. Now, he, and his missionary wife, are in court with nonsense coming out of their mouths trying to justify why they ignored his bills (including a demand letter sent certified mail.) Among the silly justifications, dude complains doctor didn'the explain how much the procedure would cost prior to surgery; he offered to pay $200 but refused to commit to a $200 a month payment plan because he wanted to pay it off faster; oh, and my favorite, "he wasn'the man enough" to come out of his office when ingrate wanted to argue about the bill. Oh, and it wasn't about the money, it was because of the doctor's attitude. Ok, as Acker said in chambers, defendant's position is obscene. Surprise, doctor gets the max, but still short of the hill for his life/leg saving efforts.

next episode, next case repeat felon goes to jail on a gun possession charge (had other charges, but those were dropped when he copped to the gun and DA knew he was on his way to prison. Ok, he's served his time, and is in court seeing the ex. Seems he was arrested and went to the hoosegow in August. Wifey immediately filed for divorce, sold his truck in September and his custom Harley in October... oh, and when he gets out he finds ex-cellmate is ex-wife's new bedmate/hubby.  Really, nobody could make this stuff up. Wife says he told her to sell his stuff because daughter and grandkid lived with her and she needed the money for the bills. Oh, and they have dueling lawsuits of 5 grand each - course his for the property she sold off, and her's because she lost her computer and dogs in the police raid. All kinds of chuckles in this case ? Acker asks how much he paid for the custom Harley... he traded 5 grand of medical Marijuana for it. Oh, and he says she didn't need to sell his stuff to cover bills, since he had "a crop" growing in the back yard. Ok, he says he was legal, but I would have thought it harder for a felony to get a license to grow legal MJ. And, if he was legal, does that mean he could transfer his license to her, the wife who was in the process of divorcing him? And, WTH were her dogs seized and destroyed? Perhaps pitty guard dogs? There are no human victims in this case... just the four legged victims who had to he misfortune of belonging to these disgusting people... ok, the two women spent their time trashing the litigants (as well deserved as it may have been), now it's up to Corriero to bring us back to the actual case. Ok, how much did she get for his property?... about a grand... ok, she has no credibility, so off to chambers... ladies dislike defendant enough to give him what he asked for, with dude disagreeing, saying he believes defendant.

[AZChristian]

Okay, is it just my opinion . . . or was that owl tattoo the weirdest application of ink to skin EVER????

[DoctorK]

Quote

was that owl tattoo the weirdest application of ink to skin EVER????

Agree, if he wanted the owl to be swooping right side up, OK; but to turn it upside down so that the owl is looking at his junk is offputting. If you search for him (I use duckduckgo which doesn't track you searches), he is quite a character. His high school graduation pic has the same hair and beard (though not as thin and gray. His facebook page only says about his military career that he spent 20 years in the army managing a construction group. In his hallterview he raised the issue that he is a gay man. So what? Did he claim that the defendants gave him an ugly tatoo because they thought he was gay? He reminds me of a project manager who my company sent me to try and bail out; he was blue eyed, blond hared (in dreads of course), who used input from his native american totems to make techincal deciaions. I got sent over there because he had spent 80% of his budget anf 70% of his schedule completing about 20% of the work. Finally, any tatoo that aims at or points to your genitalia, ass or boobs is probably just plain trashy.

Edited October 28, 2017 by DoctorK
spelling

[Silver Raven]

Didn't the tattoo artists (and what was that woman's name?  Tattooeene or something?) say that he wanted the owl's wing going up his butt?

[AZChristian]

26 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

Didn't the tattoo artists (and what was that woman's name?  Tattooeene or something?) say that he wanted the owl's wing going up his butt?

I wasn't watching closely enough to hear that exchange (thank goodness).  Maybe he deserved what he got.  

[Silver Raven]

wtf?  "As the older brother, it's your responsibility to look out for your younger brother."  Bullshit.  He wasn't incompetent or incapacitated, just younger. And a grown man.

[AngelaHunter]

I watched this today and was shocked by Judge Corriero. He yelled at Mr. Moreno and told him that he is obligated to take care of the children he brought into the world. He was referring to the def. - the plaintiff's daughter - who is 41 years old and a woman who has probably never earned a dime in her life. She says with great pride that she's a "stay at home mom" which is fine, except the "children" are two adults and a teenager. She gets money from her father "all the time", for trips and house payments, etc., promised to pay him back for the latest handout, and gave him a check that bounced. I'm sorry, Judge C, but he is NOT obligated to continue bankrolling and bailing out his middleaged daughter. She needs money? Let her get a damned job (or make her husband get another job, or two more jobs to support keep her in the style to which she wants to become accustomed) like the rest of us who don't have fathers with deep pockets have to do, and stop being a useless parasite. Oh, this just got my ire up.

[Silver Raven]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I watched this today and was shocked by Judge Corriero. He yelled at Mr. Moreno and told him that he is obligated to take care of the children he brought into the world. He was referring to the def. - the plaintiff's daughter - who is 41 years old and a woman who has probably never earned a dime in her life. She says with great pride that she's a "stay at home mom" which is fine, except the "children" are two adults and a teenager. She gets money from her father "all the time", for trips and house payments, etc., promised to pay him back for the latest handout, and gave him a check that bounced. I'm sorry, Judge C, but he is NOT obligated to continue bankrolling and bailing out his middleaged daughter. She needs money? Let her get a damned job (or make her husband get another job, or two more jobs to support keep her in the style to which she wants to become accustomed) like the rest of us who don't have fathers with deep pockets have to do, and stop being a useless parasite. Oh, this just got my ire up.

Not to mention that even though she keeps taking money from her father, she got a protective order against him.

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

Not to mention that even though she keeps taking money from her father, she got a protective order against him.

Wow. I missed that. I got so disgusted I turned this off.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Wow. I missed that. I got so disgusted I turned this off.

Yeah, apparently there was quite a bit of stuff in texts we never heard. Pretty much all three judges said the texts switched their views.... texts we never heard read, but that were discussed in chambers. Seems good old daddy was a manipulative a$$hole, who told daughter he'd forgive the loan if daughter intervened with mommy about cutting money he owed in alimony. Daughter did her part, talked to mommy, but mommy didn't agree. That's when daddy goes off the deep end with his texts, suddenly demanding payment even though she tried to do what he said she needed to do to have the debt forgiven. His texts were bad enough that another court granted her a permanent restraining order (not sure if it was 2 or 4 years). 

OTOH I agree dude judge sometimes attempts to bring his family values into the courtroom... oh, like the other day he told the 23 year old brother that he should be looking after 18yo baby brother instead of suing him for $300 on the death trap junker he sold baby brother for way over KBB. As I recall, said death trap had metal to metal brakes, and came with no title or registration... but a deal is a deal, and the fact that baby brother spent all his money making clunker safe doesn't mean he shouldn't have to finish paying the agreed upon price. Ah, but older brother gets upset cuz mommy intervenes and stops the two from duking it out in her living room, so he goes out and smashes windows in the car... judges decide to call it even,  baby brother owes final payment for car, big brother owes for windows, nobody gets anything.

Edited November 9, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

34 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Seems good old daddy was a manipulative a$$hole

Even if he's the worst asshole in the entire world, Judge C is out of his mind saying that any parent is obligated to keep supporting a middle-aged, able-bodied married daughter. An idea: Get off your large butt, daughter - get a job and be self-sufficient for the first time in your life, then Daddy won't be able to manipulate you with money. A whole new world will open up for you.

38 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

... oh, like the other day he told the 23 year old brother that he should be looking after 18yo baby brother

Wow. Why should he feel responsible for his brother? He didn't bring him into the world. This is just lunacy.

[AlleC17]

On 11/9/2017 at 6:39 AM, AngelaHunter said:

Even if he's the worst asshole in the entire world, Judge C is out of his mind saying that any parent is obligated to keep supporting a middle-aged, able-bodied married daughter. An idea: Get off your large butt, daughter - get a job and be self-sufficient for the first time in your life, then Daddy won't be able to manipulate you with money. A whole new world will open up for you.

Wow. Why should he feel responsible for his brother? He didn't bring him into the world. This is just lunacy.

