Peoples Court dog case

Does anyone here watch Peoples Court? I usually don't but today I did and one of the cases was over this lady(we'll call her Sally) whose uncle had a sharpei and this other lady(Jane) stole it.
Here is sort of how the case was, Jane got a male sharpei from a rescue org. she brings him home and he is cat aggressive, she can't keep him, so she calls the rescue and they say the have a girl that she can have, and she can give her male to Sally's uncle. So they get their new dogs.
A few days after she had given the man the male dog, someone called her and says that the man is feeding the dog old fridge food and not buying dog food and the dog is really unhealthy and has terrible diarhea. So Jane calls and he says she can have the dog back. As she is leaving (she lives in Conn and him in Boston, ithink, anyway several states away) she gets an email from the guys neighbor saying that he changed his mind he won't give the dog up. But she still goes to get the dog. Jane sees the man and the dog and takes the dog off his leash and takes the dog away. Sally said that Jane and her 13 year old son beat up the old man and hit him with the leash. They took the dog to a vet, Sally and the Judge claim it was to hide the dog, although it was never mentioned maybe she sent the dog to the vet bc it was sick, and had "projectile diarhea" But no it was to hide the dog? Anyway Sally is suing bc her son missed to private basketball lessons to do a tv interview about the lady attacking his great Uncle. The reason I am writing about all this is bc the Judge was really mean to the lady, told her she isn't an animal lover she doesn't help animals she only did it bc she is a horrible person and she needs to be on probation for stealing the dog. No one even talked really about the possibility of the dog being in danger and possibly dying.
I think the Sally was a retard for suing to begin with and I do think it is wrong to steal a dog, but if you are worried the dog might die, where do you stop? If she would have called Spca the cops who ever, how long would it have taken to get them to do anything.
It just bbothered me!

 

You stop before you break the law...I think it's that simple no matter what...

 

I never saw the programme but did the older guy have any proof to back up his story of being beat up? I dont agree with breaking the law and maybe the best way would have been to involve the SPCA or even the original rescue where the dog came from, was there a vet report on the condition of the dog? Bottom line is if there is proof that a dog or any animal is being abused it should be removed from the situation immediately. I'm confused as to why there is a lawsuit for the son....a TV interview is voluntary.

 

I thought the same thing! I don't think any judge would rule in Sally's favor if there was proof the dog was being neglected.

 

the whole thing was incredibly retarded, no one had any proof of anything!
I didn't really understand what Sally wanted from the other lady, but at the end she said she just wanted to embarass the lady. I think the lady di act very irrationally, but she apologised to the old guy (who didn't have much of a problem with the whole thing). I just thought that Sally was an idiot for the whole thing, i mean Jane went to court already about theft for stealing the dog. But then the judge was just so mean to Jane for stealing the dog. I hate people some days!

 

she should have let the rescue group that the dog originally came from handle the entire thing then no one would have been dragged through court, beaten up, etc.


Boston and CT aren't that far away from each - Massachusetts is the state above CT. Geography 101 :y_the_best: :wink: ...

 

For some people. Other people would rather break the law and accept the consequences than live with the knowledge that an animal or person was harmed or killed when they could have done something to stop it. It's a personal decision and the key is that you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your action. I don't think "right" and "wrong" really have a lot to with it.

 

If you've ever read the disclaimer at the end of these court shows, you'll see that the participants are paid to be on the show.

What they do is this; there is a specific amount set aside in a 'fund' to pay the participants. If there is a judgement for one participant, they are paid that amount out of the fund. Any remaining money is divided equally between the two parties.

Now, I hate to sound cynical, but I know people who have done this. They make up stories so they can appear on TV and make a little cash. It happens all the time. When there's no police report, no evidence, just he said/she said, the chances are pretty good they concocted the whole deal.

You don't think those stories on Jerry Springer are really true, now do you?

 

"You don't think those stories on Jerry Springer are really true, now do you?"

you mean they are all made up :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

what jerry is fake?
aww so now I realize where all the toothless actors go!!

 

The producers of the court shows, at least a few that I know of, have accesst to up coming civil suits (I believe it is public information) and will contact the people involved if they think it will make a good show, a friend was offered money for her case to be recorded and shown although it wasnt a large amount and she turned it down.