The Case of Officer Trigger Happy and the Lawn Trampling Teens

We’re not against the police. We’re not against the police department, but we are against police who commit misconduct (and those who help cover it up).

On the issue of off-duty LAPD Officer Trigger Happy and the teens that trampled on his lawn in Anaheim…

For the record, I don’t like when people walk on my lawn either. What really pisses me off to the highest levels of pisstivity is when folks let their precious dogs take a crap on my lawn and then leave that crap for me to clean up. As I write this, I currently have a problem with a bunch of ragtag kids in desperate need of parenting who think that my lawn is their personal playground. Never once did I think of pulling out a gun or even physically grabbing one of them to make a point about staying off my lawn. That said, I also know better than to live on a direct path for students coming from or going to school–especially a junior or senior high school. But if I did–I’d have sense enough to put up a fence or some sort of barrier to keep folks from walking on my lawn. Which brings me to another point–it was just grass. Grass. If Officer Trigger Happy is willing to pull out a gun and pop one off over some kids walking on his lawn, I have real concerns about how he acts on the job in Los Angeles as a police officer.

Now that doesn’t necessarily excuse the teens because the video didn’t portray them as angels either. Whether the teen in question said he was going “sue” or “shoot” the officer involved is of no consequence. Officer Trigger Happy was the adult in the situation. And not only was he the adult but he was the adult with a badge and gun who is supposed to comport himself with a certain degree of self-control.

But this apparently isn’t his first go around with teens in his neighborhood.

My sources tell me that on September 26, 2015, some juveniles were drinking in Officer Trigger Happy’s driveway. He then allegedly confronted them and claimed one had his hands in his pockets so he drew his gun and called the Anaheim Police Department.

Judging from Officer Trigger Happy’s serial number, he hasn’t been with the Los Angeles Police Department that long.

I’ve spoken to Officer Trigger Happy’s colleagues and honestly, none that I spoke to had anything bad to say about him. Who knows, maybe he was just having a bad day–a bad day that might and quite frankly should cost him his job. I know officers who committed far less atrocities while off-duty and Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck had no problem showing them the door. Officer Trigger Happy should be no different.

While folks are marching through the streets of Anaheim though, they might consider a field trip to 100 W. 1st Street on a Tuesday morning say around 9:30 a.m. Yes, I know they want charges filed by the office of the Orange County District Attorney, but Officer Trigger Happy is also a sworn officer of the Los Angeles Police Department and that makes him one of Chief Beck’s problem children.  He lives in Anaheim but he patrols the streets of Los Angeles.  That part.

And in closing, a note to Officer Trigger Happy–you might want to go on and pack up and move before we have another “Ferguson” on our hands–Officer.

The Court of Public Opinion

  • Tony Loro

    Serial offender. This moke is toast.

  • Play Righter

    For the record: this cop did not fire his gun because somebody walked on his lawn. The video shows that he took what may be ruled a prudent action — firing INTO THE GROUND: witnesses said they were never at risk and the gun was never aimed at them — to defuse a situation clearly getting out of hand. Besides the person the cop was struggling with, one person tackled him over the hedge, another punched him, and a third leaped the hedge and approached him while reaching toward his back pocket. Plus several other “hostiles” nearby.

    What’s the best solution here? Start assaulting kids, or fire a warning shot and end it with no lasting damage to anything other than some dirt?

  • Skid Row Ranger

    This offcr escalated the entire incident to the point where he drew his, hopefully, dept issued firearm. Whether there was a negligent discharge or he gave a warning shot is extremely disturbing for many.
    One thing that will not change is that the group were minors and he, who approached them, is an adult. He, the adult, had control of the situation and he lost situational awareness as to what was going on.
    The LAPD has guidelines, as do many gov’t entities, as to how there sworn employees act while out in public.

  • Skid Row Ranger

    Having worked in multiple agencies I can vouch that no gov’t entity trains its people that warning shots are authorized in any scenario.
    The actual display of a firearm is a last resort on the escalating use of force ladder or an idiot that is well in over his/her head. This is a prime example of the hiring standards of law enforcement where the minimum standard of education is a GED.

  • Play Righter

    According to multiple reports — and videos — the escalation of the incident was him being knocked over a hedge by a flying tackle, then punched, then quickly approached by someone who leaped the hedge and reached behind their back. The gun used was NOT his duty weapon. The group were minors, but he was by far in the minority as to amount of available force (sans gun). The video shows him backing away to try and control the situation, and placing himself in front of a barrier (the hedge) to reduce any potential threats. The PHYSICAL ASSAULTS by the “minors” is what escalated this. He had lost his back cover and was exposed, and under assault.

    Again, which is preferable: Physically fighting back against a number of assailants who may or may not be armed, with injuries almost certain, or putting a bullet in the dirt where everybody walks (or runs) away unharmed?

  • The Anaheim Police Department and the OC District Attorney’s office will do the criminal investigation–as they should. However, there will be an investigation by the LAPD. He was already taken out of the field. He will not be back in the field until the conclusion of that investigation provided he isn’t fired as a result of his actions. The investigation will involve the Force Investigation Division, the Police Commission and Office of the Inspector General who works for the Commission but conducts their own investigation.

    As we all know the final determination of his fate regarding his job rests with Chief Beck, but there will be an investigation looking at his tactics, drawing and exhibiting and the use of lethal force. An investigation that could send him to a board of rights disciplinary hearing. And as we all (should) know, as Chief Beck said, he only sends officers he wants to see terminated to a board of rights hearing. And all of this could take the better part of a year or longer.

    My guess is that his actions will be found out of policy. On the tactics, he called the police. He could have and should have just waited in the house at that point for the police to arrive. Second, if you’re in real fear for your life–why would you pursue a kid (really a group of kids) down the street? That in itself is bad tactics. And considering that the kids were leaving, how much of a threat were they at that point? He chased them down. Not mention his numerous “discourteous statements.”

  • If the witnesses were never at risk–or felt that they were never at risk–then why’d they all take off running as soon as the gun was shot? And if you can answer that question, can you answer why when the gun was first drawn and exhibited you could hear and see the visible reactions from those same witnesses?

  • Play Righter

    Thanks for the response. Your words are the reason for my commenting.

    I’m all for a full investigation — including what happened before the video (that’s always a very enlightening bit of data). What did the kid actually say (and do)? What did the cop actually say (“discourteous statements”) — and were they brought on by something said or done to him? Where in the video does it show him pursuing the kids down the street? Based on the video, his gripe was with one kid — and the growing and threatening cluster of hostiles didn’t leave until his round hit the ground.

    YOUR “discourteous statements” (and that’s actually being kind) beg some evidence. You repeatedly call the cop “trigger happy”, despite his pulling the trigger once and shooting into the ground at that. And your repeated claims that he fired because some kids were on his lawn begs the question: what video were you watching? He ONLY fired his gun (into the ground) after being ATTACKED by multiple teens and facing an unknown approach from another who had leaped over a hedge and grabbed for a rear pocket. (In Copland, this can be a lethal threat, especially as the aggressiveness of the teens kept escalating.)

    Based on the video, the investigation will disprove much of your position. There are definitely questions to be answered here. Why muddy the water with clearly false charges?

  • First, I give all officers clever nicknames according to the incident. Check out my piece on Officer A-Hole. Second, the discourteous statement comes from the LAPD playbook–look it up and you’ll see how it applies. Third, check out all of the videos so that you get a more accurate view of all that was said by the officer-including the one posted above which clearly has him making discourteous statements. Clearly.

  • P2 Dawg

    Does making a discourteous off duty count against a police officer?

  • Play Righter

    Sorry, I disagree with your assessment of “clever”as to your nicknames. And when they are dishonest and incite further hatred of cops (as if there isn’t enough already), you’re part of the problem rather than a solution, and your disclaimer is debunked by your own words. Again, how does one potential disaster ending shot in the dirt equal “trigger happy”?

    I don’t have time to dig for all of your videos, and your “Officer A-hole” video seems to be M.I.A. I did catch you tell Eric Bolling “We need to have an honest conversation.” The fact that you did not is what brought me here.

    Still no answer to your repeated claim that the cop shot because the kid was on his lawn. That’s the absurd cause and effect distortion that claims Eric Garner died because of cigarette sales or Trayvon died because of his hoodie. You might as well claim Hiroshima was bombed because of some bad sushi. It’s false and you know it.

