If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(justice.gov)   The penalty for placing a Tiger Woods sticker on a Gatorade bottle is 4 years and $450,000   (justice.gov) divider line 67
    More: Obvious, Gatorade, Tiger Woods, Longmont  
•       •       •

25784 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2010 at 9:34 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-01-14 06:41:34 PM
I hope it was worth it to him.
 
2010-01-14 06:51:36 PM
It wasn't a sticker. He replaced the entire label.

And yes, he's a dumbass for not thinking his cunning plan all the way through.
 
2010-01-14 06:54:39 PM
Being boulder (and the surrounding areas), just be glad he wasn't replacing the labels on frappucinos..they would have crucified him.
 
2010-01-14 07:03:53 PM
The federal government has about a zillion of these type laws, obscure and ridiculous. I hope this goes to trial in front of an informed jury, but it won't.
 
2010-01-14 08:24:07 PM
homeoftheblues: I hope it was worth it to him.

But...but....but....gay marriage is ruining traditional marriage!
 
2010-01-14 09:27:18 PM
CamelToe: The federal government has about a zillion of these type laws, obscure and ridiculous. I hope this goes to trial in front of an informed jury, but it won't.

I'm reporting you to the FBI and the US Justice Dept for calling Federal Law obscure and ridiculous which is a Federal Offense.
 
2010-01-14 09:37:52 PM
There might be other things that the feds can go after.
Like maybe, the stuff subby has in his trunk.
 
2010-01-14 09:39:33 PM
What was his point? Did he think there was anyone just getting back from an Ultimarathon who hadn't heard?
 
2010-01-14 09:39:53 PM
Wow that's a pretty serious crime. Remind me to never do that.
 
2010-01-14 09:40:19 PM
Dude must have farked that guy's wife
 
2010-01-14 09:40:47 PM
Is this the same sentence as Jayson Williams?
 
2010-01-14 09:41:03 PM
rcain: CamelToe: The federal government has about a zillion of these type laws, obscure and ridiculous. I hope this goes to trial in front of an informed jury, but it won't.

I'm reporting you to the FBI and the US Justice Dept for calling Federal Law obscure and ridiculous which is a Federal Offense.


images1.fanpop.com
 
2010-01-14 09:41:50 PM
does he get a drop or does he have to go back to the tee?
 
2010-01-14 09:42:03 PM
Somaticasual: Being boulder (and the surrounding areas), just be glad he wasn't replacing the labels on frappucinos..they would have crucified him.

Longmont just elected a supremely conservative mayor and city council. I expect Frappuccino and the especially despised latte will be made illegal in short order.
 
2010-01-14 09:42:13 PM
CamelToe: The federal government has about a zillion of these type laws, obscure and ridiculous. I hope this goes to trial in front of an informed jury, but it won't.

The standard trial lawyer's definition of a jury is "12 people not smart enough to get out of jury service"

Juries decide guilt or innocence, not penalties, so he needs a reasonable judge.
 
2010-01-14 09:42:35 PM
homeoftheblues: I hope it was worth it to him.

He hits a ball with a stick and makes hundreds of millions for it. I think so.
 
2010-01-14 09:43:43 PM
Tiger Woods: Is He In You?
 
2010-01-14 09:43:49 PM
Are you dumbfarks ignorant of the purpose of the law?

Everything on the label is represents what the product is, in some cases, providing information legally required (nutritional info, ingredients and trademarks to identify producer).

How would you feel if you bought a Cheerios and read that it contained cyanide? Or with a label that states "Now lead free!"

What if you bought a Harry Potter book to find a label permanently stuck on page 226 that said "Dumbledore is gay and JK Rowling promotes witchcraft!"

Seriously, Farkers.
 
2010-01-14 09:43:57 PM
Tiger's a PITA
 
2010-01-14 09:44:24 PM
Britney Spear's Speculum: homeoftheblues: I hope it was worth it to him.

But...but....but....gayinterracial marriage is ruining traditional marriage!


FTFY.

This is what comes of letting half-black men marry hot blonde foreigners.
 
2010-01-14 09:46:46 PM
I like how this guy thought that Tiger Woods's personal life was somehow his business.
 
2010-01-14 09:47:37 PM
No_One_Special: What was his point? Did he think there was anyone just getting back from an Ultimarathon who hadn't heard?

He's an attention-whoring goofball.
 
2010-01-14 09:58:06 PM
homeoftheblues: I hope it was worth it to him.

Tremolo: I like how this guy thought that Tiger Woods's personal life was somehow his business.


This and that.
 
2010-01-14 09:59:20 PM
pagead2.googlesyndication.com
 
2010-01-14 10:05:09 PM
The Feds do not fark around when it comes to product tampering.
 
2010-01-14 10:06:02 PM
CrispFlows: Are you dumbfarks ignorant of the purpose of the law?

Everything on the label is represents what the product is, in some cases, providing information legally required (nutritional info, ingredients and trademarks to identify producer).

How would you feel if you bought a Cheerios and read that it contained cyanide? Or with a label that states "Now lead free!"

What if you bought a Harry Potter book to find a label permanently stuck on page 226 that said "Dumbledore is gay and JK Rowling promotes witchcraft!"

Seriously, Farkers.


While I might prefer your Harry Potter label because it's hilarious, you make a valid point.
 
2010-01-14 10:08:33 PM
Why would this guy hate Tiger Woods so much? Is there any more deliberately uncontroversial celebrities than Tiger Woods? Tiger is as bland and inoffensive as you can possibly be. He was spokesman for Buick, for Christ's sake! He is the Hooty and the Blowfish of the sports world!

I mean, he can't be that pissed of at Tiger Woods for cheating on his wife... as about 50% of married men cheat at some point in their life.

I would be happy to be proven wrong, and am super open minded to any other explanations... but pretty much the only reason I can think of that this guy would be so upset at Tiger Woods would be he is racist. I ain't calling him a racist, but give me a better, more plausible explanation, and I will happily admit I am wrong.
 
2010-01-14 10:12:03 PM
Maybe he should of just stuck his silly label over the part of the original one not containing the ingredients or make a new silly label with a copy of the original ingredients on it. Or, he could have just not messed with the bottles in the first place. Dumbass.
 
2010-01-14 10:12:43 PM
Firebug: The Feds do not fark around when it comes to product tampering.

I am normally a frothing at the mouth libertarian, but this is one of those forms of regulation I agree with. What, the asshole thought his being pissed off at Tiger Woods was more important than people's property rights.
 
2010-01-14 10:13:28 PM
Retarded Rabid Elk: Why would this guy hate Tiger Woods so much?

He's jealous.
 
2010-01-14 10:18:58 PM
CamelToe: The federal government has about a zillion of these type laws, obscure and ridiculous. I hope this goes to trial in front of an informed jury, but it won't.

You're right, there shouldn't be any laws against people modifying labels. I mean, it's not like there are people with fatal food allergies that could die due to mis-labeled food, right?
 
2010-01-14 10:19:48 PM
Subby: "The penalty for placing a Tiger Woods sticker on a Gatorade bottle is 4 years and $450,000"

FTFA: 3 charges, total of 5 years and $450,000 MAX

/bad subby
 
2010-01-14 10:27:26 PM
So, this asshat thinks he's the cherub of justice?
What business is it of his anyway?

/ his argument is invalid
 
2010-01-14 10:38:28 PM
ParaHandy: CamelToe: The federal government has about a zillion of these type laws, obscure and ridiculous. I hope this goes to trial in front of an informed jury, but it won't.

The standard trial lawyer's definition of a jury is "12 people not smart enough to get out of jury service"

Juries decide guilt or innocence, not penalties, so he needs a reasonable judge.


A reasonable judge would follow federal sentencing guidelines. Just saying, you actually want an unreasonable judge.

And it depends. There are criminal jurisdictions where juries also determine the sentence. I have no clue about federal courts.
 
2010-01-14 10:39:34 PM
This story can be summed up with one word... assclown dumbass nutjob
 
2010-01-14 10:40:15 PM
What's the difference between this and plunking a round orange label saying "Sale!" onto the label of a product? From the article there is no indication that any information on the Gatorade bottle was deleted or obscured, I doubt anyone would depend on the assurance that the product might make them unfaithful.

"Intent to cause serious injury"? I'm pretty sure intent doesn't follow a prosecutor's imaginings of what a person might have done, instead of what they actually did.
 
2010-01-14 10:42:30 PM
Two question that are really important:

1. How many labels?
2. How long were they up?
 
2010-01-14 10:44:22 PM
So wait this guy is putting up his "art" in a Safeway?
 
2010-01-14 10:51:44 PM
CrispFlows: Are you dumbfarks ignorant of the purpose of the law?

Everything on the label is represents what the product is, in some cases, providing information legally required (nutritional info, ingredients and trademarks to identify producer).

How would you feel if you bought a Cheerios and read that it contained cyanide? Or with a label that states "Now lead free!"

What if you bought a Harry Potter book to find a label permanently stuck on page 226 that said "Dumbledore is gay and JK Rowling promotes witchcraft!"

Seriously, Farkers.


While you do have a point as to the necessity of the law, there is a difference between what this guy did and the situations you are postulating. At no time was the ingredient or nutritional information altered (don't know if it was obscured or not). It's like the difference between shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater versus shouting 'This movie sucks!' One is creating a potentially hazardous situation that you can be liable for any injuries/damages that result, the other is simply an annoyance.

Now, with that said, Pepsi should seek civil damages, but I don't think the Federal Government should bring the hammer down on this guy.
 
2010-01-14 10:54:38 PM
The guy is a dipshiat, but it's also a sad statement when the kinds of punishments being threatened here are a year in jail and $100,000. The government represents WHOSE best interests now?
 
2010-01-14 10:56:43 PM
Retarded Rabid Elk: I ain't calling him a racist, but give me a better, more plausible explanation, and I will happily admit I am wrong.

He's apparently trying to make some half-assed point about how quickly major corps will drop sponsorship of someone like Tiger because of a scandal. So he makes a sarcastic 'art installation' to show them how they could still be making money off Tiger's image and fame by simply playing to the crowd.

Eh, whatever. Not defending him, just interpreting.
 
2010-01-14 11:04:35 PM
i243.photobucket.com
 
2010-01-14 11:09:22 PM
Retarded Rabid Elk: Why would this guy hate Tiger Woods so much? Is there any more deliberately uncontroversial celebrities than Tiger Woods? Tiger is as bland and inoffensive as you can possibly be. He was spokesman for Buick, for Christ's sake! He is the Hooty and the Blowfish of the sports world!

I mean, he can't be that pissed of at Tiger Woods for cheating on his wife... as about 50% of married men cheat at some point in their life.

I would be happy to be proven wrong, and am super open minded to any other explanations... but pretty much the only reason I can think of that this guy would be so upset at Tiger Woods would be he is racist. I ain't calling him a racist, but give me a better, more plausible explanation, and I will happily admit I am wrong.


To answer that question in part, note the banner ad that another Farker posted. It's from Newsmax, part of the [f]right[ened] wing echo chamber.

For the majority of people living in civilization, the Tiger Woods story stopped being a major part of the news cycle two weeksl before Christmas. Not for those precious snowflakes living in a fear of their own subscribing. Here's an entry on GraphJam.com from December 30th...

graphjam.files.wordpress.com

Brit Hume suggested Tiger would be forgiven if only he accepted Jeebus, and that was January 4th.

I'm willing to wager $250 the guy comes out with TeaBagger 101 comments at trial.
 
2010-01-14 11:14:38 PM
austin_millbarge: The guy is a dipshiat, but it's also a sad statement when the kinds of punishments being threatened here are a year in jail and $100,000. The government represents WHOSE best interests now?

Meh. That's the max, for guys who are blackmailing companies or trying to hide information or stuff like that. This guy will get probation under the sentencing guidelines unless he's a complete douchebag throughout his trial proess.
 
2010-01-14 11:19:51 PM
Bacontastesgood: ...
He's apparently trying to make some half-assed point about how quickly major corps will drop sponsorship of someone like Tiger because of a scandal. So he makes a sarcastic 'art installation' to show them how they could still be making money off Tiger's image and fame by simply playing to the crowd.

Eh, whatever. Not defending him, just interpreting.


If ever there was a time for a slap on the wrist from the justice system this is it. Just tell him what he did was wrong, why it was wrong, and give him a few hours of community service. Oh - and the judge should let him know he was a total idiot.

Problem solved.
 
2010-01-14 11:19:57 PM
Hmm. In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't put stickers on bottles of Ice Mountain a few years back. Planned to, then got too busy working against them through proper channels to bother. Although it wouldn't have obscured the nutritional information, and it wouldn't have been on shipments heading out of state, so...

Still gonna forward this on to a few Adbusters-subscribing friends, though.
 
2010-01-14 11:33:22 PM
This could be a Rachel matter.
 
2010-01-14 11:36:44 PM
Tiger Woods not being a man-whore trifecta? Complete (with the ad)?

(sorta?)
 
2010-01-14 11:46:07 PM
mikefinch: If ever there was a time for a slap on the wrist from the justice system this is it. Just tell him what he did was wrong, why it was wrong, and give him a few hours of community service. Oh - and the judge should let him know he was a total idiot.
Problem solved.


What he did wrong was vandalize the property of a large influential corporation. As such the full weight and power of the federal government must be used to either economically destroy the guy and/or lock him in prison.

He would have been better off crashing into a parked car and driving off having done far more damage than the total value of a couple cases of gatorade. The government's police will likely not even bother to investigate and if they did find him he may not even have to pay for the damages and certainly wouldn't be looking at 6 figure fines and jail time.

Instead he had to mess with a big corporation that has influence.
 
2010-01-14 11:48:05 PM
" . . . With intent to cause serious injury to the business of any person, tainting a consumer product or rendering materially false or misleading the labeling . . . "

Jesus, I hope they throw the book at him. . .
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report