Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?

  • News
  • Thread starter FlexGunship
  • Start date
In summary, there is a trend among police officers in the United States of confiscating cameras or prosecuting individuals who videotape police interactions with private citizens. In one case this year, a motorcyclist with a helmet video camera recorded a police officer drawing a gun on him during a traffic stop had his computers and cameras taken by police from his home for felony wiretapping for recording the incident. Another case this year involved a man with home surveillance video who was arrested and charged with felony wiretapping when he showed the video to police of a detective forcing his way into his private residence. In Maryland, a women was arrested and her cell phone taken for trying to record an instance of abuse of power by police. Jeffrey Manzelli, 46
  • #1
FlexGunship
Gold Member
426
8
There was an article in a magazine I read pointing out the trend (alarming or not) of police officers confiscating cameras, or prosecuting individuals who video tape police interactions with private citizens.
  • In one case this year, a motorcyclist with a helmet video camera recorded a police officer drawing a gun on him during a traffic stop had his computers and cameras taken by police from his home for felony wiretapping for recording the incident.

    If you look at the video, the trooper steps out of an unmarked car, you can't see his badge and it is give seconds before he identifies himself as state police. But it's not the trooper who is in trouble; it's Graber.

    "He had been recording this trooper audibly without his consent," stated said one official.

    That kind of recording is against the law in Maryland. as a matter of fact, audibly recording somebody without their consent is a felony.

    "Police show up at my house today. They come in and they take four computers, two laptops and my camera and they were going to arrest me," shared Graber.
    (Source: ABC News affiliate http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0410/725740.html [Broken])​
  • In another case a man with home surveillance video was arrested and charged with felony wiretapping when he showed the video to police of a detective forcing his way into his private residence.

    A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons.

    Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.

    “He was just very smart-mouthed. He put his foot in the door, and my husband said, ‘Excuse me, I did not invite you in, please leave,’ and he wouldn’t,” Janet Gannon said. “We did not invite him in, we asked him to leave, and he wouldn’t.”
    (Source: The Nashua Telegraph: http://fnhp.com/thelist/Nashua-Gannon_Karlis.html [Broken])​
  • In another New Hampshire incident, a man was charged with felony wiretapping for videotaping the police response to an underage drinking party.

    A New Castle man arrested at a July 4 house party is charged with a count of wiretapping, alleging he used his cell phone to film the police response.
    (Source: Seacoast Online: http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100706-NEWS-100709886)​
  • In Maryland, a women was arrested and her cell phone taken for trying to record an instance of abuse of power by police.

    [Officer] Handy seized the cell phone, reviewed its camcorder content and "could hear my voice and the voices of the other subjects I was talking to," the officer wrote in the charging papers, and he questioned Shaw.

    "She did admit to recording our encounter on her cell phone," the corporal wrote, "for the purpose of trying to show the police are harassing people."

    Shaw said Tuesday that she recorded the incident to show the conduct of the law officers.

    "I honestly did not know that I was not able to do that," Shaw said. "He just snatched my phone from me and locked me up."
    (Source: Southern Maryland Newspapers: http://www.somdnews.com/stories/06162010/entetop162348_32195.shtml [Broken])​
  • There's a case in Boston of a man being charged with felony wiretapping for recording police at an anti-war rally.

    Jeffrey Manzelli, 46, a Cambridge sound engineer, was convicted of illegal wiretapping and disorderly conduct for recording MBTA police at an antiwar rally on Boston Common in 2002.

I believe this is a problematic trend and shows a desire for police to not be held accountable for their actions. Does anyone have other stories or a differing opinion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What if you inform them that you're recording them as soon as they approach? Then they're no longer being recorded without their knowledge.

I've thought about this previously, as I had been hassled by police officers multiple times. (Basically I drove an old 91 Acclaim with the trunk covered in punk band stickers, and used to play a lot of video games at a friends house until 2 or 3 in the morning, then I'd drive home. I never drank or did anything illegal, but every time I could tell the officer was hoping I'd be drunk or have drugs or something. Only violation I ever received was a citation for my tail lights "Not being red enough" as they had sun faded a little.)

But as soon as I thought I should start recording these, I realized that its probably a violation of privacy to record someone without their knowledge. At least in Michigan I think the law is at least ONE of the party must know they are being recorded. This prohibits people from wiretapping others' phone lines.

But I believe the officer can record your encounter without your knowledge; why should they get a special privilege?
 
  • #3
Hepth said:
What if you inform them that you're recording them as soon as they approach? Then they're no longer being recorded without their knowledge.

I was thinking about installing a dashboard video camera to record any traffic stops from now on and putting a clearly visible sticker on my rear windshield that says "Warning to law enforcement: interaction with the driver is recorded." But I feel like this would just instigate altercations.

Likely, the first thing they would say is: "turn off the camera." And I'll say: "Afraid of what it will see and hear?"

Which is another double standard... "You don't have permission to search my car." "Afraid of what I'll find?"
 
  • #4
Last edited:
  • #5
Evo said:
Okay, let's keep this on the topic of whether secret vs public video/audio taping violates the law, and let's drop the sensationalism please.

Well, actually, one of the goals of my post was to show that whether you (a) video tape a police officer entering your home without permission, or (b) video tape a police officer drawing a gun during a traffic stop on a highway (i.e. public or private), the reaction is the same: felony wiretapping.

In the case of the home entry, the resident had signs clearly stating that his home was under constant video surveillance (as per the link). The motorcyclist had a camera on his helmet in plain view.

The common thread seems not to be secretly videotaping someone. But rather that you've recorded a police faux pas. And instead of thanking the citizen for bringing forth the evidence of misconduct (arguable misconduct, of course), they are charged with a felony.

Evo said:

Agreed. I selected a quote from it for my original post. I appreciate that you shared it with me.
 
  • #6
Hepth said:
What if you inform them that you're recording them as soon as they approach? Then they're no longer being recorded without their knowledge.

First, the very act of confiscating clearly indicates they have knowledge.

Second, in almost all instances, it's a case of police overstepping the bounds of their authority, as videotaping activities occurring in public is legal. There are very few locals where it's legislated as being illegal, and even then, the constitutionality of such laws is highly questionable.

In many more areas, the legality of personal video recorders used to record encounters with law enforcement and other citizens has been upheld as a legal, individual right with which the police cannot interfere. Indeed, cases where police have confiscated personal video recorders and returned them without the recorded encounter have been thrown out by judges who ruled that law enforcement had tampered with evidence. As a result, most law enforcement agencies these days are well-briefed to not interfere with or confiscate personal recording devices, and even if the individual is arrested, to have the individual turn off the unit during booking to ensure there's no question of police interference.
 
  • #7
Do the cops inform us that we are being recorded and video taped, since they all have dash cams, when they pull us over? As far as I recall, I have never been informed of that, usually all they ask is license and registration please.

I read a pretty good article on a similar topic, other policemen who whistle blow on bad cops or have tried to stop beatings are the ones who are punished, the beaters are the ones who get exonerated and have their careers advanced. I'll try to find it.

Imo, cops are above the law, because laws are written to protect cops at the expense of our rights.

Edit: Here is the promised http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/18/americas-most-successful-stop" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Jasongreat said:
Imo, cops are above the law, because laws are written to protect cops at the expense of our rights.
Get used to it.

In their capacity as police officers, policemen DO have a stronger judicial status than the private citizen (including off-duty policemen).

For example, they have the right to apprehend, with the necessary level of applied force, ordinary citizens they think should be apprehended.

That doesn't make them "above the law" in general, but "above the laws regulating the private citizens' conduct"
 
  • #9
I don't know about America, but in the UK you can record anything that is "in the public domain" without a problem.

You see a lot of police shows where cameramen follow the police and when the criminal complains they're told "tuff, it's in a public place and it's perfetly legal".

However, I'm not sure about hidden cameras. I know on private property you have to inform people if you intend to use the images, not sure about public areas.
 
  • #10
jarednjames said:
I don't know about America, but in the UK you can record anything that is "in the public domain" without a problem..
Unless you are in a secret security zone - such as near an unmarked secret facility or near public transport or near any possible terrorist target, or in say london (section44)

Or the photograph of a policeman might identify them (section 76)

Or the police think your photo might be useful to terrorists (section 43)
 
  • #11
jarednjames said:
I don't know about America, but in the UK you can record anything that is "in the public domain" without a problem.

You see a lot of police shows where cameramen follow the police and when the criminal complains they're told "tuff, it's in a public place and it's perfetly legal".

However, I'm not sure about hidden cameras. I know on private property you have to inform people if you intend to use the images, not sure about public areas.
The law in the US differs in each state, and even from town to town.

In some states it is illegal to make an adio/video tape without consent of both parties, in most states secret taping is illegal.
 
  • #12
NobodySpecial said:
Unless you are in a secret security zone - such as near an unmarked secret facility or near public transport or near any possible terrorist target, or in say london (section44)

Or the photograph of a policeman might identify them (section 76)

Or the police think your photo might be useful to terrorists (section 43)

Terrorism. The most convenient excuse for taking away our freedoms. We have the "Protect Ameica" act in the US. Which pretty much translates to the "Invade America's Privacy" act.

But if you try to "invade" law enforcement's privacy, you're possibly contributing to terrorism.

This is going in an excellent direction for my fascist regime.
 
  • #13
Evo said:
The law in the uis differes in each state, and even from town to town.

In some states it is illegal to make an adio/video tape without consent of both parties, in most states secret taping is illegal.

I wonder if this will end up becoming a Constitutional issue in federal courts.
 
  • #14
Pythagorean said:
Terrorism. The most convenient excuse for taking away our freedoms.
Funnily enough we didn't need bans on cameras in Trafalgar square for the 30years that we did actually have terrorist bombs exploding in England.
 
  • #15
Section 43 is regarding searching people. It is the power of the police to search people they deem may be a terrorist. So to use this they have to suspect you as a terrorist and pursue it as such. Better be some good evidence to back that up.

Section 76, as above is relating to terrorism. To stop you they have to prove the link between you and terrorism. So far it appears people have only been asked to explain why they are taking pictures of police/armed forces etc.

I point you to this quote here from Downing Street:
In a statement, Number 10 said that while there were no legal restrictions on taking pictures in public places, "the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else".

There are no restrictions on taking photos. If you arouse suspiscion then you will be questioned.

So far as public transport or otherwise, as above people have only been questioned as to why they are taking pictures, not stopped from what I've seen.

EDIT: I'd also point you to the fact that Section 44 has been restricted and you must be suspected of being a terrorist under Section 43. They can't just stop you.
 
  • #16
NobodySpecial said:
Funnily enough we didn't need bans on cameras in Trafalgar square for the 30years that we did actually have terrorist bombs exploding in England.

I haven't heard of any ban on cameras in TS. Is it really in place?
 
  • #17
jarednjames said:
I haven't heard of any ban on cameras in TS. Is it really in place?

He's being facetious. There is no ban on cameras, neither today, nor at the time when the country was under terrorist attack on a regular basis.
 
  • #18
jarednjames said:
EDIT: I'd also point you to the fact that Section 44 has been restricted and you must be suspected of being a terrorist under Section 43. They can't just stop you.
The european court said that S44 is unreasonable - the police haven't stopped using it.

The only difference is that under S44 they can stop and search you without reason - under section 43 they merely have to have a suspicion you are committing acts useful to terrorism.
It doesn't say that their suspicion has to stand up in court.

Section 44 also defines special sensitive areas where you can be stopped and searched without suspicion, however these areas are themselves secret. Although the police have admitted that whole of the city London is one, as are all airports, stations and public transport. http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/special/1647621/special-report-foi-requests-extent-section-44 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
NobodySpecial said:
The european court said that S44 is unreasonable - the police haven't stopped using it.

The only difference is that under S44 they can stop and search you without reason - under section 43 they merely have to have a suspicion you are committing acts useful to terrorism.
It doesn't say that their suspicion has to stand up in court.

Section 44 also defines special sensitive areas where you can be stopped and searched without suspicion, however these areas are themselves secret. Although the police have admitted that whole of the city London is one, as are all airports, stations and public transport. http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/special/1647621/special-report-foi-requests-extent-section-44 [Broken]

Section 44 was first suspended and has now been re-instated with restrictions. The restrictions being that you can only search someone under the provisions of Section 43 (you are suspected of being a terrorist).
The court had ruled that Section 44 stop-and-search anti-terrorism powers are illegal, back in January.

Theresa May said yesterday: 'I will not allow the continued use of Section 44 in contravention of the European Court's ruling and, more importantly, in contravention of the civil liberties of every one of us.'

Officers will only be allowed to use Section 44 in relation to searches of vehicles.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_wary_after_terror_law_change_news_299959.html [Broken]

Section 44 is no longer what it was when initially installed for police use.

Please not your article is referring to when the laws first came out - published in Deceber 2009. This isn't an accurate reflection of the current Section 44. You can no longer be searched without suspicion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
The US is a different country to the UK with (in some cases) very different laws. I don't see what these last few posts have to do with the OP.
 
  • #21
arildno said:
Get used to it.

In their capacity as police officers, policemen DO have a stronger judicial status than the private citizen (including off-duty policemen).

For example, they have the right to apprehend, with the necessary level of applied force, ordinary citizens they think should be apprehended.

That doesn't make them "above the law" in general, but "above the laws regulating the private citizens' conduct"

i think though, that the drive to intimidate people who do photograph or record them while carrying out their official public duties is an intent to act "above the law". they don't want to be held accountable in cases where they do actually violate someone's rights. and one might argue that by violating the freedom of press of ordinary citizens to publish these encounters on youtube, they are also eroding the checks and balances of government.
 
  • #22
My view is that a law should be passed that explicitly makes it legal to videotape *any* uniformed police officer, or rather, anyone wearing a police uniform -- if they're impersonating a police officer, all the more important that they be videotaped. If the police are acting lawfully the video could save them from false accusations; if they're acting unlawfully then it is appropriate that their misdeeds be recorded.
 
  • #23
Pythagorean said:
But if you try to "invade" law enforcement's privacy, you're possibly contributing to terrorism.

This is going in an excellent direction for my fascist regime.

Yeah, I guess I wasn't trying to go to such an extreme, but sensationalism aside, these cases seem to grant a strong precedent (and legal loophole) to prevent the disclosure of police misconduct. In fact, that can really only be the reason.

I can't speak for everyone, but I pay for my local cops and state troopers (and federal agents). As a group we give them special permission to act in our best interest. Our only means of checking that they are doing well is video tape (since judicial precedent shows that discrepancies between police record and victim accounts favor the police). There's actually no other way to show that you are being "harassed" by the police, or worse.

That one tool... video... is a felony.

If you recorded a heroic act performed by a police officer to save a child, do you think you would be charged with felony wiretapping for disclosing it?
 
  • #24
CRGreathouse said:
My view is that a law should be passed that explicitly makes it legal to videotape *any* uniformed police officer, or rather, anyone wearing a police uniform -- if they're impersonating a police officer, all the more important that they be videotaped. If the police are acting lawfully the video could save them from false accusations; if they're acting unlawfully then it is appropriate that their misdeeds be recorded.

I think that's absolutely true and I totally agree. Being videotaped requires no effort from the police officer so it can hardly be called an obstruction. Furthermore, my employer has a lot of security cameras in sensitive locations here at work. Aren't the police supposed to be working for us?

<non-sequitur>Last I heard they were public servants... you know... like Charlie Rangel.</non-sequitur>
 
  • #25
You can record the police here in Canada. Sometimes the cops might act bitchy about it but most of the time (99%) they are cool with it and just go about their job.
 
  • #26
Could you imagine if this were happening in China? How outraged we would all be?
 
  • #27
CRGreathouse said:
My view is that a law should be passed that explicitly makes it legal to videotape *any* uniformed police officer, or rather, anyone wearing a police uniform -- if they're impersonating a police officer, all the more important that they be videotaped. If the police are acting lawfully the video could save them from false accusations; if they're acting unlawfully then it is appropriate that their misdeeds be recorded.

Agreed. There is no false testimony with a recording device.
 
  • #28
czelaya said:
Agreed. There is no false testimony with a recording device.
Unless it's altered, which is super easy.

FlexGunship said:
Could you imagine if this were happening in China? How outraged we would all be?
You've really lost me on that one. I would assume it is illegal. And why would we be outraged? On their list of problems, that's not even in the bottom of the barrel, it's under the barrel.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
CRGreathouse said:
My view is that a law should be passed that explicitly makes it legal to videotape *any* uniformed police officer, or rather, anyone wearing a police uniform -- if they're impersonating a police officer, all the more important that they be videotaped. If the police are acting lawfully the video could save them from false accusations; if they're acting unlawfully then it is appropriate that their misdeeds be recorded.

Agreed, me being the third person to say that. It's important that police be held accountable for their actions.
 
  • #30
Evo said:
And why would we be outraged?

We used to get all high and mighty about the police cracking down on 'freedom' demonstrations in 3rd world countries.

Of course we also used to object to show trials, secret military tribunals and bundling people off to gulags on no evidence.
 
  • #31
NobodySpecial said:
We used to get all high and mighty about the police cracking down on 'freedom' demonstrations in 3rd world countries.

Of course we also used to object to show trials, secret military tribunals and bundling people off to gulags on no evidence.
I don't get why he's bringing up China *and* without stating any facts, just a sweeping remark.

Does he want to discuss the US, or the entire world? If he wants to discuss other countries, he then needs to post the laws in those countries. I'm still waiting for a list of laws for the US. As I pointed out, it varies all over the country. I posted an article which discussed one municipality that worked up a document that gave "consent" for the police to be videotaped. Without discussing laws and specifics, the thread is just a rant.
 
  • #32
Evo said:
I don't get why he's bringing up China *and* without stating any facts, just a sweeping remark.

It's not unreasonable to pose a question which may incite a reader to consider other comparisons. I apologize that it didn't have that effect on you.

I posted four links at the start of the thread all of which detail at least one case (sometimes more) in which a person was arrested and charged with a felony for videotaping police misconduct. They were all reputable journalistic institutions from mainstream sources. I hope we can accept this as a fact moving forward without the need to re-establish it.

Amnesty International considers police brutality and misconduct a form of human rights abuse and has stated so repeatedly:
On 27 May, a thirty-day state of emergency was declared in Peru, under which
certain Constitutional rights have been suspended. Amnesty International is
concerned that this could result in the security forces using excessive force
against demonstrators. The organization is also concerned that this might mark
the beginning of further human rights violations.
Source: (http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR460102003?open&of=ENG-2AM [Broken])
A 10-year police modernization plan has seen human rights training become part of the police training curriculum. However, Amnesty International continues to learn of police brutality and impunity.
Source: (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/reports/above-the-law-police-brutality-in-angola-20070912)

And their 2007 report (entire report available here: http://archive.amnesty.org/report2007/eng/Freedom-from-fear/default.htm [Broken])
[The Amnesty International 2007 report on human rights] also documents widespread police misconduct in many other countries, especially countries with authoritarian regimes.[2]
Source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality#cite_note-Amnesty_2007-1)

More recently, Amnesty International has acknowledged similar problems in the Unites States of America:
barbaric treatment of citizens by U.S. police is allegedly rife. Again according to Amnesty, U.S. police and custody officials “are rarely prosecuted for abuses,”
Source: (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/04/united-nations-human-rights-council/print)

I hope we can accept, as a fact, that police misconduct (especially police brutality), is human rights abuse.

My question was posed to cause the reader to think: "What if I read about this happening in China... would be more upset, less upset, or equally upset?" I chose China, specifically, because of their generally accepted status as a human rights offender.

The one measure by which citizens can decrease police misconduct is by holding police accountable for their actions. Since police are given preferable treatment in the judicial system, the only means to do this is by video recording (or audio recording) the actions of the police.

This is a felony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Evo he's saying if this happened in China America would be looking down on it saying NO! You CAN NOT! They tend to talk a lot of **** abuot the rest of the world when their own social structure etc. is far from being close to the best. That's the point he's making, not particularly hard to understand and it's an opinion so as per forum guidelines he doesn't have to back it up no?

The thread is not a rant it's just a discussion about very real situations that occured, if you don't lik the discussion then why bother taking part? Just to point out how bad of a thread it is? I don't get it.

As well I would love to see you alter a recording and present it as evidence without it being torn apart, I mean it is easy right?
 
  • #34
zomgwtf said:
Evo he's saying if this happened in China America would be looking down on it saying NO! You CAN NOT! They tend to talk a lot of **** abuot the rest of the world when their own social structure etc. is far from being close to the best. That's the point he's making, not particularly hard to understand and it's an opinion so as per forum guidelines he doesn't have to back it up no?

The thread is not a rant it's just a discussion about very real situations that occured, if you don't lik the discussion then why bother taking part? Just to point out how bad of a thread it is? I don't get it.

As well I would love to see you alter a recording and present it as evidence without it being torn apart, I mean it is easy right?
I had hopes that it could be a worthwhile discussion and not a rant, but I see that some people just want to rant and not actually know facts. It *is* my function to try to keep discussions here from being *rants*, to try and raise the bar on the level of discussion with useful information, not sensationalism. Shall we turn on the applause meter and shout out names of countries? *China*, *Somalia*, *Iran*.

As I said, if he wants to extend the topic to other countries instead of focusing on the US, fine, then post facts about the laws on filming police in those countries. Now I see the OP has changed the topic from filming police to international human rights.

Video altered by someone that knows how to do it is hard to detect, that's why *experts* have to try to determine if something's been altered. I don't remember saying I would be doing it.
 
  • #35
FlexGunship said:
It's not unreasonable to pose a question which may incite a reader to consider other comparisons.
It is when it's meant to be sensationalist and just cause a knee jerk reaction.

Amnesty International considers police brutality and misconduct a form of human rights abuse and has stated so repeatedly:
Have we switched topics now? I don't see anything about someone being arrested for filming.
 
<h2>1. Is it legal to record police interactions?</h2><p>Yes, it is legal to record police interactions in public spaces as long as you are not interfering with their duties. This is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.</p><h2>2. Can I be arrested for recording the police?</h2><p>No, you cannot be arrested solely for recording the police. However, if you are obstructing their duties or violating any other laws, you may be subject to arrest.</p><h2>3. Is it a felony to record police interactions?</h2><p>No, it is not a felony to record police interactions. In most cases, recording the police is considered a protected form of free speech and is not considered a felony offense.</p><h2>4. Can I record the police without their consent?</h2><p>Yes, you can record the police without their consent as long as you are in a public space and not interfering with their duties. Some states have laws that require all parties to consent to being recorded, so it is important to check your state's laws.</p><h2>5. Are there any exceptions to recording the police?</h2><p>Yes, there are some exceptions to recording the police. For example, if you are on private property, the property owner may have the right to prohibit recording. Additionally, if the police have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in a bathroom or during a confidential conversation, recording may not be allowed.</p>

1. Is it legal to record police interactions?

Yes, it is legal to record police interactions in public spaces as long as you are not interfering with their duties. This is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

2. Can I be arrested for recording the police?

No, you cannot be arrested solely for recording the police. However, if you are obstructing their duties or violating any other laws, you may be subject to arrest.

3. Is it a felony to record police interactions?

No, it is not a felony to record police interactions. In most cases, recording the police is considered a protected form of free speech and is not considered a felony offense.

4. Can I record the police without their consent?

Yes, you can record the police without their consent as long as you are in a public space and not interfering with their duties. Some states have laws that require all parties to consent to being recorded, so it is important to check your state's laws.

5. Are there any exceptions to recording the police?

Yes, there are some exceptions to recording the police. For example, if you are on private property, the property owner may have the right to prohibit recording. Additionally, if the police have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in a bathroom or during a confidential conversation, recording may not be allowed.

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
41
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
90
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
Replies
28
Views
7K
Back
Top