If you think an animal is being abused, like the one bird case, don't be afraid to call the cops and have them look into it. The plaintiff did it wrong, but if she truly thinks that animal is being abused, she can call the proper authorities
That ones kina tough. I mean she ran over that nigga and said well. I guess I'll just eat it. She coulda just left it but she didnt want it to die for no reason. I think the lady the killed it had a hard time explaining herself and the owner was sad that she killed the deer. And i dont think the judge understood that. Tough situation
Dimeand Biggie 🤔 you right that is tough. On another note I’ve never had deer before, but I have friends that go hunting and eat it all the time and that’s the only reason I know what Venison is 😅
@@denos1699 - So the problem was... her not apologizing properly..? xP Naw man, a lot of people just see it as extremely weird, cause it instantly becomes "roadkill" when it dies from you having accidentally hit it with your car, so you're "eating roadkill". They don't really think beyond the terms and get to the part, where an animal with perfectly edible meat accidentally died, so you make the most of it.
@@Avarioth ah no, I said that cuz I heard her mention something about apologizing with deer stew after damaging the car before going to the court stuff
@@Avarioth and to add to @Derpguy1980, the sister then added insult to injury by offering up some stew made with the deer that she'd hit with her car.😮😮😮😐😐😐WTF!
I was stumbled on the fat girl sitting on the toilet part too because if she accidentally broke it well she broke it. She still has to pay for it. Because the girl who accidentally broke girls phone fro ma push paid for it. Basically Judge Judy felt bad for the big girl and gave her the case. To be fair the girl possibly did do that because she was big but even so if she did break it well??? Any ways i seen your face on that one and my same thoughts came to mind there as well.
It's two extremely different cases. Although the girl didn't have the intention to break the other girl's phone, she has the fault because she pushed the girl on the pool. The toilet thing was an accident and it could happen with anyone, the girl didn't do anything to break it, it just happened when she was the one using it.
For an example, if the girl was using the phone and suddenly the phone stopped working she wouldn't have to pay a new one, it just happened when she was using it. If that was the case it would be equal to the toilet case, at least on my point of view.
Its sad that the heroine addict died. The bird owner..or previous owner should have gone a different route if they believed the bird was being abused. The girl who “broke” the toilet actually was crying at the end of the case. Some moments are just sad.
Hmm, the southern sister about the deer stew: Dead is dead. Getting hit by the car, the deer was probably fresher than the typical hunter as they're generally hours away from where-ever they parked their car and then travel time.
Indeed, the item broke in the course of normal usage, not like the lady who borrowed her friends car and hit a deer, or the other guy who banged his friends car up in the course of hiding it in a park. Those damages were intentional and not part of the normal wear and tear it goes through. If those cases involved some small part breaking while driving the vehicle, it would have been more like the toilet case. Not their fault, totally normal.
I'm confused, so the lady who broke the toilet doesnt have to pay for it because she never meant to break it, but the girl who broke someones iphone and never meant to break it? And she has to pay lol I'm confused
Because the toilet was a complete accident. The girl purposely pushed her friend into the pool. It makes more sense if you think about it like this: If she pushed her friend and she broke her arm, naturally she'd pay her medical bills. She didn't intend for it to happen, but it was a purposeful action that resulted in damage if that makes sense
I think it's because she was using the toilet for it's intended purpose and it just broke...the other girl pushed her in the pool as a prank and should have known that anything could have gone wrong.
How do we know that the breakage wasn’t due to wear and tear as opposed to being broken because of negligence by the defendant? That’s what the plaintiff couldn’t prove.
I disagree with Judy on the toilet incident. I think she was trying not to embarrass the defendant with her weight. But It's not about shaming one person as it was about reparations for another's damaged property. I mean, if she's going to rate whether someone owes another for destructive damages or not depending on bases to if it was a accident of intentional. Then she has to carry out that same practice in other damage claim cases to remain unbiased to future rulings. Not unless, this is her special enforcing when it comes to toilets alone.😩
I accidentally broke a toilet seat at my sisters house, it was a really cheaply made one though. I bought her a new one, I didn’t know you could break a whole toilet itself though.
Isn’t it similar to the phone incident? She pushed her into the pool not knowing her friend had her phone on her and that it would break, the woman sat on the toilet and it had broken when she was using it, it’s all about intent and they were both accidents but were ruled differently? Unless I’m understanding wrong.
@@Geminiwaze would you mind explaining the differences then? Cause they both seem the same to me. Why just comment just to tell me I’m wrong with no explanation as to why lol.
Barbara didn't break it-It just broke-as Judge Judy said. Guaranteed the plaintiff would not have sued Barbara is she was skinny. She was fat-shaming Barbara, like the 'mean girl' she is!
I like how Judy said that he needed help and was going to give it to him instead of putting him in jail Also Idc if I prank someone, if something goes wrong and their device or whatever breaks I’ll either work my way to pay them back so they can by themselves a phone or I’ll work up the money to buy them one myself, I have a learning disability so I’m not good with money at age 19 I know it’s sad but I don’t care I would struggle wasting 14 mins trying to count all that money for them
I’m not having rigor mortise stew. U think I went around looking for the last person that sat on it? She was like “B-or-ite! B-or-ite”. That doesn’t happen....goodbye! An earpiece and a calculator.... There was no earpiece in that purse ma’am!
she was using the toilet for the intended purpose and it just broke. The other girl pushed her into the pool with the common sense that something could go wrong, like her phone being destroyed since it’s not meant to be in water
@@hypocritikill3205 - In what way was she wrong? You just replied to a subject-based argument with a baseless character attack. Might as well have said "you don't have DP. You can't speak on matters pertaining to food".
I know what you wanted to say about the toilet case she didn't try to break it so shouldn't she have to pay for it like the cell phone case not exactly cell phone case was intentional which caused damage toilet case was wear and tear even if she was a large woman
I loved watching your wheels turn when you noticed Judy's ever-present hypocrisy... "We pay for our accidents... With the exception of toilets" ;-)... In her defense, we could assume that Judy meant accidents caused by NEGLIGENCE and not everyday actions or "acts of God" (which would leave the "Deer verdict" in question), but if you've watched the show you know that Judy is bat-shit crazy and changes the rules from case to case (Or mood swing to mood swing). The only thing crazier than Judy is the people letting her decide their fate.
I hate Judge Judy, but there isn't any hypocrisy in the cases mentioned. First, what you're trying to describe isn't hypocrisy. What you're thinking of is a double standard, which isn't quite the same thing as hyporcrisy even though the general idea is similar. Second, these aren't one to one situations. Anyone could have broken the toilet. They break surprisingly often, and there'a no proof that it wouldn't have broken had someone else used it instead of her. Besides that, the toilet was broken by someone using it as intended, with the permission of the owner. This situation is very different from being physically forced into the pool which resulted in the damage of property, and it's different than someone borrowing another's property without permission and damaging it in the process. The phone broke because someone else did something they shouldn't have, the car was damaged because someone did something they shouldn't have, but the toilet breaking was just an unfortunate circumstance.
@@noconsequence4486 - First, Definitely double standards, hypocrisy, narcissism, and a possible chemical imbalance when it comes to Judy. Hence; "Batshit-crazy". Second, I don't remember mentioning the pool. The rulings on automobile accidents (which is what I mentioned) support my point. You are using a friend's car (as"intended") and a deer runs out in front of you, or maybe you return it with a cracked windshield brought on by a stone chip. It may not be your fault, but guess who's paying. In the toilet case here, there wasn't any denial as to whether or not the defendant was responsible for breaking the toilet... Only whether she was liable for the damages. Although suing someone for a broken toilet is petty, it's hard to judge the two situations differently. Also, unless we are talking about a cracked seat (about$15.00), toilets do not "break" often. I've replaced dozens in my time and only one was broken (chipped) by a dropped perfume bottle, and there was another with a cracked tank lid caused by someone dropping it while attempting a float repair. None by normal use.
@@_Common_Logic_ If someone borrows my car and a rock cracks the windshield, I wouldn't expect them to pay for it. It happens during normal use. Likewise, the toilet broke during normal use. If someone borrows my car, without my permission, and hits a deer then they should pay...and I think in this case she borrowed the car without her friends permission.
@@blanketstarry7725 - Without watching the video again, all I'll say is that I wouldn't expect someone to cover the accidental crack in the windshield either... But that's irrelevant. What we are talking about here is the LAW and liability. I DO think if you borrow something and you return it broken, the law will place liability on the borrower almost every time. It has nothing to do with what's morally "Right"... It's the "Law" we're talking about here. ;-)
@@_Common_Logic_ I doubt there is any law that would place liability on someone for something that happened during normal use. One might be able to claim that there friend drove down a rocky road when they were asked not to, but I don't think most judges would place liability on someone for driving down a freeway. And the toilet...definitely no liability there.
As far as case number 9 goes, maybe she's not as stupid as she seems being that by being on Judge Judy she's not the one paying the judgement. For those who don't know the show covers the costs.
So you're saying that using a toilet normally and throwing someone in a pool with the phone are the same shit? Fuck no. She allowed her to use the toilet and It broke, IT'S NORMAL. But that girl who broke the phone pushed her friend, something she shouldn't do. Does that clear ur mind?
she was using the toilet for the intended purpose and it just broke. The other girl pushed her into the pool with the common sense that something could go wrong, like her phone being destroyed since it’s not meant to be in water
I’m sorry. I really don’t mean to sound like an asshole but I’m not really buying that the toilet just happen to break conveniently right when the defendant sat on it. I wouldn’t be surprised if instead of sitting on the toilet, she fell down on the toilet and the pressure is what made the toilet collapse. But since that’s impossible to prove, she’s technically not guilty.
Nah that toilet should have been replaced, str8 up. Judy know damn well she be wrong sometimes. I'm also sure she has ruled for many people to be responsible for things they accidently break....uhhh example making the chick pay for the cell phone after "accidentally" breaking it from pushing her friend in the pool.
Judy is ok and entertaining but with sometimes in a woman vs man cases she seems biased towards the woman even if the evidence and such supports the man. And sometimes her judgements contradict what she says which are the main two reasons I stopped watching her.
If you think an animal is being abused, like the one bird case, don't be afraid to call the cops and have them look into it. The plaintiff did it wrong, but if she truly thinks that animal is being abused, she can call the proper authorities
Call animal rescue not the police
Yo, she said "I'm not having... Rigor mortis stew" 😭😭😭😭😭😂😂😂😂😂😂😭😭😂
Can we just all agree that judge Judy's the Gordon Ramsay of the Court
Agreed but we love her
She is, but doesn’t use curse words.
No because Gordon Ramsey is the Judge Judy of the Kitchen.. Judge Judy has been on Tv for over 20 years Gordon only 15
Case #10-
That poor guy killed himself. 😢
really? :(
@@mirandabullard4809 he did
@@mirandabullard4809 Sadly, yes.
BP 950 see on another video someone said he od’d
R.I.P :( ❤️
Venison is actually very popular down here in the South lol 😂
That ones kina tough. I mean she ran over that nigga and said well. I guess I'll just eat it. She coulda just left it but she didnt want it to die for no reason. I think the lady the killed it had a hard time explaining herself and the owner was sad that she killed the deer. And i dont think the judge understood that. Tough situation
Dimeand Biggie 🤔 you right that is tough. On another note I’ve never had deer before, but I have friends that go hunting and eat it all the time and that’s the only reason I know what Venison is 😅
@@mackenziemoore Vension with gravy and rice is delicious.
@Mike C deer chili is the shit!
so is incest
Judy: She’s an idiot 😑
Sandy: Thanks😊
“Her large friend” Lmfaoo shady af yo
If u hit a deer, no use of wasting the deer meat
Just maybe not use it as the way for apology xD
@@denos1699 - So the problem was... her not apologizing properly..? xP Naw man, a lot of people just see it as extremely weird, cause it instantly becomes "roadkill" when it dies from you having accidentally hit it with your car, so you're "eating roadkill". They don't really think beyond the terms and get to the part, where an animal with perfectly edible meat accidentally died, so you make the most of it.
@@Avarioth ah no, I said that cuz I heard her mention something about apologizing with deer stew after damaging the car before going to the court stuff
@@Avarioth The problem was that she didn't want to pay for the damaged car because the deer jumped in front of the car.
@@Avarioth and to add to @Derpguy1980, the sister then added insult to injury by offering up some stew made with the deer that she'd hit with her car.😮😮😮😐😐😐WTF!
Judge Judy don't PLAY! LOL
I was stumbled on the fat girl sitting on the toilet part too because if she accidentally broke it well she broke it. She still has to pay for it. Because the girl who accidentally broke girls phone fro ma push paid for it. Basically Judge Judy felt bad for the big girl and gave her the case.
To be fair the girl possibly did do that because she was big but even so if she did break it well??? Any ways i seen your face on that one and my same thoughts came to mind there as well.
My thoughts exactly lol
It's two extremely different cases. Although the girl didn't have the intention to break the other girl's phone, she has the fault because she pushed the girl on the pool. The toilet thing was an accident and it could happen with anyone, the girl didn't do anything to break it, it just happened when she was the one using it.
For an example, if the girl was using the phone and suddenly the phone stopped working she wouldn't have to pay a new one, it just happened when she was using it. If that was the case it would be equal to the toilet case, at least on my point of view.
@@gabrielventura2510 That makes sense.
What? The girl that broke the phone pushed her into a pool so it was kinda on purpose.
Its sad that the heroine addict died. The bird owner..or previous owner should have gone a different route if they believed the bird was being abused. The girl who “broke” the toilet actually was crying at the end of the case. Some moments are just sad.
Hmm, the southern sister about the deer stew: Dead is dead. Getting hit by the car, the deer was probably fresher than the typical hunter as they're generally hours away from where-ever they parked their car and then travel time.
If someone breaks my toilet then they have to pay.
Obviously the toilet breaking was wear and tear
No she sat on it that is what you do on a toilet. She wasn’t being negligent like pushing someone in a pool.
Indeed, the item broke in the course of normal usage, not like the lady who borrowed her friends car and hit a deer, or the other guy who banged his friends car up in the course of hiding it in a park. Those damages were intentional and not part of the normal wear and tear it goes through. If those cases involved some small part breaking while driving the vehicle, it would have been more like the toilet case. Not their fault, totally normal.
Sidney Yannick Toliets are pressure tested they should not break like that!
Randy Motter how many toilet have you broken, since it’s normal?
“Rigor-mortis stew”
venison, in this case, is the meat of the deer. so basically this lady ran over the deer and decided to eat it. she ate roadkill.
React to Shannon Sharpe funniest moments
'Your bird' has real MY SANDWICH vibes lol
DEE WITH THE CONTENT🔥🔥🔥🔥
I'm confused, so the lady who broke the toilet doesnt have to pay for it because she never meant to break it, but the girl who broke someones iphone and never meant to break it? And she has to pay lol I'm confused
Because the toilet was a complete accident. The girl purposely pushed her friend into the pool. It makes more sense if you think about it like this: If she pushed her friend and she broke her arm, naturally she'd pay her medical bills. She didn't intend for it to happen, but it was a purposeful action that resulted in damage if that makes sense
I think it's because she was using the toilet for it's intended purpose and it just broke...the other girl pushed her in the pool as a prank and should have known that anything could have gone wrong.
Fair play, thank you for explaining
How do we know that the breakage wasn’t due to wear and tear as opposed to being broken because of negligence by the defendant? That’s what the plaintiff couldn’t prove.
Dumb and dumber was my favorite one
I haven’t finished the video yet, but if #1 isn’t the “Uh Your Honor, there was no earpiece” guy, I’ll be disappointed.
10:22 My heart is broken. The defendant looks so embarrassed.
I disagree with Judy on the toilet incident. I think she was trying not to embarrass the defendant with her weight. But It's not about shaming one person as it was about reparations for another's damaged property. I mean, if she's going to rate whether someone owes another for destructive damages or not depending on bases to if it was a accident of intentional. Then she has to carry out that same practice in other damage claim cases to remain unbiased to future rulings. Not unless, this is her special enforcing when it comes to toilets alone.😩
Unless she could prove that the defendant’s negligence caused the toilet to break then she had no case.
I accidentally broke a toilet seat at my sisters house, it was a really cheaply made one though. I bought her a new one, I didn’t know you could break a whole toilet itself though.
Isn’t it similar to the phone incident? She pushed her into the pool not knowing her friend had her phone on her and that it would break, the woman sat on the toilet and it had broken when she was using it, it’s all about intent and they were both accidents but were ruled differently? Unless I’m understanding wrong.
@@sammyjones8882 no its not n yeah u understanding it wrong
@@Geminiwaze would you mind explaining the differences then? Cause they both seem the same to me. Why just comment just to tell me I’m wrong with no explanation as to why lol.
Number 2 was because it already had a Crack, aka already damaged before. I could see the logic on that.
i love judge judy especially bc she’s an alumni at my school but i thought if u break something u gotta pay for it....
Has anyone ever told you that when you smile you kind of look like Janet Jackson?
I like how when that girl was talking about rocket science we both looked at each other
That's not a case? So why take the case what I waste of time 😂😂
Do judges choose which cases they want to cover or are they just given a bunch?
The toilet thing- I wouldn't make them pay for it, but I'd be a little put off if they didn't offer to pay if they know they broke it.
