Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Derek Chauvin trial. Murder of George Floyd. Convictions now appealed.


Recommended Posts

On 4/5/2021 at 7:03 PM, NorvilleBarnes said:

Very impactful imo. From a layman's perspective, it sounded like 'Game, Set, Match'. My post was a condensed summary of multiple responses like "That was in no way. shape, or form, what we train." spoken without hesitation.

The WaPo and NPR streams had audio difficulties today (sounded muffled) but the NBC stream was very clear. LINK Chief Arradondo testimony begins around 1:53 but there's a LOT of his history and credentials. The 'meat' of his testimony starts around 4:25. Around 4:53 -  4:57 he begins his testimony in regards to Chauvin specifically that I referenced above.

From reading your comments it sounds like you think the state is proving their case.  I'm not watching or listening to any of the testimony but I am reading daily summaries from an attorney who is watching the trial and providing analysis.  Are you watching the trial?  If so, are you watching the cross examination as well as the direct examination of the witnesses?  The lawyer I'm following has described the state's examination as very basic, asking questions without providing context that have very binary answers based upon generic hypotheticals.  Cross has provided the context needed for this case and gotten witnesses to concede things that they couldn't due to the binary nature of the questions asked by the prosecution.  In fact, in today's testimony the defense told the court they plan on calling one of the state's witnesses back as a defense witness when they put their side of the case on. 

This is looking more and more like a George Zimmerman trial and, from what I've read, I wouldn't be surprised if the defense wins.  Of course, it's early yet.  But, considering the defense consists of little more than a single attorney and a just passed the bar lawyer assisting him compared to the state's 15+ deep team this will be an embarrassing loss for the state if they do lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John123 said:

From reading your comments it sounds like you think the state is proving their case.  I'm not watching or listening to any of the testimony but I am reading daily summaries from an attorney who is watching the trial and providing analysis.  Are you watching the trial?  If so, are you watching the cross examination as well as the direct examination of the witnesses?  

I am watching the trial, except for yesterday (which is why I didn't post). There's a lot of lawyers and legal journalists writing about this, and I imagine their analysis is better than mine. I wanted to post a neutral layman pov, as if I were a juror. I am watching both direct and cross and everything not silenced by the judge.

I think the state is making very good points, but I don't know if they're proving their case. Or rather, proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. For me, it won't be until they get more into "cause of death". 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, djmich said:

So is there any place ya’ll go to get a true picture of how this going?  Like somebody who is familiar with a courtroom and generally not biased.  Not MSM.

Headline News is covering the whole thing.  Their panels I have found to be very balanced.  Like 8 people, some of them talking up the prosecution and some of them talking up the defense.

Why you would need more than this, I don't know.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, the moops said:

Thanks for that. That guy seems not very impartial in his takes in the case. Interesting I guess though. 

It would be nice to find someone that wasnt impartial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, the moops said:

Thanks for that. That guy seems not very impartial in his takes in the case. Interesting I guess though. 

Interesting read.  While it for sure doesn’t seem he’s impartial...I’m not sure his takes are impartial or not.  What I do know is that they are not the takes found on MSM.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Cjw_55106 said:

I dont want to speak for John123, but it seems like maybe this guy, who is a right wing lawyer.

 

https://legalinsurrection.com/author/law-of-self-defense/

 

 

All of these points were given on the panel on Headline News.  Now, not in such a hyperbolic way, however, the panel has given good points and bad points for both the prosecution and the defense.

I think sometimes people go so far to avoid Mainstream Media because of bias that they go to something that is even MORE biased.  

I just want to watch something that gives me multiple points of view.....

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Guido Merkins said:

All of these points were given on the panel on Headline News.  Now, not in such a hyperbolic way, however, the panel has given good points and bad points for both the prosecution and the defense.

I think sometimes people go so far to avoid Mainstream Media because of bias that they go to something that is even MORE biased.  

I just want to watch something that gives me multiple points of view.....

 

I get it...you are a fan of Headline News. I personally couldnt care less and was simply answering a question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cjw_55106 said:

I get it...you are a fan of Headline News. I personally couldnt care less and was simply answering a question. 

Yah, I don’t watch TV but went to check them out and saw it was just a division of CNN.  Not gonna waste my time trying to unravel the bias...glad you find it valuable GM

Edited by djmich
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1379884110538280960

Quote

Big moment in the Derek Chauvin trial. After the defense gets witness to say that George Floyd said “I ate too many drugs” in a video clip, the prosecution plays a longer version of the video and gets the same witness to say George Floyd actually said, “I ain’t do no drugs.”

This was very clear from day 1, but Eric Nelson (defense lawyer) is an absolute garbage human being.

Edited by Bucsfan5493
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JerryG said:

Why does doing his job make him an absolute garbage human being?  And I say that presuming you don’t think George “ain’t do no drugs.”

So he admitted to doing some drugs?  If you didn’t do none, you necessarily did some.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JerryG said:

Why does doing his job make him an absolute garbage human being?  And I say that presuming you don’t think George “ain’t do no drugs.”

No one is forcing him to defend a murderer. No one is forcing him to try and mislead people so the murderer can walk free. Yes, I consider someone who chooses to do that to be a morally corrupt and garbage person. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

I’m well aware Floyd was on drugs at the time, what the #### is your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

No one is forcing him to defend a murderer. No one is forcing him to try and mislead people so the murderer can walk free. Yes, I consider someone who chooses to do that to be a morally corrupt and garbage person. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

I’m well aware Floyd was on drugs at the time, what the #### is your point?

I can’t agree that he’s a horrible person or not, I don’t know him and I don’t think being a defense attorney automatically makes you horrible.

Which part of the case he’s presented so far is misleading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, djmich said:

I can’t agree that he’s a horrible person or not, I don’t know him and I don’t think being a defense attorney automatically makes you horrible.

Which part of the case he’s presented so far is misleading?

I understand everyone will not agree with me here, but I believe being a defense attorney on a case like this does make you a bad person. There's no amount of money you could pay me to try and defend people like Derek Chauvin and George Zimmerman. Anyone who is willing to do so is morally corrupt IMO, as they signed up to do a job where you defend horrible people and try to justify their disgusting actions.

Nelson was misleading in his attempt to say Floyd died from an overdose or drugs by asking a special agent if he heard Floyd say 'I ate too many drugs' from a short clip he pulled. Turns out, the prosecution had a longer clip of the whole conversation and in actuality, it became clear and was admitted so by the Special Agent that it sounds like Floyd said 'I ain't do no drugs', not 'I ate too many drugs'.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I understand everyone will not agree with me here, but I believe being a defense attorney on a case like this does make you a bad person. There's no amount of money you could pay me to try and defend people like Derek Chauvin and George Zimmerman. Anyone who is willing to do so is morally corrupt IMO, as they signed up to do a job where you defend horrible people and try to justify their disgusting actions.

Nelson was misleading in his attempt to say Floyd died from an overdose or drugs by asking a special agent if he heard Floyd say 'I ate too many drugs' from a short clip he pulled. Turns out, the prosecution had a longer clip of the whole conversation and in actuality, it became clear and was admitted so by the Special Agent that it sounds like Floyd said 'I ain't do no drugs', not 'I ate too many drugs'.

Fair enough.  How about prosecutors, do you believe they don’t present only part of the facts to support their case?  That makes them horrible as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, djmich said:

Fair enough.  How about prosecutors, do you believe they don’t present only part of the facts to support their case?  That makes them horrible as well?

Is the prosecution making those arguments in defense of a murderer? Come on man, can you really not see the difference there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gawain said:

Woz defends people that many would think worse than Chauvin. Do you think he's a terrible person?

I have no idea who that is, but based on what you're saying yes I probably would think he's a bad person.

This is a pretty straightforward issue, guys. I'm not a fan of people who try and justify the actions of rapists, murderers, etc. Yes, I understand these lawyers need to exist for the rule of law but that still doesn't automatically disqualify you from being a bad person because you are doing it for your job. IMO, in order to take on a job where you attempt to get rapists and murderers off the hook from punishment, you have to be morally corrupt. Is that really that crazy of a statement to make?

Edited by Bucsfan5493
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

Is the prosecution making those arguments in defense of a murderer? Come on man, can you really not see the difference there?

I can absolutely see the difference, even ignoring the fact that you are in your opinion forming bypassing the judicial process and declaring Chauvin a murderer...and that’s the whole purpose of the trial.

However I’d also admit that many a person has been put away unjustly or over sentenced because of prosecutors not presenting evidence fairly.  I’d guess disproportionately black as well.  You don’t think that’s horrible?

For me, this is why we have juries and the legal system and two sides arguing their case.  Can’t think of a better way and I just can’t call the participants horrible.  I understand how you could though...I get it

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I have no idea who that is, but based on what you're saying yes I probably would think he's a bad person.

This is a pretty straightforward issue, guys. I'm not a fan of people who try and justify the actions of rapists, murderers, etc. Yes, I understand these lawyers need to exist for the rule of law but that still doesn't automatically disqualify you from being a bad person because you are doing it for your job. IMO, in order to take on a job where you attempt to get rapists and murderers off the hook from punishment, you have to be morally corrupt. Is that really that crazy of a statement to make?

Public defenders might have a different outlook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I have no idea who that is, but based on what you're saying yes I probably would think he's a bad person.

This is a pretty straightforward issue, guys. I'm not a fan of people who try and justify the actions of rapists, murderers, etc. Yes, I understand these lawyers need to exist for the rule of law but that still doesn't automatically disqualify you from being a bad person because you are doing it for your job. IMO, in order to take on a job where you attempt to get rapists and murderers off the hook from punishment, you have to be morally corrupt. Is that really that crazy of a statement to make?

Jesus, dude.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I have no idea who that is, but based on what you're saying yes I probably would think he's a bad person.

This is a pretty straightforward issue, guys. I'm not a fan of people who try and justify the actions of rapists, murderers, etc. Yes, I understand these lawyers need to exist for the rule of law but that still doesn't automatically disqualify you from being a bad person because you are doing it for your job. IMO, in order to take on a job where you attempt to get rapists and murderers off the hook from punishment, you have to be morally corrupt. Is that really that crazy of a statement to make?

Completely disagree.

Without the @Zowof the world, the justice system is just a system, with no justice.

Defense lawyers exist to ensure thet the government does not overstep its bounds.  Before we incarcerate or otherwise punish, we require the government to prove its case.  Often times public opinion gets things wrong - because they overlook or ignore the actual facts that can be proven, or the law that is applicable.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, djmich said:

I can absolutely see the difference, even ignoring the fact that you are in your opinion forming bypassing the judicial process and declaring Chauvin a murderer...and that’s the whole purpose of the trial.

However I’d also admit that many a person has been put away unjustly or over sentenced because of prosecutors not presenting evidence fairly.  I’d guess disproportionately black as well.  You don’t think that’s horrible?

For me, this is why we have juries and the legal system and two sides arguing their case.  Can’t think of a better way and I just can’t call the participants horrible.  I understand how you could though...I get it

 

These are all fair points and this is why I mentioned 'on a case like this'. I was trying to be specific to the Floyd case and in this specific case, I think it's clear as day the prosecution is in the right and the defense is in the wrong. There are definitely cases where the opposite is true, no denying that.

Even if you don't think Chauvin is a murderer yet, the guy had 18 prior misconduct charges, there is clear video of what is in discussion and I think we can all agree the level of force he used against Floyd was completely uncalled for. The guy has been skating by with no accountability for years and that needs to end now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I understand everyone will not agree with me here, but I believe being a defense attorney on a case like this does make you a bad person. There's no amount of money you could pay me to try and defend people like Derek Chauvin and George Zimmerman. Anyone who is willing to do so is morally corrupt IMO, as they signed up to do a job where you defend horrible people and try to justify their disgusting actions.

Nelson was misleading in his attempt to say Floyd died from an overdose or drugs by asking a special agent if he heard Floyd say 'I ate too many drugs' from a short clip he pulled. Turns out, the prosecution had a longer clip of the whole conversation and in actuality, it became clear and was admitted so by the Special Agent that it sounds like Floyd said 'I ain't do no drugs', not 'I ate too many drugs'.

First of all, just because there are two interpretations as to what Floyd said doesn't mean the defense's interpretation is the wrong one.  Considering we KNOW Floyd took a very large amount of drugs it seems more likely he said he took too many than that he didn't take any. 

I assume you think the prosecution are morally corrupt lawyers as well since they've mislead the jury repeatedly and but for the fact that there is an attorney on the other side no one would know that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I have no idea who that is, but based on what you're saying yes I probably would think he's a bad person.

This is a pretty straightforward issue, guys. I'm not a fan of people who try and justify the actions of rapists, murderers, etc. Yes, I understand these lawyers need to exist for the rule of law but that still doesn't automatically disqualify you from being a bad person because you are doing it for your job. IMO, in order to take on a job where you attempt to get rapists and murderers off the hook from punishment, you have to be morally corrupt. Is that really that crazy of a statement to make?

It's not crazy but it's wrong in just about every way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

Appreciate all the responses. I can see where you guys are coming from and I think I agree with most of what you're saying. Have no problem admitting I'm wrong, just got a little too fired up with this case.

Yes, this is a very emotional case and I can understand your viewpoint. But its a good thing defense attorneys do what they do. I'm glad Chauvin's defense is presenting every legal challenge available to him. First, we really don't want innocent people getting convicted so they need to present every questionable detail. Flesh it out. Make it hard for the prosecution to prove their case. Take a deep breath and just hope the jury sees it the same way you do.

Also, we don't want any issues that would give the courts reason to overturn a conviction based on poor representation.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I have no idea who that is, but based on what you're saying yes I probably would think he's a bad person.

This is a pretty straightforward issue, guys. I'm not a fan of people who try and justify the actions of rapists, murderers, etc. Yes, I understand these lawyers need to exist for the rule of law but that still doesn't automatically disqualify you from being a bad person because you are doing it for your job. IMO, in order to take on a job where you attempt to get rapists and murderers off the hook from punishment, you have to be morally corrupt. Is that really that crazy of a statement to make?

:kicksrock:

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2021 at 7:07 AM, djmich said:

So is there any place ya’ll go to get a true picture of how this going?  Like somebody who is familiar with a courtroom and generally not biased.  Not MSM

This is highly problematic of how far too many conservatives view society, unfortunately. When you begin with the premise that the mainstream media’s reporting can not be trusted, your conclusions are bound to be far removed from reality. 

Edited by timschochet
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I understand everyone will not agree with me here, but I believe being a defense attorney on a case like this does make you a bad person. There's no amount of money you could pay me to try and defend people like Derek Chauvin and George Zimmerman. Anyone who is willing to do so is morally corrupt IMO, as they signed up to do a job where you defend horrible people and try to justify their disgusting actions.

Nelson was misleading in his attempt to say Floyd died from an overdose or drugs by asking a special agent if he heard Floyd say 'I ate too many drugs' from a short clip he pulled. Turns out, the prosecution had a longer clip of the whole conversation and in actuality, it became clear and was admitted so by the Special Agent that it sounds like Floyd said 'I ain't do no drugs', not 'I ate too many drugs'.

 

 

I don’t have a definitive answer on who did what or who’s wrong, that’s what the court system is going to find out. This is why we have the justice system we have in this country, to get to the bottom of things and get to the facts.

Unless you’re in the room you’re making a fool of yourself because you don’t have all the facts. 
 

i’m 100% positive you’re going to say that you saw the video and that’s all you need to see. If I’m gonna argue against that I’d say you should also read the toxicology report.

You’re being emotional and borderline unhinged on the matter. Maybe you need to take a step back for a few days. I had to do the same regarding a different topic the other day. 

Edited by STEADYMOBBIN 22
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

I don’t have a definitive answer on who did what or who’s wrong, that’s what the court system is going to find out. This is why we have the justice system we have in this country, to get to the bottom of things and get to the facts.

Unless you’re in the room you’re making a fool of yourself because you don’t have all the facts. 
 

i’m 100% positive you’re going to say that you saw the video and that’s all you need to see. If I’m gonna argue against that I’d say you should also read the toxicology report.

You’re being emotional and borderline unhinged on the matter. Maybe you need to take a step back for a few days. I had to do the same regarding a different topic the other day. 

Yep. I already took a step back, realized the emotions of this case got the best of me and admitted I was wrong.

Edited by Bucsfan5493
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think how you view lawyers really depends on your experience with them. Although I've thankfully never dealt with it, IMO divorce lawyers are one of the lowest rung of scumminess, but for every one who takes some dude's whole financial life away from him, there are others who help a battered wife regain he life again. It's hard to paint with a broad brush. 

It's easy to say being a defense lawyer is bad, until its you who are wrongly accused of something and thier experience in being "bad" is you only shot at freedom or sentencing. 

To clarify: there was a divorce lawyer's office next to my old office and he had a series of 3 Lambos that he would park out front with license plates like "Winning" other douchey phrases. I could only imagine how many unfortunate dudes are sleeping in studio apartments and driving 06 Carolla's to their 3rd job to make those Lambo payments for him. lol

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is highly problematic of how far too many conservatives view society, unfortunately. When you begin with the premise that the mainstream media’s reporting can not be trusted, your conclusions are bound to be far removed from reality. 

On HLN yesterday, the panel was split right down the middle on who won yesterday.  Yes, the moderator seems to be rooting for the prosecution, but other than that, yeah, the coverage has been solid with the panel. Certainly more balanced than that link I clicked on above.

So I agree with you in that if you automatically assume it's gonna be biased against your beliefs so much so that you won't even watch it for 15 minutes to see, I'm not sure how you can make that judgement.


  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

Yep. I already took a step back, realized the emotions of this case got the best of me and admitted I was wrong.

It's an emotional case.  Perfectly understandable. 

 

I have been struggling with the same thing as it seems like the defense is putting the victim on trial, but yeah, they have to do their job.  It's the only way we get real justice.  I just hope we get it in this case as I have no idea how anybody could come to any other determination other than the police officers were, at the very least, negligent in their response to Mr Floyd's condition.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

Yep. I already took a step back, realized the emotions of this case got the best of me and admitted I was wrong.

Super easy for that to happen. I try and remind myself to not get riled up before I visit this part of the forum. Helps me stay impartial and not get worked up If I remind myself that 99.99999% of this is out of my control. 

Edited by STEADYMOBBIN 22
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'l admit, I am watching as much as I can b/c IMO I think he is going to get off and I'm interested in how the defense picks at technicalities and other evidence that can go either way. 

To be clear, I don't think he SHOULD get off....but just knowing the history of police beating charges, I would hedge my bet this follows suit. 

I'm not a lawyer, but there is some real interest in the strategy used by each side that goes beyond an episode of Law and Order. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, glvsav37 said:

I'l admit, I am watching as much as I can b/c IMO I think he is going to get off and I'm interested in how the defense picks at technicalities and other evidence that can go either way. 

To be clear, I don't think he SHOULD get off....but just knowing the history of police beating charges, I would hedge my bet this follows suit. 

I'm not a lawyer, but there is some real interest in the strategy used by each side that goes beyond an episode of Law and Order. 

I 100% get that Chauvin is a colossal dooshpickle. I understand how awful the pictures of him on top of Floyd. I admit that when I watched the initial video of just Chauvin on top of Floyd I too instinctively said he murdered Floyd. 

 

However, after seeing the entire video, the cops asking Floyd to if he wanted to get into the air conditioned car, politely working with him, all the way up until Floyd asked to lay down on the ground, and then reading how he had 3x the lethal dose of fentanyl, (something Im all too aware of as my brother died from a fentanyl overdose), I am not so sure. 

 

Its my opinion that Chauvin is going to get off and its going to be VERY bad. There will be riots like we've never seen before. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

I'l admit, I am watching as much as I can b/c IMO I think he is going to get off and I'm interested in how the defense picks at technicalities and other evidence that can go either way. 

To be clear, I don't think he SHOULD get off....but just knowing the history of police beating charges, I would hedge my bet this follows suit. 

I'm not a lawyer, but there is some real interest in the strategy used by each side that goes beyond an episode of Law and Order. 

The defense has gotten multiple prosecution witnesses to acknowledge that Chauvin wasn't holding Floyd down by the neck, but the shoulder blades.  It's to the point where the prosecution isn't using the word "neck" any more but "neck area" to describe how Floyd was being held down.  Not sure how that is a technicality, and it seems pretty damning to the prosecution's case IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

This is highly problematic of how far too many conservatives view society, unfortunately. When you begin with the premise that the mainstream media’s reporting can not be trusted, your conclusions are bound to be far removed from reality. 

Sorry but no, what is problematic is that the MSM has proven they are completely biased and can’t be trusted.  That sucks, but true.

Probably will have a perfect example with this case, which when I read MSM reporting seems to be pretty clear that a guilty verdict is a slam dunk (I don’t watch HLN only read).  
 

So when their biased opinion based reporting is contradicted by a jury the country will think the jury is racist and the legal system is rigged and cities will burn.  And you Tim will support that narrative...because you buy what MSM is selling hook, line and sinker.

Edited by djmich
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, djmich said:

Sorry but no, what is problematic is that the MSM has proven they are completely biased and can’t be trusted.  That sucks, but true.

Probably will have a perfect example with this case, which when I read MSM reporting seems to be pretty clear that a guilty verdict is a slam dunk (I don’t watch HLN only read).  
 

So when their biased opinion based reporting is contradicted by a jury the country will think the jury is racist and the legal system is rigged.  And you Tim will support that narrative...because you buy what MSM is selling hook, line and sinker.

If he doesn't get at least manslaughter, I think the system IS racist and rigged.  Sorry.  The fact that they didn't move him to his side or attempt CPR when he started complaining or started becoming unresponsive is negligent.  Not sure how it could be interpreted as anything else.  

I don't need the MSM to tell me that.  I saw the video....

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • NorvilleBarnes changed the title to Derek Chauvin trial. Murder of George Floyd. Convictions now appealed.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...