Go Back   b-roll.net FORUM > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-10-2009, 10:09 AM
XLR3's Avatar
XLR3 XLR3 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11
XLR3 is on a distinguished road
Default Photographer arrested at mall after taking holiday photos

http://wvgazette.com/News/200912090794

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- An award-winning video journalist was arrested by Charleston Police Tuesday after he took pictures of Santa Claus and a choir at the Town Center Mall.

Scott Rensberger, 47, of Washington is charged with battery on a police officer and resisting arrest, according to criminal complaints filed in Kanawha County Magistrate Court.

According to the complaint, Rensberger slapped the hand of Charleston police Cpl. R.C. Basford as the officer attempted to block Rensberger from taking a picture of him. Rensberger then "attempted to pull away" from the officer, Basford wrote in the complaint.

Rensberger, who was hired to take photos of government buildings as a subcontractor for the IRS, had just gotten back from taking photos of the Sidney L. Christie Federal Building in Huntington. He stopped at his hotel room, then went to the Charleston Town Center Mall to eat dinner and do some Christmas shopping at about 5 p.m.

"I took some pictures of the choir singing and I took some pictures of the Santa snow scene," he said. "I take my camera with me almost anywhere."

Rensberger is a freelance videographer and in 1991 won an Investigative Reporters and Editors award and was named National Press Photographers Association Photographer of the Year. He said he takes photos of all the places he visits and sends them to his girlfriend in D.C.

He went into a store to shop for a scarf for his girlfriend when two men stopped him and told him he had taken a photo of one of their children with Santa Claus.

"I didn't even realize there were kids in the shot. It was a wide shot," he said.

Rensberger said he apologized and pulled out his camera and erased the photographs of Santa Claus and the children. He said he scrolled through the photos so the men would know there were no more photos of the child on the camera.

"I did think it was weird and it did shock me a little," Rensberger said. "I understood, too. I didn't want to upset the guy. I think it's a sad comment on the world we live in. ... It's never happened to me before."

When he was finished in the store he walked by "Santa's Cabin" again, talking to his girlfriend on the phone about what had just happened.

He saw one of the two men who had stopped him talking with police and mall security.

"I thought, how crazy is this, all these officers for taking pictures of Santa Claus," Rensberger said.

Rensberger said Basford stopped him and said, "Why are you taking pictures of kids?"

"I can't believe you are asking me that," Rensberger said to the officer. "Do you mind if I take a picture of you?"

Rensberger said he reached in his pocket and pulled out his camera and raised it to take a picture of the police officer. Basford grabbed the camera to prevent him from taking a picture, which is when Rensberger said he took his free hand and brought it up to the small camera because he was afraid it was going to drop on the ground.

According to Rensberger, Basford said, "Don't you touch me."

Rensberger said he told the officer he wasn't touching him.

"Then he grabs my left hand and takes it around my back while Santa and the kids and everyone looked on," Rensberger said. "I'm scared to death he is going to dislocate my shoulder. I'm begging him not to do that and he responded, 'If it dislocates, I'll call the paramedics.' By no means was I trying to resist arrest."

Basford took Rensberger to the ground to handcuff him, he said. Rensberger said he had an old football injury and that his left shoulder dislocates easily. He said he was begging the officer to ease up and not let it dislocate. There were at least four officers, either police or mall security, there by that time, he said.
"Every time I begged him he put it up higher," Rensberger said.

Once in a holding cell, another Charleston police officer got Rensberger some water and listened to his story, he said.

"He treated me with respect. ... He seemed sympathetic," Rensberger said of the sergeant.

Basford, who had taken his camera, interviewed Rensberger once he was in custody. The officer asked him why he'd taken a photograph of a girl still on his camera. The photo is of a choir in the Town Center Mall. It was taken from the second floor of the mall, looking down. A figure is sitting, watching the choir in the bottom left of the frame.

"I'm not even sure it's a little girl," Rensberger said. "I said, 'I didn't know it was against the law to take a picture of an officer in uniform.' He [Basford] said, 'It's not against the law to take a picture of a police officer unless they don't want you to.'"

Charleston Police Chief Brent Webster said his department's internal investigations division would look at what happened to determine if everything had been handled correctly.

"What I think the officer is saying is that he put his hand up there and [Rensberger] slapped it and pushed it away," Webster said. "We'll have internal investigations look at that. ... The use of force report will tell more."

He said Rensberger could also file a complaint on the use of force, but that so far that hadn't been done. The chief said he was withholding judgment on what happened until he knew more.

Webster said Basford was working off-duty as one of the officers that helped with mall security.

Basford had the same radios as other mall security, and likely heard the complaint come in from one of the mall security guards, said mall marketing director Lisa McCracken.

When a working journalist takes photos in the mall, they are supposed to let mall management know, she said.

"A lot of our merchants don't want people to come in and film inside their store," she said.

Mall customers can bring cameras into the mall and take pictures, she said.

"The info I received is that in this case numerous parents and Santa Claus and the Santa photo staff recognized that the individual didn't have any children with him and requested that he stop taking pictures," McCracken said. "The mall responded correctly, just to inquire to see what was going on. That's what we did and that's our responsibility."

Rensberger said he doesn't know if he will sue the department over the incident.

"I don't think I have a choice," he said. "If this guy shows that kind of force to a guy who took a picture of a choir and of Santa and a uniformed police officer in the mall, then what kind of force is he going to show someone in a dark alley somewhere where no one was watching."

When asked why he took the photo of the officer, rather than just answer his question, Rensberger said he wanted a record of who was questioning him.

"I was not under arrest and it was not illegal. ... I've taken photos all over the world and this is the only time I've ever been arrested like this," Rensberger said.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-10-2009, 10:40 AM
Chicago Dog's Avatar
Chicago Dog Chicago Dog is offline
Member
There's no ketchup on a Chicago dog!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,152
Chicago Dog is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XLR3 View Post
When a working journalist takes photos in the mall, they are supposed to let mall management know, [marketing director Lisa McCracken] said.
He wasn't working, sweetheart.

Malls are good for two things: power-tripping security guards and jumpy media reps.
__________________
.
"We don't need TVs! We can just use windows! Sit by the window, watching the local news unfold, 24/7, in high definition, and 3D!"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-10-2009, 11:05 AM
valkbilly valkbilly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 79
valkbilly is on a distinguished road
Default

People need to get a life. Next, they will want permission just to breath in public !
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-10-2009, 11:36 AM
photogguy's Avatar
photogguy photogguy is offline
Member
Brian Williams
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,631
photogguy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XLR3 View Post
http://wvgazette.com/News/200912090794
"I said, 'I didn't know it was against the law to take a picture of an officer in uniform.' He [Basford] said, 'It's not against the law to take a picture of a police officer unless they don't want you to.'"
No, either it's legal to take a picture of a police officer, or it's not legal. It's an either-or.

There are times when under-cover officers ASK that their picture not be taken, but because they don't want the pic taken doesn't make it illegal to take that picture.

Idiots.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-10-2009, 12:02 PM
iHD's Avatar
iHD iHD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1973
Posts: 214
iHD is on a distinguished road
Default

I think the photog responded the wrong way. People at the mall complained that a guy with no children was taking pictures. In this day and age of creepy child sex predators, I would have wanted the police to check it out too if my kids were down there. If the photog would have just calmly explained the situation instead of reacting like a jerk toward the cop, nothing would have likely happened and he would have been able to keep on taking pictures. I'm siding with the concerned parents on this one.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-10-2009, 12:21 PM
Freddie Mercury's Avatar
Freddie Mercury Freddie Mercury is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 960
Freddie Mercury is on a distinguished road
Default

This is NOT the first time he's been arrested for taking pictures like this. He got a life-changing settlement from Bill Gates because of one.

http://www.davislevin.com/articles/article8.html
__________________
"Any way the wind blows..."

If you're indifferent how can I reach you?
Just 'cause you're angry don't assume I'm weak - Pete Townsend
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-10-2009, 12:21 PM
canuckcam's Avatar
canuckcam canuckcam is offline
Member
phil pang
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,214
canuckcam is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XLR3 View Post
"A lot of our merchants don't want people to come in and film inside their store," she said.
WHAT?! I've yet to find one "merchant" who DIDN'T want media inside their store at holiday time. ... if only their mall merchants heard that! They all want the free publicity they can get!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-10-2009, 01:49 PM
WillyG's Avatar
WillyG WillyG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 60
WillyG
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddie Mercury View Post
This is NOT the first time he's been arrested for taking pictures like this. He got a life-changing settlement from Bill Gates because of one.

http://www.davislevin.com/articles/article8.html
I don't see how these are related.
__________________
Me fail English? That's unpossible. ~ Ralph Wiggum
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-10-2009, 07:30 PM
Run&Gun Run&Gun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,163
Run&Gun is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Just reading the story, to me it sounds like the "officer" overreacted and was a d!ck("If it dislocates, I'll call the paramedics."). BUT I believe the photog took the completely wrong approach right out of the gate("Do you mind if I take a picture of you?" while trying to take a picture of the "officer"). It sound like it all started off innocently enough just taking pictures in a mall at Christmas time, but he escalated the situation by being a smart ass when asked about it by the "officer". If he would have just explained himself and told him that he had already deleted the pictures to appease the parent and that he wasn't trying to take just pix of little kids, non of this would have probably happened. Both parties handled the situation poorly.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-10-2009, 08:51 PM
Freddie Mercury's Avatar
Freddie Mercury Freddie Mercury is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 960
Freddie Mercury is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillyG View Post
I don't see how these are related.
"I've taken photos all over the world and this is the only time I've ever been arrested like this," Rensberger said.

If you want to split hairs, the incidents were different circumstances, but his statement implies that he had not been arrested for taking pictures. The article describes how that is not true.
__________________
"Any way the wind blows..."

If you're indifferent how can I reach you?
Just 'cause you're angry don't assume I'm weak - Pete Townsend
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-10-2009, 09:08 PM
Shootblue's Avatar
Shootblue Shootblue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,999
Shootblue
Default

Toys r us locally had, honest to God, 2,000 people waiting at midnight on black Friday. Our attempts to get shots inside for this and another story about getting whatever the hell those hamster things are in stock were both vetoed despite an anchor knowing the manager. It's my understanding that Walmart is tighter in recent months as well. K-Mart, where you can throw a grenade and not hit a customer, was fine with us inside though...
__________________
When your 15 minutes of fame are coming, make sure you hold your camera in landscape mode.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-11-2009, 12:22 AM
Baltimore Shooter's Avatar
Baltimore Shooter Baltimore Shooter is offline
Member
Warren Watson
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,677
Baltimore Shooter is on a distinguished road
Default

As much as I think the cops were being d!cks and rent-a-cops need to be put in their place, I think the photog was also at fault. After all, he was on private property.

He could have used more discretion and asked if it is okay, either the manager of the Santa booth or with the Manager on Duty at the mall at the time.

Just my $0.02

Warren
__________________
For production work - www.bvatv.com

For Actor / Talent / Voiceover work - www.warrenwatson.net
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-11-2009, 01:07 AM
tvguide tvguide is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 178
tvguide
Default what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimore Shooter View Post
He could have used more discretion and asked if it is okay, either the manager of the Santa booth or with the Manager on Duty at the mall at the time.

Just my $0.02
Please. He was taking snapshots with a pocket sized point-and-shoot.
__________________
seeya
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:00 AM
GMoney GMoney is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 50
GMoney
Default

I agree the police mishandled the situation and should have just approched him and asked to come down to the office to talk. An arrest was not needed but if I was in line to see Santa with my child and some guy was snapping photos by himself, you better believe I would be worried. He says it in the article that it's a sad commentary on society and he's right but it is what it is. In this day you just can't take photos of kids when you're by yourself. Even more so when you're not idenifying yourself as the member of the media which I never got that impression in the article. He was probably just innocently talking photos of Santa and a choir but does anybody really know....
__________________
How close are you to the station?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:52 AM
eb eb is offline
Member
Eric Blumer
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 888
eb is on a distinguished road
Default

As John Stossel would say, "give me a break."

"......you can't take pictures of kids when you are by yourself"

Anybody can take any pictures in any public place of anything.

Sure, if you are taking explicit, obscene, sexual pictures, it's illegal if it violates those laws....

But this is the U.S.A. not the U.S.S.R. And don't forget it. The freedoms we have includes taking pictures of buildings (I've been told "you can't take a picture of this bank") and of people in public places.

Malls are quasi public places. People (the public) do not have to "check camera and camera phones" at the front desk. It appears he was acting as a member of the public. Perhaps there were signs up saying "don't take pictures of kids with santa or else you will be arrested, or removed from the mall" THEN - if he saw that sign - might have been violating the mall rules. And commercial productions must get permission to put people on commercially intended film. But it looks as if Scott was acting as a member of the public. And he has rights and freedoms.

As for journalists and the media... the WHOLE friggin reason for the existence of the "press" IS to represent the public and have access to public areas. Period. We (the press) ARE the public's eyes and ears. Any attempt to keep the "press" or journalists out of "public" areas is illegal. In public areas, you can shoot santa, and people, and kids, and horses, and banks. If they are within the public area. Don't forget it, and never let a cop tell you otherwise. Know your rights.

Malls have been trying to have it both ways. They are open to the public, but when the "press" or journalists walk in... they want to be "private."

It can't be both. It is either public. Or private. And malls are open to the public, and the public can carry cameras, or cell phones inside to take pictures of santa. I don't know the details of this case, so I can't say one way or another who is right. I hope Scott is. I think Scott is. And I hope he wins big... so this muddy issue is clarified for good.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-11-2009, 12:16 PM
JimmyS. JimmyS. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 451
JimmyS. is on a distinguished road
Default

Malls are crazy. One time I went into a mall to meet a friend for lunch. Of course I wasn't going to leave my trusty Betacam in the truck. I walked in with the camera strap slung over my shoulder and the lens was actually pointing to the rear. Next thing you know, there are two 'mall cops' following me. I finally told them that I was there just for lunch with a friend (who worked there). They stayed within site of me and my friend the entire time. Totally ridiculous. We were EATING! When we were done, said goodbyes, I left. Guess who is 15 or 20 yards behind me the entire way to my news unit? Yep, 'mall cops'. When I got to the truck, I put the camera on my shoulder and pretended to get footage of them. By their reaction, you'd thought I had a gun! They tried to cover their faces and everything! I just laughed, put the camera away and drove off. Idiots.

In the original post's point... I too agree that both over-reacted. But, I do some freelance stuff in the downtown area. Sometimes I shoot landmarks, sometimes it's just people enjoying their time in S.A. I've shot thousands of pictures around the city, and as far as I know, no one ever complained. And, I was by myself. However, if a police officer did approach me and ask what the heck I was doing, I would be ready with credentials and a business card. But, that's me.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-11-2009, 02:10 PM
cameradog's Avatar
cameradog cameradog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,731
cameradog is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eb View Post
Anybody can take any pictures in any public place of anything.
...

Malls have been trying to have it both ways. They are open to the public, but when the "press" or journalists walk in... they want to be "private."

It can't be both. It is either public. Or private. And malls are open to the public, and the public can carry cameras, or cell phones inside to take pictures of santa.
You need to be careful here.

In most* states, malls are private property. Just because they allow the public to enter does not mean they lose all control over the use of their property.

When a business opens to the public, it grants a revocable license to shoppers to enter and use the premises. The owner of the property can place restrictions on that license, granting permission to use the property only for certain purposes. The owner can revoke the license and instruct you to leave for any reason not prohibited by law. For example, they can't discriminate by race, but they can certainly tell you to leave because they don't like what you're wearing.

If your license were written out, it might say something like: "Owner hereby grants licensee permission to enter and use these premises for the primary purpose of shopping and dining, and for such other purposes the owner sees fit. This license may be revoked at any time for any reason allowed by law, at which time licensee will be required to exit the premises immediately." Even though it's unwritten, this is the limited bundle of rights you're walking around with when you step on the property.

Reasons for revoking your license do not have to be posted in advance. They don't have to put up signs giving the mall rules and telling every reason why they might kick you out (although many do, to establish trespassers in advance). They can make up their rules on the spot if they wish. They can kick you out if they don't like your haircut.

The owner (or his representative, mall management or mall security) can certainly tell you to leave for taking pictures, even if they normally allow pictures to be taken by mall patrons. The fact that other people are doing it doesn't matter. The mall has granted you a revocable license, which they may revoke for almost any reason.

The mall reps can also simply tell you to stop taking pictures. When they do that, they notify you that they have placed a restriction on your license to use the property. If you continue to take pictures after being told not to do so, you are not using the property in compliance with the terms of your license. That means you are trespassing. They don't have to put up a sign telling you not to take pictures. They CAN create the rules as they go and enforce them.

In this case, the mall would have had every right to tell him to stop taking pictures or leave. If he had continued to take pictures, they had every right to have him arrested for trespassing. But that doesn't seem to be what happened. The article doesn't seem to indicate whether they ever actually told him to stop taking pictures. It seems as though the cop jumped past all that and just started trying to intimidate him, then made the confrontation physical by grabbing the camera. Until the photog had been told not to take pictures, there wasn't any reason for him not to snap a shot of the officer. That's where this guy will end up winning his case, in that the officer overreacted and arrested him before he actually committed any crime.

I know that now I'm probably going to get the inevitable naive whining that photogs are protected by the First Amendment and can go anywhere and do anything they want with impunity. Sure. Go ahead. Try it out for yourself. You will lose, and I will laugh at you.

For everyone else, learn how this actually works and know your rights. When you know where the line is, you can deal with idiot mall security with much more confidence, without getting upset and escalating the situation needlessly.




*California is different. Malls in California are considered public spaces, and property owners do lose some control over who uses their property. California's take on this is considerably different from most other states.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-11-2009, 06:48 PM
eb eb is offline
Member
Eric Blumer
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 888
eb is on a distinguished road
Default

Good advice CameraDog.

I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV either.
Malls are quasi public. But again, they want to have it both ways. Which is not only confusing, but a bit unfair when it comes time to "take a picture."

Today, my guess is.... there were 10,000 photographs taken at malls. Just a guess. At what point then, does one photograph become "illegal" and the other "legal?" Only when a mall cop says "YOU" can't take a photo? Is that how our legal system works? I don't think that should stand up in a court of law... in the United States at least.

There is no "reasonable" understanding" of what a "license" means when entering a public mall, is there. Nope. That's legalese that means nothing to Joe Blow and his family who take photographs of the mall holiday decorations (whoops there's a kid in the background.) Does it. Nope. None of this means anything to the public .... and therefore it should not have any "extra" meaning for representatives of the public... the press. Ignorance is not an excuse... but when people get arrested for taking a snapshot in a public area (or what appears to be a public area) that is wrong.

What's with Disney World? You can take pictures there, right (as a regular person, not press). And there are going to be kids in the picture there certainly. Private property. Yes. But reasonable people can take reasonable pictures in public places, and quasi public places. Then they can email them to the media outlets. That's what is happening anyway.

There is and should be no "control" of the press or journalism in regards to public places, and affairs. Malls, streets, etc... are open to the public without restrictions made or implied about "photographs." Regular people can take ALL the pictures THEY want. Right? We represent the public.

This crap should be cleared up. It's getting worse. This case, I hope, can be used to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-11-2009, 08:04 PM
cameradog's Avatar
cameradog cameradog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,731
cameradog is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eb View Post
Malls are quasi public.
A meaningless distinction in most states. Property is either public or private. A property owner does not lose his private property rights by allowing people to enter his premises for the purpose of doing business there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eb View Post
But again, they want to have it both ways.
Not really. They want you to shop there as long as you're not doing something they don't like. When you do something they don't like, they have the right to ask you to leave. This is no different from any other business that opens itself to customers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eb View Post
At what point then, does one photograph become "illegal" and the other "legal?" Only when a mall cop says "YOU" can't take a photo? Is that how our legal system works?
It's not a question of whether the photo is legal. Legality of photography doesn't play into it at all. It's legal for me to walk around the mall without a shirt or shoes on, but I don't think anybody would fault the mall for kicking me out if I did. Same thing with photos. It's legal for you to take photos, but if the property owner doesn't want you taking photos and revokes your license to be there, you have to leave.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean the property owner can't kick you out. The property owner can kick you out for any reason that isn't specifically prohibited by law. They could even kick you out because they don't like your attitude.

You will notice that the photog was not arrested for taking pictures. He was arrested for battery and resisting arrest, by an overzealous police officer who overstepped his bounds. I doubt the fact that the photos were legal will factor into the case at all. Who cares? The case is about whether the photog battered the cop and resisted arrest. The defense will be about whether there actually was a battery or resistance. The inevitable lawsuit will be about whether the cop battered the photog and used excessive force. Nobody will be asking whether the photos were legal, because that's not one of the questions to be resolved. The photos ARE legal. That has nothing to do with it. We might as well be arguing over whether he was wearing shoes and shirt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eb View Post
None of this means anything to the public .... and therefore it should not have any "extra" meaning for representatives of the public... the press.
Well, first of all, he said he wasn't there as a member of the press. He was there taking pictures for his own personal amusement.

But that doesn't matter either way. The mall can kick out journalists if they want. It's their property. They can kick out regular mall patrons too.

See, just because you open a business to the public does not mean you give up all rights to your property. You still have all the rights granted you in the property deed. One of those rights is the right to determine who can and cannot have access to your property.

You seem to be confusing mall management with government. For the most part, government is prohibited from restricting press freedom by the First Amendment. Property owners and their representatives are not. The First Amendment says nothing whatsoever about giving you unrestricted access to private property. To do so would trample on the property owner's rights.

You really have to get over this idea that the First Amendment gives you the right to go anywhere you want regardless of the rights of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eb View Post
There is and should be no "control" of the press or journalism in regards to public places, and affairs.
A private entity revoking someone's license to its property does not constitute control of the press. Don't be such a drama queen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eb View Post
This crap should be cleared up.
It's long since been cleared up. You just don't like the fact that the First Amendment doesn't give you carte blanche to trample on the rights of others.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-11-2009, 08:29 PM
SimonW's Avatar
SimonW SimonW is offline
Member
Simon Wyndham
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,283
SimonW is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Malls are ****.
__________________
www.simonwyndham.co.uk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996-2009 b-roll.net

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50 PM.