Man blares porn outside to get back at neighbors for loud gospel music

California man's revenge on neighbors who blasted gospel music was watching X-rated videos with the volume turned up so they could hear.

The home of a Calif. man who used porn to get revenge on neighbors who played loud music.

A California man seeking vengeance on neighbors who played gospel music too loud gave them a taste of their own medicine by blaring porn.
The man, who didn’t reveal his name, told CBS Sacramento he decided to turn the volume up and watch X-rated flicks on the back deck of his home in Twain Harte, Calif.
“Just to kind of give them a taste of offensive play there, just a little payback,” he said.
The peeved porn-watcher says he’s sick of the nonstop gospel songs that emanate from the next-door home in the small, quiet mountain town.
“One day it went on for 12 hours and my dog was howling and it was bad,” he said.
Police say the gospel-loving couple called to complain, but their neighbor isn’t facing any charges.
Other neighbors don’t mind the music.
“It doesn’t [bother me],” Dave Camps told CBS Sacramento. “I love it.”
Tara Varela, who lives in the town but isn’t a neighbor, says the man’s X-rated revenge tactic was out of line.
“I think that was a little ridiculous,” she said. “He shouldn’t have played porn like that. He could have played ... death metal. Anything besides that.”
The angry neighbor admits porn may not have been “the best choice.”
“But you know, what are you going to do?” he asked. “After all the commotion, I probably wouldn’t have done it.

Credit : NY Daily News

MN woman accused of making nephew ride in trunk to protect her Lexus' seats

We all know that water and leather don't mix, but we also know (or at least we should) that kids in trunks don't mix, either. A woman in Minnesota is in hot water after allegedly making her 11-year-old nephew ride home in the trunk of her Lexus after riding a water ride at a local amusement park.

On August 23, witnesses in the parking lot of Valleyfair Amusement Park reported seeing the child climb into the trunk of the car before the car drove off. By the time police had caught up with Susan Marie McCarty, 38, and her Lexus, she had already dropped her nephew off, but she had admitted to police that she put him back there because she didn't want him to get water on her car's leather. She justified her actions by telling police that she left the center pass-through open allowing air conditioning to get into the trunk.

The boy's grandmother, 14-year-old sister and another child passenger were also in the vehicle, and while the grandmother was "uneasy" about him riding in the trunk, she didn't want to question the aunt's decision.

According to reports, McCarty was charged with gross-misdemeanor child endangerment, and, if convicted, could face up to a year in prison and as much as $3,000 in fines. 

 

Credit : Autoblog

American cage fighter 'rips out still-beating heart of training partner after fearing he was possessed by the devil'

WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT

Arrested: Jarrod Wyatt was allegedly found standing naked over his dead friend's body in a room bathed in blood

A U.S. cage fighter ripped out the heart of his training partner while he was still alive after becoming convinced he was possessed by the devil, it was alleged today.
Jarrod Wyatt also cut out Taylor Powell's tongue and ripped off most of his face in a brutal assault that police said looked like a scene from a horror film, officers said.
They claim they found the 26-year-old standing naked over his friend's body with parts, including an eyeball, strewn around the blood splattered room in Klamath, California.
Wyatt allegedly told police he had drunk a cup of tea spiked with hallucinogenic mushrooms and became convinced Powell was possessed.
According to an autopsy Powell, 21, bled to death after his heart was ripped out.
The coroner said Powell had been alive when the organ was ripped out after his chest had been sliced open with a knife.
Wyatt told the police he thrown the heart into a fire along with other organs that he had removed from the body, it was claimed.
He allegedly told investigators he cooked the body parts because he was fearful Powell was still alive and he ‘needed to stop the Devil’.
Police had been called to the grisly scene after a third friend had witnessed a sudden mood change in Wyatt after they had all ingested wild mushroom tea.
Justin Davis told police he returned to the flat to find Wyatt naked and covered from head to toe in blood.
He noticed an eyeball lying in the middle of the floor and saw Powell's mutilated body.
A lawyer representing Wyatt has claimed the wild mushrooms caused him to act in such a violent way and had not control over his actions.
‘My client was trying to silence the devil,’ said James Fallman.
‘I think he was having a psychotic fit based on the mushrooms he had.’
Wyatt has been charged with first degree murder and torture.
Prosecutors added the torture charge as Powell was still alive when his heart was removed.

Credit : DailyMailUK

In WTF? News : Russian Police arrests man who ate human liver with potatoes

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian police said on Tuesday they had detained a man who was caught eating an acquaintance's liver.
Police tracked down the suspect after a trail of severed body parts including limbs and a head were found across Moscow.
"When the police came to arrest the suspect, he was eating a human liver with potatoes," a police spokeswoman for the Moscow's western district said by telephone.
The rest of the human liver was found in a refrigerator in the suspect's flat. The police spokeswoman said the cause of the acquaintance's death was not clear.
The suspect "admitted his crime and that he had eaten part of his acquaintance's liver," the prosecutor general's main investigative unit said in a statement.

Rides : WTF?? Highway to Heaven (or Hell)

In what mode of transportation do you plan on traveling the highway to heaven? A pine box? Coffee can? Stomach of a shark? Some automotive enthusiasts will be taking the (high or low) road via a vintage, custom-built Mercury coupe or Mercedes-Benz sedan.

Cruisin Caskets is the manufacturer of the Mercury coupe caskets, complete with a painted fiberglass shell. Each casket offers the choice to customize everything from the paint and upholstery, to the style of rims and personalized license plate. For those who like to enjoy their hard earned dollar in the here-life, they can also choose to turn their coffin into a bench, centerpiece table, or tailgate drink cooler.
 
If a couple thousands bucks for a show quality piece sounds a bit overpriced, the Kane Kwei Carpentry Workshop in Ghana can build just about any vehicle out of wood, for the cost of only $600 a piece, not including shipping. One of their most popular items is the Mercedes sedan, although they are also quite skilled at fabricating coke bottles, lobsters, cell phones, roosters, and airplanes.

Who says you can’t take it with you?

In WTF? News : Will Farrell and John C Reilly "Kiss Cam"

No Comment

In WTF? News : Man dressed like female mannequin arrested for bathroom spying

When attempting to come up with a clever scheme as a pervert, it’s important to really spread your wings creatively and push the envelope. Sadly, one man’s crafty idea to dress up like a female mannequin in the women’s bathroom was just too clever for his own good.

'This is so weird. I swear I heard that mannequin say, 'Yeah, you take that dump,' then groan.'

 

Englishman Joel Hardman was found in a Birmingham-area mall trying to film women in the restroom. Police say the University of Birmingham student was seen sneaking into women’s toilets “dressed like a mannequin with a mask and a wig” in early April.
When accosted by security guards, Hardman told them that he had been masturbating and had “been a bit weird.”
According to the police report, Hardman found the sound of the women going to the bathroom to be intriguing. He hoped that getting caught will lead him to stop.
Hardman was released on bail so long as he stays away from public toilets.
It’s certainly not a normal situation when you need to hang out in bathrooms and listen to women defecate in order to get off. At the same time though, this kid had a dream and a plan to achieve it and he really went after it. In many ways, he’s a modern British hero. And boy do they need one. The most recent British totem of masculinity is Robert Pattinson. I’d take silently masturbating to some chick’s Panda Express-induced BMs over some dude with pouty lips looking off in the distance soulfully all the time any day.

WTF?! Drunk Father Tattoos 3-Year-Old Son

While the South may be known for many positive things (hospitality, BBQ, nice accents, moonshine), it also puts out its fair share of idiotic deadbeats who contribute nothing to society other than doing stupid shit for the rest of us to laugh and shake our heads at. Exhibit A: Eugene Ashley, who was recently arrested, fined $300, and sentenced to 12 months probation for tatting his son while he was drunk.

More details, and a photo of the tattoo, after the jump.



Now, I don't have vast, or any, experience with parenting, but seriously? The worst part is that the tat isn't even something sweet the kid can brag about on the playground, like maybe his initials, or a badass wild animal symbolizing his 3-year-old alpha male-ness. Nope, Mr. Ashley chose a crude "DB," short for "Daddy's Boy." Chances that this kid doesn’t hit 16 and want to carve out the ink job with a straight edge razor? I'd say slim.

Apparently, this is some kind of trend in the Georgia, as Ashley is the third person to be arrested for this kind of offense. A couple was arrested back in July for tattooing crosses on all six of their children. Stay classy, Georgia.

Man Receives Oral Sex, Ordered to Pay Child Support - WTF???

So, a man sued his ex-girlfriend for fraud and emotional distress after she secured a court order demanding he pay child support for their two year-old daughter. The reason? This woman saved his semen after performing oral sex and secretly impregnated herself. No, this is not a new plotline of absurd television show One Tree Hill but actual events that formed the basis of a 2005 legal battle in Illinois.
Although this case is six years old and garnered some media attention at the time, we recently came across it on Professor Jonathan Turley’s blog and couldn’t resist an opportunity to discuss it.
But before we get to the legal issues presented in this case, namely how a man can be ordered to support a child when his sperm was used without his knowledge, the soap opera-esque facts surrounding this situation deserve to be explained in greater detail.  Trust us.
It all began when Dr. Sharon Irons (an internist) and Dr. Richard Phillips (a family practitioner) began dating in January 1999. Dr. Irons led Dr. Phillips to believe she was divorced and within a few months, they became engaged. According to Dr. Phillips, the two discussed the possibility of having children and he made clear his intentions: that he did not want children until after they were married and any pre-marital sex would require the use of condoms. Throughout the course of their relationship, they engaged in only three instances of oral sex: they never went “all the way.”
On one of these intimate occasions, Dr. Irons did something rather remarkable: After fellating Dr. Phillips, she held his semen in her mouth (where it was suitable to sustain viability) and then inseminated herself with it. She did not inform Dr. Phillips of her actions.
Dr. Irons also never informed her boyfriend that she was, in fact, still married. Five months into their relationship, she confessed to Dr. Phillips that she was not divorced and he decided to end their relationship.
Fast-forward to November 2000, when, surprise! Dr. Irons slapped her surely stunned ex-boyfriend with court papers to establish paternity and child support for “their” daughter.
To quote Justice Scalia in 1989’s Michael H. majority opinion (a paternity case also dealing with convoluted family relations, although not as entertaining as here), “The facts of the case are, we must hope, extraordinary.”
Extraordinary they are, indeed. And while Dr. Irons’ act of stashing semen away definitely made for attention-grabbing headlines, the media focused more on the sexy- slash-crazy angle and less on the actual law. We decided to explore the legal claims advanced by the parties and the reasoning behind Dr. Phillips seemingly unjust obligation to support a child whose existence was beyond the realm of expectation.
In his suit, Dr. Phillips alleged the unauthorized use of his semen constituted actionable claims of fraudulent misconception, conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A lower court dismissed these grievances, and he appealed.
The Appellate Court of Illinois found that a fraudulent misconception claim was only available for “economic” wrongs, and so dismissed this claim. (Dr. Phillips was suing for physical and emotional harms he alleged that he’d suffered as a result of Dr. Irons’ actions).
The court next turned its attention to the conversion claim. Conversion is “an unauthorized act that deprives a person of his property permanently or for an indefinite period of time.” The arguments on both sides of the conversion claim are worth noting.
Dr. Phillips argued that his ex-fiancé took his property, his sperm, without his permission to conceive a child. Dr. Irons countered by asserting the sperm was a gift: Dr. Phillips delivered it to her with the intention that she keep it because if he really wanted to retain his semen, he would have put on a condom and “kept its contents”.
The court agreed with Dr. Irons: Dr. Phillips cannot claim he was deprived of his property because he did not intend that the semen be returned.
Finally, the court considered Dr. Phillips’ claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). To bring an IIED claim, the plaintiff must prove that 1) the conduct was “truly extreme and outrageous”; 2) the defendant had to intend, or be aware that, her conduct would cause severe emotional distress; and 3) the conduct did actually cause severe emotional distress.
The court stated that Dr. Irons’ conduct in deceitfully engaging in oral sex to procure the sperm necessary to impregnate herself would, according to any reasonable person, be considered “extreme and outrageous” conduct (Ed. Note: well, duh).  Considering the nature of Dr. Irons’ actions and Dr. Phillips’ clear expression of not wanting a child out of wedlock, the second element of IIED was met. For the actual distress, Dr. Phillips claimed a whole slew of anguish including nausea, loss of appetite, interference with his profession, insomnia and more, which was enough to keep the case alive.
The final decision or current status of the case is unavailable which means that the case is still being litigated or the parties settled.
Regardless, what confused us most about the case was that the child support obligation on behalf of Dr. Phillips was not contested. How could a father be forced to pay child support if the conception of the child was beyond (way, way beyond) a reasonable person’s expectation?  The court itself stated that the mother’s actions were “extreme and outrageous”, after all.
The answer? Public policy. In a note for the Drake University Law Review, A Man’s Right to Choose: Searching for Remedies in the Face of Unplanned Fatherhood, author Adrienne D. Gross explained the general policy in law of looking out for a child’s best interest in both child support and paternity statutes. Undisputedly, a child’s best interest is to have the financial support of both biological parents, regardless of their marital status, and according to Ms. Gross, “the child should not suffer from a parent’s indiscretion concerning the events leading to conception.”
Basically, if you father a child and the paternity is established, you are on the hook for child support payments. (A father can sue for IIED, if the mother’s actions in the conception meet the requisite level of crazy, but there is no guarantee he will win.)
A 1983 paternity case sheds some light on how New York courts balance the best interest of the child with a father’s dealing with an unwanted pregnancy and child support obligations in unorthodox situations. The father, established by paternity tests, had been assured that the mother was on birth control.  He alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and argued that he should not be responsible for child support. The court disagreed, and held that fraud and deceit have no bearing on determining child support obligations.
The court explained that the “primary purpose” of New York’s paternity statutes “is to ensure that adequate provision will be made for the child’s needs” and does not allow for the “consideration of the ‘fault’ or wrongful conduct of one of the parents in causing the child’s conception.” If the father really did not want to have a child, despite the woman’s assurance that she was on birth control, he should have used a condom during sex.
Decisions like this seem to signal, rather unfairly, we think, that a man can be held legally and financially responsible for any unilateral actions his partner takes to conceive a child, no matter how absurd or unforeseeable those actions are.
And Dr. Phillips seems to have been treated particularly unfairly. He didn’t even have intercourse which is the one and only act that, outside of fertility clinics, can foster a reasonable expectation of conceiving a child.  In fact, without intercourse (and outside of fertility clinics) creating a life is, simply, impossible.  There was no way, short of checking what his partner did with his semen after oral sex (do you know anyone who does that?) that he could have known that he could possibly father a child.
But the courts don’t care about how the egg was actually fertilized: because at the end of the day, there’s a child now involved.  And the concern, from a legal perspective, is whether or not the child will be adequately cared for, regardless of its conception.
Lesson to be learned: If you don’t want any babies, use protection – and make sure your partner isn’t hiding a test tube under the pillow.

WTF?? Florida Toll Road Sued for Holding Motorists Hostage

Federal class action lawsuit against Florida toll roads for unlawfully detaining motorists who pay cash.
 
A group of motorists earlier this month filed a federal class action lawsuit against Florida's toll road system for detaining motorists who attempt to pay the tolls with cash. About 600 miles worth of toll roads and bridges are under the jurisdiction of The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), which hands operational duties over to the private firm Faneuil, Inc., which is responsible for the toll collectors. The complaint charges both firms with false imprisonment and other civil rights violations.

"For approximately four years, FDOT and Faneuil have engaged in a practice of detaining motorists and their passengers on the Turnpike System until such motorists provided certain personal information in exchange for their release," attorney James C. Valenti wrote on behalf of the plaintiffs. "The motorists and passengers have been detained without their consent and without legal justification."

Under FDOT policies, motorists who pay with $50 bills, and sometimes even $5 bills, are not given permission to proceed until the toll collector fills out a "Bill Detection Report" with data about the motorist's vehicle and details from his driver's license. Those unwilling to provide personal information to the toll collector are offered no alternative because the toll collector will not open the barrier, preventing the car from moving forward. FDOT policy does not allow passengers to exit their vehicle, and backing up is illegal and usually impossible while other cars wait behind. Some of those paying in cash object to the idea of carrying the SunPass toll transponder on privacy grounds, but the use of cash is discouraged because it increases operating costs.

"The policy of detaining motorists without their consent and without legal justification extended throughout the Turnpike System and was so permanent and well settled that it constituted custom, practice or policy which has the force of law and rises to the level of deliberate indifference to plaintiff's and class members' constitutional rights," Valenti wrote. "It is believed that Defendants will continue the widespread practice of unlawful detentions and will continue to force vehicle occupants to provide personal information in exchange for their release, all in violation of plaintiffs' and class plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights."

An estimated 262,800 drivers have been detained since October 2006. The lawsuit seeks an injunction prohibiting Faneuil and FDOT from further detaining motorists. Neither FDOT nor Faneuil has answered the February 8 complaint.