let’s just overlook the fact that this week’s update didn’t happen on time due to a combination of “making several pies, one of which might actually have been alive” and “some kind of drinking-related event” and move directly to the portion of this update where there’s an excuse about how i simply HAVE to resort to posting up links to stories on the internet and ripping on them. it really does benefit us all if we just save some time, right?
all this police presence wasn’t able to stop that drunken, 85-miles-per-hour, sex maniac driver … but they’ll get the next one!
so THAT is quite the title. now, as a Maryland resident, i’m pretty aware that we have some awful drivers in the DMV area; i won’t go so far as to claim that i am not one of them, as i do have a somewhat checkered past including a string of accidents and tickets … but let me at least say that there are many, many drivers who are far, far worse than i at the whole “operating a motor vehicle” thing. still, when i happened upon this blog, i admit it may have struck a new low.
“Lawsuits after car crashes are beyond common. But in the Fairfax County courthouse, a lawsuit about a crash on the Beltway last year is dropping a few jaws as it makes the rounds and heads toward trial next week. Among the latest allegations in the lawsuit pending in Fairfax County Circuit Court:
Paragraph 10. “At the time of the collision, Defendant was going 85 miles per hour.””
okay, so far, not too shocking 85 miles per hour? i’ve probably been ticketed for speeds that exceeded 85 miles per hour before. not impressed.
“Paragraph 12. “At the time of the collision, Defendant was having sex with a female.””
okay, now we’re officially out of my league. sex with a female at 85 miles per hour? there’s got to be some terrible pun about “fast women” here somewhere. also, i know it’s simply descriptive to say “sex with a female,” but i have to say it would PROBABLY be a pretty bad way to drive your automobile no matter what gender the person you were having sex with was.
“Paragraph13. “At the time of the collision, Defendant was driving admittedly drunk.””
so that’s even worse… but at the same time, strangely logical, as you can picture someone who’s “admittedly” drunk being the kind of person to think it would be a good idea to start having sex (with a female, no less) while going 85 miles per hour. a sober person, i suspect, might have second thoughts regarding automotive safety.
“Paragraph 14. “At the time of the accident, Defendant was partially or totally in the backseat of the car.””
…and that’s the part where i stop fully understanding this. partially or totally in the backseat? how were they even driving this car? actually, some coworkers and i were debating it, and we THINK what happened is some man in the driver’s seat decided to lean his seat all the way back (thus placing himself partially in the backseat) before allowing some female to have sex with him. this seems like a) the most likely scenario and b) a terrible idea.
so then it turns out this (shockingly) resulted in a crash? who would have thunk it?
“Records show the defendant, from Woodbridge, was convicted in Fairfax district court of drunken driving near Telegraph Road in May 2010. But now he denies he was driving. (What?) He was coming from his 21st birthday party in Baltimore, court records state. The woman involved has been dismissed from the case. There was someone ELSE in the car too, and HE denies driving as well.”
now, it’s not impossible that someone could deny drunken driving and still be convicted of it; i would, furthermore, expect the defendant to stick to his story. still, i do have to ask:
–why the woman involved (to say the least) was dismissed from the case, since she clearly had SOMETHING to do with the situation;
–what the hell this other guy was doing in the car. steering from the passenger’s seat? sitting in the back enjoying the ride? i’m thinking that if you’re riding with your buddy and a woman and she says, “hey, driver, let’s have sexual intercourse,” and HE says, “okay,” that’s when you need to step in and say, “guys, why don’t i drive?”
“The defendantâ€™s lawyer, Frank Prior, said there was “no statement by anyone that they were driving on the Beltway having sex” and “no facts on it.” The plaintiff, a 28-year-old cab driver, is seeking $75,000 in damages and is represented by Douglas R. Stevens, who declined to comment beyond his court filings.”
note to self: try and turn the phrase “no facts on it” into some kind of catchphrase. i haven’t been able to do this effectively in the past (“it’s pancake time” is great, but seems to have had no legs in terms of catchphrase success), but that’s no reason not to try again.
“But Stevens sought punitive damages against the defendant and the friend, arguing in a pleading that “having sex at 85 miles per hour while drunk on a freeway is willful and wanton negligence.””
is this the face of a man who could perform impromptu surgery on his dog? and by that, i mean WHAT IS THIS THING, OH MY GOD, KILL IT
i know with a title like that, the first question in everyone’s mind was “did this take place in Kentucky?” followed by “are you SURE this didn’t take place in Kentucky?” the paper says Chicago, people, so let’s try to stay focused here.
“Alerted by reports of a naked man covered in blood, police rushed to a Near West Side apartment and found a “highly intoxicated” man–“
so far, this is pretty much the way these things go: man gets highly intoxicated, decides it would be a good idea to remove his clothes/get loud or otherwise irresponsible/maybe get covered in blood for some reason, and then the police are called. so what’s so special about this story again?
“– who had been operating on his pet Doberman, “Foley,” officials say.”
ah, yes, that part. however, there are some improvements over the last time we talked about a man getting highly intoxicated and assaulting an animal (and we’re STILL not talking about horse rape here):
01. at least this gentleman (Stewart Gibbs) was not filled with bath salts;
02. at least Gibbs assaulted an animal that belonged to him, and was not a random goat that belonged to someone else;
03. i think he was trying to help this dog;
04. Gibbs seems to have distinctly less creepy acne and a better hairstyle. so there’s that as well.
however, i do not understand why they have placed the dog’s name in quotations, as if it’s alleged but unverified. “we think he called the dog ‘Foley,'” said a police spokesman, “but we have not yet confirmed this vital information.”
“Stewart Gibbs, 44, was charged with felony cruelty to an animal late Sunday after he told police he had tried to remove a cyst from under the dog’s right ear, according to police. Bail of $75,000 was set for Gibbs, whose attorney said is a health care administrator.”
so at least he’s trained to operate on… no, wait, at least he’s trained to fill out some paperwork regarding a dog’s medical treatment. maybe he just got fed up with years of watching those overpaid, rude, asshole doctors get riches and beautiful women, decided he wanted that for himself, and figured he’d master the art of “being a doctor” by practicing on his dog? no? that’s not a logical theory for improving one’s life?
“Gibbs’ landlord got a call from other tenants in the building who said water was leaking into their apartments from the ceiling, according to Assistant State’s Attorney Lorraine Scaduto. The landlord knocked on Gibbs’ door, got no response and let himself in, police said. Gibbs then ran toward him, naked and covered in blood, Scaduto said. The landlord also saw a blood-soaked towel in the apartment before he left to call police.”
always what you want to be confronted with when you enter a tenant’s water-leaking apartment: a naked man covered in blood rushing towards you. this is yet another reason why i would not take a job as a landlord without being able to legally carry “as many guns as humanly possible” on my person at all times.
“Officers arrived about 10 p.m. and were met at the door by Gibbs, whose hands were covered in blood and who “appeared highly intoxicated,” according to a police report. Gibbs let the officers in, and they found blood on the floor and walls of the hall, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom. They also found the Doberman with a wound under its right ear, police said.”
although it does at least sound like he did them a slight favor and put on some clothes before the police arrived. or maybe it’s such a common occurrence in bloody, naked men that they didn’t feel entirely compelled to comment on it? who knows!
“Gibbs told the officers he had been using a butcher knife to remove a cyst from under the dogâ€™s ear, and had turned on the water in the bathtub to clean up the dog, according to police and prosecutors. Gibbs told officers he had been drinking at Trump Tower earlier in the evening, returned to his apartment, had another half-bottle of wine and “proceeded to perform surgery” on his dog, according to a police report.”
so i will grant this drunken wreck one thing: a consistent story. most of the guys we make fun of around here have large blocks of time or specific, crazy events about which they say they “don’t know what happened.” at least Gibbs has none of them: went out drinking, came home, got completely drunk, started some dog surgery. in other words, you can understand how this evening developed.
“”Foley” was taken to an emergency veterinary center for treatment, authorities said. Gibbs gave up custody of the dog, and the Doberman is now in the care of Chicago Animal Care and Control, officials said.”
AGAIN WITH THE QUOTES AROUND THE NAME FOLEY.
“In court today, Gibbs was attentive and wore dark blue jeans and a black T-shirt with a yellow or gold design on it. Public Defender Anand Sundaram said Gibbs has been in Chicago five years, is a health care administrator and has a degree from the University of California, Irvine.”
unrelated to this story: in court wearing dark blue jeans and a black t-shirt? i don’t understand this. i guess if you’re in jail and someone goes and gets you some clothes, or if you just threw on whatever you had when the cops told you “stop being naked and bloody and let’s go down to the station,” then it’s acceptable … but is it just me or do people think that jeans and a t-shirt is appropriate courthouse apparel? these damn Americans…
there are so many things wrong with this title that i am not sure where to begin? Amish? buggy sex? the continued existence of the word “sexter?” one thing i do know is that it’s certainly turned out to be quite the raunchy week here at the house of hate.
“An Amish man who sent hundreds of sexually charged text messages to a 12-year-old girl was arrested last week when he drove a horse and buggy to an Indiana restaurant where he had arranged a rendezvous with the child, according to police.”
so should i be more offended by this man’s attempt to have sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old, or the fact that he, as an Amish man, was attempting to work it out with the assistance of a cell phone? because i think it should be the former, but someone it’s the latter. and how do you, as an Amish man, even start up a sexting relationship with a 12-year-old in the first place?
“Yoderâ€™s contact with the girl began with a random text sent to her phone. When the childâ€™s parents learned of their daughter’s contact with Yoder, they took control of her phone and continued communicating with Yoder, who sent about 600 texts, as well as nude photos and explicit videos to the girl.”
with a random text?! people actually do this with the hopes that it will work out? they’re sitting at home thinking, “oh, i’m lonely and i don’t know how to meet women, so i’ll just bombard random numbers with nude photos and explicit videos?” man, would i love to meet a couple who has met and built a relationship based on this method. on second thought… no, i actually really do NOT want to meet that couple.
“Nabbed in an undercover sting, Willard Yoder, 21, is facing four felony counts for allegedly soliciting sex from the minor. Yoder, pictured in the mug shot at right, is free on $20,000 bond.”
this has to be the best sting ever to set up. “gentleman, we’re going to take down this man who’s been trying to sex up a child, so let’s be sharp and do this thing right. also… he’s Amish, so make sure you get the cars set up to cut off his buggy if he tries to make an escape.”
“In one text, Yoder told the girl that, “the proposed sex act would happen inside the buggy,” according to a Connersville Police Department report.”
honestly, i’m torn between “GROSS” and “well… i guess that’s the logical place for it to happen when one of the parties involved is an Amish dude.” but i think i am going to have to lean towards “GROSS.”
“…After arranging the Wednesday night meeting, cops staking out the Takehome restaurant reported seeing “the outline of a carriage type buggy pulled by one horse and what appeared to be one occupant.”
sounds to me like there might have been a slight amount of profiling involved here…
“Investigators noted that Yoder, who was busted outside the eatery, was cooperative and “walked his horse and buggy around the building and tied it to a post outside.” During questioning, cops reported, Yoder admitted contacting the girl’s cell phone “by chance” and “advised that he thought he was going to have sex with the girl,” whom he thought was 13.”
still, it’s really hard of me to take a crime seriously when it involves a man tying his horse and buggy to a post outside. or, for that matter, when it involves a horse and buggy at all. also… when the cops tell you that you were trying to fuck a 12-year-old, it’s not really a solid defense to say, “oh, i thought she was 13.” yeah… that’s still entirely illegal and you should probably make an effort to avoid it.
“Yoder also noted that he â€œrealized that it was a bad decision and had never done anything like this before.”
INDEED IT WAS. although i wonder if “had never done anything like this before” means “i’ve never tried to have sex with a child before” or “i’ve never allowed myself to be swayed by the devil through the usage of a cell phone.” although i guess it could be both? honestly, i have no idea how this “use of modern technology” thing works with the Amish; every time i think i understand it, i catch them using power tools while refusing to wear zippers. it’s confusing.
so that’ll hold us for this week. now please excuse me while i go vomit uncontrollably for several hours.