If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Department of Justice)   Here's the DoJ press release detailing how everything went down for the various charges. An interesting read regardless   (justice.gov) divider line 102
    More: Interesting, DOJ, Tsarnaev, Massachusetts State Police, senseless violence, Boston Police Department, Homeland Security Investigations, weapons of mass destruction, Boston Marathon  
•       •       •

9388 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2013 at 3:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-22 02:55:50 PM
That's actually a very good read. Interesting how it went down.
 
2013-04-22 03:00:49 PM
Here's the actual complaint detailing all this (it's at the bottom of this page, but it's a PDF so I didn't know if I could directly link to it for a story)
 
2013-04-22 03:15:19 PM
They're going to plead him down to Man 1, time served.

/only knows Law&Order justice system
 
2013-04-22 03:18:09 PM
Try him for the murder of his brother while we're waiting for the other cases to come together.
 
2013-04-22 03:19:59 PM

ourbigdumbmouth: They're going to plead him down to Man 1, time served.

/only knows Law&Order justice system


But that's only because he is giving them info on the Big Fish. Info which will later be deemed inadmissible at Big Fish's trial, leading to much consternation at the 45 minute mark of the episode.
 
2013-04-22 03:21:37 PM
Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.
 
2013-04-22 03:23:41 PM
Is it just me or was that actually very bland and uninformative?
 
2013-04-22 03:23:48 PM

JohnnyC: Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.


I was wondering about that -- did the PATRIOT Act create some kind of new legal definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or something like that?
 
2013-04-22 03:25:39 PM

HiFiGuy: Try him for the murder of his brother while we're waiting for the other cases to come together.


I like that - let him stew in a very public trial and rot from the inside-out under prosecution and conviction of killing his own bro for the next ## years.  This,  until justice is actually served.

/Put his arse on suicide watch and remind him every day that he killed his brother.
 
2013-04-22 03:26:32 PM

HiFiGuy: Try him for the murder of his brother while we're waiting for the other cases to come together.


No kidding. It was being run over that killed him.
 
2013-04-22 03:26:36 PM

Arkanaut: JohnnyC: Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.

I was wondering about that -- did the PATRIOT Act create some kind of new legal definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or something like that?


The civil and military definition have been different for some time.

For the purposes of US [28] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
any destructive device defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[29]any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursorsany weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vectorany weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[30]The <a data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_In vestigation" title="Federal Bureau of Investigation">Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[31]
any explosive or incendiary device, as defined in Title 18 USC, Section 921: bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine, or other device with a charge of more than four ouncesany weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursorsany weapon involving a disease organismany weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human lifeany device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.
 
2013-04-22 03:26:39 PM

JohnnyC: Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.


I guess the question should be asked, would the Columbine shooters be charged with WMD charges? Or McVeigh, I don't remember if he was. If he did then maybe they're justified, but if McVeigh didn't get charged with a WMD charge, and he killed ~45x more people than these two, then the WMD charges for Tsarnaev are clearly politically motivated. If McVeigh was charged with WMD charges then there's precedent for it.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-22 03:27:02 PM
If my taxes are so high, why is my government's web site still slow?
 
2013-04-22 03:27:05 PM
Can't believe we didn't find any pressure cookers in Iraq...
 
2013-04-22 03:27:48 PM
FTFA:The statutory chargesauthorize a penalty, upon conviction, of death or imprisonment for life or any term of years.

Death? Does that mean that this is a federal case? Sorry if I'm being an ignorant foreigner, but everything else seems to say Massachusetts, which I understand is part of the civilised world.
 
2013-04-22 03:27:49 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: Is it just me or was that actually very bland and uninformative?


read the criminal complaint, (linked at the bottom of TFA and second post here) and it goes into details as to how it all went down in the timeline of things.

for me, that's interesting

/but I'm weird/morbid
 
2013-04-22 03:28:08 PM

somedude210: JohnnyC: Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.

I guess the question should be asked, would the Columbine shooters be charged with WMD charges? Or McVeigh, I don't remember if he was. If he did then maybe they're justified, but if McVeigh didn't get charged with a WMD charge, and he killed ~45x more people than these two, then the WMD charges for Tsarnaev are clearly politically motivated. If McVeigh was charged with WMD charges then there's precedent for it.


He was.
 
2013-04-22 03:28:45 PM
A WMD for legal purposes is any explosive device bigger than a certain minimum size that's intended to harm someone or cause a lot of property damage. A stick of dynamite thrown into a crowd could be a WMD, or a bunch of M-80's tied together. I suppose they could try and make the WMD charge stick if you took a bunch of firecrackers and stuffed them into a glass jar and set them off somewhere in public, if it was done maliciously.
 
2013-04-22 03:28:57 PM

tommyl66: ourbigdumbmouth: They're going to plead him down to Man 1, time served.

/only knows Law&Order justice system

But that's only because he is giving them info on the Big Fish. Info which will later be deemed inadmissible at Big Fish's trial, leading to much consternation at the 45 minute mark of the episode.


My question is, did the brother of one of the detectives find some seemingly criminal disturbance and go out of his way to resolve the disturbance, finding out that there's really some heartwarming story that compassion and understanding could overcome in order to resolve it without an arrest?

Does the patriarch of the family quietly find a loophole to nail them all while making it look like he was staying neutral in all of it?

/only knows BlueBloods justice
 
2013-04-22 03:32:35 PM

orbister: FTFA:The statutory chargesauthorize a penalty, upon conviction, of death or imprisonment for life or any term of years.

Death? Does that mean that this is a federal case? Sorry if I'm being an ignorant foreigner, but everything else seems to say Massachusetts, which I understand is part of the civilised world.


Yes, these are Federal charges.  You'll notice they did not charge him (or even mention) the murder of the MIT police officer, and did not charge him the car jacking.  Those charges are likely being reserved for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to file, in the event the Federal case gets totally FUBARed.
 
2013-04-22 03:34:04 PM
The charges are actually pretty interesting, from a commerce clause jurisprudence standpoint.
 
2013-04-22 03:37:31 PM

Theaetetus: The charges are actually pretty interesting, from a commerce clause jurisprudence standpoint.


How's that?
 
2013-04-22 03:37:32 PM

Warthog: Yes, these are Federal charges.  You'll notice they did not charge him (or even mention) the murder of the MIT police officer, and did not charge him the car jacking.  Those charges are likely being reserved for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to file, in the event the Federal case gets totally FUBARed.


Thank you. Could you (or someone) possible give me a short summary of when federal as opposed to state charges are used, or point me to something that explains it? In my ignorant foreigner way I thought federal charges normally mean you had to do something naughty across a state border.
 
2013-04-22 03:38:23 PM

orbister: Sorry if I'm being an ignorant foreigner, but everything else seems to say Massachusetts, which I understand is part of the civilised world.


It's the [Federal]  District of Massachusetts. We have a bifurcated system with state courts and federal courts, which, for convenience, tend to be organized around state lines (or subsections in big states, such as the Eastern District of Texas, or the Northern District of California). Federal courts hear federal cases, state courts hear state cases.
In this case, he'll likely be charged with both state crimes (murder, property destruction, carjacking, illegal firearms use, etc., etc.) as well as these federal crimes. It's not double jeopardy because they're different crimes, with different criminal statutes, in different jurisdictions.
 
2013-04-22 03:38:26 PM

narocroc: Can't believe we didn't find any pressure cookers in Iraq...


Just a bunch of crock pots.
 
2013-04-22 03:40:55 PM

JohnnyC: Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.


It's an abbreviation for a weapon of Massachusetts destruction.
 
2013-04-22 03:40:59 PM
Sorry, didn't read the whole thing. If he's being charged by the DOJ with the WMD charge, does that mean that MA will be able to charge him with the cop-killing on a star level?
 
2013-04-22 03:41:22 PM
That's IRRegardless, jerko. Get it right.
 
2013-04-22 03:42:19 PM

propasaurus: Sorry, didn't read the whole thing. If he's being charged by the DOJ with the WMD charge, does that mean that MA will be able to charge him with the cop-killing on a star STATE level?


FTFM
 
2013-04-22 03:43:08 PM
Yeah, there should really be something between 'weapon of mass destruction' and 'weapon' ... I mean, having a nuclear bomb and pipe bomb carry the same weight in court is a tad silly. But pipe bombs should carry more weight than a gun. Eh.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-22 03:43:31 PM
orbister

In some cases the law requires interstate travel as an element of the crime, in others some interstate effect is sufficient. When the law merely requires an interstate effect, the jurisdictional barrier is trivial to surmount. Some businesses in Boston cater to out of state visitors and closed after the explosion.

So if I get a time machine I think I'm going to take out FDR and his court.
 
2013-04-22 03:44:12 PM

orbister: I thought federal charges normally mean you had to do something naughty across a state border.


Or anything that has an impact on interstate commerce. That's a really easy thing to establish. Here, not only does the race bring people in from out of state but the explosions shut down roads and stores for a few days. So, it impacted interstate commerce.
 
2013-04-22 03:45:16 PM

JohnnyC: Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.


170 wounded or killed people might disagree with you.
Nuclear WMD is no different.  It would just come with a declaration of war stapled to it.
 
2013-04-22 03:45:47 PM

JohnnyC: Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.


My thoughts, exactly.
 
2013-04-22 03:45:52 PM

Cork on Fork: orbister: I thought federal charges normally mean you had to do something naughty across a state border.

Or anything that has an impact on interstate commerce. That's a really easy thing to establish. Here, not only does the race bring people in from out of state but the explosions shut down roads and stores for a few days. So, it impacted interstate commerce.


Exactly.  That's why they had all that seemingly tangential language in the document about how many people come from other places for the race, and how much commerce the race generates.
 
2013-04-22 03:47:18 PM

propasaurus: Sorry, didn't read the whole thing. If he's being charged by the DOJ with the WMD charge, does that mean that MA will be able to charge him with the cop-killing on a star level?


Yes. They could also charge him with state crimes of murder, attempted murder, gun possession, carjacking, robbery (stealing the guy's ATM card), disorderly conduct, breaking into that guy's boat... etc.
 
2013-04-22 03:48:42 PM

Bravo Two: Theaetetus: The charges are actually pretty interesting, from a commerce clause jurisprudence standpoint.

How's that?


Well, the super short version is that Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution gives Congress power to do a whole bunch of things, but legislate crimes really isn't one of them - that's instead reserved to the states. Nonetheless, Congress has some power to do so under the Commerce Clause, which allows them to regulate interstate commerce and pass any laws necessary and proper to do so, including criminal laws. So, they can make it a crime to transport hazardous materials across state lines, easy. Or transport child porn across state lines via the internet. They can also make it a crime to, say, murder an interstate trucker, or do any number of things that are related to interstate or foreign commerce.

A while back, however, things got a bit strange in Wickard v. Filburn. There was a tax on wheat production past a certain limit, to protect interstate prices. The farmer who got hit with the fine for growing too much claimed that he was growing the excess amount for purely personal use. The Supreme Court said that that still has an effect on interstate commerce, since it increases the amount he could sell to others. So, purely in-state stuff can still fall under the Commerce Clause.

But then, in US v. Lopez, the Court said that a federal statute criminalizing possession of guns in school zones was unconstitutional, because, even though a gun was probably made in a different state and has passed through interstate commerce, the gun-school zone thing itself has nothing to do with interstate commerce. And they followed that up with US v. Morrison saying that the domestic violence criminalized in the VAWA also has only an indirect link on interstate commerce, and that Congress was really trying to criminalize the act and not regulate interstate commerce, and they don't have that power.

So, how about here? The statutes the guy's charged under both refer to things that "affect interstate commerce", but they're being read broadly enough to basically include "any economic activity," because we have a national economy. They're not really regulating interstate commerce, but criminalizing an act. And under Lopez and Morrison, that's unconstitutional.

There's a lot more complexity than just that, but that's sort of the base argument.
 
2013-04-22 03:50:36 PM

Warthog: seemingly tangential language


Yeah, that's what a lot of people won't get. And they will start complaining about how the government is concerned about losing money or something.
 
2013-04-22 03:52:47 PM

ZAZ: In some cases the law requires interstate travel as an element of the crime, in others some interstate effect is sufficient. When the law merely requires an interstate effect, the jurisdictional barrier is trivial to surmount. Some businesses in Boston cater to out of state visitors and closed after the explosion.


That may not be enough anymore, after Lopez and Morrison:
The Court explained that the need to distinguish between economic activities that directly and those that indirectly affect interstate commerce was due to "the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution's distinction between national and local authority." Referring to Lopez, the Court said: "Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional State concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and State authority would blur." The majority further stated, "t is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign." Justice Thomas's concurring opinion also expressed the concern that "Congress [was] appropriating State police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
 
2013-04-22 03:57:58 PM

JPSimonetti: Yeah, there should really be something between 'weapon of mass destruction' and 'weapon' ... I mean, having a nuclear bomb and pipe bomb carry the same weight in court is a tad silly. But pipe bombs should carry more weight than a gun. Eh.


Well tangent here...

The US Gov has slowly been decreasing the bar at which all things are elevated to 'serious' crimes or felonies.  The idea being that if they make it much, much easier to a charge someone with something very heinous with incredible penalties, then the easier it is to get a plea bargain (95+% of all fed cases never see trial) and / or the easier it is to reach out and touch people that are on the 'bad' list with the fickle finger of fate.

The corollary to this is that at any given time every single person in the this thread has probably committed several felonies but they have not been the subject of being looked at by the feds yet, but if they were to be it would be much easier to investigate and prosecute.

if one was to follow the logical extension of what they are using as 'WMD' definitions for this thread, US soldiers are walking WMDs and giving someone tetanus by hitting them with a rusty nail is too.
 
2013-04-22 04:01:48 PM

JohnnyC: Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.


If you read the actual language on what is a weapon of mass destruction, you might be shocked to find what all is listed there.  If you use a sawed off shotgun, you have committed a crime with a WMD.  Same thing for any automated weapon.   Some large fireworks you can pick up in Tennessee are also, if used towards a group, WMDs.
 
2013-04-22 04:06:09 PM

orbister: Death? Does that mean that this is a federal case? Sorry if I'm being an ignorant foreigner, but everything else seems to say Massachusetts, which I understand is part of the civilised world.


The US federal government is filing charges.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts is the local prosecutors office for the federal government.
 
2013-04-22 04:07:23 PM

FitzShivering: JohnnyC: Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.

If you read the actual language on what is a weapon of mass destruction, you might be shocked to find what all is listed there.  If you use a sawed off shotgun, you have committed a crime with a WMD.  Same thing for any automated weapon.   Some large fireworks you can pick up in Tennessee are also, if used towards a group, WMDs.


Not a shotgun, but many other things:
18 USC 2332a(c)(2): "The  term "weapon of mass destruction" means - (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title..."
and 18 USC 921:
(4)The term "destructive device" means-
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas-(i) bomb,(ii) grenade,(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,(v) mine, or(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

But:
The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device... or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

So, potato gun? Maybe yes, maybe no. Basically depends on how hard they want to nail you.
 
2013-04-22 04:09:14 PM
well, i guess iraq actually DID have wmd's then. of course, so does the fireworks shop down the road.
 
2013-04-22 04:10:16 PM

mopar1956: Arkanaut: JohnnyC: Suspect in Boston Marathon Attack Charged with Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I think this is a stupid way to charge him. Neither of those bombs strike me as being "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Nuclear weapons, large scale biological or chemical weapons... those are weapons of mass destruction. A homemade pressure cooker shrapnel bomb... It is a weapon. It does create destruction, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction... not even remotely.

I was wondering about that -- did the PATRIOT Act create some kind of new legal definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or something like that?

The civil and military definition have been different for some time.

For the purposes of US [28] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
any destructive device defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[29]any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursorsany weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vectorany weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[30]The <a data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_In vestigation" title="Federal Bureau of Investigation">Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[31]
any explosive or incendiary device, as defined in Title 18 USC, Section 921: bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine, or other device with a charge of more than four ouncesany weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their prec ...


So I guess Road Flares are WMD's too?
 
2013-04-22 04:10:44 PM

somedude210: The Dog Ate My Homework: Is it just me or was that actually very bland and uninformative?

read the criminal complaint, (linked at the bottom of TFA and second post here) and it goes into details as to how it all went down in the timeline of things.

for me, that's interesting

/but I'm weird/morbid


I'm with you. The complaint shows the detailed, step-by-step connecting of all the dots, as well as how the prosecution is attempting to show that all the necessary elements of the crime are present.

It's not the sexiest part of police work, but it's how the legal system works.
 
2013-04-22 04:10:46 PM
"Sir I have a movie idea"
"Are you kidding, we gave up that crazy shiat in the 80's with coke as well, now get out before you're fired"
 
2013-04-22 04:11:09 PM

Theaetetus: The charges are actually pretty interesting, from a commerce clause jurisprudence standpoint.


The bombing itself falls under federal regulation of explosives clauses.
 
2013-04-22 04:17:40 PM

somedude210: Here's the actual complaint detailing all this (it's at the bottom of this page, but it's a PDF so I didn't know if I could directly link to it for a story)


So, they didn't include the cop shooting or him killing his brother in this outline of charges. Guess that will come later?
 
2013-04-22 04:18:16 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: Is it just me or was that actually very bland and uninformative?


No it isn't just you; it was actually very bland and uninformative. I think subby needs to review what the word 'interesting' means.
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report