A man turned to Judge Judy after losing his best friend and faithful pet. The woman in possession of the dog says she purchased it legally from a girl on the street.
While hearing the tense case where both the defendant and the plaintiff claimed the dog was rightfully theirs, TV personality Judge Judy was forced to rely on unconventional methods. Judge Judy knew she could not decide the case, so she let the dog do it for her.
Judge Judy ordered a friend of the defendant to retrieve the small mixed breed dog. Judge Judy ordered the friend to release the dog. The defendant could be heard instructing her friend under her breath – “don’t, don’t, don’t.”
However, the friend was forced to comply with the judge’s orders and set the dog on the ground. Immediately, the furry friend ran over to his rightful owner, the plaintiff, who was already starting to tear up after being separated from his dog for so long.
“You can pick him up,” Judge Judy allowed, causing the tears to flow full stream. Clearly, both the plaintiff and the dog were elated to be united at last.
The defendant objected, claiming that the dog does that to everyone, but Judge Judy knew better. “That’s all, take the dog home,” she said dismissing the defendant while leaving the bench.
The heart-wrenching video is making waves in dog-lover communities on social media. Anyone who has owned a dog knows the loving animals are capable of choosing their rightful owner.
It reminds one of the Biblical tale of King Solomon, who was set to the difficult task of figuring out which of two women was the rightful mother of an infant. Both laid a claim to the child, and, like in Judge Judy’s case, there was no physical proof of which of the claimants was telling the truth.
Unlike dogs, infants can’t express their emotions, so King Solomon said he would cut the child in half and give each woman a piece. This time, it was the rightful mother who called out “Don’t.” The other was glad to see the baby torn in half.
Thus, King Solomon awarded the child to the mother who didn’t want to see the infant harmed. A true parent, a true dog owner, and anyone with love and responsibility for another living being, puts the needs of that being before themselves.
The defendant in Judge Judy’s case had the opportunity to prove her merit long before the case was brought to court. Instead of dismissing the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant could have observed how the dog responded in his presence.
Although this woman didn’t directly steal the dog, it doesn’t mean she is in the clear. God calls on us not just to avoid doing harms, but to actively undo the suffering of others when we can.
Had the woman done the right thing and returned the dog to its rightful owner, she could have bought her elderly mother a new pup, and made a connection with a new animal instead of a stolen one.