Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Short of that dog having a knife I don't think there's a reasonable claim to be made for personal endangerment if the physical description of the animal holds up. If the witness testimony holds up then it's blatant misuse of a firearm and certain animal cruelty.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility to think that they found a knife on the dog after he was shot.

Also, there's no prosecutor in the world that would bring charges against a cop for misuse of a firearm or animal cruelty. Even laying aside qualified immunity, it's a death sentence for a prosecutor's career to be labelled "anti-cop"

Thats not what would occur. They had a situation here where a cop shot a wiener dog or beagle or something. The cop was suspended (eventually after great outcry) and quietly offered the opportunity to seek alternate employment.

halonachos wrote:I had a dog who would sit at attention whenever he saw cops, never bark or make a noise, just sit and stare.

He was probably weighing the odds of a successful attack.

Nerivant wrote:

halonachos wrote:Remember that these are supposedly Illinois police officers, Illinois is known for corruption.

What do you mean, "supposedly" Illinois police officers?

At least they aren't from NO, the only force ever to be accused (to my knowledge) of having a serial killer on the payroll. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "book him Dano."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote: I'd also like to be able to reasonably say that the field I'm pursuing is not full of incompetent twits, but if you'd like to keep badmouthing it go right ahead.

See there's your problem right there. Every field is full of incompetent twits. If you think this is bad wait until you deal with live people.

Hey guys, what do you think happens to dogs that fight cops? You keep saying he should have been able to just fight it or grab it or step on it or whatever? But man, in those instances, the dog is getting put down afterwards NO MATTER WHAT.

If a dog is aggressive toward a cop, it is probably going to die no matter what. If animal control had gotten there first things would have been much better, but if the dog was aggressive, animal control would catch it, take it back, and put it down. That is what animal control does to aggressive dogs.

The cop doesn't have an obligation to stand around and get bitten for the benefit of a dog that is ABSOLUTELY going to get put down for biting him later.

Rented Tritium wrote:Hey guys, what do you think happens to dogs that fight cops? You keep saying he should have been able to just fight it or grab it or step on it or whatever? But man, in those instances, the dog is getting put down afterwards NO MATTER WHAT.

If a dog is aggressive toward a cop, it is probably going to die no matter what. If animal control had gotten there first things would have been much better, but if the dog was aggressive, animal control would catch it, take it back, and put it down. That is what animal control does to aggressive dogs.

The cop doesn't have an obligation to stand around and get bitten for the benefit of a dog that is ABSOLUTELY going to get put down for biting him later.

Dogs that fight cops? What are you stuck in steel cage match land? Does Mr. Blastaway not have a voice or a foot? In the words of the Immortal Bard: Sucker please.

Additionally, per the witness report, the dog doesn't seem to have been particularly aggressive.

dogma wrote:Additionally, per the witness report, the dog doesn't seem to have been particularly aggressive.

Again, from the OBVIOUSLY BIASED ACCOUNT from a self described dog lover and printed in an article that had NO PROBLEM opening with an insulting appeal to emotion.

I DO NOT BUY anything that article says until corroborated by someone else. They are selling outrage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you print things like

Javel Townsend said his two sons, ages 10 and 11, are crying and hollering in their sleep, calling out their beloved puppy’s name.

“I guess police got fed up with him barking and shot him,” Townsend said Thursday. “I want to know why they had to shoot him.”

You are no longer a journalist.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Again, from the OBVIOUSLY BIASED ACCOUNT from a self described dog lover and printed in an article that had NO PROBLEM opening with an insulting appeal to emotion.

I DO NOT BUY anything that article says until corroborated by someone else. They are selling outrage.

I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.

dogma wrote:
I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.

How is it any less bad to just automatically assume the other way, that the cop MUST have been a dog murdering monster?

Rented Tritium wrote:
When you print things like

Javel Townsend said his two sons, ages 10 and 11, are crying and hollering in their sleep, calling out their beloved puppy’s name.

“I guess police got fed up with him barking and shot him,” Townsend said Thursday. “I want to know why they had to shoot him.”

You are no longer a journalist.

Journalists are not obligated to provide value-neutral accounts of events in order to be considered journalists.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
When you print things like

Javel Townsend said his two sons, ages 10 and 11, are crying and hollering in their sleep, calling out their beloved puppy’s name.

“I guess police got fed up with him barking and shot him,” Townsend said Thursday. “I want to know why they had to shoot him.”

You are no longer a journalist.

Journalists are not obligated to provide value-neutral accounts of events in order to be considered journalists.

If you think THAT's my problem with this, you're being purposefully obtuse. The article is dripping in weasel words. It's crafted specifically to outrage, not inform, the reader.

Rented Tritium wrote:
How is it any less bad to just automatically assume the other way, that the cop MUST have been a dog murdering monster?

I've not made that assumption here, and only a few other people have. Most of the objection seems to be in regards to using a firearm (which carries significant risks in a residential setting), and the general policy of police departments towards animals, particularly in the region in question (suburban Chicago).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
If you think THAT's my problem with this, you're being purposefully obtuse. The article is dripping in weasel words. It's crafted specifically to outrage, not inform, the reader.

I don't see very much in there that specifically invites outrage. The author relays information garnered from the dog owner, the witness, and notes that the police did not offer a statement on the event. There isn't any blatant equivocation, or any particular attempt to mislead.

Rented Tritium wrote:

dogma wrote:
I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.

How is it any less bad to just automatically assume the other way, that the cop MUST have been a dog murdering monster?

Because the cop pulled a GUN on a Barking DOG.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
How is it any less bad to just automatically assume the other way, that the cop MUST have been a dog murdering monster?

I've not made that assumption here, and only a few other people have. Most of the objection seems to be in regards to using a firearm (which carries significant risks in a residential setting), and the general policy of police departments towards animals, particularly in the region in question (suburban Chicago).

Ok.

Well I can address both of those. First, the firearm is appropriate for an aggressive animal if animal control can't get there because nothing else is actually ok to use. Pepper spray, batons, punches. Those things are actually more likely to count as animal cruelty than a fast death. Do dogs get sprayed sometimes in narrow circumstances? Yeah, but it's not really recommended in most cases.

Second, the general policy for using guns on animals is because of the following. If an animal is aggressive, it's going to be put down. Absolute fact. If a dog is aggressive toward a cop, you can either wait around and risk getting bitten so you can capture it, take it to the shelter and have it killed or you can shoot it and not get bitten.

The concerns about overpenetration are overblown and show a lack of understanding of firearms. A bullet EITHER overpenetrates or it ricochets. It can't ricochet AND penetrate things. If a dog is dangerous enough to be shot, anyone close enough to be hit by a bullet fragment may face more danger from the dog itself. Unless the dog is standing on something at eye level, overpenetration is not a risk. Think about the angle from a standing firing stance to a dog. There's nothing but ground behind the dog.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote: The author relays information garnered from the dog owner, the witness

And they've done it in a way designed to bring outrage. You are just choosing not to admit it because it hurts your case. You've argued the other side of this in other threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Because the cop pulled a GUN on a Barking DOG.

And I've explained it pretty well I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bottom line: If the dog was doing anything aggressive, then the gun was the right call. If the dog REALLY WAS just barking and wagging its tail etc, then it was not justified.

But since all we have is the biased untrained witness, we don't know the actual demeanor of the dog. Depending on that, this could go either way. But to say that pulling a gun on a barking dog all by itself makes a cop a monster is actually a horrible and ignorant position to have.

May 5, 2011: Former Iraq veteran Jose Guerena was shot to death by Pima County Sheriff SWAT officers. They suspected Guerena of being part of a drug dealing operation (he was not involved). The five person team fired 71 rounds at Guerena in seven seconds, who died after being hit 22 times.The officers prevented the ambulance from getting Guerena medical attention until they searched the house. The officers even pointed their guns at Guerena's wife and 4-year-old son. Despite that dozens of neighbors testified that the officers never knocked or identified themselves when they entered the house, the SWAT team was cleared of any wrongdoing and never apologized to Guerena's family. Neighbors also said that the SWAT officers burst into their houses after the shooting and intimidated them, which the officers deny.

Want to point out. He was armed with a M4. The cops were at the front door when the door was forced open. One cop stumble into the dorrway. Gunfire ensued. SWAT bolo the entry like a newb. The helmet cam video has poor audio pick up so one could not say they identified themselves or not. SWAT going to lose in court due to unrestrained shooting and bolo entry.

July 5, 2011: Kelly Thomas was a 37 year old homeless man suffering from schizophrenia and living on the streets of Fullerton, California. He was fatally beaten by members of the Fullerton Police Department. He passed away from his injuries on the 10th of July 2011. Unarmed and mentally ill, Thomas was shocked with tasers and beaten with flashlights by up to six police officers. An investigation into the beating has been launched and the FBI has become involved. A protest over the beating was held outside the Fullerton Police Department on 18 July 2011.[4] Four officers have been suspended and two have been charged with second degree murder and manslaughter.

Fry em. The fact they were unrestrained. Simple remedy...zipcuff. If six cops couldn't figure that out....

Jan 22, 2010. Yao Wei Wu was beaten by officers from Vancouver Police Department who knocked on the wrong door while investigating a report of a violent domestic dispute.[5] Speaking through a translator, Yao Wei Wu told CBC News that as soon as he opened the door the officers pulled him out of the house and beat him.

Thats to questionable....possible attempt for a payday?

April 1, 2009. Passing through the G20 summit protests in London, Ian Tomlinson was struck in the back of his legs and pushed to the ground by a police constable with the Territorial Support Group in South London. He died soon afterwards. The initial police statement said that police had been alerted that a man had collapsed, and were attacked by "a number of missiles" as they tried to save his life.[6] Several videos from citizen passersby surfaced about one week after the incident and sparked public outcry. The officer has been interviewed on suspicion of manslaughter.

I was ducking and dodging actual missiles...well rockets but missile enough...but...say again Duck Dodgers?

What are those cases jihadin? What are you responding to?

The first two seem pretty bad, the second two seem greyer.

The concerns about overpenetration are overblown and show a lack of understanding of firearms. A bullet EITHER overpenetrates or it ricochets. It can't ricochet AND penetrate things. If a dog is dangerous enough to be shot, anyone close enough to be hit by a bullet fragment may face more danger from the dog itself. Unless the dog is standing on something at eye level, overpenetration is not a risk. Think about the angle from a standing firing stance to a dog. There's nothing but ground behind the dog.

Horse gak. A bullet can (and likely will) over penetrate through a dog. If there's concrete nearby (sidewalk/street/parking) then odds of ricochet are high. Thats why you don't play Yoseimite Sam in the real world in a suburb. Add in there might be children about and this just gets stupid fast.

Frazzled wrote:

The concerns about overpenetration are overblown and show a lack of understanding of firearms. A bullet EITHER overpenetrates or it ricochets. It can't ricochet AND penetrate things. If a dog is dangerous enough to be shot, anyone close enough to be hit by a bullet fragment may face more danger from the dog itself. Unless the dog is standing on something at eye level, overpenetration is not a risk. Think about the angle from a standing firing stance to a dog. There's nothing but ground behind the dog.

Horse gak. A bullet can (and likely will) over penetrate through a dog. If there's concrete nearby (sidewalk/street/parking) then odds of ricochet are high. Thats why you don't play Yoseimite Sam in the real world in a suburb. Add in there might be children about and this just gets stupid fast.

If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.

I'll give you that if there is a group of kids standing right behind the dog, the cop shouldn't shoot the dog, but um, duh. And I don't see anything in the witness statement about a gaggle of kids behind the dog, soooo yeah.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Again, from the OBVIOUSLY BIASED ACCOUNT from a self described dog lover and printed in an article that had NO PROBLEM opening with an insulting appeal to emotion.

I DO NOT BUY anything that article says until corroborated by someone else. They are selling outrage.

I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.

That is exactly my point, gak, I normally side with people that resort to violence!

I don't doubt that there is some bias, I also don't buy the ridiculous "my kids are crying for their beloved puppy" gak, and the family may even be known to the police and be local dirtbags, but the simple underlying point remains, that big burly policemen have no need to shoot a dog that isn't as angry as a rattlesnake with a hangover and biting a small child's face off.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

The concerns about overpenetration are overblown and show a lack of understanding of firearms. A bullet EITHER overpenetrates or it ricochets. It can't ricochet AND penetrate things. If a dog is dangerous enough to be shot, anyone close enough to be hit by a bullet fragment may face more danger from the dog itself. Unless the dog is standing on something at eye level, overpenetration is not a risk. Think about the angle from a standing firing stance to a dog. There's nothing but ground behind the dog.

Horse gak. A bullet can (and likely will) over penetrate through a dog. If there's concrete nearby (sidewalk/street/parking) then odds of ricochet are high. Thats why you don't play Yoseimite Sam in the real world in a suburb. Add in there might be children about and this just gets stupid fast.

If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.

I'll give you that if there is a group of kids standing right behind the dog, the cop shouldn't shoot the dog, but um, duh. And I don't see anything in the witness statement about a gaggle of kids behind the dog, soooo yeah.

Are you saying a ricocheting .40 can't hurt a child? Seriously?


I'm going to have to withdraw from this thread to avoid contravening Rule #1 now. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

mattyrm wrote:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Again, from the OBVIOUSLY BIASED ACCOUNT from a self described dog lover and printed in an article that had NO PROBLEM opening with an insulting appeal to emotion.

I DO NOT BUY anything that article says until corroborated by someone else. They are selling outrage.

I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.

That is exactly my point, gak, I normally side with people that resort to violence!

I don't doubt that there is some bias, I also don't buy the ridiculous "my kids are crying for their beloved puppy" gak, and the family may even be known to the police and be local dirtbags, but the simple underlying point remains, that big burly policemen have no need to shoot a dog that isn't as angry as a rattlesnake with a hangover and biting a small child's face off.

Ok, but do you get that even a low level of aggression means the dog is going to have to be put down? So beating it up is pretty cruel if you're just going to put it down afterwards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

The concerns about overpenetration are overblown and show a lack of understanding of firearms. A bullet EITHER overpenetrates or it ricochets. It can't ricochet AND penetrate things. If a dog is dangerous enough to be shot, anyone close enough to be hit by a bullet fragment may face more danger from the dog itself. Unless the dog is standing on something at eye level, overpenetration is not a risk. Think about the angle from a standing firing stance to a dog. There's nothing but ground behind the dog.

Horse gak. A bullet can (and likely will) over penetrate through a dog. If there's concrete nearby (sidewalk/street/parking) then odds of ricochet are high. Thats why you don't play Yoseimite Sam in the real world in a suburb. Add in there might be children about and this just gets stupid fast.

If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.

I'll give you that if there is a group of kids standing right behind the dog, the cop shouldn't shoot the dog, but um, duh. And I don't see anything in the witness statement about a gaggle of kids behind the dog, soooo yeah.

Are you saying a ricocheting .40 can't hurt a child? Seriously?

Not to the extend that you're saying, no.

If it were THAT big of a risk, cops would never be allowed to use guns ever because there might be kids somewhere.

The effective range of a ricochet is very low and the odds of it occurring are low. You're also arguing from the position that there MIGHT be a sidewalk behind the dog. How about the cop decides if there is a sidewalk behind the dog rather than not ever using the gun because there MIGHT be. He has freaking eyes. How do you know this cop didn't say "oh good, there's just dirt behind the dog, it's safe" before drawing? How do you know?

@Jihadin
Have been following the Jose Guerena case with great interest. It IS fair to mention he was armed, so would I be if I heard my front door come crashing in...so probably would you. The whole thing is fishy, totally willing to discuss...probably not in this thread.

Not properly announcing is a BIG DEAL. If someone can establish that cops didn't properly announce and didn't have special permission to do so, I can't really support anything that happens subsequently. You should make that thread, I want to hear about it.

Missed a doozy.

Rented Tritium wrote:If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.

one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen on this board. A "regular old police gun" in the here and now is no less than a 9mm, probably one of the most efficient and powerful modern cartridges, and notorious for it's ability to overpenetrate. So much so that police departments trade in thief fancy pants MP5s for AR15s because the rifle round is less likely to endanger the public. So let's go ahead and dispense with that nonsense here and now. A ricochet from a hand gun has the potential to kill or wound from miles away, so I suppose by that somewhat faulty logic if a dog is close enough for a ricochet to kill it's close enough to endanger a child (think of the children) we should entertain the idea that this dog will jump the fence run a mile down the block, crash through a window, and attack a sleeping child.
No it's ridiculous, you probably also believe the FN 5.7 pistol is a cop killer just because you saw one punch through a Cylon on BSG.

ricochet

can still kill you. Its like shrapnel now after flattening out on a object. I should know. They dug a ricochet out from my thigh a few years back.

I agree Auston. The way that went down gives the perception of exciteful amateurs looking for a reason to shoot.

AustonT wrote:Missed a doozy.

Rented Tritium wrote:If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.

one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen on this board.

rule 1

A "regular old police gun" in the here and now is no less than a 9mm, probably one of the most efficient and powerful modern cartridges, and notorious for it's ability to overpenetrate.

Which is it, ricochet or over-penetration? It can't be both.

So much so that police departments trade in thief fancy pants MP5s for AR15s because the rifle round is less likely to endanger the public. So let's go ahead and dispense with that nonsense here and now. A ricochet from a hand gun has the potential to kill or wound from miles away, so I suppose by that somewhat faulty logic if a dog is close enough for a ricochet to kill it's close enough to endanger a child (think of the children) we should entertain the idea that this dog will jump the fence run a mile down the block, crash through a window, and attack a sleeping child.

You were just talking about over-penetration and now you're talking about ricochet? Which one is it. Which one does a police gun do?

No it's ridiculous, you probably also believe the FN 5.7 pistol is a cop killer just because you saw one punch through a Cylon on BSG.

First, that's a personal attack, second, you think that police pistols are notorious for BOTH over-penetration AND ricochet. Those are two mutually exclusive problems. But of course, I'm the one with unrealistic gun expectations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lets not forget this whole thing is happening because you guys think a cop shouldn't shoot because there MIGHT be a sidewalk.

If it's a real problem, I'm pretty sure the cop can tell by LOOKING WITH HIS EYES that there is a sidewalk.

Which is it, ricochet or over-penetration? It can't be both.
***You can of course have both. You should know that, you've shot a gun.

Ricochets are more likely the less energy the round has. So which is it? Does the bullet slow down too much or does it retain too much energy?

In austinT's argument, the gun is so dangerous they should never use it because there MIGHT BE KIDS WITHIN A MILE OH NOOOOO which is obviously terrible policy.

If you're really concerned about it, make sure cops avoid shooting into sidewalks. Is there any evidence there was a sidewalk behind the dog? Because right now people ITT are arguing that the cop shouldn't have used a gun because there MIGHT have been a sidewalk behind the dog.

Well if the dog is big enough to hide an entire sidewalk, then man, he REALLY needs to get shot.

ITT the simple absurdity of a small, young dog being a threat to two fully grown police officers is lost on some people as they ignore the established foundational aspects of the situation to focus on hypotheticals.

Rented Tritium wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Again, from the OBVIOUSLY BIASED ACCOUNT from a self described dog lover and printed in an article that had NO PROBLEM opening with an insulting appeal to emotion.

I DO NOT BUY anything that article says until corroborated by someone else. They are selling outrage.

I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.

That is exactly my point, gak, I normally side with people that resort to violence!

I don't doubt that there is some bias, I also don't buy the ridiculous "my kids are crying for their beloved puppy" gak, and the family may even be known to the police and be local dirtbags, but the simple underlying point remains, that big burly policemen have no need to shoot a dog that isn't as angry as a rattlesnake with a hangover and biting a small child's face off.

Ok, but do you get that even a low level of aggression means the dog is going to have to be put down? So beating it up is pretty cruel if you're just going to put it down afterwards.

I don't agree mate. I think if I was there I would have ignored the dog, and if it did actually bite someone, I would boot it in the face two or three times and it would whimper and flee. A dog that isn't starving or mad will whimper/yelp and run when It knows it isn't going to win. That is how dogs work, they aren't as smart as you seem to think, and if it is only biting you for "gaks and giggles" it doesn't have enough invested in the situation to want to deal with numerous kicks to the face.

And a dog that has been booted about a bit doesn't even need to see a vet, let alone get put to sleep! And I can testify to that because my border terrier is great with humans but hates dogs. He slipped his leash two years ago and started savaging a black Labrador while it yelped in terror (it was the bigger of the two and did an awful job of self defence to be fair!) the owner stamped on his head about ten times, until I caught up and scooped him into my arms, and he was only groggy for about 30 seconds. I didn't take him to the vet, and I gave him a slap myself for good measure.

If I was a cop and said dog was gnashing on my mate's leg, then I would kick it 3 or 4 times and expect it to flee, your talking numerous large men here! If at that point it still wasn't slowing its attack, I might get my baton out and possibly beat it half to death yes, or possibly shoot it If I really really felt the need but only AT THAT MOMENT.

The point is, in this instance, it didn't NEED to be shot because it wasn't even snaffling anybody!

You have a logical escalation of threat that is trained to soldiers and policemen for use when dealing with humans, why isn't it the same with other animals?

With a human you go from passive to aggressive posture, then you give verbal warnings, then you use physical restraint, then force, THEN deadly force. Why not with a dog?

So with a barking dog why not just try and ignore it? If that is impossible, why not attempt to reassure the animal - then posture aggressively- then minor physical warning such as a threatning swipe with a baton - then an actual strike with a baton - then numerous strikes with a baton, THEN shoot it.

Not just rock up, see it barking - slot it.

There was really no need for it.