It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking News! George Zimmerman found not guilty.

page: 88
157
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Dear Southern Guardian,

I hope I am not wearying you with my comments, but I think I've found a solution. There seem to be two different types of people in this discussion. Both have a role to play.

One group brings passion, sympathy, and a desire to avenge wrong. Very valuable traits, and essential in a human society.

The other group brings restraint, law, rules, and restrictions. Those are equally valuable and essential traits.

These groups play different roles at different times and sometimes they overlap. In this situation we are discussing a process which relies on restraint, laws, and rules; a criminal trial.


Witnesses saw a fight, they didn't see who started the confrontation whether it be physical or verbal. Evidence of bruises or a struggle is not evidence of innocence. Zimmerman clearly was on the losing end of the fight, it doesn't mean he didn't physically and verbally incite it.
If we follow our laws and rules, incitement alone doesn't matter. It may wound our sympathies, and passion for vengence, but it is within our laws.


Zimmermans case really follows in closely with John Spooners case:
Actually it's wildly different, and had the boy come running at Spooner, Spooner still would have been convicted.


However there was never any evidence to match Zimmermans testimony that night when police decided to release him without charge.
That's not quite correct either.

Only evidence of a struggle between the two from witnesses and previous audio where Zimmerman reported Trayvon "running" after he had supposedly seen Zimmerman following him.



Under mounting pressure, the city of Sanford, Fla., has released a letter to the public about why George Zimmerman, who fatally shot an unarmed black teenager in the city last month, was not arrested. The letter calls the death of Trayvon Martin “morally appalling.”
“Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense, which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony,” the letter, signed by Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr., says. “By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time.” (Caps are theirs.)


Sanford FL arrest letter - Washington Post

So just as a demonstration should be led by those with passion, sympathy, and a desire for vengence; so should a trial be led by those concerned with laws and rules. In the Zimmerman case it was, and the results are legally correct and unobjectionable.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Originally posted by charles1952
If we follow our laws and rules, incitement alone doesn't matter. It may wound our sympathies, and passion for vengence, but it is within our laws.


By 'incitement' I am speaking about making a verbal threat to somebody even against their life if they do not cooperate. That is not within our laws and rules, no civilian has the right to do that, that is what we have the police for. Physically trying to apprehend somebody in an effort to 'capture' them even though they were well within their right to be where they are is not within our law.

Now if Zimmerman was approached by Trayvon as per his testimony and was attacked randomly, then that, Charles, would be reason enough for Zimmerman to claim defense and I will agree with you in this instance. Thus far however, it's just testimony from him that this actually happened and nothing more. This is all he had that night and police released him without charge that very same night. That to me is not right.


Actually it's wildly different, and had the boy come running at Spooner, Spooner still would have been convicted.


How do you know? The key evidence in the Spooner case was video surveillance. Take that out of the equation, you have Simmons attacking Spooner in self defense and is shot and killed in the process, Spooner comes out of this bruised. Spooner claims self defense and claims Darius attacked him out of no where. Witnesses report of a struggle, police release him that same night, this 76 year old man. It's not 'wildly' different at all and you'd be sitting right here on this forum making excuses for Spooners defense as well.


That's not quite correct either.


Well yes it is correct. You really have nothing aside from Zimmermans testimony. Having bruises from a fight is evidence that you were in a fight Charles, it's not necessarily evidence of your innocence. Not hard to understand. And thank you for linking me to the Sandford police initially claiming they did a thorough investigation that night, of course they'd claim so after the outrage, what else was to be expected? Do you think it would've been within their police departments interests to admit they messed up? Sure as hell wasn't in Bill Lees interests but he still left his position as chief in the end.

You want to know the striking thing about the way police initially treated this case? There's no other case like it where the victim was white. Nobody here can seem find one. And yet people like you continue to argue that police were following common procedure. Isn't that interesting?

If you have nothing more to add other than the same old excuse that his bruises were somehow evidence of his innocence then I have no further need to bother responding.

Southern Guardian.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Yeah right. If Martin had been there and survived the shot he would have have made Zimmerman's case, but in reality though Zimmerman wouldn't have been on trial, but Martin would have. It was a clear case of self defense. All evidence shows that. The inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story were so incredibly negligable that the officer that actually wanted to charge Zimmerman with something agreed there was nothing suspicious or unusual about the small changes and that he believed zimmerman's story. Nothing could have really changed the outcome. That's why he was released in the first place and only arrested a month and a half after when Angela Corey created a false arrest warrant.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Dear Southern Guardian,

I'm sad that we're so far from understanding each other. There's no need for you to agree with me, in fact, I really love an argument that shows me that I was wrong about something. This lack of understanding is a concern, however.

If you have nothing more to add other than the same old excuse that his bruises were somehow evidence of his innocence then I have no further need to bother responding.
Have I claimed they are evidence of innocence? If so, I apologize for my error. But, they are evidence that it was reasonable for him to fear death or serious bodily injury. Can we agree there?


By 'incitement' I am speaking about making a verbal threat to somebody even against their life if they do not cooperate. That is not within our laws and rules, no civilian has the right to do that, that is what we have the police for.
Of course it's within our laws and rules. Politicians are threatened on a nearly hourly basis. Cooperate on this vote or issue, or (whatever threat follows.) "No justice, no peace," may be considered a threat. Zimmerman's life has been and will continue to be threatened. Some threats are excessive enough to be illegal, but most are not. Free speech has something to say in this situation, does it not?

Besides, what threat did Zimmerman make? And a threat against Martin's life? What words did Zimmerman utter? Where were they standing when the threat was made? Was it recorded? Overheard by a witness? What?


Physically trying to apprehend somebody in an effort to 'capture' them even though they were well within their right to be where they are is not within our law.
Citizen's arrests are perfectly within our law. That's not what happened here, but under certain circumstances our law does allow "capture."


Thus far however, it's just testimony from him that this actually happened and nothing more. This is all he had that night and police released him without charge that very same night. That to me is not right.
Do you believe the City Manager and the Police are all lying when they said that with the evidence they had, Florida law prohibited them from making an arrest?


It's not 'wildly' different at all and you'd be sitting right here on this forum making excuses for Spooners defense as well.
If all Spooner had was a bruise, and he was armed, (although how Spooner let the kid get close enough to bruise him, I can't guess.) and he had an escape route, he would have a very difficult time claiming self-defense, even without the video. I'd vote to convict him.



You really have nothing aside from Zimmermans testimony.
May I refer back to the witnesses and physical evidence obtained by the police?

And thank you for linking me to the Sandford police initially claiming they did a thorough investigation that night, of course they'd claim so after the outrage, what else was to be expected? Do you think it would've been within their police departments interests to admit they messed up?
Ok, let's make the big assumption that the police were lying, and they didn't do a good investigation. I would assume that a good investigation would have given different results. What happened? The State looked at it, a new police administration looked at it, the FBI looked at it, DOJ has looked at it and probably still is. The result is that all of those "good" investigations found nothing that the "bad" investigation missed which might affect the result.

So, even we accept your idea that the police messed up, nothing would have changed had they conducted a perfect investigation. Finally, where is your evidence that they messed up? As far as anybody can tell from the results, their investigation was just fine.


You want to know the striking thing about the way police initially treated this case? There's no other case like it where the victim was white. Nobody here can seem find one. And yet people like you continue to argue that police were following common procedure. Isn't that interesting?
I haven't gone looking. NOW I HAVE. CHECK HERE FOR THE FIRST EXAMPLE OF IT. www.abovetopsecret.com...
If you are arguing that police didn't follow common procedure, please show me their errors that helped Zimmerman.

I would love to talk with you, but please discuss the points I raise. After all, I'm discussing the points you raise, and I'm sure you're interested in fairness.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by InstantRemedy

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
A 17 year old used the racial slur "cracker" (SHOCK)

That does equate to deliberately propagating racial tension all over the media and the web, not in the slightest.

It also is not an excuse for him to now be dead as in "See? He was the racist one, he deserved it"

In this case his use of that term is fear based and is a mild slip of the tongue compared to what is being fueled in front of our eyes which is very obviously deliberate.

If Treyvon was a little racist, it was probably due to incidents like this.

So you're saying the word Cracker isn't of racial use - would he use it on anyone who isn't white?
And to top it all off, "it's not his fault".

Ugh. Trying too hard.


Well according to miss 3.0 Jantel-all it was Cracka not Cracker which means a security guard or police, and that N!GGa not N!gg'r means any male.

And Trayvon thought George was a predator rapist out to give it to Trayvon "who is not of that way" and that wud creep anyone out. So T4rayvon went back to give George a Whoop A$$


edit on 22-7-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Originally posted by charles1952
But, they are evidence that it was reasonable for him to fear death or serious bodily injury. Can we agree there?


I wouldn't dismiss the argument that he may have been scared during that scuffle. Maybe he bit more than he could chew? Maybe he thought he was going to apprehend Trayvon and got a rude awakening when he tried to do so and in so began to fear?


Of course it's within our laws and rules.


No it's not within our laws. You have no right to threaten somebody with their life or even with bodily injury if they do not follow your instructions:


Any person who writes or composes and also sends or procures the sending of any letter, inscribed communication, or electronic communication, whether such letter or communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication is sent commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in

www.lawserver.com...

SYG even allows for force if you fear for your life, this one from Iowa:

“Reasonable force” is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat.


Emphasis on the word 'prevent'. No physical contact needed to defend yourself. Verbal threats are enough. So no it's not legal.


Politicians are threatened on a nearly hourly basis.


Does that make it legal? Does it make it right? Take into mind as well, politicians are public figures. It comes with the job.


Zimmerman's life has been and will continue to be threatened.


Then maybe he should have thought twice before he decided to play police officer that night?


Citizen's arrests are perfectly within our law.


Not if the person in question has not committed any crime and is perfectly within their legal right to be there.


Do you believe the City Manager and the Police are all lying


Never said they lied. What I did say is that I'm not surprised they came out defending the way police reacted to Trayvons death that night. Their interests are in protecting and answering for their police department regardless.


If all Spooner had was a bruise, and he was armed and he had an escape route, he would have a very difficult time claiming self-defense, even without the video


No. He'd have an easy time claiming self defense and you'd be sitting here defending him just like you are Zimmerman. As for an escape route, Zimmerman had plenty of opportunities to avoid Trayvon. The dispatcher even asked him on the audio to meet them at the letterboxes away from the direction Trayvon went but he refused. They needed to call him when they arrived for some reason.


Ok, let's make the big assumption that the police were lying, and they didn't do a good investigation.


Never said they were lying. What I said was that I wasn't surprised that they defended the way their department reacted to Trayvons death. They claimed police were following procedure and yet in no other instances had they acted in the same way to the death of a white victim.


So, even we accept your idea that the police messed up, nothing would have changed had they conducted a perfect investigation.


You know what? Had they actually paid enough attention and made enough effort to investigate Trayvons death as they did in their other cases, there would have never been this outrage. Had they not released Zimmerman that same night merely based on his testimony this case would not have received even a fraction of the attention it has today. Had the police done their jobs in the first place we wouldn't be here debating this.


I haven't gone looking. NOW I HAVE. CHECK HERE FOR THE FIRST EXAMPLE OF IT. www.abovetopsecret.com...


Again with the Roderick Scott case. I already addressed this case a mere two posts back. You really need to pay attention.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
not one to compare to in the same way as Zimmermans. People point to the Roderick Scott case in Greece New York as a comparison, however even that shooter was immediately charged that night and appeared in court to account for his actions


You really have no other case? hmm.
edit on 22-7-2013 by Southern Guardian because: Quotations



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Dear Southern Guardian,

You're quite right and I went over the top in some of my last post. I was wrong and I'm sorry.

I also really appreciate you taking the time to offer the thoughtful response that you did. It was really first class.

I'm almost ashamed to ask for a favor, though. I've been given a task and I may not be back for at least a half-hour. Would you be so kind as to be patient for a bit? Thanks.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Dear Southern Guardian,

I'm afraid I've imposed on your legendary Southern hospitality by being so wordy. I'll cut it as short as I know how.


The thread is about the verdict. To find him guilty and give him 30 years, the state has to prove the crime and prove it wasn't justified. They used every investigative tool and agency they could think of, and pushed the ethical envelope in their initial affidavit. They couldn't prove either.

Not guilty is the legally correct response. There is no solid evidence otherwise, just "what-ifs."

Morally justified? That's between Zimmerman and his god.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

It is comical that this is still ongoing,.


Just wait,. Olbama will announce that OJ should be freed from jail



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Yeah right. If Martin had been there and survived the shot he would have have made Zimmerman's case, but in reality though Zimmerman wouldn't have been on trial, but Martin would have. It was a clear case of self defense. All evidence shows that. The inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story were so incredibly negligable that the officer that actually wanted to charge Zimmerman with something agreed there was nothing suspicious or unusual about the small changes and that he believed zimmerman's story. Nothing could have really changed the outcome. That's why he was released in the first place and only arrested a month and a half after when Angela Corey created a false arrest warrant.


Keep telling yourself that. It might come true.

The inconsistencies were perhaps negligible to the outcome but without the story from the counterparty it's hard to say. He abandoned the nonsense about getting out of his car to check the street sign when even his defence team found it laughable; his story about Martin hiding in some bushes looks like nonsense; his claim that Martin was trespassing looks like nonsense; the dialogue he came up with for Martin comes out of a B movie. It all looks pretty suspect.

That's not to say that he wouldn't have been acquitted anyway. But that's not the point I'm making. He benefited hugely from Martin not being there (and from not having to take the stand). Other guys - bad guys - will look at this and, as I say, tend towards shooting the counterparty instead of risking the 20 years.

The problem with you guys is you think you can tell right from wrong instinctively and that it's therefore easy to make a call about who is wrong and right in situations that involve guns. Actually the world is a lot more complicated than you seem able to comprehend.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 

I understand that there are others who know much more about the case then I do, perhaps you are one of the many who do. So, help me out.

But that doesn't matter because there was no counterparty - he alone was able to provide the narrative.

I had thought there were at least three counter-parties. One, the forensic ballistics expert, who showed that Martin was above and leaning over Zimmerman when the shot was fired. Two, the medical witness who said that the injuries to Zimmerman's head were serious enough that he should have been taken to the hospital immediately. Three, the eye-witness who saw Martin straddling, on top of Zimmerman, raining blows down MMA style.

Did I misunderstand you? Or were there counterparties?

By the way, Zimmerman didn't testify. How in the world could he have provided the narrative to the jury?


I guess you have misunderstood what a counterparty is, yes. Zimmerman provided the narrative via his defence team.

I would have been a big fan of him testifying. I think it speaks volumes that he didn't, actually.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by litterbaux
 


For the first time - in a very long time - I am proud of my country.
Proud of what? Zimmerman shooting a 17 year old kid? That aside. This whole trial was just a ploy, a tactic to divert the attention away from the real political scandals going on in D.C. Come on man are you really proud of this?



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 

I agree, what he got was Street Justice! Justice was served either way



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



He benefited hugely from Martin not being there

Um,, .. No ... He benefited Hugely from shooting a Violent Attacker who was assaulting him.

This is Not a matter of telling right from wrong instinctively.

This is a matter of a verdict based on fact and "Reasonable Doubt". Those who dispute the verdict are the ones who Apparently can Not tell the difference from right and wrong. Unfortunately.

Trayvon was Not an innocent little child as his supporters would have you believe. If you think so you might want to take a little time and do some research on him. Believe me there is plenty of information about him all over the Internet.

While you are doing research on that take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the laws of that state. You might find it quite helpful in determining why it is that the Majority backs the verdict.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



He benefited hugely from Martin not being there

Um,, .. No ... He benefited Hugely from shooting a Violent Attacker who was assaulting him.


You are seriously claiming that it would have been better for Zimmerman if Martin had been there to tell his side of the story? I think that's highly unlikely, and I think George's story (the one he finally settled on) may be truthful in the most general sense, or at least enough to garner an acquittal, but is almost certainly skewed in his favour. Why else would he opt not to testify? Hardly the action of a man certain of his narrative of events.


This is Not a matter of telling right from wrong instinctively.


No. But above you seem to claim that this verdict will encourage innocent people to shoot attackers (which you purport is good) but not encourage attackers to shoot innocent people (bad). I'm wondering how you would tell the difference, except by instinct? If the other guy is dead, and in the absence of strong eye-witness accounts, how are you going to get enough evidence to jail the evildoer? You're going to end up releasing him for the same reason you released George - not enough evidence.


This is a matter of a verdict based on fact and "Reasonable Doubt". Those who dispute the verdict are the ones who Apparently can Not tell the difference from right and wrong. Unfortunately.


But that's precisely where you misunderstand the nature of a court verdict. It has nothing to do with right and wrong. Just evidence and reasonable doubt, which carry no moral freight.

Let's say I go out and do what you idiotically asked me to earlier, and kill you with no witnesses. I bash myself up a little bit, and claim you attacked me. The right wing and gun enthusiasts start combing your past for evidence that you are violent, and everything I've done is brushed away. I tell the judge that you hit me, I was terrified and killed you. There won't be any other evidence. On reasonable doubt I'll get away.


Trayvon was Not an innocent little child as his supporters would have you believe. If you think so you might want to take a little time and do some research on him. Believe me there is plenty of information about him all over the Internet.


I'm aware of the evidence. He clearly wasn't an innocent. But he was 17, and despite retarded attempts to portray him as Al Capone, I'm not buying it.


While you are doing research on that take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the laws of that state. You might find it quite helpful in determining why it is that the Majority backs the verdict.


I back the verdict - just. I simply don't need to pretend that every outcome of it is desirable.
edit on 23-7-2013 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




If the other guy is dead, and in the absence of strong eye-eitness accounts, how are you going to get enough evidence to jail the evildoer?

The same way that you get evidence with other crimes. Fingerprints, DNA, cellphone records, inconsistencies in the interviews and testimony of the accused.
People need to be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.
Some people get away with robbing banks. Should we make it illegal to enter a bank just for that reason?



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by JuniorDisco




The right wing and gun enthusiasts start combing your past for evidence that you are violent, and everything I've done is brushed away. I tell the judge that you hit me, I was terrified and killed you. There won't be any other evidence. On reasonable doubt I'll get away.


Actually a thought occurs to me. If somebody else murders you and tries to claim self defence because you hit them, maybe the same guys that worked on Trayvon's past will have a look at this message board and see you inciting murder?

It won't matter that it's clearly a lot of nonsense. It would solidify into fact in the right-wing blogosphere. And whoever killed you would have executed a person known for violent tendencies and inciting others to kill.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

The same way that you get evidence with other crimes. Fingerprints, DNA, cellphone records, inconsistencies in the interviews and testimony of the accused.


Fingerprints and DNA were largely useless in the Zimmerman case. Certainly the DNA evidence in no way supported his contention that Martin hit him or tried for his gun. The cellphone records are obviously inadmissable in such a situation, and the accused doesn't have to testify.

Thus actually the only thing you have is the inconsistencies in interviews. These will almost never be enough to secure a conviction, especially as the accused won't have to account for them on the stand. And they may not exist in the first place.

So really, in my theoretical murder, how are you going to put me away? You got next to nothing.


People need to be allowed to defend themselves when attacked.
Some people get away with robbing banks. Should we make it illegal to enter a bank just for that reason?


That's not what I'm saying. There's a need to find a balance between the rights of people to defend themselves and the chance that others will kill them. Do you really think that the Zimmerman verdict coupled with the harsh laws makes the situation I'm describing less likely? The murderer thinks: Well, George got away. And if I don't kill this guy I'm getting 20 years minimum. Bad people will pull the trigger more often, not less, and trust to self defence.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




So really, in my theoretical murder, how are you going to put me away? You got next to nothing.

Yep....
Your theoretical murder. The one where there is zero evidence of any kind.
Here's a news flash for you... they happen every day. They are called 'unsolved'. Try a google search, you will find that there are a lot of them. Even cases with multiple eyewitnesses go unsolved, and they are cold blooded killings where the perps wouldn't even have a chance of using self defense as an excuse. Still they remain unsolved.

So you want to 'strike a balance', limiting the use of self defense as a reason to justify homicide, just because the state has no case???
I am glad that you are not making any laws.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




So really, in my theoretical murder, how are you going to put me away? You got next to nothing.

Yep....
Your theoretical murder. The one where there is zero evidence of any kind.
Here's a news flash for you... they happen every day. They are called 'unsolved'. Try a google search, you will find that there are a lot of them. Even cases with multiple eyewitnesses go unsolved, and they are cold blooded killings where the perps wouldn't even have a chance of using self defense as an excuse. Still they remain unsolved.

So you want to 'strike a balance', limiting the use of self defense as a reason to justify homicide, just because the state has no case???
I am glad that you are not making any laws.


You seem unable to understand what I'm saying. You respond to my point that evidence from a victim (or counterparty) in an altercation involving guns is often vital to proceedings by agreeing with me that other evidence isn't very useful? Odd.

My point is specific, and has little to do with the use of self defence as a courtroom tactic. It is that the Zimmerman verdict, coupled with the 10-20-Life laws, makes killing a potential courtroom opponent more desirable. I'm not sure how you can refute that.

When you try to put someone away for killing an innocent you won't know who was the guilty party. As you admit the other evidence - the DNA etc - won't be much use to you. And now you have a publicised situation where a fairly threadbare self defence argument was enough, and especially enough absent the other party. Don't think the bad guys don't know this.

There are different ways of weighting the law, of creating nuance that allows for self defence but doesn't encourage killing. I get tired of saying it, but it's really not a black and white issue.



new topics

top topics



 
157
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join