RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Ferguson Grand Jury Decision
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5344
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 12:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Let's take a look at the damage this "violent criminal" did to the officer in question...







Perhaps the police need to learn the value of a proportional response...


From the images there seems to be no purple discoloration due blunt force trauma. I don't see bruises. I appears, IMO, to be a flushed face and neck consistent with heightened adrenaline. Maybe its the lighting. I'm not a doctor so my observations mean squat other than an opinion. But in my mind it does raise red flags.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

hyperetic wrote:
From the images there seems to be no purple discoloration due blunt force trauma. I don't see bruises. I appears, IMO, to be a flushed face and neck consistent with heightened adrenaline. Maybe its the lighting. I'm not a doctor so my observations mean squat other than an opinion. But in my mind it does raise red flags.

I just asked my M.D. friend about what she sees in these pictures. She gave a long explanation, but it boils down to the injuries being consistent with a confined space struggle. She said it was not what you would see from a full on vicious beating, but rather what you might expect from an intense wrestling match.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote


Quote:
The Ferguson grand jurys decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown is a miscarriage of justice. It is a slap in the face to Americans nationwide who continue to hope and believe that justice will prevail, Chairwoman Marcia Fudge posted Monday night on the groups Facebook page. This decision seems to underscore an unwritten rule that black lives hold no value; that you may kill black men in this country without consequences or repercussions.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/congressional-black-caucus-no-indictment-slap-the-face-americans


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Genero36 wrote:
Quote:
The Ferguson grand jurys decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown is a miscarriage of justice. It is a slap in the face to Americans nationwide who continue to hope and believe that justice will prevail, Chairwoman Marcia Fudge posted Monday night on the groups Facebook page. This decision seems to underscore an unwritten rule that black lives hold no value; that you may kill black men in this country without consequences or repercussions.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/congressional-black-caucus-no-indictment-slap-the-face-americans

This was posted by her before the grand jury evidence was even released. In other words, she arrived by this "miscarriage of justice" conclusion without actually weighing the evidence. That seems pretty unfair to this Grand Jury, and seems to defy logic.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
This was posted by her before the grand jury evidence was even released. In other words, she arrived by this "miscarriage of justice" conclusion without actually weighing the evidence. That seems pretty unfair to this Grand Jury, and seems to defy logic.


I'm posting this article in this thread, because it relates to the topic. I am in no way shape or form posting this article to warrant a response from anyone, because I will be really cruel with my words if I bothered to have a discussion with you or Jammerbirdi on this topic.

You have a right to your view (as does anyone else). Just don't feel the need to address me, because I'm not going to address you with respect to any topic regarding race.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
beknighted wrote:
Lest we forget, it's pretty much beyond dispute that the entire incident began when Wilson decided he needed to order Brown and his friend not to walk in the street.


Oh no. It's not beyond dispute. Lest we forget, the entire incident began with a strong arm convenience store robbery twenty minutes earlier by Michael Brown. Shocked


Not sure how that is related to the shooting, given that the killer cop had no way of knowing the alleged robbery had even occurred, let alone that Brown might have been involved.


While that was widely reported as fact for many long months we learned yesterday that it was not the case. Officer Wilson actually heard two reports on his radio of the convenience store robbery in the twenty minute span from the robbery to his shooting of Brown. First was while he was attending to a child in distress call and the second, which contained a description of the perpetrators matching Michael Brown, as well as the item taken from the store, cigarillos (which Officer Wilson said he saw in Michael Brown's hand) came through on his radio in the police vehicle.

I don't know what else to say here. Shocked


Leaving aside that there does not appear to by any contemporaneous evidence corroborating the officer's claims about hearing the radio calls (like, say, the original police report), there has been no dispute that he had not identified Brown as the alleged perpetrator of the robbery when he first stopped them.

And I'm going to say this just one more time: My comments way at the top of this thread had to do with a hypothetical situation in which, yes, the obligations of a police officer are exactly the same as for anyone else. If there is no risk, you are not permitted to fire the gun again. This is unambiguously true for everyone, even for violent felons. Put differently, the police don't get free rein to shoot people who have been violent in the past; their immunity extends only to situations in which they reasonably perceive that there is a real possibility of danger. This is not pie-in-the-sky, airy theorizing about what police should do in a perfect world. This is what they're obligated to do.

Also, one comment on the use of the grand jury process here. I am fairly convinced that the prosecutor was using the process as a shield, not to come out to a fair result. The reports I've seen indicate that the grand jury was shown everything, including a bunch of material that is fairly described as useless garbage, and that he made no recommendation or even made an effort to point them towards potential charges. That's not how grand juries actually work in practice - they're guided by the prosecutor, who after all is the expert in the room, and who does not present cases unless the intent is to get an indictment. (My dad sat on a grand jury, and it apparently was a huge shock to the prosecutor when they refused to indict somebody once during his months-long term.) I'm not saying the result was wrong, just that it was entirely predictable based on the process that was used, and that the prosecutor got exactly what he expected and wanted out of it.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 1:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Genero36 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/congressional-black-caucus-no-indictment-slap-the-face-americans

Quote:
This was posted by her before the grand jury evidence was even released. In other words, she arrived by this "miscarriage of justice" conclusion without actually weighing the evidence. That seems pretty unfair to this Grand Jury, and seems to defy logic.


I'm posting this article in this thread, because it relates to the topic. I am in no way shape or form posting this article to warrant a response from anyone, because I will be really cruel with my words if I bothered to have a discussion with you or Jammerbirdi on this topic.

You have a right to your view (as does anyone else). Just don't feel the need to address me, because I'm not going to address you with respect to any topic regarding race.

Fair enough.

For what it's worth, I do not disagree with the underlying issue at hand here. I think it is a serious problem in the US. And I understand the frustration against the system, and agree that it needs to be changed. I think you and I disagree on the merits of this specific case but I think we agree on the bigger picture. There are too many examples of racial bias within police departments around the country and it has lead to some horribly tragic situations that should never have happened. This culture of antagonism and bias needs to desperately change.

The reason I commented on the article that you posted is that there are 12 individuals who did their civic duty on the grand jury and I think they are being thrown under the bus due to this greater frustration and anger. If people want to break down the actual evidence and show how they feel the jury got it wrong, and explain how and why they would have concluded differently--then that is fine. As you said, everyone is entitled to their own view. But if people are concluding that they were wrong without carefully studying all the evidence, that is extremely unfair to the jury.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA


Last edited by justintyme on 11/25/14 2:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 2:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
The reports I've seen indicate that the grand jury was shown everything, including a bunch of material that is fairly described as useless garbage, and that he made no recommendation or even made an effort to point them towards potential charges. That's not how grand juries actually work in practice - they're guided by the prosecutor, who after all is the expert in the room, and who does not present cases unless the intent is to get an indictment. (My dad sat on a grand jury, and it apparently was a huge shock to the prosecutor when they refused to indict somebody once during his months-long term.) I'm not saying the result was wrong, just that it was entirely predictable based on the process that was used, and that the prosecutor got exactly what he expected and wanted out of it.

This is not the typical usage of a grand jury, but it is one of the functions that it can be used for. In a normal case, the prosecutor would have likely made his case to a judge and not use the grand jury at all. Clearly, the prosecutor did not feel that there was enough evidence to support an indictment in this case, but due to the high profile didn't want it to look like he was covering anything up. So they used the grand jury as a sort of de facto "civilian oversight board". Instead of one person drawing the conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence, he left it up to 12 people of an assortment of genders and races. Because of this, I think he chose to use a hands-off approach where he would not try to influence the jury in either direction. He would give them all the information and let them come to their own decision. This mind-frame is consistent with him releasing all the evidence to the public when typically it would have been sealed.

Was this a shield? Probably. But it was also provided for some transparency and thoroughness. Was it predictable? Well, if he had thought there was enough to prosecute, he would likely have not used the grand jury at all. Since he is, as you noted, the "expert" and would have a good sense of what constitutes "probable cause" it would be logical to assume that a grand jury would draw a similar conclusion. So yeah, predictable but not necessarily wrong.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 2:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
The reports I've seen indicate that the grand jury was shown everything, including a bunch of material that is fairly described as useless garbage, and that he made no recommendation or even made an effort to point them towards potential charges. That's not how grand juries actually work in practice - they're guided by the prosecutor, who after all is the expert in the room, and who does not present cases unless the intent is to get an indictment. (My dad sat on a grand jury, and it apparently was a huge shock to the prosecutor when they refused to indict somebody once during his months-long term.) I'm not saying the result was wrong, just that it was entirely predictable based on the process that was used, and that the prosecutor got exactly what he expected and wanted out of it.

This is not the typical usage of a grand jury, but it is one of the functions that it can be used for. In a normal case, the prosecutor would have likely made his case to a judge and not use the grand jury at all. Clearly, the prosecutor did not feel that there was enough evidence to support an indictment in this case, but due to the high profile didn't want it to look like he was covering anything up. So they used the grand jury as a sort of de facto "civilian oversight board". Instead of one person drawing the conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence, he left it up to 12 people of an assortment of genders and races. Because of this, I think he chose to use a hands-off approach where he would not try to influence the jury in either direction. He would give them all the information and let them come to their own decision. This mind-frame is consistent with him releasing all the evidence to the public when typically it would have been sealed.

Was this a shield? Probably. But it was also provided for some transparency and thoroughness. Was it predictable? Well, if he had thought there was enough to prosecute, he would likely have not used the grand jury at all. Since he is, as you noted, the "expert" and would have a good sense of what constitutes "probable cause" it would be logical to assume that a grand jury would draw a similar conclusion. So yeah, predictable but not necessarily wrong.


Short version: He didn't want to take responsibility for not indicting Wilson, so he threw all the evidence at the grand jury, with no guidance, knowing what the result would be.

Again, I'm not saying the result was wrong. What I am saying is that this was a very cynical use of the grand jury process, and extremely unusual (as in, I would bet that you could count the number of times it's been done this way in the U.S. in the last year on the fingers of one hand, and maybe on the the hands of one hand). At best, it was cowardly. At worst, it was a deliberate effort to prevent Wilson from being prosecuted.


hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5344
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 3:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
The medical investigator took no photos

The medical investigator did not take photographs at the scene of Brown's killing because the camera battery had died, the grand jury heard.

The investigator, who goes to the crime scene to collect evidence for the pathologist, also did not take measurements of anything at the scene because they "didn't need to."

The investigator, whose name was redacted, said: "It was self-explanatory what happened. Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there."

Typically, a medical investigator will take crime scene photos in addition to the ones taken by police investigators.

The investigator testified that they did not see evidence of "stippling" (gunpowder) around the wounds on Brown's body.


From the transcript of Darren Wilson's testimony, http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-documents/index.html

No pictorial evidence. Not completely following crime scene procedure. Not suspicious at all.

Here's a point I would like to make. Michael Brown was not a saint. What he did in the store was wrong and illegal. At most he deserved a good swift kick in the ass or a good punch in the mouth and a small amount of jail time. He did not deserve to have his life taken from him.

Why would you pull up directly beside a strong arm robbery suspect? Wouldn't it be safer and more prudent to stop behind or in front of them?


Last edited by hyperetic on 11/25/14 3:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 3:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Jammer, "proportional response" is the self defense law. That's not something that you teach a child. That's something that is tried in court.

This was a pathetic decision. But it's also not surprising. And not just because of race issues, but also because it's damn near impossible to hold police officers accountable for anything.

What, exactly, makes it a "pathetic decision"? Are you basing this on the actual evidence that the jury had to weigh? The eye witness testimony and forensics?

How would you have ruled, using the evidence and not some preconceived belief of guilt or innocence?

Having read it all, it seems fairly clear that there was no way for them to indict. The evidence pretty much stood lock-step with the officer's account. Yet I see so many people just discount this jury's desicion out of hand.

This isn't to say there is not a serious problem in the way the police relate with minorities. There are numerous cases which demonstrate this. The frustration in these communities is more than warrented, but there are better examples of this out there than this specific case.


There was easily enough evidence to indict him. Perhaps not enough to find him guilty, but indict. As someone else said, you can indict a ham sandwich. There was enough to satisfy probable cause, which is actually a relatively low burden.

And it's pathetic, because as was pointed out, the Prosecutor led the proceedings in a way that it was evident that this case was about to be dropped. Not only that, but realistically, this was a racial case..and there just so happened to be enough white people on the jury to not indict him.

BTW: the standard for police officers when using deadly force is "objective reasonableness" ..which is really not all that different from proportionality. A person has to pose a significant threat of death or severe injury in order for an officer to use deadly force. Being that the child was unarmed...



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5344
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 3:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

One thing I am frustrated about is that in this day and age when all the ridiculous minutia of our lives are photographed, videotaped, vine'd, Instagramed, Snapchatted, etc., nobody, NOBODY, recorded this?
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21045



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 3:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

hyperetic wrote:
One thing I am frustrated about is that in this day and age when all the ridiculous minutia of our lives are photographed, videotaped, vine'd, Instagramed, Snapchatted, etc., nobody, NOBODY, recorded this?


Agreed. But the police especially should wear body cameras as the Brown family is calling for.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 4:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
hyperetic wrote:
One thing I am frustrated about is that in this day and age when all the ridiculous minutia of our lives are photographed, videotaped, vine'd, Instagramed, Snapchatted, etc., nobody, NOBODY, recorded this?


Agreed. But the police especially should wear body cameras as the Brown family is calling for.


The Ferguson PD chose to purchase a tank instead of cameras...



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21045



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 4:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
hyperetic wrote:
One thing I am frustrated about is that in this day and age when all the ridiculous minutia of our lives are photographed, videotaped, vine'd, Instagramed, Snapchatted, etc., nobody, NOBODY, recorded this?


Agreed. But the police especially should wear body cameras as the Brown family is calling for.


The Ferguson PD chose to purchase a tank instead of cameras...


Well there's a-one thing right there. The police shouldn't get to choose. The people should. This is but one thing that needs to be fixed in the United States in a long list. What we need is an FDR-like call to action by a president to mobilize the people around the greater longer list of efforts to fix our country. People who wanted to be police officers in a small town, which is to say almost by default, working class individuals, should not, by themselves, be allowed to decide they're going to spend the taxpayer's money on a tank. But the US government or other contractors shouldn't even be in the business of offloading their combat inventory on small town police forces but that's a whole 'nuther issue.

I screamed on my website 14 years ago that the police should not be making the rules for us... we should be making the rules for them.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21045



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 5:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Being that the child was unarmed...


OMG no you didn't say that. Wow. That's about the most disingenuous and manipulative thing I've heard said by anyone so far anywhere.

I am OUT. Rolling Eyes



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 8:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

in 2010, US attorneys prosecuted 162,000 FEDERAL cases. Grand jury declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

99.99%.

I just saw the guy who was w/ Brown interviewed, this morning, by Chris Hayes at the scene of the crime.

His testimony alone is enough to indict Wilson.

Brown, hardly an unarmed "child", was at least a petty thief bully, standing 6'4 and weighing 280.

His death hardly seems justified.

I hope the Feds do something.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 9:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Fair enough.

For what it's worth, I do not disagree with the underlying issue at hand here. I think it is a serious problem in the US. And I understand the frustration against the system, and agree that it needs to be changed. I think you and I disagree on the merits of this specific case but I think we agree on the bigger picture. There are too many examples of racial bias within police departments around the country and it has lead to some horribly tragic situations that should never have happened. This culture of antagonism and bias needs to desperately change.

The reason I commented on the article that you posted is that there are 12 individuals who did their civic duty on the grand jury and I think they are being thrown under the bus due to this greater frustration and anger. If people want to break down the actual evidence and show how they feel the jury got it wrong, and explain how and why they would have concluded differently--then that is fine. As you said, everyone is entitled to their own view. But if people are concluding that they were wrong without carefully studying all the evidence, that is extremely unfair to the jury.


I'm not trying to be rude to you or anyone. This topic is just too painful for me right now.


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 9:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote












Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/14 11:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As frustrated as this turn of events must be for the people of Ferguson, I cannotCANNOT fathom ONE thing: Why do people LOOT in response to this? How does looting make up for anything, or make things *better*??

Yet another very sad day in American History.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 12:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
As frustrated as this turn of events must be for the people of Ferguson, I cannotCANNOT fathom ONE thing: Why do people LOOT in response to this? How does looting make up for anything, or make things *better*??

Yet another very sad day in American History.


Angry people do stupid things. And some people use the protests as cover for criminal acts, too.

It does seem to me that the overwhelming majority of the protesters have been peaceful. Mad, yes, but peaceful.


hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5344
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 12:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
As frustrated as this turn of events must be for the people of Ferguson, I cannotCANNOT fathom ONE thing: Why do people LOOT in response to this? How does looting make up for anything, or make things *better*??

Yet another very sad day in American History.


For some, they feel its the only way they can exact some kind of revenge on those they think wronged them. Granted those ones are not thinking it through fully because their actions really only hurt them in the long run. For others, they are not true protesters. They are just opportunists looking for a chance to steal and destroy.
p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9713



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 12:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

via Deadspin:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MQs7CWKHM9w?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 1:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Being that the child was unarmed...


OMG no you didn't say that. Wow. That's about the most disingenuous and manipulative thing I've heard said by anyone so far anywhere.

I am OUT. Rolling Eyes


What exactly was wrong about that.

Sorry. Did I put it in perspective for you? You've been calling the kid (Yes..the kid) a violent criminal throughout the thread. Talk about being disingenuous.

BTW: apparently the KKK has been running around Ferguson. Haven't seen them on the news much though.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
smenko



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 4081
Location: metro detroit


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/14 1:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The situation of looting is also has an ambiguity attached to how it is defined: main street sees protesters heading in its direction throwing rocks and burning police cars you know you place of business is in trouble; Wall Street and banks loot the public all the time and everyone looks the other way.

Honestly, there is no amicable resolution until all parties agree to sit down at a table and tell their stories.

If South Africa could get rid of the hold that the white government held and come to a resolution why can't we?


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin