|
chitoryu12 posted:So exactly what is the justification for a negligent discharge like that not being criminal? It's not exactly "My gun just went off while cleaning it!" He willingly drew and aimed his gun at someone, and he pulled the trigger by accident and shot him in the neck. The only reason a man died that night is because he knowingly engaged in actions that put someone's life at risk. I'm not saying the guy needs a first degree murder charge and 10 years in jail. I just can't imagine how this kind of action doesn't even apply for manslaughter. Cops do this frequently as part of their job, Its fair to say they shouldn't do this and want it changed, but you can't charge someone with criminal negligence for doing something that's a common practice. Talmonis posted:To be honest, "Other cops do it all the time" should not be a valid defense. I can't fathom why you think "other cops do this all the time" wouldn't be a defense to "you knew that no reasonable cop would ever think this would be lawful". Tiler Kiwi posted:I really don't like how QI means there seems to be no real mechanism to get cops to stop being stupid with their guns. It even seems to encourage it. If you look too competent with your hasty shootings, there goes your best defense. I'm not following your logic here
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
If he's that incompetent with a firearm, he shouldn't be a cop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Javid posted:If he's that incompetent with a firearm, he shouldn't be a cop. Entirely true, but wholly irrelevant to bringing him up on criminal charges or filing a civil suit against him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not following your logic here Okay, a police officer can shoot a dude in the neck, and not be held criminally liable, as it was accidental, correct? Even if the accident is precipitated by the cop behaving in a very risky manner, aka pointing guns while getting out of a car and chasing people, or in earlier cases, doing stuff like charging into unknown situations by themselves and doing a bad job of convincing people they are a cop. So, what's the incentive for a police officer not to do that? Suppose you're an officer, and you want to avoid jail if you shoot someone by mistake. Why bother trying to make it less likely to shoot someone by not doing dumb things, when that just means, if you still shoot in error, your avoidance of incompetent conduct just undermines your negligence defense? More generally, why would a cop do anything that reduces risk of harm to a suspect? A lot of trends in US policing like no knock raids, militarization, tazer trigger happiness, gun pointing, magazine dumping, car chases, or just the general predilection to go overkill seem driven by the need to reduce officer risk and risk of suspects eluding prosecution. But these also place the risk on the suspects; the party that is engaging in risky behaviour (police) are shielded from the risk. How is this not moral hazard?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah if he had intentionally shot him that would be the case, but the action we're talking about here is pulling his firearm. So to pierce QI you'd have show not only that the act of pulling his weapon violated the guy's rights, but that no reasonable officer could have thought it was legal for him to do so, an argument that would be defeated with 30 second and access to youtube. Let me be more specific: The cop had a loaded firearm with the safety off pointed at someone because he thought he might run. Since at that point he was no longer a danger to anyone, was most likely hosed up physically and mentally from flipping his car while drunk, what possible legal reason is their to be pointing a gun at the guys head. If there is no legal reason, how is "oopsie it just went off" a valid defense. If he's not a danger to the cop or anyone else he should not have had a gun pointed at him to begin with and the only justification given was he thought he might run which is not a reason for deadly force. Assuming the above is correct, how is the cop not not at fault for something? He had a loaded weapon pointed at a non-threat, accidental discharge should carry some kind of penalty should it not? And watching that video I don't believe for a second this was an accident. If he acted the least bit freaked and immediately called the ambulance and told them the guy was shot, maybe. Drawing, firing, holsterng then not saying poo poo until he thought he would get caught when they were going to investigate how he got shot by going back to the bar? Please.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Let me be more specific: The cop had a loaded firearm with the safety off pointed at someone because he thought he might run. Considering that a suspect running is not a valid reason to shoot them, then that's not a valid reason to have his gun out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Considering that a suspect running is not a valid reason to shoot them, then that's not a valid reason to have his gun out. Well, yeah. I'm just trying to see there's ever a situation the pro-police people agree a cop should be held liable or if it's a lost cause because it sure as gently caress seems that poo poo like QI is just a free pass for nearly anything short of things like the cop who planted the tazer or the campus(?) cop who shot that guy in the head then claimed he was trying run him over until the video was released. There's been so many I can't even keep track of the names anymore. Which again is the point that keeps getting lost in the minutia or legal term derails, unless there's a blindingly obvious video of a cop flat out wasting someone for no reason there's dozens of ways cops get away with poo poo non-cops would be locked up for in 8 seconds. Tamir Rice is the one that broke me, how anyone could defend that still leaves me 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Well, yeah. I'm just trying to see there's ever a situation the pro-police people agree a cop should be held liable or if it's a lost cause because it sure as gently caress seems that poo poo like QI is just a free pass for nearly anything short of things like the cop who planted the tazer or the campus(?) cop who shot that guy in the head then claimed he was trying run him over until the video was released. There's been so many I can't even keep track of the names anymore. QI only prevents civil liability. Just one of those "legal minutiae" that you don't understand. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:QI only prevents civil liability. Just one of those "legal minutiae" that you don't understand. Just ignore everything else and focus on the one thing that lets you get a jab in there. I'd say I'm shocked but at this point nothing does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Tamir Rice is the one that broke me, how anyone could defend that still leaves me I defended the Rice shooting before I saw the video. A gun is just as deadly when a 12 year old pulls the trigger. But when I saw the video it was clear that there was no reason to believe he was going to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:aiming a gun at someone you're trying to arrest is a standard practice. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I defended the Rice shooting before I saw the video. A gun is just as deadly when a 12 year old pulls the trigger. But when I saw the video it was clear that there was no reason to believe he was going to shoot. Serious question: Why should you give police any benefit of the doubt? We've seen that they manipulate statements to falsify evidence and even with video are hardly held accountable for either their false statements or the actual crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Aiming a gun at someone you're trying to arrest is a standard practice. How in the world is this acceptable behavior? Bringing a gun into a situation only increases the odds someone is going to die, there's no good reasons for police firearms not to be locked away until a situation requiring deadly force presents itself, and not to have a pile of paperwork every time that lock is touched.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How in the world is this acceptable behavior? Bringing a gun into a situation only increases the odds someone is going to die, there's no good reasons for police firearms not to be locked away until a situation requiring deadly force presents itself, and not to have a pile of paperwork every time that lock is touched. Because police have themselves and many others convinced that at literally any time, any suspect can flip out and murder them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Serious question: Why should you give police any benefit of the doubt? We've seen that they manipulate statements to falsify evidence and even with video are hardly held accountable for either their false statements or the actual crime. I wasn't giving them the benefit of the doubt, but posters were basically arguing that the police shouldn't have shot him "because he was 12" and that's not a good reason not to shoot somebody who looked like they were just pointing a gun down the street.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I defended the Rice shooting before I saw the video. A gun is just as deadly when a 12 year old pulls the trigger. But when I saw the video it was clear that there was no reason to believe he was going to shoot. Rice was way the gently caress more than he 'wasn't going to shoot' -12 year old with a toy that the woman who called 911 even said she thought was a toy but 911 didn't tell the cops. Also ignore it was open carry state so his only crime was being black with a gun. Or to more accurate a 12 year old black kid with a toy. -Even if he was 17 with a glock they screeched up 6 feet from him, fell out of the car and shot him within 2 seconds. No human could react even if they had given him any orders like they lied that they did in that time. -The driver had a nice long "rear end in a top hat abusive cop" history and the shooter was bounced around departments because he cried at the gun range and had multiple supervisors say he can't handle stress and didn't think he could be trained. The perfect pair to go see if the kid in the park is just a kid with a toy or not. -Lies piled on lies from the cops. Shooter gave him orders 3 times! Between falling out of the car an shooting that would give him about one second. Even if he had auctioneer speech skills "Dontmovedontmovedontmove BLAM" no human would have time to do anything but flinch while their brain is going 'what the hell' the way they nearly drove him down and fell over themselves to ventilate him. And the defenders only care about the 2 seconds between crying cop falling out of his car and the murder, nothing else matters. Of course it was a good shoot, he only he seconds to react to a 12 year old! Multiple systemic failures from the 911 call not telling them it's probably a toy to crying cop still being issued a weapon (or even still being a loving cop period) to roaring up and skidding to a stop nearly on top of him. None of that matters, you only need to focus on the 2 seconds crying cop had to decide if the freaked out 12 year old could outdraw him. So good shoot. I even agree the blame is spread all over, not just on crying cop. The system failed on every level but because of that nobody gets any blame since you couldn't point to a singular instance. So instead just focus on "well he only had seconds to react!" and hand wave away the reason he only had seconds was because of the way they handled the situation. So like all other instances where the cops actions created the 'only had seconds' situation they ignore everything except the last seconds before the murder. Cops create scenario and get the blame dismissed because the scenario they created gave them no other options than killing a kid with toy because they had no time to do anything else. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Is there a final disposition in the Tamir Rice case yet? Or is the investigation still "ongoing"? As far as accidental shooting in Florida, it seems that people are talking around the essential issue: it seems that accidentally killing someone with a firearm, even with gross negligence, is a special protected class of homicide in that state (and presumably others with similar laws). In other words, you could be grossly negligent with a car, a forklift, a chainsaw etc. and kill people with those items and be convicted of whatever the appropriate criminal offense is (negligent homicide, manslaughter, depraved indifference etc.) but because of our gun culture and NRA/ALEC or whatever, negligently killing someone with a gun represents a special case where the negligent person is immune from criminal prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Is there a final disposition in the Tamir Rice case yet? Or is the investigation still "ongoing"? Unless I'm confusing with another kid murdered by cops, good shoot so no charges. And as the guy shot in the neck showed, being negligent with a gun doesn't count if you're a cop. Being held responsible for negligence with dangerous things only matters for citizens, although because it's a gun even citizens can get away with it like gun twirler. We can't hold people responsible for negligence with a gun or the NRA would cry. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Rice was way the gently caress more than he 'wasn't going to shoot' You don't charge an individual with a criminal offense based on the results of the collective failings of an institution AreWeDrunkYet posted:How in the world is this acceptable behavior? Bringing a gun into a situation only increases the odds someone is going to die, there's no good reasons for police firearms not to be locked away until a situation requiring deadly force presents itself, and not to have a pile of paperwork every time that lock is touched. I'm not sure that it is, I wasn't arguing that, but it is common practice because: A Fancy Bloke posted:police have themselves and many others convinced that at literally any time, any suspect can flip out and murder them. And the crimes we're talking about (or lawsuit in the case of QI) are "did he do something he knew or should of known he shouldn't have?" not "was it an objectively bad decision?", hell in the case of QI its "did he do something that no reasonable cop could ever think was legal?". And both of those questions are a pretty hard sell when you're talking about standard, commonplace action. The real question we should be asking is "should we make reforms to when police are allowed to draw their firearms?", also "was that really accidental?". I'm more surprised people are jumping all over this negligence angle which seems to be a no-brainer correct call rather then the fact that cop was disturbingly composed as he pops the guy. The only reason I'm not inclined to come out and say I suspect something is I can't figure out for the life of me what motivation he'd have shoot the guy. Zwabu posted:Is there a final disposition in the Tamir Rice case yet? Or is the investigation still "ongoing"? Its currently in front of a Grand Jury edit: Toasticle posted:And as the guy shot in the neck showed, being negligent with a gun doesn't count if you're a cop. Being held responsible for negligence with dangerous things only matters for citizens, although because it's a gun even citizens can get away with it like gun twirler. We can't hold people responsible for negligence with a gun or the NRA would cry. Literally the last page someone posted an article about a civilian shooting someone in the head trying to twirl their gun like a cowboy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You don't charge an individual with a criminal offense based on the results of the collective failings of an institution Woah, wait a second there. What does this say of the products of our inner city schools?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You don't charge an individual with a criminal offense based on the results of the collective failings of an institution
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You don't charge an individual with a criminal offense based on the results of the collective failings of an institution Yeah, someone said "I even agree the blame is spread all over, not just on crying cop" and said it was the result of "Multple systemic failures" Oh yeah that was me. In the post you just quoted. quote:Literally the last page someone posted an article about a civilian shooting someone in the head trying to twirl their gun like a cowboy. And he wasnt charged. He even quoted the part of the article where the DA explained why. You pro cop guys sure do love berating people for missing important details but don't seem to pay much attention yourselves. drilldo squirt posted:Who's do you think is responsible for that kid being shot? Based on the discussion about in the last thread apparently nobody. Is there a set number of people who gently caress up and end up with a dead twelve year old that once you hit that number it's just  it's no one persons fault?And does it just apply to cops murdering kids? Because I'm pretty sure for civilians if the results of several people loving up ending up with a dead 12 year old they figure out how much each person is to blame and punish them accordingly. Unless you twirl a loaded gun on your finger and kill a pregnant woman I guess. Personally I'd lay most if on the two cops. Even taking the other fuckup into consideration they are the ones who decided to run the car nearly on top of the kid and gave a child all of 2-3 seconds to respond to commands they lied about giving him. They created the situation that only gave them seconds to outdraw a child with a toy who was most likely freaking out over the cop car that just came to a screeching halt 10 feet away and even if they had ordered him to do anything even an adult would need more than three seconds to shake off the "holy gently caress what is going on" to even understand what the guy with guy gun pointed at you is screaming. And most kids reaction to being accused of doing something wrong is prove they didn't so him trying to show the cops it's just a toy is a normal reaction for a kid. All they had to do is stop 25 feet away, hide behind the car door and yell or bullhorn for the kid to drop it. On the extremely rare odds the a child has a real gun there's no loving way he'd even hit the car much less them and the recoil would probably make him drop it anyway. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Based on the discussion about in the last thread apparently nobody. Is there a set number of people who gently caress up and end up with a dead twelve year old that once you hit that number it's just Yes, absolutely, 100%. I can confirm that this is the case with CPS as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:
So considering that you believe the two police men are at most fault why aren't they prosecutable, and in what situation would they have been?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
They're perfectly prosecutable, the DA just decided to play defense at the Grand Jury. If I charged a 12-year-old, gunned him down, and said it was because he pointed a gun at me, and then video evidence proved I was lying, then unless I'm besties with the DA he wouldn't bring in friends to testify for the grand jury that I acted in reasonable self-defense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:So considering that you believe the two police men are at most fault why aren't they prosecutable, and in what situation would they have been? What I think is irrelevant, as Vitalsigns said the DA played defense for the cops, highered half a dozen 'experts' to say Oh yeah, totally a good shoot and refused to file charges. Which, yet again, is something citizens don't get. The DA is supposed to present the available evidence without bias and let the grand jury decide but as is all to common he instead acted as their defense attorney. Those 'experts' should have been at a trial, not to swing a grand jury. Nearly everyone except people who blow cops who saw the video knew drat well it was murder and a trial and jury should have been the outcome but we'll never know because the DA was more interested in protecting cops than doing his loving job. It took the McDonald(? again I've lost track there's so many now) two years, a 5 million bribe attempt and a judge to finally release the video in that case. Once it was finally available there was no way the DA could have buried it, it so loving obvious the public would have burned his office to the ground. It took a video of cops emptying their clips into a dead body to get the justice system to do something. I'm pretty sure it was a different case before some pedant leaps in, I'm probably just thinking McDonald because it was yet another case of the DA dragging his rear end until video evidence forced him to do his job. Actually I'm pretty positive it was a different case but my sanity can't take digging through the last thread to figure out which complete over reaction by the cops is the right one. If they were innocent then a jury would have let them go, but cops don't have to face juries unless the case is so loving obvious usually from video evidence you have to pry from the DA and department like getting the ring from Gollum. Even then all to often they drag everything out, sometimes for years so enough people forget about it then quietly refuse to prosecute. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, absolutely, 100%. I can confirm that this is the case with CPS as well. My liver hates you for forcing me to once again drink away the thoughts of the 'justice' system (and now CPS) loving over the poeple who need their help the most. Thanks a lot 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
And then think about Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault coalitions relying primarily on state funds when currently 62% of states have Republican governors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
L.A. County shooting. The guy is walking away from the deputies and they start firing. At this point, well, IDK, maybe he twitched in a way that scared them. I doubt it, but maybe. But after that first barrage it's literally a man trying to drag his broken body away from the people who are putting holes in him and then they start unloading some more. You can see his legs twitching as he's hit, crawling away. As bad as the Laquan McDonald video was to watch, you could kinda convince yourself that he was probably gone after the first few shots. This is just terrible. Terraplane fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
To me the Rice case is so egregious it's really bar for how much the police can gently caress up during a murder (I don't care if this is technically the correct legal terminology for this situation, it's what it actually is) and still have DA support. Killed a twelve year old child Shot without any warning whatsoever after jumping out of a car The kid didn't even have time to act "aggressively" Victim was holding a toy Victim was not threatening anyone Victim was in an open carry state so even if the gun was real simply holding one should not have resulted in immediate police violence Lied about the entire encounter Threatened the sister of the victim and treated her terribly while her brother was dying in front of her This is pretty much one step away from a cop deciding to kill a person, jumping out of the bushes when he's walking to work so that he acts surprised or jumps "aggressively", and then filling him with bullets and that one second before his death determines the "good shoot" level of the incident. Think about how differently this would be handled if a little white girl was holding a gun like object and police rolled up and executed her with no warning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Radish posted:Think about how differently this would be handled if a little white girl was holding a gun like object and police rolled up and executed her with no warning. Well this was made explicit ITT when someone posted a picture of a white guy open-carrying in a restaurant and asked if he was a threat and the answer was no because he wasn't actually pointing it at anyone. Little black boy with empty hands though
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well this was made explicit ITT when someone posted a picture of a white guy open-carrying in a restaurant and asked if he was a threat and the answer was no because he wasn't actually pointing it at anyone. Tamir made Loehmann feel like a five year old approaching Hulk Hogan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:L.A. County shooting. The guy is walking away from the deputies and they start firing. At this point, well, IDK, maybe he twitched in a way that scared them. I doubt it, but maybe. Oh look, another straight up murder caught on video that will go mysteriously unsolved. There are no good cops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:L.A. County shooting. The guy is walking away from the deputies and they start firing. At this point, well, IDK, maybe he twitched in a way that scared them. I doubt it, but maybe. quote:According to authorities, witnesses said that moments before, Robertson turned and pointed the gun at the deputies. quote:Seth Stoughton, a criminal law professor at the University of South Carolina and a former Tampa police officer, said there are circumstances under which an officer can shoot at a suspect walking away from them. “If the deputies reasonably believe the suspect with a firearm presents a danger by walking toward a gas station with vehicles and bystanders, they would be justified in using deadly force. That would be why they opened fire. The video is bad enough that you don't have to misrepresent things. Multiple witnesses have said the guy had a gun. He's refused to drop it. He then walks towards a public place with other people present and he was apparently shot while he had the gun in his hand. Why they continued to fire at him after he hit the ground I cannot answer. The link you posted goes into why they may have done that. They could also have just decided to kill him at that point. Who knows?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:That would be why they opened fire. The video is bad enough that you don't have to misrepresent things. Multiple witnesses have said the guy had a gun. He's refused to drop it. He then walks towards a public place with other people present and he was apparently shot while he had the gun in his hand. Even if we assume deadly force was justified, since he was not actively shooting at the police why not shoot him once, then see how compliant the dude is? The volley of gunfire just ensures it's an execution rather than the police taking someone into custody with the minimum of force required as you might hope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Even if we assume deadly force was justified, since he was not actively shooting at the police why not shoot him once, then see how compliant the dude is? The volley of gunfire just ensures it's an execution rather than the police taking someone into custody with the minimum of force required as you might hope. Because you might miss, and then in the time it takes you to re-assess, he's shooting. Because your first shot might not be a disabling shot, and the same happens. Generally the training is "shoot until the thread is no longer a threat" which translates as shoot until they're down, because if they're down then they're no longer a threat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Because you might miss, and then in the time it takes you to re-assess, he's shooting. Because your first shot might not be a disabling shot, and the same happens. Generally the training is "shoot until the thread is no longer a threat" which translates as shoot until they're down, because if they're down then they're no longer a threat. In which case recent reports show you continue shooting a dozen more times while they are down, because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Because you might miss, and then in the time it takes you to re-assess, he's shooting. Because your first shot might not be a disabling shot, and the same happens. Generally the training is "shoot until the thread is no longer a threat" which translates as shoot until they're down, because if they're down then they're no longer a threat. Yeah. I may hate guns but I've been to the range plenty of times. If I miss something I'm aiming a pistol at and miss it would take about 0.5 seconds to pull the trigger again. What exactly are you re-assessing if you miss? Ditto for a non disabling shot. If you fire, hit and the guy doesn't go down you shoot again. What the hell reality are cops living in that it takes so long to realize they missed or the guy is still standing that the guy has enough time to turn around, find you, aim and shoot before you can pull the trigger again? Seriously the poo poo people make up as to why its mag dump or nothing are ludicrous. And has there even been a recent case where they going down ended the shooting? Because SOP sure seems to be empty your gun period whether the guy standing, falling or already a corpse. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
I'm astonished that the only time recently that cops have shown restraint with an armed suspect was when it was a cop...who was lording over his wife's bleeding body in a car in the middle of a street.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
And shot her again while his buddies put together a scrapbook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:10
|
|