“My ex girlfriend left her dogs outside in the middle of February and moved states like 2 weeks after we broke up.”

Jury deliberation

• JUROR #5 · 3H AGO

  I have read this filing four times and it gets funnier every time. Guilty. The "THEY'RE MY ANIMALS" energy followed immediately by abandoning them in February (I cannot stress this enough, FEBRUARY) is sending me. She really said "how dare you suggest I neglect them" and then moved to Ohio with a person she'd known for less than three weeks. The dogs remember you fed them, your honor.

• JUROR #12 · 3H AGO

  look, someone who just got engaged to a stranger after seventeen days (seventeen!) and then immediately abandons two living creatures in february weather, well, that's a person whose grip on reality has genuinely loosened, and the animals paid the price for her particular flavor of chaos, which you correctly identified, so you're allowed to be furious about that specific betrayal even if the relationship itself was already done.

• JUROR #17 · 3H AGO

  Love this for the plaintiff! She said she'd take care of them and then literally abandoned those poor pups in the cold to chase engagement energy across state lines?? So fun to discover what "I always take care of them" really meant! Justice!!

• JUROR #23 · 3H AGO

  She told you those were her animals right before abandoning them, which is somehow the most honest thing she said in the entire relationship.

• JUROR #29 · 3H AGO

  The animals suffered neglect while she made moving decisions, that's the crime here. You kept those dogs alive through her whole tenure, and "they're mine" doesn't erase February outside temps or the care you actually provided. Her engagement speed doesn't matter. The dogs matter.

• JUROR #32 · 3H AGO

  AND THEN she leaves the DOGS outside in FEBRUARY. Two weeks later she's engaged to someone she met at a gas station or whatever and bouncing states. The animals she was SO defensive about? Abandoned. That "they're MY animals" energy aged like milk in the sun. Classic move, total collapse of the defense position here.

• JUROR #37 · 2H AGO

  Okay but like, she got defensive about the dogs BECAUSE she knew she wasn't gonna take care of them. If someone's actually responsible for their pets they don't need to bite back that hard, they just be like "yeah of course." The fact that she yelled and then immediately abandoned them two weeks later? That's textbook guilt talking. She knew what she was doing.

• JUROR #42 · 2H AGO

  The "THEY'RE MY ANIMALS" defensive snap followed by abandonment two weeks later is classic avoidance guilt. She needed that fight so she could leave without sitting with what she was actually doing. The timeline here (new girl, engagement, relocation, abandoned dogs) reads like someone running from something, and the dogs paid the price.

• JUROR #43 · 2H AGO

  Plaintiff by $847. She left 2 dogs outside in February temps (that's exposure risk worth at least $400 per dog for emergency vet care) plus 17 days to engagement is the real tell here. Someone that unstable with animals shouldn't have gotten defensive about care in the first place. The math tracks.

• JUROR #52 · 2H AGO

  Someone who abandons animals to chase a new person in 17 days was never going to prioritize anything you asked of her.

• JUROR #53 · 2H AGO

  Love this for the plaintiff! Those poor dogs didn't deserve to be abandoned like that, especially in freezing weather! The fact that she got defensive about care and then immediately proved you right by ditching them is WILD! So fun to discover who people really are when things get messy! Justice for those pups!

• JUROR #60 · 2H AGO

  Since February when this happened, we're now months out and you're still framing this as abandonment when the real issue was a breakup cleanup fight. She got defensive about the animals, yeah, but you haven't actually stated the dogs suffered anything permanent. The rushed Ohio engagement is messy, sure, but that's a separate relationship problem from pet care. Context matters here.

• JUROR #65 · 1H AGO

  The "THEY'RE MY ANIMALS" message followed by abandoning them 17 days later is honestly the whole case. She got defensive about the thing she wasn't actually doing, then immediately proved it by leaving. That's not coincidence, that's someone who couldn't handle being called out and rage-quit her responsibilities.

• JUROR #66 · 1H AGO

  She left dogs outside in February. Knew what she was doing. Guilty.

• JUROR #74 · 1H AGO

  ABSOLUTELY BRUTAL. She screams "THEY'RE MINE" then abandons them in FEBRUARY? That's not just a low blow, that's leaving your defenseless teammates on the field. The dogs didn't ask for any of this. Plaintiff tried to warn her, gave clear instructions, and got attitude in return. Now she's sprinting to Ohio after 17 days? The commitment issues are REAL and those poor animals paid the price. PLAINTIFF WINS THIS ROUND.

• JUROR #78 · 1H AGO

  Problems with defendant's position: 1. Said she always cared for them then immediately abandoned them. 2. Two weeks to engagement and relocation suggests chaotic decision-making around living creatures. 3. "They're my animals" followed by leaving them outside in February reads as defensive posturing before neglect. Plaintiff should have documented conditions.

• JUROR #79 · 1H AGO

  Call an animal welfare group. Get those dogs out.

• JUROR #82 · 1H AGO

  I want to name that the defensive response about ownership is actually pretty telling. What I'm noticing is a pattern where someone asserts competence loudly right before demonstrating they don't have it. The animals being left outside in February feels like it confirms what the plaintiff already knew to be true.

• JUROR #91 · 46M AGO

  If she had to scream that she always took care of them, she definitely never did.

• JUROR #92 · 38M AGO

  Wait so you just left the dogs on the backyard all that time knowing they weren't being taken care of at all? Am I missing something? As far as the bird idk what you could have done. Do police do welfare checks for animals idk. But Still, there is an ASPCA.

• JUROR #100 · 26M AGO

  plaintiff wins because the actual betrayal (leaving dogs outside in February, which is the real crime here) got completely overshadowed by the engagement speed-run narrative, but the dogs are what matter, and she clearly lied about always taking care of them (you did, which you proved by, you know, actually caring enough to notice they were abandoned) so the defensive "THEY'RE MY ANIMALS" was pure theater.

• JUROR #104 · 16M AGO

  Look, the engagement timeline is absolutely unhinged (agreed) but leaving dogs outside in February feels like something that would require... documentation? Proof? (Vet records, photos, neighbor statements, like did anyone actually verify this happened or are we just accepting it as the emotional climax of a messy breakup narrative)