good afternoon this is Daniel here with
cop watch TV I just wanted to welcome
everyone into this week's episode so
what we're going to do just like every
week is go over just the most important
and the most interesting news and issues
when it comes to policing and we're
going to take those issues and we're
basically going to break down the most
interesting issues in policing so we do
this every single week and every week we
do this I think there are just so many
cases to choose from and last week we
had a whole bunch of great cases and
this week too just such really just
interesting and complex cases that we're
going to break down here today for you
but while we're doing that it's good to
interact so I want everyone to if you
have questions or comments or if you
think that I'm saying something that is
a right track wrong track definitely put
it in the comments I definitely tried to
address those as we're going through it
because I think it's important to not
only see what I think about these cases
but to also look maybe someone has a
different point of view and seeing what
they have to say about these cases as
well um so if you do a super chat that
will guarantee that we read it on air
however you know definitely put comments
in and if there are other cases that we
haven't covered that you think are
interesting or you have questions about
definitely put that in the chat as well
I just want to remind everyone if you
haven't already please make sure that
you subscribe to the cop watch TV
channel that way when we do this you
know every single Friday you'll know
when we're coming on and so you can be a
part of it and also you know we do great
videos throughout the week of raw
unedited body cam footage that we put
out that we put out as well just to
really capture that the interaction the
raw interaction between police officers
and citizens so with that if you want to
follow me I am on YouTube and Tick Tock
at police law news where I do daily
content over there but otherwise guys
let's get into the cases this weekend
you know before we get into the case of
this weekend there's going to be kind of
a theme well there's always a theme you
know when most of these cases are around
use of force from police officers and
you know it's really easy to say this is
the case where this is Justified for us
it's legal Force but you know what is
that what does that mean because I mean
we all know that there's a group of
people that no matter what happens no
matter what the police situation is
where it's like a reflex where they
automatically support the police and
think the police did nothing wrong and
that isn't the right way to look at
these cases and there's also another
group you know a smaller but louder
group where no matter what the police
officer does again it's like a reflex
where they're against the police where
the police is wrong the police officer
is racist they went to work that morning
wanting to violate someone's rights I
mean I think most of us know that the
truth lies somewhere in the middle so
there's an ALT middle position that kind
of looks at the situation for what it is
applies the law and the facts and then
asks tough questions to figure out
whether or not something is reasonable
or lawful but it's also important to ask
well what do we mean when we say lawful
so I'm not going to give a lost cool
class or anything like that but you know
really what we talk about and this is
going to come up in a lot of these cases
today that it's objective reasonableness
from the police officer this comes from
a case that was from uh Graham versus
Conor that's the Supreme Court decided
in 1989 and really the most important
thing about this is that before that if
you wanted to claim that there was an
excessive force from a police officer
the standard was malicious intent so if
someone had their rights violated by a
police officer especially when it came
to use of force you would have to show
that the police officer had malicious
intent so essentially you had to get
into the mind of the police officer in
order to figure out why they were doing
something and there's a lot of people
who think police officers don't have
very high IQs so that's difficult to do
in the first place but you know in this
malicious intent I mean it was just
almost an impossible standard you would
basically have to show that the police
officer are only used this excessive
force because they wanted to because
they just felt like it and you know it
was derived from the due process clause
in the 14th Amendment and then cruel and
unusual punishment in the Eighth
Amendment it was really difficult so
what Graham versus Conor did kind of
where this is going to what Graham
versus Conor did it basically said you
know that is too high of a standard so
we're going to take it down to the
Fourth Amendment the reasonableness
standard so was the use of force
reasonable by a police officer and
that's kind of what we're going with and
you say well what what's reasonable that
could be different to different people
the Supreme Court says hang on I got you
here's a couple different factors that
we want you to look at and you know
they're not this isn't an exhaustive
list but here are some of the things
that we're going to consider when we're
making a determination about whether or
not the actions of the police are
reasonable so the first one is the
severity of the crime this is what we're
going to look at so obviously you know a
police officer might use different
levels of Force if someone had just
committed an armed robbery or a murder
as opposed to littering
um the next one is the immediacy of the
threat so when we talked about immediacy
of the threat obviously it might be
different level of force that a police
officer might use if someone has a knife
and they're just about to plunge it into
grandma that's pretty immediate the
officer has to do something as opposed
to someone who jaywalked and they're
walking away and they're not a threat to
anyone and the last one is the level of
resistance so how much fight does the
person have when the police are trying
to apprehend them or get them into
custody the more of a resistance maybe
someone is trying to disarm a police
officer like take their taser or maybe
you have someone who it just isn't
actively resisting but they're just
laying on the ground like dead weight
well we would expect a police officer to
use different levels of force so when I
when we talk about like these objective
standards these are kind of the Baseline
that we're going to go with and that
takes us into the first case which is
this is the case that everyone is
talking about and if you're interested
in these issues and follow you know
police and news this is the case that
you should be talking about and should
be on your mind because it is an
important case the body cam actually
just came out sometime in the last 24 to
48 hours this case happened this week it
was in Columbus Ohio with Columbus
Police and the individual who was killed
by police officers his name was Donovan
Lewis and he was 20 years old all right
here's what happened so there was a
warrant that police officers were
serving again this is in Columbus Ohio
and this is Donovan Lewis so and we're
also going to put a link to the body cam
video on there as well so you can go
back later and watch it and let us know
what you think in the chat there's a
link though so Donovan Lewis had a
warrant he lived in an apartment complex
in the warrants it wasn't one of these
you know Brianna Taylor warrants where
you know she where the person was you
know ancillary kind of connected to a
drug ring or they rented a car that had
dead bodies in it later or something
like that no the warrant was because his
girlfriend had filed a complaint with
police officers that he battered her so
he essentially had a warrant for
domestic violence assault and then also
for improper handling of a weapon now
this kid was only 20 years old but he
also had a criminal history for
battering another girlfriend he also had
domestic violence charges where he was
alleged to have battered his mother but
for this case he only had the warrants
for the domestic violence case and what
police did is they didn't do a no knock
warrant again this isn't like Brianna
Taylor or any of these other cases where
it was kind of a no-knock warrant that's
not the case so this did happen at night
but police officers did not get the
apartment it's all on body cam video
again one of the reasons why body cams
are so important for police officers the
police officers knock on the door and
they announced who they were for over
eight minutes eventually two individuals
did open the door and and they came out
police officers placed them in handcuffs
um just to secure them while they while
they searched the rest of the residence
now as the individuals came out um two
young men police officers asked them a
couple questions that you know you would
expect police officers to ask in a
situation like this is there anybody
else in the house and is one of those
people Donovan Lewis that's who we're
here for so the two individuals refuse
to tell police officers so they refuse
to tell police officers if there was
anyone in the house and then
specifically if Donovan Lewis was there
they said they didn't know now maybe
they didn't maybe they had been sleeping
for the last 12 hours and they honestly
didn't know but the police officer said
something to the effect of what you
don't know who's in your house like that
doesn't you don't know who's in your
apartment that doesn't make a whole lot
of sense anyways so it's um so and you
have to think about it this way now
maybe these two individuals thought that
they were in Donovan was in the house
now maybe they thought that they were
doing him some kind of favor but I
promise you that isn't a favor the
reason it isn't a favor because you have
to look at it this way if the police
officers are going into if the police
officers are going into
a residence and they're walking around
and they're searching for someone if
they don't know where someone is but at
any point someone could pop out someone
could make their presence known someone
could attack them or someone could shoot
them the best way to think about that
it's like you're walking through a
haunted house okay imagine walking
through a haunted house and you're not
sure where someone might pop out at so
that's kind of like being a police
officer when you're searching the
residents you never know what's going to
happen so you can imagine a situation
where someone in that in that particular
incident could be more on edge right and
that's not what you want from police
officers and yes they train for this but
that's the mindset whereas think about
it the other way what if the individuals
that said yes hey there's one more
person in the house it's Donovan he's
actually in the bedroom across from the
kitchen he's alone don't think he has
any weapons so well then the police
officers yes they're still going to be
their head is going to be on a swivel
but they're going to be a little more
secure knowing okay if we open this door
across from the kitchen like we probably
know that Donovan's going to be in there
so any you know element of surprise
might be taken away and that that's
going to play a factor in here so after
they get him into after they declare the
two other individuals out they go and
they have a canine they have a they have
a dog they have a dog run through that
helps them search this apartment well
the dog hones in on a closed door that's
pretty much right off of the kitchen and
you know the dog is sniffing in in
indicating on that door so they know
that there's someone there so what the
officers do is they approach and the
canine Officer you know he has he's
doing whatever canine stuff he's doing
with his left hand or
um you know he has the leash but he's he
has his handgun in his right hand he
opens the door and pretty much as as
soon as he opens the door Donovan Lewis
who was sleeping wakes up sits up turns
around and faces the officer
simultaneously as he's in that motion in
that process of setting up the police
officer the canine Officer fires one
shot hits Donovan in the abdomen
he died of his injuries he was 20 years
old he was not armed he didn't have a
weapon he didn't have a gun so what in
the world happened
watching the video all we have right now
is to watch the body cam video we have
the news reports from the new the local
news stations the stories about it and
some statements and from statements from
the family and the family attorney so
that's all we have to go on right now
and obviously as more information comes
out it would be reasonable to have a
different opinion about it but here's
what I think happened I think this was a
negligent discharge of a firearm by the
police officer and and I can back that
up here's my evidence for that so let's
think about that so pretty much as the
door opens the door opens immediately Mr
Lewis sits up and there's a shot fired
almost immediately now what some people
are saying is that as Donovan moved
towards set up he kind of moved his arm
like this towards the police officer and
he had something in his hand some people
are saying that it was a vape pen in his
hand I I don't know if he had a vape pen
in his hand or not but what I am saying
is that I always talk about you know
like there's a reaction Gap from police
officers from any human so you to once
you see a threat
there's the human body takes a certain
amount of time to recognize that threat
react and respond so what I'm saying is
if you watch the video and I've watched
it in slow motion and I think it's even
in slow motion there's a portion of it
on the on the video that we put in the
chat but if you look at it to say that
the officer recognized the vape pen
processed it and then fired a shot
because of that like that would be
almost humanly impossible all of the
research from Force science and from
Human Performance that I talk about all
the time that I know is good science it
just doesn't make sense so I don't think
the officer perceived a deadly threat so
that's one of the reasons also at no
point of the not that officers have to
and sometimes police it's not feasible
to do so but the officer didn't yell out
any commands prior to shooting he didn't
say he didn't yell to Mr Lewis
um about to drop anything and he didn't
alert any of the other police officers
that there was some kind of an immediate
deadly threat in that room now again
it's not always feasible for police
officers to do that but this is going to
go in that bucket of evidence of why I
think this was a negligent discharge of
a firearm also as soon as the officer
fires the weapon he immediately yells oh
and he acts surprised that's what it
seems like to me he yells oh and he
seems surprised and then he immediately
holsters his weapon now let's go to that
really quick so how many
officer-involved shootings do we see
right after an officer shoots someone do
they ever holster their weapon no and
here's why if you honestly believe that
there is an immediate deadly threat
behind that doorway you fire one time
you don't have a visual of the person
and then you're going to holster your
weapon and then you're gonna stand
pretty much in the door frame for
another 90 seconds like that doesn't
make sense so he wasn't acting like a
person who had just been faced with an
immediate deadly threat reacted and now
we're not sure what's happening because
Donovan was still at this point he was
still alive he was still making noises
so I mean if you honestly thought that
there was an immediate deadly threat it
doesn't these uh these actions from the
officer don't make sense now I should
say that when you are involved when a
human is involved in stressful
situations like this a lot of times
their actions don't make sense but this
guy had been a cop for 30 years he's had
training he's had a good history for 30
years he's had a lot of training so
everything he did would not be in line
with training any police training when
you're faced with an immediate deadly
threat so those are the reasons why I
think that this was a negligent
discharge so you know I think in one of
the videos I did about this yesterday
when it first came out I called it an
accidental discharge I called it an AED
well you know someone commented on my
Tick Tock that hey it's actually an
Indian so I did some research on that
because sometimes I get things wrong and
I I like I like to be corrected because
I think it's important to be accurate so
when I was trained what I remember back
in 2005 when I went through a police
academy that you know all of this stuff
in this umbrella was called an 80 an
accidental discharge well apparently at
some point along the way it changed so
now the way you have to look at it or
the way that it's it's if you read any
blogs or articles now the way it's
classified now and maybe it's classified
this the whole time and I just wasn't
paying attention but the way it's
classified now if there's a malfunction
so if there's a if there's a malfunction
with the gun that has nothing to do with
the person holding the gun think Alex
Baldwin if he was telling the truth okay
so that would be an A.D an accidental
discharge and nothing to do with the
person holding the gun it just it just
goes off it's the magic gun Theory okay
that's an accidental discharge a
negligent discharge is if the operator
of the gun who's ever holding it
violates any of the basic firearm rules
of safety that would be a negligent
discharge so I would say this is likely
a negligent discharge now here's what I
think happened and track and let me know
if you think this is reasonable or not
here's what I think happened so the
officer he was the k n officer he had a
one-handed grip on the gun so pretty
much as he enters the room or as he
opens the door the gun comes up which
might be reasonable if you're going to
try to you know clear a room especially
if you think someone's in there the gun
comes up almost as soon as the gun comes
up it fires once so what and it was a
one-handed grip it wasn't a two-handed
grip so what I think likely happened is
that he had he violated one of the he he
violated one of the basic rules of
firearm safety which is you do not put
your finger on the trigger until you are
ready to fire the weapon so what I think
happened and I don't have any way to
verify this right now but what it seems
like the most reasonable thing is as the
officer came up he had his finger on the
trigger which was a violation of the
firearm safety rules and then he was
either momentarily distracted maybe by
the dog or he was surprised by that
someone was in the room or maybe he was
trying to do something with his left
hand like pull the leash or do anything
with his left hand but there was a
sympathetic reflex where the right
finger also did the same thing or maybe
because he only had a one-handed grip he
was trying to slightly readjust the grip
that he had on the gun but because his
finger was on the trigger it went off so
that's what it seems like to me is that
it was a negligent discharge now I
haven't seen anybody else say that or
make that claim or or say this is what
they think happened this is what I think
is the most reasonable explanation for
what happened
um now I think well okay if that's the
case if I'm right then what does that
mean well we have to think about it this
way so if let's let's play a game Let's
assume that I'm right right about this
and this is factually what happened it's
all going to come out but let's say what
I'm saying is correct let's walk down
this legal path really what that would
be is so he would didn't have any intent
to hurt or kill Mr Lewis there's no
intent there but he was negligent and
his negligence caused the death of
another human so that would be whatever
the Ohio equivalent of negligent
homicide would be the most the the best
way to think about that is the closest
case think about Kim Potter so this is
like the Kim Potter case meaning
obviously there was no taser confusion
but you know she wasn't intending to
kill someone she wasn't intending to
kill Dante Wright but she was negligent
and her negligence caused the death that
essentially you know bass bones
negligent homicide so that's what this
looks like to me um saying that the so
the police officer he had on 30 years as
far as I can tell or as far as anyone
has reported he's had a good history for
30 years so so anyone so you know on the
video that I posted about this earlier
on one of my other Pages you know people
were saying the typical things that
dishonest people say like oh he was he
was a racist cop he was just looking to
hurt someone looking to shoot someone so
let's just break that down a little bit
of how ridiculous this is so here's what
you're saying if you say that you're
going to say that if someone is going to
spend 30 years as a career as a police
officer when they could retire at 20 or
25 years so so they've been a police
officer for 30 years they have an
excellent Stellar record no other bad
use of force or or you know unlawful
shootings and then one day when they're
in their 50s and they're close to
retirement being able to enjoy the rest
of their life with a pretty decent
pension they're going to murder someone
illegally for no reason
on camera so they could spend a couple
years in jail or a long time in jail and
lose their pension so I mean if that's
what you think that the officer woke up
in the morning and said he was going to
do I'm going to call on that
because that's absolutely nuts so I'm
not saying the officer shouldn't
shouldn't be punished he took someone's
life I think that it was negligence that
that caused that and negligent homicide
is probably the most reasonable
explanation for what happened but I like
to hear other points of view so this is
the case that we are absolutely going to
follow and we'll we'll see what happens
so let's see uh if we have any comments
from people uh let's see we have some
people saying that they should use a
robot to do these kinds of things okay
let's see uh Cop Block Hot Springs oh is
that Hot Springs Arkansas or hot springs
uh South Dakota let me know how would
the cop have handled the situation
without a dog or a gun was that
considered no it's not considered and it
wouldn't that's a really good question
thank you for asking that no it's not
considered and it wouldn't be considered
so police officers have guns because
this is a really dangerous country no
one would do this job if police officers
weren't armed also this is someone who
had a felony warranty wasn't Cooperative
with police because he didn't just come
right to the door and one of the charges
against him was a weapon charge and
proper handling of firearm so here you
have you know from the the reason just
the police officer point of view or for
any reasonable person point of view you
have someone with felony warrants who
has a violent history who's not
Cooperative with police and one of the
recent charges that he has a warrant for
involves a weapon no that's absolutely a
situation no police officer would go
into that situation without a gun that
wouldn't make any sense that is not
something that would ever happen in our
country so uh that's the answer to that
um uh let's see Ego 10 shoot first ask
questions later is the method police
subscribe to well I don't think so so uh
so let's again let's break down let's
break down this comment let's give it a
little bit of credence here that's uh
that's the method police officers
subscribe to so let's take this off this
officer was a cop for 30 years he
probably took thousands of calls for
service in 30 years and he made a
mistake one time so so if that's what
you're saying is that you know one
mistake after a 30-year career means
that his whole mindset is to shoot first
um again I'm gonna call I'm going to
call on that uh Mickey Lanham
was it really an accident though well
Mickey I don't know I don't know if it
was an accident I can't get into the
police officer's head I'm looking
objectively at the evidence to see what
happened I gave my reasons why to me
this looks so so I don't believe that Mr
Lewis posed a deadly threat and I don't
think that the off after the shooting
the officer did not act like an officer
who was concerned about a deadly threat
to me he was acting like someone who
just made just a horrible mistake
um a horrible accident that that's what
it seems like to me so no there's no way
to know for sure but that's my opinion
of what happened I'm basing it I gave
you my reasons my evidence of why I
think that could that be the case I
don't have any idea uh let's see uh Bad
Cops show up early good cops show up
late uh oh okay so well they knocked on
the door for eight minutes before they
went in and then they gave a whole bunch
of warnings so I would consider that
being late uh let's see when you pass
laws Banning high IQ officers and laws
dating police have no constitutional
Duty Todd Higgins okay Todd so I'm going
to address that really quick because
this is something that comes so there's
a lot of I call it myths there's a lot
of myths when it comes to police
officers and this is one of them so I'm
going to educate you a little a little
here a bit Todd Higgins so Todd said
something about police officers they're
being a law he said law a law to
prohibit you know people from with high
IQ from being a police officer he's
going back to a case from 2000 I believe
it was in Connecticut can't remember the
name of it but I remember the fact so
this was a case of an individual there's
a small town in Connecticut it might be
Newport can't remember but it was a town
in Connecticut where someone applied to
be a police officer now as part of this
hiring process for this one small town
they do an IQ test and this individual
scored really high on an IQ test and
this one Police Department said we don't
want to hire the this person because of
their high IQ not because we don't think
that people with high IQs can't do a
great job as a police officer what they
said is that we think we think that
someone with a high IQ might get bored
as a police officer in this small town
it was a small town it wasn't like New
York City or LAPD or anything like that
they said we think they might get bored
and then they would leave our department
well we don't want to put in a hundred
thousand dollars worth of training for
someone who's just going to leave us in
six months or a year that's not a good
financial decision for the city so they
didn't hire him for that reason he sued
uh once he sued it went up to court it
went all the way up to the Supreme Court
and basically the Supreme Court said a
couple things they well they agreed with
the city first of all but here's why
they agreed with the city they agreed
with the city because they said well you
know in order to make it so he was
basically making a discrimination claim
he was saying the city didn't hire me
they discriminated against me because I
have a high IQ now in order to when it
comes to the law in order to make a
claim of discrimination you have to be
part of a group of people that for lack
of a better term is able to be
discriminated against I have on a gray
shirt right now okay so I can't claim
that someone discriminated against me
because I have on a gray shirt I have a
lot of gray hair too I can't say hey
they discriminated against me because I
have gray hair so gray-haired people or
isn't a category of people that has the
ability to claim discrimination you have
to be part of a protected class does
that make sense so what the Supreme
Court said is they said well you know a
high IQ just isn't a protected class and
if you're not in a protected class A
protected group you can't make a claim
against discrimination so so basically
they said you know for like legal so so
on a technicality they basically sided
with the city and dismissed the lawsuit
but in their findings they said hey we
don't the Supreme Court said hey we
don't think this is wise for cities to
do this
um so that was so that was basically how
it is then the individual one team went
to work as a corrections officer for
like 20 years he never got bored he kept
working there so I guess my point is
this was one Department who hired who
had an employment issue with one person
it wasn't a law so so I'm just trying to
educate you their time God you said it
was a law against Banning Police
Officers with IQs I've had this question
probably about 10 times or this comment
10 times in the last couple weeks so I
just wanted to put all the facts out
there and if you don't believe me go
ahead and look it up for yourself this
was not a law it was one case and I
explained the facts and circumstances
around it okay let's see uh okay
uh
I'm not seeing any other comments about
that particular case but you know I'm
really interested to see what people
think about the theory that I have of
this case so put any comments in there
and definitely go and watch the video so
the video that we put up there also has
it in slow motion a couple times so you
can really see and why I think this is
this is what happened
um let's see so the next case that I
want to talk about is um Richards um
we're also going to put a video to this
there's a little way let's see uh yeah
we're also going to put up a video to
the Richard richarding um so this
happened a while ago so last November I
don't know if you remember this case so
the the basic facts of this case are it
was in Tucson Arizona in November of
2021 and Mr Richards uh he's in a
wheelchair he's in his 60s I think he's
61 years old and he lived with his
sister and him and his sister got into a
fight he asked her to drop him off at um
kind of like a business park there's
like a Lowe's there's a Home Depot
there's you know we all know these these
business parks in these in these Metro
areas so she he basically asked her to
drop them off in this business park so
he is Wheeling around in his wheelchair
and he goes into a SK he goes into a
store I think it was Walmart
um I think pretty sure it was a Walmart
and he steals a toolbox okay he takes
the toolbox and as he's trying to leave
with a toolbox he has a knife when one
of the uh individuals at the front of
it's a greeter or a checker or clerk
when someone you know tells him Hey
listen you got to pay for that he pulls
out the knife on the individual and
threatens them now it's a different a
knife it's a deadly weapon 100 I say
that every single week but it's a
different level of threat if someone is
in a wheelchair than if someone is not
in a wheelchair and they're running
around with a knife so so I mean just
common sense says that's a different
level of threat but he did threaten
someone with a knife as he was trying to
live with a shot flipped of material um
you know police were called and this
officer Ryan Remington I think he was
working an overtime shift kind of at the
business park either at the Lowe's or
one of those stores so you know he was
aware of what happened that you know an
individual was in a wheelchair pulled a
knife on a clerk after he stole
something so Mr
um Richard he Wheels himself across the
parking lot and he's about to enter
another store that is where Mr Richards
and the officer officer Remington meet
pretty much in the parking lot almost at
the entrance to the next door I think it
was the lows not 100 sure but it's a
store so
um the officer runs up to Mr Richards
pretty much as he's just about to enter
the store so he's just about to wheel
himself in and he encountered him he
yells at him to not go in the store Mr
Richard says something to the effect of
like well you're going to have to shoot
me or he says something to that effect
so well that's that's exactly what
officer Remington does
um Mr Richards is just about to enter
the store like literally just about to
enter the threshold of the store the
officer is behind him and he shoots Mr
Richards from the back nine times kills
him
um the reason that the officer gave for
this officer involved shooting is he
said that he thought and he was afraid
that Mr Richards posed a deadly threat
to employees inside the store he said Mr
Richards had a knife he already
threatened someone with that knife I
don't want him to go into another store
because he could hurt stab or kill
someone else I was concerned about that
so that was the reason he gave for the
officer involved shooting in the video
the body cam video and the surveillance
video from the store came out almost
immediately and um I remember I covered
this when it first came out almost
immediately I said this does not look
like a lawful shooting this does not
look like a Justified shooting because
we have to look at those things the
immediate the severity of the crime
immediacy of the threat and the level of
resistance so you know we have a severe
crime I got it okay level of resistance
well he's he's actively resisting he's
not attacking the officer but he is
running away here's the problem the
immediacy of the threat so if someone is
in a wheelchair
what risk do they pose with someone with
a knife that's a reasonable question to
ask and that's the problem in this case
is that it wasn't a reasonable use of
force so the officer was fired and he
was actually just indicted this past
week on manslaughter charges so we have
to think okay well you know what should
the officer have done so his attorney
has done the officer's attorney has
actually done a bunch of different
interviews on this and you know they
asked some reasonable questions that you
should ask well why didn't he use a
Taser why didn't you do these other
things so what the attorney said is well
the officer didn't use a Taser well one
because he was behind Mr Richards and
you know because it was narrow so you
can't tase someone in a wheelchair from
behind because the if the taser hits the
probes hit anything they're gonna hit
the wheelchair not the individual so
it's not going to have any effect and he
said you know the officer really didn't
want to like run around in front of Mr
Richards because he had a knife he
didn't want to get stabbed as he's
running around him he didn't want to get
close to him well that's kind of
reasonable too so so I I get why the
officer didn't utilize a taser in this
situation that doesn't make the shooting
Justified but it's reason about why a
taser wasn't used so now we have to
think okay you have someone who's armed
with a knife they're in a wheelchair and
they're entering a store what options do
we have as a police officer so to me it
seems yeah you don't want to get close
you don't want to you because the person
has a knife you can't risk getting
stabbed as an officer or as anybody so
you know some people say well here they
should have tipped the wheelchair over
from the back or done that but listen if
you get within a few feet of this
wheelchair you could absolutely be
stabbed and killed so that's not a
reasonable thing to say but what could
you do you have at least two police
officers there the first thing you
should do is call for backup a hundred
percent start calling for backup get as
many people there as possible and then
maybe start yelling at the store clerks
at the people who work there everybody
needs to clear out you need you need to
make space this is a police emergency
everybody leave out the back of the
store that way you get everybody out
unless this is one of these super fast
crazy wheelchairs this is it isn't going
to be a thing be he's not going to be
able to outrun people who are motivated
to get out of his way and with police
officers just with a loud voice doing
that now if he has a knife and he's
going in on someone who isn't paying
attention well that's a different
situation okay that would be an
immediate threat this wasn't an
immediate threat okay if anything it was
an imminent threat which probably
doesn't even lead to that so um he was
just indicted on that and um I think
that is that is probably the right move
he was fired by the the City of Tucson
and I think it is probably correct that
he is charged with a crime in this case
this does not look like a Justified
officer involved shooting but I am
curious to see what anyone else has to
say about this uh Bruce Blankenship says
Overkill yeah I I agree uh let's see uh
let's see
uh Ego 10 shooting anyone in a
wheelchair nine times is crazy yeah
egoten I agree I agree now of course I
can think of a situation where it would
be justified
um again if he was just about to stab
someone or if he had a gun that isn't
the case here so again I think this this
seems like an unlawful training uh
Deborah Sandoval uh training his mental
health awareness lacks in many agencies
100 absolutely yes de-escalation
um and that's one of the things that I
always talk about is like you know
um you know the people have kind of
gotten away from the terrible horrible
slogan and policy of defund the police
that's a good thing we want them to go
away from that but when they were in the
middle of 2020 riots defund the police
that's one of the things that I was
saying is hey all of these things that
you're saying you want to improve police
departments I agree with the problem is
they all cost more money not less money
so defunding the police is just going to
take more resources more training get
less qualified police officers the only
thing that will guarantee is that there
are more unlawful police killings which
is the goal to avoid in my opinion uh
let's see uh North Sac Mania back they
had plenty of time to stop him before he
entered the store they followed him for
several minutes yes they did they did um
absolutely so so if you watch the body
camera so there might have been I know
there was a female police officer on
scene as well Mr Maniac I know that
there was a female police officer on
scene at least from what I could see
from the officer Remington's body camera
video it looks like he exits the car and
gets out and kind of runs and jumps out
and then you know has the confrontation
with the individual kind of right there
but is it possible that there was
earlier contact with him with a
different officer that I'm not aware of
a hundred percent but at least from that
one body cam video that I saw and I did
watch all of the footage when it first
came out back in November but it's been
a while so trying to remember this case
and um don't go in there let's see so
um yeah no I think that's uh those are
reasonable those are reasonable
questions Bruce Blankenship shove your
ass through the wheels yeah so so um I I
like that I'm kidding no so I don't
think you should get close enough
um like even though someone's in a
wheelchair they have a knife you still
have to see that as a deadly weapon you
should not get within a few feet of
anyone in that situation but how about
OC mace what about that I mean could to
two or three officers stand eight eight
nine feet away and drown and drown this
guy in mace maybe yes but
um yeah it's uh uh uh yeah and I you
know I I thought about this a lot and
you know one of the most the things that
they should have done which I think most
departments should get trained for is um
you know maybe they should have issued a
spike belt or done some kind of a pit
maneuver you know they should get one of
those like one of those really big carts
um from from Lowe's and Home Depot one
of those like giant carts that you put
like you put like pallets on they could
they could they could do a pit maneuver
so if any department needs me to to
train that um I'm definitely open to
that uh suggestion for sure y'all maybe
like a lump Lumber car to ramming
technique video or something uh let's
see um how does a cop uh how does a cop
know he can't jump up oh that is such a
great question uh Dove bro I don't know
if I said that right um how does the cop
know he can't jump up so I was going to
cover that but I just I just didn't so
I'm not ignoring your comment I was
actually going to put that in there so
that's one of the what ifs okay so what
if this person in a wheelchair you know
what if he doesn't need a wheelchair
what if it's like I mean I know I
referenced Seinfeld every week but it's
my favorite show what if there's a
George Costanza moment where he's
pretending to be where he's pretending
to be a disabled person and you know
eventually he gets up out of the
wheelchair and he can hold it above his
head and stuff like that and then you
know Mr Kruger catches him but so so
okay so that's a real possibility how do
you know if this person actually is
disabled or maybe they just have an
ankle injury all right maybe they just
have an ankle injury and they can still
get up and walk away fine but you have
to go with what the evidence that you
have now and there was no evidence that
he was able to walk no one saw him walk
no one stand saw him stand up now the
second he now since you are an armed
police officer and you are right there
the second he stands up with the knife
that absolutely changed the situation
but that didn't happen also here's what
I'm going to say too let's say there was
a shopper or someone who he was is
moving his wheelchair bearing down on
with the knife well then in that
situation whether he's
standing or not that would be a
reasonable deadly force situation
however he there were no employees that
were really anywhere near and he
actually shot him before he entered the
store because he was afraid of what he
might do not because of what he was
doing at the time and um so so yeah I
think that's an important question
that's a good question I thought about
that a lot but like I said without
objective evidence it's difficult to use
deadly force on someone because I think
that they might do this when there's no
evidence that they have that that
ability so I'm sure that's going to be
his defense if I were his defense
attorney that is absolutely one of the
things I would try to throw at the wall
and you know what maybe that is
something that went through the
officer's mind because it absolutely
should but you have to react to the
situation that you have in front of you
and what you had in front of you was not
someone who was standing up again if he
did stand up that's a different
situation and we'd be talking about that
situation but it didn't happen source
code when people say defund the police
they don't mean taking away money it
means shifting spending prior parties a
bigger percentage of the budget budget
for mental health professionals so what
you just said uh source code um that's a
reasonable thing to say
um but however that's not what they did
so if you look at it this way New York
City cut a billion dollars from the
police department budget so they were
taking money away in the City of
Minneapolis the city councilors actually
voted to defund the police by a pretty
significant amount citizen groups head
to Sioux in court to make it so they
couldn't defund the police because in
Minneapolis there's actually something
in the city Charter that says you have
to have so many police you know purse so
many citizens so because of the city
Charter the City of Minneapolis was not
able to defund the police but they
absolutely tried and the city councilors
were saying we want to defund the place
the same thing happened in Seattle and
in Portland crime went up in all of
these places you can look it up I'm not
making this up so many police officers
left these cities because you know if
you're going to be a police officer who
wants to work in this environment so now
if you want to be a police officer in
Seattle you can lateral over there they
will give you about thirty thousand
dollars just to sign up to be a police
officer in Seattle so
um defund the so the way that you
described to fund the police
um that is what reasonable people say
and backtracking which how much of a
disaster defund the police was this is
what people are saying to try to make it
seem like oh no that's not what we meant
go back you look at what AOC would build
de Blasio you look at what these people
were saying and they were saying to fund
the police
um and not in the way that you said it
because the way that you said it is
reasonable we all want more funding for
mental health services no one is against
that okay
um and just just so you know police
officers aren't against that either okay
so I mean they they wouldn't be you know
if you say hey we're going to get these
really great mental health professionals
and they're actually going to take over
all of these calls for service these
difficult calls with these violent
people who might be experiencing
homelessness or living on the streets um
you think police officers are like oh no
no we we want to do that we love that
job that that that isn't the case that
would be like if you worked at if you
worked at a grocery store and let's say
someone comes in you know the aisle
where there's pickles and pasta sauce
someone comes in take a baseball bat and
just smashes it all and smashes it all
in the entire aisle is an absolute mess
that would be like someone coming and
saying hey hey you don't have to do that
job we've got someone else to do it for
you so that'd be like that person said
oh no no I I need to do this job so so
no police officers absolutely would love
for mental health professionals to take
over these calls for service so when
police officers are not against that
type of funding so the next case I want
to talk about is James real
um so James real and maybe I'm saying it
wrong it's r-a-yl I'm going to call it
James Royale so I think a lot of us have
seen this this happened on July 3rd in
Sydney Ohio and this was the case we're
going to post a video to it as well it's
actually a ring doorbell camera video
this was a case where it it's it's
really interesting it's in an individual
he's 22 years old he goes to his
ex-girlfriend's house and there's some
controversy about why he was there but
but he goes to his he goes to his um
uh he goes to his ex-girlfriend's house
and he starts banging on the door then
he uses his shoulder and you know from
the vid from the where it looks like on
the ring camera video it looks like like
the door's coming down I mean it's hard
to tell but that's what it seems like
you can hear people on the other side
you could hear like a younger female
like yell and scream you can also hear
who sounds like a middle-aged man who
ends up being the girl's father
um you know he yells through the door I
have a gun so you know he gives a
warning like I have a gun stop doing
this stop trying to break into the house
so what happened there is um so what
happened is you know you can you can on
the ring camera video you can kind of
hear it sounds like the door is breaking
and at some point shots are fired you
know through the door don't know how far
into the door he actually got but shots
are fired um the he's hit three
different times and he dies on scene
um the father who did the shooting is
not charged this came out that he is not
going to be charged with any crimes um
you know watching it to me that seems
that seems reasonable it seems like yeah
there shouldn't be any charges I mean
because think of it this way if someone
is breaking into your house you do not
the law doesn't require you to let them
come in interview them and see and
interview them and you know then then
assess their their level of threat you
know maybe they just wanted to come in
and play Jenga so so that there isn't
any requirement of of that that you have
to wait when someone is trying to enter
your house like that you can stop them
beforehand it specifically says that in
Ohio so Ohio in 2021 passed a stand your
ground law it was a SB 175 and that bill
and you hear about these danger ground
laws and maybe they sound unreasonable
to me this doesn't sound unreasonable
but but put in the chat you let me know
what part of this law is unreasonable so
the first part of this law of the stand
your ground law doesn't mean you can
just go out killing people and shooting
people anytime you want that absolutely
is not the case so here's what the law
says and this is pretty much standard
language in most standard underground
laws across the country so pretty much
here's what the law says it says first
of all you have to be in a place that
you are legally able to be so you can't
be trespassing on someone's property
okay so in your own house that's a place
you're legally able to be right then it
says you can't be the aggressor so even
if you're in your own house you cannot
start the confrontation start the
aggressiveness and then shoot someone
and say oh I was I was standing in my
ground in my own house no so in your own
house or in a place you're legally able
to be and you are not the aggressor so
you didn't start the whole thing right
then it says if those two situations are
correct then if someone poses a
situation where there is likely to cause
injury or death you don't have a duty to
retreat so saying if all those things
are true and then there is a threat
where a reasonable person we talked
about reasonable a little while ago if a
reasonable person would think that there
is a reasonable chance of injury or
death the law basically says you do not
have to Street you can Retreat you can
run away but the law says you don't have
to you can stand your ground and stay in
this place that you have every legal
right to be so so please put in the chat
about what part of that law is
unreasonable or that you would want to
be changed so to me that seems pretty
clearly you know and um so I people
there's some criticism of about like
well you know like this wasn't a deadly
force situation like he didn't have to
shoot him and listen if if someone is
breaking into your house like that's the
threat okay that is when deadly force is
appropriate again you don't have to wait
till people come in uh yeah I mean the
dad basically went into Liam Neeson mode
um to protect his kids to protect his
daughter the daughter think the dad you
know you saved my life all that kind of
stuff now so I watched a bunch of news
stories I watched a bunch of news
stories about this case and I found that
there was a private Facebook group
um something to the effect of uh uh you
know support for Jane is Royale now
again let me say this if you're the
family of Mr real he's a 22 year old who
was killed by his ex-girlfriend's father
okay so obviously there should be
Sympathy for the family right no matter
what that situation is it has to be such
a tragedy for that family you know even
if the 22 year old is the one who messed
up and shouldn't have been doing that I
would not expect family members to be in
any reasonable State of Mind to be able
to look at this case in a rational way
that just isn't something that you know
the human brain can process any of us
would probably think the same thing if
we were in that situation but you know
they said that there was this private
Facebook group so I was curious because
I wanted to see what the other side of
the argument was so I requested to join
the group and I did a little undercover
work and they let me in so because I was
really curious not because I wanted to
be a troll or be rude I honestly wanted
to see this was the only way to do it I
honestly wanted to see what are people
saying on the other side and so here are
some of the things that I learned from
being a part of this private Facebook
group kind of as an observer what they
said is that you know that there's more
to this story than is being told here's
one of the things that the family
members and the supporters are saying is
that yes they were ex-girlfriend
ex-boyfriend but there's some evidence
that she actually lured him over to the
house again that there's no evidence in
any court documents or anything
objective there's nothing publicly out
there that I've seen to support that but
that are what some of his supporters are
saying so what they're saying is that
hey she asked him to come over she lured
him over to the house that's why he was
there and then they said you know once
he was outside the house he could hear
that there was yelling and screaming
coming from inside the house and he was
actually trying to be a good guy he
thought that the dad was battering the
daughter or the mom and that he was
actually trying to break in to save the
day again there's no evidence of that
there's nothing objective but this is
just what his supporters are saying so
um
um also also they're saying that you
know he wasn't a threat he wasn't armed
one one individual said that yeah they
should have let him come in the house
and then fight it out like men
um and that's absolutely ridiculous
that's that's not a thing you don't have
any
um I said the law doesn't require you to
let someone break into your house do do
like some kind of a screening with them
to see what their level of violence
might be that isn't a thing you don't
have to allow that to allow that to
happen
um then they said that um you know that
that you know that the person didn't
have to shoot three times that you know
even if they did have to shoot maybe
they only should have shot once or twice
so um like I said I I don't see any
objective well the things that there can
be evidence for like you know the did
she actually are there text messages or
phone call logs or where it says that
she told them to come over so that
hasn't been produced publicly from
anyone but I was curiously what the
other side said because I think what so
it's one of these things whenever I look
at a case and I say oh this is obvious
this is this is so obvious that this is
the right thing those are the situations
where I try to train myself that okay
that's when I should be asking harder
questions when I think something is just
a little too simple just a little too
perfect that's the exact time when you
should say no no this is when we have to
ask the hard questions that's why I went
in and this is the best evidence or the
best information from the other side so
there are not charges that are are going
to be filed but I just wanted to put it
out there that this is some of the
information from the other side what
they are saying and yeah so let's see
ego 10. he had already chased the mom
and the girlfriend to the house so I
don't see anything wrong yeah I I agree
egoten I agree with you 100 I think this
is a um I think this is a Justified
shooting I'm glad that uh I'm glad that
um they weren't charged the uh the
family where the dad wasn't charged
let's see
uh none of it seems logical Bruce
Blankenship yeah no I agree I think
you're saying that you know what they're
saying no it doesn't seem logical
um but yeah but yeah I mean again like I
I'm not
if it's your family member and it's your
22 year old son or brother like I get
them not being in like a rational
headspace to where uh to where they
could like look at this case like it's
like a law school problem you know like
you can't you can't look at these cases
objectively it's your family member I
get that okay uh let's see any other
questions uh three rounds is reasonable
unlike the nine from the last one yeah
Bruce Brinkley Bruce Blankenship great
Point yeah no three rounds absolutely
seems reasonable in a case like that
whereas the nine in the case before
seemed excessive and you know I I think
you know we always talk about a legal
system it's not perfect but let's look
at this so I think most of us agrees
that that last case with uh the shooting
with the guy in the wheelchair nine
rounds we all say hey that seems
unreasonable and the officer is being
charged here's a case where we have you
know three rounds that were shot someone
trying to break in we go oh that's
probably about right and the individual
is in charge so here we have a couple
examples of you know our legal system at
least in these cases seems to be working
which I would much rather other report
on cases where the legal system is
working then in cases when it is not
working one of the other cases I think
is really interesting is it was it was
NYPD so
um we're also going to post the video to
this one as well there's a video there's
a cell phone video and a body camera
video so and this is in this past week
and so NYPD was going to arrest an
individual who had a warrant for an
attempted murder now this person's out
in public they're not inside of a house
or an apartment they're in public okay
so as uh detectives and officers are
trying to arrest this individual this I
mean for attempted murder and he ended
up having a gun on him as well so
they're trying to arrest him he's
struggling with them a little bit and
again he does have a gun on him as well
are they struggling with the officers a
little bit his girlfriend the 19 year
old uh tamani Crum she comes up and she
slaps one of the officers in the middle
so they're in public they're trying to
arrest a violent person for a violent
crime who's armed with a gun and a 19
year old girl comes up and interferes
with that and slaps one of the police
officers
um he's a detective he's not having it
he basically slaps her right back and
she falls down hits the pavement pretty
hard so people are all up in arms about
this
um and you know whether that was a
reasonable use of force
um you know we can we can have that
debate so you know I it so from the
point of the officer I hope we can all
agree that in the moment when you're
trying to arrest a violent person for a
violent felony who's armed with a gun
it's safer for the officers the person
you're arresting and the community if
you get that person in handcuffs as
quickly as possible I think we can all
agree like hey this is a reasonable
thing that the officers are trying to do
so lawful objective I always talk about
lawful objective if what the police
officers are trying to do isn't
reasonable I'm going to have a whole lot
of problems if there's a use of force
but in this case it's like and put in
the chat if you think I'm wrong so it
seems like TR the goal the goal of the
cops to get this guy into custody quick
seems like it's reasonable because it's
literally the safest thing for everyone
there right so then you have someone who
is
then you have someone who is trying to
interfere with that pushing the officer
and actually slaps one of the officers
so in a situation like that the officer
wanted to get that person away from them
as soon as possible so to not have the
interfering make it so the individual
does start to reach for their gun if
that's the case maybe when the officer
gets involved in a shooting that's his
worst case scenario stuff so yeah you
want who's ever interfering with it and
literally battering police officers you
want that to stop so he hits her and she
hits the ground pretty hard because he
is a big strong guy and she is a small
19 year old girl so it looks bad so
people are all up in arms about this but
here's what I have to say Eric Adams who
is the mayor of New York City he's a
retired lieutenant I believe he's
Lieutenant with the New York City Police
Department
um you know he's definitely more
reasonable and pro-police and pro Common
Sense than Bill de Blasio was but he
does sometimes you know doesn't get
along with the with the police Union and
and but in this case he actually came
out and um supported the officer pretty
good he said he basically said that the
police officers were in a hard situation
he described that situation he said it
could have been dangerous an individual
was interfering and he said that the
level of force the officer used that was
an example of NYPD using great restraint
based on what they were trying to do at
the time so he came out in public
support of the officer I think that is a
good thing to do because I think that is
absolutely correct thing for the mayor
to do I'm really glad he said that
comment in there if you think that is
incorrect now this case is still going
to be looked at by Internal Affairs and
they are going to do an investigation
and also the D.A in New York Elvin Bragg
who's not a fan of police officers he is
also going to be looking at this from
the prosecutor side to see if the police
officer committed any crime so it is
going to be investigated criminally by a
D.A who doesn't like cops and then also
by NYPD Internal Affairs so it's still
going to be investigated but I'm glad
that the mayor came out there and
publicly supported the officer because I
don't think the officer did anything
wrong in that particular case so if
police officer trying to arrest someone
you shouldn't enter fear so if it's an
illegal arrest if I didn't Court do not
get into a fight with police officers on
the street that's not how our system
works uh so let's see so the last case
that I want to talk about and this is
this is a tragic case and it's it's
actually the the one and only case that
I've ever seen about this and a lot of
the stuff I said at the beginning about
Graham versus Conor and objective
objectable objective reasonableness and
the reasonable officer standard I mean
it fits in exactly here and this is
exactly how it is supposed to work so
here's what happened this was in Atlanta
and the individual's name was Jerry
blathen game he is a 65 year old
homeless man and he was panhandling
police officers were called officers
tried to contact him and he ran I don't
know how fast he can run he's 65 years
old he ran from police officers as he's
running from police officers through a
residential neighborhood and again the
only crime is panhandling asking people
for money on the side of the road that's
it that was that was the that was his
criminal offense as he's a 65 year old
man as he's is running from police
officers
and officer is running behind him and he
tased them he tases Mr blasting game Mr
blasting game is running he was tased he
falls and he suffers unbelievable
serious injuries I think he's a
quadriplegic right now he did survive
but he's a quadriplegic right now this
happened this case happened oh several
years ago I think four or five years ago
so there was a federal lawsuit that was
filed and a federal jury just awarded Mr
blasting game and we do have a video of
this as well
um the federal jury just awarded Mr
blasting a hundred million dollars this
is the biggest lawsuit that I know that
this has ever happened essentially the
jury said the jury is charging 60
million to the city and 40 million to
the officer now obviously the police
officer doesn't have 40 million dollars
so he'll never collect on that part of
it
um you know the the department might
cover the officer as well for whatever
his part is and uh the department you
know and on behalf of the officer has
asked the judge to lower or that amount
so maybe the federal judge will but I
can tell you that the federal judge
people talk about like qualified
immunity and stuff like this so this is
the perfect case of that I'm going to
use to when qualified immunity this is
how it's supposed to work so the judge
denied qualified immunity and allowed
this lawsuit to go through that was
absolutely appropriate and the judge
talked about a couple things you know it
just in when it came to just even
allowing this
um in the in the first place I should
say that some states have limits on
lawsuit settlements um just like in the
in the Amber Heard case so you know hey
only cops how are you so just because
they were awarded 100 million dollars
doesn't mean that they'll actually get
that but they're probably going to get a
whole bunch again some states might have
limits I'm not sure what the limit in
Georgia is but my guess is that 100
million dollars will get lowered and
again 40 percent of it from the officer
you'll never collect anyways because no
officer has 40 million dollars on unless
uh yeah there's no officer who has 40
million dollars so um uh the judge made
a couple comments basically right out of
language from Graham versus Conor and
talking about why he was going to let
this lawsuit proceed in the first place
he said that the seriousness of the
crime he said this wasn't a serious
crime it was panhandling so you know
when talking about the reasonableness of
force seriousness of the crime is one of
the three major factors that we have to
look at so seriousness of the crime we
have panhandling it's not a serious
crime why are the officers even chasing
somebody for this and then immediacy of
the threat so was the guy a threat so
when we think about was someone a threat
if someone is running with a knife
towards police officers yeah that's a
threat if someone is unarmed running
away from police officers so their goal
is to get away from police officers
that's literally just about the opposite
of being a threat to police if someone's
trying it's unarmed trying to run away
so the judge made those two points that
it was a not a serious crime and that he
didn't pose a threat to the police
officer and despite that the police
officer tased the person as they're
running away so I think that was
absolutely correct for the judge to deny
qualified immunity in this particular
case and I think that the individual
deserves a lot of money so his attorneys
and again attorneys have a job they're
representing something who knows of what
they say is true but what the attorneys
from Mr blaston Game have said they said
that since this happened he has already
racked up 14 million dollars in
um in medical debt um due to this and
also that he needs because he's a
quadriplegic now that he needs
round-the-clock care that costs about a
million dollars a year so he's 65 years
old I don't know how long he's going to
live maybe 10 years maybe 20 years but
if it's a million dollars a year so
think about this way if every year it's
a million dollars a year is what it
costs that's not even anything punitive
or any that's just like basic level care
just for him to survive so if we do get
into the range of 20 30 40 million
dollar settlements in this particular
case like that would not that would not
Shock me um again he he already has 14
million dollars and medical debt so a
typical you know typical five six
million dollar settlement that a lot of
people get when there's an unlawful
killing by a police officer in my
opinion that's not going to be enough
and we've had this issue before so I
talk about tasers a lot but
um I talk about and so it looks like
Georgia law does captivative awards at
250 000 so he'll get more than that but
at least when it comes to the so at
least when it comes to the punitive part
you know when there are civil lawsuits
you know you you get you know the the
main part of the lawsuit and then you
can sue extra for um uh punitive it
looks like it looks like a punitive
limits in Georgia's 250. so he'll get
millions of dollars from the city and
then a cap punitive at 250 000 on top of
that but you know I talk about tasers a
lot and there was I've talked about
multiple cases with this that you know
it's a bad and I went round and round
with people about this for
um uh a couple well six months ago there
was a case can't remember the
individual's name but I did a couple
videos on it where essentially the
police officer tase someone for a minor
crime misdemeanor crime
as they were running away in the back
now you have to think about it this way
if you're being if you're running away
and you're being tased you're going to
lose control of all your muscles and
you're essentially going to just
go through the air like a lawn dart
which you might even smack your head
well that happened and uh that happened
in a the one time only cop says the one
time a taser Works absolutely God you
guys are so funny yeah that's absolutely
the case
um the one time it takes work taste
yourself 40 we do so many cases on here
where someone has a knife um the officer
tries to tase and the tase doesn't work
and then they resort to a deadly force
yeah this is the one time a taser
actually worked tasers never work in
situations like this but they did in
this case and it I'm just as a blanket
thing to say it's my opinion that tasing
someone who is running away is a bad
idea okay it just is because it isn't
like you're tasing someone who's sitting
down or standing still because if you're
running that forward momentum that you
are carrying with you just keeps going
and you have no control over when you
stop you could land on your head that
could cause serious injuries in this
case it caused him to be a quadriplegic
which affects the quality of his life
forever so so yeah I think that's a bad
idea a lot of police departments they
have policies in place and that says
that something to the effect of that you
cannot taste someone who's running away
unless deadly force is otherwise
authorized so that's a good thing for
police departments to think about when
they're coming up with use of force
policy because this is exactly the
reason why you do not taste someone who
is running away now if someone has a
knife or a gun or they're um you know
they're they're opposing an immediate
threat they say I'm going to go kill
that person over there and they're
running with a rock towards them I get
it but that isn't the situation here
panhandling and one last thing on
panhandling so there's been a lot of
different so what's the so I'm going to
ask this question what's the please put
in the chat what's the difference
between someone panhandling on the side
of the road and the Cub Scouts or the
Boy Scouts standing on the side of the
road asking for money for p people when
there's when someone dies in the family
and they're doing they're standing on
the side of the road for like a car wash
not even if someone dies in the family
and they're trying to raise money for a
funeral but what about if um uh firearm
firemen doing food drives so we could
think of a lot of different situations
where people stand on the side of the
road to try to collect money well well
it's really difficult when it comes to
the First Amendment you know being able
to the freedom of expression in the
First Amendment it's difficult to say
Boy Scouts Cub Scouts firefighters they
can stand on the side of the road and
ask for money but homeless people who
are panhandling they can't so it's
really hard to make that distinction so
there's actually a lot of places where
panhandling was illegal that since these
laws have been challenged that it's
found to be unconstitutional so I think
that at least my opinion on that would
be no I don't like to see panhandlers I
would prefer that people donate money to
Charities into food banks to actually
you know to the actual resources instead
of giving it to people on the street so
I would prefer that people didn't do
that still donate still be charitable
still be generous but just give it to
the different food banks and the
different charities and let them help
people who are in need I think that's
the best way to go so I don't want to
see panhandlers
um on my street that I live at and
nobody does but
should it be illegal should the
government
arrest you and throw you in a cage and
take away your freedom because you're
standing on the side of the road saying
something so no so even though I don't
like it I don't want it in my community
Nobody Does it should not be illegal the
government should not be able in my
opinion the government should not be
able to throw you in a cage and arrest
you for doing that and you know when it
comes to First Amendment issues really
the first amendment is the only almost
the only time it matters is when it's
speech that you don't like so if it's
stuff that you do like yeah absolutely
everybody's for it but it's when you
don't like the speech that's when this
stuff matters and that's when you have
to start asking hard questions and being
intellectually consistent with how you
feel about these issues so those were
the cases that I wanted to go through
this week and I'm sure next week we're
going to have all kinds of other cases
that we will go over then as well so I'm
just going to see if anybody has any
other any other comments uh only cops he
wants to taste the Boy Scouts too
absolutely that is that is funny uh and
if you haven't already if you haven't
already make sure that you follow And
subscribe to cop watch TV so you can be
here for the lives and also so you can
watch all the different raw police
videos we put out during the week if you
want to follow me I'm at police law news
at Tick Tock and YouTube and I hope
everybody has a great and safe three-day
weekend thank you