Jump to content

This is just getting out of control...man shot in the back instead of tasered


Bubba_Sparks
 Share

Recommended Posts

much different situation. Pretty gross this article didn't show the vid of what happened before the chase which is easily accessible. 

 

Dude was an illegal gun dealer. Literally took out a gun and gave it to an undercover. 

 

He ran from a couple of pursuing cops. 

 

You can't really see whats going on once the 2 men hit the floor so i won't jump to the conclusion that he wasn't trying to wrestle a gun away. 

 

The cop saying "im sorry" is sketchy but it is a high intensity moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

much different situation. Pretty gross this article didn't show the vid of what happened before the chase which is easily accessible. 

 

Dude was an illegal gun dealer. Literally took out a gun and gave it to an undercover. 

 

He ran from a couple of pursuing cops. 

 

You can't really see whats going on once the 2 men hit the floor so i won't jump to the conclusion that he wasn't trying to wrestle a gun away. 

 

The cop saying "im sorry" is sketchy but it is a high intensity moment. 

okay, so it seems the apparent mistake for a taser is legitimate seeing multiple sources are saying the same. 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the full video: 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2nV9odzdfQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

much different situation. Pretty gross this article didn't show the vid of what happened before the chase which is easily accessible. 

 

Dude was an illegal gun dealer. Literally took out a gun and gave it to an undercover. 

 

He ran from a couple of pursuing cops. 

 

You can't really see whats going on once the 2 men hit the floor so i won't jump to the conclusion that he wasn't trying to wrestle a gun away. 

 

The cop saying "im sorry" is sketchy but it is a high intensity moment. 

I think the key point the article is highlighting is that the cop shot the guy by mistake instead of tasering him.

 

"deputy who police said thought he was holding a stun gun instead of his handgun when he shot the man during a recent arrest"

 

Are you really okay with that??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the key point the article is highlighting is that the cop shot the guy by mistake instead of tasering him.

 

"deputy who police said thought he was holding a stun gun instead of his handgun when he shot the man during a recent arrest"

 

Are you really okay with that??

My problem with the article is the fact they don't mention he was caught doing illegal activities....not just some **** either, selling guns...

 

 

Im not okay with him dying like that. His life shouldn't have been taken for running. But at the same time it seemed like a legitimate and horrific mistake. To me the cops direct and immediate apology shows he never intended to kill this man, which does matter once everybody starts calling for this cops head.

 

I stand by my statement....this is a much different situation than that other recent cop shooting.

Edited by 2014's_Welcher_of_the_Year
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with the article is the fact they don't mention he was caught doing illegal activities....not just some **** either, selling guns...

 

 

Im not okay with him dying like that. His life shouldn't have been taken for running. But at the same time it seemed like a legitimate and horrific mistake. To me the cops direct and immediate apology shows he never intended to kill this man, which does matter once everybody starts calling for this cops head.

 

I stand by my statement....this is a much different situation than that other recent cop shooting.

Um, it says....

 

"The video of the April 2 incident shows a Tulsa County deputy chase and tackle Eric Harris, 44, whom they accuse of trying to sell an illegal gun to an undercover officer."

 

But anyway, easily missed. 

 

Yes, I agree it is totally different.  The other one was a crime being committed, this one is a stupid mistake being made.  

 

My "Another one" comment is merely that another man is dead who should really still be alive, and another victim that will probably be used to carry on stoking up the white police run around shooting black people debate.  From afar, all that seems to be happening is that tension increases and shootings become more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, it says....

 

"The video of the April 2 incident shows a Tulsa County deputy chase and tackle Eric Harris, 44, whom they accuse of trying to sell an illegal gun to an undercover officer."

 

But anyway, easily missed. 

 

Yes, I agree it is totally different.  The other one was a crime being committed, this one is a stupid mistake being made.  

 

My "Another one" comment is merely that another man is dead who should really still be alive, and another victim that will probably be used to carry on stoking up the white police run around shooting black people debate.  From afar, all that seems to be happening is that tension increases and shootings become more likely.

i'll admit when im wrong. and i did miss that part. But its still a problem. "who they accuse..." ....that seems awfully vague. Vague like they didn't have video of him trying to sell a gun to an undercover cop. Vague enough to make it seem like they found a random guy and suspected him of selling guns.

 

Its just disheartening to see these articles that don't paint the whole picture and, to me, comes off extremely bias on a very important social issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll admit when im wrong. and i did miss that part. But its still a problem. "who they accuse..." ....that seems awfully vague. Vague like they didn't have video of him trying to sell a gun to an undercover cop. Vague enough to make it seem like they found a random guy and suspected him of selling guns.

 

Its just disheartening to see these articles that don't paint the whole picture and, to me, comes off extremely bias on a very important social issue.

Fair enough, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree mate - the article just reports the facts.  The man was not tried, convicted etc, so to say he was "accused" is correct usage of English.

 

The telegraph is not without faults, but it's not part of the sensationalist/tabloid media, so I don't think they are pushing any bias, other than perhaps a slight sense of moral superiority that British cops don't habitually shoot people.

 

What's the general feeling over there on this topic? TBh, i think that's probably a more fruitful discussion than our perceived views of the standard of journalism in this particular article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically your handgun is on your right hip.  The taser is not.

 

Accidently pulling your gun when you meant to pull your taser is complete BS.  That subway situation back in 2009 comes to mind.  The black male was on his stomach and offering no resistance whatsoever.  He was just being harassed by police and there was no reason to use a taser.  Roughly half a dozen people caught this on camera mainly with phones.  He has the man down on his stomach and he is offering zero resistance.  The cop claims he meant to reach for his taser but he grabs his .40 cal instead of just shoots the man right in the back at point blank.

 

A typical sidearm for a police officer is the Glock 22 (.40 caliber) and nothing about a Glock 22 feels like a goddamn taser.  End of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree mate - the article just reports the facts.  The man was not tried, convicted etc, so to say he was "accused" is correct usage of English.

 

The telegraph is not without faults, but it's not part of the sensationalist/tabloid media, so I don't think they are pushing any bias, other than perhaps a slight sense of moral superiority that British cops don't habitually shoot people.

 

What's the general feeling over there on this topic? TBh, i think that's probably a more fruitful discussion than our perceived views of the standard of journalism in this particular article.

not leaving out known facts is extremely important when it comes to journalism though. You could see how leaving out the FACT that he was selling an illegal firearm to an undercover officer can paint an entirely different picture for the recipients of the article, right? He wasn't just accused of doing it. There is a complete video of him doing this.

 

The general feeling? can't speak for everyone but its a total cluster**** of a situation. We have a lot of dumb people on both sides of the fence that refuse to show compassion or logic for the other side. Thats my take on it anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically your handgun is on your right hip.  The taser is not.

 

Accidently pulling your gun when you meant to pull your taser is complete BS.  That subway situation back in 2009 comes to mind.  The black male was on his stomach and offering no resistance whatsoever.  He was just being harassed by police and there was no reason to use a taser.  Roughly half a dozen people caught this on camera mainly with phones.  He has the man down on his stomach and he is offering zero resistance.  The cop claims he meant to reach for his taser but he grabs his .40 cal instead of just shoots the man right in the back at point blank.

 

A typical sidearm for a police officer is the Glock 22 (.40 caliber) and nothing about a Glock 22 feels like a goddamn taser.  End of discussion.

Hmm, he was getting on a bit though dude.  When you're that old your decision-making is not at its best (e.g CB's forum rankings and he's 20 years younger).

 

It kind of begs the question why is a 73 year old running around pretending to be a cop?  Can anyone enlighten me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not leaving out known facts is extremely important when it comes to journalism though. You could see how leaving out the FACT that he was selling an illegal firearm to an undercover officer can paint an entirely different picture for the recipients of the article, right? He wasn't just accused of doing it. There is a complete video of him doing this.

 

The general feeling? can't speak for everyone but its a total **** of a situation. We have a lot of dumb people on both sides of the fence that refuse to show compassion or logic for the other side. Thats my take on it anyway.

Only to people who didn't read the article properly  :P

Edited by Bubba_Sparks
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just saying "accused" isn't the same as having video tape of the guy doing.

No, but it's enough for the average reader to understand enough of the situation to know that it was a suspected felon who was being chased.  The severity of the crime he was accused of, and the weight of evidence against him is immaterial; we all get that it wasn't just some random dude they decided to chase.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no its not.

 

Yes it was.  After he's shot they aren't even radioing for an ambulance which should have been done immediately instead of continuing to assault him both physically and verbally.

 

It's at the very least some sort of negligent homicide.  A 73 YEAR OLD RESERVE DEPUTY should only be allowed to carry a taser and some pepper spray, maybe a night stick.  No where on his body should he have a lethal weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really hard for a Brit to understand the whole right to bear arms thing.  I understand it was whacked in your constitution so that you could rise up and overthrow the government if they became corrupt.

 

However, wouldn't a logical extension of that right extend to the right to bear similar levels of weaponry to the government i.e tanks, nukes etc.  Is the "right to bear arms" perhaps an anachronism?

 

I'm happy to be enlightened on this topic by my American cousins, however. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen these nearly 100 year old men around my town before.  They are typically in a 1995 Chevy Caprice that is damn near falling apart.  It's probably on it's 2nd transmission and the motor has been rebuilt about 3 times.  They are old as dirt and they DO NOT have a .40 caliber glock on their hip.

 

Here's what their job consists of.

 

1.  Driving around in a 8 cylinder vehicle wasting gas.

2.  Driving around in a 8 cylinder vehicle wasting gas and pulling out in front of someone that they don't even see coming.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but it's enough for the average reader to understand enough of the situation to know that it was a suspected felon who was being chased.  The severity of the crime he was accused of, and the weight of evidence against him is immaterial; we all get that it wasn't just some random dude they decided to chase.

It absolutely changes the situation. An "accused" "black suspect" is very different from a man who was literally just caught on video handing a gun to a police officer. The former leaves his guilt open for debate. We dont if this is the man or not. The latter is as clear as day this is a criminal.

 

Dont understand why you can't see the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really hard for a Brit to understand the whole right to bear arms thing.  I understand it was whacked in your constitution so that you could rise up and overthrow the government if they became corrupt.

 

However, wouldn't a logical extension of that right extend to the right to bear similar levels of weaponry to the government i.e tanks, nukes etc.  Is the "right to bear arms" perhaps an anachronism?

 

I'm happy to be enlightened on this topic by my American cousins, however. 

 

I own guns because I live in this country.  If I lived somewhere else I doubt I would need them or I certainly wouldn't own as many.

 

You have two kinds of criminals in this country.  You have someone that could be a violent citizen with a fully automatic Mac-11 that pulls up beside you at a red light and opens fire for no reason and you have cops that are typically allowed to murder the wrong people.

 

I live in the most dangerous state in the Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it was.  After he's shot they aren't even radioing for an ambulance which should have been done immediately instead of continuing to assault him both physically and verbally.

 

It's at the very least some sort of negligent homicide.  A 73 YEAR OLD RESERVE DEPUTY should only be allowed to carry a taser and some pepper spray, maybe a night stick.  No where on his body should he have a lethal weapon.

you're right with it at least being involuntary manslaughter.

 

But murder requires it be premeditated and i just don't believe that is the case here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're right with it at least being involuntary manslaughter.

 

But murder requires it be premeditated and i just don't believe that is the case here. 

 

No it wasn't murder in THIS case.  However a man that is 8 years past the point of retirement has no business chasing criminals around with a loaded handgun.  That's just stupid on so many levels.

Edited by CorporalClegg209
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really hard for a Brit to understand the whole right to bear arms thing.  I understand it was whacked in your constitution so that you could rise up and overthrow the government if they became corrupt.

 

However, wouldn't a logical extension of that right extend to the right to bear similar levels of weaponry to the government i.e tanks, nukes etc.  Is the "right to bear arms" perhaps an anachronism?

 

I'm happy to be enlightened on this topic by my American cousins, however. 

any combative civilian rebellion against a corrupt government as big as the U.S.'s seems like it would be futile in today's world.

 

That said, in a world filled with illegal guns, i find the right to own them for protection necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many of these officers are ignorant fools that could barely graduate high school.  They completely suck at life and they are power hungry criminals with a badge and a gun.  They drive around in their 8 cylinder gas hogs and harass people constantly.  I see it every single day first hand.

Edited by CorporalClegg209
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It absolutely changes the situation. An "accused" "black suspect" is very different from a man who was literally just caught on video handing a gun to a police officer. The former leaves his guilt open for debate. We dont if this is the man or not. The latter is as clear as day this is a criminal.

 

Dont understand why you can't see the difference.

In the eyes of the law, there is no difference.

 

If a man is accused of a crime, irrespective of the evidence, he is "accused", not guilty.  Guilt only comes when proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

 

When I read "accused", i immediately assumed that he was suspected of committing a crime, and that the cops were justified in chasing him. I don't need a sketchy video clip to fill in the gaps for me.

 

I don't mean this as a patronising put down, but I think this is a generation thing.  You have grown up with video content as a standard part of news; for me, it's still a new and slightly unwelcome intrusion.  That's why I'm quite happy with the way the article is written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own guns because I live in this country.  If I lived somewhere else I doubt I would need them or I certainly wouldn't own as many.

 

You have two kinds of criminals in this country.  You have someone that could be a violent citizen with a fully automatic Mac-11 that pulls up beside you at a red light and opens fire for no reason and you have cops that are typically allowed to murder the wrong people.

 

I live in the most dangerous state in the Union.

 

 

any combative civilian rebellion against a corrupt government as big as the U.S.'s seems like it would be futile in today's world.

 

That said, in a world filled with illegal guns, i find the right to own them for protection necessary. 

Thank you.  Sounds like a vicious circle - hard to change the culture of 200 million+ people overnight I suppose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the eyes of the law, there is no difference.

 

If a man is accused of a crime, irrespective of the evidence, he is "accused", not guilty.  Guilt only comes when proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

 

When I read "accused", i immediately assumed that he was suspected of committing a crime, and that the cops were justified in chasing him. I don't need a sketchy video clip to fill in the gaps for me.

 

I don't mean this as a patronising put down, but I think this is a generation thing.  You have grown up with video content as a standard part of news; for me, it's still a new and slightly unwelcome intrusion.  That's why I'm quite happy with the way the article is written.

all you're doing is showing a lack of transparency here. 

 

We've seen it with our own eyes. 

 

Yes,under law he's innocent until trial....that does NOT change the fact we all have witnessed him doing these illegal activities. Or you wouldn't have witnessed it if i didn't bring it up because the article completely fails to mention it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's about 330 million of us now and men like this arms dealer are often just a product of their environment.  You can't raise a family on minimum wage and people wonder why we have so many people in prison.  People born into poverty often find it very hard to escape without breaking the law.  However if they are not violent offenders they should not be spending decades in prison on drugs or weapons charges unless they are habitual offenders.  The system only makes non violent offenders violent when they are released after spending 5 to 10 years in prison over a large quantity of drugs.

 

Everything is **** backwards in this country.  Wall Street criminals, politicians, police and the extremely wealthy can basically do whatever they want.  Some young man selling dope out of his mother's house needs to be confined to a 6x8 cell for what exactly?  The government uses military planes to smuggle drugs into this country themselves.  The CIA is the largest cocaine dealer in the world.

 

Look at our political system.  There's nothing but people that studied law however there's no test to become a congressman, senator, governor or president.  How do we know any of them are qualified?

 

If I wanted to be a Correction's Officer I have to take a civil service test and get a certain score in order to watch over inmates.  Very little in this world makes sense to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's about 330 million of us now and men like this arms dealer are often just a product of their environment.  You can't raise a family on minimum wage and people wonder why we have so many people in prison.  People born into poverty often find it very hard to escape without breaking the law.  However if they are not violent offenders they should not be spending decades in prison on drugs or weapons charges unless they are habitual offenders.  The system only makes non violent offenders violent when they are released after spending 5 to 10 years in prison over a large quantity of drugs.

 

Everything is **** backwards in this country.  Wall Street criminals, politicians, police and the extremely wealthy can basically do whatever they want.  Some young man selling dope out of his mother's house needs to be confined to a 6x8 cell for what exactly?  The government uses military planes to smuggle drugs into this country themselves.  The CIA is the largest cocaine dealer in the world.

 

Look at our political system.  There's nothing but people that studied law however there's no test to become a congressman, senator, governor or president.  How do we know any of them are qualified?

 

If I wanted to be a Correction's Officer I have to take a civil service test and get a certain score in order to watch over inmates.  Very little in this world makes sense to me.

couldn't agree more.

 

If im being honest here, sometimes i wonder about moving out of the country. Will it better somewhere else? im not really sure. But sometimes all i see is corruption, ignorance, intolerance and contradiction surrounding this country. At the same time i know the opportunities available here and how fortunate i am that those are the worst of my gripes with my country. I know it could be a lot worse. That and it would be really difficult leaving friends and family for the unknown. 

 

Id like to think i have some optimism about this country turning for the better but it has certainly been dwindling through the years.

Edited by 2014's_Welcher_of_the_Year
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

all you're doing is showing a lack of transparency here. 

 

We've seen it with our own eyes. 

 

Yes,under law he's innocent until trial....that does NOT change the fact we all have witnessed him doing these illegal activities. Or you wouldn't have witnessed it if i didn't bring it up because the article completely fails to mention it.

Lol, I don't need to witness it, the article was abundantly clear - he was accused of a crime; I don't need to see a grainy video to believe that he was legitmately accused.  Why are you acting so paranoid as if I'm trying to censor the truth or something?  

 

Even if a video had been shown of him gunning down kids with an AK47, that wouldn't change the fact that it's pretty shocking that a 73 year old guy who can't tell the difference between a taser and a gun is allowed to carry both.  That's the point that you seem hellbent on blurring with incessant attacks on one aspect of the journalistic approach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We treat our veterans like absolute ****.  They go fight these wars and they aren't compensated worth a ****.  They often suffer injuries and head trauma that you cannot recover from and when many of them get back from war they are flagged as potential threats.  I know a 56 year old man that gave the Army 10 years of his life as a paratrooper.  He had upwards of 100 jumps that ruined his knees and now he's addicted to opiates and when his mother dies and his brother's sell her house he will be homeless.

 

This is how we treat people that put their lives on the line in these military operations that take place all over the goddamn world.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, I don't need to witness it, the article was abundantly clear - he was accused of a crime; I don't need to see a grainy video to believe that he was legitmately accused.  Why are you acting so paranoid as if I'm trying to censor the truth or something?  

 

Even if a video had been shown of him gunning down kids with an AK47, that wouldn't change the fact that it's pretty shocking that a 73 year old guy who can't tell the difference between a taser and a gun is allowed to carry both.  That's the point that you seem hellbent on blurring with incessant attacks on one aspect of the journalistic approach

 

Lol, I don't need to witness it, the article was abundantly clear - he was accused of a crime; I don't need to see a grainy video to believe that he was legitmately accused.  Why are you acting so paranoid as if I'm trying to censor the truth or something?  

 

Even if a video had been shown of him gunning down kids with an AK47, that wouldn't change the fact that it's pretty shocking that a 73 year old guy who can't tell the difference between a taser and a gun is allowed to carry both.  That's the point that you seem hellbent on blurring with incessant attacks on one aspect of the journalistic approach

im not trying to blur anything. We've been discussion the article's portrayal (or so i thought) of this incident which is why i was sticking with that subject.

 

i don't know why i gotta say this again, but i will lol :  "accused" leaves the reader of the article with insufficient information on whether the man was a criminal or not. The video shows absolute transparency that he was indeed a criminal. Its that simple and deserves to be noted. 

 

That has no implication on whether this man deserved to be shot or not (he didn't for the record.) Im specifically questioning the integrity of the article. Not the subject of the said article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was ever one thing I agreed with Megasoup about it's that this country is full of ignorant, power tripping hillbillies carrying a badge and a gun.  50 years ago police brutality was worse than what it is now.  None of this is new but technology and the internet are making people think this just came out of nowhere over the past couple of decades.

 

In the south they would be side by side with Klan members lynching a black man because... well because he was black.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not trying to blur anything. We've been discussion the article's portrayal (or so i thought) of this incident which is why i was sticking with that subject.

 

i don't know why i gotta say this again, but i will lol :  "accused" leaves the reader of the article with insufficient information on whether the man was a criminal or not. The video shows absolute transparency that he was indeed a criminal. Its that simple and deserves to be noted. 

 

That has no implication on whether this man deserved to be shot or not (he didn't for the record.) Im specifically questioning the integrity of the article. Not the subject of the said article.

You can say it as many times as you like; that will not change my opinion that it is a non sequiter.

 

The article is about a suspect accidentally being shot in the back.  It is not about whether or not he was a criminal, which is why it is a legitmate decision to leave it out.  It would also be legitimate to include it, but the assumption that leaving it out indicates a bias is the assertion that I am contesting.

 

Very useful to have it in this thread of course.

 

Having read your and CC209's views on things, it all sounds a bit bleak and depressing.  Is there no possible solution in sight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can say it as many times as you like; that will not change my opinion that it is a non sequiter.

 

The article is about a suspect accidentally being shot in the back.  It is not about whether or not he was a criminal, which is why it is a legitmate decision to leave it out.  It would also be legitimate to include it, but the assumption that leaving it out indicates a bias is the assertion that I am contesting.

 

Very useful to have it in this thread of course.

 

Having read your and CC209's views on things, it all sounds a bit bleak and depressing.  Is there no possible solution in sight?

 

Violent revolution against our government.  Drag corrupt police chiefs and politicians out of their homes and string them up from a tree.

 

We simply aren't capable though because our population is really stupid.  We will have riots all over the country because some 6'4" 290 lbs black man that was 19 years old was killed by a white cop after he attacked a tiny convenient store clerk and a cop.  The media intentionally spins it and you hear people saying "Officer Wilson killed a boy"

 

That's one big boy and the sorry son of a **** certainly isn't worth rioting over.  His own mother was exploiting his death for money.  There's a very small percentage of the population that even understands the most basic arithmetic let alone how this country operates.

Edited by CorporalClegg209
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

73 year old cop? **** OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Make excuses for 73 year old dimwit killing a man? **** OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, you can't have a new thread every time a black guy gets shot by a cop.

 

It's inefficient.

Incessant race baiting? **** OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...