Datasets:

Glow-01

/

multiews-dataset01

like 0

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event at the Veterans Memorial Building in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, December 19, 2015. REUTERS/Scott Morgan WASHINGTON Donald Trump would win a hypothetical head-to-head contest against either of his two closest Republican U.S. presidential rivals, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, but he would fall short of beating Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton if the election were held today, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Monday. If the Republican primary featured a face-off between Trump and Cruz, a Texas senator, Trump would win the support of 41 percent of Republican and independent voters, the poll showed. Cruz would take 31 percent, while 28 percent said they would not vote in a Cruz-Trump contest. If Rubio, a Florida senator, were pitted against Trump, the billionaire real-estate mogul would take 40 percent support of Republican and independent voters to Rubio's 34 percent, according to the poll. Twenty-seven percent said they would not vote. In this matchup, Trump's lead over Rubio is within the survey's credibility interval. Cruz and Rubio currently sit in second and fourth place of all Republican candidates, respectively, in the run-up to the November 2016 presidential election, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Friday. Despite months of leading the Republican polls, Trump would fall short in a general election competition held today against Clinton, the poll showed. In a one-on-one match-up, the former secretary of state would take 40 percent support of all voters to real estate mogul Trump's 29 percent. Eight percent of respondents said they did not know which candidate they would support in a Clinton-Trump competition. Fourteen percent said they would not vote for either one, and another 9 percent said they would not vote at all. The survey of 1,627 likely voters from all parties was conducted between Dec. 16 and Dec. 21, with a credibility interval of 2.8 to 3.7 percentage points. (Reporting by Megan Cassella; Editing by Alistair Bell) ||||| GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- Donald Trump used vulgar language as he attacked Hillary Clinton during a rally on Monday night, saying her use of the restroom at the last Democratic debate was "too disgusting" to talk about and that in 2008 she got "schlonged" by Barack Obama when he defeated her in the Democratic primary. Standing before a crowd of 7,500, Trump recounted how Clinton was seconds late to the Democratic debate stage on Saturday night following a commercial break. Trump asked the crowd four times where Clinton had gone. "I know where she went -- it's disgusting, I don't want to talk about it," Trump said, screwing up his face, as the crowd laughed and cheered. "No, it's too disgusting. Don't say it, it's disgusting." Later in the night, Trump told the crowd that he could not picture Clinton as president because she never wins at anything. He then brought up the 2008 Democratic primary, which Clinton lost to Barack Obama. "She was favored to win, and she got schlonged," Trump said, turning a vulgar noun for a large penis into a verb. Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has found a groove for his campaign rallies - poll numbers, protesters, Putin, and of course, making America great again. Here we break down the rally on Dec 21 into the required parts. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post) Trump has repeatedly faced criticism for the language that he uses to describe women, including his female rivals. During the first GOP debate in August, Megyn Kelly of Fox News brought up some of Trump's more controversial comments and asked him: "Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?" Trump has called that question unfair and launched a vicious attack against Kelly. During a CNN interview after the debate, Trump said of Kelly: "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." Trump later said he meant to say "ears," but many assumed he was saying that Kelly was menstruating. This isn't the first time Trump has attacked Clinton using phrases that some of her supporters have labeled as sexist. In recent weeks, he has repeatedly commented on her pantsuits, said she lacks the "stamina" and "strength" needed for the presidency, and accused her of sleeping too much. Clinton is 68, and Trump is 69. This latest attack seems to be in response to a comment Clinton made about Trump during the Saturday night debate: She said that the Islamic State terrorist group has used video of Trump's controversial comments on Muslims to recruit new members, a claim that has drawn questions and skepticism from fact-checkers. Trump has demanded an apology, which Clinton has refused to give. "She's terrible," Trump said during the rally. He then impersonated Clinton's comments at the debate, using a rather snotty voice: "Donald Trump is on video, and ISIS is using him on the video to recruit." "And it turned out to be a lie -- she's a liar!" Trump said to roaring cheers. "And the last person she wants to run against is me." Republican presidential contender Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton got "schlonged" by then-Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary. (Reuters) Clinton was not the only woman mentioned on Monday night. Trump also said that Caroline Kennedy is too "nice" to be the ambassador to Japan and is no match for their "brutal, brilliant" negotiators. And he questioned why Time picked German Chancellor Angela Merkel as its "Person of the Year" instead of him. "They gave it to a woman who has not done the right thing for Germany," Trump said, as the crowd booed Merkel. "Nice woman. I like her, I like her. I better like her -- I may have to deal with her. Look, hey, Putin likes me, I want her to like me, too." Trump used that reference to Putin as an opportunity to chide the Russian dictator for allegedly killing journalists. "I hate some of these people, but I would never kill them," Trump said of the journalists who cover him. "I would never kill them. I would never kill them... I would never kill them, but I do hate them. And some of them are such lying, disgusting people." More than a dozen times, Trump was interrupted by protesters, including one who called him a "bigot." Late in the rally, a woman began screaming at Trump. "Yes, darling? Yes?" Trump said to the woman, who was quickly escorted out. "Well, she doesn't sound very tough. That's a very weak voice. Go a little louder, we can't hear you, darling. Wow." [Why Bush decided to go after Trump and why it's not working] ||||| poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201512/1066/1155968404_4671614457001_151222-Trump-hillary-00-03-09-22-Still001.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true 2016 Trump’s attacks on Clinton get very, very personal He calls her bathroom break during the Democratic debate 'disgusting' — and worse. GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. — Donald Trump is taking his criticism of Hillary Clinton into new territory. The Republican front-runner mocked his Democratic counterpart for a “disgusting” bathroom trip she made during Saturday night’s debate, and said Barack Obama “schlonged” her in the 2008 primaries at a raucous rally here on Monday night. Story Continued Below For Trump — who comments often on Clinton’s penchant for pantsuits, has insinuated she is in a lesbian relationship with close aide Huma Abedin and insists she doesn’t have “the strength or the stamina” to be president — Monday’s remarks take his focus on her personal life to a new level of intimacy. Remarking on Clinton’s late return to the podium after using the bathroom during a commercial break at this weekend’s Democratic debate, Trump said, “I know where she went. It’s disgusting. I don’t want to talk about it. It’s disgusting.” Trump also took a shot at Clinton for losing the Democratic nomination to Obama in 2008. “She was favored to win and she got schlonged,” he said. “She lost. I mean, she lost.” At one point, Trump contemplated the possibility that Clinton would become the next president and slapped his palms on his head in mock exasperation. “Is that a president?” he said. “You saw her the other day, in all fairness.” Flanked by an American flag and two giant Christmas wreaths, Trump also told his Rust Belt audience of about 7,000 at the Deltaplex Arena that, unlike Clinton or Jeb Bush, he would prevent Ford Motor Co. from moving factories to other countries. “I’m a free trader, but we can’t be stupid traders,” said Trump, before promising that he would levy a 35 percent tariff on “every car, truck and part” if Ford built a factory in Mexico instead of the U.S. during his administration. “I’ll say 35 percent and if you wait another day, it’s going to 40,” he said he would tell Ford’s CEO as a negotiating tactic. Trump’s speech was interrupted by more than a dozen scattered outbursts from protesters, eliciting a range of responses from the businessman. “I’ll tell you they’re nice guys, very noncombative,” he remarked of one group of protesters, before questioning the judgment of young people who break out in protests in front of “9,000 maniacs who want to kill them.” He also opined that if someone sat down young protesters and explained Trump’s message to them, he believed they would respond positively. During other outbursts, Trump was less conciliatory. “You’re so brave,” a sarcastic Trump told one long-haired young man as security removed him from the arena. “He’s holding up his hands like he’s Mike Tyson. He never threw a punch — so brave.” “You are a loser,” Trump told another protester. “You really are a loser.” It wasn’t just Clinton and left-leaning protesters who earned Trump’s scorn, his fellow Republicans did, as well. He opened the rally by remarking on Lindsey Graham’s suspension of his struggling presidential campaign earlier that day. “He was nasty to me,” Trump said. “Everybody who goes against me is like X, X,” he added, indicating candidates that have dropped out. Trump also took aim at the budget passed last week by the Republican-controlled Congress. “You saw that piece of garbage omnibus,” he said. “I’m more angry with the Republicans than I am with the Democrats … What they just passed is a disgrace.” After criticizing Time Magazine’s choice of Angela Merkel as Person of the Year rather than him, Trump added, “I like her. I better like her. I may have to deal with her. Hey, Putin likes me. I want her to like me.” Trump has come under fire in recent days for calling Vladimir Putin’s praise of him a “great honor.” He betrayed no sense of regret, saying the United States should welcome Russia as an ally. “It would be so great if we could get Russia on our side and other countries on our side, and knock the hell out of ISIS,” he said to an uproarious ovation. He also continued to defend the Russian president against accusations that he’s ordered the murders of Russian journalists, saying there is no proof of Putin’s responsibility for the killings. Trump said reporters would not have to fear such a fate if he were president. “I would never kill them,” he said. “But I do hate them.” The crowd roared. ||||| Republican presidential frontrunner launches broadside against Democrat, saying she was ‘schlonged’ in her Democratic primary loss to Obama Hillary Clinton’s campaign hit back at Republican frontrunner Donald Trump on Tuesday, accusing him of using “degrading language” which inflicted humiliation on all women. The response came after Trump used a Yiddish vulgarity to refer to Clinton on Monday, saying she was “schlonged” in her 2008 Democratic primary loss to Barack Obama. Schlong is a Yiddish term for penis. Trump used the insult during a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and also denigrated Clinton for taking too long to return from a commercial break during Saturday night’s Democratic debate. “I know where she went. It’s disgusting, I don’t want to talk about it,” he said. Clinton was reportedly using the women’s restroom, which was a significant distance away from the debate stage. The Clinton campaign responded on Twitter on Tuesday morning. Communications director Jennifer Palmieri wrote: “We are not responding to Trump but everyone who understands the humiliation this degrading language inflicts on all women should.” The campaign event was Trump’s first since Saturday’s Democratic event when Clinton claimed that Isis used the Republican frontrunner’s heated rhetoric in recruiting videos. The New York real-estate mogul pushed back and claimed she was a liar, alleging that the former secretary of state was “crooked”. Trump was slightly more charitable to journalists than he was to the former secretary of state. He proclaimed that while he hated some reporters, “I would never kill them. I would never do that.” The Michigan event did not mark the first time that Trump used the phrase “schlonged”. In a 2011 interview with the Washington Post, Trump blamed Paul Ryan – who is now the Republican speaker of the House – for the party losing a special election and used the vulgarity. The real-estate mogul said at the time: “I watched a popular Republican woman [Jane Corwin] not only lose but get schlonged by a Democrat [Kathy Hochul] nobody ever heard of for the congressional seat and that was because, simply, because of the Paul Ryan plan.” The use of the phrase is not Trump’s first brush with vulgarity. In August, he implied that he received tough questioning from Fox News host Megyn Kelly because she was menstruating. Trump is currently the overwhelming favorite in national polls for the Republican nomination and leading in the key early states of New Hampshire and South Carolina. On the 2016 campaign trail in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Jeb Bush responded to the remarks by telling reporters Trump was not “serious” as a candidate. “He wants to create chaos. He’s the chaos candidate and just imagine him as president at a press conference,” Bush said. “There has to be a level of decorum to win. It’s not a sign of strength to insult people with profanity. It’s not a serious thing.” The former Florida governor nonetheless criticized Clinton as “great at being the victim”, and suggested Trump’s remark would play into her hands. “This will enhance her victimology status. This is what she loves doing,” Bush said. “Trump is not going to be president because he says these things that turn people off. For crying out loud, we’re two days before Christmas. Lighten up, man.” Asked by a reporter if his view was that it was not victimizing language to say someone was “schlonged”, Bush reiterated that Clinton would use the moment to her advantage. “I’m saying that she will use this in a way that won’t be helpful to our cause. I’m concurring with the question,” he said. ||||| A Hillary Clinton spokesman says "hell, no," the candidate won't apologize to Donald Trump for calling him "ISIS' best recruiter." "Hillary Clinton will not be apologizing to Donald Trump for correctly pointing out how his hateful rhetoric only helps ISIS recruit more terrorists," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement. Play Facebook Twitter Embed Donald Trump: 'I will demand an apology from Hillary' 4:18 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog In Saturday night's Democratic debate, Clinton suggested that ISIS is "showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists." Politifact rated the claim "false," saying that - while experts say that ISIS could be circulating Trump's sentiments to bolster their arguments that the West is at war with Islam - there's no evidence to date that his rhetoric has been used in recruiting videos. On the TODAY Show on Monday, Trump said that he would demand an apology from Clinton for her remark. "She lies about emails, she lies about Whitewater, she lies about everything. She will be a disaster about everything as president of the United States," he said. Asked on Meet the Press on Sunday whether or not he would change his language if his words were being used in ISIS recruitment videos, Trump offered a firm no. "No, because I think that my words represent toughness and strength. Hillary's not strong, Hillary's weak, frankly," he said.

– Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have been laying into each other in a battle that could continue for more than 10 months if they both stay at the top of the polls. At a Monday night rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., Trump made some deeply personal attacks on his fellow front-runner, saying her bathroom break during Saturday night's Democratic debate was "disgusting," Politico reports. "I know where she went. It's disgusting, I don't want to talk about it," he said. He went on to use what the Guardian calls a "Yiddish vulgarity" to mock Clinton for her 2008 primary loss to Barack Obama. "She was favored to win, and she got schlonged," Trump said. Trump has been demanding an apology for Clinton's claim that ISIS uses videos of him to recruit radicals. PolitiFact rates the claim "false," but a Clinton spokesman says, "Hell, no" to apologizing, NBC News reports. Clinton will not apologize for "correctly pointing out how his hateful rhetoric only helps ISIS recruit more terrorists," Brian Fallon said in a statement. At the Grand Rapids rally, Trump branded Clinton a "liar" and said "the last person she wants to run against is me," per the Washington Post. According to a Reuters poll released Monday, Clinton would beat Trump 40% to 29% if the election were held today. Some 8% were undecided, 14% wouldn't vote for either one, and 9% wouldn't bother voting, according to the poll. (Researchers believe Trump's support has been underestimated.)

Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern United States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and the chances of a “megadrought” – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges from 20 to 50 percent over the next century. The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. “For the southwestern U.S., I’m not optimistic about avoiding real megadroughts,” said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. “As we add greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – and we haven’t put the brakes on stopping this – we are weighting the dice for megadrought.” As of Aug. 12, most of California sits in a D4 “exceptional drought,” which is in the most severe category. Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas loiter in a substantially less severe D1 moderate drought. Ault says climatologists don’t know whether the severe western and southwestern drought will continue, but “with ongoing climate change, this is a glimpse of things to come. It’s a preview of our future,” he said. While the 1930s Dust Bowl in the Midwest lasted four to eight years, depending upon location, a megadrought can last more than three decades, which could lead to mass population migration on a scale never before seen in this country. Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation strategies to cope with looming long-drought scenarios. “This will be worse than anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented challenges to water resources in the region,” he said. In computer models, while the southern portions of the western United States (California, Arizona, New Mexico) will likely face drought, the researchers show the chances for drought in the northwestern states (Washington, Montana, Idaho) may decrease. Prolonged droughts around the world have occurred throughout history. Ault points to the recent “Big Dry” in Australia and modern-era drought in sub-Saharan Africa. As evidenced by tree-ring studies, a megadrought occurred during the 1150s along the Colorado River. In natural history, they occur every 400 to 600 years. But by adding the influence of growing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the drought models – and their underlying statistics – are now in a state of flux. Beyond the United States, southern Africa, Australia and the Amazon basin are also vulnerable to the possibility of a megadrought. With increases in temperatures, drought severity likely will worsen, “implying that our results should be viewed as conservative,” the study reports. The study, “Assessing the Risk of Persistent Drought Using Climate Model Simulations and Paleoclimate Data,” was also co-authored by Julia E. Cole, David M. Meko and Jonathan T. Overpeck of University of Arizona; and Gregory T. Pederson of the U.S. Geological Survey. The National Science Foundation, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funded the research. ||||| The risk for a decadelong drought like the 1930s Dust Bowl is even more alarming because researchers say such events occur "on average once or twice per century." According to researchers, the findings are important for governments to consider as they develop strategies for coping with the effects of climate change in densely populated areas where megadroughts — "worse than anything seen during the last 2,000 years" — would pose "unprecedented challenges" to water resources.

– An "extreme" drought is already affecting 82% of California, researchers say, and 58% is facing an even worse "exceptional" drought—but perhaps the most worrying news deals with the possibility of a 30-year "megadrought." The odds of that occurring now range from 20% to 50% in the next 100 years, a Cornell University study finds. Such droughts may be "worse than anything seen during the last 2,000 years," experts say, per the Los Angeles Times. "As we add greenhouse gases into the atmosphere … we are weighting the dice for megadrought," a researcher notes. And that could lead to migration that's never before been seen in the US, the Cornell Chronicle notes. Far higher is the risk of a 10-year drought, one comparable to what was seen during the Dust Bowl, the Times reports. The chances of that are 80%, and researchers point out that such lengthy dry spells occur about "once or twice per century." New Mexico and Arizona are also likely victims of extended drought, though there's some good news for Idaho, Montana, and Washington, whose risk of such a fate may shrink, experts say.

A body, centre at rught, lies on the ground on at the scene after a truck crashed into a department store injuring several people in central Stockholm, Sweden, Friday April 7, 2017. (Andreas Schyman,... (Associated Press) A body, centre at rught, lies on the ground on at the scene after a truck crashed into a department store injuring several people in central Stockholm, Sweden, Friday April 7, 2017. (Andreas Schyman, TT News Agency via AP) (Associated Press) STOCKHOLM (AP) — A truck crashed into an upscale department store in central Stockholm on Friday, and Swedish radio says the crash has killed three people. People in the downtown area are fleeing the scene in panic. Swedish broadcaster SVT says shots have been fired at the scene and the Swedish news agency TT says several people have been rushed away in ambulances. Live television footage on Friday showed smoke coming out of the upscale Ahlens department store on Drottninggatan Street, which the truck smashed into. The department store is part of Sweden-wide chain. The building includes several stores at street-level. "We stood inside a shoe store and heard something ... and then people started to scream," witness Jan Granroth told the Aftonbladet daily. "I looked out of the store and saw a big truck." Swedish police confirmed that a truck drove into people and the store but could not confirm the reports of shots fired. Police said in a statement "there are reports of injured but we have no details on how many and how serious." ||||| What we know: - A truck drove into a crowd of people on the busy Stockholm shopping street Drottninggatan just before 15:00 on Friday. - Four people were killed and at least 15 injured. - Police could not confirm reports of shots being fired near the Åhlens City department store or in the city's Fridhemsplan district. - Police have said they have arrested a person in Märsta, north of Stockholm, who could be linked to the attack. They have confirmed that the person matches an image released by police earlier on Friday, but declined to release more details. - Swedish brewery company Spendrups, which owns the truck, said it had been stolen earlier in the day. - The city's subway system has resumed after being shut down, but some stations remain closed. Stockholm's central railway station was evacuated earlier in the day. - Swedish PM Stefan Löfven has said that Sweden "has been attacked" in an apparent terrorist incident. - The Prime Minister said Sweden was strengthening its borders after the attack. - Police have made one arrest but are as yet unsure if the man being held was involved in the attack. 22:09 We are now closing the live report. Here is how the day's events unfolded: 21:51: Prime Minister Stefan Löfven told reporters on Friday evening that Sweden had reinforced its borders with immediate effect. 21:48: The Prime Minister said the attack was a "tragedy for the families involved." He stressed that Sweden would do "whatever it takes" for people to feel safe. "Terrorists want us to be afraid...to not live our lives normally, but that is what we are going to do. Terrorists can never defeat Sweden, never." 21:43: "A whole country is united in grief, anger and resolve," said Prime Minister Stefan Löfven at a Friday evening press conference. 21:34: When asked by a journalist at the press conference police said they have not been able to confirm reports of shootings near an Åhlens store and in Fridhemsplan. 21:27: Police declined to release more details about the identity of the person seized in Märsta, including their nationality. 21:22: "We have arrested a person who is of interest to us. We also released an image of a person we were looking for. The person arrested matches this description," Jan Evensson of the Stockholm Police said at a press conference on Friday night. 20:46 Faisal Khan, a Swedish citizen originally from Afghanistan, told The Local he was “pretty shaken up” after witnessing the incident at close quarters. “Luckily he was not a good driver. It felt to me like he did not have experience driving such a large vehicle. This guy really wanted to cause a lot of damage.” READ MORE of Faisal Khan's eyewitness account. 20:43: "One person has been arrested who could be linked to the matter. We cannot say more about the arrest right now," an update on the Stockholm Police website says. 20:40: Stockholm Police have confirmed that four people are dead and 15 people have been injured in the attack. 20:33: The Aftonbladet tabloid reports, citing several unnamed sources, that a man has been arrested in Märsta north of Stockholm. The reports are unconfirmed by police. Aftonbladet writes that the man had minor injuries and said he was guilty of the attack in Stockholm. 20:31: Stockholm County Council has confirmed that one person has died in hospital and 15 other injured people are being treated in relation to the incident. "One person has died in hospital after the incident in central Stockholm. 15 injured adults and children are being treated at hospital. Nine of them have serious injuries," a statement on their website said. Hospitals continue to be ready to take in more injured, the statement adds, but notes that it is too early to provide more detailed information. "My thoughts go to all of those affected. We are full focused on the work needed to take care of injured and affected and are working together with different agencies," Stockholm County Council head doctor Johan Bratt said. 20:07: Stockholm public transport operator SL has been given the go ahead to start the metro again and the trains have gradually started to move, but will not be stopping at the central T-centralen station as well as Hötorget station, and a slow services is expected for the time being. The commuter train has also been given permission to resume, but tracks may be backlogged with intercity trains. "It could take a bit more time before we have fully working traffic again because it can take some time to get drivers in and get traffic flowing," SL press officer Henrik Palmér told news agency TT. Buses will be redirected according to police cordons for the moment. 19:41 The Local's David Landes, like thousands of others, had a long trek home with public transportation on hold. But on Hornsgatan and Götgatan, busy streets on the trendy Södermalm island, the mood was calm. "It feels like a normal Friday - but with more people on the sidewalk, fewer cars on the roads- and no buses." Photo: David Landes/TheLocal 19:30: Thousands of people are walking home this evening all across Stockholm after trains and buses were cancelled. Some underground trains have started running again, but delays are to be expected. Check travel advice here. People walking home in central Stockholm. Photo: Tara Sonnorp/The Local 19:15: Police have brought two people in for questioning, but have not said who they are. "It absolutely does not mean that they are suspects," police spokesperson Lars Byström told the TT news agency. 19:08: The Local has been speaking to eyewitnesses and people near the scene today. "We saw people running and screaming. We were told to stay in the café at first. The place got emptied out quickly. There was such a big panic," a Spanish man told us. 18:41: Stockholm City Council has opened its doors to those who are not able to get home tonight because of trains and buses being cancelled. These premises are located at: Kammakargatan 30, Observatorielundens skola Norrtullsgatan, Hantverkargatan 3, Göta Ark Medborgarplatsen 25 and Bo Bergmans gata 4. 18:30: This picture has been published on Twitter of smoke rising from the building. Watching the events unfold after a truck drove into Åhléns on Drottninggatan. pic.twitter.com/kxJLUOAsns — Emil Stenqvist (@svammel) April 7, 2017 18:15: A woman who works in an office block a hundred metres from the scene tells The Local they were not allowed to leave the building without being escorted by police. "There were police helicopters hovering over the square," she said. "I won't be able to get home because trains and buses are not running." EYEWITNESSES: 'The wall came towards us like an avalanche' 18:05: The press conference has now concluded. The head of Sweden's security police, Anders Thorngren, said they had prepared for a similar incident. "Earlier this week we rehearsed a similar scenario. Säpo focuses on the intelligence work and who could behind this," he said. While the identity of the attacker or attackers has not been confirmed, Säpo named terror attacks by lone wolves as one of the main threats to Sweden in its annual report published earlier this year. READ ALSO: The four big security challenges facing Sweden today 18:00: Police have released CCTV images of a man they would like to trace "in connection with the suspected terror attack in Stockholm". 17:42: A police press conference has started in Stockholm. "A truck drove into Åhlens on Drottninggatan. We have truck and are in contact with the person who normally drives the truck," says Sweden's national police chief Dan Eliasson, adding that they do not have the individual or individuals driving the truck at the time of the attack. 17:23: A number of busy shopping locations in Stockholm have been evacuated at the request of the police. Along with the city's central railway station, the Åhlens department stores in the city centre, Odenplan, Fridhemsplan, Skanstull and Östermalmstorg have all been evacuated, as has the Mall of Scandinavia shopping centre in Solna. All of national film chain SF's Stockholm cinemas are closed this evening. Other events at Dramaten, Cirkus and Konserthuset have also been cancelled. 17:18: Images have been released of armed police at various locations in Stockholm. Stockholm Central Station. Photo: Jessica Gow/TT Police at Hamngatan in central Stockholm. Photo: Noella Johansson/TT Police at Fridhemsplan. Photo: Maja Suslin/TT 17:05 The truck was rammed into a crowd just yards from the scene of a 2010 suicide bombing that left the perpetrator dead in the middle of the Christmas shopping rush. 16:57: Facebook users in Stockholm can mark themselves as safe from the incident by following this link. 16:50: Police have confirmed to The Local that people have been killed in today's incident. "There are people injured and there have been fatalities, but exactly how many is not something we can say at the moment," a police spokesperson told The Local. Police would not comment on reports that someone has been arrested for the attack. READ ALSO: 'Deaths and many injured' in Stockholm truck attack 16:38: Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf has released a statement about the incident. "I and the entire royal family have sadly been informed about this afternoon's attack in Stockholm. The background to and extent of the incident is not yet know. We are following developments but our thoughts already go to those affected and their families," the statement reads. 16:33: The Local's contributor Miriam Bade took these pictures from near the scene of the crash. 16:31: Police have asked for Stockholm's central railway station to be emptied, a press spokesperson told news agency TT. Rail services to and from the station are currently suspended. Photo: Anders Wiklund/TT 16:28: No one is currently being allowed to leave the Swedish parliament (Riksdag) building, which lies south of the area where the incident occurred on Drottninggatan. Few MPs are currently present in the building due to it being Friday afternoon. 16:22: A map showing the location of the Åhlens department store where the crash took place. 16:21: Stockholm police have advised the public to stay at home, avoid the city centre and "spread this to those you know". Polisen uppmanar människor att stanna hemma och undvika city. Sprid detta till de ni känner. #stockholm — Polisen Stockholm (@polisen_sthlm) April 7, 2017 16:17: Trains to and from Stockholm's central railway station have been stopped at the request of the police, national railway operator SJ said, and all of the Stockholm metro is currently closed. Det är stopp i tågtrafiken till och från Stockholm C på polisens begäran. Håll er uppdaterad via sj.se: https://t.co/U2Py2l8NbL — SJ AB (@SJ_AB) April 7, 2017 16:08: "Sweden has been attacked. Everything indicates an act of terror," PM Stefan Löfven said at a press conference on Friday afternoon. "The government is informed and doing everything to help authorities with it." Photos: Jessica Gow/TT 15:54: Swedish brewery company Spendrups, which owns the truck, said it had been hijacked earlier in the day. "It's one of our distribution vehicles which runs deliveries. During a delivery to the restaurant Caliente someone jumped into the driver's cabin and drove off with the car, while the driver unloads," communication director Mårten Lyth told the TT news agency. 15:50 Video from above the scene. Something's happening on Drottninggatan and around Stockholm. pic.twitter.com/YPbrZSe5Mb — Johnny Chadda (@johnnychadda) April 7, 2017 15:49: The police are advising the public to avoid Stockholm city centre near Sergels torg square. 15:41: The police have now confirmed that the vehicle was a truck and that there are reports of shots being fired, but that has not been confirmed. "A lorry ran over people on Drottninggatan near Klarabergsgatan. There are reports of shots being fired but they have currently not been confirmed. It would have occurred in the proximity of Åhlens city (department store)," the Stockholm police website states. "There are injured people but we have no further details on the extent of their injuries and the number of people injured." 15:35: At least three people are believed to have been killed, according to a Sveriges Radio reporter at the scene. A number of people were taken from the scene by ambulance according to TT. 15:33: An eyewitness at the scene told the TT news agency that medical staff were treating injured people on the street at the Drottninggatan/Kungsgatan intersection. "I also saw people with blankets over them," he said. "The whole body was covered." People stood nearby filming until police came and ordered them to move away, the witness added. 15:26: The first images from the scene of the incident are starting to emerge. Photo: Andreas Schyman/TT 15:20: "At 14:53 we got the call via SOS alarm that some people have injured other people on Drottninggatan near Klarabergsgatan. Now we're at the scene to deal with it," a police spokesperson has told The Local. Police said they currently do not know how many people are injured and are working with emergency services to find out. "I have no idea where the vehicle is now, this is the information available to me." Police would not comment on whether the incident could be terror related, nor what has happened to the vehicle, and stated they are still assessing what has happened. "I don't know where the vehicle is at the moment, but we will update that information on our website." 15:11: Police confirmed in a statement published at 2.53pm that they have received reports that "a person in a vehicle has injured other people". ||||| With the Swedish PM saying the incident is being treated as an attack, here's some background on the Isis extremist threat in Sweden. Isis propaganda has for months continued inciting terror attacks in Europe, the US, Australia and other countries supporting military operations against its fighters. An issue of its Rumiyah magazine issued in October contained lengthy instructions on how to carry out knife attacks, including what weapon to use, deadly places to strike a blow and ways to overcome “discomfort” at the thought of such slaughter. The next issue of the propaganda magazine, released in multiple languages in November, advised jihadis to launch vehicle attacks in an article citing the Nice lorry attack that killed 86 people as a “superb demonstration”. “Having a secondary weapon, such as a gun or a knife, is also a great way to combine a vehicle attack with other forms,” it read.

– A truck crashed into an upscale department store in central Stockholm on Friday, and Swedish police confirm at least three people have died, per the Independent. People in the downtown area are fleeing the scene in panic, the AP reports. Swedish broadcaster SVT says shots have been fired at the scene, and the Swedish news agency TT says several people have been rushed away in ambulances. "Sweden has been attacked," PM Stefan Lofven said, adding that indications are this was a terror attack, per the Local. The truck had apparently been hijacked from the Spendrups brewery earlier Friday; someone jumped into the truck and drove away as the driver was making a delivery, a company rep told TT, via the Local. Live television footage on Friday showed smoke coming out of the upscale Ahlens department store on Drottninggatan Street, which the truck smashed into. The building includes several stores at street level. "We stood inside a shoe store and heard something ... and then people started to scream," a witness tells the Aftonbladet daily. "I looked out of the store and saw a big truck." Swedish police confirmed that a truck drove into people and the store but couldn't confirm the reports of shots fired. Police said in a statement "there are reports of injured, but we have no details on how many and how serious."

Sarah Palin is ready for the next chapter of her publishing career. FILE - In this Feb. 7, 2010 file photo, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speaks to the crowd at a campaign rally for Texas Gov. Rick Perry in Cypress, Texas. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan) (Associated Press) Publisher HarperCollins announced Wednesday that the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate is working on a "celebration of American virtues and strengths." The book is currently untitled and no release date has been set. Palin's memoir, "Going Rogue," released last fall by HarperCollins, has sold more than 2 million copies. Her new work will "include selections from classic and contemporary readings that have inspired her, as well as portraits of some of the extraordinary men and women she admires and who embody her love of country, faith, and family," the publisher's statement reads. "She will also draw from her personal experience to amplify these timely _ and timeless_ themes." In an e-mail Wednesday, HarperCollins publisher Jonathan Burnham said that "a number of ideas and concepts" were explored with Palin. "This is the idea which appealed the most to her," he said, adding that she is currently "gathering ideas and identifying favorite texts and examples." Burnham declined comment on financial terms. As with "Going Rogue," Palin was represented by Washington attorney Robert Barnett, whose clients include President Obama and former President George W. Bush. ||||| Sarah Palin's quest to become the white, thin, Alaskan, conservative, near-sighted Oprah continues: She's shopping around a show with reality TV heavy Mark Burnett. Also, Sarah Palin is starting on her next book. What are these things? Take the quiz! Sarah Palin just made her comedy debut. And it appears she took Richard's advice and went out and got her own show. Entertainment Weekly is reporting that she has teamed up with British reality TV producer Mark Burnett (producer of Survivor and The Apprentice) to develop a TV show. Yesterday, she met with Fox, today she met with CBS and tomorrow she's got a meeting with NBC's TV Chairman Jeff Gaspin himself. So, readers, is this TV show: a.) My Alaska, an expansive documentary about the myriad plants, animals and native peoples who call the Alaskan tundra their home—and the beautiful oil they are inconveniently sitting on top of. b.) Can You Deny Global Warming Harder Than a Fifth Grader?, a game-show which pits normal Americans against fifth graders in a contest to see who can better ignore overwhelming scientific evidence. c.) In the Womb, a sit-com about a fetus and its heartwarming quest to convince its heartless mother it deserves not to be aborted. d.) A yet-untitled "TV docudrama about Alaska," which one source tells EW will be a "planet-Earth type look' at Palin's home state." (Answer: d.) But that's not all! Perhaps you've heard of Palin's best-selling book, Going Rogue? Turns out, it sold a lot of copies and made lots of money. Now, USA Today reports that Palin is working on her second book for HarperCollins. There is no release date. Is this book: a) A new English translation of the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf, which Palin decided to embark on after finding Seamus Heaney's landmark 1999 translation "weak-willed and, frankly, derivative." b) An indie graphic novel which uses sparse, black-and-white panels to interweave the stories of a 19th century Alaska homesteader, a Wasilla beauty queen from the 1970s, and the modern-day Wesleyan comparative literature professor obsessed with tracing the connections between them. c) Going Rogue II: Going Even Roguer, a sequel to Going Rogue, which details the harrowing four months since the first Going Rogue came out. d) An untitled "celebration of American virtues and strengths," which HarperCollins says will "include selections from classic and contemporary readings that have inspired her, as well as portraits of some of the extraordinary men and women she admires and who embody her love of country, faith, and family." (Answer: d.) If you got both answers right: Congratulations! You're not an idiot!

– With 2 million copies sold, and Going Rogue still on bestseller lists, Sarah Palin is already working on another book, the AP reports. The untitled, release-date-TBA work will be a “celebration of American virtues and strengths” and “include selections from classic and contemporary readings that have inspired her, as well as portraits of some of the extraordinary men and women she admires and who embody her love of country, faith, and family,” the HarperCollins statement reads. Gawker has some alternate suggestions: A new translation of Beowulf, embarked upon after Palin found “Seamus Heaney's landmark 1999 translation ‘weak-willed and, frankly, derivative,’” writes Adrian Chen. “An indie graphic novel which uses sparse, black-and-white panels to interweave the stories of a 19th century Alaska homesteader, a Wasilla beauty queen from the 1970s, and the modern-day Wesleyan comparative literature professor obsessed with tracing the connections between them.” "Going Rogue II: Going Even Roguer, which details the harrowing four months since the first Going Rogue came out." Chen also has a few ideas about Palin’s upcoming TV project—to read those, click here.

Vitantonio Capotorto sent a video to his wife saying he was "going somewhere wonderful" before he jumped from a Skydive DeLand airplane 13,500 feet above the city. Before he had leaped from the plane, his wife, Costanza Zitellini, had run into Skydive DeLand trying to stop him. Moments before, she received a video form her husband and in it he told her he was not going to pull the cord to open his parachute and that "he was going somewhere wonderful," according to a police report. Capotorto, an Italian national, was found dead about 10:25 a.m. Tuesday, face down in a field southeast of the runways at the airport. He was 27 and lived in DeLand with his wife. They both worked in the parachute industry. Tara Richards, an employee at Skydive DeLand, told police that Capotorto arrived for the first load of the day and seemed normal, according to a written statement. His wife arrived sometime after takeoff telling Skydive DeLand employees not to let her husband jump. But Capotorto had already left the aircraft, Richards said. Capotorto, who had made 600 jumps, and his wife both worked at United Parachute Technologies, a DeLand company at 1645 Lexington Ave., which makes containers for parachutes, according to Rosie Sigmund, customer service manager who declined further comment. Capotorto's wife declined comment when reached at home Friday morning. City of DeLand spokesman Chris Graham said DeLand police could not recall any prior investigations involving a suicide by a sky diver. But it’s not unheard of nationally. In a 2011 news report, a 60-year-old sky diver unbuckled his parachute in the sky north of Albany, New York, and plunged 8,000 feet to his death. This weeks was the fifth reported fatality since May 2013 at Skydive DeLand, which is considered one of the busiest jump spots in the nation. Mike Johnston, a general manager at the facility told The News-Journal earlier this week that Capotorto’s wife had arrived “moments too late.” “We give our (customers) a safe ride to altitude and we transport them using aircraft that has been considered the best maintained in the industry,” Johnston said. “When a person steps out the door, they are responsible for themselves.” — Staff Writer Katie Kustura contributed to this report. ||||| The wife of a veteran skydiver raced to the field where her husband was planning to jump after he sent her a video saying that he was not going to pull the ripcord on his parachute – but she was arrived just moments too late. Vitantonio Capotorto, 27, never deployed his parachute after jumping from 13,500 feet above DeLand, Florida, on Tuesday’s first flight of the day — according to a police report obtained by the Orlando Sentinel. He was found facedown in a field near Skydive DeLand, one of the busiest skydiving hubs in the country. Get push notifications with news, features and more. Before Capotorto’s fatal jump, his wife Costanza Zitellini, 25, ran into the hangar and told employees not to let her husband go up in a plane, according to the report. Facebook Facebook Zitellini said she received a video message from Capotorto telling her that he was “not going to pull the cord and that he was going somewhere wonderful.” A Skydive DeLand employee told police that the plane had already taken off, but she immediately radioed the plane and told the crew not to let Capotorto jump. It was too late. RELATED VIDEO: Skydiver Makes History by Falling 25,000 Feet into a Net Without a Parachute Mike Johnston, the general manager, told The News-Journal that Zitellini’s message came just “moments” after he jumped. Capotorto, an Italian national, and his wife worked for United Parachute Technologies – a parachute maker in DeLand. This is the fourth death in five years at Skydive DeLand, WKMG-TV reported. ||||| Experienced sky diver Vitantonio Capotorto jumped from a plane Tuesday morning about 10 a.m., just seconds before the crew received an urgent message from dispatchers on the ground, urging them to stop him. But it was too late. DeLand Police said Capotorto jumped and did not pull the cord to open his parachute, according to a revised police report released Friday. On Tuesday, Costansa Litellini, 25, ran into the Skydive Deland building on Flightline Boulevard, begging employee Tara Richards to stop her husband from sky diving. Litellini had just received a video from him, saying he was “not going to pull the cord and that he was going somewhere wonderful,” police said. Richards immediately radioed the plane, according to a police report, but Capotorto, 27, had already jumped. Richards told police she had seen Capotorto before the flight and “he had seemed normal.” She could not be reached for comment Friday. Police were called to Skydive Deland on Tuesday in reference to an injured sky diver. Officials began to search for Capotorto from the sky and the ground. They eventually found him face down in an open field near the runway. A chaplain was called to the scene to let Litellini know that her husband had died. The United States Parachute Association, of which Skydive Deland is a member, reported 21 fatalities related to skydiving in 2016 out of 3.2 million estimated jumps by its members. jareddick@orlandosentinel.com, 407-420-5268 This report has been updated to correct the name of the victim. It was transposed because of public records error. Man dies at Skydive DeLand » ||||| DeLAND, Fla. - A skydiver found dead at Skydive DeLand earlier this week jumped to his death after informing his wife through a video that he was going "somewhere wonderful," according to a police report. The man was identified by police as Vitantonio Capotorto, 27. DeLand police said an officer was called to Skydive DeLand and was told that Capotorto, an experienced skydiver, jumped from a plane and did not deploy his parachute. A Skydive DeLand employee told the officer that Capotorto's wife ran in to the business and tried to halt her husband's jump because he had left her a "disturbing" video saying that he was not going to pull the cord of the parachute, officials said. The worker radioed the pilot, but Capotorto had already jumped, police said. The worker said Capotorto seemed normal before the flight, according to the police report. Capotorto's body was found in an open field near DeLand Municipal Airport, police said. Skydive Deland has had five fatalities in the past four years. Skydive DeLand is one of the nation's busiest skydiving facilities and attracts jumpers of all skill levels. Watch News 6 and stay with ClickOrlando.com for more on this story. Copyright 2017 by WKMG ClickOrlando - All rights reserved.

– Costansa Litellini ran into Florida's Skydive DeLand on Tuesday begging them not to let her husband go up in a plane, the Orlando Sentinel reports. But the plane, with 27-year-old Capotorto Vitantonio inside, had already taken off. Vitantonio's body was found face down in a field a short time later. According to WKMG, officials say Vitantonio sent a "disturbing" video to Litellini before his jump. Police say in the video Vitantonio told his wife he was “not going to pull the cord and that he was going somewhere wonderful." A Skydive DeLand employee had radioed the plane after Litellini's intervention, but general manager Mike Johnston tells the Daytona Beach News-Journal the message was received "moments too late." Vitantonio was an experienced skydiver with around 600 jumps, and both he and Litellini worked for a parachute manufacturer in DeLand, People reports. It's unclear why he didn't deploy his parachute Tuesday after jumping from an altitude of 13,500 feet. A Skydive DeLand employee who saw Vitantonio before his jump says he "seemed normal." Vitantonio's was the fifth reported death at Skydive DeLand since May 2013. Johnston says there's only so much the business can do to keep skydivers safe after they leave the plane. “When a person steps out the door, they are responsible for themselves," he tells the News-Journal.

