All Episodes
Previous Next
April 14, 2021 - The Ben Shapiro Show
44:44
Abolish The Police?! | Ep. 1235
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Democrats pursue new police standards while promoting myths about how policing actually works.
The Chauvin trial continues, and the Biden administration hits the pause button on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Protect your data from big tech with the VPN I trust.
Visit expressvpn.com slash Ben.
Speaking of which, if we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that you cannot trust the big tech bros with your information and with your data, because here's the reality, they may not like you.
And then they use the data to monetize their own platforms, which don't like you.
So why exactly would you give your data to them?
A few decades ago, private citizens used to be largely that, private, but the internet has changed all of that.
Having your private life exposed for others to see, well, That used to be something only celebs worried about.
Well, now that is you.
To keep your data private when you go online, do the same thing I do.
Go to expressvpn.com.
Did you know there are hundreds of data brokers out there whose sole business is to buy and sell your data the worst part?
They don't have to tell you who you're selling it to or get your consent.
One of those data points is your IP address.
Data harvesters use your IP to uniquely identify you and your location.
But with ExpressVPN, my connection gets rerouted through an encrypted server.
My IP address is masked.
Every time I turn ExpressVPN on, I'm given a random IP address shared by other ExpressVPN customers.
That makes it much more difficult for third parties to identify me and harvest my data.
The best part is how easy ExpressVPN is to use.
No matter what device you're on, phone, laptop, smart TV, all you have to do is tap one button and you are now protected.
So, if like me, you believe your data is your business, secure yourself with the number one rated VPN on the market.
Visit expressvpn.com.
Get three extra months for free.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N-D-O-T-C-O-M-S-L-A-S-H-B-E-N.
Head on over to ExpressVPN.com-S-L-A-S-H-B-E-N to learn more.
Alrighty, so, we are now in the midst of this grand American rethinking about the nature of policing in the United States.
Here's the reality about policing.
It's a tough, dirty job, and not very many people want to do it.
And if you make it tougher, and more dirty, and more difficult to get done, very, very few people want to do it.
And that is precisely why you have seen the murder rate rise 30% in the course of one year.
We are now re-entering 1960s, early 1970s crime territory.
That is not where you want to be as a country.
And the reason for that is we have decided that we are now the experts on how policing should work, even though very few of us have ever had to do any policing.
Not only that, We believe things that we watch on TV about how policing works.
So the same exact people who will say things like, why don't you shoot to wound?
By the way, you know who said that?
The president of the United States, Joe Biden.
Back during the debates, he was like, why couldn't they just have shot to wound in the case of Jacob Blake?
It's like, because you don't know anything about how any of this works.
Why is it that they can't just shoot him from 100 yards away with a taser?
All of this stuff is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of how policing works in the United States.
And that misunderstanding, combined with the idea that America's police are systemically racist, another notion that is simply false on its face, the idea that America's police are disproportionately and specifically targeting black people for victimization, those two ideas combined lead to an awful lot of bad policy.
The latest bad policy comes courtesy of the state of Maryland.
So what exactly does all of that mean?
the state legislature passed these sweeping police reforms.
According to the New York Times, Maryland lawmakers voted on Saturday to limit police officers use of force, restrict the use of no-knock warrants, and repeal the nation's first bill of rights for law enforcement.
So what exactly does all of that mean?
Well, it means you ain't going to sign up any more police officers in Maryland is really what it means.
One section creates a new statewide use of force policy and says that officers who violate those standards, causing serious injury or death, can be convicted and sent to prison for up to 10 years.
The standard says that force can be used only to prevent an imminent threat of physical injury to a person or to effectuate a legitimate law enforcement objective.
Well, that is an awful lot of wiggle room for prosecutors to go after cops, which is why the cops are opposing this sort of stuff.
You can imagine an awful lot of situations in which the police have to do something to effectuate an arrest based on, for example, a violated warrant, and then the person dies, and then the cop is brought up on charges for really having not done anything wrong, just being caught on tape in a way that we don't particularly like.
And we know this is happening across the United States anyway.
The language there is extremely broad and extremely vague.
The policy also says that force must be, quote, necessary and proportional.
Well, necessary and proportional is a pretty tough standard because now you have a bunch of civilians deciding what exactly is necessary and proportional.
Police reform groups said this is a much tougher standard than the traditional reasonableness standard.
Which they said was not sufficient for holding officers accountable for blatant acts of violence.
But reasonableness is rooted in the idea that police officers have to actually assess the situation on the ground and then make a determination.
Necessary and proportional means that unless something is quote-unquote strictly necessary, you cannot do it.
Well, who's to determine what is strictly necessary?
In a second, I'm going to explain why all of these laws really are quite bad for policing and why they're gonna be horrible for public safety.
Also, law enforcement agencies statewide must establish a system to identify police officers who are considered likely to use excessive force and to restrain, counsel, or if needed, reassign them.
Now that part is fine.
My guess is that Larry Hogan would assign that bill into law.
But the legislature also repealed Maryland's Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights.
That was the nation's first such law when it was enacted in the 1970s.
It gave every officer statewide the right to appeal discipline to a local board regardless of a city's wishes.
Instead, lawmakers replaced those protections by requiring every county to have a police accountability board to receive complaints of misconduct from the public.
The problem with a lot of these police accountability boards is that they are heavily politicized.
If you can get enough people in positions of power on the police accountability board who don't like the police, You'll just have a group of people cramming down on the police completely unworkable rules.
Civilians will have a role on administrative charging committees that will review the findings of law enforcement agencies and recommend discipline for officers.
Police chiefs will not be able to issue disciplinary actions more lenient than the levels recommended by those panels.
Also, lawmakers limited the use of no-knock warrants Officers have said, because of the Breonna Taylor case, in that case that they actually did announce their presence, some witnesses disagreed, but no-knock warrants are sometimes necessary if you think that the person who's inside the residence is going to fire a gun at you if you knock on the door.
So these sorts of bills, I mean, there's a reason why Larry Hogan, who is not a hardcore conservative, vetoed this bill.
And then it was passed in spite of all of that.
And the reason is because the level of civilian understanding of how policing works is abysmal, truly awful.
Just to take a perfect example, over the past several nights, we've had these riots in Brooklyn Center, and they are full-scale riots.
You have people attacking police officers.
You've had the National Guard having to fire tear gas at people.
You've seen people attempting to break in and loot stores.
It's really, really ugly.
It looks like a war zone in parts of Brooklyn Center.
Well, yesterday, the Brooklyn Center mayor said, I don't believe officers need to have weapons when they make arrests.
I'm gonna need, he's gonna need to show his work on paper here for me to understand what in the hell he's talking about here.
I don't believe that officers need to necessarily have weapons every time they're making a traffic stop or engaged in situations that don't necessarily call for weapons.
We know that there are many other jurisdictions, even around the world, where that is not See, one of the things that is very odd about sort of the leftist worldview with regard to policing is the left wants a lot of very stringent regulations on how you live your life.
And they want lots of regulations on how cigarettes are sold, for example.
Or they want heavy regulations on how exactly you're able to operate your vehicle.
They want heavy regulations on virtually every area of life, but they refuse to acknowledge the reality of regulations, which is that all regulations, in the end, are enforced at the point of a government gun.
This is true with regard to your taxes.
It is true with regard to environmental protections.
In the end, if you resist arrest, if you refuse to obey the law, there will be a government gun at the end of it.
They don't like the gun.
So at the same time they want to promote heavy regulations, at the same time they want to ensure that the government has more power, they shy away from the idea that that power actually Exists.
So, you have this bizarre situation where the mayor of Brooklyn Center is now saying that if you pull somebody over for drunk driving, for example, that the police officer shouldn't have a weapon.
Okay, well what happens when the guy pops back in his car and takes off?
You're supposed to stand there with nothing in your hands?
How exactly is that supposed to work?
And the answer is, they don't think about how this stuff works because they don't care how this stuff works.
All of it is posturing.
It is all rooted in a basic misconception, which is that policing is nice and happy and that everything works out well.
Police officers have millions of interactions with people every single year.
Millions.
Something like four million interactions between the police and civilians every single year.
And those interactions are generally not wonderful because nobody's having a good day when they interact with a cop.
Police officers know this.
But, again, when you have civilians who don't understand how any of this works, making the rules and doing so on the basis of bad data, that is a bad thing.
Now, you should have civilian... I'm not arguing that the police should basically just, quote-unquote, control themselves, that the police should be the only authority in how they use their force.
That, of course, would be fascistic.
You can't have armed wings of the American government being the only court of appeal.
However, the sort of loosening of regulations that you are seeing by Democrats in terms of how you prosecute officers, the attempt to prevent officers from doing their jobs, any sort of expert level understanding on this sort of stuff is really a problem.
And it's going to lead to more death.
There's a recent study that came out and it showed that in America's major cities, the ones that were that were riven by protests from 2014 to 2019, ever since the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, That the number of police-avoidable deaths, according to this study, was something like 300.
And the number of total deaths that were actually created, in other words, there were 300 fewer deaths because of interactions between cops and civilians, or cops and suspects.
But the number of total deaths in those cities that were avoidable rose by something like 6,000.
Because it turns out when you take cops off the streets, when you tell cops not to do their job, they won't do their job.
And when they don't do their job, bad things happen.
Some people on the left are at least honest enough to go all the way here.
So, obviously you had Rashida Tlaib suggesting it's time to abolish policing in the United States overall, Jason Johnson on MSNBC saying the exact same thing.
Honestly, if this is how Democrats want to play it, go for it.
We'll see if Americans really feel like they are so safe from their fellow American that the police can just be disbanded.
I've been saying we need to abolish American policing as it currently exists.
It doesn't work.
You know the average homicides that are actually solved by police departments?
Only about 35%.
You know the number of rapes and sexual assaults that are solved by police departments?
You know, less than 60%.
You know the percentage likelihood of being shot unarmed as a black person is like five times as likely than a white person?
Policing doesn't work the way we're doing it right now.
I have a question.
What does he think the level of homicide solving, finding the actual perp in a homicide, what does he think that level would be if there were no police?
Would it be 35% or would it be zero?
Is the great obstacle to solving homicides the police being bad at their jobs or is it that a lot of people won't testify and give actual witness evidence with regard to homicides?
Getting rid of the police doesn't solve the problem of homicide, it creates more homicides.
If somebody is raped, who do you go to in this particular case?
And the notion that black people are being shot by the police at five times the rate of white people is just not true.
Okay, statistically speaking, that is not... I'm unaware of any stats that demonstrate that black people on a per capita level are being shot at five times the rate of white people.
That is a bizarre, again, evidence-free statement so far as I'm aware.
If somebody can disabuse me of that, I am happy to take a look at those stats.
In actuality, something like 500 white Americans were shot by the cops between January of 2020 and March of 2021.
And the number of unarmed black men, according to the Washington Post, who are shot every year by the police, generally less than 30.
But this is all rooted in basic misunderstandings of how policing works.
And also rooted in a certain animus for the police, which results in just lies.
To take an example, Remember that whole Jacob Blake case?
Remember that case where a man arrived at the site of his ex-girlfriend's house and who had accused him of penetrative rape with his finger earlier on in the year, I believe.
And she called the police saying, this guy is back at the house.
And the police arrive.
He resists arrest.
He has a knife.
He reaches into the car.
They shoot him.
Remember that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris called that guy?
and talked about what a rough life he had, and how difficult it was for him, and how terrible the police were?
Well, now it turns out that the police officer who shot Jacob Blake last summer is back on duty.
Because the Kenosha police investigation found no wrongdoing.
You know why?
Because there was no wrongdoing.
You know who said there was no wrongdoing?
People who knew anything about policing.
You know who said there was wrongdoing?
Every single Democrat.
Everyone.
I'm unaware of a Democrat who said that those police officers were entitled to due process and that even the tape was not dispositive with regard to whether the police officers had done something wrong.
Didn't matter.
Resulted in riots in Kenosha.
Remember this.
It happened in the middle of last year, not that long ago.
You see the same sort of myth-making happening now with regard to the Daunte Wright case.
This was fairly obviously an accident by the police officer, who will indeed end up being charged for manslaughter.
A police officer drew a gun instead of a taser, which is an inexcusable mistake, and then shot Daunte Wright.
Now, there are additional facts about Daunte Wright that we are learning about that cast some serious doubt on the idea that he is some sort of wonderful person, but that is not really indicative as to the crime committed by the officer in question.
It does really blow up the narrative that whenever you have one of these situations, whether it's George Floyd or whether it's Daunte Wright or whether it's Jacob Blake, the initial reaction of the media is always, This person is a wonderful, tremendous human, and all of the police are evil and terrible.
Two things can be true at once.
One, the person could be a criminal, and two, the police could have done something wrong, which tends to be more often the case in these controversial cases.
But in any case, that's not even the myth-making I'm talking about.
The real myth-making is the attempt to rewrite the evidence in the case to now suggest that this shooting of Daunte Wright was not an accident.
It was, in fact, on purpose.
So, for example, Did y'all not see my little great-nephew?
of Daunte Wright speaking publicly and saying this was not an accident, it was outright murder.
Now, we showed you the body cam footage yesterday. The woman literally yells, it's a female officer, she literally yells, taser, taser, taser, shoots the guy and says, oh my God, I shot him. It's going to be hard to come up with better evidence of accidents than that. But here's the aunt suggesting that it's murder anyway. Did y'all not see my little great nephew? Did y'all not see that beautiful baby? He is fatherless.
Not over a mistake!
Over murder!
That's murder!
Say his name!
Okay, um...
I'm sorry, it was not murder.
It was a tragedy, it was a horrible circumstance, and the woman is going to end up probably copping a manslaughter.
But that was not murder.
Okay, and AOC is saying the same thing.
Because again, the idea is that evidence is unnecessary in order to declare that the police are really bad.
So AOC, the incredible, brilliant, insightful, fresh-faced, so fresh, so face, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, famous mostly for being very popular on Twitter, Oh, it wasn't?
Really?
Explain.
Okay, that is just insane.
I'm sorry.
That's crazy.
random disconnected accident.
Oh, it wasn't?
Really, explain.
It was the repeated outcome of an indefensible system that grants impunity for state violence, rewards it with endlessly growing budgets at the cost of community investment and targets those who question that order.
Okay, that is just insane.
I'm sorry, that's crazy.
When she says that Daunte Bright's killing was not a random disconnected accident, which is exactly what it was, that it was the repeated outcome of an indefensible system that grants impunity for...
This woman's gonna end up on manslaughter charges.
Rewards it with endlessly growing budgets at the cost of community investment.
I wasn't aware that when you actually invest in the police, that doesn't count as a community investment, considering that the single greatest factor in reducing crime rates is putting cops on the streets.
And targets those who question that order.
Weird, because AOC questions that order, and I'm not seeing the police pulling her over and or doing something terrible to her.
I'm not seeing that.
Then she suggested cameras, chokehold bans, retraining funds, and similar reform measures do not ultimately solve what is a systemic problem.
So she's saying that you can't even take actions that are likely to reduce the likelihood of bad circumstances.
She says the system will find a way.
Killings happen on camera.
People are killed in other ways.
Retraining grows money, while often substituting for deeper measures.
So what exactly is her solution?
Presumably, defund the police.
And then you want these people deciding what is best for you and your community?
It's pretty incredible stuff.
Speaking of which, the officer and the police chief in Brooklyn Center have now resigned.
So, again, the notion that the system is completely, it's a complete failure, and that this particular incident is evidence of the complete failure of the system, the body cams gave you the evidence.
The body cams are what let you know what happened here.
The information was released to the public.
Doesn't matter.
The point here from the media, from the Democrats, is that the cops are always bad.
The cops have to be stopped.
The cops are a rampant fascist force out of control.
And the undergirding so much of what Democrats talk about cops is this.
They have this bifurcated view of cops.
On the one hand, they will pay homage to them the same way that Joe Biden paid homage to a police officer who was killed at the Capitol yesterday.
And they'll do so in moving fashion.
On the other hand, they will suggest that America's police are systemically racist.
And it all depends on the circumstance.
But in the end, can you trust Democrats to keep your city safe?
I'm wondering because what I'm seeing right now is the Democrats who run every one of these major American cities are not keeping you safe.
They're making your life worse.
OK, in just a second, we're going to get to the latest in the Derek Chauvin trial, because if you're worried about the riots right now in Minneapolis, Wait about a week.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let us talk about the fact that if you are a smart and decent person, you need life insurance.
Protect your loved ones by getting life insurance with PolicyGenius.
If you need a positive experience to balance out all the negative in your life, consider protecting your loved ones by going over to PolicyGenius.
They can help you compare top insurers in one place, save 50% or more on life insurance.
Once you find your best option, the Policy Genius team will set up your new policy for you and answer any questions you have along the way.
You can feel good knowing your family has financial protection.
Getting started is super easy.
First, you head on over to policygenius.com.
In minutes, you can work out how much coverage you need and you can compare quotes to find your best price.
Since they're licensed agents that work for you, not the insurance companies, there is zero hassle.
If you had any speed bumps during the application process, PolicyGenius will take care of everything for you.
That kind of service has earned PolicyGenius a five-star rating across thousands of reviews on Trustpilot and Google.
The best part?
All the benefits of PolicyGenius, the comparison tool, handling of paperwork, the unbiased advice, totally free to use.
Policygenius can promise you won't leave their website feeling foolish because you'll leave with what you needed.
Namely, a great life insurance policy at a price that you can afford.
You could save 50% or more by comparing.
Life insurance quotes feel good.
Knowing if something happens, your family is taken care of.
Policygenius.com to get started.
Policygenius when it comes to insurance.
It's nice and quite important to get it right.
Okay, so this brings us to the latest in the Derek Chauvin trial.
So the Derek Chauvin trial continues to pace.
The defense began laying out its case yesterday.
And it was basically two pieces of testimonial evidence that really mattered in the defense case with regard to Derek Chauvin yesterday.
Now listen, if I have to ballpark where I think this is going, I don't think there's a chance in the world that Chauvin actually gets acquitted.
I think that given the nature of the jury, the fact this is taking place in Minneapolis, I think it's very doubtful.
You need a unanimous jury to either convict or to acquit.
So I think the most likely outcome here is a hung jury.
I think you'll get a couple of jurors who say, we're not going to convict on the basis of this evidence.
You might get a conviction on the basis of the manslaughter.
I think the murder charges are way too far.
I think they were always way too far.
I think manslaughter is, at the very least, somewhat understandable coming from the jury.
Maybe, if you view the evidence through a very skeptical prism toward the defense.
Okay, but I think the most likely outcome here is a hung jury.
So there are two pieces of evidence that were trotted out yesterday with regard to the Chauvin trial.
Piece of evidence number one was this old arrest in 2019, because it looks a lot like the arrest that happened in 2020 with regard to George Floyd, an arrest during which he died.
His behavior during one is sort of indicative of his behavior during the other.
The other piece of evidence was a bunch of testimony from a police use of force expert named Barry Broad, who basically testified that Chauvin's use of force here was reasonable.
Okay, well, that is what the defense needs to show.
Broad's testimony, I will say, was not stellar.
The body cam footage from the 2019 arrest is more probative.
Okay, so we're gonna go through all of that, because remember, what the defense has to show here, or what the prosecution has to prove, and the defense has to debunk, is one, that Floyd died of not a drug overdose, or any underlying condition, but died because of what Chauvin did, and two, the prosecution has to show that Chauvin's use of force was objectively unreasonable.
That it was unlawful.
Okay, so the defense has to show, contrarily, that it's not beyond a reasonable doubt, that it could have been reasonable use of force, and two, Floyd could have died from these other causes.
Okay, that's what a lot of the testimony was about yesterday.
Okay, so we begin with the 2019 arrest.
There were a couple of pieces of testimony here that actually mattered.
One was the actual body cam footage from the 2019 arrest in which it was shown in court that Floyd had swallowed evidence when he was arrested.
Presumably drugs, that's what you swallow.
I assume it wasn't like a bag of cash.
He swallowed some of the evidence.
And the idea here, presumably, is that Floyd could have done the same thing here.
That as the cops were approaching, he put a bunch of pills in his mouth, those pills drove up his heart rate, and then drove his heart rate down, and then he died.
That would be the case that the defense is making here.
They're saying he did the same thing as in 2019, it just went a lot more wrong in this particular case.
And there's some ancillary evidence to that effect, namely that there were spit-out pills in the back of the cop car that were laced, apparently, with methamphetanil.
Here is the flashback 2019 tape from George Floyd's arrest back then.
Okay, so he obviously was not complying with officer orders there.
He tried to swallow the evidence.
And so what the defense was claiming is he did the same thing here.
Michelle Mosing was a paramedic in that particular case.
And she said that, I talked to Floyd, and Floyd said at the time that he was addicted to pain pills and he took seven to nine Percocet.
That is a lot of Percocet, gang.
Percocet is basically just OxyContin.
Here's the paramedic in this particular case.
He told you that he swallowed some pills, right?
Yes.
Approximately seven Percocet, correct?
I documented, yeah, 7 to 9 every 20 minutes or so for a while.
So he told you that he had been taking those pills throughout the day, right?
Yes, and I asked him why.
He said it's because he was addicted.
Okay, so the drug addiction case is going to be a case that is pushed pretty heavily by the defense in terms of the causation.
Again, there was an intervening cause.
They're going to say the intervening cause was Floyd's dramatic drug use.
The intervening cause was Floyd's heart condition.
Now, one of the things that's happening here also is the prosecution is forcibly attempting to suppress witness testimony.
So the defense Argued in front of the jury.
Guys, his drug dealer was in the car with him.
The prosecution could offer that guy immunity in return for his testimony.
They won't do it.
Why do you think they won't do it?
Could it be because he's about to testify that he is complicit in the death of George Floyd by giving him a bunch of drugs in the car?
Because why else would you have your drug dealer in the car with you?
Right, so that's something the defense is arguing.
They're also pointing out that there's other testimony that this guy had, for example, an FBI interview for like an hour and a half, and none of that testimony is being admitted in court.
There are gonna be some cases on appeal here.
The judge's behavior in this particular case, I have to say, is extraordinarily pro-prosecution.
Not only did he allow a week of testimony of very little probative value, probative means actually goes toward proving the case, he allowed a week of testimony from bystanders talking about how upset they were by Floyd's death, which is not probative in any way, it is just prejudicial.
Not only did he do that, not only did he reinstate a third-degree murder charge that certainly does not fit the elements here, not only did he refuse the defense's request to transfer the trial out of Minneapolis, where it's very difficult to get a fair trial, but now he's basically barring the defense from asking questions about excited delirium to prosecution witnesses.
He's barring the defense from being able to admit testimony from the drug dealer who was in the car with George Floyd.
You know, all that seems Frankly, extraordinarily pro-prosecution.
Okay, so the other piece of evidence that came out in the Chauvin trial yesterday was the police use of force expert.
His name is Barry Broad.
I don't think he did a fantastic job, frankly.
He was trying to argue that Chauvin's use of force was justified.
And there's a good case to make that his use of force was justified.
Here was Barry Broad saying that Chauvin was justified in his use of force using a three-pronged analysis.
So was the officer's use of force proportionate to the level of resistance demonstrated by the suspect?
Objectively reasonable, correct?
Yes.
So in terms of your three-part analysis, did you apply that analysis to this case?
I did.
In your opinion, was this a use of deadly force?
It was not.
And can you just briefly overview your opinions in this particular case?
I felt that Derek Chauvin was justified and was acting with objective reasonableness following Minneapolis Police Department policy and current standards of law enforcement and his interactions with Mr. Floyd.
So the three-pronged analysis that he used to determine this, he said if the officer had justification to detain the suspect, which he did, how the suspect responded to the officer, and if the officer's use of force was proportionate to the level of resistance demonstrated by the suspect.
It's that last one, whether the officer's use of force was proportionate to the level of resistance demonstrated by the suspect.
That's the one that's really at issue.
Because it's clear that Floyd was resisting arrest.
It is clear that the officer had justification to detain the suspect because the suspect Was passing counterfeit bills and resisting arrest.
The real question is whether Chauvin was justified in keeping Floyd face down and then staying on him as he passed out.
Here's Broad explaining why he thinks they were justified in keeping Floyd face down in the first place.
Why would it be safer for the suspect to keep him in that prone control?
Because if they were to get up and run, handcuffed, trip and fall, sustain facial injuries, other injuries on the ground, their mobility is reduced, their ability to move is reduced, and the ability to hurt themselves is reduced.
What if they became sick, for example?
prone control, instead of having somebody lay on their back where they could aspirate on vomit, prone control, their face is down, airway is clear. If they vomit, it's not going to go down their trachea or down their throat. Okay, so that's actually a pretty good piece of testimony in favor of the defense that what Chauvin was doing here is basic police protocol, where the, where this witness, you know, really screwed up is he said that that was no use of force.
That when you're suppressing Floyd by being on his back, that is a no use of force.
That, of course, is very silly.
It is a form of use of force.
It is just a very low level use of force is what he really should have said.
And the prosecution, of course, jumped on this with both feet.
A compliant person would have both their hands in the small of their back and just be resting comfortably versus like he's still moving around.
Did you say resting comfortably?
Or laying comfortably?
Resting comfortably on the pavement.
Yes.
At this point in time when he's attempting to breathe by shoving his shoulder into the pavement.
I was describing what the signs of a perfectly compliant person would be.
So attempting to breathe while restrained is being slightly non-compliant?
No.
No.
Okay, so there the prosecution is honing in on what they think is the defense use of force expert's overstatement of the case.
What the defense use of force expert was attempting to say, presumably, is that if Floyd had been compliant all the way throughout, he would not have been kicking at the officers, he would have not been attempting to push against the officers, he would have been lying there, and then they basically would have just been either sitting on top of him or not sitting on top of him at all.
Okay, here's the bottom line.
Again, the defense does not have to prove that Chauvin is innocent.
They just have to prove not beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
So we'll see what the rest of the witness testimony tends to show.
Again, my guess is that Chauvin ends up convicted of manslaughter if he's convicted of anything.
And a hung jury is a not implausible outcome in this particular case.
If there's a hung jury, there'll be rioting.
Extraordinary rioting.
If he's convicted of manslaughter, there may be rioting.
Because people will just say, well, he should have been convicted of murder.
And this is how the media have set up this narrative.
Even though the evidence here is quite shaded.
Even though this is a much more complex story than people were originally led to believe.
The media have set this thing up for riots, and riots you shall receive, because we now live in an America in which police killings that are unjustified are statistically extremely rare.
They are very, very rare in the United States, given the number of interactions between police and suspects.
But you know what is not rare?
Whenever there is a controversial situation caught on tape, or even not caught on tape, between a white police officer and a black suspect, You can be assured that in at least 50% of cases, I would imagine, there is some form of rioting or looting that breaks out into the public.
If it's high profile enough.
That whenever one of these things becomes public, there is rioting and looting.
And we should not live in a country where we expect that sort of behavior.
Because American citizens have a right to expect two things.
That don't conflict with each other.
One, that they are not going to be unjustifiably killed by the police or mistreated by the police.
And two, that their fellow American citizens should not be allowed to roam around looting and rioting and doing great violence and harm.
These are not conflicting ideas.
They're perfectly in consonance with one another, but the media have set them up in complete opposite to one another.
Because the idea is that if the cops do something wrong, then riots and looting, if not justified, are at least understandable.
And that's the way the media have been covering this stuff throughout.
That is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
It would not be allowed under any other rubric in American life, but the media have basically decided, as Nikole Hannah-Jones said, 1619 riots.
All right, coming up, we're gonna get to the perversion of test science under Joe Biden and the Democrats.
They've been told science, they are just guided by the science.
Yes, there are 1,200,000 33 genders, but they are guided by the science on everything.
The science rules.
Except when it's super political.
We'll get to that in just one moment.
First, let's talk about the fact that you constantly need to make your business better.
If you're a business owner who's hiring, you probably face a lot of challenges when it comes to finding the right person for your role.
That's why hiring can feel like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
You know, you could post your job to some job board, but then all you can do is hope to find the right person if they come along.
That's why you should try ZipRecruiter for free right now at ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
When you post a job on ZipRecruiter, it gets sent out to over 100 top job sites with just one click.
Then, ZipRecruiter's matching technology finds people with the right skills and experience for your job and actively invites them to apply.
In fact, ZipRecruiter is so effective that 4 out of 5 employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
It's no wonder over 2.3 million businesses have come to ZipRecruiter for their hiring needs.
So, while other companies overwhelm you with way too many options, ZipRecruiter finds you what you're looking for, the needle in the haystack.
Right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at this web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
Again, go to ziprecruiter.com slash d-a-i-l-y-w-i-r-e.
ZipRecruiter is the smartest way to hire.
We use it here at DailyWire because we are constantly seeking better employees.
Not just to threaten our current employees with the possibility of unemployment, but also just to increase the possibilities of our business.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWare.
Go check them out right now.
Alrighty, it's already episode five.
We still cannot get enough of Candace Owens or her new show, Candace.
If you haven't checked it out yet, I know what you're waiting for.
Candace hosts a lively series of guests every week for discussion panel interviews.
My favorite is her signature cancel corner.
This week, she'll be hosting comedian and podcaster Adam Carolla.
He's a terrific dude, good friend.
Tune in, because you don't want to miss their conversation.
The show streams on Fridays, 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central, at dailywire.com.
You can get the audio podcast, Candace, on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcast.
So, if you need some Candace Owens in your podcast feed, look no further.
Head on over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
Subscribe today.
Be sure to leave a five-star review if you like what you hear.
you're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
♪♪ All righty, so the left, the Democratic Party, the media, they've decided to pervert the science on every possible front.
We'll get to how they are screwing it up on the vaccines in just one second, because it truly is one of the great public health failures of our time.
I should note at this point that the scientific community has basically become, in many ways, a propaganda outlet on behalf of the left.
This is true in regards to everything from transgender hormone therapy and surgery for children to climate change.
It's pretty incredible.
There are two problems that plague the scientific community when it comes to politics.
One is the ultracrepidarian problem.
I've used this word a lot because, frankly, I see it everywhere now.
Ultracrepidarianism is the thing where you speak out of turn, where you don't know anything about a particular topic, and then you speak as though you do know something about a particular topic.
Ultracrepidarianism, for example, would be the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, declaring that racism is a public health problem, which is absurd.
That's like saying stupidity is a public health problem.
It turns out lots of bad things in life have impacts on public health.
That does not make them a public health problem.
Okay, so that is ultracrepidarianism.
She's speaking outside her area of expertise while using her white coat in order to guise her ignorance.
Okay, so that is one problem.
The other problem you see...
is the reverse effect, where politics cloaks itself as science, and then people treat it as though it is science.
What I call the bleed-over effect, which is a bunch of people suggesting unscientific things are in fact science.
This would be Joe Biden suggesting that gender ideology is in fact science, when it clearly is not.
You see both of these things from Scientific American.
Scientific American has become more and more politicized these days.
They openly endorsed Joe Biden for president.
It was Not a complete shock, but you saw Nature do the same thing.
A bunch of these quote-unquote scientific magazines suddenly have a very strong political bent.
Who could have predicted such a thing?
Okay, there's a piece in Scientific American in which the magazine announces that they are no longer going to use the term climate change.
Instead, they're going to use the term climate emergency.
Now, I was not aware that there's a scientific designation that amounts to emergency.
There is such a thing in medicine, for example, it's like emergency medicine.
Right, which is the person's gonna die if you don't do something about it right now.
But climate emergency is not as though a certain level of climate change occurring over the course of the century turns it from just change to emergency.
This is a completely political designation.
And by the way, I do not consider it a quote-unquote emergency if the climate were to warm four degrees Celsius over the course of the next century.
I consider that a gradual change that human beings are going to have to adapt to with increased technological know-how, as well as innovation, which human beings have been doing for literally all of the history of humankind.
Adaptation, we're really good at it.
Mitigation, not so much.
In any case, Scientific America now says that it is a scientific duty for them to call this a climate emergency, which is just a lie.
It's just a way for them to create a certain level of alarmism that is unjustifiable by the facts on the ground.
The fact is, the economies around the world are growing at such a rapid clip that the amount of damage to be done to humankind on the basis of climate change is a small percentage of global GDP on an economic level.
And in terms of actual human damage, we should be focused on how to mitigate that human damage, but we are not talking, as so many people have suggested, about billions of people dying, or hundreds of millions of people dying, or anything like that.
We're not even talking about tens of millions of people dying.
We're not talking about probably millions of people dying through climate change directly.
In any case, Scientific American has now declared it a climate emergency.
They say, it's an emergency.
It's a serious situation that requires immediate action.
When someone calls 911 because they can't breathe, that's an emergency.
When someone stumbles on the sidewalk because their chest is pounding and their lips are turning blue, that's an emergency.
Both people require help right away.
Multiply those individuals by millions of people who have similar symptoms, and it constitutes the biggest global health emergency in a century, the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now consider the following scenarios.
A hurricane blasts Florida.
A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it.
A sudden record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas.
These are also emergencies that require immediate action.
Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the Earth in millennia, climate change.
Okay, that is just an absurd comparison.
That's absurd.
Hurricanes have been hitting Florida for a very, very long time.
And as it turns out, actually, the amount of damage being done by hurricanes has only been increasing because of what we call the bullseye effect.
Namely, people are building more stuff in the way of hurricanes.
So you're going to say there was a cold snap in Texas, therefore, climate change is an emergency?
I was informed reliably by you guys that weather is not climate.
In fact, every time there's a cold snap, there are people on the right, they're like, oh, climate change isn't happening because it's snowing.
And people on the left are like, hey, you're confusing weather with climate.
I'm sensing a similar thing here.
And look, bottom line is this is not the science, it is the science, right?
It's fake politicized science.
And you see this now being applied in the realm of vaccinations.
I've never seen the sort of public health debacle that we are seeing from the Biden administration in terms of their public facing statements toward vaccination.
These vaccines, with regard to COVID-19, are a godsend.
You're talking about vaccines that have a nearly 100% efficacy rate with regard to reducing death and serious disease.
And your take is nobody should ever go to a restaurant again?
And not only that, your take is that if there is an upswing, it is so dangerous we have to shut down all of American society.
But if we have a vaccine in which there are six adverse reactions among seven million people who have taken the vaccine, we have to pause on that vaccine?
You can't have it both ways.
Either COVID's an emergency or it ain't an emergency.
Right now, all of these vaccines have been given emergency use authorization.
They are not operating under typical FDA rules.
By the way, the notion that the FDA is your great protective body is an absurdity.
It's an absurdity from the beginning.
You know when we had the actual sequenced vaccine ready?
The sequencing of the vaccine was ready in January of 2020.
Not an American, so far as I'm aware, had died yet when we had the sequencing available for the mRNA vaccine for COVID-19.
It took all the way until November.
For the FDA to clear the use of these vaccines.
How many lives could have been saved in the meantime?
The CDC lied to you about masks.
Then the CDC blew it about eight times over for a variety of reasons.
And your take is that the government knows what they are doing here?
Okay, so the latest indicator on all of this, the latest move on all of this, is that the Biden administration has decided via the FDA to halt the rollout of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is a DNA-based vaccine as opposed to the mRNA vaccines, which means it is slightly more traditional than the mRNA vaccines.
It also happens to be extremely durable because DNA vaccines don't have to be stored at 30 degrees below zero or whatever it is that you require in order to actually store the Pfizer vaccine, for example.
Also, they're a single-shot vaccine.
So these things are really, really useful, especially when you need to quickly wave them into a community and have the shots rolled out, which is what you need right now, for example, in Michigan.
Instead, the Biden administration's FDA, and it is the Biden administration FDA, they announced that they are pausing the J&J vaccine because there were six, six cases, Or the serious blood clotting disorder that emerged after 6.8 million people had been given the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Your chances, based on these statistics, of having this condition are less than one in a million.
We stopped the rollout of vaccine in the middle of a pandemic.
We're not talking about just generally.
In the middle of a pandemic.
By the way, I would imagine that the rate of Guillain-Barré for the flu vaccine is way higher than the rate that you are talking about right now.
In terms of the number of people with adverse consequences.
And yet, we don't pause the flu vaccine rollout.
In fact, the FDA greenlit that.
Okay, but here was Anthony Fauci, the greatest doctor in all the land, after Dr. Joe Biden, suggesting we're not being too hasty in pausing.
I mean, what's the big deal?
We have other vaccines that are ready to go, as we'll see in a second.
It ain't quite that simple.
Here is Anthony Fauci.
You want to make sure that safety is the important issue here.
We are totally aware that this is a very rare event.
We want to get this worked out as quickly as we possibly can.
And that's why you see the word pause.
In other words, you want to hold off for a bit and very well may go back to that, maybe with some conditions or maybe not.
But we want to leave that up to the FDA and the CDC to investigate this carefully.
So I don't think it was pulling the trigger too quickly.
Oh, it wasn't pulling the trigger too quick.
It's all fine.
Joe Biden then came out and he said, well, you know, we have these other vaccines that are ready to go.
They can just ramp up.
So Johnson and Johnson ramps down.
No biggie.
The message to the American people on the vaccine is, I told you all, I made sure we have 600 million doses.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they've all been rolled out evenly, right?
AstraZeneca. So there's enough vaccine that is basically 100% unquestionable for every single solitary American.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they've all been rolled out evenly, right? According to Mitch Smith and Michael Shearer over at the New York Times, quote, the student union had been converted into a vaccination center. The doses had arrived on campus.
The first appointments were minutes away.
Then at 7.23 a.m.
on Tuesday, news of the pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccinations reached Youngstown State University.
We're ready to go, said Shannon Turone, an associate VP at the University in Eastern Ohio, who instead started calling students to tell them they would not be able to get the vaccine after all.
Similar scenes played out across the country, as the abrupt halt in the use of the J&J vaccine because of concerns about potential blood clots upended plans to vaccinate some of the country's hardest-to-reach populations.
In California, Mobile vaccine clinics in rural areas were canceled.
In Chicago, vaccination events for restaurant employees and aviation workers were postponed indefinitely.
At colleges in Ohio, New York, and Tennessee, where the one-dose vaccine offered a chance to quickly inoculate students before they left campus for the summer, appointments were called off en masse.
So no, you can't just cancel this thing and believe that it has no immediate impact.
It does.
Not only does it have immediate impact, it completely undercuts the entire case that you have been making, which is that people ought to get the vaccine in the first place.
You keep saying that the vaccines are safe.
Then, you roll this thing out and on the basis of six cases out of seven million people who've gotten the vaccine, you're going to tell people that we were pausing it?
Okay, there are a bunch of people out there right now who are worried about the fact there's no longitudinal studies on these vaccines.
What do you think you just did?
You just completely undermined faith in one tool that is going to get us out of the pandemic in the first place.
It's a bleep show.
This isn't the science.
This is tough science.
And I can't imagine it has anything to do at all with the apparent desire of the Biden administration to prolong the pandemic indefinitely.
To continue to play down the efficacy of the vaccines so that we can continue to proclaim that we're in the middle of a crisis and require giant government action in order to get out of it.
All right, we'll be back here later today with an additional hour of content.
We'll be talking about Joe Biden withdrawing from Afghanistan.
We'll talk about new information about Andrew Cuomo, who is apparently like super anti-Semitic.
Like really, like I have a line from Andrew Cuomo here.
It's pretty astonishing.
A lot more to get to later today, so make sure to check it out.
In the meantime, go check out The Michael Knowles Show.
On today's episode, Michael will be talking about Caitlyn Jenner.
Seriously considering a run for governor.
We should make Caitlyn Jenner, what, the first female governor of the state of California?
I'm not aware that California has had a female governor before.
That episode is available right now.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Elliot Feld.
Executive Producer Jeremy Boren.
Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
And our Assistant Director is Paweł Łydowski.
Editing is by Adam Sajewicz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and Makeup is by Fabiola Christina.
Production Assistant is Jessica Kranz.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
A BLM supporter defends looting.
Cruz and Hawley move to bust up woke corporations.
And the CDC pauses one of the WuFlu vaccines.
▲
Export Selection