Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Another Reason to Not Trust That Kick In Your Door

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797

    Another Reason to Not Trust That Kick In Your Door

    http://www.news9.com/story/17114410/...-home-invasion

    SNIP
    According to court documents, around 3:30 a.m. on Sunday, March 4, four to six suspects kicked in the door of an apartment at 1310 West I-240 Service Rd. claiming to be police officers and DEA agents.
    I just saw this on my local news and figured I would share it. Looks like more criminals are getting smarter and hiding behind the LEO disguise. Hopefully actual LEO stops using these practices (I know, I know) before more citizens start shooting at ANYONE who comes through their door. We've already seen multiple cases of SWAT killing people when a different method could/should have been used and it's only a matter of time before citizens actually kill LEOs because they don't believe the LEOs when they announce (while barging through the door).

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    A lot of times, the statists tell me that the public sector is responsible for innovations that the private sector either could never or would never produce. In this case, I am forced to agree: the public-sector home-invasion gangs' no-knock warrant techniques have been perfected to the point that the private-sector home-invasion gangs are picking it up.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466
    anyone. ANY one, comes across my threshold uninvited will take incoming fire

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Unhappy A sad state of affairs in our country.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockyMtnScotsman View Post
    anyone. ANY one, comes across my threshold uninvited will take incoming fire
    ^^^

    Yep! This crap of just kicking doors in with no warning/knock is only going to get innocents & LEO shot/killed. At 3AM you burst through my door chances are you will be bursted right back out!

    In the instance linked below Detroit SWAT threw a flash bang through the living room window of a home where family members were sleeping then rushed/battered the door down immediately after and entered. In the smoke and chaos that ensued, SWAT managed to shoot an unarmed 7yr old girl in the head. Later it was found that the person they thought was there was not; and that both the police department & camera crew had lied on the record as to what had really went on in the house.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051805853.html
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 03-09-2012 at 12:42 AM. Reason: link
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

  5. #5
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by RockyMtnScotsman View Post
    anyone. ANY one, comes across my threshold uninvited will take incoming fire
    See sig.


    I just picked up a 10.5" barreled 30 cal. lead accelerator...

    I was able to bumpfire it with all my rounds hitting within a 3-4 ft diameter, @ 50 yds... I should be able to keep all those @ COM ~20-30ft
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lewis Center, OH
    Posts
    137
    Well, to be frank, the police have nobody to blame but themselves. When they turned into armed gangs of thugs and disregarded our basic rights with this gestapo crap, they placed themselves directly in the line of "friendly fire". Maybe they should stop acting like their police state tactics have any place in a free society, and give up this authoritarian and highly dangerous practice. Until that happens I have no sympathy for any of them that happen to catch a 230 grain copper jacketed lead gnat from a scared little old lady who they frightened out of bed in the middle of the night. Act like criminals, get treated like criminals, no exceptions.

    It's a damn shame that they continue to kill and/or harm innocent people like this. And we can thank the "war on some drugs" and it's supporters directly for it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Not really a new development, gangs have been copying this technique for at least a few years. I remember reading a story about a homeowner killing 1 invader wearing a vest and wounding another during an attempted home invasion. I hope I never have to defend myself from such an attach, but I think I would also shoot first.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    Not really a new development, gangs have been copying this technique for at least a few years. I remember reading a story about a homeowner killing 1 invader wearing a vest and wounding another during an attempted home invasion. I hope I never have to defend myself from such an attach, but I think I would also shoot first.
    True it isn't really "new" but this was simply another example of it happening, helping to show that it is becoming more common and that only issues are going to arise from it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member lysander6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    74
    Just happened in our town here recently in southern AZ.

    See: http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/142261355.html

    Remember that knees to feet are always unarmored.

  10. #10
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander6 View Post
    Remember that knees to feet are always unarmored.
    Arm pits and hips too.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Frankly, I think the next big gun rights push, instead of castle laws and constitutional carry, ought to be laws restricting the police from no-knock and short-knock dynamic raids.

    As it stands, we have the right to own guns in the home, even as exercise of the right to meaningfully use those guns for defense within the home becomes as dangerous as the criminals themselves are.

    I can't think of a single scenario which ever happens in real life which justifies the use of such tactics. However, I'm sure we could allow exceptions for imminent hostage executions or bomb detonations, for the fantasists who believe that police might ever be in a situation to stop such occurrences.

    Incidentally, the use of such tactics is, at this point, defended solely in the name of officer safety. Nobody is willing any longer to argue that the risk of shooting an innocent grandmother is justified because someone might flush some weed down the toilet. It's just down to "officer safety" -- which is completely backwards. Ask Jarrod Shivers if kicking down doors made his job any safer. They do this stuff solely because some asshat neocon decided a "war on drugs" requires military tactics, and because suiting up in battle rattle and kicking in doors is, I quote, "better than sex".

    It is my right, understood since at least the time of Blackstone, to treat as criminals intent on harming me and my family, any person who invades my home with force. This right is necessarily implied by the right of self-defense, as was easily understood centuries ago. What good are protections from civil suit if you're dead because your right to self-defense was incomplete in the first place?
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-12-2012 at 03:22 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    Arm pits and hips too.
    Not always.

    There is more flexible armor these days.

    Best is to start center mass and let recoil guide you up to a head shot.

    They wear helmets, but face shields are not bullet proof..... and they're usually wearing some sort of breathing apparatus anyway....

    If they're behind a shield, which is all but impossible to penetrate, then you have little window, as all that will be sticking out is a hand with a pistol, followed by a bunch of guys behind it.. at that point, a frag is your best option, but it's not like people have these just laying around..

    I still think a better idea is to hook up a propane tank to jets around your doorway, and get a remote solenoid trigger... For less than 100$ you'll have a flamethrower surrounding your porch shooting out 1000 degree heat at anyone in the entryway.... with a push of a button....
    Last edited by TechnoWeenie; 03-13-2012 at 01:17 AM.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437
    I think the newsmedia is partially to blame for the stupid spin they put on stories.

    If the BGs dress up as LEOs and home invade, they focus on the BGs, not the fact that they are able to do this by copying LEO tactics which should not be in place.

    They certainly don't focus on calling for the citizens to be avenged or made whole at the expense of the 'system'.
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Adjusting tin-foil hat....

    They are facing multiple charges including impersonating an officer, burglary, kidnapping and robbery with a dangerous weapon.
    ya ever wonder why cops place impersonating an officer before any of the violent felonies? Anyone?

    Call the local TV station, heck, all the local news folks and ask them why the focus is not on the 'impersonating an officer' angle and what LE should tell homeowners on how to respond to this exact situation?

    Mr. Police Chief, what do I do when a bunch of dudes bust down my door at 3 o'clock in the morning and start yelling police? Should I defend myself or let the 'police' come in a do what they will because it might be the real police....or, it might not be the real police. Mr. Police Chief, what would you do?....What's that Mr. Police Chief? I did not get your answer to the question, what would you do in that situation?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Frankly, I think the next big gun rights push, instead of castle laws and constitutional carry, ought to be laws restricting the police from no-knock and short-knock dynamic raids.

    As it stands, we have the right to own guns in the home, even as exercise of the right to meaningfully use those guns for defense within the home becomes as dangerous as the criminals themselves are.

    I can't think of a single scenario which ever happens in real life which justifies the use of such tactics. However, I'm sure we could allow exceptions for imminent hostage executions or bomb detonations, for the fantasists who believe that police might ever be in a situation to stop such occurrences.

    Incidentally, the use of such tactics is, at this point, defended solely in the name of officer safety. Nobody is willing any longer to argue that the risk of shooting an innocent grandmother is justified because someone might flush some weed down the toilet. It's just down to "officer safety" -- which is completely backwards. Ask Jarrod Shivers if kicking down doors made his job any safer. They do this stuff solely because some asshat neocon decided a "war on drugs" requires military tactics, and because suiting up in battle rattle and kicking in doors is, I quote, "better than sex".

    It is my right, understood since at least the time of Blackstone, to treat as criminals intent on harming me and my family, any person who invades my home with force. This right is necessarily implied by the right of self-defense, as was easily understood centuries ago. What good are protections from civil suit if you're dead because your right to self-defense was incomplete in the first place?

    I agree, we must push back the watering down of basic human rights this country was founded on. We have seen the watering down of these rights over state interests, Jefferson was absolutely right that in giving courts the last say would lead to this. Instead of checks and balances we have a parasitic political system that works symbiotically together against the very hosts they were meant to protect.

    There is no scenario where I can envision a no knock raid, or even an announce and invade raid. Justice Sanders gave a brilliant dissent in our states decision to throw out our common law right to resist an unlawful arrest, talking about how we should have the right to defend ourselves against criminals even when they wear a state issued costume. And that doing so breaks our own state laws of having no duty to retreat when in a place lawful be.

    I say that our rights exist regardless of how a court "rules" or what laws the "authorities" put in place.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member gunns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    270
    Man I hope this never happens to me. My wife would be a widow and there would be some dead cops in my house. My trusty little auto goes everywhere with me, even to bed. Well ok, not in my bed but I just have to extend my arm without any stretching and its right there.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I say that our rights exist regardless of how a court "rules" or what laws the "authorities" put in place.
    It absolutely does. The problem is, if you exercise it against "the few", you will be murdered, or at best imprisoned for many many years.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by gunns View Post
    Man I hope this never happens to me. My wife would be a widow and there would be some dead cops in my house. My trusty little auto goes everywhere with me, even to bed. Well ok, not in my bed but I just have to extend my arm without any stretching and its right there.
    Using this post as an example, it might be noted than none of us want to shoot cops, or be shot in turn by them.

    But, what other choice would we have were we to be subjected to a no-knock raid based on faulty information or a wrong address? I have no reason to assume the police will be kicking down my door, so if someone kicks down my door, what do I assume?

    I don't care what charges against me might exist (not that there's any reason for any to exist), I'm not going to shoot my way out. The only way I'm going to shoot is if I think myself or my family is about to be murdered.

    Kicking down doors is simply not worth the risk for any parties involved.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-13-2012 at 12:55 PM.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...wins-approval/

    INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Senate has approved a bill laying out when residents might be legally justified in using force against police officers.

    The Senate voted 38-12 Friday night in favor of the bill that is in response to a public uproar over a state Supreme Court ruling that residents couldn't resist officers even during an illegal entry. The House later approved the bill 67-26, sending it to the governor.

    Supporters said the proposal strengthens the legal rights of people against government agents improperly entering their homes. But police groups have said they worry about the bill giving people justification for attacking officers.


    Here you go folks. The people speak and the law makers acted.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...wins-approval/

    INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Senate has approved a bill laying out when residents might be legally justified in using force against police officers.

    The Senate voted 38-12 Friday night in favor of the bill that is in response to a public uproar over a state Supreme Court ruling that residents couldn't resist officers even during an illegal entry. The House later approved the bill 67-26, sending it to the governor.

    Supporters said the proposal strengthens the legal rights of people against government agents improperly entering their homes. But police groups have said they worry about the bill giving people justification for attacking officers.


    Here you go folks. The people speak and the law makers acted.
    It's not an attack if the cops start the altercation. It's good, old fashioned self defense.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...wins-approval/

    INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Senate has approved a bill laying out when residents might be legally justified in using force against police officers.
    The comments on that article are amazing. The cops are so scared for themselves, while completely ignoring the fact that in the vast majority of wrongful home invasions, it is the CITIZENS who are in mortal danger.

    The sad fact of the matter is that most cops don't see the rest of us as human beings. We are subjects, to be intimidated or forced into compliance.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...wins-approval/

    INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Senate has approved a bill laying out when residents might be legally justified in using force against police officers.

    The Senate voted 38-12 Friday night in favor of the bill that is in response to a public uproar over a state Supreme Court ruling that residents couldn't resist officers even during an illegal entry. The House later approved the bill 67-26, sending it to the governor.

    Supporters said the proposal strengthens the legal rights of people against government agents improperly entering their homes. But police groups have said they worry about the bill giving people justification for attacking officers.


    Here you go folks. The people speak and the law makers acted.
    This is a start, but it isn't good enough. I don't want to have to shoot a cop because he mistakenly invades my home, even if it is my right. If nothing else, I still have a good chance of getting killed, even though I may be vindicated regardless.

    I want the police to stop invading homes. Laws need to be passed to prevent the police from behaving in this manner. It is intolerable in a free society. Period.

    Edit: One of the comments to which I refer below illustrates my concern perfectly:

    Quote Originally Posted by deputykeith on policeone.com
    If the state government wants citizens to get their asses kicked, so be it...It's coming. The citizens resistance will only get them killed. Law makers should not be allowed to smoke crack while pulling suicide bills out their asses.
    Like I said, this bill is not good enough. Not by a long shot. Not even within 10 miles of the finish line.

    I don't want to have to prove to "deputykeith" which of us has the greater skills and arsenal, nor do I wish to be murdered by the rest of his like-minded colleagues once I do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayowl on policeone.com
    This is a bad bill. When the police hit the wrong house, they don't normally know it. Residents using force to protect their home end up loosing. It is better to allow the police to gain control and then sort it out in a safe environment. Intruding officers need to be courteous and lose the errogant attitude. When a mistake has been made, appologize and buy them a new door. This law is going to get someone killed.
    I don't want a new door. I want to not have my life endangered by shootouts for which you are solely responsible.

    And it doesn't take a law to "embolden" me to act. I know your existence is defined by the law, but laws don't have that kind of effect on the rest of us. For most people most of the time, the law is purely a reactive force. Believe it or not, most people are good (or bad) because of their own motivations, in which the law is rarely a factor.

    What causes the shootouts are your tactics, which leave a homeowner little choice unless he is somehow psychically able to know that the individuals kicking in his door are empowered to do so by the state.

    You don't need to kick in my door, or invade my home. Ring the doorbell; I'll come to the door. Present your warrant; I won't resist.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-14-2012 at 08:31 AM.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    The comments on that article are amazing. The cops are so scared for themselves, while completely ignoring the fact that in the vast majority of wrongful home invasions, it is the CITIZENS who are in mortal danger.

    The sad fact of the matter is that most cops don't see the rest of us as human beings. We are subjects, to be intimidated or forced into compliance.
    Wow. I almost didn't look, but then when I saw what site it was on, I decided to take a glance.

    I have to say, I am stunned. Speechless. I don't even know how to respond to what I read there. Those cops could teach most Mad Mothers a thing or two about shrill, blood-in-the-streets predictions and emotional appeals to safety. Wow. Just wow.

    "Us vs them", indeed.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-13-2012 at 06:49 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Hypothetical:

    What happens to LE when they hit a house, wrongly and illegally, that has a highly trained combat veteran who does not think about his personal safety but gaining the tactical advantage with the use of superior tactics, equipment, skill and firepower? More of these heroes are coming home everyday.

    What will be ironic is that the tragic loss of life experienced by the invading LEOs at the hands of a law abiding citizen, rightfully defending his home, will be found to have been justified, and the cops will be shown to have broken the law. It will be a lose-lose situation.

    Originally Posted by Grayowl on policeone.com
    This is a bad bill.
    Only bad for LE given their anti-citizen and anti-liberty proclivities.

    When the police hit the wrong house, they don't normally know it.
    Don't normally know it???? Do you mean that cops sometimes knowingly hit the wrong house. Do you mean that the cops know they are going to hit the wrong house and then hit the house anyway?

    This is all ya need to know folks.

    IF, and after your statement, a BIG IF, the cops do not know 'it', then incompetence is no excuse. Due diligence Mr. Grayowl....due diligence. Most 1st graders know this concept, it is called homework. Taking a few extra minutes to ensure you got your work done correctly. Because, not checking your work results in undesirable consequences. Though, I have my doubts on whether or not cops are interested in any consequences considering cops can murder innocent citizens and not be subject to any meaningful consequences....Seattle PD comes to mind.

    Some other cop tosses a no-knock warrant your way and you just saddle-up, hit the road and go full tactical. Because you KNOW that a mistake by a fellow cop is impossible. Because the clerk, who typed up the no-knock warrant would never make a mistake. Because every 'informant' is 100% reliable 100% of the time.

    Residents using force to protect their home end up loosing. It is better to allow the police to gain control and then sort it out in a safe environment.
    Safe for who? Certainly not the homeowner. Time and again you and your fellow thugs have been documented to not give a single seconds thought to the innocent residents whose homes you invade. As you so nonchalantly admit below, intruders you truly are.

    Intruding officers need to be courteous and lose the arrogant attitude. When a mistake has been made, apologize and buy them a new door. This law is going to get someone killed.
    New door? Really? That is all it takes, as far as you are concerned, to make things right for your illegal actions, a new door. No consideration of the physical and emotional trauma inflicted upon the residents for your illegal actions? No consideration for the life long emotional scars inflicted upon any children? No consideration for the new realization by the residents that cops can be more of a threat than the criminals? No consideration for the distrust of cops in that neighborhood?

    No Mr. Grayowl, your concerns for this 'bad bill' is self serving, anti-citizen and anti-liberty. I see you for who and what you are. A thug cop.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I just read about half of the posts over a http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...wins-approval/

    For some strange reason, 99.9% of the cops posting there seem to think that Indiana has laws that 'prevent' them from making a mistake.

    rlcarroll on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 05:22 AM Pacific - There are already laws on the books that protect the citizens of Indiana from officers making unlawful entries and wrongful arrests.
    No, there is nothing that prevent officers from doing anything illegal other than the officer's training and conscience. There are laws that may permit a wronged citizen to possibly, though highly unlikely, gain redress of wrongs committed by state sanctioned thugs.

    This line of thought is rampant amongst LE. And, narry a thought given to the obvious alternative....just don't do no-knock raids.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •