quote: Maribel was arrested in April for throwing the rock at a neighborhood boy who had pelted her with a water balloon. The rock gashed the boy's forehead, and the girl spent five days in Fresno's juvenile hall and a month under house arrest after police said she resisted arrest and scratched an officer's arm.
But Fresno's mayor and police chief say Maribel Cuevas's case was handled appropriately, and that assault with a deadly weapon is the proper charge for an act that might have had fatal consequences.
"That is a felony, assault with a deadly weapon, and we are very fortunate that that act did not cause a more serious injury, even death." Says Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer
Following this logic. Anything that CAN be made into a deadly weapon, automatically is one. Thus, from now on every time someone gets hit by a car, the driver should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
Or, if it is necessary that the person committing the act intented the recipient some sort of harm, every time someone punches someone else, it should be a felony. Fists can be deadly weapons. So can metal rulers, and so could that water balloon if the girl had accidentally swallowed and choked on it, or if she were allergic to rubber.
It just strikes me as stupid. A toothbrush CAN be a deadly weapon if I use it that way, but it isn't inherently deadly, like a knife or a gun.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I know of an incident locally where it was just a couple of kids fighting while playing golf, and one hit the other with the golf club. No major damage done (hit across back) but the kid was charged with aggravated assault, given 25 hours community service and parole. (no prior record or any trouble before)
That seems to me like that would be more along the lines of what she would be "guilty" of. Aggravated assault (misdemeanor) instead of felony assault with a deadly weapon.
posted
If you purposefully strike someone with your car you ARE charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
When you accidentally hit someone with a car it is not assault, so you don't get charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
If she were throwing rocks randomly and happened to hit him, she would not have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Since she did do it on purpose, she was charged.
attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon are two different charges. You might purposefully hit someone with a car (or rock) meaning to hurt them, but not kill them. However, you still used an object that has a high potential to kill (rather than of you just punched them with your fists).
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is fine. It is very, very dangerous to throw rocks at people - the other kid could have been very hurt. She's a juvenile, so she won't have a record. As long as they took very, very good care to make sure she was not hurt while in custody and followed up with counseling, I think this is okay.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with it either, but maybe that's because a boy threw a rock and broke my daughter's thumb once.
I didn't file charges, because the daycare workers insisted it was an accident, but considering how much pain and trouble it was, had it been intentional, yeah, I probably would have wanted something to happen.
Not jailtime, necessarily, but a good talking-to from a police officer might have worked wonders. And, let's keep in mind that the girl wasn't thrown in prison - she spent five days in a juvenile facility and then house arrest. I also doubt she would have received that harsh of a sentence had she not resisted and bitten an officer.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
any boy who lets himself get hit in the melon with a rock thrown by a girl of the same age deserves it.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. Since I live in Fresno, I think I should say something here. A few things, actually.
First, five days in "a juvenile facility" might not sound like much, but having heard stories from people who have worked in Fresno's juvenile hall - which is where the girl was held - exposed her to, oh, murderers and rapists and hardcore gangbangers. I don't think that's really appropriate for a girl with no previous record who threw a rock.
Second, Fresno is not a place where justice is always administered equally. I know this from having done a couple of internships in the judicial system in Fresno County. If this girl had come from north Fresno and had rich, English-speaking parents, she wouldn't have ever been arrested, much less put in juvie.
Third, from local news reports at the time of the incident, it appears that the boy she threw the rock at, as well as some other chilcren, had been taunting her for some time before she threw the rock. It wasn't a case of the boy having merely thrown "a" water balloon at her. While this does in no way make it okay for her to have thrown the rock, it does pose the question of why no one has suggested that maybe the kids shouldn't have been taunting the girl in the first place. Because to my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that those kids were really doing anything wrong.
I wonder what the point was in opening the trial to the public, as was mentioned in the article. I hadn't heard about that in any of the local news stories. I find that to be highly unethical, since all juvenile records are supposed to be sealed. Perhaps the cops are trying to cover their butts?
And an update - I just heard on the mid-day news reports that the girl was sentenced to unsupervised probation in the case.
And a comment, to close - I am not especially impressed by either the mayor or the police chief. There have been several allegations of impropriety and misconduct against the police chief, which he always dismisses (without denying them, by the way) by saying, "But I'm a Christian." Meanwhile, other officers have been fired from the force under his administration for just the suggestion that they might have done things less questionable than things he has admitted to and dismissed as minor. And the mayor seems intent on expanding his power far beyond what is appropriate for a mayor. For example, he has been trying to gain sole control of the school district ever since he first took office. He also recently proposed that all advancement in the police department be based primarily on the number of tickets issued and arrests made by the individual officers. Such a quota system, as far as I am aware, is illegal in California. So, excuse me if I don't take much of what either man says too seriously.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem is, where is the magic list of objects/items that are considered to be deadly weapons?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:it appears that the boy she threw the rock at, as well as some other chilcren, had been taunting her for some time before she threw the rock. It wasn't a case of the boy having merely thrown "a" water balloon at her. While this does in no way make it okay for her to have thrown the rock, it does pose the question of why no one has suggested that maybe the kids shouldn't have been taunting the girl in the first place. Because to my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that those kids were really doing anything wrong.
I'm sure the kids were probably doing something wrong, and I don't care. It in no way excuses her from picking up a rock and hitting someone in the head with it.
I personally know what damage a rock can do to a child, as I've had to hold my five year old child who screamed in pain while the doctor cleaned the wound and x-rayed the hand and told me to be "thankful it was only a minor break." The fear and pain my daughter experienced was from an accident, and on her hand. I can't imagine how scary it was a for a kid to be hit deliberately and bleeding from a head wound.
And, you have not addressed what I think is a major issue here - she fought and assaulted a police officer and 11 years old is old enough to know how to behave around law enforcement.
Fresno may be led by the most corrupt cops and politicians in the country and it still doesn't mitigate the fact that she injured another child, potentially seriously, (sounds like it was a minor wound, thankfully) - and she resisted, fought, and injured police officers. That does deserve some attention from law enforcement.
She spent less than a week in custody and now is on probation. No permanent record, because the crime occurred when she was a juvenile. I'm having a hard time seeing where the system treated her unfairly.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Belle, I imagine that she was probably scared to death. Forget the fact that the Fresno police have a reputation for roughing suspects up - I know for a fact that is true, because I've witnessed it happening. I once saw an incident where a suspect was already subdued and and handcuffed, being held facedown on the ground by an officer kneeling on the guy's back. That officer had the suspect's hair in his fist and he was repeatedly smashing the suspect's face into the ground, hard, while his partner stood there and watched with a smile on his face. I have no idea what the suspect was accused of doing, but I don't believe that was proper behavior for an officer. That kind of thing goes on all the time. I've heard police department employees and former employees joking about such events.
But, like I said, forget that. I've seen pictures of the girl. She's average size for her age, not big. And then here were these adults, with firearms, coming after her, trying to restrain her. I'd be scared, too. In fact, I'll tell you about an experience I had when I was a few years younger than that girl. When I was in second grade, we had a bomb scare at school one day. We didn't know that's what it was, we all thought it was just a long fire drill. Well, at the time I was badly frightened of small airplanes, to the point where I could not go outside for recess. Although I didn't know it at the time, it was an early manifestation of a problem with anxiety attacks that I still have today. A plane flew over, and I ran away from it. One of the firemen searching the school quite properly ran after me and caught me. But all I knew was that a big person who I didn't know was trying to stop me from getting away from what I was afraid of. And I fought back. Out of fear, not because I was trying to "resist authority".
And as for her being treated unfairly...I repeat, if the same incident had happened involving a primarily English-speaking family in a better part of town, even if the police had been called the incident would have been mediated, no arrest would have been made, and no consequences at all would have ensued. Funny thing, I was always raised to believe that you got the same kind of justice no matter what economic or ethnic group you belonged to. And although I know now that isn't the reality, I still believe that is the way it should be, and the way that things are meant to be in this country.
Edited for punctuation.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My problem is, where is the magic list of objects/items that are considered to be deadly weapons?
That's a factual determination - an element of the crime, to be determined by the trier of fact, although certain items will be legislatively described as deadly weapons (guns and knives, usually, plus some things like brass knuckles in some states). But a jury can make the determination for non-listed objects.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shouldn't the charge be assault with deadly intent? or legally is that the same thing as assault with a deadly weapon? Though I guess that would be attempted murder or manslaughter (what IS the difference between murder and manslaughter?)
Either way, when a typically non-lethal object is used in a lethal way, it shouldn't be the object that is scrutinized, but the action/intent of the user.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's both. The intent matters, always. But so does the weapon.
How would you define a broken bottle? An unbroken bottle? Or a crowbar? How heavy a crowbar? What about a big screwdriver? A slightly smaller screwdriver? A big wrench?
It doesn't matter how you draw up the list - I can nitpick it in both directions. California uses a list for defining deadly weapons, although I think that might only apply to carry laws - I couldn't track the whole thing down in a reasonable time.
The model penal code defines it as follows:
quote:The phrase "deadly or dangerous weapon" means any instrument or device capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or causing death of a person.
Both the physical capabilities of the object used and the manner in which the object is used may be considered by the jury in determining whether the object is a "deadly or dangerous weapon."
Which seems to allow a rule that will be neither under- nor over- inclusive.
posted
So, potentially anything could be a deadly weapon. We have to trust the common sense and judgement of the jury in determining what is and isn't.
Do you think, Dagonee, they could have convicted the girl on the charge assault with a deadly weapon?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Intent. If you intended to kill someone, it's murder. If you killed someone unintentionally, it's manslaughter.
Not really. I parsed it out a little while ago somewhere, but I think some &^%$ deleted the thread.
Involuntary manslaughter picked up it's name after manslaughter had already been used to define a homicide that would be murder, except it was conducted in the heat of passion.
Traditionally, after Pennsylvania changed the murder laws, it was:
Murder 1: intentional killing of human being with malice by poison, lying in wait, or other premeditation or murder in furtherance of rape, robbery, or arson.
Murder 2: All other murders (killing with malice). Malice can be satisfied by extreme recklessness (depraved indifference to human life, etc.) or intent to injure, not kill.
Manslaughter: Homicides where malice aforethought would have existed but where act that led to death was committed in heat of passion brought on by reasonable provocation before D had a chance to cool down.
Involuntary manslaughter: (the name is coincidental, it developed separately from manslaughter) death caused by something like gross negligence.
Felony Murder: Death caused by commission of felony. Varies from extreme strict liability (getaway driver guilty if security guard accidently shoots bystander) to only including dangerous felonies. Usually murder 1 sentence.
posted
Somehow, I thought that the following two paragraphs (from the CNN story) were lifted from a John Irving novel:
quote: Police responded with three cars while a helicopter hovered overhead, and said they arrested Cuevas for resisting arrest and scratching an officer's arm. Police described the rock as "jagged" and measuring 5.5 inches by 3.75 inches.
Top brass on the force defended the response, but other people took up Maribel's cause, saying it was no way to treat a childish crime. Supporters gathered outside the court, chanting "Free Maribel," and singing "We Shall Overcome."
I guess that fact is stranger than fiction.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
If the police have that much of a reputation for abuse, the girl may have been taught to avoid them. Our parents taught us to avoid police if we saw them, and although it didn't sink in with us very much, if it did with her-I can see fighting them.
For the rest, Belle, can you honestly say this situation is likely to actually teach her something, aside from don't get the police involved. Overkill like this means she was likely to get her parents support, hear them defend her, hear other people defend her actions too, lots of people. Without the involvment of the government, likely she'd have been quite adequately punished by her parents which would be more likely to give her a sense of the wrongness of what she did than ridiculous punishment by complete strangers while her parents defended her.
And three police cars and a helicopter ? for a child who threw a rock? Wow.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Toretha, what do you mean, your parents taught you to avoid the police? I can't picture how that conversation would go.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was seven, a girl teased me on the playground a lot. I chased her sometimes. Once she hid behind a tree and peeked around it and stuck her tongue out at me.
The next time she did it, I tagged her in the eye with a gravel rock (a small one). It hurt but didn't injure her in anyway. I was sent to the school counsellor who referred me to child psychologist. He basically said I was really smart, smart enough to realize that authority figures wouldn't help me, and did not have my best interests at heart. They, by their behavior, had taught me to distrust them.
This will do nothing but convince her that no one in authority cares about her, and the horrid little monsters who teased her won't have learned anything either.
When I lived inChicago, there were some teens from a wealthy suburb who made a game of dropping rocks from an overpass, trying to break people's windshields, laughing and gawking at the destruction they would cause. One evening that wasn't enough for them, so they started dropping large pieces of cinderblock.
One of them decapitated a guy coming back home from a hunting trip with his two brothers. The kids were tried based on the idea that dropping a cinderblock into traffic was roughly the same as firing a gun into a crowd - no specific intent to harm, but a grave liklihood existed. They got probation, and never spent a night away from home.
Of course, they were all white and came from 'good homes'
But a hispanic girl who throws a rock gets snatched away from her family like that?
This country is so smegging effed-up.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But then, three white kids did get 15 years for manslaughter for removing a stop sign that led to an accident death, so maybe a couple of anecdotes aren't the best way to condemn the justice system in this country.
I see so many "If X had been white/black/not a celebrity/a celebrity, X wouldn't have gotten so severe/easy a sentence" statements.
Yes, I'm aware of racial disparity in the system. But this is not an accurate way to assess it.
posted
When I was 10, the neighbor kid dropped a cinder block on my head when we were all messing around the new construction to his house. His mother freaked out and ran me to the doctor, and I got some stitches and a very cool scar.
It was a good fifteen years before it occurred to me that he might have done it on purpose.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Brettly, you should read what I said: I recognize that racial disparities exist, but pointing to individual anecdotes is not an accurate way to assess it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It also depends a LOT on the attitudes of the local authorities.
I think that may be the largest disparity factor. I mean, if you have to kill somebody, everyone knows it would be better to do it in California than in Texas.
I'm just saying...
Plus, Dag... nobody is blaming you. A lot of it does depend on politics and the image of the Mayor, prosecutor or whoever, and who can afford the better lawyer.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No Dag, the point is the anecdotes are an example of something. It is not like they are incorrect.
No, Brettly, without an analysis of why the cinderblock punks were let off or why this girl wasn't, the anecdotes tell us nothing at all. Especially when I can, off the top of my head, point to an extremely severe sentence for a seemingly less dangerous prank committed by white kids.
quote:I understand that anecdotes in general are not a good way to judge something. But when assessing the current justice system the anecdotes are actually the majority of cases according to some of the studies.
The problem is, most of the anecdotes miss the real problems with the system. When the french fry incident happened on the Washington Metro, people cried racism very quickly. It turned out, the rules didn't allow the officer to do anything else but handcuff the girl.
The problem was the rules. The rules have since been changed. But if this girl getting handcuffed for eating a french fry is cited as support for the racist nature of our justice system, it is not only inaccurate but could have prevented a different, very real problem from being solved.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet, If you don't want to kill somebody, it is better not to do it in Texas in case they think you did. Especialy if you are Hispanic.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The proper response to law enforcement,which any 11 year old is old enough to understand is to say "Yes, sir" (or Ma'am) and do what you're told.
Kids need to be taught that fighting the police, scratching or biting at them, is not the right way to behave. I would think this child did learn something here - if you fight the police they're not going to take it well. Hopefully she also learned not to throw rocks at people's heads. The 11 year old that scratches at the police officer might turn into a sixteen year old that would shoot one. Do you honestly expect the police NOT to react when they're being attacked? Now, if the cops had injured her or beaten her, I'd say it was excessive. But it doesn't sound like they did - it sounds like they restrained her and took her into custody. Exactly as they should have.
I can't comment on the helicopters and stuff because we don't know who called the police and how the dispatch went out. A dispatcher has to make a judgment call and many times they don't always have the information they need to make it properly, the people calling them are often hysterical and hard to understand.
I don't know what the police were bound to under the law - maybe Dag does. But if the mother of the injured child wanted the rock-thrower charged, it may have not given the cops a choice - they might have been bound under the law to take her into custody. Then she fought them. And still only spent five days in custody.
In my mind, that's pretty minor. I would expect an adult who fought the cops after committing assault would not have been let off so easy - so I think they did take her age into account and were more lenient with her than if she had been an adult. That's exactly what is supposed to happen in the juvenile justice system.
Again - totally not seeing the problem everybody has with this. Different way of looking at it, I guess, and perhaps I'd feel differently if my child hadn't been injured by another person throwing a rock. But I'm not sure about that, because I also know that public servants don't have as much freedom to act as people think they do. I hear a lot of people saying things like "Couldn't the cops have just let this person off for this, or couldn't the fire fighters have done this differently" who have no idea what constaints and rules the police and fire have to act under.
Like Dag said about the french fry incident - the rules may have required that this girl be taken into custody, and it's not maliciousness on the parts of the cops or any travesty of justice - it's just police officers doing their job.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I am not sure teaching kids to, " say "Yes, sir" (or Ma'am) and do what you're told," is very wise. The police are not always on the side of justice, although they were in this case. I disturust riot police in particular. It isn't always, or often, the fualt of the individual officer, but police have been the agents of goverment-opresion in many cases. Several diferent times, in three diferent countries (France, Mexico and the U.S.) during 1968 alone that stand out enough to be written about in history books. No, kids must learn to be responsible to themselves.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're entitled to your opinion Pelegius, but I really think you're much more likely to make trouble for yourself if you disobey direct orders from the police than if you obey them.
Naturally, people need to exercise common sense, and there are enough stories out there of police impersonators taking advantage of women that everybody must think things through, but if you are certain that they are police officers, then yeah, I think you're better off obeying than fighting.
I'm not talking blind obedience to everything anyone in a uniform says, but I don't think arguing and fighting with the police is ever in your best interest. Even if you're innocent, you're better off cooperating, then getting in touch with your attorney, because fighting the cops is only going to get you charged with additional crimes.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, if the police can't calm down your average 11 year old girl and get her to go along quietly without fighting with her when there's no real reason to do so, then maybe they're not very good police.
There are a lot of unanswered questions in all of this. For one, I'd like to know why the little boys didn't get charged with assault, too. For another, I'd like to know whether the parents of the little boy who got hurt pushed for prosecution or whether the state's hands were, as Dagonee says, tied.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:For another, I'd like to know whether the parents of the little boy who got hurt pushed for prosecution or whether the state's hands were, as Dagonee says, tied.
To clarify, I said they were tied in another, unrelated incident which has been exhaustively investigated. Belle's supposition that an arrest was required may be right - assault accusation with evident injury might require an arrest (a policy change made in some cities to assist in stopping domestic violence, but not always specific to it). But I have no idea if that was required here.
I'd like to know that, too.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The police report said an officer read Maribel her Miranda rights twice, in English. The 11-year-old said the officers grabbed her by her shirt from behind. "I was so scared," she said in Spanish. "I didn't know what they were doing."
quote: Maribel was at a friend's house, playing in a gated yard with her 6-year-old brother and three younger friends. According to Maribel, Elijah and six other boys rode up on bikes and began taunting her, as Elijah had done in the past. Elijah pelted the girl with water balloons, hitting her in the head. The group also threw rocks, Maribel said.
Maribel intended only to scare the boys away, Beshwate said, when she threw the rock from 25 to 30 feet away.
and
quote: The girl alleged that an officer grabbed her by the back of her shirt, threw her to the ground, put his knee in her back, handcuffed her and put her in the back of the patrol car.
Police offer a different version. Officers maintain that no other boys were involved in the incident. Elijah threw only one water balloon, they said. A report filed after the incident depicted the girl as hysterical and apologetic.
"She scratched one of the officers in an effort to get away from him, then she threw herself on the ground and began to kick at the officers, to prevent them from taking her into custody," Martinez said.
Both sides agree that the girl's mother, who does not speak English, attempted to communicate with officers, neither of whom speaks Spanish.
Guadalupe Cuevas, 33, said she wanted them to know that her daughter had a "nervous temperament" and that aggression would aggravate it.
"I tried to tell [police officers] about her condition … that they shouldn't talk to her like that, but they didn't let me get near her," Guadalupe Cuevas said. Later, Martinez said, a Spanish-speaking interpreter was dispatched to the scene.
Who knows who's telling the truth.
How about this, instead of my cutting and pasting the whole thing...
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: When I lived in Chicago, there were some teens from a wealthy suburb who made a game of dropping rocks from an overpass, trying to break people's windshields, laughing and gawking at the destruction they would cause. One evening that wasn't enough for them, so they started dropping large pieces of cinderblock.
One of them decapitated a guy coming back home from a hunting trip with his two brothers. The kids were tried based on the idea that dropping a cinderblock into traffic was roughly the same as firing a gun into a crowd - no specific intent to harm, but a grave liklihood existed. They got probation, and never spent a night away from home.
Oh man I remember this, although I don't recall where the kids were from. I think they got charged with involuntary manslaughter or something like that. And frankly I never believed that they didn't have intent. Maybe not against that particular person, but I really do think they wanted to see just how much damage they could do.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: When the french fry incident happened on the Washington Metro, people cried racism very quickly. It turned out, the rules didn't allow the officer to do anything else but handcuff the girl.
The problem was the rules. The rules have since been changed. But if this girl getting handcuffed for eating a french fry is cited as support for the racist nature of our justice system, it is not only inaccurate but could have prevented a different, very real problem from being solved.
What I want to know is, who made the rule that it was standard operating procedure to handcuff people for illegal eating? That is undoubtedly one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The girl had placed the french fry into her mouth before going through the turnstile leading to the subway waiting area, and the officer decided to arrest&handcuff her rather than give a courtesy warning that the rule applied to the stairway and hall leading to the turnstile.
quote:What I want to know is, who made the rule that it was standard operating procedure to handcuff people for illegal eating? That is undoubtedly one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.
It's nto that people have to be handcuffed for eating. It's that citations can't be given to minors because 1.) they usually have no ID, and 2.) they want to make sure the parents know. So they have to take her into custody.
There's another rule that requires all people taken into custody be cuffed. Partly this arises out of complaints from people who were cuffed before that rule that not everyone was cuffed - it was discrimination. So they made a rule that everyone had to be cuffed.
Neither rule in and of itself is idiotic. Removing discretion from officers such that the choice was let her go or cuff her was the idiotic thing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
