Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cleveland Police: Officer Fatally Shoots Dog After Attack
Fox 8 ^ | July 7, 2011 | Lindsay Buckingham

Posted on 07/18/2011 6:56:36 PM PDT by Immerito

CLEVELAND— A Cleveland police officer fatally shot a dog Thursday after the animal allegedly attacked him, Fox 8 News reports.

According to Stephen Loomis, President of the Cleveland Patromen's Association, it happened just before 5 p.m. in the 1400 block of West 48th Street.

Officers responded to a residence in that area for a domestic violence incident. While searching for the suspect, two officers entered the backyard through a fence -- unaware that two dogs were on the property.

"The dogs were sleeping when [the officers] went into the yard, and [the dogs] woke up when [the officers] were several feet into yard," Loomis said.

(Excerpt) Read more at fox8.com ...


TOPICS: Pets/Animals
KEYWORDS: cleveland; dog; doggieping; oh; ohio; whomadethecollar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
" While searching for the suspect, two officers entered the backyard through a fence -- unaware that two dogs were on the property."

Interesting, not "walked up to the front door to talk to the homeowner", but "entered the backyard through a fence"--the actions of someone who doesn't want their presence on private property to be known.

1 posted on 07/18/2011 6:56:44 PM PDT by Immerito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Immerito

If I was searching in that area of my old hometown, I’d likely do it in an M-1 Abrams.


2 posted on 07/18/2011 7:00:54 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
the actions of someone who doesn't want their presence on private property to be known.

They might have been trying to surround the house to prevent the suspected perp from taking off through the back yard . . . There was, apparently, more than one cop on the scene. The cops have a right to protect themselves from man and beast.

3 posted on 07/18/2011 7:01:53 PM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; Titan Magroyne; Badeye; Shannon; SandRat; arbooz; potlatch; ...
WOOOF!

The Doggie Ping list is for FReepers who would like to be notified of threads relating to all things canid. If you would like to join the Doggie Ping Pack (or be unleashed from it), FReemail me.

4 posted on 07/18/2011 7:03:25 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
If a private citizen entered someone's back yard, woke up the dogs and shot one of them because it attacked him, that person would be facing criminal charges. These cops were trespassing without a warrant and should be charged and convicted, not only for trespassing but for killing someone's dog without cause.

Why were they sneaking around in the backyard in the first place?

5 posted on 07/18/2011 7:05:14 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

“The cops have a right to protect themselves from man and beast. “

And they were protected from the beasts. That’s what the fence was for, to keep the dogs on the property, and as a physical reminder for uninvited people to keep off the property.

Do you suppose that the dogs would have kept napping if the suspect was in their yard? No, they would have been barking and carrying on to tell the whole neighborhood that their yard had been intruded. The fact that the dogs were napping, and woke up when the cops entered would clue in any thinking person that “nope, the suspect isn’t here”.


6 posted on 07/18/2011 7:05:44 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
Cop shoots dog while both are in back yard as perp escapes out the front door.

Is it usual in a domestic dispute (run) to approach from the rear?

7 posted on 07/18/2011 7:06:02 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
DOG GONE!
8 posted on 07/18/2011 7:06:50 PM PDT by az.b1bbomberfxr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

ping


9 posted on 07/18/2011 7:07:43 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
Police rescue puppy from hot car
10 posted on 07/18/2011 7:07:57 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks
. There was, apparently, more than one cop on the scene. The cops have a right to protect themselves from man and beast.

They don't have the right to trespass on private property without a warrant. These cops are a**holes. There would have been no "need to protect themselves" if they hadn't sneaked into someone's yard and woke up the dogs. The dogs were doing their job, protecting their owners yard, the cops are totally in the wrong here and I would say from most of the dog shooting articles I've read that most of the cops involved in the dog shootings are in the wrong.

11 posted on 07/18/2011 7:08:04 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
"Lindsay Buckingham"

Gee, times must really be tough. From Fleetwood Mac to a reporter in Cleveland?

12 posted on 07/18/2011 7:08:38 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Apologies, you are quick on the draw today. :-) Sorry for the extraneous ping. :-)


13 posted on 07/18/2011 7:08:58 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: calex59
"They don't have the right to trespass on private property without a warrant."

Actually they do under exigent circumstances (which in this case apparently came from being chased by dogs - the second cop has a right to enter anyone's neighboring yard while in flight from a menacing dog.)

14 posted on 07/18/2011 7:14:47 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

Another dogtapper strikes.


15 posted on 07/18/2011 7:18:34 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
From Fleetwood Mac to a reporter in Cleveland?

When times got Tusk, Lindsey chose to Go His Own Way.

16 posted on 07/18/2011 7:20:40 PM PDT by meyer (We will not sit down and shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

>> The cops have a right to protect themselves from man and beast. <<

Man forms intent and can be told to cease.

Beast responds to instinct and ignores all but its master. It can’t form (legal) intent.

If a cop goes into the backyard of someone without a warrant and not in pursuit of the dog’s master, said cop can’t hold it against a dog for protecting the dog’s territory, much less mete out lethal punishment.

I support cops but if a cop killed my dog when my dog was in the backyard doing what I want it (my dog) to do — protect my property — I would sue everyone in sight.

What, the dog was supposed to see a uniform and a badge and back off?


17 posted on 07/18/2011 7:46:18 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Ahhh, so the same officers who shot a dog in its own yard are absolved because they rescued a puppy from a hot car?

Oh, wait, nevermind. The dog-shooting officers aren’t the same officers as those who removed a puppy from a hot car.

Your implicit argument: “Well, these officers did the right thing, so how DARE you mention THOSE officers which did the wrong thing?”

Remember, officers who follow Robert Peel’s principles will find that they have better relations with man and beast.

Observing the actions of the police in the article, can you truthfully say that none of these nine principles were ignored or violated?

****

1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672663/posts


18 posted on 07/18/2011 7:51:14 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: calex59

“Why were they sneaking around in the backyard in the first place?”

Clearly, it wasn’t in pursuit of the suspect.


19 posted on 07/18/2011 8:11:08 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
"Steve Loomis" is a union thug, a thin-skinned hot-head with a badge and a gun, and you can take whatever he says for what you think its worth. The question is why these cops didn't just go to the front door and knock.

Of course this is the same department with cops who ignored a naked dead black woman by the side of a heavily travelled highway during rush hour one morning because they "thought it was a dead deer."

BTW, the Cleveland police department does not have a meaningful psychological screening program for its applicants.

20 posted on 07/18/2011 8:12:26 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
W. 48th street? Not so bad. Lots of hispanics moving in but also gentrifying white folks.
21 posted on 07/18/2011 8:15:14 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

“The question is why these cops didn’t just go to the front door and knock.”

That’s the question I have as well. Honest cops (and non-cop civilians) will go to the front door, knock, and show their warrant/state their business.


22 posted on 07/18/2011 8:16:59 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
what the hell... i thought you posted twice till i looked at the datelines

this is getting to be a real pattern

23 posted on 07/18/2011 8:26:59 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode

Sadly, it is becoming a real and clear pattern. Even more tragically, it is still being defended.


24 posted on 07/18/2011 8:29:10 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
It was a golden lab, which I assume is the same as a yellow lab.
25 posted on 07/18/2011 9:22:09 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

However, they were trespassing on the dog owner’s property as there were no exigent circumstances present when they entered.


26 posted on 07/18/2011 10:42:26 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

I believe the golden lab is featured in a related story.

The “golden lab”’s name is Callaway. Not the same dog.

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-protest-over-killed-dog,0,4806264.story


27 posted on 07/18/2011 10:56:23 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
My bad.
28 posted on 07/18/2011 11:30:51 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

How can you be hating on the cops so much as to be spiteful of a happy puppy story?

I was testing your reaction since you posted two items, one after the other, of the police shooting dogs.

Your response is exactly what I expected from someone with an agenda against the police.


29 posted on 07/19/2011 1:21:20 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
"However, they were trespassing on the dog owner’s property as there were no exigent circumstances present when they entered."

Do you even read the items that you post on FR?

From the article: "Officers responded to a residence in that area for a domestic violence incident. While searching for the suspect,..."

The police had a suspicion and acted on it. You might want to learn basic law 101 before making silly comments. The police are authorized to act on suspicion.

30 posted on 07/19/2011 1:26:41 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

These are the last 5 threads you been posting in:

MS Police Officer Shoots Chained Dog Six Times
Cleveland Police: Officer Fatally Shoots Dog After Attack
Forget 101 Dalmatians, 16 are driving me dotty!
Michael Vick to address Congress on animal fighting
Cat shot three times, police investigate cruelty

Do you know there is a far Leftist President hell bent on destroying the country?


31 posted on 07/19/2011 1:34:59 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: calex59
Why were they sneaking around in the backyard in the first place?

They were looking for dogs to kill.

32 posted on 07/19/2011 4:13:55 AM PDT by Rudder (The Main Stream Media is Our Enemy---get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

I have to pipe up here and say, there is no such thing as a golden lab (unless you breed a golden retriever and a labrador retriever and have a mixed breed you could call a golden lab if you wanted to, altho it would simply be a golden retriever/labrador retriever mix). I simply say this because so many people ask me if my golden retrievers are golden labs and this is an opportunity to say that no, there is no such thing. :) Labradors come in yellow and black and chocolate. Labs and goldens are entirely different breeds, and if you get one thinking you are getting the same dog with a different coat you will be disappointed. They were bred for somewhat different things and have quite different temperaments. Both breeds have their avid fans. :)

You (Ken H) may well know this, but much of the public does not, so I apologize, but I just had to say it. :) Thank you for giving me the opportunity.


33 posted on 07/19/2011 6:32:48 AM PDT by brytlea (Someone the other day said I'm not a nice person. How did they know?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Must have improved a LOT in the last 15 yrs since I was on the west side. My wife had an uncle that lived close to there.


34 posted on 07/19/2011 7:34:10 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

What relevance do my posting preferences have to do with the topic at hand?

Are you so incapable of defending two cops intruding on private property that you find it necessary to attack a fellow Freeper?


35 posted on 07/19/2011 8:23:46 AM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

They are authorized to be another citizen’s on private property in hot pursuit of a suspect. *Searching* does not de facto give them license to be on someone else’s private property.

In any case, the behavior of the dogs makes it clear that the suspect was not on the premises, in which case, the search should have been moved elsewhere.


36 posted on 07/19/2011 8:26:42 AM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

THAT is an excellent list of philosophical points. I hadn’t seen it before. Thanks for (re)posting it.


37 posted on 07/19/2011 8:32:58 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Would someone with an agenda against the police point out their failure to violate their own profession’s principles?

Is it anti-physician to note when a doctor fails to abide by the Hippocratic oath?

You never answered my question.

Observing the actions of the police in the article, can you truthfully say that none of these nine principles were ignored or violated?

****

1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672663/posts


38 posted on 07/19/2011 8:33:58 AM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

Your response is not really a good defense of the cop hating mentality is it?

It is just interesting that you post two items of police shooting a dog, one after the other.

That means you are searching “police shoot dog” so you can gin up some hate against the police on FR.

You expect you are not going to be challenged about that?

If pets are your interest, then why not post a positive story of the police saving a dog.

I could do it. Why can’t you?


39 posted on 07/19/2011 8:41:07 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

The Drive-by Media Hit is typically confusing.

The whole story is presented about the dog but if you watch the video, it was the dog owner’s own relative who called for the police about a “violent domestic incident”. So the police had a duty to investigate that yard, which must have been pointed to them. Why weren’t they told about the dogs?

This is so typical of the Drive-by Media who are SUPPOSED to report the facts to us, but they very seldom do when there are hyping an agenda.


40 posted on 07/19/2011 8:45:40 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

How about you show me where the police failed a principle?

Even the dog owner says he understands why his dog was shot.

Principles are nice, but the police act on rules, regulations, procedures and the law.

If you want to talk principles how about this for a principle: Tell the police about the dogs in the yard.

Or maybe put a “Beware of Dog” sign on the fence.

Bottom line is you got no case to be hating on the police when the owner himself says he understands.

That actually does call into question your motives.

You should take 10 minutes to think about why you search up “police shoot dog” to create hate against the police on FR. It could be you are an unwitting tool of the Drive-by Media.


41 posted on 07/19/2011 8:53:56 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper
Or maybe put a “Beware of Dog” sign on the fence.

Or a "NO POLICE ALLOWED" sign.
42 posted on 07/19/2011 8:57:58 AM PDT by ZX12R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Thank you for confirming that you are incapable of defending these cops and are incapable of defending their behavior in light of the principles of their profession.

The fact that you keep trying to focus the spotlight on me continues to highlight your failure on both counts. Keep it up!

But, if you’re done and are ready to get back on topic, then answer the question:

Observing the actions of the police in the article, can you truthfully say that none of these nine principles were ignored or violated?
****

1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672663/posts


43 posted on 07/19/2011 8:59:24 AM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

What is confusing about two cops who decide to sneak onto a property via a back fence than to go to the front of the house and speak to someone in the house?

Only a fool would enter through a back fence and claim to be “unaware” of a dog or dogs.

The cops have a duty to follow the principles of their own profession. Are you implicitly arguing that none of the nine principles were violated?

Observing the actions of the police in the article, can you truthfully say that none of these nine principles were ignored or violated?

****

1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672663/posts


44 posted on 07/19/2011 8:59:53 AM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 DaysThe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

They had a duty to investigate at the house to which they were called.

That does not translate into license to intrude into the backyard of the dog owner.

Why didn’t the cops knock on the front door? Nothing was impeding them from doing so. Why didn’t they act like their own honest brethren do on a daily basis?


45 posted on 07/19/2011 9:01:34 AM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 DaysThe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R

Then don’t call the police?

It was the owners own family that called the police and failed to tell the cops about the their own dogs.

How about this for a sign: Beware of stupid ass white trash.


46 posted on 07/19/2011 9:04:10 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Moreover, how does one “try to taser” anything?

“Loomis says the officer first tried to taser the animal to get him to release his grip. When that failed, the officer shot the dog twice.”

Is “trying to taser” like “a little bit pregnant”?


47 posted on 07/19/2011 9:04:46 AM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 DaysThe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

You have the last word. Just think about it.


48 posted on 07/19/2011 9:05:44 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

Since there is no indication that there were any other cops in the front-—and no indication that any officers went up to the front door to speak to the homeowners, this does not appear to be a case of surrounding a residence.


49 posted on 07/19/2011 9:06:20 AM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 DaysThe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

You’re welcome.


50 posted on 07/19/2011 9:07:31 AM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 DaysThe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson