Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • George Zimmerman
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • …
  • 96
George Zimmerman ; Combined Threads
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 11 2012, 01:36 PM (8,508 Views)
dreachon Jun 30 2013, 07:14 AM Post #946
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2013, 11:16 PM
dreachon
Jun 28 2013, 08:11 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 28 2013, 06:33 PM
I'll try to clarify again. Yes or no, if someone is on top of someone else punching and or slamming their head into the ground, is the person on bottom's life potentially in danger?
Sorry aaron, but I'm not going to let you conveniently get out of this one. You said I said something. Back it up. I'll answer your question after you either find the link where I said having your head slammed into concrete isn't potentially fatal, or admit that you just made that shit up.
Dreach, I don't remember the details, but think your overall take was GZ was getting his ass kicked but it wasn't potentially lethal. I never understood your logic. If someone is on top of me raining down blows to my head, how can that not be considered potentially lethal?

Looking at the facts that have come out in this case, I can see why the police initially decided not to charge GZ, and think this trial is a colossal waste of time and resources.
Not that it wasn't potentially lethal, but that Martin had the right to defend himself under SYG laws, so it doesn't matter if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. I understand why he would shoot Martin if he felt his life was in danger from the punches, but legally I believe he lost the RIGHT to shoot Martin.

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 30 2013, 10:39 AM Post #947
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jun 30 2013, 07:10 AM
Mr Gray
Jun 29 2013, 09:47 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2013, 06:49 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 29 2013, 06:21 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2013, 05:55 PM
Your accusations of me.

Quote:
 
dreach has explained that getting your head slammed into the ground isn't life threatening.

Quote:
 
you stated something to the effect of GZ being racist and hunting down the black kid like a dog. Remember that?


Back it up or grow a pair and admit you were wrong. It's real simple.
You didn't say "hunt like a dog" but you did convict GZ right away and make Reference to him being racist. If yiu didn't explicitly say that getting your head slammed isn't life endangering, then you implied it at a minimum dreach. Colt and I remember it the same way. There is a reason that you won't clarify and answer my questions. Because your claims aren't consistent with your stance and your bias shines through.

When is lethal force or "standing your ground" acceptable?
Ooooh, you were so close. So I actually didn't say either thing, I just implied it? Sure buddy. Whatever makes you feel better. I implied no such thing. Keep avoiding the question. Either back up your claims or admit you were wrong.

Now, let me address the racist comment. You are absolutely right. When I heard the audio from 911 call being reported that he said "fucking coons", I called him a racist and said it was obvious this was racially motivated. When you pointed out later reports that said it was actually him saying "fucking punks", I admitted I was wrong. Because that's what a man does. He admits when he's wrong and I have no problem doing such thing.

As for when is lethal force necessary, I have answered this question several times over. See this long back and forth from me and you on May 22nd. Amazing that your memory could be so accurate about what I said in the very first few posts on this topic which have now mysteriously been deleted, but you can't remember the conversation we had 1 month ago.
http://s15.zetaboards.com/Our_Hoosier_Board/single/?p=8299077&t=7184833
I remember that conversation vividly, but wanted to give you another chance, because it displays your inconsistency or hypocrisy on this topic.
Quote from you: I don't have a problem with the law, but I personally believe people should do everything they can to avoid having to use deadly force

You say that, but then contend that Martin has the rights under stand your ground laws??? Did he really do everything he could to avoid using deadly force (remember, you have now admitted that physical assaults such as punching or slamming heads is life threatening)

So you don't believe GZ should have used deadly force because based on his injuries, his life wasnt in danger, but Martin had the right because he was being chased. Wow.
Soooo, you can't prove what you claim I said? Ok.

Why does my personal belief have to agree with the law? According to the SYG law, I believe Trayvon Martin had the right to defend himself with deadly force. Personally, I would never use deadly force unless I felt my life was in imminent danger. No, Martin didn't do everything he possibly could to avoid fighting with Zimmerman, but the law says he can stand his ground and he did.

Yes, I have said that punching someone can be lethal, however, if you actually read my post you would see that I also said it is an incredibly rare instance when someone dies from a punch. Because of that, legally, a punch is not considered to be using deadly force. If it was, then anyone who has ever been sued for punching someone would be brought up on attempted murder charges, not assault. When you combine this fact that I don't think Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, then it actually turns out that Martin did not use deadly force in his self-defense.
You just said that TM had the right to use deadly force because he was being followed, but GZ didn't have that same right when he was getting hie head pummeled by someone pinning himself to the ground. Seems very inconsistent to me...
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 30 2013, 10:41 AM Post #948
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jun 30 2013, 07:14 AM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2013, 11:16 PM
dreachon
Jun 28 2013, 08:11 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 28 2013, 06:33 PM
I'll try to clarify again. Yes or no, if someone is on top of someone else punching and or slamming their head into the ground, is the person on bottom's life potentially in danger?
Sorry aaron, but I'm not going to let you conveniently get out of this one. You said I said something. Back it up. I'll answer your question after you either find the link where I said having your head slammed into concrete isn't potentially fatal, or admit that you just made that shit up.
Dreach, I don't remember the details, but think your overall take was GZ was getting his ass kicked but it wasn't potentially lethal. I never understood your logic. If someone is on top of me raining down blows to my head, how can that not be considered potentially lethal?

Looking at the facts that have come out in this case, I can see why the police initially decided not to charge GZ, and think this trial is a colossal waste of time and resources.
Not that it wasn't potentially lethal, but that Martin had the right to defend himself under SYG laws, so it doesn't matter if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. I understand why he would shoot Martin if he felt his life was in danger from the punches, but legally I believe he lost the RIGHT to shoot Martin.

Whoops, missed this reply before my last post. The "stand your ground" law doesn't give anyone the right to kill someone because they are being followed.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 30 2013, 10:57 AM Post #949
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2013, 10:41 AM
dreachon
Jun 30 2013, 07:14 AM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2013, 11:16 PM
dreachon
Jun 28 2013, 08:11 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 28 2013, 06:33 PM
I'll try to clarify again. Yes or no, if someone is on top of someone else punching and or slamming their head into the ground, is the person on bottom's life potentially in danger?
Sorry aaron, but I'm not going to let you conveniently get out of this one. You said I said something. Back it up. I'll answer your question after you either find the link where I said having your head slammed into concrete isn't potentially fatal, or admit that you just made that shit up.
Dreach, I don't remember the details, but think your overall take was GZ was getting his ass kicked but it wasn't potentially lethal. I never understood your logic. If someone is on top of me raining down blows to my head, how can that not be considered potentially lethal?

Looking at the facts that have come out in this case, I can see why the police initially decided not to charge GZ, and think this trial is a colossal waste of time and resources.
Not that it wasn't potentially lethal, but that Martin had the right to defend himself under SYG laws, so it doesn't matter if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. I understand why he would shoot Martin if he felt his life was in danger from the punches, but legally I believe he lost the RIGHT to shoot Martin.

Whoops, missed this reply before my last post. The "stand your ground" law doesn't give anyone the right to kill someone because they are being followed.
Question, Lars. We agree that SYG allows someone to use force to defend themselves. What type of force should be allowed? I mean you are saying that in order to defend yourself, you are not allowed to even punch someone? Again, punching is not legally defined as "deadly force", regardless of whether someone CAN potentially die from a punch. So let's pretend that everyone is in agreement that Martin had the right to defend himself. How should he have done it?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 30 2013, 10:58 AM Post #950
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2013, 10:41 AM
dreachon
Jun 30 2013, 07:14 AM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2013, 11:16 PM
dreachon
Jun 28 2013, 08:11 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 28 2013, 06:33 PM
I'll try to clarify again. Yes or no, if someone is on top of someone else punching and or slamming their head into the ground, is the person on bottom's life potentially in danger?
Sorry aaron, but I'm not going to let you conveniently get out of this one. You said I said something. Back it up. I'll answer your question after you either find the link where I said having your head slammed into concrete isn't potentially fatal, or admit that you just made that shit up.
Dreach, I don't remember the details, but think your overall take was GZ was getting his ass kicked but it wasn't potentially lethal. I never understood your logic. If someone is on top of me raining down blows to my head, how can that not be considered potentially lethal?

Looking at the facts that have come out in this case, I can see why the police initially decided not to charge GZ, and think this trial is a colossal waste of time and resources.
Not that it wasn't potentially lethal, but that Martin had the right to defend himself under SYG laws, so it doesn't matter if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. I understand why he would shoot Martin if he felt his life was in danger from the punches, but legally I believe he lost the RIGHT to shoot Martin.

Whoops, missed this reply before my last post. The "stand your ground" law doesn't give anyone the right to kill someone because they are being followed.
TM did not kill anyone.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jun 30 2013, 11:28 AM Post #951
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
dreachon
Jun 29 2013, 01:07 PM
It absolutely gets murky and SYG def makes it murkier. There is a point of excessiveness that is vague. How much does the law allow you to beat someone up? I have no idea. I suppose if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin beat him to death, or almost, then Martin would be in court and we'd be discussing what is legal. I've said this before, but personally I would not have used deadly force if I were Martin. My personal view is that you shouldn't kill someone unless it is a "him or me" situation. So if Martin killed Zimmerman, I'd absolutely be against that.
You can't decide if it were "him or me" from where you are, you have to be either the "him" or the "me" involved, right?
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 30 2013, 11:32 AM Post #952
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 30 2013, 11:28 AM
dreachon
Jun 29 2013, 01:07 PM
It absolutely gets murky and SYG def makes it murkier. There is a point of excessiveness that is vague. How much does the law allow you to beat someone up? I have no idea. I suppose if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin beat him to death, or almost, then Martin would be in court and we'd be discussing what is legal. I've said this before, but personally I would not have used deadly force if I were Martin. My personal view is that you shouldn't kill someone unless it is a "him or me" situation. So if Martin killed Zimmerman, I'd absolutely be against that.
You can't decide if it were "him or me" from where you are, you have to be either the "him" or the "me" involved, right?
To be sure, absolutely. We're only guessing. I've always prefaced my opinion on this case based on what I believe happened, not what definitely happened cuz I don't know.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 30 2013, 11:45 AM Post #953
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jun 30 2013, 10:57 AM
Question, Lars. We agree that SYG allows someone to use force to defend themselves. What type of force should be allowed? I mean you are saying that in order to defend yourself, you are not allowed to even punch someone? Again, punching is not legally defined as "deadly force", regardless of whether someone CAN potentially die from a punch. So let's pretend that everyone is in agreement that Martin had the right to defend himself. How should he have done it?
TM should have walked away.

IMMO, nobody has the right to use physical force against another person, even if they make wise ass posts like Eel just made. That's the mentality that should exist in society. If you punch someone in the nose, pin them down and start going MMA on their ass, you get what you get.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 30 2013, 11:47 AM Post #954
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jun 30 2013, 11:32 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 30 2013, 11:28 AM
dreachon
Jun 29 2013, 01:07 PM
It absolutely gets murky and SYG def makes it murkier. There is a point of excessiveness that is vague. How much does the law allow you to beat someone up? I have no idea. I suppose if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin beat him to death, or almost, then Martin would be in court and we'd be discussing what is legal. I've said this before, but personally I would not have used deadly force if I were Martin. My personal view is that you shouldn't kill someone unless it is a "him or me" situation. So if Martin killed Zimmerman, I'd absolutely be against that.
You can't decide if it were "him or me" from where you are, you have to be either the "him" or the "me" involved, right?
To be sure, absolutely. We're only guessing. I've always prefaced my opinion on this case based on what I believe happened, not what definitely happened cuz I don't know.
And that, my friend, is "reasonable doubt," and why GZ walks.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jun 30 2013, 11:51 AM Post #955
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
dreachon
Jun 30 2013, 11:32 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 30 2013, 11:28 AM
dreachon
Jun 29 2013, 01:07 PM
It absolutely gets murky and SYG def makes it murkier. There is a point of excessiveness that is vague. How much does the law allow you to beat someone up? I have no idea. I suppose if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin beat him to death, or almost, then Martin would be in court and we'd be discussing what is legal. I've said this before, but personally I would not have used deadly force if I were Martin. My personal view is that you shouldn't kill someone unless it is a "him or me" situation. So if Martin killed Zimmerman, I'd absolutely be against that.
You can't decide if it were "him or me" from where you are, you have to be either the "him" or the "me" involved, right?
To be sure, absolutely. We're only guessing. I've always prefaced my opinion on this case based on what I believe happened, not what definitely happened cuz I don't know.
If we all agree that LEGALLY one punch is not deadly force, is (hypothetically) 10 repeated punches and 2 slams of the head to the ground potentially life threatening? Would the person having his ass beat that badly then have a right to defend himself? What is the line in your opinion?

The way you word your views, Zimmerman simply following Martin caused him to totally lose any rights he had regardless of how severely he was beaten or even possibly killed.....that is the point were I stop following your logic. IMO, you never lose the right to save your own life if threatened. He may have to accept a few punches in the face for following Martin, I have zero problem with that, but he doesn't have to accept possible death. It appears that the situation had one PHYSICAL moment, IMO both parties where on equal ground from that point on. It's just the way I see it, it's ok for us to disagree. IMO, this will end in the way may of us have stated from the beginning....the legal case is weak at best. That doesn't mean I like the fact that a person was killed, I wih it would have never happened.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 30 2013, 12:33 PM Post #956
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/police-buried-trayvons-criminal-history/
“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at Martin’s data. He realized that Martin had been suspended twice already that school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.

In each case, the case file on Martin was fudged to make the crime less serious than it was. As one detective told IA, the arrest statistics coming out of Martin’s school, Michael Krop Senior, had been “quite high,” and the detectives “needed to find some way to lower the stats.” This directive allegedly came from Hurley.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
boilergrad01 Jun 30 2013, 12:45 PM Post #957
Working on the last 5
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#135
Joined:
February 9, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2013, 12:33 PM
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/police-buried-trayvons-criminal-history/
“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at Martin’s data. He realized that Martin had been suspended twice already that school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.

In each case, the case file on Martin was fudged to make the crime less serious than it was. As one detective told IA, the arrest statistics coming out of Martin’s school, Michael Krop Senior, had been “quite high,” and the detectives “needed to find some way to lower the stats.” This directive allegedly came from Hurley.
Lars,

That is the problem with this case it has taken a left right divide.

Please never use wnd as a source. That is the Daily Kos of the wacky right
Nothing beats an Astronaut
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 30 2013, 01:03 PM Post #958
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2013, 11:45 AM
dreachon
Jun 30 2013, 10:57 AM
Question, Lars. We agree that SYG allows someone to use force to defend themselves. What type of force should be allowed? I mean you are saying that in order to defend yourself, you are not allowed to even punch someone? Again, punching is not legally defined as "deadly force", regardless of whether someone CAN potentially die from a punch. So let's pretend that everyone is in agreement that Martin had the right to defend himself. How should he have done it?
TM should have walked away.

IMMO, nobody has the right to use physical force against another person, even if they make wise ass posts like Eel just made. That's the mentality that should exist in society. If you punch someone in the nose, pin them down and start going MMA on their ass, you get what you get.
wise ass? You said the SYG law does not give someone the right to kill someone because they are being followed. I think you missed the obvious. You are trying to paint a scene where the reality does not match your picture. TM did not kill anyone that night.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 30 2013, 01:08 PM Post #959
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 30 2013, 11:45 AM
dreachon
Jun 30 2013, 10:57 AM
Question, Lars. We agree that SYG allows someone to use force to defend themselves. What type of force should be allowed? I mean you are saying that in order to defend yourself, you are not allowed to even punch someone? Again, punching is not legally defined as "deadly force", regardless of whether someone CAN potentially die from a punch. So let's pretend that everyone is in agreement that Martin had the right to defend himself. How should he have done it?
TM should have walked away.

IMMO, nobody has the right to use physical force against another person, even if they make wise ass posts like Eel just made. That's the mentality that should exist in society. If you punch someone in the nose, pin them down and start going MMA on their ass, you get what you get.
Lars, that wasn't the question. We can discuss why I believe Martin had the right to defend himself later, but taking the assumption that Martin did have the right to defend himself, how should he have done it?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 30 2013, 01:14 PM Post #960
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 30 2013, 11:51 AM
dreachon
Jun 30 2013, 11:32 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Jun 30 2013, 11:28 AM
dreachon
Jun 29 2013, 01:07 PM
It absolutely gets murky and SYG def makes it murkier. There is a point of excessiveness that is vague. How much does the law allow you to beat someone up? I have no idea. I suppose if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Martin beat him to death, or almost, then Martin would be in court and we'd be discussing what is legal. I've said this before, but personally I would not have used deadly force if I were Martin. My personal view is that you shouldn't kill someone unless it is a "him or me" situation. So if Martin killed Zimmerman, I'd absolutely be against that.
You can't decide if it were "him or me" from where you are, you have to be either the "him" or the "me" involved, right?
To be sure, absolutely. We're only guessing. I've always prefaced my opinion on this case based on what I believe happened, not what definitely happened cuz I don't know.
If we all agree that LEGALLY one punch is not deadly force, is (hypothetically) 10 repeated punches and 2 slams of the head to the ground potentially life threatening? Would the person having his ass beat that badly then have a right to defend himself? What is the line in your opinion?

The way you word your views, Zimmerman simply following Martin caused him to totally lose any rights he had regardless of how severely he was beaten or even possibly killed.....that is the point were I stop following your logic. IMO, you never lose the right to save your own life if threatened. He may have to accept a few punches in the face for following Martin, I have zero problem with that, but he doesn't have to accept possible death. It appears that the situation had one PHYSICAL moment, IMO both parties where on equal ground from that point on. It's just the way I see it, it's ok for us to disagree. IMO, this will end in the way may of us have stated from the beginning....the legal case is weak at best. That doesn't mean I like the fact that a person was killed, I wih it would have never happened.
We will never get anywhere if you don't first acknowledge the fact that we have very different views of the situation.

Your view - GZ followed Martin. Martin attacked him. GZ defended himself.
My view - GZ chased Martin in the dark with a loaded weapon, failed to identify himself or the fact that police were called. Martin obviously has no idea what's going on cuz he's just walking home with skittles so he is justifiably threatened by Zimmerman's actions and defends himself. Also, I don't believe GZ was having his head smashed into concrete, as you continually like to say.

So, IMO, GZ's incredibly irresponsible actions forced Martin into a situation where he had to fight or flight. He chose fight. I believe Zimmerman brought the physical confrontation on himself based on his own recklessness. Therefore, Martin had every right to the SYG law while Zimmerman forfeited that right based on his prior actions.
Edited by dreachon, Jun 30 2013, 01:14 PM.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • …
  • 96

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:55 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy