"Stop-and-Frisk" use rising.

[SavageEagle]

I think you misunderstood him. According to Terry, you must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed. An LEO can then stop, question, and do a light patdown of the outer clothing for weapons to ensure office safety during the stop. No searching of bags, boxes, or rifling through clothing. Otherwise, it is unreasonable (meaning: without a reason other than fishing and intimidation).

It's pretty clear in NY that these unreasonable searches happen quite a lot. I didn't misunderstand anything. I've been in the situation a few times. Like the day I was "lightly" patdown by ISP for standing on an overpass waving a flag. He was just disarming me because he didn't understand what was going on.

That's one thing.

But walking up to random people and searching bags and pockets because someone LOOKS suspicious is a bit too far. And what happens while they are patting someone down and they feel a lighter. Opps, he might be a pothead. Better search him better. They feel your pocket knife and BOOM, down to the ground with a boot in your neck. Yep, this has happened quite often.

This whole practice is useless. If you're going to stop crime you'd better be a psychic.

 

[CarmelHP]

It's pretty clear in NY that these unreasonable searches happen quite a lot. I didn't misunderstand anything. ...

But walking up to random people and searching bags and pockets because someone LOOKS suspicious is a bit too far. And what happens while they are patting someone down and they feel a lighter. Opps, he might be a pothead. Better search him better. They feel your pocket knife and BOOM, down to the ground with a boot in your neck. Yep, this has happened quite often.

This whole practice is useless. If you're going to stop crime you'd better be a psychic.

And that's an abuse and not legal under Terry, which is what the poster you took issue with was saying. A lot of illegal things happen until someone stands up. If the ACLU wasn't busy chasing any reference to God out of the public sphere maybe they would have to the resources to challenge real civil rights abuses.

 

[Indy317]

I don't see how they're good at all, Denny... I can understand if an officer drives by and sees someone at the front door of a house, wondering if that person is there lawfully or not... but wondering and watching or even stopping the car and walking up to ask vs. going up and doing a frisk, a search, whatever... those are very different animals.

What are you talking about exactly? Are you saying that if police see activity that may appear to be a burglary, they should just "wonder" about it and keep on driving? Trust me, I am sure the cops wouldn't mind if that was policy...less paperwork for them. Granted they will still be doing a burglary report later on when the homeowner returns, but at least they won't have to deal with arrest paperwork, as they never stopped to question the person.

I am not saying that everyone on a porch should be considered to be breaking into the home. Obviously if the person is one the officer knows not to live there, that is one thing that could be a factor. If the person takes off running with a screw driver in their hand, that might be enough for a stop.

Also, if a police officer goes up to someone because the police officer may have a gut instinct, that doesn't make the contact illegal. If the person voluntarily agrees to stop and talk, they might agree to a pat down. I know most folks here may not, but this board represents a very, very small % of the population. There are plenty of folks out there who willingly give up their rights on an hourly basis. As such, this still counts as a stop and frisk. Maybe the person goes to jail, maybe they don't. Maybe police are targeting people illegally, maybe they aren't. While some here may want it law that anytime a police officer ask to speak to someone, Miranda and everything else applies, that just isn't the law as it stands today.

The article speaks for itself and says it all.

It does? Here is a clip from the article:

Ronnie Carr's experience was typical: He was fumbling with his apartment door after school in Brooklyn when plainclothes officers flashed their badges."What are you doing here?" one asked, as they rifled through his backpack and then his pockets. The black teenager stood there, quiet and nervous, and waited.
Carr said the officers told him they stopped him because he looked suspicious peeking in the windows. He explained that he had lost his keys. Twenty minutes later, the officers left. Carr was not arrested or cited with any offense.


Are you serious telling me that the _only_ thing those two cops said to that kid was "What are you doing here?" Oh wait, the "officers told" him something. OK, what _exactly_ was said? Did they stop him because they got a call from a witness? Maybe the witness wanted to remain anonymous so they had to watch him to build up reasonable suspicion. The article doesn't give us _any_ of these details. We get a one side story, that is all the article gives. No video, no audio. Not only that, he doesn't deny he was "peeking in the windows." So should cops just drive on by when they see someone peeking through windows? If not, and you think cops should at least stop and question the person to make sure the person isn't a burglar or peeping tom, don't you think the officers have a right to do a pat down of the outer clothing for weapons? Either way, this is what the law currently states. As many burglars carry tools that could harm another person, most courts and juries will side with officers if they choose to do a pat down.


For those who are stopped illegally, but never arrested, try carrying a pocket recorder and file lawsuits. If two young adults can bust Acorn, surely a civil rights group could film/record illegal police actions. Instead, all we get is the same one-sided story from people. No questions are asked for the exact conversation. No questions are asked if the people believe they can or can't refuse. No questions are asked if the people voluntarily let themselves be searched. Etc. Etc.

I think you misunderstood him. According to Terry, you must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed. An LEO can then stop, question, and do a light patdown of the outer clothing for weapons to ensure office safety during the stop. No searching of bags, boxes, or rifling through clothing. Otherwise, it is unreasonable (meaning: without a reason other than fishing and intimidation).

You must have reasonable suspicion to _detain_ someone. At any given time, an LEO can walk up to a citizen and ask "Hey, can I talk to you?" If the citizen cooperates, they citizen has voluntarily engaged the officer. If the officer wants to ask the citizen if they can look in their book bag, and the person allows it, that also is totally legal. This happens, and as long as the person isn't detained, Miranda doesn't apply and neither does the warrant requirement. Arguments about this are made in court constant, defense attorneys hoping to get some judge to rule that _any_ police contact is a detainment, etc.. Until judges start ruling this way, casual encounters are said to be voluntary on the part of the non-LEO party. Factors which usually come into play in these sorts of issues are: # of officers standing around person? Did the officer give the person a chance to speak? Did the officer ask? How did the officer ask? Does the officer only do this to certain types of people? Do the factors in the situation make the person feel like they were no free to leave? Was the person told they were or weren't free to leave? The list goes on and on.

As far as all these illegal searches or profiling people to stop, etc.. Like I said before, two young adults had their 15 mins. of fame for busting Acorn. It isn't that hard to bust people when they are doing wrong. You know those crazy preacher types? There is one _group_ (but most folks never notice the group, they just noticed the individual who is calling the girls sluts) that goes from public university to public university. The preacher guy wears a recorder. He usually has one or two others who are off in the distance, usually with a recorder ready to go. They have successfully sued universities when they are moved from one area to another, and then show proof when pro-abortion, pro-gay, etc. groups were not made to move. Lawsuits, and to a lesser extent criminal charges, are what stop police misconduct.

 

[CarmelHP]

You must have reasonable suspicion to _detain_ someone. At any given time, an LEO can walk up to a citizen and ask "Hey, can I talk to you?"

Then it's not a Terry stop, and has nothing to do with Terry. I was specifically talking about a Terry type stop.

If the citizen cooperates, they citizen has voluntarily engaged the officer. If the officer wants to ask the citizen if they can look in their book bag, and the person allows it, that also is totally legal. This happens, and as long as the person isn't detained, Miranda doesn't apply and neither does the warrant requirement. Arguments about this are made in court constant, defense attorneys hoping to get some judge to rule that _any_ police contact is a detainment, etc.. Until judges start ruling this way, casual encounters are said to be voluntary on the part of the non-LEO party.

Not a Terry stop. We were talking about involuntary encounters. Maybe they were voluntary, but we certainly can't tell from the article.

Lawsuits, and to a lesser extent criminal charges, are what stop police misconduct.

And if they're abusing involuntary encounters covered by Terry, that's exactly what should happen. I do, however, think it's extremely charitable to assume that a person stopped multiple times and searched (if he actually was) was asked each time, "May I," and responded each time, "Yes, you may."

 

[Bill of Rights]

What are you talking about exactly? Are you saying that if police see activity that may appear to be a burglary, they should just "wonder" about it and keep on driving? Trust me, I am sure the cops wouldn't mind if that was policy...less paperwork for them. Granted they will still be doing a burglary report later on when the homeowner returns, but at least they won't have to deal with arrest paperwork, as they never stopped to question the person.

Nope. Re-read what I said: wonder and watch vs. exit their car and ask verbally vs. exit the car, challenge the person on the doorstep, frisk/search... and the cops I know might want less paperwork, but the dedication they have to a lawful society is fierce and in no way would they want to just drive on, wondering. I don't want them to just drive past, either; rather, I said, stop their car, watch the guy. If he takes out a ring of keys and opens the door, probably no reason to challenge him. If he's acting "furtively" (that is, looking around nervously, as if trying to get inside without being seen), then at a minimum, go up and talk to him. If he's busting in windows or doors, all bets are off.

I am not saying that everyone on a porch should be considered to be breaking into the home. Obviously if the person is one the officer knows not to live there, that is one thing that could be a factor. If the person takes off running with a screw driver in their hand, that might be enough for a stop.

May? You bet your sweet bippy it is! While it's not unlawful to run while holding a screwdriver, to do so when approached by a LEO is certainly suspicious enough to lead to detaining someone to find out more.

Also, if a police officer goes up to someone because the police officer may have a gut instinct, that doesn't make the contact illegal. If the person voluntarily agrees to stop and talk, they might agree to a pat down. I know most folks here may not, but this board represents a very, very small % of the population. There are plenty of folks out there who willingly give up their rights on an hourly basis. As such, this still counts as a stop and frisk. Maybe the person goes to jail, maybe they don't. Maybe police are targeting people illegally, maybe they aren't. While some here may want it law that anytime a police officer ask to speak to someone, Miranda and everything else applies, that just isn't the law as it stands today.

The problem here is that the person doesn't have to agree to stop and talk and doesn't have to agree to the pat-down. The fact that the LEO approached them and wanted to talk to them is enough to justify all three; no "probable cause", just the "reasonable suspicion".

It does? Here is a clip from the article:

Ronnie Carr's experience was typical: He was fumbling with his apartment door after school in Brooklyn when plainclothes officers flashed their badges."What are you doing here?" one asked, as they rifled through his backpack and then his pockets. The black teenager stood there, quiet and nervous, and waited.
Carr said the officers told him they stopped him because he looked suspicious peeking in the windows. He explained that he had lost his keys. Twenty minutes later, the officers left. Carr was not arrested or cited with any offense.


Are you serious telling me that the _only_ thing those two cops said to that kid was "What are you doing here?" Oh wait, the "officers told" him something. OK, what _exactly_ was said? Did they stop him because they got a call from a witness? Maybe the witness wanted to remain anonymous so they had to watch him to build up reasonable suspicion. The article doesn't give us _any_ of these details. We get a one side story, that is all the article gives. No video, no audio. Not only that, he doesn't deny he was "peeking in the windows." So should cops just drive on by when they see someone peeking through windows? If not, and you think cops should at least stop and question the person to make sure the person isn't a burglar or peeping tom, don't you think the officers have a right to do a pat down of the outer clothing for weapons? Either way, this is what the law currently states. As many burglars carry tools that could harm another person, most courts and juries will side with officers if they choose to do a pat down.

You weren't talking to me here, I don't think, but this is a prime example of a furtive movement that I'd say would be a good time for the LEO to step in and ask, "'Scuse me, sir... Something I can help you with?" The homeowner or other lawful resident will likely turn and respond with something like, "Oh! I hope so, Officer... This is my house, I locked my keys inside. I'm just looking for an open window... maybe. I'd really rather not break one to get in." The burglar, OTOH, will respond nervously, stammer his answer, run... in short, do anything the guy with a right to be there has no reason to do. LEOs, if I'm mistaken here, according to your experience... please correct me.

For those who are stopped illegally, but never arrested, try carrying a pocket recorder and file lawsuits. If two young adults can bust Acorn, surely a civil rights group could film/record illegal police actions. Instead, all we get is the same one-sided story from people. No questions are asked for the exact conversation. No questions are asked if the people believe they can or can't refuse. No questions are asked if the people voluntarily let themselves be searched. Etc. Etc.

I don't think most LEOs would have a problem with the recorder... I recall one (Denny, was it you?) who was talking about getting a small digital recorder with a camera to stick in his pocket. I read yesterday or today about a woman who claimed police mistreated her when she was just the perfect angel to them... the videotape showed differently, and suddenly, no one heard another word from her.

You must have reasonable suspicion to _detain_ someone. At any given time, an LEO can walk up to a citizen and ask "Hey, can I talk to you?" If the citizen cooperates, they citizen has voluntarily engaged the officer. If the officer wants to ask the citizen if they can look in their book bag, and the person allows it, that also is totally legal. This happens, and as long as the person isn't detained, Miranda doesn't apply and neither does the warrant requirement. Arguments about this are made in court constant, defense attorneys hoping to get some judge to rule that _any_ police contact is a detainment, etc.. Until judges start ruling this way, casual encounters are said to be voluntary on the part of the non-LEO party. Factors which usually come into play in these sorts of issues are: # of officers standing around person? Did the officer give the person a chance to speak? Did the officer ask? How did the officer ask? Does the officer only do this to certain types of people? Do the factors in the situation make the person feel like they were no free to leave? Was the person told they were or weren't free to leave? The list goes on and on.

As far as all these illegal searches or profiling people to stop, etc.. Like I said before, two young adults had their 15 mins. of fame for busting Acorn. It isn't that hard to bust people when they are doing wrong. You know those crazy preacher types? There is one _group_ (but most folks never notice the group, they just noticed the individual who is calling the girls sluts) that goes from public university to public university. The preacher guy wears a recorder. He usually has one or two others who are off in the distance, usually with a recorder ready to go. They have successfully sued universities when they are moved from one area to another, and then show proof when pro-abortion, pro-gay, etc. groups were not made to move. Lawsuits, and to a lesser extent criminal charges, are what stop police misconduct.

For those officers who forget their oaths, yeah, you're right. The majority of the time, though, I would be willing to bet that what stops police misconduct is the individual officer who "polices himself" first.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[public servant]

These are always good.

You're gonna share that...right??

 

[hornadylnl]

You're gonna share that...right??

Do you ever add anything that isn't smart***ed, sarcastic or argumentative?

 

[public servant]

Do you ever add anything that isn't smart***ed, sarcastic or argumentative?

Because I like popcorn?? Tough crowd...

Seriously though...am I going to change your opinion about "stop and frisk"? No...

Are you going to change mine? No...

It seems the beef should be with SCOTUS...not local LE.

 

[hornadylnl]

Because I like popcorn?? Tough crowd...

My point is that you never add a single thing to these types of threads except sarcasm. Why do you bother even clicking on them? If you have nothing to add to the debate, then why waste your time?

 

[public servant]

PM inbound to you.

 

[melensdad]

Like most things LEO's do it's about officer discretion and can be usefull.
I got checked by the TSA in the airport because I didn't look away when he looked at me. He came back and selected me for a "random inspection" as my plane was boarding. . .

Used to happen to me EVERY SINGLE TIME that I was boarding a plane. I am not dark completed, but I used to wear a full beard and slightly longer than "businesslike" hair, which gets curly when it gets a little long. Many people who know me believe I am Jewish or light skinned Arab. . . or they did until I shaved, cut my hair (and before my hair started turning grey).

After 9-11-01 I was pulled out of so many flight lines that I finally shaved and cut my hair!!! I was flying out of O'Hare almost every month, sometimes a couple times a month, sometimes without any luggage as I would fly out in the morning and returning same day.

While I generally agree with police/authorities I really got sick of the hassles and came to dislike some of the authority that was exercised.

The concept of "stop & frisk" seems to be over-the-top of what is reasonable.

 

[public servant]

Were you ever given a reason as to why you were selected for TSA searches...or were they simply passed off as "random"?

And I do understand that sometimes the inconvenience can be a hassle...but there is a reason for it. I know some people will claim "false secure" feelings. But personally...if it makes my family safer...I'll put up with some inconveniences.

 

[melensdad]

They were clearly not "random" because it occurred EVERY time that I flew after 9-11 and did not stop until I shaved and cut my hair. Since shaving/cutting my hair I have NEVER been singled out.

I happened when I flew with business associates. I happened when I flew alone. It happened when I flew with my family. I was never given a reason.

 

[public servant]

I have been patted down (and it really was a crummy pat search...I was thinking...I should show this guy how to do this right) and had my baggage searched twice. Once in LA when a large bag of camera film set off an explosives detector and once in Hawaii when something in our baggage set off an agricultural detector...for those smuggling coconuts I suppose?

Inconvenient...yes. But I saw the reasons for it.


Thread jacked...sorry.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Because I like popcorn?? Tough crowd...

Seriously though...am I going to change your opinion about "stop and frisk"? No...

Are you going to change mine? No...

It seems the beef should be with SCOTUS...not local LE.

It probably should, Public, and my goal in pursuing this is to take the beef off of LE and SCOTUS and hopefully find out more about it... a perspective thing..

For example:

If I'm transporting someone (an adult) to a hospital, I may not want their family member in the ambulance with them, even up front. If my patient is a child, I may hesitate a little less to have them there, but there still may be times I do NOT want that adult, even a parent, along with us, and I sure as hell don't want them driving. Maybe a neighbor will volunteer to drive them in or perhaps an LEO would do so. Family members might consider me a hardnosed SOB because of that decision, but if I make it that way, there is a good reason for it. I do not have to allow anyone to ride with us, not a parent, not a sibling, definitely not a "friend". I've had some angry people react to that "no". I've had some understand, too. If I'm asked why, I'll give the answer, when I think it will be understood.

Sometimes, the other person is just too distraught and has no business distracting us. Other possible reasons might include a young female patient who could possibly be pregnant or might have been drinking or drugging, and a parent's presence might prevent that detail from being told. Maybe it's that the child patient is suspected to be an abuse case and I just don't know who did it, nor is it my job to find out, but I'm not going to allow any person's presence to compromise the care of my patient, period. There could be other reasons, too. Now, having said that, I'm sure someone out there is thinking, "Hell will freeze over before you take my kid without me!!", and you have every right to think that. Act on it if you think you must, but if your loved one is my patient, it's possible. Those of you who feel that way are probably not the ones it would happen to, but I would hope they'd understand that my goal is not to be a *rectal orifice*, it's to provide the best possible care to the person I'm there for.

That's the perspective of the guy in the big white box with the blinky lights on it, but that's not something I expect others to see until I tell them. They can't; they're too busy being angry at the perceived violation of their and their loved one's rights.

So it is with the power you guys have. I've talked (in PM) with INGO LEOs. I know the passion you guys have for your careers. You have to love what you do or you wouldn't keep doing it. So here's a thread that has come close in a couple of places to pushing boundries, but has so far stayed inside them. I don't think anyone will argue that NYC cops "stop and frisk"ing the same people every day are exceeding their authority... For God's sake, the guys're just headed home from work! But...Here's something SCOTUS has said you have the power to do, but that doesn't mean you always should nor does it mean you always do. My guess is that you do what I said above: Notice what they're doing and maybe never make contact (kind of a LEO version of "concealed means concealed", in that the news will never report something that didn't happen. Notice what they're doing and go have a chat about it; again, no story, so it goes unnoticed. Then there are the times where you go, challenge, and have to do something about what you find, and when the subject is later cut loose, it becomes a story of police brutality or the like. I was hoping that something like this would be said, but it seems if it's going to, I'm going to have to say it and hope I'm right. If I'm not, well, I've been wrong before, so I really don't mind it happening again.

As for you guys, I'll say what I say to all of you:

Stay safe out there.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[hornadylnl]

I was hoping that something like this would be said, but it seems if it's going to, I'm going to have to say it and hope I'm right. If I'm not, well, I've been wrong before, so I really don't mind it happening again.

As for you guys, I'll say what I say to all of you:

Stay safe out there.

Blessings,
Bill

It would be nice that if our LEO's were going to enter these threads that they would actually add something to the debate other than sarcasm.

I see both sides of the coin on these threads and would like to learn something from them as well but it would help as a non LEO to get information from real LEO's other than eye rolls, nazi pics and the like.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It would be nice that if our LEO's were going to enter these threads that they would actually add something to the debate other than sarcasm.

I see both sides of the coin on these threads and would like to learn something from them as well but it would help as a non LEO to get information from real LEO's other than eye rolls, nazi pics and the like.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, we used to get that kind of feedback until some members decided to start throwing Godwin's Law in, among other things. What we're seeing now is, IMHO, a response to that, where rather than be called it from without, they do it from within. Maybe it hurts less that way, I don't know... but from what I've seen of THESE LEOs, it's not deserved. Those mopes in NYC that are doing the daily stop and frisk for no real reason are another story entirely, as are those anywhere who do it this way.

In telling the story of the founding of this country at Appleseed shoots, one fact that comes to light is that British Gen. Gage ordered subjects of the Crown stopped and detained if they were found traveling the road between towns, on the chance that they might be spying against the troops. Such people were detained for hours, sometimes longer, solely because they happened to be on the road when a patrol happened along.

What they are doing in NYC is different only in the time involved, as I see it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[hornadylnl]

I completely agree. Unfortunately, we used to get that kind of feedback until some members decided to start throwing Godwin's Law in, among other things. What we're seeing now is, IMHO, a response to that, where rather than be called it from without, they do it from within. Maybe it hurts less that way, I don't know... but from what I've seen of THESE LEOs, it's not deserved. Those mopes in NYC that are doing the daily stop and frisk for no real reason are another story entirely, as are those anywhere who do it this way.

In telling the story of the founding of this country at Appleseed shoots, one fact that comes to light is that British Gen. Gage ordered subjects of the Crown stopped and detained if they were found traveling the road between towns, on the chance that they might be spying against the troops. Such people were detained for hours, sometimes longer, solely because they happened to be on the road when a patrol happened along.

What they are doing in NYC is different only in the time involved, as I see it.

Blessings,
Bill

As I've said before, I see both sides of the coin. It would get tiring as a LEO to see the bashing on here but I don't see the logic of posting popcorn smilies every time these threads come up. If that is all you have to add, why bother?

A majority of the LEO's are great people. But they also have to understand that it is natural for people to fear those who rule over them. I'm sure every LEO on our board was not born with a badge and worked some sort of a civilian job before becoming an officer. Did you always trust that your superiors had your best interest at heart? The worst they could do is fire you. A LEO can throw you in jail and cause a lifelong set of problems if he so chooses to abuse his powers. So all I'm asking is don't trivialize every single concern of the non LEO's with popcorn smilies.

 

[Denny347]

I don't see how they're good at all, Denny...

Sorry Bill, I you misunderstood. I meant that these LEO posts are always good, not the topic specifically. I can say with all honestly that I have never been present when another officer stopped ans frisked a person for no reason. What I see/ and do is frisk people that I come in contact with during an investigation for "whatever". Find drunk sleeping on park bench, wake him up and pat him down when he won't stop putting his hands in his pockets. Pull people out of a stolen car, they get patted down. Break up a fight...patted down. These examples are of obvious law violations that we are investigating. It is entirely possible that no one goes to jail in any of these examples but they most likely will be frisked. A frisk is an OUTSIDE pat down for obvious weapons. Feeling along the waist line and over the pockets for knives and guns. Where the line is drawn is stopping someone for a "hunch" or "suspicious activity" and patting them down. It can be 100% legal but we have to articulate specific reasons to believe they are armed.
***This is not directed to Bill***
I think the smart arse remarks from my fellow LEO's comes from the previous posts that turn bad quickly and no one seems to budge from their position. Oh, and that is usually the world view point we carry so it spills over into these conversations. There are many posts about LEOs that have no single answer. There will be 100 pages of responses and all/or none could be right. Also, these articles are notoriously slim on specific facts that would allow us LEOs to pass judgment on other LEO's. Why do we usually want more facts? Because many of us have been on the other side of a news story and know first hand how these things get butchered from the get go. In the past, we have interjected into these kinds of posts only to have the rabid anti-leo's have a post fest at our expense. You will see that most no longer reply with any seriousness or not at all. They rather watch from afar.

 

[hornadylnl]

***This is not directed to Bill***
I think the smart arse remarks from my fellow LEO's comes from the previous posts that turn bad quickly and no one seems to budge from their position. Oh, and that is usually the world view point we carry so it spills over into these conversations. There are many posts about LEOs that have no single answer. There will be 100 pages of responses and all/or none could be right. Also, these articles are notoriously slim on specific facts that would allow us LEOs to pass judgment on other LEO's. Why do we usually want more facts? Because many of us have been on the other side of a news story and know first hand how these things get butchered from the get go. In the past, we have interjected into these kinds of posts only to have the rabid anti-leo's have a post fest at our expense. You will see that most no longer reply with any seriousness or not at all. They rather watch from afar.

I get that but am I supposed to believe that a LEO that takes one of these threads so seriously and can't resist the urge to make a sarcastic post will remain professional and not let his personal feelings get in the way when some idiot is calling you every slang name in the book, etc.?