Hopefully the parents that armed their 17 year old for battle get some stiff penalties too. It was what seemed like an extreme trailer park brawl taking place out there.
Was trying to find what the 6 charges are and found this: "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system"
He likely will face those charges as an adult. I'm not sure how the system works out there, but here in Pennsylvania, the juvenile probation office would request a "Certification Hearing" to "certify him" up to adult court. The JPO office would argue why they think he should be certified, and his defense attorney would argue against it. It'd be a pretty easy case to certify given not only his age, but the nature of the offense, and fact that he drove some distance to get there. The defense attorney will make some sort of mental health argument and request an evaluation. It won't help his case though. He very much knew what he was doing.
Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."
He likely will face those charges as an adult. I'm not sure how the system works out there, but here in Pennsylvania, the juvenile probation office would request a "Certification Hearing" to "certify him" up to adult court. The JPO office would argue why they think he should be certified, and his defense attorney would argue against it. It'd be a pretty easy case to certify given not only his age, but the nature of the offense, and fact that he drove some distance to get there. The defense attorney will make some sort of mental health argument and request an evaluation. It won't help his case though. He very much knew what he was doing.
Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."
I’m thinking that the weapons charges will stick. The 1st degree intentional homicide, I’m not sure. Still surprised we haven’t heard more about charges of “contributing to delinquency of a minor” or something similar on the parents.
He likely will face those charges as an adult. I'm not sure how the system works out there, but here in Pennsylvania, the juvenile probation office would request a "Certification Hearing" to "certify him" up to adult court. The JPO office would argue why they think he should be certified, and his defense attorney would argue against it. It'd be a pretty easy case to certify given not only his age, but the nature of the offense, and fact that he drove some distance to get there. The defense attorney will make some sort of mental health argument and request an evaluation. It won't help his case though. He very much knew what he was doing.
Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."
I’m thinking that the weapons charges will stick. The 1st degree intentional homicide, I’m not sure.
Yeah the weapons chargres definitley. I'm not sure about 1st degree homicide either.
He likely will face those charges as an adult. I'm not sure how the system works out there, but here in Pennsylvania, the juvenile probation office would request a "Certification Hearing" to "certify him" up to adult court. The JPO office would argue why they think he should be certified, and his defense attorney would argue against it. It'd be a pretty easy case to certify given not only his age, but the nature of the offense, and fact that he drove some distance to get there. The defense attorney will make some sort of mental health argument and request an evaluation. It won't help his case though. He very much knew what he was doing.
Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."
I’m thinking that the weapons charges will stick. The 1st degree intentional homicide, I’m not sure.
Yeah the weapons chargres definitley. I'm not sure about 1st degree homicide either.
I'm pretty cynical any murder charge will stick to this kid as well.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
He likely will face those charges as an adult. I'm not sure how the system works out there, but here in Pennsylvania, the juvenile probation office would request a "Certification Hearing" to "certify him" up to adult court. The JPO office would argue why they think he should be certified, and his defense attorney would argue against it. It'd be a pretty easy case to certify given not only his age, but the nature of the offense, and fact that he drove some distance to get there. The defense attorney will make some sort of mental health argument and request an evaluation. It won't help his case though. He very much knew what he was doing.
Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."
I’m thinking that the weapons charges will stick. The 1st degree intentional homicide, I’m not sure.
Yeah the weapons chargres definitley. I'm not sure about 1st degree homicide either.
I'm pretty cynical any murder charge will stick to this kid as well.
Well the argument that I've been making suggesting he will be convicted is that he broke several serious gun laws. So if you're breaking gun laws, and you end up shooting and killing someone, maybe that can be murder because you shouldn't have had the gun to begin with.
The argument his defense attorney will certainly make is that in both shootings, at least by the videos I've seen, the person he shot was aggressively charging at him. Let's be real, that's probably exactly what he wanted. And he might have even verbally provoked an attack in hopes he'd have a reason to shoot. But that's unclear at this point.
He likely will face those charges as an adult. I'm not sure how the system works out there, but here in Pennsylvania, the juvenile probation office would request a "Certification Hearing" to "certify him" up to adult court. The JPO office would argue why they think he should be certified, and his defense attorney would argue against it. It'd be a pretty easy case to certify given not only his age, but the nature of the offense, and fact that he drove some distance to get there. The defense attorney will make some sort of mental health argument and request an evaluation. It won't help his case though. He very much knew what he was doing.
Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."
I’m thinking that the weapons charges will stick. The 1st degree intentional homicide, I’m not sure.
Yeah the weapons chargres definitley. I'm not sure about 1st degree homicide either.
I'm pretty cynical any murder charge will stick to this kid as well.
Well the argument that I've been making suggesting he will be convicted is that he broke several serious gun laws. So if you're breaking gun laws, and you end up shooting and killing someone, maybe that can be murder because you shouldn't have had the gun to begin with.
The argument his defense attorney will certainly make is that in both shootings, at least by the videos I've seen, the person he shot was aggressively charging at him. Let's be real, that's probably exactly what he wanted. And he might have even verbally provoked an attack in hopes he'd have a reason to shoot. But that's unclear at this point.
At what point is a person allowed to fear for their life and be aggressive toward a vigilante with an AR or other long rifle? Especially someone that fits a profile of a white domestic terrorist school shooter type?
He likely will face those charges as an adult. I'm not sure how the system works out there, but here in Pennsylvania, the juvenile probation office would request a "Certification Hearing" to "certify him" up to adult court. The JPO office would argue why they think he should be certified, and his defense attorney would argue against it. It'd be a pretty easy case to certify given not only his age, but the nature of the offense, and fact that he drove some distance to get there. The defense attorney will make some sort of mental health argument and request an evaluation. It won't help his case though. He very much knew what he was doing.
Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."
I’m thinking that the weapons charges will stick. The 1st degree intentional homicide, I’m not sure.
Yeah the weapons chargres definitley. I'm not sure about 1st degree homicide either.
I'm pretty cynical any murder charge will stick to this kid as well.
Well the argument that I've been making suggesting he will be convicted is that he broke several serious gun laws. So if you're breaking gun laws, and you end up shooting and killing someone, maybe that can be murder because you shouldn't have had the gun to begin with.
The argument his defense attorney will certainly make is that in both shootings, at least by the videos I've seen, the person he shot was aggressively charging at him. Let's be real, that's probably exactly what he wanted. And he might have even verbally provoked an attack in hopes he'd have a reason to shoot. But that's unclear at this point.
At what point is a person allowed to fear for their life and be aggressive toward a vigilante with an AR or other long rifle? Especially someone that fits a profile of a white domestic terrorist school shooter type?
If you're running towards him, you don't seem to be fearing for your life. In fact, you're a vigilante yourself trying to take down another vigilante. If I saw someone with an AR that fit the domestic school shooter type description, I'm getting as far away as I can.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
We've needed changes long before anything is handed down to this kid.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
At this point I don’t feel sorry for any involved. They were all out there looking for trouble. Nothing good was going to come out of it. Stay the fuck home. Fake ass GI joes.
He likely will face those charges as an adult. I'm not sure how the system works out there, but here in Pennsylvania, the juvenile probation office would request a "Certification Hearing" to "certify him" up to adult court. The JPO office would argue why they think he should be certified, and his defense attorney would argue against it. It'd be a pretty easy case to certify given not only his age, but the nature of the offense, and fact that he drove some distance to get there. The defense attorney will make some sort of mental health argument and request an evaluation. It won't help his case though. He very much knew what he was doing.
Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."
I’m thinking that the weapons charges will stick. The 1st degree intentional homicide, I’m not sure.
Yeah the weapons chargres definitley. I'm not sure about 1st degree homicide either.
I'm pretty cynical any murder charge will stick to this kid as well.
Well the argument that I've been making suggesting he will be convicted is that he broke several serious gun laws. So if you're breaking gun laws, and you end up shooting and killing someone, maybe that can be murder because you shouldn't have had the gun to begin with.
The argument his defense attorney will certainly make is that in both shootings, at least by the videos I've seen, the person he shot was aggressively charging at him. Let's be real, that's probably exactly what he wanted. And he might have even verbally provoked an attack in hopes he'd have a reason to shoot. But that's unclear at this point.
At what point is a person allowed to fear for their life and be aggressive toward a vigilante with an AR or other long rifle? Especially someone that fits a profile of a white domestic terrorist school shooter type?
I would suggest refraining from being aggressive towards anyone merely based off of how they look and the color of their skin If he was out there shooting at random people trying to shoot as many as possible, then I would commend his aggressors. But that’s not what was happening from the videos I saw...And where were all of those other gunshots coming from? Has anyone verified the source of the rest of the gunfire out there?
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
And that was even worse because Zimmerman followed Martin (against the instructions of the 911 operator) which led to the confrontation.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
And that was even worse because Zimmerman followed Martin (against the instructions of the 911 operator) which led to the confrontation.
And the 17 year old kid was being encouraged by the police just before he killed those guys.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
And that was even worse because Zimmerman followed Martin (against the instructions of the 911 operator) which led to the confrontation.
And the 17 year old kid was being encouraged by the police just before he killed those guys.
The whole thing is super fucked up.
This was probably a far-worse act by police than the actual shooting, which can at least be considered "heat of the moment." They practically deputized a 17-year old kid because he liked them. It made things more dangerous. The are among the responsible parties for the two deaths. And really, they did the kid a huge disservice by encouraging him to get involved in something he was clearly not emotionally ready for.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
And that was even worse because Zimmerman followed Martin (against the instructions of the 911 operator) which led to the confrontation.
And the 17 year old kid was being encouraged by the police just before he killed those guys.
The whole thing is super fucked up.
It really is. Blowing the ego up on a 17 year old wannebe cop walking around with a loaded AR-15 with agitated protestors. What could go wrong?
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
I read somewhere that a Molotov cocktail was thrown at him at first then the guy threw a garbage can at him and finally he shot /killed the first guy. I m not sure if that is 100% accurate but it does change the story if true.
My prediction: convicted of gun charges Found innocent of murder because of self defense riots/protests continue
I'm not sure what's going to happen in this case, but a few cases I'm pretty certain of, that will lead to massive rioting are...
Rayshard Brooks case: The cop is charged with felony murder. No way in hell he gets convicted of that. Brooks stole his taser. There's several instances of cops shooting the guy that stole their taser and they weren't even charged.
George Floyd case: I think Derek Chauvin gets convicted on the second-degree murder charge. But the other three cops were charged with aiding-and-abetting second-degree murder. They'll be acquitted.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
I read somewhere that a Molotov cocktail was thrown at him at first then the guy threw a garbage can at him and finally he shot /killed the first guy. I m not sure if that is 100% accurate but it does change the story if true.
I heard that too, but haven't seen either. You can clearly see 1 other person firing a gun in the parking lot and hear a few other shots not in view, and several people are chasing him. I don't think it would be to hard to argue he was in fear for his life. So comes down to why were they chasing him? If he threatened to shoot a bunch of protestors or something, then all that is on him. If not, then I think he gets off with self defense and maybe gets the gun charges.
My prediction: convicted of gun charges Found innocent of murder because of self defense riots/protests continue
I'm not sure what's going to happen in this case, but a few cases I'm pretty certain of, that will lead to massive rioting are...
Rayshard Brooks case: The cop is charged with felony murder. No way in hell he gets convicted of that. Brooks stole his taser. There's several instances of cops shooting the guy that stole their taser and they weren't even charged.
George Floyd case: I think Derek Chauvin gets convicted on the second-degree murder charge. But the other three cops were charged with aiding-and-abetting second-degree murder. They'll be acquitted.
What many people don’t understand about the “stealing the taser” is that an officer absolutely cannot allow themselves to be tased. If they are, then the suspect has access to their firearm, etc. The argument could be made that the officer’s negligence lead the suspect to have access to their taser, but I guarantee anyone stands the risk of being shot by reaching for an officer’s weapon.
Comments
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/27/906901940/kenosha-shooting-suspect-charged-with-six-criminal-counts-including-homicide
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/kenosha-alleged-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse-charges
Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
The argument his defense attorney will certainly make is that in both shootings, at least by the videos I've seen, the person he shot was aggressively charging at him. Let's be real, that's probably exactly what he wanted. And he might have even verbally provoked an attack in hopes he'd have a reason to shoot. But that's unclear at this point.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there
2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting"
3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
If he was out there shooting at random people trying to shoot as many as possible, then I would commend his aggressors. But that’s not what was happening from the videos I saw...And where were all of those other gunshots coming from? Has anyone verified the source of the rest of the gunfire out there?
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
The whole thing is super fucked up.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
The FBI warned for years that police are cozy with the far right. Is no one listening?
I was an FBI agent who infiltrated white supremacists. Too many local police don’t take the far right seriously – or actively sympathizehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/28/fbi-far-right-white-supremacists-police
convicted of gun charges
Found innocent of murder because of self defense
riots/protests continue
I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know.
But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
Rayshard Brooks case: The cop is charged with felony murder. No way in hell he gets convicted of that. Brooks stole his taser. There's several instances of cops shooting the guy that stole their taser and they weren't even charged.
George Floyd case: I think Derek Chauvin gets convicted on the second-degree murder charge. But the other three cops were charged with aiding-and-abetting second-degree murder. They'll be acquitted.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com