View Poll Results: Which position seems right to you?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Point: Sunil Dutta's "If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me."

    1 4.76%
  • Counterpoint: Larry Womack's "They aren't enforcing the law, they are breaking it."

    18 85.71%
  • Beer

    6 28.57%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Point and Counterpoint Regarding Police Brutality - Which do you prefer?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Point and Counterpoint Regarding Police Brutality - Which do you prefer?

    Point: Veteran Cop: 'If You Don't Want To Get Shot,' Shut Up -- Even If We're Violating Your Rights

    Sunil Dutta, a 17-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department and professor of homeland security at Colorado Tech University, said, "Iím a cop. If you donít want to get hurt, donít challenge me." In a particularly telling passage, Dutta argues that citizens could deter police brutality if they were simply more cooperative, even when they're unjustly targeted."

    Counterpoint: I'm an American Citizen. If You Want to Remain a Cop, Don't Violate My Human Rights

    "When cops armed like an invading army force observers from Amnesty International to their knees, at gunpoint -- which happened in Ferguson the night before that piece ran -- they aren't enforcing the law, they are breaking it. They are criminals, they should lose their badges and they should be sued."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    That cop has a s**** point. You can challenge all you want verbally. Especially when being "unjustly targeted".

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding. Based on his comments, Sunil Dutta has a lot of savvy, and bottom line, I think he's right, at least with respect to de-escalating a bad situation. You can't fight a wayward cop in the midst of his being wayward. You'll need to chill and stay under the radar so that when you file a complaint against him through Internal Affairs, you'll come up squeaky clean and they'll listen to you.

    However, "As J.D. Tucille, managing editor of Reason.com, writes, the tone of Dutta's column reveals that he is ignorant of the broader concerns expressed by police critics."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding. Based on his comments, Sunil Dutta has a lot of savvy, and bottom line, I think he's right, at least with respect to de-escalating a bad situation. You can't fight a wayward cop in the midst of his being wayward. You'll need to chill and stay under the radar so that when you file a complaint against him through Internal Affairs, you'll come up squeaky clean and they'll listen to you.

    However, "As J.D. Tucille, managing editor of Reason.com, writes, the tone of Dutta's column reveals that he is ignorant of the broader concerns expressed by police critics."
    +1 well said.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Well, from his LAPD perspective, and surrounding LEAs, he does have a point.
    "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

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Posts
    189
    The veteran cop shows a very dangerous attitude - one at odds with the rule of law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    OP did you change the title to this thread?
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    OP did you change the title to this thread?
    No. Why do you ask?

    FYI, if there's an "Edited on..." message in a post, a change has occurred, but it doesn't necessarily say what. Without the edited message, the post is 100% original.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Never put beer as a choice ...

  10. #10
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    I think my browser just all of a sudden cut off the last word of the title or something...nvm then
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  11. #11
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    All three of those seem right to me, so I picked all three.

    If you don't want to get hurt, even if a cop has already started violating your rights, you might want to start cooperating. Unfortunately we have to fight their transgressions in court, not on the streets. And yes, that's illegal.

    Also, beer.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  12. #12
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Why does Sunil Dutta remind me of this story:

    The Rabbit



    The LAPD, The FBI, and the CIA are all trying to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals. The President decides to give them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest and has each of them try to catch it.
    The CIA goes in . They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations they conclude that rabbits do not exist.
    The FBI goes in . After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and they make no apologies. The rabbit had it coming.
    The LAPD goes in . They come out two hours later with a badly beaten raccoon. The raccoon is yelling: “Okay! Okay! I’m a rabbit! I’m a rabbit!”

    he bear is yelling: "Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"
    Last edited by SFCRetired; 08-22-2014 at 12:08 PM. Reason: Operator headspace
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  13. #13
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Haha^
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding. <snip>
    And how do you base this conclusion ? Have any data supporting the conclusion?

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Masochists agree: "We prefer police brutality -- if professionally applied."

    Sweet Dreams -- Annie Lennox
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 08-22-2014 at 09:35 PM.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  16. #16
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And how do you base this conclusion ? Have any data supporting the conclusion?
    Was wondering that myself. As the statement seems wildly unlikely to be true.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466
    if a "cop" is violating my rights in a violent manner he ceases to become a cop and becomes a target
    Last edited by RockyMtnScotsman; 08-22-2014 at 11:51 PM.

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Why does Sunil Dutta remind me of this story:

    The Rabbit



    The LAPD, The FBI, and the CIA are all trying to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals. The President decides to give them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest and has each of them try to catch it.
    The CIA goes in . They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations they conclude that rabbits do not exist.
    The FBI goes in . After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and they make no apologies. The rabbit had it coming.
    The LAPD goes in . They come out two hours later with a badly beaten raccoon. The raccoon is yelling: “Okay! Okay! I’m a rabbit! I’m a rabbit!”

    he bear is yelling: "Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"
    Scratching my head here just a little....

    Since all the critters were burned to a crisp by the FBI, Where did LAPD find the raccoon? Or did they just bring their own? (Planting of evidence?)
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 08-23-2014 at 12:32 AM.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    new hampshire
    Posts
    212
    If it was up to me, Dutta would be locked in a cell with a dozen or so of the people he's kidnapped.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And how do you base this conclusion ? Have any data supporting the conclusion?
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Was wondering that myself. As the statement seems wildly unlikely to be true.
    Why are you questioning this conclusion? Have you any data supporting the contrary?

    The statement in question: "The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding."

    Anecdotal "evidence" to the contrary isn't evidence at all. It's anecdote.

    Even a large number of events to the contrary, even recorded on video, only supports the statement, if the number of events is but a tiny percentage of all events.

    For example, let's say you managed to record 10,000 such events. Whoopee!

    But let's examine that in the light of logical, reason, and rational analysis:

    Given:

    1. Let's temporarily assume you find evidence of 10,000 events of police brutality per year.

    2. Briefings by the local police department report there are approximately 1,100 citizens in the U.S. for every police officer.

    3. U.S. Census data reports there are 317 million citizens.

    4. Do the math: 317,000,000/1,100 = 288,182 police officers.

    5. Checking the math, the Bureau of Labor and Statics claims there are 780,000, not 288,181. Thus, the actual ratio is 406 to 1, not 1,100 to 1.

    6. The average citizen interacts with law enforcement once every three years. Thus, there are 106 million interactions per year.

    7. Out of 106 million interactions per year, you're holding up evidence of 10,000 events of police brutality.

    8. Do the math: 10,000 / 106,000,000 * 100 = 0.009434%, or 1 event of police brutality for every 10,600 interactions.

    One in 10,600.

    THAT'S how I base this conclusion.

    To be fair, the actual number of cases of police brutality are far, far less than 10,000 per year. In fact, here's a list of key cases for the last 60 years. It's a short list.

    Even if you managed to find 10,000 cases each year, it would still come to just ONE case of brutality out of 10,600 interactions, lending tremendous credence to my statement, "The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding."

    The only way anyone could make any claim to the contrary is if they're incapable of doing basic math, or totally incapable of rational thought.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    new hampshire
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Why are you questioning this conclusion? Have you any data supporting the contrary?

    The statement in question: "The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding."

    Anecdotal "evidence" to the contrary isn't evidence at all. It's anecdote.

    Even a large number of events to the contrary, even recorded on video, only supports the statement, if the number of events is but a tiny percentage of all events.

    For example, let's say you managed to record 10,000 such events. Whoopee!

    But let's examine that in the light of logical, reason, and rational analysis:

    Given:

    1. Let's temporarily assume you find evidence of 10,000 events of police brutality per year.

    2. Briefings by the local police department report there are approximately 1,100 citizens in the U.S. for every police officer.

    3. U.S. Census data reports there are 317 million citizens.

    4. Do the math: 317,000,000/1,100 = 288,182 police officers.

    5. Checking the math, the Bureau of Labor and Statics claims there are 780,000, not 288,181. Thus, the actual ratio is 406 to 1, not 1,100 to 1.

    6. The average citizen interacts with law enforcement once every three years. Thus, there are 106 million interactions per year.

    7. Out of 106 million interactions per year, you're holding up evidence of 10,000 events of police brutality.

    8. Do the math: 10,000 / 106,000,000 * 100 = 0.009434%, or 1 event of police brutality for every 10,600 interactions.

    One in 10,600.

    THAT'S how I base this conclusion.

    To be fair, the actual number of cases of police brutality are far, far less than 10,000 per year. In fact, here's a list of key cases for the last 60 years. It's a short list.

    Even if you managed to find 10,000 cases each year, it would still come to just ONE case of brutality out of 10,600 interactions, lending tremendous credence to my statement, "The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding."

    The only way anyone could make any claim to the contrary is if they're incapable of doing basic math, or totally incapable of rational thought.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1557655_633528570015575_1996268806_n.jpg 
Views:	93 
Size:	32.0 KB 
ID:	11936

  22. #22
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Just gotta say, ONE time is one time too many---- no matter what the percentage or rate per 1000!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by state hater View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1557655_633528570015575_1996268806_n.jpg 
Views:	93 
Size:	32.0 KB 
ID:	11936
    Gee, that was an intelligent response, state hater...

    Not.

    Police work for municipalities, run by elected politicians.

    Municipalities are motivated by money, to maximize their tax revenue and minimize their expenses, as well as the long-term political aspirations of those politicians. Let's examine how that influences a police department's actions when it comes to policing their own:

    A good police chief:

    - In the eyes of the community, a good police chief takes care of his people on the force, but won't allow that duty to eclipse his overarching duty to enforce the law. Initial (academy) and ongoing training are handled well, with ethics as a strong component, and not an afterthought. Potentially bad cops are weeded out, first in the initial screening, but also throughout the time at the academy, their time as a rookie, and throughout their entire careers. Internal affairs investigations are handled objectively. Rules governing suspensions, discipline, dismissals, and preferring charges against criminal activity on the part of cops are followed to the letter, and decisions are made based on the facts, with sound reasoning and good judgement.

    - In the eyes of the the mayor or city council, a good police chief is one who runs his department in such a way that it has the appearance of the previous description, not only to help the council members obtain reelection, but also to entice the higher-quality (wealthy) future residents and businesses. Politicians also wish to avoid any hint of corruption, so as not to result in current residents deciding to relocate elsewhere. Politicians are also gravely concerned about cutting costs, but without a lot of business acumen, they often make some pretty bad decisions in this area.

    For example, the screening, selection, and training process for a police officer with ten years under his belt can easily eclipse a million dollars. That cost, however, is a sunk cost. It's money which has been spent, and is therefore not a factor in today's decision as to whether or not to dismiss a wayward officer. Similarly, an officer's previous decade of good service isn't a factor, either. All that matters from a cost perspective is "What will it cost us to keep him on the force vs what will it cost us to train up a replacement?" Even the latter question is largely irrelevant, as departments are always training up replacements. You've got a hundred replacements waiting in the wings, and the cost of their training is a sunk cost, as well.

    The problem with most politicians is they are not all that savvy when it comes to basic principles of business. They hold onto sunk costs as if sunk costs have any bearing on the situation whatsoever. Thus, this is how they view the dismissal of a police officer:

    - A "cost" to the community of a million dollars in "lost" training, rather than a normal factor of attrition.

    - Loss of face: If we dismiss him or her, we're admitting we had a bad officer on the force, and people might get the idea we had other bad officers on the force.

    In reality, not all officers can, or even should rise to the top, or make retirement. The military gets rid of roughly half its officer corps prior to the twenty year point. Approximately 1/3 of those are cut when they don't make major, and the rest quit when they decide the military isn't for them, that they want to make a career in some other field.

    So, what's the real problem, here? Is it bad policing, a refusal or inability to police their own? Or is bad politicians, incapable of realizing the overall, long-term cost benefit of allowing a police department to run itself, with appropriate oversight, of course, to the first ideal, that of "in the eyes of the community?"

    What's the real problem, here? I submit it boils down to politicians who aren't very capable of running a business, much less a community, elected by citizens who themselves don't know what it takes to run a business or a community, many of whom are just pie in the sky idealists who believe everything their favorite politician tells them, and citizens who are voting for whichever politician they believe will give them a larger (more than their fair share) slice of the pie. The latter trade long-term destruction (for example, see Detroit) not even for actual short-term gain, but merely for perceived short-term gain.

    I like to hold up Colorado Springs as a reasonably good example of how to do things right. They've dismissed a number of police officers over the last five years, for reasons ranging from the very serious to behaviors which are simply unacceptable, but repeated despite warnings and disciplinary action. They're not perfect, and neither is the city council or our mayor. Most of them are savvy enough to get most things right, however, and it shows: They do police their own.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Why are you questioning this conclusion? Have you any data supporting the contrary?

    The statement in question: "The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding."

    Anecdotal "evidence" to the contrary isn't evidence at all. It's anecdote.

    Even a large number of events to the contrary, even recorded on video, only supports the statement, if the number of events is but a tiny percentage of all events.

    For example, let's say you managed to record 10,000 such events. Whoopee!

    But let's examine that in the light of logical, reason, and rational analysis:

    Given:

    1. Let's temporarily assume you find evidence of 10,000 events of police brutality per year.

    2. Briefings by the local police department report there are approximately 1,100 citizens in the U.S. for every police officer.

    3. U.S. Census data reports there are 317 million citizens.

    4. Do the math: 317,000,000/1,100 = 288,182 police officers.

    5. Checking the math, the Bureau of Labor and Statics claims there are 780,000, not 288,181. Thus, the actual ratio is 406 to 1, not 1,100 to 1.

    6. The average citizen interacts with law enforcement once every three years. Thus, there are 106 million interactions per year.

    7. Out of 106 million interactions per year, you're holding up evidence of 10,000 events of police brutality.

    8. Do the math: 10,000 / 106,000,000 * 100 = 0.009434%, or 1 event of police brutality for every 10,600 interactions.

    One in 10,600.

    THAT'S how I base this conclusion.

    To be fair, the actual number of cases of police brutality are far, far less than 10,000 per year. In fact, here's a list of key cases for the last 60 years. It's a short list.

    Even if you managed to find 10,000 cases each year, it would still come to just ONE case of brutality out of 10,600 interactions, lending tremendous credence to my statement, "The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding."

    The only way anyone could make any claim to the contrary is if they're incapable of doing basic math, or totally incapable of rational thought.
    So you base your "upstanding or outstanding" to equate with simply not being brutal? Just to clarify what you meant of course. I did not make any claim - so I need not provide any proof.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    It is not 317 million. Try using the numbers of citizens that will most likely interact with cops. Those under 16, those over 64 should be excluded. Also the number of folks who reside outside of the US. Then there are those who have minimal LE availability.

    Essentially you really only need to focus on larger metro areas. A little more work, but it will give you a nore accurate picture.

    Also, define brutality.

    Bogus math does not a valid argument make.
    "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
  •