good afternoon this is Daniel here with
cops and cons TV this is our live show I
just wanted to welcome everyone to the
show so we have actually taken a couple
weeks off so I kind of want to remind
everyone what we're going to be doing
today so over the last couple weeks
there's been some really interesting
police cases and we're just going to
talk about those so essentially we're
gonna just break down some of the most
important issues in cases in policing
while I'm going through and talking
about these cases I definitely like some
feedback so if you have any comments or
any questions about the cases we're
going through or some of the related
issues definitely put those in the in
the chats and we can get to those get to
those comments as well
um and again my name is Daniel this is
cops and cons TV we do this live show
just about every Friday so we have taken
the last couple Fridays off and one of
the reasons for that is I don't know if
you can tell but I have a broken nose I
was trail running a couple weeks ago and
I tripped on a rock I fell and I smashed
my face so my nose is still broken but
it is it is in a lot better shape than
it was if you want to see a video of how
horrible and crazy I looked from right
after it happened
um you can go to my YouTube or Tick Tock
at uh police law news and you can see a
video of when it happened there um
anyways but right before we get into the
cases um I just want to welcome
everybody in it looks like we have some
people from California from Poland from
Florida
um so it is Saint uh Sergeant George get
better soon thank you I am better so
real quick uh this happened about just
about two and a half weeks ago and then
last weekend I did run a half marathon
Trail race um in out of state so I think
I'm completely recovered even though my
nose still looks a little bit a little
bit crazy
um so I just want to welcome everybody
in if you haven't already please make
sure that you subscribe to this channel
cops and cons TV just so you know
exactly when we're going to be doing
these live shows also any comments that
you leave you know if it's a case that
maybe we didn't get to this week you
know it might be something that we can
cover next week so definitely make sure
that you subscribe to the channel and
watch all of our videos that we put out
so um again welcome in and I just want
to get right into it because I'm so
excited about this because we have taken
a couple weeks off so the first case
that I want to get into and I do this
every time we do this that you know
almost every week there is one just
really big and major police case that
you know we really have to talk about
and this case happened on 10 12 so just
pretty recently in San Antonio Texas and
I think everyone knows who kind of who
kind of follows this about exactly which
case this is so this happened in San
Antonio Texas this was a rookie police
officer so there was a call for service
at a McDonald's in reference to some
kind of a disturbance at the McDonald's
restaurant while the officer was there
and this is night time he sees the
vehicle that's parked in the parking lot
nothing strange about it but the officer
recognizes that vehicle or he at least
thinks it's a vehicle that had run from
him or fled from a traffic stop very
recently or the night before so what
what the officer does is the first thing
he does is correct he calls out over the
radio so he lets dispatch know that you
know that what he was on so he was on
this disturbance call but he let
dispatch know that you know he was going
to make contact with this other vehicle
that had he at least thought fled from
him at a traffic stop and he did ask for
a backup officer so you know a lot of
times unless the vehicle unless it looks
like someone is in immediate danger this
is one of those things where a lot of
times the best thing that police
officers can do and what they're trained
to do is to wait for the backup to
actually get there however this officer
didn't do that so the vehicle was parked
before backup got there he went and he
approached the driver's side of the car
now at this point we always talk about
decision points that police officers
have so at this point the officer had a
couple decisions to make should he knock
on the door should he knock on the
window should he announce himself that
he's a San Antonio police officer all of
those things are are different things
that police officers should do in an
ideal situation because you want an
individual that you're talking to to
know that you're a police officer
officer I mean that makes sense if you
want if you're going to give as an
officer if you're going to give a lawful
command to someone well they have to
know that you have the authority to do
that one of those ways to let them know
you have that authority to say I'm
officer blank with the San Antonio
Police Department so this officer
doesn't do that he doesn't knock on the
door either he walks up to the car door
and he moves the he tries the handle and
he just opens the door as he opens the
door there's a 17 year old named Eric
Cantu and there's also a female
passenger in the front seat but a 17
year old named Eric is seated in the
front seat of the vehicle and he's
eating a McDonald's hamburger you can
see the look on his face when the car
door opens that he's just surprised one
he's surprised that someone is opening
his car door and he's probably surprised
that it's someone who's a police officer
the officer never identifies himself as
a police officer so it's unknown if Eric
what it's unknown what's going on in
Eric's mind but if we if we a lot of
times in these situations I always say
like let's put yourself in the position
of a reasonable police officer well we
also have to put ourselves in the
position of just a regular civilian who
is living their life eating their
McDonald's hamburger who in a parking
lot unexpectedly their door opens and
someone starts yelling commands at them
so in the moment did he think it was a
security guard did he think it was an
enemy did he know it was a police
officer so these are all questions that
we should be asking that honestly we
just don't know the answers to but it's
a it's an interesting thought experiment
to kind of go through what are some of
the thought processes that Eric might
have had so once the officer opens the
door he basically just gives him a
command right away to step out of the
vehicle or exit almost immediately while
the door is still the driver's side door
is open Eric puts the car in Reverse
well because the door was opened and
because the police officer was standing
pretty much in in the doorway the door
did strike the police officer as Eric
reversed now this is a couple things so
this is not Eric the driver of not
trying to defend his actions because you
should he knew it was a police officer
you obviously should not flee from a
police officer that that's illegal so
that's not something that someone should
do if you know it's a police officer but
the Eric at this point did not seem like
he was trying to intentionally hit the
police officer it seems like the police
officer being struck by the door is just
because the door happened to be open not
because Eric opened the door himself was
trying to use that as a weapon against
the police officer but again if we go in
the mind of the police officer in the
moment here you are trying to contact
someone that you believe had already
fled and how it happened you know we can
we can look back in 2020 hindsight no
matter how it happened you're struck
with a door from a moving vehicle which
absolutely 100 percent could cause
injury so the vehicle reverses you know
maybe 15 feet or so and then stops once
the vehicle stops
um and the vehicle reverses it's not
it's facing in the opposite direction so
essentially it's not like pointed
towards the officer but it's facing
straight like it's it's going to leave
it reverses and it looks like it's going
to go in the opposite direction of where
the officer was however at that point
the police officer fires five rounds at
the driver of the vehicle the vehicle
then actually starts to move and starts
to speed away so now the vehicle is
still in the McDonald's parking lot
driving away from the officer so at this
point the officer is absolutely and not
in any danger because the vehicle is
literally moving in the opposite
direction of him the officer fires five
more rounds into the vehicle I believe
the officer shot 10 rounds total
um the vehicle uh other officers were
able to the officer did call out over
the air that they were shots fired and
the officer or the the vehicle
eventually crashed and Eric was scooped
up by ambulance he is still alive
however he obviously has some very
serious injuries and his attorney said
that he's clinging to life um the female
passenger thankfully was not shot at all
so a couple things happened with this
officer so a lot of times when there's
an officer involved shooting you know
there's there's an investigation the
police are not just a criminal
investigation but an administrative
investigation where the department
collects all their evidence they have
internal affairs look at things they the
interview Witnesses they go over body
Cam and this process you know could take
several months however
um sometimes when there are really
significant police issues or cases where
the community is in an uproar that
process is kind of avoided
um and the city or Police Department
goes around that and that's what
happened here so the police officer was
terminated and also he was charged by
the district attorney with uh two
charges of aggravated assault they did
two charges that aggravated itself
because there are actually two people in
the vehicle so he the officer did turn
himself in and he was charged with those
charges formally now a couple couple
things about this is you know it's been
reported in the news that the San
Antonio I we saw a news report from CNN
and a couple other places that said that
made a point to say that the police
Union is not backing the officer and
whenever you hear something like that
you go well that's well that's strange
and the reason you would think that
strange is not because police unions are
bad but because police unions it's
literally their job to represent someone
to represent police officers like they
don't have a choice and typically police
unions when they do represent someone
especially if someone's accused of a
crime they don't they don't get to pick
and choose which officers that they want
to represent they they have to it just
it just if they don't then they're
they're um their certification as a
union could be in Jeopardy or or they
could be sued so it's when the news says
you know the the police Union isn't
backing this officer they say it in a
way which makes it sound like this is so
horrible this is so terrible even
without doing a full investigation like
no one is supporting this officer well
what what's what they they leave out of
that and what I think is really
important to know is that this officer
was a rookie officer so and you actually
in the city of San Antonio and actually
in a lot of different police departments
under collective bargaining laws you
actually don't have Union Protection
full union rights until you you're past
your probationary period so essentially
until you're on one year or more and
you're not a rookie so it's not that the
police Union is not backing this officer
or representing him because his actions
were so horrible they might be horrible
but that isn't the reason the reason is
because any police officer who's a
rookie just hasn't met the level the
standard of having one year on where you
get union benefits so I think that's
important so I'm curious if anybody has
any questions about this case or any
different thoughts on it and then I'm
going to go over some of my thoughts on
this case
let's see Sergeant George it's always
the golden rule that you announce
yourself as a police officer that is
absolutely correct and thank you so much
for for bringing that up because it's
just like what I said if you're a police
officer I always say that you know we
want people to follow what police
officers say because if you don't follow
the commands of a police officer that's
when situations can go into a use of
force that's when someone could get
injured or killed and the goal of all of
this should be how can we make it so
there is less violence between citizens
and police even if a police officer
makes a mistake or does something wrong
we have civil Courts for that we have
internal affairs for that so the time to
do that isn't in a violent the time to
object to a police officer making a
mistake which they do make the time to
object to that mistake isn't in a bare
knuckle Brawl on the street with a
police officer so so I always preach
that yes we want people to follow the
commands of police officers again if the
police officers did something illegal
sue them later on there are thousands of
attorneys who would be happy to help you
with that and you absolutely should but
from the point of a police officer if
you're not announcing yourself as a
police officer it's really difficult to
expect people to follow what you say if
you don't say I'm a police officer with
a San Antonio Police Department you know
so you're giving someone commands but
you're not letting them know what that
Authority is and especially if there's a
situation that happened quick again just
imagine you're eating in a McDonald's
parking lot all of a sudden a door opens
up and within a second someone's
shouting commands I always talk about
like you know how the human brain for a
police officer or for anyone just can't
process information that fast and that
you know especially under stress there
are absolute reasonable scientific
limits to Human Performance well as I've
said before that isn't just for police
officers that's for everybody so in a
situation like that Eric who is sitting
in the drivership the vehicle the stress
that he must have been under not even
probably knowing that this was a police
officer not expecting it the action that
he took in the moment of reversing and
trying to get out of the situation it
might not be that unreasonable now had
the officer knocked on the door and said
San Antonio Police Department but I
would be having an entire different
discussion doesn't mean that the
shooting would be lawful or reasonable
or Justified but at least the lawful
command at least we can make an argument
okay he at least let the individual know
who he was so a couple things about this
our San Antonio Police Department does
have some use of force policies they
have a lot of use of force policies
which all good police departments do a
couple of those policies have to do with
shooting at or from a motor vehicle and
this is how the San Antonio Police
Department was essentially able to fire
this officer so quickly based on saying
he violated these policies and he
probably did so let's talk about a
couple of those policies one of the
policies that the San Antonio Police
Department has this is actually a very
common policy that they have is that you
cannot shoot at a moving vehicle to
disable the vehicle meaning that if a
car is moving you know no matter what
direction is going and you want to stop
that car one of the ways to do that
cannot be shooting at it you can't shoot
at the tires you can't shoot at the
engine block if your goal is to just
stop them movement of the car absolutely
can't do that that's a violation of
police department policy whatever their
sanction is it's probably you know
shooting at a vehicle when you're not
supposed to it's probably a pretty high
sanction where an individual officer
could be fired for that so it looks like
he probably violated that policy because
again he shot at the vehicle as it was
driving away which doesn't make any
sense also there's another policy that's
really very common in police departments
is that if a vehicle is moving towards
you so if you think that you are going
to be struck by a vehicle as a police
officer if you have a way to move out of
the way you have to do that first so you
have to first try to avoid the vehicle
if possible and then you can only use
deadly force against an occupant of a
vehicle if there's nothing else that you
can do here's an example of that let's
say that a police officer is pulled over
on the side of the road they're on the
highway and they are on a traffic stop
okay as they're on a traffic stop maybe
they're standing behind their trunk
getting a new ticket book or who knows
what they could be doing while they're
standing on or maybe they're even
talking to the driver why while they're
talking to a driver a random vehicle
that's also on the highway just comes
out of nowhere just careening towards
them totally out of control in the
moment when a car is coming fast and
there's nothing else you could do is
that might be a situation where an
officer might be able to pull out their
firearm and shoot at that vehicle in
order to get it to stop now who knows
how effective that would be probably not
that effective if it's moving that fast
close to you but that would be a
situation where there's at least some
wiggle room about when a police officer
can actually shoot at a vehicle however
this is not one of those cases if it's
not like police officers have like a
stand your ground rule well because I'm
supposed to be here I can stand here I
don't have to move I can just shoot you
like that just isn't a thing with Police
Department policy so those are the
couple of the different policies that
look like he violated uh let's see
uh when it comes to off several
shootings not only do you have people
trying to file lawsuits but you have the
news media that covers those moments
yeah absolutely uh let's see
let's see targeted patent I agree
awesome thank you so much for agreeing
so those are some of my thoughts so it
looks like the officer likely violated
Police Department policy and it does
look like um criminal charges are
probably reasonable now whether he's
guilty or not Beyond a reasonable doubt
there's so much more information and
evidence that we would have to hear to
to see if to see if that is the case or
not so we'll have to see what the trial
process and the court process looks like
but when we come to was there probable
cause to charge the officer with
aggravated assault there's probably
enough probable cause for that so this
does not look just in basic just layman
terms this does not look like a good
officer-involved shooting we have to
look at what is the lawful objective
what was the police officer trying to do
at the time that the police officer shot
the vehicle and shot the vehicle it just
doesn't seem like he was in any
immediate danger at that point so those
are some of my thoughts on that case
it's been it's been all over the news
that's probably the biggest most
controversial police officer involved
shooting that we have uh let's see so
the next case that I want to talk about
happened in Bernalillo County New Mexico
and also for the last video and for this
video we do have links to some of the
body Cam and dash cam footage so we'll
definitely put those in the chat if you
want to check those out so you can kind
of see exactly what we're talking about
later on so this next case happened in
Bernalillo County New Mexico and this
happened at the end of September so this
happened on September 20th of this year
and if you know anything about
Bernalillo County New Mexico just think
Breaking Bad just think Breaking Bad
that is a really good example of
Bernalillo County New Mexico so deputies
with the Bernalillo County Sheriff's
Office were dispatched to a gas station
this was on day shift it was it was
light outside they were dispatched to a
gas station reference to a call for
service so here's some of the remarks on
this call for service it's that
someone called in said there's an
individual he's inside of a vehicle
added gas pump he's in the driver's seat
he looks intoxicated and he's passed out
so that's the reason the police officers
were called in the first place and I
also always talk about lawful objective
okay so it's like yes they're absolutely
a lawful objective basically the reason
why police officers are doing something
if there's no lawful objective for what
police officers are doing then if they
have to use Force later on I just don't
have a whole lot of sympathy for that so
lawful objective is the most important
thing so our police officers doing
something that would we they should be
doing under the law so if we if we um so
their call to this once they get there
they contact the driver in the vehicle
and I don't know what it is about people
who are drunk in vehicles who are woken
up by police or they just have this
instinct to fight and run but this guy
45 year old Colby Atkins yeah he had the
instinct to fight and run so what what
Mr Atkins did during contact with police
officers once they woke him up is he
fled he fled from the scene so he drove
away at extremely high rate of speed and
started driving crazy crazy on the wrong
side of the road High rates of speed
through through pretty heavy traffic
during the day so at this point the
police officers well they have they have
a choice so I mean the question really
is is should they chase the vehicle or
not now when police officers get
involved in vehicle Pursuits not only do
they have to think about state law not
only do they have to think about state
law but they also have to think about
Department policy so there was a BC a
Bernalillo County Sheriff's um uh deputy
chief who did give a statement to the
media and he said our mandates just from
a protection standpoint first and
foremost is to protect the innocent
public so that's you know it sounds like
that the leadership there at least this
leader from the Department did have um
is supporting the police officers in
this case
um so so
um you know the police officers have to
have have to have the decision about
whether or not they actually chase the
vehicle or not now when the police
Pursuits are one of the most dangerous
thing that police officers can do not
just for the person who's running not
just for the officer but for everybody
else who's in the road pedestrians
people driving their kids to and from
school people going to the grocery store
just regular people who have nothing to
do with
um the police incidents so as he's
driving crazy crazy the police officers
the deputies do decide to chase him it
like happens in most chases the bad guy
crashes and especially in in cases like
this where someone is drunk or high yeah
it's not too long before the individual
is going to crash and that's what
absolutely happened Mr Adkins he crashed
his vehicle and police officers then in
this case they did the right thing so
there is a tendency from police officers
especially if the training isn't that
great once a vehicle crashes that you
get like 10 different cops running up to
the car and they're pulling on door
handles
um but the officers didn't do that they
kept their distance from Mr Adkins and
they used their vehicles for cover and
and some concealment which is tactically
absolutely the best thing to do so I
wanna I wanna really point that out that
that was a good decision by the police
officers not just run up and try to rip
him out of the car that what they tried
to do is from a distance a safe distance
that tried to yell at him and give him
verbal commands to comply so this is a
good thing because the police officers
in cases like this they're showing hey
we're not looking to just run up and
thunder this guy like we want to give
him commands follow those commands and
then we don't have to use four so this
shows what the intent the mindset of the
officers are which is a good thing so I
want to commend the officers on that so
but what Mr Atkins does he then exits
the vehicle and he picks up a flashlight
he's not listening to police officers
he's not following commands he's kind of
walking in and around his vehicle but
again not doing what they're asking him
to do then he picks up a flashlight so
you can see it in the video that we link
there but it's essentially a flashlight
it's a long black thin flashlight you
know maybe be eight or nine inches long
or so and what he does he holds it like
a gun and he stands in a shooting
platform what that means is basically
he's standing like he's shooting a gun
so he's he's not holding it out like a
flashlight he's not holding it out like
like he's using it as like an umbrella
like he's holding it like it's a gun and
he's pointing it out holding it like he
like it's a gun and he's pointing it at
passing Vehicles so in the moment the
deputies there there were six of them on
scene they thought that he was holding a
gun so I mean so we have to ask
ourselves well is it reasonable that the
deputies thought that he was holding a
gun okay so what do we know about Mr
Atkins well we know that he's someone
who's going to flee from police officers
drive recklessly and put everybody else
on the road in danger so the police
officers already know this is the kind
of person he is because these are the
actions we just saw him do then
and I do believe he has a prior
conviction for uh Federal conviction for
bank robbery though the officers at the
time didn't know that okay but he but he
um so he points this at passing Vehicles
wasn't reasonable for the deputies to
think that this was a firearm and it
likely was because of the because of the
shape exactly he had the intent for
police officers to think that he was
holding a firearm pointing at other
vehicles why would someone think that
because they they would have to know
that a reasonable response from police
officers would be to shoot at him and
kill him so that would be a reasonable
response if you're trying to elicit
actions from police this is the kind of
thing that you would do so police
officers the six officers did shoot at
him a little over a dozen times and he
was shot and killed so um I'll I'll
definitely look to see if there's any
any uh comments about this case or any
thoughts about this case
um but you know he did have a flashlight
he didn't have a firearm but that isn't
that is when it comes to whether or not
an officer-involved shooting is
reasonable and legal it isn't about if
the individual actually had a gun it's
what a reasonable officer in the moment
believe that Mr Adkins had a gun is this
how a reasonable officer would have
acted in a situation like this that's
basically the standard that you're going
to find in Graham versus Conor the
reasonable officer standard so was it
reasonable for the police officers to
think this so if anybody thinks that it
wasn't reasonable for the police officer
like this I'd love to hear hear your
comments and see why so the only other
thing the police officers could have
done if they honestly believe that it's
a firearm is to wait for him to start
shooting random people and then how many
lives are you going to sacrifice before
you act as a police officer so so to me
this seems like uh uh so to me this and
he was pointing it at he wasn't just
pointing the flashlight at like a like
randomly around like there was someone a
random person who was driving in like
this big van and he was pointing it
right at the van so really as soon as he
basically it seemed to the officers like
he picked out a victim and was pointing
it right there and the police officers
had to make a split-second decision not
based on 2020 hindsight and the luxury
and in the privilege of of your own home
watching these videos but in the moment
this is the life and death decision that
they had to make and it likely was a
reasonable decision unlike the first
case we did this seems like this officer
involved shooting was a reasonable
lawful officer involved shooting though
we will keep following this case to see
if there are going to be any
disciplinary charges for the police
officers however with the available
evidence we have now it seems like this
was a lack of better term a good
officer-involved shooting
um so any any other comments on that
we'll go ahead and go I'll I'll talk
about those but the next case that I
want to talk about um this is this is a
tragic case I I hate I hate covering
cases like this but
um it happened in Greenville Mississippi
um there this was a police officer who
was shot and killed this was a couple
days ago it was on October 11th um her
name was Maisha Stewart and and she was
a detective with the Greenville police
department reading a little bit about
her background she was a native of
Greenville that's where she came from so
you know she was a police detective in
her own in her own department and they
haven't released a whole lot of
information about this case um the the
department has been pretty hush-hush on
it but here's the information that we
have so far that's been made publicly
available at least up through this
morning is that there was a call for
service reference a disturbance now they
haven't gone into exactly what kind of
disturbance it was but it did elicit the
response from several police officers
including including Miss Stewart who was
a detective with the police department
police officers got there and they
reported that the officers had a
shootout with multiple different
subjects
um the the report is that not only was
officer Stewart killed in the gunfire
but that other other police officers
other other police officers were other
police officers were also in other
individuals or under other individuals
officer also injured in this shooting
and that they do have the offender in
custody so we will keep following this
case but officer Stewart's detective
Stewart did have a three-year-old child
so so it's a really really sad case
um we've actually had a lot of officers
shot recently um this has been an
especially violent week for law
enforcement but I just wanted to
highlight a couple of these cases even
though again I do not like talking about
these kind of cases but I think it's
important to get it out there because a
lot of times these stories are are very
popular local stories and they don't
make it onto the national level so
because here at cops and con TV we have
a pretty big audience so I think some of
these stories even though I don't like
talking about them they should be
National stories not just local stories
um that goes into the next one it was a
an officer involved shooting in Bristol
Connecticut again this happened a couple
days ago on on October 13th and again
it's it's the same kind of thing so
there's violence against police officers
has been has been pretty awful lately um
so police officers were dispatched to a
domestic disturbance in Bristol
Connecticut and the only way that
Bristol Connecticut what I think about
is ESPN I'm pretty sure that's the
headquarters of of ESPN so I think it's
a pretty reasonable reasonable area I
don't think it's high crime or anything
like that but anyways it was a domestic
disturbance that they were dispatched to
between two brothers three different
police officers went
um as the police officers went really
before they could make contact with
anyone there was in there was an
individual who was waiting to Ambush
police officers who was armed with a
rifle and essentially ambushed the
police officers and shot at them as they
as they were walking to the call for
service it seems like at least at first
they didn't even have a chance to
respond or to know what happened
Sergeant Dustin De Monte was killed
officer Alex hamzi
um was was officer also killed by the by
the gunman and a third officer Alec
iu-r-a-t-o-e orado I'm not going to say
his name right but he was injured um his
injuries they said that it's a
significant injury significant wound
however he is still alive life um the
the suspect in in question Nicola his
name is Nicholas butcher he died on
scene and also I guess his brother was
also on scene though
um uh his brother was also on scene and
he was shot by police officers well the
Connecticut government Ned Lamont um
said that the uh that the shootings of
the police officers was a senseless
tragedy so um this has been a huge story
in in Connecticut and um it is making
some some national news but I mean the
idea that the idea was that
um the thing so we don't know what the
motive is yet
um the offender Nicholas he's been
described as neighbors as a divorce dad
of a couple kids who like to drink beer
and was kind of like a loud guy who
loved guns um other people said that he
was like a fun-loving guy so so it's
difficult to know what the motive is or
why someone would just someone would
just decide one day to just randomly
attack police officers again this wasn't
like the police officers were there they
were trying to place him under arrest I
mean it seems like the information we're
getting now is that the call was placed
by the offender in order to lure police
officers there and then pick them off as
they were just responding to a call for
service which is um pretty pretty evil
to do
um the the fop so the Fraternal Order of
Police has made a couple public
statements recently about all this
violence towards police officers so the
fop noted that since Monday so you know
here we are Friday that since Monday
that there's been 12 police officers
this was as of yesterday so I don't know
what happened last night in the country
but there's been 12 police officers
around around the country that have been
shot since Monday and the fop is blaming
the culture of lawlessness so we'll have
to see what some of the motives are for
these for these shootings but um 12
police officers shot in a four-day
period is absolutely insane
um so those are some of the most
important I think police officer cases
or that that have that have made the
news I think are just important to talk
about because not all of these cases
like I always say it's not just one
individual case because a lot of these
cases they have issues embedded in them
that are going to just Branch out to
other police cases like this isn't the
only time that we're going to talk about
an officer-involved shooting or an
officer is shooting at a vehicle so to
kind of learn or talk about some like
the bigger picture issues and then
policies and procedures behind some of
these issues are good because the goal
is let's say like like the first case
that we covered um in San Antonio let's
say let's just say that the officer did
make a mistake that it was a bad officer
involved shooting well what can we learn
from that so what can police departments
put in training can put in education for
police officers so that doesn't happen
again because that's again that's really
the goal of all this what can we do so
there is less violence between citizens
and police officers so police officers
still have an important job to do but
how can they do that safely not just for
themselves but also for the public so
those are the main police case I want to
talk about I also talk about some things
that are all happening in uh some really
interesting court cases lately that I
don't know if anybody follows law and
crime the channel from Dan Abrams but
they do a lot of good a lot of good
analysis on and and just live video of
Trials and I almost watched that stuff
more than I watch a police body cam
video but a couple things that people
might be interested in so Alex Jones
um was sued by the
Alex Jones was sued by the families of
the children who were killed in the
Sandy Hook shooting so Alex Jones if
everybody remembers you know he's from
Infowars he went on back when this
happened
2013-12 you know a decade ago basically
saying that the Sandy Hook shooting was
a hoax that it didn't happen he claimed
that the parents were the parents were
actors they didn't lose their kids
um I mean this is I remember when this
happened and it's absolutely insane that
he was saying these things um but So
eventually he was sued it's taking you
know again almost a decade or so um he
was sued and he lost his civil the the
lawsuits against him um he just lost a
pretty big case um so a couple days ago
came down that the Civil judgment
against Alec Jones is 965 million
dollars and this isn't the only case I
think a couple weeks ago he lost another
case for like 40 million or so and I
think there's at least one more pending
so you know almost a billion dollars so
this is this is just about the only
lawsuit like this
um the biggest civil defamation lawsuit
for 900 which is an absolute crazy
amount of money now one of the important
things that reasonable people are going
to ask is well is he actually going to
pay this like is he actually going to
pay this amount so in short no he's not
because he doesn't have 965 million
dollars so the parent company of his
show Infowars is called like free speech
Coalition or something like that so they
filed for bankruptcy um it's very
possible that Alec Jones himself may
even file for bankruptcy as well and
maybe some of the lawsuits could be
dissolved there or he wouldn't have to
pay all of them or a smaller amount um
but you know I've seen some analysis and
well how much money does Alex Jones
actually have so I mean again you can't
really trust anything he's even though
he's right every now and then
um you can't trust anything he says
because he just says absolutely crazy
things but Alex Jones has said publicly
that he only has about two million
dollars to his name um well there's been
an analysis done by um I believe Forbes
who looked at all of the companies that
he owns and they said that his actual
net worth if you can include all of the
company he owns he owns like a vitamin
supplement nonsense company too
um that he's worth somewhere between 130
and 270 million dollars so that seemed
like an absolute lot of money but even
with all of his assets even at the
highest level it's nowhere near 965
million dollars so so he will likely not
ever pay that amount
um and let's say that Alex Jones goes
through bankruptcy court so let's say he
goes to bankruptcy well a lot of times
civil judgments are basically it's you
know it seems like anything except
student loans you can dissolve through
the bankruptcy process but there's one
thing about defamation cases so if
during the bankruptcy process if there's
a and I don't know the exact language I
just know the main tenets of it that is
that if the if you can show that what
the individual did for the defamation
was um malicious or had malice attached
to it well anything with malice is not
going to be dissolved in Baker court so
let's say he tries to get he files for
personal bankruptcy and tries to get all
of this dissolved there
um if they're able to show that there
was malice behind it it may not do
anything for this civil judgment but
Alex Jones doesn't have anywhere near
965 million dollars one of the
interesting things is that as the jury
was as the verdict was read he was
actually doing a live show on Infowars
about it and pretty much mocking the
jury and the judge and making jokes
um about it as the as The Verge was
being read so um it's interesting that I
mean he's still trying to raise to raise
money for his legal defense um the other
case that that just came out is Nicholas
Cruz so Nicholas Cruz um he was the
offender in the Parkland shooting that
happened in Florida
um and Gilcher in a sense I mean he's
he's guilty I mean that's already been
determined so what we had going on last
week in this week was essentially the
sentencing and it what this came down to
well was the jury going to find that
Nicholas Cruz the offender was going to
be life in prison or was he going to get
the death penalty so it came out
yesterday that Nicholas Cruz is not
going to get the death penalty that he
is going to get life in prison and one
of the reasons for that so there are 12
jurors and essentially any decision for
the death penalty has to be a unanimous
decision so what the juror said is that
there was one hold out so essentially it
was 11 to 1 and the one person kept
Nicholas Cruz alive and on this planet
and not to get the death penalty
um so with that
um Governor DeSantis he did go on the
news and he did say he expressed his
disappointment with that um that that
one juror held it up a lot of
politicians are also saying the same
thing the D.A said the same thing and
really more importantly than any of the
politicians who are kind of talking
about this case are the are the the the
the the family of the victims almost all
of the family of the victims who've done
been speaking public about about this
case wanted Nicholas Cruz to face the
death penalty um cases like this I
always defer to what does the victim
want what does the family want and I and
I put a lot of weight on what they want
as long as it's something legal um
Nicholas Cruz getting the death penalty
absolutely would have been a legal thing
but there was one hold out so he will
face life in prison
um the one the last case I want to talk
about and I don't know how how much
people are following this but it's a
really interesting case it's the
Waukesha killer Daryl Brook so this is
the individual who drove his car through
Waukesha is SUV
um in Waukesha Wisconsin during a
Christmas parade last year just drove it
through
um he killed I think six different I
can't remember the exact number I think
he killed at least six people injured
injured dozens dozens more this was a
Christmas parade that was going on
through Wisconsin
um the main thing people remember about
this is there was a a group of of women
called the dancing grannies and he
pretty much plowed through them and and
caused injury and killed a a couple
women associated with that group as well
anyway so he's charged with obviously
with all kinds of homicide charges um
yeah six people were killed and 62 were
injured um in in in that in the Waukesha
killing um and Daryl Brooks so obviously
he has some mental health issues but he
has been compound competent to stand
trial so what's important to know is
that he wanted to represent himself and
and he is so there was all kinds of
different legal processes and all kinds
of different things in order to get the
courts to allow him to do it it's one of
those things where if you can show that
you're competent
um it's in a judge doesn't let you do it
after whatever legal challenges and you
know things that you have to meet um
it's one of the things where it'd be if
you lose which you'll probably lose in
court and be found guilty that
um that that's an issue that can be
appealed so you know even though judges
know it's a bad idea everybody knows
it's a bad idea and this individual has
obvious mental health issues you know
it's one of those things where he really
wants to do it you kind of have to let
him so he's been representing himself
and this thing is just a circus so
here's some highlights from from Daryl
Brooks um from Daryl Brooks okay so
there's been multiple times where he
gets into Shout outing matches with the
judge and even though he's representing
himself in his own trial he's actually
removed from the courtroom and put into
another another room where he could
watch on camera because he's just not
acting like a reasonable person Court
he's screaming and yelling and talking
over the judge and interrupting people
um one of the times he did this when he
was put in this other room he took off
his shirt he took off his clothes and
he's walking around he at one point he
had a suit jacket on he put the suit
jacket over his head and he's looking
around at people so it's absolutely
um uh
it it it's absolutely crazy some things
that are that are going on um uh he also
uh mouthed um under his his mask uh when
a dance instructor was um was was
testifying he's whispering things to the
jury one of the Just One of the
strangest things he did is last week he
claimed that one of the jurors gave him
the finger as he walked in
um and they had to have a whole hearing
about this and you know it's one of
those things where it's like it's like
the judge has to give some credibility
to this and do some type of
investigation or you know what judges do
some type of hearing on it because if
they just ignore it these are issues
that you know if he does get a competent
appellate appellate attorney later on
that they can appeal some of these
issues so they had to question the
jurors if the jurors biased and
obviously the juror did not give Mr
Brooks the finger as he walked in um
also Mr Brooks um one of the witnesses
called him Mr Brooks
um uh called him Daryl Brooks called him
by his name and then he says that he
doesn't identify as Daryl Brooks anymore
so he didn't say what he does identify
as but he definitely doesn't identify as
Daryl Brooks anymore so if he doesn't
identify any more as Daryl Brooks then
should he be responsible for the crimes
that Daryl Brooks um committed so that's
a reasonable question
um yeah so that's that's an interesting
case well he also shaved his head he had
dreadlocks before and he shaved his head
and one of the he was questioning one of
the one of the police officers who was
on scene and he was saying well you know
didn't the individual who do this have
like long hair and and I have a and I
have a shaved head and and the offshore
was like yes since this happened you
have shaved your head so uh really
really uh strange strange case
um so that's that's the last case that
uh the last court case that I that I
wanted to talk about um one other thing
that's kind of like as a side note is I
just want to do a little bit about
Hunter Biden so Hunter Biden has been
under
investigation and it looks like there
are two possible charges that Hunter
Biden might face one is tax evasion and
the other one is it has to do with
putting incorrect or false information
on a firearm a federal firearm form
essentially what this comes down to is
when you purchase a firearm you have to
fill out these Federal forms and one of
them says something to the effect of
like you aren't addicted to any illegal
narcotics or substances well he put no
so he was able to purchase the firearm
but since then he's come out publicly
he's written a book and all kinds of
information that you really can't
dispute where he says I was addicted to
drugs I was a drug addict from this year
to this year Well in that time period
happens to be when he filled out this
Federal firearm form because he was
addicted to the drugs I'm sure he did
not even remember that question was on
there
um so that's one of one of the charges
there so a couple things so it seems
like the the Democrats
um really just don't care about the
charges um even people who are concerned
about gun control this is usually the
kind of thing that gun control Advocates
um you know really want to go after
people lying on federal firearm forms
but they don't really care about that
all the Democrats seem to care about is
just you know making sure this doesn't
attach to or anyway hurt Joe Biden um
Republicans simply the Republicans don't
really care about the tax evasion or the
federal firearms stuff either really all
they care about is the higher level
crimes that might have been committed
you know what they say is that we know
when Joe Biden was president that Hunter
Biden had all of these business dealings
in Ukraine with energy companies and in
China where he was basically flying
around the country picking up bags of
cash using using the Biden name and
trading that for influence again you
know while he was an admitted drug
addict so
um that's that's some of the issues
around there but those are some of the
possible charges he might face at least
from the Republican side what they're
saying what they're concerned is is that
you know that they're going to go after
Hunter for tax evasion and this firearm
nonsense form nonsense
um and you know basically the the it's
up to the the elite prosecutor in
Delaware to see if he's going gonna face
charges on these and is to you know
charge him with some of these crimes and
then you know then be able to say
something to the effect of well see we
aren't giving him special treatment we
went after him well that isn't what the
Republicans want they want the higher
level government corruption um they want
that to be investigated so we'll see
what happens there but it does look like
charges could be coming soon the tax
evasion or for the federal firearms
charges so those are the cases that I
wanted to talk about today I want to
thank everybody for being here um but
just remember make sure you follow us on
And subscribe to the channel on Cops and
cons TV if you want to follow me on
YouTube or Tick Tock it's at police law
news and I hope that everybody has a
great weekend thanks