|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/14/2013 03:26:40 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Its a scary world. Scary culture. Personally, I wouldn't ever get involved unless absolutely necessary. I guess we must ask, was Zimmerman doing the absolutely necessary? |
Is that the world you want to live in? A world where people treat everything as someone else's problem? |
What problem was Zimmerman trying to solve other than the one he created himself?
Originally posted by Cory:
I think Zimmerman wasn't only in the right, he was DOING THE RIGHT THING. If he had caught someone in the middle of B&E or caught a rapist in the act and saved a woman, would you still view him as a 'creepy stalker' or would you then call him a 'hero'? |
Except none of that happen and no evidence suggested anything like that was about to happen.
Originally posted by Cory:
I could give you a list a mile long of acts like Zimmerman's that have saved lives, property, and prevented tragedies from occurring.
Please don't continue to suggest that people shouldn't get involved. |
What tragedy was Zimmerman trying to stop? By your logic someone else should have gotten involved and shot Zimmerman down before he committed the actual tragedy in this case. A kid is dead because Zimmerman playing cop screwed up, period. This is why we have trained professionals in law enforcement. And you want more people doing this? |
Are you kidding me???
What prob was zimmrman trying to solve? He was trying to solve a the prob of a thug breaking into property and stealing. That kid had created the prob by being in a place that he knew he should be.
Also, what tradgedy was he trying to stop??? Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch. The goal of these watch programs is to make neighborhoods safer. To prevent thieves from stealing etc.
Look it is a shame that it came down to a 17 year old losing his life. I grieve for the family. However if I had been in the same situation...You better believe I would have pulled the trigger.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2013 03:29:33 PM · #52 |
Don't gloss over this as another media-manufactured race issue. What many here see is what I see, and that is that a man left his house with a deadly weapon, made some bad decisions, confronted someone and killed him. His intentions shouldn't make a difference to us or the court. There's a lot of talk about personal accountability on this site, but apparently personal accountability isn't really important when it might serve as an argument against the carrying and use of firearms.
I've been in Illinois this week and last weekend's paper ran a massive spread on the more-than-a-thousand shootings that have taken place in Chicago this year. Chicago proper, suburbs not included. Injuries or fatalities, not simply shots fired. Half a year, over a thousand people shot. And that's fewer than last year.
So amidst all this gun violence, on Monday the state legislature convened and passed a law that allows the carrying of concealed weapons in Illinois.
Our society seems like it won't rest until we've entirely destroyed ourselves, and right now we are galloping downhill toward a cliff. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 03:34:00 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by yanko:
No thats where your logic leads, hence the phrase "by your logic". Really impressive display of reading comprehension there. |
Wrong.
My logic says someone should have ran over there to stop the damned fight while Zimmerman was yelling for help. Then no-one would have been shot.
Instead, everyone called 911, like good little scared Americans, instead of actually doing something to help. And TWO lives were lost, even though there was only one dead man. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 03:37:56 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Don't gloss over this as another media-manufactured race issue. What many here see is what I see, and that is that a man left his house with a deadly weapon, made some bad decisions, confronted someone and killed him. His intentions shouldn't make a difference to us or the court. There's a lot of talk about personal accountability on this site, but apparently personal accountability isn't really important when it might serve as an argument against the carrying and use of firearms.
I've been in Illinois this week and last weekend's paper ran a massive spread on the more-than-a-thousand shootings that have taken place in Chicago this year. Chicago proper, suburbs not included. Injuries or fatalities, not simply shots fired. Half a year, over a thousand people shot. And that's fewer than last year.
So amidst all this gun violence, on Monday the state legislature convened and passed a law that allows the carrying of concealed weapons in Illinois.
Our society seems like it won't rest until we've entirely destroyed ourselves, and right now we are galloping downhill toward a cliff. |
I have done you the favor of using bold on your quote above to illustrate where your logic is going wrong.
Zimmerman did not confront Martin. Zimmerman followed Martin, it was Martin who appears to have confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Serious difference there.
If that wasn't true, and if it did happen as you say, then I wouldn't hold the position I do on this issue.
His intentions shouldn't make a difference? That's not how the legal system views it at all. Intent is of paramount importance. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 03:47:55 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
No thats where your logic leads, hence the phrase "by your logic". Really impressive display of reading comprehension there. |
Wrong.
My logic says someone should have ran over there to stop the damned fight while Zimmerman was yelling for help. Then no-one would have been shot.
Instead, everyone called 911, like good little scared Americans, instead of actually doing something to help. And TWO lives were lost, even though there was only one dead man. |
Umm, nobody would have died or been beaten in the head had Zimmerman been one of those little scared Americans. You're really not making a whole of sense here. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 04:43:49 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Don't gloss over this as another media-manufactured race issue. What many here see is what I see, and that is that a man left his house with a deadly weapon, made some bad decisions, confronted someone and killed him. His intentions shouldn't make a difference to us or the court. There's a lot of talk about personal accountability on this site, but apparently personal accountability isn't really important when it might serve as an argument against the carrying and use of firearms.
I've been in Illinois this week and last weekend's paper ran a massive spread on the more-than-a-thousand shootings that have taken place in Chicago this year. Chicago proper, suburbs not included. Injuries or fatalities, not simply shots fired. Half a year, over a thousand people shot. And that's fewer than last year.
So amidst all this gun violence, on Monday the state legislature convened and passed a law that allows the carrying of concealed weapons in Illinois.
Our society seems like it won't rest until we've entirely destroyed ourselves, and right now we are galloping downhill toward a cliff. |
I have done you the favor of using bold on your quote above to illustrate where your logic is going wrong.
Zimmerman did not confront Martin. Zimmerman followed Martin, it was Martin who appears to have confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Serious difference there.
If that wasn't true, and if it did happen as you say, then I wouldn't hold the position I do on this issue.
His intentions shouldn't make a difference? That's not how the legal system views it at all. Intent is of paramount importance. |
Don't know why the logic is wrong there. Zimmerman followed and then chased Martin. Those are the facts. Under Florida and even national law Martin had every right to defend himself against some random guy pursuing him. I can't understand how it's viewed the other way around, other than to defend the use of guns. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 05:09:41 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
That kid had created the prob by being in a place that he knew he should be. |
I assume you meant "shouldn't" be, and that's absolute;ly wrong. The kid was LIVING there. He had a KEY. It was a relative's house... |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 05:19:14 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Don't know why the logic is wrong there. Zimmerman followed and then chased Martin. Those are the facts. Under Florida and even national law Martin had every right to defend himself against some random guy pursuing him. I can't understand how it's viewed the other way around, other than to defend the use of guns. |
I do not believe that you are correct in your assessment. You do not have the right to assault someone for following you, not in any state that I am aware of, unless of course, they pursue you into your home, where other rules apply.
Please though, do help me to be more well informed - what laws and precedent are you citing here? |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 05:21:34 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
That kid had created the prob by being in a place that he knew he should be. |
I assume you meant "shouldn't" be, and that's absolute;ly wrong. The kid was LIVING there. He had a KEY. It was a relative's house... |
Robert is absolutely correct. Neither of these guys did anything wrong until Martin engaged in assault and battery.
At that point the question isn't about someone following someone - it's about whether or not you should be able to use deadly force to defend yourself from a physical assault.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2013 05:24:40 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Don't gloss over this as another media-manufactured race issue. What many here see is what I see, and that is that a man left his house with a deadly weapon, made some bad decisions, confronted someone and killed him. His intentions shouldn't make a difference to us or the court. There's a lot of talk about personal accountability on this site, but apparently personal accountability isn't really important when it might serve as an argument against the carrying and use of firearms.
I've been in Illinois this week and last weekend's paper ran a massive spread on the more-than-a-thousand shootings that have taken place in Chicago this year. Chicago proper, suburbs not included. Injuries or fatalities, not simply shots fired. Half a year, over a thousand people shot. And that's fewer than last year.
So amidst all this gun violence, on Monday the state legislature convened and passed a law that allows the carrying of concealed weapons in Illinois.
Our society seems like it won't rest until we've entirely destroyed ourselves, and right now we are galloping downhill toward a cliff. |
I have done you the favor of using bold on your quote above to illustrate where your logic is going wrong.
Zimmerman did not confront Martin. Zimmerman followed Martin, it was Martin who appears to have confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Serious difference there.
If that wasn't true, and if it did happen as you say, then I wouldn't hold the position I do on this issue.
His intentions shouldn't make a difference? That's not how the legal system views it at all. Intent is of paramount importance. |
Don't know why the logic is wrong there. Zimmerman followed and then chased Martin. Those are the facts. Under Florida and even national law Martin had every right to defend himself against some random guy pursuing him. I can't understand how it's viewed the other way around, other than to defend the use of guns. |
If Zimmerman simply followed the rules and guidelines of neighborhood watch programs set by the National Sheriff's Association and local authorities and simply reported it to the police like you're supposed to the whole incident would have never occurred. This is why you have trained professional officers acting as law enforcement and not untrained wannabes with prior criminal records of assault. It's ridiculous that as a society we would want the latter providing "community" protection. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 05:31:01 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
No thats where your logic leads, hence the phrase "by your logic". Really impressive display of reading comprehension there. |
Wrong.
My logic says someone should have ran over there to stop the damned fight while Zimmerman was yelling for help. Then no-one would have been shot.
Instead, everyone called 911, like good little scared Americans, instead of actually doing something to help. And TWO lives were lost, even though there was only one dead man. |
Umm, nobody would have died or been beaten in the head had Zimmerman been one of those little scared Americans. You're really not making a whole of sense here. |
Right, totally true. And if everyone acted that way, do you think that would help to make the world a better place?
It's important that people keep an eye on things, and if someone is acting suspicious, trying to figure out what they're up to isn't wrong, immoral, or illegal. Why you're arguing otherwise is baffling to me.
Do you take personal responsibility for your world, your neighborhood, your property, or do you just shrug it off as someone else's problem all the time? Me? I feel responsible. That means helping the neighbors with chores because they're too old, that means stopping to help change a tire, or provide a ride, that means being a 'trail angel' to hikers or riders in the wilderness. It also means following suspicious people, stopping violent assaults, and generally trying to ensure that the world around you proceeds as we have generally agreed that it should.
...
With all of that being said, I'll repeat it again - no one did anything wrong, until Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Once you physically attack someone, you have crossed a red line. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 05:35:58 PM · #62 |
I don't know. I sure don't want to be "followed" in my own neighborhood. What am I to do in that instance? I can call the cops, but as many have repeated numerous times, it'll take a whiel for them to get there. In the mean time, do I want to go into my home, so whoever is following me knows where I live? Do I want to confront the person following me, not knowing what their intention is? What do I do?
Not a rhetorical question. I really do want to know what I would do in that instance. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 05:53:55 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I don't know. I sure don't want to be "followed" in my own neighborhood. What am I to do in that instance? I can call the cops, but as many have repeated numerous times, it'll take a whiel for them to get there. In the mean time, do I want to go into my home, so whoever is following me knows where I live? Do I want to confront the person following me, not knowing what their intention is? What do I do?
Not a rhetorical question. I really do want to know what I would do in that instance. |
I don't know what you would do, but I would either head to a public place, or go home and arm myself if I really felt they were going to attempt to assault me. (For all my right to carry views, I don't actually carry my weapon, so I would have to go home to get one)..
If I really were afraid of them, the last thing I would do is to confront them.
Of course, at that point, if they come into your home, there's no need to wait for them to assault you - just verbally announce that you are armed, and will take action unless they leave immediately. If they do not retreat, then you can safely assume they intend to do you harm.
Now with that being said - if I thought someone was following me, I would probably just go up to them and politely introduce myself and ask who they are, without even mentioning my suspicions. I've done this a few times for various reasons, and it's always worked out just fine.
Message edited by author 2013-07-14 17:59:34. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 06:06:23 PM · #64 |
| I do not have a weapon in my home, so I'm guessing I just keep walking until I get to a public place. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 06:11:28 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I do not have a weapon in my home, so I'm guessing I just keep walking until I get to a public place. |
Calling 911 while you do so of course, that way help is on the way, and they can sort it out.
Trayvon should have called the police as well, but that's against the 'code of silence'.
Message edited by author 2013-07-14 18:12:13. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 06:17:51 PM · #66 |
| We actually had a very prompt response to our neighborhood last night - approximately 10 cars from two neighboring police forces responded to a neighbor's call that there were teenage boys breaking into the home next to them. Turns out one of the teens actually lived there and the other boys were guests. They were all completely terrified and my neighbor, who was passing by, offered to take them home. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 06:38:10 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
No thats where your logic leads, hence the phrase "by your logic". Really impressive display of reading comprehension there. |
Wrong.
My logic says someone should have ran over there to stop the damned fight while Zimmerman was yelling for help. Then no-one would have been shot.
Instead, everyone called 911, like good little scared Americans, instead of actually doing something to help. And TWO lives were lost, even though there was only one dead man. |
Umm, nobody would have died or been beaten in the head had Zimmerman been one of those little scared Americans. You're really not making a whole of sense here. |
Right, totally true. And if everyone acted that way, do you think that would help to make the world a better place?
|
Not sure what you mean by better place, but if you mean allowing something as complex as law enforcement to be handled by experience, trained professionals over unaccountable self-appointed captains/vigilantes then yes. I'm sorry but the community didn't get better because Zimmerman decided to start an altercation with a kid and then couldn't defend himself without having to resort to deadly force.
Originally posted by Cory:
It's important that people keep an eye on things, and if someone is acting suspicious, trying to figure out what they're up to isn't wrong, immoral, or illegal. Why you're arguing otherwise is baffling to me. |
Where have I or anyone else for that matter argued against that?
Originally posted by Cory:
Do you take personal responsibility for your world, your neighborhood, your property, or do you just shrug it off as someone else's problem all the time? Me? I feel responsible. That means helping the neighbors with chores because they're too old, that means stopping to help change a tire, or provide a ride, that means being a 'trail angel' to hikers or riders in the wilderness. It also means following suspicious people, stopping violent assaults, and generally trying to ensure that the world around you proceeds as we have generally agreed that it should.
|
What is the point of this? Nobody is arguing against personal responsibility or being involved in the community. I can't perform heart surgery. Does that mean I'm shrugging my responsibility when I hire a surgeon to do it? Makes no sense. Zimmerman's personal responsibility started and ended with the 911 call.
Originally posted by Cory:
With all of that being said, I'll repeat it again - no one did anything wrong, until Martin assaulted Zimmerman. |
And I disagree.
Message edited by author 2013-07-14 18:40:40. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 07:16:52 PM · #68 |
Basically the prosecution could not deliver a guilty charge. They knew they had no case. They didn't even want to go to trial. They got pressured into it, by the media and the feds.
I don't see the problem here. Guilty people get off all the time.
I don't know if Zimmerman was truly innocent or not. But if you can't prove the case, You can't lock someone up because of public outcry. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 09:11:41 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
No thats where your logic leads, hence the phrase "by your logic". Really impressive display of reading comprehension there. |
Wrong.
My logic says someone should have ran over there to stop the damned fight while Zimmerman was yelling for help. Then no-one would have been shot.
Instead, everyone called 911, like good little scared Americans, instead of actually doing something to help. And TWO lives were lost, even though there was only one dead man. |
Umm, nobody would have died or been beaten in the head had Zimmerman been one of those little scared Americans. You're really not making a whole of sense here. |
Right, totally true. And if everyone acted that way, do you think that would help to make the world a better place?
|
Not sure what you mean by better place, but if you mean allowing something as complex as law enforcement to be handled by experience, trained professionals over unaccountable self-appointed captains/vigilantes then yes. I'm sorry but the community didn't get better because Zimmerman decided to start an altercation with a kid and then couldn't defend himself without having to resort to deadly force.
Originally posted by Cory:
It's important that people keep an eye on things, and if someone is acting suspicious, trying to figure out what they're up to isn't wrong, immoral, or illegal. Why you're arguing otherwise is baffling to me. |
Where have I or anyone else for that matter argued against that?
Originally posted by Cory:
Do you take personal responsibility for your world, your neighborhood, your property, or do you just shrug it off as someone else's problem all the time? Me? I feel responsible. That means helping the neighbors with chores because they're too old, that means stopping to help change a tire, or provide a ride, that means being a 'trail angel' to hikers or riders in the wilderness. It also means following suspicious people, stopping violent assaults, and generally trying to ensure that the world around you proceeds as we have generally agreed that it should.
|
What is the point of this? Nobody is arguing against personal responsibility or being involved in the community. I can't perform heart surgery. Does that mean I'm shrugging my responsibility when I hire a surgeon to do it? Makes no sense. Zimmerman's personal responsibility started and ended with the 911 call.
Originally posted by Cory:
With all of that being said, I'll repeat it again - no one did anything wrong, until Martin assaulted Zimmerman. |
And I disagree. |
So essentially, you think we should simply let the police protect us and do nothing to help our neighbors or ourselves.
If you saw a group of men beating an old woman on the ground, you'd feel you had done everything you should just by calling 911?
Just remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 09:34:55 PM · #70 |
After all this, no one has answered why Zimmerman was following this kid, and wouldn't let it go, this night.
Without editorializing, why was he following an unarmed kid with skittles and an iced tea? |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 09:39:50 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
After all this, no one has answered why Zimmerman was following this kid, and wouldn't let it go, this night.
Without editorializing, why was he following an unarmed kid with skittles and an iced tea? |
'Cuz he profiled him as a suspicious type, and 'cuz he lives for moments like that. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 09:41:02 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
What prob was zimmrman trying to solve? He was trying to solve a the prob of a thug breaking into property and stealing. That kid had created the prob by being in a place that he knew he should be. |
There was no sign anyone was going to commit any crime -- and Martin had every right to be where he was -- it's where he was living/staying at the time.
If you can't safely walk up to your own door without being accused of a crime, well, that sounds like "racial profiling" to me. You really think if Zimmerman had seen some blonde 17 YO kid walking up there he would have created the same confrontation?
Martin went to the store and walked home. If Zimmerman and been asleep, none of this would have happened, and no crime (the fear used as justification by Zimmerman) would have occurred. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 09:46:36 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Zimmerman did not confront Martin. Zimmerman followed Martin, it was Martin who appears to have confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Serious difference there. |
So under Florida law, didn't Martin have the right to "stand his ground" and use anything up to deadly force when being followed by someone with a gun?
You are also confusing "assault" with "battery" -- I think Zimmerman clearly commited "assault" by following Martin and presenting an apparent threat -- Martin committed "battery" when he hit Zimmerman. But again, why didn't Martin have the right to confront Zimmerman and use potentially deadly force when threatened? After all, he was unarmed, and his stalker was not, so who likely presented the greater threat ... |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 10:15:40 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
No thats where your logic leads, hence the phrase "by your logic". Really impressive display of reading comprehension there. |
Wrong.
My logic says someone should have ran over there to stop the damned fight while Zimmerman was yelling for help. Then no-one would have been shot.
Instead, everyone called 911, like good little scared Americans, instead of actually doing something to help. And TWO lives were lost, even though there was only one dead man. |
Umm, nobody would have died or been beaten in the head had Zimmerman been one of those little scared Americans. You're really not making a whole of sense here. |
Right, totally true. And if everyone acted that way, do you think that would help to make the world a better place?
|
Not sure what you mean by better place, but if you mean allowing something as complex as law enforcement to be handled by experience, trained professionals over unaccountable self-appointed captains/vigilantes then yes. I'm sorry but the community didn't get better because Zimmerman decided to start an altercation with a kid and then couldn't defend himself without having to resort to deadly force.
Originally posted by Cory:
It's important that people keep an eye on things, and if someone is acting suspicious, trying to figure out what they're up to isn't wrong, immoral, or illegal. Why you're arguing otherwise is baffling to me. |
Where have I or anyone else for that matter argued against that?
Originally posted by Cory:
Do you take personal responsibility for your world, your neighborhood, your property, or do you just shrug it off as someone else's problem all the time? Me? I feel responsible. That means helping the neighbors with chores because they're too old, that means stopping to help change a tire, or provide a ride, that means being a 'trail angel' to hikers or riders in the wilderness. It also means following suspicious people, stopping violent assaults, and generally trying to ensure that the world around you proceeds as we have generally agreed that it should.
|
What is the point of this? Nobody is arguing against personal responsibility or being involved in the community. I can't perform heart surgery. Does that mean I'm shrugging my responsibility when I hire a surgeon to do it? Makes no sense. Zimmerman's personal responsibility started and ended with the 911 call.
Originally posted by Cory:
With all of that being said, I'll repeat it again - no one did anything wrong, until Martin assaulted Zimmerman. |
And I disagree. |
So essentially, you think we should simply let the police protect us and do nothing to help our neighbors or ourselves.
If you saw a group of men beating an old woman on the ground, you'd feel you had done everything you should just by calling 911?
Just remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. |
No I didn't say that. You're comparing apples to oranges. The kid was minding his own business and doing it in a public space he had ever right to be. Thats nothing at all like little old ladies getting beaten up. Surely you can see the difference. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 11:24:14 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Zimmerman did not confront Martin. Zimmerman followed Martin, it was Martin who appears to have confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Serious difference there. |
So under Florida law, didn't Martin have the right to "stand his ground" and use anything up to deadly force when being followed by someone with a gun?
You are also confusing "assault" with "battery" -- I think Zimmerman clearly commited "assault" by following Martin and presenting an apparent threat -- Martin committed "battery" when he hit Zimmerman. But again, why didn't Martin have the right to confront Zimmerman and use potentially deadly force when threatened? After all, he was unarmed, and his stalker was not, so who likely presented the greater threat ... |
I've used the term battery plenty of times in the conversation as "assault and battery" my apologies for forgetting it that once.
He did probably verbally assault him just before he battered him though.
If you can't tell the difference between confronting someone and battering them, and why you have the right to confront, but not to batter is something I refuse to attempt to explain if it isn't already obvious.
Just because someone is armed, and is following you, doesn't make them a threat - it makes them a POTENTIAL threat, just like Martin was a POTENTIAL criminal. Again, NO ONE DID ANYTHING WRONG UNTIL MARTIN BATTERED ZIMMERMAN. Legally I'm right, you just don't like it. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 03:04:44 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 03:04:44 AM EDT.
|
