Police Asked Facebook To Deactivate Woman's Account During Deadly Standoff (abc7.com) 447
An anonymous reader quotes a report from KABC-TV: In the midst of a five-hour standoff that turned deadly, Facebook granted an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department to take offline the social media accounts belonging to a woman who wielded a shotgun at officers. Baltimore County Police officers shot and killed Korryn Gaines, 23, after she barricaded herself inside her Randallstown apartment with her 5-year-old son and pointed a shotgun at officers attempting to serve an arrest warrant. Police Chief Jim Johnson said Tuesday that the department made the emergency request to have Gaines' social media accounts suspended after she posted videos online showing the standoff. People who saw the postings, Johnson said, responded by encouraging her to not comply with police. Videos posted on Facebook and Instagram appeared to show Gaines, who was black, talking with police in the doorway to her apartment and to her son during the standoff. The standoff Monday began after three officers went to Gaines' apartment to serve arrest warrants on her and her boyfriend, Kareem K. Courtney, 39, according to police. Gaines' bench warrant stemmed from charges during a March 10 stop, including disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Authorities said she was armed with a 12-gauge pistol grip shotgun that was legally purchased last year and toward the end of the negotiations pointed it directly at an officer and said, "If you don't leave, I'm going to kill you." An officer shot at her and Gaines fired two shots, but missed the officers, who returned fire and killed her, police said. Facebook's policy says that it may grant law enforcement permission to suspend accounts in cases where there is a substantial risk of harm. Facebook has received roughly 855 requests for emergency disclosures of information to government agencies due to the threat of harm or violence between July and December 2015, according to their Government Request Report. About 73 percent of those requests were granted.
just how? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure they have a contact sheet that only LEOs and other emergency personnel use.
FB should did it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They need to Identify all those users and bring Murder charges against them for the woman's death And counts of attempted Murder against these FB users, because these people acted with intent to incite behavior which resulted in people dying and was calculated to result in dead police officers.
Re:FB should did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey look, a proper example of incitement to violence not protected by the first amendment. Bravo sir.
Re: (Score:3)
Were they telling her to attack the cops or were they telling her to simply not comply? It does make a difference. In either case, there was nothing compelling her to do what she did other than maybe her own stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe her own stupidity...
I'm not going to start name calling like several other posters have, but I can't really see even a stupid person picking up a shotgun and threatening a cop with it. I'm going to go right ahead and assume either meth or untreated mental health problems here.
It is entirely possible I'm wrong and she died because she was stupid, but I don't think so.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how when a cop points a gun at a civilian it's not considered an attack.
Why not just wait outside the house for a few days? Nobody had to die.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny how when a cop points a gun at a civilian it's not considered an attack.
Why not just wait outside the house for a few days? Nobody had to die.
I see a lot of news stories about unjustified cop shootings, but this is not one of them. If she was unarmed or just had a knife or something less lethal than a shotgun, that'd be entirely different. Perhaps things could have turned out differently, but if I was looking down the barrel of a shotgun wielded by someone just said they were going to kill me, I think that's a pretty justifiable reason to shoot someone. I don't imagine anyone likes getting served arrest warrants, but she could have easily suff
Re: FB should did it (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't defend her actions . . . .
So let me ask, what actions would you expect to start seeing as Police continue to rack up body counts of people they interact with ?
People surrendering PEACEFULLY ( see guy laying in street with hands in the air ) have been shot. Folks IN CUSTODY have been killed. ( and magically, no police ever go to jail over it )
When the police arrive, it's almost justified to say " I was in fear for my life ".
Welcome to the world police brutality creates.
Re: FB should did it (Score:5, Insightful)
In recent years I've met only two kinds of people:
1) affluent boot lickers who think law enforcers only brutalize working class and poor people
2) folks who are absolutely scared shitless of American law enforcers
I'm white, middle aged, clean cut, and don't hang out with crooks. Law enforcer brutality is not a race issue, no matter how hard the financialist media try to make it into one. It's an issue of cops, as a caste, holding the common people in open contempt.
Nationwide, law enforcers are rampaging out of control - almost always with the consent of their masters in the judicial oligarchy. Our once-free country is headed down a bad road. I fear things may get much worse before they get better.
Re: FB should did it (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm also white, in my mid 30s, no criminal record, don't hang out with scumbags, etc, and I have four stories about the cops in my small hometown in the coastal mountains of California to share:
First, a decade and a half ago, I was walking down the street when a cop drove by and waved me over as they parked their car. They asked if my name was John. It isn't, and I told them so, and they left. Then turned around and asked for ID, confirmed it, and left. I was left confused. What the hell just happened?
Next, a little over a decade ago when I had just moved out of town to the nearest slightly-bigger city, and used to come back to my home town to visit my girlfriend a few times a week, every single time I was leaving town I would be tailed by cops, pulled over just before I left town, wait 15-20 minutes as they double-checked to make sure I still didn't have any warrants out since two days ago (I never have, I have no criminal record besides minor traffic violations from years before), one time actually calling another officer who "heard" that someone with my (unusual) first name had a warrant out for him to come look at me and say "nope, not him" (AFTER running my license already). I have no fucking idea why they did this, just to harass me it seems but why me, some random nobody? Did they do this to lots of people, out of boredom? This sounds just like the kind of thing that would be called a "DWB" if I weren't white. (I've mostly had bad experiences with traffic cops before too, but mostly just the usual "money-making" kind of traffic cop behavior, only occasionally accompanied by blatant lies from them).
Then a few years ago I was assaulted by some teenagers in a nearby park after pointing out they're not allowed to smoke there (also, they're underage and can't smoke at all, but that part hadn't even crossed my mind). I called the police and lead them to the punks still nearby on the other side of the park and wanted to press charges. They said "we'll just talk to their coaches" and sent me away. No fucking justice I guess, even in the face of the most blatant of crimes? One of the kids tried to scare me with a "do you know who my father is" (I told him I didn't care), so maybe they were some of those privileged elites I hear about? (Also, they were also white, and neonazis apparently, as they called me a "white nigger" and "race traitor", what the fuck does that have to do with anything?)
Earlier this year I had a complete fucking meltdown in my house from an overload of work- and family-related stress, and the neighbors called in a noise complaint, twice, over the sound of my screaming and bawling. The cops came to my door, and just wanted to make sure I was OK, and said that they were happy to have gotten to meet "one of the good citizens", me, instead of the "kind of people [they] usually have to deal with". I was shocked, absolutely shocked at how unbelievably nice and police they were, when I expected "cops are here, that means I'm in trouble".
I just don't know what to think about police anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
A person in the street brandishing a knife at a distance is nowhere near the threat that a loaded gun is in the same hands.
21 feet.
I believe that is the number. At 21 feet, a person with a knife who you are holding a gun on can charge and stab you before you can shoot them.
Quibbles about the exact number of feet aside (it's not off by more than a couple of feet) that is just the fact. It may seem odd, but it's true.
Re: (Score:3)
In civilized places other than the USA the police would have backed right off, particularly if there was a child involved. They would have waited, talked, waited some more, but not come in shooting. The result would generally not result in police shooting the perpetrator dead.
Re: FB should did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just wait outside the house for a few days? Nobody had to die.
Because she's a danger to the public and an armed combatant resisting arrest.
If they wait too long, she's more likely to take unexpected actions.
Also, they'll be tying up more law enforcement resources for a longer period; which can compromise the
safety of the public due to reduced resources elsewhere.
Somebody else can die, because the officers are too busy at this scene: response time is increased.
In these situations, the officers are expected to take the steps to best ensure safety of the public,
including establishing control of the situation expeditiously.
In a standoff, she is at risk of shooting her kids, shooting herself, or firing off stray bullets that accidentally hit
neighbors.
Protecting public safety in the situation entails taking down the offender, using any means necessary,
as soon as an opportunity presents itself to minimize the risk to others besides the offender.
After 4 hours worth; it's pretty obvious that the offender is not backing down, and waiting more hours only serves
to increase risk and disruption and interference with their neighbors and the rest of the public.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the law in Canada.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Toronto police officer sentenced to 6 years in teen shooting
By Associated Press
July 28 2016
(Constable James Forcillo, a Toronto police officer was sentenced Thursday to six years in prison for the 2013 shooting death of death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim on a streetcar. In a video, Yatim was holding a knife inside a streetcar by himself, while police yelled, "Drop your knife!" 3 shots are fired. After a pause, 6 more shots are fired while Yatim is
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you're telling me that all of these things realistically happen at the exact same time:
- Brandishing a shotgun (a SHOTGUN, not a pistol) while having it presumably pointed as if somewhat aiming
- Browsing facebook long enough to read these posts (while holding the shotgun)
(This must also assume that she's ambidextrous or at least in an insanely awkward position.)
- Having the police in your line of sight
- Having the police ignore their training and not pre-emptively neutralizing the th
Hang on officer, Let me check reddit.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: FB should did it (Score:2)
At most, manslaughter. I'd be very surprised if someone went for murder, as they have to demonstrate malice aforethought or depraved indifference.
And her crime, if not shot, would be attempted murder. For a felony murder charge for online inciting, they'd have to show a felony conspiracy, intent to incite an act, etc.
Probably saber rattling.
Nonetheless, egging someone on, in writing, to participate in a violent standoff with police is completely idiotic... Or presidential... Ask me again in six months.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't hate those people any less than you do. They are evil people to the core. But they did not murder that lady. That lady is alone responsible for her death. Good riddance.
Re: (Score:3)
they haven't actually broken any laws
Yes, they have. By law, if you encourage someone to commit a crime you are as guilty as the person who commits it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: FB should did it (Score:2)
Freedom of speech just means the the government (i.e. cops) can't stop you from saying whatever you want.
It does not free you from the repercussion of what you say.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong.
By law you're free to say any thing at anytime to any one. That can never be criminalized. It's literally part of the highest ranking legal document in the land. You can be held responsible for the DIRECT actions of your speech. Even if you believed a comment on Facebook contributed to the outcome, they're 2 or 3 steps removed from what happened. The cops shot her, then she fired back, then the cops emptied their guns into her and killed her.
She did not take violent action. She took defensive ac
Re:FB should did it (Score:5, Informative)
The defensive action argument goes away when committing a crime, as she was when resisting a lawful arrest warrant based arrest. Castle doctrine does not protect you when you are committing a criminal act.
Re:FB should did it (Score:5, Insightful)
When she started to resist, the police gained justification in escalation of force.
Only in the legal sense that they won't be tried for murder.
In every moral sense, they had an obligation to deescalate the situation. She was not a threat to anybody but the cops, and the video proves it.
The cops grokked it rightly (Score:3)
Only in the legal sense that they won't be tried for murder.
In every moral sense, they had an obligation to deescalate the situation. She was not a threat to anybody but the cops, and the video proves it.
Just...no. You don't win a moral argument by trolling morality.
Certainly, they had a moral obligation to act. But morals aren't absolute. They shift based on context. The minute she leveled that shotgun, the context changed.
The video proves that the cops grokked the situation rightly. You can't deescalate a situation that is already escalated. You did notice that part, right? Maybe in your ivory tower, you can, but here in reality, you don't negotiate with somebody who is saying they are going to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Curse all you want, you're still wrong. Go look up "incitement".
Re:FB should did it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FB should did it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:FB should did it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FB should did it (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. The cops frequently empty their magazine or use a ridiculous quantity of ammo to suppress someone who isn't even confirmed to be a threat.
http://www.thewire.com/nationa... [thewire.com]
Re: FB should did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nonsense. Nobody is saying they shouldn't monitor the situation and take action at an appropriate time. Cops have a moral duty to protect the people even if the supreme court has ruled the police have no obligation to protect the people (as crazy as that sounds it's true, and it's not just one ruling, but they have repeatedly ruled this... I do wonder why I should pay my taxes if the police will only ever be used against me). But cops are not honourable and should not be respected if they do not put
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, which one is Trial By Combat?
Is it getting shot to death by cops, or is it cops going away and taking you away a few hours later when you stop by McDonald's for a snack?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
These are the two most relevant California law on arrests and using force during them. Feel free to research other States, our country, or other countries' laws on this subject. You will find they are similar on a global scale. Notice the citizen has a duty to submit and the peace officer has no duty to deescalate. It isn't the cops who are "escalating at all costs." It is the will of the people which forces escalation. The reason why is obvious to anyone trying to build or maintain a functional society. En
Re: FB should did it (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and some white federal park squatters will almost certainly be used as a functional counterpoint in this argument. Enjoy..
A long time ago... (Score:5, Informative)
A long time ago, a man named Randy Weaver [wikipedia.org] barricaded himself in his remote Northern Idaho cabin against federal agents, who wanted him to infiltrate the Aryan Nations. Weaver had refused, fearing that the Aryan Nations knew he was not a white supremacist and would kill him.
The siege was widely reported in the news media at the time. Police of all stripe described Mr. Weaver as a white supremacist, racist, and all sorts of other names. In reality, Mr. Weaver was opposed to white supremacy and its movement.
During the siege, a helicopter carrying a large object was seen flying towards the cabin. But here's the actual quote from the time [freerepublic.com]:
Mr. Gritz said that he and a local real estate agent were in the area near the cabin. They saw a helicopter approach with a large object hanging from the helicopter -- like one of the fire-fighting helicopters.
Both men were out in the open and Mr. Gritz was sure that they were spotted by the men aboard the helicopter. The helicopter changed direction and left the area.
Mr. Gritz suggested that just possibly the Weaver cabin was about to have a fire -- I can spectulate how it would have been reported -- "White supremacist kills wife, children, and self with arsenal of napalm bombs and flamethrowers! Federal agents look on in horror, wait for rest of arsenal to explode."
I personally remember Mr. Gritz being interviewed at the time on camera by someone famous (perhaps it was Morely Safer), and my memory of his verbal account matches the one quoted above.
I'm uncomfortable with this "turn off all social media" sort of action, because it also turns off the victim's ability to call for help, give their side of the story, and perhaps prevent law enforcement from telling a one-sided narrative.
We've recently seen how law enforcement's version of events don't track with video camera footage of events.
I'm very much in favor of keeping all channels of information open.
It keeps both sides honest.
(*) Weaver was later awarded 3.1 million dollars for the death of his son and wife, and the government admitted no guilt in the matter.
Missing any details? (Score:5, Interesting)
Like that her supporters on Facebook were egging her on?
That she was pulled over for having a cardboard license plate.
That she was one of those "free range Americas" that have opted out of the government and believe its law does not apply to them.
She refused to go to court because she did not recognize its power over her.
There is only so much a Police Officer can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Like that her supporters on Facebook were egging her on?
That she was pulled over for having a cardboard license plate.
That she was one of those "free range Americas" that have opted out of the government and believe its law does not apply to them.
She refused to go to court because she did not recognize its power over her.
There is only so much a Police Officer can do.
Sure you don't mean a sovereign citizen [wikipedia.org]?
The profile in the article was kinda weird, it sounded a bit like sovereign citizen rhetoric, but that demographic is about as white as Donald Trump's natural skin tone. Is there a black offshoot?
Re: Missing any details? (Score:3, Interesting)
And why not?
Clearly 'might is right' is ironic - what other authority does one group have to dictate rules of conduct? Particularly when they are unwilling to abide by those rules themselves and are in control an army of murderous sociopaths with badges and guns?
Re: (Score:2)
That she was one of those "free range Americas" that have opted out of the government and believe its law does not apply to them.
Funny anecdote about that. I live in a moderately sized city (700K) and I often have the police scanner on in the background. Last year an officer pulled over a car and was calling it into dispatch urgently requesting more units. He was worried he had some kind of sovereign citizen ringleader on his hands because the car's license plate said "No Taxation Without Representation" and "something about Colombians." It was, of course, a regular old American with a Washington DC tag, which bears the motto "No Tax
Re: (Score:2)
Like that her supporters on Facebook were egging her on?
Uh... that's pretty much the main gist of the summary.
"who is black" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Sa Prize (Part 2)"
[...]
[Verse One: Dr. Dre]
Fuck the motherfucking police!
They don't want peace, they want a nigga deceased
So he'll cease to be a problem, and by the way the perform
It seems the Klan gave the white police another uniform
And yo the black police, the house niggaz
They gave you a motherfucking gun, so I guess you figure
you made out, good to go, but you didn't know
They would stick your black ass back in the ghetto, yo
To kill another nigga, catch him with crack, in fact
Freebase - they put in the n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ahhh I see. +1 insightful! Dr. Dre must have multiple PhD's.
Well, that's what you get for forgetting about Dre.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we have a problem, after all everyone knows black people can't be racist, but cops have to be. Or so I'm told in every other YouTube video.
And people ask me why I consider the bullshit more and more of an ersatz-religion. Same abundance of internal contradictions, same absence of a problem with it by the true believers.
Stupid is as stupid does (Score:2)
Well that was fast (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well that was fast (Score:5, Informative)
They weren't even really there for her. Serving her warrant was done out of convenience because they were also there for a guy who had an aggravated assault charge at the same address. But then she pulls a shotgun, gets in a several hour long standoff with the cops while using her son as a shield both figuratively and at times literally, regularly telling him the cops are gonna kill him, and then threatens to kill the cops while pointing a shotgun at them short range.
Interesting... (Score:2)
Government shutting down social media accounts represents a prior restraint on subsequent speech. From one view, it's like cutting off your ability to write letters to a newspaper because you wrote one and then somebody posted a letter urging you do do something illegal. In terms of precedent, similar acts could prevent her from livestreaming in order to ensure police behavior remains professional while she is arrested.
On the other hand, the person or people urging her not to comply with police is clearly e
Re: (Score:3)
You have no right to a internet connection or access to facebook while in an armed standoff with the police, especially when they were serving an entirely valid warrant..
Uh... no (Score:2)
You have no right to a internet connection or access to facebook while in an armed standoff with the police, especially when they were serving an entirely valid warrant..
Erm... I don't believe that's correct.
Unless I'm mistaken, you have *every* right unless it's specifically forbidden by law.
Or has that changed? Admittedly, it's been a long time since civics class...
Re: (Score:2)
Your rights don't change when the police are trying to arrest you. Your right to speech is inalienable, as is your right to defend yourself when the cops shoot at you for no fucking reason (no, she was not pointing a gun at them).
Re: (Score:3)
Rights are not wit
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
No, her warrant was a FTA for a traffic stop that included multiple issues, including disorderly conduct and resisting arrest as the components, which unless you think the cops had some Mad Max style of writing traffic tickets going on, happened after whatever they pulled her over for. Moreover, they served her only because they were already there for the guy who had an assault warrant. Her FIRST instinct is to hold her child in her lap while pointing her shotgun at the cops and you think the disorderly and resisting charges were bullshit? What are you smoking and where can I get some?
Re: (Score:2)
Except the government did not shut down her social media accounts. Facebook voluntarily shut down her Facebook account at the request of law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely that Baltimore county, which is separate from Baltimore city unless The Wire lied to me, has the money for a Stingray, especially given that they just got body cameras like 3 weeks ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No video, no evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
Like, "shut down the printing press because the letters to the editors page might have information that might cause the editor to behave unwisely"?
Even Russia didn't try to justify their actions with an excuse that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No video, no evidence. (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously the police killed her AFTER SHE SHOT AT THEM WITH A 12 GAUGE.
She shot at the police after the police stormed her home. Yes it's unwise to fight the police, but there was no reason to storm in. She was a danger to nobody, until the cops came. She would have been a danger to nobody after the cops left. Executing her for a traffic stop doesn't seem a reasonable outcome. But fighting was the only option she saw when they broke in and charged her with guns up, threatening her and her child.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No video, no evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to understand that when a judge issues a constitutionally sound warrant and execution order, the police are obligated to serve it.
Nope. The cops have sued in court that they have no duty to stop a crime in progress, prevent a planned crime they have the details, or take any action that may put them in any kind of risk. I don't think the judgements specifically included or excluded serving a warrant, but they would imply inclusion.
They have no choice in the matter
Cops have complete discretion. There are millions of unserved warrants in the US. Cops are under no duty or obligation to serve them all by next Tuesday.
Re: (Score:3)
Also add to that that "warrant" in general (outside the specific legal sense) means "permission" or "justification", not "command". A legal warrant is the judge specifically OKing certain action; but it is not a command that certain actions be taken, just an official declaration that those actions are warranted, justified, permitted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
statistically speaking white people are more likely to get killed then black
Statistically unarmed, complying Black people are about 5 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a white person.
Wow, both of those pieces of information could be useful in trying to find a solution to our current issues. Let me just check the citations ... oh.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you've lost sight of the fact that Facebook is (1) not an arm of the US government and (2) under no obligation to transmit anything from anyone to anyone unless they bloody well feel like it, in the absence of a binding contract to the contrary which I don't think you'll find in their TOS.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Given it was a government censorship, point 2 is invalid.
Re:Not a Violation of 1A because why? (Score:4, Insightful)
following bad advice (Score:3)
If she's dumb enough to take advice from FB crowd that are urging her on to resist ARMED police at her front door that are trying to convince her to surrender peacefully, she deserves everything she got.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government's "request" was the reason the private company complied. That makes it a government action. The government, not facebook, shut down her speech, though obviously Facebook was involved..
But only Facebook would have standing to sue, and they agreed with the government, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I question your example and your premise.
Please show in case law where evidence obtained illegally is ever legally admissible. I think you'll find that it doesn't matter whether the illegal access was by officers or not--illegally obtained evidence is still illegally obtained evidence, and can't be used in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The second case is what appears to have occurred in this case. Facebook decided that everyone was best served by not having this played out on Facebook, so disabled the account to minimise the risk to the lady in question, her child, the police, any people that came to support her, and the public in general.
Your wording sounds like Facebook made that decision independently. That doesn't seem to fit the facts here. The government found out that she was communicating with people outside her home. The government contacted Facebook and proactively notified them of the situation (wink-nudge) or asked them to cut off access. Facebook didn't independently run across the situation and cut off access independently.
" Facebook granted an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department to take offline t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At some point, the cops should try some tactic other than always escalating the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see someone stick a real gun in your face and find out what a real man you are, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Wait for it... (Score:2)
Re: Wait for it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Wait for it... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, if you point a GUN at me, you get hearts and minds. One in the heart, one in the mind.
Re: (Score:2)
The first person to come up with a sound-bitey platitude in order to obscure the truth is the most sociopathic.
Re: (Score:3)
1. There are plenty of people that live in metropolitan areas and go to hunt in rural areas.
2. It would be very odd / weird / unconstitutional to say 'well, we decided that your county doesn't get gun rights but this other county does; the fact that your county is overwhelmingly black and theirs is white is completely irrelevant, of course.'.