View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 22nd, 2014, 10:44 am



Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12202
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
Count me on the side of waiting for all the fact to come out.

That said..
Quote:
Dead men tell no tales

There were only 2 people that know exactly what happened that night, and only 1 of them is alive. Considering as eyewitness accounts are flawed by nature, the only real evidence in this case will be whatever forensics can compile and that takes time. One thing I will say about the coverage on this case so far, its going to be difficult as hell to find an acceptable, unbiased jury pool for the upcoming trial.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 18th, 2012, 12:34 pm
Profile
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
m2karateman wrote:
Well then I guess every mail delivery person, every paper deliver person, and any salesman going door to door is a criminal. The assumption you make is NOT safe. And if someone is following you, will you avoid going into someone's yard because you may be seen as being there to commit a crime? I HIGHLY, HIGHLY doubt it. I don't think you would give a second thought to trespassing, particularly if you feel your life may be in danger.


That's bullsh!t, M2, and you know it. Martin didn't walk up to the door and knock. He was acting shady and walking around a house that didn't belong to him or his family and peering into windows.

I'm not making assumptions. I'm going off of what was said. YOU'Re the one that is saying "maybe this happened, and then maybe this happened, and then maybe he felt this way." The fact that your story has so many "maybes" highlights the reason this thing shouldn't currently be in court.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't jump a fence or run through a yard if I was being chased. Hell, I've done it! That said, the altercation didn't start with him "being chased" it started with him peeking into the windows of a house that he had no business peeking in. It was Martin's SHADY behavior that started the whole damn thing.


m2karateman wrote:
Um, excuse me. I know you're a lawyer and all, but a person does not have to wait until they are attacked before they can act. Were Martin still alive, he could easily say he felt as if he was being threatened by Martin following him, and many reasonable people would understand his feelings. It's like saying you can't hit someone until they throw the first punch. You can't just hit a person if they haven't done anything to threaten you or make you feel like you are in danger. But a threat, either through oral communication or by action that is perceived by someone as such, and with the very real possibility of that threat being carried out, is a reasonable assumption and can be acted upon in self defense. This I know. And while you say following someone isn't a crime, I say it can be perceived as a threat, to which Martin had a right to defend himself.


No, you don't have to wait until they are attacked before they can act, but they have to have a REASONABLE FEAR OF CONTACT/HARM. If someone is following you (especially while they are on the phone with the damn police... but lets say Martin didn't know Zimmerman was on the phone with the police... unlikely, Martin PROBABLY knew he was in trouble and he was PROBABLY fleeing that trouble, but lets not speculate... Zimmerman WAS following Martin WHILE talking on the phone) its not reasonable to ASSUME that you're about to be attacked. You don't get to beat the sh!t out of everyone that follows you. It is not reasonable to assume that someone following you is threatening you. You HAVE to wait for some further action. You HAVE to see how they approach you first, period.

If what you said was true it would be reasonable for every celeb to beat the crap out of the paparazzi.

And if you think for one minute that a ghetto thug is worried about some fat suburbanite following him, you're fooling yourself. The only thing Martin was worried about was getting into trouble.


m2karateman wrote:
And that's fine. But, as Pablo said, what is the problem with letting the facts play out in court. If he's found not guilty, then so be it. Police take folks into custody after the initial crime all the time. Reasonable doubt is something that is supposed to play out in court, not in the precinct.


The problem with letting the "facts play out in court," is they have NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST ZIMMERMAN. Just because Martin is dead and just because Zimmerman admitted to shooting him it doesn't mean that there is probable cause to believe that he was guilty of murder/manslaughter. You have to know that PRIOR to charging someone. Why not charge everyone that left the bar and got home with DUI and "let the facts play out in court"? That's ridiculous. You need some further action, some PROOF that it actually happened. You are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, not the other way around.

m2karateman wrote:
I never said it hurts Zimmerman. I am actually saying it's pretty convenient for Zimmerman that nobody actually saw the prelude to the entire incident prior to the shooting. There is no way of knowing what prompted Martin to attack Zimmerman, or if there was any form of provocation.

All I know is this, being a gun owner I know that if someone is attacking me, I don't immediately draw the gun. I know that if I have time to draw my gun, I have time to do other things. I'm not saying that it's unreasonable to think Zimmerman couldn't have felt like his life was in danger. But that is SUPPOSED to be your absolute last resort, not your first inclination. I just feel that Zimmerman did what he wanted to do, not what he actually HAD to do.


Convenient? Sure, did Zimmerman orchestrate it? Did he control where the witnesses were? Was he following Martin or did he lead Martin somewhere? Why is it even mentionable, other than as a lack of proof against Zimmerman, and as a reason that he SHOULDN'T be charged, to say that "no one else saw it." That's just ridiculous. It's a lack of evidence against someone that is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY, i.e. further proof that this case shouldn't be in front of a judge at this point in time.


May 18th, 2012, 1:27 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
Actually they did have cause to arrest him. In the evidence that was just released in the past few days, there is apparently documentation showing that the lead investigator on the case wanted Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting. Apparently the state Attorney's Office said there was not enough evidence to lead to a conviction.

That whole situation just seems odd to me. If there was any doubt about it, aren't they better off making an arrest and finding the facts? The State Attorney saying there isn't enough evidence to convict right off the bat strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction. The man shot and killed someone. That much is known. To me, that alone should have been enough to warrant a full examination of all the facts, especially considering that the lead investigator recommended he be arrested.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


May 18th, 2012, 3:10 pm
Profile
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
Actually they did have cause to arrest him. In the evidence that was just released in the past few days, there is apparently documentation showing that the lead investigator on the case wanted Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting. Apparently the state Attorney's Office said there was not enough evidence to lead to a conviction.

That whole situation just seems odd to me. If there was any doubt about it, aren't they better off making an arrest and finding the facts? The State Attorney saying there isn't enough evidence to convict right off the bat strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction. The man shot and killed someone. That much is known. To me, that alone should have been enough to warrant a full examination of all the facts, especially considering that the lead investigator recommended he be arrested.



Hahaha... TDJ, you say that they had cause to arrest Zimmerman, but the State Attorney's Office said there wasn't enough evidence... Want to connect that for me?

No, the INVESTIGATOR had the "knee-jerk" reaction (investigators know very little about the law), and the State Attorney made a conscious, rational decision based on the evidence at hand. Like I said, shooting and killing someone isn't probable cause.


May 18th, 2012, 3:40 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
Actually they did have cause to arrest him. In the evidence that was just released in the past few days, there is apparently documentation showing that the lead investigator on the case wanted Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting. Apparently the state Attorney's Office said there was not enough evidence to lead to a conviction.

That whole situation just seems odd to me. If there was any doubt about it, aren't they better off making an arrest and finding the facts? The State Attorney saying there isn't enough evidence to convict right off the bat strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction. The man shot and killed someone. That much is known. To me, that alone should have been enough to warrant a full examination of all the facts, especially considering that the lead investigator recommended he be arrested.



Hahaha... TDJ, you say that they had cause to arrest Zimmerman, but the State Attorney's Office said there wasn't enough evidence... Want to connect that for me?

No, the INVESTIGATOR had the "knee-jerk" reaction (investigators know very little about the law), and the State Attorney made a conscious, rational decision based on the evidence at hand. Like I said, shooting and killing someone isn't probable cause.

My understanding from what was written is that the State Attorney didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. That was based on one night of investigation. Certainly not all of the facts were in at that point, and it seems to me that is a bit too quickly to make that determination. Having enough evidence to convict (on the night of the incident) and having probable cause to arrest are not the same thing (at least as far as I understand it). To me (and I'm no lawyer so take it for what it's worth), probably cause to arrest means that there is enough evidence and suspicion that something illegal possibly happened. In this case, they know that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told he didn't need to, then there was apparently a confrontation/fight/scuffle, and one person was killed. They didn't know who started it or exactly what happened. Then you throw into the mix the fact that Zimmerman had two prior arrests: one for assaulting a cop, the other for domestic abuse. So you have a person who has a documented history of at least being arrested for physical confrontations, who got into another confrontation, and this time someone died. Add all that up, and there is enough history, evidence, and uncertainty that it's not out of the question that he could have been arrested. That sort of thing happens all the time. You're making it sound like there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Zimmerman was in the wrong, and that's simply not true.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


May 19th, 2012, 2:03 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
Sorry. I have had time to post / respond here in a few days but I will soon.

In the meantime, some of you might want to note that Martin's autopsy found he had THC in his blood and that he was therefore smoking some hootch the night of his attack on Zimmerman and his subsequent death. I don't have the link handy but it's been all over the news.



hat36.gif

_________________
Image


May 20th, 2012, 7:36 am
Profile WWW
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
LionFan57 wrote:
Sorry. I have had time to post / respond here in a few days but I will soon.

In the meantime, some of you might want to note that Martin's autopsy found he had THC in his blood and that he was therefore smoking some hootch the night of his attack on Zimmerman and his subsequent death. I don't have the link handy but it's been all over the news.



hat36.gif

First of all, the fact that THC was in his system is irrelevant. Second, it doesn't mean he smoked that day. That stuff stays in your system for at least a couple weeks after smoking. So it could have been the day of, or it could have been a week or two earlier. Either way, it shouldn't matter. It has nothing to do with what happened.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


May 20th, 2012, 10:12 am
Profile
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
My understanding from what was written is that the State Attorney didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. That was based on one night of investigation. Certainly not all of the facts were in at that point, and it seems to me that is a bit too quickly to make that determination. Having enough evidence to convict (on the night of the incident) and having probable cause to arrest are not the same thing (at least as far as I understand it). To me (and I'm no lawyer so take it for what it's worth), probably cause to arrest means that there is enough evidence and suspicion that something illegal possibly happened. In this case, they know that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told he didn't need to, then there was apparently a confrontation/fight/scuffle, and one person was killed. They didn't know who started it or exactly what happened. Then you throw into the mix the fact that Zimmerman had two prior arrests: one for assaulting a cop, the other for domestic abuse. So you have a person who has a documented history of at least being arrested for physical confrontations, who got into another confrontation, and this time someone died. Add all that up, and there is enough history, evidence, and uncertainty that it's not out of the question that he could have been arrested. That sort of thing happens all the time. You're making it sound like there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Zimmerman was in the wrong, and that's simply not true.


Your understanding is incorrect. The State Attorney didn't say that they "didn't have enough for a conviction," she came out and said specifically "we don't have probable cause to make an arrest." Probable cause is much more than a "suspicion that something illegal possibly happened," sorry, the standard is much, much higher than that, and there was no probable cause here.


May 20th, 2012, 3:37 pm
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
LionFan57 wrote:
Sorry. I have had time to post / respond here in a few days but I will soon.

In the meantime, some of you might want to note that Martin's autopsy found he had THC in his blood and that he was therefore smoking some hootch the night of his attack on Zimmerman and his subsequent death. I don't have the link handy but it's been all over the news.



hat36.gif

First of all, the fact that THC was in his system is irrelevant. Second, it doesn't mean he smoked that day. That stuff stays in your system for at least a couple weeks after smoking. So it could have been the day of, or it could have been a week or two earlier. Either way, it shouldn't matter. It has nothing to do with what happened.


Wrong, it at least shows that this 17 yr old kid hung out with drug dealers, bought drugs illegally, or smoked weed with "the wrong crowd." It is character evidence that Martin is not an "innocent 15 yr old kid." FWIW - his twitter name was "no_limit_nigga" and he regularly tweeted about sex, violence, disrespecting women, and bs ghetto gang affiliated comments.


May 20th, 2012, 3:39 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
My understanding from what was written is that the State Attorney didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. That was based on one night of investigation. Certainly not all of the facts were in at that point, and it seems to me that is a bit too quickly to make that determination. Having enough evidence to convict (on the night of the incident) and having probable cause to arrest are not the same thing (at least as far as I understand it). To me (and I'm no lawyer so take it for what it's worth), probably cause to arrest means that there is enough evidence and suspicion that something illegal possibly happened. In this case, they know that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told he didn't need to, then there was apparently a confrontation/fight/scuffle, and one person was killed. They didn't know who started it or exactly what happened. Then you throw into the mix the fact that Zimmerman had two prior arrests: one for assaulting a cop, the other for domestic abuse. So you have a person who has a documented history of at least being arrested for physical confrontations, who got into another confrontation, and this time someone died. Add all that up, and there is enough history, evidence, and uncertainty that it's not out of the question that he could have been arrested. That sort of thing happens all the time. You're making it sound like there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Zimmerman was in the wrong, and that's simply not true.


Your understanding is incorrect. The State Attorney didn't say that they "didn't have enough for a conviction," she came out and said specifically "we don't have probable cause to make an arrest." Probable cause is much more than a "suspicion that something illegal possibly happened," sorry, the standard is much, much higher than that, and there was no probable cause here.

Where did she say that? Every article I've been able to find says that the State Attorney said they didn't think they had enough evidence to convict. Not that there wasn't probably cause to arrest. I must be missing something.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


May 20th, 2012, 3:50 pm
Profile
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
My understanding from what was written is that the State Attorney didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. That was based on one night of investigation. Certainly not all of the facts were in at that point, and it seems to me that is a bit too quickly to make that determination. Having enough evidence to convict (on the night of the incident) and having probable cause to arrest are not the same thing (at least as far as I understand it). To me (and I'm no lawyer so take it for what it's worth), probably cause to arrest means that there is enough evidence and suspicion that something illegal possibly happened. In this case, they know that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told he didn't need to, then there was apparently a confrontation/fight/scuffle, and one person was killed. They didn't know who started it or exactly what happened. Then you throw into the mix the fact that Zimmerman had two prior arrests: one for assaulting a cop, the other for domestic abuse. So you have a person who has a documented history of at least being arrested for physical confrontations, who got into another confrontation, and this time someone died. Add all that up, and there is enough history, evidence, and uncertainty that it's not out of the question that he could have been arrested. That sort of thing happens all the time. You're making it sound like there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Zimmerman was in the wrong, and that's simply not true.


Your understanding is incorrect. The State Attorney didn't say that they "didn't have enough for a conviction," she came out and said specifically "we don't have probable cause to make an arrest." Probable cause is much more than a "suspicion that something illegal possibly happened," sorry, the standard is much, much higher than that, and there was no probable cause here.

Where did she say that? Every article I've been able to find says that the State Attorney said they didn't think they had enough evidence to convict. Not that there wasn't probably cause to arrest. I must be missing something.


This sentence is in virtually every early news story:

Quote:
Zimmerman claimed self-defense and Sanford police, who have completed their investigation of the incident and handed the case over to the state attorney, say they have no grounds to arrest Zimmerman because probable cause has not been established.


May 20th, 2012, 3:56 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12202
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
LionFan57 wrote:
Sorry. I have had time to post / respond here in a few days but I will soon.

In the meantime, some of you might want to note that Martin's autopsy found he had THC in his blood and that he was therefore smoking some hootch the night of his attack on Zimmerman and his subsequent death. I don't have the link handy but it's been all over the news.



hat36.gif

First of all, the fact that THC was in his system is irrelevant. Second, it doesn't mean he smoked that day. That stuff stays in your system for at least a couple weeks after smoking. So it could have been the day of, or it could have been a week or two earlier. Either way, it shouldn't matter. It has nothing to do with what happened.
We said TDJ. And also, the last time I heard someone use the word "hootch" was in reference to booze / alcohol, not cannabis :confused:

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 21st, 2012, 9:41 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12202
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
My understanding from what was written is that the State Attorney didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. That was based on one night of investigation. Certainly not all of the facts were in at that point, and it seems to me that is a bit too quickly to make that determination. Having enough evidence to convict (on the night of the incident) and having probable cause to arrest are not the same thing (at least as far as I understand it). To me (and I'm no lawyer so take it for what it's worth), probably cause to arrest means that there is enough evidence and suspicion that something illegal possibly happened. In this case, they know that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told he didn't need to, then there was apparently a confrontation/fight/scuffle, and one person was killed. They didn't know who started it or exactly what happened. Then you throw into the mix the fact that Zimmerman had two prior arrests: one for assaulting a cop, the other for domestic abuse. So you have a person who has a documented history of at least being arrested for physical confrontations, who got into another confrontation, and this time someone died. Add all that up, and there is enough history, evidence, and uncertainty that it's not out of the question that he could have been arrested. That sort of thing happens all the time. You're making it sound like there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Zimmerman was in the wrong, and that's simply not true.


