<span style="color: #FF0000"> </span> What's you thoughts on this?
Maggie’s Policing for Profit
- Thread starter Rarebreed93
- Start date
Re: Policing for Profit
Well I think it's the way to go. Clearly only those who can afford to pay the police should get police services. I mean why should the poor get any services it's not like they are citizens or anything. Some might call this 'policing for profit' a form of corruption but I think it's actually the wave of the future. I hope that in the near future we (we being those of us elite types that can afford to buy cops) will be able to simply pay the cops to haul off our rivals or people we deem to be unworthy of being in my presence/breathing my air...
Well I think it's the way to go. Clearly only those who can afford to pay the police should get police services. I mean why should the poor get any services it's not like they are citizens or anything. Some might call this 'policing for profit' a form of corruption but I think it's actually the wave of the future. I hope that in the near future we (we being those of us elite types that can afford to buy cops) will be able to simply pay the cops to haul off our rivals or people we deem to be unworthy of being in my presence/breathing my air...
Re: Policing for Profit
Isn't this a violation of civil rights?
Isn't this a violation of civil rights?
Re: Policing for Profit
Juat a bunch of scum bag cops,DA's,lawyers and judges. Liken to a GA. yankee trap but much worse. And it seems like the US DoJ is sitting on there ass doing nothing about it. I'm waiting for the cops to start shooting each other.MM
Juat a bunch of scum bag cops,DA's,lawyers and judges. Liken to a GA. yankee trap but much worse. And it seems like the US DoJ is sitting on there ass doing nothing about it. I'm waiting for the cops to start shooting each other.MM
Re: Policing for Profit
This does not pass the sniff test.......
This does not pass the sniff test.......
Re: Policing for Profit
How the fuck do they think that their "state initiative" supersedes the 4th amendment? There is a lot of spin in that video, but the premise is certainly unsettling...
Though who wouldn't file a claim to get it back if you didn't get charged with anything? That's idiotic, and is a red flag in itself.
How the fuck do they think that their "state initiative" supersedes the 4th amendment? There is a lot of spin in that video, but the premise is certainly unsettling...
Though who wouldn't file a claim to get it back if you didn't get charged with anything? That's idiotic, and is a red flag in itself.
Re: Policing for Profit
Because their salaries and ridiculous pension/healthcare benefits just aren't enough, they have to take the money that's literally in your pocket.
Yeah, I see the rot isn't being contained to good ol' California...
Because their salaries and ridiculous pension/healthcare benefits just aren't enough, they have to take the money that's literally in your pocket.
Yeah, I see the rot isn't being contained to good ol' California...
Re: Policing for Profit
EventHorizon said:
Re: Policing for Profit
Oh my what a slippery slope we are on.
Only criminals carry large sums of cash? So if I start raiding known crack houses in my area and seizing money it will be OK?
How does my salary equate into what I justified to steal?
Oh my what a slippery slope we are on.
Only criminals carry large sums of cash? So if I start raiding known crack houses in my area and seizing money it will be OK?
How does my salary equate into what I justified to steal?
Re: Policing for Profit
I didnt mean that since i made very little it was ok to steal anything. I was just saying not all leo's make good money.
Have you ever met a legimate person who wraps their 596k worth of cash in celophane and axel grease and packs it in a hidden compartment between the frame rails on a vehicle, and then claim bno knowledge of it?
I didnt mean that since i made very little it was ok to steal anything. I was just saying not all leo's make good money.
Have you ever met a legimate person who wraps their 596k worth of cash in celophane and axel grease and packs it in a hidden compartment between the frame rails on a vehicle, and then claim bno knowledge of it?
Re: Policing for Profit
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HSNARC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didnt mean that since i made very little it was ok to steal anything. I was just saying not all leo's make good money.
Have you ever met a legimate person who wraps their 596k worth of cash in celophane and axel grease and packs it in a hidden compartment between the frame rails on a vehicle, and then claim bno knowledge of it? </div></div>
That's not the issue really, it's the validity of their "probable cause". Sometimes people traffic money/drugs in vans, so therefore that is probable cause to stop ANY van? That's a chicken shit way of operating and IMHO a violation of the 4th amendment. The burden of proof in the system is supposed to be on the prosecution (gov.), NOT on the defendants. The real core of this is that it's hitting the "guilty until proven innocent" nerve.
Let's run with your theory for a minute... if you are carrying LEGIT cash (say it's your life savings), and they stop you, even if you do get it back it will not be until you have spent 12x the amount on legal expenses and it will take a year or more to fight it out in court. This is NOT how justice in the USA is supposed to work, but it's become increasingly accepted and that has to stop. Seizure is a fair policy when fairly administered, but that law should read that they have to be charged with the crime to have the money seized.
You can argue about the cops all you want, the REAL problem here is the corrupt administration, including that scumsucking lady DA.
BTW- that Petrosyan guy just screams Armenian Mafia to me, lol. Still, no charges filed?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HSNARC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didnt mean that since i made very little it was ok to steal anything. I was just saying not all leo's make good money.
Have you ever met a legimate person who wraps their 596k worth of cash in celophane and axel grease and packs it in a hidden compartment between the frame rails on a vehicle, and then claim bno knowledge of it? </div></div>
That's not the issue really, it's the validity of their "probable cause". Sometimes people traffic money/drugs in vans, so therefore that is probable cause to stop ANY van? That's a chicken shit way of operating and IMHO a violation of the 4th amendment. The burden of proof in the system is supposed to be on the prosecution (gov.), NOT on the defendants. The real core of this is that it's hitting the "guilty until proven innocent" nerve.
Let's run with your theory for a minute... if you are carrying LEGIT cash (say it's your life savings), and they stop you, even if you do get it back it will not be until you have spent 12x the amount on legal expenses and it will take a year or more to fight it out in court. This is NOT how justice in the USA is supposed to work, but it's become increasingly accepted and that has to stop. Seizure is a fair policy when fairly administered, but that law should read that they have to be charged with the crime to have the money seized.
You can argue about the cops all you want, the REAL problem here is the corrupt administration, including that scumsucking lady DA.
BTW- that Petrosyan guy just screams Armenian Mafia to me, lol. Still, no charges filed?
Re: Policing for Profit
I dont know if its any different in TN but here in IL when i seize anything including money, i have to prove that there was a good reason, dope in the car, Person saying that their money was from sales of dope Ect and i think the news story is missing that. Yes they just let some of those people go without charges and seize their money, but its because they wont claim it. If there is no evidence of a crime, for example if its me and im transporting my life savings and im stopped all i have to say no this is not drug money its my life savings i just took it out of the bank and there is no way an officer or anyone else could take my money.
BTW- that Petrosyan guy just screams Armenian Mafia to me, lol. Still, no charges filed?...........RACIAL PROFILING.......lol
No one i have ever met carries large (over 50k)sums of cash except for the ones involved in the drug trade.
I dont know if its any different in TN but here in IL when i seize anything including money, i have to prove that there was a good reason, dope in the car, Person saying that their money was from sales of dope Ect and i think the news story is missing that. Yes they just let some of those people go without charges and seize their money, but its because they wont claim it. If there is no evidence of a crime, for example if its me and im transporting my life savings and im stopped all i have to say no this is not drug money its my life savings i just took it out of the bank and there is no way an officer or anyone else could take my money.
BTW- that Petrosyan guy just screams Armenian Mafia to me, lol. Still, no charges filed?...........RACIAL PROFILING.......lol
No one i have ever met carries large (over 50k)sums of cash except for the ones involved in the drug trade.
Re: Policing for Profit
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HSNARC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.... Yes they just let some of those people go without charges and seize their money, but its because they wont claim it.... </div></div>
Classic.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HSNARC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.... Yes they just let some of those people go without charges and seize their money, but its because they wont claim it.... </div></div>
Classic.
Re: Policing for Profit
There still has to be probable cause to search. The 4th guarantees our right to be free of mandatory searches without probable cause.
I understand that most of it is drug money. But the cure here is worse than the crime.
We must respect the Constitution at all costs, even increased crime. The Constitution limits government power on purpose - in fact it is the point of the whole document. This search methodology is a result of wrongheaded thinking, along the lines of "you shouldn't worry about being searched if you have nothing to hide." Anyone who thinks that way isn't fit to be a DA or a police officer as they certainly don't respect the law.
Being a police officer or prosecutor would certainly be less of a challenge in a dictatorship, but then again we did fight a war to gain freedom from that. Perhaps the greater challenge will prove to be keeping that hard won freedom instead of exchanging it once small piece at a time for some "temporary security."
There still has to be probable cause to search. The 4th guarantees our right to be free of mandatory searches without probable cause.
I understand that most of it is drug money. But the cure here is worse than the crime.
We must respect the Constitution at all costs, even increased crime. The Constitution limits government power on purpose - in fact it is the point of the whole document. This search methodology is a result of wrongheaded thinking, along the lines of "you shouldn't worry about being searched if you have nothing to hide." Anyone who thinks that way isn't fit to be a DA or a police officer as they certainly don't respect the law.
Being a police officer or prosecutor would certainly be less of a challenge in a dictatorship, but then again we did fight a war to gain freedom from that. Perhaps the greater challenge will prove to be keeping that hard won freedom instead of exchanging it once small piece at a time for some "temporary security."
Re: Policing for Profit
I left LE this past February. I am fully keeping in mind the source of this story. That being said:
First and foremost, stop letting LE search your vehicle and person. That's #1. Any idiot who gives consent and relinquishes their 4th amendment right, in any circumstance, is a fucking fool. End of conversation.
Money bricks in trash bags, I admit, are very suspicious. But in the absence of a statement of admission (which any LEO worth his salt can get if it's to be had), drugs in the same general area etc., you only have a suspicious bag of money. Nothing else. Hardly a violation of any law and hardly probable cause.
Also, the voiceover dude's lisp is unforgivable.
I left LE this past February. I am fully keeping in mind the source of this story. That being said:
First and foremost, stop letting LE search your vehicle and person. That's #1. Any idiot who gives consent and relinquishes their 4th amendment right, in any circumstance, is a fucking fool. End of conversation.
Money bricks in trash bags, I admit, are very suspicious. But in the absence of a statement of admission (which any LEO worth his salt can get if it's to be had), drugs in the same general area etc., you only have a suspicious bag of money. Nothing else. Hardly a violation of any law and hardly probable cause.
Also, the voiceover dude's lisp is unforgivable.
Re: Policing for Profit
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KJMOC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
First and foremost, stop letting LE search your vehicle and person. That's #1. Any idiot who gives consent and relinquishes their 4th amendment right, in any circumstance, is a fucking fool. End of conversation.
Money bricks in trash bags, I admit, are very suspicious. But in the absence of a statement of admission (which any LEO worth his salt can get if it's to be had), drugs in the same general area etc., you only have a suspicious bag of money. Nothing else. Hardly a violation of any law and hardly probable cause.
Also, the voiceover dude's lisp is unforgivable. </div></div>
Quoted for emphasis of truth. Well said.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KJMOC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
First and foremost, stop letting LE search your vehicle and person. That's #1. Any idiot who gives consent and relinquishes their 4th amendment right, in any circumstance, is a fucking fool. End of conversation.
Money bricks in trash bags, I admit, are very suspicious. But in the absence of a statement of admission (which any LEO worth his salt can get if it's to be had), drugs in the same general area etc., you only have a suspicious bag of money. Nothing else. Hardly a violation of any law and hardly probable cause.
Also, the voiceover dude's lisp is unforgivable. </div></div>
Quoted for emphasis of truth. Well said.
Re: Policing for Profit
I didn't see any indication of 4th amendment violations at all. I didn't see any searches of vehicles without consent.
I didn't see any of the drivers saying that the officers couldn't search their vehicles.
None of the stops showed the initial basis of the stop. There is no way to determine from that slanted story whether there was PC for the stop or not.
Just because an officer searches, doesn't automatically equate to a violation of anyones rights.
Just because someone has their property seized doesn't automatically mean something illicit is occurring on the part of LE.
I'm not saying that this practice is right or should continue. I'm not saying that the officers were doing legal searches. What I'm saying is that from that story there was no way to determine the legality of any individual stop or seizure. Jumping to the conclusion that the officers were wrong is the same thing many are accusing the officers of. Seeing part of the story (money) and making leaps to judgement.
I didn't see any indication of 4th amendment violations at all. I didn't see any searches of vehicles without consent.
I didn't see any of the drivers saying that the officers couldn't search their vehicles.
None of the stops showed the initial basis of the stop. There is no way to determine from that slanted story whether there was PC for the stop or not.
Just because an officer searches, doesn't automatically equate to a violation of anyones rights.
Just because someone has their property seized doesn't automatically mean something illicit is occurring on the part of LE.
I'm not saying that this practice is right or should continue. I'm not saying that the officers were doing legal searches. What I'm saying is that from that story there was no way to determine the legality of any individual stop or seizure. Jumping to the conclusion that the officers were wrong is the same thing many are accusing the officers of. Seeing part of the story (money) and making leaps to judgement.
Re: Policing for Profit
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chuck Anderson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't see any indication of 4th amendment violations at all. I didn't see any searches of vehicles without consent.
I didn't see any of the drivers saying that the officers couldn't search their vehicles.
None of the stops showed the initial basis of the stop. There is no way to determine from that slanted story whether there was PC for the stop or not.
Just because an officer searches, doesn't automatically equate to a violation of anyones rights.
Just because someone has their property seized doesn't automatically mean something illicit is occurring on the part of LE.
I'm not saying that this practice is right or should continue. I'm not saying that the officers were doing legal searches. What I'm saying is that from that story there was no way to determine the legality of any individual stop or seizure. Jumping to the conclusion that the officers were wrong is the same thing many are accusing the officers of. Seeing part of the story (money) and making leaps to judgement. </div></div>
You're exactly right and I edited my post to reflect it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chuck Anderson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't see any indication of 4th amendment violations at all. I didn't see any searches of vehicles without consent.
I didn't see any of the drivers saying that the officers couldn't search their vehicles.
None of the stops showed the initial basis of the stop. There is no way to determine from that slanted story whether there was PC for the stop or not.
Just because an officer searches, doesn't automatically equate to a violation of anyones rights.
Just because someone has their property seized doesn't automatically mean something illicit is occurring on the part of LE.
I'm not saying that this practice is right or should continue. I'm not saying that the officers were doing legal searches. What I'm saying is that from that story there was no way to determine the legality of any individual stop or seizure. Jumping to the conclusion that the officers were wrong is the same thing many are accusing the officers of. Seeing part of the story (money) and making leaps to judgement. </div></div>
You're exactly right and I edited my post to reflect it.
Re: Policing for Profit
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chuck Anderson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't see any indication of 4th amendment violations at all. I didn't see any searches of vehicles without consent.</div></div>
...and we don't really hear any people saying "yes" either, so we are "assuming" they did consent. I will agree that the tape is missing a lot, and as I noted there is a huge "spin" at work here... it is the media, after all. I'll never understand why people consent to searches, especially if they know they got stuff to hide. Personally, I respect the police but unless you've got a warrant, we're done here. I don't have anything to hide, but i'd make them do it just out of principle.
That said, if a LE dept. or the gov. fails to press charges, I think keeping the money is chickenshit. People are afraid to claim it because they think they are being setup, and with a DA like that I wouldn't put entrapment past her. Why should the burden of ownership be on the accused? That is not how our laws were supposed to be interpreted.
I fail to see how taking something without pressing charges is NOT an unreasonable seizure, and retaining something in the absence of a claim just makes it "de-facto" even if not willful. Shifting blame to the accused and making the "de-facto" seizure "their fault for not claiming it" is NOT a legitimate way to avoid violation of the 4th, IMHO. The accused did not begin this action, the police did, and as such the burden is on THEM to uphold the law. This is just another smooth operator DA running a scam on people she knows won't be able to fight back.
I'd guess that many of these folks were not charged because the DA knew the cases had too many holes to hold water in court. If that's the case, then these agencies are counting on people defaulting on the claims and not giving the money back. I'd love to know how much is getting cut off the top here for "officials"... I hope they eventually step on the wrong toes and get their asses sued into the stone age.
I'm sure they are catching a lot of drug dealers here, but the methodology is alarming to me. No doubt innocent people have been inconvenienced, if not suffered damages under this policy. This is just like being harassed at the border for carrying thousands in cash even though it's nowhere near the statutory limit for declaration. Practices like this are designed to mask the real enemy, which is government intrusion into our everyday lives. IMHO, that constitutes a violation of civil liberties and ultimately, it's just another for liberty to die.
I'm not inclined to believe everything here, but this does smell funny, doesn't it? It only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch, and this type of system is ripe for the pickin'.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chuck Anderson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't see any indication of 4th amendment violations at all. I didn't see any searches of vehicles without consent.</div></div>
...and we don't really hear any people saying "yes" either, so we are "assuming" they did consent. I will agree that the tape is missing a lot, and as I noted there is a huge "spin" at work here... it is the media, after all. I'll never understand why people consent to searches, especially if they know they got stuff to hide. Personally, I respect the police but unless you've got a warrant, we're done here. I don't have anything to hide, but i'd make them do it just out of principle.
That said, if a LE dept. or the gov. fails to press charges, I think keeping the money is chickenshit. People are afraid to claim it because they think they are being setup, and with a DA like that I wouldn't put entrapment past her. Why should the burden of ownership be on the accused? That is not how our laws were supposed to be interpreted.
I fail to see how taking something without pressing charges is NOT an unreasonable seizure, and retaining something in the absence of a claim just makes it "de-facto" even if not willful. Shifting blame to the accused and making the "de-facto" seizure "their fault for not claiming it" is NOT a legitimate way to avoid violation of the 4th, IMHO. The accused did not begin this action, the police did, and as such the burden is on THEM to uphold the law. This is just another smooth operator DA running a scam on people she knows won't be able to fight back.
I'd guess that many of these folks were not charged because the DA knew the cases had too many holes to hold water in court. If that's the case, then these agencies are counting on people defaulting on the claims and not giving the money back. I'd love to know how much is getting cut off the top here for "officials"... I hope they eventually step on the wrong toes and get their asses sued into the stone age.
I'm sure they are catching a lot of drug dealers here, but the methodology is alarming to me. No doubt innocent people have been inconvenienced, if not suffered damages under this policy. This is just like being harassed at the border for carrying thousands in cash even though it's nowhere near the statutory limit for declaration. Practices like this are designed to mask the real enemy, which is government intrusion into our everyday lives. IMHO, that constitutes a violation of civil liberties and ultimately, it's just another for liberty to die.
I'm not inclined to believe everything here, but this does smell funny, doesn't it? It only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch, and this type of system is ripe for the pickin'.
Re: Policing for Profit
Not gonna give away any secrets here, but this is an ongoing method of accessing funds for agencies in TN. The I-40 corridor is mentioned, but the I-75 corridor between Knoxville and Chattanooga, especially around Cleveland in Bradley County is the nexus of this type of operation. One seizure alone was $1.2 Million and they let the 2 Guatemalan drivers go back to Mexico. The drivers pleaded to be thrown in American prison b/c they knew that they would both be killed as soon as they left the tarmac in Mexico.
Depending on what initiated the traffic stop...wink, wink...the money goes to the drug fund or the general fund. Federal, State and local agencies are all complicit in this behavior. They all get their cuts depending on participation, initiation and resources committed.
Let's just say that interdiction is dedicated to 5% dope and 95% cash, because we all know that an agency isn't supposed to sell dope, but cash is king. (Of course if you are the former Hamilton County Sheriff, Billy Long, you can sell dope until you get thrown in federal prison...)
Rant off.
Not gonna give away any secrets here, but this is an ongoing method of accessing funds for agencies in TN. The I-40 corridor is mentioned, but the I-75 corridor between Knoxville and Chattanooga, especially around Cleveland in Bradley County is the nexus of this type of operation. One seizure alone was $1.2 Million and they let the 2 Guatemalan drivers go back to Mexico. The drivers pleaded to be thrown in American prison b/c they knew that they would both be killed as soon as they left the tarmac in Mexico.
Depending on what initiated the traffic stop...wink, wink...the money goes to the drug fund or the general fund. Federal, State and local agencies are all complicit in this behavior. They all get their cuts depending on participation, initiation and resources committed.
Let's just say that interdiction is dedicated to 5% dope and 95% cash, because we all know that an agency isn't supposed to sell dope, but cash is king. (Of course if you are the former Hamilton County Sheriff, Billy Long, you can sell dope until you get thrown in federal prison...)
Rant off.
Re: Policing for Profit
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bcw1284</div><div class="ubbcode-body">who wouldn't file a claim to get it back if you didn't get charged with anything? That's idiotic, and is a red flag in itself. </div></div>
That's exactly what I was thinking. It suspicious enough to drive around with $100,000 but to not claim it afterward...
Maybe they should make the "legal action" to get the money back quicker/easier so that they can still do their jobs and non drug dealers can get their $ back.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bcw1284</div><div class="ubbcode-body">who wouldn't file a claim to get it back if you didn't get charged with anything? That's idiotic, and is a red flag in itself. </div></div>
That's exactly what I was thinking. It suspicious enough to drive around with $100,000 but to not claim it afterward...
Maybe they should make the "legal action" to get the money back quicker/easier so that they can still do their jobs and non drug dealers can get their $ back.
Re: Policing for Profit
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Playerz1337</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That's exactly what I was thinking. It suspicious enough to drive around with $100,000 but to not claim it afterward...
Maybe they should make the "legal action" to get the money back quicker/easier so that they can still do their jobs and non drug dealers can get their $ back.</div></div>
Yeah, that's what i'm thinking. I know a big bit of it is criminal enterprise funds, but if you're not going to charge them then it doesn't matter where it came from. Seizure by default is just as wrong as seizure by nefarious intent. I don't like seeing scum get their dough back, but that ought to be an incentive to prosecute rather than an excuse to let 'em go. I would bet money that if more defendants started filing to reclaim their money, then TN would be far more incline to prosecute so they can keep it. As it is, they're just ripping them off on an easy haul because they know that the profit margins on narcotics is so high that dealers will just push more and soak up the loss, rather than deal with the legal action and risk entrapment or revealing intel about the organization.
I don't like seeing people get off when they are shady, but I like upholding the laws & civil liberties of this land more. Cash is circumstantial evidence, and IMHO this is just another case of greed gone hog wild. All of these people need a re-education on Blackstone's Formulation.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Playerz1337</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That's exactly what I was thinking. It suspicious enough to drive around with $100,000 but to not claim it afterward...
Maybe they should make the "legal action" to get the money back quicker/easier so that they can still do their jobs and non drug dealers can get their $ back.</div></div>
Yeah, that's what i'm thinking. I know a big bit of it is criminal enterprise funds, but if you're not going to charge them then it doesn't matter where it came from. Seizure by default is just as wrong as seizure by nefarious intent. I don't like seeing scum get their dough back, but that ought to be an incentive to prosecute rather than an excuse to let 'em go. I would bet money that if more defendants started filing to reclaim their money, then TN would be far more incline to prosecute so they can keep it. As it is, they're just ripping them off on an easy haul because they know that the profit margins on narcotics is so high that dealers will just push more and soak up the loss, rather than deal with the legal action and risk entrapment or revealing intel about the organization.
I don't like seeing people get off when they are shady, but I like upholding the laws & civil liberties of this land more. Cash is circumstantial evidence, and IMHO this is just another case of greed gone hog wild. All of these people need a re-education on Blackstone's Formulation.
Re: Policing for Profit
You need to have a gun to protect your self from the criminals and the police
You need to have a gun to protect your self from the criminals and the police
Similar threads
