He thinks he's smarter being a big shot lawyer from New York and has a better education than an sheriff from West Virginia. The sheriff asks for license and registration. The lawyer asks, "What for?" The sheriff responds, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign." The lawyer says, "I slowed down and no one was coming." "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration please," say the sheriff impatiently. The lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you can give me the ticket. If not, you let me go and don't give me the ticket." The sheriff says, "That sounds fair, please exit your vehicle." The lawyer steps out and the sheriff takes out his nightstick and starts beating the lawyer with it. The sheriff says, "Do you want me to stop or just slow down?"
Joke Poo: The Professor’s Plagiarism
An English professor is grading essays when he notices a strikingly familiar passage in one. He suspects a student has plagiarized, but he wants to be absolutely sure. He pulls the student, a cocky kid named Chad, into his office.
The professor, a meticulous scholar from Oxford, says with thinly veiled disdain, “Mr. Chad, I noticed a particular phrase in your essay on Hamlet that seems… borrowed. I believe it’s my academic duty to be certain. Now, tell me, what is the difference between ‘inspired by’ and ‘plagiarism’?”
Chad, oozing confidence, leans back in his chair. “Professor, if you can show me the demonstrable difference, in practical terms, between being inspired by and outright plagiarism, I’ll immediately admit to copying. If not, you have to give me an A and publicly apologize for the accusation.”
The professor sighs, realizing he’s been challenged. “Very well, Mr. Chad. Follow me.” He leads Chad to the university’s bell tower, high above the campus. He then shoves Chad towards the edge.
“Now, Chad,” the professor says, with a chilling smile. “Do you want me to push you off the tower, or merely suggest that you jump?”
Alright, let’s break down this joke and then inject some comedic “enrichment.”
Joke Dissection:
- Core Conflict: Intellectual arrogance (lawyer) vs. pragmatic authority (sheriff).
- Humor Source: The lawyer’s attempt to outsmart the sheriff with legal semantics backfires spectacularly with physical force. It’s a classic “pride comes before a fall” scenario. The punchline hinges on the literal (and brutal) application of the lawyer’s own challenge.
- Stereotypes Employed: Lawyers (especially from big cities) are portrayed as condescending and overly focused on technicalities. Sheriffs are depicted as less intellectually inclined but possessing raw, unfiltered power.
- Key Elements:
- Lawyer’s arrogant challenge: “Show me the legal difference between slow down and stop.”
- Sheriff’s literal interpretation and violent response.
- The contrast between legal/intellectual argument and physical action.
Comedic Enrichment:
Let’s leverage a related factoid and spin it into a new punchline:
Fact: Did you know that the first standardized stop sign in the United States, introduced in 1915, didn’t actually say “STOP?” It was a white octagon with black letters that simply read “STOP.” The octagonal shape was chosen specifically so that drivers could identify it even if the sign was facing the wrong way or partially obscured.
New Joke/Observation (playing on the original):
A lawyer, fresh from arguing a case on the legal nuances of traffic regulations, speeds through a stop sign and gets pulled over. He puffs out his chest and says to the officer, “You know, you have to prove I didn’t stop. I slowed down. That’s practically the same thing!”
The officer, looking unimpressed, pulls out a faded, nearly century-old sign from the trunk of his car. It’s a beat-up, white octagon with the letters “STOP” barely visible.
“Tell you what,” the officer drawls. “I’m gonna hold this sign up. If you can convince this thing you stopped, then you can go.”
The lawyer stares at the sign, then back at the officer. “But that’s not…”
The officer cuts him off, “Oh, and one more thing: It’s a legal precedent. We’re talking octagons here. They speak for themselves. Now, commence your arguments.”
Another enrichment idea (a “Did You Know”):
Did You Know: A legal debate over the very definition of “stop” did actually occur in a famous 1969 Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio. The court had to wrestle with what constitutes a “stop” in the context of police searches. So, ironically, the lawyer in the original joke was trying to make a somewhat valid point. It’s just… perhaps not to a West Virginia sheriff with a nightstick. Maybe he should have cited Terry v. Ohio. Of course, then he would have gotten a nightstick and legal fees.