All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 14, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
44:14
🔴 Countdown: Trump and Putin Meeting Preview & Who Wants it to Fail 2025-08-14 18:10
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
If this existed in a vacuum, I would say if anyone now has their hand on what you believe to be a gun, you panic, you're like, okay, if I run away, can he shoot me?
And if you have a gun, you're probably best served to protect yourself.
As far as if you're trying to live, you don't know, especially is there a corner he could run around?
Or is it, you know, the guy's seated, so it's almost like he's a built-in bench rest.
Do you think that a defensive measure against a disabled person in a wheelchair that goes five miles an hour might be to return the stolen property?
Yes.
It could be in a practical sense.
And that's what I think.
Did the guy still have it?
I'm crazy, though.
Maybe that's what I would do.
Did the guy still have it, though?
I don't know.
Do you rip it off?
I'm not sure.
Well, I will say the person who shot him, he is a crazy person.
Douchebag.
He was arrested in 2020 for driving into Trump campaign volunteers for registering voters.
And he said it was his duty to take action against the Trump administration.
And as far as we know, the man who was shot actually is a veteran.
Yes.
So he is an actual veteran and wrongly accused of stolen valor.
But this is the practical part of when whether you have a real gun or a fake gun or a knife or not, is like those moments start having a big impact.
Moving forward in the wheelchair to do what?
Were you going to chase the guy down and steal the patch back?
With a knife.
Yeah, right.
If you're disabled, you just got to take it and get robbed.
No, no one's saying that, Josh.
What we're saying is how the jury will look at it.
So I'd be very careful with, I agree with you in principle, but if you do that afterwards and you don't go to the authorities first, very likely you are going to be charged with assault at that point if you just roll up on a guy with a bad thing.
Especially in Washington.
You are not allowed to pursue somebody who stole from you.
Yeah, is that the...
None of the laws allow you to run down and chase somebody.
Castle doctrine a little bit differently on your property, et cetera.
But here's one other factor I'll point to.
After the shooting occurs, right?
What does he say?
He says, everybody, all right.
Everything's all right.
But then he leans into the anger.
Show me your dad.
Show me your ID.
Bruddy, you just plugged the guy with hot lead.
Show me the ID.
That doesn't show that right there says, I wasn't afraid.
The guy stole his gun.
He's still alive.
And now, granted, he didn't shoot him again.
So he didn't feel harm.
And what did he do in that moment?
He didn't start looking around.
He didn't start trying to make sure people were okay.
He didn't keep moving away.
He said, give me your ID.
Right.
Right.
So that's not a good look.
And I agree with that on the surface.
And this guy seems to be a dirtbag from all information we have on him previously.
So I'm not defending this guy.
Just the situation.
You have to look at it objectively.
Isn't there going to be a ton of adrenaline in your system?
And that's kind of a reasonable.
He didn't run up and start pounding him with the gun or anything.
He just yelled, show me your ID.
That's what they were arguing about.
Let me hope be aware of that.
Yeah.
Let me present this.
Let's take away the fact that this guy's a piece of crap.
Right.
Allegedly.
I think you'd have two very different situations if these scenarios.
And of course, there's always, you know, you get some rogue jury stuff.
Right.
But if as he was reaching for the guy's patch and ripping it off, if the guy in the wheelchair went, ah, and shot him, that'd probably be well within the realms of the law, him defending himself, right?
In a wheelchair, he's disabled, a guy getting physical with him.
In other words, that would be simpler.
Or if separately, if this guy hadn't grabbed his patch, if some guy with a wheelchair said, hey, you disrespected me and was coming up with the gun and you shot him, that would probably be much more cut and dry.
In this case, it's because of what preceded it and then this guy going forward afterward.
Right.
Where it's like, hey, at this point, it's pretty tough to make an argument.
It's like, as far as you knew, you both had a gun and you got shot.
You both got shot.
And here's also one important doctrine.
It doesn't apply in every state, but Washington does have this.
It's called the revival of self-defense.
So if you are the primary aggressor, initial aggressor, you can often neutralize your own use of self-defense.
You can't walk up to somebody, punch them in the face, and be like, oh, man, they punched me.
I pulled the gun and shot him.
Right.
Obviously a problem.
So in this instance, Beretman, standing man, is moving backwards after the initial knife is pulled, after the initial stealing of the patch, right?
So, sure, there was arguably an assault or a battery in taking the patch, but he didn't then at that point stand there, wait for the guy to pull the knife, and then immediately pull a gun and start plugging him, right?
So, that little back and forth is going to be in favor of the man who was standing in just looking at the revival of his ability to defend himself because he was moving away.
He was not engaging.
He was not continuing to go after the guy.
I mean, the wheelchair man continued to pursue him, which is a bad move on behalf of the wheelchair.
Understandable.
You're offended, angry.
You can't get control all the time.
You can't trust him.
I was pulling back.
It went forward.
It was in airplane settings.
I have no idea.
I mean, the reality is the wheelchair company is going to get sued.
That's true.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so Smith and Wesson.
Like, so I think, you know, to Josh's point, we talked about this before the show.
Like, obviously, this is a big deal to this guy.
This isn't some small thing.
Right.
It's not worth getting shot over for sure.
But my thought was, well, just don't pursue this guy with a large knife.
It looks like 8, 10, 12 inch blade or something on that thing.
It's just, it's kind of almost comical, right?
Crocodile Dundee knife, essentially.
And you can still pursue him, but just don't pursue him with that and don't reach for what appears to be a gun to most people.
Gerald feels very self-conscious about the size of this knife.
Yes, he does.
Well, I mean, if it was a small pocket knife, you know, which you're more intimidated by it.
When he sees the large machete, he thinks of Travis Kelsey and gets very comfortable.
Yes.
I will say, this is also, as far as advice to people out there who are carrying, right?
Probably important to keep your firearm concealed.
And if you're in that, draw it and fire.
Yeah, I wouldn't finish a firearm unless you intend to.
Unless you intend to use it.
And make sure at that point that someone else is the aggressor and that afterwards, again, you're calm.
You probably want to get your firearm either somewhere safe, either in a holster or if the police are there, put it down, make sure people are aware of it.
But make sure that it's very clear legally, we're not talking about right and wrong, that you are defensively using a firearm.
And that also, I've read quite a few blogs from firearm experts who say that's also a complication with having it in the bag because you will have people going, well, if you had time to go get it in your bag, why don't you have time to run away?
Well, his bag was on his shoulder, so I understand.
Well, it out very quickly.
There's no question.
A factor in whether or not it was self-defense versus premeditated is how long you had before you pull the trigger.
So if you, like even little instances of like, I saw something happening and I went inside the house and how far they had to go in the house, right?
If it's like reach for the shotgun behind the front door, maybe less premeditated.
If you had to go all the way to the back of the house and open the safe and pull it in and load it and then walk back to the front of the house.
Yeah.
Well, there's actually, it's interesting, you know, the reason they have, or they switched to off-duty officers carrying, you know, revolvers, double action only, meaning it's a shrouded hammer or an internal hammer.
Think about a revolver, right?
You can cock it back single action.
That's like what you call a hair trigger versus pulling it all the way through.
And I believe it was with the NYPD.
And someone can bring this up.
Famous case where he had a guy at gunpoint.
The guy, I believe, was a violent drug dealer.
And if you look back, rightfully should have been shot, was an aggressor.
But because the cop had the hammer cocked, they said it could have been a negligent discharge and the man was reprimanded.
And they switched a lot of police service revolvers over to double action only, even though he could have been completely justified and he could have had it cocked into single action because he thought this guy's going to continue being violent.
So that's unfortunately the technicality of the laws when you get the wrong gay, when you get the wrong judge, it goes, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, but you shouldn't even know this guy was violent, even though this guy was, he was resisting arrest, and even though this guy had tried to attack you, you had it in single action.
Yeah.
Josh, what are the gun laws in Seattle?
You know, I mean, in Washington, I don't know.
I don't know them completely.
I just know a couple laws.
In terms of what?
I mean, there's a lot of different ones.
Was that guy, I mean, would they have had restrictive laws?
They had concealed carry permits.
They exist.
Yeah, they have permits.
They have self-defense.
They have the no duty to retreat.
They have a modified castle doctrine.
They've got this revival theory of self-defense.
So what would the legal requirement be of the man in the wheelchair if he wants he wants to get his patch back?
It was stolen, and the man who ripped it off of him is there in his presence.
Like, what would he do if he's doing it by the book?
What does the law expect of him?
He needs to call the cops.
Yeah.
I would say, yeah, in Washington, in Washington, both guys, individual actions would be against the law.
My understanding of Washington's law, but also more practically, how Washington and specifically Seattle would approach something like that is you needed to call the cops.
Yeah.
Now, the irony of that in Seattle, given what happened during COVID, is, of course, very true.
But that is what they at least say would have needed to be.
No, you don't need to call the cops.
You need to set up an autonomous zone, and then you need to enforce the rules yourself.
What you need to do is burn down the precincts.
Please do not do that.
This is one of those jokes.
It's one of those things where sometimes when you're a disabled person in a wheelchair, you are vulnerable.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
No question.
And apparently you don't have any recourse.
Something gets stolen from you.
Someone accuses you of something.
The only thing you're allowed to do is call the cops.
I mean, sure.
No, it's unfortunate.
That is an action you can take.
It's not an action that gets anything.
No, good luck.
It doesn't feel good, but you just get your shit stolen.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's what you have to do.
That's how you have to live your life.
Otherwise, either you get your stuff stolen, you go to jail, or you get shot.
Yeah.
There's three options.
The options that you lose, obviously, in a wheelchair is, hey, you could physically, it would be less severe than murder or using a firearm.
You could grab the guy and try and get your patch back.
Now, that would still be assault, I would guess, right?
Well, I mean, look, if the guy's reaching for it, you can, again, defend yourself, push him off, you know, but you can't just grab him by the collar and just start popping him in the face, right?
I mean, again, it's about proportionality, right?
Okay, the guy reached down, ripped the patch off.
The patch is gone.
The guy took it.
Let's say he didn't even see that the patch was stolen, and later he saw the guy a few minutes later with the patch.
He goes, hey, that's my patch.
Right.
Right.
He's not allowed to then jump out of the, well, let's just say he can't jump out of the wheelchair, but let's say he could just lunge.
Yeah, he could wheelie himself.
There's also the...
Geronimo!
Geronimo!
You know, we don't have video of the full incident.
Right.
And we keep talking about how the shooter kept moving back in a defensive posture.
He's moving back.
He's moving back.
Well, at some point, he moved in.
Right.
He did.
At some point, he moved in.
He got aggressive.
He got mad.
An argument probably happened.
He reached up.
He grabbed something that wasn't his, stole it off of, you know, stole his.
Doesn't matter what.
It doesn't matter who he is.
He stole something from him.
And then he didn't leave.
He was, yeah, sure.
He was, he was, he was defensively walking back.
He didn't leave.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He didn't leave.
There's no doubt.
And the guy kept coming down, kept coming.
Yeah, yeah.
He was barreling down at him at 75 miles an hour.
He didn't leave.
Right.
No, he didn't leave.
He was still interested in having this conversation.
It's morally reprehensible.
It's more than interested in being right.
He still wanted to see the ID.
He was still invested in the situation.
And that guy in the wheelchair is like, he just stole something from me.
He just, you know, I don't know whether how hard he hit him or touched him.
Maybe assaulted, doesn't, don't know.
But he's still here.
Yeah.
I still have to deal with this.
If I want to get out of the situation, I got to find a ramp.
I'm down by the pier or wherever they were.
I got to find a ramp.
I got to get out of here.
I have to find a vehicle that can put me in it.
The alternative is he could have been.
The guy could have walked down the street or walked down the block and the wheelchair guy could have followed him too.
So in other words, Josh, unfortunately, I think according to Bill's analysis of this, you may have just undercut yourself.
If the property has been stolen and the guy isn't running anywhere, he's still there.
Yeah.
You can make a case for, well, then you had plenty of time to wait for the police.
The guy wasn't going anywhere.
He was engaging you in an argument.
But even then, you're not obligated to.
If a thief runs up and steals your purse and runs away, you can't shoot him in the back.
No, of course.
Period.
You just can't do it.
Not in this country.
At least not at this time.
If they steal it from your house in Texas, no, I'm with you.
Just until when they're climbing over the fence, you can still shoot them because that's your property, right?
No, not necessarily.
Every time they call the Girl Scout rule, dipshit.
Is that a thing?
The Girl Scout rule.
Yeah, you can't.
Well, now, in that case, it may not apply.
But yeah, Bill knows about this.
But you can't shoot girls.
Exactly.
You can't just shoot someone because they're on your property.
There has to be a reasonable suspicion of them causing a professional.
No, they sound like that.
Yes, I know.
But what I'm saying is, if they're running away, I wonder if the law would still apply.
They're on your property at that point.
No, no, no, I think on your property is fine, right, Bill?
No, but that's the point.
It's not just on your property.
It's called the Girl Scout rule.
That's what I'm telling you.
You can't blow away a Girl Scout with a 44 Magnum because they didn't want some Samoas and they're on your property.
No, no, no, but you're not going to be able to do it.
Look, Gerald, Gerald, they're called coconut deliveries.
Yes, do not shoot anyone running away on your property.
I won't.
I'm just saying, I think you should be able to, but legally, probably not.
And that is what I would say.
Like, when I back in college, when I worked in the gun industry, literally, everyone had guns, guns everywhere.
This is where I learned to shoot.
It was a great time, had a lot of great people.
And the people there who are the most die-hard gun advocates were also the ones who were like, Do not blow your gun unless you are 100% sure.
And by 100%, I mean 1,000% sure you're in the right.
Because it's not about whether you could make an armchair argument or technically be correct.
It's what?
12 people with an average eighth grade, maybe sixth grade education, depending on what state you're in or county, and a DA with a political leaning, depending where you're at, is going to decide they want to do it.
Terrible.
And you're right.
I agree.
It's terrible.
And the repercussions it has on the rest of the gun owner society afterwards.
And I agree with Josh.
I would have, in other words, if this story read, hey, man steals homeless, steals, sorry, disabled veterans patch and gets shot for his troubles, that'd be a feel-good story.
Or the crowd beat the crap out of him and returned the patch.
Unfortunately, that's not how it went.
And so, as far as dispensing advice to people out there, don't do that.
Also, do we know the caliber of the gun fired?
Does anyone know?
Because the guy, as I understand, the guy lived.
I mean, he shot him pretty much point blank straight there.
It also just reminds me how surprisingly ineffective pistol calibers can be.
It really does come down to shot placement because people are like, I only need 45.
It's like, he just shot that guy who's literally in a chair and he's pretty much fine.
He looked like he had a few layers to a little bit of probably had a few layers, but when people go, oh, you're carrying that, you're going to say, ah, I don't really know if it would have made a difference from 32 all the way up to 45 at that point, unless you're talking about a rifle.
It seems like if you miss something vital, like, don't rely on one shot from a pistol.
If it's actually someone on PCP who's a threat, one shot from a pistol often is not nearly as effective as people expect.
I hope it was in the leg.
I hope it was a shot in the leg.
He's like, it looks like a body.
It looked like it was.
It looked like it was torso to me.
So let me tell you just how complex this can get at times.
Notice the guy shot once.
He fired once.
Yeah.
Right.
So some DAs have argued that if you shot once, you were not in imminent danger because your adrenaline was not too high because you were able to shoot once.
If you thought that he was actually a harm with a real gun, you would have shot him multiple times.
On the other side, you shoot multiple times.
They go, this guy was Dirty Harry.
He was just out there firing.
He thought this was Predator One and he had a hit him out of 50 cal.
There's no way to win when it's on the edge.
So that is the problem with how these are distorted.
That puts these people's lives in danger, right?
So I don't agree with you, and I don't advocating nobody is.
This is why it starts with good parenting.
Well, no, I know.
Yeah, that's fine.
But at the same time, I don't, like, if I'm in a situation, not like that, obviously, but if I'm in a situation where I might have to reach for a firearm, I don't want the, oh, God, am I going to go to jail for murder defending myself going through my mind?
I'd rather just not die, right?
I would rather be thinking about protecting my family and my children.
Correct.
Now, obviously, I don't want there to be room for people to just randomly blow people away because they felt quasi-threatened because a black guy walked up to me.
That's an opinion.
You know, like, I don't want that.
Some opinion.
I mean, somebody walks up to me and says, I'm Jehovah's Witness.
Bam, bam, bam.
I don't want that to happen.
Yeah.
Okay.
But that the state of gun rights, that's not a gun right.
That's a last possible chance there's a thousand percent that you're in the right.
Maybe that's not what the founders intended.
No, right.
Like we needed to be able to defend ourselves.
That's not defending yourself.
That's praying that you don't go to jail doing something that you have the right.
Everybody would have been fine with in 1850 going, well, yeah, that guy was a prick.
He had a gun.
Of course.
Not him.
Yeah.
Yeah, that guy, what?
He stole your property?
Why is this man still alive?
I didn't realize you didn't know how to shoot.
I think you get shot if you don't shoot the guy who stole your patch in 1850.
Wait, a man stole your property, was armed, and he's still alive.
Is this a riddle, you say?
What were we going to say, Noodles?
Research says that charging documents specify it was a 45.
45.
It was a 45?
Wow.
Like, I don't use anything with a caliber that's less than four.
And wasn't he talking to him afterwards?
He's like, help me.
He's like, I'm not your friend.
In other words, the guy seemed like he was relatively okay.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, he could say, help me.
I don't know.
It might not have been a hollow point.
Yeah, but also seated, so it's kind of hard.
Like, if he was standing, you would have seen him fall.
The oddity of someone who would be carrying a gun in their bag and then ready to pull it out and engage.
I think it was charged.
Using a hollow point is there's a lot of idiocy.
I think it was charged.
Did he charge it first or did he charge it?
If we can't, let's watch it again, guys.
Let's watch it one more time.
And I'll count the amount of time for him to draw his weapon.
All right, here we go.
Okay, so now he's coming.
This guy can't back up.
He's like snarking for his gun.
Yeah.
Okay.
One, two.
Now the guy's grabbing.
Three, four, five.
He's like, what's that?
What's that?
Seven, eight, nine.
Yeah, that was charged.
Yeah, it was already charged.
One in the chamber.
I will also say Bereman Frenchman waited until the gun was pointed.
Yeah.
He did not fire as soon as it was pulled.
Jammed, too.
Show me your ID.
Not did it jam?
Now there you go.
So you can see the gun right there.
Yeah.
Yeah, it looks like it looks like a black gun.
He still has his finger on the trigger, is what it looks like.
It looks in a holster.
It looks like it's in a gun.
Is it in a holster?
Oh, okay.
So that's the whole thing.
He's leaning down, and that's when the guy starts to go to his backpack.
He's like, okay, he's reaching for something else.
Obviously, he's got a knife.
Now he's not going to be able to close distance.
Fine.
He starts reaching down, and that's when he actually steps back.
He pulls his gun out.
Yeah.
And then he waits and fires.
And it looks like there's some communication.
I don't know what's being said.
Hold on.
I do have a question.
Did you say it looks like his gun jams?
Was he trying to fire again?
And it doesn't look like he was trying to fire again, but it did look like it.
His gun jammed, so he might have been trying to fire again.
Watch it again.
His gun jams.
He recharges it.
I thought maybe he was dropping the magazine and clearing the chamber.
Maybe you're right.
But let's watch it again.
I don't know.
No, I think it did jam.
Okay, so there's the first shot.
Bang.
And then.
All right, everybody.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, it definitely jammed.
All right.
Good spot.
But it doesn't look like he was trying to fire.
No, here's the thing.
He likely paused.
He likely only would have known, right, Bill, that it jammed if he was trying to fire.
Yeah.
Well, he may have seen that it jammed.
Maybe.
He pulls his gun down.
Hold on.
He fires.
He pulls his gun down.
It looks like he sees like, okay, this isn't going to go any further.
And he looks down.
And that's when he starts to clear.
Well, that's when you have a malfunction.
You're going to pull it down.
No, no, no, I know, but I'm saying, like, he would have done it very quickly and hurriedly if he was trying to fire a second shot.
I don't think he would.
I don't think you would necessarily notice that it would.
Again, except my gut says he wouldn't have noticed that it jammed unless he was trying to fire again, most likely.
Well, so here's the thing.
That's usually when you find out.
I have a video from us this weekend.
My 1911 jammed.
That horrible 1911 magazine.
Clearing the malfunction, yeah.
Yeah.
It's like this.
It's, oh, I'm an idiot.
I'm on camera.
Shit.
Yeah, pulling it down, clearing it.
Yeah.
That looks to me like he tried to shoot again.
No, but so here's why I would say no.
Like, do you see him doing it with any kind of hurry, any kind of intensity at all?
Well, some people walk in front of him.
He still has the gun trained on him.
I mean, it's three and a half seconds.
He still has the gun trained on him, and then the next thing you know, he's clearing a jam.
So, in other words, he could have easily tried to fight.
He fights down, clears it.
He does it with.
No, hold on, let's watch the tortoise.
Okay, I got to fight you on this one, Gerald.
Like, in that moment, you're keeping your eyes on the guy who just had the gun.
You're seeing, you're assessing what's happening.
You're pulling it down.
You're trying to figure out you don't want to look down and clear.
But I don't think it's, I don't think it's clear either way whether he was trying to shoot again.
Right.
Other than the fact that he did not pull the gun back up again.
I'm saying it'd be very hard to make the case that he was.
I'm not saying he wasn't sure.
It'd be very hard to make the case.
Based on what I've seen, like if I'm firing and I'm a novice, right?
So I'm just give your everyman opinion.
If I'm firing and I pull the trigger again, I'm looking immediately at the gun.
What's wrong with my gun?
I can tell you this: it doesn't look like a very obvious jam.
In other words, it might be one where there's a failure to fully extract that you wouldn't know.
In other words, from the back of the game.
You have to look if there are some jams that you don't know from the back of the gun until you look.
And the only way you would know it's jammed is if you pull the trigger and it's not going.
In other words, you can't know if it's jammed or not until you either do one of two things: look or pull.
And we were just giving the guy, we were just giving the guy credit for having good weapon discipline, good barrel discipline, and not, oh, he didn't shoot until he had acquired a target.
He didn't do that.
If you have good gun discipline, barrel discipline, whatever you want to call it, you don't just clear it right here like this.
Right.
No, I'm not saying you would have done that.
Come down.
Yeah.
No, you guys are going to get my point.
Like, you're strawmanning my point.
My point is he's not acting with any kind of urgency at all.
Like, there is no hurried movement because I'm still, I'm trying to put more shots.
Okay, I'll prove you wrong in real time.
I'll prove you wrong in real time.
I will prove you wrong in real time.
Okay.
I will play the clip where he shoots.
I just want to be contentious today.
Where he shoots.
It's one of those days.
So look.
So the sense of urgency, right?
Can we all agree?
The established baseline is the highest sense of urgency is when he shoots, right?
Obviously?
Yes.
Okay.
So we'll count how many seconds he stays in that exact position of the utmost urgency before he looks down to clear a gem.
That's how many seconds he would have to fire again.
It's hard.
It's much Asian.
Let's pause right before he shoots.
There's no play.
Yeah.
Bang.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.
Okay, pause.
See, so at any point during those nine seconds, at the highest, he's in the same position as the highest sense of urgency.
It seems very likely that he would have tried to fire again.
He did not move that gun off of that target.
And the next thing you know, so he goes from, I'm here to shoot, shoots, I'm still here to shoot.
And then for some reason, starts checking the weapon.
You guys said that, you guys said that the reason that he did it is because he likely was trying to fire again and realized he couldn't.
Yes.
Yeah.
It's likely.
It is likely.
I would call it a, I mean, I'll give you a benefit of the doubt, Gerald.
55-45.
Yeah.
Yeah, but why?
Why would y'all say that?
He's sitting there holding it.
So wouldn't it make the most sense to put rounds into the target immediately?
Like, not just one, wait a little bit.
Yeah, but the point is he could have been pulling that trigger.
Hold on, let me make my point.
I don't disagree with you.
What I'm saying is, he pulls the trigger, bang.
He pulls it again, nothing.
What do you do when nothing happens when you pull the trigger?
A lot of people instinctively pull it again.
He pulled it again.
So some people pull it again.
Hold on, hold on.
He pulls it again.
Eight seconds worth of that?
Yeah.
No.
No way.
No way.
Not a chance in hell.
Not a chance in hell.
He's pulling that thing six, seven seconds worth of time to try to figure out what's going on.
He pulls it down.
He doesn't look like he's scared.
He doesn't look like he's trying to fire again.
No, he doesn't.
But I'm just saying if there's another angle and it shows in any way that he tried to pull that trigger a second time, that would factor in, I would imagine, quite a big deal because at that point, the guy is neutralized.
He's not moving forward.
If there's any proof that this happened, click a second time, he's done.
That's right.
So Bill's point was you can see that.
If he does.
But there is a second angle.
That there's no indication there that he saw more danger, but there is the risk of it because literally the gun's just for still right there, yeah.
Yeah, boom, yeah, right.
But let me say this real quick: there is a second angle that doesn't have as much cover, I don't think.
So, if guys, you can pull that.
I don't know all of what it shows.
I remember seeing it, but I don't remember if it's better or not.
Well, I think we should take some chat for Bill.
But really quickly, can these representatives be actually arrested if they don't come back?
So, they definitely can be arrested, but here's the point.
Outside of the state, we're just going, Abbott's going for the gold here, right?
The Warwanto or the Warranto, which is a maneuver to say you've neutralized because you failed to do your duty, is actually has a lot of historical precedent around you've decided you're not going to do your duty, right?
You have actively solicited funds to leave the state.
You have said, we're going to continue indefinitely staying out here because we don't want this one item out of 18 items on this special session to get passed.
And the reality is, is that this power does exist.
Now, Abbott was going for the immediate strike on getting them bounced right now with the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court does clearly have the authority to make this.
The Texas Supreme Court make this decision.
But I think understandably so, because this is a very rare situation, they're waiting and have required additional briefing until September 4th.
And then at that point, there can be another session that gets called by Abbott to do another special session, another 30 days.
Why does all this matter from a timing?
September 9th is one of the earliest deadlines for primary filing.
So, if you're going to start running or doing other things, like you're going to want to know by early September because you got to get those dates in.
So, there's definitely a game of chicken here, but without question, the Texas Constitution imbues within these legislators as officers of the state an obligation to come and participate.
And their decision not to gives very wide open for Abbott to do what he's doing.
All of that said, I really don't like the idea of Abbott saying, well, they're gerrymandering.
We should gerrymander too.
We got to convince these hearts and minds.
We got to play the game to a certain extent.
But the reality is that these guys have done something wrong here by leaving the state intentionally, and all power under the law should be used.
And it seems very clear from the precedent that this is what they can do.
I hope they do.
That'd be fun.
Yeah.
Didn't they pass it, though, for some reason?
I thought I saw a headline saying that they did actually pass it, or at least the first step had been taken to pass it.
Well, there's steps that come up before the final votes come.
So they've got committees and other things to be able to get through those steps so that it becomes presented to the houses.
That may be what I saw.
All right.
Well, we do have a second angle of it if you're not.
Okay, see it.
I'm not sure how clear it is or what it shows, but I remember seeing it though.
It starts after the shot as the gun's already lowered.
So you're not going to see it.
All right, never mind.
Let's go to Chat Thursday.
Let's just assume I was right.
Let's assume nothing, Gerald.
Let's assume nothing.
Yeah, I'll assume that we're tired of hearing you.
Yeah.
I know I've been a little bit of the punching bag today.
Oh, my God.
You played the video and playing the victim.
I was like, wait a minute.
You told Joshua.
I was swinging it.
I was jealous of Travis Kelsey because I am not good at football.
Yeah.
You told Josh he hadn't experienced real struggle.
I never said that at all.
In fact, also, real quick.
You said that old man in the wheelchair deserved it.
He kind of did.
He pulled a gun.
Look, there's a high-res.
It is still holstered, but that's a black tip on that.
That is a black tip.
That looks like a real gun.
I think the least relevant fact is going to be, it wasn't a real gun.
I think everyone's going to go.
Of course, you would assume it's a real gun.
It doesn't matter.
Yeah, you have to assume it's a real gun.
If we're going to use that same argument for a police officer.
Why would you carry that?
You're a freaking...
What are you going to do with it?
Just brandish it and hope somebody else doesn't have a gun.
You know, hey, he was on his way to an airsoft competition.
I think maybe the guy, you know, maybe he's one of those guys where he wants test something for self-defense, but he doesn't feel comfortable.
I mean, this is, I'm just thinking from somebody from Seattle.
He hasn't feel comfortable carrying a weapon of war, as Tim Walz was saying.
And maybe he's just like, I want some kind of self-defense measure.
Not thinking about the fact if you pull that out and you're not intending to use it, you can't do it.
It doesn't matter.
Even if you do use it, you're just going to piss somebody off.
Yeah.
Well, here's what this is also the point I was making.
And Bill, as someone who has a lot of experience with different caliber handguns, I am of the belief because there's been so much made to be about the caliber wars.
Remember, it was like, everyone was like, you need at least a 40 Smith and Weston.
And then it turns out there's no real difference between that and modern nine millimeter ammunition.
That if this was an actual threat, meaning if this was a life or death scenario, people go, I use 45 because it's the only number.
I only need one shot.
I think you'd be better off with two or three shots of 32 than one of 45.
I think people who think they're going to stop it with one shot are deluding themselves.
And what's most important is to carry something that you can shoot well.
Because if you can get one shot and not get a follow-up shot, we see how it doesn't necessarily, in many scenarios, doesn't even come close to stopping people.
The guy in the wheelchair was just, he carries that in hopes that if something happens, he can intimidate somebody into because I don't think he's an aggressor.
I don't think he's ever had any intention of being aggressor.
So I think he's like, well, if something happens to me because I'm in a wheelchair and I'm old, hopefully this will help stop somebody.
Oh, shit, he has a real gun.
Yeah.
I think that's what happened.
And by the way, you guys are making great points.
I just want to say, I'm arguing over the practical reality is people carry BB guns and airsoft guns legitimately who are saying, I couldn't fire a real gun.
I don't know how to do it.
I feel unsafe to have a real gun.
I don't know how to.
Don't carry it.
But I at least am going to do that in their home or something.
Now, hey, I would say is the answer of saying don't do that is actually not a super clear-cut answer either.
You're going to have a risk that someone is going to see that as a threat and do it.
But if you had nothing versus at least some chance to brandish something that would get someone to run away.
Yeah.
Is the answer 100%?
It's not perfect.
No, it's not what you would do.
It's not what I would do.
Well, no.
It's a bad risk.
I wouldn't do it either.
I think it increases your chance of being in a situation where you will end up.
And this is a great example of that, but it is anecdotal.
I agree.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I think there's what he should do, what he shouldn't do.
And I think we all agree.
The guy shouldn't have brandished that firearm, real or not.
Shouldn't have brandished a knife, shouldn't have kept charging after the guy.
He should have just done what you have to do and just let yourself get robbed and hope that people are going to be able to do it.
Oh, geez, here he goes.
Yada, yada, yada.
I'm just arguing over emotion.
Look at your fucking wallet, Josh.
I agree.
I agree with Josh as far as what is right.
But I will say this, as far as advice, anyone who tells you they carry a knife because that's a defensive tool, discount them right away.
I carry a knife all the time, but it's a tool.
Yes.
As a defensive weapon, then you're still coming down to hand-to-hand combat.
Are you bigger, stronger, more athletic than the other person?
If the answer is no, you do not want to introduce a knife because now it's his knife.
The argument they use.
Unless your wheelchair is equipped like the Batmobile and it shoots knives out.
Look, in that case.
Yeah.
If you have a katana, that doesn't.
Okay, that's a little bit different.
And you're Asian.
But some people are like, I have a knife.
It's like, you want to get in close with the guy who is bigger and stronger than you?
I would say firearm that you know how to shoot well or avoid the altercation at all costs.
People are like, all I need is a blade in 145.
No, you're just delusional, okay?
Chuck Norse.
And my ninja stars.
Yeah.
My African throwing knives.
Nunchucks.
Not like those Finnish throwing knives.
That's for pussy.
My son's been begging me for nunchucks.
He's like, but I was like, do you want some nunchucks?
He's like, no, I want you to get them.
I'm not ready.
I would like kid-sized nunchucks.
I was like, you are my quarter Asian baby.
The most impractical weapon ever, nunchucks.
And ninja stars.
It'll just cause a surface wound.
All right, let's go, chats.
All right.
First chat from Ignatum.
Question for Bill.
Can the info on the shooter driving through the tent be brought into the upcoming trial?
It definitely could be.
So prior bad acts is a rule of evidence that says that there are limitations on why you could bring in a prior bad act to prove another bad act.
So just because you were a fighter when you were in your 20s, does that mean you actually stole something in your 40s, right?
But there are exceptions to that.
So for example, if someone says, no, I've never even been in a fight, right?
You can use it to impeach them.
You can use it to show they had knowledge of how to fight.
If they're like, I've never used a lockpick in my entire life.
I wouldn't even know what to do with this.
And it's like, you've done 97 cat burglaries in your teenage years, right?
So there's some exceptions there that would allow this to come in.
So for example, here, having an act of violence being used to show that you have a propensity for violence or what your mindset was or what your intent was.
For provocation.
Yeah.
So all of that is like, is this the kind of guy that would just attack someone innocently?
I don't know.
Has he ever driven a truck into a tent full of people?
No, surely he hasn't done that.
For his parting words, it's my duty to handle more of them.
Yeah.
I would almost say that's more relevant where he said, you know, it was his duty, allegedly, to take action against the Trump administration.
If I'm a lawyer, I argue like that shows this man is deluded and is willing to take law, the law into his own hands.
I mean, he's done it twice now, right?
So would you use violence in that instance?
Maybe you know, but did he get arraigned yet?
Because I saw 750,000.
I don't think he's been arraigned.
He didn't show up on the actual next day at the arraignment, but they did charge him.
But I think it's a $750,000 bond.
I think so.
Okay, because I saw something, a video online of him being interrogated, I guess, but questioned or questions being asked.
And he must have been arraigned.
And I don't know if it's from this.
It might be from the Trump thing.
I think I thought it was from this guy.
I didn't know about the tent thing.
So they asked him, why did you feel a need to do that?
Yeah.
Because he said he felt a need to do it.
So I don't know which one it's from.
That could also be argued like this may be a delusional behavior, a compulsive compulsion to take the law into your own hands.
It's a character flaw or something.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He's a piece of shit.
Next chat.
He's scheduled for arraignment on August 8th.
So it must be.
Well, better late than never.
August 8th.
It's already August 8th.
28th?
18th.
Oh, okay.
This whole thing is just contentious today, so I figured it out.
Yeah, it's fun.
It's fun.
Screw you, Noodles.
All right, next chat.
I'm sure I'm going to assume blanketedly that Noodles has never known struggle either.
No, never.
Next chat.
All right, next chat from Carfel.
Question for Bill and the Cruise.
I knew I was going to get in with that.
I know.
I knew.
It's a private guilt.
I got you fired up.
Well, if he didn't get you because you had no conscience, there's no way out.
I knew that saying becoming a professional football player wasn't hard would get you fired up.
Have you ever tried reading a chat while you're talking, Josh?
All right, Carfel, for Bill and the Cruise.
What are your thoughts, Fenny on the legal debt?
Especially while short.
Say something to Stephen.
Finny on the legal, his name's on the wall.
On the legal developments of the Frisco stabbing.
I'm hearing a lot of things about the Anthony family, but not sure how to confirm.
I haven't heard any recent updates.
I think they're probably going through the process right now.
Yeah, I haven't heard anything recently about it.
I mean, maybe we can look it up and see kind of what the latest headline is, but I mean, it's going to be a process.
Yeah.
Yeah, I don't think there have been any significant updates.
Next chat.
All right.
Next chat from Robert B.3.
It's kind of specific.
By the way, you did that beautifully, Noodles.
The struggle was worth it.
Come on.
It's worth it.
For half Asian Bill, can someone be held legally responsible if they give a firearm to a law-abiding trans person and they then use it in a mass shooting?
What?
It's very specific.
It's oddly specific.
Are you concerned about your trans friend?
Yoinks.
You gave a gun to?
I mean, so there was a recent shooting where a father had helped to procure a weapon and some ammunition and had been charged.
There's also Michigan?
I think so.
And then there are states that are expanding what we would typically have called vicarious liability.
Are you connected to it?
Have you done it?
All the way from manufacturers to gun dealers and other things like that.
There is precedent around if you know that someone is going to go do something or has a propensity for violence that you have now, from a civil standpoint, known or should have known that this was going to lead to harm.
So maybe negligence, something along those lines.
The problem is a lot of this is state by state, and it really comes down to how much did you know or should you have known as a reasonable person in that circumstance?
If someone has been sitting around joking about doing bad things and shooting people, et cetera, and you're like, yeah, here, why don't you just take my Browning M50, whatever, right?
Like, just not, just not like, don't, don't, don't do that.
Yeah.
Right.
But by the same token, you know, for example, some folks have tried to hold people who do firearms training liable.
Yeah.
So, oh, I did my concealed carry training.
Well, if they hadn't trained them how to do it and offered the license, and then they wouldn't have three years later been able to pull their gun and shoot a guy in a wheelchair.
So there are limits on what that is.
And usually what it is is a proximate causation, what could have reasonably been anticipated.
And does the law create a duty?
Just merely giving a gun to someone or selling them a gun, assuming it was all legal and all of it was above board, then that most likely would not lead to liability.
You might still get sued.
Yeah.
Well, just to give you an idea, there's a company, is it called SCCY?
And they were sued because they only sold for a long time one pistol.
It was like a pocket, like a concealed carry nine millimeter, right?
Their whole thing was selling an affordable pistol.
They kind of consolidated.
And since they marketed it as something that is, you know, reliable and easy to conceal, they were sued in certain states saying, you marketed this as something that was easy to conceal.
And that's why it's been used in a disproportionate amount of gang shootings.
Well, it turns out the reason I was using a lot of gang shootings is because it was cheap.
Yeah.
And they also had like a lifetime guarantee where they would replace a stolen pistol.
So some people are going like, yeah, my pistol got stolen.
It's like, oh, okay.
And they replaced it.
But they were sued because their marketing said, hey, a concealed carry pistol is really easy to conceal.
So there are always anti-gun hawks out there who will.
That was a big one with Remington.
They were saying, like, you know, you're literally advertising this using military, you know, paraphernalia or imagery and whatnot.
So like you're literally saying, bring the weapon of war to your local school district, right?
Right.
But that's clearly not what the purpose is.
If you want to take a little snapshot of something, you're going to make that argument in the same way that you could take anything out of context, right?
You could, you know, are we going to act on every single joke we hear someone say, right?
Because they've made an offhand comment.
I mean, that's where it really, like, letting that process go through and why the legal system is adversarial because you need to be able to attack those and let people really make the right decision.
Yeah.
All right.
Yes.
Two things.
Follow up.
So SCCY apparently just shut down.
And then we do have a follow-up from Robert.
B3.
Oh.
Can I be held legally responsible if I transfer ownership of a firearm to my non-criminal trans kid who then uses it to commit a mass shooting?
I mean, if let me just say something.
If you were asking for legal advice to transfer something to a trans person who you think may be capable of a mass shooting, don't do it.
And I hope you both seek counseling.
Yes.
This seems like it might be a trap question.
Or you're disturbed anyway because also, let me just add, any kid who wants to shoot anyone, whether mass or otherwise, don't give it to them.
Don't give it to them.
If they want to shoot an animal with it that is not legal, don't do it.
If they just want to go shoot it in the air, don't do it.
Yeah.
The fact that you're concerned about this and asking questions means that this will likely end up in a case somewhere if anything ever happens and they'll be like concerned about it.
Don't do it.
Don't do it.
You've got the concerns.
The yellow flag seems like a red flag.
It's a rainbow flag.
It is a red.
Oh, it's got skulls on it.
Don't do it.
Do they make red?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Next two chats.
All right.
Next chat from LC Campbell52.
Now I need to know, never having seen that open flashback before, does Bill Richmond actually play the violin?
Yes, he does.
I have only been playing the violin since I was three.
And the piano.
At gunpoint.
Yeah, mostly.
My mother does not use guns, only nunchucks.
That's right.
Yes.
That's right.
Bamboo shoots.
Fingernails.
Bamboo shoots.
Yep, the thumbnails.
Yep.
Yep.
Plays violin and what does he play?
So, yeah, piano, guitar.
I mean, violin and piano are the ones I've been doing the most.
I can do guitar and a few other stringed instruments.
I actually just recently started learning jazz piano, which has been a lot of fun.
There you go.
Yay.
Yeah.
Finally encroaching on some of the territory of the blacks, showing them that there's some Asian representation in there.
Yes.
Next chat.
All right.
Next chat from Dee Gadkins.
What standing would Trump have to actually take over other cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, New York, et cetera?
I mean, we already answered that pretty much none.
Yeah, there's very, very, very, very, very little.
So, you know, if Canada were to take over Detroit and we actually cared to recapture it, then there would be some opportunities to be able to have the federal government step in and do some action.
But almost all of it involves, is there some kind of foreign power or a complete, like, for example, if certain states just said, hey, we don't care about North Dakota anymore, we just like everybody left.
Right.
And then the federal government could step in and fill the gap.
Right.
That makes sense.
All right.
Final chat because we've got to go and we'll send you on your way either.
Well, I guess to Tim Poole and then Russell Brand.
All right.
Final chat from Brian Kaufman 8468.
What do you think of Newsom's threat to further gerrymander California to take away some Republican districts in response to Tax?
I will say I saw it where he did it all in exclamation, sorry, in all caps and said, thank you for your attention to this matter.
That seemed like it was done kind of tongue-in-cheek.
I think he's serious in threatening.
You think he's serious?
But I think that post, you're right, was done tongue-in-cheek, but I think he is serious in making that threat.
I think he wants to do it.
They all do.
Yeah, but in the same way that every, you know, wine family wants to take over every neighbor's winery, right?
And wants to take over the states, right?
I mean, like, yeah, he wants to do bad shit.
Is he going to actually do it?
Maybe.
Is he going to try to do it?
Probably.
I understand, though, why it might bother someone, you know, the threat of doing something that is antithetical to representing the people of your state, right?
In other words, there's a, and I agree, both sides do it, but I do think there is a difference in gerrymandering or redistricting, going, well, look at this district.
There are a bunch of Republicans here and they don't have any reps, right?
Or you could do the same thing and say, like, well, look at this district here.
It's mostly Democrat and they don't have any reps.
And we pointed you to many states where there were 30, 35, 40, 45% Republican with zero representatives.
So I agree that both sides kind of play political football with it, but the reasoning behind the redistricting, I think, is the most relevant facet.
And in this case, if he means it, assuming it's not tongue-in-cheek, threatening to gerrymander California more because you don't like somebody, which inevitably means, I would assume, means he's, of course, not going to gerrymander it.
So it's more conservative representation.
So there's going to be less Republican representation in a state where Republicans are woefully underrepresented in comparison to their percentage of the population.
That is a man using the actual votes, using the actual will of his own citizens that he is supposed to govern as leverage, as leverage to score political points.
And I think that's a whole lot worse than saying, hey, you know what?
Temecula out here should probably have one Republican seat because it's a majority Republican.
I think saying, you know what?
Guess what?
If you do stuff I don't like, I'm going to make sure that none of the people in my state who vote have a voice.
How about that?
That means they don't care about you and you don't hate.
You are politicians enough.
Hardly legal with Bill Richmond.
You can watch it on YouTube and on Rumble.
Get some legal advice and don't take it from me because I know very little as it relates to the law.
I'd shoot him.
You're a strange gentleman.
▲
Export Selection