After only 10 hours of deliberation the jury has come to a verdict in the #ChauvinTrial! The Minnesota jury has found former police officer, Derek Chauvin, guilty on all three charges including:
• Second- Degree Unintentional Murder
• Third- Degree Murder
• Second- Degree Manslaughter
Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler as he covers the outcome of the trial, events leading up to the verdict announcement, responses to the verdict, and of course, answers your questions throughout the show!
LIVECHAT QUESTIONS:
• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/
Connect with us:
• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com
• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprou...
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq
• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq
• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrule...
• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/
• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy
• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq
• Homepage with transcripts (under constru
After only 10 hours of deliberation the jury has come to a verdict in the #ChauvinTrial! The Minnesota jury has found former police officer, Derek Chauvin, guilty on all three charges including:
• Second- Degree Unintentional Murder
• Third- Degree Murder
• Second- Degree Manslaughter
Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler as he covers the outcome of the trial, events leading up to the verdict announcement, responses to the verdict, and of course, answers your questions throughout the show!
LIVECHAT QUESTIONS:
• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/
Connect with us:
• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com
• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprou...
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq
• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq
• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrule...
• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/
• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy
• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq
• Homepage with transcripts (under constru
What's going on. My friends were alive and well going to be a little bit of a different podcast today. I am taking a quick look over here on YouTube. Some questions rolling in we're early. We're a couple hours early, but we've got some breaking news. We got to get into taking a look over here, here on ranting lane. We're going to see that the verdict has been reached. We're going to watch it live together here. 4:30 PM. Eastern time is what they're saying. So that actually means like now, right right now. So let's make sure that we are on the correct stream. We've got Fox news over here. We've got star Tribune over here. Let's throw some chats on there. We can see what's going on. See what Twitter has to say. You know, we had a whole show planned that we were going to go through. We were going to talk about Maxine waters. We were going to talk about Dante, right? We're going to talk about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. We had a lot that we were going to dive into, but we have a verdict now. All right. So let's go on over to locals.com. See how that chat is going. I know Ms. Faith is warming us up all across the internet right now. Now I do have some thoughts on the fact that we have a verdict so soon, typically not a good thing. If you are a defendant, typically when the jury reaches a verdict so quickly, it's not good. It means they came to a conclusion on guilt pretty quickly, or they decided to make a deal, right? They said, no, uh, quit on the two serious charges, as long as we can all agree on the manslaughter charges. And so they'll enter into a compromise. So that's my first instinct on this. And Ms. Faith is warmed up on the stream. Let's see what's going on over from locals, locals. I can't get plugged into our main chat. Let's see what's going on over here. We've got my Fox in the house says definitely not beneficial for the defense. The fact the verdict is this fast. I agree with that. We got at Baldman says the manslaughter only charged will probably still result in riots. If he's convicted, we have savada park says, I'm guessing this means the conviction on manslaughter and acquittal on the other two. Couldn't imagine it being unanimous this fast, any other way. I think that's a really good point there. That is from savada park or a C VAD parks. Yeah, I agree with that. I think that it makes sense, right? It would be sort of a compromise that would go in. You'd have some people who want total convictions. You have some people that want total acquittals. They split it down the middle. They say, well, maybe there were some other causes of death, but Shovan should have rendered aid. That was the culpable negligence. You can see how that could flesh out. We have Jay bone now who says all 12 jurors coming to the murder charges. This fast, their case on the murder charges was so weak. See what Fox has going on? Take a look over here. Want to make sure that we don't miss anything. So from star Tribune, they stopped or they started streaming just about 15 minutes ago, poke around on Twitter and see what's going on over there. Don't miss this one Patriots. Okay. Let's take a quick look. All right. Well, let's poke around our slides a little bit today and see what we had going on. We have, here are our different jurors that we were talking about all throughout this trial. And this is what Minneapolis looks like right now. So over on the daily mail, they've got some nice imagery. We've got protests. See some signs out there, justice for Dante. We've got a lot of George Floyd support. So sort of this convergence of two different movements, justice for George Floyd, the world is watching justice for all stolen lines. We see a lot of people, pretty, pretty big crowd there. We've got this image here, says blue lives, murder justice for George Floyd, some nice printed signs, convict Shovan justice. We got the BLM fist over there. Here's another one, a lot of justice for joy. Uh Floyd's and we have a lot of individuals flying into Minneapolis. Everybody's pouring in there. Here is
Speaker 2:[inaudible].
Speaker 1:All right. So a lot of activity going on over there. Let's take a look back and see what is going on in the courtroom. No changes over on Fox. They're still poking around. Let's see what's going on on locals. All right. So we've got some questions we got J bone says F Baldwin. I know Scott Adams said they would have to be the bravest people in the world, not to convict Robert people are asking your opinion prior to verdict. Uh, so my opinion on what the, you know, it's a good question I've got, I've got sorta two, two, uh, two, two answers on this one. I think that if you have a legal answer, if you want the, my legal opinion on this, I think that the government failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all three of the charges, in my opinion. And if you've been following this channel, you probably can recognize that in some of the arguments that you've been seeing unfold throughout our analysis of the Shovan trial. And it's, it's kind of interesting to note how I think my opinion on this changed based on the evidence that I saw play out in court. If you'll, if you'll remember back may of last year, when we were on this channel, doing this show, covering the George Floyd in the entirety of the situation, right after it unfolded, I was very upset about what I saw very upset, and I wanted to make sure that Derek Shovan got what was coming to him, but I have a lot of faith in the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. And as I said, throughout our analysis here, I think this all comes down to causation and the defense has shown. I think that there are many other potential causes that could have killed George Floyd and actually did, according to the government's own testimony, contribute to his death. And we saw that from Dr. Baker, who said that it had nothing to do with this fixie. It had nothing to do with low oxygen. That was the government's own witness. And we're talking about cause, cause cause cause causation, and if you go through every single one of the charges, that is a critical element, you can say that what Shovan did was awful. I agree with that. Right? I don't, I don't have any love for Shovan whatsoever. Not, not even a little bit. To me. He seems like one of those cops that I kind of detest out there, truthfully somebody who's got kind of a big ego, a little bit of the small man syndrome out there, you know, going to exercises authority everywhere. He goes, not somebody I have a lot, any love for at all. I think what we saw out of him was grotesque, but I just didn't think that it was the cause of Floyd's death and it has nothing to do with, with Shovan right. Floyd's body hymns from expert testimony that we heard in court from both sides, the defense and the prosecution detailed a very big list of problems that Floyd had going on in his body. Not only hypertension, not only arterial sclerosis, but also we had fentanyl high levels of it that were being used on that particular day. We had prior meth use, which, which every single expert witness who talked throughout the entirety of the testimony during the trial, everybody said that that is a major problem. There is no safe amount of it. George Floyd was also in the hospital in 2019 for a very similar set of circumstances where his blood pressure was well over 200. And all of those things I think are very significant causal factors that led to Floyd's death. I'm not sure if that Floyd would have survived that no matter what officer was there, just given the nature of the altercation. We heard that Floyd was complaining about his breath before he was even on the ground. He was screaming about, I can't breathe when he was in the back of the police vehicle before he was ever even put in the prone position. So if you analyze all of those things in totality, in my opinion, there is plenty of doubt. That is based in reason as to the cause of Floyd's death. I don't think you can say a hundred percent certainty, meaning that I have no doubt based in reason I have not even. I have not 1.1% of doubt, nothing that we can say that we know without[inaudible] for sure that the knee killed Floyd. I think there were many other causal factors. And I think that we heard very reasonable testimony that detailed the characteristics of those ongoing issues that Floyd had. And that's why it doesn't support a con a guilty conviction. It is something that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, very high level, extremely high threshold. And in this case, there were just too many other things that were a part of the analysis. And so I would be expecting legally to see a not guilty verdict on all three charges. And that's what I'm going to predict. If we want a final prediction, that's what I'm going to say. Now. I recognize that that is probably not likely. I'm hoping that we have the presumption of innocence and we understand the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, but I'm not so sure. Let's take a look at some other questions from locals. We've got Robert in my humble opinion, he got$40 million worth of justice thoughts for Floyd in the Floyd family. They got 27 million that's for sure. Robert, we have, can you imagine being a juror and seeing the crowds no way to avoid it? Yeah, it's true. Right? You're even just coming and going. We have remarked number two says, how can they have reviewed all the evidence in such a small time? Weren't they supposed to go into deliberations? Neutral? Yeah. Well, so, so yes, and yes and no, right? They're supposed to go into the case neutral, but as they hear evidence, as the case unfolds in front of them, they're going to start to form opinions. And that's what we want them to do. We want them to form opinions and then go into the deliberation room with those opinions and then deliberate, right. Hash those things out. So they can reach a conclusion through this, this synthesis process. And you're right. They, they really couldn't have reviewed all of the evidence. They could have briefly hashed out some of their notes, but you know, going through the evidence piece by piece, there really wasn't enough time. And that's kind of not the point either, right? They don't have transcripts. They don't have all of everything that they had in the trial. They don't get to take all that back with them. They have to use their memory, use their notes. They do get access to certain exhibits and things, but it is, uh, something that is to them to, to, to, to come to a conclusion and to hash that stuff out based on their own memories. All right, sorry. I'm sort of reading some other things. MySpace sent me something here from Andy and Andy. No says Minneapolis as a man on a microphone, incites violence, by saying he can no longer be peaceful and that if they don't get what they want, they will burn it down
Speaker 2:Any higher. I cannot not raise my voice any louder. I can not be any more peaceful. I'm sorry that I'm a threat to you. I'm seeing a small ripple turn into a way a tsunami, a hurricane of a movement that has since traveled throughout the world. The power that we have is a measurable movement has made its way to your front door. And we are no longer. We are demanding. We are not taking no for an answer. Going back is not an option. No justice, no justice, no justice, no justice. I am no longer. So I am an apologetic when it comes to liberation.[inaudible]
Speaker 1:Audio issue that I've got going on. Let's see what's going on over on the Shovan nothing. Give me one second. I'll be right back. If you want to hang tight. All right, let's go back to the chats. All right. My Fox is in here, says for it. It's going to be within the next 20 minutes. Thank God for audio trouble. I know I'm having audio problems literally right now. Drive me bananas. Here is Reverend Sharpton. I got to reboot my, my, uh, my mixer real fast testing. All right. Let's see if that fixed it. All right. I think that fixed it on my end. All right. So apologies for that folks. This is what happens when you go early. All right. Let's get back into this. Let's act like we're professionals. Let's act like we've been here before. All right. We've got we're back on the local's chat. We've got my Fox says, Robert, if you scroll up, I think we miss covering a comment I made in reference to show Vince trial charges. All right. So let's see. Let's go back up my Fox. All right. There it is. I think uncivil might be right. Minnesota has terrible problems with this felony murder rule. The third doesn't really fit. I think it may be second degree murder, felony murder rule for the unintentional murder and manslaughter. I hate the fact that the second degree fits in this case, but the Minnesota statute and case law is pretty broken to allow assault as a predicate for felony murder. It's pretty easy to get the, but for standard on substantial factor in causation. So, yeah, I think, I think that that last sentence is if you're asking me to sort of, I, I, I agree with you on that, on that last conclusion that I think that if you are, and we, we sort of went through that yesterday with the pie chart analysis. So if you are somebody who says, you know, it's, it's like 40% knee, maybe 30% heart and 30% drugs. Yeah. That's a pretty substantial factor, right? 40% of anything is a pretty big deal. If you're somebody who says, uh, you know, it's, it's, it's that plus the, uh, heart disease, plus the arterial sclerosis, hypertension, plus the other officers who were there in addition to prior Matthews, in addition to the 2019 case, then you take that same pie chart and you sort of squeeze each individual slice. And so that's what the defense is trying to do. They're trying to minimize the, but for causation, for Shovan saying it. Yeah. I mean, he, he was
Speaker 3:A part of it, but not that big of a piece. And as to your
Speaker 1:Other comment about the felony murder rule and
Speaker 3:Sort of the predicate, the predicate murder
Speaker 1:Or issue, you got a lot of issues in their mind. I think that they, that you making good arguments on all of them. So I hate the fact that the second degree fits in this case, the law is broken to allow the assault as a predicate for felony.
Speaker 3:Yeah. I think I agree with, with that, there's a lot of issues with the underlying felony being the,
Speaker 1:The actual act that caused the murder. Right? So how do you, how do you be, how can you be charged with murder without the underlying assault? It doesn't, it doesn't make sense, right? It's, it's sort of a,
Speaker 3:This overall over panelization of certain statutes that exist in our society.
Speaker 1:You see that elsewhere. It's not just in Minnesota and yeah. You know, it'd be, well, you know, it would be very interesting here is if he is not convicted, he was acquitted on the first on the two murder charges.
Speaker 3:Then he is, or let's say
Speaker 1:He's convicted on the third degree murder charge, right? The one that the judge Kay Hill throughout that the appeals court brought back that I think still needs to go up to the Supreme court in Minnesota. So that one might be thrown out just on the law. Nothing about the facts, just on the law. Uh, if he is convicted of that one, that still leaves a manslaughter charge. All right, let's go back over here. We've got, we got news. Now. I oming says, come on. We know there's gonna be riots, no matter what happens, that's me. Don't want that,
Speaker 3:That let's pop this out so we can make sure
Speaker 1:This is floating around with us. All right. Let's go back to some questions too much. Weight is being put on extraneous conditions and not on the direct cause of death. See my cause.
Speaker 3:Oh, wow. All right. So let's go through this,
Speaker 1:Your addiction, how a drug addiction can lead to death. Yeah. So look at all these causes, right? Drug, dealer interaction, drug ingestion, drug intoxication
Speaker 3:Leads to diminished supply to the hearts, arterials,
Speaker 1:Moronic, heart disease, hypertension, heart disease, lack of conditioning, compensatory response, sudden cardiac arrests, resistance to police.
Speaker 3:Wow. This is kind of amazing who sent this over? That's amazing leads to death, right? So look at it. Look at all this causation. Uh, yeah, this is brilliant. That is brilliant. That comes from justice first variable.
Speaker 1:Very cool. All right. So we're going to leave that one open. Let's make sure we go back to YouTube and see what's
Speaker 3:Going on with everybody's
Speaker 1:Going online. Everybody's going live right now. Look at that. See, what's, let's go over to star Tribune again, 15,000 people. All right. So let's see here. We've got a question from Ryan. Isn't unintentional murder and oxymoron. How is that? Not the same as manslaughter. So it, it, you know, this is kind of the point that my Fox was bringing up, right? It's, it's, it's sort of the same concept that you you're sort of stacking charges on top of one another. So you've got, you've got a felony that was being committed in this case. That was the assault on Floyd. Derek Shovan was kneeing on him. They're saying that that was outside of the bounds of lawful reasonable force. An objective officer in that circumstance would not do this. And so they are saying that that is a violation of the law. That's a felony, it's a felony assault and battery. It's a felony. That means that somebody died and the commission of a felony. And so you get penalized for that. You get penalized for as a consequence of your unlawful activity. So if you commit a crime, it's going to trickle down and you're responsible for all of the results that follow. We have a go Navy five Oh five says, I believe Derek Shovan is a jerk, but he isn't guilty of killing Floyd. However, I think jury intimidation is a real factor here. I agree with you on that. We have so many tabs are open. Yeah. I know. Look at this. It's going hog-wild over here. YouTube is going to crash. We have someone said the OJ verdict came in faster. Anyone remember? I don't know. We have just X UXA says four hours. Maybe. Did they say that he was not kneeling on his neck? When someone ODS, are you supposed to kneel on their neck for four minutes? Didn't they say that he was not kneeling on his neck. We have four hours for OJ. Are you serious? Wow, that's crazy. I did not remember that. We have justice. First says if police are guilty, they are guilty of not applying CPR in the first three minutes, but I'm not sure. Sure. Even they even knew he needed it then. And don't, I think that is manslaughter and might not have saved him. Anyway, that comes from justice. First. We have our, our law group is obviously not skimping on the Ram in their PCs. Look at them tabs, baby. You know, we like to tab it up. We're we're tab. We're we're Tasmania. Yeah. Over here we have it's guilty. All counts. The emotional strategy worked. Yeah. Very good point on that. You know, it, it was extremely, extremely emotional. And we saw that from the prosecutors. We saw that they were just, you know, nine minutes and 29 seconds, nine minutes and 29 seconds. Trust your gut. Trust your gut. Steve[inaudible] was saying that all day in, in his closing remarks yesterday. Oh, you don't have to look at anything else. Just, just trust your gut. You know what you saw. And, and we talked about this yesterday, primacy and recency. What's the last thing that they heard. They heard from Jerry Blackwell, the prosecutor that Derek Shovan had a small heart. Right. You know, this sort of morbid monster, you know, evil, maniacal police officer. That's what the jurors walk away with. They got to go into the deliberation room with that image. It's powerful. It's hard to come back from that. We have John[inaudible] 52 says, hi guys, we have Glen underscore nine says can't they pull that guy down for inciting a riot. We have news now, Wyoming in the steel, right before he got off, it looked like his knee wasn't on his neck. Did he shift right before that? We can't tell. Yeah, there was one witness who said something like it is, uh, it looked like, and he was going across the shoulder blade and the neck we have Shaio Shay says, Rob, all the other news outlets doing commentary or saying the prosecution made a strong case. Is this more media misinformation? Or do you agree that the prosecution made a strong case? Reasonable doubt is through the roof here in my humble opinion. Yeah. I also agree. I think what is going on. Okay. So good. I want to make sure that we're staying live here. So let's go back to that question. Good question. Shea O'Shea so did the prosecution present a strong case? Yeah, they did. They did. They presented a good case, right? They had a good case. They have a strong case because their case is extremely emotional and it's very visible. And a lot of what you see there is so compelling on its face, that it's difficult to overcome that with law and facts and reason and things like toxicology results and things like beyond a reasonable doubt, right? It's, it's a, it's a very important concept. It's something that's very powerful and it should carry a ton of weight in this country. But if you, if you look at the scales of justice, if you're just tipping them one way or the other, then it's going to weigh typically more in favor of the emotional argument, because people resonate with that. You don't have a bunch of lawyers on there and, you know, chemists and toxicologists and people analyzing causal factors between different things. It's just a bunch of people who are sort of, you know, a wide cross section of our society. And they're all now having to, to wrap their head around this. And so, you know, emotion, if used correctly can really outweigh any logic or reason if you're in a situation like this and, and, and let's not scoff at this, right? We have now I was going to go through the show today. Let's take a look at what else is going on, Ms. Faith just sent me another link here. Democrats, bra blocker, resolution censoring, Maxine waters for the Shovan trial comments. So, you know, she, yesterday was out there making statements before the jury was even sequestered saying things like that.
Speaker 4:Okay. Verdict. We were looking for a guilty verdict and we're looking to see if all of the cuts that took place and has been taking place after they stopped. What happened to judge flock? If nothing does matter happen, then we'll know that you've got to not only stay in the street, but we've got to fight for justice, but I am Perry. And I hope that we're going to do it.
Speaker 1:All right. So there was that clip, right? I was trying to find that yesterday that there is Maxine waters now saying that if there's no justice, they're going to fight, fight, fight, fight, fight. Right? And these are the same people who are hyperventilating over Trump using that same word. Trump was saying, they're going to go fight like hell. And that was cause for insurrection. He was saying that because th th th that the claim was made, because Trump was arguing that what was happening in Congress was inappropriate, right? It's its fellow Congress, people having a conversation about a actual lawful method of counting electoral votes in the form of the process that we saw with Mike Pence, right? That's all legitimate. And there's a procedure to go through. Trump was being critical of that. People were hyperventilating about it. Of course, what happened on January 6th, major problem, but the same people who are upset about that now are out defending Maxine waters for doing the same thing, right? She is now trying to rally up to go interfere with a lawful government proceeding in the form of a trial, a very important trial with Derek Shovan, who is a private citizen, not members of Congress. And so she is actually in a jeopardizing, a private citizen. And when Congress, people are upset about that, they wanted to censor Maxine waters. And of course, the Democrats are blocking that resolution. Why wouldn't they let's see what else is going on on locals? We have, Joe says, the courthouse is going to burn. I hope not. We have, my Fox says, I do believe murder can be unintentional. If it happens within the context of a reckless act that, you know, for a fact, someone dying could be likely like racing a car with a passenger and crashing, leading to someone's demise. It's pretty high standard still, in my opinion, to prove man's Raya. Yeah. Recklessness or the mens REA that you're seeing here in the manslaughter charge, right. I think is culpable negligence. And so
Speaker 5:Th th th the, the more severe the mens REA is, or the mental States, the more severe
Speaker 1:The penalty will be. So you, you can see how sort of culpable negligence it's like really bad negligence is for manslaughter charge. But then when you escalate into recklessness or intentional, then that's when you'll start to get into the, to the, to the real murder charges. In other words,
Speaker 5:It is, it, you know, it's a sliding scale and recklessness
Speaker 1:Can concentrate, because think about this from a policy perspective. What if you just say murder only counts for the people that you intended to kill? Well, then everybody just says, well, I didn't intend to kill him. Right. It was a man it's manslaughter. Yeah. He's dead. I stabbed him seven times in the chest, but I didn't intend to kill him. Like I didn't wake up that day wanting to kill him. Right. In that case, you know, that that's kind of an extreme example, but what you don't want to do is give people an escape, hatch, a pressure relief valve, where they can just say, uh, I didn't intend to do that. I'm sorry, he's dead, but I didn't intend to do that. So can you give me a break?
Speaker 5:Now? They say you
Speaker 1:Should have known your conduct was so egregious. It was so negligent. It was so beyond the pale, we talk about this depraved heart into praise mine. It was so, so out there that you knew, or you should've known that somebody was going to die, and that's why we're going to charge you with murder for your conduct. Let's see what else is going on. We've got, Oh, man. Questions are flowing in. Let's scroll down here. We've got a red dragon fly in your opinion, what was the appropriate charge? So, you know, I would say, I would even say like, it, it, it sort of depends. I think on what the excessive force charge would look like or whatever that, that statute would be in Minneapolis. You know, if it's an assault, you could say he, maybe he contributed to the cause of death, but he wasn't a substantial cost contributor. So maybe the assault sticks, but then he's dead. So, you know, uh, I don't know. I don't know how they would've charged it. They could've charged him with some, some other lower level offenses, but then they would have given the jurors an option to pick something less than murder. And they want those murder charges.
Speaker 5:We have some other questions.
Speaker 1:Uh, Jen, McClellan's in the house, what's up, Jen? She says the defense owes Maxine, a gift basket for ensuring a repeal or an appeal. Yeah. On appeal. We have Mr. Pastor Leo says, if the judge said those comments could be grounds for an appeal, how could he have some harsh words in the moment and not say it affects the current trial? Well, Mr. Pastor Alito, uh, I'm sorry, I didn't switch over there. So this is something
Speaker 5:That I think the judge has
Speaker 1:Kind of no option for right now. Candidly, I think judge, you know, in, in most other States,
Speaker 5:I would agree
Speaker 1:If judge Cahill were not on the bench right now, if he were sort of sitting out there observing this, I think you'd agree with, he would agree that this is a major problem. That what Maxine waters did, what Jacob Frey, the mayor of Minneapolis did Joe Biden's out there today talking about, uh, what his opinion is on this thing. And you know, the list kind of goes on. Now, the jury was sequestered after, uh, Biden came out today and started speaking about some of this. And that was Jen sockies comment. But the point is you have very, very powerful people weighing in on a state local level trial and contributing to a potential unrest. I think it's totally inappropriate, but they're entitled to do that.
Speaker 5:So Cahill might look,
Speaker 1:Get this and say, this whole thing is totally inappropriate. And I would Def definitely legally categorize that as a mistrial. But in this case,
Speaker 5:What's you supposed to do? Start it, start this whole thing over,
Speaker 1:Right. He's got to move on. And so this is the type of stuff that gets corrected in the court of appeals. The court of appeals is not going to be happy about this
Speaker 5:And we'll see what
Speaker 1:Happens. We're going to find out real soon. We're gonna find out real quick here. What's going on, Joe? Snow's in the house. Joe Smith, Joe Snow is celebrating four 20. What's up, Joe. We have, I thought Shovan should, uh, burn.
Speaker 5:When it
Speaker 1:First happened. This comes from national populace. As I believe all the burning looting and murdering done in fentanyl Floyd's name, put me on Shovan side. So that's another flip. I think that you're going to see some people flipped on this case. We have Fantasma. Gloria says I'm too nervous to think right now. Yeah. Do you feel the jitters? Anybody else have the, the jitterbugs the little, the little nervous jitterbugs going on. We've been spending a lot of time on this, right? We've been really, we've been really sinking some time in this case. Very important
Speaker 5:Case. This is a kind of a once
Speaker 1:In a lifetime verdict. We're going to hear what's going on in court.
Speaker 5:Nothing. See what else
Speaker 1:Is going on around the world? We got ranting early, still over here. Not much going on. Let's see. What's going on over at Drudge report, we got a verdict being reached. So that's that poke around Twitter. What's happening here. We have NPR. They're going to be reading. Verdict will be ready to be between four 30 and 5:00 PM. Eastern time. It's 5:00 PM. Eastern time right
Speaker 5:Now. Where are we at CNN? Uh,
Speaker 1:JIA Vang says we got the note about the verdict from the judicial branch around two 30. If we say that it's about time, jurors reached a verdict after three weeks of testimony, they made a decision in more than 10 hours. Just more than that.
Speaker 3:10 hours AP says, yeah, everybody's everybody's bracing for impact right now. Uh, NPR news.
Speaker 1:This is giving us a racial breakdown of who is on
Speaker 3:The panel. One black woman,
Speaker 1:Two women who identify as multiracial to white men for white women. Here's what we know about the jurors. So they're giving us some clarity on that. All right. Let's go back over to some questions. All right. We have national populous as pretty sure the verdict is crashing YouTube servers. Yeah. I'm getting a lot of buffering
Speaker 3:Mine. Lot of buffering.
Speaker 1:We have a chairman of the board chime in with a conspiracy theory. He says the verdict was quick because the jury wanted to get the verdict out today on four 20. So the riots might be a little bit more laid back than usual. So that's a good point, right? If everybody's
Speaker 3:Just kind of, Hey man, are you mad about this? So am I, I think that's kind of
Speaker 1:Though, right? Yeah. Not all people who smoke marijuana or like Cheech and Chong. We have echo house says why hasn't BLM and state demanded George Floyd's dealer as an accomplice to the murder? Well, because they don't, they don't think that he is the person responsible for it at all. They think that this was Derek Shovan and the officers who were responsible for it. So if you have a situation where if you ha if, if the other officers, I'm sorry, if Maurice hall was going to be charged as an accomplice, then that's, that's the drugs that killed Floyd. That's not Derek Chauvin's knee. So that's why Maurice hall can't be a part of the equation at all. They got to throw him out because if they bring him in, then it sort of interferes with causation, right? It introduces another potential variable for what could have killed Floyd. And they can't have that. So they want to make sure that he's thrown out of this thing so that all of the blame can be redirected towards the officers, no activity going on in court right now, I saw a little,
Speaker 3:There's a shadow brace yourselves. There's a shadow. All right.
Speaker 1:Over on locals, we have a Robert ruler. If there is a guilty verdict, does he go straight into custody? So traditionally, yep. The answer is yes. In, in, in my experience, in my practice in Arizona, not sure if they've arranged for anything special here, you know, this is a very, very abnormal case and we are going to see if they have any special accommodations for him. You know, if they're going to make a big show of it, they're going to throw them in handcuffs and haul them off. But yes, traditionally, right? Once you're convicted,
Speaker 3:You, you
Speaker 1:Were now remanded into state custody and you still have the ability to appeal and, you know, exercise those options. But you start to carry out your opinion. All right, we got the judges in the courtroom. Are you getting audio? I'm not getting audio. Okay. So Ms. Faith is confirming. She doesn't have audio either. We're waiting. The jurors are pouring back into the room.
Speaker 6:I don't hear any, so go to a different stream if you're not hearing it on our find the defendant guilty. This verdict greed to this 20th day of April, 2021 at 1:45 PM signed by jury foreperson, juror number 19, same caption verdict. Count three. We, the jury in the above entitled matter as to count three second degree manslaughter, culpable negligence, creating an unreasonable risk. Find the defendant guilty. This verdict greed to this 20th day of April, 2021 at 1:45 PM. Jury foreperson, zero one nine members of the jury. I'm not going to ask you individually, if these are your true and correct verdicts, please respond. Yes or no. Jury. Number two, are these your true and correct verdicts? Yes. Jury number nine. Are these your true and correct verdicts? Yes. Juror number 19. Are these your true and correct verdicts? Yes. Juror number 27. Are these your true and correct verdicts? Yes. Juror number 44. Are these your true incorrect verdicts jury number 52. Are these your true and correct verdicts? Yes. Juror number 55. Are these your true and correct verdicts? Yes. Juror number 79. Are these your true and correct verdicts? Yes. Juror number 85. Are, these are true incorrect verdicts? Yes. Juror number 89. Is this your, are these your true and correct verdicts? Yes. Juror number 91. Are these your true incorrect verdicts? Yes. Juror number 92. Are these your true verdicts? Yes. Are these you're ready? So say you want, so say you all. Yes. Yes. Members of the jury, I find that, uh, the verdict says, read, reflect the will of the jury and will be filed accordingly. I have to thank you. I'll be half of the people of the state of Minnesota for not only jury service, but heavy duty jury service. What I'm going to ask you to do now is to follow the deputy back into your usual room. And I will join you in a few minutes to answer questions and to advise you further. So all rise for the jury. All right. Have you seen it? But the guilty verdicts returned, we're going to have a Blakely. You may file a, uh, written arguments as to Blakely factors within one week, the quarterly issue findings on the Blakely factors, the factual findings. One week after that, we'll order a PSI immediately returnable in four weeks. And we will also have a briefing on after you get the PSI six weeks from now, and then eight weeks from now, we will have sentencing. We'll get you the exact dates, uh, in a scheduling order. And is there a motion on behalf of the state, your honor, the state would move to have the court revoke the defendants bail and remand them into custody pending since bail is revoked bond discharged, and the defendant is remanded to the custody of the Hennepin County sheriff, anything further. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1:Oh, wow. All right. There, you have it folks. That is it for the Shovan trial. We are going to poke around and see what else is going on. I had a bit of an audio there. Audio problem. I apologize for that.
Speaker 6:[inaudible] broadcasting from the always beautiful.
Speaker 1:See what happens. All right. So let's go back over to locals and take a quick look. At some reaction we have, uh, Liberty or death says, let Maxine waters and creepy Joe give away begin. Just end it to shut the mob up. We have, this is hard to watch. Uh, Jeremy says disgusting. We have sometimes a judge makes a comment on what he thinks about the case. I've seen it in some cases, will the judge be doing so here? Uh, Nope. Doesn't really look like it. That was it. Keeping it light and real there. Robert just X, U X a. We have some other questions pouring in. I've got, I wanted to show you this real quickly. So I wanted to show you what was happening. The judge you heard the judge mentioned Blakely Blakely versus Washington. It was a case decided in the Supreme court in 2004. Let's take a quick look here. This is yeah. And it says here to understand Blakely one, let's go back to an earlier decision. So they're talking about sentencing guidelines, sentencing rules. So specifically we have these sentencing guidelines that will, we'll give you a range of sentencing. So when it comes to Derek, Shovan now, right, he's got this big range. And when we're going through the analysis, we're saying it could be, you know, 10 to 25 years or whatever. And so Blakely is saying that th th this court wants them to come and sort of, uh, articulate some of the factors that can be used in sentencing. So when we talk about sentencing, we have aggravating factors and mitigating factors, stuff that can make the sentence, get worse, something stuff that can make the sentence get lighter. And so that's what they're going to be talking about when the judge brings back the, uh, the case for, for sentencing. So let's take a quick look at some reaction. We have Tim Poole says Chauvin's bail is revoked. Shovan remanded. It's done. We have Michael Tracy saying now rushing outside to dance in the streets and celebrate the carceral power of this States. We have Mike Cernovich says people will stop doing their jobs. Get out of cities, live, police will stop doing their jobs live in a deep red area. We're allowed to have lawful concealed carry. It's the era of self reliance. Yeah. So some nice reactions over there. Let's see what else is going on at locals? We've got a diffuse go says all counts were guilty. Yes. Took a minute to get the audio. Yep. All counts were guilty. I apologize on the audio. Uh, we'll get that fixed for the next go round. My error user error is what happens when I come skidding in here. We have my Fox said the judges next duty is sentencing. What are we going to be looking at? Do you think, based on the personality of the judge, he seems fairly on the side of Shovan in my opinion. Yeah. Uh, I think the judges let's, let's look at Minnesota sentencing guidelines and let's see what, we're, what we're looking at here. So typically these are charts we'll look at, and
Speaker 3:I have not looked at Minnesota, but you know,
Speaker 1:You're going to see a lot of different States have stuff like,
Speaker 3:Like this, that, uh, we're going to be paying attention to. So we've got
Speaker 1:You some charts in here I would imagine. Yeah. So here we go. We've got some, some sentencing charts.
Speaker 3:All right. Okay. So
Speaker 1:Here, uh, typically you're looking for like these severity level, these types of things, right? Uh, executed sentence term of imprisonments, uh, and, and basically, you know, show that we're going to take his charges. And we're just going to plot him on this, on this, on this chart. And the judge is going to sentence him according to a range. This is kind of very poorly or 139 pages. That's crazy. The Arizona sentencing guidelines are a lot smaller than that. And a lot more better organized. I might be looking at the wrong thing, but yeah, sentencing is coming up.
Speaker 3:We have, let's see what we've got. Mr.
Speaker 1:Pastor Leo says, how quickly can you submit an appeal? Is there a right to a speedy trial, like a right to a speedy trial, a right to a speedy appeal, like a speedy trial. Yeah, there is. There is, uh, there, there are certain deadlines and appellate rules actually appeals are very complicated. They're very, they have very strict timelines. I would guess that they've probably are the way that this works and appeal, at least in Arizona is you file. What's called a notice of appeal. So you just say, Hey, look, we're going to appeal this thing. We're just notifying you. And so typically you have to do that quickly in Arizona. It's like within 14 days. So Nelson may have already filed that right now. And he actually may have, uh, you know, his team may have already be preparing that, uh, to be filed first thing tomorrow morning. But yeah, they're going to appeal all the charges. They're going to
Speaker 3:Say that, uh, this was, uh, this was, uh, sorry.
Speaker 1:I got distracted. I'm reading a note here. All right. Here's another one that just
Speaker 3:Came in. As I wrote on the YouTube
Speaker 1:Comments today, my dear Robert, I don't know who came up with an assumption of anything else, but guilty on all three. Well, I'm a defense lawyer. That's, that's how I came up with that conclusion. I do defense law. Let's go back over to locals. We have tremendous says any thoughts on what this will mean for the other cops that were there. Yeah. So they're all going to continue to be charged, right? They're all going to probably be found guilty. They've already been charged. Their trial is scheduled for the end of the year.
Speaker 3:Pull them up. I have them queued up. Let's take a quick look over here. Okay.
Speaker 1:We have three other cases that are queued up here. If you go over to the Minnesota court,
Speaker 3:You've got, uh, let's see, go with, uh, tau. See when he's queued,
Speaker 1:He's got court scheduled for Monday, August 23rd. So I think they're all right around that same date. Let's see what Kong's case looks like.
Speaker 3:So he's also, yep.
Speaker 1:They're all scheduled for August 23rd now. So all of those three officers, they're all gonna, you know, they're all probably going to be convicted and found guilty for that. So that'd be very curious to see what happens on, uh, you know, with Minneapolis police officers. If they have four of their officers who now all get convicted of crimes for this thing, not sure that that incentivizes people to want to be police officers anymore. We have Matt Fox as perfect example of getting the rights more board,
Speaker 5:The idea of justice reform. It's not the
Speaker 1:Police that are the problem. Yeah. Robert, why am I not at all confident in any, on any prospect of an appeal? Well, probably because it's probably not, you know, it's probably not going to be successful. I think that you're, you're actually, uh, on point on that we have Patriot Musk says it's not about justice reform, but fixing the problem, culturally, starting with the drugs, this is not going to improve anything, but make it harder to fight a rising tide of criminals feels will take time, but there will be some I'm certain curious. Yeah, they're going to appeal it. No question. They're going to appeal it. You already saw this. Eric Nelson was already laying the framework for appeals, uh, moving forward. And you, you saw that, right? He made several motions for Ms. Trials. He wanted to revoke dear the jurors, a number of different times. He was objecting about a number of problems that we saw the city council, settlement, Maxine waters statements, and the list goes on and on. He requested early sequestration. The judge denied that requested a change of venue. Judge denied that requested a motion for a continuance to push the trial back. Judge denied that. And now you've got all these politicians and people weighing in on it hard to say that the jurors were not biased. I mean, objectively speaking, it's hard to say that they were not biased because everything was so in our faces over the last year, really. I mean, we've been talking about Floyd for a year, so it, it, uh, it wouldn't surprise me
Speaker 5:That people voted the way they did.
Speaker 1:We have Bianca Realty says, wasn't this too quick. It was really quick. It was surprisingly quick. And that, you know, when, when it, when it is that fast, you kind of just go, Oh, it's not good defense attorneys across this country. Everybody. Soon as that happened, everybody goes, Oh, well, we know what that verdict is not good for. Shovan we have, uh, my Fox says this was oddly quick. I didn't expect some of those jurors to cave in all three counts. I'm honestly surprised. I'm surprised too. Yeah. I'm pretty surprised too. I thought that there was enough there, but you know, this is pretty instructive, right? This is PR this is, this is it right? I mean, there was, there was a, there was a ton of doubt in this case, in my mind, uh, about the cause of death, but people see what they want to see and you can't overcome certain, certain rational arguments or you can't overcome certain emotional arguments with rational arguments.[inaudible] 91 says I can't lie. I'm shocked that there wasn't at least a reasonable doubt on the murder charges. 75% blockage in the arteries. And it was 90% blockage in one of them. According to Dr. Baker, lethal fentanyl dose, I can't wrap my head around them. Unanimously voting guilty. It's kind of nuts. Right? Dershowitz says what Maxine waters did coupled with the judge refusing to sequester the jury will lead to the U S Supreme court ultimately reversing any conviction for Derek Shovan. So Dershowitz said that I disagree with that. I think that the Supreme court is not going to do anything about this case. They're not, they don't do anything about almost anything anymore. I mean, I was going to cover the Supreme court today. We actually had a whole segment for this for SCOTUS, but, uh, they just turned down a second amendment case that I wanted to hear what Amy Coney Barrett was going to talk about. She is somebody who had said that the second amendment is something that is very, very important and paramount, and that she's not going to sort of, you know, beat around that issue. And so when this case landed on the Supreme court's doorstep, I was excited for them to take the case and they didn't. They're going to take a, I think a green card case. They turned down a, an election case, not going to hear about that. We know that we're not going to hear about much of anything because the Supreme court just wants to punt all of this stuff. So they're not going to overturn Chauvin's conviction. They're not going to, it's not going to do anything about it. We have, uh, echo house says they knew the verdict when they handed$27 million over to the family. John Dolores says, of course the jurors were biased. They know what a not guilty vote would. Cause this is a no brainer. Wise. One says crime pays. We have farmer's daughter says, I wish Dorsha, which was right. But a SCOTUS is worthless. Yeah. They're not gonna, they're not gonna do anything. WV duct chicks says, I honestly thought they would only convict on the L on the least charge. I'm shocked at guilty on all three, we have Nepal. McGee grenade says as far as the cause of death goes, the prosecution did point out that Nelson was mis-characterizing the law. They didn't need to prove that there were no contributing factors. Merely the children's actions on lawful, negligent and assault were one of them was the prosecution, right. To point this out or was Nelson the truth. So, um, uh, I'm not sure. I'm not sure how to answer that one because it's, it's sort of a characterization of a characterization. And so, you know, this is sort of, this is sort of one of the things that's left up to the jurors, right? Both sides are going to present their version of the argument and how causation works and how the dominoes fall and how all of this is supposed to play into itself. You know, the law can only give you so much before you start walking people through the verdict, right? Like if I sat down with those jurors and I walked them through my analysis that I did yesterday on the Domino's and the pie chart, do you think that maybe more people would see causation in, in my version of that? If I were arguing from a defense? I think so. Right. But if I were doing that and the reason why the court would never allow me to do that is because it would be me walking them through step by step on how to reach a conclusion, right? Logically connecting the dots and the courts don't want to do that. They want the prosecution to come out, make their pitch, argue their version, argue their interpretation of the facts and the law and how it should be applied. And the defense is doing the same thing, how they should apply it. And so the prosecution is going to come out of course and say, yeah, the defense is mis-characterizing the law, the defense is going to do the same thing. And they're both going to be tried to, you know, try to be more compelling and convince the jurors to do what they should. But you know, what, what is demanded of them, which is to reach a verdict. And that's our adversarial system, that's the beauty of the system, right? It's both sides duking it out with each other and we come to a synthesis or not, depending on how you look at it. We have John Dolores says Shovan is not a good guy. So I don't know why. I just, I feel I need to stand up for him. I do believe he belongs in jail, but it just seems like his trial was lopsided. It's bizarre. Yeah. I mean, I think what you're feeling there is a Dogpile right. It's it's when everybody just dumps on somebody and that happens with defendants all the time. That's why I'm a defense lawyer. I like sort of like to be on this side of the equation. Everybody dumps on criminal defendants all the time. It doesn't have to be Derek Shovan in most cases, it's not Derek. Shovan, it's somebody who looks like George Floyd, right? It's typically the defendant is the people that we're representing in this case, it happens to be a white police officer. But
Speaker 5:Those cases, it is not a white
Speaker 1:Police officer. It might be white people, black people, Hispanic people, Asian people, whatever it doesn't miss. It captures everybody.
Speaker 5:But in this case, the, the
Speaker 1:Dogpile sort of felt a little bit more in our faces because we're not used to seeing it this way. And we're not used to seeing the media sort of, you know, uh, presume somebody's guilt before any evidence has ever.
Speaker 5:I haven't heard. And politicians presume
Speaker 1:People's guilt before it's ever even been heard in a court of law. And, you know, in other words, convicting this man in the court of public opinion before he's ever stepped foot in the courtroom that happened in this case. And that's a problem. In my opinion, I think that the presumption of innocence is something that should extend way beyond the courtroom. I think that us as Americans, maybe, maybe that's just kind of a good idea just in general, to live our lives, right? Sort of presume give people the benefit of the doubt, not everybody's out there to, you know, to hurt you or steal from you or Rob you or beat you or whatever. Right. You know, let's give people the benefit of the doubt, give people a little bit more of the presumption of innocence if they did something wrong, right. We trust our justice system to flesh that out.
Speaker 5:And many people will argue in this case, they did, they already did. And you can say that
Speaker 1:It did, you can say that this was a fair trial. You can say that, you know, the jurors were sequestered. You can make arguments both directions, but this is what the legal system is for it's to it's, uh, it's the flesh out these issues. And the only way you can really do it is by getting into the weeds. And, you know, the, the appeals are gonna be very interesting. We'll see where it goes. Not particularly, uh, optimistic about that. Let's take a quick look back at some questions. We got Nepal grenades. Sorry, if you answered. But when we find out exactly how the jury came to their conclusions, so not, not formally, uh, but they'll probably write books and all of that stuff. Uh, we have, my Fox says there was 100% of miscarriage of justice done here. I'm no Shovan fan, but I thought that only morally and legally reasonable charge should have been manslaughter. Murder two might have fit legally, but not morally. I'm definitely not happy with this.
Speaker 5:Well, ma right. I mean, I, I
Speaker 1:Agree with you on that. I think that there was plenty of reasonable doubt here. I think that the reasonable doubt got over, over consumed by a lot of the emotions.
Speaker 5:And I think that it is
Speaker 1:A problem, right? That our society is sort of so quick to just abandon that concept of the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. We have question from Shea. O'Shea says, I can't believe not one of those jurors refuse to vote guilty. This is crazy because nobody will ever know the truth though. Jurors can now get book deals. And their 15 minutes of fame, the jurors know the city was going to burn. If it was not guilty, they knew their names would eventually be made. Public people, have families and everything to lose people like this do not take unnecessary risks. This was a political prosecution during riots and the age of cancel cultures. Yup. It's a good summary. There. We have David parka in the house says I don't feel bad for Shovan, but it's so scary to me that a mob could infiltrate the courts the way that it has 10 hours of deliberation was not a careful consideration of the evidence. Yeah, it was very, very quick. Jen McClellan says there will still be riots, but now in the name of Dante, right, fantastic. Gloria says we should give people the benefit of the goal of the doubt. I agree. We have Sasha SEASHA says is the impeachment trial back on Rob? I think Maxine waters should be impeached for inciting a riot and intimidating the jury. Good news. There is an impeachment template that's ready and available for you at your convenience. Just download that sucker, Maxine waters, inciting insurrection all day long. So have, uh, have a field day with that. She certainly deserves it. We have just Luke or Sandy. Paul says, right. It's don't happen because of Floyd. They happen because cases like Floyd, give them political cover for rioting. Uh, we have marvelous. Uh, CME says, why does sentencing take so long sentencing takes long because they have to sort of do a lot of work on the case. So the government is going to submit what's called a sentencing memo, sentencing memorandum, or whatever the equivalent of that is in Minnesota. And the defense is going to do the same thing. That's what they were sort of talking about with those Blakely factors. They're going to memorialize what their arguments should be. So the government's going to come out and they're going to say, Derek Shovan deserves. The max asked for the max. And so on the sentencing charts, what I was trying to find from Minnesota, which I couldn't is the sentencing guidelines. And so in Arizona, we have a chart and it literally looks like a chart and it has boxes in it. And what you'll do is you'll say, okay, this person was charged with this category of a, of a felony. So in this case, manslaughter murder, right? Those are going to be class one and class two felonies, the most serious felonies that we have, this is in the Arizona framework. And so what, what you'll have on that box is you'll have a middle column and a far left column, and you'll have a far right column. The middle column is the presumptive sentence. So Derek Shovan he's convicted of these three charges. There should be a presumptive sentence. There should be a presumptive term. If you know, if all things are equal, if Derek Shovan is charged and convicted with second degree, unintentional murder, and somebody else named John is, and somebody else named Mary is, and somebody else named Billy is and so on and so forth, they all start at the same point. It's called the presumptive sentence. They all start there. That's a starting point. The government wants to aggravate that they want to ask for the max. So on our chart, they move towards the aggravation box. They say Shovan, uh, was egregiously intending to cause him harm. That's an aggravating factor under a law under Minnesota law. Derek Shovan is somebody who should have known better because he's law enforcement. He was somebody in a position of trust. Maybe that's an aggravating factor. He breached that trust trust, and that requires a more significant penalty. And so they would say that those are aggravating factors, moving it towards the aggravation box on the sentencing chart, the defense is going to do the opposite of that. They're going to say that this is all mitigation, right? Shovan never been convicted of a crime before. He was a police officer for however many years with exemplary records, right? Never a sustained disciplinary record, whatever, whatever, whatever mitigation that they can come up with. And that stuff takes time. Typically, what also happens is Shovan will now be processed by an intake portion of a probation services or whatever. The, the, the sort of the jail operations look like. They're, he'll go back and have a w we call them pre-sentencing reports. So they'll meet with the sentencing division part of, uh, you know, probation office, or, uh, sort of a compliance division, whatever that looks like in Minnesota, and he'll be interviewed. So he'll go through there and they'll ask them about all of these things and about his remorse and about how he feels. And they'll write a report called the pre-sentence report. And that goes back to the judge. So then the judge sets sentencing and everybody comes in and they make their pitch from the prosecution. We're probably going to hear a lot of emotional testimony, a lot of emotional statements from the Floyd family right now, they can all come out there and you know, this is what Floyd meant to us. This is how this has impacted our community. They can all make those statements, not to recuperate any, you know, financial money, but just to make a record. And the judge can take that into consideration during the sentencing proceedings. And so Chauvin could do the same thing, right? He can bring his own people to say, this is why they should be arguing for the mitigated sentence. So defense is going to go mitigation. The prosecution is going to go aggravation. And we're going to see where the judge splits in the middle. We have some other questions from locals. Let's take a look. What's going on. We have the tea lover, maybe the police handbook should have been reviewed. Instead of having this case. We have question. Do you think the judge did a good job, even though he didn't declare a mistrial? Yeah, I do. I actually think that Peter Cahill judge Cahill did, he did a very nice job with an impossible situation, right. There, there are several things that I wasn't particularly happy about. A couple of rulings I thought, uh, maybe should have gone the other way. Like, for example, I'm not sure why Dr. Tobin was allowed to come back in and testify at all. I think it was inconsequential didn't I don't think it impacted the outcome of the case whatsoever, but it was still one of those things. It's like, nah, you know, they didn't disclose it. The prosecution should have known better. They didn't. And you sorta gave them another bite at the Apple when they didn't deserve it, because it's their problem for not disclosing the relevant information at the right time. So like little things like that. I had some issues with, but largely I thought he did a very good job holding both sides accountable. I think that you can, you can make very reasonable arguments about what he should have done at the beginning of the case, whether this should have been, whether this trial should have actually happened is a whole separate question. But once the trial started, I thought he did a, he did a good job. I thought he was very even keeled. I liked his demeanor. I thought he was even handed to both sides. And it was, it was mostly a fair trial. Now again, this judge, I think, I think kind of, kind of messed up on a couple things. One is voice Deering, the jury again, after the settlement, remember he did not bring the jurors back in and ask them any questions. He did not also ask him any questions. Of course, after Maxine waters came out and made her statements and those things are problematic. And you know, if a juror comes out or writes in a book six months from now that, you know, I was, I was pretty scared when I was in that jury room about my house being burned down or something like that. Well, that's not a basis for convicting somebody, right? That's not a lawful basis for sending somebody to prison for the rest of their lives. You have to actually follow the law. And so if there was any undue influence that comes out down the road that might open up, you know, new appeals or post-conviction relief, it could open up a whole additional can of worms. We have let's take a look. We got a nipple M grenade, Nepal and grenade says napalm, Oh, it's napalm napalm grenade. Oh my gosh. That took me way too long. Napalm grenade. Hello? Uh, says my Fox. Yeah, fair enough. This was actually the first trial I have followed so closely. It was fascinating. I wonder what the verdict would be. If I had the jury instructions in front of me, that's why it's interesting. Interesting to see how the jury came to their conclusion. We have Liberty or death says, do you think during sentencing Shovan will address the court? Ooh, that's a good question. Um, yeah, I think so. There's, there's no harm in that. I think he should address the court. I think he should. Uh, well, you know, it's a good question. He may not address the court because he, you know, to be fair, the case might come back down as judge Cahill mentioned, right? If this is an appeal and they say this was a, this was an unfair trial. Maybe he doesn't say anything in sentencing just to sort of keep the record clean. Right. If he comes out and says, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Show mercy. Then he sort of, uh, acquiescing sort of, sort of, sort of tacitly admit, admitting that maybe he was responsible for what happened with Floyd, but if he just sort of, no, I'm not going to say anything. We know we're appealing everything anyways. You just keep the record clean. Good question though. Liberty. So, so maybe he does not speak. We have Liberty says, I think the DOJ was ready to pounce if he was acquitted anyway. Yep. I think that's a good point. Cat's 59 says agree with ma not a fan of the defendants, but not a fan of mob justice either. Plus impeach Maxine. Yeah. That's kinda my opinion on this whole thing, right? Like not, not a fan of Shovan whatsoever. And I was very clear about that one year ago, but I also don't like mob rule. I also don't like a bunch of people, just dog piling on people. I think that if you have the government itself, that is confirming that somebody had fentanyl in their blood at 11 nanograms per milliliter, 90% blockage arteriosclerosis hypertension, all that stuff. Those are very important causal factors. And I think that is very reasonable doubt. If you have somebody who is dead in front of you and you say, okay, it's a knee. It's, it's all of these different things. I think a reasonable person could say, well, we can't, we can't say beyond a doubt. That is based in reason that we know for certainty, it was the knee and not a combination of these other things. And so I think that, that, you know, I think that that justifies a not guilty verdict in my opinion, but the jury obviously didn't agree. Doesn't con doesn't endorse Shovan, I'm not supporting that guy at all. Right? Most of, most of what we do here is going directly against police officers, right? Law enforcement process, we're defense lawyers. That's what we do on a regular basis. And so even though I have no love for Derek Shovan I certainly have a lot of love for the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I think that that is one of the most important concepts that exists in civilization in general, right? It's a, it's a high burden. You have to make the government prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the presumption of innocence is so strong and paramount that we sort of put those two things together in conjunction that the concept is you'd rather let a thousand innocent people go F I'm sorry, guilty people go free. You'd rather let a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent person go into custody. That's just sort of how our society functions right now. Uh, I'm not so sure that that underlying concept exists anymore. That may have been something that was, you know, a bigger concept during the 17 hundreds when we were sort of more predisposed to be in opposition, to tyrannical governments, right? The people there who were coming across from the old world to the new world were pretty sick of a tyrannical government. And they had the ability to just kind of abandoned ship. We're done with you. We're going somewhere else. We're going to create our new country and our new world. And that was important to them then. But in my experience, as a criminal defense attorney, that concept has largely been eroded in our justice system, right. And Derek Shovan, he's, he's feeling the effects of that. Okay. And he happens to be a defendant that many people empathize with, right? He's a former police officer. He's somebody who presumably did a lot of good for society. I know that a lot of people in our country, you know, still think that about police. And I do also, I think that a lot of there are a lot of very good police officers out there. I write about, uh, one officer who gave me one of the best gifts I've ever gotten in my life. Uh, when I was going through a difficult time, I wrote about that in my book, I believe. So this is something where I think you can be reasonable about this, right? Not all cops are bad. We don't need to defund all police officers. Not every single officer are a racist and not every single cop is a hero. Not every single cop is somebody who is out there, you know, saving babies and rescuing grandma. When she's crossing the street, there are some ugly situations that exist in our society. And we have to process those without being political hyperventilating, maniacs, who take one particular case that may or may not have something to do with a bigger commentary about social issues. As they exist in America, we just take that issue and we bubble wrap it. We just make it our own. And we say, Hey, this George Floyd case feels like racism in America, right? It might've been just about Shovan and Floyd, but this has become symbolic now. So way bigger concept about racism in America. And so we're just going to take this case and we're going to exploit the hell out of it. And we're seeing it right. Maxine waters is flying in. I had a clip on the show today of, uh, Al Sharpton flying in. We have Jesse Jackson flying and all these people coming in in Minneapolis
Speaker 5:To be a part of this. Cause it's fine if you want,
Speaker 1:I have a cause I love causes, right? I want to support accountability and transparency and justice. That's kind of my, cause I love this concept, but not at the expense of somebody, not at the expense of Derek. Shovan right. And listen, I don't think that Derek Shovan is somebody who is without culpability or our liability in this case. Obviously what we saw him do, I think was inappropriate, but is it criminal? And when I mean criminal, is it the murder? Is it the cause of death for Floyd? And at one point, you know, there, there would be people I think in this country who says, well, look, we, we need to, we need to wait and see, we need to hear it out. We need to let this flush out and play out in a court of law. And we didn't see that in this case. Right. It was a, and I'm guilty of that too. When I first saw it, I said that guy, that piece of garbage, how could he do something like that? And so I was pretty quick to jump to conclusions myself, but I certainly would have, would not have convicted the man at that time. So I've put them in court, let's see what happens. And we did, we did do that. And we saw what happened. We have fentanyl, we had methamphetamines in 2019 cardiac arrest. We had last-minute ingestion theories. We had pills in the back of the car. We had a 90% blockage in a heart. I mean, the list goes on and on and on. And even all of that stacked up was not enough.
Speaker 5:The video, the emotion was enough to take over the conscience of the jurors and the government was successful on this. And so, you know, many people on, I would say
Speaker 1:Left for some reason, this case is boiled into sort of a right versus left thing. Like everything in this country, a lot of people on the left are celebrating today. Oh yes. Finally a blow against the racist white police officers out there. And you know, finally we're going to be seeing some justice reform or whatever, which I doubt by the way, we've had a year for some justice reform, nothing's happened really talk about defunding the police than refunding the police. You know, BLM was supposed to be spearheading this whole thing. And you know, that woman is like in four different houses around the country, grifting, Brianna Taylor's mothers out here going, Oh, we didn't get anything from them. I don't know what the hell they're doing with the money. Cause we needed help. They didn't give us any of it. So, you know, a lot of people are just kind of, you know, taking this case and running with it and celebrating, which is a sad thing, because I think it's a celebration
Speaker 5:Of the degradation of the
Speaker 1:Beyond a reasonable doubt standard and the presumption of innocence. If the people in our society who have the most at stake in our justice system, let's say we just sort of take the BLM notion on. And we say it is predominantly African-American people who are the victims of a racist, patriarchal, broken justice system. Let's just say that. Okay, fine. We'll we'll we'll grant that argument. The biggest thing that protects people like that in that position from an over encroaching government, from, uh, a tyrannical oligarchy is the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the best protection. It's the best wall of protection. So is the presumption of innocence. So now when you start to see that these people are sort of celebrating, Oh yeah. You know, it's, we all saw what we saw and they just sort of throw the reasonable doubt argument right out the window. And they throw the presumption of argue presumption of innocence argument right out the window. And they just are happy because they got the political outcome that they wanted. They are digging their own holes. They're digging their own graves because guess what? Their communities who's going to be next in court tomorrow. It's not going to be Derek Shovan. It's not going to be another police officer until we get to August, it's going to be some black kid or some Hispanic kid or some other defendants now who is being prosecuted by the state. Same Steve Schluter, by the same Jerry Blackwell by those people. They're going to prosecute the next George Floyd and the next Dante. Right. And the next whatever. But in this case, they're thrilled. They're doing cartwheels and back flips because Derek Shovan got convicted when there was plenty of reasonable doubt. While the next time that the jury gets asked about reasonable doubt, it's not going to be Shovan, it's going to be Dante. It's going to be George. It's going to be somebody else on that side of the aisle. So we have to uphold that standard is so critical in our system. And when anybody is just willing to throw that standard out, because in the current moment they feel good. Oh, Shovan yeah, he's convicted. Great, good. He deserves this. There they're really jeopardizing the future of their communities and the future of our justice system. And if this is the template for future cases, if any time that there's just an altercation with law enforcement and some person in our society, that everybody just dog piles on the cops and says that person's guilty before they have their day in court or before a shred of evidence is even presented. That's a problem. Cops are not going to stay around for that. Why would they, why should they in Minneapolis? If they're going to be paying out, you know,$20 million, every time somebody gets killed and immediately charged the cops and immediately create a hostile environment in which they can hardly get a fair trial where you have a trial taking place while the mayor is undermining the case, while you have foreign legislatures like Maxine waters flying in, you have Joe Biden. Now speaking out on stuff like this, you have the city council settling the case for$27 million. The list goes on and on. So if you're a Minneapolis police officer these days, and now you see what happened here, you wake up and you go, what the hell am I doing here? Representing any people in this civilization? I I've been promising and vowing to have their backs. They don't have mine. I show up, I do my job. There is a reasonable altercation takes place. A tragedy happens. Now I get charged. I get convicted. And the city that is supposed to provide me with due process fails to do that by allowing a trial, to take place in what really is
Speaker 5:Circus, why would a cop stick around truly like bail out of there? And
Speaker 1:The political environment is mostly hostile to them. So at some point, you know, if you're, if you're a good police officer, you just have to say, it's not worth the risk anymore. Right? This, this used to be a job where I was a hero and somebody who was looked upon favorably, but that dynamic has changed. And it's strange for me as a defense attorney to be sort of out, almost defending the police a little bit. And I'm not really, but I am defending the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I think that is so important. It even applies to cops, even though my job and my firm's entire basis for operating is to push back against the,
Speaker 5:The police. Even they deserve the presenter
Speaker 1:Innocence and this concept of reasonable doubt. And so you may see this, right? You may see officers who just say I've had enough we're out. All right, let's take a quick look at some locals questions we have. Uh, let's see, what's going on here, John[inaudible] says, do you think the cop who killed Adam Toledo will be charged? I don't think he should be. Um, I don't think so. I don't think he will be charged. I think that that was close enough of a call that he's not going to be charged. Let's see what else we've got. Gregory. Nicholas says assault rim of sapiens on a margarita of Mendez.
Speaker 5:Ooh, that is some alliteration right there just
Speaker 1:[inaudible] says Rittenhouse next year. We're definitely going to be diving into the Rittenhouse case. No question about it. We've got blue eyes. Hillbilly says, what are the chances of these people? Maxine, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton getting arrested for witness tampering, uh, zero. I don't think they did that. Anything that resembles that, you know, they were going out there and I don't think there's any overlap between, uh, between what they did and any criminality we have. My Fox says, I still think cops have to be held to a higher standard than your average person. I agree with that. Right. And, and you sort of do that. It's called the standard of care. The standard of care will typically raise with your, with your training, right? So, you know, if you said, if, if, if, uh, if a surgeon came to me and said, Hey, perform this surgery, right. I, I would not be expected to perform well because I don't know how
Speaker 5:I do surgery. So my expectations and my standard of care would be low. And so if I were, you know, in the middle of,
Speaker 1:And I was trying to perform surgery and I botched that or whatever, right? They're not going to hold me accountable to the same surgical standards. Cause I was acting in an emergency. They would recognize that my standard of care dropped down relative to my experience. But if you are somebody who is at that high level, right? Like an officer or a surgeon or a pilot, you have to hold those higher standards. If you are, if you're trained to be somebody who operates there and you do stuff that is from a lower standard of care, that's not appropriate. That's why you're elevated to that higher status. Let's see what else we've got. We've got Liberty or death set. I made this, my zoom picture today for class. Somehow it made me racist. Crazy as David Dorn, remember him, David Doren was killed in a BLM riot. So Liberty or death is a throw in rocks at a hornet's nest over in law school. And I happen to love that doodle doo says, I'd like to know the actual enrollment statistics for police academies before and after this verdict, honestly, who would want to become a cop now or screwed? I mean, I don't, I don't think that many people will, we have Zuck says I can't wait until Maxine eats her words when the appeal puts the second trial in rural Minnesota. Can you believe that?
Speaker 3:Yeah. Uh, w w V D
Speaker 1:Chick says, can you comment on the other officers involved? Yeah. So they're scheduled now for Monday, August 23rd. So this is Alexander Kungs King's case. We have Thomas Lane's case and tad foul. Let's see what's going on in Kong's case. Uh, we've got more disclosure. So yesterday it looks like they sent over some discovery. Let's see if we can pull this up, see what they sent over. So discovery means that this prosecution sent over some documents. They corresponded let's see if we can. Now of course, Minnesota is websites, just, uh, dying. All right. So we've got, they sent over to the other officers to their attorneys, iLab report and police investigative reports. So I wonder if that lab report is the blood gas, carbon monoxide test. We also have a witness contact form. So Dr. Tobin's why COVID-19 silent,
Speaker 3:Uh, hypoxia meet hypoxemia
Speaker 1:Is baffling to physicians articles. So they're, they're sending over another article. So yeah, you can see they're very clearly going to be using Dr. Tobin in those upcoming trials. So yeah, very bad day for Derek. Shovan very bad day for these other officers tau. We have Thomas Lane and Alexander Kung not looking good for those gentlemen either. They are scheduled for trial or not, not trial, but they're scheduled for court near the end of August. And so we'll see what that, what that looks like. Take a couple more questions over here. We've got Zach says, I think Rittenhouse has far more of a chance than the defendant in this case. I agree with you on that. It certainly energized the country, but the facts seemed to match the narrative even less. Well, so good questions duck. Yeah. When his Rittenhouse queued up Kyle Rittenhouse, Oh, I actually have his case. Let's take a quick look and see what he's got going on. Cause I have that saved. All right. So here is Kyle Rittenhouse,
Speaker 3:Wait for this to load up. So he,
Speaker 1:He has court now scheduled on May 21st and then he's not scheduled for trial until November 1st. So we've got a long, long time. Jury selection starts on November. First final pretrial conference is on May 21st. Last court minutes we have are from March 10th, says Thomas binger, ADA Jeff's AF appeared for the state. The defendant was with his attorney. All parties appeared victims rights. They're requesting adjournment of the present trial ongoing investigation. Okay. So yeah, super basic. So we were not going to get to Rittenhouse for a long time. You know who scheduled before that Golin Maxwell, but that's a federal case. So I'm not sure that we're going to have much to cover from that because most of those are very much kept under wraps. Unfortunately, Rittenhouse I'm hopeful that they broadcast that because this was something that was very, very, uh, easy to follow and actually quite enjoyable. Let's take a quick look.
Speaker 7:Thank you, Mr. Attorney general. First, I want once again, to extend my heartfelt Simpson, these to the families of George Floyd, I hope today's a verdict. Provide some measure of closure for them. Now let me say what a tremendous job attorney general Keith Ellison did in recruiting and organizing a talented team of prosecutors and supporting staff. Great job, Matt Frank, Jerry Blackwell, Steve slasher and Aaron Eldridge were exceptional. Their use of experts, evidence and witnesses left the jury, no alternative, but to find Mr. Chavez guilty, we and the people of Minnesota should rightly be proud of these four in your entire sample volunteerism, assistant attorney generals and the jobs they did over the last seven weeks. I'm also proud from the moment that the Ana County attorney's office charged Derek Shovan with murder and manslaughter four days after George Floyd's murder, our team were at war.
Speaker 1:Let's listen to, uh, let's listen to Nancy Pelosi. Let's see what she has to say about it. We have Ms. Faith sent this one over. Where did that go? All right. Here is Ms. Pelosi.
Speaker 8:Thank you, George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice for thank you, George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice for being there to call out to your mom. How, how heartbreaking was that call out for your mom? I can't read, but because of you and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous with justice. Thank you, George Floyd. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Uh, man, these people. Okay. That's that's one reaction, I guess from Nancy Pelosi. Let's go back over to locals. We have dagnabbit. Rob. This is attempted murder of your viewers. Yeah, I know. I had to turn them off. We just had to poke around and see what was going. Sorry, everybody. Sorry. Everybody had to take a quick look. Oh my God. Turn this trash off. Sorry guys. We just to poke around. I know we have to see what they're saying out there. Ah, yeah. All right. So
Speaker 3:Let's see
Speaker 1:What else is going on. Any other questions we've got napalm grenades says, when will we find out the actual time served for Shovan? So they're going to schedule a sentencing hearing sentencing. I think he said isn't in about 30 days. So Shovan will be in custody until that time they'll bring them back out
Speaker 3:And they will, uh, they'll sentence him.
Speaker 1:He's going to have to prepare sentencing memorandums on both sides. Government's going to prepare one. Defense is going to prepare one and there'll be back tomorrow. We've got sliding edge, says disappointed in the verdict on all three charged. When they read the first felt, I knew the other two verdicts were immediately. I echo your sentiments on this. Rob disheartening, those dirty commies are celebrating tonight. It's kind of insane. They're celebrating the destruction of their own legal system. That's why I know the few SCO said, when are the Dems going to praise? Dying by a cop is more sacrificial and glorious than a soldier dying in the theater for their country.
Speaker 3:Uh, uh, yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:He says, thank you for screaming. You can't breathe right now. Yeah. Well, all right. LT 13 says, did you hear a Norfolk VA sitting next to me, got docs for donating to Rittenhouse. He got fired today. Oh my gosh. I did hear about that. He got fired that guy. I thought that he was going to sort of be backed up a little
Speaker 3:Bit, that they
Speaker 1:Were sort of like it's$10. What are you whacked? That was an insane story. And that, that wind guy is actually, I think now offline, right? So this guy goes he's from whatever local news garbage, you know, station he's with goes and knocks on the door of somebody who donated$10 to Rittenhouse. So it sort of out to this guy, then he runs the story on his local news agency. This guy donated$10, not a public figures, like a paramedic or something. Then once people started getting mad that they were running a story, trying to docs a, somebody donating to a political cause then he said, Oh, we're scared for our lives. So we're going to have to bail out and we're going to get offline.
Speaker 3:You'd like to do
Speaker 1:It to other people, but not when it comes back to you.
Speaker 3:Ridiculous. We have Sandy pot. So we got a Texas
Speaker 1:Island. Girls says, Rob, I may have missed it. Trying to follow as closely as possible, but did the jury have any questions of the court? Not that I saw, not, not a single one clarification guidance regarding the cause other officer's being tried in the city as well, may have missed it, trying to follow. Uh, no, I didn't see any of that. Right? I didn't see a single jury question. They just finished yesterday. There was no time for questions. Kind of crazy how quickly this went. My Fox says like what the actual earn. Well, ma this is what I'm talking about. My friend. This is it right there. The beyond a reasonable doubt. Standard is just an idea in this country. It's just sort of a, it's just an idea. It's just like Antifa, just like Joe Biden. Doesn't really exist in practice. If it's like more likely than not. If you throw a bunch of stuff out there and it's kind of feels like he killed him. All right. That's it. That's all you need. All right. We've got couple more rolling in. We have sliding edge says Pelosi needs to take a few breaths. Give us a break. LT. 13 says that was a Utah paramedic. This is Norfolk. Oh no. So I did not see that. So I got those mixed up. So we have a Norfolk officer. If you have a link LT, throw that in the chat. I'll pull it up. What's the minimum for murder two. I don't know. Off the top of my head. Yeah. Wise one says the less Shovan says at this point. The better. Yeah. That's probably why he's not going to speak at sentencing.
Speaker 5:We have
Speaker 1:At least she got his name right this time. Yeah. That's good. Sarah smother says almost miss you guys just found out Shovan was guilty on all counts. What's up Sarah. Welcome. I feel like we can breathe a little until the next court case where if a not guilty is found, a city will burn. Yeah. That's I mean, look that is sort of a silver lining in this whole thing. Right?
Speaker 5:If they have Chauvin's convicted across the board, then maybe the city stays
Speaker 1:Lit tonight. We'll see. We
Speaker 5:Have, we have models.
Speaker 1:Fox says I'm bleeping because Pelosi said, thanks for dying George. She did right. She's probably really happy about it. Uh, Zuck says, Oh my God, an idea. Just like Antifa, Rob, killing me. Glad to see you getting more and more comfortable with the format. Yeah. Thanks doc. I am actually, I am getting a little bit more. I'm getting a little bit more
Speaker 5:Comfortable
Speaker 1:Behind the camera a little bit. So sometimes I get a little bit loosey. I told faith. I said, Hey, if I get a little out of control, you have full permission to come in and just smack the camera right off the desk. Just knock the microphone out of my head,
Speaker 5:Man. Okay. Don't let me ruin my entire career because
Speaker 1:I get mad at Nancy Pelosi. All right. She, uh, she's probably going to do it one day. You'll see things get a little bit crazy over here. We have LT. 13 says, Oh, we have a link over here to
Speaker 5:The Norfolk case.
Speaker 1:We've got Norfolk police officer fired after a donation to Rittenhouse police officer for the city of Norfolk serve. As the executive officer was fired Tuesday after he violated department policies,
Speaker 5:Norfolk
Speaker 1:Police department says, I want the residents of Norfolk to know that their police department will represent and uphold our organizational
Speaker 5:Value.
Speaker 1:Service honor, integrity, equality, leadership, and diversity.
Speaker 5:So
Speaker 1:That's pretty interesting. You know, we're, we're getting to the position where almost everything in this country is now weaponized everything, right? You can't even get on, uh, an airplane, right? Without having some sort of political thing happening now, with masks and with voting, you can't even buy a soda or a Coke or a pop or whatever you want to call it, depending on what segment of the country you're in without being lectured about your ideology or whatever. And so it's just it's happening across the board, right? If you make a political donation now and it's public record fair game, you can be a private medic. You can be a former police officer doesn't even matter anymore. You just get canceled and fired because you are speaking out against something that is disfavored by those in charge. We have tremendous says, what is Pelosi talking about? The verdict solves nothing. How about outlying Nissan? NEC how about getting rid of no knock warrants? How about meaningful change here? Here on that. Tremendous. I agree with you there. Let's see here. Uh, Sandy, Paul says, so, so you're saying that if we get you fired up, we can see faith. Dive tackle you from off screen. And here faith is laughing at that, which is, uh, slightly concerning. So I'm going to be on lookout. Robert Gerler will you do a collab with both Mr. Rokita and Viva and Barnes? Yeah. I'd love to. So I've already been on Viva and barns. We need to get a little bit probably of a, maybe we'll do a deep dive on the Shovan stuff. Maybe we'll see if Barnes and Veeva are available tomorrow or Thursday for sort of a little Shovan wrap-up or something like that. I think, I think that might be a good idea. That sounds fun. We have Liberty says would be interesting to see you and Brandon Tatum team up on a show. Yeah. And so it's funny. I was talking to Ms. Faith about that before the show we were talking about, uh, about Brandon Tatum, right? He's got a huge channel former officer. I really like his content. He's very energetic, got a lot of enthusiasm and, uh, that would be fun. Right? Let's see what else we've got. We have Fox news says an Albuquerque officers resigned protest. They, yeah, they're they're bailing out. Officers resigned from a team that polices protests, tired of being managed by politics. I would be too perfect. I mean, truthfully, I would be so tired of it.
Speaker 9:Extracurricular activity for them who wants to sign up to be at the spear of the biggest, most volatile political football in the country. They were, they were, there's a lack of trust with our administration. They were not supported just a year ago. We were on Fox and friends describing the chaos that happened when our BRT unit stent stood down as, as criminals violently took down a statue where one person was shot. So we were chastised for not getting involved then, and now we have an individual that's being removed from this counter protest for doing absolutely nothing wrong. He didn't violate any laws. He was exercising his constitutional rights within the city of Albuquerque. And we had a Sergeant taken off of his job, gun and badge removed, who wants to live under that type of scrutiny. Morale has gone in the Albuquerque police department. They don't trust their leaders. They don't trust the city. And they're tired of being managed by politics.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I mean, I look, you know, how, how can you blame him for that? Right. And I S I say that as somebody who is a very strong advocate for justice reform for criminal justice reform, but I think there's a pretty, uh, pretty, uh, pretty clear line that we're, we're kind of jumping over at this moment. It's sort of everything is now trending towards defund. The police, all cops are bad, and we can just sort of presume that they're guilty. I don't like where that culture is going. I don't like where that idea is going. It's not, it's not good. I've never been a pro defund. The police, I've never been an all cops are bad person at all. Even when we are seeing a lot of the bad cops doing bad things, I still try to make sure that we understand that it's about those police. And it is part of the bigger problem that involves cultural issues. And I think that there is sort of a systemic issue that exists in, in law enforcement, but not to the degree that every single cop that walks this earth is a racist, not to the degree that every single police department needs to be defended. And that every time something goes awry, that it's the officer's fault. Right? We gotta, we gotta be reasonable about our analysis on these cases because it is going to happen again. We just finished with Shovan, but we know before Shovan was even done, they already started with Dante. Right? Right. And then we had Adam Toledo and then another just it's going to happen again. And my big concern with this is that we just slowly keep whittling down this concept of beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence, because one particular defendant, one particular disfavored social class gets charged with a crime, could be Derek Shovan, a white cop could be Ashley Babbitt, a white female in the Capitol building could be, you know, it could be anybody who was arrested on the Capitol building that day. They got a whole separate tier of justice. They got held without bond. They got a bunch of continuances being requested and the list goes on and on and on. We have the NFL is going woke. We have baseball going well, Coke is going, everything is going weaponized political woke. And if our justice system follows in that same trend, that is a very scary thought. And if the police now have to be operating based on this idea of social justice, something, which, which is such a weird argument for me to be making, because I support a lot of these common sense reforms. But a lot of what we're hearing are really radical proposals that I think are going to are going to cause a lot of harm in the longterm. And it's going to damage a lot of good officers who were on the force. And it just bothers me that many people are celebrating what feels to me to be this slow whittling away of that standard. And it's going to hurt their communities. It's not a bunch of white cops often on trial. We happen to be going through this little wave right now, we're going to get through these four, but then it's back to the ordinary regular defendants. And they're going to get screwed more than the cops will. So I hope they enjoy this little bit of victory because it's going to be something that the consequences are going to continue and spiral out of control. And when the pendulum starts swinging in one direction, it's going to swing the other direction. And so at some point, maybe we have a resurgence now of what happened back in the 1980s and nineties under Joe Biden, we have this big urge is big rush for more enforcement and more, more government oversight, more power
Speaker 5:And acquiescence of the people
Speaker 1:To the government based on them, claiming that they're going to solve all these problems for us, that they themselves are creating by mismanaging our justice system. All right. What else is going on getting a little bit ranty now? So we're going to take a couple more questions and then we're gonna wrap it up for the day. We've got Chris, John who joined us, says way too many contributing factors. The funding was entirely to do with the mob presence and the bias media. The juries jurors just wanted out. Let's be honest. I think that there's probably a lot of truth to that. Right? Trial fatigue is a real thing. If you're sitting in court for three weeks, four weeks, you just want to go home enough already, right? If you're life, you're a 50 50 person. Look, I could take it or leave it. I think both sides were compelling. What do you guys think? Guilty. There you go. Right. I'm happy with that. You might've had that take place today and we're going to find out more about it as more information leaks out. If it does, we have Gregory, Nicholas says, don't you think we need a, are you racist decision tree, sentencing, PowerPoint template. I like that idea, but I just think it would be very easy,
Speaker 5:Right? It's like, uh, are you a white person? Yes. Then you're a racist. Okay, there you go.
Speaker 1:Right. That's it, uh, I don't know how more complicated it needs to be. It's kind of just, that happens to be the thing. You're just a racist. You're kind of born racist. You know, when I got called a racist and a neo-Nazi and a white supremacist and all of those things, it was something that really stung me like, and I mean that, because I was sort of brought up to think that that was one of the worst labels that you could be called, because it was one of the worst things that you could be. Right. You never want it to be that. My mom was very, very aggressive with that when I was a boy, I don't know why maybe I was a racist little boy or something like that, but I just always remember this. Uh, as a kid, my mom never
Speaker 5:Judge people. Everybody's equal, always treat people like that.
Speaker 1:They're the same as you, right? That like, we're all, we're all equal. And we, we grew up in a very poor neighborhood. We grew up in a very sort of, uh,
Speaker 5:Um, uh, you know, ghetto area.
Speaker 1:It was not good. We were right around the corner from, uh, crack houses and all sorts of stuff. It was a, it was a tight upbringing there for a little bit until my mom got her feet up and under her. But,
Speaker 5:You know, it's, it was a big thing
Speaker 1:When I was called a racist and then suddenly something happened. And now everything that I do and say, and think in any opinion, I express happens to be racist. And now everybody that I also listened to and everything that I buy and purchase everything is sort of this product of racism and this, this expansive, uh, exponentially growing,
Speaker 5:Being racist, you know, neonates,
Speaker 1:That's the patriarchal state that we're all living in. And once everything is racist and once everybody's a Nazi and once everybody is a white supremacist, well, it's like, all right, well, I guess, whatever, they, it really doesn't even a ruffle my feathers anymore. So it's just like, uh, I was, I was talking to a friend of mine about this and saying, Hey, you know, this is kind of a weird thing. And, and uh, she said
Speaker 5:To me, yeah, but you're white, so you're racist. Right. Or you just, you just, it's just like a,
Speaker 1:Like kind of a fact right now. You're just, and there are people who think that, and you can go, and this is just me being hyperbolic. There are books out, right. There are people, Robin D'Angelo and others that this is their thesis that they're essentially saying that if you are of somebody in this particular class, this demographic, you can't help it. You have these things, you have these white privilege, you have all of this that makes you even unable to see your own inherent racism. And so it's just like we're living in this bizarro world. So, uh, yeah. I mean the PowerPoint slide, I like the idea, you know, how much I love PowerPoints there, Chris, but I think it'd be pretty short, funny concept though. All right. Couple more questions. We've got a big one here from, uh, let's see, uh, napalm grenades says, I suppose it's up in the air on the other side, reasonable doubt is also what will save you
Speaker 5:Our system. If we are assuming the jurors are fair overall, then surely we are not on a downward trend, but this is just
Speaker 1:The status quo. Some cases may get more fair verdicts and others may be complicated by political narrative, but we have to believe in our jurors. That's good faith, you know, that's good faith. And I think that's all that we have. Right. And so you have to lean on them. That's, it's not the perfect system,
Speaker 5:But they, uh, they're all we got.
Speaker 1:We have Joe Snow says you absolutely nailed it on the cultural issues. Plaguing law enforcement, I'm salty. I'm pulling up to the bar now to meet some old coworkers. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the solution. So, uh, with, with law enforcement. Yeah. I mean, I think it is a largely a cultural problem. And, and I've always said this, right. I don't necessarily have all of the solutions, right. I'm not somebody who used to work in law enforcement. I am a defense lawyer. I know one side of the equation extremely well. I think I know the other side pretty well because I work with them. I work against them very regularly, built a whole law firm and doing it for years. And so I know a lot about how they operate and some of the things they do and really most of the problems, right. I know where the problems are because that's what I'm looking for. It's like a magnifying glass. I'm just trying to find them, where did they screw this up? So anytime there is something like that, that is the linchpin for us. That's where we focus all of our efforts. So that's my, I, I understand that, right? I understand that I might have tunnel vision to some degree. And so I think that there is a lot of reasonable, uh, positions from police from law enforcement, right? They come out here and say, no, Rob, look, this is why you can't do that. This is why we need qualified immunity. This is why all X, Y, and Z, right? And I've, I've had a lot of those conversations. Some of them I've recorded and put on this channel, but I recognize that there may be other solutions that are appropriate. And so I'm open to that idea. I do not think defund the police is even, even remotely feasible or a good idea at all. I think it's a terrible idea, but is there some sort of synthesis that we can come to, to resolve these issues? I'm open to it. But I think that it starts with accounting
Speaker 5:Ability and transparency. That is the key
Speaker 1:Critical component that I think that we've been missing for so long. So if it starts with anything, it starts with that. And I've been very angry about this for a long time. And I've, I've pinpointed the blame largely on a lot of police unions. And some of the cultural factors that I think exist in law enforcement and amongst city councils that enter into contracts with the police unions for police services. There's this interface that happens. And there's a lot of shady stuff that goes on there. Officers' backgrounds, their records, their disciplinary files, all of their integrity issues are all just disposed of after a certain period of time. It's part of these contracts. We had it happen here in Phoenix, where they were specifically saying that if you, if you want us to continue to provide police officers for your city, Phoenix, then you're going to have to shred their files after five years or whatever the length of time was. I can't recall. I think it was five years ago, they were going to wipe their records clean. So that's how we get bad officers. That's how we get this culture. Whereas as long as you can kind of hang on for a certain period of time, all of your bad acts are going to be evaporated, right? Citizens don't get that benefit of the doubt, your criminal history. Doesn't just disappear after five years. So why did the cops get that benefit? And why are they sort of insulated against any reprisals? Anytime there's an investigation, right? We still don't know who the name of the shooter is for the Capitol Hill police officer on the Ashley Babbitt case. So why is that? Right? They're sort of protected. They're shielded a little bit because anytime they get into trouble,
Speaker 3:The, the apparatus, the law enforcement complex w circles
Speaker 1:[inaudible] and goes into hyper defense mode, everybody in there is going to be, you know, defended you're part of the inside crew, unless you're not. And then you see how quickly you kind of get thrown to the wolves like Derek Shovan and those other four officers, they're all going to be charged with crimes all probably, or have been they're all probably going to get convicted. Now that Shovan has also been convicted. So,
Speaker 3:You know, it's, it's a complicated dynamic.
Speaker 1:There's no question about it. I don't have all the answers on all the solutions, but I think we can't even begin to discuss the solutions unless we have accountability, unless we have transparency, we have to be able to see inside before we can start talking about real solutions that are going to work. My Fox says, if you have a show with Tatum, I strongly recommend talking about your differences on Arbery and Rihanna Taylor and Daniel prude. Yeah. He's I think he's, he's, he's very, uh, conservative, right? So we may agree on some, some cultural issues or some political issues, but we probably are going to disagree on Arbery and Brianna Taylor, uh, for sure if he's, if he's, if he's like pro police on the Brianna Taylor thing. Yeah. We're, you know, we're going to have some pretty strong disagreements on that. I would like to, uh, to, to see if we can connect, but I know he is, uh, he's very prolific. He's always out there doing collabs and stuff. Uh, I know Brandon Tatum and he was one of the collabs I was trying to get you connected with. So he Don tests. Yeah. Maybe if we could facilitate
Speaker 3:A connection then, um, I love to, I love that
Speaker 1:I have them on this channel or go on his, no question. We have WV ducks has everything is racist now, no matter what color your skin is, I'm over it. That's a good point. That's actually a great point. We saw this, right? You can actually be a racist,
Speaker 3:A racial
Speaker 1:Minority. Let's take a look. Uh, it's called multi racial whiteness. This is something that is just great. We had the Washington post who said, uh, well, take a look here. You can see we've got many results type in multi-racial whiteness. And you're going to see understanding multi-racial whiteness and an opinion piece by NPR and the Washington post over here, understanding multi-racial whiteness. So this is an interview. Looks like we have an opinion over from Washington post to understand Trump's support. We must think in terms of multi-racial whiteness. So we have people like this guy who is Enrique. Tario one of the proud boy leaders. He's an American supremacist. Also apparently a white supremacist, even though he is not a white man. Right? And so you're starting to see this narrative creep up around our society. And it's, it's,
Speaker 5:It's just bizarre stuff. It's it's
Speaker 1:Very strange. We have a, let's take a look. We've got liberties in the house. We've got, um, want to know, says, Rob, if you pass math class in Oregon, you're a racist.
Speaker 5:Okay. Well, there you go. Want to know, says
Speaker 1:Robert's safe. Then my Fox says, I'm sorry,
Speaker 5:Sorry, Rob, what happened? What are we, what did I miss? Okay,
Speaker 1:We've got, we could selectively defund. The police have a district based opt out of policing. We have chairman of the board says, Hey, wrap up soon. It's almost time to start the show. We have a, we have a whole
Speaker 5:Show prepared, but we're going
Speaker 1:To save most of it for tomorrow. I don't think that we're going to, we're going to get into any of it. We have, my Fox says, Rob has an notorious history with math. Yeah. He admits to bad math. I hate math. I don't like it. It's why I went to law school. All right. Words. I like to assemble
Speaker 5:Words, not numbers. It's stupid. We have technology
Speaker 1:That can help with that. Don't we, we have Chris, John says, it looks like it ends up being, they actually defunded Minnesota at one point than it is a legitimate threat. We've got, want to know, says call a Bernie kid instead of the cops. Next time Pelosi and Maxine can run police departments. The verdict scares me, honestly. I mean this whole BLM stuff tweaks says that comes from the T T lover. We have tweaks as the race struggle is the new class struggle. However, it's much more effective to push the socialist agenda. Since you cannot do anything to change your ethnicity. Napalm grenade says, we're talking about us. Not having to worry about you passing math class. Yeah, no, that's that's that's good news. Yeah. I mean, it's good. I bailed out a math is as soon as humanly possible, I had, um, a math class in college where we were talking about pivot table,
Speaker 5:Pivot tables, worst experience ever.
Speaker 1:We have murder of crows says at first I was thinking, Holy crap, I watched every second of this trial and there was no way I could convict on the top two charges. If I was on that jury, then I realized I watched every second of the trial, which was way more information than the jurors actually saw. So I'd actually need to do a deep dive on what the jurors were allowed to see if I'm still critical, right? It's a very good point murder, right? And so sometimes people are forgetting this. We saw everything. We got to see all of the jury selection. We got to hear all of the issues. We got to see a lot of the objections and the sidebars and hear what happened after court and before court. And the jurors are not supposed to see any of that. We got to hear from Maxine. We got to hear from the city council, we got to hear it from Joe Biden and all these people. And so it is, uh, it is not a surprise that, you know, it, it, it might feel more obvious to you, but it's not as obvious to them because they didn't see everything that you saw. And so we're sort of watching Scott Adams calls it, you know, two movies on one screen, we're all sort of watching the same thing, but we're watching two different movies. We're watching, you know, some people are watching this from, uh, some people, you know, are watching this. They're going, Rob, what kind of a moron are you? What kind of defense lawyer are you? Isn't this clearly beyond a reasonable doubt. You know, isn't this clearly somebody who was guilty and I'm thinking, no, because I'm a defense lawyer. I see things from that perspective. I'm always looking for the doubt and the holes in the case. And I like to think that, you know, America is also sort of upholding this concept of the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is a very high standard, but that is always not, not always the case. All right, we've got Fantasma. Gloria says the court of public opinion as a whole, didn't see the entire trial at 100% either. That's true. Yeah. We didn't see it. Right. We were all, uh, sort of Passerbuys as it was, this was happening. We didn't see anything that happened in chambers. We didn't see a lot of, uh, anything that happened. Off-camera a lot of the stuff, including the jury instructions were all hashed out in the judge's chamber off of court. We have Sandy POS. Did Robert just say that prosecutors are sloppy people? No, I don't think so. No, I didn't intend to. Okay. I would never make a gross generalization about prosecutors like that. Okay. Not all prosecutors are sloppy. Not all of them. There's there's a handful of that. Probably aren't we have Chris, John says the media spin was immediately biased. Seoul under sees a score one for the emotionally based thinkers and the willfully ignorant in this country fought a Fox, says hashtag not all prosecutors WV. All right. So listen, my friends let's wrap it up right here. Let's act before we deal. Let's take a quick look and see if there's anything. Anything else on Twitter that's worth mentioning. We've got when there were riots, after a guilty verdict, millions of Americans will have a strong dose of reality that comes over from Mike Cernovich, Twitter. No real news, kind of just reaction. Oh, here's the Floyd family. So for sure,
Speaker 10:Wait, Floyd square from the families, family, but their legal team, Ben Crump, we know leading that team.
Speaker 1:All right. So they're happy. They're celebrating. We got people, people cheer in people. Very excited about this kind of a, kind of a sad statement, because a lot of, a lot, a lot of this is going to come back and I think, you know, bite a of people, uh, in the butts because this is the justice system that we all have to.
Speaker 5:So, you know, they, um, yeah,
Speaker 1:They are, they are of course entitled to their celebration. I just think, you know, it's yeah,
Speaker 5:It's this, wasn't a sport game. This wasn't
Speaker 1:An event. This wasn't like a super bowl game where everybody should be watching and picking sides. I don't think that the country won anything here. I don't think that criminal justice reform got a big victory today. Okay. There's going to be a lot
Speaker 5:Of politicians
Speaker 1:Like Pelosi and others out there saying, Oh, this is a great victory, a great win. That's nice. Are they going to change anything? Or our use of force engagement's going to change or is qualified immunity going to change? Are any of the contracts or relationships with any of the city councils and the police unions going to change? Or is it just going to be more of the same until the next cop kills the next black guy?
Speaker 5:It's probably going
Speaker 1:To be that so they can, you know, they can have a lot of fun, but
Speaker 5:Nobody wins in this situation. Faith in the justice system is undermined. Now we have a problem.
Speaker 1:Half the country thinks that this is a bum verdict. Not too good. All right. So we have today validated the channel's existence, in my opinion, as sad as it is to say, I'd rather, we didn't have a valid reason to be here. That's from a Fox. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you for that mom. That's a good that's, that's a nice, that's actually a very nice compliment. You know, it's, it's one of these
Speaker 5:Things where it's maybe not the popular opinion, but I think it is the legitimate opinion.
Speaker 1:And I think that there's a lot of people out there who are commenting and sort of spiking the football one way or the other and making cultural arguments. And you know, this is the end of America or whatever, you know, I don't know that I'd go that
Speaker 5:Far, but it is troubling. It is concerning when you,
Speaker 1:You see what should be something that is kind of a sacred process, right? This is somebody who we're sending to prison. Somebody died here. This is a big thing cause they big deal. And it's kind of turned into this political spectacle, which is not good for the justice system. It undermines its legitimacy. It undermines its credibility and we all have to live with it after it Shovan has done. Okay, Chauvin's this case has done. We all have to live with the law and how the system works. And if there is less faith in it and we are creating a precedent for political prosecutions in this country, that that actually does scare the hell out of me. If we can have a prosecutor who it gets overly aggressive and not only charges cases and presents cases with the weight of the government behind them, the behemoth of the government, of the bureaucracy and all of the literally,
Speaker 5:Uh, indie fatigable, they are bursting at the seams with resources.
Speaker 1:They are bringing the weight of the government against one particular defendant. And they're not even creating an environment in which that person really gets a fair trial. Right? I mean, you could say that, uh, it was about as close as we could get under the circumstances,
Speaker 5:But lots of problems
Speaker 1:Here. And the judge himself confirmed that they may be brought up on appeal. And that to me is just sort of a second tragedy. Losing Floyd was a tragedy. What, what were the entire country had to go through as a result of that is tragic. And when we start to celebrate, I think the political prosecution of anybody in this country that is cause for concern, all right, my friends. So we're going to wrap it up there. I want to thank everybody. You know, not the usual show we're going to be back on our normal routine tomorrow. You may have noticed that there's some other things that we didn't get to today. We did not talk about project Veritas. We will talk about that tomorrow. If there's not anything else sort of bigger to talk about. Cause that's, story's getting a little bit old. Um, we're also going to sort of start transitioning into other cases. We have a mod Arbery that we got to get back into. We've got Glen Maxwell, a lot of activity on her case. Kyle Rittenhouse is coming up in November. So we've got a little bit of, you know, a little bit of leeway there. So we've got other news stories and other things that we want to get to the Supreme court issued a bunch of orders and some rulings today that are a little bit scattered, want to make sense of those. So it will be back tomorrow for our regular programming or we're basically done with the Shovan case. I mean, there's nothing else to really talk about until we get back to sentencing. And even that is going to be a pretty quick, so I want to thank you all for being here. I apologize for some of the audio issues, you know, I was, uh, I was in my office doing work and then I got the notification showman. Oh, all right. So I was like skidding in here to try to be with you and I sort of botched it. So now I know I learned that repetition out of the way. So the next time we do one of these sort of live stream reactions, uh, it will be a little bit more on our game, but I thank you for bearing with me. And it was an interesting journey. Wasn't it? We spent 20 something days together in depth going through this thing, witness by witness. And we learned a lot. I know I did. I hope you did. I hope that you found it to be enjoyable as much as I did because I had a lot of fun communicating with all of you and, uh, and sharing ideas. I mean, I thought about this case in new ways, I had an experience with this case that I would not have been able to have, but for, to use a legal term, your, uh, your involvement, your, your support and your contributions to the show, you help make the show literally. And so thank you for helping us do that. And if you want to do that, you can head on over to watching the watchers.locals.com. Of course, we took the chat from there. They're exclusively today. We're going to be back here tomorrow, doing the very same thing. It's going to be back at the same time, same format. We're going to have our slides. We'll be back in gear at 4:00 PM Arizona time, which is the same as specific time. We got 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM on the East coast. Everybody. Thank you so much for being here. Enjoy the rest of your evening. Relax, get some good sleep tonight because we're going to be back tomorrow with more criminal justice news, whatever that may be. I will see you then have a great night. Bye-bye.