Mass shootings

[GMDino]

(02-20-2018, 01:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here's the rub: what needs to be done won't be reasonable to a sizable swath of people. The discussion around gun control with school shootings is, in all honesty, pointless. I've said so several times. What really needs to happen is an investment in public education so that our schools have the resources to work with students in a way they need and deserve. Federal spending has been going up, but state spending has been cut in many places making things difficult. Hell, the high school here is currently ~500 students over capacity and there is currently no plan in place to relieve that in the next 5 years. In one of the fastest growing municipalities in Virginia.

When educators can't devote time to students due to a lack of resources, they slip through the cracks. When we don't have school counselors, students can slip through the cracks. When these students slip through the cracks, we can get school shootings.

And when federal funding gets cut...then what?

We can blame the school and the people who checked on him but they are spread thin.  We all know it.

The officials didn't want to do more with this guy because it would involve time and money.  Better to let him be and hope for the best.

And yet we continue to elect people who simply don't care...until after the fact when they send their thoughts and prayers and say they'll do "something" next time.

If there's one thing Americans are good at it is looking the other way if something is going to inconvenience us.

[Belsnickel]

Interesting news on the gun control front in the midst of all of this: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/374608-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-challenge-to-california-gun-law

Quote:The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear a challenge to a California law that requires there be a 10-day waiting period after all gun sales, even if the person is already a registered gun owner.

California’s "cooling off period" is the second longest in the country, according to court documents, and was enacted to give state authorities time to run a background check and give individuals who might want the firearm to harm themselves or others an opportunity to calm down.

Only eight other states and the District of Columbia have any kind of waiting period.

Two California residents, Jeff Silvester and Brandon Combs, who already own guns legally, challenged the application of law along with two nonprofits: The Calguns Foundation Inc. and The Second Amendment Foundation Inc.

They argued the waiting period is unconstitutional when it’s applied to "subsequent purchasers" — individuals who already own a firearm according to California’s AFS database or have a valid concealed-carry license and individuals who clear a background check in less than 10 days.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. It said the 10-day waiting period is a reasonable safety precaution for all purchasers of firearms and need not be suspended once a purchaser has been approved.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision to let the lower court ruling upholding the law stand.

“Nearly eight years ago, this court declared that the Second Amendment is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,’" he said, quoting the court’s precedent.

The court also refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a California law that requires $5 of each $19 transfer fee on gun sales go to fund enforcement efforts against illegal firearm purchasers through California’s Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS).

The National Rifle Association and state gun rights advocates argued the law violates the Second Amendment because the criminal misuse of firearms targeted by the APPS is not sufficiently related to the legal acquisition of firearms on which the fee is imposed.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

The Supreme Court's decisions come amid a national gun control debate now raging across the country following another deadly mass shooting. Seventeen people were killed and more than a dozen others injured last week at a high school in Parkland, Fla.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2018, 02:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. I don't know enough about gun laws in Florida to say whether any of that would have prevented him from obtaining a firearm. I do know, however, that the systems failed him and as a result failed every student in that school and the entire community that is grieving.

Nor do I.  Given the frequency and nature of this kid's criminal activity I find it very likely he'd have been placed on probation.  In CA juvenile jurisdiction can be maintained until 21 (25 for more serious felonies).  Being on probation would have prevented him from purchasing a firearm.  Having a probation officer involved with this kid would have brought a lot of these other issues to light, especially the scope of his criminal conduct at school.

(02-20-2018, 02:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: And when federal funding gets cut...then what?

We can blame the school and the people who checked on him but they are spread thin.  We all know it.

This is true in some instances, to be sure.  In this instance it was the school district's own policy that prevented anything from being done.  Zero tolerance is a one size fits all policy that allows for no judgment on the part of school officials.  Not reporting anyone to the police unless it's a violent crime is a one size fits all policy that allows for no judgment on the part of school officials.  This is bad policy trying to fix bad policy.  This kid should have been reported to law enforcement years ago and was not because policy prohibited it.

Quote:The officials didn't want to do more with this guy because it would involve time and money.  Better to let him be and hope for the best.

It's speculation as to why social services could label him "low risk" and then close out his case.  I'd have to know more about why the case was opened in the first place.  Being lazy is a possible explanation.  A family maintenance program being closed as the family has stabilized is another.  Note, when I say stabilized I don't mean well functioning, I mean the reason for the initial referral has been deemed as addressed.

  

Quote:And yet we continue to elect people who simply don't care...until after the fact when they send their thoughts and prayers and say they'll do "something" next time.

Who doesn't care about what?  What do you mean by "do something"?  I cold tell you something the school district could do tomorrow that would go a long way towards helping prevent this from occurring again.  Change their district policy and allow school administration to exercise their judgment in regards to what criminal activity by their students they report to law enforcement.  No need for action by Trump or anyone in the federal government.  Real change, enacted quickly at the local level to the benefit of everyone in the district. 

Quote:If there's one thing Americans are good at it is looking the other way if something is going to inconvenience us.

There are many of us, teachers included, whose job is to do the exact opposite.

[GMDino]

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/374608-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-challenge-to-california-gun-law

Quote:Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to California gun law



The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear a challenge to a California law that requires there be a 10-day waiting period after all gun sales, even if the person is already a registered gun owner.

California’s "cooling off period" is the second longest in the country, according to court documents, and was enacted to give state authorities time to run a background check and give individuals who might want the firearm to harm themselves or others an opportunity to calm down.

Only eight other states and the District of Columbia have any kind of waiting period.

Two California residents, Jeff Silvester and Brandon Combs, who already own guns legally, challenged the application of law along with two nonprofits: The Calguns Foundation Inc. and The Second Amendment Foundation Inc.

They argued the waiting period is unconstitutional when it’s applied to "subsequent purchasers" — individuals who already own a firearm according to California’s AFS database or have a valid concealed-carry license and individuals who clear a background check in less than 10 days.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. It said the 10-day waiting period is a reasonable safety precaution for all purchasers of firearms and need not be suspended once a purchaser has been approved.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision to let the lower court ruling upholding the law stand.

“Nearly eight years ago, this court declared that the Second Amendment is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,’" he said, quoting the court’s precedent. 

The court also refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a California law that requires $5 of each $19 transfer fee on gun sales go to fund enforcement efforts against illegal firearm purchasers through California’s Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS).

The National Rifle Association and state gun rights advocates argued the law violates the Second Amendment because the criminal misuse of firearms targeted by the APPS is not sufficiently related to the legal acquisition of firearms on which the fee is imposed.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

The Supreme Court's decisions come amid a national gun control debate now raging across the country following another deadly mass shooting. Seventeen people were killed and more than a dozen others injured last week at a high school in Parkland, Fla.

This report was updated at 10:43 a.m.

[Bengalzona]

(02-19-2018, 07:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, I see.  You now want precise wording, when in the past you thought it unnecessary.  How about this then, Freddy?  Gun laws will only restrict the activities of law abiding citizens.  Now stop strawmanning and I'll let you sit at the adult table for a bit.

(02-19-2018, 07:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'm having a hard time figuring out why you care.

When I make different arguments it is easier for people to respond to individual arguments if they are in separate threads instead of having to do all that deleting.

BTW are you seriously claiming that you don't remember the discussion we had about this exact same topic in another thread?

Really?

(02-19-2018, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because I don't like post whores, I though I made that clear.

(02-20-2018, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But I don't know why you hate post whores.

Why do you let me get in your head just because I address different points in different posts?

(02-20-2018, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm just pointing out to everyone that you enjoy artificially inflating your post numbers. 

(02-20-2018, 12:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thank you.  This post is a perfect example of your debate tactics. 

Whenever you are unable to address what I actually say you just make up something.

This is the exact same tactic my 13 year old daughter uses when she can not respond to what I actually say.

(02-20-2018, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hahaha, how did your head not explode as you typed that?

(02-20-2018, 12:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is nothing "artificial" about responding to different points in different posts.

And please post every link you can find to me mentioning my post count.  I don't give a flip about my post count, and it is sad that you are so obsessed with it.

(02-20-2018, 12:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Completely avoiding the topic and responding with meaningless hyperbole is another favorite tactic of my 13 year old daughter.

Gentlemen,

Please stay on topic and make sure the topic is not each other.

Also:
SSF - Please refrain from baiting Fred by calling him "Freddy".
Fred- Please do not compare SSF to your thirteen-year-old daughter.

There is a lot of good conversation in this thread about a relevant topic and you two are a couple of my favorite posters. But let's not let the topic drift to each other.

Thank you.

[*Nately120*]

(02-20-2018, 02:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: And when federal funding gets cut...then what?

We can blame the school and the people who checked on him but they are spread thin.  We all know it.

The officials didn't want to do more with this guy because it would involve time and money.  Better to let him be and hope for the best.

And yet we continue to elect people who simply don't care...until after the fact when they send their thoughts and prayers and say they'll do "something" next time.

If there's one thing Americans are good at it is looking the other way if something is going to inconvenience us.

The local government should have done more to prevent this.  Only the highest levels of government are allowed to ignore this sort of issue and then send thoughts and prayers when something happens.

[Belsnickel]

(02-20-2018, 02:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who doesn't care about what?  What do you mean by "do something"?  I cold tell you something the school district could do tomorrow that would go a long way towards helping prevent this from occurring again.  Change their district policy and allow school administration to exercise their judgment in regards to what criminal activity by their students they report to law enforcement.  No need for action by Trump or anyone in the federal government.  Real change, enacted quickly at the local level to the benefit of everyone in the district. 

See, I have been thinking about this as we've been talking about it more. I don't see the school's policy as much of an issue. From the NPR article you quoted, the school system's policy is to not report "non-violent misdemeanors". So, if there is a situation such as domestic abuse, stalking (which in some places is considered violent), or threats of violence then it is my understanding that the school district's policy would be to report the student to the police. If his behavior was not reported by the school to police, then that was not a policy failure, that was an administrative failure.

[Bengalzona]

(02-20-2018, 03:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The local government should have done more to prevent this.  Only the highest levels of government are allowed to ignore this sort of issue and then send thoughts and prayers when something happens.

I don't know. But at the rate we are going, we are serisouly in danger of running out of thoughts and prayers as early as 2019:

https://outabouter.com/2018/02/15/at-current-rates-of-use-world-could-run-out-of-thoughts-and-prayers-by-as-early-as-2019/

[GMDino]

(02-20-2018, 03:51 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I don't know. But at the rate we are going, we are serisouly in danger of running out of thoughts and prayers as early as 2019:

https://outabouter.com/2018/02/15/at-current-rates-of-use-world-could-run-out-of-thoughts-and-prayers-by-as-early-as-2019/

Meanwhile...

Quote:Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL) is taking heat from some of his constituents on Facebook after he delivered a large bag filled with “prayer cards” in the wake of last week’s horrific school shooting in Parkland, Florida.


In a Facebook post from late last week flagged byPatheos, Bost posted a photo of himself handing a bag to a smiling President Trump in the Oval Office.


“Tracy and other ladies from Southern Illinois collected prayer cards, which I hand delivered to President Donald J. Trump!” Bost wrote.

Although the congressman did not specifically say that the “prayer cards” were related to the shooting in Parkland that left 17 people dead, many of his constituents responded with anger to his post, as they interpreted it as yet another empty “thoughts and prayers” gesture delivered by a Republican politician in the wake of a mass shooting.


“This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. You are literally in charge of making the laws for for gun control and you delivered thoughts and prayers,” wrote one constituent named Ellen Elizabeth in response to the post. “That is an offensive smack in the face to all the people who don’t have a right to healthcare but the shooter has a right to his guns.”

“Mike, every time I swear you can’t lower the bar you surprise me,” wrote constituent Ann Wheeler in response. “Smiling at a time like this? Oh, wait, it *is appropriate to smile while you’re getting face time with the president. And that’s what counts here, isn’t it?”



“Instead of prayers and thoughts, when are you going to get serious about some common sense gun regulations?” asked constituent Trudy Moore. “What a disgusting stunt, and both of you grinning like loons.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/constituents-hammer-gop-lawmaker-giving-trump-big-bag-prayer-cards-school-shooting/

[Belsnickel]

(02-20-2018, 03:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: Meanwhile...



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/constituents-hammer-gop-lawmaker-giving-trump-big-bag-prayer-cards-school-shooting/

I don't expect 24/7 solemnity from Trump, or anyone, in the wake of this situation. But how the **** can someone bring themselves to cheese in such a way at photo ops related to an event like this? The other pictures, Trump cheesing and giving the thumbs up? I just find it despicable. There is no empathy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2018, 03:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: See, I have been thinking about this as we've been talking about it more. I don't see the school's policy as much of an issue. From the NPR article you quoted, the school system's policy is to not report "non-violent misdemeanors". So, if there is a situation such as domestic abuse, stalking (which in some places is considered violent), or threats of violence then it is my understanding that the school district's policy would be to report the student to the police. If his behavior was not reported by the school to police, then that was not a policy failure, that was an administrative failure.

Technically, by law, a violent crime includes actual violence or the imminent threat of violence.  Saying, "I'm going to kill you later" is a criminal threat.  Saying "I'm going to kill you", while brandishing a knife or a gun at is a violent crime. 


So, are criminal threats considered violent under this policy?  If so, then why did the school refuse to act on this kid's numerous threats?  There are literally only two options here, either district policy prohibited the school from notifying law enforcement about this kid's litany of illegal acts or the school administration refused to report his criminal activity to law enforcement by their own volition.  Either way the school or the district screwed this up huge.

[GMDino]

(02-20-2018, 04:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't expect 24/7 solemnity from Trump, or anyone, in the wake of this situation. But how the **** can someone bring themselves to cheese in such a way at photo ops related to an event like this? The other pictures, Trump cheesing and giving the thumbs up? I just find it despicable. There is no empathy.

I'm sure we've covered this before.  He seems incapable of showing emotions other than anger and joy.  Usually anger at someone who doesn't agree with him and joy about something he things he did well.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2018, 02:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interesting news on the gun control front in the midst of all of this: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/374608-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-challenge-to-california-gun-law

Yeah, no one expected them to win on either front here.  The 10 day waiting period is stupid for someone who owns multiple firearms, but it's not stupid to the point that it needed to be challenged in court.  I'm waiting to see if the "assault weapon" ban and the new ammunition law is struck down.  I think the "assault weapon" ban has the best chance of being struck down, but the ammunition law, unfortunately, has precedent in other states.  Thankfully a judge in San Diego already struck down the most recent standard capacity magazine ban.

[Belsnickel]

(02-20-2018, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Technically, by law, a violent crime includes actual violence or the imminent threat of violence.  Saying, "I'm going to kill you later" is a criminal threat.  Saying "I'm going to kill you", while brandishing a knife or a gun at is a violent crime. 

So, are criminal threats considered violent under this policy?  If so, then why did the school refuse to act on this kid's numerous threats?  There are literally only two options here, either district policy prohibited the school from notifying law enforcement about this kid's litany of illegal acts or the school administration refused to report his criminal activity to law enforcement by their own volition.  Either way the school or the district screwed this up huge.

You are making me do all this research. I tell ya...

According to this draft version of the agreement back in 2013, these are the non-violent misdemeanors: http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Broward%20Co%20Collaborative%20Agreement%20on%20School%20Discipline%20-%20MOU.pdf

Quote:Disrupting or Interfering with a School Function;
Affray;
Theft of less than $300;
Vandalism of less than $1,000;
Disorderly Conduct;
Trespassing;
Criminal Mischief;
Gambling;
Loitering or Prowling;
Harassment;
Incidents relating to Alcohol;
Possession of Cannabis (misdemeanor amount only);
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia;
Threats;6 and
Obstructing Justice without Violence.

The 6 leads to a footnote: §1006.13, Fla. Stat. (2013), requires that certain felony threats (§ 790.162 and § 790.163, Fla. Stat. (2013)) be referred to the criminal or juvenile justice system. Felonies, including § 790.162 and § 790.163, fall outside of the scope of this agreement.

Those sections relate to bomb threats and so would not come into play for this situation.

Now, there is a section that discusses "further incidents" and states:

Quote:Repeated incidents of non-violent misdemeanors as defined in section 1.02 shall result in graduated levels of school-based interventions and consequences by the administrators on campus, according to the Code of Student Conduct and Discipline Matrix, and referral to law enforcement for certain incidents. The Discipline Matrix outlines the specific incidents in which repeated misbehavior shall result in a referral to law enforcement. In addition, a student who has accumulated four incidents in a school year that fall under section 1.02 shall be referred to the Behavior Intervention Committee. Upon the fifth incident in a school year that falls under section 1.02, the student shall be referred to law enforcement, unless such referral is sooner required by the Discipline Matrix.

Here is the discipline matrix: http://bcps.browardschools.com/schools/pdf/Matrix-Final%20Secondary.PDF

I would be interested in knowing how many times and what behavior was reported and how it was assessed. I would have classified some of the threats as reported in the media by students as serious, which would have resulted in consultation with law enforcement on the first instance. For the medium level threat, it would take four occurrences before police are consulted.

Not having access to this guy's record to know for certain, we can only speculate as to what happened. Personally, I don't see an issue with the policy itself except for the possibility of too much ambiguity on some things. Ambiguity leads to administrator discretion which can have poor results. I have a feeling that is what we are dealing with in this scenario. The discretion of the administrator(s) was to classify the reports at a lower level than what maybe they should have been.

Addition: According to Florida statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.011.html

Quote:An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

I am speculating here, but my guess is that because of the part in bold, the threats may not have been considered criminal threats.

[Bengalzona]

(02-20-2018, 04:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure we've covered this before.  He seems incapable of showing emotions other than anger and joy.  Usually anger at someone who doesn't agree with him and joy about something he things he did well.  

Or joy at someone else's disappointment. He's big on rubbing it in.

But I'm sure he was genuine after the shooting when he said "respond to hate with love". One can just tell from his past that he clearly lives that way.

[GMDino]

(02-20-2018, 05:10 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Or joy at someone else's disappointment. He's big on rubbing it in.

But I'm sure he was genuine after the shooting when he said "respond to hate with love". One can just tell from his past that he clearly lives that way.

We were told to not listen to what he says but rather what is "in his heart".

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-19-2018, 06:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

Kids are immature.  They joke about school shootings all the time.  FBI can not arrest someone for that.  And if they tried to take away his guns based on just some internet comments the NRA army would have exploded.

Sounds like terroristic threatening to me.  In fact, they just rounded up quite few juveniles in Kentucky for this very offense.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2018, 04:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You are making me do all this research. I tell ya...

According to this draft version of the agreement back in 2013, these are the non-violent misdemeanors: http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Broward%20Co%20Collaborative%20Agreement%20on%20School%20Discipline%20-%20MOU.pdf


The 6 leads to a footnote: §1006.13, Fla. Stat. (2013), requires that certain felony threats (§ 790.162 and § 790.163, Fla. Stat. (2013)) be referred to the criminal or juvenile justice system. Felonies, including § 790.162 and § 790.163, fall outside of the scope of this agreement.

Those sections relate to bomb threats and so would not come into play for this situation.

Now, there is a section that discusses "further incidents" and states:

Here is the discipline matrix: http://bcps.browardschools.com/schools/pdf/Matrix-Final%20Secondary.PDF

I would be interested in knowing how many times and what behavior was reported and how it was assessed. I would have classified some of the threats as reported in the media by students as serious, which would have resulted in consultation with law enforcement on the first instance. For the medium level threat, it would take four occurrences before police are consulted.

Not having access to this guy's record to know for certain, we can only speculate as to what happened. Personally, I don't see an issue with the policy itself except for the possibility of too much ambiguity on some things. Ambiguity leads to administrator discretion which can have poor results. I have a feeling that is what we are dealing with in this scenario. The discretion of the administrator(s) was to classify the reports at a lower level than what maybe they should have been.

Addition: According to Florida statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.011.html


I am speculating here, but my guess is that because of the part in bold, the threats may not have been considered criminal threats.

I appreciate the work.  It appears that the blame could likely be laid at both the school and the district's feet.  Like I said earlier, someone dropped the ball big time here.

[Belsnickel]

(02-20-2018, 05:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate the work.  It appears that the blame could likely be laid at both the school and the district's feet.  Like I said earlier, someone dropped the ball big time here.

For sure, but there is also a grey area due to the statutes in Florida. You discussed a criminal threat, which is a thing in California and were Cruz in California he could have been charged. According to the California penal code 422, the ability or even intent to carry out a threat is not necessary to be charged with the misdemeanor. This being what you are used to, I can see where you have that viewpoint. However, Florida has no such statute. A criminal threat is only what falls under the assault statute I listed above (as far as I can tell, I haven't done a deep dive into the codes). So it's possible that what was reported to the school was not criminal in nature to begin with because of the laws in Florida.

Also, it is ridiculously slow at work for me right now, and I am procrastinating on a project. I enjoy research like this, so this was a welcome distraction.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2018, 06:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: For sure, but there is also a grey area due to the statutes in Florida. You discussed a criminal threat, which is a thing in California and were Cruz in California he could have been charged. According to the California penal code 422, the ability or even intent to carry out a threat is not necessary to be charged with the misdemeanor. This being what you are used to, I can see where you have that viewpoint. However, Florida has no such statute. A criminal threat is only what falls under the assault statute I listed above (as far as I can tell, I haven't done a deep dive into the codes). So it's possible that what was reported to the school was not criminal in nature to begin with because of the laws in Florida.

Also, it is ridiculously slow at work for me right now, and I am procrastinating on a project. I enjoy research like this, so this was a welcome distraction.

Kudos, as that is the correct penal code for criminal threats.  Interesting that they don't have a similar law in FL, although I would understand a different burden of proof or fear.  What I can't imagine is that having a weapon on school grounds, 626.10(a)(1)PC here, doesn't exist in Florida.  I'd also be interested if he was caught with the ammunition in his backpack while he was still a minor, as that is a misdemeanor in CA as well.  If he was selling knives out of his lunchbox how was this not addressed?