Kyle Rittenhouse goes to trial

[American Salvation]

Kyle mentioned his preference for thick girls when asked in a podcast interview.

Good choice, Kyle!

[Gravlen]

That's skipping over the most salient question though:

If he were black, would he have gotten to the trial, intact or otherwise? Would all the details have been the same? This question spans the gamut from whether he'd be alive after the incident, to whether he would have a similar amount of funds raised for his defence, to whether he would have been allowed to go free on bail pending trial, to whether he would have succumbed to (more) pressure to take a plea deal.

The color of his skin has the potential to factor into so many things prior to getting to trial, even before we get to the question of whether the jury would have come to a different conclusion. It will for all time remain speculation, but considering the realities of the US criminal justice system, I do find it plausible that being Black could potentially have led to a different outcome at almost every single step along the way.

But this is pure speculation.

Yes. Like I expressly said.

We do not know just based on this case alone. It would be better to actually look at cases where a black individual claimed self defense then look at a very similar case when a white person claimed it the speculate what would happen if Rittenhouse were black.

I look forward to seeing the examples you'll provide.

Now if you can find a cases with very similar facts except the person claiming self defense was black but was found guilty instead it might make an interesting comparison. Or perhaps someone could do a detailed study of what percentage of people claiming self defense are convicted, broken down by race. If you have such study I would very much like to see it.

Sure, but why don't you do some work?

I've previously provided a link to one analysis:

The Urban Institute found that in “stand your ground” states, when white shooters kill black people, 34 percent of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable. Only 3 percent of deaths are ruled justifiable when the shooter is black and the victim is white. Even when black shooters kill black people, those shootings are less likely to be deemed justifiable in a court of law than those involving white shooters who kill white people.

With respect to race, controlling for all other case attributes, the odds a white-on-black homicide is found justified is 281 percent greater than the odds a white-on-white homicide is found justified. By contrast, a black-on-white homicide has barely half the odds of being ruled justifiable relative to white-on-white homicides. Statistically, black-on-black homicides have the same odds of being ruled justifiable as white-on-white homicides.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/race-justifiable-homicide-and-stand-your-ground-laws/view/full_report

But why this one particular case out of all self defense cases?

Because this was caught on video, and has been given a disproportionate amount of attention.

And if black people are unfairly treated in self defense cases (very likely but I would like more data) why not find a case where the person claiming self defense is black?

You can do that too, sure. Maybe you should use the case of Marissa Alexander? Or Maddesyn George? Or maybe they don't fit, since both were denied the opportunity to even claim self defense during the trial.

Also the response here was bizarrely incoherent.

I think the problem lies with the reader.

If the purpose is to ensure black individuals get a fair trial in self defense cases, how exactly would jailing Rittenhouse achieve it?

Who says it would?

The individuals calling for his head were often saying the justice system discriminates against black people, which very well may be true, but it it is a complete non sequitur to think jailing him achieves it. I found it bizarre some people calling for an end to to mandatory minimum sentencing, ending mass incarceration, etc. wanted him jailed for life and made the two related.

Once you realize that the love for the carceral state is a bipartisan affair, it will be less bizarre. But it is true, too many people want to make exceptions for people they don't like.

I think this comment by a PDA says it well:

As a public defender and a Black woman, I find myself asking now more than ever: “How does the criminal system and mass incarceration continue to expand and worsen despite all these people opposing it?” I’ve come to think it is because everyone is more aligned than we think. We have been educated by the same popular culture — taught to accept the same cruelty as the status quo.

It might seem cliche to blame societal ills on the media, but the relationship between our country’s comfort with mass caging and the depiction of crime and punishment that we see in popular culture seems more than coincidental. Media consumption is what we all have in common. It’s why even my mother, who lives in The Bahamas, often tells me “some people belong under the jail,” or that “some people are just evil, Olayemi.” She, too, has spent years watching Law & Order: SVU.

I see this connection most clearly when I think about the interactions I’ve had with a wide cross-section of actors in the criminal legal system. Regardless of where people fall on the spectrum of support for change, they seem to operate on a shared set of assumptions so embedded in our culture that we hardly notice they exist.

I think about the Queens district attorney, Melinda Katz, who declined to charge an officer who kneeled on the neck of my client, SirCarlyle Arnold, despite stating that she “supported the spirit” of the Say Their Name Reform Bill, which promised New Yorkers an end to the NYPD’s use of illegal choke holds and neck restraints. I think about why Mayor de Blasio condemned the officer who killed George Floyd but refused to have the officer who killed Eric Garner fired or charged.

I think about the many times self-proclaimed progressives have asked me how I can sleep at night representing guilty people, never thinking about the fact that the people I represent are usually profiled, arrested, and incarcerated for crimes of poverty and behavior that simply wouldn’t be criminalized if they weren’t poor people of color.

I think about apparent allies I saw protesting police brutality, tweeting about how no innocent person would refuse the police and only guilty people get a lawyer.

We’re taught to fear and dislike the people caught in the crossfires of the criminal legal system, rather than to fear the system that inflicts pain on them. We are taught there are bad people who were just born bad, who do bad things, and that the only way to keep the good people safe is for police to do whatever they can to lock the bad people away.

So what was the objective of trying to digitally lynch him? How did that relate to the goals people claiming to be racial justice advocates were claiming to advance? How does throwing a white guy who killed two other white guys in jail actually in any way improve things for black people?

That is my issue, I am perfectly fine with discussing if black people get fair treatment in self defense cases, and if not how to ensure they get more fair treatment.

But I fail to see how jailing Rittenhouse would achieve that. And do not see how his case on its own actually is informative, unless we can compare it to a very similar case in which a black person was found guilty. I do not advocate unfairly accusing and jailing white people just because black people are often unfairly accused or jailed. I suppose making the justice system worse for white people would in a way make it more equal, but I fail to see why making it overall worse to make it more equally bad is a good idea.

It's not.

[Gravlen]

But this is pure speculation. We do not know just based on this case alone. It would be better to actually look at cases where a black individual claimed self defense then look at a very similar case when a white person claimed it the speculate what would happen if Rittenhouse were black.

Now if you can find a cases with very similar facts except the person claiming self defense was black but was found guilty instead it might make an interesting comparison. Or perhaps someone could do a detailed study of what percentage of people claiming self defense are convicted, broken down by race. If you have such study I would very much like to see it.

Can't find the case, but I believe around the time of the Zimmerman case there was a case in new york where a black man shot at three unarmed white teens who were fleeing, claimed self defense and got off. That is worse then comparable.

It's hard to know if it's comparable if you can't identify the case - and thus also the surrounding facts.

I can provide you with this case though, which took place in Georgia in June 2020:

Around 1 a.m. on June 14, 2020, 21-year-old Marc Wilson, who is Black, and his 21-year-old girlfriend, Emma Rigdon, who is white, left a Taco Bell in Statesboro, Georgia. At a stoplight, they pulled up next to a pickup truck. Wilson’s lawyers say that at least one of the white teenagers inside the truck shouted the n-word and “your lives don’t matter.”

Wilson later told police that the teenagers in the pickup truck swerved in front of him, tried to knock his sedan off the highway, and threw an object that impacted the car with a loud sound that made him think they might be shooting at him. Wilson pulled out a gun and fired out his window at the truck. The bullet struck and killed 17-year-old Haley Hutcheson, who was sitting in the pickup’s backseat.

Prosecutors charged him with felony murder and aggravated assault, which carry a maximum sentence of life in prison and the possibility of the death penalty. Wilson claimed self-defense.

The difference in outcomes have already made themselves known: He's still in jail pending trial.

Wilson was denied bail because Ogeechee Judicial Circuit Court Judge Michael Muldrew concluded that he “poses a significant threat” to the community.

(Wilson had no criminal record)

Why does that matter? Well, we know that people of color are more likely to be kept in pre-trial detention, and that pre-trial release decreases the probability of being found guilty.

According to the Vera Institute, being held before trial actually increases the chance that you'll be convicted and also increases your sentence.

No matter the outcome of the trial, we've already seen unequal treatment when comparing the two cases, and it just happens to be that the Black defendant is getting the short end of the stick.

[Galloism]

<snippity>

Given the case of Rittenhouse was intra-race (white on white), I'd suggest a better analogue would be the case of Demarco Williams (which appears to be black on black). It also matches in another way - the prosecution made a similar argument that he willingly put himself in a dangerous place and thus doesn't get self defense.

Here's an article on the case and a slightly more expansive read of the case.

Now he had an illegal gun (unlike Rittenhouse), but to self defense, that doesn't matter all that much. The jury found him not guilty.

[Gravlen]

<snippity>

Given the case of Rittenhouse was intra-race (white on white), I'd suggest a better analogue would be the case of Demarco Williams (which appears to be black on black). It also matches in another way - the prosecution made a similar argument that he willingly put himself in a dangerous place and thus doesn't get self defense.

Here's an article on the case and a slightly more expansive read of the case.

Now he had an illegal gun (unlike Rittenhouse), but to self defense, that doesn't matter all that much. The jury found him not guilty.

On the other hand, I mentioned Marissa Alexander above. Both her and Rico Gray, her husband, were Black. Alexander fired a warning shot when Gray threatened to kill her. She tried to argue that it was self defense, but was found guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

(Had she killed him, she would not have been prosecuted because of the Florida Stand Your Ground statute.)

This case was overturned on appeal, but under the threat of a retrial where the prosecutor would be seeking three consecutive 20 year sentences for her actions, she pled out.

[Galloism]

Given the case of Rittenhouse was intra-race (white on white), I'd suggest a better analogue would be the case of Demarco Williams (which appears to be black on black). It also matches in another way - the prosecution made a similar argument that he willingly put himself in a dangerous place and thus doesn't get self defense.

Here's an article on the case and a slightly more expansive read of the case.

Now he had an illegal gun (unlike Rittenhouse), but to self defense, that doesn't matter all that much. The jury found him not guilty.

On the other hand, I mentioned Marissa Alexander above. Both her and Rico Gray, her husband, were Black. Alexander fired a warning shot when Gray threatened to kill her. She tried to argue that it was self defense, but was found guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

(Had she killed him, she would not have been prosecuted because of the Florida Stand Your Ground statute.)

This case was overturned on appeal, but under the threat of a retrial where the prosecutor would be seeking three consecutive 20 year sentences for her actions, she pled out.

Well, just so you know, warning shots are almost universally illegal.

If you are in a position to deliberately fire a warning shot (as opposed to shooting and missing), then you are almost certainly not facing imminent death or great bodily harm (or you would have shot the person attacking you). You may not agree with this, but this has been the practical effect of the reasonable person standard and imminent death/great bodily harm for... I dunno, longer than I've been alive anyway.

The facts are substantively different, and will lead to different results.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

On the other hand, I mentioned Marissa Alexander above. Both her and Rico Gray, her husband, were Black. Alexander fired a warning shot when Gray threatened to kill her. She tried to argue that it was self defense, but was found guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

(Had she killed him, she would not have been prosecuted because of the Florida Stand Your Ground statute.)

This case was overturned on appeal, but under the threat of a retrial where the prosecutor would be seeking three consecutive 20 year sentences for her actions, she pled out.

Well, just so you know, warning shots are almost universally illegal.

If you are in a position to deliberately fire a warning shot (as opposed to shooting and missing), then you are almost certainly not facing imminent death or great bodily harm (or you would have shot the person attacking you). You may not agree with this, but this has been the practical effect of the reasonable person standard and imminent death/great bodily harm for... I dunno, longer than I've been alive anyway.

The facts are substantively different, and will lead to different results.

That law then needs to be changed ASAP. Warning shots could save lives if embraced. Why should someone have to wait until it's their own life or their assailant's before alerting one's assailant that one has both a gun and ammunition for the gun?

[Galloism]

Well, just so you know, warning shots are almost universally illegal.

If you are in a position to deliberately fire a warning shot (as opposed to shooting and missing), then you are almost certainly not facing imminent death or great bodily harm (or you would have shot the person attacking you). You may not agree with this, but this has been the practical effect of the reasonable person standard and imminent death/great bodily harm for... I dunno, longer than I've been alive anyway.

The facts are substantively different, and will lead to different results.

That law then needs to be changed ASAP. Warning shots could save lives if embraced. Why should someone have to wait until it's their own life or their assailant's before alerting one's assailant that one has both a gun and ammunition for the gun?

I'm not sure I understand the last part of this question - can you rephrase?

(Note, in most states, what would ordinarily be brandishing - pointing the gun - is legal at a lower standard than death/great bodily harm. It's usually somewhere around "imminent unlawful interference" or along those lines. Discharges however generally require imminent death/great bodily harm.)

[Ifreann]

That law then needs to be changed ASAP. Warning shots could save lives if embraced. Why should someone have to wait until it's their own life or their assailant's before alerting one's assailant that one has both a gun and ammunition for the gun?

What do you think happens to a bullet fired as a warning? Where does it go? How does it come to a stop?

[Elwher]

Well, just so you know, warning shots are almost universally illegal.

If you are in a position to deliberately fire a warning shot (as opposed to shooting and missing), then you are almost certainly not facing imminent death or great bodily harm (or you would have shot the person attacking you). You may not agree with this, but this has been the practical effect of the reasonable person standard and imminent death/great bodily harm for... I dunno, longer than I've been alive anyway.

The facts are substantively different, and will lead to different results.

That law then needs to be changed ASAP. Warning shots could save lives if embraced. Why should someone have to wait until it's their own life or their assailant's before alerting one's assailant that one has both a gun and ammunition for the gun?

Firing a warning shot leads to a bullet flying through the air without any control over who or what it might hit, which could well lead to the death of a person having nothing to do with the situation as opposed to the person allegedly threatening the shooter. I, for one, find that outcome rather troubling.

[Kalaron]

That law then needs to be changed ASAP. Warning shots could save lives if embraced. Why should someone have to wait until it's their own life or their assailant's before alerting one's assailant that one has both a gun and ammunition for the gun?

Firing a warning shot leads to a bullet flying through the air without any control over who or what it might hit, which could well lead to the death of a person having nothing to do with the situation as opposed to the person allegedly threatening the shooter. I, for one, find that outcome rather troubling.

I can see the logic of both conclusions, though I figure it really ought to still hinge a little on the reasonableness of the threat itself, given that we have a literal term for "making a threatening noise to ward off attackers" (saber-rattling, effectively, is a sign of someone who is unsecure in their position) which hooks pretty well into the thought process of someone in the moment not dropping immediately into "murder that (wo)man", even if they've been threatened by someone. Especially if that person isn't in "imminent danger range" but is advancing on them, still, despite warnings (perhaps believing, even, that they won't be shot. Young men often exhibit a sense of immortality, as they say).

[American Legionaries]

Well, just so you know, warning shots are almost universally illegal.

If you are in a position to deliberately fire a warning shot (as opposed to shooting and missing), then you are almost certainly not facing imminent death or great bodily harm (or you would have shot the person attacking you). You may not agree with this, but this has been the practical effect of the reasonable person standard and imminent death/great bodily harm for... I dunno, longer than I've been alive anyway.

The facts are substantively different, and will lead to different results.

That law then needs to be changed ASAP. Warning shots could save lives if embraced. Why should someone have to wait until it's their own life or their assailant's before alerting one's assailant that one has both a gun and ammunition for the gun?

There are no laws against shouting "I have a gun and ammunition for my gun"

[Galloism]

That law then needs to be changed ASAP. Warning shots could save lives if embraced. Why should someone have to wait until it's their own life or their assailant's before alerting one's assailant that one has both a gun and ammunition for the gun?

There are no laws against shouting "I have a gun and ammunition for my gun"

Kind of a mouthful, though.

[American Legionaries]

There are no laws against shouting "I have a gun and ammunition for my gun"

Kind of a mouthful, though.

The bit about the ammunition would perhaps reasonably be implied by the announcement you have a gun.

[Galloism]

Kind of a mouthful, though.

The bit about the ammunition would perhaps reasonably be implied by the announcement you have a gun.

Most likely, yes.

[American Legionaries]

The bit about the ammunition would perhaps reasonably be implied by the announcement you have a gun.

Most likely, yes.

When I was younger I was taught to put a round or two through the door if someone attempted to force entry. The reasoning being that a round passing through the door would be less likely to be fatal, and more likely to simply cause a disengagement, while maintaining plausible deniability under questioning.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

So, I've been thinking about the case, and I actually question the logic of the "If he were black" arguement?
If he were black, and presuming he got to the Trial intact and that all details are otherwise the same, then the case seems like it'd let a Black Defendant off *really fast*. Like, he'd have been chased by a dude who had screamed racial slur ladden threats while he pleaded with him to not chase him, then after being forced to shoot, he was chased by a *mob* (I doubt I need to clarify, but the argument "I was being chased by a lynch mob" comes to mind) and attacked by two other individuals who assumed that he was the Agressor and decided to physically strike him as though they were law enforcement figures, and not just men in a riot.

I grok that juries and judges are people, they're often crap at consistency, but it feels like for the race arguement to work there'd need to be way lesser charges from the start?

That's skipping over the most salient question though:

If he were black, would he have gotten to the trial, intact or otherwise? Would all the details have been the same? This question spans the gamut from whether he'd be alive after the incident, to whether he would have a similar amount of funds raised for his defence, to whether he would have been allowed to go free on bail pending trial, to whether he would have succumbed to (more) pressure to take a plea deal.

The color of his skin has the potential to factor into so many things prior to getting to trial, even before we get to the question of whether the jury would have come to a different conclusion. It will for all time remain speculation, but considering the realities of the US criminal justice system, I do find it plausible that being Black could potentially have led to a different outcome at almost every single step along the way.

If it's dark enough outside, nobody can tell if you're white.

So everybody just assumes.

And twitter makes speculative assumptions based upon those assumptions, where their racial bias really shows.

But yeah, spinning the narrative differently would've made twitter react differently than it did had they assumed Kyle was black and supportive of the BLM movement and the white people he shot were not black instead of literally the other way around and screamed out of every news-orifice with a deafening roar of fake outrage.

[Gravlen]

Firing a warning shot leads to a bullet flying through the air without any control over who or what it might hit, which could well lead to the death of a person having nothing to do with the situation as opposed to the person allegedly threatening the shooter. I, for one, find that outcome rather troubling.

I can see the logic of both conclusions, though I figure it really ought to still hinge a little on the reasonableness of the threat itself, given that we have a literal term for "making a threatening noise to ward off attackers" (saber-rattling, effectively, is a sign of someone who is unsecure in their position) which hooks pretty well into the thought process of someone in the moment not dropping immediately into "murder that (wo)man", even if they've been threatened by someone. Especially if that person isn't in "imminent danger range" but is advancing on them, still, despite warnings (perhaps believing, even, that they won't be shot. Young men often exhibit a sense of immortality, as they say).

Now it hinges on the intent of the person pulling the trigger.

Person A feels under threat by person B, who's threatening to kill them. Person A fires a round in order to stop person B from advancing on them. The round misses person B.

When asked why they fired their gun, one variant of person A says that they wanted to stop the threat, and the best way to do that was to shoot with the intention of killing person B. That variant is free to go.

Asked the same question, a different variant of person A says that they wanted to stop the threat, and the best way to do that was to shoot with the intention of warning off person B. This variant is sentenced to 60 years in prison.

[Galloism]

Most likely, yes.

When I was younger I was taught to put a round or two through the door if someone attempted to force entry. The reasoning being that a round passing through the door would be less likely to be fatal, and more likely to simply cause a disengagement, while maintaining plausible deniability under questioning.

That's a really bad idea.

If the door is locked and reasonably likely to maintain its hold in the "imminent" future, shooting through the door is unlikely to be considered self defense against a threat reasonably likely to make a reasonable person to face imminent death or great bodily harm. This would likely be aggravated assault, at a minimum.

[Galloism]

I can see the logic of both conclusions, though I figure it really ought to still hinge a little on the reasonableness of the threat itself, given that we have a literal term for "making a threatening noise to ward off attackers" (saber-rattling, effectively, is a sign of someone who is unsecure in their position) which hooks pretty well into the thought process of someone in the moment not dropping immediately into "murder that (wo)man", even if they've been threatened by someone. Especially if that person isn't in "imminent danger range" but is advancing on them, still, despite warnings (perhaps believing, even, that they won't be shot. Young men often exhibit a sense of immortality, as they say).

Now it hinges on the intent of the person pulling the trigger.

Person A feels under threat by person B, who's threatening to kill them. Person A fires a round in order to stop person B from advancing on them. The round misses person B.

When asked why they fired their gun, one variant of person A says that they wanted to stop the threat, and the best way to do that was to shoot with the intention of killing person B. That variant is free to go.

Asked the same question, a different variant of person A says that they wanted to stop the threat, and the best way to do that was to shoot with the intention of warning off person B. This variant is sentenced to 60 years in prison.

I mean, a lot of crimes (or their status as non crimes) hinge on the intent of the person being accused. It's kind of the whole idea behind mens rea.

[American Legionaries]

When I was younger I was taught to put a round or two through the door if someone attempted to force entry. The reasoning being that a round passing through the door would be less likely to be fatal, and more likely to simply cause a disengagement, while maintaining plausible deniability under questioning.

That's a really bad idea.

If the door is locked and reasonably likely to maintain its hold in the "imminent" future, shooting through the door is unlikely to be considered self defense against a threat reasonably likely to make a reasonable person to face imminent death or great bodily harm. This would likely be aggravated assault, at a minimum.

Dad had his fair share of bad ideas.

[Kalaron]

I can see the logic of both conclusions, though I figure it really ought to still hinge a little on the reasonableness of the threat itself, given that we have a literal term for "making a threatening noise to ward off attackers" (saber-rattling, effectively, is a sign of someone who is unsecure in their position) which hooks pretty well into the thought process of someone in the moment not dropping immediately into "murder that (wo)man", even if they've been threatened by someone. Especially if that person isn't in "imminent danger range" but is advancing on them, still, despite warnings (perhaps believing, even, that they won't be shot. Young men often exhibit a sense of immortality, as they say).

Now it hinges on the intent of the person pulling the trigger.

Person A feels under threat by person B, who's threatening to kill them. Person A fires a round in order to stop person B from advancing on them. The round misses person B.

When asked why they fired their gun, one variant of person A says that they wanted to stop the threat, and the best way to do that was to shoot with the intention of killing person B. That variant is free to go.

Asked the same question, a different variant of person A says that they wanted to stop the threat, and the best way to do that was to shoot with the intention of warning off person B. This variant is sentenced to 60 years in prison.

I grok that, it just seems very inhuman to require people drop straight to "shoot 'em".
It's like how Binger tried to argue that people can't shoot multiple shots to defend themselves, or that if a single bullet entered through Rosen's back, it was really murder. It's on the edge of being pure bullshit because human beings are animals that don't really have "stop violence" buttons that instantly cease feelings of Fight or Flight the moment someone is hit once. In that same way, humans are NOT naturally machines that run through a specific checklist of actions to undertake when threatened, and especially may defer not to pop someone's head open when they could merely scare them away.

[Gravlen]

Now it hinges on the intent of the person pulling the trigger.

Person A feels under threat by person B, who's threatening to kill them. Person A fires a round in order to stop person B from advancing on them. The round misses person B.

When asked why they fired their gun, one variant of person A says that they wanted to stop the threat, and the best way to do that was to shoot with the intention of killing person B. That variant is free to go.

Asked the same question, a different variant of person A says that they wanted to stop the threat, and the best way to do that was to shoot with the intention of warning off person B. This variant is sentenced to 60 years in prison.

I mean, a lot of crimes (or their status as non crimes) hinge on the intent of the person being accused. It's kind of the whole idea behind mens rea.

Yeah, and the principle is that the more criminal and damaging your intent is, the more punishment you should recieve. Here we flip the principle completely on it's head, and reward those with the kind of intention criminal law usually frowns upon and tries to disincentivize while punishing those who're trying to do the least amount of harm.

[Kalaron]

I mean, a lot of crimes (or their status as non crimes) hinge on the intent of the person being accused. It's kind of the whole idea behind mens rea.

Yeah, and the principle is that the more criminal and damaging your intent is, the more punishment you should recieve. Here we flip the principle completely on it's head, and reward those with the kind of intention criminal law usually frowns upon and tries to disincentivize while punishing those who're trying to do the least amount of harm.

Ahhhhhh, alright, sorry for sorta misinterpreting you in my last message, I wasn't sure you agreed with (or rather, had grok'd) my stance.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

That law then needs to be changed ASAP. Warning shots could save lives if embraced. Why should someone have to wait until it's their own life or their assailant's before alerting one's assailant that one has both a gun and ammunition for the gun?

There are no laws against shouting "I have a gun and ammunition for my gun"

Shouting it doesn't prove one is telling the truth.