The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 12, 2011, 12:11 AM   #26
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
I bet he wishes he could have that moment back

he was emotional, his adrenaline was at an all-time high, and he did something he shouldn't have done.

If robber had a weapon he should've kicked it and kept 16yr old at gunpoint. I do hope the age of robber wasn't a factor in the sentence. I do also feel the punishment might not be held up for that length of time.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 12:15 AM   #27
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
If it was willful and just with the first shot, maybe the next five really weren't so unjust.
Thanks for showing us how law abiding gun owners think

WildimsurethatthelawdisagreeswithyouAlaska ™©2002-2011
Wildalaska is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 12:30 AM   #28
huntinaz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Location: az
Posts: 999
Quote:
I'm no doctor but I imagine that the science of medicine has advanced far enough that the field would be able to determine these types of things.
It hasn't. I'm a pharmacist in a hospital. My degree says doctor on it. This is the brain we're talking about. You can't know for sure, you can't look at brain trauma on an x-ray or even an autopsy and say "oh, that wouldn't be fatal." You can make assumptions, yes, but saying something definitive is something you cannot do. They are assumptions. My guess is that the actual testimony was something to that effect actually, like "this may very well have not been fatal..." But if the bullet went thru the skull and thru the brain, it's real tough to say it definitely wasn't fatal.

But my argument is that it doesn't matter. His intent was to kill him, and I agree with his intent. The robber left him no choice.

Would I have done the same thing? I hope not, but mostly because I don't want to go to jail. I wouldn't convict someone of first degree murder or issued a life sentence given the evidene I've seen.
__________________
"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 July 12, 2011, 12:36 AM   #29
huntinaz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Location: az
Posts: 999
Quote:
Thanks for showing us how law abiding gun owners think

WildimsurethatthelawdisagreeswithyouAlaska
The "law" obviously does disagree with me, or rather me with it. In this particular instance anyway. This is America man, we're allowed to say what we think. Some folks think that's pretty important. It may get a few people to reason thru their beliefs. That's why the first amendment comes before the second
__________________
"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 July 12, 2011, 12:46 AM   #30
LockedBreech
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Rocky Mountain West
Posts: 3,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by redstategunnut
From the video, it appears he executed a defenseless man who no longer posed a threat. The sentence is just.
First response of the thread and it said it all.

People in this thread are trying to attribute this verdict to this vast culture war. "They want us not to defend ourselves!" is the clarion cry. I believe one poster said "If the first shot was just, so were the next five!" Understandable emotions. I believe in the ability of the businessman to defend himself, his customers, and his business...however...as for the justice of the shots...

That is not true. That is not how the law, or a reasonable human being (reasonableness here not my subjective term, but in the legal sense), behaves or processes. If I am threatened by a man with a knife and shoot the suspect, this is just. If I find out where he lives and drive to his house and shoot him there because the first shot failed to kill him, it doesn't matter that the first shot was just, at all, in either common sense terms nor in the letter of the law. At that point, I become the aggressor.

Tens of thousands every year defend themselves with force, and tens of thousands of times courts find in their favor or no charges are pressed at all. Why? Because law-abiding folks retaliate until the threat is neutralized. They have no desire to seek trouble, only to repel it. Once the trouble is repelled, what is the need for the violence?

Being a gun owner in no moral, legal, or rational sense makes an individual judge, jury, and executioner. On the contrary, the gun owner, possessing a lethal tool and knowledge of how to use it, assumes greater responsibility for self control and reasonable behavior.

When the victim disabled the attack capability of his aggressors, the proper response was to remain on-guard, reload and contact the authorities. Had the young man resumed a threatening capacity or had accomplices entered the pharmacy, the need for lethal force would resume, along with Mr. Ersland's legal protections.

Instead, based on my viewing of the video, and based on a jury of peers reviewing the available evidence, Ersland methodically reloaded, paced about, and then shot a boy lying on the floor. He murdered him. First degree, second degree, semantics and a difference in sentencing. I personally believe the sentence was just, and that the period reloading and pacing offered time for reflection and calming, making the murder a deliberated act.

Americans, contrary to the pessimism often expressed by those of us on the wrong side of political correctness, are a rational people by and large, and rarely will punish a man for behaving in a reasonable, civilized fashion, even if it means defending himself with lethal force. However, even the most ardent pro-gunner, as I see myself, for instance, draws the line and steps back when the citizen, armed in self-defense or defense of others, becomes an active aggressor.

I believe Ersland's actions have harmed all law-abiding gun owners by presenting for the public viewing a gun owner that turned defense into attack. I believe that the jury knows better than we do exactly what degree of murder this case fits into. I also believe that Ersland has at least some chance on appeal.

To me, from my humble standpoint, knowing the limited things I do, understanding the law as I do (which is admittedly still very fledgling), and understanding morality and reasonable behavior to the best of my ability, this case was justly resolved.
__________________
Beretta PX4 Type F Fullsize .40 S&W | Beretta 92FS 9x19 Para | Beretta 8040 Cougar Type G .40 S&W | Rock Island Armory GI 1911 .45 ACP | Sig Sauer SP2022 Stainless 9x19 Para | Sig Sauer P6 9x19 Para | Colt Python 4" .357 Magnum | Colt 1968 Det. Spec. .38 Spc. | Ruger LCP .380 ACP | Daniel Defense M4V1 5.56x45 | Alpine M1 Carbine .30 | Steyr M1895 8x56 | Ruger 10/22 .22LR |1943 Izhevsk Mosin-Nagant M91/30 7.62x54R | Remington 870 12GA
LockedBreech is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 02:16 AM   #31
TheKlawMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
I agree with the verdict. The worse thing the dead guy did was to attempt an armed robbery. Had the first shot to the head killed him, that would have been just, but you do not execute an unconsicous human being for attempted armed robbery. I am surprised that the pharmacist's attorney wasn't able to plea him out to 2nd degree. This was clearly premeditated, but the DA would have been worried about jury nullification. My guess is the pharmacist ran his mouth too much when the police arrived and hung himself with his own words.
TheKlawMan is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 04:30 AM   #32
DRBoyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 124
There's something that's too simple in claiming it was just an armed robbery imho. The real deadly intent is your money or your life and some have paid with both. Unless any information comes to light stating otherwise it doesn't appear that Jerome has experience taking a life. Wonder if there was something more to it along those lines. Was he really thinking that straight right after the incident before making a decision which has proven to be a poor legal one?


Reads more like the criminal one or another got to control the situation. Both before and after the robbery. Who was to say that robber wasn't going to come back with more people/guns. It just doesn't sit right that someone trying to defend their life and property is the one going to jail. Like people who successfully defend themselves against charges but end up out of pocket. There's an lesson there for all to heed.
DRBoyle is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 05:11 AM   #33
Maxem0815
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2011
Posts: 216
In my opinion the worst he should have been charged with was manslaughter 3. I looks more like a panic shooting, or a outrage that this SOB tried to kill me. Different states different laws, I was not there to hear the arguments nor a juror. But my personal opinion is that the justice system failed this was obviously a robbery and an attempt to rob or kill the man making a living by drug thugs. Once again the guy protecting himself is wrong and the criminal is in the right. Time for the courts to rethink the law!

I understand the thinking of others that when the threat has been stopped do not shoot again, however we can not see in the video if the individual attempted to move or retrieve his firearm. I also agree with the truth that a individual legally armed for protection needs to maintain a cool and subjective state of mind. Yet how many can stay that way when their life, livelihood
and means of support for family are on the line? This again could be a crime of passion. Meaning as I stated above anger or fear.

And now the ATFE wants to get a list of multiple long gun purchasers, lets screw over citizens rights once again.

"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."

"An armed person is a citizen and unarmed one is a subject."

Mace

Last edited by Maxem0815; July 12, 2011 at 05:21 AM.
Maxem0815 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 05:26 AM   #34
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
It's obvious that some of you either:

A) didn't watch the video up to the point of the second round of shots (as at least one of you has admitted);

and/or

B) has no idea what the laws are with regard to an affirmative defense (in this case, self-defense).

Also, realize that Oklahoma is not an anti- state, and that in the same timeframe that this incident went down, a woman was NOT charged for shooting three would-be home invaders, in the same general area.

The first shot Ersland fired was with the vaunted Judge, with a shot shell. It wasn't a "bullet" that entered the 16yo's skull, it was a single pellet; he was out, but the medical community not only felt he wouldn't have died, but felt he would have had very good odds of higher level recovery.

As others (who did watch the whole video of the encounter) have noted, Ersland then walks out of field of view; he walks back into field of view, paying little if any attention to the kid on the ground. He doesn't call 911; he doesn't cover the kid on the ground from behind the counter or any other concealment or cover. He walks to a drawer, opens it, while shooting an occasional, casual glance to where the kid is lying, and draws a small pistol (I believe a .380 but am not sure). While he's been doing this, his back has mostly been to the "threat."

He then casually walks back around the counter, points the gun toward the kid on the floor, and pops him five times in the chest in a manner that looks almost bored.

I'd have said "Guilty," myself - even if the guy hadn't followed up this act by lying about events that occurred in the shop (claiming he'd been shot at, for instance) and prior (he was a decorated combat veteran, etc).

And it would have had nothing to do with the age of the victim.

For those who are saying, what if the partner had returned? If that was Ersland's worry, he should have called the police sooner than he did, while covering the downed kid and the door. His body language, on the video, does not suggest any such fear.

And Ersland wouldn't have had to say anything to the police, as the video said it all for him. The fact he did say things to the police didn't help, as just about everything he said undermined his credibility, but in this case he could have lawyered up, shut up, and still had the same end result.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 05:39 AM   #35
Maxem0815
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2011
Posts: 216
MLEAKE Well said I agree with your assessment as you describe after a second look and your obvious knowledge of the case. Yet I still can not assume to know law or justification only opinion and mine is that of a layman, and victim of a violent crime leaving me disabled.
Thank you for your wisdom and clarification

Mace
Maxem0815 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 06:02 AM   #36
DRBoyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 124
Quote:
He then casually walks back around the counter, points the gun toward the kid on the floor, and pops him five times in the chest in a manner that looks almost bored
Does he look bored or does he look determined? How about resigned? That's where that comment in particular reads like editorializing. Don't mean to single out your words MLeake to make some non existant point or to skew your meaning in anyway. That quoted passage was used as an atypical example of various points of contention. Leading to how I don't draw such a clear conclusion as to his motives. Can't walk away from some notion of self-defence.

All just a personal opinion but makes me wonder how easy it is for laws to over-ride something it shouldn't. Like the intruders/robbers that can sue the occupant of a home after being fired upon.

Might have to look at the video again to make sure all of it was watched. Will say that clearer videos of other self defence cases have come to light in the past.
DRBoyle is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 06:18 AM   #37
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
DRBoyle, what he does NOT look is frightened or highly adrenalized.

He does not give any cues that suggest his behavior would be that of a reasonble person.

The only defense for his actions that I might have bought would have been an affirmative defense for a psychotic break. However, as mental defenses go, I believe the standard in most states is not about overall processing of reality, but rather knowing whether an action is right or wrong.

In that sense, lying about events and motives would suggest knowledge that actions weren't right.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 06:25 AM   #38
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
DRBoyle, what he does NOT look is frightened or highly adrenalized.
I never said this man was in the right nor is that the point here(as in I am not saying you said I did - just making a statement).

I DO find it hard to believe that this pharmacist did not have a lot of adrenaline flowing thru his blood after the first shot and subsequent events. The adrenaline is not a defense in any shape or form, but it definately was flowing(unless this guy was a complete, cold-hearted sociopath).

I don't want this post to distract against what your 1st post said though mleake, as I have to definately sway towards the reasoning in your original post. I don't disagree with you, but I think maybe that is sort of what drboyle is getting at: sometimes things might look and feel different than what they are. Sound on the video would've been nice.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 07:10 AM   #39
DRBoyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 124
Quote:
DRBoyle, what he does NOT look is frightened or highly adrenalized.

He does not give any cues that suggest his behavior would be that of a reasonble person.

The only defense for his actions that I might have bought would have been an affirmative defense for a psychotic break. However, as mental defenses go, I believe the standard in most states is not about overall processing of reality, but rather knowing whether an action is right or wrong.

In that sense, lying about events and motives would suggest knowledge that actions weren't right
Thanks for the further response MLeake. What you have had to say both here and in your initial post definitely sounds reasonable. No doubting that and should have clarified.

The part in bold is where we can definitely agree that he very much made the wrong decision in a legal.

Quote:
....... I don't disagree with you, but I think maybe that is sort of what drboyle is getting at: sometimes things might look and feel different than what they are. Sound on the video would've been nice.
youngunz4life said it better than I had attempted to. Though still have an issue with what can only be the legalities in this case. Even if the legalities appear to have been adhered to.
DRBoyle is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 07:58 AM   #40
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,433
huntinaz said,
Quote:
So the two armed youn MEN came into his store and threaten him with his life and instead of pacifically giving in to it like the media suggests we all do, he stood up for himself. And now he's going to jail.
I see that you have no understanding of cause and effect or have opted to trivialize that which does not suit you. Ersland did very well up until the time he got the second gun and executed the robber on the ground. The DA even said so. Then he broke the law, tried to cover it up, but was caught via the video, though I am confident forensics would have produced the same results because the events as he described didn't make sense.

So no, he isn't going to jail for not doing what the media said he should do. He is not going to jail for standing up for himself. He IS going to PRISON for murder.

----

For everyone who thinks that Ersland may have been acting in self defense when he put those last 5 rounds into the robber with a second gun, consider this. If Ersland feared for his life and if the robber was truly posing a threat (neither of which is apparent in the video), the only testimony that would substantiate Ersland's views is his own. However, he lied six ways to Sunday about the events. He lied about getting shot. He lied about the sequence of events. He lied about the use of his guns. He lied about the robbers even shooting a gun. He lied about both robbers having guns. So Ersland is no longer a credible witness, even for his own behalf. As noted by MLeake, what is the point lying if not to cover up the illegal actions?

There was no indication justified in the video, forensic evidence, etc. that the shots fired from Ersland's second gun were necessary. None of the hallmarks are present to indicate the situation warranted the use of lethal force at that time.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Double Naught Spy; July 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 08:06 AM   #41
Terminus009
Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2011
Location: SoIL
Posts: 71
I'm with TylerD45ACP on this: call 911 from cover, gun trained on the suspect, wait for the cavalry and EMTs to arrive. This is a very sad and disturbing case. Very sad.
__________________
----- In Justice Robert H. Jackson's memorable words, "If there is any fixed star in our constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Terminus009 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 09:39 AM   #42
micromontenegro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2010
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 489
I, for one, don't know anything about the case except for watching the video. And from that video, one can only conclude: Guilty! IMHO.

Judge and jury do know more, and I trust they arrived to the right conclusion.

But I want to say something about the pharmacist's apparent demeanor: Surely I am not the only one here who has seen people that were panicked out of their skulls but seemed totally calm, even methodic, as they did absolutely crazy things out of fear?
micromontenegro is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 09:59 AM   #43
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,990
The facts of the case have been covered well by MLeake and others. The lesson we all need to learn, some apparently having confronted it for the first time, is that there is a difference between shooting to stop the threat and shooting to kill. That is the essence of the difference between acting legally in self defense and acting illegally as a vigilante executioner. All indications in the video and in the jury's verdict are that Ersland crossed that line by making a conscious decision to kill a person that was not at the time a legitimate threat. That is pretty much the definition of first degree murder.
TailGator is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 10:05 AM   #44
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
The "law" obviously does disagree with me, or rather me with it. In this particular instance anyway. This is America man, we're allowed to say what we think. Some folks think that's pretty important. It may get a few people to reason thru their beliefs. That's why the first amendment comes before the second
1 st Amendment yes you are correct. If you should do as the pharmacist did you would suffer the same fate. Murder is murder
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 10:29 AM   #45
chadstrickland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: alabama
Posts: 537
Imho the first shot was right the other 5 where not...this is not a foreign war where soldiers best each other in battle and rightfully kill there enemy...I think the robber deserved his fate..but the guy did break the law..which is there for a purpose..I think it brings shame to the responsible gun community..but at the same time...in this day and age the way the laws are set up you will probably be fighting law suits the rest of your life if you do have to shoot someone..and like someone said..the robber would have lived but had mental problems if he had only been shot in the head..the pharmacist would be fighting his family until his dieing day.....its a damn screwed up place we live in so it almost boils down to if you have to use your weapon and you have the slightest tiniest bit of doubt that a jury may find you guilty of murder or somthing then your own your own
__________________
Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..
chadstrickland is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 11:07 AM   #46
GM1967
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2010
Location: Delaware - formerly NJ
Posts: 224
Unless you were watching a different video clip from the one posted, I don't know how you can make any judgements about the pharmacist's emotional state based on the video. That grainy, blurry, choppy clip barely shows the man, and you can't make out his features or tell much of anything about him. I could barely even see his gun in the clip (although I did clearly see the first robber's gun).

The video clip also freezes not quite halfway through, when the voiceover is saying, "The ironic part is that if the first shot had been fatal--". It froze like that every time I tried to watch it.

It would really be nice if people had security cameras that actually showed a clear picture, in which you could actually identify a person. I'm sure the technology is available...cost issues?

It's a shame that the victim of a crime has to go to prison, but it does sound like he went too far. Anyone know what reason the pharmacist gave for shooting the robber on the ground? Did he say that he was moving, possibly reaching for a weapon? Even the police wouldn't know that the robber was unarmed until after they searched him.
GM1967 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 11:15 AM   #47
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
It has all been said, but when the threat is neutralized and the shooting continues one should be charged. In this case the sentence was just in my view.
Any thinking that all robbers should be killed is nonsensical, illegal, and immoral.

Regards,
Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 11:39 AM   #48
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Anyone know what reason the pharmacist gave for shooting the robber on the ground?
He's still breathing comes to mind
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 11:51 AM   #49
chadstrickland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: alabama
Posts: 537
Any thinking that all robbers should be killed is nonsensical, illegal, immoral....unless they are stealing food to survive and not starve to death then we are in disagreement...just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is wrong....if a thief chooses to enter my house while im home..then he accepts the fact that he may leave in a body bag.....oh wait a minute I forgot..the poor thief..it wasn't his fault he was sneakin around in my house putting my life and family life in danger..we should feel sorry for him and blame those evil gun nuts for shooting him with that evil black rifle...how dare they..don't they know he cannot help it...it isn't his fault..
__________________
Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..
chadstrickland is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 11:55 AM   #50
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,093
Quote:
I believe Ersland's actions have harmed all law-abiding gun owners by presenting for the public viewing a gun owner that turned defense into attack. I believe that the jury knows better than we do exactly what degree of murder this case fits into. I also believe that Ersland has at least some chance on appeal.
i agree.

i've followed the Ersland case from day one. Ersland lied to the police: He claimed the perp had a gun; then he claimed to find .22 ammo or .22 shell casings near where the perp fell. Police have a tendency to become perturbed when lied to. Then Ersland went on TV; a really big mistake on his part.

Ersland and his lawyer forced one judge off the case. Then they tried to get the second judge off the case; to no avail. Judges sometimes get bent out of shape when defendents and lawyers accuse them of being racist. Judges can do subtle things from the bench that can have a big impact on the outcome of a trial. i'm not saying the judge did that....just saying.

This site has a plethora of links related to Ersland:

http://www.koco.com/news/27109600/detail.html


The two adult perps who planned the pharmacy robbery were sentenced to life in prison for murder plus about 40 years on related charges.

Last edited by thallub; July 12, 2011 at 12:18 PM.
thallub is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:27 PM.


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 0.16545 seconds with 8 queries