Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Mar 4, 2004, 12:31 AM   #51
zimv20
macrumors 601
 
zimv20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohickey
Since we have started along this path of looking at crime statistics, I was thinking that we go and do more.
How about we do Illinois, and a neighboring state, Indiana?

To divvy it up, I'll take Indiana, and you take Illinois. Then we can pick apart the reason for the difference or similarities.

what's the purpose?

fwiw, you've picked the only two states i've resided in
__________________
Oct 2011: check out my band's first album @ boxsetauthentic.com
zimv20 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2004, 09:20 AM   #52
mactastic
macrumors 68040
 
mactastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colly-fornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohickey
Actually, due process has to be done no matter what. Says so in the Constitution. Cost of due process is what it is. Cost of execution is the electricity, or cyanide, or sewer water. Due process still requires to be performed. If we say that executions can only happen by lobbing death row inmates to LEO, then the cost of executions would skyrocket to $44k a pound, if we use domestic launch vehicles, and $23k a pound if we use eastern european launch vehicles.

As to my personal charitable contributions, every year, I file via form 1040 and have a line item for this.
You'd make a decent polititian. You are wordy without saying a damn thing.

WTF does low earth orbit have to do with the death penalty? Are you in favor of actually wasting government money to execute people in a way benefiting your amusement? What does 'cost of due process is what it is' mean? Does that mean you think it's too much? I know you don't think it's too little.

As to your personal contributions, I file the same way. That doesn't answer my question though. If you are unwilling to volunteer how much you volunteer, just say so.
__________________
I salute you Sean [Hannity]. I salute you for bravely standing by a man whose only crime, was breaking federal law.
- Stephen Colbert
mactastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2004, 10:34 AM   #53
Backtothemac
macrumors 601
 
Backtothemac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Destin Florida
Send a message via AIM to Backtothemac
My opinion on the death penalty is simple. You should have to have absolute proof that someone committed the crime. And it would have to be a very bad crime. Not just murder. But sick murder. Especially when it involved the death of a child. The guy who raped and murdered 11 year old Carly Brusha. Yep. Shoot the ****er in the head. 1 minute after the trial. No appeals. Those that are preditors on children should get no mercy from society.

And, frankly, many of these guys should not be out at all. Like the guy that killed Carly. He was a criminal all his life. Lock em up without parol. The reason the death penality is more expensive is because of the years of appeals. They should get a set solution down, and execute these loosers after say two years? But they can't because all of the politicians are playing with the judicial system. It is all a joke. And I say that as my brother sits on death row. BUt yes, he should die for what he did.
Backtothemac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2004, 11:02 AM   #54
mactastic
macrumors 68040
 
mactastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colly-fornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backtothemac
My opinion on the death penalty is simple. You should have to have absolute proof that someone committed the crime. And it would have to be a very bad crime. Not just murder. But sick murder. Especially when it involved the death of a child. The guy who raped and murdered 11 year old Carly Brusha. Yep. Shoot the ****er in the head. 1 minute after the trial. No appeals. Those that are preditors on children should get no mercy from society.

And, frankly, many of these guys should not be out at all. Like the guy that killed Carly. He was a criminal all his life. Lock em up without parol. The reason the death penality is more expensive is because of the years of appeals. They should get a set solution down, and execute these loosers after say two years? But they can't because all of the politicians are playing with the judicial system. It is all a joke. And I say that as my brother sits on death row. BUt yes, he should die for what he did.
But what is absolute proof, short of catching the person in the act? Confessions have been faked for notereity or suicide, or coerced by angry or overzealous prosecutors/cops. Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable, they have been mistaken many times in the past. DNA evidence is pretty good, but it still doesn't guarantee anything.

And as for appeals, the only way we could possible get around those is if the defendants each have the very best defense possible. And that costs money. You think the trial is expensive now, wait until each defendant is guaranteed a Mark Geregos. Public defenders have actually slept through parts of their clients capital case. Pulling someone who just watched their attorney sleep through their trial outside to be shot isn't going to work if you want justice. Vengance maybe, but not justice.

You do make a good point about people that shouldn't be out of prison though. The thought that people like that are walking around makes me very angry. I would much rather free up some room in the prisons for them by releasing non-violent drug users who are there taking up space on long mandatory minimums.
__________________
I salute you Sean [Hannity]. I salute you for bravely standing by a man whose only crime, was breaking federal law.
- Stephen Colbert
mactastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2004, 11:06 AM   #55
Backtothemac
macrumors 601
 
Backtothemac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Destin Florida
Send a message via AIM to Backtothemac
Quote:
Originally Posted by mactastic
But what is absolute proof, short of catching the person in the act? Confessions have been faked for notereity or suicide, or coerced by angry or overzealous prosecutors/cops. Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable, they have been mistaken many times in the past. DNA evidence is pretty good, but it still doesn't guarantee anything.

And as for appeals, the only way we could possible get around those is if the defendants each have the very best defense possible. And that costs money. You think the trial is expensive now, wait until each defendant is guaranteed a Mark Geregos. Public defenders have actually slept through parts of their clients capital case. Pulling someone who just watched their attorney sleep through their trial outside to be shot isn't going to work if you want justice. Vengance maybe, but not justice.

You do make a good point about people that shouldn't be out of prison though. The thought that people like that are walking around makes me very angry. I would much rather free up some room in the prisons for them by releasing non-violent drug users who are there taking up space on long mandatory minimums.
To me absolute proof is DNA, or several witnesses, video, etc. For example, we are 100% sure of who killed Carly. There should be no mercy for that guy at all. None.
Backtothemac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2004, 11:16 AM   #56
Taft
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Taft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohickey
Hehehe...

I don't know why but a lot of people get confused when you start mentioning rates of a certain item, and they get that confused with rate of change. I guess after high school and college physics, you get that straightened out pretty quick after you miss a gimme question in an exam.

Rate of a certain item is velocity if position is the certain item.
Rate of change of a certain item is acceleration if position is the certain item.
Okay, you physics buffs, what is the term for the rate of change of the rate of change of position?


Back to topic though, with Canada being a 30million people country, and the US being a 280million people country, a lower rate in the US could produce a higher amount of crime victims, since the rate is normalized (in crime stats, its usually per 100K people). I contend that the rate is the correct measure for comparison instead of number of crime victims. Professional criminologists do the same, use rates for comparisons instead of absolute crime numbers when comparing different countries.

So, when you have a US news story of X number of murders or deaths a week, and you don't hear the same number of murders or deaths a week in Canadian news story, you tend to think that the US is more crime ridden than Canada is. There lies the misconception that US has higher crime.

You're right, accellerating wasn't the right word. The article talks about the change of the rate of crime. That isn't acceleration. But that also doesn't mean that the crime rates in Canada are higher than the crime rates in the US.

If Canada's violent crime effects 15% of the population (ie. a crime rate of 15%) and the US's effects 30% of the population, then even if the crime rate rises 10% in Canada and drops 5% in the US, Canada still has the lower total rate. I think you mentioned this yourself actually. But this basically doesn't tell us anything about the relative crime rates of the two countries. It tells us which direction each country's rate has been moving, but that isn't necessarily an indicator of future trends and certainly isn't an indicator of which has the higher rate.

But you posted this article to refute someone's claim that Canada had less violent crime. That doesn't exactly do the job, does it?

Taft

Last edited by Taft; Mar 4, 2004 at 11:20 AM.
Taft is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2004, 12:41 PM   #57
mactastic
macrumors 68040
 
mactastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colly-fornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backtothemac
To me absolute proof is DNA, or several witnesses, video, etc. For example, we are 100% sure of who killed Carly. There should be no mercy for that guy at all. None.
And the guy who killed her is poor, so he probably will wind up on death row. Yet a scumbag like Scott Peterson will probably not. The difference? One has a high priced attorney, and the other won't. If you'd asked me right after Peterson was arrested, I would have said he was on the fast track to lethal injection. Since Gerragos has gotten involved that has changed. Peterson doesn't show up in court in shackles and an orange jumpsuit anymore. He arrives in a suit and tie, and no bonds. Gerragos claims the chains and jumpsuit were predjudicial, and I tend to agree with him. A guy in chains just looks more guilty. But is this benefit offered to all? Hell no, only if your well-connected lawyer can work it for you do you get that treatment. That's inherently unfair. And if you need further proof that a good attorney (read money to hire one or more) can benefit your position, all I need to say is OJ.
__________________
I salute you Sean [Hannity]. I salute you for bravely standing by a man whose only crime, was breaking federal law.
- Stephen Colbert
mactastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 08:05 PM   #58
Frohickey
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PRK
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimv20
what's the purpose?

fwiw, you've picked the only two states i've resided in
The reason for the two states is that the two share a long common border, and the laws for the two states are different. So, it would make for an interesting case study.

Another would be California and Nevada.
Frohickey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 08:11 PM   #59
Frohickey
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PRK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mactastic
You'd make a decent polititian. You are wordy without saying a damn thing.

WTF does low earth orbit have to do with the death penalty? Are you in favor of actually wasting government money to execute people in a way benefiting your amusement? What does 'cost of due process is what it is' mean? Does that mean you think it's too much? I know you don't think it's too little.

As to your personal contributions, I file the same way. That doesn't answer my question though. If you are unwilling to volunteer how much you volunteer, just say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mactastic
And as to your 'cheap' solutions for executions, do you think electricity is terribly expensive? How about sodium cyanide? Expensive compared to 2000 gallons of water? You forget, the only way executions are done on the cheap is if we toss due process out the window. The cheap part is offing the offender. Are you suggesting we streamline the process to make it easier for the innocent to wind up in a tank of sewer water?
I mention LEO because you were going on about executions being done on the cheap. Due process is what costs the most in the criminal justice system. Next is the length of incarceration/housing. If we can have a streamlined but very good due process, that might cut down on the length of incarceration/housing. Of course, there would be a formula to how much added cost for the streamlined but very good due process before this actually is a win for the taxpayers.
Frohickey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 09:02 PM   #60
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Just so long as the math works out.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 09:13 PM   #61
Frohickey
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PRK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taft
You're right, accellerating wasn't the right word. The article talks about the change of the rate of crime. That isn't acceleration. But that also doesn't mean that the crime rates in Canada are higher than the crime rates in the US.

<snip>

But you posted this article to refute someone's claim that Canada had less violent crime. That doesn't exactly do the job, does it?

Taft
The analysis zimv20 and I did said that crime rates in Canada ARE higher than in the United States.
Frohickey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2004, 09:17 PM   #62
Frohickey
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PRK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mactastic
And the guy who killed her is poor, so he probably will wind up on death row. Yet a scumbag like Scott Peterson will probably not. The difference? One has a high priced attorney, and the other won't. If you'd asked me right after Peterson was arrested, I would have said he was on the fast track to lethal injection. Since Gerragos has gotten involved that has changed. Peterson doesn't show up in court in shackles and an orange jumpsuit anymore. He arrives in a suit and tie, and no bonds. Gerragos claims the chains and jumpsuit were predjudicial, and I tend to agree with him. A guy in chains just looks more guilty. But is this benefit offered to all? Hell no, only if your well-connected lawyer can work it for you do you get that treatment. That's inherently unfair. And if you need further proof that a good attorney (read money to hire one or more) can benefit your position, all I need to say is OJ.
Could it be that high priced lawyers are high priced because of the results they have given to past clients?
Could it be that high priced lawyers would like to remain high priced, and that means they only take cases that they believe they can get the results that their clients want?

Maybe, losing lawyers, say ones that have lost 70% of their cases should be disbarred.
Frohickey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 11:00 AM   #63
mactastic
macrumors 68040
 
mactastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colly-fornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohickey
Could it be that high priced lawyers are high priced because of the results they have given to past clients?
Yes.

Quote:
Could it be that high priced lawyers would like to remain high priced, and that means they only take cases that they believe they can get the results that their clients want?
Again, yes.

Could it be that this means that people without financial wherwithal or high noteriety will be treated differently by the justice system than a rich or famous/infamous person would? Does that bode well for justice? Oh that's right, if you don't have money you deserve_to_die.
__________________
I salute you Sean [Hannity]. I salute you for bravely standing by a man whose only crime, was breaking federal law.
- Stephen Colbert
mactastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 11:46 AM   #64
Backtothemac
macrumors 601
 
Backtothemac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Destin Florida
Send a message via AIM to Backtothemac
Quote:
Originally Posted by mactastic
And the guy who killed her is poor, so he probably will wind up on death row. Yet a scumbag like Scott Peterson will probably not. The difference? One has a high priced attorney, and the other won't. If you'd asked me right after Peterson was arrested, I would have said he was on the fast track to lethal injection. Since Gerragos has gotten involved that has changed. Peterson doesn't show up in court in shackles and an orange jumpsuit anymore. He arrives in a suit and tie, and no bonds. Gerragos claims the chains and jumpsuit were predjudicial, and I tend to agree with him. A guy in chains just looks more guilty. But is this benefit offered to all? Hell no, only if your well-connected lawyer can work it for you do you get that treatment. That's inherently unfair. And if you need further proof that a good attorney (read money to hire one or more) can benefit your position, all I need to say is OJ.
Oh, I agree that money should have no place in justice. However, there wasn't a video tape of Scott dragging Lacy off behind a car wash. Get my point. The evidence against Scott is circumstancial. So, he should get life no parole if convicted. The guy that killed Carley should get death.

The bottom line is that no prison is perfect, and some people are too dangerous to risk them getting back into society. So, kill them for their crime.
Backtothemac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 01:19 PM   #65
Frohickey
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PRK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mactastic
Could it be that this means that people without financial wherwithal or high noteriety will be treated differently by the justice system than a rich or famous/infamous person would? Does that bode well for justice? Oh that's right, if you don't have money you deserve_to_die.
There is the public defender system, as well as lawyers taking cases pro-bono.

What do you consider a fair justice system? One where there are no winners and no losers? The victim has already lost something, and is the one seeking justice. Fortunately, the victim has a good advocate, in the form of the prosecutor, publically paid for by your taxes and mine. The hope is that the prosecutor is an honorable person, and only litigates good cases instead of marginal cases in order to pad his/her resume so he/she can go on to bigger and better things such as running for mayor of a big city, or other elected office.

If you don't work, you don't eat. If you want to, you are free to subsidize the ones that don't work. More power to you.
Frohickey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 01:28 PM   #66
mactastic
macrumors 68040
 
mactastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colly-fornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backtothemac
Oh, I agree that money should have no place in justice. However, there wasn't a video tape of Scott dragging Lacy off behind a car wash. Get my point. The evidence against Scott is circumstancial. So, he should get life no parole if convicted. The guy that killed Carley should get death.

The bottom line is that no prison is perfect, and some people are too dangerous to risk them getting back into society. So, kill them for their crime.
Unfortunately the video doesn't show him actually killing her. So, as bad as it looks, from a dispassionate judicial standpoint that video has to be considered circumstantial as well. It doesn't help the guy that the girl he's seen leading off turns up dead, but I wouldn't call that iron-clad proof. Johnny Cochrane or Mark Gerragos, or somebody of that caliber, could probably poke enough holes in the prosecution's case that the death penalty would be a remote possibility at best. If the guy had enough money to hire the dream team OJ Simpson had, and he could go over the police department's procedures with a fine tooth comb I have no doubt there would be some doubt created. Sucks when that happens. It's just as much of a travesty of justice as an incompetent defense attorney. The inherent unfairness of that is what I object to.

The bottom line to me is that the judicial system is not perfect. Life sentences are an option, and while there is a remote possibility that one of these guys may escape, the risk is low. How many people escape from super-max facilities each year? Not many. Some people are too dangerous to put back into society? We're on the same page there. I don't want anyone sitting on death row to come out ever. Unless of course, they are able to prove their innocence.
__________________
I salute you Sean [Hannity]. I salute you for bravely standing by a man whose only crime, was breaking federal law.
- Stephen Colbert
mactastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 01:31 PM   #67
mactastic
macrumors 68040
 
mactastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colly-fornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohickey
The hope is that the prosecutor is an honorable person, and only litigates good cases instead of marginal cases in order to pad his/her resume so he/she can go on to bigger and better things such as running for mayor of a big city, or other elected office.
Yeah, I've never heard of an overzealous or crooked presecutor either. Have you?

And that's the point Frohickey. The public defender pool is not as good as either the government prosecutors, nor the expensive lawyers. Now I don't mind people going to jail because of a lazy, incompetent or what have you attorney. They probably deserve jail. I do object to the death penalty because you could always let them out of jail later if you find out there was a screw up. You can't dig them up from the prison graveyard and make it right though.
__________________
I salute you Sean [Hannity]. I salute you for bravely standing by a man whose only crime, was breaking federal law.
- Stephen Colbert

Last edited by mactastic; Mar 9, 2004 at 01:34 PM.
mactastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 01:34 PM   #68
Backtothemac
macrumors 601
 
Backtothemac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Destin Florida
Send a message via AIM to Backtothemac
Quote:
Originally Posted by mactastic
Unfortunately the video doesn't show him actually killing her. So, as bad as it looks, from a dispassionate judicial standpoint that video has to be considered circumstantial as well. It doesn't help the guy that the girl he's seen leading off turns up dead, but I wouldn't call that iron-clad proof. Johnny Cochrane or Mark Gerragos, or somebody of that caliber, could probably poke enough holes in the prosecution's case that the death penalty would be a remote possibility at best. If the guy had enough money to hire the dream team OJ Simpson had, and he could go over the police department's procedures with a fine tooth comb I have no doubt there would be some doubt created. Sucks when that happens. It's just as much of a travesty of justice as an incompetent defense attorney. The inherent unfairness of that is what I object to.

The bottom line to me is that the judicial system is not perfect. Life sentences are an option, and while there is a remote possibility that one of these guys may escape, the risk is low. How many people escape from super-max facilities each year? Not many. Some people are too dangerous to put back into society? We're on the same page there. I don't want anyone sitting on death row to come out ever. Unless of course, they are able to prove their innocence.
Except that, with her blood in his car, and his semen on, and in her body, and his DNA under her fingernails, etc makes it pretty clear cut what he did. I just personally, as a parent, think that murder of a child, or sexual molestation of a child should be death. Period. I personally think we should turn the bastards over to the parents and let them do what they will to the pieces of filth.

I know that personally, you would have to lock me up if anything like that ever happened to my daughter.
Backtothemac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 01:34 PM   #69
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohickey
There is the public defender system, as well as lawyers taking cases pro-bono.

What do you consider a fair justice system? One where there are no winners and no losers? The victim has already lost something, and is the one seeking justice. Fortunately, the victim has a good advocate, in the form of the prosecutor, publically paid for by your taxes and mine. The hope is that the prosecutor is an honorable person, and only litigates good cases instead of marginal cases in order to pad his/her resume so he/she can go on to bigger and better things such as running for mayor of a big city, or other elected office.
This argument is such complete horse hockey. Not only does it assume the guilt of the accused, it also assumes that the affluent deserve more effective legal representation in court then the poor. As far as "winners and losers" are concerned, so long as the poor are the losers, I suppose you've got no problem with the justice system, even when the verdict is death. Just natural selection at work as far as you're concerned?
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2004, 01:42 PM   #70
mactastic
macrumors 68040
 
mactastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colly-fornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backtothemac
Except that, with her blood in his car, and his semen on, and in her body, and his DNA under her fingernails, etc makes it pretty clear cut what he did. I just personally, as a parent, think that murder of a child, or sexual molestation of a child should be death. Period. I personally think we should turn the bastards over to the parents and let them do what they will to the pieces of filth.

I know that personally, you would have to lock me up if anything like that ever happened to my daughter.
I'm with you, I might be willing to risk a life sentence just to get my hands on the guy's neck if that was my kid. And I know there is all kinds of other evidence against him. But I still maintain that two different attorneys could get two different sentences for the guy and the only distinction would be if you have the money to hire the big guns. I'm not saying this guy isn't guilty, or that he doesn't deserve to be handed over to the parents, but that's not how our system is designed to work. I also think child molesters are among the worst of the worst. But murdering them doesn't solve anything. It hasn't prevented or lowered the incidence of molestation/murder. It doesn't bring the child back. It only assuages some peoples thirst for primal vengence. And it doesn't set a good example for others to follow.

As a side note, people are suddenly wishing they could ask Timothy McVeigh some questions, as there is some new information floating around about other people being involved with the OKC bombing. We'll likely never know now though. How is that justice for the families seeking the truth? What if there are others out there who share culpability and McVeigh was protecting them? God that would piss me off.
__________________
I salute you Sean [Hannity]. I salute you for bravely standing by a man whose only crime, was breaking federal law.
- Stephen Colbert
mactastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Death Penalty Squilly Politics, Religion, Social Issues 576 Jul 24, 2014 03:07 AM
Need Advice! Early Termination Penalty? Tsuchiya Community Discussion 0 Jun 12, 2013 05:08 PM
Death Penalty and Abortion the same issue? 63dot Politics, Religion, Social Issues 152 Mar 12, 2013 11:31 PM
Charlie Fuqua, Arkansas Candidate, Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious children steve knight Politics, Religion, Social Issues 13 Oct 9, 2012 12:11 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC