Trayvon Martin: Florida was test case for NRA-created 'stand your ground' law

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: Orlando Sentinel


Florida is a laboratory for the NRA. The place where it tests the formula for a gun-toting utopia.

The "stand your ground" law that has come under attack in the weeks since Trayvon Martin's death is a National Rifle Association experiment gone awry.

It's Florida's Frankenstein.

But this monster of a law has already invaded more than 20 other states since it was invented here nearly seven years ago.


<HR class=hr-promo><HR class=hr-promo>

NRA leaders were so sure that they had a breakthrough in their quest to promote gun rights that they quickly convinced their friends at the American Legislative Exchange Council to take up the cause.

The so-called model legislation pushed by the conservative group of legislators known as ALEC (funded by big corporations such as Walmart and Koch Industries) matches Florida's law nearly word for word.

The success of the national push calls attention not only to the NRA's long-held political power, but also its ties to ALEC, an organization known as a filter for business-backed legislation that is preapproved by corporate lobbyists.

And it also shows the danger of passing legislation that is so unilaterally supported — it passed Florida's Senate unanimously and passed 94-20 in the House — before it is properly vetted.

Prosecutors and law enforcement were vehemently opposed to the change.

Yet NRA leaders did their best to paint opponents as soft on crime because, they said, the intent of the bill was to help law-abiding people protect themselves from attack by criminals.

But Trayvon Martin was not a criminal, and now even staunchly conservative Gov. Rick Scott has admitted the law appears flawed and has called for a review.

The most ardent supporters of "stand your ground" say the law isn't the problem. They will tell you that its police and prosecutors who aren't applying it properly.

That's the position both of the law's original sponsors (and ALEC members) took when I talked with Rep. Dennis Baxley, a Republican from Ocala, and former Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican from Crestview.

"Any public policy in its application is going to have to work out, through some of these cases, how it's interpreted," Baxley said.

If a law is so broad and so difficult to interpret that law enforcement can't get it right or use it consistently, then that's a problem with the law itself, not its application.

But if lawmakers are going to weaken the law, they'll have to pry the change from Marion Hammer's cold, dead hands.

Hammer has been the lead scientist in the NRA's Florida laboratory for the past 25 years.

And she is known in both pro- and anti-gun circles for not backing down.

Hammer, 72, was the first female president of the NRA and now serves as its Florida lobbyist.

She is credited with all kinds of NRA victories in this state, dating back to 1987, when Florida made it possible for people to carry concealed weapons.

Hammer has pushed Florida for a full-blown open-carry law in Florida, which would allow the John Waynes among us to walk around with guns on their hips. That'll look great on a Florida postcard

She won a minor victory last year when the Legislature passed a law that said people wouldn't be punished if they accidentally showed their weapon.

Employees are allowed to keep weapons in their cars at their workplaces despite the objection of the business lobby. Pediatricians are restricted in asking parents about guns in their home. Local governments are banned from enacting their own gun-control laws.


<HR class=hr-promo><HR class=hr-promo>

All because of Hammer.

She earned $300,000 from her jobs at the NRA and a group she founded, the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, in 2010. Given her track record, I would guess they consider her worth every penny.

In 2004, the NRA even started giving out an annual award called the Marion P. Hammer Woman of Distinction.

Hammer wouldn't talk with me about ALEC or how Florida's "stand your ground" law became the group's national model.

She said only, "The reason it became a model for the nation was because it was the right thing to do."

But, for once, it seems fewer and fewer people are agreeing with her, now that the law is being blamed for the injustice that has followed Trayvon's death.

Perhaps Florida will fix its Frankenstein.
 

The George Zimmerman Legal Defense Fund


It's been one week since President Barack Obama commented on the killing of Trayvon Martin and law enforcement's decision not to arrest George Zimmerman. Another way to put it: This has been the week of the Zimmerman fightback, the rising up of people who think the guy's getting railroaded.

One example: The gun rights advocates of Legal Boom. The four concealed-carry advocates who run the organization have, up to now, used it to pressure localities and towns to drop their gun bans. Yesterday they posted a long explanation of why Zimmerman might have acted within the law, and announced a new project: A legal defense fund.

Legalboom.org is officially accepting donations to help Zimmerman through what is undoubtebly the hardest time in his life and for his legal defense. If you feel this article has changed your views or you already had this inclination please show your support!




 
<IFRAME SRC="http://legalboom.org/blog/" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://legalboom.org/blog/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
source: Orlando Sentinel


Florida is a laboratory for the NRA. The place where it tests the formula for a gun-toting utopia.