    The “discourteous comment” was clearly denied by the cop — just as the “shoot you” comment was denied by the kid. Your video shows the kids making most of the “discourteous statements” as the cop tries to back away and deescalate. I did watch the video above (hadn’t before because I thought it was the same I’d seen) and it reinforces the fact that the cop was surrounded and physically assaulted from the jump. The “kid” who later punched him was told to back off…and instead escalated the assault. As for “discourteous statements” coming from the LAPD playbook, it’s common knowledge that many police contacts get nowhere until strong language is used, and it’s often based on the needs of the citizen rather than the LEO.

    I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you use sensationalized words to build a following. “Judge: No Fine for LAPD Sergeant Accused of Racially Profiling Actress” smells more like click bait than fact, unless you know something about Mr. Parker that I haven’t learned in the time since the incident.

    Again: What would be a better solution here: a physical fight with several teens and the resulting injuries and legal consequences — or a harmless fracas-ending shot in the dirt? And while we both agree that a full investigation is in order, why damage your credibility by making claims that are baseless? (To be fair, if you can demonstrate that the cop fired an earlier shot to get the kids off the grass, I’d be happy to see it. Otherwise, based on your claimed support for cops, a retraction might be in order.)

    Judge: No Fine for LAPD Sergeant Accused of Racially Profiling Actress

  • Play Righter

    It’s a fair question, and it can only be answered by those quoted in the news. I’m just noting what I read in a news report (I’m assuming you also were not present at the incident). There’s a difference between not being at risk with a gun being pulled and not aimed at anybody (a basic gun safety rule) — likely knowing it was just a show of force — and hearing the actual report of a shot — realizing things just got real serious (which could also be stated as the reason for the shot). People tend to run from actual gun shots, especially those who think they’re in control until they’re clearly not. Since I don’t know which witnesses made the statement, I cannot answer your last question.

    And since you note witnesses, I will add that your video shows the “captive” kid claiming that the cop punched him in the nuts — while belittling the cop’s manhood. Basic physics as evidenced by the video indicates this would be VERY difficult to do since the cop continually held the kid by the shoulders. And if the kid lied about this, he might have also lied about the “discourteous statement”.

  • Play Righter

    P.S. A suggestion on your nicknames: create them like the educated person you are rather than what sound like grade school taunts. Use names that both tell the truth about what happened and add a bit of “clever”, e.g., “Ground Round”, “Scatter Shot”, “Just Desserts”.

    “Trigger Happy” describes someone who fires indiscriminately without fully considering the available data. On this piece, that seems to describe you rather than the cop. The video shows your volleys here to be groundless while his single discharge was actually well-grounded.

  • Skid Row Ranger

    The escalation began when this “off duty officer” begins pulling the minor towards a building. The minor, not knowing what the adults intention is would legally be able to resist and use force to counter the ability of this adult from a possible unknown. What would you teach your children if an adult was trying to pull them towards a building? Situations like this are exactly why parents teach their kids to walk together in numbers! This officer should have let go of the minor and let the appropriate uniformed agency handle it. The officer then escalated the incident to one of the highest levels available being the display of a deadly weapon. The use of a warning shot by anyone (police, military, or civilian) is wrong with many possible negative consequences. Everything this officer did once he began pulling the minor towards a building is completely wrong and only keeps getting worse with everything he continues to do.
    The idea that this handgun was not his “duty gun” brings up another concern. As a LEO who is authorized to carry concealed while off-duty is now possibly carrying a handgun of unknown caliber with unknown ammo and identifies himself as an off duty officer from a Calif agency during a physical encounter is alarming. The dept will authorize an offcr to carry a certain weapon once that person is able to qualify with that weapon.

  • Play Righter

    Sorry, I disagree that the officer escalated this to the point of drawing his weapon. The incident began with a disagreement I have not seen (if you have access to THAT video, please share it). It continued, per the video, with the cop trying to create separation from the angry group. It ESCALATED to the point of a weapon being drawn only after multiple physical attacks in addition to a clear and present danger on approach.

    I was unaware that a PD has the right to determine what type of gun an officer carries when he is OFF DUTY. I understand that CCW’s normally require testing on the same gun you will carry, but that’s a different issue, from what I can tell. Kindly supply the relevant statute where the LAPD would control what this cop carries in Anaheim and elsewhere. Thanks.

  • Skid Row Ranger

    You can google the LAPD manual.
    From 3/610.11, 2nd paragraph:
    “Off duty officers who carry a concealed handgun pursuant to their employment as a Los Angeles Police officer shall carry only handguns and ammunition which has been authorized by the Dept for on-duty use.”

    Regarding warning shots, they are covered within 1/556.10, and I am incorrect as in extreme circumstances they would be approved!

  • Not as trigger happy

    No way in hell that was a warning shot. The more my coleagues and I watch the video, the more we believe it is an accidental discharge. That was clearly not a warning shot.

  • Play Righter

    The links are appreciated. Often one can learn a lot more from the commenters than from the original article — and from a much more varied and often more experienced perspective. It will be interesting to see if Anaheim agrees with LAPD on warning shots.

    Why do you think this cop did NOT have his off-duty weapon / ammo approved?

    And if he had let go of the kid, how would local law enforcement have been able to track him down to investigate what really happened?

  • I agree. I’ve seen warning shots and what I see in this video and the others posted is someone who pulled out his weapon and in the scuffle accidentally popped one off. That doesn’t change my opinion on him being wrong because he’s wrong. As wrong as two left shoes. But anyone with any knowledge of a warning shot should be able to spot that this is not one.

  • bluethru1994

    If you are on your own property, which this guy was, you can be in possession of and carry firearms that are not authorized by the Dept. Warning shots are generally discouraged but if needed warning shots can be used.

  • Play Righter

    What if the incident starts on your own property but doesn’t escalate to a shot fired until you are a couple of doors down the street — and maybe trying to hold a “suspect” until local police arrive?

  • Skid Row Ranger

    This video begins with his hands on the minor, while plainly out in public on the sidewalk. At some point he identifies himself as a police offcr. You are correct in that he can probably own a variety of different weapons that are not approved by his dept for duty but I highly doubt he would be allowed concealed carry while out in a public environment.
    The dept manual makes mention that non-approved weapons aren’t even allowed on city property.

  • Play Righter

    Why are you so sure his gun was non-approved? And aren’t LEO’s more likely to get approved for a CCW than civilians?

  • Skid Row Ranger

    Hi. I do not know if the weapon used was an approved or non-approved. But, the dept section I quoted stated that only an approved weapon and ammo shall be used by dept employee while off duty.

  • Play Righter

    I understand you quoting the LAPD policy.

    I’m just perplexed that you are so focused on his gun being non-approved, even though you state that you don’t know whether it was or not. What is leading your thinking in this direction?

  • Tyndon Clusters

    it seems that if he hadn’t fired the shot, this would be a non news story, but……he did and that is the big problem.

  • Skid Row Ranger

    Don’t know why you are perplexed. You made the statement that the weapon used during this encounter wasn’t his duty gun. Those were your words. All I did was bring to the plate, meaning Jasmynea’s forum, the regulation for LAPD’s policy.
    Why not focus on the topic of an adult who believes he was verbally threatened by a minor. There was some verbiage that the off-duty offcr’s handicap father was being protected by his son. I have seen a few of the videos, to include the youtube videos, and viewing the older gent with the cane and he didn’t look too intimidated/threatened to a point where himself needed to seek cover or warrant his son, or anyone for that matter, to display a firearm for protection or preservation of human life.

  • Play Righter

    Not MY words; “…’his gun, a personal firearm separate from his LAPD-issued one, confiscated’, Anaheim police Chief Raul Quezada said.” ALSO: ” ‘The officer’s personal firearm was legal and there’s no question about his ability to carry it,’ Wyatt (Anaheim Police spokesman) said.” [both from Mercury News; not sure if link is allowed here].

    There are certainly other issues here regarding what started it all, but it looks absolutely clear that the cop didn’t pull his weapon, let alone discharge a round until after he was repeatedly physically assaulted, and facing more threats.

    The above quotes are the basis of my beliefs here regarding the weapon. From the jump, YOU have repeatedly been focused on the legality of the gun, which runs counter to the available data. THAT is why I’m perplexed. Is there something in your background that has convinced you of the likelihood the gun was not proper?

  • NinaG

    I live in a home that is in the direct path to a local high school. Frankly, the kids are loud mouthed, vile, discourteous little PUNKS. I have caught them attempting to jump my backyard fence, and vandalize my car. I have contacted the principal and provided pictures of the perps, and the principal actually did her job and held them accountable. There is ALWAYS a bad element in these groups of kids. This kid in the video seems like a stupid little punk as well, and his mommy coming to his defense instead of smacking him for being such a brat, is proof of that.
    I totally sympathize with this cop. It’s just too bad that he works for a Department that will eat him alive, just because it can…

  • The Silent Majority

    He unnecessarily escalated the situation. He knows where this 13-year-old little kid goes to school and could easily identify him. He could have taken the kid’s picture with a cell phone. He could have let him go and held onto his backpack, instead of dragging him all around while onlookers gathered.

    What was the urgency to handle it the way he did?

    No one was hurt or injured, so thankfully there’s that. But obviously this situation was mishandled, when it’s exactly the kind of incident you’d expect a well trained cop to handle easily……..and without gunfire.

  • Skid Row Ranger

    Thank you for your reply. I agree. The level of force the off duty officer utilized was excessive. One key point here was the individual was a minor and, I fully believe, the State of Calif protects its minors. One other component to the incident is whether the DA would file charges against the minor for what was reported to be criminal threats against the off duty ofcr. With possibly no supporting evidence this case, if bought by the DA, is one persons word against another. The DA’s office, either county or city, might be reluctant to pursue this case.
    Now we can look at, or examine, whether we as Calif citizens wish to have off duty officers utilizing this level of authority over a minor, especially for something as petty as this.

  • Skid Row Ranger

    What are you referring to Dawg?
    Off duty conduct is taken seriously, especially if a weapon is utilized.

  • Should have never touched the kid over such a trivial issue, and the gun increased his bad judgment exponentially. When you are given the right to carry a firearm there is a GREAT responsibility that comes with such a right, and Cowboy Cop proved he has no respect for that responsibility, or self control. Pull out the cell phone, videotape the “grass” issue, and then call 911 and get an APD street cop out there, follow the 13 y/o if need be, but do NOT make a federal case out of a nothing issue. If his grass were not damaged, and it almost certainly was not damaged, there is no crime. For a trespass to occur it must be posted, and there must be damages.

  • Frankly, the kids are loud mouthed, vile, discourteous little PUNKS.
    Nina, you just described ME when I was a KID. It is called immaturity and growing up, and yes, it happened to me, I actually grew up (despite my juvenile posts) and I am sure the same will happen to these 13 y/o over the next decade….

  • Pulling out a DEADLY weapon, fired or not, over a non-issue of walking on GRASS is always a story. His negligent, or intentional, discharge of that deadly weapon made it explode exponentially, as it should as the cop does not have the “temperament” needed of one who has the right to carry a deadly weapon…what’s next, shooting 13 y/o kids because they are jaywalking in front of his pad, or because they littered?…

  • No way in hell that was a warning shot. The more my coleagues and I watch the video, the more we believe it is an accidental discharge. That was clearly not a warning shot.
    Sworn LE officers are TRAINED to NEVER fire “warning shots”, EVER. Bullets are “deadly projectiles” and they always land somewhere; and that is why LE are trained NOT to fire the “warning shot”. A 9mm or .45 round coming falling back to earth at 120 MPH will put a hole right through a human skull. If it was intentional he violated policy, if it was negligent discharge he was negligent-either way he is an abject idiot. If he intentionally fired into the ground the same rules apply, as rounds ricochet all the time, and have a nasty habit of winding up hitting innocent bystanders.

  • The video shows that he took what may be ruled a prudent action — firing INTO THE GROUND:
    You have no LE training at all, because no one with LE training would state that. See my post above ^^^^

  • He, the adult, had control of the situation and he lost situational awareness as to what was going on.
    On the money. It is even worse though because he is a TRAINED LE officer with at least some street experience. My opinion is that he is a bad hire, as he is, again IMO, on a power trip. Power he cannot use responsibly.

  • Physically fighting back against a number of assailants who may or may not be armed, with injuries almost certain, or putting a bullet in the dirt where everybody walks (or runs) away unharmed?
    You clearly have no LE training experience. Cowboy Cop had no legal authority to man handle a 75# 13 y/o teenager, over an issue (walking on grass) he had no jurisdiction (OC, not LA) or legal authority (no crime and no jurisdiction) to be involved in. If some loser grabs me by the neck, over an issue he has no authority on, he is going to be picking his teeth up off the ground. The kid had every right to resist, and the way he was being manhandled he was clearly defending himself. 250# cop vs 75# 13 y/o, do you see the problem? Let me make it even easier for you, if YOU come up to me and punch me in the nose, and I get up and knock you out YOU do not get to call the police and ask that I be arrested for battery, as I have a right to self-defense for you punching me in the nose. That is what we have here, an off-duty Cowboy playing tough guy over a non-crime (no trespass as it was not posted-no damages).

  • Warning shots are generally discouraged but if needed warning shots can be used.
    Wrong, please show me POLICY that supports your comment.

  • Play Righter

    Where to start? Let’s see now, you’ve established that you are a tough
    guy, omniscient, “were” a jerk (despite your admitted juvenile posts —
    and you must be fully aware that young vile punks can cause a lot of damage,
    regardless of whether or not they “grow up”), somehow equate a bullet
    fired directly into the dirt with one fired in the air, and can magically
    declare that the kid weighed just 75 pounds, when the average for a
    5’3″ 13 year old is around 102 pounds.

    You claim that Ferguson pulled his weapon because of “walking on
    grass”. That’s absurd and you know it. So does the author of this
    article, who has ignored my requests for facts to back the charge. You
    both know better. That’s like claiming Trayvon died over Skittles and a hoodie, Garnder expired because of “loosies”, and Brown was “gunned down” over jaywalking.

    We don’t know if the shot was intentional or not. We do know that the
    only likely victim of a shot fired directly into the dirt is the dirt
    (unless you’re into worms). Ferguson claims he heard “I will shoot
    you”. While that makes more sense from a 13 year old punk (your term)
    than the threat of a lawsuit, it sounds like reason to detain the kid
    until it’s all sorted out. Using “situational awareness”, Ferguson
    backed away from the crowd and up against a hedge. When repeatedly
    assaulted and facing what could be a weapon behind the back of the teen
    who leaped the hedge, he ended the threat without harming anyone.

    Since you’re so omniscient and “results oriented”, please explain
    precisely what you would do if you had been punched by one attacker,
    tackled by another, were facing a heated and encroaching crowd and saw
    an additional potential assailant leap a hedge and move quickly toward
    you with his hand at his back pocket.
    Cowboy up…

  • You are entitled to your “opinion” but you do not get to make up the facts. The “copy and paste” job you did was as amateurish as your comment. Since you seem to have the brain power of a GED moron I will move on…..Carry on Cowboy Cop 🙂

  • Play Righter

    In other words, you have no factual response to my post, so you make up even more nonsense? Copy and paste: how? GED moron: because I prefer facts over absurd claims and offer you your own words? Precisely what facts did I make up? (The ones you made up are listed above).

    Surely a truly tough guy like you doesn’t run form an honest discussion? Or is that the movement you’re going to follow your prior “bowel movement” with?

    If you can back your claims, kindly do so. Or read your own comment here and see how closely it describes your original post. Other than the “copy and paste” nonsense, this could easily have been my response to you.

  • You have no response, all you have is BS. I cannot really waste my time with you…you are basically a moron, and I cannot fight an intellectual battle of law and facts with an unarmed nitwit.

  • Play Righter

    “You are entitled to your “opinion” but you do not get to make up the facts. ”

    “you seem to have the brain power of a GED moron…as amateurish as your comment”

    THERE: THAT is a “copy and paste job” of your words describing YOUR WORDS.

    Moron? Nitwit? BS? This page shows that all YOU have are insults rather than answers. You can “knock out teeth”, but you keep running away from simple questions.

    Here you go, tough guy:
    1) When did Ferguson pull his gun over walking on GRASS as you claim?
    2) Where is the factual data on the kid weighing 75 #?
    3) Who or what got injured by the bullet?
    4) Who or what did NOT get injured because the cop pulled his gun?
    5) What would you, oh mighty breaker of teeth, have done in the exact same circumstance under which Ferguson pulled his gun to minimize the damage.
    6) BONUS POINTS: Why do you keep running away from an honest discussion — that you initiated by attacking my comments?

  • That is the DUMBEST list of nonsense I have ever seen….it has NO relationship to this at all…like I said, you’re a nitwit with the brain power of a circus chimp….

  • Play Righter

    You can run (and run your “mouth”) all you want, but the questions your raised (see above) are still here chasing your “hide”.

    Really. Why bother starting something and then ducking behind insults? Do you really have a position worth defending, or are you just all hit and run?

    Is this why your profile is hidden? (Although the dog video is nice. And he doesn’t run away.)