Not that I believe this lawyer, could the prosecution subpoena the records from his grocery store to see if he’s even bought 10 cans of Pringles recently?
I think I’ve been watching too much Law & Order.
Where do you think the shit comes from?
I thought I was buying a can of shit, but it turned out to be Shinola.
HAHA! He doesn’t even know the difference!
I’m not one for gross out humor, but that one deserves a golf clap.
I mean, at least you got the Pringles guy on the can bringing some sophistication to your defecation.
I suppose that’s worth a bit of credit.
The part I don’t get is, how is “I do this often” supposed to be a defense? That’s just a confession to ten counts of the same behavior (littering at least, and probably some form of assault).
Pringles. Now with Dingleberries!
I believe it’s an attempt to show that the center was not specifically targeted, and/or it wasn’t meant to be a threat.
Like, if you say “I’LL KILL YOU!” as a humorous greeting to everyone, you can’t be charged with assault for threatening violence, because it’s part of your schtick. I assume that’s the logic.
It’s like watching Principle Skinner try to explain his way out of a jam.
I’m glad I just swallowed or I would have spit at the screen with this one.
What’re those brown things on the Pringles can guy’s head and face?
Then again, I’m not sure I want to know. They’re certainly suspiciously fecal looking.
Face? Dirty Sanchez.
If it isn’t shit, you must acquit!
Sad case of a mentally ill obsessed fan killing a director’s friend.
I can understand being alarmed and excited if someone crashes a car into your house. But to go from that to shooting the elderly, trapped driver through the windshield seems like a leap.
It’s Texas; he was obligated to shoot somebody
I though breaking and entering was a valid reason. /s
Unless you’re Harry T. Stone.
Yes, the “I do this all the time” defense was for his hearing to be suspended from practicing law - since he apparently targeted other lawyers directly involved in an active case, that’s a more serious offense (for lawyers, I guess?) than random distribution of shit filled Pringles cans.
In modest (very modest) defense of the homeowner, the article does say:
Which leaves the possibility that the shooter, while lying in his bed, suddenly had the room rocked, loud noises of the crash, all out of the blue…and also had a handgun in his bedroom drawer (because, of course, Texas) and acted out of instinct and hit the driver by pure luck.
Doesn’t excuse them from shooting immediately and more details might come out showing he had time to consider and see what had happened, but might be a slight mitigation.
IMHO as always. YMMV.