02/11/UPDATE: DOG IS RESCUED, 7-YEAR OLD SMILING 7-year old crying over dog

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

isasir

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
8,609
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: isasir
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: dman
Originally posted by: Amused
The Lawyer's email address:

foley@felahfd.com

Dog was returned, but because the OP didn't update nobody will notice that very shortly.

I know. But he still deserves hate mail for keeping the dog for 40+ days.

I'm actually a little surprised that you would jump on the hate mail bandwagon, especially since I've seen you post numerous times in threads about news items that the article only presents one side of the story. This article clearly was biased, as well as the follow-up article ("Funny, like a clown" - what is this, Goodfellas?) and while it's good to see a happy ending, I'm guessing there's a lot this story left out.

It's pretty hard to be "one sided" about factual quotes. From the factual quotes of both him, and his partners/bosses it's obvious he was being a prick.

I don't know about you, but if someone threatens me by claiming they called the police on me, especially after I felt I did a good deed, then I'm going to be a prick right back to someone. I could easily re-write this whole article, get some quotes from the lawyer as to what the kid's dad said to him (perhaps demanding prompt return of the dog, accusing him of theft, etc.) and paint the lawyer as someone who didn't want to see a dog killed, and could likely easily get support for the lawyer. Of course, I'd leave out any mention of the little boy, since it'd be irrelevant to my story.
 

isasir

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
8,609
0
0
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: Dead3ye
Here's why the lawyer's story is bogus. Why would he pay to have a vet give the dog shots? He already knew that the original vet was in Alaska. Not to hard to get the dog's medical info and probably the owner's name. It really would not have been that hard to find the rightful owner. I mean look at the information we can dig on up somone in FS/FT. If he didn't want to wait to contact the owner himself, leave it at the shelter and give them the information he had.

And even if he would have taken the dog to a shelter in FL, the dog would not have been killed that day. The article even said that there was someone from the family that had the dog looking in the shelters.

C'mon, this guys story stinks to high heaven. He might have paid extra to fly it back to Chicago, but I'm betting that's it.

The lawyer called the vet in Alaska. The author gives no time frame for a call back from the family to the lawyer. Why?
Seems to me the lawyer felt that the dog was abandoned, and was not going to let it die, knowing he had to go to Chicago soon. And he waited and no one called back. So he took him with him. He left his info with the vet in Alaska. That's how the family got the phone number. That's how they found him.

Personally, I would be scared that the dog was abandoned, and would not take it to the shelter in fear that they might euthanized it. He was doing the right thing for the dog.

Yeah, all the way up until the bright idea of choosing not to give it back after he got in contact with the RIGHTFUL owners.

Why didn't the father offer to pick up the dog in Chicago, or pay to ship it back, if he's so determined to get the dog back?
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Based on the little information we have, it seems to me that the dad is not a good dog owner, and the lawyer MAY not be one either. If you are truly concerned about the welfare of your dog, are you going to do things to aggravate someone who seemingly has gone out of his way to care for the dog? I think not.

I think the big losers in this situation are the kid and the dog. Somehow I predict that the kid will never hear the end of all the hell his dad went through for the dog.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: Dead3ye
Here's why the lawyer's story is bogus. Why would he pay to have a vet give the dog shots? He already knew that the original vet was in Alaska. Not to hard to get the dog's medical info and probably the owner's name. It really would not have been that hard to find the rightful owner. I mean look at the information we can dig on up somone in FS/FT. If he didn't want to wait to contact the owner himself, leave it at the shelter and give them the information he had.

And even if he would have taken the dog to a shelter in FL, the dog would not have been killed that day. The article even said that there was someone from the family that had the dog looking in the shelters.

C'mon, this guys story stinks to high heaven. He might have paid extra to fly it back to Chicago, but I'm betting that's it.

The lawyer called the vet in Alaska. The author gives no time frame for a call back from the family to the lawyer. Why?
Seems to me the lawyer felt that the dog was abandoned, and was not going to let it die, knowing he had to go to Chicago soon. And he waited and no one called back. So he took him with him. He left his info with the vet in Alaska. That's how the family got the phone number. That's how they found him.

Personally, I would be scared that the dog was abandoned, and would not take it to the shelter in fear that they might euthanized it. He was doing the right thing for the dog.

Yeah, all the way up until the bright idea of choosing not to give it back after he got in contact with the RIGHTFUL owners.

Who knows what happened. Do you? May'be he did give the dog to a nun, or may'be he grew attached. I don't know. What I do know is that the author is using the fact that he is a lawyer and that there was a little kid involved to keep everyone's eyes off the fact that the guy was looking out for the animal. He wasn't being selfish. And he doesn't deserve a beating.
And the family got the dog back.

But as long as that little boy is happy who cares about anything else.

 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
Originally posted by: isasir
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: Dead3ye
Here's why the lawyer's story is bogus. Why would he pay to have a vet give the dog shots? He already knew that the original vet was in Alaska. Not to hard to get the dog's medical info and probably the owner's name. It really would not have been that hard to find the rightful owner. I mean look at the information we can dig on up somone in FS/FT. If he didn't want to wait to contact the owner himself, leave it at the shelter and give them the information he had.

And even if he would have taken the dog to a shelter in FL, the dog would not have been killed that day. The article even said that there was someone from the family that had the dog looking in the shelters.

C'mon, this guys story stinks to high heaven. He might have paid extra to fly it back to Chicago, but I'm betting that's it.

The lawyer called the vet in Alaska. The author gives no time frame for a call back from the family to the lawyer. Why?
Seems to me the lawyer felt that the dog was abandoned, and was not going to let it die, knowing he had to go to Chicago soon. And he waited and no one called back. So he took him with him. He left his info with the vet in Alaska. That's how the family got the phone number. That's how they found him.

Personally, I would be scared that the dog was abandoned, and would not take it to the shelter in fear that they might euthanized it. He was doing the right thing for the dog.

Yeah, all the way up until the bright idea of choosing not to give it back after he got in contact with the RIGHTFUL owners.

Why didn't the father offer to pick up the dog in Chicago, or pay to ship it back, if he's so determined to get the dog back?

It never said if he was or wasn't willing to do that. Assuming he isn't willing to pay to get the dog back, then he shouldn't get it back.

On the opposite side though, it sounds like he is making all efforts to get the dog back... based on what the article has said, he has made numerous calls and have left messages for the attorney. The attorney has had the dog for over 40 days now. In no form of fashion has the attorney stated he made a way for them to get the dog back except for the first 3 days or so he had posession of him.

Right now it seems like the father is pretty serious about getting him back. I'd assume he'd be willing to pay for expenses to get the dog back.

 

geecee

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2003
2,383
43
91
Regardless of bias and whether or not the entire story is being told, ultimately, the dog should have been sent back to the boy. And it was, so all ended well. But at some point between the lawyer and the father, the focus (getting the boy his dog back) was lost in all the posturing and oneupmanship, and it became a pissing contest. If the right things were said and done from the very beginning, none of this would've transpired and there wouldn't have been any issue at all.
 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: Dead3ye
Here's why the lawyer's story is bogus. Why would he pay to have a vet give the dog shots? He already knew that the original vet was in Alaska. Not to hard to get the dog's medical info and probably the owner's name. It really would not have been that hard to find the rightful owner. I mean look at the information we can dig on up somone in FS/FT. If he didn't want to wait to contact the owner himself, leave it at the shelter and give them the information he had.

And even if he would have taken the dog to a shelter in FL, the dog would not have been killed that day. The article even said that there was someone from the family that had the dog looking in the shelters.

C'mon, this guys story stinks to high heaven. He might have paid extra to fly it back to Chicago, but I'm betting that's it.

The lawyer called the vet in Alaska. The author gives no time frame for a call back from the family to the lawyer. Why?
Seems to me the lawyer felt that the dog was abandoned, and was not going to let it die, knowing he had to go to Chicago soon. And he waited and no one called back. So he took him with him. He left his info with the vet in Alaska. That's how the family got the phone number. That's how they found him.

Personally, I would be scared that the dog was abandoned, and would not take it to the shelter in fear that they might euthanized it. He was doing the right thing for the dog.

Yeah, all the way up until the bright idea of choosing not to give it back after he got in contact with the RIGHTFUL owners.

Who knows what happened. Do you? May'be he did give the dog to a nun, or may'be he grew attached. I don't know. What I do know is that the author is using the fact that he is a lawyer and that there was a little kid involved to keep everyone's eyes off the fact that the guy was looking out for the animal. He wasn't being selfish. And he doesn't deserve a beating.
And the family got the dog back.

But as long as that little boy is happy who cares about anything else.

Who said that he wasn't looking out for the dog? I didn't. Look, if your wallet falls out of your pocket one day I'm sure you'll hope people will return it to you. This is the same thing here, the attorney did the right thing by taking care of the dog. The problem is, is that he now has no intentions of getting the dog back to the rightful owners.

Where does it say that the family got their dog back? If they did, then all is well. No problem.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: Dead3ye
Here's why the lawyer's story is bogus. Why would he pay to have a vet give the dog shots? He already knew that the original vet was in Alaska. Not to hard to get the dog's medical info and probably the owner's name. It really would not have been that hard to find the rightful owner. I mean look at the information we can dig on up somone in FS/FT. If he didn't want to wait to contact the owner himself, leave it at the shelter and give them the information he had.

And even if he would have taken the dog to a shelter in FL, the dog would not have been killed that day. The article even said that there was someone from the family that had the dog looking in the shelters.

C'mon, this guys story stinks to high heaven. He might have paid extra to fly it back to Chicago, but I'm betting that's it.

The lawyer called the vet in Alaska. The author gives no time frame for a call back from the family to the lawyer. Why?
Seems to me the lawyer felt that the dog was abandoned, and was not going to let it die, knowing he had to go to Chicago soon. And he waited and no one called back. So he took him with him. He left his info with the vet in Alaska. That's how the family got the phone number. That's how they found him.

Personally, I would be scared that the dog was abandoned, and would not take it to the shelter in fear that they might euthanized it. He was doing the right thing for the dog.

Yeah, all the way up until the bright idea of choosing not to give it back after he got in contact with the RIGHTFUL owners.

Who knows what happened. Do you? May'be he did give the dog to a nun, or may'be he grew attached. I don't know. What I do know is that the author is using the fact that he is a lawyer and that there was a little kid involved to keep everyone's eyes off the fact that the guy was looking out for the animal. He wasn't being selfish. And he doesn't deserve a beating.
And the family got the dog back.

But as long as that little boy is happy who cares about anything else.

Who said that he wasn't looking out for the dog? I didn't. Look, if your wallet falls out of your pocket one day I'm sure you'll hope people will return it to you. This is the same thing here, the attorney did the right thing by taking care of the dog. The problem is, is that he now has no intentions of getting the dog back to the rightful owners.

Where does it say that the family got their dog back? If they did, then all is well. No problem.

The update was posted on the second page of replies.

The "rightful owners" couldn't take care of their dog in the first place. He was running the streets when the lawyer found him.
The author was implying the man stole the dog, and was holding him hostage.
People were saying the man should be beaten.
And he was probably threatened with his job if he didn't return the dog.
So I hope the guy and his wife and his kid are happy, and won't let it happen again.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
I love the replies which indicate people only read the OP and last page, since it has been established by 4-5 posts now that the dog has already been returned, yet people are still speaking of the situation as if the dog were still in the possession of the lawyer.
 

isasir

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
8,609
0
0
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: isasir
Why didn't the father offer to pick up the dog in Chicago, or pay to ship it back, if he's so determined to get the dog back?

It never said if he was or wasn't willing to do that. Assuming he isn't willing to pay to get the dog back, then he shouldn't get it back.

On the opposite side though, it sounds like he is making all efforts to get the dog back... based on what the article has said, he has made numerous calls and have left messages for the attorney. The attorney has had the dog for over 40 days now. In no form of fashion has the attorney stated he made a way for them to get the dog back except for the first 3 days or so he had posession of him.

Right now it seems like the father is pretty serious about getting him back. I'd assume he'd be willing to pay for expenses to get the dog back.

Well, from reading this article, you can clearly tell that the writer sided with the father and the boy from the get go. Quotes like "mystery nun" and "funny, like a clown" (from his 2nd article) make clear the spin he's putting on it. I'm sure if the father was calm and collected and called the lawyer and said "Thank you for finding my dog. I see you have it in Chicago, how can I arrange to get it?" then he'd have the dog by now. Instead, all that's mentioned is the father calling and threatening to call police on the guy.

The father handled it very poorly, resulting in the lawyer being pissed off. The lawyer is no saint either, but I'm sure a lot of people here wouldn't take kindly to threats as well.
 

MisfitsFiend

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2001
2,287
1
0
How is he scum?
becasue he won't say where he dropped the dog off...for all we know the dog is buried somewhere in Millenium Park...sorry, but just because he thinks his father is an ass is NOT a good reason to return the dog. he apparently has a superiority/god complex...
 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
I think most of us sided with the father and his boy because they did nothing wrong.

They waited patiently for 40 days, and after putting some heat on the lawyer through media attention (as apparently it had to come to that), he decided to give it back.

Even though I agree iwth the majority of you that say that the family wanting the dog back should pay to have it shipped back and cover expenses. I wouldn't go as far as to say the Lawyer did the right thing for the course of those 40 days.

It sounds as if none of us had heard the story, the lawyer would still have posession of the dog, and that is wrong. Good ending though. :)
 

Pantoot

Golden Member
Jun 6, 2002
1,764
30
91
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: MisfitsFiend
ugh...this scum works 10 minutes from my house....right in downtown CHICAGO...

How is he scum?

Curiously, he said the lawyers at Hoey & Farina were amused at the letter from Miles' parents. "They laughed at it," Foley said

Me: You were going to give the dog back until Mike Korzeniewski called the cops.

Foley: "Right."

Me: Why?

Foley: "Because the guy's a pain in the ass."

That pretty much sums it up.

 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: isasirWhy didn't the father offer to pick up the dog in Chicago, or pay to ship it back, if he's so determined to get the dog back?

Because he's not the one that took the dog a thousand fvcking miles away. Why should he have to pay to fly the dog back when the dog should have never left the city?

I don't know how any sane person can not understand what should have happened here.
The lawyer should have called animal control. They would have picked the dog up. The owners would have called about a lost dog and been informed that they had him. They would have picked him up and all would be well.

This lawyer is either
1. A complete assfvck who didn't give a crap who's dog it was and just wanted to take it.
2. A complete moron for thinking he should take someone else's lost dog half way across the country instead of leaving it at the animal shelter where it can be retrieved by the owners.

Considering his refusal to return the dog until forced to "do the right thing" by his boss, I'm gonna have to go with number 1.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
The "rightful owners" couldn't take care of their dog in the first place. He was running the streets when the lawyer found him.
The author was implying the man stole the dog, and was holding him hostage.
People were saying the man should be beaten.
And he was probably threatened with his job if he didn't return the dog.
So I hope the guy and his wife and his kid are happy, and won't let it happen again.

Dogs occasionally get out. It can happen no matter how responsible people are. You are now the one assuming these people were bad pet owners just because their dog got out once.

He did steal the dog. It wasn't his, he took it. Rescuing the dog would have meant taking it to a shelter. Do you seriously think it's acceptable or even legal to just keep a dog because you find it running down the street?

He should be beaten because he is an asshole who refused to return a dog to a 7 year old little boy. WTF kind of cold-hearted asshole does that to a 7 year old kid who misses his dog? The kind who deserves to be beaten.

I'm sure he was worried about losing his job if he refused to do "the right thing" as demanded by his boss. Good.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Even after returning the dog, the lawyer still looks like a d!psh!t. Wonder how much business the firm lost b/c of said d!psh!t?
 

DainBramaged

Lifer
Jun 19, 2003
23,448
40
91
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Who wants to make a road trip?

I'm generally an insensitive uncaring prick, but I have a soft spot for little kids, puppies, and kittens.

Oh, and I wager if he can spent a couple hundred bucks on caring for a stray dog, he's got a bitchin' car I can steal.

- M4H

I am coming with. Already have my Louisville Slugger and twelve pack.
 

ghostman

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2000
1,819
1
76
Originally posted by: DT4K
You have got to be fvcking kidding. Some guy finds your dog and takes it home with him a thousand miles away, without even contacting the local pound to let them know he has it in case someone comes looking for it, and you are going to "offer to pay for his troubles"?

The only thing the owner owes this guy is a good beating.

Better that my dog is a thousand miles away than hit by a car on the side of the road or put to sleep at a pound two town away. I'd pay hundreds for that piece of mind. You're all forgetting that you have the benefit of hindsight. The lawyer didn't know at the time how long the dog was lost or that the dog's owners were still in Florida looking for him (Alaskan tags!!!).

I think the lawyer should be paid for the shots (shots are documented for those of you who doubt whether he actually got the dog shots), cost of dog food, etc. It's everything the original owners would have had to pay for anyway if the dog was never lost. Why should the original owners be rewarded free dog sitting for losing their pet?

And since people are using analogies left and right, say you find a specialty antique in an alley on vacation in Florida. You make an effort to call a phone number left by this antique, but are unable to reach them before your vacation is up. You can leave it with the police, but realize that without being maintained in a low humidity environment, the antique will be ruined. Several days (or weeks) pass. You decide to invest $300 in restoring this antique. Before you know it, you have 20 calls of increasing hostility from the original owner. When you finally call back, you find out that the owner filed a police report claiming that you stole the antique. The owner threatens you for the item's return rather than trying to compensate you for the antique's upkeep. I'd imagine you'd be pretty pissed off. Add on top of that, a libel piece is written about you spelling out your company name (which has nothing to do with this matter) and using choice phrases you made to incriminate you. How much composure would you have?