All Episodes
Previous Next
April 8, 2015 - InfoWars Nightly News
44:31
20150408_Wed_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm your host, Jakari Jackson.
It's April 8th, 2015, and here's a look at our top stories.
Tonight, a South Carolina cop is charged with murder after a video shows him shooting an unarmed man in the back.
Then, the Democrats want the IRS to pay gun owners to turn in their guns.
Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.
And check this out.
A free tool that shows what apps are really doing behind your back.
Plus, how to talk to the cops.
That's coming up next on the InfoWars Nightly News.
One of the hot topics in the news right now is, should police officers be required to wear body cameras?
Well, in the cases of Kelly Thomas or Eric Garner, we have the officers on video committing the offenses, but nothing happened.
But it's not the case this time.
We have a situation in South Carolina where an officer falsified a report and was only brought to justice after video by a pedestrian came to light.
And luckily there just so happened to be a passerby with a camera up Otherwise, it would have been the officer's police report versus the non-testimony of the dead victim.
And for more on this, we have Leanne McAdoo.
Leanne, when you first saw this report, what did you think?
I was really shocked with this video.
Just to see a police officer so casually shoot a man in the back seven times and he takes a pause and then he shoots him one more time for good measure.
That was just shocking.
But once again, we have this case that underscores the importance of filming police encounters because Very quickly we saw that they were falsifying the report.
Here's the original story that the officer gave before this horrifying video emerged of him killing Walter Scott.
So the officer, Michael Slager, he said through his former attorney that he first pulled over this Mercedes-Benz that had a broken brake light Saturday morning around 9 30 a.m.
Then he said that Walter Scott fled on foot, and according to the police report, Slager announced on the police radio that he deployed his taser, but it didn't work.
A struggle ensued.
Scott allegedly tried to grab the taser.
Slager radioed the department to say that Scott had gotten a hold of his device and Then Slager says that he felt threatened and fired his gun.
So that on Saturday the police come out and they release a statement saying Scott had attempted to gain control of a taser from Slager and that he was shot in a struggle over the weapon.
And so it was that testimony from police that prompted this anonymous witness to come forward.
He showed that video to the family and he said this is absolutely false what the police are saying.
And a lot of people are saying that this witness is a hero Because he had this footage of a police officer committing murder here and killing this man.
So, pretty shocking.
That's completely unreasonable.
We saw a similar situation here in Austin where they shot, I believe his name was Larry Jackson, a gentleman who went to a bank after the bank had been robbed.
You know, he went to the cash checker, as the police say, to commit a fraud.
And so he takes off and the police follow the guy.
He takes off running, you know, for whatever reason.
He wasn't the guy who robbed the bank because this gentleman happened to be black.
The man who robbed the bank was white, so he wasn't a suspect, but the officer decided to pursue him anyway.
Long story short, the officer catches up to the guy, the struggle ensues, and Larry Jackson ends up dead with a bullet in the back.
So, you know, anytime somebody gets shot in the back, you always have to question, was the shooting necessary in the first place?
Because as we can clearly see in this video, the man takes off running.
He's several yards from the officer.
When the officer is able to pull out the weapon, fire multiple shots.
Striking the man multiple times and then killing him.
And for anybody at home, you know, if somebody breaks into your house and, you know, he takes off running, you know, he's of no threat to you.
You can't just pull out a gun and just shoot him in the middle of the street.
Now, if it gets to kind of a murky place, let's say the guy had a firearm.
He said, hey, well, he's running to get in a better position to shoot back at me.
Okay.
He may have some leeway with this, but the man had no visible weaponry.
So the officer had really no reason to shoot him at all.
Thank you for your commentary, Leanne, and hopefully We can stop these things from happening by just having vigilant people armed with their cameras.
And now we'll move on, since we're talking about guns there, let's talk about guns in a different way.
What if you could get paid to turn in your firearms?
That's what Representative Rosa DeLaria is hoping people will do.
She's from Connecticut, and she introduced the Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of Our Streets Act, which would offer people tax credits up to $2,000 to turn in their firearms.
So anyway, they can get your firearms.
And I don't know about Connecticut or how other states do their business, but was it Arizona where Gabby Giffords is from?
They resell those weapons.
So you say, I'm going to be a good citizen and go turn in my firearm.
They take the firearm that you gave at that police gun buyback and go and sell that to somebody else.
So in a lot of these states, you don't even get the guns out the streets.
You just redistribute the firearms and give the Police officers, the proceeds, but hey, you know, each is own.
I'm not giving up my guns one way or the other.
And since we're talking about what people are doing in the dark, what is your phone doing when you're not paying attention?
So the app that we're talking about is to check what apps are running in the background and where the data for those apps are going.
It's not necessarily spying necessarily.
A lot of the times on Android devices, which is what this app is for, a lot of data has to sync back and forth and this app is telling you where that data is being synced to.
And we'll end tonight with this before we go into more special reports and an interview.
Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the younger brother, the one who's still alive from the Boston bombing, has been found guilty on all charges.
I believe 30 counts.
And for more on this, we have Staff Sergeant Joe Biggs.
Joe Biggs here with Infowars.com with some breaking news in the Boston bombing trial.
A jury has found Dzhokhar Tsarnaev guilty in the Boston bombings which occurred on April 15th of 2013.
They killed three people and injured more than 260 people.
People now this was just the first phase of the entire trial to find out whether or not he is guilty the second part Will decide whether or not so car spends life in prison and or gets the death penalty Either way that'll take a little bit more time as well But there's some interesting things to remember in this entire case that years ago the FBI actually interviewed Tamlin Sarnaev the older now dead brother of Zokar and his mother
So after the actual bombing occurred, the FBI went out, put up the pictures of both Tamerlan and Zokar saying, who are these guys, we don't know who they are, and denied the fact that they had previously interviewed these men.
So if that doesn't send up a red flag, I don't know what else will.
But another interesting fact as well in this entire case is that Zocar entered a not guilty plea at the beginning of this entire trial, but then his lawyer came out and said that he was guilty.
So obviously the jury is going to come to the guilty verdict when the lawyer of Zocar himself comes out and says that he is in fact guilty.
There you have it.
The lawyer has completely shut off any opportunity to look in this any deeper and now we're on to the second phase to find out whether or not he gets life in prison or the death penalty.
And be sure to stay tuned because at the end of our show we'll have a special report from the vault.
Dan Badotti asking real questions immediately after the Boston bombing at the press conference there.
We'll also have Eddie Craig telling you what to do when you encounter the police and also John Bowne has a special report detailing the history and the underbelly of Jade Helm.
My name is Alex Jones.
Most of you know me from my syndicated radio program and my documentary films, as well as InfoWars Nightly News.
When I got on air 20 years ago, I had discovered the Globalist program, their plan to take over the world, and my focus went from running 6 miles every other day, swimming 2-3 miles a couple times a week, and lifting weights To focusing on fighting the globalists.
I've gone from 279 pounds all the way down to 235 pounds and the weight's going off even faster.
Super Mel Vitality, Survival Shield X2 Nascent Iodine, and Oxy Powder.
Those three products of the entire family of Infowarslife.com products are the most important from my own personal experience.
And it wasn't just that my weight loss accelerated.
My muscle mass increased.
My stamina, my energy levels exploded.
Now is the time to take action.
Start your journey today with the Alex Challenge Pack.
It's the trifecta of change.
Secure yours today and get free shipping for a limited time at Infowarslife.com or 888-253-3139.
Infowarslife and Infowarslife.com is extremely excited to announce our latest release, Winter Sun, a revolutionary type of vitamin D3.
Winter Sun is a premium quality vitamin D3 nutritional supplement.
It is produced by extracting oil from healthy nutrient-dense plants known as lichens.
Every batch is analyzed for purity and D3 content.
It's completely free of toxins and allergens.
Simply put, if you want the best at an extremely low price, this is it.
Winter Sun is the result of our pursuit of the best source of vitamin D3.
The research and development took over two years, but the result, as verified by independent laboratories, is the best vegan vitamin D3 product in the world.
Read the facts at InfoWarsLife.com about Winter Sun, Vitamin D3.
Not only does Vitamin D3 promote a healthy mood, but Vitamin D supports our memory and brain function.
Something the globalists are targeting.
Visit InfoWars.com today, or call 888-253-3139.
We know we're under attack!
888-253-3139.
Last Thursday morning, 148 Kenyan University students were slaughtered.
The al-Shabaab terrorists from neighboring Somalia took their time executing and beheading Christians and innocents that could not or would not recite from the Quran.
It took troops from Kenya's capital, Nairobi, to finally arrive in Garissa just before 2 p.m., seven hours after the massacre began.
What is adequate?
About 150 people face down on the ground, many of them shot in the head, execution style, and parents and students saying, we were waiting for several hours.
The response was adequate, and because of the military garrison that was actually quite close to the university, one cannot actually say that the response was slow.
While it took the Kenyan military a neglectful seven hours to finally arrive at the massacre in Garissa, the United States reflects that same slothful response our taxpayer dollars burned for.
Patty showed them a small revolver she was carefully holding in the palm of her hand.
A camera crew was there to capture what unfolded next.
I said, it's not even loaded, and I dropped it on the floor.
Well, they punched me in the face.
Look at my black and blue marks.
Look at what they did to me.
No one will be able to be armed.
We will take all weapons.
Katrina was the dry run for what we have come to expect from a federal response.
Katrina was surreptitiously politicized by the Bush administration, while hundreds of volunteer firefighters and National Guard were ordered to wait for days until finally being authorized to respond to the massive devastation.
During the ordeal, then-Vice President Cheney ordered a Mississippi Electricity Cooperative to restore power to a gas pipeline rather than restoring power to two rural hospitals.
And after the fact, we learned that the White House was fully aware that the levees had broken and flooding was underway as it happened, contrary to what they told the public.
It is chaos along the Jersey Shore.
The superstorm battering the barrier islands In the crosshairs, Atlantic City.
Look, talk about a delayed reaction.
It's kind of like Force 10 from Navarone, where they detonate the dam and it doesn't collapse right away.
It takes a few minutes.
Well, Sandy's worse than I thought it was going to be.
I thought it was mainly hype, and they still did overhype it as basically the storm of all time, Satan incarnate ravaging the East Coast.
The cops were geared up in their, you know, uh, paramilitary gear.
They just didn't want to deal with anybody.
I could kind of understand that, but you could tell some of these guys were really getting off on it.
The Pentagon's done breakdowns in different countries watching this.
Over 90% will start killing for food and water.
And within 15 days, 90 plus percent, depending on which study, it's right over 90, become cannibals.
Within 15 days, the 9 out of 10 plus people will start eating.
Others now, I mean, it's not going to get to that point, obviously, but notice this is happening in areas where you have people that are disarmed in these big mega cities that are death traps during disasters.
I mean, if there was ever a big earthquake in L.A. or New York, a really big one, I mean, the system isn't going to be able to help you and they aren't going to.
They're going to come and take your guns.
According to the FBI statistics regarding percent distribution of incidents where police came to the victim by police response time and type of crime, when it comes to violent crime, the highest percentage of response time fell under 11 minutes to an hour.
And for property crimes where you would absolutely need to defend yourself from a home invasion, 45 percent of response time fell under 11 minutes to an hour.
If the feds tried to do that, disarm this country, I said you would see an uprising and maybe the the.
The.
Even Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble suggested an answer to the bloodshed in Kenya could be in arming civilians.
You know, it's right in there.
So the feds coming in and going into homes, forcing their way into homes and removing firearms.
I mean, the thought is preposterous.
Even Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble suggested an answer to the bloodshed in Kenya could be in arming civilians.
It only took nine attackers to wipe out 148 Kenyans at Garissa University, just four to kill 67 Kenyans in last year's Westgate Mall shooting, and only a few terrorists to kill 213 in injured.
injure 4,000 in the 1998 Nairobi embassy bombings.
Had the Kenyan students been armed, the horror would have been largely avoided.
With the passing of Kenyan President Kenyatta's controversial security bill, basically making free speech and freedom of the press a crime, Kenya is spiraling into the throes of a full-blown police state.
A petri dish for the power elite's Trojan Horse PSYOP waged on citizens worldwide.
Somali terror group Al-Shabaab has threatened Kenyan cities will run red with blood.
This will be a long, gruesome war, which you, the Kenyan public, are its first casualties.
Al-Shabaab also warned no amount of precaution or safety measures will be able to guarantee your safety, thwart another attack, or prevent another bloodbath.
John Bowne for InfoWars.com.
Another major health threat.
This one in Toledo, Ohio, where everybody in the entire city has been told not to drink the water.
Ohio's governor declaring a state of emergency.
Did you know that the average person uses about 80 to 100 gallons of water at home every single day?
If there's a water emergency, will you be prepared?
Panicked residents forming long lines throughout the day.
We're here at a supermarket in Toledo.
You can see the shelves empty where water once was.
To stay safe and healthy during a crisis, you must have access to safe, clean water.
Water which will not be available at your local grocery store.
There's a mad dash on right now to stock up on supplies.
The ProPure ProOne G2.0 water filtration system is a must-have for every modern, independently-minded household.
Protect your family's safety during an emergency.
Go to Infowarsstore.com today to purchase your ProPure Pro1 G2.0 water filtration system or call 1-888-253-3139.
Used since before the days of the Roman Empire to support the body's natural systems and enhance overall health.
Introducing the new Infowarslife.com oil of oregano formulation, a highly advanced nutraceutical form.
of this key herb that has been traditionally used by civilizations for thousands of years to promote health.
We have now procured the most high quality and potent forms of oregano oil on the market.
Sourced from top leading manufacturers to ensure a concentrated level of bioactive ingredients.
Extracted directly from the wild herb and sealed in easy to use capsules.
You will no longer need to endure the burning of liquid oregano on the tongue.
Wild crafted from the Mediterranean oregano species that experts agree is one of the most powerful and most challenging to acquire.
This winter season, it's more important than ever to secure this true form of oil of oregano.
Now available in our limited first run at Infowarslife.com.
That's InfoWarsLife.com or call 888-253-3139.
We oftentimes showcase questionable police encounters.
And while that may not be much of a remedy for a hot-headed officer, if you encounter a competent officer who respects the Constitution, we have some tips that you need to follow.
And with more on this, we have Eddie Craig of Rule of Law Radio.
All right, thank you for joining us today, Eddie.
Thanks for having me on.
Okay, so we hear a lot about people filming the police.
You know, they encounter the police whether it be at a traffic stop or someplace else.
We talked about just earlier in the show about the unfortunate incident in South Carolina and somebody just happened to be filming an officer as he shot a man in the back, you know, pretty much killed the guy.
So, can you explain to us the importance of the civilian or just the normal person being able to film a police officer in the commission of their duties?
Well, it's extremely important.
Right now, there is almost no level of public accountability for law enforcement and various other government entities for that matter.
Without the power of the video and the audio recordings, there would be a lot of people in jail right now, in prison, being convicted for crimes they never committed because officers have falsified the reports they filed, trumped up charges on people just to cover their own wrongdoing.
The camera is the only eye we have into that after the fact.
Eyewitness testimony can be discredited.
The camera is a whole lot more difficult to discredit.
Right.
So it's extremely important.
So we see this all over the country, but particularly here in Texas, they're trying to pass through a bill, I believe it's 125 feet, you cannot film the officer.
Which is to say, if you were engaged in a traffic stop, I'm the officer, you can't film me because I'm within that 125 feet.
Does that set a chilling precedent?
It would if it would actually be able to pass.
It very well would.
But then again, it would also run directly afoul of current rulings by the U.S.
Supreme Court, and it would not be a difficult thing to have that law declared unconstitutional on its face for that particular violation.
But at the same time, the problems it would create on the accountability issue we've just discussed would be astronomical.
Right.
Now Eddie, what we have you on here today is to talk about the reasons why police are pulling people over more and more.
You know, it's gone beyond speeding, and we'll talk about that as well.
But here in Texas, as well as many other places around the country, they're coming up with new reasons just to pull you over.
Let's say you have your cell phone out.
You know, they just passed that here in the city of Austin.
You're driving around, maybe looking at your GPS.
If you're looking at a map, if you're distracted in any kind of way, they can pull you over and, oh, Mr. Craig, we see that you're driving distracted.
Can you explain to us the significance of this precedent?
Well, the first thing is, is this is both the city of Austin through its ordinance program and the state itself in an upcoming bill attempting to legislate human behavior.
And that's simply not feasible.
It's not going to work.
The only thing that it's really going to provide is a steady revenue stream for both parties, the state and the city, which deep down we would have to consider to be its true intended purpose.
None of this would actually impact public safety one way or the other any differently, I don't think.
In fact, it would probably make it worse, because now if someone gets an unexpected phone call and they're expecting something important or whatever, they're going to try to answer it, but they're also going to now be worried about whether or not there's a cop present.
That would catch them doing so.
Not everybody can afford hands-free devices and things like that in their car.
So the issue is that this isn't really about public safety.
And for them to put it out there as if it is can easily be disproven if you really think about it.
The argument, I believe y'all had an attorney on the show here a few weeks ago that was discussing this particular ordinance.
I actually saw part of that show and I was...
Really wishing I was on set at the time and able to go toe-to-toe with this guy.
Well, tell us the issue you had with it.
Well, the issue I had with it was the fact that it's ordinance-based to begin with.
What most people in the state, and including those that are making them, fail to realize is that ordinances are not binding law on the public.
I know that the states and the prosecutors and the city attorneys, they all want you to believe it is, but the problem is the state constitution says they're not.
We gave only one legislative body power to create law binding upon the public, and that was the Texas Legislature.
It was not the municipalities.
What the legislature did to empower that concept Uh, which we'll be doing a presentation on here, if I'm not mistaken, was actually very, very unconstitutional.
They attempted to convey a power that the courts themselves have ruled they can't convey, which is the ability to legislate.
Uh, and they did that through nothing more than the creation of statutory definitions.
And in the presentation, I will show you exactly how they attempted to do that.
But the ordinances themselves are not law binding upon the public.
They can't be.
We didn't authorize municipalities to create law binding upon the people.
All right, and what Eddie's talking about here, we'll discuss in a presentation that's going to premiere next week.
He's going to shoot with us right after the show, but let's get back into it, Eddie.
We were talking about speeding, and you brought up something very interesting to me, something I didn't know.
You talked to us about speeding limits and how they are set.
Yes, there is a problem with the way they're prosecuting speeding charges here in Texas.
The two statutes involving speeding are 545.351 and 352 of the Transportation Code.
Most municipalities, the prosecutor's attempting to prove only the elements of 545.351 subsection A. The problem with the language of subsection A is that it's vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and highly subjective to the opinion of whoever's making the allegation.
The language there more or less simply reads that a person commits an offense if they operate a motor vehicle to speed other than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
There is no criteria in A for what the circumstances then existing are that would make it an offense.
There is no criteria for what reasonable and prudent is under that statute.
Those provisions are detailed in subsection B of 351.
And subsection B is where the meat of the speeding charge actually comes in, but they never prove the elements that are in it.
But the required elements are, is that the person failed to exercise due care so that by the excess of speed they were traveling, they were involved with a collision with another person or vehicle lawfully entering or already upon the highway.
And Texas only has prima facie speed limits.
Prima facie simply means, as I discussed with my other presentation, on its face, or at first glance, or until proven incorrect, is what prima facie really means.
So, for example, the prima facie speed limit on most of the roads around Austin, not on 35, for instance, is 60.
Let's say you're doing 70 and an officer pulls you over.
At that time, the officer has witnessed no collision, nothing except you going faster than the posted speed limit.
And so they have no way of proving the elements of subsection B because no collision occurred.
So they can't say that you were driving reckless?
They can't say that you were acting unreasonably because there's nothing to base that on except the subjective opinion of the officer.
And the officer is not qualified to offer subjective opinion and testimony in court.
But that's exactly what they're asking the officer to do.
The problem with the way they're doing it on that speed is that if you demonstrated that no collision occurred at the 70 miles per hour, then who is to say that your actions were neither reasonable nor prudent under the circumstances?
Because, as the saying goes, no harm, no foul.
No victim, no crime.
Exactly.
And the Texas speeding statutes clearly have taken that into consideration.
There are a total of 15 separate elements in a speeding charge, if you follow the statute the way it's laid out.
There are 15 elements required to be proven.
They never prove more than 6 to 9 of those.
And the problem is, is that in any criminal case, they are required, as a matter of due process, to prove every single element in an accusation.
They don't ever do it.
In fact, the Texas District and County Attorneys Association publishes a book that says very clearly in that book that in Texas, speeding in and of itself is not an offense.
Now, why would they say that?
They say that because it's a prima facie speed limit.
If you can demonstrate that you caused no harm, okay, and your speed was not in such an excessive degree as to be considered criminally negligent, Then speeding can't be charged against an individual just because they're going faster than the posted speed limit.
Which brings an issue up for the officer who pulls you over.
The officer is going to be questioned on the stand.
What's the color of the car that you saw me collide with?
Well, you didn't hit anybody.
Uh, did I hit a pedestrian?
Well, no, you didn't hit anybody.
There's no one saying you hit anybody.
And officer, please explain to me, if all you saw was me traveling faster than the posted speed limit under the condition of Texas having PRIMA-facing speed limits, what is your articulable probable cause to suspect me of actually committing a crime that gave you the ability to pull me over in the first place?
They never want to answer that because they can't.
There is no answer for it.
And most attorneys will say, well, the probable cause was the violation of the prima facie speed limit.
Well, unfortunately, that only jives if you're trying to prove subsection A. It doesn't jive if you are also requiring the elements of subsection B. Right.
Now what you're talking about here is, I guess you're talking about Texas in particular, but this can apply to other states and other... It would apply in every state with a prima facie speed limit, and I don't know of any that aren't prima facie.
Good.
Okay, now we'll get more into this in your presentation, but let's have a brief demonstration.
Let's say I pull you over.
Okay, so you're pulling, so I pull over.
Mr. Craig, I'm State Trooper Jackson.
I saw you were speeding in your vehicle.
Can I see your license and your registration to which you would reply?
Officer, can any of the information that you were requesting from me be used against me in a court of law to potentially incriminate me in any way?
I'll say yes.
If you even understand the question, you'll say yes.
But most of the time, they will attempt to avoid it.
But you are correct, if they said yes, then officer, I invoke my right to remain silent and I cannot provide you with that information and documentation.
Now let me stop you right there, because maybe this is my misunderstanding, but if you get contacted by an officer, are you legally objected or obligated to provide them with your name, birthdate, or address?
Under the failure to ID, if they have actually told you that you are under arrest, then you are required to provide them with name, address, and date of birth.
However, there is no requirement that that be done in physical form.
Verbal is all that's required.
When you are legally detained, you do not have to provide it to them, but you cannot provide them false information under either of those conditions.
Which again would be another example of why producing a license could count against you.
Texas has a statute that makes it a crime if you've moved to a new address and haven't updated that address on your license.
Now let's say that you've recently moved.
You haven't changed the address on your license, but you're outside of their so-called 30-day window to make that change.
By producing that license and handing it to the officer, you've now given him evidence to charge you with another offense, failure to change the address on the license.
But at the same time, without thinking about it, you just recite the old address.
and now you've provided false information under the failure to ID statute, and now you're in a lot more trouble.
So the simple production of that license gave him the opportunity to maybe charge you with two additional criminal acts.
So if I pull you over and I ask for your license, you're saying you don't have to supply that?
If I invoke my right to remain silent, how can you force me through statute to produce something that you have just said you can use against me in a court of law or that can potentially incriminate me in some way?
What Texas has actually done in that regard is criminalize the invocation of a protected right to remain silent.
They will charge you with failure to produce a license if you don't produce one.
But at the same time, your right to remain silent prevents them from being able to do that because that license can be used to charge you with something else.
Okay.
Now Eddie, we're running out of time here, so I just want to ask you a question.
Moving away from the vehicles.
Okay, so let's say you're out.
You know, you're walking around, you see the police initiating a traffic stop or some type of thing.
So you pull out your camera, you walk up, and you start to film the police.
Are you in any type of violation of any law, ordinance, or anything just to film a police officer?
As of this moment, no.
As long as you aren't close enough to actually physically impede or endanger the officer in any way, which the courts have set a limit of approximately 15 feet.
Anything within that, you could be considered physically interfering.
You cannot interfere verbally and you cannot interfere simply by recording unless you've exceeded that safety width that they've set up.
So anything beyond that 15 feet is just the officer trying to exert his power unreasonably.
He wants to control the scene.
He wants to control the suspect.
He doesn't want to have to worry about a bystander.
All of that is viable.
In a manner of speaking.
But at the same time, the way they're being trained and the way they're being taught, that camera is an accountability they don't want present.
If they can get you to move without having to force you to move, that's what they'll do.
The case of Antonio Buehler is a perfect example of an officer abusing the authority in that regard.
Familiar with Antonio.
He was filming, I believe it was a young lady who encountered the police.
The officer said he was pretty much too close to the scene and then he was subsequently... There were actually two.
It was on New Year's Eve, I believe, and Antonio was taking a friend of his home.
They had stopped to put gas in their truck.
And the officers had two females pulled over in a car.
One of them was out for a sobriety test, the other was still in the passenger seat.
The lady in the passenger seat was yelling out the window to her friend not to submit to the sobriety test.
The officers then tried to charge her with interfering, came over and drug her out of the car.
And from the pictures that Antonio took, it was very easy to see they were intentionally inflicting joint pain pressure techniques on her to get her to comply with what they were doing.
They were assaulting this woman.
And because they were armed, it's aggravated assault.
And Texas statutes deal specifically with public servants that commit aggravated assault while displaying a deadly weapon.
In all of Texas up until the officer in San Antonio assaulted that female college student and broke her teeth out on the curb.
Yeah, I remember that.
No police officer in Texas has ever been charged under the Aggravated Assault Statute.
Wow.
That was the very first one and that statute's been on the books since 1965.
So that should tell you something about how often these officers commit these acts but never get punished for it.
Yeah, now Eddie, I'm going to extend this a little bit because I want to ask you a question.
When you want to get your footage from the police, let's say you were contacted by a police officer to have dash cam, whatever.
I have personally tried both as a, just a person and as a journalist, go down to APD to get footage or something.
And it's this ring around, you know, I go in, I submit an official request as a journalist requesting footage of X. And then I call up and it's like, well, you can't have this footage because this case is currently under investigation.
I go talk to the party involved and say, no, I settled my case.
I paid all my fees.
And they still refuse to produce said footage.
What is somebody supposed to do?
Technically, that is a crime under the Public Information Act.
552.353 of the Texas Government Code makes that a crime.
Public records are under all circumstances to be given to the public.
The ones that are considered public information request material are the ones that are not specifically public record.
Some of these you're discussing fall into that category.
However, it's a typical ploy for delay and denial by both police agencies and prosecutors to misrepresent what they're doing.
The statute very clearly says that in order for them to deny it in the case of an ongoing investigation, the production would have to directly interfere with their ability to either complete that investigation or to pursue that prosecution.
If it would not interfere with it, they're not covered by that statute for non-production.
Yet the only thing they're doing is filing with the Attorney General's office saying, hey, we have an ongoing investigation, and the AG's just rubber stamping saying, okay, then you don't have to do anything.
Yeah, that's pretty much what happened.
Yeah, and the problem is that's criminal.
Under that act, that is a crime, both by the AG's office and by that agency.
But they do it all the time.
The way we do it here, if we want to do it correctly and make sure that we do it, is if you have a case, make sure you file a motion for discovery in addition to your public information request.
And then if they fail to produce, you can file a motion to compel with the court demanding that they produce it for the purpose of discovery.
The other thing the act does not deal with specifically is when you are the defendant in the case and you are acting as your own counsel.
In that case, you are every bit as entitled to that information as your defense attorney would be.
And for them to withhold that is to withhold evidence in your case that you need to put on a defense with.
That in and of itself is a crime.
I actually read a letter that was sent to someone by a prosecuting attorney in Texas, and I could not believe what I was reading.
This prosecutor was actually telling this gentleman that by choosing to represent himself, he had waived all of his rights to seek discovery, to get depositions, to get public information relating to his case, to seek records relating to his case.
In other words, because you don't have one of our bar attorneys, then we can throw you under the bus and there's nothing you can do about it.
Wow.
That is the mindset of these so-called public officials.
It's truly what they're teaching the officers is it is really an us-against-them thing.
The problem is they've got the roles completely backwards.
We're not the problem.
They are the problem.
Because they now consider themselves to be above the people and above the law that belongs to the people.
It's unacceptable in my book.
Always interesting.
Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio.
Eddie, tell us your final thoughts and also how can people keep up with your work?
Well, we do our show on Monday night here in Austin from 8 to 10 p.m.
My show is Monday nights, Rule of Law Radio.
We don't call it the traffic show anymore.
It's just the Monday night Rule of Law Radio show.
I also teach a due process seminar class every Sunday down at Brave New Books from 2 to 5 p.m.
in which we openly invite, free of charge, any attorney and any law enforcement officer to attend that class.
I will never charge an attorney or a law enforcement officer to come to that class.
The whole reason for it is, is I would love for them to have the desire to know if they're doing right and wrong and to come in and see because this is not my opinion that I give everybody.
Everything that I teach folks, I can show you in black and white, where it's written into the statute, where it's written into the case law, and I can show you everything.
I don't make this up.
I work very hard to make sure it's true and accurate.
All right.
Thank you, Eddie.
Always informative.
And this is the type of stuff you get if you go to PrisonPlanet.tv.
This is what funds our operation.
It allows us to have guests on like Eddie, so he can bring you these educational materials.
All right, and be sure to tune in next week.
We'll have that full presentation from Eddie that he's about to shoot for us right after this.
I'm Jakari Jackson from the InfoWars.com studio.
Be sure to go to PrisonPlanet.tv, get yourself a free trial, where you can see the Alex Jones Show, the nightly news, the special reports, the rants, all right there at PrisonPlanet.tv.
Jakari Jackson from the Infowars Command Center, and we'll see you again tomorrow night.
From the water table to our soils to the atmosphere itself, our world is becoming more and more toxic each and every day.
But it's not just the air outside that's toxic.
Indoor air has been shown to have two to five times higher concentrations of pollutants than even outdoor air.
And most Americans spend 90% of their time inside using toxic chemicals within their homes.
There are more than 42 million smokers in the United States.
Well over a thousand types of mold and mildew linked to numerous conditions.
And don't forget the fact that 6 million Americans live with pets they're allergic to as well.
When I began to research these statistics, it was clear to me it was time to start cleansing my lungs in order to combat the toxic environment that we cannot escape but that we can fight back against.
Made with organic and wild cultivated herbs, and manufactured in the USA.
The new InfoWars Live Lung Cleanse is here in a convenient spray bottle that can be brought with you throughout any toxic environment.
Now available exclusively at InfoWarsLive.com or by calling toll-free 888-253-3139.
Is there any security footage of any of these explosions?
We are looking at all of that right now.
That's one of the investigative steps that we're taking.
Was there any prior knowledge, though?
Because according to BostonGlobe.com, they said they were doing drills this morning for the same exact thing to happen, according to BostonGlobe.com.
Now, were you guys given any warning ahead of time of this taking place?
As I said earlier, there was no specific intelligence.
We certainly increased our posture around a big event like this.
All of those things happened in preparation for this event, but there was no specific intelligence that anything was going to happen.
Can you talk a little bit about what type of device do you have?
The city of Boston is open and will be open tomorrow, but it will not be business as usual.
It will be a heightened law enforcement presence consistent with the severity and seriousness The ongoing investigation.
People should expect those who are riding the T that there will be random checks of backpacks and other parcels.
And we just ask everyone to be patient with that inconvenience for the time being.
It is for the public's safety.
Here in the state, at the local level, and at the federal level, we are all coming together to do everything we can to get to the bottom of this.
The most important fact that I want to convey to everybody this evening has already been mentioned by Governor Patrick.
The FBI is taking the lead in this investigation.
It is a certain federal jurisdiction.
It will do so through the Boston Joint Terrorism Task Force, members of which are comprised by all the members of the law enforcement agencies here represented at the podium.
This will be a combined federal, state, and local effort.
It will be an ongoing investigation.
It is a criminal investigation that is, has the potential, is a potential terrorist investigation.
Did you take any questions?
No.
Next question.
I'm not going to confirm that right now.
We'll have that information for you first thing in the morning.
moments before the bomb went off.
Is this another false flight stage attack to take our civil liberties and put more Homeland Security, sticking their hands down on the pants on the streets?
No.
Next question.
You have said that there's no suspect for the server.
I'm not going to confirm that right now.
We'll have that information for you first thing in the morning.
The medical people are filing that as we speak.
Again, why would speakers tell people to - How will y'all be-- - Paracruising, sir.
- Terrorism.
- Extend of the injuries, how serious people are.
- This is a very powerful point.
Right now, that area that the governor outlined is our main point of focus right now. - Again, why were people telling our speakers telling people to be calm before the bomb went off?
I want to answer that question.
Currently in your search for additional devices, are you searching the entire route of the marathon or are you just focused on certain areas right now?
Are there specific areas that you're focused on beyond the Copley area?
At this point in time, our focus of the investigation is in the areas of the government.
Why was people being told to apply to the bomb going off?
Are there any other counter for people?
If so, how would you...
We're actually working very closely with the families right now.
We're setting up a location near here that families can come to if they have any questions.
The mayor's office has fielded many calls of concern.
We're going through those right now.
Why was people being told prior to the bombs going off to State Farm?
That's a false flag, gentlemen.
▲
Export Selection