Jump to content

Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

clapclapclap

By clapclapclap
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

EuroHorn

EuroHorn 3268

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Xian said:

Yeah.  That would be a fucking disaster.  Why does it even exist?? 

Hook turns are largely in Melbourne and on streets where you have tram lines to the right. It’s used to allow traffic to pass by you when you’re trying to make a right turn and you may have to wait for trams to move out of the way. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Larry T. Spider
Larry T. Spider

One side will say it was a right winger attacking protestors. The other side will say the protestors were attacking some random person and they defended themselves. The truth will come out a

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

i don't know why people have a fundamental need to take a side on issues like this. looks to me like we got two assholes. driver knew exactly what he was doing, as evidenced by the honking horn. he wa

immamac
immamac

I mean here's what we know:  1) deceased was armed with an AK-47 rifle.  2) no one broke any laws, but there was some asshole behavior that happened from guy in the car. 3) the only dea

Posted Images

Brothahorn

Brothahorn 10087

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Serak The Preparer said:

You dummy, that can't be the case. All the gun experts in this thread very clearly analyzed the audio of the cell phone video and conclusively found that the first shots were made by a long gun / rifle / AK-47.

What if the driver had one of these?

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Helobious

Helobious 9464

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I have multiple people on my instagram treating this guy like some sort of hero turned martyr.

Social media is going to be our undoing.

In what way is that surprising? Go look at 4 or 8chan, plenty of mass shooters & white supremecists have achieved martyrdom there. Anyone can be a hero to someone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Your take is the guy that was killed was "accidentally" or "mistakenly" killed?

You're going with that...

I honestly don't know, I was just piggybacking on the prevailing wisdom of a few I saw post here where the most likely scenario was a miscommuncation/mistake in intentions that led to some high-strung/frisky reactions that led to some weapons aimed and shots fired.

I may be out of the loop on the details and facts that have been discovered that contradict the above, I admit.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Somnio

Somnio 751

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Any updates on Anonymous Killer who was released back into the community?

You mean the bad mofo who while minding his own business unfortunately had to introduce a scumbag to his maker?

No, not yet.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Hulk

Sgt Hulk 13833

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

A car is a deadly weapon both in colloquial and legal terms.

Unfortunately, there is a history of people using vehicles to attack left-wing/anti-fascist/anti-racist protesters, sometimes with fatal results. So participants in these types of protests often view aggressive driving as attempted violence.

Also unfortunately, there is a history of people using weapons to attack all kinds of people in America. So the man who had the gun pointed at him often view brandishing as attempted violence.

This might have just been a dude trying to get home who found himself surrounded by people and saw a gun. Fucking stupid fucking country.

This right here.  The media has shown enough of both sides of the coin that literally every one from a driver to a protestor is a lit fuse waiting to go off. More of this will occur it I’m afraid. As both sides think it’s open season to do whatever you want and both sides apparently are ready to kill to protect themselves.  It’s sad that this is what society has 2020d in to

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11722

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Please what.

Who are the 2 shooters?

Did you read The Police Chief’s quote Al?

 

7 hours ago, Cajun said:

Manley confirmed on July 26 that one shooter was the driver of a car and said the other was in the crowd and may have opened fire on the car as it drove away.

I’m not sure how many different ways you want this explained brother.

Edited by Cajun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cajun

Cajun 11722

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

A car is a deadly weapon both in colloquial and legal terms.

Unfortunately, there is a history of people using vehicles to attack left-wing/anti-fascist/anti-racist protesters, sometimes with fatal results. So participants in these types of protests often view aggressive driving as attempted violence.

Also unfortunately, there is a history of people using weapons to attack all kinds of people in America. So the man who had the gun pointed at him often view brandishing as attempted violence.

This might have just been a dude trying to get home who found himself surrounded by people and saw a gun. Fucking stupid fucking country.

There’s also a history of people pulling divers out of vehicles and bashing them over the head with chunks of concrete.

No gun involved.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Hulk

Sgt Hulk 13833

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm going to point this out again because clearly people enjoy ignoring or obfuscating facts in this case.

Nobody, not a single person, that is zero people, none at all, were, based on the videos we've seen, and all of the information from the protesters and police were hit by a car in this incident.

None, ZERO, nobody based on all available information, was hit by a car.

It is subjective and inaccurate to claim to know the drivers motives. Nobody knows that reality. The actions prior to the shooting of the driver are easily disputable as to whether or not they were aggressive. I saw it as non-aggressive as did many others, some saw it the other way. None of us know whether or not there was any intention or motive by the driver to harm anyone for sure with his car. If there WAS intention, the driver really sucked at that aspect because again, I clearly state, no injury or reports have surfaced of ANYONE being hit by a car. 

What we do know for sure is a man armed with a carbine aggressively approached the car with said carbine at low ready. It's in dispute as to whether or not he actually pointed the gun at the car. Either way, it's not an unreasonable assumption that someone approaching a car aggressively with a rifle at low ready might be perceived as a threat. The person that did this is already on video expressing what can easily be perceived as aggressive intentions. The video exist. That is fact.

There have been other instances of protestors shooting at vehicles elsewhere in the country. It's not impossible that the driver was aware of this. The other shooting by protestors are fact.

A person turned into an area where protestors were present. This is fact.

The person who aggressively approached the vehicle with a rifle at low ready was shot. This is fact.

The driver turned from an area with more protestors to less protestors. This can be seen in the video. There is some interpretation but there is certainly, by available evidence, support for that interpretation.

The driver prior to the shooting was at a full stop in the vehicle. This is fact.

Another person in the crowd fired shots, by the shooters own account, at the car. This is fact.

Nobody was hit by a car based on all available information. This is fact.

All else beyond these facts is absolutely and completely suppositions based on opinion and NOT on any facts. Its all fiction at this point, not reality.

TL DR . I appreciate your reply though. Thanks have a blessed day

Edited by Sgt Hulk
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Hulk

Sgt Hulk 13833

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Yeah, that's the fucking problem. You don't want to know the facts.

Listen bro you have all the facts why are you here and not down town telling them you solved the case.  Use your powers for good that way we can lock this thread up and no one else can reply.   Again thank you for doing the hard work 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Halohal

Halohal 498

Posted
Posted

Should be Austin's talking point as well as the Ramos body cam footage for days to come.

Do the parties involved hire an attorney in the meantime? Regardless of which side is in the right, does this fall on the new DA if prosecuted? How many witnesses will be at the trial? Timeframe?... Next year?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyRage

JohnnyRage 1617

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

The driver turned from an area with more protestors to less protestors. This can be seen in the video. There is some interpretation but there is certainly, by available evidence, support for that interpretation.

 

The only video of the turn that I have seen shows him making an illegal right hand turn by not coming to a stop and turning from a non-protestor road onto a road with protestors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

Nobody, not a single person, that is zero people, none at all, were, based on the videos we've seen, and all of the information from the protesters and police were hit by a car in this incident

Is it possible that since protesters have been hit with cars in the past they were threatened by a car headed towards them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudbelty

Fudbelty 2789

Posted
Posted
The only video of the turn that I have seen shows him making an illegal right hand turn by not coming to a stop and turning from a non-protestor road onto a road with protestors.

The only video I’ve seen you can’t tell if he had already been stopped and was making a right hand turn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudbelty

Fudbelty 2789

Posted
Posted

Everyone else is throwing shit against wall as to what they think happened so heres mine. I just won’t act as if mines fact like some have.

 

I feel it’s likely driver was possibly stopped at the light already as protesters were crossing the street while he had a green. Missing that green and with a semi blocked view he decided to turn right to get out of the area not realizing there were in fact more protesters in the middle of the street. If he wanted to injure or hurt anyone in my opinion he wouldn’t have hit the breaks as quick as he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Judge Roybeanbag

Judge Roybeanbag 11820

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

I know the driver has stated to the police that the protester pointed a gun at him, but does the image below show a barrel pointed up?  Will any charge depend on if one can prove the gun barrel was raised towards the car? 

garrett-foster-p33eh6.jpeg?w=581&ssl=1

 

I'm not sure it matters that much, the way that he was carrying (low ready with his hand on the trigger guard), it's reasonable to think he's ready to fire.  If he had the gun strapped on his back then no.  That's why it was stupid for him to be carrying that way, or carrying at all for that matter.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

It's possible that I'm going to fuck supermodels next weekend while enjoying my lottery winnings, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the facts of this case.

You stated nobody was hit by a car. I then said if it was possible the protesters, based on prior knowledge of protesters being attacked by car, could possible feel threatened by the car driving towards them? And would that change the circumstances of the case?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Halohal said:

Sure thing, the whole incident will be scrutinize... But there are less people who reserve judgment while the majority have already made up their minds. Will play out on social media... Sucks

I think social media sucks in general. However, hopefully the police will investigate the case and examine all the facts before deciding to pursue charges or not. If they determine the act was justified or not, then so be it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Halohal

Halohal 498

Posted
Posted

Saw the fund me page... Doesn't a portion of funds raised go to the website owner's? At last glance... And why disable new donations?

 

Official Garrett Foster Memorial Fund

$108,534 raised

 
Share
The organizer has currently disabled new donations to this fundraiser.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyRage

JohnnyRage 1617

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Fudbelty said:


The only video I’ve seen you can’t tell if he had already been stopped and was making a right hand turn.

https://video-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/116145968_303086754229643_15244642196776204_n.mp4?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=985c63&efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6ImxlZ2FjeV9zZCJ9&_nc_ohc=93HiqaGTlCMAX_C5Df8&_nc_ht=video-dfw5-1.xx&oh=c65c8a804d90b0eef46948fde728a505&oe=5F1EF6E0

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm going to point this out again because clearly people enjoy ignoring or obfuscating facts in this case.

Nobody, not a single person, that is zero people, none at all, were, based on the videos we've seen, and all of the information from the protesters and police were hit by a car in this incident.

None, ZERO, nobody based on all available information, was hit by a car.

It is subjective and inaccurate to claim to know the drivers motives. Nobody knows that reality. The actions prior to the shooting of the driver are easily disputable as to whether or not they were aggressive. I saw it as non-aggressive as did many others, some saw it the other way. None of us know whether or not there was any intention or motive by the driver to harm anyone for sure with his car. If there WAS intention, the driver really sucked at that aspect because again, I clearly state, no injury or reports have surfaced of ANYONE being hit by a car. 

What we do know for sure is a man armed with a carbine aggressively approached the car with said carbine at low ready. It's in dispute as to whether or not he actually pointed the gun at the car. Either way, it's not an unreasonable assumption that someone approaching a car aggressively with a rifle at low ready might be perceived as a threat. The person that did this is already on video expressing what can easily be perceived as aggressive intentions. The video exist. That is fact.

There have been other instances of protestors shooting at vehicles elsewhere in the country. It's not impossible that the driver was aware of this. The other shooting by protestors are fact.

A person turned into an area where protestors were present. This is fact.

The person who aggressively approached the vehicle with a rifle at low ready was shot. This is fact.

The driver turned from an area with more protestors to less protestors. This can be seen in the video. There is some interpretation but there is certainly, by available evidence, support for that interpretation.

The driver prior to the shooting was at a full stop in the vehicle. This is fact.

Another person in the crowd fired shots, by the shooters own account, at the car. This is fact.

Nobody was hit by a car based on all available information. This is fact.

All else beyond these facts is absolutely and completely suppositions based on opinion and NOT on any facts. Its all fiction at this point, not reality.

 

 

I'm going to point this out again because clearly people enjoy ignoring or obfuscating facts in this case.

Nobody, not a single person, that is zero people, none at all, were, based on the videos we've seen, and all of the information from the protesters and police were threatened by a gun in this incident.

None, ZERO, nobody based on all available information, was threatened by a gun.

It is subjective and inaccurate to claim to know the open carry person's motives. Nobody knows that reality. The actions prior to the shooting of the open carry person are easily disputable as to whether or not they were aggressive. I saw it as non-aggressive as did many others, some saw it the other way. None of us know whether or not there was any intention or motive by the open carry person to harm anyone for sure with legally carried weapon. If there WAS intention, the open carry person really sucked at that aspect because again, I clearly state, no injury or reports of him pointing the barrel at the car have surfaced of ANYONE other than the person who shot him. 

What we do know for sure is a man driving a car aggressively drove his car into a street filled with protestors. It's in dispute as to whether or not he actually meant to do that. Either way, it's not an unreasonable assumption that someone driving a car aggressively might be perceived as a threat. 

There have been other instances of cars driving into protestors elsewhere in the country. It's not impossible that the open carry was aware of this. The other incidents of drivers hitting protestors are fact.

A driver turned into an area where protestors were present. This is fact.

The driver aggressively drove his vehicle into a street filled with protestors. This is fact.

The driver turned from an area with no protestors to many protestors. This can be seen in the video. That is fact. 

The driver prior to the shooting was at a full stop in the vehicle. This is fact.

Another person in the crowd fired shots, by the shooters own account, at the car. This is fact.

Nobody was hit by a car based on all available information. This is fact.

All else beyond these facts is absolutely and completely suppositions based on opinion and NOT on any facts. Its all fiction at this point, not reality.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hate

Hate 20136

Posted
Posted
If you watch this video again it appears the main part of the intersection is pretty well lit, but the area past the intersection is not.
I could find it plausible that he came to the intersection, saw all the protesters, said aw fuck, I need to get out of here, glanced right, did not see additional protesters due to the lighting, glanced left to check to make sure no cars were coming, then after turning realized there were more protesters that he didn't see before turning and slammed on his breaks to prevent hitting them. 
If he wanted to cause a ruckus he could have just driven strait ahead into the much larger group.
I have no way of knowing what he was thinking or knowing why he did what he did, just offering this as a possibility.
 

This is exactly what I’ve thought all along. Maybe this guy doesn’t know Austin very well and found himself somewhere he didn’t want to be. The fact that he had plenty of opportunity to actually run someone over but didn’t should be a little clue as to what his intentions were or were not.

And yes, a vehicle can be a very dangerous weapon. We’ve seen them used to horrible effect in Barcelona, Nice, and California. I do not believe that was the driver’s intent in this case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudbelty

Fudbelty 2789

Posted
Posted

Same video I’ve seen. I still can’t say whether he was stopped or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Was anyone hit by a car? No.

Did the car stop? Yes.

Did protestors approach the car after stopped? Yes.

Would one afraid of being hit by a car logically approach the car? No.

Was one of those protestors openly armed? Yes.

The facts are posted. You have zero evidence to support any ill intent on the part of the driver other than your opinion.

Being made nervous by a car doesn't legally give one a right to approach the car with a firearm drawn aggressively particularly if that car is stopped.

Being approached aggressively by an armed person in your car does given one logical reason to fear for their life.

Your basing all of your positions on made up, fabricated, imaginary things. You're addressing nothing with actual facts of the incident. 

You're reaching deep in your imagination to create a narrative that fits your political position. 

I'm finished addressing your inability to differentiate facts and reality from your fiction.

 

Would one afraid of being hit by a car logically approach the car? No.

That is your assumption. I've seen many people who were initially afraid of being hit by a car, who after it stopped, approached said car to curse the car driver. 

The facts are posted. You have zero evidence to support any ill intent on the part of the driver other than your opinion.

You have zero evidence to support any ill intent of a man approaching a car with an open carry firearm pointed towards the ground. 

Being made nervous by a car doesn't legally give one a right to approach the car with a firearm drawn aggressively particularly if that car is stopped.

You keep using the word aggressively, that is your opinion, not a fact. 

Being approached aggressively by an armed person in your car does given one logical reason to fear for their life.

I agree, but again, that is an opinion, not a fact. 

Your basing all of your positions on made up, fabricated, imaginary things. You're addressing nothing with actual facts of the incident. 

This again, is your opinion, not a fact. I don't believe you actually know the difference at this point. 

You're reaching deep in your imagination to create a narrative that fits your political position. 

I'm not creating a narrative, I'm am debating the facts of the case. Another fact, I initially stated an opinion, and after being presented with a good argument of fact, I conceded I was wrong earlier in this thread. That is what adults do. They listen to each other and try to look a the facts. 

I'm finished addressing your inability to differentiate facts and reality from your fiction.

Take care

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

No it won't.

More importantly, do those people appear to be afraid of being hit by the car?

 

You do realize at that point in the video, the car had stopped. Therefore, you realize there is a difference between the emotion one would feel between a car in motion towards a person and a car in stop. I and many other people in the world have witnessed this phenomenon. 

A car is driving towards me in motion = I'm afraid I might get hit by a car. 

A car has stopped in front of me = I am now angry at said driver for approaching me with said car in motion. 

Can you see the difference in these two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm going to point this out again because clearly people enjoy ignoring or obfuscating facts in this case.

Nobody, not a single person, that is zero people, none at all, were, based on the videos we've seen, and all of the information from the protesters and police were threatened by a gun in this incident. This is your opinion not fact. You are making assumptions that the driver did not feel threatened and the drivers actions directly contradict your opinion.

None, ZERO, nobody based on all available information, was threatened by a gun. This is not accurate at all. In fact, the images directly contradict this position.

It is subjective and inaccurate to claim to know the open carry person's motives. Nobody knows that reality. The actions prior to the shooting of the open carry person are easily disputable as to whether or not they were aggressive. This is not factual. This is only your opinion that fits your narratige.

I saw it as non-aggressive as did many others, some saw it the other way. None of us know whether or not there was any intention or motive by the open carry person to harm anyone for sure with legally carried weapon, other than the video of the gun carrying wherein he expressed potentially violent intent.

What we do know for sure is a man driving a car aggressively drove his car into a street filled with protestors. The manner in which he drove into he street be is subjective and opinion. Not a fact.

It's in dispute as to whether or not he actually meant to do that. Either way, it's not an unreasonable assumption that someone driving a car aggressively might be perceived as a threat. But it is an assumption based on opinion not facts.

There have been other instances of cars driving into protestors elsewhere in the country. It's not impossible that the open carry was aware of this which accounts for his aggressive approach.

A driver turned into an area where protestors were present away from an area there were more. This is fact.

The driver aggressively drove his vehicle into a street filled with protestors. This is opinion not fact.

I literally copied your long winded post and changed the none factual portions to the opposing viewpoint. It was to point out that your statements were also opinions and not fact. 

The fact that you agree they are opinions is mildly hilarious. You just stated your own opinions are indeed opinions 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 76897

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

53 minutes ago, Fudbelty said:

Everyone else is throwing shit against wall as to what they think happened so heres mine. I just won’t act as if mines fact like some have.

 

I feel it’s likely driver was possibly stopped at the light already as protesters were crossing the street while he had a green. Missing that green and with a semi blocked view he decided to turn right to get out of the area not realizing there were in fact more protesters in the middle of the street. If he wanted to injure or hurt anyone in my opinion he wouldn’t have hit the breaks as quick as he did.

I'm kinda in this camp. Wanting to take a right turn, people everywhere, sees an opening and goes for it, rounds the corner and "oh, shit." Hits brakes. 

Edited by Deej
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyRage

JohnnyRage 1617

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I believe our only point of contention is the specifics regarding the turn. I'm happy to agree that our interpretations differ. 

Do you maintain a position that the driver, based on the know facts had ill intent?

I’m not here to speculate, I’m just disputing some of the ‘facts’.

 

Someone that is armed should always do the prudent thing and avoid trouble like the plague, be the worlds biggest pussy.

 


 

 

But if you want wild speculation, this guy was scared or angry, and he had his gun chambered on his lap. It’s hard to get off shots that accurately, that quickly, through a car window, in a real situation where lives are on the line. But he shouldn’t have even been in that situation, and that’s on his judgment and research.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trey3216

Trey3216 15352

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Would one afraid of being hit by a car logically approach the car? No.

That is your assumption. I've seen many people who were initially afraid of being hit by a car, who after it stopped, approached said car to curse the car driver. 

The facts are posted. You have zero evidence to support any ill intent on the part of the driver other than your opinion.

You have zero evidence to support any ill intent of a man approaching a car with an open carry firearm pointed towards the ground. 

Being made nervous by a car doesn't legally give one a right to approach the car with a firearm drawn aggressively particularly if that car is stopped.

You keep using the word aggressively, that is your opinion, not a fact. 

Being approached aggressively by an armed person in your car does given one logical reason to fear for their life.

I agree, but again, that is an opinion, not a fact. 

Your basing all of your positions on made up, fabricated, imaginary things. You're addressing nothing with actual facts of the incident. 

This again, is your opinion, not a fact. I don't believe you actually know the difference at this point. 

You're reaching deep in your imagination to create a narrative that fits your political position. 

I'm not creating a narrative, I'm am debating the facts of the case. Another fact, I initially stated an opinion, and after being presented with a good argument of fact, I conceded I was wrong earlier in this thread. That is what adults do. They listen to each other and try to look a the facts. 

I'm finished addressing your inability to differentiate facts and reality from your fiction.

Take care

And you keep using the word aggressively to describe the driver’s actions.  California rolling through a stop light is dumb driving, but it’s not really aggressive driving.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
Just now, Trey3216 said:

And you keep using the word aggressively to describe the driver’s actions.  California rolling through a stop light is dumb driving, but it’s not really aggressive driving.   

If you followed the entire exchange between BurntEyes and myself, you would see I attributed the adjective "aggressively" in response to him attributing the same adjective to the open carry citizen. It is an opinion, and not a fact. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...