It is currently Thu Nov 28, 2024 10:07 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Charges for Derek Chauvin ?
1st Degree Murder 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
2nd Degree Murder 36%  36%  [ 10 ]
Voluntary Manslaughter 39%  39%  [ 11 ]
Involuntary Manslaughter 14%  14%  [ 4 ]
No Charges 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 28
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41379
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
I don't think this is political, that's why I put it here...hell even Limbaugh is calling for them to throw the book at this guy, I really want to get a pulse of what people think the charges should be.

As much as I want him to get 1st or 2nd, I think realistically you have to go for voluntary manslaughter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Probably 2nd degree murder.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 11008
pizza_Place: Generic Pizza Store
involuntary. even if the guy was a racist POS i cant believe he willingly wanted to kill the man in the middle of a street.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33067
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
It’s disgusting, but intent will be very very tough to prove.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:08 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79590
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
The worst thing that could happen is they overcharge it and he's found not guilty. We've seen that done on purpose in Cook County.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 11008
pizza_Place: Generic Pizza Store
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The worst thing that could happen is they overcharge it and he's found not guilty. We've seen that done on purpose in Cook County.


ill ask dicaro next, but figured i can start here. can you charge higher and the jury can decide lesser is appropriate or do you have to charge what you think you can get for fear they walk?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:13 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Manslaughter

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:36 pm
Posts: 6715
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
No charges. Cant indulge the riots.

Call the tanks in and finally make it clear this shit isn't tolerable. Their "crisis" and "epidemic" of police violence is a myth, you're more likely to get struck by lightning than killed innocently by a police officer.

Maybe once this is put down you bring the guy to justice, but right now that's not really what's important. These people think they're in control, time to show them otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 16490
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
Has to be involuntary manslaughter, not murder.

Hard to get at his thoughts though...he knew he was being recorded. But somehow did he think the other officers would stop him if he was crossing the line? Did that give him an excuse in his mind? (They didn't stop me, so they must have agreed with my actions.)

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Last edited by Jaw Breaker on Fri May 29, 2020 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:23 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The worst thing that could happen is they overcharge it and he's found not guilty. We've seen that done on purpose in Cook County.
Agreed.

If this is two guys in a streetfight, its second degree murder. Because its a cop, it will likely be manslaughter, which should be convictable.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Quote:
609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:

(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;

(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence, either upon or affecting the person or another;

(3) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of the person or another, while committing or attempting to commit burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, arson in the first or second degree, a drive-by shooting, tampering with a witness in the first degree, escape from custody, or any felony violation of chapter 152 involving the unlawful sale of a controlled substance;

(4) causes the death of a peace officer, prosecuting attorney, judge, or a guard employed at a Minnesota state or local correctional facility, with intent to effect the death of that person or another, while the person is engaged in the performance of official duties;

(5) causes the death of a minor while committing child abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of child abuse upon a child and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life;

(6) causes the death of a human being while committing domestic abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family or household member and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life; or

(7) causes the death of a human being while committing, conspiring to commit, or attempting to commit a felony crime to further terrorism and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.

Quote:
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

§Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

Quote:
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

Quote:
609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:

(1) intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that the crying of a child does not constitute provocation;

(2) violates section 609.224 and causes the death of another or causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable, and murder in the first or second degree was not committed thereby;

(3) intentionally causes the death of another person because the actor is coerced by threats made by someone other than the actor's coconspirator and which cause the actor reasonably to believe that the act performed by the actor is the only means of preventing imminent death to the actor or another;

(4) proximately causes the death of another, without intent to cause death by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V; or

(5) causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.377 (malicious punishment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

As used in this section, a "person of ordinary self-control" does not include a person under the influence of intoxicants or a controlled substance.

Quote:
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or

(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or

(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or

(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or

(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41379
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
What you got, JLN?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19045
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The worst thing that could happen is they overcharge it and he's found not guilty. We've seen that done on purpose in Cook County.

Lesser. Included. Offenses.

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
What's the goal in charging him, to calm people down? Then go ahead and charge him with any level of murder and watch him walk, because if the Baltimore rough ride cops weren't convictable of depraved heart murder (murder three in Minnesota, looks like), then you're certainly not going to get a cop who was keeping a resisting suspect subdued.

