|
To keep this thread open for discussion, please READ THIS BEFORE POSTING:The following types of posts are banworthy: - Nation bashing. - Significantly disrespectful posts toward any of the parties involved. Please familiarize yourself with some of the basics on the use of force in the United States before posting in this thread. If you feel the need to post a reaction to the news, post a comment on the youtube video. Don't bring it here. This thread is for a discussion on the topic, and your post better have substance to it. Low content posts will be met with moderator action. Here is a good post by someone with experience in escalation of force training. Read that too. This post might change your opinion of in the incident. |
On January 26 2012 08:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hit's is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did. I think most of people here actually understand why the cops shotted in the guy chest. Even if it's a mystake, mystakes are understandable especially in that kind of situation. The real problem is why shotting 10 times ? Why not even trying to disarm him ? It's obviously overreacting.
There are no hp bars nor pause buttons in real life. You can't shoot a shot or two, then determine whether the bullet hit, where it hit, how much damage, if any, has been done, and then analyze whether you need to shoot more in the space of a second.
And disarming is completely unrealistic. That shit only belongs in Hollywood movies. Even if multiple officers attempt to tackle him, he can easily injure one or two by taking a swing with the thing. They already tried with the taser. Didn't work.
|
On January 26 2012 08:42 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hits it is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did. Wait. A shot to the LEG (which, mind you, is aimed towards the ground) has a better chance or hitting bystanders than a shot to the chest area, which is aimed in the air? A shot to the chest is not guaranteed to stop the criminal either. If you want to unload 5 bullets, unloading 5 bullets in the area of his legs within an 8 foot radius will guaranteed stop his momentum and send him down in the same way 5 bullets in the chest would. What is with the overexaggeration of "real life"? LOL FLO IN THE REAL WORLD YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO NOT CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS OTHER THAN SHOOTING TO KILL.
if you aim a bullet towards the ground it has a chance to bounce and go in any direction, unlike in.....video games. this has been pointed out to you multiple times now by people in this thread.
|
This thread has been the same back and forth for the past 30 pages.
|
Really interesting post. I think the 2 comments at the bottom of the OP were also enlightening. After reading them I realized I'm very inclined to say this was justified.
It all comes down to instinct taking over in such a drastic situation. It's unrealistic for me to expect the cop to be trained to shoot something besides the chest. As one of the comments at the end of the OP described, you never know what will happen exactly. Safety means swift and absolute measure that can be confused for going to far.
Yes, the armed person who was shot probably could have been spared. Certain risks and rewards can strip you of your humanity for a brief, but meaningful moment. It would be nice to see someone in temporary strife see it through, but when someone is coming at you like in this video, that's the last thing on your mind.
|
And Flonomenalz, befor you say something like "then one of the officers should have tried to take his weapon away" or something like that:
First Rule: Never get in the line of fire, since that pretty much invites 100% friendly fire if something goes wrong (e.g. the Officer gets hit or it comes to a body brawl with little to no chance of the second Officer not hitting his fellow teammate)
|
Regardless of the use of force was too much or whatever, does anyone else think his partner is sortof a dipshit for fumbling around with whatever was on his belt (putting away the tazer?) 2 feet from this guy holding a pipe? Seemed like if the other cop hadnt shot him the other cop wasn't even paying attention. Heh. Silly :b
|
They already tried the taser, there was no other way imo.
Also, tueller drill applies imo.
|
On January 26 2012 08:40 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:28 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:23 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 08:17 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:05 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote:
Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar. Just because you have a gun in your hand doesn't mean that a guy about to crack you on the head with a conduit bender is any less lethal. This isn't call of duty and the cops weren't just about to drop a juggernaut care package. The guy was about to perform an action that would have killed someone, and after the tazer failed to affect him at all, they defended themselves. Oh yeah, because Cop #1 can't use his legs and move away when he sees the guy winding up to swing the crowbar, while Cop #2 shoots the guy in the leg, he goes down, problem solved. That's way too much trouble though, it's much easier to shoot him 20 times. Sounds simple to you does it? From your office chair? Contrary to popular belief, your average police officer is not a crackshot with a pistol, and legs and arms can move fairly quickly in a situation like that. So he shoots at the guys legs. What happens if he misses? The bullet ricochets off the ground, possibly hurting innocents, and his partner gets a conduit bender to the head. Not to mention the perp's behavior screams PCP, which means no, one shot wouldn't take him down, especially if it was only to his leg. I also love how you think the weapon isn't deadly. For one, it's not a crowbar, it's a conduit bender. Second, we've had numerous people here in the threat who have worked with that particular tool tell us that you could easily kill someone with it if you swung it hard enough. But yea, we're the ones who need a new set of eyes. Now we're assuming he was on PCP, so I'm going to assume that the police could have shot him in the leg, arm, or hell shoot for the chest if you want, but not that amount of times. Yes, the weapon is deadly, I get that. No shit. The average police officer isn't a crackshot. Can you guys please, please watch this video again and see the slow ass fucking wind up the perp has to swing his crowbar. Do you just not read the posts where people point out that shots to the leg are often fatal as well, but if you miss, the ricochet could harm civilians AND your partner gets struck by the conduit bender? Police aren't trained to shoot legs bro, this isn't Hollywood. They go for the center of mass, and they fire enough rounds to neutralize the threat. There is a reason they only use their firearm as a last resort. And this is obviously my opinion, but I would totally value the life of that dog over the perp swinging the bender. Newsflash: not all human life is sacred!
I don't see why we have to compare the life of the dog to the life of the deceased. I can't say I agree with your opinion either. There are potentially may circumstances in life that can push someone to what might be evaluated as temporary insanity, and regardless of what you think of this particular case, it is unfortunate when someone in that position has to lose their life. On that note, I think law enforcement that is equipped to cope with potentially insane people is better than that which kills them in a scenario they have allowed to escalate to the point where it might be justified. If watching a cop die is upsetting, then so too should it be for a "low life." Both are human beings.
It's interesting to note that there aren't many people posting in this thread that appear to value a non-lethal solution, and your statement that not all human life is sacred really highlights that fact. Not all human life is sacred, so even though we might be able to do better than this as a society if we really work toward it, why bother?
All sentient life should be valued as sacred. Even though it might be justified, we can't allow ourselves to view violence and killing on the part of law enforcement as so routine, and certainly not as positive, and we shouldn't be so willing to validate such occurrences with the notion that some human's aren't possessed of sacred lives.
|
On January 26 2012 08:53 ChronicleEU wrote:
And Flonomenalz, befor you say something like "then one of the officers should have tried to take his weapon away" or something like that:
First Rule: Never get in the line of fire, since that pretty much invites 100% friendly fire if something goes wrong (e.g. the Officer gets hit or it comes to a body brawl with little to no chance of the second Officer not hitting his fellow teammate)
Well second rule is, guy with good melee weapon on drugs and shrugging off a taser usually is more dangerous when you try to get close than if you stay further away.
I've trained in martial arts. I've spoken to many people who have learned martial arts. Rule #1 of most martial arts is generally: don't engage if you can run away, fight only if you have to. An unspoken part of rule #1 is: you might think you can take him on, but if he has a knife or any other melee weapon, DON'T.
|
On January 26 2012 08:45 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:38 WhiteDog wrote:On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hit's is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did. I think most of people here actually understand why the cops shotted in the guy chest. Even if it's a mystake, mystakes are understandable especially in that kind of situation. The real problem is why shotting 10 times ? Why not even trying to disarm him ? It's obviously overreacting. As we have said quite often, you are trained to shoot a specific salvo. I was trained to fire 3 shots, others were trained to fire 5, the number varies. Fact is in such a situation you don't truly think. Stress and adrenaline turn your brain "down" and you fall back to practiced routines. It seems to me that both officers handled that situation (which comes about once in a lifetime for most cops) exactly as their training said they should. They fired their salvo and then reevaluated. Maybe the second officer was too slow to make a difference (I'd probably agree, but we cannot see the suspect at that point in the vid so who knows) but chances are he would not have been able to stop his reflexive action. Considering disarming? That was probably what the officer with the tazer was planning to do. Approach him slowly and try to take his weapon away. Up to that point the suspect was completly dismissive towards the police. He had not threatened or even reacted to them. If you mean disarming once he raised his weapon, sadly again that is almost impossible in reality. You simply can't shoot that precisely.
I don't think anyone has an issue with the first five shots.
The last burst after the suspect was clearly falling down and had his back to the Officer as he was falling is in question.
|
On January 26 2012 08:53 DamnCats wrote:
Regardless of the use of force was too much or whatever, does anyone else think his partner is sortof a dipshit for fumbling around with whatever was on his belt (putting away the tazer?) 2 feet from this guy holding a pipe? Seemed like if the other cop hadnt shot him the other cop wasn't even paying attention. Heh. Silly :b
I don't think so.
Previous to the Criminal taking his attackstance, there were no signs of him being violent towards the police officers, thus the partner didn't expect such a turn of events (suddenly getting attacked) while (probably) trying to reload his tazer.
|
On January 26 2012 08:55 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:40 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 08:28 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:23 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 08:17 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:05 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote:
Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar. Just because you have a gun in your hand doesn't mean that a guy about to crack you on the head with a conduit bender is any less lethal. This isn't call of duty and the cops weren't just about to drop a juggernaut care package. The guy was about to perform an action that would have killed someone, and after the tazer failed to affect him at all, they defended themselves. Oh yeah, because Cop #1 can't use his legs and move away when he sees the guy winding up to swing the crowbar, while Cop #2 shoots the guy in the leg, he goes down, problem solved. That's way too much trouble though, it's much easier to shoot him 20 times. Sounds simple to you does it? From your office chair? Contrary to popular belief, your average police officer is not a crackshot with a pistol, and legs and arms can move fairly quickly in a situation like that. So he shoots at the guys legs. What happens if he misses? The bullet ricochets off the ground, possibly hurting innocents, and his partner gets a conduit bender to the head. Not to mention the perp's behavior screams PCP, which means no, one shot wouldn't take him down, especially if it was only to his leg. I also love how you think the weapon isn't deadly. For one, it's not a crowbar, it's a conduit bender. Second, we've had numerous people here in the threat who have worked with that particular tool tell us that you could easily kill someone with it if you swung it hard enough. But yea, we're the ones who need a new set of eyes. Now we're assuming he was on PCP, so I'm going to assume that the police could have shot him in the leg, arm, or hell shoot for the chest if you want, but not that amount of times. Yes, the weapon is deadly, I get that. No shit. The average police officer isn't a crackshot. Can you guys please, please watch this video again and see the slow ass fucking wind up the perp has to swing his crowbar. Do you just not read the posts where people point out that shots to the leg are often fatal as well, but if you miss, the ricochet could harm civilians AND your partner gets struck by the conduit bender? Police aren't trained to shoot legs bro, this isn't Hollywood. They go for the center of mass, and they fire enough rounds to neutralize the threat. There is a reason they only use their firearm as a last resort. And this is obviously my opinion, but I would totally value the life of that dog over the perp swinging the bender. Newsflash: not all human life is sacred! I don't see why we have to compare the life of the dog to the life of the deceased. I can't say I agree with your opinion either. There are potentially may circumstances in life that can push someone to what might be evaluated as temporary insanity, and regardless of what you think of this particular case, it is unfortunate when someone in that position has to lose their life. On that note, I think law enforcement that is equipped to cope with potentially insane people is better than that which kills them in a scenario they have allowed to escalate to the point where it might be justified. If watching a cop die is upsetting, then so too should it be for a "low life." Both are human beings. It's interesting to note that there aren't many people posting in this thread that appear to value a non-lethal solution, and your statement that not all human life is sacred really highlights that fact. Not all human life is sacred, so even though we might be able to do better than this as a society if we really work toward it, why bother? All sentient life should be valued as sacred. Even though it might be justified, we can't allow ourselves to view violence and killing on the part of law enforcement as so routine, and certainly not as positive, and we shouldn't be so willing to validate such occurrences with the notion that some human's aren't possessed of sacred lives.
In consideration - a dog cannot judge when it will die because of the suspect's weapons. The dog is trained only to bite at the arm, pull down and keep the suspect occupied. The judgement of when it is safe to use the dog is up to the training officer. He is not "valuing" the life of the dog over the suspect. He is making the sound judgment that sending the dog to suicide is not a good idea.
As far as being better equipped to deal with people who are temporarily insane/on some crazy drugs - the taser didn't work - and a taser is already one heck of a non-lethal weapon. Should they have more non-lethal equipment? Possibly. However, lacking that equipment cannot be blamed on the officer who shot center mass as is protocol.
|
You guys are talking about general police scenarios like that's what I care about.
I don't care about what cops are taught.
I'm talking about a police officer aiming at an individual within 6 or so feet, you're telling me it's unrealistic to expect that he could have shot at his leg, arm, or shot less than 5 bullets in his CoM, and that in the 4 seconds that the guy turned around and showed intent to swing, he could not have released the dog. Being trained to shoot on instinct rather than being trained to quickly evaluate scenarios or have good aim... so many flaws with the situation and the system.
Ricocheting and hitting a bystander when there wasn't a bystander within 40 feet.
I cannot even continue, enjoy your day, gentlemen.
|
On January 26 2012 08:56 ChronicleEU wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:53 DamnCats wrote:
Regardless of the use of force was too much or whatever, does anyone else think his partner is sortof a dipshit for fumbling around with whatever was on his belt (putting away the tazer?) 2 feet from this guy holding a pipe? Seemed like if the other cop hadnt shot him the other cop wasn't even paying attention. Heh. Silly :b I don't think so. Previous to the Criminal taking his attackstance, there were no signs of him being violent towards the police officers, thus the partner didn't expect such a turn of events (suddenly getting attacked) while (probably) trying to reload his tazer.
The article says he tried to swing at officers twice before....So yes, there were signs of him being violent towards the police officers.
|
On January 26 2012 08:59 Flonomenalz wrote:
You guys are talking about general police scenarios like that's what I care about.
I don't care about what cops are taught.
I'm talking about a police officer aiming at an individual within 6 or so feet, you're telling me it's unrealistic to expect that he could have shot at his leg, arm, or shot less than 5 bullets in his CoM, and that in the 4 seconds that the guy turned around and showed intent to swing, he could not have released the dog. Being trained to shoot on instinct rather than being trained to quickly evaluate scenarios or have good aim... so many flaws with the situation and the system.
Ricocheting and hitting a bystander when there wasn't a bystander within 40 feet.
I cannot even continue, enjoy your day, gentlemen.
You have not a single clue what it means to try to aim at the leg or arm at close quarters with a pistol, when given the split second to protect your fellow officer from being bludgeoned.
Your goddamn FELLOW OFFICER IS A BYSTANDER TO YOUR BULLETS RICOCHETING.
|
@sevencck
I do value a less-/non-lethal method, if the situation ALLOWS it, which wasn't the case here.
@Jin
I may misunderstand you here, but the option of "running away" isn't really viable for a Police Offficer, is it?
And the reason the Officer was closing in on the Criminal was already explained earlier, so I would like you to research that - Thank you
@Canda
He was not falling, he still stood - with a stance that would have allowed him to turn around and shoot a weapon if he had one.
|
On January 26 2012 09:02 ChronicleEU wrote:
@sevencck
I do value a less-/non-lethal method, if the situation ALLOWS it, which wasn't the case here.
@Jin
I may misunderstand you here, but the option of "running away" isn't really viable for a Police Offficer, is it?
And the reason the Officer was closing in on the Criminal was already explained earlier, so I would like you to research that - Thank you
@Canda
He was not falling, he still stood - with a stance that would have allowed him to turn around and shoot a weapon if he had one.
Only a slight misunderstanding - the euphemism for running away is to not engage. The euphemism for fighting is to engage when cornered. The officer was cornered by the situation.
|
On January 26 2012 08:59 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:55 sevencck wrote:On January 26 2012 08:40 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 08:28 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:23 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 08:17 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:05 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote:
Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar. Just because you have a gun in your hand doesn't mean that a guy about to crack you on the head with a conduit bender is any less lethal. This isn't call of duty and the cops weren't just about to drop a juggernaut care package. The guy was about to perform an action that would have killed someone, and after the tazer failed to affect him at all, they defended themselves. Oh yeah, because Cop #1 can't use his legs and move away when he sees the guy winding up to swing the crowbar, while Cop #2 shoots the guy in the leg, he goes down, problem solved. That's way too much trouble though, it's much easier to shoot him 20 times. Sounds simple to you does it? From your office chair? Contrary to popular belief, your average police officer is not a crackshot with a pistol, and legs and arms can move fairly quickly in a situation like that. So he shoots at the guys legs. What happens if he misses? The bullet ricochets off the ground, possibly hurting innocents, and his partner gets a conduit bender to the head. Not to mention the perp's behavior screams PCP, which means no, one shot wouldn't take him down, especially if it was only to his leg. I also love how you think the weapon isn't deadly. For one, it's not a crowbar, it's a conduit bender. Second, we've had numerous people here in the threat who have worked with that particular tool tell us that you could easily kill someone with it if you swung it hard enough. But yea, we're the ones who need a new set of eyes. Now we're assuming he was on PCP, so I'm going to assume that the police could have shot him in the leg, arm, or hell shoot for the chest if you want, but not that amount of times. Yes, the weapon is deadly, I get that. No shit. The average police officer isn't a crackshot. Can you guys please, please watch this video again and see the slow ass fucking wind up the perp has to swing his crowbar. Do you just not read the posts where people point out that shots to the leg are often fatal as well, but if you miss, the ricochet could harm civilians AND your partner gets struck by the conduit bender? Police aren't trained to shoot legs bro, this isn't Hollywood. They go for the center of mass, and they fire enough rounds to neutralize the threat. There is a reason they only use their firearm as a last resort. And this is obviously my opinion, but I would totally value the life of that dog over the perp swinging the bender. Newsflash: not all human life is sacred! I don't see why we have to compare the life of the dog to the life of the deceased. I can't say I agree with your opinion either. There are potentially may circumstances in life that can push someone to what might be evaluated as temporary insanity, and regardless of what you think of this particular case, it is unfortunate when someone in that position has to lose their life. On that note, I think law enforcement that is equipped to cope with potentially insane people is better than that which kills them in a scenario they have allowed to escalate to the point where it might be justified. If watching a cop die is upsetting, then so too should it be for a "low life." Both are human beings. It's interesting to note that there aren't many people posting in this thread that appear to value a non-lethal solution, and your statement that not all human life is sacred really highlights that fact. Not all human life is sacred, so even though we might be able to do better than this as a society if we really work toward it, why bother? All sentient life should be valued as sacred. Even though it might be justified, we can't allow ourselves to view violence and killing on the part of law enforcement as so routine, and certainly not as positive, and we shouldn't be so willing to validate such occurrences with the notion that some human's aren't possessed of sacred lives. In consideration - a dog cannot judge when it will die because of the suspect's weapons. The dog is trained only to bite at the arm, pull down and keep the suspect occupied. The judgement of when it is safe to use the dog is up to the training officer. He is not "valuing" the life of the dog over the suspect. He is making the sound judgment that sending the dog to suicide is not a good idea. As far as being better equipped to deal with people who are temporarily insane/on some crazy drugs - the taser didn't work - and a taser is already one heck of a non-lethal weapon. Should they have more non-lethal equipment? Possibly. However, lacking that equipment cannot be blamed on the officer who shot center mass as is protocol.
Actually, I agree with you. I don't know that I can really blame the officer for shooting the guy. My original objection (many pages ago) was that I thought it was excessive to keep shooting the guy, and with respect to the point I just made, I believe the possibility of saving his life was of too little consequence to the officers, and is of too little consequence to many of those people posting here.
Fundamentally, that is my opinion and it isn't likely to change. I understand escalation of force, and I understand the police need to defend themselves. It's not my intention to troll or offend anyone (too much), but I feel that this was excessive. Unless someone can convince me I'm wrong, I guess there's nothing else to say.
|
@JinDesu
Please, as you can see from my displayed Country (Germany), english is not my native language, could please use a little less... "practicale" english? xD' I don't really understand the whole meaning of your post, sorry.
|
On January 26 2012 08:59 Flonomenalz wrote:
You guys are talking about general police scenarios like that's what I care about.
I don't care about what cops are taught.
I'm talking about a police officer aiming at an individual within 6 or so feet, you're telling me it's unrealistic to expect that he could have shot at his leg, arm, or shot less than 5 bullets in his CoM, and that in the 4 seconds that the guy turned around and showed intent to swing, he could not have released the dog. Being trained to shoot on instinct rather than being trained to quickly evaluate scenarios or have good aim... so many flaws with the situation and the system.
Ricocheting and hitting a bystander when there wasn't a bystander within 40 feet.
I cannot even continue, enjoy your day, gentlemen.
This is EXACTLY what we are saying, police officers will ALWAYS shoot CoM, and will almost always fire the 3-5 shots they've been trained to.
The dog would never be sent at an armed assailant who isn't running.
as opposed to those who think you're just trolling, I just think you are completely ignorant about firearms, firearm protocol, and police procedure. Please go learn about such, or even just read the thread where we spell out extensive counterpoints to your many flawed arguments over and over for people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
