Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: Is it legal to lace products that you're not sharing?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Is it legal to lace products that you're not sharing?

    Tired of the criminals stealing stuff all over the area. I deliver to construction sites and hear about all the stuff being stolen even from remote sites.

    I also had my car broken into again.

    Since it is legal to make exlax brownies for your own lunch that the one person in the office keeps stealing. I wondered if it would be legal to leave a pack of cyanide laced cigarettes in one's car if you don't hand them out or offer them to anyone?

    I figure thieves often like to smoke and why not leave this special gift in the car for them?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Tired of the criminals stealing stuff all over the area. I deliver to construction sites and hear about all the stuff being stolen even from remote sites.

    I also had my car broken into again.

    Since it is legal to make exlax brownies for your own lunch that the one person in the office keeps stealing. I wondered if it would be legal to leave a pack of cyanide laced cigarettes in one's car if you don't hand them out or offer them to anyone?

    I figure thieves often like to smoke and why not leave this special gift in the car for them?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    As much as I enjoy the idea, it wont fly in court. Especially in Iowa.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney

    "The Court ruled that using deadly force on intruders in an unoccupied property was not reasonable or justified. Briney would have been justified in defending himself with the shotgun if he had been home during the intrusion. The plaintiff's status as a trespasser is irrelevant when assessing liability in this case."
    Last edited by Taypo; 07-13-2016 at 09:10 AM. Reason: Cite

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Tired of the criminals stealing stuff all over the area. I deliver to construction sites and hear about all the stuff being stolen even from remote sites.

    I also had my car broken into again.

    Since it is legal to make exlax brownies for your own lunch that the one person in the office keeps stealing. I wondered if it would be legal to leave a pack of cyanide laced cigarettes in one's car if you don't hand them out or offer them to anyone?

    I figure thieves often like to smoke and why not leave this special gift in the car for them?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Most of us want to get revenge, but revenge usually is illegal. Booby traps are illegal.

    Unfortunately our corrupt gov. likes to prosecute thought crimes.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    ... I wondered if it would be legal to leave a pack of cyanide laced cigarettes in one's car if you don't hand them out or offer them to anyone?
    Premeditated murder in the 1st Degree no matter how you justify it!

    No guarantee that the thieves are not just stupid kids...do you really want to be responsible for the death of somebody's child. Cigs get shared at school too...what the **** are you thinking?
    Last edited by OC4me; 07-13-2016 at 09:54 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Most of us want to get revenge, but revenge usually is illegal. Booby traps are illegal.

    Unfortunately our corrupt gov. likes to prosecute thought crimes.
    It is not a booby trap. It would be a criminal dying from the use of illegally obtained property.

    Cigarettes are inherently poisonous.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Taypo View Post
    As much as I enjoy the idea, it wont fly in court. Especially in Iowa.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney

    "The Court ruled that using deadly force on intruders in an unoccupied property was not reasonable or justified. Briney would have been justified in defending himself with the shotgun if he had been home during the intrusion. The plaintiff's status as a trespasser is irrelevant when assessing liability in this case."
    It would not be using any force.

    Nor is it baiting anymore than having your own property in your car in the first place.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    It is not a booby trap. It would be a criminal dying from the use of illegally obtained property.

    Cigarettes are inherently poisonous.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    You can play word games all you want. You're talking about modifying a common item for absolutely no reason other than to cause injury or death.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Taypo View Post
    You can play word games all you want. You're talking about modifying a common item for absolutely no reason other than to cause injury or death.
    +1 - legally correct.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Jefferson County, CO
    Posts
    260
    I don't know a single jurisdiction where this would be legal. This is using a level of force, regardless of your presence at the time.

    Edward Briney's justification for setting up a deadly trap was that he was not present, and the intruder "simply did it to himself". Didn't fly then, won't fly now.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Since it is legal to make exlax brownies for your own lunch that the one person in the office keeps stealing. I wondered if it would be legal to leave a pack of cyanide laced cigarettes in one's car if you don't hand them out or offer them to anyone?

    I figure thieves often like to smoke and why not leave this special gift in the car for them?
    Legalities? What of basic morality?

    Lacing cigs or brownies with laxatives or Methylene blue is generally considered a fairly harmless prank as the odds of someone being injured by either are quite low. But cyanide?

    You have some desire to kill a fellow human being for stealing some things from your truck?!?!?! A human life for stuff? Moreover, you want to turn a common used item that is, in the typical usage relatively "safe" in the short term, into an unknown, deadly item and just leave that item laying around someplace as insecure as in plain sight in your vehicle? You're absolutely certain that no innocent party would ever be injured or killed by these items?

    Thieves may be known to smoke, but smokers are known to share to cigs with friends, co-workers, even total strangers.

    This is one of those cases where no one should need to ask whether the conduct is legal because it is so obviously grossly immoral that if it weren't illegal, it should be.

    I understand the frustration, anger, and feelings of violation that occur when one is victimized by a thief. It is worse when the thief violates the sanctity of your home, or of your car (often darn near a second home or office for many of us). I understand the desire for some sort of retribution, even revenge. But to go so far as to actually explore taking a man's life over this type of an offense is probably not healthy. And it doesn't reflect well on gun owners. I urge you to carefully reconsider your reaction relative to your and humanity's most cherished values and beliefs.

    All the best.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 07-13-2016 at 12:29 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The FDA does not place a limit on the amount of cyanide one can put into food. The motto is "do no harm".

    So go ahead and put a tiny tiny amount in and label your brownies as containing cyanide.

    No one will be stealing your brownies.

    If you think that you cannot be that careful in adding a poison to your food ... then don't.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    You asked.
    You were told no. You were shown why not.
    You stated that you might do it anyway.
    You stated that where it's permanent.

    Don't blame anyone else your statements here get used against you in court.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    So, where is the law?

    If you mixed up cyanide with peanut butter to get rid of rats, there would be no outcry.

    Cigarettes come with cyanide already in them. So would it be wrong to add more nicotine to the cigarettes then?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Legalities? What of basic morality?

    Lacing cigs or brownies with laxatives or Methylene blue is generally considered a fairly harmless prank as the odds of someone being injured by either are quite low. But cyanide?

    You have some desire to kill a fellow human being for stealing some things from your truck?!?!?! A human life for stuff? Moreover, you want to turn a common used item that is, in the typical usage relatively "safe" in the short term, into an unknown, deadly item and just leave that item laying around someplace as insecure as in plain sight in your vehicle? You're absolutely certain that no innocent party would ever be injured or killed by these items?

    Thieves may be known to smoke, but smokers are known to share to cigs with friends, co-workers, even total strangers.

    This is one of those cases where no one should need to ask whether the conduct is legal because it is so obviously grossly immoral that if it weren't illegal, it should be.

    I understand the frustration, anger, and feelings of violation that occur when one is victimized by a thief. It is worse when the thief violates the sanctity of your home, or of your car (often darn near a second home or office for many of us). I understand the desire for some sort of retribution, even revenge. But to go so far as to actually explore taking a man's life over this type of an offense is probably not healthy. And it doesn't reflect well on gun owners. I urge you to carefully reconsider your reaction relative to your and humanity's most cherished values and beliefs.

    All the best.

    Charles
    you know.. the whole fellow human being, as if placing some immeasurable value on a person simply because they are one, and exist, is IMO utter crap. it is very easy to place a value on one's life, once you remove our natural human superiority complex, and the general beleifs and faiths in the human soul, as well as any real morality. look at it in very simple terms of, the things stolen are of value, if the theif has a job, detract these thigns of value from income gained trhough legal practice, otherwise just detract from a base value of 0.

    and a food stamp taking, HUD using, section 8 thief becomes a negative value . multiply that by the years he has to be a decent theif before age takes over and he pulls disability, or social security benefits, then subtract THOSE value for the remaining years and it is very easy to see a HUGE negative value of someone and have them be a large detriment to the community.

    so I think revenge on thieves should be perfectly legal, so long as it only targets the theif in question, or thieves in question. after all society needs more positive value individuals, not less.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So, where is the law?

    If you mixed up cyanide with peanut butter to get rid of rats, there would be no outcry.
    If you left that peanut butter where a person was likely to eat it, not knowing what it was, there would be no end of outcry.

    The degree of penalty would likely depend on what could be proven about your intent. If the laced peanut butter was in chemical/poison section of your locked shed and some thief ate it, you'd probably be ok legally if you hadn't advertised an intent and desire to kill thieves. If it was in an unlocked shed, and some neighbor kid ate it, you'd be looking at some kind of negligence charge. If it was in the food pantry of your cabin that had been subject to break-ins and theft of groceries, you'd probably be looking at some kind of manslaughter or murder charge for essentially setting a deadly booby trap for the thief.

    Again, more troubling to me than any legal questions is your on going commitment to actively work toward ending a human life for a non-violent theft of petty stuff.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Just print up new labels and note cyanide in the ingredients .... and label "Not suitable for human consumption".....

    A silly thread.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    you know.. the whole fellow human being, as if placing some immeasurable value on a person simply because they are one, and exist, is IMO utter crap.
    Respectfully, your view of not placing intrinsic value on the life of a fellow human being is utter crap.

    And your views of who contributes to society is the basis for eugenics and "euthanization" of the mentally or physically handicapped, the aged, and the infirm. Or at the very least, for the eugenics of forced sterilization.

    I'm not enough of a saint that I don't react differently to an innocent man being hurt or killed than I do to a violent criminal getting the entirely predictable consequences of threatening others' life and limb. But at a philosophical, intellectual level, either we value human life intrinsically, or we start down some very dangerous roads.

    Put another way, if we don't value the life of the non-violent criminal who breaks into our car, why should we expect the police, government, or our fellow citizens to place any value on the life of someone that a police officer claims is a violent criminal? If it is just about protecting the innocent, there comes a point where it is obvious the "suspect" isn't all that innocent.

    No, we place value on human life because that is the only basis for our civilized society: all men are created equal. All men's lives have some intrinsic value. A man's life or limb are justly, morally removed from him only in reasonable need self defense of an innocent party or upon proper conviction for serious crimes.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Jefferson County, CO
    Posts
    260
    The original post was about legality, not morality. The first is beyond dispute under current law, and the second is (as this thread indicates) debatable.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    --snipped--

    so I think revenge on thieves should be perfectly legal, so long as it only targets the theif in question, or thieves in question. after all society needs more positive value individuals, not less.
    Revenge is an extremely negative connotation and runs afoul of our Forum Rules - rule #15.

    "Revenge is a form of justice usually assumed to be enacted in the absence of the norms of formal law and jurisprudence."
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    you know.. the whole fellow human being, as if placing some immeasurable value on a person simply because they are one, and exist, is IMO utter crap. it is very easy to place a value on one's life, once you remove our natural human superiority complex, and the general beleifs and faiths in the human soul, as well as any real morality.
    "The morality argument is crap if you remove consideration of morality" is basically what you're saying.

    There is no rational basis from which to remove these considerations that one would need to remove to be able to settle on placing low values on human life.

    Every human being has a right to life.

    Lethal force is justified in very specific circumstances - generally only when one may reasonably believe that it is immediately necessary to preserve their own life or the life of another party and when the source of the threat to that life is the party upon which lethal force is applied.
    Advocate freedom please

  21. #21
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by jackrockblc View Post
    The original post was about legality, not morality. The first is beyond dispute under current law, and the second is (as this thread indicates) debatable.
    I disagree. It isn't being debated whether the act is moral, rather, what's being debated is the value of and the value of adhering to reason and morality. In other words, people know damned well it isn't moral, and they simply want an excuse for themselves to do it anyway.
    Advocate freedom please

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    So far, if labeled as containing cyanide (which all cigarettes seem to contain) then it would be legal.

    Odd though that people seem to believe that the one being robbed is not a victim.

    I would liken the cigarettes being in a LOCKED area (car, shed, bunker, house, etc) to the same as any thing else. Same as storing coolant in empty plastic bottles like those used for sports drinks or juice. If it is your property and you are not actually harming anyone, then it should be perfectly legal. Like you getting charged when some, wonderful, human being desides to break into your car/house and kill themselves with your gun, you should be liable?

    If you had bad sushi sitting in your car and someone steals it, eats it and dies, you should be charged?

    If I have capsaicin paintballs and some jerk steals those and used them to much harm to themselves and friend, I would get punished?

    Where did they get this item that they died using?

    Joe's car.

    Did Joes give them the item?

    No.

    So they stole it from Joe and killed themselves with it?

    Yes, which is why Joe needs to be punished.

    .....

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Odd though that people seem to believe that the one being robbed is not a victim.
    Clearly nobody is arguing that - they are arguing that remote, uncontrolled, unmonitored, unguided, indiscriminate lethal force against unknown persons is not a justifiable or reasonable or moral response to petty theft of a $4 pack of cigarettes, and they are absolutely right.

    I think really what you are questioning is whether intent is a factor. The fact that you are essentially "playing dumb" about the danger to others that your little trap would pose, posing the danger actually being the purpose behind laying the trap in the first place, suggests to me that you really deep down believe it is a factor and that's why you are trying to trick yourself into believing that the intent to harm others isn't really there.

    I don't know the laws in your area and won't waste my time looking them up. As bagpiper eluded, this course of action shouldn't even be a consideration of a decent person. But I would think this sort of action would at a minimum be criminally negligent.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 07-14-2016 at 07:29 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  24. #24
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Clearly nobody is arguing that - they are arguing that remote, uncontrolled, unmonitored, unguided, indiscriminate lethal force against unknown persons is not a justifiable or reasonable or moral response to petty theft of a $4 pack of cigarettes, and they are absolutely right.

    I think really what you are questioning is whether intent is a factor. The fact that you are essentially "playing dumb" about the danger to others that your little trap would pose, posing the danger actually being the purpose behind laying the trap in the first place, suggests to me that you really deep down believe it is a factor and that's why you are trying to trick yourself into believing that the intent to harm others isn't really there.

    I don't know the laws in your area and won't waste my time looking them up. As bagpiper eluded, this course of action shouldn't even be a consideration of a decent person. But I would think this sort of action would at a minimum be criminally negligent.
    4$ for cigarettes? Where do you live? That would not even cover the tax on them here. They are about 10$ a pack here.

    I am arguing, that you should be legally able to do what ever you wish with what you own. That if someone steals your property and dies from using it or causes others to die that is not on the victim of the theft but rather it would be on the thief.

    Then again, I liked some of the anti-car thief shown in some of the sci-fi movies, where the would be thief gets cooked for their troubles.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 07-14-2016 at 07:45 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  25. #25
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Respectfully, your view of not placing intrinsic value on the life of a fellow human being is utter crap.

    And your views of who contributes to society is the basis for eugenics and "euthanization" of the mentally or physically handicapped, the aged, and the infirm. Or at the very least, for the eugenics of forced sterilization.

    I'm not enough of a saint that I don't react differently to an innocent man being hurt or killed than I do to a violent criminal getting the entirely predictable consequences of threatening others' life and limb. But at a philosophical, intellectual level, either we value human life intrinsically, or we start down some very dangerous roads.

    Put another way, if we don't value the life of the non-violent criminal who breaks into our car, why should we expect the police, government, or our fellow citizens to place any value on the life of someone that a police officer claims is a violent criminal? If it is just about protecting the innocent, there comes a point where it is obvious the "suspect" isn't all that innocent.

    No, we place value on human life because that is the only basis for our civilized society: all men are created equal. All men's lives have some intrinsic value. A man's life or limb are justly, morally removed from him only in reasonable need self defense of an innocent party or upon proper conviction for serious crimes.

    Charles
    so mate, recent examples of how a lack of proper conviction was applied to the individual in dallas, or the individual in Baton Rouge, or the individual in MN, or the individual in Baltimore, or, or,or...

    let's see the point in time for the individual in dallas came when the chief grew tired of ...you may use whatever spin the chief is saying today.
    the point for the individual in Baton Rouge?
    the point for the individual in MN?
    the point for the individual in Baltimore?

    and the list goes on of individuals doesn't it and has for quite awhile...

    mate, the philosophically rhetoric you are spewing was developed to incite guilt, as throughout history...we humans have experimented on other humans indiscriminately and when said experiments failed...the tormentors then discarded their remains like so much trash or sweep up their ashes and disposed of them in a dust bin without so much as a by your leave.

    i suppose ISIS considers their 'mercy killings' a methodology of ridding society of nonbelievers, just as the Turks did to the Armenians, or what has been going on in Africa countries like for the last century...oh wait, that is called genocide isn't it...

    so your view of who is terminated by the police is no different than those of the past.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •