AwayGoalsRule Football Forum

The Internet's Finest Football Forum

Get moneyback specials on your football betting at PaddyPower


It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:34 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:52 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31161
Location: Milton Keynes
Quote:
Oscar Pistorius has been accused of "tailoring his evidence" at his murder trial, where he denies murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel repeatedly challenged the Paralympian's "improbable" account of events while questioning him about the details of the night he shot Ms Steenkamp.

At one point the confrontation led an emotional Pistorius to admit he could be giving inconsistent answers because he was tired - prompting the judge to ask if he was able to continue with his evidence.

Pistorius told the court that his first intention when he heard a noise on February 14 was "to put myself between the intruder and Reeva" and that he reached for his gun under the bed and told Ms Steenkamp to call the police.

Mr Nel put it to him that a "reasonable person" would have done more to ensure that his partner "was okay or scared".

Pistorius said that he started screaming at the intruder to "get out of my house" and at Ms Steenkamp to call the police as he rushed down the passage to the bathroom in his home.

Mr Nel said: "The safety was off and you wanted to shoot someone. If you saw someone you were ready to shoot."

Pistorius replied: "I never wanted to shoot anyone."

The athlete said he could not explain why he had rushed toward the danger instead of taking the opportunity to escape with Ms Steenkamp through the bedroom door.

He said he kept quiet as he reached the bathroom door, telling the court: "I wanted to peer around the corner. I wasn't sure if the person was waiting for me. I was kneeling down."

He said that after hearing the toilet door slam, he was "sure" that there was an intruder in his house.

He said: "I was fighting for my life, my lady. I was not sure who was in the bathroom."

Mr Nel told Pistorius his claim that Ms Steenkamp was in the toilet but did not respond to his shouts was "the most improbable part of your story".

He said: "She was talking to you, that is why she was standing there before you shot her in the head. She was scared of you, not an intruder. She was scared of you."

Pistorius became emotional again when asked: "Did she scream while you shot her four times?"

Mr Nel said it was not possible for Pistorius to say that there had been no screaming, when he admitted he could not hear properly because of the sound of the gunshots.

Mr Nel also claimed the athlete was lying about an incident when he claims he was shot at while driving on a highway in 2008 or 2009, because he could not remember who he had called for help that night.

He said: "It is so improbable that you can not remember - the only reason you can not remember is that it didn't happen."

Mr Nel cast doubt on the defence's assertion that a number of items in the couple's bedroom must have been moved in the hours after the shooting.

Proceedings were briefly adjourned after Pistorius broke down in the witness box.

Asked why he was getting emotional, he told the prosecutor: "Because this is the night that I lost the person that I cared about. I don't understand why you can't understand it."

Pistorius was asked about security measures at his house, as the lawyer known as the "Pit Bull" sought to undermine his claims that he was concerned about crime.

Pistorius told the court he had never been a victim of crime at his Silver Woods home, apart from an occasion when he said police stole his watches.

He said security measures in the area had been upgraded several times, but he had never attended meetings of a home owners association where those issues were raised.

Mr Nel again suggested the athlete was a selfish person, raising his previous statements that Ms Steenkamp had often prayed for him and his training.

At one point, the barrister's combative approach earned him a reprimand from judge Thokozile Masipa, who warned him, "mind your language" after he called Pistorius a liar.

Mr Nel has sought to dismantle the Paralympian's heroic life story and portray him as self-centred, short-tempered, gun-obsessed and eager to shirk responsibility for his actions.

Pistorius denies premeditated murder and illegally possessing ammunition in relation to Ms Steenkamp's death.

He also denies two further counts related to shooting a gun in public in separate incidents prior to the killing.


The reality is unless he changes his plea we'll never know if he meant to do it or not but what do you think?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:31 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:57 pm
Posts: 6512
I think he did mean it yep.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:55 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:12 am
Posts: 10116
He didn't.

_________________
pakrooney wrote:

So true mate ...he is consistently inconsistent throughout his united career ..but what if he turns consistent ..he will get around 40 goals...ATM im waiting for that time as his age is 24/25 :wait: ... :|
on Rooney ,Jan 16th, ..and as they rest is history


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:24 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:12 am
Posts: 19588
Highscores: 1
No doubt about it in my opinion. Killed her deliberately.

_________________
Because I'm young enough to be all pi**ed off
But I'm old enough to be jaded
I'm at the age where I want things to change
But with age my hopes have faded


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it?
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 7:29 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:14 am
Posts: 3558
Location: Bangor, N.I.
I personally think he did it, but the evidence is as inconsistent as he he is, so I could see the verdict going either way.

_________________
F*** you Brazil!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:17 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:12 am
Posts: 19588
Highscores: 1
Found not guilty of murder.

_________________
Because I'm young enough to be all pi**ed off
But I'm old enough to be jaded
I'm at the age where I want things to change
But with age my hopes have faded


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:50 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31161
Location: Milton Keynes
Quote:
The judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial has ruled out all murder charges, but says he may still be guilty of culpable homicide (manslaughter).

Judge Thokozile Masipa said the prosecution had failed to prove the Olympic athlete killed his girlfriend deliberately in the toilet after a row, prompting tears from Mr Pistorius.

He cannot have foreseen killing whoever was behind the toilet door, she said.

She added he was an evasive witness but this did not mean he was guilty.

The South African Olympic sprinter denies murdering Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year, saying he thought there was an intruder.

Mr Pistorius, 27, has pleaded not guilty to all the charges he faces, including two counts of shooting a firearm in public and the illegal possession of ammunition.

'Facts wrong'

Judge Masipa began by detailing the charges against the athlete and repeating extracts of his testimony, reading in a slow, measured way.

She then moved on to a summary of the trial.

A tense-looking Mr Pistorius looked on from the dock, and wept several times during the proceedings.

The judge questioned the reliability of several witnesses who apparently heard screams and gunshots at the time of the incident, saying most of those who said they had heard the incident had "got facts wrong".

The prosecution had used these witnesses to try to prove that Mr Pistorius had killed Ms Steenkamp with premeditation after an argument.

Later in her judgement, Judge Masipa concluded that the prosecution had failed in this.

"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."

The judge added that the accused believed his life was in danger and therefore could not be found guilty of a lesser charge of murder.

"How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?" she said.

"Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."

But Judge Masipa then adjourned for lunch without ruling out culpable homicide, which suggests negligence without intention to kill and which could still mean a jail sentence.

The BBC's Andrew Harding says the court is witnessing Judge Masipa's logic and style - gentle, tolerant of error from witnesses, but razor sharp.

Correspondents say the judge appeared to be moving much more quickly than expected through the evidence, in a process which had been expected take more than a few hours or even days.

Most of the trial, which began on 3 March 2014, has been televised and attracted worldwide attention.

Before the fatal shooting, the 27-year-old athlete was feted in South Africa and known as the "blade runner".

He had won gold at the London 2012 Paralympic Games and also competed at the Olympics.

The judgement at his trial is likely to be well over 100 pages. The judge is going through each charge, summing up the prosecution and defence cases and analysing the evidence.

Ms Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model and law graduate, was hit three times by bullets shot through a toilet door by Mr Pistorius at his home in the capital, Pretoria, in the early hours of 14 February 2013.

He denies the prosecution's allegation that the couple - who had been dating for three months - had rowed.

The athlete said he thought she was still in the bedroom when he heard a noise in the bathroom, which he believed to be an intruder.

The prosecution have tried to characterise Mr Pistorius as a "hothead", while his defence team have portrayed him as having a heightened response to perceived danger because of his disability and background.

In July, a psychiatric report requested by the judge said Mr Pistorius had post-traumatic stress disorder but no mental illness that could prevent him being held criminally responsible for his actions.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:14 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:12 am
Posts: 10116
pakrooney wrote:
He didn't.

:thumbup:

_________________
pakrooney wrote:

So true mate ...he is consistently inconsistent throughout his united career ..but what if he turns consistent ..he will get around 40 goals...ATM im waiting for that time as his age is 24/25 :wait: ... :|
on Rooney ,Jan 16th, ..and as they rest is history


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:55 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
I always thought he meant to kill her, but even if not, he definitely meant to kill someone he hadn't identified - and that is murder by any measure.

How can you not check who you're shooting at?! Talk about irresponsible gun ownership! You'd hope for a few extra years just for that alone.

Anyone who shoots a gun towards the sound of movement is aiming to shoot someone, regardless of knowing who was there, they are clearly aiming to take someone out. Bit late for "Ooops!" if you then find the wrong corpse.

Everything about the act was deliberate, just because he argued he wasn't sure who he was shooting at makes no difference it is still murder and they should be going to prison for a very long time.

He hasn't even got any good excuses IIRC, 'cause if he was really frightened of a potential intruder then I believe he had the chance to leave but didn't. If you were really scared you'd have almost certainly left, not waited around to load, aim then fire a gun which if you got caught doing would surely lead to more danger than if you'd simply gone?

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:59 am 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31161
Location: Milton Keynes
Quote:
..

Oscar Pistorius is facing jail after being found guilty of culpable homicide for shooting dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

The judge Thokozile Masipa said the South African athlete had been "negligent" on the night he killed the model at his Pretoria home.

The Paralympian and Olympian, dubbed Blade Runner due to his prosthetic limbs, had always admitted he shot Ms Steenkamp.

But he said he mistook her for an intruder and fired four bullets from his 9mm pistol through the toilet cubicle.

In court, judge Masipa accused him of being a poor witness, muddled over his defence and a liar.

Pistorius showed little emotion as the guilty verdict of culpable homicide, which is South Africa's equivalent of manslaughter, was handed down. The charge has a maximum jail term of 15 years.

Yesterday, the double amputee broke down in the Pretoria courtroom as he was cleared of two murder charges over the shooting.

She said he did not intend to kill anyone and could not have seen that the intruder he thought was hiding in his toilet was actually Ms Steenkamp.

Judge Masipa also criticised Pistorius' decision to reach for his 9mm pistol and fire it through the toilet cubicle rather than raise the alarm or fire a warning shot.

Today, she told the courtroom: "Having regard to the totality of this evidence in this matter, the unanimous decision of this court is the following: on count one, murder ... the accused found not guilty and is discharged.

"Instead he is found guilty of culpable homicide."

The judge began the day's events by dealing with the three firearms charges which were unrelated to last year's Valentine's Day shooting.

Pistorius was found guilty of discharging a firearm at a restaurant on January 11, 2013.

But he was acquitted of firing a gun through a car sunroof while with his then-girlfriend Samantha Taylor and friend Darren Fresco on November 30, 2012.

He was also cleared of illegally possessing .38 ammunition. Pistorius denied all three charges.


On the radio they're saying he's expected to get 7-10 years


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:31 am 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Posts: 3436
Location: with the cool cats
Highscores: 8
It must be so difficult for the victim's family. Surely the life of their daughter is worth more than that? It's not like he shot someone by accident.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:42 am 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31161
Location: Milton Keynes
O-Dog wrote:
It must be so difficult for the victim's family. Surely the life of their daughter is worth more than that? It's not like he shot someone by accident.


I think you just have to take something from the fact that he will go to prison for what he did but regardless of the punishment he receives it'll never bring their daughter back. Would him getting 100 years make them feel any better? I doubt it because it doesn't really solve the pain they'll be feeling.

It's the same old thing in any court "it's not what you know it's what you can prove in court" they just didn't have enough to get him on a murder charge and his defence team could obviously cast enough doubt in the mind of the judge to find him not guilty on murder but they couldn't do enough to get him off the manslaughter charge.

It looks like his defence team has thrown enough doubt to get him sentenced for the lesser crime but from the judges quotes you can almost see that she thinks he knew what he was doing but she doesn't have the evidence to convict him.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:48 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:12 am
Posts: 10116
Unintentional :thumbup:

_________________
pakrooney wrote:

So true mate ...he is consistently inconsistent throughout his united career ..but what if he turns consistent ..he will get around 40 goals...ATM im waiting for that time as his age is 24/25 :wait: ... :|
on Rooney ,Jan 16th, ..and as they rest is history


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:28 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:12 am
Posts: 19588
Highscores: 1
How's it unintentional? He took a gun and shot someone.

_________________
Because I'm young enough to be all pi**ed off
But I'm old enough to be jaded
I'm at the age where I want things to change
But with age my hopes have faded


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:40 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31161
Location: Milton Keynes
I think there is a serious culture difference between us and South Africa when it comes to guns and home invasions. I've been told by a mate who works out there that it's very much a shoot first ask questions later culture when it comes to you suspecting someone being in your house as the way they look at it is the intruder wont fire a warning shot.

His lawyers have obviously done a very good job of arguing that he didn't know it was her in the bathroom and that he only fired in panic in an attempt to scare the person in that room in to leaving. We all know that was probably b*llocks but there is obvious more evidence to support that argument than there is to support a charge of murder which would be based on him knowing that it was his wife behind the door and that he shot intending to kill her.

Coming from a country where you don't grow up with guns to me you never shoot a gun unintentionally because all guns require you to remove a safety feature before firing so once you've removed that you have the intention of using it.

Whether or not he intended to kill the person behind the door we'll probably never know we can all make assumptions but he's the only person alive who knows the truth of what happened that night.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:57 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Posts: 3436
Location: with the cool cats
Highscores: 8
Quote:
In the immediate wake of the culpable homicide verdict, South African lawyers have questioned whether the judge in the Oscar Pistorius case erred in clearing the Olympic athlete of murder.

As state prosecutors announced they were considering appealing judge Thokozile Masipa's decision, legal experts suggested she may have focused too closely on the relationship between Reeva Steenkamp and Pistorius.

Had there been an intruder behind the toilet door, as Pistorius told the court he believed, then firing four shots into such a confined space would probably have been considered murder by other courts, some lawyers argued.

Emma Sadleir, an expert on social media law who has been monitoring responses to the verdict, told the Guardian that many South African lawyers were uneasy with the decision on common law murder – what is known in the country's laws as dolus eventualis murder.

"The legal fraternity are concerned that the test for dolus eventualis may been applied incorrectly," Sadleir said. "The judge seems to have concentrated on the question of whether it was Reeva.

"But even if he thought there was an intruder behind the door, lawyers are saying, it would still mean that the action was murder. There's a lot of chatter that this is a highly unusual case in which the prosecution will appeal on a point of law under section 310 of the criminal procedure act."

Sadleir said legal opinion supported the judge's reasoning that there was insufficient evidence of the couple having had a row or fallen out with one another and therefore no evidence of premeditated murder.

But, she added: "Even according to Pistorius' version there was a person behind the door. It was a tiny cubicle, less than 1.5 by 1.5 metres, to have fired into."

Sadleir said there was precedence in a recent case where a South African rapper, Jub Jub was found guilty of murder after racing a Mini Cooper through the streets of Soweto and ploughing into a crowd of schoolchildren, killing four of them.

"The judge in that case said that he should have foreseen the possibility of the deaths and returned a verdict of murder." In the Pistorius case, she said, the likelihood of death resulting from opening fire in such a confined space was far greater.

Dr David Klatzow, a leading South African forensic scientist, also believed the judge had not got it right. "It was irrelevant whether it was Reeva or anybody else behind that door," he explained. "There is a provision in South African law that [self-defence] force must be proportional to the threat and reasonable.

"If I shot someone who is punching my wife that would be unreasonable. Your life and that of anyone else has to be in immediate, mortal danger. I'm not sure that it was ever shown [that he was] in immediate mortal danger. [Such a claim] could be measured against his veracity in the witness box, which did him no favours.

"Everyone here owns a firearm and they have to undergo a written examination in which this is one of the issues. Anybody who fires a 9mm pistol will know about the lethal nature of those bullets. I'm surprised the judge found him not guilty of murder."


To me, that's the crux of it: he knew someone was in that little space and yet fired multiple times into it, surely aware there was a very good chance he would kill whoever was there.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:53 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
JSP wrote:
O-Dog wrote:
It must be so difficult for the victim's family. Surely the life of their daughter is worth more than that? It's not like he shot someone by accident.


I think you just have to take something from the fact that he will go to prison for what he did but regardless of the punishment he receives it'll never bring their daughter back. Would him getting 100 years make them feel any better? I doubt it because it doesn't really solve the pain they'll be feeling.

It's the same old thing in any court "it's not what you know it's what you can prove in court" they just didn't have enough to get him on a murder charge and his defence team could obviously cast enough doubt in the mind of the judge to find him not guilty on murder but they couldn't do enough to get him off the manslaughter charge.

It looks like his defence team has thrown enough doubt to get him sentenced for the lesser crime but from the judges quotes you can almost see that she thinks he knew what he was doing but she doesn't have the evidence to convict him.


I'd say the judge has definitely f**ked up here.

South African law dictates you can only defend yourself with force proportional to the threat you face, and he was not in immediate mortal danger so he cannot claim self-defence for the four shots, as I understand it anyway.

He is rightly going to prison but the problem is its for the wrong charge, a lesser crime, equivalent to manslaughter instead of murder that he appears to have committed. Seems like a few legal experts agree too, it'll be interesting to see what happens. The judge's decision is very strange imo, seems to ignore the context, EG four shots into a four foot square cubicle, a history of inappropriate gun use, an alleged row with the dead victim who he said was in there with him and he openly admits doing the actual shooting. How can that not be murder?

Don't think it's the length of the sentence that's the problem, it's the fact that the judge ruled manslaughter in what looks like a clear-cut murder case. If the judge made errors in law, then the verdict could yet be changed.

Considering the facts - and him freely admitting firing four bullets at someone in a confined space - I think he had absolutely no chance of him getting off with it, no matter what his legal team did. There is no defence on Earth once you admit pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger four times! He was always clearly guilty, just a question of what charge and the experts seem to agree with a murder charge, sounds reasonable to me.

The judge appears to have got too distracted with the side issue imo, whether or not he knew he was shooting at his girlfriend or whether he did not know who he was shooting at, but imo it makes no difference whatsoever to the fact he was still shooting 9mm bullets at someone without any legal justification.There's a person with bullet holes in them... claiming mistaken identity just isn't enough to stop it being a murder in my book.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 12:24 am 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:57 pm
Posts: 6512
Cop out by the judge. As pointed out on the news to get a licence for a gun in SA you take a test which includes confirming you won't shoot someone unless you are clear on who they are i.e. you ave to have a clear visual. He shot someone 4 times through a locked bathroom door. Someone who probably screamed like a girl the first time he shot if not before.

Money makes the world go round.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:27 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:12 am
Posts: 10116
Hebrews 9:27 - And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment

_________________
pakrooney wrote:

So true mate ...he is consistently inconsistent throughout his united career ..but what if he turns consistent ..he will get around 40 goals...ATM im waiting for that time as his age is 24/25 :wait: ... :|
on Rooney ,Jan 16th, ..and as they rest is history


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did Oscar mean to do it? GUILTY
PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:44 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Posts: 3436
Location: with the cool cats
Highscores: 8
pakrooney wrote:
Hebrews 9:27 - And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment


2000AD: I am Dredd, I am the law.

Ipso facto.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron