The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 7, 2012, 02:17 PM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,688
Retired Firefighter Shoots Neighbor, Claims Self Defense

In 2010, retired firefighter Raul Rodriguez killed P.E. teacher Kelly Danaher and shot two other men in a dispute over a loud party. According to Rodriguez's account, he went outside with a video camera, flashlight and gun to document the noise. As a result, the first shot of this confrontation and some of the events leading up to it are shown on tape.

http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html (has link to edited video of shooting)
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...to-3611376.php (Houston Chronicle coverage - better details)

Rodriguez is currently on trial for murder. The original video is 22 minutes long and jurors were shown the last 7 minutes in which several partygoers ask Rodriguez why he is standing in Danaher's driveway filming. According to some reports, Rodriguez filmed for approximately 10 minutes before he was even noticed by partygoers. The edited version in the link above appears to be a 2 minute edited version of the 7 minute tape. Obviously, the situation could have been handled better.

I thought it would make for good discussion because apparently Rodriguez thought he was handling it well and is now facing murder charges. The presence of the video offers us a chance to see a bit of what Rodriguez saw right up to the first shot.

Additionally, here is Texas law regarding use of deadly force in self-defense:

Quote:
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 02:37 PM   #2
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,732
If I read this correctly and watching the video - the shooter went on another's man property. Then he displayed or made known he had a gun. He refused requests to leave another man's property.

There was a police car already there. He didn't go over to it.

He announced SYG as it is a magic excuse. He announces that he is in fear of his life as a magic excuse he got from some gun source - when he could leave. The victims clearly respond to a threat from his gun by saying they will get their own. Stupid drunk behavior - they should have simply told the law there is a madman threatening them with a gun.

He feels he can reason with the alcohol fogged reasoning of several people. Or was he posturing for some bizarre reason.

This is exactly the problem with the misinterpretation of SYG that we are seeing from some. It is also an indication of a lack of understanding the use of the firearm which is not to SYG but to protect you. Leaving is a better option. Not staying there and instead showing off the gun as it will deter the irrational (sound familar from another thread).

For what it is worth - it seems the shooter wanted the confrontation and was driven by some stupid dominance factor to stay there. Or he was thinking he had an excuse to shoot? And wanted to on some level?

Did he think he was justified? Even if a group charged him - recall (if I read it correctly) he was on another man's land acting threatenly with a firearm. Did they not have the right to SYG which trumps his non-existant SYG claim?

So my quick take (and facts can prove me wrong) that he is to blame.

Here's a good take from Mas Ayoob

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1419141
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; June 7, 2012 at 03:03 PM.
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 02:45 PM   #3
Dave P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 1999
Location: North Florida
Posts: 1,131
Not an easy case.

Shooter almost seems to be trying too hard to justify lethal force: filming it; on the phone to 911; repeatedly saying "I am in fear ..."

I assume he can stand his ground, but it would have been very simple (apparently) for him to back off and avoid it all.
__________________
... still waiting for that stimulus to kick in ...
Dave P is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 02:51 PM   #4
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,006
From a legal standpoint, Rodriguez may have trouble with (2) ("did not provoke the person against whom force was used"), for the reasons stated by Dr. Meyer.

From a tactical standpoint, he had every opportunity to disengage and de-escalate. A noisy party is something to call law enforcement about. I personally would call non-emergency dispatch rather than 911. Definitely not a reason to put yourself in a position to use deadly force and defend such use in the legal theater.
TailGator is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 03:10 PM   #5
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Based on that video, he's a murderer and should go to jail.

As Glenn said, he's chanting "I'm in fear of my life" and "I'm standing my ground" as if they're some kind of magic talisman that gives him the right to kill people.

Trespassing, threatening, refusal to leave, stupid, stupid, stupid.

Is there any fear in his voice? None that I hear. He sounds like he's dictating a video on paint drying.

He doesn't understand the law. He thinks he does. He thinks he's tough. He's not.

Now he's a murderer.
__________________
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 June 7, 2012, 03:16 PM   #6
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,688
Just wanted to add that I think we have two different tactical discussions here:

1. What could Rodriguez have done better?
2. How could Danaher have handled that in a way that turned out better for him?

I think that last one is worth thinking about. According to testimony, Danaher tackled Rodriguez and was shot. Not sure who is on the video; but you can hear them laughing as they approach. Pretty clearly, they thought they an easy problem to solve. The result of that estimation was one man dead and two others shot.

It seems both parties in this missed several good opportunities to avoid, deescalate or disengage.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 03:23 PM   #7
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
1)Stay off your neighbors property if you're not invited. Leave when asked. Don't start confrontations. Dont be a posturing jackass. Call the police about loud parties. Understand the law.

2)Call the police about trespassers. Don't be a posturing jackass. Don't get drunk if you can't control yourself. Don't have parties that are unreasonable. Don't tackle people, especially people who have guns. When someone has a gun, go away.
__________________
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 June 7, 2012, 04:08 PM   #8
myshoulderissore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
One more reminder that the best practice for most any confrontation (at least in the self defense world) is retreat, if possible. I agree, with the limited info that was linked and that I found, it looks to me like he was mad about being ignored and went too far, and in his mind he would be justified saying the right things and going for it...

Anger and pride are instabilities that are not well mixed with guns.
myshoulderissore is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 04:15 PM   #9
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
This guy seems to be operating with the mental aptitude of Homer Simpson. The fact that he thinks that what he did was okay is just sign of how many stupid people there are in the world.

This not SYG, this is not SD, this is just someone mad at his neighbor with a chip on his shoulder. If he doesn't get a needle I will be shocked.

1- Already covered.

2- Mostly covered. Sure you might have a reason to tackle someone with a gun but not in this case. Seeing how he was not behaving entirely rational it is of no surprise he choose a stupid move.

Get along well with your neighbors if at all possible. Go out of the way to do so. That way they will be less likely to come to your house in the middle of the night with a gun looking to kill you.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 04:22 PM   #10
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,101
Jerks like this guy do more to skew public opinion against gun owners and SYG laws than all of the anti gun activists put together.
SYG laws are in my opinion - and probably the opinions of most informed people - very reasonable. However, when public opinion starts associating SYG with "if you have a gun you can use it to win a fight" I think we'll find we have a much harder time getting them added to the books, or keeping them.
Sadly, in our public opinion driven political system, what people think usually trumps the truth.
Most people don't have a vested interest in gun rights, and don't bother to find out what SYG laws actually do. They believe what they see on the news. When we have cases like this guy (and the one-who-shall-not-be-named in FL), people are going to start to think that this is what SYG laws are about.
And when that happens who would blame them for voting against them? Frankly, I would vote against any law that would actually make this guys actions legal.
dayman is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 04:30 PM   #11
TheNocturnus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2011
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,093
Seems like he started the whole confrontation. He should have continued to phone the police until they resolved it or filed a complaint with them the next day. He was foolish to walk down there and demand that they quiet down.

Unfortunately this man has made his bed and now he must face the consequences. A CCW permit does not make you a police officer nor does it give you the right to unjustly shoot someone. He was a retired firefighter, I would have expected better restraint from him.

What an idiot...
__________________
My EDC:
Gun
Wallet
Brain (Use this one the most)
TheNocturnus is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 04:35 PM   #12
Doc Maker
Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2010
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 67
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Doc Maker is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 05:35 PM   #13
Marquezj16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2011
Posts: 2,088
It would have been different if he was on his property. He should be convicted for his actions.
Marquezj16 is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 10:33 PM   #14
Mello2u
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,424
This shooter may have believed that his possession and display of his gun was going to act as a magic talisman to keep him safe. However, his magic was not effective against a drunk.

One additional factor in the risky behavior (moving closer to an armed man who is warning you away) of the people who were drinking at the party beyond intoxication, may have been peer pressure. The people who were shot probably did not assess the risk properly because they were impaired and also did not want to appear cowardly in front of their friends.

I think that the prosecution can argue that a reasonable person who was actually in fear of their life would have taken the opportunity to leave the confrontation; rather than stand there arguing and continuing to record a video.

A series of bad choices resulting in bad results.
__________________
NRA Life Member - Orange Gunsite Member - NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it.
" Frederic Bastiat
Mello2u is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 10:42 PM   #15
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,873
This is not "Stand Your Ground": It's not his ground, and he was asked to leave it, therefore he was trespassing.

Quote:
c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
As I understand the SYG concept, you may SYG wherever you have a legal right to be. He failed that standard.

He also failed the "has not provoked" standard, in that walking onto somebody's property with a video camera, and refusing to leave, is a provocation in my book.....

Murder. Possibly premeditated/malice aforethought.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/

Last edited by jimbob86; June 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 06:56 AM   #16
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
Was he on their property? Looks to me like in the video there is a section of road or sidewalk between him and the driveway. People coming down the driveway towards him while he is in what appears to be the street. Hard to tell.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 07:40 AM   #17
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,239
I think he maybe in trouble, since he went to another man's house armed and this could be construed as he is the instigator. He went to the trouble, the trouble did not come to him. The whole thing could have been avoided had he waited for the police. Loud music is not a threat to anyone's life. Also the party goers were drunk and you never argue with a drunk person.
Just my opinion, maybe I am wrong. But one dead and two wounded over loud music and noise ? I wouldn't consider loud music and noise as a threat of personal injury. He should have waited at his own house for the police and let them handle it..
rebs is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 08:03 AM   #18
TexasJustice7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2011
Posts: 213
If this was in Texas his first mistake is going off his own property to another man's property. If the noise disturbed him he should have called the law.
You do not have the right to go to another man's property and start filming it in Texas.
TexasJustice7 is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 08:25 AM   #19
rtpzwms
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2010
Location: OTS
Posts: 794
I'm just not sure who was the bigger jackass the party goers or the fireman.

From my perspective why argue with a bunch of drunks? Its a no brainier parties will fizzle out with time, just let it go and let the police handle it.

Going down the street with a gun and a camera what did you think would happen? If you feel compelled to go, do it with a smile like you would like to be part of the party and reason gently and leave with your smile. I would not have gone at all without knowing the host before the party.

This is a case of dumb and dumber! This is in Texas and according to Ron White they're putting in an express lane for murders! I guess the firefighter just wanted to be in the express lane.
__________________
Experience is what you get when you don’t get what you want.
rtpzwms is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 08:57 AM   #20
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,459
Quote:
I think he maybe in trouble, since he went to another man's house armed and this could be construed as he is the instigator. He went to the trouble, the trouble did not come to him.
That he went onto another's property with a gun and that he is the instigator doesn't mean he didn't have the right to self defense. Nothing in Texas law that says you can't go to the trouble. Such events don't look good but don't negate his rights. For example, he could have gone down the street and yelled at the party goers and then ended up shooting and killing one or more of them when they followed and attacked him on his way back home. He would still be the instigator, but well within his self defense rights to defend himself. That isn't what happened, of course, but is a way that he could have been the instigator and still in a position to legally defend himself.

Quote:
The whole thing could have been avoided had he waited for the police.
As Glenn noted, the police were already there and apparently watched a lot of the exchange stating both parties spoke of guns and strange the cop didn't do anything. I wonder if that was actually the police or not. Rodriguez says the police are there, so maybe it actually was, but if the police were there, then Rodriguez definitely should not have been dealing with the party goers. You are right that the whole thing could have been avoided.

Quote:
Loud music is not a threat to anyone's life. Also the party goers were drunk and you never argue with a drunk person.

Just my opinion, maybe I am wrong. But one dead and two wounded over loud music and noise ? I wouldn't consider loud music and noise as a threat of personal injury.
This is a typical misrepresentation that shows up commonly. It is akin to folks who carry but who say that they are not willing to shoot or kill another over the contents of their wallets. So when they are held at gun or knife point by a mugger, they apparently won't defend themselves against a threat to their lives since the mugger just wants a wallet. Here, they fail to realize that the wallet is no longer the salient issue. Their lives are being threatened. In the Rodriguez case, the guy shot because he was being attacked. He didn't shoot anybody because the music was too loud. The music, like the wallet, was only the reason drawing the parties together.

If Glenn's comprehension of the situation is correct that he was on the other guy's land when he was attacked after brandishing, then the attack may be considered self defense by the party-goers to handle a threat. They have the right to self defense as well.

Quote:
He should have waited at his own house for the police and let them handle it..
He had made a lot of calls and the police had not arrived. So going over to the party to complain would not have been out of line. However, once he may have thought there would be trouble and after he was told to leave (which was when he appeared to be on the other guy's property, he should have left. If he was on the other guy's property and the other guy told him to leave (and I can't tell this from the vids), then his refusal to leave would be trespassing.

I don't see anything in the video to indicate that he was actually in fear for his life, especially since he said he was, brandished his gun, but did nothing else to get him to safety. His actions do not appear to be of a person who is in fear for his life. I am not certain from the video that his brandishing was legal.

The 'expert' in the first video, Jim Pruett, says that Texas CHL holder are taught to do is to announce that you have a gun, are in fear for your life and that you will use if. That is a crock. He may teach that but announcing you have a gun isn't an aspect covered by other CHL instructors that I know of. I have never heard it in my CHL classes and the two guys that I shoot with who are CHL instructors don't teach to announce that you have a gun.
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html
__________________
"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 June 8, 2012, 09:17 AM   #21
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
It still doesn't look like he was ever on anybody's property. He is standing in the middle of the street next to a truck. One partygoer even says he's standing in the middle of the street with a gun.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 09:29 AM   #22
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,768
I guess we'll soon see what the jury thinks.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 09:43 AM   #23
Seaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2011
Posts: 649
"Prosecutors said Rodriguez was not in fear for his life and had ample opportunity to leave the confrontation he started....
...Prosecutors said Rodriguez fatally shot Kelly Danaher, a physical education teacher at Sorters Mill Elementary in New Caney ISD, in his own driveway at his wife's birthday party in northeast Harris County. Rodriguez also shot two other men, one a Houston Fire Department captain, just afterward. " [B. Rogers, Houston Chronicle, Updated June 7, 2012]

Wow...poor guy was shot (and killed) at his wife's birthday party, Mr. Rodriguez also wounded 2 other good people...its not like he shot three crack-heads breaking down his front door. Unbelieveable.

When there's a loud party I simply put in my ear-plugs and go to bed.

"I guess we'll soon see what the jury thinks. "

Indeed.
__________________
For 20 years the sea was my home, always recall the sun going down, and my trusty friend, a 1911 pistol, strapped to my side.
Seaman is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 10:11 AM   #24
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
You do not get to claim SYG if you are in a place you are not legally entitled to be.

Like trespassing on someone else's property after being told to leave.
brickeyee is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 11:22 AM   #25
UtopiaTexasG19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2011
Location: S.E. Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 743
"The 'expert' in the first video, Jim Pruett"

Jim Pruett was a radio disc jockey for years here in the Houston, Texas area before he sold guns. He has a spot on our local Channel 39 most nights and in my opinion is a embarrassment to the local gun community. Quoteing him for any real facts is a huge stretch of the imagination. Even my wife asks me if the guy is for real with some of the statements he makes on tv.
UtopiaTexasG19 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 02:12 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 0.15446 seconds with 9 queries