Today, in cops

72,162 Views | 1203 Replies | Last: 25 days ago by going4roses
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:11p, 10/20/23
Non-black folks get shot too. The Twitter feeds posted here comb the Internet for story's supporting their racially divisive agenda. There are less one-sided sources of news.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/us/san-francisco-chinese-consulate-armed-driver-crash/index.html
Reply Quote
2
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:41p, 10/20/23
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to okaydo • 6:46p, 10/20/23
okaydo said:


How do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Do you always get your information from biased, anti-cop hate groups?
Reply Quote
1
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 7:38p, 10/20/23
oski003 said:
okaydo said:


How do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Do you always get your information from biased, anti-cop hate groups?

Had no idea that the Louisville Courier-Journal, the biggest paper in Kentucky founded in 1868, is an anti-cop hate group.

Thanks for the info!



Reply Quote
2
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to okaydo • 8:01p, 10/20/23
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:


How do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Do you always get your information from biased, anti-cop hate groups?

Had no idea that the Louisville Courier-Journal, the biggest paper in Kentucky founded in 1868, is an anti-cop hate group.

Thanks for the info!





The anti-cop source you posted was from Twitter. Nice try bro. Again, how do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Are you sure your viewpoint isn't tainted by the hateful anti-cop Twitter feed you posted?
Reply Quote
1 edit
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 8:16p, 10/20/23
oski003 said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:


How do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Do you always get your information from biased, anti-cop hate groups?

Had no idea that the Louisville Courier-Journal, the biggest paper in Kentucky founded in 1868, is an anti-cop hate group.

Thanks for the info!





The anti-cop source you posted was from Twitter. Nice try bro. Again, how do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Are you sure your viewpoint isn't tainted by the hateful anti-cop Twitter feed you posted?

That Twitter account is a Huffington Post editor aggregating the news.

And that particular cop's behavior is newsworthy, whether you like it or not.






















Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to okaydo • 8:32p, 10/20/23
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:


How do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Do you always get your information from biased, anti-cop hate groups?

Had no idea that the Louisville Courier-Journal, the biggest paper in Kentucky founded in 1868, is an anti-cop hate group.

Thanks for the info!





The anti-cop source you posted was from Twitter. Nice try bro. Again, how do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Are you sure your viewpoint isn't tainted by the hateful anti-cop Twitter feed you posted?

That Twitter account is a Huffington Post editor aggregating the news.

And that particular cop's behavior is newsworthy, whether you like it or not.
























Terrible, absolutely terrible "reporting" to characterize the event as a cop ramming into someone's truck and then pulling a gun on him and bystanders. The bias certainly shows.
Reply Quote
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 9:04p, 10/20/23
oski003 said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:


How do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Do you always get your information from biased, anti-cop hate groups?

Had no idea that the Louisville Courier-Journal, the biggest paper in Kentucky founded in 1868, is an anti-cop hate group.

Thanks for the info!





The anti-cop source you posted was from Twitter. Nice try bro. Again, how do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Are you sure your viewpoint isn't tainted by the hateful anti-cop Twitter feed you posted?

That Twitter account is a Huffington Post editor aggregating the news.

And that particular cop's behavior is newsworthy, whether you like it or not.
























Terrible, absolutely terrible "reporting" to characterize the event as a cop ramming into someone's truck and then pulling a gun on him and bystanders. The bias certainly shows.



Andrew Wolfson has been honored with a Pulitzer Prize, a George Polk Award and the American Bar Association Silver Gavel Award in a career that stretches at least back to the 1980s.

His journalistic skills are absolutely worth trusting.









Reply Quote
3 edits
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to okaydo • 9:19p, 10/20/23
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:


How do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Do you always get your information from biased, anti-cop hate groups?

Had no idea that the Louisville Courier-Journal, the biggest paper in Kentucky founded in 1868, is an anti-cop hate group.

Thanks for the info!





The anti-cop source you posted was from Twitter. Nice try bro. Again, how do you know he wasn't just chasing a fleeing suspect? Are you sure your viewpoint isn't tainted by the hateful anti-cop Twitter feed you posted?

That Twitter account is a Huffington Post editor aggregating the news.

And that particular cop's behavior is newsworthy, whether you like it or not.
























Terrible, absolutely terrible "reporting" to characterize the event as a cop ramming into someone's truck and then pulling a gun on him and bystanders. The bias certainly shows.



Andrew Wolfson has been honored with a Pulitzer Prize, a George Polk Award and the American Bar Association Silver Gavel Award in a career that stretches at least back to the 1980s.

His journalistic skills are absolutely worth trusting.











That's great! Is Philip Lewis his pseudonym?
Reply Quote
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:19a, 10/21/23
"He called me later in the day on that Tuesday and told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injuries to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd's neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation... What happens when the actual evidence doesn't match up with the public narrative that everyone's already decided on?"
Reply Quote
1
AunBear89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:03a, 10/21/23
What a sad and pathetic loser, completely incapable of nuanced thought. Only one track playing in his otherwise empty head:

Cops are perfect. It's always the black peoples' fault.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Reply Quote
3
going4roses
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AunBear89 • 10:23a, 10/21/23
I don't know why he /they bother at all.
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AunBear89 • 12:20p, 10/21/23
AunBear89 said:
What a sad and pathetic loser, completely incapable of nuanced thought. Only one track playing in his otherwise empty head:

Cops are perfect. It's always the black peoples' fault.


The person incapable of nuanced thought is the person insinuating that I think cops are perfect and "it's always the black peoples' fault."
Reply Quote
1
going4roses
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:22p, 10/21/23
AunBear89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 12:32p, 10/21/23
We will talk when you figure out how tweeting a published article works and who gets the attribution.

I understand that the internet can be difficult. Bless your heart.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Reply Quote
3
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AunBear89 • 2:44p, 10/21/23
AunBear89 said:
We will talk when you figure out how tweeting a published article works and who gets the attribution.

I understand that the internet can be difficult. Bless your heart.


You love misleading headlines that support your agenda. I don't. At least a third of the article discussed the police department's viewpoint of the incident, which indicated the officer was doing his job. You love the Twitter headline that characterizes the officer's actions as some rogue cop ramming someone on a personal vendetta.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:22p, 10/24/23

Reply Quote
1
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:11a, 10/25/23


Reply Quote
1
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:11a, 10/25/23
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to okaydo • 4:50p, 10/25/23
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?
Reply Quote
going4roses
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 4:58p, 10/25/23
Your eyes won't allow you to see the problem
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 6:36p, 10/25/23
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Reply Quote
4
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to okaydo • 6:16a, 10/26/23
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!
Reply Quote
3
82gradDLSdad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 6:36a, 10/26/23
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!


I can't see the video but lawfully or not if you have a gun and get stopped by cops you better keep your hands in plain sight and do exactly what they say. When they ask if you have anything on your body you mention 'legal gun' and do not reach for it. Keep your hands in plain sight and don't move them. It's not rocket science. Cops know that their first priority is their safety. You may not like it but that is reality. Ask me how I know.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 7:27a, 10/26/23
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!


Captain Kneejerk is the moron who mocks someone for asking questions. Do you see any Kneejerk reaction in my post? There is zero, zip. Is someone allowed to ask questions to get a better informed opinion on somebody's narrative? Yup. You are a pitiful fool.

For what's it worth, if resisting arrest doesn't apply when the arrest is unlawful/accidental, I have issues with the charges. It seems crooked to keep those charges going for close to a year if there truly was no case. He should sue for that. As far as his injuries during the detainment, the edited video shows a likelihood that the guy is partially at fault, so whatever damages he is awarded, if at all, should be reduced by such.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
going4roses
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:17a, 10/26/23
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 9:01a, 10/26/23
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!


Captain Kneejerk is the moron who mocks someone for asking questions. Do you see any Kneejerk reaction in my post? There is zero, zip. Is someone allowed to ask questions to get a better informed opinion on somebody's narrative? Yup. You are a pitiful fool.

For what's it worth, if resisting arrest doesn't apply when the arrest is unlawful/accidental, I have issues with the charges. It seems crooked to keep those charges going for close to a year if there truly was no case. He should sue for that. As far as his injuries during the detainment, the edited video shows a likelihood that the guy is partially at fault, so whatever damages he is awarded, if at all, should be reduced by such.
I was just noting that your questions in this thread invariably imply that the police were justified and that the shooting victim was at fault. It's your immediate kneejerk assumption.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 10:01a, 10/26/23
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!


Captain Kneejerk is the moron who mocks someone for asking questions. Do you see any Kneejerk reaction in my post? There is zero, zip. Is someone allowed to ask questions to get a better informed opinion on somebody's narrative? Yup. You are a pitiful fool.

For what's it worth, if resisting arrest doesn't apply when the arrest is unlawful/accidental, I have issues with the charges. It seems crooked to keep those charges going for close to a year if there truly was no case. He should sue for that. As far as his injuries during the detainment, the edited video shows a likelihood that the guy is partially at fault, so whatever damages he is awarded, if at all, should be reduced by such.
I was just noting that your questions in this thread invariably imply that the police were justified and that the shooting victim was at fault. It's your immediate kneejerk assumption.


My questions appear to trigger you. The problem here is the default assumption that the cops are at fault. It must blow your weak mind to have your assumptions be questioned.
Reply Quote
1
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 10:17a, 10/26/23
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!


Captain Kneejerk is the moron who mocks someone for asking questions. Do you see any Kneejerk reaction in my post? There is zero, zip. Is someone allowed to ask questions to get a better informed opinion on somebody's narrative? Yup. You are a pitiful fool.

For what's it worth, if resisting arrest doesn't apply when the arrest is unlawful/accidental, I have issues with the charges. It seems crooked to keep those charges going for close to a year if there truly was no case. He should sue for that. As far as his injuries during the detainment, the edited video shows a likelihood that the guy is partially at fault, so whatever damages he is awarded, if at all, should be reduced by such.
I was just noting that your questions in this thread invariably imply that the police were justified and that the shooting victim was at fault. It's your immediate kneejerk assumption.


My questions appear to trigger you. The problem here is the default assumption that the cops are at fault. It must blow your weak mind to have your assumptions be questioned.
You're really in to making assumptions, aren't you? Don't flatter yourself. I'm not triggered by anything you say. I just pity your rigid contrarian mindset.
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 10:42a, 10/26/23
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!


Captain Kneejerk is the moron who mocks someone for asking questions. Do you see any Kneejerk reaction in my post? There is zero, zip. Is someone allowed to ask questions to get a better informed opinion on somebody's narrative? Yup. You are a pitiful fool.

For what's it worth, if resisting arrest doesn't apply when the arrest is unlawful/accidental, I have issues with the charges. It seems crooked to keep those charges going for close to a year if there truly was no case. He should sue for that. As far as his injuries during the detainment, the edited video shows a likelihood that the guy is partially at fault, so whatever damages he is awarded, if at all, should be reduced by such.
I was just noting that your questions in this thread invariably imply that the police were justified and that the shooting victim was at fault. It's your immediate kneejerk assumption.


My questions appear to trigger you. The problem here is the default assumption that the cops are at fault. It must blow your weak mind to have your assumptions be questioned.
You're really in to making assumptions, aren't you? Don't flatter yourself. I'm not triggered by anything you say. I just pity your rigid contrarian mindset.


The fact that you consider my questions, as opposed to GFR's conclusions, to be a knee jerk reaction tells me what I need to know. Thanks.
Reply Quote
1
going4roses
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 12:13p, 10/26/23
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!


Captain Kneejerk is the moron who mocks someone for asking questions. Do you see any Kneejerk reaction in my post? There is zero, zip. Is someone allowed to ask questions to get a better informed opinion on somebody's narrative? Yup. You are a pitiful fool.

For what's it worth, if resisting arrest doesn't apply when the arrest is unlawful/accidental, I have issues with the charges. It seems crooked to keep those charges going for close to a year if there truly was no case. He should sue for that. As far as his injuries during the detainment, the edited video shows a likelihood that the guy is partially at fault, so whatever damages he is awarded, if at all, should be reduced by such.
I was just noting that your questions in this thread invariably imply that the police were justified and that the shooting victim was at fault. It's your immediate kneejerk assumption.


My questions appear to trigger you. The problem here is the default assumption that the cops are at fault. It must blow your weak mind to have your assumptions be questioned.
You're really in to making assumptions, aren't you? Don't flatter yourself. I'm not triggered by anything you say. I just pity your rigid contrarian mindset.


The fact that you consider my questions, as opposed to GFR's conclusions, to be a knee jerk reaction tells me what I need to know. Thanks.


Ohhhh here we go it's my fault
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to going4roses • 12:41p, 10/26/23
going4roses said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!


Captain Kneejerk is the moron who mocks someone for asking questions. Do you see any Kneejerk reaction in my post? There is zero, zip. Is someone allowed to ask questions to get a better informed opinion on somebody's narrative? Yup. You are a pitiful fool.

For what's it worth, if resisting arrest doesn't apply when the arrest is unlawful/accidental, I have issues with the charges. It seems crooked to keep those charges going for close to a year if there truly was no case. He should sue for that. As far as his injuries during the detainment, the edited video shows a likelihood that the guy is partially at fault, so whatever damages he is awarded, if at all, should be reduced by such.
I was just noting that your questions in this thread invariably imply that the police were justified and that the shooting victim was at fault. It's your immediate kneejerk assumption.


My questions appear to trigger you. The problem here is the default assumption that the cops are at fault. It must blow your weak mind to have your assumptions be questioned.
You're really in to making assumptions, aren't you? Don't flatter yourself. I'm not triggered by anything you say. I just pity your rigid contrarian mindset.


The fact that you consider my questions, as opposed to GFR's conclusions, to be a knee jerk reaction tells me what I need to know. Thanks.


Ohhhh here we go it's my fault


Why do you think it is your fault? That isn't indicated anywhere in the dialog between EOB and myself.
Reply Quote
1
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 82gradDLSdad • 12:49p, 10/26/23
82gradDLSdad said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!


I can't see the video but lawfully or not if you have a gun and get stopped by cops you better keep your hands in plain sight and do exactly what they say. When they ask if you have anything on your body you mention 'legal gun' and do not reach for it. Keep your hands in plain sight and don't move them. It's not rocket science. Cops know that their first priority is their safety. You may not like it but that is reality. Ask me how I know.

That's good to know, but what does this have to do with this story?
Reply Quote
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:49p, 10/26/23






Reply Quote
82gradDLSdad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to okaydo • 5:51p, 10/26/23
okaydo said:
82gradDLSdad said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
okaydo said:
oski003 said:
okaydo said:




Why did he resist arrest? Was he unlawfully carrying a weapon?

He lawfully had a handgun and wasn't resisting arrest.
Captain Kneejerk strikes again!


I can't see the video but lawfully or not if you have a gun and get stopped by cops you better keep your hands in plain sight and do exactly what they say. When they ask if you have anything on your body you mention 'legal gun' and do not reach for it. Keep your hands in plain sight and don't move them. It's not rocket science. Cops know that their first priority is their safety. You may not like it but that is reality. Ask me how I know.

That's good to know, but what does this have to do with this story?


Don't know. Can't see the video.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.