Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 22, 2014, 12:43:46 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  Mississippi 'Castle Doctrine' Self-Defense Bill Signed Into Law
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Poll
Question: If you were a legislator, how would you have voted on the 'Castle Doctrine' self-defense bill that gives law-abiding citizens the right to use deadly force against any criminal who is trying to break into their home, vehicle, or business?
Democrat -Aye   -5 (18.5%)
Democrat -Nay   -6 (22.2%)
Republican -Aye   -7 (25.9%)
Republican -Nay   -0 (0%)
independent/third party -Aye   -8 (29.6%)
independent/third party -Nay   -1 (3.7%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 27

Author Topic: Mississippi 'Castle Doctrine' Self-Defense Bill Signed Into Law  (Read 4742 times)
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13867
United States


View Profile WWW
« on: April 03, 2006, 02:52:35 pm »
Ignore

Naturally, I would have voted for this bill:

Governor Barbour Signs Castle Doctrine, Other NRA-Backed Gun Provisions Into Law

Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Fairfax, VA-


Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has signed two of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) priority bills into law; SB 2426, the "Castle Doctrine" self-defense bill, and HB 1141, one bill containing two primary pro-gun and one pro-hunting provision for law-abiding gun owners and hunters in the state.

"I'd like to thank Governor Barbour for signing these bills and making them the law of the land in Mississippi," said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist. "Both are important pieces of legislation that will help preserve our fundamental right to self-defense as well as the gun rights and hunting heritage for Mississippians for generations to come."

SB 2426 states that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and may therefore use any force necessary against him.

Mississippi courts have consistently recognized the "stand your ground" principle - both inside and outside the home - since the late 1800s. SB 2426 would codify such court precedent into law.

Furthermore, the “Castle Doctrine” law provides protection from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.


HB 1141 enables hunters to continue hunting on certain-sized land tracts annexed by a city or county, even if that locality bans the discharge of firearms within its limits; prohibits the seizure and confiscation of firearms by local officials in the unfortunate event of a future natural disaster in Mississippi; and permits employees to transport and store firearms in their locked, private vehicles while parked on their employer's property if the employer does not provide secure parking separate from the public.

 "On behalf of all NRA members in Mississippi, I want to thank HB 1141’s author, Rep. Warner McBride (D-Courtland) and Sen. Charlie Ross (R-Brandon) for their efforts in guiding this measure from concept to law," concluded Cox. "I'd also like to thank Sen. Ross and Sen. Ralph Doxey (R-Holly Springs) for sponsoring the “Castle Doctrine” bill, as well as the leadership in the Mississippi House of Representatives for keeping both bills on track for passage."

« Last Edit: April 03, 2006, 02:55:05 pm by Frodo »Logged

Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15225
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2006, 02:56:44 pm »
Ignore

I'd support it, but there are some potential problems. If there are no other witnessess, it could be used as an excuse to kill someone you don't like simply because they are on your property; how do you prove that they were trying to break in? How exactly is "break in" defined?
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58775
India


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2006, 03:48:31 pm »
Ignore

This sounds like a bill to legalize owning class murder.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
MODU
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22106
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2006, 03:56:55 pm »
Ignore



I have no problem with a bill that allows people to protect their homes.  There have been some oddball (at least they were to me) cases where the criminal received damages claimed against the person he/she was robbing since the owner shot him.  I'll have to see if I can find some examples of it for you. 

However, there has to be clear evidence that the person broke into the home, and that he wasn't just wandering outside the house.  I think Texas allows homeowners to shoot at people they "feel" are going to break in.
Logged

Attention bloggers:  Join SeededBuzz and gain access to thousands of new readers.  Simply paste a link and summary of your article for community members to link back to, drawing more activity to your site.  Membership is FREE!

Visit MODU's Musings


"Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell." - Betty Dawisha, Iraqi vote
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2006, 04:18:50 pm »
Ignore

W/out a doubt yes.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22134


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2006, 05:53:48 pm »
Ignore

Hell no.
Logged
Mr. Paleoconservative
Reagan Raider
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: 5.30

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2006, 01:54:41 am »
Ignore

People should be safe from crime inside their home, and when a person who could do harm to you or your family is breaking into your home.  An American citizen should not have to be a run away in their own home and be marksmen taking the time to aim for the leg or take the risk of going to prison (or losing your savings in civil court) for protecting  themself and your family. 

This is a common sense bill that will protect good people from bad people.  Plain and simple. 
Logged



“We can never be too tardy to begin the work of blood.”
“But it is a bad mode of settling disputes to make soldiers your ambassadors, and to point to the halter and the gallows as your ultimatum.”
-John Tyler, 10th President of the United States
David S
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5257


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2006, 03:31:46 pm »
Ignore

This is something that is controlled by state law, so it varies from state to state. In some states you are required to retreat if possible and you can only shoot if that is not possible. So if a thug enters your home you have to run out of the house if you can. That's stupid; you have to leave while the crook remains in your house.

This is what the Mississippi law says:

"SB 2426 states that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and may therefore use any force necessary against him.
Mississippi courts have consistently recognized the "stand your ground" principle - both inside and outside the home - since the late 1800s. SB 2426 would codify such court precedent into law.
Furthermore, the “Castle Doctrine” law provides protection from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack."

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2096

Seems reasonable to me
« Last Edit: April 04, 2006, 03:37:31 pm by David S »Logged
frenger
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11697
Portugal


Political Matrix
E: 8.65, S: -4.17

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2006, 03:46:24 pm »
Ignore

IF this was established common law precedent, why codify it and give the adversaries a pretext to eliminate it once they're in power?
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." – H.L. Mencken



NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 57230
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2006, 03:52:57 pm »
Ignore

A good example of bad law that a lot people will support in a knee-jerk way due to fear and for sentimental reasons. If you can't see what is fundamentally *wrong* about it (ignore the principles involved for a minute... and this is probably the biggest problem with this sort of issue) then you clearly need to get out more...

O/c it was the defacto law anyway, so it's not as though anything has actually changed...
Logged

Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2006, 04:18:47 pm »
Ignore

I would feel much better about this if there were at least something to enable the police to differentiate between someone who was actually a criminal breaking into someone's house and someone who was murdered under the guise of being a criminal.

It seems to me that if you want to kill someone under this bill, then all you'd need to do is somehow get them into your house and then kill them, claiming that you felt the person was a threat to your bodily well-being.  Many "break and enters" do not actually have anything broken at all.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2006, 05:00:29 pm »
Ignore

This bill does not allow the owner to kill anyone who breaks into his property. The relevant part of the bill provides:

"The killing of a human being ... shall be justifiable ... [w]hen committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him ... in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be..."

Note the phrase "in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him." In other words, the owner is not allowed to kill anyone who breaks into his property. He may only kill those who are attempting to murder him, or assault him, or commit another crime upon him. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable law.

Clearly, the law does not allow an individual to shoot any person who walks through the front door illegally.
Logged
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 57230
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2006, 05:13:19 pm »
Ignore

This bill does not allow the owner to kill anyone who breaks into his property. The relevant part of the bill provides:

"The killing of a human being ... shall be justifiable ... [w]hen committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him ... in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be..."

You seem to have missed this bit out...

A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 

Quote
Clearly, the law does not allow an individual to shoot any person who walks through the front door illegally.

Yes it does
Logged

Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15225
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2006, 05:47:38 pm »
Ignore

This bill does not allow the owner to kill anyone who breaks into his property. The relevant part of the bill provides:

"The killing of a human being ... shall be justifiable ... [w]hen committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him ... in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be..."

You seem to have missed this bit out...

A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 

Quote
Clearly, the law does not allow an individual to shoot any person who walks through the front door illegally.

Yes it does

The bold sections there are pretty scary. I wouldn't support the legislation worded that way.

The burden of proof should be on the person who used the deadly force to demonstrate that the intent of the invader was to cause death or great bodily harm or to commit a felony.
Logged
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2006, 05:50:15 pm »
Ignore

This bill does not allow the owner to kill anyone who breaks into his property. The relevant part of the bill provides:

"The killing of a human being ... shall be justifiable ... [w]hen committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him ... in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be..."

You seem to have missed this bit out...

A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 

Quote
Clearly, the law does not allow an individual to shoot any person who walks through the front door illegally.

Yes it does
The key word here is "presumed." The person using defensive force is presumed to have feared the commission of a felony whenever someone else breaks and enters into his home. I would assume that, like other presumptions--such as the presumption of innocence--this presumption can be overcome by the prosecution.

It seems to me that if you want to kill someone under this bill, then all you'd need to do is somehow get them into your house and then kill them, claiming that you felt the person was a threat to your bodily well-being.  Many "break and enters" do not actually have anything broken at all.
The bill uses the words "unlawfully and forcibly entering." This would involve, for example, breaking down a door. If I were to leave my front door wide open, and someone happened to walk in, this law would not entitle me to kill that person.

The burden of proof should be on the person who used the deadly force to demonstrate that the intent of the invader was to cause death or great bodily harm or to commit a felony.
How exactly is the owner supposed to know, let alone prove beyond a reasonable doubt, what is going through the mind of the trespasser? It is unreasonable to expect the defendant to prove the intent of the "victim."
Logged
Angel of Death
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1165
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2006, 05:53:02 pm »
Ignore

Beside the issue of evidence, it seems like you would be allowed to summarily execute an intruder even after you subdued him on your own.
Logged

WARNING: Selling oil in euros has been proven to be hazardous to one's health.
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15225
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2006, 05:54:03 pm »
Ignore

This bill does not allow the owner to kill anyone who breaks into his property. The relevant part of the bill provides:

"The killing of a human being ... shall be justifiable ... [w]hen committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him ... in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be..."

You seem to have missed this bit out...

A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 

Quote
Clearly, the law does not allow an individual to shoot any person who walks through the front door illegally.

Yes it does
The key word here is "presumed." The person using defensive force is presumed to have feared the commission of a felony whenever someone else breaks and enters into his home. I would assume that, like other presumptions--such as the presumption of innocence--this presumption can be overcome by the prosecution.

It seems to me that if you want to kill someone under this bill, then all you'd need to do is somehow get them into your house and then kill them, claiming that you felt the person was a threat to your bodily well-being.  Many "break and enters" do not actually have anything broken at all.
The bill uses the words "unlawfully and forcibly entering." This would involve, for example, breaking down a door. If I were to leave my front door wide open, and someone happened to walk in, this law would not entitle me to kill that person.

The burden of proof should be on the person who used the deadly force to demonstrate that the intent of the invader was to cause death or great bodily harm or to commit a felony.
How exactly is the owner supposed to know, let alone prove beyond a reasonable doubt, what is going through the mind of the trespasser? It is unreasonable to expect the defendant to prove the intent of the "victim."

Well, if the person has a gun or some other weapon on them, that would be pretty convincing evidence.

If they are looking to rob you, but they aren't armed, that becomes a tough case. If the person forcibly broke in, though, that would certainly argue in favor of intent to commit a felony. Ultimately it's for a jury to decide.

I'm not sure if I support the use of deadly force against the person in those circumstances in which they are unarmed.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2006, 05:56:21 pm by Nym90 »Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22134


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2006, 05:55:54 pm »
Ignore

Beside the issue of evidence, it seems like you would be allowed to summarily execute an intruder even after you subdued him on your own.

Quote. Exactly, the perfect crime. Make it look like the man you invited into your home to have done away with was an intruder. BANG. He's dead and you're in the clear, who's going to accuse you otherwise? An awful piece of legislation.
Logged
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2006, 06:16:16 pm »
Ignore

Well, if the person has a gun or some other weapon on them, that would be pretty convincing evidence.
Merely carrying a gun--exercising one's Second Amendment rights--does not indicate an intent to kill anyone.

Quote
I'm not sure if I support the use of deadly force against the person in those circumstances in which they are unarmed.
The trespasser may have concealed a weapon. Surely, we cannot expect the homeowner to wait until the criminal pulls out his gun.

Exactly, the perfect crime. Make it look like the man you invited into your home to have done away with was an intruder.
That is an interesting idea, but I do not see how it can be done. There must be evidence of unlawful and forcible entry on the part of the person who has been killed. Merely entering the house illegally is insufficient; the entry must be forcible. It would take an unrealistic amount of effort to indicate that the trespasser actually broke into a home when he did not in fact do so.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2006, 06:17:20 pm »
Ignore

Beside the issue of evidence, it seems like you would be allowed to summarily execute an intruder even after you subdued him on your own.

Quote. Exactly, the perfect crime. Make it look like the man you invited into your home to have done away with was an intruder. BANG. He's dead and you're in the clear, who's going to accuse you otherwise? An awful piece of legislation.

I love it when the subjects of a monarchy (who don't even have any gun rights whatsoever), preach to Americans about our gun laws. Smiley
Logged
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 57230
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2006, 06:23:05 pm »
Ignore

The key word here is "presumed." The person using defensive force is presumed to have feared the commission of a felony whenever someone else breaks and enters into his home. I would assume that, like other presumptions--such as the presumption of innocence--this presumption can be overcome by the prosecution.

That sort of presumption is just about impossible of overcoming in a criminal trial. And that is quite clearly the intention, and that is why this is a Godawful piece of legislation.

Presumption of innocence is a bad example; a better one would be to presume consent in a rape trial becuase the victim was wearing a short skirt.
Logged

Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15225
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2006, 06:25:35 pm »
Ignore

Well, if the person has a gun or some other weapon on them, that would be pretty convincing evidence.
Merely carrying a gun--exercising one's Second Amendment rights--does not indicate an intent to kill anyone.

Quote
I'm not sure if I support the use of deadly force against the person in those circumstances in which they are unarmed.
The trespasser may have concealed a weapon. Surely, we cannot expect the homeowner to wait until the criminal pulls out his gun.

Exactly, the perfect crime. Make it look like the man you invited into your home to have done away with was an intruder.
That is an interesting idea, but I do not see how it can be done. There must be evidence of unlawful and forcible entry on the part of the person who has been killed. Merely entering the house illegally is insufficient; the entry must be forcible. It would take an unrealistic amount of effort to indicate that the trespasser actually broke into a home when he did not in fact do so.

True, although trespassing with a gun in one's position can definitely reasonably be construed as some degree of intent to cause harm. If the gun was for self defense purposes, presumably you wouldn't be trespassing on someone else's property with it.

With regards to waiting until the gun is pulled out, the police are generally required to do this before they can legally kill someone. I wouldn't think it would make sense to allow private citizens more leeway in self-defense then it would the police. No analogy is ever perfect, obviously, but it's one way of looking at it.
Logged
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2006, 06:37:51 pm »
Ignore

With regards to waiting until the gun is pulled out, the police are generally required to do this before they can legally kill someone. I wouldn't think it would make sense to allow private citizens more leeway in self-defense then it would the police.
Of course, I would entirely agree: in public areas, one should have to wait until a gun is pulled out. However, different standards should apply when one's own home has been broken into.

In general, when someone breaks into your property, I would think it reasonable for you to assume that he intends to cause harm to you, even though no gun may be in sight.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2006, 06:44:05 pm »
Ignore

With regards to waiting until the gun is pulled out, the police are generally required to do this before they can legally kill someone. I wouldn't think it would make sense to allow private citizens more leeway in self-defense then it would the police.
Of course, I would entirely agree: in public areas, one should have to wait until a gun is pulled out. However, different standards should apply when one's own home has been broken into.

In general, when someone breaks into your property, I would think it reasonable for you to assume that he intends to cause harm to you, even though no gun may be in sight.

Especially in the middle of the night. Let me tell you, if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night with my wife and children at risk. I'd open fire, no question about it.
Logged
AkSaber
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6299
Seychelles


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2006, 06:54:51 pm »
Ignore

With regards to waiting until the gun is pulled out, the police are generally required to do this before they can legally kill someone. I wouldn't think it would make sense to allow private citizens more leeway in self-defense then it would the police.
Of course, I would entirely agree: in public areas, one should have to wait until a gun is pulled out. However, different standards should apply when one's own home has been broken into.

In general, when someone breaks into your property, I would think it reasonable for you to assume that he intends to cause harm to you, even though no gun may be in sight.

Also, police officers are given, at their police academy many, many hours of training in firearm instruction and how to handle the stress of being in life threatening situations. Regular people don't have such training.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines