posted
Apparently it’s illegal to scream at an overflowing toilet.
Dawn Herb, a woman in Scranton, Pennsylvania, was cited for disorderly conduct and could face up to 90 days in jail and a fine up to $300.
“It doesn’t make any sense. I was in my house. It’s not like I was outside or drunk,” said Ms. Herb. “The toilet was overflowing and leaking down into the kitchen and I was yelling (for my daughter) to get the mop.”
Bathroom Law. Overflowing? Lawsuit, baby.She admitted to using some profanity near an open bathroom window.
The big problem for Dawn is that her next door neighboor was a police officer. He asked her to keep it down, she didn’t, so he call the cops on her.
“You can’t prosecute somebody for swearing at a cop or a toilet,” said Mary Catherine Roper, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Philadelphia.
The thought now comes up: is this really against the law? Is getting pissed off at your toilet a crime? Is toilet-screaming now illegal?
The quick answer to this bathroom brawl? No.
This is the text of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a), which is Pennsylvania’s prohibition on disorderly conduct:
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; (2) makes unreasonable noise; (3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or (4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
Was Dawn engaging in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior? Not unless you count toilet-warfare as violent, no. Was she making unreasonable noise? Let’s remember the statute says “with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof”. She definitely didn’t do that. Did she use obscene language? Well yes she did but, again, keep in mind she didn’t do it “with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof”. And we can pretty much throw out the “creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.”
Our main point that we should take from this is not to let others dissuade you from having a good time under the guise of “disorderly conduct”. I can’t tell you the amount of times people have tried to use that excuse to prevent people from doing a fun, non-violent, legal activity that may produce some noise. Remember, disorderly conduct goes hand-in-hand with public unruliness which may lead to disorder and tumult. Just noise does not break the public peace! Yes it can piss off people that may want to go to sleep. Yes, 91 year old people who like their “peace and quiet” may throw their walker at you. But noise in-and-of itself does not cause the crime of disorderly conduct! It is not meant as a catch-all condition for any little thing that can disturb or annoy someone.
In this case, Dawn was in her home and her neighbor seems to be the only person that was disturbed by this. Her neighbor may have a right to be pissed off. He may have the right to not talk to her again. He may have the right to not bring fruitcake to her house in the Holidays. But disorderly conduct? You sir, are the one out of order.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Dawn is guilty of "creating the risk of making too much noise and of using obscene language." I have this occur with regularity in my business and the troublemakers are charged and found guilty (as it should be). The real issue here is why anyone would tolerate or condone this RUDE behavior. Why does Dawn think that she is so special that she can disturb her neighbors in the quiet enjoyment of their property? If this is her first offense, she'll probably get a small fine and court costs. If she does it all the time, I'd send her to jail.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
i doubt that the cops would have charged her if her neighbor wasn't a cop.
i bet the judge dumps the case. this is a severe misinterpretation of the intent of the law. the intentions are to be able to stop ongoing nuisances like parties that are too loud etc....
first ammendment:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
now show me where the constitution provides for protection from rude behaviour? conservative? LOL... read the damn thing.
cuz? i would like to ban sub-woofers everywhere, i can feel them from a mile away.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL... Just cracks me up every time a self described conservative.. a smaller less intrusive government guy wastes no time in declaring normal behavior as disruptive and cause for governmental intervention. Dense would be an understatement worthy of Shakespeare's giggle.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conservative is just a word. Liberal is just a word. The only word that has any meaning when describing politics in any form is the word Scumbag. That is what no one seems to get. The whole thing is a scam and none of them are our friends. If they were, it wouldn't cost billions to convince people they were right for the job.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is not a constitutional issue and certainly not an issue of free speech. This is only an issue of one rude loser disturbing her neighbors and infringing on their ability to enjoy their own property. We have these issues all the time in the rental business. One tenant is rude and insists on yelling, screaming, or playing their stereo too loud in the middle of the night. I encourage the tenant to politely ask the loud neighbor to turn it down the first time. Then the second time, I call the tenant and TELL THEM to turn it down (because they were too rude to do things right the first time). Finally, I have the tenant start calling the police and the noisy tenant is usually cited the first time and then arrested thereafter.
It shouldn't take a law for people to be considerate of their neighbors. However, some people are just rude and that's what these laws are for.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is not a constitutional issue and certainly not an issue of free speech. This is only an issue of one rude loser disturbing her neighbors and infringing on their ability to enjoy their own property. We have these issues all the time in the rental business. One tenant is rude and insists on yelling, screaming, or playing their stereo too loud in the middle of the night. I encourage the tenant to politely ask the loud neighbor to turn it down the first time. Then the second time, I call the tenant and TELL THEM to turn it down (because they were too rude to do things right the first time). Finally, I have the tenant start calling the police and the noisy tenant is usually cited the first time and then arrested thereafter.
It shouldn't take a law for people to be considerate of their neighbors. However, some people are just rude and that's what these laws are for.
this is why you'll never be a judge. thank God. you don't know anything about the case, and you insist on commenting wrongly without becoming informed.
the ACLU wouldn't get involved if the case was simply about disturbing the peace. it isn't.
fruthermore? i can tell a cop to eff imself from my own house because it is my right. it's not a public place.
the cop told her to shut the efup according to her as well...
Dawn Herb, whose potty mouth caught the attention of an off-duty police officer, was charged with disorderly conduct recently, prompting her to fire off a letter to the editor and vow to fight the charge.
“It doesn’t make any sense. I was in my house. It’s not like I was outside or drunk,” said Ms. Herb, who resides at 924 Luzerne St. along with her four young children. “A cop can charge you with disorderly conduct for disrespecting them?”
The obscenities hit the fan when she battled her overflowing toilet around 8 p.m. Thursday, she said.
Although Ms. Herb doesn’t recall exactly what she said, she admitted that she was frustrated and let more than a few choice words fly. Unfortunately, it was near an open bathroom window.
“The toilet was overflowing and leaking down into the kitchen and I was yelling (for my daughter) to get the mop,” she said. “A guy is yelling, ‘Shut the f--- up,’ and I yelled back, ‘Mind your own business.’ ”
Her next-door neighbor, Patrick Gilman, a city police officer who was off-duty at the time, apparently had enough of Ms. Herb’s foul mouth and asked her to keep it down, police said. When Ms. Herb didn’t stop, he called the police.
Patrolman Gerald Tallo responded and charged Ms. Herb with disorderly conduct.
The citation accuses the defendant of using obscene language or gestures “with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly (creating) a risk ...”
as you can see? the cop is simply throwing his weight around...
i suspect he may end up with a real problem by the time the ACLU gets done with him...
funny? wasn't it you who told me to hire an ACLU attorney because i was illegally searched? LOL... sheesh...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:funny? wasn't ityou who told me to hire an ACLU attorney because i was illegally searched? LOL... sheesh...
No, it was me that told you to contact the ACLU IF you were illegally searched, which you admit you were not. You were stopped and were asked by the police if they could search. That is a LEGAL search. Nothing to contact the ACLU about.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:funny? wasn't ityou who told me to hire an ACLU attorney because i was illegally searched? LOL... sheesh...
No, it was me that told you to contact the ACLU IF you were illegally searched, which you admit you were not. You were stopped and were asked by the police if they could search. That is a LEGAL search. Nothing to contact the ACLU about.
i never said that, you misremeber.
i was not asked. i did mention that being asked will only delay them getting one, and annoy them.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PM, I suggest you keep your job as slumlord and retire from government's defender. There is no way humanly possible for you to keep up.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oligarchy Ol"i*gar"chy, n.; pl. Oligarchies. [Gr. ?; 'oli`gos few, little + 'a`rchein to rule, govern: cf. F. oligarchie.] A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in the hands of a few persons; also, those who form the ruling few. [1913 Webster]
All oligarchies, wherein a few men domineer, do what they list. --Burton. [1913 Webster]
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
here's another reason i never liked the Clintons and scoff at the notion that they are "liberals":
Clinton Crime Agenda Ignores Proven Methods for Reducing Crime
For Immediate Release: April 1, 2008 Contact: LaWanda Johnson (202) 558-7974 ext. 308 cell 202-320-1029
Clinton Crime Agenda Ignores Proven Methods for Reducing Crime Advocates say plan will increase incarceration rates and negatively impact the poor and minorities
Washington, D.C.--The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) announced today that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's anti-crime package ignores critical research that finds that investments in employment, education, housing and treatment for those who need it is the most effective and fiscally-responsible way to improve public safety. Research shows that Clinton's proposal to revive former President Clinton's COPS initiative, which called for investments in policing, would increase prison populations, and may have a negative impact on the nation's poor and minorities, without significantly reducing crime. The Clinton Administration's "tough on crime" policies resulted in the largest increases in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Advocates say re-implementing this agenda would be a return to bad policies.
"The first COPS was found to be costly and ineffective in reducing crime rates and COPS 2.0 is not an improved version of the first one," says JPI executive director Sheila Bedi. "COPS was only successful in filling our prisons and jails with people who research shows can be better served with treatment, evidence-based practices, and community-based alternatives that also promote public safety."
According to research, adding police to the streets is not the most effective method for reducing crime. Delaware received $19.6 million in COPS grants and during that same time, the number of violent crimes increased 35.9 percent. In contrast, Oklahoma City, which did not receive any COPS grants, decreased its police force by 16 percent and during that same period saw a dramatic 32.5 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes reported. Furthermore, advocates say law enforcement professionals don't support policing as being the most effective method of reducing crime. In a 2002 poll, 71.1 percent of surveyed chief of police, sheriffs and prosecutors agreed that providing more educational and after-school programs would make the greatest impact in reducing youth crime and violence. Only 14.9 percent said that hiring more police would have the greatest impact.
"We've tried to win the war on gangs with law enforcement alone, but we have little to show for it," says National Black Police Association Executive Director Ronald Hampton. "Rather than engaging in endless battles, we need to target the problem behavior that hurts communities. We should support the kinds of prevention and proven programs that we already know reduce violence and crime."
Research supports investments in communities as a more cost effective and beneficial way of reducing crime. Research shows that when there is a reduction in crimes rates, it coincides with increased employment. When more people have jobs, fewer crimes are committed. A study by the Heritage Foundation found that "For every 1 percent increase in civilian labor force participation, violent crime is expected to decrease by 8.8 incidents per 100,000" people.
"Not only does the Clinton crime plan lack innovation and forward thinking, it ignores all we know about crime prevention. When people are employed, violent crime decreases," says Lisa Kung, Director of the Southern Center for Human Rights. "One in every one hundred Americans is incarcerated. It is clear that Clinton intends to continue a legacy of policies that will keep Americans paying for more police, more prisons and more punitive measures."
posted
this part of the article i separated from the other post because this is what i was really looking for:
Advocates also believe that Clinton's opposition to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's decision to make retroactive the changes to sentencing for the thousands of people who had received disproportionately long sentences for crack-cocaine, most of whom are African American, is concerning. Nationwide, from 1995 to 2004, drug abuse violations were the only crime that saw an increase in arrests following the COPS grant. However, a report by JPI release last year, found that while African Americans and whites use and sell drugs at similar rates, African Americans are ten times more likely than whites to be imprisoned for drug offenses mainly due to disparate policing practices, disparate treatment before the courts, mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws, and differences in the availability of drug treatment for African Americans.
quote:African Americans are ten times more likely than whites to be imprisoned for drug offenses mainly due to disparate policing practices, disparate treatment before the courts, mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws, and differences in the availability of drug treatment for African Americans.
Why can't we just say what is totally obvious. The black male population has been decimated by the policies of the left. When you take away a person's incentive to work and enslave them in poverty, they turn to drugs. The young black male population is 10 times more likely to be imprisoned for drugs because so many of them are using/dealing drugs. Whose fault is that? The LEFT - who kept the black community down through their misguided social engineering complete with handouts instead of an expectation of performance!!!
There are MANY black males who have succeeded but for some reason (money) they are demonized by the black "leaders", who benefit monetarily from keeping blacks down!!! It's a national disgrace and all the fault of the socialists! We need to get back to higher expectations and personal responsibility.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you take away a person's incentive to work and enslave them in poverty, they turn to drugs. The young black male population is 10 times more likely to be imprisoned for drugs because so many of them are using/dealing drugs
and you say you aren't a racist?
LOL... this is pure racism. drug dealing, drug use and abuse is statistically no higher or lower among the white or black population. even the white house shows less than a 1% statistical difference between whites and blacks. yet blacks are much more likely to be incarcerated for it.
Rates of current illicit drug use varied significantly among the major racial/ethnic groups in 2004. The rate was highest among persons reporting two or more races (13.3 percent) and American Indians or Alaska Natives (12.3 percent). Rates were 8.1 percent for whites, 7.2 percent for Hispanics, and 8.7 percent for blacks. Asians had the lowest rate at 3.1 percent.
even more interesting:
Education
* Illicit drug use rates in 2004 were correlated with educational status. Among adults aged 18 or older, the rate of current illicit drug use was lower among college graduates (5.6 percent) compared with those who did not graduate from high school (8.6 percent), high school graduates (7.8 percent), and those with some college (8.7 percent). However, adults who had completed 4 years of college were more likely to have tried illicit drugs in their lifetime when compared with adults who had not completed high school (51.8 vs. 37.2 percent).
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:drug dealing, drug use and abuse is statistically no higher or lower among the white or black population
Yeah, Glass, I believe that - just like I believe the government's inflation rate data and unemployment rate data (NOT). The truth is that any numbers put out by the government have to pass through their filters. In the case of inflation and unemployment, the data is manipulated to reflect the inflation and unemployment rates they desire. Their motive is to inspire confidence in the economy (which is pure stupidity). In the case of the drug data, the government passes their numbers through the screen of political correctness.
I don't believe the inflation numbers because I see prices rapidly going up at the grocery store, at the hardware store, and at the gas station. Inflation is not ridiculously low like the government is reporting.
I don't believe the unemployment numbers because I KNOW that the government doesn't count people that aren't looking for a job. There are tens of millions of people getting government handouts who aren't looking for a job. Unemployment rate at 5%??? Not hardly - more like 20%!
I don't believe that the same percentage of whites and blacks are dealing drugs because that's not even close to what I see in the real world. In my experience, a shamefully high percentage of young black males in low income areas are using/dealing illegal drugs. Hint: that's why they are arrested and sent to prison in such high numbers for these crimes. Is that related to the number of black males still in poverty - yes (the fault of the socialists and their government handouts). Like it or not, YOU ON THE LEFT are directly responsible for this sad fact - whether you want to admit it or not! And pretending that there isn't a huge drug problem among the young black male population is simply insanity.
You're right, this is a shameful racial issue - CAUSED BY AND CONTINUOUSLY ENCOURAGED BY YOU SOCIALISTS. Nothing is going to change as long as you lefties pretend that nothing's wrong!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my experience, a shamefully high percentage of young black males in low income areas are using/dealing illegal drugs. Hint: that's why they are arrested and sent to prison in such high numbers for these crimes. Is that related to the number of black males still in poverty - yes (the fault of the socialists and their government handouts). Like it or not, YOU ON THE LEFT are directly responsible for this sad fact - whether you want to admit it or not! And pretending that there isn't a huge drug problem among the young black male population is simply insanity.
once again you seem to be unable to comprehend simple statements.
there is no statistical difference between drug use/abuse dealing between blacks and whites.
this is not some Govt filtered garbage. this is a fact. your experience does not matter. your experience is limited. your eyes are not open.
you'd be absolutely shocked at how many comparatively wealthy and even truly wealthy white people have asked me to make them smoking implements since i blow glass. i don't make them as a matter of principle, and it DOES cost me a lot of money not to. i offer this example as direct rebuttal to your excuses about taking govt vouchers because its just money, since you are so convinced i'm a leftist socialist and not a realist.
making pipes isn't illegal, and shouldn't be illegal since it has nothing to do with what people smoke out of them. just as a gun doesn't kill or maim anybody. only a person does that. yet i still refuse to make pipes because i know what they will be used for regardless of the semantics.
now i didn't say that the black population doesn't have any drug problem. i said it's statistically no different than the drug problem in the white community. YOU on the other hand are sying that blacks have a worse problem than whites, and that is just not true. blacks have a bigger problem with cops than whites do. enforcement is easier against the street dealers. much easier. but, i know for fact that drug use and abuse is basically no different between the whites and the blacks. the difference is how the laws are enforced and how the justice is dealt out. IMO? if you don't know this? you are one of the last people in the country to find out, and you should consider yourself informed as of now.
you don't see white kids on the streets selling "dime bags" or whatever inflation has them up to these days. that's the difference, they are doing the deals inside, and they are doing larger quantities.
i would be willing to wager you that if we do the research? we'll find that the largest amount of dope by weight, much more than 2 to 1 is confiscated from whites than blacks. yet blacks end up in jail and whites end up in rehab. or with no jail time, it's a fact....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this was a fair country and the law enforcement people would send an undercover unit with some inside agents into to my lily white upper middle class neighbor hood they would find a percentage of drug use that would stand right beside any black neighborhood or maybe even more.
And the police know this but it is hard to enforce the law with all the political power and money. Plus it does not look like a druggie place.
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: [QUOTE] Unemployment rate at 5%??? Not hardly - more like 20%!
20% ????? are you cracked, I am leaning towards believing that you are just pulling random numbers out of the air and spouting them off in support of your cause. Think about it, REALLY, if this country had a 20% unemployment rate this countries infrastructure and economic system would be in total chaos....... oh wait. Well besides that, 20% is still a tad to lofty of a figure for me to believe 20% as an average......come on.
-------------------- If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy? Posts: 2647 | From: MN | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the police know this but it is hard to enforce the law with all the political power and money. Plus it does not look like a druggie place.
if a person were to actually study the history of the political development of the atmosphere that the drug control laws were developed in? they would discover that racial bias was the primary tool for creating a "demand" for drug laws. (not alcohol)
the M1911A1 .45 calibre semi-auto was "spec'ed" by the miltitary specifically for it's stopping power against "drugged up" Philipino warriors called "Moros". whether they were actually "drugged up" is debatable, but the military wanted to replace the .38 "special" revolver and they needed a reason to ask for mo-par... i suspect the rigors of jungle warfare had more to do with the military wanting the gun than bamboo armor and drug use.. (seriously they said bamboo armour was stopping 38 specials)...
note the model #1911? that indicates the date of development... it's the same time as the temperance movement.
in 1909? they tried to ban Coca Cola for it's high content of CAFFEINE...
Coca Cola was originally marketed as an alternative to aclohol and was heavily advertised in religious publications a temperance drink....
the M1911A1 military "specs" were then used to suggest that negroes on cocaine were also "unstoppable" and suddenly cocaine was "on the list" too...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Think about it, REALLY, if this country had a 20% unemployment rate this countries infrastructure and economic system would be in total chaos....... oh wait.
Exactly right! Chaos is just about the right word.
quote:Well besides that, 20% is still a tad to lofty of a figure for me to believe 20% as an average......come on.
Then, what figure do you believe? Do you believe that only 5% of those capable of working are out of work?
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think police have too much power. If I cop tells you to move or come to him and you dont they can arrest you for obstruction of "justice"
I remember when I was 18 I had a party inside my house..nobody outside. They came to the door and asked to come in and I said no...they told me that if i didnt let them in they were going to "rip through the screen door and drag my punk ass outside and come in anyway" I shut the main door and went back. Some dumb girl walked in after I left and let them in because she was scared of getting in trouble. They came inside and arrested me for obstruction of justice.
The case was dropped in court...but they were never given any speaking to for needless threats.
ive seen worse....they are power hungry. very few police out there want to truly do the right thing of enforcing the law without strong arming every citizen and assuming everyone is guilty.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:very few police out there want to truly do the right thing of enforcing the law without strong arming every citizen and assuming everyone is guilty.
That's very odd. I come into contact with the police on a frequent basis. I have never been strong armed or accused of being guilty of anything! In addition, I don't know a single normal person who claims to have been strong armed. I do know of some criminals who have been strong armed and deservedly so!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:very few police out there want to truly do the right thing of enforcing the law without strong arming every citizen and assuming everyone is guilty.
That's very odd. I come into contact with the police on a frequent basis. I have never been strong armed or accused of being guilty of anything! In addition, I don't know a single normal person who claims to have been strong armed. I do know of some criminals who have been strong armed and deservedly so!
You lead a sheltered life...
Keep staying in. First time it happens to you, you're liable to freak out biggly and get in real trouble.
Quite the opposite. I'm out there in the hood everyday, in close proximity to druggies, drunks, and a wide variety of criminals (including many convicted felons). However, the difference is that I'm not a crack dealer; drunk; or criminal. Therefore, I have frequent contact with the police with absolute confidence that I will have no problems.
The police work for me! I'm a taxpayer and have every right to expect that the police act in a professional manner (which they almost always do).
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The police work for me! I'm a taxpayer and have every right to expect that the police act in a professional manner (which they almost always do).
in your neighborhood? maybe. move outside that zone and you'll just be another civilian.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
when it happens? you gonna bust like a china doll.
pretty much shattered indeed, bed bugs uptown! what a mess, it's kind of odd actually, one minute he says he has nothing to do with any hoodlums and gangstas and all his tennants are totally kosher and then the next minute he's working in the hood with the tuffs all the time...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
i don't either. they have 2.3 kids and 3 marriages... 
