Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Volume Ninety Three

This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we look at another way that men complain when their… fragile male ego is bruised. And even when it’s not! Then we look at one really, really good reason not to take meth. Finally, we look at what happens when you make a stupid argument to an appellate court about something that any teenager can do.

Read on to find out more about this week’s weirdest and wackiest legal cases from around the globe.

Fragile Male Ego

 A police officer in Wisconsin has filed charges against a man for battery causing substantial bodily harm. This doesn’t seem that unusual, but the alleged crime itself is.

In the course of arresting and handcuffing Jerry Watkins, the police officer accidentally left himself exposed. In particular, Mr. Watkins grabbed the officer, with his two hands already handcuffed, by the penis and allegedly squeezed hard causing intense pain.

After a doctor’s visit, the officer was told there was no observable injury to his fragile male ego. Notwithstanding the absence of any injury, the officer nevertheless filed charges for bodily harm against Mr. Watkins.

Hence the fragile male ego.

Don’t Do Meth

As if you needed another reminder about why taking methamphetamine does not end in good times, this story should have you making the decision to avoid the substance.

In Pennsylvania, Terry Murphy was arrested and charged with a home invasion after his neighbour reported that he burst into her house, unannounced, and began attacking residents of her home. Allegedly, Mr. Murphy claimed that he was being chased by a demon dog.

Frankly, this level of intoxication is clearly a defence to the charge in Canada. But in the United States, it’s enough to land you in the clink for a night facing thirteen felony charges. And so if you don’t want those problems, don’t do meth.

Kids These Days

While I seem to be proficient at social media – it is after all a social media post that probably brought you here – I am not as proficient as kids these days. And courts are beginning to recognize that if something is simple enough for a literal child to do it, governments have no excuse not to.

In a case involving a stabbing at a prison, lawyers sought out video evidence of the stabbing by way of an FOI request. The government, in its infinite obstructive wisdom, argued that it could not release the videos because of the privacy rights of other prisoners. Leaving aside that the US Circuit Court did not buy that prisoners have a right to privacy in the lunchroom of a prison, they also didn’t buy that privacy could not be protected.

The reasons were literally this: if kids can put a cat face over someone in a video, certainly the government can figure out how to blur out the faces of the other people in the video.

Well. Duh.

Scroll to Top
Call Now ButtonCALL ME NOW