Monday, February 19, 2007

Would You Like Fries with that Ice?

Have you seen this case about a woman who in a fit of road rage threw a cup of McDonald's ice into another car and was sentenced to two years in prison?

No one was injured, but the cup launcher, Jessica Hall, 25, of Jacksonville, N.C., was charged and convicted by a Stafford County jury of maliciously throwing a missile into an occupied vehicle, a felony in Virginia. The instructions given to the jury said that "any physical object can be considered a missile. A missile can be propelled by any force, including throwing."

Hall, a mother of three young children whose husband is serving his third tour in Iraq, has spent more than a month in jail.

The jury sentenced her to two years in prison, the minimum, and a judge will formally impose a sentence Wednesday. Under state law, the judge can only decrease the jury's sentence.

"We didn't think it would go this far," Hall said in an interview at the Rappahannock Regional Jail. "Two years! What did I do?"

Two years in prison seems excessive for throwing ice; I have seen offenders get less time for actually doing serious damage to people with their stupidity. Was McMissile mom's act of road rage reasonable? Of course not, but neither was a jury's decision to put her in jail for two years. What do you think?

Update: "The 25-year-old military wife convicted of throwing a cup of ice into a car that cut her off on Interstate 95 in Virginia has been sentenced to probation.

Jessica Hall of Jacksonville, North Carolina has been in jail for more than a month since her bond was revoked by a Stafford County judge. A jury had recommended that Hall serve two years in prison, but the judge noted Wednesday that Hall has no criminal record and placed her on probation for the felony conviction." Thanks to Bender for the information.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, that's even more idiotic than kids being suspended for bringing nail clippers to school. An SIS with some community service would have been a reasonable penalty. Although when you really think about it, taking care of three kids while her husband does three tours of duty in Iraq is some serious community service in its own right - and could well have put this woman under the sort of stress that would result in this outbreak.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

1:10 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger BobH said...

100 hours of community service would be a whole lot more appropriate.

2:04 PM, February 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excessive, I agree. However I have no patience with people who throw fits in public. 500 hours of community service.

2:12 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Barry Wallace said...

Sometimes laws can be written with decent intentions in mind - it reads well to me - but when a law is put into practice and a penalty is enforced that don't seem to fit the spirit of the law, there should be decent recourse to sentence fairly. Obviously throwing something at the driver of a car is a very dangerous action and the perpetrator should be punished, but jail time for this is probably excessive - especially since she has three kids.

But then, where do you, legally, draw the line the next time? What objects are permissible to not draw a felony charge? Rocks: felony; ice: misdemeanor. Hand grenade: felony; hand sanitizer: misdemeanor. To me an object is an object and if it has the potential to injure or even at the least distract a driver, it's a dangerous weapon no matter what it is. Seems little different than ramming the car itself with your own car. Would that warrant community service if it was done on a busy highway?

2:35 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger knox said...

WARNING: the contents of this cup should not be thrown into another car in a fit of road rage...

3:16 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Cham said...

This is the problems with laws that are interpreted. In my state there is a law on the books saying you can't drive around with a weapon in your vehicle, leaving it up to the judge and jury to figure out what constitutes a "weapon". A rock?...weapon. Paring knife?...weapon. Machete for bushwhacking?...weapon. Now we find out that ice is a projectile.

However, I thought this was the forum for lax sentences for the ladies and those judges and juries that refuse to hand down stiff punishments for offenders. It seems this jury doesn't have a problem in either catagory.

3:17 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


No, that is your projection of what this "forum" is about. This blog is actually about commenting on what is just and fair for all people, regardless of sex, race etc.

3:45 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger LoafingOaf said...

The news story I read said she drove into the emergency lane and threw the McDonalds cup while there was a fatal car accident on the road up ahead.

That makes it sound a little bit worse, but still not deserving of 2 years.

But it was also the minimum sentence the jury could recommend under the statute, and that the judge can reduce it from there. Which the judge probably will.

I'd have to know more before blaming the jury. Did they have the option to convict on a lesser, misdemeanor offense?

And the problem might be the prosecutor. Prosecutors tend to be out of control in America, unfortunately, and often ignore that their duty is to "seek justice." Seeking justice doesn't mean to overcharge someone and try and lock them away for as long as possible while ignoring whether they deserve it. Hopefully the judge will straighten this out.

4:15 PM, February 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read that 2 years was the minimum as well. Moreover, from what I read about the judge's instructions, they didn't have much choice about labeling the cup of ice a "missile." That was really the only point of law in question. Again, maybe the story was wrong, but it made it seem like the jury had to do what it did or nullify the law.

5:09 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger gs said...

The ice thrower is from North Carolina. The incident took place in Virginia. I don't know where the other car is registered.

The ice thrower is black. I don't know about the people in the other car, and I don't know if race is significant in Stafford County justice.

Correction: Stafford County "justice".

In the story linked above, the victim says:
"I think that this is way too much of a punishment for her actions. This is just to me absolutely ridiculous," Fowle said.

Like commenter loafingoaf, I hope the judge rectifies this, but it's already gone way too far even if he does.

5:18 PM, February 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know how many have driven in D.C. area traffic. It's terrible. Bumper to bumper at a snail's pace. You really can walk faster. There are people trying to maintain a safe distance from others. Usually those who don't drive it every day, or tourists, etc. The regulars are impatient and aggressive. There is no way the other driver did not "see" her, or "accidently" drifted back over into her lane.
I think that law may have come from a happening of many years ago. Some mindless kids were throwing cinder blocks off a bridge over the Interstate. One went through someone's windshield. You can imagine the outcome.

5:25 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger KG Finfrock said...

I don't really care what color the woman's skin is and I don't care what her husband does or how many kids she has. Don't care about her being in a pissy mood.
Have you been hit with ice? Not a pleasant thing. Ice can cut. The shock of getting hit with something could have caused an accident involving others.
Two years is about right considering that will be cut in half with good behaviour. I'm sure she will think twice before throwing things.

5:28 PM, February 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I can't help but feel that an illegal alien doing the same thing wouldn't even been charged.

6:19 PM, February 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Ice can cut.

That's ridiculous.

Did you ever get ice from a McDonald's? That ice doesn't have sharp edges so how on earth would you be cut by cup of such ice?

6:21 PM, February 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's wait and see what the judge does. Throwing something into a moving car in a fit of anger has the potential to be a pretty bid deal depending on how well the other driver handles it, but I expect the judge to reduce the sentence.

When you think about people serving as little as seven years for killing people, surely she's not going to go to jail for two years for an incident in which no real harm did in fact come, right?

6:34 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Eric said...

I think two years for throwing small cubes of ice is excessive. Had there been some indication that it created a serious risk (say, if the car was moving and it nearly caused an accident) that would be different. The punishment should reflect the actual threat involved, not some legislative idea of "zero tolerance." If the judge's hands were in fact tied, I think that's a major part of the problem. Judges should be allowed to use discretion.

6:39 PM, February 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gotta figure there is a lot more going on than hits the paper. This might be worth two years (or more) if the cars are going 70 mph, but they were stuck in traffic. I would like to believe that the charge was initially filed with the expectation that it would be plea bargained down to a misdemeanor assault or the like. Lots of dumb ways it could have gotten to this point.

7:52 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Purple Avenger said...

The jury could have nullified, but obviously decided not to. I'm guessing many members of that jury simply had their fill of aggressive drivers (VA is really bad) and were sending a message.

Bad spot to be in when a jury decides they've finally had enough and you're going to be their example.

9:51 PM, February 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My heart breaks for this mom. What about her kids?!? Who was the other driver who apparently doesn't have a heart? The other driver should be thankful that no one was injured and leave it at that. What goes around comes around!

9:55 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

That's two posts that want reduced penalties for someone having children. That's a bogus point of view. Why? If you and I commit the same crime, why on Earth should I have a reduced sentence because I have a kid?

Perhaps those who commit the crimes are the ones we should be asking "what about your kids?"?

As to the other point. If I am attacked by someone, I should be grateful and forgive them if they fail in their attack? No, I don't think so.

I can understand thinking the sentence was too severe for anyone perpetrating that same offense, but the idea that children are an automatic sentence reduction is foolish.

11:01 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Purple Avenger said...

What about her kids?

They'll probably be placed with someone who will be a better example for them.

Would you want kids in the hands of psychos who can flip out like this?

2:30 AM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would you want kids in the hands of psychos who can flip out like this?

Kids should be with their parents unless the parents are abusive to them.

Any normal person can "flip out" given enough stress and provocation. In fact some criminals specialize in committing crimes and torts to provoke people and then playing the victim.

5:54 AM, February 20, 2007  
Blogger LoafingOaf said...

That she did this while her kids (and a pregnant woman) were in the car makes it worse, IMO.

Here's the statute:

§ 18.2-154. Shooting at or throwing missiles, etc., at train, car, vessel, etc.; penalty.

Any person who maliciously shoots at, or maliciously throws any missile at or against, any train or cars on any railroad or other transportation company or any vessel or other watercraft, or any motor vehicle or other vehicles when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life of any person on such train, car, vessel, or other watercraft, or in such motor vehicle or other vehicle, may be put in peril, is guilty of a Class 4 felony. In the event of the death of any such person, resulting from such malicious shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of murder in the second degree. However, if the homicide is willful, deliberate and premeditated, he is guilty of murder in the first degree.

If any such act is committed unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony and, in the event of the death of any such person, resulting from such unlawful act, the person so offending is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

So, the jury could've dropped it down to a Class 6 felony if they didn't find malice.

Then they could've recommended less than 12 months in jail and/or a fine.

(f) For Class 6 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, or in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.

She probably should've taken a plea bargain.

Anyway, unless there's some egresious facts we don't know, I'd think a stiff fine would be plenty punishment.

6:04 AM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She must have had a terrible attorney, who did not understand how to pick a jury and who had a worthless trial strategy. She was factually wrong and yes technically guilty but her conduct was so far at the low end of the malicious intent spectrum that her attorney should have angled for jury nullification. He should have appealed to the jury's sense of justice and put the prosecutor on trial for conducting a petty, mean spirited witch hunt. The fact that this case is newsworthy at all shows that the outcome offends people's basic sense of justice.

7:25 AM, February 20, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Your point is well taken about the children, crimes shouldn't be reduced because people--male or female--have children that need to be taken care of. That said, however, unless there is more to the story, it seems that two years in jail for throwing ice is excessive--stupid, yes, worthy of some type of punishment, yes--but two years in jail when the average length of time for some murders is 6 years seems excessive. Mary Winkler, the husband killer in Tennessee is out on bail, partying in bars while a woman who throws ice has been in jail for a month already. Our criminal justice system is screwed up.

7:30 AM, February 20, 2007  
Blogger Serr8d said...

Road Rage is a Problem in this country. In Nashville, some years ago, I recall a story about a woman was beheaded by an accident involving an enraged driver. (I looked for that story, but couldn't find it; but if you Google 'road rage death' you get 1.49M hits).

I know that, under certain circumstances, if projected ice were to hit me in certain places whilst I was driving, it might distract me long enough to...

...and that's the point. Not what, or how little, happened, but what might have happened. Another driver might consider 'icing down' an opposing driver OK...if this hadn't gotten this much airplay.

I do hope that the sentence is cut, but, seeing this level of conversation, I'm pleased that at least some of us will reconsider our missle attacks...

7:35 AM, February 20, 2007  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

Helen -- she didn't just throw ice. She threw ice from a moving vehicle at the driver of another moving vehicle with children and other drivers involved.

As for killers getting light sentences -- crank 'em up.

7:59 AM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Driver in a moving car gets angry, zooms onto the shoulder of the road to get a better shot, throws something at the driver of another moving car? This is not like flipping them off, someone (or all of them) could have been killed. I'd give her 90 days in the slammer.

11:32 AM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kids should be with their parents unless the parents are abusive to them.

Any normal person can "flip out" given enough stress and provocation."

Hmmm... Off topic, I guess , but can you see a man using this as a defense in a domestic violence case?

No, not successfully, anyway.

On-topic, I would agree that this is quite a stiff sentence given the harm that actually came of it. On the other hand, the law should not treat moms differently because of their motherhood. Or so says the Fourteenth Amendment, anyway.


11:50 AM, February 20, 2007  
Blogger Vader said...

I'm having a hard time getting very worked up over this.

The penalty was excessive. The judge will likely fix that.

The woman was an idiot. I don't think the judge, or anyone else, can fix that.

Seems like society is going to get the worse of the deal.

11:58 AM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm... Off topic, I guess , but can you see a man using this as a defense in a domestic violence case?

No, not successfully, anyway.

Interesting that you chose a male for your hypothetical. Women probably have gotten off with defenses like that. Probably pretty often.

12:22 PM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking at the statute, I wonder if her attorney questioned whether a cup of ice could be defined as a "missile". If it was one cohesive, solid object that was hard enough to damage the car I could see it. But we're talking about something that may have been more liquid than solid, and not solid enough to break a windshield in most circumstances.

Yes, it could have distracted enough to cause an accident, but snow and ice drops from trees, overpasses, etc. all the time.

Our legal system IS out of control. You know there are real crimes going on all the time, if prosecutors are wasting time on this crap someone should fire them or vote them out if they're elected in this jurisdiction.

12:31 PM, February 20, 2007  
Blogger milwaukee39 said...

The sentence does seem excessive. However, I wonder if this would be such a prominent story if the defendant was a 19 year old, childless, unmarried guy. In that case, the reaction would likely be that the punk got what he deserved--you know, raging testosterone and all. Here we have a mom whose husband is serving in Iraq and, predictably, it's all hankies and violins.

12:53 PM, February 20, 2007  
Blogger ronin1516 said...

The lady in question probably had a Legal Aid lawyer, or one of those one-man practise lawyers who hang out in Court, hoping to find clients. Either choice usually gets one a lawyer how is likely to not be very competent. And as y'all know, the quality and the competence of the defense attorney one hires is one major factor in how the jury decides

1:27 PM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Interesting that you chose a male for your hypothetical. Women probably have gotten off with defenses like that. Probably pretty often."

Battered Wife Syndrome.....

PMS defense..........

The husband can be redeployed for a reason like this, unless his Family Care Plan for some reason had to have a provision for incapacitation of his wife. They may be to that level of detail by now.

The fact that mary Winkler is being treated ridiculously leninetly doesn't lessen this crime or the risk it inflicted.

However.... the fact that the lady is black and this is happening in NC pops some red flags for me. It helps explain the Duke hysteria a little better. When we get finished in Iraq, maybe we should send in the troops to sort that place out - time without Posse Comitatus.

2:40 PM, February 20, 2007  
Blogger Frieda said...

all I know, we are going nuts with litigations and excessive demands..2 yrs for throwing ICE for crying out loud!!!

3:25 PM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the sentence was exessive, but I'm bothered by the impression left that the women who was convicted doesn't seem to think she did anything wrong at all. If he attitude in the courtroom was like this I can understand the jury convicting even with the 2 year sentence.

3:57 PM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jessica Hall whines, "Now people are going to see me as an angry, road rage, convicted felon. And it really upsets me," she said. "I must have been wrong . . . but seriously, God. Lesson learned. Lesson learned is one hour in this place."

Yes. People will see her as angry and they will connect her with road rage. As they should. If she sounded sorry at all, I would worry about the excessive sentence. But she saves me from worrying, doesn't she?

I can't imagine throwing anything from my car for any reason, let alone aiming at another vehicle!

4:34 PM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The newspaper article that I read focused on the "missile" question and indicated that the judge made it pretty clear that a thrown cup of ice fit the legal definition. A more important point from the statute above seems to be if life was put in peril. As I said above, if this was at 70 mph I have no problem with 2 years. If its in the middle of a traffic jam I have a hard time figuring whose life is in peril.

6:55 PM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've read some Theodore Dalrymple lately, and he touches on an interesting phenomonon in Britain "...the police, so sluggish in dealing with real wrongdoing, are like avenging angels when it comes to the merest whiff of suspicion that respectable persons may have been up to no good."
The article's here:
and there are plenty more that deal with similar themes.
I don't know much about the woman in question, but I seriously doubt that the vigorous prosecution of this woman was the most beneficial way all those police, prosecutorial and court resources could have been used, and I'm fairly certain that it was safer for the personnel involved than going after hard-core lifestyle criminals.

8:06 PM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope the American jury pool is not losing its sense of proportion. Throwing ice in a open car window in a fit of temper is wrong but should not be punishable by two years in jail. Since nobody was hurt by the ice the punishment is excessive. On a similar note a 11 year old middle school student here in central Florida has been charged with a felony for shooting a classmate in the chest with a pellet from a homemade slingshot at school. He will be in jail for three week and his Mother says the whole incident is blown way out of proportion. How many kids that grew up in the 50's and 60's would still be in jail now for playing with their BB guns?

8:14 PM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, he's not in jail for playing with his BB gun. He's in jail because he shot a classmate in the chest with a homemade slingshot at school.

And I also bet there's more to the story than that.

9:34 PM, February 20, 2007  
Blogger Purple Avenger said...

Kids should be with their parents unless the parents are abusive to them.

Yea, a "caring" crack house or professional hitman is so much better than a foster home for instilling values.

11:53 PM, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She must have had a terrible attorney, who did not understand how to pick a jury and who had a worthless trial strategy. She was factually wrong and yes technically guilty

Of course! It's always the lawyer's fault when a guilty person is found guilty!

As for those suggesting that the charge and verdict were overdoing it, remember that, to convict, the jury had to find that "the life of any person . . . in such motor vehicle or other vehicle, may [have been] put in peril." If ice and a drink are suddenly and unexpectedly thrown on you and the windshield, the risk of being distracted or being unable to see and colliding with another vehicle is great. If that is indeed what happened -- and by its verdict that is what the jury found, and that is what the judge found in denying the usual motion to strike the evidence (known as a motion for acquittal in other states) -- then a two-year mandatory minimum is not unreasonable.

As for sentencing in Virginia -- the judge CANNOT decrease the sentence fixed by the jury. What the judge can do is suspend all or part of the jury sentence.

Given that she was also found guilty of reckless driving, two counts of assault, I would wager that the prosecutor had offered her a deal to dismiss the felony in exhange for pleading to one or two of these lesser charges, but the defendant instead refused and insisted on going to trial. If that is the case, then she has only herself to thank for her predicament. If you are going to gamble on a trial, don't complain if you lose.

1:09 AM, February 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the defendant displays some measure of regret and sincerely takes some responsibility for her actions (and not simply some BS half-assed apology, which will just make things worse), then I can envision the judge suspending all but a short time, perhaps 30 days (or time served if she has already exceeded that), with three years of probation.

If she is unrepentent and does not take some responsibility for what she did, and instead tries to shift the blame to the other driver, or the jury, or the court system, or the judge, or her own attorney, then I can see the judge imposing probably six months of the two years and suspending the rest.

1:21 AM, February 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

purple avenger-

Yea, a "caring" crack house or professional hitman is so much better than a foster home for instilling values.

Huh? Yeah, one of those foster homes where the caretakers like the kids a little too much. Or are just in it for the checks.

11:40 AM, February 21, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Isn't nonsense like this the inevitable result of first pathologizing every kind of bad behavior, and then fueling a hysteria about it in the papers and on TV for months about it?

1:04 PM, February 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has just been reported on the radio here in Virginia that the judge sentenced the defendant to time served (about six weeks) and and placed her on probation, with the remainder of the jury's two-year sentence suspended. Meaning that, if she complies with probation, she will not serve that time, but if she violates her probation, then there is a possibility that the time will be ordered into execution (imposed). That's about what I expected (see 1:21 a.m.)

1:08 PM, February 21, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Thanks for the update! Is there a link somewhere?

2:23 PM, February 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

N.C. Woman Draws Probated Sentence For Highway Ice Throwing Incident

2:40 PM, February 21, 2007  
Blogger Purple Avenger said...

Huh? Yeah, one of those foster homes where the caretakers like the kids a little too much. Or are just in it for the checks.

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet there's fewer of those than bio-parents who are fucked up. Feel free to prove me wrong.

3:00 PM, February 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A night in jail to think a little, a little probation and some community service.

That's an appropriate sentence.

This woman had likely gotten in the the habit of behaving with impunity because she'd learned that (mostly) she could get away with it.

But this is more a spanking offense. It does no good to send her off to a place where the only thing she'll learn is despair and the occupational training, in a practical sense, will mostly consist of learning from other inmates how to be more efficiently violent.

It needs to sting, not impair or maim.

I think I read somewhere that the sentence was reduced to probation. I hope that's accurate.

Confirmation, anyone?


3:25 PM, February 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:22, Regarding your post: "Interesting that you chose a male for your hypothetical. Women probably have gotten off with defenses like that. Probably pretty often."



5:12 PM, February 21, 2007  
Blogger Ken Willis said...

I think the judge did the right thing in giving her probation, but she is going to have a felony conviction. I don't like making what would ordinarily be a misdemeanor into a felony.

Felon status is supposed to mean something more than a momentary lapse of judgment with a cup of ice.

12:12 AM, February 22, 2007  
Blogger Ken Willis said...

It seems that a society that becomes too lenient with the worst of criminals becomes too harsh with people who really aren't criminals but do something stupid in a weak moment.

12:15 AM, February 22, 2007  
Blogger LoafingOaf said...

"The facts of this case ... suggest that the sentence in this case should be reduced," Stafford Circuit Judge Frank A. Hoss Jr. told Hall, who thanked the judge and cried.
Hall, who has been in Rappahannock Regional Jail since Jan. 4, also will have to pay fines and court costs related to three other charges, including reckless driving and assault.
As a condition of her sentencing, she must remain on good behavior for five years. Although Hall was ordered free on charges in Virginia, she remained jailed without bail on an outstanding warrant in Desoto County, Miss., for writing bad checks. Mississippi authorities said yesterday afternoon that they would drop the charge if her family pays the less than $1,000 owed on the checks.
Hall's family has agreed to pay the amount, and she is expected to be released today.
Hall's husband is serving his third tour in Iraq.

1:12 AM, February 22, 2007  
Blogger Ken Willis said...

In the context of this woman's other problems their is a better sense of justice to this case, but each criminal case is supposed to be decided on its own merits.

8:43 AM, February 22, 2007  
Blogger Madlibrarian said...

This would only happen to a black woman in racist Virginia.

5:57 PM, February 22, 2007  
Blogger Serr8d said...

Patricia, that's a tired, old canard you've dragged in here with it permanently chained to your ankle, or can you take it off in the shower?

10:43 PM, February 22, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My heart breaks for this mom. What about her kids?!?"

Why wasn't she thinking about her kids? There are places where the out of court settlement following that kind of attack would leave her dead.

3:28 AM, February 23, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Or to white men in racist North Carolina--spare us your conspiracy theories.

6:54 AM, February 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


6:18 AM, March 15, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


8:53 AM, March 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區momokoko同學會視訊kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風 成人 論壇kiss文學區taiwankiss文學區

8:31 AM, March 22, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片

8:31 AM, March 22, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

85cc免費影城 愛情公寓正妹牆川藏第一美女 成人影片 情色交友網 美女視訊 美女視訊 視訊情人高雄網 JP成人影城 383成人影城 aa片免費a片下載 a片線上看aa片免費看 ※a片線上試看※sex520免費影片※ aa片免費看 BT成人論壇 金瓶影片交流區 自拍美女聊天室 aa片免費a片下載 SEX520免費影片 免費a片 日本美女寫真集 sex520aa免費影片 sex520aa免費影片 BT成人網 Hotsee免費視訊交友 百分百貼影片區 SEX520免費影片 免費視訊聊天室 情人視訊高雄網 星光情色討論版 正妹牆 383成人影城 線上85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 免費視訊聊天室 85cc免費影片 85cc免費影片 080苗栗人聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 免費a片下載 免費a片 AA片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 日本av女優影片 av女優 av女優無碼影城 av女優 av女優 百分百成人圖片 百分百成人圖片 視訊情人高雄網 電話交友 影音電話交友 絕色影城 絕色影城 夜未眠成人影城 夜未眠成人影城 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 免費色咪咪貼影片 免費色咪咪貼影片 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 影音視訊交友網 視訊交友網 080視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊聊天室 成人影音視訊聊天室 ut影音視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊ukiss聊天室視訊ukiss聊天室 視訊交友90739 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 視訊美女館 視訊美女館 免費視訊美女網 小高聊天室 小高聊天室 aio交友聊天室 aio交友聊天室 交友聊天室 交友聊天室 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 免費線上a片 免費線上a片 嘟嘟成人網站 成人漫畫 情色文學 嘟嘟成人網 成人貼圖區 情色文學成人小說 微風成人區 情色貼圖區 免費視訊聊天 免費成人圖片區 愛情公寓 愛情公寓聊天室 寄情築園小遊戲 免費aa片線上看 aa片免費看 情色SXE聊天室 SEX情色遊戲 色情A片 免費下載 av女優 俱樂部 情色論壇 辣妹視訊 情色貼圖網 免費色情 聊天室 情人視訊聊天室 免費a片成人影城 免費a片-aa片免費看 0204貼圖區 SEX情色 交友聊天-線上免費 女優天堂 成人交友網 成人情色貼圖區 18禁 -女優王國 080視訊美女聊天室 080視訊聊天室 視訊交友90739 免費a片 aio 視訊交友網 成人影城-免費a片※免費視訊聊天※85cc免費影片日本線上免費a片 免費色咪咪影片免費色咪咪影片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看成人影城免費色咪咪影片

3:54 PM, April 05, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

免費av成人 情色
視訊美女 寫真
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
sexy diamond sex888入口
成人免費視訊 完美女人
tw33 影片交流
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
domain hilive.tv限制級

4:39 AM, April 09, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


5:27 AM, April 13, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

11:01 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


2:15 AM, June 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home