-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
I got pulled over.
- Thread starter 308220
- Start date
random tit post
Atta boy!!! Give Hermosa a good run for his money! (What, like there's a downside to competition on this subject ? Pfffttt.....)
Well if that bothers you. I'll stop. .....How about I just don't tell you about it?
well im on my 5th guiness tonight......give me an hour to finish off a few more and i will be in a state to not give a fuck what youre touching
Damn. Now I am confused. You said you was a dude then you posting pics of your tits? What up with that?
Fuck yea goes to 5 with tits !
Yankee needs a partner so who else wants to support the op? Anybody? Nobody? Shit I don’t even think the yankee supports the op, he just don’t like the coppers.
We need to find some videos of cops actually being assholes if we’re going to continue police vs the world masterdebating.
Yankee needs a partner so who else wants to support the op? Anybody? Nobody? Shit I don’t even think the yankee supports the op, he just don’t like the coppers.
We need to find some videos of cops actually being assholes if we’re going to continue police vs the world masterdebating.
Wow. Some of you guys are a little to quick to take the LEOs side.
With absolutely no indication that there is any problem what so ever, and on the meer suspicion that something else is up... minor traffic violation or not... its not OK to detain you by placing you in a crusier.
Several things:
1) Ask the trooper if this encounter is being recorded.
2) Notify the trooper the MOMENT he asks you to step out of the car that he does not have your premission to search the vehicle and that you are the owner.
3) Ask the trooper very causually why he’s asked you to step out of the car. The moment he deflects or refuses, you dial your attorney and make sure the camera gets the whole exchange that follows. (Yes, I have my attorneys home phone number...
)
The most import rule is never talk to the police. The moment he asks you to step out of the car, hes playing games. At that point he can, and WILL lie and attempt deceptive conversation.
In my case, I’d have let the whole thing settle itself without having said another word the officer.
Otherwise:
“Hi John (my attorney), I’ve been pulled over by a Statie who, thus far, has not indicated why. In addition, he seems unusually interested in my 26 year old freind and her somewhat younger cousin. I swear to god that there is nothing odd going on, and as far as I know he’s pulled me over out of the blue. Do me a favor, if you don't recieve a call back from me by the morning, please submit a request to the court for a warrant to get the dash camera footage. I’ll also provide you a retainer of $200,000 to look into the officer, his record, contact internal affairs, and represent me if some sort nonsense follows.”
I’ve been jn a similar situation before when some jackass pulled me over because his though my car was the drug fellon they were looking for. Without my permission he, and 8 officers, illegally searched my car. They found a knife and charged me with a class 2 offense. (You can’t have a pocket knife in the cab of your car in New Jersistan.) It also appears they cant they the difference between a Ford Mustang and a Ford Escort either.
It is absolutely the case that you will not win at the traffic stop, but you can setup the circumstances so that IF you choose to, you can have the proper circumstances to have the court on your side.
Obviously, it would be nice if you just got your deserved ticket and was told to be on your way.
However, my FIRST concern is that he wanted too much access to your friend and her family member. There are plenty of scumbags out their that coukd have been up to something, and its too late do anything if you get in the back of that cruiser. At the most you should have been sitting quietly on the hood of the cruiser or off the side. If the office didnt like that, he can a FEMALE trooper on the scene to back him up.
At this stage in my life I can afford to play games. However, for most people thats not an option.
Obviously, in 99% of the circumstances its going to be a simple traffic stop where you take your lumps (deserved) and move along. However, if an officer is unusually interest in two women in your vehicle, is the opposite sex, and has no partner with him... alarm bells should be ringing.
With absolutely no indication that there is any problem what so ever, and on the meer suspicion that something else is up... minor traffic violation or not... its not OK to detain you by placing you in a crusier.
Several things:
1) Ask the trooper if this encounter is being recorded.
2) Notify the trooper the MOMENT he asks you to step out of the car that he does not have your premission to search the vehicle and that you are the owner.
3) Ask the trooper very causually why he’s asked you to step out of the car. The moment he deflects or refuses, you dial your attorney and make sure the camera gets the whole exchange that follows. (Yes, I have my attorneys home phone number...
)The most import rule is never talk to the police. The moment he asks you to step out of the car, hes playing games. At that point he can, and WILL lie and attempt deceptive conversation.
