Imagine living in the same area as this man and seeing him do this... you'd lock your children in the house.
The world strongest rednecks sure looses his breath easily.
I thought so too, but then I thought, I have no cluse much it takes to whirl a chainsaw around on a rope ...
you'd lock your children in the house.
Since I don't have children, I'd just be phoning the police instead.
Not that I'm some sort of humourless stick-in-the-mud. I'd have no problem at all with him doing this out in a field or an empty warehouse somewhere with nobody else anywhere near. But it looks like he's in a residential neighbourhood, and that's not just stupid. It's criminal.
I thought so too, but then I thought, I have no cluse much it takes to whirl a chainsaw around on a rope ...
Chainsaws are not particularly heavy. I've never swung one around on a rope, for fairly obvious reasons, but I have a fair bit of experience with using them the way they're actually meant to be used. That guy is seriously out of shape. To be fair, though, he only claimed to be the World's strongest redneck, not the World's fittest or the one with the most stamina.
Anyway, somebody needs to have a conversation with him about the legal concept of 'reckless endangerment'...
The South has not been officially recognized as part of the United States for quite some time.
If only that were true. I also wish that rednecks were a purely Southern thing, but we have them up here too.
The South has not been officially recognized as part of the United States for quite some time.
If only that were true. I also wish that rednecks were a purely Southern thing, but we have them up here too.
So your saying if the south seceded from the union no one in the north would have a problem with it? hmm... I see texas leaving soon...
Since I don't have children, I'd just be phoning the police instead.
Not that I'm some sort of humourless stick-in-the-mud. I'd have no problem at all with him doing this out in a field or an empty warehouse somewhere with nobody else anywhere near. But it looks like he's in a residential neighbourhood, and that's not just stupid. It's criminal.
Even when its his hedge and his property? You'd probably call the cops on him if you found out he tore the tag off his mattress, too.
Anyway, somebody needs to have a conversation with him about the legal concept of 'reckless endangerment'...
Somebody needs to have a conversation with you about "personal responsibility".
If only that were true. I also wish that rednecks were a purely Southern thing, but we have them up here too.
They're also (contrary to popular opinion) not just white. Gabriel Iglesias did a comedy skit about that, but I can't find it on youtube.
That said: What are a redneck's last words?
Show
Hold my beer; I wanna try something!
If only that were true. I also wish that rednecks were a purely Southern thing, but we have them up here too.
Yeah, I know. I'm about 25mins away from a city called Streetsboro. Everyone in the area typically refers to it as 'Streetstucky' and the residents as 'Streetsbillies'. Cuz, you know. My brother and my parents recently moved there and I frequently hear them using these disparaging terms. They came from a suburb with breeding, you see, and they're fresh enogh there to feel as though they're still outsiders. And they are, really. Which is amazing considering that I come from a hunting and fishing family, all of our homes feature deer mounts, my brother has a canoe in his garage and enough fishing tackle to start a store and we all drive F150s. When you can honestly appraise your life and have no illusions about what you are (we were pretty rednecky1 for the 'burb we came from - though we were originally from a smaller 'burb and Cleveland before that) and still see a massive difference between yourself and those around you, well, I think that speaks to the nature of those folks we all 'lovingly' refer to as Streetsbillies. ;)
1 I feel a need to clarify. While we do have hobbies that a lot of people would classify firmly in the redneck spectrum, we're not very redneck in our approach to them or in the rest of our lives. Our homes are clean, our vehicles maintained, we dress in clean, appropriate attire and when we engage in these so called redneck activities, we do so with proper, well maintained, modern equipment. And we do so following the laws and unwritten codes of the hobby, too. There's no beer cans on our lawns and we don't go line-dancin'. We have all of our teeth. A fork is not a piece of alien technology. There are no rebel flags on our property, person or vehicles. We do not ... well, you get the idea. I hope!
So your saying if the south seceded from the union no one in the north would have a problem with it? hmm... I see texas leaving soon...
I'm sure some people would. A lot of us, though? Yeah, notsomuch. It doesn't matter, though, as there's no way the gov't would allow shenanigans like that. I think everyone still remembers the last time it happened.
Since I don't have children, I'd just be phoning the police instead.
Not that I'm some sort of humourless stick-in-the-mud. I'd have no problem at all with him doing this out in a field or an empty warehouse somewhere with nobody else anywhere near. But it looks like he's in a residential neighbourhood, and that's not just stupid. It's criminal.
Even when its his hedge and his property? You'd probably call the cops on him if you found out he tore the tag off his mattress, too.
And can you gaurentee that the chainsaw won't go flying onto someone else's property or into the street if the line breaks or he looses his grip?
Since I don't have children, I'd just be phoning the police instead.
Not that I'm some sort of humourless stick-in-the-mud. I'd have no problem at all with him doing this out in a field or an empty warehouse somewhere with nobody else anywhere near. But it looks like he's in a residential neighbourhood, and that's not just stupid. It's criminal.
Even when its his hedge and his property? You'd probably call the cops on him if you found out he tore the tag off his mattress, too.
And can you gaurentee that the chainsaw won't go flying onto someone else's property or into the street if the line breaks or he looses his grip?
Nope. Which is when you do call the cops. What would they charge him with when they got to his house (other than pissing him off and then arresting him for "resisting" or "obstruction")? There's no such thing as "Conspiracy to commit property damage". Once it actually happens, fine. Until then, leave him alone, he'll tire himself in a couple of minutes. Kinda like Reagan at McDonald's.
'Dontcha just hate how dem damn fancy schmancy showerin' soaps leave ya smellin' like a fruit store an' dry out yer skins? An' don't it just burn yer biscuits that yer all wet when ya get outta da shower? Well, have I got a solution fer ya! If yer a man, that is. Hurpa durp!'
*fires up turkey frier*
*gets in shower lookin' thing*
'This 'ere is so hot it'll dry right off'n ya an da oil will make yer skin silky smooth - but with a manly scent!'
*pulls lever*
*boiling oil is pumped from frier into overhead shower nozzle*
'AaAaaAAAAAaaAH!'
Since I don't have children, I'd just be phoning the police instead.
Not that I'm some sort of humourless stick-in-the-mud. I'd have no problem at all with him doing this out in a field or an empty warehouse somewhere with nobody else anywhere near. But it looks like he's in a residential neighbourhood, and that's not just stupid. It's criminal.
Even when its his hedge and his property? You'd probably call the cops on him if you found out he tore the tag off his mattress, too.
And can you gaurentee that the chainsaw won't go flying onto someone else's property or into the street if the line breaks or he looses his grip?
Nope. Which is when you do call the cops. What would they charge him with when they got to his house (other than pissing him off and then arresting him for "resisting" or "obstruction")?
Reckless Endangerment.
I can't wait to see how this guy earns his Darwin Award.
does he have kids?
Stupid, predates the current crop by quite a few decades looking at his 'stache.
Does that work if nobody is around, though? If there's nobody walking by, he's not putting anyone aside from himself at risk. Though it did kinda look like he had a camera man ...
Baker Act him. I'm sure theres more than one way to legally mess with the world's strongest redneck.
Does that work if nobody is around, though? If there's nobody walking by, he's not putting anyone aside from himself at risk. Though it did kinda look like he had a camera man ...
He's in a public area, right next to the street. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the idea of just driving down the road and suddenly taking a chainsaw to the side of the face.
Everyone just remember this the next time someone says how the current youth of america are destroying the country. :-p
Stupid, predates the current crop by quite a few decades looking at his 'stache.
The difference is in the past they had something called natural selection. When some kid did something stupid they usual got severely hurt or died. The ones that didn't do stupid things lived longer and bred.
We coddle our children now and nerf everything...
"Why are you hitting yourself in the head as hard as you can with that metal baseball bat.... here honey use this nerf bat instead ok"...
He's in a public area, right next to the street. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the idea of just driving down the road and suddenly taking a chainsaw to the side of the face.
Here's the thing, though:
A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.
I can very easily see a lawyer saying 'my client made sure that there were no pedestrians or cars coming before he engaged in this act. If there were no people there, there were no people to endanger' - which happens to be true. You can't create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person if there's no other person around. I don't know if that would legally hold, of course, but it certainly makes sense. So does the argument that someone could have happened by, of course.
I can very easily see a lawyer saying 'my client made sure that there were no pedestrians or cars coming before he engaged in this act. If there were no people there, there were no people to endanger' - which happens to be true. You can't create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person if there's no other person around. I don't know if that would legally hold, of course, but it certainly makes sense. So does the argument that someone could have happened by, of course.
Since there was no sign of anyone keeping an eye out for potential public presence, it looks to me like it wasn't exactly a big concern for Mr. Redneck. No safety at all.
Since there was no sign of anyone keeping an eye out for potential public presence, it looks to me like it wasn't exactly a big concern for Mr. Redneck. No safety at all.
Oh, I totally agree with you. The only thing I'm trying to say is that it'd be really difficult to prove (if the argument I mentioned would even work). The caller says he saw someone, the redneck says he checked (lie or not) and there wasn't anyone. Without proof, who do you believe (me, well, I'd believe the guy that wasn't waving a chainsaw on a rope over his head)? Reasonable doubt and all that. But yeah, this particular redneck in this particular case didn't give a **** about anyone beyond himself. That's normal. But when ya wave a chainsaw over yer head, that changes things a bit.
Since there was no sign of anyone keeping an eye out for potential public presence, it looks to me like it wasn't exactly a big concern for Mr. Redneck. No safety at all.
Oh, I totally agree with you. The only thing I'm trying to say is that it'd be really difficult to prove (if the argument I mentioned would even work). The caller says he saw someone, the redneck says he checked (lie or not) and there wasn't anyone. Without proof, who do you believe (me, well, I'd believe the guy that wasn't waving a chainsaw on a rope over his head)? Reasonable doubt and all that. But yeah, this particular redneck in this particular case didn't give a **** about anyone beyond himself. That's normal. But when ya wave a chainsaw over yer head, that changes things a bit.
I would believe the camera. at the 49 second mark you see a car passing behind him. at the 123 second mark you see a van pass behind him.
But when ya wave a chainsaw over yer head, that changes things a bit.
I adore that snippet.
I would believe the camera. at the 49 second mark you see a car passing behind him. at the 123 second mark you see a van pass behind him.
GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I adore that snippet.
Ya know, we say some bad things about rednecks. But without them? Well, without rednecks I'd likely never have been inspired in a way that would produce that line. Their incredible stupidity and callous disregard for social custom and life in general are a true benefit to entertainment. For that, they should be thanked.
Personally, I've come to the conclusion that there's really no difference between country stupid (redneck) and inner-city stupid (gangsta). One swings a running hedge-trimmer (NOT chainsaw) over his head, the other brandishes a firearm and then shoots himself in the leg.
I've heard a lovely story (unconfirmed) of a gangsta who wasn't prepared for the recoil on a Desert Eagle. He fired it, the kick threw the weapon into his chest, and his finger jerked at the impact pulling the trigger a second time, sending a bullet under his chin and through his skull.
As for the item Mr. Redneck was whirling about. It appears to be electric, but if it is a hedge trimmer it is different in configuration to all the ones I have seen. Most hedge trimmers have the flat section of the "blade" parellel to the ground. The item we see in the video had the flat perpendicular to the ground.
I've heard a lovely story (unconfirmed) of a gangsta who wasn't prepared for the recoil on a Desert Eagle. He fired it, the kick threw the weapon into his chest, and his finger jerked at the impact pulling the trigger a second time, sending a bullet under his chin and through his skull.
It's certainly possible, especially considering a similar thing happened to a kid with an Uzi (why the parents thought this was a good idea is beyond me). They were at a gun show and they wanted their kid (was like 10 or something, maybe younger) to get some trigger time. The parents decided that the uzi was nice and small so it would be a good fit for the boy. He pulled the trigger and the recoil just brought the barrel right back towards his face.
It's certainly possible, especially considering a similar thing happened to a kid with an Uzi (why the parents thought this was a good idea is beyond me). They were at a gun show and they wanted their kid (was like 10 or something, maybe younger) to get some trigger time. The parents decided that the uzi was nice and small so it would be a good fit for the boy. He pulled the trigger and the recoil just brought the barrel right back towards his face.
Escef was probably already familiar with this story, as it happened in southern new England (MA, RI, or CT I forget which). Of course, America being what it is today, the father (who was the only parent with them that day) is suing the company that put on the gun show and the company that had the booth, and the DA is charging the Chief of Police for issuing the permit.
Escef was probably already familiar with this story, as it happened in southern new England (MA, RI, or CT I forget which). Of course, America being what it is today, the father (who was the only parent with them that day) is suing the company that put on the gun show and the company that had the booth, and the DA is charging the Chief of Police for issuing the permit.
The father is suing the company? The father chose the gun! Not that this surprised me, I believe I remembered hearing that, although there had been talk about bringing criminal charges against the father. I was not aware, however, that there were any charges against the police chief. That's just ludicrous.
The chief was acquitted, so they dropped charges against the gun owners. Didn't read far enough to find out if the family's still suing.
They out to put a warning in big bold yellow letters on the side of all guns "If you can read this you qualify to operate this device"
They should make it into a test.
"Before operating device, stick device in mouth and squeeze trigger to make sure the bullet is not stuck in the chamber."
They out to put a warning in big bold yellow letters on the side of all guns "If you can read this you qualify to operate this device"
They should make it into a test.
"Before operating device, stick device in mouth and squeeze trigger to make sure the bullet is not stuck in the chamber."
Or inscribe in small letters around the front of the muzzle "If you can read this, you don't qualify to operate this device."
They out to put a warning in big bold yellow letters on the side of all guns "If you can read this you qualify to operate this device"
They should make it into a test.
"Before operating device, stick device in mouth and squeeze trigger to make sure the bullet is not stuck in the chamber."
Or inscribe in small letters around the front of the muzzle "If you can read this, you don't qualify to operate this device."
"I don't know why, but every gun tells me I'm not qualified to operate it..."
They should make it into a test.
"Before operating device, stick device in mouth and squeeze trigger to make sure the bullet is not stuck in the chamber."
Your test does not specify whose mouth would be receiving the "business end" of the firearm.
As of the legality of what he's doing, I'm not sure. I do believe he is within his legal right to do that on his own property. It would be reckless endangerment if he were training his redneck son to become some kind of ninja by having him dodge the chainsaw flail, yeah for sure. But since nobody is around while he's doing...that, then no foul. I believe that he might have hurt himself, and if a cop drove by, he would tell him to stop, for his own safety. But don't quote me on this.
I believe that he might have hurt himself, and if a cop drove by, he would tell him to stop, for his own safety. But don't quote me on this.
Well, police do have the authority to take people into protective custody. They do it to drunks all the time. Not sure if "stupid" is a valid legal justification to do it, though.