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.

(CBS News) NewsFlash Zimmerman found not guilty, let's talk about pancakes   (cbsnews.com) divider line 2644
    More: NewsFlash, Mark O'Mara, florida, neighborhood watch, Skittles, teen Trayvon, concrete masonry unit, verdicts, Rionda  
•       •       •

13050 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jul 2013 at 10:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

2644 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | » | Last
 
2013-07-14 03:48:34 AM
`images.sodahead.com

:images.sodahead.com

\images.sodahead.com
 
2013-07-14 03:48:37 AM

Lorelle: No justice tonight (no surprise), but there will be eventually. Karma's a biatch.


I was wondering how long it was going to be until somebody brought out the big guns and threatened cosmic justice.
 
2013-07-14 03:48:38 AM

oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: When the 911 dispatcher told him to not follow, Zimmerman legally gave up all right to use the standard ground defense. The jury was instructed to IGNORE that law.

Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

Are you attempting to "troll", or are you genuinely entirely ignorant of United States law?

It's not just Florida.


You did not address my question.

Are you attempting to "troll", or is your statement issued due to an ignorance of law?
 
2013-07-14 03:48:40 AM
Treygreen13:
Also seems anonymous has found the ABC 7 stream and is spamming it with swastikas.

That's not anon.
Anon is full social justice warrior these days.
They're probably too busy knitting trayvon sweaters
 
2013-07-14 03:48:43 AM

Elegy: Thanks guys, this one as well seems to be showing different POV, although I'm not sure if its just behind or ahead in time.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/


Scratch that, that is a replay of earlier.
 
2013-07-14 03:49:17 AM

Curious: prosecutor did a crappy job of proving zimmerman stalked martin


Well, yeah, as it wasn't even an allegation at all, let alone among the ones the prosecution had no evidence for. What was in the jury instructions were descriptions of self-defense laws, not STG, which didn't apply at all.
 
2013-07-14 03:49:33 AM
There is a NAACP petition to get the DOJ to file a civil rights charge against Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-14 03:49:48 AM

God-is-a-Taco: Treygreen13:
Also seems anonymous has found the ABC 7 stream and is spamming it with swastikas.

That's not anon.
Anon is full social justice warrior these days.
They're probably too busy knitting trayvon sweaters


Yeah, that has /pol/ written all over it. /pol/ is definitely not anonymous.
 
2013-07-14 03:49:57 AM

Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Something occurred to me as I read this.  Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked.  Say Martin fought back.  Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin.  Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?


He felt threatened and feared for his safety.
 
2013-07-14 03:50:02 AM
Curious

yeah the prosecutor did a crappy job of proving zimmerman stalked martin...

He was never charged with stalking.
 
2013-07-14 03:50:06 AM

Treygreen13: I was wondering how long it was going to be until somebody brought out the big guns and threatened cosmic justice.


Who's threatening? I've lived long enough to see that what goes around comes around.
 
2013-07-14 03:50:24 AM

God-is-a-Taco: Treygreen13:
Also seems anonymous has found the ABC 7 stream and is spamming it with swastikas.

That's not anon.
Anon is full social justice warrior these days.
They're probably too busy knitting trayvon sweaters


I should have figured. I think it was just /b/. Saw some triforces in there. Of course they couldn't triforce though.
 
2013-07-14 03:50:43 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Treygreen13: oregon fubaralas: Molavian: oregon fubaralas: Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

What appeal?

The civil and federal ones. LOOK IT UP!

What would you "appeal" in a verdict finding no wrongdoing?

I believe the only time you can appeal a "not guilty" verdict is when the jury convicts and the judge decides to set aside the conviction and issue a bench verdict of "not guilty".


"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." If he HAD been found "innocent," he couldn't appeal at the civil and federal levels.
 
2013-07-14 03:51:00 AM

Lorelle: Treygreen13: I was wondering how long it was going to be until somebody brought out the big guns and threatened cosmic justice.

Who's threatening? I've lived long enough to see that what goes around comes around.


Ok buddy.
 
2013-07-14 03:51:22 AM

EbolaNYC: Boojum2k: EbolaNYC: Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have faced charges for murder 2 and been convicted, as there is no right to beatdown and kill someone for looking at you. And we'd never have heard of it, as it would have been a strictly local story.

Silly rabbit. History is written by the victorious. There were no witnesses remember?


John Good.
 
2013-07-14 03:51:31 AM
Lot of cop action now, I think this is about to come to an end.
 
2013-07-14 03:51:54 AM

Curious: Dimensio: You have already been informed that Mr. Zimmerman's defense did not rely upon the "stand your ground" laws.

they were in the jury instructions. yeah the prosecutor did a crappy job of proving zimmerman stalked martin but that they ended up in a fight sort of negates that. had zimmerman got in his vehicle like the dispatcher told him and he agreed to do none of this would have happened.


Mr. Zimmerman's defense argued that Mr. Zimmerman was suffering a physical attack at the time that he used deadly force. If Mr. Zimmerman was in fact under such an attack, then his use of deadly force would have been legally justified under Florida law even had the laws termed the "stand your ground" laws never been enacted. As such, the defense at no time argued that Mr. Zimmerman's actions were justified under the laws publicly termed the "stand your ground" laws. You have been informed of this repeatedly.

Additionally, you have yet to explain why you continue to assert as fact claims of events that even the prosecution admitted were not established as fact.
 
2013-07-14 03:52:14 AM

OOBE Juan Kenobi: `[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]

:[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]

\[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]


Okay, fark it. You win. Rock on with your bad self.
 
2013-07-14 03:52:15 AM

Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Something occurred to me as I read this.  Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked.  Say Martin fought back.  Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin.  Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?


He could have pulled his gun and had it in his hand before TM "jumped/assaulted" him.  I think TM would have been justified in cracking his skull open if that had been the case, and I would have supported a Not Guilty plea for TM in that event.

And who knows - it might have happened that way, only GZ was victorious - and as we all know, the winners write the history books. If that had been the case and there had been a witness, then GZ would have burned.

There was no evidence for that, so the prosecution couldn't make a case for it. And as Anne Droid says, it's votes that count.
 
2013-07-14 03:52:39 AM

tollbooth_willy: Debate?  It was many people pointing out that this is a bullshiat comparison and you repeatedly ignoring anything that didn't fit your narrative of "he guilty."


No, it was a bunch of people with reading comprehension problems that couldn't understand that the 911 tape contained what the husband SAID had just happened, not a recording of it as it actually happened. And as soon as I pointed out that the 911 recording was from after the shooting and therefore could not have possibly contained a recording of what had happened before the shooting, you and everyone else here STFU.
 
2013-07-14 03:52:42 AM

oregon fubaralas: Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." If he HAD been found "innocent," he couldn't appeal at the civil and federal levels.


You have to be trolling, no one can actually be that stupid and find the on switch for a computer. Can they?
 
2013-07-14 03:52:45 AM
This is awesome. All these rioters think it's going to be Rodney King all over. This is post 9/11 chumps. You're all going away for terrorism.
 
2013-07-14 03:52:49 AM

God-is-a-Taco: It's dangerous to argue from ignorance


and it's a disservice to deliberately misquote someone. my original post included that i had used other resources besides the tv news.

i notice that you didn't refute any of my points however ignorant you perceived them.
 
2013-07-14 03:53:17 AM

LordJiro: casual disregard: I hope that Zimmerman will find a quiet life. I suspect that will not be true. I suspect vigilantes will make his life hell. At this point, I'm hating the vigilantes. Give him the respect the jury gave him. Leave him alone.

LordJiro: Yeah, it'd be a damn shame if someone took the law into their own hands and shot someone they believed to be a criminal.


nice.
 
2013-07-14 03:53:47 AM

oregon fubaralas: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Treygreen13: oregon fubaralas: Molavian: oregon fubaralas: Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

What appeal?

The civil and federal ones. LOOK IT UP!

What would you "appeal" in a verdict finding no wrongdoing?

I believe the only time you can appeal a "not guilty" verdict is when the jury convicts and the judge decides to set aside the conviction and issue a bench verdict of "not guilty".

"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." If he HAD been found "innocent," he couldn't appeal at the civil and federal levels.


memecrunch.com

This is literally the stupidest thing I've ever read on Fark, and I have a five-digit account number.
 
2013-07-14 03:54:05 AM

Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: When the 911 dispatcher told him to not follow, Zimmerman legally gave up all right to use the standard ground defense. The jury was instructed to IGNORE that law.

Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

Are you attempting to "troll", or are you genuinely entirely ignorant of United States law?

It's not just Florida.

You did not address my question.

Are you attempting to "troll", or is your statement issued due to an ignorance of law?


I did answer your question, and ignorance is the farthest thing I'm from. Read the book:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=THE+FLORIDA+LAW+BOOK
 
2013-07-14 03:54:08 AM

EbolaNYC: Boojum2k: EbolaNYC: Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have faced charges for murder 2 and been convicted, as there is no right to beatdown and kill someone for looking at you. And we'd never have heard of it, as it would have been a strictly local story.

Silly rabbit. History is written by the victorious. There were no witnesses remember?


When the police arrived to find a completely injury free Martin, there wouldn't need to be(but just so you know, there were).
 
2013-07-14 03:54:09 AM

Lorelle: Treygreen13: I was wondering how long it was going to be until somebody brought out the big guns and threatened cosmic justice.

Who's threatening? I've lived long enough to see that what goes around comes around.


Sounds like my ex and/or herpes.
 
2013-07-14 03:54:17 AM

Livingroom: Drubell: But if it's a black woman firing warning shots to "stand her ground" against an abusive husband, it's 20 years for attempted murder, because fark you

i'll bring you up to date: she violated restraining order and went to the husbands house, then she stated (which may or may not be on a 911 call) "i've got something for you" and fired a round into his ceiling. there was no SYG, she was in violation of a sitting judge's restraining order.


I haven't checked on that trial since last year so I'll be here eating my crow
 
2013-07-14 03:55:07 AM

oregon fubaralas: Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." If he HAD been found "innocent," he couldn't appeal at the civil and federal levels.


i291.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-14 03:55:37 AM

shower_in_my_socks: tollbooth_willy: Debate?  It was many people pointing out that this is a bullshiat comparison and you repeatedly ignoring anything that didn't fit your narrative of "he guilty."

No, it was a bunch of people with reading comprehension problems that couldn't understand that the 911 tape contained what the husband SAID had just happened, not a recording of it as it actually happened. And as soon as I pointed out that the 911 recording was from after the shooting and therefore could not have possibly contained a recording of what had happened before the shooting, you and everyone else here STFU.


Nope.  Try again.  You left off after trying to claim that only the husband had 1) a restraining order against him, 2) a criminal record, and 3) a history of domestic abuse.  

Need a refresher?   http://www.fark.com/comments/7840959/85348206#c85348206
 
2013-07-14 03:55:42 AM

EbolaNYC: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Something occurred to me as I read this.  Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked.  Say Martin fought back.  Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin.  Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

He felt threatened and feared for his safety.


You did not address my question.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?
 
2013-07-14 03:55:56 AM

Lorelle: Treygreen13: I was wondering how long it was going to be until somebody brought out the big guns and threatened cosmic justice.

Who's threatening? I've lived long enough to see that what goes around comes around.


Throw a fist. Catch a bullet.

Cosmic.
 
2013-07-14 03:56:20 AM
!
 
2013-07-14 03:56:31 AM

Fark It: oregon fubaralas: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Treygreen13: oregon fubaralas: Molavian: oregon fubaralas: Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

What appeal?

The civil and federal ones. LOOK IT UP!

What would you "appeal" in a verdict finding no wrongdoing?

I believe the only time you can appeal a "not guilty" verdict is when the jury convicts and the judge decides to set aside the conviction and issue a bench verdict of "not guilty".

"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." If he HAD been found "innocent," he couldn't appeal at the civil and federal levels.

[memecrunch.com image 847x468]

This is literally the stupidest thing I've ever read on Fark, and I have a five-digit account number.


I don't know man. This person obviously has a GED in law from an accredited online university. I suggest not farking with them.
 
2013-07-14 03:56:41 AM

shower_in_my_socks: tollbooth_willy: Debate?  It was many people pointing out that this is a bullshiat comparison and you repeatedly ignoring anything that didn't fit your narrative of "he guilty."

No, it was a bunch of people with reading comprehension problems that couldn't understand that the 911 tape contained what the husband SAID had just happened, not a recording of it as it actually happened. And as soon as I pointed out that the 911 recording was from after the shooting and therefore could not have possibly contained a recording of what had happened before the shooting, you and everyone else here STFU.


I'm actually less interested in arguing the merits of the Marissa Alexander case over and over and over, and more about celebrating the fact that a man saw justice and a fair trial despite intense political pressure to throw him in jail for no other reason than outrage.

You did mention you had listened to the 911 call. Can you give me a link? I'll be happy to pick this argument up the next time there's a Marissa Alexander thread (and you know there'll be one sooner or later, it's the latest racial narrative du jour)
 
2013-07-14 03:56:55 AM

Amos Quito: Hey, sillydragon - I really hope that this all fizzles - that the Sharptons, the Jacksons, the Spike Lees and the OBAMA's are TOTALLY disappointed that their little attempt at division through race-baiting failed like Zimmerman's prosecutors.


No you don't.  You're just wanking it to Turner Diaries.
 
2013-07-14 03:57:34 AM

Southern100: Dimensio: EbolaNYC: aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Something occurred to me as I read this.  Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked.  Say Martin fought back.  Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin.  Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.

Had Zimmerman been killed instead, Trayvon would have (or should) been acquitted for the same reason, stand your ground/self defense. That law does little more than make it ok for people to kill each other with a much better chance of getting off.

What specific actions of Mr. Zimmerman would have justified the use of deadly force by Mr. Martin?

He could have pulled his gun and had it in his hand before TM "jumped/assaulted" him.  I think TM would have been justified in cracking his skull open if that had been the case, and I would have supported a Not Guilty plea for TM in that event.

And who knows - it might have happened that way, only GZ was victorious - and as we all know, the winners write the history books. If that had been the case and there had been a witness, then GZ would have burned.

There was no evidence for that, so the prosecution couldn't make a case for it. And as Anne Droid says, it's votes that count.


Speculating, without basis, on actions that Mr. Zimmerman "could" have taken does not constitute an explanation of the specific actions that Mr. Zimmerman did take.
 
2013-07-14 03:57:41 AM

s2s2s2: Lorelle: Treygreen13: I was wondering how long it was going to be until somebody brought out the big guns and threatened cosmic justice.

Who's threatening? I've lived long enough to see that what goes around comes around.

Throw a fist. Catch a bullet.

Cosmic.


Doin' the Bull Dance. Feelin' the flow. Workin' it. Workin' it.
 
2013-07-14 03:57:55 AM

oregon fubaralas: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Treygreen13: oregon fubaralas: Molavian: oregon fubaralas: Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

What appeal?

The civil and federal ones. LOOK IT UP!

What would you "appeal" in a verdict finding no wrongdoing?

I believe the only time you can appeal a "not guilty" verdict is when the jury convicts and the judge decides to set aside the conviction and issue a bench verdict of "not guilty".

"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." If he HAD been found "innocent," he couldn't appeal at the civil and federal levels.


Aren't those the same thing? I have never seen an "innocent" verdict.
 
2013-07-14 03:57:57 AM

oregon fubaralas: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Treygreen13: oregon fubaralas: Molavian: oregon fubaralas: Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

What appeal?

The civil and federal ones. LOOK IT UP!

What would you "appeal" in a verdict finding no wrongdoing?

I believe the only time you can appeal a "not guilty" verdict is when the jury convicts and the judge decides to set aside the conviction and issue a bench verdict of "not guilty".

"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." If he HAD been found "innocent," he couldn't appeal at the civil and federal levels.


"Innocent until proven guilty."

Not proven guilty = innocent.
 
2013-07-14 03:58:34 AM

aerojockey: Gyrfalcon: That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Something occurred to me as I read this.  Say (hypothetically, don't know if it's true or not) Zimmerman did get out of his car and assault Martin unprovoked.  Say Martin fought back.  Say Zimmerman was in fear of his life and shot Martin.  Could Zimmerman be potentially found guilty of felony murder?

I know that wasn't the prosecution's case, but.


Yes.  If Zimmerman had committed the assault first, then self-defense would not apply.  Any self-defense/SYG claim goes right out of the window the moment that the person claiming self-defense becomes the aggressor.  That actually was part of the prosecution's case against Zimmerman but the big problem with that theory is that there is no evidence Zimmerman assaulted Martin.  Hence, reasonable doubt and the acquittal.
 
2013-07-14 03:58:59 AM

Treygreen13: oregon fubaralas: Molavian: oregon fubaralas: Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

What appeal?

The civil and federal ones. LOOK IT UP!

What would you "appeal" in a verdict finding no wrongdoing?


He's right though, the Federal Govt. could possibly charge him with a federal "hate crime".  They'd have one hell of a time proving it though.

He can never again be tried by the State of Florida for any crime regarding the death of TM though, that's true.
 
2013-07-14 03:59:32 AM

tollbooth_willy: Nope.  Try again.  You left off after trying to claim that only the husband had 1) a restraining order against him, 2) a criminal record, and 3) a history of domestic abuse.


I was incorrect that she didn't have a domestic abuse charge, but it was from the same abusive relationship in which she was also abused. He had prior convictions for domestic abuse against other women before her. Within their relationship, they had both abused each other. But he was the one with the longer history of violence.
 
2013-07-14 03:59:32 AM

Sniper061: Any self-defense/SYG claim goes right out of the window the moment that the person claiming self-defense becomes the aggressor.


Godfarkingdammitsomuch!
 
2013-07-14 03:59:55 AM

Lorelle: No justice tonight (no surprise), but there will be eventually. Karma's a biatch.

mr lawson: So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.

He's half white and uses a white name.


Heh...nice. Not Hispanic enough for ya? Maybe if he had the last name of Hernandez or something he'd be more Hispanic in your eyes? I had no idea that a name made more or less "white".
 
2013-07-14 04:00:12 AM

Elegy: shower_in_my_socks: tollbooth_willy: Debate?  It was many people pointing out that this is a bullshiat comparison and you repeatedly ignoring anything that didn't fit your narrative of "he guilty."

No, it was a bunch of people with reading comprehension problems that couldn't understand that the 911 tape contained what the husband SAID had just happened, not a recording of it as it actually happened. And as soon as I pointed out that the 911 recording was from after the shooting and therefore could not have possibly contained a recording of what had happened before the shooting, you and everyone else here STFU.

I'm actually less interested in arguing the merits of the Marissa Alexander case over and over and over, and more about celebrating the fact that a man saw justice and a fair trial despite intense political pressure to throw him in jail for no other reason than outrage.

You did mention you had listened to the 911 call. Can you give me a link? I'll be happy to pick this argument up the next time there's a Marissa Alexander thread (and you know there'll be one sooner or later, it's the latest racial narrative du jour)


https://soundcloud.com/rippa-2/marissa-alexanders-husband 

It is after the fact (hadn't listened to it before), but honestly after listening it sounds fairly convincing.  Not sure a guy that had a criminal record and had just beaten his woman would call the cops in that situation.
 
2013-07-14 04:00:20 AM

oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: Dimensio: oregon fubaralas: When the 911 dispatcher told him to not follow, Zimmerman legally gave up all right to use the standard ground defense. The jury was instructed to IGNORE that law.

Zimmerman will lose on appeal though. But by then, the damage will be done.

Are you attempting to "troll", or are you genuinely entirely ignorant of United States law?

It's not just Florida.

You did not address my question.

Are you attempting to "troll", or is your statement issued due to an ignorance of law?

I did answer your question, and ignorance is the farthest thing I'm from. Read the book:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=THE+FLORIDA+LAW+BOOK


You are mistaken. You have not explained whether you are "trolling" or whether your statements are a result of a complete lack of understanding of law.
 
2013-07-14 04:00:45 AM
I just finished setting up a couple new servers and a SAN, and then migrating all my VM's to the new hardware. So I crack open a beer and open Fark, only to see this thread. Now I'm gonna be up all night reading everything here. Thanks Farkers!

I think I'll wake the wife up early and go have some pancakes.
 
2013-07-14 04:00:49 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Sniper061: Any self-defense/SYG claim goes right out of the window the moment that the person claiming self-defense becomes the aggressor.

Godfarkingdammitsomuch!


I suggest you give up fighting the good fight, let it go, and glory in the fact that you were right about all of the facts in this case since the beginning of the trial.

You can't fix 'em all, man.
 
Displayed 50 of 2644 comments

First | « | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report