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.

(WPTV)   Will the prosecution cry "Uncle" after GZ's uncle's testimony? Will the judge rule that the defense can't present a defense because it might cause the jury to decide "not guilty"? Will these Zimmerman trial threads ever end? Not today   (wptv.com) divider line 1158
    More: Followup, George Zimmerman, prosecutors, uncles, jury  
•       •       •

5208 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2013 at 9:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-08 02:11:39 PM

bigpete53: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You... you know that's not a population map... Right?

You ... you know you have to drive for 4-8 hours to get to the "not Deep South" parts of FL, right?

lantawa: Why would you say this even after you saw how it worked out for the movie character who chose to say it? I mean, it sounds real tough and all, but it sorta puts a kabosh on you before you even get started.

I just like the line.


It is a good line....
 
2013-07-08 02:12:00 PM
BDLR keeps saying "as a good investigator" in a back handed type of way
 
2013-07-08 02:12:35 PM

creepy ass-cracka: The prosecution keeps trying sway with emotion. It's all they got. Even though it has nothing to do with GZ's culpability.


not only that, but earlier downright lied by saying that Zimmerman said 'He's a black male, farking punk'
 
2013-07-08 02:12:49 PM
This is relatively stupid line of questioning.
 
2013-07-08 02:13:09 PM

omeganuepsilon: Elegy: omeganuepsilon: Cool, they got exception to hearsay.

Not watching right now, Sereno's testimony about Tracy Martin is coming in?

Yup, Sereno got to testify that Tracy said it wasn't his son's voice.

On cross now, prosecution is pursuing emotional trauma for Tracy, and ergo not meaning/knowing or in denial, etc.


He's definitely trying to spin the answer to Serino's question as being in denial about Martin's death.
 
2013-07-08 02:13:51 PM
redmid17:
We don't want the Irish!

Don't make me chuck a potato at you!
 
2013-07-08 02:13:51 PM

Deucednuisance: It is truly blissful to in such "ignorant" company.


I know you don't hear this much, but you are right.  Self defense is an affirmative defense.  And in most jurisdictions, the defendant actually has to prove it.  However, Florida is a little different (this shouldn't surprise you).  Now, go read up on how FL handles self defense cases and be amazed and enlightened.

Or wait for Phinn to tell us all again.

/they still call it an affirmative defense in FL
//but the State bears the burden
///Cliffs Notes form!
 
2013-07-08 02:13:58 PM
Repost because I repied to something I knew I shouldn't have. Perhaps you will find them amusing.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-08 02:14:01 PM

The Singing Bush: ChaosStar: Yes, that's brandishing, but that doesn't give Martin fear of lethal force.
GZ would actually have to make to draw the weapon or draw the weapon, before TM could use the self defense claim of preemptive striking.
Self defense goes out the window during commission of a felony unless you are protecting your own life from unwarranted lethal force and have made every reasonable means to escape unless you're in a place where you have a right to be.
Credit card fraud is a felony, but you don't have to allow someone to shoot you over it for instance.

Hold on...so if someone approaches me and flashes his/her gun, that doesn't give me fear of lethal force?  I guess I'm a giant candy-ass, because I would fear for my life in that situation, and if I felt I had a better chance to disarm him than run faster than his bullet, I would try.

I am not saying this happened in this case.  I'm just trying to understand the law.


No, just showing you a holstered gun does not qualify as lethal force. It certainly warrants you calling the police, because that's illegal, and getting the hell out of the situation, but legally you can't kill them for just flashing you a view of their gun.
Now if they said "I'm gonna kill you The Singing Bush!" and they start reaching to lift their shirt, such as to produce a weapon, you do not have to wait for them to actually produce the weapon. You can attack them right then and there as a preventative to the felony action.
You cannot, however, use lethal force even at this point, such as bashing their head into cement or beating them to where they fear they are going to die, as no actual lethal force was used against you and you have effectively neutralized the threat and taken control.
 
2013-07-08 02:14:05 PM

bigpete53: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You... you know that's not a population map... Right?

You ... you know you have to drive for 4-8 hours to get to the "not Deep South" parts of FL, right?

lantawa: Why would you say this even after you saw how it worked out for the movie character who chose to say it? I mean, it sounds real tough and all, but it sorta puts a kabosh on you before you even get started.

I just like the line.


I live in one of the "not Deep South" areas (along with most Floridians), so no, I don't have to drive 4-8 hours to get there.

Once again your point seems to be that the parts of Florida with no one in them are "deep south". That's a fine opinion, but it doesn't really mean very much, does it?
 
2013-07-08 02:15:18 PM
Could it have been a "no" that actually means "yes"?
 
2013-07-08 02:15:21 PM

WillofJ2: I think there needs to be a hottest/least attractive legal analyst and/or anchor thread dealing with this trial.


This is what we should be discussing in this thread. No one here has any direct bearing on the case, so we should all try to debate something that is more relevant to us.
 
2013-07-08 02:15:42 PM

Tatsuma: creepy ass-cracka: The prosecution keeps trying sway with emotion. It's all they got. Even though it has nothing to do with GZ's culpability.

not only that, but earlier downright lied by saying that Zimmerman said 'He's a black male, farking punk'


Basically, DLR is using any opportunity he gets to talk about how tragic the death of child is, doesn't matter who he's questioning. Nothing he's saying on cross hurts what the defense has tried to establish.
 
2013-07-08 02:15:50 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cletus C.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cletus C.: Boojum2k: siva: because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency.

He should totally have let Trayvon beat him to death, that would have been the decent thing to do.

You think if Zimmerman had left it with the cops after calling them, Martin then would have followed him to his home and beaten him to death as Georgie Boy was sitting down for his evening constitutional?

I like how Zimmerman is the one who "acted without restraint", not the guy who attacked him for no reason.

No reason that he can give anyway.

So, seance then? Have a psyhic medium tell us? Wild guesses? Or should we form an opinion based on the facts that we do know, instead of uselessly speculating on those that we don't?


Martin has told no lies. He's about the only one.
 
2013-07-08 02:16:19 PM

FitzShivering: This is relatively stupid line of questioning.


That's real retarded, sir.
 
2013-07-08 02:18:26 PM

heili skrimsli: omeganuepsilon: Elegy: omeganuepsilon: Cool, they got exception to hearsay.

Not watching right now, Sereno's testimony about Tracy Martin is coming in?

Yup, Sereno got to testify that Tracy said it wasn't his son's voice.

On cross now, prosecution is pursuing emotional trauma for Tracy, and ergo not meaning/knowing or in denial, etc.

He's definitely trying to spin the answer to Serino's question as being in denial about Martin's death.


Re-direct shifted focus back onto why the question was being asked, the intent of the question and the understanding of the intent and it being a direct answer, not a simple denial in grief.  Pulled it right out of the fire.
 
2013-07-08 02:18:45 PM
what i've learned so far from this GZ trial:

1) don't let your child walk to the store alone on a dark rainy night
2) if you are being followed or stalked, call the police
3) hispanic-american is now considered "white"
4) cracker is a socially-acceptable ethnic reference (non-slur)
5) if you are a witness, don't write answers to questions that you "think" you may be asked without telling anyone
6) cheat sheets are not allowed in court
7) you can be fired the next day if you place damp/wet evidence (clothing) in a plastic bag because it could contaminate said evidence (fyi, you "can" be, but most likely wouldn't)

this trial is somewhat of a plethora of trial law information! my e-degree should arrive soon!
 
2013-07-08 02:20:29 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Popcorn Johnny: Why did this go from green to red? Farkers demand their GZ vs TM thread!!!!!

These threads are great.

Go to one thread for your daily gun control, death penalty, racism, anti cops  comments all in one

One thread to rule them all.

the only think missing is abortion.


Travon was retroactively aborted.! There ya go now its the perfect thread.
 
2013-07-08 02:20:50 PM

omeganuepsilon: heili skrimsli: omeganuepsilon: Elegy: omeganuepsilon: Cool, they got exception to hearsay.

Not watching right now, Sereno's testimony about Tracy Martin is coming in?

Yup, Sereno got to testify that Tracy said it wasn't his son's voice.

On cross now, prosecution is pursuing emotional trauma for Tracy, and ergo not meaning/knowing or in denial, etc.

He's definitely trying to spin the answer to Serino's question as being in denial about Martin's death.

Re-direct shifted focus back onto why the question was being asked, the intent of the question and the understanding of the intent and it being a direct answer, not a simple denial in grief.  Pulled it right out of the fire.


Thanks for the update sir and ma'am. I'll watch the Sereno's testimony tonight when I get home but right now work has kept me away from my desk all day.
 
2013-07-08 02:20:52 PM
Prosecution re-cross re-pulled GZ's "That doesn't even sound like me"

Moronic argument, because no one ever thinks the recording sounds like them.
 
2013-07-08 02:21:25 PM
"That doesn't even sound like me" ≠ "That's not me"

"That's not my son" ≠ "I can't believe that is son, because of my emotional state"

"That doesn't even sound like me" isn't the phrasing of a criminal mastermind that planned the perfect crime in less than 2 minutes.
 
2013-07-08 02:21:46 PM

ChaosStar: o, just showing you a holstered gun does not qualify as lethal force. It certainly warrants you calling the police, because that's illegal, and getting the hell out of the situation, but legally you can't kill them for just flashing you a view of their gun.
Now if they said "I'm gonna kill you The Singing Bush!" and they start reaching to lift their shirt, such as to produce a weapon, you do not have to wait for them to actually produce the weapon. You can attack them right then and there as a preventative to the felony action.
You cannot, however, use lethal force even at this point, such as bashing their head into cement or beating them to where they fear they are going to die, as no actual lethal force was used against you and you have effectively neutralized the threat and taken control.


What if I wasn't using lethal force, but I was just hitting their head into cement to try to knock them unconscious?  Maybe I reached for the gun and they were able to stop me from grabbing it, so my only chance to truly neutralize the threat was to knock them out.  I can't do that?
 
2013-07-08 02:22:37 PM

omeganuepsilon: Prosecution re-cross re-pulled GZ's "That doesn't even sound like me"

Moronic argument, because no one ever thinks the recording sounds like them.


HA!

Re-re-direct got serino to say just that.
 
2013-07-08 02:23:16 PM
OOps...and dismissed Serino without another cross
 
2013-07-08 02:23:19 PM

omeganuepsilon: Prosecution re-cross re-pulled GZ's "That doesn't even sound like me"

Moronic argument, because no one ever thinks the recording sounds like them.


Plus, hadn't GZ already told the police that he yelled for help?
 
2013-07-08 02:25:02 PM
The Singing Bush

What if I wasn't using lethal force, but I was just hitting their head into cement to try to knock them unconscious?

IMO, a reasonable person would easily interpret that as a direct attempt to cause grievous bodily harm and/or death.

Given that self-defence in this case hinges on the mere perception of such an intent, and the actual attempt is unnecessary...
 
2013-07-08 02:25:03 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Once again your point seems to be that the parts of Florida with no one in them are "deep south". That's a fine opinion, but it doesn't really mean very much, does it?


It probably means a lot to an interracial couple who breaks down at night in those areas. Yes, that applies to me. But hey, there isn't any racism at your desk, so there isn't any in the entire state, is there?
 
2013-07-08 02:25:08 PM

nekom: redmid17:
We don't want the Irish!

Don't make me chuck a potato at you!


What is this? Christmas?

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-07-08 02:25:10 PM

Deucednuisance: The Muthaship: justtray: Take it away Phinn.

I was honored that the nuisance chose my post to vent his spleen (and ignorance).

Will an actual definition honor you as well?

An affirmative defense exonerates a defendant of a criminal charge. Even if the defendant could otherwise be found guilty, a successful affirmative defense results in an acquittal. Among the most familiar affirmative defenses are "insanity" and "self-defense."

Because affirmative defenses require the consideration of facts and arguments beyond those asserted by the prosecution, the defendant generally has to prove the defense. The burden of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be "clear and convincing evidence" or "preponderance of the evidence".

 How about Wiki?

An  affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a or that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven.

Heck, even the State's Attorney in the case in question says so!

Florida State Attorney Angela Corey announced on Thursday that George Zimmerman had been arrested and would be  In response, she explained that the law provides Zimmerman with an "affirmative defense," and that if it was raised, it would be dealt with in court. She further vowed to fight the "affirmative defense."

It is truly blissful to in such "ignorant" company.


Who the hell gives a shiat about wikipedia?  We're dealing with the law there junior.

"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the 
question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the 
defendant not guilty.  However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been 
proved. "

Reasonable doubt goes to the Defendant.

It's what's called a shifting burden.  Once there is a prima facia case of self defense then you get a jury instruction.  Then the burden shifts and the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not fear for his life in all the ways that are in the instruction.

Seriously, stop spouting crap.
 
2013-07-08 02:25:20 PM

Deucednuisance: Will an actual definition honor you as well?


All one has to show is that they were in a reasonable fear of their life or of serious bodily injury. That's what the prosecution tried to focus in on the ME from Miami and getting her to say that the injuries were minor when she only had pictures to look at that were taken after Zimmerman had been cleaned up (never mind that the PA who actually saw him and tended to his wounds stated differently).

Getting you head hit upon the concrete or for that matter being hit MMA Style when your head is lying on a hard surface is enough to warrant a reasonable fear of just such outcomes. Look, even with someone 40 lbs lighter than you if he's on top he:

1) has gravity on his side and can put a lot more force into and behind each and every punch as he can lean down into each one as opposed to a horizontal punch where gravity isn't into play.

2) when someones head is laying against the ground there is no room for recoil which means that there's a no chance for the head to "Recoil" and absorb some of the punch through head, neck or body movements unlike a more traditional horizontal punch.

This means that even "If" Martin didn't "Slam" his head into the concrete he was more than capable of inflicting at a minimum serious bodily harm with each punch. This wasn't on a MMA match ring floor which intentionally has some spring to it as well as some padding (because it's well known what can happen if it doesn't).

There's a reason why the things that happened in the movie Fight Club are illegal. It can easily lead to someones death or serious injury.
 
2013-07-08 02:25:27 PM

The Singing Bush: What if I wasn't using lethal force, but I was just hitting their head into cement to try to knock them unconscious?


Then they could and should shoot you if they are able.

The Singing Bush: Maybe I reached for the gun and they were able to stop me from grabbing it, so my only chance to truly neutralize the threat was to knock them out.  I can't do that?


No.
 
2013-07-08 02:25:41 PM

funzyr: WillofJ2: I think there needs to be a hottest/least attractive legal analyst and/or anchor thread dealing with this trial.

This is what we should be discussing in this thread. No one here has any direct bearing on the case, so we should all try to debate something that is more relevant to us.


hollywoodnose.com Broke it down on fox news the other night, fun to watch
 
2013-07-08 02:26:51 PM

ChaosStar: You cannot, however, use lethal force even at this point, such as bashing their head into cement or beating them to where they fear they are going to die, as no actual lethal force was used against you and you have effectively neutralized the threat and taken control.


Aside from the fact he actually managed to pull the weapon and shoot and kill...right? So, according to you, if in fact Zimmerman had threatened Martin with his gun, and Martin was legally justified in using force, he would not have been within his rights to use fatal force until when? Until Zimmerman shot and killed him? Martin would then been justified in using fatal force?
 
2013-07-08 02:28:26 PM

Cletus C.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cletus C.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cletus C.: Boojum2k: siva: because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency.

He should totally have let Trayvon beat him to death, that would have been the decent thing to do.

You think if Zimmerman had left it with the cops after calling them, Martin then would have followed him to his home and beaten him to death as Georgie Boy was sitting down for his evening constitutional?

I like how Zimmerman is the one who "acted without restraint", not the guy who attacked him for no reason.

No reason that he can give anyway.

So, seance then? Have a psyhic medium tell us? Wild guesses? Or should we form an opinion based on the facts that we do know, instead of uselessly speculating on those that we don't?

Martin has told no lies. He's about the only one.


He told Zimmerman "you're gonna die tonight", so that's at least one lie.
 
2013-07-08 02:29:40 PM
I did not know Danny Trejo moonlighted as a female cop in Sanford.
 
2013-07-08 02:30:25 PM

creepy ass-cracka: Basically, DLR is using any opportunity he gets to talk about how tragic the death of child is, doesn't matter who he's questioning. Nothing he's saying on cross hurts what the defense has tried to establish.


David Lee Roth? Too easy...

(This is home) See, a gun is real easy
(This is Mean Street) in this desperate part of town
(This is home) Turns you from hunted into hunter (Yeah)
(This is Mean Street) You go an' hunt somebody down
Wait a minute, ah (This is home) Somebody said "Fair warning", Lord
(This is Mean Street) Lord, strike that poor boy down!

Mean Streets- Van Halen
 
2013-07-08 02:31:03 PM

Ace Rimmer: Umm... affirmative defense means you are saying "Yes, I did it, but here's why it isn't a crime"


How is that functionally any different than what I said?

"Here's why is isn't a crime"... "because this is what actually happened".

If you're you're going to claim the former, you kinda have to do the latter.

And the claim itself is insufficient:

"Yes, I shot that man, but it wasn't a crime because a giant rabid gorilla was charging at me, so I fired at it, but it leaped into the clouds, sprouted leathery wings and flew away, so my shot went awry" would demand some sort of proof, would it not?
 
2013-07-08 02:31:17 PM

s2s2s2: "That doesn't even sound like me" ≠ "That's not me"

"That's not my son" ≠ "I can't believe that is son, because of my emotional state"

"That doesn't even sound like me" isn't the phrasing of a criminal mastermind that planned the perfect crime in less than 2 minutes.


Every single person who has commented on who was screaming has either been completely biased, clueless or both.  None of that carries a lot of weight in my opinion.  That Martin was on top of Zimmerman, as testified to by an unimpeachable witness with no reason to lie, suggests that it was probably Zimmerman screaming.  Witnesses saying it sounded like him or didn't is just fluff.
 
2013-07-08 02:31:49 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: He told Zimmerman "you're gonna die tonight", so that's at least one lie.


There's no evidence of that other than from Zimmerman. Let's not give Team Trayvon something to biatch about.
 
2013-07-08 02:32:12 PM
the MMA trainer
 
2013-07-08 02:32:18 PM
The police agree that the senior Martin denied the voice yelling for help was his son, so the prosecution goes for the "well, yeah, but it still must have been terrible to lose your kid, right?"

Well, yeah. Thanks, Counselor Obvious. :[
 
2013-07-08 02:33:14 PM

Deucednuisance: And the claim itself is insufficient:


Unless, like in this case, every single piece of evidence supports the assertion of self defense.
 
2013-07-08 02:33:47 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cletus C.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cletus C.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cletus C.: Boojum2k: siva: because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency.

He should totally have let Trayvon beat him to death, that would have been the decent thing to do.

You think if Zimmerman had left it with the cops after calling them, Martin then would have followed him to his home and beaten him to death as Georgie Boy was sitting down for his evening constitutional?

I like how Zimmerman is the one who "acted without restraint", not the guy who attacked him for no reason.

No reason that he can give anyway.

So, seance then? Have a psyhic medium tell us? Wild guesses? Or should we form an opinion based on the facts that we do know, instead of uselessly speculating on those that we don't?

Martin has told no lies. He's about the only one.

He told Zimmerman "you're gonna die tonight", so that's at least one lie.


Who proved that was a lie?
 
2013-07-08 02:34:03 PM
Deucednuisance

How is that functionally any different than what I said?

"Here's why is isn't a crime"... "because this is what actually happened".


You don't have to prove you didn't commit a crime. The state has to prove you're guilty.
 
2013-07-08 02:34:09 PM

nekom: Every single person who has commented on who was screaming has either been completely biased, clueless or both. None of that carries a lot of weight in my opinion. That Martin was on top of Zimmerman, as testified to by an unimpeachable witness with no reason to lie, suggests that it was probably Zimmerman screaming. Witnesses saying it sounded like him or didn't is just fluff.


Actually two of them had an impact on me:

1 - Zimmerman's Uncle
2 - His surrogate father

Zimmerman's Uncle because he claimed to have heard the 9/11 call playing from the other room and hearing the screams and immediately saying 'Why is this George on television, what's happening?' having absolutely no idea what was the context.

Second was a viet nam medic used to hear people talk in the day then scream in pain during combat and able to identify voices.

Yeah the rest of them I don't really care either way, but those two have weight in my mind, and I bet that the jury thinks the same thing.
 
2013-07-08 02:34:29 PM

bigpete53: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Once again your point seems to be that the parts of Florida with no one in them are "deep south". That's a fine opinion, but it doesn't really mean very much, does it?

It probably means a lot to an interracial couple who breaks down at night in those areas. Yes, that applies to me. But hey, there isn't any racism at your desk, so there isn't any in the entire state, is there?


Of course there are racists in this state. There are in all states. The point of contention is whether or not Florida as a whole can be characterized as "the Deep South." It can't. But you're obviously not very bright, so I'll concede.
 
2013-07-08 02:35:01 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cletus C.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cletus C.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Cletus C.: Boojum2k: siva: because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency.

He should totally have let Trayvon beat him to death, that would have been the decent thing to do.

You think if Zimmerman had left it with the cops after calling them, Martin then would have followed him to his home and beaten him to death as Georgie Boy was sitting down for his evening constitutional?

I like how Zimmerman is the one who "acted without restraint", not the guy who attacked him for no reason.

No reason that he can give anyway.

So, seance then? Have a psyhic medium tell us? Wild guesses? Or should we form an opinion based on the facts that we do know, instead of uselessly speculating on those that we don't?

Martin has told no lies. He's about the only one.

He told Zimmerman "you're gonna die tonight", so that's at least one lie.


I said "Who proved that was a lie"

Sorry read your post wrong
 
2013-07-08 02:35:24 PM

nekom: s2s2s2: "That doesn't even sound like me" ≠ "That's not me"

"That's not my son" ≠ "I can't believe that is son, because of my emotional state"

"That doesn't even sound like me" isn't the phrasing of a criminal mastermind that planned the perfect crime in less than 2 minutes.

Every single person who has commented on who was screaming has either been completely biased, clueless or both.  None of that carries a lot of weight in my opinion.  That Martin was on top of Zimmerman, as testified to by an unimpeachable witness with no reason to lie, suggests that it was probably Zimmerman screaming.  Witnesses saying it sounded like him or didn't is just fluff.


That's kinda what I found odd, the state tried to say the defenses witnesses were bias... but the mother wasn't? Are they trying to get back to the whole "you can't know who was yelling help" version? That doesn't seem to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's guilty then...
 
2013-07-08 02:35:35 PM
This guy resembles Anthony Weener
 
2013-07-08 02:35:39 PM

TheSup3rN0va: That, in and of itself, is an answer; not the one I was hoping for, but, unfortunately, the one I expected.



Obviously, because you know me so well.


/Pffft.
 
Displayed 50 of 1158 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report