Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin Trial Jury Instructions, Adam Toledo Chicago Police Shooting, FedEx Shooting Investigation​

April 18, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Jury Instructions, Adam Toledo Chicago Police Shooting, FedEx Shooting Investigation​
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Jury Instructions, Adam Toledo Chicago Police Shooting, FedEx Shooting Investigation​
Apr 18, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

Little public activity in the Chauvin trial today as the lawyers and the court hash out jury instructions – we do the same and review very similar 2019 jury instructions in the Mohamed Noor case. Body camera footage released in the Adam Toledo shooting and we review the various interpretations. A “mass casualty event” occurred last night at FedEx facility after a 19-year-old shooter killed 8 people.  And more. Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• No public feed in the Chauvin trial today as Judge Cahill explained jury instructions deliberations would likely happen off the record or in chambers.​

• Overview of Eric Nelson and the government’s proposed jury instructions.​

• A look at a very similar criminal case involving a police shooting by Mohamed Noor and the jury instructions on that case.​

• Close look at the 2019 prior jury instructions for second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder.​

• Chicago police release body camera footage in the shooting of 13-year Adam Toledo who died after a single gunshot wound to the chest.​

• Internet users identify gun and moment of the gun shot to try to determine whether the officer fired without justification.​

• CBS News conveniently crops the body camera footage to leave out key details of the shooting.​

• Chicago braces for impact as protests gain momentum in the name of George Floyd, Daunte Wright and Adam Toledo.​

• In what officials are calling a mass casualty event, a 19-year-old shooter killed 8 people at a FedEx shipping facility last night.​

• Identified as Brandon Scott Hole, details are still scarce but slowly dripping about as to his motivation behind the massacre.​

• Reactions from politicians and a review of the developing narratives surrounding yet another shooting.​

• 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 #JuryInstructions #ChauvinJury #AdamToledo #ChicacoPD #ToledoShooting #Riots #Unrest #Protests #FedexShooting #MassCasualtyEvent #FedEx #ActiveShooter

Show Notes Transcript

Little public activity in the Chauvin trial today as the lawyers and the court hash out jury instructions – we do the same and review very similar 2019 jury instructions in the Mohamed Noor case. Body camera footage released in the Adam Toledo shooting and we review the various interpretations. A “mass casualty event” occurred last night at FedEx facility after a 19-year-old shooter killed 8 people.  And more. Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• No public feed in the Chauvin trial today as Judge Cahill explained jury instructions deliberations would likely happen off the record or in chambers.​

• Overview of Eric Nelson and the government’s proposed jury instructions.​

• A look at a very similar criminal case involving a police shooting by Mohamed Noor and the jury instructions on that case.​

• Close look at the 2019 prior jury instructions for second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder.​

• Chicago police release body camera footage in the shooting of 13-year Adam Toledo who died after a single gunshot wound to the chest.​

• Internet users identify gun and moment of the gun shot to try to determine whether the officer fired without justification.​

• CBS News conveniently crops the body camera footage to leave out key details of the shooting.​

• Chicago braces for impact as protests gain momentum in the name of George Floyd, Daunte Wright and Adam Toledo.​

• In what officials are calling a mass casualty event, a 19-year-old shooter killed 8 people at a FedEx shipping facility last night.​

• Identified as Brandon Scott Hole, details are still scarce but slowly dripping about as to his motivation behind the massacre.​

• Reactions from politicians and a review of the developing narratives surrounding yet another shooting.​

• 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 #JuryInstructions #ChauvinJury #AdamToledo #ChicacoPD #ToledoShooting #Riots #Unrest #Protests #FedexShooting #MassCasualtyEvent #FedEx #ActiveShooter

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. And that's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system, with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into a little bit of a rough night. Let's say we've got a couple of shootings. We've got to get into. We're going to talk about Derek Shovan. We didn't have any activity in court today. Now the attorneys, the judge prosecutor, defense , uh , Derek Shovan himself. I'm sure we're all involved in conversations surrounding jury instructions . So now that we know that the prosecution has rested their case, Eric Nelson and the defense has rested their case. We need to start talking about what the jury is going to receive so that they can make their decision. They're called a jury instructions. So we're going to break that now and what that process looks like. So we are going to be talking about it. They're working in court right now. We didn't see any of it because all this was taking place behind the scenes, but doesn't mean that we can rest. We got to go through the jury instruction . So we're going to start analyzing that today. Then we're going to talk about, of course, this shooting that took place out of Chicago. Adam Toledo is the name of the young man who was killed 13 years old shot by a Chicago police officer, awful situation, just terrible. And now we're seeing protests bubble up there as well. So we want to break down that story. We've got some different angles, different camera footage and different things that we can review and sort of piece together. What happened there with this shooting? Obviously something not good, right? When a 13 year old is killed. And , um, we want to analyze that. Then we're going to wrap up the show by talking about what happened at the FedEx facility. There was a shooting, eight people are dead. They have recently identified the name of the shooter. So we're going to talk about who that is. Another just awful, awful, what the heck is going on out there. So we got to break it all down. We're going to try to keep things, you know , uh , somber, but also newsy and , and, you know , kind of keep the pace of the show going. So just keep that in mind. We're going to try to wrap up the show with a little bit of a fun story, just so that we're all , uh , going into the weekend without all the weight of the world on our shoulders, but we are going to get into some heavy stuff today. So just keep that in mind, we are going to be talking about , uh , looking at some imagery that may be disturbing for some people. So if that is something that might impact you, just exercise a little bit of caution about that. The other thing that I wanted to notify you about is I saw Tim pool posted that YouTube is now modifying one of their content policies. So if you've been with the channel for some period of time, you know, that we did do some deep dives into body cameras. We covered Brianna Taylor , which I didn't actually have body cameras, but we covered Daniel prude that did we covered Ray shard Brooks. We covered a mod Arbery of course we covered George Floyd. We've done a lot of deep dives on some of the body camera stuff, and we've always done our part to speak truth to power and to hold the government accountable. That's sort of the whole point of the show. And so what happened was, is, you know, a lot of people were very interested in that they wanted frame by frames like we did with Kyle Rittenhouse, because it provides value. We're talking about some of the documentary , uh , analysis that is taking place by just going through the evidence piece by piece and sort of offering our take on it. Well , YouTube didn't like that. And so they demonetize our channel right around the same time that we crossed that 100 K threshold. Thank you all of you for helping to support the show, but it was kind of a bittersweet moment in our channels record because we got demonetized the same time. And of course we appreciate those monetization features. That's how we were doing the live chats and super chats. And we were having a lot of fun there. So we were very disappointed that YouTube found that our content was not suitable for advertisers. And if you recall, we talked about this on the show. I said, they , they , they think that what we're doing is harmful to viewers. And they said, so they said, it's , we're , we're focused on controversial issues that was dangerous and harmful to viewers. And I'm thinking, I don't know how, what we're talking about is anything even remotely close to that. But YouTube said that it was. And so you may have noticed that we kind of got away from some of that. I talked to some other creative content creators out there who have way bigger channels than we do. And they're telling me, Hey, you know, it's the body cams, it's the talk of the shootings, it's the talk of drugs and all of that stuff. And so we've been a little bit cautious about that. Obviously, you know, our channel is a big part of our business, our brick and mortar business, and we need to maintain it. We need to protect it because we employ, you know , a couple dozen people here. And we are all sort of relying on what we do to communicate our passion to the world, to generate interest and to help people in this country and in this, in this state, particularly. So it has been a little bit of a , of a weird road for, for them to sort of say that we were dangerous. We were harmful. I thought that what we were doing was adding value to the conversation, but , uh , YouTube, didn't say so point anyways, long story short, they threw us out of the partner program said, now your , your , your content doesn't fit our policies anymore. And we said, well, that's strange. So we went and we deleted some of the videos, some of the more provocative videos, which were some of the best work, in my opinion. And now our channel is being set. It's, it's being re reviewed. And we submitted our re reviewed back on April 5th, which was the 30 day deadline. And they were supposed to give us an answer according to their guidelines in YouTube. They said within 30 days, well, April 5th came and went no answers. So they're super backed up apparently. And they're going to be determining whether or not we are now suitable for their advertisers, Tim Poole then

Speaker 2:

Posted today

Speaker 1:

That YouTube was changing their policies back. So they threw us out.

Speaker 2:

They, they, they let us in the program, they

Speaker 1:

Change their policies about what we can cover. They threw us out of the program. Then they changed their policy

Speaker 2:

Back. So we're so the , the ,

Speaker 1:

And that they threw us out for in the first place apparently is now, okay. So it's like, I don't know what they're doing over there, but the point is,

Speaker 2:

Is we are , uh, apparently now, because they changed

Speaker 1:

Their policies back. That's actually good news for the channel, regardless of the monetization thing, because they're saying that we can start talking about more of these issues again, I guess we can start now talking about body cameras and police interactions and shootings, as long as it's an educational and documentary fashion, which is what we've been doing the whole time. So , uh , so that's good news. My point of telling you all of this is one to vent a little bit, thank you for indulging me, but number two, it's to communicate that we can actually talk, it sounds like some more of this body camera stuff. And so we are going to go a little bit more into that today. We're still going to be extra cautious, right? We don't want to show some of the more gruesome stuff. And so we're going to be a little bit more selective. Now, the clips that we have today, I don't think are that provocative, but faith just mentioned to me that that, yeah , on March 5th is when they actually , uh , said that we could reapply. So we've just been waiting and waiting and waiting a little bit frustrating, but it is what it is. We're just happy that you're here in supporting the show. And I know that you're not really that particularly interested in what is going on with our channel, but , um , that's what we've got for you. So we are going to get into the news right now, before we do quick reminder over on locals.com is our community. We have watching the watchers.locals.com. You can go and support the show there because we're not monetized on YouTube. So if you want to go over there, you can participate in the live chat, ask questions, stick around, have good conversations with other people who were there. We are going to post a copy of the slides there as well. And so it's really the place to be. So go check that out, watching those

Speaker 2:

Watchers.locals.com, all right ,

Speaker 1:

Eight minutes into the show. And I haven't even started the news yet,

Speaker 2:

But we're going to right now,

Speaker 1:

Derek Shovan trial, we now have the government resting their case. The defense attorneys have rested their case. And so the attorneys, the judge, the prosecutor, everybody involved, they're now sitting around in court, they're hashing out what are called jury instructions. And so we want to flush out what those are and what this means for the Shovan trial, because it feels like we're kind of missing something. It's Friday. There's no trial where nobody's watching anything. What the heck is going on. We're going to break that down. And as is always the case, let's start by taking a look at the trial board so we can get our bearings straight. We know that yesterday, Eric Nelson and the defense rested their case. We know that a couple of days before that we had the prosecution rested their case. We are not going to be hearing for Maurice hall at all in this trial. So that's done in closed. And so now we have no more evidence to be presented. And so on Monday what's going to happen is the prosecution is gonna offer their closing arguments to the jury panel. Then the defense is gonna offer their closing arguments to the jury panel. And then we're going to be left with these jurors. The jurors are going to

Speaker 2:

Decide what the outcome they're going to deliberate,

Speaker 1:

And we're going to get a verdict. And so if you have not been following the channel for some time, if you kind of joined us after jury selection started, these are the emojis that we have selected for the jurors. And they are actually representative of the jurors who are on the panel. And if you don't , don't remember, but this is what we went through. This is our juror chart. So this is who we're going to be sort of presenting closing arguments to both sides, the government, the prosecution, and the defense are going to be communicating to these people. We've got, as you can see here, we've got white, multi-racial white, black, white, black, white, black multiracial , white, black, white, white, white. We've got a whole range of different ages all the way from twenties. It looks like up to sixties. We have chemists, auditors, bankers, fathers, consultants, nurses , uh , people who are retired, social workers. We have some people who support BLM. People who say all lives matter. We have somebody who had an uncle in law enforcement. We have somebody who said no to defunding the police. Somebody married with a son, right? We've got a lot of people that we're communicating to. And so they're crafting their arguments. And they're also crafting the instructions that these jurors are going to use. They're not just going to throw them in a room and say, here you go, do whatever you gotta do. You know what , what happened with the guilty or not? You guys go in there, decide we're going to order some pizza, some mountain Dew , you guys hash it out. Let us know when you've resolved it. Right. It's going to be a little bit more organized in that. They're going to have a set of instructions that they follow. They're called jury instructions. And why do we need this? Because there's a lot of information in this case, they got to organize it all and make sense of it. They've got all of these witnesses from the government, and this is not even the full set. They've got all of these witnesses from the defense. And so they've got to sort of make sense on , on how to organize this stuff and how to apply all of the facts that they heard. All of the opinions, expert witnesses, body cam footage. We saw it slides out the wazoo and it's just been an overwhelming fire hose of information for them. And so they need some guidance on how to sort it all out. So what , what , what happens in a criminal case like this is both sides will come. We'll sit submits, what are called proposed jury instructions. And this is what they look like. So you'll notice that down here, we have the state's proposed jury instructions over here on the right. So this is what the government is sending in. Then we have the defendant's proposed jury instructions, and we're not going to go through both of these, right? Both of these were submitted on February 8th, which is before the trial even started. And so these are, you know , these are sort of the first draft we'll say of what they want submitted. And the way that this typically works is , uh , at least in Arizona, we have what are called Roger's their Arizona's version of jury instructions. And so these are sort of templates that exist , right? You know what aggravated assault is by statute under the law, or, you know, what a DUI is, let's, let's use DUI. Everybody knows what that is. So you've got a DUI charge and you say, well, we know what the law says about it, but what are the jury instructions? And so what the courts and attorneys have done over the years, if they've created a bunch of templates, and so attorneys will start S start with the templates and then make modifications based on what they think is appropriate, the facts of their case. So that's happening right now. So in Minnesota, I think they call them , uh , crim crim jigs , uh , crim , uh , criminal jury instruction guidelines or something like that. And they have their own little acronym for them. And so w what , what , uh, what is happening is those are the starting point , and then both sides want to modify them. So that's what we're looking at here. We have the state taking those templates and modify finding them, and we have the defense doing the same thing. We're not going to go through them. All right, because they're very, one-sided. What you're going to see is the defense is saying that we want to communicate everything in a way that makes their Shovan look innocent, as can , as possibly can be. They're talking about, they think there should be instructions about officer's use of force and how officers are supposed to analyze a scene and why that's relevant. That the jury knows that they should be focused on the totality of the circumstances. And so they want to sort of wiggle in a lot of useful language. That's going to be helpful for Shovan . Conversely, government's trying to do the exact opposite of that. So both of these are pretty one-sided, they're going to flush it out with the courts and they're going to move towards the middle of the judge is ultimately going to dictate what gets sent over to the jury panel. But I wanted to show a couple of quick things on this. So, number one, I want to quickly point out that this is something that was submitted out of the fourth judicial district. Okay. So Chauvin's case is out of the fourth judicial district, also out of the County of Hennepin Hennepin County, right. Also out of Minnesota. So we're in a jurisdiction, we know where we're at. And so, because I don't want to go through the state's jury instructions and the defense jury instructions. Cause they're both just totally biased. Let's look at another case that had jury instructions. That was in fact used. That is a very similar case to Derek Chauvin's case. So we can just sort of say, okay, so this is what they settled on. Very similar charges. We can basically say, all right, well, it's the same court. It's the same judicial district. It's the same state. We're probably going to be seeing something very similar to this older case. So we're going to take a look at this. It's called Mohammed Knorr , and this is what it looks like. And so I don't know exactly what the jurors are going to be getting, but you can see this, right? This is judge Catherine , [inaudible] presiding, she's running this. And this is a packet. It looks like that the jury got, and it's a set of jury instructions. And so you'll notice here, right? Fourth judicial district, same court, same County, same state. This was filed back on 2019. So it's not even that old, it's the same, it's the same core. It's the same jurisdiction. So we can expect that what we're going to see here is going to be very similar to what we're going to see in the Shovan trial. So that's why we're going to go through it. We're not going to go through the whole thing. We're going to take a look at the pertinent parts, but I want to flush this out frame and flush this out. I was trying to spit out those two words at the same time. So I want to frame this out a little bit so that we can understand what's happening. Now. I don't know how this is working practically speaking in court. So this may have been a binder that you know, or a printed packet that was shoved in a binder. And you have a big binder with all your notebooks and everything you've been working on. But the judge yesterday, judge Cahill was talking about a laptop. And so I think that they're going to get laptops all of them individually so that they don't have to come back into the courtroom. Traditionally, you kind of send the jurors out to the deliberation room if they want to watch video or other evidence that come back into the courtroom. But the judge, it sounds like, is trying to make this a little bit easier with all the COVID precautions and on and on and on. So you're all going to get laptops, y'all get everything. So something like this may be on their computer, but this is the manual, right? They heard a lot of evidence. This is what they're going to be looking at. These are your instructions. So anytime you have a question, well, what does that word mean? What does this word mean? You go back to your jury instructions. And so that's what we're trying to frame out because people have had a lot of questions. Well, what do they have to prove? What does this mean? What about this element? What about excessive force, reasonable force, objective reasonableness. What does this fix the , I mean, and all of these different permutations supposed to be answered or get at least some guidance from the jury instructions. So we're going to spend some time on the new war case. And it is actually a very interesting case, very similar to what happened in the Shovan situation. So let's take a look at what happened here. We can go over to Wikipedia for a quick summation. This is the woman who was shot and killed. So her name is Justine dumped demand. And this also took place right there near where George Floyd was killed. So we have a minute , uh , Minneapolis, Minnesota on the night of the shooting. This woman demand called nine 11 at 1130 at night. Again at 1135. She reported that she thought she heard a woman either having sex or being raped dispatcher . So this is just a , uh , a woman just calls the police dispatchers categorize. The call is unknown trouble, female screaming, relatively low priority officers . New war is the person who got charged with a crime here. And Harrity , they responded to Fulton County, which are to Fulton, which is a low crime neighborhood. They drove their Ford Explorer with lights off through the alley, found no suspects, no signs of rape, nothing that had prompted demands calls , officer's prepared to leave nor entered code four into the cruisers computer, meaning the scene was safe. Haredi would later indicate that he was startled by a loud sound near the squad. And then just then demand approached the car. The driver's side window Harrity drew his weapon, but pointed it down and did not fire nor however fired once through the open window, fatally striking an unarmed and barefoot demand in the abdomen. So she got shot right in the, in the abs, the officer attempted CPR, no avail. She died 20 minutes later, Haredi later told the supervisor, we both got spooked. So officer Knorr of course, got charged with the crime Haredi , testified of hearing something that hit the car. And I also hear some sort of murmur. And then he said that he feared an ambush, but deemed it premature to use deadly force nor testified that he did not see Damon's hand or any object in it. But nonetheless believed that his partner feared for his life. And there was a threat prosecutors presented evidence that demands fingerprints were not on the police car make meaning that she never touched it called to expert witnesses on police use of force who testified that nor his decision to shoot was unreasonable. So it kind of sounds like some of the same testimony that we heard in the Shovan case, doesn't it, both officers had their body cameras switched off. Of course, Minneapolis introduced body cameras in 2016, but their activation was not mandatory in all situations. So no audio or video recordings captured the killing, although a 16 sixteen-year-old bicyclists took cell phone video of the scene after the fact, right? So the reason why I wanted to go through this is not to necessarily, they're obviously different cases, but we have a police officer who's being charged with murder charges and manslaughter charges for shooting somebody and killing them essentially very similar. Chauvin's also being charged with those charges for killing somebody. And so it's a very similar set of circumstances. And as we're going to see very similar charges, I think they both got charged with three different charges. Two of the three are the same in both cases. So then this case went to trial on March, 2020 of 2018. He was charged with second degree murder, I'm sorry. Second degree manslaughter, third degree murder, but claimed self-defense prosecutors upgraded those charges to second degree, intentional murder. So that's the charge that we do not have here, right? We have a second degree, unintentional felony murder charge. This is the, this is the charge that is not the same. So we're not going to look at that one in April, 2019, nor was convicted of third degree murder and manslaughter, which is the, which are two charges that we're looking at and Chauvin's case, but acquitted the intentional second degree murder. So people are asking, well, how does this play out? How does this shake out before? Um , maybe it might be like that in June, 2019, he was sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison. Family brought civil suit. They only got 20 million instead of the 27 that Floyd's family got. So they got a little bit lower of a, of a settlement. So that w now that we have some backdrop on the Knorr case, we know officer shot, somebody killed them, know that they were charged with third degree, murder manslaughter, second degree murder, very similar charges to Shovan very similar situation. He also was being charged with crimes for killing somebody for same issues, excessive force, and on and on and on. So now that we know what the background looks like, let's take a look at the instruction. So in this case, same County, same court, same cities, you know , different judge, but the same whole backdrop as Shovan. This is what the jurors get. And I want to just run through this briefly, but you're going to see here. This is the first page. It says, duties of judge and jury. So as they open that up, they're going to see it is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case, it is my duty to give you the rules of law that you must apply in arriving at your verdict. So remember the jurors don't get to manipulate the law a little bit. They don't get to come out and say, well, I don't think that is how it should be. No , that's not how that works. They have to decide what the facts are and apply the law to those facts. And this says, you must follow the rules, apply the rules as I give them to you. Even if you believe the law should be different, deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility in doing so. You must consider all the evidence you've heard and seen in the trial must disregard anything you may have heard or seen elsewhere. I have not by these, nor by any ruling or expression during the trial intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or outcomes

Speaker 2:

Of this case. If I have disregard

Speaker 1:

It . And then they talk about this presumption of innocence. And so you see what's happening, they're going to insert the defendant's name. So th they're going to make it specific to the defendant, right? So this is not just like a general boiler plate list of instructions. They're going to actually go in there right here. We have Mohammad Knorr , but we're going to put a Chauvin's name in there. Right? And actually this sounds like it's a little bit different than even what the judge read yesterday. Judge

Speaker 2:

Cahill, if you recall, during

Speaker 1:

Yesterday's show specifically was asking Derek Shovan about this, that , Hey, look, I want to make sure you're very clear. You're not going to testify. You have a right. Not to, but you also have a right to come in and testify if you'd like,

Speaker 2:

And was very clear in sort of a,

Speaker 1:

An , an admonishment, just to make sure he's, he's

Speaker 2:

Well aware of what

Speaker 1:

He is giving up. If he does not testify,

Speaker 2:

Ninja K he'll read through what he's going to read to the jury. Okay .

Speaker 1:

And it sort of sounded like this, but not, not quite defendant Mohammed . Nora is presumed innocent of the charges made, right? It's a presumption of innocence. So the jury is going to be looking at this

Speaker 2:

Second paragraph, probably,

Speaker 1:

Right. This is an example. Presumption remains with the defendant, unless, and until he has been proven, guilty beyond a reasonable

Speaker 2:

Doubt that he has been brought before the court, by the ordinary process

Speaker 1:

Of the law and is on trial, should not be considered by you in any way. Suggesting guilt burden of proof is on the state.

Speaker 2:

We get the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, right? Very, very big standard

Speaker 1:

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not require that the elements be proved beyond all possibility of doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the amount of proof that ordinary men and women would act upon in their most important

Speaker 2:

Decisions. You have a reasonable

Speaker 1:

Doubt if your doubts are based upon reason and common ,

Speaker 2:

And since , okay , say that a lot on the show. If you have doubts

Speaker 1:

And it's based in reason, that's a reasonable doubt. That means your doubt is pretty reasonable. It's based on a reason and common sense. You do not have a reasonable doubt. If your doubts are based on space

Speaker 2:

[inaudible] or irrelevant details. Very, very

Speaker 1:

Critically important explanation right there, right? This is what defense attorneys lean on

Speaker 2:

All day. Hey, you've got some doubts about this, right? And so we're probably going to see language that looks

Speaker 1:

Just like that direct and circumstantial evidence, right? So we talk about this a lot, sort of the difference between seeing snow on the ground, if you, if you're outside and you're watching snow come from the sky and hit

Speaker 2:

The ground, that's direct evidence.

Speaker 1:

You saw it happened directly in front of you, but if you're inside and you have dinner, you go outside to gaze at the stars with your lovely, significant other. Wow. It's beautiful, honey. Don't you think? Yes, sweetheart. And there's no snow coming out anywhere, nothing hitting the ground. You go to bed, you wake up the next morning. You're having breakfast. You go outside. There's snow on the ground.

Speaker 2:

Oh my gosh. How did it get there? Well, sir ,

Speaker 1:

Evidence says, well, we can sort of presume that it fell out of the sky and come to a reasonable conclusion on that. That's kind of how we use , uh , the analogy we used to distinguish between the two. So circumstantial evidence. Yeah. You can kind of fill in the gaps a little bit. You weren't there seeing the snow hit the ground, but you woke up and there's snow on the ground. Presumably it's snowed. So you can make an inference like that. Uh, but you can also, right. Somebody could have come and shoveled snow out of their back of their pickup truck or something like that. Probably unreasonable, probably very unlikely, but you could attack circumstantial evidence in that way. Typically doesn't work out well for you, but that's the point, right? This is direct versus circumstantial evidence. So there's a paragraph that they give us on that rulings on objections to evidence during this trial, I've ruled on objections. You must not concern yourself with,

Speaker 2:

Since they are controlled by the rules of evidence, right.

Speaker 1:

Goes on. Then we're going to see a little bit more about what to do with certain people who have come into court . So instructions, you got to look at these things as a whole notes taken by jurors. Yeah. You've been allowed to take notes. You're allowed to use these, but your notes are not binding. They're not conclusive. They're your notes. They should be used as an aid to your memory, not as a substitute for it. It is your recollection of the evidence that should control. You should disregard anything contrary to your recollection that may appear in your own notes, right ? And so this might change. It might stay the same. We have statements of judges and attorneys, attorneys are officers of the court. It's their duty to make objections. They think are proper and argue their

Speaker 2:

Case. However, they're not

Speaker 1:

Evidence if they or I, as a judge have made any statements as to what evidence is and differs from your recollection, disregard our statements. Focus only on the evidence. Then we see that there is some evaluation of testimony about the believability of the witnesses, right? So in this case, critically important, we've got a number of different expert witnesses who many people will say, they're kind of disagreeing with each other. You have Dr. Baker who is a medical examiner, kind of disagreeing with Dr. Tobin about Floyd's cause of death. You've got the law professor who was disagreeing with , uh , Sergeant Steiger, who is the use of force expert from the LAPD about the prone position. You've got some disagreements on these things. That's just on the government side. And then you bring in the defense expert witnesses. And they're also in total disagreement. You had Dr. Fowler who came out the defense last witness who came out and said that basically Floyd could have died from carbon monoxide poisoning amongst other things. So what's the jury going to do? Who do they believe? How do they sort all this out? Because he sounded pretty smart. He sounded pretty smart. And they're in disagreement. Who am I to believe? Well, we have instructions for that. This is what it says. You are the sole judges of whether a witness is to be believed and have the weight to be given that testimony. There are no hard and fast rules to guide you in determining believability and weight of testimony. You may take into consideration the following their interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the case. Oh right. We saw a lot of expert witnesses came in and they were testifying for free, very interested watching every word, calling them up the witnesses, relationship to the party, the ability and the opportunity to know, remember and relate to the facts, the witnesses manner, their age, their experience, their frankness, their sincerity, or lack thereof, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the witnesses , testimony in light of all the other evidence in the case. Right? You are, you, are you scrolling back through all the witnesses that you heard going?

Speaker 2:

Oh yeah, that's a problem for

Speaker 1:

That witness or that's a problem for that witness. Cause that's exactly what I'm doing. We have any impeachment of the witnesses testimony. So cross-examination any other factors that bear on believability and the weight you should rely in the last analysis upon your own experience. Good judgment. And once again, common sense. So you get a little bit of a framework there on how to analyze this. Now that's where lay witnesses for expert witnesses.

Speaker 2:

We have a,

Speaker 1:

A couple of additional factors, a witness who has special training education experience and so on. You can also consider their training experience, knowledge, the reasons given for their opinion, their sources of information. We saw a lot of books being held up, particularly by Mr. Blackwell factors already given for evaluating the testimony of any witness. We have impeachment, K , this is sort of during cross examination . If they

Speaker 2:

Come out and go after

Speaker 1:

One particular witness, those are some guidelines on how impeachment works. We have the defendant's right. Not to testify. Okay? So maybe this is what we were hearing. Uh , judge Cahill read yesterday, the state must convince you beyond evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant will put in Derek Shovan here is guilty

Speaker 2:

Of the crime charged. He has no obligation to prove innocence the defendant,

Speaker 1:

Right? Not to testify. The right is guaranteed by federal and state

Speaker 2:

Institutions. I think that judge Cahill's , uh,

Speaker 1:

Soliloquy was a little bit different. Multiple offenses are considered separately instruction on demonstrative evidence generally. And so let's , you know, this is all procedural stuff. Let's get into the meat . This is the good stuff. Now what does murder in the third degree mean? This is one of the charges that Derek Shovan got. It's one of the scenes

Speaker 2:

Charges that Mohammed Knorr got. Here's what it looks like in the

Speaker 1:

Jury instructions. You can see here. It says murder in the third degree to Prevo mind. So Eric Nelson is fate . I'm sorry, Derek. Shovan who's being represented by Eric Nelson is facing this. And here's how the jury is going to be explained this instruction under Minnesota law, a person causing death of another by perpetrating an act imminently , dangerous to others and inventing into preyed mine without regard for human life, but without intent to cause the death of any person is guilty of murder. In the third degree, this is the deprived mind murder, right? And we've seen this language already in Chauvin's case to prove mine, eminently dangerous. It's in his charging documents. Cause he's been charged with the same thing, the elements of murder, and the third degree are alleged as follows. So this is what they would put in there . First death of Justine Russell yet

Speaker 2:

Must be proven, which is a different name than demand.

Speaker 1:

Maybe that was a different Oh , okay. Whatever. But here it is. So we've got to prove causation, second Newark caused the death . So we got to have causation, right? We're spending a lot of time fighting about this in the Floyd case third. And this is where you're going to see some of the language, right? So let's, let's think about this in context of Shovan and Floyd third, the defendant Mohamed nor his intentional act, which caused the death of Justine was eminently dangerous to human beings and was performed without regard for human

Speaker 2:

Life. Okay. So you can just swap those out. Let's do it. The defendant, Derek Chauvin's intentional act, which caused the death of George Floyd was eminently dangerous to human beings and was performed without regard for human life. See how that fits such an act may not be specifically intended to cause death may not be specifically directed at the particular person whose death occurred, but it is committed in a reckless or wanton manner with the knowledge that someone may be killed and with a heedless disregard of that happening. So you see how that's a little bit different, right? This is an explanation of this. They're saying, well, what, what, what is this? What does eminently dangerous mean? Right? This is kind of confusing. What does that? Well, this is what it means. It was an intentional act performed without regard for human life. It was reckless done in a reckless or wanton manner with a knowledge that somebody may die. So the jury is going to ask themselves about that. Does that apply to Chauvin ? Next? They're going to ask, where did this take place? Did it happen on this date in Hennepin County? Sure. It did easy. If you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he's guilty of the charge. If you find that any, any element, any one of these first, second, third, any of those are off, he's not guilty of this charge. Okay. So that's the third degree murder charge. Let's take a look at the next one. This is the manslaughter in the second degree charge. Here it is. And this is also what Derek Shovan is being charged with. Right? And you may notice recognizes language under Minnesota law, whoever by culpable negligence, which is what we've seen in Chauvin's case, he's charged with the same crime whereby he creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to another person causes the death of another he's guilty of manslaughter in the second degree. So we've got culpable negligence. We see that, right? So this is the law. This is the explanation of the law down here. So we have culpable negligence. That's defined right here. We have to cause that's defined cause right. What is causing mean can have a lot of questions about that in Chauvin's case. So let's see how this breaks down is first. The death of the Justine must be proven easy. Floyd must be proven, got that second. The defendant Mohamed nor caused the death by culpable negligence whereby they created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm. All right . So now what, and it's complicated. Let's break it down to cause means a substantial causal factor in causing the death, right? A substantial causal factor. So how do we decide what that means? The defendant Mohammed is criminally liable for all consequences of his actions that occur in ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes. If those intervening causes where the natural result of his acts, the fact that other causes contribute to the death does

Speaker 1:

Not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. Right? So that version of the jury instructions , uh , that may sound bad, right? For Chauvet . So why to Floyd had a heart problem. So what Floyd took drugs. So what if any of those other things came up

Speaker 2:

Play doesn't matter. He's responsible for that as a consequence of his action. So that's causation on that charge, but the causation

Speaker 1:

Shouldn't has to be brought about by culpable negligence, gotta be doing something off, right? You can't, if he was acting within the purview of his duties and Floyd died,

Speaker 2:

That would just be a death.

Speaker 1:

That would be a homicide, but no criminal intent or criminal liability connected with that. So now we gotta look at the second part of the statute, which is culpable negligence.

Speaker 2:

What does that mean? It is intentional conduct that the defendant,

Speaker 1:

This case nor may not have intended to be harmful, but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as a stroke involving a strong probability of injury to others. Ooh . See, we got a lot of debate about that. A lot of experts who say, yeah, you know what Shovan did easily has a strong probability of injury,

Speaker 2:

Got some other people on the defense who say otherwise, culpable negligence

Speaker 1:

Is more than ordinary negligence. It is more than gross negligence. It is gross negligence coupled with an element of recklessness. Oh great. Well then what the heck does recklessness mean? So recklessness now is a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death or great bodily harm to others. So it's basically saying under these things ,

Speaker 2:

Instructions that Shovan must have created a risk

Speaker 1:

Known that that risk was substantial, that there was no reason for taking the risk net Mohammed nor , or in this case, Shovan was aware of the risk and that the defendant disregarded it. He D need not have intended however, to cause harm. So you see how complicated this gets. Then we have great bodily harm means bodily injury, which creates a high probability of death. We got to the debate about that, right? What was a high probability of death?

Speaker 2:

We've got disagreements about that particular issue for multiple witnesses. Third

Speaker 1:

They're saying it happened within Hennepin County. If you find that each one of these has been proven beyond a reason,

Speaker 2:

Doubt , then he is guilty. But if it's not, then he is not guilty.

Speaker 1:

The instructions , this is literally the document. Something very similar to this that the jury is going to be looking through. You can see you've got a lot of different rules that are playing with one another. You've got causation, you've got culpable negligence. Well, what does negligence mean as well? It's more than gross negligence. It's more than regular negligence. It's recklessness. All right . Well what does recklessness mean? All right. What's new set of rules. So it's very important. That's what these attorneys are in there . Going word by word, going up. Don't like that. Don't like this, we're going to argue over the sentence. Are you over that sentence? And the judge is just flushing it out with them right down the middle. So this is how it ends up. We're going to skip a lot of the document obviously, but this is, it says duties of jurors. When you returned to the jury room to discuss this case, must select a jury member to be the foreperson . They're going to delete your they're going to lead your deliberations. In order for you to return a verdict, the verdict must be unanimous. You should discuss with one another deliberate, decide the case for yourself. Only after you've discussed it with your fellow jurors do not hesitate to re-examine your views. Change your opinion. If you're convinced they're disagreeable for person must sign and date, the forms are going to be given three verdict forms. You're going to return to the courtroom in arriving to your verdicts. The subject of penalty or punishment is not to be discussed or considered by you. That only lies with the court. You only have to decide whether the charges are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You've got to duty to the state. You've got to duty to everything, get over your , uh, personal prejudices and biases. Now the case is in your hands. Ooh, that is a tall order. So they're going to be sequestered when they go into that. So we're going to have closing arguments on Monday. Probably have some jury instructions fleshed out by the both sides on that day or very shortly thereafter. And then the jury, we should have a Monday because as soon as they finished closings, they're going to hand it off to the jurors. They're going to be sequestered. We're going to get a verdict who knows how long that is going to take, but it's going to be interesting. And we're going to be livestream in that whenever that happens, whenever they're going to be reading the verdict, we're going to be going live. So be ready for it. It's going to be an interesting week. All right. So let's take some questions over from our tremendous [email protected] First one of the day comes from LT 13. It says, do you think the chemist will have an advantage to all the gases that was presented? I was , uh , wondering if they get to look up anything to translate the expert witnesses and if they don't, that chemist might be valuable. Yeah. So the judge, the judge, isn't going to let them go and look stuff up or like get on the internet and you know, poke around. But if they do have questions, then they can present those to the judge and the judge can present those to the attorneys. And if certain witnesses are available, they try to flush out some of those questions. We're probably going to see a lot of jury questions and everybody who is observing trials are all just like waiting because every time a juror comes out, it's like, Hey, can I , uh , can I use the bathroom? And every goes, that means it's going to be a, not guilty. That juror number 14 had to go urinate. Everybody freaks out about every little thing that happened. So , uh, I'm looking forward to that. It's a lot of fun. Can't wait to join in. We have Maddie Jones next in the house says, do we know who the foreman is for this trial? No, we do not. Will we ever know? Probably if I had to bet, I would say it is the fifties white female executive assistant. She seemed to have a very authoritative presence during jury selection, in your opinion, how much influence does the foreman have in the deliberation room? So

Speaker 3:

It,

Speaker 1:

You know, it depends. I mean, it really just depends. It can be the foreperson, it can be really any strong personality. And so, you know , that's something that you are looking for during jury selection, those, those strong personality people, and you want to figure out what to do with them, right? There are different jury selection strategies where some attorneys just only look for that one person, right. They don't even care about any of the jurors they're looking to , to head hunt the one who's to be that standout juror, some defense attorneys do that. Right. Don't need to convince all the jurors, just got it ,

Speaker 2:

Get one so that they don't have a unanimous conviction. So yeah ,

Speaker 1:

You know , it , it, it, it can be that it can be that you have a four person who is very aggressive. You can have a four person who gets voted because they have some sort of seniority, but then they don't really, you know, they sort of fold under the leadership task and somebody else kind of commandeers it, there's , it's , it's a strange thing. It's one of those things that I don't really know how useful it is. I, you know, there are a lot of consultants out there. A lot of people who try to really reverse engineer stuff, but I mean, I've had conversations with people just in law, or I would, I would think for sure that one person was going to give me an answer based on all of my analysis, right? This person's a mom, she's 50, she's got blonde hair. She carries that type of bag. She showed up in that car, whatever. So clearly this is who I think she is totally opposite. Not even remotely close, right? Like an answer out of left field that nobody would have ever guessed and you're going, well, what the hell would I waste all that time? Like learning all this stuff for, is it even relevant? So I'm kind of in that camp, you know, I know it is important. I know there's a lot of consultants and jury people who will sort of obsess over jury selection, but I just never have really, there's only so much that you can understand about a person and sort of inquire about before you're giving yourself sort of a sense of

Speaker 2:

A fake confidence,

Speaker 1:

Whatever that concept is. John Golan , 52 in the house as if the makeup of the jury is so important to final verdict. Why don't we have professional jurors who are completely vetted and tested so that we don't have to worry about bias? Well, because we are supposed to have a, it's a good question. Or like, you know, why don't we like create AI systems or something, right. They're just like solve this stuff for us

Speaker 2:

Because humans are bias . Well , that's

Speaker 1:

Because the law says we have to have a jury of our peers. And so we've taken even cross section of our peers throughout society.

Speaker 2:

And I think it works out, but it's a good question. Right. And maybe in the future, maybe in our crypto country, we have blockchain verdicts.

Speaker 1:

Uh , we have who's next? We got, Oh , sock rod , big fan. So do you think the prosecution will go at this again if there's a hung jury? Absolutely. Yeah . Yeah. If they don't get a verdict, they're going to go back. They're going to yes, yes, absolutely. Yes. They have a very, very, very, very strong , uh , motivation to carry this thing forward

Speaker 2:

And for good reason, right?

Speaker 1:

A lot of people in the country, we want to see this resolved. We have see mills in the house. Can they push through the third murder three when they can't prove that he knew it would result in death? To my knowledge, no one has died from that restraint posture while in custody until now.

Speaker 2:

Um, yes.

Speaker 1:

So it's a good question. Yeah. It's a really good question. And so I'd have to go. I would, I would want to compare that with the statute. I would want to reread the statute again, and I don't know that I can do that right now in my slides now I can't. So it, I would want to read it again because it did have some very specific language in that instructions about

Speaker 2:

Whether they knew. And I just can't recall right off the top of my head, what the instructions say,

Speaker 1:

We are going to see what the instructions say about any of that. Right. And I , and I think it's probably going to default back to the reasonable, the objective reasonableness standard and whether or not the officer, an officer in that position would have done

Speaker 2:

What he did in the way that he did it. So

Speaker 1:

It's not necessarily about the prone position, you know, exclusively the prone position. It's about the prone position in the handcuffs for nine minutes. It's about that. And so I think that when they narrow down that instance

Speaker 2:

Direction , it's going to reflect language

Speaker 1:

That is sort of neutral on that. You know, it's not going to be dispositive one way or the other on that issue. Good question though. Honestly, rational says, how do you feel about charging someone with both murder and manslaughter? It doesn't seem right to me that prosecutors can argue for both charges in the same case. If they both have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, to me, both charges make me doubt that they're sure

Speaker 2:

About what he's guilty of. Yeah. So

Speaker 1:

I think that the sort of complaint that you're bringing up is sort of like this, this, this concept of like

Speaker 2:

Double charging where the prosecution will say, well, somebody died. So we're going to,

Speaker 1:

We're gonna charge you with a bunch of different crimes that relate to somebody dying. If we can't get murdered , it's fine. We didn't manslaughter. Right. And kind of work their way down, very common in the law. It's not even something that is , uh , an issue, right? This happens all the time. And they do this a lot in DUI cases. So they'll , they'll take a DUI case and they'll say, well, this person's blood alcohol content was a 0.2 ,

Speaker 2:

One, let's say the cutoff is a 0.2

Speaker 1:

For a super extreme charge in Arizona. Or let's say, it's the, you know , let's, let's stick with that. So it's a 0.20 . This person comes in

Speaker 2:

Back with a BAC of 0.2, one very high, super extreme DUI, highest category that we've got here.

Speaker 1:

But they're , they're not just going to charge that person without one, count a super extreme. They're also going to charge them with all of the lower tiers. So it'll be

Speaker 2:

A yes, if you're over 0.2,

Speaker 1:

Zero BAC, you're also over 0.15, which is the next tier down, which is an extreme DUI. You're also above

Speaker 2:

A 0.08, which is the regular

Speaker 1:

DUI. You're also impaired to the slightest degree. So we're going to charge you with a super extreme, we're also going to charge you with the other underlying charges so that if we lose the super, because you're close to the margin, right? What if you hire a good attorney and they come in and they say that 0.2, one could be as low as a 0.19, which is under the 2.20 threshold. Well, now, if they only charge you with the super extreme, they're going to lose their entire case. So they'll just say, well, we're going to lose the top charge and we're going to win the others.

Speaker 2:

And that's just, that's common

Speaker 1:

In our prosecution and that's what's happening here, right? I mean, he's charged with murder and the elements are different enough that they, that, that constitutionally that is permissible, right? You couldn't charge him with two of the exact murder charges cause they're sustained charge , right? That's double jeopardy. You can't be twice charged for the same crime, but here they're slightly different. And they're on degrees of intent. So on the murder charge, it's, you know , intent to commit the felony, which resulted in the death, on the manslaughter charges, it's culpable negligence. So we have different standards, which allow according to our Supreme court for both charges to be brought up

Speaker 2:

In the same case. Good question. Wow. We have an says, I understand

Speaker 1:

That Shovan absolutely has the right, not to testify under the law. My question is, was it necessary for him to take the fit to avoid testifying or could Nelson have just decided to close without calling him?

Speaker 2:

So I think the re yeah , I mean, so like [inaudible]

Speaker 1:

In regular trials, you just don't call your defendant right now . They're not going to call him. Right. Nobody makes a big deal out about it. Uh it's like commonplace, right? You , you set your case to trial. Most, you know, most trials are, are kind of routine, right? It's kind of just, all right , we'll set this one, fill out some forms. These are our witnesses kind of basic stuff. This is obviously so highly scrutinized that they are making sure that everything is done as formulaically as possible. I mean, we're going overkill on the formula on the, on the formalness of this entire thing. And so yes, they were very deliberate with Derek Chauvin about ensuring that he knew what he was doing. He was giving it up because the judge for the judges and the courts own protection, doesn't want this to come back down on appeal later. Right. Shovan you know , 14 days from now says, you know what? I really should have testified. The judge didn't tell me that I could. I disagreed with my lawyer. My lawyer said I shouldn't, but I really wanted to. And so now I'm going to appeal this, the judge. No , Nope. Can't do that, buddy. I asked you point blank, like three separate times, and you confirmed on the record on a recorded line and video that we have , uh , documented for all eternity. So that basis is an invalid appeal. So I think that's kind of what you're, what you're seeing take place. Be brave says when it comes to closing arguments to the attorneys have to be honest in their statements. Yeah , they do. And they , there are a lot of rules about this, right? So the , the attorneys can't just start making stuff up, like , uh, throwing out it's called facts, not in evidence. Right? So if they, if they introduced a new, a new theory in their closing argument, they're going to get objections all day. So they have to sort of follow the same theme. It's really like a summation of the evidence with some compelling arguments. You may see some more policy conversation in there, but really what I think you're going to see both sides do is just kind of summarize the evidence that you heard and then compare and contrast and show you communicate why their argument was more effective than the other side. But yeah, they have to be honest, they can't come out here and say, you know , whatever they want, it's not, it's not a free for all. There are some pretty hard rules that they got to stick to.

Speaker 2:

My Fox says,

Speaker 1:

Lots of people are curious if attorneys can lie to the court or perhaps perform lies of omission care to help them out bar ethical standards, et cetera. Yeah. So hopefully I kind of answered some of that question on the last comment, but yeah. I mean, attorneys, you have a duty of candor to the court. You've got a duty of, you have to be integrity, have to have integrity when dealing with the court,

Speaker 2:

If you are, you know, manipulating evidence or you're ,

Speaker 1:

You know, adjusting things around the margin, then that is a serious problem. And you know, you sort of saw that yesterday with show in the Shovan trial, because judge Cahill, scolded, the state, you know, kind of, you know, when you see stuff like that and are not an attorney, you may go out, then that didn't sound like anything. He's like, you know ,

Speaker 2:

He said he kind of was nice to him, right? I'm not implying bad faith that you didn't disclose those gaseous lab results. It says not , I'm not, I'm not

Speaker 1:

Playing that at all. But if you're an attorney, you go, man, they just got scolded. Right. Cause you don't see that type of stuff. You don't see the judges come

Speaker 2:

Out and sort of go, Hey, you know, your

Speaker 1:

Standard operating procedures are kind of trash. Make sure that doesn't happen again. It sounds like the defense subpoenaed everything and they didn't get everything, but you had stuff that they didn't, you didn't give to them. Why is that? Maybe you should fix your policies. Right? That's a scolding. They look like that. If you're a lay person. Cause it was very nice, right. It's very kind of cordial back and forth, but it was a scolding and stuff like that, you know, it's like, it's , it's getting close to that line a little bit where you start to ask yourself that question, did they, did they

Speaker 2:

Hold that back for some reason? Why is that right? And so defensive

Speaker 1:

The attorneys, every time this happens, we just throw our freaking briefcase down and we're like, see, see what happens. It happens all the time. So we stomp our feet and make a big deal about it. It could just be good faith. Right. It could just be them. You know, they got a ton of documents. I've got all of this stuff going on. So maybe they didn't, you know, nobody's ever asked for that. It could have been a good faith oversight,

Speaker 2:

But yeah, the, you know, the attorneys, you get sick ,

Speaker 1:

You get in trouble. If you are not acting with candor with the court. Now the defense of course does not have to disclose certain things to the prosecution. Right? Like if like, if our client says , uh, you know, something like, yeah, I was digging my knee into his neck or something and you know, I kind of, I felt something pop in there and like , you're not going to disclose that to anybody. Right? You have a duty to defend your clients. And I know that rubs people the wrong way, but like, you know, there, there's a rule that says, if the government is in possession of evidence, they've got to disclose it to you. It's got to be exculpatory. They've got to give it to you. But if you're a defendant, you don't ha you don't have an obligation to give the government the right. It's their burden to prove you guilty. You do not have to help them do that. You have a right against self-incrimination. And so from a defense perspective, there are some pretty important rules that defense attorneys have. Like if you're,

Speaker 2:

You know , client comes to you and says, Hey, I'm going to kill somebody tomorrow.

Speaker 1:

I want you to help me defend against that. You've got an affirmative duty and obligation to go stop that from happening. Right. You've got to notify somebody about that.

Speaker 2:

Like you can't attorney client privilege, can't protect that person.

Speaker 1:

And I told my attorney, my , the attorney called the police. Now I'm mad at my attorney for breaching attorney client privilege for reporting that I was going to go kill that person. I like the law wants to incentivize attorneys to stop that murder from happening. And you know, there's also rules about money and holding on to items like murder weapons and things like that. So you can get really down in the weeds on all of these issues, but yes, when you're in court, I mean, you, you know, you've got a duty to be

Speaker 2:

Honest. And if, if that comes back down,

Speaker 1:

You know , you could be sanctioned by the court. You could be held in contempt. If it was very egregious, you could be charged with a crime. If it was fraudulent, you could certainly be disbarred if you are acting outside of the ethical standards. And so attorneys, you know , it's , it's sort of a self policing industry. We have bar bar , uh , agencies govern our licenses and stuff like that. But that's not to say that there aren't bad things that happen in law. I mean, I've seen a lot of it. I've seen a lot of very grotesque operations in place, you know, helping they're claiming to help people, but just doing bad stuff, which is part of the reason we started our firm. I was kind of sick of seeing this stuff happening around the country on a regular basis, seeing people get screwed. And I was working at my first law firm and I just thought, this is not the way, this is not the right way to help people. And so

Speaker 2:

We just, Ryan and I both bailed and

Speaker 1:

Our , and our law group was born. And uh, Hey, I got the pretty good ethical record. Go look me up on the Arizona bar exam. Pretty happy with it. We've got C mills says if the pressure was what caused them to is fixate. Why aren't the officers that were on his back being tried also , uh, they are actually, so they're going to be charged as accomplices in later trials, or if the use of force was so unreasonable, why aren't they on trial for not intervening? So, yeah, they are. I mean, there are there, they are going to be charged. They have already been charged, but they're sort of accomplices to Shovan. So if Shovan is acquitted, their charges are going to go away because you can't be

Speaker 2:

Publish to a non crime , but there

Speaker 1:

Are set for later down in the year, I think in November or something like that. So very good questions got some good technical , uh,

Speaker 2:

Uh, inquiries

Speaker 1:

There. And I appreciate that. So all of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. If you want to support the show, that's the place to do that. And we would be

Speaker 2:

Very grateful if you did. All right. And so that's it for that segment. We're going to change gears. We have to talk about this. Another shooting. Unfortunately, Adam

Speaker 1:

Alito shooting. We now have body camera footage. This is a story that comes out of Chicago. Adam Toledo was killed by a Chicago police officer. He was 13 years old, awful story, awful video. I watched the video. We're going to go through some of some clips we've got, I think we've got a little bit of video on this segment of the show. We want to piece together what happened here, because you have to ask yourself, you know, when law enforcement shoots and kills a 13 year old, what the heck is going on? Right? We've got questions for the officer. We've got questions for the 13 year old. We got questions for the parents. We've got questions for the community because this is just a tragedy through and through. And people are already trying to pick sides and turn this into a political thing, which is just to be expected. And so we're going to try

Speaker 2:

A sense of it as objectively as possible. So I want to start by going to the New York times. This is coming

Speaker 1:

From Chicago. As I mentioned, the video is released of the Chicago police fatally shooting. A 13 year old shaky fast moving video was released in Chicago. On Thursday. It shows a police officer chasing a boy down, a dark alleyway, yelling at him to stop right now, the officer screams while cursing at him, telling him to drop his hand, drop his gun hands, show me your hands, drop it, drop it. As the boy turns his hands lift single shot rings out. He collapses the boy. Adam Toledo was killed 13

Speaker 2:

Years old release

Speaker 1:

Of the body camera footage set off a fresh round of consternation over police conduct in Chicago, even as it started debate over what images, grainy and graphic actually showed. We're gonna look at some of these today. Activists announced protest against police abuse for downtown Chicago. Mayor Lori Lightfoot called for calm. Even as she grew up emotional talked about the death, calling it excruciating. Adam who lived in Chicago , his little village is predominantly Latino in a predominantly Latino neighborhood. It was one of the youngest people killed by the police in Illinois in years. And it was a really hard video to watch. I actually watched the unedited version of it. And I mean , you get to see a young man, just, you know, his last breasts right in front of you. It's just, it's just terrible. So I'm not going to play that though. We have , uh , some more story to get to. It says in the shooting in Chicago just took place in the early morning hours of March 29 . So not too long ago, officials have said that two officers were responding to reports of gunfire. When they saw two people in an alley started chasing them. Prosecution. Prosecutors have said that Adam was holding a gun. When he ran down the alley as an officer called for him to stop and drop the weapon. Edina Ortiz, a lawyer representing the Toledo family said in a news conference yesterday, the video shows that Adam who was Latino and a seventh grader was attempting to comply with the officer's orders. So we've got to take a look at that, right? What , what was going on there? He tossed the gun. If he had a gun, he tossed it. The officer said, show me your hands. He complied. He turned around as the officer identified in police reports as Eric Stillman, 34 years old fires, a single shot. Adam is raising his arms and appears to be empty handed in the moment before the shooting, the times analysis shows Adam can be seen holding what appears to be a gun behind his back, which he drops behind a wooden fence just before he raises his hands. And it is a split second. He is just, just dropped , like dropping it and turning gun. And he shot and killed after firing the shot. Officer Stillman called for an ambulance search for the wound, began CPR with the help of another officer, stay with me. He wrote lawyer for Stillman, who is white, said the shooting while tragic was justified. Given the nature of the threat, the police officer was put in a split second situation where he has to make a decision lawyer at the firm of grace and Thompson that was retained by the fraternal order of the police in Chicago. Officer Stillman has been placed on administrative leave for 30 days, joined the force in 2015 after serving in the military overseas few details of the event that led to his death emerged in court. In the past week, we have Ruben Roman who at the time is a 21 year old, who authorities say was with Adam at the time of the shooting. He appeared in the cook County courtroom on Saturday. He was charged with felony, reckless discharge, unlawful use of a weapon and child endangerment. So we have another person who's also being charged with a crime, $150,000 bond, which is a significant bond. According to protestors , video captures Mr. Roman and Adam walking together down the street on the West side around 2:30 AM holding a gun, appears to fire Chevrolet , several shots at an unknown target. So they, they were just shooting guns off in the air at two 30 in the morning, Mr. Roman, holding a gun fires shots at an unknown target in recent days, Adam's mother

Speaker 2:

Said that she had no

Speaker 1:

Idea that he was out that night of the shooting. She thought he was safely in his room at the time Adam had been missing for several days. She said, but he'd come home and gone into the room that he shared with his brother. So that sounds great. Right. Kid's gone for several days. Comes back home.

Speaker 2:

Oh, there you are. Son going to bed now. Good. See you in the morning. Okay. Sure.

Speaker 1:

All right. So let's take a quick look at this post over from James James,

Speaker 2:

Ho 16, responding

Speaker 1:

To Mr. Andy. No said his hands were

Speaker 2:

Up when he was shot your dishonesty

Speaker 1:

Posting a different pick . So we have body camera here, right? And this is a scene from the alley. This is a young man who was no longer with us. So you hear about two 38 in the morning, axon body three March, 2019 .

Speaker 2:

So the gun presumably is right behind this, this wall.

Speaker 1:

Y'all so somebody here, right? If you know, this is , this is a problem. Like with video, it's like,

Speaker 2:

You can take a still shot and it looks terrible, right? There's

Speaker 1:

No gun that went off right there. His hands are up. There's

Speaker 2:

No gun in his hand, but then you go to the original image right

Speaker 1:

Here. It is. So Chicago police have released the body camera footage of the police shooting, death of arm team , Adam Toledo, who was known in a gang circles as little

Speaker 2:

Homicide and baby Diablo. So you can see the gun here.

Speaker 1:

I'm guessing is sort of the other side of this fence. Right? So on the back end of this fence. So he was standing somewhere over here, see a gun right there, see a gun, right there

Speaker 2:

Looks like it looks pretty

Speaker 1:

Clear. Right? And so you can see, I don't think we're going to play the video. Maybe we will. We have, you sort of have him with the gun and he's just like dropping it, dropping it and turn it .

Speaker 2:

And that's it like

Speaker 1:

A 10th of a second. I mean, just insanely fast. So , uh, you know, so then we have , uh , this now, listen, I really do not want you to consider this to be sort of blaming the victim, right? This is a 13 year old kid. I'm going to show you some images, images that are being posted by people in his community that are , uh , very interesting, but he's a 13 year old kid, right? There's, there's really nothing you can do to blame him for any of this. If there is , uh ,

Speaker 2:

Some cultural, you know, uniqueness to this, to this person's upbringing or whatever, that's on that, right? He's 13. He doesn't know anything ,

Speaker 1:

The thing that's going on in the world. And so if he's being sort of in, in grain into this

Speaker 2:

Immunity and celebrated for some of this stuff, that's, that's about it .

Speaker 1:

That's not about him. So let's just be, let's be compassionate to him and his family, but we're seeing some interesting stuff coming out. Right? Very interesting things for a 13 year old son

Speaker 2:

Boy in America. Very weird. Very weird. Let's take a quick look. So Andy,

Speaker 1:

No posts, tributes to deceased arm, teen, Adam Toledo by his friends, refer to him by his gang names. Yeah .

Speaker 2:

What little homicide, maybe the Abloh

Speaker 1:

On here. We have rest in peace, little homicide, five 26 Oh seven to three 29, 20. We've got some interesting images here. We have guns and you know, gang signs and all sorts of, it's just, it's strange. It's I dunno what, what that is all about. Well, let's take a quick look and we have another video. It looks like of a different angle where this is Adam Toledo, who is sort of walking around the side of the vehicle

Speaker 4:

From a surveillance camera. If you look carefully, it looks as though Adam Toledo may have dropped something behind that fence. Now we've slowed this video down to show it again. And this is Adam to later that you see on the right side of there's , the gun

Speaker 1:

Was a gun. He drops, it turns around, get shot. He wasn't shot. According to Greg, he said he wasn't shot just before his hands were up. The police had too little time to react. He had a weapon in his hands. He threw it before putting his hands up. Police could not see that. So he was shot. His hands were up after being shot, slow motion, the video. And let me just, Yeah, we're not going to play that cause I don't want to , I don't want to show that, but it , there is a video. If you want to download the slides, you can watch this. It's a super slow motion version of the video. And it's basically, you're watching his hands go up as the gun is going . I mean, it's, it's basically simultaneous, right? So if the officer saw the gun, like we saw the circles and he's turning your shoulders are turning, everything's moving triggers bold . He gets it . It's just, it's just awful. Very, very, very close call. So if you want to watch the actual video, download the slides or just go find it on the internet. It is everywhere. We have CBS. Now of course they, it looks like people are alleging that they modified the video. CBS news edited the video. This comes over from the federalists.com to mask. The teen was holding a gun before he was fatally shot. So we know CBS is just garbage in general because of what they do on 60 minutes and elsewhere, they deceptively crop the body camera footage that showed a 13 year old boy holding a gun before he was shot. Law enforcement official fatally shot at and Toledo during an encounter. Police said that he ignored verbal directions. Fled use significant force was armed with a semi-automatic pistol, which is why the officer fired body camera footage released this week appears to show Toledo holding a weapon moments before he was shot. But CBS news posted a clip to its website and Twitter page that cropped out the footage, showing the teams , alleged firearm, CBS news, article crop . The video did not directly acknowledge that he was armed. Instead the corporate media organization aired opposing claims from Eric Stillman, the law enforcement officer who said he shot Toledo because he was faced with life-threatening and deadly force. Toledo's family attorney who claimed the gun was not in the team's hand when Stillman fired off the shot, CBS news did not respond to comment while a semi-automatic pistol was recovered at the scene. Multiple politicians like Lori Lightfoot claimed there was no evidence. The teen fired the weapon before he was shot, which is anybody

Speaker 2:

Saying that failed democratic

Speaker 1:

Candidate. Andrew Yang also tweeted that he was unarmed

Speaker 2:

During the incident. So here is a response to that, right? Everybody's doing the red circle thing. Child was killed in Chicago said Andrew Yang. He was unarmed. Not really right. He's kind of right there. It looks like a gun. They found a gun everybody's spring loaded to just take the narrative. So we have Jerry Dunn levy and we have the seeds

Speaker 1:

Yes . Video that they have cropped out for us. CBS news shared a version of the police body camera footage, where the right and left edges of the video are trimmed away. Meaning that the portion of the video where Toledo was seen holding a firearm at one point is no longer visible because of it

Speaker 2:

Just now off screen. So you can see,

Speaker 1:

See that here right now. You could , you could make the argument that maybe that's cropped for a while . I'm not gonna play the whole thing, but you can watch, you can watch it again. It's just cropped. Right? So yeah.

Speaker 2:

You can't see that side of the fence. So yeah, it does. It looks like he's unarmed. Cause they cropped the video. You can't see it. All right. The case incident report is now here, you can see this as assault aggravated as a police officer with a handgun , we've got police officers 34 years old born in 1986, Eric Stillman. No , nothing really that interesting here,

Speaker 1:

Nothing to read. It looks like original case incident report from Chicago police department outcry grows

Speaker 2:

As Eric Stillman.

Speaker 1:

The officer who did the shooting is now identified. So people want to know who he is. He has been placed on administrative leave for 30 days already talked about that. 10th district patrol officer been in the department since 2015, three complaints and for use of force reports have been filed against them between 2017 and mid 2020, which records police interactions with the Republic with the public. This is coming from the invisible Institute among the allegations filed by citizens, where to that claimed improper searches of cars and use of force violations. However information on the disposition of those still unclear from the records city, civilian police

Speaker 2:

Accountability, they investigate

Speaker 1:

Cases like this. They release 17 body cams for third-party videos, transmission of the communication. Nine 11 calls, six ShotSpotter recordings as well as response and arrest reports related to Adam shooting. So there is a lot of material to dive through there and a lengthy email to the associated press Stillman's attorney .

Speaker 2:

And grace said the officer had no choice,

Speaker 1:

But to shoot the juvenile offender had a gun in his right hand, looked at the officer, which could be interpreted as attempting to acquire a target,

Speaker 2:

Began to turn to face

Speaker 1:

The officer attempting to swing the gun in his direction. At this point, the officer was faced with a life-threatening and deadly force situation. All prior attempts to deescalate and gain compliance.

Speaker 2:

Science failed here is officer Stillman. So we've got,

Speaker 1:

It looks like according to the invisible Institute's most recent data. Stillman has three for use of force. We have

Speaker 2:

Pointed 2015,

Speaker 1:

34 year old white man complaints. So we have one from October 11th, 2018 . This one was unfounded. It looks like found, finding was unfounded and a search of a person in property. We have another complaint from 2019. So a November, he was one of three officers. The civilian said that he was illegally stopped and searched during a traffic stop, did not give officers permission to search his vehicle. Complainant

Speaker 2:

Says that it was,

Speaker 1:

He was stopped due to obstruction of view. He had a cell phone Mount on his windshield. You see these frigging cops cell phone man Mount on his windshield. So they stop him . They pull him over, Oh my God. He alleges that one of the officers was verbally aggressive and

Speaker 2:

Rude, not a surprise. Complainant

Speaker 1:

Also alleges that accused officers did not activate body-worn cameras until he asked , is this being

Speaker 2:

You recorded? So investigation

Speaker 1:

It's still pending. No finding that all sounds exactly. That sounds like that absolutely happened. I believe that for sure. Fourth amendment improper search civilian, the accused officer allegedly unlawfully searched the resp reporting party's vehicle

Speaker 2:

Traffic stop, allegedly removed a small razor that he had in his vehicle closed. No findings. How about over here? We've got take down emergency

Speaker 1:

Handcuffing. That was from 2017. Another open hand strike 2018 wrist lock take down emergency handcuffing 2019.

Speaker 2:

No action. In 2019, let's say

Speaker 1:

Good look. All four reports have callback numbers indicating that someone was likely arrested. No one has member actions, meaning the officer might be claiming injury while not claiming to use any force. All four subjects

Speaker 2:

Later twenties or older. Interesting,

Speaker 1:

Interesting stuff. All right. So that's what's going on with Toledo case . Don't know

Speaker 2:

Whether or not anybody's going to be charged with a crime on that, but it's

Speaker 1:

Under investigation. So we'll see if that officer gets charged or,

Speaker 2:

Or if they ,

Speaker 1:

Uh , grand jury for indictment we'll who knows where this will go. Let's take some questions over from locals.com at watching the watchers.locals.com. If you want to join in on the fun Jeremy Matrine is in the house. As I have skied on snow blown Snopes, it is possible. Someone owns a snowblower

Speaker 2:

Or it created the snow it's exactly right.

Speaker 1:

Closed , not guilty. Well done on your first verdict there, Jeremy, nicely done. We

Speaker 2:

Have my Fox in

Speaker 1:

The house said, remember when you met, remember when we said that following officer's instructions can lead to your death. Here's just one example. In my opinion, another spook cop that gets to trigger happy. We have open carry in the U S you should require an active threat to use lethal

Speaker 2:

Force. That's good. That's a good,

Speaker 1:

Good, good observation there, mom . It's a good point. Also, not that it really matters in the end, but the gun was unloaded. If you look at the first slide. Oh, I did not know that

Speaker 2:

Was it. Was it unloaded or was it empty? Right? Cause if they were shooting guns off in the air , uh , maybe that's what happened, but yeah, that's a good point. Right? You have open carry the officer, presumably didn't know how old this guy was. And you know, this is, this is the tricky part with the cops, right? This is where it gets iffy. The cops are there. They're required to wait. That's where they make their money. Right? You talk about this, right? Michael Jordan, why was he the best of all time? Arguably my opinion. But you can debate that. I'm not even a sports guy, but let's just say that why it's because he made the ball in the hoop when it mattered, when it counted, nobody cares. If you make the basket, when it's, when you're up by 20 points, that's irrelevant. Nobody cares about that. They care about the last second. That's why Jordan was so good. That's where he makes his money. Right? It's that last putt that you get it's on those marginal areas, the best surgeon in the world handles the , the slivers , a tiny fraction. That's where they make their money. Right? The defense attorney, we make our money in it . We're where, it's that one idea. It's that one critical element that we can do that nobody else can for the police. It's that split second . It's that weight . That is where it counts. That's what they're trained for. They have to have a little bit more discipline than the rest of us. Okay. Anybody can go out there and just shoot somebody and say my fault after the fact. But the , the police, they make their money. They deliver the goods on that split second. So while you, and I may watch this video and say, gosh, you know, that's kind of a 50 50, or you may watch this and say, Oh yeah, easily a clean shoot. Right. Very risky. Or you may say no, should have waited that half second longer. It's a very reasonable argument. That's why we give the cops the power that we do because we expect them to wait. Part of the job is to wait. Yes, it's risky. Yes. That split second. It might result in them being shot or it might result in an officer seeing he didn't have a gun in his hand and not killing a 13 year old. It's that split second . And so you can, you can pick either side of that and both sides have reasonable arguments. Thank you, mom . Very good point, mom, we have Liberty or death says this was absolutely tragic, but on initial appearances, it looks like a clean shoot. I honestly feel bad for the family and the cop in this. That's a good point. Also Liberty, you know, there's not always going to be a lesson in everything. You know, there are going to be just tragic, things that happen. And oftentimes as people, we try to make sense of it or use it to fit it into our worldview. You know, we're going to take this and maybe you already have a disdain for cops and you say, see, look, another bad cop, just shot a kid. Ah, and so you just take this incident and you just put it in your bookshelf, along with all of the other books that you have,

Speaker 1:

That help you justify why you don't like police. Take that and just file it over there. But sometimes it doesn't belong on that shelf. Sometimes it's nothing to do with the bad cop . Sometimes it's just a bad situation. You got a 13 year old kid running around at two 30 in the morning with a hand gun loaded or not, presumably shooting in the air. His friend who's being charged with crimes was charged with PR . They probably got some good evidence for him. We saw they have a lot of evidence elsewhere. Awful. D do we need to kill a 13 year old kid? Probably not, but what's , what's a cop supposed to do. We just saw that New Mexico cop just got wasted, horrible story for pulling over a drug dealer. He just pulls them. Hey, I see a hand gun. Can you step out of the car steps out of the car? Cautious is just dead. Just a total animal monster. Somebody without any shred of humanity, just executes an innocent man. And so you got to have some sympathy for the police to this cop , 34, running around Chicago. They're killing everybody, killing each other, all the , all over the place in Chicago, he's running through the alley on a weapons call. Kid had a gun what's he supposed to do? And so sometimes Liberty, I think it's just a tragic situation. You know, we can try to draw conclusions and try to extrapolate a lesson and a principle from it. But sometimes life is just a dump, just the worst. And this is one of those situations we have Jay bone says clean shoot , but sad, pathetic, progressive policy. And the shirking of personal responsibility should be lifted. Let's listen to us. Test certificate. Yeah. Gosh, shirking of personal responsibility. Like I shouldn't laugh at that because this is a somber story. That's a funny comment though, right? This person, cause of death, shirking personal responsibility, you know how many people would, would have that on their death certificate? You know , we have a lot of heart, heart disease in this country. Where does that come from? Uh , that'd be like half the country we have Liberty or death says. Did you hear that Ben Crump has rushed the kid's family to Sue the city? No, I did not. I guess he doesn't see a narrative. He likes 134 people had been murdered in it so far in Chicago this year. But let us right over this one. Yeah. I mean, I I've seen the numbers. I didn't realize it was that high. That's a lot of people, 134 people in Chicago, just killing each other. It's a lot. Good to see your Liberty. We have an from Oz number one says, this just seems like an absolute tragedy. Had the kid just dropped the gun at his feet or raised his empty hands without turning. It is reasonable to expect that he would still be alive. Yup . Yeah. I think, I think you're right on that. You know, it , it is, it's sort of the turn. It's that? It's that turn, you can't tell how old, you know, how old he is. As soon as he hits the ground. As soon as the officer approaches him, you can just sort of tell it's a kid. Oh my gosh, it's a fricking 13 year old kid. Just the worst we have LTE 13. Does the officer have any legal course against CBS? I don't think so. I mean, you know, for, yeah . I'm not, I'm not real sure

Speaker 2:

That they're alleging anything in that statement.

Speaker 1:

It sort of is , is it, is it a testimonial statement that is just cropping the sides off the video? Uh, I don't know.

Speaker 2:

You know, I I'm , I'm not , I'm not a civil attorney and Sue those types for under the ,

Speaker 1:

Those types of claims, but I would guess not. If I had to take a guest , John Dillard , 52 says, did the parents report him missing? Seems to me, it's the parent's fault. Can't they be charged with something. So yeah, there's all sorts of child endangerment, statutes and child negligence and uh , vulnerable population type of laws that typically children and adults, you know , uh , seniors, people who were sort of vulnerable because of their age , uh, that , that they can categorize those things into all sorts of juvenile laws and whatnot. So yeah, I mean, they, he could have been charged with something. The parents probably just asleep at the wheel kid was gone. It sounds like

Speaker 2:

A couple of days and they just didn't even know about it comes home. Mom thinks he's asleep at the wheel. Doesn't even bat an eye, you know , unless there's more

Speaker 1:

That story, maybe he was at his grandma's or his sisters or whatever. Maybe this is a common thing. I don't know. But what we read in that story didn't make it seem like something that was quite normal, right? If your child who's 13 is missing for a few days kind of time to hit the panic button, I think for most families in America .

Speaker 2:

But what do I know we have tremendous says, I feel that those, that

Speaker 1:

Immediately declare that each death fits the narrative are hurting their cause I agree with you. It's hard to take these people seriously on the cases where circumstances do fit the narrative. Yes. If you're going to cry Wolf about everything, then nobody's going to believe you when you cry Wolf again, didn't your mother ever tell you that story folks. On the other side, my mom told me that she said, Hey, if you come to me complaining about all this stuff, when you really

Speaker 2:

Need something, not going to believe you.

Speaker 1:

I learned that lesson pretty quick. So if everything is cops are racist murderers, then when we actually have a racist murderer,

Speaker 2:

Is anybody going to bat an eye about it? Because it sounds like

Speaker 1:

Even in , in, in situations like this where it's a close call or you can have reasonable disagreements, you know, you can, I can see it from both sides.

Speaker 2:

It's truthfully it's it doesn't feel to me like a Derrick Shovan George Floyd situation, right? It's not like that. It's

Speaker 1:

Something different and we should be able to talk

Speaker 2:

About it in

Speaker 1:

Way that reflects its true nature. Next up we've got Patriot Musk in there .

Speaker 2:

The house love that. Love that Musk.

Speaker 1:

You want to get it? He says, Rob, not sure if you've done one, but if you haven't, I think you should run a stress shoot course at arrange to understand how the body body automatically reacts to threats. I have never done one. Yeah . I would love to do that. Center. Mass will be the focus while everything outside of that peripheral is a bit off. I do believe that. Yeah, I do believe that. And I don't have any experience in that particular , um ,

Speaker 2:

Category, but I know

Speaker 1:

The concept. I sort of know when you're under stress and high stress situations, you get kind of that tunnel vision. I've done a lot of, you know, mixed martial arts and uh, you know , wrestling really grappling and you sort of get kind of the same thing. I think that what you're talking about, you sort of lose sight of some of the other things. Your brain is overly optimized for maximum ROI and you know, the training and the, the lizard part of your brain just kicks in. And that's kind of, that's kind of what I saw, right? Like I kind of saw when somebody is turning like that, the brain is just instinctually reacting. Now again, the officers make their money there . They're supposed to sort of overcome that autonomous reaction. They're supposed to put a speed bump in there where you and I maybe wouldn't do that. You and I they're supposed to have that specialized training. That's where they make their money. That's the value that they deliver. It's that weight . It's that split second. I know it's a hard ask, but that's why the country considers many costs to be heroes because they take that extra sacrifice that you are , I wouldn't have the stones to do. Right. We would just go up, shoot. She fired the gun. These cops gotta wait, pause for just a minute and really be sure before they take action, we have my foxes . I think a lot of people miss my point when a cop tells you to put your hands up and drop the gun and you do it and then get shot. I mean, what did you want the kid to do at that point? No, I'm I , I don't, I don't disagree with you. I mean, I, I, I think you have a very valid point and I think a ton of people agree with you on that. And I'm not sure that I disagree with you, right? I mean, he, this is a close call. This is a very, very tough one to analyze. And so I'm not trying to take a position one way or the other , uh, you know, typically I think cops should have a little bit more delay, but I watched the video and I'm like, Oh gosh, it kind of looks like it's kind of a , you know , quick, fast, aggressive turn a little bit. And so I can sort of see it from the officer's perspective as well, but you're right, right. The kid does drop the gun. We don't know how sort of, well we do know because we see the cop get out of the , out of the camera , out of the vehicle and then start chasing him. So are there alternatives? Yeah, I think he could. I

Speaker 5:

Mean,

Speaker 1:

Mom, well look, be nice to mom , right? It's a valid point. It's a valid point is a good argument. And I don't disagree with it. We have blue collar worker in the house says, Rob, if that 13 year old doesn't know what was going on in the world, how would he know to run away from the police and ditch the gun? He knows what he's doing. If he shot and killed someone, the state would charge him as an adult. Yeah, I think you're probably right on that. I think we've seen 13 is young, but didn't we just see some 15 year olds. I think it charged for something. Oh the, Oh no. It was the , uh , the two , the two girls who tried to commandeer that a Uber driver, right? Uber eats driver. I don't think they got charged with anything or a juvenile resolution. They're not going to serve time. I think. And they're going to get out of custody by the time they're 21. They were 14. Right? So maybe he would have gotten a similar situation, a similar deal to , to those gals. Oh man. Awful story. Just awful. Thanks for talking it through with me. I know it's not a fun one, but it has to be done. So those questions all came over from watching the watchers.locals.com and we'd appreciate your support. If you want to support the show, that's the place to do it. So head on over there, sign up, ask questions throughout the show, download the slides, get a free copy of my book. All the goodies are over [email protected] All right . And so our last story, if , uh, if you , you know, if you didn't, if you weren't feeling down on the world, talking about a 13 year old getting gunned down that's okay. Cause we're going to talk about eight more people who got killed last night, FedEx shooting happened the last night. Eight people are dead. Suspect is also dead. And we have a lot to talk about in this case. Very awful story. Ben sort of a slew of those this week. And I want to start by getting an overview of this. Then we're going to look into it a little bit further. So let's start with a story from indie star.com. This happened in Indianapolis and it said that eight dead are at this FedEx facility. You can see here on the map in Indianapolis, by the airport and you're in an airport. Eight people were killed during a mass shooting at the FedEx ground Plainfield operations. Late Thursday victims were found dead at the scene. Cook said during a briefing at 3:00 AM, those killed had injuries consistent with gunshot wounds. The gunman was found dead. And what is believed to be a suicide, Indiana, Indianapolis, it's going to say Indy moving forward. That's a mouthful. When they arrived, they found an active shooter incident. Cook said, police believe the shooter had died by suicide. They do not believe he's an active threat, unknown, whether he was an employee or what the motive was. Facebook came out and they said, we are deeply shocked and saddened by the loss, our team members , uh, by the loss of our team members, following the tragic shooting at our facility, most heartfelt sympathies go out safety and team of our team members are very important. FedEx statement says it is with a heavy heart. I write to you regarding the tragedy that occurred on our grounds from the CEO Frederick Smith, while it will take some time to fully understand what happened. We know we lost 18 members and the senseless act of violence. First and foremost, I wanna express my deepest sympathies to the families, friends and coworkers of those team members. Our priority right now is in responding to the situation on the ground and helping our team members and law enforcement. We have a team onsite and Indy to provide support. We are making counselors available. A devastating day. Words are hard to describe the emotions. We all feel. Please keep our indie team and surrounding community, your thoughts and prayers difficult days ahead. So just, yeah. Could you even imagine that happening in your company , uh, or in your life in general? Just the worst, just the worst. Um, all right , so let's keep going. We've got AP suspect in mass shooting was a former employee. They say suspect identified as 19 year old, Brandon Scott hole , police scoured the facility in India . Search for the gunman's home on Friday, looking for a motive for the latest mass shooting to rock the U S eight victims spent agonizing or their families were agonizing. Shooter was identified 19 year old, Brandon Scott Hall of Indiana to law enforcement officials briefed on the matter, told the AP they searched the home in Indy seized, including desktop computers. Other electronic media officials could not discuss the matter publicly spoke on condition of anything

Speaker 2:

Nymity police said earlier. They had not yet discovered the motive , uh, for opening shooting gunfire. There's no competition

Speaker 1:

With anyone that was there. There was no disturbance. There was no argument. He just appeared to randomly start

Speaker 2:

Shooting without identifying

Speaker 1:

Him by name FedEx spokesman . Bonnie Harrison told the AP that he was in fact, a former FedEx employee carnage took just a couple of minutes, did not last very long. He said officials with the coroner's office began the process of identifying the victims. Police chief Randall Taylor noted that a significant number of employees at the facilities are members of the Sikh community.

Speaker 2:

The sick Sikh

Speaker 1:

Coalition later confirmed that members of the community were among the wounded and killed the coalition, which identifies itself as the largest seek civil rights organization in the U S set a statement that it expected authorities to conduct a full investigation, including the possibility of bias as a factor coalitions executive director Sarjeet Carr noted the statement that more than 8,000 Sikh Americans live in Indiana, I did not know that family's agonizing

Speaker 2:

Waiting was exacerbated exacerbated by the fact that most employees

Speaker 1:

Aren't allowed to carry cell phones inside the FedEx building, making contact with them difficult. So

Speaker 2:

FedEx

Speaker 1:

Said in the statement that cell phone access is limited to a small number of workers in the dock and package sorting areas to support safety protocols and minimize potential distractions,

Speaker 2:

Calling the shooting a senseless

Speaker 1:

Act of violence. So that's just terrible because that means that as the shooting was unfolding, people didn't have cell phones to call the police. So they're just sort of running around. I wonder what their firearms policy is. I wonder if they were allowed to ,

Speaker 2:

Uh, carry , gonna guess

Speaker 1:

Not. We have the seat coalition

Speaker 2:

At a glance. Looks like it is

Speaker 1:

The , uh , defense seek civil rights founded in 2011. So I think this is just mostly speculation at this point as to whether there was any motive or not. We have another slide here. It looks like we have a little bit more information about the motive. Let's see what we've got,

Speaker 2:

Who is Brandon Scott? We've got police said that

Speaker 1:

He was a former FedEx employee last worked for the company in 2020. And this is interesting Indiana. Indianapolis police confiscated a gun and took whole into custody last year, following suicidal threats . So he's already on their radar. Of course, and I am PD report from March 3rd of 2020 references a mental health check for suicidal tendencies.

Speaker 2:

He was 18 at the time and he was arrested.

Speaker 1:

They seized the shotgun from a dangerous person, March, 2020, the suspect's mother contacted law enforcement to report. He might try to commit

Speaker 2:

Suicide by cop said an FBI special agent in charge, Paul Keenan suspect .

Speaker 1:

It was placed on immediate detention, mental health, temporary hold by the police. Shotgun was seized at the residence based on items observed in the bedroom at the, he was interviewed by the FBI in April, 2020,

Speaker 2:

No racially

Speaker 1:

Motivated violent extremism ideology was identified during the course of the assessment. And no criminal violation was found. The shotgun was not

Speaker 2:

Turn to the suspect. Okay. So this isn't

Speaker 1:

Interesting, right? Because we're hearing a lot about these red flag laws and about how the Biden administration wants to pass some very comprehensive legislation. That's going to impact your ability to own a firearm. And we've covered some of this stuff that should be because a chic act act that is making its way through Congress right now. We're not really going anywhere. Last I checked

Speaker 2:

Just kind of sitting there offending me

Speaker 1:

And it's just, they're not doing much of anything, but it has some pretty serious

Speaker 2:

Consequences to it.

Speaker 1:

Remember we've covered it on the show. We went through that act in detail. And one of the provisions was that they were supposed to do these types of interviews with people before you get a gun, they were supposed to interview your spouse. Any of your ex spouses, you're supposed to go see a psychic, all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. I mean, I was like laughing out loud in that episode because it was so insane.

Speaker 2:

I wanted to do, it's like I'd have to go back through my ex-girlfriends and make sure that they're okay with me owning a gun. Shouldn't be a problem. They all still love me, but just a little bit of a headache. I don't like the paperwork. So it's not

Speaker 1:

Something that is reasonable.

Speaker 2:

And it also doesn't work because the FBI met with him ,

Speaker 1:

This kid in April, 2020, and he did it anyways,

Speaker 2:

Took his gun away. Didn't find anything,

Speaker 1:

This whole racially motivated violent extremism thing, right. That they're saying that everybody's a violent extremist now. Okay. Why? Because we have some questions about how this country is being run, whatever.

Speaker 2:

So it doesn't work. This is a pretty

Speaker 1:

Clear example of exactly why, what we know about holds motive. We don't know the motive behind the shooting. Police have said it is too early to speculate, but the Metro PD gave a brief description of the shooter's actions on Friday. It says your quote. So

Speaker 2:

What we did find preliminarily from the interviews

Speaker 1:

That were conducted was that, you know, the suspect came to the facility. And when

Speaker 2:

He came there, he , he got out of

Speaker 1:

His car and pretty quickly started some random shooting outside the facility. He said there was no confrontation with anyone that was there. There was no disturbance. There was no argument. He just appeared to randomly start shooting. And that began in the parking lot. And then he did go into the building, into the facility for a brief period of time

Speaker 2:

Before he took his own life. So not much there could be the sheet

Speaker 1:

Thing or the, the, the sick seek thing. And it could be

Speaker 2:

Just mental illness. We have

Speaker 1:

As an Biden, responding and Kamala Harris responding

Speaker 2:

Biden says, VP Harrison,

Speaker 1:

I have been briefed about the mass shooting. Why does he always include her in this stuff? Why can't you just say,

Speaker 2:

She's always there. She's the first she's at the beginning of his sentence. The first part of the sentence is about, is about Harris. Why is that?

Speaker 1:

I've been briefed on the mass shooting at the FedEx facility in Indianapolis. God bless the individuals we lost and their loved ones. We pray

Speaker 2:

For the wounded, for their recovery. We can and must do more to reduce gun violence and save lives. And then we've got Kamala Harris, comma layers as our nation grieves with the families who lost loved ones in India. We pray for those who were wounded recover quickly. As I said, last week, we've had more tragedy than we can bear and solutions to prevent gun violence exists , POTUS, and I urge conjured Congress to act okay, so that's good. Glad those two are on it. We have authorities. Now we're warned, as we know about the suspect's FedEx past and his violent tendencies suspect in the Indianapolis mass shooting was known to federal and local authorities prior to the attack family member of the suspected shooter reached out to authorities warning about the potential for violence. According to three law enforcement sources briefed on the matter. It's not clear when the warning was given, but the outreach was followed up by both local authorities and the FBI, which opened a preliminary investigation in any possible threat. They eventually closed their inquiry after concluding there wasn't sufficient evidence to continue it. According to the sources, they did not specify why the federal investigators drop the matter. So not good, not a good , uh , not a good story, a lot more people dead that don't have to be dead. And so we're going to leave it at that. We're going to wrap up the show before we get out of here, though. We want to make sure that we leave on a little bit of a good note. We've been talking about a lot of confrontations this week Shovan trial. We've also been talking about Adam Toledo, terrible tragedy, also the FedEx shooting, horrendous tragedy, really sick of these shootings, but there's another confrontation that kind of had a happy ending. It sounds like you may have been seeing this around the internet. This guy's a true hero. I want to show you this video. You may know where this is going. If you haven't seen it quite yet, this is a sight to behold. So this woman, I want to show you this, this woman is walking out of her house and she's going to be walking down this way and she's going to be carrying what looks like a cat carrier or some, some sort of animal carrier. And out of nowhere, she is going to get attacked by a Bobcat. Okay. When I first watched this video, I was like, what the heck was going on here? But you watch it again a second time. You're going to see what happens. This woman comes out carrying something. It might be an animal carrier. Bobcat just jumps on her. This man Springs into action. Watch what happens. Pretty Epic

Speaker 6:

[inaudible] .

Speaker 1:

So I actually watched it without sound and it's a lot more horrifying when there is sound in there that was more horrifying, but the guy grabs the Bobcat off of his backs. Uh , the , the , his wife's back looks at it kind of like having a conversation with this thing, like, Hey, what are you doing? Behave yourself. And then when he doesn't get a verbal confirmation back, that he's going to be compliant. He just chucks them out of the road, right out of it , right out in the middle of the yard. And then if you watch the actual full video, this New York post clip kind of cut it off, the guy pulls out a gun and then chases the Bobcat around the other area. So then he just grabs a gun. I don't think it's excessive force. I think that that is, I think that was very reasonable. So if you have a question about reasonableness and objective reasonableness, I think you just got it. I mean, this guy that was a clean throat, it was a clean Bobcat throat. And so we're going to end it off on that. And , uh , we're going to , we've got one final question before we wrap up the show and here it is, we got, wanna be BTC. Rich is in the house as high faith. Rob , I finally come to terms with your claim that I'm addicted to you. In fact, I'm addicted to you. Thanks a bunch for your show. Well , I'm addicted to you, my friend, I'm glad to be here. I'm so glad that you're here. You're talking about Bitcoin, by the way, pretty happy about that, right? Those numbers are looking good if you're not in that space, but I'm really happy that you're here. Happy that you're checking in. I want to be honest with you. This is such a great part of my day. I love coming on here and having conversations with you, really great questions. I'm learning a ton, you know, kind of shifting some of my thinking in a way that I have to sort of, you know , process a lot of data in and then understand that in a way that I can communicate it in a , uh , PowerPoint slides in this. It's just been a weird thing for me. It's been something that has been a lot of fun. I'm learning a ton and I'm really enjoying what we're doing. And I could not do it. If you weren't here to engage with me. If we weren't having a conversation and learning a bit from each other, I've gotten so many ideas from each of you. I've gotten so many great emails. And so really means the world to me that you're also enjoying it in the way that I am, because I intend to keep doing it. I hope you keep listening and I want to thank you. Want to be rich for being here. I want to thank all of the tremendous people who are supporting our community [email protected] . The place to do that is right over here. You can see it is welcome to locals. Let's let's give some shout outs to the people who just joined up. They signed up by going to this address, watching the watchers.locals.com. Welcome to moon Ray , 2010 Cracker jacks is in the house. We have Glen underscore nine. We've got C mills who just joined up. What's up go Navy five Oh five Manka Oh seven is in the house. Lucky charm. Welcome. And we have Gail zero eight and want to be ,

Speaker 2:

See BTC rich, who doesn't want to be BTC rich. And that dog

Speaker 1:

Point or doge coin, man. That's woo . It's going up right now, too. And for those of you who ask the tremendous questions today, let's say hello, and thank you to you for participating and being so enthusiastic in your questions. We got Matt Fox as always Jeremy Matrine at Liberty or death, J bone tremendous, be brave and froms blue collar worker. We have one at BTC, rich, we got LT 13, Maddie Jones, John [inaudible] see males , Patriot Musk , and honestly rational. And so all of these people are also a part of our community. And so when I talk about locals, it's a different platform. You know, I know it's a little bit confusing to some people, right? We have all of these different platforms. We've got Facebook and Instagram and Twitter and YouTube and all of these different communities. Well, what we're trying to do with locals is build a separate platform where we can all congregate that I think is a little bit more protected because there are other people who are also talking about the same issues that we are. You've got Viva and barns . You've got Dave Rubin's over there. You've got Scott Adams over there. You've got , uh, uh , a lot of other people are over there. And so one of the , the , the , the biggest difficulties of creating your own community is getting people to go over there and look at all these people who were there, building our community, called watching the Watchers and wait for it. Oh , look, who's creeping in that guy. What, what, that's just inappropriate. Get him out of there. The reason you want to go over to locals.com is to download some of these goodies free copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning. There's a free PDF over there. You can also download a copy of the slides. You can get the impeachment party documents. This is a template you can download is going to need to be impeached soon. It's may, it might be awhile , but we'll get there. We have existence systems, which is basically ready for beta. I'm going to be posting about that over the weekend on locals, we have links and conversations that people share throughout the day. And then we have great people. As you saw, you saw all those people. They're a part of a community where we talk about these issues in a way that we're not just kind of walking on eggshells and sort of trying to navigate the landmine

Speaker 2:

That is big tech today. Jamie .

Speaker 1:

So Keith just got thrown off Twitter or seeing people on YouTube, get the ax . It's a weird time. And so we're just trying to make sure that we have a little bit of fortification in the event that something goes off. Locals is the place to do that. Watching the watchers.locals.com is the place to be. So thank you for indulging me on that. Lastly, before we get out of here, I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group, where we love to help good people who have been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and their futures. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime things like DUIs, drugs, domestic felonies, misdemeanor, traffic offenses, clearing up old mugshots, restoring your rights. So you can vote again, possess a firearm, again, all very important. We can help with each and every one of those things. So if you happen to know somebody who needs some help, we offer free case evaluations, send them our direction. We'll make sure that they leave better than they found us. We'll get we'll help them. We'll help them. We'll we'll do whatever we can to help them. Even if we cannot help them, we'll point them and send them to somebody who can. So we'd be honored and humbled. If he trusted us enough to send you referrals our direction,

Speaker 2:

I take very, very good care of them. Other than that, my friends rest up over the weekend.

Speaker 1:

We've got closing arguments and Derek Chauvin's trial

Speaker 2:

Monday, hoof, you know, bring a box of tissues, bring some popcorn, whatever you need to do, prepare yourself. Cause we're about to close this case up next week. So I will see you back

Speaker 1:

Back here. Same time, same place on Monday. It's going to be at 4:00 PM Arizona time, which is specific time. 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the East coast in Florida. For that one, Florida man, everybody have a very lovely weekend. Thank you so much for being here with me, sleep very well tonight. Have a nice hearty dinner unplugged from politics a little bit. Cause we're getting

Speaker 2:

Back in. Ready to go on Monday. Be well, have a great weekend. I'll see you then. Bye . Bye .