On December 18, a North Carolina jury awarded $501,000 to a man who alleged he was shot in the arm by bodyguards for Waka Flocka Flame, who, as you either know or have accurately surmised, is a rapper. The plaintiff was approaching Flame in a parking lot when the bodyguards shot him; he said he had only been trying to give Flame a demo CD, but "people close to Waka Flocka" said it was attempted robbery. Since Flame was reportedly wearing over $100,000 of bling at the time, this was not implausible, but ultimately the jury did not buy that explanation.
Prosecutors in Las Vegas have filed charges against the two UC Berkeley law students who allegedly pulled the head off a bird in October. Actually, it appears that one is accused of the actual decapitation (felony bird murder) and the other only of "instigating, engaging in or furthering" it (a misdemeanor). The latter's attorney said he was pleased that the DA had decided on a lesser charge for his client. "It's an acknowledgement that he did not physically harm the bird," he said.
In other animal news, the Bristol Post reported last week that the owner of a dog in North Somerset, England, was fined £1,000 for allowing it to bark excessively. "Excessive" in this case was 863 barks in 23 minutes, which is 37.5 barks per minute or one bark every 1.6 seconds for 23 minutes. The barks were counted by an officer who visited the property to gather evidence, and presumably made 863 little marks on a piece of paper while developing a splitting headache.
In what could also be described as animal-themed news, the headline "Urinating man made noise like elephant" appeared in the Plymouth Herald last week, and is really all you need in order to fully understand that story.
I don't know if there's a manual for aspiring mall Santas, but if there is it probably directs them not to tell children that Santa isn't real. Other subjects that should be considered off-limits: the Sandy Hook school shooting. (The mall said it had fired this Santa and replaced him with someone more "festive.")
And in a final holiday-themed news item, a judge in Louisiana ruled on Dec. 22 that a woman had the right to hang her Christmas lights in the shape of a hand with its middle finger raised as a message to her neighbors. Police told the woman to take down the Christmas finger, saying it violated the town's "obscenity statute," but it turned out the town doesn't have one of those. The local ACLU helped the woman get a temporary restraining order to preserve the display pending a full hearing, which will take place on January 7.
This was posted on Reddit and according to a commenter there it's from the local paper in Hudson, Ohio. The image is a little blurry so I'll transcribe it:
HUDSON—A Sullivan Road resident called police to report a "suspicious package" on his front porch Nov. 2 at 3:20 p.m.
The resident said he observed an unknown person leave the package and called police, according to the police report.
The officer said he could see the package was clearly labeled with the Amazon.com logo and asked the man if he had ordered anything from the firm recently.
The man reportedly said "Why yes, I did."
The officer told the resident his order had arrived. The resident then said he was comfortable opening the box. The officer then left the scene, according to the report.
I couldn't find the article itself online, so I guess it's possible that it concludes, "The resident was then blown to smithereens."
That might still be funny but in an entirely different way.
This happened in 2006, but it must be added to the database of cases involving Driving Something Unusual While Intoxicated, for reasons that will be obvious. It's also a still-timely (and possibly timeless) holiday tale, of course.
In December of that year, this happened:
A man driving a float in the Anderson Christmas Parade ... was arrested and charged with drunken driving after he pulled out of the parade and sped off at speeds reported as high as 60 miles an hour.
[The man was] charged with driving under the influence, as well as 18 counts of kidnapping and assault in connection with Sunday's incident.
I probably don't have to tell you that the kidnapping charges stemmed from the fact that, like many floats, the float in question was carrying passengers—in this case, a dance team.
[The man was driving] a Steppin' Out Dance Studio float ... when authorities say he pulled out of the parade line near the Anderson County Courthouse on Main Street and passed a tractor pulling a float "at a high rate of speed for a parade," said Linda Dudley, spokeswoman for the Anderson [South Carolina] Police Department.
Dudley didn't say how fast parades normally travel in South Carolina, but based on my admittedly limited parade experience I'd think anything more than walking speed would be "high" in this context.
This raises a question I hadn't considered before but now seems very important: how fast would a parade have to be going before it would cease to be a "parade" and turn into a "high-speed chase"? Again based on my admittedly limited parade experience, they would be a lot more enjoyable if all the floats were going 100 miles per hour. I'd even watch the Macy's Thanksgiving parade if they could amp it up to 45 or so. Whether that would still be considered a "parade," I'm not sure.
In any event, this float did reportedly reach speeds of 55 or 60 mph "at points," which is a fairly high rate of speed even in a non-parade context. The driver allegedly ran two or three red lights during the incident and crossed a set of railroad tracks before finally stopping near a local community center, at which point the briefly kidnapped riders were able to disembark. The children were reportedly terrified, although looking back on it I bet they view flying along on a runaway Christmas float as one of the greatest experiences of their young lives. It'd be like getting in a knife fight with a clown: as long as nobody gets hurt, you'd never stop telling that story.
Whether or not it's a result of this event, the list of guidelines for the Anderson Christmas Parade now make clear that "alcoholic beverages are forbidden on any float, in any vehicle or on the person of any participant." They also state that "no participant shall use a live Santa" (presumably as an element of decoration) as the parade already includes one and "[c]hildren tend to be confused by anything other than the 'real' Santa."
The rules do not specify any particular speed limit.
Via the Disinformation blog, here's an instructional video produced by the Mayor's Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security in Houston, described as a "Department of Homeland Security Grant Funded Project of the Regional Catastrophic Planning Initiative" intended to instruct citizens on "Surviving an Active Shooter Event." This raises two questions right away: First, is the budget crisis so severe that the government can no longer afford even a single hyphen? I mean, Jesus Christ. Second, "active[-]shooter event." Really? Are there "passive shooters"? I guess that would be somebody who's just threatening to shoot and not actually shooting yet, but I would still say that person's being fairly "active."
I guess they can't call the video "How to Get Away From a Murderer" because that would make it too obvious just how stupid this is.
Because the third and more important question is this: Do they really think we're this defective? The video describes three options: (1) Run, (2) Hide, or (3) Fight. Thanks! These have been the standard human responses to danger for the last several million years. (Actually, the cat exercises these same three options when the dog is around, and she's never watched an instructional video in her life, as far as I know.) But here we have a video funded by your tax dollars instructing you to do what frigging Ardipithecus would have known how to do. And Ardipithecus was a dumbass.
The video shows a scary-looking (though at least not Muslim-looking) guy walking into an office and opening fire with a shotgun. It then provides numerous examples of workers both (1) running and (2) hiding. One person does err by hiding out of order, but she is quickly corrected by others who demonstrate that Phase One is the running, not the hiding. Only if one cannot run should one hide. The video does not provide detailed instructions on running, unfortunately, so remember: running is like walking but generally much faster, and also the correct direction for a civilian to run is away from danger.
If running (remember—away!) is not possible, then it is time to hide. And here we do get some more detailed instructions:
Yes, when selecting something to hide behind, it is critical that you select an object that is large, and preferably larger than you are. Attempting to hide behind something small creates a significant risk that you will be seen; the smaller the object, the greater this risk becomes. Also, consistent with the running advice given above, remember that hiding is most effective by moving to the side of the object away from the danger.
Finally, you should fight only as a last resort, the video explains, but if you must fight, act "aggressively" and, if possible, use a weapon of some kind. Perhaps a fire extinguisher or a chair, based on the actions of those in the video. (The males in the video, of course. Females appear to have a fourth option, namely crying.)
Like so much of the security nonsense that goes on these days, this video could only help make people even more anxious about what are extremely rare events, while doing nothing at all to make them any safer. (At least the snow-cone machines had some purpose, even if they were overpriced.) This sort of thing costs us money, encourages us to give up rights, doesn't help, and just generally stresses everybody out. I don't see the point.
With the money we'd save if we stop this, maybe somebody could do a video on using hyphens? That I could get behind.
The mark at issue here has two parts: a literal element, consisting of the words COCK SUCKER, and a design element, consisting of a drawing of a crowing rooster. Since 1979, [the applicant] has used this mark to sell rooster-shaped chocolate lollipops.... The consumers targeted ... are, primarily, fans of the University of South Carolina and Jacksonville State University, both of which employ gamecocks as their athletic mascots.
The trademark examiner refused to register the mark on the grounds that it was "immoral or scandalous matter" under Section 2 of the Lanham Act. The applicant disputed this, on the grounds that it was a "double entendre" and that in such cases the examiner should consider only the "primary meaning." She also complained, with some merit in my view, that the examiner had ruined it by ignoring the space:
[Applicant] filed a motion for reconsideration, in which she clarified that "the intended term to be trademarked was COCK SUCKER [(with a space)], not COCKSUCKER," and included a revised image of her mark in which the two words were clearly separated.... [She] protested that by "driv[ing the words] together," the examiner had "stripp[ed] the mark of any possibility of double entendre from which the relevant humor of the mark is derived," and also reiterated that the rooster design was intended to "guid[e] the potential purchaser to the less risqué of the two definitions."
In August 2009, the examiner responded, noting that "COCK is defined . . . as 'penis,' and SUCKER as, 'one that
sucks,'" and that both words are considered vulgar "as
used in context." ... Conceding that this vulgar meaning is not the primary meaning
of "cock," the examiner asserted that “taking COCK in
context with SUCKER, the primary meaning of this
wording as a whole is 'one who sucks a penis,'" and that the strong and commonly known meaning of
COCKSUCKER in the general public" ensures that the
two component words, when used together, will "unequivocal[ly]" assume their vulgar meanings.
Wow, that's a ... large rooster
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting the applicant's argument that in this case, "the space makes all the difference."
A mark's "sound" is central to its commercial impression, the court noted, and so "[w]e think that the Board did not err in concluding that COCKSUCKER and COCK SUCKER is a distinction without a difference." It also noted that "the fact that something is funny does not mean that it cannot be 'scandalous'" for purposes of trademark law, and, citing George Carlin, noted that the opposite is also true.
The upshot of the decision is that while double entendres can be funny, and can be used in commerce, they can't be trademarked. The reality is that the space does "make all the difference" for humor purposes, but for purposes of intellectual property, at least in this case it didn't matter.
According to sources in Quebec, the Regional Investigation Division of Sûreté du Québec proceeded with three arrests this morning in relation to the maple-syrup theft at Saint-Louis-de-Blandford between August 1, 2011, and July 30, 2012.
Or, put another way: la Division des enquêtes régionales − Centre de la Sûreté du Québec a procédé ce matin à trois arrestations en lien avec le vol de sirop d'érable survenu à Saint-Louis-de-Blandford, au Centre-du-Québec, entre le 1er août 2011 et le 30 juillet 2012.
When I first reported on this daring heist (See "Who Stole the Global Strategic Maple Syrup Reserve?" (Sept. 14, 2012)), there were few details about exactly how much sirop d'erable had been swiped, exactly how it had been swiped, or whether police had any leads in the case at all. When I reported about two weeks later that at least some of the stolen sweetener had been found in New Brunswick, I noted that it was still unclear how much had been recovered, but that it appeared Canada's long national nightmare might be over at last. It's a still a little too soon to say that, but today's arrests bring that day closer.
A spokesman for provincial police told the CBC that the investigation was extensive, spanning several provinces and extending into the northern United States. But he still refused to say how the thieves got away with thousands of barrels of maple syrup without anybody noticing. I guess we have at least one clue based on the newly disclosed fact that the theft did not take place over one busy weekend, as I had assumed (but puzzled over), but rather spanned a full year. The latest figure for the amount originally taken is 9,600 barrels; that's an average of 26 barrels a day, which still seems like way too much for employees to smuggle out in their pockets or lunchboxes or something. But I guess it does mean this could have been done in a series of small thefts, rather than driving up with a tanker truck as I had originally speculated.
According to the report, authorities have been able to retrieve two-thirds of the syrup that was stolen, meaning that most of the Global Strategic Reserve is now back in place. Police are still looking for five other suspects, so there is still hope that all the maple syrup will be returned safely.
[A California woman] was caught on videotape in August 2009 throwing her crutches into a car and running in high heels to meet her boyfriend at a public park, where she took part in a sex act that doctors concluded she couldn't have done with an injured ankle, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said.
As we've seen at least once before, evidence that a person claiming to be too seriously injured to work has been seen running in high heels is generally sufficient to defeat that person's compensation claim and get them charged with fraud. Granted, in that case the defendant was a 41-year-old male prison guard, and so presumably less skilled at running in heels than the 29-year-old woman involved in this case. Maybe that's why the DA called in medical experts for a feasibility study here, just to be sure. Still, since the woman had been claiming the ankle injury left her unable even to walk (hence the crutches), the running would probably have done it.
I considered trying to find out what allegedly ankle-stressing act was involved here, but I'd rather we all just speculated.
The woman pleaded "no contest" last week and was sentenced to nine months in jail, three years of probation and $79,000 in restitution. A colleague at the school district where she worked apparently alerted the district to the possible fraud, but the report didn't say exactly what it was that made that person suspicious in the first place.
There have been more than three years of Lowering the Bar (the blog), but only three so far of the year-end summaries I've written for the law journal The Green Bag. (Another one is in the works and will be published early next year.) If you're interested, I just posted them in the sidebar (PDFs here, here, and here) under "Great Literary Works," which is not a reference to them specifically but to "If Great Literary Works Had Been Written by Lawyers," two editions of which were also published in The Green Bag a while back.
Many of the events mentioned may be familiar to you if you've been keeping up on this important news by coming here often, but these are summaries arranged in chronological order, so you can see just how ridiculous that year was at any particular time. Examples:
Apr. 7 [2011]: From a report of cases filed in New Orleans on this date: "John B____ v. Bethala, et al., No. 2011-12066. Negligence action. While the plaintiff was staying on the third floor of the defendants' hotel, a wasp flew into his room. While the plaintiff was attempting to kill the wasp, he fell out of the window."
Jan. 24 [2011]: Clarence Thomas admits in letters to the Committee on Financial Disclosure that for years he has routinely failed to disclose information about his wife’s employment, as he is required to do by federal law. Thomas, who is one of the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, states that the information "was inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions."
May 1 [2010]: "This has got to rank as one of the worst attempted jailbreaks ever," says a spokesperson for the UK’s Prison Service after a man dressed as Snoopy tried to free a relative from prison. Officers said the jailbreak failed partly because the man was armed only with a water pistol, and partly because he had the wrong prison. An apparently frustrated Snoopy then damaged a number of cars in a parking lot. "It's not every day you see a giant cartoon dog go on the rampage after trying to break into a prison," the spokesperson says.
There's no shortage of material this year, either.
Thanks again to Ross Davies et al. at The Green Bag.
Nor did anybody try to eatlegislation or try to cut their way through a locked door with an electric saw, but those are probably strategies reserved for more advanced democracies. (Though less advanced than ours, in which legislators long ago realized they don't even have to show up.)
Luckily for the rest of the brawling Ukrainians, Vitali Klitschko, who in addition to being a member of Parliament is currently the reigning WBC heavyweight champion of the world, did not get involved.
