|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 16:36:20 GMT -5
frag -Yes
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 16:40:20 GMT -5
The house burned down...that you do know at this point, however, you don't know if it was caused by the tear gas.
"The cause of the fire is still unknown, but Felton said Wednesday authorities fired several canisters of tear gas into the building shortly before the fire broke out at 6 p.m.
"We're not saying it can absolutely not cause a fire, but it's not constructed to cause a fire," he said of the gas."
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Apr 27, 2007 16:44:09 GMT -5
just heard on the news, a state trooper in new york was killed by friendly fire and the house burned down by a tear gas round.....BUT WAIT werent we told years ago that tear gas could NOT have started the fire in waco? ? even though they also used flash bang grenades! I just did a search for the story you might be talking about, and all I'm getting are links to a story I read about yesterday (regarding State Troopers, NY, tear gas & shootings). Maybe there's another news event, but I don't believe friendly fire had anything to with the only case like this I can find from the recent past. New York Trooper Dead, Another Hurt In ManhuntPolice could not immediately confirm the body was that of Travis D. Trim, a 23-year-old from northern New York suspected of shooting the troopers. Police had been looking for him since a trooper was shot during a routine traffic stop Tuesday in rural upstate New York.
Preston Felton, acting superintendent of the New York State Police, said there was a ``reasonable degree of certainty'' that Trim was hiding in the unoccupied house in Delaware County when the fire broke out.
``I can't tell you whether he was dead or alive when the fire started,'' Felton said at a news conference late Wednesday.
That was just one of the questions investigators were trying to answer.
Among the others: Had the non-incendiary tear gas canisters fired into the house by troopers ignited _ or fed _ the blaze? Had the person set the fire to cover an escape attempt? ...
...The pursuit began Tuesday, after a trooper stopped Trim in a stolen minivan for a minor traffic infraction in the Margaretville area, about 65 miles southwest of Albany.
When Trim failed to provide identification, Trooper Matthew Gombosi told him he was under arrest, Felton said. Then, he said, Trim pulled a handgun from his waistband and shot Gombosi. Gombosi's body armor kept him from being seriously injured, but the suspect escaped, police said.
Police swept the area and found the stolen Dodge Caravan abandoned on a road in nearby Middletown.
The farmhouse where Trim apparently holed up, in a hamlet called Arkville, is on a property that includes two red barns. Neighbors described it as a weekend residence.
Wednesday morning, Troopers David C. Brinkerhoff and Richard Mattson were shot while searching the farmhouse, Felton said.
Brinkerhoff, who was shot in the head, died shortly after the shooting. Mattson, wounded in the left arm, was in serious but stable condition after surgery at Albany Medical Center, where he had been taken by helicopter. ...
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 27, 2007 16:47:53 GMT -5
i posted what the news on 101.1 said...they said it was friendly fire the round that killed them came from a police weapon.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 16:53:05 GMT -5
2001 incident: "BROOKS: Absolutely. The object is to get the subject to come out and to make sure no one else gets hurt, including the suspect. And again, the decision is made by the incident commander on the scene to introduce tear gas.
But let me point out that there are different kinds of tear gas. You have the burning pyrotechnic kind, which most professional law enforcement agencies will only use outside -- for demonstrations, civil disobedience, those kinds of things. Now, there are liquid CS gas that many departments use to introduce them into a house, but most departments now, I would say 99.9 percent of the professional tactical teams in the country, now use non-burning munitions when they're firing into the house. "transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/31/bn.16.htmlFrag, your link states that the tear gas was "non-incendiary tear gas canisters". I guess they either are or not, should be easy to test.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 27, 2007 18:39:09 GMT -5
So, if you run across habjeeb with a suitcase bomb....you won't do anything because he hasn't done anything yet? Solid par on that hole. Good analogy.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 27, 2007 18:43:44 GMT -5
Again we forget one of these guys was a "fugitive." Does that not make the rest of these guys criminals? Yes, one was a fugitive from justice. One had 100 marijuana plants. And one admitted that he was a drug addict. A lot of people seem to be trying to place blame with regards to the kid that shot up VA Tech by making the argument that, "They should have seen the signs!" Well, what are the signs of a disaster waiting to happen? Perhaps a fugitive, a drug trafficker, and an addict manufacturing and stockpiling IED's, grenades, machine guns, and rocket launchers?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 18:50:02 GMT -5
brandon -
Now that was a hole in one. I guess they should have waited for a manifesto to appear and then do something.
Who knows, these guys probably sent a media package and got the whole address wrong and it went to ABC liquors in Maryland. They didn't look like English majors.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 27, 2007 18:55:00 GMT -5
They didn't look like English majors. Which ones? You mean Cletus, Rufus, Bubba, and Bubba Jr?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 18:57:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 27, 2007 19:03:43 GMT -5
I believe half of you guys would drop dead of heart attacks hiding under your beds with soiled superman underwear if this country were invaded. The people of California appeared to think nothing about a 15 day waiting period to by a gun until the LA riots broke out with peoples' businesses (lively hood) were being burned and looted, people having bricks thrown into their windows while driving through streets and getting brutally beat and killed.
Some of you weak minded zombies make me sick. You need the government to come stomp your --------- heads into the ground. You need a bunch of jack booted thugs to slam your face into the concrete and disarm you. It makes me sick to live in the same state as a bunch of you panzies!
I feel sorry for your women and children that think that you are actual men. You guys wear lace panties. You guys would probably let some DHR woman take your children over a spanking without a fight.
You bunch of cowards. What is your line in the sand? What would it actually take for you to defend yourself against your own government? You are nothing but cattle to some politicians why do you fear them so much? We all have to die sometime, why not live like MEN?
Weak, weak, weak.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 27, 2007 19:08:50 GMT -5
I believe half of you guys would drop dead of heart attacks hiding under your beds with soiled superman underwear if this country were invaded. Only half of us? Care to make a list of who belongs in the silk laced panties bracket and which of us belongs in the manly group?
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 27, 2007 19:17:09 GMT -5
I believe half of you guys would drop dead of heart attacks hiding under your beds with soiled superman underwear if this country were invaded. Only half of us? Care to make a list of who belongs in the silk laced panties bracket and which of us belongs in the manly group? What I said is plain. If I had a room full of bombs, grenades, RPGs, automatic weapons they would rot if they were never needed just like everything else I have. These guys were reported to have not have any plots against anyone. If the weapons were for self defense it is all fine and dandy in my book and the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers would agree with me. I wish America still had plenty of men like them.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 19:18:08 GMT -5
solomon
Could you explain to me how the country will be invaded without our military not able to respond? I know you have watched Red Dawn over 38 times but unless the last book of the "Left Behind" series involves the Military of the United States being raptured away for war down the road, I don't think it is going to happen.
There are things called Satellites and they don't let one piss ant Private from a foreign army walk 10 paces in our direction without being scanned. How you think an army is going to make it's way across the ocean, whithout being spotted is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 19:36:39 GMT -5
As a side note, don't know if anybody noticed, but James A. Garfield has been reincarnated and was living in a trailer with no running water or electricity and was sitting atop a mountain of cherry bombs and bottle rockets. Since he switched allegiances nobody recognized him.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 27, 2007 19:53:13 GMT -5
solomon Could you explain to me how the country will be invaded without our military not able to respond? I know you have watched Red Dawn over 38 times but unless the last book of the "Left Behind" series involves the Military of the United States being raptured away for war down the road, I don't think it is going to happen. There are things called Satellites and they don't let one piss ant Private from a foreign army walk 10 paces in our direction without being scanned. How you think an army is going to make it's way across the ocean, without being spotted is crazy. It is possible for us to be invaded. The tyrants of old sent away their boys to fight in foreign wars and they hired mercenaries to come kick in the citizens faces. If our military has to spread itself so thin to keep invading the middle east it would not be to unthinkable for the government to call other governments and mercenaries to come here and do the dirty deeds. It seems you can't remember what happened during Katrina. Let's see: 1-The US hired Black Water mercenaries to help out for security in New Orleans. 2- Mexico Troops came over to assist. 3-National Guard units and Police went door to door taking guns from law abiding Americans. Gun Confiscation caught on tape. Granny gets her gun taken from her when she needed it most and Americans are left handcuffed on the curb like criminals while the government stole their guns at gunpoint. And its all on video.........................................watch it and see for yourself. www.gunowners.org/notb.htmI wish I was wrong about this but I'm afraid truth is stranger than fiction at times.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Apr 27, 2007 19:55:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 27, 2007 19:57:36 GMT -5
Read Murphy's Laws of Combat. He said friendly fire is never friendly.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 27, 2007 20:13:18 GMT -5
I did some research on this (courtesy of Wikipedia) and found out something "Verrrrrrrey Interesting" (as Arte Johnson might say). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_ActThe National Firearms Act of 1934 didn't outright ban the ownership of various firearms and what they called "destructive devices" (hand grenades, IEDs and the like). It did mandate an application for ownership process that includes a very extensive background check and called for a very high fee- $200 was five months salary on average in 1934- for each weapon so owned. Here's what is very interesting.... The statue was challenged in the case United States v. Miller and the US District Court for Western Arkansas ruled the statute unconstitutional! The government argued that a short-barrelled shotgun owned by Miller was not a military weapon and thus would not qualify as a weapon the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment would've carried. That's a rather interesting argument for the government to make, saying only weapons used by a "militia"- i.e. the military- should be unregulated. Being that the types of weapons the military uses tends to change over time, that would seem to open up a huge can of worms. Would the government argue that a recoilless rifle should not be regulated because it is a weapon themilitary uses? How about an M1-A1 tank? Anyone want a Harrier? The government appealed- and this is what I find astonishing: The District Court ruling was overturned on a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court (see United States v. Miller). No brief was filed on behalf of the defendants, and the defendants themselves did not appear before the Supreme Court. No evidence that such a firearm was "ordinary military equipment" had been presented at the trial court (apparently because the case had been thrown out -- at the defendants' request -- before evidence could be presented), and the Supreme Court indicated it could not take judicial notice of such a contention.
The Supreme Court ruled that the NFA provision (criminalizing possession of certain firearms) was not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Subsequent rulings have been allowed to stand, indicating that short-barreled shotguns are generally recognized as ordinary military equipment if briefs are filed (e.g., see: Cases v. United States[6]), describing use of short-barreled shotguns in specialized military units.) So Miller chose not to even attempt to make his case to SCOTUS, reason unknown (or at least not explained in the Wikipedia entry). I'm sure that SCOTUS has closed that window of opportunity for challenge in rulings since then, but it would appear that there was a time that the judicial system was willing to let the right to bear arms be absolute, had a defendant stuck to principal to the end. As for my personal feelings on the issue, I can certainly see where solomon is coming from. I think the evidence is pretty clear that the Founders envisioned an armed populace as the last bulwark against the tyranny of their own government. However, I tend to think that the pro-gun crowd does itself the same sort of disservice that the pro-abortion crowd, namely that it does not tolerate even the slightest infringement upon what they feel is an absolute right. In the same way that the pro-abortion forces raved hysterically against the partial-birth abortion ban being upheld by SCOTUS as a slippery slope towards the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the pro-gun forces rail hysterically against the prohibition against free and unfettered ownership of fully authomatic assault rifles with barrel magazines and home-made hand grenades. Both groups are overreeacting, in my opinion, against common-sense and reasonable restrictions against their pet agendas. Partial-birth abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. A fully-automatic AK-47 with hollow point ammo is never necessary to go duck hunting.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 27, 2007 20:20:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 27, 2007 20:34:51 GMT -5
I did some research on this (courtesy of Wikipedia) and found out something "Verrrrrrrey Interesting" (as Arte Johnson might say). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_ActThe National Firearms Act of 1934 didn't outright ban the ownership of various firearms and what they called "destructive devices" (hand grenades, IEDs and the like). It did mandate an application for ownership process that includes a very extensive background check and called for a very high fee- $200 was five months salary on average in 1934- for each weapon so owned. Here's what is very interesting.... The statue was challenged in the case United States v. Miller and the US District Court for Western Arkansas ruled the statute unconstitutional! The government argued that a short-barrelled shotgun owned by Miller was not a military weapon and thus would not qualify as a weapon the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment would've carried. That's a rather interesting argument for the government to make, saying only weapons used by a "militia"- i.e. the military- should be unregulated. Being that the types of weapons the military uses tends to change over time, that would seem to open up a huge can of worms. Would the government argue that a recoilless rifle should not be regulated because it is a weapon themilitary uses? How about an M1-A1 tank? Anyone want a Harrier? The government appealed- and this is what I find astonishing: The District Court ruling was overturned on a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court (see United States v. Miller). No brief was filed on behalf of the defendants, and the defendants themselves did not appear before the Supreme Court. No evidence that such a firearm was "ordinary military equipment" had been presented at the trial court (apparently because the case had been thrown out -- at the defendants' request -- before evidence could be presented), and the Supreme Court indicated it could not take judicial notice of such a contention.
The Supreme Court ruled that the NFA provision (criminalizing possession of certain firearms) was not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Subsequent rulings have been allowed to stand, indicating that short-barreled shotguns are generally recognized as ordinary military equipment if briefs are filed (e.g., see: Cases v. United States[6]), describing use of short-barreled shotguns in specialized military units.) So Miller chose not to even attempt to make his case to SCOTUS, reason unknown (or at least not explained in the Wikipedia entry). I'm sure that SCOTUS has closed that window of opportunity for challenge in rulings since then, but it would appear that there was a time that the judicial system was willing to let the right to bear arms be absolute, had a defendant stuck to principal to the end. As for my personal feelings on the issue, I can certainly see where Solomon is coming from. I think the evidence is pretty clear that the Founders envisioned an armed populace as the last bulwark against the tyranny of their own government. However, I tend to think that the pro-gun crowd does itself the same sort of disservice that the pro-abortion crowd, namely that it does not tolerate even the slightest infringement upon what they feel is an absolute right. In the same way that the pro-abortion forces raved hysterically against the partial-birth abortion ban being upheld by SCOTUS as a slippery slope towards the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the pro-gun forces rail hysterically against the prohibition against free and unfettered ownership of fully authomatic assault rifles with barrel magazines and home-made hand grenades. Both groups are overreeacting, in my opinion, against common-sense and reasonable restrictions against their pet agendas. Partial-birth abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. A fully-automatic AK-47 with hollow point ammo is never necessary to go duck hunting. The 1986 Machine Gun Act is the latest gun law that has basically made it the most difficult to own them. % years ago you could buy a full auto AK or M-16 for around $2,000 - $5,000. But now they are around $16,000 or more. The 1st Amendment allows us free speech. that means we can write thousands of books if we want without limitations. That may seem to be alot for folks who have nothing to write about and the same goes for the 2nd Amendment. If you don't want an automatic weapon fine, you don't have to have one but if someone wants one I see no reason why somebody's God given right to self defense should be limited. Just because something may APPEAR to be extreme does not mean it is wrong. The Lord Jesus was extreme about his love for sinners but that does not mean he is wrong. I love my wife, daughter,family and friends to the extreme. Being extreme is meaningless when discussing one's rights to self defense. If the Government and everyone else is so worried about someone wanting to defend themselves they should cancel their plans on attacking, stealing, killing and taxing people to death. I wish we could snap our fingers and fix the problem but we are up to our necks in useless laws.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 27, 2007 20:39:49 GMT -5
As for my personal feelings on the issue, I can certainly see where solomon is coming from. I think the evidence is pretty clear that the Founders envisioned an armed populace as the last bulwark against the tyranny of their own government. A fully-automatic AK-47 with hollow point ammo is never necessary to go duck hunting. Amen. Let us remember the 2nd Amendment was never about hunting.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 27, 2007 20:50:52 GMT -5
We ought to get every neighbor hood to start a militia just so the feds would have a hard time infiltrating everyone. Ha Ha Ha that would be funny. Every store should add militia to its title. We should mention buzzwords like terrorism, assassinate, tomorrow is the big day, we'll make them pay for this with their life and talk about exotic weapons every three minutes on the phones, emails, text messages and letters. They would be so over whelmed they could not see straight. LOL!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 27, 2007 20:57:50 GMT -5
WAFF 48 Called these guys an "Anti-Government Hate Group" earlier today. Lets keep our eyes open for some "truthful" investigations into the matter. But they will not read the 2nd Amendment over the air to save someone's life.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 21:50:24 GMT -5
Solomon,
I see that you won't admit that a foreign army would not be able to invade America without our military doing something about it. Instead you bring up New Orleans and link to an old lady that had a gun taken from her.
The city of New Orleans was to be evacuated. That was the order. The confiscation of some weapons was the result of the evacuation, not the focus of the action. Now, I have more of a problem with them forcing people out of the city, I will explain later, but let's look at the situation, those people had to leave and they were not going to leave carrying their weapons.
You are a cop, do you or would you put people in the back of your car and allow them to take their guns with them? Didn't think so.
Back to the old lady and taking people out of that city by force. I am torn between two thoughts in relation to this. My first thought is that if people want to be so stupid to stay at a house with no electricity, water, ability for medical care, and a dwindling supply of food, then let them stay and die. My second thought is that some of these people, like that old lady in the video, are not thinking right and it would be the wrong thing to allow somebody to harm themselves under those conditions, when they are not rational. That is the very tiny liberal side of my thinking. I can understand that thought process, in fact look at what happened, look at what the complaints of the New Orleans people were, they didn't get proper help to get the hell out of there and taken to safety. Imagine if the "authorities" said, we asked people to come out and they didn't, so we are not going to do anything. People would be up in arms about that old lady and all the other old ladies that would be found later, DEAD and would have said that they should have used force if necessary, to get them out of there.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 27, 2007 21:51:39 GMT -5
solomon-
I'm just pointing out that the opportunity to overturn the 1934 law was in 1934. It died when Miller, for whatever reason (and I'd love to find out why) didn't follow through with the case.
FDR hadn't intimidated SCOTUS by then to the extent he later did whereby they'd basically rubber stamp all of his unconstitutional expansions of government power and reach.
I don't think it is categorically impossible to roll back the laws infringing on the Second Amendment, but it'd be even tougher to do than to roll back Roe.
You don't have an organized group of any real size that advocates absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership. Maybe there are a few but I'm ignorant of them. Even the NRA accepts some restrictions and they are the largest mainstream gun rights group of which I am aware.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 22:06:17 GMT -5
As for my personal feelings on the issue, I can certainly see where solomon is coming from. I think the evidence is pretty clear that the Founders envisioned an armed populace as the last bulwark against the tyranny of their own government. A fully-automatic AK-47 with hollow point ammo is never necessary to go duck hunting. Amen. Let us remember the 2nd Amendment was never about hunting. There seems to be a missing, "However", along with the comments that follow. w.o.m.i - I agree with your constitutional statement along with the "however" comments. I do however, want to add the following thought to this discussion. As a free society with a constitutional right to bear arms, we tolerate, to a large degree, the abuse of this right by people in our society. Would we and should we do the same, if the abuse included grenades, rocket launchers, IEDs, Ryder truck bombs.....? Should we allow citizens the right to have these types of self defense weapons, we will have to tolerate their abuse along with it.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 22:16:55 GMT -5
w.o.m.i. be one of the 50 people. You may find some answers here. The answer to your question is in there. Let me know if you don't see it. It's an interesting read. www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 28, 2007 0:22:24 GMT -5
We ought to get every neighbor hood to start a militia just so the feds would have a hard time infiltrating everyone. Ha Ha Ha that would be funny. Every store should add militia to its title. We should mention buzzwords like terrorism, assassinate, tomorrow is the big day, we'll make them pay for this with their life and talk about exotic weapons every three minutes on the phones, emails, text messages and letters. They would be so over whelmed they could not see straight. LOL!!!!! Or maybe we could convince every citizen to drive too fast or park in the fooking yellow lanes and give all of you ticket writers fits all day long. All of your attempts to collect taxes on behalf of the city by writing tickets for piddly shit would be useless. Wouldn't that be funny? I thought it would be. You wage your war to screw up the fed's efforts to stop major crimes, and I'll in turn wage a war against piddly traffic cops and their trivial fooking efforts to be tax collectors for the city. Deal? LOL! Wait, I think I just saw someone with a roach in their ashtray... Better spend all night looking for them! Go track them down, Ponch!
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 28, 2007 2:02:29 GMT -5
Solomon, I see that you won't admit that a foreign army would not be able to invade America without our military doing something about it. The way things are going our troops are enforcing UN law and are becoming more and more foreign. We might not have to be invaded by foreigners if the National Guard and Police are willing to commit treason against their own citizens. The old lady did not appear to be crazy and there is no evidence to prove she was. Neither were the numerous other people who were disarmed in all of those video clips. I think America is beginning to stink more and more amongst the international community by the totally bogus war in Iraq. No evidence of WMDs or programs for WMDs. We went against the UN to go to war with Iraq (I could care less about the UN but I just say that to show we have spit in the face of the international community). Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, France, and numerous other countries hate our guts and it is not difficult to forsee that a coalition against the US would not be impossible. Many people have commented on China's huge military for years and many peoples' objection has been "yeah but how can they get them over here without an adequate navy and now low and behold China is increasing their spending on their navy as we speak. Instead you bring up New Orleans and link to an old lady that had a gun taken from her. The city of New Orleans was to be evacuated. That was the order. Any constitutional reference for this authority? The confiscation of some weapons was the result of the evacuation, not the focus of the action. Who cares whether it was the focus or not? They did it. If I murdered a man in the course of burglarizing his house that in no way diminishes from the severity of my crimes. If his murder was the "result of the" burglary and "not the focus of the action" it does not make a hill of beans. They confiscated people's self defense tools at one of the most dangerous times in their history. Soldiers do not even have the authority take quarter in someone's residence in a time of war according to the constitution (except for a manner prescribed BY LAW, not FEMA's commands) much less force them from their residences after disarming them. A federal judge ruled that the gun confiscations were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Now, I have more of a problem with them forcing people out of the city, I will explain later, but let's look at the situation, those people had to leave and they were not going to leave carrying their weapons. I have more of a problem with a federal government that will come to my house with MACHINE GUNS POINTED AT ME acting like they want to save me. That is contradictory to reason and logic and common sense. This makes me think about all of the Cubans who drowned in the ocean on rafts after Cuba was "liberated". Those folks really did not want "liberation" just like those folks in New Orleans did not want to be "helped" by being surrounded by agents with sub-guns "looking out for their best interests". You are a cop, do you or would you put people in the back of your car and allow them to take their guns with them? Didn't think so. Clarification: I am a cop that can read. I read the Constitution and swore to uphold and defend it. I would not force someone from their home because it is not constitutional. If they refused to leave what law could I arrest them for violating? There is no law in any state that requires people to forsake their houses because some cop or guardsman said so. So that is not a valid point. Back to the old lady and taking people out of that city by force. I am torn between two thoughts in relation to this. Don't get too "torn" about it because that old lady has lived her entire adult life making decisions for herself and she does not any thugs to start making any for her now. If she wanted to stay there and face the risks that is her decision and we could not be held liable for her actions. That is the very tiny liberal side of my thinking. I can see that. Use the other side from now on. It will get you a lot further in life.
|
|