Out of control police at it again.....hmmm....

[SteelHeadEer]

Obviously you have never worked the streets. The big mouth is the one who instigates. If it is causing a problem, it has to go before you can assume control. I think your assumption that all of the public is anti police. I have to believe the vast majority has respect for officers who respect themselves and th public. Too, I believe 99.99% of the officers are there to "serve". They certainly do not "loathe the people they are supposed to serve".

I think your assumption is that everyone the officer comes into contact is a villain of some sort. The vast majority of police work is community relations and answering legitimate complaints that good people want to report and get a solution to the problem they are having. Of course some of the people they come into contact are hardened criminals and those people are treated differently than some old grandmother whose cat is missing or the teen neighbor is playing music too loud late at night.

Now if you want to arm every person with a badge a camera and recorder and arm every vehicle the same way, the cost to taxpayers is going to jump substantially. Your PR work is going to go to hell as soon as your perspective informant sees the recording device. The people who are just trying to help do not want to become part of a trial and have someone chasing them because they are "squealing". Police work is common sense. Officer is operating at his own discretion. How can he extract the most and best info. Just like in the movies - let a thief run free if he can tell you who is committing armed robbery. Common sense and the most value.

You see everything with officers eyes. Your bias is from your life experience. I understand where you are coming from but I disagree about cameras. Cameras will save lives and money.

I watched, like many other people, the officer kill the guy in SC for not complying and them walk over and throw the tazer gun down like the man had taken it. It was cold blooded murder and if there was no one filming the officer would have gotten away with it. This kind of thing has happened so many times and its no coincidence that now we are seeing so many cases brought to light. Its because people are filming every time they see police.

You proved in your own words exactly how so many officers think, they want to do what ever it takes to shut the " Big mouth " up. And I believe you when you say whatever it takes.

I have heard my brother and his officer friends sit around and laugh about the things they have done, things that would get them fired in a heart beat if on film. They all to a man have an underlying contempt for the rest of society. You have it. You can sense it what you've written and how you've written it. I'm sure you will disagree.

The thing is this, I get it. I know why most all police I know tend to have mostly other police as friends. Its a career that forces most officers into a us against them mentality. There is no answers to solve all of the ills in society as there are no answers to the dissolving relationship between citizens and the police force that is there to protect them.

However, the studies show that those forces that have implemented body cameras have shown a great decrease in instances of police misconduct and a marked increase in expedition of judicial process.

 

[dave]

If you dont look at it from the police officers eyes how can you begin to understand why they do what they do?

 

[SteelHeadEer]

If you dont look at it from the police officers eyes how can you begin to understand why they do what they do?

I try to look at it from every point of view. To ignore one point of view in favor of the other is inherently dangerous and full of folly.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I try to look at it from every point of view. To ignore one point of view in favor of the other is inherently dangerous and full of folly.

Especially for the guy trying to uphold the law. You have to use a different set of guidelines than those you would for Joe dipshit walking down the street.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

Especially for the guy trying to uphold the law. You have to use a different set of guidelines than those you would for Joe dipshit walking down the street.

I agree, but who sets those guidelines other than ones own experiences? The whole question of police conduct when it pertains to " Joe dipshit " is the question. It seems you are establishing lines that on one side is the police and every other person, from any walk of life, is Joe Dipshit.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

So, is it the earned right of a police officer to break the law trying to uphold the law?

How far is too far?
I think the cameras and audio rolling all the time helps everyone. It has to help justify any officer especially when abuse allegations are filed. It helps Joe Dipshit when he feels he has been injured either physically or financially by the police. It helps the DA and the judicial system close cases faster and more quickly. I see no down side other than asking informants for information.

 

[dave]

I try to look at it from every point of view. To ignore one point of view in favor of the other is inherently dangerous and full of folly.

Do you know the point of view of a criminal? Cops do because they deal with them.

 

[dave]

So, is it the earned right of a police officer to break the law trying to uphold the law?

How far is too far?
I think the cameras and audio rolling all the time helps everyone. It has to help justify any officer especially when abuse allegations are filed. It helps Joe Dipshit when he feels he has been injured either physically or financially by the police. It helps the DA and the judicial system close cases faster and more quickly. I see no down side other than asking informants for information.

Earned right to break the law? That is the problem with the whole mentality.

 

[dave]

I agree, but who sets those guidelines other than ones own experiences? The whole question of police conduct when it pertains to " Joe dipshit " is the question. It seems you are establishing lines that on one side is the police and every other person, from any walk of life, is Joe Dipshit.

Anyone who doesnt follow a direct order from police is a joe dipshit. Period.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

Anyone who doesnt follow a direct order from police is a joe dipshit. Period.

If the Police, for what ever reason, orders you to get your license out of the car and then shoots you for reaching in your car, that makes whom Joe Dipshit? If there was no video, no audio, this cop is still working. He never tells anyone he ordered the guy to get his license and then shot him for going to get them.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

It amazes me that people wont admit there are many guys walking around out there that have no rhyme nor reason to be a police officer. But, by saying this, people automatically jump on the defensive and think I'm anti-police or something. My father was Military and I have three police officers in the family. I have a great respect our our military and officers of the law, but that doesn't preclude me from seeing the abuse and misconduct of some in law enforcement.
The good cops need to help weed out the bad cops and I believe that mandatory vid and audio help attain those goals.

 

[dave]

If the Police, for what ever reason, orders you to get your license out of the car and then shoots you for reaching in your car, that make whom Joe Dipshit? If there was no video, no audio, this cop is still working. He never tells anyone he ordered the guy to get his license and then shot him for going to get them.

View embedded media

If you are stupid enough to disobey a policemans orders good luck.

 

[dave]

It amazes me that people wont admit there are many guys walking around out there that have no rhyme nor reason to be a police officer. But, by saying this, people automatically jump on the defensive and think I'm anti-police or something. My father was Military and I have three police officers in the family. I have a great respect our our military and officers of the law, but that doesn't preclude me from seeing the abuse and misconduct of some in law enforcement.
The good cops need to help weed out the bad cops and I believe that mandatory vid and audio help attain those goals.

I bet you have police friends too.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

If you are stupid enough to disobey a policemans orders good luck.

The police told him to get his license, He went to get them and got shot for it. the officer saw no gun, the officer was fired for this video. What are you taking about?

 

[SteelHeadEer]

I bet you have police friends too.

Are you drinking?

 

[dave]

The police told him to get his license, He went to get them and got shot for it. the officer saw no gun, the officer was fired for this video. What are you taking about?

If you dont want to listen to the police that is your right. Just dont complain when you eat shit.

 

[dave]

Are you drinking?

No. Are you?

 

[SteelHeadEer]

If you dont want to listen to the police that is your right. Just dont complain when you eat shit.

What are you talking about? Sleep it off Dave.

 

[dave]

What are you talking about? Sleep it off Dave.

You hate police. If you dont want to follow directions then take a beating. I dont care.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

You hate police. If you dont want to follow directions then take a beating. I dont care.

You have not heard a word I've said other than you believe if you dont listen to the police you will get a beaten.

I treat the police with the utmost respect. I don't hate the police. I hate the fact that some police officers kill innocent people and then cover it up with the help of other police, some really good people, because of a code of silence. That code can be undone with mandatory vid and audio which will help everyone.

Your mentality is the wrong mentality BTW.

 

[dave]

You have not heard a word I've said other than you believe if you dont listen to the police you will get a beaten.

I treat the police with the utmost respect. I don't hate the police. I hate the fact that some police officers kill innocent people and then cover it up with the help of other police, some really good people, because of a code of silence. That code can be undone with mandatory vid and audio which will help everyone.

Your mentality is the wrong mentality BTW.

Police kill innocent people and the cover it up? You can say all the pc bs you want but that exposes you.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

Police kill innocent people and the cover it up? You can say all the pc bs you want but that exposes you.

What I said isnt at all politically correct.

Are you telling me that you actually believe that there havent been innocent people killed by police that were covered up by fellow officers? Please tell me you are not that obtuse?

You are implying that I believe all police do that which is absurd. But, I know for a fact is has happened and it will continue to happen. There is good and bad in every profession. If you are not willing to admit that then there is really no reason for further conversation.

Exposed? Exposed for being reasonable I guess.

 

[mneilmont]

You see everything with officers eyes. Your bias is from your life experience. I understand where you are coming from but I disagree about cameras. Cameras will save lives and money.

I watched, like many other people, the officer kill the guy in SC for not complying and them walk over and throw the tazer gun down like the man had taken it. It was cold blooded murder and if there was no one filming the officer would have gotten away with it. This kind of thing has happened so many times and its no coincidence that now we are seeing so many cases brought to light. Its because people are filming every time they see police.

You proved in your own words exactly how so many officers think, they want to do what ever it takes to shut the " Big mouth " up. And I believe you when you say whatever it takes.

I have heard my brother and his officer friends sit around and laugh about the things they have done, things that would get them fired in a heart beat if on film. They all to a man have an underlying contempt for the rest of society. You have it. You can sense it what you've written and how you've written it. I'm sure you will disagree.

The thing is this, I get it. I know why most all police I know tend to have mostly other police as friends. Its a career that forces most officers into a us against them mentality. There is no answers to solve all of the ills in society as there are no answers to the dissolving relationship between citizens and the police force that is there to protect them.

However, the studies show that those forces that have implemented body cameras have shown a great decrease in instances of police misconduct and a marked increase in expedition of judicial process.

Stealhead, you are an amazing individual. From someone's writing, you see right thru them - in your own mind. I don't know from where you have developed your biases. Policemen are like any other person with a job to do. They expect to go to work , do the job and go home. From your perspective, police are a small element of society and firmly in opposition to the rest of all mankind. I would hate to live in the world that you perceive.

Every time an officer fires his gun, there is an investigation. The situation in SC could not be covered. Physical evidence would have convicted the officer. As to the lazer, he made a mistake to move it, but, IMO, he was just putting it in the area of the crime where he could control the evidence. What difference did it make where the weapon lay? If the claim was an attempt to take it, what difference did it make? No powder burns on the vic removes him from close range to wrestle for weapon.

I do believe you need to clear the boogers from you mind, policemen are ordinary people who chose to protect and serve as a vocation. I would hate to think all who serve got on the force to legally shoot people. As to cameras and recorders, they are going to be deterrent to ordinary citizen coming forth. Good police work involves PR and working with citizens who are willing to talk to officers. With the loss of these people, most cases will not be solved.

 

[dave]

What I said isnt at all politically correct.

Are you telling me that you actually believe that there havent been innocent people killed by police that were covered up by fellow officers? Please tell me you are not that obtuse?

You are implying that I believe all police do that which is absurd. But, I know for a fact is has happened and it will continue to happen. There is good and bad in every profession. If you are not willing to admit that then there is really no reason for further conversation.

Exposed? Exposed for being reasonable I guess.

You watch too much tv.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

Stealhead, you are an amazing individual. From someone's writing, you see right thru them - in your own mind. I don't know from where you have developed your biases. Policemen are like any other person with a job to do. They expect to go to work , do the job and go home. From your perspective, police are a small element of society and firmly in opposition to the rest of all mankind. I would hate to live in the world that you perceive.

Every time an officer fires his gun, there is an investigation. The situation in SC could not be covered. Physical evidence would have convicted the officer. As to the lazer, he made a mistake to move it, but, IMO, he was just putting it in the area of the crime where he could control the evidence. What difference did it make where the weapon lay? If the claim was an attempt to take it, what difference did it make? No powder burns on the vic removes him from close range to wrestle for weapon.

I do believe you need to clear the boogers from you mind, policemen are ordinary people who chose to protect and serve as a vocation. I would hate to think all who serve got on the force to legally shoot people. As to cameras and recorders, they are going to be deterrent to ordinary citizen coming forth. Good police work involves PR and working with citizens who are willing to talk to officers. With the loss of these people, most cases will not be solved.

The world I see is what everyone sees. I see that everyone now has a video camera, Why shouldnt the police have a camera?
I have only had great experiences with the police. I have had my share of speeding tickets through the years because I tend to have a lead foot. Not ever was I in fear for my life and the officers did nothing but their jobs. I have also had the pleasure of being around officers in my private life. Great guys for the most part. There are a couple asses, but I can be an ass too, so there is that.
With that said, to ignore the atrocities that some officers inflict and to make excuses for some of the behavior of bad officers cannot be ignored or brushed aside.
All I am saying is mandatory vid and audio has been proven to take care of a lot of the problems that have arison between the police and the public.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

From your perspective, police are a small element of society and firmly in opposition to the rest of all mankind. I would hate to live in the world that you perceive.

This is amnzing that you get this from what I have written, it truly is. Has me shaking my head. Wow!

 

[dave]

Not sure how audio and video can be trusted since the police cover stuff up anyway.

 

[mneilmont]

Do you know the point of view of a criminal? Cops do because they deal with them.

Dave, I have often said the best cop that I knew would have been successful either way he went. He would be good cop or good criminal. A cop who can think like the criminal is definitely a step ahead. The story I think about was the time I arrived on the scene and put the description on the air. This cop was waiting on the robber when he got to his destination. Seemed he knew exactly where the crook would go. That cop stole my breakfast that AM and not knowing me from Adam. He was simply a crook and laughed about it. But, in this case, he had the crook in the back of his car and brought back to the scene for positive ID within minutes.

 

[mneilmont]

This is amnzing that you get this from what I have written, it truly is. Has me shaking my head. Wow!

Not really amazing. Go back and read my comments and then read your responses. You definitely put all officers in a box that was in opposition to the rest of society. That is so far from reality.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

Not sure how audio and video can be trusted since the police cover stuff up anyway.

You are a curmudgeon. No doubt about that. Oh well. I hope I don't get beat down next time I have a run in with the law. lol ( that was a sarcastic statement for levities sake Dave. )

 

[SteelHeadEer]

Not really amazing. Go back and read my comments and then read your responses. You definitely put all officers in a box that was in opposition to the rest of society. That is so far from reality.

I stated repeatedly that there are good and bad police. Hardly the same box.

I was also speaking in broad sleeping generalities in a discussion on a message board. To pin me down is hard to do with the conversation as it has unfolded.

Ole Dave says I hate police.
You say i live in a world where I think all cops are like the way I have described some.

You both are not looking at my main point that has run through my stance. I believe mandatory vid and audio will help everyone and if certain police are against it, I would have to be suspicious of those individuals. You fail to recognize that we now live in the world that George Orwell wrote about in his book, 1984.

 

[dave]

There is no doubt that the best police can think like a criminal.

 

[mneilmont]

What I said isnt at all politically correct.

Are you telling me that you actually believe that there havent been innocent people killed by police that were covered up by fellow officers? Please tell me you are not that obtuse?

You are implying that I believe all police do that which is absurd. But, I know for a fact is has happened and it will continue to happen. There is good and bad in every profession. If you are not willing to admit that then there is really no reason for further conversation.

Exposed? Exposed for being reasonable I guess.

Sorry to drag this out, but you refer to police killing innocent people and it is covered up by fellow officer. Granted, that has happened.

But you continue, "I know for a fact it(sic) has happened and it will continue to happen". The only way you could know this "for a fact" would be to have witnessed it. My question to you, is did you report this act and testify at the trial? I see nothing to state factually that you have actually witnessed such and act, nor have you written it here. May/must I question your facts as presented? You never told me how to get control of a scene when the modern officer confronts an unruly crowd. Is there a reason that you don't address direct question?

 

[SteelHeadEer]

Sorry to drag this out, but you refer to police killing innocent people and it is covered up by fellow officer. Granted, that has happened.

But you continue, "I know for a fact it(sic) has happened and it will continue to happen". The only way you could know this "for a fact" would be to have witnessed it. My question to you, is did you report this act and testify at the trial? I see nothing to state factually that you have actually witnessed such and act, nor have you written it here. May/must I question your facts as presented? You never told me how to get control of a scene when the modern officer confronts an unruly crowd. Is there a reason that you don't address direct question?

This is you being an ass. You know damn well that there is plenty of video floating around everywhere of police killing innocent people. You also know that there have been overwhelming testimony in cases where collusion ( cover-ups ) has also been proven.

Your whole post is an attempt to draw it out because you want and need to keep arguing a ridiculous position because you are and will always be an officer first and foremost. There is nothing wrong with that other than you will most always sympathize with the officer no matter how far the push the " boundaries ".

My whole argument was and still is for mandatory audio and video on all police officers. Its my opinion, backed by evidence, that it dramatically reduces incidents of police misconduct accusations, whether it be actual misconduct or false reports of said conduct. It does not delineate between the two but who cares if it indeed goes down. Also, if you have video and audio evidence of criminal behavior and acts, lower tax payer cost and the expediting of criminal process is also a byproduct.

As far as you direct question of how to get control of a scene I agree with you that the officers must shown command and authoritative force to get things under control to do his or her job. However, they must also know that the consequences of the actions that they choose to take will undoubtedly be on film and the vigor and force they use will be in question whether they be right or wrong.

Now, I have a question.

Your buddy John P officer whom you've known for years gets angry at big mouth in the crowd and puts his baton in the teeth of said bigmouth and does it so brutally that said big mouth dies. Then your good friend says he thought big mouth was going to attack him when you know damn well big mouth was just a bigmouth and never showed aggression other than being bigmouthed. Are you going to side with good friend in your report that bigmouth looked as if he was going to attack your good friend? Would if matter if bigmouth were a fireman or a truck driver or unemployed? Would you testify for or against your fellow officer when you knew damn well all if it could of been avoided if the officer had kept his cool. Is it justified to kill someone because they had a big mouth?

 

[bornaneer]

Killing fields of Chicago
Year To Date June to Date
Shot & Killed: 167 Shot & Killed: 21
Shot & Wounded: 962 Shot & Wounded: 117
Total Shot: 1129 Total Shot: 138
Total Homicides: 194 Total Homicides: 22

Killing fields of Baltimore
Year To Date June to Date
Shot & Killed: 134 Shot & Killed: 15

 

[mneilmont]

This is you being an ass. You know damn well that there is plenty of video floating around everywhere of police killing innocent people. You also know that there have been overwhelming testimony in cases where collusion ( cover-ups ) has also been proven.

Your whole post is an attempt to draw it out because you want and need to keep arguing a ridiculous position because you are and will always be an officer first and foremost. There is nothing wrong with that other than you will most always sympathize with the officer no matter how far the push the " boundaries ".

My whole argument was and still is for mandatory audio and video on all police officers. Its my opinion, backed by evidence, that it dramatically reduces incidents of police misconduct accusations, whether it be actual misconduct or false reports of said conduct. It does not delineate between the two but who cares if it indeed goes down. Also, if you have video and audio evidence of criminal behavior and acts, lower tax payer cost and the expediting of criminal process is also a byproduct.

As far as you direct question of how to get control of a scene I agree with you that the officers must shown command and authoritative force to get things under control to do his or her job. However, they must also know that the consequences of the actions that they choose to take will undoubtedly be on film and the vigor and force they use will be in question whether they be right or wrong.

Now, I have a question.

Your buddy John P officer whom you've known for years gets angry at big mouth in the crowd and puts his baton in the teeth of said bigmouth and does it so brutally that said big mouth dies. Then your good friend says he thought big mouth was going to attack him when you know damn well big mouth was just a bigmouth and never showed aggression other than being bigmouthed. Are you going to side with good friend in your report that bigmouth looked as if he was going to attack your good friend? Would if matter if bigmouth were a fireman or a truck driver or unemployed? Would you testify for or against your fellow officer when you knew damn well all if it could of been avoided if the officer had kept his cool. Is it justified to kill someone because they had a big mouth?

This is you being an ass. You know damn well that there is plenty of video floating around everywhere of police killing innocent people. You also know that there have been overwhelming testimony in cases where collusion ( cover-ups ) has also been proven.

Your whole post is an attempt to draw it out because you want and need to keep arguing a ridiculous position because you are and will always be an officer first and foremost. There is nothing wrong with that other than you will most always sympathize with the officer no matter how far the push the " boundaries ".

My whole argument was and still is for mandatory audio and video on all police officers. Its my opinion, backed by evidence, that it dramatically reduces incidents of police misconduct accusations, whether it be actual misconduct or false reports of said conduct. It does not delineate between the two but who cares if it indeed goes down. Also, if you have video and audio evidence of criminal behavior and acts, lower tax payer cost and the expediting of criminal process is also a byproduct.

As far as you direct question of how to get control of a scene I agree with you that the officers must shown command and authoritative force to get things under control to do his or her job. However, they must also know that the consequences of the actions that they choose to take will undoubtedly be on film and the vigor and force they use will be in question whether they be right or wrong.

Now, I have a question.

Your buddy John P officer whom you've known for years gets angry at big mouth in the crowd and puts his baton in the teeth of said bigmouth and does it so brutally that said big mouth dies. Then your good friend says he thought big mouth was going to attack him when you know damn well big mouth was just a bigmouth and never showed aggression other than being bigmouthed. Are you going to side with good friend in your report that bigmouth looked as if he was going to attack your good friend? Would if matter if bigmouth were a fireman or a truck driver or unemployed? Would you testify for or against your fellow officer when you knew damn well all if it could of been avoided if the officer had kept his cool. Is it justified to kill someone because they had a big mouth?

I would have taken the normal easy route to remove the big mouth and arrested him for interfering and put him in the back of the squad-car. Why do you see a reason to hit him in the mouth? The normal response to that is to answer in kind and a lot of energy is wasted in a fight. Damn, you know some stupid officers if they go to work to get into a fight every shift. I do believe you and I have a different perception of what policemen do. Your solution to confrontation is seldom used. Professional officers are taught to avoid such situations and only utilize sufficient force to combat the resistance of the bad guy. As I stated much earlier, policemen are normal people who have chosen to serve and protect. They go to work to do a job, and refrain from getting into fisticuffs daily. They don't make enough money to so engage on a daily basis. If it should happen too frequently, they will be seen by psych and reevaluated for the job. No one would want to work with such am officer because they will be drawn into a situation they don't need. Such an officer would be quickly exposed and terminated.

You simply have a distorted view of those who serve and protect. Get over it. The officer you described has not existed in nearly a hundred years. They could not pass the battery of tests required to get a job, or if they sneak through, they will quickly be exposed because it reflects on the entire squad.

 

[SteelHeadEer]

I would have taken the normal easy route to remove the big mouth and arrested him for interfering and put him in the back of the squad-car. Why do you see a reason to hit him in the mouth? The normal response to that is to answer in kind and a lot of energy is wasted in a fight. Damn, you know some stupid officers if they go to work to get into a fight every shift. I do believe you and I have a different perception of what policemen do. Your solution to confrontation is seldom used. Professional officers are taught to avoid such situations and only utilize sufficient force to combat the resistance of the bad guy. As I stated much earlier, policemen are normal people who have chosen to serve and protect. They go to work to do a job, and refrain from getting into fisticuffs daily. They don't make enough money to so engage on a daily basis. If it should happen too frequently, they will be seen by psych and reevaluated for the job. No one would want to work with such am officer because they will be drawn into a situation they don't need. Such an officer would be quickly exposed and terminated.

You simply have a distorted view of those who serve and protect. Get over it. The officer you described has not existed in nearly a hundred years. They could not pass the battery of tests required to get a job, or if they sneak through, they will quickly be exposed because it reflects on the entire squad.

You response tell me everything I need to know. I think the person living in the distorted world is obvious. I am over it. Oh, and you never answered the question, just like I knew you wouldnt.
I think I know the answer though...................

 

[mneilmont]

You response tell me everything I need to know. I think the person living in the distorted world is obvious. I am over it. Oh, and you never answered the question, just like I knew you wouldnt.
I think I know the answer though...................

I don't know how I could be more explicit. I refuse to accept your position that all policemen are confrontational with the public. There may be some that get weeded out. Most are law abiding and chose the vocation to serve and protect.
The job is great with rewards of great fulfillment. Possibly the best job that I have had. At the end of the shift, you feel that you have made an impact(even without your assumption of a need to strike someone). Are you really that demented?

 

[SteelHeadEer]

I don't know how I could be more explicit. I refuse to accept your position that all policemen are confrontational with the public. There may be some that get weeded out. Most are law abiding and chose the vocation to serve and protect.
The job is great with rewards of great fulfillment. Possibly the best job that I have had. At the end of the shift, you feel that you have made an impact(even without your assumption of a need to strike someone). Are you really that demented?

I never said that ALL policemen are confrontational with the public. I made my position quite clear to anyone that actually read my words without trying, pathetically so, to attribute me to a position that does not exist.

I posed to you a hypothetical situation that you will not address. Its cool, I get it, those who read this thread get it.

Have a nice day, officer.

 

[Keyser76]

"Have a nice day officer" Ha!