REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Enduring, not so subtle racism

POSTED BY: KPO
UPDATED: Sunday, December 22, 2013 15:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1988
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:33 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Ten years ago, when I started my career as an assistant district attorney in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston, I viewed the American criminal justice system as a vital institution that protected society from dangerous people. I once prosecuted a man for brutally attacking his wife with a flashlight, and another for sexually assaulting a waitress at a nightclub. I believed in the system for good reason.

But in between the important cases, I found myself spending most of my time prosecuting people of color for things we white kids did with impunity growing up in the suburbs. As our office handed down arrest records and probation terms for riding dirt bikes in the street, cutting through a neighbor’s yard, hosting loud parties, fighting, or smoking weed – shenanigans that had rarely earned my own classmates anything more than raised eyebrows and scoldings – I often wondered if there was a side of the justice system that we never saw in the suburbs. Last year, I got myself arrested in New York City and found out...



Fascinating article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/i-got-myself-arres
ted-so-i-could-look-inside-the-justice-system/282360
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:48 PM

BYTEMITE


Hmm. Can't tell if the judge was particularly harsh on the guy because there was a vested interest to disprove the suggestion of racism in the system, or as an extension of typical authoritarian punishment doled out to subversives once they are subject to "justice."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:32 AM

AGENTROUKA


This is hair-raising.

The immediately worst thing to read about for me was his time in the court basement cell. Are they denying people medical care? Broken wrist, diabetes? What? Shouldn't they be in a hospital?

Though it really is far from the worst thing. It all goes from predictable to stupefying when they actually refuse to arrest him repeatedly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:40 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

The immediately worst thing to read about for me was his time in the court basement cell. Are they denying people medical care? Broken wrist, diabetes? What? Shouldn't they be in a hospital?


At this point I mostly just consider that par for the course. Heck, in California, a prison doctor actually was sterilizing the women without their consent. Hundreds of them.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/11/19422681-lawmakers-call-for
-investigation-into-sterilization-of-female-inmates?lite


You'll notice that the wrist in question was probably broken by the police.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:52 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

The immediately worst thing to read about for me was his time in the court basement cell. Are they denying people medical care? Broken wrist, diabetes? What? Shouldn't they be in a hospital?


At this point I mostly just consider that par for the course. Heck, in California, a prison doctor actually was sterilizing the women without their consent. Hundreds of them.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/11/19422681-lawmakers-call-for
-investigation-into-sterilization-of-female-inmates?lite


You'll notice that the wrist in question was probably broken by the police.




Oh damn.

Quote:


Dr. James Heinrich, a prison OB-GYN who referred women prisoners for the surgery, told CIR the money spent sterilizing inmates was minimal “compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children – as they procreated more.”



And he just had to have a German last name while giving the most Nazi-suffused answer possible. Just... great.

I can't even. That is a horrifying crime against these women.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:54 AM

BYTEMITE


The American justice system, ladies and gentlemen. No longer about rehabilitation or deterrence, now about gathering as many people as possible for spurious reasons and dehumanizing them in every way possible.

Other prisons might not go so far as sterilizing, but the basic idea is the same. It's all about control now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 8:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


So when Michael Bloomberg brings his money to your community to get candidates he favors elected, remember the enduring, not so subtle racism of the police department and judicial system of the city he runs.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:36 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Hmm. Can't tell if the judge was particularly harsh on the guy because there was a vested interest to disprove the suggestion of racism in the system, or as an extension of typical authoritarian punishment doled out to subversives once they are subject to "justice."

I wondered that. It could be both, of course.

Quote:

It all goes from predictable to stupefying when they actually refuse to arrest him repeatedly.

It would be an interesting idea experiment to see the whole thing repeated with a black man in a suit. Because I think there's probably an element of class-ism in there, as well as racial prejudice. However I would not like to volunteer to be that black man.

Quote:

Heck, in California, a prison doctor actually was sterilizing the women without their consent. Hundreds of them.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/11/19422681-lawmakers-call-for
-investigation-into-sterilization-of-female-inmates?lite


Jesus... It sounds like the women were pressured into having those procedures, not strapped down and forcibly sterilised. Still, fucking creepy, the clearly stated motivations of those trying to sterilise them.

Quote:


So when Michael Bloomberg brings his money to your community to get candidates he favors elected, remember the enduring, not so subtle racism of the police department and judicial system of the city he runs.


The glibness of your response tells me that you are dismissive of the idea that this is really happening.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:45 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Jesus... It sounds like the women were pressured into having those procedures, not strapped down and forcibly sterilised. Still, fucking creepy, the clearly stated motivations of those trying to sterilise them.



