Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   Should vaccinated have right to sue unvaccinated? (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1300655-should-vaccinated-have-right-sue-unvaccinated.html)

Turquesa 03-01-2011 09:24 AM

If you can get past his name-calling (i.e. "selfish," "stupid") he does raise some interesting questions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41839495/

Any thoughts?

beckybird 03-01-2011 09:30 AM

There was a case where a man was found guilty of knowingly infecting women with AIDS. So, it is possible that they will use the same argument for those of us who don't vaccinate.


WifeofAnt 03-01-2011 09:36 AM

I agree with some of the commenters.  Where WOULD you draw the line?  Sue the guy who gave you the flu?  Would the un-vaccinated also be able to sue the vaccinated for putting them at risk with possible viral shedding?

 


The BIG difference with measles and HIV is that without a cure HIV is very likely to significantly shorten your lifespan.  Most people who catch measles won't die because of it.


fruitfulmomma 03-01-2011 09:44 AM

I am not reading the article....

 

Quote:
The BIG difference with measles and HIV is that without a cure HIV is very likely to significantly shorten your lifespan.  Most people who catch measles won't die because of it.

 It is also only spread through a few specific intentional acts. You can't catch it from casual contact.

 

 

 

Quote:
Would the un-vaccinated also be able to sue the vaccinated for putting them at risk with possible viral shedding?

 

yeahthat.gif  - It goes both ways. Live vaccines can spread disease as well. And how would one prove that they caught the disease from the other?

 

 

 


GoBecGo 03-01-2011 09:55 AM

It depends.  I really don't think ANYONE, regardless of vax status, should travel when ill, and i do kind of think if one is unvaxed one should be mindful of the vulnerable when one is travelling and not ignore symptoms until they are really bad.  BUT i do think that "the right to sue" is excessive.  I mean, if you don't KNOW you're sick, how are you supposed to avoid spreading it.  And what if vaccinations were given but didn't take?  You're infectious, despite vaccines, are you still liable if someone else gets ill?

 

TBH i vax, and a big part of why, for us, is because of the possibility of infecting someone with a weakened immune system (i had a friend die of measles as a child, she had recently had chemotherapy when she was infected).  She was infected by an unvaxed child BUT it was due to hospital error, not the fault of the other child or their family at all.  No one got sued, it was the 80's, in UK back then suing was for rich people with nothing better to do.

 

But even having said that i do think it's kind of excessive to force vaccination on people with the threat of litigation.  The "swinging fist" analogy in the article is disingenuous - NOT being vaxed doesn't automatically mean the person is a danger to the health of others.  It's more like not being allowed to have a fist at all lest you one day might accidentally hit someone with it.


Bokonon 03-01-2011 10:02 AM

Absolutely not.

 

Bodily integrity is a basic human right, and that extends to one's immune system as well.  If one chooses not to accept the risk of vaccines for whatever reason, that is their fundamental right.  After all, NOT vaccinating is the biological default.  Should I be able to sue the parents of the kid in my son's class who eats Doritos and Lunchables with a soda every day, and is always sick and gives my son his colds?  It wouldn't even cross my mind to do so.

 

I will never understand why people think they should be able to dictate what health risks others should undertake.


ema-adama 03-01-2011 10:02 AM

I am curious as to who would bear the burden of responsibility if someone who was vaccinated and came down with the disease due to primary or secondary vaccine failure (no vaccine is 100% effective).

 

I do think that people who knowingly spread disease should be held responsible regardless of their vaccine status.

 

If you are not going to vaccinate for measles, it is prudent to quarantine yourself if you come down with a cold/fever after knowingly being exposed to for measles. If you do not know that you have been exposed, it would be impractical to quarantine yourself for every cold/fever.

 

I am sure it could be a lot more complicated than that though, in a court of law.


Bokonon 03-01-2011 10:05 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post

I am curious as to who would bear the burden of responsibility if someone who was vaccinated and came down with the disease due to primary or secondary vaccine failure (no vaccine is 100% effective).

 

I do think that people who knowingly spread disease should be held responsible regardless of their vaccine status.

 

If you are not going to vaccinate for measles, it is prudent to quarantine yourself if you come down with a cold/fever after knowingly being exposed to for measles. If you do not know that you have been exposed, it would be impractical to quarantine yourself for every cold/fever.

 

I am sure it could be a lot more complicated than that though, in a court of law.


If we can't sue the manufacturers of the vaccines for vaccine damage, we certainly shouldn't be able to sue each other for vaccine-related issues.

 


Mama Metis 03-01-2011 10:31 AM


Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post


If we can't sue the manufacturers of the vaccines for vaccine damage, we certainly shouldn't be able to sue each other for vaccine-related issues.

 


This is an interesting point. 

 

As a related question, should non-vaxed persons be required to cover the costs of controlling an outbreak if they are the index case? 

 


rush2ady 03-01-2011 10:35 AM

Allowing vaccinated people to sue non-vaccinated people would smack in the face of the "informed consent" medical laws. It is a human right to not have medical procedures done on us without our informed consent--i.e. we are informed of the risks/benefits of the procedure and allowed to make our own choice to submit or not submit to the procedure. Vaccinations are not without risk. To force them on people would be unethical.

The article OP links to makes it seem like non-vaccinators are a bunch of crazy zealots with no regard for public safety and only care about their own eccentric ideas:

"The scientific case for the importance of vaccines is overwhelming and beyond any dispute (and most worries about safety rest on fear and lies). But still, most states by law permit parents to opt out of vaccination requirements by invoking religious or philosophical objections no matter how zany those may be. "

First, the "scientific case" supporting vaccines effectiveness and safety, is in fact, in dispute. To claim peoples questioning as based on "fear and lies" is a gross misrepresentation. Most of the non-vaccine advocates are advocating for improved safety, more access to accurate information regarding vaccine data, and for patients to be truly "informed" before making the choice for themselves or their children. They are not advocating for blind faith in some fanatical cult. Many of these people are the parents of children who have suffered harm or death from vaccines, and sincerely wish to inform others of the risks.

If the woman mentioned in the article is to be sued, it would be for her negligent exposing others to measles rather than staying home, (if she in fact was aware she had measles), not for being a non-vaccinator. Common sense should have told her if she is ill, to not get on a plane and expose others to her illness. Unfortunately, many people these days feel pressured to go to work/send kids to school when sick. Rather than encourage lawsuits against those who are trying to make good choices for their family, why not reassess our societies demands on people and allow room in our busy lives for time to stay home due to illness?

I, for one, will not vaccinate my children since I have had vaccine reactions in the past, and I STRONGLY suspect my handicap sister as being vaccine damaged (she is in her 40's, still in diapers, still being cared for by my parents). For someone to be able to sue me for my choice regarding this, would be outrageous. Obviously I'm also not the sort of person to traipse around the airport knowing I have a highly contagious disease.

Bokonon 03-01-2011 10:44 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Metis View Post


Quote:


This is an interesting point. 

 

As a related question, should non-vaxed persons be required to cover the costs of controlling an outbreak if they are the index case? 

 


That would be ridiculous as well, IMO.

 

We are all bearing the increased costs healthcare due to exploding chronic conditions like autoimmune disorders, diabetes, allergies, etc.  Should we require formula-feeding parents to pay higher premiums than breastfeeding ones, when the data are clear that breastfeeding helps prevent many of these conditions and many cancers as well?

 

Where would you draw the line?  What if someone was vaccinated and still a vector?  Or vaccinated but hadn't had a booster in many years?  I've never heard of a single adult that I know talking about getting their MMR or polio boosters, but I know when they get their flu shots.

 


Bokonon 03-01-2011 10:48 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by rush2ady View Post

Allowing vaccinated people to sue non-vaccinated people would smack in the face of the "informed consent" medical laws. It is a human right to not have medical procedures done on us without our informed consent--i.e. we are informed of the risks/benefits of the procedure and allowed to make our own choice to submit or not submit to the procedure. Vaccinations are not without risk. To force them on people would be unethical.

The article OP links to makes it seem like non-vaccinators are a bunch of crazy zealots with no regard for public safety and only care about their own eccentric ideas:

"The scientific case for the importance of vaccines is overwhelming and beyond any dispute (and most worries about safety rest on fear and lies). But still, most states by law permit parents to opt out of vaccination requirements by invoking religious or philosophical objections no matter how zany those may be. "

First, the "scientific case" supporting vaccines effectiveness and safety, is in fact, in dispute. To claim peoples questioning as based on "fear and lies" is a gross misrepresentation. Most of the non-vaccine advocates are advocating for improved safety, more access to accurate information regarding vaccine data, and for patients to be truly "informed" before making the choice for themselves or their children. They are not advocating for blind faith in some fanatical cult. Many of these people are the parents of children who have suffered harm or death from vaccines, and sincerely wish to inform others of the risks.

If the woman mentioned in the article is to be sued, it would be for her negligent exposing others to measles rather than staying home, (if she in fact was aware she had measles), not for being a non-vaccinator. Common sense should have told her if she is ill, to not get on a plane and expose others to her illness. Unfortunately, many people these days feel pressured to go to work/send kids to school when sick. Rather than encourage lawsuits against those who are trying to make good choices for their family, why not reassess our societies demands on people and allow room in our busy lives for time to stay home due to illness?

I, for one, will not vaccinate my children since I have had vaccine reactions in the past, and I STRONGLY suspect my handicap sister as being vaccine damaged (she is in her 40's, still in diapers, still being cared for by my parents). For someone to be able to sue me for my choice regarding this, would be outrageous. Obviously I'm also not the sort of person to traipse around the airport knowing I have a highly contagious disease.


Well said!

 

And that's exactly why I won't read that article.  The pro-vax propaganda makes my blood boil.  Even the term "anti-vax" is so degrading and very often inaccurate.  I'm not AGAINST vaccines.  I am for safety and research of them.  I am FOR children's health.  And somehow that makes me crazy and fanatical?  When I'm the one who has to live with the consequences of my son's 5th DTaP shot, that triggered a chronic condition that we haven't yet figured out?


ma2two 03-01-2011 11:39 AM

I'll modify his sentence a bit: "I don’t really don’t [sic] care to give lawyers more business but if the only way to get those who put other lives at risk by selfishly or stupidly not vaccinating is to sue them then so be it." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41839495/

 

to,

 

I don't really care to give lawyers more business, but if the only way to get pharmaceutical companies to stop putting lives at risk is to sue them, so be it.

 

As to the question, "Should the vaccinated have the right to sue the unvaccinated," In the United States, anybody has the right to sue any person or any business, for anything, EXCEPT vaccine manufacturers.

 

Someone who sues someone for not being vaccinated is almost certain to lose, but if they are foolish enough to try, I'm not aware of any Congressional act or Supreme Court ruling saying they can't do so.


sosurreal09 03-01-2011 11:58 AM

Well let's see for at least SOME of the vaccines it has ruined our natural immunity like measles. A lot people were immune to it before the vax came out. Not to mention a LOT of fully vaxed people get the diseases they are vaxed for. Vax is not 100% effective and never has been. Anyone remember that case in 08 in FL where 28 kindergarteners got measles and only 3 weren't vaccinated? 25 of them had been vaxed! As far as I remember it did not start from an unvaxed kid either.

 

What about religion? Where would that come in. I do not vax for several reasons and The Bible tells me that it is wrong (based on ingredients ect) to vax and that God has given us healing and immunity as a gift. So technically the vaccinated has ruined God's plans for us IMO. Can I sue all the vaccinated for ruining our natural herd immunity that He gave us? Of course not because it wouldn't be a Christian thing to do, but also b/c it would never fly in court.

 


Otto 03-01-2011 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rush2ady View Post

If the woman mentioned in the article is to be sued, it would be for her negligent exposing others to measles rather than staying home, (if she in fact was aware she had measles), not for being a non-vaccinator.

 

This is pretty much the heart of the matter, although vaccine status would certainly be relevant in demonstrating negligence if one knew that oneself had been exposed. And, in the latter case, recklessness can be enough to establish liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which could open up the playing field.


chaoticzenmom 03-02-2011 08:10 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Metis View Post


Quote:


This is an interesting point. 

 

As a related question, should non-vaxed persons be required to cover the costs of controlling an outbreak if they are the index case? 

 


How can you prove someone is an index case..everyone gets it from somewhere.  Plus, with communicable diseases, you have no idea who's contagious and who's not.  They would have to prove that she was the ONLY contagious person at the airport that day, which I would think is not possible.

No, I don't think that anyone should be financially responsible for this kind of thing.  Not responsible to the "injured" party anyway because there's no way to prove where you got a disease.  If this woman knew that she was contagious at the time of her travels, that sucks of her.  It may be, like with chicken pox, that you're contagious before you know you have the disease..in that case, it's not really something she could have known.  If she's punished for warning people that she had this and they should look out for it, then that's really not right and people will be less forthcoming in the future.  I imagine that she was asked where she'd been in the last week or so.  She'd essentially be punished for telling the  truth.  (that is if she was diagnosed after the flight, rather than beforehand.)

 


Lovinbeinamama 03-02-2011 08:39 AM

The vaccinated have no right to sue the unvaccinated;  the whole idea is absurd.  Just because you're not vaccinated, you are not infected or contagious.  Supposedly the vaccinated people are PROTECTED!  Don't forget that in mothering magazine recently, it discussed the pertussis outbreak in California--almost all the cases were in vaccinated people.

 

I was vaccinated with MMR at 9 months old.  When I worked in the hospital years later, I had titers taken.  I was not immune to measles, so I had the single measles shot again.  Titers taken again.  Still, I am not immune to measles.  MMR was never studied in children under 18 months, but doctors and the manufacturer have pushed giving it younger and younger. The problem is that your immune system is not ready to respond at 9 months old, and it can actually make your immune system unable to respond to it in the future--that's my situation.  I don't live in fear of measles.  In fact, I never think about it except right now. 

 

As a devout Christian, I now understand that vaccines injected into our bodies is against God's word.  If they develop more oral or nasal vaccines, I'll consider them.  That's a natural route of immunity.  As the sister to a retarded woman, I look back at how normal she was up until age 3 when she lost all intelligible words, and I wonder if vaccines had a role.  I won't do that to my children.

 

As an American, I understand my right to individual liberty, and on that alone I stand that you cannot force me to immunize myself or my children.  I'm not crazy, I'm not stupid, I'm not irresponsible....I have simply made MY CHOICE.  If my child comes down with the measles, have no fears--I will quarantine him so as not to infect others, just as I do whenever he is sick.


objet_trouve 03-02-2011 10:44 AM

Actually, I find the comments on the article infinitely more enlightening than the article itself. Lots of cool logic arguments, legal arguments and a surprisingly higher level of discourse than I tend to see in vaccination debates

elus0814 03-02-2011 04:37 PM

I think if someone knew they had measels and purposely went out with the intent to give it to other people and one of those people became ill then yes, that person should be liable but that's pretty unlikely and it would be very difficult to prove. Just a run of the mill unvaxed person who doesn't know they're sick and infects someone - no way should they be sued, although it would be legal (in the us you can essentially sue anyone for any reason). If they made it legal to sue in this situation then it should be made legal to sue vaccine manufacturers and those to shed viruses after vaccination. 


Wild Lupine 03-03-2011 10:14 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by rush2ady View Post


"The scientific case for the importance of vaccines is overwhelming and beyond any dispute (and most worries about safety rest on fear and lies). But still, most states by law permit parents to opt out of vaccination requirements by invoking religious or philosophical objections no matter how zany those may be. "


If the woman mentioned in the article is to be sued, it would be for her negligent exposing others to measles rather than staying home, (if she in fact was aware she had measles), not for being a non-vaccinator. Common sense should have told her if she is ill, to not get on a plane and expose others to her illness. Unfortunately, many people these days feel pressured to go to work/send kids to school when sick. Rather than encourage lawsuits against those who are trying to make good choices for their family, why not reassess our societies demands on people and allow room in our busy lives for time to stay home due to illness?
 


All this, yes, exactly.

 

What I would fear - in fact do fear - is an 'I'm vaxed, I'm fine' mentality that leads sick people to go to work and school and infect others. The science behind vaxes may or may not be clear, it depends on who you ask, but the science behind routes of transmission is crystal clear. That no vax is 100% effective is also crystal clear.

 

A better, and more thought provoking question would be should we sue people who knowingly infect others by going into public places when they are contagious?

 

 

 

 


Super~Single~Mama 03-03-2011 10:24 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post

 

This is pretty much the heart of the matter, although vaccine status would certainly be relevant in demonstrating negligence if one knew that oneself had been exposed. And, in the latter case, recklessness can be enough to establish liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which could open up the playing field.


IIED is not a low threshold however, to establish a prima facie case for IIED is very difficult, because the behavior of the person inflicting the distress has to be "extreme and outrageous" (high standard), and the plaintiff must actually suffer "severe emotional distress that is not trivial or transitory".  Recklessness can establish liability, but I highly doubt that IIED would come into play with a lawsuit between vaccinated and unvaccinated parties, particularly if it was negligently exposing, or recklessly exposing.

 

I've actually thought about this, and remember reading on MDC or another parenting board maybe, when a person got really angry that her children were uninvited to a party after going to a chicken pox party.  She said later in the thread that she would just keep it a secret next time - THAT would be the type of negligence or recklessness that would lead to a lawsuit for exposing others to illness, and really it would probably be an intentional tort rather than negligence or recklessness.  Thats the kind of thing that makes me nervous, and makes me want my child vaxed, b/c I don't need or want him to get all these vpd's on someone else's whim.

 


frogeagle 03-03-2011 11:39 AM

Wow, this is the first question in a long time that I do not have a immediate answer for, or a clear feeling about.  There are so many variables...which makes this a great discussion.  I do believe everyone has a personal duty or responsibility to make sure when yourself or a family member is sick, to make sure others are aware and precautions are made.  I think this goes for the entire human known disease spectrum.  As for the HIV debate, I do believe that most of the cases that are mentioned are mostly among the carriers that were intentionally infecting others. On the other hand I know people that have died from the common cold, whooping cough, and even a friend that died from her son receiving the MMR shot and she contracted MS. I was even recently informed from a doctor that the next vaccine shots my son receives, is to make sure that my sister, (who has 3 autoimmune disorders) stays clear of him for at least 30 days.  So, where does that put EVERYONE.  If you receive vaccines, you must be careful and if you don't, you are also putting others at risk. 

Personally I do vaccinate my son, but on my own chosen schedule.  I am the kind of person (that makes a lot of people mad) that believes that I should not tell others what religion they should practice, that they should have an abortion, what they should eat, how to raise their kids, or if vaccinating your child is a must.  BUT, do not tell me what to do either, especially the for profit government, whose only concern is money and not the people. 

So, I guess I have to first say is: #1.  I am tired of the " I am going to sue you" attitude.  Lawyers have become a house hold commodity and society has become a point your finger and blame others.  I have learned some things for sure, that life is never fair, crap happens, and some times people die.  #2  I believe that vaccinating vs not vaccinating comes down to personal choice and therefore no matter what you choose you are responsible for your choice.  Why, because either choice could hurt some one else, as true with all choices we make. 

And, after reading what I just wrote I realized that I still did not answer the question. 


ilovemygirl 03-04-2011 09:58 AM

I didn't have time to read the responses but here's my quick two cents on the issue. 

 

First of all this is completely ridiculous. How far down the line do we go. You want to sue someone who gave you measles? Well how about the person who gave it to her, or the person who gave it to that person, etc? Trying to hold someone accountable for spreading an airborne disease is ludicrous. We live, we breathe, we spread germs, it's kinda how it works, yk? 

 

People go out and send their kids out knowing they are sick with varying things every single day. No one can deny that. Period. Am I going to be compensated by the guy standing next to me in line that coughs on me knowing full well he has the flu that I catch? Is he now going to be forced to pay my bills for doctors, lost work, medicine, etc? Until that answer is an unequivocal yes, I don't see how you can hold someone liable for giving you a vaccine-available illness when they do the exact same thing. 


TCMoulton 03-04-2011 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

I will never understand why people think they should be able to dictate what health risks others should undertake.

Couldn't the same be said by any parent Whose child was potentially exposed to a VPD because another mom felt it okay to take their possibly infected (for example after attending a chicken pox party) child out in public because they weren't yet showing symptoms?

ema-adama 03-04-2011 12:36 PM


In my mind the parent who intentionally exposes a child to a virus in an attempt to gain immunity to said virus, *should* know what to expect with regards to the expected period of time that the child could be contagious. And act responsibly - not be in public.

 

I had this experience last year when my son was in a homeschooling group where a (vaccinated) child has CP. 3 lesions, but CP non the less. I sat down and worked it out whether I wanted my son to be exposed at that time as Pesach was coming up and it would have been a pity to miss the family celebration with a potentially contagious child. We had enough time, DS went to the meet up, and didn't develop any lesions/fever.

 

But I did take the time to consider the impact on our lives as I would not take a potentially infectious child into public.

 

I never take DS out in public when he has a fever, or has had a fever in the last 24 hours. If he is infectious with conjunctivitis etc - we stay home. People think I am a little odd for keeping him home when he is ill. However, I believe it is the responsible thing to do. I can, because I SAH. But yeah. it has happened that people tell me I'm being considerate and all, but it is not necessary to keep DS home.

 

Not all parents who decline vaccines are irresponsible. No doubt some are - but it is not an inherently irresponsible choice.

 

It comes back to parents/people intentionally spreading disease by going into public when they know they are or very likely could be infectious. And that happens all. the. time. Just not that often with measles in the USA.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

I will never understand why people think they should be able to dictate what health risks others should undertake.

 




Couldn't the same be said by any parent Whose child was potentially exposed to a VPD because another mom felt it okay to take their possibly infected (for example after attending a chicken pox party) child out in public because they weren't yet showing symptoms?


 


Bokonon 03-04-2011 12:58 PM



Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

I will never understand why people think they should be able to dictate what health risks others should undertake.

 




Couldn't the same be said by any parent Whose child was potentially exposed to a VPD because another mom felt it okay to take their possibly infected (for example after attending a chicken pox party) child out in public because they weren't yet showing symptoms?


Not really - every living thing takes health risks every day.  Everyone is always "possibly" infected with something.


MsFortune 03-04-2011 01:09 PM

We have the right to sue anyone we want, any time we want.  Whether we would win or not is a different matter.


TCMoulton 03-04-2011 04:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post





Not really - every living thing takes health risks every day.  Everyone is always "possibly" infected with something.


There is a big difference between taking your child out in public that you knowingly exposed to a VPD disease and the normal risk of everyday exposure.

Bokonon 03-04-2011 05:46 PM



Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post





Not really - every living thing takes health risks every day.  Everyone is always "possibly" infected with something.




There is a big difference between taking your child out in public that you knowingly exposed to a VPD disease and the normal risk of everyday exposure.


Why does it make a difference if it's a VPD?  My son was exposed to illnesses like H1N1, Coxsackie, and other unnamed viruses while in preschool.  His preschool was at a daycare, so if I kept him quarantined every time he was "exposed" to something, he never would have left the house.

 

I'm not saying that if I went to a pox party, that I would bring my kids to a playground, but I wonder why it's so different for a VPD than any other illness?


PreggieUBA2C 03-04-2011 05:57 PM

I consider it my responsibility to stay home if me or my dc are not constitutionally strong enough to withstand encounters with wild viruses and ubiquitous bacteria. I would consider it my fault, or at least my responsibility, if my dc came home with an infection. I expect to encounter pathogens. I cannot imagine the case that a parent whose immunity-building regimen is not perfect (obviously it isn't if his/her child is ill) could launch against other people who knowingly or unknowingly walk around sick. My dp couldn't just not go to his job for two weeks while our family runs a course of influenza, for instance, to protect others. Feeding our family is of greater value to us than the pretense of protecting others from exposure to viruses. If someone deliberately gobbed saliva into my child's mouth in order to infect him/her, that would be assault; but just breathing? Touching common things?

 

Those three fingers pointing back form a majority consensus, imo.

 

Entering a public space is at the risk of the individual entering it. If you don't want the risk, don't take it. There are myriad ways to live.



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 5.88%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.