Justice For George Floyd

  • Hey,


    Let's start a peaceful protest on this OGame board for George Floyd :smile2:


    Reply with "Justice For George Floyd" in this thread, or reply whatever you want to support this but don't break the rules :tongue3:

    Former TM - OGame.dk

  • Mr. Floyd violated the law on multiple accounts, he surrendered his liberties when he repetitiously violated the laws. He did have a right to life, but this specific incident was poorly covered.


    A felonious moron, was apprehended and subdued by multiple morons of differing races, while surrounded by a litany of morons that only increased the instinctive drives of all involved parties.


    Justice for the American public, not for George Floyd, the general public. The government needs to take more proactive steps to ensuring that its employs are properly held accountable and a strong start is reforming the law enforcement. Demilitarizing the police will only serve to further strengthen the second amendment rights. Law enforcement in this country has a too broadly defined of a job, and the size and capacities of any larger precincts should see a diversification and specialization of individual officers, as opposed to the "umbrella authority" granted to the individuals. Such a step would more closely ensure that law enforcement is not in a position to abuse authority, and decrease these instances for any person.

  • Mr. Floyd violated the law on multiple accounts, he surrendered his liberties when he repetitiously violated the laws. He did have a right to life, but this specific incident was poorly covered.

    This is not what people are angry about in any shape or form, whether or not he was guilty of the crime is irrelevant. The issue was that the police essentially choked him to death and there was no need to take the measures that they did. This was homicide and certainly violates his rights due to the excessive violence practiced against him.

  • I'm not speaking about what people are angry about, I'm speaking logically. I've long since separated myself from most people, because death is an inevitability. An individual is more likely to die in an house fire or by gun inflicted wounds, rather than by death by the police or due to racial conflict.


    You may not approve of logic, but that explains why you're becoming so easily trolled. I've performed the same experiment with you multiple times, to double-check that you are just self-trained to respond a specific way, as opposed to always using a form of logic. I've proven this with rape jokes, gay jokes, and jokes about the mentally disabled. You've an unfortunate habit of prematurely endearing yourself to the public, oftentimes ignoring the context, or extrapolating limited context to mean more than what it is.


    I was quite literally saying, this death is an outrage, however all parties involved are responsible. George Floyd is responsible for resisting arrest prior to apprehension. The mixed races of law enforcement are responsible for not keeping each other in check. The group of civilians surrounding the officers were engaging in technical disorderly conduct, only further creating tensions that resulted in George Floyd's death.


    You may not agree with my sentiments, bu the real victim in any of these cases involving law enforcement is the general public, not a specific individual.


    Have you fought back against a constable? Have you tried shouting down a civil authority? Have you tried shouting people down in general? This seems to only make things worse for everybody involved, yet people refuse to acknowledge partial responsibility. This includes bystanders (we have Samaritan laws covering what the bystanders should have done in this case, though they will not be held liable despite there were actions they could have taken to preserve George Floyd's life), the law enforcement (for not keeping each other in check and handling the situation better), the local municipality (for not performing more rigorous or frequent psychological checks), and George Floyd himself for violating the law, evading law enforcement, and resisting arrest up to the point in which a knee was placed upon his neck (at which point he became a hopelessly dead moron).


    My point is, everybody directly involved in that specific incident was guilty of a crime, making the general public the greatest victim; because as a wise man once said, "The Public Sucks."

  • I'm not speaking about what people are angry about, I'm speaking logically. I've long since separated myself from most people, because death is an inevitability. An individual is more likely to die in an house fire or by gun inflicted wounds, rather than by death by the police or due to racial conflict.

    Your perspective may consider this logical, mine does not. Whilst death is an inevitability, it doesn't mean that we all sit around waiting to die does it? This was a preventable death and as such should have been prevented.

    You may not approve of logic, but that explains why you're becoming so easily trolled. I've performed the same experiment with you multiple times, to double-check that you are just self-trained to respond a specific way, as opposed to always using a form of logic. I've proven this with rape jokes, gay jokes, and jokes about the mentally disabled. You've an unfortunate habit of prematurely endearing yourself to the public, oftentimes ignoring the context, or extrapolating limited context to mean more than what it is.

    This is slightly paradoxical here. At one point you have noted that I am kind towards people, yet when I object to tastleless jokes I am just becoming easily trolled rather than objecting because I am kind?

    I was quite literally saying, this death is an outrage, however all parties involved are responsible. George Floyd is responsible for resisting arrest prior to apprehension. The mixed races of law enforcement are responsible for not keeping each other in check. The group of civilians surrounding the officers were engaging in technical disorderly conduct, only further creating tensions that resulted in George Floyd's death.

    Apart from none of those other factors really matter. Resisting arrest does not justify the homicide, having disorderly conduct is not justifying the homicide. None of these factors contributed to his death apart from the actions by the four police officers. Even George Floyd resisting arrest and having an anxiety attack does not justify this nor make anyone else responsible other than the police officers.


    Have you fought back against a constable? Have you tried shouting down a civil authority? Have you tried shouting people down in general? This seems to only make things worse for everybody involved, yet people refuse to acknowledge partial responsibility.

    No, because I have anxiety. However, I do have friends who are bouncers for a very respectable company and they have discussed their techniques with me and is much the same as dealing with customer service complaints with threatening customers, defuse tension wherever possible and ensure that the only person that will be escalating tensions is solely the perpetrator. If any partial responsibility is to be taken, then it would be not training the police officers well enough to deal with reducing the tensions of the situation. When I have worked with police officers in the past (getting them to remove extremely troublesome and potentially violent homeless from premises) I have watched how they work and the key is to acknowledge the individual. There were opportunities to diffuse tension that wasn't taken. The neck restraint was banned afterwards and the City Council acknowledged the excessive use of force. Noting things such as the general public, him resisting arrest, is to be honest excuse making. It detracts from the real problem.

    This includes bystanders (we have Samaritan laws covering what the bystanders should have done in this case, though they will not be held liable despite there were actions they could have taken to preserve George Floyd's life)

    I will say right now that they couldn't because police officers were prohibiting them from intervening. This is mentioned in the official report and is in the clip.

    the law enforcement (for not keeping each other in check and handling the situation better), the local municipality (for not performing more rigorous or frequent psychological checks),


    This is where the responsiblity does lie, I absolutely agree and is the point I am making.


    George Floyd himself for violating the law, evading law enforcement, and resisting arrest up to the point in which a knee was placed upon his neck

    Actually can you confirm that Floyd definitely paid for cigarettes using a counterfeit note? It is alleged, but I've not seen any proof, nor can he be charged in court on the matter, so we can't say whether he resisted arrest.


    Evading law enforcement, well he didn't though? The police went to his car which was parked then after a brief struggle arrested him.


    Regarding the resisting arrest, with the exception of the first part, let us remember a few facts. Floyd noted he was claustrophobic and feeling anxious. When he fell to the floor, he stated he was recovering from COVID, which I can confirm is acceptable as fatigue is a recognised symptom. He did ask to be able to lie down on the ground rather than be put in the car. Arguing that he is a moron is essentially incorrect and pretty unacceptable from the evidence as well as being offensive to those like myself with anxiety. You are aware of mental health issues, you know how it affects thinking, blaming him for not thinking straight in this stressful situation and ignoring the fact he tried to reason with the officers is not on.


    The blame lies with the police force and the law authorities. The fact that the City Council took action on this along with several investigations by various parties including the FBI into the Minneapolis Police Department makes it quite clear where the blame is truly.

  • Your perspective may consider this logical, mine does not. Whilst death is an inevitability, it doesn't mean that we all sit around waiting to die does it? This was a preventable death and as such should have been prevented.

    No, it was preventable by a veritable number of measures, there is no cleansing of partial responsibility due to guilt by association. The individual's right to life supersedes the jurisdiction of law enforcement, as this is also supposed to granted by international law. Quite literally, the law enforcement enacted a number of crimes, from homicide, obstruction of peace, and assault. The civilians whom noticed the imminent death were legally obligated by law to step in and intervene, then and only then George Floyd's death could have been prevented, and those whom got involved would have had their "criminal" actions expunged or absolved. This is logically how the law works, it is not my perspective, it is a matter of American law and fact. It should have been prevented by a number of people, not just law enforcement.

    This is slightly paradoxical here. At one point you have noted that I am kind towards people, yet when I object to tastleless jokes I am just becoming easily trolled rather than objecting because I am kind?

    No, I'm quite literally stating that because you're so nice you overextend your kindness into situation which do not call for it. It's a tragic flaw that I too suffer from, but quintessentially it ties to the abstract idea of "virtue signalling" or preemptively endearing yourself to be more likeable/acceptable. I didn't say this was wrong/right, I'm simply pointing out that acting preemptive in a social setting is much like thought/emotion policing. The individual cannot learn unless a sequence of positive and negative affirmations exist as a basis of comparison.


    I called something "gay," only to be badgered for allegedly being insensitive to homosexuals, without consideration for whether or not I may be inclined to homosexual tendencies. It was, if anything, a logical trap to iterate that the presumption of harassment is not the same as actual harassment; rather, what one perceives as reality is different from reality itself.


    I performed the same logical trap using "faggot," "retard," and an old Southpark meme contemporaneous to an era in which Bill Cosby was still under trial for rape accusations. Each and every time, without fail, people operate under this presumption that I'm acting/speaking maliciously, without consideration for me as an individual. I am bisexual, I am mentally disabled and prefer the nomenclature "retard" to describe the status of my disability(ies), and I have suffered rape on multiple occasions.


    In the end, I think the only point I am making here is that your general kindness leads you to be overly sensitive to issues that may or may not directly involve you. To reiterate, this isn't wrong nor right, merely an observation of your kindness, hence why I tend to use the dialectical method with you specifically.

    Apart from none of those other factors really matter. Resisting arrest does not justify the homicide, having disorderly conduct is not justifying the homicide. None of these factors contributed to his death apart from the actions by the four police officers. Even George Floyd resisting arrest and having an anxiety attack does not justify this nor make anyone else responsible other than the police officers.

    George Floyd has an historical record of multiple crime convictions, spanning violent crimes to drug-trafficking and money-laundering. He has, in the past, evaded law enforcement. He has, in the past resisted arrest. For all intents and purposes outside of the strangulation, law enforcement would have handled this situation properly. Partial responsibility is due to guilt by association. There are laws here, in the States, that quite literally state that if an individual has the capacity to save a person's life, they are obligated to do so. The inaction of the surrounding civilians is a contributing cause to George Floyd's death. In the civilian's defense, however, we don't really teach law as a portion of our public education, and as such it is moreover the continental Congress' responsibility to properly promulgate such information to the public.


    The indirect actions of other Americans using "I have COVID-19" as a means to avoid law enforcement and justify crime has resulted in a difficult time for many law enforcers to effectively do their job.


    At no point here am I trying to justify the homicide, but any directly involved parties are guilty of any number of crimes simply due to association. Reasonably, our government isn't going to hold the civilians accountable for neglecting Samaritan laws, because, again, most people aren't aware of most laws anyways.

    No, because I have anxiety. However, I do have friends who are bouncers for a very respectable company and they have discussed their techniques with me and is much the same as dealing with customer service complaints with threatening customers, defuse tension wherever possible and ensure that the only person that will be escalating tensions is solely the perpetrator. If any partial responsibility is to be taken, then it would be not training the police officers well enough to deal with reducing the tensions of the situation. When I have worked with police officers in the past (getting them to remove extremely troublesome and potentially violent homeless from premises) I have watched how they work and the key is to acknowledge the individual. There were opportunities to diffuse tension that wasn't taken. The neck restraint was banned afterwards and the City Council acknowledged the excessive use of force. Noting things such as the general public, him resisting arrest, is to be honest excuse making. It detracts from the real problem.

    Again, I am not detracting from the real problem, simply laying out as many facts and pieces of logic as possible to create a better matrix of the situation. I am attempting to convey that all directly involved parties had a form of responsibility, and that the general stupidity of involved parties is a direct contribution to the death of George Floyd.


    To quote one friend, "It wouldn't have mattered if people got involved, people could have saved George Floyd's life, they could have protected him, but they weren't willful to take that risk, because they valued their lives more than George Floyd's." This is coming from a 23-year old black man studying law, conducting pro-bono work for me, and comes from a discussion pertaining to George Floyd. Many things could have been handled differently on many different individual's parts, to attempt to square all the blame upon the government and law enforcement is to deliberately absolve the other directly involved parties of guilt and neglect. The homicide happen, but justice should be in the name of the general public, not specifically George Floyd, because this is an incident that affects any American civilian.

    I will say right now that they couldn't because police officers were prohibiting them from intervening. This is mentioned in the official report and is in the clip.

    Addressed above, they could have, but most likely didn't know better. Quite literally the civilians could have performed an arrest on the law enforcement for committing homicide, but again, they probably weren't aware of this.

    This is where most of the responsiblity does lie, I absolutely agree and is the point I am making.=red>

    Fixed, the responsibility in this situation, extends to the Continental Congress, and all directly involved parties. Partial responsibility is partial responsibility, it is not a binary system of involvement, whereas the judiciary procedings tend to have a binary outcome. Systematically they're not responsible, logically and factually they are; in American law this is regarded as "Jury Nullification" and I believe the UK refers to this as "(Perverse) Jury Equity."

    Actually can you confirm that Floyd definitely paid for cigarettes using a counterfeit note? It is alleged, but I've not seen any proof, nor can he be charged in court on the matter, so we can't say whether he resisted arrest.


    Evading law enforcement, well he didn't though? The police went to his car which was parked then after a brief struggle arrested him.

    See above regarding multiple incidents from prior convictions inclusive of violent crimes. Precincts tend to keep a "log" of civilian encounters, and often contain "key" notes on dealing with the individual. I won't return to my hometown because law enforcement there will specifically treat me worse based on minor convictions from over a decade ago. This is how our law enforcement operates, and once convicted a specified precinct will view you as criminal despite reformation or personal qualities. In this specific incident, George Floyd was apprehended by four law enforcers, typically when handling a single person only two law enforcers are needed, one for observation and one for apprehension. In this case a double-sized force was "needed" due to George Floyd's extensive criminal history. Again, I'm not justifying the homicide, everything up until a knee was placed upon George Floyd's neck was Standard Operational Procedure.

    Regarding the resisting arrest, with the exception of the first part, let us remember a few facts. Floyd noted he was claustrophobic and feeling anxious. When he fell to the floor, he stated he was recovering from COVID, which I can confirm is acceptable as fatigue is a recognised symptom. He did ask to be able to lie down on the ground rather than be put in the car. Arguing that he is a moron is essentially incorrect and pretty unacceptable from the evidence as well as being offensive to those like myself with anxiety. You are aware of mental health issues, you know how it affects thinking, blaming him for not thinking straight in this stressful situation and ignoring the fact he tried to reason with the officers is not on.

    Remember, I'm not trying to blame the victim, I'm blaming quite literally all directly involved parties. You might also want to remember that I'm neither the prosecutor or defendant, and observing the overall actions of George Floyd (as a fair criticism) has been in part due to stupidity. I did not say he was a moron because of his anxiety or phobias, I said he was a "moron," as I would call any person that commits larceny. You're choosing to take personal offense where none exists, which is why I chose to bring up the "logical trap" in the second string of discussion; if we followed your perspective's logic, I too should be offended by my statement, given my general anxiety disorder.

    Personally, while I've never witnessed a homicide, I do know that setting my anxiety aside to assist and help people in distress takes precedent over how I may feel or perceive things. I have put my life at risk many times in order to help others and protect others, including putting myself directly between a physical altercation between a black man and a white supremacist. I do it because it's the law, not because I was ever trying to be a hero or look good; and despite my best humanitarian efforts, people still take up this concept that I'm racist in some form or another, or sexist, or some form of bigotry, because people will look for an enemy even when they don't have one. My favourite hat is bright red, it is NOT a MAGA hat, and yet every so often somebody flips me off, throws something at me, or shout obscenities at me, because people have the unfortunate habit of acting under presumption.

    The blame lies with the police force and the law authorities. The fact that the City Council took action on this along with several investigations by various parties including the FBI into the Minneapolis Police Department makes it quite clear where the blame is truly.

    The blame game results in a lot of finger pointing, presumptions, and often ignores logic. Quite literally, using law and logic, I've proven that all directly involved parties are to blame. If the Minneapolis Police Precinct, FBI, and City Council take actions to improve the situation, shouldn't the directly involved parties also take action to improve future situations, or do we simply place responsibility on one or a few parties and ignore/neglect the responsibility of others?


    I hope this man's insight can offer you something more than what I say, because admittedly, social intelligence and interpersonal communications are not my strong suits. I operate best in a business environment, which is probably why I seem cold and callous to the general person, but those whom take the time to speak to me often find I'm a very considerate and kind-hearted person.


  • The civilians whom noticed the imminent death were legally obligated by law to step in and intervene, then and only then George Floyd's death could have been prevented, and those whom got involved would have had their "criminal" actions expunged or absolved. This is logically how the law works, it is not my perspective, it is a matter of American law and fact. It should have been prevented by a number of people, not just law enforcement.

    Could you actually show me the law in question which deals with this in that particular state? I will deal with part of this later as it is relevant. If it is a Good Samaritan law/ duty of rescue there are caveats to it.



    In the end, I think the only point I am making here is that your general kindness leads you to be overly sensitive to issues that may or may not directly involve you. To reiterate, this isn't wrong nor right, merely an observation of your kindness, hence why I tend to use the dialectical method with you specifically.

    But to me it seems to be that you are deliberately playing off your own gallows humour/self-deprecation, which often requires context. If I start making jokes about my hometown to people, I often note that I am from there so no one is offended, if they don't know me that well. It is also in contrast to what you are saying earlier. In this you have argued that if you see injustice, you should intervene, yet you are telling me that I should be a bystander rather than standing by friends who may be hurt by such jokes?


    George Floyd has an historical record of multiple crime convictions, spanning violent crimes to drug-trafficking and money-laundering. He has, in the past, evaded law enforcement. He has, in the past resisted arrest.

    Let us be clear here. These convictions are as follows: drug dealing (giving someone less than a gram of cocaine in 97), theft x2 (98), failure to identify himself to a police officer (the details are unclear but it happened in 2001), cocaine again (exactly the same events in 97 but taking place in 2002), criminal trespass (2003), drug dealing x 2 (see 97, 2004 and 2005) and aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (2007). Those are the events that took place and it is clear that he had not committed a crime for over a decade. Only the last crime was violent, but there are no details that he resisted arrest or evaded law enforcement in this.


    My source is Snopes and you can find the details here Please note I explicitly picked this source because of its reputation as a fact checking website.

    There are laws here, in the States, that quite literally state that if an individual has the capacity to save a person's life, they are obligated to do so. The inaction of the surrounding civilians is a contributing cause to George Floyd's death. In the civilian's defense, however, we don't really teach law as a portion of our public education, and as such it is moreover the continental Congress' responsibility to properly promulgate such information to the public.

    OK this needs a little bit of detail and I am going to rely on my knowledge from First Aid training which I undertake regularly with professionals. The laws you describe are Good Samaritan laws, which are mainly used to protect those who voluntarily save lives through things such as First Aid. It basically means that if you were to hurt someone whilst saving their life or damage their clothing (both of which are common events when performing CPR for example, as you can break bones performing compressions), you won't have any repercussions. Now in the States, unlike the UK, you are right in saying that you are obligated if you can, to save someone's life. However, there are two issues. The first is that this laws differs from state to state, which means there is a lack of clarity on the matter. The second (and this is very important), is that in all these laws, you do not have to save someone's life if it would put your own in danger. This is very important because it is clear that the police were armed, had their guns out and were using violence. Requests made by bystanders show that they were not listening to objections being made about the treatment and one of the officers was actively prohibiting people from approaching Floyd, with Chauvin pulling out his Mace once Floyd was unconscious. Legally then, it is clear that the civilians were under no obligation to render aid through the Good Samaritan laws and are not to blame. It is one of the first rules of First Aid training that if you would be putting yourself in danger by rendering assistance, you do not do so unless you can remove the danger. Furthermore, we do not know if any civilians had undergone first aid training which I might add, you should not do First Aid if you have never had training, it is dangerous and you could cause more harm.


    Partial responsibility is partial responsibility, it is not a binary system of involvement, whereas the judiciary procedings tend to have a binary outcome. Systematically they're not responsible, logically and factually they are; in American law this is regarded as "Jury Nullification" and I believe the UK refers to this as "(Perverse) Jury Equity."

    The onus though is still on yourself to prove that other parties outside law enforcement and local government were directly responsible for the death. I've not seen any evidence to the contrary.



    See above regarding multiple incidents from prior convictions inclusive of violent crimes.

    See above also. Floyd has only ever been convicted for one violent crime.



    Precincts tend to keep a "log" of civilian encounters, and often contain "key" notes on dealing with the individual.

    Apart from his convictions were in Texas as he had moved after prison and then in the last year to Minneapolis looking for work. He had not been a problem at all since being released from jail.

    I won't return to my hometown because law enforcement there will specifically treat me worse based on minor convictions from over a decade ago. This is how our law enforcement operates, and once convicted a specified precinct will view you as criminal despite reformation or personal qualities.

    Admittedly there is a problem here and I see what you are saying. However, it is not applicable because his crimes were in a different state.

    In this specific incident, George Floyd was apprehended by four law enforcers, typically when handling a single person only two law enforcers are needed, one for observation and one for apprehension. In this case a double-sized force was "needed" due to George Floyd's extensive criminal history.

    Snopes does not that there is no evidence that the police were aware of the 8 convictions in Texas. To quote it:

    Quote

    It’s unclear whether at any point before or during the call the MPD officers knew of Floyd’s past arrests in Texas and, if so, whether that information at all influenced how they acted, consciously or subconsciously. MPD spokespeople did not respond to Snopes’ questions about the officers’ prior knowledge of Floyd before the call from the convenience store, nor did the department answer whether officers in general adjust their responses to 911 calls, or how they approach suspects, based on the criminal records of people involved.

    Charging documents, police records and other court filings that lay out Floyd’s criminal history are all publicly available via the Harris County District Clerk online database. Additionally, according to MPD’s policy and procedure manual, which outlines everything from how officers should dress on the job to use-of-force guidelines, officers use a computerized dispatch system to handle 911 calls and often rely on computers in their squad cars to look up and document information.

    All of that said, MPD Chief Medaria Arradondo said on June 10, 2020: “There is nothing in that call that should have resulted in the outcome with Mr. Floyd’s death.”


    The last sentence is telling though. There was nothing to suggest that those four officers were aware of the convictions. Nor had Floyd had any known encounters with the police. Furthermore, the four officers may be explained by the fact that two of those officers were being trained as they were in their first week of the job.


    everything up until a knee was placed upon George Floyd's neck was Standard Operational Procedure.

    Apart from all reports suggest that Floyd was attempting to co-operate as much as possible in this situation. He tried to inform them of his medical needs and his phobia. The treatment was excessive and it is clear that from past experience and his subsequent reform (along with his training as a security guard) that he was doing his best to keep things calm and ensure that everything went smoothly. I would be really worried if the procedures did not have exceptions which accounted for disabilities as that would be discrimination.


    Remember, I'm not trying to blame the victim, I'm blaming quite literally all directly involved parties. You might also want to remember that I'm neither the prosecutor or defendant, and observing the overall actions of George Floyd (as a fair criticism) has been in part due to stupidity.

    Apart from you are spreading the blame, which is the issue. None of this situation would have arisen without the actions of the officers. As such, they and those responsible for them are the ones that should be acknowledged. Everyone else, using the evidence provided had no responsibility here.

    I did not say he was a moron because of his anxiety or phobias, I said he was a "moron," as I would call any person that commits larceny.

    Apart from with the exception of the historical convictions, we have no proof he did commit fraud on that day.

    You're choosing to take personal offense where none exists, which is why I chose to bring up the "logical trap" in the second string of discussion; if we followed your perspective's logic, I too should be offended by my statement, given my general anxiety disorder.

    That was deliberately what I was trying to state. The way you phrased it seemed to suggest that he was a moron for resisting arrest. As we don't seem to have evidence he was resisting (more in line with his statements), then you are implying that he is a moron for having an anxiety disorder. As you have made it pretty clear that you have suffered from mental health problems, I then thought it would be wise bringing to your attention how problematic this statement would be.

    Personally, while I've never witnessed a homicide, I do know that setting my anxiety aside to assist and help people in distress takes precedent over how I may feel or perceive things.

    Yes, but let us remember, not everyone can do that and people do have different reactions to different circumstances.

    If the Minneapolis Police Precinct, FBI, and City Council take actions to improve the situation, shouldn't the directly involved parties also take action to improve future situations, or do we simply place responsibility on one or a few parties and ignore/neglect the responsibility of others?

    What needs to be established though is did any other parties take responsibility. The only ones not mentioned to be honest was the store, as the clerk did not follow procedure and escalated to the police, rather than following procedure and discussing with Floyd that the note didn't seem real.