one
good morning this is Daniel here with
cops and cons TV today is going to be
our live show that we do just about
every single Friday now this week we are
doing it an hour early so I want to
thank everyone for joining in and the
way we're going to do this like every
week is we're going to go over some of
the most important and interesting
police and legal cases that happened
this week so while we're going through
these cases if you happen to have
questions or comments or if you think I
get something right or get something
wrong or maybe you just have another
take about what we're talking about put
it in the comments and definitely like
to go back and forth with people during
the comments Live while we're doing the
show and I'd be more than happy to
answer any questions so again like
always if you haven't subscribed to our
Channel please do subscribe to Cops and
cons TV that's where you know when we do
these live shows you'll know exactly
when they're coming in if you want to
follow me you can follow me at police
law news over at YouTube substack and
Tick Tock all those different channels
so a little bit of a road map of where
we're going today so I want to let
people know kind of what cases that
we're going to cover so the first case
that we're going to cover is the officer
involved shooting in Bristol Connecticut
we're going to go over some of the some
of the new developments that happen
there then we're going to go to a story
that happened you know just about a year
ago in Indianapolis Indiana so it is an
older story but it's one of the officers
involved has just been charged with
federal charges it's a case of excessive
force that I think is really interesting
and it's one of those cases where if you
watch this case and you don't think that
the force is is excessive I'm going to
say that you're not being honest so
we're going to get into that
um also the Daryl Brooks case so Daryl
Brooks is the Waukesha what's the news
about 12 hours ago is when I saw it so
there is some updates on some of the
we'll call it some of the fault with
Uvalde we've covered Uvalde so much but
it actually has been a couple weeks or a
couple months since we've talked about
it but there have been some developments
with some of the managerial and
structural problems that have been
discovered through investigation of this
case and then last but not least we have
what I call the trial of the century so
I'm going to leave that as a teaser for
the end but it is the absolute craziest
lawsuit most ridiculous lawsuit that's
ever been filed so we're going to go
ahead and talk about that uh can you
break Let's see we do have a couple
comments uh let's see New Mexico
exploring can you break down some New
Mexico officer-involved shootings yeah
we have uh broken down officer involved
shootings from New Mexico there was one
from Las Cruces that we that that we did
with an older woman we did that a couple
months ago and last week we actually
broke down a case with an officer
involved shooting with the Bernalillo
County Sheriff's Office so we broke down
one of their officer-involved shootings
um you can go ahead and watch those in
our older episodes but absolutely we do
um cover officer involved shootings that
we think are interesting and have some
substance to them one way or another in
every single state so again so thank you
all for being here again and so the
first case that we're going to talk
about is we did touch on it last week
but it was a little bit new so this was
in a couple weeks ago in Bristol
Connecticut essentially there was a call
for service it was in reference to a
domestic dispute two brothers they were
both in their 30s and there was a call
for police that there was a domestic
dispute at a house three different
police officers arrived to the house and
essentially this was an ambush one of
the brothers his name is Nicholas
brutcher he was actually in camo and he
was in the bushes and he had an AR-15 as
the police officers approached the house
they started to speak with his brother
Nathan butcher as they were speaking to
Nathan the other brother Nicholas
started shooting at police officers it
was reported that he shot at police
officers over 80 times two police
officers were tragically killed Sergeant
Dustin De Monte and then officer Alex
hamsey they were both killed in in the
gunfire there was a third officer there
his name is officer ariato and he was
actually shot in the leg despite being
shot in the leg he was able to find some
cover and find some concealment back by
his police car and then he did engage in
a gunfight and he did Kill the shooter
Nicholas butcher the brother Nathan who
was was the one who had and wasn't the
one who was hiding he was the one that
officers were initially talking to so he
was shot as well however they really
haven't been too um up to date or given
a whole lot of information on exactly
what his injuries are but we know that
the brother Nathan was also shot by
police officers and we know that he is
in the hospital though it's unsure
exactly which charges he's facing or if
he was also a shooter or if he was just
a decoy so we covered that last week but
there has been some new information so
what everybody wants to know is what is
the motive so you have two brothers who
you know really don't have any real
substantial criminal history the shooter
the in uh Nicholas who was hiding in the
bushes he is a divorced father but he
has two little kids so what would make
him all of a sudden decide to do this so
everyone wants to know what the motive
is and this might not help a whole lot
but some of the information that we've
gotten recently is that apparently
before this Nathan and Nicholas were at
a bar called bleachers in uh in Bristol
Connecticut and while they were at the
bar there was a some type of a
disturbance and there was a call for
service in reference to disturbance and
police were called so no one was as far
as we know no one was arrested no one
was cited but Nathan did have some
contact with police officers earlier in
the night at this bar so that's just the
new information we have it's unknown if
it's actually
um relevant or not or if that's the
reason for the officer-involved shooting
but um there have been record requests
for body camera video of any contact
police officers had with them over at
the bar and also
um body camera footage from the officer
involved shooting so we are going to
post a link to some of the body cam
footage so what they've actually
released so far is not the initial
approach by police officers it's
essentially after the officer involved
shooting starts officer uriato once he
retreats to his car and then in from
from that position he then engages with
a gun battle with Nicholas it's at that
point that the body camera footage is
available so um we do have a video of
that it is uploaded into the chat if you
want to check that out later now I
covered this on my channel
um uh uh earlier in the week and there
were some comments where people said
well you know
um wouldn't it be better for police
officers if AR-15s were banned meaning
that you know because the individual
shot at police officers 80 times you
know they were pretty much out gunned
right from the beginning especially
because they were caught by surprise and
you know wouldn't it be safe if there if
there was a ban on AR-15s and I I guess
so in a perfect world I I see where that
makes sense meaning if we could go back
I don't know when the first AR-15 was
made but let's say 50 years I I don't
know when but let's say we can go back
50 years if we had a crystal ball we can
say we are never gonna make these
weapons so that they are in the hands of
civilians well we could have that
conversation but right now living in
reality there are over a hundred million
AR-15s in the United States so putting
any kind of a ban on AR-15s it just
wouldn't keep it out of the hands of
dangerous people so again if you are
going to violate the murder law and if
you are going to kill police officers I
don't see a situation where someone says
well you know I really don't want to
break this federal firearms law I mean
if Hunter Biden doesn't care about
breaking federal firearms laws why would
other violent Maniacs so that's kind of
what I want to talk about there keep the
families in your thoughts because we did
lose two police officers in this tragic
case and officer uriato he was shot in
the leg and he is still injured so we'll
keep an update on that and then as soon
as we get some more information maybe
about the motives we will go ahead um
and we do have some information looks
like AR-15s uh was were first introduced
in 1956. so I said 50 years um ArmaLite
rifles um in 1956 so I said 50 years
closer to 70 but not too far off so the
next case that I want to talk about is
in um
is in Indianapolis Indiana and we're
going to post a link to that to that
video as well but this is a really
interesting case so it happened on
September 24th of 2021 in Indianapolis
Indiana the individual who was involved
his name is Jermaine Vaughn so it looks
like they're in downtown Indianapolis
and there's some type of call for
service um Mr Vaughn is a homeless man
and he was involved in some kind of a
disturbance where I'm not sure exactly
what the facts are but the police
officers on scene decide to place Mr
Vaughn under arrest for disorderly
conduct so they do so they Place Mr
Vaughn in handcuffs one season handcuffs
he does start to struggle and resist
arrest a little bit and one of the
police officers who has them in
handcuffs does the takedown and
essentially gets him on the ground in
order to get a better control of Mr
Vaughn so up to this point we really
don't have any issues we have an arrest
which you know there's there's likely
probable cause for that arrest and then
there's he's handcuffed and there's a
takedown to the ground after he starts
to actively resist all of this seems
reasonable when he was taken to the
ground it wasn't in a real hard fashion
it seems like maybe they were just
trying to get a better control of him
maybe they were going to try to get leg
shackles just to do a couple things to
make it so he was easier to control so
that police officers might be able to
handle the situation in a more safe
manner for not just the officers but
also for Mr Vaughn himself now here's
where things just go absolutely awry and
I can't even explain why someone would
do this so Mr Vaughn is on the ground
and we are going to post the video to
this as well but Mr Vaughn is on the
ground handcuffed behind his back laying
on his back so his face is looking up
while he's in that position there's a
sergeant at the time he was a 14-year
veteran of the police department his
name is Sergeant Eric Huxley he
essentially walks over really quickly to
Mr Vaughn lifts his left leg and Stomps
on Mr Vaughn's face with his boot
there's absolutely no reason to do this
there was was no missed at this point Mr
Vaughn wasn't a threat he wasn't
spitting his his hands were behind his
back even if he was spitting that would
not have Justified this level of force
you can see that after this happens Mr
Vaughn is is pretty stunned I mean he
seems like he's he seems like he's
shocked he does start to bleed from his
face and during this he does say that
this is police brutality and he's
correct
um so this is something that absolutely
should just never happen there's no
reason at all for this if you watch the
body camera footage throughout the rest
of it it seems like the sergeant kind of
has an idea that maybe what he did just
isn't correct or isn't the right thing
or that this could be problematic later
on because and this isn't part of any
official investigation yet this is just
him kind of talking to other officers on
scene and he essentially says that his
stomping on Mr Vaughn's face was an
accident the sergeant said made a
comment that you know he was trying to
put his foot on Mr Vaughn's shoulder in
order to just hold him him down and keep
him stable but he accidentally stumped
on his face with his boot so if you
watch the video that is is absolutely
not correct what he said now what the
officer said in an internal affairs
investigation or to criminal
investigators well I'm not sure I'm not
sure if he kept with that statement
because that hasn't been made public but
again at least on body camera footage he
seemed to be trying to justify his
actions you know maybe to the other
officers so they didn't report him well
what ends up happening is that the
police off of two other officers did
actually report him um the chief of
police didn't find out about this
incident until two weeks after it
happened so there's a little bit of a
discrepancy there the two officers who
were with the sergeant they claimed that
they actually reported what happened the
chief of police has gone on the news and
said no no no the only way that we found
out about this is through a normal check
during a use of force any kind of use of
force case or investigation during just
a regular check we found this two weeks
later that's how it happened well the
two other officers who were with him
have been placed on leave and they have
sued the department uh those two
officers are claiming that they are
being retaliated against against the
police department for reporting what the
sergeant did now the police chief has
actually done a really good job about
making the video public and saying hey
we want to get out in front of this this
is what the sergeant did it's not
appropriate it's not in line with any of
our policies or values and we're going
to come out and essentially denounce
this which is absolutely what the police
officers should do so just that Sergeant
has been placed on leave and also
there's a criminal investigation so a
couple of the new developments this week
and kind of why this case has you know
re-emerged appropriately in the news is
that he is facing two state-level
charges one for official misconduct and
the other state level charge is for
battery with moderate injury also this
past week he was indicted on federal
civil rights violations for violating
rights and excessive force under the
color of law so the sergeant was just
indicted on those cases so employment
laws I know a lot of people are going to
say well how is he still employed why is
he even still technically employed with
the Indianapolis Police Department
because he is he hasn't been fired yet
so every state has different collective
bargaining laws meaning when it comes to
individuals who have public employment
and then you know how they can be
disciplined terminated fired and I just
want to say this that it's it's always
in the best interest of the city or the
county or the state to follow those laws
no matter what they are because if they
violate those laws now let's just put
say for an example let's say we can all
agree that this and just so you know the
sergeant he has been pulled to the
street from the street he's on
administrative Duty he's not having any
contact with the public they yanked his
gun in his badge in his car so he's
doing some type of administrative
assignment he isn't he isn't out there
you know doing traffic stops or anything
like that but let's say that we all
agree that the end of this should be
that the sergeant should be terminated
well if they don't follow the proper
channels the proper channels of
Investigation of letting the sergeant
know exactly what he's facing and then
go through those proper procedures by
Whatever by the state of Indiana Law and
they fire him too early even if it was
the even if the firing was technically
good for not following those procedures
the city could be sued for back pay for
reinstatement and they might have to do
some kind of a settlement so if the goal
is to actually terminate police officers
who have done wrong and have violated
serious policies it always isn't the
best written interest of the police
department the city or the state to
follow those employment laws in whatever
state that is so I think that's a reason
to explain why the officer hasn't been
fired yet so a lot of times in a lot of
States I'm not saying it's the case for
Indiana that one of the ways that the
officer can be fired even you know
before an investigation is done is if is
if
um
they're indicted on a felony so he was
just indicted on a felony so we'll see
if that's one of the ways that the city
is able to fire him the chief has
recommended termination my guess is that
what will happen but there are people
who are reasonably irritated that he
hasn't been terminated yet but you know
there's some legal reasons for that and
again it's always in the best interest
of the state or the employer to follow
those laws um and we'll have to see what
happens with the retaliation claim from
the other two police officers because if
they actually reported it there should
be some kind of a record did they write
in their police report did they did they
did they file a separate independent
internal affairs investigation form
where they're requesting an
investigation or did they send an email
a text message or did they just verbally
in conversation tell a different
supervisor so it'll be interesting to
see what happened um the fact that the
chief of police is saying that they
didn't actually find out about it until
two weeks later that could be
problematic um you know what also could
have happened is the officers could have
gotten wind hey this guy has an attorney
this is going bad holy [ __ ] we better
report this now 12 days in so is that
something that's possible yes so we're
not exactly sure what happened but those
officers have filed um claims of
retaliation against the police
department and we'll keep updated on
that to see exactly exactly what
happened there but again all three of
those officers are currently on desk
Duty right now we will link the video
watch it it's actually um it's actually
pretty pretty terrible okay it looks
like we have some comments so uh
Sergeant George uh let's see uh the
stomp came from out of nowhere from
Sergeant Huxley yeah I know you're
you're 100 correct like I said he wasn't
the officer who did the takedown he was
kind of standing like a lot of Sergeants
do he's like an ancillary officer he was
there probably managing the scene that's
what a supervisor should be doing but as
soon as the individual was on the ground
he just like walks towards him in a
quick fashion just Stomps on his face
and again there was just no reason for
that uh let's see kidding me says good
old accidental face dump yeah exactly
and uh uh kidding me yes and a good old
accidental face dump will get you um
fired you lose your pension and you're
charged with felonies and you're going
to do years in jail um that's absolutely
what should happen uh James says calling
in an accident doesn't take the fact
that it happened absolutely that's a
hundred percent it doesn't then now now
I know we're gonna go down we're going
to do until Barack Obama's A Silly
Season here but you know let's say that
it actually was an accident
um no it still happened it would still
have to be investigated but if you watch
this there's absolutely no way that this
was an accident that he was trying to
position his footnote he stomped down on
the guy's head um a couple some more
evidence to that is after it happened he
didn't say oh my God I'm sorry I can't
believe I did that are you okay nothing
he just started yelling at the guy
you're done you're done
um so I think he was irritated with the
things that Mr Vaughn was saying but
there was we have freedom of speech and
you can say irritating things to police
officers if you want let's see uh first
okay
watching from Jersey hello okay so no
other no other comments about this case
um yeah and his uh you know Not only was
he saying done done done you're done I
mean the officer's job is done he's
gonna do some time in prison and he
probably should it's actually I mean
like it's one of those things where yeah
one of the reasons that you know I think
it's important to be Pro police is
because you know at least I honestly
believe that police officers are that
separation between Order and Chaos
essentially society would be a lot worse
a lot more violent if there weren't
police officers but part of that is
calling out when there's excessive force
when there is misconduct from police
officers so we have to call it out and
we have to be honest about it and yeah
this is one of those cases that I think
it's important to highlight because the
officer should absolutely
um
face some consequences and it looks like
he's going to so the next case that I
want to talk about is the Daryl Brooks
case and you know this is the case that
it's
it's a tragic case it's from the
Christmas parade last year in Waukesha
Wisconsin you remember he was driving a
red Ford SUV he essentially drove it
through the parade he killed six people
and injured 62.
um he has in trial in court he's with
all those charges he's done some strange
things the trials going on this week and
it's absolutely the whole thing is just
a circus so he is representing himself
as his own attorney
um what the some of the developments
this week is that you know and this has
been going on since the beginning of the
trial it's his claim that he's a
sovereign citizen so this actually gets
pretty interesting and a little
confusing because it doesn't make any
sense so let's just do a little bit of a
tangent on Sovereign citizens and why
Daryl Brooks is saying some of the
things that he says so what Sovereign
citizens including Mr Brooks what they
believe is that there are two different
types of people that there are natural
persons and that there are fictitious
persons and when you're born you are
born to be a fictitious person and you
are given a fictitious name that is on
your birth certificate but conveniently
all fictitious people can decide to opt
out of the fictitious world and become a
natural citizen now once you're a
natural citizen you don't have to have a
driver's license you don't have to
follow laws essentially you're Sovereign
you've opted out of the system you know
you're out of the Matrix you've taken
the red pill you don't have to follow
all these things you don't recognize the
government's authority over you so
that's their Theory again it doesn't
make any sense there's no legal basis
behind it but this is what these people
think that's why often when they're
stopped by police officers they don't
have driver's license registrations
insurance is because they claim that
they're just Sovereign citizens they're
natural persons and they're traveling
and that the government just doesn't
have any control or authority over them
so one of those things that they do is
so on a birth certificate here's one of
the the arguments they make and that one
of the things that Mr Brooks keeps
saying is that on a birth certificate
your name is in capital letters that's
just how it is on a birth certificate so
what they say is that that is your
fictitious name so what most people do
is they change their name they put a
hyphen in or something to that effect
where they said you know that Daryl
Brooks in all capital letters that
government name that's fictitious you
can't charge me with anything because
I'm not him I'm actually Daryl Brooks
where you know except for the first
letter it's all lower case it's a
different person you're not even
charging the right person also Sovereign
citizens they believe that only natural
persons so you have to be this this
higher level of human being you know
like like like Scientology you know yeah
you have to be clear so only these
natural persons they're the only ones
who can file complaints against other
people so one of his issues is is that
the complaint in this case the plaintiff
is the state of Wisconsin so he keeps
asking the judge well where's the state
of Wisconsin you know I want to question
in the state of Wisconsin that's who's
filing charges against me and you know
the state of Wisconsin isn't a natural
person therefore you can't charge me
with these crimes because there isn't a
valid person who's complaining so the
judge has cited case law to Mr Brooks
and really it just goes round and round
again he's been kicked out of his own
trial multiple times and what he keeps
doing is he keeps causing a problem a
disturbance arguing with the judge in
front of the jury and the judge really
has a hard job because she wants to let
Mr Brooks say what he wants but if he
says things that are just too crazy and
too extreme and arguing with the judge
that's going to make him look bad in
front of the jury and what she is what
the judge is reasonably afraid of is
that if this goes to appeal which you
would think it would once he's convicted
if it goes to appeal you know a good
appeal appellate attorney is going to
say so you let Mr Brooks argue with you
for on and on and on in front of the
jury well that tainted the jury that
made Mr Brooks look even more horrible
than he actually is so it's so the judge
keeps having to have the jury leave as
the jury's leaving you know Mr Brooks is
screaming and yelling at the judge one
of the very interesting things this this
week is that not only is Mr Brooks an
alleged mass murderer he's also acting
as his own attorney he's also an
aspiring rapper I mean this guy has
depth he's a regular renaissance man so
in one of his rap videos
um you know he said he's a rap god in
one of his rap videos that he made prior
to the alleged crimes the vehicle the
red Ford SUV that he allegedly was
driving when he mowed down a bunch of
people and killed them during a
Christmas parade for absolutely no
reason that vehicle is actually in one
of his music videos so we're gonna have
to
um so we're gonna have to
um uh put a link to that inside the
inside the the
the chat so you can see exactly what it
is but it's actually a crazy video so
when they play that so the rap video was
shared on Reddit
um when the crime happened a few hours
after it happened so um pretty much
within a few hours you know um
individuals on Reddit who knew who he
was were the ones who who actually who
actually shared it and kind of got it
out there
so it's uh but Daryl Brooks actually got
really mad so he got really mad that the
prosecution was trying to play this rap
video um I guess he feels like he's you
know has has matured and grown as an
artist and he would you know really just
want the prosecution to play a better
song so but uh a video uh some of his
rap video we are going to put in the
chat so you can so you can see it
um let's see so
yes uh he didn't allegedly drive his SUV
through a parade my guy I know uh until
he's convicted it is alleged
um no matter how much evidence or how
silly it sounds um so yes it's um but
that's what's going on in the in the
Daryl Brooks case um like I said it's
been covered I've been watching um just
about every day it is
um uh yeah uh Sergeant George Court TV
aired a live stream of the trial to
which I saw yeah I've been watching I've
been watching the the same thing it's an
interesting trial and um it just really
shows that
um it's almost a wonder how he was found
competent to stand trial but he is so
you know he is I I think it's pretty
obvious to say not trying to diagnose
anyone that there is some mental health
problems there
um but you know he he met the level of
being you know at least not insane for
trial a competent for trial you know
really all you have to show that you're
competent for trial is that you
understand that charged against you so
just because you have a mental illness
just because the mental illness
obviously affects your thinking and your
reasoning in your behaviors if you have
the capacity to understand the charges
against you and to understand the
consequences that's it that's all you
need so he is competent to that level so
um we'll keep you updated on the Daryl
Brooks trial
um one of the things so the state has
essentially rested their case and now
it's his turn to call witnesses so
apparently there's some there's some
talk about whether or not he's going to
call one of his ex-girlfriends who
doesn't want to testify so again this
will be this will be interesting uh
what's his sentence going to cam Allen
what's his sentence going to be do you
think um yeah so I mean I I don't know
if Wisconsin has the death penalty or
not I cannot remember he'll get life in
prison um so he killed 62 people injured
62 more my guess is he'll be convicted
on every single count and
um however many years it ends up being
90 100 a thousand he'll spend the rest
of his life in jail that's what I think
it'll be uh let's see so does he would
he actually call himself to the stand so
that actually happens I know it seems
like a a silly thing but when people are
so that's a good question so what
happens when people are representing
themselves as an attorney but they also
want to make uh but they also want to be
cross-examined as a witness because they
were there so typically the way this
works out is is it's not wouldn't be
like you know a TV show from the 90s
where you have the same person who who
stands where the attorney stands ask a
question and then they have to run back
and they sit and they sit where the
where the witness sits no what it
essentially would be it would be Mr
Brooks just sitting up there and just
talking so he wouldn't have to ask
himself questions he would essentially
just be able to go on and on and on and
talk about whatever he wanted to talk
about and that's likely what would
happen in a case like this uh let's see
the sergeant George the fact that Daryl
Brooks tried to pass himself off as a
sovereign citizen during his trial was
laughable in my honest opinion yeah it
is uh it is actually ridiculous yes
um let's see Amita that would be
ridiculous if he questions himself I
would kind of like to see this uh let's
see anyone have any recommendations on
YouTube channels with police body cam
videos I have a great recommendation for
that it's called cops and cons uh it's a
great channel for police body cam make
sure that you go ahead and follow it
um so uh let's see uh uh Always Sunny in
uh Pahoa um the so since your title name
is it's it's always sunny uh it's always
sunny
um I I watch Always Sunny in
Philadelphia and if you watch that show
you know that Charlie likes to fancy
himself as a bird lawyer so I just can't
think that Daryl Brooks representing
himself would be um you know almost as
competent as Charlie would be
representing himself in a lot of these
cases
um okay so the next case I want to talk
about is Uvalde so we all know what
happened in Uvalde Texas and you know we
really haven't talked about it in a
couple
um uh we actually haven't talked about
it in a couple months um and and that's
because there really hasn't been any
update so since the chief of police Pete
Arredondo since he was fired and
terminated there really hasn't been any
news but we know that there's all kinds
of Investigations that are going on in
the background so here's what hit the
news in the last day or so is that there
is a uh captain from the Texas
Department of Public Safety who has
faced some criticism and is facing an
internal investigation now I just want
to put it out there that that just
because this Captain is facing internal
investigation doesn't mean that he did
anything wrong so I'm not saying he did
anything wrong
um he might have I'm not saying he did
though but you would think anyone who is
on scene who had any type of supervisor
or managerial position in any of these
police departments would be under
internal investigation okay so even if
there was no evidence they did anything
it's reasonable that everybody is going
to be investigated for every decision
they made that's reasonable I would be
shocked and surprised if someone wasn't
so again just because he's under
internal investigation doesn't mean he
did anything wrong this is such a
horrible incident we need to find out
what happened but here's some of the
criticism so he acknowledges this
captain acknowledges that um you know
he's a captain for Department of Public
Safety and Texas DPS is one of the ones
who is one of the ones
who
responded to the scene now obviously it
was the Uvalde police department and the
Uvalde Independent School District
Police Department who were there first
but you know Texas DPS did get there
apparently you know after they were in
route to the scene the captain who
wasn't on scene but was on the radio he
advised the officers who were responding
to take up perimeter positions
essentially to not enter the building
but to take up perimeter positions so
let's think about that so that that
isn't unreasonable so if you're thinking
about it from a position of management
you know and you have from this this
Captain's position position not being on
scene he probably thought that you know
whoever was there first the first 10 15
20 minutes they have all they need on
scene and the captain was likely
thinking okay what else do they need
perimeter positions so but it's a case
like that is once you get there and you
take up a perimeter whoever is Incident
Commander on scene they're in charge so
they can absolutely say Hey you three on
you three on Perimeter we need you over
here so that's something that routinely
happens but the initial order or command
or direction to take up perimeter
positions that isn't an unreasonable
thing to say just trying to think okay
what else do they need in this situation
the calvary is coming how can we help
again knowing that the Incident
Commander on scene once cops are there
they can absolutely direct any cop from
any agency to do whatever needs to be
done so I don't think that's
unreasonable that he said this over the
air um but he is being scrutinized for
that and you know some of his thought
process and exactly what he knew at the
time when he made that directive yeah we
need to find out what that was but I
mean that doesn't strike me as being
incredibly unreasonable then one of the
other uh criticisms that we see that you
know might be a little more serious is
that they said that at 70 minutes in so
70 minutes in so we all know that the
police officers actually went in at 77
minutes but at 70 minutes in apparently
he gave an order to uh DPS so not to
anyone else he only had contact with the
Department of Public Safety is that this
Captain gave an order to a Department of
Public Safety officers to hold on the
door to to not actually go in and enter
because he thought or he had heard or he
had information that there was a more
advanced and trained Tactical Unit that
was in route and almost there so he said
that he made the decision that as long
as they were there anyways to he told
the officers to wait now it's also
saying that he also says in internal
investigation that even though I said
this over there no one listened like
they like they still went in he also
didn't have the information that the
border patrol team Bore Tech that they
were on scene as well which is you know
essentially that that higher level of
tactical Force so he didn't have that
information but it seems like the people
who were on scene didn't listen to him
anyways also this was 70 minutes in
listen if we're going to get mad at
someone for making a bad decision 70
minutes in then we need to get mad at
people who also made bad decisions the
first 5 10 15 20 30 minutes on scene as
well so if there is blame for this
captain and I'm not saying that there
isn't he is way down the list of people
who are blamed and just to recap about
Uvalde really quick you know kind of
what my thoughts are is you know when it
comes to the officers who respond and
the whole thing was a mess it was
absolutely terrible it was not within
training of what police officers are
supposed to do for active Shooters but I
kind of break down to three different
categories of police officers the first
category of police officers are the
first officers who were initially there
um so whether or not how much blame do
we put on them because they were
initially there um I I think they
probably have a whole lot of blame so as
those officers who were there um now
officers who arrived on scene within the
first two minutes well I think that's
different than officers who arrive 20
minutes later because you know they
don't have all the information but I
think we can assign a pretty high level
of blame to the first initial officers
who were in there and then how about the
managers so the police managers or
supervisors who were there on scene like
Pete Arredondo I think that's that's
where most of the blame is because again
if you have a police officer who arrives
eight minutes in if you have a chief of
police who's already on scene who's
giving you orders they have more
information than you they have more
command on you the reason why police
departments are paramilitary
organizations is Because unless the
order is illegal you are supposed to
listen to your supervisors so you know
the police managers that's where the
absolute the managers who were on scene
that is where the absolute most of the
blame should be and then we have the
third group of officers who've been
criticized a lot and I'm going to say
unfairly it's the officer who are on the
perimeter so there's all kinds of videos
of police officers on perimeters who are
essentially stopping parents from going
in now I've covered this before but just
really quick so what the police officers
were doing was following police policy
and procedure okay so I just want to say
if we're going to criticize and we
should the initial officers inside the
building if we're going to criticize
them for not following policy and
training when it comes to an active
shooter then we also have to hold other
officers for for either following or not
following policy so essentially the
officers who are maintaining the
perimeter here's what they knew they
knew that there were 20 cops inside with
an active shooter obviously in 2020
hindsight they would have no way to know
how awful it was actually going inside
but all they know is they have an active
shooter and 20 other cops are inside
they are preventing other people from
entering
a building where there's an active
shooter that is within training that's
within procedure and that is reasonable
you have to think about it this way
whether it's a grocery store whether
it's a library whether it's a school if
there is someone actively shooting
people police officers having the lawful
objective to keep other innocent people
from going in there like that's a
reasonable thing that we should want
police officers to do right I mean it
just it just is now of course the Optics
And the emotions look bad when we know
how bad it actually went inside and that
its parents trying to rescue their kids
so the Optics of it are absolutely
horrible and an emotional argument would
be to criticize the police officers but
we look at what they were actually going
to do so I ask you if you don't like
what the police officers did what policy
would you create to make things better
so how would you want police officers to
act so let's say there's an active
shooter at a grocery store so you want
police officers to allow random Shoppers
and other people inside so I mean how
would that affect again and you have
police officers who are trying to go
after in typical active shooter cases
not in Vivaldi but you know police
officers who enter a building who are
essentially hunting down an active
shooter having five six seven thirty
random people rushing in all crazy crazy
is that going to make the situation
better or worse in general so again if
you criticize what the police officers
did on the perimeter I would like to
know what policy would you put in place
to make this better overall and when you
make police policies you kind of have to
make it general for every situation so
I'm curious to see what people's
thoughts are on that as well uh let's
see uh Sergeant George the fact that
somebody gave orders to the DPS Trooper
to stand down in the midst of an active
shooter Fiasco is ridiculous in my
honest opinion it is it is absolutely
ridiculous so we have to know what the
DPS
Captain who gave that command what he
knew at the time so did he have
communications with so and and what I'm
going to say is probably because you're
a smart guy I know what Sergeant George
is thinking he's gonna say well hey if
you weren't on scene it's an active
shooter if you don't know what's going
on why the hell are you giving any
orders in the first place so that's what
I would say just as a coverall why are
you telling people what to do if you
weren't there so uh let's see
uh let's see Always Sunny uh let's see I
can assure you this will not work in
mainland United States you'll get
arrested anywhere I'm not sure okay
um I yeah I I would read your comment
but it's not really in context so
um I can I can get to it I can get to it
later okay so um so that's the kind of
the that's kind of the update in on the
Uvalde uh the Uvaldi case which you know
we'll keep updated on that we'll let you
know kind of where the blame lies
because it's just so important to figure
out where were the problems where were
the mistakes and how do we fix it so it
doesn't happen again okay so the last
case that I want to talk about it's the
trial of the century it's George Floyd's
family versus Kanye West so the family
of George Floyd has just filed or is
going to file a 250 million dollar
lawsuit against Kanye West so I guess
we'll call him yay West so there this
lawsuit is stems from a podcast um so he
was on a Kanye West was on a podcast
called drink Champs podcast during that
podcast somehow within the first few
minutes of the podcast they got on a
non-controversial topic of the the the
murder of George Floyd so while they
were talking about this Kanye West gave
his opinion that it wasn't actually
police brutality that killed George
Floyd but it was the level of fentanyl
that he had in his system so it's that
statement that comment that opinion is
what is sparking this lawsuit
essentially the family for Kanye for the
family for George Floyd is saying that
this has caused a couple things first of
all it's defamation of character and
second that it is causing it is causing
uh intentional emotional distress for
the family of George Floyd and in
particular his daughter so let's break
this down a little bit so Kanye West
said that it's his opinion that so let's
do the what's it like let's see what the
possible charges are okay so it would be
a civil case this isn't Criminal so
defamation of character so uh for the
attorney to even mention defamation
doesn't make any sense because in order
for there to be defamation of character
Under the Umbrella of defamation of
character there's libel and slander so
in order to essentially be a victim of
libel or slander or defamation you have
to have a living victim so if someone is
deceased that that you cannot you you
have to have a living victim for this so
the family members of George Floyd's
family essentially they don't have
standing they don't have a right to
claim to be victims of defamation on
behalf of someone else so when it comes
to defamation that's absolutely
ridiculous that isn't something that
could happen because George Floyd is
deceased now the second is a little more
interesting it's intentional and
infliction of emotional distress so I
mean in order to do that you basically
have to show that what the individual
said was just so absurd that it was
intentional with malice so they did it
on purpose in an attempt to try to harm
someone emotionally and what they said
is so far outside the bounds of what we
would consider accepted decency okay so
what did Kanye West is what Kanye West
said outside the bounds of accepted
decency well what he said what did he
say he said that he believed is his
opinion that George Floyd died due to
Fentanyl and not due to police brutality
okay well I mean that may not be correct
obviously a jury disagreed with what
Kanye West or what Kanye West said
because they found Derek Chauvin to be
guilty the prosecutor also disagrees
well how about the the defense attorney
for Derek Chauvin so if you look at what
the defense attorney for Derek Chauvin
said it's pretty much exactly what Kanye
West said okay well a defense attorney
is supposed to represent people well who
else said this how about the medical
examiner from the state of Minnesota the
medical examiner from the state of
Minnesota said in uh he was in
handwritten notes and also in testimony
that if George Floyd was found owned at
home deceased with this level of
fentanyl in his system that they likely
would have called it a drug overdose now
that medical examiner went on to say
that yes the level of fentanyl that
George Floyd had in his system yes it
could be enough to kill a person but we
are not saying definitively that this is
what killed him so I mean obviously this
isn't this is an expert for the
prosecution it's a prosecution witness
but he always but again he said it's
possible that the fentanyl could have
killed him but that wasn't his finding
that the fentanyl killed him even though
it is absolutely possible so I think the
amount of fentanyl that Mr Floyd had in
his system at the time of his death was
11 nanogram slash milliliters
um and and they say that you know what's
considered the lethal dose that means
you know what would kill a normal person
so what would I've never had fentanyl
before so you know what would kill me
Fentanyl and it's a 0.3 nanograms so he
had you know just about uh you know
between 3 three and four times in a
system now George Floyd was 250 pounds
he was six foot seven and he was a
regular and habitual
fentanyl user so he has a higher
tolerance uh James James would Kanye be
able to claim that he was simply
misinformed can he say he was given
wrong information yeah absolutely that's
that's a really good question he
absolutely can say that but but he
probably won't even have to get there
because he like I said his opinion to
start out just to start off with the
first element of this would be
um you would have to say that you know
what he said is it's so outside the
bounds of what we would consider decency
well if it's if it's an illegal argument
that a defense attorney made and backed
up by at least one medical examiner and
there's another medical examiner who
said something very similar so we have a
defense attorney making illegal argument
and we have two medical examiners who
are basically saying this Kanye West is
basically saying I agree with the
medical examiners yes other people could
agree so it's essentially it's his
opinion so you cannot get
um in trouble or sued or be successful
in a lawsuit for intentionally
inflicting emotional distress if you're
saying an opinion people are allowed to
have opinions they could be bad opinions
they could be stupid opinions and just
when it comes to free speech and I know
that you know free speech is is the
people use that term and you know really
it's protection against the government
so so this isn't a typical First
Amendment issue meaning that the
government isn't coming against Kanye
West they're going to throw him in jail
you know this is a civil lawsuit from a
private individual but just the concept
of free speech I think it's interesting
to think about because it when it comes
to free speech really the only time that
the defense of free speech matters when
it's speech that you don't like if it's
speech that you agree with if it's
talking about your side of of politics
or an issue well that's really easy to
defend there's no challenge there the
the challenge of this the importance of
this is to defend speech that you don't
agree with
um so I think this is probably the most
ridic and the lawsuit hasn't been filed
but the attorney has been making the
rounds saying that he's going to file it
if this lawsuit is filed it's probably
going to be one of the most ridiculous
lawsuits that has ever been filed uh
let's say uh butter cakes babe uh let's
see you're said uh that's his opinion
you can't sue over what opinion is or
can you know you can't that that's a
really good question so the last time
that I kind of talked about this was
with Kyle Rittenhouse so um Kyle
Rittenhouse versus Whoopi Goldberg you
know the the previous trial of the
century so you know Whoopi Goldberg and
Joy Behar made some comments about Kyle
Rittenhouse and they they on The View
and they basically said that you know
that they thought he should have been
guilty so they said that they disagreed
with the verdict of the jury and a lot
of people and I'm I'm of the opinion
that the use of force that Kyle
Rittenhouse used was reasonable it was
in defense of his life he did not commit
a crime in my opinion is that
jury verdict was a hundred percent
correct now so I disagree with Joy Behar
and Whoopi uh so I I disagree with Joy
Behar and Whoopi but just because I
think that they have bad opinions you
know which is really the whole point and
focus of the view is to just have people
who don't know anything give really bad
opinions but I disagree with Whoopi and
joy behar's opinions but they're allowed
to have those opinions they're allowed
to say you know I looked at this case I
looked at the evidence I think they
should have found him guilty so that's
what they're saying so you know you
people are I I was going back and forth
people on my channel for weeks it seems
like when after Kyle Rittenhouse was
found not guilty because they were
saying that he was going to be able to
sue LeBron James and Whoopi Goldberg he
isn't because people are allowed to Give
opinions even if they're wrong and bad
and yeah I honestly think that core TV
is just chomping at the bit they can't
wait for the live stream rights to the
trial of the century of Kanye West
versus the George Floyd family so that
would be great for television that would
be great for cops and cons TV but on a
real level of you know should lawsuits
be filed absolutely not it definitely
shouldn't let's see James James if they
file a lawsuit for Kanye uh they would
have to sue every other person in the
world that thinks the same thing since
they would have they think the same
thing as Connie basically thinking out a
lot yes but the problem is is that Kanye
West actually has 250 million dollars
most of us don't um so attorneys aren't
going to waste their time
um so it's uh let's see yeah so um like
I said the lawsuit should never be filed
because it's absolute absolutely
ridiculous so those were the cases that
I want to talk about and go over today
um again I just want to say thank you
everyone for coming in and let's see
hang on uh the lawsuit for defamation is
gonna Crash and Burn Sergeant George you
are 100 correct so anyways I just want
to thank everybody for coming in you had
really good questions and comments um
you know we'll be back next week you
know probably around 11 o'clock Mountain
but follow cops and cons TV uh make sure
you subscribe so you know exactly when
we're coming on again if you want to go
follow my channel which I do daily
content it's over at policelaw News at
YouTube Twitter Tick Tock sub stack um I
hope everybody has a safe weekend and we
will see you next week