Woman On Diet Weighing Out Peanut Butter Like It Hard Drugs
MARYVILLE, TN—Relying on a precise measurement as though a slight miscalculation could be lethal, local woman Anna Gardner, who is said to be on a diet, reportedly weighed out peanut butter Thursday like it was hard drugs. Several reports indicated that Garner precisely laid a dollop of the Jif peanut butter onto a kitchen scale and removed the excess with a knife to make sure it was the right amount as if she were portioning out a Schedule I substance that she planned to sling to junkies on the streets. According to sources, upon licking a bit of the peanut spread off the knife's blade, Gardner let out a sigh of pleasure and said 'That's the stuff' in the manner of a notorious drug lord who, after testing out the purity of her product, runs the knife across her own cheek and mutters 'I'm loco.' At press time, reports confirmed a blissful Garner was passed out on the couch with an empty glass of peanut butter and banana smoothie by her side like a woman strung out on black tar heroin.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Foul-mouthed chef wrongly sacked because she had anxiety, tribunal rules
A junior chef who launched a foul-mouthed rant in front of spa guests has been awarded more than £13,000 after a tribunal ruled her outburst was triggered by anxiety. Abbie Garner was dismissed after she was overheard shouting 'you f---ing made me love you then you cheated on me, you c---' at a colleague. However, a tribunal ruled the outburst was linked to her health problems, which included anxiety and depression. She has since been awarded £13,455.91. Of the sum, £11,000 was paid to reflect 'the injury to the claimant's feelings as a result of the discrimination found'. The row broke out in front of guests near the spa reception at the four-star Thorpe Hall Hotel and Spa in Peterborough on Aug 9, 2023. It was sparked by a personal argument with a fellow chef she had been in a relationship with, the tribunal heard. Complaints were made to reception and the chef was called in for a disciplinary hearing. During the hearing, Ms Garner gave abrupt responses and asked whether her ex-partner would also be punished. Notes from the hearing recorded her saying: 'I have apologised. What else do you want?' The tribunal ruled that she was disabled under the Equality Act and said her inability to control her anger 'arose in consequence of her disability'. It said: 'The claimant is disabled by virtue of anxiety, depression, and polycystic ovary syndrome. 'The claimant relies on her conduct on August 9, the incident, and August 18, her abrupt responses in the disciplinary meeting, as things arising from her disability. 'Namely an inability to regulate her mood or control her anger due to her disabilities.' It added that Ms Garner 'was put at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without her disability'. Judge C Lewis concluded the hotel failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments by not seeking medical evidence before dismissing her. 'We are satisfied that it would have been a reasonable adjustment for the respondent to have sought medical evidence,' the tribunal said. 'We find that there was a reasonable prospect this could have led to a different outcome.' The judge found her 'continued employment posed a risk to the respondent's reputation', but said this did not justify failing to properly consider whether her conduct was linked to her mental health. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Yahoo
Opinion - When will the Supreme Court hold police responsible for lethal use of force?
Last year, 1,173 Americans were shot to death by police. That is an average of more than three every day. Police use of lethal force was greater last year than at any point in the last decade. So far this year, more than 425 people have been killed by law enforcement officers. On May 15, the Supreme Court made a decision that goes part way toward helping reduce those numbers, and holds police accountable when they take someone's life. But it stopped short of doing what needs to be done. Growth in the police use of lethal force in the U.S. has been steady for many years, despite judicial efforts to clarify when it is legal and to restrict it. Ten years ago, 950 were shot and killed; five years ago, that number had risen to just over a thousand. And it has increased every year since. Moreover, the largest number of police shootings have involved an unarmed suspect. Yet in 98.2 percent of killings by police from 2013-2024, no one was 'charged with a crime.' There is also a clear racial dimension to the police use of lethal force. Blacks and Hispanics are shot at a disproportionate rate. Scholars suggest that these figures result from a combination of implicit bias and a pervasive 'warrior culture' among police officers that leads them to overreact to anything that seems to challenge their authority. And most victims of police shootings are young and male. One of them was a 15-year-old Black teenager named Edward Garner, who was shot and killed by a Memphis police officer in October 1974. Garner had broken into a house but was 'unarmed and fleeing on foot when a police officer shot him in the back of the head.' The policeman who shot Garner did not think that the fleeing suspect was armed. But at the time, that made no difference. Tennessee law allowed police to 'use all the necessary means to effect the arrest' of suspects who flee, whether they were armed or not. In 1985, in the first of its efforts to restrict police use of lethal force, the Supreme Court struck down that law. Justice Byron White, writing for the majority, said, 'Notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him.' He explained that lethal force should only be used when 'the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.' But as we have already noted, the court's effort to clamp down on police use of deadly force did not stem the tide of such killings. Four years after its Garner ruling, the court revisited it, holding that claims the police used excessive force would be judged 'based on how a reasonable police officer would have handled the same situation.' In the case decided earlier this month, a Houston policeman shot and killed a 24-year-old Black man, Ashtian Barnes, at 2:45 in the afternoon. The officer stopped him because he was driving a car whose license plate number matched one with outstanding toll violations. Things got out of hand when Barnes opened the car door but refused to get out. A few minutes later, he started to drive away with the driver's door still open. Instead of letting him go and calling for assistance, the officer jumped onto the doorsill of the moving car and fired two shots that killed the driver. The court ruled that when the police use lethal force in a traffic stop, judges should examine the totality of circumstances, including 'the reasons for the stop, or earlier conduct of, and interactions between, the suspect and the officer,' not just what happened 'at the moment of threat that resulted in [his] use of deadly force.' That is an important step forward. But the court did not go far enough. It did not speak on what happens when police do things that escalate the situation, like what the officer did in the Barnes case. In ordinary cases, the accused cannot claim homicide is justifiable if they behave recklessly or create the danger to which they then respond. That same rule should apply when the police use lethal force. The Supreme Court refused to apply it in the Barnes case. That was a serious mistake. The court's failure means that people will continue to die needlessly at the hands of the police — at least until the court makes clear that, as Justice White put it, it is not 'better that … felony suspects die than that they escape.' Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
28-05-2025
- The Hill
When will the Supreme Court hold police responsible for lethal use of force?
Last year, 1,173 Americans were shot to death by police. That is an average of more than three every day. Police use of lethal force was greater last year than at any point in the last decade. So far this year, more than 425 people have been killed by law enforcement officers. On May 15, the Supreme Court made a decision that goes part way toward helping reduce those numbers, and holds police accountable when they take someone's life. But it stopped short of doing what needs to be done. Growth in the police use of lethal force in the U.S. has been steady for many years, despite judicial efforts to clarify when it is legal and to restrict it. Ten years ago, 950 were shot and killed; five years ago, that number had risen to just over a thousand. And it has increased every year since. Moreover, the largest number of police shootings have involved an unarmed suspect. Yet in 98.2 percent of killings by police from 2013-2024, no one was 'charged with a crime.' There is also a clear racial dimension to the police use of lethal force. Blacks and Hispanics are shot at a disproportionate rate. Scholars suggest that these figures result from a combination of implicit bias and a pervasive 'warrior culture' among police officers that leads them to overreact to anything that seems to challenge their authority. And most victims of police shootings are young and male. One of them was a 15-year-old Black teenager named Edward Garner, who was shot and killed by a Memphis police officer in October 1974. Garner had broken into a house but was 'unarmed and fleeing on foot when a police officer shot him in the back of the head.' The policeman who shot Garner did not think that the fleeing suspect was armed. But at the time, that made no difference. Tennessee law allowed police to 'use all the necessary means to effect the arrest' of suspects who flee, whether they were armed or not. In 1985, in the first of its efforts to restrict police use of lethal force, the Supreme Court struck down that law. Justice Byron White, writing for the majority, said, 'Notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him.' He explained that lethal force should only be used when 'the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.' But as we have already noted, the court's effort to clamp down on police use of deadly force did not stem the tide of such killings. Four years after its Garner ruling, the court revisited it, holding that claims the police used excessive force would be judged 'based on how a reasonable police officer would have handled the same situation.' In the case decided earlier this month, a Houston policeman shot and killed a 24-year-old Black man, Ashtian Barnes, at 2:45 in the afternoon. The officer stopped him because he was driving a car whose license plate number matched one with outstanding toll violations. Things got out of hand when Barnes opened the car door but refused to get out. A few minutes later, he started to drive away with the driver's door still open. Instead of letting him go and calling for assistance, the officer jumped onto the doorsill of the moving car and fired two shots that killed the driver. The court ruled that when the police use lethal force in a traffic stop, judges should examine the totality of circumstances, including 'the reasons for the stop, or earlier conduct of, and interactions between, the suspect and the officer,' not just what happened 'at the moment of threat that resulted in [his] use of deadly force.' That is an important step forward. But the court did not go far enough. It did not speak on what happens when police do things that escalate the situation, like what the officer did in the Barnes case. In ordinary cases, the accused cannot claim homicide is justifiable if they behave recklessly or create the danger to which they then respond. That same rule should apply when the police use lethal force. The Supreme Court refused to apply it in the Barnes case. That was a serious mistake. The court's failure means that people will continue to die needlessly at the hands of the police — at least until the court makes clear that, as Justice White put it, it is not 'better that … felony suspects die than that they escape.' Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.
