The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 5, 2011, 07:27 PM   #1
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
CCW shoots dog- cops say man had the right

http://www.krdo.com/news/27062645/detail.html

this article from the above link is from KRDO.com (a local news agency). who knows, maybe the man in the article is on TFL. anyways, why should the man have to take chances? most if us love animals, but this seems like a textbook case of why many people in America CCW or I should say the below article is an example of a situation where our CCW can be necessary. Do you agree this man did the right thing, or do you feel maybe he should've handled it differently?

Quote:
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo -- A man walking his dog Wednesday on El Camino Avenue in Colorado Springs told police his greyhound dog was attacked by a bullmastiff. The bullmastiff, Flato, was on a leash but broke away from its owner.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

Last edited by Mike Irwin; March 8, 2011 at 09:29 AM. Reason: Edited to comply with TFL's copyrighted materials policy
youngunz4life is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 08:29 PM   #2
cambeul41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 101
Quote:
his greyhound dog was attacked by a bullmastiff. The bullmastiff, Flato, was on a leash but broke away from its owner.
The bull mastiff was out of the control of its owner and attacking the greyhound? That sounds like shooting was called for. Our dog was mauled last year by two pit-bulls, but my wife felt she could not shoot for fear of hitting people in the vicinity who had rushed out of their houses.
cambeul41 is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 08:40 PM   #3
OJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 25, 1998
Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, USA
Posts: 1,570
As a long time dog owner/breeder/exhibitor in dog shows - as well as long time concealed carry for PD - I've been following this - it happened within blocks from my residence. It seems to be handled with ignorance at all levels.

The shooter was protecting his dog - making no claim for protecting himself with lethal force - questionable legal use of his weapon. In my years of experience with that - Fox pepper spray does a better and more instant job of warding off the attacking dog than bullets and the law allows use of lethal force to defend self or other persons - they finally decided not to charge him with "animal abuse" - is anybody awake there???

The owner of the attacking dog is charged with having a dangerous dog ??? IMO - she should be charged with not controlling her dog - it was leashed but she couldn't (or didn't) control it. She is the root of all the problem but - "dangerous dog??" - it was really a dangerous dog handler since her dog was just being a dog and may never have done anything aggressive before. Responsibility lies with the handler - not the dog - unless there were previous such incidents.

I suppose with government agencies making those decisions - we shouldn't expect better - but I do - evidently no one with any "horse sense" is making any of the decisions regarding fault - responsibility, etc. It's a crap shoot and, with some luck, we may arrive at a logical solution - but, I'll believe it when I see it.
__________________
OJ -
SEMPER FI -
DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY
NRA ENDOWMENT LIFE MEMBER

Last edited by OJ; March 8, 2011 at 06:18 PM.
OJ is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 08:45 PM   #4
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: On The Road, somewhere in the good ol' US of A.
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Fox pepper spray does a better and more instant job of warding off the attacking dog than bullets
Assuming you carry it. Do you? I don't! Did he?
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 08:45 PM   #5
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,510
A dog that size could kill a greyhound almost instantly. There is no time to allow the owner to "regain control". Obviously, the police agree.
__________________
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 online now  
Old March 5, 2011, 08:54 PM   #6
Dr. Strangelove
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,418
It may sound harsh, but as a dog owner, you have the responsibility to keep your animal under control, particularly something as intimidating as a bull mastiff. If you can't keep it under control, as in this lady's case, then don't take it out in public.

Your dog may be the sweetest thing ever, but I don't know that and it's not on me to figure it out as it comes running up. If it attacks me or mine, then I'm going to defend myself, and if I'm carrying a gun, it'll likely get shot.

Bottom line - the dog owner is responsible for controlling the dog, if they can't control it, then don't own it.
__________________
Just remember, when you pull the trigger, the bullets come out going very, very fast. So make sure to keep the weapon pointing away from you.
Dr. Strangelove is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 10:30 PM   #7
Blackshirts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 214
Quote:
The shooter was protecting his dog - making no claim for protecting himself with lethal force - questionable legal use of his weapon.
So if someone beats their dog they should be charged with animal cruelty, but defending their dog's life is questionable? Makes no sense. I would shoot a person if they were trying to kill my dog for no reason other than walking by.

Quote:
In my years of experience with that - Fox pepper spray does a better and more instant job of warding off the attacking dog
As stated pepper spray isn't on many peoples list of dog walking necessities. Leash? Check. Water? Check. Poop bag? Check. Oh yeah the fox pepper spray.

Quote:
The owner of the attacking dog is charged with having a dangerous dog ???
Yes. When your giant dog attacks it will be labeled a dangerous dog. Even if it doesn't attack it is labeled simply for being a huge dog. Many cities have an "aggressive breeds list". They aren't allowed to be outside your property without a muzzle unless they take a class to prove their "tameness". Even then one attack and you are up a creek. It comes with the territory of owning a giant dog(I know, I own one). Some insurance companies won't cover your house if you own one for this very reason. Even if the "dog was just being a dog and may never have done anything aggressive before" it only takes one time for it to kill(and the size of the dog that one time wouldn't take very long).
Blackshirts is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 10:55 PM   #8
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,297
Bull Mastiffs ain't Toy Poodles. The shooter acted properly. The woman owner of the attacking dog has no grounds on which to pursue anything, so it's hardly surprising that she's not suing. She should be facing charges.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 11:04 PM   #9
a7mmnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: NC Foothills
Posts: 1,150
I've tried to break two large fighting dogs apart two or three times in my life. I was bitten each time, once by my own dog. They have extreme tunnel vision during fights, focusing on their kill instinct to defend themselves. I personally would have stated my own safety was at risk on the complaint.

Unfortunately, we have many new felony animal abuse laws on the books today in NC. It is literally easier to walk out of jail after being found guilty of assaulting a police officer than to be found guilty of felony animal abuse. I still raise animals today, and always have. It's just very difficult for me to live in a new world where animals are considered to have "rights", and their life is on equal ground with mine and my family's.

I'd shoot until empty on ANY attacking animal, whether I was charged by police or not. Unlike animals, pet owners still are required to carry the burden of responsible ownership of their posessions. Animals and guns are just some of them. If a car driver swerves at a pedestrian, would the argument be the same? In most states, I think so.

-7-
a7mmnut is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 01:27 AM   #10
OJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 25, 1998
Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, USA
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
#4
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
Quote:
Fox pepper spray does a better and more instant job of warding off the attacking dog than bullets

Assuming you carry it. Do you? I don't! Did he?
Yep - from long experience with show dogs, I ALWAYS carry poop bags and pepper spray - everywhere even when not dog walking. Fox Pepper spray cools human aggression also and the poop bags are in a little plastic container.

We showed Mastiffs - the last two here -



Katie - 205#



And my "Little Dude" Charley - 250#.

In my experience, dogs don't have good size perspective until up close and several dogs charged Charley and me growling aggressively until up close - when they would literally skid to a stop, sit, and look like "Whatever you say, sir". Only once did things go south (didn't get enough warning to use pepper spray which had worked with larger dogs)) - in a National forest Campground where dogs are required to be on leash - we were walking around the grounds when a tiny (doubt it weighed over 10#) charged out past Katie to the biggest dog and attacked Charley - who promptly picked it up in his mouth and was shaking it. A couple of near-teen aged girls were sobbing so I retrieved the little mutt for them and, when I took it from Charley's mouth, it bit my hand - then a serious (and costly) problem for me because I was still practicing surgery and surgeons don't operate if they have any open wounds on their hands.

I dropped the little mutt and he, of course, again attacked Charley - and I opined -"He's all yours, Charley" - end of life for the attacking dog.

The girl's mother was extremely apologetic - admitting it was their fault but they didn't have their dog leashed because "it was too little to be any threat to anybody". It did bite me, however.

Now I'd had over two and one half decades of showing dogs in shows of over 3000 dogs and well understood you NEVER interfere with a dog fight - I had somehow failed to understand that was a dog fight - albeit very one sided - but, I was the one that got the dog bite.

The dog fight in that story was located in front of the attacking dog's yard - doesn't excuse the owner failing to maintain control it - but, dogs are territorial and any owner owes it to their dog (as well as other dogs and people) to obedience train them so the handler is ALWAYS in control - the owner of the attacking dog clearly didn't control her dog and is the real culprit here.

It was reported the attacking dog was a Bullmastiff and its picture was in our local paper - From its appearance, I have more Bullmastiff genes in my system than that dog had. Furthermore, I don't ever recall seeing any Bullmastiffs at any shows nearly as big as that dog was and he looked all black (not a Bullmastiff color) and his head looked like a terrier head - in Denver, he would have been called a Pit Bull - though I think that term is way overused - he was a large mixed breed dog.

Our laws require dogs out of their yards to be on leashes and UNDER CONTROL AT ALL TIMES - WHICH HE WASN'T - AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT LIES WITH THE OWNER/HANDLER.

A good argument can be made favoring the owner of the dog who was attacked shooting the attacking dog but, in my opinion, it could have been better handled with strong pepper spray - effective (in my experience) and more safely for all involved.

Discharging a handgun on paved streets risks missing the target dog and ricocheting bullets can take unpredictable courses. And fast moving dogs are easy to miss - particularly when the other hand of the handler is holding the leash of a dog in a dog fight - Pepper spray has a short distance where it effectively endangers anyone.

The victim dog required 7 staples to close its wound - meaning the laceration was probably less than 1 1/2" long.

In summary, we really don't know the attacking dog was "vicious" or territorial but we do know the owner is guilty of not having her dog under control - as the law requires. Gut feeling goes with the victim dog's owner but, I feel it could have been handled much better and effectively - without questionable legality of discharging his gun in city limits - where using lethal force really only covers protecting human life.

We can all identify with him but I feel strongly he could and should have handled it better and more safely with strong pepper spray - as I noted, I have enough experience with it and it has never failed me.
__________________
OJ -
SEMPER FI -
DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY
NRA ENDOWMENT LIFE MEMBER

Last edited by OJ; March 8, 2011 at 06:20 PM.
OJ is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 09:19 AM   #11
EdInk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2009
Posts: 3,966
The problem is sourced back to the poor handling by the Bull Mastiffs owner. It is unfortunate for all parties involved. The details of the attack are not given in the story. I hate to see a dog punished because of the owner's actions BUT if it was my dog being attacked, there would be no hesitation to stop it as quickly and effectively as immediately possible. This is a sad story on all fronts.
__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis
EdInk is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 09:23 AM   #12
jcsturgeon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Posts: 291
It's sad for the owner of the mastiff and for the shooter. Just a bad situation all the way around, but I don't see how you could fault the shooter for what he did.
__________________
The Beatles were wrong, happiness is not a warm gun. It's a new gun.
jcsturgeon is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 09:28 AM   #13
Gbro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,056
OJ States
Quote:
The victim dog required 7 staples to close its wound - meaning the laceration was probably less than 1 1/2" long.
And from your post
Quote:
In summary, we really don't know the attacking dog was "vicious" or territorial but we do know the owner is guilty of not having her dog under control - as the law requires. Gut feeling goes with the victim dog's owner but, I feel it could have been handled much better and effectively - without questionable legality of discharging his gun in city limits - where using lethal force really only covers protecting human life.
And also from your post;
Quote:
It seems to be handled with ignorance at all levels.
From the News;
Quote:
He shot the bullmastiff two times,
And from your own sig line;
Quote:
Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap .......
I therefore disqualify you from the jury pool,
But seriously, it could have been handled better. When I walked my grandsons dog at heel, I would get all kinds of guff about how the dog is supose to be on a leash, however it was always me that had to fend off other at large and leashed dogs that could not be controlled. I just used the long handled "Chuckit" to the nose of the offending dog as ours sat perfectly still on command during all encounters.
People today as a rule don't control their pet any better than their children!
__________________
Gbro
CGVS
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18
Gbro is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 09:36 AM   #14
sirsloop
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2011
Posts: 376
Dogs are property and do not hold the same legal status as humans. The guy could face a civil suit for loss of property, but if the police say no weapons laws were broke that would be it. Maybe next time around the owner won't take a large aggressive dog out on walks without a muzzle or means to control it.
sirsloop is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 09:40 AM   #15
jcsturgeon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Posts: 291
Something I hadn't thought of... the bull mastiff may have been euthanized anyway for going "wild" and attacking another animal. Even if he'd killed the greyhound (and not the shooter, which it may have) it would have probably gotten put down anyway.
__________________
The Beatles were wrong, happiness is not a warm gun. It's a new gun.
jcsturgeon is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 10:09 AM   #16
Ichiban
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2009
Posts: 249
The local TV station were airing interviews with the dead dog's owner and it so reminded me of interviews with a criminal's mother where she's crying "He's such a good boy. He'd never do anything like this."

The stories I've read said that the owner of the greyhound tried to break up the one sided "fight" but couldn't. He thought his dog was on the verge of being killed so he took what he thought was his last option. I have no idea how the shooting went down (did he have the muzzle against the dog or was he shooting from ten feet way? etc.) or what kind of gun/caliber he used.

The owner of the dead dog has my condolences, but I stand with the greyhound owner.

My neighbors have a wolf hybrid that is very people friendly but dog aggressive. It has been know to get out and attack other dogs but I don't think anyone has filed a complaint or I think they would have had it taken from them by now. Maybe they get a second chance, I don't know how that works. I do know that if it attacks my dog I will not hesitate to kill it.
Ichiban is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 11:50 AM   #17
teeroux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,491
Quote:
The shooter was protecting his dog - making no claim for protecting himself with lethal force - questionable legal use of his weapon.

Deadly force only applies against persons not property or pets.

Its a case of defence of himself and property by use of force, not deadly force in this case.
teeroux is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 01:06 PM   #18
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,381
Quote:
The shooter was protecting his dog - making no claim for protecting himself with lethal force - questionable legal use of his weapon.
The law does not say that the reason for use of lethal force must be stated or that it must be stated completely. I am sure it could be easily argued that he felt his safety was in jeopardy while trying to pull the biting bull mastiff off his own dog. It wasn't as if he was 50 feet away from the fighting. He was in the middle of it.

Quote:
The bullmastiff's owner, Tammira Martinez, told KRDO she thinks the greyhound's owner did not give her a chance to regain control of Flato before using his gun.
The greyhound's owner gave her plenty of time, fighting with the mastiff himself to no avail. When that failed, he put an end to the threat.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/stor...ting-Colorado/ He also issued a verbal warning to Martinez who did nothing of consequence to remove her dog.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/poli...hound-dog.html

Quote:
Police said as of right now, the man isn't facing any charges and Martinez told KRDO Newschannel 13 she does not plan to pursue any legal action because lawyers "can't bring my dog back."
More than likely, she doesn't want to pursue any legal action against the greyhound's owner because the incident is her fault. Of course, she also claims that Flato wasn't dangerous, though the greyhound required several staples in its neck to close the wounds.

She also claims her dog wasn't aggressive, yet doesn't seem to be able to explain how her passive and friendly dog managed to drag her across 15 feet of grass and pavement before breaking free from her and why it attacked another dog. http://www.gazette.com/articles/poli...hound-dog.html

Well this explains it...
Quote:
"If he was aggressive, he would have went after the owner in self-defense," Martinez said.
So since her dog only attacked another dog, it wasn't aggressive. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17531116

There really is no way that Martinez would be able to justify in a lawsuit that her dog wasn't aggressive. She can say it, but that doesn't make it reality. She openly admits that her dog drug her for quite a distance before breaking free of her control and attacking the greyhound. No doubt a counter suit from the greyhound's owner would be expensive.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 01:39 PM   #19
huntinaz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Location: az
Posts: 996
I guess I don't think I I would ever shoot another dog that was attacking my dog. I live in a heighborhood and the chance of a bullet going somewhere I don't want it to is just too great. I would have to fear for my own or my child's life (or serious injury) before I pulled my CCW on a dog. Basically it would have to be attacking a person for me to shoot it, not another animal. I love my dogs, but not enough to put neighborhood bystanders at risk over a dogfight. To you folks advocating shooting at dogs in areas populated by people, you should probably carry pepper spray for dogs and a CCW for human attackers. It makes sense if you're worried about another dog hurting your dog.

If you live in the country and there are plenty of good shooting lanes...blast away. Make no mistake I have no remorse for killing a bad dog, I just think discharging a firearm around the general public requires more than the risk of injury to an animal.

Quote:
So if someone beats their dog they should be charged with animal cruelty, but defending their dog's life is questionable? Makes no sense. I would shoot a person if they were trying to kill my dog for no reason other than walking by.
You'll go to jail for it, but what's worse is somebody will lose a son/father/brother etc over a dog. Think about that. I couldn't disagree more with that thought process. Animals are animals and people are people. If somebody is trying to hurt your dog, give him a good ass kicking by all means, but killing him? That's murder dude.
__________________
"Once you quit hearing sir and ma'am, the rest is soon to follow." - Cormack McCarthy
"Feed me, or feed me to something. I just want to be part of the food chain." -Al Bundy
huntinaz is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 01:42 PM   #20
OJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 25, 1998
Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, USA
Posts: 1,570
It's somewhat a stretch of faith to believe just where or when the use of "deadly force" can be legally used here in Colorado - plus, interpretation of just what that is and were it can be used is decided mostly by anyone from LEOs to "dog catchers" - rather that by the DA or courts.

I might add that our Humane Society requires anyone adopting a dog to take that dog through obedience school - hopefully to prevent dogs out of control - dunno if it works as intended - "You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink ........." but is a step in the right direction. If I recall correctly, the cost of obedience school was included in the adoption fee and would be refunded when the new owner produced evidence that dog had finished ("passed?") obedience shcool (same thing for neutering the adoptee).

For example, Colorado has the "Make My Day" law - also known as the "Castle Doctrine" which allows use of deadly force if one is attacked in their residence.

An attempt to amend that law to extend that right so one could use that same "lethal force" to defend one's business and self in that business - failed to pass in our legislature - another great example of our lawmaker's grasp of reality or common sense since we have legal concealed carry in this state - which must be interpreted as it being legal to use "Lethal Force" to defend oneself on the street - or anywhere you perceive your life to be threatened - but not in his/her place of business?????. It must take a very high level legal mind to understand that.

It hasn't been too many years since a liquor store owner was killed by thieves robbing his store and he was trying to prevent that.
__________________
OJ -
SEMPER FI -
DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY
NRA ENDOWMENT LIFE MEMBER

Last edited by OJ; March 6, 2011 at 03:01 PM.
OJ is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 05:20 PM   #21
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,297
Sheesh.

This:

Quote:
“He blasted across (the street) and came right at us,” McCombs said. “They fought just a little tiny bit and then that dog clamped down on my dog’s neck.”

...

“The lady was yelling things... and he was not responding to anything at all. She might as well have been a stranger to that dog.

“I could see that my dog was dying because his eyes got real red.”
Does not equate to this:

Quote:
A tearful Tammy Martinez told The Gazette her dog Flato wasn’t dangerous and shouldn’t have been killed.
Martinez = idiot
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 05:23 PM   #22
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,507
Strange ruling. Most states the guy would have been sent to jail as a dog is considered 'property', except for K9's which are labeled 'officers'.
chris in va is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 05:28 PM   #23
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,297
Chris, when your "property" is killing my "property," I am legally allowed to protect my "property" by whatever means are necessary.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 7, 2011, 12:07 AM   #24
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,858
"Most states the guy would have been sent to jail as a dog is considered 'property',"

Cite a few.

Every state I'm familiar with - Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia - allows an owner of a dog being attacked by another dog to kill the attacking dog to save the dog being attacked.


"Deadly force only applies against persons not property or pets."

Incorrect. A number of states allow the use of deadly force to protect property.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old March 7, 2011, 06:54 AM   #25
stevelyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,618
Sounds good to me. I'd have whacked him too.
__________________
Herman Cain '12

Squished bugs on a windshield is proof the slow/heavy bullet theory works.
stevelyn is offline  
Reply

Tags
attack , ccw , defense , dogs , handgun

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 08:06 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 0.14746 seconds with 7 queries