Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!


Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.

From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
The story leaves out a lot. I guess we should just assume he was out for a nice bike ride, saw the chicken houses, decided to have a look around, encountered the owner, and was in the middle of telling the owner how much he admired his setup and was about to offer his opinions on ways the owner could improve his production when the owner went nuts, drew his gun and tried to murder the well meaning trespasser. (After all, the owner left his house that morning hankering to kill somebody) Yep, that sounds about right. All that's missing is the baby the "innocent trespasser" was breast feeding when the evil owner accosted and shot him.


Well, my statements are based on what's been reported. Yours, sarcastic as it is, like most of the scenarios proposed here, are made up to justify an unlawful use of deadly force.
So you know now for sure it was an unlawful use of deadly force? When did they release the details? My response was the same reason as yours, people accusing the man of wanting to kill someone without knowing any of the details.


MAYBE it's because Sassy is a law enforcement officer and it's his BUSINESS to know what does and does not constitute the legitimate use of deadly force.
quote:
Originally posted by AtticFeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!


Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.

From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
The story leaves out a lot. I guess we should just assume he was out for a nice bike ride, saw the chicken houses, decided to have a look around, encountered the owner, and was in the middle of telling the owner how much he admired his setup and was about to offer his opinions on ways the owner could improve his production when the owner went nuts, drew his gun and tried to murder the well meaning trespasser. (After all, the owner left his house that morning hankering to kill somebody) Yep, that sounds about right. All that's missing is the baby the "innocent trespasser" was breast feeding when the evil owner accosted and shot him.


Well, my statements are based on what's been reported. Yours, sarcastic as it is, like most of the scenarios proposed here, are made up to justify an unlawful use of deadly force.
So you know now for sure it was an unlawful use of deadly force? When did they release the details? My response was the same reason as yours, people accusing the man of wanting to kill someone without knowing any of the details.


MAYBE it's because Sassy is a law enforcement officer and it's his BUSINESS to know what does and does not constitute the legitimate use of deadly force.
Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


Im confused, what part of 'using a gun to shoot someone constitutes deadly force' do you NOT understand. If you shoot someone, you used deadly force. It does not have to result in the death of the person shot. It only has to do with the fact that you actually shot the person.

What other details do you want?!?!? The only question is was he legally justified to use said deadly force.

You cannot shoot someone, or even shoot at them, unless you truely believe your life is in danger. That is the only legally justified reason for you to shoot someone. Even if you shoot them in the foot, you still used deadly force to shoot them. Period. Cry about it all you want, that is the law as it is written right now.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


Im confused, what part of 'using a gun to shoot someone constitutes deadly force' do you NOT understand. If you shoot someone, you used deadly force. It does not have to result in the death of the person shot. It only has to do with the fact that you actually shot the person.

What other details do you want?!?!? The only question is was he legally justified to use said deadly force.

You cannot shoot someone, or even shoot at them, unless you truely believe your life is in danger. That is the only legally justified reason for you to shoot someone. Even if you shoot them in the foot, you still used deadly force to shoot them. Period. Cry about it all you want, that is the law as it is written right now.



I guess you never heard of the armed forces.
quote:
Colbert County sheriff's investigators say White was shot once in the foot and once in the shoulder. The bullet went through White's shoulder and exited through his back. Investigators originally thought White was shot three times.


Looks like he was shot from the front, which would more than likely justify the use of deadly force.

But dont confuse that with the issue being discussed here. The issue here has become all you yahoos who think its legal to shoot someone just because he is stealing from you and your lack of understanding of what deadly force is. The true question was if the shooting was justified or not.

And BTW, the DA presenting to the grand jury is part of the process. But I wouldnt expect many of you here to understand that, especially if you cant get the basics about deadly force.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
That's why I posted there are just to many conflicting stories to know what to believe. But I still have zero sympathy for a petty thief. No way I think he intended to murder the man.


I can agree with you on the zero sympathy. Unfortunately, if you carry a weapon, you have to carry it with the intent to use it to take someones life. That being said, I hope his intention was to kill the man when he shot him and I hope he was justified to do it.

I dont carry my weapon away from home often, but if I pull it on someone at home, I promise you my intent will be to kill them. Whether or not I do will depend on how they react. If you are fearful enough to pull the trigger, always shoot to kill. Never give them the opportunity to get a second chance at you if you miss or just injure them.