A few days before Christmas 2016, a phone call took place that no one could have predicted. One of the world’s most esteemed HIV doctors, Professor Sheena McCormack – whose life’s work as an epidemiologist has been to track and fight the virus – picked up the phone to deliver a message that would make headline news: In the space of 12 months, the number of gay men in London being diagnosed with HIV had dropped by 40%. Across England it was down by a third. No British doctor has been able to report a fall this steep in more than 35 years of the virus. It is the kind of figure that in medical circles is so large as to look jarring, even false; and yet it was true. Behind this story lay a series of secret meetings and a network of people with one man at the centre who, unknown to the public, helped change medical history. His name is Greg Owen. He was the man McCormack phoned. Today his story is told in full for the first time. Owen sits in an echoing meeting room in the BuzzFeed News office recalling that conversation, and what it was that McCormack really wanted to convey to him about those figures. “She said, ‘Don’t look at the percentage; I want you to look at this another way. There are thousands of people who didn’t become HIV-positive this year because of you.’” Owen started to cry. And after that call, he says, he used to cry every day. “I knew I was doing something of substance, but I didn’t know what. It feels really good but it’s really overwhelming because how many people in my position get to do what I did?” The man McCormack credited with this unprecedented reduction in HIV transmissions was not a fellow doctor, nor the head of a charity, nor even a politician. Owen is unemployed, a former sex worker, and homeless. What he managed to pull off – and why – is so outlandish it warrants comparisons with Ron Woodroof, the AIDS patient depicted by Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club, who in 1980s America smuggled in unauthorised HIV drugs for desperate fellow sufferers. The difference is that Woodroof’s was an outrageous story that ended in tragedy. Owen’s is a tragic story that ends in outrageous success. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images In the summer of 2015, Owen was 35 and working part-time as a barman and club promoter. One of six children, from a working-class Catholic family in Northern Ireland, he had come to England to train as an actor before finding his way into London’s bacchanalian nightlife. That summer, he was trying to make a difficult decision. He had heard about a new drug regime that was being used to prevent HIV. The medication’s brand name is Truvada, and the regime – which involves taking this antiretroviral pill every day – is dubbed PrEP: pre-exposure prophylaxis. Owen, fearful of contracting the virus amid this unleashed world, couldn’t decide whether to start taking the drug, let alone how to obtain it. PrEP was not available on the NHS and a private prescription would cost about £500 per month. But a major NHS study was underway to ascertain how effective the drug was, and who should be given it. The study, called PROUD, was being run by Professor McCormack. “I heard about the PROUD study at a sex party,” says Owen, casually, in the middle of a much longer sentence. He talks at twice the speed of most people, with clauses within clauses and tangents branching from other tangents in a bewildering cascade of verbal Russian dolls. The problem was that Owen was too late to enrol in the study. He was also increasingly aware of his own chaotic situation: After a relationship breakdown and a suicide attempt, Owen was sleeping on friends’ sofas and sliding into full escapism mode. “I’d gone through enough risk-taking,” he says in his soft Belfast accent. “I was like, ‘You know what? I just need to do this – I take GHB and smoke crystal [meth] all weekend.’” But there was another reason for Owen's determination. He had watched someone he loved (who we cannot name in order to protect their anonymity) fall apart after being diagnosed. “He was in a really bad state,” says Owen. The man descended so far into the drugs scene in an attempt to blot out the diagnosis that he had had a heart attack soon after. “He was having a breakdown. Everything was fucked.” After trying in vain to help him, Owen focused on remaining HIV-negative himself and seeing if there was some way to help HIV-positive people more generally. On 11 August 2015, Owen posted on Facebook to let his friends know that he planned to begin taking PrEP. A friend, who was HIV-positive and had been prescribed the drug as part of his treatment before switching medication, offered him some spare pills. Owen’s plan was to start taking them and blog about his experiences – a “blow by blow” account, he says, laughing. Owen laughs a lot when he isn’t raging, frowning, or grinning with delight – often with a frenzy of gestures. He is rarely still. Laura Gallant / BuzzFeed The day after the Facebook post, he went to a sexual health clinic to double-check he was HIV-negative before taking the pills. Moments later, the nurse gave him the result of the rapid pin-prick blood test: It was positive. He had missed his chance to prevent it. “I felt sick,” says Owen. “I said, ‘I need to have a cigarette.’ I was in shock.” The following evening, aware that his friends on Facebook would soon be asking how he was getting on with PrEP, and while working a shift in a gay bar, Owen posted an update on the site telling everyone he was HIV-positive. That single act triggered a chain of events that would change everything. “When I came out on my break two hours later, I had 375 likes, 175 comments, 50 shares. I was like, ‘Sweet Jesus,’” he says. “Then I opened my Messenger – streams of disclosures and supportive messages from people. I must have had 50 or 60 people in two hours saying, ‘I can’t believe you’ve done that, I’m HIV-positive as well and I haven’t told anyone,’ or, ‘I have only told my family and you’ve told 5,000 people.’” But then the messages started changing. “People were like, ‘What is this PrEP thing and if you had it why wouldn’t you have become HIV-positive?’ It got to a point within a week where I would get 10 people a day asking me about PrEP – and that’s 10 people asking 10 questions each.” Keen to get on with life and with his blog, Owen found the questions from acquaintances and strangers were proving a near-constant interruption. He told his friend Alex that something had to give. And it was then that he remembered something. “I was like, ‘I’m sure I was at a meeting somewhere and heard you can import generic hepatitis C drugs for a tenth of the price,’” he says. This thought fused with the need to rid himself of the endless inquiries, or “these fucking bastards asking me about PrEP”, as he puts it. He decided to set up a website with all the information he could find, thus allowing him to “walk away from PrEP”. He laughs at the irony. It would prove to do the opposite. The idea for the site wasn’t only to provide facts; it was also going to help readers buy cheap, non-branded versions of the drug – known as “generics” – from manufacturers overseas. Owen just had to figure out how to do this. He knew someone who worked in a sexual health clinic, whom he prefers not to name, for reasons that soon become clear. He phoned the man up. “I said, ‘I’m aware we can maybe import something? Do you know anything about this?’ And he replied, ‘Yeeeeees. Come in tomorrow at 3pm.’” The next day they met in the clinic. Owen was told to keep everything confidential. “This person said, ‘We have a handful of people who use our clinic and they have been self-sourcing generics from this website and we have been discreetly doing the monitoring – discreetly checking their blood periodically to check that there’s active levels of the drug.’” In one sentence, everything was possible. There was somewhere to buy the non-branded versions of the drug – and at around £50 a month, a tenth of the price of a private prescription. And there was, potentially, a way to ensure the drugs were working properly. At the time, because PrEP was not available on the NHS, neither – officially ­– were the urine and blood tests needed to check that the drugs were not adversely affecting kidney function (which some antiretrovirals can do) and were not fake. The man in the clinic, says Owen, then made the possible workable: He showed Owen which websites were supplying this handful of patients with the generics, and which ones they knew – because they had run the tests – were supplying the effective pills. “I said, ‘So this is legit – legit but dodgy. Can we do this?’ And he said, ‘Not only can you do this; you must do this. We’ve been waiting for someone to do this. We’re diagnosing people every day and do you know how heart-breaking it is to know that PrEP would stop it and not be able to do something?’” And that, says Owen, was all the motivation he needed. He and his friend Alex spent a few weeks building the website, gathering as much information as they could, and including a simple click-to-buy button that linked through to the pharmacies in Asia that sold and shipped the generics. They called it IWantPrEPNow.co.uk. “At the time I was shitting myself,” he says. “I was thinking, It’s not like I’m selling Viagra that might work or might not work – the worst that happens is you don’t get a boner – I’m selling drugs where people might rely on it for their HIV protection.” But by then, September 2015, the results of the PROUD study were in: PrEP was enormously effective – comparable to condoms – but unlike condoms, this pill is not reliant on people being able or willing to implement the precaution at the very moment when desire can overwhelm. Add in drugs or alcohol, low self-esteem or even self-destruction, and the underuse of condoms across all demographics is hardly surprising. PrEP offered a viable alternative. What was surprising in the PROUD study, however, was that rates of other STIs weren't significantly higher among those taking the pill. The fears of many were therefore unfounded. For Owen, then, as long as the overseas online pharmacies kept selling decent alternative versions to the branded drugs, everything would be OK. The website launched on 19 October 2015, and for the first two months, Owen says, he was simply “fronting it out”, having to pretend he was feeling confident. He was also still sleeping on friends’ sofas. “I didn’t know anything!” he says. “I had no clinical background, no pharmaceutical background, nothing. For the remainder of the year I thought someone was going to message me going, ‘I got HIV because of you.’” But something propelled him forward, muzzling the self-doubts: the person he loved who had a heart attack, coupled with the knowledge of his own HIV status. He tries to explain how this motivation manifested, in a mission to compensate for what had happened to the two of them. “All I was out to do was to even out the score for him and me,” he says. “My whole goal was that if I helped keep one person negative then my HIV status is equal, and then one more person means that I won. I don’t deal in shame or guilt or regret but [the thought was], ‘I’m going to make my situation count.’” Within days of launching, traffic started flowing into the website, fanned by Owen blitzing social media with posts about it. The questions he hoped would disappear only mounted. Media requests began trickling in: a chance to talk on the radio in Bristol about PrEP and his website. “I was like, ‘Why would I want to do that?’ I didn’t understand jack shit. I couldn’t even pronounce emtricitabine and tenofovir [the constituent drugs in Truvada]. I was winging it.” He took a four-hour coach journey to Bristol, spoke for 20 minutes on the show, then took the four-hour journey back. “I was so broke I had to borrow my travel money.” The traffic to IWantPrEPNow immediately spiked. After this, he says, “it all started going crazy”. The website was being inundated with requests and queries, the answers to many of which Owen had to google. “It was the blind leading the blind,” he says, glaring as if still on a white-knuckle ride. Staff at sexual health clinics, meanwhile, had the tool they needed: a URL to give to patients who were interested in PrEP. It caught the attention of an HIV consultant, Dr Mags Portman, at one of the country’s leading sexual health clinics, the Mortimer Market Centre in central London. She contacted Owen and arranged to meet him round the corner from the clinic, over a glass of wine. It would prove pivotal, he says. “She said, ‘What can I do? What are you struggling with?’ And I said, ‘I’m learning as I go but I need credibility and visibility.’ And she said, ‘Leave it with me.’” Portman made a crucial move. She contacted the General Medical Council, to seek advice on how sexual health doctors could respond to patients interested in PrEP or already accessing the drugs when the NHS still wasn’t providing them. “Clinicians were anxious about even discussing it [with patients],” says Owen. “And the GMC directed her to something that was already established and given as guidelines. It basically says it is your responsibility as a doctor to advocate for the best treatment for your patient, even if it’s not commissioned. In other words, the GMC gave the green light to initiate the conversation around PrEP.” After this, increasing numbers of gay men started turning up to clinics saying they were buying generic PrEP online and asking for the urine and blood tests – known as therapeutic blood monitoring. And within weeks, more and more sexual health clinics started offering the service to cater to the demand. Thanks to Portman’s discussions with fellow doctors, the Mortimer Market Centre also brought Owen in to train medical staff about PrEP. “I thought it was hilarious,” says Owen, laughing at what seemed like an absurdity. “Now I’m giving staff training to professors and doctors?” But he knew why they wanted him there. “The thing is, I speak with hundreds and thousands of PrEP users across the world all the time. I know what they need, I know what will encourage them to be honest with clinicians.” Meanwhile, he was working round the clock, often responding to inquiries on IWantPrEPNow through the night, and spreading the word about the service on Twitter and Facebook. In the first couple of months, the site had around 2,500 unique visitors. This may not seem a huge number, but with around 6,000 people in England being diagnosed with HIV per year it was significant – and it was soon going to rise. A new and unexpected battle began in March 2016. After 18 months of discussions with the HIV sector, NHS England derailed the commissioning process – the path that leads to a drug being funded – for PrEP. Suddenly, all the doctors and charities who thought that it might soon become available to patients were left disappointed. And Owen, who thought he would need to keep the website going for only a few months until the NHS took over, now faced the prospect of this becoming his life for the foreseeable future. The resulting publicity surrounding the decision, however, had an interesting effect: More and more people were becoming aware of the drug and, says Owen, seeking it out on IWantPrEPNow. Traffic began to double and triple. His social media presence swelled, fuelling further traffic and media traction: appearances on the BBC, more radio discussions, more press coverage. Greg Owen was becoming Mr PrEP. In response to NHS England’s decision, all the major HIV charities joined forces to fight it. A series of meetings ensued. Owen was the only activist invited to attend, as every HIV specialist knew that he was the main link to thousands of people wanting the drug. BuzzFeed News was the only media organisation allowed in. Facebook As respected doctors and leaders of long-standing NGOs carefully strategised, Owen would interject, often loudly, sometimes interrupting people who he deemed to be veering off topic, and sometimes seemingly close to banging his fists on the table as he conveyed what PrEP users and fellow activists from around the world were telling him: Not only did people in Britain need this drug, but also if the NHS provided it, major healthcare systems in other countries would be likely to follow suit. His heightened manner and rapid-fire delivery bellowed one thing: This had to be fought, urgently, and they had to win. A legal battle commenced, brought by the National AIDS Trust, to counter NHS England’s claim that it was not their responsibility to provide PrEP as HIV prevention was the job of local councils. At each step of this process, as news reports described what was happening, traffic to IWantPrEPNow continued to climb. By the time NHS England lost in the High Court in August last year, 12,000 people were visiting the site every month. NHS England swiftly appealed the ruling. Orders of generic PrEP kept rising. Meanwhile, on hook-up apps for gay and bisexual men such as Grindr and Scruff, increasing numbers of users started stating on their profile that they were on PrEP. This was also happening across Europe: Although most visitors to IWantPrEPNow were from Britain, many from a range of continental countries were buying PrEP through the site and having it shipped to them. As the NHS stalled, an underground movement, facilitated by Owen, was in full swing. “The whole experience was really weird,” he says. “On a personal level, I went from being seen as this trashy, slutty, whore-y guy who was always hanging out of a club in Vauxhall to… all of a sudden I was seen as this ‘good gay’…this ‘community leader’.” Laura Gallant / BuzzFeed To Owen, it made no sense. “I’m thinking, You don’t know I have to walk sometimes because I can’t afford my Oyster [the London bus and tube pass]. You don’t know that I’m literally eating once a day because I’m so broke, and I’m sleeping on someone’s sofa because no one is going to pay me to do this. I am no different to how I was when I was a sex worker.” By August he had given up two different part-time bar jobs to focus solely on IWantPrEPNow – unpaid. Broke and working 60 to 70 hours per week, sometimes he would go home to his mother’s in Belfast and run Britain’s main gateway to HIV-prevention drugs from her kitchen. She was an immense support throughout, he says. Last summer, a doctor, who Owen prefers we do not name, asked for his bank details. The doctor gave him £1,000 to help with the running costs of the site. In November, NHS England lost its appeal: It could commission PrEP. And the following month, a statement was made: It would provide the drugs for 10,000 people over three years – which will begin early this summer – before a bigger rollout. When the announcement came, at midnight on 4 December 2016, Owen was temporarily in Belfast doing a shift behind a bar. “I’m serving pints, I asked for five minutes off, Twitter and Facebook went mad and for about an hour, every time I turned round from the bar I’d be sobbing and have to dry my eyes and carry on serving pints.” By then, he had already heard that some of the London sexual health clinics were seeing a massive drop in HIV diagnoses. But soon after the announcement, Professor McCormack phoned him to confirm it and to thank him for what he had done. “She said, ‘It’s all very well us doing this – professors, doctors, researchers – but you did something that none of us could have done. You convinced people that they would want to use PrEP because you showed them how easy it was. And then you implemented support for them and then made it easy for them to buy it. None of us could have done that because none of us are you.’” In McCormack’s own London clinic alone, says Owen, 300 fewer people were diagnosed with HIV in 2016. And when McCormack speaks to BuzzFeed News, she is quick to emphasise the role of IWantPrEPNow in the drop in diagnoses. “It’s been absolutely critical,” she says. “As clinicians I think we realised that it was going to be far too slow even if the NHS had commissioned a PrEP programme. And if IWantPrEPNow hadn’t come along, we would not have been able to signpost people [to it], or to very quickly come together with Greg to work up a safety net to make sure the drugs people were accessing were real.” YouTube Prof. Sheena McCormack Greg Owen / Facebook, Facebook ||||| How do I get PrEP When you are sure you are HIV negative, order PrEP from any of our tried, tested and reliable sellers. Delivery times are usually given in working days or business days, which do not include weekends. So, remember to add in Saturday and Sunday when you work out when your PrEP is due to arrive. If paying in US dollars, consider buying on a week day. Banks fix exchange rates over the weekend to protect themselves, so rates will always be more unfavourable over a weekend.

– Last year in England, the number of gay men diagnosed with HIV was slashed by a third from the previous year. The drop was even more drastic in London, with a 40% decrease, and, as Patrick Strudwick reveals for BuzzFeed, that major shift was driven by a homeless ex-sex worker named Greg Owen. Strudwick points out that Owen's astonishing work behind the scenes is reminiscent of Ron Woodroof, the drug-smuggling HIV patient portrayed in Dallas Buyers Club—except where Woodroof's real-life narrative was an "outrageous story that ended in tragedy … Owen's is a tragic story that ends in outrageous success," with thousands spared from the illness because of his efforts. Those efforts revolve around a drug called Truvada, taken as part of a preventive regimen called pre-exposure prophylaxis in which non-infected users take a pill every day to keep the virus at bay. A Truvada Rx cost around $600 a month in August 2015, when Owen posted on Facebook that he wanted to do the PrEP regimen. A pal gave him some extra pills—but then he discovered he was HIV-positive. He updated his previous post in what Strudwick calls the "single act ... that would change everything." People started bombarding him with questions about PrEP and he set up an informational website to stop "these f---ing bastards asking me about [it]." I Want PrEP Now, which launched in October 2015, eventually evolved to also help users buy cheaper, effective generic versions of Truvada from overseas. Owen's underground movement became a monster one, and he ended up quitting his two jobs to lobby the UK's NHS to commission the drug—a push that became reality in December. His incredible story at BuzzFeed. (A new tool in the fight against HIV?)

The Nigerian man accused of trying to use a bomb hidden in his underwear to bring down a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day has been cooperating with investigators since last week and provided fresh intelligence in multiple terrorism investigations, officials said Tuesday. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's cooperation could prove to be a national security victory and a political vindication for President Barack Obama, who has been under fire from lawmakers who contend the administration botched the case by giving Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, rather than interrogating him as a military prisoner. In the days following the failed bombing, a pair of FBI agents flew to Nigeria and persuaded Abdulmutallab's family to help them. When the agents returned to the U.S., Abdulmutallab's family came, too, according to a senior administration official briefed on the case who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. FBI officials continue to question Abdulmutallab, working in collaboration with CIA and other intelligence authorities, the official said. Authorities had hoped to keep Abdulmutallab's cooperation secret while they continued to investigate his leads, but details began to trickle out during testimony Tuesday on Capitol Hill. In a terse exchange, FBI Director Robert Mueller appeared to confirm that Abdulmutallab is now talking with investigators. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Mueller: "It is also my understanding that Mr. Abdulmutallab has provided valuable information. Is that correct? "Yes," Mueller replied. "Thank you," Feinstein said, "and that the interrogation continues despite the fact that he has been Mirandized?" "Yes," Mueller said. He explained that Abdulmutallab did talk to FBI agents after he was arrested on Christmas Day, speaking freely until he went into surgery for burns on his legs. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair also confirmed that authorities continued to get intelligence in Abdulmutallab's case. In Detroit, U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade declined to comment. A message seeking comment was left with Abdulmutallab's lawyer, Miriam Siefer. ||||| The “underwear bomber” has begun cooperating with FBI counterterrorism agents and has provided “useful, current” intelligence, a law enforcement source told POLITICO on Tuesday. The Obama administration has been criticized for reading Miranda rights to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the fizzled airborne bombing attempt on Christmas Day. The suspect, now being held in a federal prison outside Detroit, was questioned by the FBI for 50 minutes on the day of the attack, then was read his rights. “Since then, the FBI and Justice Department have been pressing him to cooperate,” the source said. “It started last week, and has continued for several days. The information has been active, useful, and we have been following up. The intelligence is not stale. He certainly sees that there are incentives provided by the criminal justice system to cooperate.” Such incentives can include a reduced prison sentence. The suspect has provided information that the U.S. has followed up overseas.

– The so-called “underwear bomber” is now cooperating with US authorities, who have acted upon the “useful, current” information Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has given them, sources tell Politico. Abdulmutallab is said to have clammed up when he was given his Miranda rights less than an hour into questioning after his attempted Christmas attack—a move for which the Obama administration was roasted—but now the Nigerian “certainly sees that there are incentives provided by the criminal justice system to cooperate.” Abdulmutallab's family has played a factor in the turnaround, a source tells the AP, after FBI agents traveled to Nigeria seeking their help. In fact, family members returned with the agents to the US and were key in persuading the 23-year-old.

When the news flitted across my screen that Alaskan newscaster Charlo Greene quit her job by saying “fuck it” on live TV, I winced in recognition. As someone who’s quit in a flamboyant way – and then compounded the drama by writing about quitting in both memoir and in fiction – I’ve spent a lot of time thinking: what might drive someone to that moment? Is it ever the right thing to do? The logical answer to the latter question seems pretty obvious: probably not. Not only did Greene hang all her co-workers out to dry, forcing them to scramble to cover for her as she got her moment of satisfaction, but she’s also marked herself as a loose cannon. She’s now someone who, in the most fundamental way, can’t be trusted as a teammate. It’s fun to quit, certainly, but would you ever want to be the next person to hire a quitter? On the other hand, sometimes quitting is the only appropriate response: when an employer’s in the wrong, say, or when you have a valid point to make and you need to make it in a very public way. Other times, it’s the right thing to do for more complicated reasons. Quitting can show coworkers or colleagues who don’t quite have the gumption to get out of obviously bad situations that it can be done; it can inspire others to have the courage to change their lot, maybe in less brazen, more incremental ways. Maybe that’s why we’re so fascinated by people who say “fuck it”: they speak to the tiny part of all of us that wishes we could say be so honest and so irresponsible in any number of situations, any number of times a day. But refusing to give in to those impulses is what keeps society functioning, and what makes us – as individuals – adults. In 2007, I quit my job at Gawker – which was then a New York-specific media gossip site – by essentially saying “fuck it”. I said it far less succinctly than Greene did, though, in a long, digressive blog post in which I echoed concerns raised by a piece that had recently run in the magazine n+1: that Gawker, once a useful gadfly that irritated the powerful, had become a bully more powerful than the institutions it mocked. I then compounded the faux pas of quitting that way by running my mouth off to anyone who asked: media reporters whose work I’d been in the business of shredding were only too willing to mock my hasty, immature decision. (It’s taken my former boss, the site co-founder Nick Denton, many years to forgive me – though, actually, I’m still not quite sure he has. But then, I’ve also never quite apologized, and I’m not exactly apologizing now.) Looking back, it’s easy for me to view my fuck-it moment as a rookie mistake – the kind of thing only a 26-year-old who doesn’t understand that actions have consequences would do. I wanted to make a big ideological point, and I had but one weapon in my arsenal: a pulpit that I could use to denounce the very thing that had given me a voice. Unfortunately, I lost that weapon as soon as I used it, like a bee that dies in the act of stinging. I don’t know that I would have quit if I’d understood then how much it would deform the next few years of my life. I succeeded on my own terms as a freelancer and an author, but I also failed to secure any of the steady, full-time, paycheck-y gigs that every writer (save maybe Edward St Aubyn) needs. The reason? Well, if I had to guess, it was that no one was quite prepared to trust me. It took years before I worked another full-time job. I hope that Charlo Greene is enjoying her new, more self-determined career path, and that she isn’t listening to the people who are questioning her decision, after her on-air performance inevitably went as viral as it did on Monday. We don’t know exactly what Greene’s workplace was like, or the other choices that were available to her. We can guess at her motivations, but it’s probably good to recognize that we’re inevitably projecting our own workplace neuroses onto someone we really don’t know much about at all. Hopefully, she’s listening to the people who find her inspiring and liberating, and not to the people who put her down for being “unprofessional”. The satisfaction of quitting is real, but it’s fleeting. More lasting satisfaction comes from slowly, painstakingly creating a career path that lets you be true to yourself, whether you’re a pot-loving activist or a writer with various axes to grind. But I also hope that she’ll find her way, as I’ve tried to do, towards a different kind of future – one where she gets the kind of work that doesn’t make her want to say “fuck it” every day. Because we all want to say it; we just shouldn’t have to. ||||| Early in the evening of the day I became Facebook friends with James Frey, Choire and I found ourselves standing on Chrystie Street, unloading boxes of n+1's Winter 2008 issue ("Mainstream") from a very large Budget rental truck. We did this in a fit of perversity. n+1 editor Keith Gessen had driven the truck from the Ingram warehouse in Pennsylvania earlier in the day, accompanied by an n+1 intern that he'd been "mentoring." There were six pallets. As usual, the issue's contributors had been invited to the box-unloading party, and so we staggered, box-laden, past the likes of little Ben Kunkel, wearing his noticeably-heeled boots even for this athletic activity. Probably more people came later for the beer-drinking part of the evening. But we missed that part because, when the truck was fully unloaded, we hopped into it with Keith to return it to the Budget lot in Brooklyn. On the way there, Keith turned up a narrow street and smashed a taillight and a bit of the back end of a minivan that would turn out to belong to an Orthodox Jewish lawyer. Keith handled himself remarkably well in this crisis, though he did later blame the accident on me: "You make me nervous," he said, his voice getting high-pitched and muppety for a second. At the time of the accident we'd been talking about Keith's book "All The Sad Young Literary Men," which Viking will publish in April. Jonathan Franzen had said that reading Keith's book made him wish to be a young man again. And last night, Choire quoted a friend of his who's reading a galley of the book as saying that the book was a cautionary tale. [The friend had written: "I just started reading Keith Gessen's novel — irritating of course, it's the n+1 world, where women are mere accessories, but not bad! But SUCH a cautionary tale.... To me it's screaming *Get out of NY before it's too late*!!! Or, shrink your life in NY... stop going to all those lame competitive parties. Look, I always liked Sloane Crosley too, but when the fact that she is *nice* is the subject of an Observer article, that is a culture in deep, deep decline."] Keith didn't understand how the book could be a cautionary tale. Not having read the book, it's impossible to say with any certainty whether it would make me want to be a young man or whether it would make me want to leave New York. While Keith was writing a note for the minivan's owner, I had time to flip through n+1 issue 8. In it, Wesley Yang writes about Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, and of other "essentially unlovable" people, including himself: Jasper once told me that I was "essentially unloveable." I've always held that observation close to my heart, turning to it often. It's true of some people—that there's no reason anyone should love or care about them, because they aren't appealing on the outside, and that once you dig into the real person beneath the shell (if, for some obscure if not actively perverse reason, you bother), you find the real inner ugliness. Identifying with a serial killer is uncomfortable, maybe as uncomfortable as identifying with the pretty girls who rejected his advances. The essay puts its reader in both roles. Wesley's refusal to shy away from the kind of "rude question" that "affects to inquire into what everyone gets to know at the cost of forever leaving it unspoken" makes 'The Face of Seung-Hui Cho' an exercise in revolutionary honesty. In the Budget truck, I also had time to read most of Carla Blumenkranz's review, 'In Search of Gawker.' Carla went back into the Gawker archives to trace the site's evolution from Elizabeth Spiers' first post in 2002 to the decadent Gawker of today. "Reading through the early Gawker archives means watching Spiers receive and record her New York education," Carla writes, also observing that "her persona was part of her appeal," while the site's next editor Choire Sicha's appeal was that he was "almost impersonally sharp and cruel and correct." "Sicha's persona did not change much during his time at Gawker, but he did reveal himself to be invested, in a strange way, in the integrity of Gawker as an institution," Carla goes on to say. It's hard not to be invested in the integrity of an institution that you are, to some extent, the public face of. Yes, also it's just a job, it's just a business. Right now, it's a business that is fairly hell-bent on increasing pageviews in light of the allegedly coming internet advertising downturn—whether that means that content is a tertiary concern after pageview-boosting commenter-friending features and sponsored contests. And still when you work here, Gawker is, to some extent, you. Carla also wrote: No one ever said Nick Denton was an altruist. But it's important to note that Gawker Media was designed to compete with the corporations that Gawker abused from the sidelines, because this is what created the dissonance of the site's later years....It was the writers, from Elizabeth Spiers to Emily Gould, who sold Denton's cynical project to his cynical audience, on the strength of their authentic interest in the material.... The old (and also accurately self-parodied) idea of Gawker as a necessary corrective to the reams of fawning, vapid, toothless celebrity profiles and trend pieces published every day has faded also as many of the media outlets Gawker used to mock have adopted its jaded style, if not its substance. "The status of Gawker rose as the overall status of its subjects declined, and it was this that made Gawker appear at times a reprehensible bully," she wrote. And finally: In early 2007, Choire Sicha—the outsider, the non-careerist, the one who had known restraint, whose parody of journalism had retained some memory of journalism's ethics—returned from the Observer to save Gawker. But it was too late. That is, at least, overblown. Didn't he do it for the money, actually? Yes. Yes he did. Keith finished his note to the minivan-owner and, with Choire behind the truck waving his arms in an impersonation of usefulness, backed the truck out of the too-narrow street. Later Keith asked me what I thought about Carla's essay and I said that I didn't really think she was wrong about anything, except that Jessica Coen had not "grown up in Los Angeles." By then we were standing high on the F train elevated platform at Smith and 9th Streets. The Statue of Liberty looked like a little dashboard adornment beyond the B.Q.E. I took a phone call and when I got back, Choire had told Keith he was quitting Gawker. "Yup, we're quitting!" I said. "Because of this?" Keith asked. "Sort of. Well, not because it was written. But because it's not untrue."

– "F--- it, I quit:" When reporter Charlo Greene dropped an on-air F-bomb and publicly told her employer to shove it so she could go do something she'd rather be doing, well, we've all been Charlo Greene. But particularly Emily Gould, who really did quit in a blaze of glory. Only, she writes at the Guardian, while it felt righteous and satisfying to call out her employer, Gawker, on her way out the door, the reality wasn't so glorious. "I wanted to make a big ideological point, and I had but one weapon in my arsenal: a pulpit that I could use to denounce the very thing that had given me a voice." Unfortunately, in quitting, "I lost that weapon as soon as I used it." And while Gould survived, "it took years before I worked another full-time job." And she's pretty sure she knows why: "It was that no one was quite prepared to trust me." But the reason that we adore people who say "f--- it" is because they echo "the tiny part of all of us that wishes we could ... be so honest and so irresponsible. But refusing to give in to those impulses is what keeps society functioning, and what makes us—as individuals—adults." Sure, "f--- it" feels great to say, "but it's fleeting." Click for Gould's full column.

The husband of Kat West was arrested Thursday morning inside his Calera home on a murder warrant. (Stephen Quinn | abc3340.com) Court records made public on Friday show Kathleen West was killed by a bottle of Lucid Absinthe. Calera Police had said on Thursday the Calera mother was killed by blunt force trauma. The husband of Kathleen West was arrested Thursday morning inside their Calera home and charged with her murder. The arrest ends the investigation of a case which had garnered national attention and created much speculation in the town of Calera and for its police department. Jeff West was led peacefully in handcuffs to the Calera Police Department around 8:30 a.m. for 45 minutes of questioning. He was then put into a police unit to be transported to jail. West did not confess to the crime during questioning said Calera Police Chief Sean Lemley. "In the times I've seen him he didn't appear upset." West was charged with murder and taken to the Shelby County Jail where he was held on a $500,000 bond. The charges come after the Calera Police Department received the results of forensic testing of the scene on Tuesday. By Wednesday evening an arrest warrant had been signed. The police chief said the DEA and FBI helped in the investigation to gather phone records and other potential evidence. Authorities said West's wife died from blunt force trauma. Court records released Friday show Kat West was killed by a bottle of Lucid Absinthe. Her death was characterized as a domestic incident by police. Jeff West's parents believe Calera Police have arrested the wrong man and that Kat West's parents agree with them. "Pissed off because I know they screwed it up and they're trying to blame somebody and they told (him) it was circumstantial evidence and they say they got proof. They don't know what they've got," said Jeff West's father, William West West’s arrest comes more than a month after his 42-year-old wife was found dead outside their Calera home. Kat West was a mother and model who went by the name "Kitty Kat West" on Instagram and Twitter. Her social media pages linked to a subscription-only adult website. Lemley said Wednesday it appeared her husband was aware of her online carrer. Her death and the investigation which followed gained national attention and speculation. William West admits he was unaware of his daughter-in-law's life online but said his son was. "She wasn't fooling around on anybody else. This was just a photo thing and there's a lot of freaks out there that get into that stuff." West's family, including her husband stayed out of the public eye since her death. Requests for interviews were not returned. Calera Mayor Jon Graham hinted on February 9th that an announcement in the investigation could come soon, “We’re close.” Graham and Police Chief Sean Lemley released virtually no information to the public during the investigation. Lemley said it is the highest profile case in the department's history. ||||| The husband of a Calera wife and mother has been arrested in the blunt-force killing of the online exhibitionist. After more than a month-long investigation that has brought national interest to the small Alabama town, authorities charged 44-year-old William "Jeff" West with murder, Calera Police Chief Sean Lemley said Thursday morning. "He was a suspect in the very beginning,'' Lemley said of Jeff West at a press conference. The Calera Police Department had four detectives assigned to the homicide investigation, two of them working on no other cases. The chief said they interviewed dozens of witnesses, and submitted volumes of evidence for testing in the case. Analysis of the final piece of evidence was returned to Calera from the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences on Tuesday, Lemley said. The case was then submitted in its entirety to the Shelby County District Attorney's Office for review and warrant consideration. "A lot of evidence was collected and it takes time to process,'' he said. Lemley said there were few details he could release about what led up to the homicide and what, specifically, made Jeff West their primary suspect. "We know exactly what happened that night,'' Lemley said. "And we do have evidence to support that." The challenges in the case, he said, were that Kat West's body was found outside the home, when most domestic-related killings are inside the home. Also, he said, the fact that she was partially-nude also complicated the investigation. He said investigators spoke twice with Jeff West prior to his arrest Thursday. "In the times that I have seen him,'' Lemley said, "he didn't seem to be very upset." Though the couple seemed happy in a liquor store surveillance video taken the Friday night before her body was found, Lemley said he couldn't say for sure what happened between then and the killing. Calera police had not responded to any prior domestic incidents at the couple's home. "Unfortunately,'' he said, "domestics turn bad pretty quickly." The couple's 12-year-old daughter was not at home when the killing took place. Jeff West also has a teen son from a previous relationship. Lemley said the entire situation is a tragedy for all involved, but especially the daughter. "She's having to deal with the fact she's lost a parent, and now this arrest has been made,'' he said. "It's definitely a tragedy." West was taken into custody Thursday morning without incident at his home. He was taken to police headquarters and then, within the hour, was en route to the Shelby County Jail. Shelby County District Attorney Jill Lee said Jeff West's bond is set at $500,000. "West will be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows,'' Lee said in a statement. "However, it should be noted that this is an arrest based upon a determination of probable cause and West remains innocent until proven guilty." The body of Kathleen Dawn West, 42, was discovered sometime around 5 a.m. Saturday, Jan. 13, in the 100 block of Green Wood Circle where the couple lived with their 12-year-old daughter. Neighbors said they didn't hear any commotion Friday night or Saturday morning at the West home. One man, who asked that his name not be used, said his daughter made the gruesome discovery Saturday morning when she was heading to work. She saw the woman in the roadway and went back home to get her father. He said West was face down, partially in the street and partially in the grass of the across-the-street neighbor's yard. He touched her back to see if she was breathing, and she was not, he said. About that time, he said, Jeff West walked out of the couple's home and said, "What's going on? That's my wife,'' the witness said. He was told Kat West was dead and, at that point, Jeff West put his cigarette out in the street and walked back inside. "He didn't cry, didn't show no facial expressions,'' the witness said. The 19-year-old young woman who initially found Kat West's body spoke Thursday for the first time. She told AL.com she was on her way to work at a fast-food restaurant and was actually running late when she made the discovery. The teen said at first she didn't believe what she was seeing. "It was so early,'' she said. "I was scared and I started crying. I was upset for a long time after that." She also described Jeff West's demeanor that morning, echoing what her father said. "It was odd. It was very odd,'' she said. "He walked out like it didn't even matter to him." The witness said she's tried to not keep up with the case, because it was all so upsetting to her. She said she saw the police at the West home Thursday morning, but left the neighborhood. "For a long time I had to get my brother walk me to the car,'' she said. "I'm doing a lot better now." Jeff West and the victim's parents have not responded to requests for interviews. As the case began to garner national attention, West removed his Facebook page but later reinstated it with limited access to the general public. Jeff West is former military and now works as an unsworn police officer at Birmingham Southern College in the campus police department, where he has been on leave since his wife's slaying. College officials on Thursday said he is in the process of being terminated. Neighbors said the couple mainly kept to themselves. They lived at the home, which they built in 2015, with their daughter. Kat West's parents also live in the Shelby County area. Kat West was often seen mowing their lawn, and was known to have a fascination with Marilyn Monroe. One neighbor said he had hear what he believed to one argument at the home a while ago, but it wasn't alarming enough to warrant him going to make sure everything was OK or alert the police. Kat West touted herself on social media as a stay-at-home mom but also had a subscription-only website, where she went by the name Kitty Kat West. Her Twitter and Instagram accounts, also under the name of Kitty Kat West, featured revealing photos of West, and directed viewers to her paid adult website, which cost $15.99 per subscription. Friends and family have been tight-lipped on Kat West's death. She was a member of a Facebook group called The Cougar Club, which emphasized that it is not a dating site, but rather a place to "spread the word that a Cougar is a beautiful, intelligent, classy older woman who men of all ages find attractive." The administrator for that page declined a request for an interview but sent AL.com this statement: "We're heartbroken to hear that such a beautiful, sweet young woman had her life ended so suddenly. Although we never spoke with her, any correspondence with her was always pleasant and professional. We will miss her and pray for her family and friends." A private service was held for Kat West on Monday, Jan. 22. The slaying shocked the normally-tranquil neighborhood, the community and beyond. Calera is a city with few violent crimes, and averages only about one homicide a year which typically are domestic-related killings. ||||| Court records in Shelby County show Kat West was murdered by blunt force trauma to the head with an alcohol bottle. Investigators arrested her husband, William Jeffery West, at his home Thursday morning. He is charged with murder. Calera Police Chief Sean Lemley said during a news conference that authorities talked to him twice before arresting him, noting that West didn't seem upset. "I guess people take things differently," he said. Lemley also noted that West was a suspect from the very beginning of the case. West, 42, was found dead and partially nude across the street from her home by a motorist on Jan. 13. Since then, about six other law enforcement agencies have been assisting police in their investigation. "We know what happened that night," Lemley said. Authorities say she died of blunt-force trauma to the head. Calera Police say the department had not had any interaction with the couple prior to Kat West's murder. The couple shares a 12-year-old daughter. "It's a tragedy all the way around," Lemley said of the family. A day before she was found dead, surveillance video shows her in the R&R Wine and Liquor store in Calera. The clerk said she believes West came in with her husband. The couple bought bottles of whiskey and liqueur. Prior to her death, West operated an adult subscription website under the name "Kitty Kat West." Dozens of people were interviewed regarding the case. The investigation into the case is still ongoing. Copyright 2018 WBRC. All rights reserved.

– The partially nude body of 42-year-old Kat West was found face down in the street outside her home in a small Alabama town last month; now her husband has been arrested in connection with her murder, AL.com reports. William "Jeff" West, 44, was arrested Thursday morning—nearly six weeks after his wife's death—at his home in Calera. According to WBMA, the Calera Police Department waited on the results of forensic testing to make the arrest, but chief Sean Lemley says William West had been a suspect from the beginning of the investigation. "We know exactly what happened that night,'' Lemley says. "And we do have evidence to support that." Regardless, police aren't giving any details into the reason for Kat West's murder or why William West is suspected of killing her. Police say Kat West was killed by blunt force trauma but aren't getting more specific than that. The death of Kat West drew national attention due in no small part to her career. Describing herself as an exhibitionist, West ran an adults-only subscription website under the name "Kitty Kat West." Lemley says it appears William West was aware of his wife's activities. William West is an officer with the campus police department at Birmingham Southern College. The couple has a 12-year-old daughter together who wasn't home at the time of her mother's death. "She's having to deal with the fact she's lost a parent, and now this arrest has been made,'' Lemley says. "It's definitely a tragedy." Lemley says William West "didn't seem to be very upset" by his wife's death during the investigation. "I guess people take things differently," WBRC quotes the police chief as saying.

If the order comes, the B-52s will return to a ready-to-fly posture not seen since the Cold War. BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991. That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice. “This is yet one more step in ensuring that we’re prepared,” Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff, said in an interview during his six-day tour of Barksdale and other U.S. Air Force bases that support the nuclear mission. “I look at it more as not planning for any specific event, but more for the reality of the global situation we find ourselves in and how we ensure we’re prepared going forward.” Goldfein and other senior defense officials stressed that the alert order had not been given, but that preparations were under way in anticipation that it might come. That decision would be made by Gen. John Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, or Gen. Lori Robinson, the head of U.S. Northern Command. STRATCOM is in charge of the military’s nuclear forces and NORTHCOM is in charge of defending North America. Putting the B-52s back on alert is just one of many decisions facing the Air Force as the U.S. military responds to a changing geopolitical environment that includes North Korea’s rapidly advancing nuclear arsenal, President Trump’s confrontational approach to Pyongyang, and Russia’s increasingly potent and active armed forces. Goldfein, who is the Air Force’s top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat. “The world is a dangerous place and we’ve got folks that are talking openly about use of nuclear weapons,” he said. “It’s no longer a bipolar world where it’s just us and the Soviet Union. We’ve got other players out there who have nuclear capability. It’s never been more important to make sure that we get this mission right.” During his trip across the country last week, Goldfein encouraged airmen to think beyond Cold War uses for ICBMs, bombers and nuclear cruise missiles. “I’ve challenged…Air Force Global Strike Command to help lead the dialog, help with this discussion about ‘What does conventional conflict look like with a nuclear element?’ and ‘Do we respond as a global force if that were to occur?’ and ‘What are the options?’” he said. “How do we think about it — how do we think about deterrence in that environment?” Asked if placing B-52s back on alert — as they were for decades — would help with deterrence, Goldfein said it’s hard to say. “Really it depends on who, what kind of behavior are we talking about, and whether they’re paying attention to our readiness status,” he said. Already, various improvements have been made to prepare Barksdale — home to the 2d Bomb Wing and Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the service’s nuclear forces — to return B-52s to an alert posture. Near the alert pads, an old concrete building — where B-52 crews during the Cold War would sleep, ready to run to their aircraft and take off at a moment’s notice — is being renovated. Inside, beds are being installed for more than 100 crew members, more than enough room for the crews that would man bombers positioned on the nine alert pads outside. There’s a recreation room, with a pool table, TVs and a shuffleboard table. Large paintings of the patches for each squadron at Barksdale adorn the walls of a large stairway. One painting — a symbol of the Cold War — depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words “Peace The Old Fashioned Way,” written underneath. At the bottom of the stairwell, there is a Strategic Air Command logo, yet another reminder of the Cold War days when American B-52s sat at the ready on the runway outside. Those long-empty B-52 parking spaces will soon get visits by two nuclear command planes, the E-4B Nightwatch and E-6B Mercury, both which will occasionally sit alert there. During a nuclear war, the planes would become the flying command posts of the defense secretary and STRATCOM commander, respectively. If a strike order is given by the president, the planes would be used to transmit launch codes to bombers, ICBMs and submarines. At least one of the four nuclear-hardened E-4Bs — formally called the National Airborne Operations Center, but commonly known as the Doomsday Plane — is always on 24-hour alert. Barksdale and other bases with nuclear bombers are preparing to build storage facilities for a new nuclear cruise missile that is under development. During his trip, Goldfein received updates on the preliminary work for a proposed replacement for the 400-plus Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the new long-range cruise missile. “Our job is options,” Goldfein said. “We provide best military advice and options for the commander in chief and the secretary of defense. Should the STRATCOM commander require or the NORTHCOM commander require us to [be on] a higher state of readiness to defend the homeland, then we have to have a place to put those forces.” ||||| The U.S. is ruminating about putting nuclear bombers back on a 24-hour alert. Defense One reports the move is being considered by top Pentagon officials over national security concerns. “This is yet one more step in ensuring that we’re prepared,” Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff, said in an interview during his six-day tour of Barksdale and other U.S. Air Force bases that support the nuclear mission. “I look at it more as not planning for any specific event, but more for the reality of the global situation we find ourselves in and how we ensure we’re prepared going forward.” Goldfein and other senior defense officials stressed that the alert order had not been given, but that preparations were under way in anticipation that it might come. That decision would be made by Gen. John Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, or Gen. Lori Robinson, the head of U.S. Northern Command. STRATCOM is in charge of the military’s nuclear forces and NORTHCOM is in charge of defending North America. It’s important to point out the Pentagon is only considering the option. It doesn’t mean this will happen, and it’s completely possible this is something they consider on a regular basis. After all, Great Britain reportedly has a plan in place to attack North Korea, something other countries probably have as well. That’s part of being in the military, making sure there’s a plan for almost everything. It just depends on whether something leaks out or not. But it’s pretty interesting the Air Force is going on the record and openly talking about the option. It’s not “unnamed sources,” but the Air Force chief of staff saying, “Hey…we’re thinking about it.” Goldfein did admit the strategy may or may not encourage so-called rogue regimes to chill out and back down, noting it depended on, “who, what kind of behavior are we talking about, and whether they’re paying attention to our readiness status.” The easy guess is North Korea, but other nations could include Iran, Russia, and China. The big question for me is why? It makes sense to be prepared, but there are ICBMs and cruise missiles which are available to military forces. Perhaps the Pentagon is considering using B-52’s to do some sort of attempted quiet strike against an enemy, like North Korea, and believe the bomber is a better option than the missiles. The military has yet to put the B-52 out to pasture, so this could just be going back to the well because it works. It also could be the Pentagon is confident a B-52 wouldn’t be detected by North Korea’s lone satellite and China or Russia wouldn’t let North Korea know what was going on. What doesn’t make sense is why the Goldfein would come right out and say, “Yeah this is an option.” Is he trying to send a message to China and Russia or just a message to the entire world that all options are being considered? It also goes against comments by President Donald Trump made during the 2016 campaign about the bombers and their usefulness (the entire, “second-generation B-52” statement). It could be a political move designated to send a message to North Korea, make Kim Jong-un realize the U.S. is taking his threats seriously, and hopefully get him to stop raging against the America. Or it’s Trump just trying to show how “big” his military is. Of course it could also complete backfire and cause Kim to issue even more threats against the U.S., and attempt to draw the nation, and possibly the world, into war. It’s a curious strategy, but one which is only being considered. At the moment.

– The security site Defense One reports that the Air Force is considering putting nuclear-armed bomber planes back on 24-hour notice, something that hasn't been in effect since the Cold War. The site emphasizes that no such order has yet been given, but it quotes Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Goldfein as saying the move is under consideration. "I look at it more as not planning for any specific event, but more for the reality of the global situation we find ourselves in and how we ensure we're prepared going forward," he says. Specifically, the order would result in B-52s armed with nuclear weapons being parked at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, with crews in nearby hangars ready to go at a moment's notice. A post at Hot Air adds a bit of caution about reading too much into the report. Just because it's being considered "doesn’t mean this will happen, and it's completely possible this is something they consider on a regular basis," writes Taylor Millard. After all, planning for all contingencies is what all militaries do, Millard notes. Still, at least one tangible sign of the potential move is in motion: The building where B-52 crews slept during the Cold War is being renovated, notes Defense One.

Photo of Wrecked 2012 Tesla We have more news on the Tesla motorcar that wrecked on Thompson Lane Wednesday afternoon around 3. Murfreesboro Police have confirmed the woman driving the vehicle was charged with her first offense of DUI (Driving while Under the Influence). The 34-year old woman was also charged with Violation of Implied Consent when she reportedly refused to a blood alcohol test. What makes this story unique is the all electric car she was driving. The all electric four door Tesla she was operating was reportedly the only one of its kind in Rutherford County, TN. It is a luxury electric car that is sold for $70,000 to $120,000 depending on the model. A Murfreesboro Police arrest report states that officers arrived at the scene of the crash and witnessed the utility pole was down. The car was about 100-feet away from the pole. When police talked to the female about what caused the wreck she evidently told officers, "she was messing with the radio.” When Officer Martin asked for the suspects drivers license, she reportedly handed it to a fireman standing next to him, according to the report, instead of him. The woman was taken to StoneCrest Medical Center in Smyrna and later released to police custody. At that point she was booked into the local jail under a $2,000 bond. About the Tesla Vehicle She was Allegedly Driving: The vehicle in this crash was probably the only one of its kind in Murfreesboro and possibly in the state. It was a current 2012 Tesla Model S, all electric vehicle. The young female driver possibly survived because this car has a 5-star safety rating for front, side or rollover crashes. In checking the Tesla website, they note the high-strength steel and aluminum frame contribute to its crash performance. It appeared that possibly all 8 airbags had opened, plus this is not a lightweight car--it weighs a little less than 5,000 pounds. The car, depending on the accessories, is sold for $70,000 to $120,000. Source: MPD Arrest Report #13-16172 Before police could release the electric vehicle to be loaded onto the flatbed wrecker, they had to secure information on how to turn off the Tesla Model S. Officials received technical instructions, and the all electric 4-door car was shut down. Using the computer controlled SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system, Murfreesboro Electric was able to divert power sources and return electricity to most residents in the area within a short period of time. ||||| The Tesla Model S is no stranger to awards and high scores, but its latest accolade could be its most important yet. Its five-star National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) crash test rating was revealed a few weeks back, but Tesla Motors (NSDQ:TSLA) has now revealed the car's score is the highest ever recorded by the NHTSA. While its five-star score across the board has been attained by other vehicles – around one percent of all cars tested are capable of such a score – its ratings in individual categories are higher than any other vehicle, including larger SUVs and minivans. As we've seen with other vehicles over recent weeks, the NHTSA tests cars in a frontal impact, side impact, side pole impact and a rollover risk test, which record's the vehicle's likelihood of rollover when performing an avoidance maneuver. It scored exceptionally in all categories. Frontal impact was aided by the lack of engine block under the Tesla's "frunk"--allowing more space for impact absorption. Side impact was also rated very highly, while Tesla's use of multiple deep aluminum extrusions in the side rail of the car allowed a higher performance in the pole impact test than a similarly-rated car, the Volvo S60. Tesla explains on its blog that the Model S preserved 63.5 percent of driver residual space, compared to 7.8 percent in the Volvo. The S scored well in rear impact too, even considering the two rear-facing occupant seats. Tesla revealed the factory installs a double rear bumper if the rear seats are specified--probably going some way to explaining the extra cost. Rollover risk was rated at just 5.7 percent--"refusing to turn over via the normal methods and special means were needed to induce the car to roll"--a successful rating attributed to the Model S's low center of gravity. Tesla's own independent testing has shown the car's rollover strength to be incredibly high, too--breaking the test machine at 4g. Tesla Motors also notes that during its own safety testing, the company deliberately ensured that the car was capable of withstanding impacts different to those conducted in official testing--making the car strong everywhere, rather than "gaming" official tests. Just last week, WGNS Radio revealed that one driver has already conducted their own impromptu pole test in a Model S, surviving unscathed. A 34-year old Tennessee woman was arrested and charged with DUI after crashing into a power pole, cutting off electricity to local residents. The near-5,000-lb Model S flattened the pole and sustained significant damage, but the cabin itself was unaffected. The bottom line? Tesla hasn't just produced one of the best cars Consumer Reports has ever tested, but the safest car the NHTSA has ever tested too. Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy You can find the NHTSA's full test ratings for the Model S here. [Hat tip: Brian Henderson] ||||| The NHTSA ranks crash safety on a scale of one to five, with five stars being the best, one star being the worst. The Tesla Model S just scored 5.4 stars. Yes. It broke the scale. Tesla says that the Model S did so well because it scored a five in every single possible category and subcategory. And even though the NHTSA doesn't have a rating higher than five, it does record when something exceeds the five star level. Apparently, because the Model S doesn't have a large thing some people call an "engine" up front. That gives it huge crumple zones to absorb impacts, according to Tesla. The frame is also pretty strong thanks to all the batteries. Hell, the Model S broke the testing machine for roof crush protection. What the hell is it made of? Boron? What exactly is boron? I don't think anyone knows. Results like this are more evidence in my theory that Elon Musk might just be a supervillain. He's a billionaire. He has his own space program. He's built a nearly invincible car. My only guess is that the car will be used to transport a legion of some sort of electric warrior to conquer the Earth, or possibly just the east coast. He's basically Hank Scorpio.

– Just how well did the Tesla Model S do in government safety tests? The highest score a car can get is 5 stars. The Model S got 5.4. "Yes," writes Travis Okulski at Jalopnik. "It broke the scale." In fact, the electric car did better than any vehicle ever tested by the National Highway Transportation Safety Board, reports the Christian Science Monitor. About 1% of cars get a 5-star rating, but the Tesla did exceptionally well in all the individual categories and subcategories—front impact, side impact, rear impact, rollover vulnerability, you name it. "Frontal impact was aided by the lack of engine block under the Tesla's 'frunk'—allowing more space for impact absorption," writes Antony Ingram at the Monitor, who finds evidence of a real-world test in Tennessee. A woman driving a Tesla S there slammed into a power pole hard enough to knock it down and cut off power to a neighborhood, reports WGNS. But she emerged unscathed, except for DUI charges. (The Model S, which starts at a mere $70,000, also got rave reviews from Consumer Reports.)

SANTA BARBARA, CALIF. What does President Obama's visit to California this week on behalf of embattled Sen. Barbara Boxer have to do with passage of the financial reform bill? Far more than you'd imagine. That Boxer is in any trouble says much of what you need to know about this year's election. California has become a Democratic bastion, and Boxer has been a liberal institution who never before faced a serious reelection challenge. Now she is seen as sufficiently vulnerable that Obama will come to the state for another fundraiser for her next month. The threat to Boxer is grim news for Democrats. Is this sense of the election about to be overtaken? That's where financial reform comes in. If health-care legislation had to fight uphill against a public mood that is skeptical of government's capacities, the financial reform bill that Democrats are pushing has the advantage of flowing with a public view devoutly critical of Wall Street, bankers and all their works. And for the first time in Obama's presidency, Republicans are uncertain as to whether resolute opposition to a Democratic idea is in their political interest. There are strong indications that the GOP would prefer to avoid an all-out confrontation over re-regulating the financial system, and several Republican senators are saying that they would like to negotiate with Democrats. Suddenly, it's Democrats -- and, in particular, the often conflict-averse Obama -- who are relishing a fight. This raises what might be the essential question for November: Can Democrats finally put the Republicans on the defensive? Obama is betting that they can. His speech at a fundraiser for Boxer in Los Angeles on Monday offered a template for a new Happy Warrior in the tradition of Al Smith. After a year in which he repeatedly and almost apologetically insisted that he was -- really, really -- trying as hard as he could to work with Republicans, he turned the beat around and asked why Republicans weren't willing to work with him. He used his praise of Boxer -- "she wants to cooperate with folks on the other side of the aisle where she can, but she's willing to fight where she has to" -- as a pivot to what he hopes will be a central theme of this year's national election campaign. His words about Boxer, he said, were "not a bad adage . . . for the Democratic Party. "In this entire year and a half of cleaning up the mess, it's been tough because the folks very responsible for a large portion of this mess decided to stand on the sidelines," Obama declared. "It was as if somebody had driven their car into the ditch and then just watched you as you had to yank it out, and asked you: 'Why didn't you do it faster -- and why do I have that scratch on the fender?' And you want to say: 'Why don't you put your shoulder up against that car and help to push?' That's what we need, is some help." In one paragraph, Obama did what many of the dispirited in his party have long been urging him to do: He linked the economic mess to past Republican policies -- much as Ronald Reagan blamed the economic downturn of the early 1980s on Democrats and liberals -- and turned the tables on bipartisanship by asserting that it is Republicans who are blocking concord. And then he connected this argument to the struggle over financial reform, aimed at changing "a situation where people are allowed to take wild risks and all the downsides are socialized even as the profits are privatized." Obama said that "some of the rhetoric that's coming out of the other side of the aisle" suggested that Republicans "so far, at least, don't seem to acknowledge that we're going to have to make some tough decisions and reform the system." Note the words "so far, at least." Democrats clearly see financial reform as a winner either way. With Republican cooperation, they have a bill. With Republican obstruction, they have an election issue. For once, Democrats are negotiating from strength. No one doubts the Democrats are in a deep electoral hole. But Obama has now joined the battle with a strategy to transform the election from a referendum on his own party into a contest with a Republican Party the public doesn't much like, either. Boxer's fate, but also the fate of a lot of other Democrats, hangs on its success. ejdionne@washpost.com ||||| The United States Senate. Feel the love. “... You have been great.” “... I am grateful, very grateful, for your friendship.” “... I want everyone to know how deeply committed you are to reform.” “... I also wanted to thank you for your hard work.” This was Wednesday at the Senate Agriculture Committee, which was considering the regulation of derivatives. These are extremely complicated financial instruments, and they are under the control of the agriculture committee because, really, when you get right down to it, everything is a crop. “Members of this committee check their partisan politics at the door,” boasted the chairwoman, Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat of Arkansas. Then, in between compliments, the members approved Lincoln’s bill on derivatives in a series of party-line votes. Except for Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, who sided with Lincoln. Truly, this was a day for the record books. Somebody finally got a Republican to vote for something. And perhaps a sign of things to come. As President Obama prepared to make his big financial reform speech near Wall Street on Thursday, the G.O.P. seemed increasingly eager to find a way to work this one out. “We probably generally agree on 90 percent,” said the agriculture committee’s ranking minority member, Saxby (“I golf, therefore I am”) Chambliss. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, took credit for forcing bipartisan negotiations with his innovative threat-of-a-filibuster tactic. Chris Dodd, the chairman of the banking committee who has been negotiating with the Republicans for months, said it was like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. The Republican leadership originally seemed to believe that financial reform could be a replay of health care reform, with a political payoff for total obstruction. They’re discovering that the only real similarity is that both are almost impossible to explain. People love their doctors, but they tend to hate their bankers. Nobody is going to scare voters by predicting that if the Democratic bill passes, they may not be able to keep seeing the same hedge fund manager. It’s a sign of the shift that Blanche Lincoln has gone to the front of the populist pack. She was one of the weakest reeds on the Democratic side of the health care reform debate. Before that, she was obsessed with trying to cut the estate tax. Before that — well, let’s be frank. We have no idea what she was up to. Given her record, people had expected a weak, boring package from her committee. But Lincoln came up with rules that were tougher than anyone had expected, requiring derivatives to be traded on public exchanges so investors could compare prices. The banks hate this idea, possibly because it will drive down their profits. For sure because it will drive down their profits. “The bridge of cooperation has been washed out,” said Republican Pat Roberts of Kansas crankily, as Lincoln nudged the bill through committee. He also warned that the senators were “smothering ourselves in the milk of human kindness and hoping it doesn’t curdle,” nailing down first place in the hotly contested Senate metaphor-making competition. It was the first time Lincoln seemed like an interesting political figure since 1998, when, at 38, she became the youngest woman ever elected to the United States Senate. Now her seat is in jeopardy. Conservatives smell blood. The left is backing her opponent in a primary next month. Bill Clinton expressed his support by saying, “I wouldn’t be surprised to see her coming back from the dead.” Which is really not what you want to hear from the former president while you’re out fund-raising. So it’s pretty easy to figure out what caused Lincoln’s hard line on financial reform. She is tacking to the left the same way John McCain, struggling in a hot primary in Arizona against a Tea Party-type opponent, is tacking to the right. But let’s give her credit for never having gotten desperate enough to claim that cars full of illegal immigrants were “intentionally causing crashes on the freeway.” Unlike some former mavericks we could mention. Americans are certainly in the market for some leadership on the subject of derivatives. It’s hard to even figure out how to worry about them, since we have no clue exactly what they are, beyond bets on whether prices will go up or down. Try to think of derivatives as being like the Tribbles in that classic “Star Trek” episode. For all of history, there was no such thing. Then somebody found the first ones, which looked cute and made soothing noises. We liked them fine, until the population grew to be worth about $600 trillion. When they got into the financial engine, all hell broke loose. And there is absolutely no political percentage in allowing them free run of the ship.

– EJ Dionne sees a newly aggressive Barack Obama recognizing that he can put Republicans on their heels with financial reform. Republicans for the first time "are uncertain as to whether resolute opposition to a Democratic idea is in their political interest," he writes in the Washington Post. "Suddenly, it's Democrats—and, in particular, the often conflict-averse Obama—who are relishing a fight." For them, it's a win-win: Either they get a bipartisan bill or an election issue. In a similar vein, Gail Collins thinks the GOP is fumbling: The "leadership originally seemed to believe that financial reform could be a replay of health care reform, with a political payoff for total obstruction," she writes in the New York Times. "They’re discovering that the only real similarity is that both are almost impossible to explain. People love their doctors, but they tend to hate their bankers. Nobody is going to scare voters by predicting that if the Democratic bill passes, they may not be able to keep seeing the same hedge fund manager."

After Michelle Obama's comments about slaves building the White House, Bill O'Reilly defended their working conditions. | Getty Bill O'Reilly: Slaves who built White House were 'well-fed and had decent lodgings' Political commentator Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday defended the working conditions for the slaves who built the White House, attempting to fact-check Michelle Obama’s speech from the night before. "Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802," said the host of Fox’s “The Factor." Story Continued Below “So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well,” he continued. The first lady delivered a keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention on Monday night, where she supported Hillary Clinton and taking a jab at the Republican nominee. "I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves," she said. "And I watch my daughters, two beautiful, intelligent black young women, playing with their dogs on the White House lawn.” Bill O'Reilly: Slaves who built White House were 'well fed and had decent lodgings' Bill O'Reilly talks about slavery on Tuesday. poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201607/3639/1155968404_5052208249001_5052107916001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true “And because of Hillary Clinton my daughters and all our sons and daughters now take for granted that a woman can be president of the United States. So don't let anyone ever tell you that this country isn't great, that somehow we need to make it great again, because this right now is the greatest country on earth." O’Reilly continued his history lesson: “In addition, free blacks, whites, and immigrants also worked on the massive building. There were no illegal immigrants at that time. If you could make it here, you could stay here.” “I just can't get rid of that history teacher thing. You know what I'm talking about?” ||||| Tweet with a location You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

– In her convention speech Monday night, Michelle Obama told the crowd, "I wake up every morning in a house built by slaves." At Fox News, Bill O'Reilly provided a fact-check Tuesday and found that the first lady was correct—but he added a qualification that is raising eyebrows, notes Politico. "Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802," he said. "However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well." USA Today rounds up some of the quick online reaction, much of it along the lines of this tweet: "Did Bill O'Reilly really just say while slaves were building the White House they were fed well? Does that make it OK?" O'Reilly added that "free blacks, whites, and immigrants also worked on the massive building. There were no illegal immigrants at that time. If you could make it here, you could stay here.” (The Fox anchor is the author of some best-selling history books.)

See more of Brandon Mckean on Facebook ||||| Police detain local man from Pontiac, Michigan in freezing temperatures on Thanksgiving for ‘walking with his hands in pockets‘. Llywellyn Bird | The Pontiac Tribune As if we needed another example of the madness that is our burgeoning police state to surface this week, a man from Michigan was detained Thursday under suspicion of walking with his hands in his pockets in freezing temperatures. If you weren’t aware that walking with your hands in your pockets is a crime, it’s because it isn’t. But that didn’t stop the officer from detaining the man. The incident occurred at 4:30 pm on Thanksgiving day in the city of Pontiac, when Brandon McKean was walking on Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard and Michigan Avenue, and was detained and questioned by the police officer. The temperature in Pontiac reached a high of 33º on Thanksgiving. “You were walking by,” the officer told McKean. “You were making people nervous.” The encounter was apparently set off by a call placed to the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office, and McKean captured video on his phone. When pressing whether this was actually the reason for being stopped, the officer affirmed, saying: “Yeah, they said you had your hands in your pocket.” The Pontiac Tribune reached McKean for comment, and confirmed the details. “I was just walking from my friend’s house looking at Facebook,” he said, “when he drove past and stopped.” Police are required to have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed in order to detain a citizen. And an incident like this, while peaceful, is indicative of the increasingly invasive actions of police, and an erosion of civil liberties by challenging the far stretches of what could be considered “reasonable suspicion.” In this instance, the only reasonable suspicion the officer disclosed was an alleged call received by police from a nervous resident. He further justified stopping McKean by referencing frequent robberies that occur in Pontiac, which is far too broad to suspect any potential wrongdoing. This coming at a time when public police scrutiny, especially as it concerns race relations, is in the national spotlight due to the recent events in Ferguson Missouri. Given the context of recent current events, we should note that Brandon McKean is a black man and was detained by a white police officer. What role this played is undetermined, but what’s certain is that this man never should have been detained while simply travelling freely, and without having committed a crime. Follow Llywellyn Bird on Twitter @llywbird ||||| (b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30. (d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24. (b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22. 5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27. 3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques, and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. Pp. 13-15. 1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 8-9. A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying [p2] concealed weapons. The defense moved to suppress the weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer, for his own protection, had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Petitioner and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved. Opinion WARREN, C.J., Opinion of the Court MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents serious questions concerning the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on the street between the citizen and the policeman investigating suspicious circumstances. Petitioner Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to the statutorily prescribed term of one to three years in the penitentiary. [n1] Following [p5] the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress, the prosecution introduced in evidence two revolvers and a number of bullets seized from Terry and a codefendant, Richard Chilton, [n2] by Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden. At the hearing on the motion to suppress this evidence, Officer McFadden testified that, while he was patrolling in plain clothes in downtown Cleveland at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of October 31, 1963, his attention was attracted by two men, Chilton and Terry, standing on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. He had never seen the two men before, and he was unable to say precisely what first drew his eye to them. However, he testified that he had been a policeman for 39 years and a detective for 35, and that he had been assigned to patrol this vicinity of downtown Cleveland for shoplifters and pickpockets for 30 years. He explained that he had developed routine habits of observation over the years, and that he would "stand and watch people or walk and watch people at many intervals of the day." He added: "Now, in this case, when I looked over, they didn't look right to me at the time." His interest aroused, Officer McFadden took up a post of observation in the entrance to a store 300 to 400 feet [p6] away from the two men. "I get more purpose to watch them when I seen their movements," he testified. He saw one of the men leave the other one and walk southwest on Huron Road, past some stores. The man paused for a moment and looked in a store window, then walked on a short distance, turned around and walked back toward the corner, pausing once again to look in the same store window. He rejoined his companion at the corner, and the two conferred briefly. Then the second man went through the same series of motions, strolling down Huron Road, looking in the same window, walking on a short distance, turning back, peering in the store window again, and returning to confer with the first man at the corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece -- in all, roughly a dozen trips. At one point, while the two were standing together on the corner, a third man approached them and engaged them briefly in conversation. This man then left the two others and walked west on Euclid Avenue. Chilton and Terry resumed their measured pacing, peering, and conferring. After this had gone on for 10 to 12 minutes, the two men walked off together, heading west on Euclid Avenue, following the path taken earlier by the third man. By this time, Officer McFadden had become thoroughly suspicious. He testified that, after observing their elaborately casual and oft-repeated reconnaissance of the store window on Huron Road, he suspected the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," and that he considered it his duty as a police officer to investigate further. He added that he feared "they may have a gun." Thus, Officer McFadden followed Chilton and Terry and saw them stop in front of Zucker's store to talk to the same man who had conferred with them earlier on the street corner. Deciding that the situation was ripe for direct action, Officer McFadden approached the three men, identified [p7] himself as a police officer and asked for their names. At this point, his knowledge was confined to what he had observed. He was not acquainted with any of the three men by name or by sight, and he had received no information concerning them from any other source. When the men "mumbled something" in response to his inquiries, Officer McFadden grabbed petitioner Terry, spun him around so that they were facing the other two, with Terry between McFadden and the others, and patted down the outside of his clothing. In the left breast pocket of Terry's overcoat, Officer McFadden felt a pistol. He reached inside the overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove the gun. At this point, keeping Terry between himself and the others, the officer ordered all three men to enter Zucker's store. As they went in, he removed Terry's overcoat completely, removed a .38 caliber revolver from the pocket and ordered all three men to face the wall with their hands raised. Officer McFadden proceeded to pat down the outer clothing of Chilton and the third man, Katz. He discovered another revolver in the outer pocket of Chilton's overcoat, but no weapons were found on Katz. The officer testified that he only patted the men down to see whether they had weapons, and that he did not put his hands beneath the outer garments of either Terry or Chilton until he felt their guns. So far as appears from the record, he never placed his hands beneath Katz' outer garments. Officer McFadden seized Chilton's gun, asked the proprietor of the store to call a police wagon, and took all three men to the station, where Chilton and Terry were formally charged with carrying concealed weapons. On the motion to suppress the guns, the prosecution took the position that they had been seized following a search incident to a lawful arrest. The trial court rejected this theory, stating that it "would be stretching the facts beyond reasonable comprehension" to find that Officer [p8] McFadden had had probable cause to arrest the men before he patted them down for weapons. However, the court denied the defendants' motion on the ground that Officer McFadden, on the basis of his experience, had reasonable cause to believe . . . that the defendants were conducting themselves suspiciously, and some interrogation should be made of their action. Purely for his own protection, the court held, the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing of these men, who he had reasonable cause to believe might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. The frisk, it held, was essential to the proper performance of the officer's investigatory duties, for, without it, "the answer to the police officer may be a bullet, and a loaded pistol discovered during the frisk is admissible." After the court denied their motion to suppress, Chilton and Terry waived jury trial and pleaded not guilty. The court adjudged them guilty, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed. State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App.2d 122, 214 N.E.2d 114 (1966). The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed their appeal on the ground that no "substantial constitutional question" was involved. We granted certiorari, 387 U.S. 929 (1967), to determine whether the admission of the revolvers in evidence violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). We affirm the conviction. I The Fourth Amendment provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ." This inestimable right of [p9] personal security belongs as much to the citizen on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs. For as this Court has always recognized, No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). We have recently held that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967), and wherever an individual may harbor a reasonable "expectation of privacy," id. at 361 (MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring), he is entitled to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Of course, the specific content and incidents of this right must be shaped by the context in which it is asserted. For "what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures." Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222 (1960). Unquestionably petitioner was entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as he walked down the street in Cleveland. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964); Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). The question is whether, in all the circumstances of this on-the-street encounter, his right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. We would be less than candid if we did not acknowledge that this question thrusts to the fore difficult and troublesome issues regarding a sensitive area of police activity -- issues which have never before been squarely [p10] presented to this Court. Reflective of the tensions involved are the practical and constitutional arguments pressed with great vigor on both sides of the public debate over the power of the police to "stop and frisk" -- as it is sometimes euphemistically termed -- suspicious persons. On the one hand, it is frequently argued that, in dealing with the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets, the police are in need of an escalating set of flexible responses, graduated in relation to the amount of information they possess. For this purpose, it is urged that distinctions should be made between a "stop" and an "arrest" (or a "seizure" of a person), and between a "frisk" and a "search." [n3] Thus, it is argued, the police should be allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to "frisk" him for weapons. If the "stop" and the "frisk" give rise to probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, then the police should be empowered to make a formal "arrest," and a full incident "search" of the person. This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a "stop" and a "frisk" amount to a mere "minor inconvenience and petty indignity," [n4] which can properly be imposed upon the [p11] citizen in the interest of effective law enforcement on the basis of a police officer's suspicion. [n5] On the other side, the argument is made that the authority of the police must be strictly circumscribed by the law of arrest and search as it has developed to date in the traditional jurisprudence of the Fourth Amendment. [n6] It is contended with some force that there is not -- and cannot be -- a variety of police activity which does not depend solely upon the voluntary cooperation of the citizen, and yet which stops short of an arrest based upon probable cause to make such an arrest. The heart of the Fourth Amendment, the argument runs, is a severe requirement of specific justification for any intrusion upon protected personal security, coupled with a highly developed system of judicial controls to enforce upon the agents of the State the commands of the Constitution. Acquiescence by the courts in the compulsion inherent [p12] in the field interrogation practices at issue here, it is urged, would constitute an abdication of judicial control over, and indeed an encouragement of, substantial interference with liberty and personal security by police officers whose judgment is necessarily colored by their primary involvement in "the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948). This, it is argued, can only serve to exacerbate police-community tensions in the crowded centers of our Nation's cities. [n7] In this context, we approach the issues in this case mindful of the limitations of the judicial function in controlling the myriad daily situations in which policemen and citizens confront each other on the street. The State has characterized the issue here as the right of a police officer . . . to make an on-the-street stop, interrogate and pat down for weapons (known in street vernacular as "stop and frisk"). [n8] But this is only partly accurate. For the issue is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. Ever since its inception, the rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment has been recognized as a principal mode of discouraging lawless police conduct. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 391-393 (1914). Thus, its major thrust is a deterrent one, see Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 629-635 (1965), and experience has taught that it is the only effective deterrent to police misconduct in the criminal context, and that, without it, the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures would be a mere "form of words." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961). The rule also serves another vital function -- "the imperative of judicial integrity." Elkins [p13] v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222 (1960). Courts which sit under our Constitution cannot and will not be made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions. Thus, in our system, evidentiary rulings provide the context in which the judicial process of inclusion and exclusion approves some conduct as comporting with constitutional guarantees and disapproves other actions by state agents. A ruling admitting evidence in a criminal trial, we recognize, has the necessary effect of legitimizing the conduct which produced the evidence, while an application of the exclusionary rule withholds the constitutional imprimatur. The exclusionary rule has its limitations, however, as a tool of judicial control. It cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate police investigative techniques on the ground that much conduct which is closely similar involves unwarranted intrusions upon constitutional protections. Moreover, in some contexts, the rule is ineffective as a deterrent. Street encounters between citizens and police officers are incredibly rich in diversity. They range from wholly friendly exchanges of pleasantries or mutually useful information to hostile confrontations of armed men involving arrests, or injuries, or loss of life. Moreover, hostile confrontations are not all of a piece. Some of them begin in a friendly enough manner, only to take a different turn upon the injection of some unexpected element into the conversation. Encounters are initiated by the police for a wide variety of purposes, some of which are wholly unrelated to a desire to prosecute for crime. [n9] Doubtless some [p14] police "field interrogation" conduct violates the Fourth Amendment. But a stern refusal by this Court to condone such activity does not necessarily render it responsive to the exclusionary rule. Regardless of how effective the rule may be where obtaining convictions is an important objective of the police, [n10] it is powerless to deter invasions of constitutionally guaranteed rights where the police either have no interest in prosecuting or are willing to forgo successful prosecution in the interest of serving some other goal. Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of these limitations. The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, [n11] will not be [p15] stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be used effectively to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime. No judicial opinion can comprehend the protean variety of the street encounter, and we can only judge the facts of the case before us. Nothing we say today is to be taken as indicating approval of police conduct outside the legitimate investigative sphere. Under our decision, courts still retain their traditional responsibility to guard against police conduct which is overbearing or harassing, or which trenches upon personal security without the objective evidentiary justification which the Constitution requires. When such conduct is identified, it must be condemned by the judiciary, and its fruits must be excluded from evidence in criminal trials. And, of course, our approval of legitimate and restrained investigative conduct undertaken on the basis of ample factual justification should in no way discourage the employment of other remedies than the exclusionary rule to curtail abuses for which that sanction may prove inappropriate. Having thus roughly sketched the perimeters of the constitutional debate over the limits on police investigative conduct in general and the background against which this case presents itself, we turn our attention to the quite narrow question posed by the facts before us: whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest. [p16] Given the narrowness of this question, we have no occasion to canvass in detail the constitutional limitations upon the scope of a policeman's power when he confronts a citizen without probable cause to arrest him. II Our first task is to establish at what point in this encounter the Fourth Amendment becomes relevant. That is, we must decide whether and when Officer McFadden "seized" Terry, and whether and when he conducted a "search." There is some suggestion in the use of such terms as "stop" and "frisk" that such police conduct is outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment because neither action rises to the level of a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Constitution. [n12] We emphatically reject this notion. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a "search." Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure [p17] performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a "petty indignity." [n13] It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly. [n14] The danger in the logic which proceeds upon distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest," or "seizure" of the person, and between a "frisk" and a "search," is twofold. It seeks to isolate from constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citizen. And, by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional regulation. [n15] This Court has held, in [p18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing Co. v. [p19] United States, 282 U.S. 344, 356-358 (1931); see United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 586-587 (1948). The scope of the search must be "strictly tied to and justified by" the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring); see, e.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367-368 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30-31 (1925). The distinctions of classical "stop-and-frisk" theory thus serve to divert attention from the central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment -- the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security. "Search" and "seizure" are not talismans. We therefore reject the notions that the Fourth Amendment does not come into play at all as a limitation upon police conduct if the officers stop short of something called a "technical arrest" or a "full-blown search." In this case, there can be no question, then, that Officer McFadden "seized" petitioner and subjected him to a "search" when he took hold of him and patted down the outer surfaces of his clothing. We must decide whether, at that point, it was reasonable for Officer McFadden to have interfered with petitioner's personal security as he did. [n16] And, in determining whether the seizure and search were "unreasonable," our inquiry [p20] is a dual one -- whether the officer's action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. III If this case involved police conduct subject to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, we would have to ascertain whether "probable cause" existed to justify the search and seizure which took place. However, that is not the case. We do not retreat from our holdings that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, see, e.g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (1964); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961), or that, in most instances, failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances, see, e.g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (hot pursuit); cf. Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367-368 (1964). But we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct -- necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat -- which historically has not been, and, as a practical matter, could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure. Instead, the conduct involved in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. [n17] Nonetheless, the notions which underlie both the warrant procedure and the requirement of probable cause remain fully relevant in this context. In order to assess the reasonableness of Officer McFadden's conduct as a general proposition, it is necessary "first to focus upon [p21] the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen," for there is no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534-535, 536-537 (1967). And, in justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. [n18] The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that, at some point, the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. [n19] And, in making that assessment, it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [p22] available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate? Cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96-97 (1964). [n20] Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, e.g., Beck v. Ohio, supra; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959). And simple "good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough." . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," only in the discretion of the police. Beck v. Ohio, supra, at 97. Applying these principles to this case, we consider first the nature and extent of the governmental interests involved. One general interest is, of course, that of effective crime prevention and detection; it is this interest which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. It was this legitimate investigative function Officer McFadden was discharging when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. He had observed Terry, Chilton, and Katz go through a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which, taken together, warranted further investigation. There is nothing unusual in two men standing together on a street corner, perhaps waiting for someone. Nor is there anything suspicious about people [p23] in such circumstances strolling up and down the street, singly or in pairs. Store windows, moreover, are made to be looked in. But the story is quite different where, as here, two men hover about a street corner for an extended period of time, at the end of which it becomes apparent that they are not waiting for anyone or anything; where these men pace alternately along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window roughly 24 times; where each completion of this route is followed immediately by a conference between the two men on the corner; where they are joined in one of these conferences by a third man who leaves swiftly, and where the two men finally follow the third and rejoin him a couple of blocks away. It would have been poor police work indeed for an officer of 30 years' experience in the detection of thievery from stores in this same neighborhood to have failed to investigate this behavior further. The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation. We are now concerned with more than the governmental interest in investigating crime; in addition, there is the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him. Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties. American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and every year in this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and thousands more are wounded. [p24] Virtually all of these deaths and a substantial portion of the injuries are inflicted with guns and knives. [n21] In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is, in fact, carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm. We must still consider, however, the nature and quality of the intrusion on individual rights which must be accepted if police officers are to be conceded the right to search for weapons in situations where probable cause to arrest for crime is lacking. Even a limited search of the outer clothing for weapons constitutes a severe, [p25] though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security, and it must surely be an annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience. Petitioner contends that such an intrusion is permissible only incident to a lawful arrest, either for a crime involving the possession of weapons or for a crime the commission of which led the officer to investigate in the first place. However, this argument must be closely examined. Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should refrain from making any investigation of suspicious circumstances until such time as he has probable cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police officers, in properly discharging their investigative function, may find themselves confronting persons who might well be armed and dangerous. Moreover, he does not say that an officer is always unjustified in searching a suspect to discover weapons. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest. When that point has been reached, petitioner would concede the officer's right to conduct a search of the suspect for weapons, fruits or instrumentalities of the crime, or "mere" evidence, incident to the arrest. There are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning, however. First, it fails to take account of traditional limitations upon the scope of searches, and thus recognizes no distinction in purpose, character, and extent between a search incident to an arrest and a limited search for weapons. The former, although justified in part by the acknowledged necessity to protect the arresting officer from assault with a concealed weapon, Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964), is also justified on other grounds, ibid., and can therefore involve a relatively extensive exploration of the person. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to [p26] arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring). Thus, it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a "full" search, even though it remains a serious intrusion. A second, and related, objection to petitioner's argument is that it assumes that the law of arrest has already worked out the balance between the particular interests involved here -- the neutralization of danger to the policeman in the investigative circumstance and the sanctity of the individual. But this is not so. An arrest is a wholly different kind of intrusion upon individual freedom from a limited search for weapons, and the interests each is designed to serve are likewise quite different. An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows. [n22] The protective search for weapons, on the other hand, constitutes a brief, though far from inconsiderable, intrusion upon the sanctity of the person. It does not follow that, because an officer may lawfully arrest a person only when he is apprised of facts sufficient to warrant a belief that the person has committed or is committing a crime, the officer is equally unjustified, absent that kind of evidence, in making any intrusions short of an arrest. Moreover, a perfectly reasonable apprehension of danger may arise long before the officer is possessed of adequate information to justify taking a person into custody for [p27] the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime. Petitioner's reliance on cases which have worked out standards of reasonableness with regard to "seizures" constituting arrests and searches incident thereto is thus misplaced. It assumes that the interests sought to be vindicated and the invasions of personal security may be equated in the two cases, and thereby ignores a vital aspect of the analysis of the reasonableness of particular types of conduct under the Fourth Amendment. See Camara v. Municipal Court, supra. Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174-176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1878). [n23] And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra. IV We must now examine the conduct of Officer McFadden in this case to determine whether his search and seizure of petitioner were reasonable, both at their inception [p28] and as conducted. He had observed Terry, together with Chilton and another man, acting in a manner he took to be preface to a "stick-up." We think, on the facts and circumstances Officer McFadden detailed before the trial judge, a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing petitioner was armed, and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior. The actions of Terry and Chilton were consistent with McFadden's hypothesis that these men were contemplating a daylight robbery -- which, it is reasonable to assume, would be likely to involve the use of weapons -- and nothing in their conduct from the time he first noticed them until the time he confronted them and identified himself as a police officer gave him sufficient reason to negate that hypothesis. Although the trio had departed the original scene, there was nothing to indicate abandonment of an intent to commit a robbery at some point. Thus, when Officer McFadden approached the three men gathered before the display window at Zucker's store, he had observed enough to make it quite reasonable to fear that they were armed, and nothing in their response to his hailing them, identifying himself as a police officer, and asking their names served to dispel that reasonable belief. We cannot say his decision at that point to seize Terry and pat his clothing for weapons was the product of a volatile or inventive imagination, or was undertaken simply as an act of harassment; the record evidences the tempered act of a policeman who, in the course of an investigation, had to make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger, and took limited steps to do so. The manner in which the seizure and search were conducted is, of course, as vital a part of the inquiry as whether they were warranted at all. The Fourth Amendment proceeds as much by limitations upon the [p29] scope of governmental action as by imposing preconditions upon its initiation. Compare Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 354-356 (1967). The entire deterrent purpose of the rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment rests on the assumption that "limitations upon the fruit to be gathered tend to limit the quest itself." United States v. Poller, 43 F.2d 911, 914 (C.A.2d Cir.1930); see, e.g., Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 629-635 (1965); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 216-221 (1960). Thus, evidence may not be introduced if it was discovered by means of a seizure and search which were not reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring). We need not develop at length in this case, however, the limitations which the Fourth Amendment places upon a protective seizure and search for weapons. These limitations will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases. See Sibron v. New York, post, p. 40, decided today. Suffice it to note that such a search, unlike a search without a warrant incident to a lawful arrest, is not justified by any need to prevent the disappearance or destruction of evidence of crime. See Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964). The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer. The scope of the search in this case presents no serious problem in light of these standards. Officer McFadden patted down the outer clothing of petitioner and his two companions. He did not place his hands in their pockets or under the outer surface of their garments until he had [p30] felt weapons, and then he merely reached for and removed the guns. He never did invade Katz' person beyond the outer surfaces of his clothes, since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon. Officer McFadden confined his search strictly to what was minimally necessary to learn whether the men were armed and to disarm them once he discovered the weapons. He did not conduct a general exploratory search for whatever evidence of criminal activity he might find. V We conclude that the revolver seized from Terry was properly admitted in evidence against him. At the time he seized petitioner and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought. Each case of this sort will, of course, have to be decided on its own facts. We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. [p31] Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken. Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs in the judgment and the opinion except where the opinion quotes from and relies upon this Court's opinion in Katz v. United States and the concurring opinion in Warden v. Hayden. 1. Ohio Rev.Code § 2923.01 (1953) provides in part that "[n]o person shall carry a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or other dangerous weapon concealed on or about his person." An exception is made for properly authorized law enforcement officers. 2. Terry and Chilton were arrested, indicted, tried, and convicted together. They were represented by the same attorney, and they made a joint motion to suppress the guns. After the motion was denied, evidence was taken in the case against Chilton. This evidence consisted of the testimony of the arresting officer and of Chilton. It was then stipulated that this testimony would be applied to the case against Terry, and no further evidence was introduced in that case. The trial judge considered the two cases together, rendered the decisions at the same time, and sentenced the two men at the same time. They prosecuted their state court appeals together through the same attorney, and they petitioned this Court for certiorari together. Following the grant of the writ upon this joint petition, Chilton died. Thus, only Terry's conviction is here for review. 3. Both the trial court and the Ohio Court of Appeals in this case relied upon such a distinction. State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App.2d 122, 125-130, 214 N.E.2d 114, 117-120 (1966). See also, e.g., People v. Rivera, 14 N.Y.2d 441, 201 N.E.2d 32, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 978 (1965); Aspen, Arrest and Arrest Alternatives: Recent Trends, 1966 U.Ill.L.F. 241, 249-254; Warner, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va.L.Rev. 315 (1942); Note, Stop and Frisk in California, 18 Hastings L.J. 623, 629-632 (1967). 4. People v. Rivera, supra, n. 3, at 447, 201 N.E.2d at 36, 252 N.Y.S.2d at 464. 5. The theory is well laid out in the Rivera opinion: [T]he evidence needed to make the inquiry is not of the same degree of conclusiveness as that required for an arrest. The stopping of the individual to inquire is not an arrest and the ground upon which the police may make the inquiry may be less incriminating than the ground for an arrest for a crime known to have been committed. . . . * * * * And as the right to stop and inquire is to be justified for a cause less conclusive than that which would sustain an arrest, so the right to frisk may be justified as an incident to inquiry upon grounds of elemental safety and precaution which might not initially sustain a search. Ultimately, the validity of the frisk narrows down to whether there is or is not a right by the police to touch the person questioned. The sense of exterior touch here involved is not very far different from the sense of sight or hearing -- senses upon which police customarily act. People v. Rivera, 14 N.Y.2d 441, 445, 447, 201 N.E.2d 32, 34, 35, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458, 461, 463 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 978 (1965). 6. See, e.g., Foote, The Fourth Amendment: Obstacle or Necessity in the Law of Arrest?, 51 J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 402 (1960). 7. See n. 11, infra. 8. Brief for Respondent 2. 9. See L. Tiffany, D. McIntyre D. Rotenberg, Detection of Crime: Stopping and Questioning, Search and Seizure, Encouragement and Entrapment 186 (1967). This sort of police conduct may, for example, be designed simply to help an intoxicated person find his way home, with no intention of arresting him unless he becomes obstreperous. Or the police may be seeking to mediate a domestic quarrel which threatens to erupt into violence. They may accost a woman in an area known for prostitution as part of a harassment campaign designed to drive prostitutes away without the considerable difficulty involved in prosecuting them. Or they may be conducting a dragnet search of all teenagers in a particular section of the city for weapons because they have heard rumors of an impending gang fight. 10. See Tiffany, McIntyre & Rotenberg, supra, n. 9, at 100-101; Comment, 47 Nw.U.L.Rev. 493, 497-499 (1952). 11. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice found that, "[i]n many communities, field interrogations are a major source of friction between the police and minority groups." President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Police 183 (1967). It was reported that the friction caused by "[m]isuse of field interrogations" increases as more police departments adopt "aggressive patrol," in which officers are encouraged routinely to stop and question persons on the street who are unknown to them, who are suspicious, or whose purpose for being abroad is not readily evident. Id. at 184. While the frequency with which "frisking" forms a part of field interrogation practice varies tremendously with the locale, the objective of the interrogation, and the particular officer, see Tiffany, McIntyre & Rotenberg, supra, n. 9, at 47-48, it cannot help but be a severely exacerbating factor in police-community tensions. This is particularly true in situations where the "stop and frisk" of youths or minority group members is motivated by the officers' perceived need to maintain the power image of the beat officer, an aim sometimes accomplished by humiliating anyone who attempts to undermine police control of the streets. Ibid. 12. In this case, for example, the Ohio Court of Appeals stated that we must be careful to distinguish that the "frisk" authorized herein includes only a "frisk" for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential. State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App.2d 122, 130, 214 N.E.2d 114, 120 (1966). See also, e.g., Ellis v. United States, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 86, 88, 264 F.2d 372, 374 (1959); Comment, 65 Col.L.Rev. 848, 860, and n. 81 (1965). 13. Consider the following apt description: [T]he officer must feel with sensitive fingers every portion of the prisoner's body. A thorough search must be made of the prisoner's arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet. Priar & Martin, Searching and Disarming Criminals, 45 J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 481 (1954). 14. See n. 11, supra, and accompanying text. We have noted that the abusive practices which play a major, though by no means exclusive, role in creating this friction are not susceptible of control by means of the exclusionary rule, and cannot properly dictate our decision with respect to the powers of the police in genuine investigative and preventive situations. However, the degree of community resentment aroused by particular practices is clearly relevant to an assessment of the quality of the intrusion upon reasonable expectations of personal security caused by those practices. 15. These dangers are illustrated in part by the course of adjudication in the Court of Appeals of New York. Although its first decision in this area, People v. Rivera, 14 N.Y.2d 441, 201 N.E.2d 32, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 978 (1965), rested squarely on the notion that a "frisk" was not a "search," see nn. 3-5, supra, it was compelled to recognize, in People v. Taggart, 20 N.Y.2d 335, 342, 229 N.E.2d 581, 586, 283 N.Y.S.2d 1, 8 (1967), that what it had actually authorized in Rivera and subsequent decisions, see, e.g., People v. Pugach, 15 N.Y.2d 65, 204 N.E.2d 176, 255 N.Y.S.2d 833 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 936 (1965), was a "search" upon less than probable cause. However, in acknowledging that no valid distinction could be maintained on the basis of its cases, the Court of Appeals continued to distinguish between the two in theory. It still defined "search" as it had in Rivera -- as an essentially unlimited examination of the person for any and all seizable items -- and merely noted that the cases had upheld police intrusions which went far beyond the original limited conception of a "frisk." Thus, principally because it failed to consider limitations upon the scope of searches in individual cases as a potential mode of regulation, the Court of Appeals in three short years arrived at the position that the Constitution must, in the name of necessity, be held to permit unrestrained rummaging about a person and his effects upon mere suspicion. It did apparently limit its holding to "cases involving serious personal injury or grave irreparable property damage," thus excluding those involving "the enforcement of sumptuary laws, such as gambling, and laws of limited public consequence, such as narcotics violations, prostitution, larcenies of the ordinary kind, and the like." People v. Taggart, supra, at 340, 214 N.E.2d at 584, 283 N.Y.S.2d at 6. In our view, the sounder course is to recognize that the Fourth Amendment governs all intrusions by agents of the public upon personal security, and to make the scope of the particular intrusion, in light of all the exigencies of the case, a central element in the analysis of reasonableness. Cf. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 183 (1949) (Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting). Compare Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 537 (1967). This seems preferable to an approach which attributes too much significance to an overly technical definition of "search," and which turns in part upon a judge-made hierarchy of legislative enactments in the criminal sphere. Focusing the inquiry squarely on the dangers and demands of the particular situation also seems more likely to produce rules which are intelligible to the police and the public alike than requiring the officer in the heat of an unfolding encounter on the street to make a judgment as to which laws are "of limited public consequence." 16. We thus decide nothing today concerning the constitutional propriety of an investigative "seizure" upon less than probable cause for purposes of "detention" and/or interrogation. Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves "seizures" of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a "seizure" has occurred. We cannot tell with any certainty upon this record whether any such "seizure" took place here prior to Officer McFadden's initiation of physical contact for purposes of searching Terry for weapons, and we thus may assume that, up to that point, no intrusion upon constitutionally protected rights had occurred. 17. See generally Leagre, The Fourth Amendment and the Law of Arrest, 54 J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 393, 396 403 (1963). 18. This demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. See Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96-97 (1964); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 34-37 (1963); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479-484 (1963); Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 261-262 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 100-102 (1959); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 312-314 (1959); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-178 (1949); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 15-17 (1948); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 593-595 (1948); Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 700-701 (1931); Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 441 (1925); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 159-162 (1925); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642,645 (1878). 19. See, e.g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 354-357 (1967); Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 54-60 (1967); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-15 (1948); cf. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479-480 (1963). See also Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 110-115 (1964). 20. See also cases cited in n. 18, supra. 21. Fifty-seven law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in this country in 1966, bringing the total to 335 for the seven-year period beginning with 1960. Also in 1966, there were 23,851 assaults on police officers, 9,113 of which resulted in injuries to the policemen. Fifty-five of the 57 officers killed in 1966 died from gunshot wounds, 41 of them inflicted by handguns easily secreted about the person. The remaining two murders were perpetrated by knives. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States -- 1966, at 45-48, 152 and Table 51. The easy availability of firearms to potential criminals in this country is well known, and has provoked much debate. See, e.g., President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 239-243 (1967). Whatever the merits of gun control proposals, this fact is relevant to an assessment of the need for some form of self-protective search power. 22. See generally W. LaFave, Arrest -- The Decision to Take a Suspect into Custody 1-13 (1965). 23. See also cases cited in n. 18, supra.

– Brandon McKean could scarcely believe the reason a Pontiac, Mich., police officer gave for detaining and questioning him on Thanksgiving afternoon: walking with his hands in his pockets on a freezing day. "There's 10,000 people in Pontiac right now with their hands in their pockets," the 33-year-old tells the officer in a 70-second video of the incident that McKean posted to his Facebook page; the high that day in Pontiac was 33 degrees. The stop was apparently prompted by a call from a worried citizen who had seen McKean walking, and the officer told McKean he had been "making people nervous." Replies McKean, who is black, "By walking by?" Answers the white officer, "Yeah, they said you had your hands in your pockets." "I'm really mad at the situation, whoever called. That's crazy," McKean tells the officer, who later continues, "we do have a lot of robberies, so I'm just checking on you." Gawker has this on the legality of the situation: "This type of questioning, universally known as a Terry stop, requires an officer to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed." The incident ended peacefully, but it challenges "the far stretches of what could be considered 'reasonable suspicion,'" writes Llywellyn Bird at the Pontiac Tribune. Reasonable suspicion most often stems from actually seeing the suspect exhibit unusual behavior, but "in this instance, the only reasonable suspicion the officer disclosed was an alleged call received by police from a nervous resident." As for the reference to the robberies, writes Bird, that's "far too broad to suspect any potential wrongdoing." (In St. Louis, cops are fuming over the Rams' Ferguson protest.)

Carly Fiorina endorsed Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz Rafael (Ted) Edward CruzCruz’s Democratic challenger officially files for Senate We need to know how far Russia’s attack on American sovereignty really goes Trump, Senate GOP at odds over Roy Moore MORE (Texas) at a Miami rally on Wednesday, praising him as a political outsider. "Ted Cruz has always been a constitutional conservative," the former Hewlett-Packard CEO said, describing Cruz as "a fearless fighter and reformer." ADVERTISEMENT Fiorina ended her own White House bid in mid-February after a poor showing in early-voting states. Her campaign was known for her harsh criticism of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonSenate panel scraps deadline for Kushner to turn over documents McCain on Clinton's memoir: 'What’s the f---ing point?' Re-labeling North Korea a terrorist state a long time coming MORE. "The truth is that Donald Trump Donald John TrumpWarren fundraises off of Trump's 'Pocahontas' jab Dem senator slams Trump's 'moral authority' after 'Pocahontas' remark Bill Press: Religion flunks morality MORE and Hillary Clinton are two sides of the same coin," Fiorina said Wednesday, ripping the GOP front-runner. "They aren't going to reform the system. They are the system." Fiorina noted that many in the Republican Party are "horrified by Donald Trump." "I'm one of them," she added, describing Cruz as "the only guy who can beat Donald Trump." "Ted Cruz has always been a constitutional conservative," Fiorina said, adding that he "didn’t care if he got invited to the cocktail parties in D.C." Cruz complimented Fiorina as an "incredible business leader" in a press conference shortly after the endorsement. "Her campaign for president impressed people all over this country, with her intelligence, knowledge, expertise ... with her ability to champion common sense conservative principles," Cruz said. He pointed to Fiorina's support as "one more manifestation of what has been played out, as the one campaign that has demonstrated that can and repeatedly has beaten Donald Trump." Cruz reiterated that rivals Marco Rubio Marco Antonio RubioFranken seeks to head off calls for resignation GOP tax agenda is a grave threat to people in poverty Rubio: Al Franken 'should consider resigning' MORE and John Kasich should "prayerfully reflect" and consider coalescing behind his campaign so he can go head-to-head with the front-runner. Both candidates are pinning their hopes on their home states, which hold their winner-take-all contests on March 15. "If you want to stop Donald Trump ... unify behind our campaign," Cruz said, adding that Republicans "don’t want to hand the election to Hillary Clinton on a silver platter" in November. Her endorsement comes the day after Cruz's primary victory in Idaho. But Trump swept up most of the states Tuesday night, including Mississippi, dealing a blow to the Texas senator in an important Southern state. This brings Cruz's total number of states won to seven, while Trump has 15. Rubio lags far behind with only one victory in Minnesota, as well as the territory of Puerto Rico. While Cruz still trails Trump in the overall delegate count, his victory in Idaho gives him bragging rights as the only candidate to best the GOP front-runner on Tuesday. Cruz continues to position himself as the viable alternative to Trump and has called on his fellow GOP rivals to coalesce behind him. Fiorina spoke about the GOP pushing for comprehensive immigration reform and trying not to "rock the boat" by shying away from social issues after failing to win the White House in 2012. "It is time now to unite behind the one man who can beat Donald Trump, who can beat Hillary Clinton, who can beat the D.C. cartel. It is time to unite behind Ted Cruz," Fiorina said to roaring cheers. Fiorina's support provides Cruz a feisty surrogate, who captured the spotlight in early debates by knocking Clinton and going after Planned Parenthood. Fiorina, who mostly shied away from criticizing Cruz directly while she was in the GOP race, did accuse the Texas senator in January of saying "whatever he needs to say to get elected." — Last updated at 12:28 p.m. ||||| "We knew Ted Cruz is a leader and a reformer,” Carly Fiorina said. "He is willing to take on the status quo in Washington D.C.” Carly Fiorina endorses Ted Cruz 'We're going to have to beat Donald Trump at the ballot box,' Fiorina declares at a Miami rally for Cruz. MIAMI — Former Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz on Wednesday in a surprise appearance in Miami. "It is time to unite behind Ted Cruz,” said Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who ended her own White House bid in February. Story Continued Below Warming up the crowd before a rally, Fiorina declared Cruz is the only Republican contender who can stop the momentum of Donald Trump. "Other people in our party are kind of horrified by Donald Trump," she said. "Here's the thing: We're not going to beat Donald Trump by having our party tsk tsk over our voters. We're going to have to beat Donald Trump at the ballot box." Fiorina also talked up Cruz’s outsider status. "We knew Ted Cruz is a leader and a reformer,” Fiorina said. "He is willing to take on the status quo in Washington D.C.” She said Cruz “is proud to be known by the enemies he’s made in the D.C. cartel.” That is the "price of leadership," she added. Fiorina’s endorsement came after Trump extended his delegate lead on Tuesday night, winning Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii, while Cruz was able to pull out a victory in Idaho. Cruz has got just a week before critical winner-take-all primaries in Florida and Ohio to prove that he can close the gap and prevent Trump from running away with the Republican nomination. "Isn’t Carly extraordinary?” Cruz gushed on Wednesday, calling himself “humbled" and "privileged" to receive her endorsement.

– Another former presidential candidate is picking sides, and this time it's not in favor of Donald Trump. Carly Fiorina on Wednesday endorsed Ted Cruz at a rally in Miami, reports Politico. "I checked the box for Ted Cruz," she told his supporters, praising him as a "reformer" and saying he's the only candidate who can beat Trump. She said she's "horrified" by the rise of Trump and likened him to another of her favorite targets, Hillary Clinton. "The truth is that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are two sides of the same coin," she said, per the Hill. "They aren't going to reform the system. They are the system." (One columnist thinks "settling" for Cruz as a Trump alternative could doom the GOP.)

(FCINO/youtube) It's early, but it appears we have a frontrunner for most astounding political ad of 2010. Check out this new spot from "Carly for California," Republican California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina's campaign organization.The spot is an extended attack on Fiorina primary opponent Tom Campbell. It's long and drags a bit in the middle, so if you're short on time, watch the first 30 seconds and then skip to the 2:20 mark, after which things start to really get crazy. (Oh, and don't ignore the amazing background music.)The spot sparked widespread mockery Wednesday on political Web sites, including Politico and Wonkette. Quipped one YouTube commenter: "This might be the single greatest/stupidest video I have ever seen in my entire life."Enjoy below. And feel free to explain what's going on. We think the sheep are supposed to be fiscal conservatives, but just like David Lynch's classic tv series "Twin Peaks," this one's open to interpretation.: Two of Fiorina's opponents are trying to use the video to their advantage, with one -- Chuck DeVore -- offering up the "Society for the Eradication of Demon Sheep From our Political Discourse." Read about it here : The man behind the video is Republican political consultant Tom Davis, aka "Hollywood." Check out an earlier can't-miss video from Davis (featuring a giant marauding rat) here ||||| Some person who “knows stuff like this” breaks down Carly Fiorina’s Laser-eyed Sheep Furry Of Death From Hell comedy film for FishbowlLA: “Wow…they did shoot all of that sheep stuff. It wasn’t stock footage. Paid crew for the sheep stuff and an editor for two days worth of cutting that stuff, titling, paid crew, equipment rental and effects plus the gathering of the rest of the stock footage…but there is an office scene too – probably $15,000.” One more facepalm for those ex-Hewlett-Packard shareholders. [FishbowlLA]

– Carly Fiorina thinks her primary opponent for a Senate seat in California is what her new ad terms a FCINO, a Fiscal Conservative in Name Only. Fine, routine stuff. But the video itself is "already a frontrunner for most astounding political ad of 2010," writes Brian Montopoli at CBS. Why's that? It's not so much an ad as a "Laser-eyed Sheep Furry of Death From Hell comedy film," writes Jim Newell at Wonkette. It's long, but things get interesting around the 2:25 mark.

An Australian teenager is facing criminal charges after he Tweeted about bringing a “bomb” to a Pink concert. The sixteen-year-old was ejected from Pink’s Sunday night show at Rod Laver Arena after he sent the ill-advised Tweet. As the Philadelphia-raised pop icon arrived on stage, the fan Tweeted: "@Pink I'm ready with my Bomb. Time to blowup #RodLaverArena Bitch.” Staff at the Melbourne arena apparently identified the boy by his Twitter profile picture. Police arrested the teen, but he was released and is expected to be charged on summons. The boy fronted the media today, and explained that the Tweet was an innocent reference to Pink's song “Timebomb,” a bonus track lifted from her latest album "The Truth About Love." "It was meant to be about drop the effects, the music, everything - just drop it all," he said. The Tweet has since been deleted. Pink’s tour of Australia is a blockbuster, and her stint in Melbourne is a record-breaker. The city’s 15,000 capacity arena is to host a record 18 Pink shows this month and next, beating the previous best run for the venue (17) which she set herself on the 2009 “Funhouse” trek. An official Pink pop-up store has now opened in central Melbourne – her first anywhere in the world. By the time her 46-date “The Truth About Love” tour of Australia winds-up, Pink will have played to some 500,000 fans, according to promoter Live Nation. ||||| A TEENAGER has been arrested for tweeting "time to blow up Rod Laver Arena" during Pink's concert in Melbourne last night. The full tweet read: "@Pink I'm ready with my Bomb. Time to blow up #RodLaverArena. B*tch." His sister today defended her brother as a "grade A student", and slammed security for the manner in which they dealt with the 16-year-old. The teenager had travelled from his home in Warrnambool to attend the gig, but ended up missing the entire show while he waited for his parents to make the three-hour trip to pick him up. His sister, who the Herald Sun has chosen not to name, said his family was furious at her brother’s treatment by security guards. "We don’t think it should be going to court because of the way they handled him. They pulled him, they threw him on the ground and locked him up," she told the Herald Sun. The boy, who attended the gig with two mates, had only been inside the venue for 10 minutes when security guards approached him. "We had to go there at midnight to sort it out and we thought we had to bail him, we thought he’d been killed, we didn’t know what to think," she said. She added that the offending tweet was sent after the gig was delayed by about an hour. "It was freezing cold, and he didn’t mean it like that. He wrote it as in one of her songs is called Timebomb and he forgot to put the Time on there," she said. She added that her brother had never been in any trouble before and the incident had come as a shock to the family. "We are a decent family and we don’t have bombs and stuff like that. We’re not terrorists and we don’t want people to think that," she said. "Boys will be boys. It wasn’t an issue that they had a bomb, it wasn’t a prank or anything like that. He told us he was referring to lyrics in a song and it was just a `check-in’ sort of thing." The woman claimed security staff approached her brother with a picture of his twitter photo and asked if it was him. "He thought he’d won something. He didn’t deny it was him. He’s not a trouble maker. He’s doing his VCE. He’s a grade A student. He’s really shy. He’s not a nasty piece of work," she said. "Then seven people just jumped on him. It was just so violent." She commended the behaviour of police at the arena throughout his ordeal. "They spoke to him, they fed him and someone was there making jokes with him. They just thought he needed a kick in the bum and that’s all he really needed," she added. A police spokeswoman said the boy was expected to be charged on summons. Security was able to find the 16-year-old in a crowd of 12,000 after he sent the tweet with his profile picture using the official Rod Laver Arena hashtag. The tweet referred to Pink's song Timebomb and wasn't sinister, his father told 3AW radio this morning. "When he wrote that, he didn't have time to put 'Timebomb', you know," he said. He said staff searched the crowd and approached his son and asked him "Is this you?" "And he said 'yes', and then they dragged him to security and called the police," he said. "He was scared. He's only a 16-year-old kid." He said his son facing criminal charges, including public nuisance, was excessive. "The policeman said to me, 'if it was up to me, I would have booted him in the backside and said go home'," he told 3AW. "But they demanded he be arrested."

– An Australian teen found out the hard way that Melbourne police take tweets about bombs very seriously ... even if those tweets are just innocent references to pop songs. While attending a Pink concert, the male fan tweeted, referring to her song "Timebomb," "@Pink I'm ready with my Bomb. Time to blowup #RodLaverArena Bitch." Police found the 16-year-old with help from arena staff, who identified him via his profile picture, and he was arrested, Billboard reports. The tweet "was meant to be about drop the effects, the music, everything—just drop it all," the teen explains. Even so, he's expected to face charges for the now-deleted tweet. His sister tells the Herald Sun security guards "threw him on the ground," after he had been inside the arena just 10 minutes. When approached by security and asked if he was the boy shown in the profile photo, "He thought he'd won something," his sister says. "He didn't deny it was him. He's not a trouble maker."

Now come five Buffalo Jills, joining the growing list of NFL cheerleaders suing their team for allegedly flouting state and federal employment laws. In many ways, their story shows how standardized these practices have become. But in terms of micromanagement, neither of the other cheerleading teams quite matches Buffalo's, whose Jills were apparently instructed on "how to properly wash 'intimate areas.'" The complaint, which you can find below, lays out the case against the team, as well as two other outfits, Citadel (owners of a radio station) and Stejon. (Long story short, since 1986, the Bills have outsourced management of their cheerleaders to various third parties; Citadel and Stejon were two such parties when the cheerleaders in question were cheering.) The Jills were given a lengthy handbook outlining the various rules and regulations they had to abide by, under threat of penalty, according to the lawsuit. z65. In addition to the rules previously cited, defendants also provided the Jills with rules regarding general hygiene and body maintenance (a list of 17 rules), appearance etiquette (17 rules), conversation starters for appearances and general etiquette, etiquette for formal dining (25 rules), and rules for communicating with people with disabilities (17 rules). 66. The extensive rulebook set forth by defendants includes, inter alia, rules on how much bread to eat at a formal dinner, how to properly eat soup, how much to tip restaurant waiters, wedding etiquette, how to properly wash "intimate areas," and how often to change tampons. Advertisement Advice to live by, I'm sure—but stuff your mother probably told you about before you showed up to cheerleader tryouts. As in all our other examples, the cheerleaders' physical appearance was scripted down to the last fingernail ("must be maintained with a French manicure or natural polish"). Instead of the weekly weigh-ins we saw with the Ravenettes, Jills were subjected to the "Jiggle Test," according to the suit: 62. In addition, the Jills were subjected to weekly "physique evaluations" during which defendants' representatives tested the Jills' bodies for "jiggling." During the "Jiggle Test" defendants scrutinized the women's stomach, arms, legs, hips, and butt while she does jumping jacks. The physique evaluations largely determine whether or not any particular Jill would be allowed to perform at the Bills' next home game. Jills that failed to meet defendants' physical standards received warnings, and in some cases were penalized, suspended or dismissed. Advertisement One cheerleader describes a time she was told to "tone up" her body after one such evaluation. She began a stringent diet and exercise plan, only to be accused later of anorexia. No, the cake is not yours, so you can't eat it, either. The legal problems, of course, arise from the payment situation—when there was payment, that is. Jills were not paid for working game days. Neither were they paid for the mandatory biweekly practice sessions that usually lasted eight hours in total, according to the suit. On average, the cheerleaders involved in the suit averaged only a few hundred dollars per season, the highest amount being $1,800, the lowest $150. Not surprisingly, the lady who made $150 didn't cheer the next year. The only real money lay in appearances. But, again, most of the time those didn't pay. The cheerleaders were required to make 30-odd free appearances a season, and the powers that be had sole control over who was selected for one of the profitable paid gigs. Not that the Bills, Citadel, and Stejon went unpaid for providing cheerleaders. According to the complaint, Stejon made $10,000 per sponsorship—sponsored clients made up the bulk of the unpaid appearances—and last season the team had at least 11 such arrangements. Advertisement There were other events. The cheerleaders host an annual "Junior Jills" program in three cities, where young girls are taught the basics of cheering. The suit says 300-400 girls attend these camps and pay as much as $250 a pop to show up. The Jills did not receive payment. The grossest event the Jills had to endure was the annual golf tournament: A. The Jills Annual Golf Tournament–Select Jills were required to wear a bikini, and then go into a dunk tank, where they were dunked in water by the golf tournament participants. Jills cheerleaders are also "auctioned off" like prizes at this event, and had to ride around with the winning bidder in his golf cart for the duration of the tournament. While serving as a "bought person" they were subjected to additional demeaning treatment, including degrading sexual comments and inappropriate touching. Oftentimes, the Jills were forced to sit on participants' laps because there was not enough seats in the golf carts. The golf tournament also featured a "Flip for Tips" component, wherein participants paid gratuities to watch select Jills do backflips and acrobatics for the gratification of the crowd. (The Jills did not receive any of the tip money). Advertisement Not that "The Man Show" was any picnic, either. In that event, held at a casino, the cheerleaders were led around the floor in their bikinis to the delight of the guys in attendance. Like the Jills Annual Golf Tournament, "The Man Show" was an unpaid event. If you want more on the schedule of penalties inflicted on the cheerleaders, the familiar calendar scheme, and the various other indignities, you should read the whole complaint. Buffalo Jills Suit ||||| A Buffalo Bills cheerleader performs last season. (Photo: Bill Wippert, AP) Five former Buffalo Jills cheerleaders have filed a lawsuit against the Buffalo Bills in New York State Supreme court. According to a press release issued by attorneys from Dolce Panepinto, who are representing the former cheerleaders, the team "exploited the women by failing to pay them in accordance with New York State minimum wage laws." The suit alleges the team and others named as defendants failed to pay the Jills the mandatory minimum wage for their "extensive work on game day and at various community events" and claims that in some cases, members of the Jills performed hundreds of hours of work each year, for which they were paid well below the state's mandatory minimum wage. Also named as defendants in the suit are Stejon Productions Corporation, the firm which currently manages the Jills, and Citadel Communications Company (which owns Buffalo radio station 97 Rock) which formerly managed the cheerleading squad. The Buffalo Jills lawsuit comes on the heels of similar lawsuits filed by the Oakland Raiders and Cincinnati Bengals cheerleaders against their respective teams. *** Courtesy WGRZ-TV in Buffalo, an affiliate of USA TODAY Sports PHOTOS: NFL cheerleaders

– Five former cheerleaders are taking the Buffalo Bills to court, saying they were paid less than minimum wage and subjected to disturbing physical scrutiny. The Bills "exploited the women by failing to pay them in accordance with New York State minimum wage laws," the lawsuit, which also targets the squad's current and former management companies, alleges. One member reportedly made just $150 over the course of a season, Deadspin notes. Oakland Raiders and Cincinnati Bengals cheerleaders have recently filed similar lawsuits, USA Today points out. But the case of the Buffalo Jills, as they're known, features a number of additional accusations, Deadspin reports. They received behavior rules (not unlike reported Ravens cheerleader regulations) on matters as wide-ranging as "how to properly eat soup" and how to talk to "people with disabilities"—in addition to "how to properly wash 'intimate areas,' and how often to change tampons," the suit says. They also reportedly faced weekly "Jiggle Tests" to ensure they were up to performing. "The treatment we endured was unacceptable, and the public needs to know and understand the situation we were in," says one former cheerleader, via the Buffalo News. It hasn't been a great news cycle for the Bills, who must cough up $3 million—for texting a fan too much.

Meteor watchers in North America can expect to see 60 to 200 meteors an hour streak across the sky early Wednesday. NASA says the Quadrantid meteor shower should be perfect for viewing around 3 a.m. local time Wednesday after the waxing gibbous moon sets. But the light show won't last long, NASA says - only a few hours. The Quadrantids were first noted in 1825 and got their name from the constellation of Quadrans Muralis, which is no longer considered a constellation by astronomers, according to NASA. The material that is burning up in Earth's atmosphere during the Quadrantids likely comes from a comet that broke into fragments centuries ago, NASA says. "After hundreds of years orbiting the sun, they will enter our atmosphere at 90,000 mph, burning up 50 miles above Earth's surface," a NASA press release says. iReport: Send us your photos and videos of space ||||| The first major meteor shower of 2012 takes place on the night of Tuesday, Jan. 3 and the morning of Wednesday, Jan. 4. It peaks at 2 a.m. EST (0700 GMT) on Jan. 4. UPDATE: See our wrap up of the Quadrantid meteor shower here and check out this gallery of Quadrantid meteors by skywatchers. If you enjoy the sight of "shooting stars" then make plans to be out looking skyward during the predawn hours on Wednesday (Jan. 4) when a strong display of Quadrantid meteors may appear. This first meteor shower of the year may end up being one of the best of 2012. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: The Quadrantid meteor shower is like opening up a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get! Indeed, the Quadrantids are notoriously unpredictable, but if any year promises a fine display, this could be it. Peak activity is due to occur early on Wednesday at about 2:30 a.m. EST (0730 GMT) and favors eastern North America. The Quadrantid meteor shower sky map above shows where to look to see the display. The Quadrantids (pronounced KWA-dran-tids) provides one of the most intense annual meteor showers, with a brief, sharp maximum lasting but a few hours. Adolphe Quetelet of Brussels Observatory discovered the shower in the 1830s, and shortly afterward it was noted by several other astronomers in Europe and America. [First Photos: The 2012 Quadrantid Meteor Shower] The meteors are named after the obsolete constellation Quadrans Muralis the Mural or Wall Quadrant (an astronomical instrument), depicted in some 19th-century star atlases roughly midway between the end of the Handle of the Big Dipper and the quadrilateral of stars marking the head of the constellation Draco. The International Astronomical Union phased out Quadrans Muralis in 1922. False-color image of a rare early Quadrantid, captured by a NASA meteor camera in 2010. Credit: NASA/MEO/B. Cooke Always difficult to see Unfortunately, many factors combine to make the peak of this display difficult to observe on a regular basis: Peak intensity is exceedingly sharp: meteor rates exceed one-half of their highest value for only about 6-hours (compared to two days for the August Perseids). This means that the stream of particles that produce this shower is a narrow one — apparently derived within the last 500 years from a small comet. The parentage of the Quadrantids had long been a mystery. Then Peter Jenniskens, an astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, Calif., noticed that the orbit of 2003 EH1 — a small asteroid discovered in March 2003 — ''falls snug in the shower.'' He believes that this 1.2-mile (2-kilometer) chunk of rock is the source of the Quadrantids; possibly this asteroid is the burnt out core of the lost comet C/1490 Y1. As viewed from mid-northern latitudes, we have to get up before dawn to see the Quadrantids at their best. This is because the radiant — that part of the sky from where the meteors to emanate — is down low on the northern horizon until about midnight, rising slowly higher as the night progresses. The growing light of dawn ends meteor observing usually by around 7 a.m. local time. So, if the "Quads" are to be seen at all, some part of that 8-hour active period must fall between 2 and 7 a.m. In one out of every three years, bright moonlight spoils the view. Over northern latitudes, early January often sees inclement/unsettled weather. It is not surprising then, that the Quadrantids are not as well-known as some of the other annual meteor showers, but 2012 may prove to be an exception. [12 Must-See Skywatching Events in 2012] Promising viewing prospects According to Robert Lunsford of the American Meteor Society, maximum activity this year is expected on Wednesday morning, Jan. 4 at 2:30 a.m. EST (0730 GMT). For those in the eastern United States, the radiant — that point in the sky from where the meteors will appear to emanate from — will be about one-third of the way up in the east-northeast sky. The farther to the north and east you go, the higher in the sky the radiant will be. To the south and west the radiant will be lower and the meteors will be fewer. Although the moon will be at a bright waxing gibbous phase, it will set by 3 a.m., leaving the sky dark for prospective meteor watchers until the first light of dawn appears at around 6 a.m. Quadrantid meteors are described as bright and bluish with long silvery trains. Some years produce a mere handful, but for favorably placed observers, this could be a shower to remember; at greatest activity, according to Lunsford, "Eastern observers may be able to see 60-75 Quadrantids per hour." [Amazing meteor shower photos] "If your skies are very clear and dark, allowing you to see faint meteors, your rates could top 100 per hour. Observers located in the western portions of North American will have lower rates but will also have the opportunity to see Quadrantid 'earthgrazers,'" Lunsford added. "Earthgrazers are meteors that skim the upper portion of the atmosphere therefore lasting much longer than normal and producing long trails in the sky. These meteors can only be seen when the radiant lies close to the horizon. As the radiant rises, the meteor paths will become shorter with shorter durations." Outside of North America, Quadrantid rates could reach around 15-30 per hour for places north of the equator, but observers south of the equator will have little chance of seeing any "Quads" since the radiant will have little chance to clear the horizon before morning twilight interferes. Don't forget to bundle up! Finally, so far as weather conditions are concerned, a large high pressure system is expected to dominate the weather across much of the eastern United States and Canada for the peak of the shower meaning skies for these areas should be mainly clear for prospective meteor watchers. However, it is also expected to be unseasonably cold (perhaps "unreasonably" is a better term to use!), with sub-zero readings possible over parts of upstate New York and New England with sub-freezing temperatures possible down into the Deep South. As one astronomer said prior to a mid-winter meteor watch: "Take the advice of a man whose teeth have chattered on many a winter's night — wrap up much more warmly than you think is necessary!" You can also watch the Quadrantid meteor shower online via this NASA website: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/watchtheskies/quadrantids_2012.html Editor's note: If you snap an amazing photo of the Quadrantid meteor shower would like to share it with SPACE.com, contact managing editor Tariq Malik at tmalik@space.com. Joe Rao serves as an instructor and guest lecturer at New York's Hayden Planetarium. He writes about astronomy for The New York Times and other publications, and he is also an on-camera meteorologist for News 12 Westchester, New York.

– The new year starts off with what is expected to be one of the best meteor showers of 2012: For those watching in North America early tomorrow morning, 60 to 200 meteors will streak by per hour during the Quadrantid meteor shower. According to CNN, NASA pegs the perfect viewing time at around 3am local time, but adds that the viewing window will only last for a few hours. Space.com recommends 2:30am ET for those watching in eastern North America; they'll have the best chance of seeing the shower. "After hundreds of years orbiting the sun, [the Quadrantid meteors] will enter our atmosphere at 90,000mph, burning up 50 miles above Earth's surface," says a NASA press release. Space.com notes that the Quadrantids can be unpredictable and difficult to observe due to the brevity of their period of peak intensity, but all signs point to tomorrow's show being a great display.

Image copyright EPA Image caption "A hair's breadth from catastrophe", local police say A quick-thinking French tourist has been praised for preventing a bus from plunging over a cliff in the Austrian Alps after the driver passed out. The vehicle was travelling through the mountains in the Tyrolean Alps with 21 passengers on board when the driver, 76, collapsed, police say. As the bus continued towards a steep cliff, the Frenchman was able to brake. The bus crashed into a barrier at the side of the road and came to a stop. Four people were taken to hospital. The passenger, a 65-year-old Frenchman, was sitting close to the driver when he became ill near the city of Schwaz in western Austria on Saturday, local media report. He then leapt from his seat as the vehicle crashed through the wooden roadside guardrail and applied the brake, leaving the bus full of passengers hanging over the cliff edge a short distance from a 100m (328ft) drop. "We were a hair's breadth from catastrophe," a local police spokesman said, adding it was "incredible luck" that the passenger's reflexes had managed to stop the bus, AFP news agency reports. In 2004, five tourists were killed when a coach left the road and tumbled down a 30m embankment near the village of Bad Dürrnberg, south of Salzburg, in Austria. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites.

– A French tourist is being praised for saving a busload of fellow passengers from "catastrophe" after the driver passed out. The bus was on a winding road in the Austrian Alps near Schwaz when the 76-year-old driver collapsed, the BBC reports. As the bus was careening toward a precipice, a 65-year-old man sitting near the front jumped from his seat and managed to hit the brakes at the last second, per Le Quotidien. The bus slammed into a wooden barrier, preventing it from hurtling down a slope and over a 328-foot cliff. LQ published a photo of the bus, its front end punctured by the barrier, tilting down a grassy hill. A local police rep praised the hero passenger's quick reflexes. "We were a hair's breadth from catastrophe," he tells AFP. He calls it "incredible luck" the man managed to stop the bus. In 2004, five tourists were killed when their bus plunged down a 98-foot embankment south of Salzburg, Austria, the BBC notes. (Two dozen seniors in Germany escaped a bus crash in July, but 18 were killed.)