US Deputy Marshall shoots 20yr old driver in the back in self defense

I hope that cop gets the chair. Fat chance though, cops are above the law, which is one reason why I dislike them so much.
 
[quote name='RBM'][quote name='dafoomie']The deputy gets into a fistfight with the kid, and after he gets in his car to leave, the deputy pulls his gun. To do what? Arrest him?

Would any of you people defending the cop like to explain to me why he fired at least 9 times?[/quote]

One could argue that the officer resorted to his sidearm when the young man got back into his Camaro because he might have had a weapon hidden within the car. At that point, the deputy ordered him out of the car because his own safety (and that of his family) was at stake, if the 20 year old came out with a gun in his hand.

As for the number of shots fired, if an officer is threatened with vehicular homicide, one could not reasonably expect him to fire two shots at an oncoming car and hope they were sufficient (keep in mind that I would argue that the Camaro passed close enough to the officer to warrant his "genuine belief" that he was under direct assault.)[/quote]

I think the cop got trigger happy and made a huge mistake, and should pay with his life behind bars like normal people would. Even if he was defending himself, there are plenty of incidents with normal people in the same circumstances who get 20+ years in jail. Just because he's a police officer shouldn't give him special treatment in this circumstance, and I think they should throw the book at him.
 
[quote name='jmcc']So the lesson to be learned here is: if you're in a fight with a federal officer and they pull a gun on you and you make it to your car, run them over with your car or you'll get shot.[/quote]

I know it's not funny but when I 1st read your post It made me laugh :lol:
It's f'ed up becauseI know if I just got in a fight with a guy and he pulls out a gun I'm getting the F out of there. This Marshal just got in a power trip probably because this kid whupped his ass and he knew he had a badge.
 
[quote name='Zman310'] Looks like justice was actually served in this case.[/quote]

A little premature, but yes, so far he seems to have received the same treatment any civilian could expect in such a circumstance. I was initially taken aback by their taking him into custody and not pressing charges immediately, despite the abundance of eye-witnesses. In retrospect, I guess they were waiting till they interviewed everyone who was there before deciding what level (first, second, or third degree murder) to charge him with. I'll be curious to find out how this case actually concludes, since it's just in the initial processing right now (kind of.)

Thus far, no issue has been made of race in this case (the marshal is black and the kid who got shot was a white kid who was either newly enlisted in or just about to enlist in the marines, I think...I forget which.)
 
Former U.S. Marshal Convicted of Manslaughter

By David Snyder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 9, 2005; 4:57 PM

A former U.S. Marshal has been convicted of manslaughter for killing a 20-year-old Navy seaman after a traffic dispute on Rockville Pike in Montgomery County.

Arthur L. Lloyd, a now-retired 28-year veteran of the U.S. Marshals Service, was also convicted today of reckless endangerment and using a handgun in a violent crime in the death of Ryan T. Stowers, of Redding, Calif.

The jury did not convict Lloyd of the more serious first-and-second-degree murder charges sought by prosecutors. He was off duty Oct. 29 when he encountered Stowers at the Mid-Pike Plaza on Rockville Pike around 8 p.m. After a traffic dispute, the two emerged from their vehicles and had a fistfight while dozens of shocked onlookers phoned 911.

Lloyd, 54, shot Stowers once in the lower leg, then minutes later fired three shots into Stowers's red Camaro. Stowers died in the driver's seat of his car, his aorta severed by one of the .40-caliber slugs fired from Lloyd's service weapon. Lloyd was off-duty at the time, driving with his wife and five children.

Lloyd acknowledges shooting and killing Stowers, but told jurors in testimony last week that he acted in self defense. Prosecutors say Lloyd deliberately shot Stowers in the back after becoming enraged during the fight.

Lloyd has been held without bond in the Montgomery County Correctional Facility since his arrest, several days after Stowers's death last fall.

In testimony last week, two police officers testified that they had confrontations with Stowers in the 18 months before his death. Both officers -- one in Maryland and one in California -- said Stowers verbally challenged and insulted them. The California officer testified that he had to wrestle Stowers to the ground.

Jurors also heard testimony that Stowers had nearly three times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood when he died.

The judge did not allow evidence of several prior violent acts that Lloyd is alleged to have committed. Twice in the last three years, Lloyd's wife, Wanda Guzman, filed restraining orders against Lloyd, alleging that he slammed her head into a kitchen door. Guzman later dropped both allegations.

Lloyd's defense rested in large part on his own testimony, which contradicted in several aspects testimony from many eyewitnesses to the shooting. Lloyd, for example, told jurors that he identified himself as a U.S. Marshal as soon as Stowers confronted him in at Mid-Pike Plaza that night. Witnesses said the first time they saw Lloyd identify himself as a law enforcement officer was after he shot Stowers the first time

*******
No word on sentencing just yet, but it seems that neither extreme outcome occurred; he was neither acquitted outright nor found guilty of first (or even second) degree murder. Whether his sentencing results in a "slap on the wrist" (relative to the crime) or "hard time" remains to be seen.
 
Well it's good to see he got convicticted of a pretty major crime. To be honest I think it was foolish of the prosecutor to attach a first degree murder charge. I'm pretty sure the statute in almost every state is that first degree murder requires premeditation and in this case there appears to nothing to back that up. Anways, hopefully he'll see at least the average jail time for manslaughter during his sentence.
 
you know, theres so many people that want to see this guy get the chair, and i think your all crazy. Once this guy disobeyed the marshalls order to step out of the car, he broke the law.

Any number of things could of happened from that point:
A: he could of pulled a deadly weapon to threaten the officer with.
B: he could of tried to get away (which happened)
c: he could of tried to run the officer over (which is possible, after reading the article it mentions the driver started to swirve after shots where fired at him, we have no witness account of wether he was going at the officer before the shots fired.
D: i think this is one alot of people miss, even if he had swirved away from the officer, theres no saying wether or not our getaway guy had a armed weapon in a drive by shooting attempt.
 
Thanks for another update, RBM. The outcome seems fairly satisfactory to me. I probably would have preferred a second degree murder conviction, which I think would be a bit more appropriate, but I think manslaughter is serious enough to fit the crime. Glad to see that my earlier prediction of justice being served turned out to be correct.
 
I haven't read past the first page, but I will say that I disagree with those of you saying that 9 bullets is wrong in and of itself. Officers aren't trained to take a shot, stop, see if it did the trick, rinse, repeat. They are trained to unload the clip and hope they hit their target. In a perfect world, yes, the cop would know for sure that the first few shots landed and he can stop. But he did what he was trained to do.

There were alot of variables to this situation, and they all were in the negative. About the only way this could have bee any worse would be if the cop was run over (NOT saying that the kid was trying to do that, just saying that it could have been worse). Both te kid and the cop acted inappropriately, forcing the other to guess what would happen next.

The cop doesn't provide ID, so the kid has no idea who he is being threatened by.

The kid kept moving, after being warned, and gave the cop a reason to think he was in danger.

They're both stupid, and now one of them is dead. It's one of those situations that will never be truly understood by anyone save for the kid and the cop. Everyone else can only speculate as to how they'd react in either set of shoes.

I think the cop was wrong for brandishing his gun and not providing ID, but the kid was just as wrong to ignore the warnings (regardless of whether he was a cop, you shouldn't ignore what someone is saying when pointing a gun at you) and trying to drive away. But it's wrong for me to judge them in the first place, because I may have reacted the same way. We sit here and look at it subjectively with cool heads, bt who's to say what we'd do in a panic situation? OK I'm done.
 
[quote name='thingsfallnapart']you know, theres so many people that want to see this guy get the chair, and i think your all crazy. Once this guy disobeyed the marshalls order to step out of the car, he broke the law.

Any number of things could of happened from that point:
A: he could of pulled a deadly weapon to threaten the officer with.
B: he could of tried to get away (which happened)
c: he could of tried to run the officer over (which is possible, after reading the article it mentions the driver started to swirve after shots where fired at him, we have no witness account of wether he was going at the officer before the shots fired.
D: i think this is one alot of people miss, even if he had swirved away from the officer, theres no saying wether or not our getaway guy had a armed weapon in a drive by shooting attempt.[/QUOTE]

If someone in street clothes ID's themself as an officer but doesn't show any type of badge no one in their right mind will take their "authority" seriously. You'd swerve too if someone were shooting at you. If he had a weapon and was trying to use it, it would have been mentioned. That piece of trash deserves to rot. Actually, they should put him in w/the general population. They'll give him the right sentence.
 
[quote name='neocisco']If someone in street clothes ID's themself as an officer but doesn't show any type of badge no one in their right mind will take their "authority" seriously. You'd swerve too if someone were shooting at you. If he had a weapon and was trying to use it, it would have been mentioned. That piece of trash deserves to rot. Actually, they should put him in w/the general population. They'll give him the right sentence.[/QUOTE]

to quote the original article:

"A witness who said he was driving in the opposite direction in his Toyota Corolla at that point said he saw a man who was wearing street clothes holding a semiautomatic handgun and a badge standing by the Camaro's right front fender. The driver's window was down, he said. "

he was holding a badge, what's the reasoning to disagree with the fact he's a cop then?
 
I think the cop will get off, but I don't agree with that...it appears from the little that I read, he let his emotions take charge of the situation...he could have gotten the license plate number, and got a warrant for his arrest...the marshall didn't identify himself as a law enforcer, untill the kid was back in the car (from what i read), after the fight...firing his weapon imo was unjustifiable...
 
The updated article is more wordy, so I'll parse it down a bit:

Arthur L. Lloyd, 54, also was convicted of reckless endangerment and the use of a handgun during a crime of violence. He faces a maximum sentence of 35 years in prison. In finding Lloyd guilty of manslaughter, jurors rejected in part the prosecution theory that Lloyd, a 28-year veteran of the U.S. Marshals Service, deliberately and with premeditation shot Ryan T. Stowers.

The jurors could have convicted Lloyd of first- or second-degree murder. The manslaughter conviction indicates that they determined that he acted in what he believed was self-defense. But it was what Maryland law refers to as "imperfect self-defense," meaning that although Lloyd believed he had to shoot Stowers to defend himself, a reasonable person would not come to the same conclusion.

Lloyd acknowledges shooting and killing Stowers, but he told jurors in testimony last week that he acted in self-defense. Prosecutors say Lloyd deliberately shot Stowers in the back after a fight that started about 8 p.m. Oct. 29.

"This young man was shot in the back," Deputy State's Attorney John McCarthy told jurors. "His vehicle was shot from behind. He was shot as he was leaving."

Lloyd was off duty, driving with his wife and five children, when he encountered Stowers at the Mid-Pike Plaza on Rockville Pike. After a traffic dispute, the two emerged from their vehicles and had a fistfight while dozens of onlookers phoned 911.

Lloyd suffered a broken thumb and finger and a black eye in the fight. Witnesses testified that Lloyd's wife, Wanda Guzman, tried to restrain him as he went to his black sport-utility vehicle to get his Glock service weapon and that he said, "I'll show him," referring to Stowers. During his testimony, Lloyd denied both assertions.

He acknowledged that he shot Stowers once in the lower leg and then, minutes later, fired three shots into Stowers's red Camaro. Stowers's aorta was severed by one of the Glock's .40-caliber slugs, and he died in his car.


Stowers's mother, Tricia Stowers, said she was "satisfied" with the verdict, but she added: "Nobody wins in this situation. Everybody loses. I'd much rather have my son back than a guilty verdict."


Lloyd's defense rested largely on his testimony, which contradicted in several aspects the testimony of eyewitnesses. Lloyd, for example, told jurors that he identified himself as a U.S. marshal as soon as Stowers confronted him that night. Witnesses said the first time they heard Lloyd identify himself as a law enforcement officer was after he shot Stowers in the leg.

Lloyd also maintained that he was standing many feet away from Stowers's Camaro before Stowers tried to drive away. Several witnesses said they saw Lloyd standing next to the car -- and even reaching into the vehicle -- before it moved. From that position, it would be difficult for Lloyd to argue that Stowers's car threatened his life.

*******

Hmm. Re-reading this, I see that I have been quite biased in my choice of quotes. Well, the full article is there for the reading, and I have never been that fond of huge posts.
 
[quote name='Ledhed']I haven't read past the first page, but I will say that I disagree with those of you saying that 9 bullets is wrong in and of itself. Officers aren't trained to take a shot, stop, see if it did the trick, rinse, repeat. They are trained to unload the clip and hope they hit their target. In a perfect world, yes, the cop would know for sure that the first few shots landed and he can stop. But he did what he was trained to do.

There were alot of variables to this situation, and they all were in the negative. About the only way this could have bee any worse would be if the cop was run over (NOT saying that the kid was trying to do that, just saying that it could have been worse). Both te kid and the cop acted inappropriately, forcing the other to guess what would happen next.

The cop doesn't provide ID, so the kid has no idea who he is being threatened by.

The kid kept moving, after being warned, and gave the cop a reason to think he was in danger.

They're both stupid, and now one of them is dead. It's one of those situations that will never be truly understood by anyone save for the kid and the cop. Everyone else can only speculate as to how they'd react in either set of shoes.

I think the cop was wrong for brandishing his gun and not providing ID, but the kid was just as wrong to ignore the warnings (regardless of whether he was a cop, you shouldn't ignore what someone is saying when pointing a gun at you) and trying to drive away. But it's wrong for me to judge them in the first place, because I may have reacted the same way. We sit here and look at it subjectively with cool heads, bt who's to say what we'd do in a panic situation? OK I'm done.[/QUOTE]
Have you read the article?

The car was moving away from the cop when he fired. The shots went through the back window.

The officer got into a fistfight with the kid after a fenderbender, while his family was waiting in his car. Only after losing the fight, being embarrassed in front of his family, and while the kid was trying to leave, did he pull out his gun and identify himself as a police officer. He shouted to the kid, "Get out of the car, or I'm going to shoot you!" and, "You just hit a federal officer. Watch what's going to happen to you in the morning if you leave." The kid asked for a photo ID but the officer refused. Then the kid tries to leave, and the cop fires 9 shots, all of his bullets, into the back of the car as its moving foreward.

The cop threatened to kill him if he left, and then killed him as he was trying to leave. That is pre-meditation, and its 1st degree murder.

As for the "panic situation", you, or I, or the kid that died, might understandably panic. But this is a police officer, trained and experienced in these situations. The officer could have diffused the situation much earlier by identifying himself immediately and not fighting, or simply allowing the kid to leave. Everything after the traffic accident itself is the officer's fault. He not only allowed it to escalate, he escalated it himself.


The title of this thread should be edited to read, Deputy Marshall murders 20 year old driver in the back. I don't really see how you can shoot someone in the back, in self defense. Its an oxymoron.
 
My dad friend son was killed by a POPO about a year ago. His son just got back from IRAQ. He’s in the army. Someone reported a burglary. I think he got shot like 5 times. The officer says it was self-defense. As a result he got off easily. The one who got shot dead had a fork utensil. This is all reported from two officers to the media. The family thinks it all BS. The last thing I heard the family is trying to get a lawyer.
 
[quote name='dafoomie'] I don't really see how you can shoot someone in the back, in self defense. Its an oxymoron.[/QUOTE]

You could if they were turning around to grab a weapon, but I see your point as the kid was trying to run away.
 
[quote name='postaboy']This is all reported from two officers to the media. The family thinks it all BS. The last thing I heard the family is trying to get a lawyer.[/QUOTE]

Is it any wonder that 48% of the votes (admittedly, of a laughably small number of total votes) reflected the belief that they 'protect their own'? Even in a high-profile case such as this, with plenty of eye-witnesses, it would seem that folks weren't surprised if his status as a U. S. Marshall would thwart any chance of justice.

In truth, I can sympathize with aspects of both extremes in the public's attitude toward police officers. On the one hand, I believe that many of them are heroic members of our communities, and they really do protect & serve. We owe them not only respect, but gratitude and admiration, since they put their lives on the line to keep us safe.

On the other hand, I have also had the distinctly unpleasant experience of having a police officer treat me like dirt, and until that happens to you, it is hard to truly grasp the anger & resentment such treatment evokes. Suddenly, all the benefits of their job means something sinister and deadly. When you consider the risks of their job, they really are pillars of our communities. But, when you consider the power they wield and suddenly have it turned on you....that betrayal of trust is very, very bitter.

Just imagine...I mean, really imagine...if that had been your brother, father, or son who was shot down in broad daylight. Now, think again what sentence you expect the judge to hand down to this officer. They all have guns, and they can always, always, ALWAYS claim they shot you dead in self-defense. Even if they shot you in the back. In this particular case, that defense seems to have failed, but I believe it is the exception to the rule. It is often not the threat you are aware of & wary of that kills you. It is the threat you don't see or think about which catches you off-guard.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']

The title of this thread should be edited to read, Deputy Marshall murders 20 year old driver in the back. I don't really see how you can shoot someone in the back, in self defense. Its an oxymoron.[/QUOTE]

Actually if the driver actually did go in reverse in attempt to hit him the driver still would've been shot in the back and then it would've been self-defense. That's just one way....
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Actually if the driver actually did go in reverse in attempt to hit him the driver still would've been shot in the back and then it would've been self-defense. That's just one way....[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but the car wasn't going in reverse. Plus he'd have to at least twist around a little bit to look out the back window, so it wouldn't really be in his back.
 
I know what will happen. The witness that do show up or fill out a report will be minimal. Half the witness will say one thing, and the other half will say something else. So he will get acquitted on all charges.
 
Oh wow, I didn't even see this before, but I just remembered - the guy who died is from my town, it was all over the news and has been. Crazy stuff, that - all I can say is the guy had no right to shoot to kill. The tires would of been sufficient... but if the guy was already past him, there was no reason to shoot. No matter if he had tried to hit the officer with his car, it didn't happen and the man did not deserve to die. The fighting was bad, the broken thumb was bad... but to shoot to kill? Dude, let your pride go and let the loser drive away.... at least he would still have his life.

Sorry, but I hate things like this. It seems way out of line.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Yeah, but the car wasn't going in reverse. Plus he'd have to at least twist around a little bit to look out the back window, so it wouldn't really be in his back.[/QUOTE]

I didn't mean he was actaully going in reverse, I simply gave you a hypthetical situation in which it would be self defense seeing as you saw it as an outlandish oxymoron. Plus cars usually have rearview mirrors or he could've just tried to run him over while backing out of there and not even look. Either way, there's certain situations where a shot in the back would be self defense.
 
Well, without reading all these posts, I'll add this.

Police officers are allowed to use deadly force when their lives or the lives of innocent civilians are in immediate jeopardy. Given that the OP stated that this happened in a parking lot full of people, the officer could argue that he was protecting the other people in the parking lot.

Personally, I'm not sure what the complete details are of the event so its difficult to say what my opinion is on it.
 
[quote name='coolbrys']Yeah, I guess the tires thing is a bit ridiculous, a good cop and a good man would of let him go, never shoot.[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to justify him killing someone. But, if he feels threatened, he's not gonna shoot the tires.
 
No, I understand. I just got done watching Bad Boys II again and they do a lot of crazy cop shit, I guess I am just a little wired by that. There is nothing to justify his killing.
 
[quote name='Ledhed']I'm not trying to justify him killing someone. But, if he feels threatened, he's not gonna shoot the tires.[/QUOTE]


If he's feeling threatened why wouldn't he jump in his own car? If he fires with the gun and misses he's going to become a pancake when the guy turns around.

I'm pretty sure this will all be sorted out when they determine how far away the driver was when he shot him, it takes some time to avoid a car and then draw a gun.
 
[quote name='Graystone']I know what will happen. The witness that do show up or fill out a report will be minimal. Half the witness will say one thing, and the other half will say something else. So he will get acquitted on all charges.[/QUOTE]

Umm he's already been convicted on 3 charges...
 
IMHO the victim's family should be given guns, the *officer* should be put in a car headed in the opposite direction, and then the family will be allowed to fire at him. That is how cases are settled in the Horse Barn of Justice!
 
Eye for an eye sounds like a good idea, but eventually we would all wind up blind.

However, I agree for things like murder should equal death. Additionally, the family members should be allowed to flip the switch. They should actually be given the choice. If they want him to die they need to do it themselves. I also think that rapists should have their penises torn off. No, not cut, but torn. Slowly and painfully pulled until it just tears off.
 
I don't see why the guy being a cop is even brought up. The guy claimed he was a cop but refused to show his ID. If a guy gets into a fight with me and then claims he's a cop but doesn't show ID, I would think he's full of shit. As far as I'm concerned, I'm in a fight with a wacko who just pulled a gun on me, I would not believe that he is actually a cop.

Though, I don't really care that the kid died either, he beat up his wife and starts various other fights. The cop should be punished for what he did, but I really don't care that he did it to that particular person.
 
I wonder how well someone with nearly three times the legal blood alcohol limit (and not even 21) could drive a car... In fact, I wonder if a drunk driver driving around a crowded area would have an impact on the case.:whistle2:?
 
Well seems to have gotten bumped because one of our new users has toothpaste for brains :roll:

... and to think I was expecting a verdict in the case, silly me
 
This cop should fucking fry. This is coming from a person whos father is a cop. First off all a cop should know his surroundings, say one of the bullets would have missed the kid and hit lady walking by? Do you know how much trouble shit he would be in for that. Should a gun in public is the worst thing you can do as a cop, plus any non-dumbshit can see that the threat to the cop was long gone if he shot him through the back windsheild.

God damn the lawyers will have a fucking feild day with this. This is why the world is so fucked up whenever someone gets murded they can get off scott free if the bend and warp the truth enough. I wasnt there but it is a fact that the cop shot through the back of the car which means that the car was moving away from him. If he was a good cop he would have been smart and just taken down the kids PLATE NUMBER and got him arrested in the morning. But this fucker is a murderer plain and simple.
 
Well, despite the age of this topic I will throw in a reply just for the hell of it...

I cast my vote with what I believe should happen. He should do hard time, due to the fact that he used very inappropriate excessive force.

However, in response to some of the stupid shit I've seen you guys post in here, I have to reply... An officer is trained not to fire his weapon unless he intends to kill (in the event that there is a fatal shot, an officer must be full justified and ready to defend this use of force). This "shooting out tires" crap doesn't fly.

I can't believe a veteran officer of 20+ years would behave in this fashion, very disturbing.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300915.html

Ex-Marshal Gets 15 Years for Rockville Killing By Fredrick Kunkle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Page B03

A former deputy U.S. marshal who killed a young Navy seaman in a road rage incident last year at a Rockville shopping plaza was sentenced yesterday to 15 years in prison.

Arthur L. Lloyd, 54, who was convicted in June of voluntary manslaughter in the Oct. 29 shooting of Ryan T. Stowers, probably will serve about 11 years before he is eligible for parole, prosecutors said.

Calling the shooting "an enormous tragedy" for both families, Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Ann S. Harrington tailored a sentence that satisfied neither side completely. She went beyond state guidelines calling for a five- to 10-year sentence, but she declined to impose the maximum 35-year term requested by prosecutors.

When it was his turn to speak, Lloyd asked the family to forgive him. Then, in remarks that drifted over several subjects, he placed some blame for the deadly encounter on Stowers's intoxication. He said that all law enforcement officers have been on edge in the post-Sept. 11 world and that he became fearful for himself and his family when Stowers followed him into the shopping plaza.

He claimed that he had no choice but to take action against a driver who made "racially profane" remarks and menaced him and his family. Lloyd is black; Stowers was white. "Just between me and God, and to the family, especially the mother, and all the brothers and sisters, I have to ask forgiveness. And I have to ask forgiveness because a young man lost his life," Lloyd told the court.

*******
Looks like about a third of those polled were correct. If I were the cynical sort, I would boil Lloyd's statements to the court & the relatives of the victim down to the Race Card and the Terrorism Card. If I were so predisposed.

I wonder how this impacts (if at all) the way people think about police officials and federal agents.
 
[quote name='Graystone']That is the first time. I think that I have seen a cop get convicted.[/QUOTE]

The circumstances were too damning. He shot someone in the back in broad daylight in front of multiple witnesses. Had it been at night with few or no witnesses... :whistle2:#

..and even under these circumstances, the judge did not apply the maximum sentence. I think the missing element was video footage. Had the prosecutor had camcorder footage he could loop, showing the guy getting shot in the back over and over again, then the sentence might have been harsher.

It creeps me out to think what might happen if I were ever shot by accident in a crowded bar or on some city street at night by a cop. Regardless of whether it was understandable (if I were dressed like some suspect he'd been chasing) or not (if he was nervous and fired without seeing me clearly,) it's discomforting to know that he would be given every benefit of the doubt....while my life would just be over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top