Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin Trial Day 25, Defending Ofc. Kim Potter in Daunte Wright Shooting, Capitol Hill Riot Failure​

April 15, 2021
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Day 25, Defending Ofc. Kim Potter in Daunte Wright Shooting, Capitol Hill Riot Failure​
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Day 25, Defending Ofc. Kim Potter in Daunte Wright Shooting, Capitol Hill Riot Failure​
Apr 15, 2021

Derek Chauvin’s defense catches stride with major expert witness today who testified about George Floyd’s cause of death. Former Minnesota police officer Kim Potter charged with second-degree manslaughter – we review the charges and the defense. Inspector General of the Capitol Hill Police releases new report on the Capitol Hill Riots and we review what is inside. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• George Floyd passenger Morries Hall’s public defender, Adrienne Cousins, addresses the court and explains the basis for Mr. Hall’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights.​

• Morries Hall addresses the court and explains he has pending charges and invokes his right to remain silent.​

• Judge Cahill rules that Hall’s right against self-incrimination wins and quashes the subpoena.​

• Nelson calls defense expert witness Dr. David Fowler to discuss Floyd’s cause of death.​

• Former police officer Kim Potter is charged with second-degree manslaughter in the killing of Duante Wright.​

• Defending Kim Potter using the Graham vs. Connor standards set by the Supreme Court.​

• A look at Daunte Wright’s criminal record and whether that matters in this case.​

• New report released by Michael Bolton, Inspector General of the Capitol Police, on the Capitol Hill Riots that details more government incompetence.​

• Who is Michael A. Bolton, Inspector General for the Capitol Police?​

• Will the Capitol Hill Riot cases get the same treatment as other riot cases involving Antifa and BLM? Review of a 2010 Memo drafted by Eric Holder.​

• 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 #KimPotter #DaunteWright #CapitolHillProtests #CapitolHillRiots #CapitolHill #Holder #USAttorneys #Antifa #BLM

Show Notes Transcript

Derek Chauvin’s defense catches stride with major expert witness today who testified about George Floyd’s cause of death. Former Minnesota police officer Kim Potter charged with second-degree manslaughter – we review the charges and the defense. Inspector General of the Capitol Hill Police releases new report on the Capitol Hill Riots and we review what is inside. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• George Floyd passenger Morries Hall’s public defender, Adrienne Cousins, addresses the court and explains the basis for Mr. Hall’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights.​

• Morries Hall addresses the court and explains he has pending charges and invokes his right to remain silent.​

• Judge Cahill rules that Hall’s right against self-incrimination wins and quashes the subpoena.​

• Nelson calls defense expert witness Dr. David Fowler to discuss Floyd’s cause of death.​

• Former police officer Kim Potter is charged with second-degree manslaughter in the killing of Duante Wright.​

• Defending Kim Potter using the Graham vs. Connor standards set by the Supreme Court.​

• A look at Daunte Wright’s criminal record and whether that matters in this case.​

• New report released by Michael Bolton, Inspector General of the Capitol Police, on the Capitol Hill Riots that details more government incompetence.​

• Who is Michael A. Bolton, Inspector General for the Capitol Police?​

• Will the Capitol Hill Riot cases get the same treatment as other riot cases involving Antifa and BLM? Review of a 2010 Memo drafted by Eric Holder.​

• 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 #KimPotter #DaunteWright #CapitolHillProtests #CapitolHillRiots #CapitolHill #Holder #USAttorneys #Antifa #BLM

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 in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. And so that's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get to we're on day 25 of the Derrick Shovan trial. Not a real interesting day. If I can be candid about it, we had one witness the entirety of the day , uh, Dr. Fowler, very important defense witness and expert witness a forensic pathologist coming in today to talk about the cause of death for George Floyd, from the defense perspective. So very important testimony, but we've already heard a lot about this stuff. This is just sort of an alternative interpretation of it. Very important. We are going to go through it. And there were some interesting things that happened before the testimony started today, but we've got a lot to get to. We're also going to change gears a little bit. Talk about Kim Potter, who is the former Minnesota police officer, who is now charged with second degree manslaughter for the shooting, the killing of Dante, right? I've been covering this story all week. We've got a lot to break down there and I want to introduce you to a defense core . She is charged with a crime. Now. She still deserves the presumption of innocence. We're going to make sure that she gets that and talk about a potential defense for Kim Potter. Actually something that I don't even think is all that complicated, and we're pretty much up to speed on it because of where we're at on the Shovan trial. So we're going to get into that. Definitely break that down might be a little bit contentious, but that's what we do here. Then we're going to finish up the show with a quick update on what's going on in the Capitol Hill protests Capitol Hill riots cases, because there was a new report brand new release very recently from Michael Bolton, who is the inspector general of the U S Capitol police. And basically he came out, put this report out, CBS news got ahold of it yesterday, and it shows that the government is useless as we all sort of suspected. So we're going to go into that as well. We've got a lot to get to today. If you want to ask questions or be a part of the show, head on over to our locals.com platform . So go to your browser type in locals.com, search for our community called watching the Watchers. You can find us there and there's a live chat that's going on right now and Ms . Faith and Mr. Ma or in there moderating, keeping things civil as well as clipping questions that are going to go into my slide deck that I will answer. So we've got three today. If you want to ask questions in between those watching the Watchers dot locals is the direct address to do that and get a copy of the slides that I'm about to go through, get a copy of my book and other goodies and get plugged into a good community. So check us [email protected] All right. So enough of that, let's get into the news of the day, Derek Shovan day 25, we've already been following this case in-depth for some period of time. Now, today was a critical day for the defense because Eric Nelson put on the stand, Dr. Fowler, Dr. Fowler is a forensic pathologist. So we heard from him all day, literally all day. He was the only witness that we had today. And so we want to break down what was said, what is his interpretation? Because this is the counterbalance to all of the evidence that we heard from the prosecution up until this point in time. So as we always do, let's go to our trial board and see where we're at this time today, we're in the defense case now they're presenting their evidence. And so we heard all day today, of course, Eric Nelson, we had some questioning, some cross examination for , uh , Mr. Blackwell , uh, later this afternoon, after the direct examination was over. And we also heard a little bit, I think it was from Matthew Frank, or it might've been Steve Solutia this morning. I don't recall. I think it was Steve Slusher , not, not a lot from the prosecution today because , uh , it's the defense case, right? They're just out cross-examining, they're not calling witnesses or anything like that. We did hear from Adrian cousins who is the public defender for Morrie's hall . So we've got to break down what happened there, because there was a lot of question about whether Maurice hall was going to be called in to testify, given the fact that he was a passenger in George Floyd's vehicle back on May 25th. So a lot of , uh , sort of back and forth about that. Is he going to come in and testify or is this going to be a missing gap in the case? Because obviously we know that they, the jurors have some idea that there is an individual because they saw Chang's body camera, video, and all of that. So we're going to get into that. Let's take a look at the witness list for the defense. As we saw yesterday, we had a lot of people, six people yesterday, today, only one Dr . Fowler, who is from forensic pathology. This is the government's sort of partial witness list. Didn't hear from anybody or see anything on their side of the aisle today. And so we are going to start off with what happened before testimony started. So Dr. Fowler of course, was the primary witness , the only witness all day long, but there was some pretty important things that happened before the day kicked off. And so first and foremost, you may have seen this news sort of spreading around yesterday that Eric Nelson was going to be moving for a judgment of acquittal, right? It's sort of, Oh my gosh, he's going to move for acquittal right

Speaker 2:

Now. Are you kidding me? Is this what's what's happening? That's just pretty routine, right? This is pretty standard stuff. So after the government rests their case, the defense will typically

Speaker 1:

File one of these motions. It's just a procedural thing it's saying, listen, we've heard all the government's evidence.

Speaker 2:

They haven't even proven their case based. We don't even have to PR PR PR present a defense

Speaker 1:

Based on this. The , the garbage that they showed us in court today, nothing that they said could ever possibly lead to a conviction. Therefore we just, as a matter of procedure, move for a judgment of acquittal. And that's exactly what happened today. So it wasn't even a big deal. Many people were sort of tweeting this on Twitter, go , Oh, Moshe for acquittal, what's happening. Like this is all , you know , some big thing that was going on now. It really wasn't. And it got about that much time in court this morning, Eric Nelson came back out and said, you have judge, we're moving for an acquittal. Here's why government experts are disagreeing with one another. And he went through a couple of examples. He said he was basically diving into the use of force analysis. We saw that , uh, the , uh, four sergeants Seiger Seiger was disagreeing with the law professor who he heard from the government's last witness. They sort of had disagreements about the prone position and how some of that work . So there were some points of contention there. Similarly, we saw some of the medical experts contradicting one another. There was some indication that Dr. Tobin, for example, thought that the cause the mechanism of death was, is fixed CLO oxygen. We bring out Dr. Baker not really set his heart kind of gave out caused by heart disease. So different causes. Eric Nelson comes back out and says, look, they don't even agree with themselves for crying out loud. So why could , how could we possibly be convicted as a result? But again, very formulaic. He didn't spend a lot of time in here. He just kind of ran through his questions. Maybe maybe five minutes, six minutes of argument talked about the cause of death experts, contradicting themselves, all of that stuff. So then prosecution came out, presented their case. Now we think we did a good job. We met up, we met our burden. Judge says, yep . Okay, good , good enough. There's enough here to move forward. The state has presented enough that we can hand this off to the jury, right? There's sort of a burden that the state has to meet in order for the case to move forward. So you challenge that you say, yeah, they, they, they tried, they didn't do it. Judge says , okay. Yeah, they did. Which is almost always the case. So we knew that that was going to happen, not a big deal, but just wanted to clear that up second issue. That is a bigger deal is the Maurice hall Morrie's hall. Now is the passenger. If you recall, who was also in the vehicle with George Floyd and Shawanda Hill when the police approached the vehicle. So if you recall those two individuals, Maurice hall and Shawanda Hill were pulled aside. They were dealt with, by officer Chang, who we recently saw his body camera video in court. And so he was attending to them so that they didn't get into the car mess with evidence or allow other people into the car. So he was sort of securing that portion of the scene while Shovan and the others were dealing with George Floyd. And so we, the jurors saw that video. They know that Maury's hall is there. They know that we heard from Shawanda Hill. They know we heard from basically everybody else and their mother from the government's case, we heard from the firefighter, we heard from the passer-by, who was just walking down the street. So they may be asking themselves, where is Maurice halt ? Where is this guy? We know he's there. Why haven't we heard from him? So today they were trying to get him into court. Nelson filed a subpoena for him to come and testify. Maurice hall, and his attorney moved to quash that subpoena. They basically said we don't want to testify. And we're protected against being forced to testify, pursuant to the fifth amendment. And so let's take a look at the judge today. This is Adrian cousins, who is the public defender assigned to Maurice hall. She's in court today. Now basically making the argument to the court as to why Maurice hall cannot testify here today.

Speaker 3:

Good morning, your honor, Adrian cousins and Jeff Isaac men appearing on behalf of Mr. Hall, who again is present in the courtroom. Um, your honor, where we left last left off at the last hearing was you had instructed defense counsel to submit a list of questions on a very narrow topic to see whether or not Mr. Hall could answer a very narrowly tailored set of questions and whether or not his fifth amendment privilege would be implicated in those questions. I've had a chance to review those questions, judge, and review them with Mr. Hall. And to summarize, Mr. Hall can not answer any of the questions that defense put forward, and I'm happy to expand on the reasons why he can't answer any of those questions. Um , let's just focus on how Mr. Floyd looked in the SUV, because that was the very limited group of questions that I thought might not incriminate them . Absolutely judge . And if you look at the list that defense proposed , um, I think that that really starts getting into that topic at question seven. So question seven proposed by the defense was after conducting your business in cut foods, did you return to the vehicle with Mr. Floyd? Mr. Hall can not answer that question. Mr. Hall can not put himself in that car with Mr. Floyd. Again, this was a car that was searched twice and drugs were recovered twice. If Mr. Hall puts himself in that car, he's exposes himself to constructive possession charges of the drugs that were found in that car. And it's important to know judge that Mr. Hall exposes himself to that charge whether or not Mr. Chauvin is convicted or acquitted, whatever happens with this case, the state can still come back and charge Mr. Hall with constructive possession of drugs in that car. So he can't put himself in that car.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So, you know, as, as a legal observer, I want to say , uh , yeah, but we still want to hear from him. Hello for the spectacle of it. We want to hear him come in, but legally she's absolutely right. Right. Anything that he says, anything that he does the prosecution at this point in time has not given him any immunity. So if he says something that opens the door to criminal charges, he's on the hook for that. Chauvin's not judge, isn't this public defender isn't the government has not offered him immunity. So we can't talk now here's Maurice hall coming in and trying to explain or , or explaining why he wants to invoke the judge kind of helps him along as you'll see,

Speaker 3:

Sir, you understand Mr. Hall , uh, you do have a fifth amendment, right? Not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. Do you understand that? Yes. All right . And do you understand that applies even when you are not one of the parties of the case, but when you're a witness in a trial, you understand that yes. You understand that your attorney and I'm sure they have given you advice about whether to involve your fifth amendment, right. Against self-incrimination, but ultimately it's your choice. You understand that, right . And you have to speak up just a little bit and open up the podium . Uh , you understand that this is your choice, so you can disregard the advice of your attorneys if you want it to . Yes. Uh, knowing all that do, you've had a chance to look at the questions that were proposed by both sides. I have. Would you be willing to answer those if I were to put you on the sand and swear you in as a witness? No. Okay. And why would you not answer those? I'm fearful of criminal charges going forward? I have open charges, not shuttle of my personal stuff, but basically you are in , we'll get your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you, sir. You can have a seat .

Speaker 1:

All right. So kind of nudges him along, right? Yep . All right. And you know, the judge is even, I think, a little bit interested in hearing more. So the way that this worked is the judge gave Eric Nelson and the , uh, the government, the prosecution , uh, an opportunity to present a certain series of questions that they think would not be self-incrimination that , that they could ask him. And of course we heard the public defender just come out and said, no, basically any question is going to put them in the car. That alone is enough, which is a good argument. It's, you know, it's sort of the right legal argument, even though many of us wanted to hear from him. Yeah. That's the right. That's the right move. And the judge agrees. So here is judge Cahill sort of explaining why this is, and then we'll break down what this means.

Speaker 3:

All right . I'm going to advise both sides to file your proposed questions , uh, as essentially an offer of proof on what you would have asked Mr. Hall. But I am finding that he has a complete fifth amendment we're privileged here. Uh, I had earlier said that possibly he could talk about how Mr. Floyd looked in the car, but counsel's argument is persuasive that that could provide a link. And since it's not just evidence that would incriminate a person, but also provide a link to incriminating evidence. I do find that his invocation of his fifth amendment rights is valid and accordingly, I am going to quash the subpoena. Anything else? All right . Thank you.

Speaker 1:

All right. So subpoenas quashed , Maurice hall is not testifying and Liberty or death asked a great question about this over on locals.com. And he was asking essentially, you know, did Nelson know about this? Was this part of the strategy? What does this mean? And it's, I think that Eric Nelson probably realized that it was gonna be difficult to put him on the stand and get any questions out of him, just because of the fact that it would be self-incrimination, he's a defense lawyer. He knows that, but he still wanted to try, because it would have been a very, very compelling spectacle. Literally, I use that word a lot today, but that's what it would have been is to put them on the stand and have him reinvoke repeatedly. I've been advised on counsel to invoke my fifth amendment rights. Not going to answer that question over and over and over again. And the reason being is because the jurors are going to see that, right. And they're going to say, well, why is that guy on the stand, not answering questions? We have all these questions in this case about what caused the death of George Floyd. We have expert witnesses. Who've been presented, offering competing viewpoints, alternative interpretations. We have a guy here who's not answering any questions. Maybe he had something to do with it, right. You're sort of opening the door into that reasonable doubt argument. And so now they're not going to be able to do that. Now, do they lose anything? Does Eric Nelson and the Shovan team lose anything? Not really. I think that it would have been only upside if they would've gotten Maurice hall in, but now that it's not, I'm not sure that they lose much. Remember we still have Shawanda Hill who testified that George Floyd was in the vehicle falling asleep several times. Uh , when I say we it's, it's it's from the defense perspective, right? The defense is , is making these motions. So they lost the motion, but do they lose anything really Shawanda? Hill's going to still come in and testify that George Floyd was falling asleep in the vehicle, that there was sort of a radical change in mood from what she observed inside the store to outside the store. We also have the Chang video. So the jurors know that Morrie's hall was physically there. They know that he got out of the car, they saw some, a conversation about him, but that's it. So they can kind of piece together the dots or connect the dots. I think that can say that if, if we , we know that there were pills in the car, we know that there was even pills in the back of the , uh, the , the police car. We know that those tested positive for fentanyl, we know that George Floyd was falling asleep at the wheel. We know that the toxicology report came back 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl combined with some other remnants of methamphetamines and other drugs. And so the jury is now saying, all right, well, we know that we have sort of this, this chain that exists. There's a missing link here. Maurice hall can fill that, but you can sort of, it's like circumstantial evidence, right? You can fill in the gaps on your own. And Eric Nelson did that. So that was it for that. We're not going to hear from Maurice hall in this trial at all. This is somebody who is not going to be required to testify because judge Cahill just quash the subpoena. So then we change gears. Now this is the big witness of the day. This is Dr . David Fowler. And , uh , he is from South America, got a little bit of a British accent going on, which is only upside, right? That's only good news. If you have an expert witness with a British accent and an expert witness with not a British accent, it's like kind of like game over. So a major, major upside over here, kind of up on the points thus far, because he has a British accent, which we're going to see big deal, also a retired person who does consulting full-time forensic pathology. So now we're in the medical component of the case as we've been for some period of time. And it's really kind of the same thing that we've heard a lot of, they come out, they puff up their resumes. This guy has a very, very impressive resume as you would expect. And he had a little bit of an interesting twist here. So he was the office of the chief medical examiner over in Maryland. He was he's licensed credentialed, licensed doctor, tons of training testified hundreds of hundreds of times done hundreds, thousands of, of , uh, autopsies. It sounds like eight , 800 a year where the number of homicides that he was reviewing when he was there, tons of articles. And he's part of a couple of these organizations. One is called the forensics panel. So it sounds like this case was sort of almost peer reviewed. He's part of this organization that , uh , reviewed this case. So he has he's , it's sort of like a meta expert witness. This guy's an expert he's going to come in and testify, but he's going to explain the findings that he uncovered sort of in conjunction with a number of other expert witnesses, other forensic panelists who are on this panel. He said that there are 13 peer reviewers. So it's sort of like 13 people did their own analysis, gave him some input on it and then prep this guy to come in and testify in court. And he did a good job and he was really flushing out a lot of the same issues that we've already heard about. So what I want to do here is we're not going to go through the whole thing. It was like seven hours, a six, six, seven hours of testimony today, all one guy, lot of stuff, a lot of the same stuff we've already heard about things like use of force. Uh, it , again , it's medical. So, you know, did the knee, did the force of the knee cause any medical repercussions and things of that nature. So I'm going to show you his conclusion first, then we're going to go through and we're going to analyze a little bit of his testimony in conjunction with some of the cross-examination . We have some redirect exam or some , some segments. And I think our recross segment as well, so a little bit of back and forth all day to day , nothing really groundbreaking. Uh , quite frankly, I thought that this was all relatively to be expected. We always knew that it was going to be sort of a battle of the experts, dueling experts. We've been saying for months on this channel, that the government's going to just sort of throw a bunch of experts at it. The defense is going to throw a bunch of experts at it, and we're going to see what the jury decides, right? Because the site, you can make the science say whatever you want and you just, whatever you want it to say, you just make it say that because that's how this stuff works. There is there's a lot of room for interpretation. That's the nature of this stuff, right? It is not definitive. And so the government is going to try to come out and make it definitive. The defense is going to come out and say, there's reasonable doubt about all this stuff. And so the jury is going to find ultimately where they stand and we're going to all see that very, very soon because closing arguments should be starting on Monday. So let's get into Dr. Fowler. And this is the first clip where he's talking about the ultimate conclusion. So we're going to get that first. And then we're going to kind of work backwards. And here is where he says that the basically why Floyd died is a result of sudden cardiac arrhythmia. Let's listen in and see what he has to say

Speaker 4:

Before we begin. Uh, doctor, can you summarize briefly what your opinions are in this case? It's so, in my opinion, Mr. Floyd had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia, cardiac arrhythmia due to his atherosclerotic and hypertensive hot season. You can write that down multiple different ways , um, during his restraint and schedule by the police or spanked by the police. Um, and then he's significant contributory conditions would be, since I've already put the hock disease in pots , one, he would have the toxicology of the fentanyl and Mason fish to me , um , that is exposure to a vehicle exhausts . So potentially carbon monoxide poisoning, or at least an effect from increased carbon dioxide in that stream and paraganglioma or the other natural disease process that he has . So , um , one of those combined to cause Mr. Fully-staffed alright ,

Speaker 1:

So hilar largely agrees with Dr. Baker, right? Who said it was kind of the same thing like his heart just gave out, says it was heart disease. You heard him use the medical terms, arteriosclerosis hypertension, blah, blah, blah, all that stuff. Right. But it was heart disease. Didn't hear anything about low oxygen. Didn't hear anything about asphyxia, which is what the other government witnesses have been beating home other than Dr. Baker throughout the entire presentation of their case. So he does talk about fentanyl and meth calling those contributing factors. And so really what he did is he went through the same medical certificate that Dr. Baker did and agrees with those findings as it was caused by sudden cardiac arrhythmia. Then he goes through and he spends a lot of time dealing with detailing what that is, what is cardiac arrhythmia? How does the heart work and on and on and on. And he goes through a lot of the same analysis that we've already heard, right? Because if you recall, Dr. Baker's testimony who actually performed the autopsy said that he takes pictures and does his autopsies in a way that is so detailed that he can basically give his case file over to another pathologist or another autopsy. Somebody does autopsies and they can draw their own independent conclusions based on the work that he did. He takes very, you know, many, many detailed pictures, essentially in the way that he would want to get a file if he were asked to independently review and certify that case. So that was happening here. He goes through, he says, he looked at everything, blah, blah, blah, on and on, and on talks a lot about the heart and how the heart works and about how you've got different, you know , valves pumping. And if anything interferes with that, like if you have a heart valve or an artery that is 90% closed or 70% closed because of heart disease, you're going to run into some problems. And so a lot of testimony was about the mechanical functions of the heart and how all this stuff interfaces with itself in the context of heightened activity and increased workload and on and on and on. So he goes through a lot of studies. He says, yeah, this study weighed all these hearts. And we know that a certain heart that weighs a certain amount is hypertensive because of X, Y, and Z. So he's very, very masterful with the material. Definitely. You know , obviously an expert, somebody who is well credentialed and has a grasp on what he's talking about. And so we're going to sort of move, we're going to move beyond some of the heart stuff a little bit. And I want to show you this clip where he's talking about the knee, right? So now we're talking about the placement of the knee and how that might impact vital structures in a person's body. We just heard from Dr. Tobin, who was the government's expert witness, who came out and gave us some very nice, beautiful graphs, showing the physics, the weight. We had a picture of Derek Shovan with his gear on his body, armor his weight belt, his , uh, his , his holster, his guns, and all of that stuff. And did some serious calculations and said, look, all of this weight, all of this pressure on the back of Floyd is going to necessarily cause him to not be able to breathe, which, which led to low oxygen, which resulted death by 60 up. So now we have this expert witness who comes in and basically says, yeah , there was a knee on the neck, but so what didn't do anything to any of his vital structures? You can't find any evidence based on the , the w w what I reviewed that was conducted the pictures from the autopsy that was conducted by Dr. Baker Baker that shows any injuries to the muscles. There's no subcutaneous terrors or tissue problems and no damage to any of the vital structures here. It is in court today.

Speaker 4:

Uh, in terms of the placement of officer Chauvin's, excuse me, I need to Mr. Floyd, is it your opinion that Mr. Chauvin's knee in any way impacted the structures of Mr. Floyd's neck? No, it did not. None of the vital structures , um , were in the area where the knee appear to be from the videos. Now, again, in terms of your death investigations , um, you've reviewed photographs, you've reviewed the autopsy, photographs, things of that nature, correct? Yes. Were any signs of what generally speaking, do signs of injury , uh, play into your analysis as to the cause of death? Yes. How so? Well, you make an observation of such as in this particular case of a knee providing force to a particular part of the body, and then you go and you look at the same body . You see whether or not you can. I find corroborating evidence within the body itself, either an abrasion to the skin, subcutaneous hemorrhage, hemorrhage into the muscles or other injuries , um, that may be caused by the knee. And what injuries did you observe in the photographs of Mr. Floyd? All of his injuries were in areas where the knee was. In other words, they were on the front of his body. Um , his face is places where he was restrained, but there was absolutely no evidence of any injury on the skin to the subcutaneous tissue or the deeper structures of the back or the neck.

Speaker 1:

So if Dr. Tobin then is right, and that really is all of that pressure being localized on the back, one kind of small area on somebody's back or neck or whatever, then you would expect to see some associated bruising, some subcutaneous injuries and so on. Then he didn't see any of that. Now that's one interpretation. Other doctors, as we've heard from the government said, no, you shouldn't see anything. You shouldn't expect to see anything. And there's no re there's nothing to even note about that. Right? There's nothing there. They're saying that the damage was sort of happening internally and then on the ground facing. And so that would be my response to that, to that. Well, all right. So you don't see anything on the backside of Floyd on the back or neck area. There's no damage to that area of his body, but on the other side where the, where the face and the body were smashed against the pavement, he did have some injuries. So there's , there must have been pressure, right. In order to cause those injuries, his response, I would guess would probably be that, no, those are, sir . Those are not pressure injuries. Those are sort of body weight, pressure injuries from somebody moving around, mate . Yes, of course. There's pressure from the officer's keeping him pinned to the pavement, but not anything that would structure structurally compromise the internals of a person's body neck. Remember what we're talking about? We're talking about some physical sort of , uh , limitations on the body by Chauvin's neck. He was either collapsing. The trachea was cutting off the arteries in the neck. It was causing something that was resulting in low oxygen or was fix ya . So mechanically the knee was physically killing Floyd. He's coming out and saying, I mean, if you were to see that pressure, then you would expect to see some corroborating injuries. And I did it. So then we have over here, we have the cross examination . So they're talking about his fixie . I believe in this clip they're talking about is fixie up. And the cross examiner, who is Jerry Blackwell, who's a prosecutor comes back out and he brings up the big book, right? He holds up this big book and so on cross examination at this point in time, you know, excuse me, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry Blackwell knows that , that this guy's an expert knows he's very highly credentialed. And so what he's trying to do is now dry out, tease out some distinctions between his opinions and the opinions of other excellent people, all these other smart people, you just said something, but these smart people say something differently. So what's going on here. And you know, that kind of , that's kind of a double-edged sword from the prosecution's perspective, because yeah, they're undermining him this particular witness in this incident by sort of pointing to other literature that, that has an alternative theory or explanation or opinion. But at the same time, you know, they're, they're sort of showing that this is a reasonable way to create doubt, right? If they're going to take a look at Dr. Fowler and say, you have this opinion, these doctors have that opinion, and we want to raise these up and show you what a big stinking problem. This is. Doesn't really work out well for their case, because that's exactly what the defense is going to do. Hey, you just paraded these three witnesses or these six witnesses or these three use of force experts or those medical examiners. Do you just pump them up? Well , we've got our own people, by the way, over here, we're going to pump them up and there is a disagreement there. So the same technique that you used to undermine Dr. Fowler, we're going to use that right against you and say, yeah, it is appropriate to draw distinctions between expert witnesses and they're going to do that. So, you know, it's , it's a, it's a cross examination technique of course, but it can only carry you so far. Here it is.

Speaker 5:

Uh, Dr. Follow , are you familiar with a text known as Spitz and or Fisher ? Yes. Pretty big. Uh, this is a standard text for medical examiners, isn't it? It's certainly one of the recommended books that fellows in forensic pathology will review as part of their training. Yes. It's one you've , uh , in the past referred to as Bible text. Yes. Uh, it is handed out to all forensic pathologist and training. It's just a standard text. Again, it's recommended that they use that as one of the references. And you aware that this , uh, this text on the medical legal investigation of death , uh, it contains , uh, sections on best buy as fixing it, doesn't it? Yes. And do you agree that for death, by positional asphyxia , uh , that, that is death caused by low insufficient oxygen , uh, that the causes for that maybe what's referred to as endless yes. Hence the complexity of these particular cases.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So a lot of sort of, you know, going circles around each other a little bit, Blackwell comes out and says, Hey, you know, there are kind of endless reasons that can cause this fixture , you sort of negated that has fixed Tia was a, was a thing here based on your testimony that you just gave, you said it was a heart, heart disease, heart problems caused by the, or , or not caused by, but during the restraint by police. And it was also contributed to by methamphetamine and fentanyl. Got it. All right. But you kind of didn't touch on is fixed at all or low oxygen. And he holds a book up and says, well, in this book they say low oxygen and is fixed . I can basically happen from anything. Right. So a bunch of other stuff, you ruled it out, but there are other ways that you can get there. You don't necessarily have to go. Your route is sort of where I think he was going with that line of questioning. Then he comes out and just sort of, you know , sort of smacks that one back and says, yeah, these are complicated, right? There are a lot of different factors that go into somebody's death, which doesn't help the prosecution. Cause that's exactly what the defense is trying to argue. They're trying to say, yeah, it's not just the knee folks, a lot of other stuff going on here, heart disease, maybe COVID maybe even CO2 getting pumped out of or carbon monoxide, getting pumped out of the vehicle that George Floyd was laying next to sort of the first time that we heard that theory that maybe the oxygen, the carbon monoxide that was being pumped out of the vehicle, went into Floyd's body and caused him to not be able to process oxygen. The oxygen won't bind to your red blood cells and will be carried around your body because it's being displaced by the carbon monoxide. And interesting theory have some conversation about that today as well. But he's walking this, you know , walking through this, all these different factors, it's not just the Shovan knee is what he's saying. Then we get into, now, we're going to change gears. We're going to go back over to Eric Nelson. Who's asking him about the role of fentanyl. So we have his final conclusion. We have some of the use of force stuff, the knee. What did that do to Floyd's body? Now let's talk about fentanyl and toxicology as the other. Cause because this could be, this is really the crux of the defense case. Other things killed Floyd, not the knee. So here is Eric Nelson asking Dr. Fowler about the fentanyl and the toxicology and his role as a forensic pathologist. In this case,

Speaker 4:

In terms of the toxicology in this , uh, in this case, how would you characterize the role of fentanyl from the standpoint of forensic pathology, not toxicology forensic pathology. So fentanyl is a powerful narcotic. It's about 80 times more powerful than morphine and the side effects of fentanyl , uh , slowing down the respiration so that it is your ability to breathe as fast as you normally would. Does that result in increased , uh, or excuse me, decreased oxygen saturation. It would result in decreased air exchange, which would be decreasing the oxygen in the bloodstream, but also not fully getting rid of the carbon dioxide, the byproducts of our normal metabolism. So slowly increasing carbon dioxide in his bloodstream . Now , um, again, within the context of forensic pathology, why does the presence of Nora fentanyl mean to, you know , fentanyl is a by-product of fentanyl, it's a metabolic , um , by-product . And so in your liver, in Mr. Floyd's liver, as the fentanyl pasta, the liver , it was broken down into no fentanyl, which is the metabolic byproduct . It's the little bit beginning to destroy and metabolize the fentanyl and remove it from the buddy system. Now I'm going to , um, for the court, I have , uh , there are three slides contained within your

Speaker 1:

All right. So I think we bail out on that moment. So you heard him just talk about fentanyl and respiration and they go through and he , he goes through a lot more about the consequences of that. So fentanyl , we, you just heard him talk about it. It affects respiration, causes the body to essentially need more, to produce more quickly, pump faster in order to get more oxygen because the blood has less capacity to carry oxygen because it is sort of depressing your respiratory function in your body. So now the blood is having a difficult time carrying the oxygen. What is your body doing in response to that? We need more oxygen. So you, you necessarily sort of breathe harder, but your heart pumps faster. It's trying to get more blood through there . Just pumping, pumping, pumping, pumping, pumping. If it's 90%

Speaker 2:

Shut, you're going to experience an arrhythmia where, where the things are off because it's, your heart is expecting blood to be in a certain ventricle so that it could push it, push it into a different part of the heart. And if nothing is there, because the blood is not being able to make, it's not able to make its way through the artery. That's 90% clogged. Now your heart is trying to function and pump in and do things, expecting stuff to be somewhere. And it's not. And it's going faster now because it has low oxygen as a result of the consequences of fentanyl and increased activity. And potentially even the struggle with the police. So the body was naturally responding. Fentanyl made it worse. Heart disease made it worse. Heart goes into overdrive blood. Can't get in all of these respiratory depressions and heart sort of aggravators things like methamphetamine, history of heart disease, heart gave out. That's his take on it. Now, here is Mr. Blackwell. Again, coming back out cross-examining him. I think this was a cross . So it was direct cross redirect recross. And here is Mr. Blackwell now sort of, you know, asking him about the specifics. And again, trying to draw out some questions about his credibility and sorta pins him down on this two pills versus one pills thing. So Dr. Fowler thought that there were two pills in the back of the police car in the back of the car, not in George Floyd's car. And here is Mr. Blackwell said , no, it's just one, right? So now you kind of the jurors go well, is that a simple little oversight, one pill versus two pills kind of inconsequential? Or is this going, this guy doesn't pay any attention to details at all. Therefore, everything he says is lacking in credibility, right? You can judge for yourself, but here is that exchange.

Speaker 5:

Dr . Fala just for a point of clarification , uh , you've been asked a couple of rounds of questions about , uh, the drugs found in squad three 20, to be clear. What we're talking about is one pill, right? I cannot recall what's one or two, but it was one of those two numbers. Yes. One partially dissolved pill, right? I thought it was two, but I stand corrected. And in the back of squad three 20, you didn't see any footage of Mr. Floyd spitting a pill out, did you? No , I did not . Um , now you ask questions about the measurements of the eel.

Speaker 2:

All right . So they go into a whole nother line of questioning, but right . Two pills versus one pill, you didn't see him spit it out, but he does acknowledge that there was one pill and there was Floyd's alive on it from another testimony and another witness and their testimony. So the jury is going to have to deal with it. We're going to see how that fits, how that stands. But long day of testimony,

Speaker 1:

Let's take a look at some questions over from our locals community. If you want to ask questions and be a part of the show, go to watching the watchers.locals.com, sign up there through your web browser. Join the join. The fund . First one comes from Lassie 91 says apparently there were a lot of things that could have killed George. Is it time for Genevieve Hanson to write a thank you note to Shovin for not allowing her to work on George? Yeah, probably anybody who was involved in that case is , uh , going through one right now. Right? It seems that whoever was near him at the time he died would be in this unfortunate defendant position. My guess is Genevieve does not realize how lucky she is. I also guess that had she worked on Shovan and had been accused of murder Shovan would have testified for her defense. Interesting. Yeah. Interesting observation there,

Speaker 6:

Lassie . And I was thinking about

Speaker 1:

That same concept with officer Chang, right? He was the one, he was there. He was going to help and they said, Hey, go watch the car, go watch Floyd's car. Probably the best gift that that guy ever got national populous says, what will happen if the jury is hung aside from global rioting? I mean, so I'm not real sure that we're going to see a hung jury. Uh, if it's a hung jury, it sort of, it depends on the , on the reason for the hanging what's going on in that. Right? What what's sort of the breakdown for the hung jury? I don't think the judge is going to let that happen though. Right? The judge is not going to say you guys are done deliberating on this thing. The judge is going to make them come to a conclusion and it's going to be unanimous. It might take six weeks. I don't think that it will. I really don't. I think they'll come to a conclusion fairly quickly. So I don't expect a hung jury. We have just, Luke says as the prosecution's credit

Speaker 6:

Bility been ruined

Speaker 1:

By the fact that they essentially lied to the witness about Shovan choking Floyd. So yeah, I think, I think just Luke is referring to an end

Speaker 6:

Of the , uh ,

Speaker 1:

Uh, near the end of the testimony today with Dr. Feller, they were asking him about the choke or about Shovan being overly aggressive with Floyd during the altercation. Right? Remember they tried to put him in the back of the car, then they tried to pull them out of the back of the car and or he sort of slipped out the other end. There was a lot of back and forth going on Shovan was involved in some of that. So one of the lines of questioning was about how he was being overly aggressive before he was even on the ground. So Eric Nelson came back out, played the video and then asked Dr. Fowler about that

Speaker 6:

And said, Hey, does he, does it look like

Speaker 1:

He's strangling him right there? And it's kinda know it's kinda like a loose little pole , you know, kinda pulling like this, not like this. And so it, you know, just Luke. Yeah. I mean, I think if you have a situation where you are presenting one, one idea to the jury and the defense comes out and says, actually that's not what happened at all. You can take a look at it. Yeah. I think that that leaves a Mark. And that's what happened today. waffles in the house as, so both Blackwell and Schluter or private defense, appellate attorneys working the case pro bono and basically running the show at appears. Could this be causing the state strategy issues? Wondering about your take as a defense attorney. It was really apparent today watching Blackwell , um, strategy issues. I'd be curious to see what kind of strategy issues you're , uh, pondering about Nick Watson .

Speaker 7:

I don't, I don't

Speaker 1:

See any strategy issues right off the top that are ringing a bell. I mean, I think they're running a pretty standard run of the mill prosecution going through the elements. I'm not seeing how any other sort of external defense attorneys are changing

Speaker 7:

That. Yeah. So

Speaker 1:

I don't know. I need a little bit more clarity before I can comment on that intelligently. Good question though. Thank you. Oh, says the prosecution on the latter on the last witness that he was quite aggressive, even somewhat accusatory and hostile was the judge scolding him in the sidebars. It seems as if the last round of , of his questioning was cut off,

Speaker 7:

Was he told by the judge

Speaker 1:

Just to stop short because of that. So I also didn't see that either. So that

Speaker 7:

Last , there was

Speaker 1:

So, so two things here, one the star, the star Tribune stream, I was having problems with today. So they was getting, it was really choppy. There were , there were something was up with it. So I switched over to the Fox news stream and it was way better. I was trying to watch it this morning and clip, and I was missing like 10 seconds. I don't know what was happening, but it was, it was all off. So maybe you saw some of that. If you may have seen something that felt like it was cut off, it may have been that. But when I switched over, I think that Blackwell had his full line of questioning. Yes, though. I do

Speaker 7:

Notice your, your change in tone

Speaker 1:

Or your notice that there was a change in tone. Yeah. They were very aggressive with him and he was even sort of dialing in on that. It's like , it's a yes or no question. Come on doctor. Like this is yes or no. Yes. He starts going off. Yes, yes, yes. So he was a little bit more aggressive and it , it wasn't inappropriate. Right? That's sort of how cross-examination works. If anything. I think that Eric Nelson maybe was a little bit too deferential towards the law professor. He could have been a little bit more aggressive in shutting him up, but he didn't. And there's probably a good reason for that. Right. He wants to, you know, sort of, some of cross-examination , you know, you can, you can win , you can sort of slam the ball or , or spike the ball on a line of questioning and feel good. Like you got that point out. But if you, if you look bad doing it, that's not a win for you. Right. The jury still thinks you're a jerk and an a-hole and they're not going to reward

Speaker 7:

You for acting that way. So, you know,

Speaker 1:

There are, there are times when a defense lawyer will say something like, or, or let me, let me just say, be a lot more deferential, a lot more nice and sort of, kind of during cross-examination and people will expect the cross-examination to be like something you see on Hollywood, right? Somebody comes out and is it true? And isn't it true or not ? And that might look good for the movies, but sometimes it doesn't work well because if you rub the jurors the wrong,

Speaker 7:

The way you can really do more ,

Speaker 1:

More damage to yourself than good blaster brain says last night, Nelson mentioned a bunch of things to the judge regarding his record, keeping of sidebar content. What's the relevance of this. If any Blackwell struck me as petty, when pounding on Fowler for not having considered the weight of the equipment when factoring in the weight upon Floyd, rather amount of weight, in my opinion. Yeah. So I agree with this. And I think this was a general theme today. You know, I think that there was a lot of making mountains out of mole Hills . I think that's the expression going on today. There was Blackwell who was, you know , aggressive on those things and about like the book and about specific details. Oh, well, this book has a sentence in here that disagrees with you. What do you think ?

Speaker 6:

It's like, it's , it's like petty, you know , kind of marginal

Speaker 1:

Minutiae BS, sort of like a game of gotcha. But you have to do that. Right. That's part of the, part of the deal Blackwell, I think was just a little bit more obvious than we've seen previously with other witnesses and even in cross examination by Eric Nelson against the prosecution witnesses. So it felt a little bit out of place just because stylistically, it was a little bit different

Speaker 6:

And the defense did this also. I think, I mean, they were, they were talking about

Speaker 1:

This carbon monoxide thing, which is a new sort of theory of the case. Hadn't heard that come out thus far. And you know, that to me, sort of felt like, yeah, you got to introduce that because it is reasonable doubt and it is relevant. And obviously it was part of this expert's testimony, but it felt kind of small relative to the other factors, too,

Speaker 6:

Fentanyl methamphetamine, heart disease, or Chauvin's knee , right. To any one of those .

Speaker 1:

Those are the things sort of throwing in carbon monoxide felt like sort of a , you know, added , added that later.

Speaker 6:

And both, both

Speaker 1:

Sort of felt a little bit small. It will be, it will be curious to see what the jury thinks about it. [inaudible] says, how do the lawyers find expert witnesses that would most likely support their case without knowing what their testimony will be before they take the stand? So you , you, you do sort of a series with expert witnesses, you know, certainly it doesn't , uh, doesn't hurt you to have several of them that you've worked with previously go, you know, go through rounds of analysis and have analysis

Speaker 6:

And then pick the expert that

Speaker 1:

Your case best. I mean, really that's what this boils down to sort of sounds bad. Right. But yeah, you , you go and you work with somebody who's going to support your case. Now it, you know, it doesn't make sense for you to go out and find an expert witness. Who's going to lie for you in your case. Right. Those expert witnesses, they're not any good. They get skewered on the stand. They have no good reputation because they're seen as being bought and paid for. So you want expert witnesses who are, who have a history of just telling it like it is. And so yeah , you just say, Hey, can you look at this case for me, they review the case. They say, nah , you got nothing here. I mean like, this is , uh , this is closed and shut nothing. I'm going to be able to do to help you. Perfect. Thanks. Right. Move on to the next guy. If they have

Speaker 6:

A legitimate opinion, then you can use

Speaker 1:

Expert. So that's what happened here, right? Both, both. And when you practice long enough, you've worked with enough people that, you know, who's going to interpret things certain ways. Let's just leave it at that and you decide to work with those people. And so that's what happened here. Prosecution went to their witnesses, defense went to their witnesses and we see them both duking it out in court. Spoiler says, do you think the prosecution has played hardball a bit more than the defense? Yes, I think so. After watching them during cross examination , I feel like Nelson was too easy on the experts. Yeah. Yeah. And I just sort of commented on that. Right. I think that

Speaker 2:

Nelson was actually easier. And I don't

Speaker 1:

Know if that was strategic or just stylistic or

Speaker 2:

Maybe he doesn't have any, any real desire or, or, or belief

Speaker 1:

That he needs to go do those things. Right. So it could

Speaker 2:

Just be a tactical thing, but yeah. I mean the prosecution, they are pulling out all the stops. All right. They are ,

Speaker 1:

They're D they're finding old basketball, hoop photos, hooping photos from Floyd's high school days. So yeah, they're going all in hack consulting says, I think it has been a while since Rob showed any kind of slide regarding the prosecution defense arguments, the relative strength of arguing those and giving a summary of how things look and what should it be done for both sides and the judge and the audience to find evidence and present evidence for those arguments. Also, what is the estimated timeline defense finishes this week, judge deliberates over the weekend and then closing arguments on Monday with a conviction decision on Tuesday. So the jury's going to be deliberating. So the judge is not deliberating over the weekend. They're hack consulting. So the judge is going to be probably thinking about jury instructions and things like that over the weekend, but closing arguments will then start on Monday and then the jurors deliberate. Right? So they're going to be sequestered throughout the rest of the week. And we could get a ruling in, or I'm sorry, a judgment, a decision

Speaker 2:

Vision in five hours, or it could be five days

Speaker 1:

Or it could be five weeks. We just don't know. Right. So they're going to be sequestered until they come back out with a decision. So it has been a while since we have summarized the arguments that's for sure. And I will probably do that this weekend. Actually. We'll probably summarize some of this stuff once the defense rests, which is really what I've been waiting for. So we're going to flesh this out and we'll see what the jury instructions look like because the jury instructions are so important. They're so important because that's the , that's what the jurors are going to be looking at for processing all of this data. They're going to say we got all of this data pages of notes, right? Notebooks full of stuff that they've been writing down over the last three weeks and they're going to have to decipher it. And so the jury instructions tell them how to organize all of that stuff. And so I want to go through the jury instructions once we know what those are and we'll make arguments for and against. And we'll sort of take all of the evidence that we've been assembling on all of these slides. We have hundreds of slides

Speaker 2:

That we've been accumulating throughout our coverage of the trial, and we'll be able to

Speaker 1:

Flush it all out. But if you have any thoughts on that, any input, I just got an email from ,

Speaker 2:

Uh, from one of our doctors who watches the program, like 15 pages

Speaker 1:

Of medical notes on Dr. Fowler's testimony today. So you know who you are, you like your anonymity, so I will not out you, but thank you for that. I'm going to look through that. There is so much to go through and we're almost there. So we're , we are going to get there, hack consulting. You better believe it. We got no doubt in the house as the pre-trial discussion included an opportunity for the prosecution to provide a rebuttal witness because Dr. Powell mentioned a prior testimony, how does that work? Does that include limits on what they can present? If they can have a broad range of topics for their case, it seems like it violates the opportunity for the defense to go last. Yeah. So the prosecution goes less . So they, they , you get closing arguments, the defense goes, then they get a reclose. So they get, you know , they have the burden of proof. So they get kind of the last bite at the Apple. They've got that. They've got to prove their case. And it's a very high standard traditionally in practice. Legally it's a high standard and practice that has not been my experience, but in this case, yeah , a rebuttal witness. So I don't specifically recall what you're referencing here about Dr. Powell, Dr. Powell. Um, that's not his name, right? The doctor who testified today mentioning prior testimony. So typically when this happens and I don't recall seeing this, so don't quote me on this, but it's really, it's only limited to the , the rebuttal witness can come in and only respond to certain particular issues. So they can't bring them back in and say, Oh, well, we forgot to mention this about excessive force and about reasonableness and about an objective standard and all those things. And so we're just going to clean all of that up right now. No , it's , it's it's to rebut a specific point, a specific claim allegation or medical conclusion, and that's it. They can't come in and sort of just open the door and opine about anything they want. It's gotta be narrowly tailored to the response that is being requested. Good question. Todd trot says question for Robert. He found guilty, whether it be a great basis for an appeal on no change of venue, possible media influence due to a non sequestered jury. I'm thinking about Dr. Sam Shepard case as precedent. So I don't remember that case Todd at trot, but I, yes, I think so. I mean, I think if Chauvin's acquitted, I think he's going to be appealing all of them and he's going to have a good basis for it. Right? Th there's there's really been no other case in recent memory that I can think of where yes. Ordinarily would say change of venue, ridiculous jury sequestration. Ridiculous. Right. That's just not necessary. We don't need to do that right now, but this case has been wild. Okay. Not only do we have a $27 million settlement during jury selection, but we also have another white cop shooting, a black person in the middle of the trial resulting in more protests on a national scale, everybody's paying attention to this stuff. So it's almost as big of a case as George Floyd, huge case. And we have the national guard rolling around. We got curfews being imposed in Minnesota. It's madness. And this trial is just going on. Like nothing else is happening around the world. Just go , Oh, heck, okay, jurors, go home. Don't turn on the TV. Don't read the news, see you tomorrow at nine 30. What are you serious? So, yeah, they're going to appeal that. It's going to be a bit , it's going to be a big deal. I think, I think that the courts are going to have to set some rules about this stuff, because right now this is looking problematic. You can make an argument that $27 million settlement, all right . Like that's not that big of a deal. The city is on curfew right now, the entire, the entire, or at least last night, it was right until I think,

Speaker 7:

Or maybe the day before that, whatever,

Speaker 1:

Right. It's a big deal. And the jurors live there and they're having to travel back and forth in between the courthouse and their homes witnessing all of this stuff going on right there. So, so, you know , and think about it this way, right? We may not have an immediate basis for an appeal, but let's say we fast forward six months from now, two years from now. And one of the jurors comes out and says, you know , uh, w when they write a book and they say, you know, I wouldn't have done something, but somebody else leaned on me. And there's some indication that there was some alterior influence.

Speaker 7:

Somebody else was making

Speaker 1:

A decision based on stuff that they heard outside of the trial. In other words, a juror was compromised. Well, what does that do now? You've got post-conviction, you've got all the, you know, appeals, all sorts of stuff. So this thing really can continue forward for the foreseeable future. Good question. Todd trot and a Darby Lussier

Speaker 7:

Says, do you ever feel like

Speaker 1:

Lawyers, prosecutors, judges treat the law and the people they represent

Speaker 7:

As a bit,

Speaker 1:

Too much of a game. I just don't get what good comes from theatrical. And we should be focusing on right. Versus wrong. Just wondering your thoughts. Very good question. Nadar . Yeah. So, yes. I think that, that, that is, is something that happens. I think that a lot of attorneys, a lot of doctors, a lot of professional people, they become a little bit clinical, right. It becomes just sort of a processing people through the situation. And I know this because somebody is very close to me in my life who actually has to consult with people who are terminally ill from cancer. Right.

Speaker 7:

And this person has been doing

Speaker 1:

It for a very long time. Right. He's in his seventies. So I have a conversation about him with him about that. And it's weird to listen to how mechanical he is.

Speaker 7:

It's, it's almost, it's almost like a little bit off because you're going, bro. Like you just had

Speaker 1:

Tell a family, like they're going to lose her 40 year old daughter. And she's got like six

Speaker 7:

Weeks to live. Like yeah, just go

Speaker 1:

In and tell them that this is what's happening. And your body's going to , kidneys are going to shut down. This is going to shut down and you'll be dead in six weeks. Um , anyways, have a nice lunch. And I move on to the next room and you're going, Oh my goodness, like, this is crazy. That is, you know, how do you do that? Well, he's been doing it for 30 years. And so you just sort of become accustomed to it. Now, I think that's a natural thing. There are some positives to that because you can be unemotional, right? If you get overly invested in every single client that comes through your door, you can sort of spiral out of control. Now you're acting emotionally, not logically. Now you're not somebody who's thinking through the legal issues. You're sort of invested into treating this person, like a person, like a human being, which they are. But if you're too invested in that, if you're too emotionally connected with this person, maybe you're not thinking right. Or making the best decisions for them. And so you have to be a little bit disconnected from it as well. So there are a lot of positives to it. That being said, there are a lot of other good lawyers out there who maintain their connection to the people that they serve. Something that we try to do here at the office. I'm personally involved in a lot of stuff that as are a lot of the people here, you know, a big part of my life is about sobriety, about recovery and addiction and about being of service to people. And so that keeps me pretty plugged into a lot of the people that we work with on a regular basis. People who are facing criminal charges due to drugs and alcohol and that type of stuff. And so I personally try not to lose focus of it. We orient our firm around that, right? We say, what are our, what are our three pillars,

Speaker 2:

Your safety, clarity, and hope

Speaker 1:

For who , for the clients, right? Not for us that we need to help those people get that safety, clarity and hope in their cases and in their lives. So, yes, I think it can be clinical, but we all need to pause and just stop and say, Hey, these are real lives we're talking about. And I want to hit this point home. So I'm going to save this on our next segment, Nadar you're one step ahead of me. We got norovirus says, Hey norovirus. There she is says, nor phentenol was a bad question. You can have North fentanyl, then take more fentanyl and have both with fentinol being absorbed within 10 to 15 minutes, sometimes five minutes. And I agree with that. I thought it wasn't the best question. And he didn't have a good follow-up on this. So Nelson actually asked him about this said, okay, well there's fentanyl in the blood, right. And there was nor fentanyl in the blood. What does an orphan not mean? Well, it means the body was processing. The fentanyl is metabolizing. The fentinol resulting in the North fentanyl. Got it. But that doesn't comport with the last minute ingestion theory. It just kind of , kind of made it sound like, yeah, maybe he took fentanyl at,

Speaker 2:

You know, three hours ago

Speaker 1:

And his body was already processing it. So Nelson, didn't get to ask him about it . At least in the segment that I was watching about

Speaker 2:

Whether that would preclude

Speaker 1:

This last minute ingestion theory, which would spike the active fentanyl, but not the nor fentanyl . So you would see sort of a differential relationship there. And I didn't see that really get dug into too much hack consulting says at this point, what things are, what things would be great to take on appeals court or claim mistrial. So you'd have to see something pretty catastrophic with the jurors. You know, you'd have to be the jurors doing something very, very improper or one of the defense attorneys or somebody doing something improper like it has to be with, I would say it would have to be within the trial. Somebody would have to be doing something very

Speaker 2:

Appropriate. And , um, I don't even want to speculate about what that might be. Cause you know , the possibilities there are endless, but

Speaker 1:

Appeals is a different, is a different concept, right? You can appeal something you would think would be legal error. I mean, you could appeal the ruling about keeping Maurice hall out. You can appeal any one of those decisions and say, this was the basis for the appeal. So there , there are , there are a lot of options. It's kind of hard to speculate because it's such a broad, a broad question, but it's a good one. Pinky number two in the house says question, I still get hung up on Shovan being on his shoulder so long. What is your opinion? He had him down. He was stressed people telling the officer, he was no longer fighting. What is the benefit to keeping him down and not cuffing him and putting him in the car

Speaker 2:

Sooner? So I'll respond. I

Speaker 1:

With what the defense I think is presenting. And we haven't really heard much of this yet, but I think the defense argument is going to be that Shovan felt fearful of the crowd. And it's a it's again, this prioritization question we've seen a lot of this. We've seen a lot of different people who arrived on scene. Also conclude that it was a dangerous situation. We heard that from the paramedics, two of them, we heard that from officer Chang, who said yesterday that the crowd was aggressive and he felt concerned for the officer's safety, I think almost verbatim. And so Shovan is going to sort of adopt that same posture.

Speaker 6:

He's going to say whether he takes a

Speaker 1:

Stand or not. The closing argument is going to be that the police have to prioritize certain actions. If the police are in a situation where they are feeling threatened or their life is in danger or the lives of their partners, their fellow officers, then those have to be ,

Speaker 6:

Be prioritize first. And that includes protecting and securing the scene

Speaker 1:

Against hostile activity. So that would mean that rolling Floyd over and starting to administer CPR would necessarily put Shovan and those other officers in a vulnerable position, right? Because now they're not alert anymore. They're not on guard. They're not looking around controlling a suspect. They're observing their surroundings. If they started to act on Floyd before the paramedics arrived, they would have to necessarily give up that posture in order to start administering aid. If they feel like they're under threat or duress from the

Speaker 6:

Crowd, then they would not make that conclusion,

Speaker 1:

Not make that change. And I think that is really the only argument that they have as to that, to that effect. And I think some expert witnesses, the guy yesterday, Brode kind of supports that. So I understand your perspective. And we've , we've talked about this previously on the show pinky, and I think we talked about it over on clubhouse recently. And my actually brought this up that , you know , this point, yes. Maybe there are legal standards. Maybe there are certain things that are legally sufficient and they're justifiable in a court of law, but people, this case is about people. And it's kind of like what Nadar was saying, right. It can be very technical. We can be very mechanical with this stuff. Yeah. We can say arterial sclerosis a hundred times in the , until we're blue in the face, but it's about people and people saw what they saw. They saw the showman's neon Floyd's neck and it doesn't sit well with people. And so people are asking the same question, like you pinky

Speaker 6:

They're saying, Hey, why didn't he do something about that? Cause it doesn't feel right. It could be sealed

Speaker 1:

To M you know, carbon monoxide could be arteriosclerosis fentanyl, methamphetamines , whatever .

Speaker 6:

But how do you explain that? We're going to see what

Speaker 1:

The jury has to say about it. We've got chairman of the board. So, so if they determine that it was the combination of events that killed Floyd and he likely wouldn't have died without the drugs, but also wouldn't have died without the police actions. Is that reasonable doubt because the police wouldn't have killed him, had it not been for the other factors. Yeah. So I think what you're asking for chairman of the board is you're trying to identify the, but for, cause if we know we have a number of different variables in this whole equation, Floyd's dead. Bunch of things happened. Could, could, these things have killed Floyd and we start pulling out different variables. Right? And Nelson did this with, with one of the expert witnesses. I think it was , uh , she was a female doctor, older woman a couple of weeks ago. She's on our slide somewhere. Anyways, he was going through the list and he said, all right, listen, if you showed up at somebody's apartment and they were dead inside and they had 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl in there, would you consider that to be sufficient, that alone? Would that get you to a cause of death? Yes, it would. What if you saw somebody that had 90% blockage in one of their arteries in their heart, would that be sufficient to get you to a , a justifiable cause of death? In other words, would you stop looking if you saw that for a cause of death? Yes we would. So you have all of these different factors and they're all sort of layering on top of one another. So what you're trying to identify chairman is the, but for, cause what is the one thing

Speaker 7:

That we know is a variable that if we take that out, George Floyd would not have died. Government says it was the knee looking like the defense is saying it was the heart. Your question,

Speaker 1:

You wouldn't have died without the drugs, but also wouldn't have died without the police actions. Is that reasonable?

Speaker 7:

I doubt you're going to have to weigh the credibility of the experts. You have competing viewpoints for the cause of death. One of the government's own experts, more closely agrees with the defense cause of death. To me that's

Speaker 1:

It sounds like reasonable doubt all day, make waffle says Blackwell establishing reasonable doubt about Floyd taking opiates, opiates. Did you see Floyd spit out a pill in the police car? We know the pill was there, Floyd isn't on trial. They had been on the back foot in essence, creating reasonable doubt for the issue surrounding Floyd. Y Nelson's job was a little easier during their case. I don't know. Did you see Floyd SPI spit out a pill? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, he's acknowledging right that, that there was a pill and we , we saw that there was testimony about saliva on that pill , right? Saliva in Floyd D at DNA . I'm not making that up Liberty or death says any thoughts on who has presented a better case. So write out off, you know, from a , from a gut perspective, the prosecution, I think without any question of a doubt, prosecution has a better ,

Speaker 7:

Uh, style,

Speaker 1:

A lot more provocative, a lot more emotional, very much , uh, using demonstrative evidence, beautiful PowerPoints, video, 3d renderings, charts, graphs, arrows, all sorts of the production value, I think was way better than the defense. And , uh , it should be right. It's their case. They have something like 10, 10 different attorneys working on the case that we like that are officially on the case. I know Nelson is , is part of a bigger firm, but you know , I'm not sure what sort of resources he has. So they've got all of these people from all over the country, just sort of piling in. I think their presentation has been clearly better. Now we have, the next question was Nelson's motion to equate the same as an attorney would file a rule 58 motion at the end of a plaintiff presenting evidence, then

Speaker 7:

A 50 B for after

Speaker 1:

Or a jury verdict. So if you're talking about civil rules, I don't know, in , in Arizona, we call it rule 20. So it's a very, it's a rule of criminal procedure.

Speaker 7:

Okay. Uh, judgment as a matter of law. So again,

Speaker 1:

Yeah, that's not, that's not my area. So, you know, we, we, in , in Arizona, we have a rule that is very similar to what they have in Minnesota. And it's basically after the state presents their case, we just move. We say, look, they've got the burden of proof, which they're going to prove at the end of trial, but they've got the burden of production. They have to bring enough material into court in order to justify their case. And we we've heard everything that they have. They don't have anything. So we're going to move for a judgment of acquittal. And it's almost just a procedural thing. Now, almost every single time. Very rarely does a judge go. You know what? You're right. I haven't heard of anything. I had a bench trial one time, I think early in my career where I was doing a , uh , I'll give you an example of this. So this was called a, this was a criminal speeding trial that I did really early in my career. It's a, it's a criminal charge in Arizona. It's a misdemeanor, same category as a DUI. And it's a very common offense . A lot of people get this. They don't want criminal convictions on their records. They hire a lawyer, a lawyer to go do it. I did this trial one time and I moved for a judgment of acquittal essentially, is what it , what it is.

Speaker 7:

And the way that it worked is the officer was presenting their evidence. I think

Speaker 1:

So long ago, I'm trying to remember correctly. Officer was presenting the evidence. I think I told this story once before, but the officer and the prosecutor forgot to mention identification. So they just glossed over ID, right? They couldn't identify the person who was driving the car. So they presented a ton of evidence going this fast, driving like a maniac. This, this was a, you know, a young kid who was doing X, Y, and Z. We know that he was 25, blah, blah.

Speaker 7:

Right. Got them on radar, going up down the ice. 17, whatever kid was like dead to rights, but the government missed identifying the kid. They didn't say anything about it. So I don't know who the hell they were talking about that day, sir .

Speaker 1:

It wasn't our client though. But they were going through and all his evidence, I just pitched , they presented, they presented a nice case, whoever, whoever they talked about there, it sounds like he's in deep trouble, but they didn't identify my client. Right. Not here, no idea who the hell they're talking about.

Speaker 7:

So, so even if everything

Speaker 1:

They said was true in their , in their case, the judge could not

Speaker 7:

Find for them because

Speaker 1:

They missed a pretty key element, which was ID. So that was a not guilty verdict. That was pretty good. Uh , pretty good win . Pretty good. When the prosecutor was not happy about that, I like to shake hands after not anymore. Cause it's, COVID, nobody's doing trials, but I like to shake hands after the end of a trial like that. Just say, Hey, you know, thanks for showing up. I know , you know, we're both, we're both here. We're both trying to articulate for our sides. Sometimes these things don't work out.

Speaker 7:

Try to shake a hand. Didn't happen, no stormed right out of the courtroom, but that's okay.

Speaker 1:

That's okay. You know, that's just how these things work. Good questions we got Besa Magento says Blackwell's questioning sounded very pure Royal to me. Not at all knowledgeable, believable or sophisticated. Yeah. It's funny. We're getting a lot of those comments today. So it wasn't just me. Right? He did sound almost a little , uh , you know , uh , I don't want to use the word childish, but a little bit childish kind of petty kind of bickering over a lot of the same stuff. Nelson didn't do that to their witnesses. Right? He was, he was sort of a little bit easier going with them. And so sometimes that stuff rubs the jurors the wrong way, but I don't know . We've got underscore shades says, what about the gum? It was all over Twitter today. They said it was gum in his mouth.

Speaker 7:

It could have been, could have been,

Speaker 1:

Or it could have been the pill that was found in the back of the car that has saliva and DNA on it. I don't know. It could be one of the other

Speaker 7:

Find gum that come out in court today. Did I miss that?

Speaker 1:

Was there a gum today? I could've , I could've missed that. I'm serious. I could have missed it. Norovirus said, I said this above the city is so sorry. They agreed to 27 million now, what are they going to do for this weekend shooting? And what about the next weekend? They're going to run out of money. They are 27 million for Floyd, another 27 million to the right family. Probably going to be another one soon. So we're going to be looking at close to a hundred million dollars here pretty soon that that city's going to have to do something to generate those funds that they , um , they feel are warranted to give out. We got Todd trout says Dr. Sam Shepard cases. What the TV series in the movie, the fugitive was based on. Oh, cool.

Speaker 7:

I didn't know that he wrongfully

Speaker 1:

Got convicted for murdering his wife in the 1950s media convicted him by influencing the jury. Wow. I didn't know that. I didn't know that.

Speaker 7:

Uh , Harrison Ford, I didn't kill my wife, Tommy Lee Jones. I don't care jumps out of the shoot. Good movie. Maybe I'll watch that this weekend.

Speaker 1:

Good questions. All right. So we got hack consulting in the house. As I think that the new riot will lessen the June

Speaker 7:

Stuff on regards of the jury, regardless of

Speaker 1:

Does, there will be writing . Nothing is in connection to reality. And especially since there has not been too much immediate coverage of the Shovan trial, they can still get relevant information about the Dante riots to say, stay , stay safe. Plus the government is responsible for their lives. Otherwise we riot

Speaker 7:

No riots, no riots, hack consulting. No, no peaceful, peace and love and harmony and unity. Joe Biden's in office. Now, Joe Biden. We're all one love a man.

Speaker 1:

We got blaster. Brain says you glossed over part one of my earlier question, what's the deal with Nelson bringing up his record, keeping of the content of sidebars after the jury left, will you be a lamb? And let me know, you don't have to bleed , but I would prefer it. So I, so I apologize, blaster brain. I didn't realize that, you know, I get a little bit caught up inside of the momentum here and I get carried away. Uh , I don't actually know what you're talking about. What's the deal with Nelson bringing up record-keeping of the content of sidebars

Speaker 7:

After the jury left.

Speaker 1:

So I watched the end of the testimony today, but I didn't see that. So I'm not sure what he could be bringing up.

Speaker 7:

I mean , I would imagine that all of that stuff is, is

Speaker 1:

Being logged, right? Cause they're they're they have a court reporter who is ,

Speaker 7:

Is noting those things. So I'm not sure what Nelson would be recordkeeping . I'm not sure what he would be

Speaker 1:

Gathering in order to communicate to the court. Maybe he sees a pattern about something, you know, you're sustaining their objections, but not my objections want some clarity about that. Who knows? We've

Speaker 7:

Scott's my Fox says

Speaker 1:

I'm on the people yelling about cops, not administering aid. We're going to become more violent upon rendering aid,

Speaker 7:

Blah . Yeah. Yeah. So that's the , that's the converse argument, right? That if they would have helped, that would have saved his life,

Speaker 1:

Not cause the crowd to be more violent because the crowd was, they were doing what the crowd was screaming at them to do. Right? Check is Paul's give him CPR, all that stuff at the cop started

Speaker 7:

Doing that. What happens does the crowd now say you're checking his pulse too hard, or you should be rendering more aid and we're going to beat you up now. No, right. It's

Speaker 1:

Was saying is that it would, it would sort of lessen the tension and that, that excuse from Shovan that we needed to maintain our defensive posture. Doesn't carry any water with my Fox. We have N Y renal MD says, I watched the portion of the pathologist testimony today. It was ma the only thing I think was convincing was his accent. Yeah. I commented about that then . That's , that's why I commented. Cause it was compelling. It is what I expected from a pathologist testifying about life and death. So far, there is some reasonable doubt for a lot of the charges for me, I believe from what I saw Shovan is guilty of pretty bad misconduct. So that's another opinion from the good doctor in the house and why renal MD and yeah, it was mad . I mean, it was, it was kind of a , a bland day of testimony. We had some basic PowerPoint slides, pretty basic stuff, nothing, nothing particularly groundbreaking. And I appreciate you concur. We have Ian Frum's one. Do you feel that Chauvin's body language like seating very relaxed with his hand in his pocket kind of dispels the idea that he was scared of the crowd? Yeah. So listen, I don't want anybody to think that because we play around with some ideas on this show and I can articulate a defense and prosecution argument that I think that Derek Shovan was somehow beyond a reproach or completely innocent in this case, I'm just articulating some of the defense arguments here. I think Derek Shovan is not a admirable person. Right. And I have a very difficult time with cops who do this stuff. I'm a defense lawyer. Okay. The whole point of this show is called watching the washers . Didn't really expect that I would be defending an officer or at least articulating defense arguments for cops. When we started the show. If you go back in time, I'm typically holding up mugshots of the cops saying this guy's a piece garbage, but I still think that everybody deserves a defense, right? It's the presumption of innocence. Derek Shovan gets that as well. That being said, I do not necessarily. I do not believe that he's a good, honorable, nice guy who did an admirable thing that day. I think he's not a good person and you could see it in his face and you can see it in his body language. And I think he is probably that at 140, 40 pound, you know, 17 year cop, that I've had a lot of experience with dealing with, you know , stereotypically of course that thinks that everything that they do is right, that they have an unlimited license of, of power that they can go and do whatever they want in the world and get away with virtually anything because they have for 17 years. So I don't have any love for Derek Shovan and I agree with you. I think that, yeah, I mean, what we saw in the video was reprehensible. It was awful and you can go back in the archives and watch what I said on that day about what we saw in the video, the specific

Speaker 7:

Exactly , but we know a lot more now. And the real question is about cause of death in my mind.

Speaker 1:

And we're going to see how that plays out because we've still got a couple of days of testimony left. I think we have Roy McCain. Was it smart of the defense to use an expert who is currently being sued for the extremely similar case of Anton black? So I just, I literally don't know the backstory of that, but I just saw a headline today. Soon as a Fowler got done testifying, of course, you're going to see the media as now, you know , dunking on him because that's what they do. So apparently there's some other lawsuit that involves this guy in another case involving Anton black don't know the nature of that. But , uh, but no, right, not ideal. If you have an X

Speaker 7:

Witness, you want them to be beyond

Speaker 1:

Approach, not somebody who's involved in other litigation, but that ended up itself doesn't necessarily undermine his credibility. And the jurors are probably never going to know about that either. So who knows if that matters, justice first says if, as it seems so far, Shovan did not obstruct the airway did not block blood flow did not compress the chest. Could he be charged with not administering or impeding timely CPR? So I don't, I don't think so. I mean, I think those are, you know , interesting possibilities. First of all, I don't know if those are even criminal charges in Minnesota, whether you can be charged for not administering something, you know, sort of that , that , uh, what's it called good Samaritan law, right? You have to render aid. If you don't render aid, then you can be subject to criminal liability for it. Not sure that that is a thing that exists in Minnesota or not. But I think your point here is, does an officer have duty to render aid? I haven't seen that really come out. It was more like the, the, the nature of the conversation has really been about Shovan exceeding

Speaker 7:

Force and Oh ,

Speaker 1:

Reasonable officer at the scene would have rendered eight . Not that they're required to render aid, but that they would have under the reasonableness standard

Speaker 7:

Under , uh, Graham versus Connor. I is what they were referencing.

Speaker 2:

We have norovirus says, I mentioned this elsewhere, but if Floyd went to the ER with a complaint of not being able to breathe , had a stress test and found to have a 90% occlusion, he would have been sent to the cath

Speaker 7:

Lab that day within hours,

Speaker 2:

Floyd was a dead man, walking, norovirus a doctor, by the way. Now society wants to punish Shovan and their political correctness moments for nothing more than circumstance. Well, there you go.

Speaker 7:

That's a doctor. So

Speaker 2:

We have another expert witness. We got blaster brain says, Rob, I had been watching since the Rittenhouse incident brought riots near my home. I don't always agree with you, but you were obviously genuinely reasonable son of a. I was hoping to buy you a beer one day, but since you're sober, let's make it a burger or a steak. If I ever make it back to Phoenix. Good, good night period. There's a period right there. Okay. Just by the book. Very simple.

Speaker 7:

Good night. We're done.

Speaker 2:

So thank you, blaster brain . I appreciate it . First of all. Thanks for being here so long. We've been through a lot settler Rittenhouse case. Have you seen how much the show has changed and how, how sort of the waves have come and go? I mean, good Lord. It's been like three lifetimes talking about all the legal stuff that's been going on in the last, I don't know, six months alone, the election, January six , all of the followup litigation. I mean, Oh my goodness. It's been a while . I would love a burger. I'd love a steak. We'll see if we can maybe make that happen. I really,

Speaker 7:

I really am kind

Speaker 2:

Of an antisocial person. If I can be honest about that. I like to work.

Speaker 7:

And , um,

Speaker 2:

That's kind of about it. I like to go to the gym, but we'll see what we can do about that blaster brain. It's not because I don't

Speaker 7:

Love you . I do. I just am kind of an anti-social on a lot on a lot of, I don't know

Speaker 2:

A lot of things. All right , so great questions . Oh my gosh. So many good questions today. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com . We have to move on to our next segment. So if you want to join in, on the community, joining on the fund , head on over to watching the watchers.locals.com, we're going to be back here tomorrow and more with all of the Derek Shovan stuff. So if you're not already subscribed, please make sure you do that as well. All right . So now we can move on to the next segment. It's not even that far off. It's very, very closely, right ?

Speaker 7:

But we got to talk about Dante writes , the

Speaker 2:

Officer who was involved in the Dante, right shooting has now been charged with second degree manslaughter. We're going to break this down, including what happened. We're going to go through the charging documents. We're going to take a look at really why she's being charged with this. We're going to look at the statutes and we're also going to look at a defense. What would the defense be in this situation? Many people are already coming out and saying, there is no defense, right? This woman knowingly, accidentally wanted to shoot somebody and shot him and he's dead. And there's no defense for this thing, right? We saw what happened on the body camera. Well, I don't think it's that cut and dry. I think there is actually a lot

Speaker 7:

That you can bring into the conversation

Speaker 2:

About what an appropriate defense would look like. And we're going to get into that. So let's take a look at some background. First, we're going to spend a little bit of time on this segment. So I want to flesh this out and frame this out for us before we get into the analysis. So let's take a look at what's going on. According to the New York, New York post Kimberly Potter is arrested. She's going to be charged with manslaughter. So she's a former Minnesota police officer fatally shot Dante right after mistaking her gun for a taser agents with the Minnesota Bureau of criminal apprehension. This morning arrested a former Brooklyn center police officer for the April 11th shooting of Dante writes . Uh , agents took her into custody, 11:30 AM this morning at St . Paul. They said after consultation with County prosecutors, POS Potter will be booked at the Hennepin County jail, Washington County attorney, Peter, or put who's the prosecutor who is expected to prosecute. The case locally said earlier, the details of the charges will be released later. She was charged a day after she resigned from book Brooklyn center police in the wake of the 20 year old shooting, 26 year veteran and police chief, both resigned in the wake of the shooting. City council also fired Curt Balgonie over the incident. I think this guy, the city manager said something like, I don't know, people deserve due process. So obviously he had to go, Washington County was tapped to decide on charging instead of Hennepin County, because they wanted to avoid conflict of interest. Brooklyn center mayor Mike Elliott on Tuesday, said he would ask governor Tim waltz to turn the prosecution over to attorney general Keith Ellison. Well, we already know who Keith Ellison is because he's the guy who's running the Shovan trial. Isn't it? So that's a little bit of background. Let's take a look at what the BCA is saying on Twitter. This is the Minnesota Bureau of criminal apprehension. This is a department of public safety. They say agents with the BCA arrested officer in the shooting death of Dante, right? Kim Potter went into custody, 1130. She's going to be booked into Hennepin County jail on probable cause. Second degree manslaughter. We're going to look at that statute more in depth here shortly, the Washington County attorney's office will file charges. Later today it's remains an active and ongoing investigation. We're going to continue to work with the Washington County attorney's office, Brooklyn center, police mayor. I'm sorry, takes on oversight of the police and fire is the city manager. So we're just seeing heads roll across the board in Minnesota. They are, they were poised to fire the city's police chief on Monday following the shooting of a 20 year old black man on Sunday, an emergency afternoon meeting city council voted to give authority over the police department to the mayor's office and to fire city , uh , city manager, Kurt Balgonie he'd been with the city since 2005 said city council member at the virtual council workshop, council member, Chris Lawrence Anderson said she voted to remove the city manager because she feared for her property and retaliation by protestors . If she had voted to keep him. So we have a city council member who goes by the name of Chris Lawrence Anderson, who says that she voted to remove somebody to fire somebody from their job who had been there since 2005, because she was afraid of her property being torched and her retaliation being exacted upon her. She said he was doing a great job. I respect him dearly. I didn't want repercussions at a personal level. Holy moly, wait, what? In Minnesota, this is happening. So we have a city council member who is now fearing retribution from the mob and we have a trial that's taking place or right around the corner in Derek . Shovan where jurors, if they vote one particular way, may also receive repercussion from the mob. So that's just great. We have the national guard activated 500 personnel as a Monday morning to keep the peace and plans to increase that number are coming in coming days. They want to burn the place down, said new, a new set. As he stood across the police station. I'm sick of it. This has to spark change. Some guard members blocked the entrance to the shingle Creek crossing shopping Plaza where social media posts showed looters ransacking stores carrying off everything from printers to clothing. Some stores in that Plaza also had face damage in late may, which was after Floyd's killing. We've got New York clothing manager to the only item left that paired to be a pair of jeans on a mannequin. I understand why people are frustrated. He said, I really do at Walmart flip-flops and bottles of fruity drinks littered the parking lot. Where a man who gave his name is Thomas was part of a small army of store employees picking up trash and debris. All of our large screen TVs were taken Netflix for justice. Get your big screen TVs, go home and fire up some streaming TV in the name of American justice and equality . All right , we have a night of rage, Dante right? Writers burned down police building and force cop Kimberly Potter to flee her home after her address is leaked. So this is a bad situation. That's getting dramatically worse by the minute, by the day, more than 60 people were arrested in Portland, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and made growing unrest throughout the country. After a 25 year veteran by the name of Kim Potter shot and killed right during a traffic stop on Sunday, they descended onto the home of Kim Potter who shot right after allegedly mistaken her gun for a taser 25 year veteran, her home was barricaded up on Tuesday night as crowds gathered outside her five bedroom house Potter and her husband, a former Fridley police officer fled the residence after the address was shared on social media, right ? It was declared in Portland for a second consecutive night. After the police union headquarters in North Portland was swarmed by around a hundred people and set on fire smoke, engulf the street as the flames erupted next to the letters, ACA B , which means all cops are bees scores of protesters in Brooklyn center last night, lobbed the bottles and other projectiles over a fence in front of police headquarters as chaos erupted outside the police station. So not looking good, right? And we have a woman who is in the thick of it right now to be being basically driven from her home city. Sounds

Speaker 1:

Like it's in total disarray, 60 people arrested all across the country, protests all over the place. It's not good, not good. And let's let's continue on. Oh my gosh. So demonstrators use umbrellas, the tops of storage units and boogie boards as makeshift shields to protect against cops, to deflect tear gas, flash bombs, and other non-lethal weapons, which sounds a lot worse than anything that we saw at the Capitol building. Am I wrong about this? We saw some of that, right, but Ms . Shields, but these people are arming up for war. Like they're arming up shields like shields where their , where their capital of the Hill . People with shields, flash bombs and other non-lethal weapons. Like these people are arming up for a battle. Police declared an unlawful assembly at the drastically reinforced Brooklyn center police station as riot cops and the national guard shielded the building, which is now enclosed by concrete barriers and metal fencing murder Opolis was spray painted on one of the barriers, just a Stone's throw from where Floyd was killed. Last may came after protesters gathered peacefully yesterday afternoon, before marching to the FBI headquarters. About 90 minutes before 10:00 PM, curfew state police announced over a loud speaker. The gathering had been declared unlawful ordered to leave immediately. You are hereby ordered to disperse read the loudspeakers curfew was in effect until 6:00 AM Wednesday. So early this morning announcement set off confrontations with protesters , launching fireworks toward the station and throwing objects at police. So literally launching projectiles at government buildings, Minnesota made more than 60 arrests for rioting and other offenses. During last night's protest , despite the explosive protest still in somber vigils were also held across the nation to remember what happened to Dante, right? So , uh , let's take a look at some of the aftermath. So here's a nice image. We have a ACA B , this was where some flashlight banks were going off . This is over from the sun.com. So that, that looks, you know, not, not good independent media from the U S sun . We also have,

Speaker 8:

Oh, here it is. Thank you. If you guys can stay back on that sidewalk, let's get the cars . Hold on .

Speaker 1:

All right . So you know, not, not a good situation. I wonder if the FBI is going to be posting on Twitter every day, looking for all of the people who were involved in all this stuff. Cause they're still working on that for the Capitol Hill people. But I wonder if they're going to take that same vigor and tenacity and go after all of these people, somehow I doubt it, but let's carry on. We have another image of fencing and surrounding the home of Kimberly Potter . And so that's their house. We got the police boarded up, concrete barriers, no parking at any time, they're sort of just securing her residents as they should. Right? Look, this is America. We still have the presumption of innocence in this country. We still have due process for the time being don't know how much longer we're going to have any

Speaker 6:

Yeah . Stuff . But, and I'm not being hyperbolic about that. I'm like genuinely concerned about this, but this is now like a judgment of guilt, right? I mean, this , this, this woman has, has not even yet .

Speaker 1:

She had her day in court today. She's already been thrown out of her house. We have protestors to throw flash bangs at police at , as law enforcement smoked people to disperse. So you see them coming, you know, pretty, pretty suited up. You've got some serious COVID masks if they want to claim, that's what those are. These look like tear gas masks, right? It's it's to prevent people. These people are suited up. They have battle gear on, in a way that we have not seen.

Speaker 6:

I mean , other protests, we have the

Speaker 1:

Guard stepped up to patrol during the third night of protest in Minnesota .

Speaker 6:

So we got some trouble

Speaker 1:

Imagery, other projectiles into the T uh, include a traffic cone. So, you know , that's not that dangerous, but there was another officer

Speaker 6:

Who was saying that there was in fact , uh , frozen cans of pop. He called it .

Speaker 1:

I think it was just how you know, you're in the Midwest. And so now let's take a look at it .

Speaker 6:

What Ms. Potter officer Potter is being charged with

Speaker 1:

Is the statute. And this may look familiar to you because we've already covered this in the Shovan trial, 20, 20 Minnesota statutes manslaughter. In the second degree, we know that what you , that this is what she's being charged with. And here's what it says. Six Oh 9.205. A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter, maybe incentives to prison for not more than 10 years, fine of $20,000 or both. So before we go through this, right, we have to understand what she's being charged with before we can build a proper defense for her. So let's take a look at how this statute works. And we went through this a couple of days ago and we looked at the murder charges. Manslaughters all of them. And this was the one that I thought fit most mainly because of this one, right here. Number one, by the person's culpable

Speaker 6:

Negligence, whereby the

Speaker 1:

Person creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another, right? That's the one that fits subsection one, number two, shooting another with a firearm, no spring gun, no negligently permitting an animal. No, none

Speaker 6:

Of those stuff. Okay. Down

Speaker 1:

Here we have, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence that shall be affirmative defense that provoked an animals . So that doesn't apply either. So we're only worried about basically this right here, manslaughter in the second degree. Now let's break down this statute a little bit because we see this one in the Shovan case. And in the Shovan case, we've been really bickering about this word here, causing death, right in Shovan what was

Speaker 2:

The ultimate cause of death? We're also arguing about culpable negligence, right? Cause of death is being dealt with, with the drugs, killing Floyd, heart disease, killing Floyd, or was it the knee on the neck that killed Florida ? What was the cause? And that's in the statute, right? The causing causing death. It's gotta be in there. Somebody has to die and somebody needs to be the cause of death. Consciously takes chances of causing death. Does something reckless does something that creates an unreasonable risk. And that's what we're using in the Shovan case or what the defense is using in the Shovan case to sort of say that he didn't cause the death. And on top of that, he wasn't negligent either. This is where all the use of force conversation comes into play. So he wasn't negligent, right? This was a legit, legitimate use of force. He was allowed to put his the on the back prone positions, not even dangerous. Other use of force experts like officer Brode , who came in yesterday, they were testifying that this is perfectly reasonable and objectively an objective li reasonable officer would have done that itself. Right? So on the Shovan case, you're seeing Nelson frame this out for these two concepts, culpable negligence and causing death. Well , in this case, now we're talking about Kim Potter. So we got to change gears a little bit. Do we have a question about causation? Is there any doubt in anybody's mind about what caused Dante writes death? No. Right . It's not , not at all. You could do an autopsy of them. You could say , uh , you could say he had heart disease. He had cancer. He had whatever you want, but none of those things killed him. What did the bullet pretty clear different than Shovan right. We got a lot of different causal factors that could all be sort of intertwined together on that case. So not going to be able to defend her on causation. She, she killed him. No question. It was homicide. Gun fired bullet left. The gun, went into his body. He's dead obvious. So we can't even talk about this, about causing deaths . So now what do you do? Well, here's what you do. You say this wasn't culpable negligence. This wasn't negligence. What Kim Potter did. The argument is going to go wasn't negligence. How does that work? Cause we all heard her say, she thought she was tasing him. Peyser taser, taser. Boom. Oh shoot. I just shot him. So what do we have to do? We have to show that this wasn't in fact culpable negligence. And is there a way to do that? We have to take out the entire conversation about the mistake. We have to take out the entire conversation about whether or not she was using a taser or a gun. None of that matters for her defense. Her defense here is that she had full legal authority to shoot and kill him. She was allowed

Speaker 7:

To do that. It wasn't negligence. She could have shot him,

Speaker 1:

Killed him. She didn't intend to, but she could have. And if she would have, that would not be a crime. Right. That's what the defense has to be.

Speaker 7:

It's that an objectively reasonable officer in that position could have shot Dante. Right. And that would not have been a crime.

Speaker 1:

Okay. That's the defense. And I know that sounds

Speaker 7:

Tricky. It's not, let's take a look.

Speaker 1:

First thing we want to do is look at the Graham versus Connor factors. If you've been following the Shovan trial, you know, they talk a lot about this in Chauvet . A lot about this. There's battling over this several different days during testimony, let's take a look at this case and see how it applies to Kim Potter. So, first and foremost, I want to invite you to go over to thought co.com found a very nice summation of the Graham versus Connor case. And so we're going to be jumping from them a little bit. Here is a link to this. This was drafted by Eliana Spitzer updated on January 16 , 2021 did a very nice job assembling all of this. So Graham versus Connor, the case and its impact, this was a Supreme court ruling on how to assess excessive force by,

Speaker 7:

By police, right? And for Kim Potter. Yeah. It's clearly

Speaker 1:

Excessive force, right? That that's the argument she's being charged with manslaughter. She shot and killed. Somebody should not have shot and killed somebody. It's excessive force. This case is on point. So what's going on with Graham versus Connor here is what happened. It was decided back on 1989, very important case. It's all about excessive force. The key question did Graham have to show that police acted maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm to establish that they use excessive force. So there was an old standard, right? Maliciously and sadistically. And they were saying that this was basically cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. So there was some case law that said, yeah, in order to show that an officer was acting with excessive force, you got to show that they were acting maliciously and sadistically. And so they said, well, look in this situation, are we really still applying that standard? Cause that sounds kind of antiquated. So that standard sounds bad. Also. What is the appropriate constitutional authority for this fourth, eighth or 14th amendment? So we have the Supreme court comes out and says that excessive use of force claims. They must be evaluated under a new standard, not the standard maliciously and statistically anymore. Now they're going to say it's objectively reasonable,

Speaker 7:

Which requires

Speaker 1:

Courts to consider the facts and the circumstances surrounding an officer's use of force rather than the intent or motivation of an officer during that use of force. So can you see it? Can you see where this is coming up one more time. If we're going to be using the objectively reasonable standard of the fourth amendment fourth amendment, it says that courts consider the facts and circumstances surrounding an officer's use of force rather than the intent or the motivation of an officer during that use of force.

Speaker 7:

In other words, it's about what

Speaker 2:

She thought or did right then and there that we measure use of force against her subjective belief, not relevant Supreme court has said it's the objective interpretation.

Speaker 6:

It's whether

Speaker 2:

An officer, an objectively reasonable officer had the lawful authority to use deadly force right then and there. Okay. She was not intending to do that. Her personal perspective was on this. I didn't want to shoot him. I was going to use it ,

Speaker 6:

My taser. It was an accident that I shot him, but she could have shot him. Is the argument she could have .

Speaker 2:

She chose not to, or tried not to ended up doing it. It was a mistake, but the mistakes are irrelevant because she could have lawfully legally and without criminality

Speaker 6:

Shot him right then and there, that has to be the defense. So how does this play out then?

Speaker 2:

How does this work? Let's take a closer look at Graham versus Connor. And remember we're talking about an objective standard. So if you were sort of take the mistake out of this, take the gun out of it. Take any of her actions, any of her statements saying taser, taser, taser , uh, Oh shoot. I shot any of that stuff. Take all of that out. Let's let's rewind the clock. If she were standing there and they're conducting an arrest and he takes off Dante, right? And she pulls out a gun,

Speaker 6:

Shoots him intending to do that. Would that be murder? Would that be excessive force? That's the real issue.

Speaker 2:

So let's ask ourselves that and let's go back to the majority opinion. Once again, from Eliana Spitzer, this was a unanimous decision delivered by justice Rehnquist. The court found that excessive use of force claims against police officers should be analyzed under the fourth

Speaker 6:

Amendment. They wrote

Speaker 2:

The analysis should take into account the reasonableness of the search and seizure to determine if an officer used excessive force, they must decide how an objectively reasonable a police officer in the same situation would have acted. The officer's intent or motivation should be irrelevant in the analysis. So what the officer intended to do or what their motivation was, is irrelevant in the analysis. Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all. All you got to do is show that a reasonable officer and objectively reasonable officer in the same situation could have shot Dante, right? This particular officer's intent or motivation doesn't matter. In the majority opinion, justice Rehnquist, the chief justice wrote an officer's evil intentions will not make a fourth amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force, nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force

Speaker 6:

Institutional . So intentions don't matter has nothing

Speaker 2:

And to do with it. The court struck down previous lower court rulings, which used the Johnson vs Glick test under the 14th amendment. That was a different test. So it required good faith or malicious sadistic intent under the eighth amendment. All of that got thrown out under this new opinion. The court reiterated the previous findings. Another very important case in Tennessee vs garner to highlight jurisprudence. On the matter in that case, the Supreme court had similarly applied the fourth amendment to determine whether the police should have used deadly force against the fleeing suspect. If that suspect appeared unarmed. Okay. So this case is on point. We're going to look at this one, Tennessee versus garner

Speaker 7:

Fourth amendment standard, right ?

Speaker 2:

Whether the police should have used deadly force against a fleeing suspect like Dante, if that suspect appeared on armed, right? Almost sounds exactly like what happened in Dante, his case in that case, as well as Graham versus Connor, the court decided that they must consider the following factors to determine whether the force

Speaker 7:

Was excessive, right? This is the legal standard. Was it excessive? And we have to ask ourselves these questions. We're talking

Speaker 2:

About the severity of the crime at issue

Speaker 7:

In this Dante case,

Speaker 2:

The suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or

Speaker 7:

Others or others , safety of the officers or others.

Speaker 2:

And whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. We've got three factors that we need to consider here. Here's what they are

Speaker 7:

Severity of the crime at issue.

Speaker 2:

Talk about this. We're going to talk about an immediate threat to the officers or others. We're going to talk about actively resisting arrest. So let's get into it before we do. We , we saw that other case, right? Tennessee versus garner. Let's take a look at that one here we see tended to be Tennessee versus garner is a civil case in the U S Supreme court. You can see that by us here under the fourth amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not, may not use deadly force to prevent escape

Speaker 7:

Unless the officer has probable cause to believe ,

Speaker 2:

I believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or

Speaker 7:

Others, right? What would that be in the Dante case? Well, it would be him fleeing in the car, creating a police chase running on down the road, right. Easily

Speaker 2:

In another person being seriously injured, police chases, all the time ends and end in crashes and death and girlfriend was in the car too. We're not just talking about other Passerbuys right. Other drivers were talking about the potential girlfriend getting injured because he is driving her. So right now you see under the Tennessee vs garner standard reasonable force

Speaker 7:

Can include

Speaker 2:

It's reasonable to use deadly force. If somebody is fleeing, as long as you have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death. So they can easily say that about Dante, right ? His girlfriend was in the car,

Speaker 7:

Could have hit any, any number ,

Speaker 2:

Have another, you know , other motorists around the vehicle. So you can use deadly force. It , it was found that the use of deadly force to prevent escape is unreasonable seizure under the fourth amendment in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect pose a physical danger. So if there's probable cause there's enough there that this person could have posed a physical danger,

Speaker 7:

Then you can use force. You can actually

Speaker 2:

Kill somebody for them under that standard. So we have to do some analysis here. Don't we let's go and do it. Who is Dante? Right? 20 year old, black man killed in an officer involved shooting authority said that he was pulled over for having expired registration. All right. So let's ask ourselves the first question. The first prong of the question, the seriousness of the crime at hand. Well, if you stop right there, expired registration, not that serious. And I made this point repeatedly on this channel that I don't think that we should be conducting high stakes, high risk arrests on the middle of the road where there's traffic , you know , speeding by. There are other places, other ways that we can do that. That's beside the point, that's a tangent, but here expired registration doesn't sound like that serious of an offense, right? But you have to consider it from the officer's perspective. We're talking about a defensive Kim Potter. We're going to make arguments in the light, most favorable to her and her defense. So we got to give her the benefit of the doubt. They went and saw that the initial stop was done by expired registration. Then they determined that had an outstanding warrant. So now we're talking about expanding the registration crime into something bigger, like an outstanding warrant police said they tried to arrest him. He reentered the vehicle and officer fired striking him, traveled several Brock blocks before striking another vehicle court records show that he has a criminal record after failing to appear in court on charges that he fled from officers and possessed a gun without a permit during an encounter with Minneapolis in June. In that case, a statement of probable cause that police got a call about a man waving a gun who was later identified as, right? So now you have the initial , the severity of the crime, right ? The severity of the underlying crime that we are guided by Connor vs. Graham versus Connor gives us one of our first factors about excessive force registration. Yeah. Not very severe. So you would say the relationship there is inverse, right? If it's a very, Oh, I would say they're , they're correlated, right? If you have a very severe crime that's taking place, you can use a very high level of force. If you have a very insignificant crime happening, you got to use a very low level of force. So here registration, low crime, low level of force, right? Unless the cops went back, ran his plates, figured out who this guy was said, he's got outstanding warrants. He fled from officers previously and he , uh , possessed a gun without a permit previously. And we got a call previously about him waving a gun around, okay. That elevates the stakes a little bit. And so remember, we're forgetting about the mistake. We're forgetting about the taser versus the gun. All of that is

Speaker 1:

We're setting that aside for now. The question Is under these facts, could an officer

Speaker 6:

Reasonably use a higher level of force base

Speaker 1:

On the fact that he's got prior gun charges, maybe let's carry on. We have next rights . Father Aubrey told the Washington post that his son had just asked his mom for $50 for a carwash and was headed there when he was shot. I know my son, he's scared still of the mind of a 17 year old because we bailed him. If he was resisting an arrest, you could tase him. I don't understand it. Opry said Dante had a two-year-old son dropped out of high school two years ago because of a learning disability, Dante sense , worst worked in retail and fast food restaurants to support his son and plan to get his GED. Aubrey told the post. And so this is something that I wanted to mention. I wanted to pause on this. Nadar actually brought this up earlier in a different segment on this show, but this is where you have to just remember that we're dealing with people here, right? We can get very mechanical about this and I can be guilty of that. Myself. I can be somebody who looks at statutes and sort of analyzes the news and it gets very granular, cold, mechanical clinical about the analysis. But we are talking about people here. And this is a , this is actually I think a real problem where we're seeing so much of this stuff happened on a daily basis. We're doing so much analysis. We're sort of watching these, these things happen from different perspectives and gamifying it in a way that you can lose touch with this fact, right? Aubrey said, Dante had a two year old son, okay. Trouble kid dropped out of high school, learning disability. I mean, good Lord, like, right. Is this, is this a , a thug, a ho you know, hood, whatever like that caricature of people who are out there, you know, causing mayhem, or is this a troubled young man, right? Who got a learning disability and a two-year-old like, it's a person. You might think that he looks one way or acts a certain way. Or you might want to call them a maniac for trying to flip

Speaker 6:

The scene . But it's a person. Maybe it's a learning disability. Maybe there's just something wrong with the guy. Right.

Speaker 1:

And , and you don't want to just automatically say anybody who flees just get shot . So we got to think about this from terms of incentives too . Right? Do we want to give cops the incentive,

Speaker 6:

The ability to just shoot anybody?

Speaker 1:

Well, you know, he was flying , no , he had a gun. I felt danger . I felt like I was in danger of my safety. So I just shot him. Right? Like, no. So should Kim Potter be charged with a crime? Yes, absolutely. She was involved in an altercation. Somebody

Speaker 6:

Died from

Speaker 1:

What looks like to be her negligence. And when somebody dies, we as a society have to pause and say, this is a big freaking deal, right? We do not want our society structured in a way where we're just

Speaker 6:

Sort of glossing over

Speaker 1:

Intentions of the government. The police are extensions of our government

Speaker 6:

Killing citizens. And that's never something that we just go regional .

Speaker 1:

That was objective, objective reasonableness, and cops should just shoot people and just kind of up , Oh, it happened again. Hey Lou , what ? Another one? Can you believe this? No , we don't want that. So want to make sure that there

Speaker 2:

Are consequences for killing

Speaker 6:

People , but this is still America. She's still

Speaker 2:

Well deserves the presumption of innocence. She still deserves due process. She still deserves a fair trial. So we want to make sure she gets that without losing humanity in this situation,

Speaker 6:

Without just sort of dunking

Speaker 2:

On one side or the other saying that everything can Potter dead . Everything that she does is, is angelic. And she's a hero of America or Dante, right . Is a hero of America. And you know, we're gonna , we're gonna fight in his honor, torching police stations or something like that. Like this is a tragedy, right? We have a dead 20 year old kid with a two year old son. And if grieving family, we have a woman who is a former officer, 25 years. Her life is destroyed. Now she's facing criminal charges. The cities are burning down across the place. It's like, we got to pause and just

Speaker 6:

Say, can we be human

Speaker 2:

For a little bit? When we're talking about this, we don't need to bundle up our ideologies. We just, can we just connect as people and analyze this stuff from a humanitarian perspective,

Speaker 6:

The volume is getting so high these days, it's , it's becoming problematic in a way that I've seen ,

Speaker 2:

Never seen it. Right? And, and I'm not that old. So maybe that doesn't mean that much, but this is, this is troubling. We're now seeing how this is spilling over into potentially other trials like the Shovan

Speaker 6:

Trial.

Speaker 2:

And if we get a weapon overly weaponized more than it ,

Speaker 6:

It is right now, judicial system where we're seeing police

Speaker 2:

Local prosecutions, because we have angry mobs in this country, demanding justice. That is not good for America. We have to hold the line on the presumption of innocence. We have to hold the line on due process

Speaker 6:

Us against the mob. So we're going to continue to do that. We're going to try it ,

Speaker 2:

Do it with humanity and compassion. And we're going to stick to our guns. Everybody deserves a defense and that presumption. And so we're going to carry on court records indicate Dante has had some previous brushes with the law. He was arrested in February and a charge of aggravated robbery, but later was released

Speaker 6:

From custody, aggravated

Speaker 2:

Robbery. We're going to look at that statute. February, 2020, Dante was also convicted of a misdemeanor for disorderly conduct in connection with an event to the prior summer, he pled guilty in 2019 to a petty misdemeanor for marijuana, which not a big deal

Speaker 6:

Now aggravated robbery, right? That's a big deal. So let's take a look .

Speaker 2:

Look at this court record. Here are the charge details we've got this happen . It looks like booking number back of 2021 , uh, released from custody

Speaker 6:

Received February

Speaker 2:

11 , 2021 conditional release. So he was released aggravated robbery is the description of the charge down here, right? For Minneapolis PD reason for arrest probable cause it looks like a $0 bail. So they let him out.

Speaker 6:

So aggravated robbery, right? Typically

Speaker 2:

When something is aggravated, that means that there's a weapon involved. That's why it becomes aggravated. What happens if you just break into somebody's house and Rob them, that's regular robbery. If you use a knife or a gun or you using a knife or a gun, Hey, let me in. Or I'm going to shoot you. You don't have a gun. You sort of make bleeding. That's aggravated because it involves a crime. And that is the same situation in Minnesota. Here is the statute for aggravated robbery. Whoever, while committing a robbery is armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashion in a manner that led the victim to reasonably believe it was a dangerous weapon is guilty of aggravated robbery in the first degree, right? So it could be first degree or second degree. I don't know. We can't tell from this charge description down here, it says aggravated robbery. But here it says, while committing a robbery implies that we have a dangerous weapon. So it's a serious charge, right? It's a weapons charge. And he had a warrant out for another case. I don't know specifically which case it was, but here is from Minnesota court records online. We saw that there was a notice of remote hearing with instructions. He filed a summons and then a warrant was issued back on March 2nd. So it could have been the same case. Cause if it was filed February 11th, you have an initial court date will say, yeah, right about that. Right. About 30 days out, he didn't show up to that. So they sent out another summons. Then they set a new court date probably on four to about a month after March and that went away and he didn't show up for that court date. So they issued a warrant. Then on four 13, he's he's dead. So the prosecution dismisses the case and you can see that go away. Right? He's deceased. There's no , no further case. So he's got an aggravated robbery. Other criminal charges floating around here is a notice of a zoom hearing from one of his cases on April 2nd. So he was supposed to appear in court probably on this date. Yeah , right there. April 2nd. So he's supposed to appear in court for his first appearance. Didn't show up here are the charges on that case pistol without a permit in a public place, it's a gross misdemeanor. We also have fleeing a peace officer by means other than a motor vehicle. So already had tried to run from cops that this happened back on June 30th, 1600 hours. Several officers responded to a person with a gun call near Minneapolis. Hennepin County caller indicated that a light complex 17 year old black male wearing a black shirt, shorts and shoes was waving a black handgun mailed and got into a white Toyota Camry occupied by four people. Officers located in the car near by with a person's a defendant here in once out of the vehicle. So they checked him, right? Don Dontray , Dante Demetrius Wright , date of birth 10 27 20. Well , that can't , that can't be right. 2000 . He wasn't born in 2020, maybe 2000, which would have made what would have made him 20 matching a person with the guns description sitting in the backseat. Once out of the vehicle, defendant took off running with officers in pursuit, managed to evade the officers at the scene. They positively identified him. They found it loaded Ruger 45 caliber handgun matching the caller's description was found on the floor where the vehicle had been sitting, another occupant verified. It was the defendants . He does not have the permit to carry a firearm. So he got those charges, got summons to appear on. Looks like what was that? April 2nd didn't show up. So a warrant was issued on that day. Dante writes here, we have, this was signed off on. It looks like by the judge, gross misdemeanor, fleeing a peace officer by other scenes. So,

Speaker 7:

All right . So if they, if the police then stop him, get his ID, they go check his , his

Speaker 2:

Information and the vehicle and the police vehicle. They find out he's got outstanding warrants from an April 2nd court date. He didn't show up for what is, what is going on with that. They probably have notes in their system, or they should be able to look it up. Don't know if they did don't know what they saw. I don't know. This is all speculation. So I don't know, but realistically, yes, they should've seen it, looked into it. They look into it, it's a gun charge and they look at his criminal record, aggravated robbery, meaning he had other records involving weapons. So a cop now has to factor that into their analysis. And so we go back to the Graham versus Connor questions about excessive force, the severity of the crime at issue. So here we've got several different crimes, presumably that the officer knew about Kim Potter, I would guess knew about this stuff, right? She was, was walking back towards him. I'm going to guess that she went into the car, maybe learned a little bit more about them . So severity of a registration violation, very low meaning use of force would also be very low, but aggravated robbery, outstanding warrants for gun violations that increases the severity, which again, an objectively reasonable officer under the Graham versus Connor standards

Speaker 7:

Would incorporate

Speaker 2:

That into their response about what level of force to use. Again, setting aside the taser, setting that all aside,

Speaker 7:

Based on the facts could an officer using these three standards, severity of the crime at issue justify this prong of the shooting. I think so

Speaker 2:

We've got aggravated robbery. We've got a number of other charges. We've got a criminal warrants out. So it elevates it. In fact, from a registration violation to something more serious next, whether the suspect pose an immediate

Speaker 7:

Threats to the officers or to the others, we've already talked

Speaker 2:

It's about this, but yeah. And bright . If he got in his car and

Speaker 7:

Bled as he was doing, he was in the process of doing that. He could have

Speaker 2:

Killed his girlfriend. He could have killed any other passer-by presumably he could have run over one of the cops, right. If , if they would have sort of engaged with him in a different way, they could have been brought under the vehicle, run over by the back tire

Speaker 7:

Happens. So was he an immediate threat? Could you make the

Speaker 2:

Argument that he was an immediate threat to the

Speaker 7:

Officers and others based on what we saw? Yeah. You could make that argument, right? I just did number

Speaker 2:

Or three, whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Not even a question on that.

Speaker 7:

So severity of the crime pretty severe. Did he pose an immediate threat to others? Yeah. You can make a very strong argument that he did

Speaker 2:

Or was it, was there any question about whether he was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight? No, no question about that at all. So if you go through those , uh, Connor

Speaker 1:

Vs Graham versus Connor factors, there's a defense, there are an objectively reasonable officer in that position could have shot Dante, right, and made an argument under the excessive force rules as they exist under the U S Supreme court under Graham versus Connor and garner versus Tennessee go look those cases up. So if she takes that position, if she says I didn't intend to shoot him, but I did. And I was justified in doing so, given what was happening at the scene, that's a defense. Let's take a [email protected],

Speaker 9:

Go over to

Speaker 1:

Our, watching the watchers.locals.com. Address, ask a question and let's get plugged in. We've got big dog. One, one one says, how did they charge Kim Potter so quickly? Was it really time for a thorough investigation? Are they just trying to quiet the riots?

Speaker 9:

Uh, yeah, I think so. Uh,

Speaker 1:

I don't have any issues with the quickness of the charge. I think that it's pretty clear what happened here. I did an analysis I think on Monday and I went through the statutes and I I'm pretty sure I came to the same conclusion that day . Did you know? It was, I think, I think, yes, two things are happening. One, they do want to move quickly so that they can call the wa the riots. But I don't think it's that complicated of a case of a case really. I mean, it's, we saw what happened on the video. Didn't seem intentional. I think it's the right one that fits. So I'm not really sure that it would require that much time. Aunt Deb says question for Rob don't know if covered yet. Why is officer Potter being treated so severely when the officer who shot Babbitt at Capitol Hill is not even getting a mention. And it's a good question. And I saw that headline this afternoon, but I was already too deep into show prep to change gears. So we , uh , we didn't get to talk about Ashley Babbitt today, but I I'm , I'm curious. I haven't, I just saw the headline on it. I haven't seen the formal press release or what their explanation is for that , uh, or what the distinction there is, right? Because if, if you go through the, the, the, the Graham versus Connor factors, the severity of the crime for Ashley Babbitt . Yeah. It's pretty high, right? She's in the Capitol building, she's going through , uh, the , the barricades there. So that prongs pretty high. So you would say the severity of the crimes high, there are a lot of people who are in the congressional building, who we cannot let get harmed, right. Congress, people, and the vice-president at the time. So severe, very severe crime would justify a high use or, or, or high level of force. Next. You have the likelihood that that person might injure others or , uh , officers. Yeah , I'm on that one. I'm not so sure. Right. Did she have a weapon? Did the officer see a weapon that officer may have sort of been possibly injured? Not just by Ashley Babbitt , but the bigger threat, I think is the mob of which Ashley Babbitt's a part of that. So you can make an argument that force was necessary because she was one component of a bigger throng of people that would justify high level of force. And was she trying to fleet ? No. Right. So that prong is absolutely gone, right? She wasn't trying to fleece . She was trying to get in. So the third prong is not there. So maybe that's how they would distinguish

Speaker 6:

It and do the,

Speaker 1:

The, the, the, the play-by-play analysis. But I have not seen their explanation. That's just off the top of my head. Pinky. Number two says I saw the video yesterday. Unfortunately, the young man tried to get away and did, but in the commotion, it looks like it did look like a big commotion. I believe the officer did shoot instead of take the young man accidentally,

Speaker 6:

I'll be the first to think

Speaker 1:

It was on purpose. If it's seen that way, how does the law prosecute for an accident? We have car accidents, everyday cars are deadly. So if it, if it results in your , if you kill somebody as a result of your negligence, yeah. You're going to be charged with a crime in vehicles. We typically call that a negligent homicide or, or a vehicular manslaughter for like DUI cases and things. There's a separate sub-section of crimes that will flush those out. So, yeah, I agree with you. I think it was an accident, but it's still a catastrophic accident. You still get criminal liability, even though it was an accident. Unfortunately for her, we have Liberty or death says, remember when Obama said we needed a civilian force, just as powerful as the police and national guard to Institute change. Yeah .

Speaker 6:

That's coming up right now. That's coming up. Everybody's

Speaker 1:

Everybody's seeing that Liberty or death sees that sharing Quinny says, so now we have a blatant and accepted mob rule and legislatures are calling for abolishing. The police. This is part of the plan creates such chaos that people will accept any kind of dictatorship just to get some kind of life back. Yeah. These are the peaceful protests . Now, if they were wearing Maga hats, they would be insurrectionists. Yeah. You're you're right. You're right. I can't even disagree with that. Um, yeah , apparently they were arrested, so that's not right. That's not entirely fair. They were , there were arrests. We saw, I think, 60 arrests. We're going to see what happens with those though. We got Liberty or death says, isn't it funny that the same government officials that want to defund the police are instituting a curfew. Yeah. Yeah. That is interesting, right? That is. Who's going to enforce the curfew. If there's no police, who's going to enforce the curfew and Hey, if there's no police, who's going to enforce the mass mandates. It's sort of the same demographics we have no doubt says standard strategy for Antifa and BLM in Portland and Chicago to carry shields into conflict with the police. They also wear helmets and gas masks. Yeah . They're arming up

Speaker 6:

For conflict.

Speaker 1:

Is the FBI going to go get them ? Or what are they doing? A big taser with taser Popo. A big issue with taser Popo is that our actions are inexcusable, but there is likely an explanation that helps us understand what happened so we can prevent it in the future. Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure that there is anything that , that you, anything more that you can do. I mean, she just grabbed the wrong gun. It's apparently it's supposed to be on the other side of her waist. She just grabbed the wrong one. We have norovirus has , have you seen the comments on Fox news regarding an article saying the justice department is not filing any charges in the Ashley Babbitt case there a complete and total outrage than if a white person gets murdered. There was no action. I don't want to say white people don't as it is so politically provocative, but can bear charges in Dante, right ? Case file within three days to Ashley Babbitt in four months. Yeah. There's a , there's a clear difference there. I'm going to go take a look at the charging document. That's not going to be a charging document, but there's probably a press release on the Babbitt stuff. So I'll take a look at that. We have Liberty or deaths as pretty neat that we had BLM and Antifa covering their faces. And once there was pushback on not being able to identify them, we are all forced to wear a mask. Seems like a great setup. Yeah, I know. It's I know it. N Y renal MD says, if you read history, there are movements and people that live among us, they don't love this country, but they hate it. They're failures in life generally, and want everything to burn down so they can be in charge. They don't care about the constitution or acting humanely. It , you know , I still, yeah, I don't really understand. I think a lot of the clamoring for more government oversights, I just don't. I instinctually have a hard time. Cause I'm so viscerally the opposite of that's about what we want more and more government to solve more things. I feel like everywhere we turn the government is screwing stuff up. I don't know why I want to give them more power. We have a Baranski says, are you sure the police officer killed him? And not the gun company? Police might not be responsible enough if they are broken . Yeah, no, it's true. They should Sue Gluck. Right. And probably the people who mined the metal out of the ground. If you want to take this thing back all the way my Fox says, when you have a gun on one hip and a water gun on the other hip, do you think it's only reasonable to check which you're using before you shoot someone? Just a little peak 0.5 seconds. Not even. Yeah. And I don't know if Kim Potter's gun was a different color, but you know , we saw that yesterday that the New York times did a compare and contrast and you had the black gun and you have a bright yellow neon taser gun in the other hand we've got. And so how would you see it? Right? If you're, if you're gonna pull it, my point being is, if you're gonna pull it out, here's my little clicker. If you're going to pull it out in front of your eyeballs, you're going to see the color and you're going to see this yellow, or you're gonna see the blue . You're going to know what it is before you actually pull the trigger. So you would think that you'd see it, but maybe not. We have norovirus as I'm sorry for this provocative question. No, you're not Nora. And likely it is highly improper. Time-wise has just happened. But do you think the Minnesota city council is already putting, putting another mm , price on her head? Yeah, that's probably, yeah, probably. You heard from the city council member, she's scared to death. She's like, Hey, we're going to fire everybody. Cause I'm afraid that these people are gonna come torch my building and murder my family. So everybody's getting the ax today. Yeah. I think that probably they're trying . Look, these are people who are trying to save their city. Okay. They don't know what to do. And they're getting, they're getting dumped on by the rest of the country. I have a lot of empathy for people in Minneapolis right now, all of them. And even these city council people, right? Even the people who are making these kind of off the wall, bizarre statements and bizarre decisions. And you know , they're, they're under the gun right now,

Speaker 2:

The entire country and the entire government media complex, the entire media apparatus is in their town right now. You have all of these yahoos from CNN and Fox and MSNBC. And everybody is just going to come crashing down into Minneapolis. And they're going to just milk the content festival for the next several weeks. They're going to , Oh, this building's burned down this writer over here. Hey, John, come talk to me and they're going to just soak it all up for ratings and blog articles and news pieces. And they're gonna make a ton of money off of it. Then what's going to happen. They're going to bail out. It's not their city. It's not their town. It's not their state. They don't care. The CNN people are gonna go back to CNN headquarters in Atlanta or back on the East coast or wherever they come from. They're just parachute in. Cause a bunch of division , a bunch of animosity, a bunch of anger. They get everybody wanting to kill each other. They divide everybody in, in just very clear groups. People pick their side and they start torching their cities. And who has to rebuild that? CNN MSNBC, Fox news. No they don't. They just bail out. They go back home and they go, they go to sleep with their wives and their kids and they wake up the next day and do it again. And the people of Minneapolis have to rebuild their cities, not the news media. So they just come out and they just take a big steaming right in the middle of the city and go home and want somebody else to clean it up. So the city council, you know, wanting to throw money to solve the problem, what else are they supposed to do at this point? Because everybody in the country is saying that every single cop in Minneapolis is a racist, white supremacist, murdering lunatic, who just is out to kill black people. So what are they supposed to do? So I got a lot of empathy for them. I mean, they're trying to save their stinking city from the rest of the country, laughing at them, having a media field day, as things burned down to the ground in Minnesota, sad want to know, says, Rob might have to start defending officers. It looks like a lot of these businesses coming up, they needed a defense too . I know this is another insane thing. It's like, I'm a defense lawyer. I started this channel to not defend the cost, to call the cops out. I have a whole board back here with like 15 to 20 different mugshots on there of the cops that we have covered. And now it's like, you know, the pendulum has swung so far the other way that it's like, yo, even the police deserve the presumption of innocence. Even they deserve due process, right? Like obviously like w w do I even have to say this? This is a concept that we have to discuss and hammer back down into the consciousness of the American public. Of course they deserve a defense. This is America. So I know that everybody wants to just, you know , throw out Derek , Shovan throw out Kim Potter, throw out any one of these people. Every person deserves a defense. And when the scales of justice look like they are realigning in order to skewer people, that's when we have to hold the line and we're going to do it because that's what defense attorneys do. And it's the right thing to do. This is what it's about. This is about, this is, these are American ideals that I think are so fundamentally important that when I start to see them just eroding day by, and I get to see people on Twitter and in the media, just salivating over this. Oh yeah. Look how good this is going to be. It is grotesque because these are lives that we're talking about. These are businesses that are being burnt to the ground. These are people that are going to wake up tomorrow morning and go, what the hell am I going to do to feed my kids? The CNN anchor is going to be back home, talking about, you know, laugh, yucking it up about what they did to move the narrative forward. And it makes me sick. We have another question from bacon seeds says there are two types of discharges of a firearms, intentional and negligent. I don't think she is as wrong as show in , but her discharge was negligent. I feel not sure how many reasonable person could see differently. I feel horrible for everyone involved, including her. I guess that's a very good, very good explanation. They're baking seeds . And I agree with you. I mean , I think it wasn't negligent thing to do, and she should be charged with a crime and she deserves a defense. All of those things can be true. And in sync Carolina flying says, when a doctor amputates the wrong leg is medical malpractice. When a police officer meant to taser, but shoots instead, it is police malpractice. Both are subject, both is subject to criminal liability. I'm just surprised that doctors have medical malpractice insurance and police force does not have professional malpractice insurance or do they, so they do have insurance for sure, but they also have a lot of qualified immunity, meaning they cannot be civilly sued for certain things. That's where that all comes into play. They have a special shield. Whereas a lot of the doctors don't right . They have to have Mt . Malpractice insurance, the police and the courts have exempted them from liability. So they do have insurance, right? Cause they get in a lot of accidents. They cause a lot of damage. They're they're , you know, they, they they're insured up the wazoo, but it is a little bit different. They are literally protected from certain types of claims. Next up we got Sharon, Whitney says you can not stop the weapon. Weaponization of mob rule, presumption of innocence is dead on arrival at this point ,

Speaker 10:

Uh ,

Speaker 2:

I'm going to keep fighting for it. They're sharing. Even if it means beating a dead horse hack consulting says the best way to stop this crap is to have armed protests and anyone remember the armed protest in Michigan to the Dems, freaked out over no deaths just hurt feelings. Then a month later, Minneapolis burned down, thanks to unarmed protesters , get some art protesters out there. And the rioting stops that comes from hack consulting. And yes, right? A well-armed society is a polite society. Everybody's on their best behavior. Cause everybody knows what happens if you don't. We got sent 91 says, what is the motivation to police officers to do their jobs? When doing arguably one of the most heated time during one of the most heated time periods between cops and criminals in our history, they are potentially incarcerated for an honest mistake while the suspect was actively resisting and fleeing arrest further elevating the temperature of the situation, cops are going to refuse to police. Yeah, you're you're right about that. Cops are going to re refuse to police and then people are going to start to see what happens, right? It's not going to be good. And I have never been a defunded police person at all. I've got a lot of suggestions about how to improve their, their, to interact with society. And I don't think that they should be treating every single civilian traffic stop. Like they're parachuting into Fallujah in Iraq in 2003, there are things we can do to improve relations between both sides. But I mean, if you're just going to just start charging every, every look, as I said, Kim Potter should be charged. That was an egregious act of negligence. She has a pretty good defense based on the laws. Now I don't necessarily agree with those laws, but it's a pretty good defense if you just go through the structure, in my opinion. But yeah, I mean, at some point cops are going to say, what's

Speaker 7:

The enough, enough already. I've had enough of this crap.

Speaker 2:

Like nobody appreciates it. Everybody dumps on me, this freaking loser, Robert ruler on Facebook and YouTube and all over the internet, blast cops every day, nobody appreciates us. We're taking our ball and we're going home. Good luck everybody. Well , why wouldn't they do it? It's

Speaker 7:

Why not.

Speaker 2:

My Fox says he was charged, not convicted. Last I recall. Are we really going to use the police's word for what he did when they screw up like this? I don't know. So are we really going to use the police's word for what he did when they screwed up like this? So , uh, so, so a couple of points there, mom , so yeah . Number one. Yes. You're right. He was not convicted of anything yet. He was just charged with a crime, but you would still incorporate that into your response if you're a police officer, right . You're still gonna look at that and say, Oh, he's got an open case, got an outstanding warrants . He has not shown up for court. Maybe that means this is a highly elevated person. You'd have to be, you know, I would say not, not observant as an officer, if you just ignored that, Oh, this person has an outstanding warrant for an old criminal charge. I'm going to ignore that as I go and tell him that I'm going to arrest him. Right. You, you would , you would , that would be a boneheaded thing to do. You'd absolutely want to make sure that you had that in your posture as you go and approach the person and say, we're about, we're about to arrest you for this open warrant. So I don't think that is just the, you know, the cops word for it. I do think that that, that is a documented thing. That's on record and I'm not taking the cops word for it. Right. It's, it's sort of, this is documented stuff. That's in history, that's in his criminal record that we can point to. And I would guess that an officer in that situation would also know about it, but yeah, you're right. He also does deserve the presumption of innocence. He hasn't been convicted on that charge, who knows if he would have been or not. But it's just my point is from an officer's response posture, that is a piece of data that they would incorporate into their analysis as they approached him. We got John [inaudible] says, if she pleads guilty, will the judge be more lenient? So probably if I had to guess on Kim Potter, I'm not sure that this is going to go to trial. I think what's probably going to happen is they're going to give her a plea deal for manslaughter. It'll probably be an open range type of charge or , or type of penalty where, where the judge can basically, you know, have some leeway in sentencing, goes in sentences. Or , uh, she takes a plea deal five years, six years gets out and , um , three to maybe, maybe

Speaker 7:

They do something fancy excuse

Speaker 1:

And she gets out of custody. And , uh , that's the end of the deal, right? Because this is a different situation than Shovan Shovan

Speaker 7:

And was, was very, very providing .

Speaker 1:

Look at him in the video. W w what most people saw in that video was murdered , and you can go back and watch me when I was analyzing the video in basically real time back in may of 2020, and I had the same response, the same, same reaction I saw, what I saw

Speaker 7:

Was, was actively disgusted by it .

Speaker 1:

We are learning a lot more about it now, but that is a case that is so politically volatile, that I'm not sure that he could have taken a plea deal, because I'm not sure they would have allowed that to happen in this case. I think that right now, the volume is very high on it, but I think that's probably going to go down in the, in the near future, because it really was an accident, I think, and

Speaker 7:

I'm not sure that

Speaker 1:

The public is going to be demanding the same pound of flesh out of Kim Potter that they want out of Derrick Shovan . So I think that her plea deal would make more sense, and maybe she gets more of a lenient deal. We have national populous as he could have been going to get the gun clean shoot says national populous . It could have been, we have Senna V's 91 says they fired the city planner almost immediately after he stated that the officer who shot Dante right , was entitled to due process. This is all it takes nowadays. The statement should not have been controversial. Totally, totally, totally agreed. Not even remotely controversial, right? It's like obvious. I would think that every single American in this country, no matter what side of the aisle on BLM, anything, you go, Hey, we want due process, right ? No matter what, we have a process to go through that determines innocence or guilt. We want people to run through that because what happens, look, the same people who are, who are skewering. These cops, it's the same system that skewers people from their communities. Okay. When I talk about their presumption of innocence for Derek Shovan or Kim Potter, do you know why? I think it's so important because I also have to deal with it with kids like Dante, right . And other people who happen to be black

Speaker 7:

Or Hispanic or white or Asian or whatever. Right. I

Speaker 1:

Believe that it's important across the board. Not for just the cops, not just for the defendants for everybody. And so when certain people come out and say, the cops don't deserve any due process, we saw what Shovan did. Why do we even need to have a trial? I think Chelsea handler was talking about that, right? We saw the video evidence. It should be a clean, open and shut case. He's guilty. We saw it, same thing with Kim Potter, seeing all these allegations out there that she intentionally shot him. And that this whole thing is as a racial thing. And everybody's just trying to pump this up and convict people on both ends without any due process. You know, what happens if we set that standard in place, the next time Dante Wright goes to court, he also gets screwed and he doesn't have the wherewithal and the money and resources that the cops do. So if they're arguing for a crap standard for the police, they're going to get the same crap standard in their lives, in their communities. And guess what? It's only a handful of cops who ever get to face this type of situation in our country on a regular basis, a whole lot more black people are going through the justice system than are Derek Chauvin's and Kim potters going through the justice system. So maybe they should serve themselves well and say, yes, we want to double down on due process . Because when there is no due process, their communities get screwed. All of our communities get screwed without due process, black, white, Hispanic, Asian doesn't matter. But when people start wanting to water down that standard

Speaker 7:

And, and like preach it from the rooftops, they feel it

Speaker 1:

Power. They feel like they're doing something good for society. Little did they know they are wrecking the justice system? And the media is complicit in it. We have NYU renal MD says you are right. The founding fathers figured out the best humans could do was to keep others at Bay. So we could be individually free government eventually will morph into a tool to subjugate others. Yeah, it is right. It is. And it's, it's slowly going that direction right now. Right. And COVID accelerated the whole thing COVID gave the government, all of these authority, all of these grants and people are just kind of like not having to think or do anything. And so we're seeing where this is going. It's, it's bleeding over into all of our systems, our real life systems, our justice systems, our digital online internet communities. The mob is just taking over.

Speaker 7:

And , uh, we're seeing

Speaker 1:

What's happening. We have hack consulting says if I point this at a cop, I would get shot. So there are nuances. Sure. But in 0.5 seconds, this is a gun for the intents and purposes of a cop doing their job. Yeah. So, so I'm not sure what model that is, but yeah, that definitely looks,

Speaker 7:

Looks and resembles a gun.

Speaker 1:

The other tasers that I was looking at, they sort of have a different handle. They don't look like this really at all. And we went through one of those previously chairman of the board said the doctor versus police point does raise an interesting question. Can you be jailed for making a mistake on an operating table resulting in someone's death? Yeah. You can. If it's, if it's grossly negligent yeah. They'll charge you with the same crime as a cop. You can be in situations at any time where mistake may cost you your life or someone else's life. Should you be jailed for that mistake? Yeah. If it is, if it is a high stakes

Speaker 7:

Standard of, of negligence, right? If it's something that that would , would be

Speaker 1:

So grossly negligent or, you know , in the Minnesota statute, it's culpable negative .

Speaker 7:

And so you , you have to be, we're talking about really a standard of care here. And whether an , uh , doctors actually

Speaker 1:

Dropped below the standard of care. If they, if they're opening you up and they're going to go and try to do a , you know , quintuple octoPal bypass surgery, that's it

Speaker 7:

Inherently filled with risks and somebody

Speaker 1:

Dies on the operating table. They're not going to charge you with that. Right? Because you, you made a mistake or you didn't, you didn't do the surgery as properly as you should have . Like, if it's a marginal mistake that happens, right. We're human beings, you know, it's a high risk surgery. You know how that, that there's, there's a potential risk here. So we're not going to throw somebody in jail for that for making a good faith mistake in the performance of their duties, same with cops, right. They get a lot of benefit of the doubt on that. We used to be, they're always investigated, always cleared, no issues. But when you cross that line, when you go from like regular marginal negligence and to like gross negligence, like,

Speaker 7:

You know , you , you , you , in an

Speaker 2:

Operating table, like you cut off the wrong leg or you pull out the wrong kidney, or , uh , you're supposed to give them a shot of a suppressant or a depressant to knock them out before surgery. And you give them a shot of Sinai and they dropped dead. Yeah. That's a big problem. Right? That's a gross, negligent issue. And you'll be charged with a crime for that as this cop is doing sucks. Totally awful. Right? Like it's terrible, but a kid is dead. And so somebody has to pay for the consequences of that. She was the one who caused the death . So she's got to get charged. We have N Y renal MD says, if I recall the fleeing felon doctrine, does that still apply in 2021? So good question. My understanding of, of the originality, the originating, a fleeing felon doctrine is from common law. And so I think a lot of this now has been codified into different statutes. And then I would say a N Y that really, this is, this is now codified into Graham versus Connor. And about, we're not using this fleeing felon rule. I think if you look that up, it'll go back to the common law. It's kind of old antiquated stuff, but , but some of that con some of those concepts have been indoctrinated into our current jurisprudence. And so you'll see remnants of that in modern law, norovirus says, will you ever address what your stand is on dismantling the police? I would say resounding yes. Despite my support for issues that I support that are in line with police, please also support dismantling the IRS. So that one I can absolutely get behind. Right. And the CIA and restructuring our government and doing prison reform with ride release of people who are locked up on drug charges.

Speaker 10:

That's a lot, excuse me, norovirus. That's a lot . That's a lot.

Speaker 2:

I can't explain all that right now. That's what kind of, what kind of

Speaker 10:

Request is that? But, but I agree with the law ,

Speaker 2:

Right? I think that the federal government is way too big, way, way, way, way, way too big. Not even remotely close to anything the founders envisioned. And I actually don't think that it works anymore. If you miss this last Friday, we had fun. We talked about how to start a new country on the back of cryptocurrency. And so norovirus , you may want to take a look at that video because you want to get rid of everything. I think at that point, you just say, ah , we're just going to America. You just have fun and do your thing. We're just going to go start our own new country in cloud Landia in the crypto verse. So maybe go check out that video, Nora,

Speaker 10:

We've got Bianca

Speaker 2:

Realty says, Hey, Rob, you are in recovery. I'm in recovery. You are kind of antisocial . I'm kind of anti-social if I wasn't in Florida and you were a dating, maybe we could not go out for a non drink. Oh,

Speaker 10:

That is such a great ,

Speaker 2:

Great comments. I mean, I'm like taking it back. That's so fun. So , uh, yeah, maybe, maybe all of those things could in fact be true. Your congratulations on your sobriety. Congratulations on your anti-social reality. It's good world to be in . I like it. You know, it's , it's kind of a, it's kind of nice and cozy in our little spaces and , uh , you know, maybe yes. Maybe sometime our paths will cross. I like Florida. You guys are doing some good things over there. Maybe if continues, trending this way, maybe I pick up Mo move over there and we can be antisocial together and not drink together. Thanks for being here. Bianca. That was a very nice message then . Thank you for saying that. All right. So those great questions came over from , uh , watching the watchers.locals.com . And I am still a little blushing from the last comment . So let's change gears and finish up the show. January six, Capitol Hill attacks are still unclarified for us. We still don't really know what the hell happened there back on January 6th , but we are learning a little bit more today because there is a new report that has been put out by the inspector general for the Capitol Hill police department that is telling us that the government is garbage. Let's take a look at what's going on here. This article came over first from CBS news.com says the Capitol police inspector general slams the department's January six planning prior to January six , attack on the Capitol officials from the us Capitol police failed to act on intelligence that suggested protesters coming to the rally that day could be armed and plan to target Congress, according to a report by the department's inspector general obtained by CBS news. And so this has been , uh , something that we've been talking about for a long time. We sort of foresaw this coming right. We knew immediately after January 6th in the immediate aftermath, that there were all sorts of intelligence problems. We saw that mayor Bowzer, I think on January 5th had refused to accept any additional help from outside sources that she sent the letter out to authorities saying, we don't want any help. We got it covered. Leave us the hell alone. We know that the Sergeant at arms of the house and the Senate both had some weird conversations about basically standing down because they didn't like the optics of this, right? We didn't like what this was going to look like on January 6th. And we were transitioning in , you know , to , uh , a new administration counting the electoral votes and all of that stuff. So as a matter of optics, they just declined to beef up security. And , and many of us are sort of scratching our heads going, why did that happen? Who was responsible for those decisions? Because we haven't, nobody's, nobody's been found responsible for this. I mean, everybody's blaming Donald Trump for saying like, fight like hell, which if you put that in context doesn't mean anything that the media labeled it to mean, and I guess he's responsible for it, but who's responsible for the security failures is the Trump administration. If so, who, who in there was responsible for it? Cause it sounds like mayor Bowser's in charge of the city. We also know that there are two different Sergeant arms, people who were in charge of,

Speaker 1:

Of , uh , congressional security. We had the Capitol Hill police, chief

Speaker 2:

Police resigned and on and on and on the list goes on and on. We've had us attorneys working on this case. FBI is working on this case. They're tweeting every day, where is everybody? We can't find anybody help us help us help us every day on Twitter because they can't figure it out.

Speaker 1:

So what happened here? Well, now we know

Speaker 2:

A little bit more from the inspector general, the report dated March one sites , multiple quote deficiencies, and the department's failure to disseminate intelligence from as early as December 30th, that's suggested protestors may be inclined to become violent findings from the report have not been previously published. And some lawmakers have been pressing to make them public, which I would like to see. We don't have the full document because they are not releasing it because the most transparent administration, these, these people who are going to tell us everything that happened or not telling us that we don't even know how officer's sickness died yet. Okay.

Speaker 7:

March been a long time. We still don't know the answer to that says S

Speaker 2:

Capitol police inspector general, Michael Bolin . He says U S Capitol USEP did not prepare a comprehensive department wide plan for demonstrations on January 6th . His review was the first federal audit of the attack. This is this guy. So Michael A. Bolton this fellow right here on January 20th, 2019, he assumed responsibilities for inspector general selected by the Capitol police board. He's the third individual to serve the department acting inspector general from eight may, 2018 and onwards served four years as special agent in charge office of investigations for the U S department and treasury, where he primarily worked on cases of procurement fraud, complex and sensitive criminal administration and civil investigations. 21 years in the secret service, excuse me, investigating bank and credit card fraud, as well as money laundering and counterfeiting cases holds a degree in criminal justice. So that's who we're talking about, and this is where he fits on the org chart. So we've got the assistant inspector general different auditors,

Speaker 7:

And it looks like he's up

Speaker 2:

Here. So we've got the office of professional responsibility in close parallel. All right . So we know who that guy is now. Let's figure out what he has to say about all this. Cause we all have questions. Don't we, the report documented the department's failure to pass

Speaker 7:

Along relevant information

Speaker 2:

Obtained from outside sources, including a memo of the FBI's Norfolk division on

Speaker 7:

The Eve of the attack. That memo

Speaker 2:

Warned of potential for violence in connection with the plan stop the steel protest. It said that late in the evening on January 5th, Capitol police intelligence officer pulled the memo from the system and emailed it around internally. IgG said the department internally disseminated conflicting intelligence information in the days leading up to the six sites , a daily intelligence assessment shared among the police that listen upcoming event as million mega March, us capital rates, the possibility of acts of civil disobedience as improbable. So our own intelligence agents

Speaker 7:

Can't communicate with themselves and comes to

Speaker 2:

Inclusions . So that's great. Despite a previous internal assessment from January 3rd that said the protestors sense of desperation and disappointment may lead to more of an incentive to become violent. Congress itself is the target testifying in front of Congress on February Capitol police, chief Yoganonda Pittman said the department was aware of extremist groups and would participate in a protest on January 6th and could target Congress become violent, but she denied that the department received a credible threat for a large scale attack on Congress. Yeah, because nobody wants to accept responsibility for this. Everybody's pointing their fingers. We've already seen this us Capitol police say, it's the Metro police. Metro police say, it's the Capitol police Capitol police say, Hey, we, we warned you guys. It's a Sergeant at arms. Sergeant in arms said, no, we weren't . We optics. And mayor Bowzer says, well, we don't even need the national guard. So everybody's kind of doing one of these things as is to be expected because it's a gigantic ineffective bureaucracy. That's kind of the whole point of the thing, right? We have, although we knew the likelihood for violence by extremists, no credible threat threat indicated that tens of thousands would attack the U S Capitol . Well, that's good. Cause they didn't. It was only a handful of people, maybe a hundred that were actually 300 who were charged nor did the intelligence received from the FBI or any other law enforcement partner indicate such a threat. Okay. The report also revealed inconsistencies in the Capitol. Police has planning Pitman and her deputy assistant chief of police. Chad Thomas told the inspector general, they intended to use the department's emergency response team to extract non-compliant violators and disarm protestors if necessary. But others told the IgE they were not familiar with any plans to arrest or disarm protestors . So you have the people at the top saying, Oh yeah, we got this plan. Yeah. Yogananda , Pittman and police chief Chad Thomas. Oh, we got a plan. Yeah. We're going to , we're going to go out there and disarm the protestors . We're going to identify anybody who's being violent. We're going to deal with them. Okay, great. That sounds like a pretty good plan. It sounds like you're on top of this. They go to all of their underlings and say, Hey, did you get a memo from Yogananda Pittman about, you know, going after the protesters and disarming them. And like you have a plan in place for that. I have no idea what you're talking about. No, never got anything. Here's my email. Nothing in there. Right. And okay , so it's great that the leadership had it, but the people who were supposed to be executing and doing the work didn't even know about it in her testimony, Pittman said, Capitol police did take steps to upgrade security such as increasing the number of officers assigned to civil disturbance units, deploying counter surveillance agent to monitor crowds, posting agents with assault weapons, outside certain lawmakers homes, Capitol police also added bike rack barriers outside the Capitol and helped intercept and monitor radio communications. Pittman said while the department was prepared to neutralize and remove individuals or groups engaging in civil disobedience or violence among demonstrators, it was quickly overwhelmed by the thousands of insurrectionists, many armed who immediately and without provocation began attacking officers, bypassing physical barriers and refusing to comply with lawful orders. Documents said it was the first in a series of flash reports from Bolton includes a timeline provided by the department makes eight recommendations for the department to implement, including recommendations that the Capitol police train its personnel on how to better understand intelligence assessments or just read them. I guess it would probably be a good one. The report also recommended that all Capitol police officers and employees obtained security clearances to receive classified briefings. Unlike other agencies are not required by law to publicly disclose reports by its inspector general. Yeah.

Speaker 7:

Isn't that nice. They get to investigate themselves. Talk about

Speaker 2:

The result of the investigation and not disclose any

Speaker 7:

Of that to you or me

Speaker 2:

Special little carve-out for those Washington people. Isn't it, those DC people very nice in a bipartisan letter earlier this week, rep reps, Tim Ryan, Jamie Butler called for its public release and criticized the department for its lack of transparency. Say they say the report will be a vital step to help better protect the Capitol complex. And his statement to CBS news, us Capitol police said it made major changes to employ improve the flow of information to Congress and the public. Following the attack on our democracy and an updated statement on Thursday afternoon department said acknowledges it had internal challenges, including communication and inadequate training, which it is correcting. So

Speaker 7:

That's good news. So total

Speaker 2:

Incompetence in addition to zero transparency, which is to be expected from the Washington people. So the question that everybody now has is what's going to happen with the Capitol Hill police cases. We know that something like 300 people were charged, they're still trying to round up some additional folks. And there has been a little bit of a conversation about how the government is going to prosecute all these cases. We already know that the us attorney's office is totally overwhelmed by an extra 300 or so cases. And so they need these 60 day continuances because they just can't get it. They can't get it together. You know, these are crimes of the century, like a trespass case, like somebody, there was a , uh , a barrier

Speaker 7:

Wine . You on this side of the line, you're , you're lawful. It's okay to be here. Once you cross that that's trespass, that's a crime. This is like blowing

Speaker 2:

For apparently a lot of the U S attorneys because they need like 60, 90 days continuances so that they can continue to investigate their case in order to prove that case for some stupid reason. But th the, the question that has become, as we all know, this is a political prosecution. They are not being allowed bail. They're being held in custody in a way that is totally reprehensible. Other equal defendants co-equal defendants with similar charges in similar situations and circumstances are being led out of custody. But that Capitol Hill people, because they are a threat to the democracy are being held in custody without bond, no bail, no bond. Kyle Rittenhouse is on bond. Derek Chauvin's on

Speaker 7:

Bond by these Capitol Hill . People are not why is that? It's because it's

Speaker 2:

Political obviously. So the question is, is anything going to happen about that? Is anything going to be done? Is it going to be leniency for the Capitol Hill rioters in the same way that many other people in Portland and elsewhere who are a part of Antifa and BLM, are they going to get the same benefits that those other people got maybe looking, looking like maybe actually here is an article from Politico. And it says that there is leniency for defendants in Portland cases, and that could affect the Capitol riot cases. And it could because we want equal justice. Ideally in this country, federal prosecutors show of leniency for some defendants charged in the long running unrest in Portland could have an impact on similar criminal cases. Stemming from the capital riot says

Speaker 1:

Lawyers in recent week ,

Speaker 2:

Prosecutors have approved deals and at least half a dozen federal felony cases arising from clashes between protesters and law enforcement in Oregon. The arrangements known as deferred resolution agreements or deferred prosecution will leave the defendants with a clean criminal record. If they stay out of trouble for a period of time and complete a modest amount of community service

Speaker 1:

Right now, this is very common in law, happens all the time

Speaker 2:

In probably your town. I would guess. I don't know if every jurisdiction in the country has this, but I think most of them do. And basically the situation is this. If you go out and you do something wrong or stupid, the law is going to give you some leniency. If it's a first offense, or if you have no real long criminal record . So when I say something stupid, I mean, we've all done it. I'm not being condescending. I've done plenty of stupid things. And so it, you know, think about this, like an old town crime, or a sixth street crime, or a downtown crime or whatever, you know, whatever district you have in your city happens all the time. In these cases, somebody goes out, they have too much to drink. They get a little bit drunk. They get a little disorderly. They get charged with disorderly conduct, or maybe even criminal trespass. They're asked to leave the bar. They don't leave.

Speaker 1:

Leave the bar, cops come throw them out. Kate . Now you , you have been trespassed. So now we're gonna

Speaker 2:

Charge you with a trespass case, just like what happens at the Capitol building and a very important trespass case, a big trespass case. It's an important building with a lot of security. So maybe you have some additional laws, but it's essentially a trespass case. It's not a Derek Shovan case where we have to bring in 75 different experts from all around the world to tell us about arterial sclerosis, right? It's , it's a trespass case. And so what they have done in the Oregon cases is said, listen, as long as you are in Oregon and diversion and the old town situation, as long as you are somebody who doesn't get in trouble, again, you go take some alcohol classes. You go to anger management, you go and do some community service. You pay a fine, you pay some restitution. We're going to dismiss the charges. So we're going to stop prosecuting you. We're going to hold onto the charges. Let's say for 90 days, we're going to give you 90 days, go do your community service. You know, stay law abiding, maybe the, hold it out for a year in a case like this. And as long as you do that, we come back a year, we check your record, nothing happened. We're going to dismiss the charges against you. It's called diversion.

Speaker 1:

It's a good deal. Reasonable something I think is

Speaker 2:

Very appropriate. I'm a huge fan of this stuff, because many people who get in trouble with the law, they are first-time offenders because they do something that is out of the norm for them out of the ordinary. So it's a good deal for these people who have been charged in Oregon

Speaker 1:

If it's reasonable.

Speaker 2:

But I would like to see that same benefit extended to other individuals in this country, namely the Capitol Hill people. So some lawyers attribute the government's newfound , willingness to resolve the Portland pro 10 cases, excuse me, without criminal convictions. They credit that to the arrival of Joe Biden and his administration in January and to policy and personnel changes. Those moves seem to step away from the highly public, throw the book at them stance that Donald Trump had. And William Barr adopted towards lawbreakers involved in racial justice protests . After the death of George Floyd, five of the Portland cases in which deals were recently struck involved , the felony charge of interfering with police during civil disorder, some defendants are accused of punching or jumping on police officers during street battles, which sounds a lot like what happened at the Capitol building. One individual was charged after being accused of shining a high powered green laser into the eyes of officers seeking to disperse a riot outside a police union building civil disorder cases are noticeable because the charge are notable because the charge of police interference is also being wielded by prosecutors and dozens of criminal cases brought over the storming of the Capitol by pro-Trump people in the Washington case, prosecutors have filed the felony anti-riot charge in tandem with others like obstructing an official proceeding or assaulting police. Some of the assaults described in Portland bear similarities to the Capitol prosecutor said one of the civil disorder, defendants, Alexandra Utan used a wooden shield and hoses to strike a Portland police officer in the head while he was trying to make

Speaker 7:

And arrest. So she got diversion for that. Several Capitol , several

Speaker 2:

Capital riots suspects are also accused of using riot shields to shove police and obstruct their efforts to secure the building from the mob. Another Portland case re recently settled through deferred resolution involved . Alexa, Darren Graham, who was indicted last September on federal felony charge pointing a laser at a small plane. The Portland police flew during the unrest court filing last month said the case against Graham would be dismissed if she complied with the terms of the agreement justice department, HQ in DC, loudly touted the arrests and indictments related to the last summer's unrest . The spokesman for the us attorney's office said is , uh, okay. So let's take a look at the actual deferred agreement here. So you can see this is the article that we want to reference. So we're looking at this woman's case, another Portland case deferred resolution indicted last summer for the laser in the helicopter, Alexa, Darren Graham . So let's go take a look at what she's got going on. So here we have, this was filed March 19th, page one of two declaration of counsel and supportive and unopposed motion to continue the trial date. So, okay, so here's what's going on. So the attorney is now saying, listen, we, I, Steven Seine , declare I represent this person she's charged with one count of aiming laser got that. This is the third request to continue a trial. Why is that? Because we've re we've reached a deferred resolution agreement. The agreement says it requires her to set her trial over to a date beyond the date on which her deferred resolution agreement will expire in December of 2021. So they're making these now a one year agreements, which sounds about right. So deferred resolution agreement. She was indicted last September. Oh yeah . So last September. So she probably entered

Speaker 7:

That agreements couple months later in March. They're going to make it go one year from then. No, no, no.

Speaker 2:

Okay. Anyways. Well anyways, so you can what's happening there. They're continuing her trial out there. They're pushing it forward so that she can have time to finish her agreement. So they're going to move it. They're going to say that if she remains in compliance, the government will move to dismiss the case with prejudice. See that right there with prejudice. That means it can not come back. It's done. It's gone. It's over solved. The ends of justice are served by granting this motion in order to resolve the case. So basically waiving rights to a speedy trial. I've discussed this continuous with counsel for the government. No objection. I've communicated with Ms. Graham. Explain the reasons she agrees with the request for the continuance and waives her rights. Of course she wants it. It's a good deal. All she has to do

Speaker 6:

Is finished the case and or finished her obligations. And she's done prosecutors .

Speaker 2:

We're acting under authority of Eric Holder. They granted to assistant us attorneys a decade ago to craft resolutions. They considered appropriate. So there was an Eric Holder memo in 2010,

Speaker 6:

They gave us attorneys broad discretion on how cases are resolved.

Speaker 2:

Former federal prosecutor, who is now a law professor at Loyola, Marymount said, undoubtedly defense lawyers will point to everything they can to get the most favorable resolution for their clients. You better believe it. Now, one thing they can point to will be the deferred prosecutions in Portland. She's right, but naked . I've been screaming about this for the last couple months. Still prosecutors in DC can argue what happened. There is more serious. Even if the fifth physical altercations are coming .

Speaker 6:

Parable Gertner said that

Speaker 2:

Many of the capital cases were headed for what she called a no time resolution, meaning no prison time. She emphasized that offering a deferred prosecution with no criminal record. Like the Portland deals was really up to prosecutors who may be reluctant to agree to them , uh, made lingering outrage over the January 6th takeover. Yeah, they're politically angry. I can see the prosecutors not wanting to give them and the judge can't. She said there are already signs that the Portland deals could create contrast or anomalies with the capital cases while the Portland defendants now faced no jail or criminal conviction in connection with assaulting law enforcement prosecutors in DC have sought pre dial pretrial detention in virtually all the capital cases involving alleged

Speaker 6:

Assaults on police to different standards.

Speaker 2:

The justice being enacted right now, judges have indicated they are trying to make sure they avoid inconsistencies in the way they handled the hundreds of capital cases. It is less clear whether and how that principle will apply when

Speaker 6:

Harrison's are made with other cases. So let's take a look at that 2010 memo. Uh, we're going to fly through this

Speaker 2:

Old 2010 memo to all federal prosecutors, Eric Holder. The reason exercise of prosecutorial discretion is essential to this

Speaker 6:

Fair execution of criminal laws decisions about whether to initiate charges. All right.

Speaker 2:

The memorandum is to reaffirm guidance provided by those principles . All right. So we're going to skip all over, over all this stuff. Sorry, miss faith. Thanks for clipping those for us, but we're going to skip over the wholer stuff. All right . And let's take a [email protected] . First one comes in from [inaudible]

Speaker 1:

91 says, well, it seems like DC's leadership is trying to show that it's incompetent enough to be a full fledged state. There you go. There's any argument .

Speaker 6:

And for statehood DC , you can just come out and say, look, where is it completely

Speaker 1:

Incompetent as every one of you other States?

Speaker 6:

Okay. So let us in. That's a good point.

Speaker 1:

We have, next question comes from hack consulting says, I don't know us. Military people are supposed to investigate ourselves too . I don't see too much wrong with the military. Doing

Speaker 6:

That to a point since we all hate the

Speaker 1:

Government, I don't need a date because the government screws me.

Speaker 6:

That's right. That is right. All right .

Speaker 1:

We got one last question for you. Wrap up the show for the day we got Besame Anto . The defendants should tell the judge

Speaker 6:

That they identify as black and as Antifa and BLM. It's good defense strategy. I like that. And in fact, if they put their personal pronouns on their Twitter page, that's like a not guilty automatically. Right? Judge. I got my pronouns. Z's Emser all right . Not guilty. Right. Then prosecutor, get him out of here. Bailiff release that man, or at least are . All right .

Speaker 1:

Great . So great questions from watching the watchers.locals.com . And I want to thank everybody who asked those and who participated in the show today, as well as those of you who didn't that's all right. And still love you all. Thank you to all of you who are supporting us. And let's take a big shout out to all of you. Ask questions today. Look at all these people highlighted. Look at this new thing. We got pinky too . We got Sharon quitting. We've got chairman of the board. We've got Liberty or death. We've got hack consulting. What's up. Want to know? We've got Nya , renal MD in the house and vacancies all chime in to say hi , along with underscores shades. No doubt in the house and the dark blue sea

Speaker 6:

Or big dog, quadruple 11

Speaker 1:

Carolina flying. We have aunt Deb who said, hi, what's up? [inaudible] what's up blaster brain. We got norovirus in the, in the house. We got Bianca Realty. What's up? Bianca. We got just Luke. We got up . We got waffled , Baranski, Ian from Oz . We got justice. Look at all these people talking today. My goodness, we got new people who signed up to it's just a, it's a free for all Bonanza today. We've got Jim

Speaker 6:

Phoenix. Oh, that

Speaker 1:

Sounds intriguing to me. Todd trot joined up and asked some questions today. What's up? Todd. Welcome. Thank you for joining up. We got murder of crows. Welcome. We got at rags. Welcome to you. Denny Ray is now in the house. We have Claire Deluna who chimed in welcome. And thanks for joining us. We have the pie Baker. That also sounds good. Maybe , uh , get some pie and then go hang out at the gym. Phoenix. Look at that. We have doodle doo in the house. Welcome. And we have a look at these. We've got a lot of active new people. We have the national populist who signed up and chimed in the day . Welcome to Lassie 91. Besa mento. Welcome to the show. We have Roy Mackay and we have [inaudible] 91. And John the LAR 52, we got a lot of activity on

Speaker 2:

Our locals community. It's the place to be. I mean, if you're not there, I don't know what the heck you're doing with your life, but you can change. You know, you can decide I'm going to be better today and join locals . The place to do that [email protected] You can see we're trying a new format out. And , uh , Ms. Faith is , is watching this right now. And she's noticing that this area is now being covered by my block. And we want to move this little section down here and this little text over here so that it doesn't get cut off when I am picture in picture mode. So that's what we were trying to solve. It's an editor process, right? We're going to try again tomorrow and see if we can get that ironed out by that . But that is , that is it for the show, everybody. It has been a long one almost going on three hours today. We had a lot to get to, we've got a lot more to get through tomorrow. We're going to keep barreling through on the show and stuff. So thank you for joining us. We're almost at the, at the end of that case, then we're going to transition to the next one. I want you to be a part of that. So join us at our locals community, watching the Watchers, bose.com and subscribe on YouTube. If you will , I have not already done. So we'd very much appreciate it. And there are some other reasons to join us on locals. I forgot, almost forgot about them, but here they are. Get a copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning right here. You can download a free PDF over on locals.com. You can also get a copy of all the slides that I just went through. If you want any of that material it's available for you there download a copy of my impeachment party document. That's their copy of my existence systems program. Getting super close to the launch of this program. I'm pretty excited about it. And we can also share links in conversation and meet with great people throughout the day. There's a lot of good stuff going on throughout the day. And I want to invite you to come and join us over there. As I said, it's the place to be. But before we get out of here, one last final note. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group. We're located in Scottsdale, Arizona. We handle all criminal cases in the state of Arizona. Anything as long as it's here, we can cover it. Things like DUI, drugs, domestic violence, Oh , all of them. Okay. There's a lot. The cases that we can help, we can also help with closed cases. So if you have an old warrant that you want to quash something, you know, if you're a Dante right situation, you have an old warrant. I forgot about that court date. Well, we can help you deal with that so that you're not being stopped on the side of the road and potentially arrested with your girlfriend in the car so we can help you solve those cases. We can help you restore your rights, get your right to vote back, get your right to possess a firearm back, clear up expunge old records remove mugshots from the internet. There's a lot we can do. There's there's a lot of value in having a clean criminal record and staying free, right? Staying free in this country and participating in our democracy. So if you know anybody who needs help in that capacity, we have a mission here to help good people who have been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives, we would be honored and humbled. If you sent your referrals our direction, we'll make sure that we treat them well and that they leave our office better than they found us. Give him a copy of my book, make sure that even if they don't our help, right, that they got something, they got some direction, some information that they can use to solve their issue. Because if you have this stuff hanging over your heads, you may know this, right? You have a speeding ticket hanging over your head. You have this stuff floating around.

Speaker 6:

It is a big load to carry.

Speaker 2:

And there are people out there who want to help and that's us. So if you know anybody we'd be honored and humbled and really appreciate it. Other than that, we're going to be back here tomorrow. Same time, same place. We're going to be covering Derek .

Speaker 6:

Shovan Kim Potter,

Speaker 2:

Whatever else happens to crop up, hopefully nothing new. We got enough to cover, but we are going to dive in hard as we always do. We want you to

Speaker 6:

Be a part of that. So come back on

Speaker 2:

And join us tomorrow. 4:00 PM Arizona time, which is Pacific time. 5:00 PM, mountain standard time, 6:00 PM central in Texas and 7:00 PM on the East coast for that one, Florida man, everybody. Thanks once again for joining us. Great comments, a lot of fun today. See you right back here tomorrow.

Speaker 6:

Bye-bye .