Friendly reminder that the reason we get funny headlines like this from Florida is that the state allows the media full access to their police records so they can find stories like this
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
664 points (98.1% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
8106 readers
540 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But also because Florida is full of these.
So is my state, but they dont allow this type of thing.
It's fun to look up your birthday month and day and add Florida man or Florida woman to the search, and then look for the best headlines.
load more comments
(1 replies)
i find this... strangely reasonable for florida? seems to have the potential to bring accountability, at least on paper.
what do usians think of this?
“Innocent until proven guilty” but also your photo is published for posterity so when someone puts your name into their favourite search engine it’s the first thing to pop up, next to a crime you didn’t commit.
that's a great point against it.
The alternative is you try to find Jimmy but he's fucking gone. The state took him away and there is no record. He's just gone, arrested, sent who knows where.
Though the point is moot because now the federal government is doing that everyday to whoever they want.
Have they found jimmy?
Sadly, they russled him
His vessel was detained.
In theory, however it also publicises stories of wrongfully accused people for example. This can have some unwanted and serious repercussions.
All in all I tend to believe that it's better to let the judicial system work in peace and without an excess of publicity.
I'm not usian though, so I'm not considering the monetary angle.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We're also the 3rd most populous state. It's also easier to get up to shenanigans when you're not locked inside by a 40' wall of snow and ice.
Also there's a bunch of absolute gibbering morons in the state. That also helps.
Judge: That's why it is called "driving under the influence", and it doesn't matter when the drinking happened. Influence is important, not the fact of drinking.
"I wasn't influenced by the booze. It was my own choice."
Defendant: Nuh, uh. Everyone knows it’s called “DWI”—driving while intoxicated—which doesn’t really help me either, does it?
"Your honor, I was not being influenced by the drink I had. It did not say or act in any way such that my behavior would change. Secondly, I was not driving while intoxicated. Intoxicated as defined by the dictionary literally says 'stupefied by alcohol.' that cannot have happened because at no point was I stupid."
Curses! Foiled again!
load more comments
(8 replies)
Lawyer: Dude, this defense is so rock solid.
Hey did you happen to get bit by a dog? 'Cause I'm kind of a mack at dog bites.
I hope this is the beginning of a new Sovereign Citizen style movement that uses hyper-literal misinterpretations of the law as a defense.
I feel like the law is not drunk driving but something more like "operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above something something..."
Yeah, it's usually Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), not, "Drinking and Driving." But its not like facts have any influence over the Sovereign Citizen movement, so I don't see why we should start here.
This won't be a socereign citizen movement. It will be a literally legal learning lawyering.
New? People being people I'm sure we must have been attempting this kind of defense since Hammurabi, if not earlier...
This is how little kids argue. lol
Wait, her argument is it's the act of drinking (actually passing the liquid into your mouth) that's illegal?
i guess she's going by the "don't drink and drive" rule, a little too literally. but the law obviously doesn't say that; it says under influence/while intoxicated, so even on a technicality she doesn't pass.
I'm not driving, I'm traveling! 😁
(I used to hate SovCits, but honestly tho, now Americans need more "SovCits" more than ever, there's not enough resistance. I kinda sympathize with them now, they're just a little confused, but got the spirit. Where all the "anti-tyranny" people at? 🤔)
(Edit: And yes I see the article is from 2024)
I don't think sovcits care about the larger picture of legalism, per se, as much as finding loopholes in it that they can then close after themselves. The ones who want to share their, uh, "discoveries" about manipulating The Man seem to want to sell what they know at a premium.
In Germany, you are allowed to drink while driving if you stay below the limit.
You will 100% get pulled over for a funny test, though.
Interesting. In the US, most jurisdictions have open container laws: A drink needs to be either factory sealed or in a place where it is not readily accessible (such as a trunk) or the driver is in violation.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Funny test? A policeman tells a joke and... what is it, actually?
German has a word for it: "Try not to laugh challenge" (we have a lot of anglicisms)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah, the magic word in the law isn't "driving." It's "while intoxicated." You don't suddenly stop being drunk when you put your beer away. Human physiology doesn't work that way.
Ah but you are assuming Floridians can read, classic blunder
Listen up liberal MADD atheists! If you tell us to not drink and drive, then don't make shit up, when we drink when not driving. This is just like the IRS going after criminal fraudulent conservative religious groups. It's a witch hunt!!!!
Of course the ml had to explain it 😂
load more comments
(1 replies)
When someone said they don't drink:
making fun of people's mugshots is conservative slop
imagine finding it fun to humiliate people you've captured with your unlimited monopoly on state violence, seems pretty fash cucked to me
I agree with the sentiment but there isn't a single post in this thread commenting on the appearance of the mugshot.
Pointing out apropos of nothing, that it's an appearance to make fun of, is in itself a similar behavior to what is being criticized.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Im not seeing any other comments here talking about her looks?
And i think going after drunk drivers is one of the things im pretty okay with the state using its 'unlimited monopoly on violence' for.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
When I was like 4 I went nuts on my mom for drinking and driving. Nevermind that it was a diet coke...
I was that kid, too, but about smoking.
view more: next ›