Rittenhouse Day 1: Jury Selection, Baldwin Lays Out Defense, FDNY Closed and Marine Expulsions Start

Kyle Rittenhouse trial starts with jury selection, and we have the highlights from day one in Judge Bruce Schroeder’s courtroom. Alec Baldwin speaks to the press on the side of the road and we break down his statement in video and transcript to identify how his defense fits with the chain of causation. Major departures and closures around the U.S. in the wake of government mandates, including closed fire departments in New York and the pending expulsion of marines.​

And more! Including:​

🔵 Review of the Rittenhouse trial board with the five alleged victims, prosecutors, and defense lawyers.​

🔵 Judge Bruce Schroeder details the timeline for the trial, estimating it to take 2 weeks.​

🔵 Judge explains the process of getting a full jury panel.​

🔵 Prosecutor Thomas Binger asks about jurors and influences from close family or friends.​

🔵 Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi asks a follow-up about a mother being concerned for her son’s safety in Kenosha.​

🔵 Both the prosecution and defense agree on striking a juror over her response to a question about weapons.​

🔵 Alec Baldwin gives a public statement to the press on the side of the road after pulling over while driving with his kids.​

🔵 Revisiting the Alec Baldwin chain of causation chart and how Baldwin’s statement fits.​

🔵 Baldwin framed the incident as a “one-in-a-trillion” accident.​

🔵 Baldwin also distances himself as an expert and encourages whatever reforms are recommended.​

🔵 Was Alec Baldwin’s roadside press release spontaneous?​

🔵 New York City Firefighters close 26 firehouses are unvaccinated firefighters are barred from working.​

🔵 NYC Officials send emails begging for volunteer firefighters to help the city in the meantime.​

🔵 U.S Prisons also facing a staffing shortage as officers quit due to the pandemic.​

🔵 Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva warns of a “mass exodus” among sheriff personnel.​

🔵 U.S. Marine Corp issues orders details new pandemic requirements and penalties for failing to comply.​

🔵 Your questions, comments and live chat after each segment!​

NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertgruleresq/video/7005388301586730246​

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​

🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​

📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​

👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​

✂ Watching the Watchers Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 November 6, 2021 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 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​

🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​

🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​

🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​

🟢 Homepage with transcripts: 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!​

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We've got judges, not particularly interested in a little thing called a 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 Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system. With the hope of finding justice. We're grateful that you are here and with us today in this episode of watching the Watchers, we're talking about Kyle Rittenhouse day, one of the trial, of course, this is a big, big case that a lot of people are paying attention to, including us. A lot of our coverage on this channel has been about the Kyle Rittenhouse case. And so we're going to be taking a deep dive into it, day one. We're going to be looking at what happened in court today. Courts judges name is Bruce Schroeder, and it was a big Bruce Schroeder day to day. He was giving us a lot of the details about how the trial is going to unfold. Looking like two weeks of trial today, we're right in the middle of jury selection. And so we have several clips of the judge explaining how this is all going to work, how jury selection is going to unfold. And then clips of actually the two different attorneys who are doing the questioning one for the prosecution, Thomas binger and the defense attorney, Corey[inaudible]. We're asking questions of the various jurors today, and we've got a bunch of different clips of them. So we'll go through that. Not super interesting, but we are going to be getting our bearings straight on this case. We're going to be spending the next two weeks or so covering this in depth. And so we got to make sure that we've got our framework in order. Then we're going to change gears in our second segment, we're going to be looking at Alec Baldwin over the weekend. He came out and gave this, I think it was spontaneous or was supposed to be spontaneous. This little press conference, this a sort of, he was being chased around by some media. People pulled over on the side of the road, went out and had a conversation with these people who were following him. And so even though it was about a three minute conversation, we do have a transcript and we can go through it and see what he was talking about here and see if we can glean out from this, any of his defenses, of course, as they pertain to the rust shooting. So we're going to talk about that. And then in our third segment, we are right up against the clock on some hard deadlines for vaccine mandates that are being imposed all across the country. And so we're going to check in on those out of New York city, F D N Y the, that they've closed like 26 firehouses in New York city. So 26 fire departments closed because of a self-imposed mandate. We'll check in with them. We'll check in with the U S prisons that are facing staffing shortages. We're going to check in with Los Angeles county saying that their sheriffs are going to be gone with the wind. And then of course, we're going to take our, our eyes over to the Marine Corps, because they're about to boot out a bunch of Marines if they don't bend the knee, like is expected in this administration. And so if you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And somebody was just sending me a message about the form saying that the form doesn't match the topics. Let's see that let's let's, let's do a quick correction check on this, make sure that we're okay on the form so that the topics match. I can't tell you to use the form if the topics don't match, but I think they do. I thought I updated the form. All right. So the forum looks like this Rittenhouse jury selection, Baldwin public statement, and the New York fire department in the Marines exited. That's the form to use. If you are over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, if you're a supporter there, use that form. We're going to go ahead and take your questions as they come in. And it's, it's very helpful if you keep them in order of the segments. Otherwise, I kind of just got to skip over it. So it is, uh, watching the watchers.locals.com is the place to be, if you want to be a part of the show, the live stream, of course, four o'clock Arizona time, every day, weekday, and the clips. Those all get uploaded over here to the clips channel, watching the Watchers, Robert ruler, Esq clips on YouTube. Okay. So I think we've got all the, uh, what's the word? What's the word, clerical work, housekeeping. All the housekeeping is in order, which means we can go ahead and get started with the actual show. Kyle Rittenhouse trial today started day one jury selection. We're going to be covering this in depth. We've spent a lot of time talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, his case. In fact, the big reason this channel is as successful as it ever has been is because of Kyle Rittenhouse. We did a very deep dive back in August when this happened and made a very strong case, in my opinion, my humble opinion as a defense lawyer for why this was self-defense. And so we're going to be covering this in depth. I think it's a very important case for the concept of self-defense, uh, that exists fundamentally in our concept of law here as Americans. So I want to start off by making sure we have our foundation in order. Let's take a look at the trial board. We can see here, we've got all the relevant parties in order. And since we've been following this case, this has continued to fill out. It will continue to fill out, but let's run through and make sure we've got our housekeeping in order, Kyle Rittenhouse, over here, we can see he is the defendant. So we're going to put him on the right we've got Mark Richards, his attorney, we've got Corey cheer reef scene, who is his defense attorney or cheer, uh, feces. I'm going to say that wrong throughout the entirety of the trial, but he did a lot of the questioning today. Today was jury selection. And Mr. Chira FEC did most of the void Deere for the defense. We saw Dr. John Black was an expert witness that the defense proffered forward we'll probably see him in the trial when the defense presents their case, but we're not real sure yet on the left, we've got Thomas binger. He's the prosecutor. You can see him in this beautiful photograph. He is joined by his assistant prosecutor. James Crouse also goes by Jim, very nice guy, Jim Jim gage, CRO scoots is also the assailant or the victim, right? So this is one of the victims he is still alive. And so, uh, he's I put him up top here near the prosecutors, because he's going to be sort of, you know, communicating with them. He's sort of the, uh, the only, uh, you know, living victim who was shot. So then beneath him, we've got Anthony Huber who is deceased, who was the escape order over here? I have a different photograph of him as we progress. And then we have Joseph Rosenbalm. Joseph Rosenbaum was sort of the first person who was shot in the altercation when Kyle was sort of a running away. In my opinion, other people might say that he was provoking the, the running before he turned around and shot Rosenbaum. We also have Richard McGuinness could not find a good photograph of him. So I didn't want to use, uh, an incorrect photo. Richard McGuinness was one of the reporters who had a conversation with Kyle. We have unknown person, don't have an identity on this person, but he is in the charges as we're going to see. And then we've got Mr. Robert Willis. We heard from him earlier, don't think he's going to be relevant. His picture is probably going away soon, but he was part of the prosecution. That was an expert witness that they were going to, to, uh, potentially bring forward. And so we've got some new additions here. We added Richard McGuinness, we added the unknown person. We added, uh, the jurors down here at the bottom. And so we are going to be looking at 20 jurors, as you can see, this is something that the judge has indicated. And so we'll go through this, right? We're going to be injury selection today and tomorrow. Uh, and, and he, he said he wanted to get it done in one day. We'll see if he gets it done tomorrow, but it may bleed into a third day because this is a case that every single person has heard about. He actually had a line of questioning today when he was talking to the jurors, uh, judge Schrader said, anybody here, how about, rather than have you heard about the case? Anybody here not heard of it? No hands. Right. So everybody knew what was going on. Let's take a quick look at the charges. This is from the court's docket. I pulled this today wanting to make sure we had the correct charges in order. And you can see here, they actually did jockey around a little bit. They, they moved some of the charges around it doesn't matter here. What we're looking at first degree, reckless homicide endangerment, a reckless endangerment, reckless endangerment, intentional homicide attempted intentional homicide, and then possession of a dangerous weapon. This is all the sort of the complicated statutes, modifiers, all of that. Here's really what we're looking at when you break it down, uh, to the, to the nuts and bolts, first degree homicide, right? This was reckless homicide. This is for Joseph Rosenbaum. And so each charge connects to one particular victim, as we're going to see, then we have reckless endangerment. That was Richard McGinnis. That was the reporter. The reporter was not shot or killed, but he was, uh, he was really behind Rosenbalm when Kyle shot Rosenbalm. And so, you know, some of the bullets, presumably sort of whizzed past Richard McGuinness, which is what prompted the reckless endangerment charge. It was, he was endangered. Kyle Rittenhouse, allegedly was reckless. That's what justifies that charge. There was another unknown person who was also presumably sort of in the line of fire. And so also a reckless endangerment for that individual. Then we have intentional homicide, right? And this is, we have reckless homicide and we have intentional homicide. Now this was after the fact, this is when Anthony Huber, this was also the skateboarder that we saw here in this photograph who was sort of swinging the skateboard. This is his separate photograph. And you can see intentional homicide is count four saying that Rittenhouse intentionally shot and killed him, which he did. Right. He actually did shoot and kill him. But the allegation here, or the defense is self defense. That this was, yeah. I mean, he, he did intend to take a gun and shoot and pointed and pull the trigger, but it was a justified killing. It was justified shooting. So then we have count five, attempted intentional homicide gauge gross. Kreutz the other, uh, this is, this is inaccurate. This is not to see. So I'll fix that. He is still alive. He is, uh, actually he got shot in the elbow, essentially, a lot of damage to his arm, but he is still alive and then count six possession of a weapon. So we're going to be paying most attention to these charges. There was a seventh count, something for, uh, you know, disobeying a curfew violation. There was some sort of public order law that was in place that technically they charged him with, but it's not real. I mean, it's not really relevant if I can be so Frank. Okay. So let's get into the actual clips now that we have our bearings straight, our backbone not going to do this every day, just wanted to get our bearings straight about where this is all starting. And then we're going to dive in on this. When we get expert witnesses or additional witnesses or whomever is going to be testifying, we're going to bring them in, add them to the board, make sure that we categorize them. And we're also going to do the same thing with the jurors, at least as far as we can, given the information that is provided to us, which is going to be a little bit different here on this channel. We spent a lot of time on the Derek Shovan case. And if you recall, we had a lot of information about those jurors because they had individualized avoid deer. They got questioned individually one by one. And so we're going to get less information in this trial because presumably we're not going to be doing that well, we'll see, we'll see where this goes. But the point here is we're going to break this down bit by bit. We're going to start off by getting our bearings straight from the judge. This is judge Schrader, who was in court today, laying out what the next two weeks are going to look like here he is.

Speaker 2: 11:47

And, but you'll, you should count on being in this building in the jury room for the, uh, for the duration, the trial. Um, so that's number one. And number two is the duration of the trial. Uh, there is a I'm going to place this ad well under one in 100, uh, less than a 1% chance that for some reason I would re I would order during the trial that you would be, uh, sequestered, which would mean that you would, uh, be housed in a hotel at night, uh, in individual rooms. And you'd be provided with all of your meals all day long. You'd have limited access to television and internet and that type of thing. But, um, um, I, I have not done that since I was statutorily required to do so. Um, when I started in the system 50 years ago, on a case of this nature, the jury was required to be sequestered. So I'm familiar with the process and I know how onerous it is. And, uh, so I will resist it in every way I can't, but I can't rule it out entirely. I, as I say, I'm being very honest with you. When I tell you there is a, less than a 1% chance in my estimation that we would come to that, but I don't want to spring it on you suddenly. Um, and that's pretty painful.

Speaker 1: 13:17

Okay. So jury sequestration one in a hundred, very small likelihood of that, but he does say length of the trial about two weeks, maybe two days plus or minus two days starts at 9:00 AM. If you listen to the whole spiel, he goes at right 9:00 AM. We're going to go to lunch, going to have a lunch break, going to take a break in the morning, break in the afternoon, come on, back down in the afternoon. And we're going to get right all the way back to it until about four 30 or five every day for the next two weeks. And so he's sort of, you know, giving the jury a big discussion about how all this works, because for most people they've never sat on a jury before. This is the first time in court. They've never been charged with a crime. They don't know how any of this stuff works. And so it's, it's sort of a, an educating the jury about this big long road. You're about to be, uh, going down. So brace yourselves, he outlines for us that we're going to have 20 jurors. And so a lot of people go 20 jurors. That's a lot of jurors. What are you talking about? Uh, on, uh, on other juries, people are used to seeing, you know, eight or 12, uh, sort of a lower number where you've, uh, well, you don't have this many seats. And so he's going to explain why it is so big. And it is interesting, this sort of working in reverse. So, right. This is a 20 person jury panel. Normally, you know, you're going to have a 12. So some states don't even have juries for lower level offenses, but maybe six plus one for a seven, you know, and it just sort of varies twenties, a very, very big number. And, um, what you can see from this judge is he explains how it works here. And so let's listen in, this is a judge Schroeder on void ear. Here is

Speaker 2: 14:53

There. You're probably wondering, what's he talking about 20 jurors who ever heard of that? You hear on television sometimes they'll talk about alternate jurors. We don't have any audits. Everybody who was picked as a full fledged juror, the selection process takes place at the end. If, when we go to verdict, when we go to deliberation at the end of the trial, if there are more than 12 jurors, then we will strike off whatever number is necessary to get down to that number. So maybe it'll be eight. Maybe it'll be two. We don't know yet. It depends on how many, if there's any family emergencies or illnesses that mean that we have to discharge a juror.

Speaker 1: 15:44

Okay. So again, not super interesting, right? But it's the nuts and bolts of how this works. So we're going to get to 20. Then we're going to go work our way back down to 12 when the time is comped, because something might happen, right? It's a two week trial. And so if you get 20 people on there, while somebody is going to get sick, it might be a COVID infection somewhere, right? Something might go wrong. You might have Maxine waters from California, come parachuting in there, you know, causing a bunch of ruckus. So you never know what can happen. And so they're going to get a full 20, they only need 12. So they're going to work their way back down now in a previous, in previous coverage on this channel, when we talked about Derek Shovan, we put together a table that looks something like this. You may remember that we had the different emoji, symbolizing, all the different jurors. We had the race, the sexy age, the profession, you know, we took various notes about all of them. And we didn't get any detail about any of that today, because the way that this process worked for voice deer, which is the questioning of the jurors, what happened was they, they, they, they, they did it a little bit differently than Shovan. So in Shovan what happened was they sent out questionnaires, right? They said, did you ever attend a protest for, uh, you know, racial injustice or something like that? And if somebody marked, yes, they would call those jurors in and say, uh, juror 13, did you ever do anything that was in question? It said, you did, did you? And they say, yes, I did. Well, can you set that aside and be fair and impartial? Yes, I can. But there was a big lead up into that, right? They'd say, well, what do you do? I'm a nurse. So, uh, you know, I teach elementary school. I, you know, I, I raised puppies, whatever, and we got to get to know the person. And there were people in the courtroom that would then also be watching that line of questioning and they'd say, okay, well that was a, you know, a white woman in her forties. And we would be able to sort of glean together what the jury looked like. That's not what happened here today. We ha we had sort of a big panel, you know, full of, uh, you know, 80 to a hundred people. And we couldn't see any of it. I was not there, but, but the reports say about 70 to 80 people and they would be sort of, uh, asked as a panel, big, you know, group questions, for example, one we're gonna get to is, uh, does anybody have any trepidation, any concerns about the word AR 15 or about, you know, assault weapon or something like that? If you heard that Kyle Rittenhouse had an assault weapon, would that automatically lead you to be prejudicial against him? Would you find that he is guilty just due to the fact that he had an assault weapon? Because that's, that's very scary to a lot of people, right? Just the fact that somebody might have an AR 15 or an assault rifle or whatever, you know, whatever is sort of indoctrinated into their head. That thing is that might cause them to think that's a terrorist, that's a murderer, that's a white whatever, even though it's a perfectly legal gun. And so they just, they ask that question to everybody and then they, they raised their hands. So juror 35 raises their hand, says, yes, that gun is very scary to me. And then they get to ask some questions about that one particular person, that one issue, but you lose a lot of the other inquisition of, of that person. Right. Well, okay. So you get one answer about that, but is that a teacher, is that a nurse, a doctor, a mother, you know, somebody who is in construction, do they draw, what do they do? We don't know. And so it's harder and harder to put this together. We really don't know what the makeup of the jury is at this point, but we do have some generalizations that we can gather here. We have somebody named proof and hearsay on Twitter. They say of the 70 or so potential jurors in the courtroom for the Rittenhouse trial. So 70 people in there as part of the big panel, there are three black women, one Hispanic man rest, mostly older white group Rittenhouse, shout out to Matt Mayan, silver of a, uh, of a news agency pooling for reporters who did not win the lottery for seats inside the courtroom. Right. So super limited in there. And so only a certain number of people can see what is actually going on. So somebody reports those numbers and so you can see right. Um, okay. You know, we, we, we're getting some demographics. We can see some of that. Now. I, I, I, in this case is interesting because it has sort of this racial component to it, even though it's all white, white people on the board, right? Kyle House, Kyle Rittenhouse shot white people. Apparently they were there protesting as part of BLM or for racial injustice or something. But I don't, you know, who knows what was going on back in those days? So now what we have here is a little bit of a speech from this judge. And, you know, th this is useful in that it gives you some ideas, some insight into the judge, right? A lot of people will look at this and listen to this. And gosh, it's just a judge meandering off to himself, which is true, right? This judge is very sort of loose the way that he navigates through the courtroom. It's very organic, not a lot of structure to it. I got very frustrated during some of the pretrial proceedings and even a defense lawyer. Cory Chira FEC was a little bit frustrated. The judge was asking questions and then sort of meandered into arguing about the motions and lemonade. So like sort of talking about one issue about expert witnesses and Dobber hearings, and then meandering into like a segue into emotion and eliminate conversation. And we're all just going, what, and then Corey, cheer, cheer, FEC says, are we arguing the motions eliminate now? And judge goes, yeah, I think we are. Oh, good. Well, uh, number 13, then dials back to number 13, Aragon. All right, well, that's one way to do it. So just kind of navigating throughout, just kind of, you know, organically he's in his courtroom. He can run it however he wants to. But I also think it's important to listen to the judge and sort of gather what he talks to see if you can gain some insight into what he's talking about. And here, if you listen to this judge a lot this morning, there was a quick moment where he sort of asked everybody to applaud for the veterans, right? Anybody here served, yes, we all did stand up. Okay. Give him a round of applause, which, you know, that's that he doesn't have to do that. That's not anything that's required shows you that he's somebody who is probably, you know, leaning one direction versus another, right? So people who show support for the troops, you know, kind of stand up and honor them tend to broad strokes, fall into one political category, one into one big, a bigger political category when it comes to gun rights and things like that. And so take from that, what you will, right? That's why it's important to listen to these things. And here, here is where he's giving the speech, nothing, anything, nothing really, you know, red meat in this, other than the fact, he sort of showing some reverence for the founders, talking about the importance of jury selection and that the founders were very firm that this is integral to our democracy. Here. He is.

Speaker 2: 22:05

Founders of our country were very firm about what was going to go into that bill of rights that was passed at the first Congress. And one of the ingredients was trial by jury. They wanted to protect that it's in the constitution, that basic law of this country. And it was carried over into the states so that both under the federal and the state constitution, people have a right to a trial by jury. And that's why you're here today. They put another provision in the constitution entitled. Well, it's the title? Isn't important. It is for a fair and impartial jury. That's an obligation that they imposed on you. These are people who had risked everything, their lives, as they said themselves in the declaration of independence, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. They pledged all of that. And they literally did. This was a capital offense when they rebelled against their lawful, okay. Uh, in gruesome execution, uh, the forfeiture of all their property, there was something called corruption of blood, or not only were they disinherited, but their children, they would lose everything. And their sacred honor. Now there's honorable people in this world today, but I don't think it gets the attention that it did in a former error.

Speaker 1: 23:30

That's right. Judge you. Right. Yeah. And so it was a lot of that today, right? So about the first, it felt like maybe 20 minutes of this speech, he was going back through Rome and he was going back through the middle ages and the history of what, you know, what a complaint means. And he really a really detailed soliloquy that lasted a long time. And it was, you know, it was just interesting to sort of watch him just go, and you could tell, he's been given this speech for a long time. He had a lot to say about it. This is a big case of national importance. And so he went into details about where he stands and his perspective on all of this. Okay. So that's the judge, right? We're not going to be hearing much more from him as the rest of the trial goes on, ideally, right. The judge really should not be involved other than just, you know, resolving disputes. And so that was our introduction to him. We're going to move on past the judge and, and hopefully into, you know, some real substantive stuff, as soon as we get the jury seated, but we're not there yet. And so let's take a quick listen in at some of the arguments that are taking place surrounding jury selection. So once again, voice, dear, this is actually, you know, asking questions and the format of what we're about to see is a little bit boring. We're going to be looking at the judge all all day, unless they move this camera around. Uh, we're just going to be, I guess, maybe listening to the judge I'll trial, or at least throughout jury selection, but we have a prosecutor Thomas binger, and he's asking questions. So once again, we go through the questions, uh, you know, sort of the general questions that are applicable to anybody in the panel. So picture yourself, you're one of a hundred people that bring you into a room. They start asking you questions, you know, uh, is anybody here, anybody here, you know, lost a loved one in a shooting, right? Everybody rates five people raised their hand. Wow. Okay. Those people probably not going to be asked to sit on this jury, uh, for, for many reasons, right? Prosecutors may not want them on there because they're too emotional. We could have a defense attorneys may not want them on there because they're overly critical to people who are just too emotionally invested. You might just remove some of them. And so we're sort of at that stage where they're asking big, broad, general questions, somebody raises their cue card. Oh, that's me. That's my question. And then they dive in on that person a little bit further. Okay. So you said that somebody that, you know, her love was, was a, you know, shot in an incident. But with that being said, can you set that aside and still be fair and impartial? And so you're sort of trying to identify people who might be a problem. See if you can rehabilitate them to bring them back into a competent, capable, reasonable juror. And if not, then they've got to go. And so here is Thomas binger. Here's the prosecutor he started with the questioning this morning. And this first question was sort of about trying to gauge whether individual jurors were surrounded by other people who had strong opinions about this case. So if you're a juror he's asking you, is there anybody in your life, any family, any friends that is really just aggressive in their perspective on how this case went down? Yes or no. Here's Thomas binger. And here's what that question sounds like.

Speaker 3: 26:28

So my question is, is there any one of you who feels that you're in a group of friends or family, or you've got people that you know, who are just so dead set on one side or the other of this case that you'd be afraid to make a decision in this trial and then have to face them, have to go home at the end and they're confronting you with, well, why did you find this, that, or the other thing when, you know, we disagree with that, is there anybody who would be uncomfortable, who'd be worried about the consequences of, of making a decision in this case, because you're worried it might be unpopular with the people that you know. Okay. Um, may I might think you are a juror number 15, is that right?

Speaker 1: 27:13

Okay. So I wanted to just point this question out, right? You can, you, you can kind of see what he's asking for. He's asking for people who have a strong opinion in this area, he knows the area, and he's saying it might this be problematic for you because your, your strong opinion is going to go against your support system. It's going to go against your family, against your friends, against your drinking buddies or your, your, your golfing bros or your bowling team or whatever it is you do. If you go back to your shooting club and you, uh, tell your shooting buddies. Yeah. We, uh, we just convicted Kyle Rittenhouse. How's that going to go for you? Right. What the prosecutor's trying to do is identify those people that have those strong, external pressures to go one way, probably presuming that he knows what the demographics are in this area that are likely to be probably on the side of Kyle Rittenhouse. And what, what he's trying to do is identify people that are, that are going to succumb to that peer pressure in one way, shape or form. So he's asking that question, people are raising their hands. Yes. I've got a lot of social pressure and stuff that is going to cause me to not think freely. It's going to cause me to succumb to that pressure. He's trying to identify those people and probably boot them out. All right. And so in response to this question, we have here, uh, one, one woman who identified and raised her hand, and she said, uh, yeah, actually, you know, a very similar question. This was actually a different question, but something to the effect of, well, what about close family and friends or anything that is going to cause you to be, you know, make it difficult for you to be seated on this jury because of the tension surrounding this case, woman raises her hand and says, yeah, we got Thanksgiving coming up and you know, my nephew, well, you're listening. Here's what she has to say. Thomas banger asks her any problems here. She is.

Speaker 3: 29:04

I believe that juror number 31. Uh, did you raise your hand? Ma'am okay. Thank you.

Speaker 4: 29:11

Well, I won't want to be able to in Thanksgiving, which is done in the past, especially with, um,

Speaker 1: 29:19

Okay. Real quick. I forgot to mention this audio is really low for the jurors almost nonexistent. So I actually, uh, edited the, these a little bit. I boosted the volume and I transcribed it at the bottom. I'm not going to talk over it, but if you're listening in, uh, it's going to be very faint, but if you're watching, you can read the tr the, uh, the captions down at the bottom of the screen here, here. It is again. So she's talking about Thanksgiving, especially with her family.

Speaker 4: 29:45

I mean, and then my nephew, who was a police officer, and that was PTSD over many of these situations, it's just very difficult. Um, would it make me be partial, but it would make it a very uncomfortable.

Speaker 3: 30:04

Okay. And I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Um, you are concerned that if you're a juror and you make a decision one way or the other in this case that it could cause some discomfort, some awkward interactions with family at the holidays say yes. Okay. Um, and I believe you said that, I think you meant to say that, that it would not affect your ability to be impartial, but it would be something there'll be weighing in your mind. Is that fair to say,

Speaker 1: 30:37

Okay, so you, you could, you could see what he was trying to get at. And then she kind of gave him the opposite of that. So, so if you didn't hear her, that audio was bad, but if you didn't hear her, she said, well, my nephew, my nephew might be coming over for Thanksgiving. He used to be a police officer. He has PTSD for many of these situations. And now you're thinking, okay, right. As a, as a prosecutor, well, do I want this lady on the jury or not? Uh, her, her nephews, uh, police, family sort of police family. So she might be pro law enforcement, but Kyle Rittenhouse is kind of a, this might be a kind of a pro law enforcement case as a defendant. He's kind of a likable law enforcement candidate. He was out there in law enforcement said, we appreciate you guys, you know? And so, uh, maybe they might be aligning with them. So as a prosecutor, you're trying to decide, is this a police family, somebody we want on there or not. And so he kind of gets into it. Okay. Well, so your, your nephew used to be a police officer. Can you still sit on this jury? Yes, I can. Is this, can you, can you exercise your civic duty over having a problem at Thanksgiving dinner? Yes, I can. Okay. Right. So she gets to stick around for the foreseeable future, but that's the type of stuff we're talking about. Right? Thanksgiving, dinner problems, arguing over Kyle Rittenhouse, which is valid to be, to be fair. Right. I, you know, I don't know what I'm doing for Thanksgiving, but somebody is probably going to get a black eye over Kyle Rittenhouse. Right? Not on my hands. You know, I'm very peaceful and loving, but you just know how this stuff goes. It's a tense case. And so we've got another clip here that was, we got two from Thomas binger. Let's check in here on Corey Chira Feesey and cheer FEC of course is a defense attorney. And he's asking another, another question, uh, diving in about a one particular mom. We have a mom who was a juror. Again, her voice is going to be very low, but I did my best to transcribe this briefly. And she's going to be asked a question by Chira feces. Specifically, you said something about not wanting your son to go down there to the, where Rittenhouse was, where Rosenbalm worlds, where all of this took place. The prosecutor said, I'm wanting to know about that because wanted to know why you didn't want your son to go down there, probably because it would have been a reckless thing to do if your son went down there. But then the defense is hinting that the mom was more concerned about safety. The reason why she didn't want her son to go down there is because it was dangerous. And in a dangerous situation, what do you have to do defend yourself? So you can see the prosecutor was going one direction and the defense attorney comes back out and tries to redirect it. Let's listen to that question.

Speaker 5: 33:18

Okay. And you had mentioned that you were not, you would ask them not to do that. Okay. Um, can I ask you to broad question, but why were you worried for his safety? Did you not want him to get arrested? Kind of all of it. What do you, what was kind of going through your mind?

Speaker 4: 33:43

He not knowing what was going on down there and just kind of like a lot of the home and be safe my own and not look for any

Speaker 5: 33:54

Sounds good to me. I'm sorry, judge. Were you watching what was happening? Yes. All right. And, um, so you had observed property damage, things like that?

Speaker 4: 34:12

Yes. Okay.

Speaker 5: 34:15

Okay. And so the biggest concern you had was for his safety,

Speaker 4: 34:22

He needed to be any part of it.

Speaker 5: 34:25

Okay. Um,

Speaker 1: 34:26

Okay. So you see what he did there. So let's back up for a minute. We have a woman out there. Prosecutor asks him a question. Uh, you don't want your son to go down there? Why not? Well, it's dangerous down there. He goes. Exactly. Right. So it was so prosecutor's argument. The framing of this, the reason why mom didn't want sun to go down there, it's dangerous. And Kyle Rittenhouse by grabbing a gun and going down there is acting recklessly. Right? Mom, this mom can see it's very clearly dangerous, but Rittenhouse goes down there anyways. It kind of sounds like it was a reckless behavior, right? That's the prosecutor's argument. Defense attorney comes back out and says, yeah, but you were talking about dangerousness, but the real reason you didn't want him to go down, there was safety, right. Just flips it from dangerous to safety, safety. Right? You didn't want it safe. You want him to be safe and that's going to be reframed as to be self-defense right. It wasn't reckless for him to go down there. That was fine. All that was fine. He was, he was, he was very safe until he was assaulted and attacked. And then because his safety was in danger, he needed to exercise self defense, fire his weapon and eliminate the threats. And my sign literally fell off the wall. Did you see that happen? Live? What? All right. Well, I'm going to say my prayers tonight, extra, uh, deeply might be some demons in the room or something going on. They're gonna have to look at that. The RNR side and the thing right in the middle just felt, just felt live right in the middle of the show. What the heck was that? All right. Well, I don't know what that says about Kyle Rittenhouse is case, but it might be a good omen. Might not be a good omen. What did I say? I'm going to have to go rewind the clock there. Okay. All right. Well, what the heck was I talking about? It's probably pretty good point earth, earth shattering point that I was making right there. All right. Let's get back to it. All right. So I was talking about this, uh, this prosecutor and the arguments that were being made. Prosecutor said that was reckless defense attorney says, no, it was a concern about safety. Kyle Rittenhouse is now defending himself to provide for his own safety. So it's sort of a reframe of that argument. And I thought it was pretty effective there from cheer FEC. Also, this is the question now we're going to hear from this juror gets excused. So Kyle Rittenhouse up in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, I don't know the number of this juror, but he does get excused because both sides agree that the juror should go. So Corey[inaudible] comes out and ask the question about the AR 15 specifically, if you know, if you just hear the word AR 15, are you likely to just presume somebody as guilty? Just because you don't like the gun and this woman's like, yeah, I would totally, it's a scary gun. I don't like it at all. I don't care if it's legal. I don't care if it's perfectly authorized whatsoever. If I see him with it, I think that person did something wrong because I don't like guns. And they were asking that question more or less. Here's how that sounded. Here's Corey. Now Corey then gets an answer. He's going to ask a question. We're going to pause. We're going to hear her response. And then Corey is going to make a motion to strike her for cause obviously bias. We can't have her on the jury panel. And what happens is the prosecution gets to come back out and try to rehabilitate the, the, the juror to say, well, look, I know that they want to strike you, but you really shouldn't be stricken because it's not that bad because you really believe this, isn't it true. And you also believe that, right? And they say, oh yeah, you're right. I can't be fair and impartial. And they rehabilitate you back in to keep you apart of the jury because you want that juror. Right. If they're really bad for one side, they're probably pretty good for yours. And so we're going to watch this game sort of start to play itself out. But the prosecution's like, okay, well, uh, I guess, uh, I guess we don't watch it either then by, so here is where the question starts from Corey and then we'll move on. Mr.

Speaker 5: 38:33

Binger had asked you about the workings of a firearm. I think you'll hear about the firearm in this case. Okay. The firearm in this case, um, I think it will be referred to as an AR 15. Um, it's an MP 15, but it's referred to that. Does any, is anybody sole bothered by that type of firearm that they don't think that they could listen to the facts of the case and judge it fairly. Anybody have such a problem with that. Okay. Um, I want to make sure I have it right. I'm not going to have it right. Um, juror number 30. Okay.

Speaker 1: 39:15

Okay. So juror number 30 raises her hand. Quick question, you know, anybody see that would sort of jump to conclusions and the be unable to be fair and impartial juror 30 raises her hands. So then we get an answer from her and the inquiry digs in a little bit before trying to, before moving to strike her for cause judge, she is not, not capable of being a competent jerk. She's got to go. Let's listen.

Speaker 5: 39:46

Okay. Can you, uh, and then wants to sound like a dumb question, but can you just tell me your feelings on it? I don't think a weapon like that should be okay if it's legal to, if it's illegal to purchase. Um, and you have your feelings, which are plain about that and the firearm in and of itself, isn't illegal. Do you think you can judge this case fairly understanding that it involves a firearm that you don't think should be legal. Okay. So you think you would be, um, you would have difficulty setting aside whatever preconceived notions or whatever your feelings are about the case and judge it fairly. Okay. Joe would move, um, district 30.

Speaker 1: 40:48

Okay. So gone. Right. So not, not gone quite yet, but gone from the defense defense goes out there. Listen, I'm going to ask you three times. If, if it's perfectly legal for somebody to have that gun, you're still gonna look at their case and say, you find them guilty. She says, yes. Are you sure again? Yes, I would do it again. And he says why? And she says, well, because I don't think anybody in the public should have a weapon like that. And so somebody is just way too bias, right? If they have that weapon automatically guilty. And thankfully the lady said that, right? A lot of people feel that way. Maybe other people would be less honest about it. But fortunately she said, yep, I have this really strong, emotional urge. That every time I see that I'm just like scared to death. She's, you know, recommended that she goes off the panel for cause, right. Because she cannot be fair and impartial. So the judge says, okay, and uh, Mr. Prosecutor, Mr. Binger, why don't you come on up here? And let's hear from you, what's your perspective on this? And typically what you'll see is the prosecutor come back out here and try to rehabilitate this person and say, listen, I know that it's sort of a scary thing, but, uh, for the sake of this case right here in Kenosha, it is perfectly legal for many people to be walking around with an AR 15. Right. For example, if they are doing that and it's not during a riot, it's not during a, a, a public disorder, would you be okay with that? Because it's because it's law that's allowed. Right. Maybe she goes, oh, you know what? Now that you've mentioned it, now that I think about it. Yeah. Actually, that's not that bad of a problem. He says, cause we have the second amendment and the second amendment guarantees people, the right. To have a firearm. Right. And she goes, yeah, that's a good point. And so, and sometimes people can have a gun. Right. And she goes, yeah, that is true. And so, and so in this case, you could set aside the fact that an AR 15 might be legal and lawful, and that doesn't make you scared of the weapon anymore. Right. And she goes, yeah. Now that you mention it, that's right. It's true. And he goes, okay. And so you can be fair and impartial. She goes, yes. Okay. Uh, judge, I oppose the motion to strike her for, cause she just said that she could be fair and impartial. And if the judge buys that right. If the judge is like, oh, like she said, she could be fair and impartial. Then the prosecution just kept a person who's petrified of weapons on the jury panel. Right. And that's a tremendous success. And so, you know, that's something that I would think that you'd want to fight for, but uh, we didn't get too much of that here now to be fair, this lady was maybe beyond rehabilitation, but a prosecutor binger, just kind of like, okay, well, all right, you're gone kind of surprise me. I was a little bit shocked at how quickly he, uh, uh, gave up. It's like 30 seconds here he is.

Speaker 3: 43:33

Ma'am I just want to clarify something. So there are going to be a lot of facts in this case about a lot of different things. Um, console stats about the curfew, um, about the events of that night, uh, protests, things like that. Uh, my understanding of correctly that just the simple fact that the, if, if you, if the evidence shows that the defendant possessed an AR 15, you would find him guilty of all of the charges just based on that fact, then I have no objection.

Speaker 2: 44:08

Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Ma'am I'm going to excuse you. Um, and the police give her a boat, uh, note and, um,

Speaker 1: 44:18

Okay. All right. That's it. No rehabilitation there going on. So what you said is if the evidence shows that he had an AR 15, you'd find him guilty on all charges. Yeah, pretty much. Okay. Well, okay. Well, thanks for coming here today. See you later. Uh, you know, as a prosecutor, I was never a prosecutor never would ever become a prosecutor. Never, uh wouldn't wouldn't do it. But what happens is, you know, you, you would, I don't know, maybe prosecutors would disagree with me, but you kind of try to salvage that one a little bit, right? You want that person on the jury, that person hates guns. And if you can get them on there kind of a victory, but he lasted 15, 20 seconds on that one. Anyways, that was more or less day one of the Rittenhouse trial. We're going to be covering this puppy in depth. It's going to get a lot more interesting. Once we get this jury seated, we get into opening arguments. And so make sure you are subscribed wherever you're watching this and joining us for the live recording of the show and discussion over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Speaking of that, let's jump into the questions over there. My friends let's see what you have to say about Rittenhouse. And so we are Q and these puppies up first in the house we've got just cows is here, says, Rob, I was able to catch this whole stream today. Why would the defense not attempt to dismiss the guy that believes everything firearm related are machine guns towards the very end? Uh, it's a good question. Just calls. So I didn't see that part of it. Why wouldn't, why would the defense not attempt to dismiss the guy that believes everything firearm-related are machine guns toward the very end? You know, I don't know. I don't know if that's a, um, important distinction between, you know, the various permutations of firearms semi-automatic, you know, fully automatic, if that matters all that much, to me, it just, it tends to show maybe sort of, you know, ignorance towards firearms, but not necessarily a position on firearms, whether somebody is for or against so that maybe they just didn't see any real reason why that would lead you to, to jump to a conclusion one way or the other good question. I didn't see that part. Don't know. Uh, the judge says, uh,[inaudible] don't say victim, Rob it's from the judge, which is true. I shouldn't be saying that. I should be saying, you know, it sorta depends on what you want to call them. Uh, you can call them by their names, Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Gross crew. It's Mr. Huber. But, uh, you know, uh, Terry McAuliffe says, Rob, do you think I'll win the Virginia governor election? Not fairly. I don't sure don't, uh, speech unleashed says, how do they choose which of the 20 will be dismissed later to get the 12? Well, the lawyers be able to have a say in, it can either lawyer object to a juror that is selected for dismissal at the end. So, no, I think at the end, it's going to be just sort of a rant, you know, names out of a hat type of process, whatever that looks like, whatever process this court uses to dismiss people randomly, right? There's a process for that. Now throughout the course of the trial, if there are issues that pop up, for example, if the defense catches wind that jurors are communicating with other people, or if something, you know, improper is happening, there's conversations, taking place between certain, you know, ex party individuals, then the attorneys, either the prosecution or the defense at that moment could file, uh, notify the judge and the judge could theoretically excuse them. And it sounds like the judge is willing to do that, right from, even from his description of how jury selection was going to be working. He said, yeah, we're going to start at 20. And if somebody gets sick, they're gone, right. Something else happens. Somebody gets hit by a bus on the way in they're gone. And so there's sort of this slow whittling down of jurors. And then he said at the very end, if you have, let's say, you know, trial concludes state, rest defense, rest, closing arguments, boom. We're done at that moment. If you go from 20 down to 16, well then you only excuse 16 down to 12, right? So you just sort of, whatever the difference is, you just need that 12 magic number, whatever the remainder is, whoever lasts the trial and doesn't get booted stays around. And then from there I would, I would imagine that it's just random. You get down to the 12 and then that's the end of it. Good question. Speech Davis says, why don't they always do jury duty like this? It seems like it's beneficial to the integrity of the trial to be able to strike the extra jurors at the end. What if one of the mangers is half asleep and disinterested while the alternate is taking notes, having predesignated alternates makes zero sense. So yeah, I understand what you're saying, Davis. And um, so the alternates are selected at the conclusion of the trial before deliberation, right? So they don't go in there, uh, and say you're sort of a pseudo juror, right? You get to like only pay half attention. Cause you're an alternate, like they're all official until one gets booted. So they all should be paying attention. But I understand your point. Yeah. There are many ways to do it, right. There are different ways to do it. I think it's interesting. I've never, I've never seen it done this way. Right. But it is interesting monster. One says I am filing a motion to have Rob held in contempt. The judge ordered these people couldn't be called victims. Rob has repeatedly called them victims in defiance of the, your honor's order, which is so true. Everybody. I deserve it. Thank you for calling me out on that. It's just sort of habit and I'm a defense attorney. What a loser. All right. You're right. Totally monster one says everyone hates jury duty, but imagine sitting in a jury for weeks and getting tossed. Yeah. It's doesn't sound, uh, fun. Uh, he says, can you remind us how long Kyle has been locked up without being found guilty of anything in your opinion, what do you think is the right process for someone accused of murder when it comes to releasing them before trial or keeping them locked up? There are pros and cons on both sides. Be interesting to hear it from your point of view, no name on that one. So Kyle was really only locked up. I think it was for two months, maybe, maybe a little bit longer. Right? I was very upset about that. I, you know, cause his attorneys are idiots about it. And what they did is they were trying to basically, uh, stop extradition. Remember that this all happened in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He fled over to Illinois. They held him there and he couldn't post bond there given his extradition status. And so they were fighting extradition where I was just saying just extra items, send it back to Wisconsin because then he could post bail and get out of custody. And guess what happened after they fought the extradition hearing and lost wasted? Two months of time, he did go back to Wisconsin, raised the money, posted bail was under custody almost right away. So they basically kept him in custody in my opinion, for two months unnecessarily because they're boneheads and they wanted to generate a bunch of money for whatever fund they were raising money for. It was pretty, uh, pretty inappropriate, but you know, those were just my opinions on what I saw. I don't make any specific allegations, but it looked problematic. So, uh, pros and cons releasing people. So I think you should go through a case by case analysis on every single case. Right. And just like you do in any, in any other type of situation, you don't always have blanket rules where you just say for this type of an offense, this happens, right? Those are called mandatory minimums and they don't really work all that. Well, a lot of people go to prison for things they shouldn't be going to prison for because some bureaucrats somewhere decided it was good to put it on the books. When you're talking about release conditions. I think it's important to analyze a lot of different factors of a person's prior criminal record, whether they've got a propensity for violence, all sorts of external factors or, or extenuating circumstances, right? A person's mental health, some of their support systems, uh, you know, connections to the community. There's a lot of different things that we go through that are even in the statutes that come to these determinations. But you, you take these on a case by case basis and you don't forget the humanity when we're talking about whether somebody should be released. Remember, in this country, we have the presumption of innocence that has not been taken from us quite yet. We'll see when they make that attempt, I'm not gas as well. It's nice that the judge actually understands the history and the importance of jury selection. It honestly comes off a bit. Self-aggrandizing with his little speech. That's what he says while it's nice. Yeah, it is. Yeah, totally. Right. And I, uh, I noticed that too. I'm not gas. I watched it right. Went on for like 20, 30 minutes, but it's his big debut. So his courtroom, you give them the, you let them do it right. Happens to happens all the time. Speech unleash says, uh, I'm betting this judge is very conservative. I would agree with you my guess is that if he is going to be a favorable judge for Rittenhouse, to be honest, yes. If Rittenhouse does get convicted of anything, I think the judge will go very light on him. That's from speech unleashed. I agree. I think he's a very sympathetic judge to Rittenhouse from everything I've seen. I would 100% agree. We've got a couple others. Captain. Jim says, Rob, from your experience, excuse me, says, do jurors generally weigh the arguments objectively and do what the unbiased fair and impartial jurors are supposed to do? Not necessarily a national trial like this, where everyone already has their own agenda, but in 99% of the other cases in our court system, or is fair and impartial and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, largely a myth. Now it's a good question. You know, captain Jim, this is a really sort of really big sort of existential crest question about the justice system. And there's no one clear answer on this, right? You're going to see, I think a lot of displeasure and cynicism and skepticism and people just outright detesting the justice system. And there's a good reason for that, right? There's a lot of problems with it. It also works moderately well given, uh, the, the state of mankind and sort of our inner instincts and the disgusting creep towards totalitarianism and all of that. I think, you know, I think it does a moderately decent job of protecting a person's right to counsel and things like that as best we can, right. It's still not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it is, it is useful. And there are other systems in the, in the country where you don't have the PR or in the world where you don't have the presumption of innocence or things like due process. Those are incredibly powerful concepts that fortunately are at least on our books here, even though they're not always perfectly implemented. So, you know, in a case like this, you know, I like to say that we walk in with the presumption of innocence and the government has the burden of proof. I don't believe that to be the case. I think that really sort of, um, you know, speaking anecdotally, many people have already been preconditioned to believe that if somebody got arrested, they probably did something wrong. Right. And the cops are infallible, right? Cops are heroes. They show up with a badge and a gun to do duty and they're there. They're the good guys. Right? Good guys versus the bad guys, guy in orange and handcuffs is the bad guy cop in the blue with the shiny badge and the gun. Good guy. And you just have that sort of indoctrinated into your mind. And I can't tell you how many times I've just walked in to, to court with my clients. And people just have open dripping distain for the person. And they don't even know what he did. He's just a defendant, right. He's just somebody who just walked into court that day. Presumption of innocence be damned due process. All of those things all gone right out the window. And, you know, I, I, I gotta be honest. I did a jury trial one time we, we lost, we lost it. And it was a, it was something where I thought just from the look on the juror's faces, when we walked in, just from the look, I thought it was over there, you could see the scorn on their face for our clients, for our client. And, and, and just for the whole situation, just dripping with disdain. And so, you know, you take a look at a situation like that and you go, I don't know, you know, I don't know that there's anything that any lawyer can do in a certain situation like that. You just sort of get a bad draw, you know, and it's, uh, it's a problem, but how else are you going to solve this other, you know, it's sort of like the best solution that we've got. And I have a lot of faith that in, in, you know, in the, where it really matters, it, it can get things right. If it's, if it's works properly. So, uh, you know, I'm not, I'm not a lawyer who just sort of has know open general disdain for the entire justice system. The reason I'm doing the work that we do here, the reason why I'm so passionate about these issues about accountability, transparency, and justice is because I believe in the system, I believe that it needs some, some work and a lot of eyeballs and transparency and oversight, but it is built on the back of some pretty good eternal principles, like the right to privacy, right? Like getting a warrant before they just barge into your property, like protecting your right to remain silent, not being compelled to do all of these things are timeless, fundamental concepts that I believe work. We just have to get back. I think to them to some degree, and our systems are highly politicized, highly, highly incentivized through, you know, money and elections and fi and all of that is problematic. But the base system is, is built on timeless concepts. And those are the things that I believe in juries. You know, sometimes, you know, sometimes juries they're going to come to their own conclusion, regardless of what you say. And it's, it's like every defense attorneys, you know, never ending, uh, internal conflict, internal struggle conversation, dialogue that we have with our it's like, what, what do you make of jury selection? And I think if you asked a hundred defense lawyers, you'd probably get a hundred different answers from different people. I know a big spectrum of people that say, I don't even care about the jury. Doesn't even matter. Pick any jurors you want don't care. Right. Cause they're gonna make the same arguments because they've, they've sort of seen that no matter what they do, there's going to be a black Swan juror, or there's going to be somebody who, you know, you ask every single question, what do you watch? What'd you have for breakfast? What happened to your grandma? Tell me about your childhood. You can psychoanalyze everybody, but they hear one thing in a trial and they go the opposite direction of what you think of how you think they'll go. And so it's sort of like, you know, trying to wrap your heads, hands around something that is just so complex that it's, it's, it's very difficult, but I know other attorneys that like, it's a science, right? They go in there, they want a 53 year old woman with blue eyes and brown hair and you go, that's weird. And they go, and it works for them. Right? So different lawyers are going to have different technique. Good question. I gotta pick up the pace. And the dark says two things. That's interesting to know that back when he started, these types of trials had to be by loss of question. What changed that one would think that men now more than ever, we would want people to find out of the information out of the information loop for a few days. I don't know what changed that. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know what the rules are in Wisconsin for people like Richie McGuinness, do they have to say, do they have any say in the prosecutor, adding charges on their behalf? From what I recall, Richie's testimony for the state. It says Kyle was being chased and they were trying to hurt him. At least the one guy reached for his gun. So it's kind of weird. They would even use his as a witness for starters, but also file charges on his behalf. It's a good question. On 0.2, they're in a dark. And I remember that, right? Uh, McInnes, his testimony. We read the probable cause statement that was originally, uh, proffered forward here, back in the early days of this, when charges were first filed in the Rittenhouse case. And back then it read to me like McGinnis was a witness for the defense. He was like every, every, every paragraph was like McInnis said he was running away. McInnis said he tried to disengage. McInnis said that Rosenbaum was the aggressor going. What the heck? Why is Kyle Rittenhouse being charged? This is insane. And so I agree that McInnes, his testimony did seem favorable to Rittenhouse. That being said, right, you as a victim, oftentimes people think that you, you know, somebody can sh it's like in the movies cop shows up. I don't want to press charges. Okay. Well, I guess that's it for me. Then I'm going to go get a cup of coffee. Thanks for the phone call. Right. It's not how it works. Right? In a domestic violence case, oftentimes the victim, right. Does not want to be, uh, prosecuting their, their spouse. And the government says, well, we don't care about that because he committed a crime and you're the, the victim here. And so they're going to prosecute it with, or without you, same, same type of thing can happen here. Right? McGinnis is somebody who may not be necessarily a cooperative witness, but they're still prosecuting. Like he may say I wasn't hit, I wasn't shot. I wasn't harmed. I really don't want anything to do with it. They still say you are the victim of reckless endangerment. We're going to subpoena you to come to court and testify. And they may not need him to say anything. You know, I don't know if they're going to call him or not, but they may not need him to say anything other than what he already said. And they may think that that gives them strong enough basis to convict Kyle, regardless. Even if his testimony did seem like it was favorable, the Rittenhouse who knows if things have changed. Good question to Darby. A couple more on this one. Shade says the little I heard from the judge, I really appreciate not only hit the historical references, but some of the unusual details he noted people take for granted the raw bloody seriousness of history in all cultures nowadays let alone the founding of America respect. Yeah. So got some kind of, uh, you know, alternate takes here. You know, it is good to hear from a judge just to sort of get your bearings straight. What does the judge say about all this? And now we know we have a bowed. Low-rise me says, Hey, Rob, hope your weekend was good. Let's see here. That was on the Baldwin statement. So we'll save that one. Let me reopen this and get these, get, get the other questions queued up. All right. So we'll save that one for the next segment. Uh, next up we got little Mandy is here, says, did the judge allow the evidence from the Elijah Schaeffer and of the other reporters on the grounds, video and testimony in the evidence hearing Eliza shaft, Che Schaeffer, Schaffer? Uh, I don't know the answer to that question. A little Mandy, uh, I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not real sure what part of, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I apologize on that. The Eliza Schaefer, we covered a lot of the different footage and we covered a lot of the pretrial trial conversations that were happening. Most of what we were talking about was the, I don't know if you told me what specific video then maybe I could tell you about it, but I don't re I don't know what Eliza Schaeffer is referring to, but we did talk a lot about the, uh, the Daubert hearing and some of the expert witness testimony. And they were referencing back to some of the video that was, um, that was played. So like one example of the video that we played was when Rittenhouse was walking and got water bottles and they actually police said to him, we appreciate you. We really do. Right. And so that, I don't know if that is Eliza Schaeffer's video, but yes, I think that video is coming in. So there are a bunch of those little social media videos that are labeled a bunch of different ways. And most stuff is coming in. As far as I can tell if I had, if I had to generalize it, this judge said that even during the pretrial proceedings, he came out and he said specifically that there was, uh, his prior precedent essentially was he wants to see most stuff come in, and then he's going to decide what to exclude out. So we'll see what he says. Leafy bug is here, says, what do you think about judges going on at length about the founders, bill of rights, delivering what seems to be a long history lecture at this stage in the process? Do you think he would do this for every jury trial? He presides over it's because of the publicity of this trial all seems a bit long-winded to me. Yeah. I think you're right. Leafy book. I think you're right. You know, I, I highly doubt that he does it for all of his jury trials. It was a long speech. Maybe he does. I don't know. He was also playing jeopardy before it all started. Did you see that? So while the, while the attorneys were still goofing off, he was actually like, I'm not joking was playing jeopardy with jurors. Something about, you know, who climbed the Himalayans in 1940 Madonna. Yes, it was Madonna. Congratulations. Wow. Okay. So, uh, it was interesting, interesting way to approach it. Uh, not really my cup of tea. Right. I kind of liked judges. I actually liked judge Cahill a lot. Right. Really? By the book, you know, defense motions, one through four in order. What's your argument. You what's your defense. Okay. I'm gonna review them over the weekend. Come back decisions on number one. Yes. Two yes. Three, no four. Yes. Perfect. Right. This judge has not been operating that way at all. Very organic things. Just kind of, you know, maneuver around the edges and they come up and they birth something. And then we have to all figure out what's happening. That was from leafy, bud. Good to see you. Another one here from Perry Mason area, he says, oh my God, Rob bloodshed at Turkey day. Sorry, but you have to eat out on the deck, bring a coat. It will be cold. That's for written house. That's from Perry. Masonary good to see you. Perry. We have a monster one. I don't like this prosecutor. He's got a very punchable voice. He's look. Yeah. Thomas binger. Yeah. Not, not a huge fan. Uh, Jake from Oxford says, Rob, normally to display my power over you with the state department, I would change the dim on your light bulb. We are trying out new technologies today. I will remove the sign behind you. That's from Jake Sullivan over at Oxford. And you know, it looks naked back. There is this that, uh, that's hypersonic missile maybe is China testing something out or is this that secret wave that they have down there in Cuba? It's making all of our diplomats sick. Hmm. Well, either way. It's good news. That means I'm moving up in the world. Uh, uh, Jake from Oxford says it falls. Remember certificates, diplomas all over the walls. They're all coming down. Three girls. He says, you're a slot. Your sign was slowly coming off the wall, the whole segment. It just finally crashed down. Oh, I didn't know that, uh, this, uh, this segment is now about my sign. Thunder seven says, give me a judge. You mean Andrew? Andrew's a bit, but he respects the constitution and an OnPoint judge who was an activist that favors banning the second amendment. This judge seems like an old fashioned type who loves law and order regardless of a defendant's political leanings. What say you Rob happy with the judge? Well, I'm not, I'm not quite there yet to under seven on, um, you know, formal opinions on the judge will, will take his, uh, his rulings as they come and call balls and strikes as best we can throughout the remainder of the trial. But you know, his, his style is a little bit different, right? It's, it's a, it's a different style. No question about it. Doesn't mean it's bad. Just something that's a little bit different. And we're, we're going to get to see a colorful trial as a result, speech on Lee says, have you ever witnessed jurors? You simply don't want to serve on a jury and just say they would find the person guilty or innocent so they can be removed from jury duty. Yeah. I mean, people do that all the time. So one of the, one of the most common questions that the judges will ask is, um, and it's not to exclude jurors, but it's sort of instructive is they'll say ladies and gentlemen. Okay. So a welcome to my courtroom. Is there anybody here in the panel of the 50 who, uh, who think that, uh, Mr. Guler here is in fact already guilty before you've heard even one word from any of the attorneys seated here, anybody, and you're going to get three or four people out of 50 who go, yeah, I've got, yeah, I think he's guilty. And then he goes, okay, well, even though, you know, Mr. Four or 5, 6, 7, 8, we have the presumption of innocence. He's not actually in fact guilty. And do you understand that? And they go, yeah, that makes sense. And then you say to the next to the next group of people. Okay. Uh, how many people, uh, don't know whether he's innocent or guilty? Yeah. How many people just don't know, right. No evidence has come forward yet. Nobody's presented anything yet. No opening are nothing. We know he's not guilty, but okay. That's fine. How many people just don't know? And I'm not joking. You're going to get, you know, two thirds of the room's gonna go get your right. I don't know. I have no idea. I really don't know. And the judge says, thank you for your honesty, but that's also the wrong answer. The right answer is, in fact, he is innocent, right. This person is, is in fact not guilty. And so those questions will come up and people regularly will still just double down on that. And just know, I mean, I he's arrested. He's sitting here, you know, he's sitting here a cop, he wouldn't be here if he didn't do something wrong. So the judge will try to separate those people out. But even the people who were in the first group, sometimes you'll get people that just go, well, I mean, he's here, he's seated. There. Wouldn't be there for one. Didn't do something wrong. Yep. Now Darwin says something bothers me about the state and fed lawyering for one citizen over another citizen and trying to tip the scale their way by potentially using a juror with obvious bias. Have we always had prosecutors or were things different early on because it just feels wrong to me that people have that right. The state or the fed does not. Yeah. I mean, I think we've had in the United States prosecutors ever since you sort of, you know, we set foot here, right? Ever since sort of the old English common law made its way ashore. There's always been prosecutors, right? Even the, you know, even the, uh, the, the, the British responsible for the Boston massacre were, were prosecuted. And John Adams defended them. Right. I'm not gas as, so I know you're not allowed to discriminate in jury selection, but what is the threshold, especially when certain demographics are demonstrably predisposed to certain opinions and different types of cases based on polling, you can see in self-defense cases, women are not as favorable as jurors, unless the defendant is female black jurors show more racial in-group preference, white jurors, more likely to find defendants guilty, et cetera, and sort of asking, uh, what's, what's the standard here. And so let me see if I can pull this up for you. I'm not gas. Here's how this works. Uh, it's called the Batson challenge. So if taken a look over here at Cornell, the objection. So let's say for example, that you have one, uh, attorney who's just, you know, striking all the black people off of a jury or somebody striking all the white people, it's called the Batson challenge, right? It's an objection to the validity of a peremptory challenge. It's on the ground that the other party is trying to exclude a potential juror on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. This was actually brought up in the, uh, in the Shovan case. I think the prosecution brought this out actually. And so you've got a whole standard here on how you analyze whether one side is, um, is using those in a discriminatory fashion. And so, uh, that's where I would point you for further analysis over there. All right. A couple other questions. Where was I over here? Former Elio says, unfortunately, a long time ago, I figured out that the only people seated on jury's we're too stupid to get out of jury duty. I apologize in advance for possibly insulting any of my fellow forum members. That's wrong. That's a reformer Leo, former police officer in the house. George Washington says, I'm surprised. Judge, Bruce Schrader is still on the bench. He was here. When we signed the declaration of independence. Glad to see he's still in the game. Still kicking, still doing jury trials, Jeremy to says, Rob, so many people say they don't like weapons. However, I believe they are missing the point of this trial. The root question of this trial is do people have the right to defend themselves when they're life is in danger? Would Kyle be on trial if he had used any other method to defend himself? Assuming, assuming the same outcome. I think the true test to measure. If he didn't have the right to defend himself as to put the quote reasonable person to the test and see if they let themselves get killed, or if they defend their own lives. It's a very good point there, Jeremy, right? The reasonable person standard. If you were there, if that was your son, does that look like self-defense to you? Well, my son would never go there in the first place, but if he were, if he were right there, then we're not asking about that. Right. We're asking about that moment. What a person right then and there, same circumstances, same conditions. Would they feel like their life was in danger and be justified in using lethal force to defend themselves? People will still tell you. No little Mandy says didn't Kyle replace his original lawyer. L Lynn wood. Yeah. Look, Kyle has, uh, I think it was L Lynwood. It was also John Pierce. John Pierce, I think was the original. I don't know if Lynnwood got involved actually. Now that you mentioned it, he was sort of in the, uh, in the circle, but it was originally John Pierce, right? John Pierce, and a lot of other, just people who, I don't know what they were doing, to be honest. And I was a lot more reserved in my criticism of them when it first started. But I'm loosening up here on YouTube monster. One says was juror 30, the same one as before. I think she was the Thanksgiving one as well. And so she's clearly just trying to get out of it. She's like, I, uh, uh, I have a nephew, I have PTSD. I've got Thanksgiving coming up also. You know, I don't, I don't, uh, I don't like AR fifteens either. Just get me off of this thing, please. Somebody, Joe Biden says, I pooped my pants. I need to borrow Nadler's diapers. Monster. One says, if you ever got Lincoln lawyered, what would you do? Well, I mean, whatever Matthew McConaughey did, he got out of that. Okay. Didn't he how'd that movie end that he survived? I think so little Mandy says, uh, Eliza Shaffer as a show called slightly offensive. He's the one who recorded the original footage. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. So I, as far as I know, then I think all of that is coming in as far as I know, but I don't know for sure. So, so don't hold me to that. Uh, there is, this has been sort of a mess of this, right? A lot of people really don't know what is coming in until it sort of is time for it to come in. Then the judge is going to decide, the judge is like, well, we're going to rule on that. And when the time comes and you go, well, it's like, now, like I need to know, am I preparing my case? Or can I use this stuff? He was like, well, we'll just decide when we get there. All right. John Halligan says, quality signs are hard to come by. You get what you pay for. It's a great design though. All right. No, it's no problem. I mean, I'm just going to duct tape the heck out of that puppy. It's not coming down ever again. Now the RS and the law group, they might come off. You know, I can't vouch for those, but as soon as I get off this show, I'm getting a drill, a hammer, a tub of gorilla glue, two tubs to two rolls of duct tape And a lot more three girls, he says, have you ever had anyone bring up jury nullification is the reason why they should not be seated on the jury? Uh, no, I did a, um, I D I, I might've told this story before. I did a trial one time up in a, it was a jury trial on a reckless driving charge early in my career. And I was a up in a, in a little town and there was no real talk of jury nullification, but in little towns, a lot of people have sort of general distain for law enforcement, which is a good thing if you're a defense lawyer, but it's also something where people are very vocal about their words about, about their, their, um, opinions, right. They just sort of say, what is out there? And there was one case where we were right, just about to get this, this, uh, jury seated. And there was a time for us to sort of exercise our strikes. And there was one woman who was sort of neutral. Like it was kind of like, I, like, I think she'd be fine. I wasn't really, you know, real keen on her. And I wasn't really real adamant to get rid of her. And the prosecution was probably the same too. Right. Just kind of like this, just kind of, you know, hard to read woman. I had other people that, that I think needed a peremptory more than her. So she was going to stay same with the prosecutor. And so we're going through questioning and the judge is like, it's like, like literally like five minutes before, we're all going to issue our final. We're going to have the final jury. We're going to be good to go. Judge says, and I'm like, ready to go. Judge says something. And is there anything else that you think that we should know before we, uh, we wrap up our questions and this lady, quiet lady just raised her hand. I think I should tell you something, Joe. Yes. Ma'am. What do you have to say to us all? And this lady sort of stands up or, you know, raises her hand, whatever. Well, I just, I just really hate police officers and I just don't think that I could be impartial if this case involves police officers and I'm just going, oh, she's like, I don't trust police officer. You know, I just don't trust them. And I just don't believe that they tell the truth. I'm just like, uh, not that I disagree with her or I agree with her, right. I'm not taking any perspective on that, but that's a great juror for a defense lawyer to have somebody who doesn't trust the police. So if she would've just zipped it for five more minutes, we would've striked the other jurors off the, uh, off the panel. And she would've got on there and she would have been one single juror. That's just like, well, I just don't trust police anywhere. Right. And so nobody would have seen that. I could have never seen that prosecution would have never seen that. Any questions we would've asked, you know, nothing flagged her, nothing tipped her off. She just volunteered it. So you can see, you could have all this, like, you know, very detailed jury science and something like that will slip through that. Wasn't jury nullification. But that was probably about as close as it's come. Right? It's like, I don't care what the cops say. I don't trust anything that comes out of their mouth. So, you know, that's the type of stuff that you'll see, but nobody, nobody ever said anything like, you know, if I get on there, I'm going to nullify the jury or move for that. Anyways, AOC says, well, well, well, white guy robbed defending the KKK. Again. These are some of the white supremacy propaganda that he spews on his racist show, live stream from someone else's pickle, field, hot tub in a bunker wearing nothing but fluorescent bikini, eating beluga caviar and sipping expensive champagne from an unexposed location while getting stuck between 120,000 subscribers and a racist of background lamp that couldn't find brightness level. Even if it was sitting next to the sun, man, that is Savage AOC. First of all, I never even met you. Okay. And for you to come on my channel and to grade me like that in front of my own audience is very emasculating and I don't appreciate it. And first of all, that lamp is white because I can't put a black color in there. Okay. That's not my fault. That's physics. So just take it up with the good maker himself. All right. And leave me the hell alone. All right. Thank you, AOC. Thanks for being here. Appreciate your comment. Uh, Sasha Sasha says, Hey, Rob, hope you're doing well. One of the rare times that I have a late night shift, I'm able to watch your show live. It's a shame on what they're doing to New York city. Did you watch the horrific video of this African American man punching a lady in the face? And no one did anything. What a horrible thing, time to carry a can of wasp spray everywhere. That's from Sasha shisha. I did see that video Sasha and I saw that woman's, uh, also emasculated man husband or whatever that guy was doing. Just sit there and take it to the whole, the whole subway. Just sat there and just let that happen. It was wild. But again, you know, you just don't know what you do in those situations. Very weird video. If you didn't see it, this woman is on a subway packed subway. You have another man who comes on. They're obviously in a bad, you know, having a bad day. She tells him to chill out and he just clocks her right in the face. Totally unwarranted, totally uncalled for, uh, assault, criminal assault. And, uh, uh, he just got his kids and walked away and nobody did anything about it. So that's the kind of, uh, I guess testosterone, we have roaming around the subways over there, which makes sense. I mean, the rest of the city has been basically taken over, uh, Joe Biden's here. My butt's been wiped. All right. So that's good. We have social Viking says 100%. Self-defense if these shots hit some mega hat attackers, there wouldn't even be a trial. It's a good point. Social liking it's true. You're 100%. Right. And if this happened, I think after an election year, right? If this happened like this year, would it even be a national story? I mean, I think it would, but not to the same degree. Right? They wanted blood. This was a, this was, uh, an us versus them moment, right? This was the summer of unrest Shovan and you know, Floyd and the whole thing was just a summer of unrest. Very peaceful though. Monster one says pretty sure Lynn would bailed Kyle out. Maybe that's right. Yeah. It's hard. It was a, it was kind of a mess. Right? You had a lot of these vultures just, uh, parachuting in to get on the back of this case. Everybody wanted their 15 minutes. It was disgusting. Monster one says, Rob didn't you have a baby with AOC. Now you don't know her typical deadbeat father. It's true. Yeah. That's true. I don't think we did. I don't think we did though. If we did going to have a lot of explaining to do it to a lot of people, former Leo, but it'd be a good story though. Former Leo says Easy-Off oven cleaner works. Well, what floor? What does that for former Leo for my sign or for removing fingerprints? AOC says your lamp is so racist that your sign tried to change its postcode. Okay. All right. My friends, those are great questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. We record live everyday 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM eastern@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Come join us when we have these recordings. So you can be a part of the show. Thank you for all of your support. All right. And so we're going to jump into the next segment. Let's see what else we've got. Did we spend an hour and 20 minutes on Rittenhouse? Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. That's a lot of time. We've got two more segments on this show. My goodness. Ridiculous. I love it's a good, it's a good case. I'm super excited about it. All right. So we're going to move on into the next story. The next segment, let's get this cued up. Alec Baldwin finally broke. Silence, came out and gave a public statement on the side of the road with his wife. Apparently his kids were in the car crying nearby. Apparently the story goes, some press were following him and he needed to just have a conversation, get something off of his chest. It was a three and a half minutes statement. We are going to play the full thing here, but we're not going to play the full thing in one fell swoop. I have it broken up into four segments. I also have a transcript of what he said, and I've got some questions about whether this was really the spontaneous little friendly chit-chat that he says it is sounded much more like a scripted nearer, narrated press release that is already framing out some of his defense. And so we're going to get into that. I want to go back and start by taking a look at the board so that we understand all the different components that are a part of the Baldwin rust shooting case. Then we're going to take a look at how Baldwin framed this, talked about it as a one in a trillion incident, right? Kind of talking about this as an accident. And then also is communicating as though he doesn't know anything about how any of this works. I'm just an actor. Everybody else is the expert. All I do is just show up, say the lines look, good point the gun, pull the trigger. But aside from that, I've got no responsibility. And so we're going to fit this into our framework and our chain of causation that we've been following along thus far before we get there, let's take a look at the board. This is the summation of the various parties that we're talking about in the rust shooting. We can see Alec Baldwin is here at the middle and we've got the prosecution and the sheriff on the left. We've got how the Hutchens here. She is deceased no longer with us and Alec Baldwin here. Now, today, previously on this channel, we've talked about Hannah Gutierrez Reed talked about her defense in a prior video. Remember she got lawyers, Jason bowls, and Robert[inaudible]. They released a statement previously, have not heard from David halls, uh, Dave halls, and just now today heard from Alec Baldwin. And so, so we understand what the chain of causation looks like. Remember that it's a sequence of events. And remember the standard narrative that we've heard about in this shooting was that how in the Hutchins here on the left was the armrest who loaded the gun was responsible for maintaining inventory, making sure all the weaponry was in order. She gave the gun to David halls. David halls is the assistant director who presumably checked the gun, shouted cold gun, and then gave the gun to Alec Baldwin. Who of course then pulled the trigger shooting hell in the Hutchins. Now, couple of different things here we already heard from Hannah Gutierrez Reed. She is trying to sever liability saying I'm not involved in the chain of causation saying that all she essentially does is manage the weaponry. She gave it to hauls who was supposed to check it, who gave it to Baldwin, who was supposed to check it? Neither of them did. She's also blaming the production, right? She's saying that Alec Baldwin and the production team, they ran such a shoddy ship. They left things in such disarray that there was no way that Hannah Gutierrez Reed could possibly be somebody who could keep a tight ship, run a tight ship who could keep her eye on things. Why? Because Alec Baldwin, who is a producer and assistant director, David halls, they both led to this sort of problematic production. And that escapes that cuts off liability here is what her legal arguments were. And we spent a lot more time on that in a prior video. That's just the quick and dirty, nuts and bolts of this. But now we're talking about it in a different context. We're talking about Alec Baldwin. He came out. Now we have some testimony from him. We have a statement from him, a public statement he made for some reason, even though he admits multiple times that he shouldn't be making public statements, probably his attorneys told him this as well, but he did so for about three and a half minutes. And so we are going to take a look at it. Now we're not going to play the full three and a half minutes here. I'm going to play about seconds of the video. And then we're going to jump into the transcript and we're just going to do an analysis and then actually break down the testimony or the statement that he gave, because there's a lot in there. And when you watch this, you're going to see he's in a, he's kind of shaken up, right? He's very, uh, sort of looks like he's almost erratic to some degree, very tense, very tight, almost, almost aggressive and a little bit concerned, shaken up. And so w we're going to, we're going to watch it and then read it. Cause you're going to see his emotion and then we're gonna read what he says. Sometimes it's hard to listen to what a person says when they are dripping with emotion. That's why a transcript is important. So here is the first segment of Alec Baldwin talking to the media on the side of the road, along with his wife here he is.

Speaker 6: 1:26:49

I will. What do you want to know? What's the coming state and what's going on. I'm not allowed to make any comments because it's an ongoing investigation. I've been ordered by the Sheriff's department in Santa Fe. I can't answer any questions about the investigation. I can't, it's an active investigation in terms of a one guy. She was my friend. She was my friend. The day I arrived in Santa Fe to start shooting. I took her to dinner with Joel, the director. We were a very, very, excuse me. We were a very, very well-oiled crew shooting, a film together. And then this horrible event of it. Now I've been told multiple times, don't make any comments about the ongoing investigation. And I can't, I can't, I can't that's it.

Speaker 1: 1:27:35

Okay. So he's been told that multiple times, but he goes on and he talks for another two and a half minutes after that. Now the woman who came up and approached him was his wife Hilaria Baldwin. And she sort of gets shooed away, like the help. Right. She walks up to him. He's like, excuse me, excuse me, get out of here. And so she just kind of walks away. Right? Which is always, which was weird to me. Right. I think as a, uh, as a, as a ho, I'm not a husband, but as a husband, maybe a honey, honey, one second, like sweetheart, like, I've got this, like take a quick step back. Let me handle this. He's like, excuse me. Get out of here. Excuse me. Get out of here. So that was strange in and of itself, but that's a side note. Now let's take a look at the actual transcript and see if we can tease out what's happening here. Cause you just watched that. Right? A lot of emotion, a lot of energy coming out of him. Let's see what he actually said here. It says, let's go speaker. I will. Okay. Alec Baldwin says, what do you want to know? Speaker says, all right, Alec, what's the current statement with what's going on with the case, not allowed to make any comments, ongoing investigation I've been ordered by the Sheriff's department in Santa Fe. Can't answer any questions about the investigation. I can't active investigation in terms of a woman died. She was my friend. The day I arrived in Santa Fe and started shooting. I took her to dinner. We were, excuse me. That's when his wife comes in, we're a very well-oiled crew shooting, a film together. And then this horrible event happened. Now I've been told multiple times don't make any comments about the ongoing investigation. And I can't, I can't that's it. Okay. Now obviously he's just getting started because the segment has a lot more to go. So he acknowledging that and he's making a statement anyways. Okay. So look, I know I'm a cynical person at times. This is one of those times, and this is one of those times where I think, ah, you know, maybe, maybe he had a little bit more, put more, a little more thought into this then, um, then maybe what they're letting on, because he says he can't make a statement. And then we get a full statement, which leads me to believe that they actually thought about this a little bit. So here we have another clip. He picks it up here. And now he's sort of going into the rest of his statement. Here's Alec Baldwin.

Speaker 7: 1:29:34

Sorry. What are the questions that you have other than that you met with the, uh, um, I forget the name of your moment, but you met with the family on the day.

Speaker 8: 1:29:43

If you're spending this much time waiting for us, her name

Speaker 6: 1:29:46

Is Halina Alina Hutchinson. I met with her husband, Matthew and her son. I wouldn't know how to characterize. There'd be no details. Do me a favor. I'm going to, I'm going to ask the question.

Speaker 7: 1:30:02

I appreciate that. He was probably very upset.

Speaker 1: 1:30:05

Okay. Uh, you know, pretty interesting, right? So let's think if you are, are, are a defense lawyer and you want your clients to be very, very sympathetic. What do you do while you send them out there and you tell them, you have to immediately identify with the victim, the P the P the person who is no longer with us, you have to go out and show tremendous empathy and tremendous sympathy to, to them. And so, boom, you saw that right on point, they said, have you met with her woman? Boom, her name's Helena Hutchins. Right? And they both sort of laughed. He goes, you don't even know her name. Like you don't even know her name and then switches it right into a conversation about, I met with the son. I met with the husband, Matthew and his son. And I've been very involved with the family. And so a 10 out of 10, as far as I can tell, right? That's Oscar performance, right. They're really well done. And I'm not like I'm being a little bit facetious here. I don't want to be disingenuous and say, maybe he doesn't mean it. I am also saying that this is perfect. If you are a defense attorney and you have to make a statement and you have to go out there and give a public face to something that's happening here. Pretty good. Go out there. You make the media look like jerks and losers for asking you questions about the woman you shot by saying, you don't even know her name. I know her name. I shot her and killed her, but I know her name. You don't, you're just vultures out there who are trying to, uh, you know, sort of latch onto a case. But this is a tragedy. I know her name. I met with her son. I met with Matthew, Matthew. So you know, very effective in terms of mitigation. It's, it's sort of trying to humanize the situation. You can see the pain, you can see his wife is all amped up about it. All, you know, out there defending him. He doesn't know how to handle the situation. He's pushing her back. So they sort of look like a family in distress. Like he's really distraught over this whole thing. And he's, he's communicating that well, right? I don't call it acting. If you want to call it genuine behavior, that's going to be up for the jury to decide. At some point, let's take a listen at this transcript says, uh, you met with, what other questions do you have you met with? I forget her name at the moment, but you met with her family. How now her name is Helena. You spent this much time waiting for us. You should know her name. Okay. And so this leads me to believe that these people were actually waiting for them at some turnoff or at some Inn or wherever they're driving from. Okay. And so this is a nice little, a nice little prompt as soon as, as soon as the speaker forgets her name. Forget her name at the moment. Okay. So somebody who is camping out all day for the Baldwins or whatever, you spend so much time waiting for us and you can't even remember her name. All right. Uh, says you don't know her name. So that gives Alec a good time to sort of, you know, jump in there. How'd the meeting go. I wouldn't know how to characterize it there. Mortified. Do me a favor. I'm going to answer the question. Tell him, telling his wife again. I'm doing the favor And the question or saying, yeah, he was probably upset. Okay. So then we're going to get into some real meat and potatoes here. Now Alec goes off for about two full paragraphs here, this next clips, about a minute and a half. I'm just going to let it go. And then we're going to unpack it in the transcript where we can break out some of the legal arguments that he's making and keep this in mind in the context of the chain of causation, that the K the circles from Hannah Gutierrez Reed, over to David halls over to Alec Baldwin, to Helena Hutchins, that, that chain of causation here, we're going to watch how Alec Baldwin is trying to break that in this next segment, he's going to try to shatter that reconfigure, that connection to remove himself from that chain. And this is where this is where he does it. Let's listen in.

Speaker 6: 1:33:38

That is overwhelmed with me. This is something that, you know, there are incidental accidents on film sets from time to time, but nothing like this, this is a 1 trillion trillion. And so he is in shock is a nine-year-old son. We are in constant contact with him because we're very worried about his family, his kids, kid eagerly, awaiting for the Sheriff's department to tell us what the investigation has yielded. We don't see what'd you ever look on another film set in both. So I couldn't answer that question. I really don't have any, I have no sense of them at all. I do know that an ongoing effort to limit the use of firearms in, on film sets is something I'm extremely interested in. Where are you? But remember something that I think is important, and that is how many bulk bullets have been fired to the, this is Americans. How many bullets had gone off in movies? Oh, GP center, billions, 1 75 nearly. So what has to happen now is we have to realize that when it does go wrong and it's this horrible, catastrophic thing, some new measures have to take proper guns, plastic guns, no life, no Virginia. It's urgent that you understand. I'm not an expert in this field. So whatever other people decide is the best way to go in terms of protecting people's safety on film sets, I'm all in favor of. And I will cooperate with that in any way that

Speaker 1: 1:35:15

He's doing a lot of talking for somebody who's not supposed to be making any statements. And I know that audio is quite loud. There's a lot of traffic roadway, you know, noise there, but he's given a lot of, he's talking a whole lot about this, right? Talking about sort of mitigation, making sure this doesn't happen again. If you're a defense lawyer, you are screaming at him talking, right. Cause you're waiting for him to admit something. Yeah. You know, maybe we could have done something better with guns in the next movie. Maybe we could have a, you know, put the, the, the live rounds in a different toolbox than the dummy rounds or something like that. And he's getting really close to those statements without saying anything like that. Well, let's listen to, I can't comment on any future projects. Uh, but certainly something needs to be done anytime. There's a tragedy. Don't talk to me about it though. Right? There's other experts who are much more qualified. I just do whatever they say, which brings us to how this is sort of breaking that chain of causation. Let's go right back to the transcript here. And there's a couple interesting points. Number one, where he says, this is a one in a trillion episode. Okay. So what we're doing here is we're just, you know, one in a trillion, it's a one in a trillion event. He's in shock. Nine-year-old son, we're eagerly awaiting for the Sheriff's department to tell us what their investigation has yielded. Okay. One in a trillion. We're going to see that he's going to use another term like that. He says one in a billion somewhere later on. Let's see, uh, you're going to work on another set that involves firearms. Can't answer that question. No sense of it at all. I don't know. I do know that an ongoing effort to limit the use of firearms is something I'm extremely interested in. Remember, this is something I think is important. How many bullets have been fired? Probably billions in the last 75 years, right? One in a trillion, one in a billion conversation in the last 75 years, it does go wrong. This horrible, catastrophic thing. Some new measures have to take place, but it's not for me to decide. It's urgent. It's urgent, but I'm not an expert in this field. So whatever other people decide is best in terms of protecting people's safety, I'm in favor of it. Okay. It's a nice statement. It's a really nice statement. If you're, if you are concocting together, a sort of a public relations statement there, it's pretty good. One. I I'm going to rely on what all the experts tell me to do. This is a one in a trillion situation. I had essentially no wrongdoing, right? Cause it's one in a trillion. How can you criminalize somebody for something that has those odds? It's very hard to do. And if he's not responsible for safety or his opinion is not relevant in the development of safety on movie sets, it's kind of hard to hold them to a certain standard on this movie set because he's not an expert in the field. He knows urgent, but he's not an expert in the field other people are. And so we go from this chain, from this chain of causation where you could arguably say, well, uh, Heather gave it to David. David gave it to Alec, Alec shot Helena. And so maybe all three of them or responsible. In other words, if it, if, if it were not for any one of them, she'd still be alive. They all in some way, shape or manner contributed to her death. And that's why we're seeing all of them try to ex ex expel themselves from this chain of custody, custody, Alec Baldwin is going to be doing it also right here. He sort of right here in the middle. And so what we saw from his statement was chance, right? This wasn't an accident. This was a true accident. There was nothing that we could have done to foresee this coming. He uses gigantic numbers. He talks about billions, right? Billions of bullets have gone off trillions of a one in a trillion situation. That's something like this, what happened? And so what this means sort of legally is that this is not foreseeable, right? You can't, you can't be, be, be negligent when, when something was not foreseeable, you're negligent. When you know, you should have done something the right way and you didn't do it. Cause you knew and you didn't do it the right way. You're negligent that that's reckless. You knew better. You were acting reckless anyways. And we went through some of that analysis on the Hannah Reed video, where we talked about that, right? Wantonness, recklessness, regular, regular negligence is only is the only thing that's necessary when you're talking about a firearm, but you can't be wreck. You can't, you can't have regular regular negligence when you don't know that you have a duty because something is so unforeseeable that it's a random accident. One in a trillion, you can't possibly prepare for that. So you can't have, you can't have criminal liability because it's one of the trillion, it's one in a billion. Nobody could have ever thought about it. So Alec Baldwin is trying to just sever this chain right here. None of us are responsible for this. Okay. It's a one in a million thing. And especially not him because he was only just one fraction of this tiny accident. And the other way that Baldwin is trying to sort of maneuver this thing or, you know, unintentionally or, but this is just sort of what's happening. I think even logically in his subconscious is to just sort of remove himself from the entire equation. You can see, this is a great out here. Alec Baldwin is just not really even involved in anything, right. He's just sort of a, a mechanical person. Who's just saying something and pulling the trigger. You could have a robot there, right. Just kind of do things and that's, it, it there's, there's no mechanism in, in this chain, by which he supposed to double check something or do anything that would've prevented him from being killed. Right. He needs a director who directs him, what to do every which way you turn. So he's not an expert. As he mentioned in his statement, I don't know anything about this stuff, whatever they say to do. Amen. I don't care. I know it's urgent and I'm willing to do anything, but it's outside of my scope. I am just not educated enough to have a solid opinion on what needs to be done. Therefore I'm going to remove myself from the chain of custody from the chain of causation here, and everybody else responsible. He's just an innocent bystander, just taking orders. Everybody else is an expert. And then in our last segment, we're going to see they close this out. We'll we'll do this one in reverse. Here is the actual transcript says, do you need, have any further projects in the work? Nothing. I can talk about why Vermont Alec, why Hilaria says, because we just it's private. No, that's personal. Yeah. That's private. Anything else? So just do me a favor. Don't you mind? My kids are in the car crying because you guys are following them and they know, but all I want to do as a courtesy to you, I came to talk to you. I'm not allowed to comment on the investigation. All I want to do as a courtesy to you, I came to talk to you. I'm not allowed to comment on the investigation. I talked to the cops every day. I talked to them every day. So it kind of sounds like he walked over to them, but the kids were in the car crying nearby. Here's this and the actual transcript stops. We actually have more video than we do. Transcripts are here. That is.

Speaker 6: 1:42:06

And then you present projects in the works at the moment or has everything that's irrelevant. Do you think production will start up again on that? Was there anything else? Why Vermont Alex is? No, no, no, no. That's a person that's quite good. That's fine. Anybody else? Okay, so just do me a favor. You don't mind my kids are in the car crying because you guys are following as a courtesy to you. I came to talk to, I'm not allowed to comment on the investigation. I talked to the cops every day, every day to find them I'm cooperating with them before. So my point is, is that, is it I'm just asking. We sat down as a courtesy now to talk to you, please. Would you just stop following us for the rest of this? Leave us. We gave them everything. We can turn it off.

Speaker 1: 1:42:55

Okay. So that was the Alec Baldwin statement pretty well done for a very impromptu statement on the side of the road. Yeah. All right. Well, let's see what you have to say about it over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. We've got some questions coming in hot. Let's see here. I had one saved, queued up earlier. This one was from[inaudible] and he says, Rob, I hope your weekend was good. Right? Back out to battle the rice. As I saw Alex roadside press conference, he had a blank look on his face when he unloaded on the reporters, thought it was funny when he got triggered, when his wife tried to stop him from executing a full press conference, does he have prop lawyers or, and not real ones? Cause you'd think as a safety precaution, they'd hire a silencer to keep Alec from going off seriously though. I like it, but he needs to shut up. Yeah, I, yeah. I mean, unless that was the statement they wanted to go out. Just say it. Yeah. Otherwise yeah, shut up. Unless, unless it's very, very, very articulated statement. Little Mandy says, uh, Nope, that was from the last segment. So I forgot we, uh, we had that one there. Okay. So my questions are a little bit out of order here. All right here. We've got Baldwin Perry, Mason. He says, Rob isn't Alec Baldwin. The spokesperson for gun safety. If so, look over there. Nothing going on here. Yeah, he was very aggressive against a firearm ownership. Sasha SEASHA says tinfoil hat moment. I heard how the Hutchins has some connection with the Clintons. Not sure how true that is, but if it were true, that is some crazy shiny tin foil hat stuff. I love me some tinfoil hat stuff. No, no question about that. I don't believe any of these people. So I like to, uh, to dig in and see some evidence before I take their word for it. I'm not gas as if I was Baldwins lawyer. I would literally lock them in a basement until the trial date a narcissist with a platform would be the worst client to have. Yeah. But I don't think he's stupid. I think he's probably following instructions pretty well. I just saying, be brave says, look at you, go with all those transcripts and charts. Love it. Well, you know, be brave, you know, we're trying to deliver here. I'm trying to deliver a decent show. Try my best Jeremy MITRE to says, speaking to the bystander effect, I believe it has been amplified and transformed into the bystander videographer effect. People will typically fall into two categories. The quote, I don't want to be on the five o'clock news person. And this might be my first viral video person has for Baldwin. He was reliving his Trump impression when he said, excuse me. As he was trying to say, he isn't allowed to comment on the investigation, followed by commenting on the investigation. Yeah, it didn't, it didn't seem very in sync to me. And I think you picked up on that too. Jeremy plead the fifth says isn't it better for the lawyer to do the PR, not the person. What an idiot Alex should have used the pot brothers at law script of pleading the fifth and let your lawyer do the PR just a narcissist. You can't shut his mouth. Uh, yeah. Alec Baldwin's ego is here, says haven't you seen the perfect monologue, stellar performance and Glen Gary, Glen Ross, uh, because only one thing counts in life. Get them to sign on the line, which is dotted a, B, C, always a a, B, B, C, closing. Always be closing. Always be closing ABC. Yeah, it's a great scene. It's a good one. The leads Perry, Mason masonary says arrest conviction and jail time. He is not privileged. Good comment. Soros prosecutor says the da is a Soros prosecutor issue. And most likely not charge him because he donates to liberal causes. I would be quite surprised if Alec gets charged because of the corrupt prosecutors note political corruption is in the court system. That is true. There's no doubt about that. We did cover the prosecutor in that case, but I didn't see any of that stuff. She ran unopposed in 2020, uh, after a grueling primary. So she did have an aggressive democratic primary. So there probably was funding there, but I don't know where that came from or if she has any loyalties, but uh, certainly worth asking little Mandy says just like Alec to blame the gun and the gun laws, not the idiot who pulled the trigger. If there had been one person from the NRA there, it wouldn't have happened, but there's a 1 trillion chance of that happening on his set. They wouldn't do that. They demonize all the gun people, maybe a simple NRA class would have helped. Former Leo says, never heard an Elio, tell a suspect to stop talking and mean it. Give them a random transport them while they are yelling and trying to spit on you through the plexiglass. All I usually did was tell them, shut up. Nobody cares about what you have to say. Do they still call it excited? Utterance, utterances. I hope this doesn't make me look like a bad guy. Just a working guy. No, it doesn't. I've heard. I've heard worse than that. No worries. Excited. Utterances. Yeah. So, so, you know, Miranda really the, the quick and dirty of when it applies, when you're in custody and you're being interrogated, got to have both of those conditions in order for Miranda to apply. But if it does apply or if it doesn't even apply and you just start saying, you start uttering things, excitedly my cost and problems in your case B and if that's bad information, be brave says, I think this interview is genuine. Baldwin looks like crap. However, he's already been coached and has Le and has learned well, good client. I don't know. Probably not. Can't imagine he is well, endowed penguin says if Alec received a firearm safety training at any point in his career, could this be used to illustrate how he should have checked the rounds in the chamber for blanks? It, uh, you know, arguably yes. Right. What we're talking about here is negligence. And they talk, we, we covered this in the prior video where we talk specifically about negligence involving firearms and that you don't need gross negligence under the involuntary manslaughter category. And so, yeah, I mean, when you talk about negligence, then the next question is, well, what is somebody's duty? What is negligent behavior? What is standard behavior? When does standard behavior fall below the line and become negligent behavior? And so part of that analysis is, does a person know about that standard? Does Alec Baldwin know about firearm safety? Presumably he's done a lot of guns, a lot of movies with a lot of guns. I would guess speech unleash says a few points. One sounds like he was acting when he was delivering that the excuse me, that was wife was more like get out of my way. You are ruining my scene. By the way his wife is a bad-ass absolutely lover. She seems more upset than he does. He said he isn't an expert on gun safety on a movie set, but somehow he believes he has enough gun knowledge to say private citizens shouldn't have guns. Lot of double standards, their speech, no question, Alex, bold winning says, uh, I know it looks like I'm grinning and smiling while I'm talking about my friend's death. But I swear it's just my Botox. This won't happen again. I am training my wife to hold the camera next time. She's not as annoying one in a zillion of a half of it happening again. Right? So that's Al Alec Baldwin, NG president Trump is here making fun of Alec Baldwin, couple others coming in VNT. Cause this here says something about him just seems fake to me. I can't put my finger on it. I kind of got that same impression, but I don't know. Sweet PO Taito says, uh, taking someone's at dinner doesn't mean your friends are especially close. It's called work. I've gone to many, a lunch with people I wouldn't associate with outside of work. I don't know that shows particular care for her because they had dinner together. His siting of facts shows. He was clearly he's clearly done research. It seems rehearsed that he's prompting for something to be done urgently about. It feels sus if it was an accident, why wouldn't, why would something need to be done about it and urgently? It's a good question. Little logical inconsistency there, especially if it's a one in a trillion thing too. Right? So we potato, why do you have to do anything? If this is a one in a trillion offshoot also, why is his wife recording? Why are they pulled over on the highway? If kids are in the car, more bad judgment, do you think he did it on purpose? I want to hear your lawyer answer. Well, you know, sweet potato part of the mysticism of this show is, you know, I never answered anything. Well, I'm a lawyer. And that's part of what we do is we always say the real answer is it depends. You know, it just sorta depends on, uh, any particular fact. So hopefully that helps. Next question. We've got, let's go brand and says, if this scene was a suicide scene and he checked the rounds, would this go against him? Well, that's a good, that's a good question. You're saying he would check it before he shot himself, but he would, he wouldn't check it before he pulled it at somebody else. I see what you're saying there, but we would never know. Right? Because you wouldn't, you, you can't do both at the same time. One has to come before the other Mustang. Jeff says, don't, we deserve to know the truth. Doesn't the possessor of the firearm bear the responsibility of what damage it can do. It's going to depend. I think a lot of people are going to be split on that question. And monster one says, I can't believe I'm about to defend Baldwin. It's not his fault. Dummy rounds look exactly like a real rounds, except they don't have powder. He was handed a gun which was supposed to contain dummy rounds. Even if you looked in the cylinder, he wouldn't know the difference. I just puked a little, well, hang in there, monster one, hang in there. You know, I might be defending them too here. Soon. We just like to play around with these ideas a little bit. Yeah. I mean, if he gets charged with the crime, you better believe I'll defend his butt. So it might, it might turn into a whole little narrative change over here. Strange bedfellows. Listen, you know, I, I do think that, you know, celebrities and, and different people have certain statures in our society. They have a different set standard of justice. But also I believe that everybody deserves, you know, in the presumption of innocence, Alec Baldwin included, everybody included. So, you know, that's a bigger concept, even though we can come on here and sort of, you know, dunk on Baldwin and whatever, because he's been a hypocrite and uh, you know, somebody who's not even nice about it doesn't mean that that should overshadow the presumption of innocence in any way, shape or form. So, uh, I, I hear what you're saying, monster one and we'll see what the evidence shows still a lot, a lot of road left on this one. The last villain says the wife is annoyed because her fairytales effectively over, you should just start divorce proceedings. Now far too unpleasant to be married with without the flash wife seems like she'll for the status. Probably not being fair to her, but I'm an a-hole. All right. Well, there you go. That's from the last villain and I think we've got one more on this segment before we jump into our final segment of the show says, I thought blank rounds and not dummy rounds. Yeah. So that's from F who was responding to, I think monster one monster one was saying it was a dummy round, but not so sure that it was a dummy round. It might've been a blank round so that you could get the explosion out of the gun. But again, we don't know more will be revealed to all of us, my friends. And hopefully you stick around with the show while we dig into it here and@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, where we record the show every day, 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM Eastern. I certainly hope to see you and thank you everybody for your support. Okay. And we've got one final segment on the show today. Oh yeah. We're getting into some VAX stuff. We haven't really talked much about the vac stuff, but today's wild day. Everything is falling apart. Okay. How do I want to start this? Yes. There's a mass Exodus. That's continuing well across the country. As different industries are sort of systematically being evaporated. We here today in this segment from firefighters, from people who used to work at prisons, we hear from police and we hear from the military, all that are different industries that are slowly, excommunicating very important employees. People who've been with these industries for a long period of time, all being, uh, not even thanked for their service, but just being shown the door. And so we're going to go around the country. We're going to check in with different people, firefighters, police, prison officials. We have military over at the U S Marine Corps and they've got a new order out. That's going to be throwing out a bunch of the unvaccinated Marines. The people who are not refuses are refusing to just sort of bend the knee and acquiesce to whatever the government tells them to do. They have a different idea for how they should be able to manage their own lives. Government unhappy about that. And so the penalty, the recourse you're gone, you're out of here. So let's go around the country. We're going to start in New York city, as we often do. And they, at this moment in time, they are begging for volunteer firefighters. That's how dire the situation is. Daily mail is reporting this October 31. Tommy Taylor says that close to one third of F D N Y. Staff remains unvaccinated. There's a November one deadline, 26 firehouses are closed. 26, New York city previously issued a statewide vaccine mandate. Now they're issuing a statewide call for volunteer firefighters. We have a picture of the email that went out across long island and elsewhere. The Blasio said that this all starts November. One announcement came from email. There were 350 potential volunteers that were asked to come back in. We're closed. We can't put out fires in New York city because DeBlasio issued this mandate and everybody is leaving. Now total of 26, new New York fire firehouses have been forced to close stations are closed due to no manpower. Six of them in Manhattan, nine in Brooklyn, three in Queens, four in Bronx, four in Staten island. So all around the entire city gone Friday de Blasio and SDNY commissioner. Daniel warned that the effects of the closures would endanger the lives of city residents. The Blasio announced in a tweet on Saturday that 2300 more workers got vaccinated. And so this is what it looks like on the ground. All across New York city, you can see that they're just scattered out. All these red dots are 26 different fire departments that are closed. Ladder 55 to 34 ladder 17. So don't catch fire. Here's an email that also came out looking for volunteer firefighters. This was written off by a Sergeant, Juan C Sikeston says, good morning. All we need to start identifying members of the service who are active volunteer fireman in both long island and upstate counties in anticipation of the impending shortage for D N Y due to COVID mandates on a voluntary basis. Only operations is looking at qualified members on standby to backfill firehouses. If necessary, get back to me with rank years of fire service and training qualifications would be very nice if they had, uh, an entire bucket, a whole group of people that were qualified. Oh they do, but they're not that qualified. They're not DeBlasio certified with his stamp of approval. So they're gone. Now, has the mandate done anything? Looking like it's pushing some of the vaccination numbers up slightly. You can see here before the deadline. FDN why had 67%. Now they're up to 70%. So 30% of their agency looks like they're still, uh, not Vaxxed. 84% is what the NYP D went up to. So they're still missing a significant portion of theirs, 84% over with EMS, 76% over with sanitation. So some slight increases, right? Everything looks like it's sort of trending up, but the deadline is now here. And so firefighters, uh, thanks for your service in New York city, but you're no longer needed anymore. I mean you're needed, but you're no longer wanted. So thanks for, uh, thanks for playing ball. And it's not just stopping there in fire fire with firefighters or firehouses also spreading out to prisons. Prisons are now facing staffing shortages as well. Officers are quitting amidst. COVID this guy you can see here holding up a Texas retired bureau of prisons ID badge says his name is Lance Lowery. Quit. After 20 years as a corrections officer went to become a long haul trucker. Instead couldn't take the job any longer. Watching friends and coworkers die from COVID dwindling support from his superiors war on him would have liked to stay until I was 50. But the pandemic changed that says low pay, grueling nature impact on the labor market. Officers are retiring and they're quitting in droves. While officer's struggled to recruit new employees, some prison populations dropped during the pandemic. I've seen their numbers rising again. So, uh, prisons are gone. You know, they're all exit is happening there as well. And it's also carrying forward into the police. So it's okay if you don't have any prison guards Manning the prisons because it's not going to be that many police around anymore, either over in LA county, sheriff, Alex Villanova warning saying that there's going to be a mass exit. As in his department threatening the public safety saying violent crime is already on the rise I have repeatedly stated. He says the dangerous to public safety when 20 to 30% of my workforce is no longer available those dangers. They are quickly becoming a reality. We are experiencing an increase in unscheduled retirements worker compensation, claims employees quitting, and a reduction in qualified applicants. Homicide rates in the county would continue to rise. He says with the pandemic waning, there's no justification for this mandate. It's like putting up storm windows after the storm has passed, but they're going to continue to do that. And if they don't, there's going to be some pretty big problems. And it's looking like they've got a long way to go of the sheriffs. 10,000 personnel only about 4,000 are fully vaccinated. So of 10,000 sworn 4,000 fully vaccinated, 1600, 1700 are not vaccinated. And another 1300 are seeking exemption, huge numbers. I mean, those are just big, big discrepancies, not even close to 100%. So major, major discrepancies there. 6,400 civilian employees, 4,000 are fully vaccinated. So the remainder not notices are being sent out to all employees. They must comply within 45 days of receiving the note. After that time, if they do not show their proof of vaccination, employees have 30 days, I'm sorry. They get a five day suspension. And then they have 30 days once they returned to comply. If they fail to do it after their five day suspension, then they're going to face notice or discipline, which probably means what termination. So, uh, police also, so recap firefighters, prison, officials, police, what other institutions are they just sort of systematically decimating right in front of everybody's eyes. Oh yeah. The military. How about the Marines? They posted this back on October 23rd supplemental guidance for mandatory vaccine of the Marine Corps, active and reserve components. And so this is what they officially posted over@marines.mil.mil. And what you can see is the actual policy that they are now proffering forward in accordance with direction on COVID-19 vac, secretary of defense and everybody else over there. This is our guidance for active duty Marines who are not fully vaccinated. If you don't have the vacs, this applies to you, Marines refusing the vacs, absent some sort of exception shall be processed for administration administrative separation immediately basically. Uh, let's see, they're referencing a different order saying this is a lawful order that all Marines receive the Pfizer BioEnTech community vaccine as ordered a Marine is considered to have refused the vaccine when they do not have an approved exemption per any of our other requirements. Um, marina was not been fully vaccinated is not considered worldwide. Deployable shall be assigned to reassign commanders or instructors are authorized to temporarily reassigned, unvaccinated Marines based on operational readiness, Marines refusing the vaccine shall not re-enlist or execute orders with the exception of separation orders, right? So they are going to start the separation. And in the meantime, all of this other stuff happens. So they're going to start processing you for administrative separation. And in the meantime, all this other stuff, no reenlistment reassign, you're not worldwide deployable while they're processing you. It carries on if they have refused, the vaccine may not serve in any command assignment. So if your commander automatically demoted commanders will w uh, relief for cause unvaccinated Marines, you are now relieved. Commander Marine separated for vaccine refusal will not be eligible for involuntary separation pay. So not getting any money on the way out, no longer. They're no longer going to be physically present. So you also have to physically leave. So pack up your stuff and get out of there. If an officer refuses Mander shall refer a commander, shall refer the case up the chain of command, and you can see the list goes on and on. Uh, other misconduct that was holding of this position, authority says other misconduct may include misconduct related to vaccine refusal, like failing to wear a mask when re required falsifying a vaccine record, not complying with COVID-19 testing requirements, all our misconduct. Now, if in doubt, commanders should consult with servicing staff decide whether to charge them. Lastly, it says servicing personnel, Shell document Marines, refusing the vaccine under the training order and there you have it. So, uh, so the, the great purge is continuing. The great exit is the great, uh, evaporation of many of the institutions all over mandates because some bureaucrat somewhere just decided this was what they wanted now. And so good people who are a part of good institutions are all being just decimated. That's that's just a beautiful thing. Isn't it? What a great country. Thanks Joe Biden. Let's go brand and let's see what we got for our questions over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Couple of questions on this one, sort of a short segment, let's see here. That was from the prior segment. Another one here from, uh, Perry. Mason, Arie says, wow, wait, you want me to volunteer, but mandate me to be back. Sorry, if you want me back respect my right to choose. And the constitution is a good one. Perry masonary it's like beggars, can't beat you. You have, you have a highly qualified group of people, of people who want to work, but you have decided that they cannot be brave, says it's heartbreaking watching good hardworking people lose their jobs after decades of service. In some cases, six year old boy died on New York city fire. The first night after all those firehouses closed, it's unintentional collapse of infrastructure around the world, new world order. Great reset. Get right with God and prepare probably a good idea to do both those things. Yeah, I think it's probably a good idea, you know, and it, and it does feel like it's basically intentional at this point. They just are consistently going from one industry to another. These are all self-inflicted wounds, all of these, but they know better. They know better than everybody. All right. Couple other questions here. See, rose says, I thought Americans had a fundamental right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. I guess, vaccines don't fall into that category. Can't sleep or Adam's reverse this DeBlasio nonsense when either of them are elected in New York city mayor tomorrow. Yeah. I mean, theoretically, right? I mean, all of these were de Blasio's executive orders, as far as I can tell. I don't think that any of these really were passed by the state legislature. He just kind of passed them all. So yeah. I mean, if, if it is just executive order, theoretically, I would think that he could just go and reverse all of it, whether he will or not is a whole separate question. It's good to see you see rose. I think you're, you're a brand new addition to our community. I'm grateful that you're here and joining in right on the form. Love that a dead mouse, five pronouns are dinosaur and helicopter. Um, shared this link. Let's see what this is over at. Watching the watchers.locals.com. Let's pull this up. Oh, here we go. Yeah. This is very, very appropriate. Says, wait, are you vaccinated? Woman is in a burning building. Firefighter is walking up the, uh, the fire, uh, ladder to save her. And she has her, uh, her Instagram out saying, wait, are you vaccinated? Only problem with this comment that she doesn't have her mask on? Yeah. So, you know, the, the, the, the hysterics out there, they are typically bubble wrapped up everywhere they go. Uh, but yet very, very astute comment. Wait, are you vaccinated? These people are, are kind of nuts. Pronouns, dinosaur, and helicopter love that John Halligan says these cities and towns didn't test these police and firefighters during the pandemic, the reason they were afraid that too many would be put off on sick leave to quarantine. They didn't care that these people would be heading home to their families after shift. Now it's critical to vaccinate and terminate. Sorry, what person would want to serve this community? I should have been an electrician. Yeah. And that's a, that's a heartfelt comment over there from John Helgren who is living this stuff right now, firefighter from Naperville and is dealing with this stuff personally. Right. And it's just, uh, it, it, it, it makes me, it makes my blood boil. John. Absolutely. So hang in there, brother. And, uh, hopefully we can hear from you on Saturday on our watching the watchers.locals.com meetup where hopefully John and Heather join us. We have vantage has prime says, uh, this is something that may or may not be related whenever divides get created among people, there's usually authoritarianism driving the situation. And these situations, I find it prudent to identify what I call the swaddles, the SLO T L's. It's an acronym that stands for someone lower on the list. These are the people that only stick around because they serve a purpose and usually includes sycophants think non Arion soldiers in world war II, Germany. When people are pushing divisions, they're going to create a hierarchy of usefulness to achieve their goals. It's a natural process. I just thought I'd bring that up for people to ruminate on in considering the question of what's next. It's a good thought there. VMT cause prime. It is, it is a good thought, right? And there's a lot of different ways that people are exploring the potentials for what's next. Right? I think some people are just kind of sticking their head in the sand and thinking this is all transitory. And it's all just going to go back to normal. I think that ship sailed a long, long time ago. The daily planet says voter IDs were said to be racist. While bill de Blasio was holding a vaccine passport, which is extremely racist, right? Cause if you look at the vaccination rates, certain demographics are a lot less vaccinated than others. Speech unleash says, FYI, the Repubs have introduced act S 2 8, 4, 6. Natural immunity is real act in both house in the Senate, which would force the feds and by mandates to recognize natural immunity to COVID currently it doesn't oh, interesting speech unleash. So I'm going to have to go take a look at that. Maybe we'll read through that sometime this week. If we slow down on the news, although we got Rittenhouse basically all week. So, uh, thank you for sharing that speech. Hopefully that makes some movements. Uh, NYP D says this Halloween was the worst. The unvaccinated dressed as themselves to scare the unvaccinated. That's a good point. You could just go. You could walk around like California without a mask. And you'd be the most scary person in the whole country. Like walk around Berkeley or something. Bill de Blasio says, NYC is hit. 90% cases go negative 300 people. Miraculously come back from the dead. That's from bill. Bill de Blasio has a rough time with some math and some numbers monster. One says since when is a prison guard, low paying someone with his experience and probably making close to 50 bucks an hour. That's for monster one. I don't know what his, uh, idea of good pay is over there. Uh, let's see, uh, no coup no name on this. One says Rob, as a small business owner, I know how difficult it is to find and train people. Training takes hours and hours over many months. I cannot imagine taking all of the knowledge and training all of these people have and releasing them. There is no way to get that time and training back what a horrible waste of resources. It's absolutely true. Yeah. And, and you know, so this comment is it's like you have, you have kind of the humanitarian arguments that are made in this conversation all the time. You have the vaccine hysterics. Oh, they're killing people if they don't. And so it's for their own good. And these people are like dumb dogs and we have to just educate them. Cause they're so stupid. And just like a dog does, when it deprecates in the house, you, you punish the dog. Well, we're so smart and sophisticated that we, the vacs have to punish and scold the[inaudible] because we're so much better than them. And they're just so, so dumb. So, you know, you have that argument, right? But it's a humanitarian argument. It's offensive, but it's like, we care about lives and we care about saving the world and everybody else who's unvaccinated is a danger and they're killing grandma, but it's sort of, you know, it's sort of out of love. If you believe that now you can, you can be somebody who also says, well, it's that, that, that may be, you know, a good bucket of Americans, but the real power structure, the people at the top, they don't give a rip about grandma. They don't care about anybody dropping dead. They care about power, money, government contracts, reshuffling, election rules, doing whatever they can to solidify their power indefinitely. That's kind of the, I think where a lot of people get their anger and their animus towards that sort of silo of the conversation. But on the other end, you also have the idea that, uh, well, you know, people just want to be free. You have the humanitarian argument from the other perspective, these are people that are working, they've got lives and families, and they've got food to put on the table. And so it's a humanitarian argument the other way, right? It's sort of the other side of the conversation, but you also have just the nuts and bolts business conversation that's happening here. Do you know hard? It is to just hire somebody and onboard them. Have you ever gotten a new job somewhere? It's like a month, right before you even like, feel comfortable walking into somebody's office and saying, hi, good morning. My name is Rob, right? Like it, it takes a long time just for that. Not to mention all the technical skills of like, I don't know, saving somebody's life. If you're a fire, fire, fire, pull, pulling somebody out of a burning building might take a little bit more, you know, training on the job experience. Then bringing somebody in who's a retiree. What are these people thinking? It's like insane. And now you've got to train new people in it's it's billions of dollars, billions of dollars financially of just lost productivity and efficiency. Not to mention that's aside from the human component of this whole conversation. It's, it's like a self-inflicted wound that just keeps, they just keep digging it deeper. It's nuts. No question says if someone needed to email you something, how would we go about it? So send it over to Robert at our, our law ac.com. Very easy. Just email me there. Uh, I do not respond to all my emails. I read all of them. They all come in. I do not respond to all of them. I apologize if I don't, I try my best, but I just, I'm just telling you, I just don't, I'm pretty bad about that also with text messages. Um, I'm just not, I'm just not really good at it. So that's just, that's just the deal. But yes, send it to me. I do read it. I do try to respond to people. I've scheduled many, um, you know, offline conversations with people, uh, especially, you know, you get sort of a priority inbox. If you are somebody who needs help with alcohol, that is always you get priority. You always get a response. Um, so please reach out to me if that is what that is about. Otherwise send me an email. If it's something I can forward to somebody on my team, I'll do that. Also, if you Antica says, some people think natural immunity on a VAX pass is a win. It's still an arbitrary restriction on travel. Notice how, in some places a VAX pass is called a green pass. Hmm. What else is associated with the word? Green. Yeah. And there you think it's just going to be vaccine status. Folks. Give me a, give me a break. Like that's it. They're not going to put how, how many miles you drive, how many, you know, how many vehicles you have or how many, you know, carbo, watt hours you used or whatever this coming, it's all coming. All right. And those were great questions from our friends over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com my friends. And I appreciate everybody for all of those amazing questions and all your support over there. I want to welcome some new people who joined us over the weekend and they did so just in time, we've got mind magician who is now in the house welcome. We've got sea rose who signed up and also jumped in the chat today. Saw that big, big, welcome. See rose. Uh, we have hyperspectral in the house. Erin Caroline joined up Dave 5, 2 0 Donna B3 hundred and robot all joined our amazing community. Along with Ronnie Cole, French toast, the AI guy martini junkie, just Kyle's a gold painter all@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com five bucks a month,$50 a year annually. And we've been doing a little bit more morning, uh, sort of, you know, uh, impromptu live streams. When my, my mornings are free, Mondays and Tuesdays are usually tight. They kind of free up the rest of the week. So come in and join us for our locals. Only live streams that take place outside of what we do here on the show. And of course do not forget that this weekend, Saturday, November six, seven to 8:00 PM, we've got our monthly locals meetup taking place via zoom. And it's a lot of fun. We all sort of get together. 30, 40 people sometimes less, sometimes more ebbs and flows. Sometimes people come and they stay for five minutes and I'm like, this is dumb. And they leave. Sometimes people stay for the whole time. Cause it's fun. And the point is we, it's sort of like a, like a clubhouse conversation where we just kind of go around, raise your hand and zoom, take some questions and have some good conversations. There was a couple, you know, kind of running threads of some people sharing with us, some things that are going on in their lives. And so we talk about connection right? In this current world that we're living in. A lot of people are very disconnected. This is an easy way to just come and just, and just meet some people camera's on. Camera's off pseudonyms, perfectly acceptable. Come in as sweet potato. I don't care. Come in as a secret FBI agent. I that's fine too. We're peaceful people here. We're not inserting anything. So come and join us Saturday, November six, seven to 8:00 PM. And it's a lot of fun. And so final shout outs to our friends over on a rumble who are joining us, we got free Appalachian in the house who was just chatting away over there. Appreciate you free Appalachian along with Rob Constance over there. And so, uh, we're, we're getting some good momentum over there on rumble, our friends over on Twitch. Shout out to all my friends over there. I was going to, I was going to play some, uh, this this weekend, but I didn't do it, but I know I'll get to it. I'll get around to it. I promise eventually. And then of course, over on our secret unlisted, YouTube chat to my friends, uh, Zulu site, we got Ronnie Cole, K bean as usual all in the house over there. And let's not forget our friends on locals be Bray. Former Elio says I'm outta here. Phil in fly over says night. All good night to Joey. Bandolero sweet. Potato says Twitch Radis. He says he's going to have 50 sweet. Okay. And so it's a good time over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And so join us over there. When we record this baby at 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM Eastern. When we're recording, you get a secret YouTube unlisted link and you get to join in on the fun, the show premiers, as soon as we're done recording and I get it edited and uploaded on YouTube. And so if you want to chat with the night crew, definitely make sure you check that out as well. And so that my friends is it for me. I hope everybody has a very wonderful evening sleeps very well. Cause we're going to be right back here to do it all again tomorrow. And I hope to see you there be, well, my friends take care. Buh-bye.