Page 35 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2533343536 LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 355

Thread: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:336]

  1. #341
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    So, now you're crawling back to Dunn's account to save your soul?
    Wtf are you talking about this time?

    Dunn's account is the root of what we are speaking about, with the actions of Davis's friends after the shooting being circumstantial evidence that a gun did exist. (Especially in conjunction with their lies.) Which can not be disproved by the bother's or sister's testimony.
    Or did you forget all of that?


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    So what if you want to claim Dunn's self-serving statement as "evidence".

    His account is of what happened.
    It is also the account which the prosecution has to disprove or show wasn't justified. Which we already know she couldn't do.

    But if you want to go down the road of self serving statements, then we can point out that Davis's friends who lied, all gave self serving accounts.
    That Christopher Leblanc gave a self serving account, just as Shawn Atkins did as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The three boys in the Durango claimed no shotgun was in the vehicle and a witness at the shooting scene did not see a shotgun from the Durango pointing at Dunn which was towards the direction of vision of the witness. And then at another location by the loop parking lot two witnesses, brother and sister, testified they didn't see the boys with any weapon.
    Davis's friends came off as not believable. I am sure you already know that.

    Their actions, after the fact, are outright suspicious. The lies about the call, and lies about the child safety locks being on.
    You can even say they lied about the window being up and the door not being opened. Physics proves they lied about those things as well.

    They had absolutely no reason to lie about those things if they were not covering something up.


    And there you go talking about two irrelevant witnesses (the Leblanc's) who did not, and could not see everything, as they themselves testified.
    Which of course makes your claims even more absurd.



    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    So, six evidence gainst your one, you loose, Excon.
    iLOL

    That isn't how it works. Duh!
    Especially as you only have one obviously truthful person there. The female Leblanc.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  2. #342
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    She could see enough to be able to tell if the men was just standing and then walking to the back of their vehicle vs ditching away a shotgun right there on the parking lot.
    This is nothing more than you making things up that you want to be true.
    Unlike her dishonest bother, she honestly testified that she could not see what was happening on the other side of the vehicle. End of argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    She certainly could see that the men did not walk away from the vehicle with a shotgun and then ditched it somewhere else, that much is certain.
    Obviously you do not know what her not being able to see what was happening on the other side of the vehicle means.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Like I said the brother was standing at different location from her and watched the men got out of the Durango (which was pointed at an angle towards them) until both men got back in.
    Wrong. He stated where he was. At the end of her vehicle.
    He had no angle to see anything.
    And as he testified to, he was moving from one side of the vehicle to the other. He had no angle to see on the other side of the Durango.
    His eyes were not on the vehicle the whole time, and as such, he can not testify to any absolute.
    His angle of view did not allow him to see what was happening on the other side of the Durango, and as such, he can not testify to any absolute.
    Do you really not understand these things?


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    You claimed what you have "pointed out is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist."
    This is you ignoring what has been said, or not understanding it.

    So again.
    The testimony/evidence is that a gun was seen.
    Davis's friends actions after the fact is the circumstantial evidence suggesting that there was a gun.

    Or as previously said, several times now;

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Their actions, as witnessed, is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist.

    And apparently you are confused as to what their actions in toto are.
    From them getting out and looking for, or stashing something, to the driver lying about calling 911, to the driver calling his aunt, and his cousin immediately coming into the area, to them not telling the police they left the scene.
    It is all circumstantial evidence suggesting the gun did exist.


    They saw them get out, doing something.
    They did not have eyes on them the entire time to say they didn't get rid of something.


    The witnesses see activity that suggested they were "looking" for something or trying to stash something inside the vehicle, goes directly to the suggestion that they were trying to find the gun to get rid of it. What is it you do not understand about that circumstantial evidence?


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    See your bind there?
    So since you were not paying attention previously, just why do you think this evidence was pointed out and allowed to be presented as such during the trial?
    Huh?
    Like I said, you are in way over your head.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    So, you can't answer my question claiming because no one else had to see a gun for that to be an accurate statement? That's a very pathetic claim.

    What is pathetic is claiming I said something I didn't say, and then asking me to prove that which I didn't assert.
    That is dishonesty as well.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  3. #343
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The illustrations from the definition of circumstantial vs direct evidence parallel that of the situation of the witnesses in Dunn's case.
    Wrong.
    The example was that of circumstantial evidence to the shooting. Not to the existence of a gun.
    And the existence of the gun was already established in the example.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    In the illustration John saw Tom leaving the room with a smoking gun and yet John's testimony about seeing the smoking gun is just circumstantial evidence. Therefore, same as in Dunn's case, what the brother and sister saw that night at a location 200 yards from the shooting, whether they saw a gun or not, their testimony is simply circumstantial evidence.
    The actual example.
    If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann.

    As you have already been told, that is circumstantial evidence to Tom shooting Ann. That is all. Duh!
    It is also direct evidence that he had a gun, as in, the gun existed. Double D'oh!

    Not understanding that, is called being in over your head.



    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Therefore direct means direct observation of an event by a witness. Circumstantial means evidence gathered together as presumptive or inferential ...
    Which part of above underlined don't you understand?


    So right back to what previously stated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Their actions, as witnessed, is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist.

    And apparently you are confused as to what their actions in toto are.
    From them getting out and looking for, or stashing something, to the driver lying about calling 911, to the driver calling his aunt, and his cousin immediately coming into the area, to them not telling the police they left the scene.
    It is all circumstantial evidence suggesting the gun did exist.


    They saw them get out, doing something.
    They did not have eyes on them the entire time to say they didn't get rid of something.


    The witnesses see activity that suggested they were "looking" for something or trying to stash something inside the vehicle, goes directly to the suggestion that they were trying to find the gun to get rid of it. What is it you do not understand about that circumstantial evidence?
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #344
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,317

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    It is only an account of what happened if he is not lying.

  5. #345
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Apparently the Durango was orientated and angled directly towards the two witnesses.
    This is you again making things up to suite your false narrative.
    Everybody testified that the Durango drove straight in and stopped, and then after a while backed straight out.
    Not that it drove straight in, turned a little and then stopped, only to then after a while straightened out to back straight out. D'oh!


    Christopher Leblanc stated clearly that "it stopped straight right in the middle".
    Do you understand that?
    That is what he stated. It stopped straight.


    Think. He doesn't have x-ray vision. The body of the vehicle and the open doors blocked his view of what was going on on the [passengers side. Duh!
    His saying he could see both sides of the vehicle is bs. There were blind spots because of his angle to the vehicle. (as shown)

    He stated that he ended up at the rear of his sisters vehicle. Not out in the middle of the lanes of traffic.
    That puts him at an angle where he was not able to see what was going on on the other side.
    Just as it did fort his sister.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Why are you being so difficult to admit that you are plain wrong?
    This is your inability and wrongness that you speak to.
    You have been wrong at every turn and just trying to make excuses and move the goal posts to try and justify your absurd beliefs.
    This latest (the vehicle was at an angle allowing him to .... blah, blah, blah), is just another great example of the contortions you will go through to try and baffle folks with bs, especially when the evidence says otherwise.



    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    And why are you wasting so much time and energy on these two witnesses whom you claimed could not see what happened on the other side and did not have eyes on the two men the entire time
    Hmmmm? Let's see. You are the one wasting time, spouting nonsense and trying to baffle with bs about something that the Leblanc's can not establish because they both said they did not have their attention on them the entire time.
    That is you doing that, not me.
    I am just refuting your ridiculous claims.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    (even though they had during the crucial moment)
    See. More nonsense. This is nothing more than you making something up.
    Especially as no one could see what was going on, as established by testimony and angles, on the passengers side.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    How are their testimonies in any way shape or form support your contention that the two men had the shotgun but was ditched or stashed? Where is your evidence to that?
    And again. This is you not paying attention to what was said.

    So again. Pay attention this time.
    The actions of Davis's friends (from their lies to their suspicious activity) is the circumstantial evidence that suggests that a gun did exist.
    This evidence can not be disproved by the Leblanc's inability to see anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Remember, when another poster had asked you for evidence regarding your insistent claim that the boys had gun in their possession, the testimonies of these two witnesses were cited by you as your evidence. So, there you go again, shooting yourself in the foot at every turn while acting like you have conquered the whole wide world.
    That is nothing other than you not understanding what you read.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    So, please don't try to run away but answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere? But, never mind, Excon, I know you can't answer that question without putting yourself in a bind. For crying out loud, I just have to put it there to remind you of your predicament.
    iLOL

    I am not in any predicament.

    You are with your false assertion.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  6. #346
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by year2late View Post
    It is only an account of what happened if he is not lying.
    iLOL

    Yeah, unlike Dunn, Davis's friends were, making their actions even more suspicious.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  7. #347
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I'm still slack-jawed over the fact that they found the guy guilty of three counts of attempted murder on the guys he didn't manage to kill, but couldn't agree on a murder conviction on the guy he did manage to kill. WTF is up with that?? I can't imagine what the parents of that poor dead teenager must be going through right now, knowing that their son has still not received justice.

    ****ing Florida juries are all nutjobs.
    His first target was making threats and reaching for something, so that first shot might be justified.

    What he did wrong was fire at other people who weren't a threat.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-15-14 at 12:04 AM.

  8. #348
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Wtf are you talking about this time?

    Dunn's account is the root of what we are speaking about, with the actions of Davis's friends after the shooting being circumstantial evidence that a gun did exist. (Especially in conjunction with their lies.) Which can not be disproved by the bother's or sister's testimony.
    Or did you forget all of that?
    Wrong. Your so-called assertion about the actions of Davis' friends after the shooting did not involve any gun. Where is your so-called "circumstantial evidence" that a gun did exist with the boys as you have been talking about?

    The only attempt by you to offer as "circumstantial evidence" of such was from the brother-sister testimony. Both witnesses testified they saw Stornes and Thompson the whole time they were in the parking lot, and they never took a weapon out of the car. "I never saw anything taken out of that car," she testified in line with her brother.

    What part of the above bold statement testified by her don't you understand?


    Davis's friends came off as not believable. I am sure you already know that.


    Their actions, after the fact, are outright suspicious. The lies about the call, and lies about the child safety locks being on.
    You can even say they lied about the window being up and the door not being opened. Physics proves they lied about those things as well.


    They had absolutely no reason to lie about those things if they were not covering something up.




    And there you go talking about two irrelevant witnesses (the Leblanc's) who did not, and could not see everything, as they themselves testified.
    Which of course makes your claims even more absurd.
    Nope. Davis' friends are much more honest than Dunn. Dunn perjured himself in many ways in the court under oath.


    Their actions are within normal teenage human behavior within such circumstances. Again, you are bias against them while willfully blinded your eyes to many holes and failing in Dunn's story and behavior.


    You have no proof the child safety lock wasn't on as stated by Thomson. They certainly had to unlock the child safety lock before a witness and an officer were able to get Davis down to the ground to perform CPR.


    Physics didn't prove your claim of their lying. Neither did the witness, who just stepped out of the store moment being the shooting, saw Davis' door open.


    You said they had no reason to lie but you have no proof of their lying except to make unfounded allegation. Like I said, the child safety locks had to be unlocked in order for the door to be opened to get Davis out for CPR.


    And there you go talking about two irrelevant witnesses (the Leblanc's) who did not, and could not see everything, as they themselves testified.
    Which of course makes your claims even more absurd.
    The absurdity is your and your alone. You are the one offering the two witnesses' testimony as you "circumstantial evidence" to support your claim that the boys had a gun. So, now you're adknowledging that they did not and could not see everything and so they are irrelevant?


    So, how's that going to help your argument that a gun exist with the boys in the Durango? See, you always ended up shooting yourself in the foot and you keep repeating it. Weird.


    iLOL


    That isn't how it works. Duh!
    Especially as you only have one obviously truthful person there. The female Leblanc.
    Even so, one truthful female LeBlanc defeats your one perjured defendant on trial for killing another person and shooting at another three boys while they were fleeing for their life.

  9. #349
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    His account is of what happened.
    It is also the account which the prosecution has to disprove or show wasn't justified. Which we already know she couldn't do.

    But if you want to go down the road of self serving statements, then we can point out that Davis's friends who lied, all gave self serving accounts.
    That Christopher Leblanc gave a self serving account, just as Shawn Atkins did as well.

    So you have nothing but your own imaginative invention of the boys' action to the contrary of what were being testified to in court in order to prop up and sustain your failed argument.

    His account is of what happened.
    It is also the account which the prosecution has to disprove or show wasn't justified. Which we already know she couldn't do.

    But if you want to go down the road of self serving statements, then we can point out that Davis's friends who lied, all gave self serving accounts.
    That Christopher Leblanc gave a self serving account, just as Shawn Atkins did as well.
    You falsely present the impression that Dunn's account of what happened that night was a proven fact of what actually happened. But it's not.

    In a self-defense case not only the prosecution has to disprove or show Dunn's killing was not justified, the defendant also has a burden to show that his account is truthful, reasonable by reasonable person standard and also not contradicted by physical evidence, witness testimony or his own inconsistency.

    But, we know how Dunn had lied and perjured himself so many times while under oath. If he was truly acting in self-defense, there was no need for him to lie about calling a LEO buddy for advice and wanting to turn himself in but in actual fact was apprehended by the Jacksonville police officer few hundred miles away the next day. Also there was no need for him to lie about having told his fiancee regarding Davis pointed a shotgun at him when his fiancee testified under oath that he did not.

    So, if he was willing to lie about his buddy and his fiancee that didn't directly pertain to his shooting at the crime scene and subject them to possible perjury charge what else was he lying about to save his own skin when he was giving his account of what happened that night during the argument that resulted in the shooting?

    But we know most of his accounts are self-serving and unbelievable.

    Take for example Dunn portrayed himself to be very polite by asking the boys to turn down the music and sincerely thanking them while describing two menacing-looking black men sitting in the back seat scrawling at him. He said he didn't want any confrontation so he just sat in his car eyes front and window up even after hearing Davis said "F^^k that guy!" followed by music being turned back up.

    He didn't want to ask for any more favor because he didn't want any confrontation. So, he claimed he paid no attention as he could hear the guy getting louder and louder talking to other guys and getting more agitated and spewing racial slurs.

    For a guy who claimed not paying attention and being deaf on one ear, he claimed to have heard amid the loud music Davis said, "I should KILL that M-F!".

    Yeah right. How believable can that be for any sane person to believe that a teenager who was having a good time stopping at a gas station to get some gum to freshen their breath while going mail hopping trying to get some chicks to lay was going to work himself up into a frenzy unprovoked simply because a guy asked him politely to turn down the loud music which he didn't want to comply and the guy asking politely didn't ask anymore or provoke him in any way but simply eyes looked straight ahead and window up?

    How believable can Dunn be about how polite and non-confrontational and calm he was that night while complaining about loud music that bothered him in the face of menacing-looking black men scrawling and throwing racial slurs and expletives at him when it didn't take him very long to throw back snappy retorts at John Guy, the prosecutor, who was merely doing his job by asking him some simple questions relating to that night?

    Yet, the ones who were polite and calm at the cross by the defense were supposed to be the ones menacing-looking and unreasonably out of control foul mouthed thugs as Dunn would have you believe?

    Now, remember Thomson on the stand admitted that the music "was pretty loud" and that when he turned the music down Davis told him "F*** that; turn the music back up," so he did. Why would he even admit to the music being loud and Davis saying the expletive at all? Why couldn't he have done what Dunn had done by describing Davis as a very polite and non-confrontational little angel?

    Now, just base on this alone, tell me who is more believable? Not to mention the overly dramatic acting lines attributed to Davis by a semi-deaf Dunn that sounded so artificial for a self-serving purpose.

    Next, Dunn claimed he saw Davis bending forward and picked up something with both hands with yet another Hollywood make believe drama line, saying, "Yeah., I'm going to f^^king kill you!". Yeah right, it's not even funny

    It just defies logic. Davis didn't own a car nor was he known to even have a gun or a shotgun. If he did, the defense would have dug it up long time ago or at least found some high school students who knew about Davis.

    So, he and the other three boys were going to mall hopping looking for girls and having a good time that weekend with a Durango borrowed from Tommie's aunt and Davis decided to bring along his shotgun to hunt for some chics?

    And Tommie, while on felony probation, was all gung-ho about that not to mention there was no leg room in the back seat for the two men sitting behind let alone putting a chic in between? And they were just going to leave the shotgun in plain view while going about mall hopping and hunting for girls?

    It doesn't even make any sense they would have a shotgun with them that night in a Durango with no leg room and no place to conceal a shotgun while they go out to have a good time hunting for girls, who I'm sure you'd find very enthusiastic about seeing a shotgun pressing against their legs on the way to merryland.

    Or are you confused between hunting chics and hunting wild turkey birds?

    Cont...
    Last edited by dolphinocean; 03-15-14 at 11:50 PM.

  10. #350
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:3

    Then Dunn claimed he saw Davis laid a gun barrel against the window sill and that he could see about four inches of what looked like a 12 to 20 gauge barrel sticking up and registering on his face. The logical question is: why hadn't Davis, who had worked himself into a killing mode frenzy, fired at Dunn? What was he waiting for?


    For Dunn to get his gun and shoot first ask question later? It makes no sense.


    Dunn said he was paralyzed with fear, yeah right. But no, he was in such fear alright, not that he was seeking confrontation, oh nooooo..., he was trying to calm things down so he had to roll down his window again and asked, "Are you talking to me?"


    Strike that. That script is too natural. Nooooo... when it comes to Dunn, things have to be dunn Dunn's way ---- artificially dramatic like this: "Are you talking about me?"


    So, what did Dunn expect when he said he rolled down his window and turned towards the menacing-looking men who were working up into a frenzy and asked, "Are you talking about me?"


    Not wanting to be confrontation, my foot. What a compulsive liar!


    Then Dunn said Davis gave it another moment before he "resolved himself" to unlatched his car door to exit the vehicle. Then, according to Dunn, Davis got out of the Durango with his head clearing the door and made another grand standing Hollywood make believe announcement, saying, "You're dead bitch! This **** is going down now!"


    Yeah, no kidding "this **** is going down"? What kind of stupid script is this? It's so way out there, it's freaking unbelievable.


    Then Dunn reiterated his "****ting-in-his-pants" fairy tale about him being paralyzed by fear once again and the fear left him when something happened inside of him that caused him to grab his gun from the glove compartment the moment he saw Davis advanced on him.


    And, here's the comical part, instead of Davis shooting Dunn with his shotgun right there and right then yet a second chance, the hallucinating screenwriter came up with another stupid gem to have Davis squeezing himself through the narrow gap between two tightly packed cars with a shotgun advancing towards Dunn.


    But wait. The story gets weirder. Dunn claimed as he grabbed his gun from the glove box he still got time to politely make another of his grandstanding dramatic announcement to Davis, who was said to be advancing towards him just a split second ago, by saying, "You're not going to kill me you son of a bitch!"


    And instead of Davis having the upper hand at every opportune time to shoot Dunn before Dunn could get his hand on his gun, it somehow was the other way around if you could believe his tall tale. As absurd as it is, Dunn claimed that he turned his head around and saw Davis ducked back inside the Durango after purportedly seeing Dunn reaching into the glove compartment for his gun. And then, in his very own words he said, "I fired at the rear passenger door." <<<<---how's that not murder by his own words?


    And all the while when Dunn kept firing at them while they back up and drove away to flee for their life, the boys didn't even fire a single shot back at Dunn if they truly had a gun.


    So, you see how absurd his story is? Not only was his story self-serving to save his soul but he couldn't even get it straight without defying common sense and logic.


    Now, how is Christopher LeBlanc or Shawn Atkins gave a self-serving account? Neither of them was on trial for the murder of Davis, so what purpose were they self-serve by testifying the event that involved not them but the event between Dunn and Davis with his friends?
    Last edited by dolphinocean; 03-15-14 at 11:56 PM.

Page 35 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2533343536 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •