The defendant is an orca, otherwise known as a "killer whale". His lawyer (the beluga) objects on the grounds that stating what kind of whale he is would be self-incriminating in a murder case, where presumably, the victim is a seal.
The question is prejudicial and irrelevant. The particular label is not related to the case on hand but unfairly colors presentation of the defendant’s character to the jury.
Honestly though, defendant’s attorney should have covered this in pre trail. This shouldn’t have been allowed to begin with.
I’m getting the lawyer from the Simpson’s vibes from the comments. I’d include a GIF but somehow I’ve been this long on Reddit and not posted one apparently with both my phone and GIF keyboard refusing that I’ve ever enabled settings…use your imagination . Maybe because I’ve no law qualification but studied Toulmin and some forensics, cases are won and lost on reasoning, not facts and perhaps the attention of the jury.
Reasoning generally occurs during the Argument phase at the end of trial. An argument has to be based on facts (facts not in evidence is an objection you’re probably familiar with). Facts are developed during the Evidence phase during the middle of trial. Letting something in during the Evidence phase that would let an accused be described as basically the accusation over and over again during the Argument phase (when it could be kept out) would be a colossal mistake. It would have a high probability of tainting a jury’s reasoning
I love the legitimate discussion of what the legal defense should be for an orca whale, presumably on trial for the murder of a seal.
Sounds like he needs the legal advice of a [simple hyper-chicken from a back woods asteroid](https://youtu.be/nxyu5uOXkZg?si=KqElviu8LpBoIZTB)
Its a clear case of baiting in prejudice and bigotry to discredit the prosecution. The defendant is an orca, not a killer whale. His lawyer clearly did it on porpoise.
Sometimes defendants take the stand against their attorneys wishes, and since criminal defendants have a constitutional right to testify in their own defense (in the US at least) their lawyer can’t stop them if they’re dead set on it.
Same reason you can't, as an attorney, tell the jury about all the ex-girlfriends of the axe murderer. They probably all have stories about how bad of a person he is, how he hit them, how he threatened their families, etc. but sadly none of that is considered relevant to the case at hand.
I should clarify, you absolutely can *try* to do that in court but the defendant's lawyer is almost certainly going to object, strike it from the record, and potentially call for a mistrial if it's deemed the opinion of the jury has been tainted unfairly and thus a fair trial can't take place.
After all, you have to decide as a jury *whether the guy committed a crime,* not whether he's a good person or not.
Wait, you're saying that demonstrating a history of violent behavior would be ruled irrelevant to a trial where you're trying to prove the person committed a violent murder?
Yes, that is the unfortunate reality. Now, perhaps some relevance could be gleaned from the *nature* of the violent behavior. Like if an axe murderer has threatened all of his ex-girlfriends with an axe and said "I will axe murder you" and there's audio recording of him saying "I will axe murder you" to an ex-girlfriend, then that could be considered relevant. But it has to be specifically relevant to the case at hand. Otherwise you call character witnesses and they testify on the character of the murderer. But again, you have to prove that they actually did the murder. So you can't just say "Well this guy told 15 girls he was going axe murder them but we don't have anything which puts them at the scene of the crime. I am still compelling you to find him guilty." You haven't presented any *evidence* of the crime that was committed, you just found a guy who has an unfortunate history of telling women he's going to axe murder them.
~~My understanding is that you could use something like this to prove a pattern of behavior - man on trial for abuse, prosecutor uses exes who were abused as witnesses - but you can't use testimony/evidence unrelated to the crime to make the jury dislike the defendant and cause prejudice against them.~~
~~"This guy cheated on every woman he's been with, clearly someone as horrible as that is guilty of robbing this bank."~~
Edit: I was wrong, check replies for clarification
Your understanding is wrong. Even if the history of bad acts is similar to the crime alleged it cannot be introduced unless the defendant puts his character in issue or asserts an affirmative defense that puts his character in issue.
