A buddy of mine was threatened for OC today

FallonJeeper · Jan 1, 2013

MAC702 said:
Where are you from?

You are in the NV forum.

That's exactly what I was thinking. There are a wide range of choices that could have been made. The OP's friend chose to hide in a locked vehicle until the threat went away. He may not be so lucky next time he's approached.

He has no duty to retreat per

NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

2. A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

(a) Is not the original aggressor;

(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

[1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518; 2011, 265)

Also preventing great bodily harm is an excuse for killing in self defense.

NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

[1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]

Granted, he would be charged, and would have to prove this, contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty". But better that than crippled, or dead.

And... Of course you shouldn't pull your firearm unless you intend to use it. But, you don't always have to shoot if you pull your firearm out of it's holster. If the situation de-escalates and the loud mouth, making threats, stops, and walks away, re-holster. No harm, no foul, and before anybody says it, it's not brandishing if you pull your weapon on a valid threat.

Citizen · Jan 1, 2013

FallonJeeper said:
SNIP ... it's not brandishing if you pull your weapon on a valid threat.

Especially when the threaten-er is telling you he's going to arm himself with your gun, then use it to assault you.

Not making a statement of established law here; just an evaluation of the circumstances and reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them.

oc4ever · Jan 1, 2013

shooting unarmed assailants

Citizen said:
Especially when the threaten-er is telling you he's going to arm himself with your gun, then use it to assault you.

Not making a statement of established law here; just an evaluation of the circumstances and reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them.

I am not saying that this person would have been found guiity of anything should he used his gun, but why even think of gun use when retreat was a viable option(and used). Some of you guys have been watching to many Hollywood movies. The Prosecuters are going to eat you for lunch on the witness stand if you make any statements at all to the police that the guy was unarmed and just told you that he was going to kick your ass or take the gun away. That is a crappy misdemeanor at worst, nothing rising to deadly force defense. From the Police's point of view, you would have killed a unarmed co-worker. HE WAS NOT BEING ATTACKED BY MULTIPLE ASSAILANTS IN THIS CASE, so that someone could have snuck up on him were not the facts here. What I am saying is the LEO's are more than likely going to arrest you . They do not view the world through rose colored glasses or follow opencarry.org. Remember you had a gun and the other guy just had a big mouth. If you want to take your chances with a brandishing charge, or if you kill the guy, a possible manslaugter / murder charge , go ahead and do what you need to do. We have a very well known case in Florida going right now where a armed man shot a unarmed man(crook) in a state that has a good no-retreat statue. That man, George , even if acquitted with be financially ruined by the legal fees and lawsuit which will follow. Guns for self defense have limited but important time sensitive uses. Defending yourself from a big mouth or bully is not one of the correct uses IMHO. If you personally know a DA or criminal defense lawyer, ask him about the circumstances described, and see what he says.

turborich · Jan 1, 2013

I'm just glad the big mouth left and the situation ended well for my friend.

If it were me in this same situation I think instead of retreating into the car I would have taken a few steps back and had my hand on my firearm. If at which time there was any way to get out of the situation such as continuing to create a safe distance then I would have done this. I don't fault my friend for his actions as they worked for him and it's a tough spot to be in. We can all talk about it until it actually happens to one of us.

It just really sucks that jerks with his mindset are out there.

wrightme · Jan 1, 2013

oc4ever said:
I am not saying that this person would have been found guiity of anything should he used his gun, but why even think of gun use when retreat was a viable option(and used). Some of you guys have been watching to many Hollywood movies. The Prosecuters are going to eat you for lunch on the witness stand if you make any statements at all to the police that the guy was unarmed and just told you that he was going to kick your ass or take the gun away. That is a crappy misdemeanor at worst, nothing rising to deadly force defense. From the Police's point of view, you would have killed a unarmed co-worker. HE WAS NOT BEING ATTACKED BY MULTIPLE ASSAILANTS IN THIS CASE, so that someone could have snuck up on him were not the facts here. What I am saying is the LEO's are more than likely going to arrest you . They do not view the world through rose colored glasses or follow opencarry.org. Remember you had a gun and the other guy just had a big mouth. If you want to take your chances with a brandishing charge, or if you kill the guy, a possible manslaugter / murder charge , go ahead and do what you need to do. We have a very well known case in Florida going right now where a armed man shot a unarmed man(crook) in a state that has a good no-retreat statue. That man, George , even if acquitted with be financially ruined by the legal fees and lawsuit which will follow. Guns for self defense have limited but important time sensitive uses. Defending yourself from a big mouth or bully is not one of the correct uses IMHO. If you personally know a DA or criminal defense lawyer, ask him about the circumstances described, and see what he says.

NO, you are simply talking out your ass.

You should actually read the Nevada statutes that have been posted.

The point of this thread is nothing like the Zimmerman case.

And, the point of even thinking of using a gun, is to mentally prepare for the possibility. It makes sense to mentally prepare, given the time sensitive nature of response; as you indicate. If you are so against using firearms for defense, why are you here?

Oh, and where is the statute defining the 'brandishing' charge you claim he would be charged with?

FallonJeeper · Jan 1, 2013

oc4ever said:
I am not saying that this person would have been found guiity of anything should he used his gun, but why even think of gun use when retreat was a viable option(and used). Some of you guys have been watching to many Hollywood movies. The Prosecuters are going to eat you for lunch on the witness stand if you make any statements at all to the police that the guy was unarmed and just told you that he was going to kick your ass or take the gun away. That is a crappy misdemeanor at worst, nothing rising to deadly force defense. From the Police's point of view, you would have killed a unarmed co-worker. HE WAS NOT BEING ATTACKED BY MULTIPLE ASSAILANTS IN THIS CASE, so that someone could have snuck up on him were not the facts here. What I am saying is the LEO's are more than likely going to arrest you . They do not view the world through rose colored glasses or follow opencarry.org. Remember you had a gun and the other guy just had a big mouth. If you want to take your chances with a brandishing charge, or if you kill the guy, a possible manslaugter / murder charge , go ahead and do what you need to do. We have a very well known case in Florida going right now where a armed man shot a unarmed man(crook) in a state that has a good no-retreat statue. That man, George , even if acquitted with be financially ruined by the legal fees and lawsuit which will follow. Guns for self defense have limited but important time sensitive uses. Defending yourself from a big mouth or bully is not one of the correct uses IMHO. If you personally know a DA or criminal defense lawyer, ask him about the circumstances described, and see what he says.

First, we're talking about Nevada law, not Florida.

Second, I think the point was made that while retreat is always best, it's not always an option.

Thirdly, There is no "Brandishing Law" in Nevada per say. There is however, the following and in order to be charged "rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self-defense" must be an element:

NRS 202.320 Drawing deadly weapon in threatening manner.

1. Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person having, carrying or procuring from another person any dirk, dirk-knife, sword, sword cane, pistol, gun or other deadly weapon, who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits any of such deadly weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self-defense, or who in any manner unlawfully uses that weapon in any fight or quarrel, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

2. A sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, constable or other peace officer shall not be held to answer, under the provisions of subsection 1, for drawing or exhibiting any of the weapons mentioned therein while in the lawful discharge of his duties.

[1911 C&P § 174; RL § 6439; NCL § 10121]—(NRS A 1967, 486; 1989, 1240)

You don't go from being prepared to pull your firearm to pulling your firearm, to firing your firearm with making some serious decisions along the way. If you don't know what situation warrants each step, then perhaps carrying a firerarm isn't meant for you.

And...my District Attorney gives the CCW class in my county. He agrees with my statement above. An attacker doesn't need a firearm to be an attacker. While it would make an easier case to defend.

If you believe avoiding some conflict or the possibilty of being arrested and going to jail, for defending yourself within the guidelines of the law is more important than your life/health then maybe you should work in a safe environment and avoid bad guys. Good luck with that one.

It's easy to arm chair quarterback the scenarios, but when the situation is in your face, hopefully you'll make the best decision.

MAC702 · Jan 1, 2013

turborich said:
...It just really sucks that jerks with his mindset are out there.

These are the same kids that tease and bully other kids in elementary school and we let them get away with it because it was no big deal back then.

oc4ever · Jan 1, 2013

FallonJeeper said:
First, we're talking about Nevada law, not Florida.

Second, I think the point was made that while retreat is always best, it's not always an option.

Thirdly, There is no "Brandishing Law" in Nevada per say. There is however, the following and in order to be charged "rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self-defense" must be an element:

NRS 202.320 Drawing deadly weapon in threatening manner.

1. Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person having, carrying or procuring from another person any dirk, dirk-knife, sword, sword cane, pistol, gun or other deadly weapon, who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits any of such deadly weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self-defense, or who in any manner unlawfully uses that weapon in any fight or quarrel, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

2. A sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, constable or other peace officer shall not be held to answer, under the provisions of subsection 1, for drawing or exhibiting any of the weapons mentioned therein while in the lawful discharge of his duties.

[1911 C&P § 174; RL § 6439; NCL § 10121]—(NRS A 1967, 486; 1989, 1240)

You don't go from being prepared to pull your firearm to pulling your firearm, to firing your firearm with making some serious decisions along the way. If you don't know what situation warrants each step, then perhaps carrying a firerarm isn't meant for you.

And...my District Attorney gives the CCW class in my county. He agrees with my statement above. An attacker doesn't need a firearm to be an attacker. While it would make an easier case to defend.

If you believe avoiding some conflict or the possibilty of being arrested and going to jail, for defending yourself within the guidelines of the law is more important than your life/health then maybe you should work in a safe environment and avoid bad guys. Good luck with that one.

It's easy to arm chair quarterback the scenarios, but when the situation is in your face, hopefully you'll make the best decision.

If you think "YOUR" District Attorney is going to be on your side if a deadly shooting has a racial "flair" to it, and the press gets all over the story. Ask Mr Zimmerman how that worked out for him, even though the little punk involved was hardly a innocent victim. No Nevada is not Florida, but you are risking your future freedom on the decision and whims of a elected politician on whether to prosecute, he will throw you over the cliff without much thought. Though I wish to keep my previous experience in this matter out of this forum, I again suggest that you all seek more detailed legal advice from someone that works in the justice system near you. We are all responsible for our actions, and drawing a gun in a real world situation is the absolute last option you should take. If it comes down to your life or the other guys, that is a easy choice, fire away. It is very rare for a fist fight to result in death and thats what a prosectutor will tell a jury, however if the big mouth goes for your gun, I agree he is a dead man. The important issue, is not to get yourself that far backed into a tatical corner corner without being able to excercize any other options but to shoot. Any way to deescalate the situation should be the paramount thing to do. Acting meek and non confrontational and keep backing up( or running). Remember, you are the guy with the gun, and can use it anytime the situation goes down hill. If you ran away from the scene and the bad guy chased you down is a much better defense to a jury or prosecutor than holding your ground like a TOUGH GUY against a unarmed man. I have had 3 times in my life that I could have prevented armed robberies and killed the bad guy. I chose to let the other person get robbed and be a good witness for the police. Nobody got hurt and all three victims lost less than $!50 dollars in total. That was my choice. I could have played Dirty Harry and lawfully executed the crooks. Two other people in this world made the mistake on trying to use deadly weapons against me. Those results were a bit different. And no, the police were never called, and I don't need them to give me permission to draw a gun, so I am not afraid to defend myself if the occasion arises. My experience is only offered as a warning on how not to overstep the legalities of gun self defense.

FallonJeeper · Jan 1, 2013

Who said anything about racial flair? Why is this even an issue? Racism isn't even a problem in my county. You have no idea about my DA or my race. You can not make a prediction on what would or would not happen.

Being a good witness is your choice. I however, choose not to be a victim. That is all.

You keep changing the situation to win what? An argument? Please, we're just explaining what the law says, which is something you have failed to cite in any of your posts. We understand your stance. Just understand there are many of us who disagree with you. Nothing personal.

MAC702 · Jan 1, 2013

oc4ever said:
...I wish to keep my previous experience in this matter out of this forum,....

If you are going to give Nevadans such stern warning about how they will be treated in Nevada, but can't tell us where your experience is even from, you really don't get the luxury of anonymity and being taking seriously at the same time.

Citizen · Jan 1, 2013

oc4ever said:
I am not saying that this person would have been found guiity of anything should he used his gun, but why even think of gun use when retreat was a viable option(and used). Some of you guys have been watching to many Hollywood movies. The Prosecuters are going to eat you for lunch on the witness stand if you make any statements at all to the police that the guy was unarmed and just told you that he was going to kick your ass or take the gun away. That is a crappy misdemeanor at worst, nothing rising to deadly force defense. From the Police's point of view, you would have killed a unarmed co-worker. HE WAS NOT BEING ATTACKED BY MULTIPLE ASSAILANTS IN THIS CASE, so that someone could have snuck up on him were not the facts here. What I am saying is the LEO's are more than likely going to arrest you . They do not view the world through rose colored glasses or follow opencarry.org. Remember you had a gun and the other guy just had a big mouth. If you want to take your chances with a brandishing charge, or if you kill the guy, a possible manslaugter / murder charge , go ahead and do what you need to do. We have a very well known case in Florida going right now where a armed man shot a unarmed man(crook) in a state that has a good no-retreat statue. That man, George , even if acquitted with be financially ruined by the legal fees and lawsuit which will follow. Guns for self defense have limited but important time sensitive uses. Defending yourself from a big mouth or bully is not one of the correct uses IMHO. If you personally know a DA or criminal defense lawyer, ask him about the circumstances described, and see what he says.

Ummm. Did you read my earlier post?

Also, I notice that in your comment about butt kicking and taking the gun away, you omitted to mention anything about the verbal threat of using the gun to assault the OCer.

wrightme · Jan 1, 2013

1) Use white space to your advantage.

oc4ever said:
If you think "YOUR" District Attorney is going to be on your side if a deadly shooting has a racial "flair" to it, and the press gets all over the story. Ask Mr Zimmerman how that worked out for him, even though the little punk involved was hardly a innocent victim. No Nevada is not Florida, but you are risking your future freedom on the decision and whims of a elected politician on whether to prosecute, he will throw you over the cliff without much thought. Though I wish to keep my previous experience in this matter out of this forum, I again suggest that you all seek more detailed legal advice from someone that works in the justice system near you. We are all responsible for our actions, and drawing a gun in a real world situation is the absolute last option you should take. If it comes down to your life or the other guys, that is a easy choice, fire away. It is very rare for a fist fight to result in death and thats what a prosectutor will tell a jury, however if the big mouth goes for your gun, I agree he is a dead man. The important issue, is not to get yourself that far backed into a tatical corner corner without being able to excercize any other options but to shoot. Any way to deescalate the situation should be the paramount thing to do. Acting meek and non confrontational and keep backing up( or running). Remember, you are the guy with the gun, and can use it anytime the situation goes down hill. If you ran away from the scene and the bad guy chased you down is a much better defense to a jury or prosecutor than holding your ground like a TOUGH GUY against a unarmed man. I have had 3 times in my life that I could have prevented armed robberies and killed the bad guy. I chose to let the other person get robbed and be a good witness for the police. Nobody got hurt and all three victims lost less than $!50 dollars in total. That was my choice. I could have played Dirty Harry and lawfully executed the crooks. Two other people in this world made the mistake on trying to use deadly weapons against me. Those results were a bit different. And no, the police were never called, and I don't need them to give me permission to draw a gun, so I am not afraid to defend myself if the occasion arises. My experience is only offered as a warning on how not to overstep the legalities of gun self defense.

2) Read the posts you are responding to, and at least TRY to keep your reply 'on point.'

oc4ever · Jan 1, 2013

Just think about your future

wrightme said:
1) Use white space to your advantage.

2) Read the posts you are responding to, and at least TRY to keep your reply 'on point.'

The original post said the big mouth was from"LA" and was a "gangster" type of guy that was the aggressor. Frankly based on the reality of the residents of Los Angeles, that puts it in the certain groups of people that are not usually white. I did respond to multiple comments to different folks, hope I did not confuse you too much. These suggestion/education comes from a guy that has actually had these situations presented to me, and I have always come out un-scathed, legally or physically.I am a little older now, and try to avoid places that are high risk for crime that I did not do when I was younger. By doing this , bad situations don't happen any more. Just think about my post , or choose to ignore them as you wish. The basic point still is to try to never confront a unarmed person with your gun. If everything goes bad, you will be defending yourself with your future freedom and everything else that you have gained in life. So be it..OC as you see fit.

Frantic84 · Jan 1, 2013

oc4ever said:
The original post said the big mouth was from"LA" and was a "gangster" type of guy that was the aggressor. Frankly based on the reality of the residents of Los Angeles, that puts it in the certain groups of people that are not usually white. I did respond to multiple comments to different folks, hope I did not confuse you too much. These suggestion/education comes from a guy that has actually had these situations presented to me, and I have always come out un-scathed, legally or physically.I am a little older now, and try to avoid places that are high risk for crime that I did not do when I was younger. By doing this , bad situations don't happen any more. Just think about my post , or choose to ignore them as you wish.

I Myself am from Los Angeles, your are speaking stereotypical and have no basis for your assumptions other than "Hollywood movies". some of the most violent gangs in Los Angeles are white.

oc4ever said:
The basic point still is to try to never confront a unarmed person with your gun.

by this logic a large (scary) unarmed man should not be confronted by a small woman with a gun?

oc4ever said:
If everything goes bad, you will be defending yourself with your future freedom and everything else that you have gained in life. So be it..OC as you see fit.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

wrightme · Jan 1, 2013

oc4ever said:
The original post said the big mouth was from"LA" and was a "gangster" type of guy that was the aggressor. Frankly based on the reality of the residents of Los Angeles, that puts it in the certain groups of people that are not usually white. I did respond to multiple comments to different folks, hope I did not confuse you too much. These suggestion/education comes from a guy that has actually had these situations presented to me, and I have always come out un-scathed, legally or physically.I am a little older now, and try to avoid places that are high risk for crime that I did not do when I was younger. By doing this , bad situations don't happen any more. Just think about my post , or choose to ignore them as you wish. The basic point still is to try to never confront a unarmed person with your gun. If everything goes bad, you will be defending yourself with your future freedom and everything else that you have gained in life. So be it..OC as you see fit.

Do you doubt his word about who the other person was?

Did you understand that the op DID retreat?

Do you understand that the first post of mine that you responded to, you acted as if I had told someone to shoot someone?

I think about your posts, and I think you simply want to stir crap, as opposed to actually discussing the facts and laws.

The guy in the OP was going to work, in the parking lot at his job. How is he supposed to not get into that situation? Quit?

Most of those in the NV forum, understand the reality of self-defense with a firearm, you ain't speaking to little kiddies that have no clue. Who you ARE speaking with, are several persons who will discuss the applicable statutes, which we have. And, until you posted, it wasn't about who should pull when in the op case. He did fine. He chose to retreat. At that point, he had retreated as far as he safely could retreat.

And frankly, when you don't add white space between sentences, I skim your post. Try adding some empty area around the text, it makes it MUCH easier to read it for content.

Phoenix David · Jan 1, 2013

Sounds to me that your friend is a victim of workplace harassment, a serious threat of workplace violence and quite possibly a hostile work environment.

It might be time in addition to contacting the police and filing a report to also contact the Nevada Labor commission if the boss doesn't provide adequate resolution to the matter. Your friend may want to seriously consider a restraining order.

FreeInAZ · Jan 2, 2013

Another thing to point out here, the police will almost always assume an unarmed person is the victim in a dispute. Without some type of audio / video proof that the unarmed person was the aggressor the OCer will be hard pressed to prove their innocence. To play devil's advocate here, all the punk employee would have to do is call 911 and say your friend drew down on him for no reason. Care to bet who's going to jail? Not right, but life is often unfair. Those of us who do not carry some type of hidden recording device while OCing are flirting with trouble. All it takes is one nut anti / liar and you could end up doing time for noting...

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Jan 2, 2013

It has been about 2 months now, since my friend and next door neighbor shot /killed a man in self defense in his front yard. There are a lot of good points being brought up, but as I watch my friend live this situation I am learning a lot. He spent over two weeks in Jail, and CPS had the kids for three. A large pile of money was spent on an attorney, However it did not need to be like that, First you are victimized by the perpetrator, then victimized again by the Govt. because they do not/ can not know what you were going through while being victimized the first time. He did go through hell, but he is alive.

wrightme · Jan 2, 2013

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
It has been about 2 months now, since my friend and next door neighbor shot /killed a man in self defense in his front yard. There are a lot of good points being brought up, but as I watch my friend live this situation I am learning a lot. He spent over two weeks in Jail, and CPS had the kids for three. A large pile of money was spent on an attorney, However it did not need to be like that, First you are victimized by the perpetrator, then victimized again by the Govt. because they do not/ can not know what you were going through while being victimized the first time. He did go through hell, but he is alive.

Sounds like a person who is an example of why we could use a good strong Castle Doctrine statute in Nevada.

MP_4_Life · Jan 7, 2013

ed2276 said:
Thought: Continuum of force. Do not use a firearm against someone who is threatening to make mere, unarmed physical contact against you. Have other resources available to you to deal with the loud-mouth simple assault/battery types (i.e. pepper spray or stun gun), or obtain enough empty hand-to-hand combat training to dispatch a guy like that quickly and violently.

Pulling a gun and shooting someone for a misdemeanor level assault/battery 1. is going to land you in a whole lot of trouble, and a stay at the gray bar hotel for several years, and 2. is going to make the OC community look very, very bad.

Give yourself options other than the firearm, but definitely have the firearm available when deadly force situations justify its use.

With this advice, I'd have to advise a bit differently. Is the use of deadly force or even the display a bit overboard? Yes; however, this brings up a bigger problem in my eyes. When you use less-than lethal force to subdue a individual, your also opening yourself up to a lawsuit. I am very well taught in terms of self-defense techniques from the Military Police, this I can highly recommend, if anything, for less-than lethal measures. If you obtain proper training, and learn how to use it properly, can be a very effective and lasting approach. It's easier to show restraint with your hands and feet than with a stun gun, or pepper spray. These implements also have dangers besides training. Like pepper spray (or OC), you have cause upper respiratory problems with it's use if not properly trained and even cause eye problems. Stun guns have even more problems, depending on the duration of use and the type, can require medical attention and even hospitalization. Their also very difficult to defend in court in a civil case without the proper documents and certs. I highly recommend taking self-defense classes focused on take downs, disarming techniques, and levels of force (maybe some verbal judo classes too) over other options. Besides, do we really want to walk outside looking just like a cop every time we leave our homes (guns, handcuffs, tasers, etc.)?

Also, the use of deadly force can be forced by a suspect when in the case of a battery. The individual already has a size issue on his side, and the fact the individual is already aggressive and making gestures towards violence, the guys would already be scared or at least nervous (depends on his training, experiences, and his personal choices). I personally live by the mind set of "Expect the worst, hope for the best." The guy handled himself extremely well and should be proud of himself (but I do feel he needs to talk to management and report it).

A buddy of mine was threatened for OC today

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member