Well, the we-need-no-armed-officers-rule was made for a homogeneously English population!

But with all the immigrants and terrorists from all over the world, the people better change their perspective.

Most of them where born and raised in countries with a lot more violence and cruelty on a daily basis.

So, of course the UK needs more armed officers.

All officers should constantly carry automatic rifles these days in Europe.

Look what happened last weekend in my country.

We needed the highly trained full armored and full armed Hamburg SWAT to bring the situation under control again.

1 hour ago, Schecter004 said:

Well, the we-need-no-armed-officers-rule was made for a homogeneously English population!

But with all the immigrants and terrorists from all over the world, the people better change their perspective.

Most of them where born and raised in countries with a lot more violence and cruelty on a daily basis.

 

Actually, many of the terrorists were either born in the country they decided to attack, or born within the EU. The 'Immigrants are the reason for the terror attacks' is an hoax, spread by alt-news and xenophobic websites and medias.

 

Besides, as I explained before, guns don't stop terrorist attacks. You can't shoot an idea, a propaganda. You don't fight terrorism with guns, you fight terrorism with counter-propaganda campaigns and excellent intellgience services. But not with guns on regular police officers.

Edited July 12, 20178 yr by Hystery

7 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Besides, as I explained before, guns don't stop terrorist attacks. You can't shoot an idea, a propaganda. You don't fight terrorism with guns, you fight terrorism with counter-propaganda campaigns and excellent intellgience services. But not with guns on regular police officers.

 

A lot of people seem to be under the mind set of guns make you psychic, and you can now predict what is going to happen.  Or that you're a sharpshooter and can shoot a terrorist before he does anything.  That is not how it works, at all.

 

1 hour ago, Schecter004 said:

But with all the immigrants and terrorists from all over the world, the people better change their perspective.

 

You're implying immigrants are the problem and that without them everything would be fine.  This is incorrect.  Even if you kept out foreign terrorists, you still have homegrown ones in your back yard.

Edited July 12, 20178 yr by Kallus Rourke

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 

Actually, many of the terrorists were either born in the country they decided to attack, or born within the EU. The 'Immigrants are the reason for the terror attacks' is an hoax, spread by alt-news and xenophobic websites and medias.

 

Besides, as I explained before, guns don't stop terrorist attacks. You can't shoot an idea, a propaganda. You don't fight terrorism with guns, you fight terrorism with counter-propaganda campaigns and excellent intellgience services. But not with guns on regular police officers.

Well, before Europe was flooded with immigrants, we didn't experienced  any attacks.

And of course armed police officers will stop terrorists 

immediately

.

Well, obviously you from France.

How can you think like the way you think.

Your country is full of ass wipes from the orient.

Look at Japan.

One of the lowest crime rates, friendly people, unarmed police.

And why?

Because it's a homogeneously country.

And the people who made the attacks, weren't English, French or whatever.

Their parents came from the middle east.

Only their citizenship was English or French.

Stop carry millions of foreigners into other countries.

IT DOES NOT WORK.

NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE FRIENDLY.

13 minutes ago, Schecter004 said:

Well, before Europe was flooded with immigrants, we didn't experienced  any attacks.

And of course armed police officers will stop terrorists 

immediately

.

Well, obviously you from France.

How can you think like the way you think.

Your country is full of ass wipes from the orient.

Look at Japan.

One of the lowest crime rates, friendly people, unarmed police.

And why?

Because it's a homogeneously country.

And the people who made the attacks, weren't English, French or whatever.

Their parents came from the middle east.

Only their citizenship was English or French.

Stop carry millions of foreigners into other countries.

IT DOES NOT WORK.

NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE FRIENDLY.

 

Armed police officers will stop terrorists after the incident has already happened, yes, but most of the time they aren't going to be able to stop an attack because they aren't psychic.  Furthermore, you're under the impression armed police officers will just shoot on sight.  That's also not how it works.  In some situations, yes, if there is an immediate threat, but you must realize police officers still do have laws and policy to follow.  They can't walk up to a guy wearing a heavy coat and go "We think you're a terrorist, open your coat."

 

You're right, not all people are friendly, so why is it you're ONLY addressing foreigners?  Why aren't you mentioning the homegrown terrorists? Why aren't you mentioning the people within your own country that are "not friendly"?  You don't get to just pick on certain people and ignore others. Terrorists can be anyone, foreigners or those born in your country.

 

Edited July 12, 20178 yr by Kallus Rourke

29 minutes ago, Schecter004 said:

Well, before Europe was flooded with immigrants, we didn't experienced  any attacks.

And of course armed police officers will stop terrorists 

immediately

 

Let me correct you: "before ISIS started their online propaganda in western countries, we didn't experience any attacks". Not before Europe was "flooded".

And of course armed police officers will NOT stop terrorists immediately. Police officers cannot predict where terrorists will strike, and if they happen, by chance, to be on the scene when something happens, they don't have a 100% accuracy, they don't have a 100% success rate, and they certainly won't do anything if the terrorist happens to have something like a truck right away. Guns don't stop or prevent terrorism. They never will. Look at 9/11. Would guns have prevented two planes from crashing? Do you think a police officer in NYC could have shot down the planes to prevent them from crashing? Of course not. Guns won't, ever, prevent or stop terrorism. That's a hard fact, and you can't choose to acknowledge it or not, because it simple IS.

 

29 minutes ago, Schecter004 said:

Well, obviously you from France.

How can you think like the way you think.

Your country is full of ass wipes from the orient.

 

Really? Would you happen to know better than me what happens in my own country? Let me ask you a question. Do you know what is the part of the population who happens to be muslim in France? Would you know that? Of course not. It's 7.5%. Roughly 4.7 millions people. Out of 65 millions. Part of the population that is muslim AND immigrant? Below 1% "FULL OF ASS WIPES FROM ORIENT", you said. Well, hard fact again for you: NOPE. Sorry to shatter your biased vision of the world, but that ain't the case.

Edited July 12, 20178 yr by Hystery

13 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Armed police officers will stop terrorists after the incident has already happened, yes, but most of the time they aren't going to be able to stop an attack because they aren't psychic.  Furthermore, you're under the impression armed police officers will just shoot on sight.  That's also not how it works.  In some situations, yes, if there is an immediate threat, but you must realize police officers still do have laws and policy to follow.  They can't walk up to a guy wearing a heavy coat and go "We think you're a terrorist, open your coat."

 

You're right, not all people are friendly, so why is it you're ONLY addressing foreigners?  Why aren't you mentioning the homegrown terrorists? Why aren't you mentioning the people within your own country that are "not friendly"?  You don't get to just pick on certain people and ignore others. Terrorists can be anyone, foreigners or those born in your country.

 

Just like i said.

Before so many people came to Europe, there wasn't a single attack.

And it's a difference if i do shit in my own country or if i do shit in a foreign country.

You're from America.

You just simply don't know what's going on here.

Your government is the main reason for all this but America refuses to take care of it.

It's plain simple.

It's all about US vs RUSSIA.

 

23 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Let me correct you: "before ISIS started their online propaganda in western countries, we didn't experience any attacks". Not before Europe was "flooded".

And of course armed police officers will NOT stop terrorists immediately. Police officers cannot predict where terrorists will strike, and if they happen, by chance, to be on the scene when something happens, they don't have a 100% accuracy, they don't have a 100% success rate, and they certainly won't do anything if the terrorist happens to have something like a truck right away. Guns don't stop or prevent terrorism. They never will. Look at 9/11. Would guns have prevented two planes from crashing? Do you think a police officer in NYC could have shot down the planes to prevent them from crashing? Of course not. Guns won't, ever, prevent or stop terrorism. That's a hard fact, and you can't choose to acknowledge it or not, because it simple IS.

 

 

Really? Would you happen to know better than me what happens in my own country? Let me ask you a question. Do you know what is the part of the population who happens to be muslim in France? Would you know that? Of course not. It's 7.5%. Roughly 4.7 millions people. Out of 65 millions. Part of the population that is muslim AND immigrant? Below 1% "FULL OF ASS WIPES FROM ORIENT", you said. Well, hard fact again for you: NOPE. Sorry to shatter your biased vision of the world, but that ain't the case.

I don't care if they're French or English or German.

Fact is, they're muslim.

And they stay in Europe for generations.

But most of them don't care about our traditions, our rules, our way to live, language, nothing.

It's all about them.

Look at Paris St. Denis, for example.

Who are the gangsters, who are the troublemaker, huh?

People, who's parents are original from Algeria, Tunisia or Marocco.

They simply don't belong in here.

If they want to cut their heads off they can do it in their own country.

But i don't want to have this retarded religion shit in Germany.

The ISLAM doesn't belong to Europe.

I know a lot of muslim people.

And it's always the same.

It's always about religion.

Even for those muslims who are obviously well integrated.

 

45 minutes ago, Schecter004 said:

I don't care if they're French or English or German.

Fact is, they're muslim.

 

Fact is, there aren't muslim. And I'll prove it with 3 easy steps.

1/ The attack in Nice, with the truck, killed several muslims. It doesn't make sense for a supposed muslim to kill another muslim for Islam.

2/ The attack in London happened during Ramadan. Ramadan is a sacred period for every muslim. Not respecting it is considered a serious sin. Terrorists did not respect one of their supposed most sacred customs. Therefore they aren't muslims.

3/ The Great Mosque of al-Nuri, in Mosul, is one of the most sacred temple dedicated to Islam. ISIS dynamited it and reduced it in a pile of rubble. No muslim would do that.

 

Fact is, terrorists are crazy brainwashed motherfuckers who were mentally unbalanced even before they ever thought about comitting a crime such as a terror attack. Think about that.

 

45 minutes ago, Schecter004 said:

But most of them don't care about our traditions, our rules, our way to live, language, nothing.

It's all about them.

 

No, most of them do care about our traditions. How I know that? Because if that wasn't the case, we would have 4.7 millions people living by middle east standards here in France, and that's simply not the case. You just take the minority who indeed doesn't wish to be assimilated in the population and treat it as the standard value to judge all muslims or people of arabic origin. That's not how it works.

 

45 minutes ago, Schecter004 said:

Look at Paris St. Denis, for example.

Who are the gangsters, who are the troublemaker, huh?

People, who's parents are original from Algeria, Tunisia or Marocco.

 

Wrong.

 

Saint Denis is actually a perfect example for me, so thank you for mentioning it. Do you know what is Saint Denis? Saint Denis is a city where 27% of the population is living beneath the poverty threshold (country average: +/-10%), meaning they have less than 1000 euros per month to live (that means less than 1k euros per month to pay the bills, pay the food, pay the clothes, pay the insurances, etc). Another stat? Saint Denis is a city where the unemployment rate is standing at a beautiful 24% of the active population (country average: ~10%). And do you know what happens in cities where poverty and unemployment are in high numbers? Crime. This is unrelated to skin color or religion. This is sociology. Think about that.

 

45 minutes ago, Schecter004 said:

But i don't want to have this retarded religion shit in Germany.

The ISLAM doesn't belong to Europe.

 

Because other religions are SO much better, amirite? Christianism for example which, during the crusades, perpetrated the first genocides of jewish people, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people in the name of the Christ. Or with all those white supremasists who slaughtered black people in the US and in the world in the name of their god. Or with their priests who molest children. What? Yes, only a minority do that. But since you seem to judge all muslims only from the actions of a handful of them, I can do the same, can't I? Your double-standards are off the charts. If you accept one religion, you accept all religions, because they ALL have flaws, they ALL have violence in them, without a single exception. I invite you to google 'violent quotes from bible', I'm sure you'll be entertained.

 

45 minutes ago, Schecter004 said:

I know a lot of muslim people.

 

I can confidently say that you don't judging by what you've said so far.

 

Please. Stop repeating what you're hearing on xenopobic, racist websites or alt-news networks, and try to make your own opinion by seeing the larger picture, and not through the narrow point of view of just a handful of people who actually know absolutely nothing of what they're talking about.

 

 

Edited July 13, 20178 yr by Hystery

6 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Fact is, there aren't muslim. And I'll prove it with 3 easy steps.

1/ The attack in Nice, with the truck, killed several muslims. It doesn't make sense for a supposed muslim to kill another muslim for Islam.

2/ The attack in London happened during Ramadan. Ramadan is a sacred period for every muslim. Not respecting it is considered a serious sin. Terrorists did not respect one of their supposed most sacred customs. Therefore they aren't muslims.

3/ The Great Mosque of al-Nuri, in Mosul, is one of the most sacred temple dedicated to Islam. ISIS dynamited it and reduced it in a pile of rubble. No muslim would do that.

 

Fact is, terrorists are crazy brainwashed motherfuckers who were mentally unbalanced even before they ever thought about comitting a crime such as a terror attack. Think about that.

 

 

No, most of them do care about our traditions. How I know that? Because if that wasn't the case, we would have 4.7 millions people living by middle east standards here in France, and that's simply not the case. You just take the minority who indeed doesn't wish to be assimilated in the population and treat it as the standard value to judge all muslims or people of arabic origin. That's not how it works.

 

 

Wrong.

 

Saint Denis is actually a perfect example for me, so thank you for mentioning it. Do you know what is Saint Denis? Saint Denis is a city where 27% of the population is living beneath the poverty threshold (country average: +/-10%), meaning they have less than 1000 euros per month to live (that means less than 1k euros per month to pay the bills, pay the food, pay the clothes, pay the insurances, etc). Another stat? Saint Denis is a city where the unemployment rate is standing at a beautiful 24% of the active population (country average: ~10%). And do you know what happens in cities where poverty and unemployment are in high numbers? Crime. This is unrelated to skin color or religion. This is sociology. Think about that.

 

 

Because other religions are SO much better, amirite? Christianism for example which, during the crusades, perpetrated the first genocides of jewish people, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people in the name of the Christ. Or with all those white supremasists who slaughtered black people in the US and in the world in the name of their god. Or with their priests who molest children. What? Yes, only a minority do that. But since you seem to judge all muslims only from the actions of a handful of them, I can do the same, can't I? Your double-standards are off the charts. If you accept one religion, you accept all religions, because they ALL have flaws, they ALL have violence in them, without a single exception. I invite you to google 'violent quotes from bible', I'm sure you'll be entertained.

 

 

I can confidently say that you don't judging by what you've said so far.

 

Please. Stop repeating what you're hearing on xenopobic, racist websites or alt-news networks, and try to make your own opinion by seeing the larger picture, and not through the narrow point of view of just a handful of people who actually know absolutely nothing of what they're talking about.

 

 

I don't judge about someone because I saw something on TV or read something in the Internet.

Our Media tells and shows us all the time how great the ISLAM is and how Well educated these people are.

So i can say , you shouldnt believe what the media tells you.

I judge about these people because I know how they think and how they live.

Sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

On Saturday, July 08, 2017 at 10:40 AM, ahling023 said:

i am not sure how westerner and asian people thinking tho .

 

 

But one thing for sure is both Hong kong and singapore police are both used to trained by the UK metropolitan police . but the facts is 

 

 

Singapore and hong kong police forces are both armed . i mean the regular police and special constabulary .  even thought Singapore and hong kong is well knowed for its gun control in border . it is well knowed facts that is it almost impossible to carry guns to singapore . but still the singapore and hong kong police carry arms for its own police officer safety . 

 

 

 

 

That was back in the 70s, 80s and 90s. What difference does that make now?

 

AND WHAT DOES HONG KONG AND ONCE AGAIN, SINGAPORE GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING? They're independent British colonies, so frankly, we shouldn't give a toss about them in all recent events, unless there's some serious link. So if you're going to raise something about Singapore for the billionth time, notice that there's a HUGE cultural difference, and stop bringing up arming our police.

 

They don't want guns, we don't want them either.

2 hours ago, Schecter004 said:

I don't judge about someone because I saw something on TV or read something in the Internet.

Our Media tells and shows us all the time how great the ISLAM is and how Well educated these people are.

So i can say , you shouldnt believe what the media tells you.

 

 

Really? Really though? Let me tell you a little story.

 

Let's say a guy comes out of a street with a truck and decides to run over the crowd on the sidewalk. The SECOND medias would happen to know he's of arabic origin, EVERY media on Earth, every single one of them, will spam the "TERRORIST ATTACK", "TERROR IN [CITY]", "ISLAMIST TERRORIST", even though they actually know absolute-freaking-ly nothing of the guy and what actually happened.

 

Now let's take the exact same story. A guy comes out of a street with a truck and decides to run over the crowd on the sidewalk. The SECOND medias would happen to know he's caucasian... nothing. No catchy TERRORIST logo, no TERROR ATTACK band passing on the bottom of the screen, absolutely nothing. They'll just say they don't have many info yet, and that the guy might be mentally unstable, and then they'll start blaming his difficult childhood and shit. It'd take them DAYS to eventually call him a terrorist, if they do it at all.

 

The first scenario was Nice.

The second scenario was Finsbury Park, London, where a white male drove into a crowd of innocent muslims in front of a mosque with a van.

 

Yes, both happened, and medias reacted exactly like this. Medias tell and show us all the time how great Islam is? I don't think so. Another proof that you actually do NOT know what you're talking about, you're just repeating what you hear here and there from alt-news "journalists" and xenophobic politics.

 

 

2 hours ago, Schecter004 said:

I judge about these people because I know how they think and how they live.

Sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

No, you definitely don't, and I can say that because of all the inaccuracies and shortcuts you've been taking so far in every single one of your posts. You absolutely have no idea how they think and how they live. You THINK you know, the difference is there, but your view on them is solely based on biased stereotypes and a very, very small minority of people.

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Really? Really though? Let me tell you a little story.

 

Let's say a guy comes out of a street with a truck and decides to run over the crowd on the sidewalk. The SECOND medias would happen to know he's of arabic origin, EVERY media on Earth, every single one of them, will spam the "TERRORIST ATTACK", "TERROR IN [CITY]", "ISLAMIST TERRORIST", even though they actually know absolute-freaking-ly nothing of the guy and what actually happened.

 

Now let's take the exact same story. A guy comes out of a street with a truck and decides to run over the crowd on the sidewalk. The SECOND medias would happen to know he's caucasian... nothing. No catchy TERRORIST logo, no TERROR ATTACK band passing on the bottom of the screen, absolutely nothing. They'll just say they don't have many info yet, and that the guy might be mentally unstable, and then they'll start blaming his difficult childhood and shit. It'd take them DAYS to eventually call him a terrorist, if they do it at all.

 

The first scenario was Nice.

The second scenario was Finsbury Park, London, where a white male drove into a crowd of innocent muslims in front of a mosque with a van.

 

Yes, both happened, and medias reacted exactly like this. Medias tell and show us all the time how great Islam is? I don't think so. Another proof that you actually do NOT know what you're talking about, you're just repeating what you hear here and there from alt-news "journalists" and xenophobic politics.

 

 

 

No, you definitely don't, and I can say that because of all the inaccuracies and shortcuts you've been taking so far in every single one of your posts. You absolutely have no idea how they think and how they live. You THINK you know, the difference is there, but your view on them is solely based on biased stereotypes and a very, very small minority of people.

Whatever.

Obviously we have different opinions.

That's not an opinion, that's facts. That's literally what happened. You can't choose not to acknowledge it just to advance your own political agenda, it doesn't work like that. But you obviously won't listen anyway so I'll leave it at that.

Edited July 13, 20178 yr by Hystery

I would like to point out that it is only a minority of people who claim to be Muslim that are the ones who partake in Terrorists attack - that is a fact so I expect that in future that some people in this topic make more appropriate posts relating to an entire religion being 'immigrants' and 'terrorists'. You are entitled to your own opinion, but any posts which contain any form of racist sweeping generalization's towards religions or races will not be tolerated.

If such discussions continue sanctions will be issued.

I think every officer who wants to should be armed, and can carry a 9mm handgun on duty and off duty. Officers should be strongly encouraged to carry one and they should set a deadline for when every frontline officer must carry a sidearm. I think its not just terrorist attacks - knife crime is so high in London and in general in the UK. Another example. Take an armed robbery of a shop in a small village. The local village bobby might be able to follow them but it might take an hour for an armed response team to intercept them. 

On 7/18/2017 at 7:41 AM, qwertyK said:

I think every officer who wants to should be armed, and can carry a 9mm handgun on duty and off duty. Officers should be strongly encouraged to carry one and they should set a deadline for when every frontline officer must carry a sidearm. I think its not just terrorist attacks - knife crime is so high in London and in general in the UK. Another example. Take an armed robbery of a shop in a small village. The local village bobby might be able to follow them but it might take an hour for an armed response team to intercept them. 

 

Armed with a taser? Great. With a gun? I still don't see the need. I think that increased numbers of ARVs would be more effective, without compromising standards.

 

Alternatively, if violent crime continued to rise and it did become necessary to arm significantly higher numbers of officers, the Scandinavian system of storing guns securely in police cars would probably be better than giving handguns out to whichever officers were willing to take them. That way the option is always there, but it doesn't have such a big effect on public perception of the police, and makes situations less likely to escalate unnecessarily.

As an armed US Citizen i feel all Police Forces should have access too, and carry at least one firearm. I mean you essentially have a ideological terrorist war going on in some of the EU and to expect your law enforcement to keep you safe with a baton is laughable. I have seen countless videos of French or Other Police officers being beaten and running off from violent confrontations. When your Law Enforcement cannot physically stand up to a simple threat, you have a problem. All of them should have FN 57's and some sort of taser and or mace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The examples go on and on. I could list tens of videos if you like. 

Edited July 20, 20178 yr by LCPDDevin91

2 minutes ago, LCPDDevin91 said:

As an armed US Citizen i feel all Police Forces should have access too, and carry at least one firearm. I mean you essentially have a ideological terrorist war going on in some of the EU and to expect your law enforcement to keep you safe with a baton is laughable. I have seen countless videos of French or Other Police officers being beaten and running off from violent confrontations. When your Law Enforcement cannot physically stand up to a simple threat, you have a problem. All of them should have FN 57's and some sort of taser and or mace.

 

The examples go on and on. I could list tens of videos if you like. 

The second example showed a tactic that I've been told is deliberate. Don't surround a suspect fully, let them move and keep a constant distance between you and the suspect. Against knives, this allows officers to build up numbers and keep the suspect distracted until the officers decide to act. They had tasers on scene, and guns would not have ended the situation any better.

 

The third video is a symptom of massive understaffing in the police. If they had had guns, they would have struggled to justify using them on any one member of that crowd, and against a large number of hostile but unarmed people, the police need numbers more than additional weapons. And they really do need the numbers, which is why I would prefer to see more officers and staff than more guns.

 

You probably aren't aware as he's not too well known, but the last two videos came from a very disreputable source. That youtube channel and the user associated with it have a long history of stirring up racial hatred, and of misrepresenting events to suit his agenda. When he's not in prison, he's usually producing misleading videos like that last one.

 

The final video is part of a demonstration that followed a pre-agreed route through London, and the police officers being filmed were leading the crowd through the city. They went past the place I used to work, and there were plenty of cops at the back of that crowd as well, making sure that the demonstrators kept on moving. It got violent, but only in sporadic outbursts, as many demonstrations do.

2 minutes ago, sek510i said:

The second example showed a tactic that I've been told is deliberate. Don't surround a suspect fully, let them move and keep a constant distance between you and the suspect. Against knives, this allows officers to build up numbers and keep the suspect distracted until the officers decide to act. They had tasers on scene, and guns would not have ended the situation any better.

 

The third video is a symptom of massive understaffing in the police. If they had had guns, they would have struggled to justify using them on any one member of that crowd, and against a large number of hostile but unarmed people, the police need numbers more than additional weapons. And they really do need the numbers, which is why I would prefer to see more officers and staff than more guns.

 

You probably aren't aware as he's not too well known, but the last two videos came from a very disreputable source. That youtube channel and the user associated with it have a long history of stirring up racial hatred, and of misrepresenting events to suit his agenda. When he's not in prison, he's usually producing misleading videos like that last one.

 

The final video is part of a demonstration that followed a pre-agreed route through London, and the police officers being filmed were leading the crowd through the city. They went past the place I used to work, and there were plenty of cops at the back of that crowd as well, making sure that the demonstrators kept on moving. It got violent, but only in sporadic outbursts, as many demonstrations do.

 

 

I understand and respect your opinions aside from those regarding Tommy Robinson. Those events happened, that's a fact. He reported them as he saw fit. As far as i am concerned he is the last true British Man left. If you do not think you have a problem going on in the EU, than you are as blind as Germany and Sweden's citizens. 

Edited July 20, 20178 yr by LCPDDevin91