stand your ground. yes? no?

[seabeyond]

i read an Op about stand your ground. i know the gun discussion is complicated and varied on du. but, i do not know how people feel on stand your ground, even those that very much stand up for their right to own guns. so, a simple poll so i have an idea where people are on this issue.

thanks.

stand your ground...

23 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	yes
	9 (39%)
	no
	10 (43%)
	not that simple
	2 (9%)
	laws need to be adjusted, but the basic argument is good.
	2 (9%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[BainsBane]

1. It is that simple

The difference between standard defense law and SYG centers around the duty to retreat even though a safe exit is available. In regular defense law, you need to retreat if it is safe to do so. You can only shoot if no other safe option exists. Under SYG, you can shoot even when a safe exit exists.

[Isoldeblue]

2. You did great, putting it in the most simple terms! TY!

[BainsBane]

3. You're welcome!

[spin]

4. Here's a scenario to consider. ...

You are a middle aged man or woman in fair shape. You have a carry permit and have a concealed handgun with you.

A man walks up to you on the street, pulls his handgun or a knife and demands your wallet. Your attacker is a much younger individual and appears to be in top physical condition.

What do you do? Obviously you have good reason to fear for your life. If you have ever stared down the barrel of a gun you will understand that even a tiny gun looks absolutely enormous. A .22 caliber revolver looks just like Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum Smith and Wesson when it is pointed at you. If you have ever looked at the wounds a knife can cause, you definitely would not want to be stabbed or slashed with one.

One choice you have is to draw your legal firearm. If you shoot your attacker and you live in a state that has "stand your ground" law, you probably will not face prosecution after the authorities review the evidence. If you live in a state that does not have this law it is possible that a zealous prosecutor will charge you and say that you could have safely turned and ran.

It is true that most street predators are not target shooters so your chances of surviving without getting hit by a bullet are better than 50/50 if you run and the attacker just stands and shoots at you. Still it is possible that he will run you down and then shoot or stab you several times.

So personally I am not fond of the tactic of running from a deadly encounter. Of course in my case, a prosecutor or my defense attorney would realize that I am 67 years old and handicapped. I don't run, I limp fast.

Even when I was younger and in far better physical condition, I was not fond of using the tactic of running away from a possibly deadly encounter. I took a course in jujitsu largely oriented on how to disarm an attacker with a gun or a knife. It's not as simple as it looks in a movie but with lots of practice you can use martial arts to give you a good to excellent chance of surviving an encounter such as I am describing.

However my instructor told the class to only use the tactics he taught when ABSOLUTELY necessary. He told us to try to appraise our attacker. His advise was to just give him our wallets if he appeared rational and sane. He pointed out that while you can always replace your money, credit cards and ID it is not always easy to replace your health and dead is dead. If the attacker appeared high or drunk and irrational and angry then it might be wise to fight as you have little to lose. I forgot much that I learned in that class but I still would follow my instructors advise.

So I do support "stand your ground" laws but I feel they need to be carefully written. For example if you start an argument and it appears that it will become a fight, you should do your best to simply walk away even if it makes you look like a coward to others. I also learned this in my martial arts class.

[BainsBane]

6. One's ability to retreat is considered in self defense law

If I were that woman you describe, I would hand over that wallet. I would not kill to protect my money. If someone's life is truly in danger and woman you describe could not safely escape, she can claim self defense. SYG means people can shoot first so that killing becomes a first rather than a last resort. One thing these cases show is how the law has influenced shooters who believe they have a right to kill anyone who frightens them. It worked for Zimmerman. This guy probably thought, why not me?

In the case of street shooters not targeting the person in question, a gun is useless. We've had three shootings near my place in the past year. Shooting at them would have been insane. It would only have drawn their fire toward me. The thing to do is get out of harm's way as quickly as possible and stay down. In my case, the shootings have always been at night, so I stayed in the house. Imagine how stupid I would have to be to run out there with a gun and play cops and robbers.

[spin]

18. If a "stand your ground" law is properly written ....

the person claiming it as a defense has to have good reason to fear for his/her life. At one time the Florida web page on concealed carry used an example to show the improper use of a concealed firearm for self defense. It's no longer on that page but I'll sum it up.

Two neighbors get into a argument. One who was watering his grass when the argument started attacks the other by swinging his hose at his head. The person being attacked pulls his concealed handgun and shoots the other. He as in the wrong as an attack with a water hose is not something that a rational man standing in the shoes of the armed neighbor would have considered life threatening.

You can view the current page at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

If a "stand your ground" law was properly written it would allow you to use your firearm for self defense if you started an argument -- only if you could prove that you made a sincere effort to withdraw from the confrontation before the violence started. There would be little exception.You would face charges if you started an argument with the intention of goading another person into attacking you and then shot him.

Assume you were a physically fit male and during an argument another physically fit male you were punched in the face. That alone would not justify the use of your firearm to defend yourself. If however your opponent had kicked your ass and you no longer were trying to fight but he persisted in beating or kicking you, you might have legal justification to use lethal force. You can be seriously injured or killed by blows and kicks while not resisting. Of course if you defeated your opponent using martial arts skills such as karate or boxing, you should stop fighting when he is incapacitated or surrenders. That also applies to what would happen after you legally shot an attacker in self defense and he was lying on the ground and no longer attacking you. You can't walk up to him and execute him with a shot to the head. Once the threat to your health or life is gone, so is your right to use lethal force.

Of course the biggest problem with any self defense law is what happens when two people have an encounter without witnesses and one ends up dead. Only the survivor gets to tell his story and lacking solid evidence that his story is false, there is an excellent chance that he will walk. Dead men tell no tales.

I will agree that it is usually unwise to fire your legally concealed handgun at a street shooters who are not targeting you. Obviously blazing away at a car just after the occupants had committed a drive-by shooting endangers others unnecessarily. Better to observe and render aid. Suppose you witness two men running down the street and one is firing a handgun at the other. You don't know if the shooter is an undercover cop chasing a very dangerous suspect.

A number of states have had "stand your ground" laws long enough now that we can evaluate how well they work. Some egregious examples have occurred where a loophole in the law allowed a murderer to walk free. Rewriting these laws would help to eliminate this problem.

[Jenoch]

51. Your second paragraph has

me completely baffled. Who is saying you should leave your apartment and attempt to shoot somebody in your neighborhood because they are shooting guns? Not a single CCW permit holder in Minnesota was instructed to do what you described.

[pintobean]

52. I read that earlier today

and was baffled as well. That's not uncommon, though.

[Warpy]

53. Oh, please, you draw a weapon, you are dead before you get it pointed

The intelligent thing to do is hand over the wallet. It can all be replaced and theft, while infuriating, is not a capital offense.

The only aim should be to get away from any given situation with your own life. That garden variety mugger is not threatening your life, he just wants money for his drug of choice.

[spin]

56. I don't disagree ...

If you read my post closely you will find that I said:

However my instructor told the class to only use the tactics he taught when ABSOLUTELY necessary. He told us to try to appraise our attacker. His advise was to just give him our wallets if he appeared rational and sane. He pointed out that while you can always replace your money, credit cards and ID it is not always easy to replace your health and dead is dead. If the attacker appeared high or drunk and irrational and angry then it might be wise to fight as you have little to lose. I forgot much that I learned in that class but I still would follow my instructors advise.

So in 99 out of 100 encounters the best way to survive is to turn over your wallet.

The best tactic anyone can use to avoid a life and death encounter is to practice situational awareness which basically means that you don't walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to your ear. It also helps if you don't do stupid things like visiting an outdoor ATM in a lonely spot at 2 am or get drunk and try to stagger home in a dangerous area.

[etherealtruth]

7. Excellent and clear explanation

I couldn't have said it better (seriously)

[flvegan]

25. It is. If you're an idiot.

For once, I'm glad I'm in Florida. Hopefully away from these armchair (yet clueless) lawyers.

[BainsBane]

34. Florida is definitely one of the states to be

If your idea of kicks is shooting black males. You can be proud of your friends in ALEC, the NRA, and the Koch brothers who gave Florida and other states the right to kill for the thrill of it.

All you have is insults. You offer not corrective on my description of the law, which is entirely accurate. It turns killing from the last resort to the first, which is way the extreme right-wing and their homicidal allies are so keen on it.

[HappyMe]

43. Thanks for that explanation.

I voted no. SYG seems to be a way to let people blast away first, maybe ask questions later.

[pipi_k]

44. So, reading through

this thread full of replies, some of which support it, some of which don't, it appears that the question is not that simple.

The only time something is that simple is when one has an opinion that one thinks is the only "right" one.

[petronius]

5. My preference now is for the law to be silent on both stand-your-ground

and duty-to-retreat - an implicit rather than an explicit SYG, like we have in CA as I understand it.

While I think the moral and ethical thing is to retreat whenever possible, I think it's inappropriate to to have a DTR written into the law, opening up the question of whether retreat was possible to second-guessing and after-the-fact judgement. If a person is legitimately threatened, then I don't think the timing of their use of defensive force should be questioned.

On the other hand, explicit SYG laws seem to be misunderstood by a lot of people, including police departments, and seem to distract from and undermine the question of whether defense was legitimate in the first place.

So I'd prefer to see the emphasis entirely on the reasonableness of the threat itself: was the person employing defensive force legitimately facing an imminent and severe threat to justify the use of force? If so, then I don't think it's fair to ask them to prove they couldn't retreat on top of that. But I don't like the signal that SYG seems to be sending, at least to some people, that your right to be somewhere means more than whether you're really threatened in making a 'defensive' decision...

(Here's my similar post from two months ago, maybe it's clearer.)

[Blue_Tires]

8. based on the verdicts of some recent high-profile cases

the law needs serious revision, imo...

"self-defense" doesn't mean "murder someone and then get off by making up some half-assed self-defense story"

[BainsBane]

12. I was surprised to see you supporting it at all

[JustAnotherGen]

38. +1

[dawg]

9. No.

I have guns, and would use them in self-defense or the defense of others, but I believe there should be a duty to retreat if there is a reasonably safe possibility of doing so.

[DirkGently]

10. Ordinary self-defense laws, including excepting

the duty to retreat *inside your home* work just fine.

We were never in danger of sending scads of self-defenders to prison by requiring people to retreat rather than kill if they could *reasonably do so*

[Ohio Joe]

11. No

SYG is just an excuse for the fearful paranoid to kill.

[1awake]

13. Yes

Though revision should take place based on recent use's of it. Looks like the poll so far is fairly close since most other options are some form of yes. That surprises me.

[Taitertots]

14. Duty to retreat creates an onerous burden at trial

Not only do you have to prove a negative to defend yourself (no reasonable path exists), but it is completely subjective.

[X_Digger]

15. Duty to retreat was a failed 60 year experiment.

For the first 150 years of our judicial system, there was no duty to retreat in most jurisdictions.

From Blackstone's Commentaries:

In the next place, such homicide, as is committed for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, is justifiable by the law of nature; and also by the law of England, as it stood so early as the time of Bracton, and as it since declared by statue 24 Hen VIII. c. 5. If any person attempt to burn it, and shall be killed in such an attempt, the slayer shall be acquitted and discharged. This reaches not to any crime unaccompanied with force, as picking of pockets, or to the breaking open of any house in the time of day, unless it carries with it an attempt of robbery also.

Justice Harlan addressed it in 1895 in Beard v US:

The weight of modern authority, in our judgment, establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable

Harlan then went on to cite modern (to him) texts on the matter.

"Where an attack is made with murderous intent, there being sufficient overt act, the person attacked is under no duty to fly. He may stand his ground, and, if need be, kill his adversary. And it is the same where the attack is with a deadly weapon, for in this case a person attacked may well assume that the other intends murder, whether he does in fact or not."

Whart. Crim.Law, § 1019, 7th rev. ed. Phila. 1874

Harlan used language that should be familiar to anyone who has looked at the modern SYG statutes:

The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner and with a deadly weapon, and if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury.

Oliver Wendell Holmes mentioned it in Brown v US in 1885:

Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 550, 158 U. S. 559. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

[Supersedeas]

61. maybe we should give this a little more time

[LWolf]

16. Guns? No. Politics? Yes.

SYG laws that permit people to kill others when it's not necessary for self-defense are indefensible.

I wish, though, that there were more fucking Democrats that would draw a line in the sand for social and economic justice and stand their fucking ground. I'm sick of fucking compromise.

[rustydog]

17. Unless you cannot turn and walk away safely

you cannot justify killing another human being.

I've been threatened by gang members, pissed drug dealers for interfering with their bidness. I've been threatened by psych patients, armed and unarmed. I had some asswipe stick a gun in my face and quote Dirty Fucking Harry and he asked me if I felt lucky, punk.. Well, I'm still here today and I have not had to kill any of these turds who scared the shit out of me at times.

"Stand your ground is for the coffers of the gun industry in America.

[spin]

19. When I was much younger and far more foolish I used to drive recklessly. ...

I could tell you a number of stories about my street racing days and how I came very close to being in an accident that might have killed me or some innocent people. I used to say, "If I don't defy death at least once a month, life is boring."

Well I survived. I was never in a major accident and in fact the only accidents I have been in were where some fool ran into the rear of my car while I was stuck in traffic.

Now that I am 67 years old and a lot wiser I will admit that I was an irresponsible fool and should have been arrested many times. That's not my point. My point is that only survivors live to tell their stories. I'm sure that a number of people had encounters like yours and ended up six feet under.

We are both fortunate to be able to be alive to post here on DU. Hopefully luck will never catch up with either of us.

[joeglow3]

47. And all those who faced those same scenarios and died can't talk about it

A friend of mine used to refuse to wear a seat belt because his dad was not wearing one when a train hit is car and he lived. He seemed to think this proved he did not wear one.

Your scenarios seem like great examples because you can speak about them (i.e. you are not among those that have died and cannot post about the risks here today).

[Iggo]

20. SYG is a get out of jail free card...

...for people who are too afraid to leave the house without a gun, and too afraid to face the consequences of using one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Home invaders have more of a right to a person's house than the family living there.

Why debate SYG vs Duty to Retreat when you can go with Duty to Surrender Possessions, Home and Personhood?

[Liberal_in_LA]

21. no

[Skip Intro]

22. Yes, absolutely. Scary so many would want to relinquish their right to

defend themselves, their families, and property.

The right to self-defense is absolute.

I don't need anyone's permission to defend myself from an aggressor, and neither do you.

It appears to me that many here would toss that right aside so as to more fully adhere to some blind allegiance to a political agenda. I used the word scary, because wow, that is scary (that is one of many ways this overlaps the gun debate - not sure you can really separate the two).

Now, of course, if someone would rather try to run away from an aggressor, or try to appease someone who poses a threat, they can do that. I mean, they can try to explain to the aggressor that they don't like violence and would they please just be nice, have a seat, and wait for the police to get there. Haven't heard of that ever working, but hey, we're all free to make that choice.

SYG comes down to self-defense. So yeah, I'm all for it. You take your chances when you screw with people - you could lose your life. Don't want to be in that situation? Don't screw with people. Some of us will fight back.

[Hoyt]

54. So what happens if a armed stalking bigot screws with you -- say an unarmed teenager -- first?

[Skip Intro]

58. Hoyt, you can be a helpless victim if you like, that is your decision.

But you don't get to make that decision for others.

That's just the way it is.

I can't imagine any fully awake and thinking person would tell their wife, mother or daughter to just releax and give into the rapist, because some other people think fighting back is wrong and the rapist might get hurt.

Ridiculous.

[Hoyt]

59. You need to understand most of us can defend ourselves without a gun in our pants.

[Skip Intro]

62. Really? Tell me all about it. n/t

[HolyMoley]

23. It's a license for whites to murder blacks and other minorities.

[Skip Intro]

28. ack, missed the smiley

[HolyMoley]

29. Sadly though

there are those here and elsewhere that actually believe that.

[Hoyt]

55. I believe it. SYG was pushed by the NRA, and backed by the bigoted Republicans in Florida.

It is clear what the intent was. Of course, the majority of folks arming up in this country are right wingers too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. How many steps in retreat is a woman legally obligated to make when confronted by a rapist?

If the answer is 0 then you endorse SYG.

[BainsBane]

30. Some of us actually know the law

and don't approve of murder, so we don't like SYG. If someone thinks people should be able to shoot first even when a SAFE retreat exists, then they like SYG. That act, however, is a deliberate decision to kill another human being. It is choosing to kill first because someone feels like it. It is not about saving their life. Self defense has been a legal justification for centuries. For those who spend their entire life looking for the opportunity to kill another person, they see SYG as allowing them to get away with it. That is evident in some of the news reports where killers invoke SYG. It's a right wing law promoted by ALEC, the NRA, and the Koch brothers.

[Skip Intro]

31. Yes, no duty to retreat. That's right.

My concern should not be for the safety of my attacker.

I cannot imagine the world in which the victim is tasked with making the welfare of his/her attacker her/his top priority.

You attack the supporters of strong self-defense laws as being aligned with the most evil of the current batch of boogeymen. Nobody with truth on their side would have a need to resort to such name-calling to make a point or plea.

"Kill first?" (people rarely kill second)

How hurt does a person have to be in your view to have a right to fight back?

Ridiculous.

Nobody needs permission to defend themselves, family, and property.

[rrneck]

33. "Some of us actually know the law"

Well, let's just have a look at this one, shall we?

"If someone thinks people should be able to shoot first even when a SAFE retreat exists, then they like SYG."

Define "SAFE retreat" for us. Make sure you take into consideration every possible venue, potential strength and weakness of assailant and victim, and possible bystanders who may need defending. Oh, and make sure you define the number of assailants too. If you want to sound all definitive, you need to define what you're talking about. Since you seem to think you know the law.

That act, however, is a deliberate decision to kill another human being. It is choosing to kill first because someone feels like it.

Nice leap there. Yes, it's a deliberate decision, but you vaulted over why that decision is made to turn your sanctimony into an indictment.

It is not about saving their life. Self defense has been a legal justification for centuries.

If it's not about saving a life, how can it be legally justified? Make up your mind.

For those who spend their entire life looking for the opportunity to kill another person, they see SYG as allowing them to get away with it.

And you know who "those" people are, I suppose.

It's a right wing law promoted by ALEC, the NRA, and the Koch brothers.

So it's a political distinction, eh? Evil bloodthirsty conservatives create a law that allows their brainwashed minions to kill others without consequences. It's all a big conspiracy. Got it.

You're so busy writing the political equivalent of a Harlequin Romance you fail to see the possible flaws in SYG. I have a sneaking suspicion they're there, but nobody will see them if they keep turning politics into some sort of personal fundamental religious scrum.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. You only know what you want to believe

And what you believe is defeating the Koch bros takes precedence over a woman's right to her own body. No person should be forced to retreat in a case of legitimate defense. That automatically gives the tactical and legal advantage to the criminal. If scoring cheap political points against the Koch bros is so important you demand a woman turn her back to a rapist already determined to attack her and you're willing to destroy her life if she doesn't then your demands are nothing short of monstrous.

[rrneck]

45. I hear a lot about "rape culture" on this forum.

I wonder if putting women on the defensive against sexual assault qualifies?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. We're supposed to wait for big, burly men to come rescue us fair damsels.

Remember how hard women had to work to prove they could serve alongside men equally in the armed forces? Now we're being told we're too dangerous / irresponsible to be trusted with defending our own bodies.

[LittleBlue]

27. I like SYG

I don't think someone should have to turn their back on their attacker. You attack someone, you roll the dice. Sorry, I have no sympathy for the attacker if he gets his head blown off trying to rob/rape/kill someone.

[Recursion]

32. No. Juries should weigh each case individually

Juries have problems, but honestly 12 ordinary people can probably do a better job than a legislative committee.

[Th1onein]

35. Please add the "Fuck no!" option to your poll.

Thanks!

[uponit7771]

36. ****STATISTICALLY A WHITES ONLY LAW***** I'd support it if the judges were held to a strick

...and narrow use of it and they're aren't

They get to choose who it's used for and not...

Guess who loses the most when judges get to apply it towards people?

[GreenStormCloud]

41. Blacks successfully use it too. It isn't a "Whites only" law.

Here are the statistics for ALL SYG claims for fatal shootings in FL since the law was adopted in 2005.

For white on white: 32 justified, 25 convicted, 4 pending

For white on black: 6 justified, 1 convicted, 4 pending

For black on white: 4 justified, 2 convicted, 4 pending

For black on black: 16 justified, 6 convicted, 4 pending

Here is the data for ALL cross racial shooting, both fatal and non-fatal, in which SYG was claimed, since 2005

Black on White - 4 convicted, 12 justified, 4 pending

White on Black - 3 convicted, 14 justified, 5 pending

Here is the link: http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

[hack89]

42. Blacks have a higher acquital rate in Florida in SYG cases than whites do.

additionally, the vast majority of SYG cases are whites killing whites, followed by blacks killing blacks. It is hard to paint SYG as racially biased - the best you can say is that it favors the shooter regardless of race.

[Bazinga]

50. The statistics don't say what you think they do.

Check out this thread if you're interested in seeing what the statistics actually say.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129191

[The Straight Story]

37. Support the concept but not always the implementation/application by DA's and such

Having to run away, especially when someone else has a bow/arrow, gun, throwing stars, whatever puts you in danger since you would be retreating.

I am aware that some folks think victims have a duty to flee their attackers and want the aggressive person doing the rape/murder/beating/etc to have better legal standing and want to be able to use the absence of such a law in court to use against the victim should they resist the attack. But I prefer to side not with the attacker/aggressor and believe people are entitled to their personal space and sphere of defense.

Of course, those who don't retreat probably have whatever happens to them coming (ie, blame that victim and shame that victim) according the ideals of others.

What this law boils down to really is some people hate guns and see this as a gun law so hating it helps them feel better in the morning.

Victims? Well, they are no good to us if they can't support an agenda against something and if we allow victims to stand up and fight then we might have less victims (ah, but of course, there might be a few SYG cases that we can pry loose and use to promote being a victim of that law! Might only be a few but if we only talk about those ones and expose them people will think it is most of them).

[ileus]

40. Virginias self defense laws aren't that bad IMHO.

We don't have SYG but it's not that bad.


http://rvanews.com/news/florida-vs-virginia-comparing-self-defense-laws

[wild bird]

48. I don't carry a gun,

Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

haven't since my days in the Marine Corps., but that said, I can't see having a duty to retreat from someone who intends to harm you.
Turning your back on a criminal to get away is not advisable, especially if you're not in good shape, that invites possible disaster for you.

The SYG laws are fundamentally sound, but they could use some tweaking to make them more palatable.

And remember, SYG isn't about guns, it's about your right to defend yourself if confronted with a deadly threat, you can defend yourself with a knife, a bat, whatever, but it doesn't have to be a gun.

Edit: the only thing I used even remotely resembling a gun was one of these, and only because of my job.

[whoiswithme]

49. SYG isn't about guns

Guns are a separate issue. SYG merely gives you the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. This could also apply to a baseball bad, knife, your fists, or any other means at your disposal.

[LostOne4Ever]

57. I see no way in which SYG won't be abused horribly.

So im voting no.

[LadyHawkAZ]

60. Without solid, concrete rules for what constitutes a genuine "threat"

it's a human-being hunting license, and too easy to abuse. Zimmerman IMO was an excellent demonstration of that.

BUT, I am not a lover of firearms, so my view may be a bit biased.