Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Junto

More video released of Black Indiana man getting mauled by police dog (WARNING: GRAPHIC)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

oki
1 minute ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Maybe he shouldn't have been slapping his wife around? Compliance for being involved in a crime, maybe you should be explaining to those in your chain of command why you were an idiot. This wasn't a simple traffic stop. It was a stop because he was fleeing the scene of a crime. We don't know the level of that crime, Or did we all forget that?

   I meant to say my friend had been in trouble in the past, not that night, not even that month.  By past I do mean months or years prior.  Being that it was a small town everyone new everyone.  Why was I threatened with arrest when I was in the right?  All the cop had to do was call dispatch(which I was about to ask her to do) when she called a State Trooper who set her and the male officer straight.  I can easily say had she and the male Officer simply listened, and checked or actually known the law they wouldn't have gotten their butts chewed out(and probably reported/complaint) by a State Trooper.  The Officers where very much in the wrong, had I been compliant it would have caused me a lot of grief and I would have had to try to recover lost money which I didn't have.  If we get to a point where simply failing to comply means automatic use of a Dog or even potentially deadly force then we are in serious trouble as a free nation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
12 minutes ago, oki said:

   I meant to say my friend had been in trouble in the past, not that night, not even that month.  By past I do mean months or years prior.  Being that it was a small town everyone new everyone.  Why was I threatened with arrest when I was in the right?  All the cop had to do was call dispatch(which I was about to ask her to do) when she called a State Trooper who set her and the male officer straight.  I can easily say had she and the male Officer simply listened, and checked or actually known the law they wouldn't have gotten their butts chewed out(and probably reported/complaint) by a State Trooper.  The Officers where very much in the wrong, had I been compliant it would have caused me a lot of grief and I would have had to try to recover lost money which I didn't have.  If we get to a point where simply failing to comply means automatic use of a Dog or even potentially deadly force then we are in serious trouble as a free nation. 

People make mistakes, and if you are wrongly arrested then there are other avenues to approach it.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki
1 minute ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

People make mistakes, and if you are wrongly arrested then there are other avenues to approach it.

   Although true, those mistakes can cause great hardships on innocent people.  And, worse getting compensation(or in some cases justice) is difficult to impossible.,

IE if my car would have been impounded I would have to pay to get it out, pay a fine, then find a way to court, hope the Judge knows the law, and hope then wait to get my money back.

Never mind if I had bills to pay or absolutely needed the vehicle.  All because of Officers who didn't know the law and couldn't be bothered to look it up or ask dispatch to make sure. 

Ironically though I am willing to bet the a$$ chewing they got (and likely report  going to their Chief) was a wake up call to adjust their ways a bit.  In this case I also have to ask why was the Dog allowed to continue biting the guy in the neck area?  That's a huge part of this as well.  A bite on the arm or leg is bad enough, neck and upper should can kill someone.  Going for the neck, that is instinctive behavior from the Dog not training. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
10 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Go on a patrol, step out with me when I am called to the routine scene of a 911 ring back call. Where it can be a 12 year old playing with Mom's phone, a 65 year old trying to unlock a phone, or someone laying in wait to attack me when I arrive at the random location I have been sent to. I went to one last night in a town that was silent, to an abandoned warehouse. I walked the entire perimeter of that warehouse alone. No one there. That could have been a planned attack or someone just being an idiot. You don't know until you know. In this case nothing, nobody, no phone, just locked doors, and silence.

Yeah, That.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
10 hours ago, Junto said:

Maybe you have PTSD to the point you shouldn't be on patrol any more.  Ever consider that?  We send our troops into combat zones and their ROE don't let them do half the things cops here are allowed to do.  We have militarized our police forces and then given them carte blanche in many cases or scenarios to execute justice how they see fit.

If every time you (any officer) pull over someone you are literally fearing for your life and on edge so much you are ready to just start blasting - it is time to hang up your belt.  I realize that this has been brought on by decades of allowing punishment of offenders that would do terrible things at traffic stops get away lightly punished, etc. but it cannot be SOP to release dogs on citizens for relatively mild crimes or suspicions.

I'm not convinced that remark was entirely called for. Taggart's a good person, even if we occasionally disagree on political issue. That's okay, I can take the heat, and I'm sure he can as well.

"...and on edge so much you are ready to just start blasting..." Yeah, well, and how many tweakers behind the wheel when getting pulled over have exactly the same attitude? An LEO  is either PREPARED... or dead.

An EXCELLENT quote from the Dec 2016 /Jan 2017 issue of Readers Digest of 35 Things Police Officers Want to tell You.

#7 was...

"That anxiety you feel when you encounter us? We feel it too"

- Nakia Jones, Warrensville Heights, OH, PD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
1 hour ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

I'm not convinced that remark was entirely called for. Taggart's a good person, even if we occasionally disagree on political issue. That's okay, I can take the heat, and I'm sure he can as well.

"...and on edge so much you are ready to just start blasting..." Yeah, well, and how many tweakers behind the wheel when getting pulled over have exactly the same attitude? An LEO  is either PREPARED... or dead.

An EXCELLENT quote from the Dec 2016 /Jan 2017 issue of Readers Digest of 35 Things Police Officers Want to tell You.

#7 was...

"That anxiety you feel when you encounter us? We feel it too"

- Nakia Jones, Warrensville Heights, OH, PD

 

I get what you are saying, I really do.  My argument is specifically that the use of dogs like how it was applied in the video he refuses to watch is not warranted and should not happen.  Instead of watching the video, I get all the crap I already know - we already know -anyone who knows anything about cops and what they go through already know - that it is a dangerous job often enough. But, Constitutionally speaking, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  What happens in my opinion - and a lot of people's opinion that aren't just crazed leftists - is that over time officers become PTSD'd to the point where the bad calls, the bad stories and the bad videos they watch combine and they literally treat many situations like they are the bad ones, or escalate them to the point where they are the bad ones.  Police are trained to push and escalate far more than de-escalate. 

Here is a guy literally reaching for his wallet as requested.  He is shot because the cop is so hyped up over what 'might' happen, that no gun, no nothing had to be shown for him to start blasting.  All over a simple traffic infraction he witnessed while sitting in the parking lot.

To treat this man on the moped - which none of the parties involved know exactly what he did or didn't do - all they know is he is not complying - which gave them all the excuse to use a dog instead of any other tools at their disposal - simply because they had a dog.  Had these 3 officers been without a K9, this man would have been arrested in short order.  Instead they put him in a coma because they could.

Tag, coming from his high authority as a reserve deputy (now full time?) does not have that much better an opinion on a video he hasn't watched.  My argument is not whether or not policing is tough work - I know it is - I have a dad, an uncle, an aunt and a cousin who are/were all police, and 5+ friends that still are. 

I personally could have been a cop - I was asked by a LT. from a small police department specifically to be one (because I am a big guy and a good guy, etc) but it isn't my thing.  Looking back, maybe I should have done it - I don't know.  It's a crazy world out there - but we should all expect boundaries and allow discussion on what tools police should be allowed to use.  Those tools could easily be used against you and yours. Literally holding a man down, and siccing a dog on his face and neck - which were the only parts of him available for the dog to attack - is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

One more point of view to consider. Just like with George Floyd, how many millions of police dog interactions take place with nothing to report about? 

Errors of this kind are to be corrected, not assumed prevalent. “Tip of the iceberg” principle likely doesn’t apply to grossly violent things - most tend to be reported on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
22 minutes ago, zurg said:

One more point of view to consider. Just like with George Floyd, how many millions of police dog interactions take place with nothing to report about? 

Errors of this kind are to be corrected, not assumed prevalent. “Tip of the iceberg” principle likely doesn’t apply to grossly violent things - most tend to be reported on. 

100% and certainly something I/everyone should consider.  What my problem is, and what my argument and real beef is that there should be calls to dial in their use further so incidents like this video don't happen.  I am all for their use, just not like how it was applied in this video or the other one where the genitalia is being mauled because a guy is fighting another guy with his fists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
8 minutes ago, Junto said:

100% and certainly something I/everyone should consider.  What my problem is, and what my argument and real beef is that there should be calls to dial in their use further so incidents like this video don't happen.  I am all for their use, just not like how it was applied in this video or the other one where the genitalia is being mauled because a guy is fighting another guy with his fists.

You don't get it do you? I don't care if the guy has fists, a crowbar, a rock, a pointy stick, a banana, passion fruit or a gun. First off yes all are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, you don't get to beat the crap out of a cop simply because you are innocent. I have seen people get their face smashed in by a single punch. I am not some massive behemoth that can take 3 strikes to the skull and laugh it off. I get to go home at the end of a shift with my body intact to see my wife. Simply complying with the orders a cop gives will get you to do so safely 100% of the time. All of these so called cases of police abuse have stemmed from 1 person deciding that an order didn't apply to him and that ended up going bad for them. 

If you don't like what happens take it up with the Sheriff or Chief after the arrest. You might be surprised as to how good it goes for you.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
9 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

You don't get it do you? I don't care if the guy has fists, a crowbar, a rock, a pointy stick, a banana, passion fruit or a gun. First off yes all are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, you don't get to beat the crap out of a cop simply because you are innocent. I have seen people get their face smashed in by a single punch. I am not some massive behemoth that can take 3 strikes to the skull and laugh it off. I get to go home at the end of a shift with my body intact to see my wife. Simply complying with the orders a cop gives will get you to do so safely 100% of the time. All of these so called cases of police abuse have stemmed from 1 person deciding that an order didn't apply to him and that ended up going bad for them. 

If you don't like what happens take it up with the Sheriff or Chief after the arrest. You might be surprised as to how good it goes for you.

Tag, why don't all police departments just issue K9's and let them F everybody up every time someone won't put their hands behind their back?  Why do they let you respond to calls with out your K9 officer to back you up? Do you pull people over and wait for the dog to get there? You act as if there are no other tools to be deployed in your everyday interaction with the public.  My argument has not been and never will be that you should have to wrestle every PCP'd punk, every ex-con that won't go back to jail. 

In the good ol' days, police could use night sticks and beat the compliance into people - and it mostly worked.  Sometimes somebodies drunk uncle got killed from intracerebral hemorrhaging too. We got more tools to help reduce the use of the beatings/shootings (that are 100% necessary sometimes).  We got Tasers, mace, grappling/wrestling techniques, etc.  Certainly there is a need for dogs in some cases.  But again - the interaction you won't watch would have been handled 99 out of 100 times by the 3 officers without the guy going into a coma and almost dying had their not been a dog present they could sic on him.  This wasn't some armed guy, life and death struggle but literally a suspect in a domestic violence case that is not complying.  If they had tried a taser, or even attempted to force cuffs on him, and he was too much of a handful - then you aren't going to get too much complaining out of me.  I'm not the 'shoot him in the leg' kind of guy - but I'm also not the 'rip his face off, I just ate lunch and I'm tired' guy either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
1 hour ago, Junto said:

I get what you are saying, I really do.  My argument is specifically that the use of dogs like how it was applied in the video he refuses to watch is not warranted and should not happen.  Instead of watching the video, I get all the crap I already know - we already know -anyone who knows anything about cops and what they go through already know - that it is a dangerous job often enough. But, Constitutionally speaking, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  What happens in my opinion - and a lot of people's opinion that aren't just crazed leftists - is that over time officers become PTSD'd to the point where the bad calls, the bad stories and the bad videos they watch combine and they literally treat many situations like they are the bad ones, or escalate them to the point where they are the bad ones.  Police are trained to push and escalate far more than de-escalate. 

Here is a guy literally reaching for his wallet as requested.  He is shot because the cop is so hyped up over what 'might' happen, that no gun, no nothing had to be shown for him to start blasting.  All over a simple traffic infraction he witnessed while sitting in the parking lot.

To treat this man on the moped - which none of the parties involved know exactly what he did or didn't do - all they know is he is not complying - which gave them all the excuse to use a dog instead of any other tools at their disposal - simply because they had a dog.  Had these 3 officers been without a K9, this man would have been arrested in short order.  Instead they put him in a coma because they could.

Tag, coming from his high authority as a reserve deputy (now full time?) does not have that much better an opinion on a video he hasn't watched.  My argument is not whether or not policing is tough work - I know it is - I have a dad, an uncle, an aunt and a cousin who are/were all police, and 5+ friends that still are. 

I personally could have been a cop - I was asked by a LT. from a small police department specifically to be one (because I am a big guy and a good guy, etc) but it isn't my thing.  Looking back, maybe I should have done it - I don't know.  It's a crazy world out there - but we should all expect boundaries and allow discussion on what tools police should be allowed to use.  Those tools could easily be used against you and yours. Literally holding a man down, and siccing a dog on his face and neck - which were the only parts of him available for the dog to attack - is ludicrous.

I saw that video a long time ago.

That "unarmed man" fully deserved to get shot. No debate.

You do not go suddenly reaching into a vehicle like that when an officer is confronting you.

Often when people do that they are reaching for a gun instead of a license.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
4 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

I saw that video a long time ago.

That "unarmed man" fully deserved to get shot. No debate.

You do not go suddenly reaching into a vehicle like that when an officer is confronting you.

Often when people do that they are reaching for a gun instead of a license.

He was a young man who might not have the knowledge that his being nervous and his quickness to comply would almost get him killed.  Again - in the military, the ROE would never allow them to murder a guy in case the thing they yelled for him to retrieve might be something else.  If my mother reaches for her license too fast - does she deserve to be shot too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
17 minutes ago, Junto said:

Tag, why don't all police departments just issue K9's and let them F everybody up every time someone won't put their hands behind their back?  Why do they let you respond to calls with out your K9 officer to back you up? Do you pull people over and wait for the dog to get there? You act as if there are no other tools to be deployed in your everyday interaction with the public.  My argument has not been and never will be that you should have to wrestle every PCP'd punk, every ex-con that won't go back to jail. 

In the good ol' days, police could use night sticks and beat the compliance into people - and it mostly worked.  Sometimes somebodies drunk uncle got killed from intracerebral hemorrhaging too. We got more tools to help reduce the use of the beatings/shootings (that are 100% necessary sometimes).  We got Tasers, mace, grappling/wrestling techniques, etc.  Certainly there is a need for dogs in some cases.  But again - the interaction you won't watch would have been handled 99 out of 100 times by the 3 officers without the guy going into a coma and almost dying had their not been a dog present they could sic on him.  This wasn't some armed guy, life and death struggle but literally a suspect in a domestic violence case that is not complying.  If they had tried a taser, or even attempted to force cuffs on him, and he was too much of a handful - then you aren't going to get too much complaining out of me.  I'm not the 'shoot him in the leg' kind of guy - but I'm also not the 'rip his face off, I just ate lunch and I'm tired' guy either.

They don't use nightsticks anymore because of too many libtarded ACLU lawyers suing to get them removed from use by the police due to the past serious injuries or death those can cause. The same reason why the police cannot use black jacks and why black jacks are considered to be deadly weapons (illegal/banned) because of how easily they can smash a human skull. In one of my CCDW classes the instructor said that if you club anyone with a nightstick or a black jack, billy sap, etc. that you would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and you might as well just use a gun instead of the use of deadly force is justified.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
7 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

I saw that video a long time ago.

That "unarmed man" fully deserved to get shot. No debate.

You do not go suddenly reaching into a vehicle like that when an officer is confronting you.

Often when people do that they are reaching for a gun instead of a license.

Also, that cop went to jail for that and is never allowed to be a cop ever again - because his actions were so beyond necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
Just now, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

They don't use nightsticks anymore because of too many libtarded ACLU lawyers suing to get them removed from use by the police due to the past serious injuries or death those can cause. The same reason why the police cannot use black jacks and why black jacks are considered to be deadly weapons (illegal/banned) because of how easily they can smash a human skull. In one of my CCDW classes the instructor said that if you club anyone with a nightstick or a black jack, billy sap, etc. that you would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and you might as well just use a gun instead of the use of deadly force is justified.

That is my contention - that the use of dogs like what we see in the OP video should be considered similar to placing a knee on a neck for 8 minutes or clubbing people in the back of their head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
24 minutes ago, Junto said:

Tag, why don't all police departments just issue K9's and let them F everybody up every time someone won't put their hands behind their back?  Why do they let you respond to calls with out your K9 officer to back you up? Do you pull people over and wait for the dog to get there? You act as if there are no other tools to be deployed in your everyday interaction with the public.  My argument has not been and never will be that you should have to wrestle every PCP'd punk, every ex-con that won't go back to jail. 

In the good ol' days, police could use night sticks and beat the compliance into people - and it mostly worked.  Sometimes somebodies drunk uncle got killed from intracerebral hemorrhaging too. We got more tools to help reduce the use of the beatings/shootings (that are 100% necessary sometimes).  We got Tasers, mace, grappling/wrestling techniques, etc.  Certainly there is a need for dogs in some cases.  But again - the interaction you won't watch would have been handled 99 out of 100 times by the 3 officers without the guy going into a coma and almost dying had their not been a dog present they could sic on him.  This wasn't some armed guy, life and death struggle but literally a suspect in a domestic violence case that is not complying.  If they had tried a taser, or even attempted to force cuffs on him, and he was too much of a handful - then you aren't going to get too much complaining out of me.  I'm not the 'shoot him in the leg' kind of guy - but I'm also not the 'rip his face off, I just ate lunch and I'm tired' guy either.

Wow dude are you demented? I mean really? WTF. Grow up. You are acting like some 16 year old on a tantrum.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
3 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

They don't use nightsticks anymore because of too many libtarded ACLU lawyers suing to get them removed from use by the police due to the past serious injuries or death those can cause. The same reason why the police cannot use black jacks and why black jacks are considered to be deadly weapons (illegal/banned) because of how easily they can smash a human skull. In one of my CCDW classes the instructor said that if you club anyone with a nightstick or a black jack, billy sap, etc. that you would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and you might as well just use a gun instead of the use of deadly force is justified.

We have expandable batons, which we are trained to use. I don't have to take it off and on when I get in the vehicle. That's the main reason we don't carry the PR-24. Expandable batons work better and are easier to carry and run with. Strikes are intended to be on the legs, and calves. However if they are out and lethal force is required then you can do what has to be done to protect your life.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
3 minutes ago, Junto said:

That is my contention - that the use of dogs like what we see in the OP video should be considered similar to placing a knee on a neck for 8 minutes or clubbing people in the back of their head.

Well contend all you want.

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
1 minute ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Wow dude are you demented? I mean really? WTF. Grow up. You are acting like some 16 year old on a tantrum.

Wow.  Ok Tag.  One day if you actually decide to watch the video Lafayette Police Chief Patrick Flannelly personally released (because of some BS about you can't watch it) then you could come up with an argument better than calling out commenters not in this thread (T_G) and resorting to name calling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Junto said:

He was a young man who might not have the knowledge that his being nervous and his quickness to comply would almost get him killed.  Again - in the military, the ROE would never allow them to murder a guy in case the thing they yelled for him to retrieve might be something else.  If my mother reaches for her license too fast - does she deserve to be shot too?

Sucks to be him then.

I don't expect any officer to just stand there and allow a suspect to reach into their vehicle and pull out a weapon and shoot them.

It happens a lot more often than you know.

Happened here in my city recently, 4:10 mark.

People here were crying that the perp (who just pulled a gun and shot an officer) got shot in the back.

They apparently believe that it's the mythical wild west TV rules of engagement that if someone shoots another in the back it's automatically murder and never self defense.

 

Edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
9 minutes ago, Junto said:

Also, that cop went to jail for that and is never allowed to be a cop ever again - because his actions were so beyond necessary.

Bullshidt. :bs:

He went to jail because of politics.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
11 minutes ago, Junto said:

He was a young man who might not have the knowledge that his being nervous and his quickness to comply would almost get him killed.  Again - in the military, the ROE would never allow them to murder a guy in case the thing they yelled for him to retrieve might be something else.  If my mother reaches for her license too fast - does she deserve to be shot too?

Yes.

Next question.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
1 minute ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

Yes.

Next question.

Right..thanks for being honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Junto said:

Wow.  Ok Tag.  One day if you actually decide to watch the video Lafayette Police Chief Patrick Flannelly personally released (because of some BS about you can't watch it) then you could come up with an argument better than calling out commenters not in this thread (T_G) and resorting to name calling.

Yeah yeah yeah. Like I said when you read the full report then you have a right to criticize the officers. Do you know what standard is to be applied to determine if an officer used excessive force?

I will take care of it since you don't know.
 

Graham v Connor.

https://www.thoughtco.com/graham-v-connor-court-case-4172484

Quote

The Supreme Court ruled that excessive use of force claims must be evaluated under the "objectively reasonable" standard of the Fourth Amendment, which requires courts to consider the facts and circumstances surrounding an officer's use of force rather than the intent or motivation of an officer during that use of force.

In other words you have to know what the officers knew at the time of the use of force. You can't infer hindsight into it.

Or as Justice Rehnquist put it:

Quote

In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Rehnquist, the court found that excessive use of force claims against police officers should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. They wrote that the analysis should take into account the “reasonableness” of the search and seizure. To determine if an officer used excessive force, the court must decide how an objectively reasonable another police officer in the same situation would have acted. The officer’s intent or motivation should be irrelevant in this analysis.

 

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental
  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Junto said:

Right..thanks for being honest.

Most men carry their driver's license on them in a wallet, not their vehicle. Never make any sudden moves when an officer has you stopped and always keep your hands where the officer can see them, preferably on the steering wheel or out the drivers window. They even teach that in driver's ed before you can get a driver's license.

Hey, I'm a guy who speaks up often on this site when police wrong people. I say this from real life experience having been wronged by them several times in my day when I was young.

But again, put yourself in their situation when a hesitation can get you killed.

Watch the video that I just posted. The cop was being nice and cool, made a mistake and let the man get back to and reach into his car and it damn nearly got him killed.

Edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...