Page 31 of 64 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 637

Thread: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

  1. #301
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,606

    Re: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    No, it's your case. You make it.
    OK, then remain ignorant. I don't care.


    And they were wrong.
    They didn't think so.



    You're not applying that reason properly here. This officer has a responsibility to know the elements of the crime he is arresting an offender for. The elements were not there, the officer doesn't get to "think he sees PC" and then follow through with the arrest...he has to HAVE PC. It's called the investigatory process. And he didn't articulate it successfully.
    He articulated it in his report. Care to show what parts of his report were faulty?

    Probable cause is still easily satisfied even if no conviction can be had, and there is a LOT of deference given to the instincts of a police officer -- particularly an experienced, well-respected officer.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #302
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    The officer asked him outside. He followed him outside. He was on his own property. He can walk where he chooses. If you are going to take this approach you need to define what constitutes "legitimate purpose" and what does not. The officer are on his property, they are leaving, he is following. Show me how it's "illegitimate."
    I'd say following the officer outside just to yell the same things you already communicated to the officer inside would not be a 'legitimate purpose' and would only serve as grandstanding, for attention.


    Why then did he invite Gates to follow him?
    Because Gates was still berating him, and yet he no longer had the exigent circumstances to be in the home.


    Wrong, they were already assembled outside his residence. The report even says this.
    I believe it said that the other Officers were assembled outside the residence. I could be wrong though. Im going off of yesterday's memory, and I had court today so I have lots of little facts running around in my head.


    Since they had gathered during the period of the incident that occurred in Gates residence his activity didn't cause them to do anything they weren't already voluntarily engaged in of their own accord.
    Even if these were the normal members of society, they gathered here because the conduct occuring INSIDE was disturbing. Have you ever heard of a noise ordinance? Not to say this was in violation of a noise ordinance, but think about the same situation. There are still limitations of what you can/can't do even if you are on your own property if the actions effect the public. A grown man cannot run out into his yard, whip out his dick, and piss in the grass for all the world to see, Nor can he turn up a stereo so loud as to be heard 4 houses down causing a disturbance.

    They were gawking before Gates followed the cop outside because all the police cars were in the neighborhood.
    Or was it because they could hear Gates from outside?
    This is not an uncommon phenomenon.
    Depends on where you live.



    So? Show me the law that says you can't yell on your own property.
    Show me the law that says you can't walk around naked in your own house in a glass see through house and no curtains or blinds.
    Show me the law that says you can't whip out your dick and piss in the direction of the street while smiling and waiving at cars.


    No it doesn't. It shows his intent to yell at the officer.
    Which he already did inside the home. Coming outside to yell the same things shows he was trying to make a scene.


    Pure speculation and would never hold up in court. You're not a mind reader.
    Wow. In that case we can't prove anything that shows intent unless we create a machine that learns to read minds.


    And where is the crime here? Not being calm is not a crime. His not being a crime has to rise to the level of violating state statute, which has already been posted here. Based upon the report his behavior did not violate statute.
    I disagree for the reasons I articulated in the previous posts of mine.



    Harshaw is wrong in his position. He didn't violate the law. In your own words you are completely reliant upon guessing at Gates intent to make your case. A defense attorney would shut this down in short order and you'd be laughed off the stand.
    Im allowing his actions to show his intent. If we depend on suspects to be honest about their intent we'd never get convictions.


    When the crime is against the public, and not the state, the public must provide a complainant or victim in order to testify that their peace was disturbed, annoyed, or that they were alarmed. Otherwise how can an officer say "the public was alarmed" when nobody from the public made that complaint.
    Apparently the officer cannot speak onbehalf of what he witnessed, is that what you are saying? Officers are not a part of the public I guess.

    So if a guy pisses in the direction of traffic, an officer sees it, but nobody comes up and says, "He is pissing in traffic I want him arrested" the officer has to shrug and drive off?


    This thing was dumped because they knew it would never stand up...ever.
    In your opinion.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  3. #303
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Wrong Caine, a citizen can file a witness statement with the officer while making the report. The officer doesn't have to witness anything, the testimony of the victim/witness/complainant is more than enough and serves as probable cause.
    Maybe in Massachusetts. But that argument doesn't work for everywhere, which I don't belive Scarecrow was speaking of massachusetts specifically.

    In NC, an Officer cannot make an on scene arrest for an incident that occurred outside of his presence except in the case of Felonies (with probable cause) or Domesic Physical Assaults (with probable cause or physical signs of injury to one party). There are some other exceptions, like with Unlawful concealment (shoplifting) where the subject is detained by store employees, a few others im not thinking of at the moment.

    Disorderly conduct isn't one of them.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  4. #304
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    And touching a bouncer is assault. That is more than a simple peace disturbance.

    Thus far nobody has successfully articulated that this man committed an offense that actually meets the statutory definition of "disorderly conduct" under Massachusetts law.
    I have, you just refuse to acknowledge it, and make up some kind of crazy ass rule Ive never heard of before, like the citizen must complain about it first crap, as if law enforcement don't count as a member of the public.

    Maybe not where you come from.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  5. #305
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,471

    Re: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    OK, then remain ignorant. I don't care.
    You assume I don't know what it means. I'm not the ignorant one here. Like I said, it's your case, you make it. I understand the nuances of law. If you want to make an argument that "acting reasonably" is a statutory requirement then you better get on your pony and start riding.

    I'll argue this with you, but you are going to have to actually make your case.

    They didn't think so.
    Apparently the agency thought so as they dropped the case and made quite an apology over the situation. When you are right you don't have to do that.


    He articulated it in his report. Care to show what parts of his report were faulty?
    No he didn't. He gave a lengthy explanation that never actually articulates the elements of the crime. The descriptions of Gates actions do not marry up to the grounds he used to arrest under Massachusetts statute. I can't prove a negative. My point is he didn't provide nearly enough information to make his case based upon the elements of the crime. This isn't that hard to understand.

    Probable cause is still easily satisfied even if no conviction can be had,
    Stop right there. Here is the disconnect. He should have known on the scene he didn't have PC based upon the statute he claimed to be enforcing. It wasn't there, period. He invited an irate man to follow him outside then arrests him for "disorderly conduct" citing "tumultuous behavior." The suspect has to have the purpose of committing the crime against the public, the statute is very clear on this, and it is the responsibility of the officer to prove that. This officer did not prove that.

    and there is a LOT of deference given to the instincts of a police officer -- particularly an experienced, well-respected officer.
    Sure, as long as the officer is proven right. And this officer was not proven right. In fact all charges were dropped and the department issued what amounted to a strong apology regarding their actions that day. You don't do that when you are right.

    Please let me know if we are going to go down the "he's friends with Obama and that's why this went away" road.

    Here is Gate's short version of events if any of you are interested.

    This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.

    Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

    Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

    Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.
    So who is lying? Who is telling the truth? Do you know?
    *insert profound statement here*

  6. #306
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Seen
    12-10-10 @ 06:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    404

    Re: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

    One doesn't have to claim their was a racial motivation in the arrest, just stupidity.

  7. #307
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,471

    Re: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    I have, you just refuse to acknowledge it, and make up some kind of crazy ass rule Ive never heard of before, like the citizen must complain about it first crap, as if law enforcement don't count as a member of the public.
    Law enforcement does not count as a "member of the public" while on duty in most states. I didn't make it up. And I never said that an officers testimony doesn't count or that a citizen MUST complain first. You need to go back re-read my posts.

    Here is the problem as I see it. You and others seem to take any outside reference I make as an excuse to trail off of the case being discussed.

    Maybe not where you come from.
    Sure.
    *insert profound statement here*

  8. #308
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

    This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.

    Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

    Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

    Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.
    This explanation makes absolutely no sense at all. And I'll explain why I find it less credible than the Officer's report.

    Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates.
    This is not very solid at all. The picture it paints is a man asking for a name and badge number, and an officer just standing, starring off into space apparently. This portion doesn't fit in with the time frame, and it appears as if too much information was left out. I wonder why that is?

    As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.
    Again, wayy too much information left out for this thing to run smoothly. Gates would have us believe this story? He walks outside, and yet again a bunch of Officers just starring off into space as he asks a question and then as they wait for him to step outside arrest him. For what exactly?


    This story makes about as much sense as one my 3 year old son told me yesterday.

    There is way too much information left out of this account of the incident to be credible. The chain of events in this account of the story do not even roll smoothly from one act to the next. The beginning makes sense, but it all starts going downhill from where the officer showed up on scene. This leads me to believe that there are facts left out and facts made up.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  9. #309
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Law enforcement does not count as a "member of the public" while on duty in most states. I didn't make it up. And I never said that an officers testimony doesn't count or that a citizen MUST complain first. You need to go back re-read my posts.

    Here is the problem as I see it. You and others seem to take any outside reference I make as an excuse to trail off of the case being discussed.


    Sure.
    You didn't answer my question, since Im apparently not up to speed on this "a citizen must complain" stuff.

    If an adult male goes outside in his own from yard and waves his exposed penis around for all the world to see, and an officer sees it but does not receive this "citizen complaint" about it, can the officer not act upon this crime of indecent exposure?
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  10. #310
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,471

    Re: Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    I'd say following the officer outside just to yell the same things you already communicated to the officer inside would not be a 'legitimate purpose' and would only serve as grandstanding, for attention.
    You can't prove that in court and you know it. There is no statutory authority to confine Gates to his house or curtail his freedom of speech.


    Because Gates was still berating him, and yet he no longer had the exigent circumstances to be in the home.
    Okay, so he did invite Gates outside. There was no legitimate purpose in the officer doing that. He could have just left. But he didn't, he invited him to follow him outside. If he knows Gates is berating him then why would he want to invited him outside to continue the incident? So again I ask you, why did he invite him outside...because your answer does not suffice.

    I believe it said that the other Officers were assembled outside the residence. I could be wrong though. Im going off of yesterday's memory, and I had court today so I have lots of little facts running around in my head.
    According to the report there were several officers outside the home, the caller, and now about 7 citizens.

    Even if these were the normal members of society, they gathered here because the conduct occuring INSIDE was disturbing.
    Prove it. Nowhere in the report did the officer say any of those present had their peace disturbed or is there any testimony that they gathered because of what Gates was doing. That's the kind of **** you have to PROVE if you are going to charge somebody with this offense. It's called evidence.
    Have you ever heard of a noise ordinance? Not to say this was in violation of a noise ordinance, but think about the same situation. There are still limitations of what you can/can't do even if you are on your own property if the actions effect the public.
    Absolutely I've heard of a "noise complaint." Again, in many states a peace officer cannot arrest or cite someone for noise complaints unless a citizen files a complaint with the officer first as an officers peace cannot be disturbed while he or she is on duty. I'm sure there are some exceptions in municipalities. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about.
    * What is Disturbing the Peace?

    Penal Code 415 describes Disturbing the Peace in three ways. The first way is to fight or challenge someone to fight in a public place. The second is to maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise. The last, and most confusing one, is to use offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. A person's freedom of speech has to be weighed before using the last way to disturbed one's peace.

    * Who's peace can be disturbed?

    By Law, a peace officer's peace cannot be disturbed. This means that if someone calls the police for a loud stereo complaint and the officer hears the music, that officer cannot take action if the person refuses to turn down the music. This would require the person, who's peace is being disturbed, to sign a citizen's arrest and the officer can take action based on the citizen's arrest.
    Or this...
    A person's peace can be disturbed in many different ways; it all depends on the individual. Loud music, construction noise and barking dogs are all examples of potentially disturbing noise. What is disturbing to one person may not be disturbing to another. The courts take into consideration a "reasonable person of normal sensitivity" when determining whether the noise violates the law.

    A police officer's "peace" cannot be disturbed. Therefore, it is necessary for a private person to make a complaint against a noise offender.
    This precept goes all the way back to the 20's. It's like this in most states.

    A grown man cannot run out into his yard, whip out his dick, and piss in the grass for all the world to see,
    Red herring Caine and not applicable. You can't run out into your inner city yard and shoot a machine gun either.

    Nor can he turn up a stereo so loud as to be heard 4 houses down causing a disturbance.
    And you need a complainant for that to stick. So?

    Or was it because they could hear Gates from outside?
    Well you are doing nothing more than speculating now because this hasn't been articulated anywhere in the report.
    Depends on where you live.
    So people don't generally come out and look to see what a bunch of cop cars are doing across the street? Really? Whatever.


    Show me the law that says you can't walk around naked in your own house in a glass see through house and no curtains or blinds.
    Show me the law that says you can't whip out your dick and piss in the direction of the street while smiling and waiving at cars.
    What does that have to do with this discussion? Did Gates do either of those? Both of which are crimes and you know it.

    Which he already did inside the home. Coming outside to yell the same things shows he was trying to make a scene.
    Keep on pretending you can read his mind and know what his purpose was. Again, you know that would never stand up in court. Further the officer never sufficiently articulated that this was Gates purpose or intent. Why? He conveniently says that the citizen appeared "alarmed" yet never goes further. Alarmed how? Did any of them say they were alarmed? They "appeared" alarmed in his best judgement but he never confirms that with them. Bad report, bad police work.

    Wow. In that case we can't prove anything that shows intent unless we create a machine that learns to read minds.
    Actually you can prove intent if you sufficiently document the facts of the case. Elements of conduct must documented in order to prove your case, that's all. That wasn't done in this case and that is the problem.

    I disagree for the reasons I articulated in the previous posts of mine.
    Okay.

    Im allowing his actions to show his intent. If we depend on suspects to be honest about their intent we'd never get convictions.
    You can't do that in this case. It's not like he fired a gun into a crowd at the mall. You have to prove his intent was to alarm the public.

    Apparently the officer cannot speak onbehalf of what he witnessed, is that what you are saying? Officers are not a part of the public I guess.
    Sure he can, but the officer is not part of the public when he is on duty, and thus cannot be the victim of a crime against the public. Can you provide evidence that an officer is "part of the public" while he is on duty?

    So if a guy pisses in the direction of traffic, an officer sees it, but nobody comes up and says, "He is pissing in traffic I want him arrested" the officer has to shrug and drive off?
    I didn't say that, why are you injecting red herrings? You're bringing an entirely different crime into the argument for the purpose of trying to win this argument. It won't work. I was talking about peace disturbance, in fact I was pretty clear about what I was describing. We were talking about peace disturbance and disorderly conduct in which the "public" is disturbed or alarmed.

    You're talking about indecent exposure and urinating in public. The elements of the crime are completely different. You don't need to take my comments out of the context of the argument I'm making in order to refute them.

    In your opinion.
    You're correct. And given what we know my opinion appears to be very much in line with reason. Care to offer a counter opinion on why this case was dropped?
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 31 of 64 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... 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
  •