… wouldn’t this have made more sense as a comic three years ago? You know, before real-life leapfrogged past anything mentioned here?
Unless this is a repeat strip, which I’m pretty sure it isn’t.
And actually this brings up another question: If Gary Larson resurrects The Far Side, does anybody else suspect it’s going to become a lot more political in nature than it was a quarter of a century ago?
I kinda sort of see what he’s getting at with the top caption, and I sorta kind of see what he’s getting at with the second caption, but they’re just not meshing together coherently for me.
Lately a certain comic strip artist, who for a while has been notorious for his extreme views, seems to be going completely off the rails and people are not only talking about boycotting his strip, but demanding that his syndicate drop him.
I’m not going to mention his name, because that’s irrelevant to the bigger question: Would you stop reading the comic strip/listening to the music/reading the books/watching the movies of somebody you find personally objectionable, or who advocates views you strongly dislike, if these things did not find their way into the comic strips/music/books/movies themselves?
(And just so we’re all on the same page here, I’m not talking about people who’ve actually committed crimes)
Okay, serious question here: does the Secret Service have the responsibility (or the right) to stop somebody they’re protecting from committing a crime in their presence?
Just for the heck of it, let’s keep this hypothetical.
A man relieved himself off the side of a bridge over Berlin’s Spree River, resulting in multiple injuries to passengers on a boat below (yeah, that can happen).
Authorities want to charge him with assault, which is defined (under American law, which is what we always use for You Are the Jury posts) as inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact on somebody.
A credible threat to do so also qualifies, which is why you can have assault (“gonna punch you”) and battery (punching you), but none of that seems to apply here.
So you’re the jury. Would you find the gentleman guilty of assault charges?
This might be a bit painful for some guys to read…
Linden, NJ firefighter Thomas Wengerter, as a prank, planted a small explosive on one of the station house’s toilet seats. Suffice it to say that when fellow firefighter Raymond Johns sat down, it wasn’t pretty.
Johns filed suit against Wengerter and then Wengerter, as if to prove his own testicles were fully functional, filed a complaint against the city of Linden, demanding that they pay any judgment Johns wins against him on the grounds that they “allowed a high degree of pranking among on-duty firefighters.”
How would you decide this?
(And then see how the judges ruled)
Back in 2017 (it’s just being reported on now, for reasons explained in this article), a woman was shot and the bullet drove a piece of her bra’s underwire into her body, almost killing her.
This isn’t exactly what I’m writing about, though:
Ten years ago, maybe more, we discussed here (or over on CIDU, if there wasn’t a version of Crimeweek online at the time) a special bra that was being marketed for female police officers and soldiers, constructed so this sort of thing couldn’t happen. I can’t remember any details, or any evidence that I didn’t hallucinate the whole thing.
Somewhat related, there was at least one case of women dueling topless for a similar reason: so that no part of their clothing would get driven into their body and possibly become septic (which was a very serious deal back in the day). There is controversy whether there were any other topless duels of this sort, with conflicting sources claiming their side is absolutely correct, but this one case is absolutely true..