The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 17, 2008, 09:12 PM   #51
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,986
From KLRANGL:
Quote:
Having two guys walking towards you with malicious intent after previously shown belligerent tendencies does not mean you can walk right past them... Im guessing you would have gotten seriously beat or killed if it had been you that night...
That makes sense. And if that's the case, the only alternative is to go the other way.

Unless the facts indicated (1) that the guys had the ability to cause great bodily harm, along with (2) the opportunity to do so, and (3) you were in imminent jeapardy and (4) there was no other alternative course of action, such as evasion, avoidance, or escape.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 17, 2008, 09:36 PM   #52
vytoland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 614
Having two guys walking towards you with malicious intent

the reason the "two guys" took this action is because the sober person found it necessary to verbally engage the drunks........somethings you gotta let go and walk on by.
vytoland is offline  
Old November 17, 2008, 09:42 PM   #53
kgpcr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2005
Posts: 945
Not to bright in my book. You should have ignored them and just got in your car and left. Or when you should have turned and went back inside the bar. Not smart carrying in a bar to begin with. Booze and guns just dont mix even if you are not drinking. Just because someone walks up to you is not reason to draw. What if he had not turned around? then what? you kill an unarmed drunk and go to jail. NOT a smart thing!
__________________
Colt King Cobra .357 Colt Anaconda .44mag
Springfield Armory .45 Double stack Loaded
XD40 service XD45 Taurus 617 .357mag
Smith M&P 40
kgpcr is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 01:46 AM   #54
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
What would the judge say?

Here is EXACTLY what the judge would say in California (and I bet in most other states):
An assault with the fists does not justify the person being assaulted in using a deadly weapon in self-defense unless that person believes and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon him.
Why do I say that a judge would say that? Because the foregoing quote is taken right from the standard jury instructions for criminal cases (Fall 2008 edition). The book this came from is the source of standard jury instructions for the judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in California. I am sure that this instruction is not peculiar to California.

Note that there are two elements to establish the defense:

1. The victim believes that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon him. This is subjective. Does the victim really believe this?

2. A reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon the victim. This is objective. In other words, what does the jury think, putting themselves in the shoes of the victim, they would have done?

Also note that the injury to be suffered is "great bodily injury." Not an affront to his pride. Not a slap in the face. Not a punch in the stomach. But great bodily injury.

No doubt if two drunks started beating on an a smaller man, there is the risk of great bodily injury, but consider the fact that they hadn't laid a finger on him when the weapon was drawn and pointed at them. A jury just might think that shooting a man who was drunk and belligerent and acting in a menacing fashion (but who hadn't actually touched the victim) was an over-reaction. If so, there goes self-defense, and here comes guilty as charged.
Ricky B is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 02:00 AM   #55
Bauer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 195
Clearly he should have ignored them. However, he didn't do so. Time to move on, that step is in the past. Next step, 2 men coming at him with intent and ability to do physical harm ending with him being beat up, possibly to death, or beat up and they find his gun. I feel the OP did fine considering his mistake.
Bauer is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 09:13 AM   #56
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
I got a question myself actually, along these same lines.
What if the same situation occurred, but it was after you picked up your friend from the bar, and it was the drunk (or sober) friend who started responding to the belligerent drunk guys. Are you justified in pulling to defend your (blatantly in the wrong) friend or do you let him potentially get beat/killed? Legally and morally... Since he isnt the one carrying, does he have the same obligations to avoid confrontations that we do?
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 10:15 AM   #57
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
A reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon the victim. This is objective.

This is no more objective than the previous point. It still depends on an individual decision on "reasonable". You're reasonable in not my reasonable, therefore, subjective. 2+2=4, objective. 2 is an ugly number, subjective.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 10:38 AM   #58
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,986
Quote:
This [a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon the victim]is no more objective than the previous point. It still depends on an individual decision on "reasonable".
While the situation does require judgment, said judgment must be made within the constructs of the facts existing at the time and on the requirements for justifiability (AOJ, retreat not possible). That is objective, in contrast with whether the man with the gun felt threatened or frightened, which would be subjective.

Quote:
You're reasonable in not my reasonable, therefore, subjective.
Doesn't follow. Outcome will hinge on the jury's determination of what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances, knowing what the man with the gun knew at the time. I am not an attorney, but I think that's the basis of most trials, civil and criminal.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 10:51 AM   #59
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
I disagree.

I am not an attorney either, but it is my understanding that a jury will generally make their determination based on what a reasonable person would do given the circumstances. The jury will take into account what they believe a reasonable person would likely perceive and the likely response a reasonable person would have during the specific circumstances of the situation. The jury does not simply base their decison on how a emotionless robot would perceive the same circumstances.
Creature is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 11:00 AM   #60
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Outcome will hinge on the jury's determination of what a reasonable person...
Yes, a jury of individuals each subjectively determining what they believe to be reasonable. A group decision does not make that decision "objective". Any decision counts on each individual actually being objective, and yet, we almost never are. IMO, the "reasonable person" criteria in a SD situation is often times unachievable. The OP is one thing, and I think he did a reasonable thing but in many situations, such as exchanges of gunfire, there are no "reasonable" people.


Quote:
The jury does not simply base their decison on how a emotionless robot would perceive the same circumstances.
Ah, but compared to the emotions at the time of the incident, they are emotionless. No jury can reliably say "I wouldn't have done that, I would have done this or that" unless they have actually been there and done this or that. Just like I don't really think many of us can say " I would have..." and be reliable in that statement. Unless we've genuinely feared for our lives and acted accordingly I don't think we're qualified to make blanket statements.


The reasonable person criteria can create some real problems when it's used to analyze unreasonable situations. I'm not saying I have a better way. I'm just saying it's not necessarily reliable.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; November 18, 2008 at 11:06 AM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 11:07 AM   #61
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,986
From Creature:
Quote:
I disagree.
You did not specify the person with whom you disagree, but from what you say, it is not I.

Quote:
... it is my understanding that a jury will generally make their determination based on what a reasonable person would do given the circumstances. The jury will take into account what they believe a reasonable person would likely perceive and the likely response a reasonable person would have during the specific circumstances of the situation. The jury does not simply base their decison on how a emotionless robot would perceive the same circumstances.
That's my understanding exactly. How does that differ from "Outcome will hinge on the jury's determination of what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances, knowing what the man with the gun knew at the time"?

Note what one knew is dependent on what one "perceived".

Now, there's one more piece of the equation. Unless we're talking about possible jury nullification, all of the elements for defense of justifiability must also exist for the defendant to succeed in his case. For example, in the case at hand, if the defendant were able to escape, he had the obligation to do so.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 11:45 AM   #62
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,986
From peetzakilla:
Quote:
Yes, a jury of individuals each subjectively determining what they believe to be reasonable. A group decision does not make that decision "objective".
We may be hung up on semantics.

Yes, the jury will have to exercise judgment. Does that mean their determination will be subjective? Here's one meaning of the term:

Quote:
Formed, as in opinions, based upon subjective feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning, which can be influenced by preconception; coming more from within the observer rather than from observations of the external environment.
I think the objectivity criterion pertains most to the consideration of the circumstances. Consider the following questions that the jury will have to take into account:
What conditions existed that led the defendant to conclude that the alleged assailants had the ability to cause great bodily harm? (Weapons, size, strength, for example)

What conditions existed that led the defendant to conclude that the alleged assailants had the opportunity to cause great bodily harm? (Proximity, for example)

What conditions existed that led the defendant to conclude that he was in immediate jeopardy of great bodily harm? (Threats or demeanor, for example)
What conditions existed that led the defendant to conclude that he had no alternative to the use of deadly force (Existence or non-existence of a safe means of escape, for example)
Setting forth those things is an objective exercise. Evaluating them is a judgmental exercise. I wouldn't characterize either as subjective.

Discussing whether the defendant "felt afraid" would, in my opinion, involve subjectivity and in my lay opinion his feeling would not prevail absent the other more objective conditions that are specified in the law.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 12:01 PM   #63
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
"Subjective" and "objective" are terms which have accepted meanings in this area, but debating the meaning those terms does not advance the discussion. If you don't like them, you don't have to accept them.

The law is clear, and the instruction that the judge will give the jury embodies this, that the victim's feelings alone are not sufficient. Not only must the person using deadly force genuinely have the requisite fear, but also a "reasonable person" must have acted the way the defendant did under the circumstances.

Who makes the decision of what a reasonable? The jury. Do they apply judgment? Yes, but it's their collective judgment as to what was reasonable under the circumstances.

So anyone who thinks that his feelings alone will provide the basis for self-defense if he uses a firearm on another person is grievously mistaken.

Last edited by Ricky B; November 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason: correct spelling error
Ricky B is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 12:11 PM   #64
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
So anyone who thinks that his feelings alone will provide the basis for self-defense if he uses a firearm on another person is grievously mistaken.
None of us said that to begin with.
Creature is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 12:26 PM   #65
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
None of us said that to begin with.

Statements like the following could be construed to mean that (whether or not the poster had in mind the unexpressed qualification of reasonableness):

Quote:
Were you in in fear of immediate grave bodily harm or possibly death from an actual or imminent attack?

If yes, then you were justified in most states.
But whether or not anyone said that feelings alone will provide the basis for self-defense, it is a point worth making that the feelings will be judged after the fact as to reasonableness.
Ricky B is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 01:06 PM   #66
hillbillyshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2008
Location: Wild, Wonderful West Virginia
Posts: 315
He did good

I think what it comes down to is that at that moment you were in immindent fear of severe bodily harm or death. If you can prove that, and that at that moment you had no option and your only possible response is either die or pull your weapon then you are good.
My friend got away with not such a smart pull.
My 23 year old friend was driving his 14 year old brother and his friend to his little brother's friend's house. On the way to the house they passed by an elemenatry school. While coming around the front of the school in a turn, a large black man stepped out in front of this car. It was dark out and my friend almost hit the man. My friend appologized and asked if the man was okay.
The man then punched the hood of the car and started cussing at my friend. My friend locked the doors. The man then came around to the driver side window and started trying to punch it out. My friend told his little brother to lock the doors after he got out of the car. My friend hopped out of the car and pulled his weapon on the disorderly man. He made the man get on the ground while he called police. In the middle of calling the police, the black man talked my friend out of finishing the call so he hung up. As this was going on, an off duty firefighter pulled by the scene and immediately radioed the police that there was a man holding another man at gunpoint. When the firefighter got out of his car, my friend holstered his weapon.
As the police got there my friend stood with his arms outstretched with his CCW permit in his outstreatched hand. He told the police that he had a CCW and where it was on his person. They proceeded to slam him to the ground, knee on back of head, and call him "some kind of vigilanty" as they handcuffed him. The police arrested the black man for disorderly conduct and public intox. The appeared to know the man, and my frined found out later that he has a history of crack cocaine use and mental problems. Then my friend was let go, even though they confiscated his weapon.
This happened in Charleston, WV and my friend went back to school in another city. The following week he got a call from the police, saying that there was a warrant out for his arrest. The charge was for brandishing his weapon. Luckly he got out of this because the prosecutor decided not to continue after my friend's lawyer spoke with him.
Despite the ridiculous behavior of the responding LEOs I had trouble explaining to my friend that he did commit a crime. He pulled his gun on a man, but he didn't have to. As the man approached the driverside window, all my friend had to do was hit the gas and the situation would be over. But, he stuck around. I'm not sure if he falsely imprisoned the man or not. I guess it could be considered a citizen's arrest, but don't you have to actually say specific words in order to do that? Anyway, just a little story for everyone of what is in my opinion a not so good pulling of a weapon. I'm glad that the OP's story turned out better and he acted in accordance with the law.
__________________
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson
hillbillyshooter is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 01:09 PM   #67
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,986
From Creature:
Quote:
None of us said that [anyone who thinks that his feelings alone will provide the basis for self-defense if he uses a firearm on another person] to begin with.

See posts 41, 42, and 47. Here's one example:

Quote:
Or, if you feel threatened enough to pull you gun in self defense, then the legal ramifications are moot.
(Emphasis added)

One can feel fear, hate, love, etc., but one must have reason to believe the existence of imminent danger, have reason to believe the existence of all of the other prerequisites for defense of justification and be able to successfully articulate after the fact that those beliefs were reasonable--feelings aside.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 02:23 PM   #68
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Sigh.

Your still missing my point. Okay....lets put it another way.

Would you pull your gun if you DIDNT FEEL threatened with bodily harm or death?
Creature is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 03:01 PM   #69
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,986
From Creature:
Quote:
Would you pull your gun if you DIDNT FEEL threatened with bodily harm or death?
No.

But if I did feel threatened, that would not justify my pulling the gun unless (1) I also believed that doing so was necessary to protect myself from from death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; and unless (2) I knew that I could avoid the necessity of doing so with complete safety by retreating (under PA law) or by "surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" (Pennsylvania legal jargon for giving up property).

That paragraph is not mine--it's paraphrased from Pennsylvania law, and you'll note that it doesn't saying anything about how I "feel"--it speaks about belief.

Now, if I didn't "feel" threatened I likely wouldn't believe that deadly force was necessary. The converse, however, may not hold. I may feel very frightened, threatened, etc. indeed due to the sounds, darkness, type of neighborhood, etc., but if the conditions permitting the use of deadly force (A, O, J, availability of alternative action including retreat) did not all exist my feelings really wouldn't matter.

If, on the other hand, those conditions did all exist, then that fact would support my contention that a reasonable person would have believed what I did at the time, as the law requires.

Which takes us us back to the fact that legal ramifications are not moot simply because I feel threatened.....
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 03:34 PM   #70
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
OM, I *believe* you're missing a key point here. When the OP was accosted by two individuals, apparently bent on beating him, a reasonable person could certainly conclude that he is indeed in immediate threat - if for no other reason than two individuals might very easily disarm him and use his weapon to wound or even kill him.

Further, your interpretation of the events and the law would seem to indicate that a CHL holder could only legally defend himself with a firearm at the point where he had sustained such a beating that he/she was nearly already dead. This seems unreasonable and unworkable to me. You also don't examine the fact that the OP was accosted by not one but two hostile individuals - surely an escalation of the threat level and one that certainly should enter into the consideration of whether one should draw a firearm for self-protection, as well as whether he is legaly entitled to do so.
csmsss is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 04:28 PM   #71
hillbillyshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2008
Location: Wild, Wonderful West Virginia
Posts: 315
It is in my understanding that if a larger person than yourself or two people came at you to do you bodily harm then you "should" be okay with pulling your gun. Most states write it as "imminent, unlawful, bodily harm." I view this as being, if someone who you consider to be a threat tries to assault you, pull your weapon. The CHL holder has no way of knowing just how bad the beating is going to be. The threat can just give you a black eye or the threat can knock you out and stomp on your skull. We have no way of knowing the intent of the threat. The important thing is to do what you have to do to keep you safe and not worry about the person who is intending on hurting you.
__________________
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson
hillbillyshooter is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 05:37 PM   #72
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,986
From csmsss:
Quote:
OM, I *believe* you're missing a key point here. When the OP was accosted by two individuals, apparently bent on beating him, a reasonable person could certainly conclude that he is indeed in immediate threat - if for no other reason than two individuals might very easily disarm him and use his weapon to wound or even kill him.
No, I'm not missing that point, and I do agree with you that a reasonable person might well reach that conclusion.

Quote:
Further, your interpretation of the events and the law would seem to indicate that a CHL holder could only legally defend himself with a firearm at the point where he had sustained such a beating that he/she was nearly already dead. This seems unreasonable and unworkable to me.
I've never expressed that opinion, and I agree with you that it would be unreasonable.

In an earlier post I stated that in my opinion it would be unfair to judge whether the OP's actions were right or wrong because none of us know all of the facts.

I have pointed out two things: the conditions that must be met for defense of justifiability in PA and the fact that the shooter's actions must be based on reasonable belief and not on feelings. I have not expressed an opinion on the case at hand. Nor will I.

From hillbillyshooter:
Quote:
It is in my understanding that if a larger person than yourself or two people came at you to do you bodily harm then you "should" be okay with pulling your gun. Most states write it as "imminent, unlawful, bodily harm." I view this as being, if someone who you consider to be a threat tries to assault you, pull your weapon.
It is my understanding also that discrepant physical capability and numbers may well enter into the equation regarding the ability of the assailants to seriously harm the 'actor'. To what extent would be up to the jury. I'm old and look like Wilford Brimley and may get by, but the OP is younger and I've never seen him or the thugs. I don't know what a jury would conclude.

But is that sufficient to permit you to "pull your weapon?" Do not overlook the Pennsylvania requirement that you must first escape, if safe escape is possible, or comply with the demands of the assailants, before resorting to the use of deadly force.

Could the OP have safely escaped? I cannot judge that.

Nor can I say what I wold have done. I'm just happy that the OP was neither armed nor charged.

I believe it is incumbent on all of us to equip ourselves with both the knowledge and the capability to react properly in situations such as these, without getting injured or killed or prosecuted.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 10:25 PM   #73
kgpcr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2005
Posts: 945
Clearly he should have ignored them. However, he didn't do so. Time to move on, that step is in the past. Next step, 2 men coming at him with intent and ability to do physical harm ending with him being beat up, possibly to death, or beat up and they find his gun. I feel the OP did fine considering his mistake.
__________________

NO ITS NOT TIME TO MOVE ON! HE MESSED UP AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO MESS UP YOU SHOULD NOT CARRY A GUN! This was a BAD draw!! What would you have done if they did not back down?? Shoot them?? not smart. far more important than carrying a gun is using your head!! I will take good old common sense over a gun any day. Hell i am 6'4'' 300lbs spent 6yrs in the Marines and i would have maybe gave them a go fist to fist but i would back up before i would draw my gun. I would rather back down and get the hell out of there before i shot an unarmed guy. Shooting an unarmed man before he even hits you is your worst nightmare. What were you thinking? Say hi to prison!
__________________
Colt King Cobra .357 Colt Anaconda .44mag
Springfield Armory .45 Double stack Loaded
XD40 service XD45 Taurus 617 .357mag
Smith M&P 40
kgpcr is offline  
Old November 18, 2008, 11:11 PM   #74
FrontSight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2005
Posts: 1,712
I think ya made a mistake saying "excuse me" but ONLY because of this P.C. bullcrap world we live in now adays where in most places you are expected to run away from all insults and let idiots rule the land.

In olden times, a gentleman was fully expected to not have to take any crap from any morons & to try to put them in their place if he chose to do so, and the world was a much better, more agreeable & civil place.

Manners & common sense have been slowly dying, as has my adoration of this warped society that have strangled them. But I digress...

Having made that mistake, you followed up with a wise decision to draw, in my opinion. Those idiots could have killed you in many ways, and then killed others with your gun.

Maybe if others stopped taking crap and society and the laws stopped punishing them for doing what our grandparents would have approved of then less iodits would act like these two did.
__________________
To kill something as great as a duck just to smell the gunpowder is a crime against nature. - Alan Liere
Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. - George Bernard Shaw
FrontSight is offline  
Old November 19, 2008, 12:16 AM   #75
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 854
Reality?

At the grand old age I have achieved, having lived on two Continents, two Countries, and traveled totally around the World!

I can state without fear of contradiction, pointing guns at people works! Well!

Punching, head butting, kicking works good as well! Having been born in a Pub, living in one till the age of 19, and a few years after Military Service, drunks always lost, even in multiples!

Two drunks walking towards you are not normally a well versed tactical unit.

The OP won! And learned a lesson (I hope) Pubs (Bars) beget drunks, drunks fight, get sick, crash cars! Found anything good about Bars and Drunks yet?

"But I go to bars to meet girls!" Who drink and smoke? Hullo?

Drunk calls Police, "Some Guy pointed a gun at us!"

"Is this your vehicle Sir?" Yes! "Could you step out of the car Sir?"

DUI Anybody. That is reality.
Brit is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14242 seconds with 7 queries