Pinal County Sheriff Deputy kills Manuel Longoria while Longoria's hands are raised in the air.

reply to post by Xcathdra


See there you go again. Making assumptions. You said I didnt do my research or know what I was talking about, but it was you that was wrong and talking about a different case.
I didnt even know about the case where the cop killed the biker. Im glad he got ten years (most civilians would probably get 25 to life).

I was talking about the motorcycle driver who had an undercover cop get out and pull a weapon on him. He didnt fire a shot, but he tried to get the biker in trouble for filming him and pressed against cops being filmed.

You got all high and might thinking I didnt do my homework but in reality yiu just looked up the wrong case.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You should actually read about that mother. She ran because she was fired on. She accidentally drove through a checkpoint where the guards were slacking. They tried to paint her as mentally ill etc.

I know she ran she was being threatened with guns with her child. She was an unarmed mother and they shot her to death. A slow speed pursuit of a scared woman that made a mistake is justified to you?

You seem to misunderstand each situation. I know what happened in these cases. The point is in every case the cop gets off light while the regular citizen would go away for life.

Do you think the mother needed to be shot to death? Do you think Kelly deserved to be beat to death?

You dont seem to understand that cops are a big street gang with the same traits and mentalities, but they have the legal system on their side.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I would like to note that rather than admit to any wrong doing for police you skipped the cases where they were obviously inexcusable with no circumstances you could use to beat around the bush. Like the two car wreck victims the officers shot. They were just seeking help.

I intentionally included a nice mix of resolved and current so you can see the officers light sentences.

The one about the biker was a different incident, but yours could be added to the list because that officer murdered a man and got teen years and will be out in three.

All I see is a long list of horrible actions by officers being defended or explained away by another officer.

Not one case did you say "that was horrible, he deserved more" or "they shouldnt have killed that woman."

reply to post by Xcathdra


Here is the case of the burned man.
He was completely naked, with no weapons or place to keep one. He was burned so severely his skins was hanging off.

The cop later tried to make up a story that he climbed on top of the car and was poised to jump off. Eyewitness accounts conflict. Likely he was too damaged to do anything. They found him sitting indian style.

Th officer shot and killed him when he approached for help.

The officer admitted in interview and said to his partner "I dont want him to touch me."

In th end, this severely injure man was murdered because the officer was disgusted and afraid the man would touch him.

The officer was cleared of charges.

link

Another_Nut
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

@ second video absolutely justified he was obviously armed and pointingsaid weapon ( and it looks like he fired a shot)

@first video absolutely unjustified he obviously had no weapon and only pointed his finger

Thank you for proving my point. The 2 videos are from the exact same incident from the 2 dash cams from the cruisers. See how Camera perspective can show something that is not necessarily what it seems?

Another_Nut
Still waiting on examples of citizens getting the same sentences as an officer

I listed them. You need to read my posts.

Another_Nut
You two can provide all this stuff but it seems you still can't find 3 examples to my request

I listed them. you need to read my posts.

Another_Nut
Wonder why?

Because you are not reading the information being provided.

Another_Nut
Eta see how in the first vid his hands were up back turned with no weapon. No different angle will change that.

Wrong - The angle you are watching the video from is not the same view that the officers had who were closer to the suspect while the cruiser they were behind could mask the suspects hands / actions.

Another_Nut
Now who is comparing apples to oranges?

edit on pm120143109America/ChicagoFri, 31 Jan 2014 21:53:09 -0600_1u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

I am showing you video that was not in this thread (complete video showing the end of the pursuit. All the examples you guys tried to use were debunked, showing the officers received the same sentence civilians do in the same encounters in their respective states.

You guys keep going on and on about the laws not treating civilians and officers the same.

How about you guys pick the state... Pick the crime... Pick the law... Then show us where the law only applies to civilians and show me the laws that only apply to the police.

Since it does not exist I wont be holding my breath...

GogoVicMorrow
Yes thats exactly my point. They were charged with illegal cavity searches. But first they dont even have legal ones. In that state those searches can only be done by a medical professional with a warrant. Now the definition of rape BY LAW which you stand by is the unwanted and forced penetration of the vagina or anus. Doesnt matter what with penis, finger, or broom. Also he did it so forcefully that it caused rectal bleeding in several of the victims (and he didnt use gloves in all cases).

Again you cant use your personal opinion in place of the law and the elements contained. They were charged with an illegal body cavity search. Secondly a body cavity search is lawful under law, as you just stated in your post.

GogoVicMorrow
So of course, and proving my point yet again, he received lighter charges. He got illegal cavity search.. there is no legal cavity search. There was no reason of him to do it. So what was his motive? It is by definition rape and at the very least sexual assault. He held these people down and raped them, he fingered them while subdued and did tinting least one person while another officerbheld a gun to their head.

The officers were charged with performing an illegal body cavity search as prescribed by law for that state. So no, you didn't prove a point and they didn't receive lighter charges. They were charged with exactly what they did - an illegal body cavisty search.

Again you cant use your opinion in place of the law. Ignoring the law simply because it does not prove / support your point doesn't make your argument valid.

GogoVicMorrow
So tell me.. why was he charged with a lesser offense when a normal civilian wi kid have been charged with rape or sexualnassault?

They were charged under state law so no, its not a lesser offense. Law Enforcement, if convicted, will lose their civil immunity (Department policy / law violation), the department / city can disassociate themselves from the officers and their actions making them completely responsible for civil judgments. It allows the officers personal finances to come into play to satisfy any judgment on the civil side and to top it off they can face criminal prosecution for violating 42 USC 1983.

So, again, they are not receiving lesser charges. They are facing charges that actually would not apply to civilians, like the civil rights violation, the illegal body cavity search, loss of civil immunity from prosecution etc.

GogoVicMorrow
You may come up with some words and call them an excuse because you won't admit you are wrong, but you and I both know why.

No excuses - all information is based on the articles you tried to pass off as something they were not. Since you cant refute the info you got called out on, you once again shift gears and go to the old your wrong statement.

if im wrong, you would be able to demonstrate that yet you haven't - in any of your responses.

try again..

GogoVicMorrow
See there you go again. Making assumptions. You said I didnt do my research or know what I was talking about, but it was you that was wrong and talking about a different case.

Which is why when you make accusations and reference something, you need to provide a link so we all are on the same page. You failed to do that, which left me guessing as to what the hell you were talking about.

GogoVicMorrow
I didnt even know about the case where the cop killed the biker. Im glad he got ten years (most civilians would probably get 25 to life).

Again you are wrong. What part of baseline sentencing do you just not understand? What part of aggravating / mitigating circumstances are you not understanding?

Stop making accusations that aren't supported by fact or law. As I stated earlier it undermines your position as you are arguing from a point ignorance and not fact.

GogoVicMorrow
I was talking about the motorcycle driver who had an undercover cop get out and pull a weapon on him. He didnt fire a shot, but he tried to get the biker in trouble for filming him and pressed against cops being filmed.

that would be the incident I referenced that you said was not the same. Again, read my posts and explore the links. There was an incident in CT where a guy on a motorcycle was arrested and charged because of his helmet cam. If you are referring to that, again, do research. His incident prompted a change in the law by virtue of a state Supreme Court ruling where they stated its not a violation of CT law. his charges were dropped.

Several other incidents in several other states with the same thing had the same result. Illinois Supreme Court upheld there interpretation of their recording law, which was then overturned by a federal appeals court.

If you are still maintaining its something else then provide a link to the source you are using so we can see it.

GogoVicMorrow
You got all high and might thinking I didnt do my homework but in reality yiu just looked up the wrong case.

No sir I am not acting high and mighty. I am taking the accusations you are making and showing you why you are wrong. I am linking you to the source info and have explained the various state laws in question. As for looking at the wrong case that would be on you since you are making accusations yet failing to link to a source / provide any details so we can see what you are talking about.

I have absolutely no problem with holding law enforcement accountable. What I have an issue with is when people are so blinded by hatred of law enforcement that they go above and beyond to place all police in one grouping / ignoring any and all state laws that wont support your argument while trying to argue other laws should have applied.

If you are not happy with the charges, take it up with the respective Prosecuting Attorney.

By the way, almost all Prosecuting Attorney's at the county level are elected positions. You don't like their performance, vote for someone else.

Above all else, if you are going to try and make a point, you really need to do your homework and understand the laws in question to make an informed argument. Taking due diligence and educating yourself does not mean you have to agree with the laws in question or the charges filed.

I have tried to explain this in this thread as well as others and you guys keep missing the larger point. By educating yourself on the side of the coin you despise puts you in a better position to not only understand that side and how it operates (again it doesn't mean you have to agree with it), but to actually make valid arguments for change that will be taken seriously.

Since any person can review the laws for their states / cities / federal, you get to see the playbook for that team without issue. Why on Gods green earth would you and others NOT take advantage of that?

As an example we can use the OP -
Even if he is within policy, he could still be charged if the PA feels the officers actions were not in line with the law.
Even if he is in line with the law, since the suspect was shot and killed, it becomes a seizure under the 4th amendment (Federal investigation / prosecution for violating a persons civil rights).

Finally - Any time a person is killed, either by being shot and killed or executed by the state for a crime he was found guilty on, the manner of death will be homicide.

The only thing that can come after the homicide designation is going to be justified (self defense) or not justified, which results in the PA being involved.

Stop trying to make a rush on this issue. Take your time and learn.. Research. Understand how it operates. In the end it is going to be the only way to get the changes you want.

You cant fix a car if you don't know what the problem is, and once the problem is identified the next step is to fix it. Do you fix it yourself or do you let a person who is skilled fix it? It can go either way, with the deciding factor being how well educated you are on the topic.

GogoVicMorrow
You should actually read about that mother. She ran because she was fired on. She accidentally drove through a checkpoint where the guards were slacking. They tried to paint her as mentally ill etc.

Sir at the end of the chase she intentionally rammed into the checkpoint that leads to the White House. It was not accidental. She was shot because she attempted to back the vehicle up with officers swarming around her. At that point, her vehicle stopped being a vehicle and instead became a deadly weapon weighing in excess of 1500 pounds.

GogoVicMorrow
I know she ran she was being threatened with guns with her child. She was an unarmed mother and they shot her to death. A slow speed pursuit of a scared woman that made a mistake is justified to you?

This is another point you are not understanding. A person being a threat does not equate into them holding a gun or knife. Her vehicle became the weapon when she drove the vehicle in the manner she did. A person does not have to be shot at / hit by a car before they can take action to defend themselves or others.

Please - research and understand these laws. You are trying to view these situations in black and white and that is not possible. You are substituting your opinion in place of law, which is only setting you up to see a picture that is false.

GogoVicMorrow
You seem to misunderstand each situation. I know what happened in these cases. The point is in every case the cop gets off light while the regular citizen would go away for life.

no I understood and refuted that claim that officers get lighter charges / sentencing. I linked you back to sources to support my argument where as you did not. You used examples that were vague with no context / link to sources. As for you knowing what happened - again no. What you are trying to do is base an argument off situations you failed to follow up on. Hence several examples you and nut gave that are still active cases that are currently in the court system.

GogoVicMorrow
Do you think the mother needed to be shot to death? Do you think Kelly deserved to be beat to death?

She was not shot to death. An officer shot to stop the threat that she created by acting in the manner she did in terms of trying to use her vehicle in a manner inconsistent with law.

Could the situation have been resolved? She certainly had the chance right up to the end. Again, you seem to ignore any and all actions caused by the suspect while ignoring the laws that guide officer actions. That is not compatible with these types of discussions. Personal opinion does not trump state law or court rulings.

As for Kelly - based on all the info I have seen I can certainly see both sides. Since the officers involved in that case were charged and tried and found not guilty / acquitted by a jury, im not entirely sure why you keep arguing the point? The officers were charged using the same statute any other person in that state can be charged under. They had a trial using the same standards that apply to civilians. The jury didn't agree with the prosecutions case, resulting in the citizens making the decisions.

GogoVicMorrow
You dont seem to understand that cops are a big street gang with the same traits and mentalities, but they have the legal system on their side.

And you don't seem to understand that you are making blanket accusations and applying them to all law enforcement when in fact its not true. The simple fact that you keep constantly running in circles while lashing out and stereotyping law enforcement shows your true colors. You seem to ignore any and all information that doesn't not paint law enforcement as a street gang with same traits and mentalities.

Since you have lumped yourself into the corner of going after all police, you yourself have adopted the very mentality you accuse the police of having.

