I mean, ideally, there SHOULD be a law enforcement agency that could genuinely be TRUSTED to report such incidents of abuse to, so that the abuser could be apprehended and REFORMED through a judiciary process, such that the victim didn't feel as though their only means of self-protection was to execute an act of murder, or other bodily attack in order to escape said abuse, rather than police brushing it away as paperwork.
In the eyes of the law, it will look premeditated. Since the methods available to women against an abuser are naturally going to be a lot more "underhanded" like poisoning or stabbing them in their sleep. Also the family of the abuser will certainly push for repeated trials with prosecutors if the woman does manage to convince the court of self defence because intent to kill is easier to argue than that defense and court trials can have vastly different results.
... in this specific case. In general men serve much longer sentences even when controlling for confounding factors like poverty, criminal history and type of crime.
oh yes please ... point out the one droplet of piss in the sea of unfairness against men ... every major study proves, that men get longer sentences FOR THE SAME CRIME than women ... smash the MATRIARCHY !!!
Imagine a woman or girl being kidnapped by someone and locked in a home, unable to leave, being raped, beaten, tortured for years. Like Elizabeth Smart. Imagine that girl finally has an opportunity to escape. Her capture fell asleep and left her door unlocked, but she couldn't just leave because an alarm would wake him up. So she has to get a knife from the kitchen and kill him in his sleep so she can finally escape the abuse and get out. Its the same thing. Its self defense.
I don't know I think Martha Stewart's a bad example the reason why she got time at all was because before she was Martha Stewart doing what she does she was a stock trader licensed stock trader she knew what she was doing with his entire trading was wrong and they are dead to rights
That’s not true at all. Statistically, not only do men have longer and harsher sentences than women, they also have far lower likelihoods of getting leniency in any way, and are WAY less likely to be able to negotiate plea deals or even win in familial legal battles. The fact is that the legal systems worldwide are HEAVILY biased in favour of women, and the stats show that through, with men receiving sentences over 60% longer for identical crimes as a woman.
Seriously same goddamn argument could be used "Why did you get that if you were not planning to use it?" Downvoters do not understand (or they do and they are wastes of oxygen)
Yeah, it’s a valid question though. A woman tends to be physically weaker than their abuser. As soon as the abuser wakes up, there is no realistic chance of an abused woman successfully defending herself. So the imminence is, “as soon as they wake up, they might kill me, this is the only opportunity I have to defend myself.” So the question is whether her belief that the abuser might actually put her life at risk, is legally reasonable.
I think the first question that needs asking is "longer sentences than who?" and if this is based on the statistic I think it's based on the answer is "women serve longer sentences for killing their partners than men who kill their partners on average"
And why the difference? Men who kill their partner often do so in a rage and then call the police. They get manslaughter. Women who kill their partner often use poison or, like the clip, kill someone sleeping, then try to hide it. Easy murder 1/2
None of this is to say that there aren't real problem. If someone's gone to the police repeatedly to report abuse and the police do nothing and they've tried to leave but their abuser tracks them down and drags them back... Options disappear.
But there's a presentation of this that says "we need better systems to protect victims of abuse" and there's another presentation that says "women should't go to jail for killing their male partners in their sleep" and this clip is clearly leaning one way
Women try to stay below the radar by using poison or other passive means of removing people from their lives like drowning or overdosing with strangulation.
I think you need to read the definition of passive. Drowning and strangulation definitely require action. So does poisoning, but it is not hands on, so different sort of action. Passive means standing there while someone beats the crap outta you.
I'm prefer using the criminal definitions, not the cock and bull you chose for no reason at all. Driving a car into a lake is often disguised as 'accidentally' killing the kids. Poisoned food is well documented with other possible 'excuses' that are really murder. The passive is in the mid of the killer as if it wasn't my fault. Drugging a victim with sleeping tabs then smothering them while unconscious is another favourite method of women killers.
those highlighted tiktok captions are the bane of any content. People are excluded (those with reading disabilities as an example). Its catered to the tiktok attentions that "wonder what next word is".
It is self-defence through pre-emptive attack, but the problem the law has with it is this: If the abuser is prone/asleep/whatever, then the other person can also just leave and seek the protection of the law. Of course, the law is also imperfect and for whatever various reasons may be unable to unwilling to protect them and so they feel obligated to solve the issue themselves.
The problem here isn't with imminence, it's with the inability of women to gain protection from violence via the law.
Yep, you see the exact same issue with men killing their rapist in prison, because there is functionally no ability for them to go to the authorities for protection.
I was harassed by my ex for TWENTY YEARS! We only ever dated for three! His brother's best friend was a local cop. So the police, every time I had to call, would say, "We can take a statement, but we can't really make him stop." I couldn't even get a protective order.
Exactly, imo, it isnt imminence, but desperation, no other options remain.
If the victim calls the police on an abuser, theres a big chance they show up and shoot the victim, that has happened before in multiple variations with increasing frequency (ice and all that, if you happen to be nonwhite).
Also, statistically, women are in the most danger if they decide to leave, more women are murdered by partners when they try to leave than at any other time. So if they've tried leaving before, & been caught & punished for it - they're often right to fear for their life. So many abusers tell their victims over & over 'if you ever try to leave - I'll kill you.'
& cops have freakishly high stats of domestic violence, if you call the cops, chances are, another abuser will answer that call.
"I wasn't capable of moving out, leaving town, or finding a shelter, but I *was* ready and able to murder." Might even be true, but it isn't a great defense in a court of law.
Nor should it be. If a husband and wife were suffering marital difficulties and the husband shot and killed the wife nobody would say "well, he didn't feel like he could deal with divorce so it's fine."
It sucks and we defiantly need a better system to precept victims of abuse but if the law said "killing your abuser is fine and legal no matter how you do it" we'd only see more murder, not less, just like we already do with stand your ground laws.
More like “I tried to move out, but he found me and beat me and brought me back.” But yeah, the law doesn’t really allow for the assumption of self defense because you have an actually reasonable fear that the cops will, at best, catch them AFTER they murder you.
And I am uncertain if that is true? We would see more women murdering their abusers, but it might actually come with a bigger drop for women dying, either directly or being driven to suicide by abuse.
The stand your ground thing is definitely true. Florida is the textbook example. 24% increase in homicide rate following their stand your ground law.
When you tell people "it's legal to kill in this circumstance" then more people will kill and some of them will be in that circumstance and some will only be nearby.
I'm a tiny 100 pound woman, I absolutely know there is no way I could win a physical fight with a man and so the only options I have if attacked are to run away, curl into a ball and protect my head and organs or use a weapon. The law will ask if I use a weapon, why I would purchase and carry a weapon before the act from the standpoint of was I planning on using it to harm someone else. So obviously my options aren't great no matter which one I choose but ideally I don't want to die
To be clear, the law would be right to ask that, it should just accept the answer "I didn't plan it in the sense that I schemed to get them to assault me, I just didn't want to be defenseless in case they do it again."
& people forget that most women murdered by partners, do so when they decide to LEAVE. So abused women can't even 'just leave' because that's when things are statistically the most dangerous for them.
Not to mention the super high domestic violence stats within the police force. So if a woman calls the police, there's a high likelihood that the man who arrives will also be an abuser & have their own bias.
I don't know what your physicality is like but there's a 16 year old girl in my silat class it's been training for a few years and she tossed me around I am a muscular 200 lb 5'10" dude and it was nothing for her I landed on my head I landed in my back and landed in my shoulder it was insane how quick she threw me and she looks unassuming she is maybe 5’. So training would give you an advantage in some situations but yes getting away is always the best option no matter who you are.
While not wanting to die is the ultimate thing to strive for, you are massively underestimating yourself if you base your lack of ability on your size. Yes, many people are huge today. But. If you get some training, in martial arts you may find you can toss around bigger people like they are nothing. It's about using your attackers weight and motion against them. Flat out overpowering is not the goal, not in a head to head muscle to muscle way. Being small actually is helpful in some situations
It gives you the better position gravity wise and fulcrum wise. That said, ANYTHING can be a weapon. As for purchasing one and why you would, you can state your size and weight and the average size/weight abilities of someone much larger than you. Until you have trained in CQC or similar you need an advantage to protect yourself. The right weapon acts as an equalizer. Having it does not immediately imply intent to do harm. It implies you want to be prepared to protect yourself.
This feels a little idealized. Fights are messy and clumsy. In order for you to win against someone with a significant size difference in a fight with no rules, you’d have to have real ring experience superior to your attacker. You’re right that more women should carry weapons though.
Your lawyer should have advised you not to answer that or any other question so recently after a traumatic or stressful event. The issue isn't being prepared for a fight. The issue is that the cases the video is referencing are instances where the assault ceased and the prosecuted party reengaged after acquiring a favorable position. This is the same as a victim delivering a coup de grace. Or me burning down my neighbor's house three days after they punched me for saying their dog is fat.
Not quite the same. It's about imminent threat, what qualifies as an imminent threat to a man is different than it is to a woman, especially a woman who has been mentally and physically abused for years. The mindset of a person who is constantly under threat can be seen in soldiers in an active war zone. Same with abuse victims, while the soldier may be eating dinner in camp they are still on high alert for an attack, while an abuse victim may be taking a shower they are still on high alert
That may be true but the video is misleading and misrepresenting the convictions. The issue is the victim could be engaged in a fight for their life for an entire week. Once hostilities are ceased through any number of means the law does not allow them to then attack. A common example is hostilities end when the party has the physical ability to flee. i.e. they are sleeping, either party has pulled away in their car, the fight has been broken up.
You just don’t get it. You are just defending your position that men should be allowed to abuse people for as long as they want- and victims should have to retaliate during a physical confrontation or never at all. That is stupid, listen to how stupid that sounds. If you are a serial abuser be prepared to be murdered in your sleep, no matter what the law allows (for now). Abusive people (especially men who often hold more power) should have to live in fear of retaliation- like their victims.
The problem with this is that leaving is when abuse situations become most dangerous for women. Fleeing when you can increases the risk of serious injury or homicide in abuse situations.
In an active war zone you still have the ability to attack without provocation, These women are fighting for their lives every minute of every day, no matter where they and their abuser is. Case in point, people always ask "well why didn't she just leave"? The highest rate of possible homicide is when the woman physically tries to leave. Even with restraining orders, women are regularly killed by their abusive partners after they leave. They are always under attack in a war zone with an abuser
I agree with your point but the law does not support this activity for good reason. Doing so would legalize a dozen different extrajudicial methods of legalized murder. Governments declare war. Individuals do not.
hockey4mal8
Yet it is ok to bomb a school full of children because their country is "two weeks away " from having nukes.
TheFastpaws
The law is stupid.
Cthulhuonabike
I mean, ideally, there SHOULD be a law enforcement agency that could genuinely be TRUSTED to report such incidents of abuse to, so that the abuser could be apprehended and REFORMED through a judiciary process, such that the victim didn't feel as though their only means of self-protection was to execute an act of murder, or other bodily attack in order to escape said abuse, rather than police brushing it away as paperwork.
VictusVonGuyver
In the eyes of the law, it will look premeditated. Since the methods available to women against an abuser are naturally going to be a lot more "underhanded" like poisoning or stabbing them in their sleep. Also the family of the abuser will certainly push for repeated trials with prosecutors if the woman does manage to convince the court of self defence because intent to kill is easier to argue than that defense and court trials can have vastly different results.
nichfra
... in this specific case. In general men serve much longer sentences even when controlling for confounding factors like poverty, criminal history and type of crime.
UnlimitedTrickPony
oh yes please ... point out the one droplet of piss in the sea of unfairness against men ... every major study proves, that men get longer sentences FOR THE SAME CRIME than women ... smash the MATRIARCHY !!!
ThisIsAllYouCouldComeUpWith
You either forgot your /s or your meds
SacrificialClam
Imagine a woman or girl being kidnapped by someone and locked in a home, unable to leave, being raped, beaten, tortured for years. Like Elizabeth Smart. Imagine that girl finally has an opportunity to escape. Her capture fell asleep and left her door unlocked, but she couldn't just leave because an alarm would wake him up. So she has to get a knife from the kitchen and kill him in his sleep so she can finally escape the abuse and get out. Its the same thing. Its self defense.
sbro11
whaaaaat? no girlfriend discount like when it is the other way round? How rude!
slendfung
it’s beyond even that. women face any consequences far more than men. Martha Stewart’s a great example.
YpsilantiRomani
I don't know I think Martha Stewart's a bad example the reason why she got time at all was because before she was Martha Stewart doing what she does she was a stock trader licensed stock trader she knew what she was doing with his entire trading was wrong and they are dead to rights
cjorl
Martha Stewart and her male broker both got five months in minimum security prison camp. The CEO of the company they traded got seven years.
TheMilliner
That’s not true at all. Statistically, not only do men have longer and harsher sentences than women, they also have far lower likelihoods of getting leniency in any way, and are WAY less likely to be able to negotiate plea deals or even win in familial legal battles. The fact is that the legal systems worldwide are HEAVILY biased in favour of women, and the stats show that through, with men receiving sentences over 60% longer for identical crimes as a woman.
Animus0Seven
What didn't know is that this video would be a half hour long. Jeesh.
Hexidimentional
TL:DR the law doesnt accept premeditated self defense.
TsubakiTragic
The law is an ass.
thinkybrainpains
Thats not what she said at all
lthondre
Explain the difference
Calistrasza
Unless you're a man collecting guns to "protect" his family. Weird, that.
IMakeLotsOfReferencesAndRemakes
Seriously same goddamn argument could be used "Why did you get that if you were not planning to use it?" Downvoters do not understand (or they do and they are wastes of oxygen)
ArandomDane
Arguing the issue by using the killing of someone sleeping to argue the issue, of what can be considered imminent. This got to be ragebait...
Fairly sure, it is a good thing to have someone ask some questions here...
nicelyvillainous
Yeah, it’s a valid question though. A woman tends to be physically weaker than their abuser. As soon as the abuser wakes up, there is no realistic chance of an abused woman successfully defending herself. So the imminence is, “as soon as they wake up, they might kill me, this is the only opportunity I have to defend myself.” So the question is whether her belief that the abuser might actually put her life at risk, is legally reasonable.
LostCaterpillar
I think the first question that needs asking is "longer sentences than who?" and if this is based on the statistic I think it's based on the answer is "women serve longer sentences for killing their partners than men who kill their partners on average"
And why the difference? Men who kill their partner often do so in a rage and then call the police. They get manslaughter. Women who kill their partner often use poison or, like the clip, kill someone sleeping, then try to hide it. Easy murder 1/2
LostCaterpillar
None of this is to say that there aren't real problem. If someone's gone to the police repeatedly to report abuse and the police do nothing and they've tried to leave but their abuser tracks them down and drags them back... Options disappear.
But there's a presentation of this that says "we need better systems to protect victims of abuse" and there's another presentation that says "women should't go to jail for killing their male partners in their sleep" and this clip is clearly leaning one way
CyberHexx
In the words of Madea, Get you a big pot of grits. Make sure it's HOT. And keep the good skillet handy.
itsthevoiceman
A meat mallet goes a long way.
DaisyfromDownunder
Women try to stay below the radar by using poison or other passive means of removing people from their lives like drowning or overdosing with strangulation.
LimaZulu
I think you need to read the definition of passive. Drowning and strangulation definitely require action. So does poisoning, but it is not hands on, so different sort of action. Passive means standing there while someone beats the crap outta you.
DaisyfromDownunder
I'm prefer using the criminal definitions, not the cock and bull you chose for no reason at all. Driving a car into a lake is often disguised as 'accidentally' killing the kids. Poisoned food is well documented with other possible 'excuses' that are really murder. The passive is in the mid of the killer as if it wasn't my fault. Drugging a victim with sleeping tabs then smothering them while unconscious is another favourite method of women killers.
quade
It's weird how the man has captions but not the woman. WTF?
(mostly sarcasm, but I also can't hear)
snowwhyyt
Ditto
I miss a lot of caught on camera moments when I needed to read someone’s lips. But I get the back of someone’s head instead.
Racealistic
it's cut and edited footage of two different videos. The dude added captions, she did not.
FermentTheRich3000
Don't you worry your pretty little head about that. /s
snowwhyyt
Did you send her the text?
ariania
those highlighted tiktok captions are the bane of any content. People are excluded (those with reading disabilities as an example). Its catered to the tiktok attentions that "wonder what next word is".
snowwhyyt
I’m hard of hearing and dyslexic my parents don’t like the words on tv because dad is more dyslexic than I am.
Agouti
It is self-defence through pre-emptive attack, but the problem the law has with it is this: If the abuser is prone/asleep/whatever, then the other person can also just leave and seek the protection of the law. Of course, the law is also imperfect and for whatever various reasons may be unable to unwilling to protect them and so they feel obligated to solve the issue themselves.
The problem here isn't with imminence, it's with the inability of women to gain protection from violence via the law.
nicelyvillainous
Yep, you see the exact same issue with men killing their rapist in prison, because there is functionally no ability for them to go to the authorities for protection.
SalmySwims
Exactly this, because oftentimes women will alert law enforcement who do.....precisely nothing
LateNightBunnyParty
I was harassed by my ex for TWENTY YEARS! We only ever dated for three! His brother's best friend was a local cop. So the police, every time I had to call, would say, "We can take a statement, but we can't really make him stop." I couldn't even get a protective order.
Z0op
Exactly, imo, it isnt imminence, but desperation, no other options remain.
If the victim calls the police on an abuser, theres a big chance they show up and shoot the victim, that has happened before in multiple variations with increasing frequency (ice and all that, if you happen to be nonwhite).
januarylover
Also, statistically, women are in the most danger if they decide to leave, more women are murdered by partners when they try to leave than at any other time. So if they've tried leaving before, & been caught & punished for it - they're often right to fear for their life. So many abusers tell their victims over & over 'if you ever try to leave - I'll kill you.'
& cops have freakishly high stats of domestic violence, if you call the cops, chances are, another abuser will answer that call.
astrangehop
"I wasn't capable of moving out, leaving town, or finding a shelter, but I *was* ready and able to murder." Might even be true, but it isn't a great defense in a court of law.
LostCaterpillar
Nor should it be. If a husband and wife were suffering marital difficulties and the husband shot and killed the wife nobody would say "well, he didn't feel like he could deal with divorce so it's fine."
It sucks and we defiantly need a better system to precept victims of abuse but if the law said "killing your abuser is fine and legal no matter how you do it" we'd only see more murder, not less, just like we already do with stand your ground laws.
nicelyvillainous
More like “I tried to move out, but he found me and beat me and brought me back.” But yeah, the law doesn’t really allow for the assumption of self defense because you have an actually reasonable fear that the cops will, at best, catch them AFTER they murder you.
And I am uncertain if that is true? We would see more women murdering their abusers, but it might actually come with a bigger drop for women dying, either directly or being driven to suicide by abuse.
LostCaterpillar
The stand your ground thing is definitely true. Florida is the textbook example. 24% increase in homicide rate following their stand your ground law.
When you tell people "it's legal to kill in this circumstance" then more people will kill and some of them will be in that circumstance and some will only be nearby.
https://firearminjury.umich.edu/publication/evaluating-the-impact-of-floridas-stand-your-ground-self-defense-law-on-homicide-and-suicide-by-firearm-an-interrupted-time-series-study/
tallyhoho
I'm a tiny 100 pound woman, I absolutely know there is no way I could win a physical fight with a man and so the only options I have if attacked are to run away, curl into a ball and protect my head and organs or use a weapon. The law will ask if I use a weapon, why I would purchase and carry a weapon before the act from the standpoint of was I planning on using it to harm someone else. So obviously my options aren't great no matter which one I choose but ideally I don't want to die
kiski
To be clear, the law would be right to ask that, it should just accept the answer "I didn't plan it in the sense that I schemed to get them to assault me, I just didn't want to be defenseless in case they do it again."
PineappleLoopsBroether
I firmly believe in your right to cut a bitch if he tries to hurt you.
TsubakiTragic
You do whatever it takes to survive and we'll fight the right and wrong of that at that time.
januarylover
& people forget that most women murdered by partners, do so when they decide to LEAVE. So abused women can't even 'just leave' because that's when things are statistically the most dangerous for them.
Not to mention the super high domestic violence stats within the police force. So if a woman calls the police, there's a high likelihood that the man who arrives will also be an abuser & have their own bias.
FluidExchangeProgram
There’s a saying that it’s better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.
jakedafish
Which is what cops use to justify killing anyone. I’ve heard both my cop brother in laws repeat the phrase often.
yamsonyamsonyams
It’s so funny that this is a question they ask of women when there are millions of people hoarding guns
“Why did you buy the gun?”
“Because it’s my constitutional right to have one. Next question”
PTKrieg
Cop: Why did you buy a 9mm handgun with a compensator, red dot sight, and flashlight with integral strobe mode? Wife:
YpsilantiRomani
I don't know what your physicality is like but there's a 16 year old girl in my silat class it's been training for a few years and she tossed me around I am a muscular 200 lb 5'10" dude and it was nothing for her I landed on my head I landed in my back and landed in my shoulder it was insane how quick she threw me and she looks unassuming she is maybe 5’. So training would give you an advantage in some situations but yes getting away is always the best option no matter who you are.
ripstripsart
So your advice is for sure to have the talent, opportunity, resources, and time to become a martial arts expert?
LimaZulu
While not wanting to die is the ultimate thing to strive for, you are massively underestimating yourself if you base your lack of ability on your size. Yes, many people are huge today. But. If you get some training, in martial arts you may find you can toss around bigger people like they are nothing. It's about using your attackers weight and motion against them. Flat out overpowering is not the goal, not in a head to head muscle to muscle way. Being small actually is helpful in some situations
LimaZulu
It gives you the better position gravity wise and fulcrum wise. That said, ANYTHING can be a weapon. As for purchasing one and why you would, you can state your size and weight and the average size/weight abilities of someone much larger than you. Until you have trained in CQC or similar you need an advantage to protect yourself. The right weapon acts as an equalizer. Having it does not immediately imply intent to do harm. It implies you want to be prepared to protect yourself.
ripstripsart
This feels a little idealized. Fights are messy and clumsy. In order for you to win against someone with a significant size difference in a fight with no rules, you’d have to have real ring experience superior to your attacker. You’re right that more women should carry weapons though.
ClutterMonkey
Your lawyer should have advised you not to answer that or any other question so recently after a traumatic or stressful event. The issue isn't being prepared for a fight. The issue is that the cases the video is referencing are instances where the assault ceased and the prosecuted party reengaged after acquiring a favorable position. This is the same as a victim delivering a coup de grace. Or me burning down my neighbor's house three days after they punched me for saying their dog is fat.
tallyhoho
Not quite the same. It's about imminent threat, what qualifies as an imminent threat to a man is different than it is to a woman, especially a woman who has been mentally and physically abused for years. The mindset of a person who is constantly under threat can be seen in soldiers in an active war zone. Same with abuse victims, while the soldier may be eating dinner in camp they are still on high alert for an attack, while an abuse victim may be taking a shower they are still on high alert
ClutterMonkey
That may be true but the video is misleading and misrepresenting the convictions. The issue is the victim could be engaged in a fight for their life for an entire week. Once hostilities are ceased through any number of means the law does not allow them to then attack. A common example is hostilities end when the party has the physical ability to flee. i.e. they are sleeping, either party has pulled away in their car, the fight has been broken up.
Me1iss0
You just don’t get it. You are just defending your position that men should be allowed to abuse people for as long as they want- and victims should have to retaliate during a physical confrontation or never at all. That is stupid, listen to how stupid that sounds. If you are a serial abuser be prepared to be murdered in your sleep, no matter what the law allows (for now). Abusive people (especially men who often hold more power) should have to live in fear of retaliation- like their victims.
ClutterMonkey
Your reframing is bad and you should feel bad. Never have I ever defended abusers.
LeoFloof
The problem with this is that leaving is when abuse situations become most dangerous for women. Fleeing when you can increases the risk of serious injury or homicide in abuse situations.
https://wcfarkansas.org/why-leaving-an-abusive-relationship-is-the-most-danger/">https://wcfarkansas.org/why-leaving-an-abusive-relationship-is-the-most-dan">o">/">https://wcfarkansas.org/why-leaving-an-abusive-relationship-is-the-most-dangerous-time/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patriciafersch/2025/01/07/does-it-really-end-with-us/
https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/escaping-violence/leaving-without-dying
tallyhoho
In an active war zone you still have the ability to attack without provocation, These women are fighting for their lives every minute of every day, no matter where they and their abuser is. Case in point, people always ask "well why didn't she just leave"? The highest rate of possible homicide is when the woman physically tries to leave. Even with restraining orders, women are regularly killed by their abusive partners after they leave. They are always under attack in a war zone with an abuser
ClutterMonkey
I agree with your point but the law does not support this activity for good reason. Doing so would legalize a dozen different extrajudicial methods of legalized murder. Governments declare war. Individuals do not.