Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Andrew Brown Shooting Update, Space Force Lohmeier & Woke Military, SCOTUS Warrant Ruling 9-0​

May 18, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Andrew Brown Shooting Update, Space Force Lohmeier & Woke Military, SCOTUS Warrant Ruling 9-0​
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Andrew Brown Shooting Update, Space Force Lohmeier & Woke Military, SCOTUS Warrant Ruling 9-0​
May 18, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

SHOW NOTE: No livestream tomorrow on this channel (I have a scheduling conflict)​

Join Robert’s 2nd Channel for a COVID WUHAN ESCAPE PREMIERE at 7 pm Eastern.​
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEDbS7Q98Qw​
We will continue to do livestreams and post the live clips on this channel (renamed Robert Gruler Esq. Live)​
Channel #2 (Robert Gruler Esq.) will home to more long-form, deep dive analysis, like the Wuhan premiere scheduled tomorrow.​
Thanks for your support and your subscription!​
Back to business…​

On today’s show! No charges for the officers who shot and killed Andrew Brown in North Carolina – we review today’s press conference. The United States Supreme Court issues new rulings and we dissect the cases. The military continues to become more woke as the Army now seeks to solve climate change will scouring military personnel social media. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• No charges for deputies who shot and killed Andrew Brown Jr. on April 21, 2021.​
• North Carolina District Attorney Andrew Womble said that the deputies who fired their weapons were justified in the shooting.​
• During a press conference, Womble played four different body camera angles.​
• We review clips from the Brown shooting press conference in North Carolina.​
• The United States Supreme Court had a busy day yesterday, releasing important new orders impacting criminal justice.​
• In Caniglia v. Strom, the Supreme Court holds that the Fourth Amendment Community Caretaker exception does not apply to the home!​
• Supreme Court also holds the right to a conviction via unanimous verdict is not retroactive.​
• The Supreme Court also agrees to hear a challenge to Roe v. Wade stemming from a Mississippi case.​
• Former Space Force Commander Lt. Col. Mathew Lohmeier goes on Sean Hannity in first interview since his firing.​
• U.S. Army takes on Climate Change as “Serious Threat” to national security​
• Pentagon plans to launch a pilot program for screening social media content of military personnel to monitor for “extremist material.”​
• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!​

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

• Saturday, May 22, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)​
• Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)​
• Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)​

Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​
• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​
• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

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

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

WATCH ON ODYSEE:​

• MAIN: ht

Show Notes Transcript

SHOW NOTE: No livestream tomorrow on this channel (I have a scheduling conflict)​

Join Robert’s 2nd Channel for a COVID WUHAN ESCAPE PREMIERE at 7 pm Eastern.​
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEDbS7Q98Qw​
We will continue to do livestreams and post the live clips on this channel (renamed Robert Gruler Esq. Live)​
Channel #2 (Robert Gruler Esq.) will home to more long-form, deep dive analysis, like the Wuhan premiere scheduled tomorrow.​
Thanks for your support and your subscription!​
Back to business…​

On today’s show! No charges for the officers who shot and killed Andrew Brown in North Carolina – we review today’s press conference. The United States Supreme Court issues new rulings and we dissect the cases. The military continues to become more woke as the Army now seeks to solve climate change will scouring military personnel social media. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• No charges for deputies who shot and killed Andrew Brown Jr. on April 21, 2021.​
• North Carolina District Attorney Andrew Womble said that the deputies who fired their weapons were justified in the shooting.​
• During a press conference, Womble played four different body camera angles.​
• We review clips from the Brown shooting press conference in North Carolina.​
• The United States Supreme Court had a busy day yesterday, releasing important new orders impacting criminal justice.​
• In Caniglia v. Strom, the Supreme Court holds that the Fourth Amendment Community Caretaker exception does not apply to the home!​
• Supreme Court also holds the right to a conviction via unanimous verdict is not retroactive.​
• The Supreme Court also agrees to hear a challenge to Roe v. Wade stemming from a Mississippi case.​
• Former Space Force Commander Lt. Col. Mathew Lohmeier goes on Sean Hannity in first interview since his firing.​
• U.S. Army takes on Climate Change as “Serious Threat” to national security​
• Pentagon plans to launch a pilot program for screening social media content of military personnel to monitor for “extremist material.”​
• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!​

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

• Saturday, May 22, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)​
• Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)​
• Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)​

Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​
• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​
• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

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

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

WATCH ON ODYSEE:​

• MAIN: ht

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert ruler . I am a criminal defense attorney right here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the watcher so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into. We're going to be talking about the Andrew Brown junior shooting. We had spent some time talking about this. Remember Ben Crump is representing this family, same attorney that was representing the George Floyd family back in the Derrick Shovan trial. So we have the North Carolina district attorney came out today and he is telling us that the shooting was justified and it wasn't just one shooting. Uh, we actually didn't know much about the incident with , uh, Andrew Brown, but we now have a little bit of body camera footage that came out from today's press briefing. And so we're going to show that to you. Now, the district attorney came back out and said, well , totally justified. So it wasn't just one shooting. Once we see the video is actually like six or seven shootings, kind of a whole slurry of officers, just , uh , hailing bullets into the back of Andrew Brown's vehicle. So that's going to be a fun one to analyze. We're going to go through that today. We've got several clips from that, mostly PG 13, nothing that I think would be in violation of any of YouTube protocols, but just a content warning here at the start of the show that we are going to be talking about an officer involved shooting involving Andrew Brown in the context of a legal analysis and education. So just keep that in mind, little context check. Then we're going to change gears and talk about what's happening in the U S Supreme court. Yesterday. We got a whole slew of orders that came down some actually pretty important ones and some not so bad ones. Really? We have Coniglio versus Strome . And we talked about this case at some point previously, when we were talking about some of these second amendment analysis, if you recall, this was an elderly gentleman , got into an argument with his wife, cops came, he had actually left the home. Cops came, basically entered his house, seized his guns, and they did it under this community, caretaker exception. In other words, that the police are like, you know, community caretakers or we're just here to help and serve you. Okay? So they come in, they take the gun and they justify it on this exception to the fourth amendment. While the Supreme court came out today and said, no, not so fast home is sacred. You don't just get so stamped all over the fourth amendment. So that's very good news. Another interesting case came out about unanimous verdicts. And we're going to you on that. We have some , uh, also some new information that the Supreme is going to be weighing back in on the Roe versus Wade debacle of a legal case. So that is coming back up here soon. So a lot of Supreme court news that we're going to get to , then we're going to talk about the woke military because they are suiting up. And in fact, they are going to go out there and they're going to protect America's national security interests. They are going to just put on all the gear that they need and go out and win a war for America. Who are they fighting? Oh, the climate climate change, mother earth. So that's great. So they're also going to be out there now. The army is indicating that there is sort of a climate change is a grave national security threat to the United States. We all , no , we're going to hear again from our , or we're not going to hear from him, but we have, he was on Sean Hannity, the former face, a space force commander Matthew low Mer was on Sean Hannity has have a couple of quotes from him. And then we now know that the Pentagon is going to be launching a pilot program to go in investigate a military personnel, their social media. So if you are with the army and let's say you get on Facebook and you say this kind of climate change initiative that we're doing is stupid. But the thought that I thought I kind of joined up here to go out there and fight terrorism and sort of enemies of America, not change light bulbs and , uh , you know , uh , encourage people to switch to alternative vehicles. That didn't seem like a good idea. And so if you get on Facebook and you say that, well, the Pentagon and they're coming for your, that might be extremist cereal . And so they've got a pilot program to make sure that they can root out any of the detractors, any of the anti-climate people or any of the extremists that are within the ranks of the military, whatever that means. We know that according to John Brennan, former CIA , CIA director, he said , uh , that , uh, even libertarians were very dangerous. So kind of a big bucket that they're defined dining there . So we've got a lot to get into before we do want to give you a quick update. We've got some YouTube news and I want to give you an update on. So if you'll notice the name of this channel change today, went over from Robert ruler , Esq to Robert griller Esq live. And we're going to be focusing on that, on this case , all the live stuff. So every day , we're going to continue on doing that a live show, and we're also going to clip it just like we've been doing so really nothing's going to change here at all. The reason why we made that, just because I am starting a second channel, which is just going to be Robert ruler Esq, because I have other things that I want work on other projects and other commentary that I want to make some videos about. And in fact, I did that. So there's a video over on the second channel. Robert ruler Esq. The link is in the description below, and it is going to be premiering tomorrow at this time because I'm not going to be here tomorrow. At this time, I have a board meeting, a big long board meeting that I have to go and attend over for the nonprofit that I'm a part of. It's called Eric's house.org. If you want to go and support that organization, that would mean the world. To me, it's really, it's a nonprofit to help people. Who've lost somebody to suicide addiction or a tragic death like an overdose or a, you know, a car accident, somebody who was sort of taken before their time. There's a lot of people out there who've lost somebody. They need some help and support out there. So we've built a grieving community and a support group over at Eric's house.org. I've got a board meeting over there tomorrow. I got to bring this camera on all this gear over there. So I'm not gonna be able to do the live show. So in lieu of a live show, we're going to be doing a premiere on the COVID article that was written by Nicholas Wade. And so if you want to check that out, it's going to be premiering tomorrow at this same time, over on my separate channel, which is going to be devoted to that type of stuff. It's , it's sort of recorded a long form, deep dive conversations, stuff that I really don't have the time or, you know, the , the live format is awesome. I love it. It keeps me on my toes. It's something where I get to sort of, you know, run through the news quickly. It forces me to prepare quickly, forces me to digest a lot of information in order to just sit down and talk here for about 90 minutes. But I also learn a ton from you. I mean, you guys ask great questions and share links over at locals. And so I'm just learning a lot. So this is not going to change, but there are some times when I want to just take a deep dive into something like , like the Nate and the Nicholas Wade article, very long article, very deep in depth . And so I spent about an hour and 20 minutes on video going through that. And I also have some , uh, some video in there about my trip to Shanghai. I've actually show you around the wet market that I went to with my mother and my stepfather , Greg, when we went up , back over there in 2015. So we're traveling around the wet market and we're kind of exploring the difference between two theories about where COVID came from, whether it came from a bat in a cave out in China, or whether this was something that may have been engineered through a gain of function research that was being promoted by , uh , Dr. Fowchee through the NIH, through the NIH ID back through Lance , uh, through , uh, EcoHealth Alliance to Dr. Dan Zack , back over to Dr. Xi , the Wu Han bat lady who was at the wound lab of virology in Wu Han China. So we go through the whole narrative and there's, it's a very fascinating article. I'd encourage you to read the whole thing, but if you don't want to do that, no worries, because it's going to be premiering tomorrow at 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM, Eastern on channel number two, Robert ruler Esq. So go and check that out and we're going to be doing more of that stuff. You know, there's going to be some times when I want to just take a real deep dive and a , and I want to record it. So I can be a little bit more intentional and not kind of just, you know , swinging from the hip here, which is a unfortunately, sometimes what I do, but we're having fun. Right? It's part of the it's part of the fun is we're kind of going through this together spontaneously and having a conversation. The second channel is going to be for something just a little bit different. So I'd love your support. If it sounds like, you know, you want to go check out some of that content, please go ahead and do that. And if you're a local subscriber, by the way, it's already available. So I already posted that a little bit of a , you know , a sneak preview. It's actually the, what do they call that? The , uh , opening, whatever. I don't know what it is. I don't watch a lot of movies, but that's happening now over at local. So if you want to support the show, that's really the place to do it. It's at watching the watchers.locals.com and there you can watch the premiere that's going to be happening tomorrow. You can also get the other clips that I post regularly. We have a copy of my book. You can download all of the slides that we're about to go through right now. Those are available for download as well. And there's really great people, and they're doing a of cool stuff over at local. So I love the support watching the watchers.locals.com and , uh, that's about it. So that's it for the intro long introduction. Thanks for indulging me on that. A little bit of a channel update, but I just wanted to clear the air on that. So you knew what was going on. Nothing really is changing here, but we are just going to be creating some new content over on channel number two, and I would love your support over there. All right. So let's get into the news. Andrew Brown, Jr . This was a man who was shot and killed some time ago in April. And for a while, we've been wondering what really happened here, because there was absolutely body camera footage that the police had, but they just had not disclosed it. So we've been following this case for some time because the Ben Crump, the attorney who represented the George Floyd family in the Derek Shovan cases , representing the Andrew Brown Jr family. And on this channel, we talked about this. This one felt like it may have been very bad because there was already a lot of , uh, you know , concerns in , uh , North Carolina that they were going to be bracing for impact bracing, for protests and riots, and a lot of unrest. And the judge out of there actually said that a lot of this body camera video could not come out because they were going to be making charging decisions. And it was, there was a lot of back and forth about this. So the public, you know, you and I were kind of scratching our heads saying, well, what happened here? You know, this is part of what we want. We want accountability. We want transparency. We don't like it when the government just takes the evidence, you know , and any evidence of their malfeasance. And they sit on it, they put it under their chair and nobody ever sees it. That's a huge problem. But then conversely to that, you say, well, what if we do release it? Then we end up with a situation like we had with Derek . Shovan where the media is doing a Dogpile where we have Maxine waters, you know, parachuting in while everybody's, you know , sort of steamrolling for one particular outcome. And it's almost impossible to get a fair and impartial trial. And so you're kind of stuck between this rock and a hard place. And they did it a little bit differently here in North Carolina. And so we have the district attorney goes by the name of Andrew Womble . He came out today and said that the actions of the deputies in the shooting of Andrew Brown were quote justified. So it doesn't look like we're going to be getting any charges from him. Now, this, he was killed on April 21st. And Andrew Womble said on Tuesday that the deputies were in fact justified. He said, quote, Mr. Brown's death while tragic was justified because Mr. Brown's action caused three deputies. So let's, let's follow this closely. Cause we're going to watch the video here in a minute. He said it caused three deputies with the County Sheriff's office to reasonably believe it was necessary to do what to use deadly force to protect themselves and others. Okay. This is going to be a big one and others see that because we're going to watch the video and you'll let me, you can tell me whether you think that three deputies were really reasonably believing

Speaker 2:

That it was necessary to use deadly

Speaker 1:

Force to protect themselves. Okay. We're going to watch and you can see if you can see whether three people thought that that was reasonable, reasonably necessary. Now others were going to see, yeah, that's a whole different ball game, right? Because now if the officers are not in direct threat, well, they can say that they can do this for , they can, they can shoot and kill

Speaker 2:

Somebody to stop that person from theoretically or potentially killing somebody else down the road. Now, I want you to compare and contrast this with Kim Potter. Okay. We're going to Kim Potter. If you recall another kind of a roadside shooting. So with Andrew Brown, let me just frame this out a little bit. We're going to see a situation where he's in the car. We don't actually see much of him at all. He's in the vehicle. This was played today during the press conference. And he sort of trying to get away from the cops. They're on foot and they're surrounding him. And so, as he is leaving, one of the cops is saying, well, no , he could have hit us with the car. That's what justifies the lethal force. That's a , that's a vehicle. The vehicle can be a lethal weapon. We all know that. And the cops knew that too. And so if he is trying to hit an officer, certainly that's lethal force. Well, what about the Kim Potter case? Right? What now, now the Kim Potter case was similar. And so the theory, the defense there was that for her, the defense would be that she could have shot him because Dante right was fleeing in a vehicle. And if that vehicle got away from him or if he was, you know, on a, on a long, dangerous chase with the police running after him, he could have gone over the barrier. He could have hit somebody else. He could have killed somebody. He could have killed his girlfriend in the car. So the shooting, the defense goes would have been justified in order to protect the life of another same type of defense. That is , is happening here. Now, Kim Potter, the prosecution didn't charge her with that because she thought it was a taser was a lot more, obviously a mistake. But here, right? The , the prosecution looked at this fact looked at this case and said, no charges are warranted. We think that this was a totally justified shooting because

Speaker 3:

Of this others. I think

Speaker 2:

You're going to really see what I mean when we get to it. So Womble said that the total time the deputies interacted with Brown from the moment they jumped out of the truck to the moment they pulled Brown's body out of the crash vehicle was only 44 seconds. Wamble showed four different body camera videos from the deputies. During those 44 seconds, the video shows the deputies jumping out of the back of their truck, running a Brown's vehicle, cursing and pointing guns at him. Brown begins reversing his vehicle away from the deputies. According to Wamble to the back of his vehicle was blocked by his home. At this point, Brown begins driving forward towards the deputies who had surrounded his vehicle sprouts car begins going forward. One deputy is forced to sidestep the vehicle to avoid being hit. Okay. So you notice

Speaker 3:

Here from Wombles statement,

Speaker 2:

He says it caused three deputies to reasonably believe it was necessary to use deadly force to protect themselves and others. All right. So the video, we see one officer, one deputy sorta sorta jumped out of the way Brown's precise speed and attempting to flee and striking deputy Lunsford is uncertain, but that he drove recklessly and endangered . The officers is not uncertain. Therefore, I find that Brown's actions and conduct were indeed dangerous. By the time

Speaker 3:

Of the shooting said,

Speaker 2:

Womble , we're going to go through this. According to Wamble , the first shot was fired by the deputies entered the front windshield of Brown's car. And again, you're going to notice this, the car is here, there's officers all around the vehicle. And so Brown is going forward towards one direction. There's an officer up front here. So if at that moment in time, if he shoots through the windshield and he is in the th th this is the front of the car going in his direction, it could theoretically hit him. So if he is shooting at that moment, that sounds like it might be justified force because there is a direct threat as soon as he steps out of the way. And as soon as Andrew Brown's vehicle sort of goes away from them. And there's no other officer in that line of sight in the direction, in the potential path of the vehicle, then are they in danger anymore themselves? Well, you can see for yourself, but the next question is then what about other people? What about Andrew Brown fleeing? Now other people could theoretically be in danger . Several more shots are fired through the passenger and the rear passenger door. So the first shot went through the front, a windshield sec , several more shots went through the passenger door and the rear passenger door and window. Okay. So as he's driving away, they just keep firing. Finally, his Brown drives off more shots are fired through the back of the car. Brown's car travels, a short distance crashes into a tree. The same deputies who shot him, run to the crash site, remove his body from the vehicle. Wamble the district attorney said, I find that the facts of this case clearly illustrate that the officers who use deadly force on Andrew Brown did so reasonably and only when a violent felon used a deadly weapon, the car to place their lives in danger. Okay. Lives plural Womble went on to say that the law does not require the danger to law enforcement to be actual, Oh, as long as the danger is apparent, it can justify the use of force of it. So if a cop just thinks, it looks like, Oh, apparently that might be dangerous. That's enough. Although Womble believes the deputies face both a parent in actual danger during their interaction with Brown, the constitution does not require police to gamble with their lives in the face of a serious threat of harm. Well, it also doesn't say that you can just shoot people either. So keep that in mind there , Mr . Prosecutor, investigators did not find a weapon in Brown's vehicle. No weapon Womble said the official autopsy has not been finalized, but okay. The preliminary results from the medical examiner's office show, you suffered two gunshot wounds, one to the right shoulder. Right. And so we know that one went through the front windshield, that one hit him in the right shoulder. We don't know. And one to the back of the head, huh? Well that's okay. So if you're shooting somebody and the bullet goes in the back of the head, that must mean that they are, I don't know, going away from you cause of death appears to be multiple gunshot wounds. No kidding. The autopsy also found a substance consistent with crystal meth found in Brown's mouth. At the time of his death autopsy, the PC, the company that the family hired to perform an independent autopsy said he was shot four times in the right arm and then once fatally in the back of the head. Okay . So we'll see where that bullet came from. The back of the head bullet here. We have the district attorney let's listen in

Speaker 4:

On Wednesday, April 21st, 2021, Andrew Brown Jr. Of Elizabeth city, North Carolina was shot and killed by three deputies with the passcode tank County Sheriff's office. This incident occurred at the residence of Mr. Brown located at four one Perry street in Elizabeth city, North Carolina, after reviewing the investigation conducted by the North Carolina state Bureau of investigation, Mr. Brown's death while tragic was justified because Mr. Brown's actions caused three deputies with the Pascoe tank County Sheriff's office to reasonably believe it was necessary to use deadly force to protect themselves and others. While the officer involved shooting that resulted in the death of Andrew Brown occurred on Wednesday, April 21st law enforcement involvement with Mr. Brown began in the weeks prior and put the wheels in motion that eventually led to the attempted service of arrest and search warrants on April 21, 2021. And the early months of this year, detective Johnson with the dare County Sheriff's office received information from a reliable confidential source that Andrew Brown Jr from Elizabeth city was selling drugs in dare County. Detective Johnson contacted Pascoe Canyon County and confirmed Mr. Brown's identity. And that he is a known drug dealer upon learning this information. Detective Johnson, with the aid of the confidential informant made two undercover buys from Brown on March 17th, 2021 and March 29th, 2021. Those buys were of cocaine and heroin respectably . A later SBI lab analysis determined that the heroin was laced with fentanyl, subsequently arrest warrants were issued for Brown's arrest on April 20th, 2021.

Speaker 2:

So a lot of, a lot of political pressure on this gentleman to go, you know, one of, one of a whole slew of different ways. And you know, this is something that happens with prosecutors very regularly, right? They make charging decisions. Sometimes people will even hire us before they make their decision to see if we can get in there and negotiate these things away. See if we can maybe come to a resolution before the case gets out of control. And so right now, you know, they're sort of going through this process where the , the district attorney is now analyzing the facts and making a decision about what he believes. Can I go and file charges based on what I've reviewed? So prosecution offices, they have the ability to just go and file complaints on their own. This happens all the time. This happens even in like misdemeanor cases, when a cop pulls you over and cites you for a DUI. Well, the cop identified probable cause he turns out into the prosecution and that's really , uh , uh , it turns out into the court and that's kind of a complaint. That's the government initiating a criminal case against you through a direct complaint procedure. But there's another way that you can do this. You can go through a grand jury proceeding as well. Remember, we saw this back with the Brianna Taylor case with Brianna Taylor. We had the attorney general out of that city go through the grand jury indictment process. And lo and behold, guess what? Those cops were charged with. Anything either isn't that convenient. Then we heard that some of the grand jurors,

Speaker 1:

The people who were there making the decision. So let me break this up a little bit. I got ahead of myself on the first part of this analysis, you have the prosecution who gets to decide whether there's enough cause to bring criminal charges. And this is what happened right here. This district attorney just, I analyze it. And I said, not nothing here, not sufficient. The other way you can do that is by going through a grand jury, they also have the ability to say, well, we viewed the facts. We viewed the law. And we decided that we think that there is enough here to go and charge somebody with a crime. And when you have kind of a conflict of interest, makes a lot of sense to go that route. And we saw that in the Brianna Taylor case, we saw Daniel, Cameron presented something to the grand jurors and all this takes place in secret. Right? It's all, it's all really, really kept quiet for a reason. There's there's good reasons for that. They came back and said, Nope, no , no. Cause they're to charge Mattingly and the other Brianna Taylor officers, but then shortly thereafter, some of the grand jurors came out and said , well, they kind of presented like half the story. If they would've told us these other things, maybe in fact we would have charged those other officers. But in this case they didn't really go that route. They just gave it to the district attorney. He leans on it. Oh no, it doesn't look good. You probably got the governor coming in, police union over here. You've got, you know, all, a lot of people who are making this presentation, this press conference go a certain way. Right? There's a political component to this. You'd be have to be insane to think that they're not talking about that because they just saw what Minneapolis went through for eight year . Right? And so you've got all of these government people going. We don't want to go through that. Maybe that's a big reason why they didn't release some of this video and what would have happened if they would have released the video of the video that I'm about to show you what, if they would have released this, let's say six months ago, would the charging decisions have been different because of the fact that there was public pressure placed down upon the government to do something about this. Now what we have is now they're coming out. They say, Hey, we're not gonna make a chart. We're gonna , we're gonna make a charging decision, not to charge here today. And here's the video that we made it about. So if you have anything to say about that, if you're upset about this, if you think we should have charged, it's too late, we already made our decision. So don't bring it up. Now. What if we flip that? What if we released the video six months ago, the public sees it. You have a lot of these interest groups, BLM, whatever, you know, sort of organizing, then laying pressure to bear, organizing campaigns, go fund me's, whatever so that they can create pressure on the district. Attorney would the charging decision have changed and we've got to be asking ourselves as how, how are our courts going to navigate this? Because it's going to happen again? Are we going to go through the Derrick Shovan model? Or are we going to go through the Andrew Brown model where we have almost no information until we get a charging decision going to be very interesting right now I am very in favor of accountability and transparency, but also in favor of due process and the presumption of innocence. And so we've got a very, very tricky balancing test that we're going to have to continue to stay focused on. So this is the video of the Andrew Brown shooting. And I want to show you this now content warning, right? This is a police. We don't

Speaker 2:

See any blood. We don't hear anybody die. We don't see any dead bodies, nothing like that. But you are going to hear and see some officers surrounding a vehicle. And of course they are firing bullets into the vehicle. It's not a long video. And I want you to notice we're going to watch this probably a couple of times. Let's take a , well , let's watch this verse and then we'll go back and watch it again.

Speaker 5:

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

Speaker 2:

All right . So he's yelling, getting it , you know, get EMS, get EMS. Uh, he's already been shot, probably, you know , bleeding out right there. So not, not a good situation, but the question is, was it a clean shoot? Right? Did the officers, were they justified in this shooting? And I'll tell you this. There was a lot of officers shooting in the back of a vehicle. So what's their justification for that? Well, the justification is, this was a dangerous person. They were trying to execute a warrant and he was fleeing . He could have been a danger to other people in the community. And so they needed to shoot him in order to stop that potential. But let's watch this one more time. We're going to see that officer step out of the way near that's near. So his car backs up and there's no officer behind him. Right. And so that officer, I don't think we can say was, was in danger. Then he pulls forward again, but he stops. There's another officer right in front who is sidestepping out of the way. So we're going to watch that quickly. I think at that moment in time, once you know, the vehicle is in drive and it's going forward, you've got another officer in front of the vehicle. He's in the direct line of sight. I think at that moment in time, yes, you could, you could have shot in order to stop this individual because at that moment he is going forward. He isn't a vehicle. If he continues to go forward, you don't know whether he's going to run over that officer or not. But as soon as that officer steps out of the way, while he's no longer in harm's way, and you're going to see that because he sort of steps in line with the vehicle. So in other words, Andrew Brown could not have, have gone into the officers because they would , he would have also crashed into a vehicle. If he was trying to escape, as he clearly was, then he would have had to turn another direction and then escape across that grassy Knoll there. And he did that, then officers unloaded into the back of his vehicle. And we know that probably the lethal shot was one of those bullets. One of the bullets that went into the back of his head. So the question then at that point in time, was he still a threat when that bullet went into his back to the back of his head, did the cops, were they allowed to use lethal force at that moment in time? Well, this district attorney said, yeah, absolutely. They could let's watch this one more time Here. We're going to see, let's play it a little bit more there . All right. So yeah, we got one officer there as he's backing up, then he puts it in drive. We've got this officer here, he's outside of the line of sight, right? He's over there now this officer, right?

Speaker 5:

Yeah. And then at that point,

Speaker 2:

Basically the rest is over. What do you think? Clean, not clean, justified, not justified. Let me know in the comments we're going to go through, we're going to read some quick follow up on this from the New York times. And then let me know what you think in the comments. We're going to take your questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com . So the prosecutor, again, as we know have said it was justified. He said that he made this announcement. They were attempting what started this. They said that they were Pascoe tank County Sheriff's deputies. They were trying to serve a drug-related warrant. That was the whole basis. So again, drugs, right? We're going to go get them for drugs. He ends up dead. Three deputies opened fire. Private autopsy said he was hit by five bullets, killed by a shot to the back of the head. So we already know there was a one bullet at least to the shoulder, maybe three other to the arm. And then that would be four. So one to the back of the head Brown's family and their lawyers said it was an execution. We saw that from Ben Crump. When he came out recently, a Womble said that at one point he drove his car directly at one deputy. Uh , that was a deputy who sort of sidestepped governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat asked Womble to turn the case over to a special prosecutor as have lawyers for the Brown family. The death of Mr. Brown was on a quiet residential street, just , uh, shortly after the Shovan trial lawyer for the deputies said the killing was justified Mr. Womble, and an earlier court hearings of the body and dash cam video of the incident showed that Mr. Brown made contact with the deputies with his car and the officers opened fire thereafter. But the prosecutor's version of what the body camera footage shows is starkly different than the description offered by Brown's family. And two members of their legal team who have been given two occasions to see some of the footage, a local judge delayed the public release of the videos. We talked about that citing concerns that there at least could compromise the investigation, the decision, anger, demonstrators, and family members who said the public should have the right to see their recordings and decide for themselves whether the shooting was justified. They showed portions of the video on Tuesday. But Mr. Womble said that they are not going to release the full footage. So why not then? Right . If you're not going to charge the why don't you release everything. If you've already made your decision, let us vet your work, let us see it. You saw everything and you came to a conclusion. Where's the rest of it. Then give it all out to us. You're not going to charge him. We already know that. So what's the harm. Other than the fact that a bunch of people are going to be off and you're not going to get reelected. How about that? So our

Speaker 1:

First questions come over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Look at these two links. You can go check these links out. I also want to plug rumble a little bit. If you'll notice, if you don't know what's going on with the, a YouTube drama right now, Crowder, Steven Crowder is right in the middle of it with YouTube. And so he is moving over to rumble. And so if you're going to go over there to subscribe to him, maybe you should give us a little follow. Also, that's the link. rumble.com/c/robert crueler . Esq. We'd appreciate that. What's up. Pinky two is in the house over at locals, says, do officers start shooting? And being in that process continue shooting when danger is over, but they started it. So they have the mindset to finish it. Selling drugs is bad, but does a human need to die for it saying the mindset of the officer's being this guy is really dangerous for selling harmful drugs. If they get a reason, take the guy out. Yeah. Pinky, you know , uh , kind of, yes, right? If you're going to draw your F your , your firearm and use lethal force, you want to make sure that person dies right. And this is why we all sort of make fun of the people who say, Oh, just shoot him in the leg. Why? So he just bleeds out there in pain and agony. He going to die a slow death, right. Was shoot him one time and watch him just Ryther in pain for four minutes and die anyways. Or you just, you know, you're , you're using lethal force. So the , the , the concept as awful as it is, is you have to eliminate the threat. Right? You got to end that person's life immediately, quickly decisively. And without any hesitation, that's the whole point of it. And then in this case, right. Sort of that same concept, but then they go, Oh, shoot, he's driving away now. Uh, I guess we'll just keep going, pop up . Hop, hop, hop, hop, hop, hop, hop, tell he's done. Right. Then he stops. Oh, got him . So we're going to go run over there and see if we can, can , uh , figure out what happened. Then he calls EMS after the guys , you know , got a bullet in the back of his head. So yeah. Drug over drugs, all over drugs. Be brave, says, I read somewhere that this state law requires a court order to release body cam footage. Sorry. Don't have the receipts at the moment. You're right. Actually, we did cover that, that judge had the authority to release it publicly and decided not to do that , uh , which was a little bit different than I think every other state here. So it was , it was different. And we were all sort of expecting the judge to just go, all right . You know, it's a formality. I reviewed it in the interest of accountability and transparency. We'll get that stuff out for you. The judge didn't, we're all going what that's all right . But at the same time, when you sort of juxtapose this with the Shovan trial, you kind of have sympathies for the judge because they didn't show up and get a fair trial. After all this came out. Not really. We have Kelly D Stu is in the house. What's up. Kelly says, couldn't they just take the tires out, just shoot him in the leg. Why did they, somebody should've just asked Joe, Joe Biden, where to shoot him. He, Don test says, as you and I have discussed on comments before when officers assess threats, it is a continuum and it is not a clearly delineated on an off. Yeah. Right . I would agree with that. Right. And we've seen that. We've seen that in the different charts. It sort of S it can, it can scale up. It can ramp up really quickly and he can ramp back down really quickly. It's not like, Oh, you get to use lethal force. And then it's just whatever you want to do. It's just lethal indefinitely.

Speaker 2:

Right? So like, let's say that that guy threatened an officer with deadly force. And then that, that moment of the deadly force subsided, because he's running away. Well, you don't get to, because on minute one, because he pointed the gun at you on minute four, you don't get to shoot him when he's running away. And he's no longer a threat now. I mean , at one you could have, because at that moment he was a threat, but the continuum changes, the , the situations are dynamic. And so the ability at that moment to continue to use lethal force dissipates, because it has to be relative to the threat. We have good to see you eat on tests. Josh SESCO's in the house. What's up. Josh says, in my opinion, the cops were more than justified. If anything, they waited too long to shoot Josh , Josh. All right. All right. Hey, it's an opinion. It's an opinion. I appreciate you being here. We have pinky two says, I think it's questionable. And I lean toward, he was driving where he could have hit one or two officers, but unloading after is questionable to me. I think so, too pinky , I think that's, I think , uh , uh , kind of a reasonable, I think breakdown when he's going at that officer, I think shooting at that moment is , is okay when he's driving away and bullets are coming in the back of his windshield, that looks like , uh , something from a Hollywood movie, not anything that resembles law enforcement sharing quit . And he says, so here's another person killed on account of drugs. It looks to me like the imminent danger had passed, but if the officer thought the suspect had weapons, et cetera, one way or the other is the drug Wars need to end. Yeah. I agree with that. Totally agree with that. We have tremendous is in the house, as my question would be, what is the training? If they're following the training and the rules it's justified, but perhaps there should be an adjustment to the rules. Good to see you. Tremendous. Yeah. I don't know. You know, there are probably a lot of documents that we'll never see related to this inquiry, but I really doubt that the district attorney is going to tell us much of anything. We have Davis parks here says I understand the first few shots. Yeah, I agree. But shouldn't police cease firing when the car is no longer heading toward people, just because you can't shoot doesn't mean you should. I think they'd at least charge the officers for shooting at the end. And then, you know, that that sort of protection of others argument, right? Th the , the argument there is if you're shooting, because he's theoretically a danger to anybody else out there in society, if he gets away, he could crash into that house. Or he could run over the kid playing football down the street or whatever, but soda's firing massive amounts of ammunition, sort of haphazardly down a neighborhood, okay. Off , you know, you had six officers there with, with, you know, ARS or whatever. Semiautomatics just, just unloading ammunition, downrange at the back of that guy's car. You don't know what's on the other side of that, he was near that house. There was a tree over there. It was, it was a lot of shooting. Right. So officers shouldn't be doing reckless things either. We have Texas Island girl says, can you argue that he is a danger to others other than the officers when he starts driving into people's front yards? Yeah , I think so. And I think that's, that's exactly sort of what the district attorney was saying. He kind of latched onto that others, right? Because you can maybe, maybe at one point during that drive away, he was in fact a threat to one or two officers. But as soon as he turned, can you really make that argument anymore? Now it's just a , a pursuit, right? It's just a , it's a vehicle pursuit and we've done many of those. But when you say that, yes, he can continue to be a threat to other people because he could've hit the kid playing soccer or the, you know, the mom walking the dog or whatever, then yeah. Maybe you can extend that now. I'm not so sure that I'm comfortable with that because where do you draw the line? At what point does somebody start being a threat to others and stop being a threat to others? Because theoretically, anything that anybody does at any time could be a threat to others. The question is, will it become that or not? And , and when that change happens is that justify the use of lethal force chairman board, I'm sorry, chairman of a board says all legalities aside. If you're surrounded by police with guns, telling you to stop and you choose to try to speed away and don't seem to care if you run them over in the process, the expectations should be that you'll be shot. It's a horrible situation, but I have no problem with someone that puts themselves in that situation being shot. This is actually a very common position. And , uh, you know, a lot of people, I think subscribe to this chairman , uh, I I've heard this from many from, from other commenters , right? Saying basically, if you are not following commands of police, anything that happens to you is on you, right? Because we , we , we know that police have authority. Everybody in our society should have some concept of that. And if you are putting yourself in danger, if you're going to basically be, you know , defying a direct order from law enforcement, then you're opening the door, you're opening that can of worms and anything that bad happens as a result of that is on you. So, you know, I, it's a, it's a , it's a valid interpretation or, or , uh, analytical framework for these types of , um, incidents. And I think chairman your , your sort of defaulting towards siding with law enforcement, which is a perfectly valid position. I don't write , I typically side opposite of that, but you know, many people agree with you and they say that this should be the standard. The line should be follow the orders, follow the commands. Good opinion. Thanks for jumping that in there, we have Jeremy Machida says they can't release the full video because [email protected] determine the media and the public aren't capable of refraining from trying officer's in the court of public opinion. Yeah. And so you're sort of , uh , Jeremy sort of, you know , calling out this idea that if this stuff is released, it turns into something where the media is making it. So it's impossible to have a fair and impartial trial. And in other words, the information needs to be kept behind closed doors in order to ensure that we have some impartiality, we have Besame Anto says, it looks like he was trying to run an officer over officers have every right to shoot. Why do criminals run stupid and deadly from Besa Bessie , mento? You know, I think a lot of it has to do with sort of, you know, cultural differences. And, you know, there are some people in , in our society that just have a different experience with law enforcement.

Speaker 1:

Uh, you know, and , and there's, I think a lot of valid questions about that. What can we do about that? Right? If we're , if we're going to be, look, if we're going to be saying that law enforcement is a part of this problem, if they're a part of this justice reform issue, you know, BLM wants to literally defund the police. Okay. So they're identifying the police as a part of the problem. I know many people don't agree with that premise, but let's just say that we follow that premise police are at least a part of the equation, unless they are 100% of the equation. Well, we have the other part of the equation that we have to talk about, right? It's about society. And it's about how we respond with law enforcement. And it's about how we train our children and what we teach in our schools and how we educate people about our justice system in popular culture and in movies and TVs and how all this stuff works, because we're all supposed to be a society and we want it to be functional. And so when we have, you know, a law enforcement mechanism, when we have a process in place for doing policing in our society, and there's one area where it just doesn't work very well, it's worth asking ourselves why is that? And if you say, if you start going down this road, you say, well, maybe the people who are responding to law enforcement are also contributing to the breakdown. We have a breakdown here. We have two sides that are supposed to be, you know , uh, interfacing with one another, not doing a good job of it. This is a breakdown. How do we fix this? We identify where the rub is. But if you start asking that question, Hey, maybe they shouldn't run. Maybe these criminals, shouldn't flea , maybe, you know, whatever, whatever, whatever you start getting into dicey territory. Now it's because of your white privilege. It's because of your , uh, you know , uh, male, patriarchy, whatever you want to say, that you don't understand the plight of that Democrat graphic . And I think that there is some truth to that. I think that it is possible to know and experience and understand what every single person in our, in the world feels about life or society on any given day. And so it's part of the human experience is to have these conversations and to try to get to the bottom of it. Unfortunately, there are some questions that you just can't ask anymore because you're going to be labeled a racist or a xenophobia or a bigot or any of those things. So, you know, ultimately if we're going to have a real solution, we got to have real conversations, which is why I'm so grateful that you are here with me on this channel. All right, let's continue on. We have Jeremy Murrieta says, unless there is a designated officer to call a ceasefire. Everyone will keep firing because other officers are firing. In my opinion, it's like an applause cycle. Not that I equate the shooting to applause. Hopefully that makes sense, right? It's like, yes , it's sort of a, once the flood Gates open, everything continues on. We have pinky two in the house as Rob. I get it. Uh, he made some real obvious danger moves to the police. If he took that leap, he is a danger. Uh, great comments. Thank you for all of those. From watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for your support over there. All right, we're going to change gears. Supreme court is back in the news. We had a long list of new orders. Come out yesterday. I want to show you a quick screenshot of one that we're going get into here quickly. This is the Edward versus a strong case. Edward Coniglio versus strum. This is from the petition for a Sur usher , worry , the brief for the petitioner. And this is a case Edward Coniglio what says sort of in an altercation with his wife, cops came after the fact and they ended up going into his house and essentially taking his guns away. The question then was, were they allowed to do that? Or are they allowed to go into the house? And if so, under what principle , what authority did they have to do that? Because we all know that the fourth amendment says that your right to be free from unlawful and reasonable searches and seizures in your home, we're supposed to be protected in our homes. Cops they're supposed to get warrants or ask your permission or identify some exigent circumstances that allow them to get into your home. A lot of case law Supreme court has said the home is sacred. So when these police in the Coniglio Coniglio case went into his house and kind of took his gun away, what basis did they have to do that? What was their justification for that? Well, they leaned on this concept called community care-taking it's this exception, some D uh, uh, for circuits. I have a break, my train of thought there some circuits in the United States, we have different circuits of federal courts that tell us how the law works in that particular circuit. I'm gonna , I'm gonna tell you what that means here in a minute. But in this case, in this circuit, in this location, they said that a police officer can go into your house and they can use this community care-taking exception to do so they don't need a warrant. They don't need exigent circumstances. They just, they have a kind of a good reason to do so. And it's under the community caretaker. I'm just part of the community. I'm just here to caretake. Then you can come on into your, into the house. This is something that has existed for vehicles, right? Prosecutors and police use this all the time for vehicles. They say, well, we're just going to pull you over as part of our community. Care-taking exception. You didn't do anything wrong, really, but we're just going to try to stop you and sort of investigate it because we're just taking care of the community. And the courts have said, that's no problem at all. So now the question was, does that doctrine extend into the home big question? And you know, people like me, you know, several civil people, people interested in civil liberties in the constitution and the sort of the concerns that we have over an over encroaching government. We were all on high alert over this case, because if this were to have gone the other way, then basically the cops could have just said, well, whatever, we can, just the same reasons that we can pull you over. We can get into your house. Ooh , scary stuff. This is what the question was. Searchy . Rory was granted last year, November 20th, 2020. The question was whether the community care-taking exception to the fourth Amendment's warrant requirement extends to the home. So can they use this exception to get into your house? This is how the circuit was split previously. So the question was, does the community caretaker exception extend to the home? There were many circuits that said, yeah, it does. First circuit said, yep , no problem. Fifth circuit said, yep . They can come on in and invite him for a circuit.

Speaker 2:

Also said, yeah, cops are very welcome. Third circuit, seventh circuit, ninth circuit and circuit. They all said, no, no, no . We're not going to allow that to happen. And so we had a couple circuits that just didn't give us any answers. Second circuit, no answers. Fourth, no answers, six, no answers. And so the Supreme court came in and they said, well, we got to clear this up. We have a circuit split. You can see that these circuits sort of break up the country, right? So if we have one, five and eight, we have one over here. We have five down here and we have eight over here. So we got North Dakota, sort of the Midwest. We got Texas. And you know, some of these Southern States, and then we have the North East all saying, cops can come on in no problem. Then we have the others saying, no, we got the third, seventh, ninth, and 10th. So we got the third over here, seventh here, ninth and then the 10th. So the good Western part of the country say , no, no, no, no. To the , to the police Chicago land and some of New York and Pennsylvania , uh , that, that circuit here, all saying, cops can not come in. So this case came down and it was in fact unanimous. That means all the judges voted in favor of making sure that this does not stand. You're going to see here, the vote by ideology, going from the left to the right. So from liberal to conservative, we've got Sotomayor Kagan. It goes all the way down to Thomas, every single one of them, including the new Amy Coney Barrett. We have chief justice Roberts. Who's perfectly right there in the middle, which is a good place for him . And they all voted. Nope, doesn't apply. They cannot get into your home using the caretaker exception. Very, very good news. Let's take a little bit of a deeper dive. It was a unanimous ruling and a reminder that there is in fact, no place like home. Monday Supreme court released their opinion. Unanimously held the lower courts community care-taking exception into the home. They say that defied logic and it defined the fide , the holding of Katie , as well as it violated the fourth amendment warrant requirement. While with the courts , you Nan anonymity , the home remains the most sacred space under the fourth amendment. It's sanctity, literally houses it's privilege without a warrant without exigency or without consent. The government search and seizure with insight within it is unconstitutional. So it's very good news. This happened back during an argument with Coniglio . He offered her one of his unloaded guns. We're not going to read through all this. Th this is , uh , this is what, so there was an argument. This is kind of an elderly couple from my reading of it, get into an argument, husband, wife. He says, well, how about I just shoot myself? Or how about I just kill myself? Right. Takes a gun. I think it's unloaded, slams it down there. Why freaks out? So he slams the gun down. He leaves goes to a hotel. She calls the cops, cops come back. They do a wellness check. Uh, and basically he talks to the police and say , and says all, leave all , go to a mental wellness evaluation, but only if you don't take my guns and take anything that's in my house. Well, guess what they did, they took it all. And so he ended up suing them and he won big time. So that's good news. Court's opinion was written by judge Claris. Clarence Thomas was devoid of the fearsome compelling specter raised in the briefing. And during an argument regarding the potential for troubling eventualities ,

Speaker 3:

Uh, as

Speaker 2:

Always with Realty courts , fourth amendment jurisprudence, location matters. They say the location of the warrantless search and seizure government searches of vehicles regularly occur via exceptions.

Speaker 3:

They say under the

Speaker 2:

Caretaking exception under Katie is not under, is not carte blanche for police to seize or search within the home. Very good police may engage in civic, community care-taking functions. Uh, didn't move the court. The court vacated the first circuits judgment sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings, chief justice, Roberts Alito, justice Kavanaugh, each wrote a brief concurring opinions to clarify what they described as the limits of the court's ruling. So good news. You know, typically conservative judges are very pro police, right ? And this has been something that I've been very critical of that's for a long time. I don't know why they, they are very protective or concerned about an over-incarceration encroaching, big governments , unless it's law enforcement, then the cops are just without faults , no matter what they do. So that has largely been how conservative jurisprudence has been.

Speaker 3:

But not here. Can't go in

Speaker 2:

Your home. Very good news. Very good outcome. Glad it went that way. We also have another slight issue criminal. Yeah. This is a criminal law case we have here. This says justices are divided on a retroactive application of the jury unanimity rule. So we have a rule now that came out from the Supreme court back in 2020. Let me show you this Supreme court in 2020 said, criminal juries must be unanimous in order to convict. So they ruled this back April 20th, 2020. They said that juries in a state criminal trial must be unanimous to convict a defendant, settling a quirk of constitutional law that has allowed divided votes to result in convictions in Louisiana and Oregon. And so they went through this, they said, Neil Gorsuch wrote that the practice is inconsistent with the right to a jury trial. It should be discarded as a vestige of Jim Crow laws. It was basically, you know , sort of burst out of bigotry and racism, basically what was happening out of Louisiana. And some of these places is that back in the 1930s, and as soon as an Oregon in 1930s, but they would, you know , they , they would charge somebody, let's say black guy with a crime, right. And they have a jury. 12 people would be on there. Well, 10 people would be white. Two people would be black. And the black

Speaker 3:

People would say, well, no, we're not going to , we're not going to convict this person. So what do you have?

Speaker 2:

Well, if you have a unanimous requirement for a verdict, well , that person doesn't get convicted. So a lot of these legislatures is that, Oh , it's fine. We'll just say it doesn't have to be unanimous anymore. So if it's 10 to two, well, that's fine. So then you get , uh , enough room there that you can get some unfavorable jurors on there. Absolutely insane to me that this was even ever allowed to happen. I mean, we have a concept in our jurisprudence called beyond a reasonable doubt. And if you have a split jury kind of sounds like the definition of reasonable doubt to me, right? You've got two jurors who say, I don't see it. It's the definition of it. But a lot of these States for, for some time were saying, yeah, you could no problem. Right? If you have two people who say, not guilty, doesn't matter, you need three for a defense attorney. It's like the worst nightmare you might as well. Not even try because it's just ridiculous. So now, so now we know that in 2020, the Supreme court said you can't do that anymore. And to be fair, most States around the country never sort of ascribed to this type of modality, but it was still something that was floating around in our jurisprudence for some time. Well, that happened in 2020. So the question was, well, what about the people who had already been convicted? What about if I was convicted in 2019 and I had a split jury conviction, they came out, two people said I was not guilty. Can I apply that 2020 case?

Speaker 3:

To my case, that was in

Speaker 2:

2019, maybe reopen it, get a new trial, have them dismiss my case. What's going on? Can I, can I, can I try again because you just came out

Speaker 3:

And said, this is a problem.

Speaker 2:

This is the vestige of Jim Crow. So I want another crack at it. Can I do it? The court said, no, you can't sorry, no retroactive application. They ruled of course, in a vote of six to three, purely political again. So all the conservative judges voting in favor of not extending that rule, all of the liberal judges voting in favor of extending it. So making it retroactive, which of course I would have loved to have seen it be made retroactive, but I wouldn't have held my breath that that was going to happen. That geographical impact of the decision is limited to Louisiana and Oregon. The only two States that have allowed non unanimous verdict. So the dispute over this, when it goes back almost 50 years, there was a 1972 ruling and Apadaca versus Oregon holding that. Although the sixth amendment guarantees our right to a unanimous jury in federal cases, but that does not apply in state cases. So the justices were deeply divided in reaching that conclusion. Four of them would have ruled, all right , goes on and on and on. We know what the verdict is here. So it's not going to go backwards. We have in 2020 Ramos, we already talked about that case. It was a six to three case. The court's ruling drew a sharp dissent from justice, Elena Kagan, who is this judge right here. So judge , uh , Elena Kagan, we have a majority opinion coming from these conservative judges, judge Kane Kagan wrote a dissent . Let's see what that says. She said here, Kagan suggested that the jury unanimity requirement was so clearly a watershed rule that the majority was left with little choice other than to scrap the watershed exception altogether. And it did so Kagan contended, even though no one had asked it to do so and without any good reason to do so, the majority Kagan said crawls under, rather than leaps over the bar created by the principle that the court should normally adhere to its prior precedent. All right . So she's upset over some precedential stuff. It sounds like the Supreme court is also going to be hearing a challenge to Roe vs. Wade. And this is going to be interesting. This is , um, we're going to see when the , when this actually hits the court docket. I'm very curious about this. Think about the timing now on all of this happening. And I haven't really thought through the timing on this , uh, specifically, like, I don't know the dates and when this is all going to unfold, but I want you to think about this in terms of practicality. Okay. Roe vs . Wade is one of the most contentious cases

Speaker 3:

Ever in the history of anything. And it is

Speaker 2:

Something that has become even bigger than really the legal case. It's kind of a symbol for, you know , women's rights and women's freedoms and sort of, I guess women largely, you know, at least one content, one, one segment of women. I know many women are , um, disgusted by Roe vs Wade, but it has become almost symbolic. It's sort of identified very closely with planned Parenthood and a lot of these big women's rights organizations and so many people, anytime it's Roe vs. Wade, you know , it's sort of this assault on women,

Speaker 3:

Meaning that this

Speaker 2:

Is going to be a big deal. So the question then becomes, what is the Supreme court going to do about this? And I want you to think about this in terms of political posturing, not even about the law, not even about abortion, not even about, you know , uh, any, any legal concerns you have about the structure of Roe vs Wade or about, you know, the, the opinion on life at conception or any of that stuff. It's not even about that. It's about what the court is going to do based on the political posture. So let's think about

Speaker 3:

This. If the Supreme court

Speaker 2:

Came out today and overturn Roe vs Wade today, they're not going to do that today because this case is going to come up on the next

Speaker 3:

Cycle. Uh , it sounds like if they did that today, guess what would happen? Right ?

Speaker 2:

You would see a ton of political pressure and a lot of momentum from the Democrats and the court would almost certainly be packed because there would be almost no way to stop that enthusiasm for changing this case. But what happens if we fast forward to next year, when we're in the second term, maybe we don't hear a ruling or we get an outcome on this case until after the midterms . Well, what happens if the seats change? What happens if the Senate changes back to Republican control or the house changes back to Republican control? Well, then it's a lot more difficult for the threat of court packing to have any teeth because the Democrats are no longer in control. They can't do that. And of course the Republicans are not going to allow that to happen. So we now sort of see how this can flush itself out in terms of politics. If the Supreme court comes back down and rules in favor of overturning Roe mal , maybe we get a lot more calls for court packing. If they don't,

Speaker 3:

You're going to have a lot of

Speaker 2:

People, very disappointed that we have six conservative judges. We have an opportunity now to potentially readdress what many people consider to be a mess ,

Speaker 3:

Massive problem in our jurisprudence and our cultural society in the, in , through the ,

Speaker 2:

Through the lens of Roe vs Wade. Well, Supreme court is going to hear about it. They have on Monday accepted and Mississippi challenge to the abortion precedent set by Roe vs . Wade. This comes over by from the Washington examiner and an unsigned order of the court. It would hear the case, but limited its scope to the first question presented in the petition, which is whether quote, all pre viability prohibitions on elective, abortions are unconstitutional. The court will not consider the other two questions, which related to the scrutiny of abortion restrictions, the court's acceptance of the case, electrified the anti-abortion movement with many leaders, hoping it would signal the end of a decades long battle to send the abortion question back to the individual

Speaker 3:

States. The state should be allowed

Speaker 2:

To craft laws that are in line with both public opinion on this issue, as well as basic human compassion. Instead of the extreme policy that Rohan post said, Jeanie Manzini

Speaker 3:

In a petition

Speaker 2:

With a Mississippi attorney, general Lynn Fitch asked the court to consider if the state's 2018 law banning abortions before 15 weeks is constitutional. So it sounds like that's what the law is, right? If there was a law in 2018, that banned abortions before 15 weeks Fitch wrote that the court must resolve contradictions in its decisions over when viability begins. So they're asking the Supreme court to weigh in on that. Now that the question, the issue that the court is going to be trying to unpack is, are all pre viability prohibitions on elective abortion

Speaker 3:

Unconstitutional. So is it unconstitutional to say at 15 weeks, I know almost nothing about pregnancies, but at 15 weeks you are absolutely not even remotely viable. Pretty sure. Pretty sure about that one. That there's no way

Speaker 2:

You can survive if you're a 15 week fetus. And so here,

Speaker 3:

They're saying that you, that this would be banned before 15 weeks. All right . Well ,

Speaker 2:

Whether that's constitutional or not, well, we're going to see what the Supreme court says about this. The case represents the latest challenge to the abortion precedent by row reaffirmed in 1992, by the Casey decision last summer, the court weighed in on a major abortion case in Louisiana where Roberts joined the court's liberal wing to deal a blow to anti-abortion activists. The addition of Amy Coney Barrett to the court gave the anti-abortion movement. Hope that cases such as the Mississippi might prove winnable, both sides of the abortion debate after Barrett's confirmation ramped up their preparations for the possibility of a post RO future, the court wrestled behind the scenes for nearly a year before agreeing to hear arguments in the case. And so we'll see where that comes up in the court queue of the court docket. Let's take a [email protected] What's up Sharon Quinny here. She says, well, what do you know wonders never cease. The Supreme who were in remained worse than useless during the election debacle actually upheld citizens rights and the constitution and unanimously at that that's right, Sharon.

Speaker 3:

Sometimes they step

Speaker 2:

Up and we get some good news from them other times, not so much. Uh , do you support Davis parks? Do you support substantive due process? This has always been welded me whether or not you abortion. It's always boggled me that this isn't a violation of the 10th amendment. It feels like telling abolitionists States that they have to honor a slave owners right to property. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed that this means that the Casey precedents will be tossed and States will finally have their rights to decide these controversial issues. So, you know, the substance , do you support substantive due process? I don't know how to even answer that question. I mean, it's such a huge topic that , that, that I, that I, that I really, I really can't , uh, unpack all of that right now. My head is sort of spinning, trying to think about how to even answer that question. But I think the bigger question is about sort of state's rights and about dealing with some of these cultural issues about whether or not we should set a standard look , regardless of what you think about the abortion issue. I agree that this is something that should be dealt with through the legislative branches. I think, I think I would hope that most of us can agree on about that. When we're talking about the courts sort of stepping into these cultural issues, I have a lot of issues with that. And this is where this is really where Roe vs. Wade is so tricky, right? It's not, it's not even necessarily from the legal people. Many of us are not even such a tricky topic. I gotta be so careful with my words here. Many of us are questioning the mechanism by which Roe vs. Wade was implemented. Okay . This was like the Supreme court went in and passed a legislative bill. Essentially. They wrote law. Okay. Which is not their function, regardless of what you think about abortion, doesn't matter. You can say it . You know, this is about anything. It's about widgets or it's about selling fruit on the side of the street, right? There are some things that a court of law is intending to do. Its functions are directly tied to the creation of its jurisdiction of its power of its authority through our constitution. So when the court starts acting like Congress, when they start passing laws like a three structure frame for abortions, where it has a first trimester, second trimester, third trimester framework, we're all going, what were the health of that come from? What were in the constitution that say any of that comes from nowhere. So you're just manufacturing all of this stuff and then calling it, you know , due process. And it becomes problematic because that's not the court's function, that's the legislature's function. So if the individual legislatures from all the different States want to pass their own rules and pass their own laws, I'm okay with that. Okay. I've been, I've been very in favor of that, that this is one of the beautiful things of our country. We have 50 States. We have these little laboratories of democracy is justice. O'Connor talked about, and that's a good thing. And people can pick up and go to where they want to go. And I really encourage that because we're seeing that happen right now. We're seeing this exit is from California over to Texas, over to Florida, over to Nashville , uh, and , uh , Tennessee and many other places. That's a good thing. That's a beautiful thing. I'd like to see more of that. Not less. So a great question, Dave parks, a good thank you for that. We got one or a couple more over here from pinky to says, Rob seems like such a rollercoaster . Why can't we get a state constitutional amendment to solve this court packing? And a few others like term limits solve it, using the people to decide to go. This is too political and politicians forget who voted them in. Yeah. So , uh, I'd be in favor of , uh , absolutely a convention of the States. Certainly when we were playing around and toying around with the , uh, the digital bill of rights, which I still like that idea if we can ever get some momentum behind it, but if we could do something like that, if we could get a convention of the States, we can impose some term limits. We could do a lot of things very quickly. That would, I think, rattle the power structure in Washington, which is really, I think what most of us want. We're kind of tired of the same old ineffective, garbage leadership that, that I've had most of my life. We have a, and that is it for the questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you so much for all of your support. We really, really appreciate it. All right , we've got one more segment of the day, the Marines, the army, the CIA, everybody is going woke in the United States, armed forces. We're talking today about the space force commander who was fired after criticizing Marxism and critical race theory. We're going to be talking about the army. The us army is now focused on making sure that we all know how dangerous one of America's most severe enemies is of course, the worst enemy that we face right now. It's not, you know, Al Qaeda, it's not North Korea or the Russians or the Chinese. It is

Speaker 3:

Climate change, mother earth.

Speaker 2:

She is coming after us hard and the army has got a gear up. They're going to get their CFL light bulbs and their solar panels. And they're going to go out there and save America one tree at a time. So we're going to go through a lot of this. Now this is a trend that is taking place all over the country. And we're even seeing the Pentagon now saying that they're going to be starting to monitor all military personnel, their social media, to identify extremist content so that they can sort of unify and homogenize the entire military to make sure that they are in alignment with one political ideology. That's in power right now. First story comes over from the post-millennial says , uh , the space force commander speaks out after being fired for warning against Marxism. He was on Sean Hannity last night, Monday night to warn that critical race theory is creating unnecessary divisions inside the armed forces. He said, let me give you one example of what I saw in the past 10 months was when I was in command of a unit. He said, I began noticing some time ago and not just in the past few months, but over the past several years, an increasing relevance of what I saw was a Marxist ideology parading around by other names. Lieutenant Colonel loamier said the secretary of the department of defense called for an extreme ism down day and issued a guidance memorandum to all service members in February in the guidance memo. He basically gave an injunction to every service member. So an injunctions like an order, every service member to combat extremist ideologies within the force where they saw them and take it upon ourselves to protect one another and to speak up and educate one another about extremist ideologies. When we discovered them causing divisions within the force, he wrote irresistible revolution. We talked about that book yesterday, Sean Hannity went on to slam the military for teaching the constitution

Speaker 3:

And , uh ,

Speaker 2:

Uh, for teaching that the constitution ratified and codified white supremacy, which was mentioned in his book, irresistible revolution handed asked him if the U S military recognizes the incredible strides, the U S has taken to form a more perfect union. He says, I think it's recognized.

Speaker 3:

I think one of the things we

Speaker 2:

That the defense department does very well is it makes it very clear that we've got zero tolerance for discrimination on any kind of any kind based on race, sex, politics, or religion, but he made it exceedingly clear that during this time as commander, he had zero tolerance for political discrimination as well. I said , I made it very clear to my own people in the light of the hyper politicized environment since taking command. And I'm no longer in command, I will not tolerate any discrimination of any kind based on politics. There were videos being sent out to every base service member that we were asked to watch in preparation for our extremism down days and discussions on race in which we were taught that the country was evil, that it was founded in 16, 19, and not 1776. And that whites are inherently evil teaching this to the military. Uh, Oh my gosh, what is happening right now? We have the , uh, if that's not bad for you, then we now know that the

Speaker 3:

So army America's lethal fighting force. And I have a lot

Speaker 2:

Out of respect for the military. You know, I never served, I got to imagine, I know a lot of people who did serve in the middle. I got to imagine that they're just looking at this stuff and they are pulling their hairs. I have to guess, but maybe they don't want those people anymore. Maybe they

Speaker 3:

Want the , uh , cis-gender

Speaker 2:

Latina gal or the magic, the gathering playing CIA agent. I have no idea. Maybe that's what they want us army now is going

Speaker 3:

To be taking on climate change

Speaker 2:

As a serious threat to national security over from the Federalist , the us army announced it will begin prioritizing climate change as part of its ongoing strategic operations. Oh my gosh. Who's in charge of the military. Now is at Alexandria Ocasio, Cortez titled us army addressing climate change threats, the document classifies climate change as a serious threat to us, national security and defense objectives. While also detailing how the military agency intends to play a more active role in responding to climate related issues. Moving forward, quote from the memo to prepare for the challenges ahead, the army will continue to identify and implement steps that to enhance readiness and capability in the face of climate related threats.

Speaker 3:

That's good, strong

Speaker 2:

Steward of the resources offered in a shared operational environment. The army has a lot to be proud of that. There's a lot of work to continue to operate efficiently across extreme weathers and climate conditions. As part of its response initiative, the agency intends to conduct in-depth assessments of likely climate change effects on the Army's worldwide missions. While also working to lead the way in technology for tactical vehicles, the will include a focus on strategizing and planning to mitigate climate threats.

Speaker 3:

What the hell are they going to do about this? The army, the us army, what are they going to do? They drive tanks and they fly helicopters and

Speaker 2:

Aircraft carriers. They carry huge

Speaker 3:

Pieces of metal all over the world. That's the point it's to move forces around the planet. It's going to cause some carbon to come out. These places .

Speaker 2:

This is on soldier, resilience, energy reform and capability enhancement the push to incorporate a left wing climate agenda. Under the guise of national security has been a long time priority of president Joe , secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, foreshadowed how the defense department will utilize the issue of climate change to reshape how the military operates. Everything is going to be reshaped under climate change, including the military,

Speaker 3:

Which

Speaker 2:

Is Ilan going to be making some tanks and some aircraft carriers. We're going to have a Tesla aircraft carrier. Now we are in the department of defense. We are committed to doing our part. We're going to increase our efficiency of our platform for whatever. Uh , these guys are. It's like a joke. We have the Pentagon now plans to monitor social media of military personnel for the extremist content. So this came over from the intercept Klan Klippenstein wrote this. So if you are somebody who is in the armed services and you don't want to fight climate change and you get on Facebook and you post about

Speaker 3:

It, well, guess what Pentagon is now

Speaker 2:

Monitoring you for that. So they're going to see whether or not that's extremist conduct. If you write a book about Marxism or critical race theory, like the former face, a space force commander gone. If you're somebody who doesn't like climate change gone, if you're somebody who maybe is not , uh , an ideological lefty gone, we saw that libertarians

Speaker 3:

Threats. So

Speaker 2:

Now they're going to be cracking down on this. They're gonna be monitoring everything you say, just to make sure that you're not a dangerous extremist as part of the byte administrations crack down on domestic extremism. The Pentagon plans to launch a pilot program for screening social media content for extremist material. According to an internal defense department document that was provided to the intercept extremism steering committee is being led by Bishop Garren's Garrison, senior advisor of the secretary of defense currently designing the social media screening pilot program, which will quote, continuously monitor military personnel for concerning behaviors, according to a Pentagon briefing in late March. So I'd be very curious how this works, right? Are they just monitoring social media generally? Like, are they monitoring searches and trending hashtags and , and doing data searches to see whether, you know, what pops up analyzing Google trends. We already know that they're plugged in with all these tech companies. So

Speaker 3:

Is that what they're doing? Or are they following

Speaker 2:

People? Are they saying, Hey, Rob, you're in the military. Now we know you were going to identify all your social media posts. All, you know, you got this Facebook address, this YouTube account, this Twitter profile, this Instagram, all that just goes right into a database. And they check that specifically. In other words, they are monitoring directly. They're not monitoring extremist threats on the internet. They're monitoring you and you, and you be different. It'd be curious to see how this is being structured. Although in the past, the military has balked at surveilling service members for extremist political views due to the first amendment protections. The pilot program will rely on private surveillance from , in order to circumvent first amendment restrictions on government monitoring. Can you believe these guys, according to a senior Pentagon official? So the government can't monitor you because it's the government, right? They need warrants. They need , uh , you've got first a member protection protection . As you can speak your mind freely. They're not allowed to do that. That's okay. They're not going to do it. They're just going to hire a third party to do it. And they're going to navigate around the different constitutional protections that you have so that they can violate them. And this is what we see on a grand scale that we already know that they're doing this right? All of the people who say that there is no problem with Facebook or Twitter or YouTube or Google or any of these entities, censoring your speech. They all say this, Oh, it's just a private company. They can do whatever the hell they want. Really. Even though they're undermining some of our fundamental civil liberties are some are fundamental principles of the United States. Like the freedom of speech that's embodied in the first amendment. You're saying you're okay with that. With these other private companies like watering those things down, would you be okay if other private companies, I don't know , re-instituted segregation again, like we had back in the , in the fifties , forties, fifties, and sixties, would you be okay with that? Because those are also private restaurants and private auto shops and private drinking fountains. No, it's not okay. It's not okay when they do this stuff. And when we allow the government to use this

Speaker 3:

Private, you know , BS , escape valve, it's not okay. The Pentagon is now doing that with men and women in the armed services. And they probably have no idea, huh ?

Speaker 2:

Though , the firm has not yet been selected. The current front runner is Babel street company that sells powerful surveillance tools, including social media monitoring software Babel street has drawn criticism for its practice of buying bulk cellular data, selling it to the federal national security agencies, like the secret service. They rely on private companies to bypass the warrant requirements normally imposed on government bodies, seeking to collect data in November. Vice reported that the U S military special operations command use one of Babel Street's products, locate X to track the location of individuals for special forces operations. One method Babel , controversially used was to purchase location data associated with the users of a popular Muslim prayer app. We have people praying and we have government interfering, Garrison and Babel street. They didn't respond. Of course, it's not clear. It's not. It is unclear as to what extent Congress is aware of the program. If at all, why would they be aware of anything when asked about the program of spokesperson for rep Don bacon, a member of the armed service committee said they were not aware of it. I have discussed this with our defense team. And as of right now, we have not heard anything from the DOD that we confirm the story. He said, bacon Senate armed service committee did not immediately respond for a request for comment in an email received. After this article was originally published spokesperson for the armed services committee provided the following. It says the committee understands DOD is exploring a means of implementing social media screening. We anticipate any screening would be intended only as an additional means of vetting cleared individuals. Okay. So that , that makes it okay. And those seeking to obtain a security clearance, not as a tool for ongoing surveillance of all men and women in uniform. You believe that that said, secretary Austin has been clear about his intentions and to understand what extent extremism exists in the force and its effect on good order and discipline. We look forward to hearing the results of the standout ended apartments plan to move forward. So they are endorsing the entire thing. Basically they , they , they send this letter.

Speaker 3:

Well, you know, we , we, we heard about that, but they're not doing the bad version. They're uh, they're ,

Speaker 2:

We're gonna it's it's not for ongoing surveillance. It's just to make sure that they're good and Hey, by , and also we know that

Speaker 3:

By the way, anyways, Lloyd Austin told you he was going to do this. So

Speaker 2:

Looking forward to the results of this, thanks for your inquiry. Next question. The defense department hinted at the program in April 9th on a press release about its countering extremism working group, which it says we'll make recommendations on incorporating machine learning and natural language processing into social media screening platforms, as well as ensure training addresses issues raised by commanders and supervisors on gray areas, such as reading, following, and liking extremist material and content on social media forums and platforms, pilot programs going to use keywords, going to identify potential extremists though , coming up with a list of terms without running a foul of speech protections has proven to be challenging.

Speaker 3:

I wonder what those keywords

Speaker 2:

Will look like. I wonder if you know, certain politicians are going to be on one list and other politicians

Speaker 3:

Are nuts. The intercepts

Speaker 2:

Previously noted that the military is countering extremism, working group drafted a lift list of potential consultants that included anti Muslim and Christian conservative groups using keywords to monitor social media. Isn't just an unnecessary privacy invasion. It

Speaker 3:

Will ensure that it is

Speaker 2:

Short-lived . It's a flawed strategy, set, a retired FBI agent. It will undoubtedly produce a flood of false positives that will waste security resources, undermine morale, not gonna identify anything.

Speaker 3:

This is

Speaker 2:

A, this is the tolerance for those that openly engage in a racist behavior and , uh , discrimination. Last month, the white house rejected

Speaker 3:

The proposal from the department of Homeland security to collect

Speaker 2:

Social media data from immigration applicants,

Speaker 3:

Rather than rely ,

Speaker 2:

Hang on artificial intelligence or algorithms. They're basically going to say, just take reports of the racist misconduct, trying to suss out extremists with an algorithm. Isn't likely to identify problems ,

Speaker 3:

Boys within the department nearly let's

Speaker 2:

Look, I'm not even sure that it's the point of

Speaker 3:

That, that, that

Speaker 2:

They want to, I, they it's about conditioning. Everybody who's

Speaker 3:

Already in there. If you're middle

Speaker 2:

Of the road, if you're not an extremist, if you're just somebody, I don't like don't, I don't know about any of this stuff or I don't. I, you know, I'm not, I'm not somebody who would jump out as an ex in the extremist category, but maybe you're slightly conservative. You're slightly Republican. Now you're getting beat in the head with CRT and , uh , anti extremist ideology,

Speaker 3:

Pinky .

Speaker 2:

Number two says, Rob, can we stop with the junk? They want to keep our focus on and take on what is important. Geez . Our government is no better than those bad Popo groups. I shall not name here. We have financial problems, food problems, and they want to go spend all of our money on climate

Speaker 3:

Change. I know it's very important. I mean, I don't know about you, but I feel like we're constantly assaulted by the temperature, especially here in Arizona, it's coming to July, right?

Speaker 2:

It's it's going to be like 115 degrees in Arizona

Speaker 3:

In July that threatens my personal national security. Cause it's too hot.

Speaker 2:

But you know how I saw that jump in the pool. Sharon Quinney says this woke military is just another example of the communist takeover of this country. It's the same thing they did in Russia. Immediately rid the military of any elements who are not in alignment with the regime. You know , you know, six months ago, I would've said that's crazy. Like they would never do that. Like they would never

Speaker 3:

Officially take steps to purge the military. And I just covered three stories today talking about it.

Speaker 2:

No doubt says solar tanks at only fight on a sunny, happy days. Solar techs . That's right. That's right. Solar takes yeah. Solar tanks, Teslas solar tanks that are marching through the desert in the Sahara. And when it gets cloudy, your side loses actually there's no battle that day because both sides have solar tanks. It's cloudy, nobody just fights. We all just sit down and have a picnic together. Mestizo Quixote says, wouldn't it make sense to insulate the military from tumultuous social movements. One would think that the military has more important things to focus on. You would think that, I mean, I thought that for a long time, I thought that thankfully, that the military was sort of the last bastion of independence , uh, sort of removing themselves from the political BS that you and I engage in on a regular basis. They're supposed to be above that. It's supposed to be that they are in America's interests and the civilians Duke it out amongst ourselves. Republicans think they have better ideas. Democrats think they have better ideas. Military says, I don't care. You people sorted out. We're going to go execute our assigned duties flawlessly. And we are going to go protect America domestically and abroad. And that's it. And if the Republicans come in and we're going to change things, we're going to change things, whatever we're going to continue to fight and win. We're going to solve America's problems. Now it's not even about that. Now we're fighting climate change, critical race theory. And apparently it is being infested with Marxism. According to our former space commit space force commander. So I'm not sure what the military is eat on. Test says I'm with you. What exactly is the military supposed to? Maybe it's just me. Maybe it is simple global warming, buy less tanks, buy more boats. There you go. Hey, that's a good point, right? Maybe we need the military to buy a bunch of boats because I've been hearing for 10 years that we're not going to have coasts anymore, or we're going to have

Speaker 3:

A lot more coasts internally

Speaker 2:

In this country. But obviously that's has hasn't happened either. Al Gore said we had 10 years to solve this problem. I remember hearing that back when inconvenient truth came out, you know how I remember this rush Limbaugh put a counter on his website that said we only have 10 years to live. Cause Al Gore said we only have 10 years to live. We got to fix this in 10 years. That was like 25 years ago. So it is a , an ongoing thing. It's hysterical

Speaker 3:

That we're , we're still

Speaker 2:

Talking about it, except it's kind of scary because now it is being it's pernicious. It's getting into our military , uh, eat on test, says buy more boats. So if the military, then if they're gonna be solving climate change, we all need boats so that we don't fall and sink in the ocean. Leafy bug is in the house. As I hope, military personnel who think all of this politicized nonsense are able to mouth the right words or hold their tongues at the right time and hang in there until the military refocuses on its core mission of winning Wars. If they go, the military could go the way of schools, universities, this seems incredibly dangerous. I agree with you. I actually agree with you. I think this is it . This is a big concern because it's supposed to be something that is off limits. You know, both sides is right . You guys, we , we want you to go kill people and break things. That's the purpose of it. And if we don't want that to be the purpose of it, that's fine. We can have that conversation and we can change that. We can say, well, we don't, you know, maybe defund the military. We're going to be a peaceful nation. Now we're going to send a , we're going to send community response teams over to deal with armed conflict in the middle East. We're going to send, you know, AOC and Rashida to lab to go out there and have conversations with people.

Speaker 3:

Look, if that's the policy and we want to make that change as a country, we can have that conversation, but that's not what the military is for currently, right? They're for destroying the enemy. And I think that maybe we should revisit that in light of this new administration's change, is it really about climate change? Right questions coming in today, a lot of good

Speaker 2:

Cop topics, a lot of irrita irritating conversation, irritating topics today. For me personally, having trouble with my words, getting ahead of myself. If you want to support the show, you can do that [email protected], locals watching the watchers.locals.com. You can download a lot of stuff over there . Free copy of my book, beginning to winning download the slides that we went through today. Download a copy of my impeachment party documents. Download a copy of my existence systems, personal productivity tool, totally free over there.

Speaker 3:

You can share links throughout the day and

Speaker 2:

Connect with great people. Also want to remind you that we have a monthly locals meetups going to be taking place this Saturday. Oh my goodness. It's coming up very soon. 7:00 PM. Eastern time. We're going to have one hour zoom meetups . So if you want to join and be a part of that, watching the watchers.locals.com, I know that some people get a little bit anxious when we talk about zoom, right ?

Speaker 1:

Talking and connecting. If you want to keep your camera off, no problem at all. Even if you don't want to talk, no problem at all. If I'm on there by myself and everybody ,

Speaker 2:

He has their cameras off and their Mike's off. I'll just talk to myself for an hour because I'm probably going to be doing that. Anyways.

Speaker 1:

We have another thing coming up in June

Speaker 2:

Saturday, June 12th at 12 to 2:00 PM. So

Speaker 1:

Says here, we're going to be doing law enforcement interaction training.

Speaker 2:

This is going to be fun. Looking forward to this one. So Saturday, June 12th, it's going to be about an hour and a half. We're going to have another 30 minutes or so for conversation. Another zoom can also keep your cameras off if you want, but all free. All that's free. If you are a [email protected], watching the watchers.locals.com is the address.

Speaker 1:

Lastly, before we get out of here, I'm a criminal defense lawyer here at the RNR law group. We're in Scottsdale, Arizona. We're very passionate about helping good people facing criminal charges to find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who is facing DUI charges,

Speaker 2:

Domestic violence, charges, felony charges, misdemeanor charges, traffic cases, anything, and everything in between. We can help with that. We can help quash old warrants. We can clear up all the records. We can help you restore your rights to vote, to possess a firearm, apply for federal benefits. There's a lot that we can do.

Speaker 1:

If you have an active case, we can really make sure that we can help represent you in a way that's gonna

Speaker 2:

Get you the best possible outcome. There's a lot that goes into it. We offer free case evaluation. So if you want to come into our office, we'll have you sit down, we'll meet with you . You can meet with our team, grab a copy of my book, make sure you have a strategy before you leave our office. And if we can work together great, but we just want to help. If we can just ,

Speaker 1:

Are you in the right direction, we'll do that. So if you do happen to know anybody in our state of Arizona that needs help, we would be honored and humbled. If you sent them our way, it would really mean the world to us. We love what we do. We've got a great team of people

Speaker 2:

Here and we're just looking forward to helping other good people who just need a little bit of support through this difficult time. So freaking

Speaker 1:

Evaluations, phone number, website, everything you need is down in the description below. Also want to ask you to head on over to my second channel, if you would like

Speaker 2:

Support us. I , that would mean the world to me as well. There's a link in the description below

Speaker 1:

Final reminder. I'm not going to be here tomorrow. So there's not going to be a live show on this channel. There is going to be a premiere , which is

Speaker 2:

Kind of like alive , but it's a prerecorded premiere. It plays at the same time for everybody at the same moment, starting tomorrow at 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM Eastern over on channel number two. So check that out. It is already public and posted and available if you're a subscriber over at locals. So if you want to get into a deep dive about an hour and 20 minutes on Wu Han the lab escape theory versus the natural emergence theory,

Speaker 1:

I do a deep dive on that. We go really, really deep into the Nicholas Wade article. And it's very, very little .

Speaker 2:

We actually go through four different factors that sort of help us decipher whether this came from a lab or whether this came from nature.

Speaker 1:

So fun, fun, video, heavy lifting,

Speaker 2:

Some deep dive stuff over there. So definitely not for everybody, but go check that out. And again, I would appreciate the support.

Speaker 1:

So that is it from my friends. I will not see you tomorrow, but you can see that premiere on my second channel. I will. In fact though, see you on Wednesday at the same time, same place, same location, 4:00 PM, Arizona, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM in central and 7:00 PM on that East coast for that one, Florida man, everybody. Thank you so much for being here with me today. I will see you back here on Thursday. Have a tremendous night. Bye-bye .