Police dont need to knock, justices say...

Page 4 of 5 First ... 2345 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Crooked cops are crooked cops regardless of the no knock policy though. It would not have mattered what restrictions were in place because they would of had no issue with lying to break/bend them. They deserve a hell of a lot more time than 10 years.
    Jay i know youre a cop and you have to defend the laws that make your job easier and safer, but things like this simply couldnt happen if this law wasnt on the books.

    personally, i think its just completely unconstitutional and violates the sanctity of the home.

    imagine youre a 92 year old woman. someone is breaking, literally smashing, your door down. you grab your gun and try to defend your home and yourself, and end up getting blown away. how would you feel if this was your mother?

    now obviously these were horribly crooked cops, but their actions were justified by this law.

    this law turns cops into criminals in the minds of the people. there is no way you can expect someone not to defend their home if someone simply smashes down your door and raids your house.

    if anything, this law makes you less safe. when enough cops die from people blowing their heads off when they cowboy their way intot he house maybe youll all learn your lesson the hard way.


  2. Jomi822, the only difference between the pre no knock and today is there is no knock and reasonable amount of time afterwards.

    1. A warrant has to be still obtained
    2. A crashing through the door will result in either situation.

    now obviously these were horribly crooked cops, but their actions were justified by this law.
    No, no it wasn't. Their actions got them a search warrant that had they followed the law they would not of been given. Had they followed the law the no knock policy could of never been put to use.

    The funny thing is that at 90 years old there was a good chance this lady would of been considered dangerous behind the wheel of a vehicle but could of still had a wepaon in the home. Now this is for a seperate argument but one could of argued that had the grand ma not had a gun and shot she wouldn't of been killed. Of course with the bad cops in play that would of possibly still been the end result.

    Again, for those not aware or wanting to read trhough it all...

    The only difference between this law and the law before it was police had to announce themselves as police prior to breaking down your door. The 'reasonable' time frame given was left open for interpretation because due to different situations it could be less than 20 seconds.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    The only difference between this law and the law before it was police had to announce themselves as police prior to breaking down your door. The 'reasonable' time frame given was left open for interpretation because due to different situations it could be less than 20 seconds.
    So how is the owner of the house supposed to know whether its the police or an intruder??

    cops are setting themselves up to be shot. the woman had every right to blow these guys away. again, put yourself in her situation.

    do you think she would pulled a gun on them if they had announced themselves and police without slamming down the door first?

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    You can't give numbers in these types of unfortunate events. You have to take the problem and the overall safety over the risk. If enough grandmothers are killed wrongly then things will change.
    So there is an acceptable number of dead innocent citizens. Thanks, that's all I needed to know about your position.

    The sad part is people killing themselves because they had to have alcohol and would brew it in lead pipes. My point isn't the killing in the street. It's the fact that once introduced into society that it's damn near impossible to pull out regardless of the damage done. And again, a different age and different time.
    Same people, same principles.

    When society decides as a whole that it is too many. Most Maryland police agencies have a no high speed chase policy due to the outcry of too many fatalities of both the innocent and the criminals/police. People felt that anyone dying over a suspended license was not worth it. Again, you can't put a solid number on it. I have had the police come through my door. I have also been arrested wrongly when I was a juvenile. It doesn't change the facts. I am also not a hypocrite that says one thing but will change my story when it deals with me.
    Perhaps when someone you love is dead for no reason then.

    No, in situations where a warrant was obtained and the threat is great enough(also justified) I think announcing you're about to come in and seize their drugs/weapons is a bad thing for the police. you're assuming the situation using a bad example because of the crooked cops and their falsifying information to obtain warrants. Yes i've read the Constitution.
    You're assuming the situation is inevitable. It isn't. It is the result of prohibition. Legalize and Bayer will be selling the stuff, not Pinky the Pimp.

    If that was my grandmother that was killed I would be pissed. I would be pissed at the bad cops. I wouldn't be pissed at the no knock policy or law enforcement as a whole. Those bad cops killed that grandmother and put a bad light on the rest of the cops who fight the good fight.
    So lying and killing innocent citizens shines a bad light on telling the truth and killing innocent citizens. Interesting view.

    If followed through properly then the risk to innocent lives is a whole lot less than you think. Mistakes will happen but until more places feel that training and better equipment etc for police officers is a necessity then you still still have a level of error.
    If followed through properly the risk to innocent lives in any situation is minimal. Whether or not the risk should have been taken to begin with is at issue.

  5. Don't let your personal view put a twist on my argument.
    So there is an acceptable number of dead innocent citizens. Thanks, that's all I needed to know about your position.
    As tragic as it sounds there is always an acceptable or unacceptable number of innocent deaths before things will change or whether they stay the same. You can try and paint me the bad guy for saying so but fact is fact. Me giving you a off the wall number makes no sense and you saying no death is acceptable makes even less sense. Accidents happen all the time, unfortunately. Laws and policy are not re-written after every mishap. This is with evey part of life and not just law in the public sector.

    Perhaps when someone you love is dead for no reason then.
    You're assuming I have not been in this situation because you believe that anyone that had been would not hold my view. You could also assume the same for the father of a killed son over in Iraq, about their view on the war and you would be mistaken in that assumption as well.

    You're assuming the situation is inevitable. It isn't. It is the result of prohibition. Legalize and Bayer will be selling the stuff, not Pinky the Pimp.
    Two days ago a guy shot and attempted to kill a Pharmacy employee at a drive trhough because he refused to give his drugs to the guy at gunpoint. So to avoid this we should make all rx drugs OTC? I'm sure some of it was made by Bayer.All legalizing this stuff is turn the pimp into a stock market contributor. You think that large corporations have the consumer's health in their interest? You think that regulating and making certain things illegal for joe citizen is bad but you think that this should be the case for big business? Or do you think that everyone including big business should be law free to do as they wish?

    So lying and killing innocent citizens shines a bad light on telling the truth and killing innocent citizens. Interesting view.
    Again, you're twisting the argument to fit your agenda vs. just accepting the actual facts. Had the law been followed by good cops then the lady would not of been shot because the cops would not of beat down her door. You can't what if and armchair scenerios that did not happen. You're assuming that if the cops were law abiding that they would of still obtained a search warrant and entered the house. Why would they?

    If followed through properly the risk to innocent lives in any situation is minimal. Whether or not the risk should have been taken to begin with is at issue.
    There is no way to remove the risk when dealing with law enforcement. You seem to be arguing for anarchy and a lawless society...If that is your opinion then that is fine but as of right now we have law enforcement and we need to keep both the civilians and the police safe as possible. When done properly then there should be bad guys behind the door of the house they are at. With this being the case, the no knock policy makes our police safer.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    You're assuming I have not been in this situation because you believe that anyone that had been would not hold my view. You could also assume the same for the father of a killed son over in Iraq, about their view on the war and you would be mistaken in that assumption as well.
    I may be mistaken about their views, but in the end whether or not the Iraq war or the drug war is a success is something that can be objectively evaluated. If either fails, then whether it hurts the father or not, his son died for nothing.

    Two days ago a guy shot and attempted to kill a Pharmacy employee at a drive trhough because he refused to give his drugs to the guy at gunpoint. So to avoid this we should make all rx drugs OTC? I'm sure some of it was made by Bayer.
    Yes, I want all drugs legal and available to whoever wants them. If they rob someone or commit crimes against people, lock them up. Leave everyone else alone. Leave peaceful citizens alone regardless of their personal habits. In a free society you don't pre empt people because of what they might do. That's the trade off for freedom. The other set up is called a police state. You can pick which one you lie, I prefer the former.

    All legalizing this stuff is turn the pimp into a stock market contributor. You think that large corporations have the consumer's health in their interest? You think that regulating and making certain things illegal for joe citizen is bad but you think that this should be the case for big business? Or do you think that everyone including big business should be law free to do as they wish?
    Back at you: "Don't let your personal view put a twist on my argument." Both you and I know there is a big difference between not locking people up when they haven't aggressed against others and simply leaving everyone to do as they wish without consequence. The two positions are not the same and you know that.

    Again, you're twisting the argument to fit your agenda vs. just accepting the actual facts. Had the law been followed by good cops then the lady would not of been shot because the cops would not of beat down her door.
    According to your own claim that is not the case. You admit such incidents are not only possible, but that you find them an acceptable trade off.

    Why would they?
    Bad information. Remember the Paz case mentioned in a similar thread? No dirty cops there, just bad information and the wrong house, and a dead grandfather as the result.

  7. This is your position on drugs because you enjoy using them and i'll go so far as to say use them safely or responsibly. I base this off of our previous conversations. What you and a select group of your friends do can not be the basis of your standpoint if the majority of the populace does different...Well, I'll say you can't have that as your standpoint and hope it will ever be that way.

    Usually, a lot of law goes into effect afterwards and not prior to. Of course there are exceptions but steroids had been around how long before getting turned illegal? This is where my personal view mixes with reality. I personally would like steroids legal BUT too many people do stupid **** and ruin it for the rest of us. You argue that we should make all the drugs legal and criminalize illegal acts. On paper it seems ideal enough but in reality the number of police we'd need to respond to this type of setup would be too much to handle.

    Maybe if we started with this way of doing things from the beginning we may be able to handle something like you describe but there's no way we could handle that now. If Marijuana became legal tomorrow it would be a nightmare.

    Anyways, I respect your opinion even though I don't agree with it.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    This is your position on drugs because you enjoy using them and i'll go so far as to say use them safely or responsibly.
    Haven't used anything besides wine for a while now. Weed puts me to sleep, coke makes me nauseous, beer makes me fart. Also happens if I don't degas my wine properly which is an amusing side effect.

    I base this off of our previous conversations. What you and a select group of your friends do can not be the basis of your standpoint if the majority of the populace does different...Well, I'll say you can't have that as your standpoint and hope it will ever be that way.
    But somehow your standpoint that the majority of the population does different, even if completely incorrect, is perfectly valid. Nice double standard. Of course what you're missing here is that it's your experience that is limited because as a cop by default you are dealing with problem users. You have people telling you left and right on here that your experience is not the majority case and yet you ignore it.

    Christ, even William F. Buckley eventually changed his view on this, especially on weed. Get over it. The majority of users are not behaving the way you think they are. Some 80-90 million people have used pot is the estimate I believe. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me all or even a significant portion of them are abusing it and robbing liquor stores and driving stoned all over the place? That's BS, it just doesn't make sense or agree with reality. We'd be wading in blood if that were the case. It's nonsense.

    Usually, a lot of law goes into effect afterwards and not prior to. Of course there are exceptions but steroids had been around how long before getting turned illegal?
    And before they were illegal the AMA and DEA didn't want them added to the list of scheduled substances. Once they were added all of sudden, and despite the lack of supporting research, they became the scourge of all mankind and especially 'the children'. Your view of how laws are made and why is naive to say the least, especially in this instance because there has been a temperance movement in this country for a long time trying to get all drugs, including alcohol, banned. The problems with alcohol prohibition came after it was enacted and evaporated shortly after its repeal.

    Yes there are still people who abuse it, throw their lives away, and hurt others. To say the answer is to ban it and throw all users in prison is nonsense. It's been tried, it failed, and it made the existing problems worse by introducing a criminal element into the manufacture and distribution of the substance.

    This is where my personal view mixes with reality. I personally would like steroids legal BUT too many people do stupid **** and ruin it for the rest of us. You argue that we should make all the drugs legal and criminalize illegal acts. On paper it seems ideal enough but in reality the number of police we'd need to respond to this type of setup would be too much to handle.
    Based on the presumption that prohibition has had any real effect on supply and availability. It hasn't. You have to assume your policies are effective before this argument makes sense so you're merely begging the question. First you need to prove the policy is effective, at least at stemming supply in any significant way, which it isn't. You just push the supply to the black market, and any time any short term restriction of supply is accomplished you just up the profits and incentives for remaining and new manufacturers/dealers to move into the affected market. If demand remains so does supply, plain and simple. The prices may go up, in a market with the inelasticity of the drug market that price rise is negligible, and can't be accomplished with an estimated 10% interdiction rate, which is likely inflated.

    Maybe if we started with this way of doing things from the beginning we may be able to handle something like you describe but there's no way we could handle that now. If Marijuana became legal tomorrow it would be a nightmare.
    Nonsense, pure and simple. What, all of a sudden if it's legal people who never smoked before are going to start using it by the ton and throwing themselves off bridges? Get real. The same exact thing that happened when alcohol prohibition ended will happen; the black market will largely disappear along with its attendant problems and that's it. Users will still exist, they will buy from stores instead of through the illegal network. Abusers will still exist, and whatever problems they caused will still exist and need to be dealt with. Only with less effort and resources being expended trying to throw all users in prison we can spend more time dealing with the problem population.

    Demand for drugs is largely inelastic, Jay. That means few people will stop using despite cost increases and few people will start using despite cost decreases. You can either take the resources you have, X, and spend them trying to throw all users in prison or target your efforts on the problem population as they arise. One guess as to which will be more effective.

    While I can understand how being a cop slants your view, it's no different than the COs I know at local jails becoming more and more racist because they're dealing with the scum of the various minority populations. It's fallacious logic and it needs to be avoided. And if we are to live in a free society even if there were a causative relationship between drugs and crime and 90% of all users were committing violent crimes, that still doesn't justify policies that throw the innocent 10% into prison for the sake of expediency.

  9. I'm not basing my opinion of mass crime sprees but moreso the total effect on people. I'd rather not live in a society where drug use is allowed and in some cases pushed as the normalcy(sp)? The cheesy poof epidemic alone would be enough to vote no

    But somehow your standpoint that the majority of the population does different, even if completely incorrect, is perfectly valid.
    When dealing with legislation for a total effect you have to base it off of the majority. This is no different than anything else we make law. Enough people died and caused increased medical expenses not wearing seatbelts that it became illegal to not wear them.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    I'm not basing my opinion of mass crime sprees but moreso the total effect on people. I'd rather not live in a society where drug use is allowed and in some cases pushed as the normalcy(sp)? The cheesy poof epidemic alone would be enough to vote no
    But in the end then, what you are saying is it is appropriate to use the law to make society more aesthetically pleasing for the majority. That's called tyranny of the majority or mob rule. Once more, not the intended nature of this nation.

    When dealing with legislation for a total effect you have to base it off of the majority. This is no different than anything else we make law. Enough people died and caused increased medical expenses not wearing seatbelts that it became illegal to not wear them.
    Which once more reverses the cause and effect. Force people to cover the medical expenses of others, then use the price increase as the excuse for more control over people's decisions. The 'problem' was created by a previous intervention and then another intervention is proposed to solve it.

  11. the only way your method would work would be to totally change the system freom ground up. Now i'm not saying that this would be a bad idea more than something that just wouldn't happen. Without serious reform in a lot of areas then just making drugs legal would open all kinds of worms. I think it would anyways.

  12. I really hope they change it, suppose they mess up and serve a warrent on the wrong house or some mistake was made along the way to getting a warrent. I know alot of people who own guns infact I'll be getting a gun soon. And I know if I heard someone bash down my door, I'm shooting first asking questions later. Which would surely result in my own demise. But point being if I knew they were cops, more then likely I'm gonna give up and try and figure out whats going on.

    Just my 2 cents

  13. I need to look up the stats to find out if there are more cops killed in legit raids or more innocent people killed on FUBAR raids(wrong house bad cops etc)

  14. what about legit raids jay?

    its ok to kill someone for firing at the cops who dont announce themselves as long as its a legit warrant???

  15. Is it okay? No, I don't think it is ever to kill someone when they didn't deserve to be killed. If it's a legit raid and the cops are fired on then I think it is legal to fire back. We're using the word legit to mean that there are bad guys behind the door. Bad guys firing guns at the good guys will usually result in people dying.

    keep this in mind please...When police enter the residence they will yell POLICE (insert added crap yelled) If it's a legit raid with a wrong house using the no knock policy then my guess would be that by the time you were able to grab your gun you would know the cops were cops. So if it was a wrong house then they could avoid shooting at the cops and could just sue but they would be alive hopefully.

    I suppose we could go at this with a million different scenerios and outcomes but in the end it boils down to the law was put into effect to minimize the risk of police being gunned down by the bad guys before they entered a house.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    If it's a legit raid and the cops are fired on then I think it is legal to fire back. We're using the word legit to mean that there are bad guys behind the door. Bad guys firing guns at the good guys will usually result in people dying.

    thats exactly what im getting at here. people are going to fire on cops that dont announce themselves. It is in the cops best interest to announce themselves BEFORE they break down the door. if cops come crashing through the door and wake someone up yelling a half hearted "cops" probably wouldnt get the job done either.

    again, do you think this 92 year old woman would have tried to blow these guys away if they had yelled and announced themselves as police? keep in mind a lot of undercover and narcotics officers arent necessarily wearing street cop uniforms. they are just asking for it.

    this BS is going to result in a lot of innocent people and cops getting killed.


    good guys vs bad guys? cmon jay ive been around law enforcement long enough to know that there are no black and white scenarios. and what ever happend to innocent until proven guilty?

  17. Jesus people, are you reading the actual law and looking at what the law was prior to the change or are you going with a gut reaction? This law was put into place to minimize risk to law enforcement prior going into a place by announcing who they were which was leading to people being able to get a chance to prepare themselves to attack the police.

    No cop in their right mind wants to die. They don't run in yelling cops in a whisper. Adrenaline is pumping and the pucker factor is +10. Anything yelled is yelled loudly.

    again, do you think this 92 year old woman would have tried to blow these guys away if they had yelled and announced themselves as police? keep in mind a lot of undercover and narcotics officers arent necessarily wearing street cop uniforms. they are just asking for it.
    This was a mistake! There were crooked cops...How many no knock warrants were served and how many situations like this? This is one story reported and it would not have been reported had the cops not been planting evidence and faking ifo to obtain warrants. Do you think a 92 year old woman would of had time to make sense of the situation to put her gun down if POLICE would of been yelled seconds before hand?

    Except for few instances like this lady who was killed, the only people this no knock policy effects are the bad guys who use the announcement to get ready. This wouldn't effect 99% of the rest of the population.
    good guys vs bad guys? cmon jay ive been around law enforcement long enough to know that there are no black and white scenarios. and what ever happend to innocent until proven guilty?
    Good guy/bad guy was a easy way to describe the scenarios...But what the hell does that statement have anything to do with anything? Innocent until proven guilty? The hell does serving a high risk/felony warrant have anything to do with innocent/guilt? Those are based off evidence of a crime to be or has been committed.

    From my living room to my front door if someone knocks on it, it takes about ~10 seconds to answer from a sitting position. If I heard COPS OPEN UP. It would probably take 15-20 because it would take a few seconds to wrap my head around the situation. My door would be off the hinges by the time I could respond. After I'm in bed it would be off the hinges before I made it down stairs. There would be no difference in my case between a no knock or knock policy.

    If anything this saves lives on both sides. If cops are at the wrong house and announce themselves I would be willing to bet that most people would get up and grab something to protect themselves with until they verified what was going on. I would rather be surprised with no time to grab a knife, gun, or object prior to them entering with guns pulled than give them a reason to fire. With multiple police, once one fire is shot then you can be sure many more shots will be fired.

    If I had illegal activities at my place with guns all over etc. then that 10 seconds could/would be spent preparing to kill the police about to come through the door they just announced at.

    Except for rare situations like the 92 YR lady who was shot to death, this is a needed protection for the police. Hell, you should want laws that help the police so they can feel a bit safer. If you have concerns maybe it should be in the process up to that point. Maybe make it mandatory to have a on duty/present Judge to sign off on the warrants versus being on call. Maybe force all these things to be video taped with no ability to edit them...Who knows but i would put more energy into making sure the cops are doing the right thing instead of taking away a technicality that did nothing but alert people they are about to arrest which door they are coming through.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    the only way your method would work would be to totally change the system freom ground up. Now i'm not saying that this would be a bad idea more than something that just wouldn't happen. Without serious reform in a lot of areas then just making drugs legal would open all kinds of worms. I think it would anyways.
    Perhaps, but to blame those worms on drugs when it's the system, and to use those worms as an excuse to keep destroying people's lives unnecessarily is something I can't abide.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    good guys vs bad guys? cmon jay ive been around law enforcement long enough to know that there are no black and white scenarios. and what ever happend to innocent until proven guilty?
    It went out the door with a lot of other protections in the drug war.

  20. Let's not mix up the flaws in the system with it just being about drugs. It just so happens that everything is mixed together in some form or another. You change one thing and it's possible to have a domino effect. There are things that need to be changed all the way through. Changing just one area you disagree with without examining the whole effect from top to bottom first would be the wrong way to go about it.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Let's not mix up the flaws in the system with it just being about drugs. It just so happens that everything is mixed together in some form or another. You change one thing and it's possible to have a domino effect. There are things that need to be changed all the way through. Changing just one area you disagree with without examining the whole effect from top to bottom first would be the wrong way to go about it.
    So we should keep locking up people regardless of the merit of doing so because it's just too hard to change. Good call, Jay.

    I have to make this my last post on this. I find the policy of prohibition ridiculously disgusting and consider it one of the most prominent and unbelievably stupid things in history. I can't countenance this ****, I can't believe people of any intelligence believe it's a good thing, and I can't believe you would say better to lock people up and kill a few innocents to preserve the status quo because that's what the majority wants. I find that position sickening, plain and simple.

    Prohibition is the most aggregious violation of freedom we're currently dealing with domestically. It has served as the excuse for the erosion of what are supposed to be inalienable rights. It has destroyed the lives of millions of people without cause. It is based on flawed logic, mistaken premises, and does nothing positive in the end and only leads to an unwinnable war that makes continuous work for government drones and gives the government an excuse to grab more and more power over the population as time goes on.

    It should end now. I never should have started to begin with.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Except for rare situations like the 92 YR lady who was shot to death, this is a needed protection for the police. Hell, you should want laws that help the police so they can feel a bit safer.
    from what i have seen just about anything can be legalized or justified when it comes to making the police feel safe.

    it is the reason i do not feel safe around cops, and i spent a couple hours of every day inside police stations and a prosecutors office.

    And yes i agree with the idea of videotaping, but i dont feel it changes this situation.

    btw i have seen more than one video and sat in on more than one case where a seriously injured person has been handcuffed by the cops, including mentally retarded individuals, individuals cops have just run over with a car, and a man with a broken arm in a cast.

    and now they hand cuff a 92 YEAR OLD WOMAN who has just been shot multiple times. what the eff is up with that.

    officer safety...right?

  23. heres a prime example
    http://thatvideosite.com/video/1303

    you can see at least one of the guys arms visibly snap after being run over. he cannot even move. still the cop runs over like rambo and cuffs him.

    is this right? no, it is repulsive and disgusting.

    but it is justified because of "officer safety".

    im all for officer safety, but not at the expense of my own.

  24. Because police are trained to do this and it is signed off on by officials etc. You don't handcuff the guy and miss a gun and you can still be shot. injured criminals are still criminals. In the event they aren't a crminal then there are other issues to address. That's what I mean when you point out a case where something looks bad. Are you pointing out the right thing?

    For those of you arguing against this policy of no knock then what is your supposed position on minimizing the risk to officers who are entering houses and being killed/injured? How many cops have to die before change is justified? because they are cops and not a 92 year old lady do they deserve any less protection and safety?

  25. Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    heres a prime example
    http://thatvideosite.com/video/1303

    you can see at least one of the guys arms visibly snap after being run over. he cannot even move. still the cop runs over like rambo and cuffs him.

    is this right? no, it is repulsive and disgusting.

    but it is justified because of "officer safety".

    im all for officer safety, but not at the expense of my own.

    So a traffic stop is made and the guy has his arm broke or is obviously injured in some way how do you suggest the cops handle them? Seriously, if you have an issue with the way things are done then what is your solution? What if there is a gun on this guy and in the event of pulling it out while screaming and crying he misses the cop and shoot a innocent person across the street? How does the cop search this person for weapons that could injure him/her or incoming medical personnel? What is your solution?

    Edit: okay I watched the video...Did you listen to it? It follows what I said exactly. He was charged with robbery and could of easily still had a weapon on him. He was rightfully handcuffed. First of all if he is to be flown to shock trauma, for example, he won't be allowed to fly without being searched and cuffed. Just because he was hit doesn't make him a nice guy all of a sudden and erase the fact he just committed several crimes including running from the police.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-14-2011, 11:18 AM
  2. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 04-05-2009, 12:37 PM
  3. All You Need To Know About Fina!
    By Blindfaith in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 05-03-2006, 07:30 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2003, 04:38 PM
  5. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-07-2002, 04:02 AM
Log in
Log in