good morning this is daniel here with cop watch tv i just want to welcome everyone to our live event so typically we do the live events on fridays but this week because of the fourth of july holiday we are going to be doing the live event on wednesday so we're doing it today so if you do have questions and comments about any of the topics that we're discussing please put it in there because we love to promote discussion amongst our followers also if you give us a super chat we can guarantee you that that one will be read live and we will take some time and really address the the concerns in that so definitely give us a super chat if you want your comment read out live today again my name is daniel with cop watch tv you can go ahead and follow me on youtube and other channels at police law news and make sure that you like follow and subscribe to cop watch tv because sometimes things like this happen where there's a holiday that comes up and even though we typically do these shows on fridays well you know today we are doing it on wednesday so i just want to make sure that everyone is aware of when some of these changes happen so everyone can participate live so we're going to go through a couple different stories today that have been in the news in the last week you know really the most important breakdown the most important issues in policing and the first one that i'm going to go to it's really in reference to two different videos that cop watch tv that we posted in the last week and one of the videos was a deputy in new mexico who was just got promoted to be a detective with his agency and while he was on duty he was essentially arrested by other detectives for inappropriate communication with a minor so during that there were a lot of comments on that video which we definitely would look through and about and a lot of the questions came up are are police treated differently when they commit crimes or when they do wrong so that's an interesting question we did get a lot of comments on that and i'm going to get to that in a second one of the other videos that we posted was of a t-mobile employee who was having inappropriate text messaging so sexting with a minor and the raw body cam video we showed had that arrest and that contact with law enforcement as well and you know those two videos were pretty much put up because we have two individuals who essentially did very similar crimes we have a police officer and this guy was arrested on duty and then we have an individual who you know is works in the private sector at t-mobile so i would encourage if you haven't already to go ahead and watch those videos and compare and contrast how different police officers in different agencies but are treating two different individuals who pretty much committed the same crime and there are always people who are going to say that police officers are treated differently police officers are treated better and you know i don't know how interesting that conversation is about whether or not police officers are treated better or not because even if you no matter where you fall on that about they are treated better or they aren't almost everyone believes that police officers shouldn't be treated better or police officers shouldn't be given preferential treatment so that's something that that's a real common ground that most people can't agree with and i think it's interesting to talk about okay so how do we get there what can we do to make sure that police officers are treated as good as anybody else or more importantly probably held to a higher standard so one of the ways i think we can do that is through body cams so one of the last studies that i saw on this is that 80 percent of police officers city state and county police officers have body cameras they are equipped with some type of body cameras all around the country and the more body cameras that we have for police officers the more transparent that police officers are and what they do and especially when it comes to investigations and arrests and calls for service that involve other officers so i think that's that's important to talk about so definitely put in the chat if you think that police officers are treated better or if they aren't treated better and if you do have a suggestion for a video that's out there where you think one thing or another definitely shoot us that in a in a comment and we can we can look into it um so whenever situations like this happen and we have these questions i think it's good to compare recent cases now then cases aren't exactly the same and they're different different law enforcement agencies but you know kind of the way that i like to compare this to is the redonda vaught case so redonda vat was the nurse who worked over at vanderbilt and a couple years ago while she was working as a nurse she had a medication error let's say she experienced a medication error no she made him she made an error and she gave an individual the wrong medication what happened was there was a 75 year old woman who was going for a pet scan which that is pretty much like a cat scan only it's a full body machine usually takes somewhere between 60 seconds to i'm sorry 60 minutes to an hour and a half that you're in this thing well this 75 year old woman she had a fear of cl she was claustrophobic so she had a fear of tight spaces so the doctor prescribed her versed which is a sedative in order to take before she goes into this pet scan so that she was a little more calm well redone devote was the nurse over at vanderbilt she had been a nurse for many years and she was responsible for the patient care of the 75 year old woman and she made several different errors and i'm going to go through a couple of them so what redondovat did is she didn't give versed she gave and my wife is a physical therapist and and so she's going to not be happy that i'm going to pronounce this name wrong but virconium it's [Music] v-e-c-u-r-o-n-i-u-m for conium so she gave virconium instead of her set so versed is what the woman was supposed to have as a sedative virconium is a paralytic agent so there's a couple also differences between that so there's a machine that the medication comes out so we're down to vaut when she typed in the medication for versed the virconium came up and there was an error message that essentially alerted her like hey you're pulling this this paralytic agent she overwrote she overrode that medication error then versed the medication that was supposed to be given is in a liquid form the virconium is in a powder form so she mixed it together in the powder form the wrong medication also on the warning on the medication the virnium there's a warning label that said warning paralytic agent so she made all those mistakes to give this woman the wrong the wrong medication before the pet scan and then after the woman was in the pet scan she didn't check on her for 30 minutes so there were other errors that were made and of course there were other institutional issues as well that were going on such as nurses being overworked and long shifts in covid but i just listed four pretty big errors that redonda vaughn made she was tried and she her nursing license was revoked on the administration side she was charged and she was convicted with criminally negligent homicide and her sentence was three years of probation so she didn't do any jail time now no one says that she did this on purpose this was clearly an accident this was negligent but she was given probation for that and there was outrage that she was even criminally charged in the first place so you know we are thinking about starting a nurse watch tv channel so if you're interested in that plea please let us know that in the chat so we can definitely follow these nurses who are not doing the correct thing so nurse watch tv it's coming also so what i'd like to compare the radondevot case to is the kim potter case i often call the and refer to it as that redonda vaut is essentially the kim potter of nurses and if you remember what kim potter did so kim potter who worked was a police officer in a city in minnesota right outside of minneapolis there was a traffic stop she was a training officer at the time she had in over 20 years there was a traffic stop dante wright was the driver i believe it was for an expired registration upon contact with dante wright she found out that he had a warrant and when trying to take dante wright into custody he fled the scene he drove away in his car he crashed there was a struggle at the door and kim potter in that moment tried to use her taser but there was weapon confusion she yelled taser taser taser and then accidentally not on purpose used her gun shot dante right one time and killed him so kim potter and everyone including in even so what i'm going to say that everyone thinks that what kim potter did that she made a mistake she didn't do this on purpose the reason i say that is because even the prosecutor so the person prosecuting her asking for jail time acknowledged that this wasn't intentional this was a mistake and you can that video is all over the place you can watch it but so kim potter made a mistake someone died she was also convicted of of whatever the minnesota equivalent of criminally negligent homicide is and she was given jail time after her conviction of two years so a lot of people say that you know maybe two years isn't enough but if you compare the two cases so we have a nurse who makes multiple mistakes now maybe it's busy being a nurse maybe there's a lot of patience but she made multiple mistakes in as compared to what a police officer deals with not a chaotic environment certainly no one was attacking radondevot and trying to kill her and her mistakes were over time so she made multiple mistakes over a pretty significant period of time and because of her mistakes someone died and she was given probation kim potter who was basically in a dynamic situation where she thought that her life could be in danger in that situation she made a mistake and she killed someone and she was given two years of jail so the the whole conversation about our police officers held more accountable or less accountable i would just point to incidents like that and i am a huge advocate of body cameras as i said before the more body cameras that we have the less that this is even going to be an issue because everybody no matter what side you're on or what you think everybody wants the same thing transparency from law enforcement and for law enforcement especially when they mess up to be held accountable when it comes to law enforcement being accountable there's a case that just got an individual was just released so another case out of minnesota that's kind of a midwest day today another case out of minnesota so in a couple years ago in april of 2017 justine rosinstick in minneapolis she was a australian yoga teacher who was living in minneapolis there was she called she created a call for service about she heard noises or someone screaming in the alley as when police officers got there in the alley she went out to contact the police officers she knocked on the either the door or the window on the driver's side muhammad noor who was a minneapolis police officer who was sitting in the front passenger seat when miss rosinsick knocked on the window or the door that startled him from the seated position he pulled and drew his gun he shot across his partner and he killed her and he was convicted of second-degree homicide and third degree assault he was initially given 12 and a half years well back in october the judge said that essentially that his what he did did not meet the depraved mind standard so essentially his actions weren't reckless is what uh is what a uh an appeals court judge said and they threw out his conviction for third degree murder so uh so the second degree assault is all that stood he was re-sentenced to that and he was given 58 months by that time he had already served 28 months and he was actually released earlier this month so that's a case where you know was he held accountable or not and i think there's a couple different arguments to that well if you know if a higher court said he shouldn't have even have been charged with this like he never should have been charged or prosecuted but he was he was charged prosecuted and convicted of a very serious crime which with a higher judge says that he never should have even have been charged for so of course you can say well the judge only said that because he was a police officer so i think the argument keeps going through but again body cameras are one of the ways that we can um that we can get get around that so i think it's interesting again if anybody has any super chats or any questions about police officers being held accountable for what they do and i think it's important to note that no one hates bad cops more than good cops so good police officers and people who are pro-police and who support law enforcement they want police officers to be held accountable because the only way to get to a situation to where police officers are trusted and they are are looked at in the community as people who can help if there's an issue the only way to get there is for transparency so when a police officer makes a mistake or messes up they have to be held accountable there is no other way to go forward on that the next case that i want to talk about is rudy giuliani so rudy giuliani was in new york last week campaigning with his son andrew and andrew the primary was a couple days ago but andrew giuliani was running for governor he was trying to get the republican nomination for governor of new york and so rudy of course was campaigning with his son andrew and while campaigning at a grocery store i believe it was called shoprite in staten island rudy giuliani was standing there and there's surveillance video of this he was standing there and someone comes up behind him and what the video shows is that he's tapped on the back it's like someone came by to say hello the person then walks around rudy and he makes some rude comments to rudy he says things like um well he calls him a scumbag and then he says you kill women in reference to the recent roe versus wade decision that this guy mistakenly thinks that rudy giuliani had something to do with so he he says these things and this the guy who did this his name is daniel gillis 39 years old he's actually an employee there at the shop right so he was arrested he was arrested for second-degree assault which is actually a felony in new york now if you watch the video upon watching the video because this surveillance camera it doesn't look like rudy was slapped really hard it looks like he was tapped on the back so the idea that assault charges were filed to me seemed pretty strange in the first place but i guess you have to mix it with well you know i'm sorry if assault and battery charges were filed you know it didn't look like it was it was very hard like he wasn't hit hard but rudy giuliani is 78 years old and he said that it felt like a boulder he had been hit by a boulder he said that it was a very hard shot he also said that he had trouble sleeping because of being tapped on the back well the individual daniel gill was initially charged with a felony but after he was initially charged the the judge at the arraignment knocked it down to a misdemeanor so he is still facing misdemeanor charges for this and and you know upon first watching it i'm like how could this possibly be something where an individual could get charged criminally for this but if we look at what elements of typical battery law is so it's an unwanted touching that's done in a rude or insolent manner so he did he did touch him we don't have any issue there he definitely did that he tapped rudy on the back and then he said something rude as he walked around him you know he called him a scumbag and said some other derogatory things so is it an unwanted touching in a rude and insolent manner if you go down to the letter of the law it probably is but if you watch it it doesn't look like he was tapped very hard at all my guess is if someone if daniel gill tapped him in the exact same way and then as he walked around the circle he said hey mayor we really miss you in new york you really helped out crime in the 90s so the exact same action but had he said something friendly my guess is this would not have been a criminal charge the mayor of new york city eric adams who is a former police officer he said something to the effect of that after he watched the video that he thought it was ridiculous that there were any criminal charges and eric adams said that he wanted to remind rudy giuliani that filing a false police report is a crime in new york well since a judge did at least think that there was probable cause for misdemeanor charges in this case it does seem like they're at least when it comes to the elements it's probably reasonable that there are criminal charges but it seems extremely minor we have another celebrity who is in the news any especially men in the 90s um remember stephanie tanner jody sweden from full house so she was participating in a protest over the weekend in in california somewhere in l.a and during this protest the police officers so what the so police officers before they do something they have to have a lawful objective you know that is one of the most important things what's the lawful objective what are police officers trying to accomplish if what they're trying to accomplish isn't lawful then almost anything they do when it comes to use of force is going to be considered not justified because they shouldn't have been doing anything in the first place so in this case the lawful objective is they were trying to prevent the protesters the crowd individuals from going on to the 101 highway so whether you think that's a reasonable or not or you were for or against the protesters i think that police officers not wanting dozens of people to go on to a very busy highway that seems like a reasonable lawful objective so while they were doing this police officers were kind of up on like a raised area with rocks and jody sweden so stephanie tanner from full house i she climbed up and as she climbed up she was trying to get past the police officers she was pushed down so if you just watch the video without any context and that's typically where it starts that's where the video starts on most sites is that you know it'll start with the police officer with her just barely getting to the officers and then pushing her down but it's just important to remember like what the full context is is that police officers created a line they told people and these are police officers in in riot gear that they told people they're not allowed to enter the highway multiple times they told them this they'd let them know that force will be used against them if they try to and still people tried to enter the highway so you know again you know whether or not you agree with the reasons that the protesters had or not it seems like it is a reasonable lawful objective to try to keep people off of the highway now lapd did say that there's going to be an investigation because of use of force and that's appropriate so even though we're watching the video i'm sure that there's body cam from the police officers hopefully jody sweden and any other witnesses will be interviewed but any time there's a use of force which this definitely was there should be an investigation by the police department to make sure that the use of force by police officers was not only in line with criminal laws but also with department policies when it comes to use of force so we will definitely keep everybody updated updated on that also jillaine maxwell i'm not going to say her name right but uh jeffrey epstein um after he didn't kill himself his girlfriend jillian maxwell was just sentenced to over 20 years in jail yesterday so that's that's important to note we can do a more in-depth story on that later but that was some breaking news that happened yesterday also there was a really important miranda case that came out the case is vega versus takao and this is also a case out of la and what happened in this case is it it's it's really interesting the the final result is that it basically said that police officers cannot be sued civilly for violations of miranda so we all know what a violation of miranda is you know essentially when police officer so police officers have to read someone the miranda warning when there's two things two things trigger it it has to be a custodial interrogation so you have to be in custody so that that's the first element well how do you know if you're in custody and what the supreme court and what case law has said is if it's reasonable that you aren't free to leave that's considered in custody so if you're in handcuffs in the back of a police car and they're driving you to jail just assume that you're in custody okay and the second has to be the officer has to be interrogating you so if you have a warrant out for your arrest and the police officers place you in handcuffs and they're driving you to jail and you know you start yelling and screaming you didn't read me miranda well they don't have to they're not asking you any questions but in order for police to you know ask the questions and then more importantly use that information against you that's when the miranda warning has to be read so essentially what the supreme court said on this and this was a case where the individual was a nursing assistant and he was accused of sexual assault and he alleges that the police officers coerced him into making an admission that he had committed sexual assault against patients so and but he also says that the police officers didn't read the miranda warning well the argument from the police officer is no we didn't read the miranda warning but he agreed to talk to us like he wasn't under arrest at the time but he agreed to talk to us he gave us a written statement so so that was the argument from the police office and what the supreme court said is that you should have read miranda so any statements that were made by the individual aren't going to be allowed to be used against him so it's the fifth amendment against self-incrimination so so that's that's important to know but that the police officers cannot be sued personally for that violation and the reason for that is is what the supreme what the supreme court said in the decision is that miranda itself is not a constitutional right so miranda is case law that protects a constitutional right but because it is in itself not a constitutional rights suing police officers under 1983 which is essentially deprivation of constitutional and civil rights you can't sue police officers for that because it in itself isn't a constitutional right it's just case law that protects however when it comes to things like but they definitely reiterated that you know the penalty for a miranda violation is that police officers and prosecutors cannot use that statement against the individual in court or you know for probable cause or to get to any kind of conviction so that is that is important to know um so we just did a poll what full house team are you on and uh olson twins jesse uncle jesse stephanie tanner and danny tanner so stephanie tanner rated in at 25 i wonder if that would have been um higher before this happened um so those are those are some of the important cases that we wanted to go through today and i do want to appreciate everyone for joining us here on a wednesday typically we do these on fridays but because the holiday we are doing it on wednesday so i just want to remind everyone please go ahead and follow me on youtube and other channels at police law news and make sure that you like follow and subscribe and hit the notification bell for cop watch tv because sometimes we are going to do these live events um on different times than typical and i want to make sure that everyone knows exactly where they are so with that i want everyone to have a happy and great 4th of july weekend thank you you