GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2013, 10:16   #251
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,170
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisville Glocker View Post
Totally disagree. Well, almost totally. Life isn't completely safe, agreed. But now you're saying it is the guy's fault his car broke down? Give me a break.

In some yuppie world, of high priced monthly car payments, maybe your car never gets old, but cars do break for normal common folks. And if it breaks down close to your home, push it the couple blocks back.

Total fault is on the drunk. 100 percent. He deserved his punishment.

Dark road...oooh...did you know that there are reflectors on the back of cars? Did you know that cars are equipped with headlights? People should be able to notice a car in front of them on the shoulder of a road before they hit it.

I say the drunk deserved his death sentence, and blaming the victim is pure BS.
Yeah, I suppose you are right. No sober driver has ever hit anyone walking down a dark back road at night.

I mean cars have reflectors, and there is no way a couple of kids standing behind a broke down vehicle could obscure those. And you know it's totally illegal to be pushing your vehicle down tge road in the lane of traffic, but lets not admit that.



And yeah, how rude of me to expect personal responsibility from the guy who's vehicle died. I mean it's not like the operator is expected to upkeep his vehicle. And it's not like most issues that disable vehicles stem from running the vehicle with a known issue till it becomes something that has to be addressed....

Yep, the driver is completely innocent. Nothing that he did put him and his family into a dangerous situation that night.



At the end of the day, the fathers actions contributed to the event. Had they got out, and walked on the side of oncoming traffic, which is pretty much SOP for walking dark backroads at night, they'd all be alive.

If they'd pulled to the side and waited for a tow, they might all still be alive.

Instead, the father elected to push a disabled vehicle down a dark backroad, and the kids died. There is no way you can look at all the things leading upto the collision and say he's not responsible.

He doesn't bare all the guilt, but he certainly bears a portion.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 11:11   #252
WilliamDahl
Senior Member
 
WilliamDahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: TX Gulf Coast
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyL View Post
Wow, I get to go kill the doctor that misdiagnosed my father.
Works for me... There would be a lot fewer cases of repeat medical malpractice that way.
WilliamDahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 11:17   #253
WilliamDahl
Senior Member
 
WilliamDahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: TX Gulf Coast
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMT View Post
He was wrong. This is exactly what the antis hope for. We need to abide by the law.
As far as I'm concerned, if the law is wrong, I have no moral duty to abide by it.
WilliamDahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 11:26   #254
WilliamDahl
Senior Member
 
WilliamDahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: TX Gulf Coast
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
As far as I'm concerned, the key issue here is not whether the guy was drunk, but whether the same thing might have occurred even if he had been perfectly sober. I do not believe that just because you have had a couple of beers, you should automatically be at fault in any accident. For example, if a car is stopped on the road at night, right after a curse or hill, there is no road lighting, and they do not have their lights on, should it really matter if you have had a couple of beers before running into them since you would have run into them even if you had not drank the beers?

Now, the really scary thing is that I know for a fact that I am a better driver after drinking a 6-pack of beer than my sister-in-law is when she is perfectly sober. Then again, it takes me long enough to drink a 6-pack that I'm probably not really all that intoxicated anyway. The point that I'm trying to make is that my sister-in-law is a really bad driver, but she met the legal minimum to drive in this state. And I'm sure that there are plenty of drivers just like her out there. I guess that is even scarier...
WilliamDahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 11:31   #255
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamDahl View Post
I do not believe that just because you have had a couple of beers
BAC of 0.175. That's not "a couple of beers." That's upwards of twice the legal limit. It's very, very drunk.
devildog2067 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 11:50   #256
Antipaladin
Member
 
Antipaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 79
Two words. Jury Nullification. I wouldn't vote to convict him regardless of what the statute said.
Antipaladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 11:55   #257
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,851
The question is - who gets to determine guilt (or not) & punishment?

If you think the father of a child that is killed can decide - then the drunk guys dad can go shoot his son's killer.

Last edited by Z71bill; 02-14-2013 at 12:27..
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 12:01   #258
Antipaladin
Member
 
Antipaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 79
The unequivocal answer is "the jury". Should they decide that the defendant did indeed meet the elements of the offense, they are still within their rights to declare him innocent if they believe the law is being unfairly applied. Such a verdict is no less valid or binding than any other. US Courts have historically taken the position that nullification isn't a correct course of action and don't include it in juror instructions. Courts have routinely determined that a juror who voted one way, but determined they would have voted another had they known about nullification isn't grounds for another trial. The California Supreme Court has gone a step further and allowed jurors and potential jurors to be removed if they indicate a proclivity to vote their conscience should it conflict with the the jurisdiction's law. However, nullification is built into the legal system as any jury verdict attaches Double Jeopardy automatically and no juror can be punished for his vote.

Last edited by Antipaladin; 02-14-2013 at 12:09..
Antipaladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 12:11   #259
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
The question is - who get to determine guilt (or not) & punishment?

If you think the father of a child that is killed can decide - then the drunk guys dad can go shoot his son's killer.

In one instance, the children who were killed were not intentionally breaking any laws, and none of their actions directly contributed to the injury of others.

In the other instance, the "child" you refer to was adult, and was breaking the law, where his actions resulted in the injury and death of others.

That he met his sudden and "unjust" demise at the hands of someone else is factual, and for some even remorseful (not for I). The "fact" is, that his drunken actions don't give his dad much of a leg to stand on.

Just like if my "child" (over 21 years) raped a 11yr old, and was caught by the dad of the 11yo, that same dad who took his kid to a park and fell asleep, leaving his kid unmonitored where my "child" could rape him...

if that dad dragged my kid 1/2 mile to his house, dragged him inside and shot him like a dog....

Tough kittens for my son. Don't break the law in such gross ways and I may be able to muster up some sympathy for you.

Am I going to applaud that dude for whacking my son? No. But if I was on a jury, and he was on trial, I am not convicting that dude for whacking my rapist son, ESPECIALLY if he caught my kid in the act.

Your mileage obviously, differs.

Last edited by Gallium; 02-14-2013 at 12:11..
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 12:27   #260
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
In one instance, the children who were killed were not intentionally breaking any laws, and none of their actions directly contributed to the injury of others.

In the other instance, the "child" you refer to was adult, and was breaking the law, where his actions resulted in the injury and death of others.

That he met his sudden and "unjust" demise at the hands of someone else is factual, and for some even remorseful (not for I). The "fact" is, that his drunken actions don't give his dad much of a leg to stand on.

Just like if my "child" (over 21 years) raped a 11yr old, and was caught by the dad of the 11yo, that same dad who took his kid to a park and fell asleep, leaving his kid unmonitored where my "child" could rape him...

if that dad dragged my kid 1/2 mile to his house, dragged him inside and shot him like a dog....

Tough kittens for my son. Don't break the law in such gross ways and I may be able to muster up some sympathy for you.

Am I going to applaud that dude for whacking my son? No. But if I was on a jury, and he was on trial, I am not convicting that dude for whacking my rapist son, ESPECIALLY if he caught my kid in the act.

Your mileage obviously, differs.
The question is - who gets to determine guilt (or not) & punishment?

Don't over think it - just answer it.
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 12:31   #261
frank4570
Feral human
 
frank4570's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cul Va
Posts: 16,703
Blog Entries: 1
I'd be willing to wager this guy won't kill any more people provided they don't use their car to crush his family members.

I would fully expect a father to be totally out of his mind right after seeing something like that. He'll never be right again. He might get to where he can muddle through one sad day after another, but I doubt he needs to go to jail because he is dangerous.
__________________
Fear your government.
"Rats aren't creepy, experimenting on them IS." Emilie Autumn.

For too long people have said "screw NY, IL, etc" or "that'll never happen here." Yes, it will eventually. If we dont start standing up together now, it will never stop.-ilgunguygt
frank4570 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 12:43   #262
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,170
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
In one instance, the children who were killed were not intentionally breaking any laws, and none of their actions directly contributed to the injury of others.

In the other instance, the "child" you refer to was adult, and was breaking the law, where his actions resulted in the injury and death of others.

That he met his sudden and "unjust" demise at the hands of someone else is factual, and for some even remorseful (not for I). The "fact" is, that his drunken actions don't give his dad much of a leg to stand on.

Just like if my "child" (over 21 years) raped a 11yr old, and was caught by the dad of the 11yo, that same dad who took his kid to a park and fell asleep, leaving his kid unmonitored where my "child" could rape him...

if that dad dragged my kid 1/2 mile to his house, dragged him inside and shot him like a dog....

Tough kittens for my son. Don't break the law in such gross ways and I may be able to muster up some sympathy for you.

Am I going to applaud that dude for whacking my son? No. But if I was on a jury, and he was on trial, I am not convicting that dude for whacking my rapist son, ESPECIALLY if he caught my kid in the act.

Your mileage obviously, differs.
It gives him as much of a leg to stand on as the father who murdered his son without a trial.


The fact remains, the father who did the shooting contributed to the accident as much as the drunk did. They're both guilty of murder, the difference being only one was in cold blood.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 12:48   #263
aspartz
Senior Member
 
aspartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sandstone, MN 55072
Posts: 5,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by frank4570 View Post
I would fully expect a father to be totally out of his mind right after seeing something like that.
The question still remains, do you beleive he would have shot and killed the other driver if it had been an incompetent dottering old lady?

ARS
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Unknown
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force" - George Washington
aspartz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 12:59   #264
frank4570
Feral human
 
frank4570's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cul Va
Posts: 16,703
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by aspartz View Post
The question still remains, do you beleive he would have shot and killed the other driver if it had been an incompetent dottering old lady?

ARS
I don't know. Crazy people are crazy.
I would suspect that a male human father is pushed farther into crazy finding that his boys were killed as a result of somebodys decision to be selfish and stupid.
Dottering old ladys aren't like that because they chose to be.

When I used to get into fist fights in school I sometimes blacked out, I guess from the emotional overload. I doubt I would have blacked out if it had been a little old lady picking a fight with me. But it wasn't a little old lady picking a fight with me and I lost my mind for a little while.
__________________
Fear your government.
"Rats aren't creepy, experimenting on them IS." Emilie Autumn.

For too long people have said "screw NY, IL, etc" or "that'll never happen here." Yes, it will eventually. If we dont start standing up together now, it will never stop.-ilgunguygt
frank4570 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 13:08   #265
The Maggy
Senior Member
 
The Maggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 3,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by frank4570 View Post
I don't know. Crazy people are crazy.
I would suspect that a male human father is pushed farther into crazy finding that his boys were killed as a result of somebodys decision to be selfish and stupid.
Dottering old ladys aren't like that because they chose to be.

When I used to get into fist fights in school I sometimes blacked out, I guess from the emotional overload. I doubt I would have blacked out if it had been a little old lady picking a fight with me. But it wasn't a little old lady picking a fight with me and I lost my mind for a little while.
But the dottering old lady chooses to get behind the wheel of a car while in a diminished state of mind, very much like the drunk driver.
__________________

The Maggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 13:15   #266
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
The question is - who gets to determine guilt (or not) & punishment?

Don't over think it - just answer it.

I have answered it countless times - THE JURY DOES, based on the evidence the state presents to the court.

Don't overlook my answer and go fishing for something that suits your mindset.

I also said if I am on that jury, and it requires a unanimous decision, I am not voting guilty - even if it was my son he retaliated against.

Follow your own advice. Don't keep creating "what ifs" and simply accept what you are being told. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe.

- G
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 13:21   #267
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
It gives him as much of a leg to stand on as the father who murdered his son without a trial.


The fact remains, the father who did the shooting contributed to the accident as much as the drunk did. They're both guilty of murder, the difference being only one was in cold blood.

I agree with you on this. The cold blooded killer is the dude who drank and got behind the wheel. The dude who saw his kids turned into pasta got unhinged seeing his family splattered across the road.


I disagree with you on this. And I don't know if there is any legal mechanism (except for civil court) that weighs & balances stuff like this. So it is your opinion versus mine.

Questions I would ask, if I were an arbitrator deciding contribution of negligence:
  • Did any other cars pass the family prior to the drunk?
  • What statistics do we have that show how impaired the average person of his mass is, based on that level of intoxication?
And for your 1st statement on cold blood, I would also ask:
  • Did the dad of the killed kids ever kill anyone in "cold blood" before? Did he ever kill anyone before? Threaten anyone with his gun?
If the answers to those questions are "no", the cold blooded killer is not the dad, because it's not like there was no emotional attachment to his actions.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 13:37   #268
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,170
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
I agree with you on this. The cold blooded killer is the dude who drank and got behind the wheel. The dude who saw his kids turned into pasta got unhinged seeing his family splattered across the road.


I disagree with you on this. And I don't know if there is any legal mechanism (except for civil court) that weighs & balances stuff like this. So it is your opinion versus mine.

Questions I would ask, if I were an arbitrator deciding contribution of negligence:
  • Did any other cars pass the family prior to the drunk?
  • What statistics do we have that show how impaired the average person of his mass is, based on that level of intoxication?
And for your 1st statement on cold blood, I would also ask:
  • Did the dad of the killed kids ever kill anyone in "cold blood" before? Did he ever kill anyone before? Threaten anyone with his gun?
If the answers to those questions are "no", the cold blooded killer is not the dad, because it's not like there was no emotional attachment to his actions.

Your arguing based upon emotion, and ignoring the facts to do so.

You may feel that the drunk murdured those two kids in cold blood. But case law shows that in all reality a drunk killing someone is not regarded the same as a sober person shooting someone. It's generally considered manslaughter or at worst 2nd degree murder.

However, walking to your house to get a gun, returning to the scene of an accident (key word, accident) to murder someone, then hiding a gun displays intent and planning. That's unquestionably, and indefensibly 1st degree murder.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 14:01   #269
RustyL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 552
I believe the only way out for the father is Temporary Insanity. I do believe in temporary insanity. I have experienced this concerning my child, in the manner of protecting her. I have never allowed one to talk badly about my child, not without a fight. I can't imagine what madness this man went through. And if this man cannot be found to have been temporary insane, they need to burn his ass.

The reason for my first post was people beating down drunk drivers, as though they are sub human. If 23% of traffic fatalities are due to drunk drivers, why then are 77% of the idiots given pretty much a pass?

I really feel bad for this guy, he elfed up though.
RustyL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 14:16   #270
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
Your arguing based upon emotion, and ignoring the facts to do so.

You may feel that the drunk murdered those two kids in cold blood. But case law shows that in all reality a drunk killing someone is not regarded the same as a sober person shooting someone. It's generally considered manslaughter or at worst 2nd degree murder.

However, walking to your house to get a gun, returning to the scene of an accident (key word, accident) to murder someone, then hiding a gun displays intent and planning. That's unquestionably, and indefensibly 1st degree murder.
You don't know the guy's mindset at the time he did all of this.

And if you'd read all of the posts in this thread you would have long understood that MANY of our laws are based to some degree on emotion.

I have not ignored any facts. The message about driving while drinking has been out there for decades. If you (speaking broadly) decide to drink and drive, irrespective of your capacity in that instant, you were no less clear headed than the dude who walked back to his house to get his gun and off the drunk.

Like I said: Opinions - you're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine. I never claimed mine was "right" and yours wrong. The one thing I am certain of is, there is nothing you, or anyone else can type that will change my mind.

- G
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 14:39   #271
WilliamDahl
Senior Member
 
WilliamDahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: TX Gulf Coast
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocwithGlock View Post
If I was that father I would not have used a gun.
That's what tire irons are for. Then again, these days, tire irons are rather wimpy and it would take a lot more effort to properly handle the situation with one.
WilliamDahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 14:55   #272
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,851
I wonder if the father will take the stand at his trial?
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 15:12   #273
frank4570
Feral human
 
frank4570's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cul Va
Posts: 16,703
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Maggy View Post
But the dottering old lady chooses to get behind the wheel of a car while in a diminished state of mind, very much like the drunk driver.
If you see a senile old grandmother as equal to a 20 year old drunk guy, then you do.
I don't, I know most people don't. If a confused old grandmother killed my children I would feel different than if a drunk 20 year old male did the same thing. Is it right to have more compassion for a senile grandmother than a drunk 20 year old guy? Yes.
__________________
Fear your government.
"Rats aren't creepy, experimenting on them IS." Emilie Autumn.

For too long people have said "screw NY, IL, etc" or "that'll never happen here." Yes, it will eventually. If we dont start standing up together now, it will never stop.-ilgunguygt
frank4570 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 15:26   #274
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
So am I right to understand that this shooting was not in self-defense? While I feel for him and for his loss, his actions were absolutely inappropriate and unjustified under the law. Keep in mind that our legal system isn't based on whether the drunk driver deserved it, the decision to charge the shooter is based on whether the shooter broke the law. In this case, he is not going to walk. Having said that, I am glad I'm not going to be sitting on his jury because I would hate to have to convict him.
you would be a disgrace to a jury, then. Convictions can only come if certain things can be proven and there is no reasonable doubt. Did he kill the guy. Yes. If he was in his right mind, would he have done such a thing? probably not. was he not in his right mind when he shot the guy? most likely not. was his intent malicious in nature? hard to say.

There is only one definite answer in that scenario. The others are maybes or probably's. Therefore, there is a reasonable doubt. With reasonable doubt, there can be no conviction. Aside from that, there is the reasonable bystander rule. As a reasonable bystander, would I have done the same thing in his shoes? ABSO-******ING-LUTELY.

I could not convict. Let justice be grateful that YOU are not on the jury, because if YOU would convict, there would be no justice.
__________________
Lord
G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 15:30   #275
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,170
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
You don't know the guy's mindset at the time he did all of this.

And if you'd read all of the posts in this thread you would have long understood that MANY of our laws are based to some degree on emotion.

I have not ignored any facts. The message about driving while drinking has been out there for decades. If you (speaking broadly) decide to drink and drive, irrespective of your capacity in that instant, you were no less clear headed than the dude who walked back to his house to get his gun and off the drunk.

Like I said: Opinions - you're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine. I never claimed mine was "right" and yours wrong. The one thing I am certain of is, there is nothing you, or anyone else can type that will change my mind.

- G
As I said, that's your oppinion, but legal precidence disagrees.

You may think that going out drinking, and then ending up behind a wheel is the same as blatant, and premeditated first degree murder, but that is simply an oppinion.

I'm staying fact, when I say it's not. Backed up by plenty of cases and legal definition.


This is why we are opposed, not oppinion, but rather because you are actually wrong. You just want this father to get away with murder.

If I remember correctly, you have girls don't you?

I seem to think you'd be crying a different tune if I shot your daughter in the face because she rear ended my car because she was texting.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:09.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 753
188 Members
565 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42