View Full Version : What are your thoughts on this open carry video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwQQSo9YX4&feature=player_embedded
Here is what I think. I am not LE yet, nor am I an expert on New Mexico laws but...
Technically, the guy was right, by law he didnt have to show his ID. However, 1) why did he feel the need to travel to a traffic stop in progress and approach the officer? Especially while he had his gun? 2) There is a fine line between exc...ercising your 2nd amendment rights and being an asshat who is seeking to get into an argument with law enforcement over individual gun rights. I fully support and excercise my 2nd amendment rights, but people like this guy just make us gun owners look stupid. It does not matter what the situation is, if you are carrying, and if an officer asks for your ID, just be cooperative and show it to him. It saves alot of time, and ensures safety fpr both parties. If this guy really "valued his privacy" like he says he does, then he would spring for the concealment license so that he can carry with privacy. Anyone with a gun should fully understand police officers and the way they are trained to react to someone with a firearm. If someone who carries a handgun does understand this, then they would be more than willing to present their ID so that the officer knows what kind of person he is dealing with.
Patrick604
11-22-10, 10:40
I have no use for fools like the guy on the video.
John_Wayne777
11-22-10, 10:46
My thoughts:
1. The guy in the video is a dumbass of epic proportions. Whether I was the cop or the person who had been stopped, the last thing I want is some idiot with a video camera and an openly displayed firearm intruding upon something that is none of his business.
2. This doesn't belong in the handguns forum.
3. When you act like an attention seeking retard, don't be surprised if you are rewarded with more attention.
1. It should be legal to video, record or photograph in any public place, whether it is a traffic stop, TSA search or whatever.
2. There is no need to get close and provoke the police or distract the police so that they may be placed in danger.
3. That cop in uniform is a douche.
1. It should be legal to video, record or photograph in any public place, whether it is a traffic stop, TSA search or whatever.
2. There is no need to get close and provoke the police or distract the police so that they may be placed in danger.
3. That cop in uniform is a douche.
Are you insane? The officier is in the middle of a traffic stop and a guy with a camera and handgun approaches. There's a douchebag involved here but it's not the cop.
I'm all of open carrying but this guy set out looking for trouble and he's not doing his fellow gun owners any favors with his stupidity.
I'd like 9 minutes and 32 seconds of my time back.
Are you insane? The officier is in the middle of a traffic stop and a guy with a camera and handgun approaches. There's a douchebag involved here but it's not the cop.
.
He should not have approached the cop. But when told to get back, he did. Later in the vid when the cop stopped him, he could not articulate any probably cause for the stop. He just kept talking about "my scene" like so many petty tyrants. It's not his scene, although he did make a scene. Further he could not cite any law requiring a person open carrying to show ID.
Yeah, the kid with the video was an annoying douche. Lots of people in society are annoying.
Yeah, the cop in uniform was a power-hungry type douche. Unlawful stop, unlawful detention of non-suspect.
What a bunch of retards.
Sad thing is those are among the sharper cats you'd find in New Mexico.
pilotguyo540
11-22-10, 12:22
1. It should be legal to video, record or photograph in any public place, whether it is a traffic stop, TSA search or whatever.
2. There is no need to get close and provoke the police or distract the police so that they may be placed in danger.
3. That cop in uniform is a douche.
I agree. The kid was a douche too. The cops were baiting him hard and he was ballsy enough to walk away.He was right to not show his ID. Does not detract from the douchbaggery though. It was bullshit that he walked up to the scene.
The LEO was chickenshit to let him walk, trail him and then stop him down the road. Way to think on your feet! It was wrong, and should be illegal for a cop to lie like that. "you need a license to carry in New Mexico." I thought cops couldnt detain (does this count?) without reasonable suspicion of wrong doing.
The whole thing sucks. Everyone did it wrong.
Every player in that video is an idiot. When idiots get together, lots of stupid shit occurs. Thus we have this video...
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-22-10, 12:45
The car he drove up in maybe had SC plates?
I think he talked too much. If you are going to do these things, you have to stick to the script.
"Am I free to go?"
"Am I being detained?"
Maybe a "I am not required to do that."
Sidewalk is a dumb place for a civics lesson.
John_Wayne777
11-22-10, 13:23
He just kept talking about "my scene" like so many petty tyrants.
A police officer who makes a stop does indeed own the scene...and he has every right to be deeply concerned about some jackwagon that inserts himself into it.
Lay off the stupid comments about "petty tyrants" and "douches", please.
A police officer who makes a stop does indeed own the scene...and he has every right to be deeply concerned about some jackwagon that inserts himself into it.
Agreed. Completely understandable. And if any of us were in that position, no doubt we'd be deeply concerned too. The guy with the camera is indeed a douche, like most activists out to provoke reaction. However, that doesn't provide the police with the right to detain someone and require ID, and both of the police officers should have known that.
citizensoldier16
11-22-10, 13:32
Guys, I think we're missing the elephant in the room here...
Yes, the guy in the video was a moron. Yes, the officer in uniform was a {deleted for JohnWayne}.
However...in watching this video a second time, I realized that we as a society have become WAY too complacent and do not value our rights. We're all familiar with the quote:
"Rights not exercised are rights lost"
While overly moronic, here is a video of an individual excercising his rights a) to carry/own a gun, b) to maintain his privacy and c) against unlawful search and seizure, or search without probably cause. He asserted his rights under not one, but TWO Constitutional amendments - the 2nd, and the 4th.
While we may not condone his methods, we have to applaud his point.
What I found interesting was that the guy said he was coming to make sure his gf was okay.
Guys, I think we're missing the elephant in the room here...
Yes, the guy in the video was a moron. Yes, the officer in uniform was a {deleted for JohnWayne}.
However...in watching this video a second time, I realized that we as a society have become WAY too complacent and do not value our rights. We're all familiar with the quote:
"Rights not exercised are rights lost"
While overly moronic, here is a video of an individual excercising his rights a) to carry/own a gun, b) to maintain his privacy and c) against unlawful search and seizure, or search without probably cause. He asserted his rights under not one, but TWO Constitutional amendments - the 2nd, and the 4th.
While we may not condone his methods, we have to applaud his point.
The charichters in the video are retards, but the messege is still a good one I agree.
After watching this video I am 99% sure the cameraman is part of this crew:
http://motorhomediaries.com/about/
From their site:
"The Motorhome Diaries is the story of three friends, Jason Talley, Pete Eyre & Adam Mueller, who took to the road in early 2009 to search for freedom in America in their motorhome they call MARV. Along the way they talk with the growing number of people who advocate a voluntary society –one where government violence is replaced by freedom and peace. Driving from the urban jungles to picturesque small towns and everywhere in-between, they they cover the historic shift in power from individuals to the government and the growing movement of those who are fighting back to reclaim their freedom. They consider their project to be a near real-time documentary...."
The RV as stated is called MARV or mobile authority resistance vehicle....yeah, I know. These guys took a 13 week trip cross country talking with like minded folk and documenting encounters with LEOs trying to find abuses of power. I have a little knowledge concerning them because they were arrested in my county (Jones, Mississippi) May of last year for disorderly conduct and 2 other charges I cannot remember. Here is a pic of that arrest and you can see the tail of the RV in the foreground.
http://i907.photobucket.com/albums/ac279/jaxman7/3535284808_78ab1d2b9a.jpg
-Jax
Guys, I think we're missing the elephant in the room here...
Yes, the guy in the video was a moron. Yes, the officer in uniform was a {deleted for JohnWayne}.
However...in watching this video a second time, I realized that we as a society have become WAY too complacent and do not value our rights. We're all familiar with the quote:
"Rights not exercised are rights lost"
While overly moronic, here is a video of an individual excercising his rights a) to carry/own a gun, b) to maintain his privacy and c) against unlawful search and seizure, or search without probably cause. He asserted his rights under not one, but TWO Constitutional amendments - the 2nd, and the 4th.
While we may not condone his methods, we have to applaud his point.
Well said. I verymuch agree.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-22-10, 14:35
What I found interesting was that the guy said he was coming to make sure his gf was okay.
What I find interesting is that he has a girlfriend.
Interesting bios on those guys. Jason, a former USAF SP. Pete, a law enforcement student. I wonder if they had tried to start LE careers and got shut out. Many an unsuccessful LE applicant have become disgruntled and oppositional.
Adam, arrested for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and later another MJ incident. I bet he meets expectations.
Requests for ID can always be made. Compelling it to be produced is pretty iffy and highly dependent on circumstances of incident/contact.
The cops, while factually incorrect, were very professional. Their end of it could've gone the other way in a hurry.
Interesting vid, for a variety of reasons.
Littlelebowski
11-22-10, 17:15
Isn't it like 76% of officer fatalities are from traffic stops?
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/causes.html
Sort of.
citizensoldier16
11-22-10, 17:32
Isn't it like 76% of officer fatalities are from traffic stops?
According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund,
as of November 22nd, 2010 there were 144 total line of duty deaths of officers. 69 were from "traffic incidents", and 51 were from gunfire.
Being that they list gunfire seperately from "traffic incidents", I have to assume that in "traffic incidents" they include motor vehicle accidents as well. This figure can be confusing, because it apparently includes all the instances where an officer was killed in the line of duty due to being involved in a traffic accident.
http://www.nleomf.com/facts/officer-fatalities-data/
I love police officers, have given yearly to my state's Sheriff's foundation, and have many good friends and one best friend who is in law enforcement. The point of this thread is not officer safety, police corruption or otherwise. It is the rights of citizens and how those citizens choose to exercise or not exercise those rights.
The video depicted two professional (however misinformed) officers and a citizen who knew his rights and exercised them under pressure from the officers to waive them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Lets be professional here and not try to skew the original intent of the OP from the rights of citizens to the invariable unending debate of the merits of law enforcement as a whole.
Guy can do what he want's. Not something I would do (I don't like extra holes in me) but if it floats his boat more power to him.
He needs to work on his replies however, he sounds nervous and hesitant.
Lets be professional here and not try to skew the original intent of the OP from the rights of citizens to the invariable unending debate of the merits of law enforcement as a whole.
Good advice and good timing. There will be a post coming very soon (from yours truly) about this very subject in the near future ;)
The guy with the camera is a ****ing asshat.
Unlawful stop, unlawful detention of non-suspect.
Uhhh no, and no.
Stopping a guy with a gun, acting strange and approaching a cop in the street on a traffic stop, was more that enough PC to stop the guy. And unless I missed it, (I was multi-tasking), they didn't detain him.
Cops could have handled it differently, (disarming the guy and patting him down could have easily been justified, clearly neither cop splits atoms in their spare time), but they were absolutely right to try and check the guy out.
Stopping a guy with a gun, acting strange and approaching a cop in the street on a traffic stop, was more that enough PC to stop the guy. And unless I missed it, (I was multi-tasking), they didn't detain him.
The uniformed officer let him leave, so the video guy was driving down the road, doing nothing wrong and gets pulled over.
NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.
Illegal stop.
Probable cause does not mean you think the guy is annoying, don't like how he looks, etc.
He needs to work on his replies however, he sounds nervous and hesitant.
He sounded and acted disturbed, and possibly unable to care for his own safety to me.....
Clearly, checking him out for his own welfare would have been the proper thing to do.
The uniformed officer let him leave, so the video guy was driving down the road, doing nothing wrong and gets pulled over.
The uniformed officer stayed in a place of safety until he knew he had cover coming.
Probable cause does not mean you think the guy is annoying, don't like how he looks, etc.
Actually the "etc". can very well be cause for a stop.
citizensoldier16
11-23-10, 00:45
It's sad that everyone does not read the entire thread before replying to something that offends them. :rolleyes:
Jake's dad and 500grains...please drop it. You're both pretty off topic.
It's sad that everyone does not read the entire thread before replying to something that offends them. :rolleyes:
Perhaps you could explain so you wouldn't have to be sad anymore.....
Jake's dad and 500grains...please drop it. You're both pretty off topic.
Wow. A different opinion and I'm "off topic".
Sorry.
However, that doesn't provide the police with the right to detain someone and require ID, and both of the police officers should have known that.
There was no detention.
There was no detention.
There was and they did.
citizensoldier16
11-23-10, 10:30
Here we go....the unending "is law enforcement good or bad" debate coupled with arguing about the video. Mods, unfortunately I think its about time to shut this one down before the kids get out of hand.
Littlelebowski
11-23-10, 10:37
Here we go....the unending "is law enforcement good or bad" debate coupled with arguing about the video. Mods, unfortunately I think its about time to shut this one down before the kids get out of hand.
I see talk about this incident. No reason to lock the thread.
citizensoldier16
11-23-10, 10:41
Lets be professional here and not try to skew the original intent of the OP from the rights of citizens to the invariable unending debate of the merits of law enforcement as a whole.
Good advice and good timing. There will be a post coming very soon (from yours truly) about this very subject in the near future ;)
Seems that way...
There was and they did.
No. There was no detention. They talked to him. At no point did they restrain him, or tell him he wasn't free to leave. Heck, they never disarmed him.
I see talk about this incident. No reason to lock the thread.
Some folks don't take kindly to differing opinions, or pointing out facts.
The video depicted two professional (however misinformed) officers and a citizen who knew his rights and exercised them under pressure from the officers to waive them. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree.
I'd add two undertrained and unprepared police officers, and a citizen with poor judgment.
This guy is a complete idiot:
1. He needs massive amounts of training regarding how to hold himself, talk with and to police, and about what is and isn't legal before he gets himself beat, shot, or in a lot of trouble.
2. While it is legitimate to record certain police events, and to set up organizations that monitor police when a department has proven to be breaking the law, it is not really justified in the case of traffic stops.
3. He actually lied in the video proving that he's an idiot, that wasn't his girlfriend he was filming, and it made him look a lot worse and a lot more threatening by saying it was.
What a tool. If this is what the "right" calls activism I'm amazed.
What a tool. If this is what the "right" calls activism I'm amazed.
No. A lot of people on the right and gunowners in general regard it as stupidity for reasons already detailed in this thread.
No. A lot of people on the right and gunowners in general regard it as stupidity for reasons already detailed in this thread.
Notice the quotations... Then read some of the comments on the video itself to see how many people think this guy is friggen awesome!
1. It should be legal to video, record or photograph in any public place, whether it is a traffic stop, TSA search or whatever.
2. There is no need to get close and provoke the police or distract the police so that they may be placed in danger.
3. That cop in uniform is a douche.
Pretty much.
On one hand I applaud the guy for taking a stance for rights. On the other hand it is an antagonist approach which simply fuels the "us vs. them" mentality between law abiding citizens and law enforcement.
Sometimes law enforcement has to be forced to respect rights, but if we can do it an a better way that is the preferred option.
Notice the quotations... Then read some of the comments on the video itself to see how many people think this guy is friggen awesome!
There's a lot of morons, and a lot of folks that are a might confused.
Uhhh no, and no.
Stopping a guy with a gun, acting strange and approaching a cop in the street on a traffic stop, was more that enough PC to stop the guy. Totally agreed.
And unless I missed it, (I was multi-tasking), they didn't detain him. Well they did, it is called a Terry stop, and with a terry stop they dont have to restrain someone, but they did not push it since they let him leave.
Cops could have handled it differently, (disarming the guy and patting him down could have easily been justified, clearly neither cop splits atoms in their spare time), but they were absolutely right to try and check the guy out.
Again, agreed
Probable cause does not mean you think the guy is annoying, don't like how he looks, etc. Actually in some cases it can, it all depends on your experience and the circumstances at hand. This is not always the case but it can be. As for the vid, both parties could have done better but both also did well in some ways(it could have went very bad), but all in all the guy with the camera was a moron, but at least he know his rights which is more than many.
Well they did, it is called a Terry stop, and with a terry stop they dont have to restrain someone, but they did not push it since they let him leave.
Understood. It was certainly a stop, but didn't rise above a Terry stop.
Actually in some cases it can, it all depends on your experience and the circumstances at hand. .
The facts and circumstances must cause you to have a reasonable belief that a crime has occurred to establish probable cause. In a state where open carry of a firearm is legal, and where video taping events which occur in public and w/o any expectation of privacy, can anyone here identify the CRIME which the uniform policeman had a reasonable belief that the video kid had committed? I can't put the facts and circumstances together to establish reasonable belief, or even remote suspicion that a crime had occurred.
What is the crime that there is a reasonable belief of? Anyone and everyone can field this one. The quote above is not intended to direct the question.
The facts and circumstances must cause you to have a reasonable belief that a crime has occurred or is about to occur, to establish probable cause. You forgot that part. A good example of this is the case where we get, not only the name Terry stop, but our case law to back it Terry v. Ohio. If you will notice that no crime had yet been committed yet he does stop them based on odd behavior. So again yes you can make a Terry stop based on the odd actions and looks if you want to, but you had better be able to articulate why. http://supreme.justia.com/us/392/1/case.html Here is a summary:
"A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying"
P.S.-- Also what causes "reasonable belief"to you is not the same as someone who is in law enforcement . They see very different from the rest of the public because they see a lot more than the rest of public of certain things
Hope they come to Florida. You must present ID. If you refuse, you go to jail.
P.S.-- Also what causes "reasonable belief"to you is not the same as someone who is in law enforcement . They see very different from the rest of the public because they see a lot more than the rest of public of certain things
Indeed.
In Ornelas v. United States, even the Supreme Court couldn't define exactly what is "reasonable suspicion".
Articulating precisely what "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" mean is not possible. They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with "`the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.
And
The principal components of a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause.
The guy acted strange and aggressive, while armed. The stop was perfectly reasonable, even if somewhat inept.
The maker of the video was well within his rights.
That said he's one of the biggest idiots I've seen in a while. To walk up on a traffic stop in progress with a visible weapon and a camera. I applaud the officer for handling it as well as he did. I don't think I'd have done as well.
Of course the guy with the camera was stammering, he had just confronted a cop on a traffic stop while armed, and now was being confronted by two. I'd be a little nervous too.
Were the officers misinformed of the law concerning the open carrying of a handgun? Obviously so. Do they need a refresher on legal updates? It would seem. While they may not be able to cite the statutes, they weren't far off from what is legal and accepted.
If you wanna shoot a video on open carry, do not instigate a confrontation. Go about your normal day, and if you are confronted video that. He sought confrontation and got it. I think the officers issues were less about his open carry and more about his intentions in videoing a traffic stop that he was not a party of, from up close, while carrying a weapon. In fact, had he walked up with a video camera and a 8" Chef's Knife it probably would have gone even worse for him.
jklaughrey
11-23-10, 22:00
Applaud his effort, but his approach was horribly flawed. Open carry is legal, but is it really a good idea? Why tip your hat when you don't need to and can carry concealed? Free country and all that but, is this 1890's Wild West?
Draw.....
I'm not sure where some guys are coming up with probable cause to stop and question someone? Probable cause is what you need to arrest and charge a person.
The cops contact with this idiot with a camera is under reasonable suspicion.
Is it normal for an armed person to approach a police officer during a traffic stop? To the point the cop has to address the idiot.
Let's see....mmmm, where else has police officers been approached by an armed subject who, also in this case, shows some obvious disdain towards police officers?
Does Lakewood, WA ring a bell? That and quite a few other incidents where anti-g'vmt wack jobs approach and challenge cops IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRAFFIC STOP!
This isn't a case of Mr. Innocent Guncarrier walking down the street and here comes the JBT g man to harass him.
This guy approached the cops armed. This guy initiated the contact. This started the escalation.
The cop had every legal authority to obtain ID. And to question him and detain him for a reasonable amount of time as to determine if he is in violation of law or as to his intent. After all, wasn't that exactly what he set out to do in the first place by antagonizing the situation?
So what if he is legally carrying a gun. So he won't get charged. BFD. Having that gun certainly changes the dynamics of the contact.
This guy is NOT a person who you'd want to represent responsible gun ownership and the argument regarding the second Amendment.
What he showed was reckless disregard. Ask is this is how a reasonable person acts?
I live in AZ with very liberal gun laws which I'm 100% in support. And I'm used to seeing and dealing with armed individuals. One thing it is if I initiated a contact with someone who I know is lawfully carrying. Another if the contact comes to me, armed, with a camera and wants to stir shit up. How do I know if this is yet another AH who want to light up a cop, or do a suicide by cop and get it so it can be shown on Youtube? And by just distracting me in my duties that could be considered with interfering.
In my opinion Mr. IKnowMyRights acted suspicious enough to warrant the temporary stop and RID. He went out and sought attention and got it.
The guy needs to go find himself a life.
GLOCKMASTER
11-24-10, 06:31
The guy making the video is a complete douche by trying to instigate an altercation with an LEO so he deserves whatever he gets during these encounters. Also, the LEO could have been a little smarter, smelled what was cooking and drove off without giving this asshat the pleasure of having an encounter.
Abraxas is 1000% on target.
As a LEO the guy with the camera brought this upon himself. The cops acted professionally, and would have been justified in taking things further.
Its called suspicious activity. They would be totally justified in detaining and and identifying the young man with the camera. This is called a 'Field Interview' (FI). They would not be justified in arresting and charging the guy with the camera. The guy with the camera is acting suspiciously, but not breaking a law. The purpose of the FI is to determine if you are, or are not a threat. It also provides information to follow should a similar but not so 'friendly' encounter occurs.
EX: Two weeks later. The officer on the stop being set-up buy the subject in the car and the guy with the camera. The camera guy distracts while the guy in the car gets a gun and shoots the officer. Crazier things have happened. What if the camera guy isn't involved yet causes the same result? Either way the FI provides a 'lead' to be followed that could prove or disprove the involvement of the guy with the camera.
STAY AWAY FROM THE SCENE! I emphasize this because you are distracting the officer. This puts the officer, any other involved civilians and yourself in danger. If you feel the need to videotape or monitor police activity (which is perfectly fine with me) do so in a way that the cops are unaware of your presence.
CarlosDJackal
11-25-10, 15:22
The guy with the camera is a freaking idiot and is lucky that he wasn't drawn-down on. Why would you go out of your way to basically interfere with a traffic stop - one of the most stressful situation an LEO can participate it because it is one of the top killers.
CarlosDJackal
11-25-10, 15:25
The maker of the video was well within his rights...
So he is well within his rights to provide an unwelcome and possibly lethal distraction for the Officer in the performance of his lawful duties during a traffic stop - one of the most stressful and dangerous activity that WE (as a society) demand that he perform? Really? :confused:
provide an unwelcome and possibly lethal distraction for the Officer
Obviously the prudent course of action is to say well in the background and film, if the guy wants to make a film.
Obviously the prudent course of action is to say well in the background and film, if the guy wants to make a film.
Exactly.
Don Robison
11-26-10, 18:35
Hope they come to Florida. You must present ID. If you refuse, you go to jail.
What statute is that? It's my understanding that you have to present a DL if you are driving, but if you're not driving a LEO can ask for ID, but you aren't compelled to give it unless he is demanding because of a reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed.
Just curious, because I've heard more than one lawyer explain it both ways. I just never bothered to ask which statute covers it.
ETA: On the OP video; the guy in the video is an idiot, but being stupid isn't a criminal offense yet.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.