Feeds

back to article Another U.S. state set to repeal rubber duck ban

The governor of Wisconsin is set to sign into law a bill which will finally legalise the popular local activity of rubber duck racing, joining Minnesota and Michigan where plastic bathtoy contests are already legal. For years, the organisers of illicit duck races in the state had been forced to live in fear of police raids and …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

I am pleased

That having sorted out all of their other significant problems, various departments of the US administration have finally arrived at a sensible outcome in the war on plastic duck racing. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, on race day, some power crazed deputy came out blastin' like Yosemite Sam.

12
1
Silver badge

Re: I am pleased

Isn't rubber duck racing tantamount to terrorism or some other heinous offence?

I'm surprised they didn't use data from NSA mobile phone intercepts to carry out a drone strike on one of the venues and take out these terrorists threatening the 'American Way of Life'...............

The USA really needs to stop much of its 'intervention' around the world and instead spend more time trying not to look silly......

8
2

Re: I am pleased

Well, it is good to know that the US justice system has successfully addressed all more serious forms of crime and that they now have ample resources with which to deal with rubber duck racers.

As rubber duck racing has not yet been outlawed in the UK, perhaps we could hold proxy rubber duck races for our American cousins and stream live video for them? (This bit should help anyone worrying about the lack of IT angle).

Does the ban only cover rubber ducks? Could other suitably labelled items be raced - perhaps a variant of Pooh sticks? http://www.pooh-sticks.com

3
0

Re: I am pleased

"hold proxy rubber duck races for our American cousins"

what? and get charged with "interstate wire fraud" or some crap , extradited and thrown in Guantanamo!

no thanks!

10
1
Bronze badge

Re: I am pleased

We in the U. S. have a nearly incomprehensible array of government entities. To begin with, there are the federal, state, county, and municipal governments, each somewhat independent of the others. But beyond that there are numerous "authorities" set up for special purposes, such as the recently (in)famous Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, or the less well known Ohio Turnpike Authority, established about 60 years ago to oversee construction and operation of the Ohio Turnpike until the 40 year construction bonds were paid up from the tolls charged (after which the tolls were to be eliminated. Still in business, it recently raised the toll rates substantially. If that were not enough, we also have aownship supervisors for unincorporated areas and a variety of semigovernmental committees to deal with issues like regional development promotion that are of interest to a number of government entities but not clearly the responsibility of any.

For those of us with certain attitudes it is an endless source of entertainment.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I am pleased

THAT is already in Arizona. I hear he runs a jail there.

0
0

Did I miss something?

It's not the 1st of April yet, is it?

4
0
Gold badge

Re: Did I miss something?

No. You'll find this is just the increasing Morris-isation of news at work. Later there'll be a TV report from Barbara Wintergreen, which will explain the whole thing.

0
0

Just Legal on a Tuesday, Well i suppose it's a start.

2
0
Thumb Up

“One is never alone with a rubber duck.”

10
0
Gold badge
Happy

Another gin & tonic sir?

4
0
Bronze badge

Alone?

Alone? With a rubber duck? Some people should never be.

0
0
Happy

Only if I don't have to get out of the bath...

(wondered if anybody would get the refereence)

1
0
Rob
Bronze badge

Infinite loop...

... what happens when one of the non-land locked states has the parade of ducks that fell of the cargo ship many years ago and now travel the high seas terrorising ship lanes, is it straight to defcon 5?

3
1
Silver badge

Re: Infinite loop...

Erm, DEFCON 5 is the normal peacetime alert level. Things get progressively more twitchy as the numbers decrease.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Infinite loop...

So the answer to the original question is "yes" then.

3
0
Coat

Appeasement

This law is clearly intended simply to appease the masses.

It's a duck bill platitude.

74
0
Silver badge

Re: Appeasement

Poo sticks

6
1
Silver badge

Re: Appeasement

You may wish you hadn't said that. You're probably now on some secret list as a terry-wrist sleeper.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Appeasement

"Poo sticks"

Try soap and warm water

18
0
GBE

Re: Appeasement

I've got nothing against Pooh Sticks, but I don't know what sort of weirdness you're talking about....

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Appeasement

> Try soap and warm water

Indeed. I believe bidets are increasingly popular just for this phenomenon.

---

Q:What's brown and sticky?

A: A stick

2
0
Silver badge

Overheard at work.

"What's brown and looks like a stick?"

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Appeasement

Just Duck Off Elmer. You're in the wrong cartoon.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Appeasement

> It's a duck bill platitude.

I'm not down wid dat eider ...

1
0
Silver badge

Standard response:

So they can have guns all over the place, but can't race toy ducks?

"Land of the free" etc.

13
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: Standard response:

Yep. Perfectly legal (in some places at least) to shoot anyone you don't like on your land, but have a rubber duck race with the miscreant and they'll throw the book at you.

Wonder how much of a problem it is. Will they need to build special, heavily fortified secure prison ponds for all the competitors.

3
2
Anonymous Coward

@ Mad Mike

"Perfectly legal (in some places at least) to shoot anyone you don't like on your land, "

Where?

0
3
Silver badge

Re: @ Mad Mike

@Anonymous Coward.

It's happened in Florida at least to my knowledge. There was a lot of trouble over it. The article I read also said it was legal in other states as well, although it didn't mention which ones to my knowledge. I believe you had to say you felt threatened and you believed the person was 'up to no good' and even feel your life might be at risk, but it didn't actually have to be true. There have been numerous cases in the press over this.

3
2
GBE

Re: @ Mad Mike

Florida and Texas for starters.

All you have to convince the jury is that you were afraid. You probably also have to show that your fear was "reasonable" or some such thing, but "reasonable" in places like Texas and Florida doesn't really mean the same thing it does to civilized people. If you get a true jury of your peers (AKA like-minded nut-jobs), then you're clear.

IOW, stay away from Florida and Texas.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: @ Mad Mike

Your reading comprehension is badly flawed. There is nowhere in the US that you can shoot someone because you feel like it. In Florida you are allowed to stand your ground as opposed to being required to flee when threatened. Which was pretty much the case everywhere back when we had a more polite society.

5
7
Silver badge

Re: @ Mad Mike

You couldn't be more wrong.

"It's happened in Florida at least to my knowledge. There was a lot of trouble over it. " Yeah, the police and public prosecutor investigated and the guy who did the shooting was put on trial for murder. So the correct inference isn't that "it's perfectly alright to shoot someone for no reason" but that "no matter what the law says about the circumstances in which it is acceptable for someone to resort to firearms and deadly force, if you shoot someone then it's easily possible if not actually likely for you to find yourself on trial for murder because it's really not "perfectly alright" to shoot people under any circumstances anywhere in the entire country and you had better be prepared for the police to investigate and the district attorney to convene a grand jury to see if the shooting was justified or if you are going to go on trial for murder, attempted murder, or some related charges".

" I believe you had to say you felt threatened (No, you had to be threatened in a way that an impartial observer would feel was actually threatening and the threat has to be of immediate physical violence and you'd better be able to offer some convincing evidence about it too) and you believed the person was 'up to no good' (there is no jurisdiction in this country that would accept "they were up to no good" as a reason for shooting someone) and even feel your life might be at risk, but it didn't actually have to be true (every such case is investigated by the relevant law enforcement agencies who actually do not condone people using firearms without extremely good reasons and they don't just "take someone's word for it"). There have been numerous cases in the press over this. (But you can't name any.)"

"It's happened in Florida at least to my knowledge." That's a good way to put it because you couldn't have less knowledge about it.

4
1
Bronze badge

Re: @ Mad Mike

just be sure you're white and the odds of being prosecuted go down rapidly. even more if the person you shoot is EWNW*.

* - EWNW, existing while non-white, an obvious threat.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: @ Mad Mike

@Turtle.

Right, so George Zimmerman was prosecuted. Yep. Was he found guilty? Not that I'm aware of. So............ You can prosecute as many people as you like, but unless you start finding them guilty........

I was definitely a bit flip about saying 'anyone you like', but the law is considerably on the side of the person as you say, Standing Their Ground. The reality is that people have either not been charged, or charged and acquitted, for actions that in most other civilised countries around the world would have resulted in custodial sentences. Try doing anything even approaching what goes on in the US and you'll be charged and most likely found guilty.

The Stand Your Ground laws are rather stupid anyway. Anyone who does martial arts knows that a fight avoided is a fight won. After all, is it more sensible to get yourself out of the situation (maybe by simply running away), or to start a firefight with someone? One means you live, the other........well maybe not.

2
1

Re: @ Mad Mike

Just haven't been paying attention to American news, have we?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @ Mad Mike

> In Florida you are allowed to stand your ground

Until they find a rubber duck on you.

2
0

This post has been deleted by its author

*facepalm*

Only in the USA

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: *facepalm*

"Only in the USA"

As satisfying as it is to say that; this is what happens when any country creates a law and an activity falls within scope of that law. If gambling is illegal, if betting on an outcome is gambling, then betting on a duck race outcome is gambling and therefore illegal. You can't really blame law enforcement for applying the law they are expected to apply.

It's not "duck racing" which is the problem; it's "betting on the outcome of a duck race" which is, and, by most definitions, that is "gambling". The problem is allowing an activity which some many feel should be legal while preventing that being exploited by those who want to engage in otherwise illegal activities.

Every country probably has laws which makes some acts illegal which many people would say should not be illegal. I recall there were similar problems in the UK where church, social club and other charity raffles fell foul of gambling legislation. I also remember some complaints that tightening up UK gun control adversely affected legitimate gun sports. Then there was that apparent need to be registered and police vetted just to look after next door's kids or drive them to school. I am sure there are many other examples.

7
1
Silver badge

Re: *facepalm*

quote: "Every country probably has laws which makes some acts illegal which many people would say should not be illegal."

And in a democracy, those existing laws which are no longer wanted by a majority of citizens should be repealed. I thought that was the point of government for the people.

Rather than defending the enforcement of stupid laws because they are laws, we should be demanding the repealing of stupid laws because they are stupid.

Or does that leave too much power in the hands of the population?

7
3
Silver badge

Re: *facepalm*

If gambling is illegal... then betting on a duck race outcome is ... therefore illegal

You're telling us that gambling is illegal in the USA? I could have sworn I saw a lot of illegal activity when I visited Las Vegas.

2
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: *facepalm*

Each state is free to set laws on what (if any) gambling is legal.

The bottom line if the state's law says it is illegal then it is illegal (as far as I know there is no "unless most people say it is OK" clause in any law).

While we would like to think common sense should be a factor but then you go down the slippery slope of the law being what someone says it is and applying it as they want.

No biggie for the law to be rewritten to make well defined exceptions.

Much better then like, having a king saying what is legal or not {}:>))

5
1
Silver badge

Re: *facepalm*

King George the third didn't control what was or wasn't legal in the UK you silly boy, Parliament did.

You've been drinking that libidinous reprobate Franklin's cool-aid. You do know he was manipulating the situation all along, don't you?

Never mind. It's all history now. As with anything it is useful and instructive to read around, in the case of history, to read other countries accounts and then balance the views you get. For an eye-opener, try reading a Canadian history of the war of 1812. 8o)

1
1
Silver badge

@ NumptyScrub

"quote: "Every country probably has laws which makes some acts illegal which many people would say should not be illegal." And in a democracy, those existing laws which are no longer wanted by a majority of citizens should be repealed. I thought that was the point of government for the people. Rather than defending the enforcement of stupid laws because they are laws, we should be demanding the repealing of stupid laws because they are stupid. Or does that leave too much power in the hands of the population?"

If you read the story again you'll find that the law was repealed. Which makes it kind of hard to understand the point of your post. Unless it was to show us that you didn't understand the point of the story.

1
0
Bronze badge
Big Brother

Re: *facepalm*

Its like money laundering. Yes, its the betting that is illegal. But given law enforcement's inability to curb some activity, they go after something related to it. Can't be bothered to look for some criminal activity? Then just crack down on the transfer of funds which results from it. Never mind the other legitimate activities sharing this same trait.

Possession of multiple rubber ducks is a sure sign of illegal gambling and must be monitored by a designated authority. There will be an inevitable IRS tax form.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: *facepalm*

That's shows how much you know about the United STATES of America, which is to say little or nothing.

EACH STATE (Many larger and more populous than one of you COUNTRIES) sets its own laws on gambling and many other things.

2
1
Silver badge
Big Brother

@NumptyScrub Re: *facepalm*

"...government for the people..."

Too few words:

"...government for the people who form the government..."

That's more honest & how it is...

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Well duck me!

Rubber Duckie, you're the one,

You make bathtime lots of fun,

Rubber Duckie, I'm awfully fond of you;

(woh woh, bee doh!)

Rubber Duckie, joy of joys,

When I squeeze you, you make noise!

Rubber Duckie, you're my very best friend, it's true!

(doo doo doo doooo, doo doo)

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Well duck me!

You gotta put down the duckie...

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Well duck me!

That post needs a Kermit the Frog icon.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.