Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
Author Message
[-]
  •
mistersnort Offline
Banned

Posts: 559
Joined: Dec 2012
Post: #16
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
"You dont think assualt is a serious crime? You know people have died from a single punch (knocked out and head cracked etc)"

True, people have, but does it rise to that level, most people like 99.99% of people who are punched to the head don't die nor suffer from any serious injury. When that guy punched him he barely flinched. That kid could have punched him 100 times and probably not even hurt him. We aren't talking someone who was on the ground and vulnerable (that is where you are most likely to be killed or seriously injured by a punch), we are talking about someone who just had to close a door and go and do his job. I don't know about you, but any job I worked at fighting on the job never mind pulling a gun and shooting a customer was the best way to get fired. And this isn't an assault like someone comes and attacks you unprovoked, this is two people arguing getting ready to fight. This could be any bar fight in America. And when that guy came at the kid with a gun, maybe he was going to shoot him anyways so the kid tried to fight him so he didn't make him shoot him in the back. At least the Zimmerman case is more believable because trayvon was bigger.

"People shouldnt be allowed to patrol / keep their neighborhood safe from thieves and thugs? Would be stupid not to bring a gun. ie You see 2 guys casing your neighbor's house and trying to get in from a window. You confront them and they attack you. You def need a gun."

You can patrol but you can't be a vigilante, you can't criminally harass people by following them around (especially if they aren't guilty of anything). Regular civilians have no right in law to "keep their neighbourhood safe from thieves and thugs". You can only protect your property and in Texas it may extend to your neighbours and employers but not your entire neighbourhood. I have no problem with Joe Horn who basically did exactly what you describe, shot 3 thieves running from his neighbours house. What if they attack you and kill you even if you have a gun? What if you kill them both and they were nephews of the guy you never met and lost had no keys but permission to enter? I don't see the need to take a situation like that into your own hands and risk your life and livelihood and 4 years in jail even if your found innocent, and 100k in legal fees, when the cops can do a better job of dealing with them in most cities and towns. If you can bring a gun why can't you bring a tazer?

"I dont really get the sympathy you give people that assault and try to hurt you. No one has the right to put their hands on another human being (outside of self defense). These are punks and thugs who have probably assaulted numerous people. World would be a better place without them."

I don't give them sympathy but I don't think people should be killed over fist fights. Fist fighting is one thing, its stuff men do to be macho and show bravado. I was just showing how much people I'd have to kill if I shot everyone who ever punched me. Can you imagine what the world would look like if everyone shot anyone who ever punched them? There'd be a lot of dead people. More than half this board wouldn't be here.

"I dont think they would allow people to bring in guns to a nightclub. Just freak dancing with a girl might could make a gun go off etc. However in the street or at someones home sure. Put it this way, are you gonna punch someone knowing they have a gun and risk getting killed / imprisoned? If you are a sane individual I guess it you wouldnt as death or time in jail is not worth it over some dumb argument you had with a stranger. "

Yeah not so much nightclubs allow guns but bars many do. Well people can carry guns any bar in alot of states and that doesn't stop people from bar fighting. And sometimes when people get drunk in bars the reason for fights is unclear. Ever been to Toronto, in the streets all men do is fight through friday to saturday in the club districts once the clubs close and they finish failing to get a girl, and the police just stand and watch. Lets be real here, does Texas and North Dakota have less bar fighting than places that de facto ban guns like new york and chicago? Shooting people is for criminals like thieves murderers rapist and psychos who attack you out the blue for no reason. Its not for two guys arguing and fighting like men are suppose to.

"It is self defense as the clerk didnt lay a hand on the boy. The boy assaults the clerk and the clerk defends himself. Now was the clerk smart in opening the door? Probably not, as the roles could have been reversed if the boy blasted the clerk first. Stupidity is not a crime however. "

Simple assault like that doesn't rise to the level of a serious crime. I know you have your scopes on the ar, but a fist fight is just not that serious in comparasion to rape, kidnapping, murder, robbery and crimes when a gun should be used. Even in Texas law there is a provocation exemption. You can't kill someone you provoked into to doing anything. So arguing with someone and they punch you, you can't shoot them, well you can but you can't claim self defense. Self defense doesn't even apply to simple assaults like that. Stupidity is not a crime, but a single punch to the face won't qualify as an self defense in texas, especially when a guy give you his best shot and it doesn't move you. Most people aren't going to see shooting someone as a reasonable response to a single punch.

"The boy had every opportunity to walk away. It is not against the law to pursue someone so long as you dont touch them or trespass. Just because someone says something to you you dont like doesnt give you the right to assault them"

Its a crime to follow someone its called Criminal harassment aka stalking. So yes its a crime for the boy to punch him in the face. If you provoke someone the self defense law is no longer a valid defense. So people who think they can pick an argument with someone and pull out a gun and shoot them after a fight breaks out are just plain wrong.

"Self defense simply implies you thought your life was in danger. Which is subjective. Actually in certain states cops can shoot a fleeing unarmed criminal depending on a few circumstances. "
Good luck convincing the prosecutor that your life was in danger from a single punch to the head, that didn't hurt you much and you didn't need a doctor for. In Zimmerman case eh said the kid smashed his head into the ground and he thought he was going to die. That could at least be a self defense case. This case wasn't close, kid was way smaller and punched him, and din't even move the guy. A reasonable person wouldn't interpret that as their life was in danger.
06-12-2013, 10:54 AM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
Dash Offline
Los Mas Suelto

Posts: 3,246
Joined: Aug 2012
South Korea
Post: #17
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
(06-12-2013, 10:54 AM)mistersnort Wrote: True, people have, but does it rise to that level, most people like 99.99% of people who are punched to the head don't die nor suffer from any serious injury. When that guy punched him he barely flinched. That kid could have punched him 100 times and probably not even hurt him. We aren't talking someone who was on the ground and vulnerable (that is where you are most likely to be killed or seriously injured by a punch), we are talking about someone who just had to close a door and go and do his job. I don't know about you, but any job I worked at fighting on the job never mind pulling a gun and shooting a customer was the best way to get fired. And this isn't an assault like someone comes and attacks you unprovoked, this is two people arguing getting ready to fight. This could be any bar fight in America. And when that guy came at the kid with a gun, maybe he was going to shoot him anyways so the kid tried to fight him so he didn't make him shoot him in the back. At least the Zimmerman case is more believable because trayvon was bigger.

I dont know about you but I wouldnt want to take the chance however small it might be. As they say all it takes is one time. ie Don't fucking touch me unless you want to get seriously injured or killed. People need to respect other people and learn to be accountable for their actions.

Quote:You can patrol but you can't be a vigilante, you can't criminally harass people by following them around (especially if they aren't guilty of anything). Regular civilians have no right in law to "keep their neighbourhood safe from thieves and thugs". You can only protect your property and in Texas it may extend to your neighbours and employers but not your entire neighbourhood. I have no problem with Joe Horn who basically did exactly what you describe, shot 3 thieves running from his neighbours house. What if they attack you and kill you even if you have a gun? What if you kill them both and they were nephews of the guy you never met and lost had no keys but permission to enter? I don't see the need to take a situation like that into your own hands and risk your life and livelihood and 4 years in jail even if your found innocent, and 100k in legal fees, when the cops can do a better job of dealing with them in most cities and towns. If you can bring a gun why can't you bring a tazer?

You can follow people around all you want so long as its in a public area and your not impeding them or the flow of traffic and ovcourse if they dont have a restraining order against you. Free country, you can walk where you want so long as its a public area. You know how many neighborhoods have watch groups etc? Yes they have a right to protect and defend their neighborhood. And when I say defend I primarily mean keeping an eye out and if they see something they can "yell" at the perpetrators and call police. However if the perpetrators try to assault the watchdogs / people then they can defend themselves. Cops? You realize it takes time for them to get there. The thieves could have already broken and and stole / killed someone and left by the time the cops arrive. Sure someone can bring a tazer, but what good is a tazer if the perpetrators have a gun that they are prepared to us on you?

Quote:I don't give them sympathy but I don't think people should be killed over fist fights. Fist fighting is one thing, its stuff men do to be macho and show bravado. I was just showing how much people I'd have to kill if I shot everyone who ever punched me. Can you imagine what the world would look like if everyone shot anyone who ever punched them? There'd be a lot of dead people. More than half this board wouldn't be here.

If both men want to fist fight than fine. But some people dont want to fist fight (already pointed out how one can die from such a fight or get brain damage etc) Some people dont like to be assaulted in any way. Its against the law. I have no problems with ridding the world of criminals. People need to learn to control themselves and act civil. If not they need to be prepared to deal with the consequences, ie you done fucked with the wrong person today and it would be lesson you take to the grave.

Quote:Yeah not so much nightclubs allow guns but bars many do. Well people can carry guns any bar in alot of states and that doesn't stop people from bar fighting. And sometimes when people get drunk in bars the reason for fights is unclear. Ever been to Toronto, in the streets all men do is fight through friday to saturday in the club districts once the clubs close and they finish failing to get a girl, and the police just stand and watch. Lets be real here, does Texas and North Dakota have less bar fighting than places that de facto ban guns like new york and chicago? Shooting people is for criminals like thieves murderers rapist and psychos who attack you out the blue for no reason. Its not for two guys arguing and fighting like men are suppose to.

Most people are not strapped in a bar. Most people dont have concealed carry licenses. Shooting someone in self defense is in no way comparable to being a criminal.

Quote:Simple assault like that doesn't rise to the level of a serious crime. I know you have your scopes on the ar, but a fist fight is just not that serious in comparasion to rape, kidnapping, murder, robbery and crimes when a gun should be used. Even in Texas law there is a provocation exemption. You can't kill someone you provoked into to doing anything. So arguing with someone and they punch you, you can't shoot them, well you can but you can't claim self defense. Self defense doesn't even apply to simple assaults like that. Stupidity is not a crime, but a single punch to the face won't qualify as an self defense in texas, especially when a guy give you his best shot and it doesn't move you. Most people aren't going to see shooting someone as a reasonable response to a single punch.

Its all about PRINCIPLE son. If you are prepared to assault another human being you better be prepared to face the consequences. Principle seems to be a lost art now a days. This incident happened in Texas. The clerk provoked it ie opened the door and got into the boys face arguing. Then shot and killed the boy after he was assaulted. No charges are being filled against the clerk. So yes, self defense does apply here and any time in which you feel your life threatened.

Quote:Its a crime to follow someone its called Criminal harassment aka stalking. So yes its a crime for the boy to punch him in the face. If you provoke someone the self defense law is no longer a valid defense. So people who think they can pick an argument with someone and pull out a gun and shoot them after a fight breaks out are just plain wrong.

It is not a crime to follow someone in a public place so long as you do not communicate a threat or impede them in anyway. Stalking is alot broader than simply following someone and varies from state to state and will vary on verdict by which ever judge you have. It certainly isnt black and white. I could go to the mall right now and follow anyone I wanted to, they could call the cops and I guarantee you I will not be arrested or charged with anything.

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/src/a...f?sfvrsn=2

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-progra.../texas#072

Quote:Good luck convincing the prosecutor that your life was in danger from a single punch to the head, that didn't hurt you much and you didn't need a doctor for. In Zimmerman case eh said the kid smashed his head into the ground and he thought he was going to die. That could at least be a self defense case. This case wasn't close, kid was way smaller and punched him, and din't even move the guy. A reasonable person wouldn't interpret that as their life was in danger.

The clerk isnt gonna have to convince anyone of anything. No charges are being filled. People feel different levels of fear. Its subjective. As I pointed out people have died or had serious injuries from simple fist fights. Once someone hits you one time you dont know if they are gonna stop or do it again. Its an act now think later kind of thing.
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2013, 11:39 AM by Dash.)
06-12-2013, 11:34 AM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
mistersnort Offline
Banned

Posts: 559
Joined: Dec 2012
Post: #18
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
"I dont know about you but I wouldnt want to take the chance however small it might be. As they say all it takes is one time. ie Don't fucking touch me unless you want to get seriously injured or killed. People need to respect other people and learn to be accountable for their actions. "

I agree in principal with you but that doesn't work legally. I don't think you (or me or anyone) are going to get away with shooting a guy for him punching you once.

"You can follow people around all you want so long as its in a public area and your not impeding them or the flow of traffic and ovcourse if they dont have a restraining order against you. Free country, you can walk where you want so long as its a public area. You know how many neighborhoods have watch groups etc? Yes they have a right to protect and defend their neighborhood. And when I say defend I primarily mean keeping an eye out and if they see something they can "yell" at the perpetrators and call police. However if the perpetrators try to assault the watchdogs / people then they can defend themselves. Cops? You realize it takes time for them to get there. The thieves could have already broken and and stole / killed someone and left by the time the cops arrive. Sure someone can bring a tazer, but what good is a tazer if the perpetrators have a gun that they are prepared to us on you? "

You have to look at it from both sides. You go into a neighbourhood and you are being followed around everywhere you go by a black guy or a group of black guys and he starts yelling at you. Assumes your a thief and you broken in/stole/killed someone and assumes you have a gun so pull out theirs on you. This does not seem like normal human behaviour to me and I don't see how he could be right to shoot you. I would interpret him to be the aggressor. Now replace black with white and you have what you are saying your friends are doing. I don't see how it is right.

following someone is considered criminal harassment. You can walk where you want but you cannot stalk people or follow them around its a crime.

Bar Association on Stalking
"What is stalking?
Stalking is behaviour that may – in some cases – be criminal harassment under section 264 of the Criminal Code of Canada (available at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/). Stalking is criminal harassment if a person does any of the following things, knowing that it causes you to reasonably fear for your safety or the safety of anyone you know:

repeatedly follow you, or anyone you know.
repeatedly communicate with you, or anyone you know, directly or indirectly.
repeatedly watch you, or anyone you know, or lurk around your home, workplace, or any other place you happen to be
engage in any threatening conduct directed at you or a member of your family
Even if the person doing these things has not been told or doesn’t know that you fear for your safety or the safety of anyone you know, if they should have known, then these behaviours may still be criminal harassment.

A person can be stalking even if they don’t physically hurt anyone or damage any property. The law is designed to protect psychological, emotional, and physical safety.

Stalking may start with conduct that seems more annoying than dangerous. Often, the conduct is legal and even socially acceptable, if it’s just an isolated incident. But when it’s repeated, it may scare the victim. Conduct such as following someone, or sending gifts or letters, may become intimidating if done continually and against the person’s wishes."

Most American states have a similar definition of stalking or criminal harassment of being following someone around.

"Most people are not strapped in a bar. Most people dont have concealed carry licenses. Shooting someone in self defense is in no way comparable to being a criminal. "

Your concept of self defense seems quiet broad compared to the law and even me who thinks the law doesn't go far enough. Even the most liberal gun law states like Texas and Virginia won't let you shoot someone over a misdemeanor like a single punch, it is usually only for rape, robbery, murder, and variations of that crime like attemtping murder, burgulary, larceny, sexual assault. I could not find any state that allows you to shoot someone and kill them and get away with it for punching you once. In essence, the law would consider someone who pulled out a gun after being punched once a criminal, especially if that person is provoked which includes there being an argument.

"Its all about PRINCIPLE son. If you are prepared to assault another human being you better be prepared to face the consequences. Principle seems to be a lost art now a days. This incident happened in Texas. The clerk provoked it ie opened the door and got into the boys face arguing. Then shot and killed the boy after he was assaulted. No charges are being filled against the clerk. So yes, self defense does apply here and any time in which you feel your life threatened."

Faire enough. No, the guy will be charged, police often let guilty people roam around because they want them to implicate themselves as much as possible, after they tap their phones and try to get their friends to lure them into conversations where they incriminate themselves. I do agree that the clerk provoked it. The problem is you cannot use self defense in texas when you provoke someone. You do not have to retreat if someone comes to you but if you go to them a fact finder isn't going to consider that use of deadly force was necessary. They will say you should have not retreated but you should not have provoked and confronted either. And here in lies the clerks problem. 1. deadly force was not necessary, his job does not require him to normally even leave the counter, he went out of his way for a confrontation, he used deadly force in response to a single punch to the head (something that texas law doesn't recognize as a serious enough crime to use that force). Further he endangered himself and the community at large by firing a gun in the gas station he could have blown himself up along with everyone on the block had that bullet ricochet the wrong way. 2. He provoked the kid, the kid probably talked shit to him too, it was a most likely a mutual shit talking match. Either way, you can't use deadly force under either situation.

Texas law
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE
" Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
...
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

9.32
" A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."

Your own source
"Stalking

Tex. Penal Code § 42.072. Stalking. (2011)
(a) A person commits an offense if the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conduct that:
(1) the actor knows or reasonably believes the other person will regard as threatening:
(A) bodily injury or death for the other person;

(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the other person's family or household or for an individual with whom the other person has a dating relationship; or

© that an offense will be committed against the other person's property;

(2) causes the other person, a member of the other person's family or household, or an individual with whom the other person has a dating relationship to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death or fear that an offense will be committed against the other person's property; and

(3) would cause a reasonable person to fear:

(A) bodily injury or death for himself or herself;

(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the person's family or household or for an individual with whom the person has a dating relationship; or

© that an offense will be committed against the person's property."

So if a group of guys like your friends start following me, Most people are going to think that they are a gang who is going to rob them. Most people would find that fearful, threatening, or that the followers intend to rob them or hurt them, what other purpose would someone follow you for? To do community watch, this isn't the 1600s, you go follow a girl from the mall to her house, see how quick you get arrested. It is not normal behaviour for a group of men to just follow people around. It would cause someone to become fearful or feel threatened. You don't believe me then lets have some mexican gang bangers name jose with a bunch of a tattoos and some black guys name t dog follow you home at 9 pm with guns on your walk home while they are doing "neighbourhood watch", you aren't going to think they are following you to make sure you don't break in or to give you a lemonade.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that these laws can be used to harass you.

"The clerk isnt gonna have to convince anyone of anything. No charges are being filled. People feel different levels of fear. Its subjective. As I pointed out people have died or had serious injuries from simple fist fights. Once someone hits you one time you dont know if they are gonna stop or do it again. Its an act now think later kind of thing"

I doubt it, police know who he is, they are just waiting for him to dig his self in deeper, its a well known police tactic. When he thinks he is off scott free and goes bragging and acting macho about it in a bar, or sisha cafe they have their moles who are going to be there and testify against him about how he admitted to planning it all and how he didn't fear him and provoked him. SOME, police, generally the homocide ones, are pretty smart, they wait until they have enough evidence to snow ball you before they arrest you.

You see the fear thing is not subjective, legally, it is based on reasonable belief of deadly force being NECESSARY. As I said, the court isn't going to look at the .001% of people who die from a punch and say that is a reasonable belief of serious injury. They are going to look at the 99.999% of people who walk away without even going to hospital and say there was not a reasonable belief of deadly force being necessary for him to protect his life because he was not even stumbled by the punch. Had he been on the floor falling over then you might have an argument, another punch could have killed him, it didn't phase the guy at all

Section 9.32
"Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

© was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used."
06-13-2013, 07:57 AM
Find Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dash's post:
  • The Realness
Dash Offline
Los Mas Suelto

Posts: 3,246
Joined: Aug 2012
South Korea
Post: #19
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
Mistersnort,

They are not waiting for the clerk to do anything and file later. The whole thing was caught on tape clear as day with numerous witnesses.

You say one can't shoot someone for provoking and over 1 single punch. Well all of that is clearly on the video.

The bottom line is if someone assaults you, you can use what ever means to defend yourself (as the assault in happening ie you cant get hit and come back 2 hours and shoot the man)

The issue is, if you kill someone you better be able to prove that it was in self defense (video, witnesses, marks, etc)

If you wanna make a paypall bet let me know. This clerk will not be convicted of anything.
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2013, 10:18 AM by Dash.)
06-13-2013, 10:16 AM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
The Realness Offline
Lieutenant
*****

Posts: 427
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 2
Post: #20
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
self defence "(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;"

that alone is reason enough not to press charges. black dude used UNLAWFUL force. The deadly is debatable but the unlawful part is reason enough
06-14-2013, 01:18 AM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
Loy Offline
Deckhand
**

Posts: 33
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 0
Post: #21
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
Well, this discussion can go on forever on who was right and who was wrong. Bottom line is black kid assaulted the store clerk, he was in every right to defend himself and well all he had at the moment was a gun. Store clerks get killed too, you know? Just because some thugs wanted to steal the few hundred dollars in the cash register instead of working like everyone else. So he can't predict if the kid wanted to steal him or just need to really buy something, but in in that job, during the night, you get assaulted as a store clerk, you'll expect the worst and react accordingly.

We are all responsible for our actions, so if the kid acted without thinking it through, well that's just plain stupid, same as the clerk shooting so close and to the abdomen, I'm sure they told the kid in school or at home that picking fights won't get you anywhere good, so seeked this one out.
06-14-2013, 09:09 AM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
mistersnort Offline
Banned

Posts: 559
Joined: Dec 2012
Post: #22
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
@ Dash, you are simply wrong on the point that you can use whatever force you want against someone who throws a punch at you. Even police can be charged with excessive force if they shoot unarmed people who attack them first provided they are unarmed. Further as I pointed out texas law does not allow one to murder someone in self defense for a simple assault. It also does not allow you to murder someone when you have provoked them or engaged in verbal back and forth with them. The law is not intended nor does it allow for 1 guy to punch another and for the other to pull out a gun and start shooting. There exist tons of examples of people being convicted in those situations, so I find it very bizarre anyone would attempt to argue that.

In fact I know of a guy who was convicted for beating a guy who started a fight with him when he beat him with a bat. I know of another guy who was convicted in a mutual fight for drawing blood on the other guy.

Lets look at some cases around where someone goes and gets their gun in the middle of a fight and shoots someone...

"A 23-year-old man has been convicted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of another man in downtown Elko.

A district court jury found Patrick Dunn of Spring Creek guilty Thursday in the shooting of Erik Espitia after an early-morning May 27 melee involving eight people.

The Elko Daily Free Press reports that Elko County District Attorney Mark Torvinen argued the fight had essentially ended by the time Dunn fired his gun. He also maintained Dunn shot Espitia because he was drunk and angry.

Defense attorney John Ohlson claimed Dunn acted in self-defense. He said Dunn was not the aggressor in the fight, and feared for his life and the life of his friends.

Dunn awaits sentencing Jan. 25. Espitia's family says the verdict represented closure."

Dunn is now doing 30 years in federal pound me in the ass penitentiary. And this is not 1 on 1 this was a group fight were you are more likely to be killed and have a good reason to fear for your life.
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Man...71281.html

" jury needed 90 minutes to find a man guilty of shooting his neighbor to death.

Prosecutors say Paul Miller, 66, shot Dana Mulhall five times at a home in Flagler Beach in March 2012. Miller claimed he shot Mulhall in self-defense.

The feud between the two neighbors began two months before the shooting when Mulhall complained about Miller's dogs barking all the time. Miller claimed Mulhall threatened him and his wife.

The two neighbors started arguing, and Miller, according to the charging affidavit, believed Mulhall was reaching for a gun, so he shot him. Authorities later learned Mulhall was unarmed.

"Today's verdict protects the principle that disputes should be resolved nonviolently," said State Attorney R.J. Larizza. "The jurors' rejection of the defendant's questionable self-defense claim honors the victim's memory."

Miller faces up to life in prison. A sentencing hearing is set for June 18."

He will also face life in prison at his age of 66 with a minimum sentence of 25 years.

"A Suitland man was convicted of of second-degree murder and other charges in connection with an incident in which he started a fistfight in a bar and grill, left to retrieve a handgun, then returned and shot two people, one of them fatally"

" North County Man Shoots at Another Man After Fight Over Girl
Eric V. Rogers has been charged with first-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action."

"New Roads: Man shot during fight outside bar

Pointe Coupee Parish Sheriff’s Deputies issued an arrest warrant Sunday for a New Roads man they say fatally shot another man at a bar Saturday night, a sheriff’s spokesman said.

The warrant was issued for Joshua Wayne Louis, 25, Carver Drive, New Roads, on one count of second-degree murder in the death of Demona Anthony Brown, 36, Capt. Steve Juge said. No street address was provided for Louis.

Brown was shot once in the face during an altercation at AJ’s Bar on La. 420, Juge said."

Yeah this guy shot someone he was in a fight with and what is the result, he is going to jail most likely.

-Even if you are legally in the right for shooting someone who punches you (which you won't be unless they are a documented mental patient who attacks you and causes you serious injury, and no a punch doesn't count you need to be bleeding and on the border of death unless the broke into your property) you will still be charged and go to trial because everyone who admits to shooting someone claims self defense and as such police and prosecutors are grossly suspect of anyone who claims this.
-I have quoted the law on self defense from texas, who has the most liberal laws on when you can shoot criminals, show me where in there it says you can kill someone in self defense for punching or simple assault. I see sexual assault, robbery but no regular assault. The closest to that is this
"when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"
Except the courts have determined that even a man waving a knife threatening to kill you doesn't meet this threshold until he actually starts charging at you.
-Now if the question is should you be able to shoot, I'd agree you SHOULD be able to shoot, but its not the law, and if you do you will go to jail.
-The problems with the arguments you and Ar are saying is they are emotionally based. Its basically the guy is a scumbag so he deserves to be shot. Unfortunately that is not the way the law works. Legal he has equal rights as any of us.
-What does Massad Ayoob who is the leading authority in the nation on self defense, a former officer and who trains officers on when they can and cannot use their gun have to say about shooting an unarmed attacker as a civilian
Massad Ayoob's Judicious use of lethal force seminar.
"Ayoob stressed that deadly force can only be used to defend the “innocent.” This is one reason why it is so important for permit holders to work to de-escalate any potentially violent situation. If you escalate the situation, you risk losing your status as an innocent person and could face charges."

"So, how do you know when lethal force is justified? According to Ayoob, “Only the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent person justifies the use of deadly force.” This was so important that he told us to write it in all caps and underline it in our notes."

" In one chilling example, a concealed carry permit holder was convicted of 2nd degree murder because he couldn’t explain why he needed to use his gun to defend himself against an unarmed attacker who was larger and stronger."

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-col...sad-ayoob/


Ayoobs book also gives examples of cops charged with manslaughter who shot unarmed guys.

"COPS ACCUSED OF SHOOTING UNARMED THIEF NOT GUILTY"
-cops are charged with shooting an unarmed criminal, you think this guy is going to get away with it, you are dreaming. Cops will give enough rope to people to hang themselves while they surveil then and tap their phones, my uncle and my cousin's husband are both high ranking police, both of them tell me they would get fired for killing someone who just punched them once. They could taze them, or beat their ass but they couldn't kill them without risking jail unless the cop plants a weapon on the guy or claims to have seen a weapon (hence why some cops lie and say they thought a wallet was a gun).

Conviction can go either way. One can be guilty and not be convicted. The real test is if he is charged a jury can refuse to indict or refuse to convict for any reason, it just takes 1 guy to say I don't like the color of the hat that the kid was wearing to get the arab off.
(06-14-2013, 01:18 AM)Scopes_on_the_AR Wrote: self defence "(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;"

that alone is reason enough not to press charges. black dude used UNLAWFUL force. The deadly is debatable but the unlawful part is reason enough

You have to quote properly.

"to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force" its unlawful DEADLY force, not unlawful force.

Guy comes out a store and is point a gun at you. A gun is deadly force, a punch isn't. Put 2 guys in a ring and let them punch the shit out each other for 50 minutes and 99% of the time no one dies, a reasonable person doesn't view a punch as deadly force, and the court doesn't unless you are on the ground about to black out with a skull fracture. There'd be a better argument the guy who through the punch was defending himself.

Because the gun is deadly force or attempted deadly force and it was used, the kid can establish that the other guy was attempting to use unlawful deadly force on him by virtue of the fact he sustained a serious injury that will likely have him in hospital for months. Thus he was justified to punch the guy who came out of his store, provoked him and shot him. Had the clerk stayed behind his register and that guy jumped over the counter, we would not be having this debate, it'd be clear cut self defense. Once you provoke a guy there is no self defense argument.

