Photo: Checkpoint cops point guns at motorists

[Bonobo]

Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:59 PM - Edit history (2)

ON EDIT: I didn't know of the "WND" website. So I am removing their text (which was accurate in any case). Frankly, I don't consider the source important in any case. It is a photo taken and the event occurred. So those screeching about the website -well, pffft.

The photo, (credited to AP Photo/The Sacramento Bee, Randall Benton) is captioned, “A California Highway Patrol officer and another emergency responder stop a vehicle at a checkpoint near the neighborhood where a federal immigration officer was shot and three local police officers were wounded during a violent confrontation with a suspect in the Sacramento suburb of Roseville on Friday, Oct. 25, 2013.”

[Gravitycollapse]

1. Are we sure this isn't suffering from the photo angle? It appears he may be pointing it...

To the right of the driver but the angle of the photo makes it appear as though he has the gun in his face. His finger is very clearly off the trigger.

[Bonobo]

5. If the gun is one inch away from face and his finger is off the trigger...

Does that make much of a difference?

I have heard that when you have a gun pointed at you like that, the barrel looks pretty darned big.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. Based on the camera angle, the gun could be pointing at something several feet from his face.

Which is my point.

[Aerows]

53. You always keep a weapon

a few inches off-side unless you intend to fire it, and your finger only touches the trigger when you mean to fire.

You either know nothing about firearms, or know a lot about them and are trying to obfuscate what happened here.

[Gravitycollapse]

54. Que? I know quite a lot about firearms...

And I'm trying to present reality as reality instead of the insane, tabloid like bullshit World Net Daily pushes onto unassuming morons.

That rifle is pretty clearly not in the driver's face. Neither is it aimed at anyone. Neither is the officer breaching any sort of rule or code. Argue all you want about the necessity of such checkpoint. But you've got nothing if you're trying to say that officer is doing anything incorrectly.

[Aerows]

57. I'm not arguing for or against the checkpoint

I am pointing out that the officer is absolutely holding the weapon in a responsible manner.

That's it. That's all I'm pointing out. Is it disgusting that we have such checkpoints? Hell fucking yes. Is the officer holding his weapon in an irresponsible manner? No.

[Gravitycollapse]

63. Then you have absolutely misunderstood my post...

Because I am arguing that the officer is doing nothing wrong.

[Aerows]

70. I guess I did

and I agree with you.

[Gravitycollapse]

8. Let me put it this way. The officer is standing directly next to the vehicle.

As is evidence by the sunlight cast on the barrel of the rifle, no part of the gun is inside the vehicle. If the officer is standing next to the vehicle and the rifle is not inside, the gun is most certainly not pointed at anything inside the car. Hence, the angle of the camera is key here. The gun is probably not even lined up with the sight of the officer. And it is probably pointed towards the lower half of the car. Which would make sensed based on the fact that his trigger finger is clearly not on the trigger as well as the other officer who's rifle is not pointed at anything in particular.

[Gravitycollapse]

10. After looking at it again, I also noticed the butt of the gun is not on the officer's shoulder.

And you can see most of the heat guard of the rifle. Further evidencing that the rifle is pointed to the lower right and we are merely looking at an optical illusion.

[Recursion]

15. Yeah, it's a strange carry for a carbine, but that mounted light may have something to do with it?

I think he's got the light shining back into the car, which puts the muzzle well behind the driver.

EDIT: wait, that's not a side-mounted light, that's the buttstock of the other officer's carbine. Carry on.

[spin]

29. I had a double barreled 12 gauge shotgun pointed at me from about the same distance. ...

The barrels looked like the size two of trashcans to me.

[Coyotl]

7. Look at the reflection on the car. See the trooper's pant stripe. The gun is in the drivers face

because that is how you intimidate people with guns.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. If the officer is RIGHT next to the vehicle, explain to me why light is cast on the entire barrel...

If the gun is in the drivers face, the light would cut off at the point where the barrel is inside the vehicle. Which clearly isn't the case here.

The finger is off the trigger and the gun is likely pointing towards the ground at the back half of the car.

[Unknown Beatle]

34. The cop is standing right beside the car

as evidenced by the pins stripes that are running down his pant leg. You can see the guy's hand and arm are casting light. If you look closely, you can see the tip of the barrel casting light and then cutting off for a couple of inches, then casting light again for the rest of the barrel; meaning that he had the barrel partly inside the car.

[Recursion]

25. Look at where the cop is looking, and at where the gun is pointing

Those are two different directions. The cop is looking at the driver. So the gun isn't pointing at the driver.

[Scootaloo]

26. Yet the gun is raised

Now, I dunno about this cop, but my dad taught me that you don't point a gun unless you plan to use it.

[Gravitycollapse]

27. The gun is not pointed at anything. It is not "raised" in the sense that he's not pointing...

it at anyone or anything. It simply isn't hanging in front of him like his partner.

Is that appropriate? Maybe, maybe not. But he most certainly has not crammed the gun in the drivers face.

[Recursion]

28. And he's not pointing it at the driver.

He's looking at the driver. He's pointing the rifle down and to the right of where he's looking.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. And that is absolutely the right instruction. If you were raised in my family you would have been

taught the techniques taught to the secret service and Navy Seals (and probably all the other special forces as well). You never expose your weapon until you intend to use it. Brandishing, warning shots, and the like are the stuff of Hollywood and have no place in real life.

Of course civil police forces, being poorly paid enforcers with no real purpose other than to keep the serfs intimidated, are poorly trained and encouraged to be reckless and intimidating, but the people that deal with real threats in an authentically dangerous world can't rely on the people they encounter to be timid sheeple willing to do anything to avoid violent confrontation.

"If a situation is dire enough for you draw your weapon, use it immediately and to maximum effect."

[Aerows]

52. And you never put your finger on the trigger

until you intend to fire. Pointing it is threat enough.

Let's have some "gun safety" experts jump in here and tell me differently, because that is gun usage 101.

[Gravitycollapse]

56. He's not pointing it at anything. Clearly that is the case...

As is evidenced by the fact that the butt is off his shoulder, his finger is off the trigger, his face is facing away from line of sight and the barrel has light cast on it.

I don't advocate for miltiarized police state. I do however advocate that we confront reality.

[Aerows]

58. The butt is off his shoulder?

What picture are you looking at? He has complete control of the firearm. Where are you coming up with this shit?

I don't like it, but let's not make it something it isn't.

[Gravitycollapse]

66. It seems as though youb don't know what you are talking about...

I am in fact arguing that he is exactly in control and that he is doing nothing wrong. You seem to be in agreement with me on that. Although I'm utterly confused as to why you think not having the butt in his shoulder would mean he isn't in control. I never argued that he wasn't in control of the firearm. Read what I write instead of responding to what you think I meant.

[Aerows]

69. I'm confused why we are arguing then

I agree with you.

[Gravitycollapse]

107. Then why were you being such a prick?

I'm not now nor was I ever obfuscating anything.

[Aerows]

113. Sorry

I guess I'm in a bad mood. Didn't mean to take it out on you.

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. Tell ya what. Next time you find yourself in Vegas, let me know and I will bring

an assortment of firearms and point them vaguely in the general direction of your head and you can report back about how unconcerned you were.

[Aerows]

51. You always keep your finger off of the trigger

until your intent is to fire. That's guns 101.

[peace13]

2. Wow, that's overkill!

These guys are out of control.

[pscot]

49. Totally out of control

That picture defines the police state.

[joshcryer]

3. Extremely Photogenic Guy Held At Gunpoint.

Let's make this a meme.

[MADem]

4. I thought it was Simon Cowell's younger, better looking, pleasanter brother! nt

[DeSwiss]

37. Here ya go:

- K&R

[joshcryer]

38. You are a beautiful person.

And I love you.

[DeSwiss]

39. ....

[Lasher]

11. World Nut Daily

[Gravitycollapse]

12. Wait, this is World Net Daily? I didn't even notice that at first. Now I know it's bullshit.

[Bonobo]

16. I will ignore my lying eyes then.

But as they say "When you see hoof prints, you don't look for unicorns."

There is no reason to discount the photo since nothing in it is so out of the ordinary for police behavior in the US.

[Gravitycollapse]

21. Oh yeah, absolutely. We are still looking at two very heavily armed "officers."

And two very intimidating individuals. I question the efficacy of such check points and the use of such overtly militarized gear.

[Recursion]

22. I really don't see how there's enough space between the officer and the driver

for that gun to be pointing at the driver. And nobody's body language reads to me like "a gun is being pointed at someone here".

YMMV.

[woo me with science]

13. No words for my anger at this.

I don't recognize this country anymore.

[pscot]

50. Get used to it

This is what we look like now. My German inlaws think we've lost our minds.

[Recursion]

14. I can't honestly say where that muzzle is pointing. But that's an odd carry.

It could be behind the driver, or at him. I don't know.

But the carry is just odd. I didn't train much on carbines in the Marines but I don't recall any horizontal carry like that for a carbine, rifle, or shotgun from CQW school.

[Bonobo]

17. Perhaps the gun is in motion...

to a more "normal" position.

[Recursion]

18. Good point (nt)

[loli phabay]

45. i think your right, i cant my rifle to the side like that after coming from a ready position

To a more relaxed position.

[Gravitycollapse]

19. i've seen photos of soldiers and SWAT members holding carbines like that...

With the butt high and off the shoulder, the rifle angled like that, the finger very intentionally not on the trigger and the barrel angled down and away to the right (or left for a left handed individual). You can see his face isn't even sighted with the direction of the barrel.

I think the picture was taken at a bad time and WND ran with it because...well, it's WND.

[Recursion]

20. Yeah, I noticed that too (rifle not pointed with officer's face)

That along with the body language of all three people makes me think this wasn't a threat.

I also agree with you that there's not enough space between him and the driver for the rifle to be pointed at the driver, probably.

And the fact that it's WingNut Daily is strike three.

EDIT: you had the right answer there: the cop is looking at the driver, and the rifle is not pointing where the cop is looking. So, by using the transitive property...

[tammywammy]

23. WND?

[seattle15]

31. Exactly. There's no way this actually happened.

It's more likely to be a picture from Russia with a CA patch Photoshopped in.

[Recursion]

24. Nope, I see it, it's definitely behind and below the driver. Look at the cop's sight line

The cop is looking square at the driver. The rifle is deflected right and down by about 30 degrees. It's pointing into the backseat.

[ConcernedCanuk]

30. Take a closer look

.
.
.



Right click on the image, open it in another tab - then clik on the image - enlarges to 3000 x 2000.

Scroll around - up down, sideways.

The officer is holding the firearm sideways, like wannabe gangsters do with handguns in the movies.

Check focus on item above firearm - it is not part of his firearm, but the butt end of a similar firearm the other officer has on the opposite side of the vehicle.

Follow the angle down and you will see the muzzle end appear pointing inside the car behind the driver's head.

AND

If the officer on the driver's side ain't pointing that rifle at the guys head, then he's pointing it right at his partner's gut.

Stupid all the way around - having that barrel within reach of the driver.

Handguns would be more appropriate at that distance methinks.

Better yet, cops with brains.

Good luck with that,

right?

CC

[Egalitarian Thug]

35. Take a closer look.

Officer Flounder in the SWAT gear. If Americans weren't so easily intimidated, these chuckleheads would have the beginning of a comic act.

[Recursion]

36. Officer Flounder

[Aerows]

55. He's holding it slightly off-target

and his finger isn't on the trigger because he has no intent to fire. I swear to goodness that none of you have ever held a firearm in your lives, nor had a bit of training in them.

[damnedifIknow]

40. He had better not have a pet squirrel in the car

[OregonBlue]

41. The picture is from World Nut Daily? At first I thought it was real but given where it came from

I do not believe it's real. Those people are nuts. Who would post anything from that wacko site?

[DeSwiss]

42. From the OP:

The photo, (credited to AP Photo/The Sacramento Bee, Randall Benton) is captioned, “A California Highway Patrol officer and another emergency responder stop a vehicle at a checkpoint near the neighborhood where a federal immigration officer was shot and three local police officers were wounded during a violent confrontation with a suspect in the Sacramento suburb of Roseville on Friday, Oct. 25, 2013.”

http://www.knoxnews.com/photos/2013/oct/26/398830/

[Bonobo]

47. Yup, reading IS fundamental. nt

[Glassunion]

43. You sure this is not a still from the old Eric Estrada / John Candy film?

[Glassunion]

44. For those who don't want to look at it from World Nut Daily

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/10/25/5853282/four-officers-injured-in-roseville.html

Picture #23

[Bonobo]

46. Thanks. Now can all the people that said it was a fake admit they were wrong? nt

[Ohio Joe]

48. Why am I not one bit surprised...

One of the 'mens' Group hosts is dropping WND crap on DU like it should be acceptable... Fucking disgusting.

[Bonobo]

61. The photo was taken by a reputable newspaper. Learn to fucking read. nt

[Ohio Joe]

65. It's still WND... Try to remember what fucking site you are on - nt

[Bonobo]

68. Nope, the photo is not taken by WND, so try to remember to read.

It's right there win the OP who took the photo and it has shit all to do with WND.

Stop trying to cover your error.

[Ohio Joe]

71. What is your link? Is it WND or not?

The answer is 'Yes, it is'. You are promoting a far right wing bullshit rag and trying to deny it because the photo was not taken by them. Pitiful... And it should be a pizza.

[Bonobo]

73. I am no promoting WND in any way.

I never even knew of its existence. I got the link from someone on Facebook and cared only about the incident it shows.

The incident DID occur and the photo was merely picked up by the site you reference.

Address the OP or just STFU.

[Ohio Joe]

77. Unaware of WND... yeah, I'm sure everyone will buy that

A complete innocent mistake... Sure Yet even after you have been made aware of it (which was long before I posted), you not only don't delete it but still defend it's use here... Such a surprise.

You want me to address the OP... OK. The OP is a pile of shit trying to promote a right wing rag and has no business on a liberal website. It is fucking disgusting and especially when doubled down on, should be a pizza.

[Bonobo]

81. I hope you find the help you need. nt

[Ohio Joe]

88. pffft... yeah... Just keep on promoting right wing bullshit and claiming ignorance

Then try an throw a feeble insult when called on it... heh, I'm sure your 'mens' group is proud of you

[Bonobo]

92. I removed the link.

Same photo.

So I guess NOW you may just STFU?

[Ohio Joe]

96. No, I won't shut the fuck up

The photo is not what either you or wing nut daily are trying to promote it as and has been debunked be more then one in this thread... See ConcernedCanuk's analysis that you completely ignored... NYC_SKP also did one that you have not responded to either... But you know... Keep on trying.

[Bonobo]

97. Trying what?

If you think I am pushing a right wing agenda, you really DO need help.

[Ohio Joe]

105. Yeah... Just a WND daily article with quotes from a paul...

BUT IT'S THE PHOTO... Yeah, the rest was just an innocent mistake, you never heard of them... Yeah.

BUT IT'S THE PHOTO... Yeah, as you know, it was taken while the search was on after 4 were wounded by a gunman on the run and nobody seems to be pushing it as out of control cops except WND, a paul and you... So I'm sure you are the one not pushing a right wing agenda.

BUT IT'S THE PHOTO... Yeah

[Bonobo]

106. I must admit...

It is not entirely displeasing to see you have a breakdown in front of everyone, so please go on.

[Ohio Joe]

111. Here is the fact

If it's being pushed by WND and paul, it's a right wing agenda. But you know... Keep on defending it.

[Bonobo]

112. I'm serious.

You should keep frothing.

It is seriously funny.

I WANT you to. Keep telling everyone here that I am a Rand Paul fan. There's only 13 years of history to show how silly that is.

[Ohio Joe]

114. Yeah... It was just an innocent mistake... That you keep defending

[Bonobo]

115. An oversight more than a mistake.

Not sure why you would be so quick to assume otherwise, but it is starting to look like you may have some issues. I mean serious issues that should be addressed.

[Ohio Joe]

116. Yes... An oversight... You are accidently defending it...

Around a decade on DU and you had no idea what WND was... And stood by it after many pointed it out... An entirely believable oversight

[Bonobo]

117. Okay, here is my confession!

I am a secret Libertarian mole and supporter of Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and anyone else with "rand" in their name including "Rand"y Newman (another one of us), "Rand"y Rhoads (she's good, isn't she!) and Tony "Rand"all, the late beloved Tea Partier and neat freak from the Odd Couple.

I first infiltrated DU back in 2001 and have been implementing my agenda since then...

And I would have succeeded if not for you meddling Ohioans!

[Ohio Joe]

118. I am not an Ohioan - nt

[Bonobo]

119. Oh sure...

You have Ohio in your name and no one forced you to take that name. With over 13,000 posts with the name "Ohio Joe", we're supposed to believe that?

Yeah, sure... really believable story. I'm sure everyone reading is convinced.

Right! Sure! You bet! Whatever!

[Gravitycollapse]

108. I don't buy for a second you didn't know the history of WND.

Own up.

[Bonobo]

110. I already did.

I do NOT know about the history of WND.

A FB friend posted the picture. It disturbed me. I clicked on it. I copied the photo link the same way I do for any other thing and copied the text and posted.

I was busy and, hurrying, I dropped it onto DU. Never gave one moments thought to the source and though I have heard the name of WND, I don't know its history and have only a vague sense that it is a rag like the National Enquirer.

That's the entire truth, like it or not.

[TransitJohn]

59. How is that not a violation of rights?

Fuck this complacent citizenry that allows this bullshit.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. How would you search for a felon who has shot four officers? N/T

[TransitJohn]

72. Oh, obviously by shoving live firearms in everyone's fucking faces.

[GreenStormCloud]

75. Approach his car with a smile and your gun holstered and you will be the fifth officer shot.

Sometimes reality sucks.

[TransitJohn]

82. So you subscribe to the Grand Theft Auto school of law enforcement.

Good to know.

[GreenStormCloud]

86. Never seen the video game.

So you don't like the cop being ready. How would you handle that kind of situation?

Four officers shot by one man. Area is sealed off and being searched as they narrow the circle. All cars are being stopped and checked. You don't want to get shot. How will you do it? Or do you just enjoy being critical without offereing solutions.

[TransitJohn]

120. I don't have to honor solutions. I'm an idiot on a messageboard. That's up to the fuckers we put in

power over us. It's up to us to be the watchdog on them. Fuck the cops, man. Our rights trump their safety. They took the job. If they can't do it, they should quit. There's no call to systematically violate everyone's rights and detain them because they're scared.

[GreenStormCloud]

121. Your rights don't trump their safety. The cops aren't required to commit suicide for your feelings.

In emergencies the power of the state increases as needed to handle the situation.

Since you have said, "I'm an idiot on a messageboard.", then I will agree with you on that sentence.

[TransitJohn]

122. Commit fucking suicide? By doing their jobs they're paid well for? Fuck that.

You're just another authoritarian, willing to excuse any assault on civil rights no matter how egregious. How many LEO in your family? it's a fucking cult.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. Nobody here is paying attention to the situation.

There has been a shoot-out that has left four law enforcement officers wounded. They are putting their lives on the line looking for a guy that is genuinely armed and very dangerous. They don't want to give anybody a chance to shoot them first. Likely they have the area sealed off.

In situations like that, LEOs need to be ready.

How would you check out vehicles in that type of situation, if you were an LEO? Remember, you are looking for a guy who has already shot four officers.

[Bonobo]

67. I don't have all the answers, but...

It is not okay to approach my car filled with my children, heavily armed and pointing semi-automatic weapons at them.

Figure out a different way cause that isn't acceptable.

[GreenStormCloud]

74. So your anwer is to give the felon more first shots, after he has shot four cops. N/T

[Bonobo]

76. No, that would be putting words in my mouth.

Approaching car after car of innocent people who will be traumatized by having automatic weapons pointed at them DOES NOT IN ANY WAY guarantee that the person will not "have the first shot".

Do you really think it does? I mean, if you think about it for more than 2 seconds.

[GreenStormCloud]

83. How would you do it?

You don't like the officer's way but you make no suggestions yourself.

If you approach with a smile and your gun not at the ready, if he happens to be in that car, you will be the fifth officer shot. That is the real world result of what you seem to want.

If your gun is at the ready you can fire much faster that if it isn't.

[Bonobo]

87. I guess I would have armored police approach the cars, or...

I would have a checkpoint where no officers were immediately vulnerable and then use a loudspeaker to ask the people to exit the car.

That would be safe, no?

[GreenStormCloud]

90. You still have to go up to the car to see if anyone is in it.

What do you do if the driver doesn't want to exit? He has his hands visible on the steering wheel and believes that he has the right to no get out of his car.

Your method also takes up more time, creates a traffic jam. Faster to step up to the car, look inside, be ready while you do it.

Doing it your way gives the felon time, while he is waiting in line, to do something, such as grab a hostage from another car that is waiting in line. You want to have as few civilians as possible around when he is found. Fewer people around means fewer people hit by stray bullets when he is found.

BTW - He was found and over 100 rounds were fired before he surrendered.

[Bonobo]

91. Yes, it would be less convenient.

But it would mean not shoving a gun into the face of innocent people and that's a good thing.

If the person wouldn't exit the car? Well, in those very few cases, I think they would be unable to then complain about being approached with guns drawn.

[GreenStormCloud]

93. It isn't a matter of convenience.

People get pissed when they get hung up in traffic. Having more civilians around creates more disorder and confusion, that can create an opportunity for the violent felon.

Safer to have as few civilians as possible. So the officers check them out fast and get them out of the way.

Let people like you sue. Given the extremity of the emergency, your case will get tossed out of court and you will have to pay the state for their legal fees.

[Bonobo]

94. OK, we disagree.

I don't think innocent people should have automatic weapons pointed at them.

We can agree to disagree.

[GreenStormCloud]

99. We can agree to disagree.

I am looking at it from the view of the greatest physical safety for both the officers and for innocent civilians. If their feelings get hurt, then they will just have to get over it.

There are times when being overly concerned about people's feelings can cause injury and/or death because needed actions or precautions didn't get done.

Sometimes life sucks.

[Bonobo]

101. I hear you and I am not completely unconflicted. nt

[gopiscrap]

64. fucking god damn cops are out of control.

[GreenStormCloud]

78. They are looking for a felon that has already shot four officers.

In case you didn't know it, LEOs are people too. How would you approach a car in the given situation?

[brooklynite]

79. Question: is World Net Daily an acceptable news source for DU?

[Bonobo]

84. To be honest, I don't know much about that website.

And I don't think that it really matters that much, so maybe you could either comment on the event portrayed or just not comment at all.

[GreenStormCloud]

95. "Water is wet." There are people here who want an ideological pure link for even a quote like that.

And they are more concered with the purity of the link, than with the story. Obviously I am not one of them. I prefer to argue about the event itself.

[Bonobo]

103. I like your approach GSC. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

109. No, it's not. It is entirely not acceptable for DU.

[sir pball]

80. I had a loaded MP5 submachine gun aimed at me every morning

Driving through the gates when I worked at Brookhaven National Lab. Didn't bother me a whit. And in this case, armed shooter on the loose, likely wouldn't bother me either.

Not like I haven't dealt with beat cops in full black combat gear carrying automatic weapons all over Europe (well, Prague and Geneva mostly)..

[NYC_SKP]

85. Post this in the DU photo group and they'll explain depth of field and distances.

Also, look at the reflection of the trooper in the car's door. You can see his left forearm plainly reflected in the upper part of the door.

That's about a 2003-2004 Ford Mustang and the strip of painted metal just below the window weatherstripping is probably laid back just about 20 degrees from vertical, and rounded.

Now math and geometry are strong points, and as high as the trooper's forearm is above that reflection, and given the angle of the reflection, I think he's got to be at least three feet and maybe more from the car.

Possibly further, but even at two feet away that barrel would be aimed roughly at the rear tire, not toward the driver.

Also, the photographers will tell you that the further away the camera is, the less apparent scale is for things at a distance, so from 50 yards two people 10 feet apart might look like they're much closer to one another; there's no scale.

Clearly, this was a long shot with a long lens and the reflection indicates considerable distance between the trooper and the driver.

There, I fixed it!

[Bonobo]

98. That's a very complex post.

I could post it there and maybe they would tell me exactly what you did.

Ultimately, I think this photo may be like a Rorshach Test. People will see it in the way they are prone to.

[GreenStormCloud]

100. Yes, most will see it through the lens of confirmation bias. N/T

[Bonobo]

102. I am certainly not immune to that.

But given US police behavior in general, the over militarization and the culture of violence (as I see it), it is hard to feel comfortable with that photo.

[GreenStormCloud]

104. Out of context, yes. In context, I can accept it as one of life's harsh realities. N/T

[Liberal_in_LA]

89. wow,