National Guard called into Minneapolis

[ObsidianJones]

Except you have to act based on info even if that info is prior info.

It's why drugs squads bust into houses rather than politely calling in day time. It's why counter terrorism squad break down the door with guns drawn rather than politely knock in normal uniforms.

They can only act on the info they have and the info they had said multiple armed robberies on record.

What is (supposed to be) trained is that you're meet the opposition that you're presented with. Not what you expect.

Should every police stop be met with a Yelp/Google Check-in to know that this officer has no known complaints so you can feel free to comply? Or that this one is known for violence, so you can meet him with the same amount of force that you'd expect to receive?

No one would ever allow that. Police are going in with the 'benefit' of knowing these people's backgrounds. These citizens have no clue who's behind the uniform. Because there are violent cops out there, does that give Citizens cart blanche to be aggressive with police officers?

Except to prevent harm.

In your example if he went to hit her and you grabbed his wrist it would be a different matter a crime was in progress and you intervened.

The only reason you were there and ready was you knew about his priors.

My example was the example I gave. That the person reacted solely on the information he knew. That he assumed violence, so he stepped in to prevent it... without any violence actually present.

You can add more things to scenarios... but then the whole concept of scenarios loses its point if someone said "Sure, but what about this" when we were talking about that.

In this case he did technically resist and thus resisting escalated the situation where the officers could have felt he was a risk to them.

Again the acted badly / over-reacted.

It can however inform how to approach and to approach with caution especially in the case of serial offenders.

I watched it again. He was limping all the way to the car. He fell. During police prep courses, they stressed knowing the difference between failure to comply and negotiating that, and if there's a danger to your person.

Someone who is already handcuffed, stumbling, and falling down is not a risk. Especially when, I stress one more time, he is already handcuffed.

But more to the point, it seems to be within the black community, It's used more in the manner of justifying force after the fact. Supposedly Eric Garner was a serial offender of selling loosies. What about that earned a chokehold that ended his life?

What in Floyd's rap sheet told them that he was superhuman? That he could remove handcuffs in an instant and could take on ten trained police officers by himself?

They're not faultless. They're human. There always will be issues based round them being human but you don't dismantle it all because of humans.

But yet, you should.

You dismantle it not out of malice, but the malignancy that remains in the precinct. The voice that tells you that everyone else deserves to respect you and that you need to make sure that you put your authority above everything else.

I KNOW we need police. There's no question we do. But there's enough of the cancerous cells that are in power or are given leadership roles that actual training reform will do nothing for the guy who has your back in the street who will 'tell you how it really is'. Who tells you what rules to enforce and what rules you can break for the safety of all.

Which is why cameras and a complains commission or oversight board is a good idea that not only punishes officers who do wrong by breaking from procedure but also make procedural recommendations.

Oversights only work if people comply. We see a lot of cops turning off cameras in efforts to get away with things. Again, that wasn't a mistake that happened by one or two rookies. This is a police force in a major metropolitan city. A few classes will not get rid of that blatant and flagrant disregard of rules for their own personal benefit.

In George Floyd's case the officer didn't use proper procedure as (or so I'm told) procedure is to kneel on his head. I dunno the way round that maybe give cops traqs to knock people out instead or something bonkers like that who knows.

Three people on one human body who is already handcuffed, limped, and apparently dazed is no where near proper procedure. Nothing about his cadence seemed to justify their actions, other than police's annoyance.

And I keep looking over the video. I do not see where Chauvin comes into play, other than getting to the arrest after the fact and deciding Floyd's deserved such treatment. Other than Floyd being in pain, he seems to cooperate with the cops as much as possible.

Part of that is issues over verifying identities it seems as there have been claims of agitators presenting fake press credentials too.

Without being flippant, then they need to take the time to find out. Not to arrest and sort them out later. So many people keep saying to save judgment for cops, because we live in a country that is supposed to be innocent before proven guilty. A part of that is not putting punitive measures on someone until you find out it wasn't necessary.

It is mostly the cops screwing this up but there are some exacerbating the situation e.g. people claiming cops killed a dog or passing round the photo claiming the officer was aiming at a child.

Are we talking about this picture?

Agreed on the firearm issue.

If push comes to shove, I would rather have more people alive than dead any day of the week.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Seanchaidh]

Okay. Are you saying that anti-police prejudice (or sentiment, if you'd rather), is justified? That it's okay?
If prejudice begets prejudice, how does one break the cycle?

It's not prejudice. It's just judice.

 

[Houseman]

It's not prejudice. It's just judice.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Okay. Are you saying that anti-police prejudice (or sentiment, if you'd rather), is justified? That it's okay?
If prejudice begets prejudice, how does one break the cycle?

Setting things on an equal level. Complete oversight over Police officer's actions. Have officers accountable to the community, not to themselves. Cease meaningless token firings that see the same officer find a job somewhere else for a few years with the capability of coming back to his previous precinct if he feels like it a few years down the line.

Basically, the Law being the same for everyone. The community can't look at the situation and say "You know what, I think what we did was valid. We understand your confusion and we ask for your understanding at this time. We will not submit for any type of ruling today. We ask for peace in your hearts while we go through this difficult period."

The cops shouldn't be able to do that either. Remove the gross imbalance of power. Have it so that if something happens, I can trust my rights and the rights of others mean something. And only THEN can I start to trust them.

The fact that don't think that should be an issue in us trusting them is the most mindboggling thing of all.

 

[Houseman]

The fact that [you] don't think that [there] should be an issue in us trusting them is the most mindboggling thing of all.

I just think it's prejudice. If you think it's wrong for a cop to look at a black person and assume that he's a criminal, then it should also be wrong for a black person to look at a cop and assume that he's corrupt.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I just think it's prejudice. If you think it's wrong for a cop to look at a black person and assume that he's a criminal, then it should also be wrong for a black person to look at a cop and assume that he's corrupt.

Situation A:

cop assumes person is criminal
cop shoots person he assumes is criminal for reasons

Situation B:

person assumes cop is "corrupt"
the end

 

[ObsidianJones]

I just think it's prejudice. If you think it's wrong for a cop to look at a black person and assume that he's a criminal, then it should also be wrong for a black person to look at a cop and assume that he's corrupt.

I said the law being the same for everyone. I said removing the gross imbalance of power. If you want to ignore that part, it's on you. If you're going to argue with what you want to assume I mean and base your defense around that, then this will be a pointless conversation that will lead no where.

You asked me how do we break the cycle of prejudice. Once again, the answer is removing the gross imbalance of power. Have Police Accountable to the community, and not themselves. Set things to an equal level.

That is not prejudice. That is not saying all cops are corrupt. That is answering your question. Equal. Footing. For. All.

 

[Buyetyen]

What in Floyd's rap sheet told them that he was superhuman? That he could remove handcuffs in an instant and could take on ten trained police officers by himself?

I feel like it doesn't get mentioned enough that every cop and cop apologist also thinks that black people are possessed of steroidal superpowers. Like, are we really numb to how fucking nonsensical that is? That Michael Brown charged through a hail of bullets? Can we just admit that anyone who trots out that defense is a racist, lying or both?

 

[Houseman]

You asked me how do we break the cycle of prejudice. Once again, the answer is removing the gross imbalance of power. Have Police Accountable to the community, and not themselves. Set things to an equal level.

Fair enough.

Situation A:

cop assumes person is criminal
cop shoots person he assumes is criminal for reasons

Situation B:

person assumes cop is "corrupt"
the end

Or:

Person assumes cop is 'corrupt'
Person tries to flee, resist arrest, escalates the situation, or tries to shoot cop

It's the prisoner's dilemma. If you think that they aren't going to play by the rules, the only winning move is to get the jump on them.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

What is (supposed to be) trained is that you're meet the opposition that you're presented with. Not what you expect.

How do you know what to expect?

Info you have of prior activities.

All Info will be in the past to one degree or another.

It can base how people respond to a situation. I mean otherwise you'd have fully armed swat teams dealing with every incident because it could be needed and not having the gear to hand there and then could cost the officers life or other peoples lives. You can't always know what you will be presented with but you can know what to expect based on info.

Should every police stop be met with a Yelp/Google Check-in to know that this officer has no known complaints so you can feel free to comply? Or that this one is known for violence, so you can meet him with the same amount of force that you'd expect to receive?

No because complying as fully as possible is normally the safest course of action

No one would ever allow that. Police are going in with the 'benefit' of knowing these people's backgrounds. These citizens have no clue who's behind the uniform. Because there are violent cops out there, does that give Citizens cart blanche to be aggressive with police officers?

Because generally Police need that info to plan and react.

My example was the example I gave. That the person reacted solely on the information he knew. That he assumed violence, so he stepped in to prevent it... without any violence actually present.

You can add more things to scenarios... but then the whole concept of scenarios loses its point if someone said "Sure, but what about this" when we were talking about that.

That's the thing while you do have to deal with what's presented you have to be prepared for what it could be.

It's why Police send Swat and armed responses to situations of reported active shooters etc. Even if it's not true which is why Swatting is seen as a huge issue.

I watched it again. He was limping all the way to the car. He fell. During police prep courses, they stressed knowing the difference between failure to comply and negotiating that, and if there's a danger to your person.

Someone who is already handcuffed, stumbling, and falling down is not a risk. Especially when, I stress one more time, he is already handcuffed.

But more to the point, it seems to be within the black community, It's used more in the manner of justifying force after the fact. Supposedly Eric Garner was a serial offender of selling loosies. What about that earned a chokehold that ended his life?

What in Floyd's rap sheet told them that he was superhuman? That he could remove handcuffs in an instant and could take on ten trained police officers by himself?

Never underestimate what a person can do even when still handcuffed.

But yet, you should.

You dismantle it not out of malice, but the malignancy that remains in the precinct. The voice that tells you that everyone else deserves to respect you and that you need to make sure that you put your authority above everything else.

I KNOW we need police. There's no question we do. But there's enough of the cancerous cells that are in power or are given leadership roles that actual training reform will do nothing for the guy who has your back in the street who will 'tell you how it really is'. Who tells you what rules to enforce and what rules you can break for the safety of all.

Then you remove those in power. You have an authority to monitor them. It's that simple.

Oversights only work if people comply. We see a lot of cops turning off cameras in efforts to get away with things. Again, that wasn't a mistake that happened by one or two rookies. This is a police force in a major metropolitan city. A few classes will not get rid of that blatant and flagrant disregard of rules for their own personal benefit.

That will always be an issue in some capacity. I've seen people suggest camera that can never be turned off but that brings privacy



Three people on one human body who is already handcuffed, limped, and apparently dazed is no where near proper procedure. Nothing about his cadence seemed to justify their actions, other than police's annoyance.

And I keep looking over the video. I do not see where Chauvin comes into play, other than getting to the arrest after the fact and deciding Floyd's deserved such treatment. Other than Floyd being in pain, he seems to cooperate with the cops as much as possible.



Without being flippant, then they need to take the time to find out. Not to arrest and sort them out later. So many people keep saying to save judgment for cops, because we live in a country that is supposed to be innocent before proven guilty. A part of that is not putting punitive measures on someone until you find out it wasn't necessary.



Are we talking about this picture?



If push comes to shove, I would rather have more people alive than dead any day of the week.[/quote][/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

 

[happyninja42]

It's the prisoner's dilemma. If you think that they aren't going to play by the rules, the only winning move is to get the jump on them.

Interesting analogy, since it's assigning a position of criminality to one of the people in the equation, when they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I'm also curious which party you are saying should be "getting the jump" on the other one, for not playing by the rules. Because in this discussion, that could easily be applied to the cops not playing by the rules. So by your prisoner analogy, they should jump the cops, and we all know how well that will work out for anyone.

Except these people aren't prisoners. They are citizens of the country, who the law enforcement is supposed to serve and protect. Not hunt and kill. You keep spinning this Catch 22 and trying to put the blame back on the citizens, like it's their fault that they don't trust the cops, because the cops often profile and kill them, so they act in a way that makes them seem more suspicious to cops, which makes cops act with heightened aggression, which then makes the person react in kind. And maybe that's true. But there is a key difference in those 2 people, both assuming the worst of the other.

Only one of them is guaranteed to have a gun, and the legal authority to use it on the other person. They are not on equal footing. One person in this equation, is GUARANTEED to have the capacity for much more violence and lethality, than the civilian, and that's the cop. They are given massive leeway on behavior by the law, allowing them to just storm their way into just about any situation they see, and say "probable cause", and use that as a blanket justification for anything afterwards.

And I don't care what circumstances come up, if a civilian shot and killed a cop, even if it was 100% in self defense, that the cop was in the wrong, NOBODY would actually see it that way. Well, nobody on the pro-cop side. There is an unspoken rule that is slanted towards cops, where it's ok for them to act with aggression, but if a civvie does it, they've just tossed all justification and defense for their actions out the window. And now it's the thing you mentioned above, the "the cop was defending himself because he feared for his life." Nevermind that it's becoming apparent that the reason the guy swung at the cop is because the cop was acting outside the confines of his authority, and thus illegally, and the civvie had personal justification to not think the cop would, you know, OBEY THE LAW. But that gets lost in the narrative, and it will constantly try and be spun by the police as a justified killing, because Person X punched the cop, so the cop had the right to unload his gun into him, despite the fact that the cop first tackled the person for no discernible reason, hell even pulled them over for no discernible reason.

And to a degree, I agree with you, on the fact that both sides could easily be misreading a situation, and feeding their own biases and preconceptions, thus making the situation even worse, until it eventually ends up in tragedy. That's entirely feasible, and I would bet it's often what happens. But you don't get to just let the people off when they are at fault. If the person at fault is a civilian, in this hypothetical situation where a cop and a civvie face off, you can be damn sure that person is going to see the full force of the legal system come down on them, with ZERO mercy. But let's see how often, in the past, that situation, when reversed, has actually happened. Because it's pretty apparent that it's not that often. If they even go to trial at all, if it's not just written off as "justifiable", then they will be found not guilty, or the case will be dismissed, or a million other loopholes that will give the cop the benefit of the doubt, and just say "ok well, shame this happened, just don't do it again" *wrist slap* and back to the street they go, to do it again.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Or:

Person assumes cop is 'corrupt'
Person tries to flee, resist arrest, escalates the situation, or tries to shoot cop

It's the prisoner's dilemma. If you think that they aren't going to play by the rules, the only winning move is to get the jump on them.

Correct, the police have lost all legitimacy and shouldn't be out on the streets anymore.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Because the saved draft screwed up here's the rest of my post

Oversights only work if people comply. We see a lot of cops turning off cameras in efforts to get away with things. Again, that wasn't a mistake that happened by one or two rookies. This is a police force in a major metropolitan city. A few classes will not get rid of that blatant and flagrant disregard of rules for their own personal benefit.

Except officers who need to use public conveniences during their round or respond to incidents in such locations would need to be able to turn their camera off in the first case to protect privacy and in the second if there is no incident to again protect privacy

Three people on one human body who is already handcuffed, limped, and apparently dazed is no where near proper procedure. Nothing about his cadence seemed to justify their actions, other than police's annoyance.

Well allegededly normally it's to kneel on the suspects head

also never underestimate what a person can managed while handcuffed

And I keep looking over the video. I do not see where Chauvin comes into play, other than getting to the arrest after the fact and deciding Floyd's deserved such treatment. Other than Floyd being in pain, he seems to cooperate with the cops as much as possible.

Well this video alleged to show things going on before shows some resistance though not major resistance

Without being flippant, then they need to take the time to find out. Not to arrest and sort them out later. So many people keep saying to save judgment for cops, because we live in a country that is supposed to be innocent before proven guilty. A part of that is not putting punitive measures on someone until you find out it wasn't necessary.

Officers don't always have the capacity to fully make that judgement at road side or process evidence there. They can't run all the tests on a note to check if it's fake normally and the only way to preserve the evidence to an extent is to take the person in.


Most places have a limit on how long a person can be detained for without charge too.

Are we talking about this picture?

Check the second image in that link which points out they were aiming into the crowd not at the child specifically and the angle of the first show just makes it seem that way.

If push comes to shove, I would rather have more people alive than dead any day of the week.

Second

 

[Houseman]

Interesting analogy, since it's assigning a position of criminality to one of the people in the equation

Actually, the Prisoner's dilemma assigns a 'position of criminality' to both people in the equation.

I'm also curious which party you are saying should be "getting the jump" on the other one, for not playing by the rules.

In scenario B, it's the civilian. The cop 'gets the jump' on the civilian and shoots them in Scenario A.

Because in this discussion, that could easily be applied to the cops not playing by the rules.

It... was. Have you not read the exchange? Did you just jump in and thought you'd respond to my post without reading what I was replying to?

I agree with everything else you've said.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Correct, the police have lost all legitimacy and shouldn't be out on the streets anymore.

So you're in favour of The Purge?

I feel like it doesn't get mentioned enough that every cop and cop apologist also thinks that black people are possessed of steroidal superpowers. Like, are we really numb to how fucking nonsensical that is? That Michael Brown charged through a hail of bullets? Can we just admit that anyone who trots out that defense is a racist, lying or both?

Doesn't take super Strength just technique to escape cuffs


Also like it or not adrenaline rushes can cause extra feats of strength.

 

[Seanchaidh]

So you're in favour of The Purge?

No, are you?

 

[Eacaraxe]

Right, so that's not about anybody's right to freedom of speech; it's about them receiving a specific platform. The freedom of speech doesn't afford you an enormous platform at Berkley.

UC Berkeley, as part of the University of California system, is a state-funded university and First Amendment protections apply to the campus.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, are you?

No but that's what happens when you have no cops to enforce laws it becomes land of the lawless eventually.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm sorry you chose to bring up an entirely unrelated protest by that logic and don't want to actually deal with me doing the same back to show my point to.

Kindly take your whatabbutism and apply it to yourself or actually come up with an answer.

Riiiight. Except my point was specifically about why anti-fascists and anti-racists feel they need to turn out, in response to the threat from far-right groups. The threat from far-right groups was the topic.

The "threat of far-left violence" isn't relevant to that, is it? Maybe if we were talking about right-wing counter-demonstrators feeling they had to turn out... but we weren't.

Says who? AntiFa isn't a group by a mindset so we keep being told so who is to say who can't and can't be members. AntiFA isn't a group and the only feature is to be Anti-fascist? Or is that not the case and it is a group with membership and more specific criteria?

Neither, because that's a false binary.

It's a group, mostly defined by self-identification and turning out to their events. No membership or specific criteria beyond that required, except for broad agreement with their stances. But you can't just term anybody you don't like "Antifa" if they don't turn up to Antifa events, or self-identify with the group.

No because Protestants have a specific group and structure lol. Hell they actually have church leaders and preachers and religious councils lol

No, that's not how it works. There are thousands of Protestant churches, and there are protestants belonging to no church.

The point I was making is a lot of stuff gets spun and for some they've gone from reporting the news to making it.

Did you know that's who Trump was referencing with some of his comments? The comments you made reference to?

So yes it does have something to do with things as you were referencing some of his comments.

Yes, I know who he was referring to. I am able to listen to the words come out of his mouth as he refers to white supremacists as "very fine people" and recognise what those words mean, thank you.

Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're being misled by the evil media.

Are not the universities publicly funded at least in part?

Therefore they should be protecting freedom of speech.

If a group on campus invites a speaker then are they not entitled to have their speaker speak if they meet the required support levels to for the University to give them time on the platform?

The platform exists to give people a diversity of opinions and expose them to new ideas in theory anyway.

But people are not entitled to that platform. That platform is not protected by freedom of speech. If freedom of speech entitled us to that platform, then everybody who doesn't get to speak at Berkeley-- I.E., the vast majority of us-- would be having our right to free speech infringed.

UC Berkeley, as part of the University of California system, is a state-funded university and First Amendment protections apply to the campus.

Yup, they do indeed. And the First Amendment doesn't entitle anybody to that platform.

 

[ObsidianJones]

How do you know what to expect?

Info you have of prior activities.

All Info will be in the past to one degree or another.

It can base how people respond to a situation. I mean otherwise you'd have fully armed swat teams dealing with every incident because it could be needed and not having the gear to hand there and then could cost the officers life or other peoples lives. You can't always know what you will be presented with but you can know what to expect based on info.



No because complying as fully as possible is normally the safest course of action


Because generally Police need that info to plan and react.




That's the thing while you do have to deal with what's presented you have to be prepared for what it could be.

It's why Police send Swat and armed responses to situations of reported active shooters etc. Even if it's not true which is why Swatting is seen as a huge issue.


Never underestimate what a person can do even when still handcuffed.




Then you remove those in power. You have an authority to monitor them. It's that simple.


That will always be an issue in some capacity. I've seen people suggest camera that can never be turned off but that brings privacy



Three people on one human body who is already handcuffed, limped, and apparently dazed is no where near proper procedure. Nothing about his cadence seemed to justify their actions, other than police's annoyance.

And I keep looking over the video. I do not see where Chauvin comes into play, other than getting to the arrest after the fact and deciding Floyd's deserved such treatment. Other than Floyd being in pain, he seems to cooperate with the cops as much as possible.



Without being flippant, then they need to take the time to find out. Not to arrest and sort them out later. So many people keep saying to save judgment for cops, because we live in a country that is supposed to be innocent before proven guilty. A part of that is not putting punitive measures on someone until you find out it wasn't necessary.



Are we talking about this picture?



If push comes to shove, I would rather have more people alive than dead any day of the week.

[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

I'm not splitting these conversations up any more. It gets to be too much work.

But what you addressed with the SWAT idea is really is the crux of what we're talking about. There seems to be more effort or emphasis in escalation than there seems to be in de-escalation. I don't think George Floyd is a prince. I don't think he's a monster. I do not have any real opinion over him other than what he was charged for, and as you shown, he resisted. As much as a drunk girl on the streets of Manhattan... actually, less so, because those girls hit and kick.

But on that matter, Police Trainer Tom Aveni says he has never seen anyone train with the knee to the neck response. Not to say it doesn't happen, but it seems to be out of protocol. If you're looking to get info on how to deal with a potential subject, one would believe you would deal with that subject according to your training. And if police officials dogpile on one human being with a knee to the neck without training to do as such, you have to wonder where did it come from.

Mistakes that cost lives can not be tolerated if the party that continually commits said 'mistake' is almost never held accountable for it.

And there's two kinds of safe. The safe that doesn't get you killed and/or harmed, and then there's the kind of safe that nothing bad happens to you. Complying with police might keep me physically safe, but if I look like a good collar and there's a quota coming up, complying with the police will probably end my life. Point blank.

Police use tactics that are criminal to make their arrest quotas. Like Stop and Frisk. Do you know smoking and possessing weed (under a certain amount) has been no more than a ticketable fine in NYC since 1977? Longer than most of us have been alive. But, as long as you're not smoking it in public and it's not visible, police have nothing to hold you over.

So here comes Stop and Frisk. A police tells you to empty your pockets. You do. There's the weed, and even though it is under that amount... boom. Arrested. And not for a misdemeanor. Welcome to a felony.

Or flip it. You don't turn out your pockets. Arrested for resisting arrest.

And that's ignoring the officers who admit that they've just been planting drugs on innocent people for years.

Sheriffs just tell deputies to find black people to pin crimes on.

Just the Innocence Project itself. If the Police have the capability to get it wrong even a little bit, it will affect people's lives in untold ways. Like I said, this isn't just about black people being innocent. There are black criminals. But the measure of their crime should not

And yet... I will never tell anyone not to comply. Because it's even more dangerous to do so. But the point of the matter is that dealing with the authorities is treacherous for certain people. The safest option leads to the most injustice. That is what infuriates the most of us. Because we are soft targets. No one cares. People want to read this stat and that, not stopping to think about how much corruption is shown in the police force... Oh, just a bunch of bad apples. But any true criminality in the black community doesn't get that "bad apple" handwave.

We'll ignore the mountains of evidence of corruption for almost every level of policing in this country. and still buy their reporting as fact because it's comfortable. Or more over, they don't treat other people like that, so it's acceptable.

It's sickening, is what it is.

But I'll ask you this. If I'm not at the hands of one of your police officers who are just trying to do their job. If I'm at the hands of a police officers like the ones I'm showing you... is your best response to me 'sit there, comply, and hope you make it out'? Because both your officers and my officers exist. And I'm just as likely to end up with one of mine as I am to end up with one of yours.

Would you tell me to fight for my life? Or just sit there and take the punishment and hope I'm fine? Because if that's the only answer, that is the biggest problem we face.

Because no living being can ask another living being to not fight for its life. End of story.