July 25, 2013
— andy Yesterday evening I sat down with The Law of Self Defense author Andrew Branca to
#LOSD2 Winner of Coveted Double-Mention of LOSD on Ace of Spades HQ! http://t.co/8itO1uktVe http://t.co/YY4SIsgqDO
— Andrew Branca, LOSD (@LawSelfDefense) July 24, 2013
The following is a condensed version of the conversation:
HQ: It seems like your book is really taking off, but I notice it's the second edition. Was this something you updated for the Zimmerman trial, or was that just a coincidence?
AB: I put out the first version of the book about 15 years ago, but it was written in a way that wasn't very user-friendly unless you were an attorney. For example, I'd refer to the Castle Doctrine generally and depend on the reader to know that Castle Doctrine laws are particular to a jurisdiction and that the case in question may have relied on that jurisdiction's interpretations or precedents. So, about a year and a half ago, I began revising the book to make it more accessible for the layman.
HQ: I just started the book, and it seems like a lot of work went into the tables covering the laws in all 50 states. Having lived in several states, I find that to be one of the most helpful parts.
AB: Yes, a lot of work went into that, and it's one of the big updates in the second edition. It's really necessary, though, to make the book as useful as possible for everyone no matter where they live.
HQ: Shifting to the Zimmerman trial, your reporting on it at Legal Insurrection and Twitter was indispensable. What did you think of Zimmerman's chances for acquittal when you first noticed the case?
AB: You know, I really didn't pay much attention to the case until the trial was about to start and the pre-trial motions were being reported on. When the prosecution basically led off with trying to get experts in to testify about whose voice was on the 911 call, I thought, "wow, these guys have nothing". So I kept watching and they never did present much of a case ... certainly not enough to convict on, or really even charge, second degree murder.
HQ: One thing you stress in the book is that the best self-defense weapon a person has is his brain and that it's always important to think a few steps ahead tactically, especially if you're carrying a firearm. What'd you think of Zimmerman's tactical thinking?
AB: Well he certainly put himself in a bad position. If you go by his version of events and the best evidence at trial, he lost sight of a person who wound up jumping him and getting him pinned. That didn't have to happen, but once it did, you know, he's a survivor. And he survived his brush with the legal system too, which threw all it could at him.
HQ: There's a new case out of Houston where a woman shot a man who was harassing her and it's caught on camera. In the left's war on "stand your ground" it looks like she may be the next one they go after. Have you seen that video?
AB: Sure. I wrote a piece about it earlier today at Legal Insurrection and explained why I don't think it's going to be a stand-your-ground case. Of course additional facts could come out to change things, but what I see on tape looks like traditional self-defense. Her actions after the shooting - leaving the scene, not calling the police, etc. - don't go in her favor, but that's not dispositive either way.
HQ: We were discussing guns on Twitter over the weekend and are both fans of the 1911, and your bio's filled with a pretty extensive background in handgun shooting. Any tips or tricks you'd like to pass along to our readers.
AB: I grew up with long guns, and living in New York I never had much of an opportunity to fire handguns. Surprisingly, when I moved to Massachusetts I found it much easier to get a concealed carry permit. I started participating in IPSC and IDPA matches, but it really took me a while to get the hang of it. Everybody says "look at the front sight" and I was doing that - or thought so anyway - until one instructor, George Harris at the Sig Sauer Academy in NH, pointed out what seemed like a small mechanical issue with my follow-through that really made a huge difference. As far as tips go, I guess it would be just that having a good instructor can make a world of difference, especially for a new shooter so they don't ever even develop bad habits, and that if you're going to carry a concealed weapon, no matter what you carry you need to be as familiar with it as possible. You don't want to even need to think about how to take the safety off if your life's on the line, for example.
HQ: In your experience, what's the biggest misconception people have about concealed carry?
AB: I'd say the biggest misconception is that if you're carrying a gun you get to take shit from fewer people. The reality is exactly opposite. When you're carrying a gun you have to take shit from everybody. Except, of course, the guy actually trying to kill you. You can shoot him. That's the tradeoff. The gun gives you the practical means to end the life of anybody in your immediate vicinity. In exchange for that power it is your moral and legal responsibility to conduct yourself in such a way as to make that outcome as unlikely as possible. The last thing you want to do if you're carrying is to be the one who even inadvertently escalates a non-deadly encounter to a deadly one. Confronting the drunk loudmouth who's making a scene at the table next to you in a restaurant, for example, may be seen as a potentially very bad idea if you think a few steps down the line. Best to just let it go, and just go, leave. One of my primary tactical rules of self-defense is to vacate the area at the first sign of a red flag. Let the bad stuff go down while you're safely somewhere else
HQ: Thanks for your time. Other than "buy the book!" is there anything else you'd like me to pass along to our readers?
AB: Well, first, thanks to the HQ for mentioning it and don't forget the discount offer. But also, I've been doing seminars too, and if your readers' gun clubs or whatever are interested in hosting a seminar, they can contact me at seminar@lawofselfdefense.com for details on making that work.
###
I'm in the middle of the book now, and it's excellent. If you carry a concealed firearm (or are thinking of doing so), you should get a copy and think of it as the owner's manual for your concealed carry permit.
Posted by: andy at
12:56 PM
| Comments (135)
Post contains 1205 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: Low Information Type Who Watches Too Much TV [/i] at July 25, 2013 01:01 PM (U2UQk)
Posted by: rickb223 at July 25, 2013 01:02 PM (3ms7d)
Posted by: Todd W at July 25, 2013 01:03 PM (9mWut)
Posted by: pep at July 25, 2013 01:04 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at July 25, 2013 01:04 PM (V1ZIU)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at July 25, 2013 01:04 PM (8sFfo)
It would be a damned bad idea here since you can not carry in a restaurant here. (And that is because the restaurants are all the liquor bars.
Posted by: Vic at July 25, 2013 01:05 PM (lZvxr)
Okay, now wtf? The original comment has disappeared. Either that, or I started drinking to quickly after getting home.
Posted by: Joe Biden 2 at July 25, 2013 01:06 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at July 25, 2013 01:06 PM (WRnYo)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) MFM Delenda Est at July 25, 2013 01:08 PM (/PCJa)
*golf clap*
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at July 25, 2013 01:08 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) MFM Delenda Est at July 25, 2013 01:08 PM (/PCJa)
Posted by: Dee Dee at July 25, 2013 01:08 PM (fWAjv)
It's possible that the juror thought that while Zimmerman was legally innocent, he was morally culpable. But that would take an ability to think and a level of integrity that's beyond most jurors.
Posted by: RightWingProf at July 25, 2013 01:08 PM (ceOhI)
Posted by: Dee Dee at July 25, 2013 01:09 PM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at July 25, 2013 01:09 PM (XruKb)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at July 25, 2013 01:10 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) MFM Delenda Est at July 25, 2013 01:10 PM (/PCJa)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at July 25, 2013 01:10 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: CDR M at July 25, 2013 01:10 PM (dKV5k)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at July 25, 2013 01:12 PM (XruKb)
I take it a bit further, don't go to places where there might be trouble.
The concealed handgun is a tool of last resort, you really don't want to be in circumstances where you have to resort to the use of the weapon, 'cuz there are no guarantees.
Posted by: Mental Block at July 25, 2013 01:12 PM (fzsVI)
Agree. Such distinctions are above their pay grade. In any case, if they thought that, they were wrong.
Posted by: pep at July 25, 2013 01:12 PM (6TB1Z)
"It's possible that the juror thought that while Zimmerman was legally innocent, he was morally culpable. But that would take an ability to think and a level of integrity that's beyondmost jurors."
Possibly. But in Juror B-29's case it's pure self-serving bull$hit.
Posted by: Jaws at July 25, 2013 01:13 PM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: ALH at July 25, 2013 01:14 PM (1KE8z)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) MFM Delenda Est at July 25, 2013 01:14 PM (/PCJa)
Posted by: alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at July 25, 2013 01:14 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Insomniac at July 25, 2013 01:14 PM (NEIxp)
Posted by: soothie at July 25, 2013 01:15 PM (ZCAlb)
Most practical thing for self-defense I do? Just drink at home [sips vodka and coke].
Posted by: logprof at July 25, 2013 01:15 PM (3VBXw)
Posted by: © Sponge at July 25, 2013 01:15 PM (xmcEQ)
Posted by: Empire1 at July 25, 2013 01:16 PM (m0VHB)
Posted by: Tami[/i][/b][/u][/s] at July 25, 2013 01:16 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at July 25, 2013 01:16 PM (XruKb)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at July 25, 2013 05:09 PM (XruKb)
Does this go for AmishDude too? Because I'm sensing the potential for a disturbance in the Force.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at July 25, 2013 01:16 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: thunderb at July 25, 2013 01:16 PM (zOTsN)
There is no one 'law', there are many, and the meaning of the words change depending on how skilled the lawyer is.
Posted by: Mental Block at July 25, 2013 01:17 PM (fzsVI)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at July 25, 2013 01:17 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: soothie at July 25, 2013 01:18 PM (LL42r)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at July 25, 2013 01:18 PM (XruKb)
So her strategy is to go on national TV?
Posted by: pep at July 25, 2013 01:18 PM (6TB1Z)
Beckel said, "Let me give you some advice guys....if your wife or girlfriend catches you talking, texting or being with another woman, tell her her eyes must be bad. Deny, Deny, Deny'.
***
There are no lies, only helpful or unhelpful statements.
Posted by: WalrusResx at July 25, 2013 01:19 PM (XUKZU)
Actually this is the KEY rule for personal safety. If you sense something bad is brewing, just leave.
Of course this is much easier when it's just you. The few times that I've been caught up in ugly situations were when friends just wouldn't leave or family members were simply unable to get out.
Posted by: Mætenloch at July 25, 2013 01:19 PM (pAlYe)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at July 25, 2013 05:18 PM (XruKb)
Admit it, it wasn't just the Sailor...
You liked ALL the Village People.
Posted by: garrett at July 25, 2013 01:19 PM (GdDnS)
In the Gas Station shooting, the woman snapped a picture. I don't know her motivation, that's not the question. Some people thought it showed some sort of callous indifference, or maybe a mindset of trophy-taking.
Question: Is it wise to do your own documentation? Obviously anything you document will be subject to subpoena. Given that the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial tried to hide evidence like Zimmerman's physical injury photographs. They released poor Xerox copies that made the injuries hard to discern. Should you document things like the attacker's weapon, the scene in general, your own injuries, light levels, crowd presence, etc?
Posted by: bonhomme at July 25, 2013 01:20 PM (4QSOR)
Only exacerbated by her decision to go on TV.
Posted by: navybrat at July 25, 2013 01:20 PM (21vy/)
sure
I am sure her circle already knew she was on the jury. Isn't she the one with 8 kids? someone had to take care of them when she was sequestered. The people she is afraid of are the ones who already knew who she was.
I wasn't my fault, its the damn white man's laws!
Posted by: thunderb at July 25, 2013 01:20 PM (zOTsN)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at July 25, 2013 01:20 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: © Sponge at July 25, 2013 01:21 PM (xmcEQ)
Posted by: Insomniac at July 25, 2013 01:21 PM (NEIxp)
Posted by: thunderb at July 25, 2013 01:21 PM (zOTsN)
When you're carrying a gun you have to take shit from everybody. Except, of course, the guy actually trying to kill you. You can shoot him.
---------------------
This reminds me of that John Candy movie "Armed and Dangerous", where the crackhead in the security guard class is asking about when it's appropriate to use deadly force.
Crackhead: "Let's say somebody lyin' to you, and you KNOW he lyin' - can you shoot him?"
Instructor: "That depends. Use your best judgment."
Crackhead: ***writing it down*** "Thank you very much for that. That's very helpful!"
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 25, 2013 01:22 PM (CJjw5)
>>> Correct after-shooting etiquette is also important.
This goes double for Hobos. You have to gut them quick or they'll spoil.
Posted by: garrett at July 25, 2013 01:22 PM (GdDnS)
Posted by: soothie at July 25, 2013 01:22 PM (ZCAlb)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at July 25, 2013 01:22 PM (XruKb)
What time is the chicken dinner?
And where the hell is that pic of Palin and Haley together we were promised earlier this morning?
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at July 25, 2013 01:23 PM (qoQi/)
Posted by: Captain Reynolds at July 25, 2013 01:23 PM (NEIxp)
And this is where being an introvert pays off.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at July 25, 2013 01:23 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: © Sponge at July 25, 2013 01:23 PM (xmcEQ)
--Ah, found it. It's the post entitled "The Truth About Vioolence, but it looks like since there's a whole section of his blog dedicated to self-defense, I'll give the other ones a read as well.
Posted by: logprof at July 25, 2013 01:24 PM (3VBXw)
One question to ask yourself immediately after shooting someone is: have I defended my self FULLY? Does my attacker have a pulse?
Remember: There are two sides to every story, unless only one of you is still alive.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 25, 2013 01:24 PM (CJjw5)
Posted by: © Sponge at July 25, 2013 01:24 PM (xmcEQ)
its possible the juror was terrified of being killed by her own community for being a race traitor
"Possible? I can see no other explanation. The monetary benefit of ingratiating herself with the bloodthirsty mob, The Left, and the MSM (BIRM) is just gravy.
Posted by: Jaws at July 25, 2013 01:25 PM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: thunderb at July 25, 2013 01:25 PM (zOTsN)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at July 25, 2013 01:26 PM (nAegq)
Posted by: Big Tony at July 25, 2013 01:26 PM (ECoxZ)
Posted by: Andy at July 25, 2013 01:27 PM (GVcqR)
Posted by: Harry Callahan at July 25, 2013 01:28 PM (pginn)
Posted by: soothie at July 25, 2013 01:28 PM (hNqVf)
Posted by: lindafell at July 25, 2013 01:29 PM (PGO8C)
Posted by: Big Tony at July 25, 2013 01:29 PM (ECoxZ)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at July 25, 2013 01:30 PM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Zombie George Patton at July 25, 2013 01:30 PM (pginn)
Posted by: © Sponge at July 25, 2013 01:31 PM (xmcEQ)
Posted by: garrett at July 25, 2013 01:32 PM (GdDnS)
Posted by: thunderb at July 25, 2013 01:32 PM (zOTsN)
"The law keeps getting more and more complex. And that sort of thing doesn't really benefit freedom. Or anyone or anything other than lawyers."
Troof.
Mr. Branca excepted, of course. Certain Morons too.
Posted by: Jaws at July 25, 2013 01:32 PM (4I3Uo)
This wins the Internet for the week, possibly the month, maybe the year.
Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at July 25, 2013 01:32 PM (31Nrp)
Posted by: rickb223 at July 25, 2013 01:32 PM (2WZ7x)
Posted by: © Sponge at July 25, 2013 05:31 PM (xmcEQ)
But we are coming out!
Posted by: Fabulous Zombies at July 25, 2013 01:32 PM (2hpna)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at July 25, 2013 01:32 PM (nAegq)
I saw no oceans or skies of tomorrow here, only bullets and pellets of today.
This makes no sense in terms of the hurricanes and tornadoes of yesterday.
(Also 'Bullets of Tomorrow", trademark...trademark...trademark....copywrite. That means you word thieves of the interwebs.)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 25, 2013 01:33 PM (4+FWp)
Posted by: Big Tony at July 25, 2013 01:33 PM (ECoxZ)
True story (to the best of my memory), from the first CCW course I took:
Abusive husband had a history of beating his wife- including multiple hospitalizations.
Eventually she leaves him, seeking refuge at the house of a relative. He tracked her down and beat her severely, resulting in a punctured lung and six week hospital stay.
The usual abusive marriage scenario plays out ("I'm sorry, I'll change", etc) and she goes back to live with him.
One day she serves him dinner, with he becoming angry about the meal she cooked. He says something along the lines of "I'm tired of the same crap you serve me, and I'm tired of you. I'm going to eat this crap, then I'm going to kill you."
She retreated to the bedroom where she retrieved his gun, walked up behind him and shot the fucker in the back of the head as he ate. Then she shot him again just to be sure.
Verdict? Not guilty by reason of self defense.
1. She had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. He threatened her, and had caused such harm in the past.
2. She had no reasonable ability to retreat- she tried that once before and it nearly got her killed.
3. She didn't initiate the confrontation.
Disclaimer: I don't recommend executing someone while they eat in the expectation you'll be acquitted.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 25, 2013 01:33 PM (SY2Kh)
Although I might find a few useful things to say to such readers, let me concede that the bar is probably set too high. Thinking about violence is not everyoneÂ’s cup of tea. Again, I do not consider ignoring the whole business to be necessarily irrational (depending on where one lives, oneÂ’s degree of responsibility for the security of others, etc.) It is irrational, however, to imagine that such insouciance can pass for an informed opinion on how best to respond to violence in the event that it occurs. I have now heard from many people who have never held a gun in their lives, and are proud to say that they never would, but who appear entirely confident in declaiming upon the limitations of firearms as defensive weapons. Before proceeding, perhaps there is general rule of cognition we might all agree on: It would be surprising, indeed, if avoiding a topic as a matter of principle were the best way to understand it.
--Emphasis mine. Welcome to the mind of the LIV, Mr. Harris.
Posted by: logprof at July 25, 2013 01:33 PM (3VBXw)
You mean having a CHL means I can't turn off the lights by shooting them out like Homer Simpson?
Posted by: polynikes at July 25, 2013 01:33 PM (m2CN7)
innocent, he was morally culpable. But that would take an ability to
think and a level of integrity that's beyondmost jurors.
***
Well, since would rather bullshit than work, I'll tell you about an incident I was once asked to charge where I felt the suspect was morally culpable but legally not guilty. The suspect was a guy who had been involved in a relationship with a girl. He was getting sick of her and was planning on dumping her. They had a fight and then had make up sex. As he approached orgasm, he pulled out and and nutted on her face. The guy was, and no doubt is, a pig but I don't want to get into a situation where there was consent to this but not that except in the most unusual circumstances.
A similar case I was asked to charge calls to mind the meme 1) Do something pointless, 2) ???? 3) Profit!
These two had been a couple for some time, had broken up, and were kind a getting back together. They had good old fashioned missionary sex the way God intended but then the guy tried some other position (I don't remember which but it was nothing bizarre) that the girl did not like so he stopped and went back to missionary. This all happened in a single episode of sex. This is where the ??? comes in. Within the next few weeks he must have been seen dating another girl or maybe he called her a fat cow, I don't know, but something happened. She then wanted me to charge him with sex assault for the few seconds unpleasant sex sandwiched between the consensual rutting.
Posted by: WalrusResx at July 25, 2013 01:33 PM (XUKZU)
I think so too, but my question is "Is it smart to do your own documentation."
Anything you do can be used against you. All of your documentation will be handed to the prosecution. However, if the Prosecution tries to get cute by doing things like the Zimmerman prosecution did, like release bad Xeroxes of Z's injuries, the Defense will have the good copy. Is the tradeoff worth it? Does it look bad?
Posted by: bonhomme at July 25, 2013 01:34 PM (A0glY)
weird thing pictures
some people take pictures of people in their coffins. I don't get it, but I have seen it
I think the impulse to record everything on your phone to post it later to instagram or snap chat or facebook is part of the culture of the young. From their food, to clothes they like, to selfies, to weird things they see. Who knows? Part of the narcissism of the age. She could've taken the snap as a trophie, or not. Seems like everyone these days records the oddest things. Ask Weiner
Posted by: thunderb at July 25, 2013 01:35 PM (zOTsN)
What if they talk with their mouth full?
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 25, 2013 01:36 PM (4+FWp)
"Disclaimer: I don't recommend executing someone while they eat in the expectation you'll be acquitted. "
Right. Wait until he finishes dinner, ferchrissake. Manners, people!
Posted by: Jaws at July 25, 2013 01:37 PM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: polynikes at July 25, 2013 01:38 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 25, 2013 05:36 PM (4+FWp)
Of me?
Posted by: Six inch barrel at July 25, 2013 01:38 PM (2hpna)
If your lawyer does not arrive before the police, do not talk to the police (beyond identification and other basics they can demand of anyone) until your lawyer arrives. "I assert my right not to speak, and will not consent to an interview without benefit of my counsel."
I've seen advice like this before. Also, expect to be arrested, regardless of what state law says. Do not place your weapon on the ground, hood of a car, or hand it to another person. Safe it, and keep it on your person, (though not in your hand, obviously), until the police arrive, and take custody of it.
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at July 25, 2013 01:38 PM (qoQi/)
Posted by: The Almighty Bungholio at July 25, 2013 01:38 PM (3VBXw)
Posted by: Big Tony at July 25, 2013 01:39 PM (ECoxZ)
some people take pictures of people in their coffins. I don't get it, but I have seen it
Even weirder: people who took pictures of the dead in lifelike poses. Even going so far as to paint eyes on their eyelids.
I understand why, people at the time rarely took pictures due to expense. If someone you loved died, you wanted a picture of them for remembrance. Still, very weird.
Posted by: bonhomme at July 25, 2013 01:40 PM (A0glY)
Posted by: Big Ben at July 25, 2013 01:41 PM (I5Htn)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at July 25, 2013 01:42 PM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 25, 2013 05:33 PM (SY2Kh)"
It worked for me.
Posted by: Ava Crowder at July 25, 2013 01:42 PM (31Nrp)
As presented I wouldn't have convicted her. Not all that counterintuitive given the preponderance of the evidence wherein past events are included. So often, however, the past is forbidden from consideration which I find troubling. Facts are facts and juries should be permitted to weigh all evidence unless it is patently unrelated. (Like, what was the name of everyone's pets or what was the color of Gen. Grant's white horse?)
I think it would be interesting to interview the Zimmerman jurors and provide them with that evidence which was excluded from the trial. Then ask them to see if their opinions stayed the same or became even more entrenched.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at July 25, 2013 01:45 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at July 25, 2013 01:47 PM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit, but you can call me Michael at July 25, 2013 01:52 PM (vVMIQ)
Right, but one could easily counter that she could've gone to the police, that she was no longer in danger because she was armed, and that shooting an unarmed person in the back of the head can never be justified as self defense. Note this was in MN where there was no Castle Doctrine / SYG law, and imposed a duty to retreat.
I don't think I'd have voted to convict her either, citing the unwritten "the fucker had it coming" clause.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 25, 2013 01:53 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: polynikes at July 25, 2013 05:38 PM (m2CN7)"
Unless you think what happened to George Zimmerman looks like a lot of fun and you are willing to go through it yourself over what may well be normal behavior for that couple if things go sideways. Or there is the possibility that you might go to prison for shooting her when she comes at you with a steak knife defending her boyfriend. Or maybe you won't see her and she will stab you in the kidney and you will bleed to death.
Look up the story of why B.B.King named his guitar "Lucille".
Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at July 25, 2013 01:56 PM (31Nrp)
Posted by: Law of Self Defense at July 25, 2013 02:23 PM (AgiEl)
Posted by: Law of Self Defense at July 25, 2013 02:31 PM (AgiEl)
If I have a great responsibility, do I also get super strength and a supermodel girlfriend?
Posted by: Richard McEnroe at July 25, 2013 04:22 PM (qvify)
With modern smartphones you can do your own documentation and email to yourself as you go. Date/time automatically confirmed by the emails.
Posted by: Richard McEnroe at July 25, 2013 04:25 PM (qvify)
Posted by: die trying at July 28, 2013 07:27 AM (w7J/R)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3096 seconds, 263 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Insomniac at July 25, 2013 01:01 PM (NEIxp)