Should the Law protect criminals?

[Argus]

A thief who had stolen from local shops dozens of times, recorded numerous times on surveilance cameras returned to the scene of one of his crimes and was recognized by staff. They chased him down the street, caught him, tied him up, and held him for police.

Now they are charged with kidnapping and assault. As for the thief, he was given a puny 90 day sentence, and then, had it cut by two thirds because he agreed to testify against the men who caught him.

Man in court on kidnapping charge

I think this demonstrates the insanity in our laws and the incompetence of those administering them in focusing on narrow elements of law and utterly ignoring the principles of justice law is supposed to be founded upon. They're bureacrats reading fine print, and if you ask them about justice they'll stare at you, befuddled, without a clue as to what you're talking about.

What should be done? To start off, there should be a consideration that justice be the overriding theme in all matters of law. Add to that the principle that people should be allowed to arrest criminals at any time in any location for any reason as long as they use the minumum force necessary. At the very least, people should be allowed to take the chance that if they're wrong and the man isn't a criminal then and only then would they face punishment.

The problem is the law abrogates for the police all duties of aprehending criminals, but the police just aren't very good at it, and there aren't nearly enough of them.

[Dave_ON]

What should be done? To start off, there should be a consideration that justice be the overriding theme in all matters of law. Add to that the principle that people should be allowed to arrest criminals at any time in any location for any reason as long as they use the minumum force necessary. At the very least, people should be allowed to take the chance that if they're wrong and the man isn't a criminal then and only then would they face punishment.

The problem is the law abrogates for the police all duties of aprehending criminals, but the police just aren't very good at it, and there aren't nearly enough of them.

You don't see the problem with this idea? You think it'll stop at just apprehending the alleged suspect? You don't think this would serve to exacerbate the situation and lead to a perpetual cycle of escalating violence? Untrained, Joe blows empowered to administer vigilante justice? The average Joe lets his emotions get in the way and likely "minimal force" would amount to abuse or death of the alleged suspect.

Law and justice must always remain separate from emotion. You clearly let your emotions get the better of you if you are advocating what is essentially anarchy. The fact of the matter is the folks that chased the thief down did break the law. No citizen has the right to hold another against their will that IS abduction and forcible confinement and DOES carry a harsher penalty then petty theft. It doesn't matter that their intent was "just" or "righteous" good intentions pave the road to hell. They do not have the authority to do what they did. They are too close to the situation to handle it objectively or fairly.

Mob rule is not the solution and it will not lead to a utopian society of justice and good governance. The system is set up in such a way that all cases are heard fairly, and that due process if followed. Only through institutionalized consistency can we ensure that every person, regardless of their crime, is given a fair trial. I somehow doubt an angry mob, or vigilante would afford them the same right.

[ba1614]

I really don't know what to say, other than it's a sad state of affairs when a deal is made with a CRIMINAL to testify against the people who apprehended him.

[segnosaur]

First of all, I think its rediculous that the guy who engaged in the robberies got such a short sentence. And I find that cutting a deal with him to testify against the store owners/staff was especially offensive. This guy should have been punished to the full extent of the law, and the prosecutors who arranged his 'deal' should be fired.

Frankly, I think the biggest fault of the justice system is that they hadn't arrested the criminal long ago. (From the article, it appears that this guy was well known for stealing.)

That said, I do think we should be careful when allowing people to 'defend themselves' against criminals. After all, civilians aren't taught to aprehend people, so there is a chance of excessive force being used, as well as the chance of mistaken identity.

[Argus]

You don't see the problem with this idea?

No. None.

You think it'll stop at just apprehending the alleged suspect? You don't think this would serve to exacerbate the situation and lead to a perpetual cycle of escalating violence? Untrained, Joe blows empowered to administer vigilante justice? The average Joe lets his emotions get in the way and likely "minimal force" would amount to abuse or death of the alleged suspect.

So? What did I say? I said they should be permitted to take the chance to arrest a criminal even if the criminal is not in the process of robbing them. If they are wrong and it isn't a criminal, they would be responsible for their actions. If they exceed the minimum degree of force necessary, ie, by killing the suspect, they would then be properly prosecuted for that. I did not suggest giving them carte blanche to do as they wished.

Law and justice must always remain separate from emotion.

And apparently, logic, or any sense of justice or community well-being.

You clearly let your emotions get the better of you if you are advocating what is essentially anarchy.

I think you're letting your imagination get the better of you if you think the streets are going to be filled with vigilantes chasing down people.

Mob rule is not the solution and it will not lead to a utopian society of justice and good governance. The system is set up in such a way that all cases are heard fairly, and that due process if followed. Only through institutionalized consistency can we ensure that every person, regardless of their crime, is given a fair trial.

That's bureacratic kant.

[Michael Hardner]

If they exceed the minimum degree of force necessary, ie, by killing the suspect, they would then be properly prosecuted for that.

Sorry, Argus, but that one made me laugh. i.e. is 'id est' or 'in other words'.

You're saying that they can only exceed the minimum degree of force by killing the suspect. That means torture is ok.

[Army Guy]

Don't get me wrong i love this country but our justice sys does suck sometimes....this being one of them....This man might as well hang a sign out in front of his store "free shit for all criminals, drugies, low lives, etc.etc ...and higher prices for those of us who pay for our goods and services....

Mod rules and excessive force, are concerns but what about some of the obvious ones....like this guy being a repeat offender for one....Ya it's a petty crime, but to this store owner he's being robbed of his lively hood, taking away from his family, not to mention his contributions to the the honest whole of his community....We other citizens are paying for this idiots steeling in other ways as well higher prices, more taxes...etc etc....and what about lack of policing....ya i know busy doing other shit....but are we forcing our citizens to take the law into thier hands....

So to Mob rules and excessive force, i say to bad....can't fell the pain don't do the crime....I think this law does need to be amended....i also think this crack whore needs to do some community service....not jail time....much less reduced jail time....

[Argus]

Sorry, Argus, but that one made me laugh. i.e. is 'id est' or 'in other words'.

You're saying that they can only exceed the minimum degree of force by killing the suspect. That means torture is ok.

I think I was fairly clear in that I believe that people ought to be permitted to aprehend a known criminal using minimal necessary force. If they go beyond that they can, of course, be prosecuted.

Only legitimate policemen are allowed to use excessive force and kill suspects while arresting them.

[bjre]

This case is actually happen 5 months before. I had a post at that time:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....c=14171&hl=

It seems that democracy in Canada is a basically a lie.

The law makers are basically representatives of interest groups.

They want laws like C-51 to take away your right to natural health products in Canada.

So that medicine industry and hospital system can earn more from tax payers.

They don't care much about ordinary people's heath condition.

They want to define a person as a criminal if his education idea is different from some of organizations such as CAS.

So you don't have to right to have your own education philosophy.

So that 1% of Ontario children can be in care of CAS, this make CAS earn 1.5 billions every year in Ontario from tax payers.

And the numerical related cases can make court system and lawyers earn a lot.

They want to label lots of normal behavior as crime, so that the jail can be full, and they can maintain a large police system that take large sum of money from tax payers.

They make laws to protect car insurance companies to guarantee them earn large money.

And many more.

Everything is through laws. By making more and more such kind of laws, you will find yourself have less and less freedoms.

The huge interest groups control media to fool people so that they can ensure the representative of large interest group can stay in the hall.

They want freedom too, they want the freedom to make laws in the whole world to ensure them earn money. In western country, they have already own this ability, if any other country don't let them do this, let their representatives stay in their congress, then the country will not be called as a democracy, and the people there should be defined as no human right. And they country will be assaulted by employed "human right fighters" and reporters "without borders" And perhaps war will be launched there to "make peace".

This is the nature of western style of modern "democracy". The understanding that come from real experience of living in Canada.

Edited October 22, 2009 by bjre

[Dave_ON]

No. None.

What colour is the sky in your world?

So? What did I say? I said they should be permitted to take the chance to arrest a criminal even if the criminal is not in the process of robbing them. If they are wrong and it isn't a criminal, they would be responsible for their actions. If they exceed the minimum degree of force necessary, ie, by killing the suspect, they would then be properly prosecuted for that. I did not suggest giving them carte blanche to do as they wished.

They would be properly prosecuted by whom? The community again? You hurt my innocent brother so now I'm going to hurt you back? When you put justice in the hands of the people you have to expect retribution, retaliatory actions, blood feuds etc., we may as well give up indoor plumbing while we're at it and return to Roman style justice. Any justice system that doesn't assume innocence until guilt is proven isn't justice at all. We can't know all the facts, and justice based on perception, circumstantial evidence and emotion is not logical in the least.

And apparently, logic, or any sense of justice or community well-being.

You're suggesting logic would prevail in mob rule? Justice would prevail in the hands of the injured? Sufficient restraint would be used because they fear the repercussions of their actions? People don't think about the consequences in the heat of the moment, and they act rashly and anyway BUT logically. Only those who are sufficiently distanced from the situation can act and think logically about the situation.

I think you're letting your imagination get the better of you if you think the streets are going to be filled with vigilantes chasing down people.

I think you need to do some research and find out why it is we came to have the justice system we have today. Why we presume innocence first, why we do not personally administer justice, why it is removed from us and entrusted in an objective third party.

Is it perfect? Of course it isn't and it does need some rework, but honestly the alternative of citizen to citizen justice historically has proven to be far worse, and more about revenge then justice.

I agree the sentencing should be reworked, the two for one credit done away with. But that doesn't excuse people taking the law into their own hands that is not a power they are endowed with. Whether or not they should have that power is immaterial to the fact that at present it is illegal, and as such, regardless of their intent they should be properly prosecuted.

That's bureacratic kant.

Perhaps, and one could argue that your post is nothing more than inflammatory emotional drivel, but who am I to judge?

[Dave_ON]

This case is actually happen 5 months before. I had a post at that time:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....c=14171&hl=

It seems that democracy in Canada is a basically a lie.

The law makers are basically representatives of interest groups.

They want laws like C-51 to take away your right to natural health products in Canada.

So that medicine industry and hospital system can earn more from tax payers.

They don't care much about ordinary people's heath condition.

They want to define a person as a criminal if his education idea is different from some of organizations such as CAS.

So you don't have to right to have your own education philosophy.

So that 1% of Ontario children can be in care of CAS, this make CAS earn 1.5 billions every year in Ontario from tax payers.

And the numerical related cases can make court system and lawyers earn a lot.

They want to label lots of normal behavior as crime, so that the jail can be full, and they can maintain a large police system that take large sum of money from tax payers.

They make laws to protect car insurance companies to guarantee them earn large money.

And many more.

Everything is through laws. By making more and more such kind of laws, you will find yourself have less and less freedoms.

The huge interest groups control media to fool people so that they can ensure the representative of large interest group can stay in the hall.

They want freedom too, they want the freedom to make laws in the whole world to ensure them earn money. In western country, they have already own this ability, if any other country don't let them do this, let their representatives stay in their congress, then the country will not be called as a democracy, and the people there should be defined as no human right. And they country will be assaulted by employed "human right fighters" and reporters "without borders" And perhaps war will be launched there to "make peace".

This is the nature of western style of modern "democracy". The understanding that come from real experience of living in Canada.

You haven't moved back to China yet because? I'm certain the rest of MLW would love for you to regale us all with stories of Utopian Chinese society, however I doubt our media corrupted and government controlled minds would be able to grasp the truths you would impart to us. It must be daunting indeed to be the only enlightened individual in the entire country, being the sole proprietor of truth must be a lonely calling indeed.

[Argus]

What colour is the sky in your world?

Black at the moment.

They would be properly prosecuted by whom? The community again? You hurt my innocent brother so now I'm going to hurt you back? When you put justice in the hands of the people you have to expect retribution

I'm sorry, but the strawman thing really doesn't cut it for me. If you want to argue against ideas only YOU have put forth then do it on another topic. I have never suggested that people be able to punish anyone, merely that they be permitted to CATCH criminals. There is a considerable difference.

, retaliatory actions, blood feuds etc., we may as well give up indoor plumbing while we're at it and return to Roman style justice.

My goodness. Could you BE any more hysterical? Will the world as we know it come to a halt, as well? Birds give birth to kittens and a black rain of fire cover the land?

I think you need to do some research and find out why it is we came to have the justice system we have today.

We have the justice system we have today because it's based on precedent, and decades of warping at the hands of sleazy lawyers eager to make money and a name for themselves by siezing on any pretext or twisted exercise in logic to free their guilty clients.

[Molly]

It's an asinine situation.

If all goes down a reasonable path, the charges will be thrown out, and the thief will face additional charges for the dozens of other incidents of theft, some of which we hope are still retrievable from security cameras. If he has been as ubiquitous a problem as the stories indicate, he should be liable for multiple counts, and might even have a stack of 30 day sentences that add up to years.

Discounting his sentence to entice him to testify .... that's just about about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Alex Moore]

It's an asinine situation.

If all goes down a reasonable path, the charges will be thrown out, and the thief will face additional charges for the dozens of other incidents of theft, some of which we hope are still retrievable from security cameras. If he has been as ubiquitous a problem as the stories indicate, he should be liable for multiple counts, and might even have a stack of 30 day sentences that add up to years.

Discounting his sentence to entice him to testify .... that's just about about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

One can only hope.

But I hesitate to support vigilantes. While Mr. Chen was lucky that he caught the right criminal. you have wonder if he caught the wrong suspect the charges against him would be perfectly reasonable. the law doesn't distinguish between the two and so Mr. Chen got caught in the void. Although he should have called cops first.

[Battletoads]

I definetly don't think it should support vigilantism.

[CrazeeEddie]

I think I was fairly clear in that I believe that people ought to be permitted to aprehend a known criminal using minimal necessary force. If they go beyond that they can, of course, be prosecuted.

Can you define KNOWN criminal for me please?

[Smallc]

The las should protect everyone.....even Argus.

[Army Guy]

I definetly don't think it should support vigilantism.

Vigilantism ,really.... what really happen here the man chased down a thief, tied him up, put him in the back of a pick up and phoned the cops...no mention the thief was mishandled, beaten, tortured.....

The las should protect everyone.....even Argus.

There seems to be something lacking here....Mr Chan was depending on the law to protect him and his livelyhood, not once but on serveral occasions, along with other store owners....and it failed them on all those occasions...and it will continue to fail them because it's a petty crime, the police have better things to do, and WE have laws that give the advantage to the criminals....with all that do you see this criminal stopping his crimes any time soon....

People do what they do out of frustration....if we want it to stop then the laws have to be changed....

[Dave_ON]

Vigilantism ,really.... what really happen here the man chased down a thief, tied him up, put him in the back of a pick up and phoned the cops...no mention the thief was mishandled, beaten, tortured.....

What happened here is ordinary untrained citizens chased down an alleged criminal. Emphasis on alleged as he has not yet been tried. Your post assumes his guilt, which we cannot do at this point, that's not the way our system works. Further, the folks in this situation were lucky, if we encourage or even support this type of behavior we may not be that lucky next time. Someone could be seriously hurt by attempting to be a hero. The Police are trained to handle difficult situations, and react to danger appropriately, ordinary citizens are not. I'm sure you personally can appreciate the difference training makes in dangerous situations.

There seems to be something lacking here....Mr. Chan was depending on the law to protect him and his livelyhood, not once but on serveral occasions, along with other store owners....and it failed them on all those occasions...and it will continue to fail them because it's a petty crime, the police have better things to do, and WE have laws that give the advantage to the criminals....with all that do you see this criminal stopping his crimes any time soon....

You're right perhaps this case wasn't being dealt with as quickly as those folks would have liked. Were they impacted by this fact, yes of course, however the police have limited resources and they must be rationed accordingly. That doesn't justify taking the authority of police officer that they are not endowed with. There are other options, as this was a private business they have the right to with hold service from this individual, bar them from the premises if they wish. There are other options that do not involve breaking the law themselves. This is a prime example of why ordinary citizens should not have the authority to apprehend, they react, they don't think matters through and that is the danger that you fail to see.

Due process protects us all, I suppose we have ask ourselves what is more objectionable, that a guilty man should go free due to insufficient grounds to convict him, and the likelihood that an innocent man would be wrongfully convicted are lessened also; or do we abandon due process in the interest of expediency and convict more guilty folks and accept the innocent casualties as collateral damage?

People do what they do out of frustration....if we want it to stop then the laws have to be changed....

Therein lays the danger, if we open the door to this type of behavior we'll open a whole can of worms we're not prepared to deal with. You may think the notion that this will lead to vigilantism is absurd, and perhaps it wouldn't go that far. However, human nature being what it is, you give them and inch and they take a mile. Rarely do we make grand leaps to where we end up, the road to hell is taken one step at a time and every inch is paved with good intentions.

[Wild Bill]

Vigilantism ,really.... what really happen here the man chased down a thief, tied him up, put him in the back of a pick up and phoned the cops...no mention the thief was mishandled, beaten, tortured.....

There seems to be something lacking here....Mr Chan was depending on the law to protect him and his livelyhood, not once but on serveral occasions, along with other store owners....and it failed them on all those occasions...and it will continue to fail them because it's a petty crime, the police have better things to do, and WE have laws that give the advantage to the criminals....with all that do you see this criminal stopping his crimes any time soon....

People do what they do out of frustration....if we want it to stop then the laws have to be changed....

Not necessarily, AG. We could just enforce the laws we have!

Members from other provinces should appreciate that this failure to protect shopkeepers and defend property is very significant here in Ontario. We see such stories as Mr. Chen's all the time. I still remember one from over 10 years ago from the Kitchener-Waterloo area. There was a jewelry story owner who had been robbed so many times that he could no longer get insurance. The police and the justice system had done essentially nothing but make noises to reporters. Finally, out of frustration he took the law into his own hands and got a shotgun. He was not entirely crazy about it. He loaded it with rock salt and not a more dangerous load. Inevitably, he was again robbed and he fired at a fleeing robber. He did NOT shoot directly at him but rather fired at the ground behind him, intending to warn and scare him, perhaps getting him to stop.

Unfortunately for the shopkeeper, some pieces of salt richocheted off the ground and bounced up to strike the robber in the legs.

I'm sure any Canadian who has paid attention to our justice system already knows how this turned out. Yep, the storekeeper was charged and received a harsher sentence than the robber!

The storekeeper is out of business. No insurance and no one was going to buy his store to be in the same position as he was! So he took a loss on his equity as well.

I think our justice system is well aware of its failings but would rather "shoot the messenger" to keep the facade in place than actually fix its failings.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Hydraboss]

Due process protects us all, I suppose we have ask ourselves what is more objectionable, that a guilty man should go free due to insufficient grounds to convict him, and the likelihood that an innocent man would be wrongfully convicted are lessened also; or do we abandon due process in the interest of expediency and convict more guilty folks and accept the innocent casualties as collateral damage?

Wow. You managed to equate apprehension of a thief to murder. That IS the same argument that is used against capital punishment, right?

So please tell me, what is wrong with the idea of citizen's arrest? We'd be, like, the first nation ever to endorse allowing the aid of everyday people to prevent crime. The horror!

As for your statement that the guy was an "alleged" criminal, you are aware that if I personally witness, say, someone stab someone to death, decapitate them, and then eat parts of them....the person is only "alleged" to have committed the crime? Yup, let's let him go because the police are "rationed" and can't always be there.

[Dave_ON]

I'm sorry, but the strawman thing really doesn't cut it for me. If you want to argue against ideas only YOU have put forth then do it on another topic. I have never suggested that people be able to punish anyone, merely that they be permitted to CATCH criminals. There is a considerable difference.

You are making the assumption that it will stop with simply "Catching" the criminals and that it would not devolve into also making the ordinary citizen judge, jury and executioner. The fact remains that ordinary citizens do not have the right, nor should they, to detain other citizens. What are the consequences of misapprehending? What recompense will the other citizens make for damaging that individuals reputation, holding them against their will for no reason? Who will apprehend these individuals? Can the one that was wrongfully held turn around and do the same to his captors? It's a can of worm I don't think we really want to open Argus. Ordinary citizens are not trained to catch criminals. There is a reason that all aspects of justice are not in the hands of ordinary citizens, it ensures due process if followed as closely as possible, and it is due process that works to protect us all from wrongful conviction.

My goodness. Could you BE any more hysterical? Will the world as we know it come to a halt, as well? Birds give birth to kittens and a black rain of fire cover the land?

You're naive indeed if you really believe that regular citizens are at all qualified to make the legal determinations you seem so ready to empower them with. People react emotionally to a situation, that’s not hysteria that's a fact. If a person is upset enough they may end up doing something they regret. Regular citizens are not trained to asses or handle dangerous situations, nor are they trained to assess what the appropriate amount of force is that should be applied. If you think people won’t' take it too far you're deluding yourself.

We have the justice system we have today because it's based on precedent, and decades of warping at the hands of sleazy lawyers eager to make money and a name for themselves by seizing on any pretext or twisted exercise in logic to free their guilty clients.

Is their corruption in the legal system? Well of course there is, where ever you find humans you will find corruption. There would be corruption if we allowed citizens to make arrests; there is corruption no matter the system we use. Suffice to say that our system is setup to ensure as few innocents are convicted as possible, that is the focus of our system. We could adopt a system where the focus was to convict the guilty, but in doing so we need to accept that a lot more innocents would be harmed in the process.

[Wild Bill]

You are making the assumption that it will stop with simply "Catching" the criminals and that it would not devolve into also making the ordinary citizen judge, jury and executioner. The fact remains that ordinary citizens do not have the right, nor should they, to detain other citizens. What are the consequences of misapprehending? What recompense will the other citizens make for damaging that individuals reputation, holding them against their will for no reason? Who will apprehend these individuals? Can the one that was wrongfully held turn around and do the same to his captors? It's a can of worm I don't think we really want to open Argus. Ordinary citizens are not trained to catch criminals. There is a reason that all aspects of justice are not in the hands of ordinary citizens, it ensures due process if followed as closely as possible, and it is due process that works to protect us all from wrongful conviction.

I think you should climb down from your ivory tower once in a while, Dave!

We could grant that you are 100% correct in your argument. It still misses the most important thing!

If the system is perceived as no longer doing its job and protecting citizens and their property then the citizens will lose faith. Once that happens it is only logical to believe that you have no choice but to protect yourself. The state no longer is doing that job, at least not effectively.

More simply, people don't turn vigilante because of long-suppressed desires to drive a pickup truck with a gun rack and a need to be called "Bubba". They do it because they come to believe they are on their own!

All the rhetoric about how it is better to leave justice in the hands of the State is just hot air to someone who no longer has faith in the state.

We have some real and serious examples of the state not doing its job. This is causing a loss of faith in the citizenry. How is the State reacting to this? We've seen that as well. If someone takes the law into their own hands they get a harsher punishment than that given to the criminal! Meanwhile, the system continues to operate as before.

Sticking to just the shopkeepers issue, it is only logical for any shopkeeper to lose faith that the system will properly protect them. They see it everyday! You are not going to change their mind with rhetoric. Imposing harsh sentences on them for protecting themselves only confirms their perception.

Once people lose faith it requires much more effort to win it back. Charging people like Mr. Chen is certainly not going to do it!

[Dave_ON]

Wow. You managed to equate apprehension of a thief to murder. That IS the same argument that is used against capital punishment, right?

So please tell me, what is wrong with the idea of citizen's arrest? We'd be, like, the first nation ever to endorse allowing the aid of everyday people to prevent crime. The horror!

As for your statement that the guy was an "alleged" criminal, you are aware that if I personally witness, say, someone stab someone to death, decapitate them, and then eat parts of them....the person is only "alleged" to have committed the crime? Yup, let's let him go because the police are "rationed" and can't always be there.

If we open the door to apprehending thieves we open the door to apprehending all criminals. Are you honestly qualified to do that? Are all citizens thusly qualified? Do I even know you from a hole in the ground? Are you a reliable, trustworthy, sane and stable person? Did you perhaps make all this up?

If we give good, responsible and law abiding citizens the power to detain we also give that same power to those who are corrupt, opportunistic, and not particularly law abiding. Are you prepared to accept that also? I know you'd love for the world to be black and white, but reality is there are many shades of grey.

Yes he is alleged until we know the facts, we don't have a legal system based on your perception which was derived from a news article you once read. Your ridiculous example fails to address the fact that most of the time it isn't that cut and dry. Do all cases have eye witnesses and such overwhelming evidence?

Yes let's detain anyone we think "might" have done a crime because "we are almost certain" we saw them do it. Let's trust that all citizens are trustworthy and well intentioned.

[Molly]

If the kidnapping charges are intended to discourage vigilantism, they will fail miserably.

I sure know what changes I'd make to a 'do-over' (and you'd better believe that Mr. Chen and an awful lot of other law-abiding folks are thinking along the same lines). I'd make sure the assault was meaningful enough to reform a thief, and save the phone call!