Letter to Conor Lamb

I am writing to you as one of your constituents on a matter of the greatest importance in this Day and Age. It is a difficult and demoralizing time for Law Enforcement because of the so-called Criminal Justice reform movement.  Increased surveillance resulting from advances in technology like digital recording and wireless broadband has come to mean that Law enforcement mistakes are wrongly widely broadcast — typically without context or rights of rebuttal — exposing them to unprecedented, unfounded public scrutiny This allows the public who have not trained as police officers to make what often amounts to biased and ill-informed judgments of the police. 
The following raft of anti-police bills have been proposed.
H.R.7120 - Justice in Policing Act of 2020.
H.R.7144 - To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the reckless use of excessive force under the color of law, and for other purposes.
H.R.7085 - To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes.
In the wake of nationwide protests and the steady stream of hatred directed at police by politicians, celebrities and the media that are destroying the morale of law enforcement, diminish their rights, safety and standing in the community and expose them to increased risk, both on and off the job.
I ask you: when the 1+ million brave men and women of law enforcement are an object of universal hatred, when their rights are stripped away and their safety and their families’ safety are unnecessarily put at risk, who will continue to enforcing our laws – the laws that you, the Legislature, pass – and selflessly putting themselves in harms’ way to keep us safe and protect our rights and freedoms with pride?
People who have little or no Law Enforcement or Legal experience have weaponized the First Amendment to verbal assault and taunt Law Enforcement. They try to unfairly bait and entrap Law Enforcement into mistakenly committing misconduct.  These agitators have gotten a number of public officials unfairly and unjustly punished, fired and/or imprisoned due to witch hunts and scapegoating caused when legal reasonable actions by Law Enforcement were illegally exposed to the public and the situation becomes political.
Your support of the following bills show that  you believe that no Constitutional Amendment is absolute and are willing to put limits on Constitutional Rights for the greater good.
H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019,
H.R .112 Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019
H.R. 1296 Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
H.R. 1236 Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019
H.R. 1186 Keep Americans Safe Act
H.R. 2708 Disarm Hate Act
Given your past as a Federal Prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office in Pittsburgh,  your unwavering commitment to and advocacy for the Rule of Law and with your full support of Law Enforcement that place their lives at risk to protect our neighborhoods and deserve our respect, admiration, and support,  I am writing to inquire if you would be interested in sponsoring the Federal Law Enforcement Bill of Rights that includes the following:

1st Rule of Policing: Police have the right and the duty to go home at the end of each watch. It does not matter how many non-law enforcement personnel are injured or killed or have their “rights” violated to achieve this goal as Police are entitled to impunity for their violence and protection from harm above all others.
Sealing of all law enforcement records from the public unless the release has the approval of all police officers involved. Unauthorized release of law enforcement records would impact the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Police are entitled to absolute privacy when performing their duties. Police should only be required to identify themselves only in the arrest warrant or report if used in court.
Police officers can seize and delete any video and/or audio of wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public as it violates their privacy, distracts from their duties and jeopardizes Officer safety. This right to privacy is absolute when Police are engaged in Routine Non-Enforcement Activity. The act of recording police starts from the belief that every officer is doing something wrong and that's insulting to all police officers. An Automatic search warrant and SWAT raid is authorized for anyone in possession of video and/or audio of wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public.  The Anti-Police court decisions of Glik v. Cunniffe, Smith v. City of Cumming, Fordyce v. City of Seattle, Szymecki v. Houck, Turner v. Driver and Fields v. City of Philadelphia need to be reversed by this new law.
Police officer statements override any video or audio evidence as the officers' reasonable perceptions are more accurate. Video or audio footage does not capture the physical struggle from the officers' perspective, nor does it capture the officers' reasonable, split-second decision-making and thought processes in tense circumstances. This is the case especially when the video or audio is gathered by illegally wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public.
Citizens must provide ID and must allow themselves to be searched by Law Enforcement when so ordered by Police.
Repeal Anti Police excessive force, false arrest and civil rights violations laws such as 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights that jeopardize Officer safety. Laws affirming Qualified immunity should be passed.
Reporting and Statistics about Police misconduct, shootings, and use of SWAT should be illegal to be collected or published as they may inflame anti police sentiment jeopardizing Officer safety. violating the Officers’ privacy, renders police vulnerable to unfounded scrutiny and impacts the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Any videos from Police equipment should only be used in court and/or be released to the public with the approval of all police officers being filmed to protect their privacy. Police Dash Cam, Police and Jail surveillance video videos should only be used to protect Police, not as an internal affairs “gotcha-headhunter” tool. Unauthorized release of the video and audio would impact the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
Police officers should be exempt from all making false statements laws
People who have no idea about the job of Law Enforcement should not be deciding the outcome in civil and criminal cases which involve the reasonable officer standard. Police officers should only be tried by a special court composed only of Law Enforcement officers.
“Brady cops” do not exist. Perjury in previous cases should not be a factor in judging a officer’s truthfulness and violates their privacy
It is illegal to make a false accusation against a Police officer.
Police officers accused of misconduct should be notified of all incriminating evidence or witness statements, be able to review it without an investigator looking into their actions during that process and remain silent for a 72 hours cooling off period afterwards. Additionally the officer has 30 days to get an attorney before they can be questioned by superiors, An officer may not be investigated on a misconduct accusation unless it was made within 90 days of the incident.
A complaint against a law enforcement officer that alleges brutality in the execution of the law enforcement officer's duties may not be investigated unless the complaint is sworn to, before an official authorized to administer oaths, by the aggrieved individual, a member of the aggrieved individual's immediate family. an individual with firsthand knowledge obtained because the individual was present at and observed the alleged incident or the parent or guardian of the minor child, if the alleged incident involves a minor child.
Unless a complaint is filed within 90 days after the alleged brutality, an investigation that may lead to disciplinary action under this subtitle for brutality may not be initiated and an action may not be taken.
Before an interrogation, the law enforcement officer under investigation shall be informed in writing of the nature of the investigation.
The interrogation shall take place at the office of the command of the investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct or police unit in which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the investigating officer or at another reasonable and appropriate place. The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably when the law enforcement officer is on duty and h) Conduct of interrogation.-
All questions directed to the law enforcement officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through one interrogating officer during any one session of interrogation. (23) Each session of interrogation shall be for a reasonable period; and allow for personal necessities and rest periods as reasonably necessary. Threat of transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action prohibited.- The law enforcement officer under interrogation may not be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action.
A complete record shall be kept of the entire interrogation, including all recess periods, of the law enforcement officer. The record may be written, taped, or transcribed. On completion of the investigation, and on request of the law enforcement officer under investigation or the law enforcement officer's counsel or representative, a copy of the record of the interrogation shall be made available at least 10 days before a hearing.
It is illegal to engage in Contempt of Cop behavior, taunting, provoking, disrespecting the law enforcement officer or questioning their knowledge of the Law.
Amendment to the US Constitution that the Law Enforcement Bill of Rights. takes precedent over other "Civil Rights" in the Bill of Rights.
I am sure that the Federal Law Enforcement Bill of Rights, that will grant and protect the special rights that Law Enforcement needs and deserves, would have the full support and backing of all Law Enforcement and Police groups and unions.  2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was one of the chief proponents of a Police Officer's Bill of Rights.

I await your response.

Judge Woodard must protect hero police officer James Harrison Jr.

https://t.co/ztQG3NTiUV?amp=1

The Watch

No accountability

By Radley Balko 

Opinion writer

September 29, 2014 at 4:01 p.m. EDT

My colleagues on The Post’s editorial board weighed in recently on a Maryland case:

IN PRINCE George’s County, it is now clear that the police, without provocation, can beat an unarmed young student senseless — with impunity. They can blatantly lie about it — with impunity. They can stonewall and cover it up for months — with impunity. They can express no remorse and offer no apology — with impunity.

The agent of this travesty of justice, and this impunity, is Judge Beverly J. Woodard of the Prince George’s County Circuit Court. Judge Woodard has presided in the case involving John J. McKenna, a young University of Maryland student who was savagely beaten by two baton-wielding Prince George’s cops in March 2010, following a men’s basketball game on the College Park campus.

The beating of Mr. McKenna was videotaped; had it not been, the police, who filed no report and then falsely claimed that he instigated the incident and attacked them, may never have been investigated or charged. Yet despite the fact that a jury convicted one of the police officers, James Harrison Jr., of assault nearly two years ago, Judge Woodard has now thrown the verdict out and closed the case.

The judge offered no explanation for her actions … .

There were dozens of witnesses, including police. Yet what followed was an official wall of silence, dishonesty and denial from the department. Mr. McKenna’s injuries, the police initially said, were sustained when he was kicked by a horse.

The cops’ story fell apart when the video surfaced, but even then their stonewalling continued. For months, no one would identify the officers in riot gear who were shown beating Mr. McKenna.

It was only due to the persistence of Mr. McKenna’s lawyers that the cover-up and lies were shredded. At trial, in late 2012, a jury convicted Mr. Harrison on a felony charge of assault. Another officer, Reginald Baker, was acquitted, although he, too, used his baton to beat Mr. McKenna as he lay stunned and defenseless on the ground.

Judge Woodard conducted herself unprofessionally at trial. She failed to disclose an apparent conflict of interest — she had been previously married to a Prince George’s officer who himself was convicted for brutality — until asked about it by a journalist. In court, she exhibited what many observers regarded as overt hostility toward Mr. McKenna, the victim.

Even if the charge had stuck, it’s rather paltry, given the transgressions here. Surely a citizen accused of similar crimes would have been hit with more severe charges. That even the misdemeanor conviction didn’t stick makes this all the more outrageous.

But there’s also a bit more to this story.  There should have been security camera footage of McKenna’s beating. McKenna’s attorneys subpoenaed some 60 hours of video from campus cameras. But curiously missing was the 90 minutes of video from the camera that should have been pointed at the area where McKenna was beaten. Campus police claimed it had already been recorded over. The video was recovered, thanks to a copy recorded by another campus police officer, but the recovered video revealed that the camera had mysteriously been pointed in another direction.

As it turns out, the officer in charge of the campus security video system, Lt. Joanne Ardovini, is married to one of the officers named in the police report about McKenna. If you think that’s all rather convenient, you aren’t alone. Campus police officials then claimed that the video went missing because Ardovini was just too darned conscientious. 

This error would normally have been caught instantly, Dillon said, but in this case, he said the technician’s supervisor — Lt. Joanne Ardovini — had removed herself from the process to avoid a potential conflict of interest: Her husband, Prince George’s County Police Officer John Ardovini, was involved in arresting McKenna on assault charges.

“If she had been part of it, the mistake would have been caught,” Dillon said. But in recusing herself, Dillon added, “she did exactly what she should have done.”

Odd, isn’t it? Because a police officer removed herself from the investigation in order to avoid the appearance of bias in favor of her husband, the police department failed to deliver the precise bit of footage that would have showed that the incident didn’t happen the way the officers, including her husband, claimed it did. A subsequent Maryland State Police investigation also concluded that there was no evidence of a coverup.

So we have police officers who beat an innocent college student, then lied about it. We have a police camera that should have recorded the incident, but for some reason was aimed elsewhere, and footage that went missing but, we’re told, only because the officer who oversees the video system — who happens to be married to one of the accused officers — recused herself. We’re told we can believe this story because it has been verified by investigators who also happen to be police officers. We then have a judge, who was once married to a police officer who was once convicted of brutality, overriding a jury conviction, thus erasing the only accountability to befall any of the state officials implicated. This came after a trial in which the judge failed to disclose her prior marriage, and witnesses say she was openly hostile to the innocent college student who was beaten.

One last point: Were it not for the cellphone videos shot by bystanders, McKenna would likely have been convicted for assaulting the cops and resisting arrest, based on lies told by the officers who beat him. How did Maryland police and prosecutors respond to this? After the incident made headlines, some Maryland public officials responded by harassing and arresting citizens caught recording police with their cellphones and, in some cases, charging them with felonies. Those arrests and harassments have continued, despite assertions from the Maryland attorney general, the U.S. Department of Justice, a Maryland state judge and at least two federal appeals courts (though not the one that covers Maryland) that citizens have a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers in public spaces.

McKenna will at least be compensated for his injuries in the form of a $2 million settlement from the county. That settlement will be paid by taxpayers. So after the beating of McKenna, the subsequent police lies and coverup and the numerous illegal arrests that followed, in the end, the only party punished for any of it will be Maryland taxpayers.

4 Minneapolis Hero cops fired in a Rush to Judgement.

The Minneapolis police union asked the public to wait for the investigation to take its course and not to "rush to judgment and immediately condemn our officers.
https://abc7.com/minneapolis-police-video-killing-man-killed-by/6212825/

The Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis issued a statement Tuesday saying:

"Now is not the time rush to judgement and immediately condemn our officers. An in-depth investigation is underway. Our officers are fully cooperating. We must review all video. We must wait for the medical examiner’s report. Officers’ actions and training protocol will be carefully examined after the officers have provided their statements. The Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis will provide full support to the involved officers. We ask that the community remain calm and let the investigation be completed in full."

Remember the railroaded Hero cops who keep you safe.

Sgt. Ray Corll
Sgt William Dukes, Jr.
Jackson County Deputy Zach Wester 
NYPD detectives Michael Bergmann and Kevin Desormeau 
NYPD Officer Jonathan Munoz

A politicial witchhunt against a hero cop is a valid PTSD disability retirement reason.

Will embattled Glendale officers get disability pension?

Posted: 6:05 PM, Jan 22, 2020

Updated: 10:13 PM, Jan 22, 2020

By: Dave Biscobing

The City of Glendale police pension board unanimously voted to advance the disability retirement applications of two officers exposed by ABC15 for excessive use of force.

GLENDALE, AZ — The City of Glendale police pension board unanimously voted to advance the disability retirement applications of two officers exposed by ABC15 for excessive use of force.
Officer Matthew Schneider and Sgt. Aaron Aldridge will now undergo medical examinations to review whether they have physical/mental conditions that prevent them from doing their jobs.
FULL COVERAGE: ABUSE OF FORCE
Following the examinations, the Glendale Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Police Board will then vote to approve whether the two officers can receive full pension benefits ahead of normal retirements.
Voting board member Justin Harris, a fellow Glendale officer, hugged and embraced Schneider following the initial vote.
Schneider, who is not currently on any type of leave, is under a criminal FBI investigation following an ABC15 report last February.
During a July 2017 traffic stop, Schneider repeatedly tasered a man , including once in the testicles when was handcuffed laying on the ground, according to body camera footage and a federal lawsuit.
Attorneys for Schneider have claimed in court during a civil case that criminal charges are presumed and expected in the near future.
Schneider was suspended for three days by the city for his role in the traffic stop. Independent experts called his actions one of the most troubling and sadistic cases of police misconduct they’ve ever seen.
ABC15 also obtained video showing Sgt. Aldridge immediately tasering a man in the chest in late 2018 without warning. The suspect, who was accused of stealing a bait bike, had both hands clearly raised above his head.
Accidental disability retirements would allow the two officers to collect full pension benefits without reaching the required 20 years of service.
Schneider, his wife, and attorney attended the public meeting and were expected to speak about his condition.
However, once ABC15 journalists arrived, his attorney asked the board to rescind his waiver of confidentiality and requested only to address the board in executive session, which is closed to the public.
Aldridge did not attend the meeting.
The public meeting was held on the fourth floor of Glendale City Hall behind a locked door.
When ABC15 journalists arrived ahead of the meeting, a security guard told the crew the meeting was not public.
Shortly later, the security guard asked the ABC15 journalists to sign a blank loose-leaf piece of paper. And a pair of city spokespeople also came to ask why the journalists were there.
The request conflicts with Arizona open meeting laws.
“Open meeting law does not grant public bodies authority to require that members of the public sign an attendance sheet in order to attend an open meeting,” according to the Arizona Obmudsman’s website.
After showing the spokespeople the agenda for the public meeting and further requesting access, employees unlocked the door and let ABC15 into the meeting.
A spokesman later apologized for the confusion.

Cop Haters commited misconduct by hiding video from police. SAPD will get a warrant and do a SWAT raid on the house where the video was recorded. SOP.

Video of officer-involved shooting appears to contradict San Antonio police chief’s initial claims

Surveillance footage raises new questions about fatal shooting of Randy Goodale

SAN ANTONIO – Video surveillance footage of a fatal officer-involved shooting obtained by the KSAT 12 Defenders appears to contradict the San Antonio police chief’s claims about what led up to the moment law enforcement officers opened fire on the suspect.

On Jan. 13, police and federal law enforcement agents were attempting to arrest Randall Goodale at a home in the 4400 block of Stetson View on a federal felony warrant for felon in possession of a handgun, SAPD Chief William McManus previously said on the day of the incident.

McManus told media in a two-minute briefing at the scene that officers opened fire after Goodale “started ramming into occupied police vehicles.” He said Goodale, 45, was shot and killed by one SAPD officer and one federal law enforcement agent.

When asked by a reporter at the scene why police officers opened fire, McManus doubled down: “Well, he was ramming the cars, for one. And there were officers in the vehicles whose lives were being threatened by that."

Police have not said whether Goodale was armed and have not yet responded to requests for information beyond a written statement and McManus’ briefing at the scene. “This investigation is far from over,” McManus cautioned shortly after the shooting.

But McManus’ claim that Goodale was killed while ramming occupied police vehicles appears to be contradicted by home surveillance footage of the fatal incident obtained by KSAT. The footage appears to show that Goodale’s vehicle didn’t move until after the fatal shots were fired.

The roughly 2-minute video, filmed from above the garage, begins as multiple officers pull up in marked and unmarked vehicles to a house in a neighborhood that has a trailer and red pickup truck parked in the driveway. (Goodale is sitting in the driver’s seat but cannot be seen clearly in the video because the trailer blocks the camera’s view.)

As soon as officers block the driveway, several exit the vehicles and draw their guns. About 15 seconds after pointing their weapons, officers can be seen opening fire on the truck from multiple angles.

Shortly after officers finished shooting (police have not yet provided the number of shots fired), the truck slowly moves down the driveway and bumps into one of the parked, unmarked police vehicles, which appears to be unoccupied.

A plume of smoke rises from the truck’s rear tires, potentially a result of Goodale’s feet hitting the brake and accelerator after being shot.

The footage does not include audio of the shooting, and KSAT has muted the video to leave out comments of residents who were watching the footage. A white cursor arrow seen in the footage was part of the original video and was not added by KSAT.

In a statement released Wednesday, SAPD spokesperson Sgt. Michelle Ramos reiterated that the information McManus provided on the day of the shooting was preliminary. She also said videos “don’t always provide the full scope of an officer’s perception.”

“Chief McManus provided information at the scene as the investigation was just underway. As always, this is preliminary information and subject to change as the investigation unfolds. Surveillance videos are important, however, they don’t always provide the full scope of an officer’s perception. For example, there is no audio in the video you obtained so you cannot hear what the officers are experiencing. In addition, you cannot see what the suspect is doing so you do not know what the officers are perceiving. The SAPD Officer Involved Shooting Team is conducting an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the results will be forwarded to the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office for an independent review.”Sgt. Michelle Ramos, police spokesperson

The owner of the surveillance system and property where Goodale was shot and killed spoke to the Defenders via telephone Wednesday morning on the condition that he not be identified by name for fear of retribution.

He said Goodale was working on the truck when officers pulled up to the home, and that the footage provided to the Defenders shows their entire encounter.

He conceded that he and other people inside the home at the time of the shooting hid a recording of the incident out of fear that officers would destroy it.

Randall Goodale, 45, was shot and killed by San Antonio police and a federal task force member on Jan. 13, 2020. (KSAT)

During the briefing, McManus said police removed Goodale from his truck after the shooting and took him down the street before administering first aid, due to concerns that other people who could pose a threat to law enforcement were inside the home.

KSAT requested the police report and Goodale’s arrest warrant, but as of Wednesday, the documents were not provided.

Goodale has an extensive criminal history in Bexar County that spans back to 1995, when he was convicted of burglary of a habitation by force. He was sentenced to seven years in prison.

Goodale also has convictions for drug possession, stealing a vehicle and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was convicted in federal court for identity theft, records show.

Goodale was most recently arrested in May by San Antonio police for a drug charge, which violated the terms of his parole in the federal identity theft case.

San Antonio police were cooperating with the Lone Star Fugitive Task Force, comprised of deputy U.S. Marshals and local law enforcement, when serving the warrant.

The U.S. Marshals, which had agents on scene, declined to comment on the shooting and referred all questions to San Antonio police, the lead agency on Goodale’s case.

Since the shooting, San Antonio police officers have been removed from the federal task force, though SAPD officials did not provide a reason for the move.

Copyright 2020 by KSAT - All rights reserved.

San Antonio police pull detectives from federal task force after officer-involved shooting

San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said he pulled his officers from the task force Friday citing resource and operational issues.

Author: Mariah Medina (KENS5)

Published: 10:29 PM CST January 21, 2020

Updated: 10:49 PM CST January 21, 2020

SAN ANTONIO — The San Antonio Police Department decided Friday it would pull its detectives from the U.S. Marshals Lone Star Fugitive Task Force, officials from both agencies confirmed Tuesday. 

The decision came days after members of the task force fatally shot a wanted man while attempting to apprehend him at a home in the 4400 block of Stetson View near Interstate 37. The task force – comprised of federal, state and local agencies, including the San Antonio Police Department – was attempting to arrest Randy Goodale on a felony warrant last Monday. 

Goodale's friends and family shared home surveillance video with KENS 5 shortly after the deadly shooting. KENS 5 is not showing the video because the individual who shared it did not have permission from the owner to give it to KENS 5. 

The video appears to contradict the sequence of events San Antonio Police Chief William McManus gave immediately after the shooting. 

"When task force members arrived at the scene, they surrounded the individual and he started ramming into occupied police vehicles," McManus told members of the media hours after the shooting. "One of the members of the task force fired, and one member of the SAPD who was there in support, fired."

The video provided by friends suggests the truck that Goodale was in rolled forward and hit law enforcement vehicles after shots were fired, though a trailer blocks the view of the truck Goodale was in when he was shot. Smoke from the tires is seen rising from behind the trailer as the task force moves in.

“(The video) didn’t even get close to telling the story of what happened, so it’s tough to rely on that video to make a determination of what happened," McManus said Tuesday. "Especially with no sound.”

Asked squarely whether he intentionally misled members of the public in the aftermath of the shooting, McManus responded, “No, I never have and I never would.”

McManus said he tries to inform the public of what's going on immediately after critical situations, such as last Monday's officer-involved shooting, as an effort to quell any panic.

ADVERTISEMENT

If You're Trying To Lose Weight, Stop Eating Salad (Have This Instead)

There Is One Protein That Can Restart Your Body's Slow Metabolism, And No, It's Not Fish

Ad By GundryMD 

"What I know at the time is the information I pass on," McManus explained Tuesday. "The trade off to not being 100% accurate is to not give any information at all if I'm not clear on it."

McManus said the owner of the video has so far refused to share it with police and that the first time he had seen the video was when KENS 5 sent it over to the public information office last week for comment.

“You could only see the roof of the car in the video," McManus said. "You could just see it moving, the smoke coming up—that was about it. Difficult to make any assessment from that video.”

The video doesn't show what marshals and police saw before they fired shots. McManus said he wouldn't speculate on why they shot until the investigation is complete.

McManus said his agency has been working with the U.S. Marshals Service to fill any voids their absence from the task force may cause.

“We had been taking internally about pulling those detectives from the task force, pulling them back under our umbrella as an additional resource," McManus said. "It was some operational issues as well. A combination of those two things. I spoke with the marshal, we met on it, and told her I was pulling the detectives back from the task force.”