Common sense-defying laws; Why?

D

Dr Lou Natic

Unnecessary Surgeon
Registered Senior Member
Law seems to be some seperate entity that humans didn't invent and which humans can't alter.
I mean we've all heard of lawsuits where people hurt themselves trying to rob someone's home and they get compensation. Why didn't the first case cause someone to go "whoa there's a mistake" and fix that glitch in the system? Why do laughable ridiculous laws remain? Are they out of human control?
Did you know someone can come into your yard and try to abduct your daughter and if they get attacked by your dog they can sue for alot of money and have your dog destroyed?
Ok, obviously no one would think this law was reasonable or sane. Even career child abductors would be like "well thats just ridiculous", but that is the law and no it hasn't been changed yet despite being noticed.
Is there some reason utterly absurd laws can't be changed?

I would prefer it if there were no laws regarding intruders, if people were allowed to intrude but also allowed to be murdered if they did with no questions asked.
It would make more sense than what we have.
 
Something something, Burt Ward

Why do laughable ridiculous laws remain?
Click to expand...
Because nobody ever challenges them.

It was illegal, into the 1980s, to serve alcohol to an Amerindian in Tacoma, Washington.

DoMA has not yet been struck down.

How easy is it to foster the test case for the law that makes it illegal to cross the desert with a camel in Arizona?

Who is going to enforce the law that says if you live in Kentucky, you have to take a bath at least once a year?

I don't know that the last two actually exist anymore; I learned about them in childhood, right alongside the law that makes it illegal to look at a moose from the window of an airplane in Alaska.
 
Last edited:
"I would prefer it if there were no laws regarding intruders, if people were allowed to intrude but also allowed to be murdered if they did with no questions asked"
shit, some guy is chasing me, i need to ring the cops, ring the doorbell, no answer (the doorbell has a dead battery, or the person is listening to loud music, or whatever)
ill sneak in the open window and call the cops, guy sneaks in window and gets blasted with a shot-gun, killed for trying to escape a stalker or someone who was trying to return something he dropped.

maybe we do need to keep some laws protecting invaders, but if they are armed, then anything should be legal

wats DoMA ?
in some american state if three native american indians are walking together they can be considered a war party and fired upon (that may have been repealed sometime lately)
 
DoMA ... dead DoMA

wats DoMA ?
Click to expand...
Defense of Marriage Act, currently in the gunsights of all the civil-disobedience movement issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Everyone on both sides know the law is toast the moment it hits a courtroom, so the homophobes are doing everything they can to forestall the process in the local courts. Due process is due process, but it's only a matter of time. The manner of the Constitution (e.g. Amendment XIV) is such that there can be no other outcome than the shattering of DoMA ... hence all this talk of amending the Constitution.

The point being that the moment any of the gay-marriage cases make it into federal court, DoMA, a counterintuitive and anticonstitutional law, will fall apart on first test.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
I mean we've all heard of lawsuits where people hurt themselves trying to rob someone's home and they get compensation. Why didn't the first case cause someone to go "whoa there's a mistake" and fix that glitch in the system? Why do laughable ridiculous laws remain?
Click to expand...
Fortunately the vast majority of these cases are completely fictional, urban myths invented to get people riled up about nothing.
 
Well I'm most pissed about the dog thing, because it applies to me. And it is no urban myth.
Your dog simply can't attack someone no matter what. What the fuck has happened to society?
People MUST have challenged this. How is it defended? What can you say to make sense of this law?
 
The flip-side is that you can shoot someone for the crime of asking you directions.
 
There should be some kind of hierarchial rule that keeps the kind of stuff lou is talking about from making it to court.

For example, if a person is committing crime A(robbery) and is victim of a lesser crime B(dog biting)...crime B should be impermissible in court because a felony crime trumps a misdemeanor.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
Well I'm most pissed about the dog thing, because it applies to me. And it is no urban myth.
Your dog simply can't attack someone no matter what. What the fuck has happened to society?
People MUST have challenged this. How is it defended? What can you say to make sense of this law?
Click to expand...
It is illegal for most people to own a dangerous animal. If you shot a burglar with an illegal machine gun, you would still get in trouble for having the gun, even if you were justified in shooting the burglar. Also, in most states it's illegal to use deadly security systems to defend your home; you can't burry landmines in your back yard or put up deadly electric fences, for example. You could make a good argument that a dangerous dog constitutes a potentially lethal security system.
 
I don't think that the things you're describing here are specific laws, Dr. Lou. Most of them have to do with legal precedent, and who you can sue for what and win.

I agree though, some of the precedent that's been set is pretty outrageous. If I knew I could sue McDonalds because I ate their food until I got morbidly obese, I'd be sitting down there right now stuffing my face with reckless abandon.

Cases involving dogs are often very unfair. When I was a kid I had a big Akita (That’s how you spell it, isn’t it? I’m sure you know dogs much better than me . . . it’s like a Japanese malamute) and she was the sweetest most loving dog you’d ever seen. I’d never seen her growl, or bite at a human, except for one incident when we had her tied up out back, and she bit one of the neighbor’s kids. We nearly had to have her put to sleep despite the fact that the kid was apparently throwing rocks and taunting the dog.

There seems to be a lot of a lack of personal accountability in these sorts of cases. I really do hate to have to speak like that, as it makes me sound a bit like Sean Hanity, but if you’re going to break into someone’s house you should bet on being injured in some way, human beings have a nasty habit of being a little over-territorial when it comes to sneak thieves coming in the night to rob them of their possessions.
 
Mystech said:
I agree though, some of the precedent that's been set is pretty outrageous. If I knew I could sue McDonalds because I ate their food until I got morbidly obese, I'd be sitting down there right now stuffing my face with reckless abandon.
Click to expand...
You can file a suit against anyone for anything. The question is whether or not you can win. In the case of the fat people who tried to sue McDonalds, the cases were all summarily dismissed by the judge.
 
Here's a fun animal lawsuit story for you. During high school I worked at a drive-through wildlife park during the summers. It was basically a huge nature preserve that people paid to take a drive through and look at the animals. There were basically only three rules: stay on the road, keep your windows up, and stay in your vehicle at all times. These rules were posted on a large sign that was clearly visible to everyone who entered the park. When a vehicle purchases an entrance ticket they would be verbally informed of the rules by the ticket seller and handed a pint-out of the rules. Then they would be verbally told the rules again by a second employee just before actually entering the area with the animals. This employee would also check to make sure that all of the windows were up before allowing the vehicle to enter.

Seems like it would be pretty clear, right? Well, one day a family decided to drive through the park in their RV. Despite the sign, two verbal warning, and a printed flyer, they decided to open one of their windows. Long story short, a mountain lion jumped in the window and ended up inflicting some serious damage on two of the family members before they managed to kill it. They sued us and won a truckload of money.
 
Nasor said:
a mountain lion jumped in the window and ended up inflicting some serious damage on two of the family members before they managed to kill it. They sued us and won a truckload of money.
Click to expand...

Well, clearly you failed to present the fact that they must follow these rules that they on pain of lion attack? Clearly you had left them unprepared for their excursion!

Honestly though, when a lawsuit like that can win I think it's time to start re-examining this whole "civilization" thing. The idea that people can live together to mutual benefit is very much flawed, and I think it's up to everyone to try and find the dumb and sickly people and make a judgement call as to whether or not they need to be castrated.
 
Last edited:
Legally, the owner of a dangerous animal is always responsible for any injuries that the animal causes, regardless of the circumstances. It's the owner's responsibility to ensure that the animal can't hurt anyone, no matter how stupid or uncooperative people are. The same rules apply to other dangerous things, like explosives or toxic waste.
 
Be that as it may, they were given instructions as to what they should do if they don't want to get hurt by animals, and they completely ignored that. I should think that that counts for something, otherwise I could just go around provoking people's pets until they bite a finger off and then sue them for all they're worth.
 
in the mcdonalds case, there is a bit of scientific proof supporting the sueing of mc's

they have made their burgers very addictive (psycholgically, rather then physically) so as to sell more, it isnt entirely a persons own fault that they got fat
 
alain said:
in the mcdonalds case, there is a bit of scientific proof supporting the sueing of mc's

they have made their burgers very addictive (psycholgically, rather then physically) so as to sell more, it isnt entirely a persons own fault that they got fat
Click to expand...
Blah. McDonalds never made a secret of what was in their food.
 
Mystech said:
I should think that that counts for something, otherwise I could just go around provoking people's pets until they bite a finger off and then sue them for all they're worth.
Click to expand...
Thats the thing, you can do exactly that right now.
The finger doesn't even need to come off, a little scrape would probably be sufficient to get the dog executed and you a shitload of money.
 
alain said:
they have made their burgers very addictive (psycholgically, rather then physically) so as to sell more,
Click to expand...

That's the point of all marketing. Hypnoburger isn't exactly a unique phenomena.

alain said:
it isnt entirely a persons own fault that they got fat
Click to expand...

Hey it's still your own fault for eating what you chose to eat! It's your own fault for being weak minded. . . besides, I don't think hypnoburger is preventing them from doing some god damned exercise!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top