All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
50:56
The Rayshard Brooks Shooting - According to an Ex-Cop
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, here with our good friend, ex-cop Nick Dial.
Thanks so much for taking the time today.
Today we are going to be talking about, well, I guess another fairly incendiary incident that has occurred in Atlanta.
This is Rayshard Brooks, the shooting that occurred recently.
Time is so accelerated these days, it's kind of hard to realize just how much has been compressed into a short amount of time.
It's been, I think, just a little bit less than a month since George Floyd.
Rayshard Brooks was shot on June 12th, and the officers in both situations have been charged with murder.
And, you know, I always try to defer to people who've got a lot of experience.
I don't do my own dentistry, and I don't do my own massages.
And when it comes to law enforcement, I like to talk to people who've had a lot of experience.
And for those of you who haven't met Nick before, you were an officer for quite some time.
If you wanted to give yourself a brief intro, we'll dive straight into the issue at hand.
Yeah, no worries. I'll give a quick rundown so we're not here for a couple minutes.
Got my start in the private sector, worked as a supervisor, doing city events, block parties, things like that.
Did armored transport for a while, moving large amounts for the Federal Reserve.
And worked for the school districts doing security.
And then I moved into law enforcement and worked as a deputy and a patrol officer for a city for a while.
Eventually, I had to hang it up for medical reasons and went back to school.
And I have a Bachelor of Science in Counterterrorism, Homeland Security, and Criminal Justice.
And I also write articles for sites such as LawEnforcementToday.com, Arizona Capital Times and various publications when appropriate.
Right. So when did you first learn about the Brooks shooting and what were your first thoughts?
I don't... When I saw it, I didn't really understand the...
I didn't understand why the...
I understand the mob doing what they did with the way things are going.
What I didn't understand was the mayor and the city officials immediately jumping on the bandwagon and...
Basically coming out and publicly condemning these officers and basically doing a trial by public opinion.
And the mayor right out of the gate, you know, I don't know her background or experience, but she's up there saying things like this was not a justified use of force.
Throwing her own officers under the bus.
The chief, I understand, resigned, although I doubt it was consensual, so to speak.
It was probably a forced resignment on her part.
I didn't understand that.
So, all the way around, this was just one big cluster you-know-what.
It was a problem. None of it made any sense, especially the DA. The DA coming out He completely broke ethical protocol.
He starts creating a scenario that wasn't accurate, that didn't happen, and made all kinds of completely inaccurate statements.
Once again, condemning the officers, didn't follow an investigation, didn't wait for a preliminary A preliminary hearing didn't wait for a grand jury.
Nothing. Just went straight from zero to 100.
And this is a big problem.
You know, these guys should not be facing charges, especially murder charges.
So it was appalling.
Now, you have done a fairly remarkable amount of research on this.
Do you want to get into the details and take us through the timeline of what happened?
Sure. So, alright, so my understanding is a guy by the name of Ray Sherwood Brooks shows up at the Wendy's parking lot, passes out in the vehicle, not moving.
People try to get his attention to get him to move.
He's not responding. So they call the police.
The police show up. He's not responding to them.
They spent 40 minutes with him, according to the body cam footage and the report, a good 40 minutes being cordial, being polite.
Even the DA said, for 40 minutes...
Of course, they don't point out the police were being polite, it seems.
They just focus on Brooks.
They said, for 40 minutes, Brooks was being cordial and polite.
Well, okay. And then, as soon as the police decide...
They're going to go ahead and arrest him for DUI. Then he immediately becomes violent and turns on him.
So, I guess the logical place to start with, who is Brooks?
Like, who is this guy?
Why did he respond the way he did?
And... Normal people, at least normal people, you know, people I know, myself included, we don't go around fighting the police or getting in DUIs, and your typical person doesn't do that.
Of course, like most things, there's always a backstory, right?
Things are much more complicated than they are on the surface level.
You'd think people would learn that by now, you know, but I guess, hey, we're going to keep doing this.
So, one thing I couldn't verify is there's a rumor that Brooks was released early because of COVID from custody.
Couldn't verify it, so I don't know if it's just a rumor.
I don't know if there's any truth to it, but I would find that to be interesting if that were the case.
I know a lot of people were released early from the state because of COVID-19, and now they're dealing with the blowback of that because people are out committing crimes now.
I don't know. Have you heard anything in regards to that by chance?
I've heard the same stories, but I haven't also seen direct confirmation.
And it's probably not the kind of direct confirmation that would be very forthcoming at the moment anyway.
Right. Okay. So, interestingly, I did find an interview Brooks gave with an interview.
I guess he was doing a video about people on parole.
Yeah. Yeah, this is the one.
It's only four months before he was shot.
And he's talking a lot about how horrible it is to be tangled up in a system that doesn't kind of let you get ahead after you've made the proverbial mistakes.
Right, right. So in this video, yeah, his quote is that, In this interview, he says, the moment I get out of hand, I go back to jail.
So, he was well aware of the consequences of breaking the law and screwing up.
I mean, there was no doubt about that.
He went out of his way in the interview to say, you know, I need to be careful to follow the rules and pay attention.
I don't want to go back. And interestingly, he's got a checkered past.
You know, his family, his wife, and I believe children in his family, they accused him of abuse.
He was on parole for charges that had to deal with, I believe, assault and battery of his spouse, domestic violence, false imprisonment, which, I mean, to get false imprisonment, you're holding people against their will.
And he had felony charges that had to deal with children endangerment, or cruelty to children, I believe, is the exact terminology used.
Here, just to sort of back this up, 2014, he pleaded guilty to domestic violence, theft, and other charges.
Prosecutors said he twisted the wrist of his wife, and he was the primary aggressor in another incident, witnessed by a child leading to a child cruelty charge.
According to a grand jury report, he pled guilty, was sentenced to a year behind bars and six years of probation.
2016, he pled guilty to credit card theft for another year-long sentence.
And so, yeah, he was a child abuser, a child cruelty, and a wife abuser.
And yeah, theft and credit card theft.
It was the usual, I mean, I would say the usual, the usual mess or the usual complications that come into those kinds of things, right?
And so by the time he was killed, Brooks had fallen behind on court payments, been sentenced to more time behind bars and been required to wear an ankle monitor.
So this would be a good time not to get drunk and pass out in a Wendy's drive-thru in general.
Yeah, and unless I'm mistaken, I'm not a parole officer, but unless I'm mistaken, typically I think standards for parole is you're not allowed to be drinking alcohol.
I think that violates the terms of your parole.
So alcohol is a no-no.
I mean, let alone DUI. Right.
So, you know, they're going to know this as they're dealing with them.
When they show up and run this information, they're going to know this background.
It's going to pop up like, you know, a Christmas tree in a dark room.
They're going to be like, all right, we know this history.
We know what's going on. They were polite with them still.
Oh, and I'm sorry, I just wanted to mention one thing, too.
For the non-cops in the audience...
You know, for most people, like, Nick and I read this kind of stuff, you have your history with the force, and I'm really fascinated in trying to push back against all this race-baiting stuff.
But for most people, they read, oh, there was a shooting, and oh, the guy had a checkered past, and you just kind of, you know, you read it and you move on, maybe a little bit of water-cooler conversation.
But for cops, they're like, oh, man, you know?
Some pretty dangerous guys maybe have been let out of prison because of coronavirus, or maybe this is why he was still out and just wearing an ankle bracelet rather than having gone back in.
But what they do is, you know, especially after George Floyd, they say, man, we got a lot of people out on the streets who are kind of desperate, don't have a lot to lose, and may well decide to fight.
Oh, yeah.
Police in particular, it sticks out in their mind, and it's definitely cumulative.
To give you an example, one of the first videos they showed when I went into the police academy was called the Officer Coates shooting.
In the law enforcement community, it is well known, probably not so to the public.
Years ago, This is when police officers were still carrying revolvers.
Years ago, a highway patrol officer stopped this guy.
I forget the name of the suspect offhand.
Large white man, very overweight, was completely polite.
Now, this is what sticks out to me.
Everyone seems to be harping on this.
This notion that, oh, well, Brooks was cordial and polite the whole time.
Well, of course he was. He didn't want to go to jail.
He's trying to do everything he can to potentially get out of it, if that's possible.
So it's in his best interest to be polite at that moment in time.
On the Officer Coates video, for anyone that wants to look this up, but I'll warn you, it's hard to watch.
This guy is absolutely polite and friendly the whole time.
And the officer says, you have anything on you?
Needles, weapons, anything that can hurt me?
The guy's like, nah, nah, nah.
Laughs, jokes it off.
So the officer goes to do a terry pat, pat him down, make sure there's no weapons on him.
And as he gets close to his pockets, the guy immediately...
He goes into just psycho combat mode, flips around on the officer, pulls out a little.22 derringer, and fires at him.
The officer falls on his butt, skits backwards, and gets up, or recovers, and he fires his.357 Magnum five times center mass into the guy.
He assumes the guy is neutralizing down.
He's a large man.
Later in the medical report they told us none of the rounds hit anything vital amazingly enough.
His large mass and all his obesity probably saved his life in that regard.
The officer assumed The threat was neutralized.
Most people think you hit someone five times with.357, it's over with.
So part of the reason they show this is to get in the mindset that it's not over until it's over.
Never take your eyes off the threat.
After you shoot somebody, and this will come into play later in the Brooks case, when you neutralize a suspect and you shoot him, you handcuff him.
It doesn't matter if they're laying there bleeding out.
Someone might go, why are you handcuffing a guy that's, you know, dead?
Because you don't know.
So you always restrain them and secure the scene first.
He assumed he was down.
He gets on his radio and he starts to call for help.
As he's on the radio, in the corner of the video, you see this suspect get up and he starts scooting on his butt toward Officer Coates.
He raises up the Derringer and he fires one last time and the.22 round goes into his shoulder.
Bypasses his ballistic vest.
And.22s do goofy things in the body.
They bounce around. It slung around and it lodged in his aorta.
And Officer Coates bled out in the radio within a minute.
It's hard to watch. It's a real terrible video.
But there's a lot of lessons to learn from that.
And when you have officers get shown stuff like that, that sticks in your mind.
So... You treat everything absolutely cautious.
One thing people should realize is officers, they don't know you.
Sure, you don't know them, but they don't know who they're dealing with.
When they stop a vehicle, they don't know if behind that tinted glass there's a weapon trained on them the whole time.
They don't know if as soon as they get to the window, they're going to get met with a bunch of bullets.
They don't know if the person they're speaking with is getting ready to fight.
Or proverbial, there's a body in the trunk.
So everything's this tightrope.
You've got to do things respectfully, but you have to protect yourself and everyone around.
So it's this tightrope walk that officers do every day on the job.
And basically, you're always at a disadvantage because you don't know the intentions of the individual.
If that individual is going to ambush you, You are relying on that person to screw up.
If they don't screw up, you won't have a chance.
Game over. Hopefully they mess up in some way, and you have a chance to fight back, or if need be, you know, fight or flight and escape.
One of the two. So when he goes from...
And one thing that was interesting, I always thought about the Coates video, is I think it's very...
unique and interesting the type of person it takes to go from polite friendly cracking jokes being cordial to the drop of a hat turning into an aggressive hostile individual where it's all bets are off and that person is trying to kill you or harm you um i don't think normal people necessarily operate that way and that's what struck me about the brooks videos it reminded me immediately of the coats video this guy's being friendly as they like to point out
but then immediately he is punching these officers in the face going to the ground with him gave one of them a concussion wrestles away a weapon and the taser is a weapon there's no doubt about that and then fires it at him and then flees and then fires it again on the run and Everyone says, oh, he's running away.
No, he wasn't running away.
That was a tactical retreat, okay?
He was shooting and running.
Yeah, there's a lot of problems with this.
Okay, sorry, sorry. Just make sure that people understand.
Because everyone thinks the taser is like a one-shot deal, right?
So the argument is, well, the guy shot his taser.
And so he was basically disarmed because what's he going to do?
Hit them with the taser weapon?
Right. So to clarify for taser, taser is...
Well, in Georgia, in particular, it's classified as a deadly weapon.
They classify it the same as a firearm.
Now, what's funny about this is the district attorney, just a week or so earlier before the Brooks case, He was chastising officers that had threatened, I believe, some college students with a taser and some sort of interaction.
And he explicitly pointed out in Georgia, this is considered a deadly weapon.
And then when the Brooks case happened, he immediately did a 180 and then hypocritically started to say, oh, you know, it was a taser.
And all of a sudden, now he treats it as if it's not a deadly weapon.
And this deadly weapon thing, too, you know?
Here's a pen. Is it a deadly weapon?
Well, it is if you jam it in someone's eyeball.
Oh, sure, you know.
So, to educate the audience here on tasers, I brought this up.
When I immediately saw the Brooks video...
Hang on, let me just throw this in here.
All right, so those of you who are listening to audio, we got a picture of a bright yellow gun that looks like it would squirt water.
But no, in fact, it squirts electricity.
So, this right here, this is an X-26 taser.
This is what I carried on duty.
It's an older taser. So, most people, when they think of a taser, they think of this right here.
The Mare, for example...
And others tried to make the claim, oh, you know, it has one shot.
Once it was fired, it wasn't a threat anymore.
They're thinking of an X-26.
Now, that's a moot point, in my opinion, because police officers are trained, at least I was and everyone I've ever spoken to, you are trained to not allow a taser to be used against you.
You treat that as deadly force.
If someone is going to use a taser against you or takes a taser and to use it against you, You neutralize them with your firearm.
Why? Because if you get incapacitated by that taser, you are completely vulnerable.
They can take all kinds of things off your belt and use them against you.
They can take your firearm and shoot you.
Plenty of cops have been killed with their own firearm.
So you don't mess around with a taser.
They can take your gun and sort of disappear into the night and then you have an armed desperate guy roam in the neighborhood.
Right, right. You just saw that.
We all just saw that in Canada, right?
If I'm not mistaken, didn't he disarm a royal Canadian-mounted officer and take his weapon and then shut down a whole city?
I think he definitely camouflaged himself.
He had a car painted like an RCMP car.
I think he had a uniform. But yeah, it happens, of course, all the time if the officer is disabled.
Didn't that happen with Mike Brown?
Where Mike Brown wrestled the cop's gun away from him, and there was a shooting, and then it went from there.
Yeah, Michael Brown.
And that's another thing I'll be bringing up.
I know we've talked about getting into the stats and figures, and Michael Brown, definitely, he unarmed, but not really, had his hand on the officer's weapon and was trying to disarm him.
And it's funny, there's a lot of these studies out there, they try to separate armed from unarmed, and they'll lump cases that are considered unarmed.
Into a category that they say, oh well these people weren't a threat.
Just because you're unarmed doesn't mean you're not a threat to an officer.
Michael Brown's a perfect example of that.
So what your viewers that are not listening but watching the video, what they're seeing here, this is an X-26.
That's not what the officers had.
So when I saw the Brooks video right away, I knew the narrative by the media and by the mayor and the district attorney.
I knew it was wrong. They were harping on this.
It was a one-shot, therefore not a threat.
Most officers, they don't carry the X-26 anymore.
It was the topic of controversy.
This was a lot more powerful than the taser that's out there now.
Now, in this picture, I took the screenshots from the video so you could see.
When I saw the tasers in their hand right away, I knew what they had was either an X2 or what's called an X3. You can tell because the nose of it has a real wide mouth and it's fat.
And the reason that's fat...
Here's a better picture here.
You see, this is where one officer is trying to hit Brooks as he's running away with his X2 or X3. The officer's trying to hit Brooks with the taser?
Right. So this picture here is right when Brooks took the taser from the other officer and he's running away.
This officer tried to shoot Brooks with his taser and get him as he was running away.
So he was going through the use of force continuum.
He was going through all of his options to try to neutralize what was happening before having to get...
To a lethal force setting.
So an X2 or an X3 has a much fatter mouth to it.
And you can tell because unlike the X26, this cartridge as you can see, it's on the outside of the taser.
The X2 or X3 has cartridges inside it.
So they slide in, and there's either two or three of them.
Those tasers are multiple shot.
I believe what they had were X2. So they have two shots.
So when you watch the video, it looks like Brooks fires once as soon as he gets it, and then he runs.
As he's on the run, he turns back and fires it again at him for the second time.
And this narrative people use about...
Oh, well, he was shot in the back.
He's running away. If you look at this image here, as you can see, just because someone's running away from me doesn't mean anything.
As you can see right here, the back is exposed to the officer, but he's pointing a gun straight back at the officer in a position to shoot.
Really, it's a tactical retreat.
So this is a great shoot-or-don't-shoot image.
Obviously, there's a threat being posed to.
You would shoot. And so when people say, oh, well, he was fired on and hit in the back...
That doesn't mean anything. So as with everything, context matters.
So hang on, let's just go back.
So you were describing two shots that he grabbed the officer's taser, shot once, and then shot again.
Is that right? And was it the final shot when he was shot in the back?
That was sort of occurring simultaneously?
Yeah, so as he's running away, if you watch the CCTV footage, the surveillance footage of the parking lot, Brooks is...
Is out ahead.
The officer that fired the taser once to try to stop him and it failed is chasing him.
The other officer is on the ground still recovering from a concussion.
He's out of it. The officer giving chase, you probably don't even know where his partner is.
He's just tunnel vision focused on the threat.
He's going after Brooks. Brooks faces back, fires the taser a second time at the officer.
And that is when the officer pulls his weapon.
and fires on him and hits him which makes perfect sense because the taser makes an audible popping noise there's a flash and actually if you watch the video you can see the officer react to being hit and he stumbles and it was real clear to me that he probably took a barb hit in the hand on the left side it didn't make a connection both barbs have to hit the body to complete the circuit So, he probably was hit by one of the barbs, and I believe I read somewhere he actually was.
And you can see him react.
So he reacts to getting hit by the object, and then he fires on Brooks and hits him with the weapon, which is textbook.
There's nothing wrong about that.
In fact, that video should be shown as a training aid and example.
To cadets of exactly how to handle a situation like that.
That's exactly what you should do.
He went from hard hands and hit techniques to the taser to the firearm once he was fired upon.
And at that point, he says he didn't even know if it was a taser being shot at him.
He just saw a flash and heard a pop.
And there's reason to say that he may not have known it was a taser.
You're only assuming that he should know it was a taser.
For all he knew, Brooks could have had a weapon that he pulled out that they didn't know he had on him.
Like some ankle thing or whatever, right?
That.22 you were talking about earlier.
Sure. You know, there's plenty of times when people have been patted down and weapons have showed up.
It happens. You know, there's a famous video they also show in the Academy where...
There wasn't a very good pat-down done, and a suspect commits suicide in an interview room.
Pulls a.45 out.
Terrifying. Should have never happened.
But things happen.
So, we don't live in a bubble-wrapped world, as we all know.
Well, as most of us should know.
He fires on the officer.
Officer fires back. Yeah, this should be shown as a perfect example of how you go through officer presence, verbal commands, soft hands, hard hands, control techniques, impact weapons like the taser or the baton, pepper spray, and then you move into lethal force if need be.
Everything these officers did was a direct response to Brooks, not the other way around.
Brooks was the one that escalated it to the next level.
Not the officers. Brooks was the one that turned it into a physical fight.
Brooks was the one that used impact strikes.
Brooks was the one that presented a weapon to them.
Brooks was the one that fired on them.
Everything he did had an opposite and equal reaction.
Everyone should remember that from their physics class, right?
So there's nothing about this that was wrong at all.
And the fact that they're being charged is asinine, especially murder charges, which I think is interesting.
Even if charges were going to come about as this, how are you charging the guy that's on the ground recovering from having his bell ring Right?
He has a concussion. How exactly is this guy worthy of charges?
Still trying to figure that one out.
But... Go ahead.
Well, I was also going to point out as well that, you know, what's called the blue flu hit 171 Atlanta cops after the officers were charged in the Rayshard Brooks case.
So can you just tell people what's, I mean, we can't theorize in any great detail, but what might be going on in the mind of these cops who are all calling in sick, which obviously is a pretty clear form of protest.
Well, I mean, it's pretty simple.
I mean, when I saw this, I was angry.
I was so angry.
And A lot of officers are.
A good friend of mine who's active patrol right now called me last night, two nights ago, and said, hey, you have him in?
I said, sure. And he's like, I'm having a decision crisis.
I don't know what to do. I'm like, what's going on?
He goes, I don't want to be a cop anymore.
I said, really? And he's like, no, I don't.
Everything that's going on, I just, I don't want to do this.
Especially if they're going to get into taking away qualified immunity, which people don't seem to understand is absolutely paramount for officers to be able to do their job effectively.
And so they're going after qualified immunity.
Now officers don't know if they're going to be charged with a crime for doing their job the right way, the way they were trained.
Of course they're not going...
No one should put up with this.
So I agree. Call in sick.
Take your vacation time.
If this is how it's going to be, then maybe these officials running these cities, pandering to the mob, and these people out here need to get a wake-up call of what happens when officers say, hey, you know what?
Fine. I'm done.
I'm not coming in. Handle it yourself.
You can suit up, put on a weapon, put on a vest, and deal with 20% of the population that doesn't want to behave itself and wants to victimize and prey on the rest of the community.
Someone's got to answer that call.
At least you have a group of people willing to do it.
When I became an officer, it wasn't for the money.
No one's going to get rich doing it.
I got into it because...
You know, for some people, you just feel called to it.
It gets in your butt. You know, there's that saying some people attribute it to Edmund Burke.
I know there's others that say it comes from someone else.
But that saying, you know, the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
I really felt strongly about that.
I felt like I don't want to do nothing.
I want to do something. I want to feel like I'm making a difference.
One of the first things I did as a patrol officer is deliver a baby.
The EMS, they didn't get there in time.
I delivered a baby in the field.
We're the ones that call in medevac helicopters and create landing zones when there's a five-car pilot, something I also did on an interstate.
We're the ones showing up because we're out and about.
Before fire gets there, before the ambulance gets there, you know, I've sat there, worked on people in their living room while their family's begging, please save my husband.
Please save my daddy's life.
And you're doing everything you can to get that person somewhat stabilized so EMS can take over.
Cops do a great many deal of things.
And yet there's this hyper-focus on this very small, minute section of it to where now cops, yeah, they're fed up.
They're saying, well, you know, fine.
If this is how it's going to be, then I'm not going to be an officer.
How could you? No logical person is gonna expose himself, their family, anyone to this.
Well, it's like asking people to be surgeons without giving them knives or anesthetic.
I mean, if you don't have the tools to do the job, you can't do the job.
And I mean, I think it's really, really important to understand, I'm sure you do as well, that, I mean, this is all just designed to destabilize society.
This has nothing to do with outrage about people getting shot by cops, which, you know, a grand total of 11 last year in America.
And most of those were pretty reasonably justified.
So, no, it's got nothing to do with that.
It's got everything to do with simply paralyzing the mechanism by which society at the moment, you know, whether we want it in an ideal society or not, that's a topic for another time.
But at the moment, the thin blue line is what stands between a lot of these communities and out and out predatory chaos.
And it is about simply castrating the capacity of society to control its wayward members and...
It's a Trojan horse.
They have to put them in special isolation.
That's not where you want to go if you had a career in law enforcement.
But, you know, it's a Trojan horse, as we all know.
We are in the midst of an ideological war, and this is a Trojan horse to backdoor all of this stuff that...
Couldn't get in otherwise.
This is a crisis not going to waste, as we have heard people in politics state.
And the police are at the front of it.
They've become the propagandized whipping boy of this.
They're the symbol of everything they want to wrap in and attack that they claim to hate.
Which is funny, because...
I got in a debate the other day with a friend of mine who, you know, she's black and she's an activist and she's a conservative activist, but she fell hook, line, sinker right into this where she was attacking the police and, you know, hashtag terrorists with badges.
And it really frustrated me because I'm sitting here going, well, wait a minute, you know, if we're pushing this narrative of Judging people on their character.
I mean, I thought that was the goal, right?
Content of character. If you're going to drop all of that, and you're going to dehumanize...
You know, that one thing that makes racism such a plague is because it strips people of their identity.
It dehumanizes them, right?
You remove the individual and then you completely classify somebody and stereotype them based on superficial features, skin color, whatever.
Well, it's the same thing with the police.
If you're going to take the police as a whole because they wear a similar uniform and a badge and you're going to strip away their humanity and their identity as an individual, their identity as a father, a husband, a mother, a wife.
You don't know anything about them, and you're just going to simplify and water it down to this faceless machine that wears a uniform and a badge.
You are no better than your typical two-bit terrorist and racist that runs around out there using that ridiculous, petty...
Lack of logic and ideology where you're just lumping people in.
You're doing the exact same thing.
Well, we all know for a fact, without a doubt, and we know this because white people have been killed in this kind of way and nobody, I mean, there's local interest and it's tragic for the family, but there's not this national news obsession that if this was a white criminal who had wrestled a car,
pounded a car, Right, and you know, people... Do your research.
This is a government document you can pull up.
There's a published communist list of goals.
I believe it came out as either the late 50s or early 60s.
It's in the congressional record, yeah.
Yeah, it's in the congressional record.
Read that list. Go down the list.
It talks about infiltrating academia, infiltrating the schools on every level, infiltrating Hollywood, infiltrating the media, They've been pretty successful.
Read it. It exists.
It's not conspiracy.
It's real. Read that list.
Look at what's happening right now.
Wake up, you know, and learn what's going on.
Don't listen to other people.
You can go find the source material for all of this.
So let's talk a little bit about the qualified immunity aspect that has police in particular troubled.
Can you help people to understand what that is and what it means?
Right. So qualified immunity is basically when an officer is acting in good faith on behalf of the state.
They can't be sued by an individual and be dragged in court.
It's a level of protection because if officers didn't have this, obviously, you would have frivolous lawsuits jamming up the system to a point where it would just come to a halt.
We already have a problem with this in the medical field, you know, malpractice suit and everything else.
It's not plausible.
And I've been hearing a lot of people hark on this, let's take away qualified immunity.
Now, there are examples out there you can find where qualified immunity has been unjustly used as a protection cases, and there's times where it's been used absurdly to protect officers that were clearly in the wrong.
But this isn't a problem, A, with qualified immunity, and that's not a problem with the police.
That is a problem with the judges that made those decisions that were sitting on the bench and decided to invoke qualified immunity in cases where it should have never been applied.
And that's a problem that needs to be addressed on the judicial level.
But to go after the officers or to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say we need to take away qualified immunity...
That's insane. You do that, and you completely hobble law enforcement to where they cannot do their job.
It'll be impossible. Well, they'll end up like the British police, where they'll be kicking in the doors of people making mean tweets on Twitter, rather than dealing with the actual knife-wielding criminals, because, you know, when cops are no longer able to do their job with violent criminals, I mean, they still got to do their job, so they'll just...
Try and find the nicest people who've mildly deviated from the law and deal with them knowing that, you know, the little old lady in London who's complaining about immigration is not likely to, you know, pop one off into the cops butt with a weapon.
So unfortunately, then the police even lose more reputation because they're perceived to be bullies now just picking on the more compliant.
But of course, if they're not allowed to deal with the more violent or they're punished for dealing with the more violent, of course, they're going to gravitate towards less confrontational situations.
The UK is having so many problems.
It's crazy.
Actually, a friend of mine is a police officer in London.
He's part of their police force.
It's backwards and upside down out there.
You've got police knocking on your door for social media posts.
You've got cameras everywhere.
London has become Orwell's version of 1984.
It's very creepy.
You know, they have become that.
Maybe they all need to crack that book open and take some notes, but I can't believe how the UK has the routes they've decided to go.
Not only that, but you've got example after example where officers, because your regular officer doesn't even have a weapon, they've got to call in an officer with a weapon.
And so when something happens...
Or a terrorist attack or whatever, you've got those officers, they're running away with the citizens because they can't do anything.
And that famous case where the soldier was decapitated in broad daylight, I believe it was about 30 minutes approximately it took for an armed response.
30 minutes. And they were just lucky that those terrorists didn't have plans to run around and just go on a killing spree.
They just sat around and waited for the armed officer to show up, which is...
Unusual and unheard of.
But had it been the other way, here's an example where they couldn't even respond and take care of it.
There's a case a few years back, probably five years so now, two female officers were killed when they responded to a domestic violence call.
The guy had an AK-47 and hand grenades.
It was brought into the country from Eastern Europe, from the Slavic, you know, conflict regions.
You know, I don't even know cases here where cops have been attacked with hand grenades, and these two female officers were unarmed, and they were attacked with an automatic weapon and hand grenades in England, where, you know, that stuff supposedly doesn't exist, right?
So, yeah, they've got a big mess over there, and I don't know what they're going to do to solve it, but...
It's a terrible situation in Glasgow where somebody apparently from one of the migrant homes attacked people and...
Oh, it's terrible. And it was just a couple of days ago, the three gay guys in England, white guys, were...
I haven't heard about it.
Yeah, I mean, I think it's all by destabilizing design.
So I guess, I mean, let me just ask you this last question.
Well, I guess a comment and a question.
I'm torn. I'm torn about this stuff really fundamentally because part of me, I have the Old Testament stuff and the New Testament stuff.
The New Testament stuff is continue to fight for people and try and get people to understand and stand between the victims and the criminals and try and work with it all.
And another part of me is like, yeah, back down.
Let it burn, man. Because there's just no way that people are going to learn any other way.
And I'm really torn between these two perspectives.
Maybe there's another one that I'm not aware of.
I mean, I'm with you.
I totally get where you're coming from.
I guess the hard part is when you sit back, you have to realize there is a lot of innocent, good people out there in the community that are suffering from this.
But I guess that, you know, this is a good point to say, hey, everyone out there, Look, the lines are drawn.
It's time to step up and speak out.
I hope it's the silent majority that gets thrown around, but it's time to not be silent anymore.
Everyone that says, I'm scared, I'm scared to speak up, I'm afraid to lose my job, I'm afraid of being ostracized or attacked or singled out or called a rape, whatever, you've got to speak up.
Living on your knees is no way to live.
Every time this stuff continues to happen and people don't speak up, you're doing nothing but grow more power and grow more powerful by the day.
This Brooks case has me just bewildered.
I'm a fan of Joe Rogan, for example.
I like Joe. I watch his show.
I like him because he's He's pretty level-headed most of the time.
And I was watching him when he had Weinstein on.
But to my shock, he brought up the Brooks case and my jaw hit the ground because here he is.
He goes, oh, he didn't do anything.
He just happened to be drunk.
And I was just like, what?
Well, Joe Rogan was also saying that after watching all of the riots that occurred after...
George Floyd, Joe Rogan, was saying, it's all white people.
He saw maybe out of hours and hours of footage, he saw maybe two black people.
It was all empty-headed, stupid white kids out there trying to grab sneakers for free.
Well, I don't know. I mean, the guy's taken a $100 million deal with Spotify, which has ties to Tencent, which has ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
You know, you don't get that kind of coin for remaining neutral.
And I don't think that he's exactly on the right side.
Yeah, I don't know. I was just shocked.
Not to attack Joe, but I was just sitting there going, Joe, what are you talking about?
You don't just happen to become intoxicated and commit DUI and violate your parole and then attack the officers.
He was repeating this narrative as if...
It was the officers that were at fault here.
And I don't understand this theme now where all of a sudden people aren't being held...
All of a sudden there's no accountability, right?
It's the officer's fault for responding to this behavior.
It's not the person's fault who is making conscious decisions to break the law and put the community at risk.
I mean, do we really need to get into the numbers of how many people are killed by DUI? I mean, that's probably one of the most reckless, selfish things you can do, right?
Yeah. No, people occasionally on my show, when they call in about their childhood and they talk about their mom or dad driving them around drunk, I have these regular just rips on people because it is like going blindfolded and shooting in a mall.
Maybe you don't hit someone, but it's only by blind chance.
My wife was hit by a drunk driver.
A guy went in the wrong lane, hit her head on.
She's lucky to be alive.
Yeah. Yeah. No, I think Joe's kind of compromised.
I think Joe's kind of lost. I think he fought a good fight for a long time.
But for whatever pressures he's got under, I think he surrendered to a very leftist narrative.
I mean, the guy basically endorsed a communist for president.
I mean, this is not somebody who's got the interests of freedom at heart.
And whatever undertow has got Joe has definitely pulled him under.
And I think he's definitely lost to the opposition.
But... I guess time will tell on that one.
Well, I mean, to Weinstein's credit, like, I don't follow him a lot, but to Weinstein's credit, I was actually shocked when he, because they brought up the Floyd case, and surprisingly, Weinstein said, my concern is that we are going to become a nation where people become sacrificial lambs and be charged and prosecuted, not because of That's where the facts led, but to appease a mob.
And he said everyone thinks they know what they saw, and they think they saw murder, but maybe it wasn't murder.
Maybe it's much more complicated than it was.
And then he proceeded to get into a lot of the points that you and I had discussed earlier when we covered the Floyd case.
And I was actually surprised and shocked by that and said, wow.
This is a very fair analysis he's bringing out.
I have to give him credit on that, but not a lot of people are bringing that up.
Yeah, I don't agree with him.
There's a few things I don't agree with him on.
He's a likable guy, and yeah, I don't see an eye on him on quite a few things, but on this one, I was like, wow, okay.
Credit where credit's due.
Alright, well listen, thanks for your chat today.
I just also wanted to point out that if officers are obeying the law, Then you can't put them in jail.
We don't want a system where the law is meaningless in the face of the mob.
The whole legal system that it took thousands of years to develop in the West was precisely because the mob is violent, virulent, unjust, and brain-dead.
I mean, it's like World War Z. Everyone just coming at you face to face to face.
And the founding fathers knew that, right?
Right?
I mean, they knew democracy was mob rule and we needed a republic to combat it.
Yeah.
So if you don't like the rules that the offices operate under, which I can understand, I'm sure a lot of offices have problems with those rules as well, then work peacefully and legally to get them changed.
But you don't just sit there and say, well, you know, the neck restraint that was used by Chauvin on George Floyd, I don't like it, therefore he should be charged with murder.
It's like, no, that was a legally allowed restraint mechanism that was highly recommended for excited delirium.
And in fact, it was approved by a black police chief for one.
Yeah, and there's going to be problems.
You go into court, a good defense attorney is going to say, so my client is being charged with murder when he used a restraint that was taught to him by his department, and it's in the literature under a title of being non-deadly.
Do you see a conflict there?
So yeah, it's going to be problematic.
The defense that says, well...
How can a taser be classified as a deadly weapon by the same person one week and then an innocuous water pistol the next week?
By the time all this stuff rolls around, the mob outrage is like the cities have already burned.
By the time the facts all come out, the damage is done.
Right, right. Well, yeah, as the saying goes, what is it?
By the time the truth gets its shoes on, the lies have already traveled around the world multiple times.
Okay. But before I go, I'm glad you brought up that because Paul Howard, the DA, wow, I can't believe an hour went by already.
That was fast.
We didn't even get to it, but just a quick note, people need to look into the DA, you know.
Paul Howard, he's under investigation by the Georgia Bureau for allegedly defrauding $140,000 of taxpayer money to supplement his salary through a non-profit.
He's pending investigation for sexual harassment complaints.
So the guy has a shady past, and apparently he was using this Atlanta shooting incident to promote his campaign because he's up for re-election.
So, you know...
Well, you know, the swamp as well, I mean, not that he's necessarily an integral part of the swamp, but just in general, Trump's goal of draining the swamp, the swamp is not going to fight back directly.
The swamp is going to fight back by provoking a lot of chaos in society, which disrupts and diverts resources that could otherwise be used to investigate them into trying to tamp down on all of the people who are defacing and pulling down statues.
So this kind of social chaos, when you get close to the lair Yeah, people need to fight back on this and start speaking up.
I mean, when the district attorney, when Paul went out there and created this complete...
Erroneous narrative about the officer kicking Brooks on the ground after he was shot and just...
It just blew my mind.
I mean, that in and of itself violates the very ethics of what a district attorney is supposed to do.
Their job, part of their job, is to not create a bias in society when it comes to cases like that.
They're not supposed to be talking that way.
So the system's inherently broken and, you know...
Maybe it'll burn regardless of what we do.
We'll build something better. All right. Well, thanks, Nick.
I really, really appreciate the conversation today.
You can see it's at dialn911.
That's your Twitter handle. Oh, yeah. So people who are interested, they can find me at dialn911.
I'm in the process of probably starting a channel up here.
So if you want, you can find me on YouTube.
Just look for my name.
There's not any content uploaded as of yet, but you can subscribe.
So you can look there if you want to hear more from me in the future.
All right.
Thanks, man.
Appreciate the call.
Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest free domain show on philosophy.
And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
To help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
So thank you so much for your support, my friends.
▲
Export Selection