Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, November 01, 2009

Boulder Police Squash Naked Pumpkin Run

The deployment of up to 100 officers around Boulder this Halloween helped to peter out the 10th annual Naked Pumpkin Run, an event in the college town in which dozens of runners wear nothing but shoes and a hollowed-out pumpkin on their heads.

Posted by rcade at 09:49 AM | 29 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Drudge Retort RSS feed RSS Feed

Author Info

rcade

Private E-mail
Visit Home Page

Joined 2003/04/04
Visited 2009/11/21

Status: editor

MORE STORIES

Limbaugh Hides Mention of Prison Planet (30 comments) ...

Retort: The Saturday Nooner (63 comments) ...

Tamiflu-Resistant H1N1 Cluster Reported (22 comments) ...

Palin Quits Book Signing, Angers Fans (127 comments) ...

Bartlett: Repubs Are Hypocrites on Spending (30 comments) ...

Peru Gang Killed Fat People for Use in Cosmetics (71 comments) ...

Retort: The Friday Nooner (54 comments) ...

Lou Dobbs Mulls Run for Office (83 comments) ...

Oprah Will End Talk Show (34 comments) ...

Muslim Countries Seek Blasphemy Ban (249 comments) ...

Europe Chooses First President (59 comments) ...

Retort: The Thursday Nooner (62 comments) ...

Arkansas Cop Tasers 10-Year-Old Girl (81 comments) ...

Sexiest Man Alive: Johnny Depp (30 comments) ...

Dionne: We Need a Civilian ROTC (41 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Nudity and Sex criminal statutes transform a nation based on free speech and individual rights into a police state. Ask the people serving decades in jail for devil worship and day care child abuse that never happened. How does this happen within an educated society?

#1 | Posted by nutcase at 2009-11-01 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Stupid fucking cops. The problem with cops, is that anyone that wants to be one is an authoritarian control freak to begin with.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-11-01 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

"How does this happen within an educated society?"

Posted by nutcase at 2009-11-01 09:56 AM

This is Colorado we're talking about here.

#3 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-11-01 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the people of Colorado don't mind naked pumpkin runs, they can change the laws of their state through the democratic process or demand of their elected police officials not to spend their time pursuing this. We're not a police state just because cops pursue dumb crimes that aren't hurting anybody.

#4 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-01 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We're not a police state just because cops pursue dumb crimes that aren't hurting anybody."

Posted by rcade at 2009-11-01 10:07 AM


Besides, it's safer than tracking down actual criminals, and you can be sure these folks don't have any concealed weapons.
I hope.

#5 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-11-01 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ummmmmmmmmm how do they get the hollowed out Pumpkin on their heads??

#6 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-11-01 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

K-Y?

#7 | Posted by dxlingr at 2009-11-01 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ummmmmmmm You would think You would need an awfully big pumpkin to fit over the head but I could be imagining it wrong. You would literally have to cut a hole almost the diameter of the bottom of the pumpkin to fit it over ones head and even then it would be wobbly.

#8 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-11-01 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Larry did you see the pic's? Almost everyone had a least on hand on the pumkin so yes probably very wobbly.

RCADE there should be no law on the books about it in the first place. The fact the laws are on the books is what makes it a police state. If the cops did not have the law to hide behind they couldn't prosecute this kind of behavior.

#9 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2009-11-01 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

The law on the books is against indecent exposure.

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-01 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"indecent exposure"

In Boulder that's at the Bustop.

"Nowhere else in the universe could you see a fellow classmate, a grad teacher, a friend's mom, and a girlfriend dance in the same day, having not known about one of them."
www.yelp.com

#11 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-11-01 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

#10

Exactly why is a subjective law on the books other than to allow for more police and more enforcement and more jailings? Is not that pretty much the definition of police state? Especialy since no one is harmed? Why would a free people have a law against something that does not harm another other than to support a police state?

#12 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2009-11-01 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Adults should not run the public streets in the nude, Halloween or no.

Well, OK, just this once, but only the women.

#13 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2009-11-01 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

When I lived there, every Ju;ly 4th they burned couches in the street. Boulder is a weird town.

#14 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-11-01 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The law on the books is against indecent exposure."

rcade:

I happen to think that anyone who goes out in public weighing 250-300 pounds, wearing shorts and a tiny top, with unwashed hair, rippling with pasty-white cellulite and sporting sandals that reveal scruffy feet with untrimmed yellow toenails, is committing indecent exposure.

Can we have a law about that, please? I really really honestly truly believe that my personal standards should become the law of the land.

Hmpf.

#15 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2009-11-01 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:


The law on the books is against indecent exposure.

Posted by rcade at 2009-11-01 11:03 AM | Reply

Isn't indecent exposure a subjective thing?? Ones indecent exposure is anothers kosher. It's all relative.

Larry

#16 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-11-01 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I happen to think that anyone who goes out in public weighing 250-300 pounds, wearing shorts and a tiny top, with unwashed hair, rippling with pasty-white cellulite and sporting sandals that reveal scruffy feet with untrimmed yellow toenails, is committing indecent exposure."

No kidding. Go to Walmart and check out the virtual killing field of aesthetic atrocities.

#17 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-11-01 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

No kidding. Go to Walmart and check out the virtual killing field of aesthetic atrocities.

God yes. I have to say after seeing all the hogs and dogs in bikini's, shorts and braless halter tops that recently flooded into Kona from the mainland, I have to go home and wash my eyes out with battery acid every time I visit. At least I could handle the tanned bodies of the natives.

#18 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-11-01 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ring careful what you wish for I am a native but don't live there anymore and am far from tan, maybe I'll come for a visit just to screw with your preconceptions.

#19 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2009-11-01 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

The People's Republic of Boulder would have been promoting it if the painted Bush Sucks on the pumpkins.

#20 | Posted by bph320 at 2009-11-01 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I happen to think that anyone who goes out in public weighing 250-300 pounds, wearing shorts and a tiny top, with unwashed hair, rippling with pasty-white cellulite and sporting sandals that reveal scruffy feet with untrimmed yellow toenails, is committing indecent exposure.

Can we have a law about that, please?

#15 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore"


Do that, and three quarters of the population of Buffalo would be in the slammer.

#21 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-11-01 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's a good reason for laws against indecent exposure. A bunch of male pervs get their jollies by flashing their goodies at women. Though I would think that a Naked Pumpkin Run is perfectly decent exposure, it is probably tough for the law to distinguish between indecent exposure and harmless nudity.

#22 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-01 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There's a good reason for laws against indecent exposure. A bunch of male pervs get their jollies by flashing their goodies at women."

Seems to me that legalizing nudity would both preserve peoples' freedoms and take the fun out of it for pervs.

You're a guy. Admit it - it's the forbidden that makes you the hardest.

If running around starkers caused any harm to anything besides the dead space between a few peoples' ears, I'd be agin' it. But it doesn't, really, and for those who can't handle the sight, I remind them that their necks swivel for a reason.

I see no reason besides custom for protecting the sensibilities of a few people who are going to find something to bitch about no matter how hard the rest of us work to accommodate them.

#23 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2009-11-01 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well said MTW

#24 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2009-11-01 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

For the males on the run, I wonder on what head they place the pumpkin--- maybe 2 pumpkins; one small and one large.

#25 | Posted by matsop at 2009-11-01 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"For the males on the run, I wonder on what head they place the pumpkin--- maybe 2 pumpkins; one small and one large."

Well, I DID see on the news yesterday that there was a little itty bitty pumpkin the size of about a quarter.

I'm sure that would fit some.

#26 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-01 08:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Probably not most of the DR posters since they spend most of their time in a sedentary position.

#27 | Posted by matsop at 2009-11-01 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Though I would think that a Naked Pumpkin Run is perfectly decent exposure, it is probably tough for the law to distinguish between indecent exposure and harmless nudity.

"It is probably tough for the law to distinguish?"

Now you're making excuses for the fascists.

It was "tough" for the law to determine those naked baby pics printed off at the WAL*MART weren't kiddie porn. Do the cops get a pass on that one too?

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-11-01 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seems to me that legalizing nudity would both preserve peoples' freedoms and take the fun out of it for pervs.

When I was in college, there was a guy who prowled our libraries telling women he was doing a foot research study project so he could suck their toes.

I have absolutely no doubt that completely legal nudity would not deter flashers in the least. You underestimate the compulsion of some people to spring their junk on unsuspecting women.

#29 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-02 06:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable