Ward 3 Crime Meeting w/CM Frumin, USAO Graves and AG Schwab 1/17 6pm Cleveland Park library

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the presentation and dialogue last night was productive. There is really only so much a councilmember can do.

Yes, fund more police, yes, make sure laws are on the books, but it is up to the mayor and MPD to enforce the laws and execute crime mitigation programs.

And yes, attacking the root causes of crime - poverty, lack of education etc is critically important as well. We need to address the current issues while also being foundational for the future.

There’s only so much a councilmember can do, but one thing a councilmember can do is not consistently work to make crime in their own Ward worse like Frumin has with a vengeance.

Oh cmon, he's been in for a year. He's not responsible for crime being worse in ward 3. JFC.

1. He voted to reduce the penalty for car jackings.
2. He voted to decriminalize illegal street vending.
3. He refuses to ask for a moratorium on new housing vouchers until the city can show it has adequate wrap around services.
4. He opposed police requests to abandon the Connecticut Ave project because it will increase police/EMS response time.

That’s his record. He’s done all these things in just one year. It’s stunning.

#1 never got enacted and even if it did, it was right-sizing sentencing and the problem isn't the sentencing in the first place, its the capture by police and prosecution of these people
#2 that was mostly for food/craft vendors to stop people from harassing them. Not people selling stolen goods. People selling stolen goods is still a freaking crime.
#3 *most people* who are using housing vouchers are NOT criminals. Just because some are doesn't mean we should F-over others who are in dire need of these services.
#4 LOL.

Just because you're an overly sensitive snowflake doesn't mean I need to believe your doom and gloom.

"Right sizing" sentencing?! To be sure, apprehension and prosecution are important, but so is a meaningful sentence that reflects a crime of violence against victims who feel particularly vulnerable.

No food or "craft" vendor gets harassed unless they are breaking the law. And knowingly selling stolen goods should be a felony.

DC does need to have a moratorium on voucher concentration in certain buildings. Much of the spike in crime on Connecticut Avenue correlates rather closely with the location of buildings that have a concentration of voucher getters.

The Connecticut Ave bike lane plan is dead, and Frumin knows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the presentation and dialogue last night was productive. There is really only so much a councilmember can do.

Yes, fund more police, yes, make sure laws are on the books, but it is up to the mayor and MPD to enforce the laws and execute crime mitigation programs.

And yes, attacking the root causes of crime - poverty, lack of education etc is critically important as well. We need to address the current issues while also being foundational for the future.

There’s only so much a councilmember can do, but one thing a councilmember can do is not consistently work to make crime in their own Ward worse like Frumin has with a vengeance.

Oh cmon, he's been in for a year. He's not responsible for crime being worse in ward 3. JFC.

1. He voted to reduce the penalty for car jackings.
2. He voted to decriminalize illegal street vending.
3. He refuses to ask for a moratorium on new housing vouchers until the city can show it has adequate wrap around services.
4. He opposed police requests to abandon the Connecticut Ave project because it will increase police/EMS response time.

That’s his record. He’s done all these things in just one year. It’s stunning.

#1 never got enacted and even if it did, it was right-sizing sentencing and the problem isn't the sentencing in the first place, its the capture by police and prosecution of these people
#2 that was mostly for food/craft vendors to stop people from harassing them. Not people selling stolen goods. People selling stolen goods is still a freaking crime.
#3 *most people* who are using housing vouchers are NOT criminals. Just because some are doesn't mean we should F-over others who are in dire need of these services.
#4 LOL.

Just because you're an overly sensitive snowflake doesn't mean I need to believe your doom and gloom.

"Right sizing" sentencing?! To be sure, apprehension and prosecution are important, but so is a meaningful sentence that reflects a crime of violence against victims who feel particularly vulnerable.

No food or "craft" vendor gets harassed unless they are breaking the law. And knowingly selling stolen goods should be a felony.

DC does need to have a moratorium on voucher concentration in certain buildings. Much of the spike in crime on Connecticut Avenue correlates rather closely with the location of buildings that have a concentration of voucher getters.

The Connecticut Ave bike lane plan is dead, and Frumin knows it.

A meaningful sentence? A crime of violence against victims? I mean you say these things. But what did the revised criminal code have in it? Current guidance is between 7 and 21 years (unarmed) and 15 and 40 years (weapon + other factors). The revised guidance from early last year would have 4-18 (unarmed) and 12-24 (armed), with kickers available to tack on to either of those if there was a crime of bias. Note that within these ranges there are sub ranges, as instead of just "armed carjacking" or "unarmed carjacking", there would be degrees of 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree, each which have tighter bounds within the broad ranges above.

Those are all still meaningful sentences.

The problem is arrests don't happen. And when they do, the DA fails to pursue trial or pleads out to lesser charges.

But I'm apparently the uneducated voter. Gtfo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the presentation and dialogue last night was productive. There is really only so much a councilmember can do.

Yes, fund more police, yes, make sure laws are on the books, but it is up to the mayor and MPD to enforce the laws and execute crime mitigation programs.

And yes, attacking the root causes of crime - poverty, lack of education etc is critically important as well. We need to address the current issues while also being foundational for the future.

There’s only so much a councilmember can do, but one thing a councilmember can do is not consistently work to make crime in their own Ward worse like Frumin has with a vengeance.

Oh cmon, he's been in for a year. He's not responsible for crime being worse in ward 3. JFC.

1. He voted to reduce the penalty for car jackings.
2. He voted to decriminalize illegal street vending.
3. He refuses to ask for a moratorium on new housing vouchers until the city can show it has adequate wrap around services.
4. He opposed police requests to abandon the Connecticut Ave project because it will increase police/EMS response time.

That’s his record. He’s done all these things in just one year. It’s stunning.

#1 never got enacted and even if it did, it was right-sizing sentencing and the problem isn't the sentencing in the first place, its the capture by police and prosecution of these people
#2 that was mostly for food/craft vendors to stop people from harassing them. Not people selling stolen goods. People selling stolen goods is still a freaking crime.
#3 *most people* who are using housing vouchers are NOT criminals. Just because some are doesn't mean we should F-over others who are in dire need of these services.
#4 LOL.

Just because you're an overly sensitive snowflake doesn't mean I need to believe your doom and gloom.

"Right sizing" sentencing?! To be sure, apprehension and prosecution are important, but so is a meaningful sentence that reflects a crime of violence against victims who feel particularly vulnerable.

No food or "craft" vendor gets harassed unless they are breaking the law. And knowingly selling stolen goods should be a felony.

DC does need to have a moratorium on voucher concentration in certain buildings. Much of the spike in crime on Connecticut Avenue correlates rather closely with the location of buildings that have a concentration of voucher getters.

The Connecticut Ave bike lane plan is dead, and Frumin knows it.

A meaningful sentence? A crime of violence against victims? I mean you say these things. But what did the revised criminal code have in it? Current guidance is between 7 and 21 years (unarmed) and 15 and 40 years (weapon + other factors). The revised guidance from early last year would have 4-18 (unarmed) and 12-24 (armed), with kickers available to tack on to either of those if there was a crime of bias. Note that within these ranges there are sub ranges, as instead of just "armed carjacking" or "unarmed carjacking", there would be degrees of 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree, each which have tighter bounds within the broad ranges above.

Those are all still meaningful sentences.

The problem is arrests don't happen. And when they do, the DA fails to pursue trial or pleads out to lesser charges.

But I'm apparently the uneducated voter. Gtfo.

Did the car jacker brandish a weapon? That's a lot of years right there.
Was that weapon stolen and unlicensed? That's a lot of years right there.
Did the car jacker pistol whip the driver to get them out of the car? That's a lot of years right there.
Did they speed and endanger others in the stolen car? That's a surprisingly low amount of years.
Did they use that stolen car to steal more shit or commit more crimes? That's a bunch of lower charges that get amped up to felonies because of crime stacking.

All of those add up to many, many, many years.

[Anonymous]

Ward 3 has a Councilmember who is not an advocate for Ward 3 and who has actively worked to make crime in Ward 3 worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the presentation and dialogue last night was productive. There is really only so much a councilmember can do.

Yes, fund more police, yes, make sure laws are on the books, but it is up to the mayor and MPD to enforce the laws and execute crime mitigation programs.

And yes, attacking the root causes of crime - poverty, lack of education etc is critically important as well. We need to address the current issues while also being foundational for the future.

There’s only so much a councilmember can do, but one thing a councilmember can do is not consistently work to make crime in their own Ward worse like Frumin has with a vengeance.

Oh cmon, he's been in for a year. He's not responsible for crime being worse in ward 3. JFC.

1. He voted to reduce the penalty for car jackings.
2. He voted to decriminalize illegal street vending.
3. He refuses to ask for a moratorium on new housing vouchers until the city can show it has adequate wrap around services.
4. He opposed police requests to abandon the Connecticut Ave project because it will increase police/EMS response time.

That’s his record. He’s done all these things in just one year. It’s stunning.

#1 never got enacted and even if it did, it was right-sizing sentencing and the problem isn't the sentencing in the first place, its the capture by police and prosecution of these people
#2 that was mostly for food/craft vendors to stop people from harassing them. Not people selling stolen goods. People selling stolen goods is still a freaking crime.
#3 *most people* who are using housing vouchers are NOT criminals. Just because some are doesn't mean we should F-over others who are in dire need of these services.
#4 LOL.

Just because you're an overly sensitive snowflake doesn't mean I need to believe your doom and gloom.

"Right sizing" sentencing?! To be sure, apprehension and prosecution are important, but so is a meaningful sentence that reflects a crime of violence against victims who feel particularly vulnerable.

No food or "craft" vendor gets harassed unless they are breaking the law. And knowingly selling stolen goods should be a felony.

DC does need to have a moratorium on voucher concentration in certain buildings. Much of the spike in crime on Connecticut Avenue correlates rather closely with the location of buildings that have a concentration of voucher getters.

The Connecticut Ave bike lane plan is dead, and Frumin knows it.

Thank you for responding the the DCJL astroturfer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the presentation and dialogue last night was productive. There is really only so much a councilmember can do.

Yes, fund more police, yes, make sure laws are on the books, but it is up to the mayor and MPD to enforce the laws and execute crime mitigation programs.

And yes, attacking the root causes of crime - poverty, lack of education etc is critically important as well. We need to address the current issues while also being foundational for the future.

There’s only so much a councilmember can do, but one thing a councilmember can do is not consistently work to make crime in their own Ward worse like Frumin has with a vengeance.

Oh cmon, he's been in for a year. He's not responsible for crime being worse in ward 3. JFC.

1. He voted to reduce the penalty for car jackings.
2. He voted to decriminalize illegal street vending.
3. He refuses to ask for a moratorium on new housing vouchers until the city can show it has adequate wrap around services.
4. He opposed police requests to abandon the Connecticut Ave project because it will increase police/EMS response time.

That’s his record. He’s done all these things in just one year. It’s stunning.

#1 never got enacted and even if it did, it was right-sizing sentencing and the problem isn't the sentencing in the first place, its the capture by police and prosecution of these people
#2 that was mostly for food/craft vendors to stop people from harassing them. Not people selling stolen goods. People selling stolen goods is still a freaking crime.
#3 *most people* who are using housing vouchers are NOT criminals. Just because some are doesn't mean we should F-over others who are in dire need of these services.
#4 LOL.

Just because you're an overly sensitive snowflake doesn't mean I need to believe your doom and gloom.

"Right sizing" sentencing?! To be sure, apprehension and prosecution are important, but so is a meaningful sentence that reflects a crime of violence against victims who feel particularly vulnerable.

No food or "craft" vendor gets harassed unless they are breaking the law. And knowingly selling stolen goods should be a felony.

DC does need to have a moratorium on voucher concentration in certain buildings. Much of the spike in crime on Connecticut Avenue correlates rather closely with the location of buildings that have a concentration of voucher getters.

The Connecticut Ave bike lane plan is dead, and Frumin knows it.

A meaningful sentence? A crime of violence against victims? I mean you say these things. But what did the revised criminal code have in it? Current guidance is between 7 and 21 years (unarmed) and 15 and 40 years (weapon + other factors). The revised guidance from early last year would have 4-18 (unarmed) and 12-24 (armed), with kickers available to tack on to either of those if there was a crime of bias. Note that within these ranges there are sub ranges, as instead of just "armed carjacking" or "unarmed carjacking", there would be degrees of 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree, each which have tighter bounds within the broad ranges above.

Those are all still meaningful sentences.

The problem is arrests don't happen. And when they do, the DA fails to pursue trial or pleads out to lesser charges.

But I'm apparently the uneducated voter. Gtfo.

Did the car jacker brandish a weapon? That's a lot of years right there.
Was that weapon stolen and unlicensed? That's a lot of years right there.
Did the car jacker pistol whip the driver to get them out of the car? That's a lot of years right there.
Did they speed and endanger others in the stolen car? That's a surprisingly low amount of years.
Did they use that stolen car to steal more shit or commit more crimes? That's a bunch of lower charges that get amped up to felonies because of crime stacking.

All of those add up to many, many, many years.

Except for all of the cases that are NO PAPERED/NOT PROSECUTED or committed by those under 26, considered YOUTHS in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for responding the the DCJL astroturfer.

Has anyone else noticed a change in the defund the police/anti-incarceration folk recently? A few years back they were really pushing the need to get rid of the police and let violent murderers out of prison, promising it'd make us safer. They had to back off that, but a year ago they were still pushing the line that there was no crime problem in D.C., it was exaggerated, or it was happening all over the country.

Now that it's clearly an issue and D.C. is clearly an outlier, they go into these threads and pretend soft on crime politicians like Frumin and JLG are actually touch on crime, or pretend the revised criminal code that the DCJL helped write was actually tough on crime. Then after a few posts they go back to their anti-incarceration spiel and accuse anyone who's worried about crime of being "an overly sensitive snowflake."

I have to take the fact that they're now trying to deceive people and trying to paint anti-incarceration politicians and polices as tough on crime policies means that they know their actual positions are now extremely unpopular with the citizens of D.C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for responding the the DCJL astroturfer.

Has anyone else noticed a change in the defund the police/anti-incarceration folk recently? A few years back they were really pushing the need to get rid of the police and let violent murderers out of prison, promising it'd make us safer. They had to back off that, but a year ago they were still pushing the line that there was no crime problem in D.C., it was exaggerated, or it was happening all over the country.

Now that it's clearly an issue and D.C. is clearly an outlier, they go into these threads and pretend soft on crime politicians like Frumin and JLG are actually touch on crime, or pretend the revised criminal code that the DCJL helped write was actually tough on crime. Then after a few posts they go back to their anti-incarceration spiel and accuse anyone who's worried about crime of being "an overly sensitive snowflake."

I have to take the fact that they're now trying to deceive people and trying to paint anti-incarceration politicians and polices as tough on crime policies means that they know their actual positions are now extremely unpopular with the citizens of D.C.

+1. It’s not easy seeing your progressive fantasies come crashing down around you.

I get Allen and Nadeau who were indoctrinated in the liberal universities and came of age under Obama. I don’t get Frumin. As the old expression goes, he’s old enough to know better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for responding the the DCJL astroturfer.

Has anyone else noticed a change in the defund the police/anti-incarceration folk recently? A few years back they were really pushing the need to get rid of the police and let violent murderers out of prison, promising it'd make us safer. They had to back off that, but a year ago they were still pushing the line that there was no crime problem in D.C., it was exaggerated, or it was happening all over the country.

Now that it's clearly an issue and D.C. is clearly an outlier, they go into these threads and pretend soft on crime politicians like Frumin and JLG are actually touch on crime, or pretend the revised criminal code that the DCJL helped write was actually tough on crime. Then after a few posts they go back to their anti-incarceration spiel and accuse anyone who's worried about crime of being "an overly sensitive snowflake."

I have to take the fact that they're now trying to deceive people and trying to paint anti-incarceration politicians and polices as tough on crime policies means that they know their actual positions are now extremely unpopular with the citizens of D.C.

+1. It’s not easy seeing your progressive fantasies come crashing down around you.

I get Allen and Nadeau who were indoctrinated in the liberal universities and came of age under Obama. I don’t get Frumin. As the old expression goes, he’s old enough to know better.

Wait - indoctrinated how? As republicans? As MAGAs ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for responding the the DCJL astroturfer.

Has anyone else noticed a change in the defund the police/anti-incarceration folk recently? A few years back they were really pushing the need to get rid of the police and let violent murderers out of prison, promising it'd make us safer. They had to back off that, but a year ago they were still pushing the line that there was no crime problem in D.C., it was exaggerated, or it was happening all over the country.

Now that it's clearly an issue and D.C. is clearly an outlier, they go into these threads and pretend soft on crime politicians like Frumin and JLG are actually touch on crime, or pretend the revised criminal code that the DCJL helped write was actually tough on crime. Then after a few posts they go back to their anti-incarceration spiel and accuse anyone who's worried about crime of being "an overly sensitive snowflake."

I have to take the fact that they're now trying to deceive people and trying to paint anti-incarceration politicians and polices as tough on crime policies means that they know their actual positions are now extremely unpopular with the citizens of D.C.

+1. It’s not easy seeing your progressive fantasies come crashing down around you.

I get Allen and Nadeau who were indoctrinated in the liberal universities and came of age under Obama. I don’t get Frumin. As the old expression goes, he’s old enough to know better.

He’s a very stupid man, which is why he hides behind others on the Council for all his opinions. He just picked the wrong ones who are the worst for Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for responding the the DCJL astroturfer.

Has anyone else noticed a change in the defund the police/anti-incarceration folk recently? A few years back they were really pushing the need to get rid of the police and let violent murderers out of prison, promising it'd make us safer. They had to back off that, but a year ago they were still pushing the line that there was no crime problem in D.C., it was exaggerated, or it was happening all over the country.

Now that it's clearly an issue and D.C. is clearly an outlier, they go into these threads and pretend soft on crime politicians like Frumin and JLG are actually touch on crime, or pretend the revised criminal code that the DCJL helped write was actually tough on crime. Then after a few posts they go back to their anti-incarceration spiel and accuse anyone who's worried about crime of being "an overly sensitive snowflake."

I have to take the fact that they're now trying to deceive people and trying to paint anti-incarceration politicians and polices as tough on crime policies means that they know their actual positions are now extremely unpopular with the citizens of D.C.

It’s especially hilarious to see 1) the rhetorical shift to blaming MPD for not being tough enough and 2) They actually think what they’re doing isn’t obvious to anyone older than a toddler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Has anyone else noticed a change in the defund the police/anti-incarceration folk recently? A few years back they were really pushing the need to get rid of the police and let violent murderers out of prison, promising it'd make us safer. They had to back off that, but a year ago they were still pushing the line that there was no crime problem in D.C., it was exaggerated, or it was happening all over the country.

Now that it's clearly an issue and D.C. is clearly an outlier, they go into these threads and pretend soft on crime politicians like Frumin and JLG are actually touch on crime, or pretend the revised criminal code that the DCJL helped write was actually tough on crime. Then after a few posts they go back to their anti-incarceration spiel and accuse anyone who's worried about crime of being "an overly sensitive snowflake."

I have to take the fact that they're now trying to deceive people and trying to paint anti-incarceration politicians and polices as tough on crime policies means that they know their actual positions are now extremely unpopular with the citizens of D.C.


+1. It’s not easy seeing your progressive fantasies come crashing down around you.

I get Allen and Nadeau who were indoctrinated in the liberal universities and came of age under Obama. I don’t get Frumin. As the old expression goes, he’s old enough to know better.

Frumin is a true Baby Boomer---part of the hippie generation. He's like our own local version of Bernie Sanders, who has never accomplished anything in all of his years of being a US Senator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for responding the the DCJL astroturfer.

Has anyone else noticed a change in the defund the police/anti-incarceration folk recently? A few years back they were really pushing the need to get rid of the police and let violent murderers out of prison, promising it'd make us safer. They had to back off that, but a year ago they were still pushing the line that there was no crime problem in D.C., it was exaggerated, or it was happening all over the country.

Now that it's clearly an issue and D.C. is clearly an outlier, they go into these threads and pretend soft on crime politicians like Frumin and JLG are actually touch on crime, or pretend the revised criminal code that the DCJL helped write was actually tough on crime. Then after a few posts they go back to their anti-incarceration spiel and accuse anyone who's worried about crime of being "an overly sensitive snowflake."

I have to take the fact that they're now trying to deceive people and trying to paint anti-incarceration politicians and polices as tough on crime policies means that they know their actual positions are now extremely unpopular with the citizens of D.C.

The only change I've noticed is fewer pearl clutcher comments, thankfully as that was intellectually feeble. I don't disagree with your analysis--these types are very tricky and constantly assume new stances. Thank you for this interesting post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for responding the the DCJL astroturfer.

Has anyone else noticed a change in the defund the police/anti-incarceration folk recently? A few years back they were really pushing the need to get rid of the police and let violent murderers out of prison, promising it'd make us safer. They had to back off that, but a year ago they were still pushing the line that there was no crime problem in D.C., it was exaggerated, or it was happening all over the country.

Now that it's clearly an issue and D.C. is clearly an outlier, they go into these threads and pretend soft on crime politicians like Frumin and JLG are actually touch on crime, or pretend the revised criminal code that the DCJL helped write was actually tough on crime. Then after a few posts they go back to their anti-incarceration spiel and accuse anyone who's worried about crime of being "an overly sensitive snowflake."

I have to take the fact that they're now trying to deceive people and trying to paint anti-incarceration politicians and polices as tough on crime policies means that they know their actual positions are now extremely unpopular with the citizens of D.C.

+1. It’s not easy seeing your progressive fantasies come crashing down around you.

I get Allen and Nadeau who were indoctrinated in the liberal universities and came of age under Obama. I don’t get Frumin. As the old expression goes, he’s old enough to know better.

Wait - indoctrinated how? As republicans? As MAGAs ?

Are you high? Explain to all of us how Nadeau & Allen are republicans or MAGAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for responding the the DCJL astroturfer.

Has anyone else noticed a change in the defund the police/anti-incarceration folk recently? A few years back they were really pushing the need to get rid of the police and let violent murderers out of prison, promising it'd make us safer. They had to back off that, but a year ago they were still pushing the line that there was no crime problem in D.C., it was exaggerated, or it was happening all over the country.

Now that it's clearly an issue and D.C. is clearly an outlier, they go into these threads and pretend soft on crime politicians like Frumin and JLG are actually touch on crime, or pretend the revised criminal code that the DCJL helped write was actually tough on crime. Then after a few posts they go back to their anti-incarceration spiel and accuse anyone who's worried about crime of being "an overly sensitive snowflake."

I have to take the fact that they're now trying to deceive people and trying to paint anti-incarceration politicians and polices as tough on crime policies means that they know their actual positions are now extremely unpopular with the citizens of D.C.

+1. It’s not easy seeing your progressive fantasies come crashing down around you.

I get Allen and Nadeau who were indoctrinated in the liberal universities and came of age under Obama. I don’t get Frumin. As the old expression goes, he’s old enough to know better.

He’s a very stupid man, which is why he hides behind others on the Council for all his opinions. He just picked the wrong ones who are the worst for Ward 3.

Could someone at least buy him a second sweater and second sports coat?