Hot Bench - General Discussion

[TresGatos]

I saw Patricia DiMango as a talking head on one of the True Crime shows. I don't remember which one but she was dressed in a black leather top (or dress) that was very form fitting and low cut. The funny thing was she had a big bulky black blazer over it so she looked like a litigant who had dressed inappropriately for court and and was given a suit jacket of shame by production so she could cover up.

[AngelaHunter]

20 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

I know I'm superficial, but I sure hope the D spent his money on fixing his teef.

Haven't seen this yet, but it's not superficial! The bacteria from rotten teeth can seriously affect the health. There may not be any pain once they've reached the stage of decay where the nerves are dead, but in 2018 there is no excuse to be toothless or equipped with a bunch of rotting stumps.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The line up for this week looks good.    I have issues remembering when this is on because it's on in the middle of the afternoon, on the half hour, and I don't watch anything else on that channel.    I wish they would show this for an hour, with the new episodes, combined with a rerun, and I could catch up on older ones.     To watch this I usually use my DVR, or I forget to turn the channel.  

Off topic, but bad teeth, and the infection they lead to can poison your entire body, and kill you.   

Edited September 15, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[hisbunkie]

On 9/12/2018 at 2:38 PM, Silver Raven said:

Wow, what a case this morning.  This guy is suing a contractor he hired to do work for him on a house he was renovating (he refused to call himself a house flipper, though that's what the court papers described him as). The defendant said he had offered to fix anything the plaintiff didn't like, but P never let him fix anything.  Not only did the defendant pay for supplies out of his own pocket, and not only was the defendant suing him for $10,000, the plaintiff never paid the defendant for his work.

But the defendant didn't let things go there.  He went on Craigslist and found another guy that the P had done the same thing to.  And THAT guy came in, claiming he and the defendant had never met until that day, with lots of emails from other people (one of the judges said there were 13) that the plaintiff had hired and then never paid.  It seems that Plaintiff had a history of hiring non-licensed contractors and then didn't pay them, and they couldn't sue him under California law.

The judges told the defendant and the witness he brought in to tell the local DA about the plaintiff and show them the tapes from the show. They awarded the defendant $3800.

Did anyone take his name down?  It was Chris something. I wanted to look him up, wondering if anything came of his performance. I think he may have been working in Fresno. 

Whats most upsetting to me is the nerve this guy has, totally void of any shame or humanity.  To go on national tv with his scam. I wonder if his wife is aware of his game?

I just found it.  The plaintiff is named. Christopher Callison. 

[Silver Raven]

57 minutes ago, hisbunkie said:

Did anyone take his name down?  It was Chris something. I wanted to look him up, wondering if anything came of his performance. I think he may have been working in Fresno. 

Whats most upsetting to me is the nerve this guy has, totally void of any shame or humanity.  To go on national tv with his scam. I wonder if his wife is aware of his game?

I just found it.  The plaintiff is named. Christopher Callison. 

It seems he's in Clovis, which is a town near Fresno.

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, hisbunkie said:

To go on national tv with his scam. I wonder if his wife is aware of his game?

That guy was one of the slimiest, most sleazy, arrogant and nervy litigant ever, I think. To not only scam the def, but to have the unmitigated gall to sue him, and on national television. I hope every contractor in his area heard about this episode and watched it so they can blacklist him. I can't believe he hasn't been arrested. I'm sure his wife is not only aware of what he does, but is just fine with it. Water always does find its own level. But wow - the def's witness was seething with justified rage.

[SRTouch]

Whoa, can you believe mommy's countersuit in the 'she beat me up'? First as J D pointed out, you can't make a complaint based on statements made during a criminal investigation/court proceeding and sue for slander/defamation - especially when the judge hearing the case finds you guilty of assault/battery/domestic abuse. During testimony, we learn that dad has custody (mommy argues it's 50/50 custody, but baby LIVES WITH DADDY). Well, yeah, daughter lives with daddy, but initially mommy was getting assistance with baby's formula - and refused to give formula to dad when daughter was with him. That's pretty low, but worse is the time daddy shows up for custody exchange - on a freezing cold day, 2 weeks after baby had recovered from pneumonia - and mommy is miffed that dad didn't bring his diaper bag and a change of clothing for the baby. So what does mommy do? Strips baby down to her diaper and expects daddy to take her out in the cold! 

Yep, totally agree with DiMango when she says mommy can't win on slander/defamation case - truth is best defense and Mommy is a terrible mother

Added after hallterview - no mention during case, but in hallway Dad hints Mommy may have learned her abusive behavior from HER mommy

Edited September 22, 2018 by SRTouch
Added hallterview comment

[Florinaldo]

4 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

So what does mommy do? Strips baby down to her diaper and expects daddy to take her out in the cold! 

She is so spiteful she misguidedly thought that this move was a way of getting back at the father and hurting him, with no second thought to the child's welfare. She came to court dressed up as prim and proper, almost in school marm style, but she was quickly revealed for the violent harpy that she is. Let us hope no judge ever award her custody back.

[CrazyInAlabama]

What a bizarre day care case today.    P. is day care provider, took care of baby for d., who claimed she was going to get day care paid by government.    Then day care application gets turned down, and 'she had no idea it wouldn't go through'.    Judge Corriero says that the hang dog demeanor of p. means she really didn't know, which is garbage.   P. gets the money, and both women go in the hall and have a teary moment, where day care provider says she'd love to have kid back in her day care, and p. cries with joy.   I think they were both in it together to get day care paid without plaintiff doing it.    I bet her kid never left the defendant's day care, and it was all a scam.

Another jerk renter who thinks if she can't pay means she doesn't have to.    Landlady (or was that a former roommate? I missed that part) gave tenant 30 day notice, and tenant claims she had to giver her 60 days.   Defendant also has stupid boyfriend who moved in, wasn't on the lease, but landlord didn't have to give 60 days notice because the man wasn't a tenant, and the woman hadn't lived there for a year that makes 60 days notice necessary.     Idiot tenant pays rent, but won't pay water bill, but I bet she paid everything else she cared about.    Landlord gets utility bill paid ($913, that's one hell of a bill), plaintiff is still an idiot. 

In yesterdays case of the baby, I feel so sorry for that child to have a vicious low life like that woman for a mother, and hope the father keeps full custody.  I hope the father gives the family court judge the raw footage from this case, to show the mother is very willing to hurt her child to get back at the father.  

Edited September 19, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[Silver Raven]

Did that lady say, "She has no mole, that's a booger"?

[TresGatos]

The 60 day vs. 30 day notice was strange because apparently the law says everyone living in the apartment has to have lived there a year for the 60 day notice to apply but I wonder if there is an exception for babies under a year old?

[AngelaHunter]

I just hope if I ever commit a crime, I would love to get Judge Corrierro to try my case. He seems willing to forgive anything short of 1st degree murder and even then I'm not sure. If perpetrator cries enough, he may forgive even that.

[CrazyInAlabama]

My understanding is that anyone living in the apartment over 18 must sign the lease, because they are legal tenants.    Minors aren't financially responsible, since they can't sign a legal contract.

There are exceptions I've been told about, like student loans contracts are enforceable, and signed by a minor are still enforceable.     In Alabama I found out that you have to be 19 to be on a mortgage, and I found that out with the buyers for my last house, a big dust up occurred.  

Edited September 23, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[zillabreeze]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I just hope if I ever commit a crime, I would love to get Judge Corrierro to try my case. He seems willing to forgive anything short of 1st degree murder and even then I'm not sure. If perpetrator cries enough, he may forgive even that.

No shit.  He's a either the most intentional planted foil in the history of court TV or the most delusional bleeding heart ever.  But, yeah when I eventually snap, he's my go-to judge.

I'm all Team Acker.  She's ruthless.  Especially with Dick Wad dudes and the bimbos that love them.

[DoctorK]

I can't stand Corriero anymore. He is pathetically unassertive so he tries so hard to clutch at any straw to try to show that he is a strong independent voice against two strong assertive women. Today's student/teachers phone case was a good example. He falls for a sob story and during deliberations almost slips and says that his conclusion is based on reasonable indications the the defendant might be innocent. This is a weaselly way to try to set a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. I also believe that Mom was either lying or has adjusted her memory to match what she wanted it to be. I really miss Bakman, as annoying as he was.

[Silver Raven]

11 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I can't stand Corriero anymore. He is pathetically unassertive so he tries so hard to clutch at any straw to try to show that he is a strong independent voice against two strong assertive women. Today's student/teachers phone case was a good example. He falls for a sob story and during deliberations almost slips and says that his conclusion is based on reasonable indications the the defendant might be innocent. This is a weaselly way to try to set a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. I also believe that Mom was either lying or has adjusted her memory to match what she wanted it to be. I really miss Bakman, as annoying as he was.

I gave you a heart though I disagree about the Bakman part.  :)

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

I can't stand Corriero anymore. He is pathetically unassertive so he tries so hard to clutch at any straw to try to show that he is a strong independent voice against two strong assertive women.

While I might love him as my uncle, I can't stand him and his bleeding heart on this show. I didn't finish this case precisely for that reason but I did note that the "educator" has very poor grammar - "They backpacks", and "where he was sat at" which is not only annoying but discouraging. I did feel sorry for the def's mother, who is probably going to be spending time visiting her son in prison in the future.

[AZChristian]

Just watched the episode where two cousins were fighting over $58 for a dress that female Plaintiff had bought for male cousin Defendant's 97-year-old mother to be buried in.  D didn't like the dress, and said he wasn't going to pay for it because she never provided a receipt.  P decided that if she was going to sue, she was going to add a bit to cover the time she spent shopping for the dress, bringing the suit to $200.  

It sure struck a chord with me.  When my 85-year-old grandmother died, her oldest daughter (with whom she lived) wanted her sister (my mother) to feel included in the final arrangements.  So she asked my mother to pick out something from the funeral director's line of casket-wear for Grandma to spend eternity in.  Sadly, aunt had no idea as to just how horrendous my mother's taste was.  Every time mother showed something to my aunt, aunt was more horrified.  When she saw that it wasn't going to get any better, she finally agreed on what she later described as the "least-inappropriate."  So blue-collar, never-work-makeup-a-day-in-her-life Grandma was buried wearing a pleated and lace light pink nylon negligee-looking monstrosity.  Aunt asked me (I had no clue of what had happened) what I thought of it and the best thing I could say was, "Well, it's certainly . . . um . . . different from the way I've ever seen Grandma."  She then filled me in on the story.  I told her that it was a lot easier to understand the burial outfit, because I KNOW mother had NO taste in appropriate clothing that I had ever seen . . . for the living or the dead.

Edited October 5, 2018 by AZChristian

[ElleMo]

On 10/5/2018 at 7:29 PM, AZChristian said:

Just watched the episode where two cousins were fighting over $58 for a dress that female Plaintiff had bought for male cousin Defendant's 97-year-old mother to be buried in.  D didn't like the dress, and said he wasn't going to pay for it because she never provided a receipt.  P decided that if she was going to sue, she was going to add a bit to cover the time she spent shopping for the dress, bringing the suit to $200.  

It sure struck a chord with me.  When my 85-year-old grandmother died, her oldest daughter (with whom she lived) wanted her sister (my mother) to feel included in the final arrangements.  So she asked my mother to pick out something from the funeral director's line of casket-wear for Grandma to spend eternity in.  Sadly, aunt had no idea as to just how horrendous my mother's taste was.  Every time mother showed something to my aunt, aunt was more horrified.  When she saw that it wasn't going to get any better, she finally agreed on what she later described as the "least-inappropriate."  So blue-collar, never-work-makeup-a-day-in-her-life Grandma was buried wearing a pleated and lace light pink nylon negligee-looking monstrosity.  Aunt asked me (I had no clue of what had happened) what I thought of it and the best thing I could say was, "Well, it's certainly . . . um . . . different from the way I've ever seen Grandma."  She then filled me in on the story.  I told her that it was a lot easier to understand the burial outfit, because I KNOW mother had NO taste in appropriate clothing that I had ever seen . . . for the living or the dead.

I didn't even know this was a thing.  We buried me grandparents when I was a child and my parents when I was an adult, we buried then in their own clothes. 

[AngelaHunter]

Today I watched a "ho-hum" case of plaintiff selling her ancient beater Buick with 200K+miles on it, and of course scamming defendent - who signed an "as is" contract - wouldn't pay the remaining balance because the t***** on the heap crapped out after 3 weeks. Also, the windshield "exploded" (looks like somene threw a brick through it) and JDiM thought that turning the heat blower on in cold weather (in Alabama) could make a windshield shatter! I live in a place where it is not uncommon to have temps of -25 degrees. I'm pretty sure temps don't dip to that level in Alabama.  I've been driving a very long time and not once has turning on the heater in my car made the windshield explode, seeing as how the "Defroster" and heater are made precisely for de-icing windshields in very cold weather. Where does she get her information?

While I do appreciate her experience and her way of cutting through the lying BS of litigants, I've also noticed that her grammar is not perfect.

[ElleMo]

Just watched the case of the grandparents who evicted their daughter-in-law on Christmas Day, didn't give her enough time to move out, and didn't send list of damages for 2 months. And son is still living there, so I don't see how they can say that the damage was from her.

 

 I agree with the verdict. I think it was spot-on. However, I don't agree when they said "you're probably very nice people." Because  I don't think they are nice people; I think they're awful people. No matter how freaking pissed you are at your Daughter-in-law, no matter how much of a b**** she may be, How the hell do you kick her out on Christmas day? Even if you don't care about just common decency, don't you care about how your grandkids are going to feel. That's got to be very stressful and awful for them. They are vindictive harpies.

[TresGatos]

47 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

Just watched the case of the grandparents who evicted their daughter-in-law on Christmas Day, didn't give her enough time to move out, and didn't send list of damages for 2 months. And son is still living there, so I don't see how they can say that the damage was from her.

 

 I agree with the verdict. I think it was spot-on. However, I don't agree when they said "you're probably very nice people." Because  I don't think they are nice people; I think they're awful people. No matter how freaking pissed you are at your Daughter-in-law, no matter how much of a b**** she may be, How the hell do you kick her out on Christmas day? Even if you don't care about just common decency, don't you care about how your grandkids are going to feel. That's got to be very stressful and awful for them. They are vindictive harpies.

And the mother-in-law had such a pleased smirk on her face over kicking her daughter-in-law out on Christmas. A 'Oh, sren't I so clever" look of self-satisfaction. Not nice at all.

[lynny]

On 10/12/2018 at 8:49 AM, ElleMo said:

Just watched the case of the grandparents who evicted their daughter-in-law on Christmas Day, didn't give her enough time to move out, and didn't send list of damages for 2 months. And son is still living there, so I don't see how they can say that the damage was from her.

 

 I agree with the verdict. I think it was spot-on. However, I don't agree when they said "you're probably very nice people." Because  I don't think they are nice people; I think they're awful people. No matter how freaking pissed you are at your Daughter-in-law, no matter how much of a b**** she may be, How the hell do you kick her out on Christmas day? Even if you don't care about just common decency, don't you care about how your grandkids are going to feel. That's got to be very stressful and awful for them. They are vindictive harpies.

That couple was vile. One of the judges asked, "what about the kids?" and their response was, "The kids could have stayed."

And, then at the end, talking about their son is "so good with the kids. He plays with them." Yeah, sounds like the typical "Uncle Dad". Those people were not "probably very nice people" and I resent the judges implying as much.

[Silver Raven]

On 10/12/2018 at 7:49 AM, ElleMo said:

Just watched the case of the grandparents who evicted their daughter-in-law on Christmas Day, didn't give her enough time to move out, and didn't send list of damages for 2 months. And son is still living there, so I don't see how they can say that the damage was from her.

 

 I agree with the verdict. I think it was spot-on. However, I don't agree when they said "you're probably very nice people." Because  I don't think they are nice people; I think they're awful people. No matter how freaking pissed you are at your Daughter-in-law, no matter how much of a b**** she may be, How the hell do you kick her out on Christmas day? Even if you don't care about just common decency, don't you care about how your grandkids are going to feel. That's got to be very stressful and awful for them. They are vindictive harpies.

Not to mention that in kicking her out, they were also kicking their grandkids out.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, lynny said:

Those people were not "probably very nice people" and I resent the judges implying as much.

What did the judges hear that made them decide they were "nice people"? Never mind the daughter-in-law, but that they made their grandchildren homeless? This is an act of "nice people"? All that matters is their darling son, their baby boy, who didn't even have the balls to show up here, but lets Mommy and Daddy fight his battles for him.

Edited October 15, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

8 hours ago, lynny said:

That couple was vile. One of the judges asked, "what about the kids?" and their response was, "The kids could have stayed."

And, then at the end, talking about their son is "so good with the kids. He plays with them." Yeah, sounds like the typical "Uncle Dad". Those people were not "probably very nice people" and I resent the judges implying as much.

Didn't the big Christmas morning kerfuffle start because the kids wanted to open presents and dear old dad wanted to sleep in?

Edited October 16, 2018 by SRTouch

[Silver Raven]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Didn't the big Christmas morning kerfuffle start because the kids wanted to open presents and disrupt old dad wanted to sleep in?

I bet ol' Dad was nursing a hangover.

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

I bet ol' Dad was nursing a hangover.

You know he was!

The POA case today? I am so sick of seeing adult women on these court shows who refuse to take responsibility for themselves and then sue men to whom they gave money to buy them a car (a woman can't buy her own car! "I have ovaries! I don't know all this mechanical stuff")or to whom they gave money to buy some house/car to flip/invest in a fictional business, but never asked a single detail, so when they're scammed by a con artist, it's never their fault. "I trusted him!" they wail. They can't bother their heads with all this man business!

Plaintiff today has a college degree and worked as a social worker. She lived in a condemned house and the slimy gutter rat def comes along and tells her if she just signs over everything she owns to him - for the rest of her life - he'll magically make everything okay for her. She agrees that's a solid plan and signs her name to this contract. As a woman who lived alone for many years and managed to deal with various issues in my life,  even though I have no testicles, this always outrages me. One thing I know: You never EVER give control of your money to anyone else - not to a stockbroker, some boyfriend or some guy who lives down the street. An educated, mature woman who is having financial problems might consider seeing a financial advisor or a debt consolidator to find out the best solution, not following the dictates of some sleazebag she met who knows where. Ugh. "Poor little me!" indeed. I don't even know how this case ended, since I couldn't take it anymore.

[patty1h]

I was shaking my head during the Shih Tzu vs Bully case after hearing that the plaintiff was asking $5K after for the death of her dog.   Her dog got loose and went on someone else's property and that dog got territorial.   Her belief that because the attack happened in the front yard instead of the back absolves her of fault is ridiculous, and questioning whether the Bully was fenced in or not does not apply.  Your dog was not under your control and went to another yard - that is all on you!   Then she had the nerve in the hallterview to say that the 14 year old girl was coached by her father.  Both the plaintiff and daughter are drinking the same kool-aid.

[AngelaHunter]

I skipped any cases referring to dogs, but in the "I ran a red light but the accident wasn't my fault" case: Plaintiff daughter - "I had saw..." Really? Damn.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I saw the Bully v. Shih Tzu, and the plaintiffs were such liars.  And for them to call the little girl a liar was despicable.      The judge's assertion that the shock collar was an indicator the dog was vicious was wrong, some times it's used as a training aid, and many people train dogs that way.   It's more responsible than having a dog continue a behavior that can get cause an owner to be evicted, or have multiple citations from animal control for barking or something similar.    The owner of the bigger dog did say that the trainer told them how to use it, so it isn't someone just doing this on their own.  Sometime the trainer teaches the dog about the collar, but it doesn't even have batteries in it when the dog is at home.    The dog doesn't know the batteries are gone, and behaves.         

The bully owner did everything that could ever be expected to contain his dog, and it wasn't his fault that a tiny dog was loose, and came under the fence, and the owner fixed that after the mauling too.      The plaintiffs were idiots if they think an attack in the front yard of the bully owners house would be any different legally than the attack in the back yard, and the shih tzu crawling back out the way it came in.      I'm positive the plaintiffs were lying through their teeth that the shih tzu wasn't off leash constantly.    I bet the owner kept the dog inside most of the time, and at potty time let the dog out, and back in, and often it wandered off.  

I have known dog owners who used it to break a habit of the dog jumping on people, and that could seriously hurt or scare a smaller child like the daughter.    It doesn't mean the dog is mean, but it is a technique used to break habits.           A lot of people who do hunting, or hunting contests (they aren't hunting anything, but pointing or tracking a pre-determined course) use the shock collars, because otherwise the dog would hone in on an animal, and maybe never come back.    

Did they say what part of Michigan they were from?   Because they looked like clients from the Dr. Pol show about dog attacks, and I think they're the ones who referred the dog to the vet school.  

Edited October 22, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

Oh my, just sat down to watch past two days worth of cases only to find dog attacks on three out of 4 episodes. 99.999% of the time this type of case features clueless pet owners at the root of the problem - which is why I don't even watch - and from earlier posts sounds like this is true again.

Only thing to add, even though I didn't watch the case I caught the hallterview of yesterday's bulldog vs shih tzu. Totally agree with @CRAZYINALABAMA about use of shock collar - its use has nothing to do with whether a dog is vicious or not. Even without watching the case, plaintiff saying something to the effect that any dog that needs a shock collar is dangerous had me shaking my head and glad I didn't watch whatever nonsense she spouted in court.

NOTE: that said, IMHO, use of a shock/electric collar should be reserved for experienced dog trainers/handlers, not something clueless owners are able to order online. And, never to be used remotely as with wireless fences.

As if finding dog cases on three out of four Hot Bench episodes wasn't bad enough, I start to watch today's JJ and find program description "Gruesome Pet Discovery - beloved dog maimed and bleeding" for today's rerun episode.... maybe I'll come back for today's new JJ episode, but, for now no court TV for me today

[Carolina Girl]

Yesterday's case of the man who killed his neighbor's dog got me angry for a couple of reasons.  One, the asshole shooter was smiling and really enjoying his TV time.  You shot a fucking dog, you piece of shit.  

And Two, I guess I was the only one who didn't see his story as making any damn sense at all.  He said the dog was caught up with his leash on jis ATV and barking.  He never said anything about the dog being in actual danger.  He said he released the dog and thought it would go back home and when it didn't, he said it was menacing him and he shot him.   The judges sided with the shooter and against the owner because "big dog" and he was probably scared.   But he was damn close to that dog when he shot him.   

NOT ONE of those three idiot judges asked him the one question I was waiting for:  "Why didn't you go inside and call the police or animal control when you observed the situation so that they could come and release the dog and tried to find his owner."   He didn't seem at ALL upset that he'd killed someone's dog.  After all, he enjoyed "killing squirrels in his pecan trees."  

And I say this as someone who shoots clay targets with a 20-gauge.  

[Florinaldo]

I thought that the ruling in the dog-shooting case was entirely justified. If the dog was menacing and hostile, the neighbour had a right to defend himself, including using deadly force. I would not have had access to a gun myself, but I would have used any object available, including a pitchfork or a machete if present. In such circumstances, you may not have time or opportunity to calmly retreat and call the authorities

True, his smiles and smirks did not make him look good but we are never sure what exactly these shots are in reaction to; the editors may take two unrelated moments and splice them together to make them appear as action followed by reaction. Also, the plaintiff came across as over-the-top with his repeated hysterical characterisation of the event as "murder"; it was a hostile animal not a human after all, so not murder, albeit an unfortunate outcome.

Plaintiff should have had better control over his dog.

[zillabreeze]

3 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

And Two, I guess I was the only one who didn't see his story as making any damn sense at all.  He said the dog was caught up with his leash on jis ATV and barking.  He never said anything about the dog being in actual danger.  He said he released the dog and thought it would go back home

Not just you.   Calling authorities WHILE the dog was tangled up would have been so logical.  No one gets hurt and dog is alive.  Grinning ass just had an itchy trigger finger.

Years ago, my very sweet dog got tangled under a house around the piers.  She was so afraid, confused, and choking that she even growled at me when I was trying to help her.

A dog in trouble doesn't know the politeness rules.  There were options.  Problem was asshole wanted to kill something and knew damn well he was legally allowed to on his own property.  Pussy.

[CrazyInAlabama]

A lot of rural areas have no animal control.     I also suspect the dog was aggressive, because I'm guessing the nutso owner left him outside on the chain all of the time, and thinks watching the dog on camera is the same as taking good care of the animal.     The man who shot the dog did testify he tried to get the dog loose, but the dog came after him, and I think that was true, If the dog had run away or backed off, then the shot pattern wouldn't have been in the face and neck, but much wider, or not in the front of the dog.    I don't think the land owner would have shot if he didn't feel threatened.   

 I'm also wondering if the plaintiff was one of those people who moves to the country, complains about everything like noise, wandering wild animals, and smelly country aromas from livestock, and lets their animals run loose?   I'm guessing he is.    The plaintiff also claimed he was keeping close watch on the dog on the chain, or rope using his cameras, so where was he when the dog got caught in the ATV/tractor wheel?    

I lived in a suburb that was way out of town for over seven years, and you could always tell when a new person moved in, because there would be dogs wandering in the very busy road that ran right through the subdivision.   Within the first week either the dogs would be behind a fence, or they were just gone, and I had the feeling many didn't survive their owner's stupidity.       You would also hear  the sheriff's department going to their house, and the officers would talk to the person, and then leave, and usually the person was complaining about hearing gun fire (many of the houses had nothing behind their house but trees, leading to the river over a mile away, so many had shooting ranges, or deer stands with proper safety precautions).    Some of those people adapted to living out of town, but some were in and out of there very quickly, because they just couldn't cope with living out there, and left to run back to town.

Edited October 29, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A lot of rural areas have no animal control.     I also suspect the dog was aggressive, because I'm guessing the nutso owner left him outside on the chain all of the time, and thinks watching the dog on camera is the same as taking good care of the animal.     The man who shot the dog did testify he tried to get the dog loose, but the dog came after him, and I think that was true, If the dog had run away or backed off, then the shot pattern wouldn't have been in the face and neck, but much wider, or not in the front of the dog.    I don't think the land owner would have shot if he didn't feel threatened.   

 I'm also wondering if the plaintiff was one of those people who moves to the country, complains about everything like noise, wandering wild animals, and smelly country aromas from livestock, and lets their animals run loose?   I'm guessing he is.    

I think you are pretty much on the mark.

He came across as the kind of person who jumps on any opportunity to stir up things with neighbours and loves to create trouble. He negligently let his dog get loose, put the other guy in jeopardy and then had the gall to blame the victim for defending himself because he had no other choice. The plaintiff was the real culprit in the dog's death and it's too bad if there are no statute under which he could be charged for his wanton disregard of the basic rules of living in society while owning animals.

The judges also highlighted the fact that the pattern of pellet wounds indicated that the dog was very close in front of the defendant, not attempting to get away, which means his version of events was the most credible.

[lynny]

If you've never lived in a rural area I can understand thinking that calling the police or animal control is a good idea. If you live in a rural area you know that there is no such thing as animal control and the police take 2-3 hours to turn up for a break and enter so a dog tangled in your gator is going to result in a, "What do you want me to do about it?" from the dispatcher.

The land owner's story made perfect sense to me. He mentioned in the hallway that he's been bitten by a dog before which would explain him feeling scared. His story was so credible to me. It's exactly how it would go down on our farm.

[SRTouch]

On 10/25/2018 at 12:36 PM, lynny said:

If you've never lived in a rural area I can understand thinking that calling the police or animal control is a good idea. If you live in a rural area you know that there is no such thing as animal control and the police take 2-3 hours to turn up for a break and enter so a dog tangled in your gator is going to result in a, "What do you want me to do about it?" from the dispatcher.

The land owner's story made perfect sense to me. He mentioned in the hallway that he's been bitten by a dog before which would explain him feeling scared. His story was so credible to me. It's exactly how it would go down on our farm.

You raise a couple good points (full disclosure, I didn't watch the case, so am going by comments posted here) Many areas have minimal or nonexistent animal control. Once you get out of the city limits around here, you would need to call county - which has too few deputies to cover the county, so you may end up waiting a long time for a deputy to drive across the county - then when he/she gets there he probably won't be trained/be equipped to deal with a potentially aggressive animal. So, call in the morning and report a dog with a leash tangled up in your yard, you may not get a deputy before the sun goes down.

'Nother thing I often hear - not so much here as on the various animal rescue and vet program forums I follow. Don't know how many times someone tells a poster to get to the emergency vet. Hey, I live in a big town for Oklahoma - there is no such thing as an emergency vet clinic here. We have a service where you can call after hours and get advice - but expect to pay big Big bucks if a vet actually has to come in to see your animal (any vet care can get expensive - forget emergency care.) 15 years or more ago a neighbor's cat was mauled by a couple dogs on a Friday night. She called, and was told an astronomical amount to have a vet look at the cat that night, several hundred for the cat to be seen (not even talking being treated) the next day (which was a Saturday) or wait til Monday - with  three hundred to be paid up front before any treatment. I know because I loaned her some of the money to take the cat in Sat morning... cat needed surgery - but survived. Not sure what final bill was, but she repaid me on her next payday.

Edited October 26, 2018 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

Midway through today's two nutty neighbor case. P wants whole bunches of money from old (now homeless) dude. Partly - I kid you not - because old dude made fun of her poor special needs cat, Timmy. What is the nature of his special need, asks Judge D. Why, she has to walk him on a leash to keep him from runnjng off and maybe chasing a little bird!

Who knew?!? Turns out I have two special needs kitties. Poor, poor, little Raven, my special needs kitten, only 10 months old and has to be leashed to keep her with me when we go out. And, Silly, not even 3yo, has the same special need - and not just little birds - no, Silly chases leaves and grasshoppers! At least Frankie, my 3rd cat who sometimes ventures into the Out, stays with me and doesn't need a leash (though I DO have to watch him). 

[AZChristian]

Plaintiff was no nuttier than defendant.  "I'd lost weight and my pants fell down when I went outside and bent over to pick something up.  I was NOT mooning her."  This, in spite of the VIDEO showing him waggling his bony butt back and forth and POINTING to it, in case the plaintiff didn't already notice.  I think he was pretending to be more mentally challenged than he really is.  What a joyful place to live.  Or not.

[AngelaHunter]

10 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I think he was pretending to be more mentally challenged than he really is.

Agree he was playing the "poor little old helpless me" card with his oxygen tubes when he had no trouble throwing rocks or baring his disgusting, nasty wrinkled old butt. Plaintiff is a nut. Her cat is "special needs" because he wants to chase birds? That makes every cat on earth special needs. Class all the way there with those two cretins!

What about the gay couple who is bored with each other after all these years so invite some character from "Tinder" or some other sex app to move in with them to have whatever kind of sex each of the couple couldn't get from each other. The judges appeared to find something cute or charming about this sex-in-exchange for rent, which seemed to be the arrangement, since plaintiff, Vu Pham, is 28 and quit his job to move in with the defs. and he said they told him he didn't need to pay rent. The whole thing was extremely distasteful and I never stop being amazed at people willing to appear on national tv to air their most sordid laundry. Why did I never think of bringing in a stranger to get it on with my husband and me when we got tired of the same old, same old?

[SRTouch]

14 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Why did I never think of bringing in a stranger to get it on with my husband and me when we got tired of the same old, same old?

"Why?", indeed.... if you had you might have got to keep the couch. 

[ElleMo]

On 10/26/2018 at 5:40 PM, SRTouch said:

Midway through today's two nutty neighbor case. P wants whole bunches of money from old (now homeless) dude. Partly - I kid you not - because old dude made fun of her poor special needs cat, Timmy. What is the nature of his special need, asks Judge D. Why, she has to walk him on a leash to keep him from runnjng off and maybe chasing a little bird!

Please tell me this was tossed out and nobody got anything. My  show was interrupted and I did not get to see the verdict

[ElleMo]

I was very entertained by the case today. The loony woman who insisted her roommate stole jewelry out of her room and then put it back and then stole 20 pairs of pants and a mink coat. No wait it was a fox coat. No wait it wasn't real fur. Very entertaining.

[Babsbaeck]

I think that she meant faux fur and pronounced it fox--something I've heard even from sales clerks in stores.

[AZChristian]

57 minutes ago, Babsbaeck said:

I think that she meant faux fur and pronounced it fox--something I've heard even from sales clerks in stores.

I think you're right!  Hadn't thought about it until your comment, but I've heard other litigants on other court shows refer to something as "fox" when they meant "faux."

[SRTouch]

Today's new tenant vs landlord case should be required viewing for all renters looking on CL. My, what a despicable, foul mouthed little turd defendant is. Excuses his lack of manners and impulse control by saying he didn't have a mommy growing up - and we learn daddy signed the lease for him... and we never did get an answer to judge's query as to whether he was permitted to sublease. Surprised he lasted as long as he did before Sonja gave him the bums rush... something tells me co-defendant and gf will be in for a hard time for not heeling when he told her it was time to leave.

Then, we have a prime example of attitude and entitled spoiled brat on the rerun case when like-an-aunt P cut Little Miss Attitude out of the family plan when prima dona Blondie failed to pay her own phone bills (truth is, I skipped it after I recognised Little Missy from last time.) Yep time to get ready for work - Unka Byrd just won't pay for my phone or buy my kitty food - and 6 ?????? gotta eat!

Edited October 31, 2018 by SRTouch

[Silver Raven]

The little old lady suing her friend over damaging her rims was hilarious.  I loved this case.

[DoctorK]

59 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

I loved this case.

Not me, I found the elderly vociferous plaintiff annoying. The judges as a group all displayed major ignorance about tires, wheels etc. Corriero kept referring to "hubcaps" but they weren't hubcaps, they were cast aluminum wheels. These suckers are expensive (the ones I had on my last Camaro were about $500 each in 1990), but some searching on line might find a matching replacement or some place that can repair the damaged wheel. On tires, you probably should replace them in pairs either front or rear (assuming the other three tires are still in good shape and not already half bald and that there is not a full size spare same as the other four tires) though all four at the same time is desirable. I did not like the verdict, the plaintiff got the cost for four brand new wheels and tires instead of the depreciated values, I think the judges just felt that the plaintiff was so cute they wanted to give it to  her.