Squeezed on:

why.jpg

Lots of folks have lots of reasons for remaining silent when questioned by the police. But this is a new one, at least for The Juice. First, the charges, as reported by Hunterdon County Democrat (New Jersey):

… eluding police and resisting arrest, which are criminal charges. He also faces a dozen motor vehicle charges: careless driving, reckless driving, disregard of a traffic signal, making unsafe lane changes, going the wrong way on a one-way street, obstructing the passage of another vehicle, failure to comply with police orders, failure to use proper procedure when passing a stopped emergency vehicle, failure to signal a turn, failure to yield to an emergency vehicle, speeding across a sidewalk, and crossing a highway divider.

Yikes. So what happened?

Patrolman Robert Godown was cruising North Main Street near the Flemington Arms apartments on Feb. 28 at about 11 p.m., when Mohsen Shehata, 31, of Flemington allegedly sped by going south.

“Light ‘em up,” he said to his partner. [Not really, but he should have, right?]

With lights flashing and siren wailing, Godown followed Shehata’s black Pontiac down Main Street, but when Shehata reached the Main Street roundabout, he turned left, against the flow of the circle, and continued a short way east in the wrong lane of Route 12 before hitting the curb and shrubs at Prestige Wealth Management and coming to a stop.

About the “why” …

When police asked him why he was driving so fast and was so unwilling to yield to authority, he replied that he was “angry” for personal reasons that he could not enumerate for religious reasons, police said.

Religious reasons? He’ll have to better than that for the judge. And it looks like he’ll have some time to think it over.

He was lodged in the county jail with bail set at $5,000 full.

Click here for the source.

Squeezed on:

fight%20fighting.gif

Fellas, did you not see your old mom sitting there when you started to mix it up? The Juice is guessing this is not the first fight between these two brothers. As reported by the Beaver County Times (Pennsylvania):

Police said Terry Wayne Welling, 47, was upset that a dog owned by ]his brother] Samuel Wayne Welling, 55, was “going to the bathroom” on the living room floor at 916 Duss Ave., listed as both men’s address.

Sam Welling was sitting next to Mary Welling, 87, on a sofa when Terry Welling confronted him and began punching him in the face, according to the report. Sam Welling punched Terry Welling multiple times, and the two brothers ended up atop their mother.

Um, boys. You’re hurting your me. Boys …

Police say Mary Welling was unable to free herself from beneath her sons and an errant punch from Terry Welling struck her in the shin. The report said Mary Welling suffered a 4-inch laceration and bone was exposed. She was taken to Heritage Valley Sewickley hospital.

Holy mackerel! The charges?

Sam Welling was charged with one count of simple assault, while Terry Welling was charged with two counts of simple assault and one count of reckless endangerment, according to court documents.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for mom to visit. Here’s the source.

Squeezed on:

std.jpg

Well, at least in Nebraska, that’s what the law says. Here it is:

42-102. Minimum age; affliction with venereal disease, disqualification.

At the time of the marriage the male must be of the age of seventeen years or upward, and the female of the age of seventeen years or upward. No person who is afflicted with a venereal disease shall marry in this state.

Okay, but is it enforced? Not according to the annotations (cases citing the statute).

Marriage of one afflicted with venereal disease is not void but voidable [the unknowing party can walk] Christensen v. Christensen, 144 Neb. 763, 14 N.W.2d 613 (1944).

But …

Where party afflicted with venereal disease enters into marriage with full knowledge thereof, such party is barred from seeking annulment. Christensen v. Christensen, 144 Neb. 763, 14 N.W.2d 613 (1944).

And …

If parties are of the age of consent, the marriage is valid, even though license was wrongfully obtained. Baker v. Baker, 112 Neb. 738, 200 N.W. 1003 (1924).

Here’s the source.

Squeezed on:

robot%20lost%20in%20space%20b9%20does%20not%20compute.jpg

Based on this gent’s reaction, it’s a good thing the police sent a robot into the house. As reported by wftv.com:

The Brevard County Sheriff’s Office said the robot was sent into the West Melbourne home last week because the homeowner had called his family and said he was going to take his own life and the life of anyone who tried to stop him.

Deputies decided that the safest way to enter was with a robot mounted with cameras. The $65,000 robot had four cameras that recorded the whole encounter. When the robot entered the house, the man came out, naked, and first tried to break the robot, then shot it at least four times with an AK-47, according to deputies.

Give that robot a raise …

Despite the man’s violent actions, no one was injured and the standoff ended peacefully. Deputies said the man walked out, fully clothed and with his hands up, ready to be taken into custody.

Here’s the source.

Squeezed on:

breastfeeding%20breast%20feeding%20sign%20poster.jpg

Assault by … breast milk, right from the source. Loyal Juice readers will recall a similar incident from across the pond a few years ago. Here’s the skinny, from wkyt.com:

A very unusual assault on an officer has more than doubled the trouble for a woman in Owensboro, Kentucky.

Thirty-one-year-old Toni Tramel was arrested Thursday for public intoxication, a misdemeanor. But it’s what she did later that has people talking.

As Tramel changed into an inmate uniform, she squirted a stream of breast milk into the face of the female deputy watching over her.

After the deputy decontaminated herself from the bio-hazard, Tramel was charged with third degree assault on a police officer. Her bond was set at ten-thousand dollars due to the felony charge.

Bam!

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Updated:
Squeezed on:

history.jpg

This just proves that, the older you get, the more interesting you find history to be. Heck, some people find it down right exciting. Take this Nebraska couple …

Authorities arrested two people suspected of re-enacting the amorous behavior that led to the baby boom in the World War II movie theater at the State of Nebraska Historical Museum on Thursday.

A security officer watching the museum’s cameras told police he spotted a couple having sex at 2:55 p.m., Lincoln Police Officer Katie Flood said.

“He walked to the room to verify, heard sounds consistent with sexual intercourse, retreated and called LPD.”

Oh, yes. Of course. He had to verify what he had just seen on camera.

Police arrested a Lincoln man, 36, and woman, 39, on suspicion of indecent exposure.

The man remained in custody Friday morning awaiting an initial court appearance. The woman has been released.

So she walks, and he’s in the clink? What’s up with that? Here’s the source (The Journal Star, Lincoln, Nebraska).

Squeezed on:

no%20dancing.jpg

Remember the movie “Footloose,” about the town that outlawed dancing? Although South Carolina doesn’t ban dancing all the time, there is this restriction:

Title 52 – Amusements and Athletic Contests
CHAPTER 13.
DANCE HALLS

SECTION 52-13-10. Operation on Sunday forbidden.

It shall be unlawful for any person to keep open or admit persons to any public dancing hall owned or operated by him or to allow any person to continue thereat between the hours of twelve o’clock, midnight, Saturday and twelve o’clock, midnight, Sunday, and all such places shall be and remain closed to the public between such hours. The violation of the provisions of this section shall subject the offender to a fine of not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars for the first offense and for the second offense not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars or imprisonment for thirty days.

Yup, it’s on the books. You’ll find the law here.

Squeezed on:

microchip.jpg

Isn’t everyone worried about being microchipped? If not by the government, then by someone else? No? Here’s a law that’s on the books in Wisconsin:

146.25  Required implanting of microchip prohibited.

(1) No person may require an individual to undergo the implanting of a microchip.

(2) Any person who violates sub. (1) may be required to forfeit not more than $10,000. Each day of continued violation constitutes a separate offense.

You’ll find the source here.

Squeezed on:

tv%20screen%20television.jpg

A tv? If you’re wondering how this is possible, so is The Juice. As reported by WCCO (Minneapolis):

The officer then saw in plain view that King had a large item wrapped in plastic and stuffed down his pants. It was a 19-inch flat screen television. King also had other items in his pants, including a media player television remote, power cords, a bottle of brake fluid and two Xanax pills, a Schedule IV controlled substance.

Shazam! You can read more, and see a photo of the perp here.

—–
EXTENDED BODY:

—–

Squeezed on:

truck%20speeding%20speed%20fast.jpg

Incredibly it can, and did. Mind you that this happened in Australia, where the loser pays the other side’s court costs. Still … How did it all start? As reported by The Cairns Post:

A fixed radar on a police car clocked [Steven Edward ] Osgood [54] driving at 93km/h in an 80km/h zone on the Kennedy Highway near Kuranda in June, 2006. Osgood contested the charge, saying the radar’s accuracy was in doubt because the police car was coming over the crest of a hill and around a bend.

Noooooooooooo. Couldn’t just pay the $250 [AUS] ticket.

A trial was held in Cairns Magistrates’ Court over three days in January and February 2008, with both Osgood and police calling expert witnesses.

After hearing the evidence, a Cairns magistrate convicted him of speeding and fined him $250 as well as an additional $65 in court costs and $7209 in prosecution costs.

At this point, the thinking must have been “why quit now?”

Last year, Osgood lost an appeal against those costs in Cairns District Court and was ordered to pay another $1800.

Uncle? Nope.

Representing himself in court via video link in his final appeal bid yesterday, Osgood claimed there were shortcomings in the use of police radars and there would be huge ramifications if his appeal was successful.

In her written judgment, Judge White refused to grant leave to appeal and ordered Osgood to pay the respondent’s costs.

“No issue of public policy about the accuracy of the devices used by police to detect breaches of the speed limits on Queensland roads is raised on the evidence which would suggest that leave to appeal ought to be granted.”

That has GOT to hurt, to say nothing of the cash Mr. Osgood shelled out for his own experts. Here’s the source.

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Updated: