 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates
|
|
|
Subject: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: GUEST Date: 05 Aug 02 - 02:53 PM #1: Young man tries to hold up a gun store with a knife!
#2: Woman's religious beliefs prevents her from divorcing her husband so she hires a hit man to kill him!
#3: Two men in a car are stopped by policman, and proceed to tell the officer that the Cocaine is not for personal use, they bought it to sell!
#4: A Young would be bank robber covered his face with shaving cream, it quickly dissolves and he is recognized by a teller! Hey I know you!
#5: A woman walks into a bank and calmly asks for change for a counterfeit 100,000 dollar bill.
#6: A man calls 911 to report someone has thrown some Twinkies on his driveway.
#7: Unknown persons break into a Church thru a side door and steal the valuable heavy Oak Front door! |
|
Subject: RE: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: kendall Date: 05 Aug 02 - 02:58 PM They probably vote republican too. |
|
Subject: RE: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Genie Date: 05 Aug 02 - 03:03 PM Actually, these folks are not good candidates for reproducing, either -- at least I hope they don't do! Genie Here's another (real) example (I presume yours were too): Man gives bank teller a hold-up note -- written on the back of one of his deposit slips. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Dharmabum Date: 05 Aug 02 - 04:37 PM A young man, while attempting to siphon/steal gasoline from a motor home parked in someones driveway,accidentally inserts the hose into the sewage holding tank. He was quickly apprehended by the local police when they follow a trail of vomit,leading them directly to the very ill young man. DB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: kendall Date: 05 Aug 02 - 05:21 PM That remark was uncalled for, sorry Doug, Troll. I just had a difference of opinion with one of my republican friends, you got the spillover. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Lepus Rex Date: 05 Aug 02 - 05:26 PM Heh. Years ago, two guys (a friend's cousins, actually) living in northern Minnesota, decided to rob their small town's bank. They walked where, through the snow, robbed the bank, and then walked back home, yes, through the snow. Uh, they were caught. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Susanne (skw) Date: 05 Aug 02 - 05:28 PM Absolutely hilarious, but, Guest - I don't get #6. Would I have to be American to do so? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Lepus Rex Date: 05 Aug 02 - 05:32 PM "They walked where" should be "They walked there," duh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Bobert Date: 05 Aug 02 - 05:33 PM What Kendall said first! Aww, jus' funnin with ya all. (No you're not, Bobert) No I'm not... but I'z ain't too wild about the other fraternity either... Wes Ginny 3rd time 5th grader to science teacher after discussion on the speed of light: "Ahhhh, Mrs. Carpenter, I think I get that one but what's the speed of dark?" Nevermind. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Sorcha Date: 05 Aug 02 - 05:39 PM 911 is the emergency police number in the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Jeri Date: 05 Aug 02 - 05:43 PM Susanne, 911 is the emergency number we dial in the US to call an ambulance or police, or report a fire. Twinkies are a pre-packaged cake thing loaded with preservatives. While throwing them on someone's driveway may be a heinous crime, I don't think finding them constitutes a life-threatening emergency. As to #7, maybe they just didn't want to take a chance they might damage the thing they were trying to steal? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Gareth Date: 05 Aug 02 - 06:55 PM Could I recomend the "Darwin Awards", or think of it as evolution in action !! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Susanne (skw) Date: 05 Aug 02 - 08:16 PM Thanks, Sorcha and Jeri. Never heard about Twinkies, but it doesn't sound like a good bait for the police! I knew 911 - do you know the one about the guy who's trying to chat up a policewoman? Finally, she promises to give him her phone number ... :-) (No, I've no idea how old it is exactly ...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: John Hindsill Date: 05 Aug 02 - 09:11 PM Suzanne (skw) A Twinkie is an American snack cake which is filled with a faux creme. Twinkies became notorious some 20 or so years ago when a San Francisco man killed two public officials, blaming his act on eating too many Twinkies. His jury bought this preposterous story...since known as the 'Twinkie Defense' and he was acquitted of murder, but convicted of a lesser crime. He served a short time in prison, was released, and a few years later commited suicide. Only in the good old U. S. of A.! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Aug 02 - 09:19 PM Yeah John.......Another high point in American jurisprudence. It was unbelievable then and yet today it seems about normal. Kinda' like a friend of mine who had to pay for the flooding in his neighbor's basement when his main water line broke......an elevation difference of 21 feet downhill didn't seem to matter............Obviously in American courts, shit can flow uphill. Thanks for the reminder......... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Stephen L. Rich Date: 05 Aug 02 - 09:28 PM These siories prove what I have always said. Some people are just too stupid to be allowed to go into crime. *G* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: kendall Date: 05 Aug 02 - 09:29 PM Insanity is a defense in American courts, and, anyone who would eat a twinkie qualifies! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Lepus Rex Date: 05 Aug 02 - 09:34 PM Huh, never heard of "the twinkie defense," so I looked around, and found this: at www.straightdope.com: "Dear Straight Dope: My friend told me that a man ate an insanely large number of Twinkies and murdered someone. She also said that he was arrested, and claimed that the Twinkies made him do it (or some such nonsense). Anyway, according to her, the man was set free on the grounds of temporary insanity. Is this true? --Jennyaliz SDSTAFF Jill replies: Your friend has the details a little mixed up, but don't hold it against her--the media, who get paid to keep track of these things, got it screwed up too. She's talking about the infamous "Twinkie defense," a term that entered the national vocabulary two decades ago following a brutal double murder in 1978. It all started on November 27, 1978 in San Francisco. Dan White, an ex-policeman who had recently resigned as city supervisor, climbed in the basement window of City Hall to avoid metal detectors, walked upstairs to the office of mayor George Moscone and demanded his supervisor job back. When Moscone refused, White shot him twice at close range, then stood over the body and put two more bullets into the mayor's brain to finish him off. Then he reloaded, went down the hall, and killed Harvey Milk, a popular supervisor who was also America's first openly gay public office holder, shooting him five times. At trial, White's lawyer argued that he was suffering from "diminished capacity," a controversial defense then permissible in California courts. White supposedly was suffering from depression and thus incapable of premeditated murder. As evidence of this, psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified that the formerly health-conscious White had recently become a junk food junkie. Blinder commented that too much sugar can affect the chemical balance in the brain and worsen depression, but didn't blame the crime on bad diet. Rather, he offered junk food use as proof of White's mental state--in other words, Twinkie consumption was an effect rather than the cause of White's problems. But the media and public immediately--and misleadingly--dubbed the defense's argument the "Twinkie defense." Whatever they called it, it worked. The jury found White guilty of a lesser charge, voluntary manslaughter. White was sentenced to six years in prison rather than life as many expected. The gay community and others were outraged, and rioting broke out in San Francisco. Largely in response to this case, California voters in 1982 overwhelmingly approved a proposition to abolish the "diminished capacity" defense. Dan White, for his part, served his time in prison, was paroled in 1985 and committed suicide a few months later. "Diminished capacity" is different from "not guilty by reason of insanity." The insanity verdict, which has been an accepted part of English common law for centuries, is rendered in cases where the defendant is clearly bereft of his reason, hears voices, etc., and so can't be held responsible for his actions. Typically the defendant is committed to a mental institution after trial. In contrast, "diminished capacity" results in the defendant being convicted of a lesser offense. A person with diminished capacity is sane and understands the consequences of his actions, but supposedly doesn't possess the mental state required to premeditate a crime. Obviously diminished capacity is a much lower standard than insanity. We've all heard of attorneys blaming medications, other drugs and alcohol, conditions like premenstrual syndrome, attention deficit disorder, post traumatic stress syndrome and/or early childhood neglect or traumas for their clients' criminal behavior. While an argument can be made for considering these things when evaluating a defendant's mental state, the Dan White case illustrates the potential for abuse. White hid the gun under his jacket, evaded metal detectors, brought along extra bullets, killed Moscone only after the mayor rebuffed his demand, and administered the coup de grace to his victims--all seeming evidence of premeditation. Yet the jury bought his plea. For that reason most U.S. courts have refused to accept the diminished capacity defense (although lawyers still make the argument, for example in the trial for the Matthew Shepard gay-bashing murder in Wyoming). Not that a clever defense attorney necessarily needs it. Ask O.J. --SDSTAFF Jill Straight Dope Science Advisory Board" ---Lepus Rex
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Ebbie Date: 05 Aug 02 - 10:25 PM I got a shock tonight- an Anchorage, Alaska, woman I knew somewhat about 7 years ago shot a lover who had left her and returned to his wife, and then shot and killed herself. Just 33 years old. I knew that she was leading a high-risk lifestyle, and I thought of her as a depressive personality, but had never thought of her as being violent. Back to the thread title: She was Not a Good Mudcat Candidate'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Bert Date: 06 Aug 02 - 02:43 AM As Gareth has thread drifted us towards the Darwin awards... I read in the paper yesterday of a young guy who was killed by lightning. He went up onto his roof to watch the storm - Ho Hum! Not a good Mudcat candidate;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: kendall Date: 06 Aug 02 - 06:38 AM My Bonnie leaned over the gas tank, Its contents she wanted to see, She lit up a match to assist her, Oh, bring back my Bonnie to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: kendall Date: 06 Aug 02 - 06:39 AM Opinions please, Is an intellectual more, or less likely to be a liberal? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Ebbie Date: 06 Aug 02 - 09:58 AM That's a good question, Kendall- I've often wondered. Strangely, it's been my experience that people tend to become more conservative as they age. I don't like that thought, because I plan to become even more liberal and tolerant and kind... but not yet. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: EBarnacle1 Date: 06 Aug 02 - 10:36 AM Thread drift: Pigeons will not eat Twinkies if other 'food' is available. In addition, they will not rot due to the high level of preservatives and artificial ingredients. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Ebbie Date: 06 Aug 02 - 11:28 AM Well, darn. Somehow my mind segued from intellectual to old age- and I suspect they don't equate. Sorry, Kendall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Nancy King Date: 06 Aug 02 - 12:20 PM Back to stupid crooks: Heard recently about a guy who went into a photo store to get passport pictures taken. After he got his prints, he decided to hold up the store, apparently forgetting they still had the negatives... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: kendall Date: 06 Aug 02 - 12:59 PM How about the guys who tried to tow a ATM away with a pickup truck? It was well seated, and they tore the rear bumper off the truck. Having made a hell of a racket, they left and the cops traced them through the license plate still attached to the bumper. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Benjamin Date: 06 Aug 02 - 03:57 PM I remember hearing about a man who walked into a police station, pulled out a bag of cocain, and started complaining how he had just been ripped off in a cocain deal and he wanted the cops to arrest the guy who had just ripped him off. Then there was the guy who saw a cop get out of his car to mail a letter and noticed he left the door open with the door open. He jumped him the police car and proceded to drive away, but didn't notice the officer in the other seat. Kendall, would you shut up about this liberal crap! We all know how you feel. I don't think it's considered "tollerant" to say (or try to imply) that people see the world differently are less of an intelectual than yourself. If you really care about the issue, there are plenty of books about the conservitive mind set. I couldn't recomend any as I personally don't find this stuff very interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: GUEST Date: 06 Aug 02 - 04:18 PM We understand, Benjamin. It is always difficult for conservatives like you when you find out that the only reason you are a conservative is because you are intellectually inferior to liberals! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Kim C Date: 06 Aug 02 - 04:23 PM Hey, I vote Republican, but only when I'm out of Twinkies. ;-) |
|
Subject: One For Tthe Books! From: GUEST Date: 06 Aug 02 - 05:52 PM A a 45-year old intoxicated New Yorker ran his car off the road into a ditch, and after climbing up the bank to the roadway, was hit by an oncoming car driven by his 43-year old intoxicated wife. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Gareth Date: 06 Aug 02 - 06:55 PM Hmmm ! A story, warrented true, and I should know 'cos I was there. About 15 or more years ago I was regulally drinking in a pub in Sittingbourne, Kent. It was a good crowd, friendly, no parasites, and the pub had a good landlord. There was one fly in the ointment, GOK what his name was, a sales rep, and lippy with it. Whatever the Crack he had done it but faster etc. Now one December Friday night, just before Xmas he came in and by 9 of the Clock was both pissed, and obnoxious. Th Landlord, quite correctly, refused him further service and confiscated his Car keys. Megamouth did not like this, and proceeded to give all and sundry grevious bodliy harm of the Ear Hole. His parting shot, as he stormed out the door, was that he was going to the Police to complain about the "theft" of his car keys. 10 minutes later the phone rang, it was te desk Sergent at the Police Station telling the Govenor to give him his keys, and "leave the rest to us". Fine, no problem, Megamouth staggered back, and was given his keys. As the front wheels of his car hit the public highway, there were blue flashing lights everywhere, 'Chummy was done' - " Have you been drinking sir ? - Pleae blow in this machine." - Oh I wished I had a camera on me. We read the sequel in the local paper. £400.00 fine, costs, and a two year driving ban ! - And we never saw or heard of that 'erbert again. Nice One Kent County Constabulary !! I was laughing so hard I had difficulty cycling home. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: kendall Date: 06 Aug 02 - 07:40 PM When the day comes that I'm not allowed to ask a question, one of us will be leaving the Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Blackcatter Date: 07 Aug 02 - 12:37 AM Remember that 50% of the world's population is BELOW average. Just to throw a musical spin in this thread = what's you favorite song about stupidity? My favorite is "Mr. Moses Ri-Tooral-I-Ay" pax yall |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Benjamin Date: 07 Aug 02 - 01:35 AM Gareth, that's a great story! I wish I could of been there too (though I would of been way too young 15 years ago for that scene)! Kendall, that was a lame excuse for a comeback. My favorte song about stupidity would have to be Great Big Stupid World by Randy Stonehill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Ebbie Date: 07 Aug 02 - 01:36 AM Actually, my thought is that 'intellectuals'are more often liberal than they are conservative, if by 'liberal' one means someone who is tolerant of other's choices, not blindly sure of their own answers, someone who finds the right questions far more stimulating and important, someone who is aware that no one has all the answers nor the right to dictate them to others, someone who is in awe of the world and its environs... Or at least I would certainly hope so. It seems to me that conservative people tend to be unpleasantly sure they are right and they all seem to turn off the question box in their minds.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Chip2447 Date: 07 Aug 02 - 02:37 AM Whar's ma Twinkies? Who tooks ma Twinkies? One of you danged liberal dones liberated ma Twinkies. Gimme back ma Twinkies, sos I can conserve dem... Chip2447(President of the Twinkie Conservancy Federation of America. If you're gonna commit me to the NYCFTTS I need to contact the TCFoA for a supply of the scrumptous little bastards) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Genie Date: 07 Aug 02 - 02:58 AM OK, Chip, what is the TCFoA --the Tom Cruise Foundation of A**holes?? -- Twinkie Center for Old Activists?? -- or what?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: kendall Date: 07 Aug 02 - 08:13 AM Benjamin, after processing a few come backs, I decided on that one as being the least offensive. Now, you sound like a control freak, another of those pains in the ass who want to be in charge of what is posted in this forum. It has been tried many times by others who have a better command of the grammar than you. BTW, I don't consider myself an intellectual. That question was prompted by a discussion with a republican friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: GUEST,Den at work Date: 07 Aug 02 - 09:15 AM An Intellectual is someone who, upon hearing the William Tell Overture, doesn't immediately think of the Lone Ranger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Kim C Date: 07 Aug 02 - 11:11 AM I suppose it depends on what you mean by intellectual. There's people of great intelligence & intellect just about everywhere, but they're intellectual about a variety of things. It's like Will Rogers once said - everybody's ignorant, just on different subjects. Twinkies better watch out, though, because if this Big Food lawsuit goes anywhere, those dainty cream-filled cakes might be a thing of the past. And I say to Hell with 'em! Nasty little things. They jump down your throat and FORCE you to eat them. ;-) I believe, however, there is such a thing as a Lite Twinkie................ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Benjamin Date: 07 Aug 02 - 01:47 PM Kendall, I don't care to control a thing. I just hear enough about politics and don't think being intellectual has anything to do with politics. There is no need to try and convince a forum of liberals that being liberal is the best way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: kendall Date: 07 Aug 02 - 02:26 PM Your point is well taken, and I agree. It's just that this is an open forum where anything goes except personal attacks. In any case, I think maybe I did over react a bit, see, I never allowed my parents or my wife to tell me to shut up. Maybe that's why they are no longer around! Peace, brother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Benjamin Date: 08 Aug 02 - 02:52 AM Kendall, I'm sorry if you took my original post as a personal attack (and I probably would of too). But since we are on the same page, there is no need to let any of this carry on. I'm as willing as you are to let this end and move on. Peace |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: kendall Date: 08 Aug 02 - 05:26 AM Seems like the older we get, the more buttons we develop, and, when someone unknowingly pushes one of them, BOOM! I'm 68, and I have more buttons than the space shuttle! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not Good Mudcat Candidates From: Kim C Date: 08 Aug 02 - 10:47 AM Here in the South, we "mash" buttons. ;-) |