The Seattle Police Department’s internal investigations unit is reviewing an incident on Friday, May 8, in which officers arrested and banned a Seattle man from the downtown REI after he used his phone to photograph two security guards inside the store.
Shane Becker, a 29-year-old web designer, says he was standing in line at REI, getting ready to purchase a bike rack lock, when he saw two Loomis Fargo security guards refilling an ATM inside the store.
Becker says he walked over and took a picture of the security guards and the open ATM with his phone because he is “fascinated by the insides of things that we don’t normally get to see.”
The verboten photo, via IamShane.com
According to Becker, the armed security guards confronted him about the photo and threatened to tackle him if he tried to leave the store. “Loomis wanted my ID so that they could write a report internally because I took a picture of them with the machine open,” Becker says. “They said they didn’t know who I was or what I intended to do with the photograph or why I would want to take it.” Becker refused to show the Loomis employees his ID, REI security got involved, and the police were called.
According to a police report, when officers arrived, one of the armed Loomis guards told them he was concerned about his safety and was not sure if Becker was going to attempt to grab the money that was going into the ATM machine.
Police claim Becker was uncooperative and refused to give them his ID. Becker acknowledges that he refused to provide officers with ID, but did so because he was afraid they would hand it over to Loomis. Ironically, Becker says another REI customer photographed his arrest, and he’s hoping to get a copy of the photo.
Police took Becker to the West Precinct and held him for about half an hour before requiring him to sign a Trespass Admonishment card, barring him from returning to REI for a year, and released him.
Kara Stone, general manager at REI’s downtown store, says the incident was “super unfortunate” and claims Becker was not trespassed at the request of REI staff, although SPD records indicate otherwise. “Shane is welcome to come into our store,” she says.
Frank, the guy who answered the phone at Loomis’s office—he would not provide his last name or position with the company—would not comment on the incident or whether Loomis has any company policies about photography of staff members.
Not only was REI, SPD, and Loomis’s overreaction to the incident totally ridiculous, it may have also been illegal.
Doug Klunder, Privacy Project director at the Seattle branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, says cases like Becker’s are becoming more frequent. “These come up all the time and the ultimate answer ends up being, yes [the photographer] had the right to take the photo and should not have been arrested and detained,” Klunder says. “It would be really nice if officers would start realizing that rather than going through this rigmarole.”
Becker, who says he’s been an REI customer for several years, says he’ll be contacting the ACLU about the incident, but he also wants to find a way to spend the $200 REI dividend he wasn’t able to use last week. For now, he says, “I won’t be shopping there.”
I understand why Loomis and the police are so dumb, but you’d think REI would know better. This is only going to piss off a whole scad of their customers. I just spent several hundred dollars there last week and I can tell you this infuriates me. People can purchase everything at REI online elsewhere without sales tax or shipping costs. REI needs to do better at PR management and handle these things before they get out of control, particularly when dealing with Loomis security guards or their own, who everyone knows are just looking for reasons to abuse their “so-called” authority.
Irena completely irrelevant. What crime was committed?
#99 Yes, We think that walking up and taking a picture of armed guards cashing out an open ATM, because he thinks the inside of it is neato, is probably not the smartest thing to do. Therefore, we also think that Dick Cheney is awesome and torture is pretty cool.
@97: So are you suggesting that your rights differ based on your attitude?
I think Jigae @97 put it best:
It’s not about bending over for authority, it’s about thinking about whether your goal is resolving a conflict or creating a spectacle to publicize the offense.
I am amazed at what a big deal everyone is making out of this. This is not a human-rights issue. The guy acted suspiciously, then got confrontational. No, he didn’t commit a crime. He also didn’t go to jail and has no criminal record — so what’s the big deal? That he was barred from shopping in a store for awhile? Give me a break.
In light of the actual human-rights violations that go on in this world, I am baffled that this silly, silly episode is being treated with such seriousness. Common sense rule #1: don’t tease cops, security guards, or border officials and expect not to be hassled. And find a better cause to rally around than this attention-seeking “anarchist”.
If the inside of an ATM is so secret, why did Loomis have it open in full view of every REI shopper on a Friday afternoon?
Irena the only silly person is you. You don’t seem to understand the 4th amendment. The supreme court has already certified that probable cause is needed for detainment, and that “suspicious behavior” doesn’t meet that requirement. In other words they need to see him actually commit a crime, or in the process of committing a crime to have probable cause to detain him. Which they didn’t, and thus is a civil rights violation. The ACLU is now involved according to his blog.
@107: There’s something to be said for choosing your battles — I don’t see this going very far in the end.
Also, calling Irena silly is a little unfair. He wasn’t detained — he caused trouble and he was asked to stay around to explain himself. He wasn’t thrown in prison. This isn’t some sort of Brokedown Palace scenario.
I know we can say this is a slippery slope, but really, I think this is a huge waste of the ACLU’s resources which could be spent on any of thousands of more pressing matters.
@107, He was at the police station for half an hour, and only because he refused to cooperate and defuse the situation — which would have cost him nothing. I really don’t understand how this guy has suddenly become Seattle’s poster child for civil rights. As far as civil rights violations go, this is peanuts.
He is using the story to push t-shirts on his website, by the way. Gawd.
#107- I guess I’ll have to count myself among the “silly” people then. At least I should be heartened to hear that the ACLU has enough time to waste on a case like this. There must not be too many other pressing, and crucial civil rights cases currently being defended in the Northwest.
Granted, this “photographer” did nothing illegal and just gets off trying to “stick it to the man”. His lack of reasonable thinking is stunning for him not to consider the obvious “initial” reactions of the Loomis workers, however, for them to threaten him with a physical restraint if he tried to leave was way out of line. But their reason for concern was totally justified. They should have put one of themselves in between the picture-taker and the money, secured the money and the ATM, and left the scene to return later when it was “safer”. Perhaps, to have even called the police if they were truly threatened by him… but why would they continue to leave themselves exposed if they felt concerned for their safety.
All that being said, I went to the vegan-anarchists website and was floored to realize that I recognize this good citizen of the Seattle area. My wife and I witnessed him smashing the storefront window at Niketown and stealing merchandise from the window disply back when W.T.O. was here. I will tackle him if I ever get to see him in public again… someone please photograph that!!
Becker wasn’t arrested for taking a picture. He wasn’t even arrested. He was detained. However, an obstruction charge could have been filed, and if so Becker would have been found guilty. SPD decided that a 30-minute detention was sufficient punishment for a minor infraction of stupidity.
If a trespassing complaint is being filed against you, then the police have the authority to require you to show ID so they can ensure that the complaint is filed correctly. Becker didn’t have to give ID to either Loomis or REI (although they certainly already had his ID if he was an REI member). He did have to give it to the police once they responded. They should have done a better job of explaining this, though, and saved themselves the hassle of bringing Becker down, although I’m sure that was done because Becker failed the ‘stupid’ rule. You see, there are only two real crimes, misdemeanor stupid and felony stupid. Becker was guilty of 3rd degree misdemeanor stupid.
I would think that BoA and Loomis would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in terms of not having photos of the insides of their ATMs, the number of guards that service an ATM, or the weaponry and body armor those guards are equipped with, broadcast widely. Taking a picture in this situation would be deemed suspicious by most people (reasonable person test), and thus I don’t blame the Loomis guards for their actions… although they did not have the authority to use force to detain Becker (and they didn’t, and I believe they are within their rights to threaten/suggest as long as they don’t actually carry the threat out).
And, finally, Becker is an idiot or an agent provocateur. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just give the police his driver’s license/ID? I’m sure that, in a similar situation, he will do so in the future, having (hopefully) learned his lesson. Or maybe not… if he’s more interested in being a jerk.
“fascinated by the insides of things that we don’t normally get to see.”
This guy is a fucking goon. Vegan Straightedge REI shoppers are half the reason this city is one of the most laughable ones on the map.
and his website is a joke but he certainly is keeping track of how many people visit it. Now if only one of those visitors would go on a date with him……..
You only have to give your personal information to law enforcement. Not rent a cops. If that is the case then these rent a cops could request personal information for young men and ladies for dubious reasons and start stalking them and peaking into their bathroom windows if they wished to do so.
This guy is a douche and deserves a swift kick in the gonads for being a “vegan straight edge anarchist” which makes no sense. A straight edge anarchist. The lack of meat and protein to his brain has caused it to start eating itself.
That being said. Art is art. I am a photographer and take pictures of stuff. Stuff you may not see whilst you walk around with your head up your butt all day because you hate your job or whatever reason. Aside from some lighitng issues and perhaps some framing it is a nice picture.
The Gestapo is dead. Seattle police hassle photographers all the time. You can take pictures if you want to. No tresspassing, and not further than reasonable privacy from public places. If you go there in public you can take a picture, or have your picture taken. You nor I own the world (at least the US). And yes, I do think the guy is a dumb douche nozzle anyway. He could have complied better with the police if he wished to not stand up for his rights. Civil rights are civil rights.
It would be really nice if REI would step up and respond to this in some way. They’re as much a victim as anyone, but their silence after all this noise only makes them look complicit.
Some intrepid journalist (do those exist anymore?) should ask Shane if he has ever been arrested at that store before, and whether or not he blogged about it. the answer might be surprising, or at least good for a laugh.
these guys do preform a dangerous job. In Lynwood a driver was killed by a very well planned robbery.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c…
After reading a few more comments it appears that a civics lesson needs to occur.
1. If a police officer asks you to identify yourself, it is law in EVERY STATE, that you must. In most states you are even REQUIRED top carry identification. I don’t make the rules they are are just the rules and as part of a civilization, as a citizens, we are all agree to play by the rules. Don’t like it, move to a country where you like the rules and live there. Or work to legally change them.
2. Since when is private commercial property the same as public space. Just because the public is allowed to venture on to it, do not confuse it with public property. You might want to google this one but it is there property and they have every right to set the rules. It is not like being on a public street where you can tell their security guards to FO and walk away. On their property, the guards can as you to leave or detain you. Again, I don’t make the rules, I just choose to live here so I play by them. Don’t like them, again, move or work on changing them.
Personally I have been asked to leave private property while I am taking pictures, I am usually not a douche bag about it, I talk with the person about what I am doing, why I am doing it and let them know who I am. The guy is just doing his job and we all do things we do not necessarily like when we do our job, doesn’t make any sense to hassle the poor guy about it.
I think that I would rather have the police doing potentially important stuff rather the messing with some ignorant jack ass. Taxes are a drag to pay and I would rather that those who receive them be doing the job they are paid to do and when it comes to police, there are better things, in my mind, for them to do.
How much did Becker get paid by the Stranger for the shot on the cover? And so it begins. Welcome to America. Ca-ching.
@118, what laws are you referring to? Seriously, I want to know. What is the RCW cite to the law that makes it a crime to refuse to identify yourself? and to the law that says that one is required to carry ID when not driving? My hunch is that they don’t exist, and that you’re a blowhard. But maybe you’ll prove my hunch wrong.
A clear violation of the photographer’s civil liberties. REI, Loomis, and City of Seattle are all willing accomplices and should be held accountable.
Hopefully Shane will never need the services of security or police forces. Karma can be a bitch.
Really?
This made the cover?
Douchebag takes inappropriate photo and douchebag security overreacts…STOP THE MOTHERFUCKING PRESSES!!!
I guess a non-story is better than a cover with Miss California or some reality show hobags breaking up (Jon/Kate: WHO THE FUCK are they exactly?) or pig flu paranoia…
Well 120, Since I am not a lawyer and not overly skilled with the states crappy RCW page, I did find the definition of Obstructing. IT would probably foot the bill if they wanted to haul you into court. All they would need is anything that you might do that would make them want to talk to you and that would be about all it would require. “Please sir, can you give me a name and an address so I know your not a wanted felon…” I can see a million ways a cop could spin it if they really wanted to. My guess is that the law is written this broadly exactly for this reason. Self identification is one of those basic fundamental things that a reasonable person should be able and willing to do.
Granted in a post 911 world, we have some tension between authority and civil liberties. Having said that We are also all trying to play by the same rules. If you do not like the laws, 2 choices, move the fuck out or fix them. We do live in a republic which has democratic representation. So in my eyes,it is real simple if you don’t like it, fix it or get the fuck out.
OH, 121, your photographic rights only apply to you on public property. If you are on another’s property, those right, as defined by supreme court cases, are not so black and white. If you doubt this, I would like you to put yourself in a situation and run it through the court system.It would be wonderful to actually change this fact. However, consider the potential ramifications of personal property becoming public property in the eyes of a camera. It is a carful balance we have as citizens of this republic.
RCW 9A.76.020
Obstructing a law enforcement officer.
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
(2) “Law enforcement officer” means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.
(3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor.
[2001 c 308 § 3. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 33; 1994 c 196 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.76.020.]
Two things to think about:
Shane, in his own account of the situation, called the Loomis guards “fake cops”. LESSON ONE TO EVERYBODY: Don’t call people with guns “fake cops”. “Cops” don’t even like to be called “cops”! So, if you use escalating language and then cry like a little bitch when you get thrown in a squad car, you are an IDIOT. I think Shane needs to meditate on the phrase “just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD.”
Secondly, argueing that you have the right to do something because “somebody has probably already done it” is not good logic. This was Shane’s main defense of why it was OK for him to take the picture that he did.
And, bonus third point: lets put the issue of if he has the right to take the picture in the first place aside. What he DID NOT have the right to do was to publish it. Which he did.
PS. What kind of self respecting anarchist shops at REI, anyways? And then asks people to support his plight by buying his friends t-shirts? The only plight I see is that Shane is a grade a Idiot, and no amount of t-shirts purchased is going to change that fact.
Two things to think about:
Shane, in his own account of the situation, called the Loomis guards “fake cops”. LESSON ONE TO EVERYBODY: Don’t call people with guns “fake cops”. “Cops” don’t even like to be called “cops”! So, if you use escalating language and then cry like a little bitch when you get thrown in a squad car, you are an IDIOT. I think Shane needs to meditate on the phrase “just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD.”
Secondly, argueing that you have the right to do something because “somebody has probably already done it” is not good logic. This was Shane’s main defense of why it was OK for him to take the picture that he did.
And, bonus third point: lets put the issue of if he has the right to take the picture in the first place aside. What he DID NOT have the right to do was to publish it. Which he did.
PS. What kind of self respecting anarchist shops at REI, anyways? And then asks people to support his plight by buying his friends t-shirts? The only plight I see is that Shane is a grade a Idiot, and no amount of t-shirts purchased is going to change that fact.
@124,
Yep, just a blowhard. Hunch answered!
127, you go search the RCWs and get back to me. Simple fact is if a cop ask you your name and you refuse to answer him, there is a very very good chance you will end up in jail. It really is called Obstructing a law enforcement officer. it is simple.
Better yet, go play the clown in front of a cop and when he yanks your dumb ass over and starts to write up info, play the fool and then get back to me.
This is “Don’t taze me bro,” all over again.
@ 124 FTW
My friends who work in armored transport tell me that obstructing or threatening any AT guard while they are on duty is a violation of the law and falls under the responsibility of the FBI. Its exactly like blatantly taking pictures of a bank’s security system.
My friends were involved in an incident at Woodland Park years ago when a handicapped man was infuriated because the AT truck was in the handicapped parking space. He blocked the truck in and took pictures, and was swiftly arrested by the FBI. Just saying.
@118:
“2. Since when is private commercial property the same as public space. Just because the public is allowed to venture on to it, do not confuse it with public property. You might want to google this one but it is there property and they have every right to set the rules. It is not like being on a public street where you can tell their security guards to FO and walk away. On their property, the guards can as you to leave or detain you.”
Not only do you not make the rules, you don’t know them very well. Private personnel can ask you to leave and call the cops if you don’t, but they can’t detain you if you have done nothing illegal. In this case, it would seem that the individual even threatened the guy with violence if he tried to leave. You know what it is when you are somewhere doing nothing illegal and I threaten you with violence if you try to leave? Unlawful Imprisonment under RCW 9A.40.040.
He should not have been arrested for taking the photo before he knew it was not okay. After that, then sure they have the right to tell him it’s not okay. Although tresspassing him seems more reasonable then arrest. I took a photo (without flash) of a painting in a museum recently and was asked not to do it again. When I’m in an art gallery (for some reason I have better manners there) I do ask if I want to take a photo of something before I do it. Maybe people are anal retentive, but sometimes they have legit reasons for not wanting it done. Even if there reasons are kind of lame, it still is their property, and they have the right to tell you to get off it if you don’t follow their (sometimes lame) rules.
Would it be possible for the Stranger to add a high school civics quiz to the registration process for anybody to post opinions about the constitution?
And maybe add the same quiz to the requirements for employment at SPD.
i see that he was sooooo interested in wanting to know what an atm looks like inside that after the fact,the “incident” he looked all over the net for atm info and found it(WHATS AN ANARCHIST DOING ON THE INTERNET ??? ISNT THE GOVERNMENT WATCHING???)theyre coming for you,boooo. if you were really interested you would have done so at home with your hands in pants doing what you normally do to yourself looking at atm information,yes ive often wondered if fall out boys crew would set up a stage like any other stage,hmmm. but instead duh duh duh duh…..im gonna just go out of my way at these guys and take a picture,dumbshit!!! he claims it was a public area,no its a private area(REI)and property. remember terrorists? they too were very in the public types.in schools,working being “members of our society”… the armored industry has been hit all over the country more than ever,do you recall the 2 RETIRED cops that were gunned down in Philadelphia,they did nothing,they were run up on and simply shot to death.whos to say you may have been doing something similar.weapons can look like almost anything these days.they want a report so that if another crew sees you they will be alerted you fool.if you had nothing to hide…..? oh thats right the self proclaimed anarchist on the internet is exempt from law and apparently COMMON F’n SENSE. i would have felt threatened too. understand cause and effect and accept YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS. instead of whoa is me grow the f-up are you kidding. i got your next mission,go run up on a federal reserve armed guard and report back to us how that goes.i want to see the insides of the federal reserve.you cant even see the money,what kind of reaction might you expect there??? good luck.
i’d be more willing to give shane becker the benefit of the doubt if he had the integrity to come out and say that he simply took the pictures to provoke exactly the kind of confrontation that occurred. frankly, i think it’s GOOD that people are out there testing these limits and forcing law enforcement to examine closely how to handle photography situations.
but at least have the balls to say it straight and don’t make up some corny lie about why you took the picture. after the lie i lost respect for him and couldn’t really fully take this side in the ensuing fiasco. turns out everyone acted stupidly in this situation.
132,
~~RCW 9.01.055 Citizen immunity if aiding officer, scope — When~~
clearly gives citizens the right to help in the legal system. Now considering the position that a person who transports federal currency around commercially is given more latitude to execute his job, not just by state, but by federal protection, I think they fit into what would be covered by this RCW. I would guess, and as I stated before I am not a lawyer but simply a citizen, but I would guess that the state, federal and even the municipal court system would give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to protecting large sums of money. If they are concerned about a “suspicious” situation, my non-legal guess would be they would be given legal latitude to actually tackle your dumb ass if they thought you might be casing out a box to break into.
If a mall guard has all the legal protection in the world to “apprehend” a person suspected of steeling a tee shirt, and hold them in an office until a police officer arrives, not even being positive you actually have the shirt on you, these guys may even be able to get away with tazzing you.
Please remember, these people are in an odd way putting their ass on the line so you can have access to your precious back account where ever you might be. They are in a very dangerous job, even if you fail to recognize it. Do a quick google search and you will find many cases were they have been killed in their job.
As someone earlier stated, I suspect you would even find the FBI happy to jump in with the Justice department to defend these peoples actions. This does boarder on the edges of interstate commerce after all.
If someone walks onto your property and snaps a shot of you eating lunch on your deck, well that is a whole lot different then taking a picture of armed guards filling several thousand dollars into a bank machine. To act like the two are the same type of action is a logical fallacy in that you fail to recognize the severity of the potential acts. You really should think this through a little more. You will see clearly that RCW 9A.40.040 in no way could or even would be used in such a situation to prosecute. This is simply a red herring. Look over here!! I found a law that counters your supposition!!!
136, I agree, we do need to legitimately test the law and when we find it is lacking proper restraint, challenge it and change it. It is our civic duty to protect ourselves from the government. And if you choose to do it, be smart about how you do it. Find others who believe as you do and fix the system. It is in no way anywhere close to perfect but there are legitimate mechanisms to change it. This is a dumb stunt that has gotten this nozzle more hits on his blog then he has ever had before. ;0)
so i’m wondering if the stranger got the same amount of money for the REI ad that runs on the page ACROSS FROM THIS STORY as they paid for the cover photo?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/arc…
@137:
The law you cited:
“Private citizens aiding a police officer, or other officers of the law in the performance of their duties as police officers or officers of the law, shall have the same civil and criminal immunity as such officer, as a result of any act or commission for aiding or attempting to aid a police officer or other officer of the law, when such officer is in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury or when such officer requests such assistance and when such action was taken under emergency conditions and in good faith.”
Notice the part that specifically outlines when the law applies: “when such officer is in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury or when such officer requests such assistance and when such action was taken under emergency conditions and in good faith.”
Fail.
They detained him illegally, and it was clearly not an emergency situation.
To clarify my position, I think that what the guy should have done was simply walk away from the situation. Had the security guards actually assaulted him for taking a picture and then trying to leave, it would have been a very different situation, and much more clear-cut, IMO.
No Therapist (94), I wouldn’t go freak out if someone was taking a picture of me accessing my hidden key, I’d be glad I saw them take the photo because otherwise I wouldn’t know they knew. I’d move the key right away.
Do you see how this works?
If they took a picture of me keying my pass into the ATM it’d remind me that the bank and the store both have cameras watching the ATM, as well as any clever crooks with a hidden camera. I need to remember to cover the keypad.
Blaming the messenger doesn’t change anything.
And last, because I think the least of you for it, your ‘Think of the children’.
No, someone taking pictures of me, my children, the place I live, or anything else isn’t an invasion of privacy. Me, my family, and all my things exist in the world, when we move through public areas of it we are visible to those around us and to deny them an ability to look or photo us (or the area on the other side of us) is dictatorial, unwarranted, and ultimately useless.
Realistically, my child would be far safer because of photos – mine for helping identify them, those of their classmates which would help identify their clothing and exact time of disappearance, and hopefully those of anyone in the neighborhood who might actually have captured the hypothetical attacker’s image, ideally in the act.
No, none of your fearmongering is a reason why I or any other reasonable person would be even alarmed, let alone panicked enough to call in emergency services simply because someone didn’t want to answer my snoopy questions.
Furthermore, if I did feel scared I’d take actions to make myself feel safer, getting all of us first-aid training because we’re far more likely to just hurt ourselves than be hurt by others, buying pepper spray for the kids and teaching them how and when to use it, getting rape-alarms and hidden GPS trackers if I feared abduction, etc. For everything there is a reasonable, measured response that actually serves to alleviate some of the problem.
You seem absolutely unaware of these options and instead want the government to abuse others to alleviate your fears. You misrepresent his behavior as combative, as if he threatened anyone, when in fact he was threatened by them. The thought of you, and more like you, is really the scary one.
And you’re undoubtedly old enough to vote and call yourself an adult… It’s sad.
@47: “[…] Second, according to the post, ‘when officers arrived, one of the armed Loomis guards told them he was concerned about his safety and was not sure if Becker was going to attempt to grab the money that was going into the ATM machine.’ Last time I checked, grabbing money would be a crime, and the Loomis guardn’s statement (even if it did turn out to be a lie) is enough for the officer to have probable cause to arrest.”
The original post states the Loomis guys didn’t act right away. They finished filling up the machine, then walked over to Becker as he was standing in line at the checkout counter, waiting to pay. If they had honestly been concerned about anything even remotely like what you suggest, why didn’t they act right away? And clearly, if the burly guy with the shaved head threatened to tackle Becker (who, from the looks of it, isn’t exactly an impressive physical specimen), then his (subsequent) statement that he was legitimately afraid for his safety seems laughable to me. Your argument doesn’t hold water.
After looking at his
-
Maybe the Loomis guards had a good reason to worry.
I wonder if one of them was Kurt Husted:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/46744…
i just ate several 25cent packs of doritos snack crackers.
Comments are closed.