These rape statistics are wrong for SO MANY reasons! (Details in comments)

[–]CalOnDaMic 149 points150 points151 points 8 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]valenin 52 points53 points54 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CalOnDaMic 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iansloth13 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The 2% (sometimes 6%, sometimes 10%) statistic is actually the percentage of cases that CAN be proven in a court of law, even if they are not.

So, cases like Soner Yassa, an Edmonton cab driver who asked four female passengers to put out their cigarette.

In response, they heaped verbal abuse on him, demanded he drop them off then and there, and said that they weren't going to pay. He said if they didn't pay the fare, he'd call police. They said if he did, they'd tell the responding officer he'd groped them.

He dropped them off as requested, then called police. They called friends who arrived from a nearby club and they told the crowd that Yassa had sexually assaulted them, leading him to feel a realistic fear of being assaulted. The cop arrived, and they repeated the accusation to him.

Then Yassa showed the cop the footage from his dashboard camera.

Because there was no official police report of sexual assault filed, this incident wasn't actually recorded as a false report of sexual assault. Had the camera not had a playback function--that is, had Yassa been arrested and an official report made before his footage was reviewed--this case would have fallen into the 2%, even though the women were never charged with a crime, let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Oh, and FYI, the fare was apparently $14.

Edit: A word word

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The 2% (sometimes 6%, sometimes 10%) statistic is actually the percentage of cases that CAN be proven in a court of law, even if they are not.

I'm pretty sure the 2% statistic never identifies with something anywhere near that broad. For instance the study I am about to quote is (misleadingly) cited by the NVSRC as reporting a 2.1% falsehood rate, but is in the "can prosecute the alleged victim" (admittedly not actually prosecuted as I had thought) category, which isn't merely allegations we know didn't happen, but ones we know are malicious.

From the study:

In 17 cases (2.1 per cent), the case outcome was clearly categorised as a false report and the alleged victim was either charged or told that she (there were no male victims amongst these 17 cases) would be charged unless she dropped the complaint. While this represents only a fraction of the sample, the findings will show a much larger proportion of cases where police were confident, or reasonably confident, that the allegations were false but there was no attempt to institute charges against the alleged victim.

Similarly, I suspect you won't be able to find a 10% statistic that falls into "can prosecute the alleged victim" category. So I think it is perhaps misleading to throw the 2% number in with the 10% number as if they are in the same bucket. They are completely different standards. If we are looking for merely statistics on false accusations we cannot honestly use a 2% statistic (NVRC and various media outlets need to get their shit together in this respect), and if we are talking about how under-prosecuted these allegations are we might not be able to cite 10% as the number.

Thanks for the anecdote on the unrecorded allegation, that's pretty terrifying.

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I suspect I would find different figures in the "can prosecute" category in different times and places. The false report rate, because it is recorded as a percentage of all reports, is a function of more than one variable: rape prevalence, rape report rates and false report prevalence. Any of these are subject to variability over time or among populations depending on environmental factors.

Let's look at it this way:

Let's say the report rate for rape is 10% (as many feminists claim). You have ten rapes. 1 woman reports it to police. If we also have 1 false accusation of rape, we must believe that men are 10 times more likely to rape than women are to lie about rape.

Let's say we go with 2% false reporting rate. That means we have 1 false report for every 49 women who were genuinely victimized and reported it. But remember, the report rate for rape is 10%. This means there were 490 rapes committed for every false report. Are men 490 times more likely to commit rape than women are to lie about rape?

What about personality disorders? Borderline and histrionic? Drama addicts? Are there no women who fit this category?

What about the financial incentives? The UK government pays "victims" thousands of pounds in compensation, and when your complaint is rape, you get to retain your anonymity unless you're prosecuted for falsely reporting.

What about the complete lack of disincentives? Genuine victims have genuine disincentives to reporting. Genuine trauma, shame, fear. False accusers don't feel any of those things.

What about the alibi incentives? Women have made false reports of rape to explain away pregnancies, infidelities and STDs, to distract their parents from the fact that they flunked out of college, to convince their school to repeatedly postpone their bar exams. One case, I outlined in another comment, four women made a false accusation of sexual assault to police because a cabbie told them they couldn't smoke in his cab, at which point they threw a fit and decided they didn't want to pay the $14 fare.

What about the overall environment and cultural climate? Back in the 80s, hundreds of parents whose kids came home from daycare acting a little off reported suspected ritual satanic child sexual abuse to police. Why? Because it was all over the news. Hundreds of people were prosecuted, and it was all bullshit.

Do you know how many young women on campus initially believe the sex was consensual but regrettable, but are talked into filing a rape complaint by feminist friends, or by counsellors at the women's center?

TL;DR: there's no reason to believe the rate of false reporting is remotely static. And there's no reason to believe it can't ever rise above 10%, even in terms of cases that could be prosecuted.

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

there's no reason to believe the rate of false reporting is remotely static. And there's no reason to believe it can't ever rise above 10%, even in terms of cases that could be prosecuted.

I certainly agree, but do you think such a study has already been published, especially one that is reproducible?

I think the false allegation rate is indeed well above 10%, and I think we have good evidence to claim those numbers, but I just don't think we'll ever be able to find credible source for a false allegation rate of 4% or below in the past couple decades, or until society massively changes the incentives regarding this. Even if a prosecutable rate at 10% is more conceivable, considering prosecution and conviction rates for other crimes I don't think we already have compelling evidence for a stat that high. So although it may be a nitpick, I do dispute the idea of putting the 2% rate alongside the other statistics you've mentioned.

[–]CalOnDaMic 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iansloth13 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jackal00 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]turbulance4 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In fact it's structured in a way to "let 100 guilty go free before imprisoning one innocent." The criminal justice system is literally intentionally structured to fail often.

Maybe, but in rape trials things are different, rape accusers have special rights that no victim of any other crime has, and in the UK they receive thousands of #s of compensation (the UK literally pays women a nice sum to make a rape accusation), and they also give her lifelong anonymity even if the accusation is proven false, this enables women to make serial false rape accusations in safety. Everything possible has been done to increase the rape conviction rate, including prosecuting men the CPS knows or should know are innocent. And to make this work they simply hide exculpatory evidence. Not one police officer, their management or anyone in the CPS has been prosecuted or sanctioned in any way, much less fired.

So WRT rape, I'm not sure that the system is structured the way you think.

[–]girlwriteswhat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Krissam 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]deville05 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have a few reasons why this pisses me off:

1: It is impossible for them to find out how many unreported rapists there are, due to them being fucking unreported.

Well organisations do a lot of surveys and many women open up about being raped or molested but never going to the police. So that's one way of getting that number. But who knows how many of these women are lying or making it up or have a case of exaggeration and misjudgement. We also don't know how many of these surveys.. aren't driven by agenda and if the numbers are truthful or fudged.

2: The non-jailed but reported “rapists” are not “rapists”, due to them being PROVEN INNOCENT

They are rapists in the eyes of women. Women don't believe in facts and evidence. That's a patriarchal concepts. Women believe other women and their feelings.

3: The reported rapists that don’t face trial are also not rapists, due to all reported rapists are legally inclined to face a trial.

There you go again with all that logical sense bullshit..

[–]Schadrach 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

1: It is impossible for them to find out how many unreported rapists there are, due to them being fucking unreported.

True, though you could estimate it with a broad enough survey sample that tries to determine if you were raped, and if yes if you reported it.

2: The non-jailed but reported “rapists” are not “rapists”, due to them being PROVEN INNOCENT

Not proven innocent, at least not in most cases (Louis Gonzales being an exception, who had a finding of factual innocence). Instead, innocence is the default state, and they were merely unable to be found guilty. You literally aren't testing for innocence, you are testing for guilt using an approach that is intended to favor false negatives over false positives.

3: The reported rapists that don’t face trial are also not rapists, due to all reported rapists are legally inclined to face a trial.

Unless the police drop the investigation, or the prosecutor doesn't think it's a case worth prosecuting both for any number of reasons. For example, if it wasn't reported promptly enough there might not be enough evidence to be worth bringing to trial.

This picture is bullshit, and I see it all over feminist sites.

Agreed, it's bullshit, but you're also off on your complaints against it. It'd be more accurate if the outer group of rapists were labelled "estimated rapes" or something similar, there were 4 times as many false accusations (to match FBI numbers), and they were distributed among the reported, trial, and convicted groups appropriately.

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Schadrach 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

It is impossible for them to find out how many unreported rapists there are, due to them being fucking unreported.

Not true, they have surveys for this sort of thing. We rely on surveys of unreported DV against men for our DV statistics, so not only is saying this wrong, but it undermines the case for men's rights.

The non-jailed but reported “rapists” are not “rapists”, due to them being PROVEN INNOCENT

Also not true, proven innocent is different from "possibly/probably rapist, but we don't have the evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt". At least some of these aren't rapists, but a reasonable proportion of them will be. We are unlikely to be able to know the proportion.

Those actually proven innocent is likely the 2% figure that sometimes get cited as the false accusation figure? Not sure about that.

The reported rapists that don’t face trial are also not rapists, due to all reported rapists are legally inclined to face a trial.

Also not true for the above reason. Similarly, we don't know the proportion of people in this group who are and who are not.

[–]AilerAiref 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There have been other studies, giving a range of figures.

That's easy enough to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

The problem is, false rape accusations are not illegal, they are not a crime, it is not precisely defined what they are, so different places count things differently, and there is a bias that women don't lie, and I'm not at all certain that social research on this kind of issue is to be trusted.

Now there are some criticisms of Kanin, but l recall that he only counted cases where the woman recanted, which in my mind makes it a lower bound.

In the UK women have financial incentive to file a false rape report, and the CPS wants to put innocent men in prison, and yet the crown is claiming only a 4% false rape accusation rate. The UK is also strongly biased and I don't trust their official numbers either.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/false-sexual-violence-assault-rape-allegations-truth-rare-international-day-for-the-elimination-of-a8077876.html

The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4 per cent of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2 per cent and 6 per cent.

Even more troubling is that idea that if the percentage is small it's not a problem and there's nothing to worry about, all I can say is tell that to Liam Allan.

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Falsely reporting a crime to police is indeed a crime. It's called, variously, perverting the course of justice, wasting police time, and criminal/public mischief.

Further, if a person knowingly lies on a sworn statement or while under oath, that's perjury.

The refusal in general to prosecute people who falsely report rape to police is a matter of police and prosecutor discretion, not a matter of false reports not being crimes. It is considered not in the public interest to prosecute women who are found to have even maliciously lied to police or the court, because it would have a "chilling effect" on genuine victims who, it is alleged, might not report if they feel they could be punished if they can't prove their case.

As far as "invariably low", that's kind of amazing, when you think that the false report rate for a crime is a function of three separate variables: the prevalence of that crime (which will affect the number of reports, and which goes up and down), the report rate for that crime (which does the same), and the prevalence of false accusations (which may vary independently of the other two).

That false report rates vary (whether malicious or otherwise) should not be news to anyone. Does anyone believe the number of false reports of witchcraft in Salem in 1692 was the same as in 1691? And if I recall, a lot of those accusations had more to do with rancour between neighbors and land disputes than anything real.

Satanic Panic, anyone? False reports of Satanic ritual child sexual abuse (and child sacrifice) by daycare workers soared when I was in my teens. As in, prevalence went from zero to something much larger than zero, largely because of media coverage and a general sense of hysteria, during which any skepticism of the mantra "children don't lie" could turn you into a pariah.

Add in the financial incentives you mentioned, and anonymity for accusers, aimed at encouraging genuine reports, and there's no reason to believe that false accusations aren't also being encouraged.

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Falsely reporting a crime to police is indeed a crime. It's called, variously, perverting the course of justice, wasting police time, and criminal/public mischief.

I've seen the first two used, but I have not yet seen a woman tried for criminal or public mischief.

Further, if a person knowingly lies on a sworn statement or while under oath, that's perjury.

This is what is normally used in the US, but the form of perjury is a misdemeanor while the rape she swore happened is a felony. And even when women get tried for this they stand a very good chance of getting a suspended sentence.

It is considered not in the public interest to prosecute women who are found to have even maliciously lied to police or the court, because it would have a "chilling effect" on genuine victims who, it is alleged, might not report if they feel they could be punished if they can't prove their case.

Whereas letting women make false rape accusation in complete safety and anonymity has led to women making them for any and sundry reasons, such as to create an excuse for being late to work (this is a real case). And the damage done to the men they accused is not seen as a problem somehow.

Add in the financial incentives you mentioned, and anonymity for accusers, aimed at encouraging genuine reports, and there's no reason to believe that false accusations aren't also being encouraged.

The laws are written in such a way that it does not matter if the accusation are later proven false, they don't have to pay the money back, so I don't think this is an accident.

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's a breakdown of one such study:

http://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/27/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-2/

From the article:

A rape report can only be classified as false after a thorough fact-based investigation (a confession that the report was false is not enough)
Don’t ask the same question twice so they can’t change their story
Even if you find key parts of their story to be false, don’t pay much attention to it
Challenging the validity of their report could be devastating
Even if you think the report is false, is it really worth your time to prove that it is?

If you need to do a thorough investigation to classify a report as false, but you can’t ask too many questions, you can’t challenge the validity of their story, and you probably shouldn’t be wasting time trying to investigate a false report, how can a report ever be classified as false? While the authors present this 7% false report rate as very low, I’m kind of shocked they were able to classify that many using these procedures.

[end quote]

Keep in mind, this 7% figure was found AFTER training investigators in feminist, victim-centered techniques designed to give complainants every benefit of the doubt (even when they lie), and which recommend investigators avoid investigating suspected false accusations.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawayjoblife 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChuckDexterWard 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Yikesthatsmicha1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Impressive... Everything you just wrote was wrong

[–]CalOnDaMic 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Yikesthatsmicha1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

There are multiple ways to accurately estimate the number of unreported rapists, as are there ways to accurately estimate unreported crimes of any nature
As the graph shows, most of those reported as rapists do not face trial, so cannot be proven to be anything. Regardless, those that do face trial are not proven innocent, they simply cannot be confidently proven to be guilty based on the evidence provided.
Not all reported rapists face trial

[–]CalOnDaMic 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hotbbqwing -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure they can’t find hard statistics of unreported rape, but they can use statistically methods to estimate how many cases of rape there are that aren’t reported to the police by using surveys.

You are never found innocent in the justice system. The government can’t imprison you until you are found guilty, but it would be retarded to say that everyone who isn’t found guilty is innocent. Yes the government should treat them as if they are not guilty, but when it comes to talking about stuff in the real world a lot of those people did commit crimes it just couldn’t be proven.

No, most people who are accused of rape don’t go to trial. Your statement is just completely false. A lot of times police won’t even investigate it unless they already have some hard evidence.

You don’t seem to understand the legal system in practicality or in theory at all.

[+]Yikesthatsmicha1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

wrong
wrong
wrong

[–]CalOnDaMic 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Yikesthatsmicha1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 32 points33 points34 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you understand what habeas corpus even means?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ITS FUNCTIONS.

Today, habeas corpus is mainly used as a post-conviction remedy for state or federal prisoners who challenge the legality of the application of federal laws that were used in the judicial proceedings that resulted in their detention. Other uses of habeas corpus include immigration or deportation cases and matters concerning military detentions, court proceedings before military commissions, and convictions in military court. Finally, habeas corpus is used to determine preliminary matters in criminal cases, such as: (i) an adequate basis for detention; (ii) removal to another federal district court; (iii) the denial of bail or parole; (iv) a claim of double jeopardy; (v) the failure to provide for a speedy trial or hearing; or (vi) the legality of extradition to a foreign country.

You can use Habeas Corpus primarily after conviction, this is before the trial. And this requires a Civil suit against the government, so either you need to be able to afford it (unlikely since you could not pay bail) or that you find a lawyer who will work pro bono, which is difficult to do from jail.

Here is the reality of the situation.

https://fusion.tv/story/5419/right-to-a-speedy-trial-this-innocent-teenager-waited-3-years-in-jail/

A Fusion investigation has found that across the country, citizens — some facing trials for crimes they never committed — are being deprived of their right to a speedy trial. As states slash judicial funding, it’s not just many accused who are suffering. Victims are being forced to wait years to see justice for crimes committed against them or their family members.

In more than 15 states, we found people locked up, waiting five years or more for their day in court.

Fusion has been unable to find any government or private entity that monitors trial wait times nationally, making it impossible to know how broadly defendants’ rights are being violated. No one tracks and compares wait times for court trials in states around the country. So there is no way of knowing how often states are denying the accused their constitutional right to speedy justice.

INCREDIBLY epic fail.

Tell me of all the successful writs of Habeas Corpus to end pre-trial detention. Please.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Tell me of all the successful writs of Habeas Corpus to end pre-trial detention. Please.

I see your ONE source copy pasta and challenge with 3.

Article 5(4) of the European Convention of Human Rights states that all individuals deprived of their liberty are entitled to instigate proceedings by which the lawfulness of their detention can be decided speedily by a court. If it transpires that their detention is not lawful, their release is ordered. This guarantees an individuals’ right to challenge the legality of state detention. This action is known as ‘habeas corpus’.

In the context of police detention, this can perhaps be explained by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which provides strict time limits as to the length of time an individual can be held in custody. Nevertheless, habeas corpus is a constitutional right and any person who believes they are unlawfully detained can demand it.

That's ichi.

Sauce: http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/07/15/what-is-habeas-corpus/

Habeas Corpus is a procedure aimed at quickly remedying the illegal detention of a citizen. To this end, it is configured as a right of the detainee, who may request the Court, from the moment of his detention, to determine, within a maximum period of 24 hours, whether his detention has been carried out under the legally established conditions.

This makes zwei.

Sauce: https://www.ilpabogados.com/en/how-does-habeas-corpus-work-practical-questions-about-illegal-detention-and-habeas-corpus/

n many countries, authorities may take citizens and incarcerate them for months or years without charging them. Those imprisoned have no legal means by which they can protest or challenge the imprisonment. The framers of the U. S. Constitution wanted to prohibit this kind of occurrence in the new United States. Therefore, they included a clause in the Constitution that allows courts to issue writs of habeas corpus. Many states also recognize writs of habeas corpus in addition to the federal government. The U. S. Constitution also specifically prohibits the government from suspending proceedings for writs of habeas corpus except under extraordinary circumstances such as during times of war.

And here's three, from different nations all functioning in unison no less.

So.... are you going to admit you are horrendously wrong or will you double down?

[–]tenchineuro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CalOnDaMic 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RadioHeadache0311 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]toothless_budgie 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kaian-a-coel 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]berserkerrage 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NecroHexr 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CalOnDaMic 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iansloth13 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CalOnDaMic 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GollumEatsFrodo 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheShShCreature 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VerumFalsum 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bklee83 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JakeDC 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wisemanner 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rocky-232 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rocky-232 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments