Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Dresden

Police

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Would it be unreasonable to conclude a privatized (non-union) municipal police force would effectively be more cost efficient for a city, and therefore, tax payer to maintain? It seems private military contractors are having some success in our recent foreign engagements and has me thinking about this. My local police force is generally budgeted upwards $1million a year. What are some ideas on why something like this could work, or could not. I'm sort of frustrated, because, our local police chief is trying to outsource the department to a neighboring city; and I think there might be cheaper ways of doing business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be unreasonable to conclude a privatized (non-union) municipal police force would effectively be more cost efficient for a city, and therefore, tax payer to maintain? It seems private military contractors are having some success in our recent foreign engagements and has me thinking about this. My local police force is generally budgeted upwards $1million a year. What are some ideas on why something like this could work, or could not. I'm sort of frustrated, because, our local police chief is trying to outsource the department to a neighboring city; and I think there might be cheaper ways of doing business.

I'm confused with your terminology. You say "privatized" which means "privately owned" but then use "(non-union)" as a qualifier. When you say "private" and "non-union", do you mean it will be entirely private? Or just a non-union municipality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be unreasonable to conclude a privatized (non-union) municipal police force would effectively be more cost efficient for a city, and therefore, tax payer to maintain?
No, for various reasons. First, there must be a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, thus no competition, which eliminates the source of free market efficiency. Second, what the police do is not optional for them: what they do is protect rights, and they cannot refuse to do so. (Whereas a grocer can capriciously refuse to sell you milk, or can decide to not sell milk because it's not cost-effective). Third, any analysis based on the assumption that taxation is proper or necessary is wrong. Policing would, in a proper capitalist society, be funded by voluntary contributions.

The best way to reduce the cost of the police force is to restrict them to their proper function: protection of rights. Not arresting drug dealers and buyers or issuing traffic tickets; not directing traffic. Enforcing rights-protecting laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused with your terminology. You say "privatized" which means "privately owned" but then use "(non-union)" as a qualifier. When you say "private" and "non-union", do you mean it will be entirely private? Or just a non-union municipality?

Yes, entirely private, sorry for the confusion.

The best way to reduce the cost of the police force is to restrict them to their proper function: protection of rights. Not arresting drug dealers and buyers or issuing traffic tickets; not directing traffic. Enforcing rights-protecting laws.

I agree entirely with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A private company payed with public money would be just another layer of bureaucracy. It would eliminate the little bit of accountability elected officials who run the Police Dep. have, without the benefits of private entities competing for profit in a marketplace.

I'd say that if that type of system were to be widespread, it would soon degenerate into fascism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, what the police do is not optional for them: what they do is protect rights, and they cannot refuse to do so. (Whereas a grocer can capriciously refuse to sell you milk, or can decide to not sell milk because it's not cost-effective).

I guess "not optional" has hit a cord with me.

Discretion is available to them. In addition to motivation.

Additionally, the role of police is usually picking up pieces and adminstrative.

They can only really help support the self defense of rights or doing it by proxy when one is away as if they were to notice that someone is robbing your house while you're on vacation.

Arm more people for self defense of their families and property and fewer police will be needed for the actual need of government: protection of rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arm more people for self defense of their families and property and fewer police will be needed for the actual need of government: protection of rights.

Having your washing machine stolen by a repairman you trusted to fix it is fraud and a violation of your rights. That doesn't mean you have the right to shoot him. Therein lies a fundamental necessity for a police force: as a governmental entity, (knowing the nature of an Objectivist government) the implication of and the potential for legal application of force allows the police to mediate that situation and hopefully return your property. If it's a case of life or death and self defense is your only option, of course you can (and should) shoot the individual(s) trying to harm you or your family. Otherwise, I believe it should be left up to the police.

Edited by Ordr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discretion is available to them. In addition to motivation.
Discretion does not mean whim or following individual values. It means that there is a standard to be followed, and they must judge whether the facts fit that standard. It also means that if their judgment is bad (not just in error) the government will rightly have to pay the price.
Additionally, the role of police is usually picking up pieces and adminstrative.
Depends on what you mean by that. It is not necessary that the arresting officer do paperwork, what with newfangled technology.
Arm more people for self defense of their families and property and fewer police will be needed for the actual need of government: protection of rights.
It is also not the proper function of the government to be supplying guns to citizens, nor to be training them in how to use them for self defense. One should exercise the right to use self-defensive force only in an emergency, when calling the police would not be as effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A private company payed with public money would be just another layer of bureaucracy. It would eliminate the little bit of accountability elected officials who run the Police Dep. have, without the benefits of private entities competing for profit in a marketplace.

I'd say that if that type of system were to be widespread, it would soon degenerate into fascism.

I agree with Jake here. Accountability is paramount with something like this. The OP mentioned private quasi-military Security companies, such as Blackwater. There is no civilian oversight of Blackwater, and thier standards slipped due to the sudden demand for thier services due to the Iraq war, causing problems (legal ones) due to the actions of thier operatives. These types of entities are. really, mercenaries, and have no place on the battlefield, or guarding govenment officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These types of entities are. really, mercenaries, and have no place on the battlefield, or guarding govenment officials.

Just to add to your point on Blackwater:

They can be wherever they want to be, doing whatever they want to do, but if they break American laws, they should be prosecuted when they show up back home. And yes, they should not be employed by the American government: the reason why they are is because for politicians (and probably the military leadership) they are an excellent means of dealing in favors or even receiving bribes, outside the reach of civilian anti-corruption investigators.

On the other hand, Blackwater can serve a legitimate purpose, as long as they only work for private companies, and they are held to American law. (to the extent that they are an American company, or the employees themselves are American citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has studied criminal justice, and worked in law enforcement for most of my professional career, I feel I can offer some insight into this subject from another angle.

The police, peace officers, constables, whatever you might call them, are one of the proper functions of a government that might be based on Objectivist principles. The police, properly, would act as Stewards of the Rule of Law.

As the law is the main governing force behind the state (in our case, the constitution) it is the police officers duty to uphold that law, and enforce it without regard to any one persons social status, rank, position, etcetera. So...even if the President was seen stealing a candy bar from a grocery store, a police officer should still be able to arrest him. (Unfortunately, I'm sure this would not be the case.)

The police act to bring perpetrators to the court system, where all evidence can be presented in their defense and their prosecution, they can be tried by a jury of their peers, and summarily convicted or exonerated.

The police also act to protect the natural rights of citizens. This may be hard to grasp, as the image of a police officer arresting a man seems to conflict with the idea of preserving personal freedoms; but an oppressive government regime is not the only threat to your personal freedoms. The thief that steals from your business, the burglar who breaks into your home, the wreckless driver who forces your vehicle off the highway causing you injury or death...these are all people who threaten your personal liberty or your way of life. The police should act to prevent this....not only through arresting such persons and bringing them to the courts, but through proactive measures. Such measures as preventative patrol (marked vehicles patrolling trouble areas,) community oriented policing programs (neighborhood watch, etc.) improvement of public area lighting and other general crime deterrents, and even so far as landscaping to make areas appear more "inhabited," (See George L. Kelling's broken windows theory.)

Such proactive strategies create an unfriendly environment for a potential offender.

Now, when it comes to the relationship between municipal/county/state law enforcement and federal government....this is where it gets interesting.

Here's a scenario: If the federal government were to, for example, blatantly overstep the bounds of the rule of law (as if this hasn't happened already,) and arbitrarily declare that all privately-owned firearms must be turned in to local authorities under penalty of law, they might issue a directive to local law enforcement to supervise the collection, and to raid the houses of those who do not comply to confiscate whatever firearms they might have.

Now, in all my years of working in this field, I have met many fine and not-so-fine LEO's. I have not met one officer who would not, facing such a directive, throw his badge on the steps of the capitol building before following such an order.

My point is this: Your local, county, state etc. police officers are all people. They have likes, dislikes, beliefs, scepticism, fears, values, convictions, just like anyone else. These men don't get into this career field for the money, or the power, because they know they will find neither. They get into it because they value good people over bad people, and they get some kind of satisfaction out of protecting good people from theft, fraud, injury, etc....the same kind of satisfaction that an industrialist feels when his continued effort results in the growth of his business. It's all about values.

$35k a year is generally not enough for one to commit treason to onesself. An officer who realizes that he has become the same thief he was once protecting citizens from will throw down his badge and return to civilian life...or possibly continue to do his job without the sanction or pay of the government. Those that remain, and continue to follow whatever directives issued, regardless of their nature, are no better than the thugs they put behind bars.

or issuing traffic tickets; not directing traffic.

Unfortunately, this is an essential function of law enforcement. When you have seen a 4 year old girl spread across 20 feet of pavement on an interstate, you realize that wreckless and irresponsible drivers claim not only themselves as victims. Speed limits are an important tool for preventing this. If the speed limit on your local interstate is 70, and everyone is going 80 during rush hour...the police will most likely not pull over everyone (very difficult to implement on a 4-lane interstate.) The police will pull over those who drive wrecklessly, weaving in and out of traffic, speeding unreasonably, presenting themselves as a danger or threat to the welfare of others on the road. The speed limit is there so that the police officer does not have to charge the individual with the statute, "Probably driving too fast and stuff, in my opinion...in the 2nd degree."

This is just another way of protecting your personal liberties; your right to your life and well being...protecting you from those who, through their wanton or reckless driving habits, present a threat to your life or well being.

Unfortunately, some agencies use this as a revenue generator...in order to buy another cruiser or some other equipment, they write enough speeding tickets to fund it, or make a drug bust, etc. In the same way that I wonder why there are still commercials when I'm paying for cable, I wonder why I'm still paying high taxes while revenue for these agencies is being generated in other ways. The solution is simply more transparency...to see where my money's going.

And if you see the enforcement of speed limits as an improper way to protect persons from wreckless drivers...this is why we have people like Dr. Robert Agnew, George Kelling, Merton, Cohen, Cloward, Ohlin, Cesare Beccaria, Cesare Lombroso, Shaw & McKay, etcetera. Criminologists, educators, sociologists, researchers, constantly trying to figure out why certain people commit certain crimes and how best to prevent this. The techniques used twenty or thirty years ago are not in place today...and twenty or thirty years down the road, the techniques used today will seem barbaric in comparison. If you think something is wrong with the way laws are enforced...study it, research it, write...publish, etcetera. Find something out and make your findings known. That's how progress happens in this field.

Edited by EKUzombiE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, this is an essential function of law enforcement. When you have seen a 4 year old girl spread across 20 feet of pavement on an interstate, you realize that wreckless and irresponsible drivers claim not only themselves as victims.
This does not make it the proper responsibility of the monopoly on the use of force. The dispute is not over whether there should be people directing traffic in challenging circumstances and issuing some kind of instrument of consequence for people who violate rules of the road, the question is whether that is properly the responsibility of those men who implement the government's exclusive monopoly on force, and it is not.
Speed limits are an important tool for preventing this.
And speed limits are properly established by the private property owner and set as a contractual condition for the use of the property, again taking this out of the realm of proper police function (again, remembering that the police are the exclusive agents empowered to implement force in the protection of individual rights, and are not generalized agents of social order).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And speed limits are properly established by the private property owner and set as a contractual condition for the use of the property, again taking this out of the realm of proper police function (again, remembering that the police are the exclusive agents empowered to implement force in the protection of individual rights, and are not generalized agents of social order).

And exactly who is going to enforce speed limits set on private property? Is the property owner going to be attempting to pull people over and issue citations? By what constitutional authority? Couldn't I just tell the property owner to kiss my fat ass? Is he going to hire private police to patrol his section of highway? By what authority would they issue citations?

I am in the private security field, and we do not have the authority to arrest unless it is a felony, and then it is a citizen's arrest, holding the individual until the police can take custody. We absolutely do not not have the authority to make traffic stops, and would be arrested for impersonating a police officer if we did.

It is part of the legitimate function of government to delegate authority to a police force as agents of the government to ensure that the rule of law is upheld, and that includes traffic laws. Privatized police forces to cover every stretch of road in the US would be a nightmare, not to mention the difficulty of identification of who is a legitimate enforcement agent for what particular section of road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And exactly who is going to enforce speed limits set on private property? Is the property owner going to be attempting to pull people over and issue citations? By what constitutional authority? Couldn't I just tell the property owner to kiss my fat ass? Is he going to hire private police to patrol his section of highway? By what authority would they issue citations?

I am in the private security field, and we do not have the authority to arrest unless it is a felony, and then it is a citizen's arrest, holding the individual until the police can take custody. We absolutely do not not have the authority to make traffic stops, and would be arrested for impersonating a police officer if we did.

It is part of the legitimate function of government to delegate authority to a police force as agents of the government to ensure that the rule of law is upheld, and that includes traffic laws. Privatized police forces to cover every stretch of road in the US would be a nightmare, not to mention the difficulty of identification of who is a legitimate enforcement agent for what particular section of road.

There are private gated communities that have private security that can "ticket" an individual. Ban their entrance too. It's private property, the road. That is the "price" of ownership in the community, or maybe it is the mutual responsibility of those that rationally decide to become a part of the community by purchasing and maintaining their property ownership. It is a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By what constitutional authority?
Contractual authority. By what authority does any private property owner assert his property rights?
Couldn't I just tell the property owner to kiss my fat ass?
Yes, and you can tell a cop to kiss your ass as well. However, a property owner has certain rights that will be enforced. It is the proper function of police to protect the rights of property owners. I hope you understand the distinction here: it is not the proper function of police to arrest people for driving faster than some statutorily-set limit; it is the proper function of police to arrest people for violating the property rights of individuals.
We absolutely do not not have the authority to make traffic stops, and would be arrested for impersonating a police officer if we did.
You do have the right to request a person to stop; you just cannot pretend to be doing so under color of law.
It is part of the legitimate function of government to delegate authority to a police force as agents of the government to ensure that the rule of law is upheld, and that includes traffic laws.
However, your conduct on the road is not properly a matter of law, it is a matter of contract. A property owner has the right to establish the rules for using his property, and the government or individual offficers have no right to overbear his decision.

And clearly, there is no argument that cops should be directing traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand some Objectivists' view of the police. Yes, the proper role of the government is to secure the individual rights of the citizenry, so having police around to do that does not violate anyone's rights. For example, some see police towers at mall parking lots or even at Obama's inauguration as evidence of a police state; I don't see it that way at all. I suppose part of the issue is the fact that the police do enforce non-objective law and even laws that ought not to exist (i.e. drug laws), and some people don't like them patrolling roads though I don't see why this would not be legitimate as there are people out there who do drive recklessly putting everyone's life and property in danger.

So, what is the real beef with the police. Do you think they should not exist at all? I have heard that argument before from supposed Objectivists, though I think they tend to be more anarchists or anarcho-capitalists (i.e. not real Objectivists). What is the problem you have with police patrolling your neighborhood, so long as they are there to protect your individual rights by suppressing those who would do you harm? I mean, I certainly don't want the State to be spying on me or keeping track of my every movement, but if they are there to protect me in general, I don't have a problem with them being in my neighborhood or being on the road when I am.

What's the big deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffic direction, in most cases, is provided as a courtesy to the public. I used to direct traffic every morning at a busy intersection, as parents were taking their children to the nearby school at the same time that students were arriving for classes at the college. This intersection was without a stoplight...as it simply wasn't needed at any time other than the start and end of the school hours. I directed traffic there to limit congestion, and facilitate the smooth flow of traffic; so that everyone could get in and out quickly, people could cross the street safely, etc.

Only a couple of times did I have to dive out of the way of some idiot who wasn't paying attention...probably texting or something, as I'm a big dude and hard to miss in the middle of the road.

But what is a stoplight if not an automated traffic direction device? It's still telling you when to stop and when to go, isn't it? I've seen rare instances where, at a very large 4 way intersection, with at least 3 lanes on each side, with the traffic light disabled due to a storm, everyone followed the proper patterns and took proper turns. I think I saw that only once or twice, in Frankfort. The simple fact of the matter is, on public roads, traffic lights facilitate the smooth flow of traffic, and account for the relative driving skill and awareness (or, more importantly, lack thereof) of most drivers.

Traffic direction at the scene of accidents or incidents is another case entirely. A traffic accident on a three-lane interstate may result in several vehicles, disabled, sitting in one lane with injured persons inside. While you're driving 70 or so on the interstate, talking on your phone or playing with your GPS or whatever, you stand a good risk of coming upon that accident scene without enough time to stop, and causing further injury or death. For this reason police set themselves up several hundred yards from the accident to smoothly divert traffic away from the scene, so that paramedics etc. can clear it up.

Sometimes they'll yell at you when you slow down to take a look, or a picture, or whatever. This is not because they've had a bad day, their wife wouldn't sleep with them, etc. This is because most secondary and tertiary accidents occur as a result of "rubbernecking," where an accident scene, traffic stop, etc. on the side of the road provides a distraction, drivers pay more attention to it than what's in front of them....and whammo.

So yes, Virginia, there is an argument that cops should be directing traffic.

It's all a part of the honorable task of protecting your personal liberties. I think this is where the debate is right now. Persons with malicious intent and motive aren't the only threats to your natural born right to your own life. Protecting you from those who are simply wreckless or wanton...drunk drivers, wreckless drivers, inattentive drivers....even off the road; someone who walks along the street firing bullets into random houses (though he may not have malicious intent, he is still endangering the lives of persons...there for it becomes Wanton Endangerment. It would be Wreckless Endangerment if he had every reason to believe the houses were unoccupied, in KY anyway.)

It's simply a more pro-active way of protecting your individual rights, more specifically your right to your life and well-being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's simply a more pro-active way of protecting your individual rights, more specifically your right to your life and well-being.

The problem is that if the roads were privately owned, as they should be, someone "pro-actively" protecting your life on this property (by stopping those who break the rules the owner of the road set up) would be like the Police paying for security cameras at the mall. Perfectly acceptable, from the point of view of the property owner, and the customers of that mall/private road, but unacceptable from the point of view of the people paying for this "pro-active" involvement.

And since funding for the Police Department would be done on a voluntary basis, no one in their right mind would donate for something that the owner of the road would otherwise have to provide for himself, a safe environment for his customers, on the roads he owns, any more than they would donate for security cameras at Walmart. Nor would it be proper for the government to divert funding for that from other areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And since funding for the Police Department would be done on a voluntary basis, no one in their right mind would donate for something that the owner of the road would otherwise have to provide for himself, a safe environment for his customers, on the roads he owns, any more than they would donate for security cameras at Walmart. Nor would it be proper for the government to divert funding for that from other areas.

It would simply be prorated into the price you pay for using the road or using the mall. My apartment complex has occasionally provided some sort of security for the apartments, and there was no extra cost to me, aside from some increase in rent that would have been there anyhow -- as they like to increase the rent with each lease signing. But if you are trying to make an argument that police would not be permitted on private property, that's a non-starter, as no one would shop at the mall in which no police could enter and criminals would love to set up stage there. Likewise for private roads. If there isn't someone there to turn to should you rights be violated, it would become a no mans land with loads of criminals looking for marks.

Some of the current functioning of police could be achieved by private security firms, but eventually actual representatives of the law, courts, and government would have to get involved, since under a capitalist system, the government has the exclusive legitimate use of force in a geographical area. If you operated a mall, for example, you could hire a private security company, but they couldn't go after a criminal no more than you can, unless it is an emergency -- otherwise, it's everyone for himself, and you would have to walk around armed and ready to shoot any purse snatcher or mugger, and then that would get out of control as people begin to accuse one another of things that did not happen but for which someone decided to settle with force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if you are trying to make an argument that police would not be permitted on private property, that's a non-starter, as no one would shop at the mall in which no police could enter and criminals would love to set up stage there. Likewise for private roads. If there isn't someone there to turn to should you rights be violated, it would become a no mans land with loads of criminals looking for marks.

Seems like a big jump.

Often, I don't have police around me. Yet my life isn't a place where criminals set up shop.

Citizens certainly have the moral right to protect their freedom. I believe that reason is a factor in some criminals' decisions. Do you agree?

Do police protect individuals based on the right of "society" or because of the transfer of self defense, a basic freedom? I say because of transfer of self defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what is the real beef with the police.
The beef is not with the police, but with the forces in government that command the police -- who assign them the job of violating the rights of others, and who improperly use the monopoly power of the government to do things that should be carried out on a free market basis, by contract and competitive bidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Traffic direction, in most cases, is provided as a courtesy to the public.
I understand that, but that does not excuse it. Providing courtesies to the public is not the proper function of the government. The opera is a cultural benefit, which does not mean that it is an entitlement that should be provided freely to all citizens. Frisking for weapons at a rock concert is a good idea, and that too is something that should be provided by the people sponsoring the concert, and it is not a proper police function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The beef is not with the police, but with the forces in government that command the police -- who assign them the job of violating the rights of others, and who improperly use the monopoly power of the government to do things that should be carried out on a free market basis, by contract and competitive bidding.

I understand that in the current context for some people -- i.e. those who want to be able to use "recreational drugs" and want to other things they have a right to do. However, I'm 51 and I can't say the police have ever bothered me personally. Of course, I don't do drugs and don't try to sell them and I don't gamble and I don't own a multi-billion dollar business. As we do mover closer and closer to a fully collectivist government, it will be more and more difficult not to break a law in the natural course of living one's life. I grew up in some very rough neighborhoods, and due to drug lords, prostitution, and such police raids happened frequently, but they never bother me; though, of course these days I would be against them for raiding such places so long as individual rights were not being violated. I also understand that such things being illegal is one reason why the neighborhoods were so rough -- i.e. they would not have been able to have such high profits and influence had those things been legal, as they ought to be.

So, I guess for a capitalist government, there would not be gripes against having police officers there to protect individual rights? I'm asking explicitly because in some of these police discussion threads I have seen people be completely against a police force.

By the way, I am not saying that I don't care that the police and the government violate individual rights at times, and sometimes it is very egregiously so, but in your normal living, do the police bother you that much that you individually need to be concerned with how you live your life when police around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a positive correlation between aspects of law enforcement, and aspects of the Law itself.

As the laws change, those who enforce the laws change as well. Not so much on a personal level; i.e., an individual officer restructures his beliefs and values system in order to justify his actions to himself.....instead it happens on a larger scale.

For example, if I believed that persons should be able to freely use, buy or sell heroin...I would not work as a law enforcer in a jurisdiction where such acts are prohibited.

For some, it is easier to make small compromises, and micro-justifications. For most, it is not. A great deal of this has to do with individual personality and values. It would be difficult to draw up an accurate percentage, but I would estimate that 70 percent of law enforcement officers currently employed chose the career because of the nature of the job, and how it lines up with their own values; protecting citizens' individual freedoms, public safety, etc. The other 30 percent could be composed of an aggregate, the majority of which possibly being those either in it for the money, or the power. Police pay scales usually place officers at the lower-middle class level...so the pursuit of monetary wealth is not a common motivation. The motivation of power could take the form of political power (intent to move up to chief, then become mayor...sheriff etc.) or just the carnal need to be in control of other persons.

As the laws change on a drastic level, and police are charged with enforcing those laws, the ethics of the laws will often come into conflict with the values of the individual police officer. So, if privately owned firearms are arbitrarily declared as subjects of interstate trade (Hello H.R. 45), and therefore subject to the whim of congress, and further declared illegal, those officers whose values come into conflict with this - those who believe that it is fundamentally necessary for private citizens to be allowed to own firearms - will not enforce this law, and therefore will voluntarily leave or be forced to leave their respective agencies.

So while 7 will leave, 3 will stay...not because they agree with the ethics of the new law, but because they are apathetic to it.

So, summarily, the laws that make their way to the books, in a roundabout way, determine the aspects those who comprise the law enforcement community. As the laws change, the cops change. Again, not on an individual level...but different cops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...