Today's Doofus is from Queensland, Australia.
A 21-YEAR-OLD Bundamba man will face court after he allegedly tattooed an unwanted lewd image and slogan on his mate’s back.
Police allege the man, who was not a professional tattooist, talked his friend into having the tattoo while the friend was visiting him at home.
After the 25-year-old victim got home, he was horrified to discover the tattoo was far from what he expected.
Instead of a Yin and Yang symbol with some dragons, the tattoo featured a 40cm-long image of a penis and a slogan implying he was gay.
He contacted police and they charged the 21-year-old Bundamba man with assault occasioning bodily harm.
The tattoo victim now faces the pain and expense of having the tattoo removed with a laser.
Police allege the tattooing followed a disagreement between the pair that culminated with the Bundamba man taking offence at something the victim said.
Ipswich CIB Detective Constable Paul Malcolm said the victim was extremely upset.
“Apparently he went round to the other bloke’s house and somehow in the course of the conversation the subject of tattoos came up,” Const Malcolm said.
“The victim wasn’t interested at first but he was talked into it and he said he wanted a Yin and Yang symbol with some dragons.
“He rolled him on to his stomach and the bloke started doing the tattoo and there was another bloke standing there watching saying, ‘Mate, it’s looking really good’.
“He was told not to go out into the sun and not to show anyone for a few weeks.
“When he got home he showed it to the person he lives with and she said: ‘I don’t think it’s the tattoo you were after’.”
There's more at the link.
With friends like that, who needs enemies? I would say that the victim is probably feeling the prick of conscience by now . . . but that would be unkind, so I won't.
Peter
I seemed to remember a similar incident a few years ago that led to murder. IIRC, the recipient of the tattoo murdered the instigator and was charged with 2nd degree murder. He was convicted of a lessor offense and got just a few years and was out on parole not long after.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck my memory was a statement from witnesses and jurors that they thought the man convicted has some justification but not enough to get him off completely.
And why is the victim responsible for the cost of removal? That should be part of the sentence for the offender.
ReplyDeleteHere's my nomination for another doofus award.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.news.com.au/national/unlicensed-teenager-caught-tailgating-police/story-e6frfkvr-1225944492421
Andrew