Coercion is still non-consent.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:16 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Yes, but what was the manner of the coercion? Was it just a good sales pitch, that it would be in the woman's interest? Was it some sort of offer of favourable prison treatment?

The legal requirements for duress are quite tight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:31 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Yes, but what was the manner of the coercion? Was it just a good sales pitch, that it would be in the woman's interest? Was it some sort of offer of favourable prison treatment?

The legal requirements for duress are quite tight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress




Quote:

It sounds like the women were pressured into having those procedures, not strapped down


Did you read the whole article? One of the inmates claims that she was strapped down for a C-section and partially sedated when they tried talking her into it.

They were asking people for consent to sterilize during labour and childbirth, which is illegal because the emotional stress of the situation can affect judgement. Many of them were also pressured during C-section surgery, which can be life and death and which patients may have been afraid to refuse as they may have believed the doctors would withhold proper care.

On a linked article on the same site, another inmate describes how they used emotional manipulation referring to her other five children about how the woman was a "bad mother" if she didn't do it, with some rather unlovely suggestions about getting CPS involved.

Not to mention, they're PRISONERS and subject to the doctors and guards. So even if none of the above happened... Of course it was coercion and non-consensual.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 19, 2013 12:19 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So when Michael Bloomberg brings his money to your community to get candidates he favors elected, remember the enduring, not so subtle racism of the police department and judicial system of the city he runs.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."



Once again Mr. "Non-Partisan" takes an actually non-partisan article, and the only comment he can make is to attack the left, making it partisan.

Are you even familiar with the notion of self-awareness?




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 19, 2013 12:20 PM

STORYMARK


The worst part of the article for me was the cop seeing and aknowledging the illegal behavior - then ignoring it to chase down a black kid who had done nothing wrong.

Amazing. The entire NYPD should be ashamed.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:17 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Yes, but what was the manner of the coercion? Was it just a good sales pitch, that it would be in the woman's interest? Was it some sort of offer of favourable prison treatment?

The legal requirements for duress are quite tight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress




Quote:

It sounds like the women were pressured into having those procedures, not strapped down


Did you read the whole article? One of the inmates claims that she was strapped down for a C-section and partially sedated when they tried talking her into it.

They were asking people for consent to sterilize during labour and childbirth, which is illegal because the emotional stress of the situation can affect judgement. Many of them were also pressured during C-section surgery, which can be life and death and which patients may have been afraid to refuse as they may have believed the doctors would withhold proper care.

On a linked article on the same site, another inmate describes how they used emotional manipulation referring to her other five children about how the woman was a "bad mother" if she didn't do it, with some rather unlovely suggestions about getting CPS involved.

Not to mention, they're PRISONERS and subject to the doctors and guards. So even if none of the above happened... Of course it was coercion and non-consensual.



Byte, your cut-off point for consent comes much, much before mine. Emotional manipulation of course is unethical, but as far as I'm concerned does not invalidate consent. A boyfriend might pressure his girlfriend (emotionally) into sex, and she might give in and say yes. He's an arsehole, but he's not a rapist. Though we might just have to agree to disagree on this point. So I wouldn't say these women were 'forcibly' sterilised, (not without evidence) but I would still hope their claims are investigated fully. Lawsuits and heads rolling, is what I would like to see happen here, if the claims of the women are true.

The worst case in the article is the woman who was sedated. I guess she was strapped down because she was a prisoner and might try to escape. If she had accepted the procedure there would be a good case for criminal conviction there, for forced sterilisation, or at very least a BIG lawsuit.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:34 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Byte, your cut-off point for consent comes much, much before mine.


Apparently.

Our two different perspectives can be summed up by the distinction of whether something that is unethical is still technically and socially acceptable, and whether or not legality comes to bear.

I'm of the opinion that if something is unethical, DON'T DO IT. Especially if you're a freakin' DOCTOR.

Guy should lose his medical license at least. Violations of the code of ethics is SERIOUS BUSINESS in the medical establishment.

Quote:

Though we might just have to agree to disagree on this point. So I wouldn't say these women were 'forcibly' sterilised


No one ever said they were forced. No one held them down for surgery while they screamed. Use of force does not constitute the entire spectrum of non-consent.

And if you think emotional manipulation along the lines of threatening to take away someone's kids is not duress, then I don't even know what the fuck.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:52 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Guy should lose his medical license at least.

It should be investigated first, but yes, that's what I'd like to see as well.

Quote:

Use of force does not constitute the entire spectrum of non-consent.

The spectrum of non-consent for me, is doing something to someone:

a) forcibly, against their will
b) without their knowledge, or understanding

Quote:

And if you think emotional manipulation along the lines of threatening to take away someone's kids is not duress, then I don't even know what the fuck.

I think that woman would have a very good case for a lawsuit, and if the threat was explicit, I think there would be grounds for conviction. But as I say, the requirements for duress are tight.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:12 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

The spectrum of non-consent for me, is doing something to someone:

a) forcibly, against their will
b) without their knowledge, or understanding



You're missing a big one. Coercion is when you do something to someone with their knowledge and understanding but due to threats or pressures they see no other alternative but to go along with it.

If someone blackmails someone into having sex with them, even if there is no physical harm or threat involved, that would be coercion and it would be rape.

This is a breach of standard of care at the very least.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 8:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Once again Mr. "Non-Partisan" takes an actually non-partisan article, and the only comment he can make is to attack the left, making it partisan.



Actually, I was criticizing Michael Bloomberg, just like it says in my post. You know Mr. Bloomberg, he of "Stop and Frisk" (if you're not white). Or were you holding out the NYPD and NYC courts as shining examples of anything?

Maybe you should stop trying to read between the lines when there's nothing there.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 4:29 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.



Quote:

You're missing a big one. Coercion


Ok yes, of course, that is a big one. But this is what Wiki lists as the requirements for duress:

Quote:

Requirements[edit]
For duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:[1]
The threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
The threatened harm must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
The threat must be immediate and inescapable
The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own


I think the women would struggle to meet these four requirements.

We can agree, at least, that this is serious malpractice by the doctors/authorities involved.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 7:04 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


note to self - when visiting the US, do not get sick or break any laws.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 20, 2013 9:20 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

The threat must be of serious bodily harm or death


Sterilization. PERMANENT sterilization. If unwanted, that is bodily harm. This is really no different than if a doctor was harvesting a kidney from an unwilling prisoner. We taking about rendering human organs non-functional with a surgical knife.

Quote:

The threatened harm must be greater than the harm caused by the crime


This is more for a specific case when someone forces someone else to commit a crime under duress.

However, you can convert this into a more generalized statement: "the threatened harm must be greater than the harm they are agreeing be done to them."

Rather like the example in the other thread of some women choosing rape over having parts of themselves cut off - though at this point it's all pretty serious harm so it becomes subjective which option is worse. Ultimately they shouldn't have to choose sterilization or their family/well-being in the first place.

Quote:

The threat must be immediate and inescapable


You're in a prison, pregnant and in labor on an operating table, possibly partially sedated, subject to the whims of a mad doctor who's apparently never even heard of the hippocratic oath. You're in immediate danger. And they're pressuring you to be sterilized while making all sorts of vague insinuations and subtle threats.

Good luck escaping.

Quote:

The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own


Prison is the punishment for their crime, not the complete loss of all their personhood or rights or protections from harm and assault or cruel and unusual punishment. The prison is expected to care for the inmates until such time they can be released. Loss of organs, or assault and rape for that matter, is not an expected or acceptable part of the experience.

No, being threatened by an insane eugenicist prison doctor was not their fault and was not a predictable, forseeable, inevitable, or state-sanctioned outcome of their conviction.

So yes, they meet the requirements for every single aspect of duress.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:44 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Yup, it's coercian alright.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:28 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Byte, take the case of the woman who they warned might be reported to CPS. That's only a threat that the children *might* be taken away - it's dependent on other factors. So it doesn't meet criterion 3: 'The threat must be immediate and inescapable'. If the children are not living in squalor, then the mother should be ok. If the children *are* - then criterion 4 is not met, that the woman has 'become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own'.

The allegations are definitely disgusting coercive behaviour, and are 'coercion' by the dictionary definition of the word, but the way I read the law they don't meet the legal standard, which seems to be the equivalent of having a gun to your head.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 22, 2013 4:11 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Byte, take the case of the woman who they warned might be reported to CPS. That's only a threat that the children *might* be taken away - it's dependent on other factors. So it doesn't meet criterion 3: 'The threat must be immediate and inescapable'. If the children are not living in squalor, then the mother should be ok. If the children *are* - then criterion 4 is not met, that the woman has 'become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own'.

The allegations are definitely disgusting coercive behaviour, and are 'coercion' by the dictionary definition of the word, but the way I read the law they don't meet the legal standard, which seems to be the equivalent of having a gun to your head.

It's not personal. It's just war.



I honestly don't think that a woman in labor can consent to such a procedure if it's sprung on her right then, especially if threats are involved. That's criminal right there.

And I doubt that if someone is threatening CPS on the children of a woman in jail, she MUST assume that the threat is empty unless her children are living in "squalor". The mere threat is already evidence of corruption. Kids can be taken away on the basis of lies spoken by someone in authority.

There's a serious power inequality between a prison inmate and the people guarding her. This isn't some stranger on the street telling a socially impeccable person that unless she undergoes sterilization they'll take her children away. That is an empty threat.

But a woman who has been convicted of a crime, in jail where she is derived of a great deal of personal power, socially stigmatized as a criminal, no neutral witnesses or legal representation present, in the middle of a medical procedure that might entail being in labor right then, possibly already under the influence of drugs, confronted with direct evidence that the people who have absolute power over her are corrupt enough to push sterilization that she doesn't want, making threats against her... why on earth shouldn't she assume that they will make good on those threats or that she might face other repercussions?

I find it astounding you see no criminal element in this.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:15 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I find it astounding you see no criminal element in this.

Well I have said:

"The worst case in the article is the woman who was sedated... If she had accepted the procedure there would be a good case for criminal conviction there..."

And the CPS case:

"I think that woman would have a very good case for a lawsuit, and if the threat was explicit, I think there would be grounds for conviction."

However. I've only just read this, from Wiki, which shows that I may have been setting the bar too high:

Quote:

"Coercion" is the name of a criminal offense in several US states.
In Oregon, for instance, the law reads:[2]
§ 163.275 Coercion
(1) A person commits the crime of coercion when the person compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from which the other person has a legal right to abstain, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which the other person has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in the other person a fear that, if the other person refrains from the conduct compelled or induced or engages in conduct contrary to the compulsion or inducement, the actor or another will:
(a) Unlawfully cause physical injury to some person;
(b) Unlawfully cause damage to property;
(c) Engage in conduct constituting a crime;
(d) Falsely accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against the person;
(e) Cause or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action injurious to some persons business, except that such a threat is not deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;
(f) Testify falsely or provide false information or withhold testimony or information with respect to anothers legal claim or defense; or
(g) Unlawfully use or abuse the persons position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely.



Think I might have been barking up the wrong tree with the 'duress' definition, which is a more serious, gun-to-your-head type thing. However Byte and I were discussing the whole 'consent' thing again, and whether it was negated. That's an aspect of duress, but not coercion as far as I can see.

No, Rouka, I was not saying that the women are to blame for what happened to them, that they just made weak and foolish decisions or anything like that. And the allegations of coercion are criminal allegations, I can agree on that now.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:33 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


The problem KPO, is that WE ALL are treated like pigs by the cops now.

Unless you're rich, it don't matter what color you are when Blue is the Inquisitor....

We're all Niggas now......... :(


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Ten years ago, when I started my career as an assistant district attorney in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston, I viewed the American criminal justice system as a vital institution that protected society from dangerous people. I once prosecuted a man for brutally attacking his wife with a flashlight, and another for sexually assaulting a waitress at a nightclub. I believed in the system for good reason.

But in between the important cases, I found myself spending most of my time prosecuting people of color for things we white kids did with impunity growing up in the suburbs. As our office handed down arrest records and probation terms for riding dirt bikes in the street, cutting through a neighbor’s yard, hosting loud parties, fighting, or smoking weed – shenanigans that had rarely earned my own classmates anything more than raised eyebrows and scoldings – I often wondered if there was a side of the justice system that we never saw in the suburbs. Last year, I got myself arrested in New York City and found out...



Fascinating article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/i-got-myself-arres
ted-so-i-could-look-inside-the-justice-system/282360/
]


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Fri, April 19, 2024 18:40 - 149 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Fri, April 19, 2024 18:08 - 53 posts
President Meathead's Uncle Was Not Eaten By Cannibals
Fri, April 19, 2024 17:21 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, April 19, 2024 17:03 - 3535 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, April 19, 2024 15:17 - 6268 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Fri, April 19, 2024 13:10 - 743 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, April 19, 2024 10:01 - 2274 posts
BREAKING NEWS: Taylor Swift has a lot of ex-boyfriends
Fri, April 19, 2024 09:18 - 1 posts
This is what baseball bats are for, not to mention you're the one in a car...
Thu, April 18, 2024 23:38 - 1 posts
FACTS
Thu, April 18, 2024 19:48 - 548 posts
QAnons' representatives here
Thu, April 18, 2024 17:58 - 777 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Thu, April 18, 2024 12:38 - 9 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL