just wanted to welcome them everybody in
here on this Veterans Day to Cops and
cons TV our live show and that's really
what I want to start with is just to say
thank you to all of our veterans out
there I mean the reason that we have the
freedom that we have to have this show
to talk about anything we want and just
to live in a free Society is because the
people who were brave enough to fight
for our freedom so I want to thank all
of the veterans out there and a lot of
different places have uh around the
country have free meals and free drinks
for veterans and I hope everyone takes
advantage of that and definitely want to
thank all of the local vendors who are
doing that to support our veterans so
again thank you so much for joining us
on this Veterans Day and thank you to
the veterans I also want to point out
that we do have a new logo so we have a
new logo for cops and cons TV I think
it's pretty awesome so why don't you put
in the chat what do you guys think of it
whether you
um
tell us how much you like our our new
logo it's going to be up there I think
it's it's really cool and again if you
haven't already subscribed to our
Channel please subscribe to Cops and
cons TV just so you know when we're
gonna go live again we typically do live
shows on Fridays usually around
lunchtime 11 or 12 on Friday so I'm
happy to be here with you today there is
so much talk about and this really is
the place where we break down the most
important issues in policing where we go
over things that are happening and crime
stories and what's happening in the
world of Law and policing and there's
just so much that's happened in the last
week that I just can't wait to get to it
so again want to welcome everyone in my
name is Daniel if you want to go follow
me please go do so on YouTube and Tick
Tock over at police law news and um
let's see does that is that a is that a
Super Chat
all right let's see all right so we have
a we have a super chat from uh uh home
home along if you can't sing happy
Friday legal expert man thank you so
much I really appreciate the Super Chat
and really appreciate uh the the support
there uh thank you again so much if you
have any uh questions or comments while
I'm going through some of these cases
and issues definitely put it in because
part of this isn't just me talking about
you know these cases I really am
interested in the feedback and what
people think are interested if you think
I have a right opinion or a wrong
opinion or if you think that there's
something about a story that I'm just
missing put it in the chat definitely
want to go go back and forth and kind of
address some of these issues live as
we're going through uh we do have a
couple people who like the who like who
like the logo uh NCS Bar says uh logo
job good uh uh so yeah he likes that
awesome thank you so much so the first
case that I want to talk about and you
know this case has really died down in
the media the last couple weeks which
it's it's a little bit strange that it
did and it's the Paul Pelosi case so we
don't have to get into all of the facts
of what happened because we've done that
before and I think everyone knows what
happened uh but the main thing is that
Paul Pelosi looks like he's going to
make a full recovery I mean honestly
what that means for an 82 year old who
was smashed in the head with a hammer
I'm not sure but it does seem at least
the reports are coming out that Paul
Pelosi in is going to make a full
recovery which is good so you know
besides being married to Nancy still it
seems like he's doing okay and some of
the things that I want to talk about
around that are there are just a lot of
conspiracy theories around this and I
really just want to kind of go through
each one and really what I'm going to do
is I'm going to kind of debunk each of
these conspiracy theories because here's
what I think this comes down to someone
who is mentally ill who attacked Paul
Pelosi I'm going to go through some of
the conspiracy theories that are out
there and again please put in the
comments if you think I'm right track
wrong track on this so one of the things
that has been you know really coming
from just like far right wing media is
that there's a criticism that Paul
Pelosi when he was on the phone with
9-1-1 that he called this guy a friend
well I just want to put it out there so
when Dave depap broke into the Pelosi
house and had contact with Paul Pelosi
he was in there for about 30 minutes
before Paul Pelosi was able to call
police or you know before Paul Pelosi
had an opportunity or did call police so
you have to think about it this way if
you're Paul Pelosi it's two o'clock in
the morning you're 82 this guy who broke
into your house is 40 there's no one
else around you don't have any other
help coming and you're with this guy in
your house for 30 minutes and he hasn't
beaten you he hasn't harmed you he
hasn't done any physical violence yet
and you finally get the opportunity to
get on the phone with police I think
that we all know that even in a best
case scenario it's going to take several
minutes for police officers to arrive on
scene so if once Paul Pelosi gets on the
phone if he starts yelling and screaming
that oh my God a guy broke into my house
he's dangerous I think he's going to
kill me and if you start freaking out
you have someone who hasn't harmed you
for 30 minutes you're trying to keep the
situation calm you're trying to keep
this person reasonable so Paul Pelosi
freaking out and saying you know maybe
things that might even be reasonable or
true that you're in fear for your safety
and you start screaming and yelling
about a crazy guy in your house like the
idea that now you have this person who
is obviously mentally unstable that they
are going to do something even in the
few minutes even if police are on the
way you know it's going to take a few
minutes so I'm just gonna put it out
there that it isn't unreasonable that in
a phone call with 9-1-1 that he tried to
stay calm and because he knows that he
knew that Dave depap was listening to
him that he wasn't going to say anything
to piss off this crazy guy who just
broke into his house so again I don't
think it's unreasonable I actually think
it's the smart move to do to try to keep
things calm but to say things to get
police there quickly so again him
calling David to Papi a friend on the
phone to 9-1-1 I don't think is
unreasonable I don't think that there's
anything there when it comes to
conspiracy theories also people are
criticizing or questioning and it's okay
to ask questions we should but let's try
to find some reasonable answers is that
on the phone with 9-1-1 Paul Pelosi gave
the guy's name so he told old 9-1-1 that
the guy's name was David and yeah it's a
reasonable to say okay well most of the
time when someone breaks into your house
you don't know the name of the attacker
you're right that is that's correct in
most cases but they were in the house
for 30 minutes David de Papi was there
for a half hour before Paul Pelosi
called police so is it unreasonable that
within that half hour they had some
conversation and that Paul Pelosi
learned that his first name is David no
I don't think that that's unreasonable
so the fact that Paul Pelosi gave
dispatcher 911 the individual's first
name is David again that doesn't seem
unreasonable I'm just not seeing a whole
lot there and one of the other things
and I mean I know most of this isn't
really conspiracy theory people don't
really believe this that a lot of this
is you know more just like right wing
like like jokes on Twitter but you know
they're saying that he was that David
that Pappy was a gay prostitute and Paul
Pelosi had ordered him and there was a a
dispute over money or drugs or something
to that effect because that both Mr de
Pappy and Paul Pelosi were in their
underwear so let's take what we know for
sure and again we don't know anything
for sure because we don't have body
camera footage which I'll get to that
later but at least what's being reported
that both people were in their underwear
okay so if that's the the evidence that
we have let's let's unpack that let's
break that down a little bit well this
was two o'clock in the morning I'm not
sure how you all sleep but I can tell
you I don't sleep in a suit I don't
sleep in gear like I'm gonna go out
skiing so Paul Pelosi wearing his
underwear or being in his underwear at
two o'clock in the morning like that
doesn't really make any sense I mean
that doesn't make any sense that someone
would criticize that that seems like a
reasonable thing for someone to be in
while they're sleeping at two o'clock in
the morning now David de Pappy being in
his underwear listen this guy was a
nudist okay he's like he was like an
extremist nudist and I I think we're all
Lucky especially Paul Pelosi that he was
wearing any clothes at all so the fact
that both of them are in their underwear
again if it doesn't seem yes it's weird
but given the circumstances it just
doesn't seem that unreasonable now there
are questions to ask about you know why
certain things happen and here's the
main question I have so again the
information that we have so far is that
once police arrived on scene that Paul
Pelosi who was standing you know
somewhere in the home near David de Pap
that he Paul Pelosi walked to the door
he let police in at that point he walked
back to where Mr depap was and it's at
that point that he was bashed in the
head with a hammer so a reasonable
question would be hang on a second so
someone broke into your house you called
9-1-1 you know obviously there's at
least some fear for your safety there
anyone would have that and then the
police arrived okay if at any point
again I get Paul Pelosi not screaming
and yelling and going crazy over the
phone with 9-1-1 because help could be
several minutes away but now help was
inches away help was right there you
open the door the police officers were
there so at that point maybe at that
point wouldn't it have been reasonable
for Paul Pelosi to at least put the
police officers in between himself and
this guy who broke into the house maybe
run behind the police officers walk
behind the officers walk outside I mean
it just seems like once the to put the
police officers in between you and the
person who broke in your house seems
like a reasonable thing but for some
reason Paul Pelosi didn't do that so
there are questions about that and I
think that's where a lot of questions
have to be answered and so let's think
of well what's the most reasonable
expectation for Paul Pelosi like why
would he do this and I I the most
reasonable ex the most reasonable
explanation that I can think of is This
is that Paul Pelosi and Nancy Pelosi
they're very famous people they're very
wealthy and they've been in the public
eye for 40 years probably and especially
in local San Francisco literally every
time they've gone out to the grocery
store to the movies to dinner to a
baseball game they've been harassed and
talked to by crazy people people who
have ideas about Investments people who
have ideas about public policy people
who love them people who hate them just
weird quirky people who really come up
to them and Badger them no matter where
they are so this type of person who
might be doing this and again most of
these people aren't violent I don't
remember any other stories of either
Nancy or Paul being the victim of
violence yet you know that they are
approached constantly by people who have
might have might really like them or
really not like them so you know it's
very possible that Paul Pelosi that you
know he's in this house for 30 minutes
and David de Papi and me again it's
weird and you don't want someone
breaking into your house but he wasn't
battered he wasn't tied up he wasn't
beaten or anything he wasn't he
essentially wasn't harmed up to that
point so maybe Paul Pelosi put David to
pep in the category of some weird guy
who comes up to him at a restaurant and
just wants to
um give him a political Manifesto that
he has written so because he hadn't been
beaten or hurt up to that point you know
maybe that's why Paul Pelosi didn't have
any fear and now you have police
officers there so maybe Paul Pelosi
thinking Okay police officers weren't
here this guy had 30 minutes to kill me
and he didn't now we have officers
literally feet away well I think I'm
pretty safe to walk back into my own
house so maybe that's what he was
thinking and so those are the questions
and that but that's just my opinion um
that's just my thinking about this we
don't know for sure so I'm curious what
other people's opinions are oh okay
let's see it looks like we have another
Super Chad thank you so much from Club
of two let's see uh she says I respect
your content and I love the live streams
I was wondering if you ever trade out
patches I have a couple possible
duplicates here in New York state Club
of two thank you so much that is an
excellent question and again thank you
so much for the Super Chat and thank you
for supporting this channel I really
appreciate it and yes um we would love
to
um accept and trade patches so if you
want to go ahead and send us an email
um and we're going to put it in the chat
right now if you want to send us an
email we will give you um the the
pertinent contact information in order
uh so we can set in order to set that up
and I really appreciate that again Club
of two thank you so much for the Super
Chat and great question we would love to
again we have this awesome patch wall so
we would always love to add more to it
um okay let's see Janet F says Capital
police protects Paul Pelosi's home she's
third in line to the presidency all
cameras are off too weird Janet F oh
that is an unbelievable question thank
you so much for bringing that up because
I almost missed this this part yes so
Nancy Pelosi is third in line to be the
president uh not for long but for now
she is third in line to be president of
the United States so a reasonable
question like Janet F had is that well
wouldn't it be reasonable to have
security around her well the truth is
she is so Nancy when this happened was
in Washington DC she has 24 7 on-site
security you can't get within 10 feet of
her which is reasonable for anyone in
her position right it just is well she
wasn't there so you know so I guess the
question is well since she was the
security goes with her so is it you know
Paul Pelosi was home alone so he doesn't
have security I mean obviously he's a
multi-multi-millionaire he could afford
on-site security and why he isn't paying
a retired cop or retire happy Veterans
Day a retired military person 50 or 100
bucks an hour to sit outside his house
all night long I mean Timmy that's crazy
when you're worth millions and millions
of dollars that that you're not going to
do that but he didn't however yes I
guess the security that was in places
Not only was there a private security
monitoring system that they had at the
home but also the capital police have
cameras on the home and actually watch
the home
all day long in theory so 24 7 there are
cameras on that but you have to think
about it this way okay so how many
congress people are there 435 and you
have a hundred Senators plus you know
Governors I mean really we could start
talking about all the people that you
know cap in different uh dignitaries if
you want to think about all the people
that not just Capital police let's say
Capital place maybe there's a thousand
people I don't know maybe maybe there's
700 but you know but again if there's
435 different
um there's 435 there's at least 435
different residences that Capital police
would have to watch and maintain on
camera system well you know a lot of
these Congress people and Senators they
have a place in DC and they also have a
place where they live if you're like
Bernie Sanders you also have a third
lake house so let's say each of these
people have two or three homes so not
just the physical people but we could be
talking about a thousand to 1500
different homes that Capital police
would have to be watching let's say each
let's say each homes and uh homes of um
uh you know baby mamas so I mean they're
really we could be getting into
thousands of different houses and
Residences let's say each residence has
two three four five ten cameras on it so
now we're talking about 10 000 cameras
listen what Capitol Place simply just
doesn't have the ability to
appropriately watch and monitor a
thousand two thousand different
residences 24 different residences 24 7.
so that isn't reasonable I I think we
all know that now let's say there's a
breach like there was because David to
Peppa use a hammer to get in well
shouldn't there be something in place
that hey we are watching all these
cameras maybe we have two three four ten
ten officers you know kind of monitoring
a thousand cameras I don't know how many
there are I'm just guessing but let's
say but if there is some type of a
break-in if there's a glass break if
there's motion detected on the property
now shouldn't that take what's a normal
normal you know in a sea of a thousand
cameras shouldn't something like that
trigger something like hey there's
someone that's on this property we had a
motion sensor here hey we had a glass
break here shouldn't that make some type
of alert I'm not saying it didn't but
there was some system fail and I think
that's where that system definitely
failed so um yeah so I think that's I
think that's um uh what what the the
most reasonable thing and and the CL
thank you janeta for the question about
about uh security and again like I kind
of alluded to before what could really
quash all of these conspiracy theories
which I think is what we all want all we
want is honesty we want honesty and we
want to know what really happened okay
not just because we want transparency in
in in our government but like me I'm
extremely nosy I want to know what
happened in these profile cases we want
the body cam footage okay I mean that's
mostly what cops and cons TV does is
that we do body cam footage raw body cam
footage and this is the exact kind of
footage that we want and you know it's a
little bit hypocritical so if it's a if
it think about it this way if it's a
controversial officer-involved shooting
like the Jacob Blake shooting in Kenosha
Wisconsin if it's a controversial
officer-involved shooting
um we're going to release that body
camera footage almost immediately even
if it puts the police officers like in
Jeopardy of being safe even if we know
that Ben Crump is going to swoop into
town lie about the video and then
there's going to be riots all around the
country like what happened in the Jacob
Blake shooting even though it was 100
lawful reasonable and Justified so those
kinds of videos we're just going to give
them that we're going to give into the
mob and we're going to put those videos
out right away but if it's body cam
footage that might embarrass Paul Pelosi
we're not going to put that out so
that's the problem is that it's not
consistent because the D.A the San
Francisco D.A in this case or in this
jurisdiction said that the body camera
footage and the 911 call are not going
to be released until after the case is
adjudicated which it could take years
who knows I mean this could take years
to get all this legal stuff settled out
so um I'm just when it comes to body
camera footage I'm okay I don't like it
but I'm okay with living in a world
where nobody camera footage is released
until after the case is truly
adjudicated
but that's not what I prefer but I'm
okay if that's always the case I would
prefer transparency in government and
for body camera I get it has to be
redacted I'm okay with that being
redacted but I would rather have it out
quickly but what I care about more is
that it's consistent I don't want an
officer Who's involved in
officer-involved shooting treated
differently than Paul Pelosi either we
get the body camera or we don't get the
body camera have one standard for
everyone just because you're rich and
famous and a politician or a police
officer you should not get special
treatment that's my opinion on that and
curia I'm curious what everybody else
thinks about that let's see if we have
any
have any uh comments uh
and I I should point out so every state
so there are public information and I've
talked about this before but there are
public information laws that are go that
kind of go state by state so California
actually has one of the most strict body
camera footage public record laws and a
lot of that was instituted by Kamala
Harris when she was the attorney general
that was the kind of kind of the policy
of her office where if there's a police
incident it's really difficult to get
body camera footage
um it's really difficult to get body
camera footage for police incidents in
California as opposed to other as as
opposed to other states states that are
really good are uh Minnesota New Mexico
Colorado Texas also has really bad laws
and I mean just a one fun fact really
quick is that cops and cons TV has only
gotten two videos from California and
all the time we've been doing this and
trying to get body camera footage from
from all over the country so I believe
we've requested over a hundred different
body cameras and from California from
different cases and we've actually only
gotten two back so some States you ask
them and almost immediately you you get
the footage within 24 hours so again
it's not just this case but in it but
but we do but it's really quick we have
had controversial officer involved
shootings and police misconduct cases if
from California where body camera
footage is released quickly um again I
just wanted to be consistent not Case by
case either we get the potty camera or
we don't if you need to redact sensitive
information redact it but get us what
you can that's my opinion on that all
right so uh that's all I kind of wanted
to say about uh about Paul Pelosi um I I
really appreciate the Super Chat and the
good questions on that again
um you know because we were talking
about Paul Pelosi it's really important
to talk about political violence because
a lot of what happened coming up to the
midterms is both sides use this Paul
Pelosi attack to try to like further
their side for them for the midterm
elections but I just want to point out
that you know this political violence
it's not just on one side it's on both
sides I mean just think about what
happened in 2017 uh Bernie Sanders
supporter who actually worked for the
campaign he attacked and shot six
different people at a congressional
softball game including Republican
representative Steve scalise also in
2017 Rand Paul he was attacked and had
six of his ribs broken by a far leftist
neighbor who didn't like his didn't like
his politics
um recently
um on October 25th of this year Don
Baldock who was running for Senate in
New Hampshire the day he was having a
debate I mean he literally got to where
the debate was with incumbent Democratic
senator Maggie Hassan he gets to the
debate he's about to walk on the stage
and a crazed lunatic runs up charges him
and tries to punch him now luckily Don
Bolduc is a retired army uh Brigadier
General and the police weren't there the
punch was not successful he only grazed
Don Baldock but that person was
described as as a Libertarian
um so I mean so the political violence
really comes from all sides it's all bad
and all of us no matter who is the
victim of the violence we should all say
that it's bad and not accept any of it
and then when we get to
um and yeah so that's what I wanted to
talk about there
um I I like to talk about Chicago so I'm
originally from Chicago I lived there
until I was 22 years old and you know I
mean the city just in my opinion has
just completely gone downhill I mean
it's Chicago is an absolute mess and
Lori Lightfoot is the mayor and it seems
like there's this weird battle going on
you know to be the worst mayor in in
America and you know Lori Lightfoot was
was running behind for a while
um behind uh
uh Garcetti in LA but I think she's
overtaken him so recently there was a
press conference that you know I I I
really want to talk about and I think we
have a video for a link a link to it but
essentially a reporter and so so there's
a show a local show in Chicago called
Chicago tonight Lori Lightfoot I mean
they have all kinds of political people
on there they're pretty reasonable show
but they Lori Lightfoot went on Chicago
tonight and she said that 99 this is a
quote 99 of the criticism that she gets
is only because she's a black female
that's it so you know a lot obviously
people are like well you know it's
possible for us to not like your
policies or not like you the foot chase
policy that you instituted or the fact
that Chicago's violent I mean we could
list a hundred different things that we
would want to criticize Lori Lightfoot
for that has absolutely nothing to do
with her race her gender or her
sexuality because honestly most people
don't care about that people in Chicago
just want to be able to go and pick up
their
deep dish pizza and watch uh reruns of
the 85 Bears okay no one cares about
what her sexuality is all right um but
what Lori Lightfoot did is is there was
a press conference the next day where a
reporter asked her that question he said
he said you know how come how come you
know we have all so this was a weekend
over the weekend I should point out that
there were over 30 shootings in last
weekend in Chicago and a reporter asked
that he said hey last weekend there were
30 shootings in Chicago yet you went on
Chicago tonight and said the only reason
that people criticize you is you're
saying it's because of your race and
gender like that doesn't make sense so
essentially what she did is she didn't
answer the question she stopped him
mid-sentence and she started to
personally attack him saying that he was
a former political candidate that he had
political aspirations you know and and
essentially just made it so the
criticisms weren't valid
um and she pretty much pushed back and
she said well that's my opinion I think
that's why she said I think that's why
people are criticizing me now listen so
far in Chicago as of yesterday when I
checked Chicago has had 590 homicides
and also three times as many shootings
so listen there is a lot to complain
about and to question besides Lori
Lightfoot being a black female and I
just want to say that when politicians
do this no matter what side it's on I
mean Donald Trump does this kind of too
like if you criticize him like he can't
take any criticism you know um it's the
same thing with Lori Lightfoot and it's
a it's a problem because once you say if
you criticize me or if you question me
that equals racism that equals sexism
well what kind of environment does that
create does does do regular normal
reporters do are they more likely or
less likely to ask important and probing
questions when the criticism of the
reporter is that the only reason you're
asking that is that you're a racist so
um I think it leads to less government
transparency when politicians try to put
other motives inside of people who are
asking questions
um it's kind of like Christopher
Hitchens said you know don't assume that
my worst possible motive is my only
possible motive you know and that's kind
of what happened with Lori Lightfoot in
Chicago again Chicago
um really the really they they just want
to care about my Michael Jordan and
Ditka and deep deep dish pizza and um
yeah uh let's see uh uh the Pepe nuts
says uh Beetlejuice Beetlejuice beetles
yeah that's funny and Ditka people in
Chicago like Ditka who would win uh uh
Ditka or a tornado or a tornado named
and one last thing about Lori Lightfoot
that people are pissed off about is she
lost the Chicago Bears the Chicago Bears
for anyone who cares is moving from
Chicago to the northwest suburbs um yeah
so if if we should at least be able to
criticize Lori Lightfoot on losing the
Chicago Bears at Soldier Field
um also you know what else could go
wrong in Illinois
um governor pritzker who an Illinois
Democrat who has just re-elected um he
signed the law and supported a law that
going into effect in Illinois starting
in January of 23 that that they did away
with cash bail so you know Chicago is
one of the most violent cities in the
country so you know now it's going to be
more difficult to keep people in jail
um in Illinois who commit violent crime
so yeah what else could go wrong I think
there's a lot of Christmas criticism to
go around
um so just curious see if anybody has
any has any comments on that uh yeah 85
Bears were epic greatest team of of all
time absolutely all right um so the
other all right so I want to get into a
recent case that I that I I just really
want to talk about it's from Euclid Ohio
and this case is just absolutely crazy
to me so a little back story so this
happened in March of 2017. I said it's
recent because there are just some uh a
part of the legal aspect of this just
came down but this happened into March
of 2017 in Euclid Ohio
um police officer Matthew Rhodes
um there was an officer involved
shooting where he shot and killed an
individual a 23 year old named Luke
Stewart and what I want to say about
this is the shooting was found to be
lawful Justified reasonable there were
no criminal charges that were fired the
officer is still employed in fact he
recently got promoted so congrats
Sergeant Rhodes but civilly the officer
was just hell it was just
was just um he there was a civil lawsuit
against the officer and the victims the
victim's family was just awarded 4.4
million dollars that the officer has to
pay himself which makes no sense so let
me tell you a little bit about how we
got here so this was a call for service
in March of 2017. a neighbor called in
early in the morning and said hey
there's a car that's outside my house
and it looks suspicious I don't
recognize that it's been there for a
while if the vehicle's running can you
have police officers go check it out so
officer Rhodes another officer did what
they're supposed to do what honestly
what they have to do they have to go and
check out what's going on now once they
get there they Park their police
vehicles
um behind the vehicle they put their
Spotlight on and they put their take
light take down lights on behind the
vehicle and they try to make contact
with the individual they find that there
is an individual who appears to be
passed out in the drive front driver
seat of the vehicle the car's running
um the the running lights are on and
they look into the car and they see a
couple things they see what looks like
like a a bottle of wine they can't see
the whole bottle they can only see the
top of it but at least from their
perspective it looks like it's like it's
like an open bottle of wine and they see
evidence of uh marijuana use as well in
the car so they're thinking okay we have
you know essentially a drunk driver and
an impaired driver you know again so DWI
drunk driving laws are different in
every state so you know whether you have
to catch someone driving or is just or
is just being in a car that's running is
that enough for a DUI either way so so
either way like I said it's reasonable
for the police officers to want to make
contact with them also because he's
passed out there could be a medical
issue there so once officers get their
there and you see someone passed out
especially because someone calls you see
the alcohol so you can't just leave as a
police officer you really don't have a
choice not saying you have to detain and
arrest anyone in this situation but you
have to make contact you have a duty to
at least make sure that they're okay and
once you make contact with them if you
see signs of impairment well yeah you
have to make sure that they're sober to
drive because everybody drives on these
roads right so this is probably what the
police officers well this was what the
police officers were thinking so they
knock on the door he's not opening it
he's not waking up so they do what most
officers do is they open the door and
they open the door and what they try to
do is they're trying to turn off the car
because the worst case scenario is that
the worst case scenario is that the
driver starts to take off you know that
isn't what you want and a lot of times
when you wake up drunk drivers they're
drunk and they're confused and they're
not well red they're not you know really
um expecting to be woken up by a police
officer so Mo so working as a police
officer the majority of the fights that
I had been in was from this exact
situation when you have a drunk person
who's in a car you're waking them up and
I always thought it's just because I was
really bad at waking people up then
maybe I needed to take an extra class on
that or something but no think about it
someone's drunk and they're not they're
tired they're sleepy they're not
expecting to be woken up especially by a
police officer a lot of them are so
drunk they forget where they're at they
think that they're at home so there's a
lot of confusion especially in the first
couple seconds after a drunk driver woke
up so the idea that they woke up Mr
Stewart while they were trying to turn
off the car and that he was combative or
fighting with them like that isn't
unreasonable well what what Mr Stewart
did is the officer officer Rhodes who
was on the passenger side he was kind of
in the car trying to turn off the
ignition I mean you can't turn off the
ignition from standing 10 feet away from
the car so he's pretty much in the car
you know he's leaning over into the car
trying to turn it off when this fight
with Mr Stewart started so uh Mr Stewart
then he doesn't comply he doesn't listen
he doesn't stop what he does is he
starts to drive away with officer Rhodes
pretty much half in the vehicle well
officer Rhodes makes the decision good
decision or not and we'll get to that in
a second officer Rhodes makes the
decision that it's actually more safe
for him to jump completely in the car
than to be like thrown out of a moving
car at that point so officer Rhodes
jumps in the car so imagine this
situation this is like it's like a
Hollywood movie Officer Rhodes is in the
passenger seat of the car Mr Stewart is
in the driver's seat and he's driving
away they drive up onto a curb on the
sidewalk and they go they almost hit a
telephone pole they get into a crash he
still isn't stopping this goes on for
about a quarter mile where he's driving
15 to 25 miles an hour during this
officer Rhodes is doing what you can
imagine a police officer would do
everything they can to get this guy to
stop so he's punching him in the face he
takes out his taser now because because
you're not going to get that much of a
spread being two feet away obviously the
taser was not effective but he did try
to tase him he was punching him in the
face he was do they were fighting over
there they were fighting over the oh
over the ignition over putting the car
in park but the officer wasn't
successful in doing these things and at
some point during this the officer did
take out his firearm and he did shoot
and kill Mr Stewart
um so again this went to the district
attorney's office it was found that it
was legal justified in a reasonable
officer-involved shooting that's because
the way you have to look at this in
Graham versus Conor is we're going to
get to the mistakes the officer made but
essentially when you're looking at
whether or not a shooting is objectively
reasonable because that's the standard
what is objectively reasonable you
essentially put a bracket around the use
of force okay let's say there were
mistakes that happened before the
officer didn't follow that policy this
policy all of that just have to
forget that according to the law and you
put a bracket around bookmarks around
just the use of force and the legal
question you have to ask is in the
moment that the use of there that there
was a use of force was it objectively
reasonable essentially would another
officer in a similar situation also
perceive a deadly threat if the answer
is yes then it's a lawful legal
Justified shooting and that's what the
court found here so the court found that
yes okay given that the officer was in
the passenger seat he's in a car he
can't control he's not buckled in the
car had already driven up onto a curb
almost hit a telephone pole that if this
car crashes that it's very reasonable
the officer could go through the
windshield and that could be a very
cause very serious injury or death so
the idea that a police officer in that
moment uses deadly force to prevent a
likely outcome of death for themselves
or a reasonable outcome of death that's
why that one is a legal officer involved
shooting so what the family did is like
they always do and I don't begrudge
anyone for doing this this is what
everyone has the legal rights do they
file the federal lawsuit for basically a
violation of civil rights under our
constitution
um and the court said that no that this
was a lawful reasonable um objectively
reasonable officer involved shooting so
the police officer is protected by
qualified immunity so you cannot sue the
police officer this because what he did
was objectively reasonable so the family
says okay well how about this so what
they did is so as again everybody knows
this this isn't shouldn't be Civics 101
but but you know there is our Federal
Constitution and then every state has
their own state constitution now the
state constitution can be different than
the Federal Constitution it absolutely
can be different but it can be different
in a way where it can give individual
citizens people it can give them more
rights so essentially state
constitutions have the ability to be
more restrictive for police officers so
and that's the case in Ohio the state
constitution when it comes to whether or
not a police officer can be sued and
they do have qualified immunity in Ohio
as well however the standards are lower
I believe the standards in Ohio about
whether or not a police officer is going
to you know be able to claim qualified
immunity is kind of a shield is could a
reasonable uh jury look at these facts
and circumstances and find that there
was um and find that there was a reason
to side with with the plaintiff so so as
essentially so that's more like like
like Reasonable Suspicion like
ponderance of the evidence 51 so if a
judge looks at a case and says yeah yeah
I agree the shooting was objectively
reasonable but can I imagine a situation
where a jury might think that it wasn't
reasonable by 51 and the judge said yeah
I mean really you know the what the
plaintiff said of how this shouldn't
occurred it meets that very low barrier
of preponderance of the evidence so the
officer um was sued he was sued
personally and uh the jury just awarded
the the victims family 3.9 million
dollars and then another five hundred
thousand dollars another five hundred
thousand dollars in I believe it was
pain and suffering a total of 4.4
million dollars that the officer the
Judgment was against him not the city
not an insurance company but against
that officer personally and I know that
you know people who don't like police
officers or even how about this not even
people who don't like police police
officers people who are like hey like I
wanna because I want to live in this
world too hey I want to live in a world
where police officers have
constitutional policing that they don't
violate people's rights that they're
reasonable and and yeah I want there to
be some consequences that police
officers don't do that because I live in
that reality okay like that's where I
want to be when my wife and kids are
driving around and they get stopped by a
police officer I want the police officer
to follow the Constitution and to think
hey if I up if I do something bad
there could be some consequences like I
think we all want to live in this world
okay but what but we have to think about
it this way okay but is that what
happened in this case I think if we all
look at cases like uh Walter Scott in
South Carolina that just real quick
that's the one where officer slager
there was a traffic stop uh Walter Scott
ran as he's running away from the police
officer and if this is on video the
police officer pulls out his gun from
about 20 25 feet away and he shoots
Walter Scott as he's running then the
officer lied about it and the only way
that they were able to find find the
only way that they were able to find out
is that someone was recording cell phone
video from a distance that the officer
didn't know about so so I guess what I'm
saying is a case like that where we say
yeah that was absolutely a bad officer
involved shooting not legal or Derek
Chauvin uh with with George Floyd you
know I don't if
like that are hit with these
multi-million dollar lawsuits No One's
Gonna lose any sleep we're all gonna be
like yeah okay that officer messed up
and uh uh that officer messed up and uh
it was pretty bad and I don't have any
sympathy for that cop for doing that but
in this case where a court has found but
again that's different than this case
where our court has found that the
officer involved shooting the use of
force was objectively reasonable okay so
yeah I think we I have a little
heartache with this all right with with
the officer being forced to pay
um 4.4 million dollars because this
might be a little secret police officers
don't make that much money even though
Matthew Rhodes and again sir
congratulations he was just promoted to
Sergeant he's still working for that
police department but he doesn't have
4.4 million dollars unless he married
into money or his family owns uh
Hershey's or something like that nobody
has 4.0 police officers have 4.4 million
dollars let's let's let's let's look at
it this way okay a lot of police
officers you know let's say when you
when you retire so you can retire in
your mid-40s okay you retire in your
mid-40s let's say a police pension is
approximately 50 000 a year it could be
more could be less let's just say a
police pension is uh 50 000 year for the
the rest of your life well let's say you
live another 40 years okay so that's two
million dollars you know with with
things going up and cost of living maybe
it's three million dollars okay and
that's if you don't have a divorce
that's if you get your get your entire
police pension okay so we have to talk
about that but so let's say so so for
basically 40 Years of a police pension
could be somewhere between two to three
million dollars all right that's
reasonable and so I mean that's money
for and and
this guy was just have to pay 4.4
million dollars for a shooting that's
legal so it's absolutely insane all
right so now I kind of went through some
of the facts do I think this officer
acted perfectly no the officer made some
mistakes and we have to talk about these
mistakes now you can say that this is
Monday morning quarterbacking and that's
and that's fine but when but this is
what police officers do this is what
legal experts do and it's not that I'm
criticizing the officer for doing stuff
in the moment or saying I could have
done it better absolutely not but it's
pointing out objectively hey this is
what the officer did but what should he
have done if anything it's hopefully
other police officers as part of
training can look at this and say okay
if I'm in a situation I should do this I
shouldn't do that because we don't want
this to happen again a couple things we
don't want people to be shot and killed
by police if if possible we absolutely
don't want violence between police
official individuals and we don't want
police officers who didn't really didn't
do anything legally wrong they have to
pay a judgment of 4.4 million million
dollars which is going to put them in
financial hardship for the rest of their
life and that's absolutely insane so
what did the officer do wrong and right
well a couple things so what was
reported and you know what was in the
court documents which I went over this
which I went over yesterday is that the
officers put on their Spotlight and
their takedowns but they didn't put on
their flashing red and blue lights so
the the uh the argument or the thing is
well why wouldn't you put on your
flashing red and blue lights
um and again that's because uh hang on
let me go to Kodak film here Kodak as an
active Leo for 15 years this is one of
my biggest fears and it is one of the
biggest reasons nobody wants to be a cop
anymore who wants to do a job where you
get crucified for doing your job Kodak
film you're 100 correct and that's kind
of what I say what happened with the
Garrett Rolfe shooting so just take a
little detour the Garrett Rolfe shooting
in Atlanta
um when he um was involved in the
officer of shooting during the again a
drunk driving uh a drunk driving arrest
in the Wendy's parking lot and um uh
with Ray Shard Brooks remember that
rayshard Brooks overpowered to police
officers um he then stole the taser
about one of the police officers as he's
running away he turns around he points
the taser to officer officer Rolfe I've
gone over the sports and knocking him
now but obviously in fear for his safety
and his life being tased by someone so
he fired um the D.A
charged officer Rolfe charged him with
murder with homicide for doing that um I
don't know how many people here listen
or watch Mike the cop I do he's real
funny but Mike the cop left policing
because of this case no there were other
three reasons why Mike the cop left
policing um he has other business
interests but he's talked about it
publicly like this is one of the reasons
when he saw this case and Kodak film I
think that's a lot of the same thing we
could say okay we can say okay listen
this isn't George Floyd like we can
honestly say objectively I would have
done the same thing this is a legal
shooting this is within training and
policy I would have done the exact same
thing and this officer is charged okay
so uh the uh that's when Kodak film when
you said that I immediately think of
Garrett Rolfe yeah so um so if we look
at this case it's yeah this isn't one of
those again it isn't one of those those
cases where you know a lot of police
officers would have done something
different at least when it comes to the
use of force okay but the officer didn't
put on his red and blue flashing lights
and part of the the reason why this
became an issue is is kind of like what
I said before so you have someone who
you suspect might be drunk they're not
and they're tired because they're
because they're because they're sleeping
drunk and tired and you're going to have
police officers wake them up now I know
from experience that people a lot of
times that ends up in a fight that's
just how it goes so did those police
officers know that so the argument from
the other side or from the the family of
Mr Stewart is that yeah he didn't know
that they were police officers here he
is kinda drunk maybe a little high
sleeping he's woken up by people there's
no red and blue flashing lights he was
confused of course he drove off that's
what anyone would do because they didn't
know what was going on so I'm not saying
that and uh Mr Stewart is deceased we
can't ask him but you can see where
um that would be an error from the
police officers to at least not do
everything I mean just it's flipping a
switch one thing over flipping a switch
turn on the lights like do that like
that makes sense and it's within their
policy he should have done the other
thing is the camera so these officers
were not issued body cameras by the
Euclid Ohio Police Department which that
is a failure of the administration I've
said this before I think all police
officers should carry body cameras and I
think that all
um not just because we want to show them
out here but I think that all
um uh police officers for protection of
themselves
um especially because if it's not on a
body camera they're automatically you
know dishonest critics are automatically
going to just assume even if they know
it's not true they're going to put out
there publicly that you didn't put on
the police officer didn't put on their
camera on purpose and try to associate
and put bad faith towards that even if
it's just an honest mistake so um yeah
we absolutely need there to be body
cameras okay but this so and at the last
I looked 80 percent of police officers
in the United States do have body
cameras um I think that's a good thing
so this officer so um uh i l ill yes
says where's the video I'm getting to
that right now ill yes so um officers
were not issued body cameras so there
just wasn't the opportunity because the
cops don't have a body camera there but
they do have dash cams so the police
officer in this case had dash cam it
wasn't turned on there were actually two
officers on scene officer Road and
another officer neither officer engaged
their dash camera and that appears to be
not within policy that they should have
so why they didn't initiate their dash
cam I'm not sure um I think they said
that they just forgot to do it who knows
who knows what what the what the what
the culture is there so there are some
police departments where they do random
audit checks let me say this okay
whether there's a culture of if you
don't run your body camera and we catch
you we're going to slam you like first
time it's a written warning then then
you get time off so when police
department I'm not saying that's a good
thing but when police departments have
cultures like that you know what happens
uh police officers don't forget to turn
on their cameras but let's say and I'm
not saying this is the case with Euclid
but if you have a police department go
yeah turn it on if yeah it's the policy
but no one ever gets disciplined for it
it's just kind of swept under the rug
because we know as a cop you're doing a
thousand things yeah you forgot to hit
the button okay we know you're not doing
it because you're trying to be a bad guy
um so again I'm not sure what the I'm
not sure what the culture is there but
he didn't turn on his dash cam so that's
a problem that looks bad as well he
should have turned on the dash cam
absolutely
um let's see uh okay off the wall
Productions if cops weren't so out of
control all right no this wouldn't have
been an issue the issue is the cop
should have never been in the vehicle
and if his life isn't in danger 25 miles
an hour the man should still be alive
Off the Wall Productions um thank you
for the comment and I'm gonna agree with
some and disagree with some of the other
ones but you are just give me a great
opportunity to do a segue of where I was
going next um so the next mistake that
the officer made in my opinion and
within training is that you don't put
any part of your body inside the car
okay you just you don't do it because
officers can get dragged by cars uh we
we see how even just from an officer
safety standpoint we see how dangerous
it is is that you don't put any part of
your body in the car though I was
recently a case I think we did a couple
weeks ago where as the person was was
trying to drive away the officer like
held on to the car and then sometimes
you can get hung up in the seat belt
where it's like that that could be an
odd that could lead to an officer off
shooting that could lead to the officer
getting hurt now obviously the first in
a situation this is the first bad
decision is the bad guy running from
police okay so yeah um yeah so I love
your channel I respect Caspa summer out
of control brother yeah and you know
what off the wall so that's why just
real quick little side note that's one
of the reasons why why we do this is
because
yeah uh yeah I mean there's a lot of
people who are out of control um there's
nurses especially and teachers they're
wild um but but off off the wall
Productions um you know one of the
reasons that we do this isn't to just
say police officers are always right and
we always hate police officers or police
officers are always wrong I mean I think
because again in this case I'm even
demonstrating the mistakes the officer
made and getting here later we are going
to have another case where I'm going to
100 criticize the police and not say
anything good so stay tuned for that all
right but you know what we do is we like
to look at a case and say objectively
did the officers follow a law policy and
if they did or they didn't how do we
want police officers to act what can we
do to make sure that police officers
police in a more constitutional way so
off the wall Productions yeah I think we
should criticize police officers and say
how they can do things better absolutely
100 that that's one of the things that
we do but okay so your your criticism
that the officer essentially I think
what you're saying is itself it's
officer-induced Jeopardy hey the officer
stepped in front of a car that was
moving 40 miles an hour and then while
he was in front of the car he started
shooting at it saying his life was in
danger officer-induced Jeopardy I get it
so yes police officers are trained to
never put any part of their body inside
of a moving car or a car that's going to
go away that's reasonable and I agree
now in a case like this sir he here's my
I'm off the wall Productions here's my
question okay so you have a situation
like this where you have a possible
drunk driver okay and the keys are in
the ignition so what the officer wants
to do is so I like to talk about intent
okay so my wife is in the medical field
and whenever I do something wrong you
know I said well I didn't do it on
purpose and she goes well I don't give a
like you still did it like she's
very black and white she's the medical
person but me because I went to law
school and have a law degree you know
everything is great everything's well
what what's the intent you know I want
to know the intent behind something like
to me that plays such a big part of it
so what was the intent of the officer
did it was the officer did the officer
stick did the officer reach his hand
into the car because he was trying to do
something nefarious or trying to do
something good well what the officer was
trying to do is turn off the car so
let's take that to its end if the off
officer turns off the car successfully
and gets the keys out of the ignition is
this whole situation avoided yes so yes
where I would say so like I said in a
situation like this let's say the
officer doesn't try to turn off the car
and you know there's a fight at the door
when they wake him up I get not saying
you off the wall but a lot of other
people what they're going to say what
they are going to say is that you know
um why didn't the officer yeah so you
woke up this guy so here we have a guy
who's drunk high and tired you know he's
probably gonna fight and try to run and
instead of trying to turn off the car
you just woke him up all crazy crazy
because you out of control crazy police
officers are looking for a fight so what
I'm saying off the wall is that you know
we have the benefits of looking at
something
um from 2020 hindsight where in the
moment the police officers don't and yes
where you typically shouldn't when
someone is awake and they're talking to
you and you see they're about to drive
away yeah in situations like that
officers should never try to grab onto
the car or grab onto the person that's
against training that's dumb but in a
situated and dangerous but a situation
like this when the person is still
sleeping in your intent is okay if I can
get the keys out of the ignition I can
actually make this whole situation safer
to anyone like that isn't unreasonable
okay uh let's see I think he was trying
to do the right thing but he should have
got away from the car as soon as it
started to move okay I agree with you
there okay so was it even possible so
now we have to think about it like this
okay so um at what point did the car
started to move now imagine being in a
car and I know we maybe we don't think
15 to 25 miles an hour is fast
um listen this isn't like uh the the big
uh Lebowski where where Walter can roll
out of a car at 40 miles an hour with
with an Uzi and be totally okay this
isn't the case if you're in a car going
15 miles an hour and you jump out and
get thrown out you're looking at serious
injuries maybe death if your head hits
the wrong way at 15 miles an hour you're
probably gonna die or have serious
injuries so again we can just say 15
miles an hour isn't fast um but listen
I've been I've been in bike crashes
where I'm probably going 15 miles an
hour and it's been and it's been rough
so okay uh as everyone knows here I
broke my nose a couple weeks ago while I
was running and I tripped and I smashed
and I fell and I was probably only
running I don't know how fast do people
ride seven miles an hour I I I don't
even know unless you're Michael Scott
who ran I think 37 38 miles an hour um
but it's so
reasonable it is uh Jeremy
just a big fan of the channel thank you
Jeremy Jay you are welcome here as a
guest here anytime okay
um all right um let's see so it isn't
unreasonable but yes uh and Jeremy is
out of prison um yes he absolutely is um
so it's it's not unreasonable and this
specific situation that the officer
um that the officer reached in I get
what he was trying to do now once you're
in that situation yeah I mean the
officer made the choice to get in
instead of completely getting out was
the right that the right situation I
don't know if the if the bad or if Mr
Stewart in the car started to kind of
like creep four to one mile an hour yeah
in that moment I would say the officer
should jump out of the car but what if
you know he'd slammed on the gas and it
was quick and it was quick and it was
unexpected uh yeah in a situation like
that you might just say holy I'm
just gonna stay in the car it's really
difficult I don't I don't really know
Jeremy do it at the Holiday Inn Express
that's hilarious thank you Jeremy um
yeah so I just wanted to I want to talk
about that case um but again one of the
main things about that is that you know
uh at least at least in the court size
it was viewed as a legal shooting but
um it was viewed as a legal shooting but
um uh the officer was still sued
um the jury found against the officer
he's going to have to pay 4.4 million
dollars I don't know if that can be
appealed I don't know that much about
Ohio locks I don't live in Ohio but um
hopefully we'll see if that can be
appealed and mitigated or maybe the
police department can can help the
officer out I'm not really sure what to
do he is still employed
um uh officer Sergeant Rhodes hopefully
you do not have to pay that but it's not
looking great and that's just the thing
to talk about you know when it comes to
qualified immunity you know there's
qualified immunity for feds and there's
qualified immunity for States and really
what you know um Democrat politicians
and you know people who are far left or
just even left what they've been trying
to do is that they're kind of like okay
this qualified Immunity on a federal
level probably isn't going anywhere but
qualified Immunity on the state level
this is where the fight is and that's
what they've been doing in a lot of
states in Colorado and in New Mexico
they've done the same thing so um watch
out for that let's see um so the next
case that I want to talk about okay so
all right um I did say I was gonna Off
the Wall
um I I did I did say that I'm going to
talk about a case I'm going to criticize
the police officers I think we have a
video for this one as well that we'll
put in the chat but this is the case why
I am going to criticize the police
officer so I don't know how many people
watch um First Amendment auditor videos
um but I absolutely love it I watch
amaganza press and Long Island audits um
I love those channels I actually think
of those two channels do a really good
job of pretty being honest um Johnny 5.0
he's been on a couple of my lives a
couple times I think Johnny's an
interesting guy um I do like his work
he's entertaining he's a little more
aggressive than I would prefer
um with police officers for really no
reason at all um but those are some of
the channels that I watched so this has
ended up on a lot of First Amendment
auditor channels but it wasn't supposed
to go that way okay so this happened and
you might have seen the video because
it's been out there this happened in
Florida where there was a call for
service where an individual was walking
down the streets like a 65 year old man
and someone called in and said hey I
think this guy has a weapon so this guy
in his back pocket there is kind kind of
a bulge and there's something sticking
out of the back pocket of his pants so
as the guy is walking down the street a
police saw a police officer in Florida
uh stops him and says hey you know
what's what's in your hey you know uh
what's what's in your pocket and he said
it's a uh navigational Aid which is
essentially a walking stick because the
guy's legally blind so it's one of those
walking sticks that can fold up and it
goes and it goes um and it goes into
your pocket so you know the police
officer you know stops him and asks him
what was in his pocket he said it's a
navigational Aid um and at that point um
he says he says the walking stick okay
so right there that should be the end of
it okay even if we think that the police
officers had Reasonable Suspicion based
on someone saying that there's a bulge
or that the guy could have a weapon the
officers get there and they see a bulge
or could be a weapon is that enough for
reasonable suspicion maybe like a
reasonable suspicion is such a low bar
let's just say it is okay even if
officers had a reasonable suspicion to
stop him at that point once he says it's
a navigational delayed and he actually
took it out and he showed the officer
there's no more reasonable suspicion
that's it it's over police officers
cannot detain they cannot ask for ID
that's it the contact is over however
once the the guy once the guy um showed
the police officer was that the officer
said hey what's your what's your name
and date of birth and the man responded
what are you some kind of tyrant and the
female police officer in terrible
fashion said yeah I am I mean it was
tongue-in-cheek and it was kind of
joking but you know he said something
kind of rude and she said something um
but it was totally legal it's completely
legal and for him to say what are you a
tyrant but but she responded in kind
which really only makes her look bad not
him look bad so you know then then she
asked for his ID again he basically says
no and he quotes the law he says you
need he said I don't have to show you my
ID it's a walking stick he says in order
to detain me or ask for my ID you have
to have reasonable suspicion that you
can articulate and he specifically says
this in a very very articulated way so
he knows the law and he says what's your
suspicion a reasonable question and she
just says you know and she goes back to
well we got a call that you were armed
and again he says yeah well look it's a
walking stick you can see it's a walking
stick it's not a weapon so at that point
they get into a pissing match back and
forth this guy you know what I'm gonna
give it to him he holds his ground he
doesn't give the police officer um the
name and ID which um I I don't like how
this case ends but yeah I mean he didn't
have to and I'm never going to criticize
someone for standing up for their rights
so um he did the right thing he was
legally correct okay not um not the
police officer
um eventually he asked for a sergeant
which is fine to do the sergeant gets
there and the sergeant somehow seems to
know less than the police officer
because the sergeant then kind of asked
the officer hey you know why business
call for service and she starts to talk
then the guy jumps in he says it's
because of this walking stick so then
the sergeant says yeah well she was
called because of uh uh someone thought
you were armed and then the blind guy
just goes yeah it's this walking stick
and he's just he's almost like he can't
believe how dumb the police officers are
are being right now
um and you know he basically says that
the sergeant again asked for his ID he
refuses so um then he says he says you
know I want your ID as soon as uh he
says that he wants the name and badge
numbers of the police officers as soon
as he asks for the name and Badge of the
police officers the tone changes and
they Place him under arrest they Place
him under arrest for resisting arrest
now in Florida resisting arrest the
statute is so broad uh that it I mean it
really is just way too broad of a
statute because almost anything can be
considered resisting arrest but
typically Most states or in not even if
it's not state law most good reasonable
police departments have policies that
say Hey officers you can't arrest
someone just for resisting arrest
meaning you have to have an underlying
charge I mean you can have someone
walking down the street doing something
completely legal you go to stop them
they refuse and then you know you tell
them they're under arrest not for a
lawful reason and then you charge them
with resisting arrest you have to have
an underlying crime disorderly conduct
domestic violence DWI if there's not an
underlying charge then you cannot charge
someone with just resisting arrest again
that is most how most state laws are
written and even if it's not that is how
most police departments have policy to
kind of fill that in because that is
reasonable again we want police to be
constitutional so the other individual
was was arrested um and he was actually
arrested he went to jail for this it's
absolutely insane it's been all over the
Internet and here's the thing cases like
this should be on the internet now am I
going to say that this police officer is
a bad person did she wake up in the
morning and say you know what I'm gonna
do I'm just gonna go and violate the
first blind 65 year old white guy I see
and violate his rights for absolutely no
reason no of course that's not what she
was thinking you know she wasn't trying
to do anything bad but she did something
wrong she was incorrect so is it a
problem with training is it a problem
with education I really I really don't
know and you know one of the things you
have to look at if you're in this
department or an admin or IA you have to
okay has this officer had these problems
before maybe this is the first time this
officer ever had that maybe the police
department hasn't had legal updates in
three years you know our police
department now this wasn't a First
Amendment auditor case but the arguments
that he makes are reasonable and are
literally the arguments that first
amendment Auditors make like do you have
what's your Reasonable Suspicion you
know again good question because
officers have to have that so um it's
one of those things where you know our
Police Department's giving courses on
how to deal with First Amendment
Auditors because if they were the
content of that kind of a course would
be exactly what would have benefited
this officer because again my guess is
she didn't wake up in the morning and
say you know I'm going to violate the
rights of the first blind guy I see
because I'm pissed off today no
obviously that's not what she was
thinking she just didn't know she was
incorrect about the law and yeah this
guy is going to sue he's gonna win and
um he absolutely 100 should be
compensated for this because no one
should be arrested for ridiculous
and this guy absolutely was
um so again we put the link in the video
on there so let us know let us know
um uh let us know what you what you
think about this uh let's see uh let's
see if we have any questions uh Tony
Destro for all the police that think he
shouldn't have got sued they can do a
GoFundMe for the 4 million and cover him
okay that thank you Tony that's that's
for the last case uh that that we saw um
and I don't I haven't seen gofundme's be
successful for police officers for civil
things however I have seen gofundme's
where police officers are charged
criminally and they're looking at
because lawyers are ridiculous
where they uh uh there's a GoFundMe for
um or the best example I can give is
Officer Krista for sure
um who killed Patrick Loyola and what I
think is a reasonable lawful uh
Justified officer about shooting but
he's charged for it we're going to cover
that case the more it goes um so there
have been gofundme's for legal defense
and you know what's interesting is
sometimes GoFundMe actually shuts those
down
um you know I don't I don't either is
political pressure to shut those down so
kind of like with body cameras you know
like if it's against police we're just
going to err on the side of that even if
it's that bad for individual police
officers but yeah um GoFundMe um
GoFundMe um shuts down a lot of those a
lot of those fundraisers for police
officers for criminal defense even in
cases where I think that they probably
did the right thing all right so what so
the last case uh the last case then I
have a funny story so stick around last
case and then a funny story last case
and we and since we just did
um a story about criticizing police
officers we're going to go the other way
and I'm going to highlight a case and we
actually have a link for this as well
um uh we're gonna highlight a case of
police officers doing the right thing
and actually and actually saving a whole
lot of lives so this goes back
to Albuquerque New Mexico last week
here's what happened last week in
Albuquerque New Mexico the Phoenix
Police Department got a tip from an
individualism Phoenix and here's what
they told Phoenix police they said hey
my sister and her two young kids they
came across the border illegally from
Mexico and I paid 30 000 in order for
them to do that now the Smugglers the
human traffickers have these people in
Albuquerque New Mexico and instead of
releasing them to the agreed upon thirty
thousand dollars they're demanding them
they're demanding another six thousand
dollars I don't have it um I've talked
to them on the phone they're alive
they're okay but essentially they're
being kidnapped they're being held
hostage and they're not being released
um you know and again like we didn't
agree to pay the six thousand dollars we
paid them what they want we think
they're in danger so Phoenix play this
is an example now the local police and
feds don't always work well together got
to be hats off to all three agencies
Homeland Security Phoenix police and
Albuquerque Police Department did an
unbelievable job of working together on
this case so Phoenix police contacted
Albuquerque Police Albuquerque Police
got Homeland Security involved or
Phoenix police got Homeland Security
involved either way all three agencies
what they were able to do by working
together is they set up a sting
operation where they sent in an
undercover and uh I believe also
moriarity police department and Torrance
County Sheriff's Office and New Mexico
want to give a shout out to them as well
because I think they also helped
tremendously in this a great
collaboration between multiple different
police agencies so again hats off there
okay so so to get back to the story it's
um so uh
Homeland Security with the help of these
police departments was able to set up an
undercover sting and again this is
something from like a movie an
undercover sting and the ruse of yeah
hey we're gonna have someone meet you to
pay this six thousand dollars to meet
you to pay so they did that so um the
homeland security sense and uh Homeland
Security or uh uh Homeland Security sent
and in the uh Homeland Security sent an
investigator undercover and uh they
arranged this um a Meetup at that point
The Smuggler of I believe it was two
Smugglers I think it was a male and
female could be wrong about that but
either way the offenders were arrested
um local police were able to go to the
house now when they went to the house to
where these people were being held it
wasn't just the mother and the two
little kids
um so there were actually Four Smugglers
um so I want to be accurate on this it
was four four people were charged two
Smugglers and then two people they had
as like guards who were like security uh
for the human traffickers there were
four people around tested when local
police went to the house they didn't
just find the mother and the two kids
they found over 50 people 50 migrants
who were being held against their will
so police officers were able to
obviously intervene on the rest of the
bad guys and were able to save all of
those people and I I just want to say
that you know cases like this I know
that yes this is what police officers
are supposed this is what police
officers are supposed to do
um but you have to think about it like
this it wasn't that long ago in June of
this year in San Antonio Texas I think
53 people migrants were in the back of a
tractor-trailer truck and were just left
there and died essentially they were
cooked to death so you never know what
was going to happen with these 53 people
who police saved um but it never got to
that point to where they were trafficked
even further and maybe put in a position
where they could have been seriously
hurt or injured so again we did a police
story that was uh I criticized the cops
now this was a story where the police
officer did the right thing and they
actually saved a lot of people
um okay so the and I said I'm going to
end this with a I said I'm going to end
this with uh with a funny story I think
this is the funny story
um and in a second I'm gonna put up
we're gonna put up a photo on the screen
so this is a Lake County Ohio on
Halloween so the Lake County Sheriff's
Police Department had an idea that they
really wanted to get the community
involved they really wanted to do
something nice for the community
they wanted to do something nice for the
community and they wanted to put their
horse mounted unit to walk around during
Halloween while kids and families were
trick-or-treating and you know what they
wanted the horses to really get in on
this they wanted to dress up the horses
so they did so I don't know if you can
see on the screen but they essentially
dressed up the horses as ghosts um they
put sheets on them they cut out eye
holes and they walked around like this
now I think you know where this is going
um there was criticism that uh hey
that's great but these actually look
like KKK horses um Jeremiah Osborne so
they cleaned up yeah yeah so um I this
picture looks bad right
um but apparently at night while they
were walking around because Halloween
happens and Halloween doesn't happen
tonight trick-or-treating happens at
night is the horses actually had like um
orange necklaces on that were like lit
up and glowing with like orange pumpkins
so I think in reality it didn't look as
bad as that picture that we just showed
um because what we're getting from this
and all the reporting is that in the
moment on Halloween no one complained no
one said anything no one's no one called
into complaint dispatch and no one
complained no one had any issues with it
so again that's a terrible picture but I
think I think you know in the moment I
think in the moment um it probably
didn't look that bad because of the of
the orange pumpkin lights and uh stuff
like that
um but anyways uh and we know that there
were no complaints today of because the
day after the sheriff's department put a
bunch of these pictures just like this
put these pictures on the internet
um so on their social media page so
again if there were complaints about it
the day of they never would have put it
on social media so obviously the neck by
the next day they still had no idea no
one had called or no one had texted or
did anything that police departments get
communication with the public anyways so
the next day it came out put on social
media and it's blown up it's gone it's
gone viral it's gone everywhere um but
they actually do look like KKK horses
now obviously that wasn't that wasn't
the intent that it's not what they were
trying to do but yeah it does it does
look like that um so yeah I just wanna I
wanted to put that out there uh let's
see Off the Wall Productions yes that's
great I live in a small town of Michigan
our cops are awesome and my son is best
friends with the chief uh awesome wants
to be a cop uh let's see Jeremiah
Osborne ghosts don't wear pointy hoods
and carry burning crosses that's true so
the horses were absolutely dressed up as
a as a uh the horse will dress up as
ghosts but um people didn't like it
afterwards all right that's going to be
the end of our show uh again uh Happy
Veterans Day I really want to uh put out
our appreciation out there for all the
veterans out there the reason that we're
free and able to do any things uh any
things that we do is because of the
people who are brave enough and willing
enough to um fight for our freedom out
there so I also want to say that you
know in all the research we've done it
looks like about 19 of active police
officers are are our veterans as well so
there's a lot of crossover between the
police and the military community so I
want everyone to have a great weekend
and um please be safe out there again
happy Veterans Day