popsjumper 2 #26 April 28, 2012 QuoteHow long will that keep an attacker from getting to you before you're cornered and trapped? You can run from one end of a house to another, for most average-sized homes, in under 10 seconds. What are you going to do after that? Seriously. You can't think of anything other than letting yourself get trapped? Seriously? QuoteIn an outside scenario you're not limited by walls, and if you're young and quick enough, you might just escape.Quote ...and provide the guy with a much more clear firing lane.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #27 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteIMO stand your ground is OK but here is my issue I have this kid that I don't like, so I pack a gun and follow him at night, he notices me and gets nervous, he is afraid that I will jump him once he turns a dark corner, so he decides to protect himself and jumps me, the young kid is kicking my fat butt so I draw my gun to protect myself, now that the kid is dead my story is the only one that gets told not stating that this is what happened but based on what we know it is possible there needs to be a way to prevent this The law doesn't allow you to draw the gun simply because you're losing the fight, so your problem is already solved. Nope. Since the scenario doesn't fall under SYG, his problem is just beginning....starting with arrest for murder or manslaughter or some such.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #28 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIMO stand your ground is OK but here is my issue I have this kid that I don't like, so I pack a gun and follow him at night, he notices me and gets nervous, he is afraid that I will jump him once he turns a dark corner, so he decides to protect himself and jumps me, the young kid is kicking my fat butt so I draw my gun to protect myself, now that the kid is dead my story is the only one that gets told not stating that this is what happened but based on what we know it is possible there needs to be a way to prevent this The law doesn't allow you to draw the gun simply because you're losing the fight, so your problem is already solved. Nope. Since the scenario doesn't fall under SYG, his problem is just beginning....starting with arrest for murder or manslaughter or some such. I was pointing out the flaw in his scenario, where he thought you could draw the gun just because you were losing. Admittedly, I could have been more clear.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billeisele 130 #29 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIMO stand your ground is OK but here is my issue I have this kid that I don't like, so I pack a gun and follow him at night, he notices me and gets nervous, he is afraid that I will jump him once he turns a dark corner, so he decides to protect himself and jumps me, the young kid is kicking my fat butt so I draw my gun to protect myself, now that the kid is dead my story is the only one that gets told not stating that this is what happened but based on what we know it is possible there needs to be a way to prevent this The law doesn't allow you to draw the gun simply because you're losing the fight, so your problem is already solved. Nope. Since the scenario doesn't fall under SYG, his problem is just beginning....starting with arrest for murder or manslaughter or some such. I was pointing out the flaw in his scenario, where he thought you could draw the gun just because you were losing. Admittedly, I could have been more clear. --------------------------------------- guys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal?Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kawisixer01 0 #30 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Really? There's video of him chasing Martin down the street, gun in hand? No. There is, however, audio of him telling the 911 operator that he was following him. Whether the gun was in hand or not is irrelevant, who initiated the conflict is clear. Then you also heard him tell the 911 operator that he "didn't know where this kid is", which negates your theory. Hard to initiate a conflict when one of the parties isn't even there, wouldn't you say? All this is immaterial to your attempted point, as following someone is not 'initiating a conflict'. QuoteQuoteIf an armed individual encourages conflict with an unarmed individual then "massive retaliation" does not seem so reasonable. What if the unarmed individual encourages conflict with someone he doesn't know to be armed? He is still the aggressor. Then you agree that, given what we currently know, Martin was the aggressor? QuoteIt may turn out that a measured response includes an armed component. For example if the "defender" escalates the conflict from armed to unarmed. And completely justified, if the aggressor escalated to deadly force like smashing the defender's head into a concrete sidewalk. I would consider much less than slamming a head into a sidewalk as a deadly threat. There are MANY documented cases of death by a single blow, especially to the head. Hell Houdini died from a single blow to the stomach. Recently a documentary was released on the very subject http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/147934155.html Any blow above the shoulders is potentially lethal. The very first time a Texas CHL holder fired in self-defense, it was because he was being punched in the head and was losing consciousness (and he permanently lost partial vision in one eye). The attacker was DRT. He was arrested and charged, but the grand jury no-billed him. The case law was clear that striking someone in the head constitutes deadly force, and that justified deadly force in response under Texas law. So who's definition of "deadly force" should be used before I feel I have the right to protect my own life? How many online videos is there of guys getting knocked out cold with one punch, then extremely vulnerable themselves due to being unconscious? In addition I have seen very much ado made about the difference in body weight and stature of the two men. Those in the real world know this means nothing. We've all seen or heard of some very small guys taking down some very big fellows. It's about luck, speed, and if they connect in the right spot. I knew a couple of small girls back in the days when I was into martial arts who could whoop most of the class including me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #31 April 28, 2012 Quoteguys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal? Depends on the laws of your state, and is a question you need to be asking a lawyer certified to practice law in your state. This and this might help clarify things for you, but you still need to discuss it with a lawyer to make sure you're acting within the bounds of the law should you, God forbid, find yourself in that sort of situation.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #32 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteguys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal? Depends on the laws of your state, and is a question you need to be.... ...questions you need to ask yourself... I tend not to put myself in those situations. I keep it very simple. If I happen to be in a position where I feel my life is in danger and deadly force may be needed, then I see myself possibly using deadly force regardless of the law....but my gun is always the last option. First and foremost...I identify with the "pray for God to save you" option. I have faith he'll guide me within to make the correct decision. No matter what the circumstance or outcome, he'll work all things for good...even if it may not initially seem that way. I attest to this truth and have experienced/lived it many times throughout my life. It's what I recommend, especially if you are legit in your actions, to which he is the ONLY perfect judge.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 385 #33 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteguys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal? Depends on the laws of your state, and is a question you need to be asking a lawyer certified to practice law in your state. This and this might help clarify things for you, but you still need to discuss it with a lawyer to make sure you're acting within the bounds of the law should you, God forbid, find yourself in that sort of situation.Interesting links, Mike, and everything stated there seems reasonable. No-one that I know would deny anyone the right to defend themselves under the conditions described in the links. However, it seems to me that SYG laws negate a major element of the conditions for self defense described in both links. In the first link, we find the concept of "Preclusion": "Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options. In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options." In the second link, we find "The Basic Standard: You may legally use deadly force only when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." SYG laws remove the legal requirement to retreat, or to take advantage of other non-lethal options to extricate yourself from the situation, or indeed to avoid the conflict in the first place if at all possible. Indeed, although one would be stupid to do this, it seems one could go to a biker bar at 2 in the morning, stand on the public sidewalk (where you have a right to be) and scream really offensive shit about bikers at the top of your lungs (free speech), then shoot the first person who makes a credibly threatening move towards you. Of course someone would be crazy to actually do that, but as has been stated in several threads here many times lately provoking the conflict doesn't count if you're looking to identify the instigator, all that matters is who threw the first punch, or first pulled out a knife or gun. People have always had a right to defend themselves, and to use lethal force when there is an immediate, credible threat to their life or limb and no safe alternatives are available. SYG laws go too far, in my opinion, in that they remove the requirement to take advantage of alternatives to lethal force, even if those alternatives are readily available, and in theory even allow one to provoke a deadly confrontation. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 385 #34 April 28, 2012 Quoteguys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal? Here's an example of just that scenario. So it seems the answer is "yes", at least in Florida. By the way, I think the system got it right in this specific case. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billeisele 130 #35 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteguys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal? Here's an example of just that scenario. So it seems the answer is "yes", at least in Florida. By the way, I think the system got it right in this specific case. Don thx, agree that they got it right in that case the example I was attempting to describe is when a person knowlingly stalks someone else with the hope that the stalkee would start a fight so that they could use the gun, if those were the facts it doesn't seem right that the stalker should be able to use a SYG defense in the TM case based on what the public currently knows, to me it seems that Mr Z should not be convicted all I'm saying is that it is possible that TM may have felt threatened and decided to proactively defend himself, overall a tragedyGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #36 April 28, 2012 QuoteSYG laws remove the legal requirement to retreat, or to take advantage of other non-lethal options to extricate yourself from the situation, or indeed to avoid the conflict in the first place if at all possible. From a Tampa lawyer's website: Florida Law Prior to the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person could use only non-deadly force to defend against the imminent use of unlawful non-deadly force. Deadly force was authorized only to defend against imminent deadly force or great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony. Unless the person was in his home or workplace, he had a "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force. In one's home, the "Castle Doctrine" provided that the person had no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force against an intruder. However, he still needed the reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony. Not seeing anything in there to support your claim.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 385 #37 April 28, 2012 QuoteNot seeing anything in there to support your claim. Not seeing anything there to contradict it. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #38 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteNot seeing anything in there to support your claim. Not seeing anything there to contradict it. Don So you agree there's nothing in the law that states you have to exhaust all non-lethal means before employing lethal force and that your statement was simply your opinion and not legally binding? It's a start, at least.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #39 April 29, 2012 QuoteSeriously. You can't think of anything other than letting yourself get trapped? Seriously? Another critic with no specificity. You been taking lessons from skydekker? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
popsjumper 2 #27 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteIMO stand your ground is OK but here is my issue I have this kid that I don't like, so I pack a gun and follow him at night, he notices me and gets nervous, he is afraid that I will jump him once he turns a dark corner, so he decides to protect himself and jumps me, the young kid is kicking my fat butt so I draw my gun to protect myself, now that the kid is dead my story is the only one that gets told not stating that this is what happened but based on what we know it is possible there needs to be a way to prevent this The law doesn't allow you to draw the gun simply because you're losing the fight, so your problem is already solved. Nope. Since the scenario doesn't fall under SYG, his problem is just beginning....starting with arrest for murder or manslaughter or some such.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIMO stand your ground is OK but here is my issue I have this kid that I don't like, so I pack a gun and follow him at night, he notices me and gets nervous, he is afraid that I will jump him once he turns a dark corner, so he decides to protect himself and jumps me, the young kid is kicking my fat butt so I draw my gun to protect myself, now that the kid is dead my story is the only one that gets told not stating that this is what happened but based on what we know it is possible there needs to be a way to prevent this The law doesn't allow you to draw the gun simply because you're losing the fight, so your problem is already solved. Nope. Since the scenario doesn't fall under SYG, his problem is just beginning....starting with arrest for murder or manslaughter or some such. I was pointing out the flaw in his scenario, where he thought you could draw the gun just because you were losing. Admittedly, I could have been more clear.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #29 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIMO stand your ground is OK but here is my issue I have this kid that I don't like, so I pack a gun and follow him at night, he notices me and gets nervous, he is afraid that I will jump him once he turns a dark corner, so he decides to protect himself and jumps me, the young kid is kicking my fat butt so I draw my gun to protect myself, now that the kid is dead my story is the only one that gets told not stating that this is what happened but based on what we know it is possible there needs to be a way to prevent this The law doesn't allow you to draw the gun simply because you're losing the fight, so your problem is already solved. Nope. Since the scenario doesn't fall under SYG, his problem is just beginning....starting with arrest for murder or manslaughter or some such. I was pointing out the flaw in his scenario, where he thought you could draw the gun just because you were losing. Admittedly, I could have been more clear. --------------------------------------- guys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal?Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kawisixer01 0 #30 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Really? There's video of him chasing Martin down the street, gun in hand? No. There is, however, audio of him telling the 911 operator that he was following him. Whether the gun was in hand or not is irrelevant, who initiated the conflict is clear. Then you also heard him tell the 911 operator that he "didn't know where this kid is", which negates your theory. Hard to initiate a conflict when one of the parties isn't even there, wouldn't you say? All this is immaterial to your attempted point, as following someone is not 'initiating a conflict'. QuoteQuoteIf an armed individual encourages conflict with an unarmed individual then "massive retaliation" does not seem so reasonable. What if the unarmed individual encourages conflict with someone he doesn't know to be armed? He is still the aggressor. Then you agree that, given what we currently know, Martin was the aggressor? QuoteIt may turn out that a measured response includes an armed component. For example if the "defender" escalates the conflict from armed to unarmed. And completely justified, if the aggressor escalated to deadly force like smashing the defender's head into a concrete sidewalk. I would consider much less than slamming a head into a sidewalk as a deadly threat. There are MANY documented cases of death by a single blow, especially to the head. Hell Houdini died from a single blow to the stomach. Recently a documentary was released on the very subject http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/147934155.html Any blow above the shoulders is potentially lethal. The very first time a Texas CHL holder fired in self-defense, it was because he was being punched in the head and was losing consciousness (and he permanently lost partial vision in one eye). The attacker was DRT. He was arrested and charged, but the grand jury no-billed him. The case law was clear that striking someone in the head constitutes deadly force, and that justified deadly force in response under Texas law. So who's definition of "deadly force" should be used before I feel I have the right to protect my own life? How many online videos is there of guys getting knocked out cold with one punch, then extremely vulnerable themselves due to being unconscious? In addition I have seen very much ado made about the difference in body weight and stature of the two men. Those in the real world know this means nothing. We've all seen or heard of some very small guys taking down some very big fellows. It's about luck, speed, and if they connect in the right spot. I knew a couple of small girls back in the days when I was into martial arts who could whoop most of the class including me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 April 28, 2012 Quoteguys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal? Depends on the laws of your state, and is a question you need to be asking a lawyer certified to practice law in your state. This and this might help clarify things for you, but you still need to discuss it with a lawyer to make sure you're acting within the bounds of the law should you, God forbid, find yourself in that sort of situation.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #32 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteguys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal? Depends on the laws of your state, and is a question you need to be.... ...questions you need to ask yourself... I tend not to put myself in those situations. I keep it very simple. If I happen to be in a position where I feel my life is in danger and deadly force may be needed, then I see myself possibly using deadly force regardless of the law....but my gun is always the last option. First and foremost...I identify with the "pray for God to save you" option. I have faith he'll guide me within to make the correct decision. No matter what the circumstance or outcome, he'll work all things for good...even if it may not initially seem that way. I attest to this truth and have experienced/lived it many times throughout my life. It's what I recommend, especially if you are legit in your actions, to which he is the ONLY perfect judge.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #33 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteguys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal? Depends on the laws of your state, and is a question you need to be asking a lawyer certified to practice law in your state. This and this might help clarify things for you, but you still need to discuss it with a lawyer to make sure you're acting within the bounds of the law should you, God forbid, find yourself in that sort of situation.Interesting links, Mike, and everything stated there seems reasonable. No-one that I know would deny anyone the right to defend themselves under the conditions described in the links. However, it seems to me that SYG laws negate a major element of the conditions for self defense described in both links. In the first link, we find the concept of "Preclusion": "Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options. In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options." In the second link, we find "The Basic Standard: You may legally use deadly force only when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." SYG laws remove the legal requirement to retreat, or to take advantage of other non-lethal options to extricate yourself from the situation, or indeed to avoid the conflict in the first place if at all possible. Indeed, although one would be stupid to do this, it seems one could go to a biker bar at 2 in the morning, stand on the public sidewalk (where you have a right to be) and scream really offensive shit about bikers at the top of your lungs (free speech), then shoot the first person who makes a credibly threatening move towards you. Of course someone would be crazy to actually do that, but as has been stated in several threads here many times lately provoking the conflict doesn't count if you're looking to identify the instigator, all that matters is who threw the first punch, or first pulled out a knife or gun. People have always had a right to defend themselves, and to use lethal force when there is an immediate, credible threat to their life or limb and no safe alternatives are available. SYG laws go too far, in my opinion, in that they remove the requirement to take advantage of alternatives to lethal force, even if those alternatives are readily available, and in theory even allow one to provoke a deadly confrontation. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #34 April 28, 2012 Quoteguys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal? Here's an example of just that scenario. So it seems the answer is "yes", at least in Florida. By the way, I think the system got it right in this specific case. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #35 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteguys, to clarify - if I was jumped by the guy that I was following , was being beaten and was afraid for my life, would using the gun be legal? Here's an example of just that scenario. So it seems the answer is "yes", at least in Florida. By the way, I think the system got it right in this specific case. Don thx, agree that they got it right in that case the example I was attempting to describe is when a person knowlingly stalks someone else with the hope that the stalkee would start a fight so that they could use the gun, if those were the facts it doesn't seem right that the stalker should be able to use a SYG defense in the TM case based on what the public currently knows, to me it seems that Mr Z should not be convicted all I'm saying is that it is possible that TM may have felt threatened and decided to proactively defend himself, overall a tragedyGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 April 28, 2012 QuoteSYG laws remove the legal requirement to retreat, or to take advantage of other non-lethal options to extricate yourself from the situation, or indeed to avoid the conflict in the first place if at all possible. From a Tampa lawyer's website: Florida Law Prior to the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person could use only non-deadly force to defend against the imminent use of unlawful non-deadly force. Deadly force was authorized only to defend against imminent deadly force or great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony. Unless the person was in his home or workplace, he had a "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force. In one's home, the "Castle Doctrine" provided that the person had no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force against an intruder. However, he still needed the reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony. Not seeing anything in there to support your claim.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #37 April 28, 2012 QuoteNot seeing anything in there to support your claim. Not seeing anything there to contradict it. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 April 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteNot seeing anything in there to support your claim. Not seeing anything there to contradict it. Don So you agree there's nothing in the law that states you have to exhaust all non-lethal means before employing lethal force and that your statement was simply your opinion and not legally binding? It's a start, at least.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #39 April 29, 2012 QuoteSeriously. You can't think of anything other than letting yourself get trapped? Seriously? Another critic with no specificity. You been taking lessons from skydekker? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
