Stand Your Ground: A Free-For-All, or Are There Limits?
As it always does after a particularly bothersome incident, "the gun issue" is once again being hotly debated, argued with fevered pitch in the U.S. as though life itself is somehow precariously out of balance and I can assure you that it indeed is, for anyone who finds themselves on the wrong end of a gun.
This round of debates is quite different, however as it includes debates surrounding extremely dangerous laws that can and have been misconstrued and abused with supremely tragic consequences FOR THOSE ON BOTH ENDS OF THE GUN.
Just as prevalent as the debates themselves, is the sheer volume of people across the country who become severely confused each and every time the concept of gun control is broached, somehow correlating "control" with ending gun ownership entirely, thereby prompting ad nauseum repetition of the moronic, audacious and dimwitted attempt at bravado made popular by our friends at the NRA; “I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!”
Let me say first of all, in order to dissuade any instantaneous preconceptions or rush to judgment that I'm just some gun antagonist or a gun maniac; I am neither .
I own several guns and have for 52 years now, since I was presented with my first - my grandfather’s Remington Model 34 .22 ca bolt-action rifle at the age of 8 years old. I love to shoot guns (I deplore killing anything with them other than tin cans and glass bottles, however). There! I said it; I love to shoot guns.
Owning and shooting guns is both exhilarating and challenging; it's perhaps somewhat akin to standing next to an idling locomotive or even racing cars. The raw power unleashed by them all is an experience one never tires of and the challenge of learning to shoot well is a gratifying accomplishment, but holding that power in your hands, learning that skill and maintaining ownership of something as deadly as a gun is accompanied by massive quantities of responsibility; responsibilities that are there whether or not one wants to accept them and if one wishes not to accept them, they should stay as far away from guns as they possibly can. And by that, I don't mean; "sure, I accept the responsibility, now let me strap one on and point it with all it's ferrociously deadly power at another human being" any time I don't like what I see or hear in that other human being.
When not in use at a range or in a safe place in the desert, my guns are locked in a gun safe, to which only I have the combination and while in transport they’re locked in the tool box in the back of my pickup for, just as those locomotives and race cars, guns DEMAND an extreme level of respect and safety.
I do not, nor will I ever carry a weapon in a public arena and I firmly believe that, outside law enforcement, very, very few, if any should and this is precisely why:
On July 10, 2010 a man with whom I was acquainted entered a Costco in a suburban area of Las Vegas, Nevada known as Summerlin, a mildly upscale master-planned community of upper-middle income residents. The man, Erik Scott, was a sales representative for a major healthcare manufacturer (Boston Scientific) which produces high-end medical devices including the implantable pacemakers and defibrillators he sold. He and I met regularly to coordinate acquisition of those devices for implant into patients within the hospital system for which I was responsible.
He was a very congenial, intelligent young man and was certainly not an ordinary slouch of a guy; a West Point Graduate (in the top 10 of his graduating class) with a master’s degree from Duke who had served as a Platoon Leader of M1A1 Abrams Tanks and their crews in the U.S. Army.
Erik was in Costco to purchase items for a trip of some kind which involved a backpack such as hiking or camping; it’s unclear to me exactly what the trip was and while in Costco, he began opening a package of items to see if those items would fit into his pack. Predictably, this behavior caught the attention of a few Costco employees, some of which became concerned and some of which were not, some even trying to assist him; different accounts from different perspectives, as always.
Erik paid for the products he had opened along with other items he and his girlfriend purchased and exited the store. For those of you who have frequented a Costco store, you know what kind of crowd is typically coming and going; estimates are that there were at least 20 to 30 people in and around the immediate area of the entry/exit where he encountered several Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officers screaming, by all accounts, a rather wide range and confusing variety of contradicting commands.
It seems that during the process of checking the items for proper fit, one of the “concerned” Costco employees noticed Erik’s weapon and instantly, a horrific set of circumstances and chain of events were set in motion, from which there would be no return.
The employee either panicked or perhaps became incensed after he told Erik that he was not allowed to carry weapons, to which Erik simply replied “I have a permit to do so” and the employee reported to his supervisors something to the affect that “there was a very suspicious man with a gun ripping open packages in the store.” The store management began to quietly evacuate the customers and employees, all unbeknownst to Erik.
As Erik exited the store, commands ranging from “get on the ground” to “drop your weapon” were shouted at him from the PD officers awaiting him and apparently, he attempted to heed the command he heard. He reached around to the small of his back, removed the still holstered gun from where he had it concealed and in the process of doing so was shot seven times, ending his life in not more than few, extraordinarily short and horrific seconds.
His profession was not such that it was required, of this much I am certain, but Erik was carrying, not one, but two concealed weapons, a Kimber .45 caliber semi-automatic and yet another .380 semi-automatic in his pocket along with his now blood-soaked concealed weapons permit; a stark and ironic testament that he was legally entitled to do so.
If one reads the various accounts of the incident, here, here, here and here, it’s vividly apparent that confusion was thick in the air, not only with the Costco employee and the LVMPD, but within Erik as well and now there are questions that will NEVER be answered such as; why did the Costco employee find it necessary to pursue the actions he took after being informed that Erik was "packing legally?" Why were the LVMPD officers shouting conflicting commands?
And in my mind, the most important questions of all; why was Erik carrying not one, but two concealed weapons? Why did he feel the need, especially in the community in which he lived, to carry any at all?
Erik was also taking fairly high doses of morphine, for what I don’t know, but it surely raises the question; why was anyone who was taking such a powerful drug allowed to carry concealed weapons to begin with?
So many questions; so few answers, but here is one answer of which I am absolutely certain, even without a preceding question; there is no doubt whatsoever that had Erik not been carrying a gun, legally or otherwise, in a crowded and public arena, he would still be alive today.
There were coroner’s inquests, civil suits, internal investigations by the PD, etc... yet not one time did anyone wonder why the man was carrying two weapons, for there was no need to ask; HE HAD A PERMIT! Why was irrelevant.
Well Hell! What a very impressive privilege; an utterly unnecessary privilege for which he paid with his life on that day!
I do not believe that the PD acted in error, nor the Costco employee and to some degree, even Erik was not to blame, but the lax laws in this country are most definitely erroneous and need review and overhaul NOW.
No matter how you want to view it, whether you’re pro or con on the various gun issues, guns on the streets equals bodies in the morgue. There's just no way to maneuver around that fact and sadly, this event is crystal clear evidence to that end.
“The right to have and bear arms” is an irrefutable right in this country according to the Constitution of the United States, but the “right to bear” them should be tempered drastically.
As with all governing instruments, the Constitution must be constantly reexamined to fill the needs of the society it’s intended to govern (amendments) as that society changes.
The U.S. Constitution was developed when guns were both necessary for survival and when the U.S. had just ended the American Revolution, so the right to bear arms carried far different ramifications than it does now. Let's not forget too that when the Constitution was written, there were around 3.9 million people in the entire country. Today, there are 311 + million. The incredible concentration of human beings in cities mixed with guns is nothing less than a terrifying mixture of dry grass and a burning match.
We’ve all seen various statistics related to this issue and as with ALL statistics, these too can show precisely what the originator wants them to show, but here’s one FACT that simply cannot be manipulated and that is; guns will always present violent scenarios, either purposely or accidentally, when taken into a public area and just one death such as the one above, or Trayvon’s, or any other of the thousands upon thousands who are killed due to foolish, irresponsible gun owners and suddenly, those laws that provide protection for that irresponsibility can no longer be ignored for even one more day.
Victims are dead either way and guns have no business being carried around in a public arena by dime-store cowboys and wannabe cops where misunderstanding is going to be present; always! 100% of the time!
It appears that many, many people interpret "SYG" laws as freely taking another's life if threatened with any uncomfortable situation, as with those we've seen in the news recently, such a concept, such a misunderstanding of justice simply cannot be allowed to continue when severe and utterly irrevocable actions are at the sole discression of one individual, an individual who obviously has neither the requisite respect for the deadly power of guns, nor the value of life. Especially when his/her actions eliminates all possibility of refute by the victim.
Society requires limits if we're to avoid utter chaos resulting in complete decay of humanity and laws such as these carelessly, actively and shamefully promote violence, whether intentional as with Trayvon Martin, or unintentional as in the case of Erik Scott.
In both scenarios above, death was absolute and final. And sadly, very preventable.
UPDATE: Using tactics loved by all jouveniles - diverting attention from the real issue; the NRA is now placing blame with the media for the issues at hand with the Trayvon Martin case. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Rachel Velamur
Delorys Welch-Tyson
Eljekar
Poor Woman
sagemerlin
James M. Emmerling
Salon.com
Comments
Thanks.
I can't imagine what his parents went through and only the most hardened sociopath could shoot someone without due remorse, so I imagine that Zimmerman and anyone else who has stepped over that line finds themselves in one hell of an eternal nightmare.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-nra-good-guy-you-didn_b_1422980.html
These are such tragic stories.
r./
"Reflecting on the murder-suicide perpetrated by his friend Landon Jorgensen, ConcealedCarryForum.com owner Nathan Collier told KSL.com, "Prior to this incident Landon was one of the good guys. He taught people how to protect themselves from these very types of attacks." The problem was that no one actually ascertained if Jorgensen was a "good guy" before handing him guns, a concealed handgun permit, and the license to kill."
And, someone needs to educate Nathan Collier in the fact that as long as the NRA is fed its blood money, we'll continue down this road of self-destruction.
thanks for the link.
It was not your friend's guns that got him killed. It was not the understandably nervous clerks in the store or the management who called the police and evacuated customers and staff.
It was the one group whom you would exempt from limiting - the cops!! It is clear from ALL accounts that every damned cop in attendance shouted his own version of what he wanted your friend to do. It is clear that those cops were not under the authority and responsibility of a senior officer.
Your fiend did nothing wrong. Your friend did nothing that should have gotten him killed. The cops did MUCH wrong! The cops were disorganized, and behaved in a totally irresponsible manner.
I cannot imagine how this anecdote supports the idea of getting rid of a law that had absolutely nothing at all to do with your friend's death. Nothing. It wasn't part of the scenario at all. "Stand your ground" or any similar law just wasn't in any way involved.
What your story DOES do is indicate a strong need for better police training and organization. It may also indicate a need for cops to stop carrying guns. Too many psychos are in police forces around the country; a notable one in Arizona, you may recall. Your friend would be alive today had the cops acted properly.
.
My advice to you all is to work as hard as you can in your state to get rid of this medieval, hateful set of laws. Don't mourn. Organize.
You are right, there were PLENTY of errors made all the way around; I suppose I should have clarified that and it’s exactly what I am truly trying to say. Getting to the root cause; had it been illegal to carry weapons around to begin with, the chain of events that resulted in Erik’s death would not have existed; no initial panic/concern by the Costco employee, no 911 call to the police which automatically placed them into the mindset that there was a chance they too could die, etc….. NONE of those errors would have existed if Erik had simply not left his house that morning with deadly weapons strapped on his waist and in his pocket.
The same is true with the Martin case. Had there been laws prohibiting carrying, I’d be willing to bet that Zimmerman would not have been emboldened to even approach Trayvon and even if he was that bold, there would likely have been no weapon to kill an innocent child with.
The root cause of these and many, many other incidents is the simple fact that people have the ability to carry around weapons as though they are pocket change. The laws of this country are archaic and they promote violence, mistrust and fear.
Lefty - you make a very good point and I believe that this issue will be an extraordinarily difficult one to overcome in the U.S. I'll do some research and see if there are any groups in existence in this very "shoot first, ask later" kind of state. It'll be well worth doing.
Once again I point out that it was cops who were disorganized to the point that those officers appear, by your reports, to have been. That was the cause of your friends death - NOT the fact that he, or anyone else, was carrying a gun..... except those "well trained" cops who acted like cowboys on amphetamines.
I need not mention that "thousands and thousands" of people have NOT been killed by people who carry guns in circumstances anywhere nearly those that obtained in this case or in the case of Trayvon Martin.
But here are some numbers you can take to the bank: Tens of MILLIONS of Americans own guns legally. MILLIONS have carry permits. Out of all those people all but a very tiny fraction use their guns in a completely, and blamelessly, responsible manner. Would you have laws passed that forbid responsible citizens from owning and carrying guns based on the actions of a few irresponsible idiots?
Your (and other) anecdotal tales bring tears to my eyes, as they are intended to do. But good law is NOT made on the basis of grief, horror, or any other of our human emotional reactions to such individual cases.
There are times coming when the elite of America (and elsewhere) will direct their minions to use all weapons at their disposal to put down those who demand that certain changes be made to how people are treated in the American (and other) society. There WILL be a second American Revolution. You, and many others, will be very glad to know that the population can defend itself in time of need when the shit hits the fan. Remember it will be YOUR children and grandchildren that the "authorities" will be killing and gassing in the streets.
There was/is a good, sound, solid reason your founding fathers insisted on a citizen's right to bear arms. My own feeing is, "When only the authorities have weapons, then the rest of us are far too easily enslaved."
I don't like chains a whole lot more than I don't like guns.
.
.
1. His standard routine of waking, eating, dressing, exercising, reading the newspaper, whatever it was, had absolutely NO impact upon his death, so we can rule that out as a cause.
2. The fact that he took his girlfriend to Costco had no impact, so we can rule that out as well.
3. The clothing he wore had no impact, so we can rule that out, as can we the vehicle he drove, the people he spoke to, etc. etc..... No impact whatsoever.
4. Even the fact that he was opening packages within Costco had no impact on him related to his demise, for if he had done so, as I do often, with no weapon exposed, Costco employees would simply have asked him if he was looking for something specific and assisted. I open containers every time I go there and in fact, I eat some of the products I pay for during the shopping process. No impact whatsoever (or I too would be dead long ago).
5. Making the decision to conceal a deadly weapon is virtually the ONLY thing left that could be considered the root cause, even doing so, as he did, legally, was the ONLY thing that can be traced to the events leading up to his demise.
5a Erik decided to carry a deadly weapon on his body upon leaving his home or car, wherever he had it stored.
5b The Costco employee inadvertently saw the weapon
5c The employee became alarmed because of the weapon
5d The employee reported to his supervisor that a man with a gun was opening packages
5e The supervisor called 911 to report that there was a man with a gun opening packages
5f The 911 operator contacted the police and reported the fact that there was an individual with a gun at Costco
5g The police responded in a mode in which they were expecting, at the very least a dangerous situation, at the very worst, a shoot-out, because there was a man with a gun at Costco
5h The police approached Erik and, although issued conflicting commnds, they knew he had a gun.
5i Erik reached for the gun, and as sure as I am writing this, he did so thinking that he was following directions.
5j erik was shot dead because he was reaching for a gun.
The point I’m making should be clear. No gun, no alarmed employee, no cops, no death. The ultimate responsibility was in Erik’s hands/head, not with his girlfriend, not with Costco employees, not with the police – Erik. HE and HE alone made the decision to take a loaded gun into a public arena.
Had there been laws in place requiring Erik to leave his weapon locked and out of public arenas, I’m certain that he would have done so, as would most others and, btw, it is in fact thousands upon thousands of Americans who die from someone making precisely the same decision as Erik see the link below. These are simple, raw numbers, not statistics, just numbers.
You are correct. Good laws should never be created using knee-jerk reactions, emotions or anger. Good laws, such as the one that’s sorely needed to stop the insanity of people wearing loaded guns in public needs to be passed for public safety and to prevent such needless tragedies in the future.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
You gloss over the actions of the cops as though they had no meaning. A PROPERLY trained and led group of officers, entering a situation like that, WOULD NOT have issued a multiplicity of contradictory and confusing orders. ONE officer would have been assigned the task of issuing whatever orders were necessary.
If you want to blame the fact that your friend was armed for his death, we are talking two different languages here. Might as well blame Costco for building a store there. There were, as you know well, many elements to that scenario.
Point: - When ANYONE, under ANY circumstances, is given conflicting orders by armed - and with weapons pointed - officers, it is flatly IMPOSSIBLE for him to obey ALL those orders at once.
Point: - Even if he'd NOT been armed, he could well have been shot by any or all of the officers whose orders he didn't obey first.
Point: - He took out his HOLSTERED weapon.
Point: - He was obeying ONE of the orders given him by a cop.
Point:- They ignored that it was holstered.
Point: - They ignored that he was not pointing it in a threatening manner.
Point: - They ignored that he was OBEYING a police officer's order.
Point: - They shot and killed him.
Point: - They were OBVIOUSLY ill trained.
Point: - Would a group of well trained officers have all shouted contradictory orders at him at the same time?
Point: - Would well led officers have put him in a position where NO MATTER WHAT HE DID it would be "wrong"? (i.e. it would be contradictory to all the other orders shouted at him)
Point: - Would properly trained officers have shot so quickly when an unpointed, holster came into sight?
Until those cops arrived, shouted contradictory orders, and shot him, his mere possession of a weapon had caused no harm to anyone, least of all to himself. His OBEDIENCE to ONE police order, coupled with his DISOBEDIENCE to a number of other police orders, got him shot much more than his mere possession of a weapon.
How you can put the blame on him for being in possession of a firearm and ignore the incredibly poor handling of that situation by the cops, is beyond my understanding. But then you're not the first one who has emphasized one element of a situation so as to support a particular position. I admit to having done the same thing on occasion.
Best to you....;-)
.
Granted, cops frequently often behave in a less than admirable fashion, but the absence of the gun would have precluded the need for the cops to begin with, in which case, Erik and Trayvon both would have been alive to enjoy their Skittles and iced tea and whatever it was that Erik was buying.
The absence of cops with guns would have accomplished the same thing.
The absence of adequate cop training, organization and proper leadership is a larger worry. An armed, disorganized, empowered, uniformed group of people is much more a danger to society than a single man with a weapon can ever be.
Next year we promote you to cat status too.....;-)
.
There's a problem with that. If you couldn't carry a concealed handgun into a public place, that means that you'd have to lock the gun in your car every time you went to a store, or any other public building. In doing that you make the gun available to anyone who wants to steal the car or break into it. The main thing it would accomplish would be to put more guns into the hands of thieves.
I don't think it's very helpful to try to set public policy based on isolated anecdotes. What happened to your friend was a rare intersection of a number of different factors, the main one being gross incompetence on the part of the police.
And anecdotes work both ways. In 1997 Bill Cosby's son pulled his car over on a freeway shoulder in order to fix a flat tire. A thief held him up at gunpoint and demanded money. As Cosby was in the process of giving him money the thief shot and killed him, supposedly because he was moving "too slowly." I have to wonder what might have happened had Cosby had his own handgun. There's no way of knowing, but it is at least possible that Cosby would be alive today. The gun at least would have given him a chance.
In the great majority of instances in which a gun is used in self-defense, the gun is never fired. The mere presence of the gun is sufficient to deter the attacker.
The last I read, around 6 million people in the U.S. are licensed to carry concealed handguns. If you have six million of anything, something will go wrong. The people who get concealed handgun permits obviously believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. I've had a concealed handgun license for almost 16 years, thus far without incident.
One area that could be improved is training. I'm not talking just about hitting the target. I'm primarily talking about training in the legal aspects of the use of lethal force in self-defense. In my opinion, the training requirements in most states are insufficient, and I would be all in favor of requiring at least 8 hours of training in the legal aspects of the use of handguns in self-defense.
The problem is in the logic, mishima. “you couldn't carry a concealed handgun into a public place, that means that you'd have to lock the gun in your car every time you went to a store, or any other public building.”
I don’t see the need to carry weapons to the point of having to lock them in your car. Leave them at home locked in a safe place and no one will be able to steal your car to get your gun.
The ability for human beings to remove themselves from reality if reality isn’t on their doorstep is forever fascinating. Any death is a death and a death in the manners in which we’re speaking is far from anecdotal in any way. Try asking the parents of Trayvon or Erik if their son’s lives were anecdotal and I’m certain you will receive far more than a simple no.
I keep seeing people write "all we need is training," or "it was the cops,” but the simple fact is that guns and crowds do not mix. Training is a nice theory, but we do NOT have adequate training in this country and we continue to side-step the fact that our country is embroiled in violence using weapons by making theoretical statements.
The cold hard facts are that very, very few of those carrying deadly weapons in public have received anywhere near enough training and likely never will, given the nature of our country and until that happens we can’t continue repeating “all we need is adequate training.”
Training FIRST, then CONTROLS.
I’ll give you an example of adequate training – the laws of Switzerland. In Switzerland, citizens are REQUIRED to own and maintain weapons; it is the law to do so. But! Here’s the irrefutable and striking difference, the citizens of Switzerland are also required to become part of the country’s militia in their early 20s, during which they undergo hardcore weapons training in boot camp. Swiss citizens are Switzerland’s army.
Once the citizens undergo intense weapons training, they are required to own either a handgun or a rifle. At one time, the government even issued them the ammunition for their weapons, but now I believe it is just subsidized at shooting/training ranges. And! Training is not a one-time affair, they are required to continually train and the government keeps very close watch on training results.
There are an estimated, minimum, 3.5 million weapons, many of which are fully automatic, in the hands of Swiss citizens. The population of Switzerland is 7,600,000 or so. This puts gun ownership per capita in Switzerland roughly at 1 gun for every 2.2 people.
The U.S. has roughly 313,000,000 people and an estimated 270,000,000 guns. This puts gun ownership per capita roughly at 1 gun for every 1.2 people. Not a terribly large difference in the number of weapons per capita, would you not agree?
Here’s the difference. The United States, with the 4th highest rate of murders with firearms, behind only South Africa, Columbia and Thailand and with competition from Philippines, Mexico, Slovakia, El Salvador and Zimbabwe is wrestling with around 9,369 murders with firearms every year and rising. Switzerland is at 26th place with 68 murders with firearms.
The numbers work out to be that the U.S. is saddled with 10,709 more murders per capita over that of Switzerland (Switzerland 1 in 44,117 and the U.S. 1 in 33,408). The numbers are evident in relation to gun violence in America and this doesn’t even include armed robbery, rape, attempted murder, etc…..
And here’s another huge difference, the Swiss cannot simply carry around guns on a whim. The only time they are allowed to transport weapons is to and from events, training and/or to their militia assignments. When they do not fall into this category, they are to be locked up and the government actually takes an inventory of their ammunition to ensure the citizens are not using weapons illegally.
Yes, it is legal and Erik did nothing to warrant his death, but the decision to take a gun into a public arena was his and his alone. There is NO argument that can refute this. None! And just as there is no argument that can refute his personal decision, there is NO argument that can refute the fact that had there been no gun, there would be no cops and he would still be alive. It’s simple logic.
The very nature of guns showing up in a public forum, such as a grocery store, football game, or bank incites fear, fear incites unpredictable reactions rather than level-headed thought, every time! Anywhere there are people, there will be an air of unpredictability and adding guns to the mixture is simply asking for disaster, be it one person innocently killed in an isolated scenario or 100; either way it's a tragedy.
If this isn’t enough to make one stop and think, try this on; where does the domestic arms race stop? Why carry two weapons when you can carry three or four? Wait! He has four, so I’m bumping up my arsenal with a fully automatic AK47s, or perhaps an M16 with a grenade launcher to make sure that I can trump that AK47???
It’s a fool’s game that only ends in disaster.
Second problem: He reached for his g-g-g-g-GUN in the presence of armed police officers. Doesn't matter what anybody tells you to do in a situation like that, you DO NOT reach for your g-g-g-g-GUN, especially if the officers don't seem to be acting with cool professionalism. You get down on the ground with your arms and hands as far away from your body as possible, or, even better, with your fingers laced together behind your head. Period. Let the cops then remove your g-g-g-g-GUN.
Too bad it happened, of course, but Erik was dumb.
I really wish people would at least read the law and apply it to the these facts – in which case their opinions might change radically. Under this law and these facts this statute actually convicts Zimmerman and exonerates Trayvon Martin. That is, Zimmerman’s misconceived shield is really Trayvon martin’s sword.Those two links take you to articles written before SYG was offered as an Open Call and keep in mind that the Martin's own co-counsel agrees. Natalie A. Jackson, Esq., founder of The Women's Trial Group, in Orlando Florida is co-counsel for the parents of Travon Martin and recently appeared on Democracy Now. After reviewing these links she wrote (and I quote with her express permission)
“Thank you. Your blog is very well written and thought out...I agree with your analysis.”
So before people trash this law they should understand that the Martin’s own legal council agrees that it is Trayvon Martin and only Trayvon Martin who can assert stand your ground as his defense and against Zimmerman. So if people are really interested in Trayvon and his parents they should not propose stripping them of the law that really works in their favor. Now before reacting please read first and remember that the Martin's own legal counsel expressely agrees with this analysis.
Thank you very much for stopping by.