Page 12 of 40 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 985

Thread: 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #18

  1. #276
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,396
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

    At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.
    1. Talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

    2. Waiting for the rain to let up.

    Which of these activities "appeared suspicious to GZ"?


  2. #277
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,267
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

    At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.
    The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.



    ~jmo~


  3. #278
    Nice op-ed from Huffington Post ( link )

    I also became aware of the privilege of being white, straight, middle class, and suburban. I had received the benefit of the doubt from police and other authorities. I could talk my way out of a situation with lies that were believed. When parties in the suburbs got busted, we were told to go home and parents were called. A few miles away, we would have been arrested in paddy wagon

    [...]

    I am reminded of an incident fifteen years ago when we were moving our first office at Public Allies, and two of the women I worked with, both African American Howard University graduates in sweats, decided to treat themselves to a nice lunch. They kept waiting to be seated and were being treated rudely and when they complained were told to take their attitude back to the ghetto. They weren't from the "ghetto." I learned that one of the privileges of being white is that I can wear whatever I want and people don't assume I'm a problem. They don't follow me in the mall. They wouldn't even arrest me when they should have.

  4. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to shadowraiths For This Useful Post:


  5. #279
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    1. Talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

    2. Waiting for the rain to let up.

    Which of these activities "appeared suspicious to GZ"?
    I don't know. The initial belief that he walked to the store, and then walked right back - something that would look not suspicious- may not be accurate. He may have been kind of slowly exploring the place (not a crime) or standing in one area and pacing back and forth (not a crime) or doing something else that looked more suspicious than someone walking in a purposeful way.

    This whole thing was a horrible misunderstanding, and the more we learn about what led to the misunderstanding, the better. And so when you find out that 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes after leaving the 7-11, Trayvon was still not home you have to wonder what he was doing besides walking to the condo unit.

    Not that whatever he was doing was criminal. The point is, did it look more criminal than a purposeful walk.

    BTW, people don't normally "wait for the rain to let up" while they're standing in the rain. They work to get back home if the rain is bothering them.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  7. #280
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrienne37 View Post
    The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.



    ~jmo~
    If you re-read it, it doesn't say he was inside the store from 6 - 6:30. It says he purchased the items between 6 and 6:30. Meaning, he could have purchased them at 6.

    It is kind of unclear, though.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  9. #281
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrienne37 View Post
    The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.



    ~jmo~
    Since we don't know what Trayvon was doing that GZ characterized as "suspicious", I think it's open to thinking about what it could have been.

    No one is saying Trayvon was committing a crime. But rather, what did he appear like that evening?

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  11. #282
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,267
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    If you re-read it, it doesn't say he was inside the store from 6 - 6:30. It says he purchased the items between 6 and 6:30. Meaning, he could have purchased them at 6.

    It is kind of unclear, though.
    This is what I said. No where in my post did I say anything about him being in the store for 30 minutes.

    The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.


    ~jmo~

  12. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Adrienne37 For This Useful Post:


  13. #283
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,060
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    Can someone please help me understand this whole "under the law, you don't need to be injured to fear for your life" thing? At what point would a reasonable person think that GZ shooting TM is justified?

    • Opponent is unarmed and has not touched you – not reasonable
    • If you think your opponent has a gun because of preconceived notions you have about people like him, but you haven’t actually seen a weapon – not reasonable
    • He says something straight out of a cheesy movie like, “You’re going to die tonight.” – not reasonable
    • Someone jumps you from behind - ?
    • Someone punches you in the face - ?
    • Someone is on top of you, struggling for the gun that you pulled on him - ?

    I know that some people are going to say that killing someone who initiated the fight and is beating your head into the ground is reasonable, but the question I have for those people is: do you really think Trayvon was wailing like his life was ending while beating GZ nearly to death (and yes, I think it was Trayvon screaming, supported by the analysis of the two audio experts)?

    JMO.
    I don't know the answer to your question but while you have two audio experts GZ has two eyewitnesses he was on the bottom. Here's from a state of Fla. licensing web site.

    Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

    A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

    Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
    Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
    Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

    Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

    Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

    A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Peliman For This Useful Post:


  15. #284
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,396
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    I don't know. The initial belief that he walked to the store, and then walked right back - something that would look not suspicious- may not be accurate. He may have been kind of slowly exploring the place (not a crime) or standing in one area and pacing back and forth (not a crime) or doing something else that looked more suspicious than someone walking in a purposeful way.

    This whole thing was a horrible misunderstanding, and the more we learn about what led to the misunderstanding, the better. And so when you find out that 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes after leaving the 7-11, Trayvon was still not home you have to wonder what he was doing besides walking to the condo unit.

    Not that whatever he was doing was criminal. The point is, did it look more criminal than a purposeful walk.

    BTW, people don't normally "wait for the rain to let up" while they're standing in the rain. They work to get back home if the rain is bothering them.
    I grew up in Florida and lived there until I was 23. I am well aware of how quickly tropical downpours come and go. No, of course one doesn't stand in the rain, but one might well stand under an awning for 15 or 20 minutes, trusting that the worst of the rain will pass before long. I have done so myself countless times, including when I was TM's age.

    I have never assumed that GZ set out to stalk and kill a black person that night, so I don't have much reason to imagine an alternate reason why he found TM suspicious.

  16. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  17. #285
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Peliman View Post
    I don't know the answer to your question but while you have two audio experts GZ has two eyewitnesses he was on the bottom. Here's from a state of Fla. licensing web site.

    Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

    A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

    Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
    Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
    Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

    Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

    Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

    A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html
    Am I the only one who is struck by how carefully GZ's story eventually gets around to fulfilling the criteria listed above. I have to wonder if he was coached.


  18. #286
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South Central Illinois
    Posts
    10,904
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    I'm still ruminating on this. It's not like he went back and changed an observation (for example, stating an officer noticed a suspect's limp when that in fact wasn't noticed until days later). I don't think adding the deceased's identity to this changes anything - it would be like adding an address, or phone number, or cop's badge number, or other information pertinent to the case that wouldn't change over time, but had not been in the report because it wasn't known at the time. The initial police report of a shooting that left off the identity of the deceased's identity is incomplete, and not the best recordkeeping practice, IMHO if they learn the identity and don't add it for clarity.

    I don't see how filling in one of the blanks once the answer becomes known falsifies the report. Or even in any way looks suspicious. It makes it a more accurate, useful document. Trayvon's identity didn't change between 3:07 a.m. and whenever they added his identity to the report.
    It is against the law. You can not create a report and date it then add information to it at a later date without dating the addition.

    It is a historical document. People looking at it would say well they knew the ID of the person at 3:09 which would not be true.


  19. #287
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    43,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    I understand that's a terrible position in which to place any parent, but how do you want LE to identify dead bodies, if not by showing pictures to next of kin?
    Generally you don't see crime scene photos. You either go to the ME's office and identify in person, or they take a sterile picture of the body in the morgue. That wasn't this department's best procedural move IMO.
    Last edited by grandmaj; 04-06-2012 at 03:56 PM.


  20. #288
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Fessel View Post
    It is against the law. You can not create a report and date it then add information to it at a later date without dating the addition.

    It is a historical document. People looking at it would say well they knew the ID of the person at 3:09 which would not be true.
    I agree. Any document that is modified should indicate how it was modified and when. I work for a government agency and they would have a cow if we just went back to a document and added something without a revision of that document being made. But then again, we're talking about the SPD.
    There is Good Grief. Just ask Charlie Brown.

  21. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to ScubaTwinn For This Useful Post:


  22. #289
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrienne37 View Post
    I do not believe it's up to us to decide if it is a teardrop or a raindrop, the whole point of the post is to show how callous and unconcerned the Sanford Police Dept treated the father of a murder victim by showing him a picture of his child laying face down in the grass after he was murdered. To Tracy Martin that represented a tear drop and I do not believe it should be up to anyone to decipher or interpret how Mr. Martin felt at that moment to see his beloved son lying face down with a bullet through him.



    ~jmo~
    I must apologize. I think the way i worded this post was wrong.

    I should of explained it better. This is a tragedy and inside many of us are broken up and tears of grief have been shed.

    If there was though moisture on TM's face that appeared to be a teardrop I am more apt to believe that it was a raindrop.

    No one wants to see things like this happens there are never any winners.

  23. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Allusonz For This Useful Post:


  24. #290
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Fessel View Post
    It is against the law. You can not create a report and date it then add information to it at a later date without dating the addition.

    It is a historical document. People looking at it would say well they knew the ID of the person at 3:09 which would not be true.
    If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

    I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

    Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  26. #291
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,355
    Quote Originally Posted by ScubaTwinn View Post
    I agree. Any document that is modified should indicate how it was modified and when. I work for a government agency and they would have a cow if we just went back to a document and added something without a revision of that document being made. But then again, we're talking about the SPD.
    In medical reports, you can go back in and add something that you didn't know at the time, that is a matter of fact and doesn't affect or influence the medical treatment. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. You can't add something that would be very pertinent - for example, another drug the patient was on when receiving a medication. You'd have to note when that info was added, after the initial creation of the report. If you actually CHANGE something in a medical report you have to draw a single line through the error, write the correct information and write "error" next to it. You can't obliterate or erase information.

    But you could certainly add in a name of the patient once you realize it's not on the form. Is that not true of a police report? I would think that would be about the same as adding a "case number" on the form after the case is actually opened. You can do that, can't you, without redating the police report?

  27. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  28. #292
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Am I the only one who is struck by how carefully GZ's story eventually gets around to fulfilling the criteria listed above. I have to wonder if he was coached.
    GZ's story has certainly evolved over time with the help of his mouth pieces.


  29. #293
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,612
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    In medical reports, you can go back in and add something that you didn't know at the time, that is a matter of fact. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. If you actually CHANGE something in a medical report you have to draw a single line through the error, write the correct information and write "error" next to it. You can't obliterate or erase information.

    But you could certainly add in a name of the patient once you realize it's not on the form.
    I would think this is what happened, if a deceased is unknown at the time the report is written why not add the name after it's been identified. jmo

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Elley Mae For This Useful Post:


  31. #294
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,166
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    In medical reports, you can go back in and add something that you didn't know at the time, that is a matter of fact and doesn't affect or influence the medical treatment. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. You can't add something that would be very pertinent - for example, another drug the patient was on when receiving a medication. You'd have to note when that info was added, after the initial creation of the report. If you actually CHANGE something in a medical report you have to draw a single line through the error, write the correct information and write "error" next to it. You can't obliterate or erase information.

    But you could certainly add in a name of the patient once you realize it's not on the form. Is that not true of a police report? I would think that would be about the same as adding a "case number" on the form after the case is actually opened. You can do that, can't you, without redating the police report?
    Yes, a medical document can be corrected as you have indicated, but it is absolutely imperative that the date and time that the change is made be included in the report. If this is not done, it can be considered fraudulent documentation. This from my experience as an RN for 26 years.


  32. #295
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Fessel View Post
    Rut Roh, They seem to be distancing themselves from the concrete. LOL

    "We're familiar with the Shaken Baby Syndrome," said Uhrig on the CBS This Morning program. "You shake a baby, the brain shakes around inside the skull. You can die when someone's pounding your head into the ground."



    http://whtc.com/news/articles/2012/a...artins-killer/
    I guess I don't understand how this would help GZ. I doubt a jury would believe that he could have or would have even thought at the moment the struggle occurred, that TM could shake my brain till I am brain damaged. But, nevertheless, is he changing his testimony as to what he told police that night?

  33. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to CathyinTexas For This Useful Post:


  34. #296
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    25,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Isabelle View Post
    GZ's story has certainly evolved over time with the help of his mouth pieces.
    However GZ was interviewed on tape three times with LE that night. So it doesn't really matter what his father or brother or neighbor say. The only story that will matter during the trial will be his initial version, imo.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  35. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to katydid23 For This Useful Post:


  36. #297
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the eight ball
    Posts
    2,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Am I the only one who is struck by how carefully GZ's story eventually gets around to fulfilling the criteria listed above. I have to wonder if he was coached.
    I feel the same way.. seems bit by bit a fact (if u can call it that) is released to the media that seemingly sets up the SYG laws as a defense.
    It's just MOO. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time and it surely won't be the last!

    Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.



  37. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to deelytful1 For This Useful Post:


  38. #298
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    8,056
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

    I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

    Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.
    And yet, lots of things seem to hint that police and prosecutors may have violated protocol, and there are many things about this case that no one would ever imagine would or could ever happen.

    I'm the proud mother of a new attorney!
    It's better to know some of the questions than all of the answers. ~ James Thurber
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing ~ Edmund Burke
    Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. ~ Mark Twain

  39. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to ThoughtFox For This Useful Post:


  40. #299
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Elley Mae View Post
    I would think this is what happened, if a deceased is unknown at the time the report is written why not add the name after it's been identified. jmo
    I totally agree. But then, I'm not a cop so maybe I'm wrong.

  41. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  42. #300
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Atlanta GA
    Posts
    7,447
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

    I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

    Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.
    I don't know about police reports. All I know is that for my job, the notes are EVERYTHING and we live by the mantra that "if it isn't in the notes it didn't happen." Anytime we change anything, it is noted. In fact, I couldn't go in and change something if I wanted to. The computer would still note that I (logged in) added or updated some information on a certain date at a certain time.

    It may not seem to be important when it is merely adding more information, but tracking is critical for someone to go back later and determine when the police knew this information. It creates a timeline to refer back to later, especially if there is a trial.

    They should do it if only to help themselves. Trayvon's name being on that 3am police report opens them to criticism that they did not notify his family in a timely way. Does anyone really think they wait for a "decent hour" to notify a family of a dead child? But an amended report showing that Trayvon was positively identified via a photograph by his father at whatever time on the morning of 2/27 is much more accurate and gives a clearer picture of the timeline.

    Whenever documents are altered without proper notation, it's a red flag that someone is either incompetent or hiding something.


Page 12 of 40 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202122 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #15
    By imamaze in forum George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion threads
    Replies: 1163
    Last Post: 04-03-2012, 05:28 PM
  2. 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #14
    By imamaze in forum George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion threads
    Replies: 1285
    Last Post: 04-02-2012, 04:17 PM
  3. 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #13
    By imamaze in forum George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion threads
    Replies: 912
    Last Post: 04-01-2012, 04:54 PM
  4. FL 17 y/o Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #12
    By ynotdivein in forum George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion threads
    Replies: 934
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 09:12 PM
  5. FL 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #11
    By beach in forum George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion threads
    Replies: 1090
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 08:26 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •