|
 Bounkham Phonesavanh, 2, in a medically induced coma after a SWAT team threw a flashbang into his crib.  UC Officer John Pike hoses down Occupy protesters with pepper spray in November 2011. Pike, who bears a striking resemblance to an actual pig, was fired after 8 months of paid administrative leave but later won a $38,000 worker's compensation settlement, claiming he "suffered depression and anxiety after death threats were sent to him and his family."  Kenneth Chamberlain Jr. with a picture of his father, Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., who was shot and killed by police responding to an aid call after he inadvertently activated his LifeAid pendant. Chamberlain requested that the police leave but an officer can be heard on the LifeAid recording responding "I don't give a gently caress friend of the family, open the door!" A LifeAid dispatcher requested that the aid call be cancelled but was told "We don't need any mediators." Chamberlain stated "This is my sworn testimony. White Plains officers are coming in here to kill me." Police then entered Chamberlain's apartment, tased him, shot him with a beanbag round, then shot him to death. A grand jury declined to indict the officers involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bujfjsO7_To King County Sheriff's Deputy Paul Schene assaults a 15-year-old girl in a holding cell in 2009. Schene was fired but not convicted of any crime.  In August 2010, Seattle police officer Ian Birk saw Native woodcarver John T. Williams crossing the street with a piece of cedar and a knife. The dash camera video below, cued up to when Williams crossed the street, shows Officer Birk's response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcxqyp2wOzE&t=56s Policing is broken in the United States. Instead of carrying out their purported mission "to protect and serve," police are encouraged to adopt a suspicious, adversarial mindset toward citizens. Unaccountable police unions defend their actions, however extreme. Departments use Homeland Security funds to requisition ever-escalating levels of military equipment, including LRAD sound weapons and mine-resistant MRAP armored vehicles. This is a thread to post and discuss police abuses and essential reforms to policing. Police Unions Unions are good. However, when unions are used to shield the actions of a body empowered to use deadly force in the course of detaining citizens, abuse is the inevitable result. Community Policing This is a vaguely defined term we see a lot. Police should be encouraged to walk beats instead of cruising through them, to think about solving problems in ways other than making arrests, and to live in the communities where they work. Community Oversight a pig posted:On one side of the debate, there are those who assert that internal review and control is the only way to manage the problem of misconduct. Basically, they argue that the involvement of citizens without intimate knowledge of law enforcement procedures and legal limitations will only muddle the review process. As professionals, law enforcement administrators must be held accountable for training and discipline to prevent misconduct. They must remain above the political fray in order to ensure their freedom from the vagaries of political influences. In any case, other avenues of review or redress, such as civil litigation, legislative investigative powers, and the mass media, already exist. In an era of fiscal conservatism, citizen review appears to be an expensive extralegal appendage to the existing system of internal investigations. No they don't. Leaving all review up to internal processes is a guaranteed recipe for corruption and impunity. Community oversight boards need the power to fire officers. This is tied to the power of police unions. Always-on Body Cameras As seen from the Williams shooting footage above, dash cameras can provide valuable evidence of police abuse. The ubiquity of camera phones is also a valuable tool to protect citizens; police know this and often try to destroy the evidence collected by them. The best way to use cameras to keep police accountable is to mandate the wearing of body cameras:  Body cameras have been put into service in some jurisdictions. However, in most (all?) cases police unions have secured the right for officers to turn the cameras off as they please. Please post the following: -News about police abuse, corruption and impunity -Suggested police reforms and examples of their implementation -Fat, leering faces of police -Defenses of police action, that make you a part of the problem 
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
AshB posted:Pike deserved to get fired, but I don't see what's wrong with him getting a settlement. Nothing, it's just funny that squirting a chemical weapon into the eyes of nonviolent protesters didn't cause him any depression and anxiety. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Am I still part of the problem if I think step 1 in this process should be across-the-board substance decriminalization and an end to the War on Drugs? Not at all. Marijuana arrests are way down in WA:  That means fewer people in jail and fewer lives and livelihoods disrupted because of court dates and mandated "treatment." The decline is apparently less marked for minors, because after all they are still breaking state law. That needs to be fixed; I've worked with any number of homeless youth whose lives and freedom are being disrupted because of MIP charges. I understand that there are some people out there who think it's really important to set themselves the Sisyphean task of discouraging teenagers from smoking pot, but putting them in the juvenile justice system is not the way to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:While I totally understand the justified rage at the profession, at some point it seems like it would be impossible to have any kind of law officer that would be acceptable or even contain acceptable compromises. I realize this might be the point, of course, but it seems like reacting to the sharkish business practices of the modern funeral industry by saying there shouldn't be funerals or undertakers. (This is not an endorsement of the modern 'justice' system or the current cops.) That's why I specifically avoided suggesting that policing be eradicated, and concentrated on workable reforms. quote:I would like to ask if there could be some explanation for why there shouldn't be police unions, though. Or at least, some form of them; fair enough if it should be a "civil workers union" including firemen, garbagemen, etc. instead of specifically The Thin Blue Line, but why should this one profession be denied labor representation? OP posted:Unions are good. However, when unions are used to shield the actions of a body empowered to use deadly force in the course of detaining citizens, abuse is the inevitable result.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Okay, the thread will continue as-is, but will have to check in with a probation officer regularly for drug tests. I uh, thanks Your Honor. *quaffs cranberry juice, tapes piss-filled balloon to abdomen* meat sweats posted:As long as you continue to insist that public employee unions are good, you will get nowhere with this. They are the main reason cops are able to act with impunity. In California, the prison guards union blocks attempts at relaxing mandatory minimums and drug laws on an annual basis. poo poo, I find it really distasteful to agree with Koch brothers rhetoric but maybe the concept of public employee unions does need to be scrapped. The problem is that usually that's intended as a way to destroy all pensions and benefits and bring the rights of public employees down to that of a grease monkey at Jiffy Lube. Maybe deeper reforms are needed that can guarantee the basic rights and benefits of cops, teachers and state bureaucrats alike. Maybe states could amend their constitutions to eliminate those unions and at the same time guarantee rights and benefits? I'm just spitballing here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Enid Coleslaw posted:If you have problems with cops then maybe try not doing crimes? I haven't even spoken to a police officer since the last time I was arrested. Do you belong to a population that is disproportionately targeted for stops and arrests?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Police unions will literally barricade a courthouse and prevent an officer from being put on trial. Prison guard unions sank bills in the California legislature to relieve horrific prison conditions and mandatory minimums which had actually attracted sufficient support from delegates. Isn't the problem that police and prison unions are unique because they use force on citizens with impunity? They can behave lawlessly, and since they are the ones responsible for apprehending lawbreakers, they go unpunished. Then, they use the terms of their contracts to get out of even losing their jobs. If a DOT worker or something breaks the law, you can use the police to hold them accountable to the law. If their union contract keeps them from losing their job, it's not nearly as serious a problem because at least they are accountable to the law. Not every barrier to the will of voters is unjust or undemocratic. If voters want to strip away the negotiated protections of public employee unions, that doesn't mean we should let them. Voters would vote to strip people of a lot of things.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:By definition it is undemocratic. We correctly choose to prevent certain things, enshrined in Constitutional amendments, from the democratic process -- no majority should be able to vote to make it illegal for certain racial groups to vote or ban gay people from getting married, and no majority can abridge the freedom of speech, or to bear arms, or so forth. Yeah. quote:There is no legitimate way that "allowing police to do whatever they want" [falls under this umbrella] Yeah... quote:or a specific benefits package for teachers falls under this umbrella. Factually, it does not (it is not in the Constitution). Huh!? There's something in the constitution that prevents employees from negotiating pay packages? quote:Morally, treating police behavior as outside the democratic process is abhorrent. On a more mundane level, things like how much resources a state wants to devote to education or health care are exactly the sorts of things we are supposed to be voting on. Public employee unions are an attempt to take EVERYTHING outside the democratic process and turn it into a union boss and a politician, the latter of whom owes nothing to anyone outside the union and isn't playing with his own money, "negotiating" a corrupt bargain. That is how we arrived at the situation we are in with police and prison guards, not to mention why in California a judge recently ruled that teachers unions are a form of racial discrimination, since they have enshrined a system that creates failing schools in majority-black areas. But again you're missing the critical distinction between law enforcement and any other kind of public employee. Teachers don't operate with impunity like police, because police enforce laws. Teachers can't commit fraud or theft or rape and get away with it because they are a teacher. Teachers can be held accountable. Hell school districts can be held accountable; if a school district is found to have violated McKinney-Vento, you can bet your rear end they will be held accountable. Even police departments can be held accountable by the DoJ. The problem with police unions is that municipalities let them negotiate their review and termination process. Again, not as big a deal with teachers, because teachers aren't supposed to shoot anybody as a part of their job. e: wait, is this just a straight up libertarian argument?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Is "unions are good" a straight up Communist argument? Come on. "Oh no, someone said something that might agree with the boogeyman people! That must mean they are wrong!" I didn't mean it like that. I mean, are you arguing that voters should just vote away all infrastructure and safety nets? I'm not asking if they have the right to do it, I'm asking if it's a good idea. Because you seem to think following the tax-aversive whims of the American voter is somehow the solution to mistreatment of minorities by the government.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Pardon me if after sitting through the last Venezuela thread, in which the leftist brigade defended shooting into protests, detention without charge, and actual torture in jails by the police, I would rather side with the ACLU than the Z Magazine brigade on this issue. I shouldn't have to explain the lengthy history of leftist police states to convince you that a union which exists literally to make sure none of its members are ever held accountable for violating civil liberties is bad. The ACLU thinks public employee unions should be destroyed?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:The ACLU takes a drat more principled stand on police abuse than the left-wingers in this thread, who are opposed to it up until the moment that doing anything about it might require going against a union. Did I miss something? I don't want to go in circles, so I won't bother asking why all public employee unions have to be disbanded in order to rein in police unions. Who came out in defense of police unions, though? I'm certainly opposed to them having the last word on whether a cop loses their job or not. But I don't see any need to gut their pensions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Oh, does my "right to due process" as a non-cop mean that I will get a paid vacation and never, ever go to prison in the event that I'm accused of a crime? Does it mean my coworkers will constantly find reasons to arrest the person who accused me? Does it mean there will be a picket line at the courthouse demanding I be released no matter what I am accused of? Does it mean evidence will be planted or destroyed to bolster my case? Have you noticed that none of this stuff applies to teachers? The issue is not public employee unions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Requiring police to have a body camera enabled in order to use any police power is an idea whose time has long come. Obviously, certain mysterious organizations oppose this (http://nypost.com/2013/08/14/nypd-in-a-snap-judgment-pba-and-brass-resist-order-to-carry-cameras/) and cops in general are not afraid of intimidating people who record them on their own initiative (http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/11/dallas-police-union-recording-cops-creat et al). But it needs to happen as the very first step towards reining in police abuse. Absolutely. By the way, one of the considerations guiding ACLU's policy on body cameras is the need to protect union activists from retaliation: quote:Purely from an accountability perspective, the ideal policy for body-worn cameras would be for continuous recording throughout a police officer's shift, eliminating any possibility that an officer could evade the recording of abuses committed on duty. Of course, just as body cameras can invade the privacy of many innocent citizens, continuous deployment would similarly impinge on police officers when they are sitting in a station house or patrol car shooting the breeze — getting to know each other as humans, discussing precinct politics, etc. We have some sympathy for police on this; continuous recording might feel as stressful and oppressive in those situations as it would for any employee subject to constant recording by their supervisor. True, police officers with their extraordinary powers are not regular employees, and in theory officers' privacy, like citizens', could be protected by appropriate policies (as outlined below) that ensure that 99% of video would be deleted in relatively short order without ever being reviewed. But on a psychological level, such assurances are rarely enough. There is also the danger that the technology would be misused by police supervisors against whistleblowers or union activists — for example, by scrutinizing video records to find minor violations to use against an officer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Most NYPD cops make more than this when you put valuation on their benefits -- the base salary at 5 years service is six figures automatically before adding in the overtime rate and the endless benefit packages. I don't really care if some idiot in a rural county only makes $35K, though. It doesn't give him any more right to oppress people than the New York cops have. By "most" do you mean "white shirts who claim a ton of overtime"?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
SrgMagnum posted:I'll go ahead and volunteer myself as tribute. Thanks for posting. So what's your solution? Do you think police don't need civilian oversight, or is there some way to make the membership of oversight boards acceptable to you?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:Not even trying to have a discussion here... just whine whine whine whine whine. Well, focus on the less diatribe-y posts. What to you would be the ideal composition of a civilian oversight board? Who would get a seat at the table? The ACLU? Legal aid nonprofits? Representatives of minority communities? What if each board member had access to legal counsel and research staff? Would that make their questions and criticisms more substantive?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Honestly, I question the value of a civilian oversight council as well. Why would the same people who make criminal laws so bad in the first place (by voting for "tough on crime" local politicians over and over again) have anything different to say in that setting? I don't think anyone is suggesting that citizen oversight is going to get at the root of the problem. Where it seems like it would be most useful is in obvious cases of abuse or negligence, where most of the community is united in deploring the cops' behavior in that particular instance. For the root of the problem, we'd need to address legislation, sentencing, inequality, and a bunch of other serious issues at the root of many problems other than those of law enforcement. (Aside: gently caress, I fell into the habit of saying "civilian oversight" rather than "citizen oversight." That's the pervasiveness of antagonistic cop language for you. Even the word "civilian" is problematic because I think undocumented persons should have representation on the boards as well.) Runaktla posted:Among other reasons i stated, the police department is a potential defendant in civil rights suits. Giving the public facts, even if it wouldn't amount to a harm, may be enough to have a lawsuit filed. This means more legal costs for the departments, settlements of lawsuits just to wipe them away (there is a certain extortion element to some lawsuits), more funding necessary and of course it's either higher taxes or pulling resources from other areas of the department. Then you got the media that just never sensationalizes anything of course. Can you give a few good examples of instances where the media sensationalized police misconduct beyond what was warranted?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
What is the difference between a "documented prejudice against police" and having a thorough awareness of the extent of police abuses?SrgMagnum posted:I think a level of oversight is imperative. Transparency obviously being the biggest part of that. A board consisting of a mix of citizens, cops, and a judge leading wouldn't be a terrible solution. Ultimately we have to find the balance between cops policing themselves, which people just don't trust even if there is no cover-up or special treatment (which I believe to be the case more often than not), and a group consisting of criminal defense attorneys and FTP activists. When you swing the balance too far one way or the other you're going to get major problems, which we see all over the place. We're talking about a civilian oversight board. Why should it be salted with police? That defeats the whole purpose of oversight. No other body is in any way expected to "police itself" (except for the military through the UCMJ, and we know how well that's working out). Why should there be a "balance" towards the "cops policing themselves" in any way? The role of police on a civilian board should be appearing before it, explaining their actions. quote:I absolutely agree about the family pet shootings. Somehow it's become completely reasonable for cops to shoot dogs lately and I can't explain it. Do you think it might have anything to do with cops being allowed to police themselves? e: parenth. fix woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
SrgMagnum posted:I'm only speaking from my knowledge and experience but what I've seen is that most of the time officers deserving of punishment get it. quote:there are a good number of incidents of abuse that go unreported How can you hold these thoughts in your head at the same time?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
SrgMagnum posted:Is there a reason I shouldn't? If a lot of abuses are going unreported, how can you say that most cops who deserve to be punished are punished?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
cheese posted:If you kill too many wheelchair bound mentally disabled vets then you might go down the pecking order on promotion? "The universe balances it out man."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Uh, and I'll call bullshit on you in turn. There's a huge difference between shooting for group at the range and trying to hit a moving person under stress. Yes, even at 7 yards. There's no way that police can be expected to do it with the level of training they receive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
The role of police in a civilian advisory board should only be to appear before it, not to "advise" it. The point of view of police is already well represented by their legal counsel. Liquid Communism posted:So, just to be clear, your contention is that it is simply too difficult for police officers not to kill random bystanders, and thus they should hold not legal liability when they do? I don't think anybody is arguing that. What we're arguing is that rather than expect better aim from police, we would need to be training them to draw their gun less often in the first place. That's extremely difficult when you inculcate an adversarial mindset. To my mind there are two solutions to this problem: you can either train them to the level of air marshals or Force Recon so that they have supreme confidence in their skills and don't just resort to blasting away (and that ain't happening), or you take their guns away. Honestly it would probably be better to disarm most police.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Yes we've already seen that your priorities are a little…unusual.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
"Sure, every once in a while innocent bystanders get hosed down with bullets. But let's focus on what's really important here: gutting pensions and salaries!"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is suggesting that police be held to a lower standard than CCW holders. But I don't understand your point about non-urban areas. Why should those police be armed any more than urban police? Maybe a bolt-action rifle in the trunk.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Shooting are either justified or not ... right now there are a lot more people shot by the police on purpose who shouldn't be, then there are bystanders wounded in avoidable accidental situations. I hold the cops to the same standard as any civilian gun owner; if your life is being threatened you can shoot, and if someone else gets hurt, it's the fault of the person who instigated the situation. Similarly, if you want to go out and shoot someone for wielding a deadly candy bar at you, you're a murderer. The second one is what cops get away with all the time, a lot more often than this weird bystander scenario, and is a more pressing issue. They're related issues. Both have to do with inadequate training. Not even cops want to shoot somebody armed with a candy bar. They draw and shoot because of their piss-poor training, and because they have a gun on their hip combined with the requirement of their job to go out and antagonize people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
That's the nice thing about operating with impunity, you don't have to explain yourself. The ACLU has some good reasoning for having very sound policies in place regarding the collected data. Of course that's not an argument against having them, it's an argument for good policies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Schoolcraft is a big deal among all of the people who follow police abuses, but how many people is that? Part of the reason I support oversight boards packed with activists is because the public at large don't care or approve of police abuse. Democracy does not seem to be an adequate check on law enforcement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Bahahaha is this his actual position? Not for the purposes of this thread. I'm talking about reform.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:We are held to higher, stricter laws, and our employers have massively large amounts of things they can do to enforce PD policy. For example, we can get fired for stuff we put on a private, friends-only facebook if it in any way makes the department look bad. So silly pictures at a bar? people have been fired for it. Discussing your political beliefs? fired or at the very least chief meeting. Anyone can get fired for that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Everyone repeat after me: ONE BAD APPLE SPOILS THE BUNCH.justsharkbait posted:I don't think that is a system problem. It is a problem with biased, racists cops. Lots and lots of Americans are consciously or unconsciously biased or racist, though, and they are the pool from which police and all other employees are hired. But in the case of police, this translates directly into unequal enforcement of the law. You seem determined to frame police discretion as either a) arbitrary to comply with citation quotas (which ain't exactly good) or b) up to the officer's good judgment. Well you seem like a thoughtful guy, you probably actually have that good judgment, and I wouldn't be surprised if your numbers were less biased than average. But we can't rely on you. We have to also rely on all those police whose unconscious biases are resulting in biased enforcement. The structure of policing, including the discretion it allows to officers, isn't mitigating that--it's making it worse, because while you might not be tacking on a paraphernalia charge based on the suspect's race, the numbers show that a lot of police are, and are in no way held accountable for it. That's the definition of a systemic problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:i do agree there is a problem, and even in my college class we went over how bad the bias is. However, i don't see any system of justice that involves humans being completely unbiased at any level from cops to judges. Yes, so we need to lighten punishments, remove pointless legislation for victimless crimes and, sorry, give cops less discretion in enforcing a more just body of laws.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:Has anybody put forward the notion that the police should only exist when they are needed, their only presence being when a crime has been reported? Firemen don't cruise around looking for fires. No, they "cruise around" looking for stuff that will start a fire. Sort of.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Does the presidential pardon power also undermine the rule of law? What about jury nullification? Presidential pardons are written into the highest law in the land. Jury nullification isn't really a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:What's the counter solution? Fix the laws rather than casting the entire nation into a Hell Period of indeterminate length? It's not like it's any more difficult or unrealistic than what you're proposing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Gosh, I'm at a loss as to what laws need reforming without ushering in Thunderdome
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
I have no idea what you are trying to say on this page. If you really don't know what laws are most abused and ruin the most lives through selective enforcement, well, there's a whole community of activists out there who've been patiently chronicling this issue for decades. Check it out! 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Bernard McFacknutah posted:I'm curious on what, if any, the general consensus is on de-criminalising hard drugs like Heroin, Crack cocaine and Methamphetamine is among Goons. Their "hardness" is an illusion, all these drugs used to be available in drugstores. It was the perception of their use by the Other that led to their criminalization, not the health risk they posed. Certainly all drugs should be available to be administered by trained medical staff at sanitary facilities; from a policing standpoint, as was said let's quit flashbanging kids to keep people from flushing drugs down the toilet. It doesn't matter what kind of drug it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
Bernard McFacknutah posted:That's the attitude I joined with, but after working for a year in some of the roughest parts of London I have to say Heroin use is so destructive, even when it's carried out without the specter of arrest or prosecution, that it ruins lives and families and it really is something that people need to be protected from. You get people who can live a perfectly productive and positive life if they use most drugs in a recreational way (alcohol is still our biggest threat to public order) but I've yet to meet a Heroin user who could live a functional life whilst still using. You're suffering from a lack of perspective. Many people are totally functional with a heroin, cocaine or amphetamine habit, they just have a socioeconomic advantage that protects them from the effects you see.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 16:55
|
|