States allow deadly self-defense
 

http://news.**********/s/usatoday/200...ltBHNlYwM3MTY-

A year after Florida became the first state to allow citizens to use deadly force against muggers, carjackers and other attackers, the idea is spreading. South Dakota has enacted a similar law, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels plans to sign such a measure today, and 15 other states are considering such proposals.


Dubbed "Stand Your Ground" bills by supporters such as the National Rifle Association, the measures generally grant immunity from prosecution and lawsuits to those who use deadly force to combat any unlawful entry or attack. Several states allow people to use deadly force in their homes against intruders; the new measures represent an expansion of self-defense rights to crimes committed in public.


So how does everyone else feel about this? I mean, leave a pub, get in an argument - shoot someone legally? Someone steal yer cell phone off the bar - blast them with yer 9mm?

I think it's fucking ridiculous. If someone is threatening your life, then I can see it being reasonable, but if they're just stealing your shit, you don't have a right to kill them.

This bill reduces humans to being only worth as much as their possesions are.

No one want's their things stolen, house broken into, but that doesn't give you a legal right to kill them. Call the police and let them deal with it.

I see this law acting a lot like the first amendment.

For instance, you can whatever you want. But, you cannot yell, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

If someone came-up to me wanting to mug me I would give them my money. But if someone came-up to me and wanted to beat me up or r*** me or something, I am glad that I can use deadly force because I would.

I don't think deadly force is necessary unless the person attacking you takes it to that level.

I think the amount of force you use should be just enough to get away to someplace safe. If the person attacking you keeps coming, is threatening your life, the yes, kill him IF nothing else works.

When you're attacked, say in a fight, the point is to not perpetuate the fight. It's to try to get away. People who actively engage in fights and end up killing someone is a murderer. If someone attacks you and you end up having to kill them to get away, then it's self defense.

It's a narrow difference, but it is there.

It's like, if someone breaks into your house, you catch them stealing things, and they take of running, you shooting them is perpetuating the situation. You can be charged with murder if you shoot someone who is fleeing, regardless of them stealing your things.

The laws in these states state that the use of deadly force is only justifiable when it's in response to what the victim believes is preventative of imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or to others. Sternn's examples of stealing a cell phone off of a bar counter are just stupid. If someone were to break into your house, they'd need to have a gun, knife, or other weapon in their hand and would need to point it at you or show some sign that they were intent on using it in order for your ass to get off scott free for shootting them dead.

To test this though, Sternn, why don't you to go to Florida and put yourself into one of these situations, then employ your use of deadly force? See if you get off. It's really no wonder you were arrested and put away several times in your life.

SOURCE 1
SOURCE 2
SOURCE 3

See, that makes much more sense.

If you read the article, you can see this law is being used to justify the cost of towing a car...

Florida's law could be facing its first test. Donald Montanez, owner of a Tampa towing company, is charged with murder in the shooting of a man whose car was impounded. Prosecutors say Montanez fired as the man drove off without paying a fee. Montanez's attorney, Roger Rigau, says the new law should protect Montanez, who feared being hit by the driver.

So a guy gets his car towed, goes to the lot, takes it back without paying the parking fine, and the owner blows his head off. And my example is waaay off because the price of a cell phone is waay more than a parking fine?

Just glad I drive a bike ;)

Your examples were people trying to abuse the law, just like the gentleman you list in your story.

People will always try to abuse the law. That doesn't mean that the law can't really help people.

Let's bring your ass up to date here, since again, you're running your mouth about an case you obviously know nothing about. The guy that was in the car, Mr. Glen Rich, was allegedly trying to run Montanez down with the vehicle on his way out of the lot. Should that be the case, as will be proven in a court of law, I'd say shooting his ass fell under the 'preventing immediate death or bodily harm' statute.

There must be some kind of weird, sick, morbid pleasure you get out of looking stupid in front of people, Sternn, I swear. Otherwise you'd take the two seconds out of your busy day of reading bushawol.com and get some background on what you're reading off of yahoo news.

as long as it's used in cases of self defense, then i agree. people should definately have the right to defend themselves at all costs, and not have to worry about being charged for committing some crime. how many muggings today end in murder? how many times do houses get broken into when the burglar thinks nobody is home, and then gets surprised by somebody waking up or walking in and that ends in murder?
if someone breaks into your house to steal your shit, it's your property, i think you should have the right to defend it. killing them is a bit extreme, but if they're armed and they break in, do you think they're going to give a second thought to killing you if you catch them? doubtful.

on the other extreme, there are plenty of cases where somebody breaks into someone's house, winds up injuring themselves on something inside that house, then turns around and wants to sue the homeowner. where is the justice in that?

i have no problems with laws that give law-abiding citizens more rights to defend and protect themselves. killing somebody for stealing your cell phone, no. beating them to a pulp and taking back your cell phone? yeah. maybe they'll think twice next time they try some shit like that.

Yeah, yer missing a huge glaring fact here. He walked out in front of a moving car, with gun in hand and obvoiusly pointed it at the man. If he wasn't pointing it, he would have never been able to shoot the man in the head before he hit him.

So lets think about it - your in your car, driving away, yes, maybe not paying a fine, but some guy jumps in front of yer car with a gun in hand and points it at you. Do you stop or speed up? With this very law, either way these men could be called the victim. I guess the one who is alive has the advantage of telling the storey his way.

I mean, if I were driving and a guy jumps out in front of me from behind a building with a gun pointing at me, I would speed up too. You saying people should just stop when a stranger points a gun at them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of self defence? Are you saying self defence with a gun is ok, but using a car in self defence is wrong?

Who here was the last person who could have avoided the situtation. The man who jumped in front of the car with the gun or the man who was shot, who was alleged to have attempted to speed up, a fact that is only there because the man who shot him says its true.

http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

As far as I know we've always had those laws in Texas.

Doesn't mean the crime rate's gonna go up in any state that decides that it's a good idea for their citizens to be able to protect themselves. Personally I'm glad that I have the choice in my state to kill someone(if I can't get away) rather than be ***** by them.

Texas has advocated and allowed the use of deadly force to protect Life and Personal Property for many years.

This is nothing new.

As a former gun owner, and someone who has had to defend my family with a gun and a knife before, when its you or them you have to make a choice. When it comes down to our lives, or their lives its an easy choice to make. They die, you live. Pretty simple.

It's easy to point fingers from another country, but I find it somewhat ironic that a confessed member of the IRA has taken umbrage with a Stateside law allowing lethal force.

You do see that is more than a bit hypocritical don't you Sternn?

Not to mention that you are a staunch member of a group that made its history, taking up arms against those they felt threatened their freedom, health, and well-being of themselves and their families.

See my point?

Either way, I feel that I should have the right to defend my family, person, and property from anyone seeking to do harm to any of the above.

I've done it before, and I would do it again in a heartbeat.

End of story.

I want verifiable sources for the information you're providing here. Witnesses' statements nor Montanez's lawyer have made any suggestion that this ever took place.

I have a good feeling you just made that up.

It's common sense. He shot the man who he said was driving at him. If the car was going fast enough to hurt him which he claims, then the response time would mean he had to have the gun out and pointing it.

If the man in the car was driving say, 2 miles and hour, then why would he shoot him? The car had to be doing at least say 20 miles per hour, anything less and he could have literally walked out of the way without having to worry about his safety.

Also, to draw a gun from say a hidden area (behind him, in a sholder holster under a jacket, etc) there is no way he could have done that will a car supposedly bearing down on him at a dangerous speed.

Therefore, he had the gun in hand and must have and it had to be in view of the driver.

Simple science. If the car wasn't speeding then he wasn't in danger and he shot an innocent man just over a parking fine. If the dead man was speeding, then the accused must of had the gun out and in plain view as he is not some action hero gun slinger in an action film.

I say test it. Jump in front of a car, or to be safe stand on the side of the road, and use a toy gun or other item shoved in your pants or a shoulder holster and see how long it takes you to get it out, aim it, and get a bead on the drivers head. See how far away on oncoming car must be before you can do it and get a good aim. Also, you have to take into account that he wasn't hit, so not only did he score a head shot he moved out of the way, so draw, get the bead, and then jump out of the way and see if you can do that and see how far off a car going say 20 miles an hour is away from you when you do that.

You will see it's impossible unless the car was a quarter mile off, and in which case the man standing there with the gun ready to be drawn had ample time to move and not blow away some guy over a parking fine. If the car was that far off and he brought a conceled weapon out and waited for the man to drive his direction and shot him a quarter mile off, thats not self-defence, thats murder.

The law also deals with common sense. What would an average person do. Who was the last person with a chance to avoid the situtation. Standing in a drive way, waiting for a car to get out of a parking space and head towards you then shooting the driver in 'self-defence' is just not logical. By that standard, I could take a gun out in the middle of the highway, wait for oncoming traffic to come at me, and shoot the drivers because I feared for my life. Common sense says he shouldn't have placed himself in harms way then try to claim self-defence, especially when all he would have lost was a parking fine, which he could have rang the police later and had the state collect for him.

You made it up.

I love how you don't read, listen to, or need witness statements or the defendant's account because you KNOW what happened. Thank god you're not a lawyer, Sternn.

Try researching what you're talking about next time.

I say "hell yeah". I love the fact deadly force is allowed for an intruder over here, hell when my wife got broke into, the cop was advocating chasing after the guy with any household item (he suggested a 2 ltr coke bottle) beating the shit out of the guy and dragging them back into the house. As far as he was concerned it'd get investigated no further, he'd shake our hand and thank us for the lack of paperwork.

So I say bring it on, allow extension to Concealed Carry Laws requiring greater training and education for those who choose to carry guns and turn crime into Russian Roulette, where the next mugging might result in a premature end to your life.

Yeah, I've been given the same advice by Law Enforcement in Houston years ago, Vorsuc.

They don't want to deal with anymore of these scumbags than they have too.

But I would also like to add a couple of things for everyone, in regards to the use of Lethal Force.

Do not buy a gun, unless you are experienced with them, or have undergone a gun training course. These courses are cheap and fairly easy to find in most cities.

If you have never fired a weapon before, and choose to purchase one, this training course is a MUST!!!

Not only will you be safer, but you will feel more confident should you ever have to defend youself with your weapon.

I have actually taken guns away from friends that were 'afraid' of them, but bought one anyway without any training.

They run the risk of having the person they are defending themselves against take the gun AWAY from them and do bad things with it to them instead.

Firearms aren't for everyone, and being responsible with your gun is the MOST important rule to remember.

Second to that would be, if you HAVE to use it to defend yourself or your family, shoot to kill. Aim for the head or the chest, and make sure they aren't going to get back up again.

This isn't something you want to do half-assed.

If you feel you are threatened ENOUGH to use lethal force, do it right.

Besides, bullets are cheap. It's okay to use five or TEN bullets to make sure the job is done right. ;)

Using lethal force should ALWAYS be a last option, but I for one am glad we live in a Country where it IS an option.

My 1.4 cents on the issue..

And uhh Sternn, did you miss my first reply to you?

*nudge nudge*

I dont know I would feel pretty violated if someone stole my keyboard and I had some songs in them that were not recorded else where. While your calling the police their jacking you man thats not right. But then does the law really say you can shoot a person just for stealing?

Interesting

Laws regarding the use of Lethal Force in many states, already give you the right to protect your person, your family, and your property from threat of physical harm, or and/or theft and damage.

Over the course of the 27 years I spent in Houston back when I lived there, I had various cars stolen FIVE different times. I was also broken into in several apartments and in one of the houses I rented there. I worked hard for what little I had.

After awhile, it isn't real diffucult to decide to blow the next piece of shit away who tries to take your sole transportation, or your personal property. Or worse.

I have worked hard for everything I have owned, like hell am I going to lay down and let some piece of crap steal it from me.

Criminals know they run the risk of trying to jack the wrong person.

I take pride in being that WRONG person.

;)

Yeah I have to agree I'm armed and ready to go if it ever came to it. I would give the intruder a chance though cuz I wouldnt want to blow them away over some property but damn man thats mine. We had our apartment broken into in broad daylight last week while I was in the house and my back is to the back room where the intruder wouldve come from if they had decided to continue. I was in the house and couldve easily have been killed. After discovering the door was pryed open I ran back to my trusty Smith and Wesson and searched the house 6 times from corner to corner to make sure nobody was hiding (they didnt take anything which made me very nervous). My roomate interupted me on like search number 5 and got a fully loaded semi auto matic pointed at his face for scaring me. I asked him if that scared him and he said no. He was glad that someone int he house was on top of the situation.

We can bitch about guns but I'm gonna tell you when your heart racing and you think there is someone in your house there is nothing more reasureing then a .45 semi. Many times I have wanted to sell but my little munchkin girlfriend laid the law down. Hell no the gun stays.

[quote]
Right on. When I lived In N.O., my boyfriend got carjacked, and I asked a cop acquaintance if we should get a gun. I had also been threatened be some asshole that I kicked out of the bar, so I was concerned about my safety walking home. The cop tole me just what EPS said. If you want to have a gun, don't be afraid to use it to kill someone. If you are not ok with killing, don't get a deadly weapon. He said if you just injure someone, even if that someone is breaking into your house, and he lives, but is paralyzed or seriously injured, he can sue you for loss of liveliehood if he can't work and support himself. Even if you shoot him because he broke into your house.

Exactly, and NOLA isn't somewhere to fuck around anyway..

What's left of it anway.. :(

Half the cops will jack you as quick as the sewer rats will roll you..

It sucks when you don't know who to trust. Nowhere you want to get caught unprotected and in a bad situation, thats for sure..



But yeah, thats a great way to put it.

If you are not okay with killing, don't buy a gun.

Well said.

There is a problem with this in that anyone who has done some serious martial arts training will tell you that once your attacker is subdueing you then your pretty much subdued. Its a very difficult problem because you have to decide in seconds what intent and situation is and if you guess wrong by a fraction of a second it can be too late. For example my old Martial arts instructer showed every member of the class a video of a bar fight. One was offended my another man for what ever reason. The offended man was much smaller and got into the other guys face (big guys life was over at that point). Once a person gets inside of the reaction zone then its pretty much who throws first and in this case it was with a knive which compounds the issues times a hundred. The first knife blow to the neck was so fast the guy didnt even know untill after. He was buzzed so the next 40 punctures he probably didnt feel. He died within minutes but the truth is he died the minute he allowed a person to get in his "Reaction Zone" without seeing the hands.

What do you do though. Should you shoot everyone that gets in your face in a drunken rage well of course not. But if you wait to see if they are trying to kill you that will be too late too.

As I said before this a difficult one.

If I'm not mistaken I think the crime rates go down where those laws are in place but I could be wrong.

[quote=bunnicula]
Wow that totally sucks are you serious. Man that was my plan if ever someone was in my house stealing from me I would give them a warning and if they came at me I would shoot so they couldnt hurt me but not kill them just slow them down I really dont want to kill them or anyone man.

Thats really messed up that you cant just stop someone from trying to hurt you.

The other thing to consider, is what you have on your hands when you shoot to wound, and not kill.

A wounded criminal, is not a happy criminal.

Think about it..

You have a precious few seconds to make a decision that affects your life. If you shoot to injure, and the wound isn't severe enough, its your ass.

Its not worth the risk to me..

If I have to do it, they are going down. All the way down.

But then again I am 5'4 and not much of a physical threat against someone larger and stronger than I am. There is definitely less room for error, if defending yourself physically isn't an option.

Wow that is very rare. A real assesment of your physical counter threat in a physical encounter. Just doesnt happen much these days.

I don't think that the crime rates have gone up or down. I just think it's silly for some people to assume that just because people will be able to use deadly force in more states that the crime rates will automatically go up. I think more states should have had these laws sooner. I don't own a gun, but if I did I wouldn't hesitate to kill an intruder. I've got a little experience with firing a pistol(Colt .44 Anaconda, sonuvabitch kicks!) so I know what to expect. They're loud as fuck in an room, there's no way your neighbors could mistake it for a firecracker.

I think my state was the last one where you could still be hanged for being a horse theif.

;)

when i worked in a prison, we were authorized to use deadly force if an inmate decided to get touchy-feely.

massachusetts on the whole, though - shudder - i can only hope this law goes into effect here.

someone can break into my house here with a gun in hand, fully intent on murder and if i turned the tide and managed to kill him instead - i would be charged. also, if i didn't kill him, let's say - and merely hurt him, he would have the right to sue me for hurting him.

that's the land of ted kennedy (untried murderer) and john kerry (tough guy).

just next door, in new hampshire, i would have the right to shoot anyone who trespassed on my property. the land of the free.

that's the way it is in ireland, i believe. the british are considered trespassers and as such, the sinn feinn organization regularly takes shots at them. isn't that right?

i find it oddly curious that sternn would take offense to this law, of all laws. the right to protect one's own? how is that offensive?

I've seen this sort of law before. I'm pretty certain there's been one in Texas, as Wolfmoon said, since the dawn of time.

The law I know of allows the use of lethal force if you are on your own property and feel that your life is threatened. It's informally known as the "Make My Day" law, I believe.

Edible, Sternn will automatically disagree with any and all laws that are passed or proposed in the US, especially during the current presidency. It's his nature.

Funny, I said the same thing.

And even pointed out that he appeared to miss that observation from me in a later post.

I had been harboring some hope that he was trying to be less one sided in his debate tactics these days..

The new and improved Cpt. Sternn would never ignore us would he?

C'mon Sternn, at least admit we do have a point in this instance..

:p

circle - sternn and i go way back on the political debate board. thank you for your 'word of warning', but i'm fairly well-versed on sternn's sternn-isms.

and e_p_s - yes, hypocrisy at its finest does tend to raise an eyebrow or two. as for sternn, sometimes i think he puts stuff out there JUST to get the blood flowing, whether or not he stands by it.

LOL. He got called on his shit... AGAIN! But to admit defeat?!? NEVER!

Your under the impression of a few things.

1. I never admited to being a member of anything. Such accusations will land your on loyalist hit lists along with a cadre of other lists. Just because I may be suspected of doing something doesn't mean I have done anything (innocent until proven guilty, right?). Also once again people trying to get me to deny or confirm personal details, something I won't do on a board where everything we type goes directly into google and can be retrieved just by searching for the word 'sternn' (try and it see).

2. The IRA is not some vigilantte group as many would have you think. Any actions taken come down through 3-4 levels of administration. Like modern US or british army, there is a chain of command, orders, and people with various ranks. Random people aren't just killed because of a quarrel. There are tribunals that are held, in private by ranking officials before any type of justice is given out. Comparing a guy with a gun in a parking lot shooting someone at random over a dispute to a military action by an well-organised military group is apples and oranges.

So back to the topic, lets look at this article I found on WP today...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_metro/va

No Charges in Shooting of Unarmed Man
Mother of Optometrist Killed by Police Calls Prosecutor's Decision 'Pathetic'

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 24, 2006; Page B05

The Fairfax County police officer who shot an unarmed man to death in January will not be charged with a crime, the county's chief prosecutor announced yesterday, and the man's family angrily responded by claiming that a civilian in the same situation would have been arrested.

From the start, Fairfax police declared that the killing of Salvatore J. Culosi, 37, was an accident and that the SWAT officer who fired had done so unintentionally. Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said that when a person fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, "they do not commit a crime."

There is more on this on the families website here:

http://www.justiceforsal.com/

For those who don't want to read the whole thing I'll give you the short and skinny here. Basically a doctor was being investedgated for illegal betting. Turns out, it was all a mistake. But when they went to arrest him to question him one of the officers shot and killed him. Friday, the judge says no crime was committed because the officers acted in 'good faith' and under the law.

Anyone else find this disturbing a citizen who has not broken any law is gunned down by police and the police do not even recieve a repromand because it was 'an accident'. I mean, the officer pointed a loaded gun at an innocent man and 'accidentally' shot him. Is he any less guilty than say a man who has a pint and then 'accidentally' wrecks into another car? I mean, the driver wasn't trying to crash, and the officers wasn't trying to kill the man. But it did happen. So like the topic says thanks to the law this is totally legal.

You won't confirm nor deny personal details? But, Sternn, EVERY counter-arguement you have is based on what YOU'VE experienced. Experiences you refuse to back up when you're called on it. I guess that's all bullshit that you're too scared to stand up for what you believe in. And here I thought you stood up for your beliefs without fear of what happens to you. At least that's what you said on the other thread about your time in prison. Ah ha! More bullshit, buddy!

Point EPS is making is that YOU came onto this board and defended the murder of cops, military, and unarmed civilians by the IRA as being completely justified... yet a civilian in the US defending themselves from death or great bodily harm by use of lethal force is ... oh my god! FUCKING IMMORAL! Satan himself must of written those laws!

Now do you see how much of a joke you come off as?

Wow, yet another thread where you once again have said nothing about the topic but concentrate on me an my history. I do so appreciate the attention, hell, my head is swelling as we speak! I mean, to have you dedicate your life to me is well, humbling, but seriously, you really should form an opinion on a topic before replying. This is a discussion board, not a 'Binkie loves Sternn' board.

If we we on the playground you would be pulling my hair and telling me I'm a poopy face by now. I know you love me, but cum on', whats your view on, well, anything? How about using this self proclaimed vast knowledge of yers and actually form an opinion and debating on it?

As always, looking forward to your (personalised) response.

Toodles!

There's X, making a great point which you will inevitably dismiss instantly.

S'right, Sternn. Me, me, me, me, me... It's not like EPS originally brought up the point and called you on your bullshit. Nope. It's me, me, me, me, me.

S'actually quite funny to watch you react to being cornered. You're like a little puppy that's last resort is peeing all over the floor. LOL. Let 'er rip, little man!

Face it, my man, you got called on your hypocracy, this time by moderate posters. You're losing your PR campaign on this site, Sternn! ;)

Damn its allways hard with X. She makes me think and question myself.

I wonder what questions your asking youself right now. hahahahah

I do avoid answering childish taunts and flame wars. I am happy to debate the merits of the topic - in this case shoot first laws.

And as posted, the case of a Doctor who was shot, 'by accident' and under the law, the police who shot him not even getting a slap on the wrist.

Sounds like injustice to me, but maybe thats just me. Too bad other people would like to de-rail the topic on to my personal experiences and not debate the finer points of why shoot first is a good idea or bad idea and if so, why or why not.

My feelings are as follows: its a shite law. And the aforementioned case of the dead doctor is a prmie example. In Richmond, Virginia between 2000-2004 4 unarmed people were shot and killed by 'accident' and in each case due to the same laws the police were found not to be at fault. In one case, a man answered the door in his underwear, brushing his teeth, with a toothbrush in hand. SWAT team thought it was a gun and shot him 6 times. In another case plain clothed police with guns in hand chased an armed suspect around a carpark and through a crowd waiting in queue to enter a club. When the people standing waiting to go in saw 2 men with guns running towards them the line dispersed, everyone ran in all directions. The officer chased down a patron who was wearing similar clothing and shot him 11 times in the back. Turns out it was the wrong guy - just a guy who was waiting in line that had a similar colored jacket on as the suspect. The 11 shots in the back were ruled self-defence in a percieved threat.

And I'm the only one who thinks thats a bad thing? I don't think I have seen a storey where a criminal broke into a house and a guy with a gun was able to protect his family. In fact, other than those hollywood action movies, I think the chances of that happening is slim to nil where as you have a much higher chance of getting blown away by accident.

Yes, your story is nice... and completely irrelevant, which is why there's zero interest in it. It has nothing to do with the laws you're citing. Especially, and I'm sure you know this because you actually READ into this case (right? I'm sure...) the officer's gun unintentionally discharged.

Not that it matters anyways, because law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly force under separate statutes, hence why they're allowed to open fire on anyone in ANY state if they feel it's warranted. And everytime a law enforcement officer fires his weapon in public, he has to stand before a 'Shooting Board' to determine whether or not it was justified. Much like IA, they don't fuck around with this stuff.

And yes, you do avoid childish flame wars. You're so above calling people "cunts" and threatening to "slit [their] fat fucking throat(s) open" on these boards, right, Sternn? That doesn't sound like the you that we know. The you that got his ass BANNED from this forum for going psycho. ;)

Intentions is what makes the case now? Doesn't manslaughter handle that? Cops are exempt because of their job? Doesn't this make cops above the law? Well, look at the LAPD. We already see this. And the RPD are the same. Both communities are comprised largely of minorities and have a primarily white police force who is always on the news for either beating or killing minories, and the all white juries they bring in let them walk. I'm just pointing out it's pretty one sided.

And yes, now, I avoid flame wars. And another thing, why is the word 'r' ape banned from being typed, but yet CUNT comes right through clear as day?