Posted on 05/09/2005 6:46:54 AM PDT by MississippiMasterpiece
Well, it seems to me you worship the opinions of worhtless judges. We have seen in the last few years the usurping of power (I know, not in this case); we have seen them allow the starvation of innocents, and make outrageous awards for stupid cats.
I respect the laws made by the people we elect to represent us; when the courts get out of control, you're right; I don't respect that and I believe that the people have a right to fight back.
Or an ambulance chasing shark
That's how I feel about my 2 boys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, my dogs are in doggie heaven, so kitties are probably there too.
Pepe Le Peu would have to go to court.
The woman in Seattle who sued....let's see....how much you want to bet she drives a Subaru with Kerry/Edwards, Iraq War No or War=Terrorism stickers on the back?
And if you don't think the reason the urns were created and kept was solely as a show piece for the trial in order to bump up the payout you are naïve.
HA, you bounced the dog on its head a few times?? Good for you. Is the dog owner suing you??
I believe the Pope would disagree with you.
Any dog or two legged vermin that harmed our cat would not make it home alive.
Did this owner do everything she could to protect her cat, such as putting up a fence to keep out the neighbor's dog?
....and maybe a kiss on the nose from his new fan? Thank you, and the same to you and Bob.
Doesn't matter. It's the dog owner's resposibility to ensure that his dangerous animal (yes, dogs are dangerous, they KILL PEOPLE) was restrained in a manner to make sure that the animal did not escape and harm other people and property.
To say otherwise is to say that if some fool shoots his gun into the air on Cinco De Mayo and the bullet comes back down and hits you in your car, he is not liable if you didn't have your seatbelt on since you didn't do everything you could to protect yourself from possible injury. Or that the burglar who broke into your house is not liable since you chose to have glass windows that allowed him to enter - obviously, you didn't do everything you could to protect your house, so he shouldn't be liable, right?
I'm sure he and I would disagree on a lot of things. But if it makes you sleep better at night then believe what ever you'd like to.
and we can't count ballots correctly either.
Obviously this idiot didn't learn his lesson; hopefully this judgment will teach him not to allow his predatory beasts to have contact with neighbors' beloved pets. I know this will sound irrational to some on the board, but I, for one, am glad for the punitive judgment. The cat's death was unnecessary and totally preventable.
Only in Seattle.
45 GRAND.... Now thats a lot of pussy..
"Roemer said Gray's dog had repeatedly escaped from its yard before the incident, partly because a fence on the side of the yard had large gaps."
I could understand the dog getting out once, until the owner had time to fix the gaps in the fence. But the fact that the dog escaped repeatedly and the fence was never fixed shows complete negligence on the dog owner's part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.