Get To Know Piers Morgan

READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.

Thank You

Thank you for watching "Piers Morgan Live" over the years. See below for your favorite memories from 2011-2014.
April 10th, 2013
10:17 PM ET

Carlee Soto on her sister, who died at Sandy Hook: "I picked out my own sister's casket, I picked out what my sister will be buried in"

On a day which saw a pair of U.S. senators from opposite sides of the aisle join forces in the spirit of forming a bipartisan deal to curtain gun violence, this evening "Piers Morgan Live" welcomed Carlee Soto for a heartbreaking, honest interview.

Carlee Soto's older sister Victoria perished as part of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012 and speaking live, surrounded by a studio audience, the late teacher's younger sibling described her personal experience in vivid detail:

"I'm 20 years old. My sister was 27 years old. I picked out my own sister's casket, I picked out what my sister will be buried in. I had to do that. No one should ever have to do that," said Soto, as tears welled in her eyes.

As politicians and activists alike descend upon Washington, D.C. Thursday, the topic of background checks for gun purchases will be heavily, and emotionally debated. Soto surmised that had anyone been in her position, such a question would be significantly less complicated:

"I stood at the barrier leading up to Sandy Hook, and for hours, just watching military personnel and police officers with these huge guns. And then finding out that he had one of these," Soto told Piers Morgan. "I didn't know that there was a difference, and the bullet hole that it would leave. I thought it was just a normal bullet hole, until I saw my sister's clothing that she wore. I saw the baseball-sized holes that were in my sister's clothes. They were huge. It was unbelievable to imagine that a normal person could just have this gun."

Watch the clip, and listen to the interview, as Soto reveals the emotions she felt when meeting some of the Sandy Hook students her sister helped save before she was murdered.
-
» Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Twitter
» Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Instagram

Post by:
Filed under: Guns in America
soundoff (59 Responses)
  1. Kevin

    Were the guns secured by the mother to ensure that the weapons would not wind up in the hands of an individual suspected of having a mental defect? Been waiting a hundred days for this question to be asked and answered!!!

    April 10, 2013 at 10:56 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mister Peebles

      That answer might not come right away, because whatever the story is, the fact remains that she didn't secure those weapons properly, period.

      Allowing a demented child free access to firearms, or improperly storing them, is nothing short of sheer stupidity and the highest level of irresponsibility. But that's what happens when people worship a weapon over commonsense.

      April 11, 2013 at 12:14 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Steve in mo

        I agree with your assessment of her. But don't assume all of us worship our weapons, not in my case. I worship my Lord, but I do treasure my liberty that He gave me.

        April 11, 2013 at 11:17 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Jana

    I'd like to send my respects after watching Carlee on your show. If she had a public email/contact please let me know.

    April 11, 2013 at 12:11 am | Report abuse | Reply
  3. Jason

    Bullets are not mentioned in the second amendment, but are necessary to use guns.
    The solution is banning the public sales of bullets and the ability to make your own bullets. All gun buyers should have another background check every time they buy one small box of bullets every quarter. Ban the production of bullets for weapons such as the M16. You are not telling people they cannot have an M-16 but there are no bullets for that gun being made or produced except for police and military purposes. All Bullets sales should be banned from public businesses and must be bought from the nearest police station. Treat bullets like prescription drugs, this way only stable normal people will have access to bullets. Eventually, bullets on the streets will become scarce and very expensive for criminals.

    April 11, 2013 at 12:24 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bryan

      M16s are illegal to the public and there are bolt action rifles that use the same round as ar15s
      So many of you people trying to talk so intelligently about guns and laws we should have don't even know the current laws or the differences between these guns

      April 11, 2013 at 12:34 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Mister Peebles

        So if most guns legal to the public are functionally equivalent, why not give everyone a six shooter and call it a day?

        Do you really think a 9mm handgun with 7 bullet clips is as effective as an AR-15 with 30 bullet magazines? Don't kid yourself.

        Had Lanza entered the school with a less efficient weapon, the body count would have been much different.

        April 11, 2013 at 12:45 am | Report abuse |
      • Tesla

        @Peebles:

        That's not quite the case. There are families of firearms that behave similarly. It usually is the round fired and barrel length that determine the ballistic properties of any given firearm. That's where the comparisons between the AR-15 and things like the Ruger Mini-14 come up, as each of these are semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles that fire the same round out of a similar length barrel using a similar action. A "six-shooter" is generally going to be chambered in pistol caliber ammunition (often magnum calibers for modern revolvers).

        Now, the question you asked regarding comparitive lethality: Versus unarmored targets, pistols are generally more lethal round for round, due to being a larger caliber with a slower moving projectile that expands more. Combine that with a much more natural hand-to-hand reload motion, and I think that the pistol in your example would have definitely been more dangerous that the rifle.

        So, had Lanza had a "less efficient" weapon, would more lives have been saved? Not likely. He could have entered with a break-open 12 gauge double barrel shotgun and been just as (if not more) lethal. He had 20 minutes before police response arrived, and in general only one or two people per room who could actually fight him. He didn't stop because he ran out of ammo, or he ran out of targets, or because the police stopped him. He stopped of his own accord; I'm not sure why, though I'm glad he did.

        Adam Lanza was a psychopath. You'd pretty much have to be to decide that stealing firearms, murdering your mother with them, then going into an elementary school and shooting first and second graders was a good idea. His mother should definitely have secured the weapons from him; but as stated, it wouldn't have mattered if it was a "assault weapon" or a basic double-barrel: without an active defense, a gun-free zone can become a killing field.

        April 11, 2013 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
      • frank

        What a dummy you are Bryan.

        April 17, 2013 at 10:06 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Mister Peebles

    Newtown is less than 30 minutes from my house. To say people were distraught would be an understatement. Their lives are destroyed. The state was horrified.

    It's easy to ignore the carnage when it's not happening near you and recite the same tired old refrains for allowing weapons to freely circulated in society.

    Ms. Soto was compelling and honest. Pick out a casket for your sister with baseball sized holes in her body, and you too will wonder why anyone on Earth thought an AR-15 was an essential component to American civil society.

    Guns are falling into the wrong hands. We are WE actually going to do about it?

    April 11, 2013 at 12:29 am | Report abuse | Reply
  5. Bryan

    There is no possible way an ar15 could ever leave baseball size holes. I hunt with mine all the time and have never seen anything near that.

    April 11, 2013 at 12:40 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mister Peebles

      Depends on the ammo you use and the distance you acquire your target. Kids at close range would do serious damage.

      April 11, 2013 at 12:43 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Bryan

        No matter what range, what ammo, or whatever the target you cannot make even close to a baseball size hole with an ar15

        April 11, 2013 at 12:52 am | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        .223 hollow point will do the job, unfortunately.

        April 11, 2013 at 1:06 am | Report abuse |
  6. DANA

    I have shot a coyote at 50 yds with a 270 hollow point and the exit wound you could have put a softball in and not touched the sides

    April 11, 2013 at 1:03 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bryan

      A 270 is a lot bigger and higher powered round than a .223

      April 11, 2013 at 1:16 am | Report abuse | Reply
  7. Mister Peebles

    An interesting, oft overlooked study reports that less than 2% of all gun owners actually defend themselves successfully during a crime.

    http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf

    So 98 out of 100 times, your gun will be useless. Even if it 90 out of 100 times, those are still poor odds. Hate to say it, but gun ownership doesn't make you invincible. In fact, gun owners are probably more of a liability than asset to the rest of us.

    April 11, 2013 at 1:13 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Sebastian Sutton

      I disagree. Guns protect lives.
      Here is my source. I’d like to think Wikipedia is more up to date and has examined more than one study, therefore has more credibility.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

      April 11, 2013 at 2:58 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Mister Peebles

        Not quite. YOUR source cites my figure as the low, Kleck as the high.

        Let's take the middle. Still not great odds. 95 out of 100 times your gun is useless?? Not good. Even if guns legitimately deterred crime 15% of the time, the risk they pose to society far outweighs the benefits.

        April 11, 2013 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sebastian Sutton

        How did you get to the conclusion “95 out of 100 times your gun is useless”??
        Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate that brandishing a weapon (and warning shots) was sufficient to stop an attack 92% of the time.

        April 11, 2013 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        You're not reading the statistics correctly. I said how often is a gun owner successful deterring crime? My source said 2% of the time. Wikipedia references that number as the "Hemmeway" result of 100,000 defensive gun uses, with the rest "false positives".

        So for argument we'll toss out Hemmeway (low) and Kleck (high), and take the middle, which is 250,000 – 370,000 defensive gun uses per year. Hemmeway's low resulted in 2% sucessfully defending themselves. The middle is 300,000 defending themselves, 3 times that of Hemmeway's 100,000 uses. 3 times as many gun owners defending themselves from Hemmeway's low is 3 x 2% = 6%, still not great odds.

        April 11, 2013 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sebastian Sutton

        This is what the Wikipedia says also.

        In 2002, he repeated the survey, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between “70 and 80 percent.” Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to “92 percent” when brandishing and warning shots are added together.

        April 11, 2013 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        The fundamental flaw with that statistic is that the gun owner had the weapon on them. So yes, if you're carrying a gun and approached, there's a good chance you can brandish it.

        My statement is that gun owners (with or without the weapon on them) are not significantly more likely to be successful defending themselves.

        Lott's et all statistic assumes the weapon is with the person, that they are not ambushed, disarmed, incapacitated, or otherwise inhibited from pulling their gun. Lott's statistic is much like a criminal announcing an attack and giving you 5 seconds to draw or submit.

        In reality, gun owners can be taken quite easily by surprise, at long range, etc. So merely owning a gun does not make you invincible.

        April 11, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sebastian Sutton

        That’s your opinion and not fact-based. Can you prove with credible facts and data that the above excerpt from Wikipedia is erroneous?

        April 11, 2013 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        It's fact and logic based. Lotts statistic is high because each and every gun owner in his survey had a CHANCE to pull their weapons.

        A gun owner WITHOUT his weapon can't possibly pull it in defense if attacked. They're not magic wands. Further, I repeat, Lott's statistic doesn't account for those who were taken by surprised, disarmed, or incapacitated at long range. In any of those scenarios, the gun owner in possession of his gun would not be successful because the criminal got the better of them. It's commonsense.

        April 11, 2013 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sebastian Sutton

        Sorry, no matter what you say, I believe Wikipedia instead of your words. Anyone can babble. You didn't give me convincing enough data.

        April 11, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        It's not babble at all, and have a look at Wikipedia again. You're choosing the high statistic with questionable analysis over the medium and low. Even the medium doesn't do much for guns.

        A gun owner who DOES NOT have his/her weapon can NOT defend themselves with their firearm, because it isn't there.

        A gun owner WITH a firearm who is disarmed, taken at long range, ambushed, drugged, or otherwise tricked IS NOT successful defending themselves in the vast majority of cases.

        Lott assumes criminals announce their intentions and give you a few seconds to fumble for your weapon. With those parameters, of course 94% of armed people can be successful, but again, his statistics are questioned by all sides.

        April 11, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sebastian Sutton

        I’m not only talking about Lott’s study, but Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's and the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey. Can you prove that they are all wrong?

        April 11, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        The Hemmeway study proves they are wrong, or at the very least, miscalculated. Again, read the "other social scientists" line that splits the difference. Their neutral numbers show guns to be ineffective.

        April 11, 2013 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sebastian Sutton

        with the verifiable facts and data, not just your words, please.

        April 11, 2013 at 2:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        Read the Hemmeway study again. That's verifiable and factual.

        April 11, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sebastian Sutton

        Cut and paste the relevant parts that proves the Wikipedia is wrong.

        April 11, 2013 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        CNN is not allowing me to post the info, but read here: http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf

        April 11, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sebastian Sutton

        oh yeah? Isn't that the same link you gave me before? Which part of the pdf debunk the Wikipedia?

        April 11, 2013 at 3:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        Read it, Page 1 details the absurd claims of Kleck and Gertz. The rest scientifically proves their data is questionable.

        April 11, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sebastian Sutton

        If you think what the Wikipedia says about “defensive gun uses” is wrong, you should send them an email and offer your argument. After they examine what you claim and change their article accordingly, I’ll believe you then.

        April 11, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Jim

    These comments are ridiculous. Many of us that served our country in war zones have seen the results of a .223/5.56 round and to say there were baseball size holes is crazy. Piers has done some great reporting in the past, but he has no clue about the AR-15 platform. I will never watch anything that promotes Piers Morgan and his socialist gun opinion again. Many of you people want us to use these very same weapons to protect you and your freedoms from others, yet you demonize these very same weapons when it fits within your agendas. Additional gun laws will only promote and enable the criminal element to prosper and victimize us without fear of educated and armed individuals of our great country. A criminal will never stand in line to complete a background check. Stupidity is running rampant in regards to the issues.

    April 11, 2013 at 3:32 am | Report abuse | Reply
  9. Nae

    This is a video that tries to prove a hunting shotgun, which our VP recommends us to have, is more destructive and lethal than an AR-15 rifle.

    http://www.military.com/video/guns/shotguns/shotguns-more-dangerous-than-ar-15s/2117567496001/

    April 11, 2013 at 3:40 am | Report abuse | Reply
  10. hippypink

    You see, here's the big question. 50 years ago, when more people owned guns, mass shootings were far less common, so perhaps the real problem is not in tools, but mass mental illness.

    Look at gun ownership in countries where they are illegal and incentives for crime/black-market are high. The bad guys have guns, and citizens dont. Also look at the mass illegal activities in this country that are successfully legislated by fear mongering. Background checks will do little to stop the committed criminal, and do little to instill confidence in members of a country who are already being over-regulated to a serious degree.

    As you said yourself, none of the recent mass shootings (which triggered this response), could have been prevented.

    Of course background checks are only useful for law abiding citizens. This is ultimately a question of government control over the citizen–the same factor that caused us to exit your country 200 years ago in the first place.

    HOWEVER, I think Americans would accept background checks if the data was never collected/monitored but govt. cant be trusted for obvious reasons (like the car recorder issues which will likely be used for taxing electric vehicles).

    April 11, 2013 at 4:16 am | Report abuse | Reply
  11. hippypink

    BTW, whoever manages your WordPress installation should fix the registration.

    April 11, 2013 at 4:18 am | Report abuse | Reply
  12. worldcares

    In my state, there have always been background checks. The Government needs to focus on illegal gunrunners, crack down on gangs and teach the people, who own guns, how to secure them so their children do not have access to them.
    I don't, foreshadow, our Government, imposing Martial Law.
    How many, with mental illness, have not been, clinically, diagnosed?

    April 11, 2013 at 5:26 am | Report abuse | Reply
  13. Paul

    I think watching Piers show, he said something along the lines of "this man committed this atrocity, mostly legally". What the hell was that? I can't believe how far the left media will go to ban guns. Piers, you should be ashamed of yourself. I feel for this girl and her family, but to imply it happened because of not having expanded background checks is ridiculous. Laws exist today and are not being enforced effectively. What he did was already illegal, but he did it!!!!! Why don't you have the same people on there and talk about how the lack of mental health support, the real issue.

    April 11, 2013 at 6:44 am | Report abuse | Reply
  14. Kym

    Whether you are for or against guns in general, most would agree that crimes involving weapons in this county have reached disgusting proportions. The background check is one way to try to eliminate potential problematic people from acquiring firearms. However, that system is too flawed to work. Your responsible gun owners already follow the rules in place and that works fine for them. The "problematic" people are the ones who obtain guns from gun shows and private owners which does not require the same background procedure. I also feel that we need to seriously consider banning all automatic weapons to the public. These weapons in general are used almost exclusively to kill other people. They serve no real purpose in our country other than that. I think the biggest problem facing the gun issue is the mental health of people obtaining weapons. This is a difficult thing to gauge at best. In fact, some of your most dastardly killers bought their guns legally and passed the background check. I wish that I had an answer, sometimes I just think it might be time to get rid of the problem itself...the guns. Other countries have done it and it has saved lives and worked within their societies. The time for change is now, I hope as a Nation we make the right decisions going forward.

    April 11, 2013 at 7:52 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tesla

      Just a couple of things:

      Violent crime, including violent crime involving a deadly weapon, has actually been steadily decreasing, and has been for the past 30 or so years. However, media coverage and inflammatory "news" programs have been increasing steadily during that same time.

      Automatic weapons are illegal to own without a class 3 license, which requires an extremely rigorous background check. Additionally, due to a law stating it has to be an American made weapon produced before 1986, the supply is limited, causing prices to swell. A legal purchase of an automatic weapon will cost $15,000 to $50,000, depending on the make, model, and condition of the weapon. Additionally, no crime has been commited with a legal automatic weapon for something like 50 years.

      Not one spree killing has been committed with an automatic weapon. Almost none of these killers has legally acquired their firearms; they were stolen or black-market purchased (I believe the VTech shooter may have acquired his legally). Automatic weapons are used in criminal activities, but are provided by arms smugglers and the international arms trade (or the U.S. government, in the case of the Mexican Zetas Cartel).

      Other countries have banned private firearm ownership, and have usually seen significant violent crime increases. The only countries that have not seen the violent crime increase are the ones working to set up a tyrannical government. Neither of these are attractive concepts to me.

      April 11, 2013 at 11:31 am | Report abuse | Reply
  15. larry

    carlee is the worst of the sandy hook acting troupe

    April 11, 2013 at 10:30 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Nicole Donohue

      Sandy Hook was not a hoax! Just look at the expressions on Carlee's face and listen to the emotion in her voice. She and her family have been going through hell for the the past four months. She is not an actress!

      April 11, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • larry

        anyone who knows anything about body language knows shes lying, look at the way she keeps glancing to the left. i have been researching this for months, ive seen every interview shes done, NOT ONE TEAR. even when shes pretending to sob. in fact i have not seen one single tear from anyone involved, on the contrary lots of smiles, just days after. watch the interview she gave with her mother, she buries her head in her mothers arm and sobs looks back up, totally dry, no red eyes, no swollen face. id be a mess if my dog died. james tracy is offering a money prize to anyone who can win a debate with him, if you are so sure hes full of it, should be easy money.

        April 11, 2013 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mister Peebles

      Larry is a pathetic troll, trying to sell books for that crackpot Florida professor who thinks it was all a play.

      Get a life. Take some meds. Read. Educate yourself. Better yet, find the secret government bunker where are the kids are and prove it to the world. I'll believe it when I see it.

      April 11, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Larry

        I'll believe it if I get a halfway coherent story that doesn't contradict itself at every turn

        April 11, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        1. Where are the dead kids?
        2. When will they reemerge?
        3. Who stood to benefit from this event? The Democrats haven't gotten any gun control passed, yet gun makers and sellers have posted record sales numbers. So far, the gun folks have made the most money on this catastrophe.
        4. Can you tell me what agency was used to hire the actors?
        5. Were the police, firefighters, and ambulances who responded in on it, too?
        6. Many people attended funerals in Newtown, and wakes. Whose body was in the casket?
        7. Who financed this operation? Again, gun makers have profited, Democrats and Liberals have nothing to show for their efforts. Could the NRA have hired Lanza to shoot all the children?
        8. Did law enforcement, whose reports were extremely short and factual, lie at any point in the investigation?

        If your beef is with media reports, complain about the media, however the facts speak for themselves and those kids and teachers aren't coming back.

        April 11, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • larry

        good question, where are the dead kids? if you think the story we have gotten thus far FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT has any coherence, if you dont have any questions and are satisfied with what youve heard you are a retard. you automatically believe the government version and ask me to disprove something that makes no sense. again, if you are so offended by the great amaerican tradition of questioning, take up prof tracy on his offer. same goes for piers morgan.

        April 11, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mister Peebles

        I'm not offended about asking questions, people ask questions all the time.

        However, your response to my question was obfuscation and confusion. I asked where the dead kids are, and you asked the same, and then questioned the government's version of the story.

        Ok, one question at a time. Where are the dead kids? If you know the truth, then the government's story is questionable. Enlighten me. If the kids are inside some bunker west of Washington D.C., prove it.

        You can't say the kids aren't buried in the Newtown cemetery because you question how the government communicated with you. You're confusing issues.

        April 11, 2013 at 9:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • KC

      Screw you, Larry. Did you have your friend die? No. Did you have to go to her wake? No. I did.

      April 13, 2013 at 7:59 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  16. Mike Mentges

    Piers why must you insist on pushing the gun control effort by spreading false information. NO ASSAULT WEAPONS were used in the sandy hook shooting. Every gun found INSIDE the school was a PISTOL not an Assault Rifle. Stop spreading liberal agenda! You are a poor excuse of a human and you have no say in AMERICAN POLICY. CNN Should be ashamed to host you as a journalist. You are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the liberal and new world order agenda. Shame on you and anyone that believes your lies!

    April 11, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  17. larry

    http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/04/09/the-1000-challenge/

    April 11, 2013 at 9:39 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  18. oneluvsurfer

    As I feel much empathy for Ms. Soto and what this has done to her and her family, where is the size of the hole carry any validity? I mean if it's a pin sized whole or a grenade explosion, gone is still gone and it's still the same ending. All the hole size does is play to emotions. The reality is, the people who own guns, and they have kids too, want to see something done but they will not support things that are just emotional band aids to a problem. I don't know where the mental health side was lost in all of this and you can demonize us all you want but when you really think that magazines are like bullets and going to be used up, you already lost. If you want to have a real conversation to find a real solution, we are here to help.

    April 15, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  19. stunned

    The Soto family does not release what they make from the 5K race they claim is for the legacy of their family member. The biggest sham going, the only ones who make money are the living family and all the "directors" on their non profit CT listing. Just disgusting, donors for the claimed "5K" should ask, what percent actually goes to a teaching scholarship?
    It should be 100%, since they all stand to receive millions in sympathy money from around the world. What a pathetic family. All those millions should be returned.

    December 11, 2014 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.