Flash a cop because his lights are bright and die

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
The stop should never have happened in the first place. By the 3rd time you get flashed in a single evening, you should take the car back to the station, have the lights fixed, and get a different vehicle for the night. That is the only response you should have. Pulling someone over under threat of violence is the response of an egotistical narcissistic asshole who should not be granted authority over anybody.

Listen, I know it's been a while and maybe you've recharged since your last go around with this guy, but I fail to see what you'll get out of going round and round yet again. There's not one post where he admonishes these thugs for what they are which proves (to me) there's no rational or logical thought behind his words.

 
Last edited:

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
The stop should never have happened in the first place. By the 3rd time you get flashed in a single evening, you should take the car back to the station, have the lights fixed, and get a different vehicle for the night. That is the only response you should have. Pulling someone over under threat of violence is the response of an egotistical narcissistic asshole who should not be granted authority over anybody.
Yep. There's simply no way that his lights weren't in need of fixing. Where do you get this "threat of violence" thing?\

Listen, I know it's been a while and maybe you've recharged since your last go around with this guy, but I fail to see what you'll get out of going round and round yet again. There's not one post where he admonishes these thugs for what they are which proves (to me) there's no rational or logical thought behind his words.
You've concluded that they are "thugs" without rational thought. You refuse to engage in any real discussion and just keep posting groupthink images that don't relate to the situation at all.

Even if the lights were too bright, which seems unlikely no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, THE KID ATTACKED THE COP AFTER THE COP MADE A VALID STOP. How do you reconcile that?!
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
Damn I wish I saw this response earlier. It is really stupid. *Sigh*



If multiple people think your lights are too bright then your lights are too fucking bright. Maybe you think you are super smarter than everyone else, but most people have the intellectual ability to tell if lights are too bright or not. The amount of stupid that you must think all mankind possesses would kill them all before puberty, so therefore it does not exist. You need to get over whatever lies you are telling yourself about how stupid the average human is compared to you. News flash: you have a solidly middle level intelligence.
What you mistake for reasoning is laughable. The law determines what is "too bright." People "thinking" that your lights are too bright does not. You has sub-standard reasoning abilities.

This started when you said that the cop admitted that they were too bright and even gave a reason why they were too bright. I pointed out that he said nothing of the kind: He explained why people THOUGHT they were too bright. Rather than admitting that I was right and it was the only logical conclusion, you just attacked my intelligence. Good try.

No, the desperate reasoning is someone who would say that 3 different people all flashing you as a courtesy to warn you that your lights are too bright are all wrong. On the same night. It's fucking stupidity to believe that this can happen and they are all wrong and that there is nothing that you should do to correct the issue except for disrupting their lives by pulling them over under threat of violence to issue them state sanctioned warnings or tickets.
Nothing desperate at all. I even pointed out that this exact same thing has happened in the past when new vehicle lighting technologies were introduced. DOT/NTSB are perfectly aware of this phenomenon and you should be now too. You have no excuses for ignoring this proven truth. The cop did not pull anyone over under "threat of violence."


It's not a leap to think that after 3+ people all thought his lights are to bright, that they are too bright. That is not a leap at all. That is common sense, not nonsense. Only a narcissistic asshole might think otherwise.
We've already discussed this. "All three could have been flashing to warn oncoming drivers of another cop down the road or they could have been flashing because they THOUGHT his lights were too brights due to them being new/different/noticeable."

Strange that you seem to know the intentions of the previous drivers. Common sense tells you that if new LED headlights cause the same effect as the Bi-Xenon and white halogen headlights before them when they were new (people assume that "brighter" = "too bright") then more than one person would flash in a night. It's a phenomenon caused mostly because they look different which causes drivers to look closer and think that they are too bright even when they adhere to legal limits.

For fuck sake there is no evidence of this or even insinuation of this. You just literally made up a horseshit reason that something might have happened. The horseshit reason doesn't even make sense. You must really think that everyone who is not you is totally stupid and easily outsmarted by bullshit. The cop even explained that they flashed because his lights were too bright. The cop said this. HE SAID IT.
THE COP DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE TOO BRIGHT! Can you read/hear?!

I didn't make up ANYTHING. The phenomenon of people mistaking new lighting technologies as being "too bright" until they get used to them and stop staring is well documented. It's also well known that people flash their lights around cops for OTHER reasons that they might not be forthcoming about. Jumping to conclusions because the kid claimed they were too bright and saying that the cop said the same thing is ridiculous.

Like all the idiots who fell for Ahmed's clock hoax, you mistake claims for facts. The kid CLAIMS that they were too bright. The claim might have even been made up after he was pulled over for flashing if he was flashing for a completely different reason (happens all the time when people flash to warn of cops ahead). YOU DON'T KNOW and yet you draw all kinds of conclusions based on it.

Even assuming that it was the reason the kid flashed him, there is no evidence that the others flashed him for the same reason. Hell, as far as you know the kid WAS flashing to warn oncoming drivers of speed traps and changed his story when he found out that he flashed a cop. It happens all the time. Personally, I think it should be your right to communicate such information, but lots of states have laws against it and others simply enforce their existing laws about the minimum distances for using brights.

The evidence for scenario #2 is that the exact same complaints have spiked every other time new headlights have been introduced and explained exactly how I said they were explained. I linked to the info and everything. The officer himself even said he had a new car and said that it was why people thought his lights were too bright and there are several new cars that include LED bulbs. Speaking of "no evidence:" Funny how you think the kid's claims trump the cop's with you just... because.

If lots of people think your lights are too bright then they are. End of story. If you are blinding people, then you are blinding people. You don't get to blind people and then say "well it's a regulation blinding so you're not actually blinded."
As explained, people will THINK they are too bright and BLIND THEMSELVES simply because they A) Noticed that they looked different and B) Looked directly at them. It's a real phenomenon. You have no excuse to go on repeating this BS after I have pointed this out to you so many times. Saying "end of story" doesn't make it true.

What the fuck? You've been flashed 3 times in a single night by people and you still think you weren't blinding them? No wonder you are arguing for the cop here.
You still don't understand how easy that is even with new technology headlights that get flashed: Cops can set themselves up to get flashed by people who are warning them of other cops. It happens all the time in the states that allow it, especially at the end of the month when they haven't met their quotas and are looking for any reason to stop you. Even if all three were really flashing because they thought it was too bright, IT DOESN'T COME CLOSE TO PROVING THAT THE LIGHTS WERE TOO BRIGHT. It happened ALL THE TIME when factory Bi-Xenon headlights stood out. It happened ALL THE TIME when factory white halogen bulbs stood out. It now happens ALL THE TIME with new factory LED bulbs. There is reason to believe that he had factory LED bulbs and they appeared too bright just because they stood out, exactly like white bulbs did when most other vehicles had yellow. Yes: People said that they were too bright because the COLOR changed. Once white no longer stood out, people stopped staring and now no one thinks they are "too bright."

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Easy call. 2 reasons: 1) How in the fuck would someone be able to stop in time to confront you if you both were passing in opposite directions? 2) If it actually happened (unlikely) and they shut up quick, it is likely because you flashed your badge and threatened to abuse your authority. Because if your low beams are too bright then they are too bright. It doesn't matter if you have even higher beams that are even too higher bright. BOTH sets are too fucking bright and you need to adjust your shit.
More evidence or your limited ability to comprehend possible scenarios other than the first conclusion you jump to that you desperately want to believe. I never said anything about the person confronting me being an oncoming driver.

I was driving a 2000 Hyundai Elantra when a person in front of me slowed and sped up and slowed again in an attempt to annoy me and prevent me from passing. This went on for a mile or two until the car just stopped and a big dude got out of the driver side and approached me. I rolled my window down as he approached and he started yelling something like "turn off your damned hi beams!" as he approached me. I said "They were never on. See?" as I flicked them on to demonstrate. He immediately turned around, got in his car, and continued on. I did not display a badge because I am not a cop.

You propensity for jumping to conclusions has been noted. It's EXACTLY the problem you are having with the cop/kid interaction.

This is a lot of noise, but the bottom line is that the most logical explanation was that his lights were blinding people. LED/fancy/color is irrelevant. Blinding is blinding. It was an asshole move to pull all those people over as if they were at fault for his blinding people. End. Of. Story.
Are you denying science? The "most logical" explanation when the cop specifically implied new lights when he explained that the car was new is that it has new lights. We already know that new lights cause this until they reach a point that they are common enough that they don't stand out. They would never reach that point if they had to dial them down first. As for "blinding is blinding," there is an actual standard that the new lights must conform to. You only seem to care about baseless musings of uninformed people because you hate cops. Your declaration of "the bottom line" and the "end of story" is pretty cute when you are so far off base.

If I were an asshole, I would think so too.
It's not even debatable. "It was a valid stop" even if his lights were too bright because they can pull people over in that state with existing laws regarding hi-beam usage.

You didn't even read the rest of your own post or else you wouldn't have the nerve to say this.
Nope. I presented alternate possibilities that are equally or more likely and you continue to only consider the one where the cop is the bad guy. You dismiss everything based on claims and repeatedly jump to conclusions that support only one possibility. You present claims as proof. You make hard conclusions based on such claims and then try to end discussion with lines like "en of story." You never say that one unproven thing COULD mean something else and you always say that it DOES mean whatever you want it to mean. You are demonstrably biased.

The stop should never have happened in the first place. By the 3rd time you get flashed in a single evening, you should take the car back to the station, have the lights fixed, and get a different vehicle for the night. That is the only response you should have. Pulling someone over under threat of violence is the response of an egotistical narcissistic asshole who should not be granted authority over anybody.
Yep. There's simply no way that his lights weren't in need of fixing. Where do you get this "threat of violence" thing?
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
8
0
Ah, so he attacked the cop.

Yeah, that will get you killed. It is similar to those fantasies most of you have in your heads how someone attacks you and you shoot them. But, according to some of you, the right to defend yourself goes out the window when is cop is attacked.
 
Last edited:

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Ah, so he defended himself against the cop.

Fixed for accuracy.

Yeah, that will get you killed. It is similar to those fantasies most of you have in your heads how someone attacks you and you shoot them. But, according to some of you, the right to defend yourself goes out the window when is cop is attacked.

You're right. Defending yourself against attacks from thugs with badges will get you killed. Not only that but the court will declare 'good shoot' after his paid time off.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
175
106
IIRC wasn't the cop driving a newer Ford Explorer with HID headlamps? I have one of those myself and even when I don't have my brights on other drivers flash their headlights at me thinking I have my high beams on. The HID lights are simply brighter than standard headlights and since my lights are higher up, could appear as high beams to someone closer to the ground in a car.

Whether the officer was justified or not in pulling the kid over, the clear fact still remains that had he not attacked the officer, he'd be alive today.

I'm no fan of police but when one of them pulls a taser or gun on me, I'm going to just comply because whatever stand I'm taking by arguing with them or refusing to cooperate isn't worth being assaulted or dying over and I'd rather sort things out after the confrontation is over.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Even assuming that it was the reason the kid flashed him, there is no evidence that the others flashed him for the same reason. Hell, as far as you know the kid WAS flashing to warn oncoming drivers of speed traps and changed his story when he found out that he flashed a cop.

Please, the cop would have accused the kid of warning of a speed trap if there was in fact one to be warned about. The kid couldn't have been warning about that particular cop because they were traveling in opposite directions.

Nothing desperate at all. I even pointed out that this exact same thing has happened in the past when new vehicle lighting technologies were introduced. DOT/NTSB are perfectly aware of this phenomenon and you should be now too. You have no excuses for ignoring this proven truth. The cop did not pull anyone over under "threat of violence."

We've already discussed this. "All three could have been flashing to warn oncoming drivers of another cop down the road or they could have been flashing because they THOUGHT his lights were too brights due to them being new/different/noticeable."

Strange that you seem to know the intentions of the previous drivers. Common sense tells you that if new LED headlights cause the same effect as the Bi-Xenon and white halogen headlights before them when they were new (people assume that "brighter" = "too bright") then more than one person would flash in a night. It's a phenomenon caused mostly because they look different which causes drivers to look closer and think that they are too bright even when they adhere to legal limits.

I didn't make up ANYTHING. The phenomenon of people mistaking new lighting technologies as being "too bright" until they get used to them and stop staring is well documented. It's also well known that people flash their lights around cops for OTHER reasons that they might not be forthcoming about. Jumping to conclusions because the kid claimed they were too bright and saying that the cop said the same thing is ridiculous.
The officer himself even said he had a new car and said that it was why people thought his lights were too bright and there are several new cars that include LED bulbs. Speaking of "no evidence:" Funny how you think the kid's claims trump the cop's with you just... because.


As explained, people will THINK they are too bright and BLIND THEMSELVES simply because they A) Noticed that they looked different and B) Looked directly at them. It's a real phenomenon. You have no excuse to go on repeating this BS after I have pointed this out to you so many times. Saying "end of story" doesn't make it true.

So the cop should have known that his lights were in fact causing drivers to be blinded, giving other drivers the illusion that his high beams were on. So the people, regardless if accurately, thought his high beams were on and he knew exactly why they thought this. The other drivers being blinded and the kid who wound up dead, per your own admission, had reason to believe that he had his brights on. That being the case, pulling them over is absurd and uncalled for regardless of the actual wording of the law.

Are you denying science? The "most logical" explanation when the cop specifically implied new lights when he explained that the car was new is that it has new lights. We already know that new lights cause this until they reach a point that they are common enough that they don't stand out. They would never reach that point if they had to dial them down first. As for "blinding is blinding," there is an actual standard that the new lights must conform to. You only seem to care about baseless musings of uninformed people because you hate cops. Your declaration of "the bottom line" and the "end of story" is pretty cute when you are so far off base.

Again you claim that this is a common phenomenon so at the very best the people were actually being blinded by the cops lights, which according to you the cop should have known why and even said as much, so he was being a complete dick by pulling people over because they flashed their highs after being blinded.

It's not even debatable. "It was a valid stop" even if his lights were too bright because they can pull people over in that state with existing laws regarding hi-beam usage.

A cop can follow you for a few miles and always find a reason to perform a "valid stop". It doesn't mean that they should or that it isn't a complete dick move and a waste of everyones time. Being a dick of that magnitude and the absolute fact that he can't handle a puny unarmed kid, lying on the ground, who is running his mouth without putting himself in a position that he feared for his life means he shouldn't be a cop.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
Please, the cop would have accused the kid of warning of a speed trap if there was in fact one to be warned about. The kid couldn't have been warning about that particular cop because they were traveling in opposite directions.
Incorrect. Even if there is a law against warning other drivers of a speed trap (there often isn't), there is no proof of that. He DID witness a particular violation that applies REGARDLESS of the kid's intentions: He used his brights where the law says he was too close to do so. In some places warning about a speed trap is considered your First Amendment right. There is no amendment that allows you to use your brights to communicate that within the legal distance that they are normally prohibited. Let that soak in.

So the cop should have known that his lights were in fact causing drivers to be blinded, giving other drivers the illusion that his high beams were on. So the people, regardless if accurately, thought his high beams were on and he knew exactly why they thought this. The other drivers being blinded and the kid who wound up dead, per your own admission, had reason to believe that he had his brights on. That being the case, pulling them over is absurd and uncalled for regardless of the actual wording of the law.
Bull. No one claimed that until AFTER they were stopped, which is excatly where their story would change when they realize that they flashed a cop. As far as you or I know ALL THREE INCLUDING THE KID were flashing for a different reason. You can't draw that conclusion from the claims no matter how hard you try. Even if thinking the brights were on was genuinely why they were flashing the cop and the cop knew it, the law STILL allowed the stop. If he had ticket quotas to meet or whatever, it doesn't matter: It was STILL justified because the law said that they were not allowed to do that. Because the stop was legal to enforce that law the kid had no right to resist enforcement of that law. It really is that simple. The kid had no right to attack the officer. It was not "self defense."

Again you claim that this is a common phenomenon so at the very best the people were actually being blinded by the cops lights, which according to you the cop should have known why and even said as much, so he was being a complete dick by pulling people over because they flashed their highs after being blinded.
Even if he believed that they thought his brights were on he was still entirely within the law to enforce that law. It's silly you would even try to argue that point. Whether he had quotas to meet or they set up a sting for people warning others or he just wanted to be a jerk, he can be a jerk all he wants. The law says that they can't flash their brights within a certain distance and he is enforcing that law. It's pretty clear and yet you keep going back to the worthless "dick" argument. Get over yourself. You can't just attack a lawful officer even if you think he enforced a law to be a "dick."

A cop can follow you for a few miles and always find a reason to perform a "valid stop". It doesn't mean that they should or that it isn't a complete dick move and a waste of everyones time. Being a dick of that magnitude and the absolute fact that he can't handle a puny unarmed kid, lying on the ground, who is running his mouth without putting himself in a position that he feared for his life means he shouldn't be a cop.
I'm glad you feel that way.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,941
767
136
What you mistake for reasoning is laughable. The law determines what is "too bright." People "thinking" that your lights are too bright does not. You has sub-standard reasoning abilities.

No, physics determines what is "too bright". The law is an inexact, imperfect attempt to codify this. You is teh sub-standard noob

This started when you said that the cop admitted that they were too bright and even gave a reason why they were too bright. I pointed out that he said nothing of the kind: He explained why people THOUGHT they were too bright.

If lots of people think they are too bright, then they are. That's it. Get them fixed. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH JUST GETTING YOUR FUCKING LIGHTS FIXED??? Why do you have to use your authority to try and tell them they are all wrong and that they aren't actually getting blinded? It's narcissistic as fuck.

Rather than admitting that I was right and it was the only logical conclusion, you just attacked my intelligence. Good try.

I didn't attack your intelligence, I said you are average. As in smarter than half of all people out there! Only a narcissist would take this as an insult. You just think you're amazing, don't you?

Nothing desperate at all. I even pointed out that this exact same thing has happened in the past when new vehicle lighting technologies were introduced. DOT/NTSB are perfectly aware of this phenomenon and you should be now too. You have no excuses for ignoring this proven truth.

So in the past back when the stuff was new, it was too bright? Yes, I agree. And this cop sounds like his lights were pointed too high by the factory. It happens. My latest car had its lights pointed too low so I got them fixed. I didn't pull people over with my authority to tell them why they are wrong that they can't properly see my lights. See? That's how not to be an asshole. Is that so rough?

The cop did not pull anyone over under "threat of violence."

What would the cop do if the kid never pulled over? Would the situation eventually become violent? Would that violence be state sanctioned? Then yes, it is under threat of state sanctioned violence.

We've already discussed this. "All three could have been flashing to warn oncoming drivers of another cop down the road or they could have been flashing because they THOUGHT his lights were too brights due to them being new/different/noticeable."

Yes, and I discussed how illogical it was to propose this. It is preposterous to believe that 3 people in different parts of the city flashed high beams to warn of 3 different speed traps on the exact same night to the exact same person. Utterly preposterous. I have only ever had someone do this for me ONCE in my entire life. You are really really reaching to defend a cop for not doing the right thing and at least getting his lights checked. You must really want cops to bust the shit out of people who flash high beams in a universally recognized (and even RECOMMENDED by some states) manner.

Strange that you seem to know the intentions of the previous drivers.

You think it's strange to think that someone flashing their high beams at you is to communicate that you are blinding them? Why? It's universally recognized.

Common sense tells you that if new LED headlights cause the same effect as the Bi-Xenon and white halogen headlights before them when they were new (people assume that "brighter" = "too bright") then more than one person would flash in a night. It's a phenomenon caused mostly because they look different which causes drivers to look closer and think that they are too bright even when they adhere to legal limits.

Were the headlights in his car a brand new emerging technology? No? And you obviously think the average human being is too stupid to properly determine when they are being blinded or not. Yet another sign of narcissism. Maybe the state should take over all of our daily functions for us because we obviously can't handle it like you and your glorious mind can.

Like all the idiots who fell for Ahmed's clock hoax, you mistake claims for facts. The kid CLAIMS that they were too bright. The claim might have even been made up after he was pulled over for flashing if he was flashing for a completely different reason (happens all the time when people flash to warn of cops ahead). YOU DON'T KNOW and yet you draw all kinds of conclusions based on it.

Dude, it's ON THE TAPE.

The evidence for scenario #2 is that the exact same complaints have spiked every other time new headlights have been introduced and explained exactly how I said they were explained. I linked to the info and everything. The officer himself even said he had a new car and said that it was why people thought his lights were too bright and there are several new cars that include LED bulbs. Speaking of "no evidence:" Funny how you think the kid's claims trump the cop's with you just... because.

No, LEDs aren't too bright. Unless they are pointed too high up. In which case he can go get them fixed. He didn't even try. Not even once.

I was driving a 2000 Hyundai Elantra when a person in front of me slowed and sped up and slowed again in an attempt to annoy me and prevent me from passing. This went on for a mile or two until the car just stopped and a big dude got out of the driver side and approached me. I rolled my window down as he approached and he started yelling something like "turn off your damned hi beams!" as he approached me. I said "They were never on. See?" as I flicked them on to demonstrate. He immediately turned around, got in his car, and continued on. I did not display a badge because I am not a cop.

Hah, I had a 2000 Elantra, too. We're bros now! But it's lights are NOT bright...I always struggled with them being very dim. This is a tough story to believe since I don't believe that I was ever flashed once in 8 years of ownership. And what kind of guy is stupid enough to think 2000 Elantra lights are too bright and screws dangerously with you for miles but then when shown to be wrong just intelligently drops it and drives away? But if true, it sounds like you were dealing with an idiot. One single idiot. Even 2 could be considered a coincidence. But 4 times damn. At least get the lights CHECKED.

In conclusion, there were 2 bad guys in the interaction. The kid was the "more" bad guy, according to what we know. The first bad guy didn't ever have to interact with the 2nd one, but chose to do so and therefore we got bad guy on bad guy violence. It never had to happen. You have spent your entire post trying to convince me that people are too stupid to know if they are being blinded or not. Or that as long as it was a state-sanctioned legal blinding then cool. And that all of them flashed the guy for some other made up reason NOT being the universally recognized sign for "hey man your lights are blinding me!" Ahem...End. Of. Story. <-- Does that make me right?
 
Last edited:

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,941
767
136
Listen, I know it's been a while and maybe you've recharged since your last go around with this guy, but I fail to see what you'll get out of going round and round yet again. There's not one post where he admonishes these thugs for what they are which proves (to me) there's no rational or logical thought behind his words.


Le sigh...I know...it seems like it has just devolved into a circular argument.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |