The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 15, 2011, 12:06 PM   #1
Nashville
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2011
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5
Staying at someone else's house, still legal to use deadly force against intruder?

I have been staying at my girlfriend's house a lot, and recently had a scare during which I thought someone might be in the house. Luckily, the dog was just barking at the wind! But it made me consider the scenario that someone had entered her house without welcome. Am I still legally allowed to defend that property with deadly force if necessary, even though it is not my house?
Nashville is offline  
Old August 15, 2011, 12:20 PM   #2
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,080
Generally yes, but check TN laws re: defence of property vs defense of self/others. In most states, AFAIN, any home you legally occupy qualifies.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 15, 2011, 12:25 PM   #3
PoorRichRichard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2011
Location: San Berdoo
Posts: 265
Total conjecture here, but if threatened with loss of life, my guess would be you could (and should) protect yourself no matter where you are...
PoorRichRichard is offline  
Old August 15, 2011, 01:09 PM   #4
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,871
Tennessee is a castle doctrine state, so there's no duty to retreat if you're in your home -- or an invited guest in someone else's home. That said, it makes a difference whether you're defending your girlfriend and yourself, or whether you're protecting property: you may use deadly force to defend yourself and/or someone else, but not to protect property.

You can find the relevant bits of the Tennessee code here. A couple of excerpts:
39-11-611 (a) (4) Residence means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest...

39-11-611 (b) (2) ...a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
So if someone has forcibly broken in, you may use deadly force to defend yourself and your girlfriend.

But for practical and ethical reasons, doing so should always be an absolute last resort: if you and your girlfriend can retreat to a safe place, hunker down, and call the cops, it's a wise choice to do those things rather than opening fire immediately, attempting to "clear the house" by yourself, etc. If you have a chance to retreat safely, it's still the smart thing to do, even when it's not legally required.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old August 15, 2011, 05:22 PM   #5
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nashville
Am I still legally allowed to defend that property with deadly force if necessary, even though it is not my house?
Are you EVER legally allowed to defend property with deadly force in your state?

Or are you really asking if you are allowed to defend yourself and/or your significant other?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 16, 2011, 09:20 AM   #6
Nashville
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2011
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5
A couple of you have brought up another question in my mind now, about defending property. In my original post I was really referring to defending myself and my lady, but I was also under the impression that the castle doctrine meant I could defend my property as well, am I wrong about that? If I were to come home and find intruders loading up my things, can I not take action against them? Or do they have to come at me before I could justify that?
Nashville is offline  
Old August 16, 2011, 10:44 AM   #7
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
If I were to come home and find intruders loading up my things, can I not take action against them?
One of the cornerstones of the Castle Doctrine is that you can defend yourself against someone who had entered your property with the purpose of committing a felony or burglary. But you need to read your state's laws carefully to see if that applies to you.

I'm hesitant to say that common sense says that you should be able to do what is necessary to defend your property, even in a Castle Doctrine state because common sense isn't a legal standard. The best advice that I can give is that if you are presented with a situation like you describe is to use only the force necessary to defuse it. And be a good witness.

Edit:

I would also add this: when I got my CCW permit in Idaho, my military service stood in lieu of a formal course. When my wife got hers, I took the course with her. It wasn't the standard, boilerplate CCW course - the instructor went well beyond what the state required. One of the things that we discussed was how to avoid using a firearm. In fact, we discussed that a lot. His contention was that the best outcome to any situation is to avoid it in the first place. And if that means running away, that's not a problem. Because as soon as you're in a situation where you have to use any kind of force, the chances of it escalating are quite high. And if you and/or the other guy has a gun, well, there acme of escalation, as it were, is a place that none of us wants to go.

As is said elsewhere, get a description, get a license number. Do witness-y type things. Let the police earn their pay.

It was an excellent course.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae

Last edited by Hardcase; August 16, 2011 at 01:21 PM.
Hardcase is offline  
Old August 16, 2011, 11:13 AM   #8
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,871
In Tennessee, it's legal to use force, but not deadly force, to protect property. Deadly force is justified only in response to a threat to life or limb.
39-11-614. Protection of property.

(a) A person in lawful possession of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against another, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person who has been unlawfully dispossessed of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against the other, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property, if the person threatens or uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession:

(1) The person reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when the other dispossessed the person; and

(2) The other accomplished the dispossession by threatening or using force against the person.
So you can "take action," but not by using, or threatening, deadly force.

And in the example you give, it would be a lot smarter to stay away, call the cops, and be a good witness: get descriptions and license plate numbers, and perhaps follow the thieves at a distance. If an armed gang is cleaning out your house, and you confront them, you may lose the fight. If you're outside your house and provoke a confrontation that could have been avoided, and end up shooting someone, you'll be on much shakier legal ground, and the aftermath won't feel much like a victory.

Possessions can be replaced -- that's why you have insurance. It's not, IMHO, worth risking a violent confrontation over "stuff."

You can find the passage I quoted above, as well as the rest of the TN code dealing with justification for the use of force, through the link in my first post. Read up, bookmark, and learn. And consider discussing this with a lawyer who specializes in such cases -- if you're ever actually involved in a self-defense shooting, it's vital to have a lawyer you can reach in a hurry.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

Last edited by Vanya; August 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM. Reason: punctuation.
Vanya is offline  
Old August 17, 2011, 05:31 PM   #9
federali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2011
Location: Nassau County NY
Posts: 378
In NYS, the code reads when in your own dwelling or in a dwelling in which you are licensed or privileged to be in. This means, your friend's home, a hotel room, a B&B etc.

Also, we may use deadly force to prevent the arson of an occupied dwelling. Generally, deadly force may not be used in a pure property crime.
__________________
Int'l Assoc. of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors
federali is offline  
Old August 17, 2011, 08:47 PM   #10
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
Quote:
Possessions can be replaced -- that's why you have insurance. It's not, IMHO, worth risking a violent confrontation over "stuff."
But men are not shot down for stealing stuff...but that stuff be not stolen.
Edward429451 is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 10:43 AM   #11
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,871
Quote:
But men are not shot down for stealing stuff...but that stuff be not stolen.
Umm... not by law-abiding citizens. In Tennessee (and nearly everywhere else), shooting someone for either reason is a crime, which makes the shooter a criminal, and so... not a "good guy."

Preventing future crimes is never a legal justification for deadly force. It's irresponsible, IMHO, to suggest that it might be; not to mention that, as is often pointed out, the Internet is forever, and this is exactly the kind of comment that could come back and bite you.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 12:55 PM   #12
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
I know, it sounds bad how I said that. The other side of the coin is that the thieves read this stuff too and we don't want to encourage them do we? Let's all get on here and talk how we wont shoot thieves, and how we have a plan to run out of our house if they come so we don't break any precious laws, and how they can take what I have worked for, and my tools which are my livelyhood and I wont do anything about it because I want to be a good citizen. Horse hockey.

We are allowed to protect property in Colorado with lethal force. I have no desire to shoot anyone but if they want to come steal from me and mine...let them be real careful because they might get hurt.

See how my words put out a deterrent? This is how it used to be all over. Crime is more widespread now because the people are being conditioned to not fight back. Being scared to stand your ground because of what might happen is not a proper response to crime.
Edward429451 is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 02:13 PM   #13
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Laws be damned, if your life is in danger you have a right to defend yourself. Failure to do so means you chose to be a victim.

If you choose to be in a place unarmed because they don't allow guns you have made your choice.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--
Old Grump is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 02:18 PM   #14
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward429451
We are allowed to protect property in Colorado with lethal force. I have no desire to shoot anyone but if they want to come steal from me and mine...let them be real careful because they might get hurt.
Sorry, but I don't see anything in Colorado law allowing you to kill someone who is carrying off your lawn decoration. Since I spend a bit of time in Colorado, armed, I would appreciate a specific cite to the law that allows one to "protect property with lethal force". "Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder" is a whole different thing than using "lethal force to protect property".
Quote:
18-1-706 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Property
A person is justified in using reasonably and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.
Quote:
18-1-704 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of A Person
1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser
degree of force is inadequate and:

(a.) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he
or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b.) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical
force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c.) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit
kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not
justified in using physical force if:

(a.) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

(b.) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon
another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

(c.) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement
not specifically authorized by law.
Don H is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 02:18 PM   #15
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward429451
I know, it sounds bad how I said that. The other side of the coin is that the thieves read this stuff too and we don't want to encourage them do we? Let's all get on here and talk how we wont shoot thieves, and how we have a plan to run out of our house if they come so we don't break any precious laws...
I'm not sure who on here is saying that... But as law-abiding citizens, and gun-owning ones at that, we do have a responsibility to be clear, both in our own minds and in our public statements, that we will follow the law in these matters, whatever it happens to be where we live.

Quote:
Crime is more widespread now because the people are being conditioned to not fight back.
Except it's not more widespread... both violent crimes and property crimes are on the decline, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It's a trend that's been consistent over the past three or four decades. Although no one quite seems to know why...

I suppose you could try standing your argument on its head, and say that if crime is declining, more people must be fighting back, but that would be... a considerable flip-flop.

I get that you're making a rhetorical point, but I think the possible deterrent effect on the multitudes of thieves who frequent TFL (:snort:) is outweighed by the potential harm of such statements: as a practical matter, they offer bad advice to folks who are new to the idea that they can and should defend themselves and their homes, and as a matter of PR for gun owners... very uncool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don H
"Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder" is a whole different thing than using "lethal force to protect property".
Exactly. Well put. Just so.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

Last edited by Vanya; August 18, 2011 at 02:27 PM.
Vanya is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 03:25 PM   #16
AlabamaFamilyMan
Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 28
Quote:
Except it's not more widespread... both violent crimes and property crimes are on the decline, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It's a trend that's been consistent over the past three or four decades. Although no one quite seems to know why...
Except John Lott...

AFM
AlabamaFamilyMan is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 03:54 PM   #17
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,908
This may be a little tangential, but I recall a case, in Washington state, I think, or maybe Oregon, where a guy saw a thief steal something from his car. He retrieved his trusty Mosin-Nagant rifle and dispatched the thief with a shot to the back.

His defense was that he was defending his property. As I expected, he lost his case.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 06:08 PM   #18
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,398
Quote:
I know, it sounds bad how I said that. The other side of the coin is that the thieves read this stuff too and we don't want to encourage them do we? Let's all get on here and talk how we wont shoot thieves, and how we have a plan to run out of our house if they come so we don't break any precious laws, and how they can take what I have worked for, and my tools which are my livelyhood and I wont do anything about it because I want to be a good citizen. Horse hockey.
So you think we should get on here and talk about how we will shoot thieves over property, encouraging gun owners that otherwise would be engaged in legal activities to illegally use lethal force? That is the other side of the coin to what you are doing.

No, we won't out and out illegally shoot thieves. It would be stupid to claim otherwise.

---------------------

Quote:
Except John Lott...

AFM
You are a funny funny man, AFM.
__________________
"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 August 18, 2011, 06:39 PM   #19
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaFamilyMan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
...Except it's not more widespread... both violent crimes and property crimes are on the decline, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It's a trend that's been consistent over the past three or four decades. Although no one quite seems to know why...
Except John Lott...
Excuse the digression, BUT --

John Lott has done some excellent and valuable work strongly suggesting that some part of the decline in violent crime may well be attributable to "shall issue" right to carry laws and private citizens having firearms. But John Lott has not accounted for the entire decline in crime.

Indeed, the decline in crime rate is most likely due to many and varied factors. For example, in New York City, beginning in 1990, the crime rate dropped precipitously. Murders were reduced by two-third, felonies fell by 50%; and by 2000, felonies on the subways had declined 75% (The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell, Back Bay Books, 2002, pg. 137). The RKBA and liberalized right to carry laws certainly had nothing to do with that.

I'm making this point because a misuse of statistics does the RKBA no good. We have to be careful about making claims that we can't substantiate, because when we do, it erodes our credibility.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 07:05 PM   #20
RampantAndroid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 6, 2011
Posts: 217
I believe in WA actually that you are allowed to fire in defense of yourself or someone else in grave danger; moreover, you can defend yourself when you are somewhere which you have the right to be. From my state's supreme court:

"there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."

So despite having no castle doctrine, our laws do not have a duty to retreat, and allow you to defend others as well.

From my state's law force is lawful when:

"Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;"

and homicide is justifiable when:

"In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or"

And after reading that law 20 times (I'm no lawyer...) my understanding is exactly as I said above: I (the "slayer") can lawfully use deadly force when I or someone else in my company is in danger. Now, what felonies qualify for this WITHOUT being tagged as using excessive force, I do not know.

Source is my own state's gov't site: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.a...true#9A.16.020
__________________
Springfield Armory M1A 22" barrel in SAGE EBR Mod 0 stock
Dan Wesson CCO | S&W Model 58 blued | S&W Model 29 blued
Springfield 1954 M1 Garand | S&W M&P 15 VTAC 2
RampantAndroid is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 10:53 PM   #21
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
I didn't tell anyone to illegally use lethal force. Please do not misunderstand my terms either. When I say defend property, that's my house and I will not run out the back door because I have an intruder on my property.

I would not shoot a kid stealing a lawn ornament and I'll thank you not to paint me like that just because I wont get on here and say the politically correct No property is worth fighting for. Some things are worth fighting for, and especially at home.

I do not go looking for trouble. If it comes to me at home...I have more rights at home than anywhere.
Edward429451 is offline  
Old August 19, 2011, 07:26 AM   #22
kadima
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Posts: 190
Just going back on the OP. Even if the law allows you to use deadly force against an intruder, if you aren't at your place you may not be actually sure about who's an intruder.

In my corner of the world (a remte hill of Tuscany) if I hear noises in the house it is likely a friend of my kids entering the usual way thru the window. I do know this and my only reaction is to run to padlock the fridge. I cannot imagine what would happen if I had an armed guest and he/she decided that a wild Tuscan Kid is an intruder.....

K.
kadima is offline  
Old August 19, 2011, 02:03 PM   #23
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown
I'm making this point because a misuse of statistics does the RKBA no good. We have to be careful about making claims that we can't substantiate, because when we do, it erodes our credibility.
Thanks, fiddletown -- you beat me to it, and said it more succinctly than I would have...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kadima
Just going back on the OP. Even if the law allows you to use deadly force against an intruder, if you aren't at your place you may not be actually sure about who's an intruder.
Yep -- one of many reasons why the smart thing to do, if possible, is to retreat to a safe place within your home (no one is suggesting you should retreat from your home), call 911, and tell the intruder you're armed and the cops are on the way.

If it's the the Tuscan Kid, he'll then say something along the lines of "Aspetta, prego non sparare, รจ Pulcinello!"

And all will be well, if your guest's Italian is up to it.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old August 20, 2011, 09:27 AM   #24
kadima
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Posts: 190
Actually here the average Tuscan kid would comment about the rifle and tell that his dad-granddad-uncle has a nicer rifle for wild hog hunting.

Then would kick the padlocked fridgr until it opens and start raiding it making London looters look amateurs.... 8-)

Trust me, I have two tuscan kids at home...

K.
kadima is offline  
Old August 20, 2011, 01:01 PM   #25
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
From WA state.

My understanding is this: If a person is attacking you, or someone else, and you are in a place that it is legal for you to be, you may use whatever force is necessary to stop that attack (felony assault). The assault does not have to be on your person, you can defend someone else in your presence.

The limiting factor would be, say someone came into your yard and stole your car...If that person were driving away from your person...you do not defent, you call the cops. If the thief was driving your car in your direction (potential deadly threat, using the car as a weapon), you would have the right to stop him by what ever means you had.

Oh yes, in the car senario...It just happened a few days ago in Seattle...someone with a gun or a knife trys to hijack your car...it is permissible for you to use deadly force to prevent that carjacking.

I disagree with backing yourself into a corner. I do not, will not, retreat. Someone comes into my presence to do me or mine harm, they will pay immeadiately. I also will not purposely put myself in harms way, unless there is some compelling reason to do so. (someone else in my presense is being hurt)
hermannr 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 01:07 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 0.14117 seconds with 9 queries