# Kissing your husband while black? Not if the LAPD can help it. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 14, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492 "2014-09-14T19:21:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 49
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/961 "2014-09-18T12:35:51Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > The death, murder and mayhem was happening TO the people fighting for civil rights, not BY them. > > It took those actions for the general public to get behind the victims and see how bad things really were. And it’s shouldn’t be overlooked that the more civil and stoic the protesters were, the more abusive the cops became. Being calm and respectful didn’t make their tormenters less hateful; if anything, their uncannily persistent demeanor ramped up the viciousness. Anyone who has been in an argument with someone who shuts down emotionally and goes dead silent understands what effect this kind of detachment has on conflict. In many ways it’s more provocative than both sides have a shouting match. And this was exactly what the protesters were counting on. If the cops hadn’t brought out the firehoses, the tear gas, the bully clubs, and the guns, then the mainstream could continue to stick its head in the sand. They needed the American public to see what lengths the cops were willing to go through to beat them into submission. Them “playing ball” or “going with the program” or “being smart” would have undermined their mission. If the guy in St. Paul hadn’t walked away, hadn’t refused to give his name, hadn’t resisted when they tried to cuff him, and hadn’t screamed for help when they tazed him, none of us would know how little regard these cops have for humanity and civil liberties. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/962 "2014-09-18T12:38:44Z")
It’s notable that the “civil and stoic” demeanor was explicitly adopted from Gandhi. And Gandhi’s attitude was “let them kill us; it is only their souls who will suffer.” If you expect “let them kill us” as a matter of course, that’s very telling. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/963 "2014-09-18T12:45:50Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I think its sickening that you feel somehow entitled to that superhuman stoicism before you can give two fucks about injustice. It puts the lie to the idea of a post-racial society. There are still some aspects of American racism that haven’t changed much since the '60s. Only well behaved blacks deserve good treatment. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/964 "2014-09-18T12:49:15Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > All the cops would’ve needed to do was take a look at the area where he’d been supposedly trespassing and determine whether a reasonable person should assume the area is private or public. No, there is nothing in the lobby that indicates that the security guard was to be disbelieved. > [@](#): > > A building security officer informed the officers that the area was in fact private-- designated for employees only–and that Mr. Lollie had been asked to vacate it twice over the course of 16 minutes. The video released today confirms this. Instead of peacefully complying with the security guard’s request, Mr. Lollie used profanity in response and refused to leave. [Nor is this the first time a security guard has stated that the area is private.](http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/09/pioneer_press_photog_told_to_stop_shooting_in_private_st_paul_skyway.php) > [@](#): > > Where is this “after hours” nonsense coming from? My bad - this was AM not PM. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/965 "2014-09-18T12:54:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From that cite: > [@](#): > > The First National Bank video shows Lollie sitting on a bench, when he is approached by a security guard. They are seen talking, and the security guard goes back to his desk. At some point police were called. A few minutes into the video, Officer Lori Hayne arrives. Lollie gets up from the bench and approaches her. They both walk out into the skyway together. > [@](#): > > Do you agree that this fairly describes the events? I’d like to follow up on this description. It appears that the bench he was sitting on was NOT in the skyway, since they “walk out into the skyway together”. Given that the bench was not in the skyway, and Lollie was asked to leave by the security guard, but did not (prompting the 911 call), does that indicate probable cause to believe he is trespassing? I assume it does, but would like a real legal take on it. If he is trespassing, by virtue of refusing to leave after being asked, when the officer arrives, can we state that the officer is then witnessing the crime in progress? IIRC, that would then justify a Terry Stop, and the legal right by police to detain, ID, arrest, etc. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/966 "2014-09-18T13:04:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, there is nothing in the lobby that indicates that the security guard was to be disbelieved. Did you read that article from the top to the bottom? Last paragraph: > [@](#): > > – Update – Grewing [the City Attorney] told the Pioneer Press that the stretch of skyway in question is indeed a public area, so it appears First National Bank Building security guards and the St. Paul city attorney are operating with different interpretations of the law. At a minimum, what this means that the issue was too gray to be accusing someone of a crime. The fact the question even had to be researched by a government official is evidence of that. Since the City Attorney sits higher on the law enforcement totem pole than a security guard, I’m going to go with their interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/967 "2014-09-18T13:19:59Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I’d like to follow up on this description. It appears that the bench he was sitting on was NOT in the skyway, since they “walk out into the skyway together”. > > Given that the bench was not in the skyway, and Lollie was asked to leave by the security guard, but did not (prompting the 911 call), does that indicate probable cause to believe he is trespassing? I assume it does, but would like a real legal take on it. > > If he is trespassing, by virtue of refusing to leave after being asked, when the officer arrives, can we state that the officer is then witnessing the crime in progress? IIRC, that would then justify a Terry Stop, and the legal right by police to detain, ID, arrest, etc. For the officer to have developed reasonable suspicion, the totality of circumstances of which the officer is aware have to warrant a prudent person to entertain the belief that a crime is occurring. Let’s say the bench was on private property. It’s still private property that’s open to the public, and he commits a crime only if he remains after being told to leave. So the officer arrives, and says something to him, and he leaves. That seems to kill her reasonable suspicion right there. But let’s pretend that the officer arrives, and says to him, “Sir, this is private property, and the guard asked you to leave, and you didn’t.” And let’s pretend he replies, “Yes, that’s right. I’m refusing to leave.” “Then, sir, you’re committing the crime of trespass. Come with me.” At which point they leave together. If that. . . er. . . somewhat unlikely dialogue occurred, or something similar, then the officer actually observed the crime being committed, and has probable cause to arrest. So the officer is certainly allowed to detain him. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/968 "2014-09-18T13:35:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let’s say the bench was on private property. It’s still private property that’s open to the public, and he commits a crime only if he remains after being told to leave. So the officer arrives, and says something to him, and he leaves. That seems to kill her reasonable suspicion right there. I’m going to be a little difficult here, but bear with me. The law says you’re trespassing if you refuse to leave after being asked leave to by the lawful possessor, not after being asked to leave by a police officer. He is committing the misdemeanor before the cop shows up, which is why the guard called 911 in the first place. I feel it’s a little bit like saying a guy caught shoplifting can be not-shoplifting if, after the police arrive and say “you can’t take things without paying for them”, he throws his bag of stolen goods back into the store. adding: Would it be different if a cop, let’s say a plainclothes officer, observed the request and refusal to leave? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/969 "2014-09-18T13:47:00Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Did you read that article from the top to the bottom? Yes, I did. You claimed that the average person could tell at a glance that the security guard was wrong or lying when she told the police that it was a private, employee-only area. That isn’t the case - it is only days later that the city attorney has time to research the law and deliver an opinion that the security guard was mistaken. And read my cite - this is not the first time that the bank has asserted that this was a private area. > [@](#): > > At a minimum, what this means that the issue was too gray to be accusing someone of a crime. No, it doesn’t mean that. There was no reason for the cops to assume that the security guard was lying or mistaken in saying that it was a private, employee-only area. > [@](#): > > The fact the question even had to be researched by a government official is evidence of that. No, the fact that it needs to be researched is evidence that the cops were acting in good faith, and had reason to believe that Lollie was indeed in a private area and was refusing to leave. And he wasn’t being charged with a crime, he was being detained - there’s a difference. Read this again - > [@Bricker](#): > > If he was in a private area: > > (1) it’s still an area open to the public > (2) so the police would also have to have some reason to believe he was told to depart > (3) by someone authorized to do so > > And at that point, I agree they would have been entitled to briefly detain him. (1), (2) and (3) are all true and have been established. It was open to the public, being part of the skyway, the police did have reason to believe that he was told to depart (you can see him being asked to do so, twice, which he refused and that’s when the police were called) and the security guard is authorized to tell him to depart, as an agent of the bank. So, if I understand **Bricker** correctly, the police had the right to briefly detain him. His reaction to the detention was to begin screaming at them. Of course you (meaning **you with the face** ) have shown yourself to be incredibly stubborn even when shown to be wrong beyond any reasonable doubt, as happened in the various Zimmerman-Martin threads as well as the Duke lacrosse thread, so I don’t expect you to see reason here. But it amuses me to point out your errors and watch you pretend. So there’s that. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/970 "2014-09-18T13:47:32Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I’m going to be a little difficult here, but bear with me. > > The law says you’re trespassing if you refuse to leave after being asked leave to by the lawful possessor, not after being asked to leave by a police officer. He is committing the misdemeanor before the cop shows up, which is why the guard called 911 in the first place. > > I feel it’s a little bit like saying a guy caught shoplifting can be not-shoplifting if, after the police arrive and say “you can’t take things without paying for them”, he throws his bag of stolen goods back into the store. > > adding: Would it be different if a cop, let’s say a plainclothes officer, observed the request and refusal to leave? Sure – but in the case of shoplifting, no notice is needed. The crime is complete the moment to property is taken off the property or (in some states) concealed. Here, two people standing next to each other could be innocent, and then one transformed into being guilty by being given notice that he had to leave. So the officer has to be able to point to some evidence that the man was told to leave. Of course, the ‘some evidence’ could be the guard’s report. But since we’re concerned about “totality of the circumstances,” the guard’s report is seemingly offset by the man’s apparent cooperation with the officer. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/971 "2014-09-18T13:57:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, I did. You claimed that the average person could tell at a glance that the security guard was wrong or lying when she told the police that it was a private, employee-only area. No I said: > [@ywtf](#): > > All the cops would’ve needed to do was take a look at the area where he’d been supposedly trespassing and determine **whether a reasonable person should assume the area is private or public.** My opinion has nothing to do with determining the veracity of the security guard’s assessment. There’s no reason the cops couldn’t have quickly surveyed the area and asked themselves whether the area was marked such that a reasonable person would know they were trespassing or not. If the bench wasn’t roped off and/or there was no signage indicating it was restricted, then the cops should have factored that into their assessment before hounding the person _who has already left the vicinity anyway_. > [@](#): > > That isn’t the case - it is only days later that the city attorney has time to research the law and deliver an opinion that the security guard was mistaken. And read my cite - this is not the first time that the bank has asserted that this was a private area. And all that means is that the bank has been wrong multiple times. You’d think that they too would have done proper research before ordering people around like bullies, but alas, apparently that’s too much niceness and common sense to expect from people in positions of power. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/972 "2014-09-18T14:16:42Z")
**Bricker** , can I get you to address my question in post #922? Because if a report from a witness is “probable cause”, then it would seem that all the analysis here which is based on the premise that this is a Terry stop is moot, and the media legal experts may be right after all. So it would be nice to know. > [@Kobal2](#): > > I’m sorry, but the very least we can ask and expect of the police is that they know the law of the land, seeing as their job is to enforce it. I don’t expect them to know the whole book, or to be able to quote verse and scripture on every law and ordinance of the city they police in, or the Federal regulations on short lobsters, or even to know that there’s such a thing as an illegally short lobster in the first place. > > However, seeing as stopping people for a wee chat is what they’re going to be doing on a daily and sometimes hourly basis, small details such as “people in the State are not actually required to identify themselves or provide ID (until they’re charged ?), much less it being grounds for an arrest” seems like a handy little tidbit to fucking pick up circa day 1 of field training. It’s not arcane lore, it’s the very basic framework of their job. Considering the uncertainty about the legal status here, including all sorts of experts opining that the officers were within their rights, it would seem that it is indeed “arcane lore”. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Totally ironic that you would use this example. The reason they had calm and respectful sit-ins had nothing to do with appeasing racist cops and lunch counter owners. It had all to do with appealing to a public racistly inclined to see anyone with brown skin taking a stand against government-sanctioned oppressed as “self-entitled” (read uppity), obnoxious, hysterical bitches/jerks/assholes. Do these adjectives sound familiar to you? They should because you’ve used them in this thread. And despite their heroic efforts, they were still called those adjectives and largely dismissed. It took death, murder, and mahem to happen before real policy changes occured that enabled black folks to live more freely. > > Civil rights protesters spent a lot of time training and practicing so that they could suppress any sign of human emotion while they took the abuse they did. I think its sickening that you feel somehow entitled to that superhuman stoicism before you can give two fucks about injustice. You’ve got to have some perspective here. Giving your name to a cop is not a big deal. It’s ridiculous to compare this to segregation in the Jim Crow era. But if you persist in equating them, then your interactions with cops will reflect that, and you’ll have these types of situations. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/973 "2014-09-18T14:23:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Giving your name to a cop is not a big deal. I’ll ask what I asked before. If the St. Paul guy had said his name was Ham Sandwich, what could the cops had done with this information that would have allowed them to investigate whether a crime had occurred? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/974 "2014-09-18T14:28:05Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > It puts the lie to the idea of a post-racial society. There are still some aspects of American racism that haven’t changed much since the '60s. Only well behaved blacks deserve good treatment. Only well-behaved _people_ deserve good treatment. I don’t care what ethnicity you are - if you want to piss and moan and throw a temper tantrum when you’re asked to obey the law, you deserve to have some common sense Tased into you. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/975 "2014-09-18T14:28:18Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I’ll ask what I asked before. > > If the St. Paul guy had said his name was Ham Sandwich, what could the cops had done with this information that would have allowed them to investigate whether a crime had occurred? What does that have to do with the point I was making? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/976 "2014-09-18T14:29:08Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I’ll ask what I asked before. > > If the St. Paul guy had said his name was Ham Sandwich, what could the cops had done with this information that would have allowed them to investigate whether a crime had occurred? It would enable then to determine whether someone in the habit of identifying himself as Ham Sandwich had had previous run-ins with the law. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/977 "2014-09-18T14:32:53Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If the St. Paul guy had said his name was Ham Sandwich, what could the cops had done with this information that would have allowed them to investigate whether a crime had occurred? Bad example, based on what we know about grand juries. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/978 "2014-09-18T14:33:12Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > And this was exactly what the protesters were counting on. If the cops hadn’t brought out the firehoses, the tear gas, the bully clubs, and the guns, then the mainstream could continue to stick its head in the sand. They needed the American public to see what lengths the cops were willing to go through to beat them into submission. Them “playing ball” or “going with the program” or “being smart” would have undermined their mission. Bull. We achieved same-sex equality in this country without people getting their skulls cracked in. > [@](#): > > the guy in St. Paul hadn’t walked away, hadn’t refused to give his name, hadn’t resisted when they tried to cuff him, and hadn’t screamed for help when they tazed him, none of us would know how little regard these cops have for humanity and civil liberties. They have far more respect for either than the anarchists you choose to side with. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/979 "2014-09-18T14:37:43Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > This is how smart people deal with the police, because smart people don’t want problems with the police. Smart people know that arguing with a cop is a waste of time, because they’re not going to lose the argument, they will do what they think is the correct thing to do, even if it’s wrong. > > The time to fight back is when YOU choose, not when a uniformed officer is getting in your face about something. > > Want to assert your rights? Say “Am I free to go?” Do that. When the cop says “No.” you have the information you need to make a complaint, because he overstepped his authority. Yelling, crying, calling them racists, threatening them with your publicist, demanding that they talk to your dad on speaker, that’s just making a fool of yourself. While this might be the attitude I would want my children to take, I am glad that there are people who are willing to challenge and stand up to abuse of authority. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/980 "2014-09-18T14:39:03Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Only well-behaved _people_ deserve good treatment. I don’t care what ethnicity you are - if you want to piss and moan and throw a temper tantrum when you’re asked to obey the law, you deserve to have some common sense Tased into you. I hope you don’t mean this seriously. Because if this is sincere then it is one of the most reprehensible things I have read on these boards. Forget Godwin’s Law, the sentence you have written here is literally an expression of fascism. The role of law enforcement is to enforce the law. Period. It is not to make people behave well, whatever that means to you. Throwing tantrums is perfectly legal in a free society. The idea that that the government’s role is to subject you to violence for a legal act is disgusting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=48) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=50)