Endangered species or not, if the shark had come after him and he couldn't get away from it safely, then he's right to take action first and worry about the consequences later. At least he can have a "later"!Dreamer1
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Ye Ole Celtic Pub - Open all day, all night! > Ridiculous Laws |
| Posted by: Shamalama 29-Jun-2004, 01:33 PM |
| Aussie charged for killing shark By AP Tue, June 29, 2004 CANBERRA, Australia -- An Australian diver who says he speared a grey nurse shark in self-defence faces charges for killing an endangered species. "I thought it was either the shark or me," the man told the Daily Telegraph. "I was convinced it was trying to eat me." A state fisheries officer found the spear fisherman on a beach north of Sydney with a dead 10-kg grey nurse shark on June 9. Grey nurse sharks are considered dangerous to humans, although the speared animal was identified as an immature one. The man may be the first person charged with killing a nurse shark under state law. http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/06/29/518178.html |
| Posted by: Dreamer1 29-Jun-2004, 06:44 PM |
| Hey, I'm with him on this one! Endangered species or not, if the shark had come after him and he couldn't get away from it safely, then he's right to take action first and worry about the consequences later. At least he can have a "later"! Dreamer1 |
| Posted by: Keltic 29-Jun-2004, 09:14 PM |
| What if there was also a law that stated that it was illegal to feed the animals? Now that would be a dilemma! |
| Posted by: urian 29-Jun-2004, 10:23 PM | ||
 LMAO umm  |
| Posted by: greenldydragon 01-Jul-2004, 02:22 PM |
| I would go with the guy on that one. He can say it was self-defence! |
| Posted by: Shamalama 14-Jul-2004, 01:59 PM |
| Baseball fans can sue if they are injured by a foul ball around the concession areas in New Jersey's minor league ballparks, a state appeals court ruled. Monday's decision permits a Newark man who was hit in the face by a ball while buying a beer at Newark's Bears & Eagles Riverfront Stadium to sue the team and the food service company. The appellate panel said that while fans who attend sporting events assume some risk of balls flying into the stands, that standard should not apply while they are at concession areas ordering food or drink. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/sports/71304-foulball.html |
| Posted by: Shamalama 23-Jul-2004, 10:56 AM |
| STATION MAY BE LIABLE FOR SELLING GAS TO DRUNK DRIVER The Tennessee Court of Appeals has reinstated a lawsuit against a gas station filed by two victims of drunken driving. The court ruled Gary West and Michell Richardson could sue East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Company for negligence. An investigation concluded that employees of a Knoxville Exxon station operated by Pioneer refused to sell Brian Lee Tarver beer because he was intoxicated, but helped him pump fuel into his car. Police say Tarver left the station with his lights off, driving in the wrong lane and crashed head-on into the car carrying West and Richardson in July, 2000. A Knox County court had dismissed the suit, ruling neither the company nor its employees controlled Tarver's actions. The appeals court ruled what the station employees "set into a motion a force involving an unreasonable risk of harm to others." |
| Posted by: Shamalama 24-Jul-2004, 05:10 PM |
| L.A. considers banning silly string. Associated Press Jul. 23, 2004 09:33 AM LOS ANGELES - Silly string's days may be numbered in Los Angeles. The City Council is set to consider an ordinance Friday that would ban the substance from use in public places. One councilman says banning silly string is needed to clean up the streets of Hollywood and other areas where it is often used during Halloween and New Year's parties. He says the aerosol-powered spray string can clog sewers. Many others say the council is wasting time by discussing such a seemingly trivial issue. The ingredients of silly string are kept secret by manufacturers, but some kinds contain a small amount of alcohol and plasticizers. http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0723silly-string23-ON.html |
| Posted by: Brandelynn 26-Jul-2004, 12:36 AM | ||
1) This is why you *always* keep your eye on the ball, no matter where you are in the park, and 2) If you've got that much of an issue trying to get a $5 brew, wear your batting helmet to concessions! Geez! People..... grumble grumble..... |
| Posted by: Shamalama 03-Aug-2004, 10:44 AM |
| Jail sued for child support because conception happened there. KNOXVILLE, Georgia (AP) -- The grandparents of a child conceived while her parents were both in the Crawford County Jail want the county to help them support the baby. LaTonya Finney and boyfriend, Adrian Howard, were jailed in 2002 to await trial on robbery charges. While they remained behind bars, Finney became pregnant. They say they had been granted a conjugal visit, but the sheriff says the county has never allowed such contact. "I just think it's a very, very bizarre social conscience these people have that their daughter conceives a child and they think the sheriff is responsible," said county attorney David Mincey Jr. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/02/jail.pregnancy.ap/index.html |
| Posted by: Shamalama 03-Aug-2004, 10:51 AM |
| Couple Rushing To Hospital To Have Baby Get Traffic Ticket Mom Gives Birth; Dad Gets Cited POSTED: 6:26 pm EDT July 29, 2004 FAIRFAX, Va. -- A couple that went to a Virginia hospital to deliver a baby went home with a traffic ticket. Kathleen Siragusa and her husband, Tom, were in the car on their way to the hospital when her water broke. That's when they hit a traffic jam. "The first thought on my mind was what came out of my mouth. 'Turn on the lights, drive on the shoulder and go!'" Kathleen said. A mile later, a police car appeared in front of them. "I saw a police car and thought, 'A policeman when you need him, yeah!'" Kathleen said. However, the couple soon found out their trouble was just beginning. "I rolled down the window and said, 'We need to get to the hospital. Will you escort us?' He said he would call an ambulance and my wife said, 'Let's go!'" Tom said. Kathleen said she couldn't wait any longer, so they took off with the officer behind them. A short seven minutes after arriving at the hospital, Kathleen gave birth to a baby girl. Meanwhile, the officer found Tom and gave him a ticket. The citation charged him with disregarding an officer's hand signal. That's standard policy according to Fairfax police. "The policy is to bring paramedics to the location," said Sgt. Richard Perez of the Fairfax County Police Department. "Is there any exception to the rule?" a reporter asked. "There's no exception to the rule," Perez said. Authorities said it would have taken less than five minutes to get an ambulance to the scene, and they suggested the Siragusas took an unacceptable risk. "There's no exception that allows a motorist under stress to endanger the lives of themselves or others on the roadway," Perez said. Now home with a healthy baby girl, Kathleen sees the officer's actions differently. "Did he think he was helping? That flashing his lights and sirens and telling us to move over would help? I don't believe his mind was in the right place," Kathleen said. It's an argument the new mother will soon be making in court. http://www.nbc13.com/family/3596912/detail.html |
| Posted by: deckers 05-Aug-2004, 09:50 AM |
| Not to give myself a plug. . . okay, it's completely to give myself a plug. . . I've written numerous humorous columns making fun of stupid laws and stupid lawsuits. You can find them at http://www.humorcolumnists.com by clicking on the Stupid Lawsuits button. And I may do one on the Silly String ban in LA this week -- so if you see this post before midnight on Thursday, 8-5-04, sign up for my column at my website and you'll get it in your inbox the next day. In fact, now I'm pretty sure that I'll do it on that very topic. So if anyone reads this post and then sees that column in their inbox on Friday morning, you can smile quietly to yourself and say "He wrote that because he promised CelticRadio.net that he would." Erik |
| Posted by: Shamalama 10-Aug-2004, 10:18 AM |
| TORONTO (AFP) - A Canadian man got off the leash by divorcing from his wife, but was ordered by a judge to pay 200 dollars a month in doggie-alimony. Four-year-old St Bernard, Crunchy, is munching his way through a monthly bill of 200 dollars (150 US) in food, health bills and general care giving, the National Post newspaper reported. Pampering the pooch is truck driver Kenneth Duncan, of western Alberta province, in what is thought to be the first court order of its kind in Canada. The 200 dollar assessment is about a third of what Duncan would be required to pay his ex-wife Barbara Boschee had there been a child involved -- but the ruling doesn't involve any visitation rights. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1516&ncid=1516&e=1&u=/afp/20040809/od_afp/canada_dogs_offbeat_040809151044 |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 10-Aug-2004, 07:26 PM |
| Speaking of child support, Joe, a friend of mine had an interesting experience. He had been ordered by the court to pay $50.00 a week support for his infant daughter. He was able to gain custody (the mother was a crack addict) and quit paying child support. The court immediately served him with a contempt notice. Seems just because he had full custody did not void the support order. He still had to pay the court $50.00 a week. Then, as the custodial parent, the court gave him the $50.00 a week. In other words, he was under court order to pay himself $50.00 a week child support and to make sure he kept up with the payments, they had to go thru the court. It took 18 months to get the support order rescinded. |
| Posted by: deckers 13-Aug-2004, 11:47 AM | ||
I did it! I wrote the Silly String column last week. While I don't have it up on my own website yet -- http://www.humorcolumnists.com -- you can see it at the American Reporter (http://www.american-reporter.com). It was last week's column, so scroll down a bit until you find the Make My Day column by Erik Deckers (that's me!). Enjoy. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 14-Aug-2004, 05:51 PM |
| OK, this is really a sad story, and I do sympathize with the family. But a lawsuit? --- Mother sues over son's death on school bus By Vic Ryckaert [email protected] August 13, 2004 The mother of a Perry Meridian High School freshman killed last fall while he was riding on a school bus filed a lawsuit today seeking $300,000 in damages. Irma Garcia's son, Raul Gonzalez IV, died about 7:15 a.m. on Nov. 17 after he stuck his head out of a bus window and struck a tree last fall. The bus driver was steering to avoid an injured raccoon on Stop 11 Road, just west of Bluff Road. "Parents have a right to expect the bus driver to operate the bus safely," Garcia's lawyer Robert York said. "Obviously that didn't happen in this case." Raul, 16, was starting his second week at the school after his family had relocated from Texas. He had an IQ described as low average or borderline, according to the suit filed in Marion Superior Court. He was hyperactive, suffered from attention deficit disorder and had problems comprehending language, according to the lawsuit. The bus was traveling along the tree-lined Stop 11 when it approached the injured raccoon in the road. Students rushed to the windows to look at the animal. Raul lowered his window and stuck his head out to see what was happening. Traveling about 30 mph, bus driver Terri Gregory swerved to avoid the raccoon. The bus tilted into a tree, trapping Raul's head. He died almost instantly, according to the lawsuit. The school district is at fault, the lawsuit claims, for allowing the windows wide enough for Raul to stick his head out and for failing to warn Raul of the dangers. The city and state are at fault for failing to properly design and maintain the road, the suit claims. http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/169955-2453-103.html |
| Posted by: deckers 20-Aug-2004, 11:13 AM |
| For about two years, I wrote about almost nothing but stupid lawsuits. My take on this would have been: 1) If ANYONE is responsible for the windows, it's the bus manufacturer, not the school district. 2) You could also blame Garcia's mom for not teaching her son not to stick his out windows of moving cars. 3) PETA should also get involved on the side of the school board, because the bus driver was actually trying to further harm the animal. Thanks for posting these stories. You should also check out Bonehead of the Day Awards and True Stella Lawsuit websites for further stories. Erik Deckers |
| Posted by: gtrplr 20-Aug-2004, 05:46 PM |
| Justice says guns-drawn raid didn't violate civil rights laws Associated Press CHARLESTON, S.C. - A guns-drawn raid at a Goose Creek high school last year did not violate civil rights laws and the case is closed, the U.S. Justice Department says. "The evidence does not establish a prosecutable violation" of federal civil rights laws, a Justice Department official said in a letter to Goose Creek Police Chief Harvey Becker. The letter says "accordingly, we have closed our investigation." The Justice Department decision "is a great relief" meaning there will be no criminal charges, Andy Savage, a lawyer for officers in the sweep, said. Using a drug dog, police found no drugs or weapons in the Nov. 5 raid that frightened children, provoked marches and lawsuits and brought national media attention and the resignation of Stratford High School's longtime principal. Fifteen officers entered Stratford's main hallway and ordered 130 students to the floor. They used plastic ties to handcuff 18 students and school officials opened and searched 17 book bags police dogs reacted to. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, the state's chief prosecutor, criticized the tactics used as ill-suited for a school and created a "dangerous tinderbox situation." "Such raid tactics are well suited for a crack house but not a school house," McMaster said in July as he decided not to pursue charges. Still, school officials had "probable cause" to conduct a search for drugs, he said. "There was never any intent to do anything criminal," Lionel Lofton, another lawyer for the officers, said. "Our clients are glad to be getting back to what they do best: protect the people of Goose Creek." Civil suits remain that allege students' constitutional rights were violated. Settlement negotiations concerning those lawsuits recently broke down. |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Aug-2004, 07:18 AM |
Welcome to the Department of Homeland Security.  Thanks for sharing that, gtrplr.  |
| Posted by: Shamalama 26-Aug-2004, 09:53 PM |
| Student Charged With Clogging Toilet Wed Aug 25, 6:09 PM ET PORT OF SWEET GRASS, Mont. - Jesse Huffman insists he didn't do it on purpose, but the toilet he left plugged after "nature called" at this border crossing in north-central Montana has him facing criminal charges. Toole County authorities charged the 19-year-old college student from Great Falls with criminal mischief after a border agent accused him of intentionally clogging the toilet. Huffman said the clogged piping was completely unintentional, the result of an urgent, but natural bodily function. "I've never been arrested before or anything like that, and I get arrested for taking a dump," said Huffman, a student at Montana State University in Bozeman. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040825/ap_on_fe_st/nature_calls_charge [editor's note: Obviously the Toole County authorities have never eaten at a Taco Bell] |
| Posted by: Shamalama 12-Nov-2004, 12:08 PM |
| Woman struck by train sues railroad By Matthew Junker TRIBUNE-REVIEW Friday, November 5, 2004 A Jeannette woman who was slightly injured after being struck by a train while walking along railroad tracks sued Norfolk Southern Corp. Thursday for failing to warn pedestrians that trains travel on tracks. Patricia M. Frankhouser, of 910 Scott Ave., is seeking an unspecified amount in excess of $30,000 from the Norfolk, Va., rail transport company for the Jan. 6 incident that left her with a broken finger, cuts on her hand and pain, according to the suit. Greensburg attorney Harry F. Smail Jr., who represents Frankhouser, didn't return a call seeking comment. The filing does not state why Frankhouser failed to hear the oncoming train and get out of the way. It also does not state if she was crossing the rail bed or walking in between, or along, the tracks. |
| Posted by: dragonboy3611 14-Nov-2004, 01:18 PM | ||
It would be a dilema! Some people would think it smart, and of course some would hate it! Does that mean you would get fined if you left a peice of bread outside, and a bird at it!? Hmmm.... ~Adam~  |
| Posted by: erickbloodax 05-Dec-2004, 02:59 PM |
| A Jeannette woman who was slightly injured after being struck by a train while walking along railroad tracks sued Norfolk Southern Corp. Thursday for failing to warn pedestrians that trains travel on tracks. At least that should have settled the argument as to weather they were dear tracks or moose tracks.  |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 05-Dec-2004, 05:47 PM | ||
I know Brother Shamalama posted this last month but I must not have been paying attention.  So which is worse the Woman or her lawyer? In the Gilbert and Sullivan operata "The Mikado" the Royal Executioner has a song called "I've Got A Little List" and I think this verse may be applicable to this story: And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife, The Judicial humorist--I've got him on the list! All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of private life-- They'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed. And apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind, Such as--What d'ye call him--Thing'em-bob, and likewise--Never-mind, And 'St--'st--'st--and What's-his-name, and also You-know-who-- The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you. But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list, For they'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed! |
| Posted by: Shamalama 17-Dec-2004, 03:43 PM |
| San Antonio strippers to wear permits THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Friday, December 17, 2004 SAN ANTONIO -- The City Council on Friday approved an ordinance requiring strippers to wear their permits while they are on stage. City Councilman Chip Haass pushed the measure, adopted unanimously by the 11-member council, as a way to make it easier for police to identify dancers. But Jim Deegear, a lawyer for several strip clubs in the city, said it would put strippers in danger by making it easier for an obsessed customer to find out a dancer's real name and where she lives. He said the measure is part of an effort to drive strip clubs out of business, and he said he will fight it in court. |