If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   Hero beats five colours of snot from home intruder, now faces assault charges for his trouble   (news.com.au) divider line 687
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

39674 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2006 at 3:03 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



687 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-04-26 03:54:08 AM
shadesofblack: I think if I had kids and I caught a guy breaking into my home, I wouldn't stop swinging 'til the cops pulled me off.

Friendly cops you've got over there.
 
2006-04-26 03:54:10 AM
i am the infidel: He broke down a door using a piece of wood. What would make me think that he would not kill me or my family with said piece of wood? I'm not about to ask him.

Is he charging you? Is he directly threatening you? Is there no better way to protect yourself or your family? If these are true, then use whatever force available to you. If not, then don't let your bravado compromise your situation.

My suggestion? "Double tap".

Yeah, because life is just a video game. Riiiiight.

None of us know what really happened. Was the last hit or two gratuitous? Only one (possibly two) People know.

If the hits are gratuitous then they are criminal. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Since Florida enacted a concealed carry law, violent crime has taken a dramatic decline.

Since when did this become an issue of concealed carry? I'm completely for gun rights. But I'm also completely against the abuse of force.
 
2006-04-26 03:54:31 AM
Who witnessed this ordeal? The cops weren't there. They have no real idea how much force was necessary to subdue the ATTACKER.

I think there is a benefit to society if the attacker is no longer able to cause more harm to the general public. Maybe the attacker should have decided to pursue a course that does not put the public in harms way.
 
2006-04-26 03:56:50 AM
Breninllwyd: I would much rather prefer a man that is going to defend my house than one that is going to preach about unnecessary violence.

I find your ideas intriguing, newsletter, etc.

/would use a modified version of the cliche asking to subscribe to phone number if I were single
//Gender roles 4tW!
///Surgeon General's Warning: This post may contain irony. Not recommended for consumption by feminazis, or those without a sense of humor.
 
2006-04-26 03:57:07 AM
Break into my house and die. My home IS my castle. If you break in, I have no idea what your intentions are and have no desire to wait to be informed.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to know the thought processes of that guy who shot a kid for trespassing on his lawn, check out i am the infidel, whose dick is so tiny he's reduced to boasting about how tough he is on internet discussion boards.
 
2006-04-26 03:58:19 AM
Steep Spiral: I would like to see you remember that when you first realize an unknown assailant has picked the lock to your door/window/whatever and has entered your "secure" domicile. 99% of the populace would shiat their pants and, if lucky enough, continue to beat the intruder till "5 colours of snot" came out their nose because of adrenalin, not vigilantism. This guy was probabaly just scared shiatless...

Perhaps, but that is for the jury to decide. But that by no means clears the way for the dumbass Farkers who say they are completely justified to beat or kill anyone who invades their homes. If this guy was truly scared and acting only to protect himself or his family then so be it. However, if it is shown that he continued to assault the person after he was no longer a threat then he needs to be held accountable for his actions.
 
2006-04-26 03:59:21 AM
untrustworthy: Thanks. Reasonable force is always subjective, and people forget that.
...
Criticize however you like, but my point stands. Lethal force has it's place, but it should not be tolerated when it isn't justified.


Which would be a point...except, let me see, oh yeah - it's impossible to tell what someone's intentions are and whether they're still dangerous by sight. There are some very small guns on the market, easily concealable in your pants pocket that are still more than sufficient to kill you.

The only time that an intruder is not potentially a lethal threat to you is when he's a) unconcious b)dead.

Using a baseball bat is also risky when an intruder could have a gun.

One bullet in the head is without doubt the best way to go if you find a stranger in your home, all the more if you know they broke in.
 
2006-04-26 03:59:49 AM
untrustworthy: It can easily wind up with you being either dead, or in prison.

Nope. Not in America. One of the few things I still love about this country.
 
2006-04-26 04:00:44 AM
I'm a house breaker and all you tough guys make me laugh. If I break into your house you'd better make sure you take me out with the first hit. Otherwise you'll be needing the ramp up your steps.

I'm a double hard criminal bastard, if you approach me when I'm on a job I *will* beat you into a pulp and then rape your wife. If you cower like the little biatch you are then I'll show mercy and just break your legs.
 
2006-04-26 04:01:56 AM
I guess all of the Monday morning quarterbacks who see the victim (homeowner) as being over-zealous have never been in a "fight or flight" situation. I can only imagine the fear that was running through the guy.

It would be nice to be able to calmly and rationally examine your options in a situation like this, but for 99% of us it isn't possible. FWIW.

/had a gun pulled on me once
//ran like a bat out of hell
 
2006-04-26 04:02:18 AM
I think we also have to keep in mind that there is a huge number of americans sitting behind their door with a loaded shotgun, jerking off to guns and ammo magazine, just praying to almighty christ that someone tries to break in. Making it clear that you'll waste someone trying to break in with no understanding or desire to understand the situation just shows that you're no more stable than the dude breaking in. Getting high off violence on fark is no more stable than breaking into houses. violence begets violence, and some of you people are in love with that.
 
2006-04-26 04:02:32 AM
untrustworthy: I've had enough of the Fark idiots who think they are somehow justified in laying out their own personal justice.

Okay. Feel free to vent at length; the law is how it is. Way to rant without actually addressing my point, though.

Nigel Q. Walrustity: Har har.
 
2006-04-26 04:04:07 AM
Untrustworthy, what do you consider subdued??

Hit them once, then stop? Till they fall down??
As long as they're still moving around, they are capable of pulling a knife or gun. Are you going to just take it on good faith that they dont?? Or that they'll patiently wait till the police arrive after a hit or two?

Most homeowners don't have tasers or other forms non-lethal defense...
 
2006-04-26 04:04:08 AM
untrustworthy: Perhaps, but that is for the jury to decide. But that by no means clears the way for the dumbass Farkers who say they are completely justified to beat or kill anyone who invades their homes. If this guy was truly scared and acting only to protect himself or his family then so be it. However, if it is shown that he continued to assault the person after he was no longer a threat then he needs to be held accountable for his actions.


I guess...It would be awful hard to prove that in a court though.
 
2006-04-26 04:05:11 AM
untrustworthy: don't let your bravado compromise your situation.

Trust me, if you knew me, bravado is not my strong suit. I would attempt to subdue the attacker through any and all means necessary.

I have seen an arse whoopiing that I though would kill the perpatrator. I was actually horrified. Somehow he kept getting up and try to kill the victim. As he was getting the stuff beat out of him, the cops finally arrived. It took 4 of them to subdue him and it took a while.

All I'm saying is do not judge the victim if you were not there.
 
2006-04-26 04:06:41 AM
No false bravado, no posturing, just rational comment.
If someone breaks into your house AND/OR (depending on the state) attempts to do you harm or presents a violent threat then the only reasonable force is lethal force. You never shoot to injure, for two reasons. 1) it may not stop the assailent and 2) if they were not enough of a threat to kill then they were not enough of a threat to shoot in the first place. In Texas there is a wider range of things that can be countered with lethal force then most. In Co if you are grave danger and you have no way out, or if someone is being raped or violently attacked then you are well within your rights to shoot them, None of this 'The first shot is defense, the rest is revenge" garbage either. The defense courses in Co teach you to start shooting and not to stop until your rounds are spent. Once the first shot is justified then all subsequent shots are also justified, although in the words of my instructor (if you reload a couple of times they might look down on it).
 
2006-04-26 04:06:42 AM
Two things. First of all, last year or maybe the year before there was a kid in Omaha who heard that some other kids were going to break into his truck and steal all of his toys. From what I understand the kid was a car audio buff. He spent the night sitting in his truck waiting for the guys, presumably thinking that his presence would deter them. He got his throat slit. And he died.

Second, I'm a chick. If someone breaks into my house I'm going to assume out of hand that he plans to rob, rape, and murder me. Not necessarily in that order. And I will beat the living piss out of him if I should get the chance. And if he goes down I'll hit him awhile longer because I REALLY can't afford him getting back up, even more determined than when he started. Then I'll pin his hands to the floor with steak knives before I call 911. Excessive? Riiiight. Read a newspaper.

Now for the menfolk, I don't know what standards you people should use.
 
2006-04-26 04:09:02 AM
So, breaking into houses is still safer than going hunting with Cheney then?
 
2006-04-26 04:09:10 AM
This is the exact reason why home defense advocates say "kill him as quickly as possible" and then tell the cops "I thought he had a gun" The "thought" is good because it says your not sure and covers you even if he didn't actually have a gun.

in my view thats good advice. you want me to show the guy mercy? ok, passs a law that says i cannot be prosecuted or sued by the criminal breaking into my house. Then i probably wouldn't kill the guy if i could safely avoid it, if given the choice don't want to kill anybody.

But i'm NOT taking the chance of facing prison and losing everything I've ever worked for, for some scumbag who broke into my house. With the thought of that hanging over me "officer I thought he had a gun"
 
2006-04-26 04:09:14 AM
Kendrick: One bullet in the head is without doubt the best way to go if you find a stranger in your home

See, I'm gonna have to side slightly with untrustworthy on this point:

If you've got the guy in your sights, and you've got the drop on him, you can afford to take the time to say, "What the fark are you doing in my home?" Followed by, or preceded by, of course, "I have a weapon trained on your head and will be scrubbing your brain off the walls for a week if you move, so stay the fark put."

It's when you don't have the drop on someone, and don't know what weapons or readiness to use them they might have, that you can justify shooting first.
 
2006-04-26 04:10:37 AM
Kendrick: Which would be a point...except, let me see, oh yeah - it's impossible to tell what someone's intentions are and whether they're still dangerous by sight. There are some very small guns on the market, easily concealable in your pants pocket that are still more than sufficient to kill you.

An unknown weapon is not cause for assault. I figured we already learned this from the war in Iraq.

The only time that an intruder is not potentially a lethal threat to you is when he's a) unconcious b)dead.

Bullshiat. If somebody drops to the ground, throws out their hands and says, "I give up, don't hurt me!" then you don't have cause for beating or killing them.

Using a baseball bat is also risky when an intruder could have a gun.

If the intruder has a gun and you feel threatened, then hopefully you have a gun and can either get away or use it effectively before they can harm you. But you shouldn't use force that isn't justified, IMO.

One bullet in the head is without doubt the best way to go if you find a stranger in your home, all the more if you know they broke in.

This statement is so stupid. You've spent way too many hours watching action movies. Killing people isn't easy or simple. Use of deadly force should be reserved for only the cases where it is completely necessary. That means that if you have a reasonable option to not use deadly force then you should exercise it. Just because someone breaks into your house doesn't give you cause for becoming Dirty Harry.

ragingchihuahua: Nope. Not in America. One of the few things I still love about this country.

In America we have juries. And if they find that the use of force in any case is unecessary, then a conviction is likely to follow. Don't pretend that you ever have a license to kill. You only have a license to defend by lethal force when absolutely necessary.
 
2006-04-26 04:11:05 AM
running_too_slow: And I will beat the living piss out of him if I should get the chance. And if he goes down I'll hit him awhile longer because I REALLY can't afford him getting back up, even more determined than when he started. Then I'll pin his hands to the floor with steak knives before I call 911. Excessive? Riiiight. Read a newspape


fapfapfapfapfap
 
2006-04-26 04:11:34 AM
2006-04-26 03:19:32 AMuntrustworthy
Life is not an action movie.


That explains why when that Ford backed into me a few weeks ago, both cars didn't explode in a fireball. I was wondering what had gone wrong.
 
2006-04-26 04:14:36 AM
untrustworthy:

I work for bravado.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info on... you know what? fark it. I'm going to say 'bravado' gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some Farkers belive anything they hear.
 
2006-04-26 04:14:42 AM
shadesofblack: See, I'm gonna have to side slightly with untrustworthy on this point:

If you've got the guy in your sights, and you've got the drop on him, you can afford to take the time to say, "What the fark are you doing in my home?"


Even if you think you have them in your sights, it's a risk.

Unless there was some extraordinary circumstance, sure - I'd attempt to hold a home invader at gunpoint rather than shooting them. But I would know when I did that it was a risk I was choosing to take, although hopefully a small one.

I wouldn't condemn someone else for refusing to accept that risk.
 
2006-04-26 04:15:58 AM
shadesofblack: If you've got the guy in your sights, and you've got the drop on him, you can afford to take the time to say, "What the fark are you doing in my home?" Followed by, or preceded by, of course, "I have a weapon trained on your head and will be scrubbing your brain off the walls for a week if you move, so stay the fark put."

Do you really think that in a situation like that you have the time to safely explain your position?

/And I'm the one being accused of watching too many movies.
 
2006-04-26 04:16:04 AM
I think a good 50% of this thread hasn't been reading enough run-of-the-mill PAPER newspapers. There are so many stories about "home invasions going wrong." Or worse things than that. The odds of your basic home burglary going in that direction might be incredibly slim, but once someone is in your home the chances of you being mutilated/killed have SKYROCKETED.

Wouldn't you feel stupid if you walked downstairs and found someone who just broke in to your house... and you alerted them to your presence, because it's the civilized thing to do, and they shot you in the face?
 
2006-04-26 04:16:17 AM
2006-04-26 04:00:44 AMSwiss Colony

I'm a house breaker and all you tough guys make me laugh. If I break into your house you'd better make sure you take me out with the first hit. Otherwise you'll be needing the ramp up your steps.

I'm a double hard criminal bastard, if you approach me when I'm on a job I *will* beat you into a pulp and then rape your wife. If you cower like the little biatch you are then I'll show mercy and just break your legs.


Yeah, well I'm a genetically engineered supersoldier.

With bionic arms.

And toes.
 
2006-04-26 04:18:53 AM
shadesofblack: If you've got the guy in your sights, and you've got the drop on him, you can afford to take the time to say, "What the fark are you doing in my home?" Followed by, or preceded by, of course, "I have a weapon trained on your head and will be scrubbing your brain off the walls for a week if you move, so stay the fark put."

It's when you don't have the drop on someone, and don't know what weapons or readiness to use them they might have, that you can justify shooting first.


I couldn't be this rational during a home invasion. I think the only people who could would be a highly trained cop or soldier. Most of the populace would instinctively go overboard once they had the upper hand. It's not so much "macho" bravado as adrenalin. In the grand scheme of things, too bad for the intruder.
 
2006-04-26 04:19:12 AM
I used to live out in the boonies. There were only 2 reasons you would see someone walking around out there at night, 1.) they're someone you invited, or 2.) they mean you harm.

We had a guy pull up in our driveway at 2 am and start making noise up by our barn. So my dad wakes my brother and I up and then he goes out there with a 30.06

he shot the guys engine block, and then went after the dude, he took off on foot though.

it was funny how someone drove that car out there but noone ever claimed it from the police when they towed it.


/im just sayin, if that had happened in the U.S., they woulda been moping the home intruder up off the WALL.
// Reasonable force my ass, dont be in my house uninvited if you like your teeth where they are.
 
2006-04-26 04:19:46 AM
untrustworthy, I have a feeling that you are going outside your usual range of beliefs here; you seem to be attempting to rebut every single point that someone makes when you actually disagree with only one or two things.

You're being inflammatory, rude and unreasonable, and it's not winning you any friends. Calm down, take a deep breath, and try to go five posts without using the word "stupid" in reference to anyone or anything except Adam Sandler.

I think you have a good point, but when you slam it down on people like it's the absolute truth, and call them idiots or psychopaths to boot, not many people are going to want to hear it.

running_too_slow: Amen. This is why I bought my girlfriend a couple canisters of pepper spray and a good knife, until I can afford to get her a shotgun.

/Be prepared.
//Boy Scouts 4 life, yo.
///I know more than 24 different ways to tie something to something else, and at least 15 of starting a fire. Yeah... important life skills.
 
2006-04-26 04:20:06 AM
Kendrick: I wouldn't condemn someone else for refusing to accept that risk.

Killing somebody comes with responsibility. If it is not reasonably justified, then it is a crime. If you feel it is absolutely necessary to shoot, then shoot. But do not feel that you are somehow justified to kill somebody because of a less than imminent threat.
 
2006-04-26 04:20:29 AM
untrustworthy: If lethal force is necessary, then use it. But don't pretend that just because someone is in your home you have license to kill them.

If someone breaks into my home at night, do you believe that I have the right to shoot them?
 
2006-04-26 04:20:34 AM
onlyadistraction

That was a nice little monologue, but rather devoid of a point. Other than the point that apparently no one else knows what they are talking about. Althought more truthfully, I would say that none of us can really figure out what you are talking about. If you care to enlighten us go ahead, but otherwise, nice try.
 
2006-04-26 04:21:21 AM
You know how often people wind up shooting people who come into their home by accident?

Drunk guys crashing through the door on the wrong house. Your teenage son when you don't expect him. Or the cops on a bad tip.

Make sure you know what the fark is up before you begin blasting, hammering, knifing.

With all this posturing, I'm thinking y'all are far more likely to blow away a completely innocent dude than actually shoot an intruder.
 
2006-04-26 04:22:02 AM
shadesofblack,
if you are threatened enough to need shoot a person then there is not time to discuss his intentions, besides do you think the guy comming in, armed and wanting to emulate the BTK killer is going to tell you what he intends and that he is armed? No. someone who is going to kill you is not going to proclaim it to you, they are going to shoot you. You have one chance at taking control of the situation and protecting yourself and that is not the time for diplomacy and niceities.

untrustworthy,
You couldn't be more wrong, If someone presents a mortal threat to you then the only thing that will ensure your safety is that they stop moving. Unconscience can be faked. would you really trust the scumbag that broke into your house and attempted to rape your daughter when he tosses his hands up and proclaims "I give up?" that is a sure way to wind up dead. If you are in a situation where you are forced to protect yourself then lethal force is the only option you have.
 
2006-04-26 04:22:54 AM
omg_lol: Making it clear that you'll waste someone trying to break in with no understanding or desire to understand the situation

The situation is very easy to understand.

They are breaking into your home.

Until proven otherwise, you assume the worst, that they are there to kill you.

Proceed from there as you will.
 
2006-04-26 04:23:17 AM
Stepqen

If you are in a situation where you are forced to protect yourself then lethal force is the only option you have.

Sure. Next time somene picks a fight with you in a parking lot, cut their throat. See who the cops side with.
 
2006-04-26 04:24:00 AM
I don't know about any of you, but I was actually faced with a situation where a guy was breaking into my house and I had a loaded shotgun pointed at him, ready to fire as he came through my window.

In the state of Florida, it's completely legal to blow someone away if they're breaking into your home thanks to the "stand your ground" law that was recently passed. I knew this, and up until that moment I had always thought it would be easy to kill an intruder. But when you actually point a gun a person and see the look in his eyes, it's almost impossible to pull the trigger.

I ended up just cocking the gun and telling him to run away really fast or he'd be dead, legally. The funny thing is how he nonchalantly turned back and walked slowly down
the street like this was the usual affair and he meant to get caught.

Granted, it would've been one less crack head off the streets, but death is a very permanent decision to make based on a opinion.

This is just one of those situations where you don't know how you would handle things unless you're actually there.
 
2006-04-26 04:24:28 AM
SchlingFo

And what if it's the examples I gave above? A total accident? Or someone you know, who has a key? Or the cops, given a bad address on a tip-- which happens all the damn time?
 
2006-04-26 04:25:30 AM
shadesofblack: untrustworthy, I have a feeling that you are going outside your usual range of beliefs here; you seem to be attempting to rebut every single point that someone makes when you actually disagree with only one or two things.

You're being inflammatory, rude and unreasonable, and it's not winning you any friends. Calm down, take a deep breath, and try to go five posts without using the word "stupid" in reference to anyone or anything except Adam Sandler.

I think you have a good point, but when you slam it down on people like it's the absolute truth, and call them idiots or psychopaths to boot, not many people are going to want to hear it.


This is Fark, and so many Farkers have a radical ideal that the second amendment gives them the right to perform vigilante justice on their own property. It is this attitude that turns people who do not practice their second amendment rights to believe those who do are violent wackos. I do not appreciate that attitude, but I'm not sure I can entirely dispute their attitude when I hear Farkers criticize those who feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
 
2006-04-26 04:25:44 AM
Breninllwyd: apparently no one else knows what they are talking about.

It's called a "Fark Cliche". Get up to speed.
 
2006-04-26 04:25:53 AM
i am the infidel Who witnessed this ordeal? The cops weren't there. They have no real idea how much force was necessary to subdue the ATTACKER.

Maybe there was, oh I dunno, evidence at the scene? You REALLY think the cops are going to arrest the homeowner for no reason at all? What would be the point of that?
 
2006-04-26 04:26:48 AM
Is this the correct thread? Okay.

Not all gun-toting maniacs are cowboys!

i83.photobucket.com

/thread needed more pics...
 
2006-04-26 04:26:57 AM
untrustworthy: Killing somebody comes with responsibility. If it is not reasonably justified, then it is a crime. If you feel it is absolutely necessary to shoot, then shoot. But do not feel that you are somehow justified to kill somebody because of a less than imminent threat.

And this is what weapparently disagree on: I've seen those small guns, and I've seen how easy they are to conceal. I've also seen a demonstration of how quickly a pro can draw and fire. I lock my doors and latch my windows. Nobody gets into my house "by accident". Put those together, and anyone in my home without permission is an imminent threat until proven otherwise.
 
2006-04-26 04:27:12 AM
i am the infidel: Do you really think that in a situation like that you have the time to safely explain your position?

Illustrative comedy, guy. I'm assuming in reality it would be more like "DON'T MOVE or I shoot," but my way was much more fun, don't you think?

Steep Spiral: I couldn't be this rational during a home invasion. ... Most of the populace would instinctively go overboard once they had the upper hand. It's not so much "macho" bravado as adrenalin.

See, now this dude does a much better job of explaining what I was kind of hinting at earlier, before someone turned it into a cheap masturbation joke. It's not always a matter of rational morality at that point.

Some of us may just be trying to look tough, but I, for one, might be too frightened and angry to stop and think about whether it was right to drop this fool. I'd like to think not, but we are only human.
 
2006-04-26 04:27:14 AM
If you have read my posts I have stated many times that it is mortal danger. Although, in the state of Texas if you attack me and I believe that you are in a position to cause me mortal harm then the cops would side with me.

And that really is the crux of this whole situation, you have to belive that you are in mortal danger, once that line is crossed then there is no such thing as excessive force.
 
2006-04-26 04:31:37 AM
SchlingFo: If someone breaks into my home at night, do you believe that I have the right to shoot them?

Wow, that's a pretty black and white situation. However, the situations do not present themselves so clearly when they actually happen.

Stepqhen: You couldn't be more wrong, If someone presents a mortal threat to you then the only thing that will ensure your safety is that they stop moving. Unconscience can be faked. would you really trust the scumbag that broke into your house and attempted to rape your daughter when he tosses his hands up and proclaims "I give up?" that is a sure way to wind up dead. If you are in a situation where you are forced to protect yourself then lethal force is the only option you have.

Wrong. Simply wrong. If somebody throws their hands in the air and gives up, then lethal force is no longer an option. If they then grab for a weapon then the option is back in play. But you can't decide that they might reach for a weapon and therefore shoot them because of your imagined threat. Only real threats can be actionable.
 
2006-04-26 04:31:49 AM
100 Watt Walrus: Maybe there was, oh I dunno, evidence at the scene? You REALLY think the cops are going to arrest the homeowner for no reason at all? What would be the point of that?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do believe that cops sometimes arrest people for no *just* reason. Sometimes it's to "put someone in their place" for not deferring to them enough, sometimes it's to send a message to everyone else to "not take the law into your own hands" (by which they mean, don't take responsibility for your own safety). I have no reason to believe that's the case here - I'd assume these cops were decent until proven otherwise and that it's the law at fault here. But it does occur.
 
2006-04-26 04:31:51 AM
If somebody breaks into your house, what you're supposed to do is kill them then afterwards, put a knife in their hand and call the police. Make sure they're dead by shooting for the neck/head or just putting enough rounds in their chest before they fall over. Burglars that survive will be able to sue you.
 
Displayed 50 of 687 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report