dhuze
NES Member
I'm waiting to see his jr high photo before I pass any judgement.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Two Weapons, a Chase, a Killing and No Charges: A 25-year-old man running through a Georgia neighborhood ended up dead
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
I'm waiting to see his jr high photo before I pass any judgement.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Again, I haven't brought up race, because I don't care what anyone's race is.Sure it does.
BTW are you 100% sure of the race of each poster on NES ?
And what difference does it make what race any member of NES is?
And let's be clear, I don't necessarily think talking about race makes you a racist (what you say about it does), I was only referencing Frizzle's definition posted earlier.
Race may or may not have played a roll in the minds of the shooters. But it's irrelevant. What's relevant is the actions taken and what was known when and by whom regarding the victim, and what is fact and what is speculation.
I still having trouble figuring out how chasing down someone who may or may not have committed burglary and creating a confrontation that leads to you killing that person would be justified. Killing burglars is acceptable?
I'm going by your insistence that the guy was just some poor schmuck out for a jog when all the facts so far point 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
If it was some guy out for a jog and this happened I'd be right with you , but it appears not to be .
Your version is made up to be what you wanted it to be.
As far as the race thing, just as a general rule one should be careful before they throw that word around .
You wouldn't be the first person to come off looking like a total fool later on.
All I'm saying is innocent till proven guilty.
But here are the facts, which you seem to be not completely familiar with.
A person who at least some say fits the description of the victim was seen inside a house under construction, not yet closed in, at some date/time in the past. When is not clear but it is clear that the victim was not followed from that location/time.
The two who chased the victim, claim to have seen video of him committing the "burglary", but that video has not yet been produced. They did not see him commit a crime first hand nor did they follow him from that location. This is based on their own statements. BTW I believe the local law on making a citizen's arrest requires that it be timely to the actual crime (later, elsewhere isn't good enough).
By their own statements the shooter saw the victim running past his home, got his gun, got in his truck and chased the victim down. He then engaged in a confrontation with the victim where the shooter was holding a loaded shotgun. The altercation turned physical and the victim was shot.
The victim's past criminal history is irrelevant since the shooter had no way of knowing this.
The law, as posted by Frizzle Fry ;
"O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."
Brings up multiple issues. The crime was not committed in the shooters presence or within his immediate knowledge, it was second hand at best. I question whether trespassing on open construction constitutes a felony (one of those involved was a retired cop so he should know this). And since this was not timely to the alleged offence and was not at the location of the alleged offence, the victume was not in the act of escaping.
There is simply no reason the shooter should get a pass on this.
If I see someone who looks like a person in a video commiting a crime, I call the cops, that's their job, my taxes pay them to do this.
As for RACE, which other keep bring up but I have not. I don't care and it is not relevant to the crime.
And I'm not worried about being called a fool for NOT bringing race into this. You comment on this seems kind of weird.
The crime(s) which he witnessed on surveillance video were within his immediate knowledge. There was more than one break-in, not just the house under construction - that is a conflation with the other 9-11 callers story which was cleared up by the statement of the second DA brought in. He had called the police the day before, and they arrived too late to catch the guy. He was fleeing the scene of another breaking and entering - bear in mind you can "break" and "enter" through an already open door; you're breaking the seal of the doorway without permission. Georgia law defines a "dwelling" regardless of it's level of completion - their statutes specifically include unoccupied buildings, vacant buildings, parts of buildings, boats and cars even (if intended for use as a home). The charge most comparable to MA's breaking and entering law is "Burglary", a felony in Georgia, even if nothing has been taken - even if there isn't a door hung in the frame and it's wide open. It stops being "trespassing" when you enter a dwelling, or a part of a dwelling, occupied or otherwise, in use or otherwise. The law allowed for him to confront the man; he confronted the man. The law allowed for him to be armed, he was armed. The video clearly shows the burglar physically attacking him without having been attacked, and is not clear on whether the firearm discharged intentionally, or as a result of the burglar/attackers own actions. Armed or unarmed, is "Hey I want to talk to you!" an acceptable provocation for a physical attack?
I wasn't saying YOU were a racist - as you said you haven't brought it up (as so many racist NES'ers often do) so I apologize for the confusion in my poor wording - I meant the general "you" specifically the lawyer quoted in the article and other posters. The armchair QB lawyer from a private firm, who decided to share his opinions about the law was bringing it up, and blowing smoke about "armed posses" and what the law does or doesn't allow for in Georgia; he was beating the race drum. I firmly believe that stating race is a factor, or assuming race is a factor, in the absence of any evidence that race is a factor (other than simple things like sharing a description of an individual for identification purposes) is race baiting and racism. In this case there's not a single fact that points to race being a factor other than the supposition of racebaiters and racists. "Yeah but it's the south..." and "Yeah but it's a white guy..." are just the other side of the see-saw from "Well, you know how black guys are..." and it's ignorant nonsense.
My perspective might be a little different than most here, as I don't completely have the Massachusetts brain virus of "unless he's cornered you with a machete in your bedroom you can't defend yourself, and even then get him to put his threats in writing first and expect 50k in legal fees" - and bear in mind I taught LTC classes (and that mindset) in MA for years... where it is relevant. Some places it's not.
For example where I am in Maine the nearest form of police service is 25 miles away and there's far more leeway given under law AND by the LEOs themselves when it comes to firearms. In New Hampshire the same is true when it comes to "brandishing" in self defense among other "self-help" options that aren't available and have become taboo in states like MA, CT, and RI. In my neighborhood in MA there've been about a dozen break-ins to vehicles and houses a few blocks from my house recently... if the guy (I saw on camera and could identify - granted I haven't, but if I had such as in this case in Georgia) was running down the street I'd call the PD and they'd be there in <5 minutes. If the same was true at my place in Maine I'd be lucky to see a uniform of any kind in 30+ minutes - what do we do? Let the guy keep robbing everyone and hope some day one of the handful of cops can stake the place out? In more rural towns, counties, and states these citizens arrest laws have been around forever and will continue to be because self-help can be the only reasonable option to stop this kind of crap from happening. If you think these are podunk laws for podunk places, you absolutely do not have to live there.
Where is this stated. From what I recall, there were calls about break ins, a woman was mentioned. Not that the shooter had previously reported a break in.
He was running down the street, it does not say from a break in, and the shooter would have no knowledge of it even if it was the case, since he was not there. Unless you are speculating that video was taken and distributed throughout the community so quickly that someone previouly unaware of the breakin had time to view the video go outo his front yard and see the subject less than a block a way from the breakin. That's seems like some pretty big speculation.
And where is this video, because it's not in the original article. You are attributing very specific actions to the victim and shooter. Link to the video please. Or is this just speculation of what could have happened that would support you position?
I deleted part of my post as it wasn't really relevant, originally it read;
If I see someone who looks like a person in a video commiting a crime, I call the cops, that's their job, my taxes pay them to do this. If I catch them in my house.... well NH so I have options. If he is unarmed , cooperative and not posing a physical threat, AND kisses the floor quick enough, he gets to walk out with the popo. Otherwise he gets carried out. But like I said "in my house" (well property too)
NYT won't report it because they have an angle and won't report inconvenient facts - read the local paper; there are perhaps a half dozen articles (I swear I first got there from a post in this thread) and two of the prosecutors thus far have stated there are multiple videos of the man committing burglaries, and a "third party" video of the altercation between the burglar and the two men which clearly shows him initiating physical violence. Both prosecutors have since recused; the first because of a conflict of interest, the second because of a VERY thin allegation of conflict and pressure from racebaiters and the local government. The second prosecutor stated he was waiting for ballistics because the statements of all witnesses and the video suggest the firearm may have first been triggered by the attacker/burglar during his attack (and then fired again by the weapons owner, intentionally).
None of the video has been released to the public, nor has the full police report and there's hints in what has been released that the burglar might himself have been armed... or not, but wording suggests it might be the case, as do some of the statements from prosecutor #2. If he was armed, there's a good chance it was with an M&P stolen from the retired cop. Or said M&P might have been found in his home. It's so political at this point the 3rd prosecutor brought in might have their hands tied, and need make a circus out of what turns out to be relatively straight forward - don't worry the SPLC is on it!
Last edited:
Dude, you can't just toss out all that unsupported information like that. Links to sources. Your other post talked like you had seen the videos, now you say they haven't been released, which is it? Until there is a source it's all just speculation.
Have you posted a single link? Read the local paper that was linked I believe it was called Brunswick - (as stated above) there are a half dozen or more articles with statements from the prosecutors, parts of the police reports, and information about the theft of the retired cops handgun, the multiple 911 calls from the retired cop and the neighbors, etc. The newer articles are post-NGO involvement (usual suspects; race huckster lawyers and SPLC) and are less fact filled and more supposition.
I cannot be any more clear than I have - the statement of the prosecutors were that a third party video captured the altercation. None of the videos have been released. I never claimed to have seen the videos. I never "made it seem like" I saw the videos, only referred back to their existence and the statements from the prosecutor regarding them.
It's statements from the DAs office, the various prosecutors, etc when addressing their decisions not to pursue charges (at all, then yet). I've made a point to say very clearly what's speculation and what's not. I'd "speculate" that now that the race hucksters and grievance brigades are involved, we'll never see the videos and we'll see local and national papers reel back in anything that led to any questioning of the new narrative.
As the guy who first called this "bad shoot" I want to clarify something: If by some convoluted, pretzel logic the killers can get out of legal responsibility for this shoot, it is still is a bad shoot.
The shoot was WRONG, it was immoral. That nulls the entire legal analysis by the self-schooled lawyers on NES. If you don't see that then you are the real problem.
The shoot was WRONG, it was immoral. That nulls the entire legal analysis by the self-schooled lawyers on NES. If you don't see that then you are the real problem.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,125
- Likes
- 33,056
And they/I have every right to tell you to pound sand. And say nasty things about your mommy.
Sure it does.
BTW are you 100% sure of the race of each poster on NES ?
Back in middle school I had a race poster. I think it was the America's Cup.
And they/I have every right to tell you to pound sand. And say nasty things about your mommy.
Back in middle school I had a race poster. I think it was the America's Cup.
Mine was NASCAR.
We're not going to agree on this.
I come from a place and time where you took care of your neighbors and neighborhood.
If you got caught backing out of a neighbor's window with an armload or their stuff , you got your ass kicked and then the police got called.
It might not fit into some peoples ideal of letting other people take care of your problems , but once word got out it wasn't just the cops you needed to worry about, you would be surprised how little problems there were.
It was immoral for the felon who just committed another felony to attack a guy who had a shotgun, and possibly be the one who fired the weapon?
We ain't never gonna agree on this.
It's not immoral to chase a thief, it's not immoral to protect your property or your neighbors property, or your own life when attacked. Removing the rights of people to do so is immoral.
He was not killed over "physical property". He was not run down and shot like a dog in the street, he was not cowering, he wasn't out for a jog... he stole, and when confronted, he attacked.
Yes, people have a right to defend their property. If physically attacked in doing so, they have the right to defend their body.
Those are and have been basic rights/values in western cultures since the beginning of written history. There's not a single thing immoral about them.
You're either being willfully ignorant here, or you're delusional. If these guys had gunned the guy down like the final scene in Easy Rider the situation would be completely different.
No, he was chased down in a truck.
And so far no proof has been made public that proves he stole anything.... at a breakin that that happened a day or more before.
So if you're cornered by three men, 2 with guns out, after being chased own the street, would you not take that as a threat and defend yourself as best you could. I sure would.
We would definitely agree that if someone was caught climbing out of my neighbors window, yes you can hold him and if that means he gets hurt, too bad. But that's not what happened here. Timeliness is an important factor because it removes doubt or the possibility of a mistake.
Video shows black man who was out for a run shot dead by two men
The video circulated across social media on the same day as a statement from a Georgia prosecutor that he wants a grand jury to decide if charges are warranted against the men.
Jogger tried to take the gun away.
Edit:
Before that it appears as if a gun was fired.
I bet these guys wont get convicted.
Last edited:
Video shows black man who was out for a run shot dead by two men
The video circulated across social media on the same day as a statement from a Georgia prosecutor that he wants a grand jury to decide if charges are warranted against the men.www.dailymail.co.uk
Jogger tried to take the gun away.
Edit:
Before that it appears as if a gun was fired.
I bet these guys wont get convicted.
Would you look at that... the 3rd party footage which "doesn't exist" shows him running right at the guy who's just standing, from a good distance away mind you, and trying to grab his gun and hit him... rather than, say, running literally anywhere else. And it doesn't look or sound as though shots were fired until he attacked the guy.
And it doesn't look like he was being chased either, but that the truck was parked and the man was standing next to it. It's almost as though the 2nd prosecutor had a point when he laid all of this out in his letter...
Is there any precedent that says a person can use lethal force to defend against a criminal who tries to steal their gun?
Instead of attacking the two men, this guy should have not confronted them and tried to steal the gun.
Instead of attacking the two men, this guy should have not confronted them and tried to steal the gun.
So now you say the truck was parked and they weren't chasing him. But by the shooters own statements they got their guns and chased him in their truck. So NO the truck wasn't just sitting there. Since the shooter said they followed in the truck I think we can safely assume they passed him and stopped to block his way. As the victim approached the vehicle the shooter was out with his shotgun ready on the left side. The victim went to the right side AWAY from the shooter. The shooter crossed in front of the truck to engage the victim. Here I'll grant you that initial contact was out of sight in front of the truck. But given that they had already chased him in the truck and the shooter went to the victim when he went around the truck to the far side, I would say the shooters intent for an armed confrontation was clear.
Again, you say " it doesn't look like he was being chased" but the shooters own statements contradict this.
A Georgia prosecutor on Tuesday recommended that a grand jury review the fatal shooting of a black man while he was out jogging earlier this year.
The investigation into the killing of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery on Feb. 23 has been criticized by many in the state. Now, a disturbing video that emerged online on Tuesday purports to show key parts of the incident and has increased calls for charges.
Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, took to Twitter to write that the video is "clear" and Arbery "was killed in cold blood." He wrote that his heart goes out to Arbery's family and called for a transparent investigation into the "murder."
www.foxnews.com
Above is a better video.
The guy gave the gun owner a pretty good beating before he was shot.
"There have been a string of burglaries in the area and Arbery supposedly fit the description of the suspect."
Supposedly? No, he was the robber. They have him on video of that too.
Biden needs to keep his comments to himself...
The two men were NOT trying to have "intercourse" with the robber.
The investigation into the killing of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery on Feb. 23 has been criticized by many in the state. Now, a disturbing video that emerged online on Tuesday purports to show key parts of the incident and has increased calls for charges.
Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, took to Twitter to write that the video is "clear" and Arbery "was killed in cold blood." He wrote that his heart goes out to Arbery's family and called for a transparent investigation into the "murder."
Georgia grand jury review recommended in fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Biden weighs in
A Georgia prosecutor on Tuesday recommended that a grand jury review the fatal shooting of a black man who friends say was out for a jog at the time he was killed.
www.foxnews.com
Above is a better video.
The guy gave the gun owner a pretty good beating before he was shot.
"There have been a string of burglaries in the area and Arbery supposedly fit the description of the suspect."
Supposedly? No, he was the robber. They have him on video of that too.
Biden needs to keep his comments to himself...
The two men were NOT trying to have "intercourse" with the robber.
Didn’t they say they chased him and when he didn’t stop the drove and stopped in front of him? Also he didn’t run right at him he ran around the car to the right
either way who’s robbing houses without a backpack and in a T-shirt and basketball shorts?
Andrew Branca will be discussing the case at 2pm on FB...
I am not certain if Andrew knows of this gentleman's past of robbing houses, or illegal gun possession and general thuggery as reported in the news.
In court you have to explain why you did what you did - knowing what you knew at the time.
CYA
"Can You Articulate"
The 2 shooters will have to explain that past violent acts often lead to more violent acts and therefor they need to defend themselves.
The following was taken from Andrew's FB post...
Hey folks,
Many of you may have heard something about the purported "white supremacist gunning down of a black man for the crime of jogging" case currently heating up in Georgia.
That case involves the shooting death two months ago of Ahmaud Arbery, a young black man, by two neighborhood white men who pursued Arbery in an effort they claim was one of citizens arrest.
The facts of the case remain cloudy, as does some of the relevant law in the case, but the racial dynamics of the case have led to it being abruptly kicked into high gear recently, a process likely only to be accelerated with the release today of video of the actual shooting death itself.
In today's After Action Analysis Show, broadcast LIVE at 2PM ET right here on the Law of Self Defense Facebook page (http://facebook.com/lawofselfdefense) we will share with you that very video, the facts of the case as presented by each side's narratives, and explore the legal principles likely to be most decisive in this case, including Georgia laws on citizens arrest.
I look forward to seeing you at the "After Action Analysis Show" today, right here on the Law of Self Defense Facebook page, at 2PM ET, less than two hours from now!
--Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Edit:
Georgia laws on citizens arrest will toss all Massachusetts logic out the window.
Edit #2 Post Analysis:
Here is my take on what Andrew Branca said:
There was reasonable suspicion that Arbery was burglarizing the home.
The 2 guys had the right to stop him.
Stealing somebodies gun is worse than pointing your own gun at somebody because it deprives the person of their gun.
Disarming somebody can be grounds for lethal force.
Also, they BOTH could have been right. The 2 guys for stopping him and Arbery for trying to disarm the guy with the shotgun.
Andrew seemed to me to think that they wont bring charges.
I'm coming around on this...
I think the men will be found not guilty IF charged BUT they might be charged in the first place for political reasons to prevent riots.
I am not certain if Andrew knows of this gentleman's past of robbing houses, or illegal gun possession and general thuggery as reported in the news.
In court you have to explain why you did what you did - knowing what you knew at the time.
CYA
"Can You Articulate"
The 2 shooters will have to explain that past violent acts often lead to more violent acts and therefor they need to defend themselves.
The following was taken from Andrew's FB post...
Hey folks,
Many of you may have heard something about the purported "white supremacist gunning down of a black man for the crime of jogging" case currently heating up in Georgia.
That case involves the shooting death two months ago of Ahmaud Arbery, a young black man, by two neighborhood white men who pursued Arbery in an effort they claim was one of citizens arrest.
The facts of the case remain cloudy, as does some of the relevant law in the case, but the racial dynamics of the case have led to it being abruptly kicked into high gear recently, a process likely only to be accelerated with the release today of video of the actual shooting death itself.
In today's After Action Analysis Show, broadcast LIVE at 2PM ET right here on the Law of Self Defense Facebook page (http://facebook.com/lawofselfdefense) we will share with you that very video, the facts of the case as presented by each side's narratives, and explore the legal principles likely to be most decisive in this case, including Georgia laws on citizens arrest.
I look forward to seeing you at the "After Action Analysis Show" today, right here on the Law of Self Defense Facebook page, at 2PM ET, less than two hours from now!
--Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Edit:
Georgia laws on citizens arrest will toss all Massachusetts logic out the window.
Edit #2 Post Analysis:
Here is my take on what Andrew Branca said:
There was reasonable suspicion that Arbery was burglarizing the home.
The 2 guys had the right to stop him.
Stealing somebodies gun is worse than pointing your own gun at somebody because it deprives the person of their gun.
Disarming somebody can be grounds for lethal force.
Also, they BOTH could have been right. The 2 guys for stopping him and Arbery for trying to disarm the guy with the shotgun.
Andrew seemed to me to think that they wont bring charges.
I'm coming around on this...
I think the men will be found not guilty IF charged BUT they might be charged in the first place for political reasons to prevent riots.
Last edited:
They stated they had followed him, yes. At the time he attacked them, the truck was parked with no driver. It was "just sitting there". It looked to be at least 50 feet ahead of him (probably more) and he ran toward it and toward the men.
The shooter did not "cross" the front of the truck, but simply moved toward the front of it (and never got there) - the video clearly shows the burglar (not sure where you got "victim") crossed the front of the truck to attack the shooter. If the burglar was attempting to avoid the shooter, he could simply continue running rather straight than turning in front of the vehicle to attack. If he was worried about being shot (and thus felt the need to attack the shooter) he could have simply run ANYWHERE other than at the men and the truck, especially given how far away from it/them he was initially in the video - if he felt being shot was a real concern, why continue running towards the man from such a great distance rather than away in any other direction?
This is the furthest the shooter moved- not quite in front of the truck, maybe 2-3 feet closer to the truck from where he was standing initially - over the 7 seconds between the burglar running to passenger side of the truck then veering back towards the shooter to attack him. It looks like he moved further because of the change in perspective from the camera and the curve in the road, but relative to the line in the road it's quite clear.
It could just as easily be argued that he was moving toward the front of the truck or it's open door for cover as the assailant was running towards him, to avoid a physical confrontation (or because according to the two men, they believed he was armed). Or he could have been stepping to turn and face the burglar, who had himself turned sharply and was now charging directly at the shooter to attack him (which he did). If his intent from the outset was to shoot the burglar, he could have done so at any time. No shots were fired by either man until the younger man was attacked. The burglar veered to the right around the vehicle, and then made a sharp turn back towards the shooter, over the course of about 7 seconds during which time the shooter moved - generously - 3 feet.
Again, to be completely clear, it does not look like he was being chased by the two men at the time he attacked. The video clearly shows him running a significant distance TOWARDS the truck, and the men. He may have been followed before (the statement of the two men) but in the video he ran a great distance toward them when they were completely stationary.
I'd like to point out that Andrew Branca made several points that I brought up earlier in this thread... one that the home under construction qualified as a dwelling, and that the burglars entry constituted felony burglary under Georgia statute and case law. Second that the immediate knowledge standard (which they had for an earlier crime, re: the video) is irrelevant in the case of felonies (where reasonable suspicion is the standard) according to Georgia statute and case law, making the pursuit and attempted arrest of the burglar permissible - that he had viewed footage of the man committing a burglary and had identified him twice is just icing on the cake. Further that being armed was not illegal, and open carry or displaying of a firearm is not a "threat" and does not grant the right to attack someone.
Timeliness!! they didn't chase down what they called a suspect the same day/time as the break in. One of the reasons laws require this is because people don't know what may or may not have happened in between. Maybe he was picked up and cleared, maybe he was out on bail. The point is, the laws require it to be contiguous event to prevent mistakes.
So lets turn it around again. You are out for a jog. 2 men in a truck with guns chase you down and cut you off, there is a third man in another truck coming up behind you (remember he is identified as a third pursuer). So going back isn't an option and you just want out of there. You cross to the side of the vehicle where the armed man isn't. The armed man moves forward and across the front to intercept you. Running away is a ridiculous suggestion, unless you seriously think you can outrun a bullet. Best defence is get inside the arch of the weapon. long gun, handgun or bat its the same, you want to be on the safe side of it. That means moving quickly to be closer to the assailant.
Bottom line, they had no business chasing him in the first place, everything after that is a result of that wrong.
And you know, but won't admit it, that if 2 armed men chased you, you would take that as a threat and act. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
So lets turn it around again. You are out for a jog. 2 men in a truck with guns chase you down and cut you off, there is a third man in another truck coming up behind you (remember he is identified as a third pursuer). So going back isn't an option and you just want out of there. You cross to the side of the vehicle where the armed man isn't. The armed man moves forward and across the front to intercept you. Running away is a ridiculous suggestion, unless you seriously think you can outrun a bullet. Best defence is get inside the arch of the weapon. long gun, handgun or bat its the same, you want to be on the safe side of it. That means moving quickly to be closer to the assailant.
Bottom line, they had no business chasing him in the first place, everything after that is a result of that wrong.
And you know, but won't admit it, that if 2 armed men chased you, you would take that as a threat and act. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Again, he was leaving the scene of a crime that very moment. Same day, same moment, a felony at that. They had reasonable suspicion which is enough to satisfy Georgia law.
Never happened. Watch the video, view the screen captures. He moves around the vehicle and makes a beeline for the man to attack him.
Not according to Georgia state law, the opinions of two prosecutors, and those of many lawyers.
If they move to the state of 42! I'm sure they'll know better than to do that because the laws in your fiefdom won't allow for it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
