UC Davis pepper spray incident - what really happened - Page 3 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 Old 03-06-2012, 09:10 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

The police were not "surrounded". At 8:35 approximately, you can see a police car in the distance and no one blocking the path out, and only a few scattered students. I watched without the idiotic commentary. It is readily apparent to me that 1) the students, hardly dangerous, were protesting in a party atmosphere and were giddily disobeying authority. 2) there was no threat to the police and the pepper spray in particular was an unnecessary act. I disagree with the assessments that seem to believe the cops were surrounded.

Having helped to defend several Occupy members in NY, I am well acquainted with police tactics at these types of demonstrations. Feigning threats to officer's safety is a well worn excuse for excesses. What threat did these student pose except to piss off and offend some folks in authority? So the students were warned? That makes for Justified police action? Nonsense.

As our official lawyer type, what's your response to claims of obstruction and disobeying a lawful order?
paperhanger is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 Old 03-06-2012, 09:28 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhanger View Post

As our official lawyer type, what's your response to claims of obstruction and disobeying a lawful order?

Arrest was going to happen, the "lawful order" had been sought by authorities because they just didn't like the protest and for whatever other reasons, maybe even some legitimate ones that I don't know about. So, being arrested was in the cards and many of the students were probably aware that they would be arrested. Some of them probably didn't think that they would be arrested and were along for the ride. But, many understood I am sure.

Now, was pepper spray necessary here? Did you see officers being threatened by out of control, dangerous thugs ? Nah, a bunch of college students. So the linked arm kids get pepper sprayed in a calm application of the crap on them by an officer walking along the line when there was no threat to safety. Arrest them, carry them off to the vans, but keep your pepper spray locked up.

Got a problem with that?
Savannah is offline  
#63 Old 03-06-2012, 10:08 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
It's usually completely stupid to argue the law with the cops. That's what the courts are for.

Dealing with the cops themselves isn't rocket science. There's right and wrong ways to do it. And these people, even if they were trying to engage in civil disobedience and be arrested, did it the wrong way. They seriously weakened any possible legal case they could have.

Not very bright protesters.
das_nut is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#64 Old 03-06-2012, 10:55 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

Arrest was going to happen, the "lawful order" had been sought by authorities because they just didn't like the protest and for whatever other reasons, maybe even some legitimate ones that I don't know about. So, being arrested was in the cards and many of the students were probably aware that they would be arrested. Some of them probably didn't think that they would be arrested and were along for the ride. But, many understood I am sure.

Now, was pepper spray necessary here? Did you see officers being threatened by out of control, dangerous thugs ? Nah, a bunch of college students. So the linked arm kids get pepper sprayed in a calm application of the crap on them by an officer walking along the line when there was no threat to safety. Arrest them, carry them off to the vans, but keep your pepper spray locked up.

Got a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with that, but it doesn't answer my question. I thought you might have something, as a lawyer, to offer in terms of my question.
paperhanger is offline  
#65 Old 03-06-2012, 11:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

The police were not "surrounded". At 8:35 approximately, you can see a police car in the distance and no one blocking the path out, and only a few scattered students. I watched without the idiotic commentary. It is readily apparent to me that 1) the students, hardly dangerous, were protesting in a party atmosphere and were giddily disobeying authority. 2) there was no threat to the police and the pepper spray in particular was an unnecessary act. I disagree with the assessments that seem to believe the cops were surrounded.

Did you catch this (statement by one of the people who got sprayed):

"We had encircled them and they were trying to leave and they were trying to clear a path and so we sat down, linked arms and said that if they wanted to clear the path they would have to go through us..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8yHfLDIeBs

The police say they were surrounded, "you can leave if you let our friends go" can be heard in the video, and the pepper spray victims themselves say that the cops were surrounded. Not just surrounded, but intentionally surrounded with the purpose of obstructing the police's exit.

Quote:
Feigning threats to officer's safety is a well worn excuse for excesses. What threat did these student pose except to piss off and offend some folks in authority? So the students were warned? That makes for Justified police action? Nonsense.

They may not have posed a threat, but the cops had to get them out of the way in order to leave.
Move of Ten is offline  
#66 Old 03-07-2012, 12:09 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Parsnip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,672
The police made a tactical error by allowing themselves to be surrounded. What in the military is referred to as a "Charlie Foxtrot". They will likely review their procedures.

It seems the police were making every effort not to lay hands on the protesters, for which I commend them. Back in the day, they would have just started cracking heads with their batons without provocation. Even today, the cops where I live would be dragging them away by their hair, so I suppose they got off easy by comparison. Still, it's hard not to view it as an excessive display of establishment power over unarmed citizens, innocent or not.
Parsnip is offline  
#67 Old 03-07-2012, 08:35 PM
Veggie Regular
 
sorrowthepig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parsnip View Post

The police made a tactical error by allowing themselves to be surrounded. What in the military is referred to as a "Charlie Foxtrot". They will likely review their procedures.

They'll be the only ones reviewing their procedures. Water still wet; fire still hot. Skip's up next with those sports scores ...

Keep on freepin' on

sorrowthepig is offline  
#68 Old 03-11-2012, 12:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

Did you catch this (statement by one of the people who got sprayed):

"We had encircled them and they were trying to leave and they were trying to clear a path and so we sat down, linked arms and said that if they wanted to clear the path they would have to go through us..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8yHfLDIeBs

The police say they were surrounded, "you can leave if you let our friends go" can be heard in the video, and the pepper spray victims themselves say that the cops were surrounded. Not just surrounded, but intentionally surrounded with the purpose of obstructing the police's exit.


They may not have posed a threat, but the cops had to get them out of the way in order to leave.

No, at 8:35 or so in the vid, you can clearly see a police car with hardly anystudents around it and a clear path out. The officers could have easily left if that were their intent. I really don't care what the student said, from the vid its pretty clear that the cops were not truly surrounded. If they had left in unison on that path they would have easily "escaped" the threatening snarling mob of dangerous, out of control students who were partying ummm demonstrating!

There was simply no reason for the pepper spray if the cops wanted to leave and they weren't encircled with any real sense, no matter what the student may have said. Was that a bright move on the part of the students? No. Did the cops need to use the pepper spray to leave? No, they didn't. The vid simply does not justify the usage of pepper spray no matter how much you insist that it does.

Up until the point of the pepper spraying, I did not find anything major to criticize about the police tactics. Of course, there doesn't appear much of a reason to clear the students away. This was not a violent demonstration and they did not appear to be equipped for a long stay either. But someone gave the orders to the police, the police most likely didn't act on their own volition.
Savannah is offline  
#69 Old 03-11-2012, 01:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

No, at 8:35 or so in the vid, you can clearly see a police car with hardly anystudents around it and a clear path out.

In that shot you can't see what's inbetween the visible portion of the path and the cops, so it doesn't show that they aren't surrounded. Right after that it pans back to the cops and you can see that the path is indeed block by the students sitting on the path. They definitely look surrounded to me. It's not entirely clear whether they are or not just based on the visuals, but if the students and the police both say they were surrounded then I have no problem believing it. Even if you were right that they weren't surrounded at the 8:35 mark, the pepper spraying occurs several minutes after that, so it wouldn't be proof that they weren't surrounded at that point.

Quote:
There was simply no reason for the pepper spray if the cops wanted to leave and they weren't encircled with any real sense, no matter what the student may have said. Was that a bright move on the part of the students? No. Did the cops need to use the pepper spray to leave? No, they didn't. The vid simply does not justify the usage of pepper spray no matter how much you insist that it does.

The only viable argument I can see is that the cops should have tried to step over the sitting students instead of using pepper spray. I don't agree with it, because they were escorting arrested people and had body armor on and the students had expressed the intent to prevent them from leaving, but I at least understand the argument. I can't understand the argument that they weren't surrounded, though.
Move of Ten is offline  
#70 Old 03-11-2012, 02:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

In that shot you can't see what's inbetween the visible portion of the path and the cops, so it doesn't show that they aren't surrounded. Right after that it pans back to the cops and you can see that the path is indeed block by the students sitting on the path. They definitely look surrounded to me. It's not entirely clear whether they are or not just based on the visuals, but if the students and the police both say they were surrounded then I have no problem believing it. Even if you were right that they weren't surrounded at the 8:35 mark, the pepper spraying occurs several minutes after that, so it wouldn't be proof that they weren't surrounded at that point.



The only viable argument I can see is that the cops should have tried to step over the sitting students instead of using pepper spray. I don't agree with it, because they were escorting arrested people and had body armor on and the students had expressed the intent to prevent them from leaving, but I at least understand the argument. I can't understand the argument that they weren't surrounded, though.

Your evidence for your claims is rather shaky. I think you are overstating your case based upon the limitations of the video. Again, there was no threat from the students. Not a hint of violent propensity, no rocks and bottles thrown, etc. Little support for the idea that the police were "surrounded" too. The student's actions were goofy, not threatening. I do not see any evidence for the claim that the application of pepper spray was justified.
Savannah is offline  
#71 Old 03-11-2012, 02:48 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Simply stating that my evidence is shaky without addressing it is not very compelling. I've given multiple pieces of evidence they were surrounded, most of which have gone unaddressed. Again:

-The student said the cops were surrounded.
-The cops say the cops were surrounded.
-The students in the video said they would only let the cops leave if they released their prisoners. Saying this would make no sense if they weren't surrounding the cops.
-The student in the interview says that the intention was to stop the cops from leaving, which would make no sense if they weren't surrounding the cops.
-The scene visible in the video is consistent with the cops being surrounded.
-Each of these pieces of evidence are consistent with each other and lend credence to each other.

Furthermore, even if you find the evidence unconvincing, it's not the cops' responsibility to prove they were surrounded. Why would you just assume they weren't surrounded for lack of proof either way, when AFAIK no one who was actually there even disputes it?
Move of Ten is offline  
#72 Old 03-11-2012, 03:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

Simply stating that my evidence is shaky without addressing it is not very compelling. I've given multiple pieces of evidence they were surrounded, most of which have gone unaddressed. Again:

-The student said the cops were surrounded.
-The cops say the cops were surrounded.
-The students in the video said they would only let the cops leave if they released their prisoners. Saying this would make no sense if they weren't surrounding the cops.
-The student in the interview says that the intention was to stop the cops from leaving, which would make no sense if they weren't surrounding the cops.
-The scene visible in the video is consistent with the cops being surrounded.
-Each of these pieces of evidence are consistent with each other and lend credence to each other.

Furthermore, even if you find the evidence unconvincing, it's not the cops' responsibility to prove they were surrounded. Why would you just assume they weren't surrounded for lack of proof either way, when AFAIK no one who was actually there even disputes it?

I answered every one of your alleged supporting contentions in my various responses on the thread. I suggest you re-read them if you don't think that I have.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is rather evident even from the vid that the cops were not surrounded in the sense that they could not leave if they so desired, despite what the student said.

It is also readily apparent that the cops were not in any danger whatever from the students. They were not being threatened and there had been no physical, violent actions on the part of the students. The party atmosphere is clearly appreciated by watching the video. This is not a group of rough people in any sense. They are college students for the most part and hardly a threat to the cops.

The cops responsibility is to prove that the force used was consistent with the circumstances with which they were confronted. They are taking action against a group of citizens and it is up to them to justify their actions. Otherwise, you give carte blanche to the police to do whatever they wish to whomever they might choose. It is pretty apparent that there was no threat to the cops safety and it is also apparent that they could have arrested students without the use of the pepper spray.

I think you have over-stated your case.
Savannah is offline  
#73 Old 03-12-2012, 11:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

I answered every one of your alleged supporting contentions in my various responses on the thread. I suggest you re-read them if you don't think that I have.

I understand you don't trust the police's claims. You answered the student's claim by saying you "don't care what she said", which doesn't really answer it. I can't see where you answered my third/fourth points. And we obviously disagree on the video. Sorry if I missed something, that's certainly possible.

Quote:
The simple fact of the matter is that it is rather evident even from the vid that the cops were not surrounded in the sense that they could not leave if they so desired, despite what the student said.

I addressed this though. The 8:35 mark of the video doesn't show that the police aren't surrounded, because you can't see them in that shot. Then when it pans back to them, you can see the students sitting across the path with linked arms who weren't visible in the 8:35 shot.

Furthermore, the pepper spraying occurs several minutes after the 8:35 mark, so even if they weren't surrounded at that point (I obviously think they were), that would not do anything to prove that they weren't surrounded at the time they used pepper spray.

Quote:
It is also readily apparent that the cops were not in any danger whatever from the students. They were not being threatened and there had been no physical, violent actions on the part of the students. The party atmosphere is clearly appreciated by watching the video. This is not a group of rough people in any sense. They are college students for the most part and hardly a threat to the cops.

I would agree if I didn't think they were surrounded, but if they're surrounded then they have to get through them somehow if they're going to leave.

Quote:
The cops responsibility is to prove that the force used was consistent with the circumstances with which they were confronted.

I don't think that is accurate as a general statement. Usually their testimony is good enough unless there is sufficient evidence contradicting it. When their testimony is also corroborated by the victims of the force and AFAIK no one who was actually there disputes it, then that should be well more than enough. If the victims in addition to other people at the scene were actually contesting the police's claim then you might have a point.
Move of Ten is offline  
#74 Old 03-12-2012, 07:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

I understand you don't trust the police's claims. You answered the student's claim by saying you "don't care what she said", which doesn't really answer it. I can't see where you answered my third/fourth points. And we obviously disagree on the video. Sorry if I missed something, that's certainly possible.

I addressed this though. The 8:35 mark of the video doesn't show that the police aren't surrounded, because you can't see them in that shot. Then when it pans back to them, you can see the students sitting across the path with linked arms who weren't visible in the 8:35 shot.

Furthermore, the pepper spraying occurs several minutes after the 8:35 mark, so even if they weren't surrounded at that point (I obviously think they were), that would not do anything to prove that they weren't surrounded at the time they used pepper spray.

I would agree if I didn't think they were surrounded, but if they're surrounded then they have to get through them somehow if they're going to leave.

I don't think that is accurate as a general statement. Usually their testimony is good enough unless there is sufficient evidence contradicting it. When their testimony is also corroborated by the victims of the force and AFAIK no one who was actually there disputes it, then that should be well more than enough. If the victims in addition to other people at the scene were actually contesting the police's claim then you might have a point.

No, their testimony is not good enough unless there is sufficient evidence contradicting it. When force is used against someone the burden is on the police to prove that the force utilized was justified under the circumstances.

Regarding the being surrounded stuff: I completely disagree with your assessment. Once again, there are college students gathered around and it is a peaceful demonstration. Armed, helmeted police officers are faced by students with backpacks and who are in party mode. I think your claim that the police are surrounded under these circumstances is not at all realistic. They could have easily had pushed a few students aside and left without any trouble whatsoever. You really believe that they would have met stiff resistance? Sorry, I find the surrounded claim ridiculous.
Savannah is offline  
#75 Old 03-12-2012, 11:18 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

No, their testimony is not good enough unless there is sufficient evidence contradicting it. When force is used against someone the burden is on the police to prove that the force utilized was justified under the circumstances.

I'm not saying they don't have to explain why force was warranted, I'm saying they don't have to prove they were surrounded. Are you addressing the former or the latter? Is there a case you could link me to where a cop used force against a person for reason X, that person agreed that reason X was accurate, there was no evidence that reason X was inaccurate and then the cop was found guilty or reprimanded based on the fact that reason X could not be sufficiently proven?

Keep in mind that whether you consider reason X a good reason to use force is a completely different issue from what I'm talking about above. That is, our disagreement has been primarily over whether the cops were surrounded or not, not whether being surrounded warranted the use of force.

Quote:
Regarding the being surrounded stuff: I completely disagree with your assessment. Once again, there are college students gathered around and it is a peaceful demonstration. Armed, helmeted police officers are faced by students with backpacks and who are in party mode. I think your claim that the police are surrounded under these circumstances is not at all realistic. They could have easily had pushed a few students aside and left without any trouble whatsoever. You really believe that they would have met stiff resistance? Sorry, I find the surrounded claim ridiculous.

I don't know how you define surrounded, but that's not how I understand the term. The way I understand the term it sounds like you're now agreeing with me that they were surrounded if they would have had to push students out of the way to leave (which is also a use of force, just a different one). I don't recall claiming the police would have met stiff resistance anywhere. I have no idea what sort of resistance they would have met... but that's irrelevant to whether or not they were surrounded, as I understand the word. I will point out the student interviewed said they had linked arms, so I don't know how well that would have worked. Regardless, they had to use some sort of force to exit, whether it be pushing, pepper spraying or something else.
Move of Ten is offline  
#76 Old 03-13-2012, 05:59 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

I'm not saying they don't have to explain why force was warranted, I'm saying they don't have to prove they were surrounded. Are you addressing the former or the latter? Is there a case you could link me to where a cop used force against a person for reason X, that person agreed that reason X was accurate, there was no evidence that reason X was inaccurate and then the cop was found guilty or reprimanded based on the fact that reason X could not be sufficiently proven?

Keep in mind that whether you consider reason X a good reason to use force is a completely different issue from what I'm talking about above. That is, our disagreement has been primarily over whether the cops were surrounded or not, not whether being surrounded warranted the use of force.

I don't know how you define surrounded, but that's not how I understand the term. The way I understand the term it sounds like you're now agreeing with me that they were surrounded if they would have had to push students out of the way to leave (which is also a use of force, just a different one). I don't recall claiming the police would have met stiff resistance anywhere. I have no idea what sort of resistance they would have met... but that's irrelevant to whether or not they were surrounded, as I understand the word. I will point out the student interviewed said they had linked arms, so I don't know how well that would have worked. Regardless, they had to use some sort of force to exit, whether it be pushing, pepper spraying or something else.

I am not agreeing that they were surrounded. The video clearly shows that there were only a few students opposite the cops and there wasn't throng of students blocking their way. Surrounded is an overstatement, which I have been saying all along. They weren't surrounded, and they most certainly could have left if they wished to do so. So they weren't trapped or otherwise in some kind of danger. Hence, there was no justifiable reason for the usage of pepper spray.
Savannah is offline  
#77 Old 03-15-2012, 08:49 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

I am not agreeing that they were surrounded. The video clearly shows that there were only a few students opposite the cops and there wasn't throng of students blocking their way. Surrounded is an overstatement, which I have been saying all along. They weren't surrounded, and they most certainly could have left if they wished to do so. So they weren't trapped or otherwise in some kind of danger. Hence, there was no justifiable reason for the usage of pepper spray.

I've addressed your argument about the video twice already. You cited the 8:35 mark of the video as showing that they were not surrounded. It doesn't show they weren't surrounded, because the cops aren't in that shot. Therefore it's unclear from that shot what's between the path as seen and the cops. When it pans back to the cops, you can see the students sitting side by side across the path on the left side of the screen who weren't visible in the 8:35 shot (i.e. they are between the path as seen in the 8:35 shot and the cops).

Also, the pepper spraying occurred several minutes after the 8:35 mark which allows for the possibility that they were not surrounded at the time of that shot, but were surrounded when they made use of force. However, it looks to me like they were surrounded at both points in time.. I'm just saying even if you were right it would not prove much with regard to your overall argument.
Move of Ten is offline  
#78 Old 03-16-2012, 11:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Apparently, from a few details of what the judge said, the report by a security consulting firm finds fault with some of the actions of the campus police and the University Administration. Oh gee, I guess that might come as a shock to some

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/16/434...is-pepper.html
Savannah is offline  
#79 Old 03-17-2012, 10:16 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Why would it be a shock? The University got a lot of bad press over this, they need to throw a few lowly employees under the bus to appease the PR gods.
das_nut is offline  
#80 Old 03-17-2012, 10:17 AM
Super Moderator
 
danakscully64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 34,591
Sadly, that's what I bet is happening too.
danakscully64 is offline  
#81 Old 03-18-2012, 08:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Why would it be a shock? The University got a lot of bad press over this, they need to throw a few lowly employees under the bus to appease the PR gods.

wow, that is a rather large leap you made there, without seeing what they say? the little bit the judge let on about was that the administration of the university comes in for some criticism as well, so, maybe its not quite what you think. we will see. but, as far as it being the fault of those snarling, dangerous looking student types...eh, I don't think so.
Savannah is offline  
#82 Old 03-18-2012, 09:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

wow, that is a rather large leap you made there, without seeing what they say?

From your link before, it has an official saying that she had no idea that the police may use force when she OKed their us to remove protesters who were refusing to leave. I'm kind of disappointed that nobody followed up and asked her, as a college-educated woman, what she expected the police to do.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the University is already in damage-control mode.
das_nut is offline  
#83 Old 03-19-2012, 06:37 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

From your link before, it has an official saying that she had no idea that the police may use force when she OKed their us to remove protesters who were refusing to leave. I'm kind of disappointed that nobody followed up and asked her, as a college-educated woman, what she expected the police to do.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the University is already in damage-control mode.

Oh I don't disagree with you there. I am sure that they are. But, the report might (hopefully) be an actual fact finding instead of an exercise in CYA. I guess I am an optimist
Savannah is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off