gone on then, list the ones that haventNo they havent.
gone on then, list the ones that haventNo they havent.
gone on then, list the ones that havent
typical Tony make a categorically false statement, cant back it up, and then claim you can't be bothered. You should really stick to SC where your ****** isn't called outList the ones that have.
actually I dont care lol
typical Tony make a categorically false statement, cant back it up, and then claim you can't be bothered. You should really stick to SC where your ****** isn't called out
did you realise the comment about carrying a weapon over state lines before the sneaky edit make you look more foolish than normal?No I said I dont care. You really need to calm down boy.
did you realise the comment about carrying a weapon over state lines before the sneaky edit make you look more foolish than normal?
I'm happy to see justice served no matter what, unlike you and your ilk who still claim 'he got away with stuff'. Not guilty babycakesNo what it looks like is I wrote it then checked it so deleted it.
As I said I dont really care about him getting off with stuff it does nothing for me either way yet it seems to validate most of your views.
That's quite contradictory to the majority of articles out there from a quick google, although your article does quote some as being "underinsured" which I guess is the policy owners fault - it doesn't specify but I'd assume they'd also be underinsured for similar damage caused by say a fire.Here, which includes multiple examples including quotes from the Insurance Journal and the New York times, now the question is do you have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation or just more nonsense posting?
Understood. What would the sensible option be then? Wait for high noon?Well yes, that's what it is for ergo having your business burn down is still a big loss and something the business owner wanted to prevent.
Understood. What would the sensible option be then? Wait for high noon?
Not guilty. Keep taking your copium.List the ones that have.
lets start with carrying a weapon over state lines
Pretty sure he was found not guilty of all this sort of stuff in court.
He travelled across state lines but was more of a technicality as he was local. He lived about 20 miles away and I see to remember he had family there as well.Could be wrong but i was under the impression he wasn't a local and traveled across state lines ?
Have the local police do their job.
Not guilty. Keep taking your copium.
Tony doesn't care about facts.
No what it looks like is I wrote it then checked it so deleted it.
As I said I dont really care about him getting off with stuff it does nothing for me either way yet it seems to validate most of your views.
Do you lot have a discussion group going so you can plan set attacks or something? For a start the post you quoted I change so I have no idea how you saw it some 12 hours later. But anyway Can you not read properly?
That is the complete opposite of what you post. It is you dear boy that needs that copium.
Normal people check the facts before they post. A lesson you could do with learning. What you post however is what you want the facts to be. Not reality. Unfortunately you live in some bizarre alternative world.
lol. You normal. Oh dear.
As I said it is clear he got off on technicalities but its done. You all know it and everyone else knows it.
lol. You normal. Oh dear.
As I said it is clear he got off on technicalities but its done. You all know it and everyone else knows it.