Florida, where murder is legal

Page 11 of 25 [ 397 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 25 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Mar 2012, 6:24 pm

simon_says wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

simon_says wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

And why should we take your word for what it "plainly" says when you haven't even established that those terms are arbitrary, not specifically defined, and held to absolutely no standard at all?

It's saying no deadly force if you provoke it UNLESS .etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that UNLESS is standard English. Whatever the terms, there are exceptions listed.

How convenient, instead of specifically addressing my clarification of one of the terms that constitute the exceptions, you would rather distract the issue with some condescending BS.

I'm arguing a side point. That you can provoke a confrontation and still use deadly force. That's all.

My ass, more like you were arguing against a point that I made and misrepresented it. Why was that "side point" even worth mentioning when I never even argued against the fact that there are exceptions? I obviously wasn't arguing about whether or not there are exceptions, I was talking about how the exceptions are specific and don't give nearly as much room to BS with vagueness as you make it out to be.

simon_says wrote:

As to your point, different prosecutors, judges and juries will have their own ideas about what constitutes an imminent threat. If it was math, we wouldnt need juries, just a computer program. But that has nothing to do with my original point.

Sure they will have their own ideas, but specific definitions leave a lot less room for arbitrary bullshitting than vague definitions. How is "imminent threat" vague enough to be bent way out of shape?

You responded to my point to another poster. Not vice versa. This SYG law does include an exemption for someone who provkes a fight. That's clear.

I'm gonna ask you again. Why was it worth mentioning?

simon_says wrote:

As for imminent threat: Some take a punch or advance forward as good enough for a kill. In other cases you might go to prison. Obviously outcomes vary. A man got away with kiling his drunk neighbor who mistakenly tried to open his front door. He went outside with a gun and the neighbor asked for a match and "advanced forward". That was ruled self defense under SYG.

That's a matter of "proportionate use of force", not a matter of defining "imminent danger". The definition of "imminent danger" is consistent here, but whether or not this warrants deadly use of force is subject to much more variance. Anyways what do you want me to say about that incident with so little information? Mind linking me to it?

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 Mar 2012, 6:42 pm

This one from the other thread. He's not dead, just badly injured.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... 128317.ece

Quote:

our years later, Billy Kuch got drunk, so drunk that at 5 a.m. one day he stumbled to the door of the wrong house in a look-alike neighborhood and tried to open it, twice. Before the "stand your ground" law, homeowner Gregory Stewart would have been expected to hunker down in his Land O'Lakes residence, dead-bolt secure, and call police. With the law in place, he could use deadly force anywhere he had a right to be, provided he felt threatened with death or great bodily harm. He had no duty to retreat from danger.

Stewart left his wife inside with their baby and stepped outside, gun in hand. Kuch put his hands up and asked for a light.

"Please don't make me shoot you," Stewart said.

Kuch, then 23, says he might have stumbled. Stewart, then 32, told police the unarmed man took three steps forward. The bullet ripped into Kuch's chest, nicked his heart, shot through his liver, in and out of his stomach, through his spleen, then out his back. He felt like his body was on fire.

Stewart, when questioned by deputies, began to cry. "I could have given him a light," he said.

The days ticked by, Kuch in a coma as his parents waited for word of a trial. And waited. After two months, the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office decided the shooting was justified and dropped the aggravated battery charge. Kuch's parents couldn't believe it.

"We're not against gun ownership," said Bill Kuch, 57 and retired from IBM. "But we're against this law that provides someone the right to kill you without prosecution."

Billy Kuch spent more than a month in the hospital.

"The guy is 6-1, 250. I'm 5-9, 165, and I have a 0.3 blood-alcohol level," he said. "Did he really think I was going to be able to take his gun away?"

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

25 Mar 2012, 6:59 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

If George Zimmerman had intended to kill Trayvon, he would have shot multiple times. From everything I've seen/heard/etc, he was shot once. Employing deadly force in a self-defense situation like this means that the objective is to *stop the attack* - NOT to *kill the bad guy*.

Just because he didn't shoot multiple times doesn't mean it was not intended to kill him.

I'm not familiar with civilian gun laws, but when I was standing armed watches in the military, the rule for use of deadly force was to shoot to stop someone, not to shoot only once. If you shoot and they stop, then good. If you shoot and they don't stop, you shoot again.

You can shoot once and kill someone (and intend to kill them), and you can shoot multiple times and not kill them.

Single vs. multiple shots does not prove (or disprove) intent. Saying he didn't intend to kill him because he only shot once doesn't make sense.

WilliamWDelaney wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Get this straight. Murder is NOT legal in Florida,

This Zimmerman punk is still walking free, so I think you are full of crap.

From what I've heard, the reason he's walking free is that the local police department are not doing their job. That doesn't show that Florida has bad laws (or much less that murder is legal there), it shows the local police department is not doing their job.

There are other investigations being made, including one by the FBI. If the details that I've heard are correct, he's not going to get away with it.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

25 Mar 2012, 7:27 pm

Ancalgon is right. Police may be trained to fire multiple times, but we have seen no evidence that Zimmerman had such training; furthermore, 'using deadly force' by definition has the potential to make the other guy dead. One does not shoot another person in the chest or abdomen any number of times without the expectation that they will be very seriously injured or killed.

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Mar 2012, 7:30 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

It, by itself, doesn't definitively prove or disprove anything - however it contributes to the preponderance of the evidence. If he *did* intend to kill Trayvon, not merely stop the attack, he would have likely fired more than once. Anyone whose been around firearms for even a short amount of times understands that one shot does not necessarily mean a kill. That is why special operations military units train to shoot 2-3 times (two in center mass, one in head).

You yourself hit the nail right on the head:

Quote:

If you shoot and they stop, then good. If you shoot and they don't stop, you shoot again.

This is the default training anyone who has been trained in self-defense operates under. To prove in a court of law that Mr. Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon, as opposed to just stopping the attack, you would have to prove force in excess of that necessary to stop the attack.

_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

25 Mar 2012, 7:48 pm

WilliamWDelaney wrote:

Self-defense is one thing.

Picking a fight with a person, chasing that person down when that person whoops your ret*d fanny, and then shooting that person in the face when it turns out you are too much of a p**** to win in a fair fight...is murder.

HANG HIM HIGH!

No, maybe yes, but check "reasonable" hiding somewhere if only SYG was invoked:

.......... wrote:

In charging the jury on the Justifiable Use of Force, the trial court instructed the jury as follows:

An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which [JOHNSON] is charged if the injury to [SPIVEY] resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
"Deadly force" means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
1. [JOHNSON] initially provoked the use of force against himself, unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on [SPIVEY].
Johnson argues that the giving of the aggressor instruction constituted fundamental error.

The Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 3.6(f) to clarify that the trial court should only include the aggressor instruction when the defendant has been charged with a contemporaneous independent forcible felony other than the one for which the defendant claims self-defense pursuant to Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (2007-3), 976 So.2d 1081 (Fla.2008).

In Giles, 831 So.2d 1263, the Fourth District held that it was fundamental error for a trial court to issue an erroneous jury instruction incorporating section 776.041(1) of the aggressor instruction where the defendant was not charged with a contemporaneous independent forcible felony. The Fourth District reasoned that the giving of the instruction was fundamental error because the defendant was not engaged in an independent forcible felony at the time of the alleged crime, and the charge "was not one where the alleged [forcible felony] occurred while [the defendant] was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of some other independent forcible felony." Id. at 1265.

However, the applicability of section 776.041(2) does not follow the same condition as section 776.041(1) insofar as there is no requirement for a contemporaneous independent forcible felony in the giving of the section 776.041(2) instruction. See Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449, 452 (Fla.2008). Specifically, section 776.041 "[s]ubsection (2) precludes the initial aggressor from asserting self-defense where he or she is the individual who provoked the use of force" contemporaneously to the actions of the victim to which the defendant claims self-defense. Id.