Your understanding is incorrect. The State Attorney didn't say that they "didn't have enough for a conviction," she came out and said specifically "we don't have probable cause to make an arrest." Probable cause is much more than a "suspicion that something illegal possibly happened," sorry, the standard is much, much higher than that, and there was no probable cause here.

Where did she say that? Every article I've been able to find says that the State Attorney said they didn't think they had enough evidence to convict. Not that there wasn't probably cause to arrest. I must be missing something.


This sentence is in virtually every early news story:

Quote:
Zimmerman claimed self-defense and Sanford police, who have completed their investigation of the incident and handed the case over to the state attorney, say they have no grounds to arrest Zimmerman because probable cause has not been established.
Sounds to me like they're saying that probable cause hadn't been established yet That doesn't say there is no chance of probable cause being established later, right?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 21st, 2012, 9:43 am
Profile
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
TheRealWags wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
LionFan57 wrote:
Sorry. I have had time to post / respond here in a few days but I will soon.

In the meantime, some of you might want to note that Martin's autopsy found he had THC in his blood and that he was therefore smoking some hootch the night of his attack on Zimmerman and his subsequent death. I don't have the link handy but it's been all over the news.



hat36.gif

First of all, the fact that THC was in his system is irrelevant. Second, it doesn't mean he smoked that day. That stuff stays in your system for at least a couple weeks after smoking. So it could have been the day of, or it could have been a week or two earlier. Either way, it shouldn't matter. It has nothing to do with what happened.
We said TDJ. And also, the last time I heard someone use the word "hootch" was in reference to booze / alcohol, not cannabis :confused:



Do you even read the posts before you respond to them? LF57 used the term "hootch" the article said THC.


May 21st, 2012, 10:00 am
Post Re: Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
My understanding from what was written is that the State Attorney didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. That was based on one night of investigation. Certainly not all of the facts were in at that point, and it seems to me that is a bit too quickly to make that determination. Having enough evidence to convict (on the night of the incident) and having probable cause to arrest are not the same thing (at least as far as I understand it). To me (and I'm no lawyer so take it for what it's worth), probably cause to arrest means that there is enough evidence and suspicion that something illegal possibly happened. In this case, they know that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told he didn't need to, then there was apparently a confrontation/fight/scuffle, and one person was killed. They didn't know who started it or exactly what happened. Then you throw into the mix the fact that Zimmerman had two prior arrests: one for assaulting a cop, the other for domestic abuse. So you have a person who has a documented history of at least being arrested for physical confrontations, who got into another confrontation, and this time someone died. Add all that up, and there is enough history, evidence, and uncertainty that it's not out of the question that he could have been arrested. That sort of thing happens all the time. You're making it sound like there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Zimmerman was in the wrong, and that's simply not true.


Your understanding is incorrect. The State Attorney didn't say that they "didn't have enough for a conviction," she came out and said specifically "we don't have probable cause to make an arrest." Probable cause is much more than a "suspicion that something illegal possibly happened," sorry, the standard is much, much higher than that, and there was no probable cause here.

Where did she say that? Every article I've been able to find says that the State Attorney said they didn't think they had enough evidence to convict. Not that there wasn't probably cause to arrest. I must be missing something.


This sentence is in virtually every early news story:

Quote:
Zimmerman claimed self-defense and Sanford police, who have completed their investigation of the incident and handed the case over to the state attorney, say they have no grounds to arrest Zimmerman because probable cause has not been established.
Sounds to me like they're saying that probable cause hadn't been established yet That doesn't say there is no chance of probable cause being established later, right?



Sure, but your grasping for straws. It was something like three weeks before the State Attorney finally came out and issued a warrant for Zimmerman's arrest, and it was ONLY after a massive media campaign and outrage from Black Americans. From the second week on there was no additional information and nothing "new" to satisfy the probable cause standard. The only thing that had changed was public outrage, generated by false media reporting.


May 21st, 2012, 10:02 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.