You must log in or register to comment.

Wildwilly54 t1_j64eqqg wrote

This guy can fuck off too, it was 100% his fault. If she would have stopped, this wouldn’t even be an issue.


doglywolf t1_j64lubi wrote

If she would of stopped , she could of been the one suing him.

The fleeing the scene puts an interesting legal spin on it.

There is a thing called something like reasonable diligence or something along those lines . That if there is an accident that is someone else fault it could still be your fault if you can't prove you didn't have a best effort to avoid it.

She never even braked....out of this entire thing that the part the shocks me...not even so much as a break tap till she is almost at the corner of the end of the block before you see break lights ...

That shows depraved indifference or an inebriated state which would make her liable .That whats going to make this an interesting shit show.

Some law firm probably doing it probably for like 60-70% of the take . Probably came to this guy and were like hey we can probably get you a few hundred thousand for this and wont charge you shit just sign this letting us sue for you.

If i were him and someone came to me and said hey we might be able to get a few hundred K from this clearly horrible person at no cost to you win or lose. Id be like fuck ya go for it.


Wildwilly54 t1_j64p9m8 wrote

You do bring up a good point. If I’m a Uber eats delivery guy, and some ambulance chasing lawyer offered me a chance at 1mill I’d take it.


doglywolf t1_j64r08p wrote

Its zero cost to him - most injury lawyers work on commission but they take the lions share to compensate for the risk .

My mom got a million dollar settlement from an accident that jacked up her arm for life. She barely got enough out of it to cover medical cost .

After medical bills which were about 80k after multiple surges (AFTER insurance covered their part no less) i think she got like less then 40k and lawyers ended up with the rest.


PolarExpress333 t1_j64tcv0 wrote

Actually by law in NJ the most lawyers can take on a personal injury contingency is 30%.

Edit: actually it’s 33.3% max to be exact


Marshalrusty t1_j65mfry wrote

Keep in mind that, if you take a close look at N.J. Ct. R. 1:21, any out-of-pocket fees are taken off the top, prior to the calculation of the contingency fee. This includes things like paying for expert witnesses, and can be very substantial in a tort case. This is why many firms won't even bother with cases where the expected payout is under 6 figures.

So it's absolutely possible to have a court award $150K, of which half is paid out as fees, and then for the attorneys to take $25K of the remaining $75K, leaving just $50K for the injured party.


doglywolf t1_j64tj5c wrote

they are lawyers im sure they find ways around that because 2x that has not been the experience i have seen and multiple others heard of


Mysterious_Ad_8105 t1_j66demh wrote

>Some law firm probably doing it probably for like 60-70% of the take

I have no views on this case, but I’ll just point out that under New Jersey Court Rule 1:21-77, attorney contingency fees in cases of this type are capped at 33.3% of the net recovery. An agreement purporting to award an attorney a higher contingency fee would be unenforceable.


samwiseganja96 t1_j661upn wrote

Id argue that the video alone would be enough to show she probably couldn't have done anything to avoid the accident. You can watch the biker go into multiple blind spots for the intersection. This video would 100% be shown in bike safety videos of what not to do in an intersection.


Muchamuchacha42 t1_j6cye9q wrote

Yeah. There’s nothing she could have done except drive the speed limit, avoid intoxication, stop at the scene, and report to the police sooner than 6 hours later. SIX HOURS.


doublen00b t1_j64l9gc wrote

There is merit here- drivers are supposed to take “evasive action” and avoid “failure to yeild”.

Amy was clearly not paying attention, failed to even attempt to stop, stay at scene etc. Right of way doesn’t overrule common sense. Its why cars cant simply run over protesters when they block highways or roads.


cC2Panda t1_j64prtc wrote

Amy is a piece of shit but he came out from behind stopped cars, it'd be hard to convince a reasonable person that she could have reasonably avoided the accident.


kulgan t1_j64t9o0 wrote

If she'd slammed on her brakes at any point, and of course stopped and rendered aid if she did hit him, maybe. Instead, she had no reaction at any point in the next 6 hours.


cC2Panda t1_j6521w5 wrote

We're not arguing whether or not she did the right thing after the fact. She had a second or two at the most to react from the time he appeared from behind the parked cars on the street. I don't think many civil juries would say that given the circumstances that she was at fault for the accident.


kulgan t1_j6537ce wrote

She had closer to 3 seconds if I recall correctly. That's enough time to get your foot off the gas and onto the brake, even if it's not enough time to stop. She did none of those things.


cC2Panda t1_j656uzz wrote

You can watch the video it's not 3 seconds, regardless in NYC(the nearest I can find actual stats for) less than a third of drivers in fatal accidents with cyclists/pedestrians are even charged let alone convicted of anything. Our society has decided the privileges of incompetent drivers supercede the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. I seriously doubt the cyclist will convince a jury to award him anything.


kulgan t1_j658jj6 wrote

Well, yeah, as a society we've decided that if you get on a bicycle you're sub-human.


doublen00b t1_j65353h wrote

None of what you are saying rules out drugs, alcohol, medication, phone use etc… all of which would put her at fault.


Wildwilly54 t1_j64mggf wrote

She has the green light, and it wasn’t like it just turned green …it’s a good ten seconds. There’s also a car illegally parked in the crosswalk on the corner obstructing her view from where this clown was coming from. 95% of drivers would have tagged him.

Granted I would have slowed down when I saw the car parked in the cross walk because I’ve had plenty of morons pop out from behind them over the years. But everything leading up to her hitting the guy wasn’t really her fault at all.


doublen00b t1_j64qoue wrote

I understand completely what you are saying. My understanding is that the law is written that you are to try and avoid accidents all costs. She pled guilty already to fleeing the scene of accident and failure to report.

I would bet a good attorney sees a window and can create a scenario that she was negligent or not fully paying attention and did nothing to avoid the accident. Maybe cell records will be requested, medical history etc (driving on meds when not supposed to etc), substance abuse, without knowing a lot more its hard to say what happened.

I would put money on out of court settlement.


objectimpermanence t1_j64zb94 wrote

> There’s also a car illegally parked in the crosswalk on the corner obstructing her view from where this clown was coming from. 95% of drivers would have tagged him.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Most drivers probably would have hit him.

But technically drivers are supposed to slow down when approaching an intersection with obstructed views. Having the green light doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to take reasonable steps to avoid hitting someone.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if the cyclist’s lawyer tries to make that argument.

Even though slowing down might not have avoided the collision, it would have reduce the severity of the injuries. The fact that she hit him and didn’t even tap the brakes afterward is a really bad look for her.


joejoeaz t1_j68nd2c wrote

Completely not at fault.... Until she fled the scene... If she was not in the wrong, she really, really, really, should have stayed. But alas she fled, and now she's infamous for being a piece of human garbage.


GhostOfRobertTreat t1_j6530og wrote

This guy should have been fined too! Just blew right through a red light into traffic!


kulgan t1_j64kbln wrote

He caused the situation, but I disagree on 100%. When you're driving a car, you should be alert and aware of the road in front of you. She easily had time to at least start to apply the brakes, if not completely stop, when the dumb human slowly and obliviously crossed her path.


Blankman8 t1_j64ota5 wrote

Shouldn’t you be just as aware when riding a bicycle? Honestly, she’s wrong for leaving but i really believe she didn’t see him. There’s just no way someone can hit something or someone and not even flinch or even tap the break when reacting.


jersey-city-park t1_j64tkqd wrote

She was absolutely drunk, high, or tripping out of her mind. Why else would someone whos not at fault drive away


Blankman8 t1_j64wx09 wrote

Shiiiiit there’s a couple parts of JC i wouldn’t stop lol


SecondOfCicero t1_j68fza7 wrote

Your comment made me think of something that happened in my neighbourhood when I was young. Kids were always always always playing in a busy road, and finally one of them got hit by some old dude, who did stop and get out to check on the kid. People started beating the shit out of the old dude for hitting the kid (the kid bounced and was fine) and put him in the hospital.

Sucks for everyone involved


kulgan t1_j64rsjj wrote

> Shouldn’t you be just as aware when riding a bicycle?

Sort of, but not really. The burden of responsibility is much higher for the activity that can and does fairly regularly kill lots of people, knock down buildings, etc. Dude was an idiot, but he wasn't traveling at a speed and mass to do much damage.

How do you even start to explain her not seeing him? Was she drunk? A large man was right in front of her for about 3 seconds and her only reaction was to open her mouth in the frame that she hit him. If she didn't see him, she maybe shouldn't be allowed to drive.


