good morning this is Daniel with cop
watch TV just wanted to thank everyone
for joining us here on a Friday while we
go over some of the police incidents and
videos and and really we're going to
break down some of the most important
issues in policing and this week was a
busy week there was just so many
incidents that happened when it comes to
officer-involved shootings new laws
being enacted a lot of interesting
stories to go over so while we're going
through these stories you know make sure
that you comment and if you have any
questions put them in the chat and gonna
get to as many any questions as we can I
just want to remind everyone that we do
this every Friday so please subscribe to
and hit the notification Bell on cop
watch TV and if you want to follow me
I'm at police law news over at YouTube
and Tick Tock so where's everybody from
today if you could put that in the if
you could put that in the in the chat
we'd like to see where people are to see
if we have any local people who might
have some inside knowledge on stories
also we do have a super chat going so
you know we will definitely get to your
question or comment if you put that in
there so um definitely think about doing
that if you if you want your comment
read and we do have some red and blue
lights that are going to flash behind us
once we get a super chat so again
welcome everybody in and the first case
that we're going to start to go over is
uh it was at Love Field at Dallas
airport so I mean it isn't too often
that there is a shooting at an airport
but it happened this week and the
woman's name she's a 37 year old the
woman's name she's a 37 year old woman
named I'm gonna mess up her last name
but Porsha adufawa so Porsche is a 37
year old woman and what she did is she
took a vehicle to the airport she was
dropped off this is a Dallas Love Field
so she was dropped off and once she got
to the airport she went into the
bathroom and she changed clothes when
she came back out she went to the ticket
counter the Southwest ticket counter and
she told the clerk there that she had an
announcement to make that she had
something to say and she was acting kind
of strange it was at that point that she
pulled out a firearm and she started
shooting in the air
and thankfully there were armed police
officers that were just about right
there and because of the non-evalde
response from police officers who were
there they were able to stop this
situation pretty quick so almost
immediately police officers engaged
Porsche and they started giving her
commands to drop the gun and then one of
the officers did fire their weapon she
was struck a couple different times and
the good thing is that yes she did
return fire and she did shoot at police
officers no civilians no innocent people
and no police officers were injured she
was taken into custody and she did
survive her injuries now let's talk
about Porsha a little bit so this is a
this is a situation where someone who
has she has not only has a criminal
history but she also has a mental health
history from what we're learning she
didn't
doesn't have any kind of diagnosis
that's at least been public but in the
past she has made comments that she was
married to singer Chris Brown and also
she had been prosecuted and accused of
arson during that police investigation
she told police officers that one of the
reasons that she set the house on fire
is because she was a messenger of God so
we have she also in 2019 she was also
charged and prosecuted for armed robbery
she went into a bank and she at gunpoint
she robbed a bank now with that
particular prosecution she was found to
be not competent so what they made her
do is they made her do some inpatient
and some outpatient treatments and then
they let her back out into society this
was in 2019. now maybe it's a
controversial thing to say but if you
commit a violent crime and if they deem
you competent enough to come back into
society with the rest of us then you're
probably calm competent enough to stand
trial but that isn't what happened here
so let's break this down just a little
bit further this is a situation where at
least it seems like the system worked so
she was accused of committing a couple
crimes more than this but for sure the
arson and the bank robbery police
investigated they charged her and she
was prosecuted and it was at the
prosecution level that it broke down
because she was found to be incompetent
and then not held in custody she was
essentially just released after a little
bit of treatment so because of this she
tried to buy so not because this but she
tried to buy a firearm and this is from
the Dallas police chief he did an
interview about this she tried to buy a
firearm a couple different times and she
was denied so because of her criminal
history and she also had a warrant out
of New Mexico that she was actually not
able to purchase a firearm so this is
another instance another example of this
system working in this case someone
who's mentally ill who had committed
crimes who has an active warrant wasn't
able to pass a background check to
obtain a firearm despite that she
somehow got a firearm anyway so I think
we have to ask the question when it
comes to Firearms laws and gun control I
think we have to ask the question you
know if people people who are willing to
violate our murder laws are those the
kinds of people who are going to follow
the gun control laws and the answer is
probably no so no that doesn't mean we
shouldn't have any laws when it comes to
gun control but we already have a lot of
laws we have felon in possession of a
firearm laws and Most states have
enhancements for sentences where
individuals commit these crimes with a
gun so it's just something that I want
people to think about but in the chat if
you can put if there's a law or a policy
or if there's something that the
government could have done that would
have prevented Porsche from obtaining a
gun and going into the airport and
shooting put it in the comments because
I I think it's important to have this
dialogue and maybe there's some idea out
there that a lot of us just aren't aware
of so if you have any ideas do that
someone commented Jennifer commented why
were her gun rights not removed in 2019
with a mental health diagnosis so good
question so it's it's not that her
rights can be removed but it's that she
has to go through a background check to
purchase a gun and she didn't pass that
background check multiple times she
tried to purchase a gun and she wasn't
able to purchase a gun but she was able
to get one anyways so again my my
thinking on this and please correct me
if I'm wrong or if you have a different
opinion the people who are going to
violate our murder laws aren't going to
follow our gun control laws it isn't
like oh well I'm not able to buy a gun
at this store so I'm just not going to
go and shoot up the airport like I don't
think that's a thing so please please
put in the chat
um I spy says you have a second
Amendment right and shall not be
infringed yes that is what the Second
Amendment says I am a second amendment
Advocate but however this Supreme Court
does allow there to be some reasonable
restrictions on Second Amendment whether
if you have been convicted of a felony
if you've been found mentally uh
defective things like that and Porsha
actually fell into that group
um Joe I think that is an interesting
case to start with it's a good thing
that nobody was hurt or killed and that
Porsha was injured by the police
officers but she is going to survive and
stand trial and hopefully either she
will be prosecuted or she will be
institutionalized so she can no longer
be a danger to the rest of us here in
society uh let's see so that is the
first case if we have any comments on
that case that I haven't already read
I'd be more than happy to go through
them or answer answer any questions uh
let's see
minority reporter Supreme Court doesn't
Trump the Bill of Rights or the
Constitution that's an interesting point
and on a philosophical level yeah I like
that I think that's correct but in
reality the Supreme Court's job is to
interpret the Constitution so either
depending on how you feel about it
either fortunately or unfortunately the
Supreme Court does override things that
are in the Constitution or interpret
them in a way laws in a way that they
feel are within the Constitution which
does restrict some rights oh let's see
uh I spy removed the Supreme Court
judges for infringing on the rights well
uh Supreme Court just as our lifetime
appointment so that would be that would
be difficult to do uh one more from Ray
Baker misdemeanor crimes of domestic
violence and two DUIs in Illinois will
strip you over your gun rights what do
you think about that so that must be a
law in Illinois okay so let's let's talk
about the the domestic violence so what
you know one of the gun bills that just
recently passed then I went over a
couple weeks ago is it essentially says
that if you are convicted of domestic
violence that one of the things that
they that the law says is that if you're
convicted of domestic violence that's
one of the ways that the government can
take your guns away or to make it so you
can't have a gun so the thinking is is
that domestic violence and violence
between partners is a real problem in
society so if someone is convicted of
domestic violence that we are not going
to allow them to purchase guns anymore
just like people who are convicted of
felonies even if it's a misdemeanor
domestic violence so I I think that
might have some unintended consequences
so just one of those unintended
consequences really quick is that if you
have people who are actual victims of
domestic violence and you have an abuser
it's reasonable that they might want to
be safe from that person and to not want
that person to have a gun but again does
a piece of paper or does just because
someone can't buy a gun at a store
obviously just with this case we're
talking about today that doesn't mean
the person can't get a Gun there's no
magic force field around the person that
prohibits them from having a gun but but
that would be the purpose behind that
law but I think it has an unintended
consequence so as you can imagine a lot
of times domestic violence as he said
she said he said he said and a lot of
times there is in video there isn't
evidence you can imagine police officers
go into a situation and meet two people
who they think are both perfectly nice
or both perfectly not nice they've never
met police officers aren't psychics they
don't have a crystal ball and if there
isn't any evidence and if it's one
person's word against another person's
word and both individuals want someone
charged with domestic violence and then
if that goes to a prosecution later you
can imagine a situation where it's like
it's something like that would would
lead to someone losing their rights to
own a firearm that may not be a great
thing also if someone is an actual
victim of domestic violence where there
isn't any question there's clearly
probable cause this is one of those
things where it's like a lot of times in
domestic violence cases in order to save
the victim the the the
having to go through a trial and having
to be re-traumatized again they work out
plea deals prosecutors work out plea
deals where the offender has to go
through you know counseling or substance
abuse counseling or mental health
counseling something to that effect
maybe there's some jail time attached
too and this this makes it so the victim
doesn't have to be re-traumatized and
sent through a trial but you can imagine
a situation where if also attached to
that conviction is that the offender is
going to lose their rights to ever own a
firearm you can see that an offender
might not want to agree to that so maybe
this would cause more trials and more
make it so that it would be more
difficult for victims to get any kind of
justice so
um I I think that I think that so when
you ask what my opinion is on that I
think that there are a lot of unintended
consequences with that and especially if
it is a conviction for a misdemeanor I
know that that past my guess is that one
if that once that bill is passed and
it's in law and if someone's is affected
by it and if that ever gets to the
Supreme Court it'll be interesting to
see if that is something that they will
agree with there all right so
um that uh Ray bakes it doesn't apply to
police officers in Illinois though
um I I guess that's sarcastic and that's
fine because
um it would it would apply to police
officers when it comes to these things
police officers would be in the same
category as anybody else if a police
officer commits a felony
they would have their rights to firearm
be taken away just like anybody else so
the next case that I want to talk about
this happened in Houston on I know we
had someone from Houston in here on
seven uh on July 8th of of this year the
individual's name is Roderick Brooks so
the this is an officer involved shooting
and if you remember the Patrick Loyola
case in Grand Rapids Michigan with
officer Christopher sure that happened a
couple months ago this case is pretty
much the Texas version of uh of the
Patrick Loyola case and here's why so
there was a call for service over at a
Dollar General two people called in uh a
clerk called in and said that an
individual had stolen detergent and some
other things and then pushed her on the
way out and a citizen just a regular
civilian who was there with his son he
also saw it happen and he called to
police too and he said that he said a
couple things on the 911 call that were
really interesting he described what
happened and he said that he's going to
keep following the person he said that
you know this guy guy pushed the clerk
and battered her in front of me and my
son that isn't right he needs to be
taught a lesson so essentially this
person stayed on the line with police
officers with dispatch kept the kept Mr
Brooks in his View and guided police
officers in so a police officer
responded to the scene you know a couple
blocks away they were able to contact Mr
Brooks commands were given to Mr Brooks
he didn't follow the command such as you
know get on the ground show me your
hands Mr Brooks didn't follow
um didn't follow those commands the
police officer then took out a taser and
tried to tase Mr Brooks as we've seen in
a lot of cases recently the taser was
not effective after the taser wasn't
effective the police officer went to an
empty hand tactic essentially he did a
takedown he kind of grabbed Mr Brooks
and they both went down to the ground
now it's at this point that it I know
it's easy to Monday Monday Morning
Quarterback things but it's important to
say what the police officer did and
could the officer have done anything
different because if we don't ask those
questions then we're basically saying
that we're okay with this outcome which
we're not anytime someone is killed and
an officer-involved shooting that's
that's not the outcome that the police
officers want it's not the outcome that
the citizens want so it's important to
ask these tough questions even if it
makes the police officer not look great
so what happened is once they were on
the once they were on the ground
so once they were on the ground the
officer did something that you know
wasn't wasn't tactically sound the
officer set his taser on the ground so
he had both hands free and he was
wrestling with Mr Brooks once the taser
was on the ground and not in his grasp
Mr Brooks grabbed a hold of the taser
the sergeant I think he was a sergeant
the sergeant then grabbed on top of Mr
Brooks's hand and the two were fighting
over the taser so you can imagine this
it's kind of like the officer involved
shooting with Patrick Loyola where the
individuals on the ground the police
officer is in there on their stomach the
police officer is over them and the two
people are fighting over a taser so in
that situation at some point during this
struggle the the sergeant takes out his
handgun and he shoots Mr Brooks in the
back while they are fighting over the
taser and obviously there's a lot of
controversy about this when it comes to
the case in
Grand Rapids Michigan with Patrick
Loyola the police officer was actually
charged with murder in that case so
it'll be interesting to see if that
happens here so a lot of these cases
we're going to talk about today it's not
just the facts of the individual case
that are interesting or that you know we
want to report on but a lot of these
cases they delve into deeper issues and
they more questions should be asked
because these cases touch on issues
greater than just the individual fact
pattern but to broader issues in law
enforcement and policing and that's what
we're really interested in getting at so
the the question that we should all be
asking before we even start to form an
opinion on whether or not this was a
lawful or a Justified officer-involved
shooting but so the Mr Brooks let's say
he had control of the taser is that a
situation where police officers would
use deadly force so let's dive into that
a little bit so in the police academy or
in taser training it is official
training that all police officers get
and please correct me if I'm wrong but
all of the training that I have had with
Taser this is what it said is that if an
individual has control of your taser or
if an individual has a taser that should
be seen from a police officer's point of
view as the deadly force situation and
here's why it's not because of the the
50 000 volt electric shock that isn't it
in the police academy and in taser
training not all but most police
officers are tased in the police in
police training to get certified for a
taser when I went through that I was
told that it was not optional that you
had to do it it wasn't an option I found
out later on that no it actually was
optional and that a lot of people a lot
of officers carry tasers and they didn't
get tased themselves we weren't so lucky
um we had to go through that which so
again if it's something that they are
going to do to police officers in the
police academy or in taser training the
50 000 volt shock of the ride in the
lightning for five seconds that isn't
what's deadly to a police officer so so
I want to I want to dispel that that
myth right there what's deadly to a
police officer is if someone is here's
how you would have to think about it
here's how police officers do think
about it if someone is willing to take
your taser from you and then use it
against you that police officer would be
incapacitated for five seconds one
trigger pull would be five seconds of
incapacitation now once under in
incapacitated it may not just be five
seconds if the more you pull the trigger
every time you pull the trigger it could
add another five seconds on so so it but
let's call it five seconds though it
could absolutely be far longer than that
if the prongs stay stay in place and
stuff like that but so once the police
officer is incapacitated the individual
who is tasing them would have access to
the police officer's gun their baton any
other weapons maybe they don't have
access to any weapons but they could
take their foot or their Boot and they
could smash in the officer's head that
could grab a rock so so really what
you're asking for the police officers to
do is say this person just took my Taser
there looks like they're going to use it
against me and I'm supposed to trust
them that once I'm incapacitated that
they're not going to Cave my head in
with a rock that's what you're asking
police officers to do so is that a
reasonable thing to ask police officers
so if we think about it this way that if
a police officer has their taser taken
from them and someone used the taser on
police officers it's reasonable that an
officer would want to avoid that because
the end result could very well be death
and if the end result is death for a
police officer you can be assured police
officers are going to use deadly force
in order to avoid that now is that
reasonable or not so I I I'd like
people's opinions that are on the uh
that are in the that are in the chat
that are are listening right now
two two to see so um no I'm not
justifying any individual police
shooting
um I I do do that where I Give opinions
on whether I think things are Justified
or not this case in particular I'm not
giving an opinion on whether or not I
think it was lawful and Justified I
think I need more information to make
that determination but what I just
walked through with you with the whole
taser situation this is the kind of
thing that needs to be thought about and
these are the questions that have to be
asked I think it's far too simple to say
well the person was unarmed and he was
under the police officer it's not
justified send the officer away for like
Derek Chauvin for 22 years I also think
that it's not accurate to say well he's
fighting with police officers so
sometimes that happens so the extremes
on either side I I don't think are the
correct way to look at this there is an
ALT middle position that I think most
reasonable people fall in and I think
those are where the important questions
should be asked so I just wanted to
bring that up but like I said in the in
the gray Grand Rapids Michigan Patrick
Loyola case officer Christopher sure is
charged so it'll be interesting to see
if this police officer is charged as
well I should note one other more
training and tactical issue with this
case is that after he shot Mr Brooks the
officer also set his firearm down to
where he wasn't holding the firearm
anymore and he was on the radio you know
calling for Rescue and stuff like that
so I did just want to point that out
that two different times both with the
taser and with the handgun after they
were they were utilized the officer set
them down weapon retention is is
incredibly important for police officers
because we want to make it so police
officers should want to make it
difficult for individuals that they are
fighting with to actually grab a hold of
any of their weapons uh let's see so uh
one question from I spy thanks for the
question um was there any need for the
officer to physically engage see that
that's a great question that is the
exact kind of questions that I like to
answer okay so let's think about it so
we're talking about lawful objective
what was the lawful objective that the
police officers were trying to achieve
so what they knew at the time is that
the individual he shoplifted which
that's a misdemeanor and then he had a
battery not not felony but you know some
type of unwanted physical touching of
the female employee so two misdemeanor
crimes so two misdemeanor crimes so do
we in communities and police departments
can can really tailor their policies
onto how they want police officers to
act in these situations so so what is
what is the governmental interest of
getting this individual into custody
um once he someone has committed those
crimes so
um you know is it a policy that if
someone runs from you if it's a
misdemeanor crime you call it out and
you try to set up a perimeter did the
police department have a policy if it's
a misdemeanor no you do a foot chase and
you call it out so maybe there isn't a
policy from that particular Police
Department
um and the officer just you know if you
see someone you can make a reasonable
decision in the moment so those are all
questions we have to ask but you know
you want to start at the beginning so
was the should the officer have pursued
him in the first place you know once the
guy didn't listen the officer tried to
use a Taser should the officer try to
use the taser once the taser didn't work
what's the next reasonable thing to do
should the officer have waited for
backup well he didn't the officer went
Hands-On and that's when things went
downhill so it's important to ask these
questions every step of the way and just
think about it how use of force from
police officers is supposed to be
evaluated what would a reasonable police
officer do in the moment not 2020
hindsight but with the knowledge that
the police officer had at the moment
all right uh
uh a minority reporter if you ever get
in trouble say your name's Hunter Biden
that's so funny thank you
um let's see uh let's see if we have any
other questions about this particular
case uh
all right okay so I think we've kind of
done that one enough
so Marco Polo has a comment about George
Floyd so there is some George Floyd news
in the news this past week so the
sentences have come down for now the
three other officers who happen to be
with Derek Chauvin when Derek Chauvin
killed George Floyd so
um the first officer we went over it
last week Thomas Lane he was sentenced
to two and a half years in federal so
these are federal charges so let me just
say this really quick so these police
officers they were charged for federal
civil rights violations for what
happened in George Floyd's death and
they're also charged in state courts for
State crimes so we'll get into why that
can happen here in a second and why
isn't that double jeopardy but so what
we're talking about now is for federal
civil rights violations so Thomas Lane
he got two and a half years in federal
prison for his actions uh officer Quang
it's key k-u-e-n-g I don't know if I'm
saying it right but officer Quang he got
three years in Federal prison for his
actions and officer Tau got three and a
half years in prison for his action so
now let's just recap what they each did
so officer Lane it was the way this
worked was officer Chauvin was by George
Floyd's head and neck area officer Lane
was on the very end so he was
essentially holding George Floyd's feet
the officer Quang was in between so
officer Lane it's very reasonable that
he didn't see what Derek Chauvin was he
was also a rookie officer at the time
but it's very possible that he didn't
see what Derek Chauvin was doing despite
that two different times he did as a
rookie officer he has Derek Chauvin who
was a 19-year veteran officer he did ask
two different times hey should we turn
him over should we roll him over and
Derek Chauvin said no but even though he
was he did try to help George Floyd and
he was in a position where he probably
couldn't see what was happening he was
given two and a half years in federal
prison officer Quang kueng who I think
was probably the second most couple
people he was on uh he was stabilizing
and holding down George Floyd's back so
he didn't touch George Floyd's neck but
he was the closest so if any one of the
officers saw what George Floyd was doing
it would have been this officer now this
officer was a rookie and Derek Chauvin
did have 19 years on but he is probably
the most culpable of the three if if any
of them
um and officer Tau he did have a couple
years on I want to say he hit on between
five to six years on he was doing crowd
control so while this was going on he
never touched George Floyd he was trying
to hold back a crowd that was you know
reasonably infuriated and getting more
infuriated by the moment and it was
reasonable for them to be mad at what
was going on because of what Derek
Chauvin was doing but officer Tao was
dealing with a crowd of 10 to 15 people
so from his perspective is it reasonable
so he behind him he has a 19-year
veteran officer and two other cops he's
trying to hold back a crowd of 10 to 15
people and keep them at Bay is it
reasonable for for him to not really be
paying attention to what's going on
behind him and to deal and to try to
deal with an angry mob I think that's
pretty reasonable so the fact that he
got the second longest sentence of three
and a half years to that strikes me as
as strange and not just I I don't agree
with that sentence also for officer Lane
I don't agree with that sentence the
only one where I could kind of see the
direction that the federal government
was going with was officer Quinn who was
right next to Derek Chauvin so so why so
all of these officers besides Derek
chovin are facing State charges of
aiding and abetting second-degree murder
and that goes to trial in October so the
a good question is well we have double
jeopardy you know you can't be charged
for the same crime twice so how are
these officers charged in federal courts
and then in state court for essentially
the same thing so the way this works is
that it's and if you ever listen to Mark
garagos who who does who does a podcast
with Adam Carolla called Reasonable
Doubt which is great for 15 10 20 years
Mark garagos has been complaining about
this exact thing and essentially what
the what the what the argument against
it is let me tell you what it is first
so essentially it's you cannot be
charged with the same crime or
prosecuted for the same crime in the
same jurisdiction so the way they get
around this here is okay this happened
in Minnesota so we're going to charge
you in Minnesota court but we're also
going to charge you in federal court
because what you did violates federal
laws so that's how one incident could
get someone charged with State charges
and federal charges and it not be double
jeopardy because you're charged and
technically two different jurisdictions
a lot of time when this comes up is with
like white collar crime where someone
someone will commit fraud and
embezzlement and there'll also be some
other type of you know wiretapping or or
fraud or wiretapping or money laundering
on the federal side and you know those
the types of cases that usually this is
in reference to is you know higher level
Financial crimes or other violent crimes
that's that cross state lines where
people can charge both in the federal
system and in the state system so Mark
garagos and other defense attorneys have
argued against this for a long time he
says it's ridiculous you know if someone
commits a crime pick one charge them in
federal charge them on the state level
but that is that is what happens and
oftentimes police officers because they
you know the government is the entity
that has the ability to violate civil
rights a lot of the time
police officers are also are also a
police officer also charged in this
manner and minority reports run the time
concurrently yeah and a lot of times
that's what happens so I think Derek
Chauvin got 22 years in state court and
then I think in federal court he got
somewhere around that as well they're
not going to stack on top of each other
they're going to he's they're going to
serve them at the same time but legal
experts that I've listened to think that
well because we know what the federal
time limit is or the federal sentences
are for these officers that it's
reasonable to expect that they'll do
plea deals on the state level for
probably around the same amount of time
this would avoid trials which maybe they
wouldn't get that much more time anyways
and that they would just serve whatever
time is on the federal level which you
know is is in the range of between two
and a half and three and a half years so
I know that I covered this last time and
also on on some of the content I do on
police law news I I covered this and a
lot of people have questions about you
know what whether or not Derek Chauvin
actually killed George Floyd So I I've
said a lot of things about this but but
I just want to I just want to make it
clear what Derek Chauvin yes George
Floyd had a lethal dose of fentanyl in
his system he had covet he had heart
problems so there were other things
going on with George Floyd but what
Derek Chauvin did is clearly excessive
force he utilized force on someone who
was at this point he was in handcuffs
two other officers were holding him down
so what Derek Chauvin did is he used
force in a way that was excessive it's
difficult to argue that the force isn't
reasonable it was excessive did Derek
Chauvin try to kill George Floyd did he
wake up in the morning and say he was
going to kill someone well no no he
didn't of course not but
he used excessive force while using that
excessive force someone died that's what
happened yes there were other factors
but I think it's important to know that
that's that's what the the basically
came out in the trial and per the
autopsy so it's reasonable that he is in
prison for 22 years or so
um the next case that I want to talk
about is well let's see let's see if
there's any any comments on that uh Ray
Baker he held the force for too long and
that's why he was convicted yeah that's
that's exactly correct so had Derek
Chauvin put the knee on the neck for a
second or two and realized oh this isn't
okay we don't have to do this and he
just took his knee off the neck same
position stood there no he wouldn't have
been he wouldn't have been prosecuted
and he because no one no one would have
died so yeah Maddox parella says it's
second degree murder exactly so I think
he was convicted convicted of is
something to the effect in Minnesota I
think it's called like unintentional
murder because he wasn't trying to kill
him but it was excessive forces he was
essentially you know what the court
found that he was he was trying to hurt
him them by using the excessive force
and during that someone died and yeah
when that happens people should be
punished because there was a specific
intent to do something excessive it
wasn't an accident it wasn't like Kim
Potter who did something on accident
where the intent wasn't there like Derek
Chauvin had intent to harm and have
intent to kill but had intent to harm
and while he was harming he killed
someone so again I do not have any any
reservations about saying that Derek
Chauvin doing doing over 20 years is is
a reasonable a reasonable thing a
minority party he worked security with
Floyd had beefed with him
um yeah so so that's what that's that
did come out before the trial
um in the actual trial there was no
evidence to that so
um either side didn't think if that if
that happened either side did not think
it was advantageous to bring up because
nobody did all right so the next case
that I want to talk about so this
happened on July 16th in San Bernadino
California and this is kind of a strange
one so the individual this was an
officer involved shooting where someone
died his name was Robert Adams so this
is what happened it was it was a little
it's a little bit strange and there is
surveillance video on this and there's
also body cam footage but the
surveillance video doesn't have audio
and the body cam footage doesn't have
audio either until after the officer
involves shooting but let me just walk
you through what happened with this case
so police thought what their what
they're saying is that police officers
got a call uh
all right
all right we have a we have a super chat
from Elizabeth Williams thank you so
much so Elizabeth Williams says love
listening to the legal breakdowns well
thank you so much Elizabeth that is that
is so nice and um if you or if anyone
else has any particular cases because I
kind of there's so much news this week
we we couldn't get to anything but
here's as the cop watch staff we we kind
of went through and thought these would
be the most interesting cases but if you
do have any cases that you would really
like to hear something about put it in
the comments or in the chat and you know
we'll definitely try to get those
covered for next week so Elizabeth
Williams thank you again all right so
back to Robert Adams
um so so again this is uh so this is a
case where the officers get a the
officers get a call for service where
it's it's a parking lot it's during the
day and the call is that there is an
armed man who's kind of walking around
the parking lot so that's the call for
service that gets who responds to that
call our undercover office officers well
I don't know if they're undercover but
they're in an undercover car so they're
not
so they're not doing they're not in a
marked police car they're they're in
uniform but in an unmarked car so it's
reasonable to think that Robert Adams as
the unmarked car pulls into the parking
lot that at least at first he doesn't
know this is police officers like it's
reasonable to think that so as the
unmarked four-door sedan pulls up into
the parking lot Robert Adams the
surveillance video shows this walk
towards the car as he walks towards the
car there's a firearm that is in his
waistband that is visible and as he
walks towards the police officers he
pulls out the firearm so from his point
of view what his family is saying that
he thought that he was about to be the
victim of a drive by shooting or of some
other crime because this car just pulled
up on him now if I'm standing in a
parking lot and a car pulls into that
parking lot my first thought might not
be this random car that pulled up is is
here to do drive by shooting on me
because I'm in parking lots all the time
where I don't think that and pull out my
gun but this is what the family is
saying so so this makes me think that
okay there's something else going on if
you're in a parking lot and if a car
pulls up and your first thought is I'm
gonna get shot to drive by shooting oh
are you should be at least thinking okay
maybe there's something more going on
then he's just a random person who's
going about his day standing in a
parking lot so that's just asking
questions that I think a reasonable
person would want to know but anyway so
he walks towards the the unmarked car
and when he does so he pulls out the
firearm doesn't point it but he pulls it
out police officers at that point jump
out of the car and start to chase him as
soon as they jump out of the car Robert
Adams starts running in the other
direction towards a building and towards
other parked Vehicles so the body camera
from the police officers unfortunately
doesn't start until after the officer
involved shooting so it would be nice to
see this and obviously there's no audio
when it comes to surveillance but what
what the chief is saying that the police
officer said is that as they exited they
identified themselves as police officers
and gave commands such as you know stop
drop the gun show us your hands so as Mr
Adams is running away from police
officers and the surveillance camera
it's really hard to see but the from the
police department what they are saying
happen is that he started to turn
towards police officers and it was at
that point that police officers killed
him shot and killed him I believe it was
within just about under 10 seconds from
pulling up on scene so
again the question of whether or not
this was lawful or Justified like I
don't think any of us should be there
right now I think we should all have
serious questions about it and I think
there's a lot more information that
needs to come out about whether this was
a lawful or a Justified shooting it
could because serious people should be
asking questions just like that so here
are the questions that I want to know so
when a call for service like this comes
out
is it best practices to
send officers who are in an unmarked
vehicle because it's reasonable to say
that at first Mr Adams didn't know that
they were police officers once they
jumped out of the car and started
chasing him did he know they were police
officers yes they were in uniform but
all he knows is that a car pulls up and
two individuals start to jump out as
soon as the doors flew open did he turn
around and not see who it is did the
police officers that's why body cameras
are so important they protect police
officers more than anything because
they're claiming that they yelled police
and other commands but it's not on video
so there's no proof that they did that
which would be unbelievable and great to
have from the side of police officers
because if they did that that would be
the correct thing to do but we all wish
that there was proof one way or another
if they did it or not so you know from
Mr Brooks did he turn around start
running before he even saw it was police
once he's running and I always talk
about in in stressful situations how
police officers are regular humans
they're red regular people they're not
superhuman so in stressful situations
you know you get tunnel vision you don't
always hear things time slows down well
listen that isn't just true for police
officers it's true for regular people
for civilians too so from the point of
view of Mr Adams as soon as the doors
fly open and he starts to run away even
if they yelled police did he know they
were police did he hear it did he have
the same tunnel vision the same issues
with time that when you're under great
stress that police officers have so if
we're going to give that to police
officers or not even give that but just
State hey this is something that
happened to the human body under stress
then I think a reasonable and fair
person has to say hey this can also
happen to other people this could have
happened to Mr Adams so now from the
police officer's perspective they get a
call for service of a man with a gun
they arrive on scene as soon as they get
there dude with a gun visible gun in a
waistband a lot of Us carry firearms off
duty or just have Concealed Carry
Permits you never see the gun it's
concealed no one ever sees it but Mr
Adams was carrying a gun in a way that
you could see it he then pulled it out
and started walking towards the police
officer so from the point of view of
police officers like this isn't just a
regular concealed carry holder because
you can see it and this is in California
I mean I don't even know if there is
concealed carry in in Florida but I'm
just saying in general it's not someone
who's just walking around you know I
mean Mr Adams was trying to let people
know that he had a firearm it was
visible from his waistband and then he
pulls it out and he's holding it as the
police officers rolled up so from the
perspective of the police officers they
arrive on scene someone who's obviously
armed with a gun starts walking towards
them and pulls out the gun now they have
a couple options there they can either
drive away and you know risk not
engaging but are they going to be shot
at as they drive away or they can engage
well in the moment they engage they're
saying that they jumped out of the car
and they yelled police now when someone
is running away and they have a gun in
their hand it takes less than half a
second for them to turn around or not
even their whole body to start firing
weapons so it's important to know that
from the point of view of police
officers if you have a gun and if you
make any kind of movement like you're
turning around or going to shoot the
police officer I'm not saying it's right
I'm not saying it's always Justified but
but I promise you most police officers
in that situation are going to assume
that the gun that you are holding you're
going to use it against the police
officer so if the goal in a lot of this
is to make it so there are less
officer-involved shootings it's
important to let people know hey in this
type of situation this is what police
officers think not saying it's always
Justified or always lawful but this is
what police officers think and the
reason is is because when you're running
from someone it's to be able to shoot
someone behind you can happen in a
quarter of a second half a second it's
so fast and you're putting police
officers in a position where they have
to make less than a split-second
decision on whether or not they're going
to allow someone to shoot them because
once you allow someone to start shooting
you've already been shot so you have to
keep you have to keep that in mind so
that's a that's an interesting question
now the attorney from the uh from Mr
Adams Family said that the police
officers
um um that they were that they were
wrong in this case and that Mr Adams
thought that he was going to be the
victim of a drive-by and that's why he
took those actions so why he ran from
the police you know I'm not he did the
attorney and didn't say that um Ray
Baker says tunnel vision is a real thing
don't discount it definitely not
discounting it uh Mr Baker I talk about
it all the time that in stressful
situations this is what the human body
does I took Force science not that long
ago which is an unbelievable course
which covers a lot of these things and
goes through a lot of the research and
not only personal experience but going
through the training where you see some
of the studies and the research behind
it tunnel vision is a real thing when
people are in stressful situations also
time slows down also you don't always
hear things sometimes you know one sense
is is all you get you know you can see
things but it's slower and it's it's a
it's a strange thing but again we have
to acknowledge that this doesn't happen
just to police it could happen to
anybody who is under a stressful
situations uh let's see
um
let's see if we have any we have a
couple comments uh Jennifer says the
family argument is a joke how about not
approaching a vehicle with a gun in your
hand yeah and I mean that's that's a
reasonable so so I I appreciate the
comment Jennifer so the question to ask
is you know why did Mr Adams approach a
vehicle in this manner so his attorney
said that he his attorney said that he
um
thought that he was going to be the
victim of a drive by shooting so let's
talk about attorneys really quick here
so when attorneys are representing a
family after an officer involved
shooting or not after an incident with
police
I wouldn't trust what they said as being
true now they're they very well may be
representing their clients and doing a
really good job for their clients but
they have no interest in saying things
that are true now they can't outright
lie so they can't outright lie but they
have no interest
um it would be opposite interest of
their clients to be 100 on so just
because the attorney representing the
family says something doesn't doesn't
mean that it's true or reasonable so I
just want to put that out there though I
think people kind of already know that's
the case
um so any other uh let's see any other
comments about that that have good
questions or reasonable okay
all right let's see and um
okay so um like I said we have a couple
more cases to go over here but you know
this week there were so many cases and
issues with with police officers that
happened that were interesting so I
really want to put it out there that
definitely add comments uh to the to
this video about what cases you would
like to see for next week because we
don't always just cover the the cases
that happened this week if there was
something really interesting happen the
last couple days that we that that we
missed we definitely want to get it
covered so definitely add comments give
us suggestions on cases to cover because
we want to put out content and and go
over cases of really interesting issues
and incidents of of police interactions
with the public so definitely let us
know so we've talked about this next one
before it's not really a case it's a law
it's an Arizona law that essentially
prohibits people or it puts restrictions
on people filming police in public so
here's what the law is in Arizona is
that you cannot film police officers
within eight feet unless the police
officer gives you permission to do so
um so this is in reference so the
sponsor of the bill he's representative
named Kavanaugh from Arizona he was a
retire he was a police officer for 20
years retired then he went he's a
republic in the Republican in the states
uh the state's legislature in Arizona
and he the purpose behind this bill ever
what he says the purpose behind this
bill is to make it so when police
officers are working you know on a call
for service or on a traffic stop the
concern is that cop Watchers and
Auditors and anyone else but typically
those two groups that's who he mentioned
would come up to police officers and
interfere with what they're doing now
interference with a police officer is
already a crime but they would come up
pretty close to police officers and put
cameras in the police officers faces
while the officers are trying to do
their jobs now again just like with most
things I think that there's a reasonable
alt middle position that a lot of us
could get into so I think that if a
police officer is engaged in the use of
force if they are interviewing a
domestic violence victim if they are
doing a lot of different things someone
who isn't involved in the call coming
within two feet of a police officer with
a camera I think most of us can say yeah
that's probably not reasonable
also on the other hand saying someone
has to stay 50 feet away from police
while they're doing it well that's
probably not reasonable either so so the
State of Arizona came up with the state
of Arizona in the state legislature past
eight foot rule unless the police
officer gives you permission that you
cannot you know film a police officer
and the goal of this at least what
they're saying is that it's not to stop
people from filming no just go eight and
a half feet away and you can film all
you want now the question that always
gets asked so I'm going to address it
because either people are thinking it or
they're or they're going to ask it is
well you know so what if you're the one
who's subject of police you know so what
if I'm on a traffic stop I'm driving a
car or what if a police officer comes up
to talk to me what if I'm filming so I
would have to turn off my camera like
when it comes to transparency like that
seems a little shady so there's an
exception in the law for that so if you
are the direct subject of the police
interaction if you're the person that
the police officers approach if you are
the driver in a traffic stop there's an
except option for that this law does not
apply to you so at first when this law
was going through the house this this
um wasn't a part of it um this wasn't a
part of it and what the writer of the
bill Kavanaugh what he said is he said
you know what I didn't even think of
that like like it didn't even I was only
thinking about it of other people coming
into the situation and filming didn't
even occur to me that yeah the way this
bill is originally written it would
prevent people on track you know people
on traffic stops who cops are directly
interacting with from recording he said
that's not the intent so the final
version of the vid of the bill actually
took that reasonable criticism into
account and added in that exception so
what
comments do people or questions do
people have about that good idea or bad
idea
um it is important to say that it's
interfering with police so what the
opposition says is hey interfering with
police during an investigation that's
already a crime so if someone is doing
something no matter what it is and it
rises the level of interference like
that's already illegal we don't need
this extra law so that's what a lot of
people um on the other side of it say is
that it's just an unnecessary law and
that if we're going to err we should err
on the side of the First Amendment and
the freedom of the press so that's the
from the other side but from a practical
level like not thinking about this this
moment not thinking about like the other
constitutional implications just from a
reasonable level is it reasonable to say
that you have to stay eight feet away
from a police officer as yeah I mean
that's probably fine could it be six
feet could it be 10 feet sure I think we
all agree 50 feet is too far two feet is
too close eight feet I think I'm I think
I'm fine with that America First the
question what about cops who shut off
their cameras and I got a good story
about that so what about cops who shut
off their cameras well I mean so we have
to think that's a good question is it
policy so police departments have policy
on when they have to run their cameras
so as long as it's not a violation of
policy you know I don't think anyone or
most people shouldn't have an issue of
police officers turning off their
cameras when when police shouldn't turn
off their cameras is when they're trying
to hide something or when it looks
strange or when it looks you know kind
of shady I guess so that's what I think
about police officers turning off their
cameras of police officers are on a call
and they have to use the bathroom yeah
they should turn it off when they go to
the bathroom if police officers are on a
call for service and there's you know
they're trying to come up with a force
array or they're trying to come up with
tactics to take someone into custody
yeah while they are briefing and coming
up with the plan on how to on how to you
know best get someone into custody that
conversation yeah I don't think that
should be recorded now as soon as they
say okay we're gonna walk down the
street
I tried to contact this individual yes
turn the camera on now so what I see a
lot of the time is police officer it'll
be a situation like America first or I
spy agree so a lot of situations what
happens is the police officers will have
their cameras off for what most of us
think is a reasonable reason three or
four police officers are trying to come
up with a plan to take someone into
custody and while they're trying to come
up with that plan the individual comes
out of the house starts shooting at them
so essentially the situation happens
faster than they're expecting and then
in that moment you know while they're
being shot at they just respond directly
to the threat and forget to turn their
cameras off so that isn't a situation
where it would be bad faith on police
officers because they're doing something
yeah we get why they don't have their
cameras on now and then something
happens quickly so Mo not all the time
but a lot of the time when police
officers don't have their cameras on
it's a situation like that is they
weren't expecting anything to happen at
that moment something happened quickly
and instead of saying instead of in
their brain thinking oh my God I turn on
my camera they think oh my God someone's
shooting at me and they just respond
directly and then turn their camera on
later on so that's a lot of things
police officers can do you know before
you get to a call for service just have
a habit of turning on the camera before
you exit the vehicle there's things like
that and there's things in policy in
different departments that um kind of do
that uh a bike in its boy cops who shut
their cameras off or mute them should be
charged with destruction of evidence so
I mean that's that's an interesting
point so again I think it I think it's
well what situation is it
um you know why did they turn it off why
did they mute it um so and I'm gonna
tell a story here really quick so you
all remember the story from Sunrise
Florida Sergeant police p-u-l-l-e-a-s-e
um there was a call for service
um back probably about six months ago
seven months ago or so in Sunrise
Florida and what happened was just a
quick story on this as a side note what
happened was and it's been all over the
news um lately because he just got
charged which is a good thing so um
there's an individual he committed a
violent felony he's not getting into the
the police car he's kind of giving
officers a hard time Sergeant police he
arrives on scene just as the guy's
getting in the car he kind of leans into
the car he says some rude things he
screams at the guy he threatens to
utilize Force when the guy's already in
the car and a female officer who's you
know half the size of this guy a third
of the size of this guy she sees him
screaming at this guy like inside the
police car screaming at him and she
pulls him from his belt to get him away
now that is unbelievable courage from
that police officer to do that even
though the person was a supervisor so
she not only had the the knowledge in
the moment to say hey he's making a bad
decision she knew that pulling him away
was going to be controversial and
unpopular but she had the Integrity to
do it anyways so she pulls the sergeant
away he immediately turns around pushes
her pushes her back by the throat and
then screams at her I'll see you in five
minutes now I'm getting to the camera
issue because what they didn't show
initially which at least maybe they did
I just saw saw it this week is then he
goes back and he yells at the guy in the
car one more time he has to get one more
screaming matching with the guy in the
car then he tells all of the officers on
scenes he says shut off your
cameras now so a situation like that
yeah um I can't remember who commented a
hundred percent
um that is the kind of situation that
yeah that looks bad so in a situation
like that police officers should not be
turning off their cameras and
supervisors absolutely should not be
ordering people to turn off their
cameras because we can guess what that
conversation was like after he did that
to the female officer we can guess what
that conversation was but uh that is
that is a situation we're turning off a
camera and just to kind of close that
Loop Sergeant police um so since this
happened he was put on admin Lee they
investigated he was just charged with
four charges um felony charges including
battery and assault on a police officer
which is a good thing that he's charged
and I just want to commend that female
officer who did something
um tough in the moment and she made the
right decision she said she should be
commended for that I spy he lost his job
didn't he so he was on admin leave and
he was just charged with crime so my
guess and I didn't see this but most of
the time when police officers are
charged with crimes it's at that point
that they're either terminated or they
they they resign so I don't know if he's
officially gone from the department but
he has been on administrative leave
since this happened and he has been
charged so if he hasn't lost his job yet
that's coming uh let's see uh one more
question Maddox paralysis how about cops
who sue citizens well that's actually
interesting um that's happened a lot of
times it's actually hard for a police
officer to do because you know in order
to sue someone civilly
um there there's an exception in there
for
First Responders for police fire and
medic so
um you long story shortage you have you
when you take those jobs there is an
acceptable level of risk that you know
you're taking is part of that job so so
in order to sue a citizen
um like say let's say like there's a
battery against a police officer in
order to go and Sue that person it would
have to be pretty egregious um different
states have different laws on that I
know it has happened what I've seen be
successful recently is when someone
files a false complaint on a police
officer kind of like defamation a
character and by Body camera footage
police are able to show that it's false
I've seen some civil suits
um recently be successful in that area
which um I I think that is a great thing
if you file a false report against a
police officer and um the police officer
could have really suffered some damage
from that yeah I have no problem with
them suing you personally but I also
feel the same way about any other
citizen because I think that defamation
laws are good so you know it's kind of
like defamation of character
um you just have to think about it that
way
um so the last case that I want to talk
about is um Paul Chavez in Modesto
California so this happened on 7 14 of
22. um I just saw this case today
actually just did uh did a longer story
about it on on my channel police law
news but essentially what happened with
Paul Chavez is the family called in his
father-in-law called in and said that he
was drunk and that he was causing a
disturbance and that he was ripping off
the screen of the house and he was
trying to get into the house so police
were called police arrived on scene
officers got there so Mr Chavez is in
the front yard doesn't have a shirt on
he's intoxicated
and he's holding a tow hitch so you know
it just think it's kind of like you know
like a metal blunt object he's holding a
tow hitch in his hand police officers
contact him they give him commands to
drop it he starts walking towards the
police officers and they try to tase him
this is the theme today they try to tase
him the taser doesn't work
um they give him more commands to drop
the tow hitch he doesn't he takes a
couple steps towards uh uh he takes a
couple steps towards police officers and
they shoot him and they kill him
um Jeremiah Osborne says was a totally
unjustified shooting yeah and a lot of
people think that and again because I
just saw this case today so this is one
of the like with most cases I'm to say
that it's Justified or unjustified just
based on only doing a little bit of
research so I know the facts of the case
and I did research but you know without
really knowing all of the facts and all
of the all of the information you know
I'm not comfortable saying that this was
a Justified or unjustified
officer-involved shooting but what I do
do is ask important questions that I
would want answered to be able to
determine whether or not it was
justified or not
um
but so we have a couple things so so so
Jeremiah Osborne you said this was an
unjustified shooting and it might be but
I'm going to push back on that a little
bit so you have a police officer who
tried to tase him it didn't work so the
criticism from police is that they
should have tried to tase him again well
I just try to tase him once try to tase
him again so that's a reasonable
question that's a question that I would
want answered when making a
determination so the police officers
didn't try to tase him again they went
to lethal Force now he was walking
towards the police officers with a blunt
object in his hand so from this from the
perspective of police officers someone
has a blunt object you know that they're
upset they're not listening to you
they're walking towards you with it it's
reasonable for a police officer to think
whatever they have in their hand they're
going to try to use it against me Well a
tow hitch a blunt object can cave
someone's skull in so from the distance
the police officers were to Paul Chavez
how quickly could he have gotten to the
police officers probably in a second a
second and a half so now another
question maybe the officer should
have backed up but you have to think
about it this way so once police are
there and they're they were there not
just because they were driving around
bored and they saw someone in their
driveway no the family called in and
said hey this guy is out of control he's
dangerous he's trying to get into the
house we can't handle him we need armed
agents of the government to solve this
problem for us okay so when you get
there if you have to think about this
way so if the police officers back up
too much or get in their cars and leave
or go down the block well now you're
leaving someone who you the family has
who has an interest of you know in his
favor
has already said they can't handle him
so what if police officers back up and
do a Uvalde where they don't do anything
and while they're backed up you know 100
200 feet down while they're trying to
get more resources he breaks into the
house he breaks into the house through a
window or through a door
and then he kills the people inside or
he injure someone inside we would be
saying oh look at the police officers
they they got there they knew that this
family couldn't handle this guy but they
were afraid they were afraid that they
were going to be struck with a with a
tow hitch so yeah they have the guns but
they went down 150 feet 200 200 feet
away to call for more resources and they
just let these people be bludgeoned to
death these people call for police for
help and the police officers backed up
so what I'm what I'm just saying is that
if police officers did that and and the
worst happened this is the criticism
that the police officers would get so so
I'm not saying that this is a Justified
officer-involved shooting but just
remember if the police officers take a
different action and this goes a
different way the criticism of police
officers is going to be pretty extreme
in the opposite direction the last thing
I'm going to say about this case is that
in an issue I touched on earlier it's
the dishonesty of of attorneys in let's
go in general and I have a law degree so
I I feel comfortable saying this though
um I don't think anyone feels
uncomfortable talking about
attorneys but it's the dishonesty from
the attorneys in general and also from
attorneys who represent these families
so what the attorneys did uh the
attorneys were able to see the body cam
footage before the public so what the
attorney and the family representative
did is whether or not you think it's an
off-justified shooting or not they
started the video that they played for
the media two seconds before the
shooting started so they show the
officers yelling at him for two seconds
and then shooting him
so they don't show that the officers
arrived on scene that they tried to talk
to him that they tried to use a less
lethal option by using a taser they only
showed two seconds before in the
shooting so this is intentional this is
intentional and it's dishonest because
they're trying to spin a narrative now
that narrative for that attorney
representing the family it benefits the
family so as an attorney like the
lawyering is good I I completely
understand this were a law school class
I would be saying yes the lawyering is
good I get it but when it comes to the
rest of us in regular Society who are
concerned about serious issues and
honesty and truth and looking at these
cases and really trying to figure out
what happened this is extremely
dishonest because they're trying to put
out a narrative to uneducated and
uninformed activists and it's the job
here of of me and a cop watch one of the
things that we like to do is to not just
show a narrative is to show an entire
incident the raw footage of exactly what
the interaction action was between
police officers here's the 9-1-1 call
here's two body cam videos here's
surveillance video and you guys decide
that might make police officers look
great that might make police officers
look like like they created like
they committed a crime and that doesn't
matter how anybody looks whether it
makes the police officers look bad or
the public look to look bad that doesn't
matter what matters is how honest and
accurate is the information that we're
providing and that's what we're
interested in here at cop watch that is
not what attorneys who represent these
families are interested in and again
they shouldn't be interested in that
because they are trying to serve the
interests of their client um one more
thing um also on the news for for this
particular case there was a family
member who um went on the news and gave
a statement who said that uh when police
shot uh Mr Chavez that he had nothing in
his hands his arms are open and the guy
even went like this so
um that was on the news how many people
are going to see that news clip from a
family member I said whether you think
it's Justified or not saying that he had
nothing in his hands is not accurate and
it's not honest but how many people are
going to see that clip and it
automatically say oh the police shot
another unarmed person so um that's why
I think it is so important to be
accurate and honest and and whether or
not you say it's Justified or not to ask
tough and important questions and to try
to think of things from the perspective
of this is what the individual is
probably thinking and this is what the
police officers are probably thinking
because if the one of the goals of all
of this is is so that there are less
officer-involved shootings so that less
individuals are hurt and killed by
police and also that less police
officers are killed and um
Jeremiah Osborne I think you're the one
who said that it was not justified they
were on scene for less than 60 seconds
true absolutely they were on scene for
less than 60 seconds correct
um so I'm criticizing uh the honesty of
the attorney for not playing the whole
60 second video for only playing two
seconds before the shooting to purposely
not show the officers try to use and try
to end this with less lethal options of
a taser so that was the last case I have
I'm going to wrap this up real quick but
any questions or comments that I haven't
got to um definitely go ahead and put it
in and the last thing I'm going to say
is we cover tasers a lot so for 50 years
I'm making that number up it could be
100 years I don't know police officers
and police departments have been trying
to find a weapon in between a baton and
a gun and all of the weapon systems that
they've come up with have been imperfect
I remember being in in my first year uh
undergraduate school and in criminal
justice classes and Dr Cronkite who was
a uh he was one of my instructors he was
a commander with LAPD in the 90s he went
on to be the Santa Ana California police
chief I remember him we did a whole day
on these intermediate weapons these
weapon systems where they they he showed
videos of these different things there
was this video of this this system where
it's like a net that you would shoot at
people this thing that had like foam
that would freeze people and foam
um all these different things that
police departments actually tried to
come up with because you can imagine a
situation that there's a lot of
situations that happen in between what
where a baton would be appropriate and
where a gun would be appropriate and the
taser you know this was true in 2005
when I was in class and it's true now
the taser and if I'm incorrect put it in
the comments if there's something I
don't know about put it in there please
um but the taser is the best thing that
police officers have that being the case
ACM reports which does research on this
ACM reports found in I believe 2019 that
tasers fail 40 percent of the time so
the best thing police officers have in
between a baton and a gun fails 40 of
the time sometimes it's operator error
sometimes it's difficult to hit a moving
Target with a taser sometimes police
officers probably only tase train with
tasers a couple times a year and as
opposed to
hundreds of shots a year that they
practice on the Range uh one last
question uh Elizabeth thank you what are
your thoughts on arrested
Congress members so let's see what were
uh so that's a great question Elizabeth
thank you so much so arrested Congress
member so this happens a lot so I'm not
sure what you're talking about so
um I'm not sure what you're talking
about so if you want to tell me who you
are let me know but you might be talking
about members of the squad um AOC ilhan
Omar they were arrested uh Rashida Talib
they were arrested
um this past week and essentially what
happened was is they were part of a
protest that you know police officers in
DC had everybody moved um they were
asked to leave and they were essentially
escorted by police officers now as they
were escorted by police officers they
all put their hands behind their backs
they weren't handcuffed but they put
their hands behind their back so the
so the uh
um the criticism is that they pretended
to be arrested and the first news
reports were that they were arrested
um and that they did this just to have
an image and the perception that they
were arrested look at how much we care
about these causes we're willing to go
to jail they weren't arrested they were
just escorted from the area by police
officers no one wasn't handcuffed no one
was charged with a crime no one went to
jail so the criticism was that they did
this for show um that this is this is
all just a game this this is for show it
didn't really happen
um they were questioned about it and the
only answer I saw was from AOC and AOC
um you know I I
I don't I don't always believe the
things she says or the reasonable but
but her answer that she had she must
have had some coaching on this was
actually kind of reasonable um she said
that when you're being escorted and
asked to leave by police officers the
safest thing to do is to put your hands
behind your back like that so whether or
not that's what she was thinking in the
moment I don't know but is what she said
factual and true yeah probably
um and um yeah that's gonna be that's
gonna be it for today's show so um make
sure that
um you go ahead and like and uh
subscribe to cop watch and everybody
have a great weekend