Squeezed on:


You’re driving down the road in Florida and you see a beautiful orange grove, or a cow with a silhouette of Jesus on her. You’ll have to resist the urge to take a photograph unless you have the owner’s permission, at least if a Florida legislator has his way. Here’s part of a bill proposed by Senator Jim Norman:

(2) A person who photographs, video records, or otherwise produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the first degree …

A felony? Why pass such a law? Would it pass constitutional muster? As reported by The Florida Tribune:

Media law experts say the ban would violate freedoms protected in the U. S. Constitution. But Wilton Simpson, a farmer who lives in Norman’s district, said the bill is needed to protect the property rights of farmers and the “intellectual property” involving farm operations.

Simpson, president of Simpson Farms near Dade City, said the law would prevent people from posing as farmworkers so that they can secretly film agricultural operations.

So this is a problem in Florida?

[Mr. Simpson] said he could not name an instance in which that happened. But animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Animal Freedom display undercover videos on their web sites to make their case that livestock farming and meat consumption are cruel.

Sorry Mr. Simpson, but The Juice agrees with this lady.

Judy Dalglish, executive director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said shooting property from a roadside or from the air is legal. The bill “is just flat-out unconstitutional not to mention stupid,” she said.

Here’s the proposed law, and here’s the rest of the Trib article.

Squeezed on:

The Juice has the utmost respect for police officers. But, just as there are lawyers who do bad things, such is the case with police officers too. But there are no dashboard cameras for lawyers… Unfortunately for this baton-wielding officer (see below, at the 15 second mark), his dashboard camera was up and running. He was subsequently fired, criminally charged, and convicted, which you can read about here.


Squeezed on:


You find out your husband is cheating on you. You fly from the east coast to Chicago, and this is the best you can do? As reported by www.triblocal.com:

A wife flew to Chicago and cut the crotches out of the pants of a woman who was vacationing with her Wilmette husband, police said.

That’s it? Actually there was one more thing …

[she] put [the clothes] in a suitcase and left it in the home’s driveway, she told investigators.

Based on the backstory, the gent is fortunate that’s all she did with the scissors.

Reached later by telephone, the man’s wife allegedly acknowledged to Wilmette police that she had damaged the clothing — and that the two are still married, talk on the telephone several times per day, and have lived separately because of their work situations.

The woman said her husband told her he was traveling to a business conference, but she became enraged when she discovered he was vacationing in the Caribbean with another woman, the report states.

Surely the husband admitted to the affair? Well …

The man told police the woman was just a friend and was visiting him from Turkey. She declined to press charges over the damage. The man also told police that he was separated, though not divorced, from his wife, who lives out of state.

Plausible, but …

She told investigators she flew from the East Coast to O’Hare Airport on March 4, took a cab to the Wilmette home she still co-owns with her husband, and was shocked to find that her husband “had hidden everything that would reveal he was married.”

Just sayin’, it doesn’t look too good for the husband. So, the charges?

Since the woman whose clothes were destroyed refused to sign a criminal complaint, no charges were filed and the case is considered closed.

Hmmm. Here’s the source.

Squeezed on:


It’s always nice when folks get divorced, yet remain civil. On the other end of the spectrum, at least from the ex-wife’s standpoint, we have this story out of Eutawville, South Carolina, as reported by The Times and Democrat:

The victim told deputies he got into an argument over the phone with his former wife at around 12:30 a.m. and it was agreed they meet at a location on Cement Bridge Road several miles southeast of Eutawville.

“Meet me outside of town on Cement Bridge Road.” Who would accept that invitation? Well …

When the man made his appearance at the designated location …


…he was met by four men who were strangers to him. He described one of the men as being “stocky.” The four men proceeded to beat the victim in the face and head, the report said.

Not cool. Adding insult to injury …

Two of the victim’s assailants then began punching his Chevrolet Silverado, the report said. One of them, described as 6-foot-2-inches and 240 pounds, “ripped the tailgate from the truck,” according to the incident report.

Not … my … truck! And what kind of justice is the ex looking for?

The victim said he wanted to file charges for the damages done to the truck.

Really? Just the truck? Apparently so. Here’s the source.

Squeezed on:


If you’re short on time, skip a bunch of the f-bombs and go to the 2:13 mark. The guy’s reaction upon learning the amount of the ticket is something to behold. And you won’t find a cooler cop – anywhere. Of course, that just makes the guy angrier.

Squeezed on:

All you regular readers know that The Juice is not a big fan of Big Brother. Like-minded Juicegoers probably won’t be too fond of this proposed ordinance now pending in Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina:

Sec. 14-15G. Yelling, shouting, etc.

It shall be unlawful for any person to yell, shout, hoot, whistle, or sing on the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time or place so as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort, or repose of persons in any office, or in any dwelling, or other type of residence, or of any persons in the vicinity.

Squeezed on:


A frog? Forget about the mechanics of it (if you can). How can someone possibly derive sexual pleasure watching a woman and a frog? At least one gent did, as reported by The Sun:

Michael Hall, 46 — who is also a school governor and worked on a council panel to protect children — downloaded the disgusting images on to his laptop computer.

When police raided his home they found 230 photos and 150 videos showing women engaging in sex acts with horses, a donkey, dogs, a gerbil, a frog and a live snake.

Police acted on a tip-off after learning the magistrate, from Rotherham, South Yorks, had an account on a file-sharing website which was raising concerns.

Guess those animal fetishists aren’t the most loyal bunch. Maybe they coveted the same frog.

They found the filthy porn stash when they raided his home in Swinton, Rotherham, last September.

Hall admitted 21 specimen charges of possessing hard-core pornography when he appeared before Leeds magistrates.

Jail time? Nope.

He was sentenced to a three-year community order which requires him to spend 144 days completing a programme for sex offenders.

Can you imagine when, during group therapy, this dude has to stand up and say “I’m Michael, and I love frogs, gerbils, dogs, donkeys …” You can read more [a fair amount] here.

Squeezed on:


A Texas Inmate named George Morgan filed a habeas petition, which the state moved to dismiss. This didn’t sit well with Mr. Morgan. So he wrote a note to assistant U.S. attorney Susan San Miguel on toilet paper. What did the note say? As reported by Courthouse News Service:

“Dear Susan, Please use this to wipe your ass, that argument was a bunch of shit! You[rs] Truly, George Morgan.”

Ba da bing. Ba da boom.

One of Miguel’s co-workers returned the note to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, where Morgan is incarcerated.


Morgan was charged with using vulgar language and was punished with a loss of 15 days of credit earned for good behavior.

Morgan appealed, arguing that the punishment violated his right to free speech. And he … lost.

Judge Jolly acknowledged that prisoners have certain First Amendment rights, but said those rights are restricted by the state’s interest in rehabilitating the prisoner.

“Morgan’s note demonstrated a completely unjustified disrespect for authority, expressed in the most unacceptably vulgar form, which would be offensive in mainstream society,” Jolly wrote.

“It would not be tolerated from a peer member of the bar, and would not be tolerated from a pro se litigant in the free setting.”

Here’s the source.