Green Room

TSA detains passenger because she showed ‘bad attitude’

posted at 2:16 pm on September 8, 2012 by

You have to admire the ingenuity of the Transportation Security Administration. Who else could have dreamed up this brilliant two-part strategy? First, you test the patience of air travelers by forcing them to jump through hoops at airport security. Then when they become vexed over all the pointless and unnecessary red tape, you ground them on the basis that their attitude needs adjustment (h/t Infowars).

Such was the experience of an unnamed traveler who was prevented from boarding her flight in late August following a dust-up with a TSA officer. The woman, who captured the altercation on video, posted it to YouTube along with the following account:

This was inside the terminal at the Houston airport. I was not allowed to board a plane (even though I had already been through airport security) because I drank my water instead of letting the TSA ‘test’ it. The TSA agent finally admitted that it wasn’t because they thought I was a security risk—it was because the TSA agent, Louis Godeaux, was mad at me!

In the video, the woman can be heard plainly saying to Godeaus, “Let me get this straight. This is retaliatory for my attitude. Yhis is not making the airways safer. It’s retaliatory.”

The officer can be heard just as plainly replying, “It pretty much definitely is.”

The rule that the woman initially violated is one that was added to the TSA’s passenger torture list in July. Under the policy, agents are permitted to inspect beverages at the gate (just in case a passenger sneaks a Styrofoam cup of liquid explosive through security).

It is worth noting that the TSA is not alone in the crusade to discourage air travel. The video here chronicles the ordeal of a woman detained by airport security for 10 hours after her flight in February. Her crime? Painting her fingernails mid-flight.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com.

 

Recently in the Green Room:

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

the TSA- making even the fattest, laziest, dumbest donut swilling near comatose rent-a-cop seem like sherlock holmes- since 2001.

mittens on September 8, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Errata:

In the video, the woman can be heard plainly saying to Godeaus Godeaux, “Let me get this straight. This is retaliatory for my attitude. Yhis This is not making the airways safer. It’s retaliatory.”

Howard Portnoy on September 8, 2012 at 2:50 PM

That is just one of hundreds of reasons I don’t fly. I would have a ‘bad attitude’ having to do what these slug slimes do and want me to do! I am shocked more people don’t get detained for ‘bad attitude’?
L

letget on September 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

IOW – the TSA agent admitted that testing drinks isn’t about security; it’s about compliance and obedience training.

Kungfoochimp on September 8, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I did not add the advertising link to my comment, and shame on Hot Air for conflating people’s personal statements, with their desire for additional revenue.

Kungfoochimp on September 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM

That is just one of hundreds of reasons I don’t fly. I would have a ‘bad attitude’ having to do what these slug slimes do and want me to do! I am shocked more people don’t get detained for ‘bad attitude’?
letget on September 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I only fly when I have to for work. I don’t enjoy it; the TSA plus the bad attitude of the airlines just make it a less than pleasant experience. I have to moderate my attitude since I am traveling on the company dime.

AZfederalist on September 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM

this is a perfect case for why the TSA should be unionized. otherwise this brave officer might be fired for retaliating against this woman.

chasdal on September 8, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I only fly when I have to for work.

AZfederalist on September 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I’ve started driving even for work travel. Most of my trips are up and down the eastern seaboard, so it works. I’ve had to fly once in the last year. Plus, I can take all my forbidden items with me! (“Why, yes, officer, that is a two-foot long, curved, single-bladed, nail-clipper. Why do you ask?”)

GWB on September 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I’ve started driving even for work travel. Most of my trips are up and down the eastern seaboard, so it works. I’ve had to fly once in the last year. Plus, I can take all my forbidden items with me! (“Why, yes, officer, that is a two-foot long, curved, single-bladed, nail-clipper. Why do you ask?”)

GWB on September 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM

When I need to go to California I do the same thing. However, for us here in AZ, a drive to Dayton, Fort Walton, or the D.C. area is just not a practical thing. Unfortunately, because it is California, I can’t carry.

AZfederalist on September 8, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I’ve pretty much decided never to fly again until I’m allowed to carry my Swiss Army knife on board.

People who suggest the “Atlas Shrugged” movies are far-fetched in this day and age because they feature rail travel as the only means of long distance travel need to consider this.

A government agency is making air travel more and more distasteful and doing so deliberately.

CurtZHP on September 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Who created this monstrocity called TSA? and it’s master planner Department of Homeland Security? Oh yeah, it was Republican George W Bush who did that. Thanks Republicans, without you, who would protect us from progressive freedom stealing programs such as this?

Time for the damned party to get back to its roots and the roots of this nation. It will not earn my vote being marginally less progressive than the Democratic party.

astonerii on September 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

And the ones running that agency are the same kind of idiots that push light rail in every major metro area.

CurtZHP on September 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Are they unionized yet? Seem to remember reading something about that not too long ago….

TeresainFortWorth on September 8, 2012 at 5:20 PM

astonerii on September 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

rarely have time to check the green room out…wow!…you’re an azz everywhere!

KOOLAID2 on September 8, 2012 at 6:24 PM

At least infowars is calling it exactly what it is: obedience training.

Dante on September 8, 2012 at 6:33 PM

astonerii on September 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

rarely have time to check the green room out…wow!…you’re an azz everywhere!

KOOLAID2 on September 8, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Brilliant rebuttal, a$$clown. Would you care to try again and actually debate the substance of his assertion? Bush DID sign the TSA into law, and in so doing, made this miserable fustercluck possible. That, my friend, is a settled question.

gryphon202 on September 8, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Yes, Bush did sign the law… after our Copperhead traitors in Congress, using such memorable catchlines as “To professionalize you must federalize”, told him that they would filibuster his ability to defend the country.

“If you don’t have federalism, it doesn’t work,” said Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

“You can’t professionalize unless you federalize,” agreed Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., suggests starting “with a fresh outlook here, giving the system a chance to work … We need the domestic equivalent of the Customs Service.”

His plan would create a new agency with 28,000 new government employees. But this is not a new idea. Twenty years ago, airports in Europe had government-run security systems. They didn’t always stop hijackings.

This was from October 24, just over a month past 9/11. Sure, Copperheads were behind the President after 9/11… so they could place the daggers.

SDN on September 8, 2012 at 8:53 PM

It’s time to drastically scale back TSA’s presence at airports. To be honest, we are probably now under no greater threat than we were before 9/11. I haven’t ever seen other countries doing this sort of thing. Yes, I realize we have people at TSA sitting up all night thinking up possible scenarios and they are attempting to keep us 100% safe from every possible angle of attack … but there must be some reasonable place for probability to enter the equation.

They are already looking inside our underpants. Isn’t that enough?

crosspatch on September 8, 2012 at 9:41 PM

The video here chronicles the ordeal of a woman detained by airport security for 10 hours after her flight in February. Her crime? Painting her fingernails mid-flight.

10 hours is a bit much. But putting on fingernail polish in a confined space is a real jackass move. It might even be worse than tobacco smoke.

JimC on September 8, 2012 at 10:03 PM

SDN on September 8, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Oh, please.

Dante on September 8, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Please what? Please quit reminding you of the unpleasant facts? Sorry, you’ll have to head back to Daily Kos for that.

SDN on September 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Unfortunately, I currently work for TSA – at this airport, at this terminal, at the checkpoint where these people work. I have personal knowledge of this particular incident as well, and it did not go down as described by this woman. She refused to have her liquid screened (would have taken about 10 seconds, and the man with her allowed his to be screened no problem) and threw a fit. The TSOs had to call the airlines and get LEOs involved. The LEOs detained her and the airline (United) decided to remove her from the flight as she was causing a huge scene. You don’t see any of that in the video.

Personally, as someone who knows how it works from the inside I believe that TSA needs to be either abolished and reprivatized or completely restructured. It is a disfunctional agency in many ways, and positive changes are far too slow in coming. The inefficiencies discust me, as does the fact that we can’t seem to rid ourselves of the many mouthbreathers that plague our ranks. As the outfit is unionized now, however, it is probably too late to really change things.

But I must dispute this particular story, as I know what actually happened, and it is being misrepresented here. You must understand that when someone refuses screening that we cannot simply say, “Oh well then, never mind, have a nice flight”, we have to check the situation out. When you refuse screening, expect a hassle, and throwing a fit – which is what this woman actually did – is not going to improve the situation.

So… Fire away. :)

KevinB on September 8, 2012 at 11:41 PM

KevinB on September 8, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Your account is no different from what I reported except that you omit the recorded exchange between the passenger and the TSO, in which he concedes that the TSA’s actions are in retaliation for her attitude.

Howard Portnoy on September 9, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Yes but she left out the part about her throwing a fit, attracting the attention of LEOs, the fact that it was the airline that threw her off the flight… Pretty much all context, as it is.

And again, if someone refuses screening they are going to draw ALOT of unwanted attention – and that is as it should be. The officer in the video – I know him personally – used a poor choice of words, but make no mistake, the woman attracted this attention because she refused screening, not because of her bad attitude. We deal with people with bad attitudes *all day long*, and as long as they are screened they mozy right past us. Refuse screening and you aren’t going anywhere. Period.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 12:07 AM

FWIW I don’t want to interrupt the TSA-bashing – the agency fully deserves much of what is thrown at it – I just want to set the record straight in this particular instance. I know the people involved, and it did not go down as this woman is saying. She was stopped because she refused screening, not because of her attitude, although the huge fit she threw did result in her being thrown off the flight.

The *very* short clip is of an officer using a poor choice of words and omits all context. Not trying to make excuses for that – what was said should not have been said – but I want to make clear that this woman was stopped for her refusal to submit to screening, not for her bad attitude.

Anyways, bash away.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Refusing screening and wanting to keep the water is one thing, that would be a security risk. Once she drank the water, it should be “incident over”. There is no longer any potential security threat at that time. The problem, as it appears, and likely caused her to “throw a fit” was that she apparently got the idea she was being “punished” when it is not TSA’s job to punish people.

If the TSA employees continued to so much as even talk to her after she drank that water, they were probably in the wrong. At that point there is no security issue, which is their job, and it is time for them to move on.

In fact, the screeners should say “you may drink your water or you must allow us to check it, please” and give the person the option of drinking it.

Now, had she refused screening yet demanded to keep her unscreened water, yes, TSA has a right to jack things up a notch or two.

crosspatch on September 9, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Personally, I agree with you – once the passenger has drunk their liquid I am no longer worried about it. We however have an SOP that dictates certain procedures that we have to follow regardless of our personal opinions, and follow it we will. Welcome to government life, common sense is not needed when you have an SOP to follow…

As much as it drives me crazy, the officers were actually operating in accordance with SOP. Doing anything differently could potentially get them fired. Like it or not, that is what we are paid to do, and that is the world we live in. One of the many problems with TSA is that it is run overwhelmingly by ex-military (I am one of those, too) who believe in the totality of following orders without question or thought, which is why so many officers act as drones. It is drilled into everyone to follow SOP, even when it goes against our better judgement.

There are changes coming down the pipe that will give us more leeway in using common sense, and that will aloow us to avoid some situations like these, but for now we follow SOP to the letter.

At any rate, refusing screening will always earn someone a bad outcome, usually a missed flight at the least.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 12:59 AM

@KevinB

“At any rate, refusing screening will always earn someone a bad outcome, usually a missed flight at the least.”

In other words, It Puts The Lotion On The Skin, Or Else It Gets The Hose Again.

Obedience training.

Snowblind on September 9, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Obedience training, whatever. You can think of it as a control issue if that makes you feel better or more justified next time you opt out, but the fact remains that there are people out there who are very interested in blowing up airplanes, and as long as that is the case we will have to try to stop and/or deter them. You can argue the tactics, but the need for some sort of response is obvious.

Like I said earlier, people give us crap all day long, but as long as they comply with the screening that they have given implied consent to they will walk right past us after being screened and get on their plane.

The best way to stop bad guys is to find and kill/capture them before they launch an attack. That is done by folks other than TSA. TSA is the last line, and it is meant to deter more than anything else, and we cannot deter if we are just letting any schmoe through who refuses screening.

If someone refuses screening, they are going to be stopped. Is it really that hard to understand why? It’s a simple concept.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 1:34 AM

At any rate, refusing screening will always earn someone a bad outcome, usually a missed flight at the least.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 12:59 AM

When the cure kills the barely suffering soon to be well patient I tend to not want the cure.
Screening every single person is beyond acceptable, it is POLICE state. There are only a handful of people who need to be screened. They have a specific religion, a specific gender, a specific age group. Your job is a bogus one. It has prevented precisely 0 events, has allowed plenty of events to get through because you never checked the people who actually had the highest likelihood of committing the attacks. No, you probably have no control over it, but I could care less, any more than I would care that the dude at the other end of the bullet is just serving his country…

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 1:37 AM

LOL, ignorance on display, astonerii.

1) You are correct that they have one religion, but incorrect that they have a specific age group or gender. It is well documented that they will use the young and elderly, the infirm, women, the mentally challenged, for suicide attacks. They did it many times when I was in Iraq.

2) Screening everyone the same is ludicrous. We are moving to change that, finally – it only took a decade (hey, it moves at the speed of government…)

3) How exactly do you know how many events it has prevented? One cannot know how many attacks have been deterred. Only the bad guys know that.What I do know personally is that a large number of test runs have been caught coming through our system, virtually none of them publicized. They are constantly probing us.

4) Who has gotten through US security with an IED? ALL incidences where someone has gotten past security with an IED (Reid, Abdul Mutallab) have come from *outside* the USA, through foreign security systems. And IED is the only realistic threat to bringing down an airplane at this point, and is their preferred method. They haven’t tried to bring one through our system yet, but have successfully brought them through foreign systems. Why?

5) Thanks alot for comparing me to a foreign enemy. You are off the deep end on that one. Disagree with me all you want, but lowering the discourse by comparing me to someone on the receiving end of your bullet is well, pretty freaking low.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 1:48 AM

If your argument is that TSA is not worth the expenditure as currently constituted, I will not argue with you. Seeing the waste and inefficiency that I see every day, I would agree. If your argument is that some or all of TSA’s operations should be privatized, I would agree, except to not that a national standard should be set for minimum security requirements that any private entities should adhere to (this was the problem with 9/11, there were no standards). If you argue that not all passengers should be treated the same, I will take your side as well. You can certainly treat granny in the wheelchair differently than you treat 35 y/o Mohammed with the one way ticket from NYC to LA.

But if your argument is that we should simply step aside when someone refuses screening then I will not go along with you on that. It should be obvious why.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 2:06 AM

I fly at least two cross country round trips a month. If I don’t fly, I don’t work. The TSA hoop-jumping is very irritating, not to mention the invasion of privacy, but I go along to get along. It’s just not worth missing a flight because I lose my composure, which I always regret doing anyway.

Last is First on September 9, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Yes, the TSA needs puttin’ in its place early on–or abolition. That’s my quasi-campaign promise!

Olo_Burrows on September 9, 2012 at 3:28 AM

5) Thanks alot for comparing me to a foreign enemy. You are off the deep end on that one. Disagree with me all you want, but lowering the discourse by comparing me to someone on the receiving end of your bullet is well, pretty freaking low.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Actually me on the receiving end…

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 3:39 AM

They haven’t tried to bring one through our system yet, but have successfully brought them through foreign systems. Why?

Not because they were 80 year old infirm women… Or infants with diapers.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 3:40 AM

Please what? Please quit reminding you of the unpleasant facts? Sorry, you’ll have to head back to Daily Kos for that.

SDN on September 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Whereas you ignore unpleasant facts such as Bush signing the Patriot Act, the DHS, and the TSA into existence. Wake up, man. There aren’t two parties; there is only one Big Government War Party.

Dante on September 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM

She refused to have her liquid screened (would have taken about 10 seconds, and the man with her allowed his to be screened no problem) and threw a fit. The TSOs had to call the airlines and get LEOs involved. The LEOs detained her and the airline (United) decided to remove her from the flight as she was causing a huge scene. You don’t see any of that in the video.

KevinB on September 8, 2012 at 11:41 PM

How dare a free citizen refuse! She must be punished! If only everyone would just lay down their rights and be compliant little sheep.

Only to a government brownshirt would standing up for one’s rights equate to throwing a fit.

Dante on September 9, 2012 at 8:49 AM

One of the many problems with TSA is that it is run overwhelmingly by ex-military (I am one of those, too) who believe in the totality of following orders without question or thought,

5) Thanks alot for comparing me to a foreign enemy. You are off the deep end on that one. Disagree with me all you want, but lowering the discourse by comparing me to someone on the receiving end of your bullet is well, pretty freaking low.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 1:48 AM

You and your kind are more of a threat to my liberties than a terrorist ever could be.

Dante on September 9, 2012 at 8:54 AM

FACT: TSA personnel conceded that the woman in question was NOT, in fact, a security threat.

FACT: She was detained and ultimately held off her flight because of her refusal to obey the TSA personnel.

I expect TSA personnel to defend their jobs no matter how much bullshit flinging such defense entails, but can anyone argue either of these two salient points? They sound like salient questions to me.

In any event, I think it’s safe to infer that if TSA concedes the woman is not a security threat, then the TSA’s job is not to handle security threats. That’s certainly not what they were doing in this particular instance. And does anyone really believe this is an isolated incident?

gryphon202 on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 AM

” We however have an SOP that dictates certain procedures that we have to follow regardless of our personal opinions, and follow it we will. Welcome to government life, common sense is not needed when you have an SOP to follow…”

Kevin B you and your fellow employees disgust me. You have cost me more time and money than terrorists; you delight in your petty rules and hide behind mis-granted authority. Know as I walk past you at the checkpoint I view you as a loathsome individual not worthy of any respect. Get a real job and I’ll admire you.

I gave up being a Republican in part because of Bush’s agreement to create the TSA. Anyone with brains could see that was a disaster in the making.

Over50 on September 9, 2012 at 10:43 AM

gryphon202 –

Your “facts” are a little off.

They concluded that she was not a threat *after* they had checked her out. It turns out that this woman was a governmenet employee at a different agency and simply didn’t think that she should be subjected to screening like everyone else. Until they checked her out, however, they had no idea who she was or whether or not she is a threat.

She was detained by HPD – TSA does not have the authority to detain anyone – and she was booted from the flight by the airline. That was not TSA’s decision, but the airline’s. When HPD ultimately released her the airline agreed to book her on to a later flight.

It is funny that in these stories the other actors are never involved – it’s always big mean old TSA… Any time someone is “detained” it is by definition someone else doing it, pretty much invariably the local cops. You give more credit to TSA than they have the authority to claim.

As I said, there are many, many things wrong with TSA, and I personally would like to see the whole thing scrapped and have us start over, but that is not going to happen. I simply want to clear up this particular incident because I actually know what happened. This woman literally threw a fit (as in shaking uncontrollably with rage, shrieking like a harpy, and generally causing a huge disturbance). She had calmed down by the time she decided to start recording video – that was basically the aftermath.

The context of the incident is completely omitted here, and the actual reason for her being stopped in the first place. If we are interested in reality here then that needs to be laid out.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 10:51 AM

The lady who drank her water gets my sympathy. The fingernail painter does not. The smell of nail polish makes me violently ill and I am not alone. Ten hours’ detainment may be a little extreme but that woman asked for it. She was told to put the polish away because of the smell. Instead, she headed for the lav to finish the job. Since air recirculates through the entire cabin, including the lav, her polish continued to stink up the plane and nauseate passengers.

Not one passenger on that flight came forward to defend her. What does that tell you?

creeper on September 9, 2012 at 11:23 AM

The context of the incident is completely omitted here, and the actual reason for her being stopped in the first place. If we are interested in reality here then that needs to be laid out.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Oh, so it’s about “context” now, huh? My facts are “a little off,” but you can’t tell me where I’m actually wrong. Like I said, I’d expect you to defend your employer. That’s fine. What’s not fine is that you piss on me and then tell me that it’s raining.

We are living in a tyranny, ladies and gentlemen. Some, such as our loyal TSA employee here, are okay with that. I’m not. I will not fly on an American airline, or into our out of any airport under TSA jurisdiction, until the TSA is abolished.

gryphon202 on September 9, 2012 at 11:25 AM

By the by, if the TSA doesn’t have as much authority to detain/arrest as it appears they do, perhaps local LEO should just stop cooperating with the TSA altogether. Let’s see what happens then.

gryphon202 on September 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM

gryphon202 –

Do you have reading comprehension issues? I told you two areas where you were wrong. They conceded she was not a threat *after* she was checked our; they cannot make that conclusion before she is screened. And she was detained because she refused to be screened, which will be the case any time someone refuses screening.

This is not a difficult concept to wrap one’s head around. You have a right to refuse screening, but you will NOT be allowed aon that plane. Forget TSA, the airlines themselves will not allow you on the plane; they do NOT want anyone who A) has not submitted to screening or B) who is causing a disturbance to set foot on their airplanes. The airplane is their property and they are certainly within their rights to deny you entry. Think about that next time you decide to throw a fit and “refuse to obey” at a checkpoint.

And again, (for what, the third time or so?) I am not defending my employer here. I have *repeatedly* stated in no uncertain terms that TSA fully deserves most of what it gets.I am pointing out that the story as represented here is misleading, and the claim that the woman was “detained” and denied entry because of her attitude is false. This happened because she refused screening. You will ALWAYS have a problem if you refuse screening, and not just with TSA, that will ALWAYS get the airlines and local cops involved, and neither one of them will let you set foot on an airplane without being screened.

As for your traveling choices, you are free to drive wherever, use rail, boat, or whatever alternative method of travel that you want. But understand that as long as people are trying to blow up airplanes, you will be screened at airports *whether TSA is there or not*. Abolishing TSA will only change how things are run, not whether youy have to be screened to board an aircraft.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 11:49 AM

LOL, local LEOs stop cooperating with TSA? Dude, you are delusional. You are truly living in a fantasy world if you think that’s even remotely likely.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 11:59 AM

LOL, local LEOs stop cooperating with TSA? Dude, you are delusional. You are truly living in a fantasy world if you think that’s even remotely likely.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I’m not saying they would. I’m not even saying they necessarily should. I think they should, but that’s not what my assertion is predicated on. If the LEO’s stopped cooperating with the TSA, it wouldn’t mean the end of the TSA’s power. It would mean federal agents coming in to do what the local LEO used to do. The “LEO’s do all the detention and arresting” argument is weak tea at best, a straw man at worst. The whole purpose for having local LEO around is so that the TSA has an alibi for its grotesque abuse of power. It’s not state, county, or municipal law that the LEO’s are enforcing — it’s FEDERAL. And the TSA has absolutely NO jurisdiction whatsoever to force local law enforcement into doing its dirty work. NONE.

gryphon202 on September 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Good old King George. I mean George Bush. Imagine these infringements on liberty happening to the founders…

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2