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.

d-usa wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Being from Orlando, I used to work with a lot of red necks who were into guns. (Now I'm not saying you are a red neck if you are into guns, just that these guys I worked with were). They carried concealed and did a lot of research into gun laws. They repeatedly made the claim that their lawyers had told them that if they were ever charged with unlawful discharge of their firearm with intent(my words), all they had to say was that they "feared for their life" and they would get off.

GG

The idea of "I was fearing for my life, so I shot him" followed by a "oh well then, good day to you sir, here is your gun back, carry on" that some of my friends have is pretty silly.

It seemed to have worked for zimmerman, in that he wasn't initially arrested, and if the media hadn't had whipped this thing up, he probably would not have been.

GG

Polonius wrote:

Seaward wrote:Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.

The problem with Stand you ground laws is that they attack a real problem in a really dumb way.

Nobody is required to "run" from a threat. Common self defense simply requires that a person that can safely retreat do so. The ability to "safely retreat" is a factual issue of course.

the problem is that in many jurisdictions it can be hard to show that you could not safely retreat. Stand Your Ground sounds great, but it allows people to literally look for trouble.

Essentially, the policy behind Stand Your Ground laws is that the State thinks that it's better to legally shoot somebody than to simply walk away.

Actually that is a problem, depending on the jurisdiction. in texas "safely retreat" means retreat to a gun store to reload your supplies after you've fired enough rounds to impress Zombie Zhukov. in New York it means you have to have abandoned your vehicle, ran three miles, dug a tunnel, escaped out of that tunnel, climbed a telephone towerm leaped to a roof and jumped into the ocean.

ok I exagerate. in NY its actually much harder than that.

Polonius wrote:

Seaward wrote:Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.

The problem with Stand you ground laws is that they attack a real problem in a really dumb way.

Nobody is required to "run" from a threat. Common self defense simply requires that a person that can safely retreat do so. The ability to "safely retreat" is a factual issue of course.

the problem is that in many jurisdictions it can be hard to show that you could not safely retreat. Stand Your Ground sounds great, but it allows people to literally look for trouble.

Essentially, the policy behind Stand Your Ground laws is that the State thinks that it's better to legally shoot somebody than to simply walk away.

People certainly are required to "run" from a threat. NPR had a guy from Indiana on who was visiting his girlfriend's house. Girlfriend's ex quite literally broke in and started swinging a golf club at him. The guy eventually wound up putting him down with a baseball bat he'd gotten from upstairs. He got convicted of assault and battery because, according to the judge, his duty was to have run out the back door rather than defend himself.

There's a reason Stand Your Ground laws exist, and it's not because evil Republicans want to legalize murder. It's because we still believe in a right to defend yourself from a threat in this country, and most of us, myself included, would not be capable of taking twenty minutes' time out to parse the law and determine if we have both the opportunity and duty to retreat if some jackass is coming at us swinging a golf club.

AustonT wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Seaward wrote:Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.

The problem with Stand you ground laws is that they attack a real problem in a really dumb way.

Nobody is required to "run" from a threat. Common self defense simply requires that a person that can safely retreat do so. The ability to "safely retreat" is a factual issue of course.

the problem is that in many jurisdictions it can be hard to show that you could not safely retreat. Stand Your Ground sounds great, but it allows people to literally look for trouble.

Essentially, the policy behind Stand Your Ground laws is that the State thinks that it's better to legally shoot somebody than to simply walk away.

That is incorrect the policy behind SYG is that in the mid 90's several states quietly passed self defense laws that required people who injured or killed assailants in self-defense had to admit to guilt before being able to claim self defense. Making convictions easy for Prosecutors, and defense hard for people who defend their lives,homes, or families. *Shock* to force prosecutors to actually prove guilt against a "reasonable person" standard.

I'm not an expert in the matter, but a defense pretty much always acknowledges that the action happened.

Still, the way to correct that is to change the laws governing how self defense is shown, not to change the law as to when a person can use the defense.

I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.

How to handle yourself after a justified shooting is just as important as the actual act of defending yourself. Some of the stuff I have heard from my buddies is pretty amazing.

There is the "call your attorney before you call 911" argument. That is pretty silly IMO. If the guy you shot isn't dead yet, but you let him bleed to death while chatting with your attorney instead of calling an ambulance, that will not look good.

I also strongly believe in the "the first person to call 911 is the victim" argument. In the mindset of many cops, if you call 911, then you are the good guy. If somebody else calls 911 and they show up to find you with a gun over a dead body, then you will start out as the bad guy.

I also have heard people say that you basically assume a defensive position with your gun drawn in case any other bad guys show up. I am a believer of finding a save spot without leaving the scene if able (running away makes you look like a bad guy), holstering your weapon (holding it in your hand makes you a bad guy, throwing it away makes you a dumb guy), don't approach the cops once they show up (they don't know who the bad guy is and will react badly to anybody marching up to them). Give your name, let them give you the customary pat-down, be prepared to surrender your gun and be handcuffed, and ask for an attorney because anything you say WILL get used against you. You can still be pleasant with the cops, that actually goes a long way. But realize that at this point they are not your friends. Somebody is dead and you killed that person, that is all the cops have to work with.

Seaward wrote:
People certainly are required to "run" from a threat. NPR had a guy from Indiana on who was visiting his girlfriend's house. Girlfriend's ex quite literally broke in and started swinging a golf club at him. The guy eventually wound up putting him down with a baseball bat he'd gotten from upstairs. He got convicted of assault and battery because, according to the judge, his duty was to have run out the back door rather than defend himself.

There's a reason Stand Your Ground laws exist, and it's not because evil Republicans want to legalize murder. It's because we still believe in a right to defend yourself from a threat in this country, and most of us, myself included, would not be capable of taking twenty minutes' time out to parse the law and determine if we have both the opportunity and duty to retreat if some jackass is coming at us swinging a golf club.

but... stand your ground doesn't apply to that fact pattern!

If he got the baseball from upstairs, he then returned to the fight.

I believe in a right to defend yourself. I agree that the problem is the reasonableness standard of safe retreat. I'd buy chanign the rule to require that the prosecution prove that you could have safely retreated.

But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?

Polonius wrote:I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.

Do I have to disengage in my home?

What about my car?

What if I'm with my wife and child on the street? Am I supposed to run because the assailants are coming after me, and leave them behind?

If I'm a fifty-five year-old fatass, am I still required to run from a pair of former high school track stars? I think that race is a foregone conclusion.

If I've retreated for three miles and they're still after me, can I finally start throwing rocks at them?

I can't think of any good policy reason to force people to value the life of someone trying to do them physical harm over their own life.

Polonius wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Seaward wrote:Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.

The problem with Stand you ground laws is that they attack a real problem in a really dumb way.

Nobody is required to "run" from a threat. Common self defense simply requires that a person that can safely retreat do so. The ability to "safely retreat" is a factual issue of course.

the problem is that in many jurisdictions it can be hard to show that you could not safely retreat. Stand Your Ground sounds great, but it allows people to literally look for trouble.

Essentially, the policy behind Stand Your Ground laws is that the State thinks that it's better to legally shoot somebody than to simply walk away.

That is incorrect the policy behind SYG is that in the mid 90's several states quietly passed self defense laws that required people who injured or killed assailants in self-defense had to admit to guilt before being able to claim self defense. Making convictions easy for Prosecutors, and defense hard for people who defend their lives,homes, or families. *Shock* to force prosecutors to actually prove guilt against a "reasonable person" standard.

I'm not an expert in the matter, but a defense pretty much always acknowledges that the action happened.

Still, the way to correct that is to change the laws governing how self defense is shown, not to change the law as to when a person can use the defense.

I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.

You are not getting it: When the judge says "how do you plead" a person using self defense as justification had to plead "guilty" That is not normal.
In some random bloggers words:

prosecutors had the law changed in their favor so that people involved in self defense had to admit guilt before proving their own innocence by "justification," which resulted in a complex and extremely expensive legal process for the innocent.

Polonius wrote:

Seaward wrote:
People certainly are required to "run" from a threat. NPR had a guy from Indiana on who was visiting his girlfriend's house. Girlfriend's ex quite literally broke in and started swinging a golf club at him. The guy eventually wound up putting him down with a baseball bat he'd gotten from upstairs. He got convicted of assault and battery because, according to the judge, his duty was to have run out the back door rather than defend himself.

There's a reason Stand Your Ground laws exist, and it's not because evil Republicans want to legalize murder. It's because we still believe in a right to defend yourself from a threat in this country, and most of us, myself included, would not be capable of taking twenty minutes' time out to parse the law and determine if we have both the opportunity and duty to retreat if some jackass is coming at us swinging a golf club.

but... stand your ground doesn't apply to that fact pattern!

If he got the baseball from upstairs, he then returned to the fight.

I believe in a right to defend yourself. I agree that the problem is the reasonableness standard of safe retreat. I'd buy chanign the rule to require that the prosecution prove that you could have safely retreated.

But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?

You should listen to the story. I'll see if I can find it. They were fighting all the way up the stairs.

Even if they weren't, you're still taking a ludicrous stance here. He's really supposed to run from the house and leave his girlfriend in there with a guy who's shown clear intent to assault people?

Seaward wrote:

Polonius wrote:I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.

Do I have to disengage in my home?

What about my car?

What if I'm with my wife and child on the street? Am I supposed to run because the assailants are coming after me, and leave them behind?

If I'm a fifty-five year-old fatass, am I still required to run from a pair of former high school track stars? I think that race is a foregone conclusion.

If I've retreated for three miles and they're still after me, can I finally start throwing rocks at them?

I can't think of any good policy reason to force people to value the life of someone trying to do them physical harm over their own life.

You seem not to understand the word "safely."

If you feel that you cannot retreat, and that's a reasonable belief, than you shouldn't have to retreat.

It may be a standard improperly applied by many places, but if so, fix that.

Polonius wrote:If you feel that you cannot retreat, and that's a reasonable belief, than you shouldn't have to retreat.

It may be a standard improperly applied by many places, but if so, fix that.

They did, by removing the duty to retreat.

AustonT wrote:[You are not getting it: When the judge says "how do you plead" a person using self defense as justification had to plead "guilty" That is not normal.
In some random bloggers words:

prosecutors had the law changed in their favor so that people involved in self defense had to admit guilt before proving their own innocence by "justification," which resulted in a complex and extremely expensive legal process for the innocent.

then why not change that? What does that have to do with not having a duty to retreat?

I think that's pretty stupid, but thinking that allowing people to not retreat from deadly force will fix that is equally wierd to me.

Seaward wrote:You should listen to the story. I'll see if I can find it. They were fighting all the way up the stairs.

Even if they weren't, you're still taking a ludicrous stance here. He's really supposed to run from the house and leave his girlfriend in there with a guy who's shown clear intent to assault people?

I don't know the whole story. You said he got a bat from upstairs.

Give me all the facts, and I'll give you my analysis.

What you're describing sounds like a bad ruling by a trial judge, not bad law. BTW, indiana has had "stand your ground" since at least 2006:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html

Polonius wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Polonius wrote:I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.

Do I have to disengage in my home?

What about my car?

What if I'm with my wife and child on the street? Am I supposed to run because the assailants are coming after me, and leave them behind?

If I'm a fifty-five year-old fatass, am I still required to run from a pair of former high school track stars? I think that race is a foregone conclusion.

If I've retreated for three miles and they're still after me, can I finally start throwing rocks at them?

I can't think of any good policy reason to force people to value the life of someone trying to do them physical harm over their own life.

You seem not to understand the word "safely."

If you feel that you cannot retreat, and that's a reasonable belief, than you shouldn't have to retreat.

It may be a standard improperly applied by many places, but if so, fix that.

thats the problem Polonius, you're making a reasoned argument on "safely." In many jurisdictions, the concept of "safely" and "reasonable" in regards to retreat has become rediculous.

Frazzled wrote:thats the problem Polonius, you're making a reasoned argument on "safely." In many jurisdictions, the concept of "safely" and "reasonable" in regards to retreat has become rediculous.

Fair enough. If legislatures don't trust courts to apply a good standard, you can just eliminate the requirement.

I'd still prefer some effort to make a showing that a person could not retreat. Make the prosecution prove that the person knew he could retreat safely. That'd be a pretty tough burden to show.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:thats the problem Polonius, you're making a reasoned argument on "safely." In many jurisdictions, the concept of "safely" and "reasonable" in regards to retreat has become rediculous.

Fair enough. If legislatures don't trust courts to apply a good standard, you can just eliminate the requirement.

I'd still prefer some effort to make a showing that a person could not retreat. Make the prosecution prove that the person knew he could retreat safely. That'd be a pretty tough burden to show.

I still have yet to see a reason why anyone should have a duty to retreat. If someone chooses to assault another individual, why is it incumbent upon the victim to do everything possible to protect the assailant?

Self defense laws balance two fears:

1) that people that genuinely defended themselves will be convicted, or spend a fortune in legal fees. Or to avoid these, they will be readily victimized.

vs.

2) people will be killing each other a lot more, because there is less fear of convication or expense.

Now, if I were a cynical state government, I'd go with the latter under the "it's cheapter to investigate a self defense than it is to imprison a murdered" policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:thats the problem Polonius, you're making a reasoned argument on "safely." In many jurisdictions, the concept of "safely" and "reasonable" in regards to retreat has become rediculous.

Fair enough. If legislatures don't trust courts to apply a good standard, you can just eliminate the requirement.

I'd still prefer some effort to make a showing that a person could not retreat. Make the prosecution prove that the person knew he could retreat safely. That'd be a pretty tough burden to show.

I still have yet to see a reason why anyone should have a duty to retreat. If someone chooses to assault another individual, why is it incumbent upon the victim to do everything possible to protect the assailant?

Well, it helps if you understand what duty to retreat means. It's not "everything possible to protect the assailant." It's the idea that if a situation can be diffused by retreating, a person should do that rather than escalate it.

and it's good because the State has decided that people shouldn't kill each other, as a very general rule.

Polonius wrote:

But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?

Most people do encourage it. I simply (and I'm not alone) don't feel that I should be mandated to retreat when it is infeasible, or in my home. It is unreasonable to expect someone to retreat from their own home. In the street if I was confronted with my wife, I would expect her to retreat immediately while I "stood my ground" to increase her probability of escape (presumably in the future with our children which would preclude her from using her own firearm in my support once she is safe).
Actually this video has a portion that describes very well how one SHOULD react if you are alone and don't have to consider the safety of another person.
from 4:25 to 6:25 is the relevant portion


I especially agree with the part where he says, "I don't want to shoot anyone, even a bad guy," with the caveat "unless I had no other choice"

AustonT wrote:

Polonius wrote:

But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?

Most people do encourage it. I simply (and I'm not alone) don't feel that I should be mandated to retreat when it is infeasible, or in my home. It is unreasonable to expect someone to retreat from their own home.

If it's infeasible to retreat, than pretty much by definition a person cannot safly retreat, right? I mean, unless there's a subtle semantic I'm missing.

And duty to retreat predates firearms. There's really no way to safely retreat from a handgun.

Stand your ground can just create some nasty results, is all. So, a person with a limp can come at you with a baseball bat. Under Stand your ground, that's lethal force. Even though you could easily just walk away, you can shoot the guy.

It's a weird case, I know. But that seems like a really unnecessary killing. Self Defense, after all, is a justification.

I can't watch videos, but what you quoted shows my point. My ideal self defense law would allow for self defense any time there wasn't a reasoanble, safe alternative.

biccat wrote:However, these were obviously terrible lawyers, because if you're ever approached by a cop all you should say is "I'm not going to answer any questions, I do not consent to any searches."

If you learn nothing else from Dakka, please learn this.

Polonius wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Polonius wrote:

But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?

Most people do encourage it. I simply (and I'm not alone) don't feel that I should be mandated to retreat when it is infeasible, or in my home. It is unreasonable to expect someone to retreat from their own home.

If it's infeasible to retreat, than pretty much by definition a person cannot safly retreat, right? I mean, unless there's a subtle semantic I'm missing.

And duty to retreat predates firearms. There's really no way to safely retreat from a handgun.

Stand your ground can just create some nasty results, is all. So, a person with a limp can come at you with a baseball bat. Under Stand your ground, that's lethal force. Even though you could easily just walk away, you can shoot the guy.

It's a weird case, I know. But that seems like a really unnecessary killing. Self Defense, after all, is a justification.

I can't watch videos, but what you quoted shows my point. My ideal self defense law would allow for self defense any time there wasn't a reasoanble, safe alternative.

In reality that also falls under the reasonable standard. if McGimpy is coming at me with a bat then its not reasonable for me to fear for my life. Unless of course I'm also gimpy or some other circumstance.

Most castle doctrine states presume no duty to retreat in your own abode.

AustonT wrote:I especially agree with the part where he says, "I don't want to shoot anyone, even a bad guy," with the caveat "unless I had no other choice"

I have a gun and I would hope that I am prepared to kill somebody if I had no other option, but I hope that it would never get to that point.

I would hope that most people who carry have the same mindset. I know that if a place or a person gives me a bad feeling, I would try to remove myself from that situation. I don't think that you should have to try to run away from an attack. But if you can do something to prevent that attack in the first place, then that is the best course of action IMO.

If there is a group of thugs roaming a dark parking lot and you know you would have to pass them to get to your car, then make the decision to not engage that group. Awareness of your surroundings can prevent the wast majority of instances where self defense would have been needed.

The way I see it, the problem is not with people defending themselves. The problem is that you will always have people who feel that carrying a gun makes them a tough guy who will willingly put themselves into dangerous situations that should have been avoided because "if something bad happens, I will just shoot the bad guy".

To put that back into the parking lot situation, you can have two options:

1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide to walk away and come back another time. You were not in imminent danger, and were able to keep yourself safe without having to discharge a firearm.

2) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide "I got a gun, bring it punks" and walk into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided.

Polonius wrote:If it's infeasible to retreat, than pretty much by definition a person cannot safly retreat, right? I mean, unless there's a subtle semantic I'm missing.

It's not semantics you're missing, it's the fact that prosecutors make their bones on winning prosecutions.

d-usa wrote:[
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide to walk away and come back another time. You were not in imminent danger, and were able to keep yourself safe without having to discharge a firearm.

2) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide "I got a gun, bring it punks" and walk into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided.

What about:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, and decide to mug them cause Daddy need a new pair of everything?

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Polonius wrote:

But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?

Most people do encourage it. I simply (and I'm not alone) don't feel that I should be mandated to retreat when it is infeasible, or in my home. It is unreasonable to expect someone to retreat from their own home.

If it's infeasible to retreat, than pretty much by definition a person cannot safly retreat, right? I mean, unless there's a subtle semantic I'm missing.

And duty to retreat predates firearms. There's really no way to safely retreat from a handgun.

Stand your ground can just create some nasty results, is all. So, a person with a limp can come at you with a baseball bat. Under Stand your ground, that's lethal force. Even though you could easily just walk away, you can shoot the guy.

It's a weird case, I know. But that seems like a really unnecessary killing. Self Defense, after all, is a justification.

I can't watch videos, but what you quoted shows my point. My ideal self defense law would allow for self defense any time there wasn't a reasoanble, safe alternative.

In reality that also falls under the reasonable standard. if McGimpy is coming at me with a bat then its not reasonable for me to fear for my life. Unless of course I'm also gimpy or some other circumstance.

Most castle doctrine states presume no duty to retreat in your own abode.

That seems to be the point that doesnt get across, laws with a "duty" to retreat remove the ability to make a decision and muddy the legal waters. If you go to court and say, "a guy chainsawed the door to my house down, so I shot him in the face" that's pretty clear cut, with a duty to retreat you have to say "a guy chainsawed the door to my house down, so I scurried away and let my children fend for themselves until they were trapped, then I shot him in the face,"
Clearly I'm being hyperbolic.
The point is that the "duty" to retreat does not predate firearms. The castle doctrine does though.

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide to walk away and come back another time. You were not in imminent danger, and were able to keep yourself safe without having to discharge a firearm.

2) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide "I got a gun, bring it punks" and walk into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided.

What about:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, and decide to mug them cause Daddy need a new pair of everything?

Quit trying to use your army of Wiener Dogs to do evil

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide to walk away and come back another time. You were not in imminent danger, and were able to keep yourself safe without having to discharge a firearm.

2) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide "I got a gun, bring it punks" and walk into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided.

What about:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, and decide to mug them cause Daddy need a new pair of everything?

Quit trying to use your army of Wiener Dogs to do evil

Some call it evil, some call call an honest man just trying to make his way in the galaxy.

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:However, these were obviously terrible lawyers, because if you're ever approached by a cop all you should say is "I'm not going to answer any questions, I do not consent to any searches."

If you learn nothing else from Dakka, please learn this.

Unless you committed a crime. In that case, please consent to all searches and provide the police with a detailed confession.

Grakmar wrote:

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:However, these were obviously terrible lawyers, because if you're ever approached by a cop all you should say is "I'm not going to answer any questions, I do not consent to any searches."

If you learn nothing else from Dakka, please learn this.

Unless you committed a crime. In that case, please consent to all searches and provide the police with a detailed confession.

Feth that.

@AustonT: That video needs to be watched by everyone. Twice.

Frazzled wrote:

In reality that also falls under the reasonable standard. if McGimpy is coming at me with a bat then its not reasonable for me to fear for my life. Unless of course I'm also gimpy or some other circumstance.

Most castle doctrine states presume no duty to retreat in your own abode.

Relevant portion starts at the 30second mark.
Oh..warning contains foul language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URsbhtCnryA&feature=related