These EDITED tapes NEVER show the BEFORE ...

This was a SURVEILLANCE tape made by the mall security camera.

Now you are claiming the video has been edited?

In his report, he claimed Tillman and her brother were cutting off cars with their bicycles and yelling and swearing at drivers.

Oh - he "claimed" that, did he?

Then why were the kids not charged with that offense?

In his report, he claimed Tillman and her brother were cutting off cars with their bicycles and yelling and swearing at drivers.

Oh - he "claimed" that, did he?

Then why were the kids not charged with that offense?

Because his good hearted nature caused him to be benevolent and his kindly feelings were motivated by sympathetic understanding to let her off with a verbal warning: Telling her she was causing a disturbance and going to be “trespassed,” or banned, from the mall. He also warned her that she could be arrested if she were to return. Besides, she was charged in juvenile court with resisting arrest and assaulting an officer .... to “pile on charges” against the lovely poor innocent girl who was so demure and polite while conforming to social norms would be cruel and inhumane.

Then why were the kids not charged with that offense?

They were arrested on other charges. You want more?

In his report, he claimed Tillman and her brother were cutting off cars with their bicycles and yelling and swearing at drivers.

Oh - he "claimed" that, did he?

Then why were the kids not charged with that offense?

I reckon that's because traffic infractions are not criminal offenses and are not charged in criminal court.

Then why were the kids not charged with that offense?

You and people like you are the reason I arrested everyone that caused me to put my hands on them. astonishingly, many officers with bleeding libtarded hearts still lay hands on and then, feel bad and don't arrest. Then the liability suits come in for excessive force... and the scumbags attorney claims his client was an angel because he/she wasn't arrested. It doesn't pay to have a heart and soul... because of scumbags like you.

They are determined to gain power through constant arguing. Their bullying and physical violence, coupled with their refusal to follow rules and assume responsibility for their actions, along with their cursing and threatening behavior needs to be addressed.

Dealing with oppositional defiant juveniles can be frustrating and exhausting. Excusing their uncivil actions by wrongfully misplacing blame on an officer performing his duty is an abomination.

A shopping center parking lot is by definition public property

By whose definition ... yours?

By any sane definition known to man.

Or do the words "open to the public" confuse you?

The Future Felons of America and dey mama's might not like it,but it's still true.

Private security guards work for the private business that they are hired by. If your employer can search your stuff at work (part of terms of employment, company policy, or contract deal etc.), then the hired security guard can do so. Fourth amendment protection only applies to governmental intrusion. Security guards are not agents of the government.

Where is this proven incorrect?

I know you have a limited attention span,so I will just point out that the kids riding through the parking lot were NOT employees of the corporation that owns the mall,and that bozo was wearing his city police uniform,not a security guard uniform. Which means he was representing the city to the public,not representing the mall corporation.

There is no audio, so it is not clear to me that she did not say, "you can't stop me for anything, you fucking pig and I am leaving rat now and you can't do anything about it ..."

No,but we can only hope she was saying that or something similar.

People who don't speak up for their rights lose them.

The police report described the kids cutting off cars earlier, swearing and yelling at anyone who honked at them, and that the mall wanted them stopped and given a trespassing notice.

You mean to tell me these two 15 and 16 year old kids had nothing better to do that spend a good part of the afternoon riding bicycles around a mall parking lot to deliberately cut off cars and cause people to beep their horns and scream at them,and they were doing this long enough for calls to 9-11 to be made and police to be dispatched to arrest those desperadoes?

Just how freaking likely is that?

A shopping center parking lot is by definition public property
By whose definition ... yours?
By any sane definition known to man.
Or do the words "open to the public" confuse you?

Sure I do.

Open to the Public -
A shopping center lot is not a public parking lot if it's a privately owned parking lot belonging to the owner of the shopping mall. The people leasing the property or the owners of the property can tow you if you don't park according to their wishes. The privately owned parking lots at the shopping malls are “open to the public” to provide a great service by allowing us access to retail and office centers. The owners or management controls access to a privately owned shopping center parking lot “open to the public.” In Cincinnati recently private event club transitioned to a cocktail bar and lounge that’s “open to the public.” While it is “open to the public,” the management or owners can have you leave if there is sufficient reason to. “Open to the public” does not mean it is public property, that the public can have access anytime they desire or do anything the want to. It is still private property if it is privately owned or owned by a corporation and they control the “dos and don'ts.”

Public property -
Property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public.

Private property -
Land not owned by the government or dedicated to public use.

Public Use -
the only purpose for which private property can be taken (condemned) by the government under its power of eminent domain. Public use includes: schools, streets, highways, hospitals, government buildings, parks, water reservoirs, flood control, slum clearance and redevelopment, public housing, public theaters and stadiums, safety facilities, harbors, bridges, railroads, airports, terminals, prisons, jails, public utilities, canals, and numerous other purposes designated as beneficial to the public.

Dedication -
The giving of land by a private person or entity to the government, typically for a street, park or school site, as part of and a condition of a real estate development. The local county or city (or other public body) must accept the dedication before it is complete. In many cases there are "dedicated" streets on old subdivision maps which were never officially accepted and, in effect, belong to no one. The adjoining property owners can sue for a judgment to give them the title to the unclaimed (unowned) street or property (quiet title action) or request abandonment by the government which did not accept the street or other property.

Ok,just watched the video and need to point out two things. The girl CLEARLY was trying to ride away on her bicycle when he first grabbed her,

Agreed.

and she was CLEARLY resisting arrest when he started tossing her around,choking her,and tasing her.

Not agreed. Once a cop starts that kind of treatment, even if it's warranted which in this case sure appears it was not, the person being so attacked is not legally liable for any kind of resistant or defensive action. Or shouldn't be. That is a completely natural and instinctive survival response. Only if they do something criminal BEFORE being treated like that should they be charged with resisting and/or assault. That's common sense, if common sense should ever apply in these cases.

The most important thing to point out is that HE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO STOP HER TO START WITH. A shopping center parking lot is by definition public property,and he has no legal or moral authority to stop anyone from entering it at any time of the day or night.

I think technically it is not public property, but rather, a place of public accommodation. But the difference is moot in this case.

I suspect "Mall security" has less authority to stop and apprehend than does a law enforcement officer. Insofar as this cop was not a "law enforcement officer" when working privately at the mall, he was not acting in the capacity of law enforcement. How much more limiting the authority granted is, we don't know. But that the police dept is not being sued in the case is evidence enough that the cop was not acting in the capacity of law enforcement.

Which nullifies the first point about her resisting arrest. He had no right to stop or try to arrest her,so she can't be charged with resisting an illegal arrest.

That's the way it should be. But the resisting charge was apparently tossed out, so the PTB's either agree with you or didn't see her resisting.

Officer Cartman was just having one of those "You WILL respect my authoritay!" moments. SOB should be fired and sued by both the city and the girls parents.

From the video he appears to love power trips and throwing his (and the girl's) weight around. That's probably why he decided to become a cop.

You mean to tell me these two 15 and 16 year old kids had nothing better to do that spend a good part of the afternoon riding bicycles around a mall parking lot to deliberately cut off cars and cause people to beep their horns and scream at them,and they were doing this long enough for calls to 9-11 to be made and police to be dispatched to arrest those desperadoes?

Read much before posting?

Officer Williams was at work, at the mall, paid by the mall. The juvenile delinquents were doing it long enough for Officer Williams and mall security to respond.

At #35:

Security video shows Tillman, now 16, talking with an off-duty Tacoma Police officer hired by the mall for crime prevention.

[...]

"This officer was obviously confused about what his powers were and he chose to exceed what he was allowed to do and hurt my client," said attorney Tom Balerud.

Balerud [attorney for Tillman] said the officer was performing a corporate function for the mall, not a police function, and abused his power. Tacoma Police Department Public Information Officer Loretta Cool disagrees.

Of the officer, Cool said, "His presence at the Tacoma Mall, even though off duty and paid by mall, he's a police officer and he's acting as a police officer."

He had his car, his uniform, and his Taser. Cool said the second he was called on to order the teens off the private property and turned his lights on, the officer was working on the city's payroll, not the mall's.

A department investigation into the use of force determined the officer could have used more force than he did on the teen when she fought back. Cool said it looked like he was going easy on the girl because of her age and size.

HE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO STOP HER TO START WITH. A shopping center parking lot is by definition public property

This shopping center parking lot belonged to the mall owner and was private property.

You mean to tell me these two 15 and 16 year old kids had nothing better to do that spend a good part of the afternoon riding bicycles around a mall parking lot to deliberately cut off cars and cause people to beep their horns and scream at them …

No one is telling you that. The kids were passing through the parking lot on their way home when “the kids were cutting off cars, swearing and yelling at anyone who honked at them.”

…and they were doing this long enough for calls to 9-11 to be made and police to be dispatched to arrest those desperadoes?

Where did you read that anyone called 911? Where did you read that the police were dispatched to arrest the kids?

None of this happened. “The mall wanted them stopped and given a trespassing notice.”

Just how freaking likely is that?

Not freaking likely at all … because it never happened the way you described it.

If You're Gonna Play in Texas You Gotta Have a Fiddle in the Band.

Paraphrasing: If you’re gonna jump in on a discussion, you gotta have your facts straight.

I know you have a limited attention span,so I will just point out that the kids riding through the parking lot were NOT employees of the corporation that owns the mall,and that bozo was wearing his city police uniform,not a security guard uniform. Which means he was representing the city to the public,not representing the mall corporation.

At #35:

Of the officer, [Tacoma Police Department Public Information Officer Loretta] Cool said, "His presence at the Tacoma Mall, even though off duty and paid by mall, he's a police officer and he's acting as a police officer."

He had his car, his uniform, and his Taser. Cool said the second he was called on to order the teens off the private property and turned his lights on, the officer was working on the city's payroll, not the mall's.

Once a cop starts that kind of treatment, even if it's warranted which in this case sure appears it was not, the person being so attacked is not legally liable for any kind of resistant or defensive action. Or shouldn't be.

You are consistent in what you want the law to be, but you are consistently wrong. She is required to comply with the commands of the officer. He may escalate his force to whatever it takes to force her compliance. Resisting the officer in his duties is not self-defence.

There is no audio, so it is not clear to me that she did not say, "you can't stop me for anything, you fucking pig and I am leaving rat now and you can't do anything about it ..."

[...]

People who don't speak up for their rights lose them.

Judging from her gestures, she was certainly exercising her First Amendment right.

I know you have a limited attention span,so I will just point out that the kids riding through the parking lot were NOT employees of the corporation that owns the mall,

…and that bozo was wearing his city police uniform,not a security guard uniform. Which means he was representing the city to the public,not representing the mall corporation.

I did not see this post before I responded to sneakypete.

It's all good.

You are consistent in what you want the law to be, but you are consistently wrong.

I'm not wrong in what I want the law to be. I think I can speak authoritatively on that.

She is required to comply with the commands of the officer. He may escalate his force to whatever it takes to force her compliance.

But not beyond that needed, which from the video certainly seems to be the case here, and apparently the cause of the civil case now filed against the officer, the mall, et al.

Resisting the officer in his duties is not self-defence.

If the officer grabs a girl's hair and starts throwing her around that way, then the girl can hardly be held responsible for whatever action she takes in her own self-defense from that point forward, such as grabbing the guards hands. Expecting her to suffer through pain and possibly serious injury by not taking any instinctive self-protective measures is surely ludicrous. And I don't think that's a subjective statement.

I know you have a limited attention span,so I will just point out that the kids riding through the parking lot were NOT employees of the corporation that owns the mall

The kids were not there for any purpose but to use it as a short cut. Mall security wanted the kids to be given a traspassing notice.

At #35:

They'd left McDonald's and decided to take a short cut home through the mall's lot.

[...]

The police report described the kids cutting off cars earlier, swearing and yelling at anyone who honked at them, and that the mall wanted them stopped and given a trespassing notice.

and that bozo was wearing his city police uniform,not a security guard uniform. Which means he was representing the city to the public,not representing the mall corporation.

But the police are not being sued. So apparently, he was wearing the police uniform inappropriately because he was not acting in the capacity of a city police officer, but only in the capacity of a mall security guard.

The police report described the kids cutting off cars earlier, swearing and yelling at anyone who honked at them, and that the mall wanted them stopped and given a trespassing notice.

If so, the offense was not trespassing, but disturbing the peace.

It's also not trespassing in a place of public accommodation until after someone is told they may not come. I suppose that may have been the point of the notice. Not a citation or claim any offense was committed, but just a "notice".

But still, given the girl was arrested, why wasn't disturbing the peace or some similar charge levelled related to the real reason for the stop, instead of resisting and assault?

But not beyond that needed, which from the video certainly seems to be the case here

No, it does not appear so. The officer did not strike her and did not choke her. The filed Complaint specifies no physical injury whatever, but where the taser struck must have left a mark. She unlawfully tried to flee and resisted. He overcame her resistence with the taser. She could have complied at any time.

the girl can hardly be held responsible for whatever action she takes in her own self-defense from that point forward

She can be held responsible for whatever she does to resist. It is unlawful resistance, not self-defence. The only reason any force was being used was her resistance. After the taser, the officer stood aside and mall security handcuffed her.

So apparently, he was wearing the police uniform inappropriately because he was not acting in the capacity of a city police officer, but only in the capacity of a mall security guard.

Inappropriately? Maybe yes … maybe no.

There are a number of cities that have a formal program that allow their police officers to be serve as private security while they are in uniform. LA and NYC are but two of those cities. I don’t know the Tacoma police policy on this.

Open to the Public - A shopping center lot is not a public parking lot if it's a privately owned parking lot belonging to the owner of the shopping mall. The people leasing the property or the owners of the property can tow you if you don't park according to their wishes. The privately owned parking lots at the shopping malls are “open to the public” to provide a great service by allowing us access to retail and office centers. The owners or management controls access to a privately owned shopping center parking lot “open to the public.” In Cincinnati recently private event club transitioned to a cocktail bar and lounge that’s “open to the public.” While it is “open to the public,” the management or owners can have you leave if there is sufficient reason to. “Open to the public” does not mean it is public property, that the public can have access anytime they desire or do anything the want to. It is still private property if it is privately owned or owned by a corporation and they control the “dos and don'ts.”

Blah,blah,blah. You are more full of shit than a Thanksgiving turkey.

There is no lie you won't tell and no truth you won't stretch to the limits in order to provide excuses for cowardly thugs with badges.

HOW were the mall owners going to call tow trucks to tow off the kids bicycles that were just traveling THROUGH the parking lot?

More importantly,the trouble started with the mall employee,a thug with a badge,stopped the kids TO KEEP THEM FROM LEAVING.

Are you now claiming mall owners have a right to imprison people passing through?

A mall parking lot IS public property,and the only time the public is forbidden access to that property is when those INDIVIDUALS have broken some of the rules and management has told them to leave. The kids were ALREADY leaving,you idiot. It was the mall employees that kept them there.

She unlawfully tried to flee and resisted. He overcame her resistence with the taser. She could have complied at any time.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

The officer clearly threw her to the ground with his left hand firmly holding her hair. The taser followed. In sum, it easily appeared to me as excessive force, and apart from what did appear to be an attempt by the girl to leave the scene, there is no obvious move of resistance to me through the rest of the ordeal. That all charges were dropped reinforces that observation.

It is unlawful resistance, not self-defence.

They may call it that in a court of law, but that doesn't mean in real life, people have not been killed by police because they could not breath under the weight of several cops standing on top of them, chocking them, and/or beating them. It has happened as you know. Ergo, those people who died certainly had a natural right to self-defense against the excessive acts of the police. Obviously we can see that most clearly in hindsight, but if it's there in hindsight, it still means it was there and is there.

Obviously the courts will be slow to find innocent as a matter of self defense anyone harming a police officer while knowing it was a police officer. But if a cop can kill out of reasonable fear for his own life, then that right has to apply to citizens as well. And the more cops are trained to shoot at the slightest provocation, the more reason informed citizens have to be fearful of cops who point guns at them.

Will such a case ever happen? I don't know.

and she was CLEARLY resisting arrest when he started tossing her around,choking her,and tasing her.

Not agreed. Once a cop starts that kind of treatment, even if it's warranted which in this case sure appears it was not, the person being so attacked is not legally liable for any kind of resistant or defensive action. Or shouldn't be. That is a completely natural and instinctive survival response. Only if they do something criminal BEFORE being treated like that should they be charged with resisting and/or assault. That's common sense, if common sense should ever apply in these cases.

You misunderstood me. The girl was peacefully (not using force) to resist arrest by peddling away,and was then assaulted by the thug with the badge. She THEN started resisting,and who wouldn't? Other than some of jackboot lickers here,that is.

Which nullifies the first point about her resisting arrest. He had no right to stop or try to arrest her,so she can't be charged with resisting an illegal arrest.

I didn't say she was ILLEGALLY resisting arrest,I just said she was resisting once he grabbed her. Up to the point where he grabbed her,she was just leaving.

Too many cops are their own worse enemies because they create enemies where none existed before by being power-mad abusive assholes.

One of life's greatest wonders to me is why more people aren't sniping at policemen from rooftops.

There are a number of cities that have a formal program that allow their police officers to be serve as private security while they are in uniform. LA and NYC are but two of those cities.

Okay, but in any event, since the city is not named as a defendant in the case, it's apparent that the cop was not acting in the capacity of a cop when working for the mall.

Read much before posting?

Officer Williams was at work, at the mall, paid by the mall. The juvenile delinquents were doing it long enough for Officer Williams and mall security to respond.

Think much before posting?

I don't give a rabid rat's ass if he had been adopted by the corporation that owns the mall,the way the process works is that citizens call 9-11 to report a problem,9-11 notifies the cops on duty,and the cops on duty then respond to the 9-11 call. For reasons I don't pretend to understand,the city let Officer Bozo work as a security guard at a private mall while wearing his PD uniform and badge,and they even let him drive a PD car while doing it. In other words,he picked up on the 9-11 operator paging patrol cars over his patrol car radio.

This doesn't happen instantly. It takes time,and by the time the phone calls are made and the 9-11 operators put out the notification,whoever was doing what was claimed,IF anyone was actually doing that,was long gone.

I would love to see the lawyers representing the teens demand the 9-11 recordings with date and time stamps.

Frankly,I don't begin to understand why the Tacoma PD is backing that fool,and leaving themselves and the city open to lawsuits. I think ever similar situation I have ever heard of,the city and the PD couldn't back away from their off-duty cop any faster.

This shopping center parking lot belonged to the mall owner and was private property.

HorseHillary. Show me ONE example of any mall having people arrested for tresspassing for doing nothing more than driving through the parking lot,and the arrest sticking

Too many cops are their own worse enemies because they create enemies where none existed before by being power-mad abusive assholes.

Ain't that the truth! Kinda reminds me of US foreign policy, specifically with the drone wars. Cops would be well served to treat the public as their friends instead of potential enemies & killers. A poll would be interesting to see of what the average person's emotional response is when seeing a cop. I think most driver's experience a small amount of panic in wondering if they happen to be speeding that that moment.

One of life's greatest wonders to me is why more people aren't sniping at policemen from rooftops.

At that point it's an open civil rebellion/war. Usually it takes a lot more than police abuse to bring that about.

Where did you read that anyone called 911? Where did you read that the police were dispatched to arrest the kids?

I know the cop was psychotic,but that doesn't mean he was psychic. Just exactly how did he know all this was happening in no one called 9-11?

EVERYBODY knows the 9-11 phone number,but how many people know the phone number for mall management?

At #35:

Of the officer, [Tacoma Police Department Public Information Officer Loretta] Cool said, "His presence at the Tacoma Mall, even though off duty and paid by mall, he's a police officer and he's acting as a police officer."

He had his car, his uniform, and his Taser. Cool said the second he was called on to order the teens off the private property and turned his lights on, the officer was working on the city's payroll, not the mall's.

Good to know you think police departments work for mall owners.

You are consistent in what you want the law to be, but you are consistently wrong. She is required to comply with the commands of the officer. He may escalate his force to whatever it takes to force her compliance. Resisting the officer in his duties is not self-defence.

You really are the perfect little Nazi,aren't you?

All that education,and not a speck of common sense or humanity.

The kids were not there for any purpose but to use it as a short cut. Mall security wanted the kids to be given a traspassing notice.

So what? WTF are mall security and what gives them the right to stop and detain people who aren't committing any crimes?

They had no right to stop the kids to start with. The MOST they have the authority to do is to ask people causing a disturbance to leave or they will call the police,and they kids were leaving when the thugs in blue stopped them.

HorseHillary. Show me ONE example of any mall having people arrested for tresspassing for doing nothing more than driving through the parking lot,and the arrest sticking

I actually had a friend who worked as a Santa Claus at a mall. I never found out the details, but some kind of altercation occurred where the mall ended up firing him or discontinuing whatever contract they had, and in addition the mall specifically disinvited him from returning even to shop. I think it would be considered trespassing if he were to return. I was told that if he wanted to return after a year, he could write to them and ask permission and they'd consider lifting the restriction.

Was it legal? I don't know. It may not have been legally enforceable, but so often, the illusion of legal authority is imposed where it doesn't exist. I never found out what happened as he didn't want to talk about it. I could infer from that he knew he was in the wrong somehow, but will never know. He died 6-7 years ago.

But the police are not being sued. So apparently, he was wearing the police uniform inappropriately because he was not acting in the capacity of a city police officer, but only in the capacity of a mall security guard.

Oddly enough,the Tacoma PD is backing him up and claiming he was on duty the instant he hit the siren to pull them over.

Makes no sense at all,but that is what they are doing.

No, it does not appear so. The officer did not strike her and did not choke her.

He didn't have his hand around her throat?

He had his car, his uniform, and his Taser. Cool said the second he was called on to order the teens off the private property and turned his lights on, the officer was working on the city's payroll, not the mall's.

Well that's certainly interesting. He was using a city police car & gas to moonlight a private job? And then as soon as he flips a switch in the car, he's automatically making overtime from the city?

I can understand the sentiment that cops remain cops when they are off duty, and are not obligated to do nothing when they see a situation that needs addressing when the clock is not running. But if the city says he was on the city's payroll at the seen, why are they not named as defendants in this case, as they provided the taser & car used at the scene?

I actually had a friend who worked as a Santa Claus at a mall. I never found out the details, but some kind of altercation occurred where the mall ended up firing him or discontinuing whatever contract they had, and in addition the mall specifically disinvited him from returning even to shop. I think it would be considered trespassing if he were to return. I was told that if he wanted to return after a year, he could write to them and ask permission and they'd consider lifting the restriction.

Different situation.

For one thing,this started because they wanted him to leave.

The girl and her brother were trying to leave,and the cop prevented them from leaving. On top of that they had done nothing but ride their bikes through the parking lot. No altercation involved until the cop/mall security got involved.

Night and day.

Anybody that has enough sense to come in out of the rain would have just told the kids to keep on going and to not come back. If they had came back AFTER being warned to not return,then the mall would have a trespassing case. You can NOT arrest someone for trespassing when you are the one that kept them from leaving.

Well that's certainly interesting. He was using a city police car & gas to moonlight a private job? And then as soon as he flips a switch in the car, he's automatically making overtime from the city?

Yup!

I'm betting the taxpayers in Tacoma are slightly less than thrilled about that. The end result will be that the city of Tacoma (the taxpayers) will end up having to pay any settlement,not the mall. I'm starting to wonder how many of the city council members or even the mayor/the mayor's family are on the mall board or major stockholders.

The officer did not strike her and did not choke her.

He didn't have his hand around her throat?

Looking at it again, part of the action happens off camera, but when it's recentered, it does appear the cop has his hand on her throat, then moves his hand to the chest just below the throat in what looks like a restraining measure.

As the cop is circling with this girl, her right hand is held by the cop and her left hand is touching her own face. That's before she's thrown to the ground by her hair and tased.

People who are combative don't touch their own face in the middle of a fight. I don't see how anyone could view that as assault or resisting. At least at that point in the altercation.

The girl and her brother were trying to leave,and the cop prevented them from leaving.

Actually looking at it again, she does make a move on the bike, but she may not have been trying to leave. She may have been getting off the bike, or maybe just wanted to move the bike away a couple feet from between the 2 cops before dismounting. Or maybe she really was trying to leave. If so, she was certainly not getting any jump start.

If they had came back AFTER being warned to not return,then the mall would have a trespassing case. You can NOT arrest someone for trespassing when you are the one that kept them from leaving.

On that score, the cop may have been giving them that very warning not to return. If so, and he had authority to give that warning, then he certainly would have authority to stop them and give it. So I wouldn't fault him for taking things that far.

From what I see on the video, the cop was wrong in using very excessive force against a not-overweight 15 year old girl, and that regardless of whether she attempted to leave or not.