🤔🤔🤔
Barbara didn't break it-It just broke-as Judge Judy said. Guaranteed the plaintiff would not have sued Barbara is she was skinny. She was fat-shaming Barbara, like the 'mean girl' she is!
#1, hilarious, no ear piece mam XD rofl
THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN!!!!!!!
GoodBYE!!!! 😂😂😂🤣🤣
-I like how quiet she’s reacting🙂.
People think they can play with Judge Judy. Judge Judy takes no crap.
The only thing I remember is Judge Judy paid $650 for a new toilet 💸
Venison is also popular in the upper Midwest
Same here in the Pacific Northwest.
Venison (deer) is actually very good. I had some deer made into beef jerky and it's actually very soft and almost melts in your mouth.
I've only had it once as a teen, but it was the most tender and delicious meat I've ever had in my life. Sorta a middle thing between beef and pork.
I'd love to hear more commentary from you! What's your reaction to these?
btw have u seen any weird al parody music videos? my favorite is "white and nerdy" :D
I like how Judy said that he needed help and was going to give it to him instead of putting him in jail
Also Idc if I prank someone, if something goes wrong and their device or whatever breaks I’ll either work my way to pay them back so they can by themselves a phone or I’ll work up the money to buy them one myself, I have a learning disability so I’m not good with money at age 19 I know it’s sad but I don’t care I would struggle wasting 14 mins trying to count all that money for them
I grew up off of Venison
I’m not having rigor mortise stew.
U think I went around looking for the last person that sat on it?
She was like “B-or-ite! B-or-ite”.
That doesn’t happen....goodbye!
An earpiece and a calculator.... There was no earpiece in that purse ma’am!
Please React To Project X- left cheek, right cheek, tiny twinz
Well food is food. I’d probably eat the deer too. 😂
What was that at 6:51 😂😂😂
I disagree with the toilet case. If she broke it she has to pay point blank periodt. Was it an accident? Yes but she still broke it.
She allowed her to use it
she was using the toilet for the intended purpose and it just broke. The other girl pushed her into the pool with the common sense that something could go wrong, like her phone being destroyed since it’s not meant to be in water
Btw venison is deer meat for people who don’t know
It was said in the clip. If someone still didn't get it theyre just a special kind of slow
@@princessbaby5528 You call yourself a Princess. You can't speak on matters pertaining to intelligence/call anyone else "slow."
@@hypocritikill3205 - In what way was she wrong? You just replied to a subject-based argument with a baseless character attack. Might as well have said "you don't have DP. You can't speak on matters pertaining to food".
You know there stupid when security reacts
I ate venison one time and it wasn't the best tasting thing in the world😝. I'll eat dirt before I eat that again.
I think irs delicious!! Each to their own I guess
She literally made da girl pay for her friends phone although she said it was a mistake but contradicts herself when da woman broke her friends toilet
I know what you wanted to say about the toilet case she didn't try to break it so shouldn't she have to pay for it like the cell phone case not exactly cell phone case was intentional which caused damage toilet case was wear and tear even if she was a large woman
Venison is good lmao. That chick was a little weird for eating it but if she got it in time then I can see why she ate it.
andrea B you gotta be joking
@@jakari_reese7894 - What's the problem?
Dee Shanel Please do a reaction to Steven Joe and his dad.
6:00 trying to get the case with this big fat lie 😂😂😂
I loved watching your wheels turn when you noticed Judy's ever-present hypocrisy... "We pay for our accidents... With the exception of toilets" ;-)...
In her defense, we could assume that Judy meant accidents caused by NEGLIGENCE and not everyday actions or "acts of God" (which would leave the "Deer verdict" in question), but if you've watched the show you know that Judy is bat-shit crazy and changes the rules from case to case (Or mood swing to mood swing). The only thing crazier than Judy is the people letting her decide their fate.
I hate Judge Judy, but there isn't any hypocrisy in the cases mentioned.
First, what you're trying to describe isn't hypocrisy. What you're thinking of is a double standard, which isn't quite the same thing as hyporcrisy even though the general idea is similar.
Second, these aren't one to one situations. Anyone could have broken the toilet. They break surprisingly often, and there'a no proof that it wouldn't have broken had someone else used it instead of her. Besides that, the toilet was broken by someone using it as intended, with the permission of the owner. This situation is very different from being physically forced into the pool which resulted in the damage of property, and it's different than someone borrowing another's property without permission and damaging it in the process.
The phone broke because someone else did something they shouldn't have, the car was damaged because someone did something they shouldn't have, but the toilet breaking was just an unfortunate circumstance.
@@noconsequence4486 - First, Definitely double standards, hypocrisy, narcissism, and a possible chemical imbalance when it comes to Judy. Hence; "Batshit-crazy".
Second, I don't remember mentioning the pool. The rulings on automobile accidents (which is what I mentioned) support my point. You are using a friend's car (as"intended") and a deer runs out in front of you, or maybe you return it with a cracked windshield brought on by a stone chip. It may not be your fault, but guess who's paying.
In the toilet case here, there wasn't any denial as to whether or not the defendant was responsible for breaking the toilet... Only whether she was liable for the damages.
Although suing someone for a broken toilet is petty, it's hard to judge the two situations differently. Also, unless we are talking about a cracked seat (about$15.00), toilets do not "break" often. I've replaced dozens in my time and only one was broken (chipped) by a dropped perfume bottle, and there was another with a cracked tank lid caused by someone dropping it while attempting a float repair. None by normal use.
@@_Common_Logic_ If someone borrows my car and a rock cracks the windshield, I wouldn't expect them to pay for it. It happens during normal use. Likewise, the toilet broke during normal use. If someone borrows my car, without my permission, and hits a deer then they should pay...and I think in this case she borrowed the car without her friends permission.
@@blanketstarry7725 - Without watching the video again, all I'll say is that I wouldn't expect someone to cover the accidental crack in the windshield either... But that's irrelevant.
What we are talking about here is the LAW and liability. I DO think if you borrow something and you return it broken, the law will place liability on the borrower almost every time. It has nothing to do with what's morally "Right"... It's the "Law" we're talking about here. ;-)
@@_Common_Logic_ I doubt there is any law that would place liability on someone for something that happened during normal use. One might be able to claim that there friend drove down a rocky road when they were asked not to, but I don't think most judges would place liability on someone for driving down a freeway.
And the toilet...definitely no liability there.
*LARGE FRIEND!*
No duh
As far as case number 9 goes, maybe she's not as stupid as she seems being that by being on Judge Judy she's not the one paying the judgement. For those who don't know the show covers the costs.
you so pretty I love you 💙
It did not have Rigor mortis !!
So you have to pay if you accidentally break someone’s phone but not their toilet? And Judy did not need to disrespect that woman like that. AT ALL.
So you're saying that using a toilet normally and throwing someone in a pool with the phone are the same shit?
Fuck no. She allowed her to use the toilet and It broke, IT'S NORMAL. But that girl who broke the phone pushed her friend, something she shouldn't do. Does that clear ur mind?
she was using the toilet for the intended purpose and it just broke. The other girl pushed her into the pool with the common sense that something could go wrong, like her phone being destroyed since it’s not meant to be in water
YO...WHO BROKE THE TOILET
I’m sorry. I really don’t mean to sound like an asshole but I’m not really buying that the toilet just happen to break conveniently right when the defendant sat on it. I wouldn’t be surprised if instead of sitting on the toilet, she fell down on the toilet and the pressure is what made the toilet collapse.
But since that’s impossible to prove, she’s technically not guilty.
Agreed
Ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaahaahahahahahha
Deer meat is great! If you like meat.
Toilet... Normal wear and tear.
Them white girl tears
Eating deer meat is delicious. Deer tenderloin is fucking amazing. 👍💣💥🍖🍲🔥💯💯
Nah that toilet should have been replaced, str8 up. Judy know damn well she be wrong sometimes. I'm also sure she has ruled for many people to be responsible for things they accidently break....uhhh example making the chick pay for the cell phone after "accidentally" breaking it from pushing her friend in the pool.
I feel like actually friends wouldn’t make them pay🤷🏼♀️idk
Hey um Dee u look pretty I am just making conversation that’s it
I love your channel but is all you do is react
It’s a reaction channel
Dee why u so cute ?
I mean she should still pay for the toilet because while yes, there was not intention of her breaking it, it still broke.
Wtf hope you grew some brain and changed ur mind
@@Frog_Driver yeah i was an idiot i disagree with my take then
😭
The narrator is a distraction.
People are really slow. Use ur brain. Oh u don't have one. My apologies
Marry me
Judy is ok and entertaining but with sometimes in a woman vs man cases she seems biased towards the woman even if the evidence and such supports the man. And sometimes her judgements contradict what she says which are the main two reasons I stopped watching her.
Cool