View previous topic | View next topic

Gums

Page 1 of 1

F-BombZoning Commission
559089.  Sun May 24, 2009 10:39 am Reply with quote

It may not be that interesting, but I thought it was funny; in Louisiana, biting someone is considered assault; but if you bit them with false teeth, you will be charged with aggravated assault.

 
Jenny
559138.  Sun May 24, 2009 1:05 pm Reply with quote

That is funny - do you have a citation for it? QI if so.

 
Sadurian Mike
559206.  Sun May 24, 2009 2:12 pm Reply with quote

I suppose it is using a tool or weapon, whereas using your own teeth is not.

A strange interpretation but totally logical. Captain.

 
Ian Dunn
559209.  Sun May 24, 2009 2:14 pm Reply with quote

I think this fact appears on a few websites, but I don't think they would count as reliable sources. It might just be an urban myth.

I have however found this. Louisiana Code, Title 14:37.3 forbids: "Unlawful use of a laser on a police officer". Punishments include either a $500 fine, 6 months in jail or both.

Source

 
Ion Zone
559213.  Sun May 24, 2009 2:16 pm Reply with quote

"No, Mr Bond...."



Get what they mean though, I've had a laser pointer shon in my eyes, it isn't nice.

 
Bondee
559240.  Sun May 24, 2009 2:50 pm Reply with quote

Ion Zone wrote:
"No, Mr Bond...."


What have I done now?!?

 
Ion Zone
559241.  Sun May 24, 2009 2:51 pm Reply with quote

Ve vil see, Mr Bond. Ve vil see.

 
F-BombZoning Commission
559975.  Tue May 26, 2009 8:26 am Reply with quote

http://www.azzit.de/humor/30.html
that's where I got the Louisiana thing: the states are arranged alphabetically. Another good one is Georgia:It is illegal to change the clothes on a storefront mannequin unless the shades are down. For the sake of public decency, no doubt :D

 
dr.bob
560046.  Tue May 26, 2009 10:32 am Reply with quote

I wouldn't put too much faith in that particular source, if I were you.

For instance, compare their list of "whacky" laws from Arizona with the last four entries on this Snopes page. That's four from four!

Still, this is the kind of urban myth that we're keen on investigating and, where necessary, debinking here at QI towers.

 
Jenny
560145.  Tue May 26, 2009 2:59 pm Reply with quote

Debinking? Is that like a cuter form of debunking?

 
dr.bob
560304.  Wed May 27, 2009 4:26 am Reply with quote

Nah, it's clearly the process of removing any influence by the hip-hop producer originally named Roosevelt Harrell III.

(down with the kids, innit!)

 
ali
560377.  Wed May 27, 2009 8:37 am Reply with quote

From the Louisiana State Code: I think these are probably the relevant parts.

Quote:
SUBPART B. ASSAULT AND BATTERY

(WITH RELATED OFFENSES)

33. Battery defined

Battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another; or the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another.

Acts 1978, No. 394, 1.



Quote:
34. Aggravated battery

Aggravated battery is a battery committed with a dangerous weapon.

Whoever commits an aggravated battery shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, or both.

Acts 1978, No. 394, 1. Amended by Acts 1980, No. 708, 1.



Quote:
36. Assault defined

Assault is an attempt to commit a battery, or the intentional placing of another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

Acts 1978, No. 394, 1.



Quote:
37. Aggravated assault

A. Aggravated assault is an assault committed with a dangerous weapon.

B. Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

C. If the offense is committed upon a store's or merchant's employee while the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of theft of goods, the offender shall be imprisoned for not less than one hundred twenty days without benefit of suspension of sentence nor more than six months and may be fined not more than one thousand dollars.

Acts 1978, No. 394, 1; Acts 1992, No. 985, 1.


If there is case law defining false teeth as a dangerous weapon, the original claim could well be true.

 
Jenny
560415.  Wed May 27, 2009 11:33 am Reply with quote

Ali - now that was a post in the true spirit of QI - well done!

 
F-BombZoning Commission
561179.  Fri May 29, 2009 8:54 am Reply with quote

Yeah, I thought the source was dodgy too, but I found the same thing on a few different websites. But really, you guys are QI! Finding and determining the truth of wierd stuff is your specialty, so figured that even if it wasn't true, it would still make an interesting pitfall! :D
P.S: Put Tim Minchin on QI! He'd be brilliant at it!

 
dr.bob
561199.  Fri May 29, 2009 9:46 am Reply with quote

F-BombZoning Commission wrote:
Yeah, I thought the source was dodgy too, but I found the same thing on a few different websites.


Yeah, that's a common problem. A lot of websites are happy to simply cut'n'paste content onto their pages without ever engaging the brain. It's often a clue if you find the same facts with exactly the same wording on many websites, you can be pretty sure that they are simply copying each other rather than independently backing each other up.

If, on the other hand, you can find the same facts worded differently on a variety of websites, then you can feel a lot more sure that these people have done their own, independent research and discovered the same facts.

Of course, that still may not guarantee their veracity, naturally :)

 

Page 1 of 1

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group