Yeah, I did not get it at all.  Sometimes when the judges go off on their high horse, they leave me behind.  I attribute some of this to me watching it late at night, so I am sometimes falling asleep, but this was a genuine head scratcher as was the take care of baby brother comment. 

[SRTouch]

Well, well, well, finally a case where an AS IS car deal ends with seller having to pay for the repairs. Not sure it should count, though, since seller was clearly out matched by the buyer. At first glance, buyer looks like a little kid, but she blew every defense seller came up with out the water. She has proof that just about every answer he gave when a judge asked him something was a lie. Now, if only next time she does her research BEFORE the purchase.

[DoctorK]

Quote

an AS IS car deal ends with seller having to pay for the repairs

I think the defendant should have gotten hit a lot harder. It was perfectly clear that he was a liar, he criminally reset the odometer, and flat out lied about selling cars. On top of that, he was smirking and laughing as he was exposed, and in the hallterview was even more obnoxious. I would like to see criminal charges, I am sure that this is not the only time he has pulled off this scam. What a complete scumbag, I was happy to see the plaintiff completely disembowel him on national TV.

[phoenix780]

I love how the judges chastise people for slinging mud then go backstage and absolutely demolish them. Just watched one with a granddaughter being sued by her grandmother, they were appalled she'd call grandma a liar, then labeled her a sociopath. 

[DoctorK]

Quote

they were appalled she'd call grandma a liar, then labeled her a sociopath. 

Perhaps this was because they saw no indications that grandma was a liar but saw lots of indications that grand daughter was a sociopath based on her actions and statements in court?

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Perhaps this was because they saw no indications that grandma was a liar but saw lots of indications that grand daughter was a sociopath based on her actions and statements in court?

Yep, as I remember Granny had evidence of the loans, defendant made no bones about Granny giving her the money, cuz Granny always gave her money. But, hey, when Granny lost her job and came asking for some of the money back, heck, time to dump Granny. No remorse, no thanks for always being there for me, Granny, just so long, Gran, Not even a "nice knowing you"

[AngelaHunter]

Should there be a penalty for abject stupidity? I think so, especially if someone who has no common sense and no judgement is entrusted to raise a child. Marzhiel (whatever. I forget names 2 minutes after I hear them) takes out a loan for the creepy, oily little butterball def who likes to play lawyer. First she lets him live with her for 8 months without paying a cent. After he movies out he can't pay his rent, so she decides to help him because she doesn't want him to keep asking her. The loan she takes out for him has a 180% interest rate, but sure, she'll do it. Who wouldn't? The idea of someone this impaired, this mind-numbingly stupid being given custody of a helpless child is very distressing. The only enjoyable part was Judge DiMango asking him if he knew why he's not a lawyer. "Because I didn't go to school?" he answers. "No," she says. "It's because you're not smart enough."

[AlleC17]

In yesterdays episodes there was a fine, upstanding young man, who accidentally discharged his automatic rifle, with the bullet going through his wall, and through the neighbors wall, hitting the plaster above her bed.  At first, he seemed like he actually gave a shit that he could have killed someone and went over to the neighbor to make sure she was okay.  She claims she was taking an afternoon nap, but did not hear the bullet.  That is quite a nap, lady!  I wonder if she had taken some sleep aid?  Anyway, she has documentation of SIX BULLETS!!!  Defendant, once learning he caused no carnage, then decides the invoice for her damages wasn't on a professional letterhead, so declines to pay, and then becomes increasingly obnoxious in court until I just want his ass kicked from here to kingdom come.  Pretty crazy!  At least it was NOT a dog bite case! 

[SRTouch]

8 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

In yesterdays episodes there was a fine, upstanding young man, who accidentally discharged his automatic rifle, with the bullet going through his wall, and through the neighbors wall, hitting the plaster above her bed.  At first, he seemed like he actually gave a shit that he could have killed someone and went over to the neighbor to make sure she was okay.  She claims she was taking an afternoon nap, but did not hear the bullet.  That is quite a nap, lady!  I wonder if she had taken some sleep aid?  Anyway, she has documentation of SIX BULLETS!!!  Defendant, once learning he caused no carnage, then decides the invoice for her damages wasn't on a professional letterhead, so declines to pay, and then becomes increasingly obnoxious in court until I just want his ass kicked from here to kingdom come.  Pretty crazy!  At least it was NOT a dog bite case! 

Well, for the most part I agree, but I had a slightly different take on a couple of your points. First, I understood it to be one bullet going through multiple walls. Easy to understand why that point is confusing, because a couple of the judges - mainly DiMingo - appeared to think there were multiple shots. Maybe so, but I can easily see a single bullet, fired in a neighboring house, going through several walls... especially with modern construction where it may only pass through drywall, insulation, sheathing and siding. Heck, doesn't even need to be a particularly powerful firearm, and a civilian owned M4 style weapon would probably be firing .223 rather than military grade 5.56mm. Other point, I heard automatic rifle more than once during the case and in the comments... nope, not if it's a civilian m4 copy it'll be a semi automatic carbine (even a military m4 would be a carbine, IIRC). OK , second point is kind of nit picking, but there is a difference. Now, as a one time NRA guy and supporter of right to have a gun, let me add I see no reason to own a civilian m4.

Edited November 22, 2017 by SRTouch

[AlleC17]

48 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Well, for the most part I agree, but I had a slightly different take on a couple of your points. First, I understood it to be one bullet going through multiple walls. Easy to understand why that point is confusing, because a couple of the judges - mainly DiMingo - appeared to think there were multiple shots. Maybe so, but I can easily see a single bullet, fired in a neighboring house, going through several walls... especially with modern construction where it may only pass through drywall, insulation, sheathing and siding. Heck, doesn't even need to be a particularly powerful firearm, and a civilian owned M4 style weapon would probably be firing .223 rather than military grade 5.56mm. Other point, I heard automatic rifle more than once during the case and in the comments... nope, not if it's a civilian m4 copy it'll be a semi automatic carbine (even a military m4 would be a carbine, IIRC). OK , second point is kind of nit picking, but there is a difference. Now, as a one time NBA guy and supporter of right to have a gun, let me add I see no reason to own a civilian m4.

I watch this at night right before bed, so did not pick up the 1 bullet penetrating multiple walls in neighbors house, so that makes sense.  I am not opposed to owning a gun per se (your nitpick also makes sense, a civilian having a fully auto m4 is a bit ridiculous) but if you HAVE a gun of any sort, you should know how to properly use it and maintain it so you don't accidentally shoot through your neighbors walls.  Just saying.  lol  That guy's attitude did him no favors whatsoever.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

if you HAVE a gun of any sort, you should know how to properly use it and maintain it so you don't accidentally shoot through your neighbors walls.  Just saying.  lol  That guy's attitude did him no favors whatsoever.

Absolutely, and why I parted ways with the NRA (yes, NRA, not NBA... darn auto-correct). My view is that before owning a firearm, you should be required to take safety courses. Before carrying or even firing a weapon, you should spend enough time on a range or in a controlled setting that you'll hit what the heck your aiming at more often than not. Maybe because I spent 20 years in the Army where soldiers are trained to fire weapons and many struggle to qualify, I sincerely doubt most people should be allowed to load a weapon without training. I do not believe the Second Amendment automatically gives everyone the right to go to the store and walk out with a gun anymore then the First Amendment means you can stand in the theater and shout "fire!"... ok, nuf of that - stepping away from the soap box.

Edited November 22, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 0:57 PM, AlleC17 said:

In yesterdays episodes there was a fine, upstanding young man, who accidentally discharged his automatic rifle,

Just watched this and my mind, it is boggled. Some lowlife, wannabe gangster gets to play with assault weapons, because "Everyone in Atlanta has one"? Where would someone like him get such a weapon? Why was he not arrested for nearly killing his neighbour? I don't understand any of this. That Ms. Stinson wasn't killed is just pure luck. Had she been standing in her bedroom instead of lying down, she might may have gotten one of those bullets through her skull or her spine and now be dead, crippled or grievously injured by the def's utter cement-headed stupidity. He has the astounding gall to ignorantly blabber over the judges with the usual BS of, "Man, you don't know me, man. " Ugh. Ms.Stinson should have asked for the maximum allowed and she would have gotten it. We hear from so many idiots claiming "emotional distress" when their old beater cars conk out or their Grammy's china gets broken. If anyone deserved it, it's Ms. Stinson, who probably lives in fear and no longer feels safe in her own home because of that ridiculous zero, that waste of oxygen, who should be in prison. In Atlanta, it's not an offense to blindly fire off assault weapons in an urban area? Of course, the lowlife doesn't accept the 600$ repair bill, because it's not on an official letterhead paper and we can see he's all about proper procedure. The judges were wasting their breath trying to talk sense to him. He's a loser for life. I found this case extremely disturbing.

[SRTouch]

ok, worst defense ever on today's two pit bulls attacking a neighbor's dog. Never mind fact they had no defense - their two Pitts left their property and attacked neighbor's dog while it was in a truck parked in the neighbor's yard. From that sentence, you know that strict liability is going to say they're liable for any damage.  I remember this case, and IIRC last time I only lasted until intro was over. Not sure if I lasted any longer this time, or not. What happened was dude saw his dog being attacked, grabbed a nearby rifle, fired twice, chasing away one pit and killing the other. I didn't watch long enough, or maybe just wasn't paying enough attention, but from a couple pictures I'm thinking rural area, probably in desert area. That's not what I'm writing about, though, what struck me was what these two defendant were saying. First, little blond miss sunshine, tries to argue that it's the plaintiff's fault his dog was attacked, because his gate was open. Then big bald headed dude tries to cast doubt on how serious the attack was... cause if his two dogs had been serious they would have killed the much smaller dog. Little missy now says dude, who was watching two pit bills tear up his dog, should have fired a round into the air to scare away her dogs. Really, he only had two shots.  Yes, he tried to hit her dog with the first shot... but he missed, so how is that any different than a warning shot. Next, they're arguing that he shouldn't have fired at all, no, they say he should have grabbed their dog by the rear legs and pulled it off his dog.... huh, not me, I may be a dog lover, but I'm not going to grab your pit bull when it's in the middle of a vicious attack on my dog while in my vehicle parked in my yard, not if I have a club or a firearm to protect my dog with. The real absurdity of these defendants is shown in their countersuit. Instead of assuming responsibility for the sizeable vet bills plaintiff had, they countersue wanting plaintiff to pay for cremation of the dog he shot protecting his own. Ok. I've seen enough

Edited November 25, 2017 by SRTouch

[Silver Raven]

The pit bull owners also blamed the victim because he left his gate open.  They said.  Doesn't matter that their dogs escaped from their yard.

[AlleC17]

On 11/24/2017 at 0:14 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Just watched this and my mind, it is boggled. Some lowlife, wannabe gangster gets to play with assault weapons, because "Everyone in Atlanta has one"? Where would someone like him get such a weapon? Why was he not arrested for nearly killing his neighbour? I don't understand any of this. That Ms. Stinson wasn't killed is just pure luck. Had she been standing in her bedroom instead of lying down, she might may have gotten one of those bullets through her skull or her spine and now be dead, crippled or grievously injured by the def's utter cement-headed stupidity. He has the astounding gall to ignorantly blabber over the judges with the usual BS of, "Man, you don't know me, man. " Ugh. Ms.Stinson should have asked for the maximum allowed and she would have gotten it. We hear from so many idiots claiming "emotional distress" when their old beater cars conk out or their Grammy's china gets broken. If anyone deserved it, it's Ms. Stinson, who probably lives in fear and no longer feels safe in her own home because of that ridiculous zero, that waste of oxygen, who should be in prison. In Atlanta, it's not an offense to blindly fire off assault weapons in an urban area? Of course, the lowlife doesn't accept the 600$ repair bill, because it's not on an official letterhead paper and we can see he's all about proper procedure. The judges were wasting their breath trying to talk sense to him. He's a loser for life. I found this case extremely disturbing.

Very, very disturbing.  I don't understand why he wasn't arrested either.  Of course, it was his friend's gun...he came over to play guns with the defendant.  As they all do in Atlanta, you know?  Didn't the plaintiff say in the halterview that she is moving?  I know I sure would!  Poor lady...like you said, had she not been napping, she could have been badly hurt or killed, not that the defendant gave a crap.

[ElleMo]

Just watched the episode with the woman whose dog walked up to a leashed dog (Doberman I think) and was bitten.  Owner of Doberman was liable.  Theory being that she should have been able to control her dog.  This bugs the heck out of me. They seemed to be blaming the dog owner because she was walking her dog at the same time as she took her kids in a stroller. As the owner of a big dog, I am very upset.  Why is it her fault?  Dogs will be dogs and if your dog is leashed and with you, it is not his fault when another dog runs up to him.  Are you never supposed to take your large dog for a walk in the event another dog will be around and off leash???  I don't see how she would have been able to control her dog "better" even w/o the stroller.  That is so unfair.  

And why was the woman with the smaller dog at least partially liable?????? Does't she have to control her dog. Or do annoying yappy dogs get a pass?

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, ElleMo said:

Just watched the episode with the woman whose dog walked up to a leashed dog (Doberman I think) and was bitten.  Owner of Doberman was liable.  Theory being that she should have been able to control her dog.  This bugs the heck out of me. They seemed to be blaming the dog owner because she was walking her dog at the same time as she took her kids in a stroller. As the owner of a big dog, I am very upset.  Why is it her fault?  Dogs will be dogs and if your dog is leashed and with you, it is not his fault when another dog runs up to him.  Are you never supposed to take your large dog for a walk in the event another dog will be around and off leash???  I don't see how she would have been able to control her dog "better" even w/o the stroller.  That is so unfair.  

And why was the woman with the smaller dog at least partially liable?????? Does't she have to control her dog. Or do annoying yappy dogs get a pass?

Ok, only reason I watched was I read your post prior to it coming on. I agree... well agree with what I think you meant - you probably meant "why was the woman with the smaller dog NOT at least partially liable??" Other thing I disliked was that the judges just let slide the differences in testimony. Was plaintiff's dog leashed? - she says yes, defendant says no. Why let plaintiff says defendant's dog had attacked other dogs in the community without even asking for some kind of verification? Plaintiff then claimed defendant gave her dog away, while defendant said it had cancer and was euthanized - whoa, big difference, and I would have followed up to see if either side could prove what they were saying. Not that it would matter much with liability in this case, but the whole case was based on credibility and this might have shown who was lieing. Finally, did plaintiff have any better control over her 2 dogs (which may or may not have been leashed) than defendant had of her 1 dog and stroller. Plaintiff did NOT prove her case to me... at best I would have split liability...

[Florinaldo]

5 hours ago, ElleMo said:

They seemed to be blaming the dog owner because she was walking her dog at the same time as she took her kids in a stroller. As the owner of a big dog, I am very upset.  Why is it her fault? 

I think the reasoning is that having your dog on a leash is not sufficient; you must be able to keep complete control of it at all times. Having to attend to both your kids and a big dog is a recipe for disaster, as demonstrated here.

I agree though that some allegations were left unresolved that could have led to a shared liability verdict.

[JenMcSnark]

On 12/4/2017 at 11:34 AM, ElleMo said:

Just watched the episode with the woman whose dog walked up to a leashed dog (Doberman I think) and was bitten.  Owner of Doberman was liable.  Theory being that she should have been able to control her dog.  This bugs the heck out of me. They seemed to be blaming the dog owner because she was walking her dog at the same time as she took her kids in a stroller. As the owner of a big dog, I am very upset.  Why is it her fault?  Dogs will be dogs and if your dog is leashed and with you, it is not his fault when another dog runs up to him.  Are you never supposed to take your large dog for a walk in the event another dog will be around and off leash???  I don't see how she would have been able to control her dog "better" even w/o the stroller.  That is so unfair.  

And why was the woman with the smaller dog at least partially liable?????? Does't she have to control her dog. Or do annoying yappy dogs get a pass?