You also ignored the part of the law which said it only applies when the actor
"2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used"

So that clerk has no legal ground on to stand on.

Unlike the Zimmerman case I don't see any legal ground the shooter in this case has. Zimmerman says he was more or less attacked out of the blue by trayvon, that is classic self defense if true. The arab guy walked off his job to go provoke a guy pointing a gun at him and shot him. Zimmerman is smaller than martin and sustained (presumably) serious injuries that he said almost cracked his head open and appeared to have a bleeding head supporting his claim. This arab got the best punch from the kid, and didn't flinch. If you are not hurt by a punch you cannot claim it is causing you serious injury and cannot claim self defense.
(06-14-2013, 09:09 AM)Loy Wrote: Well, this discussion can go on forever on who was right and who was wrong. Bottom line is black kid assaulted the store clerk, he was in every right to defend himself and well all he had at the moment was a gun. Store clerks get killed too, you know? Just because some thugs wanted to steal the few hundred dollars in the cash register instead of working like everyone else. So he can't predict if the kid wanted to steal him or just need to really buy something, but in in that job, during the night, you get assaulted as a store clerk, you'll expect the worst and react accordingly.

We are all responsible for our actions, so if the kid acted without thinking it through, well that's just plain stupid, same as the clerk shooting so close and to the abdomen, I'm sure they told the kid in school or at home that picking fights won't get you anywhere good, so seeked this one out.
You are mixing up stories. The kid had nothing in his hand and was outside the store, he wasn't stealing anything. This was just a street beef, where one guy decided to shoot another he didn't like.

There is a reasonable argument that throwing the first punch at a guy who walks off his job and walking right at you with a gun IS self defense because that guy is probably going to shoot you, giving you reason to believe he is going to kill you. This seems to fall more in line with self defense in Texas than, someone walking off their job, going out their way to provoke and to shoot a patron.

If you believe someone might steal from your store, and have reasonable fear of such a person do you open your door or call the police. Most normal humans call the police. Someone looking for a fight or to provoke someone opens the door with a gun pointed. Imagine if every store clerk and every business answered their door with a gun pointed at patrons, there'd be alot of dead patrons and alot of dead clerks. You cannot have that kind of behaviour legalized in a civilized society of people just randomly shooting each other whenever they argue.

The most likely outcome will be if he dies, then he will go to jail, where he will likely be killed because everyone in Texas hates arabs, especially with the racial gangs in prison and being known as the arab guy who shot the american kid. If the kid lives and can still walk, he will find this clerk and kill him. If he cannot walk and was in a gang the clerk will still get killed. So I don't see how shooting him is a win for anyone.
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2013, 11:24 AM by mistersnort.)
06-14-2013, 11:02 AM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
The Realness Offline
Lieutenant
*****

Posts: 427
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 2
Post: #23
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
@mistersnort

yours views are interesting i agree on some points. but still there is no clear definition of what is and isnt allowed its all about how you define "being in danger"...with that said, its a 50/50. some people get charged with murder and some people get the pat on the back for protecting themselves.... lets see what happens
06-14-2013, 10:35 PM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
Dash Offline
Los Mas Suelto

Posts: 3,246
Joined: Aug 2012
South Korea
Post: #24
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
@mistersnort

What you are telling me someone cant do was just proven wrong by the story / video I linked.

The provoked the confrontation ie unlocked the door and got in the guys face arguing. Guy punched him and the clerk pulled out a gun and blasted the attacker. Police came and watched the video and didn't arrest the clerk nor have any charges been pressed or will be pressed.

If someone assaults you and you feel your life in in danger (subjective as that can vary drastically for each individual person) you can use what ever means you have available to defend yourself while the assault is taking place.

Like I said, what you say is not supported by the facts or is not reality.
The clerk provoked*
I only read your first example which is not comparable at all.

Quote:The two neighbors started arguing, and Miller, according to the charging affidavit, believed Mulhall was reaching for a gun, so he shot him. Authorities later learned Mulhall was unarmed.

The guy that got shot didnt assault the shooter. So he couldnt claim self defense. You cant shoot someone simply because you think they have a gun.
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2013, 11:56 PM by Dash.)
06-14-2013, 11:53 PM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
iliekmilk Offline
Gunner
***

Posts: 76
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 0
Afghanistan
Post: #25
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
the arab has rocky's chin!
(06-15-2013, 04:03 AM)iliekmilk Wrote: the arab has rocky's chin!


But seriously did I really see a "he's innocent sign"?
Why African Americans always come up with the same shit?
If you are going physically harm people by punching them in the face in Texas out of all places, getting shot at is expected.


(06-15-2013, 04:03 AM)iliekmilk Wrote: the arab has rocky's chin!
(06-15-2013, 04:03 AM)iliekmilk Wrote: the arab has rocky's chin!


But seriously did I really see a "he's innocent" sign?
Why African Americans always come up with the same shit?
If you are going physically harm people by punching them in the face in Texas out of all places, getting shot at is expected as an outcome?


The arab has rocky's chin!

But seriously did I really see a "he's innocent sign"?
Why African Americans always come up with the same shit?
If you are going physically harm people by punching them in the face in Texas out of all places, getting shot at is expected.




(This post was last modified: 06-15-2013, 04:11 AM by iliekmilk.)
06-15-2013, 04:03 AM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
mistersnort Offline
Banned

Posts: 559
Joined: Dec 2012
Post: #26
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
(06-14-2013, 11:53 PM)Dash Wrote: @mistersnort

What you are telling me someone cant do was just proven wrong by the story / video I linked.

The provoked the confrontation ie unlocked the door and got in the guys face arguing. Guy punched him and the clerk pulled out a gun and blasted the attacker. Police came and watched the video and didn't arrest the clerk nor have any charges been pressed or will be pressed.

If someone assaults you and you feel your life in in danger (subjective as that can vary drastically for each individual person) you can use what ever means you have available to defend yourself while the assault is taking place.

Like I said, what you say is not supported by the facts or is not reality.
The clerk provoked*
I only read your first example which is not comparable at all.

Quote:The two neighbors started arguing, and Miller, according to the charging affidavit, believed Mulhall was reaching for a gun, so he shot him. Authorities later learned Mulhall was unarmed.

The guy that got shot didnt assault the shooter. So he couldnt claim self defense. You cant shoot someone simply because you think they have a gun.
It was not proven wrong. Just because the police don't charge you immediately doesn't mean they aren't going to arrest you. There are tons of examples. Think of how long they took to arrest Scott Peterson. Also if the kid dies or not will also factor in. There is no time limit on when they can bring a murder charge and they will have at least 5 years to charge him for assault with a weapon. Tim Dog is a famous example of someone who was charge and convicted years after the crime he was alleged to have done, even though the police had years earlier went through all the evidence and determined there was not enough to charge him, not because he was guilty but because the woman who he ripped off showed up at the prosecutors office everyday and kept bothering him until the prosecutor decided to prosecute to get her off his back.

If you read the law, you'd see its not a subjective thing. An independent finder of fact, a judge usually, will have to determine you had reasonable belief that you were going to die or be very seriously injured (as in end up in hospital for weeks a cut on your head doesn't count and neither does a few stitches) from the punch. With no injuries and not even falling or being shaken the chance of that is zero.

You can't shoot someone because you think they have a gun and you can't shoot someone because you they punch you. The person must be have a reasonable chance of killing or seriously injuring you to get away with it. Just perceiving a threat if it is unreasonable is not enough. Cops can't shoot unarmed people (unless they perceive them to be armed and are still often charged anyways). Judges give cops more leniency because they routinely deal with criminals carrying guns. The arab won't get that leniency, it will just be two citizens. The judge will have to decide if shooting someone you provoked into a fight is a reasonable response to being punched once, and given how routine people punch each other the answer will be obviously a no.

I think your view is commonly held, and it would be great if I could just go to the biggest guy in the bar and provoke him into hitting me and then pull out a gun and start shooting people and get away. That doesn't pass the common sense test nor does it pass any legal test.
06-15-2013, 05:52 AM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
Dash Offline
Los Mas Suelto

Posts: 3,246
Joined: Aug 2012
South Korea
Post: #27
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
@Mistersnort

Find me an example of a guy that was assaulted and used a gun to defend himself IN THE ACT of the assault with proof and witness and was convicted. The examples you have do not qualify / are not the same thing.

Police to dont wait to arrest someone involved in a murder when the CRIME was all captured on tape with multiple eye witnesses. That is pretty much the holy grail of evidence. Iron clad / case closed.





06-15-2013, 01:32 PM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
mistersnort Offline
Banned

Posts: 559
Joined: Dec 2012
Post: #28
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
" In one chilling example, a concealed carry permit holder was convicted of 2nd degree murder because he couldn’t explain why he needed to use his gun to defend himself against an unarmed attacker who was larger and stronger."

"A 23-year-old man has been convicted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of another man in downtown Elko.

A district court jury found Patrick Dunn of Spring Creek guilty Thursday in the shooting of Erik Espitia after an early-morning May 27 melee involving eight people.

The Elko Daily Free Press reports that Elko County District Attorney Mark Torvinen argued the fight had essentially ended by the time Dunn fired his gun. He also maintained Dunn shot Espitia because he was drunk and angry.

Defense attorney John Ohlson claimed Dunn acted in self-defense. He said Dunn was not the aggressor in the fight, and feared for his life and the life of his friends.

Dunn awaits sentencing Jan. 25. Espitia's family says the verdict represented closure."

Yes the police do, because the prosecutor wants an iron clad case, there is no point charging someone too early when there is no statute of limitations and you can easily get someone to say implicating things over a wire tap. You charge someone too early and new evidence comes up, you cannot charge them again because of double jeopardy, hence there is an incentive to let someone guilty believe they are off scott free, all until when they head to the mexican border like scott peterson they get arrested.

Someone is more justified in punching someone coming at them with a gun, than shooting someone who punched them when they came at them with a gun. I can't imagine if you are walking down the street and some guy comes with a gun pointing at you, how you are not justified in punching him to prevent him from shooting you.

An interesting question would be can you shoot someone who attempts to punch you but misses? show me someone who got punched once and shot the person dead and got away with it, on camera where the "attacker" was bigger and unhurt and not a woman or police man and involved no other crime (but the punch).

And even at that, you will say my cases don't meet your criteria, but neither does this one. Because in this case the defendant came at the kid with a gun. So who is self defending is murky at best. If a guy comes at you with a knife and you punch him is that not self defense, so how is punching a guy coming at you with a gun not? And even though the guy above said he was being attacked. The closest case to what your looking for is the one where the guy pulled the gun on his wife who he was fighting with and shot her and he is in jail.

"PENAL CODE

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;"

So it is a crime for that clerk to go out with that gun like that. In fact the kid has a good case of self defense. Clerk provoked the altercation, came out of where he was working brandishing a gun (disorderly conduct) provoked the kid who was unarmed and believed he was in imminent and immediate danger so tried to punch the clerk to stop him from shooting him and the clerk shot him. So the clerk has no legal ground to stand on, even if the kid were to just run up to him and punch him in the face once he still would not be justified in shooting him because nowhere in the law does it say you can do that.

If I am wrong, show me the cases where a guy pulls out a gun in a bar fight and shoots.

This case seems pretty close

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...qZfSnUjGrk

Guy goes and starts a fight, gets assaulted by fist, pulls out a gun during the act, with witnesses and proof

"The sheriff's office was informed about the incident from the unnamed passengers of the Chevrolet truck after Turner fired at them for a second time. After investigators released the cell-phone footage of the fight, the couple turned themselves in and is now facing a multitude of charges.

In particular, Bradley Turner has been charged with discharging a weapon into property, two counts of assault by pointing a gun, going armed to the terror of the people, injury to personal property, and assault, while his wife Christy, was charged with two counts of assault by pointing a gun"

http://www.carscoops.com/2013/03/who-at-...after.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...qZfSnUjGrk

I doubt if he had hit them and killed them the cops would have said it was self defense
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zim...f-defense/

"Innocence—Aggressors Need Not Apply

The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. It is, however, possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to regain his “innocence” under certain circumstances., and thereby regain his right to justifiably use force in self defense"

Lets see, you walk out your store behind a bullet proof glass with brandishing a gun at a kid where you could/should have called the police if the kid was truly harassing you. Clearly the arab is the aggressor. And while its not florida, the laws are quiet similar in self defense and stand your ground.

"Imminence—Right NOW!

The principle of Imminence refers to the notion that you can defend yourself with force only against a threatened danger that is about to happen RIGHT NOW. You can’t use force to prevent a danger that may arise at some later time—the law expects you to seek an alternative resolution in the mean time, such as calling the police–nor may you use force in response to a danger that has already occurred or passed—doing so would be retaliation, not self defense."

Well he failed on that one big time, didn't call the police until after. And he didn't shoot him when he was swinging he shot him after he punched him. This was retaliation not self defense, kid must have been in the act of punching to be self defense.

"Proportionality—The “Goldilocks” Principle (Just Right)

The principle of Proportionality refers to the notion that the degree of force you may use in self-defense must be proportional to the degree of force with which you are threatened. Briefly, a non-deadly threat may only be countered with a non-deadly defense. A threat capable of causing death or grave bodily harm (e.g., a broken bone, blinding, a rape) may be met with deadly force.

Usually, the use of deadly force against an unarmed attacker is fatal to a claim of self defense. If you nevertheless wants to argue self defense you will have to convince the court that the unique circumstances warranted your use of deadly force despite the fact that the attacker was unarmed.

In all states, however, if the unarmed attack is of such ferocity that it nevertheless raises a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm, the use of deadly force in self defense would be justified."

Definite big fail. There is no practical attack more minor than a single punch to the head. Hence why the lawyer points out deadly force on an unarmed person almost always results in a conviction of the person claiming self defense. The only exception is if the person is a rapist or a thief or trying to kill you with bear hands or something like choking you to death.

"Avoidance—A Duty to Retreat as Long as Safely Possible

The principle of Avoidance refers to the notion that you should not use force in self-defense if you can avoid the need to do so by making use of a safe avenue of retreat.

Florida is, of course, a “stand your ground” state (776.013(3)), where a person acting in justifiable self defense has no general duty to retreat before doing so. This does not, however, take the principle of Avoidance out of this trial.

As previously mentioned, it is is possible that the State will argue that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. As the aggressor he would not be eligible to argue self-defense unless he first “recovered his innocence.” A condition to “recovering innocence” is that you have “exhausted every reasonable means to escape” or that you “withdraw from physical contact with the assailant.”

In this way the principle of Avoidance and a legal duty to retreat can arise even in a Stand Your Ground state, like Florida, with no general duty to retreat before using force in self-defense."

Never mind retreat, this clerk went out of his way to go into a conflict.

"Reasonableness—Meet the “Reasonable and Prudent Man”

The principle of Reasonableness is really an umbrella principle that applies to each of the previous four. The issue here is whether your perceptions and conduct in self-defense were those of a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. If they were not, any claim to self-defense fails.

So, if you believed the other person was an aggressor, but a reasonable person would not have believed this, you did not act in lawful self-defense. Similarly if you believed that the threat was imminent but a reasonable person would not have, or that the force you used was proportional to the threat but a reasonable person would not have, or that you could not have avoided the threat but a reasonable person would have . . . in each case the claim to self defense fails."

I don't see how a reasonable person can view someone who comes at them brandishing a gun is not an aggressor. Let Juan Marquez and Jose Manuel follow you in an ally with 2 guns and tell me you don't think they are aggressors. Maybe you don't but most normal do.
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2013, 04:24 PM by mistersnort.)
06-15-2013, 03:55 PM
Find Reply
[-]
  •
anamericaninbangkok Offline
Tequila Afficanado
**

Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 1
Thailand
Post: #29
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
(06-11-2013, 11:28 AM)Dash Wrote: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=789_1370890511

Arab gas station clerk gets in argument with young black guy. Black guy punches him in the face. Clerk pulls out gun and waxes him. Click link for video.

Activist groups are up in a roar.

Fuck the activists. Whether black or white or green, this guy punched the dude in the face and took the repercussions of his actions. What did he expect?

You do not throw a punch - especially in a place prone to robberies - and expect nothing to happen but I'd like to know what went on prior to the punch and the shooting.
An American in Bangkok Upcoming Expeditions

Video: AAIB Video Update

Video:Thai Women - 6 Rules
06-18-2013, 10:04 AM
Website Find Reply
[-]
  •
mistersnort Offline
Banned

Posts: 559
Joined: Dec 2012
Post: #30
RE: What yall think of this? Clerk in the right or wrong?
So you get into an argument with a guy he pulls out a gun and you punch him to try to stop him from killing you and kill you. I do't see how that is legal or reasonable.
06-18-2013, 12:48 PM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)