I don't believe it

Home  \  Off Topic  \  I don't believe it

Talk about a left wing judge.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/disp lay?slug=yofi09m&date=20050509

Wowwwwwwwwwwww..........45 thousand.

posted by  Godlaus

if i wasnt to lazy to create a user name i would...but yea im to lazy

posted by  griffinstud78

Basically, there was this lady who lives with her cats, and when the neighbors dog got through the fence, it killed a cat that she rescued in israel as a kitten 8 years ago. ( and probably illegally smuggled into the US). The dog's owner was out of town, so a neighbor let the dog out to pee, and it got through the fence, killed the cat, and the woman sued. The judge is making the dog's owner pay the lady 45 THOUSAND dollars in refuge and emotionally damages. FOURTY-FIVE THOUSAND.

posted by  Godlaus

Thats crazy.

posted by  StiMan

That is nuts, you cant really be serious are you? You can be charged for your DOG killing a cat, thats stupid. Only one thing you can do, run, just run away... or kill the lady.

posted by  car_crazy89

im glad i live in canada.

posted by  dodgerforlife

Where's janei at? I want to argue this with her.....

posted by  Godlaus

that's retarded! sounds like something my neighbors would do! stupid judge/lady :fu: !

posted by  enzo#2

Enzo #2? WTF? Why didnt you just choose another name?

posted by  StiMan

godlaus, are you really banned? why?
just curious...

posted by  dodger65

good question. i don't know. maybe because the enzo is one of my favorite cars. :roll:

posted by  enzo#2

Yes, I am clearly banned for my imcompetence on this forum. :mrgreen:

I threw that into my description because it was on another guys on a another forum, and I kinda liked it's inguinity(sp?).

Another I might throw in is:
"The secret to being original is to know how to cover up your sources"

posted by  Godlaus

which leads me into... how do you change your description... beacause i'm reasonably sure "anal orifice" isn't some level you can reach by posting a lot... :hi:

posted by  dodger65

Once you reach 500 posts, you can change it under your user CP.

posted by  Godlaus

wanna bet? :laughing:

You have to reach 500 posts then you can change it whenever yuou please. BTW, dont whore it up.

posted by  Satty101

that's cool--thanks, guys :thumbs:

posted by  dodger65

Godlaus, you arent really banned, are you?

posted by  StiMan

No, i think he said he just put it in there (to get people wondering). He did it the same way that you have "CF Scooby" in yours.

posted by  car_crazy89

Yes, sadly, I am............

posted by  Godlaus

yea and im a car expert...

posted by  CarEXPERT

That's probably out of a movie. :orglaugh:

posted by  DodgeRida67

Carexpert, you remember that one day, you were asking me about the definition of irony?.......................... :mrgreen:

posted by  Godlaus

Are you really? Usually if you are it says Status: Banned. If you are banned, why? I dont really think you are, they usually make a big deal out of that kind of thing.

posted by  StiMan

Im not trying to be mean Sti but are you that stupid? :screwy:

posted by  CarEXPERT


posted by  car_crazy89

You have no room to speak.

posted by  Accord_Man

He's being sarcastic.

posted by  Godlaus

Not really, didnt really think he was banned. Would have been funny though, Godlaus is pretty respected in my opinion so I expected public outcry.

posted by  StiMan

lol how did you know I wouldn't think it was entirely stupid.

The question is where the hell is the neighbor going to get 45 grand from. They don't make insurance for dog eating cat. Do judges even consider these things before handing out sentences? Although I feel the woman had been wronged imensely, I do not feel there was any malicious intent involved and I don't think its fair that the neighbor might have to either cough up their entire life's savings or file for bankruptcy in order to pay up.

posted by  JaneiR36

No, anal orfice is a slang sexual reference used widely and dominately between homosexual men.

:clap: .BURN. :clap:

Anyway, my neighbors dog got loose and killed my other neighbors dog. The owner of the dog murder didn't even know it ever happened.

People who sue over such stupidity is... well, stupid. If my neighbors dog got loose and killed a cat of mine, I'd thank his dog because I have about 8 cats that found there way into my yard and continue to be here.

posted by  DodgeRida67

I take it that was a stab at VWhobo :wink2:

posted by  99integra

Isnt that a little 'unfair'? he isnt around to defend himself or have a come back for you (which we all know he would). And about the cats, why dont you just put out a little bit of anti-freeze and see what happens :hi: . It could always be an 'accident' if anyone asks.

posted by  car_crazy89


DR, Now I know why you said putting kittylitter on that Trannyfluid puddle wasn't a good idea. :orglaugh:

posted by  Satty101

I figured you might take the other side for the sake of argument :mrgreen: . Seriously, there are way too many uber-left-wing judges out there. What kills me the most though, is that the cat-owner clearly stated that she valued her cat's lives over other people's. And she gets 45 grand from a guy who makes sub 50 grand a year.

posted by  Godlaus

You should post the article. You're editorializing while telling us the story!

The cat was an 8 year companion to that woman, I don't know why you find it strange that she valued its life over a bunch of strangers and acquaintances.

posted by  JaneiR36

wow, how stupid of me, I could've just copied and pasted.
Judge awards $45,480 in cat's death

By Warren Cornwall and Craig Welch

Seattle Times staff reporters


Paula Roemer points to the area in her back yard where a neighbor's dog attacked her cat in February 2004 after breaching a fence.

Paula Roemer knows most people don't understand her passion for animals.

Some of her North Seattle neighbors aren't thrilled about the crows she attracts to her back yard with bird seed, she says. When she rescued a scraggly kitten abandoned on a pathway while she was vacationing in Israel 13 years ago, people reacted with disdain.

So when a neighbor's dog mauled and killed that same beloved cat, Yofi, last year, Roemer barely mentioned it to people she knew. But now she feels that she found one person who understood: a judge.

Last week, Seattle District Court Judge Barbara Linde ordered the dog's owner to pay $45,480.12 to Roemer for the cat's death.

"Not too many [people] value a cat," said Roemer, a retired, 71-year-old former junior-high-school teacher, who lives alone except for her animals. "You know what I'm saying: 'It's just a cat.' And I'm very, very thankful we had a judge who knew that a cat had some value."

Judge Linde determined that Roemer should receive $30,000 in replacement value for the loss of her cat, $15,000 for emotional distress, $90 to recoup the cost of having Yofi cremated, $80 in medical expenses and $24.12 in interest.

Yofi was Paula Roemer's beloved cat.

The judgment may be among the largest amounts nationwide in lawsuits over the loss of pets, according to Roemer's attorney, Adam Karp of Bellingham, a specialist in cases involving animals.

"I do think it's the largest in our state for any type of animal, excluding, say, a Thoroughbred or other commercially valuable pets, or service animals," Karp said. "And I'm pretty sure it's the largest for a cat."

In 2003, a Snohomish County couple was awarded $25,000 in emotional damages when someone who was supposed to care for a horse and goats instead sold them for slaughter.

In a recent Texas case, the owner of a Mini-Schnauzer was awarded $10,000 in emotional distress when the dog escaped from a Petco grooming parlor and was hit by a car, according to Associated Press reports. In one New York case, the court found that a good dog's value increased with age, and its owner should be compensated accordingly upon the pet's untimely death.

The defendant in the cat case, Wallace Gray, pleaded guilty to an animal-control violation last October in Seattle Municipal Court. Court documents say he admitted that his dog killed a neighbor's cat in February 2004 "due in part to my negligence."

Gray said he just learned of the financial judgment yesterday from a reporter. "This is way out of hand. This is absolutely crazy," he said.

Gray said he had already served 21 days in jail and three months under house arrest for the animal-control violation. He wasn't living in the house with his dog at the time of the attack, he said, and the acquaintance who was taking care of his dog left town before the trial.

Paula Roemer keeps two urns with ashes of beloved pets. Yofi's ashes, at left, are with a booklet Roemer created for court featuring pictures of the pet.

"I'm sorry she lost her cat, but I had no control over it," Gray said.

Gray added that he thought the punishment was excessive considering that dogs and cats are natural enemies.

"Cats eat birds and dogs eat cats," he said.

Gray did not appear in court for the case and was not represented by a lawyer, Karp said.

Judge Linde could not be reached for comment.

While Roemer predicts she won't collect a nickel from the judgment, she and her attorney take the ruling as a message that even cats count. She plans to give any money from the case to an animal-protection group.

Her lawyer says the public perception of cats puts them at a disadvantage.

"I think there tends to be a culture that says dogs are more of man's best friends and cats are aloof and can't bond," Karp said. "But if anyone has ever shared their bonds with a cat, they know that's utter nonsense. I think our society tends to devalue cats, and I think the judgment recognizes that cats, too, can mean the world to people."

Still, Roemer said, that can't erase the painful memory of what happened last year in her back yard, or the loss of a cat that slept in her bed, curled up against her stomach, nearly every day since she rescued it.

Roemer was in Israel visiting friends in 1992 when she came across a heap of matted fur covered with flies. Roemer stopped to offer the cat some water from a bottle cap.

"Here's this one cat that saw me as a savior and I couldn't walk away from her," she said.

She named the cat Yofi and finagled her way through customs and back into the United States, with the tiny white and black kitten in a pet carrier.

Back in Seattle, Yofi became a fixture in Roemer's house, she said, befriending other cats and dogs she adopted.

Then, Roemer said, one day in February 2004 she heard screeching coming from her back yard and saw a neighbor's dog, a chow, holding Yofi in its jaws and shaking the cat. Roemer said she tried to rescue Yofi but lost sight of the cat while trying to save another one of her cats and get the dog out of the yard. She found the cat dead in another neighbor's yard the next day.

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.

Roemer said she sued Gray out of grief and frustration.

"I didn't go to court to get money," she said. "I could either burn his house down or I could go and shoot his dogs in front of him and shoot him, or I could shoot myself. So I decided to be rational and get a lawyer."

Now, the cremated ashes of Yofi rest in a small ceramic jar on a table in the living room of her small Northgate house. Behind it stands a large card with Yofi's name written across it and a montage of photos of Yofi inside.

The house is a testimony to her devotion to animals. A framed, hand-painted portrait of eight cats she has owned hangs in her bedroom. Boxes of cat-food cans rest on a spare bed in another room. A piece of cardboard sits in her living room near the television with detailed instructions on how to take care of the animals in case she can't.

Roemer still has the company of her other animals, a Husky mix named Ginger and three black-and-white cats, including the latest addition, Patsy Cline. She adopted that cat several months after Yofi died, when it cried one day as she looked at it.

She knows some people may find her odd for her love for animals. But she's past making apologies.

"It sounds crazy that I value my animals more than I do people. I help out people, too," she said. "It's just that in my personal life, I get along better with animals."
I love my puppy also, but I mean, I probably wouldn't value it's life over a humans. My hierarchy doesn't work like that.

posted by  Godlaus

"I could either burn his house down or I could go and shoot his dogs in front of him and shoot him, or I could shoot myself. So I decided to be rational and get a lawyer."

Should of done everyone a favor and 'got' rid of herself. Crazy, lonely old lady. I dont want to sound disrespectful or anything but its a pet, yes they have sentimental value but $30,000? Thats f*cking crazy, i would probably LET my animal die for $30,00 (not really but still). You know you got no life when... :screwy: .

posted by  car_crazy89

45 grand makes it all better.

posted by  DodgeRida67

Especially coming from somebody who can't afford to pay it.

posted by  Godlaus

Meh. He will be back someday. Better get in all the stabs before he does.
:guns: VWHOBO

posted by  StiMan

Haha i guess thats true, he'll be full of energy or is it 'flames' when he finally comes back so it wont matter either way. We'll see though.

posted by  car_crazy89

I have to VEHEMENTLY disagree with the "crazy, lonely old lady" statement. She was (is) NOT lonely. She had her pet for a companion and nutured that relationship with that animal. The pet got eaten alive in front of her and its body was later found in someone else's yard. This, due to the negligence of a neighbor who had done the same thing before; let a vicious animal out of his yard. He also acted like a jackass. Someone is sueing you for 45 grand and you choose not to have a lawyer! For a Civil Suit following up a criminal charge to which you pled guilty! AND spent 21 days in jail!!! stupid Stupid STUPID!!!!!

As for the "Old lady," again, would you rather she sat around in her home or in "a" home pathetically waiting for her children who haven't seen her in 18 months to magically come visit her. She has a life. It's her animals. One of them got viciously eaten and I think that did in fact deserve more than a slap on the wrist. I'm glad he got what he had coming!

PS: Does anyone who actually has a pet feel she shouldn't have gotten that much money? It's easy to say a pet's life doesn't have that much value when you don't have one. DUH.

posted by  JaneiR36

Well she knew about holes or gaps in the fence cause of previous incidents of the dog getting loose in her yard so why would she not of done something to get the holes/gaps fixed? Also it did deserve some kind of punishment but 45 grand?!?! that is a little rediculus (dont know the spelling). She may not be really crazy but she could get out and do other things rather then collect animals (and cremate them, like why?). And i have some pets. A cat, who has actually disappeared for a while, and a rabbit (that does nothing). Of course you'd be upset but to get THAT much of a fine? and also the guy did seem kind of arrogant (like an a$$hole) and he should of been better about it but still its only a cat (thats just my opinion, cats do have value just not as much so to me as other things).

posted by  car_crazy89

I happen to agree with JaneiR36 on this one.

This is what punative damages are supposed to do, get people to rethink policies of being negligent. YOu think it's too much? THink about the payment that would have been levied out if the guy's child had killed her child. Would have made this purely pet related incident look like pocket change.

I value my dog's and cat's lives more than I value any of you guys. Sorry, but it's true. Were you to kill one, how much you made annually would have zero bearing on what I'd do to you. You'd BETTER start looking for a better job... Part of a punishment is that it's supposed to be at least a little bit hard for you...

posted by  ChrisV

You value you pets more then us? :cry: lol i'm kidding, i understand that. I know you both are right and i understand your reasoning but i still think it is a little rediculus, like c'mon i could MAYBE understand anything under 20 grand but even thats pushing it. I know it would have sentimental value and no amount of money can fix that (not truely anyway) but things happen and not everything is controlable. Did it not say that the owner of the dog wasnt in town and he had someone watching the dog (i dont remember), if so then how really is it HIS fault, what about the person responsible for watching the house/dog? I dont want to sound cruel or uncaring but its a cat, sure its got value to you but its not the end of the world. I know, i'd probably think differently if it was me but still, i dont think i'd sue, definately not for THAT much, like give the guy a break.

Also, people and people are different then animals and animals. People are supposed to have enough common sense to make the right choices but animals go with there instinct. An animal doesnt really know what its doing and that its wrong, its just going by what it knows/thinks is right. Just my opinion though.

posted by  car_crazy89

She had a companion, and that much is fair, but 45,000 us an insane amount. Had I been the judge, Iw ould've paid her the amount for the creamation, the importation, and maybe 7500 in emotional fines. The dog's owner is slightly at fault for not fixing the fence, and he is responsible for his property's actions.

More than a slap on the wrist, yes, but 45,000 of them? That's an insane amount. Most definitely too many.

(See attachment)
I'm not too sure if I would trade in my puppy for another's life, because I've never been faced with the situation. Hopefully, I will never have to. I would definitely a family member's life over my dog's, though.

I fail to see your point. Are you saying that pets are worth as much as children? Or are you saying that examples need to be made of?

I value my dog's and cat's lives more than I value any of you guys. Sorry, but it's true. Were you to kill one, how much you made annually would have zero bearing on what I'd do to you. You'd BETTER start looking for a better job... Part of a punishment is that it's supposed to be at least a little bit hard for you...
Hard, not almost impossible. 7500 bucks woulda set this guy back for a while, and I doubt he'll be able to pay off this 45 grand fee for atleast a decade.

Actually, she did, she had a cinder block next to the gap, but the dog got it out of the way, and besides, the fence probably belonged to the nieghbor.

So what if my boa constrictor (I don;t really own one) gets out of it's cage, crawls to the neighbors house and eats their 2 month old daughter? I mean, that's insticts, I can't be responsible for it. When you license a pet, you take on the responsibility of caring for it, and preventing things like this from happening. This dog owner is at fault, but not 45 grand at fault.

posted by  Godlaus

Godlaus you got a point. Obviously he should be at fault but not THAT much of a punishment (as you said). He could have made it less likely to happen (ie. fixing fence, making sure dogs tied up, etc.) and therefore he is at fault. The is always a chance that when pets are let outside (outdoor cats) that something can happen, chased by dog, hit by car, maybe even be 'tortured' by people but those are risks YOU take by letting your animal free outside. I think if you live in the city that all animals (pets) should be put on a leash or something if there is a chance it could get out of the yard so that it will prevent occurrances like this one. I would say $10,000 at most (in total) in fines. You all have good points and are right, but everyone has their own opinions and i guess mine are kind of different.

posted by  car_crazy89

Did you just make an argument against yourself and not even know it?!? How the hell can you have a dangerous animal in your house that could eat up someone else and NOT be responsible for it?

Don't forget what ChrisV said. He's paying for:

a) The loss of this woman's companion.

b) The POTENTIAL danger he caused by not properly restraining his animal. If the dog HAD killed a small child, would that have made you happier? There's so much shit on the news these days about a rotweiler mauled and killed a child, and still people either keep these vivious animals as pets and/or don't restrain them properly. What would you rather have, a monetary message to pet owners, or a dead child? Both get your attention. I can tell you which I prefer. And let's not forget, while not a child, a 13 year house pet did get eaten. What the hell, how can we just shrug it off? 7500 my ass, that's less than what each and every single one of my broke friends would be willing to pay for a nice car!

PS: YOu also added that she knew about his fence being broken and put a canister in there. WTH?!?! It's not her fence made to restrain her dangerous animals, why should she be responsible for it in any way shape or form, including any carnage that results?

posted by  JaneiR36

An argument against car_crazy, as his argument was flawed. He stated that we owners are not responsible for ourpet's instincts, which is completely not true.

And somehow you think that 7500 won't make him restrain his animal in the future? I'm willing to bet this guy makes less than 50k a year, and you think 45k is reasonable? The 7500 fine would scar him, but the 45k would kill him.

My bad, I was taking out a point by car_crzy, again. You'll find that I often argue against all points simply for arguments sake. (Try to guess my real morales :mrgreen: ). She shouldn't be responsible for it, and it's my bad if it came off as the wrong view.

posted by  Godlaus

The cat was brutally *ahem* killed. (I'm trying my darndest not to say "murdered", but it does seem rather appropriate). It could have very easily been a child. He deserves the fine.

Also, any of these arguments could have been made in court if he showed up or hired a lawyer. Whose fault is it that he took the Civil courts forgranted?!? why the hell do you continue to feel sorry for him?!

posted by  JaneiR36

Lets say....I accidentaly start a fire, and my parents put it out, but not before it slightly burns my little borther. Naturally, I should be grounded until the second coming because it could have spread to the neighbor's house and killed them while they sleep. Had a child been in the yard, and the dog tried to attack it, but couldn't, and instead went for the cat, then I can see a fine of 45 large. But not for a situation like this.

My guess is that this guy didn't think he needed a lawyer, or had something against them, so he just didn't get one. Although, does that make common sense leave the building?

Now, my real question, is whether or not you actaully agree with all of this, or are just arguing the other side simply for arguments sake :mrgreen: ?

posted by  Godlaus

You're comparing a child's chores, to the responsibilities of an adult.

You're making excuses for him. YES it makes "common sense" leave the building. There was a compelling argument made by this woman's lawyer and the face of a poor, helpless, lonely, grieving woman who had just lost her beloved pet to go with it. The other side carried no weight, because the man simply chose not to show up with a lawyer. He took the whole situation forgranted up to the very end and that's why I don't feel sorry for him at all!

Couldn't be more serious about it. I really do believe the shit I'm talking :mrgreen:

posted by  JaneiR36

JaneiR36, i thought you said she wasnt a lonely old woman, that she had her animals so how really can you use that. I agree with you but only to a point, punishment was nessassary but not for a much as it was. I also believe Godlaus has a point so i also agree with him but again, only to a point. Neither side is totally right so really both parties are partly at fault.

posted by  car_crazy89

Your Message