Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces

[Easy Mac]

Does this have any affect on stalkers? Lets say I'm stalking someone, but they notice and confront me. If they push me and threaten me, I would assume I would be well within my rights to kill them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Does this have any affect on stalkers? Lets say I'm stalking someone, but they notice and confront me. If they push me and threaten me, I would assume I would be well within my rights to kill them.

Check your state self-defense law. If you're in Florida, you can kill him if you have a reasonable belief that you're in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm. If you're willing to go on trial and leave your freedom up to convincing a jury of that, then go nuts. I wouldn't like your chances though. If they get on top of you and punch you in the face, you have a better shot with a jury, but still, no guarantees. I would say don't use deadly force unless you really think you're going to die. "Better to be judged by 12 (or 6 in Florida) than carried by 6", as they say. As much as some think Zimmerman got away with something here, I'm sure he'd still take it all back and do things differently if he could.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Does this have any affect on stalkers? Lets say I'm stalking someone, but they notice and confront me. If they push me and threaten me, I would assume I would be well within my rights to kill them.

I hope you'd do anything to prevent being killed as your post are interesting.

[BrianD]

What do people here think would have happened had Martin killed Zimmerman before he was able reach his gun...or if he didn't have a gun? Would Martin have been guilty of a crime, or would that have been self defense too? Does the answer to this question change the discussion on the Zimmerman verdict at all? Just idle thoughts...

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

What do people here think would have happened had Martin killed Zimmerman before he was able reach his gun...or if he didn't have a gun? Would Martin have been guilty of a crime, or would that have been self defense too? Does the answer to this question change the discussion on the Zimmerman verdict at all? Just idle thoughts...

I've never heard of a self-defense claim based on "creepy guy following me" working, but he could try it. It might be tough to even convince a judge to instruct the jury on self-defense in that kind of case, unless he could put forth some evidence of a threat beyond just the following, like a verbal threat. In which case, he'd probably have to testify about the verbal threat and open himself up to cross-examination about anything, and the jury could weigh his credibility.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you have no intention of using a gun, you don't have it with you.

Irrelevant if the law allows you carry a concealed weapon.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Irrelevant if the law allows you carry a concealed weapon.

I'm not arguing the law, I was arguing what Troy said.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Good, race is back in the conversation.

That's the only reason it was ever in the news for more than 5 minutes in the first place.

[Young Drachma]

Can people stop telling me that this is how the law works, please? This is how the law works *when you write terrible laws*.

— Ari Kohen (@kohenari) July 14, 2013

On The Killing Of Trayvon Martin By George Zimmerman - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

2.) I think the jury basically got it right. The only real eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin was the man who killed him. At no point did I think that the state proved second degree murder. I also never thought they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted recklessly. They had no ability to counter his basic narrative, because there were no other eye-witnesses.

3.) The idea that Zimmerman got out of the car to check the street signs, was ambushed by 17-year old kid with no violent history who told him he "you're going to die tonight" strikes me as very implausible. It strikes me as much more plausible that Martin was being followed by a strange person, that the following resulted in a confrontation, that Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman in the confrontation, and Zimmerman then shot him. But I didn't see the confrontation. No one else really saw the confrontation. Except George Zimmerman. I'm not even clear that situation I outlined would result in conviction.

George Zimmerman, Not Guilty: Blood on the Leaves : The New Yorker

O’Mara’s statement echoed a criticism that began circulating long before Martin and Zimmerman encountered each other. Thousands of black boys die at the hands of other African Americans each year, but the black community, it holds, is concerned only when those deaths are caused by whites. It’s an appealing argument, and widespread, but it’s simplistic and obtuse.

It’s a belief most easily held when you’ve not witnessed peace rallies and makeshift memorials, when you’ve turned a blind eye to grassroots organizations like the Interrupters in Chicago, who are working valiantly to stem the tide of violence in that city. It is the thinking of people who’ve never wondered why African Americans disproportionately support strict gun-control legislation.

The added quotient of outrage in cases like this one stems not from the belief that a white murderer is somehow worse than a black one but from the knowledge that race determines whether fear, history, and public sentiment offer that killer a usable alibi.

[Ben E Lou]

So if the problem is that the law was written poorly, what *should* the law have been here? That's the part that's troubling to me. I firmly believe that Zimmerman bears some level of moral responsibility for Martin's death, but tend to think that he bears little/no legal responsibility. Yet I'm at a loss for how we could change the laws to make him bear any legal responsibility, at least based on the set of provable facts given here. You can't follow a person that you deem suspicious? Racial profiling by a private citizen is illegal? If you're flat on your back having your head pounded into the concrete you are only allowed to punch back, kick the guy in the balls, or shoot him in a leg or arm? I'm just not seeing where there's anything that can be proven that Zimmerman did that should be *illegal*.

More than anything, I find this to be a horribly tragic set of circumstances, one that is made even more volatile by the racial component of it.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

So if the problem is that the law was written poorly, what *should* the law have been here? That's the part that's troubling to me. I firmly believe that Zimmerman bears some level of moral responsibility for Martin's death, but tend to think that he bears little/no legal responsibility. Yet I'm at a loss for how we could change the laws to make him bear any legal responsibility, at least based on the set of provable facts given here. You can't follow a person that you deem suspicious? Racial profiling by a private citizen is illegal? If you're flat on your back having your head pounded into the concrete you are only allowed to punch back, kick the guy in the balls, or shoot him in a leg or arm? I'm just not seeing where there's anything that can be proven that Zimmerman did that should be *illegal*.

More than anything, I find this to be a horribly tragic set of circumstances, one that is made even more volatile by the racial component of it.

Yep...and if I agree with Ben in any thread not on topic fofc...list pretty damned rare.

Here I think we are perfectly in line.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

So if the problem is that the law was written poorly, what *should* the law have been here? That's the part that's troubling to me. I firmly believe that Zimmerman bears some level of moral responsibility for Martin's death, but tend to think that he bears little/no legal responsibility. Yet I'm at a loss for how we could change the laws to make him bear any legal responsibility, at least based on the set of provable facts given here. You can't follow a person that you deem suspicious? Racial profiling by a private citizen is illegal? If you're flat on your back having your head pounded into the concrete you are only allowed to punch back, kick the guy in the balls, or shoot him in a leg or arm? I'm just not seeing where there's anything that can be proven that Zimmerman did that should be *illegal*.

More than anything, I find this to be a horribly tragic set of circumstances, one that is made even more volatile by the racial component of it.

Great post.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Great post.

No horrible post. Horrific post. Sickening post.

This is 2013 and it is about race. Reason, sanity and sense are not allowed.

Now start throwing out irrational comments so we can get back to normal. You twoshould be ashamed of yourselves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

This is 2013 and it is about race. Reason, sanity and sense are not allowed.

There's very little that doesn't have a racial element to it somewhere. Fact of life.

And this story doesn't even reach the level of "Trayvon who?" if there isn't a racial element. Black on black, no story. Hispanic on hispanic, no story. White on white, no story (unless there was a female involved)

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

So if the problem is that the law was written poorly, what *should* the law have been here? That's the part that's troubling to me. I firmly believe that Zimmerman bears some level of moral responsibility for Martin's death, but tend to think that he bears little/no legal responsibility. Yet I'm at a loss for how we could change the laws to make him bear any legal responsibility, at least based on the set of provable facts given here. You can't follow a person that you deem suspicious? Racial profiling by a private citizen is illegal? If you're flat on your back having your head pounded into the concrete you are only allowed to punch back, kick the guy in the balls, or shoot him in a leg or arm? I'm just not seeing where there's anything that can be proven that Zimmerman did that should be *illegal*.

More than anything, I find this to be a horribly tragic set of circumstances, one that is made even more volatile by the racial component of it.

I've had brief thoughts about this today, and I agree with you 100%.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's very little that doesn't have a racial element to it somewhere. Fact of life.

)

This

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's very little that doesn't have a racial element to it somewhere. Fact of life.

And this story doesn't even reach the level of "Trayvon who?" if there isn't a racial element. Black on black, no story. Hispanic on hispanic, no story. White on white, no story (unless there was a female involved)

Hot female involved.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The overwhelming percentage of black homicides in the United States 2007-2011 were committed by blacks.

Is this a true statement?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Is this a true statement?

I didn't realize that this was in question by anyone. It's not remotely close for blacks or whites.

Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal

Bureau of Justice Statistics data show that from 1976 to 2005, white victims were killed by white defendants 86% of the time and black victims were killed by blacks 94% of the time.

Then there is the matter of who is dying. Although the U.S. murder rate has been dropping for years, an analysis of homicide data by The Wall Street Journal found that the number of black male victims increased more than 10%, to 5,942 in 2010 from 5,307 in 2000.

Overall, more than half the nation's homicide victims are African-American, though blacks make up only 13% of the population. Of those black murder victims, 85% were men, mostly young men.

Grim Cycle: Black Men Killing Black Men - WSJ.com

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Is this a true statement?

Grim Cycle: Black Men Killing Black Men - WSJ.com

It's an old statement, couldnt find anything newer

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. First Google reference ftw!

I did find his "2007-2011" pretty funny, fwiw. Sure, strangers murder strangers sometimes, but it's not the norm. I'm pretty sure it's like 70-75% of the time that murder victims know their killer. Add to that the quick-anger murders (two dudes at a nightclub get into a fight and one murders the other,) that require some level of proximity, and it's not hard to see why the numbers skew that way so strongly. The issue with "black-on-black" crime shouldn't be that it's black-on-black; it's the frequency that's troubling.

[cartman]

I wouldn't be surprised if one outcome of this would be that insurance companies will require some kind of training or certification for folks who act as armed security for HOAs before they issue a policy.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But I do ave a question based on what you said above. Can the law really ignore how someone puts themselves in a dangerous situation? I'm not sure on this and it's for sure a slippery slope, to say your actions permit you to be harmed, but since he specifically claimed self defense can you legally fear for your life IF you started a fight.

Have to be careful with this line of logic. Can you legally be raped if you initiate making out with a guy (yes)? Invited him up to your place (also yes)?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by cartman

I wouldn't be surprised if one outcome of this would be that insurance companies will require some kind of training or certification for folks who act as armed security for HOAs before they issue a policy.

It wouldn't have mattered here. The simple solution is to use volunteer neighborhood citizens to handle it. They provide their own protection and hold all the liability.

Additionally, where are all the Paul's of the world on this one? Why haven't they come out and basically said that the law prevailed here?

Why don't they say that we don't need more laws, we need more personal responsibility, and that if both parties took responsibility for their own actions all of this would be avoided?

Where is the NRA saying that Travon made his choice by deciding not to arm himself? Would the outcome have been different (at least for him) if he had?

Sorry, these are more like random thoughts than anything concrete. The bigger question is why are we so willing to throw laws out the window and cut the government for some things, but when bad things happen immediately, the government needs to step in to fix it?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's very little that doesn't have a racial element to it somewhere. Fact of life.

And this story doesn't even reach the level of "Trayvon who?" if there isn't a racial element. Black on black, no story. Hispanic on hispanic, no story. White on white, no story (unless there was a female involved)

The race part does not concern me. The reasoned discussion about it that rarely takes place does.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It wouldn't have mattered here. The simple solution is to use volunteer neighborhood citizens to handle it. They provide their own protection and hold all the liability.

Additionally, where are all the Paul's of the world on this one? Why haven't they come out and basically said that the law prevailed here?

Why don't they say that we don't need more laws, we need more personal responsibility, and that if both parties took responsibility for their own actions all of this would be avoided?

Where is the NRA saying that Travon made his choice by deciding not to arm himself? Would the outcome have been different (at least for him) if he had?

Sorry, these are more like random thoughts than anything concrete. The bigger question is why are we so willing to throw laws out the window and cut the government for some things, but when bad things happen immediately, the government needs to step in to fix it?

Did you mean to quote another post and not mine? I didn't suggest that any laws need to be changed or introduced. I am saying that if there are armed volunteers for an HOA, and they want insurance to cover their liability, then some sort of training or certification would have to be in place before getting coverage. That would be a free market reaction, not a legislative one. The training you get for a CCL doesn't cover at all acting as security. All of the CCL training I've been in tells you to avoid a situation where you have to use your weapon, and let the police handle it.

[PilotMan]

Just the first line. The rest was off topic. I can't see any HOA covering insurance for neighborhood volunteers.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Just the first line. The rest was off topic. I can't see any HOA covering insurance for neighborhood volunteers.

If they aren't tied to the HOA, then wouldn't they just be vigilantes? The HOA insurance covered the civil settlement. HOA insurance policies can cover volunteers acting on behalf of the HOA.

[PilotMan]

IDK, I mean, I know that neighborhood watch where there isn't an HOA is still volunteer and along the same lines of just look out for each other, and make the call. Clearly if you are an individual who carries and performs this task then it's all on you, right? Or am I off base here?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

IDK, I mean, I know that neighborhood watch where there isn't an HOA is still volunteer and along the same lines of just look out for each other, and make the call. Clearly if you are an individual who carries and performs this task then it's all on you, right? Or am I off base here?

I guess in that instance that possibly their homeowner's insurance policy would cover any damages from a civil lawsuit. There are also insurance policies to specifically cover concealed carry. But also aren't neighborhood watches instructed to just be observers and report any suspicious activities to authorities and not get involved? That right there goes a long way to limiting liability.

[Noop]

TroyF, Raiders Army,

Clueless.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Noop

TroyF, Raiders Army,

Clueless.

Not as clueless as noop, if you put those two posters in the same category.

[TroyF]

I apologize if I have offended you noop, but I will stand b everything I have said. If you can factually challeng anything I have said, by all means say it and prove it. That is not a flippant remark either, tell me what I have said that is incorrcect. I would love to have a serious discussion on the subject.

The only thing I regret is not making it clear that I do not think Zimmerman is an exceptional human being when I wrote about Martin and "thug life" First off, I am not sure how many people saw all of th rexts and photos on TM's phone. It sowed a kid who wa already involved in illegal fire arms, drugs and violence. That is a horrible thing for anyone to be involved in, white, black or purple.

I also said in that post, I agreed it had no relevanc in this case and I agreed with it being left out. In other words, the fact he was those things does not mean he should die or that it should have had anything to do with evidence in ths case.

On the other hand, the decisions he made did have an impact on his death. We need to stop honoring and propogating this lifestyle to be a good one. (It has nothing to do with race by the way, in the 20's in New York many Italian boys got caught up in the mafia for many of the same reasons)

We live in an age where if you have an unpopular opinion, you have to qualify things to stay on the good side of the masses. I am sorry, but I do not prescribe to that notion. If you ever meet me in person and get to know me., you will see my character. Until then, insult away, but I would at least ask you to show me what I got wrong.

[TroyF]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Der...7/14/id/514957

Alan Dershowitz view of the trial and possible future cases.

[JonInMiddleGA]

On a personal note, I find it kinda ironic (or something) that I'm the guy who has long pointed out that nearly everything has a racial element to it ... and yet find little of racial interest in this case myself.

I've said from the outset that afaic Zimmerman ultimately did the world a favor but that's a position based on Martin's history, which has nothing to do with his race. I'd have the same exact opinion if the fatality had involved 17 y/o white meth head from my old hometown in the north Georgia mountains or a 17 y/o coke addict from the million dollar subdivision down the street.

I'll concede the point on anyone who cares to describe that as a hardass stand to take ... just don't try to assign a racial motivation to my position where one doesn't exist.

[ISiddiqui]

So, I'm fairly liberal, but liberals have lost their freaking minds on this! From everything I've seen, the determination of self-defense was a pretty reasonable decision for the jury to make. Liberals trying to turn their into some racial thing are just making themselves look foolish.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So, I'm fairly liberal, but liberals have lost their freaking minds on this! From everything I've seen, the determination of self-defense was a pretty reasonable decision for the jury to make. Liberals trying to turn their into some racial thing are just making themselves look foolish.

I can't find anything horrible about the court case or the legal standing as the laws are written. The situation, however- well, that speaks for itself.

SI

[mauchow]

Another event to find a shit ton of morons on facebook and twitter.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

So if the problem is that the law was written poorly, what *should* the law have been here?

So nobody's taken on this challenge yet, huh? The situation sucks. But I think people realize this is a difficult question. I think we can go back to the start, and deep down, what people really want, is for white people (or "white Hispanics," per the NY Times) not to ever be suspicious of black people. That's the root of this that makes people angry. That's the law they want to write, but, that's not a law that can be written or enforced, and deep down, everybody knows this. So at worst, Martin was just a victim of this type of evil which can't ever be regulated with laws. Which is what makes it so frustrating to people. Which is understandable, but I also can't help but think we're a long way from the early days of this thread where you were considered a racist if you pointed out challenges in the state's case.

[Scarecrow]

So there's no such thing as double jeopardy...

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/NA...n=widgetphase2

[Noop]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I apologize if I have offended you noop, but I will stand b everything I have said. If you can factually challeng anything I have said, by all means say it and prove it. That is not a flippant remark either, tell me what I have said that is incorrcect. I would love to have a serious discussion on the subject.

The only thing I regret is not making it clear that I do not think Zimmerman is an exceptional human being when I wrote about Martin and "thug life" First off, I am not sure how many people saw all of th rexts and photos on TM's phone. It sowed a kid who wa already involved in illegal fire arms, drugs and violence. That is a horrible thing for anyone to be involved in, white, black or purple.

I also said in that post, I agreed it had no relevanc in this case and I agreed with it being left out. In other words, the fact he was those things does not mean he should die or that it should have had anything to do with evidence in ths case.

On the other hand, the decisions he made did have an impact on his death. We need to stop honoring and propogating this lifestyle to be a good one. (It has nothing to do with race by the way, in the 20's in New York many Italian boys got caught up in the mafia for many of the same reasons)

We live in an age where if you have an unpopular opinion, you have to qualify things to stay on the good side of the masses. I am sorry, but I do not prescribe to that notion. If you ever meet me in person and get to know me., you will see my character. Until then, insult away, but I would at least ask you to show me what I got wrong.

Your position is tainted. You have already admitted that you have said somethings that are simply devoid of decency. I simply think you are clueless and your opinion is flawed. I have no issue with you on a personal level and find you to be one of our better poster's, but I vehemently disagree with some of the stuff you said.

You say it is not about race, but you could have fooled me.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

So there's no such thing as double jeopardy...

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/NA...n=widgetphase2

Or you don't understand what double jeopardy means.

If you break both state and federal laws in the commission of an act, you can be tried for both infractions. However, if the state tries you for murder-2 and you get acquitted, the state can't re-try you for murder-2 in relation to that death again. Doesn't mean you didn't also potentially run foul of a federal statute for which you can be tried.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

So there's no such thing as double jeopardy...

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/NA...n=widgetphase2

The feds, in theory, could do this based on expanded modern interpretations of the commerce clause, but they never actually have. And it's hard to see them starting now. Why now, and not with say, O.J Simpson? Congress has no appetite to second-guess state trial verdicts. That's why they passed AEDPA in 1996. They're not in the crime prosecution business (except when it comes to drugs, but that's a whole different kettle of fish) Edit: Though, the prosecutor in me maybe wouldn't mind if we had a second shot at every acquittal.....but I don't think the general public (including the NAACP) would like that if we applied it beyond this single case.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Noop

Your position is tainted. You have already admitted that you have said somethings that are simply devoid of decency. I simply think you are clueless and your opinion is flawed. I have no issue with you on a personal level and find you to be one of our better poster's, but I vehemently disagree with some of the stuff you said.

You say it is not about race, but you could have fooled me.

Just to clarify noop, I am only sorry I did not say Zimmerman was not a good guy when I pointed out TM was living a thug life. I stand by everything I said in regards to TM. I stand by everything I said about the trial.

I also do not believe I have stated anything about race that is factually incorrect.

If you want to challenge anything specific, I will gladly address the issues you have. I am not one to be offended when someone accuses me to be tainted or clueless. I'd like to know why, but I dont believe I have a right to know why either.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

So nobody's taken on this challenge yet, huh? The situation sucks. But I think people realize this is a difficult question. I think we can go back to the start, and deep down, what people really want, is for white people (or "white Hispanics," per the NY Times) not to ever be suspicious of black people. That's the root of this that makes people angry. That's the law they want to write, but, that's not a law that can be written or enforced, and deep down, everybody knows this. So at worst, Martin was just a victim of this type of evil which can't ever be regulated with laws. Which is what makes it so frustrating to people. Which is understandable, but I also can't help but think we're a long way from the early days of this thread where you were considered a racist if you pointed out challenges in the state's case.

Unless you haven't been paying attention to facebook, twitter o the news, you can still be a racist for believing Zimmerman is innocent.

There is a simple reason nobody took Ben up on the offer. . . There is no law you can write.

You could put something on the books to say someone cannot follow a suspicious person, but then you will get the one in a million case the other way. (Murderer slips free, someone gets raped, etc)

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

The feds, in theory, could do this based on expanded modern interpretations of the commerce clause, but they never actually have. And it's hard to see them starting now. Why now, and not with say, O.J Simpson? Congress has no appetite to second-guess state trial verdicts. That's why they passed AEDPA in 1996. They're not in the crime prosecution business (except when it comes to drugs, but that's a whole different kettle of fish) Edit: Though, the prosecutor in me maybe wouldn't mind if we had a second shot at every acquittal.....but I don't think the general public (including the NAACP) would like that if we applied it beyond this single case.

Isn't this what they did with the police officers in the Rodney King case?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Isn't this what they did with the police officers in the Rodney King case?

Good point, that was an exception. And the feds do have the power to charge Zimmerman tomorrow. I guess the potential distinction would be that a crime involving police officers concerns the federal government more than a crime (alleged) to be committed between two private citizens. Would we be OK with the feds giving the government a 2nd shot at all acquittals? State prosecutors would be a lot more gutsy about offering shitty plea deals and going to trials if they knew the feds, and all their resources, would back them up if they lost. That would give state prosecutors extra leverage in every criminal case, and every criminal defendant would know he'd have to convince two juries to win his freedom, which would make them much more likely to play ball. Or if its not every case, how would the feds make the call about which ones to get involved in? Ones with a racial component? I really don't think the DOJ has the stomach for that.

[Noop]

I hope the federal government does not charge Zimmerman with anything.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Unless you haven't been paying attention to facebook, twitter o the news, you can still be a racist for believing Zimmerman is innocent.

There is a simple reason nobody took Ben up on the offer. . . There is no law you can write.

You could put something on the books to say someone cannot follow a suspicious person, but then you will get the one in a million case the other way. (Murderer slips free, someone gets raped, etc)

I don't think that sounds like a ridiculous law to say an armed citizen with no law enforcement training can't follow and stop somebody they deem to be acting suspiciously. We have large police forces for a reason.

[molson]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I don't think that sounds like a ridiculous law to say an armed citizen with no law enforcement training can't follow and stop somebody they deem to be acting suspiciously.

You'd be willing to throw people in prison for following others on the street? That's pretty hardcore. I mean, our prisons are already pretty crowded. "What are you in for?" "Following some guy."