The "stand your ground" law that has come under attack in the weeks since Trayvon Martin's death is a National Rifle Association experiment gone awry.

It's Florida's Frankenstein.

1fPcZc.SlMa.91.jpg
 
Regardless of the Zimmerman/Martin case I am for the stand your ground law. Because technically if I am in my yard or in my car I would have to have a right to defend myself. Under the old law I would have a 'duty' to retreat. Which means I would have to try to get away before I could defend myself using deadly force. If I am minding my business and someone comes to harm me then I could go to jail for defending myself. Most of this outrage comes from how the law is interpreted and applied. I think they need to clarify the law more.
 
Regardless of the Zimmerman/Martin case I am for the stand your ground law. Because technically if I am in my yard or in my car I would have to have a right to defend myself. Under the old law I would have a 'duty' to retreat. Which means I would have to try to get away before I could defend myself using deadly force. If I am minding my business and someone comes to harm me then I could go to jail for defending myself. Most of this outrage comes from how the law is interpreted and applied. I think they need to clarify the law more.

I hope you're white, or you don't kill a white.

Otherwise, you're about to get an education on who "stand your ground" is designed to protect. Hint: If you're not white, forget it.
 
This beef with using Trayvon Martin's murder to attack armed self defense laws are nothing but a red herring by gun grabbers. You can't pick a fight and then claim self defense, which is what Zimmerman did. It's got absolutely nothing to do with Stand your Ground laws. What's hilarious is that many of those who bemoan the right for those to defend themselves are often the first to bitch about the police.

But what's most ironic is that when something goes wrong around us, one of the first thing we do is call people with guns.

Go figure.
 
This beef with using Trayvon Martin's murder to attack armed self defense laws are nothing but a red herring by gun grabbers.

Not sure who or what gun grabbers are . . .


You can't pick a fight and then claim self defense, which is what Zimmerman did. It's got absolutely nothing to do with Stand your Ground laws.
I would agree, in theory, that you can't pick a fight and then claim self defense. But, that does appear to be the law in Florida. Again, I don't know who the "gun grabbers" are, but it was the Sanford, Florida Police Department and the Seminole County District Attorney (gun grabbers ???) who determined that you can pick a fight and claim self defense when the person pursued, fights back.



What's hilarious is that many of those who bemoan the right for those to defend themselves are often the first to bitch about the police.
C'mon Bruh; is the need (if not the right) to be safe from idiots claiming self defense - and - the right to be safe from abusive law enforcement mutually exclusive or somehow contradictory :confused:
 

For anyone who cares to read, study, etc., (a lot of people are talking about it but most have never read it) herewith is the Florida "Justifiable use of Force" statute embodying the "stand your ground" principles:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.​
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.​
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.​
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.​


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Section 3 in bold red above contains the "Stand Your Ground" provisions.

 
Not sure who or what gun grabbers are . . .

It's an euphamism for those who srongly disagree with the notion that private citizens should be able to arm themselves.

I would agree, in theory, that you can't pick a fight and then claim self defense. But, that does appear to be the law in Florida. Again, I don't know who the "gun grabbers" are, but it was the Sanford, Florida Police Department and the Seminole County District Attorney (gun grabbers ???) who determined that you can pick a fight and claim self defense when the person pursued, fights back.

The situation appears to be a coverup by a politically connected guy (Zimmerman, whose father is/was a judge), and at the very least, overly sympathetic law enforcement . And not all of them were, as the lead investegator wanted to arrest Zimmerman at the scene, but was overruled. Also, I would contend, and the District Attorney does too, that he was not acting lawfully. That is made clear in light of the phone call, which shows him disobeying clear direction from the operator on a couple of occasions to break off his pursuit. At that point, he is no longer acting lawfully. Also, instigation of contact is not lawful. You know that.

C'mon Bruh; is the need (if not the right) to be safe from idiots claiming self defense - and - the right to be safe from abusive law enforcement mutually exclusive or somehow contradictory

No it isn't. But to think that law enforcers are magically more proficient in the use of firearms, while also thinking that private individuals are less proficient, is inconsistent.
 
This beef with using Trayvon Martin's murder to attack armed self defense laws are nothing but a red herring by gun grabbers. You can't pick a fight and then claim self defense, which is what Zimmerman did. It's got absolutely nothing to do with Stand your Ground laws. What's hilarious is that many of those who bemoan the right for those to defend themselves are often the first to bitch about the police.

But what's most ironic is that when something goes wrong around us, one of the first thing we do is call people with guns.

Go figure.


To make your point more honest, we call people with authority, most of whom carry guns. We don't just call random assholes with pistols.
This has everything to do with the SYG laws. Florida already had self defense laws on the books, as do probably every state. No one is going after those.
 
This beef with using Trayvon Martin's murder to attack armed self defense laws are nothing but a red herring by gun grabbers. You can't pick a fight and then claim self defense, which is what Zimmerman did. It's got absolutely nothing to do with Stand your Ground laws. What's hilarious is that many of those who bemoan the right for those to defend themselves are often the first to bitch about the police.

But what's most ironic is that when something goes wrong around us, one of the first thing we do is call people with guns.

Go figure.

Despite what society would have us believe, we are not that civilized. Force is the final arbiter more often than should be the case.
 
A bit of a contradiction, no ? ? ?

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.



?? What is reasonable? If you listen to the news reports what Zimmerman did was not reasonable. At least to me.....

Also the first 10 words is what get a lot black people arrested.
 
Last edited:
instead of fighting this law, why not promote legal minority gun ownership?

So what the NRA is using this, YOU CAN STILL ARM YOURSELF.

This whole debate is stupid. We really need to focus on the task at hand. Teaching our youth to always use common sense, and be aware of your surroundings at all times.
 
instead of fighting this law, why not promote legal minority gun ownership?

So what the NRA is using this, YOU CAN STILL ARM YOURSELF.

This whole debate is stupid. We really need to focus on the task at hand. Teaching our youth to always use common sense, and be aware of your surroundings at all times.


GABRIELLE-GIFFORDS-PHOTO.jpg

"Spoken like a true wing nut!"
 
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.



?? What is reasonable? If you listen to the news reports what Zimmerman did was not reasonable. At least to me.....

Also the first 10 words is what get a lot black people arrested.


Excellent question (What is reasonable?). What is a "Reasonable Belief" goes to the heart of the question and analysis of the Florida statute. When I get a chance to ponder/research that one, I intend to provide, hopefully, some clarity. Busy lately - but I wanted to let you know that I wasn't ignoring your response.
 
instead of fighting this law, why not promote legal minority gun ownership?

So what the NRA is using this, YOU CAN STILL ARM YOURSELF.

This whole debate is stupid. We really need to focus on the task at hand. Teaching our youth to always use common sense, and be aware of your surroundings at all times.

You seem to omit a very important point, one even argued by the NRA itself, i.e., guns don't kill people (though I tend to disagree), people do. Hence, by focusing on the authority self-defense statutes convey upon people to use guns, you're focusing on, perhaps, "A" root cause of the problem.

Sticking your head in the sand, calling for more guns when the authority to use those guns may be flawed is actinanassinine. :hmm: wouldn't you say ???
 
This whole debate is stupid. We really need to focus on the task at hand. Teaching our youth to always use common sense, and be aware of your surroundings at all times.

Wait, what?

So you assume Martin's parents didn't teach him that? You assume most of us don't teach our children that?
 
Wait, what?

So you assume Martin's parents didn't teach him that? You assume most of us don't teach our children that?


Come on UGD, cut AAA some slack. Trayvon's parents never taught him the common sense (a term when used with AAA is an oxymoron) to not walk around with concealed Skittles. Next thing your going to hear out of AAA is that when a white person is passing on the sidewalk, a Black person must step off of the sidewalk and let the white pass!
 
You seem to omit a very important point, one even argued by the NRA itself, i.e., guns don't kill people (though I tend to disagree), people do. Hence, by focusing on the authority self-defense statutes convey upon people to use guns, you're focusing on, perhaps, "A" root cause of the problem.

Sticking your head in the sand, calling for more guns when the authority to use those guns may be flawed is actinanassinine. :hmm: wouldn't you say ???

Nothing is asinine about being able to defend yourself, and knowing the law of your state.


Wait, what?

So you assume Martin's parents didn't teach him that? You assume most of us don't teach our children that?

I'm not assuming anything about the Trayvon situation. I'm talking about making this a teachable moment for our youth.
 
Come on UGD, cut AAA some slack. Trayvon's parents never taught him the common sense (a term when used with AAA is an oxymoron) to not walk around with concealed Skittles. Next thing your going to hear out of AAA is that when a white person is passing on the sidewalk, a Black person must step off of the sidewalk and let the white pass!

that fuck?

First of all, I've stated plenty of times about this situation. One of my statements were that Trayvon should of got off the phone with his girl, and call the police. Also, to NOT stop moving when someone is following you.

It's funny how you try to characterize me as whatever you think a typical black republican should be. Especially when I'm advocating for my people *the black community* to become gun owners legally. In fact, everything I state is to help OUR community.

Why does my existence on this board bothers you so much?
 
that fuck?

First of all, I've stated plenty of times about this situation. One of my statements were that Trayvon should of got off the phone with his girl, and call the police. Also, to NOT stop moving when someone is following you.

It's funny how you try to characterize me as whatever you think a typical black republican should be. Especially when I'm advocating for my people *the black community* to become gun owners legally. In fact, everything I state is to help OUR community.

Why does my existence on this board bothers you so much?

First of all, I've stated plenty of times about this situation. One of my statements were that Trayvon should of got off the phone with his girl, and call the police. Also, to NOT stop moving when someone is following you.

Yea, you're right. Stand your ground was designed for innocent people, minding their own business, not to get killed because they didn't call the police on their cell phone (if they even had a cell phone), when they are being stalked by a racist, profiling vigilantes. Next thing you'll say is she was asking to get raped, because her ass bounced too much when she walked.


It's funny how you try to characterize me as whatever you think a typical black republican should be.

AAA, I only know you from what you write.

I'm advocating for my people *the black community* to become gun owners legally.

We don't need any more advocating for Black folk to own guns. It's a choice. The bad thing is, you don't know that your type is being used to aide in the killing of our people. Those guns you advocate for are not being used to kill anyone but your so called own people.
 
Last edited:
Yea, you're right. Stand your ground was designed for innocent people, minding their own business, not to get killed because they didn't call the police on their cell phone (if they even had a cell phone), when they are being stalked by a racist, profiling vigilantes. Next thing you'll say is she was asking to get raped, because her ass bounced too much when she walked.




AAA, I only know you from what you write.



We don't need any more advocating for Black folk to own guns. It's a choice. The bad thing is, you don't know that your type is being used to aide in the killing of our people. Those guns you advocate for are not being used to kill anyone but your so called own people.

Thus, why this case has nothing to do with the Stand Your Ground law. Everything went out the window when Zimmerman fuck ass got out of his truck, and disobey a law official. Zimmerman deserves whatever he gets because he thought he was as big as the law. You can't stand your ground if you're assaulting on someone's ground.

All this "well he beat me up" bullshit is nullify once that fuck ass dude decide he needs to play cop. That alone should at least give him manslaughter. Now, I'm not going to say the dude is racist, or whatever. Honestly, it really doesn't matter at this point. Zimmerman just needs to go through a trial.

Thank you for side swiping Que's point. It is a choice. All I'm advocating is doing it legally, and understanding the law of the land. Right now, since you obviously don't know, if you go to a gun range you will find a gun range that's 80% white. They hunt religiously. Not to mention, they have a lot of guns. I have white friends that have a whole room full of guns. I'm talking about four walls, all rifles/shotguns/assault rifles. These dudes are ready for war at any given time. So, why we can't advocate legal gun ownership again?

Like Ice Cube says "they banned the AK, it wasn't registered any fucking way".

The best Gun control is to have every legal, mentally fit person own a weapon. More registered guns, the less needless murders.

If you don't believe me, look up Chicago murder rate, and then look at Dallas's.
 
Thus, why this case has nothing to do with the Stand Your Ground law.

You can't stand your ground if you're assaulting on someone's ground.
HUH ? ? ?


The best Gun control is to have every legal, mentally fit person own a weapon. More registered guns, the less needless murders.

Produce the statistical evidence that supports this allegation. AND, what are "needless murders" ? ? ?
 
HUH ? ? ?




Produce the statistical evidence that supports this allegation. AND, what are "needless murders" ? ? ?

1. If I'm pursuing you, I can't use self-defense.

2.

this article will answer that question.

HTML:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0794c.asp
 
HUH ? ? ?




Produce the statistical evidence that supports this allegation. AND, what are "needless murders" ? ? ?


He dosen't know what statistical evidence is.

The best Gun control is to have every legal, mentally fit person own a weapon. More registered guns, the less needless murders.



If you don't believe me, look up Chicago murder rate, and then look at Dallas's.



<iframe src="http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=05cfdff7" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
 
1. If I'm pursuing you, I can't use self-defense.

What if you're pursing the purse snatcher who, unbeknownst to you, is armed with a handgun. You catch up with the thief, he pulls the gun, but you pull yours and get off the shot that allows you to post the questionable statement above ???


2.

this article will answer that question.

HTML:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0794c.asp

How about pointing out the specific part of the article that you're referring to. I'm sure you wold agree, I could read the entire article and not have a clue which part you're relying on.
 
I'm not assuming anything about the Trayvon situation. I'm talking about making this a teachable moment for our youth.

Honestly, damn all that. It's past time for White folks to absorb some teachable moments and this is one for them. Stop suspecting every Black youth you see minding their own business and you won't have an innocent death on your hands and people villifying your name.
I'm not teaching my son to carry someone else's racist on his back.
 
Honestly, damn all that. It's past time for White folks to absorb some teachable moments and this is one for them. Stop suspecting every Black youth you see minding their own business and you won't have an innocent death on your hands and people villifying your name.
I'm not teaching my son to carry someone else's racist on his back.

But come on Dave, this shit is just wayyy beyond white folks. Most black folks or any type of folks, Asian, whatever, if they see some black dude walking around in their backyard they're going to start imagining he's up to no good. I live in a middle to upper class liberal neighborhood where the population is mostly educated blacks and educated whites. Unfortunately, 99% of the muggings and thefts that occur are performed by black dudes coming from other nearby neighborhoods. Because of this, blacks and whites alike get a little paranoid when they see hip hop styled black youth walking around the neighborhood. Is this right? I don't know. I'm just pointing out that these Trayvon-type problems go beyond just the white perception of blacks in America.
 
But come on Dave, this shit is just wayyy beyond white folks. Most black folks or any type of folks, Asian, whatever, if they see some black dude walking around in their backyard they're going to start imagining he's up to no good. I live in a middle to upper class liberal neighborhood where the population is mostly educated blacks and educated whites. Unfortunately, 99% of the muggings and thefts that occur are performed by black dudes coming from other nearby neighborhoods. Because of this, blacks and whites alike get a little paranoid when they see hip hop styled black youth walking around the neighborhood. Is this right? I don't know. I'm just pointing out that these Trayvon-type problems go beyond just the white perception of blacks in America.

No it doesn't. Other cultures come here and pick up the cues from the dominant culture.

What do you mean you don't know if it's right? No, it's not. It is that simple.

If you, no matter what your ethnicity, see me or my son or brothers or friend or any Black man and just assume he's up to no good, that's not my problem and I'm not going to make it my problem. That person needs to get their shit together.
 
No it doesn't. Other cultures come here and pick up the cues from the dominant culture.
What do you mean you don't know if it's right? No, it's not. It is that simple.

If you, no matter what your ethnicity, see me or my son or brothers or friend or any Black man and just assume he's up to no good, that's not my problem and I'm not going to make it my problem. That person needs to get their shit together.

Exactly, once these other cultures pick it up, the shit goes beyond just white folks. Actually, there are other cultures here that have been here long enough to not have to pick up cues from anyone else. Yet, they racially profile just the same.

Actually, it's pretty bad but I can't think of any culture or race that doesn't racially profile blacks negatively and that includes blacks too. This is way beyond just a white folk problem.
 
Exactly, once these other cultures pick it up, the shit goes beyond just white folks. Actually, there are other cultures here that have been here long enough to not have to pick up cues from anyone else. Yet, they racially profile just the same.

Actually, it's pretty bad but I can't think of any culture or race that doesn't racially profile blacks negatively and that includes blacks too. This is way beyond just a white folk problem.


Agreed but that's where it starts and that's where it could end. I don't blame the fruit, I blame the roots.
I simply reject the notion that we should try to conform to something that doesn't exist. It's not clothes that makes them uncomfortable. It's not how you walk or talk or what music you listen. It's your skin color. That's it.

And don't go thinking just because you got that fine ass chocolate woman in your sig, I'm going to start agreeing with you a lot.



I think. :D
 
Agreed but that's where it starts and that's where it could end. I don't blame the fruit, I blame the roots.
I simply reject the notion that we should try to conform to something that doesn't exist. It's not clothes that makes them uncomfortable. It's not how you walk or talk or what music you listen. It's your skin color. That's it.

And don't go thinking just because you got that fine ass chocolate woman in your sig, I'm going to start agreeing with you a lot.



I think. :D

haha. Man, she is fucking delicious looking, isn't she? She is from Colon, Panama. I can stare at her all day.
 
Back
Top