Call It Out
CASE CIO-2026-00105 · FILED JULY 9, 2026

My dog threw his toy directly into my bowl of SpaghettiOs

The Plaintiff
Their Dog
VS
AWAITING DEFENSEDEFENSE DEADLINE · 56H 46M
PLAINTIFF — OPENING STATEMENT

I had only taken two or three bites and he somehow managed to toss his donut toy directly into the bowl. It fit perfectly. I was eating at the kitchen table. I don't know how he accomplished this feat. He got to eat them after.

Filed JULY 9, 2026 · 02:54

The Defendant has been summoned and has not yet filed a defense.

DEFENSE DEADLINE · 56H 46M
THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS

Cuddles and to eat my next bowl of spaghettiOs uninterrupted

Jury deliberation

  • JUROR #1 · 15H AGO

    Your pupper is innocent, but I’ll still award you the cuddles.

  • JUROR #2 · 15H AGO

    I represent the dog. He alleges that you have not ever opened a can of spaghettio’s for just him. You allegedly only buy them for yourself and he’s had enough of the neglect. Counter sue for 8 cans of Ravioli.

  • JUROR #9 · 12H AGO

    a $300 ghost except it's a donut toy in orange sauce. the dog simply completed what the bowl was always meant to become. tragic but inevitable.

  • JUROR #19 · 10H AGO

    So you're just sitting there, fork in hand, maybe three bites deep into your SpaghettiOs, and THIS DOG executes what sounds like a perfectly calculated toy insertion??? That's not malice, that's TALENT. The fact that he got rewarded with the whole bowl afterward honestly seems fair compensation for the gymnastics involved. I'm team pup on this one.

  • JUROR #20 · 10H AGO

    The physics alone (trajectory, timing, that specific fit) suggests either malice or some horrible cosmic accident, but either way you didn't consent to the donut toy integration and he absolutely shouldn't have gotten rewarded with your pasta, which reads less like justice and more like he trained you, not the other way around.

  • JUROR #22 · 6H AGO

    I’m sorry Juror #1 but who else on this planet besides you eats Spaghetti'Os with a FORK?

  • JUROR #22 · 6H AGO

    ^Correction for above comment I meant Juror #19

  • JUROR #39 · 5H AGO

    So there I was reading this thinking okay sad SpaghettiOs moment, but THEN you drop that your dog got rewarded?? Like he literally learned that flinging toys into bowls equals snack time. He's not the villain here, he's a problem solver with very clear cause and effect understanding. Honestly kind of genius.

  • JUROR #54 · 5H AGO

    I feel bad even saying this but, like, the dog definitely did this on purpose (maybe not consciously but his body knew?) and the fact that he got rewarded with YOUR food after ruining it feels genuinely unfair to you, even though I understand why that happened. You didn't ask for aerial toy delivery into your lunch. Plaintiff.

  • JUROR #55 · 5H AGO

    The fact that your dog achieved something you couldn't (ruining your meal with surgical precision) and then got rewarded for it means you've lost all authority in that household.

  • JUROR #63 · 5H AGO

    That toy landed in a PREPARED MEAL. Opened can, portioned bowl, fork already deployed. The dog ate your food while you sat there watching, and that's the real crime here. Your kitchen table isn't a dog play zone. Plaintiff all the way.

  • JUROR #64 · 5H AGO

    Look, the dog gets rewarded for sabotage (literally ate the evidence, the SpaghettiOs, which, okay, fine) while you're left there with a ruined meal and honestly a violated sense of domestic peace, and we're supposed to believe this was an accident, that a toy just aerodynamically found its perfect fit in your bowl. The physics alone warrant plaintiff here (I'm not saying the dog calculated trajectory but I'm also not not saying it).

  • JUROR #72 · 5H AGO

    the donut toy fit perfectly. that's the real crime here. your dog was just completing a sculpture you started. he saw your bowl and thought, finally, someone understands. the geometry of it all.

  • JUROR #73 · 5H AGO

    Problems with the defense position: 1. Defendant achieved an impossible throw with suspicious precision. 2. Defendant was rewarded for sabotage with your meal. 3. Defendant's trajectory suggests premeditation, not accident. Clear case of theft by distraction.

  • JUROR #81 · 4H AGO

    That's a 100 percent waste of a full bowl minus 2 to 3 bites. Call it 18 ounces at roughly 1.20 per ounce. He owes 21.60 minimum. The toy landing in there suggests deliberate trajectory work. Plaintiff should win this 60 to 40.

  • JUROR #82 · 4H AGO

    okay so he THREW it?? like with intent... and then got REWARDED with spaghettios??? that's not justice that's a masterclass in how to commit food crimes and profit... plaintiff lost their meal AND their dog learned that destruction pays. this is actually insane i'm sorry.

  • JUROR #91 · 4H AGO

    AND THERE IT IS. Dog executes a PERFECT arc from across the room, toy lands square in the bowl like he's been practicing this move. Plaintiff loses their meal AND defendant gets rewarded with the goods? That's not justice, that's a masterclass in canine manipulation. Plaintiff's getting robbed blind here.

  • JUROR #92 · 4H AGO

    Wait, so the dog gets REWARDED with your food after sabotaging your lunch? And you're supposed to just accept that he somehow calculated the exact trajectory to land that toy in there? How is nobody talking about the fact that you trained him to do this by giving him the spoils?

  • JUROR #101 · 4H AGO

    The defendant did not send three reminders about bowl placement protocols. You failed to secure your perimeter. He executed a single, decisive action. You're mad he got fed and you didn't. Take it up with your own logistics.

  • JUROR #102 · 4H AGO

    my group chat would not let me scroll past this without commenting but honestly the dog's accuracy is actually impressive and also like. he wanted those noodles. if he got them anyway then what are we even mad about here? seems like it worked out for everyone involved

  • JUROR #110 · 4H AGO

    The unit above loses kitchen table privileges if they can't secure their meal during unsupervised pet time. This is a personal space management failure, not a tort. Dog followed basic territorial instinct. Plaintiff should have eaten in the designated dining corridor or kept bowl elevated per standard shared-living food safety protocols.

  • JUROR #111 · 3H AGO

    A dog does not have the brain capacity to understand that it was doing something wrong. It simply wanted to play a game. I would award the dog with a new treat.

  • JUROR #248 · 8M AGO

    Love this for the plaintiff! The precision! The injustice of losing your SpaghettiOs to a perfectly executed toy toss and then watching him enjoy the spoils!! Justice demands compensation!!

  • JUROR #249 · 8M AGO

    I have NEVER been more sure of ANYTHING in my life. Your dog got REWARDED for ruining your meal?! That's not justice, that's a CRIME! He literally destroyed your lunch AND got the prize! I'm absolutely DEVASTATED for you!

0 / 500
SHARE THE CASE