Saturday, November 5, 2011

Eldriegson Delalcazar and Harry Hiscock



October 20, 2001, Harry Hiscock was with a group of thugs that viciously beat some random guy in Esquimalt named Nicholas Chow Johnson because of what colour of clothing he was wearing and put him in a vegetable state for life.

Oct 12, 2001 Mr. and Mrs. Kunz, together with a friend, Mr. Havelaar, attended a house-warming party at the home of a friend, Mr. Trudell. Later in the evening, between 11:30 and midnight, when Mr. and Mrs. Kunz and Mr. Havelaar were leaving, a large group of young people came up behind them. What Mr. Havelaar described as the young people's "pointless banter" quickly became a "ferocious" onslaught of abuse and threats.

Mr. Havelaar testified that a person he identified as Mr. Delalcazar appeared to him to be the leader of this group of young people, and that he was very aggressive towards him and the Kunzes. He testified that based on his observations once Mr. Delalcazar made a move others soon followed, and he reached the conclusion, based on his observations, that Mr. Delalcazar, quote, "Seemed to be sort of leading it." He testified that another person, who it is clear was Mr. Hiscock, seemed to be his right-hand man or his second in command.

Mr. Havelaar testified that he heard Mr. Delalcazar ferociously say to Emma Kunz that he would slap her, quote, "Like the whore she is." He testified that both of these young men took aggressive stances, that obscenities such as "you fucking whore" were directed at Ms. Kunz, repeated more than once, in addition to the fact that Mr. Delalcazar was going to slap her. . . . Mr. Havelaar testified that as the Kunzes pickup pulled away from the curb several people were kicking at it.

It would appear, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, that the Crown has clearly proven that this mob of young people were led by Mr. Delalcazar and Mr. Hiscock, and that they set upon these people when they knew the numbers were overwhelmingly in their favour. Mr. Delalcazar pleaded guilty to uttering a threat, while Mr. Hiscock had pleaded guilty to mischief to property valued at over $5,000.

The point here is that on October 20, 2001 Eldriegson Delalcazar was considered the leader of a mob that terrorized a man and his wife and Harry Hiscock was considered his second in command so to speak in controlling the mob. 8 days later they randomly attacked Nicholas Chow Johnson and beat him into a vegetable. The court heard that in the previous incident 8 days earlier Eldriegson continually verbally attacked Emma Hiscock and said, "I'll slap your face, bitch," and continued to swear at her. He testified that he saw his wife look at Mr. Delalcazar and Mr. Delalcazar, with significant intensity, yelling back at her, "What the fuck are you looking at, bitch?" This is Sarah's new wonderful husband. Good luck with that.

In the appeal the court heard that: Mr. Delalcazar had a youth record consisting of two assaults in 1997 and 1999 respectively, failure to comply with an undertaking, obstructing a peace officer, and an assault; and since becoming an adult, had been convicted for breaching a conditional supervision order and an assault. Mr. Hiscock as a youth had been convicted of a theft and a breach under the Young Offenders Act and had one theft under $5,000 on his adult record. At the same time, the sentencing judge was told, and we were told, that both appellants have supportive families with whom they live, and that both are gainfully employed. The parents in each case are hard-working people who have large families.



I understand that Harry Hiscock is now out of jail and works with Dave Neigbergall at High Definition Roofing. David Martin Niebergall plead guilty to murdering Kevin Black who was Shannon's new boyfriend after she broke up with Ziggy Matheson. Dave's on the left, Harry's on the right. I have no idea who the princess in the middle is.

15 comments:

  1. Shit like this is why I will probably never live in Canada again. When I read about this kind of stuff I wonder how long it will take Canadians to get off their knees and defend themselves against douche bag oxygen thieves like this, and I come to the conclusion that they probably won't. Even if they did their own "injustice system" would try to ruin them. You'd get more time than the bad guy.

    The police there like it just fine if you are forced by law to be a helpless victim. Ever heard a Canadian police chief say he's in favor of citizens owning guns for self defense because after all, the police can't be everywhere? No you have not. Any of them that did would be hounded out of their job, even if they did feel this way, which they don't. How many times have you heard a police spokesman offer, "Don't resist you may get hurt". Really? That's the best you've got? Exactly what the fuck do you imagine is gonna happen anyway? I guess the bad guys are there to sell you Girl Guide cookies. Asking for spare change perhaps. I'm disgusted that these people can portray themselves as your protectors and advise you to submit, allowing a thug the choice of how much damage he thinks you deserve. Only a fucking sheep acts like this. Hey, maybe I'm on to something here....

    Don't think of resisting, "it's not the Canadian way, then we'd be just like the Americans...." :puke:

    I promise you this, if a group of guys came up on myself and my wife like this, they'd be 1.5 seconds away from seeing the front side of the front sight of my Glock, and 2.5 away from seeing my wife's. And it would be the last thing they'd see on this side of the Styx.

    Step within a 21 foot circle, act in a threatening manner and tell my wife you're gonna slap her, and act in a threatening manner, your future is measured in seconds. And if I don't shoot you, my wife will. That's right, she carries too.

    Never pull a gun out to show someone. It won't change who they are. If you're legally justified in pulling it, you're justified in using it. All you have to be able to articulate after the fact is that you were reasonably in fear of death or grievous bodily harm. I think being a vegetable qualifies.

    Where I live now nobody but their friends (most of whom are scum too) and relatives would cry for these thugs. Under the circumstances in Agent K's post, I would be congratulated by those officers assigned to investigate me shooting every one of them that I could. My gun would be returned to me at the close of the investigation, which would be a short one. And I would sleep like a baby as I do every night, knowing that I had lawfully protected myself and my wife, and done my fellow citizens a service by eliminating these predators from the gene pool.

    If I ever live in Canada again, I promise you I'll be carrying. Free men own weapons for their own protection and that of the ones they love. If you have no right to self defense, in a practical and functional fashion, you are not free. By the historical definition, you are a slave. It's just a matter of degree.

    I'll guarantee you one more thing. I guarantee you that Nicholas Chow Johnson and everyone who loves him wishes he'd had one. Too late now. What about the next Nicholas Chow Johnson? Because there WILL be one.

    More guns, less crime. Proven fact. But then you wouldn't be quite so reliant on the police and the government to "guarantee" (LMAO) your safety. And we can't have that, can we? Because they want a monopoly on the use of force in society. They can be trusted. You can't.The police and criminals both agree on one thing. YOU shouldn't have a gun.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although I totally agree pulling out a gun and shooting one of those bastards for threatening the guys wife would be warranted and effective, it’s so problematic. If you were allowed to carry a gun so would those punk ass b*tches. Now you’re outgunned and if you pulled out a gun they would be justified in shooting you in self defense. Sick I know. I’m not sure what the answer is. I used to be a very strong advocate for the right to bear arms. I lost that one a long time ago. Can you imagine the Vancouver riot when those punk ass idiots are armed? That puts things in a whole new dimension. Sure it would authorize the police to use lethal force and people would scatter pretty quick. Unfortunately, if things don’t get fixed in the judicial system then I think that is exactly where we are heading.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey, speaking of America and the right to bear arms, how about those Blackwater bastards that were going into people’s homes and disarming them after Hurricane Katrina. They took away their guns just because. That was a total violation of the second amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHGt5vccYFE

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If you were allowed to carry a gun so would those punk ass b*tches."

    Not true Bro. In any state where concealed carry is lawful, you will be waiting for a few weeks while they conduct a back ground check (pictures and fingerprints) local & state through your P.D./Sheriff's office, who will then initiate a national level check through the FBI database. Anytime you buy a gun nationwide that will be done through a special phone line that is set up for that. You are not buying a gun from anyone at a gun show who is a dealer (this is 90%+ of anyone who is selling there) without the same. Gun stores refuse sales all the time to people who don't get a thumbs up from that phone call. And don't believe all this shit about uncontrolled internet sales either, a private citizen selling a firearm to someone out of state has to ship it to an FFL (Federal Firearms License) who provides a copy of their license that can be checked out on the ATF website by ANYONE. (Even within the same state most all internet sellers will only transfer through an FFL to protect themselves. Buyer doesn't like it, deal doesn't get done) Seller sends a photocopy of his/her DL with it and the info is entered into the receiving dealers records.

    Any felony charges, misdemeanor drug, or misdemeanor domestic violence and you fail that background check. No gun for you.

    Here's the thing. Bad guys carry when they want to anyway. So what if they do have one? Automatic win for them? Fuck that. Lawfully armed citizens take out armed bad guys all time.

    As far as Blackwater goes, I see no reference to them in the clip you posted. The two guys at the end identified themselves to the cops who were seizing their guns as contractors, but we are not talking BW/Xe, some oil/gas/construction company or something. I know guys who worked Katrina for BW and the gun confiscation was not being done by them. They were guarding fixed facilities or addressing public violence where they arrested and detained people for turnover to law enforcement subsequent to arrest. Most contractors are extremely pro 2nd Amendment. Cops not so much, you know very well how I feel about thug cops. I'm familiar with the case of the old lady at the beginning, those guys were not even local cops, they were CHP who were brought in to "help out". Many other law enforcement agencies sent people as well.

    A brief word about contractors. Do not believe everything journalists who want to be the ones with a sexy, shocking story to tell you say about this either. There are no contractors who do not have military or law enforcement backgrounds, or both. Everyone who was military has an honorable discharge. Everyone has passed a criminal background and credit checks to get a security clearance. Misconduct is rewarded with loss of employment and being offered a choice of chicken or beef, window or aisle, as well as loss of security clearance which means no more working in the industry. Most of what has been written is either complete BS or slanting the story such as to make it virtually unrecognizable to people who were there. Journalists who've written about this subject do not go out on missions, they sit at the bar in their hotel and pick up tidbits they spin into their stories. No one will talk to them except the bullshit artists, guess what story gets told? There's little difference between Robert Young Pelton, Mr. "World's Most Dangerous Places", and Geraldo Rivera (birth name Gerry Rivers) they both suffer from an overriding belief in their own importance. But I digress...

    The NOPD has a long standing reputation for corruption, theft, excessive force, and a general attitude of "we're the law". I'm not so sure that this could have happened as easily elsewhere in America. Some places yes, some places no. Politics in Louisiana are known to be a little on the crooked side as well, although those who live there have different adjectives to describe what everyone knows is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's worth noting that one of your favorite guys, George W. Bush, signed into law a bill addressing this situation.

    From wiki

    Confiscation of firearms

    Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, National Guard troops, and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm. Even National Guard troops, armed with assault rifles, were used for house to house searches, seizing firearms and attempting to get those remaining in the city to leave.

    Angered citizens, backed by the National Rifle Association and other organizations, filed protests over the constitutionality of such an order and the difficulty in tracking seizures, as paperwork was rarely filed during the searches. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, defended the right of affected citizens to retain firearms, saying that, "What we’ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves." The searches received little news coverage, though reaction from groups such as the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America was immediate and heated, and a lawsuit was filed September 22 by the NRA and SAF on behalf of two firearm owners whose firearms were seized. On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a restraining order to bar further firearms confiscations.

    After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms. On April 14, 2006, it was announced that the city will begin to return seized firearms, however as of early 2008, many firearms were still in police possession, and the matter was still in court. The matter was finally settled in favor of the NRA in October 2008. Per the agreement, the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership requirements previously used, and was to release firearms to their owners with an affidavit claiming ownership and a background check to verify that the owner is legally able to possess a firearm.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Louisiana legislator Steve Scalise introduced Louisiana House Bill 760, which would prohibit confiscation of firearms in a state of emergency, unless the seizure is pursuant to the investigation of a crime, or if the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the officer or another individual. On June 8, 2006, HB 760 was signed into law. 21 other states joined Louisiana in enacting similar laws. A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006.

    This law should never have been necessary because as you correctly point out the situation is already covered by the 2nd Amendment . But it's a great example of how slippery the slope really is. Someone cries, "It's an emergency!" and your rights go out the window. This same dynamic was at play with high profile shooting in Australia and the U.K. leading to government confiscation of most privately held firearms "for the good of the children", blah blah. In Canada the shooting of 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique by Marc Lepine (birth name Gamil Rodrigue Liass Gharbi) wound up being the "reason" to ban over 100 varieties of military style semi automatic rifles BUT NOT THE ONE HE USED, a Ruger Mini-14, which to this day is a non restricted firearm in Canada, not even restricted as are handguns, and certainly not prohibited as are all those evil semi auto UZI carbines, AK's, etc. And yet the AR-15 is only a restricted. Go figure, except you won't, because there's no sense in differentiating between them to begin with, they all do the same thing.

    Gun prohibitionist's never let an incident like this go to waste. It's worth noting that violent crime rates have skyrocketed In the UK and Australia in the years since these panic driven bans were enacted. Sheer coincidence of course.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Louisiana legislator Steve Scalise introduced Louisiana House Bill 760, which would prohibit confiscation of firearms in a state of emergency, unless the seizure is pursuant to the investigation of a crime, or if the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the officer or another individual. On June 8, 2006, HB 760 was signed into law. 21 other states joined Louisiana in enacting similar laws. A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006.

    This law should never have been necessary because as you correctly point out the situation is already covered by the 2nd Amendment . But it's a great example of how slippery the slope really is. Someone cries, "It's an emergency!" and your rights go out the window. This same dynamic was at play with high profile shooting in Australia and the U.K. leading to government confiscation of most privately held firearms "for the good of the children", blah blah. In Canada the shooting of 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique by Marc Lepine (birth name Gamil Rodrigue Liass Gharbi) wound up being the "reason" to ban over 100 varieties of military style semi automatic rifles BUT NOT THE ONE HE USED, a Ruger Mini-14, which to this day is a non restricted firearm in Canada, not even restricted as are handguns, and certainly not prohibited as are all those evil semi auto UZI carbines, AK's, etc. And yet the AR-15 is only a restricted. Go figure, except you won't, because there's no sense in differentiating between them to begin with, they all do the same thing.

    Gun prohibitionist's never let an incident like this go to waste. It's worth noting that violent crime rates have skyrocketed In the UK and Australia in the years since these panic driven bans were enacted. Sheer coincidence of course.

    ReplyDelete
  8. “This law should never have been necessary because as you correctly point out the situation is already covered by the 2nd Amendment . But it's a great example of how slippery the slope really is. Someone cries, "It's an emergency!" and your rights go out the window.”

    Exactly. The law wasn’t necessary because the law already existed. So in essence we have no real assurance it won’t happen again and of course since it’s a “new” law that means they won’t prosecute them for violating the existing law. It’s just more smoke and mirrors to let them get away with what they did. Yes, it was my friend George Bush that was instrumental in privatizing their military and enabling Blackwater to do what they did. He just caved in to the rightful outrage from the right and tried to say it wasn’t his fault when it was.

    You are right in that if you are allowed to carry a gun the bad guy’s wouldn’t be because they do background checks. Unfortunately, if guns are that accessible there’s nothing stopping the bad guys from getting a hold of them. As you agree, they’re illegal now but that certainly doesn’t stop them. The current system in Canada is indeed very flawed. Now only the criminals have guns not the law abiding citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I apologize for double posting that last part.

    The contracting thing actually started with support services under Clinton in the mid-90's, and by 1999 you had contractors guarding overseas bases. It was necessary due to how many active duty troops were cut loose. I don't remember exactly, something like a dozen active duty DIVISIONS. The end of the cold war and all. Some MOS (military occupational specialty) have virtually disappeared. Not many cooks anymore, mostly KBR, who often subcontracts yet again. At overseas locations you get people on the serving line from Bangladesh or Sri Lanka who can't even speak English. However in some instances it's been an improvement over using military folks, heavy and armored vehicles for instance because you have factory trained experts maintaining a system they know all about vs. an 18 year old kid who went to 8 week of MOS specific training on top of basic. Specialization has it's place.

    You are right about there not being any real assurance. They had to slap that "patch" law together to reassure people because what happened was a great illustration of reality. Your rights exist only as long as it's convenient for those in power. That power actually belongs to the whole of 'the people', but the kind of folks who seek elected office, and who have been there a while, think of it as theirs. Same as cops who get to the point where they think "I'm the law". The scariest words I ever heard from a cop were "We're the police, we can do whatever we want." I heard that 2x from different VPD guys. I found out later this was like an unofficial motto for them.

    Bush should have stepped the Feds into the Katrina situation a lot faster than he did, and IIRC he has acknowledged that. FEME was totally out matched by the situation. All these abuses started when idiots in charge who have no suitability for crisis management tried to regain control by controlling everyone, not just those who needed it. Some of those were criminalistic opportunists, some were members of law enforcement who felt they had a free pass to go nuts. One poor guy was shot down in cold blood on that bridge, had no weapon, and the cop who did it has been given a pass on it. On a normal day the Shooting Review Board would have had his badge and he would have been criminally charged.

    There is nothing stopping bad guys from getting guns. There never will be. (That's why a handgun goes for between $1K and $2K on the street in Vancouver) They are CRIMINALS, which means they don't obey laws. Why would they obey a gun law? What utter foolishness to think they will. Gun laws affect only those who obey the law to begin with. And the politicians know that, but for some reason they continue to be able to hoodwink the people that they care and are doing something about it. Your government doesn't care about you. They care about you thinking they do so they can get re-elected to the public trough. It's disgusting. They also care about having more power, the better to be able to run your life, which poor stupid little you can't do, or you wouldn't have elected them. And of course they know better than you, so you should just go along with everything they say whether it makes sense or not, regardless of how it never works. If anything they did actually solved a problem, they could all go home. This is why the elected governments on both sides of the border are largely fraudulent in that their purported solutions exist to fail so that it will be necessary for them to keep trying. And trying. Until after 20+ years they can retire on a fat pension in return for a life time of fucking up everything they touch. Gordon Campbell should be slow roasted on a spit for what he did with B.C. Hydro, out and out theft from the people of B.C.. He and his ilk are just clever thieves who found a way to get away with it. No wonder they think so highly of themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Don’t get me started on Clinton. Clinton and the Bush family are partners in crime. When the Bush family’s CIA was running their own Operation Fast and Furious out of Mena Arkansas, Clinton was governor at the time. He helped cover it up and launder the money. He was tied to BCCI.Yet Bush was all over the privatization of the military. Look at Dick Cheney’s Halliburton scam. That was shameful.

    Privatizing the military is not necessary. It is treason. Creating a mercenary force with no public accountability, Hitler would be proud. Bush is a f*ck up. Don’t get me started on him. Guns well, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I just thought the fact that the police as well as Blackwater were confiscating guns after Katrena was something out of the Twilight zone.

    ReplyDelete
  11. mer·ce·nar·y

    "hired to serve in a foreign army",

    "a soldier hired into foreign service."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

    Former US service personnel serving as armed guards in Iraq or Afghanistan are just that, armed guards. All operations are defensive in nature. They DO NOT conduct combat operations, and they do not work for a country other than their own. They protect people. They do not meet any dictionary or legal definition of a mercenary other than yours. The African or South American guards who work gates or man towers are working for a country other than their own, but they also are not soldiers and do not conduct offensive operations. They merely guard installations.

    Blackwater GUARDS were not going to anyone's house and confiscating guns, no matter how often you repeat that. Show me a vid clip, show me an allegation by a citizen that they did. Every single allegation in the public venue refers to the police doing it. Hitler? Jeez, come on... :rolleyes: But you're right, the police confiscating guns in America was a real eye opener for a lot of folks.

    If given the choice, I would rather be damned for what I do rather than for what I don't. Or as we used to say years ago when I lived and worked in a fairly violent high crime major American metro area, "Someone is gonna get shot today. Let's try and make sure it's the right someone."

    ReplyDelete
  12. I know you don’t like the term but a privatized military is a mercenary army. Especially now that it’s for sale. As for the gun confiscation, it said Police and National Guard yet all the Youtube clips say US Military, a large portion of which was privatized. The video clips show people in camos with automatic weapons. That would imply military not police. Although there were instances when the police were doing it which as you say is shocking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Njg4eB_Mfk

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dude I have no problem with the term, it's kind of romantic and all, it's just that it's not accurate and it doesn't seem to bother you that your definition doesn't match the dictionary's, nor any other.

    That all is a serious stretch of ill-logic, and you should know it. The only thing privatized is support services, including guards. There are no privatized infantry units, no privatized tank squadrons, no privatized airborne divisions for rent to the highest bidder. You obviously have no conception of how much trouble someone who did that kind of stuff would be in, google Dept. of State & "ITAR" sometime. That's why BW paid a $45 million dollar fine just for sending weapons to Iraq and Afghanistan for use by their personnel. They had no licenses from the G to do so, and it cost them big.

    You want to see mercenary, google Sandline or Executive Outcomes. THAT is mercenary. Military formations of professional soldiers who conduct combat operations.

    It's somewhat of a joke among ex-mil types how much some cops want to wear cammie's, even in an urban area. And you might be shocked at what some law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border have in their arms rooms. Think Barrett .50 cal...like cops need an anti-material weapon...But yeah, I'd bet that most of those you reference in clips of NO are NG, which until they are federalized in a given situation, are under the control of the governor of the state they live in. I'm not aware that the National Guardsmen involved in Katrina were ever federalized, they basically carried out whatever orders they received from Bobby Jindahl transmitted to them through officers of the National Guard who receive their commissions in the Guard from the governor, not the regular army.

    No bad on you for not knowing this, most Americans couldn't explain the differences legal and otherwise between the RA and the NG either.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I classify Blackwater as mercineries and I’m not the only one who does but that’s OK. We’ll agree to disagree. You are right about the fact that the police were in charge of the operation to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens in direct violation of the Second amendment. Whether or not they had the National Guard or Blackwater help them doesn’t change the fact that the Police were ultimately responsible and that is shocking. There have been a lot of concerns about Blackwater. So much so the owner jumped ship and they changed it’s name. There were tons of Blackwater guys in the New Orleans after hurricane Katrena.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XaiAIVUTB4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdkA5H8bHfk&NR=1

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sure there were. More on the way too, when the whole mess started to subside. You had a complete breakdown of law, order and control, and not just by criminals or opportunists.

    Little known fact about that, BW was trying to get people who were stateside (most of their operations obviously being elsewhere)or home on rotation from the ME who had any kind of previous law enforcement training/background to deploy to the area, because if an individual was POST (peace officer standards and training) certified they could be deputized and put under the command of local law enforcement right away. (That's how a couple of CHP guys wind up beating an old lady for her old gun) The whole mess didn't last long enough for any of that to be implemented. There were some "also ran" companies who were trying to line people up for that too, including some folks who were talking about "bring your own guns", since their "company" has not existed a week previously and had zero infrastructure. Thank god the situation didn't last long enough for any of those folks to get involved.

    ReplyDelete