Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashback Government The Courts News Your Rights Online

Charges Dropped In PA Video Taping Arrest 177

Posted by kdawson
from the common-sense-prevails dept.
Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed has reversed himself completely over the charges against Brian Kelly, arrested for wiretapping after videotaping a police stop. Now let's see if they are good enough to compensate Kelly for the 26 hours he spent in jail and the anguish of the cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest. From the article: "... [DA] Freed said his decision will affect not only Brian Kelly, 18, but also will establish a policy for police departments countywide. 'When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges,' Freed said yesterday. 'The law itself might need to be revised.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Charges Dropped In PA Video Taping Arrest

Comments Filter:
  • now I'll feel safer when travelling in the USA.
    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by sczimme (603413)
      now I'll feel safer when travelling in the USA.

      So your plans already include driving, getting pulled over, videotaping the entire encounter, and fighting the ensuing arrest in court?

      Or are you just being a wanker?

    • http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8133720312 520034070 [google.com] hehehehe. Love the deep south.
      • by JohnnyGTO (102952)
        Troll? he must have a Confederate flag painted on his car.
    • by JonToycrafter (210501) on Saturday June 23, 2007 @12:34AM (#19617455) Homepage Journal
      Don't feel safer just yet, Mr. parent post. Last night in Crown Heights (Brooklyn), a civil rights attorney (Michael Tarrif Warren) and his wife Evelyn (also a civil rights attorney I believe) witnessed a police officer making an arrest. He stopped to observe the arrest and was told by an officer to, "Get the fuck out of here, this is none of your business." Michael replied, "You don't have to talk to me that way sir, I'm a lawyer." He was told, "I don't give a fuck who you are." and walked away. Michael proceeded to take notes while in his car - at this point the sergeant (one Sgt. Talby of the 77th Precinct, NYPD) punched him several times hard through the open window and arrested both Mr. Warren and his wife.

      Thankfully, the news got to the local media quickly, and when they broadcast news of the arrest, 200 folks showed up at the 77th Precinct's door (full disclosure: I was one of them). Sadly, this is hardly [mxgm.org] an [wcbstv.com] isolated [mindfully.org] instance [indybay.org]. It just happens to be the one that happened yesterday.

      I realize that some of the sources I'm linking aren't exactly bastions of objective journalism, but if you'd like the other side of the issue, you have two choices:
      1) Read the recommendations of NYPD officers on NYPD Rant, the largest message board for NYPD officers. In response to St. Louis ACLU handing out cameras to monitor police misconduct, many recommend "disappearing" the tapes or refusing to work in the area (see here [ezboard.com]

      2) Next time you see police arresting or ticketing someone, pull out a notepad. Make sure to not interfere in any way with the police action - just take down names, badge numbers, police car numbers, and physical description of the arrestee. See what happens. I tried doing this once or twice in NYC, and was told, like Mr. Warren, that it was none of my business, to get lost.
    • No. Now you'll feel safer when traveling in Pennsylvania. This is an awesome step for the citizens of Pennsylvania in protecting our basic rights. I'm glad the kid got off! There's no reason to send a high school student for prison for breaking the law unknowingly, unless his intent was malicious. I sincerely doubt it was. This is a happy ending for what could have been an awful story.
  • After reading the story about cameras being distributed to monitor the police, I suppose this DA decided his own case was silly. Which it was.
  • What a surprising outcome.

    Puts a little bit of sunshine in the lately bleak atmosphere.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22, 2007 @05:38PM (#19614807)
    While no judicial and law systems on the planet are perfect, the reaction in the US over this charge, and the eventual reversal say only one thing; as far as direct action is involved the USA is *still* one of the best places on the planet to do it. I can't remember the quote exactly, but it goes something along the lines of us in the west having freedoms we simply don't take advantage of. We pussy foot about and don't act, and that is the problem. If Brian here had not received the support that he did, he might still be in jail. I feel safer in the USA than I do in any other country when it comes to expressing my rights, even though I know that in some backwater town that ability may be more suppressed than in other areas.
    • by Enlightenment (1073994) on Friday June 22, 2007 @05:45PM (#19614859)
      I wonder if this man would have been freed if not for the media whirlwind and outcry over this. In this era, it's almost our duty to raise hell about wrongheaded actions like this, since media attention and publicity can often be more successful than bona fide legal arguments.
      • by db32 (862117) on Friday June 22, 2007 @07:03PM (#19615573) Journal
        Funny how that freedom of the press thing works when it operates correctly. I think that was exactly the purpose of that even in the world before mass communication. I think our legal system was meant to be a last resort thing not first resort in this sense. More convoluted laws only hurts this, and it seemed clear to me the idea was to have more of a light and lean and modifiable legal system to try and cope with strange issues like this. Only when things absolutely cannot be worked out should the court system get involved.
      • by loraksus (171574)
        I wonder if this man would have been freed if not for the media whirlwind and outcry over this.
        Absolutely not.
        The DA has career aspirations and didn't want to be labeled as "the douchebag who prosecuted someone for videotaping the cops"
        If there was no coverage / outrage, the average joe would be spending time in prison (although our prosecutor would of have most likely negotiated down to a misdemeanor of some kind, losses and appeals look bad when you want to start out in politics...)
      • In this era, it's almost our duty to raise hell about wrongheaded actions like this

        Almost? In this era? This is a democracy; it IS our duty, and has been since the inception of this country.

    • by jgs (245596)
      I feel safer in the USA than I do in any other country when it comes to expressing my rights, even though I know that in some backwater town that ability may be more suppressed than in other areas.

      Yeah -- even a backwater town like New York City [thenation.com].
  • by Icarus1919 (802533) on Friday June 22, 2007 @05:42PM (#19614831)
    "Permission to yell 'Bravo' in an annoying loud voice?"
    "Permission granted."
    "BRAVO!"
  • Nifong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by belmolis (702863) <billposer&alum,mit,edu> on Friday June 22, 2007 @05:44PM (#19614851) Homepage

    I wonder if the downfall of Mike Nifong has given prosecutors a dose of humility.

    • Re:Nifong (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JohnnyGTO (102952) on Friday June 22, 2007 @06:38PM (#19615375) Homepage
      God, I hope so. To which I add this when will we see some justice doled out on the "victim". I had a friend live through this when he got back together with an ex-girlfriend. She set him up and he only stayed out of prison when it was learn she had a HISTORY of false accusations and was several bananas short of a full bunch.
  • Still too much CYA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by adminstring (608310) on Friday June 22, 2007 @05:45PM (#19614863)
    While I am impressed that the DA admitted that a mistake had been made, he still went too far in covering the ass of the very unprofessional police officer who made this stupid arrest. From TFA:

    [Freed] said the officer who charged Kelly acted in a "professional manner."

    Avoiding accountability by throwing someone in jail for recording how you do your job is NOT professional. Rather, it is the act of a petty tyrant on a power trip who, if left unchecked, will most likely end up harming the public in other ways in the future. The citizens of Pennsylvania deserve better than this from their law enforcement agents.
  • This is one of my soapbox issues. More and more, investigations into your personal history (job applications, police investigations, security clearances, and the like) are questioning your *arrest* record. Being arrested (or even charged, but that's another discussion) denotes NOTHING about guilt, intent, or even behavior. You can be arrested for nothing more than being an out-of-state bystander who is witness to an (alleged) crime.

    The *connotation*, however, is becoming increasingly negative, as is the inference when you refuse to reply, or respond that you have not been convicted of any crimes. (I started to type "have no convictions, but it got very confusing very fast!)

    And no, I personally have neither convictions nor arrests.

    KeS
    • by PorkNutz (730601) on Friday June 22, 2007 @05:55PM (#19614985) Homepage

      I personally have neither convictions nor arrests.

      Remind me never to party with you.

      -----
      F&@k You Binary T-Shirt [prostoner.com]
      Funny Shirts @ ProStoner.com

    • by epine (68316) on Friday June 22, 2007 @06:09PM (#19615135)

      Exactly this phrase also peeved me off. Sometimes I get the feeling that there are a lot of people out there wringing their hands with glee over all the drama that comes along with living in a functional police state, which America is increasingly becoming, as more and more people believe that credit ratings and arrest records and nose cleanings represent the value of a human to society.
    • am a man of strong convictions.
    • by pytheron (443963) on Friday June 22, 2007 @06:12PM (#19615159) Homepage
      I can agree with your point 100%. Here in the UK, after being involved in a car crash, in which I was a passenger, the police attended the scene. Since the car my friend was driving was in the process of having the ownership details transferred by the legendary slow DVLA, the police checked up on us to see if there were any warrants out for us.
      When it came to check my record, I had none. I'm almost 30, and up until that day, I had never been arrested for anything. I had a bank card in my name, some photo membership etc.. and the police even phoned my landlord to verify my identity, which when verified, his shoulders visibly sagged. After all this, I was arrested. Why ? "We don't believe you are who you say you are, Sir." Great. So I end up sitting in a cell for 5 hours, get my DNA taken, all after a head-on crash which left me nicely bruised and hurting. Eventually, a jovial sergeant came to the cell "You can go now." with a smile. Thanks a f*****g lot.
      To have the fact that I was arrested used against me in any way is just plain wrong. Companies should not be allowed to discriminate on information that provides no indication of wrong-doing.
      • Just wondering, but did you sue for wrongful arrest? I am not a lawyer, but I'd advise speaking to one if you didn't. It sounds like they didn't have anything like the minimum evidence requirements for an arrest. Also, 'We don't believe you are who you say you are, Sir' is not grounds for arrest. If they didn't tell you what they intended to charge you with, it sounds like they violated procedure in a number of ways.
        • by pytheron (443963)
          oh.. they told me what they were charging me with, which was "suspicion of theft of a motor vehicle". Laughable really. I'd love to be able to sue the police here for that episode, and even get them to remove my DNA from records, to which they have no right. But I can't afford to. Righteousness is only for the rich.
          • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

            by Belacgod (1103921)
            You guys in the UK have cops who arrest people yelling at trespassers, who take people's cars off the streets and crush them for no reason, your schools refuse to teach the crusades or holocaust for fear of offending Muslims...what you need is a good revolution. I'm not surprised what happened to you happened to you, or that you can't do anything about it, but I am appalled and saddened.
            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by janrinok (846318)

              "take people's cars off the streets and crush them for no reason"

              Rubbish. If the car is not displaying a valid tax disc then the law is being broken. A quick check tells the police whether a valid disc exists for a car's registration number and, if not, it 'can' be removed and crushed. You may not like that, but I do. I pay my car tax, I have insurance and a valid driving license. I do not have problems with the police enforcing the law in this particular instance.

              If 'yelling' at trespassers is likely to cause a 'breach of the peace' then an offence is being com

              • by Belacgod (1103921)
                Here [thisislondon.co.uk] is the article I was referring to with the car one. Is there some other explanation for this? I'm not saying the USA is perfect--much US policy frankly sucks--but these petty assaults upon basic dignity are rare here, and when they happen often lead to political career-ending scandal.
          • by blackest_k (761565) on Friday June 22, 2007 @09:12PM (#19616347) Homepage Journal
            no actually you have no rights here, information about your arrest will remain on file till you reach 100

            http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233613&cid =19009319 [slashdot.org] a previous post of mine has links and extracts from the relevant legislation.
      • by crucini (98210)
        Reading between the lines, it sounds like you weren't carrying ID. Do you understand why the police detain people who go around without ID? Do you understand that you've benefited enormously, all your life, from the police checking IDs and warrants at traffic stops and accidents? Would you trade your five hours in a police station for a lifetime living in a place where IDs are not checked, such as Somalia?
        • by illtud (115152)
          Reading between the lines, it sounds like you weren't carrying ID. Do you understand why the police detain people who go around without ID?

          Hey, this is the UK we're talking about - there is absolutely no requirement to carry ID in the UK (yet). Maybe you don't understand this in the "land of the free".
        • by karmatic (776420) on Friday June 22, 2007 @08:20PM (#19616099)
          Would you trade your five hours in a police station for a lifetime living in a place where IDs are not checked

          I certainly would. I would gladly spend a month in Jail to live in a nation where "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" was more than just words on paper.

          ID is about verifying who you are. Laws concern behavior, not identity. Police should act when they see illegal or behavior likely to be illegal, or when they have reasonable suspicion, supported by oath or affirmation and signed by a judge.

          Police are Law Enforcement Officers, and there is no higher law (in the US) than the Constitution. As such, when police check ID in a manner inconsistent with the fourth amendment, they are in fact violating the law, and not doing their jobs.

          You imply that Somalia is like it is solely because IDs aren't checked. Such argument is intellectually dishonest, and neglects differences in culture, and corruption in government. The United States, if less IDs were checked, would have fewer people in jail. It would, on the other hand, be more free - reading the writings of some of the founding fathers will quickly show that this is by design. The government's job in obtaining convictions and performing surveillance is difficult by design.
          • by crucini (98210)

            I certainly would. I would gladly spend a month in Jail to live in a nation where...

            My point was that the annoyances we experience from the police are a small price to live in a civilized place. Complaining that the police detained you for five hours over an ID issue is like complaining that you have to stop at traffic lights.

            ID is about verifying who you are. Laws concern behavior, not identity.

            Our laws don't have much teeth without the ability to identify an offender. A functioning, orderly soci

            • by schon (31600)

              My point was that the annoyances we experience from the police are a small price to live in a police state.

              There, fixed that for ya.

              Complaining that the police detained you for five hours over an ID issue is like complaining that you have to stop at traffic lights.

              Last time I checked, traffic lights don't hold you against your will for 5 hours.

              Many people enjoy eating the sausage of freedom

              Ahh - so in order to enjoy freedom, we have to be submit to being locked up when we've done nothing wrong.

              Are you *trying* to sound Orwellian? (C'mon - you might have well have said "war is peace".)

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by crucini (98210)

                ... police state. There, fixed that for ya.

                Are you saying that the UK is a police state? In that case, which countries are not police states?

                Last time I checked, traffic lights don't hold you against your will for 5 hours.

                On the other hand, being detained by the police is not an every day occurence for most people. My point is that in the big picture of life, it's nothing. It's down among the dental visits, fender benders and sprained ankles. Not in the same league as divorce, bankruptcy and cancer. O

                • by schon (31600)

                  Are you saying that the UK is a police state?

                  As a citizen of the UK, are you saying that they're not?

                  My point is that in the big picture of life, it's nothing.

                  Bullshit.

                  Being arrested, hauled away like a criminal when you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing when there is no evidence that a crime has even been committed is not, in any way, shape or form "nothing".

                  Most civilized communities have achieved a reasonable balance

                  Bullshit - this has nothing to do with being "civilized"

        • by vidarh (309115)
          Dragging out Somalia is just plain intellectually dishonest. Somalia haven't had a functioning central government for years. To try to imply that any of their problems are even remotely related to whether or not they check IDs is just disgusting.

          There's also a huge difference between ID being checked and someone being arrested and left in jail because some moron police officer refuse to accept what all the checks he did came up clean.

          I don't see the poster you replied to complain about being asked to id

        • As long as there is someone else inthe world doing a worse job of a free society, whatever police-state tactics we've got going on are just fine, eh?

          Papers please! You have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong. Unless you're one of dozens being exonerated after spending years of their lives in prison.

        • by mibus (26291)

          Reading between the lines, it sounds like you weren't carrying ID.

          There's your problem - you need to read the lines themselves, not the whitespace inbetween ;)

          From the GP:

          I had a bank card in my name, some photo membership etc.. and the police even phoned my landlord to verify my identity, which when verified...

          So he had non-photo, fairly usable (IMHO) ID in the form of bankcards, photo ID for smaller places, and verbal verification from his landlord, and they still arrested him?

      • by illtud (115152)
        To have the fact that I was arrested used against me in any way is just plain wrong.

        Amen. For those who think this is just an inconvenience, let me just point out that you're no longer allowed to visit the US anymore without having to:

        * ring up the US embassy (on their hideously expensive premium-rate line)
        * stay on hold for up to hours to get an appointment
        * travel to London and queue up for hours for your appointment
        * suffer an interview to get a visa, attempting to explain away your arrest
        * pay a fortune
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Leebert (1694)

          I don't think that USAnians realise how horribly their goverment treat even tourist visitors who've been arrested at anytime (regardless of any charge being bought, let alone a conviction).

          Ha! The Federal government does that even to its own citizens! I was arrested back in college. The charges were dropped, but I was disqualified from a government contracting position some years later over the arrest, which didn't even go to TRIAL. That's where I learned about the concept of "protected" discriminations

      • by Myopic (18616)
        Brother, I hate to break this to you, but you don't live in a free country. I know America has its drawbacks, but we do cling to our freedom, or, some of it anyway. I mean that about lots of things in Britain.

    • 'Have you ever been arrested?'

      'Yes, I was arrested and jailed while standing up for our rights.
      I'd do it again, too.'
    • by Tim C (15259)
      The *connotation*, however, is becoming increasingly negative

      I blame the media for that. Increasingly cases are reported on as though the guilt of the accused is in little or no doubt, especially if the case involves children and/or sexual offences.
    • by crucini (98210)
      In California, they only ask about convictions - I think it's state law. I have one, and while it's embarassing to have to write it down, it's never barred me from a job in CA. I know this because because the background form is sent after the employer makes a conditional offer.

      A friend worked for an intelligence agency. They polygraph everyone, and dig deeply into each crime and arrest. But they do hire people with criminal convictions, if they have been clean for a while. However, that agency will not
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If you don't like the arrest, and you live in California (other states have different rules) you can petition the court to to declare you "factually innocent" and to order the arrest records sealed and destroyed. If this happens, according to California Penal Code 851.8, "The arrestee is thereby exonerated...the arrest shall be deemed never to have occurred and the person may answer accordingly any question relating to its occurrence."

      To find you factually innocent and order the arrest records destroyed, th
    • ...and we're getting close to it already, is to simply arrest everyone at birth. Increasingly, the only people "running for office" in this country are people who've never done anything. Not just "good things" or "bad things," but ANYTHING. A race of innocuous milquetoasts are slowly taking over the political operation of America simply by convincing "voters" that anyone who's ever done anything distinctive or at all out of the perceived mainstream is unfit to lead.

      Lest we forget... Harry Truman went ban
  • by imaginaryelf (862886) on Friday June 22, 2007 @06:01PM (#19615049)
    will be filed against the city, county, and state, in

    3
    2
    1 ...
    • by Vegeta99 (219501)
      I sure hope not the state. I live in PA and pay taxes here, and when I got arrested on charges just to have them go "oh, whoops" later and drop them, nobody handed me a fat check, so this 18 year old doesn't deserve it either.
  • What an unexpected win for the people.

    A tiny rock on a hill of snow can become a gigantic snowball when rolled down with momentum. Let's not forget this incident, and fight similar issues throughout the world, knowing that you CAN make a difference.

    Peace out.
    • When you end your statement about changing the world with "Peace out.", you almost guarantee that no one will take you seriously.
      • Why, because I sound like Kip? ;)

        You're being cynical. Listen to the message and not my mannerisms.

        Peace out. ;)
  • by whoever57 (658626) on Friday June 22, 2007 @06:06PM (#19615095) Journal
    Note this in the article:

    "When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects,
    So this may result in police not recording traffic stops, which won't help to keep the police in line. In fact, it could lead to more abuses.
    • by jjh37997 (456473)
      Doubtful. Although most police departments faught against the idea of installing cameras in police vehicles they have since discovered that recording arrests protects officers more often than not. People tend to act more professionally when they know they are being watch and I see this new ruling as a step in the right direction. Here's to more cameras! I look forward to the day when everyone carries around a small personal recorder that wireless beams home everything that they see or hear in a given day.
    • by kthejoker (931838)
      Actually, recording of traffic stops is mandated by most departments at a statewide level (The Texas DPS, for example.) And there won't be any change to that, since the blowback would be tremendous.
  • Privacy, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cdrguru (88047) on Friday June 22, 2007 @07:43PM (#19615881) Homepage
    So, in light of recent events I should be able to videotape police activities, right?

    Anytime I see police making a traffic stop, I whip out my camcorder and get some nice clear pictures of the police officer and the person being stopped. Sounds about like what is being promoted here.

    The reason this is (was?) illegal in many places should be clear to people but apparently isn't. Yet, I hope.

    The first problem is the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, even in America today. So what does my videotape show? Someone being questioned by police. This is the sort of thing that attracts voyeurs like rotting meat attracts flies. People will pay for video like this, especially (but not exclusively) if the person is some kind of public figure or celebrity. Should it be legal to publish such video? Well here in the anonymous Internet age once you have something in digital form there is literally no stopping it from being distributed. You can't stop it and you can't shut it down.

    See? This doesn't have anything to do with the police and everything to do with the other people. If you watch any of the police video shows you will always see the "perp" with his face pixelated so they aren't identifiable. Do you think amature videographers are going to do this before uploading their clip to YouTube?

    This means a simple traffic stop where the cop tells you to watch running through yellow lights has the potential to become an issue with your job. Why? A lot of public-facing jobs really are closed to people that have even a hint of controversy about them. Would you leave your child in the care of a teacher that was accused of having sex with a child? Would you hire someone as a bank teller that was accused of embezzlement? Would you still hire them if your insurance company told you that hiring them would raise your insurance rates? 50 years ago this sort of information could be private and not disclosed. Today, it is readily available to be misused. And it certainly is misused, every day.

    Is it right that groundless accusations can prevent people from getting a job? No. Does it happen every day? Yes, absolutely. Is having video tape of accused (but not convicted) people going to help or hurt?


    • You have a number of very valid concerns here, but I'm not sure that videotaping arrests will make these social ills much worse than they already are:

      It is unfortunate that employers are starting to ask about arrests, as it negates the presumption of innocence (to the extent that I could imagine it becoming illegal to ask about arrests in a job interview for just that reason) but having a videotape of the arrest won't add anything to that fact.

      The cop shows blur out people's faces because they are ofte
    • See? This doesn't have anything to do with the police and everything to do with the other people. If you watch any of the police video shows you will always see the "perp" with his face pixelated so they aren't identifiable. Do you think amature videographers are going to do this before uploading their clip to YouTube?

      That's a fine argument, but not really applicable to this case. What's at issue is your right to record how the police treat you. Cameras are one was to equalize the power imbalance betwee

    • by Kwirl (877607)
      Just to clarify, in the United States, the Constitution NOWHERE makes claims regarding the presumption of innocence. It is however, presumed as such, due to inferral from 5th, 6th and 14th ammendments, as a result of the 1895 case Coffin vs United States. http://www.constitution.org/ussc/156-432.htm. [constitution.org]
  • Now let's see if they are good enough to compensate Kelly for the 26 hours he spent in jail and the anguish of the cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest.

    I think there's a big difference between a felony arrest and a felony conviction -- the only thing Kelly has to look forward to as a result of his arrest is 15 minutes of fame.

    • That distinction is absolutely correct. In this case, Kelly's 15 minutes of fame may result in a major ruling which will have a far reaching effect. The decision to drop charges was absolutely correct and in the good spirit of 4th Amendment case law. Wiretapping laws are really only applicable in situations were persons have a heightened expectation of privacy. The police perform their jobs and duties within plain sight and are therefore subject to The Plain Sight Doctrine. Basically, this doctrine sta
    • In light of the number of detainees from the war on "terror" and the Iraq occupation who are held for months, even after they've been determined to be completely innocent, and the number of people who have been released after decades in prison who were convicted by overzealous prosecutors only to be exonerated by DNA evidence, I'd say anguish over a 26 hour detention and a dropped charge is very, very overwrought.
    • by Quila (201335)

      the only thing Kelly has to look forward to as a result of his arrest is 15 minutes of fame.
      And having to disclose the arrest for any background check or security clearance he may apply for in the future. Some employers may just see "felony arrest" and immediately pass him over without looking any further.
  • by voss (52565) on Saturday June 23, 2007 @03:21AM (#19618143)
    Its called "violating civil rights under color of law."

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...