NBC Affiliate Private Security Kills Trump Supporter

#376
#376
37L1 said:
Not ignoring the slap. Shooter is slapped after putting his hand on the victim's chest to stop his approach towards the camera.

According to the sequence it appears that the "mace" is sprayed after the shooter pulls his weapon from his waist area, not before.

The sequence shows that the shooter never reacted to the "mace", never wipes at his face, coughs, turns away from the aerosol cloud, etc. from the time he pulls his weapon from his appendix area, (before the "mace" is sprayed), to the shot being fired, to the victim down and several sequence photos thereafter. He is never shown reacting to the "mace" nor is anyone else in the vicinity, for that matter. I find that interesting in that the "mace" appears to have no role in affecting the aim of the shooter.

Was the "mace" deployed by the victim as a response to the shooter pulling out his weapon after the slap? Was the victim going to deploy the mace weapon or no weapon? We only know what we know based on the photo sequence which shows the "mace" deployed after weapon is drawn not before.

The victim is not blameless but did his actions rise to the level of legally justifying being shot in the head/dead? It will be something for lawyers, judges and maybe even juries to decide, with more evidence to come, no doubt, since everyone there had some sort of camera device and many have their version of events leading up to the killing.



Are you giving credence to the shooter knowing that he touched the victim's weapon after being slapped and recoiling from the impact? Particularly right after you just cast doubt regarding his capabilities? Wouldn't it be more likely that this brushing across (if it is even that much) wouldn't even register because he just got slapped in the face, knocking his glasses askew and him back/to the side? The victim never reached for or pulled his weapon at any time did he?

I get it, you are looking at this from what the defense might/will do, not necessarily advocating for the shooter. Same here but from the other side. IMO, the victim acted a fool, let his buttons get pushed and now he's dead because of it. He had a hand in his own demise.

I'm kind of curious regarding the role of Mr. BGM in this. Not that it is necessarily material in the case but what was going on here? What was the lead up to his shouting match with the Trumpers? Did he approach them, did they approach him? Who instigated that confrontation that jacked everyone else up? How did the Denver Press just happen to be here at the time to the lead up and to include the shooting? More curious than trying to make a case for one side or the other. This whole thing needs to get untangled because it's a mess. Cases like this are interesting, just from an all around standpoint but the results are awful for all involved.
Click to expand...
IMO, there’s a big difference between the competence required for “shoved a guy and felt/recognized the presence of a gun” and “practiced enough to become a competent marksman.”

In the 9News video, it looks to me like he shoves the guy back away from his principle/client (which explains the “he was retreating” narrative as well.) There’s some solid hand-chest contact in some of the pictures as well. This would have allowed him to feel the gun, if those pictures haven’t been doctored. (I’m not sure how much I trust that twitter account even though it explains why you can’t see the gun in the photos on the Denver post website.) This sequence also explains him being off balance after being slapped even though there didn’t appear to be a ton of hip turn or weight behind the slap. Unfortunately for the conspiracy blog-o-sphere, it also explains the deceased’s “retreat.” He got pushed back.

Have you ever been exposed to OC spray? I’ve seen it deployed twice (on somebody else). Maybe people react differently, but I didn’t even catch a full blast and my eyes welled up and started producing tears almost immediately on contact. Sure there was some eye wiping, but it wasn’t involuntary.Could I have shot somebody from 6 feet away? Probably. Would I be able to sight my weapon properly and group shots? I really don’t think I could. I’ve also been hit in the ear hole in football and those were always mildly disorienting, too.

The lack of successive shots supports your theory that he could see. The still photos leave a lot out.

Re: the botched paperwork, 9News says they requested unarmed security. I assume this is true and the vendor company felt it unnecessary to file the paperwork for the guy to go armed. Probably don’t need a license to act as a bouncer.

Re: your question about the media: there are other videos of people marching around in a line in an area that is somewhat cordoned off by police. Based on where the police came running from, it seems that the media were generally between the police and the initial altercation. I assumed they were just following the line of musterds or antifers after it walked out of the cordoned off area.

(Long rant reserved for future post to keep this one shorter.)
 
#377
#377
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, marcusluvsvols and 1972 Grad
#379
#379
davethevol said:
In one of the video clips it sounded like the victim said something to the BLM guy about getting someone to come up behind the BLM guy and putting a gun to his head. Then he hits someone else all while having a weapon. I think there’s enough there to give the shooter some ability to defend himself.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard that, not saying it didn't happen but what I thought I heard the guy interceding say that there was a cop coming up behind him, is that a different exchange? Which video was this statement on?
 
Last edited:
#380
#380
37L1 said:
It's so weak that his defense team probably won't. They probably will use self defense but I doubt that the fear of losing his firearm would enter into the argument because:

A police officer is obviously identified as such by uniform and accoutrements, a weapon is one of them and carried in plain sight. They are also charged with making arrests as part of their duties and using sufficient force as necessary to effect arrest.

The shooter was not in uniform, nor identified himself of being of some sort of official capacity, AFAIK.
His weapon was not in plain sight but concealed from view.
The victim had no reason to believe that the shooter had a firearm so how could the shooter reasonably believe that the victim would harm him with his own weapon that was concealed from the victim's view?

The police standard of "incapacitation" justifying the use of deadly force doesn't apply here.

There are other self defense arguments that they will probably be better served using such as Colorado's "stand your ground law" but that too, is weak, IMO, but better.

18-1-704 C.R.S. permits people to utilize force which they reasonably believe is required to protect themselves or others from an offense involving the implementation of physical force. Note that reacting with deadly physical force is legally justified only in the following three situations:

  1. The victim reasonably believes non-deadly force is inadequate, and the victim has reasonable grounds to believe — and does believe — that he/she or another victim is in imminent danger of dying or being seriously injured; or
  2. The victim reasonably believes non-deadly force is inadequate, and the aggressor is using — or reasonably appears about to be using — physical force while carrying out — or trying to carry out — burglary; or
  3. The victim reasonably believes non-deadly force is inadequate, and the aggressor is carrying out — or reasonably appears about to be carrying out — a kidnapping, robbery, or sexual assault.
Note that physical force is not legally justified in either of the following three situations:

  1. A person provokes the other person to use unlawful physical force and with the intent to bring about physical injury or death to another person; or
  2. A person is the initial aggressor (however, initial aggressors can legally use physical force if they with withdraw from the fight, convey their intent to withdraw, but the other person persists in using — or threatening to use — illegal physical force); or
  3. Any physical force is from an unauthorized “combat by agreement”, such as a rumble or gang fight


He's pretty much screwed and will probably be convinced to take a plea bargain, but you never know. It's an emotional time we live in nowadays.
Click to expand...
Some random guy in plain clothes laying hands on the victim, (regardless of his cussing out the journalist) is not going to pass the legal muster of "i got smacked in the face by touching this idiot, and now i had to shoot him in fear of my life"....
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and FLVOL_79
#382
#382
37L1 said:
Not ignoring the slap. Shooter is slapped after putting his hand on the victim's chest to stop his approach towards the camera.

According to the sequence it appears that the "mace" is sprayed after the shooter pulls his weapon from his waist area, not before.

The sequence shows that the shooter never reacted to the "mace", never wipes at his face, coughs, turns away from the aerosol cloud, etc. from the time he pulls his weapon from his appendix area, (before the "mace" is sprayed), to the shot being fired, to the victim down and several sequence photos thereafter. He is never shown reacting to the "mace" nor is anyone else in the vicinity, for that matter. I find that interesting in that the "mace" appears to have no role in affecting the aim of the shooter.

Was the "mace" deployed by the victim as a response to the shooter pulling out his weapon after the slap? Was the victim going to deploy the mace weapon or no weapon? We only know what we know based on the photo sequence which shows the "mace" deployed after weapon is drawn not before.

The victim is not blameless but did his actions rise to the level of legally justifying being shot in the head/dead? It will be something for lawyers, judges and maybe even juries to decide, with more evidence to come, no doubt, since everyone there had some sort of camera device and many have their version of events leading up to the killing.



Are you giving credence to the shooter knowing that he touched the victim's weapon after being slapped and recoiling from the impact? Particularly right after you just cast doubt regarding his capabilities? Wouldn't it be more likely that this brushing across (if it is even that much) wouldn't even register because he just got slapped in the face, knocking his glasses askew and him back/to the side? The victim never reached for or pulled his weapon at any time did he?

I get it, you are looking at this from what the defense might/will do, not necessarily advocating for the shooter. Same here but from the other side. IMO, the victim acted a fool, let his buttons get pushed and now he's dead because of it. He had a hand in his own demise.

I'm kind of curious regarding the role of Mr. BGM in this. Not that it is necessarily material in the case but what was going on here? What was the lead up to his shouting match with the Trumpers? Did he approach them, did they approach him? Who instigated that confrontation that jacked everyone else up? How did the Denver Press just happen to be here at the time to the lead up and to include the shooting? More curious than trying to make a case for one side or the other. This whole thing needs to get untangled because it's a mess. Cases like this are interesting, just from an all around standpoint but the results are awful for all involved.
Click to expand...
Doloff had NO right to touch the guy in a public area, even as a security "guard"
 
#383
#383
RockyTop85 said:
IMO, there’s a big difference between the competence required for “shoved a guy and felt/recognized the presence of a gun” and “practiced enough to become a competent marksman.”

In the 9News video, it looks to me like he shoves the guy back away from his principle/client (which explains the “he was retreating” narrative as well.) There’s some solid hand-chest contact in some of the pictures as well. This would have allowed him to feel the gun, if those pictures haven’t been doctored. (I’m not sure how much I trust that twitter account even though it explains why you can’t see the gun in the photos on the Denver post website.) This sequence also explains him being off balance after being slapped even though there didn’t appear to be a ton of hip turn or weight behind the slap. Unfortunately for the conspiracy blog-o-sphere, it also explains the deceased’s “retreat.” He got pushed back.

Have you ever been exposed to OC spray? I’ve seen it deployed twice (on somebody else). Maybe people react differently, but I didn’t even catch a full blast and my eyes welled up and started producing tears almost immediately on contact. Sure there was some eye wiping, but it wasn’t involuntary.Could I have shot somebody from 6 feet away? Probably. Would I be able to sight my weapon properly and group shots? I really don’t think I could. I’ve also been hit in the ear hole in football and those were always mildly disorienting, too.

The lack of successive shots supports your theory that he could see. The still photos leave a lot out.

Re: the botched paperwork, 9News says they requested unarmed security. I assume this is true and the vendor company felt it unnecessary to file the paperwork for the guy to go armed. Probably don’t need a license to act as a bouncer.

Re: your question about the media: there are other videos of people marching around in a line in an area that is somewhat cordoned off by police. Based on where the police came running from, it seems that the media were generally between the police and the initial altercation. I assumed they were just following the line of musterds or antifers after it walked out of the cordoned off area.

(Long rant reserved for future post to keep this one shorter.)
Click to expand...
Appreciate your response.

To answer your question: Yes, I have been exposed to real "mace" and pepper spray. Under a controlled setting though. The effect is not immediate but when it takes hold, particularly OC you can't see and are an involuntarily slobbering mess. Not necessarily incapacitating but you can't shoot or strike out at something you can't see. A stream is almost immediate if it hits you in the eyes/nose area. Mace, (CS) is painful but takes some time (5-30 seconds) to kick in. Both are nasty, IMO. Since what was used in this instance was an aerosol OC and not a stream, the effect would be even more delayed if any at all depending on the atmospherics. I doubt it had any impact on the shooter's ability to put a red dot on the victim's bean based on the photo sequence and the shooter's position relative to the orange aerosol cloud.

The best we can do is speculate about the known or unknown presence of the victim's firearm.

We do know for sure that the shooter's firearm was a known quantity. I really don't think that the victim's firearm, that was never drawn or even touched by the victim, factored into the shooter's use of his own firearm. He pulled it and shot, with no hesitation that I can discern from the photo sequence. A question one might ask is, why the shooter, when he pulled out the firearm, didn't warn the victim to back off before firing? Was he pissed because he got slapped or did he perceive the victim as an immediate lethal threat? Or both?

We also don't know whether or not the shooter was supposed to be unarmed but geared up anyway? Or maybe the News Org. has a lawyer doing post-op damage control? Like that never happens. . .

I'm staying tuned because I'm pretty sure more "revelations" will soon be forthcoming.

As always, I'm very interested on your take of such things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Rickyvol77
#386
#386
37L1 said:
Appreciate your response.

To answer your question: Yes, I have been exposed to real "mace" and pepper spray. Under a controlled setting though. The effect is not immediate but when it takes hold, particularly OC you can't see and are an involuntarily slobbering mess. Not necessarily incapacitating but you can't shoot or strike out at something you can't see. A stream is almost immediate if it hits you in the eyes/nose area. Mace, (CS) is painful but takes some time (5-30 seconds) to kick in. Both are nasty, IMO. Since what was used in this instance was an aerosol OC and not a stream, the effect would be even more delayed if any at all depending on the atmospherics. I doubt it had any impact on the shooter's ability to put a red dot on the victim's bean based on the photo sequence and the shooter's position relative to the orange aerosol cloud.

The best we can do is speculate about the known or unknown presence of the victim's firearm.

We do know for sure that the shooter's firearm was a known quantity. I really don't think that the victim's firearm, that was never drawn or even touched by the victim, factored into the shooter's use of his own firearm. He pulled it and shot, with no hesitation that I can discern from the photo sequence. A question one might ask is, why the shooter, when he pulled out the firearm, didn't warn the victim to back off before firing? Was he pissed because he got slapped or did he perceive the victim as an immediate lethal threat? Or both?

We also don't know whether or not the shooter was supposed to be unarmed but geared up anyway? Or maybe the News Org. has a lawyer doing post-op damage control? Like that never happens. . .

I'm staying tuned because I'm pretty sure more "revelations" will soon be forthcoming.

As always, I'm very interested on your take of such things.
Click to expand...
The stuff I experienced was just collateral overspray and it started to mess me up almost immediately. Enough so that I didn’t stick around to ask for particulars, once I was allowed to leave. Maybe being indoors made a difference.

The absence of the paperwork filing with the city makes me think that he was hired as unarmed security and brought the gun anyways. My opinion is that this is unlikely to make a difference to a jury. I don’t think anybody is going to see that and think “oh he went down there to kill somebody” when he’s hired as a security guard to go into this place where people like the deceased and his posse were attempting to physically intimidate others. Legally, he probably gets charged with something for being an armed guard without a license. If the CO stand your ground clause, like TN’s, is void during the commission of a crime, then it could make a difference on the law.

Shooter’s lawyer is saying shooter thought deceased was going for his gun. He said it early, before all these videos were out there. That’s why I got curious about the second gun. IMO, that was just a semi-plausible damage control story, until it turned out that there may actually have been a gun in his jacket.

It’s unclear from photos what the deceased is doing with his left hand, but he doesn’t need the ghost of Johnny Cochran to argue that the shooter drew the gun as a deterrent against further violence, and used it when he thought the guy (who had already been violent towards multiple people) was going for his own gun. Those photos support that, even if they don’t rule out every other possibility. Add in that shooter gets to say he witnessed the other altercations and that informed his decisions and you get to show a jury all these videos and photos of what he saw, which is going to make it tough for anybody to feel bad for this guy.

If you ever have a lawyer who says that is a “slam dunk” case for either side, you should run, not walk, to a better lawyer. It’s not a slam dunk. If the standard for self defense were just establishing reasonable doubt, then maybe it’s a slam dunk. But I’m sure he has to prove the elements of the defense by at least a preponderance and juries tend to do what they want, and sometimes they surprise you.

I guess my feeling is that this isn’t tragic. I just have no more sympathy for this guy than I did for the “shoot me then” guy in Kenosha. Maybe I’ve just seen too much ugly ****.
 
#387
#387
Rickyvol77 said:
Doloff had NO right to touch the guy in a public area, even as a security "guard"
Click to expand...

Mace guy had no right to touch the security guard in a public area, even as a guy with a can of mace. Looks to me like shooter put his hands up defensively as Mace guy was advancing on him.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: k-town_king
#388
#388
clarksvol00 said:
Mace guy had no right to touch the security guard in a public area, even as a guy with a can of mace. Looks to me like shooter put his hands up defensively as Mace guy was advancing on him.
Click to expand...
The 9News video looks like shooter shoved deceased away from the 9News journalist, who deceased was threatening with deceased’s mace can.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-1-704 | FindLaw

The shove or whatever laying of hands happened initially was 100% justified by the deceased’s behavior, in my personal opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and clarksvol00
#389
#389
RockyTop85 said:
The 9News video looks like he shoved him away from the 9News journalist, who he was threatening with his mace can.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-1-704 | FindLaw

The shove or whatever laying of hands happened initially was 100% justified by the deceased’s behavior, in my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Hadn't seen the 9news video.
 
#391
#391
Question I have, where was the shooters weapon? The speed with which he produced it makes me wonder if it was carried in plain sight on the hip. More so in correlation with the news stations statement about not knowing he had a weapon than it pertains to the shooting itself.
 
#392
#392
RockyTop85 said:
The stuff I experienced was just collateral overspray and it started to mess me up almost immediately. Enough so that I didn’t stick around to ask for particulars, once I was allowed to leave. Maybe being indoors made a difference.

The absence of the paperwork filing with the city makes me think that he was hired as unarmed security and brought the gun anyways. My opinion is that this is unlikely to make a difference to a jury. I don’t think anybody is going to see that and think “oh he went down there to kill somebody” when he’s hired as a security guard to go into this place where people like the deceased and his posse were attempting to physically intimidate others. Legally, he probably gets charged with something for being an armed guard without a license. If the CO stand your ground clause, like TN’s, is void during the commission of a crime, then it could make a difference on the law.

Shooter’s lawyer is saying shooter thought deceased was going for his gun. He said it early, before all these videos were out there. That’s why I got curious about the second gun. IMO, that was just a semi-plausible damage control story, until it turned out that there may actually have been a gun in his jacket.

It’s unclear from photos what the deceased is doing with his left hand, but he doesn’t need the ghost of Johnny Cochran to argue that the shooter drew the gun as a deterrent against further violence, and used it when he thought the guy (who had already been violent towards multiple people) was going for his own gun. Those photos support that, even if they don’t rule out every other possibility. Add in that shooter gets to say he witnessed the other altercations and that informed his decisions and you get to show a jury all these videos and photos of what he saw, which is going to make it tough for anybody to feel bad for this guy.

If you ever have a lawyer who says that is a “slam dunk” case for either side, you should run, not walk, to a better lawyer. It’s not a slam dunk. If the standard for self defense were just establishing reasonable doubt, then maybe it’s a slam dunk. But I’m sure he has to prove the elements of the defense by at least a preponderance and juries tend to do what they want, and sometimes they surprise you.

I guess my feeling is that this isn’t tragic. I just have no more sympathy for this guy than I did for the “shoot me then” guy in Kenosha. Maybe I’ve just seen too much ugly ****.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on the last. The victim was acting like an AH. Don't forget, Mr. BGM was a major agitator and also an AH. "Pepper spray me (n-word)."

I don't see any indication of the victim going for his gun in the sequence of photos. His weapon is in a shoulder holster on his left side, indicating he is right handed. His right hand is holding the can of pepper spray. His left hand never was in the vicinity of the holstered weapon and I doubt he could easily draw from that location with his left hand. Shoulder holsters are cross draw.

Could you point me to the photo or photos in the sequence that shows the victim going for his holstered firearm?
 
#393
#393
37L1 said:
I'm with you on the last. The victim was acting like an AH. Don't forget, Mr. BGM was a major agitator and also an AH. "Pepper spray me (n-word)."

I don't see any indication of the victim going for his gun in the sequence of photos. His weapon is in a shoulder holster on his left side, indicating he is right handed. His right hand is holding the can of pepper spray. His left hand never was in the vicinity of the holstered weapon and I doubt he could easily draw from that location with his left hand. Shoulder holsters are cross draw.

Could you point me to the photo or photos in the sequence that shows the victim going for his holstered firearm?
Click to expand...

I’d focus on what his left hand is doing. Obviously, the left hand isn’t going to unholster the weapon, but he looks like he could be clearing the concealing garment out of the way. It would only take a moment to drop the canister and draw if there’s no garment in the way. If shooter waits then the spray may render him completely unable to defend himself.

I’m not excusing the guy asking to be maced. It’s all the same stupid behavior as the guy in Kenosha and I don’t have any sympathy for him, either. Maybe the tragedy is that the suspect used a firearm and not a hand grenade.
 
#394
#394
RockyTop85 said:
I’d focus on what his left hand is doing. Obviously, the left hand isn’t going to unholster the weapon, but he looks like he could be clearing the concealing garment out of the way. It would only take a moment to drop the canister and draw if there’s no garment in the way. If shooter waits then the spray may render him completely unable to defend himself.

I’m not excusing the guy asking to be maced. It’s all the same stupid behavior as the guy in Kenosha and I don’t have any sympathy for him, either. Maybe the tragedy is that the suspect used a firearm and not a hand grenade.
Click to expand...
LOL! (On the hand grenade)

I think it's a stretch to say the victim showed any indication he was going for his firearm. The sequence shows nothing of the kind that I can see before the victim was shot (#874) but the defense may try to use it but it wouldn't be advisable, it's conjecture, not fact and can be easily refuted by the photo sequence. One could use the same conjecture and say that the shooter was supposed to be unarmed but armed himself intending to shoot someone. Both are conjectures with no credible evidence to support them when applied to what actually transpired.

But that's what lawyers are paid to do, to give the best defense for their client or convict the guilty, depending on which side of the courtroom one sits. I don't have a problem with that, as long as everyone involved stays in fair territory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#398
#398
KB5252 said:
Question I have, where was the shooters weapon? The speed with which he produced it makes me wonder if it was carried in plain sight on the hip. More so in correlation with the news stations statement about not knowing he had a weapon than it pertains to the shooting itself.
Click to expand...
Appendix IWB holster, under his untucked shirt. Photo sequence #873 frame #2641.

RALLY_873.jpg
 
#399
#399
37L1 said:
LOL! (On the hand grenade)

I think it's a stretch to say the victim showed any indication he was going for his firearm. The sequence shows nothing of the kind that I can see before the victim was shot (#874) but the defense may try to use it but it wouldn't be advisable, it's conjecture, not fact and can be easily refuted by the photo sequence. One could use the same conjecture and say that the shooter was supposed to be unarmed but armed himself intending to shoot someone. Both are conjectures with no credible evidence to support them when applied to what actually transpired.

But that's what lawyers are paid to do, to give the best defense for their client or convict the guilty, depending on which side of the courtroom one sits. I don't have a problem with that, as long as everyone involved stays in fair territory.
Click to expand...
37L1 said:
LOL! (On the hand grenade)

I think it's a stretch to say the victim showed any indication he was going for his firearm. The sequence shows nothing of the kind that I can see before the victim was shot (#874) but the defense may try to use it but it wouldn't be advisable, it's conjecture, not fact and can be easily refuted by the photo sequence. One could use the same conjecture and say that the shooter was supposed to be unarmed but armed himself intending to shoot someone. Both are conjectures with no credible evidence to support them when applied to what actually transpired.

But that's what lawyers are paid to do, to give the best defense for their client or convict the guilty, depending on which side of the courtroom one sits. I don't have a problem with that, as long as everyone involved stays in fair territory.
Click to expand...
I have minimal experience and training with firearms, but I see no photographic evidence that the victim made any move toward drawing his weapon. By frame 874 the victim had been shot and was dead. Before frame 874 he was directly viewing the shooter as the shooter drew his weapon. There is not a good view of the victim's left hand, but he never dropped the mace or moved his right hand toward his holster, even though he was directly viewing the shooter as the shooter drew his weapon. From the slap to the shooting was a matter of seconds, as shown on the photo data. Maybe the victim did not have time to react. Maybe he thought the shooter would not actually shoot under the circumstances. Maybe he realized he had been outdrawn and tried to use the mace as a defensive measure. Nobody will ever know for sure, but the victim was looking for a confrontation and he found one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top