Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin Trial Day 19, Hunter Biden Laptop New Details, Police Shoot K9 Unit

April 07, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Day 19, Hunter Biden Laptop New Details, Police Shoot K9 Unit
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Day 19, Hunter Biden Laptop New Details, Police Shoot K9 Unit
Apr 07, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Prosecutors present several additional witnesses detailing proper police procedure in Minneapolis. Hunter Biden is interview over the weekend and discusses drug use and future plans through his new book. Police officers shoot their own K9 unit and then use social media to crowdfund support. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Government calls more police officers in the Prosecution of Derek Chauvin.​

• Morries Hall, the person in the car with George Floyd, invokes the Fifth Amendment today in court through his public defender.​

• Judge Peter Cahill will rule on the issues after defense lawyer Eric Nelson presents his intended line of questioning to the court.​

• Hunter Biden discusses the mystery laptop that appeared and disappeared over the election.​

• More details revealed about Hunter Biden after interview over the weekend.​

• Hunter Biden’s new memoir ‘Beautiful Things’ discusses struggles with crack cocaine.​

• The Intercept reports that Cops crowdfunded their K-9’s hospital bills to save him after shooting.​

• Police fail to acknowledge that they actually shot the dog during a high-speed chase.​

• K9 Arlo captured social media attention as people rallied around to support his recover.​

• As always, your questions and live Locals.com chat after the news!​

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

CLUBHOUSE AFTER PARTY DISCUSSION:​

• No Clubhouse today!​

• Join the Club: https://www.joinclubhouse.com/club/watching-the-watcher​

Connect with us:​

• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​

• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq​

• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​

• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​

• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​

• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​

• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

Don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB​

Other tips? Send to [email protected] or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.​

#WatchingtheWatchers #DerekChauvin #ChauvinTrial #GeorgeFloyd #HunterBiden #BidenLaptop #K9 #Police #OIS #OfficerInvolvedShooting #PoliceShooting #ManDown #MansBestFriend

Show Notes Transcript

Prosecutors present several additional witnesses detailing proper police procedure in Minneapolis. Hunter Biden is interview over the weekend and discusses drug use and future plans through his new book. Police officers shoot their own K9 unit and then use social media to crowdfund support. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Government calls more police officers in the Prosecution of Derek Chauvin.​

• Morries Hall, the person in the car with George Floyd, invokes the Fifth Amendment today in court through his public defender.​

• Judge Peter Cahill will rule on the issues after defense lawyer Eric Nelson presents his intended line of questioning to the court.​

• Hunter Biden discusses the mystery laptop that appeared and disappeared over the election.​

• More details revealed about Hunter Biden after interview over the weekend.​

• Hunter Biden’s new memoir ‘Beautiful Things’ discusses struggles with crack cocaine.​

• The Intercept reports that Cops crowdfunded their K-9’s hospital bills to save him after shooting.​

• Police fail to acknowledge that they actually shot the dog during a high-speed chase.​

• K9 Arlo captured social media attention as people rallied around to support his recover.​

• As always, your questions and live Locals.com chat after the news!​

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

CLUBHOUSE AFTER PARTY DISCUSSION:​

• No Clubhouse today!​

• Join the Club: https://www.joinclubhouse.com/club/watching-the-watcher​

Connect with us:​

• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​

• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq​

• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​

• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​

• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​

• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​

• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

Don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB​

Other tips? Send to [email protected] or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.​

#WatchingtheWatchers #DerekChauvin #ChauvinTrial #GeorgeFloyd #HunterBiden #BidenLaptop #K9 #Police #OIS #OfficerInvolvedShooting #PoliceShooting #ManDown #MansBestFriend

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and I to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. And so that's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system, with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are with us today. We've got a lot to get into, and we're going to have to move a little bit quickly today. If you don't remember, Tuesdays are my short shows. So I gotta be out of here in a short, a quick hour and a half. So we may be a little bit short on some of the questions. Just want to throw that out there as a little bit of a word of warning, but we do have a lot to talk about because today is day 19 of the Derrick Shovan trial. The government had a lot of witnesses that they called out today. Most of it was centered around training and whether or not the Minneapolis police department had certain policies and protocols in place. And whether Derek Shovan violated those things by doing what he did during the incident with George Floyd. So we're going to break that down and we've got a lot to get through. So we're going to move quickly on that. And then we're going to change gears. There was a leftover from this weekend that we did not talk about and we cannot let it go without mentioning , of course, I'm talking about Hunter Biden. There's an interview that he conducted very recently more information about that mysterious laptop that the mainstream media buried prior to November 3rd, all of this is now sort of percolating bubbling up as we expected it to. And so we want to comment on that because he is the president son and that's kind of important position for somebody to be in, especially if they are a liability for national security purposes or whatever. So we're going to talk about Hunter Biden. And then lastly, we've got to talk about this bizarre story, but the intercept is reporting that there were some police officers who were crowdfunding to save their canine dog man's best friend. One of their officers who of course just happens to be a dog, got injured, was actually shot, needed some medical care and needed some treatment . So the cops went on the internet, raised a bunch of funds to support this dog and rally support, but it turns out guess who shot the dog though ? Cops did. So that's a fun story. And we're going to have to definitely get into that one. Now, as we go through quick reminder, before we get into the material, you can support the show by going over to a locals.com . We have a community over there it's called watching the Watchers go figure. And if you go to locals.com and search for the watching the Watchers community, you'll find it and you can support the program, but you can also download a copy of the slides that I'm about to go through as well as ask questions. So feel free to go on over there, watching the watchers.locals.com . And again, we'll be a little bit limited on the questions today. Maybe depends how quickly we go. So I'll try to move quickly so we can get to a lot of them. And so let's get started the big news of the day. Of course, Derek Shovan is in trial still. It's just getting started really. And he's at day 19. And there were a little bit of a interesting fireworks taking place this morning, as it related to this other individual who thus far has been kind of under the radar, but it was the other guy who was in the car with George Floyd when this whole thing was unfolding back on May 25th of 2020, and this gentleman's name is Maurice hall. And so his attorney was in court today. And , uh, well, let's take a look at the trial board as is usual. This is what it looks like now. So we've got the usual suspects here. We had , uh , uh , some activity today from Mr [inaudible] and Mr. Frank. And we also saw of course, Mr. Nelson there, but we saw two new faces come into court. One is Morrie's hall. You'll see him up here at the top, right? And that is a screenshot. That's what he looked like. Now, my understanding is he's still in custody. And so they brought him civilian clothes. So he suited up in a suit and tie. We've got an image of him here in a little bit, but we also have the public defender who was there in court today. And so she was arguing on behalf of Maurice hall, basically saying that we're invoking the fifth amendment and he's not going to be testifying about anything. So we're going to explain what happened there. We also got to take a look at the other witnesses who were called in today. Remember that the government is still presenting their case in chief. So we're still sort of on this side of the board. And today they called in several other people. We have a crisis trainer who came into court. We have another crisis trainer or a use of force , uh , Minneapolis PD trainer. So maybe not necessarily crisis, but he's very familiar with use of force protocols. We also have this , uh , woman here. She is not a crisis trainer. She is a regular police officer who has some involvement with some of the medical roles. And we have this gentleman who is a use of force expert, who actually came over from LAPD and testified about some use of force stuff. Yesterday. You may notice that we did not get to this woman who was an inspector and also somebody who , uh , testified a bit yesterday. And we just didn't talk anything about, about her, but I think I wanted to cover just a quick clip from her because it's sort of the theme that we saw today. So as I said at the start of the show, a lot of today was all about training policies and procedures. And the , the sort of the overall framework here is that the government wanted to say that this is very, very specifically prohibited. This is not allowed. What we saw Derek Shovan do to George Floyd was way outside the bounds of possibility. And so they want to sort of parade in a bunch of their witnesses to come in and support that claim. So you're going to see this person inspector, her name is Marie Blackwell. We're going to see another crisis trainer, another trainer, another officer, all just kind of coming in and going. I have no idea what that's, that was outrageous, a neck, neck restraint. That's not even , uh, even in the, in the realm of anything that's even feasibly possible under our policies and protocols. And so that they're really trying to be very clear on that. Then Eric Nelson comes back out and he tries to open that up a little bit. Well, but isn't it don't you have 30,000 pages of documents. And isn't it true that the , that in certain situations, when there are external factors that maybe they can hold that. And so, you know, there are exceptions to all rules as is usual,

Speaker 2:

And he's just sort of poking those, making sure yeah .

Speaker 1:

That they're aware and exploiting those. And so I wanted to just start with Ms. Blackwell from yesterday, because it was part of the same theme that we saw roll in today. And so the way that we're going to structure this analysis today is we're going to hear from Ms. Blackwell, then we're going to hear from Mr. Merce Mursal I think is his name and they're both. And Mr. Yang, actually, they're all sort of making the same argument that I just outlined that this is so outside the bounds, it's not even feasible. It's not even anything that would even be possible. That would be allowed part of the Minneapolis police

Speaker 2:

Department and Mr. Nelson kind of rebuts a lot of the same claims. All right .

Speaker 1:

The same cross examination . So we're going to just take a couple clips from the trainers, from the government witnesses. Then we're just going to go through and look at Mr. Nelson, the defense lawyer, his response only to one witness. Cause he kind of takes care of all of the arguments with one cross examination. So just to flush out a little bit about where we're going today, that's what it looks like. So this is Marie Blackwell

Speaker 2:

And she is part of the mini

Speaker 1:

Apolis police department. Let me tell you a little bit about her quickly. So on she is the inspector of the fifth precinct. She was , uh , she received her assignment on January 31st of this year, previously, she was a commander. This is why she's testifying here previously. She was the commander of the training division, where she was promoted to that position. Back in 2019, she was promoted to as to a Lieutenant position. And then when she became a Lieutenant that's when she was involved in the training and the academies, and she's actually known Derek Shovan for about 20 years. And she was actually , uh , Shovan was actually a field training officer at one point for a limited amount of time. And she goes through and she says, this is so important that we keep records of this. And we keep, we keep documentation about what all of these officers do, what training they received. So that if there's a problem, we can go back and say, Oh yeah, Derek Shovan took training on this particular day. And then they keep records about what the training entailed. And so they can sort of know more or less what the officers that were trained on. We do the same thing in law. We have to take what are called CLS, continuing legal education have to do a certain number of hours every year. And so we got to go in and sign the form and get our certificate. Make sure we actually sit there, keep our notes. If the state bar wants to come and audit us, we got to provide it all. This is the training we got. This is proof I was there. And so a lot of industries have very similar things. This is nothing that is outside of the ordinary, but this woman is responsible or was back when she was the commander for the training division for maintaining a lot of these logs and records. And so what the government did, the prosecution, they CA they basically did that. They just ran through some of the records, you'll see here. It says continuing education credits. So they're calling them CEC's we call our CLS and, you know , everybody calls them CES, whatever. So it's just something that they're keeping records on. And you'll notice here. It says 2020 annual service training program, phase one, we've got some dates on there March 10th, 2020. Those dates are sort of right before the stuff with Floyd happened . And so they're going through some of these records. We also see this other clip that was introduced part of exhibit two 75, which says that on 1130 of 2018, there was an eight hour training session that it looks like Derek Shovan attended. So we'll see that there we've got his badge number agency division assignment. And what are they learning defensive tactics as taught in Academy. They're also learning patrol ops as taught in Academy. And so they spent a lot of the time today, or this was yesterday, but this, most of the theme today was all about this stuff, training and protocols and policies and procedures and use of force and excessive force and reasonableness and blah, blah, blah. So this is Ms. Blackwell yesterday now sort of buttoning all of this up. All right . So we've gone through the documents. We've gone through the records, we've gone through all of your experience. We know you've been all over the place here have been with the forest for 20 something years. What's your conclusion. And so Steve Schleicher is now asking her what it is. And here she is communicating

Speaker 3:

Like to show you what's been received as exhibit

Speaker 1:

Content warning on this work . We're about to see Floyd .

Speaker 3:

Did they ask you officer, as you look at exhibit 17, is this a trained technique that's uh , by the Minneapolis police department, when you were , uh , overseeing the training unit, it does not. And why not? A use of force? According to policy has to be consistent with MPD training and what we train our neck restraints, the conscious and unconscious neck restraint. So per policy , uh , a neck restraint is the pressing one or both sides of the neck using an arm or leg. But what we train is using a one arm or two arm to do a neck restraint. And how does this differ? I don't know what kind of improvised position that is. So this is not what we train. Alright , take that down. Thank you. I have no further questions.

Speaker 1:

All right. So it drops right there, right? And a pretty good way to drop the mic on the way out. I don't know what that is. I dunno , what kind of improvise, whatever BS nonsense thing that is that Derek's doing, but we've never trained that . And so, again, we're not going to go into the cross-examination on this because Eric, Nelson's going to sort of address all of these in one. And we have three clips from him. So for the sake of balance, we're going to move on. Now that was yesterday. And again, the same theme was , was taking place today. But before we got into that, we had to talk about Maurice hall, who was the passenger, who was in the vehicle with George Floyd. And so this was him in today. Does look like he is still in custody. He's in a nice suit and tie a hair, nice and Cohen and got some nice glasses on. But this to me back here looks like a jail facility certainly looks like he's still in custody. He just got suited up. And then he zoomed in. So the public defender is this woman. And she was invoking on his behalf. She was basically saying, he's not going to come in and testify. And so it was, it was kind of an interesting little exchange this morning. The judge is kind of like, well, I don't know. I don't care. What does everybody say? Uh , do he's invoking. Okay, great. So the public defender comes out. This woman, she comes out and says , uh, your honor, FYI representing

Speaker 2:

We're invoking everything. We're not talking about anything because anything he says

Speaker 1:

Be self-incrimination. And so judge Cahill kind of looks at it. He's like

Speaker 2:

Everything, like literally everything, because

Speaker 1:

It seems like I should be able to call him in here and ask him questions. And if it doesn't specifically incriminate himself, then he should be able to answer that question. Like, for example, what if we called him into court and said, Hey, what's your opinion on the weather on May 25th? What was your, what was the , how was the weather that day? And he goes , uh , well, it was a ,

Speaker 2:

You know, kind of sunny , uh , gonna

Speaker 1:

Get gloomy real soon, but it was, you know, it was a nice little windy , uh , didn't need a jacket. Is that incriminating material? Well, you can decide this woman would have said. Yeah, absolutely. It is. In fact, because it put him in the proximity. So the judge was sort of trying to tease this out a little bit and said, well, what if , uh, what if we just asked him questions about w uh , what , what they were talking

Speaker 2:

About in the car? Not about drugs,

Speaker 1:

Not about giving him a pill, not about , uh, you know, selling drugs previously, nothing that would lead to evidence of criminality. What if they would just ask some general questions? And she said, no, Oh gosh, no, no. Cause that's going to put him in the car, right? That's going to put him in close proximity to this thing. And as far as she's concerned, he was not there. He wasn't even in the zip code or the area code or the state. In fact, she doesn't even know who this guy is, who is this guy on the zoom camera back there? I don't even know who he is. He's totally innocent. This whole thing's blown out of proportion. So he will not be testifying. She's doing a good defense attorney thing, right? No talking, no talking. And the judge tried to needle her a little bit and say, well, certainly. I mean, if we asked them about the weather, I mean, he didn't use that example, but something similar, you know, if we asked him about the weather, he would be able to come in and talk about that, right?

Speaker 2:

She's like, no, no, no, not talking at all. Sorry, because it's

Speaker 1:

Close proximity. And so now that was her perspective. The judge then says, all right, Mr. Nelson, what do you , uh, what's your take on this? What do you, I mean, if we called him, are you going to ask him questions that are incriminating? And he's like, yes, we're going to ask him everything. We're going to ask him about where he was, where he got the drugs, what he gave to Floyd, what he was talking about with Floyd, what he did after the fact, Oh, he also threw something apparently over a gate. We're going to ask him about that too.

Speaker 2:

We're going to ask them about everything we can think of

Speaker 1:

Because they want to make him the culprit. Right? They want to make him responsible for Floyd's death for being a drug dealer. Somebody giving him drugs that were overly laced with fentanyl or whatever the theory of their case will be. When we hear that. Now the judge, obviously it was like, okay, well, all that's going to be very incriminating. So we can't, we're not going to ask those questions. Then he goes, all right, well, this is turning into a little bit of a circus. All right , government, what do you say, prosecutors? So they come back out and now they say, well, judge, the only thing we want here is a fair trial. That's all they want a fair trial. So they want just to make sure that this whole thing doesn't go off the rails. And if we bring this person in Maurice hall and he gets to invoke his right against self-incrimination well, then we're going to be having to explain that to the jurors. The jurors are going to hear that we have this line of questioning going and something, you know , suddenly a question comes out and the attorney has to object and he has to invoke his right against self-incrimination. The jurors are going to be sitting there going, what the heck is going on here? They just put them on the stand. And now he's not answering any questions. So there's going to be this big gap that exists that they're going to be missing. And you know, maybe they fill it in with a not guilty verdict. So the government does not want that. They want to make sure that this whole thing is just moving along as is judge ultimately is going to weights . He's going to ask Mr. Nelson to present a series of questions that he intends to ask of Maurice hall. And then they're going to flesh that out. So very interesting morning, from a procedural perspective, we'll see where it goes, but it is in the realm of possibility that he testifies or is at least put on the stand. We'll see where this goes. Now we're going to fly through a couple of witnesses. This was Mr. Yang. Mr. Yang was somebody who was part of the crisis training division. So sort of interfaces with civilians who also work in mental health and it coordinates with them. Basically, if there's a situation like a George Floyd situation, apparently there some division, somebody is , is thinking about how to respond to these things. Even though they did it in that time, he's somebody who communicates about these issues. And so he was a training coordinator and he testified today, nothing. In my opinion, really stood out too much. To me. He spent a lot of time walking us through this critical decision-making model. If you've been listening to the trial, we haven't been speaking much about this on this channel, but they are talking about it a lot. The reason why is because it's sort of, you know, this is one of these things , it's a , it's a nice chart and it gives us some guidance and it gives us a process and it gives us a framework, but it's so broad and generic that it's one of these models that you can kind of, I think, argue any which way you want to. It's sort of like a horoscope, right? Nobody reads a horoscope and says that just does not fit me at all. Everybody goes, Oh yeah, that kind of makes sense. I do get angry when people make me angry, that's weird. It's Oh, they get me. I'm such an Aries or whatever. You know, people do that. And they , everything is like, explain it. They can explain almost anything through, through these models. Same thing here. So you're going through here. Okay. A threat risk assessment authority to act. And so police are going to justify this one way or the other. They're going to say, well, on my interpretation, I thought I could do this while based on what we saw in the video, based on my interpretation. No, I didn't think we could do this. And so we're talking about the difference between subjective interpretations and objective interpretations. And it's a very difficult thing to sort of navigate in the law. So what they're doing is Mr. Yan gave us some guidance on this, walking us through how this works, and then everybody's going to come and sort of lay down their opinion using this model as an interpretive tool. So we have this next guy who is Johnny Mursal . So he oversees a big portion and he's , he's, he's involved in Minneapolis, PDs use of force. And so he comes out, he's giving us some testimony today. We're going to start with, I believe this is the prosecutor. Let's, let's make sure this is the prosecutor first. Then Mr. Nelson comes back out. I think we have three clips from Nelson. He is sort of , uh , walking this back step by step . And it's, it's a pretty nice job. I think of what he does just progressively with small iterations, working back the policy declarations that were made during the direct exam. So the government's asking questions, he's making all of these big, broad, broad blanket sort of conclusions and statements about how things are. And then Nelson is slowly just sort of whittling that away as he goes forward. So let's take a look at this clip. Uh , this is the gentlemen , this is Lieutenant Johnny Mursal and this is what he looks like. And you can see , uh, he did not seem to that interested to be there in one man's opinion. You know, some people sort of have some energy and enthusiasm. He's just kind of pained on every question. It's like, Oh yeah, I'll answer that too. Oh, you want me to answer that one too? I'm going to answer that too. So here he is, the prosecutor is examining him and this is his conclusion before we jump into the cross-examination . And again, we're not going to spend a lot of time on, on this , uh, this, this theme, because we already have, we seen a lot of this type of repetition. There's a , there's certain policies and procedures that exist claim is Shovan didn't follow them. And this is sort of the third person now who is making the same arguments . So we're gonna kind of move through this one quickly, but here he is today,

Speaker 3:

Sir, is this an MPD trained neck restraint? No, sir. Has it ever been not to my neck restraint? No, sir. Never. Is this a MPD authorized, a restraint technique, a neon , the neck would be something that does happen and you support that isn't unauthorized. And under what circumstances would that be authorized? How long can you do that? I don't know if there's a timeframe. It would depend on the circumstance at the time, which would include weight , the type of resistance you're getting from the subject that you're putting in the end . Right . And so if there was , uh , say for example , uh, the subject was under control and handcuffed, would this be authorized? I would say no would

Speaker 1:

Not be authorized. And that's the end of that clip. So , uh , they kind of use him to get some pretty good unequivocal statements out, right? It's Nope. Never seen that. Definitely not a neck restraint, essentially never been trained that way, but he does sort of couch that just a little bit. He says, well, there are certain situations when the neck might get involved in certain use of force situations and the prosecutor says, Oh, tell me under what circumstances. Good, sir. And he returns and says, well, if the , the sort of the relative use of force justifies it, then it might be justified. But if it doesn't, then it's not justified in this case while w Floyd was in handcuffs on the ground with three people on his back. So what's your opinion on that? No, absolutely not justified. And as we heard, right, kind of unequivocal just flat out. Nope. Never not approved, never seen it, never done anything like that. Now Nelson comes back out and so let's, let's flush this out again. Right? We saw the , uh , Ms . Blackwell, we saw Mr. Yang use the , the , the different models. These are different police officers who were part of the same department, one after the other coming out, laying out some pretty, pretty clear, consistent blanket statements. So what Nelson needs to do is then sort of unravel that a little bit, and he starts in this next clip where he's talking about fairness, where he's talking about whether or not it's okay to hold people until the scene is safe. And this is a big, this is a big, a big question that I think a lot of jurors will have in their minds is if, if Floyd is dying, literally right under their knees under their bodies, why did they not help? Why did they not move? Why did they not move his body around or started administering a CPR or anything to that effect? And th th the explanation largely we knew this was going this direction anyways, was we needed to secure the scene. Police have different priorities. They've got priorities to collect evidence, right? They've got priorities to preserve life. They've got priorities , uh, to, to administer CPR and provide medical assistance. But they also have duties to themselves to get home. At night. They also have duties to their colleagues. They also have duties to random civilians, and they don't want to let a scene spiral out of control. So the theory speculating here was that the defense would come out and say that they needed to secure the scene before they did anything positive for George Floyd. And this is where we're starting to see that come out. So now you're gonna hear Nelson say, well, isn't there some training or some context or some circumstances where it would in fact be appropriate to hold somebody and not immediately administer aid. Here he is on that clip.

Speaker 4:

It's it's, this is already in , in , uh , evidence, but in this bottom corner here, do you see a photo? So that was the wrong clip . Fair to say that the Minneapolis police department would train officers under certain circumstances to hold a person in a prone position until the scene is safe. Correct. There are circumstances where that is appropriate. Yes. And some of those would, could be the reaction of bystanders, correct. That may be a factor. Yes. It could include where you are physically located in terms of a geographical area, correct? Yes. Right. Um, where you are in terms of other hazards that may present themselves to an officer or to the suspect, right? Yes, sir. Being in a busy street in the middle of a busy street versus being in a park or a yard or something. Yes, sir.

Speaker 1:

Right. So yes . So yes. We get a bunch of yeses from him. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. So there are certain circumstances where this might actually be appropriate. What circumstances? Oh, like if there's a crowd who's getting ornery around you, screaming at you, yelling at people, yelling at your direction, saying I'm going to beat you. I'm going to, I'm going to do these things to you, which we've already heard from the government's own witnesses at the beginning of this trial, when we were dealing with more of the civilian witnesses. So we know that that was going on. We also have you heard him say, how about geography? How about this, the specific location where you happen to be like, I don't know, on the side of the road, in the middle of the road, they weren't even on the curb. They were sort of on the other side of the police vehicle because Floyd had come out the other end. And so he was almost in the middle of the road. And so you can see what he's doing. He's saying , how about all of these other factors? We just heard you say that. No, not ever possible, not even, you know , not can't even imagine any circumstance, but there are certain factors that if you are an officer at the scene is going to be Nelson's argument. Maybe those lead you to a different conclusion. And it's, it's, it's, if it's a different conclusion, that's not murder, that's a policy interpretation. We did something a little bit differently by the own guidelines that are enacted throughout Minneapolis. We were following the rules. Somebody died, you interpret the rules differently than I did. You weren't there. I was. That's reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jurors. I would, I would think would be Nelson's argument. So here is another clip from Mr. Marcel says that training , uh, that, that there actually is some knee in the back and neck area. This is a clip where I think they're looking at a training module. So Mr. Nelson actually went through all of their documents. He asked Maria Blackwell previously about , uh , the , I , I guess they got a search warrant to go into the Minneapolis police department and just get copies of all of their training documents. And so Nelson mentioned earlier yesterday that there was something like 30,000 documents that were in his possession. So presumably him and his team, they went through and they found this little clip that shows well officers in uniform doing training. And you notice that there's a knee on somebody's neck. So he's asking him about this. Now we just heard never, it's not even, you know, can't even what that is. Maria Blackwell said never even seen that before. Right. Don't know what kind of improvised little maneuver that was. And then here he is now saying, actually, there's a picture of it in one of our manuals.

Speaker 4:

It's it's, this is already in , uh , in , uh, evidence, but in this bottom corner here, do you , do you see a photograph of an individual demonstrating how to handcuff a person? Yes, sir. And that knee is across the neck of that individual, correct? Than he is on his far shoulder, across the neck , the base of the neck, the Shannon would be from his toes up to the knee. Yes . The shin is across the back of the neck. So that's, when we're talking about prone handcuffing, this is a specific kind of photograph that demonstrates the placement of a need as it applies to prone handcuffing, correct? Correct. And ultimately if that person were to be handcuffed and circumstances dictated, the officer would be permitted to continue to hold his knee in that same position. Agreed. Um , I would say , uh, yes. Uh, however, we've cautioned officers that be mindful of the neck area and to look for the shoulder for placement. Perfect. We can take this.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So what he's doing here, what Nelson's trying to do is just say, yep . There are certain circumstances and you may have watched that and you said, well, yeah, but that net need does look like it's on his shoulder. It doesn't really doesn't look like it's on the neck. Right. We're going to get there in a minute. But the point here is that you're seeing very similar maneuvering between bodies, what we saw in that image, not that far off from what we saw on the Floyd situation. And so it it's close. And so if you're a jury, you're going, wait a minute. That's okay. But that's murder. So like six inches in one direction on the patella where , where the knee cap is, if that's just like half of a foot over one direction, that's murder, but this is an approved policy. What , that's kind of strange because what if, what if Shovan now just didn't perform the maneuver correctly? Is that intentional murder? Is that gross negligence or is that just kind of regular negligence? Is that a deprived mind or is that just, he just is an idiot and he doesn't know how to use D to do a proper, you know , restraint on somebody. That's not a murder charge, right. Is , is where this is going. But the difference here, at least from that visual is of course, in that image, that person wasn't in handcuffs, that person had his arm up. And so somebody was leveraging the arm. I used to do some mixed martial arts. I wrestled all four years in high school and then did MMA , uh , at a, at a club here at ASU. And so I'm pretty familiar with how to maneuver the body around and I'd love grappling. And so a lot of this looks familiar to me. So, you know, you have different leverage points when you hold somebody's arm up, when the , when and where their arms are behind their back. And you've got your full weight of your body on their neck or even their back. And so you're sort of talking about different, but the point is it's not outside the realm of possibility. And so thus far, what we've been hearing from the government is that , I mean, there's anything like closely related between the knee and the neck, like in that general vicinity is a big no-no, but then Nelson just pops up, shows an image from their own training manuals. And it looks kind of similar to what we saw with George Floyd. And so this is just the , the sort of opening conversation in this next clip. We're going to actually see that by this officer's own sort of acknowledgement that there is one way to interpret where in fact Eric Chauvin's knee was actually, was it on the neck? Was it across the shoulder blades? Was the shin across the back of the neck with the knee, the patella, the kneecap on the shoulder blade or more in the middle of the back. What, all right , let's take a listen here . What Mr. Mursal has to say. Now we've got two clips, we've got two clips from two different angles. And so what he's doing, he's actually Nelson actually pulled the, some still frames from the officer's body camera footage showing different angles. And you may have seen this. I think we talked about this yesterday, camera perception bias and how the officer , uh, the , the police chief himself was even having a difficult time understanding where the knee was from that testimony that we had yesterday. And so this is another one to corroborate that here it is from Mr. Mursal .

Speaker 4:

Let me show you what has been introduced as exhibit 56 already. And you see that, sir? Yes, sir. It appears to be the , uh , what appears to be the paramedic checking the carotid pulse of Mr. Floyd. Yes, sir. In your experience, this is already admitted as exhibit 56 in your experience, would you be able to touch the carotid artery if the knee was placed on the carotid artery? No, sir. Big point right there. Can you just generally take a look at that? Yes, sir. Now, in terms of , uh , do you recognize that this appears to be a still photograph taken from a body-worn camera of one of the involved officers? There's a timestamp on it that indicates May 25th, 2020 at 20 2332 desert . And can you see , um, two officers in this area here holding Mr . Flood? Yes, sir. And here, does that appear to be the placement of one officer's me ? Yes, sir. Does that appear to be across the shoulder blade, to the base of the neck, the chapters of the process all the way. And I don't know if I can tell you what I would offer 10 45, 10 45 mission to publish. All right , here we go. So what we're seeing here again, this is at eight 23 and 32 seconds direct . Yes, sir. And obviously this is taken from one of the body cameras and here you can see , uh, down in that the light placement of the officer, correct? Yes, sir. And based on your observation of this photograph, it appears that the shin is coming from the top of the shoulder across the shoulder blade, correct? Yes, sir. And it appears to be at an angle pointed imports , the squad car , correct ? Yes, sir. All right . We can take this down, your honor.

Speaker 1:

All right . So it looks like the shins going across the back looks like it's going in towards the back of the vehicle and he's going to play, he's going to show us another clip on this. And so you're , you're starting to hear this guy go. Yeah, that's kind of does look like it's across the back. Kind of does look like it's across the shoulder. Maybe it's coming across and they talked about his , uh, his traps and things like that , uh, earlier on. And so this is sort of honing in on this. Where was it? Well it's, is it on the neck or was it kind of coming across the back over the shoulder, across the shoulder blade, back towards the police vehicle, and that's only the placement of the knee. You also heard him say earlier that there was the carotid artery that, that the medic who showed up right there was able to feel. And if they're able to feel it well, that means they had access to it. So it wasn't being blocked by Chauvin's knees. So show and Z wasn't actually on that sort of really dangerous spot that exists in your neck. It was elsewhere as evidenced by the fact that somebody showed up and put their fingers in the hand right there where they're claiming his knee was. So he's, he's being very, very specific about this, moving the knee around, like literally by inches, showing that in some circumstances, there's even pictures of this in the police manuals in their own documents, then we have one more clip. So they're showing him a different camera, a different body camera angle. That's a little bit higher up. So we get more of an angle looking down and then you're going to hear him again, sort of confirming what this looks like. And here is Mr. Marsal from the second angle.

Speaker 4:

So again, it's a little hard to see in this particular photograph, but if we look in this general area here, correct, you attend, you can see , uh , the placement of the knee. Correct? I can see the general area of the placement of the yes. And again, here we have what appears to be the shin coming over the top of Mr. Floyd's shoulder blade. That's what it appears. So , and that would be angled in towards the squad car, correct? Correct.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So you can see that right here. Like, this is Chauvin's me for framing this out. That's the knee, and this is short , this, like, this is where the patella would be. And this list looks like it's kind of right in the middle of Floyd's back. And the angle looks like it's going this direction back towards the car, rather than this direction and down going over the side of his neck and he's observing the same thing and looking at it and going, yeah. You know, it's kind of hard to tell. I don't know . It kind of looks like it, it looks like the shin knee. I'm not real sure where it's at, but the jury is now this isn't, this is an exhibit. So they're going to be able to look at it , look at this thing. Where was the knee? And is this this okay? Is acceptable policy, but

Speaker 2:

This is murder. They're going to have to ask that question, answer that question. That's a good question.

Speaker 1:

Next up, we have Nicole McKenzie. So she was a PA , she is a police officer. She's a medical support coordinator. She also administered the Narcan program. Narcan of course, is that , uh , it's a, it's a drug that basically reduces the toxicity. If somebody is having an opioid overdose and saves their lives. And so she got brought in today to testify. Didn't clip much from her. Let's get a quick update over from the star Tribune afternoon, testimony started with her. She is a medical support coordinator and the first aid educator of officers , she helped the prosecution make two points. Number one, that cardiopulmonary resuscitation. So CPR can be started while waiting for paramedics to arrive. And that talking doesn't contradict someone's contention that they can't breathe. Right. And so , uh , kind of, I would say some obvious points on that, but obviously number one, they're always going to be saying, and we talked about this actually last night on clubhouse, but there's, there's a, there's a difference of in priorities, right? There are going to be medical doctors and medical people like the firewoman, who , uh, Genevieve Hanson came in, right? Her, her number one priority,

Speaker 2:

Save George Floyd, save his life because she's a firefighter

Speaker 1:

She's trained to save people. That's what her, that's what she does. Okay . Other people, if you're a tort lawyer, a civil lawyer, you might go there and say, this is a civil lawsuit. I'm watching a civil lawsuit happening right now. Right. Different people see what their expertise will show them. And so, you know , the , the difference is between paramedics and police officers. So a paramedic or somebody who works in medicine may say, Oh yeah, obviously number one priority would have been to flip Floyd over, start giving him CPR, save his life for cops . Unlike this, this woman who has a different perspective, they're saying, no, we're on the side of the road. Number one thing for us to do is to protect the scene, preserve our life. Then we'll get

Speaker 2:

Medical treatment later down the road.

Speaker 1:

And this was backed up by the medical people who actually showed up on scene, right? They even, they didn't assess the situation and say, now's a good time for us to do CPR. On the side of the road, we picked them up and picked up, Floyd went around the corner, hooked them up to the CPR machine, started doing the chest compressions. And because we knew ourselves that it wasn't safe there. So her testimony, you know , I think is , is , is largely inconsequential for those reasons. I don't think it really fits with the other people's testimony. And she also talks about, I can't breathe as being contradictory. So, you know, there was, there was one statement that said that Shovan said specifically, or somebody said, if you're talking, you can breathe. And so she came out to sort of rebut that. So,

Speaker 2:

You know, it's, it's,

Speaker 1:

It's fine testimony. I just didn't think it was particularly consequential. So we're not going to spend too much time on it. Let's just finish this article. Mackenzie acknowledged under questioning from Nelson, that police officers should ensure that the scene is safe before rendering aid. This is a theme that the defense attorney has visited numerous times since his opening statement. Last week, he also asked whether agonal breathing or involuntary gas sometimes made by people under cardiac arrest could be confused with breathing. And she confirmed that as well. She also agreed that the chaotic scenes can contribute to a first responders ability to provide aid. So a lot of, a lot of sort of opinion testimony going back and forth, nothing I think was particularly moving the needle one way or the other. So we'll move past her. Then the last person of the day is , uh , Jodi Steiger, who is a Los Angeles police department use of force expert. They have something like 9,000 officers over there. So , uh , presumably this guy deals with a lot of that while they are the LAPD after all. So he is probably pretty well versed in some of this stuff. And they brought him in as an expert witness today. So the government flew him out. He kind of joked in court. I am on vacation, right? This is not his normal day job. He's out there testifying as an expert witness. And so he was in court today. This is what this gentleman looks like. And you know, I , I gotta be honest, I would say less impressed with his testimony than I, than I would've otherwise expected. He was kind of, kind of meandering a little bit. It kind of felt a little nervous to me and I'm not real sure how effective it was because he didn't seem, as you speaking, like you had a real command of the information in front of him , you can be the judge for him , for yourself. Maybe I am wrong on that. But , uh, but for somebody with, I think as much gravitas as they would expect from him, it sounded, he sounded a little bit unsure of himself in my , in my opinion. But here he is, he is talking about the conclusion , his final conclusion about use of force. And actually he's not done testifying, so he's going to be called back in tomorrow morning. And so we're going to hear more from him tomorrow. And I think Eric Nelson will , will still be up for cross examination , but I'm not even sure that the government has finished their direct exam. So here is Steve prosecutors Schleicher who is asking questions now of Steiger.

Speaker 3:

Were you able to make any kind of assessment in this case as to whether or not Mr. Floyd was offering resistance or trying to evade law enforcement officers? Yes. And what was your assessment? Uh, initially , uh, when , um , Mr. Floyd was being placed in the backseat of the vehicle , um, he was actively resisting the officers. So , uh, at that point, the officers were justified in utilizing force to try to have him , uh, comply with their commands into a seat , him in the backseat of the vehicle. Um, however, once he was , uh , placed in the prone position on the ground, he , uh, uh, slowly sleets his resistance. And at that point , uh, the officers , uh, uh, ex officers, I should say , uh, they should have , uh , slowed down or stopped their they're to as well.

Speaker 1:

All right. So you see what kind of , uh , uh, you know, they should , uh , they kind of should have stopped there for us as well. It's like, all right . Uh, that's, that's all well, and good. So that's his testimony. He'll be back tomorrow. I think that the government's gonna finish up there with their direct exam, and then we will see the defense attorney come back out and then we'll see a rehabilitation. So we'll see more from him. And I'm sure he'll , uh, he'll, he'll, he'll be ready to rock and roll tomorrow. So let's take a look at some questions over from a local's dot com. I'm queuing up the questions as we speak right now, in fact. And so let's take a look at LT one three. So these are over from locals.com says LT. 13 says, why does it sound like Mr. Hall is only going to maybe answer a few questions and not have to go up and plead the fifth in front of the jury? So , uh, I'm , I'm not, I'm not sure I interpreted it that way. I think that the judge was asking Nelson for a series of questions that he would be , uh, proposing to ask Mr. Hall. And depending on the nature of those questions , uh, some may be allowed in some may not be allowed in front of the jury so that if the answer is yes, that you can ask this series of questions, because it doesn't incriminate him. It gives us valuable relevant information in the trial, but it doesn't increment

Speaker 2:

In a Mr. Hall. They'll allow those .

Speaker 1:

The questions in front of the jury is how I interpreted it , uh , because the jury needs to hear it, right? Th this is a trial it's for them. They're the fact finders. So they need to hear from Mr. Hall if he doesn't, if he testifies in, in outside of the presence of the jury or what the hell good is that doesn't do anybody any good. So we'll see. I think the judge is going to try to rule on that tomorrow. We have deep state says, what is the likelihood of being called into testify for witnesses on the witness list are certain types of witnesses, medical use of force, more likely to be called in before the end of the trial and totality. What percentages of witness witnesses on a list usually get called? It's a really good question. Deep state. And it's really hard to answer here just because this trial is so unusual. You know, most trials are not like this most trials, the likelihood of your witness showing up is very high, like very high, right? Because most of the time when we have trials, it's just like five witnesses. If it's a DUI case, usually it's five, maybe, maybe four, sometimes three, they're all showing up. No question about that, but this is a

Speaker 2:

Much bigger, bigger show, right? Yeah .

Speaker 1:

And , uh, you know, typically defendants are, or witnesses against defendants will show up. That's the

Speaker 2:

General rule because you need them all in this

Speaker 1:

Conversation we're having, and we're already seeing some cumulative evidence, right? We're seeing some people come out, even the day, testifying about some of the same themes that are almost even a little bit duplicative. Yes. You have policies. Yes. We know the police department's official position on this story is that Shovan was in violation of their policies and you have nothing even remotely resembling that. Got it. That's your position. We got it. We don't need to hear about it from 50 other officers. And so anybody else who's already on that list that is, that is close to being made to make that point. They're not going to get called, I would guess, but they might be on a hot standby for now until this part of the trial is over. And so, you know, you kind of have your witnesses and you know, what you need them to do, sort of like if you ever play a card game or that UNO game member UNO, right. And you get the cars , you throw the cards down and, you know , whatever that card was and you go, yeah, and you win the game and you reverse the order. And all the people with the green cards get penalized or whatever. I forget how to play it, but that's the point, right? You know what your witnesses, you know, who they are, you knew what , you know, where they come from and you know how to use them and when to play them. And so it right now, you know, I think I heard

Speaker 2:

Anecdotally that there were three to 500 witnesses in this case.

Speaker 1:

So obviously we're not going to get to all of them. And so it's just sort of the prosecutor's tactical determination about who to call and when to call them. So it , it it's, it's ver this is a unique case. So it's hard to draw any generalities from this case. Deep state also says to the extent that hall made inculpatory statements to police or investigators already, can those still be admitted despite the fifth amendment invocation. Now it seems highly relevant to Mr. Chauvin's defense of hall already indicated to the police that Floyd took a handful of pills when police showed up to the scene. No. So because, so, so those things would be, would be hearsay, right? Those are out of court statements

Speaker 2:

That would be made to prove the truth of the matter that is being asserted. So

Speaker 1:

In this case, what we have are allegations, or , or the question is why do you want the witness to come into court? And what purpose are they testifying for? You w you have to ask yourself that question. So Shovan, I think both people subpoenaed Maurice hall now Shovan and his side, they want him in to come in and talk about all that right . Gave the drugs to Floyd. Floyd's responsible. I was responsible for giving the drugs over to him. Okay .

Speaker 2:

And that would necessarily extrapolate to the cause of death, which is ,

Speaker 1:

Is a critical issue in this trial. And so, yes, that statement would lead towards, towards giving the jury information about whether to assess

Speaker 2:

Killed Floyd, which is the main point of this trial.

Speaker 1:

So , uh, so, so that just statement that's floating out there that that hall made

Speaker 2:

To the police it's considered

Speaker 1:

Hearsay. And I don't think the judge would allow that in which is why the defense wants to get him in so that they can ask him about it. So that , so that he can be cross-examined now, so they can get around some of the hearsay rules news. Now Wyoming says any guesses on how the judge will rule on Mr. Hall, would him admitting he was even present in the car be self-incriminating . So I don't think so. Right. I don't think that mere presence. So look, it depends. It depends on, on what angle you take. So, so generally speaking, I think that if you're a reasonable person, just the mere presence of existing alone does not incriminate you. If you put on the defense attorney hat. Yes. It absolutely incriminates you. Right. Just the fact that he was in the car, I would never tell my client, well, we're just going to say that you were in the car. How about,

Speaker 2:

No, you weren't near the bank. You weren't in the getaway car. You don't even know

Speaker 1:

Dollar bill . It looks like you had nothing to do with anything about that bank, Wells Fargo, what bank of him ? Wake of what never even heard of it. Right. You're not even anywhere near it. And so if you put the defense attorney hat on, that's what that looks like. But from a judge's perspective, is that really enough to incriminate him? No. So we got to think sort of from the judge's perspective. And honestly, I think that this judge, he might allow some questions come in because he is being selective about allowing some other questions to come in as it related to Floyd's 2019 prior . So the judge is being very, very granular with stuff. He's not just sort of making blanket exclusions or admissions, he's saying, well, what questions are you going to ask? Those are good. Those are not good. So those can come in those can't. So we'll see. I think that the judge might actually be inclined to let him come in and testify geek dumb says, why will the prosecution not give him immunity if they are so sure Shovan killed phentenol Floyd. So , um, they are , they're not sure is the question. That's the answer. They're not so sure about this. And so they don't want to give him immunity when he's going to hurt their case. I think that's it. I think that's about as simple as it gets, we got spoil us as Hall's attorney mentioned that he was not being offered immunity, who has the ability to give the immunity the prosecution does because they are the ones who charge crimes. Hall's testimony obviously is more likely to help the defense is the state the only side that can offer this. Yeah. So yes. Yeah. I mean, the judge can't compel the government to give him immunity. They got a pretty nice card on this one. Don't they not bad. We have justice. First says, Robert, have you heard of conditioned compensatory response? And do you think Chauvin's defense might bring it up if Mr. Floyd ingested drugs outside the normal setting, time and place, even the same , same type and quantity, he could have been more sensitive even to the point of fatality risk because his body would not have had the chance to Mount its typical compensatory physiological response to blunt the effects. It's a great question, justice first, and a welcome, by the way, I just saw you signed up welcome to the , to the community. We're glad you're here. And the way to start off with a great question. So this is something that , that kind of came up it's closely related in trial today, but they were talking about this specifically with Mr. [inaudible] , the guy that we played several clips from today, and the conversation was really about, are there other factors that may make it more difficult to deal with somebody who was in a situation like Floyd was namely, will they black out, will they lose consciousness? And how quickly are there different factors that might impact how that process goes? And he said, yeah, yeah. If you have your adrenaline flowing through your blood's pumping, you're not getting enough oxygen. And so you will start to hyperventilate and you'll pass out just from hyperventilating, essentially. So if your adrenaline is flowing, like, I don't know if you're being arrested by cops and you're having a panic attack. Yeah. That's going to get your adrenaline flowing. You're going to heart's heart is going to be beating faster and you're not going to be able to maintain consciousness. What else? Well, drugs, right? What if you have drugs in your body, your body then has some sort of response. Now combined with the adrenaline now combined with, you know, COVID remnants. Now you've got the, the physical response that you have by being sort of in an altercation with four different officers, all of these things compound on one another and they got to be accounted for. And maybe it's that domino effect, that cascade of consequences that resulted in death,

Speaker 2:

Not the knee . So Nelson was really

Speaker 1:

Trying to extract that today. Good question. And good to see you. Justice. We got Joe Snow says, can you just come right out and take a position on Shovan I'm super torn in this case? No, I can't sorry, but we'll, we'll see where this thing goes. Look, here's the thing I'm really trying not to politicize this case at all. And I really don't want to cause I , I really don't. I , I really wants more than anything, a fair

Speaker 2:

Trial, more than anything, and

Speaker 1:

Do my part to sort of be even keeled on this thing. And I don't want people to watch going, Oh, he's being too biased. I know that's going to happen anyways, but I'm trying to make a very level headed . Let's try to give equal time. I'm not, I'm not claiming to be unbiased. Okay. I'm a defense lawyer. This case is a little bit unique because the defendant is a cop. Well, not a huge fan of generally

Speaker 2:

Speaking, right? So

Speaker 1:

It's a complicated case for me. I have a little bit of a internal turmoil, contradictory tension, but we'll sort through it. The point is we want to make sure that we have a fair trial. We , we learn a little bit about the justice system. We are able to, to I think, argue and interpret it from both sides.

Speaker 2:

And we'll just let the system play out. Good question though, Joe ,

Speaker 1:

We have another one from sliding edge. It says, does it matter that the witness said police then corrected by saying former police? Wasn't there a directive to limit use of words like officer and victim, just wondering from sliding edge, there was an agreement about that. They did talk about, I think using first,

Speaker 2:

I think using

Speaker 1:

Formal names, right? Mr. Shovan , Mr. Floyd. That's what they were, they were talking about. And that's the , the judges general rule. But if nobody's calling it out, so whoever I don't, I don't remember who said that if the, if it's the prosecution asking that of a witness and the defense says, objection, you know, whatever, they're , they're using improper names. The judge might say, okay,

Speaker 2:

Sustained. But you need to go in and use proper names. Judge might technically rule in their favor on that, but that might look kind of petty to the jurors. So those types of maneuvers

Speaker 1:

Are just kind of tactical. You know, you've got to pick your battles. There's not, there's some things you want to fight and die on that Hill. There's other things you just kind of let go. So next up last one on this segment we got, Jason Seagal says, could Chauvin's hand in pocket indicate he might be applying more downward force with his arm. Could show bins , hand in pocket indicate he might be applying more downward force with his arm. Um, I'm not, I'm not so sure that I could see that. I mean, you know, versus I would say like bracing himself on anything to distribute that weight more evenly. We certainly didn't see that. And if you keep your weight sort of closer to your center of gravity, you know, it's like, if you want to like , like, think about the alternative, like, think about if you're Derek and you want to kill somebody with your knee. Maybe some people think he wanted to do that, that he set out to do that. I don't know, but let's say you wanted to do that. Right? How would you maneuver your body in order to maximize the amount of pressure that you're squeezing into your knee cap onto somebody, one point you want to focal points . And so how do you do that? Well, you kind of center your gravity a little bit and you make sure that you just kind of adjust your center of weight over a vertical ACCE . So it's all going right down on the back of the pressure of your knee. So you could argue that, you know, hands in pocket, you know, not leaning other directions, it may have contributed to more pressure, but I'm not real sure how consequential that would be. Is it going to be, you know, 10 pounds of pressure versus a hundred pounds of pressure or 10 versus 11? I don't know. So very good questions over from locals.com. If you want to support the show, that's the place to do it. It said watching the watchers.locals.com great questions today. Thank you so much for those really enjoyed those. All right. And so let's change gears a little bit and motor through our next two segments, Hunter Biden is back in the news. Of course, we talked about him before the election kind of raised a little bit of a stink about it because this story was swept under the rug for political reasons. I think that's pretty obvious. Well, now it's coming back out into the public eye. Of course, after the damage has already been done, of course, after his, his father is now the president. Now the public relations, the buckle , can we call it that this thing's a mess. Let's take a look at this article. This is from the New York post. As Hunter Biden finally admits the laptop at the center of the post expos a could certainly belong to him. So this was posted a few days ago, back on April 2nd, Hunter Biden has finally fessed up that the laptop at the center of the post explosive expo last year certainly could belong to him. He revealed in an interview on Friday, he sat down with CBS Sunday morning, the same CBS who ran 60 minutes against Ron DeSantis said president Biden's embattled son was pointedly asked. Yes or no. If the Mac book pro that was dropped off at the computer repair shop in 2019 was in fact his, and here's what he said. I really don't know what the answer is. That's the truthful answer before adding. I have no idea. Okay. But ask certainly whether it could have belonged to him, he replied certainly, certainly there could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me. It could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me. He continued Hunter Biden made the rare media parents while promoting his new memoir, beautiful things out on April six at gallery books , uh, with the imprint of Simon and Schuster. So this is , uh, what we're talking about now. Hunter Biden opens up about his family intervention and addresses the laptop reports. Let's take a look at this

Speaker 5:

Specifically. Talk about your laptop. Yeah. Was that your laptop for real? I don't know. I know. I really don't know. Okay . No , yes or no. If the laptop was the idea, I've no idea whether it would have been yours. Of course, certainly it , there could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me. There could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me. And you didn't drop off a laptop now you repaired. No Delaware. Not that I remember at all at all. So we'll see.

Speaker 1:

Oh , all right . So we'll see. So it could have been, it could have been space aliens. It could have been anything, you know, whatever, and she just kind of lets it go. All right. So you didn't drop anything off. I have no idea. I don't know. Now that might be actually be true. I mean, to be fair to the guy , uh , it sounds like he was on a lot of drugs for a long period of time and he actually is communicating about that. And so, as I said earlier, when we were talking about Hunter Biden, I have a very strong kinship with people who are in recovery, who are active in recovery, who used to be addicts who are still addicts, but who are recovered addicts because they are working a program and they're trying to improve their lives. So I would love to give that same benefit of the doubt to Hunter Biden. And so I don't want to skewer him too much about some of this stuff. For that reason, there's sort of a special, you know, a special relationship. People who really are getting sober and improving their lives, they should be applauded, not ridiculed, but this guy got some serious, serious benefits that many other people in this country do not get. Vis-a-vis the fact that he is Joe Biden's son. Other people in this country would be in prison for a lot of the same things that this guy's responsible for. And this guy was engaged in all sorts of malfeasance around this country. We have documented evidence about it. It was all swept under the rug prior to the election. And now he's back now trying to clean it up. There's a public relations thing going on. He's got a new memoir. What did he do? And the media just covers for it. Here he is. Here's another clip. Hunter Biden opens up about family intervention and addresses the laptop reports.

Speaker 6:

John's got older, their paths diverged Bo was a war veteran and Delaware attorney general with his sights set on higher office. But Hunter who was kicked out of the Navy reserve after failing a drug test grappled with substance abuse for years and after Beau died of brain cancer. In 2015, Hunter says he was binge drinking vodka so heavily that his father intervened.

Speaker 5:

He came to my apartment one time. And this was when he was still in office and as vice-president . And so he kind of ditched his secret service, figured out a way to get over to the house. And I said, what are you doing here? I said, honey, what are you doing? I sit down, I'm fine. He said, you're not fine.

Speaker 6:

He sought , and God help in rehab. But in time he fell off the wagon and deeper into the abyss, you would wake up.

Speaker 1:

All right . So we know, we know the story. We know you. What, all right , what they're trying to do here is his book, Hunter Biden, beautiful things, a memoir. So he says he was smoking crack every 15 minutes, more draw dropping moments from a memoir, beautiful things, Hunter, by incentive the president and has had his fair share of ugly things. Drug and alcohol addiction set of spiraling for years led him to cook his own crack cocaine, right? People are in prison for the rest of their lives for that. But he seen a lot of beautiful things too . Namely the love he shares with his brother, Beau who died in 2015, he wrote all of it in his new memoir, candid Chronicle of drug and alcohol fueled binges relationship with Beau's widow, Holly Biden. They're sure to shock, but don't let the tabloid fodder fool you Biden is found love again with his new wife, Melissa, whom he credits for getting him back to the winding path to sobriety. All right . All right . Hunter talks, trauma and addiction. Why I feel the way I do? I would not have, I would have , I would not have survived. He says by and relapse , he had three bloody Marys on a plane in 2010 father joined Obama's campaign ticket in 2008, he has to up end his career because of his lobbying work says it would be a conflict of interest, huge expenses, no savings. I now had to bust my blank to build another career from scratch. Poor,

Speaker 2:

Poor, poor, poor, poor

Speaker 1:

Hunter Biden. After Biden's death, Bo's death, everything Biden did for the next four years resulted in stumbling and sliding than racing downhill. I was drowning myself in alcohol. I understand that. Well , I do understand that. I understand what losing a brother feels like. It's not a fun thing. And I had a very similar experience. I was also self-medicating so I can empathize with that. My real problem with this whole story, it's really nothing about Hunter Biden. You know, he's not an elected official, he's in very close proximity. We know that he has been sort of milking grifting off of his father's father's presence in the executive branch for a long period of time. Not to mention when he was in the Senate, we had Tony, Bobby Alinsky came out. We had Hunter. I think Jim Biden's involved, whole families involved. And the media, the thing that really irks me about this story is the coverage for this. They just covered the whole thing up. And now it's all coming to light. All part of, wow, this is very inspirational. What a, what a great guy. He's now out. He's now on , on this path to sobriety. Good for him. I hope he is sober. And I genuinely mean that, but this was a political sweeping under the rug. And now they're coming back out to do the post election,

Speaker 2:

Which is just obvious. It's just

Speaker 1:

Obvious it's reprehensible, but it's just so obvious. So we just want to call that out. All right. So enough of that story, these media stories of the worst. All right, we've got a couple of quick questions then we're gonna wrap it up. We've got , uh , want to know says, would you let him talk if you were his lawyer? Uh, if you are the president son. Yeah. You can talk about whatever you want because you're basically immune at that point in time. And if he were charged, Joe Biden can just pardon him. But no, I mean, generally the answer is no, you do not talk about that stuff. We have Liberty or death says beautiful things. My journey from the crack head to barista, to sleeping with my brother's widow. How the rollercoaster of my life may or may not have effected me by Hunter.

Speaker 2:

How much money did he get for this? For this little memoir? Huh? There are people sitting in prison for

Speaker 1:

The same stuff that that guy did. He's in the white house, flying around on air force, one, writing books and memoirs and doing stories. I don't know about the laptop. Hey man. They're like pictures of you and your genitals all over the internet as a direct result of that laptop. So kind of looks like a yours. You don't, you can't give us any clarifying information on

Speaker 2:

That there, buddy. All right.

Speaker 1:

So that's Hunter Biden. All right . Let's wrap this show up on this lovely Tuesday. So our next,

Speaker 2:

The story is about man's best friend. There was a canine currently as a canine named Arlo from the Thurston

Speaker 1:

County Sheriff's department. Now our

Speaker 2:

Lo got shot. Arlo's a dog

Speaker 1:

Is a canine . He's a German shepherd, beautiful young dog.

Speaker 2:

And in the wake of that

Speaker 1:

Tragedy, in the midst of this horror, the police department said we got to support our dog. We have to go out there and crowdsource and raise some funds to get him through this traumatic intimacy .

Speaker 2:

Last time they did that. But it turns out, even though the

Speaker 1:

Internet was responding with open arms and a lot of love and charity

Speaker 2:

Turns out the police

Speaker 1:

Actually shut the dog themselves. So this is a good one. This is over from the intercept. Cops crowdfunded , their canines hospital bills. Then quietly admitted. They had shot him. This is over from the intercept.com posted yesterday, says police canine and tick talks are, gets life saving surgery at OSU after he was shot twice, read one headline from ABC news in

Speaker 2:

Oregon, this January, they

Speaker 1:

Said Thurston County, sheriff canine , Arlo back home after undergoing surgery in Oregon. Right now the police dog and an armed driver are in the hospital after a police chase and shooting overnight in Thurston County. That was back on January 14th. The state patrol says one of its troopers shot the driver. The driver shot at canine named

Speaker 2:

Arlo . Say the day

Speaker 1:

After the incident, they said that the , uh , Fox news reported the Sheriff's office set a suspect.

Speaker 2:

No, I'm sorry. Let's read this again because I just botched that right now, police dog, and an armed driver in a hospital. Como news

Speaker 1:

Reporters told reporters after January 14th, the state patrol says one of his troopers shot the driver. The driver shot a canine named Arlo. The Sheriff's office had a suspect exchange gunfire with officers injuring the suspect canine Arlo on scene. That story that it canine was shot in the line of duty in Thurston County made waves in local news for weeks and even got national attention. All the elements of a field . Good news story. Police apprehended, a suspect in a high-speed chase. He pointed a gun at them and their dog had been injured in the altercation, but not to worry. The community is saving the canine Arlo. The only the gun wielded by the suspect that had that some had suggested shot Arlo didn't contain any bullets. No shell casings from his weapon were found at the scene. The only bullets that were fired came from the police Thurston County Sheriff's are low back home after undergoing surgery. So the police canine and the tick-tock star finally gets life-saving surgery at OSU after he was shot twice, that was posted back on January 21st police dog underwent multiple surgeries over the weekend to remove a bullet near his spine. Poor guy, the dog was shot twice while on the job and immediately transported to emergency care. Not only did the bullet go through part of the shoulder joint and some nerves, but also shattered some of the six vertebrae bullet, miss some critical structures. If they were hit , he could have bled to death. He's unlucky, but lucky he's in recovery. And he starting to try to walk without assistance. So here is a little clip from that from new KOMO news over at ABC

Speaker 7:

Right now, a police dog and an armed driver are in the hospital after a police chase and shooting overnight in Thurston County, deputies and state troopers were following a 25 year old man along I five into grand mound where the shooting happened. They haven't said what prompted the chase. Initially the state patrol says, one of its troopers shot the driver. The driver shot a canine officer named our low trooper , say both are low and the driver have serious, but survivable wounds. It's not clear exactly what happened in the moments right before that.

Speaker 1:

All right . So that's, that's the news report. And then shortly thereafter, we get this little update over from the sheriff we have here on March , uh , I'm sorry. January 27th, weekly press release over from Mason County. Sheriff's office says for the past week, we've been finishing up interviews, booking the suspect in the jail compiling reports. As many of you have seen our low is back home and on his road to recovery at this time, based on the evidence from the scene to include input car patrol video, we believe that canine Arlo's injuries were sustained by friendly fire. Oh, no suspect ultimately was booked as Victor Hugo or teas Bucci release from the hospital. So he's still alive. Burke booked into Thurston County jail on four counts of assault and attempting to allude . So we have a prosecutor named John Tunheim has asked him to conduct an independent review of the officer's use of force. So that's good. We'll be taking a look at that. Once the independent investigation is completed, it will be referred to the Mason County prosecution's office, no estimated timeline on the completion. So that's interesting, right? So they come back out now a few days, few days later. So this was on January 27th. The original story was back about a week earlier and they're actually going to be doing an investigation into it. So that's interesting. The report on the I five shooting says that he was in fact hit by friendly fire from local law enforcement new report sheds light on the details, the Olympian who , uh, the name of the

Speaker 2:

Newspaper

Speaker 1:

Obtained a report from the sheriff, which led the investigation

Speaker 2:

Into the shooting. So here's what they

Speaker 1:

Found. Five Thurston County deputies, and one Washington state patrol trooper reportedly fired on Ortiz Boucher.

Speaker 2:

On January 13th,

Speaker 1:

There was a high speed chase. Our low was also shot two times a go-fund me was organized by the Thurston County deputy Sheriff's foundation. They raised $73,000 for the dog, which had to undergo surgery. Following the shooting. The description for the fundraiser did not disclose that Arlo's injuries were the result of friendly fire or indicate what the money would be used for. That's a lot of money. I mean, aren't these dog don't they have health insurance,

Speaker 2:

Like seriously don't these dogs have insurance. They're very expensive assets for the government. So

Speaker 1:

I would imagine they have health insurance and other insurance. So where's that 73 grand going. If the dog has insurance, a description of the video evidence with the view of Ortiz Boucher notes, he stepped out of the vehicle and pointed his weapon at law enforcement. However, only shots from law enforcement are noted in the incident description. By that point Arlo's story had taken a life on its own 73,000 for medical bills, his social media following on Tik Tik Tik TOK went up to 2.5 million Instagram to 130,000. Arlo's handler a deputy with the Sheriff's office together with another canine handler. And ex-cop started a website called Barlow nation, a business for law enforcement officers and others to buy affordable quality equipment. So they're all grifting on the back of this poor dog

Speaker 2:

That they shot. Uh,

Speaker 1:

No such efforts were being made to support the recovery of the suspect who was hospitalized after being shot. At least three times by police and later told a nurse he was contemplating suicide.

Speaker 2:

It was the worst. Uh ,

Speaker 1:

This poor guy, I should not be laughing. This is just terrible. So, so our low gets kids 2.5 million Tik TOK viewers, and 73 grand. The poor guy who got shot three times, they're doing a use of force investigation into it, whether they should have just opened fire on this guy , uh, he's contemplating suicide just got out of the hospital. What a country, the Thurston County, deputy sheriff foundation, which raised 73,000 for Arlo's care, also raises money for the canine program. The nonprofit is not maintained by Thurston County. They said in an email statement. So the program is almost entirely paid for through donations and the sheriff office pays for medical insurance for each

Speaker 2:

Dog. They own, he wrote, there you go. That

Speaker 1:

Answers that question. The funds from the foundation have not yet been spent. They will be used to offset any non-covered expenses. They wrote. The foundation will make a decision regarding any unspent funds. And you can look here, Ms . Faith went and found this guy. So canine Arlo, 2.5 million, and we've got Barlow nation over here. So some, some cop is just making a lot of money off of this selling affordable quality equipment. Good, good job. We also have over here on Twitter official canine Arlo, 129,000 viral nation, 8,700. And then here's the clip from, from 73,000. Not to mention all of the swag. You got to have swag. When you're running a real high level, grift off a dog that you shot yourself, then you want to make sure you make some, some t-shirts that's over it. Yet. Thurston County police continued to arrive, right? A wave of public interest that followed the friendly fire incident. As of at least mid March two months after the incident, they were still selling merchandise with the dogs photo, and they even partnered with a local graphic design shop that agreed to give $1 from every sale to fund the canine unit. So that's good.

Speaker 8:

It's all right. Look, it's a good idea.

Speaker 1:

That's a good idea. If you shoot your own dog, it's a pretty sympathetic thing. As long as the public doesn't know that canine Tik TOK star earns the PA of course ,

Speaker 8:

Uh , ward . Oh no,

Speaker 1:

You're kidding me. So he gets an award for it. One of the K9 stars, a tick doc's got the 20, 21 AKC PA of courage award.

Speaker 8:

Yeah .

Speaker 1:

All right . Uh, he was given because of his heroic service in the line of being shot by the owned by the police departments. The American kennel club says it's given in appreciation for dogs of work in the service of humankind. I won't disagree with that. They are a definitely serving humanity by having to work with these people. He is two years old, mid twenties, dog years, German shepherd honored his human partner. Deputy turbine also has gained 2.5 million followers on Tik TOK. So that's the guy who's doing it , uh, as a way to raise money for his care, at least 40 grand in veterinary bills. Uh, he's now out of the hospital. So medical medical insurance will pay for that. And then they've got another windfall of something like 73 grand, just shining example of dedication, selfishness, and loyalty that working dogs exhibit in the line of duty. He risked his life each and every day, trying to Dodge bullets from his own police department, which is just, just great. All right , what else do we have going on here? Let's let's wrap this up. We've got a couple of quick slides to get through. The six officers involved in the incident were put on administrative leave. Yeah, cause they just opened up and just started firing fire . And towards their dog, they found 22 deadly use of force incidents over the last first six months of last year, we got some comments here. The CIT declined to participate in a study. According to the report, law enforcement deputies fired at the suspect for seven seconds hitting him multiple times after the suspect was taken to a hospital, nurse told him that it was her understanding that he had shot the canine. The suspect later told the investigators that the gun wasn't functional, January 27th, they admit that they actually shot him. The officers have returned to duty dog's injuries required tens of thousands in surgery and medical bills. The handler documented his recovery process on social media. According to the incident report and published an Instagram post, claiming our lowest shot by a suspect that has since been deleted. Mason County made multiple requests of them that Arlo's handler be instructed to stop using social media to comment on the case while it's being investigated. According to the incident report, which is here. So here we now have it and anything good here. Let's take a look. So this is what it looks like. Mason County Sheriff's office, March 31st, 2021. So it just came out recently. He says we got a supplemental incident narrative on January 13th at 2115 hours. I was contacted by phone critical incident. Other members I was assigned with the, you gotta be kidding me. I was assigned along with detective drug mooned, almost like dog drug. Oh, it's the simulation is winking at us to respond the Thurston County Sheriff's office in Tumwater to photograph and collect uniforms and equipment. I assisted Drockman with photographing and collecting uniforms and equipment. I went back over contacted Victor in room two 16 graves was president Miranda warnings. He said that he tried to commit suicide by cop one question about why he said, cause I don't want to live anymore because of the I've done said the guy. So he's, he's just struggling later in the conversation. He further disclosed that he had something and somebody and somebody all blanked out. Victor advised of his plan to commit suicide by cops and described, taking an old gun and a pistol down here. He says after there were a bunch of police vehicles behind him, he decided to pull over and place the gun from his vehicle in his center console into his jacket pocket. Victor advised as he exited, exited the truck. And when the cops told him to put his hands up, Victor pulled the gun out of his pocket, aimed at the police and force them to shoot him. He advised that the gun he used does not have a firing pin. And he also did not have any bullets in it. Victor advised after being shot, he did not comply with commands to show his hands. He was hoping to bleed out from being shot during the encounter, which is just terrible. So hopefully that man is getting a little bit of help and that dog is recovering our low , our low man get well soon my friend tragic thing, you went through, hopefully the police don't shoot you again in the future or anybody else for that matter. And so let's take a look at some questions over on this story. Before we get out of here for the day, we've got, let me pull some of these up. All right . We got one in the queue , says my Fox says, cop cops actually end up shooting their dogs. Fair fairly often, unfortunately this isn't calm . This isn't uncommon as much as I'd hate to admit it. Well, ma I was trying to have fun with that story. And now that's even more depressing. It's a depressing thing, right? I mean, obviously we don't want cops shooting their dogs. We don't want cops shooting people. We don't want cops getting injured, but it is kind of a ridiculous story that the police shot their own dog. And then raise 73002.5 million , uh, police , uh, followers on Tik TOK. Pretty good move. Pretty good. Move there. All right . So that's it for the program. Everybody. I want to thank you for being a part of it for those of you who answered and ask questions today. Great questions. Thank you so much for sending those over the way to do that is by submitting those [email protected] That's the form to be at. And I want to thank those of you who are supporting the show. Big. Thanks to talk. A Hari said gee and fish cat down there at the bottom. Also want to say thank you to Molly Mae . We got X N drew . We got B campy. We have Fang three. We also have no doubt. SF Bob big, thanks to jacks . Eight four two. We have eat to the social Viking is in the room and we also had a couple of people sign up over the evening. So I want to welcome a crazy lady P welcome to geek dumb. Two new people joined up as well as C Chicago, TSP V tweak . It's jelly, Tony ammo, Lisa lemon, GMO and others. Everybody. Thank you so much for supporting our community [email protected] You keep the show energized and jazzed up, and we just very much appreciate it. If you have not already gone over there, there's a good reason to do so. There's a couple of things you can grab. Number one is a free copy of my book is called beginning to winning. There's a PDF download that's available. When you sign up, you can also get a copy of all the slides that we just went through. Download those. If you'd like to see where they came from, get any links, get those clips or just go through and sort of review the material. Also can grab a copy of my existence systems, which is over here. Actually, this is the impeachment party template, which is going away soon, but we have links and great people over at our locals platform. So go on over there, sign up and join a great community. It's that watching the watchers.locals.com. And before we wrap up, I want to remind you that I am a criminal defense attorney and we love to help good people who have been charged with crime . So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with anything like DUI, drugs, domestic violence, minor misdemeanors, major misdemeanors, felonies, traffic violations. If they have an old warrant that they want to clear up, if they have an old criminal charge that needs to be dealt with so that they can , uh, you know , restore their rights , uh, the , the ability to vote, to possess a firearm again, to just go apply for some federal benefits to go apply for an apartment without having to check that box, we can help you clear some of that stuff up. So we offer free case evaluations. Our mission is to provide good people, charged with crimes, with safety, clarity, and hope about their cases and their futures. And so we would be honored and humbled. If you trusted us enough to send your referrals our way, we'll make sure we take very good care of them. And we're pretty good at what we do. We just love it. So that is it from me, everybody. I want to thank you so much for being a part of the program. Get some nice rest tonight, sleep well, make sure you have a nice hearty dinner, stay hydrated. Cause we're going to be back tomorrow. It's going to be day 20. Can you imagine that day 20 of the Shovan trial and uh, we're looking forward to it. So we want to make sure that you are here and with us and ready to rock and roll. So we will be back here. Same time, same place, 4:00 PM Arizona time, which is the same as Pacific time, which means it's 5:00 PM. Mountain 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM on the East coast. And for that one, Florida man out there, everybody. Thank you so much for being a part of the program today. I will see you all right back here tomorrow. Bye bye .

Speaker 9:

Right .