Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   You dumbass, are you TRYING to get people killed?   ( nbcnews.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Judge Wendell Griffen, death penalty cases, Lethal injection, Judge, temporary restraining order, Capital punishment in the United States, Judge Griffen, Hanging  
•       •       •

11740 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2017 at 9:12 PM (31 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-04-17 06:49:50 PM  
Maybe the state shouldn't be having an "EVERYTHING MUST GO" clearance special on the lives of these prisoners.
 
2017-04-17 07:00:06 PM  
"An Arkansas judge will be barred from ruling on death penalty cases and could be disciplined after he attended two death penalty protests on Friday - the same day that he blocked a spate of executions scheduled by the state."

Wake me up when Clarence Thomas gets barred for all the blatant activist crap he and his flossing-while-drinking-a-coke wife engage in.
 
2017-04-17 07:02:10 PM  

gopher321: Maybe the state shouldn't be having an "EVERYTHING MUST GO" clearance special on the lives of these prisoners.


Well you know those drugs are about to expire.  You wouldn't want expired drugs used, would you?  Hell that could KILL somebody!
 
2017-04-17 07:09:44 PM  

derpes_simplex: "An Arkansas judge will be barred from ruling on death penalty cases and could be disciplined after he attended two death penalty protests on Friday - the same day that he blocked a spate of executions scheduled by the state."

Wake me up when Clarence Thomas gets barred for all the blatant activist crap he and his flossing-while-drinking-a-coke wife engage in.


I came in exactly for this. Glad you covered it.
 
2017-04-17 07:24:54 PM  

derpes_simplex: "An Arkansas judge will be barred from ruling on death penalty cases and could be disciplined after he attended two death penalty protests on Friday - the same day that he blocked a spate of executions scheduled by the state."

Wake me up when Clarence Thomas gets barred for all the blatant activist crap he and his flossing-while-drinking-a-coke wife engage in.


Yeah, but that doesn't count, because Thomas' rulings hurt liberals' feelings.
 
2017-04-17 07:54:45 PM  
This sets an interesting precedent. I'm sure it will be applied fairly and equally.
 
2017-04-17 07:58:02 PM  

holdmybones: This sets an interesting precedent. I'm sure it will be applied fairly and equally.


Probably separately, but equally.
 
2017-04-17 08:09:21 PM  

Unobtanium: holdmybones: This sets an interesting precedent. I'm sure it will be applied fairly and equally.

Probably separately, but equally.


Niiiiiice.
 
2017-04-17 08:14:53 PM  

holdmybones: Unobtanium: holdmybones: This sets an interesting precedent. I'm sure it will be applied fairly and equally.

Probably separately, but equally.

Niiiiiice.


Thanks for teeing that one up for me.
 
2017-04-17 09:15:17 PM  
He's already on the short list for the next SCOTUS position that opens.
 
2017-04-17 09:17:38 PM  
Well, they're allowed to ask juries whether they believe in the death penalty or not, and kick off only the jurors who do not support it, b/c that's somehow more fair than kicking off people who equate justice w/ vengeance. So why shouldn't that hold for judges?
 
2017-04-17 09:18:27 PM  

holdmybones: This sets an interesting precedent. I'm sure it will be applied fairly and equally.


Seriously. Judges can't express their personal opinions on issues? Was his ruling in anyway improper based on the facts and the law? No? fark off.

I think the REAL problem was him discussing a specific case on his personal blog.
 
2017-04-17 09:22:50 PM  
i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2017-04-17 09:31:09 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: holdmybones: This sets an interesting precedent. I'm sure it will be applied fairly and equally.

Seriously. Judges can't express their personal opinions on issues? Was his ruling in anyway improper based on the facts and the law? No? fark off.

I think the REAL problem was him discussing a specific case on his personal blog.


Judges are supposed to apply the law.  If you can't apply the law, or put yourself in a position where your rulings are subject to accusations of personal bias, you get told that you can't rule on those cases.  e.g. if you don't think that drunk drivers ever deserve any jail time, and you protest them being jailed and you write about your disdain for criminal drunk driving laws in your blog, you can't really expect to be allowed to hear drunk driving cases.  You also can't really expect your judicial opinions to be taken very seriously when you let them off.
 
2017-04-17 09:35:35 PM  

alex10294: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: holdmybones: This sets an interesting precedent. I'm sure it will be applied fairly and equally.

Seriously. Judges can't express their personal opinions on issues? Was his ruling in anyway improper based on the facts and the law? No? fark off.

I think the REAL problem was him discussing a specific case on his personal blog.

Judges are supposed to apply the law.  If you can't apply the law, or put yourself in a position where your rulings are subject to accusations of personal bias, you get told that you can't rule on those cases.  e.g. if you don't think that drunk drivers ever deserve any jail time, and you protest them being jailed and you write about your disdain for criminal drunk driving laws in your blog, you can't really expect to be allowed to hear drunk driving cases.  You also can't really expect your judicial opinions to be taken very seriously when you let them off.


Until you make it to the Supreme Court, when you can get away w/ all that shiat and then some.
 
2017-04-17 09:37:38 PM  

Trocadero: Well, they're allowed to ask juries whether they believe in the death penalty or not, and kick off only the jurors who do not support it, b/c that's somehow more fair than kicking off people who equate justice w/ vengeance. So why shouldn't that hold for judges?


They should ask if they believe in the Ten Commandments and then kick them off for their religious beliefs.
 
2017-04-17 09:38:39 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: holdmybones: This sets an interesting precedent. I'm sure it will be applied fairly and equally.

Seriously. Judges can't express their personal opinions on issues? Was his ruling in anyway improper based on the facts and the law? No? fark off.

I think the REAL problem was him discussing a specific case on his personal blog.


No, the real problem was tying himself to a gurney in front of the Governor's Mansion for the news crews.  I was afraid this would get his rulings overturned.
img.fark.netView Full Size


This whole thing has been a mess.  I don't think the pro- or anti-death penalty people are really happy right now.  I would cautiously predict that no one gets executed in the end, but just now they're saying they might execute someone tonight after all.
 
2017-04-17 09:41:35 PM  

edmo: Trocadero: Well, they're allowed to ask juries whether they believe in the death penalty or not, and kick off only the jurors who do not support it, b/c that's somehow more fair than kicking off people who equate justice w/ vengeance. So why shouldn't that hold for judges?

They should ask if they believe in the Ten Commandments and then kick them off for their religious beliefs.


They actually used to do that for some sects of Judaism. I'm not a Rabbinical scholar, but there was something about earthly justice can't do the death penalty. Wonder if Jehovah's Witnesses even need to go to the jury room to get excused.
 
2017-04-17 09:43:01 PM  
A death penalty protest on Good Friday? I can't decide whether that's ironic or ingenious.
 
2017-04-17 09:45:55 PM  

gopher321: Maybe the state shouldn't be having an "EVERYTHING MUST GO" clearance special on the lives of these prisoners.


All convicted murderers and six of of seven were rapists.

Number of farks given? zero

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/these-are-the-seven-men-scheduled​-​to-be-executed-this-month_us_58ef6880e4b0bb9638e1abfa
 
2017-04-17 09:51:36 PM  

Trocadero: alex10294: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: holdmybones: This sets an interesting precedent. I'm sure it will be applied fairly and equally.

Seriously. Judges can't express their personal opinions on issues? Was his ruling in anyway improper based on the facts and the law? No? fark off.

I think the REAL problem was him discussing a specific case on his personal blog.

Judges are supposed to apply the law.  If you can't apply the law, or put yourself in a position where your rulings are subject to accusations of personal bias, you get told that you can't rule on those cases.  e.g. if you don't think that drunk drivers ever deserve any jail time, and you protest them being jailed and you write about your disdain for criminal drunk driving laws in your blog, you can't really expect to be allowed to hear drunk driving cases.  You also can't really expect your judicial opinions to be taken very seriously when you let them off.

Until you make it to the Supreme Court, when you can get away w/ all that shiat and then some.


It's good to be the king(s and queens)
 
2017-04-17 09:52:18 PM  

ArkPanda: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: holdmybones: This sets an interesting precedent. I'm sure it will be applied fairly and equally.

Seriously. Judges can't express their personal opinions on issues? Was his ruling in anyway improper based on the facts and the law? No? fark off.

I think the REAL problem was him discussing a specific case on his personal blog.

No, the real problem was tying himself to a gurney in front of the Governor's Mansion for the news crews.  I was afraid this would get his rulings overturned.
[img.fark.net image 600x450]

This whole thing has been a mess.  I don't think the pro- or anti-death penalty people are really happy right now.  I would cautiously predict that no one gets executed in the end, but just now they're saying they might execute someone tonight after all.


This was a really stupid and futile gesture by someone who had the power to actually influence the results of the case. Instead, he tossed away his judicial authority for a few minutes in front of a camera.
 
2017-04-17 09:57:06 PM  

fark account name: gopher321: Maybe the state shouldn't be having an "EVERYTHING MUST GO" clearance special on the lives of these prisoners.

All convicted murderers and six of of seven were rapists.

Number of farks given? zero

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/these-are-the-seven-men-scheduled-​to-be-executed-this-month_us_58ef6880e4b0bb9638e1abfa


You're right, they're (probably) animals (and even more likely) and guilty.

However, the idea that the death penalty should be done with ILLEGALLY procured drugs is not something anyone should support.

Do it properly, legally...but NOOOOO you gotta lie to acquire the drugs and then try to KILL ALL THE THINGS before you get caught.

Also, it's cheaper to incarcerate for life than execute in California.

It's also cheaper to educate than incarcerate, but that's another problem...
 
2017-04-17 10:01:25 PM  
If we're going to have capital punishment, I don't understand why states just don't use nitrogen asphyxiation.  It's painless, cheap and readily abundant.  Yes, if you don't believe in capital punishment, I understand the objection to any method, but capital punishment has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court and we should carry it out in the most humane an effective method.
 
2017-04-17 10:02:26 PM  
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2525739/death-penalty-how-many-people-e​x​ecuted-world/

I've always had reservations about the death penalty and I always wonder particularly when reading the bios of some of these people if they were to get out would they kill again with a rape again. And what would be worse to society that kills one of these people or one that was willing to allow them to commit the crimes again. It's always that odd Batman thing from when I was a kid how many times is it going to let the Joker kill people is he really better for not just executing him?
 
2017-04-17 10:15:37 PM  

ColonelCathcart: fark account name: gopher321: Maybe the state shouldn't be having an "EVERYTHING MUST GO" clearance special on the lives of these prisoners.

All convicted murderers and six of of seven were rapists.

Number of farks given? zero

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/these-are-the-seven-men-scheduled-​to-be-executed-this-month_us_58ef6880e4b0bb9638e1abfa

You're right, they're (probably) animals (and even more likely) and guilty.

However, the idea that the death penalty should be done with ILLEGALLY procured drugs is not something anyone should support.

Do it properly, legally...but NOOOOO you gotta lie to acquire the drugs and then try to KILL ALL THE THINGS before you get caught.

Also, it's cheaper to incarcerate for life than execute in California.

It's also cheaper to educate than incarcerate, but that's another problem...


I'm not sure anyone is claiming they obtained the drugs illegally, just that the manufacturer is not happy that they are using a drug for a purpose the manufacturer did not intend, but that the Supreme Court has ruled is OK.

Also, the fact that there is still a death penalty even in liberal California really says something.  Yes, there a dozens of problems how the death penalty is applied and implemented, but there's a fundamental understanding among the majority of people that some individuals should be removed from the planet because of the horrific nature of their actions.  I'm not talking about crime-of-passion murderers but those individuals who terrorized and tortured innocent humans during their their last moments on earth.  Those people, if duly convicted, should face the ultimate punishment.  Cost-effectiveness is not part of that discussion.
 
2017-04-17 10:20:13 PM  
Guys, here's the thing; there's generally a higher standard of behavior for judges.  He should have known better.
 
2017-04-17 10:39:00 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Guys, here's the thing; there's generally a higher standard of behavior for judges.


Oh, so what he did was wrong somehow.  Thanks for clearing that up for us.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-04-17 10:42:16 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Satanic_Hamster: Guys, here's the thing; there's generally a higher standard of behavior for judges.

Oh, so what he did was wrong somehow.  Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[img.fark.net image 850x422]


biatch please, read the thread.  We got a half dozen people biatching how it's not fair that he's not allowed to express his personal opinions.
 
2017-04-17 10:43:33 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: biatch please, read the thread.  We got a half dozen people biatching how it's not fair that he's not allowed to express his personal opinions.


Oh ok, so what he did was wrong somehow.  Your logic is irrefutable.
 
2017-04-17 10:55:28 PM  
What a nut case.  Hopefully he's retired.
 
2017-04-17 11:05:37 PM  

nekom: gopher321: Maybe the state shouldn't be having an "EVERYTHING MUST GO" clearance special on the lives of these prisoners.

Well you know those drugs are about to expire.  You wouldn't want expired drugs used, would you?  Hell that could KILL somebody!


Well, the problem really is it could not kill somebody, leaving them paralyzed and comatose for the rest of their life.
 
2017-04-17 11:33:49 PM  
Being a judge, in no way, curtails your rights as a private citizen. His judgeship did not come with the caveat that he is no longer allowed to peaceably assemble and did not require he give-up his right to free speech. Arkansas is setting a dangerous precedent here.
 
2017-04-17 11:59:59 PM  

fark account name: If we're going to have capital punishment, I don't understand why states just don't use nitrogen asphyxiation.  It's painless, cheap and readily abundant.  Yes, if you don't believe in capital punishment, I understand the objection to any method, but capital punishment has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court and we should carry it out in the most humane an effective method.


Why does it have to be humane? I think they should die with the same violence and pain their crimes caused. Dylan Roof should be strung up by the thumbs and die from 1000 paper cuts.
If you are fine with the death penalty we might as well make it a more effective deterrent with making it as painful as possible for the worst monsters.
 
2017-04-18 12:07:11 AM  

bobbiepaws: Being a judge, in no way, curtails your rights as a private citizen. His judgeship did not come with the caveat that he is no longer allowed to peaceably assemble and did not require he give-up his right to free speech. Arkansas is setting a dangerous precedent here.


Judges still have to answer to the American Bar Association, and are bound by the Model Code of Judicial Conduct.  The ABA prohibits many actions by judges that would be fine for regular citizens.

There's nothing in the Model Code that specifically prohibits participation in protests, but Rule 2.10(A) does say "A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing."

Strapping yourself to a gurney in the middle of a protest against capital punishment when there are multiple high-profile capital punishment cases pending in the Arkansas courts seems a little dicey.
 
2017-04-18 12:22:54 AM  

bobbiepaws: Being a judge, in no way, curtails your rights as a private citizen. His judgeship did not come with the caveat that he is no longer allowed to peaceably assemble and did not require he give-up his right to free speech. Arkansas is setting a dangerous precedent here.


You have zero understanding how the real world or the legal system works, do you.

The fact that you think there's no precedent for this is just....  Trump level of ignorance.
 
2017-04-18 12:32:29 AM  

bobbiepaws: Being a judge, in no way, curtails your rights as a private citizen. His judgeship did not come with the caveat that he is no longer allowed to peaceably assemble and did not require he give-up his right to free speech. Arkansas is setting a dangerous precedent here.


Actually, to some extent it does.

He was not drafted to be a judge.  He is not being forced to accept the limitations on his rights that come with a job where he explicitly is required to curtail his speech on issues that may come before his court in order to avoid even an appearance on bias.

It goes without saying he must approach the job itself without bias or favor or he must recuse.
 
2017-04-18 01:06:22 AM  
As a matter of fact, I am.

/DNRTFA
 
2017-04-18 02:48:48 AM  

maxandgrinch: He's already on the short list for the next SCOTUS position that opens.


Either you didn't RTFA or you missed the memo on who won the election.
 
2017-04-18 02:53:15 AM  

bobbiepaws: Being a judge, in no way, curtails your rights as a private citizen. His judgeship did not come with the caveat that he is no longer allowed to peaceably assemble and did not require he give-up his right to free speech. Arkansas is setting a dangerous precedent here.


Your right.  He just chose not to be a judge when he stepped to the plate as an advocate. No, this isn't a precedent. Or dangerous.  That's just weapons grade idiocy..
 
2017-04-18 07:28:55 AM  

fark account name: ColonelCathcart: fark account name: gopher321: Maybe the state shouldn't be having an "EVERYTHING MUST GO" clearance special on the lives of these prisoners.

All convicted murderers and six of of seven were rapists.

Number of farks given? zero

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/these-are-the-seven-men-scheduled-​to-be-executed-this-month_us_58ef6880e4b0bb9638e1abfa

You're right, they're (probably) animals (and even more likely) and guilty.

However, the idea that the death penalty should be done with ILLEGALLY procured drugs is not something anyone should support.

Do it properly, legally...but NOOOOO you gotta lie to acquire the drugs and then try to KILL ALL THE THINGS before you get caught.

Also, it's cheaper to incarcerate for life than execute in California.

It's also cheaper to educate than incarcerate, but that's another problem...

I'm not sure anyone is claiming they obtained the drugs illegally, just that the manufacturer is not happy that they are using a drug for a purpose the manufacturer did not intend, but that the Supreme Court has ruled is OK.

Also, the fact that there is still a death penalty even in liberal California really says something.  Yes, there a dozens of problems how the death penalty is applied and implemented, but there's a fundamental understanding among the majority of people that some individuals should be removed from the planet because of the horrific nature of their actions.  I'm not talking about crime-of-passion murderers but those individuals who terrorized and tortured innocent humans during their their last moments on earth.  Those people, if duly convicted, should face the ultimate punishment.  Cost-effectiveness is not part of that discussion.


Time-effectiveness should.

Decades of waiting doesn't make it a deterrent.
 
2017-04-18 08:26:03 AM  

fark account name: If we're going to have capital punishment, I don't understand why states just don't use nitrogen asphyxiation.  It's painless, cheap and readily abundant.  Yes, if you don't believe in capital punishment, I understand the objection to any method, but capital punishment has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court and we should carry it out in the most humane an effective method.


The most inhumane part of capital punishment is not the method but how long it takes to carry out.  Forcing someone to carry a death sentence with a small amount of hope for years is cruel and unusual punishment to me.
 
2017-04-18 09:43:50 AM  

Bslim: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 813x623]


I like it!

img.fark.netView Full Size


As to TFA, this is a logical and unwelcome result of activist judges trying to make law from the bench. If you want to make law, get elected to office be a Wall Street bigwig.

/sad but true
 
2017-04-18 12:25:00 PM  
As a Arkansas native I'm totally ambivalent about the executions.  On the one hand that asshat ward killed one of my classmates just a few months after our high school graduation.  He has spent a decade more on death row than she lived.  Becky Doss never harmed a soul as far as I can remember and that piece of shiat killed her and attempted to flee the scene.  He wasn't insane then who cares if he is now.  The families deserve some closure.

On the other hand I know that the death penalty is totally ineffective at preventing murder.

/the judge should be removed from his position
//Its his job to remain objective and he can't do that
 
2017-04-18 02:15:48 PM  

Revek: The families deserve some closure.


No, executing someone isn't a comfort you deserve.

Executing someone is a risk-taking behavior in which we attempt to control the risk of executing an innocent person or a person who is no longer a threat as a method of controlling the risk of others committing similar crimes and the risk of attempting to contain dangerous criminals.  It's about minimizing harm.

It's a complicated system, too.  We use a beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt system for executions, and have proven really farking bad at that as per cases which have executed people for murder by arson using only circumstantial evidence and junk science.  The most famous is a Texas man who left his house in anger, and was executed after it burned down based on the burn patterns in the house indicating an accelerant, leading prosecutors to conclude he must have poured kerosene in the bedroom closets and set fire to the place before he left.  To me, that's not "beyond a shadow of a doubt"; that's a complex system of unproven circumstances.  To actual forensic scientists, the burn patterns don't actually indicate the use of an accelerant, and the entire basis for the prosecution's case is weapons-grade horse shiat.

On the other hand, "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" means you only need to create one weak link in the preponderance of evidence to cast doubt on your case.  That means we can't get you the death penalty, and maybe you get 10 years and out in 5 years on good behavior.  If our risk controls suggest this isn't enough to deter murder, then we're accepting the loss of innocent life by not executing a few innocents accidentally.

That doesn't even get into the problem of quantification, and the full span of inputs.  Gang crime?  Gang members face death by gang violence every day; in a high-crime, high-murder-rate city, murder is a hell of a lot less likely to get a conviction than in a low-crime suburb.  Criminal gang members aren't deterred by capital punishment; people in suburbs will get a subconscious reflex against sudden murder-in-rage due to the firmly-set idea that committing murder means committing suicide.  Now:  how do you measure and predict the deterrent effect versus the risk and blood-cost of executions per jurisdiction?

You don't deserve the satisfaction of murdering another human being; you deserve a society in which you can expect the security of probably not being murdered.  It's about providing that, and it's hard.
 
2017-04-18 02:21:28 PM  

bluefoxicy: Revek: The families deserve some closure.

No, executing someone isn't a comfort you deserve.

Executing someone is a risk-taking behavior in which we attempt to control the risk of executing an innocent person or a person who is no longer a threat as a method of controlling the risk of others committing similar crimes and the risk of attempting to contain dangerous criminals.  It's about minimizing harm.

It's a complicated system, too.  We use a beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt system for executions, and have proven really farking bad at that as per cases which have executed people for murder by arson using only circumstantial evidence and junk science.  The most famous is a Texas man who left his house in anger, and was executed after it burned down based on the burn patterns in the house indicating an accelerant, leading prosecutors to conclude he must have poured kerosene in the bedroom closets and set fire to the place before he left.  To me, that's not "beyond a shadow of a doubt"; that's a complex system of unproven circumstances.  To actual forensic scientists, the burn patterns don't actually indicate the use of an accelerant, and the entire basis for the prosecution's case is weapons-grade horse shiat.

On the other hand, "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" means you only need to create one weak link in the preponderance of evidence to cast doubt on your case.  That means we can't get you the death penalty, and maybe you get 10 years and out in 5 years on good behavior.  If our risk controls suggest this isn't enough to deter murder, then we're accepting the loss of innocent life by not executing a few innocents accidentally.

That doesn't even get into the problem of quantification, and the full span of inputs.  Gang crime?  Gang members face death by gang violence every day; in a high-crime, high-murder-rate city, murder is a hell of a lot less likely to get a conviction than in a low-crime suburb.  Criminal gang members aren't deterred by capital punishment; people ...


Who are you to say that.  What have you ever lost?  Probably nothing.
 
2017-04-18 04:54:45 PM  
If anyone's still in this thread, the next executions are set for Thursday night and I have no idea what will happen.  Everyone is filing appeals appealing the appeals filed with the appeals court to appeal and oh I've gone cross-eyed.
 
2017-04-18 06:42:19 PM  
Revek:Who are you to say that.  What have you ever lost?  Probably nothing.

I've lost hope in a world of rational people thanks to your idiot rambling and believe it's my right to cut your nuts off so you don't breed and spread your stupidity.
 
2017-04-18 07:54:59 PM  
Wendell ? How did he get a whitey white name like that ?
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report