Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Someone pointed me to this video about the Zimmerman case. Having listened to the first 7 minutes, there were a few facts I did not know. Based on that, I recommend it to anyone who is still uncomfortable with last night verdict.

 

http://youtu.be/bF-Ax5E8EJc

 

The first 25 minutes is about the case, the rest can be ignored.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neighborhood watch members are not supposed to pursue suspicious suspects, and they are not supposed to carry carry concealed weapons.

What rulebook are you getting these rules from?

The purpose of neighborhood watch is not to detain or even apprehend suspects

Your implication that George Zimmerman tried to detain or apprehend Treyvon Martin is a lie. The trial was public, and no evidence was presented to prove such a claim. It is pure fabrication. Knowingly creating or repeating a fabrication is a lie.

So what exactly was Zimmerman's purpose for continuing to pursue Martin, first by car, then on foot?

The trial was public. Evidence was presented that he followed him. There was no evidence presented that he pursued him. The notion that he pursued him is fabrication. Knowingly creating or repeating a fabrication is a lie.

Have you watched the trial, or otherwise informed yourself about it from a reliable source?

I think his intention was made crystal clear when he said on the 9/11 call, "These assholes, they always get away."

What intention does the phrase "These assholes, they alway get away." prove, and which specific rules of Logic have you used to prove it? Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What rulebook are you getting these rules from?

 

From the neighborhood watch program handbook: "Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest.The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department."

 

From the National Sheriff's Association: NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.) stated: “The alleged participant [Zimmerman] ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life." What ,specifically, is he referring to here? “The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands."

 

From Ms. Dorival (who works with  Sanford PD- she trained groups of citizens who wanted to start neighborhood watch programs): “Their duty is to be the eyes and ears. Report crime as they see it,” said Dorival, adding that she provided handouts stressing this and also explained it verbally during the meeting. Zimmerman was there as the neighborhood watch coordinator, a role he told Dorival had been assigned him by the president of the homeowners' association. Guy asked Dorival what the handouts and her instructions tell volunteers to do if they begin following a suspicious person. “We tell them they don’t do that. That’s the job of law enforcement,” she replied. The same instructions apply to confronting a suspicious person, Dorival said. She said her presentation would advise people, “Not to confront, to let … the police department do the job. “They’re not supposed to take matters into their own hands. … Let law enforcement take the risk of approaching a suspect,” Dorival said."

 

From NY Times: "In Sanford, [Dorival] said, watch groups are not even supposed to make the rounds. That is the job of another kind of volunteer organization, Citizens on Patrol, whose members are selected and trained by the police and who drive the streets in a specially marked vehicle. Members of that group, Ms. Dorival said, “are armed only with a radio.” ...A wide range of neighborhood watch organizations exist across the country. Some have patrols, while others like Sanford’s do not. But the National Sheriffs’ Association, which sponsors the program nationwide, is absolutely clear on one point: guns have no place in a watch group. A manual distributed by the association repeatedly underscores the point: “Patrol members do not carry weapons.”

 

You will probably just say, 'Zimmerman & his watchgroup were not official members of the NSA's Neighborhood watch program, so their rules do not apply.' To that I would respond, 'Then why did they have a Sanford PD employee come to speak to their group & inform them of the Neighborhood Watch program's rules and methodology?'

 

Your implication that George Zimmerman tried to detain or apprehend Treyvon Martin is a lie. The trial was public, and no evidence was presented to prove such a claim. It is pure fabrication. Knowingly creating or repeating a fabrication is a lie.

 

That was not my implication at all.

 

The trial was public. Evidence was presented that he followed him. There was no evidence presented that he pursued him. The notion that he pursued him is fabrication. Knowingly creating or repeating a fabrication is a lie.

 

def pursue: "Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them." 

Swap it out with 'follow' if you'd like, but I stand by my statement. Zimmerman could have been following Martin to find his location, confront him, detain him, or attack him. Who knows.

 

What intention does the phrase "These assholes, they alway get away." prove, and which specific rules of Logic have you used to prove it?

 

My interpretation is: 'I don't want this [suspicious] guy getting away like all the others do.'

Edited by mdegges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M,

Zimmerman is not bound by some neighborhood watch code. He is an individual who (IIRC) was coming home from buying groceries. He wasn't on a sanctioned watch patrol or something like it (if they even have those). He is an individual who retains all of the rights individuals normally have, which includes the right to track suspicious activity in the hopes of obtaining useful information for others who've been charged with using retaliatory force. After seeing the trial unfold, it appears to be reasonable to say that he used his gun to stop a felony assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M,

Zimmerman is not bound by some neighborhood watch code. He is an individual who (IIRC) was coming home from buying groceries. He wasn't on a sanctioned watch patrol or something like it (if they even have those). He is an individual who retains all of the rights individuals normally have, which includes the right to track suspicious activity in the hopes of obtaining useful information for others who've been charged with using retaliatory force. After seeing the trial unfold, it appears to be reasonable to say that he used his gun to stop a felony assault.

 

Yeah- as I said earlier, I agree that his actions were within the law, but I do not think they should be morally condoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the neighborhood watch program handbook: "Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest.The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department."

 

That was not my implication at all.

 

You used the word that he "pursued" him as if it were fact.

 

A) There is no evidence that his goal was to apprehend him, which you just implied again, even though you deny it.

B ) The evidence shows that he wasn't pursuing him, as already pointed out earlier in this topic.

Edited by thenelli01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the judge disallows it, can the government charge a person again for the lesser crime and have another court-case? I assume that's an option, at least in principle.

I'm unfamiliar with the American common law but that must be a clear violation of the principle of res judicata - that a matter may not be relitigated once it's been judged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zimmerman was following Martin, first in his truck, then on foot. We can only speculate as to why he continued to look for Martin, but his goal was surely to locate his position. The quote you seem to have a problem with merely says that as a watchman, your job is to report crime. Period. It goes on to say "do not take any risks to prevent a crime." Following (ie trying to locate) a suspicious individual easily falls under that category.

Edited by mdegges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zimmerman was following Martin, first in his truck, then on foot. We can only speculate as to why he continued to look for Martin, but his goal was surely to locate his position.

 

Yeah, but you speculate based on evidence. You don't make up stuff, specifically by stating as fact that he pursued Trayvon, as you did, when there is no evidence to support that.

 

 

The quote you seem to have a problem with merely says that as a watchman, your job is to report crime. Period. It goes on to say "do not take any risks to prevent a crime." Following (ie trying to locate) a suspicious individual easily falls under that category.

 

No. The problem I have is the fact that you cited it and went out of your way to bold the section on apprehending.

 

"Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest.The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department."

 

You bolded that, no one except you. Are you trying to tell me that that isn't an implication that George Zimmerman was trying to apprehend Trayvon?

Edited by thenelli01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zimmerman was following Martin, first in his truck, then on foot. We can only speculate as to why he continued to look for Martin, but his goal was surely to locate his position. The quote you seem to have a problem with merely says that as a watchman, your job is to report crime. Period. It goes on to say "do not take any risks to prevent a crime." Following (ie trying to locate) a suspicious individual easily falls under that category.

So, if instead of an ordinary person, if the same exact sequence of events were to happen to a city police officer, then would you consider the actions un-morally condonable? In other words, is that the only difference for you, that the core of George Zimmerman's offense was that he was not a state-appointed police officer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but you speculate based on evidence. You don't make up stuff, specifically by stating as fact that he pursued Trayvon, as you did, when there is no evidence to support that.

 

I didn't realize this was an English class. :whistle: Zimmerman went out of his way to find Martin. First he followed him his truck. Then he got out of his car, took his gun with him, did not heed the advice of the dispatcher who said 'we don't need you to do that,' and started running (see 9/11 recording). I call that pursuing (ie: going out of your way to find someone).

 

No. The problem I have is the fact that you cited it and went out of your way to bold the section on apprehending...

 

The part I was focusing on was 'do not take any risks to prevent a crime.' If you want to read more into what I'm saying, go ahead, but that is not what I meant to imply. I think I explained myself pretty clearly in post 85.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah- as I said earlier, I agree that his actions were within the law, but I do not think they should be morally condoned.

 

I think this is unfair to George Zimmerman. Reports are that his neighborhood had quite a few burglaries, almost always by young black males. His own wife had reported seeing a young black male fleeing the scene of a burglary. His own bike (I think) had been stolen -- not clear by whom. It is unfortunate that black white males carry out robberies in a far higher ratio than their presence in the population, but it is irrational for anyone to completely ignore the fact. Obviously, it does not follow that most black males are robbers, nor does it give anyone licence to actually accost a black male in any way, just on that basis. Zimmerman says that Trayvon was walking between houses, in a drizzle, etc. Whatever the mix of circumstances, I don't think it is immoral for Zimmerman to think that the likelihood that this guy was up to no good was higher than average.  There is nothing wrong with profiling when it comes to your own thinking. The real issue is how one acts on this.

 

Reports are that a few months ago, in a similar situation, Zimmerman called the cops and said that he did not want to approach the individual himself. By the time the cops came, the guy had gone. So, it seems logical that Zimmerman would decide to keep a better eye on this guy until the cops came. BTW, he denies doing so. He claims that the street name changes as the street meanders along, so he got out to check what it was called at that point, and was then returning to his car. However, even if he did get out to follow the guy at some distance, I cannot see what is wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the neighborhood watch program handbook: "Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest.The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department."

 

From the National Sheriff's Association: NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.) stated: “The alleged participant [Zimmerman] ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life." What ,specifically, is he referring to here? “The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands."

 

From Ms. Dorival (who works with  Sanford PD- she trained groups of citizens who wanted to start neighborhood watch programs): “Their duty is to be the eyes and ears. Report crime as they see it,” said Dorival, adding that she provided handouts stressing this and also explained it verbally during the meeting. Zimmerman was there as the neighborhood watch coordinator, a role he told Dorival had been assigned him by the president of the homeowners' association. Guy asked Dorival what the handouts and her instructions tell volunteers to do if they begin following a suspicious person. “We tell them they don’t do that. That’s the job of law enforcement,” she replied. The same instructions apply to confronting a suspicious person, Dorival said. She said her presentation would advise people, “Not to confront, to let … the police department do the job. “They’re not supposed to take matters into their own hands. … Let law enforcement take the risk of approaching a suspect,” Dorival said."

 

From NY Times: "In Sanford, [Dorival] said, watch groups are not even supposed to make the rounds. That is the job of another kind of volunteer organization, Citizens on Patrol, whose members are selected and trained by the police and who drive the streets in a specially marked vehicle. Members of that group, Ms. Dorival said, “are armed only with a radio.” ...A wide range of neighborhood watch organizations exist across the country. Some have patrols, while others like Sanford’s do not. But the National Sheriffs’ Association, which sponsors the program nationwide, is absolutely clear on one point: guns have no place in a watch group. A manual distributed by the association repeatedly underscores the point: “Patrol members do not carry weapons.”

 

You will probably just say, 'Zimmerman & his watchgroup were not official members of the NSA's Neighborhood watch program, so their rules do not apply.' To that I would respond, 'Then why did they have a Sanford PD employee come to speak to their group & inform them of the Neighborhood Watch program's rules and methodology?'

I asked about what rulebook you got the specific rules you listed from, not more lies on what George Zimmerman did that night. Again, the implication in your post that Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin is a lie.

So, back to my question:

Where does it say that Neighborhood Watch members should not carry concealed weapons? Also, where does it say that they should not follow a suspicious person? Yes, I know what Dorival said on the stand: she claimed that the handouts and instructions tell volunteers not to follow a suspicious person. But I haven't seen any actual proof of that claim.

Just to be clear: your claim is that NW men should

1. not carry concealed firearms

2. not follow suspicious persons

Quote instructions for both claims, please. Not editorials from people who have been lying through their teeth through this whole case. Actual instructions given to Zimmerman, or rules Zimmerman agreed to.

My interpretation is: 'I don't want this [suspicious] guy getting away like all the others do.'

That's not the description of any kind of an intention. In your previous post, you said that you know exactly what Zimmerman's intentions were, from that one quote. I asked what that is.

You just replied to me with something other than the description of Zimmerman's intentions.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

def pursue: "Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them."

Swap it out with 'follow' if you'd like, but I stand by my statement. Zimmerman could have been following Martin to find his location, confront him, detain him, or attack him. Who knows.

I'm not going to swap out pursue with follow. They mean different things. I'm going to instead assume that this is your way of correcting yourself.

As far as "who knows", the answer is: not you. You do not know that George Zimmerman pursued Treyvon Martin. And yet, you said he did. That was a lie.

And you took it back. Good. So Zimmerman followed Martin. Correct. He followed him, until he called the Police. At that point, a Police dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that". That is a standard line told to people who call a dispatcher. It is not an order, nor a request, it is a statement of fact: the dispatcher is not asking the caller to intervene in any way, instead leaves it up to the caller.

From that point on, George Zimmerman's story (a highly reliable story, corroborated by witnesses and evidence) states that he no longer followed him. That is what we do know. Nothing else. All the other claims made about his actions are lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah- as I said earlier, I agree that his actions were within the law, but I do not think they should be morally condoned.

Ok, then. But I also don't see a case for morally condemning Zimmerman. It would change my mind if I found out that Zimmerman started the fight or even said something to provoke Martin. But we don't have any evidence of that. The rules of the watch certainly don't dictate morality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then he got out of his car, took his gun with him, did not heed the advice of the dispatcher who said 'we don't need you to do that,' and started running (see 9/11 recording). 

This isn't what I heard when I listened to the tape. I heard Zimmerman say, "ok" in reply to the dispatcher. Zimmerman says he remained in the area for a short time to find an address to give to police. The area was dark and lacked pole-mounted lights. It seems plausible that he did, in fact, heed the advice of the dispatcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wall Street Journal reports:

Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Detail Role of Justice Department in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests

 

Document: DOJ Community Relations Service Was Deployed to Sanford, FL, "to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old African American male."

 

WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwired - Jul 10, 2013) - Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents in response to local, state, and federal records requests revealing that a little-known unit of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Community Relations Service (CRS), was deployed to Sanford, FL, following the Trayvon Martin shooting to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman.

 

JW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012; 125 pages were received on May 30, 2012. JW administratively appealed the request on June 5, 2012, and received 222 pages more on March 6, 2013. According to the documents:

 

-- March 25 - 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being "deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain." -- March 25 - 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 "in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain." -- March 30 - April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL "to provide support for protest deployment in Florida." -- March 30 - April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL "to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31." -- April 3 - 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL "to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford." -- April 11 - 12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL "to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male."

From a Florida Sunshine Law request filed on April 23, 2012, JW received thousands of pages of emails on April 27, 2012, in which was found an email by Miami-Dade County Community Relations Board Program Officer Amy Carswell from April 16, 2012: "Congratulations to our partners, Thomas Battles, Regional Director, and Mildred De Robles, Miami-Dade Coordinator and their co-workers at the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service for their outstanding and ongoing efforts to reduce tensions and build bridges of understanding and respect in Sanford, Florida" following a news article in the Orlando Sentinel about the secretive "peacekeepers."

 

In reply to that message, Battles said: "Thank you Partner. You did lots of stuff behind the scene to make Miami a success. We will continue to work together." He signed the email simply Tommy.

 

Carswell responded: "That's why we make the big bucks."

 

Set up under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the DOJ's CRS, the employees of which are required by law to "conduct their activities in confidence, " reportedly has greatly expanded its role under President Barack Obama. Though the agency claims to use "impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution procedures," press reports along with the documents obtained by Judicial Watch suggest that the unit deployed to Sanford, FL, took an active role in working with those demanding the prosecution of Zimmerman.

 

On April 15, 2012, during the height of the protests, the Orlando Sentinel reported, "They [the CRS] helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People." The paper quoted the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for protestors, as saying "They were there for us," after a March 20 meeting with CRS agents.

 

Separately, in response to a Florida Sunshine Law request to the City of Sanford, Judicial Watch also obtained an audio recording of a "community meeting" held at Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford on April 19, 2012. The meeting, which led to the ouster of Sanford's Police Chief Bill Lee, was scheduled after a group of college students calling themselves the "Dream Defenders" barricaded the entrance to the police department demanding Lee be fired. According to the Orlando Sentinel, DOJ employees with the CRS had arranged a 40-mile police escort for the students from Daytona Beach to Sanford.

"These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is unfair to George Zimmerman. Reports are that his neighborhood had quite a few burglaries, almost always by young black males. His own wife had reported seeing a young black male fleeing the scene of a burglary. His own bike (I think) had been stolen -- not clear by whom. It is unfortunate that black white males carry out robberies in a far higher ratio than their presence in the population, but it is irrational for anyone to completely ignore the fact. Obviously, it does not follow that most black males are robbers, nor does it give anyone licence to actually accost a black male in any way, just on that basis. Zimmerman says that Trayvon was walking between houses, in a drizzle, etc. Whatever the mix of circumstances, I don't think it is immoral for Zimmerman to think that the likelihood that this guy was up to no good was higher than average.  There is nothing wrong with profiling when it comes to your own thinking. The real issue is how one acts on this.

 

Reports are that a few months ago, in a similar situation, Zimmerman called the cops and said that he did not want to approach the individual himself. By the time the cops came, the guy had gone. So, it seems logical that Zimmerman would decide to keep a better eye on this guy until the cops came. BTW, he denies doing so. He claims that the street name changes as the street meanders along, so he got out to check what it was called at that point, and was then returning to his car. However, even if he did get out to follow the guy at some distance, I cannot see what is wrong with that.

The words in bold might be obvious to you but not to me.  What do you mean when you say "profiling when it comes to your own thinking"?

 

Part of what attracts me to Objectivism in the first place is the belief that people are to be judged as individuals and not solely based on their race.   Zimmerman assumed Trayvon was a thug solely based on his race, evidenced by the fact that he said that "these a-- holes always get away" when referring to Trayvon.  This happened around 7:00pm...I don't know about your neighborhood but in my neighborhood I've seen plenty of people walking on the street around that time.  Presumably, the only reason he chose to see what Trayvon was up to was because Trayvon was black. 

 

Zimmerman isn't the only one who profiled Trayvon.  The police did initially as well. When someone shoots someone else they usually run a background check on the person that does the shooting right?  Well not in this case they ran a background check on Trayvon and not Zimmerman.  They automatically assumed that Trayvon was guilty and let Zimmerman go without even a background check.  Zimmerman didn't get arrested until 40+ days later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zimmerman assumed Trayvon was a thug solely based on his race, evidenced by the fact that he said that "these a-- holes always get away" when referring to Trayvon.

 And what if he did?

Racism is an absurdly contemptible doctrine and, if he did profile Martin then we should adjust our MORAL judgment accordingly. . . But it may not affect our LEGAL judgment.

 

Assuming that Zimmerman was motivated by some deep hatred for black people- which is one HELL of an assumption- that's not a crime, in and of itself.

 

 

When someone shoots someone else they usually run a background check on the person that does the shooting right?  Well not in this case they ran a background check on Trayvon and not Zimmerman.  They automatically assumed that Trayvon was guilty and let Zimmerman go without even a background check.  Zimmerman didn't get arrested until 40+ days later.

 Because when the police officers first arrived on the crime scene (and actually saw all of these things we're conjecturing about willy-nilly) they decided it was a plainly obvious case of self-defense.

The reason Zimmerman wasn't arrested for 40 days is because the Chief of Police, who was under political pressure to cast the first stone, refused to do so.  If I remember correctly, I believe he lost his job for it; he gave up his career rather than commit what he knew to be evil.

 

What you refer to, in this paragraph, has nothing to do with race.  The conclusions which the police leapt to are fully consistent with the evidence they found.

 

 

The words in bold might be obvious to you but not to me.  What do you mean when you say "profiling when it comes to your own thinking"?

 If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck; it's a duck.

 

If some teenager is meandering through private property in the rain, circling around other people's houses and checking out their doors, he's out to hit a lick.  It's as simple as that.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one question to ask yourself here: who started the fistfight between Martin and Zimmerman?

Racism is not a crime, nor is following someone (to the extent that he did), nor is calling 911.  The law was officially broken when someone initiated physical violence.

 

The only grounds on which anyone could claim that Zimmerman is a murderer would be on the initiation of force, which was clearly not the case here.  Period.

 

In a case involving life and death (literally!) the fact that either of the individuals' skin color was mentioned at all is nauseating.  It simply doesn't matter.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people may be confused about what racial profiling means. It is my assumption that it means taking someone's race into account with other factors when making a determination related to behavior or affiliation... For instance, assuming a black guy with tats who is dressed like a thug in Los Angeles is not a part of MS13... Because MS13 is an hispanic gang. As I understand it, that is racial profiling. But there is nothing racist about it.

Could I get a definition of racial profiling from those who have condemned it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×