Bizarre, Criminal law

Indiana Jones Was Banned From Washington Territory

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

Indiana Jones must have caused a great uproar against the peace and decency of the Pacific Northwest.

On February 27, 1854 the first Legislative Assembly in the newly organized Washington Territory ratified the Statutes of the Territory of Washington. While the criminal code is rather ordinary for the mid-nineteenth century, one has to wonder what kind of menace was to be found in the territorial capital of Olympia. It seems the likes of Indiana Jones was one of those menaces.

Apparently the Jones threat was sufficient to specifically prohibit his signature fighting style and choice of weaponry in the territory.

CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

II

Sc. 28. Every person who shall assault and beat another with a cowhide or whip, having with him at the time a pistol, or other deadly weapon, shall on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year, nor less than three months, and be fined in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars.

Thankfully, in subsequent decades this Indiana Jones specific bill of attainder was repealed by the legislature. How else could we have defeated Nazi archaeologists in Egypt if the bullwhip fighting art had not evolved in our culture?

By Darren Smith

Source: Statutes of Washington Territory

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

29 thoughts on “Indiana Jones Was Banned From Washington Territory”

  2. So is that why dominatrixes don’t carry a side arm in Seattle?

    Hey DDS if you are out there and care to, what is the proper plural form for Dominatrix?

  3. Someone could write a whole book on weird statues and laws in each state. This one is sure a head scratcher. ( :

  4. The BIG question does Harrison Ford have one more movie left in him even for cameo spots like Sean Connery did in that Robin Hood movie? We NEED a Back Back Back to the past as future and Michael J. Fox could still do another cameo. Hollyweed has been lacking in much to offer these last few years.

    1. There is another Star Wars out soon. Carrie Fisher’s scenes were all filmed prior to her death. Could The Force have halted Han Solo’s fall? Fans still want the Cameos, though we’ve waited a long time for an Indiana Jones reunion of Dad, Sean Connery, and son, Harrison Ford. We movie lovers seem to live in the past. New to the movies actors have big shoes to fill.

    1. Interesting, photos of people collecting evidence. I didn’t find the part about how and by whom it was delivered so the question remains if not Assad’s regime which has used deadly force against non ‘the right kind of islamic’ and non islamics as attested to by any number of sources including those attempting to provide assistance on the spot and for the last several years and the tie in…I’m wondering who was flying those jets and dropping those canisters? If this were the previous regime or two we could conclude something but so far …….?????? It’s kind of like what’s it all about without back up or confirming information. It is after all a world filled with all sorts of propaganda the most of which emanates from one source ….the left stream media.

      I have a jaundiced view as they also gave us many other scare stories not the least of which if government shutting down and fairy tails suchh as balanced budgets with a surplus.

      This source though is new but needs to be, like any other, verified. The jury so fare isn’t empaneled mucy less deliberating…except for that of the extreme left looking for a replacement to that phony fake Russia collaboration crap which so far has only come up with enoug to indict….the left wing media. .

      There are some that stil lthink the Panama Canal Treaties votes in Panama itself were factual and the Church group didn’t lie about the USA position. Turned out ok in the long run after one invasion to support the protection of free travel provisions….but that did not excuse the actions of our then government nor their misleading statements of intent.

      One of the main missions of the Fourth Branch is get up and make up a fib every morning in case they run into a tv camera…

    2. Significant events are happening left and right as we speak so “OT” seems to be the only way of touching on them. Particularly chilling, is this article by Greenwald about Pompeo’s latest attack on Freedom of speech.

      Trump’s CIA Director Pompeo, Targeting WikiLeaks, Explicitly Threatens Speech and Press Freedoms

      I was waiting to see just how long it would take the Trump administration to start BackStabbing those truth tellers that basically got them into power.

      As to the chemical weapons allegations, excellent link!

      I knew for a fact they were false when I heard the first PBS chatter-boxes describing them with that fiat-accompli tone ( if we say it enough, it becomes true) they imagine people are still swallowing.

      1. From Moon of Alabama,

        http://www.moonofalabama.org/ – Aug 12, 2017

        The Trump White House published three and a half pages of accusations against the governments of Syria and Russia. These are simple white pages with no header or footer, no date, no classification or declassification marks, no issuing agency and no signatures. It is indiscernible who has written them.

        U.S. media call this a Declassified U.S. Report on Chemical Weapons Attack. It is no such thing.

        It starts with “The United States is confident that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapon attack, …”

        The U.S. (who exactly is that?) “is confident”, it does not “know”, it does not have “proof” – it is just “confident”.

        The whole paper contains only seven paragraphs that are allegedly a “Summary of the U.S. intelligence community assessment” on the issue. The seven paragraphs are followed by eight(!) paragraphs that try to refute the Russian and Syrian statements on the issue. Some political fluff makes up the sorry rest.

        That “intelligence community assessment” chapter title is likely already a false claim. Even a fast tracked, preliminary National Intelligence Assessment, for which all seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies must be heard, takes at least two to three weeks to create. A “long track” full assessment takes two month or more. These are official documents issued by the Director of National Intelligence. The summary assessment the White House releases has no such heritage. It is likely a well massaged fast write up of some flunky in the National Security Council. The release was backgrounded by dubious statements of an anonymous “Senior Administration Officials” (not by “Intelligence Officials” as has been the case on other such issues.)
        […]

        Basically, like Russia-Gate, we will never have conclusive data – nor will the Administration. One has to use common sense and, yes, skepticism of our claims/their claims/everyone’s claims IS warranted.

        That said, Assad had zero motive not to use chemical weapons at that time and EVERY motive not to use them. He was winning the war. The US had just announced that regime change was no longer critical. What exactly would the use of chemical weapons buy him? The relatively small size and extent of the attack -assuming he had anything at all to do with it – was never going to buy him anything anyway. It’s damned thin gruel to satisfy any serious questions as to what he would gain and to claim he went off the deep end ignores the last three years of his remarkable ability to operate under pressure.

        The other tip off, and just about as suspicious, is the fact that our main stream media, without one single exception, literally fell over itself to accept the story instantaneously without so much as a peep about how “maybe we should look into this” or “questions remain…” or even one single journalistic question or probe of anyone. Nada. The exact same pattern as for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Rien. Zip. And, that, is always, suspicious.

        1. Assad had zero motive not to use chemical weapons -> Assad had zero motive to use chemical weapons

    3. According to wiki sarin is highly volatile and breaks down easily. I don’t think it is possible to tell much about residual toxicity after an attack without knowing the details of factors like time since the attack, humidity, weather and other conditions.

      Because of its chemical, nature the toxicity of sarin, at the point of attack, begins to immediately decline due to volatility – in effect evaporation – and chemical breakdown to less harmful components.

      Is it possible that unprotected workers could walk at the site of an attack 30 hours after the attack and suffer no negative consequences. That depends entirely on how fast the sarin evaporates and breaks down under the conditions at the site at the time of the attack.

      It seems to me the only conclusion we can reach from the photos is that we just don’t have enough information to reach any conclusions.

    4. An autopsy would help provide additional proof. Sarin gas kills through asphyxiation, with paralysis of the lung muscles. A non lethal dose causes permanent neurological damage.

      If it was just a conventional bomb, then there would be shrapnel and concussive injuries to the corpses. A nerve gas would have its own signature.

      Assad has killed over 150,000 people, and has been proven in the past to target civilians by deliberately bombing water supplies. So I take any of his statements with a grain of salt.

      I also believe in the disinfecting effect of public scrutiny, and that the truth always comes out.

      With what I have heard so far, I believe it was a sarin gas attack. Assad has claimed that terrorists used the sarin. Which would be quite a coincidence that they had planes to distribute it, as well as the same chemical WMD that Assad was proven to have in the past. The author of the study was claiming that it was not sarin because workers were not protected and still ambulatory in the crater as they collected dead birds. First, I do not expect workers to have the same training or OSHA in a Third World Country as they do here. Second, we do not know when the birds were placed by the crater. They may have been put there 24 hours before by technicians in bunny suits. Third, sarin is a highly volatile gas. I do not know the dispersal rate. But if the liquid was exposed to the air, being highly volatile, it would become a gas by definition rather quickly. So I do not know if 30 hours was enough for the site to be non lethal. I sure wouldn’t wear street clothes, just in case. Even a non lethal exposure will cause permanent neurological injuries.

      We’ll have to see what happens. The photos I saw of all the dead kids preys on my mind. No matter what, I would like to find out what happened to them.

      The saying is really true that there are no happy endings in Syria. Assad is a homicidal maniac. ISIS wants to depose him. It’s a breeding ground for terrorists. The 10% of the population who are Christians cannot travel the same route as the Muslim refugees because they get murdered or other violence committed upon them. Whom are we supposed to support?

      1. Assad is no saint. He is also no dope. There was no up side for him. None. Under the best of circumstances this was a minuscule attack. It could not have attained a single military objective. But most of all, Assad knew full well that anything even remotely connected with chemical weapons would mean instant, back to regime change. And so it happened. It makes no sense.

        Note, there is no requirement that planes dropped the gas. A canister could easily have been blown up on the ground such that it made the crater shown in the photo.

        How does one explain the unanimity of our lying press? When they all tell exactly the same story (as in this case and also weapons of mass destruction) they are almost always doing the bidding of the powers that be. Think, they lie about virtually everything right up to the chemical attack and then, suddenly, start telling the truth, in unison?

        The whole thing smacks of giving Trump an easy way out of his Russia-Gate quandry (everyone loves war) if he would just do a 180 on his Russia stance of rapprochment, toughen his stance on war in the ME, and flip on just about everything else he campaigned on.

        2. Now, if you were al-Quaeda and you were loosing badly to Syrian Forces, would it not be very much in your interest to plant a chemical attack and try and blame it on Assad?

          1. Well, that would be awkward.

            It would be especially troubling if Al Qaeda has chemical WMD in its possession. It seems unlikely that they would only use them in Syria. But I have become increasingly jaded by the media and intelligence community. I haven’t seen anything to prove that Al Qaeda or ISIS was behind the chemical attack. But we’ll have to see. I’ve been surprised so many times that I’m always interested to see what comes to light.

            We’ll have to see what happens. More information will continue to come out, and there are many watchdog sites overlooking the process. Meanwhile, that spoiled baby boy leader of North Korea is threatening to set off a nuclear bomb.

            1. t would be especially troubling if Al Qaeda has chemical WMD in its possession

              How about the capibility of making it when needed?

              Several reports over the years confirm that Al-Qaeda in Syria has the precursors and capabilities to produce and use Sarin as well as other chemical agents. This would not be their first use of such weapons. Al-Qaeda was under imminent pressure. It was losing the war. It is therefor highly likely that this was an intentional release by al-Qaeda to create public pressure on the Syrian government.

              The money quote from the second embedded link (the one in bold: This would not be their first use) – I include it below: Dec 2013: Seymour M. Hersh article:

              Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity [emphasis mine]. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.

              1. Note: The first quoted paragraph in comment above comes from: “http://www.moonofalabama.org/” – April 7, 2017

                  1. You sound like Joe McCarthy. The hell with facts and where they take us. If you find as in this instance, no serious inquiry has been undertaken, and that Assad doesn’t have an obvious motive for the chemical attack, you’re anti Jewish. Bam!

                    Breath taking logic.

  7. Interesting. The statute expressly prohibits whipping someone if you have a deadly weapon, like a pistol on you. So what the hell was going on in WA at the time? Were people afraid to run away so they had to stand there and be whipped?

    I wonder what the rash of crimes were – rudely smacking someone with a crop (the short riding whip that, at least in its modern form, is designed to not cause harm) or the bull whip? Was this in regards to abusing slaves, or white on white, or were politics really, really contentious at that time?

    I found this in Oregon from the contemporary time. Although it joined the Union as a free state, they passed an exclusion law which banned free African Americans from settling there. It required that any slaves be freed, BUT if they remained in Oregon after they were freed, they would be whipped and driven out. Then the law was amended to hard labor (rather ironic since it required freeing the slaves.) And THEN the law was repealed the following year before it ever took effect, thank God.

    The reasoning was that whites, and especially poor whites, were prejudiced against African Americans. And they expressly feared that free African Americans would join with the other oppressed class, Native Americans, resulting in “long, bloody wars.” Guilty conscience? An acknowledgement of the inherent evil of slavery?

    Anyway, since Oregon is so close to WA, I wonder if something similar was going on in WA, which was also a free state at a time when prejudice and fear were the norm.

    Just in case this was merely an act of protestors disliking the result of an election at the time, I actually know someone who teaches the art of the bull whip (obviously not on animals but target practice for fun.) You’ll be cracking like Indiana Jones in no time.

    1. What the hell is going on with the people of Washington now?Are they trying to steal the title of “Land of fruits and nuts from CA?

      It must be the weather!

    2. Actually, blacks were prohibited in Oregon to protect the existing slave trade in American Indians. The two largest slave markets west of the Mississippi were on the Columbia River. One catered to white settlers and the other catered to Amerind slave buyers. The Columbia River tribes, in particular, had a long history of slaving. Their preferred victims were Paiute and Shoshone. Did you ever wonder how Sacajawea, a Shoshone, got back east to become the wife of Toussaint Charbonneau? Sacajawea was captured, sold into slavery, and Toussaint Charbonneau purchased her from the Hidatsas.
      This bit of history isn’t usually in the history books. A minor Google search will verify its veracity.

Comments are closed.