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.

(The Smoking Gun)   George Zimmerman's attorneys were once big fans of the Chris Farley-lookalike judge that's been ripping them new ones during the trial   (thesmokinggun.com) divider line 59
    More: Interesting, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, florida, judicial circuit, bank charge, lookalike  
•       •       •

14189 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jul 2013 at 12:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-12 04:36:48 PM
5 votes:

Netrngr: No force was used prior to TM attacking.


IF you believe Zimmerman.

I do not. I think he likely grabbed Martin to prevent him from "escaping". Why? :

"farking punks. Those assholes, they always get away."

/Manslaughter
2013-07-12 03:01:34 PM
4 votes:

Carth: Graffito: dittybopper: MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.

Dead kid isn't on trial.  George Zimmerman is.

I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.

Here is FL Stand Your Ground Law: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

If Martin was attacked he could stand his ground. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attack him and some that Martin attacked Zimmerman.


He followed him up a dark walkway with an object in his hand that police routinely use as a weapon.

That's a threatening situation.
2013-07-12 02:01:32 PM
4 votes:

culebra: Fail in Human Form: culebra: I have to admit, (as a guy with no emotional investment in the outcome of the case), that the whiny ineptitude of Zimmerman's defense team and the judge's impatience with it have provided some comic relief to the whole ugly affair.

WTF trial were you watching?

Hey, yeah, no guy...you're right: Zimmerman's the real victim here.


As a matter of fact, yes he is. I can't believe our modern legal system is railroading a member of a particular ethnicity in order to appease members of another ethnicity. Is this the 1880s?
2013-07-12 02:08:57 PM
3 votes:

fuhfuhfuh: The worst part of this whole trial is the fact that it was pushed to a national stage, rather than be dealt with in Florida (Florida laws and all). The investigation and trial probably would have been over by now had this whole story not been catapulted into the national spotlight. Honestly, who gives a crap about Florida's SYG law other than the residents of Florida?


The investigation and trial only happened in the first place because it was catapulted into the national spotlight, which in turn happened because the Sanford PD tried to sweep the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by a (at the time presumed to be) white man under the rug.

/said investigation would eventually reveal that the shooter is not "white," he is "white-Hispanic"
2013-07-12 05:56:42 PM
2 votes:

Carth: Maybe if you live in bizzaro land that is what happened. Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman said "ok" and started walking back to his car.


Bullshiat.  If he had started walking back to his car, he wouldn't have shot Martin in someones back yard a few minutes later.  Also, he didn't tell the dispatcher that he would meet the cops at his car, or at the mailboxes, or at the office, or at his house, or at the entrance to the complex, or at the corner of Avenue A and 3rd Street.  He told them "Have them call me when they arrive".  That's because he didn't know where he was going to be, because he was still chasing down Martin.

HideAndGoFarkYourself: How was it "swept under the rug?" The police department did a thorough and complete investigation and determined it to be a case of self-defense.


Did they do toxicology reports on the shooter that night?

No, they didn't.  That's one example of them just deciding they were not going to do a full investigation.

It's sad that people think you should be able to go start a fight and shoot the other guy when you lose.  It's even sadder to see you people complain that there shouldn't have even been an arrest or a trial or an investigation.
2013-07-12 04:30:14 PM
2 votes:
Zimmermdouche and Martin were both standing their ground

 Zimmerdouche   decided to shoot and kill someone

fark him the murderer
2013-07-12 02:40:46 PM
2 votes:

Pumpernickel bread: Wtf are you talking about? Trials are not required for a shooting death, only when the state believes a crime has been commited. Or apparently when they want to lynch someone to appease the masses


When you call having a trial a "lynching" you have lost any semblance of perspective.
2013-07-12 02:31:12 PM
2 votes:

Pumpernickel bread: Crotchrocket Slim: Pumpernickel bread: culebra: Fail in Human Form: culebra: I have to admit, (as a guy with no emotional investment in the outcome of the case), that the whiny ineptitude of Zimmerman's defense team and the judge's impatience with it have provided some comic relief to the whole ugly affair.

WTF trial were you watching?

Hey, yeah, no guy...you're right: Zimmerman's the real victim here.

As a matter of fact, yes he is. I can't believe our modern legal system is railroading a member of a particular ethnicity in order to appease members of another ethnicity. Is this the 1880s?

????

Considering assholes were biatching about there being a trial at all (which is standard procedure when a shooting death occurs) I think you can STFU troll

Wtf are you talking about? Trials are not required for a shooting death, only when the state believes a crime has been commited. Or apparently when they want to lynch someone to appease the masses


You mean like when an armed adult shoots and kills an unarmed teenager under mysterious circumstances?
2013-07-12 02:29:28 PM
2 votes:

ChipNASA: [i1.ytimg.com image 320x180]

/you guys are slipping. *I* am King Sh*t of Fark Island for catching this. You're just plebeians.


This whole "I am King Sh*t" meme you keep forcing is painfully lame.  You sound like a jackass and everyone is starting to hate you.
2013-07-12 02:26:07 PM
2 votes:

Pumpernickel bread: Or apparently when they want to lynch someone to appease the masses


Of course it isn't possible that this guy killed a teenager for doing nothing other than being black and wearing a hoodie...it MUST be the railroading of an innocent man...
2013-07-12 02:09:33 PM
2 votes:

randomjsa: Yes, I'd quit being a fan too if the judge is about as impartial as a judge in China, and obviously has every intention of helping the prosecution get a conviction for something, anything.

Anyone who didn't think this would happen was kidding themselves and anyone who didn't think it would happen after Obama stuck his nose in it is REALLY kidding themselves.


This is the most stunning application of fresh horse manure that actually means nothing I have seen in years.

Thank God he was able to blame Obama for the whole mess before he finished, otherwise I would have assumed it was Meow Said The Dog.
2013-07-12 01:46:28 PM
2 votes:
Yes, I'd quit being a fan too if the judge is about as impartial as a judge in China, and obviously has every intention of helping the prosecution get a conviction for something, anything.

Anyone who didn't think this would happen was kidding themselves and anyone who didn't think it would happen after Obama stuck his nose in it is REALLY kidding themselves.
2013-07-12 01:35:40 PM
2 votes:
I have to admit, (as a guy with no emotional investment in the outcome of the case), that the whiny ineptitude of Zimmerman's defense team and the judge's impatience with it have provided some comic relief to the whole ugly affair.
2013-07-12 01:27:40 PM
2 votes:

GaidinCanuck: So, as a Canadian who has little interest in this fiasco... What's this judge doing to these lawyers?  I'm gathering she's being very harsh and critical against them, but is it deserved or is the general consensus that she's hoping to convict a killer?


Well, the defendant did lie about his finances to get a lower bail, and it has been downhill since then.
2013-07-12 12:55:33 PM
2 votes:
I think she's more of a John Goodman playing Linda Tripp

www.toptenz.net

/image is hot
2013-07-12 12:50:42 PM
2 votes:
Ripping a new one =/= blatantly favoring the state
2013-07-12 07:24:46 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: DenisBergkamp: If, as GZ claims, TM did initiate a physical confrontation which is an illegal act it would nullify his self defence claim.

Not necessarily.  From the Florida statutes on self-defense:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

If, as eyewitness and forensic testimony seems to confirm,  Zimmerman was indeed pinned by Martin and couldn't escape, even if he started the physical altercation, he still had the right to defend himself if he was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

This is about the 5 millionth time I've posted that on Fark.  I don't know why anyone who's been in a Martin/Zimmerman thread previously can't know this by now.


Irrelevant because if GZ attacked first while armed with a gun then he was committing a felony. Section 1 would then apply and section 2 automatically becomes irrelevant.
2013-07-12 06:05:48 PM
1 votes:
One more time: Martin has no duty to retreat from a threat.

And Zimmerman was absolutely a threat. There's no other logical conclusion once he follows up the footpath with a weapon in his hand.
2013-07-12 05:48:21 PM
1 votes:

King Something: fuhfuhfuh: The worst part of this whole trial is the fact that it was pushed to a national stage, rather than be dealt with in Florida (Florida laws and all). The investigation and trial probably would have been over by now had this whole story not been catapulted into the national spotlight. Honestly, who gives a crap about Florida's SYG law other than the residents of Florida?

The investigation and trial only happened in the first place because it was catapulted into the national spotlight, which in turn happened because the Sanford PD tried to sweep the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by a (at the time presumed to be) white man under the rug.

/said investigation would eventually reveal that the shooter is not "white," he is "white-Hispanic"


How was it "swept under the rug?"  The police department did a thorough and complete investigation and determined it to be a case of self-defense.  It wasn't for a month or so that anybody got ahold of the story, started screaming about race, and then the entire thing was taken away from the Police Department and county prosecutor's office, and hijacked into a political move.

Take that, plus Trayvon's own mother saying she would have just been happy with an arrest in the case, his dad acknowledging that it wasn't his son screaming in the phone call, the actress from Precious getting up on the stand and lying, and the total lack of a case presented by the Prosecution, and you have a clear cut case of a trial that never should have happened and an arrest that never should have been made.
2013-07-12 05:30:27 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: "If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "


What if Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a place where he had a right to be?  That's what happened.  Zimmerman admits on the 911 call that he's chasing the kid down.  He says "He's running" and "he ran".  He talks about "farking punks" and "these assholes always get away".  And he keeps pushing it until there is a physical confrontation.

Then everyone screams about how Martin had no right to defend himself, but Zimmerman has a right to shoot Martin in self defense.  It makes no sense at all.
2013-07-12 03:42:41 PM
1 votes:

ChipNASA: [i1.ytimg.com image 320x180]

/you guys are slipping. *I* am King Sh*t of Fark Island for catching this. You're just plebeians.


Give it a rest, Chip.
2013-07-12 03:31:48 PM
1 votes:

duffblue: Tarl3k: Pumpernickel bread: Or apparently when they want to lynch someone to appease the masses

Of course it isn't possible that this guy killed a teenager for doing nothing other than being black and wearing a hoodie...it MUST be the railroading of an innocent man...

Why would he bother calling 911 if he just wanted to kill a black kid?


To get away with it. Kinda like (the only decent scene in an otherwise crappy movie) "Sleeping With The Enemy" where she calls the cops and says "I just shot an intruder" before blowing her husband away.

Not saying that was necessarily GZ's reasoning, I'm just saying it'd be a nice set-up. "Oooh thuggish kid is lurking around" then "I had to kill thug kid."
2013-07-12 03:18:58 PM
1 votes:

DenisBergkamp: Carth: DenisBergkamp: MFAWG

I'm not sure if you're being willfully ignorant on this or not as I've seen your name in a lot of the trial threads but there has been no evidence given that the weapon was brandished. The current narrative is that the weapon was holstered until the confrontation had escalated to the point where Martin was on top of Zimmerman assaulting him.

Simple possession of the weapon isn't an illegal act or considered being attacked that would green light Martin to starting a physical altercation. If you have evidence to the contrary I'm sure the prosecution would have appreciated your testimony a few days back otherwise it is speculation which doesn't exactly remove reasonable doubt on GZ's claim.

He means the flashlight. Notice how he didn't say "gun" as that was out of sight in a holster at the time.

My reading comprehension is clearly at an all time high today. That being said the point remains that a brandished flash light itself isn't an unlawful act nor a green lit for a physical response on its own.


Again, I encourage you to follow people around with a club in your hand, gun on your hip, or both.
2013-07-12 03:14:28 PM
1 votes:

DenisBergkamp: Ignoring that he isn't the one on trial he wouldn't have the same rights as the current narrative holds.


In other words, the law favors whoever kills the other person first.

Just like that recent case where the guy in Texas shot an escort that wouldn't have sex with him.  He payed for escorting and expected sexing, so he (successfully) argued in his defense that the woman was a thief for keeping the money.  Arguably, she could have done the same thing:  give the dude back his bleeping money and then shoot him dead, and make the exact same defense.
2013-07-12 03:09:25 PM
1 votes:
if you by "ripping them a new one" you mean the prosecution fell apart days ago, yes, you are correct

They obviously are doing it fluriduh election style-- can't get one thing, allow another. Can't get that, allow another.

2 things that will happen regardless:   riots and federal "civil rights" charges
2013-07-12 03:09:14 PM
1 votes:

Tarl3k: Pumpernickel bread: Or apparently when they want to lynch someone to appease the masses

Of course it isn't possible that this guy killed a teenager for doing nothing other than being black and wearing a hoodie...it MUST be the railroading of an innocent man...


Why would he bother calling 911 if he just wanted to kill a black kid?
2013-07-12 03:06:23 PM
1 votes:

DenisBergkamp: If, as GZ claims, TM did initiate a physical confrontation which is an illegal act it would nullify his self defence claim.


Not necessarily.  From the Florida statutes on self-defense:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;
or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


If, as eyewitness and forensic testimony seems to confirm,  Zimmerman was indeed pinned by Martin and couldn't escape, even if he started the physical altercation, he still had the right to defend himself if he was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

This is about the 5 millionth time I've posted that on Fark.  I don't know why anyone who's been in a Martin/Zimmerman thread previously can't know this by now.
2013-07-12 02:57:59 PM
1 votes:

Graffito: I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.


The question is moot.  Trayvon Martin isn't on trial, so whether he had a right to stand his ground or not is irrelevant to the proceedings.  In fact, there could be circumstances where *BOTH* had a right to stand their ground*.   But just because Trayvon Martin may have had that right doesn't mean that George Zimmerman didn't.

*I know that sounds paradoxical, but I can imagine circumstances, especially at night, where sudden unintentional contact could lead to violence with essentially no one legally at fault.
2013-07-12 02:53:05 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: MFAWG: dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.

Dead kid isn't on trial.  George Zimmerman is.


I think the question is valid.  What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground?  One of the defense arguments is that Martin had 4 minutes to run away, but didn't.
2013-07-12 02:47:08 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: MFAWG: It already has. Everybody's assumption was that Zimmerman was covered by this law, right up until the two guys that wrote it said 'not so much, no'.

In one small way, it has, in the instructions to the jury:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "


What about the dead kids same right?

Honest question.
2013-07-12 02:45:27 PM
1 votes:

King Something: On the other hand, if he gets acquitted (or convicted and either immediately pardoned by Governor Rick Scott or eventually getting the conviction overturned on appeal), he'll basically spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder whenever he's not barricaded in his own home under self-imposed house arrest.


Relax. He'll join a long line of people who have done less than legal actions as Fox News Consultants.

2.bp.blogspot.com
2013-07-12 02:36:01 PM
1 votes:

Marine1: not sure what he was doing with a gun (didn't he have priors that would have kept him from having one?)


He had to pass a background check in order to get his CCW permit, so no, he didn't.
2013-07-12 02:32:18 PM
1 votes:

Crotchrocket Slim: Pumpernickel bread: Crotchrocket Slim: Pumpernickel bread: culebra: Fail in Human Form: culebra: I have to admit, (as a guy with no emotional investment in the outcome of the case), that the whiny ineptitude of Zimmerman's defense team and the judge's impatience with it have provided some comic relief to the whole ugly affair.

WTF trial were you watching?

Hey, yeah, no guy...you're right: Zimmerman's the real victim here.

As a matter of fact, yes he is. I can't believe our modern legal system is railroading a member of a particular ethnicity in order to appease members of another ethnicity. Is this the 1880s?

????

Considering assholes were biatching about there being a trial at all (which is standard procedure when a shooting death occurs) I think you can STFU troll

Wtf are you talking about? Trials are not required for a shooting death, only when the state believes a crime has been commited. Or apparently when they want to lynch someone to appease the masses

You mean like when an armed adult shoots and kills an unarmed teenager under mysterious circumstances?


Note I'm not necessarily saying Zimmerman fits the legal definition of being guilty for murder, but the fact that he is on trial given the circumstances is pretty damn much the way things should be.
2013-07-12 02:20:03 PM
1 votes:
I think declaring them "big fans" is probably not accurate.

I am a criminal defense attorney who has contributed to the campaigns of judges who I don't much care for, simply because the other candidate was absolutely unqualified.

A prefect example, in my county in Tennessee we have five General Sessions Court judges who float between the criminal and civil dockets.  Each Sessions Judge will hear criminal cases for four weeks and then hear civil cases for one week.  As such, they spend 80% of their time handling criminal matters, which also includes the issuance of warrants after making a determination that probable cause exists.

Not long ago a special election was held following the death of one of the sitting judges.  Eleven candidates ran for the single open seat.  Of the eleven candidates only two, one was a former part-time municipal judge, one a former prosecutor, had any real criminal law experience.  One of the candidates handled only two criminal cases in his entire career, and the other had handled only a handful of criminal cases in his career.  The remaining seven candidates had never handled a criminal case in their entire careers.

So only the only qualified candidate for the open position, was the former municipal judge (who effectively withdrew from the race due to health reasons) and the former prosecutor (who also had a couple of years of civil experience).

Several of the candidates who had little or no criminal experience came to one of  the criminal defense attorney's  meetings to try to win the organization's support.  After making a statement the criminal defense attorneys started asking questions about their qualifications.  Some of the questions that were asked of the candidates included:  (1) define probable cause, (2) what level of proof must be presented to a judge before they are able to issue a search warrant, (3) what is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony, (4) what standard of proof must be met to sustain a petition to violate probation, etc.....

NONE of the candidates with little or no criminal experience could answer any of those questions, clearly making them unqualified to run for judge who was going to be spending 80% of their time handling criminal cases, but nothing in Tennessee's judicial election laws required them to possess any specific knowledge in those areas.

As you can guess, nearly 100% of the criminal defense bar and the district attorneys supported the former prosecutor. Not because we loved that candidate or even thought that she was a great candidate.  That candidate received the support because she was the only qualified candidate who was running for the position.

Sadly, the most qualified candidate didn't win, and the citizens of our county are suffering while the candidate that was elected attempts to learn criminal law.

So a political contribution doesn't always equal "big fans".
2013-07-12 02:15:53 PM
1 votes:

Pumpernickel bread: culebra: Fail in Human Form: culebra: I have to admit, (as a guy with no emotional investment in the outcome of the case), that the whiny ineptitude of Zimmerman's defense team and the judge's impatience with it have provided some comic relief to the whole ugly affair.

WTF trial were you watching?

Hey, yeah, no guy...you're right: Zimmerman's the real victim here.

As a matter of fact, yes he is. I can't believe our modern legal system is railroading a member of a particular ethnicity in order to appease members of another ethnicity. Is this the 1880s?


????

Considering assholes were biatching about there being a trial at all (which is standard procedure when a shooting death occurs) I think you can STFU troll
2013-07-12 02:10:44 PM
1 votes:

Lt. Cheese Weasel: She looks like Jabba the Hut to me.


That's because hate clouds everything you see.
2013-07-12 02:10:26 PM
1 votes:

BigNumber12: redmid17: Ripping a new one =/= blatantly favoring the state

Yep. There's been nothing clever or impressive about it. It's been an "I'm the boss of this room, and I don't like you" tantrum the whole time.


or, basically, a judge doing his job and correctly applying the rules of evidence no matter what Farklawyers think abou it.   I've yet to see him make an evidentiary ruling I didn't correctly predict, except the one allowing in evidence of Martin's MJ use,  I would have ruled that irrelevant or more prejudicial than probabtive, myself, but eveything has has been pretty much straight down the line and according to standard practice.
2013-07-12 02:08:35 PM
1 votes:

SovietCanuckistan: A Terrible Human: ChipNASA: [i1.ytimg.com image 320x180]

/you guys are slipping. *I* am King Sh*t of Fark Island for catching this. You're just plebeians.

Okay I'm just going to have to ask why the fark you keep posting that.

When you're King Sh*t of F*ck Island, you do what you want.


This is never going to be a thing.  Stop it.
2013-07-12 02:03:48 PM
1 votes:
The worst part of this whole trial is the fact that it was pushed to a national stage, rather than be dealt with in Florida (Florida laws and all). The investigation and trial probably would have been over by now had this whole story not been catapulted into the national spotlight. Honestly, who gives a crap about Florida's SYG law other than the residents of Florida?
2013-07-12 01:59:57 PM
1 votes:

randomjsa: Yes, I'd quit being a fan too if the judge is about as impartial as a judge in China, and obviously has every intention of helping the prosecution get a conviction for something, anything.


It's astounding to hear this complaint from both wings of the political spectrum. 

There has probably never been a better time to be caught with a bag of reefer.
2013-07-12 01:58:05 PM
1 votes:

randomjsa: Yes, I'd quit being a fan too if the judge is about as impartial as a judge in China, and obviously has every intention of helping the prosecution get a conviction for something, anything.

Anyone who didn't think this would happen was kidding themselves and anyone who didn't think it would happen after Obama stuck his nose in it is REALLY kidding themselves.


Were you born retarded, or did you suffer a traumatic brain injury that caused your IQ to drop to somewhere around 45?
2013-07-12 01:54:34 PM
1 votes:
And the creationists were big fans of Judge John E. Jones III...before he destroyed their case in Kitzmiller v. Dover.  Now he's the libbiest lib that ever libbed...never mind he was appointed by Dubya and was friends with Tom Ridge.
2013-07-12 01:52:15 PM
1 votes:
I wonder how long it will take America to work this particular bit of impacted beef through it's colon.
2013-07-12 01:41:52 PM
1 votes:

ChipNASA: [i1.ytimg.com image 320x180]

/you guys are slipping. *I* am King Sh*t of Fark Island for catching this. You're just plebeians.


Okay I'm just going to have to ask why the fark you keep posting that.
2013-07-12 01:35:22 PM
1 votes:

Eponymous: At least Farley had a since of humor.

And damn.....based on her official picture, that coont has packed on the pounds in the last decade.....looks like she decorated her chambers in a "Hostess" or "Sara Lee" motif.


LAY OFF HER, SHE'S STARVING!!!
2013-07-12 01:28:21 PM
1 votes:
FTA-  Nelson, who was admitted to the Florida bar in 1979, earns around $142,000 as a Circuit Court judge (likely far less than what she would make in private practice).


I'll take that bet.
2013-07-12 01:26:32 PM
1 votes:

redmid17: Ripping a new one =/= blatantly favoring the state

making sure the defendant, not the victim, is prosecuted

FTFY
2013-07-12 01:22:05 PM
1 votes:
the two lawyers representing accused murderer George Zimmerman actually donated money to the prickly jurist's first election campaign, records show.

No, that's called covering your bets.
2013-07-12 01:19:01 PM
1 votes:
At least Farley had a since of humor.

And damn.....based on her official picture, that coont has packed on the pounds in the last decade.....looks like she decorated her chambers in a "Hostess" or "Sara Lee" motif.
2013-07-12 01:17:23 PM
1 votes:
Was this linked to the Drudge report or something?  The comments below the article are all DERP 57 STATES.
2013-07-12 01:13:46 PM
1 votes:

natas6.0: Just release the douche already
the news has made this a race crime since the get go
and I wanna see floorida go buck ass crazy


around 5-6pm tonight things will go crazy whether he is released or not.
2013-07-12 01:12:07 PM
1 votes:
Just release the douche already
the news has made this a race crime since the get go
and I wanna see floorida go buck ass crazy
2013-07-12 01:10:12 PM
1 votes:

redmid17: Ripping a new one =/= blatantly favoring the state


Yep. There's been nothing clever or impressive about it. It's been an "I'm the boss of this room, and I don't like you" tantrum the whole time.
2013-07-12 01:07:42 PM
1 votes:
She has set up a relatively easy appeal should the outcome be anything but favorable for the defense.
2013-07-12 01:04:01 PM
1 votes:
that's why they shopped around until they got her
2013-07-12 12:59:34 PM
1 votes:
100$ in a campaign is little.
2013-07-12 12:55:09 PM
1 votes:
i1.ytimg.com

/you guys are slipping. *I* am King Sh*t of Fark Island for catching this. You're just plebeians.
2013-07-12 12:53:58 PM
1 votes:
I'll be damned. She does remble Farley a little.
2013-07-12 12:30:58 PM
1 votes:
You stole Doris's joke, subby.
 
Displayed 59 of 59 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report