Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of Both 1st & 4th Amendments
from the huge-victory-for-free-speech dept
We've had a lot of stories this year about police arresting people for filming them. It's become quite a trend. Even worse, a couple weeks ago, we wrote about a police officer in Massachusetts, Michael Sedergren, who is trying to get criminal wiretapping charges brought against a woman who filmed some police officers beating a guy. This officer claims that the woman violated Massachusetts anti-wiretapping law, a common claim from police in such situations.Segederin may have been better off if he'd waited a couple weeks for an appeals court ruling that came out Friday, because that ruling found that arresting someone for filming the police is a clear violation of both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. How the case got to this point is a bit complex, but basically, a guy named Simon Glik saw some police arresting someone in Boston, and thought they were using excessive force. He took out his camera phone and began recording. The police saw that and told him to stop taking pictures. He told them he was recording them, and that he'd seen them punch the guy they were arresting. One officer asked him if the phone recorded audio as well and Glik told him it did. At that point, they arrested him, saying that recording audio was a violation of Massachusetts wiretap laws.
Even more ridiculous, they then had him charged not just with that, but also with disturbing the peace and "aiding in the escape of a prisoner." After realizing that last one didn't even pass the guffaw test, Massachusetts officials dropped that charge. A Boston court then dumped the other charges and Glik was free. However, he wanted to take things further, as he thought his treatment was against the law. He first filed a complaint with Boston Police Internal Affairs who promptly set about totally ignoring it. After they refused to investigate, Glik sued the officers who arrested him and the City of Boston in federal court for violating both his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The police officers filed for qualified immunity, which is designed to protect them from frivolous charges from people they arrest.
The district court rejected the officers' rights to qualified immunity, saying that their actions violated the First & Fourth Amendments. Before the rest of the case could go on, the officers appealed, and that brings us to Friday's ruling, which, once again, unequivocally states that recording police in public is protected under the First Amendment, and that the use of Massachusetts wiretapping laws to arrest Glik was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights as well. The ruling (pdf) is a fantastic and quick read and makes the point pretty clearly. Best of all, it not only says that it was a clear violation, but that the officers were basically full of it in suggesting that this was even in question. The court more or less slams the officers for pretending they had a valid excuse to harass a guy who filmed them arresting someone.
The 4th Amendment bit may not be as widely applicable, since it mainly focuses on the Massachusetts wiretapping law. Here, the court notes that the law only covers audio recording in secret. But there is no indication that Glik did any of his filming in secret. It found the officers' arguments that he could have been doing lots of things on his mobile phone completely uncompelling, stating that the "argument suffers from factual as well as legal flaws."
The full ruling is embedded below, but a few choice quotes:
Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs." Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). Moreover, as the Court has noted, "[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because '[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.'" First Nat'l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)). This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties....While this case isn't over yet, it's still a huge victory for those arrested by police for filming them in action. It suggests such people can bring charges against the police for civil rights violations in taking away their First Amendment rights. A tremendous ruling all around.
[....]
In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. See City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) ("[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers."). Indeed, "[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." Id. at 462-63. The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of "provocative and challenging" speech, id. at 461 (quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)), must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces.
[....]
The presence of probable cause was not even arguable here. The allegations of the complaint establish that Glik was openly recording the police officers and that they were aware of his surveillance. For the reasons we have discussed, we see no basis in the law for a reasonable officer to conclude that such a conspicuous act of recording was "secret" merely because the officer did not have actual knowledge of whether audio was being recorded.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, arrests, chilling effects, filming, free speech, massachusetts, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
something tells me LEOs will start to care very much when courts are awarding damages in individual civil suits for such behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> officer's pockets, rather than the department's money.
if it's a Section 1983 suit, both the department and the individual officers can be liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ba da dum dum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's a key difference
--And we should absolutely strive for the TAXPAYERS to be held responsible, because that is the source of the problem. The TAXPAYERS fund this system.
The TAXPAYERS support it.
The TAXPAYERS turn a blind eye to these abuses.
This wasn't just "one cop". This was the whole department. AND the prosecutor, DA, Judges in the past that made them so arrogant, We The People who don't stand up in that time and place to defend our lives as required.
It is the SYSTEM's fault, not one officer -- and it is the TAXPAYERS who create that system.
Give him $50 million!! Then MAYBE the TAXPAYERS will give a flying you-know-what.
Until then, they go on doing it, and everyone knows it.
Don't let the system try to feed you a sacrificial goat.
BILL THE TAX PAYERS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Civil Damages will move Law Enforcement Officers(?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Civil Damages will move Law Enforcement Officers(?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sigh.
"No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause AND...! AND!!!!!"
Arrest means "STOP"
Stop means "Arrest"
Hey I know, let's invent a legal justice system where "legal" doesn't mean legal, and "justice" doesn't mean justice!!!
Yeah!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copblocking
Sounds like it's time for a career move!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's nice, do cops get reasonably punished for breaking the law? Or does punishment only apply to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 29th, 2011 @ 8:00am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filming arrests with cell phones, has gotten popular here where I live. Lots of people bring the camera's out when they see the police now. So far from what I have seen they just ask people to step back and stay out of the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shark Week
Also, a majority of sharks do not encounter humans, let alone ever bite them. But generally the only time we hear about sharks is when they bite somebody.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Something is 'remarkable' (literally!) when it is in need of discussion. Hence newsworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a pretty broad generalization, and imo, not especially accurate. Mike was quick to point out a cop who handled the situation well, and other cops who support your rights.
Mike comes down hard on law enforcement officials who trample rights, but, well, that's sorta his duty, as a citizen, you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
PS: yours and mine too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Citizen Duty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I say this in all seriousness: the entire organization of "the police" should be held accountable for the actions of any one police officer.
When one police officer violates the rights of a public citizen, every single officer is shamed. Every other cop in the country should be standing up and saying that what this officer did was wrong - but we know that's not how the police work. In fact it's quite the opposite: they go to great lengths to protect each other. They also expect (and generally receive) a wide berth for questionable behaviour due to the nature of their job.
That's fine. But if they want to protect each other, and if they want to get special privileges because of the badge, then they need to accept that any action that tarnishes that badge reflects poorly on ALL of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The situation isn't new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lets equate this scenario to your family. If your brother committed a crime and was incarcerated for it, you would protect him and stand up for him, wouldn't you? So, with your logic, both of you should serve the penalty, because you stood up for him. Right? He's your brother... you did stand up for him, didn't you? You're a family. One is bad, they must all be bad, right? Maybe your whole family should be locked up?
Seriously... You should think about judging an entire occupation before you hit the submit button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
See the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neat huh?
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Ever heard the phrase "The Hand of One is the Hand of All" ?
The cops sure have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: any action that tarnishes that badge
Not quite; those actions you describe do not just "reflect poorly" upon them.
They BECOME the criminals, not mere reflections. It's criminal conspiracy. It's a crime. It's a conspiracy.
Allowing them to investigacte themselves makes us into a laughing stock of a "civilization"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Near where I live one cop beat a homeless man to death while the "good cops" stood by and watched it happen.
As long as the police "protect their own". I will treat them as they act. Like gang members endorsed by the government.
Fuck them.
Fuck the bad ones.
And fuck every officer who shirks their duty by protecting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But the guy in a cubicle doesn't have the backing of the government to detain me, threaten me with loss of income and freedom, blemish my future reputation, and so forth like the guy with the badge does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
as i have read most of the posts on this article, there is one common theme. they dont like BAD cops.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
With great power (come on.. in unison.. ) comes great responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're wrong
It's false.
Never called a cop and never missed 'em either.
You are referring to yourself and no one else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: an otherwise honorable and dedicated force.
You're a riot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't and these aren't any of those times:
Police vs Reporter, US - ABC TV Crew Pulled Over, Gunpoint
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aS4VO-P8FQ
Police Attack a Fox News Reporter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu07FzPPXBs
Insane Cop Arrests ABC News Reporter For Filming Traffic Accident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbQUltNOqo8
Cop Puts Cameraman In Chokehold for Filming Peaceful Protest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSsGrIf8F0M
Tons more where that came from on Youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, it wouldn't be so bad, except you hear of these "bad" cops doing things that are completely illegal, but they get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Filming arrests is popular where I live, too, and it's a wonderful byproduct of technology that there will always be someone out there watching these people and documenting their actions.
To any officer who thinks the average citizen doesn't have the right to film him, I'd just like to say (in a NYPD officer's trademark New York accent): "If you ain't doin' anything wrong, you got nothin' to worry about."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There will undoubtedly be cases where people will be arrested while filming, and charged with obstructing justice because they got in the officers face with the camera and made it difficult if not impossible for the officers to perform their duties.
It's disappointing to see such a wide open ruling, as it can lead to some serious abuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's disappointing to see such a wide open ruling, as it can lead to some serious abuses.
In saying that, you have demonstrated why it makes no sense. As you point out, there are already laws about obstruction of justice, and they come into play when somebody's actions actually obstruct justice - like getting up in an officer's face, whether they are holding a camera or a banana.
That's the point. A camera, in and of itself, means nothing, and does not magically make a person's actions illegal if those actions do not interfere with the officer. If they DO interfere, there are existing laws to take care of it. This very good ruling clarifies that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What he cannot do is arrest an innocent bystander who is merely filming an incident at a safe distance.
There's no reason why filming should interfere with the job that the police have to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"There will undoubtedly be cases where people will be arrested while filming, and charged with obstructing justice because they got in the officers face with the camera and made it difficult if not impossible for the officers to perform their duties."
and those people should be charged. But the most typical type of encounter with these situations is a citizen filming the arrest from a distance and then the police going out of their way to get into the citizens face and not performing their duties.
this ruling is actually good for the police. As it will make them turn their focus to performing arrests and duties within the bounds of the law. Rather than putting their attention to someone and distracting them from what could be a dangerous situation. If the officers were doing nothing wrong, then they shouldn't have any reason to feel threatened by a doofus with a camera.
Plus, if something goes wrong, their is video evidence. This can both protect and hurt the officers. If they are the provocateurs then it can lead to disciplinary hearings and possible removing of the 'bad' officers from the force. If it was the person the officers were dealing with, then it gives them more credibility with the law and with public as it can't just be seen as police protecting another.
Again, this is good for the police, the citizenry, and for society as a whole. How you can be against this is unbelievable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disciplinary hearings
That's the WORST thing that can happen. How about kidnapping charges? Assault and battery? Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon? Attempted murder?
Conspiracy to do all the above?
Breaking an entering if you're in your car.
Petty theft when they take your phone?
"Disciplinary hearings" are a joke. I want 3-5 years of hard time in general population!
If there aren't consequences then nothing will change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I certainly hope so!
Besides *two* courts disagreeing with you, could you explain your logic? How does passively *filming* someone interfere with what they're doing?
Filming is just observation - are you suggesting that police officers are subatomic particles?
Let's see - we have quarks, muons, bosons, leptons, gluons, and now "copons"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cops are a type of subatomic particle, referred to as "coupons" and their motions are altered simply by observation & recording.
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Simple fix. Download the Heisenberg Compensator app to your smartphone and make sure it's enabled before filming. That way your video recording won't affect the spin or position of the officers being filmed, while simultaneously overcoming the Uncertainty principle of how often the officers will legally be allowed to arrest you for interference in performance of their duties, and attempt to get away with trumped up charges in in violation of your 1st and 4th Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hopefully the "wiretap" laws will catch up with the times and be ruled on more precisely as this case was here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's disappointing to see such a wide open ruling, as it can lead to some serious abuses.
How do you "get in an officer's face" with the camera? Wouldn't you have to get between the officer and the person they're arresting in order to do that?
How does filming an officer doing their job make it impossible for that officer to do their job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A ) Cops are civil servants...they are OUR employees
B) I am legally entitled to ensure that those employees are doing their job apprpriately, professionaly.
C) If a cop chooses to interfere with my right to film his/her actions, then it is not I who is the one at fault for slowing down the police work, it is the cop who decided to bother me and let their duties fall to the wayside, who is at fault.
Thank GOD common sense and the rule of law was applied correctly in this appeal...these cops are a disgrace to the badge, and it astounds me that anyone whould rally around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Just Interfere"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interference
I think that this ruling may lead to even more people whipping out their cell phones every time a cop shows up, which will just interfere with the job that the police have to do.
---
No. You don't get it. Filming an officer DOES NOT INTERFERE with what they're doing. They're a public official. IF you're nonchalantly filming what they're doing on the job, it shouldn't matter, not even a little bit.
The only time it matters is if the person recording the activity is actively interfering with the arrest. Otherwise, simply documenting what's going on is NOT ILLEGAL and should not be. Ever.
We, including the police, should respect the ideals this country was founded on. We're supposed to be an example country, showing how things are done "right". We should be the most free country... but our rights are being eroded.
Stand up for your rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do however agree that if a person interferes with an officer conducting an investigation or an arrest that he/she should be charged with obstruction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man faces 75 years for recording police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 29th, 2011 @ 8:13am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward (aptly named)
WHAT IS YOUR NAME, RANK, BADGE NUMBER AND JURISDICTION SIR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cows don't carry guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THey don't care
And it works, so the police will continue to do this. They're union. You can't fuck with union thugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THey don't care
That isn't true. Section 1983 of the US Code specifically covers this situation.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1983
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: THey don't care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is my new favorite quote. Thank you for sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: oppose or challenge police action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is the reason for qualified immunity and why the courts so often find in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are so right.
You are SO RIGHT!
We can't have officers thinking before they act, just BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! Questions later. No comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Control of the video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Control of the video
The movie Blue Thunder comes to mind, in that the police helicopter had a surveillance video tape erase feature built into it that was controlled remotely.
Turns out the star of the movie, Roy Scheider, had some things to say about the loss of privacy and rights (we are experiencing today) all the way back in 1983.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A quote from the post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impossible
Yet they can and will arrest any citizen who violates any of those laws for the same ignorance. Why should you excuse cops who violate them because of ignorance? That's extremely flawed and dangerous thinking.
http://goo.gl/zTDoR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impossible
It's "too FEW brain cells"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This ruling will apply to politicians who confiscate recordings as well.
Since this ruling applies to recording public officials in public places, it also outlaws the practice of politicians prohibiting citizens from recording them at public events. This practice is used to stop normal citizens from using the politician's own words in any future criticism.
The most recent case being Ohio Congressman Steve Chabot at a town hall meeting in a public school last week. He had police confiscate cell phones from citizens who tried to record the event while letting the media continue to record it. This ruling should put a stop to this as well as help keep the police accountable. It's a win all the way around.
FritzMuffknuckle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This ruling will apply to politicians who confiscate recordings as well.
Do citizens have right to bring cameras to public event?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KmP_bmdUh0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not quite.
Nonono, they have no problem with cameras they control. The "lose" that footage all the time.
They TERRIFIED of /you/ having footage!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this goes farther than that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That law is never enforced. Prosecutors also don't want citizens filming police because it destroy's their cases, so they never enforce this section of the code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the provoking, disrespectful, smug asswipe with a camera that is the problem here, not the small percentage of corrupt cops. The former are just out to make a decent cop look bad by being a douchebag and provoking natural human irritation for some good YouTube fodder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But they get first amendment rights, too. How quick we are to claim our rights, and give them none of theirs.
Just as you said, cops have First Amendment rights too, but then no one is going around arresting them for recording citizens in public without their consent.
What they can't do is use the power granted to them as law enforcement to do so.
And when they do, they should get called to the proverbial "woodshed" to face the music for violating the citizens rights under color of law.
It's the provoking, disrespectful, smug asswipe with a camera that is the problem here, not the small percentage of corrupt cops. The former are just out to make a decent cop look bad by being a douchebag and provoking natural human irritation for some good YouTube fodder.
As far as I know, provoking, disrespectful, being a smug asswipe or making the a cop look like a douchebag (by the cops own actions and/or ignorance of the law) and posting the video to Youtube, are not arrestable offenses under the law in the U.S. of A. (With the exception of the twisting of so-called "wiretapping" laws in some backwards states excluded).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does it apply to all states?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filming in Public
"Cops are people. They have as much right as anyone else to ask another person to stop filming."
And as a photographer, I am under no obligation to comply with your request. The courts have consistently ruled that a person in a public place has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The only time I need to get a release from you is when I am going to use the picture in a commercial venture i.e. a commercial or advertisement that implies your endorsement of the product.
Freedom really is freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonder if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Audio?
Officer: ``Hey, does that camera record audio?''
Citizen: ``No, sir. This is my Silent Movie ZX delux. It also only records in black and white.''
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can do more than just film abuse of power by the police
I hope you'll be willing to check out my site, and to help spread the information (or contribute to it, as my email is on the site)
http://betterinfos.com -> gives a short run down on major truth people should know about (eg: link to 15 min documentary that will convince everyone but trolls that 9/11 was an inside job)
http://betterinfos.com/politics.html -> more detail
http://betterinfos.com/fakes.html -> info on the myriad fakes that typically fool everyone who 'awakens', at first
http://betterinfos.com/WhatToDo.html -> a long list of things you can and should be doing, things that you will see can reasonably SUCCEED!
Hopefully you can help me spread this information, and make it viral, as honestly it stands out from the rest: it's not just disheartening truth about our corrupt government - it's also how to defeat them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]