Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #274 - BLM Begins New "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" Narrative As MORE Unrest Erupts w/Andrew Branca

Episode Date: April 28, 2021

Tim, Ian, and Lydia join lawyer and author Andrew Branca to discuss BLM's most recent cause celebre', media coverage of the Chauvin trial, former generals in France who raise concerns about civil war following America's negative cultural influence in the country, the possible outcome of the Rittenhouse trial, the rotten state of the American police system, and the Supreme Court's possible negative vote on second amendment rights. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The state of emergency is still in effect in Elizabeth City as protests continue. They haven't been too rowdy like we've seen in Portland or in other cities, but there is now what appears to be an escalation of the rhetoric from Black Lives Matter. Their famous lawyer is on the scene saying that this man was shot in the back of the head, that he was executed. And here we go. This might be another hands up, don't shoot. For those that aren't familiar, that was the big narrative around Ferguson, which as many of you probably know, I was on the ground

for these riots. And sure enough, it turned out hands up, don't shoot was not true. It was rhetoric, it was activism, it was propaganda. And we've got the same lawyer now showing up in Elizabeth City. We also have another story coming out of Virginia. So it seems likely that we're going to get another summer of peaceful protests, which will leave a wake of death, destruction and chaos as it goes. But hey, you know, the media likes to play things. So we're going to talk about these stories. We've got other stories in similar areas. We've got this new law in Florida pertaining to censorship, which is massive. This bill passed the Florida Senate. It might end Wikipedia, period, because it would stop social media companies from banning news outlets based on their content.

So no more fact-checking, no more Facebook fact-checkers, no more suppressing news outlets, no more Wikipedia saying this certain outlet is not reliable and this one is. So it'll be interesting. Joining us today is lawyer, legal analyst, Andrew Branca. You're a use-of-force expert. Would you like to introduce yourself? Indeed I am, yes. Attorney Andrew Br're a use-of-force expert. Would you like to introduce yourself? Indeed I am, yes. Attorney Andrew Branca, use-of-force expert.

Do you want to just angle the mic a little bit down so we can... Oh, sorry about that. And then just make sure you're talking into it. All right. All right. Perfect. But you wrote a lot about the Chauvin trial. Yes, I cover most of these high-profile cases. I covered every minute of the Chauvin trial,

literally watched all the jury selection, all the court proceedings, covered the entire thing. Is it fair to say you know everything there is about the Michael Brown case, the Tamir Rice case, Trayvon Martin? That would be fair to say. I know as much as anybody else who might have ever looked at those cases for sure. But you're an expert, I guess, right? You looked at all these cases.

Absolutely. It's going to be interesting because we've got this story now. The FBI is opening up a civil rights investigation. The narrative has begun, and these things aren't going to be stopping anytime soon. So we'll get into all that with you. Thanks for hanging out. We've got Ian. He's chilling.

Hello, everyone. Ian Crossland over here. Good to be here. Thank you. Yes, and me in the corner pushing buttons, changing the cameras. We'll just get right into what's happening with this latest development. CNBC reports FBI opens civil rights probe into killing of Andrew Brown Jr. in North Carolina. The FBI confirmed Tuesday that it will investigate the killing of Andrew Brown Jr.,

a black man who died after police shot him during an arrest in North Carolina last week. The announcement comes a day after attorneys for Brown's family allowed to watch a 20-second video of his arrest, said the 42-year-old was shot in the back of the head while he had his hands on his steering wheel. Brown was killed Wednesday, one day after a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of the murder of George Floyd, whose death in custody reinvigorated the movement opposing police brutality against black people. We're also seeing the famous lawyer, civil rights attorney Ben Crump. He said if they thought Andrew Brown Jr. did something inappropriately and criminal, you all would have seen the video by now. There was no need for them to be judge, jury, and executioner. Well, let's talk about what's been going on because, I mean, he's got a point, right?

Cops shouldn't be judge, jury, and executioner. Well, of course, they're not. All these cops are subject to judicial review, departmental review. The truth always comes out in these cases. No one's hiding the body camera footage. Sometimes there's a procedure that needs to be followed under state law for camera footage to be released. To my understanding, the department is moving through that procedure

with the court, the local court, to get that body camera footage released. But Benjamin Crump has a long history of less than comprehensively sharing information about these cases in a way to shade it in a way that's favorable to him. And what's favorable to him is to get a very large, typically multimillion dollar settlement out of the city as quickly as possible. propaganda tsunami around these cases that pressures politicians to spend other people's money, taxpayer money, to make their own political problems go away. And he's extremely good at it. So in your opinion, that's his game. That's what he's doing. Do you think he actually cares about these cases or what? We can't know with this case in particular because we haven't yet had an opportunity to look at the entirety of the evidence. But I can tell you he was involved in the George Zimmerman case and the Michael Brown case, most of these high-profile cases.

And in those cases where we have had a chance to look at the totality of the evidence, you only ever saw half the argument from Benjamin Crump, the half that made him wealthy. Yeah, well, this is the guy who said he's the hands-up-don't-shoe guy, right? So now he's – I remember back during the Ferguson riots, they had this board where they showed a person and then they drew lines of like, this is where he was shot. And this means that he's doing the same thing now. He's showing this board and he's drawing a line in the back of the head. You know, look, I hate to say it because for a while I always wanted to err on the side of I think most of us do on those that are victims. We want to we want to make sure we're protecting the innocent. The problem is, how many times are we going to get abused by people who

are giving us half the story or just bad information? And then we end up with riots, massive taxpayer payouts, and the story is not what we thought. Hands up, don't shoot was not true. Right. So when that officer, when the grand jury declined to indict the officer in the Michael Brown hands up, don't shoot shooting. The whole world is shocked. How could they not indict him? It wasn't obviously that an unlawful shooting because they only ever were shown half the narrative, the narrative that was consistent with an unlawful shooting. But when you look at all the facts, you learn that Michael Brown actually attacked that officer, fought him for his gun, charged him, and Michael Brown was much, much larger than that officer. And the officer's use of force was appropriate if you knew the totality of the facts. The same with the Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman trial. The world was shocked that George Zimmerman was acquitted. Well,

you would not be shocked if you'd actually seen, heard all the evidence. You're only surprised if you only saw the evidence that was the part that Benjamin Crump wanted you to see. Are you familiar with what's going on with this Andrew Brown Jr. case so far? I think this is the gist of it so far, right? I expect we'll see the same pattern. Again, it's so new that we haven't seen anything like the totality of the evidence. But I see Benjamin Crump with the same kind of placards, the same intimations that someone was shot in the back, so therefore it must be unlawful. In fact, that's not true. There are many circumstances in which people are shot in the back, and it's entirely lawful.

Do you know about that case in Atlanta where, I forgot the guy's name, the cops were, the guy was sleeping in a Wendy's drive-thru. He was drunk. The cops tried arresting him. He runs. He runs. He fought them, took their taser, was running away, turned and pointed the taser back at the pursuing officer. So the cop shoots at him. Right.

And then they said he shot him as he was running away, shot him in the back. But but that's an interesting point where, you know, of course, that guy I think is still in jail. Right. That cop went to jail like he's he's awaiting trial or something. I don't I know he was charged for sure. I'm not sure if he's out on bail or currently in jail. You have a video where you can see someone is running away, but they can still turn and aim a weapon behind themselves and shoot at a cop. Absolutely.

Or there's many circumstances where someone's presenting a threat to a third person. Like if I was threatening to shoot you and a cop was behind me, a cop would be entirely privileged to shoot me in the back. That Micaiah Bryant was her name, I think it was, right? With the knife. She had the knife. The knife situation. The cop shot her and she got hit in the back. Not because he was defending himself, because he was defending a third person.

So here's the big issue. When it comes to Michael Brown, when it comes to this guy, Andrew Brown, why are the cops showing up in these neighborhoods where people clearly don't want them there and they're just seeking to exploit anger in the community? You know, look, I understand people call the cops and people in these communities call the cops. Look at Jacob Blake. This woman called the cops saying, I need help.

They showed up. Now that cop gets in trouble and NFL players put Jacob Blake on their helmets and that guy assaulted that woman and was nearly going to kidnap her kids. The cop tries to save her and he becomes the bad guy the unarmed jacob blake with a knife in his hand yeah right entering a car full of children prepared to drive away with them when he's known to have crashed this woman's prior

car that's why she had this car he wrecked her prior car and blake said i shouldn't have grabbed the knife i'm pretty sure okay it's been a while since i got over that case but i'm pretty sure he would like later said like i should have gone for the knife i should have grabbed it he he conceded when he was interviewed that he had the knife in his possession as if it was incontestable i mean you we have the photographs with him turning the bumper of the car with the knife in his hand you know what i think this is first it's fair to say there are issues where we probably would like some accountability in many circumstances we don't think we get, right? I know you were mentioning before the show, every instance where a cop unjustly killed someone, they've been held accountable. There are circumstances where

people have experienced that aren't as bad, right? Where people feel like they're not getting accountability, which I think lends itself to the bias people have when they hear these stories. First, a lot of people will justly get a speeding ticket and they'll get get angry. And they'll say, oh, the cops, that was stupid. I shouldn't have got a ticket. That's me. Right. Then there are some instances I've experienced where cops, you know, I had my Fourth Amendment right violated. They kicked their way into my home, my apartment, when I was in my early 20s unjustly.

And then realized, oh, wrong house. And they had to leave. And I've had bad experiences. I think people will see these stories where there are bad cops, often who get caught, and then assume every single circumstance must be a bad cop because it's like what you said, but on a bigger scale.

If this guy Crump is coming out and only showing one side of the story, everyone assumes the officer must be guilty. Now scale that up. People are only seeing videos and stories where the cop is doing something wrong or they're seeing the one side of it and it affects their entire perspective of all police everywhere. And now we have 33%, People are only seeing videos and stories where the cop is doing something wrong or they're seeing the one side of it.

And it affects their entire perspective of all police everywhere. And now we have 33 percent, according to Gallup, of people under 35 who think the police should be abolished. Right. And by the way, the people who believe that narrative, they're not stupid people or bad people. They genuinely believe this narrative to be true. They're acting in good faith. They believe there's a serious problem here that needs to be addressed. The trouble is, their belief isn't based on reality. It's based on propaganda.

And because it's not based on reality, the solutions they're espousing can only make the situation, in fact, worse. It makes a lot of people rich, though. It makes some people very wealthy. This comes down to, look, you know,

you're a use-of-force expert, and you comment on these cases. And I am a media critic and I'm always ragging on the media because it seems like often it breaks down to the media is lying to people because they make money off it as well. Like peaceful protesters, right? Mostly fiery, but mostly peaceful protest. Or I love the MSNBC guy. He's standing in front of a burning police station engulfed in flames like it is peaceful. It's they just torch the police station, dude. That's the opposite. But the media is pandering to an audience. So they're not going to show you.

Let me tell you something. I worked for a Disney company and I was told I asked the president of the company. He said to me, we're going to side with the audience on these stories. So I asked, does that mean if there is a factual news story, which would be offensive to our audience, we don't report it? And he said, I think that's fair. Yes. And that to me shows exactly what we're seeing now. They know what the truth is now, but it might offend our audience. So let's side with them and give them what they want to hear. It's even worse than that because they don't just not report on things they think their audience might find offensive. They aggressively report on things that can only be intended to

foment hate and division, especially racial division in the country. The modern media in its current iteration makes its money from rage and emotion and hate because that's what makes people watch and click and do all the things that generate their revenue.

If they just reported the facts, this is what happened. You interpret what you think the implications of it are. They'd be even broker than they are. So what do we have to do? Put kids in philosophy courses when they're like in kindergarten? Teach them to discern fact from fiction and to be calm and rational as they approach these very serious stories? A little critical thinking ability would be useful, I think. from fiction and to be calm and rational as they approach these very serious stories. A little critical thinking ability would be useful, I think.

Unfortunately, I think our current education system, as well as the media, they don't want that. No, they want the opposite of that. Right. They want, well, the schools want paying customers who shut up. Right. And the media just want someone who's going to just follow the narrative because they can get more clicks, they can sell more subscriptions, they can make more money. And I'll tell you, I often have opinions that the people who

watch the show really disagree with. And I often get messages from people being like, how could you have said that? I will not support you anymore. And I'm like, I don't care. Look, man, if you want to watch a show where you get confirmation bias, most of you probably still get that to some degree. But the people who are upset with it don't want to watch. You're fueling the exact same problem. We're not going to agree. We're not going to agree. I don't know if you know who Will Chamberlain is. He's a lawyer.

He runs Human Events. I had him here. Florida passed that anti-riot bill. It signed into law, actually. Yeah, I just wrote about it. So that would make blocking a roadway a felony. I disagree with that. Will agreed with that.

And many people in Super Chat said, Tim, you're wrong. It should be a felony. I don't think so. I think a high-level misdemeanor makes sense. It's nonviolent civil disobedience. You're going to get arrested and charged with a crime for it. But a felony is pretty, pretty tough. Well, one of the things I like about you, Tim, is that we may not agree on everything, but at least I always know you're coming from a principled position. We don't happen to agree on this because I think it needs to be, and I think Will said this on your show, the reason they've escalated the penalty is because the lesser penalty that was in place

was not solving the problem. The problem is these people, by blocking the roads, are effectively making unlawful arrests of everybody in all those vehicles. They're endangering public safety by making it impossible for emergency vehicles to get through. It can't be permitted to happen. And if a misdemeanor was enough

to dissuade the behavior, I'd be perfectly fine with that. The DAs aren't prosecuting. They're just letting them go. That's a separate question. The governor and the legislature only have so much power. They can only do what they can do.

Then it's up to the people to elect prosecutors that will execute on that law the way the people who elect prosecutors want it executed. That's that's that's that's well, that's the big problem, I guess. You know, I look at it from if we prosecute someone on a misdemeanor charge, they can get up to a year in jail.

Right. I mean, that would in theory. But if they keep doing it, certainly at a certain point, it's going to be like, OK, now you're you're in for a year. They're not currently subject to any prosecution because the prosecutors are dropping all charges. So there's an effect. no criminal liability for the conduct. So that was my point. I mean, you can make the law whatever you want.

The prosecutors won't prosecute. I worry now by making it a felony, the prosecutors might be like, ah, that's a bit too harsh to charge him with a felony, so I won't do it. And they may. But the prosecutors we're talking about are really politically motivated prosecutors anyway. So they're on the side of the protesters. That's their team. They're not going to do anything to harm their team. There's no bail requirements.

If there's bail, it's dismissed. If there's charges, they're dismissed. Often the people who are arrested for these protests are out of jail before the officer who arrested them is done doing the paperwork for the report. There was a woman, I think, like in Portland, charged with felonies. They just cut her loose. Then she goes back and she sets fire to the police station. Yeah. One part of the Florida law was a provision that says, hey, if you're arrested on this charge, you can't get

released on bail until you're at least put in front of a magistrate, which is the normal process. So you can't do this catch and release. The cop basically has to write you a summons and let you go because when he lets him go, they go right back to obstructing the road again. Let me ask you about the Chauvin trial. So you wrote a lot about it. I was following your writing during the Chauvin trial and the media was only giving us one side of the story. It was remarkable when I'd go to NBC and they'd be talking about what the state prosecutor, the prosecutor's witness said, this, this, and this. And they were all really great for the prosecutor. And then on cross, when the defense actually challenged these ideas and did great, they would say nothing. So sure enough, you mentioned earlier that a lot of people begin to expect a conviction,

or at least an indictment with Darren Wilson in Ferguson. People were shocked when this guy was not charged with anything. It's because the media wasn't giving him the truth. However, over a long enough period of time with propaganda and manipulation and riots, this time, not only did they get their indictment, they got a conviction on all charges. So not only is the media giving a false view of things, but now it seems to be working. Right. So, by the way, a little inside baseball, that whole Darren Wilson case with Michael Brown. The reason he didn't get indicted was the prosecutor there made the decision to show the grand jury both sides of the argument.

The facts in favor of guilt, misconduct by the officer, and the facts that mitigate, that made it appear to be a justifiable use of force. And he let the grand jury make the decision. He had no obligation to do that. He could have only offered the half of the story that would have gotten the officer indicted. But he offered both sides. Grand jury looked at it, said, nope, looks like a justified use of force to us. You know what happened to that prosecutor? Next election, he had a Soros-backed candidate who defeated him as prosecutor. And that guy ran, in part, the competitor ran a part on immediately reopening the Michael Brown case. So he did.

Is that happening? Yeah, he reopened it, looked at it for three weeks, closed it again immediately. Because there's simply no evidence consistent with the officer having done anything wrong. But he won the election. So he's now in that seat. He won political power through this propagandistic narrative. I don't know how you solve that problem, man. Well, people need to know who their prosecutor is. I bet nobody at this table knows who the local prosecutor is here.

Because normal people don't know. You need to know. You need to care. These are enormously powerful positions, and they're cheap to buy. Most prosecutorial races involve a few thousand dollars. So if someone's willing to come in and drop $50,000 in a prosecutor, he just bought that seat. Well, so there has been a wave of progressive or leftist DAs.

We just had a story, and this one's going to get us in trouble on YouTube, but the – what's the guy's name? Chesa Bowden. You know this guy in San Francisco? Yes. He's a progressive prosecutor, and he had a domestic abuser arrested twice, and he cut him loose twice saying, oh, but the wife won't file charges against him. Even though in California, domestic violence is a charge from the state. You're victimizing the state in this case. And I do that because, of course, the victim who's being beaten by you isn't going to come and speak out.

Well, after he got released twice, he went back home and he murdered a seven-year-old baby. So this is what happens when you get i don't want to draw a direct one-to-one correlation between him being this like new woke da and releasing this guy but it is consistent with what we've seen from these leftist prosecutors who are like i'm gonna let this guy go well you don't get less crime by letting all the bad guys you've arrested immediately out of prison this is the same prosecutor who told his assistant DAs, don't argue three strikes under Florida law for any of these people that are being brought into court. Pretend three strikes doesn't exist.

Now, reasonable people can agree or disagree about whether they think three strikes is good public policy or not. But here, the prosecutors under him actually went to court to fight his order. And maybe they don't agree with three strikes themselves, but it would be unlawful under state law for them to do. He was telling his prosecutors to act unlawfully in arguing their cases in court, and they weren't willing to accept that legal liability. Well, who was the prosecutor in the Derek Chauvin trial? Well, they had a whole pass.

I'm sorry. Who was the one who basically initiated the charges i don't know who would have initiated it they had they had at least four prosecutors in court themselves oh keith ellison the state attorney general right uh well what happened in that case was the local prosecutor didn't want anything to do with the case basically and handed it off to the state so the state would take responsibility, which Keith Ellison was happy to do. And, of course, he then brought in a whole panel of prosecutors, only two of whom were actual state prosecutors. Of the 10 or 12 attorneys admitted to prosecute that case, only two were state prosecutors.

All the others were private attorneys from very high-end law firms who volunteered to work for free to prosecute Derek Chauvin. How is that legal? How is that allowed? He's permitted to bring in anybody he wants that the court will accept as an attorney for that case, and the court's generally willing to accept. And these, by the way, are all excellent attorneys. They're all very, very good attorneys. But it was a gross mismatch between these 10 or 12 prosecutors working on the state side and one, frankly, run-of-the-mill defense attorney, perfectly nice guy, perfectly capable attorney, but nothing special working for the defense.

Is there anything in modern history that would reflect, like, is similar to what we saw with Chauvin, meaning the state brings in prestigious prosecutors, the city settles with the Floyd family during the trial. Have you ever seen anything like that? No, I've not. And it's extremely unusual to, especially during jury selection, there's no point then to rush to a settlement.

You may as well wait and see if criminal liability has been found, do a settlement after the fact. If they'd settled very quickly after the event, I wouldn't have been surprised. But to wait as long as they did to jury selection and then suddenly rush to settlement, knowing the biasing effect, and maybe that's why it was done, knowing the biasing effect that it would have. And I've never seen a case in which the large majority of the quote unquote prosecutors

on the case were actually private attorneys who were brought in as a kind of hit team. That seems crazy to me. But, you know, it seems crazy to me after that is who in their right mind would stay in Minnesota? I mean, the state. I mean, Keith Ellison's the AG, right? So this is statewide. That means if you're a cop anywhere in Minnesota and you do anything to save someone else or

protect yourself, you're going to prison. And this is increasingly common. This is a pattern now where people might think, hey, I don't live in the city. It's safe where I live. I live out in the country. It's a nice, safe community. I know who my prosecutor is. I see him at the grocery store every once in a while.

He's a nice guy. I'm sure he wouldn't prosecute me. But what often happens is a local prosecutor gets removed from the decision-making process and it gets handed off to a chosen prosecutor from a different district. That happened in the George Zimmerman trial. The local prosecutor, to him it was so clearly self-defense.

He quit his job rather than bring charges against George Zimmerman. And they just brought in Deborah Nelson from a different part of Florida to be the prosecutor in that case. Or you see the case handed off to a state-level prosecutor like with Keith Ellison in the Chauvin trial,

or with the Ahmaud Arbery case in Georgia. You have a prosecutor, local prosecutor looks at it. I don't want to bring charges here. Second prosecutor, I don't want to bring charges. Third prosecutor, I don't want anything to do with it. And they hand it off to a prosecutor from another part of the state. Why are they handing it off? Because it's a political hot potato.

Everybody knows what Benjamin Crump is going to turn the case into. They don't want any part of it. Maybe they should grow some spines. Or maybe they feel the political pressure they're going to face is simply going to be overwhelming for someone who spent $1,500 to become a local prosecutor. $1,500. It's amazing. It's kind of scary that it's that cheap to buy one of these positions. Yeah. It's amazing. It's kind of scary that it's that cheap to buy one of these positions. You make a good point with the Michael Brown thing where the prosecutor got ousted and they brought in –

Lost his job. Lost his job. So it seems like even if they do gross by and say, get away from me, they'll just lose their job and they'll bring in somebody else. That's what happens. Man, propaganda is taking over. And I've got to say, this is making me pretty pessimistic. I try to be optimistic a little bit sometimes. I am fairly pessim say, it's making me pretty pessimistic. You know, I try to be optimistic a little bit sometimes. I am fairly pessimistic, which is a problem. But, you know,

we've had some, you know, James Carville comes out, says wokeness is a problem. There are some signs that maybe we're starting to see people realize the problem of these narratives. But then I hear this stuff, and it's been ongoing for like a decade. And the Chauvin trial was the worst of the worst where, I mean, when I, I think it was the LA, the LAPD use of force expert, I think it was. Was it, was it him who said? Sergeant Steiger for the, for the state. Was he the guy who said that Chauvin was entitled to use a taser and chose not to? Yeah, he absolutely was. Because of course, a taser is non-deadly force. So how do you convince a jury that Chauvin was intending to assault or injure Floyd

when he de-escalated, he used a lesser force option, and even called EMS? Because that wasn't really the question that the jury was being asked to answer. The question was not, how do we decide this case on the legal merits? The question was,

do we want to convict this guy and all go home and live a quiet life, or do we want to acquit on any one of these charges and be burned alive in our homes? The woman, one of the jurors, she didn't know she was an alternate, and I'm sure you saw this, said, I didn't want to go through the riots and the destruction again, and I was worried someone would come to my house and retaliate. Right, and you can hardly blame her because the threat of violence is real. There's a reason they had National Guardsmen outside the courthouse. There was barbed wire. The jurors were escorted to the courtroom by state police with machine guns. So the actual select fire rifles? Yeah, sure.

Law enforcement doesn't buy semi-automatic guns. Right, right, right. There's no restriction on them having full auto. Great. They're allowed to have weapons of war, I suppose. That's, you know, sure. And the jurors, of course, are going to and from the courthouse every day during this trial past the National Guardsmen, the barbed wire.

They know that stuff exists for a reason. They were told by the judge, look, we'll try to keep your identity secret while you're in court, which is nonsense because all these people disappeared from their normal jobs for three weeks at a time, right? So everyone in their circle, social circle, knows that they're not gone. They're not there for a reason. And they know eventually, the judge told them, we will release your names to the public. Yeah.

And it's not going to be a good outcome. I mean, the defense use of force expert had blood and a pig's head left at his former home. That wasn't intended to intimidate him or change his testimony. His testimony was over. Right. It was for the jurors. Right. It was to the jurors. Right, it was for the benefit. And by the way, this applies also to every prospective juror, witness, expert,

for any of these future trials coming up, the Rittenhouse trial coming up, the McCloskey trial coming up, the Ahmaud Arbery trial coming up. All those people also, everyone going through jury selection there, knows what to anticipate now. Let me pull up a story real quick, because there's something that you're getting me. Here we go. It's BBC. Ladies and gentlemen, we have this story from the BBC.

Anger as ex-generals warn of deadly civil war in France. Now, the reasons they're giving for why they think France will descend into civil war is a bit different. They're talking about what they call no-go zones in French neighborhoods. But in an open letter to the president, they mentioned this leftist dogma is going to result in their country descending into civil war. Now, we're not France. I understand that. But seeing this story and then hearing what you just said, we're talking about the Chauvin trial, the pig's head and blood left at someone's home, the riots and the threats from Maxine Waters. We have federal politicians saying, unless we get mob justice, we will riot more.

How can there be confidence in this government in our country? Similar to what I'm, you know, it's not one for one with what the French generals were saying, but with this leftist dogma, it seems like their, their moral framework is there is no truth, but power and might makes right. That's what they believe. Why would any, um, you know, individual in this country who believes in the American, American moral framework, and it's until proven guilty, just sit by and let this happen. Now I understand for the time being they are they are after everything we saw in minnesota there are still people who

would believe or ignore you know what's happening they would believe the lies or ignore what's happening in the state but for those of us that are paying attention it's getting it's getting terrifying because this is look there's an argument in my opinion based on everything i've read maybe manslaughter i don't know what's your opinion on the show and maybe manslaughter i think there was reasonable doubt on every one of those criminal charges yeah that doesn't mean he didn't do something wrong uh it doesn't even mean you know it could be probably true that he committed a crime but that's not the legal standard the legal standard is it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and i did not see that here i i i agree um i guess what I'm trying to say is if someone told me that

based on everything that was presented to the jurors, the jurors found maybe manslaughter, I'd be like, that makes sense, I guess. I might not agree with that, but it's guilty on all counts, second-degree murder. Within hours of deliberations. Within hours.

This is a case in which there were over 55,000 exhibits of evidence in which there was sufficient video that individual expert witnesses said they spent 100 to 150 hours reviewing the video evidence. And the jurors went into deliberations and less than 10 hours later came back with a verdict. That wasn't due deliberation and argument over the evidence in that case and whether it met the legal standard. That was people who were terrorized. And I think the public looks at this.

Look, first of all, you'd have to accept that a jury that effectively has a gun to its head is anything like any model of justice any of us would want for ourselves or a loved one because that's effectively what happened in this case. But first, people would have to recognize that that's what happened. And second of all, even if they did recognize that this was a gross injustice, and by the way, it's a gross injustice regardless of the verdict. So Chauvin could have been convicted in a fair process. And justice in America is not supposed to be about the outcome. It's supposed to be about a just process. If we trust the process, we accept the outcome, regardless of what it might be. But if the process is inherently corrupt you don't get anything like justice out the other end so first you have to recognize that the process is corrupt but even if you do recognize that well

what's an individual person supposed to do about it except hope that when they're swimming in the water the shark doesn't happen to come for them so this is this is where i'm getting freaked out right seeing this story out of France, I saw this the other day, I covered it a little bit. And, you know, there were some political leaders in the country who said that leftist ideology on race and gender is destroying France and they need to stop it. Now they're to the point where their former generals are warning Macron of civil war. And we've seen many similar articles in the United States from prominent publications talking about the prospect of civil war in this country.

I know a lot of people on the left like to laugh about it, pretend it's not a reality, but then maybe January 6th might change their minds. When you see what happens with Chauvin, and based on the things you're telling me, where a pig's head and blood at the home of one of the witnesses who had already testified, a message to the jury, a Democrat, a federal politician who straight up threatened more violence. She didn't say the word violence, said more confrontation

as they're already rioting. In the context of violence. Right, in the context of... There's only one way to interpret this. Of a year of riots. Right. And now we have the other remaining officers in the Chauvin trial

who are... their trial is set for August, I believe. We also have Kyle Rittenhouse. Now we have this Elizabeth City case. Now we have a Virginia case. Not only are these instances going to keep happening, because sometimes cops use lethal force, whether it's justified or not, it's going to keep happening. It will be weaponized by hard left cultists, people who believe that might makes right and they can do whatever they want. And then there's not going to be a system of justice for anyone involved. Cops are already resigning in mass across the country and have been since since last

year. And it's getting worse. Even in the area we're in right now, a local town is facing a shortage of police and they don't know what to do about it. So at what point do people just say, I have no faith in the system anymore? And do we just see people taking up arms in their own neighborhoods, rejecting the law? I mean, how does a regular person function in a society that has thrown out the rule of law? Well, mostly you just hope it doesn't happen to you. Mostly you just hope that you don't get targeted. That's the only thing you can hope for. The solution is certainly not private justice. That just makes you even more

vulnerable to successful prosecution than if you had the background and training and badge and apparent authority of a police officer. You're not less vulnerable to this kind of prosecution. You're more likely to make mistakes. You're more likely to be mischaracterized. Look at the guys in the Ahmaud Arbery case who were making what was almost certainly a lawful citizen's arrest under Georgia law. You may not like the Georgia citizen's arrest law. I get that. Reasonable people can disagree. But if you read the law, they almost certainly met the conditions for making a lawful citizen's arrest of Arbery. And they're not being treated like cops. They're just being treated as people who wanted to be cops and murdered a black man

for driving through a neighborhood. So I don't think private justice... The full details are irrelevant. I remember when I covered that, and there's, I believe, there's surveillance footage of him entering this private property. And I had these people on the left. They don't care. They believe there is no truth but power, and they believe Mike makes right. So when I come out and say, like, oh, there's a video, the guy was trespassing. I mean, in West Virginia, you're allowed, I'm pretty sure I could be wrong. So fact check me on this one, but I'm pretty sure you're allowed to shoot someone to stop them from entering your property. You don't even have to wait until they get on your property. You can prevent them from accessing your property. Well, in most states,

if someone's attempting to forcibly and unlawfully enter your dwelling, your place of business, your occupied vehicle, there's a legal presumption they're doing it to cause you deadly bodily harm, which would justify your use of deadly defensive force. Not in New Jersey. In New Jersey, you have to run away. I don't know where you run to when you're in your home and you have to retreat from your own home. I guess if you're sitting in your bed in your underwear and someone breaks in your house, go stand in an alley somewhere in your underwear, I guess, and pray for the best.

But that's the law in some of these places. It's unfortunate when that happens. Unfortunately, I certainly hope there is not a civil war. I mean, when we had a civil war last time, I believe the death count was something like 600,000, and that's just combat deaths. It doesn't even count people who starved and suffered other catastrophes. A civil war in America, it would easily be 60 million people who ended up dying, especially in the just-in-time economy in which we live and where your grocery store in two days,

if it's not resupplied, is completely out of food, as we learned during the COVID era. That's right. But I'll clarify this point because it's been a minute since we've talked about civil war here on the show, but we talk about it a decently amount in the context of the escalation of violence. I can't remember which guest this was, but they made a really great point. You know, I often say that when people look at civil war in the United States, the potential for it, and there's a Princeton professor who said we're in a cold civil war. This is not something I just made up.

You saw that story. I agree. We are in a cold civil war. My concern would be if it goes hot. So here's the issue is that people imagine the American Civil War as how civil wars work. That's not true. Most civil wars do not function this way, where you have states seceding and then two factions fighting each other on a battlefront. That can't happen anymore.

Not the way we're structured societally. Right, absolutely. But even other countries where there's been civil war it's a bunch of different pockets rise up and there's violence for against local government against different factions we had someone on the show i can't remember who it was but they said what happens in america will look more like syria yes you'll have 30 or 40 factions you'll have different you know elements of the government and everyone would be fighting in in different places for different reasons it's not going to be structure.

It's just going to be violence and chaos. And it's going to be, you know, different in different areas. And I think that seems to be a likely scenario right now, especially based on what we're seeing in Minnesota. It may be likely. I mean, I certainly hope it doesn't happen for all the reasons I just described. I think the death toll would be unimaginable. But there's really only three options, right?

There's reconciliation between the left and the right. There's civil war or there's subjugation of the right by the left. So which of those outcomes are we going to pick? I don't see reconciliation anywhere in our future. I'd like to think there's not going to be a civil war, but I certainly wouldn't be happy about the third outcome, which would be effective subjugation of 49 percent. Well, subjugation is happening. I mean, when I see these cops in after everything you've just told me about the Chauvin case and the way you presented, I mean, people being brought in under armed guard with cops, machine guns, pigs, but all that stuff i can't believe there are still police officers who would wear that badge because they are representing a city that knows what they did a judicial system that knows

what they did and they're effectively supporting it by doing so well they're not really staying though so minneapolis pd has lost something like 20 of its officers in the last year those you you can't just apply that 20 generally because there's huge chunks of the police force that are not interacting with the public like street cops. They're at the academy. They're in the headquarters. Administrative. Those people are not leaving.

They're not in danger of being Derek Chauvin because they're not going hands-on with suspects. So if they say 20% of the total police force is leaving, that has to be 40% to 50% or more of the street cop guys. It's a great point. They're not going to get replaced by better quality officers. They're going to get replaced by people like some of the cops involved in the arrest people. It's their fourth or third call out on the street when suddenly they find themselves in a George Floyd event. They don't make better calls. They make worse use of force calls.

We're going to see more cases in which cops are using force inappropriately and by the way i don't want to suggest to anybody that i think cops always use force appropriately there's many cases where they use force inappropriately but my observation based on my experience is when that happens they are held accountable so what i object to is this notion that cops are rampantly going around using force inappropriately and just society's just letting them do that that's not true right what's surprising to me is well before i get into that the rookie cops more likely to get killed and more likely to kill right yes absolutely bad use of force calls less experience poor judgment because of that lack of experience those are the guys more likely to accidentally go to the gun when they meant to go to the taser and you end up with more force being used inappropriately you don't get better outcomes

by having a less experienced police force so this is only going to exacerbate the problem it's going to keep happening right then you're going to get more of these lawyers coming out saying oh these cops did wrong see this is proof we got to abolish the police. This is why I'm surprised. Who in their right mind would sign up to be a police officer right now? I don't think anybody is. Well, they have rookies. They have people coming and joining the force. These people are desperate for the job who don't understand the risks

or who believe that, hey, it won't happen to me. I just have to be, right, because most officers are not involved in a George Floyd type of case. But, of course, it's not up to the cop. I mean, one thing most people, I don't think they realize, it's not really the cop who decides how much force to use in an encounter with a violently noncompliant suspect. It's the suspect who determines how much force is going to be used.

So it's not really within the cop's control unless the cop decides, I'm not going to engage. I'm not going to go hands-on. I'm just going to let this person go. And whose interest is that in? I mean, it's cities where the police have long adopted that kind of approach that have become the high-crime hellholes, and not for people who live in rich suburbs, but for the people who live are caught, captured, trapped in those urban centers of violence, who, by

the way, when they're asked, they want more police. They don't want the police defunded. However, we've seen from Gallup that many people in these places do say they want more cops, but I don't see them coming out to support the police. I don't see them going to fundraisers. I don't see them marching in the streets. So the way I see it is you can tell me you want something, but if you've got people setting fires to buildings, destroying them completely, beating people in the streets, smashing windows, that's the voice being heard in the press. And you won't even stand up outside with a sign you've abstained from the vote. Right. You have to put your vote where your mouth is.

And if you don't do that, nothing changes. But, in fact, nothing changes. I mean, just look at the school systems in these same places. Those school boards are elected by the residents in those communities. And they continue to elect people who don't educate their children. Who indoctrinate their children. What are we supposed to make of that? Again, they don't put their votes where they say their mouth is.

So we've seen a massive escalation in violent crime across the country. We've seen shootings skyrocketing. I think New York, it's like, what, 250% or some ridiculous number? Yeah, 275 or something. 275, some ridiculously large number. Cops are at a point now where we've already seen many resign. I think in Albuquerque recently, 20 officers resigned from their emergency

response team, so no more riot control. They're going to bring in rookies, cadets to be trained. Oh, that'll go well. So we're going to get more of these instances, but we're also going to hear more of cops saying, I'm not going to either. I'm going to quit the job and go somewhere else. I've gotten those emails or we're going to see cops who just say, I won't respond to that call. Gun violence and crime will continue to skyrocket in places like New York, Chicago, and I believe LA of obviously the big cities. And then what happens when someone

finally says, I'm going to fight back or I'm going to form my own neighborhood watch group and we're going to take up arms. Now you see the emergence of urban factions opposing uncontrollable violence. That's the seed for some serious urban conflict. I understand the drivers that would lead people to want to protect their own communities or homes by forming these private little cooperative groups. The legal jeopardy they're creating for themselves is unbelievable because if something goes bad, if they are then involved in some kind of George Floyd-like event, the prosecutors will characterize it as a conspiracy among the group. Each and every one of them will be equally responsible

for the worst conduct of any of their members. So if it turns out there's some lunatic in your group that you didn't realize was a lunatic in your group that you didn't realize was a lunatic until he got a chance to point a gun at somebody and he murdered someone, straight out murder someone, if you're deemed a co-conspirator, you committed that murder, my friend. So let's keep going with this logic. All right. So first, we already have the dramatic escalation in violent crime across our cities, police resigning or blue flu or refusing to answer calls retire on the job we have a wave a mass wave of retirements from frontons there was a story in

in uh out of new york a 30 year old female cop retired he's 30 she was there for seven years and she's like i'm retiring as a police officer at 30 when i say retire on the job i mean these these are people at least if a cop just outright retires, you know he's not there anymore. He's not a resource who needs to be replaced. Retire on the job is when they don't leave the job. They just stop doing the job. Right.

They stop going to the call. So they delay going long enough so when they get there, it's just time to do the chalk line and there's no danger anymore. So let's follow this logic. All right. So more crime.

It is happening. We've already seen videos of people pulling guns on protesters and rioters. We had the McC more crime. It is happening. We've already seen videos of people pulling guns on protesters and rioters. We had the McCloskey's very famous case. There's also a viral video where I think it was a couple of guys and a few women were standing at their street, the entrance to their block, holding a couple of rifles. So we're already getting close to that point. So let's say the prosecutor, let's say rioters are rampaging through an area. Someone, well, this has actually happened, right? So Kyle Rittenhouse comes out and says, I'm going to defend this area.

I'm going to stop the riots. What people need to understand about the riots in Kenosha is that it was several nights of ongoing rioting. I think it was a 78-year-old man. I don't know. I think he was 78. His building was on fire. He was trying to stop the people ransacking his store. And when he went up to stop them, someone bashed him over the back of the head

with a rock. Then you get someone, a group of people who come out. Then you get Kyle Rittenhouse. And then the media demonizes him. They continue this pressure campaign. What's the next step after we've already seen this and it's only getting worse? At a certain point, there's going to be more groups like the guys with Kyle R at a certain point there's going to be more groups like like like the guys with kyle right now emerging there's going to be more people doing this across the country you're going to get more prosecutors i i tweeted i think kyle right now he'll get life i'm exaggerating because i don't know if life is even an option based on what happened but i think they're going to it's going to be like chauvin it would be life it would be like okay two counts of murder so there would be life in It would be life. Okay, well, there you go. Two counts of murder. So it would be life in prison without possibility of early release.

And I've looked at every minute of that, all the video available on Rittenhouse. I've written about it extensively. Did I mention my website? I can't remember I did that. If folks want to see what I write about these cases, it's lawofselfdefense.com. That's all you need to know, lawofselfdefense.com. And I've looked at every bit of available video. I've done in-depth analysis based on Wisconsin law of that case, just like I would do if I was retained to consult on the case.

That was lawful self-defense every day of the week and twice on Sunday. There's no question about it. The difficulty, the reason he's finding himself charged in this predicament, and this happens a lot in these cases, is that with the best of intentions, he put himself in an environment likely to turn violent. He appears as if he went to the fight as opposed to the fight coming to you. The same issue with the McCloskeys. They went out of their house to confront the protesters. If they'd stayed in their house and a protester tried to come into their house, they would have been good to go 100%. But when it appears or could be made to appear that you went to the fight rather than the fight coming to you, it begins not to look like self-defense,

even if technically, on what the law allows, it's entirely legitimate use of force. I don't know if you can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. And if you can't, just feel free to say so. But do you think Rittenhouse is going to get life? Again, it's one of these situations, much like the Chauvin trial, where you have to ask yourself, is this case actually being decided on the legal merits? On the legal merits, it looks to me like self-defense, 100%, all three events he was involved in. But if it's not being judged on the legal merits, then it's just a political witch

trial, essentially. And then the outcome is all depending on well the political dynamics the propagandizing around it and of course people are not getting both sides of the story again let me let me ask you a bit about this case i don't know if you're able to opine more on the written house stuff but you know uh so two people died a third person had his his i believe his right bicep was was was blown off uh you just said that it was self-defense every day of the week and twice on sunday right if he used more force against that last person would that have been justified against the person shot in the arm yeah yeah so well you're privileged to use force as long as necessary to neutralize the deadly force threat against you

once that deadly force threat is neutralized you're not privileged to use force anymore so to the extent the person could no longer constitute a deadly force threat then Rittenhouse would not be privileged to use force anymore by the way would he but would he know that right so the issue is this guy had a gun and it's it all is a factor of his reasonable perceptions so it's quite possible by the way in the Rittenhouse case there's cases we call awful but lawful where both parties could believe they're justified in what they're doing. So the two guys who are chasing Rittenhouse down the street, they may have legitimately believed that they were chasing someone who just committed a murder of the first guy in the parking lot. They could have believed that. That doesn't make Rittenhouse's use of defensive force unlawful because his conduct is judged by his reasonable perceptions if he believes he just defended himself against

gun guy number one and now he's being further attacked by guys two and three well he's privileged to defend themselves himself against the reasonably apparent threat those people present so I guess the way I was looking at it is you know it is, we had a conversation before the show. This third guy, I forget his name, he's got a gun. He had a 9mm. Do you know what kind of weapon it was? I'm not sure. A handgun of some kind.

I'm not sure. And he tried to grab the gun from Rittenhouse, who then fired once. Rittenhouse then backs off. Am I wrong in saying that in that moment, if it were you, you could have fired at the guy again? If he still had the gun and appeared in a position to use it, then he's still a deadly force threat. I mean, the person's attacking you with a gun and they still have the gun.

And there were still gunshots going off, apparently. I could be wrong. It's been a while since we covered this. But even after he shot the guy, then he gets up and he looks around and then just turns around and calmly starts walking back. I was surprised at his demeanor. It felt like... And Rittenhouse's demeanor. Rittenhouse's demeanor.

Yeah, of course, it's hard to know what's going on in his mind. But of course, he saw the police right at the end of the street. So he was running to safety. It appeared that he neutralized his attackers. So now he was able to proceed to safety. I mean, he didn't run and hide. He ran and presented himself to the cops, which is not the conduct of someone who's just committed murder i guess what i'm saying is that it feels like um he he a lot of people have said that he was in

control he was you know very much in like he he knew where to like he he de-escalated essentially right i guess what i'm trying to say is if somebody was standing in front of me with a nine millimeter in their hand i'm not just going to like calmly back away as they're standing there still holding the gun and he did yeah again it's difficult to know what's in his mind i mean we make as human beings we make a we do we tend to engage in a lot of mind reading from a person's demeanor we We ask ourselves, hey, if I was in that situation, would I act the same way? Or if I were acting that way,

what would that tell me about my own internal thought processes? But it's very dangerous to do that, especially in the context of violent confrontations. Most of us are not in violent confrontations. Most of us haven't been in a fight since junior high school or wherever. It really affects how your,

the way your mind captures and stores and processes information and makes decisions under stress, especially life-threatening stress, is completely different than the normal experience. So even Rittenhouse, if you'd asked them ahead of time, if you'd shown them that video of someone else involved in that, would have said, oh, I never would have acted that way. But you don't know until you're actually in a situation. Well, that's one of the jokes we've seen in the Micaiah Bryant case.

It's Micaiah Bryant. I'm getting the name right, right? I believe that's correct. That's correct. Okay. So you're seeing people saying, like, why didn't he shoot the knife out of her hand?

Have you seen that? Yes. People actually tweeted this as if in a split second when someone draws the knife and you have a tenth of a second to make that decision, you could aim for the hand and lead the target as the knife is moving forward

to hit just the knife and not the person behind the knife. Right. This is what people think. He had nine seconds to decide what he was going to do in that instance. He got out of his car. Right. This was already underway. Nine seconds between figuring out what he was going to do.

There's a reason every law enforcement officer in the country, everyone who takes a self-defense course for using a gun is taught to shoot center mass on the threat because you need those rounds to hit the actual threat, not hit innocent people down range of the actual threat. And, and by the way, it's unfortunately like jurors won't know that,

right? We might know that we've taken a self-defense course, but most jurors don't know anything about self-defense. They might think it's perfectly reasonable to try to shoot a knife out of someone's hands. It's one of the reasons I tell people there's no way, just like in a physical fight, I don't care what your training is, your martial arts skills, how good you are with a gun or a knife or whatever, there's no way to reduce the risk of the physical fight to zero. You can get it low if you're really skilled, but it's always greater than zero. There's always a possibility you could lose that physical fight. And unfortunately, the same is true of the legal

fight. There's no way to reduce the risk of the legal fight to zero. You could do everything legally correct, but then you're put in front of a jury. And if you're put in front of a jury, there's a 10% chance you're getting convicted because that's just the noise in the system. Because they might think, a prosecutor might might convince them shooting the knife out of someone's hand is a reasonable thing to attempt right and it's ridiculous it's ridiculous i mean especially because depending on what kind of gun you have it's just gonna it's gonna go behind the knife it's gonna keep going even if it hits the knife it's not stopped by a knife held in someone's hand the bullet is going to continue on until you know there's no such thing as a miss with a bullet it continues going until something stops it it hits something yeah so so looking at like uh the

rittenhouse case and everything we've seen from the escalation of the lack of justice over the past you know decade or so or at least the attempts at stripping justice away and the riots that have resulted from it i'm worried that rittenhouse is going to get life. They're going to give him everything possible. The jurors will not stand up for him, especially after the photos of him, I think, with some proud boys. They're going to be like, deliberations, 10 minutes. Can we go home now and order pizza? Lock them up and throw away the key. Right.

So you might be able to tell yourself, well, they're not supposed to take into consideration that picture of him with the proud boys. I'm sure that won't be admissible in court as actual evidence. But of course, the jury's not going to be sequestered any more than they were sequestered in the Chauvin case. We don't live in the 1970s where the news is on at 6 and 10. As long as you don't turn on your TV, then you're not exposed to the news. We're immersed in the news constantly. Those images of him with the Proud Boy will be displayed prominently every day of the trial the jury is unavoidably going to see it as long as seeing maxine water is an equivalent coming to town saying hey it better be guilty or this violence is going to escalate and they'll be rioting the whole time of course you really need a jury that has no internet access

almost like right i know you need impossible i know well it is seems like it change of venues you'd have to like put them in a place so in the in the chauvin trial the defense made motions for change of venue almost every other day it seemed like motions for a continuance delaying the trial to a later date almost every other day every time they did it the judge rejected it and the judge's rationale was essentially listen this occurred in Minnesota. We have to have the trial somewhere in Minnesota. You can't have the trial in some other jurisdiction. Is there anywhere in Minnesota where the mob's not going to show up, where we're not going to have National Guardsmen, we won't need barbed wire and barriers? The answer, he thought, was no. So even if we change

it to another venue, another jurisdiction within the state, we're still going to have the same, you know, vaccine waters is not going to decline to go because it's in a different city in Minnesota. I hear that. And I think the judge's public statement was that. But if I were to make a guess, and I know mind reading, we can't do that. I'm imagining him, you know, if I were going to make a guess about what he actually thought is, if I do this, they're going to come and burn my house down. I'll just just let's lock this guy up and get it over with. Right. Because the only solution, if that's what you believe, if you believe, hey, we hold it here, it's unfair. It's not a fair trial. If we move it elsewhere in Minnesota, still not a fair trial. To me, the answer to that dilemma is not, well,

we'll just give them an unfair trial here. To me, the answer to that dilemma is not, well, we'll just give them an unfair trial here. To me, the answer to that solution is if we're incapable as a society of providing a fair trial, you can't try the guy. I mean, you just dismiss the charges with prejudice and you simply can't subject anybody to an unfair judicial process.

Could you imagine if Blackstone's formulation was still upheld to this day? They would have said, if the judge came out out and said it's impossible to have a fair trial and then just out of my courtroom and told all the writers it's your fault right they would have burned the city down and of course the judge knows this which is spineless basically they sacrificed this guy and again listen he might be guilty of criminal misconduct i don't know but i do know for sure that this process did not show that. Because the process was corrupt. Back to Rittenhouse.

Do you know when the trial is supposed to be? I believe it's currently scheduled for November. But the nature of these things is that things get rescheduled a lot. I'm sure. Of course, Rittenhouse could push for a more accelerated trial if he wants to. We all have a U.S. constitutional right to a speedy trial. But generally, the defendant doesn't. They want to delay as long as possible to get as far as possible in terms of time from the event and the heat and the emotion.

I mean, there's a case in Florida where a retired cop shot somebody in a movie theater, killed them over who knows what, throwing popcorn at each other or something along those lines. I think that's been seven years now since that happened. And that retired cop still has not gone to trial. And he's 70 something years old. So I think the strategy is, you know, if we delay long enough, God will take him before he'll be subject to a prosecution. I'm worried that with Rittenhouse, we're going to get another. I mean,

it's great for the leftists, for the for the cult. They're going to claim another victory in destroying the rule of law, proving that they that might makes right. They have the power and that there's no justice in this country anymore. But I'm scared about what that's going to what what what that will mean to conservatives and actually anyone in this country who pays attention. I get it. Most of these liberals who vote for the Democrats don't watch the news. They don't, they don't, they don't care.

They don't know whatever CNN said it. It's fine. I guess whatever. But there's a lot of people like me who are slightly left leaning and do follow the news and it's, you know, the group of the politically homeless, the disaffected liberals, you combine those people with moderates and conservatives. And we are watching the destruction of the justice system and the fact that the politically homeless, the disaffected liberals. You combine those people with moderates and conservatives, and we are watching the destruction of the justice system and the fact that the judges, the mayors, the prosecutors,

all of these people are so pathetic and spineless that they would rather sell out justice for their own skin instead of standing up for what they believe in and leading the charge on principle. It's gone. It could be like an evolution of our justice system if we fix it. Because I think in a modern age, those people are going to get doxxed, and they probably would have their houses burned down,

and the judge might have had his wife get – remember that one judge? Someone went to his house and murdered like – She murdered her husband and son, I think. Her husband and son. So I wonder if we can start to have judicial processes where it's you um anonymous where you have anonymous jurors like porting into an avatar with um absolutely encryption and an anonymous judge but you could somehow verify that they are real people american citizens i just don't see how

it could work you'd end up with some kind of star chamber proceeding that was like a hidden justice situation like from central america or something it's. And I think we have a right to, first of all, confront the accusers, to know who our judges are, to know who the jurors are, to be actively involved and not have this information withheld from you. And it doesn't solve the problem.

You still have the judges going to be known. The expert witnesses are going to be known. All those people are still going to be subject to pressure. And unfortunately, you know, America is exceptional in so many ways. And one of those ways is our criminal due process protections that we have, like a right to confront your attorney, your accuser, a right to an attorney, a right to a trial. This bill is too big. I've had that happen.

But these protections exist for a reason. It's because they help ensure something as close to justice as human beings can create. And when you degrade that, when you say, well, maybe that guy didn't get a fair trial, but come on, he had a coming, right? I mean, Chauvin had a coming. He murdered George Floyd or whoever you think might have a coming. When you degrade that person's criminal process protections, you do it for everybody. Right. Because none of us can expect any more criminal due process than that guy got.

Not you, not your kids, not your wife, not your brother, not your parents. Nobody can expect any more than we give the worst of us, which is why we've always given the worst of us those protections. There are pro bono attorneys who go down to Guantanamo Bay to represent terrorists. We put Nazis on trial after World War II. And now we have a large faction of people in this country who want to destroy that. And did you hear what many of these people were saying in the Chauvin trial? You had prominent outlets saying, the nation said, something to the effect of,

in a reasonable world, there wouldn't have even been a trial. He should have just taken the plea and it would be over. You have prominent activists on Twitter saying, why are we even holding a trial? We all watched it on video. They don't care for the rule of law. No. And that's unfortunate because that's not really a world that I think any of us would want to live in. Unfortunately, I think the judge and the jurors are not getting due process either because with the crowd mob mentality and the ability for people to organize on Twitter and docs and go to their house that day and be like, hey, I'm not in Louisiana, but you are. Go get this address in Louisiana. They're not safe. Sure. But if you're a spineless coward like Judge Cahill, then you shouldn't be a judge. Well, in reality, if your choice is

he's going to die or I'm going to die, and that's just your job, what are you going to choose? Well, if you're a coward, you'll let the innocent person suffer to save your own skin. But if you're brave and principled, you will say,

I will stand my ground, so be it. And then you'll die. That's a lot to expect from a civil servant. Oh, absolutely. It may be the standard we should expect, arguably but they'll just get replaced but it's it's a lot to expect and so that guy would have to quit being a judge it's insane to expect that no that's not a way to survive a society no no no you can't expect the judges to sacrifice themselves if every single judge every time said f you you will not terrorize me into putting an

innocent man in prison we would not have this problem i don't think so i think that they then they would get destroyed by who by what by the angry mob and then the government would put new obedient judges it's an issue of complacent spineless and feckless leadership the prosecutors who won't prosecute the rioters, the police who grovel and lick the boots of their democratic leadership that sells them out. And you have a system where, as you mentioned, prosecutors are like, I'm going to pass the buck.

I don't want to be involved. Grow a spine and go on TV and say, this is what happened. If you've got a problem with it, I don't know what to tell you. It's part of why we have covert ops. You don't want to know who, or you're not supposed to know who the people spying on you are because you'll go – they'll go get executed. So you kind of – I don't necessarily think we need like secret judges and juries making these like behind-the-scenes decisions. But if there was a way to protect their identities, that I think is the future of judiciary America. The public has a right to know.

I do agree with that, but only to know that they're real people. You don't need to know their identities. I disagree. What if the government starts putting up juries of a bunch of tech billionaires? And you're just like, well, they're real people. We know it's true. We don't know who they are. And it's all a bunch of billionaires or gang members or whatever.

You don't give the government the power to do that. Government needs to be transparent. The problem is all of these politicians in Minnesota are sitting there thinking like, well, I'm more important than anyone else. I don't care about my community or the betterment of my children's future. I would rather sell everyone else out to save my own skin.

That's what they're saying. Well, I think they think it's a transient problem. I think they're thinking, hey, we got this George Floyd trial going on now, the Chauvin trial. Let's just get through it. We'll get through it. It'll be over. If we can get through it without the city incurring a billion dollars in property damage and a bunch of other people getting killed, well, that means we've got to sacrifice one cop, maybe not give him perfect due process of law. Well, that's just the price we're going to pay. We're not going to incur those billions of dollars in property. And that's

even before you get to their own self-interest, my job, my career, my safety. So they can frame it in their minds as doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And let's face it, it's not like Chauvin fell off a building onto George Floyd. He was actively using force on George Floyd. And they may tell themselves, listen, he took the job as a cop. This is one of the risks, especially in this political environment. He could have retired the year before, right, and not been doing that. He has that right. No one was making him be a cop.

And that's why I say any one of these cops in Minnesota right now, the next time this happens, Kim Potter, I don't care. They can lock Kim Potter up, give her what, was it a second-degree manslaughter? Was that 10 years? I'd have to check. It's something in that range, 10 to 20 years. And then she'll probably get four or something because she's no criminal history. You know, but there's other aggravating factors.

So once they decide it's a crime, they convict you on anything, well, then you're a criminal. And then you committed the crime while in police uniform, wearing a badge. And that becomes an aggravating factor for sentencing. I mean, that's what Chauvin's looking at now. So under normal sentencing guidelines with no priors, he'd be looking at about 10 years, which means he'd get out in like six years. But they filed what they call for Blakely,

aggravating factors. He was a cop wearing a badge in uniform in front of children, part of a group of people, the other police officers involved. So he could be looking at way more time than 10 years. Do you think these officers in Minnesota would hesitate to arrest you on a gun charge

if you were constitutionally expressing your right to bear arms? Not if it violated a Minnesota statute that arrests you in a heartbeat. On the spot. And so you have these cops that you see the violence and the destruction happening in these places. They also don't want law-abiding citizens to have the ability to defend themselves. Now, I understand the cops aren't the ones who made the laws, but being the ones who enforce

it at a time when the city has been attacked, when buildings have been destroyed, the police department is under threat, and they still work to support a system they know is crooked. After everything that happened, they would still, without hesitation, take away your right to defend yourself as a law-abiding citizen. And then, after choosing to stand in a burning building while threatening my rights of self-defense, expect me to defend them? Never going to happen. Kim Potter can go to prison for all I care. She chose this. She knows what the corrupt, spineless politicians are doing. And I have no sympathy for anybody who chooses to stand in a burning building when I say get out and they don't. Well, a lot of them are getting out. Some

of them, some of them, you know, they may make different choices. But the fact is, every cop knows that he doesn't work for himself. He's not his own law enforcement agency. He works for a hierarchy of people above him. And ultimately, he works for politicians. So his police chief, the guy at the top of his department, that is a political position, folks. That's not a law enforcement position just because he wears a uniform and has a badge. He's not a cop anymore. He's a politician now. So ultimately, the cops don't work for themselves. They work for the politicians. If they don't like doing that, then they can't keep the job. They shouldn't. I mean, after anything that's happened, my attitude is,

for one, if you're still going to stay in these cities where all of these problems are happening, it's not just happening in a vacuum. It's not like all of a sudden I'm standing alongside these leftists being like, yeah, all cops are bad. No, no, no. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is we had we had a what what are we going on now? Almost a year of riots. Now, before the before the election, we had months of rioting. We had a political system supporting the rioters. We had a Kamala Harris soliciting funds for the rioters. Joe Biden staff donating funds for the rioters. Absolute support for the cast and the destruction and an establishment media saying peaceful

protests while their fire raging behind them. And I said, okay, let's defend, you know, our police officers, not all perfect should be a police accountability. I respect all that. The trial I get, let's have a fair trial. Let's have some police reform. The argument didn't work. The people decided that they should vote for those who supported the writers. We're seeing an escalation of, or I should say a collapse of our justice system. And there are still to this day cops saying, I'm going to sit here in a burning building. Okay. Well, when the fire started and we all tried putting it out and it didn't work and the

fire took over the building, then I said, time to get out of the building, guys. He said, no, I'm cool. I'll stay. I said, all right. So when the building comes down on you, don't expect me to get set. It's a real dilemma, right? Because what choices do the cops have? They can stay or they can go. If they go, they're not cops anymore. So they're not helping us there, right? They're not good. Why not? What? How is it not helping if they're going to stay in a city

that is, if they're supporting corrupt politicians and corrupt judges. I'm just saying, if they leave the job, they're not fighting crime anymore, right? They're not serving that societal purpose anymore because they're no longer police. They've left the job. If they stay, maybe they feel they can still, most of the time, do something for crime. But yes, admittedly, by staying, you're working for

the body politic that gives you that job. And you've got residents of these cities who don't want to do anything to support the police to express their support for police well apparently quite the opposite why are people marching they're voting for the prosecutors and they're voting for the mayors they're voting for you know they're supporting supporting the anti-police initiative so then what gives these cops the right to reject the will of the people and think they can stay here

and go into these neighborhoods where they don't or they aren't wanted? Well, they can because the politicians say you can go. Just be be don't be surprised when we serve you up in the next witch trial. So these cops and the good ones won't stay. I mean, any that can get out with any any fraction of whatever they've earned in terms of a pension, they're going to leave. They leave the profession entirely, or they'll join the state police or the sheriff's department or move to some other jurisdiction entirely.

They'll get out while they can. You know, when you look at the, all the, they had a lot of police testify for the state during the Chauvin trial. None of them were street cops. They were from the academy. They were trainers, or they were an 80-year-old or 70-year-old homicide detective who doesn't do street work anymore. He shows up after everything's done and talks to witnesses. Or they had a sergeant who, again, shows up after the fact.

If there's been certain use of force threshold reached, you have to call your sergeant so he can write a report. But none of them are making hands-on arrests. They didn't call any street cops. You know who called a street cop? The defense called a street cop. The guy who was involved in the first George Floyd intentional ingestion of drugs-related arrest. And he was there to attest to the body cam video. And he was like, yeah, no, this is what George Floyd does.

This should have been entirely expected because this is the same behavior that I experienced, and he stepped right through it. And there's a reason the prosecution didn't call any actual street cops, because they didn't want street cop testimony in that trial. What they got were the cops who were still there, who weren't on the street because they're in the academy, they're in headquarters, they're in senior homicide positions, where they're not actually expected to go hands-on with anybody. I look at what's going on in many of these cities and just think the cops at this point who are staying are propping up a corrupt system and they're allowing it to persist. And it's more than that. I, for a while, operate under the assumption that regular people wanted police.

And I noticed a lot of conservatives do this where it's like, clearly people want crime to be stopped. But then I saw the Micaiah Bryant thing when, when, and I saw that instant in New York city where the woman got shot in the head and I realized something they're telling us in no uncertain terms. And we're just not getting it through our thick skulls. When a woman shoots another one in the head in New York, it's not news. No one cares. Crump doesn't show up. There's no lawsuits, no lawyers, no one complains. Cops not news. No one cares. Crump doesn't show up. There's no lawsuits, no lawyers. No one complains. Cops don't got to do anything.

Cops aren't at risk. Cops are fine. The people want to live that way. When Micaiah Bryant is fighting and she pulls a knife and tries to stab someone, the cop intervenes immediately in that body camera footage. I was amazed to see the people turn to the cops, yelling, what did you do? Why did you do that? It's like, didn't you just watch this lady wind up with the knife? And then I thought to myself, it's clear. They're not lying. They're

literally saying, let us have neighborhoods riddled with violence and crime. We want that. We don't want you to intervene. In fact, there was one instance recently where I think someone had their kid killed. I can't remember what the story was. The guy's refusing to talk to the cops about it at all. And he said, we do not want cops coming in our neighborhood, period. And I'm like, then why are cops still doing it? Why is anyone demanding they should? No, the cops should leave because the people have asked them to.

Right. That simple. And of course, every cop knows now that if he does go hand on one suspect, the first thing that's going to happen is all the bystanders are going to come to the immediate conclusion that his use of force was inappropriate, unlawful. And those are exactly the kinds of witnesses that were brought up in the Chauvin trial. By the way, they mostly testified about their feelings about what happened, which should not be relevant in a criminal prosecution. Frankly, they should not have been permitted to say those words. When they said those words, it should have been objected to

by the defense. I wondered why the defense didn't object at the time. Sometimes there's a broader strategy that pays off later where you don't want to be objecting even when you have the privilege. Unfortunately, I never saw the payback appear later during the trial, so I'm not sure what the defense counsel was there for. They're supposed to testify about facts. Their observations of what happened, not their feelings about what

happened. We had witness after witness after witness, literally gasp and cry and tear on the witness stand. That alone should be grounds for a reversal of this conviction. So I want to talk, I thought I had this pulled up. It's probably here somewhere where is it i don't know we have the the supreme court's going to be taking up uh a case on gun rights and so throughout all of this one thing can be said it's that we have record gun sales you know we're seeing more first time gun buyers than than you know record-breaking first time gun buyer uh gun buyers people want to defend themselves and now there's huge news where gun rights advocates are really excited the supreme court is going to

rule on whether or not the right to keep and bear arms exists outside of your home but i do think it's funny that a lot of people think it's going to be a positive and the left seems to think it's gonna be a negative probably because the court is i guess on paper six to three even though it's probably more likely five to four. But there's a good possibility that they rule against gun rights. And based on the track record we've seen over the past couple of years, it seems more likely to me that the Supreme Court is going to rule we don't have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't understand the people in the gun community who are just assuming that this is going to

be a positive outcome on this case. I mean, were they happy with how the Supreme Court dealt with the election issues after the presidential election? Because they basically just washed their hands of the whole affair. Maybe that was appropriate. Maybe not. I'm not an expert in election law, not even really an expert in gun law. My expertise is use of force law. But you know, politics is downstream of culture. And to think that you could lose the culture, lose the legislature, lose the executive branch, and somehow the Supreme Court's going to step in

with a cape and save you at the end strikes me as an unrealistic expectation for any kind of sustained society. I'm looking at everything that's going on. You know, we've been talking a lot about the Chauvin trial and frankly the injustice i mean people the juror flat out saying she was scared of riots and destruction i think that's all you need to hear but obviously you can see with your own eyes how it was influencing the

jury now we have the very real prospect that come well you know it could be good it could be bad but i'm i'm sorry if i'm being pessimistic but come come October, it's October 4th, I think, is when they're going to hear the case. They could come out and take away our rights. And I think that's the trend so far. Things have been just seemingly getting worse in terms of our rights in these areas. Well, I think the worst case scenario is not that the Supreme Court says you can't concealed carry anymore if you're allowed to do it currently in your state. They're not going to take away a right. But what they would do is leave on the table the option that, hey, if a state wants to

take away that right, they're privileged to do that. New Jersey doesn't want to give you a concealed carry permit. New York doesn't. Maryland doesn't. I'm not sure how things work here. But if the state decides that you basically don't have a right to carry a firearm outside of your home, the state's free to do that. It wouldn't affect you if you live in a state where you're currently allowed to carry,

unless, of course, the politics in your state changes. Like in my home state of Colorado, they just passed some new gun control laws in the last week or so. The state is becoming more like California, less than the Colorado I moved into. I don't expect gun laws to get better there over time. And if they know they have the permission of the Supreme Court to crank down and diminish the right to keep and bear arms, I expect that they'll take advantage of that. So I'm curious, though, by what logic could they, could the Supreme Court say the right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist outside of your home? Well, there's no logical basis. But if you read any of these Second Amendment decisions that favor gun control, especially like decisions out of the Ninth Circuit,

for example, in California, read the decision. It's not a legally reasoned decision. It's what I call word salad. They're just making noises. It's like listening to someone argue with their spouse and one of them is being completely unreasonable just to kind of score points on the other.

They're just saying what they think they need to say in order to justify affirming an infringement of the second amendment but it's not based on reason these are emotional not rational decisions so like talking about mass shootings and things like that it's arguments like well why would you ever need more than like six rounds in a gun right which is the what new york state had for some time. Maybe still it was a six-round maximum limit. But wasn't it you could have a 10-round magazine, but you could only put six bullets in it? Only six bullets in it. And by the way, it's also important to keep in mind

that, of course, none of these laws, none of them actually affect bad actors. Bad actors don't obey gun laws. They don't do background checks. They buy their guns out of the trunks of cars Or they send their girlfriends or mothers into the gun store To buy the gun as a straw purchase They don't have any respect for magazine limits

They don't care about not being allowed to carry in a school zone They are criminals, which means they don't obey the law So all these, if one of the criteria for infringing appropriately on a constitutional right is supposed to be, at least it will accomplish the desired effect. Well, then gun control laws by their very nature can't do that because they don't affect the criminal actor. So we've got an erosion of the criminal justice system and an erosion of the right to self-defense. Is the goal just to destroy the country? Is that hyperbolic? I don't think the people making those arguments would claim that's the goal,

but I believe from their perception, the goal is the accumulation of political capital for some, and frankly, just straight up financial capital for others. And they are gaining political capital. I mean, they get elected to these offices. They get put in charge. They are making the decisions. And if people don't like those decisions, they would need to elect other politicians. But they don't. They don't. Because most people aren't paying attention.

Most people don't care. That's the interesting thing about the whole vote argument. Are you familiar with Starship Troopers? Very much so. Service guarantees citizenship. Is that what it was? So we have a country right now Where the right to vote is What's the right word?

Voting is becoming Increasingly more and more universal To the point where the Democrats have argued That 16 year olds should have a right to vote My argument has been like Well I'm not saying it should be impossible to vote or we should go back to the way it was where you'd be a landowner or anything, but I certainly think at the very least you have to choose to vote if you want to vote.

So we see the unsolicited mail-in ballots being sent to people. They're not even choosing to vote, and they're getting sent the ballots. So they're going to be, I don't know, whatever, sure. So politics and public policy are not my area of expertise, but I would note that to mind, it's an open question whether universal democracy is a system that can work. There's a legitimate concern that once the majority of 51 percent realizes they can simply vote themselves, the resources of the 49 percent, that you don't have a functioning society

anymore because the 49 percent will not be subjugated like that. They will not accept that. The U.S. was set up to have a bill of rights, partly to constrain the government and its ability to infringe on our natural rights, but also to provide protections for the minority. So just having 51% did not entitle you to do anything you wanted there were constraints on the government for just that purpose it's interesting because i often you hear the argument from many democrats more of the corporate uh type that you know these a fringe minority has 50

senate seats or whatever you know it's like you look at these states like wyoming and they got two senators and it's like right because you're not supposed to have the right to oppress the minority. It's supposed to be that compromise is required and one state doesn't get to tell another state what to do just because there's more people living there. It's not a direct democracy. Well, also, the senators were not originally voted by popular vote. The senators were not supposed to be representing the people. The senators were representing the states, the states

as independent political entities. The House of Representatives represented the people, House of Representatives. The senators were the political actors for the state themselves as separate political entities in conflict with the federal government. Well, now everything is just slowly broken apart. I think it was Ben Sasse, is that his name? He said we should repeal, I think it was the 17th. That's the one that made the senators elected by the people as opposed to appointed by the state. I think you're correct.

Yeah, so it was interesting when I saw that because it's an interesting argument. If you were at the local level voting for your local politicians, if you elected the right people, they would appoint the right senator. You'd be happy with it. But what's happened now is no one even knows who their local politicians are. They have no idea who represents their county or, I mean, even their state. Well, one of the dynamics I think we increasingly see is that if you wanted to buy elections, you wanted to buy politicians just with money, no popular support for those people,

you wouldn't target a thousand small elections. You target a handful of big elections, governors, presidents. And I think we're seeing a lot of states where the legislature may be Republican, maybe by a large majority, and somehow they have a Democrat governor. Right. How does that happen? Well, it happens because money comes in to support that Democrat politician to win that single race. You focus all your energies on that race. You let the other team win all the smaller elections. Because as long as you hold that executive branch office, you can veto whatever the legislature

does unless you're able to override your veto. But it's a disproportionate amount of power that if you expended that money in a bunch of little races and came up with only 49%, then you effectively have no power. This is why I'm a big fan of, or at least I like to entertain the idea that we don't allow people to donate outside of their districts where they live, where they declare residency. Because you look at someone like Ocasio-Cortez and she gets millions, you know, plus from outside of her district. Pretty sure the same is true for Marjorie Taylor Greene. Not a fan of any of it.

The people who live in the area should be the ones making decisions. Instead, people are dumping money not only into the donations of the candidate themselves, but into commercials in those districts to swing these elections. And then you get people in Hollywood going into Republican areas and getting Democrats to win these races. Right. So how do you stop that? Right. I mean, I understand the motivation behind a lot of this election funding regulation laws that are passed. I just don't ever see it being effective because there's always ways to work around it. And then there's non-monetary ways to support a politician that you can't do anything about. If movie stars are going to come in and campaign for one person running for an election, that's

going to have an influence, if only because they'll get TV time. It's effectively free TV commercial space for that politician. And I don't see any way to stop that from happening. You're right, right. And for me on this show, you know, Ian brought this up last time we talked about it. Well, by the nature of having a show with viewers, it would give me more power over anyone else because I can do a show from wherever I want and speak who I think is the right person to win. And it's powerful. It's influence. So it's difficult. What ends up happening is we have a system where the people of New York's

14th did not legitimately, in my opinion, or I should say, didn't, what's the right word I want to say? Knowledgeably, right? Like, they didn't understand what they were voting for fairly. And I don't mean to single out AOC's district. It's basically every district, save a few smaller ones in certain areas no one really cares to fight over. But many of these people are just given propaganda. It's Republicans and Democrats. It's every single. There's very little honesty in politics, period. Right. So what percentage of the populace who can vote votes anyway, like in a presidential election? Is it even half?

Something like that? I think it was more than half this time around. And how many do it in a pro forma basis where they're just, hey, it's my obligation. I'll just show up and vote. They're not really informed about the issues. And that's in the higher level races. So when you get to the lower races, like we talked about earlier, with who your local prosecutor is, they have no idea who those names are.

None. And so if somebody can drop in a few TV commercials in that district, they just became the prosecutor in that district. I wish it was possible to say, hey, your vote doesn't count unless it's a well-informed decision. But we don't have a mechanism for doing that. Service guarantees citizenship. I'm only, I'm only, I'm actually, I wouldn't say half kidding, 75% kidding. I like the idea of having some kind of civic requirement for being involved in civics in some capacity. But I say

75% kidding because I wouldn't even know how you'd implement that, right? How would this restrict certain people who shouldn't be? How would it not restrict those who should be? None of us would go out to our local supermarket and canvas the first 20 people we meet to ask them how they should run their own household, right? What should I wear today? You're not going to ask other people. What should I invest my money in?

Because you'll get lunatic responses. But all those people get to elect your government for you. Does that make sense? I don't know. In our system of government, that's the public policy decision. Human beings have had different systems throughout history. I'm not sure a universal Democrat

majority rules everything. Policy is one that's long-term sustainable. No, it's not right now. The cult worship thing where you put one person in power and then that one person becomes the cult leader, like Rand Paul. He's a target for bribes, and they just get massive investments. Rand Paul is a target for bribes?

All of them. I just picked him randomly. Rand's like one of the only ones I like. Yeah, and he picks somebody else. He's still bribable. Like a corporation comes in with $60 million or take him out to dinner or lunch and they want to fund his PAC or his campaign. And not Rand, not you, any of these people. So that's like a weak point in our system is that we have these individuals that can be bribed and bought and commercials can be run. It's not so simple, though.

When Marco Rubio was doing a town hall, they questioned him. They said – I think it was Rubio. It might have been Ted Cruz. They were like, you're getting money from the NRA. And he's like, yeah, they just give me money because they like what I already do. They're not bribing me. But the perspective was, no, you've been bribed by them. It's like, no, I'm pro-gun.

So they gave me money because they want me to win. But this is just another way of saying they're all human beings. I mean, if you look at the Roman Empire during Caesar, he had the same drivers. He needed money. He went to war because that's how you acquired money. He had to pay off debts. Debts he accumulated by running for elections and getting political favors. This is just a normal, this is what people do.

This is how you work with other people to build political capital. It's not because everyone's perfect and pure in their hearts. But you know what I think the problem is? We are seeing an increasing detachment from community where you have judges or prosecutors or individuals who just say, I don't care about my neighbor and I don't care about my country. I think the bigger problem is we're becoming more emotionally driven. And I think that's largely because of the way social media works today. I think the news media has always been a powerful influencer

of how people see the world. I mean, William Hearst bought newspapers so he could influence the world because people only know what they see. They know what they read. If they don't see it and read it, it doesn't exist. It's invisible to them. So what they see written and how they see it portrayed

becomes their lived reality. But that was when you might get a morning paper or an evening paper or see the news at 6 o'clock or 10 o'clock for 30 minutes at a time. Now we're all immersed in this stream of propaganda and emotive clicking and baiting all day long. I mean, personally, I've taken the social media apps off my smartphone just to not be constantly interrupted and subject to that. If these social media platforms were drugs,

is there any doubt they would be controlled substances? Is there any doubt you'd have to be 21 or 38 or 42 before you could legally access that kind of content? They're drugs. And there would only be a few that would be legal, like alcohol. It would be YouTube or Facebook or Twitter, like alcohol. It would be YouTube. Right. Or Facebook or Twitter. All the other ones would be controlled.

I think we're on the verge of... Schedule 1. I think the internet as we know it has been ending for some time. I think, you know, it was the Wild West several, you know, 10, 20 years ago. Now it's becoming more and more corporatized. We're seeing, you know, YouTube lock everything down. They're picking the winners

and the losers. They're getting rid of a lot of what they don't like. Twitter is doing the same thing. They're trying to homogenize and create a monoculture. Now, I will add one last thing. What's going on in Florida with this bill that passed the Senate about censorship is going to be the – it's like a nuclear bomb being dropped in social media and the internet because the way I understand it, this would end Wikipedia as we know we know it would be just gone wikipedia can't exist because they wouldn't be able to remove new sources they deem unreliable because that would violate the law which says you can't remove a

journalistic enterprise for their content or opinions but the politicians who voted for that can they realistically stay politicians if they're demonized by social media, if they're outcast, if they're removed from those platforms, when even the sitting president of the United States has trouble with social media platforms. If you're a local politician in Florida and you can't Facebook or tweet or use social media to communicate with your constituents, but your opponent in the race can,

do you really stand a chance? That's why they passed the law. Or that's why it's going through. It went to the Senate. And that's why Ron DeSantis wants to sign it, because it has to be done now before it's too late. And it may already be too late. And if they had done this back in 2018, when I called the Republicans too stupid to deal with the problem to save their own careers, and then sure enough, ended up losing, what,

like 30-something seats? So there it is. Hopefully, what they do there will have an impact. But that being said, let's go to Super Chats. My friends, if you have not already, you must smash that Like button because it really does help. And leave your comments. We're going to read through your Super Chats.

And don't forget to go to TimCast.com. Become a member because we'll have a members-only exclusive segment coming up around 11. We put it up every night. And share the show if you like it. If you're listening on iTunes or Spotify, give us a good review. Let's read some super chats. All right. Well, I got bad news for the first super chat. YouTube has a bar blocking your name. I can't read it. I don't know why they do that. But you said, hi, mates from the UK here. Can I get a

shout out for Voice of Wales, a small channel. As both the Labour Party and the BBC both lobbied YouTube and Twitter to get them cancelled for not being woke enough. Cheers. Right on. Jordan Jones says, I hope the 2A case makes its way to the court before May 15th, so I know whether or not to send my tax payment

to the IRS or just give it to TX. Texas? Texas. They're not going to hear that case until October, right? I honestly don't know what the schedule is. And then whenever they hear it, it's weeks or months before we actually get a decision out of them. Wow. Check this out.

Gerald Armstrong says, We are in a curfew here in Elizabeth City from now until 6 a.m. tomorrow. Wow. Where's that? That's North Carolina where they've got the state of emergency because of potential for Black Lives Matter riots. They're really worried. By the way, that's another way that the jury was influenced in the Chauvin trial. Even if they obeyed the judge's restrictions to not watch the news about the case,

they were getting alarms on their phone every time curfew was initiated. So you know that's not good news for your community, right? You know there's a potential for riots, and that influences you despite your best efforts to avoid the news. Steven Pritchard says, Tim, come rafting with me in Harper's Ferry. Look up River and Trail Outfitters. Oh, cool. I don't know if you saw, Steven, but we were drinking Harper's Ferry Brewery a couple weeks ago. It's delicious.

We have a bunch of those beers because we just pop by, and we're like, hey, we'll grab a bunch of beers while we're over there, and it's particularly close. So I think we're right by whatever uh that that that location fractal says joe biden needs some bio trust maybe he'll grow a spine incorporating the sponsor into your burn of the president very nice wd-40 says all right let's see uh wd 40 says hey tim why should i right-wing gun guy advocate for black people in democrat cities to have the right to bear arms when they vote 90 90 against gun rights they voted for it let them live with it it's a good point but second amendment is an in expresses the government's inability to

infringe upon an inalienable right. So when I say, like, the people in these cities vote to abolish their police departments, well, that's a choice the community makes as to how they want to live. And the cops shouldn't stand for indignity. And they should know when they're not wanted. Everybody has a right to keep and bear arms. You have a right to a weapon. That's just, it's true.

The Founding Fathers didn't say the government must, you know, you know not like the constitution doesn't grant the right the founding fathers were literally saying no one can take that right from you because it was bestowed upon you by your creator so we're telling the government to back off everybody has that right age old man you had to pick up a club and defend yourself in caveman times and weapons are there for a reason or at least we've turned tools into weapons for a reason. Black Lion Grunt says, OMG, a suit? Tim, get this man a beanie. You're wearing a suit.

How many people have we had on who... You're wearing jeans. You're wearing jeans? Yeah. Well, it's like a mullet for lawyers. Business on the top and party on the bottom. That's how I play. The Zoom outfit.

KM says, You guys should get Billy Corgan on. Get on Twitch. Is Billy on Twitch? Billy Corgan, huge fan. And I would love to have Billy Corgan on the show sometime. Yeah, anytime. But we have to talk about DMT when he's on.

I'm sure he'd be super into that. And that would be epic. Mediocre Fisherman says, hey, Tim, when are you going to write a book? If you didn't know, Michael Knoll's book Speechless is on pre-order. Dang, he got me.

Oh, I love it. They got me promoting Michael Knoll's book. Crossover is complete. Senior Honez says, Tim, please talk to someone who has knowledge and experience

in law enforcement. Find someone or give me 30 minutes so I can explain away a lot of your misconceptions. We are trying to get people from law enforcement um we're doing we'll we'll see what we can we can uh pull off but we're we're actively trying all right we got a bunch of super chats let's let's see what uh we got butters oregano says what is mr brock's opinion on uscca insurance for those of us that carry so he's asking about what some people call

self-defense insurance policies. They're not really insurance, but effectively they promise to cover your legal expenses if you're involved in a use of force event. There's only, in full disclosure, I partner with one of these companies. It's not USCCA. It's a company called CCW Safe.

So take that into consideration. My main concern with USCCA is frankly that they have a limit on their coverage that I think is too low. So it's a lot of money. It's a quarter of a million dollars. That's a lot of money by anybody's estimation. And if you're in an aggravated assault case, you pointed a gun at someone but didn't shoot facing felony aggravated assault, that's almost certainly enough money for your defense. But if you've shot someone in self-defense and you're getting prosecuted you'll go through two hundred thousand dollars easily pre-trial wow and if there's only fifty thousand left for the trial it's not enough it's just not enough money so it's not two hundred grand if a lot of people are armed and have to defend

themselves i can't imagine someone having the ability having the ability to actually defend themselves right so that's why I prefer CCW safe because they don't place that cap. They just pay whatever the legal cost is, period. It's not because USCCA is bad people or there's anything wrong with them. I think they're perfectly fine. But I think if you're involved in a killing charge case,

murder or manslaughter, $250 is not enough to cover your legal expenses. It's just not. Or you get that much legal defense when you really need two or three or four times that much. I mean, the George Zimmerman case, for example, I've become very good friends with the attorneys involved in that case since that happened.

$1.7 million for that legal defense. Now, they didn't get paid that. They kept working for free. But that's the kind of money we're talking about in these cases. Wow. Eric Pabst says, Andrew Branca, I've been wanting you guys to bring him on for so long. Wrote the literal book on the law of self-defense.

People can learn so much from this man. That's right. You have a book. I have a book. In fact, for all of you watching, we have a free book offer. This is the book. If you go to lawofselfdefense.com slash Tim Pool. Really? Yep. Oh!

The book's normally $25. We make it available free. We do ask you to pay what we have to pay the post office to get it to you. So the shipping and handling. But we eat the $25 cost of the book. So lawofselfdefense.com slash Tim Pool and you can get this wonderful book. Awesome. By the way, we have almost

1,000 reviews of this on Amazon. It's a solid five-star rating. So if you want a kind of quality check in that way, but don't order it from them. They'll charge you the full price. Can you sign that one and give it to us? Absolutely, of course. Thank you, Andrew.

Cool. Cork Gaming says, Tim, I live in Martin County, Kentucky. Our sheriff a few years back, when we were having a shortage of officers, so maybe there's a typo in here. We're having a shortage of officers, so maybe there's a typo in here, we were having a shortage of officers, we were told to get a guard dog and a gun. It made news.

Wow. Crazy. Ossory says, I'm going to have to disagree with him on the Aubrey case. I'm a former G-A-L-E-O, and they met none of the requirements to enact a citizen's arrest. Mainly, the McDaniels did not witness a felony. Well, he doesn't understand Georgia citizen's arrest law. You don't need to witness a felony. You have to have a reasonable belief that a felony has been committed.

They saw Arbery go into property they knew was not his. This was a neighbor's house. There'd been thefts there before, so the local police had asked them to keep an eye on the property. Under Georgia law, if you enter a property with an intent to steal, that's felony burglary. Once there's reasonable belief a felony may have been committed, you have the privilege under Georgia citizens arrest law to make a citizen's arrest. They don't need to be right that a felony was committed. They have to have a reasonable right that a felony was committed. They have to have a reasonable belief that a felony was committed. And if they're privileged to

arrest, they're definitely privileged to stop because a stop is a lesser degree of constraint to someone's freedom than an arrest would be. Coldwater says, I think it's great to have legal experts like Andrew Branca to educate us on the lawfare taking place. What conservative

legal organization should an average conservative join? Something not the ACLU. I guess if you're a gun owner, I would suggest the Second Amendment Foundation. I'm a life member there. Unlike the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation actually goes to court to fight these gun law cases, and they win a very high percentage of the time. Very cool. Sam T. says Chauvin had 18 formal complaints and wasn't really held accountable.

He is clearly incompetent. Unions protected him. Well, you wouldn't know if 18 was a meaningful number over a 19-year career unless you knew what was typical for the department. Every officer gets complaints filed against them. These are people who, for a living, go hands-on with people, make arrests of people. People very rarely like getting arrested or being manhandled by the police. Complaints are common.

Whether 18 is a significant number is impossible to know unless you knew what was typical in that department. By the way, there's a reason none of that was admissible in evidence in court against Chauvin in this case because it's not relevant to whether he did anything wrong in this event I don't know if I can uh if I should ask one of these someone has a question for you but it pertains to Rittenhouse I don't know if uh oh go ahead ask it I'll tell you all right I'm not by the way the reason Tim is uh hesitant here is because I indicated I'm not currently involved in the Rittenhouse case but there's a possibility I might be. Well, then this question is perfectly reasonable then. Socratic Disciple says, Andrew, since you are so confident that it's 100% self-defense,

why are you not on his defense team keeping this kid out of prison for protecting himself? You can afford a pro bono case here. I don't work pro bono. Sorry. I have four kids to support and a costly German motorcycle habit. So I need to get paid for the work that I do. But I may be involved in the case. It's up to them if they'd like me to work on the case and whether it would be mutually beneficial.

Brandon, the jobber, says if Kyle is convicted, do you think we you think we'll see retaliation from the right? Most people on the right say free Kyle. I just don't see political violence from the right in any meaningful dimension. So it's not a thing that happens. I'm sorry, folks. The craziest thing is that from the right, the worst thing we've seen in a long time, and I mean from the actual political body in this country, not like fringe lunatics who are obviously insane, but like Trump supporters and conservatives was the capitol where i think it was actually the only person who was killed in violence was actually

bad by the capitol police and then some people died incidentally from i think like a stroke or getting trampled right so did they burn it down because that's what they do the left does in these cities right they loot it um destruction of property i mean it was so incidental in such a brief period of time and then it was over when it came to like by the way anybody responsible for doing any of those things should be held legally accountable so if you damage property if you loot it if you hurt someone you should absolutely be held legally accountable but i see those activities happening on the left at levels that are orders of magnitude greater than I ever see from the right. Yeah, my response to the Chauvin case wasn't to destroy stuff, even though I thought it was gross injustice from my perspective, but was to change the system itself.

I don't know if maybe extremists don't go that route, but if something happens to Rittenhouse, which also seems like a self-defense case, I would just opt harder to change the system, whatever that means. Or actually just get real justice. All right. Jason, Jason Spruill says, I live in, I live in the Elizabeth city area and the protests seem peaceful so far, but they appear to be building to something more. People are currently blocking roads and violating curfew. Right. So what's happening now, likely in the in the Elizabeth City case, is that the people in these other cities, these activists, they have to get there. So it usually takes a good week while all of the activists and organizers come from various cities and then coalesce into the one city where the latest instance is happening. Let me just explain something for everybody. They don't understand this. You think these activists show up for Black Lives Matter. That doesn't explain why they show up in China or Turkey, which they do. I know some activists who lived in Turkey for quite some

time. They show up there because they are international socialists. They're Antifa. They fly the flag in various countries. So activists in the US will be like, oh, protests are happening in Turkey. I'll go there. Oh, protests are happening in Ukraine. I'll go there or Venezuela to go and support this international leftist cause. So when they descend on Elizabeth City, it's not because they actually care about the cops. It's because anything to destroy the system, that's their goal. Not all of them, just the, we call them the tourists. All right, let's see.

Flying Raptor Jesus says, if I was Kyle, I'd flee and blame a biased jury based on the Chauvin trial. Everyone knows it will be unfair. Maybe we need the Amish to be jurors. They're the only ones that don't have internet and definitely are impartial. I'm not sure they don't have internet, though. I think it's... Times have changed. No, I think there's, like, misconceptions about what Amish people actually do.

I've seen them on TV commercials. Right. And there's – I went to – there was like this big Amish marketplace. Sounds awesome. They're all doing normal things. I don't know. People assume Amish people are like completely baffled by technology. And it's like I think they just for the most part don't use it, but they have it.

There was a farmer's market in Chicago where like a truck pulled up and it was like Amish farming or whatever. And they had like a bunch of vegetables. And I was like, up and it was Amish farming or whatever. And they had a bunch of vegetables. And I was like, so you guys are Amish? Yeah. And I'm like, I thought, yeah, I know. Everybody thinks we don't. But they can still do this stuff for certain reasons, I guess. I guess for the most part, a lot of them wouldn't be on the internet.

So there you go. In any case, with Rittenhouse, flight is not feasible in the current era. It's not the 1970s. You can't simply get a fake cardboard driver's license. My first driver's license, believe it or not, was not a laminated piece of plastic. It was just cardboard typed on it, which made it quite easy to change for underage drinking, by the way.

But you can't just get a fake license and go live someplace for 20 or 30 years in a secret identity. That doesn't happen in the real world anymore. In any case, it's not a general solution, because if that were to happen with Rittenhouse, well, the next case, guess what? You're not being released on bail, because now you're a flight risk.

Man, this is creepy. Robert Chapman says, Home protection in New Jersey is just home alone traps, just like the Founding Fathers intended. That's funny. There you go. But if you set booby traps, just like the founding fathers intended. That's fun. There you go. But if you set booby traps, you get in trouble, right?

Yes, booby traps are not permissible anywhere because of the concern with booby traps. And this has been true through really all of American history. The concern is it's not being controlled by a human being. So what happens if there's a fire and a fireman comes in

or a cop is making a call or some innocent intruder comes in, you know, a repairman sent to the wrong address, then they get killed by your booby trap when there was no justification for that to happen.

What about a trip wire? Not like to trip someone. Like when you pass it, it just breaks and there's a bang. You can use non-deadly booby traps. That's not really a concern. Like electric fencing.

Right, okay. Things of that sort. But like electric fencing, that's not a booby trap. That's just a security.. Like electric fencing, things of that sort. But like electric fencing, that's not a booby trap. That's just a security. Like what if you had, you know. It's a physical deterrent to an intruder. What if you had a trip wire that when you tripped it, a taser fired at you and it lasted for only like 10 seconds? Then the question would be whether or not the taser qualifies as deadly force under that circumstance. And, you know, things like pepper spray and a taser, impact weapons, clubs, they straddle

the line between non-deadly force and deadly force, depending on the manner of use. So in that case we talked about where the suspect grabbed the cop's taser, was running away, turned and shot at the cop with the taser. The cop shot him with a pistol and killed him. If the cop is shooting a suspect with a taser, that's a non-deadly use of force because there's no reason to believe the cop's going to continue to use force

after the person's been neutralized. When the reverse happens, that's arguably a deadly use of force because there's good reason to believe a criminal suspect will continue to use force on the officer, take his gun, and so forth. What if you put up a sign warning? You know, 10 feet ahead is a tripwire that would release pepper spray.

Like, you put a warning around it, so. It might well be permissible. I mean, pepper spray is really nothing to be all that concerned about. The effects are so transitory. A taser, first of all, they mostly don't work. I hate to tell everybody. But when they do work, they're so intense in their effect that it's not hard to characterize it as serious bodily injury, which falls into the deadly force bucket. Could you put a sign that says, caution, landmines on the property if there are no landmines?

Put up any signs you want, I guess. It's arguably protected by the First Amendment. Oh, yeah. Don't be putting any landmines out. Right. What if the proper signs had, like, rabid goats on the property, and they will be unleashed to not eat? I'm just kidding. People put up beware dog signs, right? What's the message there? The message is, if you come over

this fence, there's a dog's gonna bite your butt, right? Yeah. Or something else. Oof. Mike Jitsu said, did Ian just wake up from a mushroom trip? LMAO. No, I've been listening a lot this episode. Andrew's the man.

And it's not really legal law and this stuff isn't really my wheelhouse. So I'm more interested in listening. I mostly like the Andrew's the man. Oh, yeah. Here we go. Wolfstar says Tim is mad at judges and calling them cowards. But he's also applauding all the coward cops who are leaving their posts. What a

hypocritic. Well, it would be hypocrite, but yes, the judge did not grant a change of venue. He could have, right? He could have granted a change of... He could have, and he didn't grant a mistrial because the dude was scared. Okay, fine. Okay? Maybe coward isn't the

right word. Maybe groveling, sniveling, spineless loser is the right word. Stand up to the people who are threatening you. Look them in the eyes and say no, because if every single person just said no, they would have no power. It's only because of the spineless losers. They actually keep winning. Now, as for the police who are leaving, I'm saying, what do you think is going to happen when all of these cops leave because they're told no one wants them there?

Let the communities live the way they choose without cops and let the judges deal with their own protection when they won't stand up for the police who are the ones supposed to be protecting them. By the way, I just want to put in as an officer of the court that Tim, of course, is fully entitled to his opinion about judges, but it's not me disparaging the judges, just for the record. I'm just disparaging the one judge. I understand. Yeah, I'm actually, I was actually giving a lot of praise throughout the trial for a variety of reasons. I just don't want to get a call from the bar. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. It was when he said Maxine Waters, you know, what you said may have well granted you grounds for appeal.

Right. And i was like how many times were you warned of this that's gross incompetence and that was the least of it i mean there are grounds for appeal that are driven not not just by the outlandish outrageous things that a politician said outside the courtroom there's conduct really egregious prosecutorial misconduct that occurred inside the courtroom in front of that judge in front of the jury that were grounds for a mistrial and he just completely took a pass yeah waffle sensei says the police are serving the community they are serving as sacrifices conservatives do not adapt quickly enough to to new systems but they do prop up systems better than anyone else

that's why conservatives are losing. Falcon Winter Soldier, though, was a cultural win. I don't know if you watch any of these shows, Disney+. I don't have a lot of time for TV and movies. So, you know, we were talking about this the other day, that Falcon and Winter Soldier is anti-woke. A lot of conservatives were saying it was get woke, go broke, Disney's woke. But it's actually about a black veteran who takes up an American flag and beats Antifa with it. And so it's not totally – it's fairly middle of the road, but it is particularly anti-woke. The bad guys are Antifa.

And it's so hilarious now because in the middle of the show before the conclusion happened and you realize it's pro-America, the left was laughing and gloating about how you know white privilege and patriarchy and toxic masculinity or whatever then the finale came and the guy they thought was the bad guy was a good guy and the bad guys uh this flag smashers are just antifa now they're actually writing articles where they're like why is disney bashing antifa they're making antifa look like villains why are they doing it? Yeah, because maybe they are. I find it hilarious. Andrew Irvin says, Chairman Mao was wrong about a great many things, but he was right when he said that all political authority comes from the barrel of a gun. I don't necessarily think so. I think it's not the barrel of a gun, but I think a large portion is a fear of being ostracized.

A lot of people virtue signal political points because they just don't want to be booted out of polite society, as they call it. Well, political power certainly exerted from the barrel of a gun. I mean, if you don't obey the laws, you might get a ticket at first. But if you don't pay the ticket, they'll come back. And if it keeps escalating, eventually you'll find yourself at the barrel of a gun. The power itself, at least in you'll find yourself at the barrel of a gun. The power itself, at least in America, comes not from the barrel of a gun, but from the votes of the electorate.

And when they do that wisely, we end up with good government. And when they do it poorly, well, we end up where we are. I don't know if there's a way off this runaway train. You know, you've got a lot of dumb people who keep voting for the same thing for tribal reasons. Virtue signaling, it feels good, whatever. I don't know. I mean, to the extent. Look, there's been plenty of political systems throughout human history that have gone into a collapse.

And generally what happens during that period is that the people who can, who have the means and resources, find ways to protect themselves as much as possible from the cataclysm of that collapse. And the people who bear the burden are generally the people who lack the resources to protect themselves. But they will bear the burden. Make no mistake about that. All right. Center Son says, first super chat, watching for years.

In my honest opinion, give them what they want. Abolish police, no state actors enforcing laws, no justice in corrupt system, buy home protection, and move to higher private security. Look, if you live in a rural area,

you already need to consider buying guns to defend yourself or depending on if you have a big business, private security. It's only in the big cities where people actually rely on police for a lot of these things. And I got to be honest, it's probably only because the right to keep in bare arms has been infringed beyond all recognition. In New York, you can't go buy a gun. It's so insanely difficult. In New Jersey, it's insanely difficult.

So how are you supposed to rely on yourself? You can only rely on the police. So I'm like, you know what? With the worst case scenario is they abolish the police. Then I get, I retain my right to keep in bare arms. You guys can do what you want to do in your neighborhoods. I'll do what I do want to do in mine. Me and my community will just, you know, watch each other's backs, I retain my right to keep in bare arms. You guys can do what you want to do in your neighborhoods. I'll do what I do want to do in mine. And me and my community will just, you know, watch each other's backs, I suppose.

It's not ideal. I'm not an anarchist or anything like that. A lot of anarchists, like, you know, I know one guy down in Mexico, he's all about private security. Not a big fan of private security as like the end all be all for to deal with this problem. Personal responsibility, on the other hand, I think first and foremost, you should defend yourself, your property, take responsibility for your own life

and not rely on cops to do it for you. Well, at the end of the day, you're always really your own first responder, right? You're never going to be attacked while a cop is standing next to you. That's not what happens. So at least at the start, you better be prepared to defend yourself.

I mean, I'll be honest, I've carried a gun my whole life for personal protection. When I'm on a trip like this, my wife is home with plenty of guns for personal protection for her and our kids. We don't expect the police to be there instantly, maybe in 10 minutes, maybe in 15 minutes, maybe longer, depending on what else is going on. In that intervening time, if we're not prepared to protect ourselves, we're literally defenseless. And that's not where I'd want me or my family to be. What do they say? When seconds matter, the cops are minutes away.

Exactly right. Still the best of intentions, by the way, the best intentions of the cops. They can't be there instantly. That you can make a phone call and community police will be there to protect you within 10 minutes is an incredible boon of modern society. Yeah. All right. We got this from joel jamal he says australian mp craig kelly announced he is proposing legislation to combat censorship the legislation is based off florida's bill that passed this comes after his facebook

page of 102 000 followers was deleted by facebook for medical misinformation, foreign interference. Wow. So what I love about this bill in Florida is that it could entirely nuke Wikipedia. So the bill says that if you're a journalistic enterprise, meaning that you have at least 100,000 monthly active users, which is not that hard to come by, or you produce at least 100 hours of content and have a viewership of over 100 million people per year. So I think they're trying to say it's 100 million active users might be defined differently in the law. It might be bigger. It might, you might have to be the New York Times or something.

However, this means that many large channels, it means my company, for instance, would be protected under this. And that would mean we're allowed to write things and Wikipedia could not remove them. If that's the case, this whole idea of reliable sources they use where conservative outlets are banned but leftist outlets are considered reliable is gone and Wikipedia won't be able to keep out the opinions of individuals.

They won't be able to ban them. Well, in my opinion, losing Wikipedia would not be losing much. I think they're the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You read Wikipedia, it all looks fine until they write something you know something about. And then it's obvious nonsense. My only expertise is use of force

law. There's lots of stuff I might look at on Wikipedia that looks reasonable, but when I read what they write about any use of force case, it is utter nonsense. So as far as I'm concerned, if they were to disappear, it would be like the world's dumbest encyclopedia to disappear. Would it be like the world's dumbest encyclopedia disappearing.

Would it be more likely that they just block Florida IPs? No, that breaks – oh, you mean like so that people in Florida can't use Wikipedia? Yeah, or Facebook or YouTube. Well, Texas has a similar law. I don't know if it's the exact same, but I don't think they'd be able to. Someone in Florida could be – I guess they could theoretically say we don't provide service in Florida, so we're not subject to its laws and people could still use it. Then it'd be interesting how they, how they try to combat that. All right, let's see. William Keller says negative comment for Tim. You are changing media and culture, not leaving it. Why can't cops stay and join police to change this from within? It's an example. You don't quit because of YouTube. Instead,

you make your own site. I worked for Disney and I quit because it was corrupt. The police are working for corrupt departments. They can remain in security or they can find a better police department. The good cops in these in these corrupt cities can move to areas where they need cops and they're not corrupt. And then there will be good, not corrupt cities with good cops. And then there will be major metropolitan urban centers full of bad cops, corrupt cops, and people fighting and stabbing each other. And if you want to live there, I don't know what to tell you. The only difference is when you left Disney, it didn't put the public at risk.

You know, the job wasn't like police forcing. The problem is when you're working in journalism, you're supposed to be informing people about what's going on so they can make better decisions. The system was corrupt and not doing that, so I left to do something that was better. The police officers working in these departments are not able to do their jobs right now. They're working for departments where they're not actually able to solve these problems because they'll be demonized and sent to prison for it. So they need to leave and make something different. I would suggest, too, that the notion that police are going to change the system from within reflects a complete ignorance of how police departments actually work and are structured. The street cops are overseen by sergeants, and above the sergeant you get to lieutenant,

various commander ranks, up to the chief of police. Lieutenant on up are effectively political appointments. So no street cop is going to do things that are inconsistent with what his political bosses are telling him, or he won't keep the job. If he tries, he'll be fired. The lieutenant's not quite as political as a chief, but guess what? They want to rise in the ranks.

They're not going to rise in the ranks if they conflict with the policies and preferences of the officers higher than them in rank. So you can't change the system from within. That's not realistic. All these people ultimately serve political masters. We say that politics is downstream of culture. Well, police is downstream of the politicians you elect. If you want different police, you'd have to do it like New York City under Giuliani, where the boss of the city was able to affect changes in the police department. But if he hadn't wanted those changes, if he was opposed to those changes, they would not have happened as we saw when we got a different mayor who didn't like those stop and frisk type of policies, for example.

Whatever you may think of stop and frisk, the point is when the boss didn't want it anymore, it went away. All right. E.W. says, Mr. Branca, firearms instructor here. Do you have materials that can be purchased that would be good examples of use of force for students in a self-defense CCL class, videos, et cetera? Well, the first thing I would say is take advantage of the opportunity to get a free book at lawofselfdefense.com slash Tim Pool. But we actually have an entire instructor program, certification program for firearms instructors.

We have lots of DVD online courses, lots just we've been doing this for almost 25 years now, folks. So we have tons of content. You go to our website, LawSelfDefense.com. You can learn more about all of that. Here's one for you. Randy Whalen says, Randy Whalen, I took Andrew's course in 2017. He is a great resource for anyone who is serious about lawful self-defense. Quote, carry a gun so you're hard to kill. Know the law so you're hard to convict. That's our tagline. Thank you very much, sir. I really appreciate that.

Alexander Scarpecci says, take TimCast to florida there's plenty of rural remote areas for you i lived in florida once for a year in the redlands just outside of miami and it's hot you can't go outside ever it's like 120 and january and february you can go outside nobody goes outside i'd go to the skate park nobody ever and it was a good park and i'm like where's everybody it's like nobody there too hot but in january and february yeah park was like 90 in february when i went to miami right and that's when you can go outside i've lived in florida it's got its strengths there's no question about it but the main problem with florida is that it's well florida yeah yeah it is an issue you know ronda sandis i think is doing a pretty good job but they uh i think in miami

there's a statue to the guy who invented air conditioning. There is, yeah. Yeah, because people are like, we can live here now. But if you're big on going to the beach, it's perfect. You go to Miami Beach, you go on the beach, it doesn't matter how hot it is. It's great. It's hot. It's red.

But living out in the Redlands, it was cool because the storms are something else. They're beautiful. The clouds and storms every afternoon, every evening. It rains all the time, and they're amazing watching this massive downpour. It was like that in the rainforest in South America. Super cool. And the rain only lasts for like 15 minutes. It's not like the Northwest where it's always wet. It's like the rain comes.

Sometimes it's like a wall of rain approaching you, and it rains for 15 minutes, and 15 minutes after that, it's all dry again. I'd be like, oh, let's go skate. Oh, wait. I think i think clouds are coming the sky's clear and then all of a sudden clouds roll in it rains and then i'm like we'll just wait a few minutes and then once the clouds clear the sun comes out it all dries up and it's all ready to go did you get hit by a hurricane while you were there no almost man that's terrifying yeah so there's hurricane shutters on the building on the windows and everything i'll I'll pass. I'll pass on the hurricane target. So Rhonda Sanchez is trying really hard to make Florida more palatable because of this. I love it, but F the hurricanes.

Luke's down there. Luke! Luke went down there because of those lows. Alright, everybody! If you haven't already, smash the like button. Go over to TimCast.com and become a member because we're going to have an exclusive members-only segment coming up at about 11pm and make sure you follow this show on Instagram at TimCast.com and become a member because we're going to have an exclusive members-only segment coming up at about 11 p.m. And make sure you follow this show on Instagram at TimCastIRL and go to Facebook.com slash TimCastIRL and follow or like us there because we put up smaller clips from the show. It's a whole lot of fun.

And you can help us out by sharing those clips on Facebook and, you know, whatever. Just go to TimCast.com. It's even better. You can follow me on other platforms at TimCast. My other channels are YouTube.com slash TimCast and YouTube.com slash TimCast.com. It's even better. You can follow me on other platforms at TimCast. My other channels are YouTube.com slash TimCast and YouTube.com slash TimCast News. This show is live Monday through Friday at 8 p.m. So we will be back tomorrow.

Is there, Andrew, anything else you wanted to shout out? Nope. Just remind people about the book, folks. It's a brief opportunity. Get the book for free. LawOfSelfDefense.com slash Tim Pool. I'm sure you know how to spell Tim Pool. And Tim, thanks for having me on.

It's been absolutely great. It's wonderful. Yeah, it was really fun, man. You guys can also follow me at Ian Crossland dot net. And I'm at Ian Crossland amongst all socials. Apparently the obsidian mirror I got for you, Tim, yesterday was acrylic or something. I don't know. Plastic.

I hope it's real obsidian. I got to look into it. Plastic. You can never just can never just believe things at face value anymore. There you go. Sad. I feel like I learned so much tonight. Plastic. We'll check it out. But you can never just believe things at face value anymore. There you go. Sad. I feel like I learned so much tonight. Thank you, Andrew, for joining us.

I'm Sarah Patchlitz on Twitter. And yeah, I'll go to Tim. We'll see you all over at timcast.com and thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.