Just my two cents Big Grin


I hope you never use your weapon, because you do not carry one with the intent to kill. You carry one to stop the threat with center of mass shots and you never say you were trying to kill.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


Im confused, what part of 'using a gun to shoot someone constitutes deadly force' do you NOT understand. If you shoot someone, you used deadly force. It does not have to result in the death of the person shot. It only has to do with the fact that you actually shot the person.

What other details do you want?!?!? The only question is was he legally justified to use said deadly force.

You cannot shoot someone, or even shoot at them, unless you truely believe your life is in danger. That is the only legally justified reason for you to shoot someone. Even if you shoot them in the foot, you still used deadly force to shoot them. Period. Cry about it all you want, that is the law as it is written right now.


Actually it is legal to use deadly force to protect your life or the life of someone else.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:

I guess you never heard of the armed forces.


Yep, Im a veteran myself, and the rules of engagement during Wartime for the armed forces are not comparable to any arguement that you have here.

Good reach though.


Who is talking about rules of engagement during wartime? Uh, besides you.
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
That's why I posted there are just to many conflicting stories to know what to believe. But I still have zero sympathy for a petty thief. No way I think he intended to murder the man.


I can agree with you on the zero sympathy. Unfortunately, if you carry a weapon, you have to carry it with the intent to use it to take someones life. That being said, I hope his intention was to kill the man when he shot him and I hope he was justified to do it.

I dont carry my weapon away from home often, but if I pull it on someone at home, I promise you my intent will be to kill them. Whether or not I do will depend on how they react. If you are fearful enough to pull the trigger, always shoot to kill. Never give them the opportunity to get a second chance at you if you miss or just injure them.

Just my two cents Big Grin


I hope you never use your weapon, because you do not carry one with the intent to kill. You carry one to stop the threat with center of mass shots and you never say you were trying to kill.


Tell me, where did you get the idea that I dont have the intent to kill?
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


Im confused, what part of 'using a gun to shoot someone constitutes deadly force' do you NOT understand. If you shoot someone, you used deadly force. It does not have to result in the death of the person shot. It only has to do with the fact that you actually shot the person.

What other details do you want?!?!? The only question is was he legally justified to use said deadly force.

You cannot shoot someone, or even shoot at them, unless you truely believe your life is in danger. That is the only legally justified reason for you to shoot someone. Even if you shoot them in the foot, you still used deadly force to shoot them. Period. Cry about it all you want, that is the law as it is written right now.
I don't know what your problem is, I'm not "crying" about anything. Let me rephrase it for you, with the information given so far we don't know if deadly force was right or wrong. Happy now? A man shoots a thief on his property. Now all of a sudden he's a nutcase that went looking to kill somebody that day and lo and behold, lucky him, he found a victim in his henhouse. The property owner may well be a nutcase, but you can be sure the thief knew the man, and IF he still went sneaking around his property to steal something he took his chances. He's not dead, he well could be. So YOU cry about a freaking no good thief getting his butt shot, I sure won't. Even IF they send the man to jail it won't change the fact that the thief got what he deserved. The next time he goes to steal something someone might finish the job.
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:


I guess you never heard of the armed forces.


You did, right here, when you mentioned the armed forces in the use of deadly force arguement. The use of deadly forces by the armed forces is outlined in the rules on engagement for a particular situation.

Had you known more about the armed forces than what you see on tv, you might already know that....
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
That's why I posted there are just to many conflicting stories to know what to believe. But I still have zero sympathy for a petty thief. No way I think he intended to murder the man.


I can agree with you on the zero sympathy. Unfortunately, if you carry a weapon, you have to carry it with the intent to use it to take someones life. That being said, I hope his intention was to kill the man when he shot him and I hope he was justified to do it.

I dont carry my weapon away from home often, but if I pull it on someone at home, I promise you my intent will be to kill them. Whether or not I do will depend on how they react. If you are fearful enough to pull the trigger, always shoot to kill. Never give them the opportunity to get a second chance at you if you miss or just injure them.

Just my two cents Big Grin


I hope you never use your weapon, because you do not carry one with the intent to kill. You carry one to stop the threat with center of mass shots and you never say you were trying to kill.


Tell me, where did you get the idea that I dont have the intent to kill?


You might have the intent to kill, I was stating most sane people do not carry a weapon for that reason. I also stand by my statement that it would be a very bad idea to tell a LEO or judge you shot someone with the intent to kill, regardless if you were justified or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


quote:


I don't know what your problem is, I'm not "crying" about anything. Let me rephrase it for you, with the information given so far we don't know if deadly force was right or wrong. Happy now? A man shoots a thief on his property. Now all of a sudden he's a nutcase that went looking to kill somebody that day and lo and behold, lucky him, he found a victim in his henhouse. The property owner may well be a nutcase, but you can be sure the thief knew the man, and IF he still went sneaking around his property to steal something he took his chances. He's not dead, he well could be. So YOU cry about a freaking no good thief getting his butt shot, I sure won't. Even IF they send the man to jail it won't change the fact that the thief got what he deserved. The next time he goes to steal something someone might finish the job.


Your 'rephrasing' is exactly what I was talking about. Look back through this thread and count the number of folks that thought it was ok to shoot someone just for stealing. Momma always taught me two wrongs dont make a right, thats what Im talking about here.

All you folks that think shooting someone for stealing or trespassing keep thinking that way. Think about it the next time you are broke down on the side of the road and walking up some strangers driveway for help. Maybe he wont think your trespassing to steal something. Maybe he wont start taking pot shots at you just because you are there and he dont think you should be.
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:

You might have the intent to kill, I was stating most sane people do not carry a weapon for that reason. I also stand by my statement that it would be a very bad idea to tell a LEO or judge you shot someone with the intent to kill, regardless if you were justified or not.


If I pull my weapon on you, my intent will be to kill you. That is what the weapon is for. Its not to scare you, its not to make you 'think.' Thats the problem here, some folks think that their gun is to intimidate folks. I have no reason to intimidate anyone. I am not going to pull my gun unless I fear for my life. If I fear for my life, my intent will be to protect my life by taking theirs.

I would have no problem at all telling a judge that.

But then again, thats why I dont carry my gun in public often, I feel safe in most public situations and dont foresee the need to carry it just to have it.
quote:
Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
So the Colbert County deputies can't tell two wounds from three. Now we hear White was shot twice and they're not even saying from front or back and White has at least one previous burglary conviction. Would you indict Mills or whoever shot him? I wouldn't.
That was my point when this all started. There were just to many stories going around to know what to think. But apparently we're supposed to pick one story and run with it. And if the man was in fear for his life, of course I wouldn't indict him.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


quote:


I don't know what your problem is, I'm not "crying" about anything. Let me rephrase it for you, with the information given so far we don't know if deadly force was right or wrong. Happy now? A man shoots a thief on his property. Now all of a sudden he's a nutcase that went looking to kill somebody that day and lo and behold, lucky him, he found a victim in his henhouse. The property owner may well be a nutcase, but you can be sure the thief knew the man, and IF he still went sneaking around his property to steal something he took his chances. He's not dead, he well could be. So YOU cry about a freaking no good thief getting his butt shot, I sure won't. Even IF they send the man to jail it won't change the fact that the thief got what he deserved. The next time he goes to steal something someone might finish the job.


Your 'rephrasing' is exactly what I was talking about. Look back through this thread and count the number of folks that thought it was ok to shoot someone just for stealing. Momma always taught me two wrongs dont make a right, thats what Im talking about here.

All you folks that think shooting someone for stealing or trespassing keep thinking that way. Think about it the next time you are broke down on the side of the road and walking up some strangers driveway for help. Maybe he wont think your trespassing to steal something. Maybe he wont start taking pot shots at you just because you are there and he dont think you should be.
I wouldn't shoot anyone for stealing, but if I had a gun, and walked in on someone robbing me, I most likely would shoot them, out of fear, not because they were stealing. Who knows what someone that has the nerve to come onto your property to rob you will do. My first reaction would be "holy s***", and if they charged at me instead of running away, yes I'd shoot them if I could. I won't go onto a stranger's property. I'd use my cell phone to call for help.
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:

I hope you never use your weapon, because you do not carry one with the intent to kill. You carry one to stop the threat with center of mass shots and you never say you were trying to kill.


I had to reread your post, I see what you are saying. I stick by my statement as well, though. If you are not willing and ready to take the life, you should not be carrying the weapon. They are not toys, and in a split second they can end a life. The decision to do that should be made long before you pick up the gun or get put in the situation where you may need to use it. You hesitate at that moment, you go from saving your own life to putting it and others in even more danger.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:

You might have the intent to kill, I was stating most sane people do not carry a weapon for that reason. I also stand by my statement that it would be a very bad idea to tell a LEO or judge you shot someone with the intent to kill, regardless if you were justified or not.


