Judge Alex

[Bedazzle]

So...its my day off and I'm watching Judge Alex **hangs my head in shame** Anyway, this "episode" has gotten me quite upset. The basic gist of this show is that an older man has goats fenced in on his property, and a family's dogs get loose from their house (a chihuahua and a pitbull) and try to get into the goat pen. The Chihuahua is successful, and the pit never makes it into the goat pen, but is on the older man's property. At this time the family is driving home and sees their loose dogs, at the same time the old man is shooting the dogs, and kills them. Eventually the cops are called and the cops say that the old man has every right to kill the dogs that are on his property.

What gets me mad is that Judge Alex says that the old man and the cop are idiots. The old man should have compassion that these dogs are family pets. Since the old man loves his goats, he should love dogs too and not shoot them.SAY WHAT?!?!

Judge Alex says that he should not have killed the Chihuahua since it can't do any damage. Huh? How about scaring goats into the fence? I have a Chihuahua and I can attest that she is perfectly able to herd goats, and move them along.

I don't know the results yet, but I'm so disgusted that a Judge (yes even one on TV), is not in agreeance with the laws and the old man's rights to protect his property.

[Bedazzle]

OMG Now I'm outraged. The old man was ordered to give the dog owner's $3100 for the cost of their dogs that were killed. Thats wrong. I'm sorry.

[trubandloki]

I miss how their dogs are worth that much anyway. I agree with you. That does seem wrong.

Did it say what state they are in?

[mjrtango93]

Wait how does he owe them anything? I thought there were livestock provisions in all states. Dogs chase livestock.....owner shoots dog.....too bad so sad for the family, maybe next time make sure they are contained. It's not like the goats got out, went to the dog owners house and then the old man shot them!

[MrWinston]

I have in fact been told by the local police that I would be within my rights to shoot the neighbor's Boxers that were digging in and attacking my dogs.

[Bedazzle]

I don't recall them saying which state they lived in. While I would have a hard time shooting any living animal, I would be livid if I decided to exercise my right to do so within the law, and then was sued and lost.

[emaren]

I saw a similar one where a man's son shot goats that repeatedly kept getting out and eating all of his dad's crops. The judge found in favor of the man with the goats and ordered the crop owner to pay some crazy amount for the goats. And really the judge probably would have found in favor of the crop owner except the guy kept saying that he didn't see who shot the goats and therefore couldn't be certain that it was his son and that made the judge mad and he therefore made a ridiculous ruling.

I don't think you have to be a smart or lawful judge to be on TV, just entertaining.

[Bedazzle]

What I have always wondered is that outside of the TV courtroom, are these ruling upheld? Are these even real cases?

[SomethingDazzling]

This is CRAZY!! The last thing a animal wants to do is attack one of my animals!
The responsibility of the dog owners to contain their dogs! Maybe with the money that they've been granted for their ill-trained dogs can pay for a better security for them when/if they get new dogs! The owner of the goats at least had proper fencing for his goats which is probably what saved them from the pitbull!
As for the crop story, I would not shoot an animal for eating crops! Yes, the crops are his lively-hood, but there was no life threatened! Wild animals do it all the time!!!
Society is soooooo screwed up anymore!

[mjrtango93]

What I have always wondered is that outside of the TV courtroom, are these ruling upheld? Are these even real cases?

From what I understand the cases are rulings are real. The thing is if it's legal in that old mans state to shoot animal's for disturbing livestock and he felt danger for his livestock then he was within his legal rights and would just have to go to "real" court to get that fixed. Honestly unless he was counter-sueing he could do nothing and they couldn't enforce it since he was within his legal rights.

I am in CA, and one of the barn owners dogs was killed, and another shot for going over to the neighbors house and chasing his peacocks. He had warned her once before if he saw the dogs chasing his birds he'd shoot them. Well they did, so he did. Barn owner never approached him about it because since she found the one dog on his property and the other left a blood trail coming from there it was obvious what happened. And trust me these dogs are dumber then bricks! There is no way they would have hurt the birds, they just wanted to make them run.

[EponaRoan]

The tv judge shows are binding arbitration rather than an actual court case. There's a 'pot' of money that they split based on the decision so it doesn't really come out of either person's pocket.