 

On 12/4/2017 at 4:46 PM, Florinaldo said:

I think the reasoning is that having your dog on a leash is not sufficient; you must be able to keep complete control of it at all times. Having to attend to both your kids and a big dog is a recipe for disaster, as demonstrated here.

I agree though that some allegations were left unresolved that could have led to a shared liability verdict.

This episode pissed me off and I actually couldn't even finish it.  It should have been mutual liability at most.  Acker especially when she said "your dog is huge and her dog is small" or something like that.  Bullshit.  Defendant was doing everything she could do to be a responsible dog owner. 

Even if the other lady did have her dog on a lease, she let it run up under a DOBERMAN who was walking on leash with the family it probably is very protective over!  If that Doberman was serious, the other dog would not be alive.  The Doberman was probably startled like the defendant said and released the dog without attacking the owner or mauling the dog.  

I feel the plaintiff was liable because she didn't control her dog AT ALL.  

[SRTouch]

Whoa, dude in the traffic accident case where he rear-ends one car before sideswiping plaintiff. Watched this case after watching MM call for security to backup Douglas as she booted loudmouth sleezeball. Of the two, this guy struck me as the worse. Loudmouth is pretty obviously not someone I would want to associate with, but this defendant actually looked clean cut... then he opened his mouth. When asked why he thinks accident wasn't his fault, despite two attempts at the diagram to explain away his own story of how he caused the smashup, best he can come up with is she was texting. Uh, why does he think she was texting... it's obvious, just look, she's a young girl - she had to be on Tinder looking for a date cause she's desparate. Dude gets slammed by all three judges, makes a lame ass apology, then soon as he gets in the hallway repeats the Tinder line. Said he had proof she was on the phone, but even if he did his own story had him driving on the shoulder and sideswiped her while she was continuing straight. 

[ElleMo]

20 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Whoa, dude in the traffic accident case where he rear-ends one car before sideswiping plaintiff. Watched this case after watching MM call for security to backup Douglas as she booted loudmouth sleezeball. Of the two, this guy struck me as the worse. Loudmouth is pretty obviously not someone I would want to associate with, but this defendant actually looked clean cut... then he opened his mouth. When asked why he thinks accident wasn't his fault, despite two attempts at the diagram to explain away his own story of how he caused the smashup, best he can come up with is she was texting. Uh, why does he think she was texting... it's obvious, just look, she's a young girl - she had to be on Tinder looking for a date cause she's desparate. Dude gets slammed by all three judges, makes a lame ass apology, then soon as he gets in the hallway repeats the Tinder line. Said he had proof she was on the phone, but even if he did his own story had him driving on the shoulder and sideswiped her while she was continuing straight. 

What's this obsession with Tinder?  Even if she were on her phone, how would he know if she was texting, looking at her GPS or posting on Twitter?  I think HE was on Tinder and that is why is crashed into both cars. He wasn't paying attention and didn't notice when the car ahead stopped short; he smashed into the rear of one car and then tried to get away and sideswiped the other car.  I was half paying attention to the episode and don't recall his explaining or the judge asking ask why he kept moving.  Did he?

When you crash into a car, you are supposed to stay where you are, unless it is really dangerous situation.  And if you do move, you stay as close as possible to the accident scene.  From his description of events, it sounded to me like he was trying to leave the scene,  

Edited December 8, 2017 by ElleMo

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, ElleMo said:

What's this obsession with Tinder?  Even if she were on her phone, how would he know if she was texting, looking at her GPS or posting on Twitter?  I think HE was on Tinder and that is why is crashed into both cars. He

Just watched this. Was Mr. Garcia trying to be funny? If so he failed badly. The plaintiff (who is well-spoken, educated and has probably a much better job than Garcia or Gonzalez(?)) is "desperate?" Has he looked in the mirror lately? He's a short, unattractive, "pointy-eared hobgoblin" (credit Dr.McCoy of Star Trek) -  middleaged man who can't even drive without crashing into multiple cars, in addition to which he's so stupid he confessed to being responsible for the accident and didn't even know he did so. Just because he found some woman who must have been really desperate and was willing to breed with him doesn't make him some sort of god who can disparage anyone else. I agree that he's probably very familiar with Tinder and other sleazy sites.