Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(YouTube)   It's interesting how the people who define themselves by one fundamental American right, the right to bear arms, show that once race is involved, the only right that they believe in is their right to remain silent   ( youtube.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Team Trump, President of the United States, White House, Bill Clinton, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Trevor, Cuba  
•       •       •

3950 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 20 Jun 2017 at 7:38 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-06-20 02:48:46 AM  
guns are for white christian folks (preferably the rich ones) and nobody else.  that's probably the only thing the GOP has been open about from the start.
 
2017-06-20 03:00:24 AM  
I was looking at hi point 9 that was done in a hundred dollar bill wrap. When I asked if I could get one with Ebt cards on it instead I was asked to leave.
 
2017-06-20 03:04:53 AM  
"Rights for me, none for thee." has been America's mission statement since inception.

Read the original constitution. "The People" are land owning males over 21 years of age. Everyone else can suck it. We've chipped away at that over the years, but it's still the foundation of the culture.
 
2017-06-20 05:28:54 AM  

Weaver95: guns are for white christian folks (preferably the rich ones) and nobody else.  that's probably the only thing the GOP has been open about from the start.


While that is the general sentiment, there is a scoring that takes place when a gun is used and someone innocent dies.

If the innocent is white, the rage will immediately, faster than the life of a Higgs Boson, go to 1000. If the perpetrator is not white, it goes to infinity.

However, if the innocent is not white, the rage will have an upper limit, which is about the same amount as when a Starbucks employee spells your name wrong on the cup.

But, if the innocent is black... well, that's when the "outrage" approaches what could only be described as absolute zero, which is like a 1000 degrees lower than the f*cks you'd give if Hilter dropped his iPod full of nickelback songs because he was kicked in the balls by one of the guys from jackass.
 
2017-06-20 06:29:43 AM  
Does somebody have a better link? I can't see the video. I hate how Google is limiting what videos I can see.
 
2017-06-20 06:47:20 AM  
I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?
 
2017-06-20 07:28:10 AM  
Funny, they mentioned it before.

Philando Castile - Media Fans Flames Of Racism
Youtube q3j34rJytl8


It's just a re-tread of the original meme.
 
2017-06-20 07:44:59 AM  

doglover: "Rights for me, none for thee." has been America's mission statement since inception.

Read the original constitution. "The People" are land owning males over 21 years of age. Everyone else can suck it. We've chipped away at that over the years, but it's still the foundation of the culture.



The whole system was constructed to protect land owning white males, it translated nicely into 19th century industrialists, and now modern global capitalism.


The only time it didn't was after WWII, when we taxed the shiat out of rich people to pay for massive wealth redistribution programs like the GI bill.
 
2017-06-20 07:47:05 AM  

Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?


There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.
 
2017-06-20 07:54:37 AM  
Just added TDS back to my Tivo, for the first time since week 3 or so of Trevor's stewardship.
 
2017-06-20 07:54:43 AM  

iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.


Our jury system is totally outdated and broken for the reasons already stated.

Make it worthwhile and people might take it seriously. Pay well for people's time, put them up in a nice hotel for longer trials, nice craft services for day trials, and treat it like a job. Have some backups so if someone doesn't want to do the job they can be removed.
 
2017-06-20 08:00:35 AM  

iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.


Or you get a miscarriage of justice, because they can't figure out that what the prosecution is arguing isn't actually a crime, but a timeline fits.
 
2017-06-20 08:01:15 AM  
The Venn  diagram between racists and gun owners is probably around 50%.
Not all gun owners are racist, but a lot of racists own guns.
/Gun owner. Not racist
 
2017-06-20 08:01:20 AM  

Weaver95: guns are for white christian folks (preferably the rich ones) and nobody else.  that's probably the only thing the GOP has been open about from the start.


Regardless of if that is the case or not; this particular thing was up to a jury.

Jury trials are known to be all sorts of wacky. Legality and or justice are not necessarily the number one concerns of the jury.

They just want to get home to their terrible wife and ugly kids. Or they want to get back to work; their boss is the kind of ass that threatens to fire people for little to no reason. Or they want to go hangout with the hookers over on 5th st. Ad nauseam
 
2017-06-20 08:02:20 AM  

elpresidenteALO: I was looking at hi point 9 that was done in a hundred dollar bill wrap. When I asked if I could get one with Ebt cards on it instead I was asked to leave.


It's taking my brain a minute to unpack all the ways this is both funny and wrong.  Lol.
 
2017-06-20 08:03:11 AM  
If the man in the second picture had been brown, he would now be a stain on top of Stone Mountain.
 
2017-06-20 08:03:28 AM  

the_innkeeper: iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.

Or you get a miscarriage of justice, because they can't figure out that what the prosecution is arguing isn't actually a crime, but a timeline fits.


Not to mention that they are liable to fall for all sorts of logical fallacies from either side.
 
2017-06-20 08:04:41 AM  

doglover: Read the original constitution. "The People" are land owning males over 21 years of age. Everyone else can suck it. We've chipped away at that over the years, but it's still the foundation of the culture.


While you're right that spirit was this, you're wrong to point to the Constitution. It says pretty much nothing about voting rights one way or another. States could decide who could and couldn't vote. You're right that, early on, almost all the states tied voting to ownership of land (which had the result of giving the tiny number of landowning blacks the right to vote in some states and even widows with property could technically vote in New Jersey). Into the 19th c., these requirements were increasingly challenged, with almost every new state giving universal white male suffrage and most of the old ones removing property requirements. Ironically, as wealth became less a requirement for voting rights, something else had to take its place. That something else was being a white male.
 
2017-06-20 08:05:45 AM  
The NRA loves them some gun control when it's aimed at blacks (The Mulford Act, anyone?)
 
2017-06-20 08:05:57 AM  

iheartscotch: the_innkeeper: iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.

Or you get a miscarriage of justice, because they can't figure out that what the prosecution is arguing isn't actually a crime, but a timeline fits.

Not to mention that they are liable to fall for all sorts of logical fallacies from either side.


Its the ultimate test of what is "reasonable", which changes over time.  If you can convince a jury, then it was reasonable.  Expo factoid, mans rear.
 
2017-06-20 08:06:01 AM  

KingPsyz: iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.

Our jury system is totally outdated and broken for the reasons already stated.

Make it worthwhile and people might take it seriously. Pay well for people's time, put them up in a nice hotel for longer trials, nice craft services for day trials, and treat it like a job. Have some backups so if someone doesn't want to do the job they can be removed.


Or show them Twelve Angry Men at the start of every trial.  Doesn't have to be the movie.  Could be guys with shotguns and a strong sense of civic duty.

The stuff you're talking about costs a lot of money and would often require a rewrite of state constitutions.  I'd love to think that better education about the importance of the justice system would do the trick, but in the non-fantasy world I think it would have to be a combination of both.

Of course, better treatment of jurors would change the selection process and nobody wants that.  So there's no political will to get it done.
 
2017-06-20 08:07:23 AM  

iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.


There's also the factor that the judge is in control of the sentencing, so you can either plead for a short time, or be found guilty and have the Judge send you to jail for a long-ass time.
 
2017-06-20 08:08:42 AM  

DarnoKonrad: doglover: "Rights for me, none for thee." has been America's mission statement since inception.

Read the original constitution. "The People" are land owning males over 21 years of age. Everyone else can suck it. We've chipped away at that over the years, but it's still the foundation of the culture.


The whole system was constructed to protect land owning white males, it translated nicely into 19th century industrialists, and now modern global capitalism.


The only time it didn't was after WWII, when we taxed the shiat out of rich people to pay for massive wealth redistribution programs like the GI bill.


not really, look  at the cases of the Leavitt towns. Blacks where kept out. Also, didn't receive FHA because, of "red-lining"
 
2017-06-20 08:09:48 AM  

eiger: doglover: Read the original constitution. "The People" are land owning males over 21 years of age. Everyone else can suck it. We've chipped away at that over the years, but it's still the foundation of the culture.

While you're right that spirit was this, you're wrong to point to the Constitution. It says pretty much nothing about voting rights one way or another. States could decide who could and couldn't vote. You're right that, early on, almost all the states tied voting to ownership of land (which had the result of giving the tiny number of landowning blacks the right to vote in some states and even widows with property could technically vote in New Jersey). Into the 19th c., these requirements were increasingly challenged, with almost every new state giving universal white male suffrage and most of the old ones removing property requirements. Ironically, as wealth became less a requirement for voting rights, something else had to take its place. That something else was being a white male.



To this day, there is no right to vote, there is merely a list of things that can't take the privilege away.
 
2017-06-20 08:09:55 AM  

DarnoKonrad: The whole system was constructed to protect land owning white males, it translated nicely into 19th century industrialists, and now modern global capitalism.


The only time it didn't was after WWII, when we taxed the shiat out of rich people to pay for massive wealth redistribution programs like the GI bill creating a golden age.


Not instantly, of course. But certainly America is STILL reaping the harvest from the seeds sown in that plan. Of course now the field is fallow as the rich white males have been trying to kill it all for decades.

The time has come to sharpen the sickles of law and harvest the bacon from the fat pigs once more, or the nation may be lost.
 
2017-06-20 08:12:17 AM  

PoweredByIrony: KingPsyz: iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.

Our jury system is totally outdated and broken for the reasons already stated.

Make it worthwhile and people might take it seriously. Pay well for people's time, put them up in a nice hotel for longer trials, nice craft services for day trials, and treat it like a job. Have some backups so if someone doesn't want to do the job they can be removed.

Or show them Twelve Angry Men at the start of every trial.  Doesn't have to be the movie.  Could be guys with shotguns and a strong sense of civic duty.

The stuff you're talking about costs a lot of money and would often require a rewrite of state constitutions.  I'd love to think that better education about the importance of the justice system would do the trick, but in the non-fantasy world I think it would have to be a combination of both.

Of course, better treatment of jurors would change the selection process and nobody wants that.  So there's no political will to get it done.


I simply try to shame people who shiat-talk jury duty.

"Two farking duties.  Vote, and jury.  They don't even make us fight in their shiatty wars anymore.  But noooooo... that's too much of an imposition in exchange for the rights you enjoy as an American citizen.  Go for it, do your best to play Citizen Hookie.  Jokes on you, though.  Disinterested, ignorant, uncritical people are EXACTLY who they choose.

Also, I hope one day you have to endure a trial by jury and you get the benefit of an honest to god jury of your peers.

A bunch of angry, apathetic people who won't give your case more than 15 minutes of thought because they want to get back on facebook to tell everyone how much they hated jury duty."
 
2017-06-20 08:14:43 AM  

doglover: DarnoKonrad: The whole system was constructed to protect land owning white males, it translated nicely into 19th century industrialists, and now modern global capitalism.


The only time it didn't was after WWII, when we taxed the shiat out of rich people to pay for massive wealth redistribution programs like the GI bill creating a golden age.

Not instantly, of course. But certainly America is STILL reaping the harvest from the seeds sown in that plan. Of course now the field is fallow as the rich white males have been trying to kill it all for decades.

The time has come to sharpen the sickles of law and harvest the bacon from the fat pigs once more, or the nation may be lost.


logically?  We should have cut these motherfarkers down 30 years ago, but I suspect things will get far worse before they get better.

Millennials, for all their hype, seem to have their hearts in the right place, but they can't be bothered to do a farking thing about it, not even vote.
 
2017-06-20 08:15:34 AM  
Whitey?
 
2017-06-20 08:16:07 AM  
There is a lifestyle based on fear and inadequacy, and it worships the second amendment.
 
2017-06-20 08:17:46 AM  
In a world with justice, Wayne LaPierre (and a whole lot of other people) keeps getting reincarnated into Castile's body two seconds before the cruiser flips its lights on and pulls him over.
 
2017-06-20 08:18:57 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: Just added TDS back to my Tivo, for the first time since week 3 or so of Trevor's stewardship.


You've missed a good bit; Jon Stewart is a -real- tough act to follow, but Trevor's on equal footing with most of the laugh pundits, IMHO.
 
2017-06-20 08:21:02 AM  

iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.


Plus prosecutors will reject any juror who considers cops less than trustworthy.
 
2017-06-20 08:22:52 AM  

elpresidenteALO: I was looking at hi point 9 that was done in a hundred dollar bill wrap. When I asked if I could get one with Ebt cards on it instead I was asked to leave.


media.giphy.com
 
2017-06-20 08:27:31 AM  

DarnoKonrad: old man yells at clouds


"Millennials" are in their 30s, almost 40 now. They do a f*ck of a lot.

They farking vote. If your candidates aren't winning, it's because they have the wrong platform.
 
2017-06-20 08:30:10 AM  
If by "interesting ", you mean "completely unsurprising "....then yes, Subby, this is "interesting "
 
2017-06-20 08:33:26 AM  

Shrapnel: Barricaded Gunman: Just added TDS back to my Tivo, for the first time since week 3 or so of Trevor's stewardship.

You've missed a good bit; Jon Stewart is a -real- tough act to follow, but Trevor's on equal footing with most of the laugh pundits, IMHO.


The Mrs and I gave up on TDS and started watching the top of Colbert and Meyers.
 
2017-06-20 08:33:47 AM  

the_innkeeper: iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.

Or you get a miscarriage of justice, because they can't figure out that what the prosecution is arguing isn't actually a crime, but a timeline fits.


If what the prosecution is arguing isn't a crime, it's the job of the defense to point that out and get a directed verdict from the judge. It's not the responsibility of the jury.
 
2017-06-20 08:34:02 AM  
I don't see how the NRA could get outraged about Castile.  He was exercising his right to carry.  Not being killed by a bonehead cop is not in their wheelhouse.
 
2017-06-20 08:39:52 AM  

mcmnky: the_innkeeper: iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.

Or you get a miscarriage of justice, because they can't figure out that what the prosecution is arguing isn't actually a crime, but a timeline fits.

If what the prosecution is arguing isn't a crime, it's the job of the defense to point that out and get a directed verdict from the judge. It's not the responsibility of the jury.


I'm sure the overworked public defender will get right on that in his five minutes between cases.
 
2017-06-20 08:41:05 AM  

Saiga410: I don't see how the NRA could get outraged about Castile.  He was exercising his right to carry.  Not being killed by a bonehead cop is not in their wheelhouse.


Being executed by a bonehead cop for legally carrying a firearm is but only if the victim is white.
 
2017-06-20 08:43:58 AM  

Lackofname: iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.

There's also the factor that the judge is in control of the sentencing, so you can either plead for a short time, or be found guilty and have the Judge send you to jail for a long-ass time.


Last time I did jury duty in DC, we convicted a guy on eleven or twelve felonies after less than an hour of deliberations. And half of that time was everyone signing all the damn pages. The other half was explaining to one idiot woman that "reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "Just because it's theoretically possible that the guy with the knife in the guy's ribs didn't stab the victim (on video, mind you) and instead just poked at him and then the victim went home and stabbed himself to make it look like it doesn't mean that doubt is reasonable". She also wondered if God could have created the stab wounds magically as a test and the defendant was actually innocent. Thankfully she came around.

After the trial the public defender and prosecutor told us the defendant had been offered a single misdemeanor charge as a plea deal with no jail time and he refused.

My thought was, this guy was stabbing people in broad daylight in a convenience store (and it wasn't even the clerk), then harassed the victim for weeks with his local gang telling him not to go through with charges, beating him with bottles at one point. And he was offered one misdemeanor? I think 11 felonies was kind of overboard, but one misdemeanor and back on the streets was, one, WAY TOO LENIENT, and two, WHY DID HE NOT TAKE THAT DEAL.
 
2017-06-20 08:56:14 AM  
The stand your ground law in Florida is applied differently based upon race.  So, I'm less than surprised...
 
2017-06-20 08:59:12 AM  

bigfatbuddhist: The stand your ground law in Florida is applied differently based upon race.  So, I'm less than surprised...


Prove it. Give an example and a counter example. Difficulty: Zimmerman never used the "stand your ground" law as a defense.
 
2017-06-20 09:01:11 AM  
I just pray for all the guns involved
 
2017-06-20 09:02:07 AM  

BeesNuts: I simply try to shame people who shiat-talk jury duty.

"Two farking duties.  Vote, and jury.  They don't even make us fight in their shiatty wars anymore.  But noooooo... that's too much of an imposition in exchange for the rights you enjoy as an American citizen.  Go for it, do your best to play Citizen Hookie.  Jokes on you, though.  Disinterested, ignorant, uncritical people are EXACTLY who they choose.

Also, I hope one day you have to endure a trial by jury and you get the benefit of an honest to god jury of your peers.

A bunch of angry, apathetic people who won't give your case more than 15 minutes of thought because they want to get back on facebook to tell everyone how much they hated jury duty."



Be aware that people like you are exactly who the lawyers will weed out as part of jury selection.  Prosecutors want bigots and disinterested people on the jury.  Defense attorneys want people easily swayed by emotional appeals and sad stories.  Neither side wants people with critical thinking skills.
 
2017-06-20 09:05:57 AM  
How does the headline tie in to the video?
 
2017-06-20 09:08:32 AM  

KingPsyz: iheartscotch: Nofun: I'm always skeptical of re-trying the case on Monday morning.  The jury is presented with information that may or may not be public knowledge and the legal representation often has a lot to do with the outcome of cases.

That being said, yeah wtf.  How does that cop get acquited, and where the hell was the NRA to represent the legal gun owner's rights?

There's a reason most people opt for a jury trial.

 For one, it's populated by people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Add in that none of them want to be there and you get decisions like this.

Our jury system is totally outdated and broken for the reasons already stated.

Make it worthwhile and people might take it seriously. Pay well for people's time, put them up in a nice hotel for longer trials, nice craft services for day trials, and treat it like a job. Have some backups so if someone doesn't want to do the job they can be removed.


I was on a jury a couple years ago. We found in the plaintiffs favor but gave her no money. Basically pissed both sides off.
 
2017-06-20 09:09:34 AM  
Why is this not on the main page?
 
2017-06-20 09:11:19 AM  

Alien Robot: bigfatbuddhist: The stand your ground law in Florida is applied differently based upon race.  So, I'm less than surprised...

Prove it. Give an example and a counter example. Difficulty: Zimmerman never used the "stand your ground" law as a defense.


" In "Race, law, and health: Examination of 'Stand Your Ground' and defendant convictions in Florida," researchers Nicole Ackermann, Melody S. Goodman, Keon Gilbert, Cassandra Arroyo-Johnson, and Marcello Pagano combed through data from a Tampa Bay Times investigation. They further examined the 204 cases in the state in which Stand Your Ground was cited as a defense against homicide or some other violent act and the results were, sadly, not surprising. The study found that in cases argued from 2005 to 2013, juries were twice as likely to convict the perpetrator of a crime against a white person than against a person of color. "These results are similar to pre-civil rights era statistics, with strict enforcement for crimes when the victim was white and less-rigorous enforcement with the victim is non-white," the researchers report. "
 
2017-06-20 09:11:56 AM  

John Buck 41: How does the headline tie in to the video?


By being a quote from the video.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report