Articles Posted in Wacky

All of these laws are on the books. Click on the statute and see for yourself.

No tattoos? Yup, no tattoos!

It shall be unlawful for any person to tattoo or offer to tattoo any person. As used herein to “tattoo” means to insert pigment under the surface of the skin of a human being, by pricking with a needle or otherwise, so as to produce a permanent indelible mark or figure visible on the skin. Provided, however, that the provisions hereof shall not apply to any act of a licensed practitioner of the healing arts performed in the course of his practice. §21-841

I’m in trouble with this next one:

Profane swearing consists in any use of the name of God, or Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost, either in imprecating divine vengeance upon the utterer, or any other person, or in light, trifling or irreverent speech. §21-904

No “holy shit?” No “damn you to hell?” No “sweet Mary, mother of God?” What about “holy crap?” Not to worry too much, though. The penalty:

Every person guilty of profane swearing is punishable by a fine of One Dollar ($1.00) for each offense. §21-905

Kids, watch your butts because:

… nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit any parent, teacher or other person from using ordinary force as a means of discipline, including but not limited to spanking, switching or paddling. §21-844

Damn, switching or paddling? Well, at least the fraternities have one less thing to worry about.

Again with the duels!

Any person guilty of fighting any duel, although no death or wound ensues, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not exceeding ten (10) years. §21-662

Oh no you didn’t just try and serve me with those legal papers on Saturday.

Whoever maliciously procures any process in a civil action to be served on Saturday upon any person who keeps Saturday as holy time, and does not labor on that day, or serves upon him any process returnable on that day, or maliciously procures any civil action to which such person is a party to be adjourned to that day for trial, is guilty of a misdemeanor. §21-912

Barbers Anderson and Banks are opening up a barbershop. While the space was being remodeled, an old, ornate sign was uncovered. As reported in The Argus, the sign reads “J. Barker”, “dispensing chemist” and “practical phrenologist,” and is carved in ornate gold leaf writing. Since the sign has historical significance,

They were then told by planning officers from the city council they must keep the old sign as it is protected by conservation laws – even though it advertised the wrong kind of business.

So they have this cool old sign, and life is good at Trafalgar Barbers, no? No, it’s not.

Last week the barbers received a letter from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain saying it was illegal to advertise themselves as a “dispensing chemists” when they weren’t. The letter said it would take further action unless the sign, which contravened the Medicines Act 1968, was taken down.

Only one problem – they paid £500 ($1,000 US) for their sign, and a new “old” sign would cost about £1,000 ($2,000 US)! They don’t have it, and they’re feeling a bit boxed in. Said Mr. Anderson:

The council has made us break the law. It feels like we are in a nowin situation and it is all a bit bizarre. We never wanted the sign in the first place but were told we had no choice. Now we are being told we have to take it down and pay for another one. We are told we have to preserve the cultural heritage of the area but all the other shops in the area have the signs they want above the door.

Yeah! People, get your shit together and let these guys cut hair! Here’s The Argus article.

Petaluma, California (and its residents) contributed generously to the wacky and weird happenings this year. As reported in The Argus Courier, here are a few:

In June, a Petaluma man apparently didn’t get the memo about what you can and can’t take in your carry-on luggage — he was stopped at a Salt Lake City airport security checkpoint for having a lighter in his bag. Of course, that prompted security to inspect further, finding a glass pipe they thought was used for smoking crack cocaine (the man politely corrected them that no, it was actually a meth pipe). But that’s not all — investigators pulled his checked luggage out and found sex toys and 46 DVDs of sexual videos, many containing child pornography.

Back in Petaluma that same month, a teen boy made a serious bid for “dumb criminal of the year” when he grabbed an iPod off the belt of a woman holding a baby at 24-Hour Fitness in the Great Petaluma Mill.
The victim — baby in arms — gave chase, but the teen jumped a fence and got away. However, since he had to sign in to get inside the members-only gym, the victim ID’d the perp’s membership photo, and police caught up with him at his home.

This fall, two men parked outside the Ross store at Petaluma Plaza learned that if you’re going to shoplift 100 items of clothing during repeated trips inside a store, it’s not a good idea to draw attention to yourself by changing clothes next to your vehicle in the parking lot.

[In July] another man decided to take advantage of the warm summer sun and strolled leisurely along the railroad tracks near Southpoint Boulevard. Were it not for the fact that he wasn’t wearing any clothes and had reportedly masturbated in front of a woman and her children, police might have let him enjoy the rest of his walk

Would I make this stuff up? (It would save a lot of time.) But no, it’s true. A summons was issued by an Italian court for Signor Topolino (Mickey Mouse) and Signor Paperino (Donald Duck), who “are kindly instructed to appear before the Naples Tribunal on December 7.” How could this happen?

In what the newspaper [Corriere della Sera] describes as a “bizarre” bureaucratic blunder, the Disney cartoon characters have been named as witnesses in the trial of a Chinese man accused of peddling counterfeit toys and decals bearing the images of the pair.

Corriere dell Sera, Italy’s most respected newspaper, denounced the error as emblematic of Italy’s justice system where delays – which it says are caused by lack of proper staffing and other resources – often result in cases being dismissed on technicalities.

Viva Italia! Here’s the Earthtimes story that brought this to my attention.

Here are some highlights (from Barrie Segal’s book “The Parking Ticket Awards”):

Disabled driver Peter Stapleton was given a fine after stopping to re-attach his artificial leg which had fallen off while driving. After he refused to pay the fine the ticket’s cost spiralled to £465.

Truck driver Michael Collins was given a parking ticket after a burst water main had caused the road to collapse, leaving his 17-tonne truck stranded.

Nicky Clegg was driving with her 82-year-old mother and 11-year-son when a tree fell and crushed the front of the car. They all escaped without serious injury but when Ms Clegg returned to the mangled wreck the following day she found she had been issued with a parking ticket.

Robert McFarland’s horse was given a parking ticket under the heading, “Vehicle Description: Brown Horse”.

In July 2005, Dennis Williams was convicted at Carmarthen Magistrates’ Court for littering after throwing his parking ticket on the floor just as a street warden was walking past on litter patrol. The warden then promptly booked him for littering.

A Brooklyn priest was given a ticket after rushing to park outside a hospital to administer the last rites to a dying woman.

Similarly, David Holmes got a parking ticket outside a hospital when he drove himself there after having a heart attack.

A warden gave a ticket to the Dundee Utd disabled fans’ coach for parking outside the ground.

A young mother was given a ticket after pulling over because her three-year-old son was choking. Instead of helping her, a passing traffic warden just gave her a ticket. [Cold!]

Last year a parking attendant at a hotel car park was found to be charging people using the car park for the Snowdon Mountain Railway £4 if they spoke in English but only £2 if they spoke Welsh.

Funeral directors McKenzie and Millar were amazed to find their hearse given a £60 parking ticket by Edinburgh City Council as they waited to load a coffin into their vehicle.

A motorist who received a ticket in an NCP car park, despite returning to her car an hour early, was told the attendant had fined her because he had “reasonable cause to think she would stay longer than the four hours for which she had paid”.

Crazy. Here’s the article, which has just a few more.

Lawyer (and doctor) Lawrence Dry took on a medical malpractice case. This was a case that he had reviewed and rejected just a month before. Only this time, not recognizing it as that case, he agreed to take it on. Big, big mistake. Here’s where it gets a little crazy. When a lawyer blows a sure winner, he gets sued for malpractice (rare). Or, when a lawyer brings a clearly frivolous case (which is also very rare, despite the propaganda to the contrary), the lawyer has to pay the other side’s costs – if a court so rules.

Now try and imagine a situation where the lawyer gets nailed for losing a clear winner, and for bringing a frivolous case. Yeah, makes your brain hurt, but it happened to Mr. Dry. Seems he filed suit without having an expert to back up his theory (WHICH WAS THE WRONG THEORY, INVOLVING THE WRONG DOCTOR). He later dismissed the case voluntarily. This didn’t sit well with his client. Nor did it sit well with the doctor, who had been defending himself for 2 years. So they both sued Dry and … won! How? Dry apparently had a solid case for the blindness he suffered due to the surgery – but against a different doctor (the anesthesiologist, not the surgeon Dry sued). And the surgeon who was sued had a case against Dry because Dry never produced an expert supporting his theory that the surgeon was responsible for the client’s blindness. The surgeon recovered $80,000 from Dry, while the former client recovered $750,000 from him.

Apparently so, according to witnesses and cell phone videos from a Fishkill, New York concert. As reported by MTV news:

During the show, which took place on June 3 and was caught on fans’ cell phone cameras, Akon allegedly threw a 15-year-old fan into the crowd. According to the Journal, a small object sailed by Akon’s shoulder as he was about to start performing a song onstage, which prompted him to say, “Oh, wait a minute. What was that?” He then urged the crowd to “point him out, point him out. Who is he?”

Audience members identified the alleged culprit, after which a security guard asked Akon if he wanted the boy brought onstage. Akon responded, “So go get him. Bring him out to me.”

As the fan was brought to the stage, Akon removed his shirt and chain and then grabbed the boy, tossed him over his shoulder and threw him into the crowd, saying, “Now we can start the show, y’all ready.” A moment later, Akon looked down at the crowd and said, “He’s OK, he’s all right,” then shortly later chastised the audience for a perceived lack of support. “See, now you got me feeling by myself,” he said in the cell phone video footage. “I thought I had fans and support.” According to TMZ.com, after the child was thrown, he fell on another teen who later said she had been diagnosed with a concussion.

The latest? Word is that Akon will be arraigned on Monday. Click here to read the MTV piece.

This is truly a bizarre crime. There’s a very popular game (6 million people play it each month) called Habbo. Per the BBC:

Habbo users can create their own characters, decorate their own rooms and play a number of games, paying with Habbo Credits, which they have to buy with real cash.

The crime? A 17-year-old Dutch boy has been charged with stealing 4,000 euros (about $6,000 US) worth of furniture! Who the hell would pay $6,000 for virtual furniture?

If you think that’s wacky, check out this story (from the same BBC article):

Virtual theft is a growing issue in virtual worlds; in 2005 a Chinese gamer was stabbed to death in a row over a sword in a game.

Shanghai gamer Qiu Chengwei killed player Zhu Caoyuan when he discovered he had sold a “dragon sabre” he had been loaned.

Scottish Gran Elsie Melville just wants to see her four grandchildren. Daughter Donna Melville said that Gran is “domineering and interfering” (she called the SSPCA on her own daughter!) and gives the kids too much candy. (As reported in The Herald: “Mrs Melville was accused of taking two carrier bags of sweets to the children. The two oldest children had suffered dental problems and had had teeth removed.”) So Donna cut her mom off. Gran filed a civil action, in which she is legally referred to as “the pursuer.”

What did the Perth Sheriff Court decide?

The dental health of the children is undoubtedly important, but I regard it as significant that the pursuer has given an undertaking not to give them sweets during contact.