Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Police Militarization Ramping Up

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Police Militarization Ramping Up
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://nypost.com/2015/01/30/nypd-to-launch-a-beefed-up-counterterrorism-squad/

This article describes how the NYPD, an already notoriously aggressive, powerful and well-armed police force is being given a mandate to form a unit of officers (I've read that it's to be between 350 and 1,000 officers) whose job it will be to double as a counter-terrorism unit and a unit designed to "handle protests". Think for two seconds about which of the two has been happening in NYC anytime recently between terrorism and protests. Hmmm. We can conclude pretty confidently that this will be a fully military-style anti-protest unit armed with machine guns and well-armed vehicles. KidTokyo watch out.

quote:
The NYPD will launch a unit of 350 cops to handle both counterterrorism and protests — riding vehicles equipped with machine guns and riot gear — under a re-engineering plan to be rolled out over the coming months.

The Strategic Response Group, or SRG, will be devoted to “advanced disorder control and counterterrorism protection,” responding to the sort of demonstrations that erupted after the Eric Garner grand jury decision and also events like the recent Paris terror attacks.

For those somewhat unfamiliar with the NYPD's status as a small army, here's a comment from the horse's mouth:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/mayor-michael-bloomberg-d_n_1120906.html

So although body cams may become a thing in the near future, it seems that recent events have not made a dent in the trend towards police departments becoming full-blown citizen suppression units.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As an update to this story, a huge backlash against this plan has resulted in the NYPD chief folding and saying that the strategic unit will no longer have any intent to be used in demonstrations, and will only be used for terror-related events.

My questions, though, are:

1) Will the NYPD label a more severe type of demonstration (such as a riot) as 'terrorism' and deploy the military unit to deal with them?

2) In the case of a serious but non-violent type of demonstration, will the NYPD plant agents to make trouble and set off terror false alarms (e.g. "Someone in the crowd of demonstrators might have a bomb!") so that the unit can be deployed?

Overall I think even the existence of a quasi-military unit being used by a local police department is a serious problem, regardless of what they claim it will be used for.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have heard of this agent provocateur meme espoused by Tom and others, yet thus far I have not seen any proof of same.

Not speaking rhetorically, but merely curious: do you have any such proof that this tactic has been used recently by police?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/oakland-police-points-gun-protesters_n_6312200.html
These two were exposed as cops because they were being considerably more violent and aggressive than the crowd they had infiltrated.

You keep acting like this is some unusual thing, jason, but I think you'll find that it is actually par for the course with any large protest movement; anyone who has actually been involved in a protest movement will tell you the same, to the extent that any white guy in his late twenties who shows up and seems to be more inclined towards crime and violence than the rest of the crowd is almost always suspected of being a cop.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And the narrative continues on a different but related topic:

http://thelibertybeat.com/nypd-commish-bratton-seeks-to-make-resisting-arrest-a-felony/

quote:
“We need to get around this idea that you can resist arrest,” Bratton testified, “You can’t. You just can’t do it. (It) results in potential injury to the officers, to the suspect, and we need to change that. One of the ways to change that is start giving penalties for that.”
Right. Because so many people forcibly resist arrest already, like Eric Garner did.

In short, the NYPD are hoping to:

a) Create a paramilitary force to use 'only against terrorists'.
b) Be able to slap a felony charge on anyone the police rough up, don't like, or (if the cop is a racist) who are part of a visible minority.

We'll see if the NY state senate goes along with it or not...

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
These two were exposed as cops because they were being considerably more violent and aggressive than the crowd they had infiltrated.
Tom, nowhere in the article you linked does it mention the cops being "considerably more violent and aggressive" than the crowd, nor are you even defining what these terms mean.

The fact that cops go undercover in protests is hardly surprising nor even disturbing - it's perfectly legal and should be uncontroversial (they have as much right to march in public as anyone else)

So again, in reference to Fenring's statement:
quote:
will the NYPD plant agents to make trouble
which I assume refers to the agent provocateur question, do you or Fenring have any proof that any police force (such as the NYPD) has actually gone out and instigated riots or encouraged violence directly in any recent (or any) event?

If this tactic is indeed common, in the age of smartphones, I would think by now someone would have a video of someone yelling "burn it down" (or equivalent conduct) who later can be indisputably verified to be a cop. So where's the proof?

[ February 08, 2015, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
US courts already treat failure to grovel during the arrest process as a felony, euphemistically called resisting arrest.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and a good number of US states also make it a felony to record Police without their permission, + such recordings are suppressed in court...
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
so Jason subjection about lack of recordings Providing Proof, is reminiscent of the People's Republic of China providing prisoners rights if only iF Forms Are filled with a pen color not available in prison
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom, nowhere in the article you linked does it mention the cops being "considerably more violent and aggressive" than the crowd
Sorry! I thought you'd do your own digging. If you Google around to find out what exposed them as cops, you'll find that one of the guys in particular kept urging the crowd to violence and they got sick of telling him to cool it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sorry! I thought you'd do your own digging.
Well I guess I could. But in the time it took for you to post a non helpful link, then for me to read it, scratch my head and respond, and then for you to write your latest post, you probably could have posted the actual evidence yourself. More efficient.

quote:
so Jason subjection about lack of recordings Providing Proof, is reminiscent of the People's Republic of China providing prisoners rights if only iF Forms Are filled with a pen color not available in prison
Yes, that's exactly what I was going for.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if there was no proof the police ever did such a thing before (which on ground of commons sense I don't believe), the mere possibility of it is already unacceptable. What I mean by this is that the ability to simply declare a situation 'terror' or 'a terror threat' or 'so disorderly it's a threat to local security' means that with the standing military unit the NYPD will be looking for excuses to use it. Why? Because that's what powerful bureaucracies do, they want to use the powers and the implements that they have in order to justify having them.

"Yeah we ordered this unit, but we've never had to use it, thank god! Ha! Ha! I guess the money was wasted, but better safe than sorry!" is a phrase you'll never hear a police or defence department use.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Although this article is only tangentially related to police militarization, I thought I'd include it in this thread:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/8/sughed-michael-bloomberg-suggests-disarming-minori/#.VNi4eXugHjA.twitter

quote:
While speaking at the Aspen Institute, Mr. Bloomberg, 72, said 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: a male minority between the ages of 15 and 25, The Aspen Times reported.

Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, the former three-term mayor said, according to The Times.

So basically in tandem with police being more heavily armed, Bloomberg feels that 'for their own good' minorities (especially young men) should have cities take away their gun 'for their own good.' While the merits or lack thereof of young people being armed is a separate and interesting conversation, that has no bearing on only disarming select segments of the population based on whom the city doesn't trust. Is such a proposal even constitutional?

Cities and municipalities have a funny habit of acting as if they can pass whatever ordnances they want, and only desist when they are forced to by a suit. In this case I hope it doesn't come to that.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What I mean by this is that the ability to simply declare a situation 'terror' or 'a terror threat' or 'so disorderly it's a threat to local security' means that with the standing military unit the NYPD will be looking for excuses to use it. Why? Because that's what powerful bureaucracies do, they want to use the powers and the implements that they have in order to justify having them.
I seem to have hijacked your thread into a tangential issue. What I was referring to specifically was police infiltrating protests for express purpose of encouraging (or even perpetrating) violence in order to discredit the cause or justify violent crackdown.

I did Google agent provocateur. The Wikipedia page was not terribly helpful. It would be helpful if we had more than allegations and supposition and actual proof. The proof would be pretty easy to get - You video someone fomenting violence and then later identify that person conclusively as a Cop.

With smartphone cameras, this would be pretty easy and I would expect it to have happened already by accident if the tactic was common.

[ February 09, 2015, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
so Jason subjection about lack of recordings providing proof, is reminiscent of the People's Republic of China providing prisoners rights if only if forms Are filled with a pen color not available in prison
Yes, that's exactly what I was going for.
I'll try to be more clear, since you have obviously misunderstood me:

quote:
which I assume refers to the agent provocateur question, do you or Fenring have any proof that any police force (such as the NYPD) has actually gone out and instigated riots or encouraged violence directly in any recent (or any) event?

If this tactic is indeed common, in the age of smartphones, I would think by now someone would have a video of someone yelling "burn it down" (or equivalent conduct) who later can be indisputably verified to be a cop. So where's the proof?

My argument is that the increase of cops prosecuting citizens for recording busts, is itself evidence of foul play and an intent to continue to play foully.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site

Yeah, the police are totally under control. In fairness to them, they're only following the example set by the Federal government, so perhaps we should think of local police forces like children who look up to a drug-addled parent.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interestingly enough the organization that took the video of Bloomberg being racist and saying minorities shouldn't be allowed to have guns has been ordered by Bloomberg not to release the video.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site

Yeah, the police are totally under control. In fairness to them, they're only following the example set by the Federal government, so perhaps we should think of local police forces like children who look up to a drug-addled parent.

From the police force that is still paying Jon Burge a pension.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/13/nypd_wikipedia_edits_eric_garner_sean_bell_amadou_diallo.html

LOL.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In this disturbing ruling a federal judge ruled that the 3rd Amendment does not apply to police despite the fact that the line between soldier and police officer is blurring now more than ever with technology, tactics, training and deployment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is this the part that you are refering to as disturbing?

"This reasoning is very plausible and quite possibly correct. But it may too readily conclude that “municipal police” can never be considered soldiers for purposes of the Amendment."

To me the situation doesn't seem very relevent to 3A but the reason given to dismiss it, could, I suppose, cause issues later.

[ April 09, 2015, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Describe to me what a soldier is.

Describe to me what a police officer is.

Now go back 10-20 years and do the same.

They have changed and are continuing to change. What happens when they become almost the same thing?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So that's a no?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd be more worried if the court said "yes, the police are soldiers." Even if it was just for the purpose of applying the 3rd, it seems like it would set an unpleasant precedence. The response to the militarization of police should not be "they're almost soldiers so we'll just say they are."
quote:
What happens when they become almost the same thing?
Bloody revolution, most likely.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/28/man-calls-suicide-line-police-kill-him.html

This article describes the police responding to a non-9-11 call about a boy threatening suicide with a knife. The police came armed with heavy weaponry, saw the boy in bed with a knife, and shortly thereafter shot him without trying to talk him down or to use tasers.

quote:
In a phone interview with Commander Chuck Mulligan of the St. Johns County Sheriff's Office, The Daily Beast asked if it was standard procedure to bring assault rifles, but not mental-health professionals, to a scene where someone is suicidal.

“If the deputies feel that that is the appropriate weapon system to use, then yes,” said Mulligan.

This was neither a no-knock raid, nor a street event or random car stop gone awry - this was someone who actually contacted the authorities for help with a suicidal person, and the police solution was the help him "commit suicide by cop", as the expression goes. Except the family believes he didn't want to die.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The really unusual thing about that case is that it happened in a wealthy area. I couldn't tell you about the exact apartment complex, but that part of the county is where the rich people live.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Though it's rare, I'll go on record saying Obama is finally doing something right for a change.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-cracking-down-militarization-local-police-n360381

The feds will no longer be providing heavy weaponry to police departments. A lot of it went out already, but at least the supply will dry up.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?_r=0

This is the first I've heard of it, but apparently there are 'specialists' in the U.S. who are training thousands of police officers to "shoot first and ask questions later." One such group of specialists, featured in the article, is the Force Science Institute. Here is a snippet of what they endorse:

quote:

A black motorist, pulled to the side of the road for a turn-signal violation, had stuffed his hand into his pocket. The white officer yelled for him to take it out. When the driver started to comply, the officer shot him dead.

The driver was unarmed.

Taking the stand at a public inquest, William J. Lewinski, the psychology professor, explained that the officer had no choice but to act.

“In simple terms,” the district attorney in Portland, Ore., asked, “if I see the gun, I’m dead?”

“In simple terms, that’s it,” Dr. Lewinski replied.

It seems that this is being taught to officers as the necessary way to deal with people. The article looks at each side of the issue, including how officers can sometimes be at a tactical disadvantage and have to act quickly. But Dr. Lewinski doesn't only train officers, he is paid as an expert witness defending officers in trials:

quote:
Inattentional Blindness

Such gaps in observation and memory, he says, can be explained by a phenomenon called inattentional blindness, in which the brain is so focused on one task that it blocks out everything else. When an officer’s version of events is disproved by video or forensic evidence, Dr. Lewinski says, inattentional blindness may be to blame. It is human nature, he says, to try to fill in the blanks.

“Whenever the cop says something that’s helpful, it’s as good as gold,” said Mr. Burton, the California lawyer. “But when a cop says something that’s inconvenient, it’s a result of this memory loss.”

This is, no doubt, standard strategy when defending someone no matter who the accused is. But when the person in court suggesting the officer can't remember incriminating details is the same person who trained the officer to shoot first and ask questions later, now we get into something deeper than merely offering the best defence of a client. And the accused officers (or their departments) are certainly clients:

quote:
Dr. Lewinski, 70, is affable and confident in his research, but not so polished as to sound like a salesman. In testimony on the stand, for which he charges nearly $1,000 an hour, he offers winding answers to questions and seldom appears flustered.
quote:
In 2012, for example, just seven months after the Justice Department excoriated him and his methods, department officials paid him $55,000 to help defend a federal drug agent who shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old in California. Then last year, as part of a settlement over excessive force in the Seattle Police Department, the Justice Department endorsed sending officers to Mr. Lewinski for training. And in January, he was paid $15,000 to train federal marshals.
So the payment comes both from training the officers and then from telling the court that the officers acted appropriately after the training. While we shouldn't be surprised that Dr. Lewinski should agree with his own methods, it seems strange indeed to consider a few possible angles, one of which is that Lewinski has a guaranteed money-making machine: First endorse over-aggressive methods, and then be guaranteed to be called into court to defend the officers who follow your training, to the tune of $1,000 an hour.

Specialists like Dr. Lewinski can be an important force for change in the relationship between police and citizens, so presumably we should be interested to observe their credentials to see if they really have some special insight:

quote:
Dr. Lewinski, who grew up in Canada, got his doctorate in 1988 from the Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, an accredited but alternative Cincinnati school offering accelerated programs and flexible schedules. He designed his curriculum and named his program police psychology, a specialty not available elsewhere.
Apparently he made up his own program, didn't go through a supervised specialist training but just took whatever classes he wanted, and then made up his own name for what his program would be called. And this is the expert used to train thousands of officers and then to appear in court testifying to "scientific" facts about shootings. I find the whole thing depressing.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I have heard of this agent provocateur meme espoused by Tom and others, yet thus far I have not seen any proof of same.

Not speaking rhetorically, but merely curious: do you have any such proof that this tactic has been used recently by police?

Jasonr, they don't have any real proof, they have a lot of blogs they've read and innuendo. We actually debated this for days on the CIA versus the Bush Administration thread (including pretty much debunking the evidence Tom puts forward on the topic), but you're free to judge for yourself. CIA versus the Bush Administration Thread

I started probing the question on page 1 of that thread and it went on for some time.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some of the testimony they used from Dr. Lewinski makes sense. There is a big difference between explaining why a mistake happens and excusing an action as justified though.

Without knowing what they are teaching, the implication that he's somehow creating his own further clients in the court room doesn't hold. The author did capture how the public can be outraged yet juries still acquit.
quote:
Taking the stand at a public inquest, William J. Lewinski, the psychology professor, explained that the officer had no choice but to act.
“In simple terms,” the district attorney in Portland, Ore., asked, “if I see the gun, I’m dead?”
“In simple terms, that’s it,” Dr. Lewinski replied.

That’s all we have to go on. Testimony not curriculum.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We actually debated this for days on the CIA versus the Bush Administration thread (including pretty much debunking the evidence Tom puts forward on the topic)
I'm curious: where do you think anything I said was "debunked?" Which specific items do you think did so?

I will freely grant that you are not going to believe that law enforcement is regularly engaging in agent provocateur stuff because it doesn't fit with your worldview, but I think there's plenty of non-debunked evidence that strongly suggests that they are, and don't recall any of that evidence being contradicted.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1