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.

(Opposing Views)   Kid shot dead by police said to have anger issues. Dad called police on his own son because apparently cops are just like therapists except with loaded guns   (opposingviews.com) divider line 138
    More: Followup, McPherson, Opposing Views, therapy  
•       •       •

5968 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Nov 2013 at 12:21 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-11 05:03:11 PM

jaybeezey: Animatronik: jaybeezey: HotIgneous Intruder: You call the cops, you're writing off the kid.

Kid was living in a shelter, he had already been written off.

He was 19 years old. Perhaps drugs were involved, given how angry he was over "cigarette money"

I'm sure they were, but family is family. If you bail on your kid, what's to keep him/her from bailing on you.

If the kid was truly to the point of danger to himself or others, he should have been in psychiatric care.


Easier said than done. I know several people with mental disorders and until they actually commit a crime there is really not much you can do to make then get treatment. Someone can be sketchy and give off that snap-at-any-moment vibe, but unless they make an actual threat you can't just lock then up.
 
2013-11-11 05:11:55 PM
Holy shiat! I had no idea that explaining WHY the term "unarmed" was used by a journalist was going to cause such a controversy. The term was used simply to inform the reader that the guy didn't have a gun or a sword or a flamethrower (or another device commonly described as a "weapon") on him. It was not used to indicate that a vehicle can't be used as a weapon...anything can be used as a weapon. Nor was it used to describe a double-amputee.
 
2013-11-11 05:19:19 PM

another cultural observer: Panatheist: BiffDangler: Anybody who would call the cops to teach his son a lesson is a farking moron.  If you don't know that cops shoot first and ask questions later these days, you haven't been paying attention.

what do you do with a raging juggernaut? i'm not asking about the article, but if someone had such a family member themselves (didnt even rta). If said person with anger issues is an adult, is threatening you, and yelling loud enough that neighbors might call the cops anyway, do I take him to an emergency therapist right then and there? is there such a thing? how do you get a person like that to go seek help? how do you keep him from  breaking your stuff, and you?

you assholes have no idea what you're talking about, you've never had a truly difficult/dangerous family member

Everyone is assuming dad is a smart, thoughtful, decent human being. A court records search reveals numerous convictions for alcohol-related and domestic violence-related offenses.  He didn't call his therapist before calling the police.  He was probably drunk at the time, and his selfish thinking led to this entire disaster.  It was probably less "oh, it's so sad I have to do this", and way more "I'll teach that little FARKER a FARKING lesson!"


Who cares? Dad is an asshole, it seems the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree. Dad didn't get into his truck and go on an urban rampage, and hence dad is still alive despite being an asshole.
 
2013-11-11 05:23:31 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Holy shiat! I had no idea that explaining WHY the term "unarmed" was used by a journalist was going to cause such a controversy. The term was used simply to inform the reader that the guy didn't have a gun or a sword or a flamethrower (or another device commonly described as a "weapon") on him. It was not used to indicate that a vehicle can't be used as a weapon...anything can be used as a weapon. Nor was it used to describe a double-amputee.


I think you are missing the point.  I object to the use of the term unarmed because it is deliberately misleading for the purpose of creating a more provocative story.  Additionally, it is inaccurate as it is misleading.  In other words, the reporter was not justified in using that choice of words, and he did it for reasons that are inconsistent with good journalism.

And you continue to miss the point that narrowly defining someone as armed only when they use an object purpose built only to injure is demonstrably a false definition, both legally and semantically.  I can be armed with a boxcutter.  I can be armed with a baseball bat.  I can be armed with a screwdrive.  None of these objects were designed to injure, but all do so effectively.  A person driving a car in a way that places police or bystanders in danger is using the car as a weapon.  Shooting him is not 'shooting an unarmed man'.  Do you honestly not understand the inflammatory nature of that phrase when it is used to describe police action?
 
2013-11-11 05:40:36 PM

MycroftHolmes: I object to the use of the term unarmed because it is deliberately misleading for the purpose of creating a more provocative story.


I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I don't think the journalist was doing that at all. I get the impression that he said "unarmed" just to let the public know that the vehicle was the only "weapon" in play, so that people weren't under the impression that the guy also had a gun.

MycroftHolmes: Additionally, it is inaccurate as it is misleading. In other words, the reporter was not justified in using that choice of words


I disagree that it was misleading, for the reasons stated above. With that said, I don't think the reporter was out-of-line.

MycroftHolmes: And you continue to miss the point that narrowly defining someone as armed only when they use an object purpose built only to injure is demonstrably a false definition, both legally and semantically.


And you keep missing the point...I am not defining anything. I was simply explaining WHY the term "unarmed" was used by a journalist.

MycroftHolmes: Shooting him is not 'shooting an unarmed man'. Do you honestly not understand the inflammatory nature of that phrase when it is used to describe police action?


Yes. I see where you're coming from. But you seem to be assuming that the reporter chose that wording specifically to make the police look bad. I'm merely pointing out that that might not be the case at all. The reporter possibly chose the word "unarmed" to clarify that the suspect was not in possession of a weapon other than the vehicle, rather than as some sort of condemnation of the officer's use of force.
 
2013-11-11 05:47:04 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: I object to the use of the term unarmed because it is deliberately misleading for the purpose of creating a more provocative story.

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I don't think the journalist was doing that at all. I get the impression that he said "unarmed" just to let the public know that the vehicle was the only "weapon" in play, so that people weren't under the impression that the guy also had a gun.

MycroftHolmes: Additionally, it is inaccurate as it is misleading. In other words, the reporter was not justified in using that choice of words

I disagree that it was misleading, for the reasons stated above. With that said, I don't think the reporter was out-of-line.

MycroftHolmes: And you continue to miss the point that narrowly defining someone as armed only when they use an object purpose built only to injure is demonstrably a false definition, both legally and semantically.

And you keep missing the point...I am not defining anything. I was simply explaining WHY the term "unarmed" was used by a journalist.

MycroftHolmes: Shooting him is not 'shooting an unarmed man'. Do you honestly not understand the inflammatory nature of that phrase when it is used to describe police action?

Yes. I see where you're coming from. But you seem to be assuming that the reporter chose that wording specifically to make the police look bad. I'm merely pointing out that that might not be the case at all. The reporter possibly chose the word "unarmed" to clarify that the suspect was not in possession of a weapon other than the vehicle, rather than as some sort of condemnation of the officer's use of force.


You seem to be arguing that the reporters choice of words was merely informational, and not meant at all to be prejudicial.  If that was the case, what relevance to the sentence did the word 'unarmed' have?  If it was not meant to describe his threat level relative to the level of response, then why use the word at all.  It would have been as equally relevant to describe the color of shirt he was wearing or what his birthday was.  The only, only reason to indicate that the shot teen was unarmed was to create controversy.

So, your entire stance comes down to the belief that the reporter chsoe to describe the teen as unarmed merely as an objective description, when it is clearly inflammatory in this case, as well as inaccurate.  Either the reporter is an awful reporter, or he is an awful reporter.  Either he chose his words to be deliberately misleading, or he included irrelevant, misleading, and incorrect information in his lede.
 
2013-11-11 05:47:07 PM

Panatheist: what do you do with a raging juggernaut?


Early in the morning?
 
2013-11-11 06:15:40 PM

MycroftHolmes: You seem to be arguing that the reporters choice of words was merely informational, and not meant at all to be prejudicial. If that was the case, what relevance to the sentence did the word 'unarmed' have? If it was not meant to describe his threat level relative to the level of response, then why use the word at all.


Because it lets people know that there isn't a gun or knife in play.

MycroftHolmes: So, your entire stance comes down to the belief that the reporter chsoe to describe the teen as unarmed merely as an objective description, when it is clearly inflammatory


My stance is that the term "unarmed" was possibly used to tell me that the only "weapon" involved was a truck. I will acknowledge that it could have been done to make the cops look bad, but I didn't get that impression at all.
 
2013-11-11 06:24:36 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: You seem to be arguing that the reporters choice of words was merely informational, and not meant at all to be prejudicial. If that was the case, what relevance to the sentence did the word 'unarmed' have? If it was not meant to describe his threat level relative to the level of response, then why use the word at all.

Because it lets people know that there isn't a gun or knife in play.


He also wasn't tapdancing at the time, and his favorite color was yellow.  Both of these facts are equally relevant to the incident as was the fact that he did not have a gun or knife.  A gun or knife would define his threat level, saying that he was unarmed, even accepting your very narrow definition that only purpose built objects can be defined as weapons, implies an absence of threat.  The fact that he was controlling a 3000 pound vehicle in a dangerous and threatening manner defined his threat level.  Mentioning that he did not have a knife or gun was irrelevant and misleading.

MycroftHolmes: So, your entire stance comes down to the belief that the reporter chsoe to describe the teen as unarmed merely as an objective description, when it is clearly inflammatory

My stance is that the term "unarmed" was possibly used to tell me that the only "weapon" involved was a truck. I will acknowledge that it could have been done to make the cops look bad, but I didn't get that impression at all.


Then it was awful journalism.  What possible reason would the journalist have had for including that word?  Why would the presence of a gun or knife have been ore or less relevant when it was clear that he was threatening the officers with his truck?  I still see no reason to even use the word unless it was strictly meant to be inflammatory.  So, I will again ask you, given the context of the situatuation, the fact that the driver had rammed the policer officers and that he was revving up his engine, why would it matter as a datapoint whether or not he had a gun or knife?

Mind you, I still fundamentally disagree that being armed only applies to objects designed to be weapons.  I am sure that it is shocking to all of us that the World Trade Center's were destroyed by a handful of unarmed men.
 
2013-11-11 06:43:10 PM

MycroftHolmes: He also wasn't tapdancing at the time, and his favorite color was yellow. Both of these facts are equally relevant to the incident as was the fact that he did not have a gun or knife.


If the suspect had a gun, he could've shot at the cops. It actually IS a relevant fact. Furthermore, this isn't a 'court of law', scenario. This is a 'letting folks know what's going on' scenario. Had the reporter not used the descriptor "unarmed", there would be question if the guy had a gun on him.

Look, you and I are clearly in disagreement about this, and that's not likely to change. You think the ONLY reason to include the word "unarmed" is to paint the police in a negative light. I don't see it that way. It's fine. The world would be a pretty boring place if everybody agreed about everything.
 
2013-11-11 07:27:14 PM
I still say the shooting was unwarranted. I've seen worse chases than that on COPS and they managed to stop the guy without gunfire. Big deal, he rammed into the cop car, that doesn't deserve a death sentence.
 
2013-11-11 07:36:48 PM

impaler: After watching the dash cam of the kid careening off-road in the middle of campus, I have no issues with the cop's actions.


This. The kid endangered the life of the officers and the public. When he refused to stop the police had a duty to stop him.
 
2013-11-11 07:50:18 PM
 . . . and the therapy is a lot more effective: it never fails to make the point.
 
2013-11-11 08:10:12 PM

MycroftHolmes: the World Trade Center's were destroyed by a handful of unarmed men.


you would think it would take longer to bring a building down with just box cutters
 
2013-11-11 08:32:49 PM

medius: MycroftHolmes: the World Trade Center's were destroyed by a handful of unarmed men.

you would think it would take longer to bring a building down with just box cutters


You'll notice that they did not replace them with another two boxes.
 
2013-11-11 08:44:16 PM
Not one of life's biggest winners.
<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.opposingviews.com="" sites="" opposingviews.com="" files="" imagecache="" 300x250="" featured_image="" comstockmug.jpg"="" target="_blank">  www.opposingviews.com

I wonder what the cop looked like.
 
2013-11-11 08:58:30 PM

msbpodcast: Not one of life's biggest winners.
<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.opposingviews.com="" sites="" opposingviews.com="" files="" imagecache="" 300x250="" featured_image="" comstockmug.jpg"="" target="_blank">  [www.opposingviews.com image 301x251]

I wonder what the cop looked like.


At least it's accurate.  Most media has run with his high school freshman year picture.  "Yup, here's who the cop shot, folks! Draw your own conclusions!"
 
2013-11-11 09:00:05 PM
Also, if this kid had been black, this thread would be past 1,000 by now, and Al Sharpton would be bleating about social justice.  So it's at least refreshing in that regard.
 
2013-11-11 09:49:27 PM
That's the hardest looking 19 I've ever seen.
 
2013-11-11 10:56:05 PM

Flt209er: Snarfangel: Jument: I'd like to see how the average therapist would react if you tried to kill him with your car.

"Tell me about your motor."

Let me tell you about my motor.

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 500x238]


This picture always freaks me out because this guy is the spitting image of a guy I worked with years ago.
 
2013-11-12 12:01:28 AM

leftymcrighty: I agree that they kinda needed to shoot him after the whole thing was said and done, but really it was preventable.  They shouldn't have engaged him on the chase in the first place. That's the reason so many cities have a "no pursuit" policy.

The guy was off his rocker, yes. But he wouldn't have been driving like that if there weren't sirens going behind him.


So  your theory is "Do any damn fool thing you want.  Rob a bank, steal a car, kidnap a child, whatever the hell you want, the cops have no right to chase you and if anything goes wrong while cops are chasing you, it's their fault".  That makes you an asshole who wants thugs to do stupid shiat without getting caught.

cherryl taggart: NarAnon is similar to Al-anon


I'm assuming that what you mean there is "a bunch of religious fanatics are going to tell you that if you don't pray to Jesus, you are going to hell".  I can't imagine having a problem and going to religious nutcases to find my way out of it.

Sin_City_Superhero: Holy shiat! I had no idea that explaining WHY the term "unarmed" was used by a journalist was going to cause such a controversy. The term was used simply to inform the reader that the guy didn't have a gun or a sword or a flamethrower (or another device commonly described as a "weapon") on him. It was not used to indicate that a vehicle can't be used as a weapon...anything can be used as a weapon. Nor was it used to describe a double-amputee.


For what it's worth, I agree with you, and I suspect that even the idiots arguing with you agree with you.  Some people troll just to troll.  Some have a stick up their ass and want to be "technically correct" even if it makes no logical sense.  Everyone knows the guy had a vehicle, and saying "he was unarmed" doesn't change that - for normal people.  But these guys want to scream about "he was armed he was armed!".  Obviously, if the paper wrote "He was armed" then people would assume he had a gun or similar.  I'm pretty sure even the idiots arguing with you understand all of this, but they are assholes who don't care.
 
2013-11-12 01:24:47 AM

another cultural observer: It was probably less "oh, it's so sad I have to do this", and way more "I'll teach that little FARKER a FARKING lesson!"


Mission accomplished.
 
2013-11-12 06:49:20 AM

JuggleGeek: For what it's worth, I agree with you, and I suspect that even the idiots arguing with you agree with you. Some people troll just to troll. Some have a stick up their ass and want to be "technically correct" even if it makes no logical sense. Everyone knows the guy had a vehicle, and saying "he was unarmed" doesn't change that - for normal people. But these guys want to scream about "he was armed he was armed!". Obviously, if the paper wrote "He was armed" then people would assume he had a gun or similar. I'm pretty sure even the idiots arguing with you understand all of this, but they are assholes who don't care.


Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: He also wasn't tapdancing at the time, and his favorite color was yellow. Both of these facts are equally relevant to the incident as was the fact that he did not have a gun or knife.

If the suspect had a gun, he could've shot at the cops. It actually IS a relevant fact. Furthermore, this isn't a 'court of law', scenario. This is a 'letting folks know what's going on' scenario. Had the reporter not used the descriptor "unarmed", there would be question if the guy had a gun on him.

Look, you and I are clearly in disagreement about this, and that's not likely to change. You think the ONLY reason to include the word "unarmed" is to paint the police in a negative light. I don't see it that way. It's fine. The world would be a pretty boring place if everybody agreed about everything.


This honestly makes sense to you.  OK.  So, if I see a headline 'Police shoot black man', and it turns out that his race had nothing to do with anything, you would be completely OK with it?  Since th epresence or lack of gun had nothing to do with the threat that a guy rampaging in a turck poses, I am still struggling to follow your mental process of 'Did he have a gun??????  I MUST KNOW!!!!!'  You seem to be falling directly into the trap that I would have preferred the author avoided, by wondering if the driver had a gun, you are looking for justification for the shoot.  The justification was irrelevant of whether he had a gun, a bazooka, or a rubber band. He was posing a threat by the way he was using his truck.  i know you struggle with the idea that a truck could be classed as a weapon, but it clearly was, in this case.

I will leave it at this.  Journalist use words as their craft.  They should use words surgically and purposefully.  Each word should have a meaning and a purpose.  What would be the purpose of using the word 'unarmed' in this sentence?  I know you said it was to let everyone know he didn't have a gun, but what relevance did that have to the event?  I have asked that question several times and still haven't seen a reason why his gun\no-gun status is relevant.
 
2013-11-12 10:14:40 AM

MycroftHolmes: This honestly makes sense to you. OK. So, if I see a headline 'Police shoot black man', and it turns out that his race had nothing to do with anything, you would be completely OK with it?


This doesn't have anything to do with race.  The only reason you are changing it to a racial story is because you have no argument.

The guy was not armed.  He did have a vehicle which he as using as a weapon.  Everyone that reads the story knows that, because the story says he wasn't armed and says he had the vehicle.  They also link the video, so you can see him using the car as a weapon.

You want them to pretend that he had a gun, but he didn't.
 
2013-11-12 10:31:24 AM

JuggleGeek: MycroftHolmes: This honestly makes sense to you. OK. So, if I see a headline 'Police shoot black man', and it turns out that his race had nothing to do with anything, you would be completely OK with it?

This doesn't have anything to do with race.  The only reason you are changing it to a racial story is because you have no argument.

The guy was not armed.  He did have a vehicle which he as using as a weapon.  Everyone that reads the story knows that, because the story says he wasn't armed and says he had the vehicle.  They also link the video, so you can see him using the car as a weapon.

You want them to pretend that he had a gun, but he didn't.


You are so close to getting the point.  Push on through.

This had nothing to do with race.  That is 100% correct.  The polices response also had nothing to do with whether or not he had a gun.  Can you close the loop yet?  It is sooo close.

Given the natiure of the threat he was presenting with his vehicle, his status of being armed or unarmed was as relevant as his skin color, taste in music, or favorite teletubby.  That is to say, not relevant at all.  The police's action was appropriate irrespective of his status of having a gun.  It just didn't matter.

Again, the lede stated that police shot an unarmed man.  Are you trying to tell me that you honestly feel like this is a neutral, non-prejudicial statement, especially as his status being armed or unarmed (which is arguable based on definitions, the legal one provided says that he was clearly armed) is irrelevant?

You guys are sooooo close.
 
2013-11-12 10:48:07 AM

MycroftHolmes: i know you struggle with the idea that a truck could be classed as a weapon, but it clearly was, in this case.


A truck can be used as a weapon, but that doesn't make it a weapon. It's still a vehicle. If I use a stapler to hammer a nail into a board, no one on Earth would call the stapler a hammer, would they? Why are you struggling with this so much?
 
2013-11-12 11:14:36 AM

Sin_City_Superhero: MycroftHolmes: i know you struggle with the idea that a truck could be classed as a weapon, but it clearly was, in this case.

A truck can be used as a weapon, but that doesn't make it a weapon. It's still a vehicle. If I use a stapler to hammer a nail into a board, no one on Earth would call the stapler a hammer, would they? Why are you struggling with this so much?


This line argument has been refuted over and over again.  First, you are making the assumption that the definition of armed or unarmed only applies to objects purpose built as weapons.  This notion has been dispelled in both legal and common usage.  Second, you are defining a weapon as something that can only be used as a weapon.  I will ask you, would you consider nunchuks to be a weapon?  They are actually flails that farmers used as weapons.  What about kitchen knives.  Or baseball bats.

Below is a definition of weapon

weapon [ˈwɛpən]n
1. (Military / Arms & Armour (excluding Firearms)) (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) an object or instrument used in fighting


Also is a definition of armed

armed
adjective \ˈärmd\
Definition of ARMED
1
a :  furnished with weapons <an armed guard>; also :  using or involving a weapon


So, basically, anyone who is using an object for fighting, which this guy was, is armed with a weapon.  I know it is a diffciult concept, but words have meanings, you can't just arbitrarily assign them to mean what you want them to.  Keep trying, slugger.  One day you will be armed with knowledge (oh wait, that will mean that you will have to have a gun or knife to fight knowledge, by your non-existant definition).
 
2013-11-12 03:33:20 PM

MycroftHolmes: This had nothing to do with race. That is 100% correct.


And yet you are screaming about race.

The polices response also had nothing to do with whether or not he had a gun. Can you close the loop yet? It is sooo close.

The polices response wasn't related to him having a gun - he didn't have one.  People reading the story, however, might be curious if he had a gun, which is why the article specifies that he didn't.
 
2013-11-12 03:37:57 PM

JuggleGeek: MycroftHolmes: This had nothing to do with race. That is 100% correct.

And yet you are screaming about race.


wow.  I mentioned race as hypothetical example of including irrelevent information to form an inflammatory comment was a bad thing.  You have successfully proven my point beyond my wildest dreams.

The polices response also had nothing to do with whether or not he had a gun. Can you close the loop yet? It is sooo close.

The polices response wasn't related to him having a gun - he didn't have one.  People reading the story, however, might be curious if he had a gun, which is why the article specifies that he didn't.


They might also be curious as to his race, his height, and favorite teletubby.  But none of these facts are remote relevant to the issue at hand.

Let me ask, would respond the same to both sentences

'Police shoot unarmed teen sitting in car'
'Police shoot driver who was ramming other vehicles'

Be honest, is one of those more provocative than the other?
 
2013-11-12 03:52:31 PM
You are trying to pretend that the news article is trying to paint a picture of the teen as an innocent who did nothing wrong.  But if they wanted to do that, they would not have linked the video.
 
2013-11-12 04:15:07 PM

JuggleGeek: You are trying to pretend that the news article is trying to paint a picture of the teen as an innocent who did nothing wrong.  But if they wanted to do that, they would not have linked the video.


You and Sin have still answered the question, since the threat he was presenting was completely irrespective of whether or not he had a gun, why was it relevant to include the fact that he was unarmed (of a gun or knife) when he was shot by police.  You had an immediate reaction to my hypothetical 'Police shoot black teen', but in this case, his gun or no gun status is as relevant (or irrelevant) as his skin color, or favorite teletubby.

When you write a sentence, every word should have a meaning and a purpose.  Why disclose the information that he did not have gun, when it was not relevant to the reason why he was shot?

As to your point about including the video, the journalist is not likely the same person who composed the webpage.

Bottom line, it was a poor choice of words.  It was misleading, factually incorrect, prejudicial and provocative, and irrelevant.
 
2013-11-12 04:35:32 PM
Bottom line, you are trolling.
 
2013-11-12 04:39:07 PM

MycroftHolmes: As to your point about including the video, the journalist is not likely the same person who composed the webpage.


The headline includes "After Wild Chase (Video)", and the article includes "police dashboard camera video showing the pickup truck driven by Tyler Comstock barreling through streets, backing up and ramming an cop car, and careening recklessly across a lawn on the Iowa State University campus".  This reporter wasn't pretending the kid was innocent and shot for no reason, you just have no grasp of reality.

Me and Sin have both explained this.  Personally, I think you understand it, and that you are just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.
 
2013-11-12 04:41:28 PM

JuggleGeek: Bottom line, you are trolling.


Actually, no I am not.  I am probably beating a dead horse, and have taken far more guilty pleasure out of this discussion than I should, but there is nothing insincere about any stance I have taken.

You should probably give up arguing on the internet, you were soundly disproven at every turn (at one point, your reaction to my hypothetical proved my point about the usage of inflammatory irrelevant data), you have failed to answer the simplest of questions (why would his gun\no gun status be relevant) and have been unable to defend even a single one of your stances.  So, you fall back to the 'deerrrrrrr,  you trolling'.  That is about as succinct a capitulation as I have seen.  At least Sin had the wisdom to run away.
 
2013-11-12 04:45:35 PM
You didn't prove anything except that you are an asshole who enjoys saying stupid shiat.
 
2013-11-12 04:53:05 PM

JuggleGeek: You didn't prove anything except that you are an asshole who enjoys saying stupid shiat.


Wow, you became a bad cliche rather quickly.  Perhaps insulting my mother or threatening to settle this man to man would be your next move?
 
2013-11-12 05:07:32 PM
Dad might have just finished reading Deuteronomy 21:18-21 in his Bible the night before this all went down.
 
2013-11-12 07:24:25 PM

MycroftHolmes: you were soundly disproven at every turn


congratulations! you're the winner!
 
Displayed 38 of 138 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report