Ironic.

GogoVicMorrow
I would like to note that rather than admit to any wrong doing for police you skipped the cases where they were obviously inexcusable with no circumstances you could use to beat around the bush. Like the two car wreck victims the officers shot. They were just seeking help.

And had you taken the time to read my posts you would have noticed I didn't skip those incidents. I asked for you / nut to link me to sources so I can see which case you are referencing. This goes back to you guys making blatant statements while using vague descriptions in an effort to paint law enforcement in a bad light.

I will be more than happy to respond when you post the link to whatever it is you are talking about.

GogoVicMorrow
I intentionally included a nice mix of resolved and current so you can see the officers light sentences.

No sir you did not. The cases you linked to were either still in the court system or showed that the officer was in fact charged and tried, resulting in either guilty verdict or not guilty. The charges are the same ones a civilian would be charged under and sentencing guidelines are the same as civilians.

You have not demonstrated any incident where there is a difference in charges / punishment. Simply making the statement does not make your point and again, ignoring the laws because you don't like them / don't agree with them does not make them invalid. Stop using your personal opinion in place of law. Stop intentionally ignoring the facts / laws if they don't support your claims.

GogoVicMorrow
The one about the biker was a different incident, but yours could be added to the list because that officer murdered a man and got teen years and will be out in three.

Yet this is the third time now you have made the claim it was a different incident. In none of your posts have you bothered to link me to the incident you are talking about. How about you post the sources instead of ignoring the request, telling me im looking at a different incident while maintaining the incident in question supports your position.

As for the ignorant comment about how long the officer will be in jail - please support that statement with facts using the state laws / sentencing guidelines.

so again - link me to the incidents you are speaking about.
so again - stop making claims that aren't supported by the facts.

Finally - The case is still in the court system.

GogoVicMorrow
All I see is a long list of horrible actions by officers being defended or explained away by another officer.

What I see is you making claims about law enforcement receiving different treatment while failing to prove any supporting evidence. Secondly, your claim is preferential treatment and not your opinion on how law enforcement does terrible things.

Either provide supporting info / links or stop using them as examples while ignoring the facts.
The actions are not being explained away. I have explained / linked you to the info (laws / rulings) yet you fail to read / educate yourself on the topic and continue to try and make the same argument.

Please explain how its being explained away why in fact they were not only held to the same laws civilians are, but have been charged, tried and convicted using those same laws.

You are mistaking education with explained away. There is nothing to explain away when the laws are used - As they have been in all cases you linked / vaguely referenced.

GogoVicMorrow
Not one case did you say "that was horrible, he deserved more" or "they shouldnt have killed that woman."

edit on 1-2-2014 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Because your argument / issue was Law Enforcement receiving different charges / sentences. So when your argument on that topic fails you instead move the goal posts and going after what I thought about the cases themselves.

Please pick a topic and stick with it.
Please provide links / info to your claims in your posts.
Please learn about the government, the different levels, the different branches, the laws of the respective state your posts are about.
Please, if you are making a claim, then support it with facts.

GogoVicMorrow
Here is the case of the burned man.
He was completely naked, with no weapons or place to keep one. He was burned so severely his skins was hanging off.

The cop later tried to make up a story that he climbed on top of the car and was poised to jump off. Eyewitness accounts conflict. Likely he was too damaged to do anything. They found him sitting indian style.

Th officer shot and killed him when he approached for help.

The officer admitted in interview and said to his partner "I dont want him to touch me."

In th end, this severely injure man was murdered because the officer was disgusted and afraid the man would touch him.

The officer was cleared of charges.

link

Your link is invalid and goes to something that looks like a Wikipedia knock off site. the link has an .m. added to it, resulting in the mislink. Here is the correct link -
Fouad Kaady

The officer was cleared = He was within departmental policy and was within the confines of the law / Supreme Court rulings on use for deadly force.

As with some of your other examples, you have cherrypicked the information in order to try and support your claims. Let me show you what you left out / ignored -

Most importantly there are witnesses who stated the events were as the officer described, with the man refusing commands, refusing to submit to less lethal and finally jumping on the car while coming at the Officer.

Once again you misrepresented the incident while ignoring any and all facts that don't support the argument you are trying to make. Secondly forensic evidence can determine in what position a person is in when they are shot.

The burned individual refused verbal commands.
The burned individual refused to comply after less lethal was used.
The burned man, again refusing commands, climbed on the patrol car and came at the officer.
The officer shot him in self defense.
The witness accounts were split which goes back to me trying to explain to you and others that incidents can look completely different depending on where its being viewed from.
The federal judge who reviewed the Taser use goes back to what I was saying about the 9th circuit rulings on use of Tasers.

Either way, this example does not show the officer was treated differently than civilians would. Or is this another one of those incidents where you are trying to argue it was a horrible incident while at the same time attempting to argue the officers were treated differently than a civilian would?

Either way you are wrong on either position.

I guess I'm just sick of the bashing of LE.

It's part of the reason I'm taking a job way up in the yonder regions of the country. Small population, pretty friendly folks, not a lot of real "crime" to speak of, and a very small community (although the North Slope does include Prudhoe Bay I won't be going out there except in a major emergency due to physical limitations)

Something i've noticed about all of these cases.

1) They either take place in major urban areas, or right outside them (with a couple of exceptions)
2) They seem for the most part to be in areas that either have a) high Crime or B) High Sovvie Activity.

Now this may just be my years of investigating these things but the second one (B) is a dangerous situation, and while it's been covered numerous times on here, those people are more likely to end up on the receiving end of a hunk of lead than (A) and normally they do, this may have something to do with the "F the authority" mindset they have.. Just an observation...

reply to post by Xcathdra


Nope. In Wisconsin a body cavity search must be done by a medical professional. So had he found anything it would have been technically inadmissible.

Meaning he was just assaulting people.

Im not using my definition. That is t he LAW's definition of rape. You just twist and wriggle to get away from it when it goes against protecting cops. You wouldn't have one positive word for this guy if he wasnt a cop. You'd gladly admit it was sexual assault and rape.

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Nope. In Wisconsin a body cavity search must be done by a medical professional. So had he found anything it would have been technically inadmissible.

Meaning he was just assaulting people.

Im not using my definition. That is t he LAW's definition of rape. You just twist and wriggle to get away from it when it goes against protecting cops. You wouldn't have one positive word for this guy if he wasnt a cop. You'd gladly admit it was sexual assault and rape.

Yet once again you failed to do research. You once again fail to understand the law. This also demonstrates the futility in making a blanket statement as you did.

968.255  Strip searches.

968.255  Strip searches.

(1) In this section:

(a) "Detained" means any of the following:

1. Arrested for any felony.

2. Arrested for any misdemeanor under s. 167.30 (1), 940.19, 941.20 (1), 941.23, 941.237, 941.24, 948.60, or 948.61.

3. Taken into custody under s. 938.19 and there are reasonable grounds to believe the juvenile has committed an act which if committed by an adult would be covered under subd. 1. or 2.

4. Arrested for any misdemeanor not specified in subd. 2., any other violation of state law punishable by forfeiture or any local ordinance if there is probable cause to believe the person is concealing a weapon or a thing which may constitute evidence of the offense for which he or she is detained.

(b) "Strip search" means a search in which a detained person's genitals, pubic area, buttock or anus, or a detained female person's breast, is uncovered and either is exposed to view or is touched by a person conducting the search.

(2) No person may be the subject of a strip search unless he or she is a detained person and if:

(a) The person conducting the search is of the same sex as the person detained, unless the search is a body cavity search conducted under sub. (3);

(b) The detained person is not exposed to the view of any person not conducting the search;

(c) The search is not reproduced through a visual or sound recording;

(d) A person conducting the search has obtained the prior written permission of the chief, sheriff or law enforcement administrator of the jurisdiction where the person is detained, or his or her designee, unless there is probable cause to believe that the detained person is concealing a weapon; and

(e) A person conducting the search prepares a report identifying the person detained, all persons conducting the search, the time, date and place of the search and the written authorization required by par. (d), and provides a copy of the report to the person detained.

Body Cavity Search

(3) No person other than a physician, physician assistant or registered nurse licensed to practice in this state may conduct a body cavity search.

The reason the officers were not charged with sexual assault, as you are trying to argue, is listed below.

(4) A person who intentionally violates this section may be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 90 days or both.

(5) This section does not limit the rights of any person to civil damages or injunctive relief.

(6) A law enforcement agency, as defined in s. 165.83 (1) (b), may promulgate rules concerning strip searches which at least meet the minimum requirements of this section.

What you ignored

(7) This section does not apply to a search of any person who:

(a) Is serving a sentence, pursuant to a conviction, in a jail, state prison or house of correction.

(b) Is placed in or transferred to a juvenile correctional facility, as defined in s. 938.02 (10p), or a secured residential care center for children and youth, as defined in s. 938.02 (15g).

(c) Is committed, transferred or admitted under ch. 51, 971 or 975.

(d) Is confined as a condition of probation under s. 973.09 (4).

History: 1979 c. 240; 1981 c. 297; 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 17; 1993 a. 95, 105; 1995 a. 77, 154; 1997 a. 35; 1999 a. 9; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 344; 2011 a. 35.

A visual body cavity search is more intrusive than a strip search. It is not objectively reasonable for police to conclude that consent to a strip search includes consent to scrutiny of body cavities. State v. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61, 251 Wis. 2d 625, 642 N.W.2d 549, 00-3524.

Exceptions -

Intrusive searches of the mouth, nose, or ears are not covered by sub. (3). However, searches of those body orifices should be conducted by medical personnel to comply with the 4th and 5th amendments. 71 Atty. Gen. 12.

So yes, other people can conduct a body cavity search aside from a physicial, Pa or nurse. This is what happens when you generalize / make blanket statements. It has bitten you in numerous times in thise thread.

Secondly, since you are bouncing around. What are you claiming with this incident? that the cop was given preferential treatment / no charges? Or did we go back to the other side of your flip flop about law enforcement actions and you not knowing / understanding how it works?

Think it over and when you decide which one of your 2 faces would like to answer, come back and respond.

GogoVicMorrow
See more garbage from you. It is not a Wikipedia knock off. It is wikipedia. Link worked fine for me.

Never straight talk from you.

Do we really need to ask a mod to view the edit history of that post. Your link was malformed and did not go to a wiki page.

GogoVicMorrow
I cherry picked nothing. I have read and watched more on the case. There are allegedly witnesses that support the police story, but most do not.

Admitting that after you got called out on it. As I stated, do your homework and stop making things up / omitting info to support you position.

GogoVicMorrow
When you are roasted with third degree burns covering your body.. do you really think youbare thinking about police commands? No. More likely thinking about the excruciating pain that is your existence.

Yet he apparently was ok enough to have less lethal used on him, charged the officer while jumping on his patrol car. Secondly witnesses corroborated the officer statement, something you neglected to show when you tried to slide it in under the wire in hopes no one would research your claims.

GogoVicMorrow
The cop said himself on camera with the words coming out of his mouth that he shot the guy because he was afraid he would touch hi im and he described how terrible he looked.

Link to the video / article that you got this info from.

GogoVicMorrow
Of course he was cleared. You seem to miss the point im making. Cops get cleared for things they hould rot for.

Moving your position again? The cop was cleared because the shooting was justified, under both, department policy as well as the law.

you don't like cops - we get it. What you don't get is the information as to why the shooting was justified. You ignore the law, substitute your opinion and then are shocked aand outraged because what you thought should happen did not.

please - educate yourself before trying to make arguments.

GogoVicMorrow
Wiuld you shoot a man with his skin slouching off because he wouldn't/couldnt lay on the ground? Would you shoot a man in shock?

This guy did.

If I did not know what was going on, and the guy who has that type of a burn is all of a sudden not complying, not speaking, then charges at me while jumping on the patrol car yes, I would have transitioned to lethal since at that point. The person is able enough to come at me and jump on a car so the argument that his burns should be taken as a factor is incorrect.

GogoVicMorrow
You have just proven you guys aren't worth a penny.

edit on 1-2-2014 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Yet in the end I know what im talking about and you... well.... don't.

This thread is closed for staff review.

~Tenth

***ATTENTION**

This thread is being re-opened and it will be under intense staff scrutiny.

The insults, off topic replies and general misbehaving will end here.

The next action taken will be posting bans handed up to offenders lasting a minimum of 3 days.

No other warnings will be given.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod