Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #415 - New Evidence Points To Waukesha Attack Being Terror w/Branca & Posobiec

Episode Date: November 25, 2021

Tim, Ian, and Lydia join self-defense lawyer Andrew Branca and commentator Jack Posobiec to discuss the new evidence emerging about the Waukesha suspect, suggesting his actions were terroristic in nature, how bail reform allows chaos agents to get a leg up on the legal system, how the media has successfully labeled the Waukesha attack as just a car crash, the outcome of the Ahmaud Arbery case, and the parallels between the Arbery and Zimmerman cases. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There's a lot of new information in the Waukesha attack. First of all, as I've been covering, as Andy Ngo covered, and now many other outlets have covered, the New York Post and the Daily Mail, among many others, the perpetrator had threatened white people on social media. He had posted black nationalist memes. He had expressed support for Black Lives Matter. And there's a lot of other information from the police reports about how he was slowly driving up through the parade towards the parade, slow enough that a cop was able to bang on the hood and then walk around and bang on the door and tell him to stop. So this was not a

pursuit. This was an intentional act. And that's exactly what this man was charged with. But now there's new information. The man in question, Brooks, apparently had threatened to blow up a casino in the past. Now, why is it that the media has come out and said it was an accident? NBC, many activists on MSNBC, a man said it was an accident. What are they calling it across the internet? A crash. A crash. Strangely, I am shocked to say this, Deborah Messing, of all people, had a tweet where she said it was not an accident. It was intentional. It was the Waukesha massacre. So we're going to get into all this and we're going to break down the media lies and what's going on. And we also have big news in the Ahmaud Arbery case. All three men were convicted of murder in the death of Ahmaud Arbery.

Now, on the law, seems like it was correct. But there are some serious problems that I think we need to talk about as it pertains to citizens arrest and self-defense. And I just want to stress, man, the neighbor who was filming it, they charged him with murder too. Yikes, man. He was just following behind filming what was going on. But hey, you are party to a group that surrounds a guy and the death occurs. If the citizen's arrest was not justified, you're all going to get charged. Now, I'm not the expert on self-defense, so we brought in the expert on self-defense, Andrew Branca. Which one is it? Branca.

Branca. I've been saying it wrong the entire time. Either way is fine. So tell us what you do. You've been on the show before. Yes, I'm an attorney. I do use of force law, self-defense law. That's all I do. I don't have a generalized criminal defense practice. I've been doing that this year. It's 30 years now. Doing nothing but use of force law in all 50 states. To my knowledge, I'm the only attorney in the country with that explicit focus strictly on use of force law, certainly for that duration of time. So getting into the Ahmaud Arbery stuff as well as the Rittenhouse stuff is going to be really interesting. I watched every minute of the Rittenhouse trial

and much of the Arbery trial as well. So I have definitely strongly held opinions on both those cases. And it's crazy to me, not to take up too much time, but the Arbery case, people really don't seem to know anything about this. Even conservatives right now,

they're getting it wrong. But we'll get into all that too. And we also have another individual who is an expert on many subjects who was you worked in intelligence as well as just you're on the beat. You know, the news we got Jack. So you see, I'm confused, Tim. You're talking about, you know, you're telling me that there's some driver of this this SUV. And yet I've been reading the media, and it tells, you know, the New York Times says the SUV just drove through the parade by itself. It doesn't say anything about a driver.

I'm looking on the Wikipedia page. It just says an SUV drove through. It doesn't say anything about it. You're talking about all this other stuff. Which Transformer is the red SUV? The Ford Escape Transformer. It's not Optimus Prime, is it? No.

No, he's a tractor trailer or something. Yeah, oh, a tractor trailer. Yeah, so it couldn't be Optimus Prime. We'll just say it was Megatron. It was probably Megatron. Megatron did it! Obviously a Decepticon. Yeah, the media is saying an SUV did it.

Oh. Isn't it amazing how they do that? Passive voice. Nothing like it. Yeah. Well, they're trying to cover all this up, so. I think what's going on is very clear. This is a disinformation campaign.

This was something that had been started very early, and that's the way all good disinformation campaigns start. You get the lie out as fast as possible. Who was the source? Who was the source from the local police that went to the national media and said that he was fleeing from a knife fight? Ask that question, and you'll get your answer he was sealed in his car i don't know it was if the guy with the knife wasn't in his car with him attacking him well we'll talk about this because there's there's now been investigations that have gone through real-time investigations people anons are actually going

and driving the routes wow right by themselves and then timing it up with the police scanner audio and the videos that came out from on the scene to determine the speed of this thing. We'll get into all this stuff, too. I think we know the truth now. We got Ian. Well, what's up, everybody? Good to see you. Ian Crossland. Happy to be here.

IanCrossland.net. Get some. I am also here in the corner pushing buttons, as I always do. I'm delighted to be back with Andrew Branca. He's a very smart guy. And Jack, of course, is a good pal. So we're going to have a great talk tonight. I'm stoked.

But don't forget, go to TimCast.com. Become a member. We're going to have a members-only segment coming up around 11 or so p.m. But we are taking the rest of the weekend off for Thanksgiving so that we can have Thanksgiving with friends, Thanksgiving with family, and you should all do the same. But at TimCast.com, you'll get access to all of our members-only segments as well as supporting our journalists who are doing a lot of really great work. So don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends. And over at the TimCast store, TimCast.com, click the store, you can get your official Step on Snack and Find Out shirt. Yes.

I guess YouTube doesn't like it. They won't let us put it up on the channel. But it's an amazing shirt. So you guys should get it if you want it. Let's jump into this first story, which I imagine YouTube will also get mad at us about. Check this out from Daily Mail. Waukesha massacre suspect Daryl Brooks was convicted for threatening to bomb Nugget Casino in Nevada and is still wanted after failing to appear in court. They charged this guy in 2007 for calling in a bomb threat to the Nugget Casino. He was put on probation after being convicted of conspiring to disturb the peace of gross misdemeanor and was banned from the casino. His rap sheet also includes a conviction for, let's just say he was trafficking minors.

And I believe he had a child with the minor. I mean, this guy is, you know, we'll try to keep it family friendly here. Not a good guy. Not good at all. But based on this, as well as other information that's come out, what Andy Ngo reported and then I used in my reporting, which really triggered the media. They were so angry. Oh, no, don't tell everybody this guy supports Black Lives Matter and that he's promoted

black nationalism and that he's threatened to harm white people because that's the truth. And so if you look at this and you look at Jack Posobiec, you put out the court police report. This car was slowly creeping up towards the parade. It was not a pursuit. He was not fleeing anything. And he was going slow enough that one of the officers was able to walk up to the car, bang on the hood, walk over, bang on the door, and then the car speeds through, choosing to go down this path. It was not, it was not pursuit. This was an intentional act. He's been, so let me put it this way. They've charged the guy with intentional homicide. Witnesses said he was swerving into people. The police said he was slowly moving up and they banged the car telling him to stop. He's posted about how he's wanted to kill white people.

He supported black nationalism and Black Lives Matter. But the media says it was an accident. The media is downplaying this. They're criticizing me and Andy Ngo and many others who are pointing these things out. What do you call it if a guy goes online, threatens harm against white people, and then gets in an SUV, drives up to a parade route, runs over a bunch of white people? Well, that's just a traffic accident,

buddy. You're connecting too many dots over there. What do you even think you're doing? That's not the narrative. That's not what the police officers told us. It was an SUVv so this is what you get if you have a guy who goes on social media and says he wants to harm white people and then he runs through a parade route directly through it swerving into people

what you get is an suv involved in an accident right well so here's here's what and you can go see go to walkershawcounty.gov you You can see the entire thing. I've got it written up as Detective Casey, Officer Berlin. They come up and they talk about this where they say it was driving so slow that they were able to walk up to it, knock on the hood. Then he brushes them aside, but he's still going slow. Then they're able to knock on the window, right, and say, stop. You can't go in there. That's a parade route at that point he turns and drives so if you go look at the videos if you freeze it you can

actually see that his um his hood is already damaged right before he gets there that's because he had to drive through barricades to get onto the parade route So he combined that with this video that just some add-on went and filmed himself driving down that road. And then they time it up with the videos and they realized that you would have to be driving slow and then speed up. But here's the key. Here's the key point of that. And I talked to people locally from the, the myth informed guys, you know, those guys, they're in Milwaukee. So they are telling me, they said, Jack Waukesha is it's, you know, it's not like some town where you can get stuck. There's a million ways in and out. There's plenty of routes, you know, it's ridiculous to even think that you would somehow be, you know,

accidentally trapped on a parade route. So as the car is driving, you can see this in the dash cam video that this guy filmed. You have to make a hard right turn into where the parade route was. So it's that hard right turn where he would have to smash through the barricades and then speed up to be able to go through. That is intent. How far away did Brooks live? Oh, he lived in Milwaukee. That's like 25 minutes away. So did he he came apparently he

came from a domestic they're saying there or no no they said there was an altercation nearby i think it's totally unrelated it's weird so there they it was a boat ramp believe it or not of all things right so there's a boat ramp that's what you hear on the police scanner that uh there's this altercation and there's something about it that's actually why the first police officer went over. It's here and pull this up that he went over at approximately 435 p.m. Detective Casey heard via Waukesha police radio that a reserve officer was informed by a citizen that two people were fighting in the area of a white rock school. Squads were sent to that area to further investigate. A few minutes later, Detective Casey here into the horn honking from an area north of his location, and that's where he goes in and sees him essentially going into the parade route. I'm just wondering, you know, this guy lives so far away,

why was he out there? Right. I think it's obvious. I think anybody who looks at the story says, in the absence of evidence, the solution with the least amount of assumptions tends to be correct, and that looks like a terror attack, you attack, a racial and political terror attack based on what this guy had said and believed. And it's possible it wasn't, to be completely honest. But that's the absence of evidence. What we have here is it was an intentional act. It was deliberate. And we can see his motivations. We can see some of his inclinations on social media. That doesn't mean correct, doesn't mean motivations. But I think, you know, when we're dealing with crimes and stuff, it is reasonable for a person to try and figure out what motive may have been. At this point, it is reasonable

to assume this was a terror attack for racial and political reasons. Before, real quick, we had just two days before this, the Rittenhouse verdict, we had an activist reported on the 20th. This was one day an activist, it was reported, had said that this country is a tinderbox and one more, you know, one more match or whatever, and it's going to go up. We had tons of people on the left. We had that Democrat in Illinois saying it's karma. We had activists on Twitter saying they wanted revenge, saying go, you know to to do bad things and then come sunday a guy who's made posts about harming white people goes and does a bad thing it's absurd to me to not start with that hypothesis it's crazy how like if someone

the way the way murder can can happen and how people will respond differently like if that guy had been face to face with each of those individuals, looking in their eyes and using a knife to kill them each one after the other, if this would be another realm than being behind the icy cold steel of a car where they can't see your face, it's like a drone dropping a drone bomb as opposed to being the one there doing the killing. I mean, but he's like, I understand that. I understand the drone argument, but I'd't... They'd be stringing him up

if he was like a knife killer and had blood all over his body and stuff. There are two lines here that I was just about to read, and one of them speaks to exactly what you're talking about, because it says, Officer Buterin observed the driver

looking straight ahead, directly at him, and it appeared he had no emotion on his face. As the vehicle passed his location, he continually yelled for the vehicle to stop. Skip ahead a little bit. They shot at him, right? They did shoot at him. He heard the vehicle then appear.

So they knew he was preparing to attack these people, and they tried to use deadly force to stop it. At that point, obviously, they perceived him as an eminent deadly force. Here it is. That's why they fired the shots. Officer Buterin heard tires squeal as the vehicle appeared to rapidly accelerate. The vehicle took an abrupt left turn into the crowd of parade participants. At this point, it was clear that this was an intentional act to strike and hurt as many people as possible.

And so I love this. If we if we operate on what the police said, they said they ruled out terror, then I can only say impulse? I mean, it's not passion. Passion, you know, you maybe argue passion, but what was he mad about?

Was he like, he was driving up and he saw some Karen yelling and he was like, oh, now I'm really angry and in this passionate moment. There was no great passion, so it was just blinding.

Legally, it would only matter anyway if the passion was aroused by the people he used force against. So that's clearly not the case. So maybe drugs? I would love to see a toxicology report here. Oh, it would be off the charts would be my expectation. I mean, you would see that ring video and the mugshot that's come out. I mean, this does not seem like a guy who's operating his right. You'll have every peek on that graph. And that may be why the mugshot that's come out. I mean this does not seem like a guy who's operating his right. You'll have every peek on that graph.

And that may be why the police said it's not terror because it turns out the guy's just whacked out of his mind and was just slamming the gas thinking he was running over gummy bears or something. He's just like tripping and crazy. So my issue is I would love to believe this guy was just on drugs. I don't want to live in a world where we have this. But it certainly wouldn't be the first terrorist attack that was committed by someone on drugs. No, for sure. For sure. I'm just saying if someone was on drugs, we can then argue, oh, okay.

So there's evidence to suggest maybe it wasn't terror, just a drug addict doing something crazy. There's still – I think it's still a fair assumption that this guy was politically motivated in what he did. I'm just saying right now there is no evidence of drugs. The only thing we have is this guy's political statements about wanting to hurt white people, which, you know, something about banging heads or something, and then getting a car and doing this, plus the timing, plus the political nature of what's been going on. And so I lean towards, not definitively, but I think it's a fair assumption, it was terror. If they come out with a toxicology report and say he was on drugs it would shift more towards the middle again and i'd say it's still you know likely it could be terror but it could also be the guy was whacked out of his mind so here's my thing too and you

know i had kind of already been thinking this with um some of those social media posts that you and andy were highlighting i went through a ton of them myself before the thing got taken down andy andy was highlighting yeah i was just citing reporting. Right, right, right. And so, and now I think New York Post has put it up. Daily Mail's put it up. But specifically, now, of course, you know, the anti-white posts, the FBI is not tracking that. They're just not. Yeah.

But the anti-police posts that he had up, the posts about killing police officers, that's something that definitely would. Wait, he had a post about killing cops? Right. Wow. Talked about, you know, called them pigs and this type of thing uh back in 2020 and that's definitely something that would have put him on the radar so one of the things that i was thinking about reading this was and of course in all of these cases we you know it seems that we always come up to an extent where they were

known to the fbi subject was known to fbi Don't we always, don't we always hear about this? And so I was wondering based on those posts, I'm like, yeah, he's probably in a file somewhere because that would have pinged the algorithm. But then we hear this thing about the casino and that he threatened Obama casino. That's like, okay, FBI has definitely got a file on this. They know him a hundred percent.

Well, in fairness, I'm also known to the FBI. I teach at the academy there yeah but i mean i've i've been through some fbi training myself something i find interesting about this whole thing is is we have the story itself right why did he do this wasn't intentional were there drugs kind of the core story but then there's also the meta story like why are all these people instantly coming to his defense trying to explain away what happened. Or just cover up. He was chased by someone with a knife or there was a gunfighter.

There was some innocent explanation for this. It wasn't actually an act of malice that did this. And I think there's a reason for it. I think because this guy is a real problem for the bail reform movement. Now, we've all heard about bail reform, and I believe bail can use reform. If someone's charged with a nonviolent crime and they can't make $500 bail and that means they won't be able to work and pay the rent, that's a real problem. That needs to be fixed. But that's not where bail reform in the real world stops.

It releases violent people, too. And those violent people go back to their community and create havoc, the same havoc they got arrested for the first time. And you might think, well, why would anybody want that? Why would anybody want havoc in their neighborhood? But havoc, chaos is not bad for business for everybody. It's bad if it's your neighborhood and you live there. But if you're a Benjamin Crump, for example, you make $10 million every time there's some kind of Zimmerman case, a Rittenhouse case, a Ahmaud Arbery case. These are money-making opportunities in the tens of millions of dollars for you. So chaos is good for some people. Not just money.

Hold on. Political capital. Political, yeah. You're saying that there is a motivation to bring about bail reform because it results in an opportunity where a criminal can get hurt and they can monetize it chaos is good for some people so when i should be clear when i say um people are leveraging bail reform for political reasons i would say bail reform overreach not all bail reform but bail reform that releases violent charge but you think that many people advocating for it?

I'm not saying every, but some have that in mind. They're like, this will create more crime and more opportunity. Especially people with considerable political power, like Benjamin Crump. I don't mean the individual social worker who's in favor. Right, right. They don't have any influence over everything. These lawyers who monetize.

Right. So the pendulum has been swinging in favor of loosening bail requirements more and more and more until the point they include people charged with violent crimes. And eventually the pendulum is going to swing back. But when it swings back, that's going to be bad for some people. This case is a perfect example, a perfect warning to the normals in society that, holy cow, we all thought that bail reform was a good thing, but it's possible it goes too far. It lets people like this out on bail. Well, I that bail reform was a good thing, but it's possible it goes too far. It lets people like this out on bail.

Well, I think bail reform is a good thing. I don't like the bail system. I don't like the idea that we would say you're presumed innocent, but we're not going to let you out unless you give us 500 bucks. For violent criminals with a preponderance of evidence, then I'm in favor of remand. As far as I'm concerned, either it's remand or you're free to go until you're convicted. But that means substantially more people should be remanded

and substantially more people should be released. There's also got to be some limitations, like if someone's a repeat offender and you've got past convictions. OK, well, now you're going to be... That's almost everybody. Well, if that's the case...

Sorry, but as a practical matter, you see very few people go through the criminal justice... Of the people going through the criminal justice. Of the people going through the criminal justice system on any given day, almost none of them is at their first time. Sure. But if someone goes in and they've had a past conviction and they say, okay, well, it's $2,000 if you want to get out. I mean you're going to destroy that person's life outright before you've proven them guilty simply on their past.

Well, they could sit in jail for a long time. And there's more. There's too many. I mean look you're going to destroy that person's life outright before you've proven him guilty simply on their past. Well, they could sit in jail for a long time. And there's more. There's too many. I mean, look at Kyle. Kyle Rittenhouse, when he was like he had to sit there for 87 days and he didn't have what he said. He had no running water. He was not getting good food. He was losing all this weight and he was not guilty.

So and he had two million dollars to get him out. And we can you know, we can talk about the lawyers and stuff, but just on the system alone. One one aspect that I would. So bail obviously has been around a long time. This isn't something some new system that just was under like the Trump era or something like that. You know, and Trump actually was for, you know, criminal justice reform, although he was focused more on back end than front end. And not that I'm a supporter of the first step movement, but just to clarify that. But when it comes to these types of situations, you know, you were talking before about how the criminal citizens arrest law in the Arbery case was something that had been written during the Civil War in Georgia, and it was still in the books at the time. That has been updated since.

Well, with these cases as well, one thing that I think really ties all of these together is video, right? We have video of Waukesha. We have tons of video of it. We have video of Kenosha. We had video of Ahmaud Arbery, right? And I think that in those two cases, it was the video that went to the jury and eventually swung them. So you're thinking they should look at video as part of setting bail.

So look at video. That would never happen. No, look at ever happened because you have to understand how this process works. And I'm not saying they're trying to make these decisions in three minutes. Right. The magistrate is making a bail decision in three minutes. He's got an algorithm he uses depending on the degree of the offense,

a risk of flight. There's a set risk of a set criteria that they use and the state and the defense are going to go offense, risk of flight. There's a set criteria that they use. And the state and the defense are going to go down that checklist of criteria. And it's like a little algorithm. So you can't make it part of a probable cause? A probable cause would be determined someplace else. It's not going to be determined right there. But a magistrate's not going to take time to look through even five minutes of video

to try to come to some determination of what bail should be. It should be legally required. Maybe, but that's what I'm talking about. You'd have to redesign the entire system. Yes. The idea that – I mean, we're talking about redesigning the system. The process is the punishment, what they did to James O'Keefe.

They raided him and his journalists because law enforcement knows the process is the punishment. When it came to Occupy Wall Street protests, there was a photographer that I was just filming. I'm filming. And there was a photographer standing on the sidewalk minding his own business when an officer came up and arrested him. They claimed that he was obstructing a roadway. They lied. They made it up. They then had a female officer lie under oath.

And it wasn't until the National Lawyers Guild, who I'm not the biggest fan of, used my footage to show that the police lied, he was released. Did any of the officers get in trouble? They never do. They lie all the time on these criminal complaints. They're never held accountable. But the issue is, if there's someone who is a regular working class Joe, and he gets accused of a somewhat serious offense, but not like a felony or anything. The judge can be like, look, I think we should keep him in jail until the court. And then what, 87 days or 80 days? You lose your job, you lose your apartment, your car gets towed, your people are wondering where you went,

your dog is going hungry, and then you get out destitute. So I will cite Benjamin Franklin all day and night. It is better that 100 guilty persons go free than one innocent person suffer. If the court cannot justify reasonably, an algorithm in three minutes is not justification for holding someone against their will when they are presumed innocent. That being said, real quick. This is where I come in with the video. That being said. That's where I commit. That being said, everybody should keep in bare arms.

And a free society means a society with risks. And if we're going to let out people, and I don't think violent offenders, depending on what they've committed, I think that's reasonable for a judge to be like, you're accused of triple murder or something. Okay, sorry. Which was Kyle Rittenhouse. Go to Kyle. Well, not triple, but yeah. Well, yeah, double murder plus a bunch of other charges. I can understand why they would be like, look, I'm sorry, you're being held because these are very serious and we're worried about the

safety of others. There should still be some scrutiny there. But if we're going to let people out on bail, then all we need do is look at the Constitution and say the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, Benjamin Franklin and Blackstone, and the Second Amendment. Sure. So I don't want to come across as someone who's defending the way the system is. I think it's broken. I mean, from my perspective, for example, I think probable cause hearings are worthless the way they operate today. What's supposed to happen is a probable cause hearing is supposed to be a filter to keep people from being dragged into a full-blown trial unless there's probable cause to believe they committed the crime. So at trial, they're going to have to

prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can't even show 51% of the evidence going into that process, they shouldn't be able to drag you into the terribly destructive, dangerous risk of a full-blown trial. But probable cause doesn't work that way today. It doesn't work like a 51-degree threshold before you're brought into trial. It's essentially a zero degree threshold. The prosecutor can say whatever he wants.

He can get officers to swear whatever they want. Nothing's ever checked. When things are later proven to not be true, it doesn't matter. They don't say, well, the process that got you into trial was inherently defective, so we're going to let you out. What we need is a genuine probable cause hearing. The reason we don't have one, I'm not defending this. This is just the practical way the system works.

The reason we don't have that is because we have so many criminals going through the system. We could never give everybody a genuine probable cause hearing the way the system is designed today. And most of the people going through are criminals. So no one cares that they're not actually getting a probable cause hearing. No one notices until an innocent person gets fed into that system and suffers all the thresher effects of that horribly destructive system. And you see it affecting an innocent person that way. Justice being blind is not always a good thing. Here's the example I'll throw out there.

And justice isn't blind, I don't think. But you've got Kyle Rittenhouse was charged, what, within 24 hours or maybe 36 hours, right? If you actually go by the dates. Alec Baldwin, it's still under investigation. We're still reviewing the incident. When we know that this took place on a movie set, I'm sure every single minute of that incident is caught on film. There's no relevant facts in dispute. I mean, on the criminal charge of reckless homicide, we know all the facts.

They're not in dispute. And we know the law. The law is not ambiguous there. So the only reason they haven't charged him is because they've decided they don't want to charge him. That's all. If it was me or you and they decided they wanted to charge us, we would have been charged that day. All day, every day.

And correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a New Mexico lawyer. I mean, I know you're from out west. Crisis management saved him. Is there a special rule for actors? There's a special carve-out in the law? Alec Baldwin, in my opinion, and it wasn't my opinion. It was someone on the show who mentioned this. We saw what Gloria Allred said, right? Ale baldwin had a crisis management firm most likely oh yeah and

he was on the phone immediately i believe that and they seeded the fake story about a blank and a misfire and shrapnel because the real story was that alec baldwin was handed a gun by someone who wasn't supposed to give it to him that neither of them had checked the weapon that it was loaded live and he chose to for no reason seemingly no reason to pull the pull the weapon, that it was loaded live, and he chose to, for no reason, seemingly no reason, to pull the hammer back, aim it, and shoot a woman, the scene did not call for that in any way. And it wouldn't matter if it did. And this is what I was saying. I can't remember who was here.

We were talking to this. I said, if you walk up to someone, aim a gun, cock the hammer, pull the trigger, what are they going to call that? Intentional homicide. Yes. Alec Baldwin, however, got in front of the story. So what happens when... Well, at the very least, it's a reckless homicide. So the intent element is different. You must have... For example, he may not have genuinely not have known the gun was loaded.

That would take away the intent. But the fact that he didn't check, that's still reckless. If Alec Baldwin walked in the middle of the street and there was some woman walking down the street and he pulled a gun and pointed at her and just shot her. Intentional homicide. You would infer intent from that conduct, right? Alec Baldwin wasn't supposed to aim, cock, and fire a gun in that scene. So what's the difference? I know the pattern.

It's a set. So maybe something's going on. But if the script supervisor and the lead electrician and other witnesses there said he wasn't supposed to be given the gun by that person and then he chose to point it pulled you know with live rounds like what's the difference the difference is if you're just in the middle of the street you're not involved in a movie set and you walk up to a woman point the gun pull the trigger blow her brains out that conduct is conduct because we never know intent right we can't read inside a person's mind we're inferring their intent from their conduct. And you can infer from that conduct they intended to shoot that woman

because there's no alternative hypothesis consistent with the conduct. There is in the Baldwin case because he was on a movie set. So there may be some other reason why he did this without intending to kill her. But he did kill her.

There's no justified reason for her killing her. He could have avoided killing her by taking the simple step of confirming himself that the gun did not have a round in it. It is a violation of standard protocols to aim a weapon. Guns are inherently dangerous instruments. The standard of care is strict

liability. If it goes off when you pull the trigger and a bullet goes through somebody, that's on you. I think it's murder. You don't get to say, oops. Gloria Allred had the great line of it. She said, you handed Alec Baldwin that gun, and he decided to play Russian roulette with it. I think people keep giving him the benefit of the doubt every turn. It's insane to me.

We now know the stories were all lies. We know that he had no reason to aim that gun at a person because it's a violation of his decades of security training of firearms training on movie sets. He's been in movies, action movies. Witnesses have testified he's got multiple training that A.D. wasn't supposed to give him the gun. He had literally no reason. And it was a violation of safety protocol to aim it at a person.

It wasn't part of the scene. And there was a dispute with the crew over what was going on. I mean, look, you look at all the stories, all the news that has come out, and it sounds much more like Alec Baldwin has an anger management problem. So he took a gun, angrily pointed at the camera person and shot and killed her and then freaked out. That makes substantially more sense than the armorer made a mistake who accidentally handed it to the AD who made a mistake, who gave it to Baldwin, who made a mistake, who accidentally aimed it at her, pulled the hammer back, it's

a single action revolver, and then shot her with it. And then a fake story gets seeded. I'm not playing. So you're saying he could have been frustrated about something's going wrong on the set. The crew was revolting against him. People were walking off. I mean, even in that specific moment, right? So he's yelling at her, saying something.

And notice, we still, to this day day have not seen any video of this. We haven't even seen a sanitized video. We haven't seen anything. And there are multiple cameras filming this. Obviously. So my gut would say that's an overreach. I don't know for sure, but I will say this. It's no crazier than what the Rittenhouse prosecutor argued.

True. I think I'd say it's much more reasonable than what he argued. Let's go back to reasonableness. Let's talk about what's going on with the press in Waukesha. We have the story from The Examiner. NBC labels Waukesha attack an accident. Oh, it's better. It's better.

It's not just an accident. It wasn't just a guy on TV saying, well, you know, the accident here. We've got CNN. Waukesha parade crash suspect. Crash suspect? Is crash an intentional homicide act? Okay. I'll just jump over to Google.

Vehicle plows through parade. There's Times of India. Good on them. CNN crash. Fox has media blasted for calling it a crash. CNN. Waukesha crash. Eight-year-old victim of the crash.

Parade incident. Parade incident, BBC says. They are all terrified to say it was intact, even though the dude's been charged with intentional homicide. It was intentional homicide, I believe, right? Is that what you're charged with? I just read the criminal complaint. It's amazing to me because you could have – you have all of the evidence and all of the elements in that criminal complaint. That is a terroristic criminal

complaint. The only difference is that the charge isn't there. And what the police, I guess the chief of police says at the press conference, if you had added up all of those facts and you add in then one more paragraph of the statements that he had made online, the years and years worth of statements, you know what you have you have charlottesville yep you have the charlottesville 2017 james fields attack and it is all the same facts imagine if they found found similar statements except that wasn't a christmas parade there were there i mean so this is worse i mean so that so the thing about charlottesville is that you have two angry i'm talking about from the complaint side, not the situation.

Right, right, right, right. You have two fighting sides all day. It's nuts. The cops aren't stopping and people are— Did you cover that? I was not in Charlottesville. You were not there. Yeah, no, neither was I.

But a guy fired a gun at one dude and another dude— You were at Berkeley. That was it. Yeah, I was at Berkeley. I was not thinking of it. And then one guy is flame-throwing another guy and then a dude gets in his car. You had mutual combat. You had a lot of mutual combat there.

Oh, definitely. And then I can't speak to what's going through people's minds, but I can tell you what the video shows. Fields then starts driving down a road towards a large group. They run up and start bashing his car, and he just slams the gas and rams into people. So there's a lot of heat of the moment elements in that. Combat all day, driving down the road, the dude slams the gas. He claimed, a lot of heat of the moment elements in that. Combat all day, driving down the road, the dude slams the gas. He claimed, I believe he was trying to escape. I don't think I believe him when you have mutual combat and then a guy engages in very serious

attacks on another group. Sorry, you don't get that benefit of the doubt. But in Waukesha, he drove to a parade. He sought this out. There was no combat here. It was little kids marching down the street, twirling batons, and he plows through them. This is worse. Well, so let me go read, and this is what I was getting at. I have the Wikipedia articles, and I screenshotted these earlier today.

Here is the one for Waukesha. 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade car crash. On November 21st, 2021, an SUV was driven through. SUV was driven through. No name of the driver. Driven through the annual Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Almost makes it sound like it's part of the parade. It's so passive, right? Driven through the parade. Killing six people and injuring 62 others. Then we get the alleged driver of the vehicle, 39-year-old Daryl Lee Brooks, is in custody. Brooks has been charged with five degrees of first-degree intentional homicide. It actually hasn't been updated because he's been charged with six now. Once again, Wikipedia's fake news. Now I have, I'll read this one.

And the next one is Charlottesville. And of course I can't find it right now. So in Charlottesville though, you get the driver. You get the fact that he had made a series of... It starts by saying a white supremacist got his car. Yeah, a white supremacist. Oh, here it is. The Charlottesville car attack.

The Charlottesville car attack was a white supremacist terrorist attack. Terrorist attack. Terrorist attack. Right there. Perpetuated on August 12, 2017, when James Alex Fields Jr. deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people, peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one person and injuring 35. 20-year-old Fields had previously espoused neo-Nazi and white supremacist beliefs

and drove from Ohio to attend the rally. So I think it's very important to point out that this comparison intends, the intention is to show the Waukesha attacker is comparable to what happened in charlottesville a someone who committed a violent act against a group of people and they're horrifying attacks but the media over like just just absolutely slams charlottesville every moment they get and waukesha i think yesterday cnn you had a candidate in virginia that just less what a week ago, a month ago, ran his entire campaign was based around Charlottesville. Joe Biden launched

the current president of the United States launched his campaign based on Charlottesville. This has been a seminal moment in American politics. Well, I think it's fairly obvious that side. There are a bunch of people posting about how they can assume the race of the individual based on the fact that the media won't report it. And it's actually not fair. It's actually, it could be. It's the Coulter rule. Is that what it is? Yeah, or Coulter's law.

But I think it's fair to say if they don't report the race, you can just assume the person is not white. Yes. Because it's not about any one particular minority group. It's just about the media has no problem. Actually, they enjoy saying like a white person did this. So a lot of people are pointing out. What do you think would happen? In Arbery, every moment of it.

What do you think would happen if in the press we had a story about a white man with years of posts about how he doesn't like black people gets in a car drives to a black suburb and then rams a black christmas parade what would the media imagine if kyle rittenhouse had had messages like that on the car right now didn't have anti-black anything no no no but i'm saying if you did we would never have heard anything but that oh the entire trial that's it i mean the proud boys photo you get the one-hand gesture, which he even claims now was something that was a setup. He actually did claim that in his last interview with Ashley Banfield on NewsNation. And I really like NewsNation, by the way. A lot of the work they're doing.

I think they're trying to kind of be what CNN was at one point, just kind of show both sides and not really try to take a side. In 1991? Yes. Exactly. I mean, like the original original iteration watching those old keith olbermann videos kind of sad to see how psychotic i know right and then you also of course had binger trying to make use of kyle rittenhouse's social media in the trial he fought he fought for that uh that supposed proud boys meeting photos he fought desperately to get that into evidence.

No, but he did use his TikTok. Remember that? Oh, yeah. That's the video. Was your TikTok account four doors? Yeah. Right. Yes.

By the way, the only reason he was able to use that was because Kyle's profile picture in there had him holding the rifle. Wow. That's what made it admissible. I got to give a shout out to Debra Messing. Debra Messing is usually on the wrong side of a lot of things. We're usually criticizing her for it. But today she tweeted,

Dear mainstream media, a man intentionally drove a car through a parade, killing six and injuring 50 plus. It was not an accident. Fire emoji. Call it by its name. Waukesha massacre. And it was a domestic terror attack. Don't minimize please. Bravo. Yeah. When celebrities name walkashaw massacre and it was a domestic terror attack don't minimize please bravo yeah when the when celebrities and media are lying and omitting and covering up

and then deborah messing i mean look she's had a lot of tweets i've been like oh geez you know what a crazy i'm pretty sure she's been she's been on siraj's list a couple times i'm sure she has probably maybe not i don't know but she came out she got it right and i i completely agree she's right and then it trended after that as well. Waukesha Massacre. She started that? Yes. I believe she was the one who started that trend.

And I think everybody was just shocked that here's somebody who's not just known as your typical prototypical Hollywood kind of lefty. I mean she's like blue and on, like George Takei level kind of just occupied Democrats. I'm pretty sure George doesn't actually run his own Twitter account. Oh, I'm sure he doesn't. He has a company do it, and that's why he sounds insane all the time. And you're like, he's probably just sitting in a room with a warm blanket on his lap in the sun, half asleep, being old, and someone's tweeting away on his thing. Like Gravel Institute. Mike Gravel.

Right, right, right. He passed, and now he's not even alive anymore. Yeah, right, right, right. By the way, so Gravel. Right, right, right. He passed and now some kids are away. Yeah, he's not even alive anymore. Yeah, right, right, right. By the way, so much for red flag laws then, right? Someone complains about you, your ex-girlfriend complains about you, the police come and take all your guns away because you could be dangerous. Turns out you don't need a gun to kill a bunch of people. You can just get a Ford Escape and run it through a parade.

There was someone who actually tweeted that, by the way. I mean, this has been a talking point for some time. But the point I bring up is that every day you live in a city, you cross a street with these gigantic multi-ton vehicles flying at you and you're not scared of getting hit. Why? Any one of those people could decide to just hurt and kill dozens in New York City of all places and they don't do it. It did happen a couple of years ago. It does happen. It happened a lot in the summer It does happen. It happens.

It was like a holiday. It happened a lot in the summer of 2015 or 16 in Europe. And this is interesting to me because I remember how the BBC and some of these overseas organizations characterized these mysterious car attacks exactly like the U.S. media is characterizing this they were literally terror attacks perpetrated by foreigners who'd come into like for example the uk and france and they would not cover where these people are coming from what their ideologies might have been they only covered that it was a car attack the motive may never be known this is why when you go to a christmas market and tanya and i um a couple years ago we were going through and visiting christmas markets in that, before we had kids, obviously, and there are barricades up before you can go into every country in Europe

with the exception of Poland. Not Estonia. Well, in Europe right now, I don't even know who'd want to be there considering the extremity of the lockdowns that's been happening. Not in Poland. Not in Poland. In Australia. Australia's getting real dark, but we can talk about that a little bit.

We'll keep it in line with this because we have more news. This is actually fairly big. We got the story from TimCast.com. All three men found guilty of murder in Ahmaud Arbery case. This is the story about a man who had gone to this neighborhood several times. He had entered a building on multiple occasions. I believe he was actually a felony suspect. That was in the trial. who had gone to this neighborhood several times. He had entered a building on multiple occasions. I believe he was actually a felony suspect.

That was in the trial. I think that even the prosecution said yes. I think so, yeah. A felony suspect. Burglary suspect. In this instance. Yeah, yeah. So this is from actual Justice Warrie.

He had tweeted that in the case, the issue was they had all agreed that he was actually suspected of committing burglaries oh the police were going door to door but not that day they're handing a photo of the guy right yeah but not that day and so the issue was they did not have actual knowledge of anything he had he had done it that day but i don't i'll just give you the context real quick all three men were found guilty and the craziest thing about it is the third guy, he was just following in his car and filming what was happening. And then he gave the footage like, hey, look, and they prosecuted. This guy's going to prison for the rest of his life for filming this. So we're getting a lot

of conservatives. First of all, the entirety of the left is cheering. When they announced the verdict, a guy in the courtroom was like, woo. And then the judge was like, get him out of my courtroom. No outbursts. And all who outside are cheering and celebrating, which is funny, considering they just said the justice system was broken because of Rittenhouse, but they're cheering for it. And then I see a bunch of conservatives cheering for it. And I'm like, I think y'all are wrong on this one in a certain sense, legally speaking on the law. Yep. The jury got it right. The judge gave him instructions. These guys did not have a right to get in their trucks, grab a shotgun and go chase down some dudes around him.

But there's a lot of, of context here that says to me, I think these, these, I think the two guys, the McMichaels, these are the two guys who are directly involved with getting their vehicle and the gun and then confronting the father and the son, father and the son. Yeah. I believe they deserve charges. I don't know if, you know, sending them for decades in prison makes sense, but they should have been charged for a lot of, for,

you know, on something. The third guy who was just filming, I mean, this is, I just, so it was the ruling then that he was part of the pursuit. Is that the part of that?

But it was, they had also charged him with aggravated assault. Yeah. Using his pickup truck, which doesn't mean you have to cause injury. It means you put someone else in fear of injury right uh so it wasn't just that he was filming it's it's right it was the aggravated assault which is a felony and that's then he died so it's felony murder which is i think i i think on the law this is the right ruling and i think that's what most people are saying so i'll just just put it this way. The dude was a burglary suspect.

That was not contested. But you have in the video that came out, I think it's two vehicles or maybe just a truck. And Arbery is seen running towards that truck. But you got a guy following behind him. So he's not going to turn around. He's got to run towards the guy with the shotgun. And I'll tell you this. He's between two trucks.

In fairness, he's not limited to the street. He could run to run towards the guy with the shotgun. And I'll tell you this. He's between two trucks. In fairness, he's not limited to the street. He could run to the right. He could run to the brush. He had 350 degrees of other directions he could run in. And it's not like the trucks went up on the lawns of properties chasing him. But if they had been following him for several minutes, he knew they were following him. In his mind, he may have been like, I can't get away from these guys. This guy's holding a shotgun. My only way out of this is to fight back.

Well, maybe, but that's not an element of the crimes against them. Right. If he had gotten the gun and shot them and been charged with shooting them, and he raised the legal defense of self-defense, then the reasonableness of his perception would be relevant. But it's not relevant with respect to these criminal charges. What would your analysis be, given that were the case? Well, it's difficult.

I know we're playing hypotheticals. Yeah, yeah, no. What complicates it is he wasn't just someone recreationally jogging. I mean, we know this. You'd have to erase your mind of everything else around him. But they're still pushing him away. I know they are. And that just makes proper legal analysis more complicated

because there's a lot of misinformation, disinformation. And if you believe that stuff, you come to a different outcome. But this guy was in that home repeatedly in the middle of the night. This is not somebody recreationally visiting a construction site. And there had been burglaries. There had been robberies. A gun had been stolen. Not even a month prior.

And when we say that the McMichaels didn't know exactly what he was doing that day, they knew the other stuff. And the other stuff can play a role in your assessment of probable cause. If a police officer had seen those videos of him there those other times and then saw him apparently leaving the building again that day, the police officer is not required to pretend he doesn't know that past experience, those past events. He's allowed to consider that in coming to a determination of probable cause on that day. Even if he didn't see explicitly burglar-like activity that day, he's seen burglar-like activity from this guy on this property on previous occasions. So let me ask you, and I think the answer is obvious, but you being the attorney on selfdefense if travis mcmichael who has not been convicted on all counts if he actually was a police officer who did the exact same thing what would have happened he would never have been charged never never they wouldn't even bring charges no and so so here's here's the crazy thing

there's a there's a vehicle behind ahmed arbery so i can certainly understand why he's like you know these guys are after me now i don't think he was a good dude i think he had you know malintent but you know don't surround people like if you're gonna you're you're i i can certainly understand why but of course the defense was that they weren't the defense was there was no coordination right between those two vehicles right so they weren't like a pack of wolves surrounding somebody. I get it, but I also feel like, you know, I think about what I would be doing if I was running down the street and then a car comes up behind me and a car's in front of me.

So we can listen to the design. Right, but again, we're confusing it because you have to think, what would I be doing if that happened to me and I was engaged in felony burglary behavior? You know why they're following you. You're not a recreational jogger who's suddenly being approached by men with shotguns. That's not what's happening.

No, no, no. All right. Seriously. And there's a reason the hands don't go up and it's, Hey guys, wait, wait, wait.

In the context of these guys not being law enforcement, like this guy's going to fight, but here's what I'm getting to. Ahmed Arbery runs around. I think he would have fought if they were law enforcement. Oh, I agree. I agree. So I think what he's getting at is thatmaud Arbery runs around. I think he would have fought if they were law enforcement. Oh, I agree. I agree. So I think what he's getting at is that this guy didn't want to be stopped.

Right. For any reason. Ahmaud Arbery ran to the right from the around the right side of the truck, got around it and then flanked left, grabbed the shotgun from Travis McMichael. They fought over it. A shot was fired hitting Ahmaud Arbery, and he died. Now, I want to stop, and I want to give you the real context in a more, in the spirit of what I think is a fair assessment. The media, the left will tell you, and that's what they did say, that a bunch of racists

got in a pickup truck and chased down a jogger and lynched him, which is a psychotic lie. What actually happened? A couple local guys who had been hearing reports about burglaries from the police heard this guy was spotted in their neighborhood again. Again, again, a gun had been stolen about a month earlier. They say, Hey, we got to figure out who this guy is. We got to check them out. We're going to, they probably didn't think anything other than we got to stop this guy. What does that mean? It could mean nothing. It could be like, let's just get in our car and go after him. Hold on,

hold on. So they knew a gun was stolen. That's why Travis McMichael had a shotgun. Hey, someone stole a gun. If he's got a gun, we could be in trouble. And if we try and say, hey, what are you doing here? And even try and talk to him, he could have a gun. When they stopped their truck, and as you argued, the defense argued there was no coordination, he gets out with a shotgun. He is legally allowed to keep and bear arms. When Ahmaud Arbery ran around the truck and then grabbed the gun and fought with him, there was now dual possession of that weapon. In the fight, a shotgun blast killed Ahmaud Arbery. So I look at that and I'm like, man, I understand the letter of the law, they got the conviction,

but doesn't it feel like something doesn't make sense or doesn't add up properly the narrative from the mainstream media is a lie of course does this yeah i mean the provocation argument kind of we were talking about in kyle rittenhouse uh well the prosecution did raise the issue of provocation in her closing statement it wasn't a major part of the trial. Oh, I see. I think... Suddenly I lost my train of thought. Go ahead, Tim, and I'll... Did the guy with the shotgun... I was throwing it back to you. Did the guy with the shotgun brandish the shotgun?

He was holding it. I think he was just holding it, and then Ahmaud Arbery... Look. Oh, I remember what I was going to say. He's in front of the truck to the left, sorry. And then Ahmaud Arbery goes around it and can't actually see Travis McMichael and then comes around in the front and attacks him.

And charges him. It's unknown whether McMichael ever brandished. Well, it's disputed. The video is very fuzzy at that point. And there's parts where they're obscured by the truck in front so you can't really see what's happening. But, of course, the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But I don't think it matters because if he's pointing at that point, he's being charged by someone. Arbery is on camera going around the car.

And at this point, there is no gun pointed at him. And he chooses then to turn left and engage Travis McMichael. So it's much more complicated than malice murder and felony murder. But they just said, you know, across the board. So here's the thing. I want to make clear because there's obviously a lot of emotions around this. It's a racially energized case. I don't care about these guys getting convicted and going to prison on any kind of personal level.

I don't know these people. They're not friends of mine. They weren't my client. What happens to them is a very little consequence to me on any kind of personal level. But professionally, I care a lot about the legal process, and I care a lot about due process. And if they're going to get convicted, it ought to be done the right way. And that didn't happen here. Because the whole case rested on this citizen's arrest statute and your interpretation of it. There were two possible interpretations, lawyers in that courtroom and me, myself, outside the courtroom with lots of other lawyers, we, in good faith, argued different positions on that citizen's arrest law. The judge wasn't

sure exactly what it meant. When all the legal experts can't decide on what it means, someone has to make the call. You can't have an A version and a B version, one of which favors the prosecution, one of which favors the defense, and whichever one is chosen decides the whole case. And both parties know that. The prosecution knows, oh my gosh, if I don't get my version, I lose this trial. These guys walk. And the defense knows, if we don't get our version, our clients are going to get convicted. There's no other possible outcome.

So somebody has to decide which version is the jury going to get. And that's the responsibility of the judge in this case. So can you, real quick, what are these versions? Yeah, I was going to ask the same thing, yeah. One of the versions, one of the virgins. Ah! I guess there should be 72 of those, right? Ave Maria, gratia plena, dominus tecum.

Essentially, one of the versions is that the citizen's arrest could only be lawful if everything was contemporaneous and they had essentially perfect knowledge that a felony burglary had occurred. And, of course, the defense never claimed either of those things because that didn't exist. They didn't know for a fact that he'd committed felony burglary. And the felony burglary-like conduct they were aware of was not contemporaneous with their efforts to arrest him.

What does that mean, contemporaneous? Happening at the same time. Right. So they had evidence of felony-like behavior, but it was from a week earlier, two weeks earlier. So it's like they didn't see him walk up, smash the window, go in, grab a bunch of stuff, and just take off down the street. That is the state position.

That's what they would have had to have seen in that moment to make the citizen's arrest lawful. That's the state position. And if that position is accepted, well, then they're convicted because they don't have any of that. The defense position is, well, no, the knowledge is, first of all, doesn't have to be absolute, doesn't have to be in his presence because he was an apparent felon in flight. The standard should be probable cause. That's what the statute says, probable cause, not certainty. And probable cause can be based on knowledge not gained only in that moment,

but prior knowledge that you're aware of. Surveillance video of the guy in the house that you've seen. It's part of your knowledge base. It's part of why you believe it's probable that he's now also committing a felony burglary. If you have that definition that favors the defense, it's probably an acquittal. So these two competing versions, one wins for the state, one wins for the defense. The judge had, his duty was to make a call.

Look, we don't know which one of these really should apply, but I'm the judge. I decide what the law is going to be as presented to the jury. Now, when he makes a decision, later on, he might be reversed.

Appellate court might say, no, you chose A, it should have been B, or the reverse. But it's also true that there's only one way to actually make that decision, because there's a legal doctrine called the doctrine of lenity. And it says, if a statute is ambiguous in criminal law, the benefit of the

doubt is always given to the defense, not to the state. So because the state drafted the law, the state passed the law, the state was in control of how unambiguously that statute was written. You can't hold that against the defendant. So if the judge was going to pick one of those versions, under the doctrine of lenity, he would be obliged to pick the version

that favored the defense, and then we're looking at acquittals for these guys. And the city would have burned to the ground, right? Maybe many cities. So he decided, well, I'm not going to make that decision. So he punts. I'm not going to do my job.

I'm going to take the ambiguous version, both options, give them to the jury, and let them decide. And that's not the job of the jury. The crazy thing to me is, you know, like I tweeted basically about, I read your article, I did a video on it, and I tweeted like, this could result in an appeal. Is that fair to say? Oh, yeah, there's fertile ground for appeal here.

But people need to keep in mind, appeals, I like to say appeals are for losers. And that's technically true, right? You're only appealing if you have a deal. Here's the interesting thing here, for one. I mean, there could be an appeal. But things do get overturned in an appeal. Looking at this, you have Kyle Rittenhouse, who was fleeing, and you have Ahmaud Arbery, who was engaging.

You can argue that by putting the pickup truck there and then having behind him that, you know, it was a fight or flight reflex, but he didn't have to attack them and go for the gun. So I was thinking about that in regards to your previous statements on Kyle Rittenhouse about how the mentality of Anthony Huber, for instance, has no bearing on the self-defense right of Kyle Rittenhouse. Anthony Huber could believe he stopped being a mass shooter, but he's still threatening Kyle, who has a right to self-defense. In this instance, I'm curious about the different potentialities here. I mean, just what's your assessment on was Travis McMichael defending himself? It all comes back to that citizen's

arrest law. If you believe the citizen's arrest was unlawful, well, then it makes sense that Arbery would defend himself and he would have a right to defend himself against an unlawful arrest. But let me ask you something. I mean, is this whole case seems to be an issue of the context provided by the McMichaels. What if they just said, we just happen to be standing there legally bearing arms and he attacked me? Well, of of course we know that's not true because they gave statements to the police at the scene why they were it's the so so these guys oh these guys had just kept their mouth shut

that wouldn't you couldn't have had a process and then a video and if that guy released the video thinking it would exonerate them they gave they gave the statements and months went by i mean the the prosecutors remember the original prosecutor passed went by. I mean, the prosecutors. Remember the original prosecutor passed on charges. Yeah. I mean, he actually wrote a memo saying, no, this was lawful citizen's arrest. And therefore, everything is, you know, was within the bounds of the law. It was political.

The charges came back because there was political outrage. Well, again, after the video came out. This is a money making opportunity for some people. This is the point that I keep bringing it back to and we now live in a society that is governed by viral videos whatever the last viral video that came out is now the new discussion and if it comes out remember george floyd started with a viral video um the what do they the central park karen which actually turned out to be false that started with a video a very selectively edited video which the Central Park Karen, which actually turned out to be false. That started with a video, a very selectively edited video, which the guy who posted it actually later debunked on his own Facebook because he said he did provoke her.

He said he was going to take her dog. And then she freaks out thinking that the stranger is about to take my dog. So the problem, though, that we have in society is that we now live in a mass surveillance society. But George Orwell, who got a lot right, got this wrong. It's not Big Brother. though that we have in society is that we now live in a mass surveillance society but george orwell who got a lot right got this wrong it's not big brother that's the only one that's in on the game of mass surveillance it's everyone little brother all severely each out right lots of little brothers lots of little sisters my and so the question then becomes what do we do with all this

kyle rittenhouse if you're if there were no video he would be in jail for the rest of his life yep because it would be his word against the word of the other people in that mob video he would be in jail for the rest of his life yep because it would be his word against the word of the other people in that mob and it would be very very hard for him to get off without that video but with these guys the mcmichaels they're going to jail because of video my understanding is that um i could be wrong it's been a while it's been almost two years now but the uh the guy was named brady or something um brian or something the third guy yeah the third guy he released the video because i think people in the community were calling him murderers and he was like no like look it was it was self-defense i'll show you the video and then

everyone was like whoa hey and that's one of those videos where people will see what they want to see in that video and you will never change anybody's mind. Some people see that video and they see a felony suspect charging a man who has a shotgun in his hands, fighting that man for a shotgun and dying in the effort. And by the way, when they show those gruesome wound scenes on Arbery, those are the same wounds that the McMichaels would have feared they would have suffered if he had gotten control of that shotgun, right? It's exactly the same thing. But other people look at that video and what they see is they see a black man who was chased

by a bunch of rednecks and is desperately fighting for his life. Because it fits a narrative. And what if, I think there's no point asking if we, you know, what Aubrey would have done with the gun, but considering he went for the shotgun and is visibly fighting for it, what would have happened if Aubrey got the gun and shot them? He would be charged and it wouldn't be pressed. If I was his attorney,

I'd be arguing self-defense. Yeah. Yeah. But I don't think it would be in the press. Nobody would know about it. It would not be news. I mean,

there's a small Georgian community. You don't know. I mean, if George Zimmerman had been killed by Trayvon Martin, we never would have heard about the case.

Right. Right? That's what I'm saying. It would be a non-event. It would just be another... But I also think it's fair to say that if they didn't go out there with the shotgun, we also wouldn't be hearing about the case. Right. Right? That's what I'm saying. That would be a non-event. It would just be another... But I also think it's fair to say that if they didn't go out there with the shotgun,

we also wouldn't be hearing about this case because a fight would have broken out and that would have been the end of it. But you could say that for any case. Well, it's true and I want to stress people have a right

to keep and bear arms. It's not every case. I disagree with that. So I think there's a lot of debate to be had around the nature of the citizens' law statute, whether this judge did his job and I believe he did not. No, no, no. I just mean that um but that doesn't mean these guys didn't exercise

in any case that doesn't mean these guys didn't exercise poor judgment that was poor judgment by the way rittenhouse also exercised poor judgment if i had a 17 year old son i would not say hey good idea let's uh you know take the ar go down to the riot but but poor judgment's not a crime right i mean as a guy who's got a next wife thank god poor judgment's not a crime. I mean, as a guy who's got a next wife, thank God, poor judgment is not a crime. So they're not charged with that. They're charged with specific offenses, with specific elements,

and specific defenses with specific elements. And one of those is citizen's arrest and how that law is supposed to be applied. And when you just give the jury the job of deciding how the law works, the only non-experts in the courtroom, by the way, the jury the job of deciding how the law works, the only non-experts in the courtroom, by the way, the courtroom is full of lawyers.

There's three prosecutors, there's six defense attorneys, and a judge, and none of them can figure out what the statute is actually supposed to mean, but we're going to let 12 jurors untrained in the law do that job. Let me ask you, in your opinion, based on the facts of the case, do you think these men should have been convicted? You know, my view of justice is different. I don't think about the outcomes per se. I don't really care about the outcomes per se. In my view, justice is about the process, not about the outcome.

Well, I'm asking because I was going to ask you then on the judge's ruling. So the first thing I want to understand is, you know, based on your understanding of the case and the law, as you've read it, do you think it should have been an acquittal or – I think there was reasonable doubt that they had probable cause to try to make a citizen's – and by the way – You lean towards an acquittal is what you're saying. Yes, but I don't want people to misunderstand. I don't – by that, I don't mean like I think it's more likely than not that they had probable cause. But that's not the legal standard. The standard isn't whether they were probably right.

The standard is, is there a reasonable doubt that they could have been right? The math gets complicated, but could they have had a 51% belief that he was a felony burglary suspect? Is that enough? By a reasonable doubt there is a very tiny belief that they might have had probable cause should be sufficient for an acquittal the reason i ask is do you have like so you've mentioned the judge didn't do his job in defining and instructing properly do you have a view of how it should have been instructed yeah so my reading of the statute favors the defense

because there's basically, it's amazing how ambiguous it is because it's only two sentences. So it's not like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, they had that gun statute where you had to refer to this other statute and then you had to refer to two other statutes beyond that. And it got very kind of,

well, in some senses complicated. This is only a two sentence statute, but the first sentence talks about kind of a citizen, in some senses, complicated. This is only a two-sentence statute. But the first sentence talks about kind of citizens' arrest generally. And it says you have to have immediate knowledge or presence. And the second sentence speaks specifically to a felon in flight. And there it says probable cause. And some people believe you've got to read those two together. And others, my position is you have to read them separately because it doesn't make any sense to read them together. So the way I read it, it says, look, for citizens arrest generally, and that means for like misdemeanors, like shoplifting for, you know, the smallest arrestable offense,

you have to have presence or immediate knowledge. That's a hundred percent certainty. You saw it happen, right? That's not probable cause. That's not, you think it's likely it happened. You saw it happen, right? That's not probable cause. That's not you think it's likely it happened. You saw it happen. It happened in your presence. You have immediate knowledge. To believe that that's – you start with 100%. That's the requirement. But then if it's a felony in pursuit, you also have to have 51%? I mean you're already at 100%.

I'm going to read it. This is from your article from Legal Insurrection. It says, the two sentences are, a private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. So how I read that is generally, like even for a misdemeanor, if you want to arrest somebody for a misdemeanor, you have to have absolute knowledge, presence or immediate knowledge. You saw them shoplift that item.

But for the special circumstance of a felon in flight, in that case, it's then probable cause. 51% is certain. And that makes sense to me because we're treating them differently. Look, an arrest is a profound constraint of your liberty. Your assessment makes total sense. And by the way, that applies to cops. The standard for cops is if they want to arrest somebody for a misdemeanor,

they have to have seen it. They don't have to have seen it for a felony. So this actually, if we put these two requirements together, what we're actually saying is it's harder to arrest somebody who's a felon in pursuit than it is to arrest someone who's a criminal. Wait, wait, wait. But Tim, just put it back in a common sense, right?

Couldn't this – isn't this also just the situation of, hey, stop that guy? Yeah. Right? Hey, stop that guy. He stole a purse. Hey, stop that guy. He stole my phone. That's what I was saying.

That's 51. Right. So I didn't see him steal the phone, but I'm hearing someone say, hey, this guy stole my phone. Stop that guy. He stole my phone. That's what I was saying. That's 51. Right. So I didn't see him steal the phone, but I'm hearing someone say, hey, this guy stole my phone. Stop that guy. You want to make that legal. You made a good point about, you know, this guy is a burglary suspect who is entering this home repeatedly.

When you operate from the leftist's false narrative that this guy was just jogging, the story is very different. A couple of rednecks accused a jogger of a crime he didn't commit and then confronted with a shotgun he defended himself when you know all the facts you know that these guys were scared because you know as i mentioned a gun had been stolen there had been burglaries you you guys mentioned that the police had actually handed out his photo is that what they did i forget if they were showing i think they were showing photos around from the video they've done a screen capture yeah the video from uh when he was inside the home

in the middle of the night. So maybe not like a mug shot necessarily. If you see this guy in the neighborhood, call us because we have video. There was reporting, though, that one of the, I believe it was the older McMichael, had known of Arbery from a previous investigation. But he didn't connect the dots.

Yeah, so Arbery had been, he had brought a gun to school. I believe it was a felony conviction. Oh, wow. So he was an adult who went to some school event like to school. I believe it was a felony conviction. Oh, wow. So he was an adult who went to some school event like a football game. It was like a football game. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I remember this.

I forget the status, if he was convicted of the felony or if it was expunged. I don't remember the details, so I don't want to overstate it. But it was a felony charge for sure because he brought the gun and then he fought the cops when they tried to arrest him for having the gun at the school. It was a big mess. And the prosecutor's office investigated that event and the investigator was Greg McMichaels. So they'd had some exposure to each other.

But there's no evidence that at the time of this day when Arbery was shot that Greg McMichaels recognized him as that person. Does that make sense? I want to break down this statue. Which would have made a huge difference, by the way, because that would have been a huge contributor to probable cause and reason to feel. I always remember that because that's huge.

I want to get at these two sentences real quick, just very simply. A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. I think your assessment is very reasonable. To put it simply, if someone commits a misdemeanor, you have to know they did it. If someone you believe, your probable cause, has committed a felony and is fleeing— Your probable cause to believe they just killed somebody, they just murdered someone, that person—and they're in flight, right?

So they're not waiting for the cops to show up, right? They're in flight. They're a reasonably perceived felon. You only probably will cause this stuff. Which seems to be a situation where you want to empower the citizenry. For the more serious crime. Right, for the more serious. So burglary is a felony.

Yes. So they believe that at some point this was a person who committed a burglary. And under the statute, he was trying to escape. They had grounds to stop him. That's the defense, right? But the prosecution said all of these things have to be true. Right. Which makes no sense.

Which makes no sense. No. To apply both standards. To apply, say, all right, every citizen's arrest, no matter what, has to have 100% certainty. And probable cause. But a felony, a felon in flight, that also requires 51%. Once you have 100% to make them decide who isn't going through to the level we are here and they don't have you or to put it another way if the first sentence applies to everything

including felons in pursuit why do you need the second sentence right exactly and a normal statutory interpretation does not allow you to presume that a substantive part of a statute is there for no purpose but i think one of the big questions was whether or not probable cause applies to – it's probably what you're saying. I think what the prosecution argued was their knowledge from previous incidents has no bearing on their right to commit a citizen's arrest today. Right. Well, she didn't say it that explicitly, but she would only say what they knew that

day. They didn't see anything that looked like felony burglary that day. Yep. Right. There were no probable cause. Because remember, she couldn't – they couldn't see anything that looked like felony burglary that day. Yeah, right. There were no problems. Because remember, the judge prevented her from using, the prosecutor, from using the jogger narrative. And yet for, what, a year, that had already been seeded throughout the community. Jogger, jogger, jogger, jogger, jogger.

I mean, this notion that he was just a recreational jogger going through the neighborhood is ridiculous. I mean, because a recreational jogger going through a neighborhood is not in someone's home at night repeatedly on video camera. Even if he was just loitering, there was no evidence of burglary that day. If you're in someone's home in the middle of the night without any explanation, it's reasonable to infer it's a burglary. Was he in a house that night? It's a house. It's a house under construction, but it's a house.

They saw him exit the house under construction. He's on camera. Well, he's in that night? I thought it was from an earlier night. No, earlier nights. The camera's from earlier nights Well, he's in that night. I thought it was from an earlier night. No, earlier nights. The camera's from earlier nights. Okay, so not that night. But five times.

Because this event took place during the day. Yeah, yeah. They just saw him, right? Right. He was right by the house, I guess. It sounds like it was ruled properly in this instance. I mean, I don't have all the data. Well, it's like Colbert said.

They just saw him and chased him. It sounds like, first of all, this definitely shouldn't have happened. Take pictures, call the police, and say, you know, we need— Hey, we just saw the guy. We just saw the guy. He's here. I mean, that's what I think most reasonable people would do. But there's a question here about, man, it just something doesn't sit right with the idea that someone can come into your community, be a burglary suspect, keep going into these homes. People are worried. Guns go missing.

And then you just sit back and say, that's the current state of our country. We just sit back and let this guy do it because the cops can't stop him. And by the way, this happens repeatedly, right? This is a common theme in these events. So in the George Zimmerman event, he was living in an apartment complex that was being ravaged by burglaries and home invasions. They would call the police. The police would show up. The bad guy was already gone. The neighborhood couldn't take it anymore. They said, we have to do something ourselves. They started a neighborhood watch group. Zimmerman joins the neighborhood watch group,

sees Trayvon Martin that night, and we have everything that happens. He was trying to do a good thing for his community to fight this wave of crime that was coming through it. Rittenhouse, we have a city engulfed in rioting, looting, and arson. The police are doing nothing. The citizenry says, we've got to step up and do something to protect ourselves, to protect our city.

Kyle goes there as one of that group, offering medical services, gets attacked, kills, charged with murder, and the risk is because the state failed. With Arboré, we have a community that, again, is being ravaged by crime. This was once a little dream community, sleepy dream community. The house under construction was that guy's dream house that he'd always wanted to build there. And now the community literally was calling 911 for property crimes every day for three months.

That's how there were neighbors in that community, single mothers with children who would not let their children play outside because of their fear of the crime in their community. And they'd call the cops, the cops would show up,

the bad guys were always gone. So the community says, yeah, everybody in that community was buying guns, installing security cameras, joining, doing neighborhood watch, sharing Facebook messages and next door messages with

each other. This is right next to Fletzy, by the way. Right. Okay. So the citizenry said, listen, no one's helping us and we're living in fear. So we have to help ourselves. And then we have this encounter with Arbery. He dies and they're going to jail for the rest of their lives now.

So the chaos that's created in these communities by crimes and the failure of the state to provide security, is there any more fundamental responsibility of the state than that and the idea that you cannot protect your community because the state has taken responsibility but failed to provide the security you can do it if you want but if push comes to shove they will prosecute you and put you in a jail for the rest of your abolish the police this is my this is my issue when when people go and say well you know Rittenhouse should never have been there Rittenhouse should never have been there so when people say that to me I and I've said this before but I haven't said it here I say you know what you're right but at the

same time none of them should have been there the rioters shouldn't have been there the mob shouldn't have been there the police should have the police should have been there or in this case the National Guard when I remember in jury selection I know you covered this as well, that there were people who came up and said things like, keep in mind, this was night three. The car source had already been burned once, right? This was night three. And by the way, he was asked to be there. Those car source guys obviously asked for them to be there. Don't even –

There's a video of them there. It's not even worth talking about. It's not even worth talking about. Just look at their testimony. They're obviously lying. They clearly asked him to be there. Don't even. There's a video of them there. It's not even worth talking about. It's not even worth talking about. Just look at their testimony. They're obviously lying. They clearly asked him to be there. We have all the evidence, right? So there were people saying during jury selection,

I was so scared that I took my kids and we got out of town for the week. You had other people saying I couldn't afford to get my kids out of town for the week. You had other people saying, I couldn't afford to get my kids out of town. So we went to the local church and I was there sleeping with my children inside the church because I thought that that wouldn't get hit, that it wouldn't get burned. I was in Kenosha two weeks after this happened. A lot of Kenosha, by the way, still to this day, boarded up. And were these jurors rejected? I'd have to go back and actually look at the transcripts. Yeah, there were so many.

A lot were rejected. Some got on. But I remember seeing on the plywood that they'd put up, they'd say, live animals inside. Do not burn. Imagine having to write that up on your town. You have a situation. This is a primal kind of situation right you have marauders that are coming out from from from chicago outlawing crossing state lines i mean this is

like the middle ages where ravaging hordes would come out of the plains and burn your city so the village the village is it's anarcho-tyranny the village is under attack they're getting burned people are freaking out. They don't know what's going to happen. And I'll say something else. For all the people who say, well, he shouldn't have been there. They shouldn't have been there. They shouldn't have done this.

All right, I get it. That's one position to take. And frankly, it's a position I would advocate because I don't claim to have any particular degree of bravery. If I had an adult son or a teenage son, I wouldn't tell him to get engaged in these events. But people need to keep in mind the unexpected consequences of making that your personal policy decision. And one of those consequences is what? Not a month ago, we had a woman raped on a subway car in front of a bunch of people.

And then everyone says, nobody did anything. Why didn't anybody do anything? You know why? Because they would have been prosecuted. Because George Zimmerman, Kyle Rittenhouse, if they had done something and found themselves in a fight and killed that guy, they could charge for murder. This is what happens in China.

This is exactly what – when I was in China, there was a situation where I was in – KFC of all places. And I'll tell the short version of the story. Guy starts beating his girlfriend on the other side of the room. Starts just smacking her, slams her head into the table, throws a soda in her face, and just starts just walloping her right there. A couple of teenagers. And he's sitting with his friends. There's people around. There's employees around.

I'm back. I was actually meeting my Chinese tutor. We were studying practicing Mandarin. And I'm thinking, well, surely the employees will get involved and break this up. It doesn't happen. He keeps hitting her. Surely the customers will get involved. The men that are sitting around will do something.

No. So I got up and I got him and I removed him from the KFC. And I remember afterwards and my Mandarin, I was still learning Mandarin, but I heard people saying, you know, why are you getting involved? That's not your problem. We shouldn't need the Wenti. Not your problem. Right.

And I was, I was freaked out afterwards because I'm, I'm sitting there thinking, and this is what almost 15 years ago. But at that point, this was prior to, you know, Zimmerman and Rittenhouse and all these things. And I, it didn't even enter into my mind that something like that could happen in the United States and nobody would do anything. And I'm a guy who's from the Philadelphia area, right near where this happened. Now, fast forward, right? It's the same thing because nobody wants to get on the radar of the state. One of my most viewed videos is actually really old and it periodically pops up in the analytics on my, I think on my Timcast channel. And it's men are no longer helping women and children. It's a story I read where this woman says

she was at a shopping center and she saw a little kid crying with no parents. And she saw a man walking towards the kid, stop in his tracks, look around, turn around and start walking quickly the other way. Someone ran up to the kid and said, what's wrong? Where's your parents?

They found the mom and the journalist, the reporter who was watching it happen, ran up to the guy who turned around and walked away. She said, I needed to understand why he saw a crying child and didn't do anything to help. And he said, are you kidding? They'd call me a predator and they'd accuse me of kidnapping. So there are stories like this. There was a story in New York where a woman was being punched on the subway and no one would help.

This woman who was attacked said that there were men all around just watching it happen and no one would help this this woman who was attacked said that there were men all around just watching it happen and no no one would help her and now fast forward to today we have that story of the woman on the subway getting getting raped while everybody watched no one did anything and it's for exactly these reasons anarcho-tyranny you are if you if if you see a child crying and you go up and say let me help you good luck there are stories that i read about there was a dad with his like five-year-old daughter and they're at a they're at a walmart and as they're walking out someone called the cops saying there's a strange man with a child and the cops came and detained him and questioned him and

separated the kid put her in the car i started asking her a bunch of questions and he's like that's my daughter. And they're like, we're asking the questions here. And of course, a five-year-old has no ID. And then finally, they determined, OK, well, it seems to be correct. I go around with my kid all the time. He doesn't have an AID. He doesn't have – you sit him down.

He's not going to be able to answer any questions. But prove that's your kid. He looks like me. What might a five-year-old say in all innocence? That would be misinterpreted by law enforcement. What if you were playing cops and robbers with your kid earlier in the day? And then the kid says, he's

the bad man and he was bad, bad, bad. Chasing me. What if you're lifting your kid out of his car seat and you accidentally hurt his finger or something and he's crying and then somebody walks up and says, what's going on? And he points at you and says, he hurt me. Yep.

Yep. Right. Hey, my office is going to kill me if I don't plug my book. Would that be okay? I mean, it's been sitting behind you the whole time. Well, but people, people, that book behind me and this one on my hands sells on Amazon for $25. That's the normal price for all you Tim Pool listeners. We're making this book available for free. Zero dollars for the25. That's the normal price. For all you Tim Pool listeners, we're making this book available for

free. $0 for the book. We do ask that you pay the shipping. It's a physical book. It's not a PDF or something, so it has to be shipped. We do ask you to pay the shipping and handling. But the book itself is free, normally $25. Plain English explanation of self-defense law, how it actually works.

And you can get that at lawofselfdefense.com slash timcast. Cool. Cool. Alright, folks. Grab it. And you can get that at lawofselfdefense.com slash timcast. Cool. Cool. All right, folks, grab it. Only good for today, by the way, that discount code. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You didn't say your line.

You got to say, this is such a good line. This is such a good line. And I quote it like every day now. You got to say the line. Well, if you carry a gun, like I carry a gun, so you're hard to kill. I carry a gun, so I'm hard to kill. My family is hard to kill. And you also owe it to your family to make sure you know the law, so you're hard to kill i carry again so i'm hard to kill my family is hard to kill and you also owe it to your family to make sure you know the law so you're hard to convict boom i saw

the mug it does sound a little dark like hard to convict as if like but i think the fair way to put it is know the law so you stay within it stay within it absolutely and that's the point right no know the law no know your bounds know your law and because you might be so worried about not knowing the law that you might be up at night and not be able to sleep well. What would you do then? Let me ask you a question. Oh, no, no. I think I asked you this before.

I was winding up. I'll come back to it, folks. I'll come back to it. I think I asked you this last time you were on the show. Let's say somebody is breaking into my house. Or actually, how about this? I know it might depend on jurisdiction, but let's say someone is entering my property and we have well it makes a difference you mean your land or your home okay and and i have big we have two big no trespassing signs

you know it's like be warned and so you have to cross two of them so you know you're trespassing in some states i believe west virginia you actually have grounds to use force, like lethal force, if someone's entering. Not lethal force. In West Virginia? No. Never? Really? Nowhere.

No. Not for what we would call simple trespass. In other words, trespass that's not clearly for other criminal purposes. Trespass for purposes of stealing property becomes burglary, so that would be different. But if someone just walks on your land, it's a simple trespass. You can use force to remove a trespasser, but only non-deadly force. The risk you run into, of course, is non-deadly force can quickly escalate into a deadly force situation. Say you grab him by the arm and try to walk him off your property, they come up with a knife,

and now you pull your gun, you shoot him. The question is going to be, well, why'd you really shoot him? Where's the knife? We don't have the knife in evidence. We think you shot him just because he was trespassing on your land, and that would be justified. So what I want to get to is tasers exist. Less lethals exist. Is there a circumstance where less lethals can be more legally treacherous than actual lethal force? It would be hard to imagine how that would be. Now, there's degrees of less lethal.

So, for example, you can push someone off your property, or I guess you could tase them if they're on your property. But tasing is a much higher degree of force than simply shoving somebody. It's still non-deadly, but you have to be careful to maintain proportionality within that non-deadly bucket. It's not just because you can use some non-deadly force doesn't mean you can tase somebody. The reason I ask is, like, for the average person, they don't have this training. They don't know the... That's great. I remember looking at

the continuum of force in the Chauvin trial. A regular person's not going to know. If somebody is coming on their property and let me ask you this. If a guy enters your property and he's got his hand in his jacket as he's walking up and he's looking at you and then he goes to pull his hand out really quick and then you shoot him what do you think would happen to you it would depend upon the local jurisdiction so that's going to be a judgment call by the

prosecutor how do you prove he was actually going to do that it turns out he had nothing in his hands in theory you don't have to prove anything. The state has to prove everything. And they have to disprove your claim beyond a reasonable doubt. But the challenge is if someone – So here's where people get in trouble. Normal law-abiding people I'm talking – most claims of self-defense are nonsense. They're bad guys. They're lawyers just raising a claim of self-defense.

I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about good guy cases of self-defense where people tend to get into trouble. It's not on the extreme ends of the use of force continuum. When there's no threat, we don't do anything. We just go about our day. If someone's jumping at us with that giant sword you have hanging on the wall over there, well, that's not a complicated

legal analysis. Well, that's the master sword from Legend of Zelda. If someone's jumping at you with that, you're done. If someone had a real master sword, you can fire energy blasts with it. So I'd be like, run. You don't have to worry about court after that. Whatever it can do, it's not a complicated legal analysis.

That's clearly a deadly force threat. It's eminent, et cetera. You just pull your pistol. You take care of that problem. That's not where people get in trouble. They get in trouble in between those two extremes, what I call the zone of ambiguity, where it's not clear what's happening. Is it a deadly threat? Are we sure? Is something else happening? Do I have other options? And unless people have thought that through ahead of time and developed, learned techniques to kind of strip away the ambiguity,

so like in that scenario, it's very common. A common scenario I get from women is, hey, I'm walking in a parking garage late at night. There's some guy like walking behind me. He hasn't done anything yet, but there's something about him. It's really scaring me. I know I can't just turn around and shoot him because he hasn't done anything yet. I don't know what to do. Well, what you can do is turn around and challenge that guy.

Stay the F away from me because if he's a normal guy just walking in his car too, what's he going to do? Oh, shit. Sorry. Didn't mean to scare you. If he keeps coming, well, you stripped away ambiguity, right? You've clarified the situation. And now his conduct

in the face of your verbal commands to stay back is conduct consistent with someone who means you harm. This is like guys who have no, you know, no hand-to-hand combat training or have never done

any mixed martial arts or anything. And they say, oh, I'm just going to take that guy in that street fight. I just, I just see white man and I'm just going to go. I'm going to go all in, right? And it's like, you haven't taken any time to actually train yourself to understand what it's like to be in physical combat with somebody

to having, you know, or, you know, a guy who has a gun that doesn't go to the range or doesn't, you know, even dry fire practice aiming or any of this stuff. I'm just going to shoot to kill, you know, or, you know, a guy who has a gun that doesn't go to the range or doesn't, you know, even dry fire practice, uh, aiming or any of this stuff. I'm just going to shoot, kill man. No, you're not. They have these things. I love those people though, because I have a very costly German motorcycle habit and those people pay for it. My friend and I had this idea a decade ago.

They have these, you know, you ever see those ab crunch belts where you put the gel, the conductive gel on it? Yeah. You put conductive gel on it, you wrap it around your waist, turn it on. Oh, it like shocks you? Yeah.

But it doesn't shock you. It's, I forgot, I think it's like, what is it, like high voltage, low amps or something, like low voltage.

So there's no pain. Your muscles just contract. Okay. But so we used to play with it and like we'd put on our faces and our faces would just like lock up and we would put on our arms and your arm would just bend isn't this wasn't this a johnny knoxville thing i don't know i don't know no they did with a taser i'm pretty sure so my friends and i my friend and i had an idea to make gloves you used to my friend and i had an idea that you could make gloves that you would turn on and if you

grab someone's arm you'd essentially disable their ability to move their arm, which was – and we actually talked with a very big company who initially got really excited for the idea of a crazy science project. And then when the – like these are the sales and sponsorship guys, big, big company that makes gloves. And then when their head of legal found out, they were talking about making muscle disabling and we were like there's no pain no pain at all you if you grab them their arms will just be unable to move and they won't feel any pain i mean they'll be scared and they were like we will not sponsor this project but i thought that was an interesting idea i wonder why it doesn't exist you know probably just because it's unreliable. I mean, self-defense tools are... You're wearing gloves. You're wearing gloves.

You know, what are gloves for? You need a power source. Yeah. No, no, no, not even. Tasers do what, like 9-volt batteries? Yeah, you got a little lithium-ion thing in the back. If it's a self-defense tool, it's like a parachute. It has to work if you're going to rely on it.

And it's just an unproven... I mean, tasers suck. I'm sorry. They suck. I would not recommend them for civilian use. When they work right, they work amazingly well. But there are so many circumstances that keep them from working right. And if the suspect knows he's going to get tased, just him

holding his shirt out away from his body is a shield against the taser. They're not hard to defeat. When police use them properly, you'll have one cop with a taser and a cop right next to him with a gun in case the taser is ineffective. When you're a civilian, you don't have that option. You don't have a second person with you with a gun. I think the glove thing is a good idea because if they don't turn on, they're just gloves.

But then they're not working to defend you. Well, having no gloves, you have nothing to defend you. No. You're not going to hurt your hands, right? I carry pepper spray, for example. I carry a gun every day. I also carry pepper spray. That's what I'm saying.

You can carry those too. But I just think the idea of being able to, like, someone is going to attack you and you can grab them and they can't move. You can make it the whole sleeve so you give them a bear hug. Or at any point if they touch you they get you know their hand gets stuck yeah what if you made like uh what if you made like a like a one you could throw kind of almost like but it's like sticky so that you

throw it and then i mean that's a good idea because why would i want to be so close that i have to touch somebody that they could presumably do something to me? The thing doesn't work. I'm just throwing them. I don't like contact weapons for self-defense. I like to maintain distance from the person all day long. Here's an idea. What if we created some kind of like dense, expanding, sticky foam of some sort, and we could take the cartridges and just put them on your wrists and you can trigger it

with a little uh trigger so when you push your fingers it will blast them with some kind of sticky substance you know who would love that police departments and marvel did you imagine if cops actually had web shooters yeah and they like when they fire a net of web it would be funny because the whole the whole left is like a Holyoke subsidiary of Disney now. So they wouldn't know how to be against it if the cops were like, yeah, we're going to have these

web packs and they'll go right on the inside of your forearm there and you just shoot them out at the crook and you get them off and you'd have a lot fewer riots. It'll be wrapped up in web riots right here's what you do replace all police uniforms with hogwarts uh uniforms so all the police are running around and instead of baton they're all equipped with wands and it's like a wand but they'll have their

guns and everything underneath their robes the goal is when the riots happen they show up dressed like harry potter characters and accuse the writers of being Death Eaters. I love it. Right. Then the riots stop because they're like, get the Death Eaters. And then afterwards, you know, you have like a – it's like you don't call it the – you know, you don't call it the community. This should be the third hour, by the way. You don't usually have like the PR officer comes out, the press relations officer comes out.

But that will just be a professor, right? And the professor comes out and talks about it. It will be a professor. The professor comes out. It'll be a guy in Dumbledore cosplay. With British accent and everything. The rioters! We're working for Voldemort! Oh! Yay!

I'm stealing Seamus' joke from Freedom Tunes. He did a bit where it was like, he says, Rosenbaum is kind of like Voldemort, and leftist is like, he has a picture of Cal was like he says rosenbaum is kind of like voldermort and leftist is like and there's a picture he has a picture of calvin now says harry potter and the guy's like i can't believe that worked all right let's go we're gonna go to super chats if you haven't already smash the like button subscribe to the channel we're gonna have a members only segment coming up at around 11 or so p.m so um we're gonna read some of those super chats starting now all right let's see all right darth crypto says i'm here live for

this hey darth crypto shout out to darth crypto by the way he sent me some some fantastic videos while i was uh covering the rittenhouse trial it really affected my legal analysis of the case guy did absolutely fantastic work on the fly could easily. He even did a great video that was sort of a preview of what Binger's closing was going to be. Very, very good. He got it right. And it was all about provocation. And he nailed it. He just totally nailed it.

He says, my boys representing Let's Talk Rittenhouse, baby. I'm still going for Binger and Co. And I'm just getting warmed up. Nice. Yeah, we did have some, I don't know if it's public information. Binger and Lunchbox. Going to throw that out, Lunchbox, by the way. There's some information about Dominic Black's case.

I don't know if we're allowed to publicly release it. I don't know if it was mentioned. Was it? I don't think so. I think it was behind the scenes. But suffice it to say, Binger, I don't believe, is done with Rittenhouse or, he's going for Dominic Black on the gun charges, but I think he's desperately trying to get back at Rittenhouse. Because I think the gun

charge was dismissed, right? The other charges were dismissed with prejudice. On Kyle, not on Dominic. That case is still up. Count six is dismissed. On the other charges he was acquitted on, so I guess the argument... The gun charge is not coming back against Kyle.

That's not going to happen you don't think it's possible it's not realistic basically the judge ruled as a matter of law it doesn't apply so you don't get to just go shopping for a different judge what happens in Dominic Black's case they actually get another judge

to say oh yeah that's a misreading of the law it's two different statutes they're not charged under the same statute. But here's my question about that statute. They're two different things. So the statute they charged Kyle with simply is inapplicable to his circumstances. I've done a lot of analysis on this. It's too lengthy to get into.

But that statute is a completely different statute than Dominic Black is charged under. So the fact that Kyle's was dismissed has nothing to do with Black's and Black's has nothing to do with Kyle's. That being said, the killings do apply. You know, it might. I mean, if I were Black's defense lawyer,

I would start arguing that, look, the statute... A gun that was used in a death. Right. So giving a gun to a minor and a death results. Yes. And it's intended, of course,

to prevent giving guns to young gang members who then go kill people or get killed themselves. And obviously nobody wants that. But in those cases, what the statute's intended to prevent is unlawful deaths. And that didn't happen here. This gun was used in a justified manner. These deaths were lawful, determined in a court of law. So I would argue that this statute does not apply

to the specific circumstances of Dominic Black because the gun he provided was not used to commit an unlawful kill. Well, Dominic Black already testified he didn't provide a gun. Maybe he should have told the truth. We'll see. Stood up for his friend and not tried to weasel his way out of charges. And all the testimony around the whole gun thing was very, was very shaky because Binger was trying to make different points at

different times. And therefore it was like Binger was testifying. Well, he did a lot of that. Yeah. It felt like Binger was testifying and then just kind of pushing someone into a corner and be like, that's what happened.

Right. That was a very funny part of it. He was talking about the, is that fair? Is that fair? Yeah. The ammo. Yeah. He was asking Kyle about the ammo.

So, you know, are you aware that Full Metal Jacket is different than Hollow Point? Kyle's like, I don't really know that much about ammo. Well, let me explain it to you. And then he was wrong. And the judge comes down and says, what the hell are you doing? He said, Hollow Point explodes. And then explode. And Kyle's face, he goes like i don't think that's

correct he goes what if i use like what would you use it for deer hunting and kyle's like i don't think anyone would use hollow point for deer no but that's not true no it's not true i mean i don't have i have i have a polymer tip 450 right bushmaster so it's effectively hollow points right right it's for deer hunting yeah you know well it's effectively hollow points. It's for deer hunting. Well, if it's polymer, sure. But it's effectively a hollow point. It's a polymer tip so that it functions the same way. You use a hollow point for deer hunting because you want

the bullet to expand and dump as much energy into the prey animal as possible. You wouldn't use full metal. Full metal jacket literally punches a pencil size hole right through. And maybe it's an injury that will prove mortal some days later. I mean, who knows? But that's not what you want when you're hunting.

You want the animal to be stopped humanely right there. I think the defense mentioned this. They said in some cases the prosecution will say, you used hollow points. You were trying to kill. And now he's saying, you used full metal jacket. See, that proves it. It's never the right bullet for the prosecution. Right. Ever. Which ever whichever one he says it was the other one that was the right right all right let's read some more we got cristiano it says for luke and it's a puking emoji no

archangel says no luke we puke ladies and gentlemen give him a break luke has a family and it's thanksgiving tomorrow so he needs to drive it's tomorrow right thanksgiving tomorrow yeah okay good all day uh we're we're doing our family thanksgiving over the weekend but we're Thanksgiving tomorrow, so he needs to drive. It's tomorrow, right? Thanksgiving's tomorrow? Yeah. Yeah. Okay, good. All day. We're doing our family Thanksgiving over the weekend, but we're going to have a company Thanksgiving for those that aren't. So we're not going to be here tomorrow or Friday. And then, I'm the holidays man. Forced days off. You can't really-

Dare you. I've tried to work through them. It doesn't work. I work through them. You got to accept. Yeah, but for the work we do, people are eating dinner. They're not watching the show. No one's reporting anything. I work for them. You got to accept. Yeah, but for like the work we do, people are eating dinner. They're not watching the show. No one's reporting anything.

Everyone, even criminals are spending time with grandma. So crimes aren't being committed and we just, we take, this was the wire. It was,

you know, the Sunday morning truce. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You know about the Christmas truce? What's the Christmas truce? Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. World War II. World War I. World War I. Yeah. Amazing. It was in the trenches. Soccer game. They all? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. World War II. World War I. Yeah. Amazing. It was in the trenches. Soccer game. They all came out and said, it's Christmas, we're not gonna fight.

And then they were like, alright, Christmas is over, I'll be over there shooting at you. They still didn't want to fight, but then the French commanders were like, you have to fight, or we'll kill you. I mean, it's a war, so... And so the troops were like, well, rather than get shot by our commanding officers, we'll charge the Germans. And then the mustard gas came back on. Nice. That was nasty.

Martin Edgar says, I see your 35-year-old skating and raise you 54-year-old, seven-year army with daily runs, four times per year, 12-mile road marches, 23 years as a city carrier, walking route. And my response is, have you gotten your ageless moment? That's right. Yeah, I was going to say. He's teeing you up right there. Right, right, right.

You really need some collagen there. StrongerBonesInLife.com. That's right yeah he's teeing you up right there right right right collagen there stronger bones in life.com that's right medic knight uh tim asked jack if he believes biden will get the u.s into a war with iran remember biden is a war hawk ask him if he thinks ron paul was right on everything dems are the party of war uh i'm still trying to find the issue where Ron Paul was wrong. And so, yeah, I'd say pretty much everything, pretty much everything Ron Paul was right. There's there's some things I could I could think of where I'm more conservative than a libertarian on. But as far as war with Iran, I certainly think he has people around him that want to go to war. He's sending right now.

Iran doesn't seem to be the main target. It seems to be that, cause you remember the Obama people that were around him were the ones that were trying to pay off Iran, right? They didn't, they didn't want to go to war. These were trying, these weren't the war hawks.

Yeah, sorry. Right, right, right, right. They were, you know,

continually paying off the, this was the pallets of cash people. That being said, Russia, I would say is probably more the one that they want to provoke a war with. They're sending special forces. I'm sorry, advisors to Ukraine right now. And then China, they're, of course, just going to capitulate to.

Right. Or perhaps already have. All right. Seth Boo says, here's one for Poso. The last member segment you did, you talked about Sabaton. Top three albums, please. Go. Oh, yeah.

So with Sabaton, I love the latest Great War, World War I. It burned a hole in that. I mean, I don't listen to CDs anymore, but I still like that phrase, burned a hole in it. I love the one on Last Stand. And I also have this mix that I basically got that it was sort of like an online playlist that people made of the greatest hits that I really like. Oh, and the last live album too. But real quick on Sabaton. I am trying very hard and I'd like to enlist everyone out there. If you don't know who Sabaton is,

they're like a Swedish hard rock band that does historical references in all of their music to actual warfare and specific real life battles. Of course, they sing a lot about Poland. In Poland, they're extremely extremely well uh well respected and um i want to troll them into making an album about the american revolutionary war i mean think about a metal song to paul revere like it writes itself it does come on sabaton you can do this question for andrew what's worse for self-defense, a gun or using a knife?

I'm not sure what worst means, but when we talk about the degree of force, I mean, use of force law doesn't really care about the means of force. So there's non-deadly force and there's deadly force. Once you're in the deadly force bucket, it's all the same. So a gun is not more deadly force than a knife or more deadly force than a baseball bat to the head. If it's likely to kill or cause serious bodily injury, it's deadly force. It's all the same. It's a homogenous bucket.

If you're within 10, 20 feet, I might take the knife. Knives are horrible. I would much rather get shot than get cut up by a knife. I've watched the police training videos. I watched the Mythbusters episode. I've been in those trainings. Oh, yeah. And I've done the police training videos I've watched the Mythbusters episode I've been in those trainings and I've done the heat training too and they always say like

somebody's coming at you with a knife run, run, run just don't be there the only advantage of a gun really is the gun you can use at a distance before the enemy's on you but if he's got a knife and he can grab you it's going to be a real bad day. Let's be honest.

A gun can use at a distance? How likely is the average person to hit their target if they're beyond 21 feet? Well, not very likely, no. And especially with a handgun? Yeah. And the dude from Mythbusters, they're both out of weight.

I mean, they're both out of shape and overweight. Overweight, yeah. And one of the guys was able to close 21 feet in like a second and a half. That's the normal standard. And so, I think Jamie, he couldn't even get the

gun out of the holster. It was a laser. He would get it out and point it and click and see if he could get him. He couldn't. Each time, the knife, it was a foam knife that tapped his chest. You're not going to get the gun out and get center mass hits unless you train and practice and practice and practice

and practice to do that. I mean, I shot competitively most of my adult life. I can clear the gun from my holster, center mass targets, in under a second. Wow. But I worked damn hard,

20 years, to develop that skill level. This was important for the defense of the Rittenhouse case. Plus, you have to have your right holster, you have to have your gun. You. You have to have your gun. You can point out that Gage Grosskreutz was closing the gap because he would not have made the hit running and from at least seven feet.

He wouldn't have been able to do it. And where was that defense expert? By the way, I just want to point out for people who may not know, Kyle Rittenhouse had fired that AR rifle once before in his life. Dude, he did great. When he was out on that street. Holy cow. And he made, everybody he shot was someone attacking him, except for Jump Kick Man, which was a very difficult situation, getting knocked on your butt and trying to hit somebody who's jumping on top of you.

Those two misses, I'll forgive them. Everything else was a solid hit. And I think it's really a testament to the utility of that AR platform for self-defense. This is the purpose of the design. It's so easy to use effectively, even in novice hands. It's an amazing platform. I mean, think of it.

They're designed for 17, 18-year-old E1 privates that are put into a combat situation. But this was not – we've got to be careful here. He has a.223. It was an M&P 15. It's not a weapon of war. No. It's a.223.

It's a sporting rifle. Yeah, they don't give.223 to – do they? Oh, it's the same caliber. It's a military? Yeah, M4. It's functionally the same. It'd be an M4. It'd beally the same. It'd be an M4. But they get select fire 556 as a different weapon.

Well,.223 is the caliber of the round. It's equivalent to the metric 5.56. So the round being fired is effectively the same from both guns. But his is select fire. It's not a fully automatic weapon. The military is a select fire. It's extremely similar. similar well my point is there's a big difference between being able to do a lot of work is sure but it's not so other than

that but you don't train to fire on if i mean if you're firing full auto you're you're having a bad day already and my point is we have to be very careful when we talk about weapons used for war because this was not it no no no it was certainly not designed but but i that i'm talking about the original design of the ar-15 because we it was originally designed for the military for department of defense use except that the original design always had selective fire and that's the one reason that you see the forward assist that's on it because the because originally the designer didn't want that but the military said no we have soldiers and this these were people at the time that had served in world war ii and they said look we've been in so many situations where the round

doesn't chamber something goes wrong we want that forward assist and i believe that when on that video where you do see kyle at one point and this is is what came in with Gage Grosskreutz, where Gage claims falsely that Kyle is recharging the handle. That's a very deliberate and definite motion that you would see on camera. And he didn't. But you can tell that he does kind of move his hand down. He tilts the gun towards him a little bit. And I believe what he's doing is he's slamming that forward assist interesting so uh the real hydro says a man got life in prison for recording something if it wasn't for his recording the da wouldn't have anything this country is doomed

uh based on the story that i read that neighbor who was just following and filming he's getting charged with fel he got convicted of felony murder for that. Well, they're claiming, in effect, that he attacked Arbery with his truck. He committed assault with the truck, which is a deadly force attack. Aggravated assault. It's a felony. And then Arbery died as a... Now, I would suggest there's a real causation problem there because there's no evidence he hit Arbery with the truck. And there's no evidence the truck literally caused Arbery's death.

He didn't run him over with the truck. Arbery didn't jump off a cliff to avoid the truck and there's no evidence the truck literally caused Arbery's death, right? He didn't run him over with the truck. Arbery didn't jump off a cliff to avoid the truck. But nevertheless, that's the basis. So once you have the felony of aggravated assault and the later death, well, then the death is felony murder. Was he – did they all have the same defense or did he separate – No, every defendant had two lawyers of their own. Okay.

Because whose decision was it to try it all together? Did they try to separate that at all? You know, I don't know. Like the last day of the trial, O'Brien tried to sever, is a legal term, sever himself from the other defendants. I would imagine the judge didn't allow it. So they chose to do a joint trial?

I don't know if they had an option. And that's a criminal procedure thing that would be so local you'd have to ask an attorney. The prosecutor naturally wants to try everybody together. Because I imagine the prosecutor would want that to be all together. Yeah, because then it blurs. Everyone seems responsible. All the evidence appears to be against every defendant. Right, because, of course, their theory is, well, this was a coordinated act.

You guys planned this in advance, or at least you had some yeah anytime a prosecutor can try a bunch of people together they'll do that every time yeah of course because then you know if you if you had three defendants and really a third of the evidence was against each one what it looks like in court is that a hundred percent of the evidence is against is against all three because then that right man and then you get three convictions out of one. Right. Resta says, do you think the media is light reporting on Waukesha because they are gun-shy from Rittenhouse lawsuits coming their way? No, I think they're terrified of Waukesha. I think they're terrified.

I think it's political. Of that narrative. Yeah, I think it's political. I think that this is a situation, again, the same way that Kyle Rittenhouse walked because of independent media. It's the same situation now where independent media is one of the most important things to the survival of this country and the survival of freedom in this country. Because it is the last bastion. Shows like this.

Shows like, you know, we all have podcasts and everything that we do. I'm not trying to do a hard pitch here, that you are not going to get the truth anymore from corporate media or regime media, as you want to call it. It's all lies all the way down. It has been ever since the Zimmerman case. Everything they're writing about these cases is disinformation. I will say that people who think Kyle's

going to get a lot of money suing people, that's a pipe dream. I don't think the courts will be favorable to him. Because anything that was in the criminal indictment, he's not going to happen i don't think the courts will be favorable to him because anything that was in the criminal indictment he's not going to be able to sue over because the courts have said if it's in a criminal indictment then calling him a murderer stuff like that that's people are allowed to make that influence what about biden though but hold on that fat progressive guy just tweeted out like literally the other day that cal rittenhouse crossed state lines robert reich yeah with an illegal Rush Limbaugh used to say, Robert Reich.

A false statement of fact. Jerk. Right, right. And I suppose the challenge is damages. That's the challenge. So there's three problems. One is the criminal indictment stuff, forget it, you can't sue over that. People are allowed to refer to that and infer that there's some truth to it

or it wouldn't have been an indictment. And stuff like racism and white supremacists, the courts don't care about that. They call that opinions. But even if you could get someone on a deliberate statement of fact, well, there's a couple more problems. One is that Kyle was giving interviews, not just recently, but in the past. And the moment you start giving interviews, the courts say, well, you made yourself a public figure.

Maybe you weren't when you got attacked the first time, but now that you're giving media interviews, you're a public figure. People are allowed to talk about you. They have to show malice now if they want to collect money. But even if you can do all of that, what are your damages? Because your damages will be damage to reputation, but all that other stuff, the murder,

the white supremacist, the racist, there's no reputation left. What are the damages for the Alex Jones case? Because he said some conspiracy stuff about Sandy Hook. They claim – they're claiming emotional distress. Oh, okay. Well, it looks like they're going to win.

We don't know for sure. The media is lying about everything. They did rule Alex Jones in default because they claimed the things he turned over in the discovery weren't the total of what they were actually asking for. They said, we want X. He says he gave them X. They say, you're still missing key documents. So they ruled in default. Apparently, he has some time to respond to not be in default.

But they're reporting he lost already and he's been found guilty. None of that is true. But they're looking at millions of dollars. Well, if there's a default judgment, it's a judgment. I mean – What I mean is what damages does that family have because Alex Jones said crazy things about them. I don't know anything about the case. Here's what I think.

But it's completely different than Nick Sandman, for example, who was not a criminal defendant. So there were no charges against him. There was no indictment. He was not giving interviews. So he wasn't a public figure. He got a lot of money because he meets the criteria for getting a lot of money. And Kyle Rittenhouse really doesn't. Well, there's two things.

First, even if Kyle Rittenhouse loses after suing the media, it's actually not possible for Kyle Rittenhouse to lose his efforts against the mainstream press when it comes to defamation. It's not possible because one of two things will happen. Either the news organizations will have to publicly state that their standards don't include reading the criminal indictments in their investigations, don't include cursory investigations, that they just publish hearsay as fact or opinion as fact or scuttlebutt as rumor as fact. You're saying they'll have to argue that in court. They will have to publicly state in documents. It is a standard at CNN that we do not do basic base research in any of our stories because that would be the actual

malice standard but will the people who watch cnn care about that it's it's irrelevant it's still a victory rachel maddow admitted this and she's still getting you know a pay raise having having uh these organizations have to publicly state this is bad for them across the board it will it will it's not going to be a million dollar paycheck, but it is a cultural. To me, to me, I think that it's even bigger than the media. You have Joe Biden, who's our current president ran and used this kid as a political pawn, lied about him, lied about his family, called him a racist, called him. And now they're trying to play this game of, Oh, I was referring to this. Shut up. That's not what you were talking about. You used him to gain the highest office in the land falsely. He should have his campaign, by the way, they should sue the campaign, not him personally, sue the campaign and then go after

them because they don't have whatever kind of immunity that the president would hurt reelected the campaign because yes, you would have to hurt because Biden, well, the white house is telling people he's going to run again, but privately that's not what he's telling people. The other important thing is that when it comes to damages, I think Kyle's going to easily be able to argue that security name changes. He's going to have to move out of the state. He's got to protect his address now. He already is out of the state. Right. He's going to have to do this for the rest of his life. But the other side is going to say, look, he would have had to have done that anyway. We didn't make that happen in any substantial way. That was

already damage he was incurring from other... The New York Times ruled this in... I'm sorry, the courts ruled this in the New York Times case. The Supreme Court ruled this with Veritas, a different state, I understand. But they said to the New York Times, because the New York Times argued, their reputation is too damaged already. We couldn't damage it any further. And the judge basically said, just because other people are kicking them doesn't mean you are clear of your responsibilities for kicking them. Well, listen, I hope Kyle gets hundreds of millions of dollars. That would be absolutely awesome. But I'm just telling, cautioning people, I think a lot of people look at this and they just

assume that he's obviously got a downhill fight in this. And I think it's more complicated than that. I think it's more – I think a lot of people think Sandman got $250 million from CNN, which is just absolutely not true by any reasonable assessment or legal assessment. He got a settlement, which means they may have paid him $25,000. Some people said it was probably a nuisance fee. CNN said, how much do you want to go away and stop bothering us and they said well we don't know right i mean because right i mean it's a settlement it wasn't 250 million dollars well one thing one thing i should say while we're talking about this that if you do believe that kyle deserves this stuff you go to free kyle usa

and that's where you can actually contribute and help the fight so So Kyle, who obviously deserves a victory in all this, it's FreeKyleUSA, I believe it's.org, that you go to. That's where you can contribute to help his fight. We have this from one free man. He says, I own a construction company and have had over hundreds of thousands stolen stop emboldening criminals.

When it comes to Arbery walking in that home under construction, what people need to understand is that there's copper. There's steel. There's wood. I mean, wood's expensive now. Let me tell you guys. We're putting up a new deck.

We went and bought lumber. I was shocked. Oh, it's worse. We talk about it, but I was still shocked. We're setting up – so there's a lot. Oh, yeah. I just saw you doing the hallway over here. They said, hey, we're having trouble with the HVAC stuff because we need to reposition it.

And that means we need a lot of HVAC stuff we can't get because of the supply crunch. So if you have a construction site and you're putting up a new building and someone goes in there and takes anything, that could completely destroy the entire project. So having this dude coming in five times sounds like casing. At best. Or plundering. I mean, he's not going to run off with 1,000 pounds worth of lumber, but he's looking for power tools. I used to work as a mechanic,

and we used to have guys walk in the garage all the time just off the street and just grab a power tool and run out with it and just go pawn it. So that's probably what was happening. But in any case, people should be clear. Under Georgia law, felony burglary doesn't require you actually take anything. It just requires you entered the property with the intent to take something how would they know well you know intent how do you always know intent we can't read people's minds we infer intent from the circumstance so he walks into this building he's looking around at stuff and then he does it

several times if you're in someone else's property in the middle of the night you can reasonably infer you're there for an unlawful purpose. There's no lawful reason to be there. So I actually had a question that came in from my dad and my brother who are watching. And they said, you know, given all this that we're talking about, and it goes to what Tim was asking, you know, what does that mean for a neighborhood watch operating in 2021? You know, I get this question a lot because I have people. What do you do? I have people contact me.

Say, hey, what if there's a riot or something? Can we set up like a joint defense group in our community, right? Where we'll all have our ARs, we'll stand at the end of the street. Like if you have a car dealership, for example. Right. Well, this is the example.

First of all, if you have a formalized group where you've all agreed to do this and someone ends up getting killed by a member of your group, guarantee you the prosecutor is going to call that conspiracy. Everyone.

Everyone is going to be charged. Oh, yeah. As an accessory in that murder. Everyone's going to be charged with murder. Michigan was a militia. And they're going to go to the group individually. They're going to say, hey, we got eight of you, nine of you, ten of you, right? Part of this group.

You're all on Facebook all together, right? We know you're all part of the group. One of you is going to jail for the rest of your lives. What are the other of you willing to say about that one person? And we're not telling you which person it'll be. We'll just see what you say. Maybe it'll be you. The only way for it not to be you is for you to be

helpful in our investigation. This is the classic prisoner's dilemma. That would be the worst idea to ever say to me. So the least liked guy in that group gets screwed. Every other guy in that group is going every other guy every other guy in that group is going to be dominic black on the witness stand testifying i have inger kept trying to tie kyle to the kenosha guard facebook page he tried it for months and months

and they couldn't find any evidence and then there was one point where and i'm paraphrasing but he was in on one of those one of the zoom earlier hearings where he's trying to say, well, he operated with other people who may have been part of it. And it was Schrader who was just like, you can't – we're not doing this. We're not going – so you give Kyle another judge. You take away those videos. He's in a very different situation. I don't respond well to manipulation. I have like an inverted response, I suppose.

People might assume the prosecutor would be like, we're going to pressure you. If they actually came and were reasonable. Well, he's the guy we flip on then. Yeah, that's right. Then you're the guy we're pinning it on. Yeah, easily. That's what happens. Tim was the ringleader.

Because all those other guys, they're going to have their wife and their kids and all this kind of stuff. They're going to say, I can't afford to go to prison. This ain't worth my kid. So if someone's going to go down, it's not going to be me. Might as well be Tim. But this is why you don't join these groups. Well, that's why I always caution people. People like Dominic Black, you know, cowards and pathetic, whiny little losers, will turn

on you in two seconds and then still claim to be friends with you. And then, you know, Kyle will apparently still be friends with him because, you know, I think people are just weak. I mean, in this Arboret case, there was literally zero evidence that there was any coordination between the mcmichaels and between brian but that didn't keep the prosecutor from arguing accessory from arguing that brian was a party to everything so what would you tell people but what would you tell also just tell people that really do care about their neighborhood maybe not necessarily faced with one of these situations, but just in general. The prudent thing to do would be for each person to be at the end of their own driveway,

maybe sharing a cup of coffee with an AR slung if they're afraid an angry, looting, arsoning horde is going to come down their street. But the moment they organize, and even in an informal way, like we're a collective group, we're working cooperatively if something bad happens they're all except they're all parties to the criminal offense well you know what i would say and honestly even answer to my dad's question is you have a cell phone everybody's got one of these things these are so incredibly powerful look at how every single one of these stories we talked about from waukesha to Kenosha to Georgia, we know about it because of the cell phone.

Oh, yeah. Listen, there's a reason I have security cameras all over the outside of my house. And it's not just so I see stuff coming in. So if something happens, I want that camera footage. And it's an interesting anecdote from the George Zimmerman trial. They were investigating him for this killing of Trayvon Martin. And his story sounded like self-defense to everybody, but they try to trap him, right? They want to test his story. They want to test his willingness to stick by that story of self-defense. So they came to him. They called him back into the police station. He went without a lawyer, like he always did. I remember this. Yes.

And they sat him down. They said, listen, George, we have a real problem with your self-defense story because we found some surveillance video. We know exactly what happened. And you know what George said? Thank God. Because he knew what happened. He knew that if they had video, it was going to be in his favor. I want that video if something happens outside my house.

That being said, if the cops ever come, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer. The guy in the Arbery case thought the video was going to exonerate them. Again, I think the story was that the community hated them. And so he was like, here's the video. I can only say that that guy was described by his own attorney in court as not the smartest guy in the room. Oh, no. I don't understand how sending that guy to prison is justice. Which, again, show it to a lawyer first.

He was nearly in tears when they were reading the verdict. And I'm like, this dumb guy driving a car filming something gives out the footage to be like, here's what happened. And now he's going to prison? That sucks. I don't – this is why people say I will not be involved. By the way, another reason not to be part of a group. One member of that group might be Roddy Bryan. Yeah.

Right? Might do something that basically blows everything up. You know, when I was a kid, my dad would always be like, if you ever commit a crime, do it by yourself. But it was not like a literal. It was a point about how, you know, make sure when you're teaming up with people, you don't have idiots with you. So that, like, he didn't literally mean go commit crimes.

Listen, I've got a lot of friends in law enforcement. They'll tell me that the hardest cases they have to solve is where the bad guy did it by himself and didn't say a word to anybody. Because that's how you break those cases is when they have accessories in the crime, someone who will talk, or they told someone and that person will talk. Well, it's a lot of self-defense ends up being that way, too. It's right, you know, it's me and I'm with a guy and it's late at night. You know, it's, I mean a lot of it is, but a lot of it's not. I mean, a lot of it is, you know, in people have a beef and it's in a public environment

and people, these days, everyone's got their camera, as soon as, you know, I guess I mean prior, yeah, prior to this sort of mass surveillance. What does James O'Keefe say? He always acts as though this is a jury of 12 watching what he's doing. Yeah, I like that. It's a good policy 12 watching what he's doing. Yeah. Right. It's good.

So when you're when you're out at a bar and someone picks a fight with you, just know the camera's watching and you need to make sure that you are avoiding active aggression. You are initiating. You back away. You put your hands up. You shake your head and you try and deescalate because the fight, the fight, you a fight you can escape is the fight you've won. What matters is not what you think you're doing.

What matters is how your conduct will be perceived by other people, other people who may not have your best interests at heart. So you almost have to role play yourself when you're out in public. Assume you're always on camera. People are always watching. And how are they going to perceive your conduct? Don't skate the thin line of self-defense. Make sure you are way, way inside the thin line. By the way, if you want to know where that line is, lawofselfdefense.com slash TimCast for a free copy of this $25 book.

All right, well, now I got to do it because, folks, if you are worried about sleeping soundly in your bed at night. There we go. I'm worried if someone's keeping watch for you. Now, you might not be the one who's drawn watch that night. So if you're sleeping, make sure that you're sleeping on a MyPillow from MyPillow.com with promo code POSA up to 65% off. Beat Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg with the supply chain shipping problems. Beat the fact. And by the way, thank God to the 35 the 35 what is it 37 percent of truckers who are standing up to the vaccine mandate god bless them give them a hand and give them some business

at mypillow.com yeah get your get your show your christmas shipping in and we're going to go over to the member segment so don't forget to smash the like button subscribe to this channel go to timcast.com become a member so we can have that substantially less family-friendly members-only show. It's like, you know, wow. You're 18 and older, man. I don't know. You don't want your kids to hear that stuff. We swear all the time.

We talk about really serious issues. But if you want to hear that stuff, TimCast.com. Become a member. You can follow the show, TimCast IRL, basically on all platforms. We got banned from TikTok, but hey. And you can follow me personally at TimCast. Do you guys want to mention your socials? Sure. Lawofselfdefense.com. We also just started a Locals. I'm new to that, but that would be lawofselfdefense.locals.com. Brand new. There's

like, I don't know, 30 supporters right now, but hopefully it'll be thousands in the near future. I don't know, Tim, if you've got any much of an audience in the UK, but I'm actually going to be over in speaking in London on December 8th with Nigel Farage and a group of European delegates that are coming. We're talking about free speech. That's at the counter conference. And then I'm also going to be speaking in Phoenix with Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, Kayleigh McEnany, Candace Owens, Rand Paul, Ted Kirk, a ton of senators, congressmen, a few people haven't announced yet. That's the Turning Point USA America Fest, Phoenix, Arizona.

Tim, love to have you there if possible. We might try and figure something out, but it seems tough. Yeah, third week of December out there in Phoenix. If you've got to be somewhere in winter, you might as well be in Phoenix. True that. Nice night. Good information. Thanks for coming, guys. This was fascinating. Fantastic.

And thanks for... I have more questions about deep fakes and the future of video as evidence. Let's talk about that. Indeed. Seriously. Great questions. We'll deep bat in that. Oh, I want to talk all about that. A lot to say. Oh, Lydia. Oh, yeah. What's up? Thank you very much

for coming and educating us about the law. That's kind of one of my weak points, so I really appreciate all the conversation about some of these details. Thank you guys, both Jack and Andrew. Happy to be here. You guys can follow me on Twitter at Sarah Patch Litz. We will see you all at TimCast.com in the member segment. Thanks for hanging out.

Bye, guys.