If the goal is conviction, even 2nd degree manslaughter might be pretty tough. "Unreasonable risk" brings to mind the "reasonable officer" standard, and while the prone restraint is considered potentially dangerous, the only thing I've seen about its use by the police there is that the move isn't taught, not that it is banned as a matter of policy by the department. If the facts show that Floyd did indeed start to physically resist officers, and thus they had good reason to subdue him even though he was in handcuffs, it will probably be tough to convince a judge or jury that the prone restraint employed was unreasonable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19045
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Cynical me would say they should charge him to placate those out for blood, then dick around for months and months trying to figure out where and how to have an impartial trial, then hold a trial in a year or two and hope that everyone forgets about what happened by then. Do just enough to look like you're doing something without actually doing anything. That's the American way!

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:56 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
it will probably be tough to convince a judge or jury that the prone restraint employed was unreasonable.
Even as he was passed out and dying?

Without knowing the facts, nobody can say that initial restraint was unnecessary. Keeping the man pinned down as he was losing life is simply not acceptable under any circumstances. Nobody can argue otherwise, period end of discussion.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
it will probably be tough to convince a judge or jury that the prone restraint employed was unreasonable.
Even as he was passed out and dying?

Without knowing the facts, nobody can say that initial restraint was unnecessary. Keeping the man pinned down as he was losing life is simply not acceptable under any circumstances. Nobody can argue otherwise, period end of discussion.
See this is the problem with officious statements like this, they sound good in your head, and you know people are going to cheer you on, but when you try to apply them to practical reality, they become absurd. For instance, using your "not acceptable under any circumstances" rule here, we would have to prosecute every cop that shoots a suspect and then cuffs them, because after all, they are restraining someone who is losing life, right? And as you said, that is "simply not acceptable under ANY circumstances".

But obviously, rational and reasonable minds (maybe this includes you, maybe not), can agree that police officers should probably cuff a guy they feel they had to shoot, because the threat level only begins to go down when the person posing the threat is restrained/confined. And similarly, reasonable and rational minds can agree that, especially when "nobody can say that initial restraint was unnecessary", it is not unreasonable for an officer subduing a resisting suspect to continue to restrain that suspect until backup arrives sufficient to effectuate the arrest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14931
pizza_Place: Grazianos
Based on the things shown as the definitions of the different categories of murder or manslaughter, I'd say 2nd degree murder should be the charge. Clearly this cop was trying to at least torture this guy with the way he was forcing his knee to the guy's neck. If I have ever seen evil on anyone face, it was this cop's face as it happened.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14931
pizza_Place: Grazianos
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
it will probably be tough to convince a judge or jury that the prone restraint employed was unreasonable.
Even as he was passed out and dying?

Without knowing the facts, nobody can say that initial restraint was unnecessary. Keeping the man pinned down as he was losing life is simply not acceptable under any circumstances. Nobody can argue otherwise, period end of discussion.


I agree.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32067
pizza_Place: Milano's
The Hawk doing a face turn ? :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:49 pm
Posts: 1150
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati’s
Did The Hawk change his medication? :shock:

_________________
(REDACTED)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:21 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Fair enough JLN, then apply practical reality to this situation. Backup was not needed to keep a passed out man subdued. Continuing to pin a man down after he lost consciousness is not acceptable under any circumstances. Further, the chief of police already came and said that pinning suspects down with the officer's knee is not protocol and they do not train their officers that way, so yes using methods that are against department protocol absolutely are "not acceptable under any circumstances."

Reasonable and rational minds will agree with me. Board lawers and board racists may not.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:36 pm
Posts: 6715
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Well the Hawk is objectively right. Anyone who sees it knows.

But now this is about more than the cop, its about whether we want to encourage riots every time something happens that upsets the 20% most left of America.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:49 pm
Posts: 1150
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati’s
Antarctica wrote:
Well the Hawk is objectively right. Anyone who sees it knows.

But now this is about more than the cop, its about whether we want to encourage riots every time something happens that upsets the 20% most left of America.

Should they have stormed City Hall armed to the teeth and screamed in the face of any cop who blocked them?

_________________
(REDACTED)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:36 pm
Posts: 6715
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
B Mac wrote:
Antarctica wrote:
Well the Hawk is objectively right. Anyone who sees it knows.

But now this is about more than the cop, its about whether we want to encourage riots every time something happens that upsets the 20% most left of America.

Should they have stormed City Hall armed to the teeth and screamed in the face of any cop who blocked them?

Yes, that probably would've worked better.

It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt now that you're way better off just peacefully protesting with guns, and the police will not fuck with you if you're packing. This goes for blacks too, those guys in Georgia were all kitted out in the Black Panther shit and those good ol boys definitely let them be.

Now these guys in Minneapolis are going to get the tanks rolled on em.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:39 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Antarctica wrote:
B Mac wrote:
Antarctica wrote:
Well the Hawk is objectively right. Anyone who sees it knows.

But now this is about more than the cop, its about whether we want to encourage riots every time something happens that upsets the 20% most left of America.

Should they have stormed City Hall armed to the teeth and screamed in the face of any cop who blocked them?

Yes, that probably would've worked better.

It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt now that you're way better off just peacefully protesting with guns, and the police will not fuck with you if you're packing. This goes for blacks too, those guys in Georgia were all kitted out in the Black Panther shit and those good ol boys definitely let them be.

Now these guys in Minneapolis are going to get the tanks rolled on em.


This is sad, but true. Police aren't going to gas the people with guns. They will gas the people with rocks and plastic bottles.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:49 pm
Posts: 1150
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati’s
Antarctica wrote:
B Mac wrote:
Antarctica wrote:
Well the Hawk is objectively right. Anyone who sees it knows.

But now this is about more than the cop, its about whether we want to encourage riots every time something happens that upsets the 20% most left of America.

Should they have stormed City Hall armed to the teeth and screamed in the face of any cop who blocked them?

Yes, that probably would've worked better.

It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt now that you're way better off just peacefully protesting with guns, and the police will not fuck with you if you're packing. This goes for blacks too, those guys in Georgia were all kitted out in the Black Panther shit and those good ol boys definitely let them be.

Now these guys in Minneapolis are going to get the tanks rolled on em.

Screaming in a cop's face 2 inches away with an AR on your shoulder is peaceful? I'd like to see a Muslim try that.

_________________
(REDACTED)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:36 pm
Posts: 6715
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
B Mac wrote:
Antarctica wrote:
B Mac wrote:
Antarctica wrote:
Well the Hawk is objectively right. Anyone who sees it knows.

But now this is about more than the cop, its about whether we want to encourage riots every time something happens that upsets the 20% most left of America.

Should they have stormed City Hall armed to the teeth and screamed in the face of any cop who blocked them?

Yes, that probably would've worked better.

It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt now that you're way better off just peacefully protesting with guns, and the police will not fuck with you if you're packing. This goes for blacks too, those guys in Georgia were all kitted out in the Black Panther shit and those good ol boys definitely let them be.

Now these guys in Minneapolis are going to get the tanks rolled on em.

Screaming in a cop's face 2 inches away with an AR on your shoulder is peaceful? I'd like to see a Muslim try that.

Well look I cant just snap my fingers and will things you'd like to see into existence, but the proof is in the pudding. If you want to protest in 2020 America you better bring a rifle. Things will be VERY cordial in that case.

The democrats have of course dug themselves in to the point of no return on the gun issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:36 pm
Posts: 6715
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Nas wrote:
This is sad, but true. Police aren't going to gas the people with guns. They will gas the people with rocks and plastic bottles.

I've done some thinking on why this is and I really think it comes down to mutually assured destruction. The guns have as much a moderating effect on the protesters as they do on the police, because there is a subconscious responsibility one feels when walking around with a semi-automatic rifle. If somebody starts getting out of line with those kinds of stakes everybody buys it because then comes the military, and the military is not a tactful and negotiating force the way the police are.

The cops know it and the protesters know it and nobody needs to say a word. Its almost like that second amendment exists for a reason!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13259
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
There are reports now that the Chauvin and George Floyd worked together as security at a club. Does that (potential) connection change anything with regard to possible charges?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11736609/george-floyd-cop-worked-together-minneapolis/

_________________
“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”- JD Vance
“My god, what an !diot.”- JD Vance tweet on Trump
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy”- JD Vance


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group