Here, the trial court properly instructed the jury as to the aggressor instruction of the Justifiable Use of Force because there was evidence in the record that Johnson may have initially provoked the use of force against himself.[1] See 1150*1150 § 776.041(2), Fla. Stat. (2010); see also Martinez, 981 So.2d at 452. Accordingly, there being evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction, we find no error. We affirm on all other issues on appeal.

Affirmed.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

weighted with:

AceOfSpades wrote:

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

I'm also very cynical when it comes to the gun control crowd since I've seen so much condescending crap along with them using tragedy as a cheap excuse to soapbox, but I think the law is at fault here in this case. Yes, he went against the dispatcher's orders and his actions might not constitute reasonable force in court, but the fact that he has no duty to retreat in a public law makes this case stand on shaky grounds.

The fact that he instigated the conflict means that the stand your ground law *does not apply* - and he *does* have a duty to retreat.

Quote:

776.041Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I'm not saying that it would still be considered reasonable force even after it has been established that you instigated the whole thing, but that it would be hard to establish who the instigator was in the first place if there is no duty to retreat in a public area. I am aware that the definition of self-defense is specifically defined and not arbitrary like the gun control folks here are making it out to be. The whole notion "You only have to feel threatened to get away with shooting someone!" is rhetorical BS since terms like "imminent threat" and "reasonable force" are specifically defined in law and you can't just pull your own definition out of your ass and expect the court to buy it.

That's not my issue, my issue is that it becomes much greyer when you have no duty to retreat in a public area since it is harder to establish who's in the right and who's in the wrong if one party isn't taking measures to avoid conflict prior to using deadly force. Prevention is the best measure against all the contingencies a grey area presents.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 Mar 2012, 7:50 pm

Quote:

I'm gonna ask you again. Why was it worth mentioning?

Because the poster I was replying to said that because Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, SYG couldnt be used. I just noted that SYG can be used in some cases even if you start it.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Mar 2012, 8:06 pm

Well, while the rest of you were quarreling over this I was at the shooting range NOT wasting my time.

I don't know why all this hand-wringing about bank robbers and sh!t keeps coming up.

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a *forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

*776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
[/b]

While the word "robbery" is included in the definition you'd still have to justify your actions and I can assure you you'd be sailing in dangerous waters legally in attempting to intervene on a bank robber or the like with deadly force. The bank robbers had better be killing people and you'd better be the only johnny on the spot with a piece to have a leg to stand on.
That would apply just about anywhere in addition to that horrible, horrible place (except for spring break) Florida...... :roll:

Whatever, though.....
I vote this the nuttiest gunz-r-bad thread that we've had yet and that's saying A LOT.

:cheers:

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Mar 2012, 8:14 pm

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

I'm gonna ask you again. Why was it worth mentioning?

Because the poster I was replying to said that because Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, SYG couldnt be used. I just noted that SYG can be used in some cases even if you start it.

You have not once provided an example where someone who instigated a conflict was able to successfully able to use stand your ground laws as their defense.

_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

25 Mar 2012, 8:46 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

To prove in a court of law that Mr. Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon, as opposed to just stopping the attack, you would have to prove force in excess of that necessary to stop the attack.

Well, this is an issue that a court will have to decide, but from the information I have, it isn't necessarily the case that Trayvon attacked him at all. I think if they can prove that Zimmerman intended to provoke an incident, they don't need to show that he used too much force. In any case, it seems likely that they can show excessive use of force, since Zimmerman was so much bigger than Trayvon and Trayvon was unarmed. Again, I'm not familiar with the details of civilian laws, but the rule in the military was that if you can stop the incident without using deadly force, you do that -- deadly force is a last resort. I find it hard to believe that someone so much bigger than the other guy couldn't have pushed him away or drawn his gun and threatened to use it if the other guy didn't back off.

There's a story I heard while I was in the military where this guy was on watch with a shotgun and some civilians in a boat were getting too close to the area he was protecting. He yelled at them to stop, while in uniform and carrying a shotgun, but they just didn't pay any attention at all. Then he racked back the shotgun and they immediately started falling over themselves to comply. Nobody needed to get shot over that, and I don't think anyone needed to get shot over this.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Mar 2012, 8:49 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

To prove in a court of law that Mr. Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon, as opposed to just stopping the attack, you would have to prove force in excess of that necessary to stop the attack.

I agree with you in principle, but we're not talking about whether Zimmerman's actions were a bad shoot or not, we're talking about whether it was murder or manslaughter. There's no doubt in my mind that this was a bad shoot - but I don't believe the prosecutor can charge him with murder, only manslaughter.

_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 Mar 2012, 8:58 pm

Quote:

You have not once provided an example where someone who instigated a conflict was able to successfully able to use stand your ground laws as their defense.

I read what the law says. :lol:

I never said I would supply a case and no one asked me to. Stop pulling rabbits out of your hat.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

25 Mar 2012, 9:03 pm

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

You have not once provided an example where someone who instigated a conflict was able to successfully able to use stand your ground laws as their defense.

I read what the law says. :lol:

I never said I would supply a case and no one asked me to. Stop pulling rabbits out of your hat.

But why if he is a magician the Joker wants to see him put on a show hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

25 Mar 2012, 9:17 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

I'm gonna ask you again. Why was it worth mentioning?

Because the poster I was replying to said that because Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, SYG couldnt be used. I just noted that SYG can be used in some cases even if you start it.

You have not once provided an example where someone who instigated a conflict was able to successfully able to use stand your ground laws as their defense.

Hi sliqua-jcooter,

If you are not just playing musical-chairs with the popularized names of sections of Law, for your own polemics, start your own legal research, as such cases were hypothesized by the courts (with reasonings also of no superfluous laws):

instigate with subsequent defense wrote:

As noted by the majority, when a defendant presents a claim of self-defense, he admits that he committed the criminal act with which he has been charged but contends that the act was justifiable. See Hopson, 168 So. at 811. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a theory of defense if there is any evidence to support that theory, regardless of how the trial judge views the strength of the evidence. See Goode v. State, 856 So.2d 1101, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Thus, where conflicting evidence is offered, self-defense is an issue for the jury to determine. See Stewart v. State, 672 So.2d 865, 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Once a defendant produces evidence in support of a self-defense claim, the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not taken in self-defense. See Fowler v. State, 921 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); S.D.G. v. State, 919 So.2d 704, 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Sneed v. State, 580 So.2d 169, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). One district court has even held that the sheer importance of a self-defense instruction to a defendant renders it akin to an instruction on a disputed element of an offense, such that an erroneous instruction on the defense constitutes fundamental error. See Zuniga v. State, 869 So.2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 5&as_vis=1

Tadzio

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Mar 2012, 9:49 pm

Tadzio wrote:

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

I'm gonna ask you again. Why was it worth mentioning?

Because the poster I was replying to said that because Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, SYG couldnt be used. I just noted that SYG can be used in some cases even if you start it.

You have not once provided an example where someone who instigated a conflict was able to successfully able to use stand your ground laws as their defense.

instigate with subsequent defense wrote:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 5&as_vis=1

Tadzio

I'm trying really hard to understand your point - but all I see is something that is completely consistent with what I just said.

Quote:

§ 776.041, Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied). Subsection (2) precludes the initial aggressor from asserting self-defense where he or she is the individual who provoked the use of force. Hence, subsection (2) governs the circumstance where the defendant initiated the assault, as in the hypothetical discussed in the prior paragraph. Therefore, to conclude that subsection (1) applies where there is no independent forcible felony would render subsection (2) superfluous and completely unnecessary because subsection (1) already addresses the defendant-as-provoker exception.

_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Mar 2012, 10:09 pm

Furthermore, it appears that he was convicted on the original charges - and his appeal had nothing to do with the validity of the stand your ground law - but rather on whether the jury instructions for a forcible felony were correct. It also appears that the appellate court ruled to uphold the conviction.

Even if they hadn't - the reason the conviction was overturned had nothing whatsoever to do with the stand your ground law, but rather a procedural error in how the jury instruction was described.

_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.

Page 11 of 25 [ 397 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 25 Next

Jump to:

Florida, where murder is legal Post Reply New Topic

Florida, where murder is legal