Wildwilly54 t1_j64tbdz wrote

There’s a car parked on the corner in the cross walk, completely blocking her view from the way he was traveling. She could have been whacked out of her mind, we’ll never know. But the majority of drivers in this city would have tagged him.


kulgan t1_j64tvqj wrote

Nonsense. If I recall correctly, it's about 2.7 seconds from him coming into view until the impact. Even if that's not enough time to fully stop, it's enough time to apply the brakes or at least come off the accelerator. She doesn't even have the excuse of looking at her phone or something. Her hands were at ten and two, eyes straight ahead. She plowed through the guy at full speed and kept going.


Blankman8 t1_j64w25q wrote

Did you watch the video? She didn’t even flinch. Do you drive? Try not tapping your break for 10 seconds while driving through the city. It’s an instant reaction even if you’re going to hit a pothole. The fact that her brain didn’t even hesitate to keep driving makes me question if she saw him or if she was heavily impaired.


kulgan t1_j64wqha wrote

I have probably watched the various angles more than I've seen the Zapruder film. "Heavily impaired" is the only thing that makes any sense.


Blankman8 t1_j64x70v wrote

Or not seeing him… the fact that the break lights didn’t even flash red as if she didn’t even touch her break to think about it is what makes me think this


kulgan t1_j64xl17 wrote

But the only way she didn't see him is if she was paying no attention to the road, or she's actually blind.


Blankman8 t1_j64xqco wrote

Her face was up in the video so no phone excuse.


kulgan t1_j64y664 wrote

Right. She's spaced out, heavily impaired, blind, a complete sociopath, or some combination.


Blankman8 t1_j64yb2c wrote

Can we just agree that bikers need to be just as aware. Not giving her slack but he was heavily at fault


kulgan t1_j6505t5 wrote

I am on board that he was irresponsible in an idiotic way. Put himself in danger, wasn't aware, etc. It's not a good idea. But there are a lot of reasons we require a license and liability insurance to drive a car and don't for riding a bike. If she'd slammed on her brakes but still hit him, there's really no outrage, no story here. He fucked up. But the higher burden is always on the heavier, faster mode of travel. Pedestrians bear less responsibility than bicyclists and they bear less responsibility than drivers. She needed to try to avoid hitting the human that showed up in her path, regardless of the color of the light.


Blankman8 t1_j650k8p wrote

Now let me give you this scenario…

If she swerved because she couldn’t stop and ended up on the side walk hitting a couple people perhaps killing one because his ignorance who would we be mad at?

Another scenario.. a car railing you and if she breaks she’s getting hit hard from behind(no pun intended)


kulgan t1_j6519f5 wrote

Swerving in that scenario would be irresponsible. She was on a neighborhood street, and not even traveling that fast. Just apply the brakes.

Rear ending someone will always be the fault of the driver who didn't stop, not the one who does. This is basic stuff in the manual and on the test. Keep a safe following distance, be aware of what's in front of your car.


Blankman8 t1_j651jtt wrote

I’m just giving you scenarios that happens everyday. You can’t control someone tail hating you so chuck that manual and test out the window


kulgan t1_j651v1x wrote

Okay, if we're chucking the manual, yes, accept that you might get rear ended to avoid running into a human in front of your car. You've got crumple zones and their liability insurance will cover the damage.


Blankman8 t1_j6525dn wrote

Lol you must not drive. Also if i have a kid with me in the car I’m running over that idiot and not accepting a hit from behind.


kulgan t1_j652znf wrote

I do drive. I keep an eye on the road most of the time, though. And I get annoyed if I'm being tailgated.


robotorigami t1_j65fn53 wrote

Are you arguing that it would be totally ok for me to run down a person who's in the crosswalk when my light is green because it would be their fault?


mmmmyah t1_j65qj3f wrote

No one is saying it's "totally ok". But this is a common situation where the bicyclist was at fault and any average driver could not stop as seen re: the circumstances on the video. In general if you don't obey the traffic laws be prepared to deal with the consequences. There are vehicular traffic laws in place for a reason and they apply to both motorists and bicyclists alike.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j64uw03 wrote

Driver has a legal obligation to not impact other persons or property. Or operate a vehicle in a way that can result in such a collision.

Same reason you’re responsible for an accident if you slid on ice or snow. You’re responsible for safe operation of the vehicle regardless of external elements. You have to slow to a speed in which you can safely operate, or if that’s not possible, get off the road until it is.

One persons negligence doesn’t absolve the driver of this responsibility.

She’s responsible by law for hitting him regardless of the light.

He could get a ticket, but that’s really it.

She’s absolutely responsible for the accident thanks to unsafe operation of the vehicle and being unable to stop and/or not looking before crossing the intersection. At a bare minimum it’s reckless driving. This is textbook stuff.


Wildwilly54 t1_j64zziz wrote

“Or operate a vehicle in a way that can result in such a collision”

She has a green light and is basically doing the speed limit. On what planet is that part reckless.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j652tkl wrote

That doesn’t mean she can hit someone. That’s still an offense. She had an obligation to stop in time. She willfully operated a vehicle in a way she couldn’t.


edk5 t1_j653jzy wrote

Out of curiosity, where did you go to law school? I don't remember this from Torts class way back when I took it.


Wildwilly54 t1_j658eic wrote

University of American Samoa Law School would be my guess.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j65owpl wrote

If you took Drivers Ed in NJ this is an actual topic.

Assuming you’re a licensed driver.


GreenTunicKirk t1_j64iob0 wrote

Dude was in the wrong. He blows through a red light and the video showed no sign of him slowing.

Shamey was in the wrong. Arent hit and runs a felony in the state?

City was in the wrong. For not properly enforcing parking rules, there was a vehicle parked at the corner, blocking the crosswalk and visibility.

Person blocking crosswalk was wrong. Whoever decides “fuck it I’ll take a ticket” was lazy and shouldn’t have parked there.

What we are seeing here will happen time and time again, until we are able to better enforce parking measure, increase accessibility for pedestrians and bike lanes (yeah you heard me), and have our actual police do things they are hired to do, not just stand around Newark Ave with their phones out playing candy crush.

This is the human cost of urban development and growth, in real time.


StoryofTheGhost33 t1_j656ths wrote

The bicyclists should be sued for delivering Uber eats while wearing flip flops. Who does that?


mmmmyah t1_j65qqkk wrote

People who have been run over by these law breaking bicyclists


JCYimby t1_j6c2grz wrote

What does urban development and growth have to do with his inability to follow traffic rules and her inability to follow common sense and stop?


jlichyen t1_j6caniu wrote

Setting aside "urban development" and "growth", there's lots of ways to design a street intersection -- for example, pedestrian bulbs at the corner so cars can't park in the crosswalk -- so that cyclists and drivers can see who is coming from the other directions with more than enough distance to stop in time. Hoboken has many intersections with these improvements.

If these had been done, both the cyclist and the driver would have been more likely to see the other, and stop sooner (possibly).


robin_tern t1_j64iwfk wrote

What a wanker this guy is.



Brudesandwich t1_j64i5g2 wrote

This guy is about to come up. City won't go through the hassle and just settle. Amy is a piece of shit but let's not act like he's not at fault. He ran a red light which and the law applies to car, trucks motorcycles, and yes bicycles.


doglywolf t1_j64ly9j wrote

City has nothing to do with this - she was not on duty at the time or acting in an official capacity - the city has no liability here.


Tankmaster5000 t1_j64luc3 wrote

Why would the city pay? Isn't this a civil suit against her?


EyesOnImprovement OP t1_j64tqof wrote

Perhaps there is evidence of wrongdoing by the city.


[deleted] t1_j64uark wrote



EyesOnImprovement OP t1_j65f8zq wrote

"The bicyclist involved in the July 19th Jersey City hit-and-run by Councilwoman Amy DeGise has filed a $1 million tort claim against the city, the notice of claim says."

First line in the article.


EyesOnImprovement OP t1_j64ubyj wrote

It's going to be a tough council meeting when they vote on the settlement.


originatorn t1_j64pjo3 wrote

Just an FYI for folks: For NJ tort law, it doesn't matter if he was also negligent. What matters for determining if damages can be awarded is whether she was more negligent. And, whether she was negligent depends on how a reasonable person would act given these facts and circumstances and if she deviated from that standard. (Google "comparative negligence" for more info.)

This is just what I remember off the top of my head from law school, so someone feel free to correct me.


Tankmaster5000 t1_j64kn3c wrote

Sloth here would have gotten doinked off his bike regardless, he ran the red.

Her leaving the scene didn't cause damages to him.

They're both assholes, and this guy deserves nothing but a ticket for running a red.


Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j64g2zg wrote

WTF? Given the number of videos showing the crash was clearly 100% his fault, what does he expect to accomplish? Her fleeing the scene did not cause him injury!


jersey-city-park t1_j64m60d wrote

Thats the face of generations of inbreeding. No wonder he blew past the red light


kittyglitther t1_j64nktd wrote

This entire situation seems to involve people whose faces tell you everything you need to know about them.


Vertigo963 t1_j654ua9 wrote

Or maybe, and I know this is a stretch, but just maybe - they're both complex human beings who should be judged based on their actions and character rather than their appearances?


zero_cool_protege t1_j64f4tm wrote

More like an extort claim... This woman should simply face the charges that a prosecutor would give to any citizen for a hit and run. How sad it is that feels like it will never happen.


doglywolf t1_j64pkck wrote

It happened a couple days ago. She got a 1 year license suspension and $5,000 fine.

Which is an absolute slap on the wrist since she apparently has a double dipping salary


LateralEntry t1_j6563hj wrote

A million bucks? Seems like an awful lot for somebody who got up and walked away afterwards.


Mindless-Budget9019 t1_j64gmyr wrote

This is what happens when reddit enables self entitled incels. The city had better not settle. How can you sue the employer of a person unless they were on the clock.


EyesOnImprovement OP t1_j64hn0l wrote

This guy probably having mad sex with super models in-between posting on reddit.


squee_bastard t1_j656bg8 wrote

Pretty sure Mindless-Budget9019 is Shamey’s burner account, someone else posted that in another Shamey thread yesterday and based on their posting history it fits.


doglywolf t1_j64pdf4 wrote

You can't . The city should not be Liable unless she was in the act of preforming city duties.

If it was a city owned/ provided vehicle that might be some gray area.


However here is where the BS comes in. If her supervisors like her , they can claim she was on her way to work in city vehicle and in the act of preforming her job to put her under that umbrella of protection that the average city worker would not get.

They can straight out lie and say she was on the way to an important meeting with someone or such things to help protect her form civil liability at the cost of the tax payer.

Which should absolutely not be done in this case .

She got an absolutely slap on the wrist . I can't wait for all the Reddit post of picture of her around town driving now that her license is suspended and nothing being done about that lol .


Laraujo31 t1_j64h9ze wrote

This is what happens when you run after an accident.


DirectorBeneficial48 t1_j64qek2 wrote

I get it. If I had a chance to legally get a million bucks without having to even work for it, I'd do it, too.

But damn. We all know who caused the accident.


PathologicalLiar_007 t1_j653gp1 wrote

Does this come out the tax payers money?


Yr9012 t1_j66025p wrote

It is filed against the city according to the news, so if he wins, JC’s tax payers pay the $1million


G_Funk_Error t1_j667s2b wrote

::incoming armchair lawyer alert::


red__what t1_j67gm06 wrote

This will encourage bikers to think they are above the law.

Give him a ticket and send the message we are all equal, irrespective of what we ride/drive


driftingwood2018 t1_j64jxiz wrote

Great for the JC tax base since we’ve had it so easy these past years


aa043 t1_j653s1y wrote

Thanks to some supporters of Andrew Black the public is now given a tiny few seconds clip of the accident video; its now in a loop that fails to show important facts of the accident which show it was entirely Andrew's fault.

Andrew, as shown in original videos, starts behind the car that stops for the red light. Andrew clearly crosses the solid line and is in the wrong lane of a two way street when he passes the car stopping for a red light. He quickly passes the car and swerves to the right crossing back to the right side of the solid line, but keeps looking slightly left. He almost passes Amy's car, that's how fast he went through the red light. He was lucky to have cleared most of the car when contact was made by his moving towards Amy's car while looking away.

Jersey City needs to view all entire videos available and object to Reddit's support of an edited version that fails to show Andrew is fully responsible for the accident. Police should have issued tickets for Andrew's traffic violations and reprimanded him for lying about the red light. Reddit lawyers should check JC header now for legal liability.

Amy did leave the scene of the accident but she was the innocent victim of the accident caused entirely by Andrew Black. Andrew now wants to milk the legal system. If he wins, there will be many copy cats. Local jurisdictions have to promote the importance of stop signs and red lights, its the right thing to do!

Accident and what happened afterwards are different events.

Research into frame by frame videos and the scene of the accident can be done but Andrew Black knows he was wrong.


mmmmyah t1_j65s23p wrote

You are getting downvoted only because you called her an innocent victim which she is not.. agree with everything else you say though. These law breaking bicyclists need to be ticketed and fined and his frivolous lawsuit should be thrown out.


aa043 t1_j6642n1 wrote

I have always stated that leaving the scene of an accident was a mistake made by Amy DeGise. Separate the two events before and after the accident and take a few seconds to understand that in first event she was a victim of a crash caused entirely by someone else. The claims, by some that Amy was drunk or speeding or should have braked, don't make much sense after watching complete video evidence. I don't recall using the term 'innocent' but that is irrelevant since the crash seems to be almost unavoidable and entirely caused by Andrew Black who committed two traffic violations before the crash.

Andrew almost passed Amy's car when the crash happened. If, instead of swerving back across middle of road towards Amy, he had gone more straight ahead, perhaps Andrew might even have escaped the crash.

I expect some down votes; Its amusing to point out silly mistakes some JC Progressives have made.


tex8222 t1_j65sq39 wrote

Well, that should keep the story in the news …..unless she settles.


JCYimby t1_j6c2eqw wrote

She should resign, but that being said, I don’t see what claim he has here. Her driving off didn’t cause his injury, his running the red caused his injury.


diaperbuyer t1_j65boy5 wrote

I drive on the block every single day. 1 she was going WAY too fast for that block. There are a bunch of daycares and lots of people walking around. 2. She made zero attempt at stopping or even slowing down at an intersection. What kind of driver doesn't slow down in a heavily populated intersection. Green light or not you just can't drive the 25 around there and she definitely was/ going over.


jerseycityfrankie t1_j64prrc wrote

On a side note had anyone attempted to calibrate her speed based on analysis of the tape? To me it looks like 40mph, a consistent 40 without slowing and PERHAPS acceleration?


Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j64qnc5 wrote

Yes, just after the incident I downloaded the footage and calculated she was going around 25mph, definitely not speeding.


jerseycityfrankie t1_j64ribc wrote

Lol no way that’s 25.


Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j64smo3 wrote

Sorry but arithmetic don't lie. I measures the distance between the crosswalks, noted the timestamp when she crossed and did the calculation. Feel free to do it yourself.


jerseycityfrankie t1_j65dbhp wrote

If she crossed the intersection at 25mph she’d be crawling, not zipping through as can plainly be seen. Her car wouldn’t bounce.


Atuk-77 t1_j65equq wrote

Easy money, why not? Lawyers surely offer him to bring the case at no cost


EyesOnImprovement OP t1_j64gu7w wrote

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation he has the city by the balls. They'll settle rather than have to deal with this minefield in court.

Why the 6 hour gap between the incident and reporting it?

Was there any contact or indirect communication between the police and Degise prior to her making the report?

Was Amy driving on a suspended license as indicated by her ticket history?

Was her car actually impounded in Hoboken or did John Allen pull strings for her?


BlueBeagle8 t1_j64jjn0 wrote

I am very much not a lawyer, but I don't see how any of this would make the city liable for $1 million in damages? Aside from the unanswered question of whether she communicated with police, these are all Degise problems not JC problems.


doglywolf t1_j64ocdr wrote

This should not be a city / tax payer issue. This should be 100% civil issue.

She was not in the act of preforming duties for the city nor on official city business. I don't think the city is liable here


Tankmaster5000 t1_j64lh6f wrote

Did it state that he's suing the City? If so, how?

You can't sue the city because a city employee who works at the water treatment plant hits you with their car, for example.


EyesOnImprovement OP t1_j65fjyl wrote

Holy fuck. This went from 10 upvotes to -2.
Looks like I touched a nerve or 12.


Kevg1968 t1_j65y545 wrote

Best part of that man , ran down his mothers leg


BigdPSU t1_j64niqu wrote

Should had file for 10 M