| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/16/17 7:10 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
Officer found not guilty in the killing of Philando Castile.
Travesty of justice. If he can legally be allowed to kill a citizen under those circumstances, then I can't think of any circumstances where an officer could/would be held accountable. This should scare the crap out of everyone. |
This was a routine self-defense case, although it involved a police officer who had legitimately pulled over a driver, who was by all accounts clearly stoned on marijuana. |
1) This was not a "routine" self defense, as self defense is an affirmative defense in Minnesota, meaning that the person accused of the killing has the burden of proof and must show that they were in danger. In an officer involved shooting, the burden falls upon the State to prove that the officer acted with "gross negligence with a degree of recklessness". An average Joe says "I thought he was going for his gun" and the state says "prove it". Officer Joe says it, and it is accepted as the truth unless there is evidence to the contrary.
2) Legitimately pulled over is a stretch. Because officers are given such wide breadth when it comes to pulling someone over it may have technically met the requirements for "legitimate". However, that does not mean the reasons are not troubling, nor tenuous. The reason Castile was pulled over was not for any driving infraction, but because he had a "wide nose" and was black. Which was enough to make him "look" like a robbery suspect.
“I’m going to check IDs,” the officer says in the audio. “I have reason to pull it over. The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery.”
“The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide-set nose,” the officer continues.
Incidentally, not only was Castile not involved in this robbery (and looked nothing like the suspect), he had no criminal history at all.
3)He was not "by all accounts" stoned on marijuana. The officer said that he smelt marijuana, but he only claimed that after toxicology tests revealed THC in Castile's blood. He made no claim of this at the time. And as for that report, a "small amount" was found in his blood according to the lab, and expert testimony at the trial noted that there was no way to know when, or how much, Castile had smoked last, and they had no way to know if he was high when he was shot.
| Quote: |
| In this case, the legal jury issue was whether the shooter (the policeman) had a reasonable belief and fear that a gun was being pulled on him. There was in fact a gun in the driver's pocket, which the policeman could see. The driver in fact reached for his pocket. The policeman then had to make an instantaneous decision. If he believed a gun was being drawn on him, he is entitled under self-defense law and police procedures to respond with equivalent force. |
1) Castile was told to produce his driver's license. As he was doing what he was ordered to do by the officer, he informed the officer politely "Sir, I want to inform you that I am carrying a fire arm". This was as he was trained to do when he obtained his legal conceal/carry permit.
2) The officer told him, "Okay, don't reach for it". He responded, "I'm not."
The officer said again "Don't reach for it". He once again responded, "I'm not". Then he was shot.
Thus at no time did he disobey the officer. A national use of force expert testified that the officer was reckless and negligent because he never ordered Castile to "freeze" or "stop moving" if he felt threatened. So Castile was following the officer's orders to a T. He was trying to produce his driver's license and informed the officer that he was not reaching for his firearm when ordered not to.
3) The officer never said that he actually saw the gun when initially interviewed. It was only much later he made that claim.
| Quote: |
| As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously described the law of self-defense in a 1921 Supreme Court decision: “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” |
You are correct, and I agree with this assessment. I have no issue with someone using deadly force if they reasonably believe their life is in danger. I do not expect them to figure out some complex method of less than lethal behavior at that time.
The problem here is what is considered reasonable. Either this jury messed up, or what we consider "reasonable" behavior for an officer is messed up and needs to change. For instance, under what circumstances would we convict an officer who shoots someone who possess a legal firearm? Castile followed the officer's orders verbatim. He presented no abstract danger (he was not a convicted criminal, he was in a car with his girlfriend and a 4 year old in the back seat). He was polite and respectful in his speech. He informed the officer of his firearm so he would not be concerned.
This is why I say we should be worried. Any of us who carry a legal firearm could be reasonably considered a "threat" even when we do everything right.
| Quote: |
| Civics lesson: If you have a gun on your person when accosted by a police officer, you don't reach into your pockets. You immediately inform the officer that you have the gun before you reach anywhere and follow the police directions as to how to remove it. |
Which is what he did. He only reached into his pockets because the officer asked him to. The officer has a responsibility to clearly state his wishes if performing actions that he already requested are making him uncomfortable.
As citizens, that is what the limit of our obligations should be as to have an expectation to not be killed.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/17 7:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The only evidence that counts is what was presented to the jury at trial. What is your source for the statements you are quoting? |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/17 7:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| The only evidence that counts is what was presented to the jury at trial. What is your source for the statements you are quoting? |
That was all in evidence at the trial. The statements from Castile and the officer were presented to the jury in the form of the dash cam camera that recorded the shooting. It was also agreed to by both sides in testimony of the witness and the officer.
The part as to why he was pulled over was the officer's conversation over the police radio.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/17 8:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
If you are quoting from trial testimony, I suspect you are being selective. And you are putting your own spin on it when you say things like the driver was following the cop's orders to a T. That's a fact question for the jury, and the unanimous jury obviously didn't believe the driver was just reaching for his wallet.
I'm sure the defense had an expert who testified that the cop complied with standard police use of force procedures. I'm also sure the cop testified that he believed the driver was pulling a gun, no matter what the driver may have said before he reached for his pocket.
It's irrelevant why the car got pulled over, but the trial account in the media said there were two justifications: there was a broken tail light, and the cop thought the couple might fit the description of a recent robbery duo.
Whether the driver legally or illegally possessed the gun is also irrelevant. An uplifted knife is an uplifted knife.
I'm sure the crucial jury question was whether the cop had a reasonable belief that deadly force was imminent. Whether that sort of self-defense fact was charged to the jury as an affirmative defense or as a fact defeating the reasonable doubt standard is an interesting legal question, which differs from state to state. But however it was presented, under whatever burden of proof, it was surely the crucial fact that determined the jury verdict.
I think this case, like the Orlando case and the Baltimore case and maybe the Cosby case, are standard and even relatively easy criminal cases that persist in the public conscience mainly because of the incredible hype whipped up by the media, politicians and Youtube in our hopelessly politicized and video-edited society, wherein each tribe sees only its preferred version of reality.
I'm comfortable, for society, with the version of reality decided by an impartial jury after a full presentation of all relevant evidence. Which this was. |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/17 9:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Literally no evidence exists to suggest he was going for his gun (note that even the Officer never claimed he even touched it, just that he was reaching toward where it was, and that he 'thought he was going to die'). Tell me in what other case is that enough to prove self defense after someone is shot? What other defendant would be taken at his word by a jury with this sort of claim?
The reason is that the law basically defaults to the position that it was justified, until it can be proven that it wasn't. That is an insane standard to meet.
Think about it. If I am legally carrying a gun and an officer shoots me, all he has to say is that I was reaching for it and he is free to go. Even the common sense test in this case is terrible. A person who has no criminal history, is not even at risk of being arrested, and has his family in the car with him, informs the officer politely that he is carrying. Yet he suddenly reached for his gun? He was going to shoot his way out of the (non)situation?
Even the defense never made the claim that he was actually going for the gun. Just that it was not unreasonable for the officer to think so. The defense use of force experts were othwr cops who basocally said that the training says to act if you ever feel you are in danger, to act first otherwise you will die. And that with that training it is reasonable for an officer to feel threatened if he sees a weapon and the person reaches in that direction.
Is that really the standard we want for our police departments? That they don't really have to be in danger, they just have to think they are, and because officers are trained to shoot at perceived threats that it is legally "reasonable"?
These facts are incontrovertible in this case as the conversation can be heard on tape:
The officer asked for Drivers license.
Castile informed officer respectfully about his firearm (used "sir" and respectful tone).
The officer never told Castile to stop moving. All he said was "Don't reach for [your gun] a couple times.
Castile answered "I'm not" each time.
Castile was shot.
Now, was he reaching for his gun or was he trying to retrieve his driver's license as requested. The officer says gun, the girlfriend says driver's license. But when I say he followed the officer's instructions to a T, I say it because there was no claim that he actually removed his gun or even touched it. In other words the actions that he would take if he were retrieving the license or his gun would have likely been similar and all common sense and his words on tape would suggest that it was his license he was going for.
Had the officer said "Freeze" or "Stop moving" I would say that Castile didn't follow directions. But he didn't. All he said was not to reach for the gun. A license is not a gun, and having already been asked to retrieve it, reaching for it was following the given orders and not an action that Castile should have reasonably thought was inappropriate or would lead to his death.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/17 9:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Officer found not guilty in the killing of Philando Castile.
Travesty of justice. If he can legally be allowed to kill a citizen under those circumstances, then I can't think of any circumstances where an officer could/would be held accountable. This should scare the crap out of everyone. |
All of the hyperventilating that ensued after this post results from the totally false premise presented in this post.
No one has said "he can legally be allowed to kill a citizen under those circumstances". And the verdict provided no such determination.
All a not guilty verdict is is a determination by twelve local citizens that the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the offenses as charged beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all. No big rule of law was established. No precedent for other cases. Nothing.
The system is purposely weighted in favor of defendants. And it's really really hard to convict police officers. Juries tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, and to recognize that they are risking their safety to protect others. Now personally, from afar, I don't think this guy deserved any sympathy and should have been convicted, but I'm certainly not shocked that he wasn't. He wasn't determined to be innocent. He just wasn't convicted.
This wasn't a battle between the victim and the cop. This was a criminal prosecution of the cop by the state, and the cop was entitled to all of advantages given to every defendant in every criminal case.
In this case, by all accounts, the cop was very believable in court.
There wasn't any shocking new standard adopted or established. Rightly or wrongly, the jury just accepted the cop's explanation.
It's disappointing, but don't try to make something out of it that it's not.
In the very same circumstances, next time the cop might be convicted. It's just one case.
Last edited by ArtBest23 on 06/16/17 9:47 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/17 9:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Here's how the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported the crucial testimony on June 10:
| Quote: |
| “I thought I was going to die,” Yanez testified, with a packed courtroom hanging on his every word. “I had no other choice. I was forced to engage Mr. Castile. He was not complying with my directions.” |
| Quote: |
| Yanez testified that he felt his life was in danger when he saw Castile grab a gun near his right thigh after he had been ordered not to reach for it. Yanez told the court that visions of his wife and “baby girl” flashed through his mind. |
| Quote: |
“Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me,” Castile volunteered, according to the criminal complaint filed against Yanez.
“I told him, ‘Don’t pull it out,’ ” Yanez testified in court.
Castile reached to his right and made a C-shape with his right hand, Yanez said, adding that he tried to distract Castile, but “he continued to pull his firearm out of his pocket.” |
| Quote: |
| Yanez had reason to shoot Castile because Castile failed to follow orders, Kapelsohn testified. “He’s justified in [using deadly force], and he’s trained to do so. He’d be remiss if he didn’t do so.” |
If this reporting is accurate, regardless of what the cop said before trial or what the girlfriend said in the video, the cop at trial testified he saw the gun sticking out of the driver's pocket, that the driver disobeyed his order not to reach for it, and that he reached specifically for the gun and began to pull it out of his pocket.
I'm not motivated to discuss the case any further. I was mainly reacting to your initial comment to the effect that we should be all scared to crap because it would be hard to imagine any worse circumstances where a cop would be accountable for homicide. I can -- namely, a case where the victim had no weapon of any kind, made no threatening actions of any kind (as the guy in Ferguson did), and made no verbal threats of any kind.
My sympathies in ambiguous cases usually go to the cops because they have an almost impossibly difficult job in this political climate. Of course, I didn't always think that way, especially the two times they threw me in the slammer. |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66916
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/17/17 11:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| In the very same circumstances, next time the cop might be convicted. It's just one case. |
That's very unlikely. The conviction rate for police officers who shoot people is extremely low.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/17/17 4:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| In the very same circumstances, next time the cop might be convicted. It's just one case. |
That's very unlikely. The conviction rate for police officers who shoot people is extremely low. |
I said "might". And I said it's really really hard.
But what happened here has no impact one way or the other on what happens next time.
There are a number of cases that the failure to charge or to convict offends me a lot more than this case. There have been a couple of people shot in the back by police live on videotape with no charges or no conviction. There was the guy selling cigarettes in NY held down by about a dozen cops and choked to death with no charges brought against anyone. This case pales in comparison. At least here the guy shot actually had a gun. In the other cases the deceased was completely unarmed.
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 1:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
<embed><iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/enU8NrI4IZE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enU8NrI4IZE
_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 2:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| In the very same circumstances, next time the cop might be convicted. It's just one case. |
That's very unlikely. The conviction rate for police officers who shoot people is extremely low. |
I said "might". And I said it's really really hard.
But what happened here has no impact one way or the other on what happens next time.
There are a number of cases that the failure to charge or to convict offends me a lot more than this case. There have been a couple of people shot in the back by police live on videotape with no charges or no conviction. There was the guy selling cigarettes in NY held down by about a dozen cops and choked to death with no charges brought against anyone. This case pales in comparison. At least here the guy shot actually had a gun. In the other cases the deceased was completely unarmed. |
But that's just the thing. The reason I called it a "travesty of justice" had nothing to do with the jury's acquittal.
As the law is written, and the case presented, I don't actually think the jury was "wrong" to acquit. The law is slanted in the favor of a police officer to the extent that unless they get themselves captured clearly on film in an unambiguous situation, they are not going to be convicted.
If it is known for a fact that I killed someone, convicting me is heavily slanted in the state's favor. I have to prove that my actions were legally justified for some reason. If a police officer does it, they are assumed to have been justified, unless the state can prove that they weren't. That slants the case heavily in favor of acquittal (or, more likely, not even having charges filed at all).
So why is this scary? Because police officers know all this. It is part of their unofficial training. I have numerous police officer friends from all over, and each and every one of them has mentioned some training officer, or other member of the department saying some form of "It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6". How often do we hear about how dangerous it is to be a police officer, how every traffic stop is a "life or death situation". Use of force training instills fear and the need to "act first if you want to go home to your wife and children".
The problem with this? It is out of touch with factual reality. Yes, there is danger involved, but nowhere near the level that is preached in training. In 2016, 3 officers were killed in traffic stops. When considering how many traffic stops are made in a year, that is an infinitesimally small percentage. It makes sense to take reasonable precautions and to be wary going into a circumstance with unknown variables. But making a traffic stop is not going into a war zone.
The consequences of this? Without some real threat of prosecution and legal accountability to force more nuanced reactions and training, we will continue to have officers like Officer Yanez here who go into these situations and act like a kid who has heard one too many a ghost story around the campfire, and we will have yet another tragedy on our hands. And the if you add in institutional racism and the unconscious racism that is present in everyone (not to mention those with explicitly racist beliefs), the problems get even deeper.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
myt
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 3923
Location: California
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 8:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
[
As the law is written, and the case presented, I don't actually think the jury was "wrong" to acquit. The law is slanted in the favor of a police officer to the extent that unless they get themselves captured clearly on film in an unambiguous situation, they are not going to be convicted.
If it is known for a fact that I killed someone, convicting me is heavily slanted in the state's favor. I have to prove that my actions were legally justified for some reason. If a police officer does it, they are assumed to have been justified, unless the state can prove that they weren't. That slants the case heavily in favor of acquittal (or, more likely, not even having charges filed at all).
|
No, and no.
The law is absolutely the same in both cases. It's a matter of fact, primarily of credibility. It has nothing to do with different legal rules. Juries don't decide issues of law.
"Justification" is always an affirmative defense for which the burden is on the defendant. The police are not "assumed to have been justified."
Juries just tend to believe the police when they explain their actions.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63778
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/20/17 6:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| <embed><iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z1ac7Zblqyk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/20/17 7:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The cop car dash cam doesn't show what happened inside the car. It does show Yanez's partner, Joseph Kauser, standing on the other side of the car during the whole incident. However, he testified at trial that his angle of view didn't allow him to see what Castile was doing with his hands.
This article summarizes the testimony of every witness for the prosecution and defense at trial. It looks as if the prosecution had one use-of-force expert testify against Yanez while Yanez had four such experts testifying on his behalf.
Since the key issue remains whether Yanez had a reasonable belief that a gun was being pulled on him, and since a gun was later found in or falling out of Castile's pocket, and since the only eye witness was Yanez himself and (maybe) the girlfriend in the car, this case seems to be a difficult one to prove against Yanez beyond all reasonable doubt.
I see no evidence that race played a part in this instantaneous and tragic incident. Anyone who says such a thing is speculating, at best, or propagandizing, at worst. |
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63778
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/20/17 9:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The way I see it, he approached the car with an already high adrenaline level because he thought this driver fit the description of a robbery suspect. Then when he heard the word "gun", he went into this super panic. It was such a panic that he wasn't able to process the notion that if someone wanted to shoot him, that someone would have been more successful if they have not verbally disclosed they had a gun. Was he a rookie? First time encountering a gun situation? Seemed like it. I'd rate him incompetent for street duty, but does he deserve jail time for this incompetence? Tough call. He was bought out and relieved of duty at St Anthony. I suspect there will be successful multi-million dollar civil suit against the city. They let this incompetent cop unnecessarily kill a citizen.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/20/17 10:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| The way I see it, he approached the car with an already high adrenaline level because he thought this driver fit the description of a robbery suspect. Then when he heard the word "gun", he went into this super panic. It was such a panic that he wasn't able to process the notion that if someone wanted to shoot him, that someone would have been more successful if they have not verbally disclosed they had a gun. Was he a rookie? First time encountering a gun situation? Seemed like it. I'd rate him incompetent for street duty, but does he deserve jail time for this incompetence? Tough call. He was bought out and relieved of duty at St Anthony. I suspect there will be successful multi-million dollar civil suit against the city. They let this incompetent cop unnecessarily kill a citizen. |
Yeah. As I said, a cop who had heard too many ghost stories. I think it was clear from the video that the officer was afraid for his life. This seems to be enough for ex cops to all testify that his actions were "reasonable". Significantly, the is another recording of Yanez being interviewed by his superior right afterwards in which he says that he "didn't know where the gun was" and "couldn't see it" but that Castile kept reaching with a "wide grip".
It was only after they found the gun in his pocket that the officer claimed to have seen it and that Castile had touched it.
But the biggest problem here is what Shades pointed out. The idea that Castile was going for his gun is objectively stupid. He had nothing to gain, he wasn't going to be arrested for anything, had no criminal history, had his family in the car with him, and had two officers standing there. I mean, the man's dying words were "...I wasn't going for it."
Yet we don't care that the officer was wrong and someone died, because poor baby was "scared" and that is enough under the law (according to all these ex officers) to justify a police officer shooting someone.
As for race, it did play a role, just not in the shooting itself. Race is why Castile got pulled over in the first place. That he looked like a robbery suspect (ie: was black). The description of the suspect was ridiculously vague, where basically any black man would have fit it.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63778
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/20/17 10:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
There was a cop trainer on KARE11 who said that if what was shown on the dashcam video was a set up training situation, Yanez would have failed. So he doesn't have universal support from the police community.
| Quote: |
"If I had set that up as a scenario just the way it played out and he had done that, he would have failed the course," Michael Quinn says.
Quinn was a police officer in Minneapolis for 22 years, and he says part of his job was training officers in use of force. Quinn now runs his law enforcement training and ethics firm. Quinn believes even after Castile announced he had a firearm, Yanez failed to take one final step in training before pulling the trigger.
"It didn’t register with him because his panic hit so quick, that next step of evaluating of what to do next and with himself rather than shoot," Quinn said. "He did not take that step." |
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lP-Z2f2RRb8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Last edited by Shades on 06/21/17 6:46 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/21/17 11:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
<embed><iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fRuyvI1wV1I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
https://youtu.be/fRuyvI1wV1I
_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63778
Back to top |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/21/17 7:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| F this cop and his defenders.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63778
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/21/17 11:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| <embed><iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xELwc52ps7Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
myt
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 3923
Location: California
Back to top |
|
|
|
