Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread"

Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread" (Page 56)
Thread Tools
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2020, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There's no solution to this other than suppressing information. It should be self evident information suppression comes with its own Pandora’s Box of problems.
But you expressed a preference for this information. You made no mention of dismissing its value, indeed you inferred that it was useful to you. If it IS useful to you then you could be said to be part of the problem.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2020, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
But you expressed a preference for this information. You made no mention of dismissing its value, indeed you inferred that it was useful to you. If it IS useful to you then you could be said to be part of the problem.
...

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Maybe I’m missing something, but the primary questions are whether Rittenhouse provoked the attack, and whether he was in fear for his life.

To answer requires judging state of mind. Does not past behavior figure into this?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2020, 01:59 PM
 
Both can be true.

Carrying a loaded weapon into an unarmed crowd can be seen as a provocation. Was he scared? Possibly. That doesn't mean that anyone who chucked a bottle at him would have done 1/50th of the damage he did with a rifle. Certainly after he killed the first person the others were shot in the back as they ran away - how scared was he then?

He was a 17yr old kid, not trained like police (cough) to deal with these stressful situations, and had no business pulling vigilante bullshit. His mother should be ashamed of driving him there. If he was a black kid he would have been shot by police not arrested later at home.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2020, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Both can be true.
That’s why I’m saying we have to determine both.

If Rittenhouse provoked the attack, then it doesn’t matter whether he was in fear for his life.

However, if open carry is legal, open carrying is not a provocation.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2020, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
However, if open carry is legal, open carrying is not a provocation.
While it's not legally a provocation, it certainly would be psychologically.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2020, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If Rittenhouse provoked the attack, then it doesn’t matter whether he was in fear for his life.
What if we back up and ask why he was there in the first place? What mistake did society make that demanded a kid show up and protect "something" from "someone"? Why did he think he needed to be there? And with a loaded weapon?

Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
His mother should be ashamed of driving him there.
Last I checked that wasn't confirmed.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2020, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
While it's not legally a provocation, it certainly would be psychologically.
I feel if a person open carrying is guilty of something, it’s more likely going to be intimidation, rather than provocation.

Was intimidation unreasonable in this scenario? That’s certainly possible, it may even be likely, but for the most part I don’t have the slightest clue what was actually going on.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2020, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
However, if open carry is legal, open carrying is not a provocation.
Independently of how it was perceived, we already know it was illegal for him to open carry, because he was under age. And just because something is legal doesn’t mean it isn’t provocative. Carrying a firearm means you are willing to take the responsibility of carrying one. At a minimum that means obeying the law, which Rittenhouse wasn’t.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2020, 08:27 PM
 
I’m not sure I understand the train of thought.

Rittenhouse was being provocative by being underage, or was he being just as provocative as everyone else there who was open carrying?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2020, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Rittenhouse was being provocative by being underage, or was he being just as provocative as everyone else there who was open carrying?
I separate law as-it-currently-is and morality. On the level of the law-is-it-is, Rittenhouse was breaking the law, and when it comes to that it doesn’t matter whether he was provocative or not. I am not a lawyer, but I reckon this may have repercussions as to how the killings are judged legally — just like it makes a difference in a deadly car crash whether or not you were over the legal limit. And he showed very bad judgement by bringing a gun into a situation where it was not a good idea to do so. That’s why there are age limits, the human brain does not finish development until we are about 25 years of age.

From the perspective of morality or perhaps law-as-I-think-it-should-be, the issue is bringing guns into this situation to “protect” property that isn’t your own or, say, your neighbors. Kyle Rittenhouse and the people like him inserted themselves into a situation where they were the match in a powder keg. Rittenhouse’s immaturity (as in he is not a fully developed adult) is just an added risk factor. They brought their guns and openly carried them as an intimidation tactic. (Concealed carrying is a much better option if you carry for personal protection.) As soon as shots are fired, panic is almost sure to ensue, which puts more life at risk. Some other people who like the 2A might get the idea that they want to even the odds just in case the openly carrying counter-protestors start shooting. It is a vicious circle that leads to escalation. IMHO if you choose to arm yourself, you must be willing to bear the responsibilities associated with it, including knowing when it is better to leave your guns at home — or stay at home.

This is nothing new. Perhaps the 1A supports me from calling your spouse fat and ugly in your face, but it doesn’t protect me from you decking or suing me. (I don’t mean to imply any insult here, of course, this is just an illustrative example.) My protected speech has consequences. That’s even more true when you are armed, because guns are dangerous and their primary purpose is to kill. Your right to carry does not protect you from the consequences or from what happens when you abuse your rights.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 04:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post

This is nothing new. Perhaps the 1A supports me from calling your spouse fat and ugly in your face, but it doesn’t protect me from you decking or suing me. (I don’t mean to imply any insult here, of course, this is just an illustrative example.) My protected speech has consequences. That’s even more true when you are armed, because guns are dangerous and their primary purpose is to kill. Your right to carry does not protect you from the consequences or from what happens when you abuse your rights.
Wait, if you insult someone's spouse they can legally assault you? Surely not?

Are there places in the US that have both open carry and one of those stand your ground laws that say you can shoot people if you get scared of them? That seems like a recipe for absolute disaster.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 05:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Wait, if you insult someone's spouse they can legally assault you? Surely not?
No, of course not. And it was not my intention to claim as much. But as a practical matter, if you provoke someone, violence might be the outcome. Even if the other person breaks the law (and perhaps your jaw).
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Are there places in the US that have both open carry and one of those stand your ground laws that say you can shoot people if you get scared of them? That seems like a recipe for absolute disaster.
This is the argument that is made by some (although of course not mine): Rittenhouse was justified to shoot the people, because he was fearing for his life. What precipitated the event is much less clear, so we do not know who initiated the altercation. Anyone who attacked him was reckless, because they could see he was armed. And you can't hold Rittenhouse responsible for other people's stupidity.

I don't share that view. Personally, I think firearm owners have a much larger responsibility in all situations where guns enter. So let's take an example we are both familiar with, (the real) football hooligans. These are people who voluntarily insert themselves into situations where you can expect violence. Does it diminish your responsibility because “the other side” threw the first punch? No. And by the same token, if you bring a gun into a situation against better judgement, then from the outset you are carrying a much larger share of the responsibility. For example, hypothetically speaking if Rittenhouse provoked a few protestors again and again, believing that his weapons would protect him from being attacked, he carries an even larger share of the responsibility.

Open carry the way it is understood now is moronic. We are not talking about people who take a hike with their rifles shouldered, because they are hunting. Sure, in this context it makes sense to “open carry”. Ditto for police officers, yeah, context matters. But of course that is not what it means. It's a political statement in most cases. There is no reason to walk into a Chipotle or a Walmart fully armed. And if you are worried for your safety, I think the consensus is to carry concealed. (I still think not carrying a gun is statistically safer, but that's a separate discussion.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 07:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I feel if a person open carrying is guilty of something, it’s more likely going to be intimidation, rather than provocation.

Was intimidation unreasonable in this scenario? That’s certainly possible, it may even be likely, but for the most part I don’t have the slightest clue what was actually going on.
Does not intimidation imply provocation? People only apply intimidation in order to provoke a response. Sometimes this is the mistaken believe that intimidated people will be provoked to show respect and/or submission. However if you don't think that many people respond to intimidation in the opposite way then you aren't looking at how people work at all.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 09:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I feel if a person open carrying is guilty of something, it’s more likely going to be intimidation, rather than provocation.
You're right, intimidation fits better. It'd be provocation if he started aiming the weapon, taunting, or yelling at people.

From what I understand, the concept of "brandishing" is incredibly muddy.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Does not intimidation imply provocation? People only apply intimidation in order to provoke a response. Sometimes this is the mistaken believe that intimidated people will be provoked to show respect and/or submission. However if you don't think that many people respond to intimidation in the opposite way then you aren't looking at how people work at all.
If we want to disqualify Rittenhouse’s claim of self-defense, he needed to have been provocative to the extent it was legally permissible to assault him in return (i.e, if I punch someone, it is legally permissible for them to assault me in return).

In an open carry state, is not legally permissible to assault someone for the act of open carrying.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 3, 2020 at 09:53 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 09:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You're right, intimidation fits better. It'd be provocation if he started aiming the weapon, taunting, or yelling at people.

From what I understand, the concept of "brandishing" is incredibly muddy.
Unslinging or unholstering can very easily meet the bar of provocation.

If the weapon remains slung or holstered, my guess is the carrier can yell or taunt all they want as long as they don’t make a threat.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 09:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If we want to disqualify Rittenhouse’s claim of self-defense, he needed to have been provocative to the extent it was legally permissible to assault him in return (i.e, if I punch someone, it is legally permissible to assault me in return).
You are flipping the burden of proof here. We don't know what Rittenhouse did before, and we cannot assume he was acting out of self-defense.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In an open carry state, is not legally permissible to assault someone for open carrying.
Except for two things: (1) Rittenhouse wasn't open carrying legally — he was underage. And (2) we don't know whether he was assaulted, because we do not know what precipitated the altercation.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You are flipping the burden of proof here. We don't know what Rittenhouse did before, and we cannot assume he was acting out of self-defense.
I’m not assuming he acted in self defense. I have been discussing what goes into determining whether he did or not.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Except for two things: (1) Rittenhouse wasn't open carrying legally — he was underage. And (2) we don't know whether he was assaulted, because we do not know what precipitated the altercation.
Rittenhouse being underage does not enter into the question of whether he was allowed to defend himself, and does not enter into the question of whether he provoked an attack by open carrying.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 10:45 AM
 
He overreacted to someone throwing a plastic bag, which didn't even hit him. Then the crowd tried to catch him, since HE HAD JUST KILLED SOMEONE, and he opened fire again. He had no business being there.

Current googling doesn't confirm his mother drove him, but she still should be ashamed by treating her son like an innocent victim.

According to prosecutors and court documents, Rittenhouse shot and killed 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum after Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse, missing him, and tried to wrestle his rifle away.

While trying to get away in the immediate aftermath, Rittenhouse was captured on cellphone video saying 'I just killed somebody.'

According to the complaint filed by prosecutors, someone in the crowd said, 'Beat him up!' and another yelled, 'Get him! Get that dude!'

Video shows that Rittenhouse tripped in the street.

As he was on the ground, 26-year-old Anthony Huber hit him with a skateboard and tried to take his rifle away. Rittenhouse opened fire, killing Huber and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz who was holding a handgun at the time.

Cellphone video that captured some of the action shows Rittenhouse afterward walking slowly toward a police vehicle with his hands up, only to be waved through by police.

He returned to his Illinois home and turned himself in soon after. Police later blamed the chaotic conditions for not arresting Rittenhouse at the scene.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Rittenhouse being underage does not enter into the question of whether he was allowed to defend himself, and does not enter into the question of whether he provoked an attack by open carrying.
You seem quite certain about this. Are you a lawyer? I’m not, but I would expect this matters just like being drunk while driving changes the legal ramifications a car accident has.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 11:11 AM
 
Drunk while driving UNDERAGE without a LICENSE.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You seem quite certain about this. Are you a lawyer? I’m not, but I would expect this matters just like being drunk while driving changes the legal ramifications a car accident has.
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Drunk while driving UNDERAGE without a LICENSE.
The way I understand it, these are the questions which go into determining whether a shooting is in self defense.

1) Was the threat to the shooter imminent?
2) Was the threat dire enough to justify shooting?
3) Did the shooter provoke the threat?
4) Did the shooter attempt to avoid the threat?
5) Was the shooter behaving unreasonably?

A weapons violation doesn’t turn any of these into an automatic no.

In a car accident, one of questions is “was the driver negligent?”

This is an automatic “yes” if the driver was drunk.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 12:58 PM
 
Shooting the first guy over a plastic bag is a vast overreaction, and absolutely a provocation to anyone else nearby. Shooting the next two guys while they were trying to capture him.

2 guys tackling a dangerous shooter should be lauded as the heroes who saved the crowd from the next parkland.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 01:27 PM
 
Well, as I said, I have no authority to comment on this specific case. I was only addressing the drunk driving analogy.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 03:53 PM
 
I feel like open carrying when you aren't legally allowed to should change something relevant. Firstly, if you are not legally allowed to open carry, then by definition that is not what you are doing. You can still drive if you don't have a license, and the chances you were just trying to get somewhere. But carrying a fire without the necessary license is something different. Its obviously a crime in itself, but what assumptions can be made about your motives since you know you cannot open carry? When you're allowed to, your motives are irrelevant (and often you will lie about them because you are trying to intimidate or threaten people but you can just claim its for protection and no-one can argue any different). But if you are prohibited then you would only need protection badly enough to break the law if you were planning to do something or had already done something to provoke others into wanting to hurt you. Does that make sense? If its not for protection, then thats arguably worse since you must be planning to use the gun (since you have no right to just carry it for the sake of it) which doesn't leave much in the way of legal options. Clearly not hunting given the location (and presumably would have needed a hunting license?), so that doesn't leave much besides armed robbery or murder or the threat of thereof.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 04:27 PM
 
If it can be shown the individual in question was aware they were breaking the law, then we can pursue that line of reasoning. It doesn’t apply if the individual was oblivious.

Ignorance of the law won’t protect someone from the consequences of the law, but it will protect someone from accusations they had the intent to break the law.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
5) Was the shooter behaving unreasonably?

A weapons violation doesn’t turn any of these into an automatic no.
I'm fairly sure this one does. Unlawfully carrying is completely unreasonable behaviour. Just like driving a car under the legal age without a license would be unreasonable behaviour.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 05:21 PM
 
Ignorance of the laws do not excuse you. At 17, and having gone through junior police academy, etc, he should have known the rules.

This seems like a bad take. All a criminal has to do is claim ignorance of the law? That might work with parking tickets (gee officer I didn't see the sign) but not with firearms.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
All a criminal has to do is claim ignorance of the law?
That’s not what I’m saying.

Rittenhouse committed a weapons violation. He’s responsible for committing that violation regardless of whether he knew the law.

The question I was responding to is whether his weapons violation shows intent to break the law. Someone has to know the law to have intent to break it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 09:05 PM
 
I see where you're going, but not sure it matters.

He had to have known he shouldn't carry. He did. He didn't trip and accidentally illegally underage carry a gun across state lines. That he thought he was justified does not make it any more legal.

Now, whether he took out that gun INTENDING to shoot people... that no one knows.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 09:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The question I was responding to is whether his weapons violation shows intent to break the law. Someone has to know the law to have intent to break it.
Intent isn't necessarily necessary. Go back to drunk driving: I don't think most drunk drivers intend to have an accident. The reason why they are treated differently is because their judgement is impaired and they do know that. There are many crimes where someone is on the hook just because of circumstances, e. g. if you are the getaway car driver of a heist and someone gets killed during the heist, in many states you can be convicted of murder.

I'm not necessarily saying that the legal situation is the same for Rittenhouse. I'm just saying that I don't see how you can exclude it out of hand.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 10:13 PM
 
In Canada, criminal intent is not related to any intent to break the law—that’s irrelevant. It’s whether the person intended the natural/obvious consequences of their actions. It’s often proven by way of inference (i.e. common sense).

/loose change
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2020, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
In Canada, criminal intent is not related to any intent to break the law—that’s irrelevant. It’s whether the person intended the natural/obvious consequences of their actions. It’s often proven by way of inference (i.e. common sense).

/loose change
Right, and I reckon these things depend on the location and precise laws. I'm only objecting to subego's insistence that violating the laws regulating open carry do not matter.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2020, 11:06 AM
 
The reason I’m insistent is as far as I know, in most situations where a killing would be considered self defense without a weapons violation, adding a weapons violation doesn’t flip it to murder.


Edit: this is as it should be, no?
( Last edited by subego; Nov 4, 2020 at 11:19 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2020, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Shooting the first guy over a plastic bag is a vast overreaction, and absolutely a provocation to anyone else nearby. Shooting the next two guys while they were trying to capture him.

2 guys tackling a dangerous shooter should be lauded as the heroes who saved the crowd from the next parkland.
I’m always skeptical of Wikipedia, but their version of the story says the first guy tried to grab Rittenhouse’s gun.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,