Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin Trial Day 23, Daunte Wright Police Shooting, Army Lt. Nazario Pepper Spray Lawsuit

April 12, 2021
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Day 23, Daunte Wright Police Shooting, Army Lt. Nazario Pepper Spray Lawsuit
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Day 23, Daunte Wright Police Shooting, Army Lt. Nazario Pepper Spray Lawsuit
Apr 12, 2021

Derek Chauvin trial continues forward with more government witnesses. Minneapolis police officer shoots and kills Daunte Wright during traffic stop. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Prosecutors in the Derek Chauvin trial call Dr. Jonathan Rich, a cardiologist from Northwestern, to testify about the cause of Floyd’s death.​

• George Floyd’s brother, Philonese Floyd, testifies about Floyd’s relationship with the family and explains what “hooping” is.​

• Seth Stoughton, a law professor and former police officer, is the government’s sixth use of force expert to testify in the government’s case.​

• Police in Minnesota shoot and kill a black man named Duante Wright after a traffic violation goes bad.​

• Police Chief Tim Gannon describes the shooting as “an accidental discharge.”​

• Protests and riots break out in Minneapolis in the middle of the Derek Chauvin trial.​

• U.S. Army lieutenant Caron Nazario files lawsuit against Virginia police after traffic stop turns into use of force incident.​

• Governor Northam invites Lt. Nazario to meet for a “larger dialogue” about justice reform.​

• Review of Nazario’s lawsuit in Caron Nazario vs. Joe Butierrez and the Windsor Police Department in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia.​

• 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 #UseofForce #ExcessiveForce #DuanteWright #MNPD #Minneapolis #Riots #Protests #Manslaughter #OIS #OfficerInvolvedShooting #LtNazario #Nazario #JusticeReform #PoliceReform #Brady

Show Notes Transcript

Derek Chauvin trial continues forward with more government witnesses. Minneapolis police officer shoots and kills Daunte Wright during traffic stop. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Prosecutors in the Derek Chauvin trial call Dr. Jonathan Rich, a cardiologist from Northwestern, to testify about the cause of Floyd’s death.​

• George Floyd’s brother, Philonese Floyd, testifies about Floyd’s relationship with the family and explains what “hooping” is.​

• Seth Stoughton, a law professor and former police officer, is the government’s sixth use of force expert to testify in the government’s case.​

• Police in Minnesota shoot and kill a black man named Duante Wright after a traffic violation goes bad.​

• Police Chief Tim Gannon describes the shooting as “an accidental discharge.”​

• Protests and riots break out in Minneapolis in the middle of the Derek Chauvin trial.​

• U.S. Army lieutenant Caron Nazario files lawsuit against Virginia police after traffic stop turns into use of force incident.​

• Governor Northam invites Lt. Nazario to meet for a “larger dialogue” about justice reform.​

• Review of Nazario’s lawsuit in Caron Nazario vs. Joe Butierrez and the Windsor Police Department in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia.​

• 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 #UseofForce #ExcessiveForce #DuanteWright #MNPD #Minneapolis #Riots #Protests #Manslaughter #OIS #OfficerInvolvedShooting #LtNazario #Nazario #JusticeReform #PoliceReform #Brady

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

Speaker 2:

Really 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 me to follow.

Speaker 1:

I 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 us ,

Speaker 2:

Very system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into. It's been a busy weekend, unfortunately,

Speaker 1:

When we're busy, it means society is

Speaker 2:

Not doing so good, typically on the outside, over there. And so yesterday we're going to be talking about a new shooting that happened last night, Sunday night, we're talking about Dante, right? And that is sort of happening right in the middle of the Derrick Shovan trial also right out of Minneapolis, right outside of , uh, of where George Floyd is , uh, sort of where that whole incident happened back in may of 2020. And so all of this is just sort of spiraling into which itself sort of like the perfect storm. So we've got a lot to talk about. Derek Shovan was day 23.

Speaker 1:

I had several different witnesses called into court today. Not a particular

Speaker 2:

Really interesting day. Quite frankly, we had George Floyd's brother testify . We had a Dr . Jonathan Rich, a cardiologist testify. We had Seth Stoughton, a law professor testify, a former police officer. He came in and spent most of the day talking about use of force, excessive force, reasonable force and all of that. So we've got a lot to get into there. Then in the second segment, we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about Dante, right? This was a , another shooting that took place. Looking like this was an accident. In fact, where the , uh, the police woman, an officer wanted to tase this young man on his attempt to sort of flee a traffic stop. And now he is dead. And this woman is probably going to be charged with manslaughter or something to that effect. So we're gonna want to see what is going on with that case. Not good, not good at all, but we've got a couple of different statutes that we can run through and do some analysis on that. What went down there. So we're going to get into that and then another bad police stop. Uh , what a weekend. We are learning that previously, there was a gentleman by the name of Nazario, who is a Lieutenant in the army who was stopped , uh , over in Virginia. He's now suing the police for pepper, spraying him for using excessive force unreasonable force during a traffic stop. Basically this guy was sort of stopped in a rural area, pulled under a, a gas station. Officers asked him to get out of the car. He put his hands up, said, nah , you know , what's going on here? I don't have to step out. Boom. They just, the vehicle hit him right in the face with pepper spray, like three times. So not a good stop. A lot of people around the country are sort of up in arms about that one. And that officer has been let go off the force. So we've got a lot of stuff to talk to talk about today. So we want you to be a part of the show as we go on as is usually the case here. If you want to ask a question, leave a comment, throw out a criticism. All of that is fine. The place to do that though is over on our locals.com platform. So if you go over to locals.com, you're going to find a community there called watching the Watchers, which is the name of this show. And there's a live chat that's taking place right now. So if you want to ask a question, that's the place to do that. And Ms. Faith and Mr. Ma are moderating that over there. They're going to be clipping out questions for us to answer on the show. And you're also going to be supporting the show. You can get a free copy of my book over there, post some links throughout the day, get to know and meet people. So we'd encourage you to do that. The, the actual address, if you want to type this into a web browser is watching the watchers.locals.com and we very much appreciate it. All right, so let's get into the news. Derek . Shovan still in trial. We're on day 23. Now the government had three additional witnesses in court today. We've got a lot to get to quite frankly, before we get into it. Not that interesting of a day. We're sort of at that point today, I believe was really the last day of the prosecution's case in chief. So starting tomorrow, we may, I'm not real clear on this yet, but tomorrow we may see the defense present some of their experts, because I think today was the last witness there, maybe one other witness tomorrow morning from the prosecution, but then we're going to change gears. They're going to rest. And then the case in chief is going to start from the defense and there may be some rebuttal witnesses and, you know, sort of a second round of witnesses that come later down the pike. But right now we're getting close to the end of the government's case. And it feels that way. It just sort of feels like we've already heard this stuff. We've already seen this. I think today was our six expert to come in. Our last third witness was our six expert to talk about use of force and reasonableness and all of that stuff. And so even when I was watching and I was like, well, didn't we didn't somebody already explain this like two or three times. Why are we listening to this again? And I'm wondering if the jury is going to feel that way also. And so let me go back to the trial board as is usually the case today. We saw a lot from Steve [inaudible] down here at the bottom. He did some cross-examination , uh , and some , I'm sorry, some direct examination. We're still in the government's case in chief today, even though we're wrapping it up. So it's still their turn to present their evidence. And Steve [inaudible] , I think is how he says his last name was in court today. Most of the afternoon, this morning was Mr. Blackwell, who was a cross or direct examining the cardiologists from Northwestern university. So we also talk a little bit about Maurice hall. Remember Maurice hall, this fellow was the guy who was in the car with George Floyd. And about a week ago, maybe, maybe two weeks ago, he was in court. He appeared via zoom over a, he was still in custody. He's been picked up on an old warrant, but people are asking about this guy. Is he going to come in and testify? He was in the car. He can come, he can easily describe what George Floyd was going through. Some of his mannerisms, you can even testify whether or not he sold George Floyd drugs because we know that Genevieve , uh , not Genevieve , uh , George Floyd's girlfriend was the person who said in court that they had historically previously bought drugs from Maurice hall. And so both, both sides. Everybody has been sort of on pins and needles, wondering what's going to happen with this fellow . And so he was also in court today before witnesses even started. I want to go through three issues that sort of were addressed. First thing this morning, we're going to get through them quickly. So number one, the first issue that Eric Nelson brought up and again, Eric Nelson is this defense attorney over here. So he was in court today saying that they , they, they wanted to preclude one of the government's witnesses who goes by the name of Stoughton from testifying today. So this is, I think is the six use of force expert. So Eric Nelson this morning said, Hey, look, we've already heard about this stuff. We don't need any more use of force experts. We've already got five other people. What do we have? The six person coming into court? So he tried to get him thrown out. Judge said, nah , well, you know, it's, it's different

Speaker 1:

Enough that it's still relevant.

Speaker 2:

And so they finagled that in. And so he came into court and he testified today. So that was pretty quick and easy. Got that one out of the way. Then we wanted to talk a little

Speaker 1:

About the Dante, right ,

Speaker 2:

Right case . So this new right case that popped up on Sunday, obviously this is happening out of Minneapolis. We have a whole sec separate segment we're going to do on that story. But because it's happening in such close proximity to the George Floyd trial, Eric Nelson brought that up in court today. He said, listen, there are protests. There are riots. This all happened right around the corner. And we're a little bit concerned that this might jeopardize the trial judge. Do you think it's appropriate for us to continue forward now that there was another police shooting? It was a presumably a white officer on a black male, very similar to this trial. We already know that the entire city is kind of walking on eggshells, given the situation

Speaker 1:

In this trial. And it just kind of happened very similarly again, and people are ,

Speaker 2:

We're also upset about this. We have jurors who are traveling back and forth across the city to get into court, to come in and be a part of this process. So what are we going to do? If they're freaked out, they're scared to death because of what's happening. And I'm going to show you pictures when we get to that segment about what is going on. So Eric Nelson comes out into court today and he says, Hey judge, we got to do something about this. So how about I propose two solutions? Number one, we just sequester the jury . Jury is already going to be sequestered once they go in for deliberations, which should probably be Monday, according to the judges timeline, Eric Nelson said, we got to do that right now. The media is going hog-wild over this thing, seeing it all over the internet, already seeing a lot,

Speaker 1:

A lot of people just spring loaded, ready

Speaker 2:

To pick sides, got a lot of people on one side saying,

Speaker 1:

Hey, this was a,

Speaker 2:

You know, an officer he shouldn't have left. He shouldn't have fled the scene, whatever you on the other side, you're saying, Hey, she shouldn't have shot him. Right?

Speaker 3:

People are just polarizing immediately.

Speaker 2:

It's happening right now in the middle of the George Floyd trial, where people were already polarized. So how can you expect jurors then to make sense of everything that's going on? So Eric Nelson says, we got to sequester them. We don't want them to see any of this media

Speaker 3:

Lock them off so that they are sequestered. Judge Cahill

Speaker 2:

Said , no. Eric Nelson also said, Hey, well, how about this then? How about we do avoid deer again, we call them back in and we go through a separate round of questioning. Just like what happened when the city council settled the case for $27 million with the Floyd family? Remember we had a separate round of questioning. I think at that moment in time, we had seven jurors who had already been selected. They called them all back in and said, Hey, have you seen the news? Can you still be fair and impartial and on and on and on. So Nelson, what he's just doing is sort of laying down the framework for an appeal for a mistrial, just sort of raising these objections, probably knowing full well that judge Cahill was not going to grant them. The judges, you know , as I've said repeatedly on the show, this judge is keeping the train on the tracks. He wants to get this trial done and over with. And so I there's very, very little at this moment that is going to rattle him or knock him off course for that. So that one was also dealt with trials, moving forward, none of the right case stuff, none of those developments seem like it's going to throw this trial off one way or the other. Then the last issue, the big one, before we get into the clips, we got a lot of clips before we get into it. Where now we're talking about Morrie's hall. So Maurice hall, as I mentioned earlier, was the passenger in the vehicle, in the car and it's getting close to him, testifying. Okay? If the defense now is going to start presenting their key cases, earliest tomorrow, one of the people they may want to call is Maury salt . He was

Speaker 3:

In the car with Floyd, kind of

Speaker 2:

An important witness. Why we've heard from a lot of other people, a lot of other bystanders on the side of the streets, people who are just walking by, they all were, they all came into court and talked a lot about it. We spent almost the whole first week talking to those people. So the question is, from a defense perspective, if you're Derek Shovan, how can you completely

Speaker 3:

A fair trial without

Speaker 2:

Having somebody that you want to ask questions about coming into court

Speaker 3:

And testifying well, mores hall.

Speaker 2:

And before we get there, Derek, that's a pretty big interest, right? If you're a defendant and you're being charged with a crime kind of important that you get to call your witnesses and present that evidence. So very compelling

Speaker 3:

Part of due process

Speaker 2:

And a fair trial is you get to present the evidence

Speaker 3:

She wanted to present. Otherwise what good is a

Speaker 2:

They trial. If you're not being , if you're not able to present any evidence. So from a Shovan perspective,

Speaker 3:

Very important to get Maurice hall into court to testify . Maurice hall also has a pretty big interest against testifying. It's called you're right against self-incrimination

Speaker 2:

Those fundamental pillars in our constitution, nestled right in there in our bill of rights, very important against self-incrimination. So more resolve is not going to be invoking that and saying , I'm not going to testify. So what Eric Nelson said, well, if he's not testifying, or if he is trying to invoke his right against testifying against self-incrimination Eric Nelson this morning said, all right, that's fine. If he's going to invoke all the time, then how about this? How about we

Speaker 3:

Admits his question

Speaker 2:

And answer statement because he's given other interviews before, right after this happened. In fact, he gave an interview and Eric Nelson said he answered a bunch of stuff there. So how about we just go through that? And just instead of him testifying, we just submit this document and everybody can read it while the judge came out today and said, no, that's not happening either. So there's still questions about what Maurice hall, what his testimony is going to look like, how it's going to be a comprise. What's going to be ,

Speaker 3:

Be a part of it. We don't know yet. But we certainly know as of today that that written statement or prior conversations

Speaker 2:

He had with other investigators is not going to come into court. And so that kind of got out a lot of the threshold issues, the early morning issues. Then we got into the witnesses. So let's take a quick look at who he had today. If you recall, last week, we finished off with the emergency room, doctor, the pathologist, and then the autopsy doctor , Dr. Baker, the same guy who wrote the, or signed off on the death certificate. So we finished up with him on Friday and you're going to notice that he was kind of one of those guys that was not like the others we saw. Pulmonary doc said his fix . Yah . We saw emergency doc said, I think, I think he said, asphyxia, two pathologists set his fixie up. But then Dr. Baker came out and said, Nope, not low oxygen, not as fixed yet . In fact, it was a bad heart that gave out at the last minute. So last week we were sort of asking ourselves, which one of these things just doesn't belong here. And Andrew Baker of course, was the guy. He said, this was a heart problem, all heart problems. And this was something that the government today brought in a heart guy to come in and rebut that of course. So this guy comes in and his name is Dr. Richard, Jonathan Rich is this fellow . And so he testifies first this morning. Then we go over to George Floyd's brother who came into court this afternoon. And we're going to hear from him very briefly. He described a little bit about what hooping is. And so we're going to learn more from him. Then we have this fellow over here. This is a law professor, an actual former police officer who came into court and testified a very big renown. Statin is sort of a use of force expert. And he came in today and he may be the government's last witness. Not sure if there's going to be anybody else that they want to just sort of wrap things up with tomorrow morning. But it sounding like once we hear from judge Cahill that they may be done for , uh, for their part of the trial. And so that's who we're going to get into today. As I mentioned, we're going to start with Jonathan Rich . He is a cardiologist and like other expert witnesses that the government has proffered thus far. Very, very good resumes. Okay .

Speaker 3:

Like the best resumes, like outstanding Northwestern, this everything ,

Speaker 2:

Uh , bababababa teacher, professor clinical residency, all of it. And uh , I'm not going to spend much time on that because he is very credentialed. Everybody in this trial has been extremely well credentialed, basically the top 1% of the 1% they are the renowned. So this guy

Speaker 1:

Is not, not any different than that, but he comes in and he's walking us through the heart. K he's a heart doctor. He's a cardiologist. And so if you recall, last week, we spent a lot of time talking about Dr. Andrew Baker, who said specifically that they, when they did the autopsy of George Floyd, they took his heart and they dissected it. They analyzed it. And he saw that there were some major, major heart problems, some serious complications. And on the show last week, we were sort of trying to identify and analyze how these different expert witnesses were going to characterize Floyd's cause of death. Remember you have the cause of death. You have the mechanism of death. And so largely it was a result of the previous expert. Witnesses had said the mechanism of death was low oxygen asphyxia. Dr. Baker came out and didn't say that didn't even mention any of those words. He said, cardiopulmonary arrest complicating the law. Enforcement's Abdul neck compression. All of that stuff, basically saying that the heart just gave out didn't have anything to do with the lack of oxygen or low oxygen. The heart was a very hypertensive. It had a lot of , uh, I think arterial sclerosis . It was just not in a , in a good shape. And so the pressure combined with the, the , uh, adrenaline flowing with the breathing with the physicality was too much. This doctor said, and that caused George Floyd to die. So you've got three experts who were going one direction. You got Dr. Baker going a different direction. So what does the government do now? You've got some incompatibilities, you've got some inconsistencies. You can't connect the two together. So today what they do, they brought in a cardiologist to come in and say, Oh no, no, no, it's not the heart to hearts. Totally good. Heart's fine. Nothing to do with the heart. Remember the lower oxygen is fixing a thing. That's really what it was. And so this guy comes in and he goes, and he concludes exactly that it wasn't in fact anything to do with the heart. This was low oxygen and asphyxia. So here is Dr. Rich,

Speaker 4:

Have you formed any opinions in this case to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to the cause of list of Lloyds that yes they have. Would you tell us your opinion or opinions? Sure. Um, in this case, Mr. George, George Floyd died from a cardiopulmonary arrest. It was caused by low oxygen levels. And those low oxygen levels were induced by the prone, restraint and positional asphyxiation that he was subjected to.

Speaker 1:

All right . So right. We've heard that four times, five times, many times. And he , it was the same thing. So he came out, did the same thing, you know , same cross examination . What about this? And what about this? And yeah, well the S button. And so it was very boring. We've already heard all of this. I'm not going to go through it again. One good part on cross. If I had to guess, or venture one would be something that we've already heard before is when Eric Nelson asked him what level of is safe to use none. He says none right now . Okay, great. So it's more heart conversation, more of the same, nothing really consequential, nothing I saw that would really change the game or move the needle any direction. Then we changed gears. We go over to fill a nice Floyd. This is George Floyd's brother. So he came into court today and testified. There's a doctrine in Minnesota called the spark of life doctrine. So you can bring in somebody who doesn't really offer anything of any evidentiary value, right? He's not coming in today and talking about toxicology

Speaker 3:

Or George Floyd's

Speaker 1:

Diets or anything like that, right. To give us any guideposts

Speaker 3:

On what was the cause

Speaker 1:

Of death or anything like that. He comes in and he just talks a lot about George Floyd and about their relationship and about their mother and about their experiences together. And then he explained something we're going to get to in a minute. But the government is offering a lot of this stuff, emotional testimony, emotional conversation, language. This is a picture. This was an exhibit exhibit two 84 that the government, you know , talked to him through. He said, Hey, this is my mom. This is Floyd. And they go through this whole narrative of, I miss them both. You know, I miss them. I miss my mom. I miss my brother. And this was a tragic thing, you know? And, and it's , it's emotional. It's emotional. Okay . It's not easy to lose somebody in your life. Hopefully you don't have to experience that anytime soon, if you have, you know, what I'm talking about, it's not easy. So he is, you know, going through this conversation and sort of, you know , creating this , this story about where they came from and how big of an impact this has been. And it's all part of this spark of life conversation, right? You don't want to put up a bunch of witnesses, witness after witness to talk about what a great person he is, same reason you wouldn't want to do that with Shovan or you wouldn't want to put, you know, 20 other officers on the stand and say, Chauvin's a great guy. It's kind of , it's kind of irrelevant, right? It's nice to know a little bit, but you don't want the ,

Speaker 3:

Or to be overly burdened with that. What is critical to finding the legality conclusion here, the legal conclusion, it's not about, you know, sort of,

Speaker 1:

You're puffing up these big stories. Anyways. Minnesota gives you the opportunity to do that. It limits it. And so this was their witness. This was George Floyd's, brother, Phila , nays , Floyd. And he came in and he tells a story about Floyd and their family. So he was there today and the government also used him to explain something that we've heard kind of a lot about it's this concept of hooping

Speaker 3:

K hooping.

Speaker 1:

So if you're not, if somebody who's familiar with this, it can mean a couple different things. It can mean, I don't know,

Speaker 3:

Playing basketball, go in and shoot hoops, right. Something. I did a lot as a kid shoot hoops hoops. There's another interpretation of hooping, which is ingesting drugs, rectally.

Speaker 1:

Cause it's kind of like a hoop down there, right? So you can go on urban dictionary.com if you want and plug it in there, look up hooping. And you're going to see two different definitions. So you're going to see planning

Speaker 3:

Basketball and the other one, the less pleasant one they're

Speaker 1:

Both on there. And so there is a portion of George Floyd in one of the videos. I think one of the body camera videos, where an officer asks him what he's been doing. And he says on there, I was hooping earlier. Well, what is he talking about? What definition are we talking about here? Is it the shooting hoops or the other one? So people are, you know, this is going to come out in the defense case. So the government's trying to blunt that they know where this is going. So here's a question and an exhibit that we're specifically prepared to blunt, this theme, government knows this is coming. So before the defense gets an opportunity to present their version of this, they're trying to keep this thing sort of contained. Here is a felonies Floyd talking about George Floyd and hooping.

Speaker 4:

All right. You indicated that your brother was number five on the farthest. Yes, sir. And , uh , w some Florida , uh , was that a community college softball? It was a community college. Um , um , I'm looking at it. I noticed a whole bunch of the ballplayers because I met a lot of them coming up. George played to maintain his level of fitness and love of basketball throughout his life. Yes, sir. He loved the workout. He loved playing basketball. Um, people, he loved teaching people, the game of basketball. Uh that's to me where I really , uh , learn how to play from him because he got it. A lot of guys on the court showed him what they need to do to be better. And when he would talk about playing basketball would use any particular term or phrase, Oh, he say, Hey, man, let's go hooping . And we will always say, come on, let's go. Um , we always went hooping . And , uh , you have to, you have to hoop every day because if you don't go and shoot a whole bunch of shots, like 50 to a hundred shots a day , um , my brother would always say, you never be able to compete. Hoopin was big because magic, you had to watch the stars. We watched Michael, we watched magic. We watched everybody who every day.

Speaker 1:

All right . So you heard the man's testimony, right? This is one of those things where the jury gets to decide credibility. Whether you believe that that's a thing or not, whether they were hooping or not, right hooping , you got a hoop every day. That's what he said. And if you go out there, you want to shoot 50 to a hundred hoops every day in order for your hooping session to be effective. Otherwise you're not going to be able to compete. So I've shot hoops in my days. And 50, 50 to 100 shots is not that much. Okay. You can get through that in like 10 minutes, really. I mean, just do the math on that 50 shots. Can you shoot five baskets in a minute easily, right? And that's what, 10 minutes to shoot 50 baskets.

Speaker 3:

It's not a real

Speaker 1:

Long hoop in session, right? Jordan used to go out there and shoot a thousand free throws every night, a thousand that's different, not 50 to a hundred shots. So the jury is going to be having those conversations with themselves. They're going to be sitting . What the heck is that guy talking about 50 to a hundred shoot shots? That's

Speaker 3:

You can do that in like no time, right? One, get the ball. Another one,

Speaker 1:

You can get five shots off in a , in a minute, I would guess. All right. So he presented that today. And now the jury has to decide

Speaker 3:

Whether , whether George Floyd was shooting

Speaker 1:

Basketball or whether he was doing the other version of hooping. And so I asked this question on Twitter, actually. I said, Hey, is there any evidence that George Floyd was at the basketball court earlier in that day?

Speaker 3:

Because presumably

Speaker 1:

He wasn't hooping by himself, right? There should be other people there who were hooping along with him. And you would imagine that they would be playing a game together unless maybe he was out there just shooting some free throws. But when somebody's able, if somebody's able to place him there or do they have to come and explain what hooping is using his brother, because he wasn't actually at a basketball court. So I don't know. Right? You can, you can weigh that however you want and come to your own conclusions about it. But I don't like it when the government tries to sort of put some , uh, some

Speaker 3:

Wrapping paper over a big blemish like this one. Oh,

Speaker 1:

I don't know . We'll just call it basket. These , these are like basketball. Does he have a picture where he's in basketball shorts shirt? We do. Okay, perfect. Grab it. And let's throw that up there. And you're gonna explain what that means. It seems

Speaker 3:

A little bit disingenuous to

Speaker 1:

Me, or maybe it's exactly right. I dunno . You can be the judge of that. Maybe they are a big hoop and family and they just were hooping out in that May 25th before they were,

Speaker 3:

You know, doing whatever they were doing. All right . So

Speaker 1:

Last witness of the day, this fellow goes by the name of Seth Stoughton.

Speaker 3:

Interesting

Speaker 1:

Witness today went for a very long time, very compelling witness from a technical perspective. This guy knew his stuff inside and out.

Speaker 3:

Very, very proficient at his skill .

Speaker 1:

Right? Very, very, very good at what he does. Don't know how well that sort of communicates over to the jury. Especially at this point in the trial, they're kind of exhausted. I would guess they're sort of sick of hearing the same stuff. This guy comes out. And once again is talking about use of force. So he is a law professor and he's a former police officer and he spent a lot of time on this case. He spent, he said 130 to 140

Speaker 3:

Hours going

Speaker 1:

Through and reconstructing this case because he was anticipating coming in and testifying today also been paid something like 25 grand for his work on this, which is not, not surprising. This is a massive case. That's a lot of time. I think he builds at a reasonable rate. So, you know , my point is the reason they talked about this is because they wanted you to know how much time he spent

Speaker 3:

Into this case, 130, 140 hours or

Speaker 1:

$25,000 . I mean, it's a lot of money, right? Jurors. We paid him that because that's how respectable he is. And that's how much we appreciate his opinion. And so what he did today is he came out and he walked us through again, the body cameras. So he put together this little chart and as we can see, it is a very detailed timeline on what happened. Let me move myself out of the way you're going to see here. It says that the use of force evaluation, the kneeling on George Floyd's neck and back. And so he's going through frame by frame and he sort of flushing out what the timeline looks like. He says right here, you have the defendant, he's looking at the different threat factors. And so before I, before we go back through that, when I'm talking about use of force expert, he's talking about a lot of these police procedures and whether or not the officers acted reasonably, did they use reasonable force in an objective format? So would any officer that you look at, if you picked any officer off the street and put them in this situation, would they think that what this officer did was reasonable or not to it's sort of, it's not subjective. It's not, well, what did Derek Shovan think was appropriate? No , it's what did the reasonable officer do? Any officer from anywhere in the world? If you put them right there, what would their response be? So what he's saying is it was opposite of what Derek Shovan did. Derek Shovan, should've done something differently because an objectively reasonable officer would not have done the things that Shovan did. This is why he is a use of force expert to sh to watch what happened. Say, no, this is not proper protocol. And then come to a conclusion. So he did that today and he went through this entirely. So he's identifying different threat factors. He's saying George Floyd is placed prone at this moment in time, right here. And he's basically making the argument that everything that took, that takes place in this prone position, everything from this time, all the way in red until Florida is basically dead and , uh , Shovan gets off of him. And he's thrown into the back of the gurney , uh , back of the van. All of this is unreasonable. Excessive use of force, everything here. Now you're going to notice what Eric Nelson does is he's going to basically try to take this apart a little bit and find different moments and find different expert witnesses who are contradicting this. So if every single thing that happened from point a to point B is unreasonable excessive force. If he can get another expert witness to just testify, that anything that happened in here was okay, then now you have experts who are contradicting themselves. So this is what this guy did. And here is a clip sort of his conclusion. So this is prosecutor Steve Schluter , who is now asking him about his conclusions. And so this is near the end of his testimony. They've already been going through this point by point frame by frame and analyzing this whole thing. Second by second, this is Dr. Stone's conclusions.

Speaker 4:

I'd like you to now please share the jerk with the jury and what conclusions that you have reached regarding the use of force by the defendant on Mr. Floyd. So ask you first, if you have an opinion to a degree, a reasonable degree of professional certainty as to whether the type of force used by the defendants on George Floyd on may 25, 2020 constituted, deadly force. I do, yes. What is that opinion that it did the use of force had the foreseeable effect and a substantial likelihood of resulting in death or great modeling home ? Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty as to whether the type of force used by the defendant on George Floyd on may 25, 2020 was reasonable as viewed by a reasonable police officer on the scene? I do have such an opinion. Yes. What is that opinion? Both the knee across Mr. Floyd's neck and the prone restraint were unreasonable, excessive, and contrary to generally accepted police practices. When in your opinion, did the unreasonable force begin when Mr. Floyd was initially put into the prone restraint position and when the defendant's knee , uh , was placed onto his neck, and when did it end when the defendant's knee was lifted off of Mr. Floyd and he was taken out of the promo strength position, do you have an opinion to a degree of reasonable professional certainty as to whether defendant's use of force whereby he restrained Mr. Floyd in that prone position for nine minutes and 29 seconds on may 25, 2020 was reasonable as viewed by a reasonable police officer on the scene? Yes. What does that opinion? No reasonable officer would have believed that that was an appropriate, acceptable or reasonable use of force. And was the force, the force was the force unreasonable as it started. And as it ended from the time it was initiated and throughout its duration. Yes. And finally, do you have a degree, I'm sorry, an opinion to a degree of reasonable professional certainty as to whether the defendant appropriately , uh , rendered medical aid to Mr. George Floyd on may 25, 2020 in accordance with generally accepted police practices? I do, yes . And what is that opinion? The failure to render aid to Mr. Floyd, both by taking him out of the prone position and by rendering aid, as his increasing medical distress became obvious was unreasonable and contrary to generally accepted police practices. Right . Thank you very much, professor stone . I have no further questions, your honor .

Speaker 2:

Yeah. So that was at the very end, ran through I think, 90 minutes or so of questioning. Those were his final conclusions and you can see how sort of articulate and mechanical he was. Right. Very, very rehearsed, very practice statements. And I don't mean that he rehearsed them for this trial, but he's used to speaking this way. This guy testifies a lot, very good at it. And so, you know , his mechanical in his delivery, very careful with his words, very precise, I think is the better way to, to phrase it. And we can see what he did here. He went through the different criteria. Prosecutor says, Hey, was this deadly force? What you saw? Was it deadly? It was said, as he went through the factors, this is deadly. So anything that involves the prone position, basically anything from that timeline that I showed you that was constituting, deadly force

Speaker 1:

Also talks about whether that force was reasonable or excessive. And this is a pretty important concept in the laws , sort of a subjective test versus an objective test. So what would the objective reasonable officer do if you just said, Hey, we're thinking about this, hypothetically, that's a reasonable officer. What would that reasonable officer do here? And if the conduct that you see deviates from that reasonableness, or from that, that idealistic person that you are placing in this hypothetical, then they are falling below the standard of care. And this is why we use this in light . It's a much better standard, or we can't set rules for everybody's subjective interpretation of the rules. I think about it with the speed limit, right? What if you just said, well, everybody can go, whatever speed limit they think is right .

Speaker 3:

Well, it's very different

Speaker 1:

Amongst people, right? How I drive is going to be very different than what my, than how my mother drives. We have different interpretations of what is reasonable to do in your car. So we just set a , a set of rule. So the objective standard is more like that. It's more based around whatever the objective global standard is , is, is based on what we idealize. And if conduct deviates from that, then that then it is penalized. So what this guy did, Dr. Stone needs to comes in and he says, no, it's not reasonable. There is no situation where anything that you saw here was reasonable. Under the objective standard. He also goes on and says it was excessive. And he says that it was excessive and unreasonable and deadly for the entire window, which is a big time, right. We saw that time. We all watched the time on the video. Then he also

Speaker 3:

Says that the failure

Speaker 1:

To render aid during that time was also in violation of police protocol and police procedure. And so you've got sort of just this damning cascade of allegations here that this one particular witness says Shovan did to violate department policy and the standard practices that exist for police agencies across this country. Now Eric Nelson then comes back out and cross-examined him. So again, when we flush this out, when we, when we think about this, what the government is doing is it's getting very specific to narrowing the scope. It's saying on May 25th with George Floyd under these circumstances, based on what you saw and what

Speaker 3:

You reviewed, you came to conclusions.

Speaker 1:

Nelson is, is sort of expanding that out. So he went into some pretty lengthy cross examination . Didn't really get much out of this guy, quite frankly. He's very good. And so it was a little bit difficult for him to even get a good sound bite out of him because his, his, his responses were so measured and precise, very precise. And he also did a good job of testifying because when Nelson would ask him something, he would respond with a yes, no, and then jump right into a whole soliloquy about some of the meat that he wanted to add on to the yes or no question . So he's sort of flushing it out a little bit. Very good job. I think a very, very compelling witness for the government, but Nelson did, did sort of come out on this one

Speaker 3:

Little , uh, cross

Speaker 1:

Examination clip that I'm gonna play next, where he gets Stoughton to disagree with a different use of force expert. And this is pretty important stuff. If you can start to compare and contrast the expert witnesses, just like what we did with Dr. Tobin, Dr. Baker one says it's low oxygen is fixed . The other says it's hard cardiopulmonary arrest, basically heart failure, two different witnesses, two different opinions. And they're both government witnesses. So if the, if the defense can do that again with this witness who a use of force, reasonable officer, objective standards, type of a witness, that's pretty, that's a , that's a pretty good win. And he kind of does that. You're going to see here, he's saying, Oh, all right . So you say that the prone position was problematic. The entirety of that timeline, that entire red bar that I showed you on the graph that they were , they spent most of the afternoon walking through. Yes, I do. Okay. That's funny because Sergeant Steiger, who we heard from previously disagrees with you, you've got these expert witnesses now that are disagreeing with each other on some pretty important issues. It doesn't look good for the government's case. This is,

Speaker 4:

This is of those tactics. However, when Mr. Floyd, so I want to make sure that we're very clear here in your position from your review of the reasonableness of the use of force, it was unreasonable for the officers to put Mr. Floyd in the prom position at all period, correct? Yes. At that point he did not present a threat to the officers or their interests. You've not heard that present a threat of , uh , escape. Um, the officers used some amount of force to put him into the car, and I have no issue with that, but putting him in the prone position, especially on the street side of the car , um, was unreasonable and excessive and contrary to generally accepted police practices. Um, reasonable minds can disagree on this particular point. No. Okay. So Sergeant Steiger, who testified earlier, did you have an opportunity to review his testimony? I believe I, yes, I did. And so his assessment that it was reasonable for the officers to use the prone position in that time, at that time, you would disagree with him. I disagree. I think putting someone prone is unreasonable. There , they are already handcuffed. The prone position is a transitory position used to restrain someone handcuffs, or I suppose , uh , hobbles in this case, officers took Mr. Floyd out of the car and put him on his knees and then put him onto his side. And again, if they had stopped there, I would not have any quibble with their actions. Now you testified that , um, you described the prone position as transitory in nature. It is yes. For 30 years or so. Um , it's been generally accepted. All right .

Speaker 1:

So the , the , the big takeaway there is that he sort of, you know, there was a Sergeant Steger, I believe is how Nelson said his name, who testified that the prone position may have in fact been appropriate at different parts of the interaction. So he's sort of, you know, getting them to just disagree, minor little bits on the margins, around the edges. And you saw how Stoughton responded. Right? He said, he said, yeah, I would disagree. And he just laid out a whole line of reasoning there. And so the jury is going to have to figure out what to do with that. There are contradictions now from the government's own experts, that there are different interpretations on some of these things and Stoughton kind of, you know, kind of shot himself in the foot. A little bit said , uh , Eric Nelson says, Hey, reasonable minds can differ on this, right? Nope. Not in this, not in this message. Okay. Well, that's great. Cause the government's own witness came out and testified differently. So now how do you deal with that? A it's an important thing. And Eric, Nelson's doing a good job of sort of flushing out the differences between the two sides, because there is a lot of room for interpretation on all of this stuff as we are finding out. And so that was really it of the , uh, of the Shovan trial today. The judge did give us some guidance on the future timeline. I think we're going to be closer to being done with this thing this week than many of us even expected. I thought we were going to have more testimony today and this week from the government, but really it's looking like this may be done this week with closing arguments starting next week on Monday, this is judge Cahill . Who's giving it some guidance. He's actually talking to the jurors right now, but he's flushing out what we're looking forward to literally in the next week before deliberation and start here's judge Cahill . If you haven't seen him here, he is

Speaker 5:

Members of the jury. Uh, we will be taking our German for the day, but I wanted to give you an idea of a little bit of timeframe. Now that we're getting closer to the end. We expect that we'll be moving to the defense case tomorrow and accordingly. We expect that we will finish all the evidence in this case , uh, by the end of the week, possibly with even Friday off. Um , my preference is not to make the attorneys close on Friday because when they close this case will be submitted to you for deliberation, which means at that time, as we warned you long ago in jury selection, you will be sequestered. Uh, if I were to have closing arguments on Friday, that would mean you'd be sequestered and your weekend. Uh , and I don't know if you have any plans. I'm not going to do that. Um, my preference is to give the attorneys more time to prepare their closing arguments , uh, and have the closing arguments we predict on Monday. Wow . At that point you will be sequestered. So , uh , you'll get some more information from the Sheriff's deputies , uh, regarding that, but expect that you will , uh, when you report for duty on Monday, that it will be followed by sequestrations. So pack a bag, a bag, but the deputies will give you a little more information. Just wanted to kind of give you that. So you can plan your own lives around that. And we will see you tomorrow about nine 15. Thank you. We're in recess.

Speaker 2:

All right. So that was the end of the day. They're going to be back tomorrow at nine 15, and the judge said, pack a bag coming on Monday, cause sequestrations is going to start soon. So let's take a look at some questions, by the way, if you want to ask a question place to do that is going to your web browser typing in watching the watchers.locals.com. Sign up, support the show, join the live chat. When we go live and ask a question. Our first one comes from Patto at locals says, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the second degree murder charge carry an element of intent with it. I've listened to quite a lot of testimony as to the cause of death of Mr. Floyd and police policies, but the state practically made no attempt to prove intent to me. It looks like they didn't even try. What are your thoughts? So a good question, Pat it, and I don't have the statute in front of me right now, but if I'm not mistaken, I think the second degree murder charge has a whole section of unintentional murder. And it's really where we're talking about sort of the , uh , you know , negligence. In other words, I'm not real sure that anybody here is alleging that Shovan intended to murder him, like woke up that day and went and intended to murder him. Some people are saying that because I think apparently there's some indication that Shovan and Floyd had a history together, but of the charges that I have seen, I haven't seen intent as one of them. Now you had to have intent to go do the thing. So he had to have intent to put his knee on Floyd's neck when we're talking about felony murder, right. That's one of the murder charges, it's felony murder. So did he intend to kill Floyd? Not sure that that is the case, but did he have intent to put his knee on Floyd's neck or back or shoulder blade or however you want to characterize it? Yeah, he did. And that, that is about the closest level of intent that I think that we have, we have seen, because I don't think that the statute requires it, at least the statutes that he's been charged with. So take a look at that. I would actually go and look up the full statute, or if you want take a look at the charging documents for Derek Chauvet. And I think on the second degree murder charges, the one that you're referencing, I think there is intentional. And then there is unintentional. I could be mistaken about that, but it's it's in there somewhere. So I think you maybe just be looking at the wrong section of the statute. We also have Jay bones , as the St . Paul mayor said something along the lines of prison would be a good start talking about the Shovan trial at the right press conference that's game set and match for mistrial in my book. You're kidding me. The St. Paul mayor said that. Well, that's a pretty irresponsible statement for , for a mayor, but doesn't surprise me because the rest of the city council there is also irresponsible. So they're in good custody. We got, I onions says, Robert, did you see the interview on MSNBC gaslighting? The jurors? No, I didn't. Could that be considered jury tampering? We all know that people on the jury sequestered or not, we'll probably have seen that. What about the mayhem? Not right in Minnesota. A warmup .

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I know. It's just like the worst possible thing. I was talking to Ms . Faith about this, or like, could you, could you think of something

Speaker 3:

That would be worse than what happened with Dwayne, right, like right in the middle of jury trial of jury trial for Shovan . I think it'd be hard to

Speaker 1:

Come up with something worse than that, but it is no, I did not see the interview I on in , so I just can't comment on it. I apologize. I'm not sure what they were talking about, but it's MSNBC, so it can't be good. We got Liberty or death says, have you noticed that whenever the Shovan trial is reported in the media, they only report to the parts that are in the plus column from the prosecution. Seem to me, the media is just lying in waits to cover the riots that will occur regardless of what the verdict is. So I am actually noticing that Liberty or death last week, I was a little bit unplugged from some of the, I would say the mainstream media coverage about the Shovan trial, but I was talking with some people about this. And , uh , uh , actually we were on clubhouse and I was asking mom about this. And I said, Hey, what's the been

Speaker 3:

The what's been the coverage looking

Speaker 1:

Like, cause I've just really been watching the trial and sort of trying to remain as objective as a defense attorney can be with this stuff, but

Speaker 3:

Watching it without

Speaker 1:

A lot of the spin, cause we all need to, I don't need to go to the New York times or the Washington post. It's all being live streamed. I don't have to listen to what any of those idiots think about anything. But I did poke around on the New York times today because I noticed that gap in sort of my perception of what's going on. And I was noticing that Liberty I was looking

Speaker 3:

Through and it's all the good stuff for the government. And

Speaker 1:

Even when I was even on the New York times, I was watching somebody's live tweets and they were saying something like Eric, Nelson's trying to corner this witness into, or trying to box this witness into a corner.

Speaker 3:

And I'm thinking that's not a , that's not a real friendly frame

Speaker 1:

Of what Eric Nelson is doing. You mean defending his client who still maintains the presumption of innocence,

Speaker 3:

Putting up a vigorous

Speaker 1:

And active defense for that person, or is he trying to box them into a corner? Like he's doing his job

Speaker 3:

And they're framing it in

Speaker 1:

A very pejorative fashion, which I think is inappropriate. So yeah,

Speaker 3:

There, I think if there is, let's say an acquittal and there's a lot of anger with that

Speaker 1:

Throughout this country. I think there's a lot of people who are responsible for that. It's the people who are

Speaker 3:

Stoking

Speaker 1:

Site fires on, on both sides when really, I think the most appropriate way to handle this is to try to be , uh , objective, understand a little bit more about the other arguments that are being proffered and make a reasonable conclusion, but that's not going to happen. Want to know, says, can the judge hold the mayor and contempt in the Shovan trial? Uh, I don't think so. I don't think that he has ordered the mayor to do anything. And I'm not sure that the mayor has, has sort of entered into an, a contempt order, is like the court orders you to do something and you don't do it. Right. I go and show up at this or , or, you know , file this motion by this certain time you don't do it court punishes for that. Or it can be something, you know, you're , you're violating a,

Speaker 3:

A very clear court role or

Speaker 1:

Decorum whatever's going on in the courtroom. Mayor making a public statement as part of his public office. I don't think that the judge has any wherewithal to go after him. [inaudible] says today's last witness seemed like he watched previous testimonies and was determined to keep his own narrative adding a lot of excess explanations. Yeah. And position rather than just answering Nelson's questions. Yeah. Is watching the previous witness testimonials usual for a witness to do. It seems like the witness anticipated Nelson's questions and made significant effort not to become the defense's asset. Very good observation there, Angie . Well, I think you sort of saw the same thing that I did. Right. I was just mentioning how I thought that this guy was a little bit squirrely . He was, he was very, very , uh, short of himself and did not let Nelson give him yes or no. It was really added a lot of meat onto those and to the ends of those explanations, which served him well, because he's an expert witness. The judge in this case, carved out some leeway for expert witnesses to listen to each other's testimony. And so traditionally witnesses are not allowed to hear other witnesses testimony. We actually talked about this last week. There's a federal rule of evidence that says witnesses basically are secluded from each other so that they can't testify in lockstep with one another. Right? You want independent testimony from different witnesses here, user expert witnesses. And so they need to sort of know what the other experts are saying because they're specifically being brought into rebuts , those other experts. So here, the defense is listening to a lot of these and

Speaker 3:

The, the, the, the state's government

Speaker 1:

Is the state's witnesses are also listening to the other expert witnesses so that they can intelligently speak and , and , and converse about those.

Speaker 3:

So I think that, I think your

Speaker 1:

Right, but the judge has allowed it here for those reasons. Justice first said, did Dr. Baker ever explain how neck compression was a factor in the cause of death? I heard him describe how the stress of capture caused an adrenaline surge, which was a complicating factor, but didn't, he testify specifically that he thought that he did not strangulate the airway or the car , uh, Carter, Roy artery. I sense . He was influenced by others to include such vague non-medical term as neck compression. Do you think the defense missed an opportunity to probe him more on this? So I do, actually, I think that the defense sort of, sort of was off a little bit on his testimony specifically. And I mentioned that when Dr. Tobin , uh, wait, Oh, I thought you were talking about Dr. Tobin. You're talking about Dr.

Speaker 3:

Baker. So

Speaker 1:

I think the, I think maybe we're talking about two different people. So Dr. Baker said specifically that he didn't think that

Speaker 3:

That any low oxygen or asphyxia was the cost

Speaker 1:

Pause or the mechanism of death. Dr. Baker said specifically that it was the subdued by the law enforcement

Speaker 2:

That caused a cardiopulmonary arrest, but he more attributed it to Floyd's bad heart, really, rather than any type of compression, low oxygen or any of that stuff. So Dr. Tobin did, however,

Speaker 3:

I think that the defense,

Speaker 2:

Eric Nelson missed a little bit on Dr. Tobin, but he did come back and clean it up later. And specifically it was about some of the other complaints about George Floyd, not being able to breathe before any of the four factors that Dr. Tobin went through or ultimately

Speaker 3:

In effect. So I think hopefully I, I added

Speaker 2:

A little bit on that question, but I think maybe we're we're crisscrossed Liberty or death says , so did Dr. Rich performed the autopsy too ? Or is he just reading a report? Yeah, he's just reading a report. He's looking at all the stuff that Dr. Baker who actually did look at the heart and actually did do the report, did we've got my Fox in the house, as I think it's only reasonable to presume he was talking about basketball.

Speaker 3:

I mean, hiding drugs

Speaker 2:

By shoving them in your mouth. When you know, it's potentially dangerous, as well as not really answering any questions of what are you on. Makes me think this idea that Floyd was being honest while also lying all

Speaker 3:

The time is ridiculous. People

Speaker 2:

Need to make up their mind what he was trying to do. And not say that

Speaker 3:

It's both when it's convenient. Yeah. That's a good point, mom and the jury,

Speaker 2:

He's going to do that. They're going to be the ones who get to tell us what

Speaker 3:

They think, what was hoopin , whether that matter or not, what was, what was he saying on the ground? I didn't take no drugs. I took

Speaker 2:

Too many drugs. Remember these things. These are, these are facts that have alternative interpretations. And so the jury is ultimately going to be the finder of the facts. And they're going to tell us why

Speaker 3:

Happened, but yeah, it's a good one. It's a good question. Robert Barnes in the house said ,

Speaker 2:

I didn't get into political biases of the medical expert from

Speaker 3:

Today. Did Nelson? Uh, no,

Speaker 2:

Not that I heard. Robert Barnes also. Have you seen, have you ever seen so many state experts disagree

Speaker 3:

With each other? No . So that's a good point.

Speaker 2:

So for those of you who don't know, that's the Robert Barnes in the house, right? And you want to make sure you give him a solid follow because he is more plugged in than I think anybody on Twitter when it comes to legal news. And he's got two very good questions. So , uh, no, not on a trial. This big state experts like disagreeing with themselves on a number of very important issues. The big one of course is the mechanism of death. And so you've got Dr. Tobin asphyxia, low oxygen. You've got Dr. Baker. Now it's cardiopulmonary arrest caused by arterial sclerosis and other heart conditions.

Speaker 3:

Pretty big, important difference there . Pretty good

Speaker 2:

Big distinction. Then you bring on today. Now you have a use of force expert who says, now that the state's prior witness , uh, Sergeant Steiger is it has a different interpretation than I do. And I'm also right. It's just, it's a mess. And so when we start talking about reasonable doubt, Robert knows this as well as I do as , as, as anybody does,

Speaker 3:

It's a very high standard. They've got a big threshold to meet. They've got to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And the way we explain this to the jury, it's beyond any doubt that's based in reason. And so

Speaker 2:

If we're having a question about what actually killed George Floyd by the government's own witnesses, that's pretty reasonable doubt. Don't you think,

Speaker 3:

But

Speaker 2:

Who knows ? There's a lot of pressure on them right now. And did Nelson get into the political biases of the medical expert from today? I didn't hear him. I don't think I've heard him get into that with any witness, but I could be mistaken about that. Trying to think is he asking them? I don't think I've heard that at all ,

Speaker 3:

But anyways, good to see Mr. Robert Barnes

Speaker 2:

In the house and Hey, they're also on local. So if you notice Robert Barnes is right over there and he's on local. So go check them out. It's Veeva and Barnes . I think it's Viva Barnes , law.locals.com. So go check them out. If you're on locals already, you want to get plugged in support some of the other communities there. And that way we can build our own little,

Speaker 3:

You know, contingent

Speaker 2:

Away from some of these other yahoos that exists on the internet that wants to silence all of us. And so good to see you, Mr. Barnes , thanks for chime in, in here. Hack consulting is next. It says if the prosecution presents a turd, does it matter if it was a 20 5k turn or a 5k turn ? It's still a turd . I think the more they expand on how much they spent, the more they are trying to impress the jury, then respect the jury by presenting actual argumentation for the case you don't ha this is a , this is a good point by the way. And I think that this is something that is a little bit underappreciated when it comes to some of this stuff, this one, the , uh , Dr. Rich

Speaker 3:

Today, right? The jury, the jury, your people.

Speaker 2:

And they don't like when people come in are sort of patronizing to them. And I think we got some of that today. It felt a little bit more patronizing today than some of the other testimony. And it was like they were , uh , doctor Dr. Johnson in particular was kind of talking in a very fast style way. And I'm trying to be objective about this, but I just want to point this out. He was sort of talking to them like they were children and sometimes witnesses will do this. And it's, it's a little bit problematic in my opinion, you know, when they talk

Speaker 3:

And the heart has two pumps, think of them like two pumps in one heart pump pumps into the other heart pump. And then it goes through these little tubes in your body and distributes the blood and you just go, yeah, I got that part. Yeah .

Speaker 2:

So why are you talking down to us? Like, just tell us what's going on. And it felt very duplicative. It felt

Speaker 3:

Like sort of unnecessary.

Speaker 2:

A lot of the testimony today felt unnecessary to me. And like, they were just sort of, you know , hammering home that, that additional point at some time , at some point in everything you do, you go all right, enough already, right? I've had enough dinner with you. People we've been sitting here for an hour and a half. I don't want any more of your company. It's over. We're done. You know, you get to that

Speaker 3:

Point felt like that today. And they were just still like, well, we still want to keep talking. We're not ready to leave yet. W we're done though. You're done get out. Right. And that is sort of how it felt to me and the, you know, that stuff can kind of

Speaker 2:

Just because you're a juror on a high profile case, that's the subject of national media attention doesn't mean that you lose any of your human reactions. You still watch people and you still go, Oh , I don't like this guy. Or I like this guy, or we've already heard this, or I'm irritated about it. And that stuff starts to, you know, the , the longer these trials go on, you start to get that justice fatigue, where everybody is just wanting, you know, they just want this thing to be over. And so I think that the government wrapping up their case is the right time. It's ed said, I recently saw a video of a person in the prone position that was still able to kick an officer.

Speaker 3:

They were in the subway

Speaker 2:

On the platform and the kick knocked the officer off the platform onto the rails. I don't think anyone would agree with the expert to say no reasonable person would use the tactics that Shovan used. Yeah . I agree with that. Right. I mean, it's like, it's, it's, over-broad it's way too expensive . And I think there's always an exception to the rule. And so when you come out as a witness and you just throw out these blanket statements one way or the other, I'm not sure what that does for your credibility, because you're always going to be able to find somebody who says, well, yeah, but I mean, here , here's an exception to the rule and the police procedures, the use of force guidelines are all written for that with maximum flexibility because they write them to protect themselves. Now they're trying to use a very wholly flexible policy that gives them all the leeway in the world to do whatever the hell they want and never get prosecuted for virtually anything. Now, they're trying to say that this policy prescribes blanket conduct in any one particular situation, give me a freaking break. They don't, and they're written that way for a reason. So that officers are

Speaker 3:

Detected against any liability. Shovan had those same , same policies in place. Now you have these

Speaker 2:

Experts coming out and say everything he did was totally unreasonable. No , I don't. We'll see. Nelson is going to , I think, present the contrary to that here very, very soon LT 13 says is Shawanda Hill going to be called? Didn't the girlfriend testify . She gave them drugs to , uh , Shawanda

Speaker 3:

Hill who ? Shawanda Hill, who is Shawanda Hill got more Maurice

Speaker 2:

Paul , I don't know who Shawanda Hill is. I don't know who should. I know who that is. Uh, didn't the girlfriend testify. She gave them drugs to ,

Speaker 3:

Uh,

Speaker 2:

Maybe I don't know. Yeah. I don't know. I'm not sure who that is.

Speaker 3:

Is Shawanda Hill. Is there another person? My goodness

Speaker 2:

Sumper son says, can the defense introduce the CNN interview that Floyd's friend dealer did in the early days afterwards he had counsel on air. So I think that the answer on that it's going to be no, because this same argument was proffered by Nelson this morning. He said, listen, when there was this question and answer that was taking place by the investigators, might've been the FBI and Maurice hall. He said specifically, yeah , her County counsel was right there. I mean, it was sitting there. They were conversing back and forth. So they were communicating with protection against that. So if they're willing

Speaker 1:

To do it, then why can't we just use that same Q and a in court now? And what judge Cahill did is he went through the rules, federal rules of evidence. And he just said, no , we're going to take four Oh four and all these different things. And went through some minutes , Minnesota case law basically said, none of that stuff's coming in. So any of those Q and A's not coming in any of this stuff is not coming in CNN interviews, any of that. So the only alternative my understanding at this point in time, call him in, ask him questions. He's going to invoke. Judge may order him to speak. And he's probably going to invoke again. Judge is going to have to decide what to do about that. But if he's going to sit up on the stand and not answer questions, that's going to open the door for the jury to start asking themselves what , what what's going on here, right? In all they need is that little bit of a fake, because they need something to latch onto, to pick a pick a thing, pick the decision one way or the other, right? If maybe they heard one particular witnesses testimony, and they go, boom, that's it. That's why Chauvin's guilty. Maybe they see Maurice hall up there , not answering questions. Invoking the fifth jury sitting back there , scratching their head going, what could somebody else be responsible for this whole thing? And he's not even talking and enough people know that you have a right against self-incrimination, but maybe they watch that testimony. And they decide that's the, because that's the person who gets blamed not Shovan. We'll see. I onion says , I find it deeply concerning this trial is so prevalent, but the murder of Ashley Babbitt is getting no attention at all. We do not even know who did it. Yeah. I think that officer, is he still in hiding? Do we even know who it is? Do we even know who killed officer sickness or how he died yet? I don't think so. A lot of open questions about that whole January 6th thing, isn't there. All right. Last question. Over from hack consulting says, this is the only chance of trying Chauvet related to Floyd, right? No double jeopardy, unless someone is in the military, right? Civilian court and then court martial by the military. Yeah , this is it. So there are some rules about a mistrial and about redoing a trial. If there's a mistrial that involves , uh , I forget what the line I read it. I read it in Minnesota, but I cannot remember what it is off the top of my head, but there's a standard there that they could have a second trial, but not, not easily. Right. So this is it . Yeah. And they have already settled this , the civil claims with the city council and the family. So they're presumably not filing any , uh, you know, civil, civil rights lawsuits or anything like that. So I think this is it. We'll see where it goes. We'll be back with more on the Shovan case tomorrow. Of course, we're going to follow this thing all the way through to the end. So make sure you're subscribed and following us on locals, check us out, watching the watchers.locals.com. And thanks for those great questions for all of you who are over there and supporting us. All right. So let's change gears a little bit, actually. Not really kind of the same theme that we're talking about.

Speaker 2:

Police over the weekend shot and killed another man. Unfortunately, that Dante writes is now dead. He was a 20 year old man who was stopped by police in Minnesota, not far from where this whole George Floyd, Derek Shovan trial are already well underway. And so Minneapolis, Minnesota is on high alert. Tensions are high across the entire state. And really the country tensions were already high waiting for an outcome on the Derrick Shovan trial now, right in the backyard, we have another dead young man, and this is a tragedy just through and through. Let's go into the story. This comes from NBC news. It says Minnesota police shooting of Dante, right sparks protests. They shot and killed a black man on Sunday during a traffic stop for a traffic violation, sparking protests and unrest in a suburb just miles away from where George Floyd was killed during an arrest in Minneapolis, less last year, just miles away, man killed by police was identified by relatives and Minnesota, governor Tom waltz as Dante, right age 20. You can see him here. So we're going to try to piece together what we know. We do have a video of it, but because of YouTube policies, we have added a little bit of a gray box. So we can't see the actual shooting, but we can hear it. And hearing it is just as important in this case, because there's some pretty interesting , uh , conversation that's happening back and forth over from the guardian.com police shooting of Dante, right? What we know so far shot and killed by police. He was pulled over for a traffic violation in Brooklyn center, near Minneapolis. They pulled them over for a traffic violation, found to have an existing warrant. Police tried to arrest him. I think it might actually have been a weapons warrant. We're going to see what that looks like here in a minute, right? Went back into his vehicle. Police shot at the vehicle, which I'm not sure that's accurate. Right. Was struck. He crashed several blocks later, Katie, right ? Woman identified as Dante. His mother said she was on the phone with her son during the stop. He told her he was pulled over for having air fresheners, dangling from the rear view mirror, which is illegal in Minnesota. She said her family bought Dante the car two weeks ago. And this is actually a thing. So people don't, you know, people are sort of laughing at this air freshener thing. This is actually a thing it's also illegal in Arizona to have this happen. And cops stopped people for this very regularly. And it's a pretextual stop. They just make it up because they have no other reason to stop you. They just say, Oh, there's a air freshener there. So they stop you. They pull you over. And that's the first opening of the door. That's the basis. Then when they get to your car, they stopped you for the , the dangling air freshener. Then they walk up to the car. Then they make up some other BS excuses as to why they have access to the inside of your vehicle and your entire life. Basically they say, Oh, well, Oh, what's that contraband? Or I smell marijuana or your eyes look watery and red. And therefore, we're going to ask you a bunch of questions and harass the hell out of you. So they use this all the time. I've seen it happen in Arizona, happens very regularly. So I don't doubt that at all. Some people are saying, well, you know, you got a warrant, all this other stuff that, that all well may be true, but we don't know from the perspective just yet

Speaker 1:

Whether they ran his plates or they knew who was driving the car. So the fact that they stopped him just for something dangling off of his rear view mirror, doesn't surprise me at all happens all the time. She said she was on the phone with him. I heard scuffling. I heard the police say Dante don't run. She said through tears, according to reports from the AP call ended, when she dialed his number again, his girlfriend answered, said he was dead in the driver's seat. Unclear what warrant may have existed. Under most circumstances, police policy, Warren's not to shoot into moving cars. Police said , they believe the body camera was active. Why are tensions so high? Because this place is just 10 miles away from Minneapolis where Shovan is on trial for second and third degree murder and manslaughter charges in the death of George Floyd, already a pressure cooker already, something that the nation is highly focused on. Now we have a very similar situation happening. And of course it sparks unrest. According to the AP, after determining that the driver had an outstanding warrant, police said they tried to arrest him. Then the driver reentered the vehicle, an officer fired striking him. Vehicle traveled several blocks before striking another vehicle. Wright's family offered a different account. Mom said her son was shot before getting back into the car, which we have the video. And I don't think that's accurate. Female passenger sustained non life-threatening injuries due to the crash. Passenger was a son's girlfriend court records show, right, was being sought on allegations that he fled from officers and possessed a gun without a permit during an encounter with police in June. And that case statement of probable cause said, police got a call about a man waving a gun who was later identified as right shortly after the shooting, demonstrators began to gather some jumping, a top police cars, marchers descended on the police department where rocks and other objects were thrown. It officers protestors had largely dispersed by 1:15 AM. 20 businesses were broken into at the city's shingle Creek shopping center, Minnesota DPS department of public safety. John Harrington said at a news conference, national guard was activated. We're going to learn now that they're on curfew today. Tonight Brooklyn center mayor Mike Elliott announced a curfew that expired shortly before daybreak while there is a new curfew that is in effect. And this is the register of actions for Dante Demetrius. Right? Looks like we see here back in March, was this April, there was a warrant issued down here. So update from Andy NGO. Andy. No , I like to say NGO. I like to say Andy NGO. I know it's Andy. No, I think that's how you say it . Update Dante, right . Was in the process of getting arrested for a weapons charge and escaping police before he was killed yesterday, sparking BLM, race riding and looting criminal complaint says he had an illegal Ruger, 45 pistol skipped his court date this month. So he had an open case. We can see here, these different statutes, fleeing a peace officer by means other than a motor vehicle. So he's tried to leave apparently before carry a pistol without a permit public place. So it's gross misdemeanor. So misdemeanor gross misdemeanor. See , it's a young man. So that makes him about 20, 2120, I think. Yeah. 20. And uh, and so he's no longer with us now, we're going to show you the video, but bear in mind, you know, there's somebody dies in this video. We're not going to see it because I'm, I black it out , uh , gray it out. But we are going to listen to this. And so I want you to listen to this from, well, listen closely. You're going to see it. But what happens is, is he's coming out of this vehicle. So let's go and take a look. So we have, this is Dante, right? We have this officer here who is assisting in the arrest. We have a female officer who's wearing this body camera that we're looking through right now. It's on her body. And she's going to come in here and sort of approach here, try to grab his arm. And then he just kind of rips this right arm out and just jumps right back in the car. Now you're going to see the body camera woman that the officer who ends up shooting him, sort of, kind of finagle around. And she is on this side. As he's in the driver's seat, driving away. Now you're going to hear her pull out or you're going to see her pull out a gun. And you're going to hear her shout. Many times, taser, taser, taser, taser, taser, and then sort of announced that she's about to tase him say it's common tasing , tasing to warn the other officers, Hey, tasers deployed coming out. Wasn't a taser was a gun shoots. You're going to see the car speed off right away. And you're going to listen to her. Listen to her, say, I just shot him. Okay. This is a woman who knows that this just went extremely bad. And I, my watch of it genuinely believed that it was in fact an accident. She didn't intend to shoot this, this young man, but she did. And we're going to analyze the backend of that here shortly. But watch this and more, more closely listened to it. We might listen to this twice. Let's see.

Speaker 6:

[inaudible]

Speaker 1:

Did you hear that? Taser? Taser, taser, taser, taser, pop. Oh. I shot him as he's running away and then he doesn't make it far because he's dead and he hits another vehicle

Speaker 2:

Girlfriend still in the passenger seat. Not good. Let's listen to that one more time. Just so you can hear it. You're gonna it's it's quiet at first. Then it then as soon as she sort of turns around the corner and we see him in the back of the car, it's you hear her taser, taser, taser, taser taser. One more time.

Speaker 6:

[inaudible]

Speaker 2:

Not good. Not good. Holy . As she says, I shot him. Awful. Just awful. Just terrible. Uh, not good police say Minnesota officer meant to draw her taser, not a handgun police officer who fatal failure shot a black man during the traffic stop in Minneapolis suburb, apparently intended to fire a taser. Not a handgun said the police chief on Monday. So Tim Gannon was out today. He said that this was an accidental discharge. The Bureau of criminal apprehension was investigating. You could hear her say this taser taser taser. The officer has heard shouting on her body camera footage release at a news conference after firing a single shot from her handgun . The car speeds away in the office heard saying, Holy F I shot him. He said the car was pulled over for having expired registration. After determining that he had an outstanding warrant, police said they tried to arrest him driver re-entered the vehicle officer fired striking him. Vehicle traveled several blocks. Joe Biden was briefed on the shooting, said, Jen Sakhi . We were incredibly sad to hear about this loss of life. Got it. So here is the police chief today,

Speaker 6:

As I watched the video and listened to the officer's commands is my belief that the officer had the intention to deploy their taser. But instead shot Mr. Wright with a single bullet. This appears to me from what I viewed and the officer's reaction and distress immediately after that, this was an accidental discharge that resulted in the tragic death of Mr. Wright .

Speaker 2:

Yeah. And I agree with that. I mean, I watched it, I've watched it several times. I've watched the actual real video. If you want to go find that it's everywhere on the internet, everywhere over Twitter. So you can go check it out. But of course somebody does die. So , uh , exercise some caution there. Now, as, as, as I said, when I watch it, I hear her, I hear her shouting taser. It seems like a mistake, a very egregious mistakes. Something obviously that is so beyond the pale, in terms of negligence, that there needs to be some sort of repercussion for this, right? And so people are already saying, this is murder. Is this murder? Does she murder this young man? Let's take a look. So if we over to the Minnesota statutes, we can first take a look at murder in the second degree. And there was a commenter earlier who was asking about second degree murder. And this is what I was talking about. This is related to the Shovan case, but this is unintentional murder. So you're going to notice that there was no intent here. So , uh, so first degree murder, of course, I don't think that this officer intended to shoot and kill that man, waking up saying, I'm going to go shoot somebody today on the side of the road, after a traffic stop. Right? Not intentional in that manner, not even intentional, like she thought she was shooting him with a gun. From what I can tell from what I've , I've heard based on her warnings and her immediate reaction, right after this happened, felt to me like she thought she was tasing him. Now that doesn't excuse the action. Doesn't doesn't give you a justification to just say, Oh, well, I thought it was a taser. Sorry, you're dead. But excuse me, whoops. My bad. I'll get it right the next time. So there are going to be repercussions for this officer, but it just didn't seem to be intentional. So we're just going to get rid of first degree murder entirely. We're going to look at second degree murder. Did she intentionally caused the death that she intent the effect of death of that person now ? I don't think so. So I think that it wasn't a drive by shooting. So we're going to get rid of the intentional second degree murder. What about second degree? Unintentional murder. And this is the same one that Derek Shovan is being charged with. Right? I believe whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder causes the death of a human being without intent to affect the death while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual assault. So is , is tasing him as he's fleeing away a felony offense? I don't, I don't think so. Is shooting him a felony offense? Yeah, I would think so.

Speaker 3:

So maybe they would try to charge him under this just like they're charging Shovan, but I'm not so sure. Not so sure that one sticks. What about murder in the third degree?

Speaker 2:

Whoever without intent to effect the death of any person causes the death of another human by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others. And evincing a depraved mind without regard for human life is guilty of murder in the third degree, maybe sentenced to not more than 25 years. So did this officer do something that was eminently dangerous? Yeah. Kind of, you know , use the firearm when she should have used it

Speaker 3:

A taser, but wasn't a depraved mind, you know, did she do it sort of with that

Speaker 2:

Hold of malice, many people are saying this charge fits for Shovan. Cause he was on his neck for nine minutes on Floyd's neck for that long period of time. This was just like a split second. Did she have a depraved mind when she tried to like, cause this man harm or even kill him or shoot him? I'm not so sure that you can make that argument. So I'm not sure that that sticks either. What about manslaughter

Speaker 3:

Manslaughter in the

Speaker 2:

First degree intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or act of another, that would provoke a person of ordinary self .

Speaker 3:

I don't think so causes the death of another in committing a misdemeanor. Uh ,

Speaker 2:

Sure. Coerce the debt proximately causes the death without intent to cause death by selling drugs. Nope. Doesn't fit that one either. So I'm not seeing anything really in this one for first degree manslaughter. What about second degree

Speaker 3:

Manslaughter? A person. Yeah .

Speaker 2:

And who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter. The person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk and constant consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another. That sounds about

Speaker 3:

Right. Doesn't it sounds like that one

Speaker 2:

Fits so manslaughter in the second degree, I think is probably going to be what this officer faces,

Speaker 3:

Persons, culpable negligence

Speaker 2:

Creates an unreasonable risk consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm

Speaker 3:

To another. Yeah. It's negligence got to draw the right weapon out of your, out of your holster. So people are rightfully upset about this justice for Dante, right? You can see on the streets, guardian house

Speaker 2:

And some good pictures about what's going on here. Police are responding in full force. Of course. So they're out there marching the streets in there,

Speaker 3:

Their Stormtrooper gear got to make sure we

Speaker 2:

I'll know about that. And they're out. You can see this is already going on. We've got , uh , some protests looking like they're turning into riots.

Speaker 3:

And so as is

Speaker 2:

Usually the case, we support protests here. I don't really know what usually do if I can be Frank about that. But I agree with politically the ability to politically protest and to speak and to address your government for a redress of grievance , grievances petition your government for a redress of grievances. Love all of that. The minute it spills over into assaulting other people or torching buildings or burning down things or looting or any of those other things, I disagree

Speaker 3:

The entire thing gone . So

Speaker 2:

We're going to do that here as well, because it looks like that's, what's going on. We're seeing pepper spray. We're seeing , uh, all sorts of, you know , unrest over here. We've got the, you know, more destruction of stuff, jumping on cars. We've got , uh , you know , uh , you know, not, not good. None of this stuff is good. Wondering if Kamala Harris is going to bail these people out like she did the last time that this happened in Minneapolis, we'll see. After they burnt down the third precinct, you know, she was pretty gung ho about bailing out a lot of the peaceful protestors . We'll see if she wants to do that here. I'm not happy with any of this stuff, right ? Anytime that this ever happens, it's just a tragedy across the board. And really what it does is I think it sets back real justice reform in this country, which is just a shame. It just irritates the hell out of me.

Speaker 3:

It's not, not good when this stuff happens for anybody. And it really ,

Speaker 2:

It just feels like it's one step forward. Two steps back. Whenever this happens, we can see here men's clothing in New York got that all loaded up. So everybody needed , uh , needed a new suit. Somebody gets killed. Everybody needs a new shoe suits and new shoes. So that's great. Well, the governor is going to be dealing with this as well. We're seeing here, there is a new curfew order. Jacob Frey, the mayor of Minneapolis is declaring a local

Speaker 3:

Emergency saying

Speaker 2:

That it's going to be ratified by the city council in 72 hours. It says on April 11th in the aftermath of the death of an African-American man that occurred during the

Speaker 3:

Traffic stop writing and demonstrations broke out in

Speaker 2:

City of Minneapolis, resulting in civil disturbance, which has put residents, business owners, visitors, public safety personnel at risk of serious injury or

Speaker 3:

Death, as well as the potential

Speaker 2:

For further damage to the public and private property area businesses and the chance for further civil unrest and disturbance to a degree requiring extraordinary measures must be taken to protect property ,

Speaker 3:

Public health and safety. Mayor's got a duty to protect

Speaker 2:

Everybody here. Declaration of emergency management is now in effect executive authority. He identifies

Speaker 3:

It emergency regulations.

Speaker 2:

Okay, we've got all of that. He says here, he's got to restore order. Keep order in place.

Speaker 3:

The emergency regulation

Speaker 2:

Now says the nighttime curfew is hereby imposed in all public places within the city of Minneapolis, including the streets from 7:00 PM on Monday until six, eight .

Speaker 3:

I am on Tuesday. So that's tomorrow

Speaker 2:

Warning . All persons must not travel on any public street or any public place. So if you are in Minneapolis, you are on curfew tonight. You are not supposed to be going out after 7:00 PM, which is now right. It's definitely now all law enforcement and other people. There are exempt from the curfew that mayor is going to designate additional personnel that are also exempt from the curfew city. Contracted groups are also exempt. So who do we have the center for? Culture or multicultural mediation. Oh, that's nice. We have the native American community development Institute. There also exempt the Corcoran neighborhood organization, touch outreach, CEO restoration. Okay. We have emergency regulation. We've got travel definitions. And if you violate this, it's going to be a misdemeanor offense not to exceed $1,000 fine and 90 days of prison or jail, according to Minneapolis statutes. So Minneapolis is a little tense right now. We have LT . 13 says I was pulled over in Virginia for having a , uh, late , uh , for having lays on my mirror. Why isn't a policy to cross drawer tasers everywhere. So they don't confuse the two. That seems kind of like a no-brainer . I know I don't, honestly

Speaker 3:

I have

Speaker 2:

Handled the taser and I have handled a firearm and they don't feel the same to me at all. I think they're kind of designed to not,

Speaker 3:

I feel the same , uh , mind-boggling error, but

Speaker 2:

You know, this stuff happens. People don't understand, many people get killed every year by law enforcement. This stuff just happens just generally speaking. So it's not good. The fact that it's very close to them . I'm not, I'm not explaining that away . Right? I'm not trying to condone that, but I am just saying that police, you know, this is , this is a big problem. Uh , I think that exists in this country because we have officers who are engaged in things that they should not be engaged in. We got Jeremy [inaudible] says, I agree with the argument that the Shovan trial needs to continue in spite of whatever happens in the world, similarities of a case or situation doesn't mean it should have any bearing on a different case. What Kay Hill agrees with you? Jeremy trial is staying on the tracks. According to the judge, the officer Jeremy says maybe wrong for shooting him, but you can't try to run from the cops and expect to get away without a scratch. People need to listen to the police and stop doing whatever they want. Whoa, Whoa, Jeremy, that that's pretty provocative statement. My friend, you know, and I look, I agree that there could be a lot of , uh , better ways for , for police to engage with civilians. I'm not saying that , uh,

Speaker 3:

That one

Speaker 2:

Dante did justifies being shot. Okay. I don't think that that's the appropriate thing to do either, and I'm not sure that she intended to shoot him, but he's dead. And the cop did that and somebody's got to pay for that. And it's just, it's just, it's tragic. It's it's not, it's

Speaker 3:

Awful, no

Speaker 2:

Easy solution on this one or any of these hack consulting says while the idea of a taser is nice. It adds an extra layer of complexity to police, training leads to higher cost and less reward. If we would stop trying to make police enforcement safer, we might put more of an effort in preventing people from putting police in a position of using deadly

Speaker 3:

Force to begin with. Yeah. And I just don't know why all of these things have to happen on, on the road. You know, like traffic stops, like why it's very high risk situations. You know, if we have old warrants, are there other ways we can, we can do this probably probably in the new country that we start.

Speaker 2:

No doubt says some States call tasers less lethal force and the same rules apply as requirements to use deadly force

Speaker 3:

Interested to see how Minnesota regulates the use

Speaker 2:

Tasers. Yeah. Good question. No doubt. I don't know how they do that, but it is an interesting question. Jeremy says, I disagree that the second degree manslaughter applies according to that statute, unless it pertains to acts of in the commission of a crime, the man was in the act of committing a crime.

Speaker 3:

You got, you got another

Speaker 2:

Perspective there from , for Mr. [inaudible] see the veil says, so here's a stupid question, but I think it needs to be asked, are we at the stage now where it is okay. To refuse arrest or detainment by officers and they have no right to pursue or apprehend? Uh , no, we're not there yet, but you know, you may see some movement on that from, from people in,

Speaker 3:

In the government,

Speaker 2:

Right? In some States, is it not the case? The officers have a right to do what is necessary to stop a person who runs from an officer protect other civilians. He took off in the car and could have started a statewide car chase, which puts others in danger. Uh , yeah, you're right. He could've , you're exactly right. He could have done all

Speaker 3:

Of those things.

Speaker 2:

And it sounds like she was not going to shoot him. She did not intend to shoot him. If she would have done this correctly, she would

Speaker 3:

Tased him, shot him by accident. So even according to her own decision

Speaker 2:

Position there at the scene, she did not think shooting him was appropriate

Speaker 3:

Based on what we heard her say, it was a mistake, but somebody still died. Fortunately, that's the way this stuff works.

Speaker 2:

[inaudible] there needs to be penalties for that type of stuff. Right? If you are going to make a mistake that catastrophic, there needs to be consequences for

Speaker 3:

That.

Speaker 2:

You don't just get to accidentally shoot people in this

Speaker 3:

Country. Jay bone says,

Speaker 2:

As a matter of law, did rights actions constitute a felony? Yeah. I would say that it did. So leaving the scene or fleeing the police using a vehicle, at least in Arizona. Uh it's yeah. It's it's, it's a significant felony. It's I believe it's a class

Speaker 3:

Four. Yeah.

Speaker 2:

Unlawful flight. I think that's a class four. So unlawful flight and the vehicle would, would, would be a felony here in Minneapolis. I'm not so sure, but I would guess that it would

Speaker 3:

Be, we have to go

Speaker 2:

At my Fox says, why do people immediately have to start blaming the victim? This blows my mind every time. Well it's because people just jump into categories. Right. And I agree with you. It is frustrating to me that that sort of people just sort of pick and I understand it. Right. I do the same thing. I just don't do it as, as naturally I think in these situations, probably because I've seen so many of them and I can, I have an easy time sort of distributing the blame and I don't subscribe personally to really any

Speaker 3:

Blunt bundled

Speaker 2:

Ideology. Right. So I might , might have some conservative ideas, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I just I'm in lockstep with whatever the police do. I might have some criminal justice reform ideas, but doesn't mean I'm a proponent of BLM or support anything that , that, or all the things that they do. It's more about, I think, just taking a look at the situation and just saying, Hey, what happened here? Right. But, but people are just so spring loaded in primed to identify one particular contingent of a story, identify with that story. And then just like a Rottweiler lean onto that latch onto that until the end of time and in the media makes it easy to do that. You know, they start coming up with their narrative. They say, Oh, this was a racist white murderer, white supremacist. And you go, that's not exactly right. So people then just like recoil because of the

Speaker 3:

Narrative.

Speaker 2:

But I think we can sort of analyze these things from

Speaker 3:

Humane perspectives, right? If you have been charged with a crime, you still are entitled

Speaker 2:

To due process. Cops are not judged juries and executioners. They don't get to

Speaker 3:

Just shoot you. And there are situations

Speaker 2:

Where maybe people on the receiving end of contact with law

Speaker 3:

[inaudible] don't respond appropriately. Okay. We can also agree on that

Speaker 2:

Is a better way to do both of these things. Maybe an officer shouldn't have made a mistake and accidentally shot a man. Maybe he shouldn't have tried to flee the scene.

Speaker 3:

Both are bad, both are not good. We can say that

Speaker 2:

I personally don't have any issue with the cops screwed up this guy. Wasn't the greatest

Speaker 3:

Tragic situation ended in the tragedy of a bad situation that ended in a tragedy. It's tough stuff, tough issues. But if we just, if we just don't use rational thought and sort of lump ourselves into one category, I don't know what that does for anybody. It doesn't solve the problem. Just

Speaker 2:

A lot of people to go out there and grift and Strom and a bunch of arguments in order to make themselves feel good about themselves. Tim MCD says, I think there needs to be a law enforcement course in high school to teach kids what can happen and proper behavior around these types of issues also that they have rights. So I like this part of it. Yes. That they have rights. So, so I think so I would, I would prefer to sort of flip this around Tim. I understand what you're saying. I would prefer a class on a rights with a little bit of conversation about how to interact with law enforcement and society, but not the other way around, right. I don't want to train our children and our populace to be

Speaker 3:

Order takers

Speaker 2:

From law enforcement any more than they already are, because I think this is a huge part of the problem. I think that people are used to just sort of like allowing the cops to just dictate everything that goes on. They're sort of the extension of,

Speaker 3:

Of the government's monopoly

Speaker 2:

Enforce the way that the government interacts with us. The way that when we talk about this power dynamic that

Speaker 3:

Exists, how does the

Speaker 2:

Government exercise their authority over you? They've got, they've got to use power. They've got to use leverage. They've got to use control. And how do they effectuate that it's with law enforcement, it's with some of these entities that have the power of criminal criminality of criminalizing you, right? If you don't pay your taxes, we're just going to charge you with tax evasion and you're going to go to jail. That's how you get compliance. Same thing with law enforcement, right? They are, we're all sort of walking on eggshells all the time. Cop shows up, you know, you're driving to work cops behind you. Everyone's like, Oh, there's a cop behind me. What am I supposed to do? Where we're , we're sort of, you know, from in my perspective, the default is freedom. We are free. We have rights.

Speaker 3:

First officers want to approach us and have a seat ,

Speaker 2:

Civil, respectful conversation about that. Respecting our rights. Then we can, we can enter into that conversation

Speaker 3:

On terms, but that's not often

Speaker 2:

What happens. And largely a lot of it is because the police, they don't like that. Right. They don't like to be pushed back on. If you say, what, what are you stopping me for? They get all freaked out. They threatened to tase you. And like we just saw in, well, not yet. We're not even there. We're not even done with this show. Oh my gosh, we got Nazario left. All right . So Timmy D I didn't mean to be overly aggressive with you in response to that. I understand what you're saying. I understand your perspective that there , there are better ways to interact with each other that will result in less of that. I do not disagree with that at all. We got Jeremy MITRE to said, if the citizens of Minneapolis want a free for all in crime and don't want the protection from law enforcement, I say, let them do away with the police. Minneapolis has demonstrated they don't like it when their citizens are punished. So let them go without police, maybe this will solve the problem. Police misconduct, induced riots, just saying. So they tried that. I think, I think in Minneapolis, they did try that they defunded the police like 8 million. Then they refunded them like 8.3 million. So law enforcement is necessary when I get on here. And I sort of rant against law enforcement, not because I don't respect law enforcement or that I want to defund the police or anything like that. I'm not saying that. Right. And , and as soon as BLM started getting momentum and running down the line of we're going to defund everything, I was like, these people are whacked. That doesn't make any sense. It's not even a good policy for a whole slew of reasons, but it was a popular political sentiment. And so everybody got behind it for it and they still are. And we now know that the BLM co-founder , whatever , I was like four houses in Beverly Hills or whatever. So that's not what I'm saying, but I am saying that there ,

Speaker 3:

When, when there are problems in order to ,

Speaker 2:

To come up with solutions, we have to talk about and , and be able to label and identify the problems correctly. If you have an officer who thought she was going to taste somebody and shoot,

Speaker 3:

That's a problem, we got to acknowledge that. Right?

Speaker 2:

And you may have a lot of empathy for her. I do. I'm S I'm sorry. This happened. Her life is ruined.

Speaker 3:

So is , is, this is a tragedy that happened, but we can't have conversations

Speaker 2:

About any of this stuff, unless we're willing to

Speaker 3:

Just talk about it, call it what it is. And so I'm going to try to do that here. Cops are going to screw up. Civilians are going to screw up. It's going to happen.

Speaker 2:

We live in a crowded world. We're all bumping into each other. And we're all trying to sort through some of this stuff, but we got to call it what it is. Joe Snow says, it seems like they shouldn't be arresting people who are halfway in

Speaker 3:

The doorway of their car.

Speaker 2:

Yeah. All sorts of issues. I think with that, I mean, the officer was putting her one officer was putting his hands behind his back. Then she sort of came up and interfered with, with, with that. And as soon as, you know, she inserted herself into the , the , the thing he ripped his arm out, and then the rest was history and , and yeah, it's like, it's like, okay, well, why don't we just, I could talk about solutions on this stuff until I'm blue in the face, but we got a lot more to get to today. So let's just keep pushing forward. We've got hack consulting says the biggest issue is that they are pushing tasers into use. The officer was senior, right. She was likely trained in the days before tasers as such in a high stress situation. I guess she went to old training and muscle memory while saying the right words for the situation. Yeah . I don't know. You know,

Speaker 3:

We have a, we have a dead man. We have a dead son,

Speaker 2:

Brother or whatever he was to his family. We've got a woman. Who's probably a very, you know , very nice woman whose life is basically over now.

Speaker 3:

Awful. If, if there are different ones ,

Speaker 2:

Ways for us to think about enforcement, okay. Maybe we don't conduct felony arrests on the side of the highway or the middle of the road.

Speaker 3:

Maybe we do those later. Or we don't take everybody into custody all the time. We do

Speaker 2:

Do that later so that you don't have these situations. You don't have Ray shard Brooks , or he thinks he's going to jail and never coming out. And he just takes off. He's dead. Other cops get ,

Speaker 3:

All right , we've got to move

Speaker 2:

On because I'm going to go off into a whole different tangent. All right . So that's it for me

Speaker 3:

For this segment, these stories just get me so jacked up that it's hard to , uh, it's hard to

Speaker 2:

Everything together. So forgive me while I'm trying to muster my way through it. All right . So those questions came over from locals.com, watching the watchers.locals.com is the address. If you want to go check that out, and then we're changing gears because we have our final story of the day and it involves another police stop. Can you believe?

Speaker 3:

Yeah .

Speaker 2:

Army lieutenants goes by the name of Nazario. Karen Nazario was stopped by police pepper sprayed multiple times in the face, and now he's suing the officers responsible for it. We have the video, we have a lot of things that we can talk about. We even have a copy of the lawsuit that we're going to go through, but before we do, let's get some backstory on what is actually happening here. This story comes over from reuters.com and it says a us army Lieutenant filed suit against two Virginia police for an assault during a traffic stop, ridiculous case us army Lieutenant filed a lawsuit against two Virginia police officers in federal court for pepper, spraying him and threatening to murder him. So it was filed by officer Caren . Nazario on April 2nd, us district court, out of Virginia against Windsor policemen. We have two of them, Joe Gutierrez and

Speaker 3:

Daniel Crocker says that these

Speaker 2:

Are violations to his constitutional rights, includes assault, illegal search and illegal detention.

Speaker 3:

Nazario who is Latino

Speaker 2:

And black was in uniform driving his new SUV with a temporary paper tag that was displayed in the back window on December 5th, when he was

Speaker 3:

Told to pull over by

Speaker 2:

Us highway four 60 in Windsor, Virginia, a town of about 2,600, about 70 miles South, East of Richmond. All right, now this is important, right? So in Arizona, I live in Scottsdale and there's a lot of places to pull over. There's gas stations all over the place, lit parking lots. There's a lot out there that we could just pull your car in. You're going to feel safe. Everything's well lit other people in the areas. That's kind of not what happened here, right? This is a little bit of a different environment. And so if you don't live in that area, it may feel foreign to you that if you don't live in a we're in a city, it

Speaker 3:

May feel foreign to you that you might want to drive. I don't know, five minutes, right?

Speaker 2:

You get to the next gas station or the next grocery store or whatever. So that it's lit so that the officer's or some random person that, you know, it looks like an officer is not stopping you on the middle of an interstate in the middle of nowhere, where there's no lights and nobody passing by, you want to sort of navigate to a more populated area. So you don't get up squandered and have no recourse in the middle of nowhere, whether it looks like a cop or not. So something similar to that happen here. Police cruisers signaled for him to stop. Nazario put on his blinker , slowed down and looked for a lighted place

Speaker 3:

To stop. So

Speaker 2:

He drove for a little bit longer. Now we don't know how far suit says an officer radio to dispatch that a driver without a tag was eluding

Speaker 3:

Police. So we have to ask

Speaker 2:

Ourselves that question, right, is this officer's description of what happened here, accurate or not? And you can judge this officer's credibility. Cause we're going to get to a video of him shortly here. He's calling in this person's alluding

Speaker 3:

Police. Alright , well, you're going

Speaker 2:

To get to see his demeanor here in a minute, and you can judge his credibility accordingly. He said it was considered a high risk stop. And another police officer responded to the scene. Nazario the army Lieutenant stopped at a nearby gas station, less than two minutes after being signaled to pull over. So remember what I said, right? If you're in a rural area, you might be driving for two minutes and that's a long time. If a cop's behind you flashing their lights, they're going to get agitated about that. Why is he not pulling over right

Speaker 3:

Now? He took

Speaker 2:

Two minutes during the stop, which was captured on police body cameras. And the cell phone is REO told police. He was afraid to get out of the vehicle. An officer responded. Yeah,

Speaker 3:

You should be okay. So then why would he get out of the car?

Speaker 2:

An officer also stated that he was fixing to ride the lightning

Speaker 3:

In an apparent

Speaker 2:

Reference to execution by electrocution, going to ride the lightning lightning.

Speaker 3:

Yeah .

Speaker 2:

Yes. You should be scared to get out of the car. And you're going to ride the lightning during the arrest. The suit says Nazario had his hands up offer no resistance, suppose pepper, sprayed and violently knocked to the ground and detained. Ultimately police chief responded to the scene and Desario was released without

Speaker 3:

Charges. After

Speaker 2:

The altercation. The suit says that officer Gutierrez said he understood why Nazario was looking for a lighted place to pull over. I get it. The media spewing race relations between law enforcement and minorities. I get it. He

Speaker 3:

Said, all right.

Speaker 2:

So we do have a copy of this video footage , uh , be warned that it contains graphic content. So if you were discretion is advised. However, nobody dies in this, in this, in this body camera. So we are going to play it. I'm not going to edit anything out. It's somebody being pepper-sprayed. There is some foul language. So content warning. If you have any little children in the room, come on, kids get out of here. This is adult time now. So this is Nazario. This is the altercation with these two law enforcement officers from Virginia

Speaker 6:

Driver rode away, no down felony traffic. Stop. Put your hands out the window, put your hands out the window, turn the vehicle off. Put your hands out the window. See no play right there. Plate right there. The window tar the vehicle. Put your hands out the window. He's not compliant. Just come around your side. Let me see your

Speaker 1:

All right now. So real quick. So he is actually recording himself while this is all happening. And so what happened here is this,

Speaker 6:

How many occupants are in the vehicle? What's going on? How many occupants are in your vehicle? It's only my , why are your weapons? What's going on in the door slowly . Step out the door. I'm not getting out the vehicle. What's going on. Get out the car, open the door slowly, get out. What's going on over the door. Get out the car. Still hold, hold, hold, hold, hold. Keep your hands outside the window. Outside the window. Hands are right here. What's going out of the car.

Speaker 1:

All right. So we've got these two guys, not, you know , it's barking orders. Get out, get out, get out, get out. What's going on. What's going on. My hands are outside of the vehicle. You can take a look here. It is hard to see to the officer's point. You really can't see a driver's license. There is no, I'm sorry. A, a license plate. There's no license plate back there. And you know, when you, when you get a new vehicle, right, you're supposed to place your temporary tags in the back of the window there. Now I can't see it right there, but obviously this is from a side angle. You would expect that this officer would be able to see it at that moment in time and observe that whatever the justification was for the traffic stop. If the traffic stop was really centered around the fact that this guy didn't have a license plate light , in other words, that's the basis for it. They can't just pull you over whatever they want. No word that cars driving was going to pull them over. Now you have , you have a certain right to be free from , uh, you know , police harassments on a day-to-day basis. And so they have to come up with some reason to , to conduct a traffic stop in the first place here. If it was the license plate, then as soon as this officer got there and is in this position, if he could see that license plate, then you would, you would think that the original pre-tax for the stop that is causing him to be super concerned. Maybe this is a stolen vehicle, kind of looks like a vehicle that, you know, maybe part of like a , you know, a movie or something, right? Like a Tahoe, that's all blacked out and doesn't have any plates on it, right? That maybe that's like a , a nefarious vehicle, whatever, you know, by police standards, that's fine. But if he sees a license plate or a , uh, you know, identification on the back of the vehicle, ideally that would drop down his level of concern. But it doesn't. And so they're both out there screaming at this guy, his hands are outside of the vehicle and the police just keep moving forward. So let's take a look at this next clip.

Speaker 6:

You don't have a car now I'm serving this country and this is how I'm treated. I guess what I would refer to, I don't know what's going on. What's going on in the ride, the lightning son car. Now what's going to get out of the car, sir. Just get out of the car, walk with us and we'll talk to you. Get out the car. You receive her order. I'm I'm , I'm honestly afraid to get out. Can I get out now ? I have not committed any crime or you're not cooperating at this point right now. You're under arrest for violation. I do not have to get out to the vehicle. You haven't even told me why I'm being stopped. Really ? Get out the car, get your hands off of me . Get your hands off me. Get your hands off me. Don't do that. I'm trying to tell you , I'm trying to , can you please relax, please? Relax. This is not how you treat a vet. I'm actively serving this country and it's how you're going to treat me. I didn't do . Whoa, hold on . Hold on. I watched it deployed three times. Hit him again. Hit him again again, right there, sir . Just get out the door . I'm up.

Speaker 1:

Oh my goodness. All right. So how do you even break this one down? Right? You've got this guy who is spraying him in the face multiple times now. All right. Let's brag . Let's back this up a couple, a couple of little, little, little tidbits here. So this got is coming up first and foremost says you're fixing to ride the lightening sun , which you know, means he's going to tase him or he's going to execute him. And then he's going to ride the up to heaven in the afterlife. He says, I'm scared to get out of the car. He says you should be Kay . So then maybe that means that I shouldn't get out of the car. Then maybe I should stay right here. And I think he's got a very valid concern, right? If you are somebody who is being stopped, you don't know what you're being stopped for. You've got two maniacs who are screaming at you with their guns out before they've ever had any conversation with you at all. Just get out of the car. Oh , guns drawn. Okay. No indication here that anybody walked up to the vehicle or tried anything, just boom, open the door, guns, drawn sirens flashing. And this guy's petrified, right? And he's in the middle of nowhere. Took two minutes to find a lighted spot. He's there. His hands are outside of the vehicle. He's trying to get an assessment on what is happening. They're not giving him any information about, about anything. Then finally, this officer makes basically two threats. You're fixing to ride the lightning and you should be scared if you get out of the car, the guy says I'm not getting out of the car. So the cop walks up, physically assaults him, grabs him. We have no information about what the, what , what justification. The cop has to stop this guy. Who's just passing through, right? You, you are free to travel unmolested as long as you're licensed to drive and you're following the rules and all of that stuff. So you, he , he, he, he stopped. He's got a perfectly good inquiry, puts his hands out of the window, conversing with them. They're not giving him any information about the justification for the stop. Why, why they are detaining him. Then this officer comes out, so are screaming at him and says you're under arrest. And then he catches himself. If you notice that, Oh, what I meant is you're being detained. Why? Because there is no probable cause for an arrest. Cause you don't have anything that this guy did wrong yet. So you're being detained so you can investigate him and then conduct the arrest. But he said, you're under arrest. Then he realizes, Oh shoot, I don't have anything to arrest this guy for. I got to come up with a bunch of new stuff. So then he says, you're being detained for a traffic violation. And I don't practice in Virginia. I don't know their laws, but it sounds like this army a soldier does, right. He said, Nope, for a traffic violation, I don't have to get out of my car. So then the officers need some further justification to do that. They don't have anything. And you'll notice as he goes through and he says, now tell me what's going on. Cop grabs his hand, wrenches it down. He pulls his hand back in still both routes cop says, Oh yeah, you said something like that. Oh yeah. Oh, you don't refusing. The lawful authority. Psycho mode goes on, gets activated, pulls out the pepper spray, shakes it. Five times hits him, hits him, hits him. That was just sitting there. Totally inappropriate, totally inappropriate. And let's see what's coming up next.

Speaker 6:

Hello? I'm just going to just get out of the car. Look at my head , take your seatbelt off. Each other . My heads are out. Please, please take your seatbelt off the car. He just complied. Get out of the car. I'm reaching for my belt . Take your seat belt off and get out of the car straight on the ground. Straight out of the ground, man . It's just commanding . I'll just play . Let's go. Let's go available . Get on the ground please . Now you're on the ground. Getting sprayed again . You have the ground . Can you please talk to me about, what's still on the ground . Please talk to me about what's going. Why am I being treated? Not cooperate to get on the ground. Why am I being like, this is really messed up. This is up. up .

Speaker 1:

Yeah. He's right. It is. It's messed up. Oh, we got another clip here. It looks like

Speaker 6:

What happened. I looked out the mirror and I saw guns drawn. I put my hands out and we told you, we identified ourselves and told you step out of the vehicle and you to comply and we'd have been done by now. Okay .

Speaker 1:

No, no, that's not. Okay. It's not always just comply with whatever the law, blah , blah , the cops want to do. They have to justify their actions. You have rights in this country. I know that cop. Doesn't like to think that I know a lot of law enforcement. Don't like to think that you have rights. You do not have to just bend over backwards and take whatever the cops crammed down your throat. And you'll notice though, however, this is not legal advice because if you push back on them, this type of crap happens. Anytime somebody says, what are you ? What are you doing here? What, you know, what's going on? You get pepper sprayed , you get broken out. Now they recognize that they screwed up so badly that they're trying to like put, you know , put this thing back in the box, right? Well you could have just made it easier. All you got to do is comply. Just do whatever we tell you to do. And you're not going to get harmed. Nothing. Nothing is nothing's going to happen to you. You're just, just, just follow orders obviously. And anybody who doesn't follow anything that the cops mandates is now responsible for anything that the cops do to them know that that's not okay. Let's keep moving through.

Speaker 6:

However, I got a job to go , Hey , I just talked about she's place . You asked her superior. He's off right now. Saturday, I called him. He came out. Here's how I was thinking. I thought what I wanted to do. He said, that's no problem. Two ways. We have a list . We can either sit here with you until you get your eyes back where you can see. And I mean, at a good distance, you're safe to drive. Okay? And you're going down the road, go to your deployment, go camping , serving my country, which I respect and I you for . Okay. Or we can push the issue. Why don't you tickets for no license plate displayed and for resisting to him , justice, I don't even need to go that route because that route makes the army get involved. And I know how they are. You don't know this, the army he'll help out for it. Um, cause he's been in and he's got friends that are legal officers. I know the military is the only place . The military is the only place where double jeopardy exists legally because whenever we do one , we'll do it. Then the army comes around Jim, for the same thing. I don't want to see that happen. You're obviously a second kind of you ain't been in very long, but if you plan on making a career or even six years or whatever, it's up to you. I don't care. They don't need getting this on your record. I don't want it . I didn't argue. I mean, and I don't mean to distract you . Okay? I mean, you have that right? As a citizen. If that's what you want, we'll charge. You have to go to court, notify the command, do all that. Or if you're taking the time out of our night, which is not a problem, we're , we're being paid to take care of you. Okay? We'll sit here with you back . You will know what's your dog's name, no smoke. And for paddock up , um, you won't smoke and get on down the road. Okay? It's entirely up to you. What do you want to do? I got a problem. I'll sit here with you. Take your tries back and send you on down the road. Okay? I don't want to charge you. I will. That's my job. I don't want to. The chief's giving me discretion on how to handle it. He's like, these are the two choices I said, that's what I was thinking. That's what I want to do. He was like, not a problem. We can either let it go, help him out and get his eyes back and get him on down the road so that the army doesn't get involved or we can charge you. It doesn't change my life one way or the way you see what I'm saying. It's not about me. This is about you. What you want to do. If you want to just chill, look, let's go. And no charges filed. We'll take the handcuffs off. You . Get your bottle of water to drink on and sit here until you feel comfortable driving. All right ? Or the other option is we write in someone's discharge and we, by then we have no choice. We have to notify your command .

Speaker 1:

Can you believe this guy? Can you believe that? So they, they stop him. They rip them out of the car. They pepper spray him in the face multiple times. Then they threatened him. Hey, we can turn this into something. If you want to, we're going to charge you with a bunch of crimes. If you want to let it go. Happy to do that. You see the other cop come up. Oh, excuse me here. Whoops. Sorry about that. Let me just go ahead and Pat the up, all that , uh , chemical pepper spray that we just jammed into your eye sockets. Multiple. Let me just dab that up there for you there . My friend and meanwhile, my partner here is going to threaten you with criminal charges. If you bring anything up of this and you can tell this, guy's had this conversation before, it's not his first rodeo, right? You heard all the lines. It's like a used car salesman. Who's out there trying to sell you the latest civic, this guy, Hey, Oh , you've got discretion and a whole litany of things. We get paid to do this anyways . It doesn't change my life one way or the other. You can , uh , you know, you can contest it, no problem, but you're going to go to jail and we're going to take this up to your chain of command and on and on and on. So what does the guy do? He's sitting there in handcuffs, still

Speaker 3:

Getting his eyes patted

Speaker 1:

Down because he just got pepper sprayed in the middle of Virginia with some whack job who's threatening to basically wreck his life

Speaker 3:

Unless he just agrees

Speaker 1:

To ignore all of this, just paper right over it. And move on to the next story. How many other times has this guy done that? How many other times is this little shtick ? This little

Speaker 3:

Routine been unfolded to other random

Speaker 1:

When people throughout the state of Virginia, cause he's pretty well practiced at it. He got it pretty nicely rehearsed. And he was just trying to use it on this guy. Fortunately, however, that is not going to stick. We have Ralph Northam who is , uh ,

Speaker 3:

Apparently surviving.

Speaker 1:

The blackface ordeal says here at my statement on the encounters between Lieutenant Karen Desario and two officers from Windsor police department, the incident in Windsor is disturbing and it angered me. I'm directing the Virginia state police to conduct an independent investigation. Our Commonwealth has done important work on police reform. We must keep working to ensure Virginians are safe. I'm inviting army medic, Lieutenant Karen Nazario to meet soon. We must all continue the larger dialogue about reform in our country. Well , I'm , I'm kind of sick of the conversation about it. We've been dialoguing about this stuff for a very, very long time. There's been many of us, myself included who have put forth some pretty serious solutions about how maybe we can see some real changes in our justice system. But people like governor Northam who have been elected to go implement those changes, they still want to talk about it. Okay. Leave the talking to sort of, to me, okay. I'm not an elected official, but all of the other elected officials who want more commissions and more studies and more analysis on any of this data, we're pretty much there. We've, we've all kind of understood , uh, that, that , uh , there are some serious things that need to happen

Speaker 3:

Here. And we can dive into

Speaker 1:

Those on a later date, but we've talked about solutions here a lot, but good news is governor Northam is going to be at least having another conversation. So the town of Windsor, now they released a statement , uh , yesterday on April 11th, police stop of December five, 2006

Speaker 3:

20. So once again, this ,

Speaker 1:

It happened on December five, 2020. Now we're getting a press release on April 11th. After the rest of the world, found

Speaker 2:

Out about the lawsuit and saw the video. The town of Windsor, Virginia acknowledges the unfortunate events that transpired on December 5th involving involving Nazario and officers Gutierrez and Crocker pursuit. And ultimate stop resulted in the use of pepper spray by officer Gutierrez. As a result of this use of force department policy requires an internal investigation to determine the appropriateness. The investigation began immediately at the conclusion, it was determined that policy was not followed. This resulted in a disciplinary action department-wide requirements for additional training were implemented in January and continue up to the president. Since that time, officer Gutierrez was also terminated from his employment. And so miss faith, or if anybody in the comments knows the answer to this, when was he fired? I would like to know since that time,

Speaker 3:

When was that? So it was this April 10th, April 9th, April 8th. Or was this December 10th? Did it take four months for that officer to be fired or did it take four days? I have a good question.

Speaker 2:

I'd like to know the town of Windsor has remained transparent about this event since the initial stop, it has openly provided documents and related videos to attorneys for Nazario town. We'll continue to provide information in its commitment to openness requested an investigation by Virginia

Speaker 3:

State police and other elected

Speaker 2:

Officials. Small town out of Windsor sat in events like this happened in our community and onward. So we'll see if Ms . Faith has the answer to that question, but let's take a look at the lawsuit itself. So this has been filed on April 2nd,

Speaker 3:

Page one

Speaker 2:

Of 36. We're not going to go through the whole thing obviously. So we have Karen Nazario who was suing Joe Gutierrez and Daniel Crocker and serving the Windsor police department both down here, trial by jury demanded. And this is out of the Eastern district of Virginia federal

Speaker 3:

Complaints. Nazario by council suing under the first and fourth amendments of the constitution. We have

Speaker 2:

Two behavior of two police officers

Speaker 3:

Who while

Speaker 2:

On duty and in uniform, they initiated a traffic stop against Nazario driving back from his duty station. Defendants did so because they alleged that he did not have a license plate on the rear of his

Speaker 3:

Tahoe, not withstanding

Speaker 2:

The fact that by the time they approached the vehicle, they had actual knowledge that there was a license plate on the rear of his vehicle. They decided to escalate the traffic stop reported as a high risk felony, stop pull their weapons illegally detained as REO threatened to murder him illegally, spray him, illegally searched his vehicle. Then to cover up their actions. They wanted to extort silence. They threatened to destroy his military career with a series of baseless criminal charges. If he decided to seek redress for pepper, spraying him in the face, they escalated the traffic stop with what they acknowledged was more. It was an 80% certainty that he was a minority counter was recorded in three different angles. Cell phone footage, exhibits one and two body cam footage, exhibit three Crocker's body cam exhibit

Speaker 3:

Four and five camera footage consistent

Speaker 2:

With a disgusting nationwide trend of law enforcement officers who believe they can operate with complete impunity, engage in unprofessional, discourteous, racially, biased, dangerous, sometimes deadly abuses of authority. Ignore the clearly established mandates of the constitution of these United States and local laws. You serve the roles of the legislature, judge, jury, and executioner substituting the law for their arbitrary and illegal conduct. So we've got three cameras.

Speaker 3:

He was in uniform at the time, they're saying this has to stop.

Speaker 2:

Listen to the U S second Lieutenant army medical Corps sworn an oath to uphold, defend the constitution. We got Joe Gutierrez, who is a police officer Crocker as a police officer

Speaker 3:

Damages. What are they asking for? Let's see

Speaker 2:

What he wants. Bodily injury from the effects of the spray and other physical touching. So some, some monetary damages for that injury to his constitutional rights, monetary for that past present, future physical pain and suffering. So a lot more money for that past present, future mental anguish, lingering effects of mental anguish , predicated yeah .

Speaker 3:

Upon their threats to him, humiliation and embarrassment from being detained. Now this is all over ,

Speaker 2:

But the internet damage to his personal property caused to his dog and his vehicle. Apparently the dog was in the back. Actual deterrence from exercising. First amendment rights. Here are the different claims for relief. Let's fly

Speaker 3:

Through these violation of the fourth amendment, unreasonable seizure. So he wants to clarify

Speaker 2:

Tory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, right?

Speaker 3:

He's driving reasonable person. They beat him

Speaker 2:

And him forced him on his face. Interrogated him count two violation of the fourth amendment, excessive force. They were objectively unreasonable by spraying him with the pepper spray, striking him fist

Speaker 3:

Handcuffs. They use force and they lacked probable cause for

Speaker 2:

Crime, which is exactly right. That's why that officer went up to him and said your you're under arrest. Okay .

Speaker 3:

Well, let me back that up a little bit. You're being detained because he doesn't have it .

Speaker 2:

Any probable cause for an arrest violation of the fourth amendment for illegal searches, a lot of fourth amendment stuff. They searched for his firearm, search the search, the firearm for its serial number transmitted the same dispatch to determine whether it was stolen

Speaker 3:

And place it back in the vehicle violation of the first amendment. So they're saying that they prevented and precluded him from speaking out about their misconduct, that that's their first

Speaker 2:

Amendment protected, right? Sort of encouraging persuading him to remain silent saying, Hey, your military career is going to be destroyed. If you want to take this somewhere, we're also going to arrest you. We're going to issue you a summons. You're going to be charged with , uh , know public obstruction and a traffic violation. And we could make this a big problem for you if you want, but you can just decide not to do anything. And we'll just let you go. Common law assault. They willfully and wantonly intentionally pointed their firearms at him, grabbed him, tried to pull them out of the vehicle, sprayed HIMS for striking them on the neck face backs legs, placing him in handcuffs, common law battery. A lot more of the same stuff they're saying he was not presenting a threat to the defendants. No violence or offensive touches were warranted. Common law, false imprisonment, no legal justification or excuse. They had no probable cause no reasonable articulable suspicion, no legal justification to seize him and then can commit. What's a full custodial arrest. That's why he didn't say you're under arrest because he had no basis for it. Illegal search in violation of the Virginia code. So same thing. You'll notice that over here, they're , they're using different authority. So here, fourth amendment, common law assault, common law battery. Then we have common law, false imprisonment. Then we have the Virginia codes or breaking out of the common law and going specifically to Virginia prayer for relief. What do they wants ? $1 million. All right. So they want jointly and severally in favor of Lieutenant Nazario compensatory damages to make him whole 1 million. Then they want punitive damages that the jury deems appropriate. First amendment rights, reasonable costs and jury expenses, interests , and other things signed off on by Jonathan M Arthur, over from Richmond, Richmond, VA counsel for the plaintiffs. All right . And so let's take a quick few questions over from our locals [email protected] If you want to join a community and join , uh , an ask a question, this is the place to do it. First one up is mob says, Robert, this is another instance of cops forcefully, escalating to potentially end up with another Daniel shaver, keep your hands outside the car. Also open the door and get out. Also take off your seatbelt. You're a moment away from cops holding their guns out at you. Thinking you're grabbing a weapon when you do, as they say, I wouldn't have trusted these officers at all. Yeah. And so that's the, that's the counter response. I think MAs a lot of people say, well, why didn't he just listen? Because if he moves his hands anywhere they shoot you. And we've seen that historically speaking around this country and he's talking about Daniel shaver, Daniel shaver is a case that happened here in Arizona. It was the , I think the cop's name was Phillip Brailsford. And uh , this cop was in the middle of a hotel room. And Daniel shaver was sort of crawling down the hallway because these costs were barking orders. And these cops all had, I think, you know, assault, rifles, AR fifteens or whatever pointed down the hallway, Daniel shaver is just crawling down and the cops are screaming at him like 10 different orders. Stand up, sit down, put your hands up, put your hands down , uh , cross, you know, cross your ankles, cross your hand , all this crap. And so this guy reached back like this probably to pull his pants up because he was crawling on the floor of the police were barking orders. Brailsford shoots him, executes and kills him dead just because he moved his hand just a little bit. So, and that was a white guy with a white cop. So now you've got a Hispanic slash black guy and two white cops who immediately come out with guns drawn before anything even gets off

Speaker 3:

The ground. So he just, okay, not going to move, just do it ,

Speaker 2:

Whatever you want to do. I guess you guys are maniacs with guns and lights. I haven't done anything wrong, but there are approaching this. Like he just rubbed me

Speaker 3:

Bank . I totally agree with you mom . Next up. We've got an why

Speaker 2:

My renal MD says earlier, I posted this. When did we make it okay. To allow cops to be mad at their job for lawful orders, time to take our rights back. Yeah. I don't blame the guy any move and he shot. Yeah. Now you've got these cops do who think that they're in the middle of Fallujah, right? [inaudible] the cop. As soon as he stood up felony, stop , whatever felony stopped .

Speaker 3:

Let's take a look.

Speaker 2:

This faith is looking for us on the firing deadlines . She says, I'm not a hundred percent sure. But everything says after the internal investigation, the officer was fired. So that makes it sound recent. Town manager said late Sunday, the officer was fired following the investigation.

Speaker 3:

Yeah. So she,

Speaker 2:

She sent over an article on that. So , uh , I would be very curious whether it was immediate or whether it was after the public knew about it because those are different standards. Hack consulting says these cops end up getting away with this for so long because we keep trying to train it out of them. Maybe if we reoriented our anger priorities to doctors and other professions that have been ignored, we would start putting cops into this power trip scenario. Thankfully, we were seeing clearer and clear examples of malfeasance with cops. Then having to paint those scenarios with words, had the cops stop making it so expedient for him to get out. Now it would not have led to the impossible, not to get harmed scenario of the victim

Speaker 3:

From hack consulting. It's a good person ,

Speaker 2:

Effective hack . Thanks for sharing that. Uh , Jeremy says, I side with the guy who was stopped, the officer's escalated this from the beginning without explaining why they stopped him. They both deserve to be reprimanded in this case. I would be scared out of my mind in the situation as well. So that's Jeremy. And so Jeremy, you have a , you've got, you've got one today that you sided with the police and you have one today or more, more, more , uh, I don't want to , I don't want to put words in your mouth, cause you're not here to defend yourself, but one of your prior comments was a little bit more empathetic towards the Dante right shooting. And now you're kind of on the other side of this one, which is very admirable, Jerry, Jerry,

Speaker 3:

I mean , you're not bundling your political ideologies. That's great.

Speaker 2:

I don't mean to be condescending to you, Jeremy. We talk all the time on clubhouse. You know how much I love you. So I've just given you a hard time on that. Jay bone 86 says , so we also had a video released this weekend where a cop got the back of his head blown out. Cause he decided not to be serious with a guy during a traffic stop. How do we strike the balance? Good question. J bone. Very good question. Jay bone. It's a good one. And I don't know that story at all. So I can't comment intelligently about it, but yes, it is not a, you know , it's a situation where I have a ton of respect for the cops. I know that they, they, they do put themselves in harm's way. A lot of the time

Speaker 1:

I, I want

Speaker 2:

Costs to be safe. I'm not trying to say that I don't support that or don't prioritize that. I just have questions about how they interface with a lot of us on a regular basis, because I think it leads to a lot of these problems that we see that we don't need to be seeing much more of. We got hack consulting says that cop needs to obey the constitution and realize that he is not God. No one is to obey a random with a power trip.

Speaker 1:

Few Popo. Thank you for that. Heck thank you

Speaker 2:

Before that. Heck yeah, I didn't say that hack did, but it did feel good to read it. That's for sure. We've

Speaker 1:

Got a time to

Speaker 2:

Shine. Says does the officer have to reveal why he's being pulled over at the start of the interaction? So I can't speak specifically about this , uh, in Virginia, but , but typically yeah, I mean, you've got a , you've got, you've got, you've got , uh , uh, a basis for asking the cop why they stopped you, right? You still have freedom to travel in this country. A cop pulls you over. You can ask them, what am I being stopped for? Right. What what's going on here? Am I , am I being detained? Or what, what, tell me why you are stopping me. And they should have some sort of reasonable articulable suspicion that they can communicate to you. Otherwise it's an unjustified stop, but they'll make up a reason. This is, this is part of the problem is the cops just make up a bunch of stuff and then it , and then it sticks Sharon quit . And he says, this is so outrageous. I don't have any words for it. I'm really glad to hear he's suing. He should Sue everything and everybody in sight , cops, police, department , city, et cetera.

Speaker 1:

Well , I think , uh, I liked your style, Sharon. I think he's he's on, on that, that route. He's doing well on that. We got

Speaker 2:

Renal MD said for all the so-called crime busting work, some criminal justice expert will tell us this use of force is okay.

Speaker 1:

Uh, I

Speaker 2:

Know, I know we got LT. 13 says he drove for a mile and a half. Officer Tatum did a great video on this. He did have a gun in the car. Did you see the video of the traffic stop? Where officer being really nice, got smoked on the side of the road?

Speaker 1:

Uh, uh ,

Speaker 2:

No, I , I can't say that. I saw that got smoked on the side of the road. No, I did not see that. That's awful. Yeah. That's that's not good. He drove for a mile and a half. Yeah. So that's where some of the tension comes in. Right? So from his perspective, he's driving to a safe space. He's driving to a well lit area from the cop's perspective. This is a maniac who's not stopping the vehicle. Right. Well guess who has, I think the better argument

Speaker 1:

There the guy did,

Speaker 2:

Right? He , he, and thank, thank God he did. Right? Cause there was, there were other people there and that, that whole situation may have gone down differently. If it was in the dark, right? Maybe they saw something that they didn't see. He could have been dead. Might've saved his life, just transporting himself, that extra mile and a half. And Y renal MD says, look at the American flag in the frame. What is going on in this country? That it take cameras to realize we are in a police state. Yeah.

Speaker 3:

Uh, yeah. It's ,

Speaker 1:

It's trending that way. There's no question. Hack consulting says the cop needs to comply with the constitution. Every utterance of rationalizing needs to be an extra five years in prison. That cop needs the death penalty. He is unfit for society and as a threat to it, that's , that's pretty extreme there . Heck not sure. I oppose the death penalty in general. So I can't by definition, agree with you on that chairman of the board said, isn't this basically extortion. Yeah. It's it's it's sets essentially blackmail, right? If you bring this up against me, that I'm going to charge you with crimes tonight, you're going to go to jail. You're going to lose your career. I'm going to have to notify your commander. And it's the end of the line. After he pepper sprayed him three times warned him that he should be scared of getting out of the car and that he's going to ride the lightning.

Speaker 3:

Okay.

Speaker 1:

We've got my Fox says when cops order you to perform contradicting orders, I'd 100% resist. I don't want to pull up my hand to open the car door and just get shot because he's reaching for a weapon. Exactly. Right? Exactly. You got two cops .

Speaker 3:

So we're just on a hair trigger, screaming at you. You don't, I wouldn't move either. Actually, Joe Snow says all of that

Speaker 1:

Man's arrest need to be investigated and dismissed . Yeah. That officer does. Right? So that's, that's part of the, that's part of the problem. So maybe he'll get fired. Maybe nobody will know anything about the guy. You know, this whole thing kind of gets papered over. But how long has he been on the forest? How many other times has he done that? Where he's basically sat somebody down and said, listen, I know I screwed this up. I'm going to let you go tonight. I talked to my, whatever commander BS made up story. I'm going to let you go tonight or I could take you to jail. How many people just go? All right, that's it I'll just go home.

Speaker 3:

Right. This guy didn't

Speaker 1:

And now it's all coming to light, but how many of them did, how many did he get away with excessive force on Bama? Likud says, by the way, what was the reason of the army soldier? Why did he just come? Why did he just comply with the cops and come out of the car? Why was he so scared? Well, I think it's, I think mom sort of address that, but I think it's probably because as soon as he was stopped, the cops opened their doors with their guns out. I mean, we saw that from the very beginning of the video, pops out, hands up, guns are already drawn. So at that moment, it's like, what do you like, what do you do? Do you move you can't. I mean, even you saw him even on the way out of the car, he's like, look, I have to unbuckle my seatbelt. So that means I have to move my hand. And at that point in time, the cops like, just do it, get out of the corner . He obviously realizes there's no threat, but if you go like this, if the cop says, let me see your hands, get out of the car, let me see your hands. Get out of the car. Let me see your hands. Get out of the car. And you go like this to unbuckle your seatbelt or to open the car door. You just violated a direct order. Now they shoot you and you die. So that's why you don't move. Hack consulting says when cops end up messing up procedure, they need to stop for 20 seconds. Remain aware, realize where they are in procedure, remain in unison with a single command at a time. Yeah. Yeah. Well,

Speaker 2:

I think that's, that's kind of what they did know. Or you're saying changed their procedure a little bit. I think they just doubled down on their procedure. My Fox says risk is not threat. You can't just shoot a person, posing a risk and not an active threat. Ideally the police can be as paranoid as they want looking at all the bad incidents, but we can't allow them to shoot people with impunity. I couldn't agree more. I couldn't agree. Uh , I, it's kind of insane that you have to even make that argument. Isn't it ma no, you know , cops, you don't get to stop anybody for what, any reason that you want and you don't get to just order people to do whatever the hell you want. This is America. We have rights in this country. Okay. You got to come up with justification for seizing. Our Liberty away from us. This type of crap is garbage. Sliding. Ed says what happened when a cop pills over a cop and neither are willing to yield to each other's authority. Well , typically the higher ranking one is going to supersede, but I have seen certain incidents where we're cops will call their boss over and the boss comes over and goes, what are you knuckleheads doing? This is stupid. Get out of here. Right? And kind of diffuses the situation. So maybe that we have, see the veil says criminal justice courses years ago taught us that when the officer is asked, why the citizen is stopped, they are by law to answer. But they are taught numbers, meaning they stopped for one thing, they might something more serious to write up. So they are taught other tactics to get a higher charge. So by not answering this, their numbers running through their head, change this training, then this escalation will end. Yeah. And I, and I talk about this in my book, see the veil , which is not here for some reason. Uh, but, but I talk about a conversation that I had with an officer when I was doing a ride along and in that ride along , uh, this officer was very aggressive with traffic violations and he was stopping people and just sort of tallying up all of the revenue that he was generating that night. I think by the end of the night he generated, I don't know . I forget what I wrote in the book, but a lot like tens of thousands, maybe $20,000 in revenue generated from traffic stops. And that's because he would write as much as he could on every ticket. Okay. Unsafe lane change. Follow me to close a tail light out license plate, light out, driving on a suspended lot that have the right. No, that's, that's, that's a very expensive ticket. And he was just generating revenue in that capacity. And it was an open secret. It actually, it was sort of favored. You know, this guy was sort of puffed up by a lot of the other cops. Now Darla sear says, I have no problem calling out this

Speaker 7:

Fatty

Speaker 2:

Or, or saying a cop is justified. Uh, I shouldn't have laughed at that. I , as I think they are, I can be rational, but what drives me insane is how these defund , the police lefties are demanding. The cops get more involved to enforce social distancing BS. And these cops will do it. No problem. FN drones, man. There's some funny comments today F in drones is rights . Hack consulting says the cops never stopped long enough to resolve the conflicting orders. They need mandatory chill times put into their

Speaker 3:

Training. Yeah. Yeah. Or just

Speaker 2:

Common sense if you're telling him to get out of the car, but also to keep his hands up. Those are conflicting requests. What would you like to him to do?

Speaker 3:

Just go that direction, sir . What's your name?

Speaker 2:

We're we're law enforcement. We think you stole this vehicle. Did you steal

Speaker 3:

This vehicle? So your hands, you

Speaker 2:

Did not tell me your story. What's your name? All right. Cool. I'm going to walk over to the vehicle now. Please. Don't do anything quickly. All right. All right. Walk over. What's going on in here?

Speaker 3:

Nothing. Put your gun down. What happened? Right? Like, but it's I don't, I don't know. I I've never been a cop, but seems like you don't have to jump out of the car with your guns drawn in a situation

Speaker 2:

Like that. But what do I know? All right, so great questions today had a lot of fun with those. Thank you for getting those all over to us long show. We're going to button it up right now. I want to say thank you to everybody who has supported the program over on locals and ask great questions. The address to get down there is watching the watchers.locals.com. We would greatly appreciate your love and support by heading on over there. Let's say hi to chairman of the board. Saw him today. Sarah Smothers . Big thanks to my Fox and miss faith, joy, both in the house today, Chris Wiseman. We have office warrior, Paula. MK. Who else? We've got Virginia. Mary. Want to say hi to clock doc ? We've got act Arcturians I saw a couple of people in here today. See the veil was here today. Good to see you. We got Bama Likud in the house. Saw you today. Welcome back to the show. It's been a little while we've got danger mouse in real life. Be brave. Social Viking. Tremendous. Who else? We have? Whoa. Look at all these new people who signed up over the weekend. Let's welcome. Warmly, Mr. Patrick. Big. Hello, big. Thank you to CWIC quick is in the house. Hey, quick is a, a nice YouTube channel. They do some religious conversation , uh, about Mormonism. Really? If you're on , I'm not Mormon, but if you'd like that, go check out quick on YouTube. C w I C guy's name is Greg. Awesome guy. Go check him out on YouTube. We also want to welcome Jake G K

Speaker 3:

O underscore

Speaker 2:

Saper , route 89. Big. Welcome to the Rick . Big. Welcome to Brianna T . Welcome to the show. We've got UVA horror VA. We've got spurs 73. Big welcome to redneck nine, nine, nine. We've got Juul Dora in the house. We have wide awake, 95, and I want to welcome Dave dooms, Dave and speech unleashed. Ooh , speech

Speaker 3:

Unleashed. Let her rip in

Speaker 2:

Our community. Cause it's all about free speech. We want to be respectful of course, and have civil dialogue, but we do like to share ideas

Speaker 3:

That may not be as welcome

Speaker 2:

On other platforms. So that's the place to do it. If you want to go and be a part of the show, it's at locals.com. Our community's called watching the Watchers would love it. If you went over there, you can get some good stuff while you're there a free copy of my book called to winning. You can download the PDF over there. Ms . Faith , of course always post the slides of the show. If you want to download those, we've got a copy of my impeachment document. You can grab my existence systems , little personal productivity tool that I am working on an online course for right now. We also share links throughout the day, but the real reason is to go hang out with all of the great [email protected] It's a great way to support the show. Great way to ask questions, get a little bit more involved. So I'd invite you to go check that out. But before we get out of here, one final reminder, I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group, and we love to help good people. Who've been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. And so if you know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime, we would be honored and humbled if you sent them our direction so that we can help. We love to help people. Who've been charged with crimes, things like DUIs, domestic violence, drugs, misdemeanor offenses, felony offenses, traffic violations. We can clear up old mugshots. We can quash old warrants. We can help you restore your rights so you can vote again, possess a firearm, again, very important things these days. So if you want some forward momentum on any of that stuff, we can help. We have a great team of people here. We offer free case evaluations we're located in Scottsdale or have an in-office appointments again. So come on in and we'll make sure that we can help at least leave you better than we found you. So if you know anybody who needs some of that help, we would be truly honored and humbled. If you trusted us enough to send them our direction and that's it from me today, long show, good way to start the week off. We're going to be back tomorrow with all of it. Again, we're going to see what happens with Dante, right? We're going to definitely be following the Derek Shovan trial and we'll see where some of this other stuff continues to go and unfold. I , um , saying prayers for Minneapolis tonight and for the foreseeable future. And I'm hopeful that cooler heads can prevail through reasoned dialogue by having conversations about this stuff. Maybe we can all turn the volume down just a little bit. And I want to thank you for being a part of that endeavor. So thanks again for being here. Everybody have a great evening sleep well, I will see you right back here tomorrow. Same time, same place going to be 4:00 PM Arizona time, which is 4:00 PM. Pacific 5:00 PM. Mountain 6:00 PM central in Texas, 7:00 PM on the East coast. Everybody sleep very well. I'll see you tomorrow. Bye-bye .