|
|
| Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! (32971) | |
 |
|
| Home > The Reef | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 14 |
||
|
| (33471) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Fri Feb 22 17:04:25 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Feb 22 10:49:47 2008. Why don't you post up the TS rules for what constitutes warranted and unwarranted personal attacks? This way we can all be aware of these rules are.Because it damn well looks like YOU are launching the unwarranted personal attacks. :-( |
|
| (33472) | |
Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (continued) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 22 17:04:51 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (continued), posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Feb 22 17:03:54 2008. Is that sorta like a Larry Craig? |
|
| (33473) | |
Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (continued) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Feb 22 17:05:43 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (continued), posted by R30A on Fri Feb 22 17:04:51 2008. Yes, except lesbians don't do tea rooms. |
|
| (33474) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Feb 22 17:09:46 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by MJF on Fri Feb 22 17:04:25 2008. >>>>>>This way we can all be aware of these rules are.<<<< And unilaterally ignore them. |
|
| (33475) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Feb 22 17:12:46 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Feb 22 16:49:58 2008. 
|
|
| (33476) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Feb 22 17:14:19 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Nilet on Fri Feb 22 17:12:46 2008. THEN STOP ANTAGONIZING COPS |
|
| (33477) | |
Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (continued) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 22 17:14:54 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (continued), posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Feb 22 17:05:43 2008. Tea Room |
|
| (33478) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 22 17:15:29 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Nilet on Fri Feb 22 17:12:46 2008. Watch the Gap... |
|
| (33479) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 17:16:00 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Feb 22 13:42:30 2008. I don't have the time to backtrack and see if that's so, but it wasn't my recollection. |
|
| (33480) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 17:17:31 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Nilet on Fri Feb 22 17:12:46 2008. I guess the Number 1 would put out the fire. |
|
| (33481) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Feb 22 17:25:40 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 17:16:00 2008. It's not hard. Just click up about four posts. |
|
| (33482) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Feb 22 17:26:42 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by MJF on Fri Feb 22 17:04:25 2008. No, you can email me. |
|
| (33483) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 17:31:34 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Feb 22 13:54:54 2008. When I once asked a policeman what would happen if I continued taking photos, he did not grab my camera. He simply told me his answer.You were either lucky or asked the question in a polite way. We do not know Nilet's tone of voice in asking the question. The words only tell part of the story. When a policeman asks you to do something, you comply (unless it is something outrageous). That's what my father taught me when I was 8 and I've always done that. Police generally don't like it when you ask questions in that type of situation. They are tense enough to begin with, since they never know what type of situation they may be getting into, and when you question them, you only make them more tense. It would have just been best if he would have shut it off when asked. As someone else suggested, if he is that worried about being hassled, let him bring a witness. Also, now you can buy "spy" microphones you can wear that are so small and disguised as tie clips that could be hooked to tape recorders that wouldn't be noticed so he could continue to have an audio record. I saw one of these cameras in a catalog at very reasonable prices like $30 or less. They used to cost thousands. |
|
| (33484) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 17:44:25 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 17:31:34 2008. I'm curious as to what would qualify as "something outrageous" that the police might ask you to do that you'd feel justified in disobeying, assuming all you're really doing is taking photographs in a public place. Presenting ID? Deleting your pictures? Handing over your memory card? Your camera? Going to the station to answer some questions? Having your house searched?I agree that police deserve our respect, and in most cases, we should comply with what they say. Particularly in the current political environment, where police (particularly in NYC) must be vigilant in preventing potential terrorist activity. Please understand that nobody is trying to stop the police from keeping all of us safe. However, we all need to remember that citizens do have civil rights, and the police are not allowed to infringe those rights except under certain narrow circumstances. I'd argue that the fact that you expect a person who plans to do nothing more than go out and engage in a perfectly legal, worthwhile hobby, like taking photos in public spaces, to always bring a witness or a tape recorder with him for fear of being "harassed" is itself a commentary on the sad state of affairs we're presented with. Why should anybody worry about bringing "protection" when simply exercising their constitutional rights? |
|
| (33485) | |
Re: Quick Trigger Fingers Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Feb 22 17:56:56 2008, in response to Re: Quick Trigger Fingers Re: NILET LIES TO US AND SCREWS UP?, posted by BMTLines on Fri Feb 22 00:36:22 2008. If that is the case, then one can demand the evidence be shown at the next court date, and if it can't be produced, with the pictures, demand that the case be thrown out for lack of evidence.Also, one needs to ask the officer for the rules and to grill in many ways using different questions about the same happening...in an attempt to cause perjury...always reminding the officer that (s)he is under oath. |
|
| (33486) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 17:59:05 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 17:44:25 2008. I think handing over your camera just because you are asked to could be considered outrageous, unless the policeman can give you a valid reason why this might be necessary. Just do as I say, is not a reason. I think someone should have the right to refuse without being arrested or worry about being arrested.I didn't say "always bring a witness." Apparently, other people have had problems at Grand Central Terminal and I believe Nilet knew about that beforehand. Of course you can't bring a witness every time. |
|
| (33487) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Feb 22 18:01:05 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 21 17:36:28 2008. Perhaps he will figure it out (if there is anything to figure it out), but his being older will not be the reason he figures out. |
|
| (33488) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 18:01:25 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 17:31:34 2008. On second thought, I believe the entire tape recorder is in the tie clip. I also saw one as big as a button disguised to match the other buttons in the shirt. That one was more expensive. |
|
| (33489) | |
Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (continued) |
|
|
Posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 18:06:08 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (continued), posted by Dave on Fri Feb 22 17:00:38 2008. Absolutely true, Dave. However, the extent to which those rights can be limited in those circumstances depends somewhat upon the extent to which the area in question is a public space. And, under many circumstances, only the "time, place, and manner" in which you can exercise those rights in public spaces can be regulated; outright bans on activities protected by the First Amendment are generally frowned upon.Admittedly, it's unclear whether the platform counts as a "public space," but there's definitely an argument to be made for it. Along similar lines, it's unclear whether invitee or licensee status would apply on the platform even if it's a private space, since (as noted by several posters here already), one can buy a ticket once they get on the train (thus, one can theoretically be on the platform without a ticket, in which case it's doubtful that one is a licensee. If a person on the platform absent a ticket is an invitee, then the police really can't cite anybody for trespassing there). In the case of the subway, we even have an MTA regulation that expressly ALLOWS photography, as long as you're not using "ancillary equipment." That would make it even tougher to make an argument that First Amendment rights can be abrogated on the platform. Again, just my own thoughts and opinions; not legal advice and not a statement of the NYCLU. |
|
| (33490) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 18:08:25 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 18:01:25 2008. Reminds me of those "Spy-Tech" toys from when I was a kid."They have Spy-Tech?" "They're onto us!" |
|
| (33491) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Feb 22 18:08:36 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 17:44:25 2008. Something outrageous would be if I was asked to do something I knew would be in clear violation of the law. These completely outrageous things are the things that end up in the newspapers.Also, if the officer is in plainclothes and they refuse to call for a uniformed cop when demanded, often if one doesn't believe the officer is real...one can eventually report the officer for breaking the rules (which require a uniformed officer to come if demanded, even if just to observe). |
|
| (33492) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 18:09:11 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Feb 22 17:25:40 2008. Okay. you forced me to do it. You called someone stupid but said it was okay and not a personal attack because the person IS stupid.Even if someone is stupid, telling him so IS A PERSONAL ATTACK. The smart thing is to prove someone is stupid without having to tell him so. That way it isn't an attack. You didn't say you called him "Stupid" because he called you something first and even if he did, it is "stupid" to keep something like this going. So bottom line, I still think you started it. And don't ask me to go back further because as I said, I don't have the time for this tyoe of nonsense, but apparently you do. |
|
| (33493) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Feb 22 18:10:15 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 18:08:25 2008. Well, it's a good thing New York is a one-party state, instead of a two-party state, with respect to recording without a warrant or in the process of an investigation. |
|
| (33494) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Feb 22 18:12:01 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Feb 22 18:08:36 2008. Something outrageous would be if I was asked to do something I knew would be in clear violation of the law.Being told to stop photographing in the subway is a violation of 1050.9(c)... |
|
| (33495) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Feb 22 18:13:53 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BMTLines on Fri Feb 22 18:12:01 2008. However, disobeying a lawful order can be a separate crime in itself...unless the officer was asking say, a female, to do illicit acts, to give an example. |
|
| (33496) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Feb 22 18:18:54 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Feb 22 18:13:53 2008. However, disobeying a lawful order can be a separate crime in itself..But is it lawful to demand that one stop a legal activity absent any imminent danger? |
|
| (33497) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 18:21:21 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Feb 22 18:13:53 2008. Please keep in mind that not everything a police officer asks or tells you to do constitutes a "lawful order." The fact that a police officer is telling you to do something does not, by itself, make the order lawful.Again, it's important to use your judgment and be careful. If you're overly rude or adversarial to a police officer, it's very easy to get yourself in a whole lot of trouble very quickly. And, as I've stated before, I think that police generally do deserve our respect, and many times there's no reason for you to be impolite. But this doesn't mean that you can't ask an officer why they've stopped you or that you have to do EVERYTHING they say. And they cannot legally confiscate your personal property unless they're using it as evidence of a crime, in which case certain procedural safeguards apply. |
|
| (33498) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 18:23:19 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 18:21:21 2008. I should clarify. My previous post should not be read to mean that police officers don't issue lawful orders, either. Some of what an officer says DOES constitute a lawful order. But not all. |
|
| (33499) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 18:26:47 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BMTLines on Fri Feb 22 18:18:54 2008. Yes. because you have no way of knowing the whole story. Let's say the area is being staked out by undercover drug officers for something that is about to go down and you just got in the way by deciding to take pictures in their line of view. They have every right to tell you to leave for your safety and for theirs, but from your perspective you would have no way of knowing. That's why you should comply.I think though you would be entitled to some sort of explanation like "Just comply and we'll make things clear later." Not simply, Stop or we'll arrest you. |
|
| (33500) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Feb 22 18:38:02 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 18:26:47 2008. If only supervising units could do this for their own officers. One time in Brooklyn, one raid was about to go down, and another raid was in the same building, with one of the sets warned that the suspect may claim to be a cop if confronted.Guess what happened? |
|
| (33501) | |
Re: Welcome to NYCLU |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 22 19:51:11 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 18:23:19 2008. Nice to see a staff member of ACLU posting here.Welcome. |
|
| (33502) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 21:01:31 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Feb 22 18:01:05 2008. It's not being older that makes the difference but the experience he will acquire while getting older that will change his perspective. |
|
| (33503) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 22 21:08:04 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by TimLawNYC on Fri Feb 22 18:21:21 2008. Now you've got me thoroughly confused. Please explain the difference between a "lawful order" and an order that is lawful. |
|
| (33504) | |
$6.25 1-year photo pass at GCT: Re: MTA Contradictory Communication |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 22 21:20:36 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (PLEASE READ; NYCLU Needs Your Help!), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Feb 22 11:19:57 2008. And thus, assuming those posted signs are "legal" (though stupid), IMHO, in order to take photos on the platforms other than when detraining or walking to a train you intend to ride, you need to play a defensible "game" of carrying a ticket with youExactly. Have a peak ticket to Fordham in your pocket. Now you are a valid ticket holder. If challenged, say you're on your way to Fordham, do you know which track it is. They'll never actually follow you to the train. |
|
| (33505) | |
Re: legal vs. illegal photography |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 22 21:24:21 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (PLEASE READ; NYCLU Needs Your Help!), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Feb 22 11:31:21 2008. But you can photograph the area from a vantage point of legal access, if available.I can photograph commercial and military aircraft from outside the fence, along a public road, to my heart's content. I cannot go inside the fence and trespass onto the runway and taxiway areas to do so. |
|
| (33506) | |
Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (PLEASE READ; NYCLU Needs Your Help!) |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Fri Feb 22 21:26:48 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (PLEASE READ; NYCLU Needs Your Help!), posted by BMTLines on Fri Feb 22 10:51:18 2008. "Sometimes, misunderstandings occur."That should be the new slogan for the Department of Defense. |
|
| (33507) | |
Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (continued) |
|
|
Posted by EastSideRider on Fri Feb 22 21:40:25 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (continued), posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Feb 22 17:05:43 2008. What about tap dancing? |
|
| (33508) | |
Re: $6.25 1-year photo pass at GCT: Re: MTA Contradictory Communication |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Feb 22 21:44:01 2008, in response to $6.25 1-year photo pass at GCT: Re: MTA Contradictory Communication, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 22 21:20:36 2008.  No, an off-peak to 125th Street. Costs less, you can step up on board, if necessary, and it's valid on any train. Or, alternatively, have a receipt for a Marble Hill-GCT ticket purchased so recently that the only way I could have gotten to GCT in time is if I'd just stepped off the train on the adjacent track— which I had just done! |
|
| (33509) | |
Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (PLEASE READ; NYCLU Needs Your Help!) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Feb 22 21:58:40 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (PLEASE READ; NYCLU Needs Your Help!), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Feb 22 11:31:21 2008. However, do we KNOW the police didn't state that photography was not the primary issue, but rather being there without a ticket was...with photography being a derivative issue? |
|
| (33510) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Feb 22 22:33:01 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Dave on Fri Feb 22 09:29:24 2008. Please, in any confrontation he'd be right behind Nilet yelling, "I dare you to arrest him!" "Go ahead - break his camera you fat fu@#ing apple-pincher!"That's the kind of guy terrorpin is. |
|
| (33511) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 22 22:35:56 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Train Dude on Fri Feb 22 22:33:01 2008. I didn't know they sold apples at the Krispy Kreme. :0) |
|
| (33512) | |
Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Feb 22 22:40:04 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by MJF on Fri Feb 22 17:04:25 2008. Because the rule is too simple. If we do it, it's an unwarranted attack. If he does it, it's justified. Got it? |
|
| (33513) | |
Let's Put It To A Vote (was: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Feb 22 22:43:18 2008, in response to Re: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Feb 22 13:42:30 2008. We still live in a democracy!"I hereby deem any personal attack on you to be proper and justified." All in favor? Early exit polls have you being defeated 19:1 |
|
| (33514) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by EastSideRider on Fri Feb 22 22:45:33 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 22 22:35:56 2008. Gotta have SOME healthy option for vegetarian cops :) |
|
| (33515) | |
Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (PLEASE READ; NYCLU Needs Your Help!) |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Feb 22 22:47:23 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (PLEASE READ; NYCLU Needs Your Help!), posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Feb 22 21:58:40 2008. We only KNOW the tall tales Nilet told us, we can not make any educated decisions or statements unless we had both sides of the story.and with NILET's past run in with the fuzzz I would say that the stories NILET tells are not very reliable. |
|
| (33516) | |
Re: Let's Put It To A Vote (was: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!) |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Fri Feb 22 23:01:01 2008, in response to Let's Put It To A Vote (was: REEFED BY A COP— AGAIN!), posted by Train Dude on Fri Feb 22 22:43:18 2008. AYE |
|
| (33517) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Fri Feb 22 23:12:16 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Feb 22 06:51:47 2008. OK MR. WHINEBERG! YOU WILL GET THE GOLDEN WORDS FROM ME: I WAS WRONG! I ADMIT IT YOU DUMBASS! NOW THAT I'VE DONE THAT WILL YOU PLEASE LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE? I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THIS BULLCRAP ANYMORE! |
|
| (33518) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Fri Feb 22 23:17:29 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Fri Feb 22 23:12:16 2008. 'NOW THAT I'VE DONE THAT WILL YOU PLEASE LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE?'if you really want that, compare him to Hitler and come up with many similarities..... |
|
| (33519) | |
Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (PLEASE READ; NYCLU Needs Your Help!) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Feb 22 23:21:28 2008, in response to Re: MTA Contradictory Communication! (PLEASE READ; NYCLU Needs Your Help!), posted by Kriston Lewis on Fri Feb 22 21:26:48 2008. Colateral Damage... |
|
| (33520) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN! |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 22 23:37:05 2008, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— AGAIN!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Feb 22 06:51:47 2008. "How about you admit you were wrong?"Brian does look good in a thong, Dancing to the hora, smoking a bong, Brian looks to belong, Why can't you admit you were wrong, rian sounds good singing a song, Dancing to the hora, smoking a bong,, Brian sounds good singing a song.. |
|
|
Page 11 of 14 |
||