Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Who says you don't need a gun in a shopping mall?

  1. #1
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Who says you don't need a gun in a shopping mall?

    This guy must think he's a cut above others.

    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2469438

    In Fair Oaks mall, no less.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    She would have been fine if she had dialed 668-2267, when she suspected trouble.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    They need to catch this guy now. He's just one step from becoming a serial killer as he seeks greater thrill fulfillment that slashing no longer brings him.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  4. #4
    Regular Member PaulX608's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    93
    I work at Fair Oaks. This happened just as I was leaving yesterday, but I didn't hear about it 'til I went in today. There were news crews all over the place today.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Some people seriously have issues. Somebody told me about this at work and I thought they were joking. One good thing about Fair Oaks is that they seem to be okay with open carry. I have OCed there many times with no issues. Fortunately for me, I don't think anyone wants to see me bend over. I did warn my wife and sisters though.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    92
    And people wonder why I carry while out and about with my wife. I do so to protect her and our unborn child from monsters like that. It is my duty to keep them safe from this.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    WTF? I hope they catch this guy quickly before he makes a southern VA roadtrip (or slashes anyone again). :-(

    My daughter is at the age where she wants to walk the mall alone (or with friends) meaning no armed dad escort! I already don't like the idea of her walking around alone and with people like this guy roaming around I don't think she will be allowed, much to her chagrin.

    I always envisioned some attempted rape, fondling or abduction resulting in injury not just a guy randomly slashing people!

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848
    So.. yer some 22 year old chick, shopping for clothes... this thug comes up behind you as slashes your rear end and runs away.. You are carrying concealed.. now what?
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Well I'm not 22 yo female and not in VA, but if I did observe this takings place I'd sure as hell chase after the guy and at the very least get a license plate number while on the phone with 911.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by ed View Post
    So.. yer some 22 year old chick, shopping for clothes... this thug comes up behind you as slashes your rear end and runs away.. You are carrying concealed.. now what?
    I have voiced my opinion before and my displeasure with the current laws. I believe it would be moral (not legal) to stop the attacker with whatever force necessary even if the attack was over. In many many threads they go back and forth in that you aren't ever shooting to kill, but to stop the attack. I go a step further in that until the attacker has surrendered and awaits arrest peacefully or dead you should be allowed to shoot to stop the attackER! As part of the public duty to get this slime of the streets I see that action as the only morally justifiable scenario. If a 22 year old woman who had her bottom slashed and a CHP had her handgun on her and shot the guy in the back as he was fleeing I think we all should celebrate and congratulate her for stopping him from being able to perform the same attack in the future. The law on the other hand will put her in jail. Go figure.

    So until the law changes you can take pictures with your cell phone, follow him to get as much information so that the PROFESSIONALS can follow up and try to catch him even though you could have stopped him cold right then. Phsssst!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    I have voiced my opinion before and my displeasure with the current laws. I believe it would be moral (not legal) to stop the attacker with whatever force necessary even if the attack was over. In many many threads they go back and forth in that you aren't ever shooting to kill, but to stop the attack. I go a step further in that until the attacker has surrendered and awaits arrest peacefully or dead you should be allowed to shoot to stop the attackER! As part of the public duty to get this slime of the streets I see that action as the only morally justifiable scenario. If a 22 year old woman who had her bottom slashed and a CHP had her handgun on her and shot the guy in the back as he was fleeing I think we all should celebrate and congratulate her for stopping him from being able to perform the same attack in the future. The law on the other hand will put her in jail. Go figure.

    So until the law changes you can take pictures with your cell phone, follow him to get as much information so that the PROFESSIONALS can follow up and try to catch him even though you could have stopped him cold right then. Phsssst!
    Shame the law disagrees. In many cases I think we'd be better off.

    An attack like this is incredibly hard to legally defend one's self. There's really only a window of about a second or so that the victim could legally defend herself from the time the knife is drawn until the attacker runs off. Open or concealed, good luck drawing fast enough to do anything.

  12. #12
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by ed View Post
    So.. yer some 22 year old chick, shopping for clothes... this thug comes up behind you as slashes your rear end and runs away.. You are carrying concealed.. now what?
    I might have missed your main point.

    If you are carrying concealed you probably don't have time to justifiably draw and shoot before the attacker has disengaged and no longer a threat.

    If you were OCing the attack probably wouldn't have ever happened!

    (is that more your point?)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    ...SNIP... If a 22 year old woman who had her bottom slashed and a CHP had her handgun on her and shot the guy in the back as he was fleeing I think we all should celebrate and congratulate her for stopping him from being able to perform the same attack in the future. The law on the other hand will put her in jail. Go figure...SNIP..
    Jury nullification FTW!
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gatz View Post
    Shame the law disagrees. In many cases I think we'd be better off.

    An attack like this is incredibly hard to legally defend one's self. There's really only a window of about a second or so that the victim could legally defend herself from the time the knife is drawn until the attacker runs off. Open or concealed, good luck drawing fast enough to do anything.
    Maybe a stupid question but couldn't you claim that he was still an active threat, he had already made one attack against a person so you could legally be in fear that he would cause another person bodily harm as well??

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    There is an awful lot of bloodlust being thrown about here.

    The attack is henious for many reasons, as well as probably being perverted. The damage sustained certainly goes far beyond the mere physical injury, which could well be crippling if the perpetrator misses his mark by just an inch or so. The economic loss of both the individual victim(s) and the mall(s) can become staggering quite quickly.

    But the thin veneer of civilization that we lay over the jungle of the real world seems to be peeling away not only from the thug who is committing these crimes, but from some of the folks who at other times have styled themselves "sheepdogs" and "defenders of society". While the threat of death or serious bodily injury is imminent (and getting slashed qualifies, in my mind) we have agreed that the use of deadly/lethal force can be used to stop that threat. Once the threat is no longer imminent, the use of deadly/lethal force is no longer allowed.

    Suggesting that the thug "might slash someone else" is using the same argument that the antis try to use about us - that because we are armed we "might" shoot someone. If you are going to go along with them, then perhaps we ought to shoot every person we see or suspect might be carrying a firearm, knife, hatpin, or any other item that could be used as a weapon. And if using this line of reasoning that would include the police because they "might" go on a rampage just like the rest of us. (Or, based on some recently reported incidents, they are more likely to go on a rampage than the rest of us.) And while we are all shooting to stop the potential rampages, the poor unarmed among us who are not wearing signs identifying themselves as unarmed (and who's to say they are telling the truth anyway?) are likely to get caught in the crossfire.

    I don't think it an artifact of testosterone, as I hear some of this from women as well as from the guys. I'm pretty sure a portion of it is the attempt to express the frustration at having to deal with outrageous antisocial behavior while everything else in life seems to be climbing into the moving handbasket. But there is a portion that seems to be pure bloodlust. "I got this gun to defend myself and my family and by golly I want to use it to do that!"

    It's darned hard to remain calm and rational in a world that is anything but calm and rational, but we need to keep putting forth the effort.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    There is an awful lot of bloodlust being thrown about here.

    The attack is henious for many reasons, as well as probably being perverted. The damage sustained certainly goes far beyond the mere physical injury, which could well be crippling if the perpetrator misses his mark by just an inch or so. The economic loss of both the individual victim(s) and the mall(s) can become staggering quite quickly.

    But the thin veneer of civilization that we lay over the jungle of the real world seems to be peeling away not only from the thug who is committing these crimes, but from some of the folks who at other times have styled themselves "sheepdogs" and "defenders of society". While the threat of death or serious bodily injury is imminent (and getting slashed qualifies, in my mind) we have agreed that the use of deadly/lethal force can be used to stop that threat. Once the threat is no longer imminent, the use of deadly/lethal force is no longer allowed.

    Suggesting that the thug "might slash someone else" is using the same argument that the antis try to use about us - that because we are armed we "might" shoot someone. If you are going to go along with them, then perhaps we ought to shoot every person we see or suspect might be carrying a firearm, knife, hatpin, or any other item that could be used as a weapon. And if using this line of reasoning that would include the police because they "might" go on a rampage just like the rest of us. (Or, based on some recently reported incidents, they are more likely to go on a rampage than the rest of us.) And while we are all shooting to stop the potential rampages, the poor unarmed among us who are not wearing signs identifying themselves as unarmed (and who's to say they are telling the truth anyway?) are likely to get caught in the crossfire.

    I don't think it an artifact of testosterone, as I hear some of this from women as well as from the guys. I'm pretty sure a portion of it is the attempt to express the frustration at having to deal with outrageous antisocial behavior while everything else in life seems to be climbing into the moving handbasket. But there is a portion that seems to be pure bloodlust. "I got this gun to defend myself and my family and by golly I want to use it to do that!"

    It's darned hard to remain calm and rational in a world that is anything but calm and rational, but we need to keep putting forth the effort.

    stay safe.
    Good post, Skid.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    <snip> Once the threat is no longer imminent, the use of deadly/lethal force is no longer allowed. <snip>
    No longer allowed under law is agreed.

    Why is a LEO allowed to use lethal force against a fleeing felon and other law abiding citizens not? In this case the slashing would surely be a felony and is pretty clear that he has struck more than once showing not only that he is a felon but a repeating felon. We don't have to speculate whether he would ever repeat the crime. To me it is common sense and while LEO's may have more training on when and how to use lethal force many citizens have similar training or experiences. Maybe we all should be able to apply for a temorary deputy permit (TDP) to get LEO immunization from stupid laws. :-)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleepless View Post
    Maybe a stupid question but couldn't you claim that he was still an active threat, he had already made one attack against a person so you could legally be in fear that he would cause another person bodily harm as well??
    You could try and make that claim if you wanted, but I wouldn't.

    Personally I don't see the risk of a murder charge for shooting a man in the back to be worth it.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    No longer allowed under law is agreed.

    Why is a LEO allowed to use deadly/lethal force against a fleeing felon and other law abiding citizens not? In this case the slashing would surely be a felony and is pretty clear that he has struck more than once showing not only that he is a felon but a repeating felon. We don't have to speculate whether he would ever repeat the crime. To me it is common sense and while LEO's may have more training on when and how to use lethal force many citizens have similar training or experiences. Maybe we all should be able to apply for a temorary deputy permit (TDP) to get LEO immunization from stupid laws. :-)
    A LEO is allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon in some circumstances.

    Lets start with the "fleeing felon rule" and work forward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

    Then we get to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner which pretty much said even LEOs cannot use deadly/ lethal force to stop fleeing felons unless a strict set of circumstances (well, strict for SCOTUS setting out rules for LEO, but maybe not as strict as Miranda/Edwards) exist and the LEO follows a strict guideline.

    Now we get into the debate if Garner ought, in some, all, any case ought to be applied retroactively. In other words, was it so obvious even before SCOTUS said so that it should have been the way things were before SCOTUS said so. Read http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vie...30&context=flr .

    And you want to re-muck up things? Do you have any idea how difficult it has been to get LEOs to understand the current set of "rules"? [OK, there's a whole lot of sarcasm in there, in case anybody might accidentally miss any of it.]

    But at least "now you know".

    stay safe.

    I just realized that it appears that I am saying that LEOs especially, but also those making a citizen's arrest, cannot ever use deadly/lethal force to stop a fleeing felon. THat is far from correct and not the impression I wanted to give.

    As stated by me in an earlier post, the slashing incidents at the heart of this discussion "may" or "might" cause serious bodily harm - either crippling or significant (I'm not sure that is the correct legal term, but it conveys my meaning well) disfigurement. Surely the first is covered in the use of deadly/lethal force to defend against such injury, and I'm a bit hazy on whether or not the second also qualifies. I'll defer to the real attorneys on that one.

    But, and this is why I have been saying that the use of deadly/lethal force is not permitted - in the two incidents reported the cutting did not endanger life, did not cripple, and did not cause significant disfigurement. So even if you could identify (put name to) or recognize (pick out of a line-up) the assailant as being the same individual who committed the first offense, or both offenses, he has not yet (obviously my opinion on this differs from some others) reached the level of dangerousness where apprehending him by the application of deadly/lethal force is necessary.

    I have already alluded to the possibility of a perversion being at play, which in my mind makes this person more dangerous than someone doing it "for fun", and raises the possibility that he will eventually inflict death or seriously bodily harm. But for now we are not there.

    And besides, citizen's arrest is a very mesy issue. You really should not want to go there unless you absolutely have to. And, again in my opinion, you would at this point in the person's careeer need to be trying to arrest them, as a claim of defense of an innocent third party would not stand based on the lack of threat of death or serious bodily harm. That does not mean I don't want to get my hands on him, or have the cops arrest him. It just means I don't see this/these crimes as rising to the point where the use of deadly/lethal force is either justified or excusable.

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 08-01-2011 at 11:36 AM. Reason: additional comments added
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Looks like he struck again:

    Possible 6th victim steps out in serial butt slasher case

    WASHINGTON -- A 21-year-old woman may be the sixth victim of a serial slasher who has been targeting young women in Fairfax County retail stores.

    Police say they received a report from the woman Monday, and the incident took place June 8 at a T.J. Maxx in Fairfax Towne Center.

    more: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=149&sid=2478645

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gatz View Post
    You could try and make that claim if you wanted, but I wouldn't.

    Personally I don't see the risk of a murder charge for shooting a man in the back to be worth it.
    There are a few situations where shooting someone in the back would be viewed as an excusable use of deadly force. Three come to mind right away.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 08-03-2011 at 06:39 PM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    There are a few situations where shooting someone in the back would be viewed as an excusable use of deadly force. Three come to mind right away.
    Please amplify with appropriate citations to support excusability or take you bloodlust somewhere else.

    I'm serious. I want to read the case law that excuses shooting someone in the back.

    Remember, you said excuses so do not bother to post a citation dealing with justification. Because I've already posted quite a bit on the history of justification of shooting a fleeing felon and how it got to be where it is today.

    Moving slightly off topic - with the number of instances, if this is the same person then my earlier comments about perversion seem to gain even more strength. And that certainly includes the possibility that this person will escalate their attacks to the level of disfigurement or death as the goal. But even so, the possibility of that happening does not yet reach the threshold established in Garner.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  23. #23
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Please amplify with appropriate citations to support excusability or take you bloodlust somewhere else.

    I'm serious. I want to read the case law that excuses shooting someone in the back.

    Remember, you said excuses so do not bother to post a citation dealing with justification. Because I've already posted quite a bit on the history of justification of shooting a fleeing felon and how it got to be where it is today.

    Moving slightly off topic - with the number of instances, if this is the same person then my earlier comments about perversion seem to gain even more strength. And that certainly includes the possibility that this person will escalate their attacks to the level of disfigurement or death as the goal. But even so, the possibility of that happening does not yet reach the threshold established in Garner.

    stay safe.
    IANAL so I haven't done case searches of self defense situations where people have shot someone in the back and it has been "justified".

    With that said I can think of several reasons to shoot someone in the back, hostage situations, a rapist on top of a victim, a kidnapper that just shoved your daughter into his car.... I am sure there are many more. I seem to remember reading/viewing something about a swat sniper shooting a criminal in the back during a hostage scenario recently but can't remember where I saw it.

    I understand that you have been a voice of reason and we need to avoid Blood Lust but are you telling me that if you were in a restaurant and a man started shooting (Luby's Cafeteria comes to mind) that you would wait until the man was facing you before shooting? There are scenarios were it is justified regardless of whatever the local,state or federal laws are. In searching for the above video I couldn't find (swat) I saw another one of an Israeli police officer that shot a second suicide bomber before he could activate his explosive vest. While he shot him 5 times in the head do we really care if it was the front of the head or back?
    Last edited by 45acpForMe; 08-03-2011 at 09:14 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Please amplify with appropriate citations to support excusability or take you bloodlust somewhere else.

    I'm serious. I want to read the case law that excuses shooting someone in the back.

    Remember, you said excuses so do not bother to post a citation dealing with justification. Because I've already posted quite a bit on the history of justification of shooting a fleeing felon and how it got to be where it is today.

    Moving slightly off topic - with the number of instances, if this is the same person then my earlier comments about perversion seem to gain even more strength. And that certainly includes the possibility that this person will escalate their attacks to the level of disfigurement or death as the goal. But even so, the possibility of that happening does not yet reach the threshold established in Garner.

    stay safe.
    Your jerking knee betrays you, Skid. I'll expect an apology forthcoming for the bloodlust comment.

    Now as to my source. A well-known attorney here in Virginia if you must know. And the examples given were the following three to which I referred;

    o A BG, we'll assumed armed, makes his way up the stairs to the second floor and you shout for him to stop. He immediately turns and heads to an end bedroom which happens to be where your child sleeps.

    o A BG has already fired a few shots at you in your home, or on your property, not that this makes any difference, and is running to his vehicle to retrieve a long gun (example, remember) from a cohort holding it out for him.

    o Same as above except this time the BG sees your wife arrive home in the driveway and runs to her car to drag her out at gun point.


    These examples were used in a seminar I attended so before you jump, make sure you have a net waiting for you at the bottom of your fall.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  25. #25
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Your jerking knee betrays you, Skid. I'll expect an apology forthcoming for the bloodlust comment.

    Now as to my source. A well-known attorney here in Virginia if you must know. And the examples given were the following three to which I referred;

    o A BG, we'll assumed armed, makes his way up the stairs to the second floor and you shout for him to stop. He immediately turns and heads to an end bedroom which happens to be where your child sleeps.

    o A BG has already fired a few shots at you in your home, or on your property, not that this makes any difference, and is running to his vehicle to retrieve a long gun (example, remember) from a cohort holding it out for him.

    o Same as above except this time the BG sees your wife arrive home in the driveway and runs to her car to drag her out at gun point.


    These examples were used in a seminar I attended so before you jump, make sure you have a net waiting for you at the bottom of your fall.

    There is also the situation, if I am not wrong, where an armed attacker swivels around after you draw down on him with your weapon. Should you not shoot because he reacts defensively by turning away? Has the threat been removed?

    And I could be wrong but it seems reasonable to me.

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
  •