Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
from the officer-still-believes-no-'excess'-in-this-use-of-force dept
This was an extraordinarily-fast resolution to an excessive force lawsuit, especially considering it took a trip to the appeals court.
The culprit here is Polk County Sheriff's Deputy Anthony Burgess (presumably no relation except for the ultraviolence). Burgess works for Techdirt favorite Sheriff Grady Judd, a man who's more showboat than sheriff and who has frequently mistaken his Florida office for an episode of "To Catch a Predator."
Burgess helped "effect" the arrest of a man who was peacefully going about the business of being arrested. The suspect was ordered to spit out the cigarette he was smoking while he was being cuffed. He turned his head and did so, and the spit cigarette allegedly grazed the sleeve of Deputy Burgess -- whom the suspect hadn't seen approaching from behind him.
This didn't sit well with Burgess, who then interrupted the handcuffing of the suspect by throwing him to the ground in an extremely violent manner.
Deputy Burgess then grabbed Mr. Ramirez by his torso and took Mr. Ramirez to the ground, severely injuring Mr. Ramirez’s right leg and scraping Mr. Ramirez’s face on the road. Mr. Ramirez’s hands were in the air when he was thrown to the ground. Mr. Ramirez testified that the gun was in his face throughout the incident, until he was taken down. Deputy Burgess held Mr. Ramirez on the ground, with his knee on Mr. Ramirez’s spine, and handcuffed Mr. Ramirez. Deputy McLeod then put his foot on Mr. Ramirez’s head. Mr. Ramirez was held on the ground until a police vehicle was brought to the scene. Mr. Ramirez’s tibia was shattered by the takedown, and his face was bleeding, bruised and swollen. Additionally, Mr. Ramirez has tendons and ligaments in his leg that are torn beyond repair as a result of this incident.Burgess tried for immunity, claiming the use of force was justified and not excessive given the circumstances. The court disagreed.
When Deputy Burgess used force to effectuate the arrest here, Mr. Ramirez had already stopped moving, had surrendered, was obeying the deputies' commands, and posed no threat to the safety of the officers. In fact, by taking Ramirez to the ground, Deputy Burgess interrupted another officer, Deputy McLeod, who was handcuffing Mr. Ramirez. Ramirez was being arrested for a misdemeanor offense, domestic violence – battery. The undisputed facts show that Ramirez followed every command the deputies gave him, including the command to spit the cigarette out. Ramirez could not use his hands to take the cigarette out of his mouth because his hands were either in the air or being held behind his back from the time he was initially stopped until the takedown. There are no allegations that Mr. Ramirez was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. Ramirez did not attempt to fight, kick, hit, or swing at the deputies. He was compliant with the deputies’ commands. The evidence, in the light most favorable to Ramirez, indicates that Ramirez did not pose a threat to the safety of the officers or others.And because the court found the force excessive, away went Burgess' immunity.
A reasonable law enforcement officer in this situation would not believe that anything more than de minimis force was warranted. Yet, Deputy Burgess used force sufficient to break bones and tear ligaments. That force was excessive.
The right to be free of excessive force by law enforcement officers during an arrest is clearly established. Because Deputy Burgess’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known, he is not entitled to qualified immunity.Judd's office appealed the decision. This appeal was swiftly dismissed by the 11th Circuit Court.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the cigarette grazed the sleeve of Deputy Burgess’ uniform. Deputy Burgess was not injured by the cigarette and there is no evidence that this action amounted to a level of resistance that made breaking Mr. Ramirez’s leg reasonable – particularly in light of the fact that it was Deputy Burgess who instructed Mr. Ramirez to spit out the cigarette in the first place.
This appeal stems from a citizen-police encounter. Defendant Burgess, an officer in the Polk County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office, contends that the District Court erred in denying him qualified immunity as to plaintiff Carlos Ramirez’s claim, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Burgess used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment in arresting him on the night of July 28, 2010. We disagree. Taking the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to Ramirez, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Burgess used excessive force as Ramirez contends. AFFIRMED.This is the entirety of the opinion. Very few unpublished opinions run more than a couple of pages at the most, but this unpublished opinion runs only four sentences, and that's if you include "AFFIRMED." This is a swift booting that defines the term "dismissive." One almost can see the eyeroll that accompanied this quick review of the facts. Being an appeals court judge means spending time on the weakest of appeals, simply because every appeal must be looked at. There's nothing in this one, though, and the court only wastes the number of words it absolutely has to in order to send it back where it came from.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anthony burgess, florida, grady judd, immunity, police brutality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Prisons are overfull
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If this is how they treat someone who /isn't/ putting up a fight...
By claiming that he didn't use excessive force.
Just think about what they are claiming here. They're honestly arguing that broken bones and permanent bodily harm is seen by at the very least one precinct as acceptable, for the 'heinous' crime of unintentionally spitting a cigarette in the general direction of an officer.
Yet again the police show why you would have to be an utter fool to trust them, or even want them anywhere near you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If this is how they treat someone who /isn't/ putting up a fight...
If all policemen were equal before the law, he should be able to break at least a dozen more people's bones before being inconvenienced by a court appearance.
At any rate, the appeals court stated that a reasonable jury might find the use of force here excessive, but that does not mean that the plaintiff will be able to avail himself of a reasonable jury.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
appeal : [DO NOT PUBLISH]
I wonder why the court didn't want that appeal published? Is that a regular thing for the court of appeal eleventh circuit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: If this is how they treat someone who /isn't/ putting up a fight...
"What's a few broken bones and torn muscles, he could have gunned the guy down, and anyway, he deserved what he got for spitting a cigarette in the direction of a cop."
As for the last bit, here's hoping for a sane jury, one that's not blinded by a badge and willing to overlook a crime because of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
go fuck yourselves
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: appeal : [DO NOT PUBLISH]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: appeal : [DO NOT PUBLISH]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: appeal : [DO NOT PUBLISH]
Basically all it means is "hey, this isn't worth citing, so don't do so".
Now there is some controversy about unpublished decisions, but it's not meant to be secret in the same way that sealing a decision is. And this particular one would be uncontroversial, since it's just a simple and short upholding of the prior decision (which can be cited).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: appeal : [DO NOT PUBLISH]
A "do not publish" decision has (in the court's opinion) no value as legal precedent. They got it right in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Prisons are overfull
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
ftfy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: go fuck yourselves
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And police solidarity will make their colleagues look away when they pull their gun and execute some severely injured guy in order not to cause hardship to their own family.
What is really needed is a culture of criminal liability for abusive police and any false witnesses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I was with you right up until I read this line.
First off, why in the world do places exist in the USA where beating your wife and/or kids is only a misdemeanor? And second, if he'd been doing that, he deserves everything the cop did to him and more. Sorry if that sounds harsh and offends anyone's delicate sensibilities, but if so you probably haven't been on the receiving end. Any man who is capable of bringing himself to do that is no man at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's possible Burgess was motivated by this same thought, which is a major problem when cops believe they can be judge and executioner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So to pass judgement you obviously know all the details of this perticilar case...enlighten us please.
So you want to get rid of judges and just leave it up to the cops to dole out punishment on the spot?
And finally...equal rights. I guess you don't support womens rights. They have the same rights as men. Why do you see them as inferior?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We have a system of courts, where guilt is established, and it takes more than an accusation for someone to be held as guilty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: go fuck yourselves
GO FUCK YOURSELF!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
IQ of a cop?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I know others have already pointed out your foolish beliefs about due process, but I want to point out that even you understand, as is clear from what you write, that his guilt is in doubt at the point of arrest. There's a reason for due process, and over zealous policing is one of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
First off, how in the world did anything I said lead you to conclude any such thing about my beliefs?!? I said nothing whatsoever about the rights of women. I did imply that they have a right to not be beaten on by their husbands, but that's it.
Second, "domestic violence" doesn't mean spitting on someone. It means that someone was being violent enough that the victim was in in fear for their own safety to such a degree that they called the cops on the guy, knowing full well that if this didn't work it would invite reprisals. Go on, ask me how I know what these things mean and how they work...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well, I'm currently making 6 figures as a professional software development. Feel free to draw your own conclusions, since you seem to already be doing so anyway...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: was with you right up until I read this line.
and where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because if you make EVERYTHING that pisses you off personally a felony, what are you going to do with all those felons?
Imprison them? Great. How're you going to pay for it?
And if you decide to charge them all as felons and NOT imprison them because you can't afford it, do you think the felony on their record is going to enhance or retard their chances to do anything positive after that?
Prison doesn't work. If it did, the outcome would be LESS people in prison, rather than more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: was with you right up until I read this line.
(this is what san franciscans actually believe)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, because I totally said that, didn't I? I said "everything that pisses me off should be a felony."
...oh wait, no, I didn't. In fact, I said nothing of the sort. Seriously, where do you people get this crap from?
But a person who betrays the trust of those who are supposed to be under his protection and inflicts violence on them? Give me one good reason why that should not be among the most serious felonies on the books.
Depends on how you define "work". You know what keeping someone locked up does a very effective job of? Preventing them from beating on their family any more!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: was with you right up until I read this line.
Why is it that this statement sounds exaggerated?
Something something due process, blah blah
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But my point stands. If everything's a felony, what're you going to do with all the people?
Remember the ridiculously harsh drug laws we passed during the war on drugs? Was that a success? No drug problem anymore?
How about the 3 strikes laws, where people ended up serving 25 years for a minor 3rd offense? That was clearly a winner, wasn't it?
I guess if you define work as growing the prison economy, then congratulations! You've achieved your goal of having the highest number of citizens in jails!
Sorry. I'd rather see this out of control cop go to jail, rather than the guy who allegedly beat his wife.
Before you argue "But a person who betrays the trust of those who are supposed to be under his protection and inflicts violence on them?" - understand that the cop who beat the shit out of this guy also fits this bill rather nicely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But there unlimited examples of spitting being domestic violence/battery.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/nevada-battery-domestic-violence--an-overview- of-domestic-violence-laws-in-nevada
http://ask-a-lawyer.freeadvice.com/law-questions/is-spitting-on-s omeone-co-147616.htm
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/domestic-violenc e/oklahoma-domestic-violence-laws-charges-penalt
http://lawyersusaonline.com/benchmarks/2011/05/24/sp itting-boyfriend-gets-just-deserts/
Use google much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Way to shift the burden of proof when you have nothing to back up your accusation.
Yeah, did you miss the part about how he was already a convicted felon several times over, and how he trashed her car?
Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. When I said "domestic violence doesn't mean spitting on someone", I didn't mean to imply anything about legal definitions of domestic violence, but rather that if you call the cops on someone for domestic violence, it's because you believe that you are in enough real, physical danger that the risk of the inevitable reprisal of this doesn't work is less than the immediate risk of doing nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: If this is how they treat someone who /isn't/ putting up a fight...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A Thug Cop's worst nightmare is facing a civil rights jury!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: go fuck yourselves
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: If this is how they treat someone who /isn't/ putting up a fight...
The guy with the cigarette was damned if he obeyed and damned if he didn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: go fuck yourselves
Put a can of the restraint foam that is in development, a taser, a camera and a gun on a quad-copter drone, and police really COULD telecommute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I don't remember any such thing. I remember a bunch of ridiculously lax laws that fail to treat drug dealers as what they are: murderers and worse than murderers. If we actually did treat them accordingly, if a person knew that if they got caught peddling addictive substances that destroy not only the life of their victim but the victim's family as well in all too many cases, that they would be punished as a person who destroys life is punished, you'd see a whole lot less drug dealing going on. (Which is why I object to the highly misleading term "war on drugs" in the first place. What kind of war is it where it's not presumed reasonable to kill enemy combatants as a matter of course? Some people think we need to end the war on drugs. I think we need to actually start it! That would be a far better use of our resources than, say, war in the Middle East.)
Which violent crimes are you calling 'minor', specifically, especially in the context of a person having established a pattern of violent crime and recidivism?
Also, in light of the way violent crime has been decreasing quite significantly since the passage of these laws, what is your basis for claiming that they're ineffective?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: go fuck yourselves
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If we actually did treat them accordingly, if a person knew that if they got caught peddling addictive substances that destroy not only the life of their victim but the victim's family as well in all too many cases, that they would be punished as a person who destroys life is punished, you'd see a whole lot less drug dealing going on.
Ahh yes...if they just knew the penalties they were facing...that would eliminate crime completely.
Just like it did with gun violence, and every other form of crime where the penalties are ALREADY severe.
Just like it did with copyright infringement...oh wait...
What kind of war is it where it's not presumed reasonable to kill enemy combatants as a matter of course?
You're really going off the deep end on this one, Mason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if he called the cops on her, would it have been alright if they beat the shit out of her instead?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: go fuck yourselves
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I think you nailed it. IQ of cop. That's why you're stuck in a teenager's job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is actually a case to be made for this. Let me state first, clearly and unambiguously, that I am not advocating following this example. Having said that, history does give us two examples of lawmakers who did successfully manage to bring crime within their domain to a screeching halt: Draco of Athens (for whom the term "draconian" is named), and Vlad Tepes, aka "Vlad The Impaler." (Who, it's worth noting, is still considered a great hero to this day in his native Romania; it was his neighbors--political enemies--who quite literally demonized him, calling him Drakula, which translates as "son of the dragon" or "son of The Devil," depending on who's doing the translating.) So yes, history demonstrates that deterrence does indeed work, and there is a point at which it apparently works completely.
Now again, I am not advocating following their example. There are other important factors that need to be taken into consideration when developing criminal justice policies for a modern, civilized society. But to just blithely dismiss deterrence like that makes you look horribly ignorant.
You specifically mention gun violence. This is an interesting case, because it combines two distinct things: violent crime, and guns. Would you agree that in almost all cases of intentional attack with a gun (ie. not counting the horror stories we've all heard about a gun going off accidentally, or a child finding a loaded pistol and not realizing it's not a toy, etc...) that if a gun had not been available, the violence would have still taken place anyway, by other means?
This being true, it makes sense to look at gun violence as a special case of violent crime in general, which, as I pointed out above (and as Techdirt has mentioned repeatedly over the years) has been on a steep decline for decades. The reason why gun violence in particular is so prevalent in the US as a subset of violence in general is a highly politicized question that both sides seem to agree can be blamed on the degree of availability of guns--the question is whether it's too high, or too low. (Deterrence again, in the latter POV.)
As for copyright infringement, think back to Disney's Aladdin: "Trouble? No, you're only in trouble if you get caught." When only a small fraction of 1% of people who engage in copyright infringement ever face any legal consequences for it, there's no deterrence even if the hypothetical penalties are insanely high.
If you want a better example, let's talk about kidnapping of children. It used to be thing in the USA. These days, it's nearly nonexistent, and most of what is termed "kidnapping" anymore involves a custodial dispute which one of the parents decided to resolve in a unilateral manner, frequently with the approval of the child in question--a far cry from what the average person would envision when they hear the word "kidnapped."
What changed? The FBI started taking kidnapping very seriously, and made it very clear that if you steal a child from their parents, you're not going to get away with it, and it worked.
Likewise, hijackings. You know why there hasn't been a single American airliner hijacked since 9/11? Because we made it clear that anyone who tries is going to get immediately mobbed by a plane full of passengers who all believe they have nothing to lose, and so the hijackers will never succeed in their goals.
When people know the penalties they face, and believe that they're likely to actually face them, it does have a strong tendency to eliminate crime. Sometimes even completely, as examples both ancient and modern show.
Ah yes, the classic holdout weapon of the debater who knows he has no case to make: mockery. Try to short-circuit the audience's reasoning by appealing to ridicule rather than facts and logic.
It's kind of sad how well it works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: liability
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Questions for Mason Wheeler
2). Have you seen some these "so-called" defenceless" spouses that maliciously and intentional push the members of their families to breaking point?
3). Have you seen the results of husband bashing?
4). Do you believe in "innocent until proven guilty"?
5). Do you have all the details of the specific allegations in this particular case?
Accusation is a great colourer of how people will be viewed, irrespective of what the real story is. In this particular case, all we know is that he was accused of domestic violence (battery), we do NOT know whether, in fact, any battery (of any kind) was actually performed.
The police may have simply charged him with this without any verification. From the article, we do NOT know.
In any case, irrespective of his actions, the actions of the police officer were themselves extremely problematic. His actions are a matter for other court activity. If found guilty of battery then the appropriate punishment and discipline needs to be undertaken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Prisons are overfull
Fake investigations to "make law enforcement successful" is also a problem.
Fake productive labs and analysis also put innocent citizens in jail.
Commercial jails provide an incitement to destroy innocent citizens lives. It is even proved that judges have been paid to do this to kids
At the same time rape kits sits un-analyzed, sometimes for decades, with serial rapists on the loose. The effort to address this is quite meek. Comparing the amounts allocated to this to the security theater and fake FBI stings leave the impression that something might have gone wrong with the governance.
Is it solvable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peace Officers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Domestic violence
If I have understood you correctly in this, it is views we have in common.
It is also an obvious truth that both domestic violence and neglect, to a large extent is neglected by the government. It have this in common with rape, sexual abuse, police violence, and "billing" of rape victims.
It is part of a several thousand years long religious and "cultural" tradition. Including assassination of a mans own children.
Traditional rape laws in the US defined rape as forced sexual intercourse by a male with a "female not his wife." Not until 1993 were marital rape a crime in all 50 states.
There is hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits in USA. After public pressure and as a lip service to harvest voters, single digit million dollars is used here and there. When they do, they sometimes find kits stowed away somewhere that nobody knew about.
After the massive child rape operation were exposed, the Catholic church were free to move wealth to "inaccessible" funds to chide the children all over again. The US government see nothing, hear nothing and care not at all.
There is a pattern. A pattern of neglect. A pattern of power abuse. Is this the will of the people? Or is everyone hung up on Democrats vs. Republicans bullocks?
Is it doting on power and contempt for weakness? Like when people cheered on to assassination of a bicyclist with cruse missile, and feeling great? Or beating up geeks at school for being week and understanding math?
I have an issue with the police dishing out punishment though. Police dishing out is a problem no matter if the recipient actually deserved it (or not). And your analysis regarding excessive punishment working for preventing bad parents is likely wrong. As you full well knows, the manipulator and the bad person might be the same person. Giving the manipulator increased ability to SWAT someone, and there is unlikely that there will be fewer victims. To make more people safe, costs money, demands effort, to protect weaklings like children and battered spouses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: go fuck yourselves
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to reconcile that all of this fear of punishment is a deterrent. Yet, the prison population has been steadily increasing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
So while you can blather on about how crime rates have decreased, you now have a different, and as I mentioned UNSUSTAINABLE by-product of that, with 1 in 100 adults in prison.
Please explain how an increasing prison population equates to a deterrent. If it truly is a deterrent, then that population would decrease over time, no?
And I'll ask this same question again, since you continue to avoid it - how do you plan to continue to PAY for this, especially if you want to add minor offenses such as domestic violence to the equation?
I'll also add that recidivism is nearly 68% - so again, this is success to you?
With 1 in 100 adults in prison or jail and 2/3 of those more likely than not to be BACK in jail once they're released, I'll reiterate my original point that prison DOES NOT WORK as a deterrent.
I anxiously await more 13th century examples to support your theories...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: appeal : [DO NOT PUBLISH]
It's fairly common. They figure that it does not decide any interesting legal issues and will not offer much guidance beyond the case at hand.
Since they charged through all the F.2d numbers and in just a few years are well up in the F.3d numbers, there is some desire to cut down on the published opinions or at least limit them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not in any way condoning ACTUAL domestic violence, but the charge itself doesn't automatically equate to physical violence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: go fuck yourselves
Mack
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Legalized Crime and Immunity from Punishment
I'm just wondering which wrist was slapped of course.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crime and that other thing
Oh, yes - "the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip you your fingers"
/zam
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I was with you right up until I read this line.
However at court I was able to show self defense and found not guilty .... but please explain how it follows that I " deserve[s] everything the cop did to him[me] and more."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]