Texas jury finds dad not guilty in mysterious shooting of drunk driver who killed his two sons

posted at 7:21 pm on August 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

A fascinating case. Imagine this: A man and his two boys are pushing their car along a road, just 100 yards or so from their home, after it runs out of gas. Another car comes barreling along and smashes into the rear of their vehicle, crushing one of the kids instantly and throwing the other far enough that he later dies from his injuries. The driver, who turns out to have been drunk, is unconscious at the scene in the driver’s seat. When the cops arrive a short time later, he has a bullet in his head. More from the Houston Chronicle:

Two of the witnesses, William Taylor Duncan, 17, and Landon Lain, 18, testified they saw the crash while driving home together that night. They pulled over when flagged down for help by a man saying his son had been hit.

“(He said) ‘Call the police, my kid has been hit, make sure they don’t leave,’” Duncan told jurors. He said he believed the man was referring to any occupants in the Malibu…

Each teen told jurors the man who flagged them down, asking them to help his children, was not at the crash site for about three minutes. They say he later returned and approached the Malibu.

The teens testified they later heard a gunshot, but neither say they saw anyone with a weapon.

A woman came upon the accident scene and saw a man who appeared “angry,” although she couldn’t (or wouldn’t?) identify him as the boys’ father. A cousin of the drunk driver later claimed that he saw the boys’ father punch the driver through the window of his car. The defense showed at trial that the driver’s window was intact and rolled up when the police got there, but the prosecution countered that the father might have simply opened the driver’s door and punched him that way instead. The gun was never found and no gunshot residue was discovered on the father’s hands, but if he didn’t do it, evidently some random stranger stopped at the scene of a horrible accident, casually murdered the driver by shooting him in the head, and then went on his merry way. Verdict: Not guilty.

I think that’s the right call given the lack of direct evidence and the high bar of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but c’mon. The father is the only person with means, motive, and opportunity here, right? The idea of a stranger swinging by an accident to execute a victim in the small window of time between the crash and the moment police show up is ridiculous. (If that’s what happened, why weren’t the boys shot too?) I have just one question: Why did they try him at all? Prosecutors knew the jury would be on his side and they knew, I assume, that there was no smoking gun. They’re naturally concerned about being seen as endorsing vigilantism, but the facts of the case are so bizarre as to make copycats irrelevant. The thinking, I guess, was that they might get a jury to compromise on second-degree murder: Under Texas law, if you can show that you killed intentionally but due to “sudden passion,” the crime is reduced from a first-degree offense. Even there, though, how likely was it that a jury was going to make this guy do hard time after he watched his kids get run over by a man who, it turned out, had broken the law in getting behind the wheel drunk? The jury’s impulse was, inevitably, going to be that the poor dad had suffered enough and that the “sentence” he imposed on the driver wasn’t unduly strict for having run over two little kids. Seems like a fool’s errand, but I guess the D.A. had to try.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Texas for the win, again!

Anyone care to discuss legalizing marijuana?

unclesmrgol on August 28, 2014 at 12:41 AM

Heh. I see where you’re going…but the rest of the USA ain’t Texas. The grim fact is that this kind of raw, unpolished justice (which is sending the resident lace-panty brigade into a near-earth orbit frenzy) would not fly much of anywhere else.

Who cares whether the driver was drunk? Fact is he plowed into and killed innocent children. Whether he pulled the trigger, or someone else on his behalf did, justice was served. It was “for the children” – which time after time, has always been good enough for the goose.

Today, the gander showed up.

NumberTwo on August 28, 2014 at 12:55 AM

Amen.

If that idiotic phrase is good enough to ramrod every manner of freedom-wrecking abomination of a ‘law’ through Clowngress for decades on end, it is more than good enough for Mr.Sozzled to pay a blood debt incurred by sheer carelessness and stupidity.

LawfulGood on August 28, 2014 at 1:24 AM

It sounds like the man was acquitted due to lack of evidence.

What’s the big deal?

Meremortal on August 28, 2014 at 2:07 AM

They shouldn’t have prosecuted.

They should have had a plea deal where the man and the family he has left, goes through serious counseling.

Because it is hard to imagine a jury that would send him to jail. They had to know that, yet they put him through a trial. Put the whole community through a trial.

It is hard to imagine how he goes through the rest of his life. His boys are dead, and he killed a man. That needs serious counseling. Those are things of PTSS. Trauma.

How does he just pick up and live his life? The system could have helped with a plea bargain for counseling.

petunia on August 28, 2014 at 2:17 AM

Whoever shot the scumbag deserves the thanks of those whose kids will not be killed by the homicidal loser.

profitsbeard on August 28, 2014 at 2:50 AM

Who cares whether the driver was drunk? Fact is he plowed into and killed innocent children. Whether he pulled the trigger, or someone else on his behalf did, justice was served. It was “for the children” – which time after time, has always been good enough for the goose.
Today, the gander showed up.
NumberTwo on August 28, 2014 at 12:55 AM

He didn’t deserve to die. That’s not justice. The drunk driver committed manslaughter, not murder. The murder just compounded the tragedy.

bluegill on August 28, 2014 at 3:25 AM

He did n’t deserve to die. That’s not justice. The drunk driver committed manslaughter, not murder. The murder just compounded of the innocent children was the tragedy.

bluegill on August 28, 2014 at 3:25 AM

Fixed it for you.

Wino on August 28, 2014 at 4:35 AM

bluegill, I agree with Wino.

The fellow made a choice. He chose to get behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated. Sure he was probably a nice guy, and I am sure the kids were too.

Our country is in the middle of a big debate about legalizing mind altering substances for everyday use. Common sense says you wouldn’t even think about legalizing something that effects different people in different ways that could cause the results of this story.

Just because people enjoy drinking and/or smoking pot doesn’t mean people should be allowed to do it anytime they want.

Life has consequences, this idiot made a bad choice and now he has lost his life for it. It should serve as a lesson for those who would think about driving under the influence of alcohol or some other drug.

As for the vigilante justice, I am not for that either. But this situation does sort of give satisfaction in which Justice was not denied or delayed as our current systems seema to put the victims through HeII over.

Nat George on August 28, 2014 at 6:17 AM

Maybe the drunk guy was fleeing an altercation. The other guy caught up after the accident and finished the job.The drunk guy was drunk somewhere, and sometimes drunks get into fights.

tdarrington on August 28, 2014 at 6:30 AM

Here’s a theory: The prosecutor took it to trial knowing the father would never be convicted – and knowing that once found not guilty, the father could never again be tried for the crime if more evidence came to light.

Steven on August 28, 2014 at 7:26 AM

You reap what you sow.

kingsjester on August 28, 2014 at 7:47 AM

Might have been the one-armed man.

Kneale on August 28, 2014 at 8:00 AM

Lesson to be learned here….when your car runs out of gas, especially at night, push it to the side of the road, park it, and walk safely off the side of the road to get a can of gas.

Cherokee on August 28, 2014 at 8:03 AM

Oh, and by the way,the idiot father should have been brought up on charges for endangering the welfare of his children. As much as I feel sorry for the guy for losing his two sons, he was the one who put them in a dangerous situation in the first place.

Cherokee on August 28, 2014 at 8:06 AM

Famed Texas criminal defense attorney Richard “Racehorce” Haynes, after being asked when he knew he had his case won:

“When the last redneck was sworn into the jury panel.”

BigAlSouth on August 28, 2014 at 8:27 AM

BigAlSouth on August 28, 2014 at 8:27 AM

And he never should have gotten Cullen Davis off.

cozmo on August 28, 2014 at 8:36 AM

BigAlSouth on August 28, 2014 at 8:27 AM
And he never should have gotten Cullen Davis off.
cozmo on August 28, 2014 at 8:36 AM

The first time or the second?

BigAlSouth on August 28, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Cherokee on August 28, 2014 at 8:06 AM

And has paid for it.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Oh, and by the way,the idiot father should have been brought up on charges for endangering the welfare of his children. As much as I feel sorry for the guy for losing his two sons, he was the one who put them in a dangerous situation in the first place.

Cherokee on August 28, 2014 at 8:06 AM

Bravo for your depraved part in helping to destroy the culture of our country.

Nobody should ever have to be responsible for their actions, right? I bet you’d be the first person to blame the way a girl/woman was dressed when she’s raped.

UnstChem on August 28, 2014 at 9:30 AM

UnstChem on August 28, 2014 at 9:30 AM

I am sympathetic tho Cherokee’s point of view, if it were me, I know I would blame myself for the situation. Would this have been an outcome I would have ever considered? No way, but the father is suffering the responsibility of his actions, as is the dead drunk who decided to get behind the wheel.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 9:38 AM

BigAlSouth on August 28, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Yes

cozmo on August 28, 2014 at 9:42 AM

I’m not sympathetic to it. It’s a stupid premise to believe that you have any responsibility for someone else’s complete lack of responsibility.

Simply put, Cherokee is blaming the father because he wasn’t pushing his truck down the road 15 minutes prior or later than when the collision occurred.

That’s just plain asinine.

Switching gears, this case would make a great courtroom movie.

UnstChem on August 28, 2014 at 9:49 AM

UnstChem on August 28, 2014 at 9:49 AM

I understand what you are saying but I’m just telling you how I would feel if I ran out of gas that close to home and what I could have done differently. Whoever killed the driver hasn’t hurt my feelings but I know that ultimately I would replay my own actions over and over again. Let’s hope that the drunk lived in a vacuum and didn’t leave behind any that needed him.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Anyone who drives drunk and kills someone is guilty of murder.

It makes no difference to me what the other circumstances are.

The drunk driver is engaging in an ongoing illegal act from the moment he pulls onto the public roadway.

Kinda like illegal aliens. Anything they do is illegal once they cross the border illegally.

davidk on August 28, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Let’s hope that the drunk lived in a vacuum and didn’t leave behind any that needed him.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM

The driver was 20 years old. His parents were in the courtroom for the trial. He made a terrible fatal choice that cost him his life.

I’m sure the father has plenty of sadomasochistic blame swirling around in his mind. What right do any of the rest of have to put any more on him? None of us are better than him.

It’s rather pathetic when someone makes a holier-than-thou statement like what Cherokee did.

UnstChem on August 28, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Yep. If you climb in the saddle, be ready for the ride.

AKA, If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

davidk on August 27, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Maybe he can write a book and say anything he has to say. Double jeopardy protects him from being tried twice for murder, and it might make an interesting read. And it might help his heart to get it off his chest and in his grieving process from losing his two sons.

Raquel Pinkbullet on August 27, 2014 at 8:35 PM

I don’t know if he “took the stand” in the trial. He would have to be careful of implicating himself or others with perjury.

this case would make a great courtroom movie.

UnstChem on August 28, 2014 at 9:49 AM

davidk on August 28, 2014 at 10:11 AM

It’s rather pathetic when someone makes a holier-than-thou statement like what Cherokee did.

UnstChem on August 28, 2014 at 10:08 AM

I think the defenders of the drunk driver are less about holier-than-thou and more like; “there but for the grace of God…”

cozmo on August 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM

He didn’t deserve to die. That’s not justice. The drunk driver committed manslaughter, not murder. The murder just compounded the tragedy.

bluegill on August 28, 2014 at 3:25 AM

Sorry, but drinking, then getting behind the wheel, shows premeditation in my opinion. I know the legal beagles don’t often agree with that, but it’s justice to me. And, no matter the legal niceties, it was justice – his life for those he took.

I’m glad the guy was acquitted. It’s a rotten incident all around, but justice ended up being served, imo.

GWB on August 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM

UnstChem on August 28, 2014 at 10:08 AM

I consider the drunk kid much like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, stupid kids making horrible decisions and in these cases they won’t get the chance to get any wiser. These are the bigger lessons in personal responsibility and I don’t think it is a lesson used enough by parents, even though they have plenty of big profile examples. When my kids were growing up I could take the most inane prank and work it into a scenario where there would be loss of life. I am sorry to say that it doesn’t always work and my kids still did stupid stuff.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 10:25 AM

cozmo on August 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM

It is for me.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

I think the defenders of the drunk driver are less about holier-than-thou and more like; “there but for the grace of God…”

cozmo on August 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM

I don’t think there’s much grace involved when a drunk person gets behind the wheel and takes someone’s life. If the driver had missed, then the argument could very well be made that grace was involved.

God allows bad and evil to happen in this world so that others have the opportunity to grow and overcome those trials and difficulties. To try to live without any risk denies personal growth.

Contrast that with liberals/progressives/communists goals to protect and confine everyone from themselves. They hate personal growth.

UnstChem on August 28, 2014 at 10:38 AM

I live in the town where this happened, and let me just say, there was no way he was going to be prosecuted for this….even if he did do it (which they absolutely could not prove) the dummy that killed his kids got what he deserved. We’re now not having to support him in the Texas prison system, because, unfortunately, they wouldn’t give the death penalty to intoxicated manslaughter.

platykat on August 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

As it probably is for most people.

All of these events were put in to action by the drunk when he decided that the most important thing for him was to drink and then get behind the wheel. If not for those actions none of the others would have happened (except for the other guy breaking down, or running out of gas, I’ve heard it both ways)and three people who are dead would still be alive.

As for learning a lesson, I doubt Ethan Couch has.

cozmo on August 28, 2014 at 10:42 AM

platykat on August 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM

But he was prosecuted and thank God was found not guilty. Small comfort but some.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM

cozmo on August 28, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Think of all the people, young and old, who get behind the wheel after drinking. There’s a special kind of stupid that does that but they say that people never learn from the mistakes of others. I hope that’s not true but it sure looks like. As for Master Couch, I agree, I don’t think he will ever overcome the parenting inflicted on him and the world.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 10:49 AM

You’all seem to forget that the “He Needed Killin’” defense is always valid in Texas.

Tom Servo on August 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

cozmo: wink wink.

Good work. :)

Missy on August 28, 2014 at 10:52 AM

You’all seem to forget that the “He Needed Killin’” defense is always valid in Texas.

Tom Servo on August 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Justified was the first thing that crossed my mind.

UnstChem on August 28, 2014 at 10:56 AM

cozmo on August 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Just to be clear, the kid part would be what I was second guessing, not the drinking and driving.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 11:04 AM

would like to know if the drunk guy with a bullet in his head had a past history of drunk driving?

Not that it matters, but technically he won’t be driving drunk again will he?

portlandon on August 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM

This was in the Houston suburbs. We have so many drunk driving illegals here, that it would not surprise me if he was an illegal. I haven’t seen it mentioned one way or other.

txdoc on August 28, 2014 at 11:17 AM

I consider the drunk kid much like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, stupid kids making horrible decisions and in these cases they won’t get the chance to get any wiser.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 10:25 AM

But neither Zimmerman nor Williams went home to get the weapon, fully removing themselves from the confrontation, only to re-engage and prosecute.

Axeman on August 28, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Axeman on August 28, 2014 at 11:19 AM

I don’t know that this man did either. I don’t think what people think is the logical answer can be used as proof.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 11:29 AM

But neither Zimmerman nor Williams went home to get the weapon, fully removing themselves from the confrontation, only to re-engage and prosecute.

Axeman on August 28, 2014 at 11:19 AM

There is no proof that he went home retrieved a gun and returned and shot him. In fact I don’t even see any mention that he owned a gun or that it disappeared. Then there is the lack of GSR.

Blake on August 28, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Whoever shot the driver should be put away.

I hope the investigation continues.

bluegill on August 28, 2014 at 11:33 AM

bluegill on August 28, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Okay hagfish, I’ll bite…

Why?

cozmo on August 28, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Axeman on August 28, 2014 at 11:19 AM

And if you believe he shot him, I would argue that the time was not enough for him to cool down. Not only were his two kids dead, their deaths were horrendous. As I mentioned earlier, one boy was reported to be almost cut in too.

Blake on August 28, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Justice was only served if the man really didn’t shoot the drunk. If he did shoot the drunk, than it was a simple case of not having enough evidence.

Walter L. Newton on August 27, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Jury nullification says you are wrong.

NotCoach on August 28, 2014 at 11:43 AM

although i greatly sypathize with the father i always look at something like this and wonder

If the drunk driver was tried for this and convicted-would he get a death sentence. My opinion is no-even if he deserved it.

gerrym51 on August 28, 2014 at 11:56 AM

I think that’s the right call given the lack of direct evidence and the high bar of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but c’mon. The father is the only person with means, motive, and opportunity here, right?

If I was on the jury, even with video evidence, I’d vote not guilty.

sumpnz on August 28, 2014 at 11:58 AM

There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable, and praiseworthy.
Ambrose Bierce, “The Devil’s Dictionary”

wagnert in atlanta on August 28, 2014 at 12:08 PM

although i greatly sypathize with the father i always look at something like this and wonder

If the drunk driver was tried for this and convicted-would he get a death sentence. My opinion is no-even if he deserved it.

gerrym51 on August 28, 2014 at 11:56 AM

So?

What about the father who beat to death the man who was raping his daughter? The state declined to prosecute in that instance. Should he have been prosecuted? Why waste the taxpayer’s dollars when a jury will obviously decline to convict?

NotCoach on August 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM

I once witnessed an accident in Van Ness CA where a guy rear ended a lady. Only minor damages and no injuries, until another witness walked up to the guy opened his door and started to wail on him.

Gwillie on August 28, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Oh, and by the way,the idiot father should have been brought up on charges for endangering the welfare of his children. As much as I feel sorry for the guy for losing his two sons, he was the one who put them in a dangerous situation in the first place.

Cherokee on August 28, 2014 at 8:06 AM

A “dangerous situation”? How?

Driving with kids after dark?
Letting kids out of a car after the car is disabled?
What he should have locked them in somehow?

Oh he should have KNOWN drunk drivers would come careening down the road… his crime is not knowing the future with 100% accuracy.

Good plan genius. I’m assuming you know the future with 100% accuracy to demand this of others?
Got any lottery ticket #’s for us?

No? So is your argument “never let anyone under the age of 18 outside, accompanied by an adult or not, especially not after dark”.

You’re arguing it should be illegal not to keep kids in MORE of a bubble than the helicopter parents currently do?

gekkobear on August 28, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Seems like a happy ending to tragic story to me…

wartface on August 28, 2014 at 1:03 PM

gekkobear on August 28, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Those two little guys were probably pretty proud they could help dad.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Justice was served. That is all.

Norwegian on August 28, 2014 at 2:05 PM

This should never have gone to trial. There was no evidence to begin with. The DA should be sued for judicial terrorism.

earlgrey on August 28, 2014 at 2:06 PM

earlgrey on August 28, 2014 at 2:06 PM

But on the upside, he can never be tried again. Unless Holder goes after him for a Civil Rights violation.

Cindy Munford on August 28, 2014 at 2:32 PM

God occasionally reaches down and puts a thumb on the scales of justice.

The tool he uses does not matter.

The driver was a repeat offender? He murdered two young children violently, in front of their loving father?

Seriously, stop feeling sorry for him. Choices have consequences. And you might not like them, but you will most certainly own them in a just world.

Here is a blogspot of the kids killed, their lives ripped away from a family. No future, no hope, no crushing pain and confusion before death.

http://2brotherskilled.blogspot.com/

Liberals try to tilt this with their moral relativity meme. For example, Jihadists rape little girls, chop off heads of innocent people, we waterboard for intelligence to stop future attacks.

Yet we are all the same.

Screw that. No MORE PC!!!

In this case, a person should take away from this tragedy just one lesson, driving drunk and killing kids might get you killed!

The jury agreed.

archer52 on August 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM

I dunno, I’m definitely conflicted on this case. At a minimum the drunk driver should be doing some hard time for manslaughter, but I don’t support vigilante justice either.

I get the impression the police didn’t put much effort into the investigation. The two witnesses heard a gunshot but never saw a gun, and apparently no gun was found in possession of the defendant. No gunshot residue either. Really? Somebody aint’ tellin’ the whole story.

I think the cops and the DA intentionally let this one slide. Mysterious indeed.

Archer on August 28, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Frontier justice at its finest.

nukemhill on August 28, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Here’s a theory: The prosecutor took it to trial knowing the father would never be convicted – and knowing that once found not guilty, the father could never again be tried for the crime if more evidence came to light.

Steven on August 28, 2014 at 7:26 AM

With the education and common sense deficit going around these days, it would be awfully risky to bet on the jury acquitting.

Kevin71 on August 28, 2014 at 4:30 PM

When the cops arrive a short time later, he has a bullet in his head.

Asteroid I’de bet. The POS should have rolled up the sunroof.

V7_Sport on August 28, 2014 at 9:45 PM

The father is the only person with means, motive, and opportunity here, right?

But no evidence, which leaves you with suspicion and no conviction as it should.

Nomas on August 29, 2014 at 7:38 AM

But no evidence, which leaves you with suspicion and no conviction as it should.

Nomas on August 29, 2014 at 7:38 AM

Precisely. The circumstances in which someone should vote “guilty” with no physical evidence are very few and far between.

LawfulGood on August 29, 2014 at 9:36 AM

I think that’s the right call given the lack of direct evidence and the high bar of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but c’mon.

Most of the evidence was circumstantial at best. Investigators found a holster and ammunition in the house, but no gun. None of the reports I’ve read said whether investigators matched the bullet that killed Mr. Banda’s as the same type as that found in the house. Mr. Barajas’ blood was found inside Mr. Banda’s car but again, no reports to know how it was explained away. As for the gunshot residue, this was an interesting read.

So the first problem with the GSR technique is that a shooter can fire a gun and immediately rush out of the room, so not getting any GSR on them. But an innocent bystander, coming to investigate the incident anywhere within the next eight minutes, could have lots of GSR landing on them.

The second problem is that of “cross contamination”. GSR is like talcum powder, and is easily shaken or washed off the hands of the guilty party. In fact, sweat is enough to wash it off – so it moves around easily.

Doesn’t appear to be enough circumstantial evidence to get past reasonable doubt, but certainly enough to warrant the indictment.

The father is the only person with means, motive, and opportunity here, right?

No, the mother was in the vehicle at the time of the accident and the grandparents lived across the street. All had the same motive and opportunity as Mr. Barajas. As to the means, well…

After reading the comments of all those that say Mr. Banda had this coming, one wonders if their minds change if the driver was not drunk, or was elderly with vision problems, or a plethora of other what if’s that end in the same manner as this tragedy.

Rule of Law, except for when…

Heh.

rukiddingme on August 29, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Justifiable homicide.

fogw on August 27, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Needed killin’?

malclave on August 27, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Ah, yes, the dreaded Texas NK defense. Sometimes justice works a bit faster than others.

yesiamapirate on August 29, 2014 at 7:03 PM

I’m a Texan and have no problem with a father exacting justice. Call it karma and move on

neyney on September 1, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3