Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: IMPORTANT: Please Read concerning police encounters

  1. #1
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321

    IMPORTANT: Please Read concerning police encounters

    After reading Josh's story about being ticketed for OCing, I realized a huge flaw in peoples' approach to responding to an officer when stopped. Josh said he was "detained" and not arrested. It is unbelievable they did ANYTHING past talking. You ALL need to learn to protect your rights as citizens. Being detained is VOLUNTARY!

    PLEASE, EVERYONE, TAKE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS SIGHT!!! It could help you all with ANY stops by the police.


    http://flexyourrights.org/

    Memorize it all. Never forget the magic words. "Am I free to go?" If the answer is no, then you are under arrest. Follow with the legal condom, "I am going to remain silent, and I would like to speak to my lawyer."

    If they try to take your side arm, state, "I do not give you permission." Never physically refuse, only verbally refuse. This can go a LOOOOONNG way in situations like this.

    I hope this helps you all..

    Joe~

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Being detained is VOLUNTARY!
    That's demonstrably false: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0036.htm

    While perhaps illegal in certain circumstances, detentions are not voluntary. The above link makes reference to Connecticut, but relies heavily on US Supreme Court rulings in it's explanation of investigative detentions.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387
    Being Detained is not voluntary. Just because you are being detained does not mean you are being arrested either. Police can legally detain you to investigate a crime but this requires RAS. You CAN ask if your being detained and if they answer no, you are free to walk away though.

  4. #4
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    According to the site "flexyourrights.org"

    How long can I be detained without being formally arrested?

    That depends. The answer is as long as it reasonably takes police to conduct the investigation. If you choose to challenge a detention, your lawyer will have to argue that police kept you longer than necessary under the circumstances. If the judge agrees, any criminal charges that resulted from your detention will likely be dropped.

    Remember that detentions are voluntary unless you verbally ask to leave. Any time police detain you, it's a good idea to ask if you're free to go. If the officer says you may leave, it's up to you to leave the scene of the encounter. If you choose to stay, the detention is automatically legal.

    Joe~

    p.s.

    Found this too. Thought it was interesting.
    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...-carrying-guns

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Oh good Lord!

    Remember that detentions are voluntary unless you verbally ask to leave.
    Detentions are not voluntary, no matter what you say.

    If the officer says you may leave, it's up to you to leave the scene of the encounter. If you choose to stay, the detention is automatically legal.
    If you choose to stay after being told you can leave, it's not a detention. It's a consensual contact.

    Detentions are not voluntary. You are forced to stay, no matter what you say. The people at that website are on crack.

  6. #6
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    After doing some more research, it appears that police can detain you long enough to investigate a crime they believe you committed. It can last up to 24-72 hours, but the entire time they have to be investigating YOU and not other leads. After the given time limit, it usually converts to an arrest. If you DO NOT ask to leave, then you voluntarily chose to stay. Police will often say, "I never detained him or arrested him; he was free to go at anytime." That is why it is important to ask, "Am I free to go?"

    Joe~

  7. #7
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    Ultimately, you do not sit there and let the cop harass you into getting what he wants. You ask to leave. If you cannot leave, remain silent (accept when required by law to respond.. like with ID at a traffic stop or a name and address when on the street).

    The site is NOT on crack. You would be ignorant to run your mouth in front of a cop without knowing what you MUST or MUST NOT do. That site never says to "leave without asking." It actually warns you that you may get physically hurt for trying. It is well worth reading into to prevent any civil liberties from being violated.

    Joe~

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Oh good Lord!

    Detentions are not voluntary, no matter what you say.

    If you choose to stay after being told you can leave, it's not a detention. It's a consensual contact.

    Detentions are not voluntary. You are forced to stay, no matter what you say. The people at that website are on crack.
    I think what they are getting at through their legalese is that if you do not request to leave, you are deemed to be there voluntarily. I get what your saying, but asking if your free to leave isn't a bad idea either. On the website as a whole, I would recommend everyone watch thier video if they haven't. There is a lot of good information in them that we can benifit from. Especially since we will have more police encounters than your average person.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    63
    There are three levels of talking to police:
    1) Voluntary - "Am I free to go?" If the answer is yes, you may leave.
    2) Terry Stop/Traffic Stop/Stop and frisk - Terry v. Ohio. A police officer may stop a suspect and search her without probable cause for arrest if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. This detention is NOT voluntary. The search should not to be to gather evidence but to protect the officer or prevent a crime from being committed. I'm no lawyer, but if you're not "free to go" I suppose it's reasonable to ask what crime is being investigated (the LEO is limited to questions about a specific crime during a Terry Stop.)
    3) Under Arrest - Miranda Rights, etc. Shut up and ask for a lawyer.

    http://www.expertlaw.com/library/cri...ice_stops.html

    Alexander

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    As I have posted elsewhere in the forum:

    Don't ASK if you are free to go.... ESTABLISH that you are:

    Am I under arrest? Open the bid with the highest card as they must 'trump' you to retain authority. I dare say 99.9% of the time this will catch them off guard and they will respond in the negative. This does two things:
    1: If you ARE under arrest, you now know to **** to protect yourself.
    2: If you are NOT under arrest, you have established such through their own statements, and just trumped any future claims of 'resisting arrest' as you peacefully walk away (after the following).


    Am I being detained? Same as above....establish through their own statements that you are NOT being detained. If they indicate that you ARE being detained, DEMAND RAS. Do not relent. It would seem to be genereal consensus that they are not required to articulate their suspicion to YOU, just that they have it for the judge, but I maintain that if they truly do have RAS then it should be no problem to voice to ME it in the instant matter in order for me to know that they are not playing on (my) ignorance and trying to trick (me) into voluntarily surrendering my rights secured by the fourth and fifth.

    If they indicate that you are NOT being detained, do not ASK if you are free to leave...make it a statement that you ARE leaving:

    "Thank you. Having established through your own statements (Emphasise that line!), that I am NOT under arrest NOR being detained I am terminating this encounter and departing forthwith (or 'leaving immediately' if that more natural to your speech patterns). I leave you in peace, and bid you good day."

    Then turn and WALK. Any action on their part that hinders your free movement from that point on is a direct CRIMINAL violation of 18USC sec 242. Remember....recorders are your friends.

    I have had folks say that the whole "departing forthwith" and "I leave you in peace" thing was a little over the top, but I wanted to include a formal statement to establish that I was offering no resistance to any exercise of lawful authority but simply removing myself from their presence and the olde-tyme language pattern seemed to get the point across the best.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, Wa
    Posts
    20
    Am I being detained? Same as above....establish through their own statements that you are NOT being detained. If they indicate that you ARE being detained, DEMAND RAS
    This is kind of off topic because I wasn't openly carrying, but I was charged with obstructing a police investigation for demanding ras when a leo asked me for ID. I was walking to my car in a parking lot when he detained me, and after about 30 minutes of us going back and forth about my rights, he finally said he was investigating an alleged trafic violation, so I gave him my ID. Two days later he tapes the citation to my door while im at work. I hired an attorney, the attorney advised me to plead guilty because I was required to give the police officer my ID for a traffic stop. Wether or not I actually broke the law, I don't know, I just followed my attorney's advice and ended up with a fine and a criminal record.

    I guess my question is what do you suggest when the leo will not give ras?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546
    This still doesn't tell you what to do when they don't answer you when you ask if you're under arrest, free to go, or for RAS. I've seen videos where the officer will simply ignore your questions and keep asking his.

    In a case like that, you have no proof you were being detained. If you had a recorder, you might be able to convince someone that it was implied detention, but that doesn't matter if all the cop wanted was to lecture you about your actions for an hour or two.

    As soon as you move to leave, I've seen them get you for resisting arrest, if they haven't told you you're free to go. I imagine if you plugged your ears to avoid the lecture, you'd get tasered too.

  13. #13
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662

    From CCW Course

    It is my intention to cooperate fully with you and any law enforcement personnel. However it is my intention to refrain from answering questions until I have spoken with my lawyer.

  14. #14
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    Leave your ID in the car. You are required to give your name and your address when asked by police. It is a general law. The only mention I found of this is in traffic stop laws. It mentions what the passengers must do. I would assume it is because the passenger is not "operating" the vehicle.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=46.61.021

    It doesn't mention having to offer any form of physical I.D. when asked about a traffic violation. So it looks clear to me that it was only a verbal requirement.

    Nevertheless, when asked for ID and you are not in your car, just say, "My name is BLAH BLAH and my address is BLAH BLAH." If they ask for ID again, just say, "I leave it in the car."

    If they search you.. oooh boy if they search you.. just say "I don't give you permission to search me." Then let them do what they want. Anything found in an illegal search is thrown out. I just can't see an officer trying this hard to get your I.D.

    I would leave a flaming bag of you know what on your attorney's doorstep.

    Joe~

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    pnw
    Posts
    2
    Hey, joejoejoe. Are you saying Washington is a stop and identify state?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by joejoejoe View Post
    I just can't see an officer trying this hard to get your I.D.
    Joe~
    You have obviously not read about Eric Rachner and his dealings with SPD. They will try very hard to get your ID and in his case tried to hide it and lied through their teeth after the fact.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/418746_video.html
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by joejoejoe View Post

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=46.61.021

    It doesn't mention having to offer any form of physical I.D. when asked about a traffic violation. So it looks clear to me that it was only a verbal requirement.

    Joe~
    No but this one does.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.020
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Time for all to read this AGAIN

    There are sopme VERY important points in this document as written by Mike and Co. This can be used as a letter to your local offenders re OC.



    OPEN CARRY IS LEGAL


    It is not unlawful to openly carry handguns in Washington, and that like most states, no license is required to open carry on foot,
    and local ordinances to the contrary are unlawful as a matter of state preemption law, RCW 9.41.290. The United States Supreme Court has established that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for the police to seize a person absent reasonable articulable suspicion ("RAS") of crime afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Accordingly, the Washington Court of Appeals has recently affirmed a trial court's holding that Washington law "does not and, under the Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere [open] carrying of a firearm in public." State v. Casad, 139 Wash.App. 1032 (Wash. App.Div.2 2007) (suppressing evidence of unlawful possession of firearms because stop of Defendant was not grounded in reasonable articulable suspicion of any crime).

    Further, even during a valid Terry stop, the United States Supreme Court forbids police to even conduct a light pat down or seize weapons unless subsequent to RAS for the stop, the "an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is [both] armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others." 392 U.S. at 24. Stated another way, only "[s]o long as the officer is [both] entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed **and dangerous** . . .may [he] conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (emphasis added). So even if there were there to come a time that a Washington law enforcement officer properly seizes a person pursuant to RAS for brief investigatory purposes, the officer is not entitled to seize an openly carry weapon absent "reason to believe that the suspect is . . . [also presently] dangerous." Id. Should an open carrier stopped validly under Terry consensually produce a Concealed Pistol License, this fact weighs heavily against any officer's claim that the suspect is "presently dangerous" such that the gun maybe lawfully seized and serial numbers obtained. Accordingly, suppression of any evidence obtained in seizing the gun is likely under these circumstances.

    Nonconsensual stops of open carriers to demand identification or check gun serial numbers are unlawful in Washington.

    A mere report of a man with a gun is not grounds for a Terry stop. Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Americans cannot be required to carry and produce identification credentials on demand to the police. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). Washington does not have a "stop and ID" statute. However, even where a state enacts a "stop and ID" statute, stop must be limited to situations where RAS exists of a crime, and further, stop subject's statement of his name satisfies the ID requirement as Kolender, discussed supra, has not been overruled. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). Even where a state has established a duty to carry a license for some activity, absent RAS for the stop, the license cannot be demanded. State v. Peters, 2008 WL 2185754 (Wis. App. I Dist. 2008) (driver of vehicle has no duty to produce driver's license absent RAS) (citing Hiibel). Law enforcement officers seizing persons for refusal to show identification are "not entitled to dismissal of . . . [42 USC 1983 claims] based on qualified immunity." Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884, 889 (8th Cir. 2008).

    Editorializing against open carry is not the province of law enforcement. If officers have any objection to open carry, they should contact their state legislator on their off duty time and not use the color of authority behind their badges and uniforms to stifle both the right to bear arms and the First Amendment right of expressive conduct to open carry firearms.

    Unlawful stops of open carriers will result in suppression of evidence even if unlawful conduct is uncovered, allowing criminals to get off the hook.
    In Casad, discussed supra, the Appeals court suppressed evidence of the unlawful possession of firearms because law enforcement seized a man for merely openly carrying firearms in public. This result is not unusual, see Goodman v. Commonwealth, 2007 WL 2988343 (Va.App. 2007) (same result as Casad), because the result is as a matter of federal Constitutional law commanded by the United States Supreme Court. As discussed supra, see Florida v. J. L.; Hicks.

    As it is clearly established law that the open carry of handguns in holsters is lawful without a CPL, qualified immunity does not attach for the unlawful harassment, ID checks, see Stufflebeam discussed supra, and gun serial number checks, see also Hicks and J.L. discussed supra. Those actions will subject law enforcement to personal liability for damage claims under 42 USC 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

    It is the constitutional right of open carriers to enjoy the same freedom of movement and right of assembly in society as those wishing to carry concealed, or not at all. The purpose of law enforcement is to help ensure open carriers enjoy these freedoms, not to stifle them.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    It also only applies during traffic stops. If you're not driving or "in charge of" a vehicle, this section does not matter to you, as far as I can tell. Does that seem correct?

  20. #20
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    That still talks about vehicles. I haven't found anything regarding "street walking."

    The RCW shows the requirements for a traffic stop investigation (which was the question at hand).

    (3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself and give his or her current address.

    And no, Washington State -as far as I know- is not a 'Stop and Identify' State.

    And great post Trigger Dr. I will keep all that in mind should I come across an officer.

    Joe~
    Last edited by joejoejoe; 08-29-2010 at 10:47 AM. Reason: Added RCW quote for citation purposes

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    I was stopped a few weeks ago for a traffic violation. When the officer approached my vehicle, I notified him that I was armed. I was OC at the time. He asked for my DL, reistration, and insurance card, which I gave him. He then informed me that he was taking my gun and that I could have it back when we were through. I said that I did not give him permission to take my gun, but he reached in the car, unsnapped the retention strap and unholstered it and laid it on the roof of my car. I did not resist and had my hands on the steering wheel. I was not happy about it, but that was not the time to cause a fuss. I have since been told that LEOs can do this for their own safety. He was alone, not another officer present. When he came back with my documents, he picked up my gun and unloaded it, then gave it back to me. He gave me a verbal warning, no ticket. According to what Trigger Dr. posted, if I read it correctly, he violated my rights by taking my gun. No suspicion of criminal activity was mentioned. I understand his reason for taking it, but I don't think it was right.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by joejoejoe View Post
    Leave your ID in the car. You are required to give your name and your address when asked by police. It is a general law. The only mention I found of this is in traffic stop laws. It mentions what the passengers must do. I would assume it is because the passenger is not "operating" the vehicle.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=46.61.021

    It doesn't mention having to offer any form of physical I.D. when asked about a traffic violation. So it looks clear to me that it was only a verbal requirement.

    Nevertheless, when asked for ID and you are not in your car, just say, "My name is BLAH BLAH and my address is BLAH BLAH." If they ask for ID again, just say, "I leave it in the car."

    If they search you.. oooh boy if they search you.. just say "I don't give you permission to search me." Then let them do what they want. Anything found in an illegal search is thrown out. I just can't see an officer trying this hard to get your I.D.

    I would leave a flaming bag of you know what on your attorney's doorstep.

    Joe~
    WRONG (at least in Washington.)

    From the following link (Look at the URL closely):

    LED EDITORIAL COMMENTS:

    In State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92 (1982), the Washington Supreme Court invalidated parts of the former “obstructing” statute at RCW 9A.76.020, discussing, but not resolving, some of the Fourth Amendment issues that were addressed in Hiibel. The White majority opinion primarily focused on the unconstitutional vagueness of the former obstructing statute and on the Washington constitution’s exclusionary remedy barring admission of the fruits of an arrest made under an unconstitutional statute. It is not clear whether, over two decades later, the Washington Supreme Court would come out differently from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment constitutional rulings in Hiibel based on “independent grounds” under the Washington Constitution. However, at this point, we think that is an academic question. That is because Washington does not have a narrowly drawn stop-and-identify statute like the Nevada statute that was before the Supreme Court in Hiibel.

    Because Washington State does not have a stop-and-identify statute like Nevada’s statute requiring identification during Terry stops, we think that Washington officers lack statutory authority to arrest for “obstructing” or for any other current Washington crime in this circumstance. Washington officers are, however, free to ask suspects in Terry stops to identify themselves or to show ID documents, and also may do so when conversing with pedestrians during non-Terry “citizen-contacts” (however, as to requesting ID from non-violator MV passengers, see the Washington Supreme Court’s Rankin decision digested below in this month’s LED at 7-13).
    (emphasis mine)

    RTWT...it's really quite informative, and clearly blows away any claim of 'qualified immunity' for any officer who arrests for failure to ID/obstruction/etc.
    Last edited by Phssthpok; 08-29-2010 at 11:47 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    What does RTWT stand for? Are you saying that if an officer asks for my name, I can say no? As far as I read, if you are detained, you have to comply with a name and address. Again, the only visible answers are in the traffic laws.
    After reading yahoo answers and other forums offering legal advise (not including yahoo), all have said that during a detention, you are required to offer your name and address. I believe in the case of Hiibel, he was arrested for obstruction of justice for not producing his name. He claimed that giving his name was in violation of his right to remain silent. Anyways, if anyone can find a law that says what we must do when we are stopped by police in Washington State, let me know.

    Joe~

  24. #24
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by joejoejoe View Post
    After doing some more research, it appears that police can detain you long enough to investigate a crime they believe you committed. It can last up to 24-72 hours, but the entire time they have to be investigating YOU and not other leads. After the given time limit, it usually converts to an arrest. If you DO NOT ask to leave, then you voluntarily chose to stay. Police will often say, "I never detained him or arrested him; he was free to go at anytime." That is why it is important to ask, "Am I free to go?"

    Joe~
    If I understand the law correctly, after the investigation period you either have to be released or charged with a crime. This "detention does not automatically become an arrest. If charged, then the speedy trial clock starts.

    Perhaps Lammo has a comment on this?
    Last edited by amlevin; 08-29-2010 at 12:17 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    According the Vancouver Municipal Code, Vancouver IS a 'stop and identify' city when you are detained.

    http://www.cityofvancouver.us/Munici...9&VMC=010.html

    I think it would be wise to check your local city code. Unless you believe offering up your name would incriminate you, I would just hand over the name. It would suck to be in some place you do not know the local laws and decide that you are going to remain silent, only to be arrested for obstruction. It seems most layers claim that you will only get out of it if the detention was illegal.

    The bottom line of this whole post is to not let an officer scare you into doing something. When I was at the Sheriff's station, I was told I had to turn off my video camera. I did only because I did not know the legalities regarding recording in Washington State. After speaking with the Sheriff himself, I found out I do not have to ask when recording a public servant. Next time, I will keep rolling the film.

    Know your rights, your laws, and your options before being so bold as to openly carry your firearm. Your likelihood of being harassed by a police officer is higher when you have an open firearm. Because of this, it is wise to educate yourselves in the law. It seems that all of these "cases" are an outcome of "I didn't know, so I just let it happen."

    Joe~

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •