Police Abuse

Angry, Upset Cop Kills Shocked, Unarmed Man Face Down on the Ground Over Expired Inspection Stickers; Naturally, Acquitted of All Charges

|

Ed Krayewski blogged about this shooting when it happened earlier this year. Officer Lisa Mearkle of Hummelstown, Pennsylvania, was hunting David Kassick through the Pennsylvania snow as if he were a frightened deer.

Why was this paladin of public safety doing this? Because she saw Kassick had an expired inspection and emission test stickers on his car. When she tried to pull him over for it he kept driving, eventually to his sister's house, then got out of the car and continued to try to move toward safety for himself and not quietly let her apprehend him.

She tased him, he was writhing on the ground, she screamed at him loud and long about showing his hands and not moving and then she shot him twice in the back, killing him. He had no weapon and pointed nothing at her.

She was acquitted this week on charges of third-degree murder and voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Associated Press insists in its report that "Kassick's hands repeatedly disappeared underneath his body as Mearkle screamed at him to keep them where she could see them and then fired the fatal shots."

Upon charging her, District Attorney Ed Marisco believed the video supported an indictment:

"At the time Officer Mearkle fires both rounds from her pistol, the video clearly depicts Kassick lying on the snow covered lawn with his face toward the ground," according to the arrest affidavit. "Furthermore, at the time the rounds are fired nothing can be seen in either of Kassick's hands, nor does he point or direct anything toward Officer Mearkle."

You can watch the video yourself at this site. I don't find the AP's version unambiguously correct, if only because the video did not always show Kassick's body. Certainly he was at times trying to show his hands, though also going through understandable felt need to just seek something like comfort as his body reacted to electric shock**. There was at least one point where for a half-second one hand was clearly not visible to Mearkle, and then it was again, with no weapon in it

Mearkle didn't seem to be moving to where her visual angle on the downed victim would satisfy her desire to be exactly sure where his hands were at all times. I guess reasonable people could differ on whether there was any reason at all to think Kassick could have been any threat at all, but it is abundantly clear from Mearkle's voice and behavior that she was by no means at that point a reasonable person.

She had been hunting a human like an animal through his family's property and shocking him for no reason any sane person could see as reasonable. I guess when you consider it your job to do that to people (she presumably at this point had the vehicle driving with its fatal expired emission and inspection sticker's license plate and could pursue the vital to public safety task of ticketing him through other more peaceful means), you might on occasion get a bit high strung and worry that, hmm, maybe this guy I just chased and tasered and is writhing on the ground because I'm hunting him with weapons drawn and screaming at him like a bloody insane banshee might try to hurt me.

Even though I can see no evidence of this, I should just kill him. 

Surely a jury will think that makes sense. And because she's a cop, they did. Mearkle even complained on the stand that her even being charged was politically motivated.

**CORRECTION: The post originally misused the term "electrocute" three times to describe what happened to Kassick. That term properly means to kill with electricity, not merely to shock.

NEXT: Obama Rejects Keystone Oil Pipeline: Not in National Interest

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Mearkle even complained on the stand that her even being charged was politically motivated.

    Honestly, I can’t think any other reason a prosecutor would do so. I’m guessing she was a known fuck-up at a level beyond the pale even for her various level fuck-up colleagues. Otherwise this would have been swept under the rug as an officer reasonably fearing for her life long ago.

    1. That’s what I was thinking. Either that or this was the 1 in a hundred DA who actually tries to convict all murderers. But even then, the jury screws it up. Of course it’s hard to blame them when they probably had dozens of angry officers staring at them for the entire trial.

      1. When an officer is on trial, how can an impartial jury of local citizens be impaneled?

        1. You’d have to go at least two jurisdictions over, or maybe even out of state. This is one area that the Fed gov could actually do some good. Require this all over the country, enforce it and help facilitate it.

        2. When an officer is on trial, how can an impartial jury of local citizens be impaneled?

          What do you do when you’re walking down the street and get attacked by a herd of gazelle-riding midgets whistling the theme from “Gilligan’s Island”? It’s not like that question needs to be addressed very often.

  2. I think this officially makes this the most nut punching-est week since Balko left.

    I thought there wasn’t a way that this one could be excused. Shows what I know.

    1. It’s absurd. This jury just told every cop in the area that they can murder with impunity. There are supposed to be disincentives to murder…

      1. The jury was well aware the cops know where they live. Voting not guilty is self preservation.

  3. Ignoring the fact that she ought to be in prison right now, somebody this cowardly and emotional is obviously not fit to work as a police officer. At least fire this piece of shit.

  4. Good job, officer.

    1. Meh. 1/10. Dunphy would make excuses while talking about how great a cop he is.

      1. And bragging how much America luvs him.

        1. Notice that he’s all over other threads today but hasn’t touched this one.

  5. Politically motivated??Fuck you Mearkle. You’re a murderer!

    1. OK, Quentin. Don’t you have a formulaic movie to make or something?

      1. Formulaic is entertaining if you like the formula.

        1. You missed my earlier sharing of the butthurt from Nat’l Review.

          1. They… didn’t like Hateful 8?

      2. Don’t you have some wood to chip?

        1. Wood, no.

          Tyrants, yes.

  6. She had been hunting a human like an animal through his family’s property and electrocuting him for no reason any sane person could see as reasonable.

    Wut?

    1. Brian’s blood was up while writing this one. I think he needs a refresher from Balko on how to stay cool in the face of official depravity.

      1. Steel cup.

  7. If that is not a clear case of murder by cop all hope is lost.

    That woman has no business being an officer. She was in panic mode and just shot the guy while sreaming at him. How can she reasonably expect someone writhing in pain because she just tazed him be able to obey commands effectively.

    What a fucking POS jury also.

    1. Well, Pennsylvania does just looooooove the police.

  8. It’s easy for you to judge the situation from your armchair, Doherty, but you weren’t there. It would have taken less than a second for Kassick to fight through the electrocution to tear the taser barbs out of his skin, pull out the automatic weapon he probably had concealed on his person, draw a bead on Officer Mearkle from a prone position, and BAM.

    The fact that Mearkle chased this dangerous menace down without backup carrying a chainsaw or flamethrower or something is a testament to what a hero she truly is.

    1. Seriously. Even if he had been reaching for a weapon, as she supposes, he was lying on his stomach, facing away from her and was mostly incapacitated by repeated and lengthy taser shocks. It would have been nearly impossible for him to turn and fire before she could have hit him multiple times, even if she waited until a gun was clearly visible.

  9. How did a Jury acquit? Absolutely no one saw a crime happen?

    Probably, because no crime happened. We give the Police Card Blanc to kill people during apprehension, regardless of crime or ordinance.

    I believe we should do the following with the Police:

    – Take away their guns (Have a second tier like SWAT be the only ones armed).
    For meter-maid purposes, like expired inspection sticker, NO GUN.
    For meter-maid purposes, like speeding and other traffic offenses, NO GUN.
    For routine driving and walking patrol, NO GUN.

    Otherwise: for Armed Robbery, Armed Suspect, etc. etc. etc., the SWAT TEAM.

    – Take away the power of arrest for anything below a FELONY within the jurisdiction
    (exclude superior ones like Fed/County). This you can arrest anyone for disorderly conduct
    and then dismiss the charges has to go. The police have shown NOTHING but immaturity and
    irresponsibility with this power.

    – Arm all meter-maids with NET-GUNS in which one can be tasered.

    – Cameras Cameras Cameras

    1. – Take away their guns (Have a second tier like SWAT be the only ones armed).

      2A says you can’t take away people’s guns and/or right to defend themselves. Just warrant to shoot, like search and seizure.

      1. That’s an interesting theory. I don’t think it says that you can’t tell employees that they can’t carry on the job. It may or may not be a good idea, but I wouldn’t say that having unarmed police violates the 2nd amendment.

        1. Sure, but when officers are sent out in their own vehicles or to parts unknown to do police work or between shifts or w/e, you’re going to be hard pressed to tell them they can’t defend themselves.

          In a way, ‘Stand your ground’ does exactly this for private citizens legislatively rather than judicially.

          1. Except that the key difference between a Hero In Blue and Joe Jackoff is that self-defense for Joe is very narrowly defined, where self-defense for a Hero In Blue is, in practice, extremely (and excessively) broad.

            1. Exactly. As this case clearly demonstrates, even highly implausible suppositions of “reaching for a weapon” that are clearly caught on tape are deemed self-defense in the jury box today.

              1. If you are a police officer, I mean. Obviously you or I would be facing the death penalty for the same shooting.

                1. Obviously you or I would be facing the death penalty for the same shooting.

                  That is beyond any doubt.

              2. Don’t blame the jury. They’re the ones getting stared at by uniformed thugs making throat-cutting motions.

            2. Except that the key difference between a Hero In Blue and Joe Jackoff is that self-defense for Joe is very narrowly defined, where self-defense for a Hero In Blue is, in practice, extremely (and excessively) broad.

              Right, so narrow down and/or explicitly define a priori when they’re just ‘defending themselves as civilians’ and when acting in accordance with/service of the law.

              It works similarly in the other matters (e.g. executing inmates, ‘No Trespassing’, and search and seizure). *This clearly was not the case* but if one of Kassick’s relatives in the house had a restraining order against him and either a civilian or the police shot him dead, it wouldn’t really be a question about whether the law was being upheld v. self-defense and I don’t think a civilian would get significantly different treatment from an officer in that case.

              A warrant would delineate crimes allowed for lethal enforcement (instead of all being covered by self defense) and indicate to the legal system and public at large that a) officers aren’t generally allowed to go around shooting people and b) when an officer does shoot someone, they should have approval and/or a crime fitting the punishment.

              Not saying this is *the* solution, just that when officers claim 2A and the right to carry a gun, there are actually lots of ways to solve the problem.

      2. Cops don’t carry personal weapons. You absolutely can take away department-issued weapons without violating the 2A. If they want to carry a sidearm, let it be their own. The department can have a couple of shotguns and rifles for dealing with the rare situations that call for them. No automatics, either. If the proles can’t have it, …

        1. Cops don’t carry personal weapons.

          This isn’t true or isn’t true everywhere with any consistency. I know some of departments have explicitly approved lists of sidearms that officers can purchase/carry specifically because they can’t tell officers “Carry sidearm X or take a hike.”

          1. That doesn’t really affect my point. If the department doesn’t issue weapons, then what I said doesn’t apply.

            1. By that same token then, your point doesn’t affect what I was saying. What does it matter who owns/provides/brought the gun when the question is, ‘Was the person killed in self-defense or in enforcement of the law/punishment for a crime?’

              Would you feel better if she took the baton to the back of his knee and then ‘positionally asphyxiated’ him while waiting for backup?

              1. 2A says you can’t take away people’s guns

                I’m sorry, I thought I was responding to this. Apparently I was responding to everything you’ve ever said. Silly me.

                1. My mistake. Possibly/probably sloppy use of “people’s guns” v. “peoples’ guns” v. “peoples guns” on my part and I lazily assumed (or didn’t read between the lines) that you weren’t redundantly saying “cops who carry department-issued firearms don’t carry personal sidearms… etc.”

                  1. Np, I was getting a little testy for no reason.

    2. Alice Bowie cont’d.

      – Get a PSYCHIC pre-crime unit like in that movie with the guy from Risky Business.

      – Tell all the cops to only do GOOD STUFF, and not do BAD STUFF.

      – Hire INSPECTOR GADGET.

      1. Alice Bowie cont’d. cont’d.

        – make it ILLEGAL to DO CRIMES.

        – let ALICE BOWIE have some of that good stuff from the evidence room, COME ON.

        – take away ALL of the guns everywhere always and make everybody wear HELMETS.

        1. You mock me.

          That’s ok. I’m use to it.

          I would also demand that no citizens walk around with loaded firearms.
          Castle Doctrine can apply for the home, even for the car, and even for special circumstances for people being threatened and stuff.

          But cops with meter-maid duties need not be armed. That’s what we do in NYC, btw. Our transit police is not armed.

          1. So driving around with your method of self defense is ok, but walking around with it isn’t? Sucks if you don’t own a car I guess.

            I mean, who has ever been accosted walking home from the bus stop….oh, wait, that did happen to me. Well, I was able to run home and call the police, so I really didn’t need to defend myself from those four assholes who chased me home then loitered out front while considering if I was worth the risk of a hoe invasion. The cops trying to make the events somehow my fault was just icing on the cake.

            You had me at “disarm police” then lost me at “disarm everyone else”.

          2. I would also demand that no citizens walk around with loaded firearms.

            Who are you to demand any such thing?

          3. How often does someone just walking around with a loaded firearm actually cause problems? It’s only a problem when they try to use that firearm to hurt someone. And if they’re willing to hurt someone with a firearm, why would they care about also breaking a law about carrying the firearm?

          4. You mock me.

            That’s ok. I’m use to it.

            I would think you must be.

    3. Alice, this will not fix the problem. People should be free to choose their own security services.

      The very idea that folks have to be extorted, with no recourse against folks that are granted qualified immunity by the state, in order to be protected and served is ludicrous.

    4. My gawd, you are a moron.

  10. Just wishful thinking, I know. But a cop should have to see a weapon pointed at them in a way that clearly poses an immanent threat before they can use deadly force against someone. Otherwise, it’s murder. Dont like it? Don’t be a cop.
    Instead the standard seems to be that if the cop isn’t sure that you aren’t posing an immanent threat, they get to murder you. Murder, murder, murder. That’s what it is.

    1. You got a surprise comin’, Zeb!

    2. Cereal Killer

      Murda, Murda, Murda, Kill, Kill, Kill.

    3. the standard seems to be that if the cop isn’t sure that you aren’t posing an immanent threat, they get to murder you

      That is the standard, there’s no “seems to be” about it. I had posted a thing yesterday about the cop who got a medal for heroically shooting an armed assailant and then had the medal taken away (ANEH) when the video showed what actually happened is that the guy had dropped his gun and gotten down on the ground and only then did the cop walk over to him and shoot him as he lay there. And still the comments I had seen on the subject where that, well, the gun was laying right there where the guy could have grabbed it so the cop was right to have shot the guy. And I suspect the sorts of people making that argument would be exactly who you would find on a jury.

      1. I can’t believe I haven’t seen anything about the story you mention, any chance you have a link? The comments will probably make my head explode like some of the comments on this story found on other sites. “If he didn’t want to die he shouldn’t have run” and other nonsense.

  11. News stations have no problem showing a graphic murder by cop. I’ve seen several now.

  12. The natural human, even mammalian, unconditioned, involuntary reflex to excruciating pain is to curl up into a fetal position.

    So while the cop electrocutes his body toward an involuntary fetal position, she COMMANDS that he spread eagle himself, the exact opposite of his body’s natural reflex, and then executes him for failure to Respect Her AUTHORITAH by overriding his body’s involuntary reaction to torture.

    It’s really a beautiful example of evil.

    1. STOP SPASMING AND OBEY MY COMMANDS

  13. Cancer. Get it.

  14. Murder, straight up.

    He was not attacking her. She was not in danger.

    Let a non-LEO try that one and see what happens.

  15. expired inspection and emission test stickers

    expired inspection and emission test stickers

    expired inspection and emission test stickers

    KILL HIM

    1. Gotta fill the organ banks.

      1. I’m pretty sure they don’t take organs with bullet fragments in ’em.

        1. Those go into the sausage banks.

      2. Gotta fill the organ banks.

        +1 Niven

    2. Rules must be followed !

    3. I lol’d and then had a sad.

  16. CORRECTION: The post originally misused the term “electrocute” three times to describe what happened to Kassick. That term properly means to kill with electricity, not merely to shock.

    It still sort of works. He was killed WITH electricity, just not BY electricity. Electricity was present at his death.

    Nikki’s gonna yell at me now, isn’t she.

    1. Paralectrocution.

      *dusts off hands*

    2. She used an electrical weapon on him designed to incapacitate and then shot him because she did not believe he was subsequently incapable of following her commands.

      I am not sure I have understood “electrocution” to be exclusively used for electricity running through the body causing death.


      1. electrocute
        v.

        “execute by electricity,” 1889, American English, from electro- + back half of execute. The method first was used Aug. 6, 1890, in New York state, on William Kemmler, convicted of the murder of his common-law wife. Sense involving accidental death is first recorded 1909. Electric chair is also first recorded 1889, which is when the first one was introduced in New York state as a humane alternative to hanging. Related: Electrocuted; electrocuting.
        Online Etymology Dictionary, ? 2010 Douglas Harper

        hence my modification above with the para- prefix.

  17. I just threw up in my mouth a little.

  18. I can’t hear the video at work but where does she shoot him? I

    1. In the back.

      1. Does it show him getting shot in the video?

        1. To be honest, i can’t bring myself to watch it.

        2. The audio and video seem to be out of synch by a second or two. There isn’t any blood and it’s not obvious he has been shot or that he dies. Although we all know the outcome, the video ends before he dies. But at the 1:12 (or close to it) mark you can see a slight puff of smoke in the top of the screen, then you hear a shot, then a couple seconds later another puff of smoke followed by another shot. After the second shot you can kind of see his jacket move and some snow seems to be disturbed in front of him. I watched it a few times before I finally noticed the smoke indicating the gun was shot.

        3. If nothing else, the cops have eliminated the market for snuff films.

    2. You must listen to the video to understand the true evil of this person. She screams at him to get on the ground (when he already is) and to show his hands as her taser is crackling. When he can’t comply by overcoming the resulting muscular spasms, she fires two in his back. Then continues to tell him to show his hands as they are laid out in front of him and she lets him bleed out.

      1. That’s the part that always floors me with these murders. Even after they shoot the person they let them bleed out instead of at least trying to perform some kind of emergency response, and every cop car has emergency trauma kits available.

        Unreal.

        1. Those trauma kits are in case a Hero gets hurt, Tman. They’re not meant for the normals.

        2. It’s only unreal if you don’t think like a cop. I’ve even heard police spokespeople say the reason in press conferences before. It’s usually goes something like this, “There where only two witnesses, and one of them can’t talk”.

          1. “There where only two witnesses, and one of them can’t talk”. Usually, they call the person who was murdered the “suspect”, rather than the “victim” when a cop is the murderer.

  19. Wait…I’m……….SHOCKED…………to hear this happened!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Oh, wait – too soon?

    FYTW

  20. CORRECTION: The post originally misused the term “electrocute” three times to describe what happened to Kassick. That term properly means to kill with electricity, not merely to shock.

    Tortured with electricity also works.

    1. Nudged into compliance through voltage.

      1. “I’m shocking on Sunstein, whoa-oh! I’m shocking on Sunstein, yeah-ah!

          1. “BWA-BWA Chicka-chickaahhh…….BWA-BWA Ohhhhh yeahhhh.”

            /secrettoJW’ssuccess

          2. You have no idea how much.

    2. electroture(d).

  21. I hope the family is at least going to get a nice civil settlement out of the city/county. Maybe the taxpayers will learn their lesson.

  22. I’m looking forward to the day a cop buys a 30 minute block of airtime on some cable channel, has a camera follow him around until he comes up on some random elderly woman, beats the fucking daylights out of her, rips out her heart and eats it, then takes a huge dump in her chest cavity. That cop will be acquitted, the unions will express their support of the ruling, and a majority of the public will cheer.

  23. Maybe Tarantino should make his next movie a documentary of these murdering pieces of shit.

    Oh, and where’s the self-proclaimed respected Dunphy on this thread?

    1. That would be fucking AWESOME!!! He’d be like that fat fuck Moore, but….useful.

      I would help crowd fund that movie…

  24. I am calling for a boycott of this thread, you degenerates.

    1. *tazes Crusty in the face – with two Tazers that are turned up to 11*

      1. “Set tasers to bowel emptying subjugation .”

  25. This really doesn’t surprise me in the least. Citizen’s really want to believe that cops, EMT’s, and teachers are these super human altruistic people who never make a mistake and have no self interest whatsoever. Which works to the advantage of the people running the government entities and the public sector unions so they both work to keep bad actors out of the public view, else they loose their hero aura. Take the Fox Lake, Illinois, police Lt. Joe Gliniewicz for example. Now that they have undeniable proof that he was a criminal. All kinds of stories are surfacing about what a criminal POS this guy really was. And, he was allowed to continue his behavior for 30 years. Probably because holding him accountable would put a black mark on the police force. A bureaucracy, especially a government bureaucracy will always protect itself first and foremost.

  26. She was acquitted this week on charges of third-degree murder and voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

    Just when I think my loathing of my fellow man can’t sink any further, they come up with something even more loathsome.

    Good job you shit-addled fuckwaffles on the jury. Pray that you or a family member is never subject to her sense of justice. OTOH, maybe you bootlicking nose-pickers deserve it.

    1. I’ll wait to see how the jury was told, coached, threatened and/or lied to by the prosecutor and judge before I draw any conclusions about them.

      1. Just by selective presentation of the evidence, the prosecutor can decide what the jury would see.

        TBS, you can be very sure that anybody in the jury pool who had any doubts about the ‘Thin Blue Line’ myth would have been weeded out by peremptory challenge on the part of the defense lawyer.

      2. How about threatened by the cops in the audience?

  27. Meanwhile the left will take no notice of this guy’s murder at the hands of swine and will continue to pretend that only blacks get murdered by police. Short version; if you get murdered by the police and the inherent racism of white people can’t somehow be blamed, then it’s a fluke, a coincidence, a happenstance but it’s definitely not a systemic problem in law enforcement, it’s never ever that.

  28. This will become SOP for carbon polluters.

  29. She should have been convicted on the use of the taser. I didn’t bother to time it, because I ain’t watching that mess again, but she seemed to be determined to run the battery completely dead.

    The taser did its job and got him to the ground and she just kept holding that trigger down while screaming at him. He was clearly and unambiguously trying to show his hands while she kept pulling the trigger on the taser and screaming “show me your hands”. That alone should have gotten her an assault charge from internal affairs.

    I don’t see any way that a reasonable juror could find that she acted properly in firing her weapon. That was just nuts. He is clearly not reaching for anything as he lies face down in the snow. At most you could say he moves his hands to his face or his belly in an electrified dance of protection. When she opens fire it looked like he was trying to put his hands behind his head, but she kept hitting the trigger on the taser. At least I think so. Like I said, one look was way more than enough. That was some seriously callous and depraved stuff – before the shooting.

    1. Your post seems unreasonable to me. It’s the New Reasonable standard.

      SHOW ME YOUR FINGERS! DON’T MOVE! SHOW THEM TO ME! DON’T MOVE!

    2. a reasonable juror

      That is your problem right there. Voir Dire is latin for “Find the dumbest fucking idiots that will do as the State tells them to.”

  30. This is why I am voting for Hillary Clinton. Americans clearly want the police state expanded. I’m going to give it to them.

    1. Unfortunately, we all get it.

  31. Not a lawyer here, but I thought there was a well established legal precedent that cops aren’t supposed to use deadly force except in cases where clearly it’s required to prevent someone from being hurt or killed. How does this situation possibly clear that hurdle?

    (I’m guessing the answer starts with “Fuck you, that’s why.”)

    1. Your guess is correct.

  32. I’ll wait to see how the jury was told, coached, threatened and/or lied to by the prosecutor and judge before I draw any conclusions about them.

    True. 1) The prosecutor could have intentionally bungled the case. 2) Almost every set of jury instructions, the judge lies to the jury. He tells them, “If you find ABC, must find the defendant guilty/not guilty.” That a fucking lie and he knows it. But hey, legal reasoning, stari decisis, and FYTW. 3) Americans propensity to obsequiously suck the cock of their masters knows few, if any bounds. 4) Maybe a member of the police union paid a juror or two a visit on the way to court before deliberations.

    If that is not a clear case of murder by cop all hope is lost.

    Yes, all hope is lost. So maybe Nick’s “Libertarian Moments” are accurate. They are the like the ephemeral high you get after you come, they quickly pass into obscurity of both memory and time.

  33. She said the magical words, and nothing else happened.

    Seriously though, the only thing that can explain this is the prosecutor didn’t want her to get convicted. Which makes sense. Any prosecutor that goes after bad cops will be unable to do their job because their job requires cooperation from the police, and no police department is going to cooperate with a prosecutor who tries to convict cops who murder unarmed innocents. Murder is a perk of being a cop. And no one wants to give up the perks of their job.

  34. Dammit, folks, we’ve got to learn that when the Gestapo says “Papers please” we don’t say or do anything that is equivalent to “Fuck Hitler.” As hard as it is for libertarians, if we want to live, then follow orders, take the freaking ticket or lecture or whatever and then get a lawyer to sue if the cops overstepped their authority. Revenge is best eaten cold.

    1. Revenge is best eaten cold.

      That way, you can buy it with food stamps.

    2. Revenge is best served cold. It can be eaten hot.

  35. Exceeded only by the plainclothed ones in England who shot & killed the face-down guy on the train platform after following him there from home, but in that case he was at least Arabic looking or had an Arab or Indian name or something.

  36. She was acquitted this week on charges of third-degree murder and voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

    Well, neither of those was the crime she committed, so it’s understandable.

    1. What crime did she commit?

      1. In my view, CRIMINAL STUPIDITY.

  37. So I wonder how many on the jury were public employees, former public employees, or had public employees in their immediate family?

  38. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.OnlineJobs100.com

  39. I would think that an expired inspection sticker might merit a citation, aka ticket, but hardly a vehicular chase, high speed or otherwise, followed by a shooting. Of course, I still believe that 2 + 2 = 4.

  40. I think if anyone refuses to be arrested or ticketed the police should just have to get in their car and go home. To allow police to actually enforce any law is an affront to my rights. While this sounds like a crappy shooting it once again demonstrates that some people just will not comply with law enforcement and others will defend them for refusing, so let’s just restrict the police to directing traffic, for those willing to comply.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.