Stupid people of the week
Mustangs
DoorDash Customer Accused of Causing $10K Worth of Damage to Driver’s Car Over Failed Chicken Wings Delivery: Reports
A woman in Milwaukee is facing a felony charge after allegedly causing around $10,000 damage to a DoorDash driver’s vehicle over a failed chicken wings order.
On July 11, driver Faith Morris picked up a late-night “high-priced” food order that “was in the area,” she said, per Fox 6 Milwaukee, confirming she threw her kids in the car and went to get the food.
However, Morris’ phone service ended up shutting off due to an overdue bill, so she wasn’t able to complete the delivery, the outlet noted.
“Within five minutes, T-Mobile shuts my phone off. I’m shocked,” Morris told Fox 6 Milwaukee. “We pull up to the location but the address will not load because my app won’t load anymore. I sit outside the customer’s house for 10 minutes and [was] calling T-Mobile to see if they’ll turn my phone back on.”
She then returned home, but the customer was not happy and texted the driver, accusing them of stealing their food, the outlet stated.
According to TMJ4 News, customer Janiyah Jones was allegedly able to track Morris back to her home and ended up calling her for around an hour after the failed order.
“There’s no way that she should have been able to call me for an hour after this happened. An hour? It’s absolutely insane,” Morris said, per the outlet.
A criminal complaint obtained by PEOPLE identified the suspect as 22-year-old Jones, stating she’d allegedly thrown a brick at Morris’ car, as well as striking “her vehicle repeatedly with a tire iron, smashing her windows.”
“It was so crazy how the glass was just raining from the sky when she was hitting it,” Morris said, per TMJ4 News.
Morris claimed she hasn’t been able to work as a delivery driver since the incident occurred, the outlet noted.
Milwaukee police investigators were able to match Ring doorbell video footage with body camera footage from a previous crash involving the suspect earlier this year, the criminal complaint obtained by PEOPLE stated. Police had identified the woman in question as Jones after finding her to be the owner of the cellphone number through records obtained via DoorDash.
The complaint stated that over $10,000 worth of damage had allegedly been done to Morris’ car.
“She did this over a ten-piece chicken wing! She passed [Fryerz] to come here,” Morris told TMJ4 News on Aug. 5.
A DoorDash spokesperson said in a statement obtained by PEOPLE, “This customer’s actions are completely uncalled for, unacceptable, and disturbing. We have permanently banned them from our platform and are in touch with the Dasher directly to offer our support.”
The company also said that they wouldn’t ever share or show a worker’s home address with any consumers.
Source; Yahoo!
Stabbing in Staunton State Park Found to be an Elaborate Hoax
At 2 p.m. today, the Jefferson County [Colorado] Sheriff’s Office authored a warrant for the arrest of 26-year-old Callum Heskett for multiple misdemeanor and felony charges.
Heskett, a Colorado Parks and Wildlife Seasonal Ranger at Staunton State Park, radioed for help at approximately 9:30 a.m. on August 19, claiming he had been attacked and stabbed. He also reported that the alleged assailant fled on foot and gave a detailed description of the suspect.
In response, JCSO deputies and numerous front range first responders rushed to the scene to provide aid and begin searching for the suspect. Jeffcom 911 issued a Lookout Alert to 8,600 residents in the immediate area, warning of the potential danger. Several schools and nearby citizens were asked to remain locked down for safety.
To support the search, JCSO SWAT and Drone teams were activated, along with investigators and patrol deputies. The Colorado State Patrol SOAR and Aviation teams were also deployed to assist. Heskett was airlifted to an area hospital while the search for the alleged suspect continued for several hours. During that time, two people of interest were detained, interviewed, and determined to have no involvement.
As the investigation progressed, inconsistencies in Heskett’s statements emerged. That, along with other conflicting and questionable evidence, further raised concerns about the validity of his allegations. After investigators conducted their first interview with Heskett, it became even more clear that his story was flawed and erroneous.
Heskett was arrested today (082125) but remains under a doctor’s care at the hospital. He will be transferred to the Jefferson County Jail upon his release. Heskett faces charges for: attempt to influence a public servant (F), tampering with evidence (F), false reporting to authorities (M), reckless endangerment (M), obstructing government operations (M) and 2nd degree official misconduct (PO). His bond is set at $10,000.
The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office remains committed to ensuring public safety and holding individuals accountable when false reports create unnecessary risks for the community and first responders.
Source; Jefferson Co Sheriff’s Office
Former deputy arrested after allegedly robbing Rowan County bank, again
A former Davidson County deputy was arrested on Thursday after allegedly robbing a bank in Rowan County for a second time.
Records showed 58-year-old Jeffrey Athey was placed in jail under a $50,000 bond and charged with common law robbery.
The robbery reportedly happened around 2:40 p.m. on Thursday, July 31, at the F&M Bank along Avalon Drive in Salisbury.
Police said they were dispatched to the bank for a holdup alarm, which they confirmed as a robbery in progress.
Officers in the area reportedly detained Athey after he exited the bank with money he had allegedly obtained by handing a note to staff.
It was not immediately clear if Athey showed or implied he had a weapon.
Athey is no stranger to the F&M Bank on Avalon Drive — police previously apprehended him there in 2022 for committing the same crime.
Not only was it the same crime, but it was also carried out in the exact same manner.
Officers said in 2022, Athey handed a note to the teller demanding money, and after receiving it, walked outside and got into his pickup truck. A short time later, he was found by police, still in his car, and was arrested in the parking lot.
At the time, Athey was charged with common law robbery and jailed under a bond of $75,000.
Athey was also accused of robbing a third bank nearly a decade ago.
That robbery reportedly happened around 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2018, at the F&M Bank along West Main Street in Rockwell.
Police said Athey walked into the bank, pulled out a black Glock 42 handgun, and told the clerk he needed money. Athey reportedly left the bank in a silver Mustang after receiving $1000 in $100 bills from the bank teller.
The Rowan County Sheriff’s Office said he was taken into custody near the intersection of Highway 52 and Crescent Road within five minutes of a 911 call regarding the robbery.
The handgun used during the alleged robbery was said to be found in his pants pocket.
Source; WBTV
Judge sends ChatGPT-using lawyer to AI school with $5,500 fine after he’s caught creating imaginary caselaw: ‘Any lawyer unaware that using generative AI platforms to do legal research is playing with fire is living in a cloud’
As someone whose special interest is not going to prison, I’d be pretty keen on my lawyer not using AI to advise them in the courtroom. So I suppose I can be glad that I was not the debtor who enlisted the Semrad Law Firm in a bankruptcy case last year (via Damien Charlotin). The firm and its attorney in the case—Thomas Nield—have been rapped over the knuckles by judge Michael Slade for using ChatGPT to dredge up relevant legal history to help them represent the debtor.
Problem was, the relevant cases ChatGPT spat out—and which were submitted to the court by Nield—didn’t exist.
The bankruptcy case in question has been ongoing since 2024, but AI reared its robotic head last month. After a back-and-forth, Nield and his firm filed a chapter 13 repayment plan (essentially, a plan detailing how the debtor he represents would pay back the money they owe their creditor). Alas, the creditor in question, Corona Investments LLC, didn’t like the look of it, and so filed a “kitchen sink” objection that disputed (among other things) the plan’s feasibility.
Here’s where things get weird. Nield and Semrad filed a response that argued Corona didn’t have the standing to contest the feasibility of the proposed repayment plan. This had judge Slade a tad baffled, so he gathered his staff and “began to examine the issue in depth to see if Semrad’s argument was supported by the caselaw” and quickly found, well, problems.
Nield cited four pieces of previous caselaw to support his argument: In re Montoya, 341 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Utah 2006), In re Coleman, 373 B.R. 907 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2007), In re Russell, 458 B.R. 731 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2011), and In re Jager, 344 B.R. 349 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006). Let’s take them one at a time.
- In re Montoya: Judge Slade’s examination found that “not only does the language quoted by counsel [Nield] not appear anywhere in the court’s opinion, but the opinion does not address issues of standing at all.”
- In re Coleman: This case actually happened in Missouri, not Wisconsin, and judge Slade found that “again, not only does counsel’s quotation not appear in the case at all, the opinion does not discuss the proposition for which it is cited, let alone support it.”
- In re Russell: This case actually happened in Virginia, not Wisconsin, and judge Slade found that “yet again, the quotation from counsel’s brief does not appear anywhere in the court’s opinion, and the opinion does not touch on the topic of standing at all.”
- In re Jager: The cherry on the cake. Judge Slade found that this case simply “does not exist.”
“In sum, what happened here is that Mr Nield cited four cases for a proposition of law, but none of them exist as alleged in his brief. Worse still, none of the quotations relied upon in the Semrad brief are actual statements written by any court.”
Why? Because Nield had gotten them from ChatGPT. “I asked Mr Nield directly whether he used some sort of AI to come up with this portion of his brief,” wrote Slade in his memorandum, “and he stated the following: ‘I think the citation element of these cases, I guess, was—I ran it through AI to some extent, but I didn’t think that the citation was wrong.’
“To his credit,” continues Slade, “Mr Nield appears to both understand what he did wrong and to be remorseful for it.” Nield claimed he had never used AI to do his legal research prior to this case and that he hadn’t reviewed the data it gave him because he “assumed that an AI program would not fabricate quotes entirely.” Oh, Mr Nield, if only you knew.
Appropriately contrite, Nield promised the court that “he will never again use an AI program to do legal research ‘without checking every element of the AI’s work product'” and said that he had reported himself to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Semrad, meanwhile, assured the court that it “strictly prohibits using AI for legal research or the generation of legal citations without manual verification.”
Nield and Semrad asked the court not to sanction them over the blunder since, hey, “they have already voluntarily: (1) admitted their misconduct and promised not to do it again; (2) withdrawn any application for compensation in this case; and (3) watched an online CLE [Continuing Legal Education] video.”
That didn’t quite fly: “while I appreciate their candor and efforts,” said judge Slade, “‘[t]here must be consequences.'”
Slade justifies his decision to sanction for two reasons. For one, he simply dislikes how this case in particular was handled, and suggests that if Semrad did not have the resources to give all its clients the attention they need, it should have offloaded some of them to other firms rather than resort to GenAI.
But he also takes issue with “Nield’s claim of ignorance” about the potential risks of using AI for this kind of thing. “At this point, to be blunt, any lawyer unaware that using generative AI platforms to do legal research is playing with fire is living in a cloud. This has been a hot topic in the legal profession since at least 2023,” writes Slade.
“The bottom line is this: at this point, no lawyer should be using ChatGPT or any other generative AI product to perform research without verifying the results. Period… In fact, given the nature of generative AI tools, I seriously doubt their utility to assist in performing accurate research (for now).
“They can write a story that reads like it was written by Stephen King (but wasn’t) or pen a song that sounds like it was written by Taylor Swift (but wasn’t). But they can’t do your legal research for you. ChatGPT does not access legal databases like Westlaw or Lexis, draft and input a query, review and analyze each of the results, determine which results are on point, and then compose an accurate, Bluebook-conforming citation to the right cases.”
As an aside, it’s a tad concerning that a stuffy Illinois judge seemingly has a much better grasp on the limitations of AI than many tech and games industry CEOs, but I digress.
So Slade sanctioned Nield and Semrad anyway. First up, they had to fork over $5,500 to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court: “I view this as a modest sanction, and the next lawyer who does the same thing is warned that he or she will likely see a more significant penalty.”
Second, the judge reckons some education is in order here. He notes that “fortunately,” the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges is running its annual meeting in Chicago concurrently with this brouhaha. “Even more fortuitously, during the meeting, at 9.00 a.m. on Friday, September 19, 2025, NCBJ will hold a plenary session titled ‘Smarter Than Ever: The Potential and Perils of Artificial Intelligence.'”
“Mr Nield, and at least one other senior attorney at the Semrad firm (chosen by Mr. Semrad), are ordered to register for and attend that session of the NCBJ annual meeting in person. Others reading this opinion are welcome, too.”
Remember, aspiring legal scholars—AI: not even once.
Source; PC Gamer
Category: Crime, Police, Stupid Criminals
“thrown a brick at Morris’ car”
At least it wasn’t the chicken wings. That would be a felony
as we saw with the guy tossing a sandwich recently.
Video clearly shows that the guy in DC actually struck the officer. The “weapon” was a pretty hefty sub sandwich, unopened, completely wrapped up and probably wouldn’t have hurt the victim, but it’s still against the law to strike a LEO.
The bank robber must have a love interest in the jail house, as he wants to go back!
Tiny misses him…
Not saying she deserved her car getting beat down, but did I read this right? She sat outside the customer’s residence for ten minutes calling her phone company about turning her phone back on? Maybe turn your feet on and walk up to the door, where you turn your knuckles on to do some knocking? Then turn your customer on to their bag of chicken. She must have tarded before because she sure sounds like a retard.
Maybe she turned chicken to walk up to the door.
If her phone got turned off how could she CALL the company?
RE the chicken wings story. It seems the victim did find the location of the person who placed the order and there was a working ring cam doorbell. Why didn’t that person just ring the doorbell and hand over the order? Might have saved them damage to their car.
She should have just wung the order and left.
[…] This ain’t Hell… has your feel good stories. And stupid people. […]
Re the first and last stories…
Of all the things that came out of COVID, food delivery services are arguably one of the better ones that have lasted. We lost a lot of CiCis and other buffets (and restaurants in general), the 24-hour Walmart went the way of the dodo, and virtual schools and telework have been gradually declining. I’d say, though, that while Doordash and such can be good for certain consumers (like the office worker who’d otherwise spend much of their lunch period driving to get food), it’s bred laziness on a scale we haven’t seen before.
When my son and his now-wife lived with us in Northern VA, it seemed he was always ordering something. We lived near Garrisonville, with just about anything we wanted within a 2-mile radius. Instead of venturing out, though, he’d just order McDonald’s, Taco Bell, or whatever and have it delivered so they could play video games with minimal interruption. Easy enough when you’re living rent-free, but once we moved down South, reality kicked in. Now, his wife works two jobs while he was moonlighting as a DoorDash driver himself for a while.
It seems that a lot of delivery drivers themselves aren’t any less lazy than their customers. Why go out and get a “real” job, when you can just deliver food and groceries, and maybe work Uber or Lyft on the side? I’ve heard people claim they make more money than they would at a 9-5, yet these are the same people who complain when they get someone who doesn’t tip well. Sure, you might pull in a few hundred on a good week, but it’s not steady income.
As for AI, it’s a slippery slope. We’ve all noticed the number of AI-generated images used here, and they’re often fitting and humorous. I found a text-to-speech generator last night, then played around with the song making software for a bit. Fun stuff. We have to know the boundaries, though. One would think a lawyer would be smart enough to know it’s not a reliable source for research. Just as a college student should know better than to rely on AI to write papers. I’m all for using tools to make things easier; while AI wasn’t around when I was working towards my degree, I used the heck out of Wikipedia to get a basic plain-language understanding of a case law or find sources for a paper. AI would probably be useful to get beyond that initial writer’s block, or to get a head start on where to research a legal defense, but that’s it. AI (and Wikipedia) is at best a secondary tool to be used to find primary references.
While an AI response can sound like Ben Matlock or Harmon Rabb themselves, it is likely comprised of 90% BS based on 10% fact. Those metal and rap songs I was generating last night were humorous and even catchy but listening to the lyrics–based on a few prompts like sharks, Roblox, and my kids’ names–made little to no sense if you listened to them.
What’s the retirement plan like?
SEP-IRA, SIMPLE, and Solo 401(k) exist.
Anything to keep Uncle Scam’s hands the F off is advisable.
Talking about Ms. Jones, how about the Five Satins singing
“The Jones Girl” 1956 on the ember label. Cmon Beans, give it a shot.
Wow, the lawyer story, kind of reminds me of Barracks Lawyers, never know where the legal advice comes from.
Mike
USAF Retired
One Platoon Sergeant I had in the past always reminded us that “The Stockades are always chock full of barracks lawyers”.
Hack Stone has a similar expression, but he uses brig for stockade.
Reminds Hack of anecdote from April 1984. Hack was on leave between lCamp Pendleton and Okinawa. He took PCS leave with a buddy from North Jersey so we pretty much ran around New York, New Jersey and a trip to Florida for Spring Break.
We drive back from Florida and up in South Jersey about 21:30 on a Tuesday or Wednesday night. So drop in to a nightclub just over the Tacony Palmyra Bridge in Pennsauken New Jersey. Hack always managed to “put the Corps” when scoping out this location, but this was the middle of the week and this club, which could probably hold a few thousand patrons, was practically empty. The buddy grabs a booth and immediately falls asleep.
Hack goes up to the bar, orders two beers, and there are two girls standing there, and one of them is elbowing the other to encourage to speak to Hack.
Girl: Are you a Marine?
Hack Stone: Yes, yes I am.
Girl: My boyfriend is a Sailor stationed down at the Navy Yard, and he’s in the…
Hack Stone: Brig?
Girl: Yeah, brig. Anyway, I went down to visit him, and the Marine guard said that he wouldn’t be out for a long time, and I should find a new boyfriend. He recommended that I find a Marine.
I run back to the booth, shake my buddy, and say “Wake the fuck up! There are two girls over looking for Marines”
True story.
Full disclosure, that “buddy” is the same guy that Hack was able to track down on the internet. It seems he got a ten year contract with the State of Florida making license plates. Convicted as a “Registered Sexual Predator”, for what Hack surmises was molesting his own daughter. But don’t worry, he was released this past December and is registered as residing in a transient facility in Gainesville Florida.
In my youth, I beat and embarrassed more than one very experienced attorney by carefully reading cases cited by them in their briefs, including the opinions’ footnotes. I often found their cases did not say or hold what they claimed. And in a couple of cases, the footnotes said my position on the case at hand was the legally correct one.
….ouch…..
My oft-mentioned criminal trial conviction saw me do something similar. According to the state code of Virginia, I was definitely guilty of concealing firearms, as they weren’t visible to the Trooper as he approached. I told him about the guns, though, and hired a prominent Richmond attorney my brother recommended. The problem was, he was an excellent traffic attorney, not particularly a criminal defense lawyer. I didn’t know that at the time, being a dumb 18-year-old.
After the summons, I went to the library and did my own research. When my trial came, I did the smart thing, though, and let my attorney do all the talking. I was found not guilty of concealing the Taurus 85 snubbie, and guilty of concealing the pistol-grip Mossberg 500. My lawyer wanted me to appeal, so I did. I tried to get him to contest the Trooper’s testimony, as it was a combination of lies and misconceptions. The ’94 Assault Weapon Ban was in effect, and the shotgun definitely fell under it. Anyway, according to the Trooper, he asked if I had guns in the vehicle, and I replied like a disrespectful smartass. I haven’t been pulled over in nearly 20 years now, but when that was a regular occurrence, I never had a cop ask for anything besides license and registration. He went on to display the gun in the court, telling the judge that they were banned and that no regular citizen should be able to own one, and that it held nine rounds.
I nudged my lawyer and tried my best to get him to object. Maybe it would have helped, maybe not. Regardless, the conviction was upheld, I got 11 months added to my sentence and actually had to serve a month and paid a much larger fine. My lawyer wanted to appeal again. I declined, did my couple of weeks in jail and subsequent house arrest, and learned that cops aren’t always honest, and even good lawyers aren’t the best at anything.
Could have you have proved the Mossberg was sold before the ’94 awb was in effect! My understanding is that everything sold before it was grandfathered. (“The votes aren’t there, Sen. Feinstein, to ban them all”)
Sorry, exclamation mark was supposed to be a question mark.
We, as members of the audience in support of one of our own being Court Martialed, sent a letter to the judge saying the court appeared to be racist.
A male stated to a female at the club, you might as well give it up, because I’m going to get it one way or another. Then when leaving the club he attempted to assault her. Two of my troops and one from another shop, stepped in and beat the shit out of the perpetrator.
Two received Article 15s, and one was being Court Martialed. The two who got A15s were white, the one being CM was Hispanic.
A fellow NCO, who was white, said that looks racist as fuck, and wrote a letter to the judge about it, and all us NCOs signed it. Judge wasn’t happy about the accusation, but did questioned why he was the only one being CMed, apparently he didn’t like the answer given. He called a recess, what all went on after that, who knows. But the 3rd Airman ended up with an A15 in the end.
Mike
USAF Retired
Janiyah…. guess the ethnicity.
It’s a blessing (curse) to live in a place so remote the only place that does Doordash is a 7-11 in a town 25 minutes away. Not even kidding.
But DD, Uber Eats, etc., are for (IMO) the terminally lazy and dumb. Lazy is obvious, dumb when you look at the prices/portions/menu available compared to if you just went there yourself and sat down or did takeout.
As for AI, good thing I won’t have to worry about it replacing my job prior to my retirement or even shuffling off this mortal coil.
Shit, even the engineers can’t get their shot straight, imagine what cluster fucks they’d create if they tried to BS their way with AI.
Hey, why’d all the lights just go out?
If you’re on a month-to-month cell phone plan but you can’t afford the service, contact the phone service provider and ask to temporarily change to a cheaper plan until you can restore full service.