If I pull my weapon on you, my intent will be to kill you. That is what the weapon is for. Its not to scare you, its not to make you 'think.' Thats the problem here, some folks think that their gun is to intimidate folks. I have no reason to intimidate anyone. I am not going to pull my gun unless I fear for my life. If I fear for my life, my intent will be to protect my life by taking theirs.

I would have no problem at all telling a judge that.

But then again, thats why I dont carry my gun in public often, I feel safe in most public situations and dont foresee the need to carry it just to have it.


How about an active shooter at the mall. An armed robbery while you are paying for gas. A road rage situation where someone pulls a weapon on you. A robber pulls a knife on you as you load groceries in your car at WalMart. Bad things randomly happen quite often. I personally carry all the time. I feel it is my responsibility. Not because I am a police officer but because if I can save your life I will. And I shoot to stop a threat. Whether it lives or dies is irrelevant to me. I leave that up to the big guy.
I just wish people wouldn't get freaked out by open or semi-concealed carry. I don't carry sometimes even when I'd like to because whatever I'm wearing doesn't permit comfortable concealed carry. As a cop, no one cares if they can see your weapon or not. But as a private citizen I'd probably find myself kissing pavement or looking at the business end of multiple weapons if someone saw me carrying. Personally I don't care if my weapon is visible. It might make some knuckleheads think twice about getting froggy. But it's just not worth the hassle.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:

I hope you never use your weapon, because you do not carry one with the intent to kill. You carry one to stop the threat with center of mass shots and you never say you were trying to kill.


I had to reread your post, I see what you are saying. I stick by my statement as well, though. If you are not willing and ready to take the life, you should not be carrying the weapon. They are not toys, and in a split second they can end a life. The decision to do that should be made long before you pick up the gun or get put in the situation where you may need to use it. You hesitate at that moment, you go from saving your own life to putting it and others in even more danger.


I agree on the point if you are going to carry or be a LEO you have to accept you might kill someone if you discharge your weapon. I also agree that decision needs to be made before you carry a weapon, I just disagree on the intent to kill part. The way I look at it if I have to shoot a intruder in my house and he dies. I did not kill him, he committed suicide when he broke in my home and threatened myself or my family.
quote:
Originally posted by wright35633:
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:

You might have the intent to kill, I was stating most sane people do not carry a weapon for that reason. I also stand by my statement that it would be a very bad idea to tell a LEO or judge you shot someone with the intent to kill, regardless if you were justified or not.


If I pull my weapon on you, my intent will be to kill you. That is what the weapon is for. Its not to scare you, its not to make you 'think.' Thats the problem here, some folks think that their gun is to intimidate folks. I have no reason to intimidate anyone. I am not going to pull my gun unless I fear for my life. If I fear for my life, my intent will be to protect my life by taking theirs.

I would have no problem at all telling a judge that.

But then again, thats why I dont carry my gun in public often, I feel safe in most public situations and dont foresee the need to carry it just to have it.


How about an active shooter at the mall. An armed robbery while you are paying for gas. A road rage situation where someone pulls a weapon on you. A robber pulls a knife on you as you load groceries in your car at WalMart. Bad things randomly happen quite often. I personally carry all the time. I feel it is my responsibility. Not because I am a police officer but because if I can save your life I will. And I shoot to stop a threat. Whether it lives or dies is irrelevant to me. I leave that up to the big guy.


There you go making sense again. There are too many places that a person who is not in law enforcement cannot carry. On campus. At work. Many of the campgrounds I use. Too much trouble deciding when I can carry and when I cant, so I only carry in specific situations.
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
I just wish people wouldn't get freaked out by open or semi-concealed carry. I don't carry sometimes even when I'd like to because whatever I'm wearing doesn't permit comfortable concealed carry. As a cop, no one cares if they can see your weapon or not. But as a private citizen I'd probably find myself kissing pavement or looking at the business end of multiple weapons if someone saw me carrying. Personally I don't care if my weapon is visible. It might make some knuckleheads think twice about getting froggy. But it's just not worth the hassle.


You would be surprised at how easly concealed carry is with the right platform. A good leather gun belt and a good custom leather holster works wonders. I can conceal my full size duty weapon (1911) in shorts, a t-shirt, and flip flops thanks to the beltman.com and 5 shot leather. But you are right. Open carry is allowed in Alabama it is just so taboo.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
They might just start firing and not stop until you're out of sight, if you're lucky enough to make it out of their sight.


And you're the chick that said:
"If I'm at a redlight and this same brain trust reject blows their horn the second the light turns green, I just sit there until it turns red again"?

BTW, for those that don't know what I'm talking about this comment was made by Jennifer in the topic "Police out in force throughout weekend".
quote:
Originally posted by semiannualchick:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
They might just start firing and not stop until you're out of sight, if you're lucky enough to make it out of their sight.


And you're the chick that said:
"If I'm at a redlight and this same brain trust reject blows their horn the second the light turns green, I just sit there until it turns red again"?

BTW, for those that don't know what I'm talking about this comment was made by Jennifer in the topic "Police out in force throughout weekend".
That's a snippet of the post, well a snippet of both posts actually. Your point? And for those that don't know, read the entire posts. Not a "chick" btw. I am female, a woman, even been accused of being a lady, but not a "chick".
Last edited by Jennifer
quote:
Originally posted by wright35633:
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:

You might have the intent to kill, I was stating most sane people do not carry a weapon for that reason. I also stand by my statement that it would be a very bad idea to tell a LEO or judge you shot someone with the intent to kill, regardless if you were justified or not.


If I pull my weapon on you, my intent will be to kill you. That is what the weapon is for. Its not to scare you, its not to make you 'think.' Thats the problem here, some folks think that their gun is to intimidate folks. I have no reason to intimidate anyone. I am not going to pull my gun unless I fear for my life. If I fear for my life, my intent will be to protect my life by taking theirs.

I would have no problem at all telling a judge that.

But then again, thats why I dont carry my gun in public often, I feel safe in most public situations and dont foresee the need to carry it just to have it.


How about an active shooter at the mall. An armed robbery while you are paying for gas. A road rage situation where someone pulls a weapon on you. A robber pulls a knife on you as you load groceries in your car at WalMart. Bad things randomly happen quite often. I personally carry all the time. I feel it is my responsibility. Not because I am a police officer but because if I can save your life I will. And I shoot to stop a threat. Whether it lives or dies is irrelevant to me. I leave that up to the big guy.


Well said. In my hands a Louisville Slugger constitutes deadly force.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
That's a snippet of the post, well a snippet of both posts actually. Your point? And for those that don't know, read the entire posts. Not a "chick" btw. I am female, a woman, even been accused of being a lady, but not a "chick".


That may be a snippet but that's what you said.

My point? You mentioned someone could start firing? Some nut could get highly po'ed at you for sitting thru a green light just for spite. Ever heard of road rage?

Yes, dear...Chick is slang for female.
A rooster is a male, a chick is a ....female!! Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
no, Rooster is male, hen is female, chick is young chicken of either sex. We do like to call attractive young women chicks, but that would leave out a lot of you.


I didn't know a chick was either sex. Big Grin

Well, you caught my meaning anyway & yes, it's usually an attractive female that's referred to as a chick.

As just any man is not a hunk. Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by semiannualchick:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
That's a snippet of the post, well a snippet of both posts actually. Your point? And for those that don't know, read the entire posts. Not a "chick" btw. I am female, a woman, even been accused of being a lady, but not a "chick".


That may be a snippet but that's what you said.

My point? You mentioned someone could start firing? Some nut could get highly po'ed at you for sitting thru a green light just for spite. Ever heard of road rage?

Yes, dear...Chick is slang for female.
A rooster is a male, a chick is a ....female!! Big Grin
First of all I did post that, but you want to take only a snippet to try to twist it into something. Yes, I have heard of roadrage. Ever see the stickers on cars that say "Keep Honking While I Reload"? I said I will NOT let some jacka** make me leave a light UNTIL I know the traffic has stopped for their redlight. That comes from seeing with my own eyes how many times people fly through redlights. You know, like just happened to that "famous" weatherman. Now you can call it "spite", maybe you do things for spite, I don't. I also said, I only make them sit through a light again, someone else might do worse because roadrage can work both ways. "Keep Honking While I Reload". And I said it doesn't happen often because most people are intelligent enough to know you don't hit the gas the very second you get the green light. It's only common sense to make sure it's safe.
There's a huge difference between taking the time to look both ways and making someone sit through another light out of spite. Few people would begrudge you a second or two to check left- right- left for traffic, but I can't imagine anyone not having hard feelings if made to sit thru another light cycle just because you were being spiteful.

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×