Oklahoma man shoots woman trying to steal Nazi flag from his home, authorities say

[milktree]

Update:

Shooting Victim Sues Swastika Enthusiast

FEBRUARY 2--The unarmed woman who was shot in the back after tearing down a Nazi flag flying in front of the gunman’s Oklahoma home has sued her assailant for negligence, according to court records.

www.thesmokinggun.com

Negligence?

I’m pretty sure he shot her on purpose.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Don't support his ideology but he most certainly did not start this.

Feaster’s lawyers contend that the Air Force veteran had a “sincere and reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm” when he used “defensive force” against the fleeing McVey. These fears “were not unreasonable in the summer of 2020, with the media and lef-wing activists drumming up riots and praising violence against their political adversaries,” wrote Stephen Jones, Feaster’s lawyer.​

I can't help but agree with the defense... the police are seen refusing to help, and elected officials are encouraging and praising violence. For months straight. Literal bolsheviks are marching through the streets of dozens of cities and hundreds of towns, smashing and burning, with no end in sight? Homes and businesses invaded and vandalized, people beaten in the streets? Sole defenders charged, and groups of attackers set free? It was not unreasonable to expect violence from this person, or to think more people may be involved. It's essentially like seeing someone in a uniform, or gang colors.

I go back to my old "NES moonwalking" theory of bad shoots. Physically moving away from a victim is not necessarily "retreating". And "retreat" typically refers to withdrawing from an advance position, not leaving the field entirely. "Retreat, Regroup, and Re-Engage" means nothing to most people, especially not newsmen, judges, or prosecutors. Nor does "Tactical Withdrawal". Turning away... to put leverage into the swing of a punch, or a weapon? Running away... to recover a weapon, or lead the victim to your friends? Driving away, or pulling a u-turn in your multi-ton high speed murder weapon? If you're the instigator, and you're done engaging, put your hands up and be very, very still - maybe say "I surrender" to the person you were trying to victimize - and wait for your bracelets. That goes double for when you're invading someone else's property. That would probably work out better for everyone.

It's a shame that stand your ground laws in public are not nation-wide, but even more of a shame that only a few states acknowledge that people on private property should be given far more deference in dealing with trespassers, thieves and attackers. A crime is certainly more brazen when it occurs on another persons property, especially when they are there without permission (i.e. not a fight at a party with an invited guest). Even in MA you see huge differences between the brazenness of crimes in the day vs the night, in how it may be addressed by both home owners and the courts. The last 50-70 years have really turned the world upside down in terms of the "rights" of people who rob, vandalize, and assault people on their own property. It's unAmerican.

The defense is on point about the flag, too... if it were any other flag (except maybe the US one) we'd be looking at "hate crime" charges. But WAIT - that bill of rights thingummy only works for restraining government, right? Y'know except in private citizens hiring, offering public accommodations, speaking naughty words which might seem intimidating to the thing skinned, refusing service, not baking a cake, advertising a product, commenting on crime statistics, offering a loan... Yeah, except those things, that's where the bill of rights is about God given rights rather than restrictions on government.

26 isn't a "kid". As a female especially, that pre-frontal lobe is fully f***ing developed. A 26 year old female is a scant few years away from being a "geriatric mother" if pregnant. Antifa wannabe loon out vandalising people's homes? PSGWSP. The marxist iteration of the pride flag is basically the new swastika, except even detestable nazis weren't low key pedophile apologists. I don't see too many overcome with an urge to steal them from private homes...

 

[Palladin]

26yo. Rode hard, put away wet

 

[Frizzle Fry]

26yo. Rode hard, put away wet

View attachment 506098

Looks like the owner of many tits I've seen around Weirs during bikeweek... has me SERIOUSLY re-evaluating the age of those seemingly old bags.

 

[not new guy]

26yo. Rode hard, put away wet

View attachment 506098

She looks pretty decent for twice her age.

 

[Picton]

The very problem with society is that people don't expect to get shot for stealing.

The guy should get a pat on the back. The woman should be prosecuted.

There are degrees, though. Stealing the Hope Diamond just isn't the same as stealing a lawn sign. And there's obviously a HUGE spectrum in between.

Or do you think those things deserve identical punishment? One size fits all?

 

[BigTimber]

So you see how the narrative has become more defined since this case started?
I do not agree with nazi junk or flags or beliefs but she committed a crime.
And is it because she got caught nothing legal happened to her?
Or was it because of what she stole that nothing happened to her?
people are allowed to burn American flags and it is filed under ‘freedom of expression’ and not hate.
People who burn pride flags are charged with hate crimes.
why are those flag burnings not filed under ‘freedom of expression’?

I believe the people charged with hate crimes for burning gay flags were charged with crimes surrounding the flags burning but not the act of simply burning the flag. The guy who got 15 years was charged and found guilty of thief of the flag, arson because he set the flag on fire on the steps of a gay night club and a hate crime because he targeted the club and his own hate/ threats speech against the club and for being a habitual offender. Im yet to read a case where a individual purchases his own rainbow flag and then burns it in his own driveway or somewhere similar being charged with a hate crime. But I get your point. Burn our nations flag in the street no one bats a eye, burn the gay flag and the man looks endlessly for a way to charge you.

 

[BigTimber]

Don't support his ideology but he most certainly did not start this.


I can't help but agree with the defense... the police are seen refusing to help, and elected officials are encouraging and praising violence. For months straight. Literal bolsheviks are marching through the streets of dozens of cities and hundreds of towns, smashing and burning, with no end in sight? Homes and businesses invaded and vandalized, people beaten in the streets? Sole defenders charged, and groups of attackers set free? It was not unreasonable to expect violence from this person, or to think more people may be involved. It's essentially like seeing someone in a uniform, or gang colors.

I go back to my old "NES moonwalking" theory of bad shoots. Physically moving away from a victim is not necessarily "retreating". And "retreat" typically refers to withdrawing from an advance position, not leaving the field entirely. "Retreat, Regroup, and Re-Engage" means nothing to most people, especially not newsmen, judges, or prosecutors. Nor does "Tactical Withdrawal". Turning away... to put leverage into the swing of a punch, or a weapon? Running away... to recover a weapon, or lead the victim to your friends? Driving away, or pulling a u-turn in your multi-ton high speed murder weapon? If you're the instigator, and you're done engaging, put your hands up and be very, very still - maybe say "I surrender" to the person you were trying to victimize - and wait for your bracelets. That goes double for when you're invading someone else's property. That would probably work out better for everyone.

It's a shame that stand your ground laws in public are not nation-wide, but even more of a shame that only a few states acknowledge that people on private property should be given far more deference in dealing with trespassers, thieves and attackers. A crime is certainly more brazen when it occurs on another persons property, especially when they are there without permission (i.e. not a fight at a party with an invited guest). Even in MA you see huge differences between the brazenness of crimes in the day vs the night, in how it may be addressed by both home owners and the courts. The last 50-70 years have really turned the world upside down in terms of the "rights" of people who rob, vandalize, and assault people on their own property. It's unAmerican.

The defense is on point about the flag, too... if it were any other flag (except maybe the US one) we'd be looking at "hate crime" charges. But WAIT - that bill of rights thingummy only works for restraining government, right? Y'know except in private citizens hiring, offering public accommodations, speaking naughty words which might seem intimidating to the thing skinned, refusing service, not baking a cake, advertising a product, commenting on crime statistics, offering a loan... Yeah, except those things, that's where the bill of rights is about God given rights rather than restrictions on government.

26 isn't a "kid". As a female especially, that pre-frontal lobe is fully f***ing developed. A 26 year old female is a scant few years away from being a "geriatric mother" if pregnant. Antifa wannabe loon out vandalising people's homes? PSGWSP. The marxist iteration of the pride flag is basically the new swastika, except even detestable nazis weren't low key pedophile apologists. I don't see too many overcome with an urge to steal them from private homes...

A lot of what you say is true In a lot of places But as a defense in this case, good luck. This is Oklahoma not Portland. The most conservative state in the country. Is there any instances of the police or public officials allowing violence in his area artifa style? Did he even call the cops to see if they would fail to respond. It’s also not reasonable to view a cookout across the street and mistake it for a violent would be BLM/Antfa protest in the making? there is simply no way any reasonable person would have felt mortal danger from this scenario. He’s screwed, no one there is going to buy that defense imo. Nor should they.

 

[xtry51]

Very few current societies have a capital punishment for theft, even the, shall we say, less enlightened ones.

If death is the penalty for theft, is it for all theft, or is there a dollar amount? Is it for all ages? Is it a summary execution, or is there a trial?

Even back in the day, there was, "An eye for an eye....," but that was a limitation - you could not take two eyes, for one.

I agree that the woman should be prosecuted, both for theft, and for any other "enhancements" that would be applied to one that destroyed a Rainbow flag. But deadly force should not be the automatic response to something that does not remotely endanger one's security, or that of one's family.

You and Timber are doing something I don't think you realize. Nowhere did I say capital punishment from the state should be the law. I specifically said victims should have the right to shoot people stealing from them.

I do not condone the state using the death penalty for theft. That would be retarded because the state is not a victim. They are an arbiter of events after the fact.

 

[xtry51]

But deadly force should not be the automatic response to something that does not remotely endanger one's security, or that of one's family.

Separate response for this specific sentence. The above is your opinion on the value of your items. It doesn't and shouldn't have weight on what others place on their property. Just because you feel a certain way, does not mean you should be allowed to limit other victims responses to active crimes. You only get to control your response when you're a victim.

 

[BigTimber]

Separate response for this specific sentence. The above is your opinion on the value of your items. It doesn't and shouldn't have weight on what others place on their property. Just because you feel a certain way, does not mean you should be allowed to limit other victims responses to active crimes. You only get to control your response when you're a victim.

But that’s not how it works. The state does have the say over what a reasonable response Is. And they’ve spoken. They (we) through our elected officials have determined its unreasonable to kill folks over petty theft. Your opinion is extreme, unreasonable and in the minority, thankfully. Under your own Extremist view point would you have made it to 26? We use to as kids cut through peoples yards on the way to school. Should there have been a pile of dead 6th graders in mrs smiths yard for the crime against humanity of trespassing? Our laws need to be reasonable and in proportion. Allowing citizens to Execute 20 year olds for petty theft is insane.

 

[GaryO]

I can smell the Jaeger and Camel Lights

26yo. Rode hard, put

 

[fshalor]

She was also fleeing. WITHOUT the flag she was trying to steal. What was the threat to this man?

Her coming back with ten dudes with pitchforks maybe?

Sure, it's not 1710 any more. But that was exactly what happened once in a farm out in sticks of Massachusetts.

A woman was caught stealing a sack of grain. The homeowner pointed his flintlock at her, and she dropped the sack and ran away.

The next day, when the man took their wagon to town, the woman brought back with her ten or more guys, raped his daughter and his pregnant wife, killed his 4 year old son and ripped an eye and tongue off the 9 year old boy, breaking both of his legs and dragging him through a field behind a horse.

The boy took one of the villians with him using the single shot from the flintlock. All of their grain was taken.

Don't advertise. And don't blindly trust those who already are violating some laws, to give a shit about any others.

The child who survived wrote of his experience in a letter. It gave me some perspective about how things might go.

Thousands of years old tactic is to send a child or small non threatening person to scout a location, uncover the defenses, and report back.

Sure, in this case the woman was attempting to steal property. Trespassing, first amendment ego challenging, etc. Sure, I wouldn't have shot her. But where do you draw the line? Your bike? Your car? Your dog? Your child?

Applying laws is not like playing world of warcraft.

 

[Picton]

Her coming back with ten dudes with pitchforks maybe?

Sure, it's not 1710 any more. But that was exactly what happened once in a farm out in sticks of Massachusetts.

A woman was caught stealing a sack of grain. The homeowner pointed his flintlock at her, and she dropped the sack and ran away.

The next day, when the man took their wagon to town, the woman brought back with her ten or more guys, raped his daughter and his pregnant wife, killed his 4 year old son and ripped an eye and tongue off the 9 year old boy, breaking both of his legs and dragging him through a field behind a horse.

The boy took one of the villians with him using the single shot from the flintlock. All of their grain was taken.

Don't advertise. And don't blindly trust those who already are violating some laws, to give a shit about any others.

The child who survived wrote of his experience in a letter. It gave me some perspective about how things might go.

Thousands of years old tactic is to send a child or small non threatening person to scout a location, uncover the defenses, and report back.

Sure, in this case the woman was attempting to steal property. Trespassing, first amendment ego challenging, etc. Sure, I wouldn't have shot her. But where do you draw the line? Your bike? Your car? Your dog? Your child?

Applying laws is not like playing world of warcraft.

Meh.

You shoot if there's an imminent threat to your life, no? By your logic, you can go ahead and shoot people just because you feel they might one day come kill you, at some hazy point in the undefined future. No court in the land would ever accept that premise, nor would simple common sense.

So by all means, in the one and a zillion chance she comes back with her pitchforked minions, then sit on your porch and cap those minions. Why? Because they're about to come kill you. And you'll get them: they've got pitchforks and you've got a rifle.

A woman running away from your house is demonstrably not about to come kill you. So your motive in trying to kill her is obviously going to come into question.

 

[rscalzo]

Don't support his ideology but he most certainly did not start this.


I can't help but agree with the defense... the police are seen refusing to help, and elected officials are encouraging and praising violence. For months straight. Literal bolsheviks are marching through the streets of dozens of cities and hundreds of towns, smashing and burning, with no end in sight? Homes and businesses invaded and vandalized, people beaten in the streets? Sole defenders charged, and groups of attackers set free? It was not unreasonable to expect violence from this person, or to think more people may be involved. It's essentially like seeing someone in a uniform, or gang colors.

I go back to my old "NES moonwalking" theory of bad shoots. Physically moving away from a victim is not necessarily "retreating". And "retreat" typically refers to withdrawing from an advance position, not leaving the field entirely. "Retreat, Regroup, and Re-Engage" means nothing to most people, especially not newsmen, judges, or prosecutors. Nor does "Tactical Withdrawal". Turning away... to put leverage into the swing of a punch, or a weapon? Running away... to recover a weapon, or lead the victim to your friends? Driving away, or pulling a u-turn in your multi-ton high speed murder weapon? If you're the instigator, and you're done engaging, put your hands up and be very, very still - maybe say "I surrender" to the person you were trying to victimize - and wait for your bracelets. That goes double for when you're invading someone else's property. That would probably work out better for everyone.

It's a shame that stand your ground laws in public are not nation-wide, but even more of a shame that only a few states acknowledge that people on private property should be given far more deference in dealing with trespassers, thieves and attackers. A crime is certainly more brazen when it occurs on another persons property, especially when they are there without permission (i.e. not a fight at a party with an invited guest). Even in MA you see huge differences between the brazenness of crimes in the day vs the night, in how it may be addressed by both home owners and the courts. The last 50-70 years have really turned the world upside down in terms of the "rights" of people who rob, vandalize, and assault people on their own property. It's unAmerican.

The defense is on point about the flag, too... if it were any other flag (except maybe the US one) we'd be looking at "hate crime" charges. But WAIT - that bill of rights thingummy only works for restraining government, right? Y'know except in private citizens hiring, offering public accommodations, speaking naughty words which might seem intimidating to the thing skinned, refusing service, not baking a cake, advertising a product, commenting on crime statistics, offering a loan... Yeah, except those things, that's where the bill of rights is about God given rights rather than restrictions on government.

26 isn't a "kid". As a female especially, that pre-frontal lobe is fully f***ing developed. A 26 year old female is a scant few years away from being a "geriatric mother" if pregnant. Antifa wannabe loon out vandalising people's homes? PSGWSP. The marxist iteration of the pride flag is basically the new swastika, except even detestable nazis weren't low key pedophile apologists. I don't see too many overcome with an urge to steal them from private homes...

The lawyer will says anything the client wants and has to come up with some sort of defense. But I doubt even he believes what he's saying. His only concern is having the retainer check clear.

He will be bankrupted paying the legal fees. When there's nothing left, his lawyer will push him into making a deal.

 

[rep308]

and the Step Brother's scene....

 

[namedpipes]

Meh.

You shoot if there's an imminent threat to your life, no? By your logic, you can go ahead and shoot people just because you feel they might one day come kill you, at some hazy point in the undefined future. No court in the land would ever accept that premise, nor would simple common sense.
...

I agree, although the gentleman might deserve a blanket party thrown in his honor some dark night, on his own merits. But that is another discussion.

The girl, absolutely should be prosecuted and pay her debt to society. And at 26, she should have known somebody might react violently to her s**t, so she's at least somewhat responsible for her condition. The dude did go too far and he's probably soon going to have some free time on his hands to contemplate this.

 

[AHM]

... We use to as kids cut through peoples yards on the way to school. Should there have been a pile of dead 6th graders in mrs smiths yard for the crime against humanity of trespassing?

NES has already covered this...

 

[xtry51]

But that’s not how it works. The state does have the say over what a reasonable response Is. And they’ve spoken. They (we) through our elected officials have determined its unreasonable to kill folks over petty theft. Your opinion is extreme, unreasonable and in the minority, thankfully. Under your own Extremist view point would you have made it to 26? We use to as kids cut through peoples yards on the way to school. Should there have been a pile of dead 6th graders in mrs smiths yard for the crime against humanity of trespassing? Our laws need to be reasonable and in proportion. Allowing citizens to Execute 20 year olds for petty theft is insane.

Serious strawman argument above. I was not talking about trespassing or shooting for trespassing. You are intentionally attempting to shift away from the point I made.

The response threshold of a citizen/victim to an active crime should always be higher than that allowed to the state for punishment after the fact. Because the actions allowed to prevent crime at the time it is being committed are the only true deterents. To limit citizens is to say what the state says matters more than your property. This is demonstrably false and the exact opposite of what our constitution was created to do. Protect life, liberty and happiness (property).

 

[Picton]

Serious strawman argument above. I was not talking about trespassing or shooting for trespassing. You are intentionally attempting to shift away from the point I made.

The response threshold of a citizen/victim to an active crime should always be higher than that allowed to the state for punishment after the fact. Because the actions allowed to prevent crime at the time it is being committed are the only true deterents. To limit citizens is to say what the state says matters more than your property. This is demonstrably false and the exact opposite of what our constitution was created to do. Protect life, liberty and happiness (property).

Fair enough, but honest questions: do you acknowledge that the state has an interest in investigating, perhaps prosecuting, maybe even punishing said citizen/victims if their response is unreasonable?

Or do you believe the citizen/victim always has the right to escalate directly to deadly force, without any other consideration?

Do you think there's such a thing as an "unreasonable" response from the citizen/victim?

 

[xtry51]

Fair enough, but honest questions: do you acknowledge that the state has an interest in investigating, perhaps prosecuting, maybe even punishing said citizen/victims if their response is unreasonable?

Or do you believe the citizen/victim always has the right to escalate directly to deadly force, without any other consideration?

Do you think there's such a thing as an "unreasonable" response from the citizen/victim?

I'm constricting my discussion point to the facts of this occurrence. If you are on someone's property and in the act of stealing something, up to and including escaping with items citizens should be allowed to shoot youn even in the back, even if you are unarmed and of not physical threat to anyone. The government should have no recourse for this, nor be able to restrict lethal response if the act of theft was being committed.

Anything other than this is the state protecting criminals for their actions and tyrrany on victims of crimes.

 

[Picton]

I'm constricting my discussion point to the facts of this occurrence. If you are on someone's property and in the act of stealing something, up to and including escaping with items citizens should be allowed to shoot youn even in the back, even if you are unarmed and of not physical threat to anyone. The government should have no recourse for this, nor be able to restrict lethal response if the act of theft was being committed.

Anything other than this is the state protecting criminals for their actions and tyrrany on victims of crimes.

Do you differentiate between, say, a car and a lawn sign? All property demands the same response?

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Do you differentiate between, say, a car and a lawn sign? All property demands the same response?

Personal property stolen on private property? Yes.

It's not like the determination of cash value of stolen goods in say, a store, or some other place or way to which the public has access.

You invade my home, my castle, my property, that is far more brazen than simply taking something off a store shelf or out of a publicly parked vehicle in a place where you had every right to be... Those are crimes of opportunity. Peeping Toms are penalized heavily, and they don't take anything at all. Breaking and entering is breaking the threshold not physically breaking a door or lock. It's a heinous thing to go on to someone else's property with the goal of stealing from them, and it's not unreasonable to believe someone who does something so brazen might intend to be violent as well. Reasonable people see someone creeping up to their house, or hear them break a glass pane in a door, and they fear violence.

"I was only going to steal the paper weight on the desk, not the safe full of cash" ok sir, you're free to go, that's hardly even a crime right? And you got caught first... What's a paper weight worth anyway, what a minor crime. We believe you, because you - the instigator, the criminal, claimed that's all you were doing!

This lady was shot in the front, not the back... you got caught. Put your hands up, say you surrender, wait for the cop. Don't run "away" (or to your weapon, or your friend...)

 

[xtry51]

Do you differentiate between, say, a car and a lawn sign? All property demands the same response?

You're doing it again. I have never stated here there is a required response. I in fact quite clearly stated the response level is your choice. My position is the government is not allowed to restrict the level of force the victim chooses to use to prevent theft. The choice of level is left to the victim while the theft is actively unfolding.

 

[Picton]

Personal property stolen on private property? Yes.

It's not like the determination of cash value of stolen goods in say, a store, or some other place or way to which the public has access.

You invade my home, my castle, my property, that is far more brazen than simply taking something off a store shelf or out of a publicly parked vehicle in a place where you had every right to be... Those are crimes of opportunity. Peeping Toms are penalized heavily, and they don't take anything at all. Breaking and entering is breaking the threshold not physically breaking a door or lock. It's a heinous thing to go on to someone else's property with the goal of stealing from them, and it's not unreasonable to believe someone who does something so brazen might intend to be violent as well. Reasonable people see someone creeping up to their house, or hear them break a glass pane in a door, and they fear violence.

"I was only going to steal the paper weight on the desk, not the safe full of cash" ok sir, you're free to go, that's hardly even a crime right? And you got caught first... What's a paper weight worth anyway, what a minor crime. We believe you, because you - the instigator, the criminal, claimed that's all you were doing!

This lady was shot in the front, not the back... you got caught. Put your hands up, say you surrender, wait for the cop. Don't run "away" (or to your weapon, or your friend...)

Okay.

How about trespassing? If a kid is taking a shortcut from the cul-de-sac behind your house to the main drag, and happens to "invade your home" while he does it... same deal? Blow him away?

I'm aware I'm on a tangent, so feel free to ignore me. I'm just curious, and slightly incredulous. Some of you seem very, very eager to take a life, and I don't understand that.

 

[Picton]

You're doing it again. I have never stated here there is a required response. I in fact quite clearly stated the response level is your choice. My position is the government is not allowed to restrict the level of force the victim chooses to use to prevent theft. The choice of level is left to the victim while the theft is actively unfolding.

But you reject the notion that there's any point at which the citizen-victim's choice could ever be open to question by anyone else?

 

[xtry51]

But you reject the notion that there's any point at which the citizen-victim's choice could ever be open to question by anyone else?

Yes, assuming there is proof the theft was taking place. Pretty clear cut in this case.

 

[Picton]

Yes, assuming there is proof the theft was taking place. Pretty clear cut in this case.

Fair enough, I guess. Not something I understand, but whatever. You have more faith in peoples' judgement than I do, that's for sure.

 

[xtry51]

Okay.

How about trespassing? If a kid is taking a shortcut from the cul-de-sac behind your house to the main drag, and happens to "invade your home" while he does it... same deal? Blow him away?

I'm aware I'm on a tangent, so feel free to ignore me. I'm just curious, and slightly incredulous. Some of you seem very, very eager to take a life, and I don't understand that.

I'm going to clarify again I have not said I would personally shoot someone for stealing any object. I'm saying it should be my choice, not the governments since the property is mine and the governments only obligation from a law enforcement/prosecution standpoint is punishment after trial as an arbiter. Please be clear the government REPSONDS to crime. They don't prevent it. Prevention is the citizens responsibility.

On the act of trespassing, are the people willfully trespassing after being notified of that being the case and refusing to leave? Ever heard of people trespassing getting peppered with shotgun shell rock salt for doing so?

 

[Picton]

I'm going to clarify again I have not said I would personally shoot someone for stealing any object. I'm saying it should be my choice, not the governments since the property is mine and the governments only obligation from a law enforcement/prosecution standpoint is punishment after trial as an arbiter. Please be clear the government REPSONDS to crime. They don't prevent it. Prevention is the citizens responsibility.

On the act of trespassing, are the people willfully trespassing after being notified of that being the case and refusing to leave? Ever heard of people trespassing getting peppered with shotgun shell rock salt for doing so?

What concerns me is that your "might-makes-right" view of property assumes that every property owner has good judgement, unerring decisionmaking abilities, and excellent aim...

In my experience, most people have none of those.