Mannlicher
Member
Phil Lee
do'nt worry, Jeff will close this thread too.
FBI: Justifiable homicides at highest in more than a decade
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
Show me the bodies. For Kleck to be believed (I see he's decided that instead of millions of unreported killings there are only a few hundred now
) one must accept the premise that people kill their assailants all the time and dispose of the bodies, and that no family members of these allegedly dead criminals ever miss them. Phil, you haven't got any idea what you are talking about. What do you know about how the UCR data is reported? The police agencies report to the FBI. There is no rule that says DGUs are only reported as such if it appears they are justified during the initial investigation. The individual police departments decide what is reported and what isn't. There are a lot of problems with how the UCR is collected, but unlike Kleck, who guesses and makes up DGUs from whole cloth in order to sell books to members of the gun culture who feel more comfortable if their own personal thoughts about their owning a gun being the only thing that keeps society from breaking down into anarchy, the UCR is real data, from verified incidents that we know really happened. There are no DGUs in the UCR that are really someone who was awakened in the middle of the night by a noise and grabbed his gun, but never once saw if there really was a prowler or if it was a stray cat knocking over a garbage can. Kleck's data, by his own admission counts that as a DGU.
Phil Lee
Member
Jeff, Kleck has never claimed "millions of unreported killings" -- you made that up (I'd ask you to document your claim, but you make up your documentation too as I've learned by our prior interactions).
As to your question: "What do you know about how the UCR data is reported?" my reply is you are right "The police agencies report to the FBI. There is no rule that says DGUs are only reported as such if it appears they are justified during the initial investigation." It is the immediacy of reporting, the same mentality that appeared in the initial 1989 Time magazine article I linked for you. That immediacy caused Time to report only 14 DGUs for the week in 1989 and one year later (in 1990) Time had reported that the number had climbed to 28 DGUs (for the same week in 1989). The yearly reporting by the FBI isn't revised to reflect what is found by longer investigations and court actions.
You did read the articles, didn't you? I guess not. It is hard to take in facts when you think you know it all.
Now, let's dance for a few rounds -- you tell your usual undocumented tales taken from gun control literature and I'll go find some of the real facts.
I'd offer to document all your deceptions, but you know you can make up stuff faster than anyone can find the facts, but I'm good for a few days. Have at it -- start with your claim about Kleck claiming millions of unreported killings. Document that.
Afterward, pick your favorite tale and try it out. But, don't expect me to get interested until you actually document your current tale about Kleck.
As to your question: "What do you know about how the UCR data is reported?" my reply is you are right "The police agencies report to the FBI. There is no rule that says DGUs are only reported as such if it appears they are justified during the initial investigation." It is the immediacy of reporting, the same mentality that appeared in the initial 1989 Time magazine article I linked for you. That immediacy caused Time to report only 14 DGUs for the week in 1989 and one year later (in 1990) Time had reported that the number had climbed to 28 DGUs (for the same week in 1989). The yearly reporting by the FBI isn't revised to reflect what is found by longer investigations and court actions.
You did read the articles, didn't you? I guess not. It is hard to take in facts when you think you know it all.
Now, let's dance for a few rounds -- you tell your usual undocumented tales taken from gun control literature and I'll go find some of the real facts.
I'd offer to document all your deceptions, but you know you can make up stuff faster than anyone can find the facts, but I'm good for a few days. Have at it -- start with your claim about Kleck claiming millions of unreported killings. Document that.
Afterward, pick your favorite tale and try it out. But, don't expect me to get interested until you actually document your current tale about Kleck.
Last edited:
hankdatank1362
Member
Excuse me?
So... what happened to the other two thirds? Buried under the woodpile in the backyard?
Critical thinking moment of the day: Kleck is full of BS.
I'm citing myself as a primary source, because Kleck's claim is obviously a falsehood.
That sucks, because I like FSU, too. They've had some good criminologists and penologists come out of there. (Morris)
Phil Lee
Member
hankdatank1362 says:
I suppose you believe everything written in the news. Kleck has stated that only about 1/3 of the Defensive Gun Use (DGU) killings are reported as justified by the FBI (in their UCR annual reports). The other 2/3 are listed as unjustified homicides.
Kleck is not full of BS as you'd find if you actually read some of what he has written rather than the ham-headed reporting by others.
I suppose you believe everything written in the news. Kleck has stated that only about 1/3 of the Defensive Gun Use (DGU) killings are reported as justified by the FBI (in their UCR annual reports). The other 2/3 are listed as unjustified homicides.
Kleck is not full of BS as you'd find if you actually read some of what he has written rather than the ham-headed reporting by others.
hankdatank1362
Member
Ok, well the original article is a little biased.
(ETA) I'll do some looking ino Kleck.
Point is, while the meaning of the article is a big plus for us, they could have gotten a writer who wasn't a complete libby to ink it.
Haven't guns always been legal?
Sorry, I thought God did that.
No, it doesn't allow us to do anything.
What about wire fraud? That's a felony; can I shoot 'em?
(ETA) I'll do some looking ino Kleck.
Point is, while the meaning of the article is a big plus for us, they could have gotten a writer who wasn't a complete libby to ink it.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
If you're saying that most of these self-defense shooters were themselves criminals, and their need for self-defense was a direct result of committing a crime, then I don't think that would be ruled justifiable homicide. To take your example, if a drug deal goes bad and the dealers start shooting at each other, I doubt they're going to get a "justifiable homicide" pass from The Law. Seriously, you're a cop, right? If you catch a drug dealer who shot another drug dealer, and he says, "Hey, man, it's self defense! The guy was trying to shoot me!" do you just give him a pass?
If, on the other hand, your point is that maybe some of the people who justifiably killed someone in self-defense had some kind of past criminal record, or were behind on their taxes, or had committed some other legal offense unrelated to the shooting situation, then I guess I'd have to say "so what?"
I don't think Kleck ever said there were millions of defensive killings. I think he estimated millions of "defensive uses of firearms." That would include the killings reported here, but would also include all non-lethal defensive shootings, as well as any self-defense situation where someone deterred an attack simply by displaying a weapon.
Then you would be wrong. A criminal doesn't give up his right to defend himself from another criminal bent on robbery. It doesn't matter one bit to the legal justification of self defense if the person was defending himself from an armed robbery of his convenience store or the armed robbery of his stash of crack.
He may be charged with other crimes related to the criminal activity he was involved with that are discovered during the course of investigation of the alleged self defense killing, but if it is found he was justified in his use of deadly force, he won't be charged with murder just because he was defending his life while engaged in a criminal enterprise.
And I said a significant number of the cases, not the majority of them.
Phil, you can go on believing all the propaganda you want. It fit's your world view and it obviously makes you comfortable. I'm not wasting any more of my time discussing this with you. You failed to address any of the direct quotes from Kleck about his research that I posted in the last thread. I'm sorry that someone who claims to be a man of science is so close minded he refuses to look past his own political beliefs. But the world is what it is. If you want to live in a dream world of your own making then who am I to stop you.
Jeff
Jeff,
I'll accept your professional experience on this one. I was under the impression that if you are engaged in a criminal activity that results in a killing, then you are responsible for that killing. I guess I am wrong.
For what it's worth, I agree with your original point that 200-odd self defense killings per year are extremely unlikely to deter someone who is intent on committing a violent crime. I doubt they are deterred at all by the 300-odd police killings, either.
I've never seen much evidence that violent criminals are deterred by any thought of consequences, whether those consequences come from the intended victims, from the law, or from anyone else. That's not why I own and carry a firearm for self defense. I don't have any illusions of deterring criminals on a society-wide basis. I do intend to be ready to protect myself and my family if we are threatened, though. I guess in that sense my reasons for owning/carrying don't go any farther than my own family.
I'll accept your professional experience on this one. I was under the impression that if you are engaged in a criminal activity that results in a killing, then you are responsible for that killing. I guess I am wrong.
For what it's worth, I agree with your original point that 200-odd self defense killings per year are extremely unlikely to deter someone who is intent on committing a violent crime. I doubt they are deterred at all by the 300-odd police killings, either.
I've never seen much evidence that violent criminals are deterred by any thought of consequences, whether those consequences come from the intended victims, from the law, or from anyone else. That's not why I own and carry a firearm for self defense. I don't have any illusions of deterring criminals on a society-wide basis. I do intend to be ready to protect myself and my family if we are threatened, though. I guess in that sense my reasons for owning/carrying don't go any farther than my own family.
That is generally true, however not all states recognize that legal doctrine, and secondly, there are very few instances where you give up the right to defend your own life. In most states the aggressor legally gives up his/her right to claim self defense although many states recognize a clear disengagement as regaining your right to claim self defense.
In the case where crack dealer A kills rival crack dealer b while defending his life during a robbery attempt from by rival crack dealer b, the act of self defense is the same as if crack dealer A was a clerk in a convenience store. That doesn't save him from charges of being a crack dealer if in the course of investigating crack dealer b's untimely death, evidence is discovered that crack dealer A was in fact dealing crack. Basically the self defense and dealing crack are two separate issues.
If you look at:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html
You'll find that in 2007 there were 583 homicides that occurred during the violation of narcotic drug laws. It's a violent profession. Only robbery with 924 homicides has more murders.
Another interesting statistic is that there were only 86 homicides committed during burglaries. For all the threads on the gun forums about break ins, you'd think that there would be more. But out of 14,831 homicides, there were only 86 committed during burglaries.
More people were killed as the result of romantic triangles 105, brawls under the influence of alcohol 117, arguments over money or property 192, other arguments 3,645, and juvenile gang killings 676.
Whenever you talk about violent crime or self defense, you are talking about rare, unusual events that are statistically unlikely to happen to any one of us. Simply by not being a juvenile gang member or an adulterer or a drug dealer probably runs our odds of actually needing a gun down somewhere South of "vanishingly rare." For that matter, it is said most law officers go their whole careers without ever firing their guns.
I guess we could all - police and civilians - just arm ourselves with fake guns and 99.99% of us would be just as well off (better off it could be argued, since there would be no danger of ND).
However, if I happen to be that 0.001 who winds up needing a real gun, I will be very glad I have one.
A great line attributed to Winston Churchill (don't know if it's apocryphal or not, but it's true): "A gentleman will rarely need a pistol. But if he does need one, he will need it very badly."
I don't think anyone is advocating we carry fake guns or no guns. I'm just saying that if one doesn't live a criminal lifestyle or hang around with those who do, your chances of ever needing a gun go down considerably.
I found these maps and find them particularly valuable to this discussion regarding the statistics. Particularly the "where" of the statistics gathered.
http://www.beavertonpolice.org/crime/docs/crimemap_WSLOP.pdf
Notice the proximity to the highway. I'd like to see more data. I found some maps, some were 5mb in size. I think the important data for this discussion and statistical likeliehood of stumbling into the wrong path are documented clearly if we dig enough.
Although, of those 14k homicides stated in the provided FBI link browsing, 5 or 6k were unsolved regarding relationship data. That's 42% of your homicides getting away with it from my point of view, that's not pretty. I suspect a large percent of that number is the habitual offender criminal, however, that's a number on the pareto charts that dictates where you spend the most time as a one in the law enforcement business.
http://www.beavertonpolice.org/crime/docs/crimemap_WSLOP.pdf
Notice the proximity to the highway. I'd like to see more data. I found some maps, some were 5mb in size. I think the important data for this discussion and statistical likeliehood of stumbling into the wrong path are documented clearly if we dig enough.
Although, of those 14k homicides stated in the provided FBI link browsing, 5 or 6k were unsolved regarding relationship data. That's 42% of your homicides getting away with it from my point of view, that's not pretty. I suspect a large percent of that number is the habitual offender criminal, however, that's a number on the pareto charts that dictates where you spend the most time as a one in the law enforcement business.
I don't know if this is true, but I want it to be true...
The number of justifiable homicides is getting higher because everyone is getting better training.
By the way, the "rate" is not higher. The actual number of incidents is higher.
If there were 250 incidents in 1994 when America had 275 million residents, and now there are 254 incidents in 2007 when America has 300 million residents, the actual rate is lower. Not higher.
The number of justifiable homicides is getting higher because everyone is getting better training.
By the way, the "rate" is not higher. The actual number of incidents is higher.
If there were 250 incidents in 1994 when America had 275 million residents, and now there are 254 incidents in 2007 when America has 300 million residents, the actual rate is lower. Not higher.
Maps of killings
In Orlando we have Homicides shown in the current year, by little wee flags, on a map.
Most around Orange Blossom Trail, lots of prostitution, ditto drugs, and places that are stamped "Not a good place to live" the Hood, more than one of them.
In my own case, after being in the US of A, living, for 5 years, I chased a person off my path, in front of my front door at 4-42 AM, with a Surefire flashlight, and a 9mm Glock, a few weeks ago. He caused an alarm to go off on a vehicle in the street, headed into my dark little path to get off the street, till my motion detector lights lit him up. Not even sure he saw the Glock, I had just hit him in the eyes with a lot of light.
He was still hidden from the street, but not from my window.
In the many years I have traveled in the US, prior to moving here, two other times I pointed guns at people, no shots fired ever, in the States.
So in my history the pointing saved my bacon twice, and once it was a "Go away" device. Once I hit a person, at that time I was carrying a G19, but it was not a gun call. In Dayton Ohio. All that since 1968.
So the carrying of a pistol, not the firing of it, was the key in my case.
In the both cases of pointing I was in big trouble physically, if I had not been armed, plus in the old days it was sometimes a LW Commander in .45, like looking down a drain pipe, frame polished, muzzle polished, like glass, frame after market black finish. First incident Rochester, coming in to a Hotel parking lot, from a Bullseye Match, second time in Detroit, I had stopped at a Stop Sign, very lost. "Am I right for the I 75?" 4" of window open, arm on it's way in, then OUT! even a High Power in 9mm still has an impressive muzzle. Quickest draw under right thigh, no holster.
The macho guys at the training program I was going to, said I should have shot him? No ear muffs? no reason? Do not pass go. I could see him sprawled across his little case in his nice suit! I wonder how many of the point a gun and not shoot there are? I have three.
In Orlando we have Homicides shown in the current year, by little wee flags, on a map.
Most around Orange Blossom Trail, lots of prostitution, ditto drugs, and places that are stamped "Not a good place to live" the Hood, more than one of them.
In my own case, after being in the US of A, living, for 5 years, I chased a person off my path, in front of my front door at 4-42 AM, with a Surefire flashlight, and a 9mm Glock, a few weeks ago. He caused an alarm to go off on a vehicle in the street, headed into my dark little path to get off the street, till my motion detector lights lit him up. Not even sure he saw the Glock, I had just hit him in the eyes with a lot of light.
He was still hidden from the street, but not from my window.
In the many years I have traveled in the US, prior to moving here, two other times I pointed guns at people, no shots fired ever, in the States.
So in my history the pointing saved my bacon twice, and once it was a "Go away" device. Once I hit a person, at that time I was carrying a G19, but it was not a gun call. In Dayton Ohio. All that since 1968.
So the carrying of a pistol, not the firing of it, was the key in my case.
In the both cases of pointing I was in big trouble physically, if I had not been armed, plus in the old days it was sometimes a LW Commander in .45, like looking down a drain pipe, frame polished, muzzle polished, like glass, frame after market black finish. First incident Rochester, coming in to a Hotel parking lot, from a Bullseye Match, second time in Detroit, I had stopped at a Stop Sign, very lost. "Am I right for the I 75?" 4" of window open, arm on it's way in, then OUT! even a High Power in 9mm still has an impressive muzzle. Quickest draw under right thigh, no holster.
The macho guys at the training program I was going to, said I should have shot him? No ear muffs? no reason? Do not pass go. I could see him sprawled across his little case in his nice suit! I wonder how many of the point a gun and not shoot there are? I have three.
Phil Lee
Member
Old Guy asks:
Kleck estimates, based on a 1993 survey, that only about 1 in 6 of defensive gun uses results in a person firing a firearm at an individual. Others estimate that ratio at even less (I've seen estimates of 1 in 10).
Most gunnies know, as you do, that you don't shoot people just because you can -- you shoot them because you must to preserve your life or the lives of others.
Kleck estimates, based on a 1993 survey, that only about 1 in 6 of defensive gun uses results in a person firing a firearm at an individual. Others estimate that ratio at even less (I've seen estimates of 1 in 10).
Most gunnies know, as you do, that you don't shoot people just because you can -- you shoot them because you must to preserve your life or the lives of others.
Original Post said:
I don't have a problem with this statement... There are a lot of self defense shootings that may not fall strictly under the FBI justifiable shooting rules, but are not charged in the locality. I know it isn't a perfect comparison, but the Joe Horn case in Texas or something akin to that might be an area wherein the FBI say it wasn't justified, but the Locality says it was.
It does seem to me that some of the Federal groups have a passive aggressive attitude to civilian ownership of firearms. The BATF and FBI certainly would have to top this list. Or, it is one of those reporting functions that happen in an organization wherein you have to draw a line somewhere and in so doing, some of these shootings are not counted and reported by the FBI.
I also believe that after the events of September 11th, Katrina and school and mall shootings America has gone back to it's old west mindset. Let's be honest, people are scared of what is happening in this country. Even if you do everything right, you can and will find yourself in front of a Grand jury having to explain why you didn't do this that or the other. I totally agree with what JWarren said as well. Criminals and as a result people have changed how they view crime. We are all in debt up to our eyeballs and I need every dollar to stay afloat!
camslam
Member
Phil: You are wasting your time debating certain topics with certain members here at THR, but you have ample experience to which you already know that.
Antsi wrote:
You may not see evidence, but there is plenty out there validating the idea that criminals seek out the easier targets/victims any time they can. I am mid 30's, 6'7'', 235 lbs, very fit, and haven't had problems with people or criminals looking to cause me problems. That being said, in the 5 years I have had my CCW permit, I have had 3 instances where my having a weapon on me, COULD have come into play. Being aware, assertive, and reasonable, led to all of those problems being resolved without violence. But it didn't change the fact that trouble was there, and despite my size and look, someone was still willing to "roll the dice" with me, to a point. You can't prepare for, or avoid, everything.
Common sense tells you that certain behaviors, attributes, or circumstances are going to give you a much better chance of finding trouble, versus living a less risky lifestyle.
Live wisely and your chance of having a life threatening event are reduced, perhaps significantly, but please don't discount the realities of random events that happen to thousands of people in our society every single year.
Statistics are great, but at the end of the day, use some common sense. Bad people are out there, be prepared to protect and defend yourself, use the best means of defense available to you.
Antsi wrote:
You may not see evidence, but there is plenty out there validating the idea that criminals seek out the easier targets/victims any time they can. I am mid 30's, 6'7'', 235 lbs, very fit, and haven't had problems with people or criminals looking to cause me problems. That being said, in the 5 years I have had my CCW permit, I have had 3 instances where my having a weapon on me, COULD have come into play. Being aware, assertive, and reasonable, led to all of those problems being resolved without violence. But it didn't change the fact that trouble was there, and despite my size and look, someone was still willing to "roll the dice" with me, to a point. You can't prepare for, or avoid, everything.
Common sense tells you that certain behaviors, attributes, or circumstances are going to give you a much better chance of finding trouble, versus living a less risky lifestyle.
Live wisely and your chance of having a life threatening event are reduced, perhaps significantly, but please don't discount the realities of random events that happen to thousands of people in our society every single year.
Statistics are great, but at the end of the day, use some common sense. Bad people are out there, be prepared to protect and defend yourself, use the best means of defense available to you.
We have more crime than we have had in more than a decade. The most dangerous recent time in American history was in the early to mid 90's. When the surge in the modern gang culture happened. When gangs were openly present, practicly wore uniforms and openly controlled streets and neighborhoods in many places. Gunfights between such individuals and law enforcement as well as citizens happened frequently.
That went away, they ceased to wear uniforms and openly roam streets. In most places they were reduced to operating in the shadows again.
The late 90's had a big surge in the economy before the .com bubble burst. Far fewer individuals were resorting to criminal actions.
Now we have a tougher economy, foreclosures are at record numbers. Work is harder to find for many professions. The blue collar jobs that employ a lot of the criminal element, like construction work, various plants and factories etc have much less demand in a tougher economy. Many will be out of work.
Meth use has spread to even rural America, creating stimulant (I mention that because they are as a result less lazy, and more active in crime) addicts trying to pay for a fix.
So a new spike in traditional forms of crime is happening. Property crimes and burglaries/robberies are going to be more common.
That means the opportunity for citizens to defend themselves are going to be presented more frequently. You are more likely to run into a burglar in your home, more likely to be robbed, or more likely to confront someone stealing something and have them turn on you.
So people can assign various cause and effect scenarios for the increase in justifiable homicides (still dealing with a relatively small number) but I think most of them will be to favor some agenda.
Whether that is an anti-gun agenda or even a pro-gun agenda depends on the individuals making the argument. Whether it is a call for more funding for some agency, or for various programs will likewise depend on the individuals' agendas.
So what do you know, more self defense in more than a decade. More crime than in more than a decade.
More self defense means more of the attackers will die, and become "justifiable homicides."
There is more crime so there is more self defense. Seems rather simple.
That went away, they ceased to wear uniforms and openly roam streets. In most places they were reduced to operating in the shadows again.
The late 90's had a big surge in the economy before the .com bubble burst. Far fewer individuals were resorting to criminal actions.
Now we have a tougher economy, foreclosures are at record numbers. Work is harder to find for many professions. The blue collar jobs that employ a lot of the criminal element, like construction work, various plants and factories etc have much less demand in a tougher economy. Many will be out of work.
Meth use has spread to even rural America, creating stimulant (I mention that because they are as a result less lazy, and more active in crime) addicts trying to pay for a fix.
So a new spike in traditional forms of crime is happening. Property crimes and burglaries/robberies are going to be more common.
That means the opportunity for citizens to defend themselves are going to be presented more frequently. You are more likely to run into a burglar in your home, more likely to be robbed, or more likely to confront someone stealing something and have them turn on you.
So people can assign various cause and effect scenarios for the increase in justifiable homicides (still dealing with a relatively small number) but I think most of them will be to favor some agenda.
Whether that is an anti-gun agenda or even a pro-gun agenda depends on the individuals making the argument. Whether it is a call for more funding for some agency, or for various programs will likewise depend on the individuals' agendas.
So what do you know, more self defense in more than a decade. More crime than in more than a decade.
More self defense means more of the attackers will die, and become "justifiable homicides."
There is more crime so there is more self defense. Seems rather simple.
Here is the criteria for justifiable homicide from the UCR handbook:
http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf
The FBI doesn't go through the data reported by individual agencies and check to see if what was reported meets the criteria. It is up to the reporting agency to report the incidents. There were some 17000 agencies that reported last year. It would be almost impossible for the FBI to review every crime or incident reported and change what was reported to fit their allegedly antigun criteria. The criteria does exclude killings that are the result of mutual combat or other murky circumstances where the killing didn't result from the commission of crime.
A very interesting graph indeed...
Maybe the number of shootings follow the crime rate... maybe even follows certain types of crimes...
I once saw a graph that crime rate follows the number of 18-28 year olds (or something like that)... I wonder if this graph follows the same lines...
By that reasoning traffic deaths would also follow closely...
hmmm...
Kind of Blued
Member
I'm so sick of this "shoot first" crap.
The rate of JUSTIFIABLE homicides has gone up. That means anything and everything but the further adoption of a "shoot first" mentality. More than likely, it is attributed to more people "Thinking first" and being prepared to defend themselves from dangerous criminals. Once they find themselves in such a situation, they already know how to act in accordance with JUSTIFIABLE self-defense.
The rate of JUSTIFIABLE homicides has gone up. That means anything and everything but the further adoption of a "shoot first" mentality. More than likely, it is attributed to more people "Thinking first" and being prepared to defend themselves from dangerous criminals. Once they find themselves in such a situation, they already know how to act in accordance with JUSTIFIABLE self-defense.
Phil Lee
Member
camslam says:
Whether or not I'm wasting time is determined by more factors than you can possibly know -- so I have to believe your remark refers to the "closed-mindedness" of some people here. Perhaps, you think that taking the high road in argument makes it necessary to avoid direct statements of fact. But being less than candid in statement isn't high road at all.
Some people think arguments are useless because they never change the minds of those engaged -- but changing minds of the engaged isn't the purpose of argument at all.
Whether or not I'm wasting time is determined by more factors than you can possibly know -- so I have to believe your remark refers to the "closed-mindedness" of some people here. Perhaps, you think that taking the high road in argument makes it necessary to avoid direct statements of fact. But being less than candid in statement isn't high road at all.
Some people think arguments are useless because they never change the minds of those engaged -- but changing minds of the engaged isn't the purpose of argument at all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked