| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Friend of Herring's?
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
|
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:15:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window? The first is I imminent danger. None here. The second. Where was the offense against a person? Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger" part. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards. Can't wait to see Wayne's answer. === I'm honored. :-) Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law. Those store owners were in danger much more imminent than that cop in the Capitol. The BLM rioters were carry all kinds of weapons. The female in the Capitol was not. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:04:40 -0500, John wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:15:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window? The first is I imminent danger. None here. The second. Where was the offense against a person? Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger" part. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards. Can't wait to see Wayne's answer. === I'm honored. :-) Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law. Those store owners were in danger much more imminent than that cop in the Capitol. The BLM rioters were carry all kinds of weapons. The female in the Capitol was not. === Did I say something you disagree with? Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law. The right to self defense is well established. It comes with some caveats however. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:12:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:04:40 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:15:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window? The first is I imminent danger. None here. The second. Where was the offense against a person? Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger" part. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards. Can't wait to see Wayne's answer. === I'm honored. :-) Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law. Those store owners were in danger much more imminent than that cop in the Capitol. The BLM rioters were carry all kinds of weapons. The female in the Capitol was not. === Did I say something you disagree with? Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law. The right to self defense is well established. It comes with some caveats however. You 'implied' that the cop was in imminent danger. That was a bull**** implication. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 17:15:54 -0500, John wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:12:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:04:40 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:15:26 -0500, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window? The first is I imminent danger. None here. The second. Where was the offense against a person? Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger" part. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards. Can't wait to see Wayne's answer. === I'm honored. :-) Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law. Those store owners were in danger much more imminent than that cop in the Capitol. The BLM rioters were carry all kinds of weapons. The female in the Capitol was not. === Did I say something you disagree with? Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law. The right to self defense is well established. It comes with some caveats however. You 'implied' that the cop was in imminent danger. That was a bull**** implication. === Not at all, but you're free to believe what you want of course. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friend of Herring's?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:15:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:10:34 -0500, John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:02:18 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 3:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/15/21 1:59 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:25:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/14/21 9:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: CHESTER, Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- A retired firefighter from Chester, Pennsylvania is accused of being the man seen on video throwing a fire extinguisher that hit three police officers at the Capitol during the riot in Washington, D.C. last week. Robert Sanford, 55, was arrested Thursday morning on four federal charges, including knowingly entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and assaulting officers engaging in their official duties. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets. Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said. Sanford was identified after a longtime friend of his contacted the FBI in Pennsylvania and said they recognized Sanford from photos put out by the FBI. The fire extinguisher struck several police officers during the US Capitol riot. The friend said Sanford "had gone to the White House and listened to President Donald J. Trump's speech and then had followed the President's instructions and gone to the Capitol." Sanford appeared in a federal court in Pennsylvania for an initial appearance on Thursday afternoon. He was denied release and will remain in custody of the U.S. Marshals until he is transferred to Washington, D.C. The defense argued Sanford was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, noting that he has no prior arrests, is married, and has three children. The defense added that allegations that he traveled to D.C. to commit crimes are inaccurate and he is not part of any extremist groups. Prosecutors challenged that claim, saying authorities found a t-shirt associated with the far-right group Proud Boys at Sanford's home after executing a search warrant. Maybe he thought his life was in danger. Capital cops shooting protesters, just because they were protesting. If that is what you really think, you are even dumber than I had envisioned. Peaceful protesting is perfectly legal outside the Capitol building. That's not where he was and not what he was doing. And even in riot situations, the cops are not allowed to shoot looters and trespassers. So because they are in the Capital building, uninvited, they are allowed to be murdered? === Being shot by an armed guard who is being paid to protect members of congress is not exactly murder. And being "uninvited" is not exactly the same as being at the front of an unruly mob trying to break down a locked door leading to a congressional chamber. What do you suppose would have happened to a gang of thugs who crashed the gates around the White House, smashed into the White House, and were running through the halls looking to kill the POTUS? What happened at the Capitol was no different than that. Bull****. As usual, you are wrong. § 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. There are other conditions, but the above two apply to the overrunning of the Capitol. Oh, there is no requirement to fire warning shots. Which one of those covers killing an unarmed women stuck in a window? The first is I imminent danger. None here. The second. Where was the offense against a person? Yeah Harry and Wayne both seem to gloss over that "imminent danger" part. === The "imminent danger" part seems self evident to me. You've got an unruly mob of maybe 50 to 100 people, screaming for blood, and trying to break down a locked door being defended by 3 or 4 cops. What could possibly go wrong? Supposedly Pence narrowly escaped being caught up in all that. Then with that thinking, a store owner in the BLM riots could have shot bunches of people, with no legal problems afterwards. Can't wait to see Wayne's answer. === I'm honored. :-) Everyone has the right to defend themselves if they are in imminent danger. You may have to defend that assertion in court however, and you may inadvertently run afoul of a firearms law. I am curious about how they find in the "excessive use of force" investigation going on as we speak. I would feel better if it was an independent investigation tho. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| A friend of Herring and Just-An-Ass? | General | |||
| From my friend... | General | |||
| A Friend of Herring's... | General | |||
| Friend of Herring | General | |||
| Man's best friend. A little OT... | General | |||
![Bill[_12_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Hybrid Mode