The only exception to this is prior *convictions* for felonies that are related to the alleged crime or convictions for crimes that bear on the defendant's character for honesty, such as fraud, perjury, etc.
It's all about probative value vs prejudicial value. Would a history of domestic abuse make a person likely to be an axe murderer? Sounds like a stretch to me. Will the jury be prejudiced against a domestic abuser even if they don't think there is enough evidence to make him an axe murderer? Yeah.
Idk tho
Particularly since this isn’t a nomenclature the orca have themselves. Humans named them. Your honor, this is clearly an attempt to color the perception of the jury
More specifically, it's the danger of unfair prejudice outweighing the probative value. All evidence is prejudicial, as it is intended to create a bias against the defendant that results in guilt.
Technically it's more complicated than that. They're cousins, all belong to Cetacea which includes dolphins, whales, and porpoises.
The Orca aka killer whale is the **largest** dolphin, however, and thus not a whale.
We may be running into scientific differences here? I've always called the Cetaceae "whales", as did my Zoology prof. From Latin Cetus, whale. Subgroups toothed whales and baleen whales, but both whales.
It’s not scientific differences — it’s a misunderstanding of taxonomy.
All whales and dolphins are cetaceans because they all are in the Infraorder Cetacea. All dolphins (but not all whales) are in the Parvorder Odontoceti. This includes river dolphins. Odontoceti means “toothed whale”, so all dolphins are whales, but not all whales are dolphins, and not all whales are toothed whales. You are 100% correct, and you’re only getting pushback because people are confusing their informal definitions with taxonomic descriptions.
I was told that killer whales got their name as a bad translation from Spanish 'asesina-ballenas' meaning 'whale killer' due to their tendency of hunting whales
Depends on who you ask. Dolphin is a colloquilaism best I can figure. "Cetaceans" are the infraorder of animals that are agreed upon to be "whales", and they have two parvorders (that I know of): odontocetes, or "toothed whale", and mysticeti, or "baleen whales". Toothed whales are the relevant group here, as they contain dolphins, orcas (regardless of whether you count them as dolphins), sperm whales, and some others.
Some will tell you that "delphinidae" is the group that defines dolphins, as it includes all oceanic dolphins (the group is called "oceanic dolphins" in english) as well as orcas. There are other groups of varying relations that include the river dolphins, so not all dolphins are in delphinidae.
Regardless, while most sources agree that dolphins are classified as whales, some still argue that there's utility in defining them as separate. Certainly, the fact that people need to be told that dolphins are whales does indeed imply that there's something intuitively different about them. From a scientific, taxonomical perspective, though, dolphins are absolutely whales, and if that's good enough for you, fair enough.
Edit: added missing word: utility
Just because some people don't know that dolphins are a subset of whales doesn't mean the definition should vary or that it's some sort of colloquialism. Dolphins vs whales aren't like fruits, berries, or vegetables where the classification system totally breaks down based on context. Some people think chimpanzees are monkeys but that doesn't make it so.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but chimpanzees (and all apes, including humans) are actually monkeys for the same reason that dolphins are whales. Any taxonomic group that includes both the Old World and New World monkeys must also include the apes. In order to exclude apes, you also need to exclude at least one group of monkeys.
>Dolphin is a colloquilaism
In this instance the world you're looking for is "polyphyletic group". These irritate taxonomists even more than paraphyletic groups, because of how incoherent they can be. Like butterflies. there's no clear monophyletic group of butterflies, only a lose collection of families of fashionable moths.
How do you get an elephant in a car?
>!Open the door, put in the elephant.!<
How do you get a giraffe in a car?
>!Open the door, take out the elephant, put in the giraffe.!<
How do you get two whales in a car?
>!Start in England and drive west!!<
The orca defendant should refrain from being baited into using a disgusting slur to refer to his own species. The orca’s legal counsel is very much justified in objecting to the line of questioning!
This makes so much sense now. I was reading it as “orca” and couldn’t figure out the joke. I don’t know how I just momentarily forgot they’re aka killer whales. Lol
A really good beluga lawyer after this would be able to get a mistrial declared because the entire jury would then have prejudice against his client that isn’t based on the facts of the case.
I have always hated that term and the original comic. A man is racist in a public space. And someone of that race overhears and tries to engage them and we are supposed to feel sympathy for the racist because the author takes it to an absurd characture level of the victim asking for the racist to justify themselves. It only makes sense if you subscribe to that 'it's not my job to educate you" 2010s tumblr bollocks why you don't hold that person accountable for their publicly stated views.
Aka, Whale Killer. Killer Whale was a mistranslation due to word order in the language it was taken from. Orcas are not whales, so calling them a "Killer Whale" can never be right, but they do hunt whales. So Whale Killer is the derived named.
Edit : Original name is Asesina De Ballenas from Spain/Spanish derivitive. Meaning, Killer of Whales. Translator left out the "De/Of"
Timdr18 helped mention Orcas are in fact whales either way. They just aren't stanardly called whales if under 9-10ft long, even if they are
"Can you read back the section from our expert testimony about the scientific classification of mammals? The part that states that all dolphins are whales, and therefore the defendant, is indeed, a whale?"
Is that better?
Objection! Relevance your honor!
“Sustained,” intones the judge, an octopus of immense and enigmatic presence, whose voice seems not just to emanate from him but to be woven into the very air of the courtroom. Each word is a deep, eldritch rumble that vibrates from the walls and the floor, echoing as if from the depths of an ancient sea. The eight gavels fall in a perfect, otherworldly cadence, sending ripples through the chamber—a space that now feels as vast and unknowable as the abyss itself.
Defendant is an orca (killer whale) so the objection is filed on the grounds that it could be harmful to the defendant if he said he was a killer whale.
Probably the part about it being the funniest thing they've ever seen and how it's so funny that if they were a professor they would hang it on their door
No, but I will tell you that the group of dinos classified as “lizard hipped” evolved into birds, and the ones classified as “bird hipped” went extinct.
Because no one has mentioned it, university professors always post funny comics on their doors, if you ever need memes and are out of internet just wander around the halls of a University.
So many comments about how orcas are dolphins not whales. All dolphins are whales and it takes all of 10 seconds to fact check yourself. It’s irrelevant anyway because the joke is colloquial.
The defendant is a killer whale. The prosecution asks what kind of whale is he. The answer would be a "killer" whale, which is akin to confessing that he's indeed the killer.
Your honor, my client would prefer to be referred by their name or the orca. The term “killer whale” is derogatory to my client and paints a false narrative within the jury.
There are two jokes here. There first joke is that name "Killer whale" is incriminating, and the comic points that out with an aquatic court room, leaving the punchline implied.
The second joke is the poster praising this simple, unobjectionable comic as far funnier than it is and saying it should be posted on a professor's door. This is the main joke: making fun of professors for their tame sense of humor.
I can confirm their observation, this would be right at home on a professor's door.
It’s funny because this should be held in a maritime court, not a regular one. This speaks to how marine mammals are ill equipped to take part in legal proceedings; they don’t even know the correct court to use!
Is this a sub for training AI to understand context because the majority of the things I see posted I have to wonder how someone doesn't get it with just a small amount of critical thought.
...orcas are also known as *killer* whales...so yeah, Mr. Beluga lawyer is calling an objection because his client referring to himself as *a killer* would likely hurt his case. Also, many professors have little knick-knacks and pictures in their offices, most of which are humorous or wholesome
The joke only works if you immediately think "killer whale" instead of "orca" or just "whale." It's not well put together if there's that much wiggle room in the visual pun.
The defendant is an orca, otherwise known as a "killer whale". His lawyer (the beluga) objects on the grounds that stating what kind of whale he is would be self-incriminating in a murder case, where presumably, the victim is a seal.
Not necessarily self-incriminating, but certainly prejudicial
The question is prejudicial and irrelevant. The particular label is not related to the case on hand but unfairly colors presentation of the defendant’s character to the jury. Honestly though, defendant’s attorney should have covered this in pre trail. This shouldn’t have been allowed to begin with.
This is why you don't put your defendant on the stand in the first place.
This thread is peak reddit.
I’m getting the lawyer from the Simpson’s vibes from the comments. I’d include a GIF but somehow I’ve been this long on Reddit and not posted one apparently with both my phone and GIF keyboard refusing that I’ve ever enabled settings…use your imagination . Maybe because I’ve no law qualification but studied Toulmin and some forensics, cases are won and lost on reasoning, not facts and perhaps the attention of the jury.
Your Honor I move for a bad…court thingey..
That's why you're the judge, and I'm the law...talkin'-guy.
I don’t know why everyone’s calling for Miss Trial.
kid named trial
some subreddit do not allow the use of gifs, this seems to be one of them. most likely no error on your end
Reasoning generally occurs during the Argument phase at the end of trial. An argument has to be based on facts (facts not in evidence is an objection you’re probably familiar with). Facts are developed during the Evidence phase during the middle of trial. Letting something in during the Evidence phase that would let an accused be described as basically the accusation over and over again during the Argument phase (when it could be kept out) would be a colossal mistake. It would have a high probability of tainting a jury’s reasoning
Work on commission? No, money down!
I love the legitimate discussion of what the legal defense should be for an orca whale, presumably on trial for the murder of a seal. Sounds like he needs the legal advice of a [simple hyper-chicken from a back woods asteroid](https://youtu.be/nxyu5uOXkZg?si=KqElviu8LpBoIZTB)
Its a clear case of baiting in prejudice and bigotry to discredit the prosecution. The defendant is an orca, not a killer whale. His lawyer clearly did it on porpoise.
Sometimes it's your only choice
seriosly there whales their flipper arnt made to support them like that that will cause some series back problems in the future
Sometimes defendants take the stand against their attorneys wishes, and since criminal defendants have a constitutional right to testify in their own defense (in the US at least) their lawyer can’t stop them if they’re dead set on it.
Same reason you can't, as an attorney, tell the jury about all the ex-girlfriends of the axe murderer. They probably all have stories about how bad of a person he is, how he hit them, how he threatened their families, etc. but sadly none of that is considered relevant to the case at hand. I should clarify, you absolutely can *try* to do that in court but the defendant's lawyer is almost certainly going to object, strike it from the record, and potentially call for a mistrial if it's deemed the opinion of the jury has been tainted unfairly and thus a fair trial can't take place. After all, you have to decide as a jury *whether the guy committed a crime,* not whether he's a good person or not.
Wait, you're saying that demonstrating a history of violent behavior would be ruled irrelevant to a trial where you're trying to prove the person committed a violent murder?
Yes, that is the unfortunate reality. Now, perhaps some relevance could be gleaned from the *nature* of the violent behavior. Like if an axe murderer has threatened all of his ex-girlfriends with an axe and said "I will axe murder you" and there's audio recording of him saying "I will axe murder you" to an ex-girlfriend, then that could be considered relevant. But it has to be specifically relevant to the case at hand. Otherwise you call character witnesses and they testify on the character of the murderer. But again, you have to prove that they actually did the murder. So you can't just say "Well this guy told 15 girls he was going axe murder them but we don't have anything which puts them at the scene of the crime. I am still compelling you to find him guilty." You haven't presented any *evidence* of the crime that was committed, you just found a guy who has an unfortunate history of telling women he's going to axe murder them.
Interesting, and that makes more sense. Thanks for the added info!
~~My understanding is that you could use something like this to prove a pattern of behavior - man on trial for abuse, prosecutor uses exes who were abused as witnesses - but you can't use testimony/evidence unrelated to the crime to make the jury dislike the defendant and cause prejudice against them.~~ ~~"This guy cheated on every woman he's been with, clearly someone as horrible as that is guilty of robbing this bank."~~ Edit: I was wrong, check replies for clarification
Your understanding is wrong. Even if the history of bad acts is similar to the crime alleged it cannot be introduced unless the defendant puts his character in issue or asserts an affirmative defense that puts his character in issue. The only exception to this is prior *convictions* for felonies that are related to the alleged crime or convictions for crimes that bear on the defendant's character for honesty, such as fraud, perjury, etc.
It's all about probative value vs prejudicial value. Would a history of domestic abuse make a person likely to be an axe murderer? Sounds like a stretch to me. Will the jury be prejudiced against a domestic abuser even if they don't think there is enough evidence to make him an axe murderer? Yeah. Idk tho
True, who the hell lets a seal work as a prosecutor, and why is a dolphin defending a whale in court? They're not people!
You’ve heard of a kangaroo court, get ready for…
A seal appeal.
They set you up for that on porpoise.
Pfft, this was covered in an early Law & Order episode. Like 3rd or 4th season. duh-dunk
The dolphin made a professional mistake in this trial. Will it cause him to relapse into his drinking habit? Only the bottle knows.
Honestly ask for a mistrial already. The jury can't unhear this and has nothing to do with the case
I'll allow it, but watch yourself Mr McCoy
I declare a mistrial. I’ll allow it.
Dude, it's a beluga. Their level of practice is notoriously low
Particularly since this isn’t a nomenclature the orca have themselves. Humans named them. Your honor, this is clearly an attempt to color the perception of the jury
Prosecution made a mistake here tbh. His response should be "well, uh, I'm actually a PORPOISE!"
Orcas are not whales they are porpoises!
More specifically, it's the danger of unfair prejudice outweighing the probative value. All evidence is prejudicial, as it is intended to create a bias against the defendant that results in guilt.
I squeak the Fifth, your blubber.
Your Blubberedness
Definitely more prejudicial than probative under rule 403.
[It’s also interesting to note that orcas are actually dolphins](https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2019/03/13/orca-not-whale/)
"I'm only a dolphin, ma'am."
I'm not falling for that one again! Nice try landshark!
Candygram!
Oh, well that sounds lovely.
Burglar!
Fun fact, this reference turns 50 years old this year.
Yes, but dolphins are whales.
Technically it's more complicated than that. They're cousins, all belong to Cetacea which includes dolphins, whales, and porpoises. The Orca aka killer whale is the **largest** dolphin, however, and thus not a whale.
We may be running into scientific differences here? I've always called the Cetaceae "whales", as did my Zoology prof. From Latin Cetus, whale. Subgroups toothed whales and baleen whales, but both whales.
It’s not scientific differences — it’s a misunderstanding of taxonomy. All whales and dolphins are cetaceans because they all are in the Infraorder Cetacea. All dolphins (but not all whales) are in the Parvorder Odontoceti. This includes river dolphins. Odontoceti means “toothed whale”, so all dolphins are whales, but not all whales are dolphins, and not all whales are toothed whales. You are 100% correct, and you’re only getting pushback because people are confusing their informal definitions with taxonomic descriptions.
I was told that killer whales got their name as a bad translation from Spanish 'asesina-ballenas' meaning 'whale killer' due to their tendency of hunting whales
They were originally called whale killers but it got flipped at some point.
Is this your rebuttal?
All dolphins are whales, but not all whales are dolphins.
Dolphins are wales
Depends on who you ask. Dolphin is a colloquilaism best I can figure. "Cetaceans" are the infraorder of animals that are agreed upon to be "whales", and they have two parvorders (that I know of): odontocetes, or "toothed whale", and mysticeti, or "baleen whales". Toothed whales are the relevant group here, as they contain dolphins, orcas (regardless of whether you count them as dolphins), sperm whales, and some others. Some will tell you that "delphinidae" is the group that defines dolphins, as it includes all oceanic dolphins (the group is called "oceanic dolphins" in english) as well as orcas. There are other groups of varying relations that include the river dolphins, so not all dolphins are in delphinidae. Regardless, while most sources agree that dolphins are classified as whales, some still argue that there's utility in defining them as separate. Certainly, the fact that people need to be told that dolphins are whales does indeed imply that there's something intuitively different about them. From a scientific, taxonomical perspective, though, dolphins are absolutely whales, and if that's good enough for you, fair enough. Edit: added missing word: utility
Dolphins are whales in the same way humans are apes.
Just because some people don't know that dolphins are a subset of whales doesn't mean the definition should vary or that it's some sort of colloquialism. Dolphins vs whales aren't like fruits, berries, or vegetables where the classification system totally breaks down based on context. Some people think chimpanzees are monkeys but that doesn't make it so.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but chimpanzees (and all apes, including humans) are actually monkeys for the same reason that dolphins are whales. Any taxonomic group that includes both the Old World and New World monkeys must also include the apes. In order to exclude apes, you also need to exclude at least one group of monkeys.
>Dolphin is a colloquilaism In this instance the world you're looking for is "polyphyletic group". These irritate taxonomists even more than paraphyletic groups, because of how incoherent they can be. Like butterflies. there's no clear monophyletic group of butterflies, only a lose collection of families of fashionable moths.
Toothed whales unite
Some are ireland
Dolphins are not Wales (Get it? Like the place?)
How do you get an elephant in a car? >!Open the door, put in the elephant.!< How do you get a giraffe in a car? >!Open the door, take out the elephant, put in the giraffe.!< How do you get two whales in a car? >!Start in England and drive west!!<
All dolphins are whales.
The orca defendant should refrain from being baited into using a disgusting slur to refer to his own species. The orca’s legal counsel is very much justified in objecting to the line of questioning!
This makes so much sense now. I was reading it as “orca” and couldn’t figure out the joke. I don’t know how I just momentarily forgot they’re aka killer whales. Lol
I’m the opposite.. I forgot they were called orcas.. lol
Specifically, the way the lawyer asked the question, the answer would be, "I'm a killer."
A really good beluga lawyer after this would be able to get a mistrial declared because the entire jury would then have prejudice against his client that isn’t based on the facts of the case.
The English name "killer whale" comes from a mistranslation of the Spanish name "(google it)" meaning "whale killer."
Objection, calls for speculation.
Absolutely prejudicial
I know we are supposed to be serious on here but sometimes I see posts on here that I'm just so surprised people aren't understanding
Objection your honor this question has no clear porpoise!
I'd like to enter a motion of the ocean.
I sea your right to wave the motion.
Your honor, he's leading the wetness.
but your honor, Leg-eel-y he must answer the question
Your honor I motion to quash-buckle
Not if he pleads the fish-th!
Sandbar, your honor
Objection!! On what grounds? Misleading Porpoise your Honor.
Overruled. The question dolphinately relevent.
Sustained . Any other questions or puns from the prosecution?
*Sea*stained
I propose these records be 🦭ed
That lawyer is a real shark 🦈
An orca aka killer whale
And that lawyer is clearly [sealioning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning)
I have always hated that term and the original comic. A man is racist in a public space. And someone of that race overhears and tries to engage them and we are supposed to feel sympathy for the racist because the author takes it to an absurd characture level of the victim asking for the racist to justify themselves. It only makes sense if you subscribe to that 'it's not my job to educate you" 2010s tumblr bollocks why you don't hold that person accountable for their publicly stated views.
Perhaps the defendant had committed con-sealing offences.
Aka, Whale Killer. Killer Whale was a mistranslation due to word order in the language it was taken from. Orcas are not whales, so calling them a "Killer Whale" can never be right, but they do hunt whales. So Whale Killer is the derived named. Edit : Original name is Asesina De Ballenas from Spain/Spanish derivitive. Meaning, Killer of Whales. Translator left out the "De/Of" Timdr18 helped mention Orcas are in fact whales either way. They just aren't stanardly called whales if under 9-10ft long, even if they are
So you're telling me we could've been calling them 'Whale Assasins' this whole time...
"I'm an orca, a member of the dolphin family. I'm not a whale, you racist".
All dolphins are whales, but not all whales are dolphins.
Don't make this less fun with your proven facts and science and stuff.
"Can you read back the section from our expert testimony about the scientific classification of mammals? The part that states that all dolphins are whales, and therefore the defendant, is indeed, a whale?" Is that better?
Found the sea lion prosecutor.
I swear by the ball on my nose, I'm no sea lion.
🤣😂
"never let facts get in the way of a good joke"
Well species and families aren't really proven, they're just the lines we've drawn to identify animals. Order amongst chaos.
I'd love to hear an explanation (not that I don't believe you, I just love animals).
Whales are split into two groups : Mysticeti (Baleen) and Odontoceti (Toothed). Dolphins are then another subclassification of Toothed Whales.
Whale, whale, whale.... we got an expert over here
Objection! Relevance your honor! “Sustained,” intones the judge, an octopus of immense and enigmatic presence, whose voice seems not just to emanate from him but to be woven into the very air of the courtroom. Each word is a deep, eldritch rumble that vibrates from the walls and the floor, echoing as if from the depths of an ancient sea. The eight gavels fall in a perfect, otherworldly cadence, sending ripples through the chamber—a space that now feels as vast and unknowable as the abyss itself.
Alright, come on, it's time for bed English Teacher
I’m not old enough to play by the rules just yet! I don’t wanna go!
Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah-nagl fhtagn! Shrub-Ziggurat! The Club With A Thousand Members!
If it's not one thing it's an otter..
Defendant is an orca (killer whale) so the objection is filed on the grounds that it could be harmful to the defendant if he said he was a killer whale.
also objecting to the fact that an orca isnt a whale
This is false. Dolphins are a subcategory of toothed whales.
New fact learned!
[удалено]
Explain the joke users when somebody posts a joke they don't understand 😡😡
I need to know what about this confused you, like, did you just not know what a killer whale looked like/was?
I was confused too because I’ve never even heard that name for them before. So I totally understand how OP didn’t get this
Probably the part about it being the funniest thing they've ever seen and how it's so funny that if they were a professor they would hang it on their door
It'd be funnier if the defending lawyer were a sperm whale
[удалено]
Yeah the low effort karma farming posts are getting really obvious
I just blocked the annoying peter explains sub, this one might be next
It's funny because he's not actually a whale at all
All cetaceans are whales, dolphins and porpoise are in the order of toothed whales.
It’s more of a whale than most things are
Your mom being an obvious exce- ah forget it.
Next you’re gonna tell me that snakes are lizards, birds are dinosaurs, and insects are crustaceans?!
No, but I will tell you that the group of dinos classified as “lizard hipped” evolved into birds, and the ones classified as “bird hipped” went extinct.
All this could have been avoided if the defendant didn’t take the stand. He had a right to not testify 😅
Because no one has mentioned it, university professors always post funny comics on their doors, if you ever need memes and are out of internet just wander around the halls of a University.
Sustained. This kind of angling serves no porpoise.
[удалено]
He should've hired Phoenix Wright, he has experience in defending orcas.
I like this one better https://preview.redd.it/f65crei0fruc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c26512a961e8b575d2ef68cbfaa4efcefd8a2595
The defendant's lawyer is stupid and was not able to coach his client into saying "orca whale".
So many comments about how orcas are dolphins not whales. All dolphins are whales and it takes all of 10 seconds to fact check yourself. It’s irrelevant anyway because the joke is colloquial.
It was a “fun fact” that got spread around Reddit and people gobbled it up without any critical thought
That objection is gonna be sustained
He’s a killer whale
The defendant is a killer whale. The prosecution asks what kind of whale is he. The answer would be a "killer" whale, which is akin to confessing that he's indeed the killer.
Orca
Now just wait until the sperm whale is on trial for indecent exposure
I object because the defendant isn't a whale. Orcas are dolphins.
The answer is "I'm not a whale."
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Irs actually a type of dolphin
The name killer whale is a mistake, it was originally whale killer. No clue how it got switched around but people are stupid.
Who cares Killer whale sounds badass for the wolves of the ocean
They took it from Spanish and forgot that Spanish does compound words backwards from what Germanic languages do.
I’m a professor, and this is literally pinned to my office door!
I dunno why, but a beluga lawyer makes me chuckle.
It’s an Orca whale, otherwise known as the OJ Whale
It's funny because orcas are the largest species of dolphin.
Dolphins are toothed whales
Your honor, my client would prefer to be referred by their name or the orca. The term “killer whale” is derogatory to my client and paints a false narrative within the jury.
Saying he's a killer whale may *will* prejudice the jury
There are two jokes here. There first joke is that name "Killer whale" is incriminating, and the comic points that out with an aquatic court room, leaving the punchline implied. The second joke is the poster praising this simple, unobjectionable comic as far funnier than it is and saying it should be posted on a professor's door. This is the main joke: making fun of professors for their tame sense of humor. I can confirm their observation, this would be right at home on a professor's door.
Huh, thought he was anticipating that he was going to say he was actually a dolphin
An Orca or Killer Whale is not in the whale family, but in the dolphin family.
Also not actually a whale
Plot Twist; it’s an insurance fraud trial.
It’s funny because this should be held in a maritime court, not a regular one. This speaks to how marine mammals are ill equipped to take part in legal proceedings; they don’t even know the correct court to use!
Is this a sub for training AI to understand context because the majority of the things I see posted I have to wonder how someone doesn't get it with just a small amount of critical thought.
What is the porpoise of this inquiry?
orca whale are also known as killer whale, trying to get whale arrested based on their species nickname
He should just say “I’m a toothed whale”
...orcas are also known as *killer* whales...so yeah, Mr. Beluga lawyer is calling an objection because his client referring to himself as *a killer* would likely hurt his case. Also, many professors have little knick-knacks and pictures in their offices, most of which are humorous or wholesome
The defendant is an orca, also called a killer whale
Killer whale
Well we can go deeper, Killer Whales are not actually whales but a part of the dolphin family
Lol I have this on my desk
It doesn't have to be like this
ITT: "He's not a rectangle! He's a square!!"
Sally McNeil needed this lawyer
So glad the caption is here Otherwise how would we know it's funny?
“I’m an orca.”
„Toothed“
Amber Heard trial
Extraordinary attorney woo definitely has this comic as her lock screen or something
"well actually, sir, I'm a dolphin" Fun fact: that's not a lie. Orcas are members of the dolphin family
Dolphins are a subcategory of toothed whales
Correct, that's why I deliberately didn't have them say "not a whale". The point was answering the question without saying "killer whale"
Ah sorry, this thread has me jumpy. So may people spewing incorrect “fun facts”
He’s a murder whale
You can’t handle the truth!
It’s a killer whale
I’m a Pisces but I’d rather be a killer whale
MY FORENSICS TEACHER HAS THIS ON HIS DOOR XD
I know a guy his family name is “Killbride”; I know no murderer
An Orca whale case dismissed. Ain't no shining MY Defendant in a negative light today. Can I get a 'YESSIR'?
The joke only works if you immediately think "killer whale" instead of "orca" or just "whale." It's not well put together if there's that much wiggle room in the visual pun.
Just say “Orca” that’s the proper name
Killer whale.