Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
edjr

Mall Gunman Wanted to Kill Many: Police

Recommended Posts

Maybe a few more nuts need to go apesh1t and kill more people before something is done? probably not. GUNS RULE!! :headbanger:

 

 

 

The masked gunman who opened fire in the crowded Clackamas Town Center mall in suburban Portland, Ore., killing two and seriously injuring a third before killing himself, was trying to "kill as many people as possible."

 

The shooter, wearing a white hockey mask, black clothing and a bullet proof vest, tore through the mall just before 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, entering through a Macy's store and heading to the food court and public areas spraying bullets, according to witness reports.

 

Police have identified the gunman, but have not released his name, Sheriff Craig Roberts told "Good Morning America."

 

"We have been able to identify the shooter over this last night," Roberts said. "I believe, at least from the information that's been provided to me at this point in time, it really was a killing of total strangers. To my knowledge at this point in time he was really trying, I think, to kill as many people as possible."

 

Police have not released the names of the shooter's victims. Clackamas County Sheriff's Department Lt. James Rhodes said authorities are in the process of notifying victims' families.

 

The injured victim, identified by hospital officials as Kristina Shevchenko, has been taken to a hospital, according to Roberts.

 

Nadia Telguz, who said she was a friend of Shevchenko, told ABC News affiliate KATU-TV in Portland that the woman was expected to recover.

 

"My friend's sister got shot," Teleguz told KATU. "She's on her way to (Oregon Health and Science University Hospital). They're saying she got shot in her side and so it's not life-threatening, so she'll be OK."

 

Witnesses from the shooting rampage said that a young man who appeared to be a teenager, ran through the upper level of Macy's to the mall food court, firing multiple shots, one right after the other, with what is believed to be a black, semi-automatic rifle.

 

By 4:40 p.m., police reported finding a group of people hiding in a storeroom. In a surreal moment, even the mall Santa was seen running for his life.

 

"I didn't know where the gunman was, so I decided to kind of eased my way out," said the mall Santa, who the AP identified as 68-year-old Brance Wilson.

 

More than 10,000 shoppers were at the mall during the day, according to police. Roberts said that officers responded to the scene of the shooting within minutes, and four SWAT teams swept the 1.4 million-square-foot building searching for the shooter. He was eventually found dead, an apparent suicide.

 

"I can confirm the shooter is dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound," Rhodes said. "By all accounts there were no rounds fired by law enforcement today in the mall."

 

Roberts said more than 100 law enforcement officers responded to the shooting, and the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are working with local agencies to trace the shooter's weapon.

 

Cell phone video shot at the scene shows the chaos soon after the shooting. When police arrived they were met head on by terrified shoppers, children and employees streaming out. Customers, even a little girl, were being lead out with their hands up.

 

"I think a variety of things happened that I think this could have been much, much worse," Roberts told "GMA." "And to give you some ideas, we got the call at 3:29, we had someone on scene within a minute, 30 seconds.

 

"I think we had a lot of, really, what I consider heroes, of citizens stepping up and helping people get out of the facility," he added. "There were just some really amazing people who stepped up and I think this really could have been much worse."

 

Mall shopper Daniel Martinez told KATU that he had just sat down at a Jamba Juice inside the mall when he heard rapid gunfire. He turned and saw the masked gunman, dressed in all black, about 10 feet away from him.

 

"I just saw him [the gunman] and thought, 'I need to go somewhere,'" Martinez said. "It was so fast, and at that time, everyone was moving around."

 

Martinez said he ran to the nearest clothing store. As he ran, he motioned for another woman to follow. Several others ran to the store as well, hiding in a fitting room. They stayed there for an hour and a half until SWAT teams told them it was safe to leave the mall.

 

Witness Amber Tate said she was in the parking lot of the mall when she saw the shooter run by, wearing a mask and carrying a gun, headed for the Macy's.

 

"He looked like a teenager wearing a gun, like a bullet proof vest and he had a machine, like an assault rifle and a white mask and he looked at me," she said.

 

Other witnesses described the shooter as determined, looking straight ahead. He then seemed to walk through the mall toward the other end of the building, shooting along the way, according to witness reports.

 

"He looked like he was on a mission," survivor Vicki Napoli told ABC News.

 

Witnesses told KATU they heard "pops" and then saw the mall Santa fall to the ground. The man dressed as Santa, Wilson, told KATU that he wasn't concerned at first by what sounded like balloons popping.

 

"Then when I heard about 18 more shots, I decided it was a semi-automatic and I hit the floor and my employees must have just scattered and got out of there because when I got up there was nobody there but me," he said.

 

Others interviewed said that Macy's shoppers and store employees huddled in a dressing room to avoid being found. "I was helping a customer in the middle of the store, her and her granddaughter and while we were looking at sweatshirts we heard five to seven shots from a machine gun fire just outside my store," Jacob Rogers, a store clerk, told KATU.

 

"We moved everyone into the back room where there's no access to outside but where there's a camera so we can monitor what's going on out front," Rogers said.

 

Evan Walters, an employee of a store in the mall, told ABC News Radio that he was locked in a store for his safety and he saw two people shot and heard multiple gunshots.

 

Former FBI agent and ABC News contributor Brad Garrett said the shooter's mask is typical for mass shooters, who often dress up in costume or wear something other than their regular clothes when they open fire in public.

 

"The biggest thing for a mass shooter is the control and empowerment for the shooting," he said. "It isn't uncommon for shooter to wear a costume, or sometimes simply to dress in black. In this case, apparently, he wore a hockey mask. He went there being someone other than who he is in reality because it gives him power."

 

Garrett called the shooting one of the worst scenarios for law enforcement, as malls are more crowded than ever during the holiday shopping season.

 

"The thing about mass shooters is that they almost always are premeditated. They are planned," Garrett said. "This shooter I'm sure went through some period of steps before he actually reached going to mall, and there'll be signs or systems either through friends, online, through relatives that will play into understanding why he committed this act."

 

More guns, More guns! :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A legal gun owner could have stopped him before he got a shot off.

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wanted to kill people, instead of creating a look at me look at me display, simple pipe bombs and a 5 gallon bucket of nails would have been much more effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't chicago have a "no gun" law?

Surely the victims of gun violence stats have to be at 0% right ?

Or way lower than those cities without the law, right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't chicago have a "no gun" law?

Surely the victims of gun violence stats have to be at 0% right ?

Or way lower than those cities without the law, right ?

 

I was just about to post this.

 

36 murders in November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a few more nuts need to go apesh1t and kill more people before something is done? probably not. GUNS RULE!! :headbanger:

 

 

 

More guns, More guns! :banana:

 

Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China is heavily regulated by law. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess guns.

 

I suggest you move to China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China is heavily regulated by law. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess guns.

 

I suggest you move to China.

Same goes for Mexico and we know there is no gun violence in Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 60 rounds fired and only 2 dead? This guy is the worst mass murderer in the history of ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm conflicted on 'guns'. I was born in the south, was shooting shotguns at age 10 with my dad. So its not as if I'm 'scared' of guns per se. However on the other side something just seems a bit weird thinking its okay for everybody to walk around with a loaded handgun in their purse or pocket or holster. It also seems weird when I see those semi-auto guns that you can buy on the internet.

 

What I'm saying is the idea of guns don't bother me. I think a citizen should have the right to own one to protect him or herself, their house and posessions. As well as for hunting purposes and even gamesmenship. With that said surely most reasonable folks understand there has to be strict laws and regulations with gun ownership. And not all 'types' of guns should be legally obtained, housed and used. That is just common sense right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't chicago have a "no gun" law?

Surely the victims of gun violence stats have to be at 0% right ?

Or way lower than those cities without the law, right ?

What's the current cost for a cheap gun and ammunition in Chicago?

 

 

What will they cost 10+ years after banning the sale of firearms and ammunition? Or in 20+ years? Or 50+ years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a few more nuts need to go apesh1t and kill more people before something is done? probably not. GUNS RULE!! :headbanger:

 

More guns, More guns! :banana:

Try to think of these killings as retroactive abortions. That should make it a little more palatable for ya. :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hockey masks should be banned dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a scene in Modern Warfare: Call of Duty 2 where a bunch of Russians are walking through a mall with automatic weapons shooting everyone they can find? I think we should ban video games as well as guns...and malls...and walking. :ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try to think of these killings as retroactive abortions. That should make it a little more palatable for ya. :banana:

 

:lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's infinitely more likely that something bad will happen if you’re armed, than that something good will happen” - Bob Costas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a few more nuts need to go apesh1t and kill more people before something is done? probably not. GUNS RULE!! :headbanger:

 

 

 

 

 

More guns, More guns! :banana:

 

 

Doesn't chicago have a "no gun" law?

Surely the victims of gun violence stats have to be at 0% right ?

Or way lower than those cities without the law, right ?

Living in the sout burbs of chicago there seems to be at least one new news report about someone being shot the previous evening, and yes, there is a ban on fire arms in the city.

 

Edjr, what do you have to say for that? How has the ban on guns helped the citizens of chicago? Illinois is about to get a conceal to carry permit and its about time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China is heavily regulated by law. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess guns.

 

I suggest you move to China.

but there, crazy mutherfuckers walk in to gradeschools with knifes and stab all the children. :(

 

 

Knifes kill people. Outlaw them. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but there, crazy mutherfuckers walk in to gradeschools with knifes and stab all the children. :(

 

 

Knifes kill people. Outlaw them. :mad:

 

This argument is so silly. Using your logic, people should be able to own nuclear warheads and armed stealth bombers. Nuclear warheads and fighter jets don't kill people, people kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't chicago have a "no gun" law?

Surely the victims of gun violence stats have to be at 0% right ?

Or way lower than those cities without the law, right ?

Not as of yesterday

 

Rink

 

SPRINGFIELD — In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a divided federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state’s ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois’ Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.

 

“The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013,” said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

 

A move to legalize concealed weapons could surface as soon as the January lame-duck session but is more likely to drag into the spring with a debate now no longer centering on whether to permit concealed carry but where — or where not — to permit it, such as college campuses, bars, sports arenas and movie theaters.

 

The timing hinges on Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s plans. She still hasn’t said whether she intends to appeal Tuesday’s dramatic ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

In a split opinion, the three-member 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed lower court rulings in two cases downstate that upheld the state’s longstanding prohibition against carrying concealed weapons.

 

Illinois is the only state with an outright prohibition on concealed carry.

 

“We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home,” Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

 

“The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense,” he continued.

 

“Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden,” Posner wrote.

 

“The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions,” he continued.

 

“Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public,” Posner said.

 

In a minority opinion, Judge Ann Williams wrote that Illinois is within its rights to ban weapons in “sensitive places” like government buildings, churches and universities in the name of safety.

 

“The Illinois legislature reasonably concluded that if people are allowed to carry guns in public, the number of guns carried in public will increase, and the risk of firearms-related injury or death in public will increase as well,” Williams said. “And it is also common sense that the danger is a great one; firearms are lethal.”

 

The attorney general, who was defending the state’s prohibition of concealed carry, remained silent on whether her office would appeal Tuesday’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

“The court gave 180 days before its decision will be returned to the lower court to be implemented. That time period allows our office to review what legal steps can be taken and enables the Legislature to consider whether it wants to take action,” Madigan spokeswoman Maura Possley said.

 

In May 2011, gun-rights advocates lost a bid in the Illinois House to legalize concealed carry by a 65-32 vote. Seventy-one votes were necessary for passage of the legislation, House Bill 148, which was lobbied against by Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

 

The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg), would have enabled Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons if they had a firearm owner’s identification card and underwent a firearms education course.

 

Under the failed bill, permit holders could not have been a patient in a mental institution in the previous five years nor have any felony, violent misdemeanor or drug convictions in the previous 10 years.

 

Concealed weapons also wouldn’t have been allowed under the plan at government buildings, courthouses, schools, sports arenas and stadiums, amusement parks, libraries or college campuses.

 

At the time of the vote, the Illinois State Police estimated that 325,000 people would have taken advantage of a concealed-carry program, which was projected to raise $32 million annually for the state through license fees.

 

Phelps would not rule out possibly trying to move concealed carry legislation during the upcoming lame-duck legislative session, which runs from Jan. 2 through mid-day on Jan. 9. But he stopped short of saying how closely a new bill would mimic HB148.

 

“In that bill, there were a lot of limitations, a lot of safety guidelines, background checks. But pretty much, this court today didn’t really specify where you can carry, where you can’t. It just sent a mandate that Illinois has to have a concealed carry law in 180 days,” he said. “I think we can come to an agreement. I think we can pass sensible legislation.”

 

Whatever form the legislation takes, Phelps said he thinks it will have a noticeable impact on Chicago’s crime epidemic.

 

“There are a lot of people in the city of Chicago who are scared to say if they are for concealed carry. I had numerous people email and call me from Chicago and Cook County who said they wanted this day to happen — people who couldn’t say something, but maybe worked for the city or county,” Phelps said.

 

“I think you’ll see a reduction in violence because right now, the criminals know there’s no one legally who can defend themselves. If I’m a gang member and I now know there’s concealed carry, if I try to steal that person’s bag, I’ll be careful what I do because that person might have a gun.”

 

But Emanuel appeared to consider Tuesday’s concealed carry ruling a major setback to his effort to combat gang-related violence on Chicago streets that has triggered a 20 percent spike in Chicago homicides and an even bigger increase in shootings.

 

“We are disappointed with the court’s decision,” the mayor’s office said in a statement issued after the ruling.

 

“The city is reviewing [Tuesday’s] opinion and will coordinate our efforts with the state to best protect the residents of Chicago and still meet constitutional restrictions. As the mayor has said all along, the city of Chicago is committed to maintaining the fullest degree of lawful handgun restrictions possible while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, because maintaining common-sense restrictions is an issue of public safety.”

 

Ald. Howard Brookins (21st), chairman of the City Council’s Black Caucus, though, welcomed the ruling, citing the “unequal treatment” of people caught with weapons in Cook County.

 

“If you’re stopped in Chicago, it’s been a felony. If you’re stopped in one of these suburban towns, the state’s attorney has been charging you with a misdemeanor,” Brookins said.

 

Brookins said he’s not at all concerned that concealed carry would turn inner-city neighborhoods already reeling from gang violence into shooting galleries.

 

“Those people have a gun now. They’ve just been made criminals because they can’t legally have it. And the gang-bangers and thugs are gonna have a gun regardless,” he said.

 

The governor’s office, meanwhile, played its cards close to the vest after Tuesday’s ruling but noted Quinn’s opposition to the earlier Phelps legislation.

 

“His opposition then stands for itself,” Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said, referring to her boss. “But we’re reviewing the opinion now to determine our next step.”

 

A spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) said he had not conferred with the top House Democrat on a possible course of action following the ruling, but an aide to Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) hinted at a lengthy legislative response time that could well go beyond the first two weeks of January.

 

“We’re going to take the time the court has given us to carefully review the ruling and to consult with the attorney general’s office before we determine what legislative action we take on concealed carry,” Cullerton spokeswoman Rikeesha Phelon said.

 

The head of the state’s primary gun-control group disagreed with the appeals court ruling and urged Illinois lawmakers to write “the most restrictive requirements” possible, akin to tight concealed-carry laws in New York and California, which control who can and can’t get a permit to carry a weapon.

 

“Today’s decision is disappointing, but not surprising,” said Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, in a prepared statement. “The strategy of the NRA and the gun-rights organizations has been to litigate where they can’t legislate.”

 

But Vandermyde, the NRA lobbyist, cautioned that gun-rights advocates won’t allow the legislative process to drag on indefinitely, and certainly not past the 180-day window established by the appeals court.

 

“I can tell you right now, we’ll look very dimly about people dragging their feet to sit here and say we’re going to let the governor play his little game ... to drag it out for another year. If that happens, there’s the probability we’ll be back in court, seeking an injunction immediately. There’s a cliff to this thing,” Vandermyde said.

 

“You know what? We waited 20 years for this. We’re tired of waiting.”

 

 

How much do bulletproof vests cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a few more nuts need to go apesh1t and kill more people before something is done? probably not. GUNS RULE!! :headbanger:

 

 

 

 

 

More guns, More guns! :banana:

So which other Constitutional rights would you like to subjectively do away with?? :thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A legal gun owner could have stopped him before he got a shot off.

 

Portland has a concealed carry law. Why didn't someone stop this guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is so silly. Using your logic, people should be able to own nuclear warheads and armed stealth bombers. Nuclear warheads and fighter jets don't kill people, people kill people.

Except that small little detail about jets and nukes not being a Constitutionally protected right. But don't let those little details get in the way of your ridiculous argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right or wrong, with each passing tragedy the number of Americans favoring stricter gun laws increases. When they get to 51%, the law will change. But that'll take another 75 to 100 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a scene in Modern Warfare: Call of Duty 2 where a bunch of Russians are walking through a mall with automatic weapons shooting everyone they can find? I think we should ban video games as well as guns...and malls...and walking. :ninja:

Wasn't it in an airport? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that small little detail about jets and nukes not being a Constitutionally protected right. But don't let those little details get in the way of your ridiculous argument.

The Right to Bear Arms

 

Arms = Weaponary

 

Are you saying that citizens should have the right to purchase, house and use ALL weaponary availbable in 2012. Any arms? rocket launchers, AK-47's, grenades, ect. ?

 

Because if you don't then we've already drawn a line; a line that differenciates between common sense acceptable weaponary to be owned by citizens and weaponary that shouldn't.

 

For most, the question is where exactly should that line be drawn.

 

For some they either want no line (BLS) or they want the line just after slingshot (hippies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Right to Bear Arms

 

Arms = Weaponary

 

Are you saying that citizens should have the right to purchase, house and use ALL weaponary availbable in 2012. Any arms? rocket launchers, AK-47's, grenades, ect. ?

 

Because if you don't then we've already drawn a line; a line that differenciates between common sense acceptable weaponary to be owned by citizens and weaponary that shouldn't.

 

For most, the question is where exactly should that line be drawn.

 

For some they either want no line (BLS) or they want the line just after slingshot (hippies).

I agree that there should be some sort of reasonable line drawn in the sand. No, I don't think hand grenades and rocket launchers should be legal, but most of the anti-gun mopes who have posted in this thread don't believe guns should be allowed, period. Or at least they have framed their arguments to give that impression.

 

Besides, we already have gun control. There are strict limitations on what type of firearm can be legally owned. And convicted felons, those who are reasonably presumed to be the most dangerous to society, are not allowed to legally own any firearms, or even ammunition. With the laws on the books, there are tons of firearms violations. Why don't we go after those more aggressively before going after the rights of us who lawfully own firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there should be some sort of reasonable line drawn in the sand. No, I don't think hand grenades and rocket launchers should be legal, but most of the anti-gun mopes who have posted in this thread don't believe guns should be allowed, period. Or at least they have framed their arguments to give that impression.

 

Besides, we already have gun control. There are strict limitations on what type of firearm can be legally owned. And convicted felons, those who are reasonably presumed to be the most dangerous to society, are not allowed to legally own Amy firearms, or even ammunition. With the laws on the books, there are tons of firearms violations. Why don't we go after those more aggressively before going after the rights of us who lawfully own firearms.

 

 

Just to clarify. I'm not in the camp that believes guns should be illegal for private citizens to own. I just think the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is silly in this context.

 

I support the 2nd amendment (if for no other reason than I don't trust the cops and crooks in the government).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while we're talking gun control, the Brady Bill that was signed into law in 1993 and took effect in February 1994 didn't seem to stop the two mopes who robbed the bank and.got into a major shootout in LA in 1997, 3 full years after the ban went into effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify. I'm not in the camp that believes guns should be illegal for private citizens to own. I just think the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is silly in this context.

 

I support the 2nd amendment (if for no other reason than I don't trust the cops and crooks in the government).

When was the last time a gun drove down to the mall and shot the place up on it's own, Bieber Jeans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify. I'm not in the camp that believes guns should be illegal for private citizens to own. I just think the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is silly in this context.

 

I support the 2nd amendment (if for no other reason than I don't trust the cops and crooks in the government).

That's fair, then. I don't agree with your stance, per se, but I do understand your perspective. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Portland has a concealed carry law. Why didn't someone stop this guy?

drobeski lost this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 2 dead ? He was as good at killing as I am at killing in COD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Portland has a concealed carry law. Why didn't someone stop this guy?

 

Because the state is full of torridjoe types that would rather see someone break into their house and make a real woman out of their wife than possibly harm the intruder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 2 dead ? He was as good at killing as I am at killing in COD.

With my KD ratio i would have killed one and flesh wounded another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“But what caught my attention, I could smell the gunpowder,’’ Garcia said.

:wub:

 

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support the 2nd amendment (if for no other reason than I don't trust the cops and crooks in the government).

your train of thought is identical to the men that wrote the 2nd amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×