Skip to content
 
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.

(Huffington Post)   Black off-duty cop was found to have not discharged his weapon, still faces up to 80 years in prison for attempted murder, after using his body to assault 28 bullets fired by white cops   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, attempted murder  
•       •       •

27092 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2012 at 12:47 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-04-04 2:39:27 PM  

halfof33: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Or we can pretend he's actually Bruce Willis as apparently he got the chance to reload while getting shot 28 times.

Or we could do some farking homework and figure out that he was carrying a glock with a 17 round magazine.

Although, your theory that the cops reloaded the gun is farking interesting too.... lulz.


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was the thread where we make shiat up to support our preconceived notions.

I get it - you actually believe the cop surrounded by 4 other cops suddenly went all crazy like black people are known to do and fired off 17 bullets (oddly represented by only one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm at a police officer, which the prosecution failed to prove) . And I get that I'm not going to change your mind about this either.

I just want to let you know I think you're farking retarded.
 
2012-04-04 2:40:15 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: So, this has nothing to do with anything, but did anyone else notice that halfof33 is 17? At least, if you round


Oh man, you owned me!

You mad?
 
2012-04-04 2:42:38 PM  

halfof33: StrangeQ: Right, because this is just an isolated incident.

Y'all got a couple of other stories where the convicted person lit off a whole farking clip at the cops and the defense team tried to make it a race thing? I'd be happy to take a look at them.


Is this now the standard? Smh.
 
2012-04-04 2:43:19 PM  

halfof33: I May Be Crazy But...: So, this has nothing to do with anything, but did anyone else notice that halfof33 is 17? At least, if you round

Oh man, you owned me!

You mad?


Uh, sure. Okay. I mean, if you think I made a good point, I guess I won't argue.

And I'm quite mad, thanks for asking.

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2012-04-04 2:43:39 PM  

Bad_Seed: Cythraul: colinspooky: Cythraul: colinspooky: I say it again. You people are in trouble. Serious serious trouble......

I want to move to the UK where institutionalized racism doesn't exist.

As I said above, this is so much more than racism. Or reading it appears.

Oh please tell us, then. What's the 'big picture?' What are we missing?

The big picture that you're missing is that your entire justice system is farked. The problem isn't racism, but that the perpetrators are allowed to walk away while the victims get blamed. You really don't want to live in a country where the people have no trust in the police or the justice system.


judicial corruption United Kingdom (new window)
police corruption United Kingdom (new window)
 
2012-04-04 2:43:52 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: SoCalSurfer: A change.org petition?

Well that settles it, let him off

Funny how, in this case, they made an ARREST. Except of course, they arrested the half dead guy and charged HIM with attempted murder. I guess its kind of like testing Trayvon's lifeless body for drugs. Keep on wondering why a number of black people don't trust the police or the judicial system.


Why wouldn't they test him for drugs? It would certainly back up Zimmerman claim that he acted like he was on drugs, or if nothing found, make Zimmerman look like he might be lying.
 
2012-04-04 2:44:13 PM  

mycatisposter: Must be racism. A black friend of mine wanted sausage on his pizza, but the pizza place put mushrooms, instead. They are so racist.


Words fail me. Anyone?

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: I just want to let you know I think you're farking retarded.


Thanks. That pretty much covers it.
 
2012-04-04 2:45:10 PM  

wellreadneck: Morgan was off-duty as a detective for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad.

A railroad dick is a cop?



I don't know in the area of this incident but where I live, the local public transportation system- SEPTA, their cops have full police powers on and around transit system property and were the vehicles travel. The transit cops routinely back up Philly and Delaware county officers. And before releasing a suspect SEPTA dispatch gives the suspect the date and time of their court appearance.
 
2012-04-04 2:46:17 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was the thread where we make shiat up to support our preconceived notions.

I get it - you actually believe the cop surrounded by 4 other cops suddenly went all crazy like black people are known to do and fired off 17 bullets (oddly represented by only one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm at a police officer, which the prosecution failed to prove) . And I get that I'm not going to change your mind about this either.

I just want to let you know I think you're farking retarded.


Cool story bro! Wow, the way you roll out all those straw man arguments, no doubt man, you are cool and I'm totes retarded!

Unbiased but retarded article (new window)

/farking douche gets all emotional about a guy he first heard about two hours ago, lulz.
 
2012-04-04 2:49:42 PM  
halfof33: "Lets test his hands for gun residue! Hee hee!"

The point of testing his hands for residue is that the kinds of people who will insist they took a bullet to the vest but fail to take said vest into evidence, fail to properly gather evidence from the scene and allow the victim's van to be destroyed and thus unavailable for forensic study are surely capable of firing off 17 rounds from the vitcim's gun -- a gun they admit to having had possession of at the scene -- to further turn the case into a he-said/she-said mess.

So, absent a residue test, whether the victim's gun had been fired 3 times or 17 times is largely irrelevant given the circumstances.
 
2012-04-04 2:50:47 PM  

JackieRabbit: FTFA: "Protesters and Morgan's family say the second trial amounted to double jeopardy"

Another misunderstanding of the concept of double jeopardy. Deadlocked juries and declarations of mistrial do not mean the accused is not guilty. In these cases, there must be a new trial with a new jury.


Thus, if the possession of insider information discharging a firearm was a critical issue of ultimate fact in all of the charges against Yeager Morgan, a jury verdict that necessarily decided that issue in his favor protects him from prosecution for any charge for which that is an essential element.
 
2012-04-04 2:52:19 PM  

nickerj1: JackieRabbit: FTFA: "Protesters and Morgan's family say the second trial amounted to double jeopardy"

Another misunderstanding of the concept of double jeopardy. Deadlocked juries and declarations of mistrial do not mean the accused is not guilty. In these cases, there must be a new trial with a new jury.

Thus, if the possession of insider information discharging of a firearm was a critical issue of ultimate fact in all of the charges against Yeager Morgan, a jury verdict that necessarily decided that issue in his favor protects him from prosecution for any charge for which that is an essential element.


FTFM
 
2012-04-04 2:52:26 PM  

vernonFL: How can someone be shot 28 times and still be alive? I don't believe it.


He makes 50 Cent look like about 16 cents.
 
2012-04-04 2:53:13 PM  

ringersol: halfof33: "Lets test his hands for gun residue! Hee hee!"

The point of testing his hands for residue is that the kinds of people who will insist they took a bullet to the vest but fail to take said vest into evidence, fail to properly gather evidence from the scene and allow the victim's van to be destroyed and thus unavailable for forensic study are surely capable of firing off 17 rounds from the vitcim's gun -- a gun they admit to having had possession of at the scene -- to further turn the case into a he-said/she-said mess.

So, absent a residue test, whether the victim's gun had been fired 3 times or 17 times is largely irrelevant given the circumstances.


Yeah, well it turned out that there was a test, the defense had the results, and Huff Po is full of farking shiat.

People attacking me for pointing this out in 3, 2, 1...
 
2012-04-04 2:53:42 PM  

Cythraul: Bad_Seed: Cythraul: colinspooky: Cythraul: colinspooky: I say it again. You people are in trouble. Serious serious trouble......

I want to move to the UK where institutionalized racism doesn't exist.

As I said above, this is so much more than racism. Or reading it appears.

Oh please tell us, then. What's the 'big picture?' What are we missing?

The big picture that you're missing is that your entire justice system is farked. The problem isn't racism, but that the perpetrators are allowed to walk away while the victims get blamed. You really don't want to live in a country where the people have no trust in the police or the justice system.

judicial corruption United Kingdom (new window)
police corruption United Kingdom (new window)


Still missing the point, I see.
 
Ehh
2012-04-04 2:54:59 PM  
JackieRabbit: FTFA: "Protesters and Morgan's family say the second trial amounted to double jeopardy"

Another misunderstanding of the concept of double jeopardy. Deadlocked juries and declarations of mistrial do not mean the accused is not guilty. In these cases, there must be a new trial with a new jury.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a new trial is not mandatory. The prosecution may (or may not) ask for a new criminal trial if the first one is a mistrial. I imagine there are rules about how long the prosecution can wait to make up its mind.
 
2012-04-04 2:55:13 PM  

6655321: wellreadneck: Morgan was off-duty as a detective for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad.

A railroad dick is a cop?


I don't know in the area of this incident but where I live, the local public transportation system- SEPTA, their cops have full police powers on and around transit system property and were the vehicles travel. The transit cops routinely back up Philly and Delaware county officers. And before releasing a suspect SEPTA dispatch gives the suspect the date and time of their court appearance.


I can understand cops in a passenger rail system, I just assumed the guy working with freight trains would be a security guard.
 
2012-04-04 2:55:30 PM  
So far, never hearing about this before, I have two questions the articles don't address:

Was the guy who got shot drunk or on drugs, since he was going the wrong way down a street? Hate to say it, but it's not very common to survive getting shot 28 times. Any meth in play, or some such?

Is there any police-cam footage of the stop?

Corollary: If not, why not? Dashcams are the best things invented to both save good cops from made-up allegations, and bury bad cops who lie. Every community should invest in them.
 
2012-04-04 2:56:05 PM  
I don't see the issue. HE WAS BLACK! Can't you people see that?
 
2012-04-04 2:56:37 PM  

nekom: GAT_00: Stupid people unwilling to believe the cops tried to kill a man in cold blood I believe.

Yeah but you would have to be SO openly racist. How else could you explain that to your fellow jurors other than to say "Look, he's black and we have an opportunity to convict him of something, I'm not going to pass that up." That is, IF the facts of the case truly are that he did not fire a weapon (which the jury found), what possible other reason could anyone have for anything other than an immediate vote to acquit?


It says in the article the jury was not allowed to hear that he was acquitted of the other charges.
 
2012-04-04 2:58:12 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: It says in the article the jury was not allowed to hear that he was acquitted of the other charges.


Right, but that's the second trial. Unless I'm misreading something here, in the first trial he was acquitted of illegal discharge of a weapon but the jury was deadlocked on attempted murder. I really can't figure out how that makes any sense.
 
2012-04-04 3:02:10 PM  

Blues_X: jehovahs witness protection: It's only racism when the black guy gets shot.
Ask any reporter.


Herpa derpa farking dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


I've said this before on here, and while I understand why you feel that way, it simply isn't news when poor folk kill one another. Hell, I bet even if a white dude was killed by a black guy it wouldn't be news if they were both poor.

The Trayvon case is a stark reminder of our crappy past with race relations. The murder in itself doesn't highlight a problem when it comes to murders based on race. Those are few and far between yearly--we don't really have a national epidemic with race based murders, white on black or otherwise. But it does remind us of a darker time, that we are either humiliated or enraged by.

So stop playing that card. Or keep playing it and keep missing the point. This keeps hurting because it should.
 
2012-04-04 3:02:46 PM  
Here's IL's statute for aggravated discharge of a firearm: http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/24-1.2.html (new window)

It's nonsensical to come to the conclusion that dude's actions (shooting at the cops, no?) constitute attempted murder when the jury (the finders of fact) already acquitted dude on the aggravated discharge of a firearm.
 
2012-04-04 3:03:04 PM  

halfof33: Unbiased but retarded article (new window)


Yes. This would be the article you linked to earlier. The same article I was responding to.

Did you read it?

Key quotes:
Morgan and the woman [who witnessed the event] claimed he never fired a shot, but the four officers said they fired in self-defense.

As the officers searched him, one of the officers found Morgan's gun in his waistband and yelled out, "Gun!" [Defense lawyer] Adam said. He said Morgan felt the gun ripped out of his waistband as the shooting started.

Adam said the officers were shot by "friendly fire."

But prosecution testimony indicated that Morgan's gun had fired 17 rounds [they did not say by whom]"


On Friday, he was found not guilty of two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm at a police officer and not guilty on one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm at a police officer.



So even the jury who was intimately involved in his case didn't believe he shot at the officers. Not sure you're insisting that he did.

And what makes you think I'm getting emotional? I think it's pretty matter-of-fact that you're farking retarded.

Now, I'm not saying I'm not emotional. Sometimes I get a little weepy when I tell people that today's Wednesday.
 
2012-04-04 3:05:26 PM  
This reminds me of snoop doggs show where he said "try the new 50 cent bar, packed with 9 bullets" though, it seems to have disappeared completely from the world.
 
2012-04-04 3:06:43 PM  

nekom: machodonkeywrestler: It says in the article the jury was not allowed to hear that he was acquitted of the other charges.

Right, but that's the second trial. Unless I'm misreading something here, in the first trial he was acquitted of illegal discharge of a weapon but the jury was deadlocked on attempted murder. I really can't figure out how that makes any sense.


From the retarded article I linked to like a retard:

"On Friday, he was found not guilty of two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm at a police officer and not guilty on one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm at a police officer.

On the five remaining counts, the most serious counts including attempted murder, Cook County Criminal Court Judge Clayton Crane called a hung jury after the jury said they were deadlocked.

Morgan was charged with four counts of attempted murder and four counts of aggravated battery to a police officer."

So they hung on one agg battery and four attempted murder.

But it is retarded for me to post that.

All hail Huff Po!
 
2012-04-04 3:07:01 PM  

gameshowhost: Here's IL's statute for aggravated discharge of a firearm: http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/24-1.2.html (new window)

It's nonsensical to come to the conclusion that dude's actions (shooting at the cops, no?) constitute attempted murder when the jury (the finders of fact) already acquitted dude on the aggravated discharge of a firearm.


Thanks for that, I couldn't find that anywhere, I looked earlier.

So that means then that the first jury (not the second who was not allowed to know about the acquittal of the first) basically found that he did NOT discharge a firearm in the direction of a person, yet they couldn't decide on attempted murder? I don't get it. Maybe there's something else I'm missing.
 
2012-04-04 3:08:18 PM  

JackieRabbit: FTFA: "Protesters and Morgan's family say the second trial amounted to double jeopardy"

Another misunderstanding of the concept of double jeopardy. Deadlocked juries and declarations of mistrial do not mean the accused is not guilty. In these cases, there must be a new trial with a new jury.


That's not correct if the situation = 'acquitted on some counts and jury deadlocked on others'. Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) covers this.

Link (new window)
 
2012-04-04 3:10:03 PM  
I guess what they needed was a:

noobstore.comView Full Size
 
2012-04-04 3:12:19 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound [complete farking douchebag]: halfof33: Unbiased but retarded article (new window)

Yes. This would be the article you linked to earlier. The same article I was responding to.

Did you read it?

Key quotes:
Morgan and the woman [who witnessed the event] claimed he never fired a shot, but the four officers said they fired in self-defense.

As the officers searched him, one of the officers found Morgan's gun in his waistband and yelled out, "Gun!" [Defense lawyer] Adam said. He said Morgan felt the gun ripped out of his waistband as the shooting started.

Adam said the officers were shot by "friendly fire."

But prosecution testimony indicated that Morgan's gun had fired 17 rounds [they did not say by whom]" Wow, this wasn't in the article I retardily linked to

On Friday, he was found not guilty of two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm at a police officer and not guilty on one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm at a police officer.


So even the jury who was intimately involved in his case didn't believe he shot at the officers. Not sure you're insisting that he did.

And what makes you think I'm getting emotional? I think it's pretty matter-of-fact that you're farking retarded.

Now, I'm not saying I'm not emotional. Sometimes I get a little weepy when I tell people that today's Wednesday.


Cripes, I am a RETARD! Reading and linking to the article and not IMMEDIATELY accepting Sam Adams defense version. Thank god we have even handed guys like you [complete douchebag] to turn to

Stupid farking retard me.
 
2012-04-04 3:13:57 PM  

liam76: halfof33: ongbok: So the question should be, if they had all of this evidence and gsr test, why wasn't it presented at trial?

It appears that the GSR test was done (Thanks Huff Press, dumbasses), was introduced in the first trial, the defense had the test, if they wanted to they could have introduced it.

Hmm, wonder why they didn't.

Curious how the article failed to mention that two of the CPD got hit in the body

Curious

In the body or in the vest? Wasn't that one of the complaints, that they never produced a vest?


Given that the 4 CPD's aim was so poor they shot the guy 28 times and didn't kill him, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they hit each other once or twice in the process. ;)
 
2012-04-04 3:18:10 PM  

nekom: gameshowhost: Here's IL's statute for aggravated discharge of a firearm: http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/24-1.2.html (new window)

It's nonsensical to come to the conclusion that dude's actions (shooting at the cops, no?) constitute attempted murder when the jury (the finders of fact) already acquitted dude on the aggravated discharge of a firearm.

Thanks for that, I couldn't find that anywhere, I looked earlier.

So that means then that the first jury (not the second who was not allowed to know about the acquittal of the first) basically found that he did NOT discharge a firearm in the direction of a person, yet they couldn't decide on attempted murder? I don't get it. Maybe there's something else I'm missing.


(BTW it's possible that the statute wasn't phrased as such for the relevant time period, but it's the best I got... hopefully someone can find what 'aggravated discharge of a firearm' statute was when the incident occurred)

There are two trials: Attempted murder (given those same actions, using that same gun) was the charge of the second trial, the first dealt with the aggravated discharge of a firearm.
 
2012-04-04 3:22:32 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: And I'm told by the CCW supporters that being armed is not a crime, so there's that.


Perhaps, but the proper procedure if you are carrying a concealed weapon is to immediately tell the police that you are in possession of a concealed weapon that you are legally carrying.

Cops are funny in the way that they generally don't like to be surprised by a concealed gun on someone.
 
2012-04-04 3:24:16 PM  
Anyone else think that he was going to turn into Robocop after being left for dead?
 
2012-04-04 3:27:06 PM  

gameshowhost: nekom: gameshowhost: Here's IL's statute for aggravated discharge of a firearm: http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/24-1.2.html (new window)

It's nonsensical to come to the conclusion that dude's actions (shooting at the cops, no?) constitute attempted murder when the jury (the finders of fact) already acquitted dude on the aggravated discharge of a firearm.

Thanks for that, I couldn't find that anywhere, I looked earlier.

So that means then that the first jury (not the second who was not allowed to know about the acquittal of the first) basically found that he did NOT discharge a firearm in the direction of a person, yet they couldn't decide on attempted murder? I don't get it. Maybe there's something else I'm missing.

(BTW it's possible that the statute wasn't phrased as such for the relevant time period, but it's the best I got... hopefully someone can find what 'aggravated discharge of a firearm' statute was when the incident occurred)

There are two trials: Attempted murder (given those same actions, using that same gun) was the charge of the second trial, the first dealt with the aggravated discharge of a firearm.


Wait, that reply was Drunken. :/

The first trial acquitted dude on the charge of aggravated discharge of a firearm but there were other elements that the jury deadlocked on. The second trial charged attempted murder and dude was mysteriously found guilty even though the prior, already adjudicated, 'aggravated discharge of a firearm' would necessarily follow.

Nonsensical.
 
2012-04-04 3:27:09 PM  
Cartoon artist's sketch of the incident--

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size



Drawn by Al Capp - sometime in the 1940's
 
2012-04-04 3:28:14 PM  

gameshowhost: (BTW it's possible that the statute wasn't phrased as such for the relevant time period, but it's the best I got... hopefully someone can find what 'aggravated discharge of a firearm' statute was when the incident occurred)

There are two trials: Attempted murder (given those same actions, using that same gun) was the charge of the second trial, the first dealt with the aggravated discharge of a firearm.


In the first trial there were three aggravated battery counts, one aggravated discharge count, and four attempted murder counts.

He was acquited on 2 of the 3 agg battery and the 1 agg discharge, and hung on the rest, including one agg battery charge.

But I've learned today that facts are retarded.
 
2012-04-04 3:28:15 PM  

gameshowhost: There are two trials: Attempted murder (given those same actions, using that same gun) was the charge of the second trial, the first dealt with the aggravated discharge of a firearm.


The way TFA reads the first trial also tried attempted murder but was deadlocked, then the second trial was for attempted murder as well. They aren't exactly real clear but that's how I read it anyway.
 
2012-04-04 3:29:05 PM  

scavenger: Anyone else think that he was going to turn into Robocop after being left for dead?


na, na, na, na, na, na, na nananana,, BOOM!

"Give this man a hand!"
 
2012-04-04 3:29:23 PM  
And to think, this all started when the off-duty black cop put a banana in the tailpipe of the on-duty officer's vehicle.
 
2012-04-04 3:50:30 PM  
God I hope they build a prison fence across the border. You jokers are getting crazy to the point of asylum levels.
 
2012-04-04 3:52:57 PM  

mycatisposter: Must be racism. A black friend of mine wanted sausage on his pizza, but the pizza place put mushrooms, instead. They are so racist.


Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Menu: Starring White Slice with Black Olives
 
2012-04-04 4:04:51 PM  
Cops shooting cops? Fark, I'll buy the bullets if they keep that up.
 
2012-04-04 4:08:13 PM  

halfof33: He was acquited on 2 of the 3 agg battery and the 1 agg discharge, and hung on the rest, including one agg battery charge.


You forgot the most important one, EWB.
 
2012-04-04 4:09:29 PM  

nekom: machodonkeywrestler: It says in the article the jury was not allowed to hear that he was acquitted of the other charges.

Right, but that's the second trial. Unless I'm misreading something here, in the first trial he was acquitted of illegal discharge of a weapon but the jury was deadlocked on attempted murder. I really can't figure out how that makes any sense.


What I can't figure out is why the judge made the decision to block the acquittals from the second trial. After all, it's not like the guy was tried two different times for the attempted murder and discharging a firearm crimes. If it was appropriate to try him for both crimes at the same time, why would it be inappropriate for the acquittal to be included in the new trial? That seems very sketchy to me, like the judge was intentionally stacking the deck against the defendant.
 
2012-04-04 4:10:19 PM  
I'd figure the fark cop hate squad would we super happy about cops shooting each other but their white guilt trumps cop hate. Meh.
 
2012-04-04 4:10:21 PM  
Too bad Paul Harvey isn't here. I'd like to know the rest of the story.

Cop gets stopped for driving the wrong way on a one way road, and the cop(s) who stopped him try to arrest him? That already sounds unlikely. Even giving him a ticket seems unlikely, once they know he's a cop. And it just goes downhill from there, to Mariana Trench levels.
 
2012-04-04 4:12:19 PM  
Impressed.

profile.ak.fbcdn.netView Full Size
 
2012-04-04 4:26:48 PM  
Paging CruiserTwelve... CruiserTwelve to Thread #7031829...
 
2012-04-04 4:38:44 PM  

halfof33: But I've learned today that facts are retarded.


What I've learned today:

FARK: This sucks!
FARK: How terrible!
FARK: Cops suck!
FARK: Seems strange.
YOU: I kno stuff LULZ
FARK: This sucks!
FARK: How terrible!
FARK: Cops suck!
FARK: Seems strange.
YOU: Hai guyz! I sed I kno stuff!
FARK: This sucks!
FARK: That's terrible!
FARK: Cops suck!
FARK: Seems strange
FARK: What do you know?
YOU: BOOM! Biatches! I totes got the real story, yo! LULZ sheep!
FARK: This sucks!
FARK: That's terrible!
FARK: Cops suck!
FARK: Seems strange
FARK: Neither article is very clear.
YOU: Nope! This is totes wut happened! LULZ! HuffPo! Straw Men!
FARK: This sucks!
FARK: That's terrible!
FARK: Cops suck!
FARK: Seems strange
FARK: But your article says mostly what the other article said.
YOU: Nope! It's totes unbiASSed cuz I sed so! LULZ! HuffPo suxx!
FARK: This sucks!
FARK: That's terrible!
FARK: Cops suck!
FARK: Seems strange
FARK: (Points out flaws)
YOU: LULZ! Nope! Yur article is totes for the defense!! Mine is totes unbiASSed! Dintchu see whar I sed unbiASSed be4? LULZ! Sheeple!
FARK: (Continues on rolling its' collective eyes)

/I know, I know
//don'tfeedthe[retarded]troll.jpg
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  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.