Gun Laws & Courts -  Gun owners and self-defense law (743 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host8/1/10 1:38 PM 
To: All  (1 of 21) 

What Every Gun Owner
Needs to Know About Self-Defense Law

by Marty Hayes

This 16 page booklet is packed with critical information for American gun owners. Topics covered include: BookletCover.png

  • When using a gun in self defense is allowed by law and why those circumstances may not be as clear cut as one might initially think
  • Defending self defense and arguing an affirmative defense in court
  • The initial aggressor rule
  • Using your gun to defend others
  • Shifts in self defense law

Written to encourage exploration into the reader's own state law, this small booklet concisely outlines and explains general concepts of self-defense law that will apply in all 50 states.

What Every Gun Owner Needs to Know About Self-Defense Law is offered free of charge to introduce gun owners to the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, LLC, and as part of the Network's mission to educate gun owners about their interaction with the criminal justice system after a self-defense shooting. A pdf copy is available at this link or click the picture to the right. You  can also write to request a copy:

Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, LLC
P O Box 400
Onalaska, WA 98570


Related discussions:

Guns and the law: Using deadly force

  • Edited May 3, 2014 3:29 am  by  EdGlaze
 Reply   Options 

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host6/28/11 12:15 PM 
To: All  (2 of 21) 
 541.2 in reply to 541.1 

Do We Have the Right to Life Without the Right to Self-Defense?
by Robert Allen Bonelli
27 June 11

Just one week ago on Sunday, June 19, we were reminded once again that our God given right to life, as declared in the Declaration of Independence, is meaningless without the right to self-defense. That day, Father’s Day, a terrible tragedy took place in a Medford, New York pharmacy when an armed robber shot and murdered four innocent people.

Gun law advocates are undoubtedly ready to demand more control of firearms, and argue that citizens should rely on the police. They are missing the point. Had those innocent victims in the Medford Pharmacy managed to call the police and had the police responded within minutes, all four would still have been killed because the robber acted within seconds. The painful meaning of the phrase, “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” was all too clear on June 19th.

For decades the National Rifle Association, gun rights advocates in general and especially hunters have worked hard to prevent gun laws from becoming too restrictive. Their argument is the Second Amendment and its words proclaiming, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For all their fine work, these groups are also missing the point. Guns, knives, batons and other tools of defense are only tools.  It is the right to self-defense that has been under attack all this time.

Section 265 of the Criminal Code in Suffolk County, New York, in which the town of Medford is located, contains a lengthy list of what are described as “dangerous weapons” that cannot be purchased or owned by honest citizens. New York State requires that the first act of self-defense is to retreat. The legal environment makes it difficult, if not impossible, to purchase a weapon, train to use it properly or have it available and use it for self-defense without first exhausting a checklist of what must be done so that the victim does not end up criminally charged. This is an impossible situation when under attack. Again, imagine yourself in that pharmacy.

There are now 31 states that have adopted the Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground legislation or both. The Castle Doctrine declares that one may protect himself, his family or those entrusted to his guardianship if their premises is unlawfully entered and its occupants threatened. Stand Your Ground legislation goes one step further in that it removes the Duty of Retreat, which says that you must vacate the premises to the attacker if you can. Stand Your Ground legislation also removes the requirement that the person under attack has to announce his intention to use deadly force against his attacker.

These are good legislative changes that promote self-defense, but the right to self-defense should not be impaired by government in any way. Robbers and attackers bent on assault would think twice before approaching a home, place of business or a person if they thought that their potential victims would be armed. Recent FBI statistics show that while gun sales were surging from 2008 through 2009, the rate of violent crime fell dramatically. Think about it. Have you ever heard of a gunman shooting up a gun show? An attacker would hesitate even further, if he thought his victim would not only be armed but would also be free of any restrictions to defend himself.

Criminals are looking for an advantage over their victims. Their advantage comes from being armed when they know their victims are not. They also gain advantage in states where an armed victim may hesitate to defend himself because of how the law requires his self-defense to be played out.

Gun control legislation and other laws restricting the purchase and possession of a weapon of any kind are supposed to prevent those weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. Unfortunately, all these laws are doing is making honest citizens vulnerable to those who have no intention of following any law. Is there more here than just good intentions leading to unintended consequences? Does our government intentionally want us to be completely dependent on it for our basic right to life rather than our ability to defend ourselves? When we hear how the Syrian government is killing its unarmed citizens who dare to speak out against it, we should be concerned by any law that makes us more vulnerable by restricting our right to self-defense.

Rather than arguing the intent of the Second Amendment, the debate is far better framed by focusing on how a citizen’s unalienable right to life and a citizen’s unrestricted right to self-defense are connected. Without the right to self-defense, our guarantee of the right to life is meaningless.


Robert Allen Bonelli is the author of “Liberty Rising,” an accomplished business executive, public speaker and involved citizen.

  • Edited February 2, 2018 12:08 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host8/23/11 12:31 AM 
To: All  (3 of 21) 
 541.3 in reply to 541.2 

This is a great quote from a guy on the forum. This particular poster is a VERY well known and respected firearms related attorney here in Virginia. His entire post on that topic can be read here

When I go to trial in a criminal case, I want my client to be able to say, "You bet I shot him, you're dern-tootin' I meant to kill him; I was right to do so, and if I had it to do over again, I'd do exactly the same thing, only a little faster. I had a reasonably held, good faith belief, that I, or another innocent person, was faced with the imminent threat of a serious bodily injury, and/or I was stopping a serious felony (rape, robbery, murder, arson, burglary) in progress. What I did was necessary, right and proper, and I thank God I had the presence of mind to be prepared for the eventuality."

The whole reason I carry a gun is because I am ready, willing, and able to take human life if necessary to avoid the kind of harm that results from criminal attacks. And here's a little known fact: fully 100% of all home invasions actually take place in someone's house! If that person is not ready, willing, and able to kill, he is merely a crime statistic in waiting.

You have to be prepared to show why you had cause to do what you did, and how being prepared saved your life, or some other necessary reason that amounts to excusable homicide. (One tangential note: don't say anything about having been in fear for your life. That's hogwash, and I don't know where it comes from, but your subjective emotional state has absolutely nothing to do with whether a shooting was legally appropriate.)

The thread itself was about whether or not one should have an attorney on retainer, and some of the aspects of 'after a shooting', etc.

There's a thread with more good advice located here:


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host8/30/11 5:03 PM 
To: All  (4 of 21) 
 541.4 in reply to 541.3 

Self Defense Tip: 
Make Sure It’s A Real Threat Before Shooting
by Dan Zimmerman
August 30, 2011


Almost no one disputes your right to protect yourself, your loved ones or your property when you’re threatened. OK, there are some. But one of the key aspects of this right is that the defender has to have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm before using deadly force. It’s also a good idea not to warn the police that you’re going to kill the next burglar you catch on your property…

Jovan Milanovic, an auto lot owner in Colorado Springs, had been burglarized and told police he would shoot any burglars who returned. Sure enough, a couple of weeks later, Robert Fox and Brian Corbin jumped the fence. Milanovic and two relatives were ready for them.

Corbin testified he saw two armed men charge out of a building and run in their direction, one of them shouting “we’re gonna get you” in an obscenity-laced threat. Corbin, who escaped by climbing over a car and jumping a fence, said he felt a bullet pass by him as someone fired four gunshots.

Fox was standing inside a small shed when a .45-caliber rifle bullet passed through the shed’s door and pierced his heart.

Milanovic probably thought he was in the clear when local prosecutors decided the men’s actions didn’t rise to the level of criminality. Or a jury wouldn’t convict them. Either way, none of the three were charged. But as OJ Simpson famously found, avoiding a criminal conviction doesn’t mean you won’t be liable in civil court where the standard of proof falls from convincing all members beyond a shadow of a doubt to majority rules based on a preponderance of the evidence.

Jurors found that Fox’s death was the result of “willful and deliberate” conduct by Jovan Milanovic, who was accused of firing the rifle, and Novak, who supplied the semiautomatic Heckler & Koch that Milanovic used in the killing.

The three men were accused of keeping an armed vigil over the auto lot and firing on the first burglars they saw. The men were angry over a series of thefts that began when someone broke in a week earlier and stole keys to customers’ automobiles as well as keys to buildings on the property.

Under Colorado’s self-defense laws, the use of deadly force is justified only under the “reasonable belief” that it’s necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The jury found that none of the men had a legitimate claim of self-defense.

Property rights are not a lawful defense for using deadly force in Colorado, and the state’s so-called Make My Day [castle doctrine] law, which sets lower standard for using force, applies to households, not businesses.

Fox had knives in his pocket and one strapped to his leg. It isn’t clear if the defendants were even aware that he was armed, though. A six person El Paso jury awarded Fox’s daughter $300,000 on Friday.

While a large award to a criminal’s family is infuriating under almost any circumstances, Milanovic and his buddies left themselves wide open to the always unpredictable tender mercies of a jury. And they were damned lucky to have avoided jail time. The morals of this story: Know the castle doctrine laws in your state, if your state has one. [If not, call your representatives.] If you can avoid using a gun, do it at almost any cost, short of your life. And keep your mouth shut.


Related discussion:

Should you act, get involved or get away

  • Edited May 15, 2017 7:06 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/5/11 11:43 PM 
To: All  (5 of 21) 
 541.5 in reply to 541.4 

Excerpt from a good article posted to

September 3, 2011

While it is impossible to imagine the actual circumstances anyone might face, here are a few good tips to follow if you are ever forced to shoot in self-defense:

1. First, while it is impossible to predict if, where, or when anyone may ever be forced into a self-defense situation, one of the few things you can do besides making sure that any handgun you regularly carry is well-maintained and that you are fully proficient in using it is to know one or more individual attorneys you would call if you ever had to defend yourself — and thus would need legal representation. There is no shortage of attorneys out there. Some are excellent; some would make you (and many of their fellow members of the Bar) wonder how they ever got in, much less through, law school, or passed a bar exam; and many are average. If they’re like me in my private law practice, a good attorney will give you a free initial consultation in which he or she will give you an outline of the law and general advice to follow if you ever had to defend yourself and face the investigation that will follow, and conclude by expressing an optimistic hope that you will never need his/her services. At a bare minimum, you need to know who to call; more importantly, you need to know who will take your call and come to you as quickly as possible “after hours,” as criminals (and the corresponding incidence of self-defense actions) do not keep bankers’ hours.

2. Self-defense is not an accident; self-defense is an intentional act. Self-defense is also not something for which you apologize. People apologize for wrongdoing. A criminal apologizes; his victim does not. As Dan Hawes, an attorney in Virginia, said on the forum, a person who was forced to shoot in self-defense should be able to truthfully testify,

“You bet I shot him, you’re dern-tootin’ I meant to kill him; I was right to do so, and if I had it to do over again, I’d do exactly the same thing, only a little faster. I had a reasonably held, good faith belief, that I, or another innocent person, was faced with the imminent threat of a serious bodily injury, and/or I was stopping a serious felony (rape, robbery, murder, arson, burglary) in progress. What I did was necessary, right and proper, and I thank God I had the presence of mind to be prepared for the eventuality.”

That is the statement of an innocent victim who was forced to shoot in self-defense. Apologies or claims that a person really didn't mean to shoot (or otherwise claiming the shooting was not intentional) at any point in time make an otherwise innocent victim look like a criminal, talk like a criminal, quack like a criminal, and … well, if you can’t figure out where this goes by now, you never will.

3. If possible, call 9-1-1, report that there has been [whatever crime was attempted against you] and a shooting, give your location, and request the police and a number of ambulances equal to the number of people you believe are injured. Do not stay on the phone or discuss the circumstances further. All 9-1-1 calls are recorded and may not only be used against you at trial but also released to the media under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act. There is simply no good reason to ever give a more detailed statement on a 9-1-1 call; a proper 9-1-1 call to report a shooting in self-defense will be sufficiently brief and boring to prevent the local TV stations from playing it for the next 2 or 3 days on every newscast with your name and mugshot on the screen while the audio is played.

4. Unless you are holding an assailant at gunpoint in order to protect yourself and avoid the potential need to shoot again, reholster your weapon. The police responding to the scene of a shooting call will already be on edge and it should not be compounded by unnecessarily keeping weapons drawn.

  • Edited December 27, 2016 4:42 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/6/11 11:07 AM 
To: All  (6 of 21) 
 541.6 in reply to 541.5 

5. When the police begin to question you, you should identify yourself, state the offense that was committed against you or other threat you faced, state that you were in fear of your life, and then (this next part is most crucial) say “I would like to cooperate further but I am in no condition to do so right now. I am specifically invoking my right to remain silent and my right to an attorney. I would ask that you extend me the same courtesy you would a fellow officer who was in my position.” The middle sentence in that quote is specific language that the courts generally require a person to say aloud in order to receive the full protection of your constitutional rights to remain silent (which, ironically, you cannot invoke simply by sitting silent) and to have an attorney present. The police are only required to stop questioning you if you clearly and unequivocally state that you want an attorney. Muddled statements such as “maybe I should have a lawyer” are not enough to end an interrogation and suppress any statements the police might elicit from you after an ineffective attempt at invoking your rights. The first and last sentences are designed to put the officer(s) with whom you’re dealing at some personal ease with your position. Whether the officer wants to admit it or not, this is exactly what he or she would do if he or she had to shoot someone on or off duty. In those cases where a police officer is forced to shoot, the officer will take time to cool off, collect his or her thoughts, consult with an attorney before submitting to any questioning about what happened, and truthfully answer the inevitable questions after taking these important steps to make sure that he or she says exactly what happened, as it happened, and not misspeak due to the stress and anxiety that accompany a life-threatening incident and the actions he or she was forced to take in response. Remember that a statement can go wrong as seen in My Cousin Vinny?

6. To reinforce the points above about how a person who has been forced to shoot in self-defense is in no condition to give an immediate, detailed statement to the police, the life-threatening situation and subsequent shooting in self-defense will alter the person’s senses and perceptions of what happened before, during, and after the shooting. His or her heart rate will likely skyrocket and remain elevated for days.  Perceptions of time, distance, and space will be distorted. The person will most likely have developed tunnel vision of his or her surroundings as he or she was threatened and forced to act in self-defense. The person will likely have at least some short-term hearing loss.

7. What if you properly invoke your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney but the police ignore you, attempt to entice you to waive your rights, or attempt to badger you into talking when you don’t want to? Reassert your right to remain silent and your right to counsel and shut up. While statements the police extract from a criminal suspect in violation of the suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights will be suppressed in court, one of the circumstances in which an otherwise inadmissible statement by the defendant can be admitted in court is for the purpose of cross-examining a defendant who takes the stand (a certainty in self-defense cases). Although you may be deeply shaken by everything that has happened, it is more important at this point than at any other that you stand your ground and remain silent. Further pressure from the police is likely indicative of desperation on their part. Worse (see #12 below), might your case be one of those exceptional cases where your misfortune has been compounded by the “bad guy” being a “good guy” in the eyes of the police and/or the local courthouse cabal? You likely won’t know their motivations at this point, but stand your ground and keep your mouth shut except when repeating your assertions of your right to remain silent and your right to counsel.

  • Edited December 27, 2016 4:47 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/6/11 11:08 AM 
To: All  (7 of 21) 
 541.7 in reply to 541.6 

8. Except when specifically instructed by your attorney to speak, do not speak to anyone other than your attorney or your spouse (if you are married), and in both cases, only in private settings. With very limited exceptions (which you should consult your attorney for specific advice for your case), anyone else to whom you say anything about an incident may be compelled to testify against you. If you are arrested and have to spend time in jail, the jail will be crawling with “jailhouse informants” who either on their own or with guidance from the police will try to get you to talk about your case — and hopefully make incriminating statements they can take to the prosecutor and trade for leniency in their cases. Fellow inmates in the jail are the last people you should be discussing anything pertaining to your case. If you are free (whether by virtue of never having been arrested or of being released on bond) and the government is “out to get you,” they will find your relatives, your friends, your acquaintances, and virtually anyone else with whom the police and prosecutor have even the slightest reason to suspect you may have communicated, and all of these people will be called to testify first before a grand jury and then at a trial. It is crucial that if anyone (other than your spouse, and only in private) asks you to discuss the case, you should tell them that your attorney has advised you to not talk to anyone about the case and ask that person to respect your request (anyone who would not is not a true friend and should be disassociated with immediately). It should also go without saying that you should not discuss the incident on Facebook, Twitter, online message boards, or any other electronic forum.

9. One of the key reasons it is to a criminal defendant’s advantage to say nothing to anyone (other than your attorney, spouse, or the very few other individuals with whom you may engage in private, legally-privileged communications) is that in our legal system, most out-of-court statements (particularly by a party to a case) are generally considered “hearsay” and are generally inadmissible. One of the key execptions is something we lawyers call a “statement against interest.” As the Miranda warnings state, “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” More specifically, your out-of-court statements can only be used against you. The jury will be instructed that they may only consider your out-of-court statements to the extent they incriminate you; otherwise, they must generally disregard your out-of-court statements no matter how exculpatory they may be.  the only statements you can generally give to a jury that will help your case will be any testimony you might give in your own defense at trial. Your out-of-court statements can be used to impeach your own testimony at trial, among other things. Therefore, unless your lawyer has instructed you to speak, it is generally in the best interests of a defendant to say as little as possible.

10. Of course, given the nature of self-defense, it may be advisable to speak before taking the stand in your own defense at a trial, but this must be done only with the advice of your attorney. In most self-defense cases, the police and prosecutors make the right call, but you must be prepared to defend yourself in court if your case is one of the few in which they do not agree with you. However, one thing you should not do is give any detailed statements to anyone other than your attorney until after you have consulted an attorney and have been advised by your attorney to speak.

11. When dealing with your attorney in any legal matter, it is extremely important to tell the truth about everything when you are meeting with your attorney in private (where anything you say is protected by attorney-client privilege). Attorneys must know not only the good but also the bad and the ugly about your case. While attorneys can work around “bad facts,” you may very well torpedo your own case if you lie or conceal information and deprive your attorney of his or her ability to fully prepare your case to deal with those bad facts. The last place any attorney wants to learn about some skeleton in a client’s closet is in court while the client is being cross-examined by a prosecutor about some “bad facts” the client conveniently forgot to tell the attorney early in the case.

12. Everything above is presented in the context of a run-of-the-mill crime that required a self-defense response. However, given that it occasionally happens, can you imagine how much more difficult the circumstances might be for you if you had the bad luck of encountering a bad guy who knows someone who knows someone at the courthouse? How about a star athlete at a major university (see last story below)? Or, how about the errant son of a prominent politician (as could have happened to Annandale (Fairfax County), Virginia, resident Richard Hagy 8 years ago, when Nick Joe Rahall III committed a home invasion armed robbery for which he received exceptionally lenient treatment after his father, Congressman Nick Joe Rahall II, broke House ethics rules and wrote a letter on official congressional stationery to Fairfax County Circuit Judge David Stitt, which resulted in the younger Rahall receiving a suspended sentence and avoiding prison despite a prior criminal record and the violent nature of the crime perpetrated in Fairfax County, which would have entitled the victim to shoot and kill the younger Rahall had the victim been armed)? Obviously, if you are faced with a legitimate self-defense situation, you will probably have no clue about the identity or background of the bad guy you’re facing.

  • Edited December 27, 2016 4:51 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host10/21/12 10:50 PM 
To: All  (8 of 21) 
 541.8 in reply to 541.7 

Self Defense Laws Map – Click Your State


No Law… Or Know Law?
by Alan Korwin
4 Sep 12

As a general rule, people don’t know their laws. You hear “news” about laws, but those stories avoid the actual laws because (critics suspect) reporters aren’t bright enough (or are too lazy … or both) to read and understand them. What’s the actual law on taxes you owe? Quien sabe? Oops, press one for English. Who knows?

Could you answer even basic questions about real estate law (you have a home, right?), zoning law (your home is in one place, factories in another, right?), education law? (Your kids are in government schools but the laws that control them are a mystery to you, right?) Yes, citizens of America in the early 21st century know squat about their laws.

With one exception: Citizens know their gun laws. More than any other field of law, people know and want to know and seek out and recognize the need to know their gun laws. They’re honest people. Gun people are honest? Yes, they are. They don’t want to run afoul of the law. They know the way laws are set up; it’s easy to commit a minor infraction and end up in more trouble than a crook, so they guard against that.

This is a good thing. Can you imagine if the public wanted to know all the laws that are limiting their freedoms, controlling their lives, empowering their leaders and elites, protecting the ruling class? What a different country this would be.

But that’s hope against hope. The public isn’t going to study the fine points of immigration law (well, actually they might and are), or abortion law (well, actually they might and are), or federal reserve law, or election law, or … maybe there is hope the wise example gun owners set will be adopted by others.


Is it controversial to know the laws? Some of our leaders think so. They really don’t want you to know when you can use deadly force (or that there’s a 50 state guide on that). They’d rather you remain ignorant of the carry laws (every state is different). Heaven forbid if you found out anyone who can legally own firearms is qualified to (gasp) own a machine gun (not valid in all states, how about yours?).

The gun-rights issue (never the “gun issue”) is the only one where we people know and are very concerned about the law. This is exemplary. It is civil involvement in a way we don’t see elsewhere. It’s a model to be emulated, expanded, spread. You should be proud.

Gun rights are motivational like no other. Gun-rights advocates know the entire Bill of Rights depends on the right to keep and bear. “You can’t arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves.” If government has the power to disarm you, then they’re in charge, not you the governed, as it should be in America, land of the free. Half the world doesn’t get that. They’re sheeple.

When you’re armed, literally exercising the fact you’re a free person, and you run into John Law, do you know how to answer the inevitable questions? If an officer tries to roust you, make you feel guilty, just based on woofing, can you come back with some snappy answer? Do you have any idea how good it feels to be able to retort, “I’m sorry officer, but my firearm here is protected under section 133102, so unless there’s something else, I have an appointment to get to.”

Made Up Law

You may have experienced the tendency of some police to make up law on the spot, and use that to juggle your freedom in power-hungry mitts. Knowing the law short circuits, this not uncommon abuse. Police do a lot of things right, but understanding gun law isn’t always one of them. When I wrote my first book, The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, not a single thing I got from police made it into print — because not a single thing they told me was accurate or true. Not one — in an entire year of research.

If that doesn’t motivate you to get and learn your local gun laws I don’t know what will. Your freedom is on the line when you go armed, facing those who enforce the laws. A gun owner who knows the law is a powerful force. You feel better when you’re carrying, because you know you’re legal. You shrink the chances of a spurious arrest. You help the entire gun-owning community by being scrupulously compliant. In that regard, gun owners are good countrymen because they know the rules, and follow them.

“We should get rid of all those gun laws, they’re all illegal!” you hear some zealots shout. Certainly, many gun laws are treasonous, abusive infringements on your fundamental civil rights. But others serve civil society, by disarming crooks, criminalizing dangerous behavior and providing a most basic tenet of justice: Law gives fair notice to everyone of behavior that is banned, the penalties involved, and law limits condemnation of behavior that isn’t criminal. Gun ownership is legal activity, and your laws help keep it that way. You need to know that.


  • Edited December 27, 2016 4:51 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host11/11/12 1:22 PM 
To: All  (9 of 21) 
 541.9 in reply to 541.8 




Crossposted from: The law and manners





The responding officers will want the citizen to elaborate on the three-sentence 9-1-1 call. Persons under stress want to talk — don't. Some sort of statement is desirable. Refusal to give a statement is taken as concealing evidence at best and typically as evidence of a guilty conscience. Juries expect statements made near the time of the incident to be more reliable; psychologists have demonstrated that this is not true but the prejudice continues. To satisfy expectations remember the acronym SHIELD:

Remain Silent

He attacked me

I am innocent

There is the Evidence

I want a Lawyer

Don't resist, don't consent

  • Edited December 27, 2016 4:54 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host11/18/12 7:49 PM 
To: All  (10 of 21) 
 541.10 in reply to 541.9 


Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.