Law Pelosi desk "invader" asks judge for freedom to sell cars

[TheBlondBomber]

theyre not designed to be deadly, but they can be if the circumstances are right. if not deadly, the least they could be defined as is dangerous. if i go around tasing enough random people at will, i'm sure that lots of them are going to fall and get injured, and some would even die from a heart attack.

Dumb argument.

People also die every year as a result of peanut butter and it’s also not designed to be deadly. If someone had a jar JIFF on them when they trespassed, there could be someone with a peanut allergy in the Capitol. Does that turn his jar of peanut butter into a dangerous or deadly weapon. No.

you can’t take the worst case scenario regarding an object and turn it into something it’s not. Would you consider a Swiss Army knife to be a dangerous weapon? Of course not.

I don’t believe there is a statutory definition of a “dangerous weapon” but the Cornell legal database compiles precedent and defines it as “Any object, such as a gun, knife, sword, crossbow, or slingshot, that is intrinsically capable of causing serious bodily harm to another person.” I would say a taser doesn’t cause serious bodily harm because it doesn’t cause long lasting damage. But that would be a jury question.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dangerous_weapon

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Not what you posted, but I'd hardly call the 6th an attempted coup. Certainly dumbasses and some where violent, but 99% of the protesters were peaceful and didnt run into the capitol building.

And we didnt have politicians defending the actions of 2 dozen nuts in the Bundy standoff, while we have politicians on the left excusing theft, arson, and violence against random police because people are frustrated.

Btw, what federal building did the right bomb?

You've for real never heard of the Oklahoma City Bombing?

 

[maximus__]

im not a judge, i dont look into the criteria of whats required to hold somebody if theyre arrrested. to my understanding, if the person can be considered a danger to society, a high risk to reoffend, or some other state or allied country wants them extradited, or they are considered a flight risk, then the judge will hold them without bond.

but even without looking it up, i'm sure a taser is easilly defined as a dangerous or deadly weapon. every year people die as a result of them. many of whom arent even violent criminals but are simply just trying to flee from police to avoid being arrested.

theyre not designed to be deadly, but they can be if the circumstances are right. if not deadly, the least they could be defined as is dangerous. if i go around tasing enough random people at will, i'm sure that lots of them are going to fall into something and get injured, and some would even die from a heart attack.

if i was a judge you wouldnt be able to try to make an argument that a taser isnt a dangerous weapon. i would then ask you to stand next to a bunch of concrete steps with some rusty nails scattered around and let me tase you while everybody else looks on. that would be the end of that argument. then again i wouldnt be a good judge.

It's a misdemeanour offence unless it's used on law enforcement.
It should have no impact on being held for extended periods in custody. Not considered a deadly weapon unless it's used in a way that makes it deadly i.e repeated negligent uses or someone in water.
https://www.uscp.gov/visiting-capitol-hill/regulations-prohibitions/prohibited-items
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/stun-gun-laws-washington.htm
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.c...on-misdemeanor-crimes-class-and-sentences.htm

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Dumb argument.

People also die every year as a result of peanut butter and it’s also not designed to be deadly. If someone had a jar JIFF on them when they trespassed, there could be someone with a peanut allergy in the Capitol. Does that turn his jar of peanut butter into a dangerous or deadly weapon. No.

you can’t take the worst case scenario regarding an object and turn it into something it’s not. Would you consider a Swiss Army knife to be a dangerous weapon? Of course not.

everybody knows just how a taser could be deadly or dangerous, but ill just go by the US penal code

dangerous weapon
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.
Source
18 USC § 930(g)(2)


i dont know why you threw that swiss army knife in there. if you used it as a projectile and hurled it at somebody somebody, then sure it would be looked at as an object used primarilly, or intently as a weapon to cause harm. theres laws defining that too, and if there wasnt, people would just stop making sandwiches and start going stab happy with their swiss army knives and hurling jars of peanut butter at everybody with no legal consequences, because a jar of peanut butter and a swiss army knife arent generally defined as a dangerous weapon, unless you intently decide to use it as one.

a taser can fit the bill for a dangerous weapon quite easilly. you wouldnt need to be a rocket scientist to know that they are capable of inflicting death or serious harm. police use these as an alternative to lethal force. and thats what they are designed for

defense teams wont even try to argue that nonsense in court. any reasonable human being in the world already knows just how a taser is capable of causing death or serious injury. and if you can't, why dont you stand in front of these concerete steps here and let me tase you in the back so you faceplant, or perhaps let me tase you long enough for your heart to give out.

yeah i dont see how a taser could be readilly capable of causing death or serious injury to you. i'm sure no court in the land would ever look at it like that either. defense attorneys are foolish not to ever make those arguments in court and try to convince people that a taser isnt capable of causing harm to anyone. its only going to waste the judges time, and hurt the defendants case.


also lets look at more federal law, this is where it gets interesting.

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a)
Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b)
Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c)
A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.



they have a completely different section, 930 (b) to define when a person who enters a federal facility and actually uses the weapon.

unfortunately for your peaceful little jaywalker, as defiined by section 930 (a), its also defined, and highly illegal, to carry a firearm or dangerous weapon into a federal facility.

 

[eighterumg5]

Well it turns out the judge was wrong for denying Barnett a Bond as the DC circuit forced the trial judge to set a bond. And despite your hysterics about how dangerous he was an how violent his intent was (despite him not using the stun gun, which is hilarious), the trial judge didn’t use that as a basis for keeping him with no bond. The trial judge didn’t set a bond because of the note he left.

So despite your hysterics, the trial judge didn’t think he was too violent to be let out. He was pissed about Barnett calling Pelosi a biatch.

If you think his reply was hysterical then you're bigger fool then i thought

 

[TheBlondBomber]

everybody knows just how a taser could be deadly or dangerous, but ill just go by the US penal code

dangerous weapon
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.
Source
18 USC § 930(g)(2)


i dont know why you threw that swiss army knife in there. if you used it as a projectile and hurled it at somebody somebody, then sure it would be looked at as an object used primarilly, or intently as a weapon to cause harm. theres laws defining that too, and if there wasnt, people would just stop making sandwiches and start going stab happy with their swiss army knives and hurling jars of peanut butter at everybody with no legal consequences, because a jar of peanut butter and a swiss army knife arent generally defined as a dangerous weapon, unless you intently decide to use it as one.

a taser can fit the bill for a dangerous weapon quite easilly. you wouldnt need to be a rocket scientist to know that they are capable of inflicting death or serious harm. police use these as an alternative to lethal force. and thats what they are designed for

defense teams wont even try to argue that nonsense in court. any reasonable human being in the world already knows just how a taser is capable of causing death or serious injury. and if you can't, why dont you stand in front of these concerete steps here and let me tase you in the back so you faceplant, or perhaps let me tase you long enough for your heart to give out.

yeah i dont see how a taser could be readilly capable of causing death or serious injury to you. i'm sure no court in the land would ever look at it like that either. defense attorneys are foolish not to ever make those arguments in court and try to convince people that a taser isnt capable of causing harm to anyone. its only going to waste the judges time, and hurt the defendants case.


also lets look at more federal law, this is where it gets interesting.

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a)
Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b)
Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c)
A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.



they have a completely different section, 930 (b) to define when a person who enters a federal facility and actually uses the weapon.

unfortunately for your peaceful little jaywalker, as defiined by section 930 (a), its also defined, and highly illegal, to carry a firearm or dangerous weapon into a federal facility.

Lol so tell me how a stun gun can cause serious bodily harm? I’ll ignore the rest of your word vomit.

 

[eighterumg5]

Ok so he didn't use the taser but why do you tbink he had it? You think those fools were just gonna tase someone then walk away? No. They weren't. They wanted blood. And they wanted to spill it. Whatever side your on, just watching videos of that crowd should cement that fact. Its pretty simple really.

 

[eighterumg5]

Lol so tell me how a stun gun can cause serious bodily harm? I’ll ignore the rest of your word vomit.

Google that shit...

 

[idrankyourbeer]

lastly to end this argument, in many states, they have additional laws, where convicted felons, people convicted of felonies or assault charges, or somebody who has been barred from posessing weapons by a judge, is prohibited specifically from posessing a stun gun. anywhere. any place. any time.

i'll use california's penal code. title 3, section 22610 as an example

Penal Code - PEN
PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000 - 34370]
( Part 6 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )
TITLE 3. WEAPONS AND DEVICES OTHER THAN FIREARMS [19910 - 23025]
( Title 3 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )
DIVISION 10. STUN GUN [22610 - 22625]
( Division 10 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )
22610.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person may purchase, possess, or use a stun gun, subject to the following requirements:

(a) No person convicted of a felony or any crime involving an assault under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, or convicted of misuse of a stun gun under Section 244.5, shall purchase, possess, or use any stun gun.

(b) No person addicted to any narcotic drug shall purchase, possess, or use a stun gun.

(c) (1) No person shall sell or furnish any stun gun to a minor unless the minor is at least 16 years of age and has the written consent of the minor’s parent or legal guardian.

(2) Violation of this subdivision shall be a public offense punishable by a fifty-dollar ($50) fine for the first offense. Any subsequent violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.

(d) No minor shall possess any stun gun unless the minor is at least 16 years of age and has the written consent of the minor’s parent or legal guardian.

(Added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. (SB 1080) Effective January 1, 2011. Operative January 1, 2012, by Sec. 10 of Ch. 711.)



but yeah if youre a felon, you can still carry around your jar of peanut butter, or swiss army knife when you go to storm the capitol building, peacefully hang your vice president, and take back your country. so long as you dont use it as a weapon. they dont have specific laws defining jars of peanut butter so carrying a jar of peanut butter around with you isnt considered a crime unless you literally commit one by harming someone with it or whatever. youll be good in california anyways.

in most states they just consider a taser no different or regulated than a firearm, where you can obtain a gun just as easilly as a taser, and you wont need any special kind of license if youre a conviced felon, youre not going to be allowed to possess them anymore in pretty much all of america because they are also considered by law as a weapon, and after getting released from prison from felonies, you pretty much waive alot of your rights away in exchange for your freedom, including your constitutional right to bare arms.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Google that shit...

you would have to be genuinely short bus retarded to not be able to understand that a taser is capable of causing serious injury or death or try to argue against it.

aint no defense attorney worth his weight is ever going to try to make a case against a taser not being a dangerous weapon just to try to get his charges thrown out. they genuinely wouldnt give a shit about their client, and they obviously arent getting paid much if thats the kind of argument they would try to make in front of a judge to try to get the charges dismissed. thats a sure fire way to piss off the judge and turn your parking ticket into the death penalty.

you could graduate from clown college for fuck sakes and take the bench at your local carnival court, and you would still be able to understand how a taser can be considered a dangerous weapon. police dont even like to use them, but tasers are their less-lethal option of subdueing a fleeing suspect. it always carries a risk of causing damage or potentially even death to the people that they use it on. every. single. time. just because a person doesnt always get hurt or killed after being tased doesnt mean that tasers arent readilly capable of causing injury or death.

 

[eighterumg5]

you would have to be genuinely short bus retarded to not be able to understand that a taser is capable of causing serious injury or death or try to argue against it.

aint no defense attorney worth his weight is ever going to try to make a case against a taster not being a dangerous weapon just to try to get his charges thrown out. they genuinely wouldnt give a shit about their client, and they obviously arent getting paid much if thats the kind of argument they would try to make in front of a judge to try to get the charges dismissed. thats a sure fire way to piss off the judge and turn your parking ticket into the death penalty.

you could graduate from clown college for fuck sakes and take the bench at your local carnival court, and you would still be able to understand how a taser can be considered a dangerous weapon. police dont even like to use them, but tasers are their less-lethal option of subdueing a fleeing suspect. it always carries a risk of causing damage or potentially even death to the people that they use it on. every. single. time. just because a person doesnt always get hurt or killed after being tased doesnt mean that tasers arent readilly capable of causing injury or death.

I'm on your side here man

 

[idrankyourbeer]

I'm on your side here man

i know, i was just going off there based on the quote in your reply.

it just amazes me that people try to downplay this whole thing. this other idiot tried to write this whole thing off as if these insurrectionists were just jaywalking acrosss the street and yelling at the sky. and that somehow a taser can't hurt somebody

i mean what the fuck is that? get out of here with that crap. who are you supposed to convince?

you cant just arm yourself with a weapon and go storm into a federal property after trump told you to go over there and take back your country, and then not expect to get hit up with serious charges. just because donnie boy never had to face consequences for his actions doesnt mean that his regular everyday spectrum of short bus retards wont. hell, he threw every one of them under the bus. and theyre still giving him the reacharound and trying to downplay the whole thing, as if it was everybody elses fault and they shouldnt be held accountable for what they did that day.

donnie's not going to go to bat for them. they didnt have half a million dollars with of bitcoin to give him just to buy a pardon. hey arent going to be seen in court as a patriotic freedom fighters. they arent sports superstars. they arent movie stars or celebrities. they arent political figures. theres nothing special about these short bus chuds, and the prosecuters are not going to paint a very rosy picture of them in court either. and their dear leader, donald trump isnt going to be there to defend them either.

these idiots, especially the most notorious ones from all the videos, are likely going to get hung up to dry and made an example of, just so that these maga muppets wont be so inclined to start an insurrection the next time toddler trump or some other one of their guys loses an election and throws a fit about it on twitter and cry fraud everywhere outside of a courtroom afterwards

 

[TheBlondBomber]

you would have to be genuinely short bus retarded to not be able to understand that a taser is capable of causing serious injury or death or try to argue against it.

aint no defense attorney worth his weight is ever going to try to make a case against a taster not being a dangerous weapon just to try to get his charges thrown out. they genuinely wouldnt give a shit about their client, and they obviously arent getting paid much if thats the kind of argument they would try to make in front of a judge to try to get the charges dismissed. thats a sure fire way to piss off the judge and turn your parking ticket into the death penalty.

you could graduate from clown college for fuck sakes and take the bench at your local carnival court, and you would still be able to understand how a taser can be considered a dangerous weapon. police dont even like to use them, but tasers are their less-lethal option of subdueing a fleeing suspect. it always carries a risk of causing damage or potentially even death to the people that they use it on. every. single. time. just because a person doesnt always get hurt or killed after being tased doesnt mean that tasers arent readilly capable of causing injury or death.

A dangerous weapon has to cause serious bodily harm. That’s a jury question. What serious bodily harm does it cause? You still haven’t answered. All you’ve done is post unrelated statutes and you think you somehow win an argument.

And you’re obfuscating the issue I took umbrage with of whether or not his act of trespassing is violent because he had a stun gun in his pocket. It’s not. It’s no different than if someone had mace on his keychain and engaged in trespassing. It’s not violent. His stun gun was not a justification of keeping him in jail without a bond.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

A dangerous weapon has to cause serious bodily harm. That’s a jury question. What serious bodily harm does it cause? You still haven’t answered. All you’ve done is post unrelated statutes and you think you somehow win an argument.

And you’re obfuscating the issue of whether or not his act of trespassing is violent because he had a stun gun in his pocket. It’s not. It’s no different than if someone had mace on his keychain and engaged in trespassing. It’s not violent.

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a)
Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b)
Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.


sorry, but carrying a firearm or dangerous weapon into a federal facility is actually defined as a crime. it doesnt specifically have to be used in another crime. but if it was, it would fall into section b, which the offender could be sentenced to up to 5 years instead of just 1, and would receive a heftier fine

a dangerous weapon doesnt always have to cause serious injury every time its used in order to be considered a dangerous weapon.

some people get shot with a gun and manage to make it out with no injury and end up no worse for wear. i guess with your logic, "A dangerous weapon has to cause serious bodily harm." that gun can't be defined as a dangerous weapon now can it, because it didnt manage to actually hurt the person? i mean guns arent even dangerous at all if you know how to use it and you use it responsibly, and mostly shoot animals and beer cans with it too right? i'll probably be just fine if i wear this vest and you shoot me right?

is that the argument you would try to make to defend your little maga hero if they caught him with a gun in his pants instead of other weapons? perhaps he was just packing his glock while tresspassing into a federal building to defend himself against diseased rats that might jump out at him within from nancy pelosi's office?

get the fuck out of here. a taser is readilly capable of causing injury or death, which very well fits into the legal definition of deadly weapon, to which i have already provided you.

theres all kinds of ways you could get injured or even die from a taser. if youre somehow retarded enough to believe that a taser cannot readilly cause serious injury or death to a person, which is the very legal definition of a dangerous weapon as the law states, then why dont you stand over here on top of this big flight of concrete stairs and allow me to tase you just to demonstrate just exactly how it can. or perhaps you can go for a nice little run and then let me hold a taser to you for a couple minutes, and lets see what your heart does afterwards.

despite being banned, or highly restricted in many countries across the world, tasers are not dangerous weapons, so surely you'll be the first to volunteer right? theres lots of ways for me to kill or hurt you with one, but surely its not a dangerous weapon because the blind bomber from a karate forum told me so! get a load of these people.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a)
Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b)
Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.


sorry, but carrying a firearm or dangerous weapon into a federal facility is actually defined as a crime. it doesnt specifically have to be used in another crime. but if it was, it would fall into section b, which the offender could be sentenced to up to 5 years instead of just 1, and would receive a heftier fine

a dangerous weapon doesnt always have to cause serious injury every time its used in order to be considered a dangerous weapon.

some people get shot with a gun and manage to make it out with no injury and end up no worse for wear. i guess with your logic, "A dangerous weapon has to cause serious bodily harm." that gun can't be defined as a dangerous weapon now can it, because it didnt manage to actually hurt the person? i mean guns arent even dangerous at all if you know how to use it and you use it responsibly, and mostly shoot animals and beer cans with it too right? i'll probably be just fine if i wear this vest and you shoot me right? is that the argument you would try to make to defend your little maga hero if they caught him with a gun in his pants instead of other weapons?

get the fuck out of here. a taser is readilly capable of causing injury or death, which very well fits into the legal definition of deadly weapon, to which i have already provided you.

theres all kinds of ways you could get injured or even die from a taser. if youre somehow retarded enough to believe that a taser cannot readilly cause serious injury or death to a person, which is the very legal definition of a dangerous weapon as the law states, then why dont you stand over here on top of this big flight of concrete stairs and allow me to tase you just to demonstrate just exactly how it can. or perhaps you can go for a nice little run and then let me hold a taser to you for a couple minutes, and lets see what your heart does afterwards.

despite being banned, or highly restricted in many countries across the world, tasers are not dangerous weapons, so surely you'll be the first to volunteer right? theres lots of ways for me to kill or hurt you with one, but surely its not a dangerous weapon because the blind bomber from a karate forum told me so! get a load of these people.

Why are you citing a firearm statute in reference to a stun gun? The two are not the same. You’re refusing to answer what serious bodily harm a stun gun causes. It’s funny that you keep citing unrelated statutes

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Why are you citing a firearm statute in reference to a stun gun? The two are not the same. You’re refusing to answer what serious bodily harm a stun gun causes. It’s funny that you keep citing unrelated statutes

CAN YOU FUCKING READ

 

[idrankyourbeer]

let me try again for this stupid little chud. and bold and underline the part that he clearly cant read and understand, and somehow thinks section 18 of U.S. Code § 930 only refers to firearms


18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a)
Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b)
Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

do i need to color that part in for you with a crayon just to show you that this law against carrying weapons into federal buildings doesnt only apply to firearms, you fucking muppet?

good god. im so tired of these short bus chuds. and they actually pretend to have been prosecutors at one point, when its ever so obvious they dont even know how to interprit the law, or anything about it!

they get about 3 words into the first segment, and then give up on it and then go on the attack pretending that they have any fucking clue what they are talking about. if they would have made it more than 5 words into my first sentence and had any clue how to interpret the law, they wouldnt be talking a bunch of shit and thinking i was citing some kind of firearm statute! of all the responses he could have made to me, he had to have made the most absolutely retarded one possible.

firearm statutes lmfao yeah thats totally what i was pulling out there. good one skippy!

Not when I was a prosecutor.

yeah, this fucking guy was ever a prosecutor alright. he can sure interpret laws. he must have borrowed a copy of the US code of laws from his local library and held it up in front of a courthouse just for a photo-op. thats likely the only background in law that he's ever taken, but he seems to know everything about everything while sherdogging it up on a karate forum, trying so desperately to hook me into an ever-so-obvious 'gotcha' low grade trolling attempt.

it turns out ive wasted a good hour or two with some muppet that doesnt know shit about what he's even trying to argue about, a literal pretender. good fucking god

 

[Thecyborgmj23]

 

[HARRISON_3]

So now the GOP is soft on crime.
I cant keep up with all the flip flopping.

Wait til you see their position on family values.