In my case, I’d have let the whole thing settle itself without having said another word the officer.
Otherwise:
“Hi John (my attorney), I’ve been pulled over by a Statie who, thus far, has not indicated why. In addition, he seems unusually interested in my 26 year old freind and her somewhat younger cousin. I swear to god that there is nothing odd going on, and as far as I know he’s pulled me over out of the blue. Do me a favor, if you don't recieve a call back from me by the morning, please submit a request to the court for a warrant to get the dash camera footage. I’ll also provide you a retainer of $200,000 to look into the officer, his record, contact internal affairs, and represent me if some sort nonsense follows.”
I’ve been jn a similar situation before when some jackass pulled me over because his though my car was the drug fellon they were looking for. Without my permission he, and 8 officers, illegally searched my car. They found a knife and charged me with a class 2 offense. (You can’t have a pocket knife in the cab of your car in New Jersistan.) It also appears they cant they the difference between a Ford Mustang and a Ford Escort either.
It is absolutely the case that you will not win at the traffic stop, but you can setup the circumstances so that IF you choose to, you can have the proper circumstances to have the court on your side.
Obviously, it would be nice if you just got your deserved ticket and was told to be on your way.
However, my FIRST concern is that he wanted too much access to your friend and her family member. There are plenty of scumbags out their that coukd have been up to something, and its too late do anything if you get in the back of that cruiser. At the most you should have been sitting quietly on the hood of the cruiser or off the side. If the office didnt like that, he can a FEMALE trooper on the scene to back him up.
At this stage in my life I can afford to play games. However, for most people thats not an option.
Obviously, in 99% of the circumstances its going to be a simple traffic stop where you take your lumps (deserved) and move along. However, if an officer is unusually interest in two women in your vehicle, is the opposite sex, and has no partner with him... alarm bells should be ringing.
Those beers ain't helping either. I'll suggest a Buffalo Trace Kentucky bourbon. Lots more alcohol and less filling.
I hope it's the real stuff not the supermarket stuff they are selling every where.
Google Popcorn Sutton. I would get mine fro him days after a run. Friggin state had to have their taxes. POS' should have left that old man alone.
Google Popcorn Sutton. I would get mine fro him days after a run. Friggin state had to have their taxes. POS' should have left that old man alone.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKK YOU! You knew Popcorn?
God damnit!
Was that some damn good likker or what? Would have loved to have tried some of that shit.
Well at least we can all agree on nice tits and good shine.
I did not know him. I had a friend that was a large customer of his. And yes I miss his shine. Haven't found any like it.
Wow. Some of you guys are a little to quick to take the LEOs side.
With absolutely no indication that there is any problem what so ever, and on the meer suspicion that something else is up... minor traffic violation or not... its not OK to detain you by placing you in a crusier.
Several things:
1) Ask the trooper if this encounter is being recorded.
2) Notify the trooper the MOMENT he asks you to step out of the car that he does not have your premission to search the vehicle and that you are the owner.
3) Ask the trooper very causually why he’s asked you to step out of the car. The moment he deflects or refuses, you dial your attorney and make sure the camera gets the whole exchange that follows. (Yes, I have my attorneys home phone number...
The most import rule is never talk to the police. The moment he asks you to step out of the car, hes playing games. At that point he can, and WILL lie and attempt deceptive conversation.
In my case, I’d have let the whole thing settle itself without having said another word the officer.
Otherwise:
“Hi John (my attorney), I’ve been pulled over by a Statie who, thus far, has not indicated why. In addition, he seems unusually interested in my 26 year old freind and her somewhat younger cousin. I swear to god that there is nothing odd going on, and as far as I know he’s pulled me over out of the blue. Do me a favor, if you don't recieve a call back from me by the morning, please submit a request to the court for a warrant to get the dash camera footage. I’ll also provide you a retainer of $200,000 to look into the officer, his record, contact internal affairs, and represent me if some sort nonsense follows.”
I’ve been jn a similar situation before when some jackass pulled me over because his though my car was the drug fellon they were looking for. Without my permission he, and 8 officers, illegally searched my car. They found a knife and charged me with a class 2 offense. (You can’t have a pocket knife in the cab of your car in New Jersistan.) It also appears they cant they the difference between a Ford Mustang and a Ford Escort either.
