Meet the Man Helping Police Officers Get Away with Shootings

A psychology professor testifies that there's pretty much always a good reason.


"Don't fire until you see the whites of his … just kidding, light him up!"
Credit: © Martinfredy | Dreamstime.com

Matt Apuzzo at the New York Times has produced a lengthy profile of an expert witness who anybody interested in reforming police behavior absolutely must pay attention to. Meet William J. Lewinski. He travels around the country offering his testimony at trials justifying police shootings, even in cases where the victim was unarmed:

His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer's story.

He has appeared as an expert witness in criminal trials, civil cases and disciplinary hearings, and before grand juries, where such testimony is given in secret and goes unchallenged. In addition, his company, the Force Science Institute, has trained tens of thousands of police officers on how to think differently about police shootings that might appear excessive.

A string of deadly police encounters in Ferguson, Mo.; North Charleston, S.C.; and most recently in Cincinnati, have prompted a national reconsideration of how officers use force and provoked calls for them to slow down and defuse conflicts. But the debate has also left many police officers feeling unfairly maligned and suspicious of new policies that they say could put them at risk. Dr. Lewinski says his research clearly shows that officers often cannot wait to act.

"We're telling officers, 'Look for cover and then read the threat,' " he told a class of Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs recently. "Sorry, too damn late."

What's truly unnerving about the story is Lewinski's role in teaching police to be absolutely terrified of every other human being they encounter. He and his students perform video experiments showing how quickly a person concealing a gun can turn and shoot at an officer and how quickly a person can pull a gun, then turn and run away (to justify cases where suspects end up shot in the back). Whether these situations are likely isn't the point—just that they're technically possible.

So Lewinski plays an active role in convincing officers they are always in danger when dealing with members of the public. Then when one of these shootings happen, he turns around and helps justify these shootings to juries because the officer was afraid he was in danger.

Lewinski has infuriated researchers by using the concept of "inattentional blindness"—where focus on one task blocks out everything else—to justify police mistakes. Such an argument, one prosecutor noted, could be used to justify any police shooting, no matter the circumstances. But just imagine if a non-police citizen tried using the argument in a case. Would it end up like this one?

Robert Murtha, an officer in Hartford, Conn., shot three times at the driver of a car. He said the vehicle had sped directly at him, knocking him to the ground as he fired. Video from a nearby police cruiser told another story. The officer had not been struck. He had fired through the driver's-side window as the car passed him.

Officer Murtha's story was so obviously incorrect that he was arrested on charges of assault and fabricating evidence. If officers can get away with shooting people and lying about it, the prosecutor declared, "the system is doomed." …

Dr. Lewinski testified at trial. The jury deliberated less than one full day. The officer was acquitted of all charges.

The increased attention on police shootings has resulted in some additional documentation of the actual numbers. As we've explained before, there is no national government database tracking the killing of citizens by police. The FBI does keep track of numbers, but participation is spotty and the figures are extremely incomplete. The Guardian is now operating an independent database counting police shootings.

We are up significantly this year compared to last year. July was a particularly bad month, The Guardian notes. The Guardian lists 680 people killed by police this year. According to volunteer database Killed by Police, the number last year at this time was about 645, so there's an increase over last year if this rate keeps up (important caveat: These are simply flat numbers without any consideration of the circumstances of the killing, whether the other person was armed, or in the commission of a crime, et cetera).

NEXT: Does Britain Owe India Reparations for Colonial Rule?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Lewinski? Seriously?

    1. And in case his lawyers are reading this, I’m not saying he’s wrong in any single given case, it’s just that with his pro-cop approach I can’t see how he could be right in *every* case.

      1. In case his lawyers are reading this: Your client is a horrible human being, for whom being fed feet-first through a woodchipper would be too kind.

        1. Notif we parked it in front of his house and made the family and neighbors watch.

          Then bill his wife for the rental.

    2. Has there ever been a Lewinski who wasn’t a piece if shit?

      1. Not for nothing, but if Monica had been my intern, I’d have been pretty happy with her job performance.

        /he-he… “job”

    3. You beat me to the punch.

  2. I bet it pays well to be one of the worst people in the country.

    1. That was my thought; it looks like he’s found himself a nice little money-making scheme. Get paid to convince cops that they are in mortal danger from every other human being, then get paid to testify as an expert to help acquit them after they react to his fear-mongering.

    2. Everything about this guy screams some sort of personal issue. Every time you find someone who is laser-like focused on some extremely weird issue, it usually indicates a deep, personal obsession. This is admittedly a weird one, and I’m not sure what exactly his whole deal is, but he clearly has some kind of deep-rooted fear of other humans that causes him to take this whole tack of “cops need to fear other people at all times”.

      What surprises me is I would have expected him to be a cop. I wouldn’t be even slightly surprised to find out he wanted to be but couldn’t because he had some health issue or something, like the guys who desperately want to join the military but can’t (John Milius, I’m looking at you). So they glorify the thing they want to be but can’t be.

      1. Yeah, a guy I went to high school with is an EMT, so he’s sort of on the fringe of law enforcement. He is probably the most pro cop person I have ever encountered that’s not an actual cop or related to one. He broke his leg in high school and has some lingering issues that apparently got him dqed from the police application pool.

        1. EMT’s are pro-cop because whenever some crazy high guy takes a swing at them the cops are the guys who come to their rescue. They play for the same team, and their major interaction with cops is when they are holding back crowds/traffic so the EMT can do their job or the cops are restraining some crazy so the EMT can do their job. That’s going to leave a positive impression of a profession.

          1. Not all EMTs. It only takes one cardiac arrest where the cops are searching the house and stealing anything not nailed down instead of helping you work the code.

      2. I dont know whether peace officers or psychs are further up the authoritarian bandwagon. I am more intimately familiar with the process of manufacturing psychiatrists, and it is at this point pretty fucking far out. I think it would be very difficult for any sort of free person to get through it as it is now, whereas it’s entirely impossible for a free person to become a peace officer now. A few decades ago, I’d say that psychiatrists were easily further in authoritarianism than peace officers, but though both have got worser, I think the police may have outstript the psychs. As far as the kind of authoritarian character attracted to each profession, I think that psychiatry attracts the more deeply twisted and destructive type, while LE attracts the less sophisticated, more straightforward, emptyheaded (identity foreclosed) authoritarian type.

    3. I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to beat Nikki at being the worst. But damn.

      1. I’ll insult Nicole all day, but don’t you ever compare her to a pig. She is the diametric opposite.

        1. So wait, Nikki is still the worst?

          I’m confused.

  3. Tulpa?

    1. It certainly fits.

  4. Cops don’t need training. Civilians do.

    1. I bet if that guy was stopped by a bad cop who beat him within an inch of his life for no reason, he’d crawl back on his belly like a whipped cur.

      1. I’m guessing if that guy was stopped by a cop, the first thing he’d do is flash his badge, and he’d have a laugh with the cop, then go on his merry way.

  5. William J. Lewinski.

    You know who else was named Lewinski?

    1. You know what a “Lewinski” refers to?

    2. Sigmund Freud? (sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes it’s a sex toy.)

    3. The Dude? Lebowski, Lewinski, whatever . . .

      1. “El Duderino,” if you’re not into the whole brevity thing…

    4. His buddies call him Bill, not William. Or BJ to his real pals. BJ Lewinski.

  6. Does he get to testify at Court Martials? We could chuck out the whole idea of Rules of Engagement and go back to pillaging.

    1. You mean Appropriation of Enemy Property, don’t you?

      1. Well, they do consider their women property…

      2. Asset Forfeiture, poTAHto.

  7. On the plus side, that means at least some of these shooters are being brought to trial.

  8. He and his students perform video experiments showing how quickly a person concealing a gun can turn and shoot at an officer and how quickly a person can pull a gun, then turn and run away (to justify cases where suspects end up shot in the back).

    All of this is true, but it has little to do with 99.999999% of police encounters. It also said nothing about the cases where the unarmed victim was shot in the back.

    Knowing that something is possible has little to do with whether it’s probable.

    For instance, I’m not particularly critical of officers that shoot someone they’re in an actual struggle with– even if the person was unarmed. Because we have black-letter cases where the officer attempted non-lethal restraint and he had his gun taken from him, and the officer ended up dead.

    But training officers to react to every person they’ve pulled over that this is a potential outcome is spectacularly missing the point.

    1. But, but, but… Officer safety!

      1. Is improved when the public isn’t convinced that every run-in with the cops is a life and death struggle for them

    2. That’s just because you haven’t watched the training videos showing just how unstoppably badass all criminals are.

    3. Like this?


      Don’t get into a gunfight with Gerry Miculek.

    4. Yes, someone has to draw a distinction between actual threating actions and not being sure what that guy has in his pocket.

      Until you actually SEE a gun, or get punched in the face, you can’t treat someone as if they were threatening you with a gun.

      There’s a difference bettwen X is a threat, and X might be a risk of a threat.

    5. There’s also that they so frequently attack people with psychiatric diagnoses that put them in classes of people least likely to harm others: as though they are almost preferentially aggressing most vigorously against the least dangerous of potential victims. Either their threat assessments are horribly perverted, almost perfectly so, or else they are sociopathic jerkfaces who are actually attacking those they think least likely to defend themselves.

      On the other hand, I am inclined to discount the psychiatric diagnoses always broadcast by the police regarding anybody they severely beat or kill without cause. It’s brought out very quickly too frequently, and there’s the fact that most people falsely believe the demented to be more dangerous than regular folks, when in fact in most categories (especially those typically claimed by police with regards to their victims) they are less likely to injure someone else than normal folks are, so one could hasard that they make these claims in order to inflate their spurious claims of danger and also because most normal folk could care less what the police do to anybody, provided they can imagine it only happens to some other kind of marginalised person and not to decent lawabiding pukefaces like themselves.

  9. Dr. Lewinski testified at trial. The jury deliberated less than one full day. The officer was acquitted of all charges.

    I don’t know what Lewinski said at trial that so beguiled our jurors here, but to me, this says something about the jurors, and less about Lewinski. Let him try that shit with… oh, I dunno, me.

    1. Yeah. Like a judge would ever allow you onto a jury.

      1. ^This^

        None of here are the types of people who would ever be selected for a jury. The kind if people who end up being selected are, well, the kind of people who would be swayed by a lieing piece of shit like Lewibski.

        1. I was selected for a grand jury, didn’t actually get picked mind you. One of the disqualifications for being a juror was anyone who was skeptical of law enforcement, skeptical of the judicial system or had any philosophical qualms with basically any statute that we may be asked to indict someone upon.

          That sort of narrows the field to people who watch Sean Hannity every night.

          1. I was selected for a grand jury, didn’t actually get picked mind you.

            It wasn’t THE grand jury, was it?

            1. I would have woodchipped that indictment so hard if I was.

    2. One has to think they were misled or evidence was withheld or the jury was cherry picked to be pro-cops or something. How could 12 people’s unanimous sense of justice be so far out of tune with reality? Doesn’t it take only one or two jurors to hang the jury?

      1. Unanimity isn’t required in all states.

  10. there is no national government database tracking the killing of citizens by police.

    Sheesh, do you people expect the government to track *everything*?!

  11. What’s truly unnerving about the story is Lewinski’s role in teaching police to be absolutely terrified of every other human being they encounter.

    I am so sick of hearing people use the whole “Cops primary duty is to make sure they get home safe!” line. That is a crock.
    1) No, I don’t think that’s true. Their primary duty is to protect our liberties from other individuals. They can’t be “heroes” if they don’t hold something above their own safety.
    2) Their method for doing so seems to be to use unnecessary force in every interaction with the public. That’s a real great way to gin up a ton of distrust, leading to a higher likelihood of violent incidents.

    1. The primary duty of the police is to force people to obey their every whim. They are convinced that every word out of their mouth is a lawful order, and that they have the authority to use violence on anyone who doesn’t immediately and unquestioningly obey. Law enforcement is merely a title. Compliance enforcement would be more accurate. They don’t care about enforcing the law. Not one bit. They only care about enforcing their will. That is it. I know that isn’t they way it should be, but that’s the way it is.

    2. Imagine if fishermen were to start with this crap, insisting that their first job was to get home safe. Any fisherman pulling that line would certainly stay home safe, since they’d never get a job in the first place.

  12. (important caveat: These are simply flat numbers without any consideration of the circumstances of the killing, whether the other person was armed, or in the commission of a crime, et cetera).

    We need a database that tracks these circs– a reasonable database that at least attempts to show the circs in an unbiased way. As much as I am sick of overzealous police shootings, we need to avoid becoming NPR on this shit.

  13. Good shoot!?

  14. William J. Lewinski

    +1 jizz stain on the thin blue line

    1. Steve G already said ‘good shoot’.

    2. Nasty.

  15. How about we reserve the doctor title for people with actual medical degrees?!

    1. Hey! PhD’s were here first!

      1. Yeah, “doctor” is actually from the Latin for “instructor” so Ph.D.’s should be doctors while M.D.s should be “physicians”.

        1. How about…

          MD = Medical Doctor
          PhD = Phoney Doctor

          Runs away

        2. Actually, the Lateinisch for “physicians” would be “m?dici”.

  16. The Guardian lists 680 people killed by police this year….the number last year at this time was about 645

    Thank you for publishing some sort of COMPARISON with last year. The Guardian ran its story about what a crisis these numbers represent, without even letting readers know whether it was up or down from the year before!

    Don’t get me wrong, the whole phenomenon is a crisis and a horror… but 680 could have been half of last year’s number, and reading the Guardian, one would be none the wiser. Typical Guardian fail. So thank you for finding last year’s number as I was wondering what it was.

  17. But the debate has also left many police officers feeling unfairly maligned and suspicious of new policies that they say could put them at risk.
    Let them eat cake.

    1. They all want cake.

    2. The cake is a lie.

  18. What’s truly unnerving about the story is Lewinski’s role in teaching police to be absolutely terrified of every other human being they encounter.
    Exactly; the police are like some sort of doomsday cult, terrified of everything and everyone.

  19. Dr. Lewinski testified at trial. The jury deliberated less than one full day. The officer was acquitted of all charges.

    I have to assume that the jury was not shown relevant evidence, that they were implicitly threatened with negative consequences or something. Because otherwise that group of twelve people need to be woodchipped.

    1. During voir dire at my mother’s trial, she was able to dismiss everyone who disagreed with freedom of speech; there was barely an adequate number of potential jurors remaining after that. Seeing that, I can easily see how one could end up with twelve people who believe that police ought to be able to treat denial of their merest whimsies with summary execution.

  20. Again, I think the underlying problem here is that police think their first priority is to protect themselves.

    But it isn’t. We pay them to take risks so that innocent people don’t have to. One of those risks is the risk of being shot and killed rather than killing an innocent person.

    The police are morally obliged to accept risks to themselves rather than shoot anyone that seems to be a threat. Thus, EVEN if a suspect does pose a risk to the cop, that STILL doesn’t justify pulling a gun and shooting. It’s their job to take those risks. That’s what we pay them for.

    1. That’s the kind of thing that will get a “fuck you” from the wives and mothers of the thin blue line.

      1. Then they should convince their husbands and sons to get a different fucking job. Or maybe think about the fact that the people the cops panic-kill also have families.

        1. Thank you.

    2. Yes, this is exactly it. It is exactly their job to take those risks. The standard for justified killing should be higher for police, not lower.

    3. The problem with that idea is that the incentives for who actually becomes a cop are completely different from that type of actual attitude. Everything about the position of police officer attracts the diametric opposite of the thing we want in the position. At the end of the day, a police officer, in today’s world, is a bullying revenue collector with the power to kill in order to collect the revenue that their bosses order them to. They don’t generally take bribes or further their own fortunes; the people who gravitate to cop are perfectly satisfied with a damn good salary and the ability to beat down anyone who doesn’t kowtow to them fast enough. Because that’s what really matters to them. Their bonus is the power and immunity, not money.

      These are people who absolutely, in no way, have even the slightest interest in taking risks. And since they have no accountability, guess what they will not do in any way? Allow themselves to be put in any danger, even if they have to shoot an innocent person in the back.

      Today’s police are almost singularly selected to be sociopaths. The position is designed, at this point, to attract sociopaths. And oh man does it ever.

      1. Not to mention those of less than stellar intellect:


    4. We pay them to take risks so that innocent people don’t have to.

      I certainly don’t.

      I pay armed forces to take those types of risks, police just need to keep some kind of general order, basically a little investigative legwork and some record keeping so the insurance company doesn’t think I’m bullshitting them about a car accident or burglary.

      Take the guns away from the police and they will actually do the jobs we pay them to do. They won’t be doing any “War On Drugs” bullshit and will think twice about getting on people’s cases for petty stuff. If they need more than a billy club to arrest someone, the suspect is either violating federal law and therefore the feds can make the arrest or the violation probably shouldn’t even be on the books and certainly shouldn’t be enforced.

      I’m not a WoD expert, but I assume local police didn’t really give a shit about it and the feds were pissed that the locals didn’t care – so FedGov introduced asset forfeiture rewards to make the locals care.

      1. The limey cops, for the most part, don’t have guns, and they don’t do their “jobs” either. At all. It’s not about the guns. It’s about the incentives. And they have absolutely zero incentive to do the job the way we think they should do it.

        Their incentives are 1) bring in revenue, 2) enforce compliance since it helps bring in the revenue and they are also psychologically addicted to it, and 3) view all the people they steal from as subhuman because that enables them to steal and fuck with you without remorse.

        You literally could not have worse incentives in place. And this is what we have.

        1. The problem is the police unions. The police unions have pushed for rules of engagement which fundamentally serve the officer’s interest, rather than the public’s.
          Which should be obvious – it’s always the union’s job to negotiate on behalf of the employee. Unfortunately, because of the incestuous relationship between public sector unions and the state, the state doesn’t push back on behalf of the public’s interest.

          1. The state has absolutely no interest in the public’s interest. The state, at the end of the day, is composed of individuals, like all things human. And first and foremost for them is their interest. Which is perfectly normal and usually just fine. But when you combine it with the idea that they’re actually supposed to become selfless angels when they enter “public service” and if you are actually stupid enough to believe they will, is when you get into trouble.

            1. Well, if we banned police unions and contracted policing out to private security firms that might change things slightly.

      2. I’m not a WoD expert, but I assume local police didn’t really give a shit about it and the feds were pissed that the locals didn’t care – so FedGov introduced asset forfeiture rewards to make the locals care.

        A cop I used to know said that they use WoD as a compliance tool. They (the cops) are consistently around people who are smoking pot, but they trade letting the drug charge slide for the person/people’s cooperation with whatever the cop is trying to accomplish.

      3. Murder, robbery, rape, etc. aren’t Federal crimes, generally. I’m OK with local police being armed when they are arresting murderers.

      4. “I’m not a WoD expert, but I assume local police didn’t really give a shit about it”

        You may not be familiar with small town law enforcement. I have it on good authority that they are the only thing keeping drug addicts from kicking in your door, killing your entire family and running off with all your worldly possessions to be quickly sold at the nearest pawn shop to score their next fix. The self aggrandizement of the small town cop as the Last Line of Defense against our fellow citizens can be breathtaking in scope.

        1. Even more astonishing is how many people confidently believe that the police can do a better job of protecting them from their neighbours than they themselves could do.

    5. “To serve and protect” doesn’t mean what most people think it does. Time to check assumptions about the object of that phrase.

      1. They serve and protect themselves and other government employees.

    6. Heck, I think everyone’s under a similar moral obligation. If regular folks was to disregard this and kill anyone who could possibly be a threat, none of LE would get home safe.

  21. Just because it happens to be flashing on my homepage

    Cop shot and killed in routine traffic stop

    Memphis Police Officer Sean Bolton Armstrong spotted an illegally parked 2002 Mercedes in a southeast Memphis neighborhood late Saturday night and shined his squad car’s spotlight into it, Armstrong said. The suspect got out of the car and the two scuffled before he allegedly shot the officer, Armstrong said.

    The suspect responsible for the shooting and the driver of the vehicle fled the scene before additional officers arrived, police said.

    Bolton, 33, was hospitalized and later died.

    “After inventorying the suspect vehicle, it was found that Officer Bolton apparently interrupted some sort of drug transaction,” Armstrong said. “A digital scale and a small bag of marijuana, about 1.7 grams, were located inside of the vehicle.

    I’m sure someone somewhere sees this as proof that we need to be ‘tougher on marijuana’ or something. Or that police randomly shooting drivers in the backs of the heads are ‘understandable’

    1. I’d see it as proof not to go messing around illegally parked cars in southeast Memphis late at night.

    2. Yes, those are the risks that cops take so we can live in a free society, where people don’t just get randomly shot by cops just because they are illegally parked in southeast memphis.

      1. I don’t think that harrassing random citizens because the way they parked doesn’t match the state approved standard of conformation in parkings is the service that permits us to live in a free society. I don’t think that parking in a way that doesn’t match the state approved standard of conformation in parkings puts anyone’s ability to live in a free society in grave danger.

    3. A digital scale

      I’ve always wondered. is this some sort of code that they try to use to show that this person was some kingpin? A digital scale as well. Must be pretty sophisticated criminal.

      1. Basically, yeah. If you read enough police reports, particularly drug offenses, they all contain the same buzz words: leafy green substance, odor of burning marijuana, white powder, a scale of some sort (usually digital) etc.

      2. I don’t know about you, but I prefer to measure my weed the old fashioned way, with gold nuggets on one side and green ones on the other, preferably with a blindfolded woman holding it up.

        1. You still smoke flower instead of hash oil/shatter? Get with the times, dude. Vape or get the fuck out.

          1. There is room in the world for many forms of cannabis. Oil is great and very practical, but I’m just too attached to the smoking and the aesthetic appeal of the flowers.

          2. Word. Last year I spent opening day at a MLB ballpark puffing on a vaporizer that can be passed off as an e-cig. I must admit, I got quite the juvenile kick out of partaking while surrounded by 40k strangers enjoying family entertainment.

          3. Whoa, there, Citizen Epi. Let’s not be denigrating the enjoyment of the smell of a nice bud, nor of the traditional method of its ingestion.

            I like all of the modern conveniences of vape pens – and that I can recharge them via USB port, (or even get a hit in while on a plane if I’m willing to just hold the vapor for as long as possible and let it trickle out with the air vent on blast) – BUT, none of this should cause us to be judgmental about the wondrous scent of properly grown and harvested buds.


      3. When you’re measuring fractions of a gram, digital scales are about the only way to really do it accurately.

        1. Triple beam balances work pretty well, but are expensive and not very portable.

      4. It’s supposed to show that the person is a serious dealer, even if not caught with large quantities, I think.

        1. Being serious for a second, it’s not like anyone keeps analog scales around their house for fun. if you’re going to buy a scale, for any reason, get a digital one. What the fuck is the point of having a set of teeny tiny weights to keep track of?

  22. So, basically, the female Lewinsky fellates presidents and her male counterpart fellates cops.

  23. the police are like some sort of doomsday cult, terrified of everything and everyone.

    Why should they be any different from the rest of government?

  24. Stop blaming Lewinsky. He does what he is paid to do (not unlike a prostitute). Blame these gullible imbeciles on the juries.

    1. Yeah, let’s not hold cops accountable for their own actions even more.

      Are you normally this retarded, or is it a Monday thing for you?

      1. Well, in Greg’s defense, we really aren’t going to be holding them accountable until juries stop buying into the police mindset and correctly parse the shit that the likes of Lewinsky peddle.

        But, of course, there is enough blame to go around, and it does start with the King and His men.

    2. Oh, there is plenty of blame to go around.

  25. We all have our opinions of the Kafkaesque *justice* system. It should be renamed the court market. William J. Lewinski is filling a market need. The fact that this particular market needs people like this scumbag speaks very loudly about the police state in which we live and just how far off the rails we are.

  26. William J. Lewinski. B.J. Lewinski

  27. Holy Crap it is bad. From the Guardian site:

    Blakely was shot and killed by her husband, Matthew, an off-duty Aiken County sheriff’s deputy. Matthew Blakely was seen by officers running from the residence with blood on his hands. Candace Blakley’s body was found in their bathroom with a single shot to the head. The off-duty deputy was arrested shortly after and charged with involuntary manslaughter.

    ??!!!!!??!!1111 eleventy!!\

  28. Trepanizine: Apply directly to the forehead.

  29. So if the founder of the Force Institute is ever shot by the police, will his last words explain why it was his fault for standing there?

    1. Sorry, “Force Science Institute.” Which sounds like the name of a shell organization that Obi-Wan Kenobi set up as a tax dodge. Tatooine is clearly a tax haven, why else would you be there?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.