damaged people dot com

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/24/weird. ... index.html

According to the site, in Minnesota a person may not cross state lines with a duck atop his head. In North Carolina, it is illegal to sing off key. In Idaho, you may not fish on a camel's back while Ohio makes it unlawful to get a fish drunk or to fish for a whale on Sundays.

(Less Funny):


Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, North Carolina, recently relied on a 1805 law banning the cohabitation of unmarried persons to give one of his employees an ultimatum.

He told Deborah Hobbs she could either marry her boyfriend, move out of the house they were living in together or get fired. Hobbs, 40, quit and went to the American Civil Liberties Union, which launched a legal challenge to the law.

Do they make those stupid laws because they're bored? If you have Uncle John's Bathroom Reader then you will read about those type of laws. In Louisiana it's illegal to whistle under water. I don't think you can whistle under water...

Most of the laws quoted above are OLD .. like really old... Sometimes, the civilization that created the laws seem to out grow them.

What worries me more today is when we try to legislate thoughts. In my mind, if you get 1 year in jail for smacking someone in the head with a two by four, then why should you get additional time because the judge thinks you did it because you "hate" them?

It's all rediculous to me. I think that punishment should be more strict....the prisons and jails today are too easy on people.

Painted wrote:Do they make those stupid laws because they're bored?

It is like everything else, someone, somewhere, sometime did something stupid that created a problem for someone else.

It does make you wonder how someone got in trouble whistling underwater

BTW- If you register for a hotel room in Idaho as Mr. & Mrs. So-and-so and you are not really married, the State of Idaho can declare you as such. This would only apply if the state was in the process of an investigation and found it to be useful in a case against you. I think it had been used in a few divorce cases.

Pigman wrote:In my mind, if you get 1 year in jail for smacking someone in the head with a two by four, then why should you get additional time because the judge thinks you did it because you "hate" them?

Its the good of the many outweighing the good of the few. Generally speaking the extra time is for all the other people you hate, but didn't hit with a two by four, who are now intimidated and marginalized for your action. For instance, if you hit somebody and are justifying your actions by exclaiming, "I hate this N******" or "I hate you Jew," its a different crime than "I hate you Cletus, for screwin' my sister!" The government has a greater obligation to protect the black or jewish communities than it does to protect Cletus and his wayward libido.

ZIPPER wrote:If you register for a hotel room in Idaho as Mr. & Mrs. So-and-so and you are not really married, the State of Idaho can declare you as such.

Uh-oh.

Painted wrote:Do they make those stupid laws because they're bored?

You think these are bad, have you ever read Leviticus?

You think these are bad, have you ever read Leviticus?

Nope never. Seems interesting.

It is like everything else, someone, somewhere, sometime did something stupid that created a problem for someone else.

I really don't see how this (in Minnesota a person may not cross state lines with a duck atop his head) could cause a problem for others.

Painted wrote:I really don't see how this (in Minnesota a person may not cross state lines with a duck atop his head) could cause a problem for others.

If it was your duck they stole you would.

OK. It all makes sense now. If I every plan to be a robber I will run will all the goods on top of my head.

In lovely Spokane... it's illegal to buy a TV or a matress on sunday.

I have no friggin' idea why (and yes... you can buy them... it's just against some old law and it's not enforced).

These make for an interesting thing to read on the toilet.

Painted wrote:Nope never. Seems interesting.

No more or less so than any other part. Just sort of points out the antiquity of the book. Read with a grain (or giant boulder) of salt.

You may have missed my point Miftah ... I said the judge "thought" you hated..

I understand what you are saying, but do we really want to start passing laws and punishments for what others "think" what we are "thinking"?

What if I just like hiting people in the head with 2 by 4's? Do I get less time as long as I hit every minority in a logical and statistical manner?

I am on your side if we are talking about DOING some hateful thing like burning a cross on someone's front yard. I got a problem with making laws about what I may or may not be THINKING.

Well, to prove the hate crime end of it, evidence is needed that this was the original impetus. The burdon of prove lays on the affirmative, the same as any other charge, which I believe is the criteria you're asking about.

bio wrote:In lovely Spokane... it's illegal to buy a TV or a matress on sunday.

I have no friggin' idea why (and yes... you can buy them... it's just against some old law and it's not enforced).

Maybe employers wanted the law to stop you staying in bed on Monday on your new mattress watching your new TV?