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 175
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

7748 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2014 at 5:30 AM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
2014-06-19 02:20:33 PM

Avery614: 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.


Cigarette anyone?
 
2014-06-19 02:27:10 PM

Publikwerks: Just because some dude came to your door saying "Yo, the dogs mine" doesn't mean much. Does he have to contact police first?


I have dogs. Trust me - their reaction when I get home from work makes it clear they love me.  When my husband got home from the middle east, they tackled him and were whimpering with joy.
 
2014-06-19 02:42:57 PM

freetomato: Publikwerks: Just because some dude came to your door saying "Yo, the dogs mine" doesn't mean much. Does he have to contact police first?

I have dogs. Trust me - their reaction when I get home from work makes it clear they love me.  When my husband got home from the middle east, they tackled him and were whimpering with joy.


I have a dog too, and while I can demonstrate he listens to commands from me, that doesn't mean I own him. He loves my mom even more - does that mean she owns him?

I'm curious, because you could run into other problems. What if she had permission to sell him, and then he changes his mind? I'm not saying that happened, I'm just saying it's a possibility, so there would need to be some level of proof other than the dog licking your face.

Like my dog is micro chipped, so I have a leg up on anyone trying anything like this.
 
2014-06-19 02:57:59 PM
Yeah... If he's not going to be around the dog, then him getting it back was just bad for the dog and bad for the family. On top of that, the photos show he wasn't particularly good with the whole "don't endanger your pets" thing, either.
 
2014-06-19 03:04:49 PM

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


I am sorry.  (yeah I am canadian, why do you ask?) I can't let this go without saying something.
"you need to be able to let go, since they are very temporary."
That, without doubt, is the saddest thing I have heard in a long, long time.
You have issues and I gently suggest you look into them.
I am old now, and for many years I thought I was a tough guy too, but what you do not see, or refuse to see, is that LIFE itself is very temporary.  Yours as well as mine and every other creature on this planet.  So, no, you do not need to be able to let go, you grasp, hug, and fight to hold.
Every day.
Life is too short.

/stepping off my soapbox now
//adjusting the onions
 
2014-06-19 03:23:12 PM

Nix Nightbird: On top of that, the photos show he wasn't particularly good with the whole "don't endanger your pets" thing, either.


From what I have read, this guy worshipped that pup.
I just know he had that pup under his full control.
I think everyone here has for gotten the "Lion King" scene.

/I liked the image
 
2014-06-19 03:27:00 PM

Best Princess Celestia: 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.


Oh no it isn't! I mean sure...she says she'll support you the entire way across, but the next thing you know she bails on you, and what if you can't swim/fly? You're as screwed as the pooch she agreed to care for.
 
2014-06-19 03:32:34 PM

taurusowner: 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?


you make a good point.  it is however dodging the issue.  my issue is not whether or not the guy has a legal right to his pet.  He does.  my issue is whether taking the pet back was in the best interest of the pet.  the guy is in the military.  he was deployed.  he will likely deploy again, and again be forced to leave the pet for months with someone, burdening them with caring for his pet.  the dog here was sold to people with kids and the dog would have a better life there.  as I said before - sure, he CAN take the dog.  but should he?

poot42: That, without doubt, is the saddest thing I have heard in a long, long time.
You have issues and I gently suggest you look into them.


not at all.  I currently own two dogs and two cats.  I love them.  However, pets are temporary.  They don't live long.  They die.  they get hit by cars.  they run away, they get stolen.  over the years I have had and loved MANY pets, but I don't pretend that they are people and I don't let the death or loss of one break me down into grief, because there is ALWAYS another damn dog or kitty.  I get that lots of people get far too emotionally attached to pets, but it isn't really healthy to do so.  be good to your animals, but don't get so attached that losing one is akin to losing a kid or parent.  because it isn't.
 
2014-06-19 03:37:58 PM
The story made me think of this:


cdn.ebaumsworld.com

 
2014-06-19 04:13:21 PM

gadian: He's just going to leave it again on his next deployment.


Yep. If you're active duty and single, do NOT get a pet if you even imagine you might be deployed. Hell, I wouldn't even advise having a kid under those circumstances,
for that matter.
 
2014-06-19 04:19:14 PM

frepnog: but don't get so attached that losing one is akin to losing a kid or parent.


Just checked your profile.  (A good one, BTW!)
I see you are still relatively young, or young at heart, which is good.

Over my lifetime, I have lost (in no particular order) dogs, cats, a sister, a mother, later a father (of sorts), a girlfriend, a wife, and a turtle to death.  Some expected, some not.
In retrospect, over the years, I have to say that the losses were for me each as equally devastating as the next.

Except for the turtle.  I never really grew attached to him.
 
2014-06-19 05:28:59 PM
I hope they took the farkin' money.
 
2014-06-19 06:30:00 PM
I'm glad the dog is going back to his owner.
 
2014-06-19 07:30:25 PM

poot42: frepnog: but don't get so attached that losing one is akin to losing a kid or parent.

Just checked your profile.  (A good one, BTW!)
I see you are still relatively young, or young at heart, which is good.

Over my lifetime, I have lost (in no particular order) dogs, cats, a sister, a mother, later a father (of sorts), a girlfriend, a wife, and a turtle to death.  Some expected, some not.
In retrospect, over the years, I have to say that the losses were for me each as equally devastating as the next.

Except for the turtle.  I never really grew attached to him.


That's ok. It didn't give a fark about you either.
 
2014-06-19 08:12:28 PM

frepnog: taurusowner: 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?

you make a good point.  it is however dodging the issue.  my issue is not whether or not the guy has a legal right to his pet.  He does.  my issue is whether taking the pet back was in the best interest of the pet.  the guy is in the military.  he was deployed.  he will likely deploy again, and again be forced to leave the pet for months with someone, burdening them with caring for his pet.  the dog here was sold to people with kids and the dog would have a better life there.  as I said before - sure, he CAN take the dog.  but should he?

poot42: That, without doubt, is the saddest thing I have heard in a long, long time.
You have issues and I gently suggest you look into them.

not at all.  I currently own two dogs and two cats.  I love them.  However, pets are temporary.  They don't live long.  They die.  they get hit by cars.  they run away, they get stolen.  over the years I have had and loved MANY pets, but I don't pretend that they are people and I don't let the death or loss of one break me down into grief, because there is ALWAYS another damn dog or kitty.  I get that lots of people get far too emotionally attached to pets, but it isn't really healthy to do so.  be good to your animals, but don't get so attached that losing one is akin to losing a kid or parent.  because it isn't.


guess what, dipshiat, people are temporary too.
 
2014-06-19 08:36:53 PM

doctor wu: 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.


Confirmed, Captain.
 
2014-06-20 12:30:14 AM

Gunboat: Benjimin_Dover: If I understand correctly then the dog (separate property) should become marital property because it was "maintained" with marital property (food bought with marital funds.)

Now take this from above: If, during the marriage, husband inherits a bunch of money from an aunt, and he puts the money in a separate bank account and keeps it there, that money stays as his separate property.

Question: Could it be argued that the inheritance became marital property if the bank fee for the account that held it was paid for with marital funds?

That would essentially be what was happening with the dog.

All correct.
As for the bank fee, yes that argument could be made.  The argument is stronger if the bank fee (or other maintenance fee) is substantial; the argument is weaker if the bank fee (or other maintenance fee) is de minimus or easily calculated and separable.  This sometimes happened with houses; one spouse comes in with home owned prior to marriage.  During course of marriage, using marital funds, substantial renovations are made to house.  Parties now argue if house has gone from "separate" to "marital."


Here's a question: husband owns house prior to marriage, but lets it go into foreclosure. Girlfriend bails it out of foreclosure and refinances it (for some reason, only her name is on the current mortgage, both are on the deed) prior to/in early days of the marriage. Marriage goes south, now they're beginning a divorce. In a state that operates identically to yours in terms of asset division, how's that gonna play out?


Also, I find it more surprising that the internet harassed the family than the ex-girlfriend over the dog. They had no way of knowing he was essentially stolen property when they bought him. Doesn't negate the fact that they absolutely should have done the right thing once they found out, but doesn't warrant harassment and death threats, either. The psycho ex-girlfriend on the other hand...who the hell DOES that?!
 
2014-06-20 07:06:18 AM

Gunboat: cman: Umm...what?

Not sure what you're asking... I'm happy to explain / elaborate


If you argue in court like you type on fark, I think I know why you lost that case.
 
2014-06-20 07:10:53 AM

Gunboat: cman: Gunboat: cman: Umm...what?

Not sure what you're asking... I'm happy to explain / elaborate

Treat me like my age, you know, explain it like you would to a five year old

In the jurisdiction I practiced in, all property owned by a husband and wife is classified as either "marital" or "separate."  As a general rule, marital property is split 50/50, but separate property goes to the owning spouse.  Property is marital if it was acquired during the marriage.  Property is separate if it was owned before the marriage or it was a gift/inheritance during the marriage.

Thus, if husband buys tools after he's married, while he may think of them as "his" tools, in fact they are marital property since they were acquired during the marriage; if the couple later divorces, wife gets half the tools.
  If husband owned the tools before getting married, they remain his as "separate" property.

A frequently litigated issue is when separate property gets converted to marital.  If, during the marriage, husband inherits a bunch of money from an aunt, and he puts the money in a separate bank account and keeps it there, that money stays as his separate property.  But if the husband were to take the same money and put it into the family checking account, then at that point it's been mixed with marital assets and becomes "marital" property, subject to equal division if couple divorces.

In my case, wife was claiming dog as separate property because it was a gift to her.  My only out to allow my client to get a piece of the dog was to argue that the dog became marital property, as it had been "mixed" with marital property, i.e., food bought with marital funds.


Much better.
 
2014-06-20 11:53:40 AM

Aigoo: Here's a question: husband owns house prior to marriage, but lets it go into foreclosure. Girlfriend bails it out of foreclosure and refinances it (for some reason, only her name is on the current mortgage, both are on the deed) prior to/in early days of the marriage. Marriage goes south, now they're beginning a divorce. In a state that operates identically to yours in terms of asset division, how's that gonna play out


Depends on how much got paid towards that house after the marriage (bailing out and ongoing mortgage payments).  If it's a lot and can't be easily separated out of computing the value of the house, then the whole house will be marital property.
  But, if girlfriend can show how much she paid prior to marriage and any after marriage payments are small and separable, then that portion of the value that arises from pre-marriage payments is all hers.

I hope that's clear.  It may not be.
 
2014-06-20 02:29:17 PM
frepnog:

...not at all.  I currently own two dogs and two cats.  I love them.  However, pets are temporary.  They don't live long.  They die.  they get hit by cars.  they run away, they get stolen.  over the years I have had and loved MANY pets, but I don't pretend that they are people and I don't let the death or loss of one break me down into grief, because there is ALWAYS another damn dog or kitty.  I get that lots of people get far too emotionally attached to pets, but it isn't really healthy to do so.  be good to your animals, but don't get so attached that losing one is akin to losing a kid or parent.  because it isn't.

Maybe if you had the smarts and compassion enough to be a conscientious pet owner these things wouldn't happen to you.  I've had 3 cats and two dogs and they all died peacefully at the end of their natural lives because they were properly cared for; cats were kept inside at all times, and the dogs were never allowed to roam unsupervised.

People like you shouldn't be allowed to own animals.  I hope to God you never have children.
 
2014-06-20 02:36:50 PM

zamboni: That's ok. It didn't give a fark about you either


Quid pro quo.
/or something like that
//open to corrections

Actually your comment did elicit a chuckle.
Thanks.
 
2014-06-20 02:46:40 PM

Cold_Sassy: Maybe if you had the smarts and compassion enough to be a conscientious pet owner these things wouldn't happen to you. I've had 3 cats and two dogs and they all died peacefully at the end of their natural lives because they were properly cared for; cats were kept inside at all times, and the dogs were never allowed to roam unsupervised.

People like you shouldn't be allowed to own animals. I hope to God you never have children.


oh dear god.  even the best pet owners have had a pet get loose and run into the road.  even the best pet owners have had a pet get inexplicably sick and die after owning it two weeks.  get farking real.

and I have 3 kids, all boys, one just graduated college, one just graduated high school, one in middle school.
 
Displayed 25 of 175 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 »






Report