It is absolutely the case that you will not win at the traffic stop, but you can setup the circumstances so that IF you choose to, you can have the proper circumstances to have the court on your side.
Obviously, it would be nice if you just got your deserved ticket and was told to be on your way.
However, my FIRST concern is that he wanted too much access to your friend and her family member. There are plenty of scumbags out their that coukd have been up to something, and its too late do anything if you get in the back of that cruiser. At the most you should have been sitting quietly on the hood of the cruiser or off the side. If the office didnt like that, he can a FEMALE trooper on the scene to back him up.
At this stage in my life I can afford to play games. However, for most people thats not an option.
Obviously, in 99% of the circumstances its going to be a simple traffic stop where you take your lumps (deserved) and move along. However, if an officer is unusually interest in two women in your vehicle, is the opposite sex, and has no partner with him... alarm bells should be ringing.
1: he was already detained the moment he was stopped. Putting him in the cruiser doesn’t add to that. Here aren’t levels of detention. You’re either in a consensual encounter, detained, or you’re arrested. There’s not detained level 2. So, his place either on the street or in a cruiser changes absolutely nothing about his temporary detention.
The rest of your post is absolutely terrible. YouTube lawyer are it’s finesr.
You don’t decide where your best place for the officer’s safety is. If we started allowing that, things would get very dangerous for everyone involved.
As far as your car and the search, if the court agrees they had probable cause at the time to search your vehicle, your permission and a warrant are not required at that time. Happens very often where they get the WRONG vehicle under the RIGHT circumstances and still find something illegal.
Very nice try to turn the cop into the creep in this scenario.
Also, come on over......we’re hiring and need people like you who know how to do the job better than the ones currently out there.
random tit post
Kudos Mac, you sure know how to take us to the next level! But I'm not so sure it's such a random pic. You had to put in a good deal of effort to find this pic, I mean she has perfect tits! Tits like this are not random!!
Mike
You are so full of fail, it is ALMOST funny.Wow. Some of you guys are a little to quick to take the LEOs side.
With absolutely no indication that there is any problem what so ever, and on the meer suspicion that something else is up... minor traffic violation or not... its not OK to detain you by placing you in a crusier.
Several things:
1) Ask the trooper if this encounter is being recorded.
2) Notify the trooper the MOMENT he asks you to step out of the car that he does not have your premission to search the vehicle and that you are the owner.
3) Ask the trooper very causually why he’s asked you to step out of the car. The moment he deflects or refuses, you dial your attorney and make sure the camera gets the whole exchange that follows. (Yes, I have my attorneys home phone number...
The most import rule is never talk to the police. The moment he asks you to step out of the car, hes playing games. At that point he can, and WILL lie and attempt deceptive conversation.
In my case, I’d have let the whole thing settle itself without having said another word the officer.
Otherwise:
“Hi John (my attorney), I’ve been pulled over by a Statie who, thus far, has not indicated why. In addition, he seems unusually interested in my 26 year old freind and her somewhat younger cousin. I swear to god that there is nothing odd going on, and as far as I know he’s pulled me over out of the blue. Do me a favor, if you don't recieve a call back from me by the morning, please submit a request to the court for a warrant to get the dash camera footage. I’ll also provide you a retainer of $200,000 to look into the officer, his record, contact internal affairs, and represent me if some sort nonsense follows.”
I’ve been jn a similar situation before when some jackass pulled me over because his though my car was the drug fellon they were looking for. Without my permission he, and 8 officers, illegally searched my car. They found a knife and charged me with a class 2 offense. (You can’t have a pocket knife in the cab of your car in New Jersistan.) It also appears they cant they the difference between a Ford Mustang and a Ford Escort either.
It is absolutely the case that you will not win at the traffic stop, but you can setup the circumstances so that IF you choose to, you can have the proper circumstances to have the court on your side.
Obviously, it would be nice if you just got your deserved ticket and was told to be on your way.
However, my FIRST concern is that he wanted too much access to your friend and her family member. There are plenty of scumbags out their that coukd have been up to something, and its too late do anything if you get in the back of that cruiser. At the most you should have been sitting quietly on the hood of the cruiser or off the side. If the office didnt like that, he can a FEMALE trooper on the scene to back him up.
At this stage in my life I can afford to play games. However, for most people thats not an option.
Obviously, in 99% of the circumstances its going to be a simple traffic stop where you take your lumps (deserved) and move along. However, if an officer is unusually interest in two women in your vehicle, is the opposite sex, and has no partner with him... alarm bells should be ringing.
1. they will tell you the reason for the stop
2. your lawyer wouldn't "submit a request for a warrant", if there was a citation or arrest, the video would be part of discovery. More likely, it is a simple FOIA request. Get your legal knowledge from someplace other than television.
3. An officer, when separating parties to check a story, will not leave someone roaming around behind his back. It's called officer safety.
4. Many agencies have a policy of having the violator get out of the vehicle. (which has been upheld in the Supreme Court).
Just quoting to repost again. This sums everything up perfectly.
Interesting (and slightly unrelated) tidbit.
The agency I work for was pushed by several organizations to implement body cameras. Many other agencies/departments were pushed as well.
So, the departments did this. Now said organizations are complaining about how much the body camera footage shows their clients doing things they shouldn't and basically showing the officers/agents doing the proper thing.
Now the same agencies are complaining these cameras are violating their clients' privacy rights.
Basically.........everyone thought all these body cameras were going to catch massive amounts of shitbag cops and it mostly just gave further evidence of the shitbag people who were claiming they did nothing wrong.
Last edited:
I've "heard" a lot more things get plead out now...... winning all around.
My guess is it probably something along the lines of statistics previously well known to the police, but now being proven on video:
When looking at a huge amount of interactions, over any given time frame, there is possibly a few instances of police officer misconduct.
But statistically that is very rare as compared to the huge amount of the local citizens making absolute asses of themselves.
Generally speaking the Juries and Judges tend to look dimly on parties that are shown on video to be acting in reprehensible ways & since people who tend to get in trouble with the law in a more serious way often tend to be ones that act reprehensibly towards the police officers, and now there is video proof, their lawyers can't try to claim it didn't happen or suggest the officer is lying because.. well... there it is on screen.
My opinion is that the whole video craze while it has some downsides will eventually probably be good once everyone gets used to it. Police should film their encounters,
The Public should film the police.. but then the Judges should enforce that you must post the entire video on you tube, not just the part where the police officer is smacking someone over the head & "accidentally" editing out the part where said "victim of brutality" was just trying to stab said police officer or beat them up moments before.
I think also if the citizens are free to film & post videos of police interactions (which they should be at all times), the police departments should automatically have the right to post the unedited complete version of the encounters so when the SJW band wants to get together for their next riot, they have a bit less wind in their sails.
Probably over a decade or so, everyone will get it through their head that everything is on video & it goes badly in court if you are a flaming ass about things and it might make people a bit more respectful & civil as they don't want to be shamed in court.
(This is of course unless you are a Democrat in charge of politically active partisan "Public Integrity" court, and you get into a DWI stop, threaten the officers, assault the officers, get strapped to a dolly with a bite & spit guard because you are trying to Hannibal the police all on video, but manage to keep your job, get away with it, get re-elected and then try to sue the governor for not wanting to fund your special little department and you next time around).
Bump this up.
And for intermission a titty pic:
R
And for intermission a titty pic:
R
I got one, I got one! LMFAO. Ask and ye shall receive. I was holding back tears driving past this yesterday on the way home. All I could think about was helping furthering "The Cause".
Glad to help gentlemen!
I am in total agreement with your thoughts on video. In the end it will keep the Police honest and the amount of false complaints to a minimum. In the end I believe there are many times LEOs are overzealous in their pursuit of crime - justified or not it often leads to butthurt on the part of the citizen. We as citizens should also be very jealous with our rights (I would wager most of the population has no idea what their actual rights are).
Many of the posts here by LEOs are degrading and downright disrespectful, as if a difference of opinion can be resolved this way. That same attitude is often portrayed during direct interaction - I believe this contributes to hostility. May I ask how many of the LEOs have a degree in Law? My understanding is that is not what is taught in the Academies. Not good, not bad just an observation that LEO are not infallible in their understanding of the law.
Many of the upset posting here are ignorant to the law and disrespectful towards LE which is not helpful either. I would tend to believe that they have had interaction with LEO that left a bad taste in their mouth and now a chip on the shoulder. I assume most of us have had good and bad interactions with LEO and while personally I am respectful and cooperative, I will keep my lawyers number handy and be on alert for a situation going sideways - which I honestly don't anticipate happening.
While I respect the job that LEO do and think most of them do it well, there is a tendency for people to be drawn to the profession that really do not belong there. As a citizen I have ZERO problem with LEO doing their job to the best of the ability and only have a problem when they go from Law Enforcement (which is pretty much after a crime is committed or in progress) to Crime Prevention (which I am referring to in the sense of Pre-crime). Some LEO don't think of their local population as good people, just criminals that haven't been caught yet - that attitude is what leads to the butthurt......
No disrespect meant to either side in this situation, I think both have valid points. In this particular case the LEO will be found to be justified without any issue even though it left a bad taste in the mouth of OP.
Last edited:
Goddamnit it man I was reading this thread at work... Lol
Yes me too, had to close it fast.
Last thing you want is an NSFW post in the middle of your great work safe discussion thread.
I am not so sure about your conclusion in the video. I think if you slow it down you will see someone getting ass raped in the back of that cruiser.
I am in the process now to become a sheriffs deputy. Hate cops? Fine. Love cops... great.... I will take a pay cut in doing this, I guess I’m altruistic for my own reasons, but I guarantee it’s not to be an asshole to law abiding citizens.... agree with me or not, But I would have done exactly the same thing in the OP. Just checking things out. I’ll tell you this much though.... I’ll be watching my co-officers as much as citizens.... some of you know what I mean, and if you don’t, that’s ok. Just trust me when I say the constitution come first?.
One more parting word. Never talk to a cop if you don’t have to.
I can’t wait to get my own group of haters..... ?
One more parting word. Never talk to a cop if you don’t have to.
I can’t wait to get my own group of haters..... ?
What good are cameras? Nothing is going to happen when they catch a criminal with a badge doing criminal thighs. Like that cop in CA that ran over and killed a bicycle rider while typing on his compute and didn't even get manslaughter.
One set of rules for the workers
One set for the enforcers
One set of rules for the workers
One set for the enforcers
Quite a bit happens to cops all the time. Google firings and such. There will be plenty of results.
The mainstream media doesn't cover it because its not good for their agenda of cops being out of control and not suffering any consequences.
For people who complain that places like CNN and other liberal media outlets don't report things and always constantly saying that gun rights activists are so swayed by the media............you guys are extremely brainwashed by the media to hate cops.
Remember the next time you see someone protesting for gun control and they don't know shit about guns..........that's likely you when you complain about cops (not directed towards anyone individually).
The mainstream media doesn't cover it because its not good for their agenda of cops being out of control and not suffering any consequences.
For people who complain that places like CNN and other liberal media outlets don't report things and always constantly saying that gun rights activists are so swayed by the media............you guys are extremely brainwashed by the media to hate cops.
Remember the next time you see someone protesting for gun control and they don't know shit about guns..........that's likely you when you complain about cops (not directed towards anyone individually).
Case in point about most people not knowing wtf they are talking about.
The above reference incident of the cop killing the cyclist:
CA State prohibiting wireless devices being used while driven excludes LE. There are many good reasons for this exclusion.
To be charged/convicted with manslaughter, the prosecution would have to prove negligence. Because the cop was on duty and using his computer, it would have been extremely hard to prove negligence.
Now, should he have been using his computer in this situation while driving......nope. But to lump this in a general claim that nothing happens to cops is wrong.
Happens all the time to criminals. Either something can't be proven because the way a law is written, or sometimes cops screw up and violate the 4th Amendment even though they had good intentions; and the criminal gets off because evidence is excluded. Where is the public outrage when a criminal gets off because of a loophole in the law??? I remember when people cheered when OJ was found not guilty even though they believed he committed the crime.
The above reference incident of the cop killing the cyclist:
CA State prohibiting wireless devices being used while driven excludes LE. There are many good reasons for this exclusion.
To be charged/convicted with manslaughter, the prosecution would have to prove negligence. Because the cop was on duty and using his computer, it would have been extremely hard to prove negligence.
Now, should he have been using his computer in this situation while driving......nope. But to lump this in a general claim that nothing happens to cops is wrong.
Happens all the time to criminals. Either something can't be proven because the way a law is written, or sometimes cops screw up and violate the 4th Amendment even though they had good intentions; and the criminal gets off because evidence is excluded. Where is the public outrage when a criminal gets off because of a loophole in the law??? I remember when people cheered when OJ was found not guilty even though they believed he committed the crime.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
Hi,
Ok serious question...
Since LE does not have an obligation nor duty to "Protect".....just to enforce ordinances and statutes and to investigate the breaking of such ordinances and statutes.......(Hence they are called Law "Enforcement" and not Law "Protection" or Law "Prevention")
Can anyone advise as to their AO ordinances and\or statutes that would deem an "investigation" in regards to the passengers in the OP vehicle since the stop was for a moving violation, not a suspicious activity call?
Sincerely,
Theis
Ok serious question...
Since LE does not have an obligation nor duty to "Protect".....just to enforce ordinances and statutes and to investigate the breaking of such ordinances and statutes.......(Hence they are called Law "Enforcement" and not Law "Protection" or Law "Prevention")
Can anyone advise as to their AO ordinances and\or statutes that would deem an "investigation" in regards to the passengers in the OP vehicle since the stop was for a moving violation, not a suspicious activity call?
Sincerely,
Theis
This will get lengthy if I type up every single thing, but I'll give it a shot.
Not having an obligation to protect is basically a protection for officers for something like "why didn't he jump in front of my child to stop that bullet." It lets and officer make a decision and doesn't force them to do anything (this is a long, long debate, but it is definitely a good thing, as you need to allow the people on the scene to make decisions, not armchair quarterback). Its also keeps management from forcing someone into a position they shouldn't.
Now, onto the stop, here how the law works in every state as its basically the Constitution interpreted by the SCOTUS. This applies Federally and locally.
A sworn LEO, be it federal, state, local........is granted the authority (NOT power) to enforce certain laws (federal and/or state, and/or local).
If, while lawfully investigating one crime or infraction, the officer develops suspicion of another crime he is authorized to enforce, he may investigate this suspicion. Its can keep going, and going, and going. As long as the officer keeps developing suspicion somewhere he is legally at (stop, call, public place, etc) he can keep investigating each one until he has no more reasonable suspicion.
So, lets look at the OP's case (I'm taking some liberty on the cop's point of view so I can answer your question).
Cop sees the OP not use his blinker and pulls him over for that.
Cop walks up to car and sees what looks to be an very young woman (or women) in the car.
It's late at night and based on the cop's past experiences, there is a lot of prostitution in the area. Or maybe the women or the driver are acting nervous. Maybe this officer has also been on a prostitution task force. Maybe he's been on a sex offender or a kidnapping task force. So something/s the officer can articulate based on his training and experience sets off his spidey sense. The important part is he has to be able to articulate this (to a judge.........not to you, me, or anyone else) .
Now, even though the officer pulled the OP over for a traffic violation........he can continue his "brief investigative detention" that started because of traffic violation. He is done with the traffic (once he decides to give warning or citation). but, he is allowed to keep going with his investigation based on reasonable suspicion of another crime.
In this case, he separated the two parties (common practice), got there stories, and did what he had to do to verify (calling minor's dad). He then deemed there was no crime being/about to be/or having been committed and released them all.
Lets take this a step further. Cop does all this listed above, but as he's about to release them, smells marijuana and believes based on his training and experience that the smell is coming from the vehicle. Let's assume this is a state where marijuana is illegal, or you need a permit. He asks if anyone in the vehicle has a permit, and they all say no.
Now the officer has probable cause (yep........probable cause, you read that right) to make everyone exit the vehicle and search it for marijuana or evidence of a marijuana related crime.
He does not require a warrant, as he has pc AND this is a readily mobile conveyance and is one of the SCOTUS' exceptions to the need for a warrant.
Lets keep going.........
Cop does not find marijuana, but he is allowed to search the vehicle anywhere evidence of a marijuana crime could be (basically anywhere for something like weed). He finds a handgun under the seat........
Lets assume a handgun like this was reported stolen a few days ago. Now the cop can go run this weapon's serial number to check to see if it's the stolen weapon......
So, it's not exactly a written statute that allows the officer to do all this. Its a combination of SCOTUS rulings AND laws that allow it.
Hopefully this answered your question.
Last edited:
