If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Remember the soldier that had his dog, Baxter, sold by his girlfriend while he was deployed? The family that bought Baxter have agreed to return him to his rightful owner   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 172
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

7764 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2014 at 5:30 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-19 10:39:08 AM  

Publikwerks: MechaPyx: Theaetetus: However, after Mr Gabbert's plight elicited a social media campaign and news stories, the family changed course.'I think the people that bought the dog and read the stories had started receiving hang-up phone calls, late night drive-bys, and emailed death threats, including particularly gruesome ones about their children. God bless the Internet,' Mr Gabbert's father Robert Sr told MailOnline.

So they gave up the dog not because they wanted to but to stop the harassment. The gf is a douchebag. So is the family and the people harassing them.

/people suck

I'm sorry, no. The family wasn't being douchy. They bought a dog, and wanted to keep him. There is NOTHING douchy about that.


Legally a stolen dog.
 
2014-06-19 10:44:36 AM  

Publikwerks: umad: enderthexenocide: yeah, that family sure was mean and evil for keeping the dog.  not like those nice, friendly internet people who threatened to murder their children.  that was surely a reasoned, rational response to the situation.  i didn't hear about anyone threatening to kill the girlfriend who actually sold the dog, you know, the person actually to blame.  but the family who did nothing but give the dog a nice new home are worthy of death threats.  they should have called the cops, kept the dog, and told that guy to go fark himself.

if that guy had gone to prison and gave the dog to his girlfriend and she sold it, no one would have cared at all about that guy.  but he's a soldier?  oh well then, let's just do whatever he wants.  if this guy was such a hero, he would have graciously let the family keep the dog because their kids loved it so much.  the villain here is the girlfriend, not the family.

Stolen property doesn't work that way. You don't get to keep it just because you really really like it. Fark the family. It was never their dog. They brought all of their own headaches on themselves the moment they claimed that the stolen property was theirs.

Again, it's only stolen if he presses charges.
Has he done that?


No, you are wrong. You don't have to press charges for it to be stolen. If he wanted to he could have sued the family for the return of the dog.

It's only a crime if you are caught is a mantra made up by thieves.
 
2014-06-19 10:45:37 AM  

doctor wu: Publikwerks: ecmoRandomNumbers: No rest for the wicked. This was only going to get worse if they didn't stop being douches.

How was the family being douches?

The douche was the GF, not the family. If I was the family, I would sue the shiat out of her, see if you can press charges.

Nope. Once the guy who bought the dog found out whose dog it really was the only proper thing to do should have been immediately clear. His instinct was to not do the right thing, period. So the douche-ometer definitely picks up two separate signals in this case.


Make that THREE separate signals.  The soldier lights up the scope like a Christmas tree too.  What kind of heartless douche would take a dog away from kids who had grown to love their pet?  Yeah, he's legally in the right, but you'd expect an adult to be able to handle the loss better than a bunch of kids.
 
2014-06-19 10:46:21 AM  

kronicfeld: They were bona fido purchasers for value. Unless they knew the dog was not the girl's at the time of purchase, it was likely theirs to keep.


No.

I have a story about a used car I could tell..and what happened to the person who eventually bought it from me..and what happened to me after that..

Stolen goods are stolen goods..  "Good Faith" means exactly 'Jack' and 'Shiat'..
 
2014-06-19 10:48:18 AM  

Publikwerks: Avery614: Publikwerks: How the fark do you know anything about the family?

I don't, I made a few assumptions based on the shiatty reaction of that family and the idiocy they spewed about why they were keeping the dog originally

Publikwerks: he isn't getting the police involved, so until he does, it wasn't stolen.

The idea that no item is stolen unless the police are involved is just asinine.

Publikwerks: And thats alot of hostility towards people who seem to be caught in a bad situation.

No hostility, just disdain for people who don't act right.  I don't wish any of them harm but I do reserve my right to think of a family of shiatheads as a family of shiatheads.

If you find out what you bought is stolen, you give the property back to the rightful owner and contact the authorities yourself.  This family has legal recourse against the gf and does not need the soldier to go after her for them to be made whole.  I'll even concede that the family should get a bit more than they paid for the dog,  if they cared for the dog while the soldier was deployed, for boarding costs.

/although I do happen agree with the guy up-thread who said it's pretty irresponsible to own a dog if you're away all of the time

But my whole point is that the dog isn't stolen unless it reported stolen. And until that moment, the family is NOT in possession of stolen goods.

The family can't get their money back from her unless she returns it, or they can prove they were sold stolen goods. Which the do isn't until he reports it stolen. And from the article, it sounds like Gabbert doesn't want to do that.

So they they don't want to give back the dog they legally purchased? Surprised? If he presses charges, it's one thing, but it sounds like he isn't doing that.


Wrong. In civil it is more difficult to prove without a police report. For example, stores have sued shoplifters without reporting the case to the police. They have won also.
 
2014-06-19 10:53:22 AM  

tillerman35: doctor wu: Publikwerks: ecmoRandomNumbers: No rest for the wicked. This was only going to get worse if they didn't stop being douches.

How was the family being douches?

The douche was the GF, not the family. If I was the family, I would sue the shiat out of her, see if you can press charges.

Nope. Once the guy who bought the dog found out whose dog it really was the only proper thing to do should have been immediately clear. His instinct was to not do the right thing, period. So the douche-ometer definitely picks up two separate signals in this case.

Make that THREE separate signals.  The soldier lights up the scope like a Christmas tree too.  What kind of heartless douche would take a dog away from kids who had grown to love their pet?  Yeah, he's legally in the right, but you'd expect an adult to be able to handle the loss better than a bunch of kids.


Haven't you ever heard of the New Age phrase "Teachable Moment"? This is an opportunity for the parents to sit the kids down and tell them about right and wrong and life's disappointments. This guy has raised this dog and invested himself way more emotionally over the years than these kids who had it for one month.
 
2014-06-19 10:55:11 AM  
Would it be correct to assume she is now an ex-girlfriend?
 
2014-06-19 10:55:22 AM  

KatjaMouse: tillerman35: doctor wu: Publikwerks: ecmoRandomNumbers: No rest for the wicked. This was only going to get worse if they didn't stop being douches.

How was the family being douches?

The douche was the GF, not the family. If I was the family, I would sue the shiat out of her, see if you can press charges.

Nope. Once the guy who bought the dog found out whose dog it really was the only proper thing to do should have been immediately clear. His instinct was to not do the right thing, period. So the douche-ometer definitely picks up two separate signals in this case.

Make that THREE separate signals.  The soldier lights up the scope like a Christmas tree too.  What kind of heartless douche would take a dog away from kids who had grown to love their pet?  Yeah, he's legally in the right, but you'd expect an adult to be able to handle the loss better than a bunch of kids.

Haven't you ever heard of the New Age phrase "Teachable Moment"? This is an opportunity for the parents to sit the kids down and tell them about right and wrong and life's disappointments. This guy has raised this dog and invested himself way more emotionally over the years than these kids who had it for one month.


This.
 
2014-06-19 10:56:19 AM  
Also, I just want to shout out to my fellow ladies who may be in this thread. Believe it or not but there are some b*tchy women out there who will drop a guy if he and her dog don't get along.

/The dog sleeps on the bed if s/he wants
//Don't like it? There's a couch.
 
2014-06-19 10:59:33 AM  
It's a happy ending - I'll take it, and screw the biatching.
 
2014-06-19 10:59:58 AM  
About effen time, assholes!
 
2014-06-19 11:03:45 AM  

Theaetetus: Theaetetus: However, after Mr Gabbert's plight elicited a social media campaign and news stories, the family changed course.
'I think the people that bought the dog and read the stories had started receiving hang-up phone calls, late night drive-bys, and emailed death threats, including particularly gruesome ones about their children. God bless the Internet,' Mr Gabbert's father Robert Sr told MailOnline.

I'm just gonna take my 10/10 points here and say shame on all of you who didn't bother reading the article.


Your post really stirred up the internet hornets nest.

10/10 indeed.
 
2014-06-19 11:06:05 AM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: kronicfeld: They were bona fido purchasers for value. Unless they knew the dog was not the girl's at the time of purchase, it was likely theirs to keep.

No.

I have a story about a used car I could tell..and what happened to the person who eventually bought it from me..and what happened to me after that..

Stolen goods are stolen goods..  "Good Faith" means exactly 'Jack' and 'Shiat'..


That would be a story worth reading.  Post it.  Change the bits that need changing to preserve privacy and all that stuff, but post it.
 
2014-06-19 11:06:06 AM  

fusillade762: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x423]

That picture is not helping his case


Jesus christ man, he and that dog are very lucky.  Many dogs, small dogs especially, can't handle being picked up - either it hurts them, or they can't breathe, or they just don't like it - and they twist and fight and squirm to get out of your grip, even if it means falling to the ground and hurting themselves.  I really hope his right hand was like tucked into and gripping the collar, or something.
 
2014-06-19 11:09:03 AM  

Gunther: doctor wu: Publikwerks: ecmoRandomNumbers: No rest for the wicked. This was only going to get worse if they didn't stop being douches.

How was the family being douches?

The douche was the GF, not the family. If I was the family, I would sue the shiat out of her, see if you can press charges.

Nope. Once the guy who bought the dog found out whose dog it really was the only proper thing to do should have been immediately clear. His instinct was to not do the right thing, period. So the douche-ometer definitely picks up two separate signals in this case.

Would you really want your kids to be miserable because you took away the family pet they'd grown to love?

I mean, it's clearly the right thing to do, but I can't really call someone a douche for not wanting to do it.


I can call it douchey.  They were told the girlfriend didn't have the right to sell the dog and that the dog's actual owner wanted the dog back.  They acted like douches by initially refusing to return what properly belonged to someone else.  Their kids be damned.  It's not their dog, they don't get to keep it.
 
2014-06-19 11:13:20 AM  

mschwenk: Wrong. In civil it is more difficult to prove without a police report.


Ask me how I know that you are not now, nor have you ever been, a trial lawyer.
 
2014-06-19 11:15:34 AM  

Benjimin_Dover: CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: kronicfeld: They were bona fido purchasers for value. Unless they knew the dog was not the girl's at the time of purchase, it was likely theirs to keep.

No.

I have a story about a used car I could tell..and what happened to the person who eventually bought it from me..and what happened to me after that..

Stolen goods are stolen goods..  "Good Faith" means exactly 'Jack' and 'Shiat'..

That would be a story worth reading.  Post it.  Change the bits that need changing to preserve privacy and all that stuff, but post it.


I work 12-hour overnights and am just about to go to sleep..  Will post here come t'morrow morn', iff'n the thread's still open..else, don't mind bein' hit in email..  EIP..  Use the 'tahlmorra' one..
 
2014-06-19 11:18:19 AM  

mschwenk: Legally a stolen dog.


Cold_Sassy: KatjaMouse: tillerman35: doctor wu: Publikwerks: ecmoRandomNumbers: No rest for the wicked. This was only going to get worse if they didn't stop being douches.

How was the family being douches?

The douche was the GF, not the family. If I was the family, I would sue the shiat out of her, see if you can press charges.

Nope. Once the guy who bought the dog found out whose dog it really was the only proper thing to do should have been immediately clear. His instinct was to not do the right thing, period. So the douche-ometer definitely picks up two separate signals in this case.

Make that THREE separate signals.  The soldier lights up the scope like a Christmas tree too.  What kind of heartless douche would take a dog away from kids who had grown to love their pet?  Yeah, he's legally in the right, but you'd expect an adult to be able to handle the loss better than a bunch of kids.

Haven't you ever heard of the New Age phrase "Teachable Moment"? This is an opportunity for the parents to sit the kids down and tell them about right and wrong and life's disappointments. This guy has raised this dog and invested himself way more emotionally over the years than these kids who had it for one month.

This.


I This this This
 
2014-06-19 11:18:31 AM  

KatjaMouse: Haven't you ever heard of the New Age phrase "Teachable Moment"? This is an opportunity for the parents to sit the kids down and tell them about right and wrong and life's disappointments. This guy has raised this dog and invested himself way more emotionally over the years than these kids who had it for one month.


said about the guy raising a huge stink because his dog was sold to a family with kids that loved the dog.  "MINE, fark YOU".  This was a great opportunity for the guy to grow as a person and do something that was good for a family and good for the dog in question.  Especially since he has no business owning a dog.

"MINE, fark YOU."

All this taught the kids was that people farking suck, and to look out for number one.

Now, don't misunderstand me here.  The guy was legally in the right. That doesn't mean that taking the dog from the family was right.  Because it was NOT.
 
2014-06-19 11:19:46 AM  
its shiat like this that makes me glad that there is almost no way for people to track me down if i got involved in shiat like this.

id troll the shiat out of the stalkers for shiats and grins.

/yeah, security on the web is kind of what i do
//no, there are no footprints of me on google
///im that careful :)
 
2014-06-19 11:23:18 AM  

frepnog: KatjaMouse: Haven't you ever heard of the New Age phrase "Teachable Moment"? This is an opportunity for the parents to sit the kids down and tell them about right and wrong and life's disappointments. This guy has raised this dog and invested himself way more emotionally over the years than these kids who had it for one month.

said about the guy raising a huge stink because his dog was sold to a family with kids that loved the dog.  "MINE, fark YOU".  This was a great opportunity for the guy to grow as a person and do something that was good for a family and good for the dog in question.  Especially since he has no business owning a dog.

"MINE, fark YOU."

All this taught the kids was that people farking suck, and to look out for number one.

Now, don't misunderstand me here.  The guy was legally in the right. That doesn't mean that taking the dog from the family was right.  Because it was NOT.


I love the dollars in your bank account. This is the perfect opportunity for you to grow as a person and do something that is good for me. Now pay up.
 
2014-06-19 11:36:00 AM  

xtech: its shiat like this that makes me glad that there is almost no way for people to track me down if i got involved in shiat like this.

id troll the shiat out of the stalkers for shiats and grins.

/yeah, security on the web is kind of what i do
//no, there are no footprints of me on google
///im that careful :)


Oh look..how cute..

<----  Comp/Net/IT Engineer since 1984

Wanna' bet a dollar on that..?    :D


/..now, REALLY have t'go t'sleep..
//..couldn't resist..
///..three slashies..
 
2014-06-19 11:38:47 AM  

frepnog: KatjaMouse: Haven't you ever heard of the New Age phrase "Teachable Moment"? This is an opportunity for the parents to sit the kids down and tell them about right and wrong and life's disappointments. This guy has raised this dog and invested himself way more emotionally over the years than these kids who had it for one month.

said about the guy raising a huge stink because his dog was sold to a family with kids that loved the dog.  "MINE, fark YOU".  This was a great opportunity for the guy to grow as a person and do something that was good for a family and good for the dog in question.  Especially since he has no business owning a dog.

"MINE, fark YOU."

All this taught the kids was that people farking suck, and to look out for number one.

Now, don't misunderstand me here.  The guy was legally in the right. That doesn't mean that taking the dog from the family was right.  Because it was NOT.


How the fark do you rationalize him keeping his own dog as wrong? Do you really think "finders keepers" is a justified and moral way to determine what belongs to whom? Or are you laboring under the belief that because this family was the last one to have the dog (for a whole month) that the dog somehow totally forgot who his real owner is and would be traumatized by going back to a guy who the dog now thinks is a stranger?  Or is this just a "think of the children" nonsense moment?

I'm really curious about your reasoning. You stated that it's wrong for him to want his dog back. Ok, can you tell us why you think that?
 
2014-06-19 11:41:37 AM  

umad: I love the dollars in your bank account. This is the perfect opportunity for you to grow as a person and do something that is good for me. Now pay up.


well, that's just farking stupid.
 
2014-06-19 11:45:10 AM  

frepnog: KatjaMouse: Haven't you ever heard of the New Age phrase "Teachable Moment"? This is an opportunity for the parents to sit the kids down and tell them about right and wrong and life's disappointments. This guy has raised this dog and invested himself way more emotionally over the years than these kids who had it for one month.

said about the guy raising a huge stink because his dog was sold to a family with kids that loved the dog.  "MINE, fark YOU".  This was a great opportunity for the guy to grow as a person and do something that was good for a family and good for the dog in question.  Especially since he has no business owning a dog.

"MINE, fark YOU."

All this taught the kids was that people farking suck, and to look out for number one.

Now, don't misunderstand me here.  The guy was legally in the right. That doesn't mean that taking the dog from the family was right.  Because it was NOT.


Was he? Because the fact that he hasn't go after the ex or go to the police  says to me there is more to this.
 
2014-06-19 11:46:17 AM  

taurusowner: I'm really curious about your reasoning. You stated that it's wrong for him to want his dog back. Ok, can you tell us why you think that?


Because he is a military man, obviously prone to deployments.  That means he doesn't really own a dog, he has a dog that he sees from time to time.  Also, based on the pic of him holding the dog over a goddamn cliff, he has no idea how to treat a pet.  Also based on the stink raised in getting the dog back, he has no values other than MINE, fark YOU.

Is he legally in the right to take back his dog, sold with out his permission?  Sure.  But SHOULD HE?  Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't always mean you SHOULD.  It's a dog.  He could get another dog, if he felt so inclined.  Don't give me the emotional attachment shiat either.  This was all about MINE, fark YOU.  If he really loved the dog...  he would have let the dog go.  And you know it.
 
2014-06-19 11:46:41 AM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: xtech: its shiat like this that makes me glad that there is almost no way for people to track me down if i got involved in shiat like this.

id troll the shiat out of the stalkers for shiats and grins.

/yeah, security on the web is kind of what i do
//no, there are no footprints of me on google
///im that careful :)

Oh look..how cute..

<----  Comp/Net/IT Engineer since 1984

Wanna' bet a dollar on that..?    :D


/..now, REALLY have t'go t'sleep..
//..couldn't resist..
///..three slashies..


age doesnt make you smart hoss. just because you've been a bad tech since 84 doesnt mean youre a good tech now.

bye.
 
2014-06-19 11:55:38 AM  
Publikwerks: ...we are all going off half cocked with no solid info...
Because, as I see it, the mistake here is on him - he gave his gf the dog to take care of.
He misjudged her, and so while I feel bad for him, I don't like that he sic'ed the internet on people for his mistake.
^^^^
` this

The fact that she went the extra mile to sell it makes you wonder what else was going on in their relationship.
Did he only call his gf to check up on his dog?... and then was ungrateful if she wasn't treating his dog right?
Did she get stuck for its high vet & food bills?
Maybe she wasn't psycho - just fed up w/ paying big doggie bill$ for an ingrate, and wanted to get paid back.


/My dog costs plenty - I'd never leave him w/ anyone who didn't like him, and I'd make sure I paid his bills
 
2014-06-19 11:58:58 AM  

frepnog: KatjaMouse: Haven't you ever heard of the New Age phrase "Teachable Moment"? This is an opportunity for the parents to sit the kids down and tell them about right and wrong and life's disappointments. This guy has raised this dog and invested himself way more emotionally over the years than these kids who had it for one month.

said about the guy raising a huge stink because his dog was sold to a family with kids that loved the dog.  "MINE, fark YOU".  This was a great opportunity for the guy to grow as a person and do something that was good for a family and good for the dog in question.  Especially since he has no business owning a dog.

"MINE, fark YOU."

All this taught the kids was that people farking suck, and to look out for number one.

Now, don't misunderstand me here.  The guy was legally in the right. That doesn't mean that taking the dog from the family was right.  Because it was NOT.


Oh, puhlllllllleeeeeeeeze!
 
2014-06-19 11:59:53 AM  

frepnog: taurusowner: I'm really curious about your reasoning. You stated that it's wrong for him to want his dog back. Ok, can you tell us why you think that?

Because he is a military man, obviously prone to deployments.  That means he doesn't really own a dog, he has a dog that he sees from time to time.  Also, based on the pic of him holding the dog over a goddamn cliff, he has no idea how to treat a pet.  Also based on the stink raised in getting the dog back, he has no values other than MINE, fark YOU.

Is he legally in the right to take back his dog, sold with out his permission?  Sure.  But SHOULD HE?  Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't always mean you SHOULD.  It's a dog.  He could get another dog, if he felt so inclined.  Don't give me the emotional attachment shiat either.  This was all about MINE, fark YOU.  If he really loved the dog...  he would have let the dog go.  And you know it.


Sorry but that's one of the biggest loads of horseshiat I've seen on Fark in a  while. Congratulations. First, I had no idea you were a mind reader. You really wanna sit there and claim he didn't love the dog or you know why he did something? Sorry, but don't give me that shiat. You have no farking idea what he is or was feeling or why he did anything. Maybe that dog was all he had. His girlfriend obviously wasn't someone he could rely on. You don't know what he went through overseas, and to come back to your girlfriend pulling that shiat and losing your pet? And you seem to have a severely misguided opinion that being in the military means you shouldn't expect to have a real life in the US until you're done. I've been on three deployments myself, and coming home to your real life is the only thing you look forward to while you're gone. Of course he not only has the right to expect his dog to be waiting for him when he gets back, he deserve to have that dog waiting for him. It's his pet. His friend. His family. You have no farking idea what bond he may have with that dog. And he should just sit there and suffer through a deployment, a breakup and betrayal, and the the loss of his pet just because some kids had the dog for a month? A farking month? Sorry, but again, that's just horseshiat. And you know it.
 
2014-06-19 12:03:10 PM  

frepnog: umad: I love the dollars in your bank account. This is the perfect opportunity for you to grow as a person and do something that is good for me. Now pay up.

well, that's just farking stupid.


Are you claiming ownership of these dollars that I have grown attached to? You're a farking monster. I hope your children see what kind of scum you are.
 
2014-06-19 12:14:51 PM  

taurusowner: frepnog: taurusowner: I'm really curious about your reasoning. You stated that it's wrong for him to want his dog back. Ok, can you tell us why you think that?

Because he is a military man, obviously prone to deployments.  That means he doesn't really own a dog, he has a dog that he sees from time to time.  Also, based on the pic of him holding the dog over a goddamn cliff, he has no idea how to treat a pet.  Also based on the stink raised in getting the dog back, he has no values other than MINE, fark YOU.

Is he legally in the right to take back his dog, sold with out his permission?  Sure.  But SHOULD HE?  Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't always mean you SHOULD.  It's a dog.  He could get another dog, if he felt so inclined.  Don't give me the emotional attachment shiat either.  This was all about MINE, fark YOU.  If he really loved the dog...  he would have let the dog go.  And you know it.

Sorry but that's one of the biggest loads of horseshiat I've seen on Fark in a  while. Congratulations. First, I had no idea you were a mind reader. You really wanna sit there and claim he didn't love the dog or you know why he did something? Sorry, but don't give me that shiat. You have no farking idea what he is or was feeling or why he did anything. Maybe that dog was all he had. His girlfriend obviously wasn't someone he could rely on. You don't know what he went through overseas, and to come back to your girlfriend pulling that shiat and losing your pet? And you seem to have a severely misguided opinion that being in the military means you shouldn't expect to have a real life in the US until you're done. I've been on three deployments myself, and coming home to your real life is the only thing you look forward to while you're gone. Of course he not only has the right to expect his dog to be waiting for him when he gets back, he deserve to have that dog waiting for him. It's his pet. His friend. His family. You have no farking idea what bond he may have with that dog. And he should just sit there and suffer through a deployment, a breakup and betrayal, and the the loss of his pet just because some kids had the dog for a month? A farking month? Sorry, but again, that's just horseshiat. And you know it.


Oh dear lord. Call the waaahbulance. The guy is a first class douchebag, and if that was not obvious from the get-go, I dont really know what to tell you. It is a dog. First rule of pet ownership- you need to be able to let go, since they are very temporary.
 
2014-06-19 12:15:31 PM  

gulogulo: Nogale: The dog wasn't hers to sell. It had been left in her custody. If you house-sit for someone and get sick of watering their plants or dusting their books, are you entitled to sell the plants or the books? The boyfriend's father-in-law offered to take the dog - at his expense - and she preferred to sell it.

You are entitled to leave the house and plants. It's not indentured servitude. Again, you are running full-cocked with a half of the information. Do we know how 'prompt' that offer came? Days, a few weeks, a few months after she first said it wasn't work? If i had a nightmare pooch on my hands that some douche got knowing full well he was going to be gone for a months at a time, contacted him and he failed to in a timely manner make arrangements to take it off my hands, I might too resort to tryng to rehome it since it clearly isn't his priority : why should it be mine?

I'm not saying that IS what happened, but that is just as plausible as your scenario. The only difference is my scenario doesn't call for a witch hunt. But you know, I don't expect much 'critical thinking' skills from joe public.


Some response from someone who obviously didn't read that the guy's father contacted the woman and offered to take the dog off her hands AT HIS EXPENSE. She didn't respond and opted to unload poochie on Craigslist.

Regardless, she sold something that belonged to someone else that she had agreed to care for. Why do you find it difficult to see the problem with this?

Some house-sitting agreements include basic upkeep; many people are happy to get a free place in a high-demand area for the bargain basement price of watering plants and feeding the cat.

(Unless they're my friend who stayed in my place for six weeks last year and complained that the loud garbage trucks came by just at her daughter's bedtime. But that's another story.)
 
2014-06-19 12:16:58 PM  

frepnog: First rule of pet ownership- you need to be able to let go, since they are very temporary.


That is the only smart thing you've said so far. Absolutely perfect advice for that family to took possession of stolen property.
 
2014-06-19 12:21:31 PM  

taurusowner: Sorry but that's one of the biggest loads of horseshiat I've seen on Fark in a while. Congratulations. First, I had no idea you were a mind reader. You really wanna sit there and claim he didn't love the dog or you know why he did something? Sorry, but don't give me that shiat. You have no farking idea what he is or was feeling or why he did anything. Maybe that dog was all he had. His girlfriend obviously wasn't someone he could rely on. You don't know what he went through overseas, and to come back to your girlfriend pulling that shiat and losing your pet? And you seem to have a severely misguided opinion that being in the military means you shouldn't expect to have a real life in the US until you're done. I've been on three deployments myself, and coming home to your real life is the only thing you look forward to while you're gone. Of course he not only has the right to expect his dog to be waiting for him when he gets back, he deserve to have that dog waiting for him. It's his pet. His friend. His family. You have no farking idea what bond he may have with that dog. And he should just sit there and suffer through a deployment, a breakup and betrayal, and the the loss of his pet just because some kids had the dog for a month? A farking month? Sorry, but again, that's just horseshiat. And you know it.


So..you know the girlfriend or something to speak on such authority about what's horseshiat or what's not?
 
2014-06-19 12:32:31 PM  

Nogale: gulogulo: Nogale: The dog wasn't hers to sell. It had been left in her custody. If you house-sit for someone and get sick of watering their plants or dusting their books, are you entitled to sell the plants or the books? The boyfriend's father-in-law offered to take the dog - at his expense - and she preferred to sell it.

You are entitled to leave the house and plants. It's not indentured servitude. Again, you are running full-cocked with a half of the information. Do we know how 'prompt' that offer came? Days, a few weeks, a few months after she first said it wasn't work? If i had a nightmare pooch on my hands that some douche got knowing full well he was going to be gone for a months at a time, contacted him and he failed to in a timely manner make arrangements to take it off my hands, I might too resort to tryng to rehome it since it clearly isn't his priority : why should it be mine?

I'm not saying that IS what happened, but that is just as plausible as your scenario. The only difference is my scenario doesn't call for a witch hunt. But you know, I don't expect much 'critical thinking' skills from joe public.

Some response from someone who obviously didn't read that the guy's father contacted the woman and offered to take the dog off her hands AT HIS EXPENSE. She didn't respond and opted to unload poochie on Craigslist.

Regardless, she sold something that belonged to someone else that she had agreed to care for. Why do you find it difficult to see the problem with this?

Some house-sitting agreements include basic upkeep; many people are happy to get a free place in a high-demand area for the bargain basement price of watering plants and feeding the cat.

(Unless they're my friend who stayed in my place for six weeks last year and complained that the loud garbage trucks came by just at her daughter's bedtime. But that's another story.)



On whose authority do you know this is what happened and the sequence and timing of events? The jilted soldier and his dad? You don't think there might be a LITTLE bias there, do you? All of this is coming from exactly one source. Carry on with your witch hunt, I suppose and act like the 'crazed public' he appealed to for help. Like I said, critical thinking skills are lacking here, and I'm sure he kind of knew that is exactly how people would react to his sob story.

This wasn't a house sitting arrangement so I'm not sure what exactly she was getting in return for vet/food/upkeep and possible destruction of her own property.  Do you?

I reserve judgement until I hear from her.
 
2014-06-19 12:33:00 PM  

nanim: The fact that she went the extra mile to sell it makes you wonder what else was going on in their relationship.
Did he only call his gf to check up on his dog?... and then was ungrateful if she wasn't treating his dog right?
Did she get stuck for its high vet & food bills?
Maybe she wasn't psycho - just fed up w/ paying big doggie bill$ for an ingrate, and wanted to get paid back.


According to TFA she told him that she was having issues with the dog so he sent her his dad's contact information and offered to pay for shipping the dog off to stay with him. Gave his dad and head's up that he should be expecting this, found out later that dad never heard from the GF or got the dog. Basically she just didn't want to be bothered with the effort.
 
2014-06-19 12:34:59 PM  

KatjaMouse: nanim: The fact that she went the extra mile to sell it makes you wonder what else was going on in their relationship.
Did he only call his gf to check up on his dog?... and then was ungrateful if she wasn't treating his dog right?
Did she get stuck for its high vet & food bills?
Maybe she wasn't psycho - just fed up w/ paying big doggie bill$ for an ingrate, and wanted to get paid back.

According to TFA she told him that she was having issues with the dog so he sent her his dad's contact information and offered to pay for shipping the dog off to stay with him. Gave his dad and head's up that he should be expecting this, found out later that dad never heard from the GF or got the dog. Basically she just didn't want to be bothered with the effort.


If it went down exactly as he claims it went. How immediate was his response to the GF concerning her concerns? Y'all believe everything anyone ever tells you on the internet? Gullible lot.
 
2014-06-19 12:49:05 PM  

taurusowner: frepnog: First rule of pet ownership- you need to be able to let go, since they are very temporary.

That is the only smart thing you've said so far. Absolutely perfect advice for that family to took possession of stolen property.


Funny, I thought we were discussing a living creature here, not a toaster.
 
2014-06-19 12:53:28 PM  

fusillade762: That picture is not helping his case


I'm glad there was something about this story that was obviously not wrong about this guy for all the haters to grab onto.
 
2014-06-19 12:54:35 PM  

freetomato: They could get a shelter dog or 7 with the $1400 bucks and their kids would fall in love with the dog(s) in short order.

As for the ex-girlfriend - BURN THE WITCH!


Why not build a bridge out of her? More useful.
 
2014-06-19 12:58:02 PM  

frepnog: taurusowner: frepnog: First rule of pet ownership- you need to be able to let go, since they are very temporary.

That is the only smart thing you've said so far. Absolutely perfect advice for that family to took possession of stolen property.

Funny, I thought we were discussing a living creature here, not a toaster.


Well if you want to go that route, that living creature spent far more time with the soldier than it ever did with the family, and thus if we're relying on the attachment aspect, the soldier has a much better claim to being emotionally attached to the dog than that family ever could.
 
2014-06-19 12:59:23 PM  
The soldier has a lot more patience than me. I would have already filed a Police report and sent a lawyer after the family member who purchased the property and the girl friend.

The family are selfish douche bags for being in possession of stolen property and refusing to return it. The girlfriend is a douche bag for stealing and selling the guys dog.

This is how it was explained to me from a lawyer in Colorado. (A real lawyer with a degree from Harvard not Fark)

Once the girlfriend stopped caring for the dog and transacted a sale the dog became stolen property. The family purchased stolen property.
The girlfriend willingly broke the law and can be prosecuted by law.

The family member who was part of the sales transaction is in the clear due to legal criteria unless he was aware at the time of purchase the property was stolen.

(He also sent me this link containing the following)

Obtaining Control Over Any Stolen Thing of Value 18-4-404 and Theft By Receiving Stolen Property -  If you obtain control over a a stolen thing of value - even if you did not steal the item yourself - you can be convicted of the crime of Receiving Stolen Property.

§ 18-4-404. Obtaining control over any stolen thing of value - conviction

Required criteria to convict:
First - That the property in question was in fact - stolen,
Second - That you actually "received" and possessed the stolen property,
and
Finally - That having possessed or received the stolen property- you KNEW that the property was actually stolen.



The last one is the one that allows for prosecution of the family member who purchased the stolen property. He/She was made aware the property was stolen when the owner returned to the states and still refused to return the property.
What he should have done was explained to his children the dog was stolen and needed to go back home to his owner. (He missed an opportunity to teach his children imo) Then file a police report on the girlfriend and sent a lawyer after her. That's the right way to do it.
 
2014-06-19 01:13:15 PM  

nyseattitude: The soldier has a lot more patience than me. I............


Well that was informative, well thought out and reasonable.

Why are you here?
 
2014-06-19 01:23:30 PM  
frepnog:If I go find a cat in my neighborhood and keep it in my apartment for a month, would the owners of that cat be morally obligated to just let me keep it? We're not talking about the legal aspects, since you have already admitted this soldier has the legal right to get his dog back. You're claiming that while he has the legal right, he should have just let the family keep it since they became attached to it over a month. So does that apply all the time? Is there some magic time limit that one can keep someone else's pet and the owner then "should" just let that person have it forever?
 
2014-06-19 01:25:46 PM  

Avery614: nyseattitude: The soldier has a lot more patience than me. I............

Well that was informative, well thought out and reasonable.

Why are you here?


Do you understand what a blog is?

Why are you here?
 
2014-06-19 01:39:26 PM  

nyseattitude: Do you understand what a blog is?


blog (a truncation of the expression  web log)  is a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order (the most recent post appears first).

Why are you here?

Me? I'm bored and the rabid stupidity of a fark thread is one of the most entertaining, time killing things on the internet.  Not to mention the few intelligent people like yourself who post interesting and (I didn't fact check) informative gems amidst all the hur-dur.


/the Boobies was a compliment, dude
//no snark
 
2014-06-19 01:48:17 PM  

Avery614: nyseattitude: Do you understand what a blog is?

A  blog (a truncation of the expression  web log)  is a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order (the most recent post appears first).

Why are you here?

Me? I'm bored and the rabid stupidity of a fark thread is one of the most entertaining, time killing things on the internet.  Not to mention the few intelligent people like yourself who post interesting and (I didn't fact check) informative gems amidst all the hur-dur.


/the Boobies was a compliment, dude
//no snark


I thought it was all snark. My apologies.

Cheers
 
2014-06-19 01:53:10 PM  

nyseattitude: Avery614: nyseattitude: Do you understand what a blog is?

A  blog (a truncation of the expression  web log)  is a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order (the most recent post appears first).

Why are you here?

Me? I'm bored and the rabid stupidity of a fark thread is one of the most entertaining, time killing things on the internet.  Not to mention the few intelligent people like yourself who post interesting and (I didn't fact check) informative gems amidst all the hur-dur.


/the Boobies was a compliment, dude
//no snark

I thought it was all snark. My apologies.

Cheers


Happens all the time around here, think nothing of it!

/All part of the fun.
 
2014-06-19 02:06:42 PM  

nyseattitude: The soldier has a lot more patience than me. I would have already filed a Police report and sent a lawyer after the family member who purchased the property and the girl friend.

The family are selfish douche bags for being in possession of stolen property and refusing to return it. The girlfriend is a douche bag for stealing and selling the guys dog.

This is how it was explained to me from a lawyer in Colorado. (A real lawyer with a degree from Harvard not Fark)

Once the girlfriend stopped caring for the dog and transacted a sale the dog became stolen property. The family purchased stolen property.
The girlfriend willingly broke the law and can be prosecuted by law.

The family member who was part of the sales transaction is in the clear due to legal criteria unless he was aware at the time of purchase the property was stolen.

(He also sent me this link containing the following)

Obtaining Control Over Any Stolen Thing of Value 18-4-404 and Theft By Receiving Stolen Property -  If you obtain control over a a stolen thing of value - even if you did not steal the item yourself - you can be convicted of the crime of Receiving Stolen Property.

§ 18-4-404. Obtaining control over any stolen thing of value - conviction

Required criteria to convict:
First - That the property in question was in fact - stolen,
Second - That you actually "received" and possessed the stolen property,
and
Finally - That having possessed or received the stolen property- you KNEW that the property was actually stolen.


The last one is the one that allows for prosecution of the family member who purchased the stolen property. He/She was made aware the property was stolen when the owner returned to the states and still refused to return the property.
What he should have done was explained to his children the dog was stolen and needed to go back home to his owner. (He missed an opportunity to teach his children imo) Then file a police report on the girlfriend and sent a lawyer after her. That' ...


That was pretty interesting. Thanks for posting that. My only question(and if you can ask the lawyer friend, very cool) would be at what point would the family be considered aware they had stolen property. Just because some dude came to your door saying "Yo, the dogs mine" doesn't mean much. Does he have to contact police first?
 
Displayed 50 of 172 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report