Pre-Crime Policing Disgruntled Man Update

[tionico]

"It's important to remember that this is a civil process," he says. "There's no arrest, these people aren't being taking to jail. It's not a criminal action."

Apparently they are just as anxious this time to bark up the wrong tree. You didn't even get recognition or a comment.

This thread was started to stir up chit over another thread on the same subject which was locked.

This is a complete waste of time. Been here, done this.

since when does a civil process require fully deployed SWAT team? Handcuffs? Entering a private residence witnout a warrant or other due process? Seizing personal property and depriving its legal owner his right of possession?

It will be interesting to learn of the source(s) of the information leading to the "very disgruntled" "status" of this man, and the basis for the source making the claims they did. I hope Mr. Pyles is able to get some satisfaction on this point. One person, more, based on their supposition/assumption, or on words actually said by Mr. Pyles? Perhaps someone (I have a good guess as to who..) feared payback for their own despicable actions? Someone with a history of despicable actions, in a position of power?

We all know that, in cases of divorce or breakup of other romantic relationships, the "ex" has only to go to a court, swear a statement that "I am fearful for my safety", and demand a restraining order be put on the other "ex". Now that person is debarred the use of arms, and will likely have any owned seized by law enforcement. A sleazy way of "payback" depriving the party of liberty and possessions, with no opportunity to confront their accuser, not even any standard of proof required of the accuser.

And I'm the one with the tin hat? I'm no doomsday theorist, but I keep seeing things that fit a patter.... a very frightening pattern. I read a lot of history, and have seen this identical pattern played out many times before. I mentioned two of them, and was scorned for it. I laughed when, in High School, I had to read Franz Kafka's novel "The Trial"... I'm not laughing any more. In this tale before us, Mr. P only made it to about page 27, while in Kafka's tale, Mr' K never escaped the maze into which he had been abducted.

Yes, the system as presently found IS broken, and desparately needs fixing.

This is only likely to come about in two ways, both working together. People like Mr. Pyle pushing back when wronged, even though it is most often futile, on the one hand, and electing representatives with their eyes open who will work toward no more of this sort of folly, and simultaneously working to remove bad law, or restrict it (in this case, some specific standards or requirements, examined before a court of law in the jurisdiction, and standards of effecting the indicated action).

If seeing this sort of thing earns me a tin hat, fine... I'll wear it as a mark of honour. Find out what march tune was played by the American Army to the gathered British soldiers under General Lord Cornwallis as that general surrendered to the now-American general at Yorktown... and why it was significant.

tin hats, indeed.

 

[Father of four]

Gunner, I started this thread. It was not started with the intent of arguing again. This to me is a huge issue and I would like to see what happens. Without people like us talking about it, nothing would have ever come from it probably. It would have been swept under the carpet. I understand you like the Leo's that are involved in this. I have nothing personal against them. It's the principle of it.

On a hunch, a call from a trusted source, from a fellow government employee...whatever the case may be, the Leo's decided that what seems to have been a law abiding citizen who was upset had to go threw a bunch of grief.
On top of that. The Leos were not planning on charging him with a crime if I understand correctly but evacuated houses, blocked the street, had interrogators, the swat team and other Leos assist in this mater. All for what?

No offense but "We The People" don't know what really happened. And alot of us want to know. You may have more answers then we do. But we want to know if this was legit or are more of our rights being taken away for no good reason.

This thread is about this issues of Pre Crime Policing and about updates pertaining to it. Was it right or not? Are they gonna do it again? Will it happen more frequently? What about Personal property... Lots of question need to be answered in my mind.

 

[Partsproduction]

If anyone has the phone numbers of those who are responsible for this fiasco I'd like to make some calls. Gunner? You seem to know someone whose been filling your ear with urine and telling you it's raining, can I have the number?

The attitude these people express seems to be; "Ok folks, the show's over, this doesn't concern you, nothing happened". Well no, that's not correct. The police work for us, and something did happen and they need to answer for it.

"This case is closed" doesn't cut it for this Oregonian.

 

[Gunner3456]

This thread is about this issues of Pre Crime Policing - snip

"Pre-Crime Policing." Nice try at inventing your own "legal term." Do you mean like when the police sit in a spot with their radar on?

If anyone has the phone numbers of those who are responsible for this fiasco -snip-

Now you want me to look up the phone numbers for the Roseburg Police Dept., the Douglas County Sheriff's office, the Oregon State Police, the Medford City Police, The Jackson County Sheriff's office, Roseburg ODOT office and Medford ODOT office, and the RVMC Hospital for ya? Yep, based on your posts so far, it's not a stretch to guess that you can't do that yourself.

 

[chris61182]

"Pre-Crime Policing." Nice try at inventing your own "legal term." Do you mean like when the police sit in a spot with their radar on?

Wouldn't a speed trap require the motorist to be breaking the law already, hence not pre-crime. For as much garbage as you give people over their grammar I would have expected you to understand something as simple as the concept of pre-crime.

Now you want me to look up the phone numbers for the Roseburg Police Dept., the Douglas County Sheriff's office, the Oregon State Police, the Medford City Police, The Jackson County Sheriff's office, Roseburg ODOT office and Medford ODOT office, and the RVMC Hospital for ya? Yep, based on your posts so far, it's not a stretch to guess that you can't do that yourself.

I think he's looking for the contact numbers of your informants. You know the people you seem to be getting your info from on why this is all legit, and if we knew it too would agree.

 

[Gunner3456]

I still can't believe that anyone would listen to one side of a story (the "victim's") as reported by a sensationalist member of the "press" in a "they said that he said" manner and take it as gospel. I can't believe that when there are five (count them, five) police agencies involved, and someone from the medical community, and ODOT, and none of them can say much due to privacy laws, that none of them knew of or followed the law. The police and the psych ward people and ODOT can't speak out because of the confidential nature of personnel matters and medical records.

We need to be certain that the man is telling the truth and the whole truth, that five police departments are corrupt, and that the medical professional doesn't know his business to arrive at these conclusions.

We also have to ignore the clear fact that five police agencies believed the man was troubled, and yet take his statements and opinions as gospel, to guess at an opinion as to what happened based on one side of a story. Those statements are only from the allegedly troubled person.

The conclusions reached here are so certain, so demanding, and so adamant. People who know nothing for sure are absolutely up in arms.

We know that it's possible for a man to be very angry or upset and display worrisome conduct one day, and then calm down and be just fine a couple of days later, don't we?

It's just amazing how we jump to conclusions with very incomplete information, and do it with such venom.

 

[Gunner3456]

If anyone has the phone numbers of those who are responsible for this fiasco I'd like to make some calls. Gunner?


You seem to know someone whose been filling your ear with urine

Do you believe that with a statement like that you're going to get anywhere? Urine? How can you judge that when you know nothing? Are you using this as your method of eliciting some cooperation from someone?

and telling you it's raining,

can I have the number?

No.

The attitude these people express seems to be; "Ok folks, the show's over, this doesn't concern you, nothing happened". Well no, that's not correct. The police work for us, and something did happen and they need to answer for it.

"This case is closed" doesn't cut it for this Oregonian.

Who cares what cuts it for you with your attitude and style?

 

[Stomper]

From what I can see the LEO's did the same friggin' thing you accuse us of doing... who did they get THEIR info from... a (documented) A-hole (on a power trip) at ODOT? One sided perhaps? Its EASY to believe a negative about someone. If they were THAT concerned, maybe post some squad cars on his street, then a friggin' phone call from the LEO's (by a professional conversationalist) to the man's house informing him of some concerns and try to get to the bottom of it... you know handle it like a domestic disturbance, try to see if someone is ACTUALLY violent and in danger... maybe a little empathy.

YOUR attutide sucks rocks, Jackson.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I still can't believe that anyone would listen to one side of a story (the "victim's") as reported by a sensationalist member of the "press" in a "they said that he said" manner and take it as gospel.

Who said what?? The Medford police said in their original press release they were being "proactive" in dealing with Mr Pyles. That makes it "pre-crime" policing. The police's use of SWAT show a level of escalation that is/was without cause. But I must admit, I'd probably "volunteer" too with that many guns pointed at me!

I can't believe that when there are five (count them, five) police agencies involved, and someone from the medical community, and ODOT, and none of them can say much due to privacy laws, that none of them knew of or followed the law. The police and the psych ward people and ODOT can't speak out because of the confidential nature of personnel matters and medical records.

Confidential statements by Mr. Pyles' superior have nothing to do with it. Any statements by RVMC personnel are after the fact.
The issue at hand is due process Gunner. If the statement by his superior at ODOT had been strong enough, the police would have had grounds for a warrant. They clearly didn't, or a warrant would have been issued.

We need to be certain that the man is telling the truth and the whole truth, that five police departments are corrupt, and that the medical professional doesn't know his business to arrive at these conclusions.

Don't police make mistakes? Aren't they human? You are making the corruption statements, no one else. The truth, the whole truth is a matter of who's telling it apparently. And the police refuse to disclose. Excuse me for wanting public employees to do the same thing you are asking of Mr Pyles, but the police need to give an accurate detailed account of the proceedings leading up to his custody and the subsequent taking of his property (guns). They can do that without disclosing anything about Mr. Pyles' issues at his job.
And again the "medical professional" came after the fact of Mr. Pyles being taken into custody, and his guns stolen from him.

We also have to ignore the clear fact that five police agencies believed the man was troubled, and yet take his statements and opinions as gospel, to guess at an opinion as to what happened based on one side of a story. Those statements are only from the allegedly troubled person.

We don't have to guess. We know what happened because the police told us what happened. Or can we not trust them after all? Make up your mind!!
He has been deemed mentally stable and sane according to RVMC psyche personnel. He is no longer "allegedly troubled," if he ever was.

The conclusions reached here are so certain, so demanding, and so adamant. People who know nothing for sure are absolutely up in arms.

I am absolutely certain there was no warrant to search his premises and/or seize his guns. He has stated so and the police agencies have not refuted his statement,...
But yet you do.
Without warrant(s) the police entered his house illegally and stole his guns.

We know that it's possible for a man to be very angry or upset and display worrisome conduct one day, and then calm down and be just fine a couple of days later, don't we?

Okay gunner, using your logic, then we can advocate that police arrest you the next time you're pissed for some reason? The lawnmower won't start, you have a flat tire etc? You are a gun owner right??

It's just amazing how we jump to conclusions with very incomplete information, and do it with such venom.

Not necessarily venom, just the desire to see justice done. At the very least the police entered the mans house illegally and seized his guns.
There is a question of ethics in how the police took him into custody,...
Your idea of "voluntarily" and mine differ, but I won't point guns at your house in an effort to get you to change your mind, and I doubt you would do that to me.
But yet that is what the agencies involved did to induce Mr. Pyles' "volunteerism."
Now you seem to be able to justify that action by police. I can't.
But if it ever happens to you I'll holler (maybe venomously) for your sake too!

 

[Gunner3456]

Who said what?? The Medford police said in their original press release they were being "proactive" in dealing with Mr Pyles. That makes it "pre-crime" policing. The police's use of SWAT show a level of escalation that is/was without cause. But I must admit, I'd probably "volunteer" too with that many guns pointed at me!

Again, there is only one side of that story in the public.


Confidential statements by Mr. Pyles' superior have nothing to do with it. Any statements by RVMC personnel are after the fact.
The issue at hand is due process Gunner. If the statement by his superior at ODOT had been strong enough, the police would have had grounds for a warrant. They clearly didn't, or a warrant would have been issued.

Its' already been explained in this thread that the police don't need a warrant to take someone in for a mental health exam. That's the law. "Pre-crime" is silly because he wasn't charged with a crime. This was a civil action.

Now, if we don't like that law, we should lobby to get it changed instead of attacking people who followed it.


Don't police make mistakes? Aren't they human? You are making the corruption statements, no one else. The truth, the whole truth is a matter of who's telling it apparently. And the police refuse to disclose. Excuse me for wanting public employees to do the same thing you are asking of Mr Pyles, but the police need to give an accurate detailed account of the proceedings leading up to his custody and the subsequent taking of his property (guns). They can do that without disclosing anything about Mr. Pyles' issues at his job.

But the news has already reported that police agencies acted on information from his job. They can't disclose what that was. I actually think it's unfair that the police and the hospital can't tell their side of the story, but they can't. Both personnel and mental health (medical) issues are confidential under the law.

And again the "medical professional" came after the fact of Mr. Pyles being taken into custody, and his guns stolen from him.

Again, we have only Mr. Pyles' statement about what happened, and yet with one side of the story, we speak of it as gospel.

The hospital still held him because only they could deem him suitable for release. Why aren't we attacking them for holding him until they deemed him safe if it was illegal?

We don't have to guess. We know what happened because the police told us what happened. Or can we not trust them after all? Make up your mind!!

No, the police have said very little. The only thing I know that they have said about taking his guns, for instance, is that they returned them.

He has been deemed mentally stable and sane according to RVMC psyche personnel. He is no longer "allegedly troubled," if he ever was.

Again, it is possible, especially in an employer conflict such as that, for someone to be very upset and display that one day, and then a couple of days later to cool off. We don't know what happened here, do we?


I am absolutely certain there was no warrant to search his premises and/or seize his guns. He has stated so and the police agencies have not refuted his statement,...
But yet you do.

Not at all. HE says they took his guns illegally. That's the only side we've heard. If he gave permission, or if some other specific thing happened which hasn't been made public, then the conclusion might be incorrect.

Without warrant(s) the police entered his house illegally and stole his guns.

You know for a fact he didn't give permission, or that the police didn't have any other good and legal reason. Great.

I guarantee you that if you have a gun and the police feel threatened by it, they are taking it. Period. You can argue the details later.

Also, the details of what went down according to the Medford City and the Oregon State police who were there haven't been released, have they?


Okay gunner, using your logic, then we can advocate that police arrest you the next time you're pissed for some reason? The lawnmower won't start, you have a flat tire etc? You are a gun owner right??

That's not what happened here.

Not necessarily venom, just the desire to see justice done. At the very least the police entered the mans house illegally and seized his guns.

You don't know that.

There is a question of ethics in how the police took him into custody,...
Your idea of "voluntarily" and mine differ, but I won't point guns at your house in an effort to get you to change your mind, and I doubt you would do that to me.

Let's not nit pick. It didn't have to be voluntary. The law allows the police to take anyone in for a mental health evaluation any time they feel it's appropriate. If you don't like that, work to get the law changed.

But yet that is what the agencies involved did to induce Mr. Pyles' "volunteerism."

You weren't there, and it didn't have to be voluntary. The police were within the law to take him just "out of concern."

Now you seem to be able to justify that action by police. I can't.
But if it ever happens to you I'll holler (maybe venomously) for your sake too!

I'm only saying that based on what I see, what the police and the hospital did was legal under current Oregon law.

I have no problem with you working to get that law changed.

I do have a problem with people jumping to conclusions or listening to one side of a story or accusing people of doing things when they didn't personally witness it. I also have a problem with people not getting it that the police can legally do this in Oregon.

If its shocks the conscience that the police can legally do this, then work to get the law changed.

Attacking me isn't going to change anything.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

"It's important to remember that this is a civil process," he says. "There's no arrest, these people aren't being taking to jail. It's not a criminal action."







since when does a civil process require fully deployed SWAT team? Handcuffs? Entering a private residence witnout a warrant or other due process? Seizing personal property and depriving its legal owner his right of possession?

It will be interesting to learn of the source(s) of the information leading to the "very disgruntled" "status" of this man, and the basis for the source making the claims they did. I hope Mr. Pyles is able to get some satisfaction on this point. One person, more, based on their supposition/assumption, or on words actually said by Mr. Pyles? Perhaps someone (I have a good guess as to who..) feared payback for their own despicable actions? Someone with a history of despicable actions, in a position of power?

We all know that, in cases of divorce or breakup of other romantic relationships, the "ex" has only to go to a court, swear a statement that "I am fearful for my safety", and demand a restraining order be put on the other "ex". Now that person is debarred the use of arms, and will likely have any owned seized by law enforcement. A sleazy way of "payback" depriving the party of liberty and possessions, with no opportunity to confront their accuser, not even any standard of proof required of the accuser.

And I'm the one with the tin hat? I'm no doomsday theorist, but I keep seeing things that fit a patter.... a very frightening pattern. I read a lot of history, and have seen this identical pattern played out many times before. I mentioned two of them, and was scorned for it. I laughed when, in High School, I had to read Franz Kafka's novel "The Trial"... I'm not laughing any more. In this tale before us, Mr. P only made it to about page 27, while in Kafka's tale, Mr' K never escaped the maze into which he had been abducted.

Yes, the system as presently found IS broken, and desparately needs fixing.

This is only likely to come about in two ways, both working together. People like Mr. Pyle pushing back when wronged, even though it is most often futile, on the one hand, and electing representatives with their eyes open who will work toward no more of this sort of folly, and simultaneously working to remove bad law, or restrict it (in this case, some specific standards or requirements, examined before a court of law in the jurisdiction, and standards of effecting the indicated action).

If seeing this sort of thing earns me a tin hat, fine... I'll wear it as a mark of honour. Find out what march tune was played by the American Army to the gathered British soldiers under General Lord Cornwallis as that general surrendered to the now-American general at Yorktown... and why it was significant.

tin hats, indeed.

More like wearing the glasses from "They Live".. I've got several pairs, myself

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I still can't believe that anyone would listen to one side of a story (the "victim's") as reported by a sensationalist member of the "press" in a "they said that he said" manner and take it as gospel. I can't believe that when there are five (count them, five) police agencies involved, and someone from the medical community, and ODOT, and none of them can say much due to privacy laws, that none of them knew of or followed the law. The police and the psych ward people and ODOT can't speak out because of the confidential nature of personnel matters and medical records.

We need to be certain that the man is telling the truth and the whole truth, that five police departments are corrupt, and that the medical professional doesn't know his business to arrive at these conclusions.

We also have to ignore the clear fact that five police agencies believed the man was troubled, and yet take his statements and opinions as gospel, to guess at an opinion as to what happened based on one side of a story. Those statements are only from the allegedly troubled person.

The conclusions reached here are so certain, so demanding, and so adamant. People who know nothing for sure are absolutely up in arms.

We know that it's possible for a man to be very angry or upset and display worrisome conduct one day, and then calm down and be just fine a couple of days later, don't we?

It's just amazing how we jump to conclusions with very incomplete information, and do it with such venom.

Maybe events like Waco, Ruby Ridge and all of the other massive abuses and even cold blooded murders by the ATF and FBI have something to do with our willingness to believe that there are bad actors wearing badges

Besides, we were right all along and the cops were wrong. Even the quack "psychiatrist" agreed. It was the cops who "jumped to conclusions" and in the process violated this man's God-given liberties. There needs to be a price paid so that this does not happen again. Just giving him back his stolen guns post haste is not going to cut it

 

[Jamie6.5]

I do have a problem with people jumping to conclusions or listening to one side of a story or accusing people of doing things when they didn't personally witness it. I also have a problem with people not getting it that the police can legally do this in Oregon.

If its shocks the conscience that the police can legally do this, then work to get the law changed.

Attacking me isn't going to change anything.[/I][/COLOR][/B]

Christallmighty Gunner, you don't even believe what the police say in their own press releases. More than one article quotes the police.
Your perspective is indefensible in this case.

Spare us all the diatribe.

 

[Gunner3456]

Maybe events like Waco, Ruby Ridge and all of the other massive abuses and even cold blooded murders by the ATF and FBI have something to do with our willingness to believe that there are bad actors wearing badges

Wow. You liken this to Ruby Ridge. How many people died there?

Besides, we were right all along and the cops were wrong.

About what? About having a serious concern and legally following up on it?

Even the quack

More well informed and calm conclusions?

"psychiatrist"

You know it was a psychiatrist? How do you know it wasn't a psychologist? My only point is that you really don't know what went down.

agreed.

After a 4 hour exam. In the meantime, that medical professional was the one "holding" the man. The law required a medical release.

It was the cops who "jumped to conclusions" and in the process violated this man's God-given liberties.

Five police agencies in Southern Oregon were concerned based on information they received. According to the law, they didn't violate anything. It's not possible to say that they jumped to conclusions if we don't know what information they had.

There needs to be a price paid so that this does not happen again. Just giving him back his stolen guns post haste is not going to cut it

Why instead don't you work to change the law which allows this if it disturbs you this much?

We aren't solving anything here.

 

[Gunner3456]

Christallmighty Gunner, you don't even believe what the police say in their own press releases.

What have the police said about why or how they took the man's guns, or entered his house, for instance?

What would you like to quote that they said to refute the points I'm trying to make?

More than one article quotes the police.

What have the police said about why or how they took the man's guns, or entered his house, for instance?

What would you like to quote that they said to refute the points I'm trying to make?

Your perspective is indefensible in this case.

What have the police said about why or how they took the man's guns, or entered his house, for instance?

What would you like to quote that they said to refute the points I'm trying to make?

Spare us all the diatribe.

What have the police said about why or how they took the man's guns, or entered his house, for instance?

What would you like to quote that they said to refute the points I'm trying to make?

 

[LogicBomb]

one part that nobody mentioned is he bought the guns with his tax refund....how many ppl here bought guns with your tax refund?....how long did you plan the purchase? then he was laid off the day before which DIDNT affect his plans to buy the guns....HE DIDNT BUY THE GUNS BEACAUSE HE WAS A 'DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE...

 

[Gunner3456]

one part that nobody mentioned is he bought the guns with his tax refund....how many ppl here bought guns with your tax refund?....how long did you plan the purchase? then he was laid off the day before which DIDNT affect his plans to buy the guns....HE DIDNT BUY THE GUNS BEACAUSE HE WAS A 'DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE...

Who said this was all about him buying guns? How much do you know about what else may have happened to cause five police agencies to become "very concerned?"

How do you know that being disgruntled didn't affect the type of guns he bought, even with a tax return?

How much do you really know about the whole series of events in this matter?

 

[Stomper]

Hey Gunner, I wasn't personally attacking you, I'm was just callin' you on your seemingly bombastic attitude, and yes... I'm SURE more information will come to light in this matter, but if it comes down to it that the LEO's stepped on their wieners the "legal under the law" defense didn't work out to well at the Nuremberg trials... "I was just following orders" is BS! Right is right, wrong is wrong, fair is fair... we CANNOT allow those lines to become blurred.


FWIW- I understand issues like this can strike strong emotions on either side of the coin (LEO's have a difficult, demanding, frustrating, DANGEROUS job/funtion to carry out), so there's no "drama" between me and you.... PEACE!

 

[Gunner3456]

Hey Gunner, I wasn't personally attacking you, I'm was just callin' you on your seemingly bombastic attitude, and yes... I'm SURE more information will come to light in this matter, but if it comes down to it that the LEO's stepped on their wieners the "legal under the law" defense didn't work out to well at the Nuremberg trials... "I was just following orders" is BS! Right is right, wrong is wrong, fair is fair... we CANNOT allow those lines to become blurred.

Hey, no hard feelings. I was thinking that under the circumstances, I was keeping my cool at least a little bit. I've felt that I was the one under attack here. I'm just trying to keep the drum beating about how much we really know, and what the law is.

I'm also concerned about what I see as knee-jerk reactions about the police. I know there are bad apples, but as a rule they are pretty good guys, at least the departments in play here are.

Not saying they never make mistakes or they are perfect. Just saying that they acted on information from ODOT, and did their job, the best I can see.


FWIW- I understand issues like this can strike strong emotions on either side of the coin (LEO's have a difficult, demanding, frustrating, DANGEROUS job/funtion to carry out), so there's no "drama" between me and you.... PEACE!

Agreed.

 

[Partsproduction]

I also have a problem with people not getting it that the police can legally do this in Oregon.

So, for the record here, if the police break into your home and steal your guns, violating many constitutional amendments, you are not going to be angry. Ok I get that. If the police lie to you, that's OKEE DOKEE for you, Ok.

It's OK by you if the criminals cuff you after telling you they wouldn't and haul you off against your will, OK. They can point real assault weapons at you and force you to comply, I think your a really weird duck if that wouldn't anger you.

To your viewpoint if you lie that's a jail-able offense but when the police lie they are just doing their job. Ok, an odd idea of justice but I admit that's the way it is set up now, police can lie, we can't.

Man! That's you! I reserve the right to demand that the police explain what they have done in every instance, and especially in a case where it's clear to most of us that they have broken the law.

You keep implying that Mr. Pyle is lying about what happened, but I've seen enough cop shows to know that it's the police who feel they get to lie, somehow that's not wrong to them, while most of us 'civilians' feel that lying is always wrong. Put on a uniform, lie all you want, lie to the press, lie to their wives, lie to some guy named "gunner", no big deal.

I hate liars, I hate it when under duress I spit out a little white lie, it grieves me. I'm pretty sure someone lied to you gunner, and instead of being angry about it you keep sticking up for the source. Weird.