Democrats Have Just Bent The Knee To A Fringe Leftist Ideology As Progressives Vow To Abolish Police
Congressional Democratic leaders bent the knee for just about 9 minutes in a moment of silence at Capitol HillWhile we can all agree on justice for all and equality under the law what we are seeing is anything but that. Democrats at the highest levels are now granting immunity to ideological activists in New York City and in Minneapolis they have vowed to completely disband the police outright.Journalists are bending as well in support of a rapidly expanding fringe ideology called intersectionality or intersection feminism.Seeing Democrats finally bend the knee should symbolize that the fringe world view has pressed into the mainstream and it is only a matter of time before it completely takes over.#Democrats#Trump#Republicans
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Earlier this morning, congressional Democratic leaders got on one knee for about nine minutes for a moment of silence honoring George Floyd.
Now, most of us can agree that George Floyd should not have lost his life.
I think basically everybody wants to see justice.
But what we're seeing from Democrats isn't just some moment of silence.
It's actually a bit more worrisome than this.
Over the past decade there's been a rising fringe ideology that's becoming more and more mainstream and it's called intersectionality.
Some people have referred to this as a non-theistic religion.
I've actually got a video I want to show you of people in a park raising their hands in what appears to be a sermon or worship and they're chanting along to a speaker much like you would see in church.
Now some might say it's simply about being anti-racist or things like that, but no, this is actually changing the shape of how our government is functioning and how our society is functioning.
Right now, some of the most ardent proponents of this ideology have literally called for completely disbanding the police department in Minneapolis, a dramatic and radical transformation which many people in this country, most people, don't want.
90 plus percent of people don't want to see a reduction in the police force.
So who are these people and how are they gaining so much power that they can dramatically transform our institutions in this way?
Well, it's a spreading religion.
And as our mainstream and prominent institutions literally bend the knee to this group of people, don't be surprised when companies seemingly are forced to do the same thing.
Now many people may claim they actively support this.
I do not believe this is the case.
We have seen Trump's secret voters and we saw the shock of Donald Trump winning.
One of the reasons is that this freaks people out.
But it's not just about dismantling or defunding or abolishing the police.
We are seeing our long-standing institutions Fall prey to this fringe ideology which, dare I say, unfortunately is leaving the fringe and is now pretty mainstream considering congressional democratic leaders are bending the knee in much the same way many of the leaders of this ideology have proposed.
There's a few specific instances I want to highlight.
The Sierra Club, once a champion of the environment and, to a certain degree, animal rights, now saying racism is worse.
We also have an organization called the Free Press, which has since advocated for overt censorship.
How does that even make sense with their name?
Why?
Because racism is worse.
And we can see it come to a dangerous fruition with the COVID pandemic.
You see, for the longest time we were told explicitly we couldn't go out.
You can't actually go to church because they're only operating at a small percentage capacity in many states.
However...
The New York DA has explicitly said, if you are protesting for Black Lives Matter, they will not charge you.
Think about what that means.
This ideology is now in our government and directing how they prosecute people who are violating executive orders, yet other people who might want to go to church, you can't do it.
We are seeing people straight up say on CNN today that the only that the white people or people who would like to call the police if they're in trouble, well that's coming from a place of privilege and therefore you must give up your police department.
We are talking about politicians at the highest level adhering to a fringe ideology.
So I want to break this down for you and talk about exactly what they're doing.
Unfortunately, you know, when I talk to a lot of my friends, they don't know anything about what's going on.
Hopefully, I can show you some strange contradictions which may make you think twice about what's really happening and why the Democrats fell to one knee today.
Quite literally, bending the knee.
A little strange, huh?
Before we get started, head over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give.
There's a P.O.
box if you'd like to send things.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
Like I mentioned, I talk to a lot of my friends and I ask them if they know about any of these dramatic and radical changes and they don't.
And then when I talk to them about what they think is happening, to them they think it's simply like we're going to pass a law and say, hey, you can't do this or that.
Most people don't even know that right now in Minneapolis, a veto-proof majority has announced they will disband the entire police department.
Please, I am not exaggerating when I say this.
Minneapolis City Council President defends plan to dismantle police on CNN, expecting their help comes from privileged Wait till I break this down for you.
Or how about this video clip of a group of people raising their hands in what looks like a religious ceremony, chanting along with their leader.
I grew up Catholic.
This is exactly what I've seen in religious institutions.
I am not a religious person and I do not agree with this kind of group mind think.
I am much more about civil libertarianism and the freedom of the individual.
Now you can agree with this or any other religion.
That's not the point.
The point is most people haven't seen this coming and they don't understand it.
So, if you'd like to support my work and help people better understand this, please consider sharing this video because I can't compete with the mainstream institutions, well, that are now actively supporting this, in a manner of speaking.
Now, if you just want to watch, then you can hit the like button, subscribe, notification bell, hopefully that's enough, and YouTube will recommend my videos, but let's read this story from the hill.
Pelosi and Schumer kneel in silence for almost nine minutes to honor George Floyd.
They say a senior Democratic lawmakers, including Pelosi and Charles Schumer, knelt during a moment of silence shortly before unveiling a legislative package of police reforms Monday.
About two dozen lawmakers knelt for eight minutes and 46 seconds as a tribute to George Floyd, the unarmed African-American man who died in Minneapolis.
Many of you, I'm sure you know the story.
Lawmakers wearing African kente cloth scarves knelt in the Capitol Visitor Center before holding a press conference to unveil their legislation in response to almost two weeks of nationwide protests over police brutality toward African Americans.
We are here to honor George Floyd.
After almost nine minutes, Pelosi and the other lawmakers stood back up, though the speaker needed the help of an aide due to her tall stilettos.
All right.
You see how long it was to have that knee on his neck?
Senior Democrats, Senate Democrats, held a similar moment of silence last week.
To every one of us, it was excruciating.
It seemed an unbearably long amount of time.
It felt so painful to get even an inkling of how this man and so many black Americans have suffered for so long.
Democrats' sweeping legislative package includes several proposals from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including a ban on the use of chokeholds in establishing a national database to track police misconduct.
Now, first and foremost, man, I have no problem with a moment of silence.
I have no problem with, you know, people calling for justice.
And I 100% support the protests, not the riots, not the looting.
I think Americans have a right to protest.
I think whether we're in lockdown or otherwise, Americans have a right to protest.
In New York City, the mayor, Bill de Blasio, announced people weren't allowed to protest.
I spoke up strongly against this.
We have a First Amendment right.
He announced this in response to LGBTQ activists who had been protesting, so certainly it's not a partisan issue for me.
When the anti-lockdown protesters came out, I supported them as well, and I support Black Lives Matter protests right now.
However, what most people I see don't seem to understand is that there is an underlying non-theistic religion or fringe ideology that's starting to bubble up to the surface and dramatically alter our government in a very, very dangerous and negative way.
The simple way to explain this is that, let's look at the data, let's look at the hard facts.
COVID-19, for example.
Well, we have this story from the Portland Tribune, and there are many other stories just like this.
Racism is a pandemic worse than COVID-19.
In fact, we recently saw a statement from a thousand doctors, a letter signed saying that they would not condemn Black Lives Matter, but that this shouldn't be construed as giving permission to anti-lockdown protesters.
We have seen people—nurses, medical professionals—block the vehicles of protesters expressing their First Amendment right, but then come out for this side and clap.
And we're still in New York.
The DA has said they will not prosecute protesters who are out for Black Lives Matter.
Meanwhile, churches are operating at a limited capacity, and people are facing fines for challenging this.
This is an obvious and overt ideology providing inequality under the law.
We can't have this.
We can't have people say straight up the pandemic is going to kill people, but you're allowed to to sit in a park with your hands up, not social distancing and not wearing masks.
It seems to make no sense.
The contradiction is obvious on CNN, where they condemn the president over violating CDC guidelines and then praise the protests.
This is because they are adhering to a fringe ideology.
Now, again, most people don't know anything about this.
They don't know what it means.
They don't know why it's happening.
All they know is they see other people doing it.
They see all these companies doing it.
So they stand in the park and mindlessly hold their hands up like everyone else without thinking twice.
Let me show you where the contradictions start to negatively impact important leftist or liberal institutions.
This is the Sierra Club, mind you, a very, very famous and long-standing environmental organization that published this story just today.
Racism is killing the planet.
The ideology of white supremacy leads the way toward disposable people and a disposable natural world.
What?
What are we talking about?
There are industrialists in India and China who are not white, who are pumping out more pollution than we are.
Our planet is facing serious danger over climate change, and now you are fighting white supremacy instead?
This is part of the ideology that demonizes something that is fringe and doesn't really exist.
White supremacists in this country, according to many metrics, notably the Anti-Defamation League, they make up only around 11,000 people.
So how is it that we are diverting our attention from the environment or the freedom of speech in the press of marginalized people in exchange for some kind of nebulous and vague white supremacy?
It's because, dare I say, intersectionality is moving out of the fringe.
And when our congressional democratic leaders bend that knee, symbolizing the same ideology as the people in all these other places, and so do our major institutions, including Chase Bank, Well, it stands to reason something that we have said for a long time would remain on college campuses is now here in the real world.
Now, to be fair, it was mainstream personalities at, say, like the New York Times or at Vox.
Matthew Iglesias, for example, recently admitted this fringe, non-theistic religion isn't remaining on college campuses.
A New York Times opinion editor recently resigned because they published an op-ed that some people found morally detestable or lacking moral clarity.
The New York Times frequently publishes opinion from offensive people or from people they shouldn't, notably the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Where were all of these woke people to complain about it?
No.
The reason they opposed the publishing of this at the paper of record, the Grey Lady.
That's the New York Times, baby.
The reason they opposed this was because it challenged their ideology.
That's the problem of ideology.
Now look, when it comes to Christianity, I have my concerns and complaints over policies.
I grew up fighting this stuff.
But we have a separation of church and state we can lean back on that allows us to actually challenge religious practice entering government.
And it's worked.
However, ideology has no such boundary, and I don't even know how you would actually challenge this in government.
But it's here, notably with the disbanding of police.
Minneapolis City Council wants to completely Disband the police.
Ocasio-Cortez has called for the NYPD to be defunded.
Now, some people are trying to walk this back and say defunding simply means reform, but when DeRay McKesson, a prominent Black Lives Matter activist, said, here are some reforms we can implement, he was actually attacked for it.
So listen, I can tell you these people are a bit dejected and it's hard to know which ideology will mostly come out on top.
But I'm telling you this, when we see them actually announce they will vote to disband the police, well I think we know where this is heading.
Joe Biden has recently issued a statement saying he is not for this.
I don't think that matters because I don't think Joe Biden can win anything, and the Democratic Party has now bent the knee to this ideology.
Of course, of course, what the Democratic leadership is proposing is reform.
But they are the old guard, and the young people like Ocasio-Cortez have substantially different opinions.
The city council, the younger generation, are adherents to this new ideology where they sit in a park and they chant together with their hands up.
I take you now to what may be the most shocking thing I've seen.
How can you call your organization Free Press when you actively support banning institutions you don't like?
Media institutions.
Well, that doesn't make sense.
The Free Press specifically was... I mean, the phrase literally means...
Regardless of your ideology, you have a right to speak.
But the free press, a non-profit organization, people I know who work here, have abandoned the policy of defending the right of individuals to speak and opposing censorship in favor of overt censorship.
This is the danger of the ideology.
Now let me bring it to you how it manifests.
This woman on CNN said to Alison Camerota, Camerota of CNN asked, who am I supposed to call in the middle of the night if my house is being broken into?
Instead of getting a real answer, this woman just said, you need to realize there are some people who can't do that anyway.
So what does that have to do with anything?
Right now, people in this country can call the police if they're in danger.
In fact, I once called the police because someone tried breaking into my house in the wee hours of the morning, around 3am, and this happened only a year ago.
So I called the police, they came, and they made sure everything was taken care of, nobody got hurt, nobody got arrested, everybody was safe.
They came back, the guy came back, I called the police, the police came back, everybody was better off for it.
What would have happened if this person actually got into my house and I was forced to defend myself?
Because I don't know who this person is or why they're on my property.
That would have been a lot worse.
They're absolutely important reasons to have the police.
But how does it make sense that I would give up my safety and security simply because other people don't have it?
No, in fact, the appropriate response would be, how can we grant safety and security to those who don't have it?
Instead, the ideology doesn't actually seek to benefit people.
It seeks simply to create radical change and to spread its ideology.
I don't think anything they propose actually makes sense.
We see these people out in the street throwing things at cops.
Why?
What is that going to get them?
Nothing!
Because their goal is simply to spread the ideology and get more adherence.
That's why they often have nonsensical policy positions.
And that's why Barack Obama referred to them as people engaging in a circular firing squad.
They target their own more often than not.
Now it could be that they target their own because they're trying to force the ideology onto others.
But it's spreading.
It's mainstream.
I've seen my own family members post what may as well come from white supremacists themselves, yelling for white people to get active and do certain things, and I'm like, I don't see how it's different.
I mean, obviously, they have a different view of positive and negative, but they propose the same things.
Racial pretext for law.
I don't think we can function that way, because then we don't have equality under the law.
And right now, we don't.
That's where things are getting really, really scary.
Take a look at this story from Mediaite.
They say, Allison Camerota spoke to Lisa Bender and asked her what she is trying to accomplish with the move to abolish the police.
This comes days after Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey was booed for his opposition to abolishing the police.
Now, they say in the story, defunding, but Mediaite is in favor of these people.
Jacob Frey said, I am not in favor of the total abolition of the police and they booed him and told him to leave.
Camerota said, What if in the middle of the night my home is broken into?
Who do I call?
Lisa Bender replied, Yes, I mean I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and myself too.
And I know that comes from a place of privilege.
Because for those of us for whom the system isn't working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in a reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done.
The interview continued with Bender defending the logistics of the move, and taking questions about whether the city council gave President Donald Trump and other critics a political weapon with the push.
And absolutely they did.
CNN writes, is defund the police a massive political mistake?
Let me just tell you.
The fact that CNN can't come out and straight up say it is a massive political mistake should show you that these people are wrapped up in whatever this ideology is.
They've often said, many of these journalists, their justification for being ideological and not being objective is that sometimes the truth is more important than playing both sides.
That's a good point.
But the truth is not this.
Defunding the police is massively unpopular, as I covered yesterday.
Most people in this country want to maintain the current level of police, but they want police reforms, and I think that's fine.
The muddying is happening now.
If Democrats came out and supported proposals to reform the police, I'd say, that I understand.
You're always going to have your radical sect.
But the fact that they would drop to one knee wearing a kente cloth says a whole lot more.
Because that is the major push towards leftist identitarianism.
The idea of racial pretext in government.
That's what we are seeing because Black Lives Matter is an identitarian movement.
I'm not a fan of this, and now that it's entering government and influencing politics, you can expect to see really weird things happen.
And it's happening across the board, not just here, but in many other issues.
I'm going to leave those for other segments because I want to keep this one focused.
But we can see this manifesting in dangerous ways, and potentially it may turn out to, I don't know, help Donald Trump.
The way Fox News framed it, countering media-ite, is that top Minneapolis politician Duck's question on how dismantled police push would affect crime victims and cites privilege.
It's only going to get worse.
But the Minneapolis Police Department is straight up saying there will be no police.
From local progress, they say, Today, Minneapolis City Council members formally announced their commitment to end the MPD and create a new transformative model of public safety.
Here is their statement.
Decades of police reform efforts have proved the Minneapolis Police Department cannot be reformed and will never be accountable for its action.
We are here today to begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department and creating a new transformative model for cultivating safety in our city.
We recognize that we don't have all the answers about what a police-free future looks like, but our community does.
We are committing to engaging with every willing community member in the city of Minneapolis over the next year to identify what safety looks like for everyone.
We'll be taking intermediate steps towards ending the MPD through the budget process and other policy and budget decisions over the coming weeks and months.
I can't tell you what the future's gonna look like.
But I do think, based on history, we can expect absolute absurdity.
I talked about this briefly in my earlier segment.
For those listening, you'll hear about it in a second.
It's called the Murray Hill Riots.
It was in Montreal.
When police went on strike for 17 hours, the city fell into chaos.
Banks were robbed, buildings were burnt to the ground, and I know a lot of people don't want to believe it, but this is what you can expect to happen.
Right now, I do still think there is a distinction between those who are calling for, you know, those who are protesting, and those who are more extremist in their ideology.
But to me, ultimately, all of it is a part of the exact same ideology.
One that opposes liberalism, liberty, civil libertarianism, and supports authoritarianism.
The idea that they can go around enforcing their ideology, and that's it.
Let me just make it very, very clear for you.
In New York City, they will not prosecute you if you adhere to this ideology, the Black Lives Matter Identitarian Movement.
I have no problem if you want to agree with that and you want to protest for it.
That's fine.
What I do have a problem with is the unequal application of the law.
Rules for thee, but not for me, but more dangerously, leftist ideology straight up being granted immunity to violate the lockdowns during COVID.
Now that should be shocking to you.
100,000 plus people have lost their lives.
We are currently seeing data show that COVID is spiking amid these protests.
Yep.
You know, we all asked it with the protests running rampant and the thousands and thousands of people in the streets.
We asked, will we now see stories talking about the spike?
And yes, we are.
Everywhere.
Even in Florida.
Florida didn't lock down.
They were doing great.
Now they're seeing a spike as well.
California is seeing a spike.
Following all of these massive protests.
And it makes sense.
Will it mean the end of the world?
I don't know.
But how can we live in a society where the governors of states like New York and Michigan will tell you to- and New Jersey, man, New Jersey.
They'll tell you to your face, you cannot go outside, you cannot run your business, and then they will personally go out and march for an ideology.
Do you realize where this goes?
If this continues, if the mainstream, top-level, national Democrats are bending their knee to this, in the same protest, okay?
Like, again, I don't care if you want to believe whatever you want to believe.
This is a country that has a freedom of religion.
What's concerning is the disproportionate application of the law.
That means we will come to a point where the lock is gonna... Look, we're already here in New York.
It's happening.
If you don't agree, you're out.
You will go to jail if you come out and protest.
The scary thing here is that when we called out the bias on social media, the left screamed, but I'm a private company.
There's no excuse for what's happening now.
And I'm concerned it's not going to change because many people in our own government are now bending the knee for this.
In Michigan, the courts have sided against the Democratic governors.
But as this non-theistic religion grows, you will begin to see more and more fanatics in the street.
And when you do, and the violence ensues like we saw in the past week, what's to come is even worse.
You will then see police.
Simply trump up charges against somebody because they're worried about the mob.
It happened in Vancouver.
An independent journalist named Dan Dix was being screeched at by these activists.
He had broken no laws.
But the police arrested him!
He was the victim!
He was the one being screeched at and yelled at as people swarmed him.
He was the one who needed saving.
But it's easier to arrest the victim to stop the mob.
Now that's Canada.
It'll happen here eventually.
They said that he was disturbing the peace or some nonsense.
They will make up charges.
It is happening.
I don't think there's a way to stop it.
I really don't.
The fringe ideology has been bubbling over the past decade.
And now it's to the point where it's in our government at the highest level.
They say the same thing about Trump.
They say that Trump wants to make America white again or whatever.
I think that should be telling.
Donald Trump is rather moderate.
And right now, many Trump supporters are... I believe I might have the story here.
No, let me... Many Trump supporters are donating to Ocasio-Cortez's primary opponent.
Why would that be?
It's been argued that Trump wants to use AOC's absurdity to win, to make the Democrats look crazy.
So why would top Trump donors donate to AOC's opponent, Michelle Caruso Cabrera?
It's because Caruso Cabrera isn't calling for dismantling police and some kind of radical ideological change.
It's because Donald Trump represents a moderate, normal America, and that's why 10 million or so Obama voters voted for him.
And that's why now, Republicans are donating to Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, a Democrat who happens to be a moderate, because there is more overlap with regular America and these Democrats than there are with what we're seeing at the national level.
Unfortunately for someone like Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, she has advocated against AOC's refusal to support Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi just bent the knee.
That means I don't think there's going to be a Democrat who's going to win, who's going to reject the rise of this non-theistic religion.
Our worst case scenario Overt civil war of some sort.
I don't know.
Because we've already seen all this writing.
We saw the other day a man shoot a protester in Seattle.
We've seen now 15 plus dead.
Many, many injuries.
I think one of the scenarios we're facing is just a rise of the moralistic authoritarian left adhering to an ideology that may last a few decades or a generation or so.
I don't know for sure.
I guess all we can hope for is that the old school liberals, like the Jon Stewart types, who are civil libertarians, people like Bill Maher actually.
Now Bill Maher's got Trump derangement syndrome, but still, people like him.
I hope that they return and gain their power, but it seems like they're losing.
It's funny.
There's a study called Hidden Tribes More in Common Report.
They have a quiz.
The quiz classifies you on a scale where you're a progressive activist, a traditional liberal, a passive liberal, politically not aligned, you can be moderate, traditionally conservative, or super conservative, like hyper conservative or whatever.
I'm a traditional liberal according to this quiz, meaning I'm just to the right of progressive activists.
They would call me a conservative.
That's just absolutely not true.
The problem is, civil libertarian liberal types, social liberals, the old school liberals, are so far to the right of where the current left is, and because we reject their ideology, that's what we are to them now.
If you don't agree with their new religion, you must be a conservative.
I fear what will happen if that becomes the norm.
But I guess we'll see.
It's happening.
and the Democrats just bent the knee. I'll see you on the next segment coming up at 6pm
at youtube.com slash Tim cast news, my second channel.
Thanks for hanging out. I'll see you there. Last night at a protest in Seattle, a car was seen
driving towards an intersection where there was a protest, a large gathering of Black Lives
Matter protesters. Somebody runs up to the car and punches the driver. The driver pulls out a gun and
shoots the man in the arm before exiting the vehicle. Moving around the vehicle, medics run in,
chaotic scene.
The driver eventually moves to the crowd and then surrenders to the police.
It's an unfortunate and dramatic escalation, and we're already seeing people trying to decide who was right and who was wrong.
I think the fair assessment is, you know, to be honest, it looks like both sides are going to claim justification.
Now, whether or not I can say who is or isn't, I don't have the moral authority to do so.
But in this video, we see a guy who's driving not particularly fast, but he is headed towards an intersection with a lot of protesters.
Naturally, they're all on edge because of what's happened in the past, if you know what I mean.
Some dude runs up and punches him.
Now look at it from the driver's perspective.
He might not even known where he was going or what was going on with people in the street.
So he starts slowing down, someone runs up to him, punches him in the face.
Next thing he knows, people are storming his car.
He pulls his weapon in self-defense.
He turned himself into the police.
I don't know what's going to happen.
I'm not going to pretend to be the arbiter of truth and moral authority.
I'm going to read you the story, but I will tell you things are getting...
Things are getting scary out there, man.
And I'll tell you, I was thinking about what's been going on, and I gotta be honest, I don't really think there are two factions.
I mean, there are, but you have a revolutionary authoritarian faction, and then you have traditional American civil libertarian types.
The people who are speaking out against the rioting and the revolution are just mostly You know, mostly reformer-type Americans.
They want to see things fixed.
They don't want to see a dramatic revolution.
That's probably most people.
I mean, you look at all the calls to abolish police.
Most people do not want to do that.
Like, I'm talking like, you know, it's like 90-something percent.
So who are these people who are fanatically, you know, jumping up and down in the streets demanding defunding or abolishment of police?
Radical extremists, I guess.
Now, look, the whole conflict, I'm not going to pretend like... I don't know.
It's tough.
But I want to show you this.
I want to read you the story, but I want to show you two quick things to make my point.
This is, apparently, this has been going around, submitted a day ago on Reddit, a Black Power take on the Gadsden flag, and it is the Revolution Fist strangling the snake.
This, this, this flag is shocking, because the Gadsden flag is a symbol of opposing tyranny.
It's mostly about being left alone.
Uh, the flag represented the rattlesnake, or, you know, I believe.
That was basically like, stay away from me, mind your own business, let me do my thing, otherwise I'm gonna bite you, right?
This is them crushing a snake seeking to mind its own business.
In fact, in this Reddit thread they said, quote, when you accidentally take the side of the boot.
I don't believe it is an accident.
Take a look at this story.
Nine-member majority of Minneapolis City Council announced support for dismantling Minneapolis Police Department.
They say this is a veto-proof majority.
So when it comes time to vote, it would seem they're going to vote to completely disband the police department.
I wonder why they would want to do that.
Before we get into this stuff, let's just read this story and see what's going on, so you can get an understanding of the actual breaking news.
The Washington Post reports, and admittedly, I did read through a ton of these stories, and I think the Washington Post does a better job than a lot of outlets, but we'll break this down.
A chaotic scene unfolded Sunday night in Seattle when an armed driver barreled toward a crowd of protesters, shooting one person who apparently tried to stop him, before ultimately surrendering to police, according to authorities and video footage of the incident.
The violence interrupted a peaceful protest in the name of George Floyd near the Seattle Police Department's East Precinct just before 8.30 p.m.
Sunday.
Video shows protesters appearing to chase after a black Honda Civic as it sped down the street towards a larger crowd, slowing just as it crashed into a metal barrier near an intersection.
Not really.
That's a little exaggerated.
One protester caught up to the vehicle.
The man appeared to try and reach inside the driver's side window when a shot rang out.
According to the New York Times, the man admitted to punching him in the face.
In fact, there's video of him being interviewed where he straight up says, I punched him in the face.
Now I'm seeing a lot of people say the driver was justified.
He was driving down the street.
You can't assume he knew what was going on.
Somebody runs up and punches him in the face.
So he draws his weapon and defends himself.
Other people have noticed that it looks like he's got an extended mag and another clip taped to the clip.
So I don't know enough about guns to comment, but people are saying it looked like he was prepared.
You're drawing a lot of conclusions on intent.
There's a lot of stupid and legitimate reasons someone might have something like that.
I certainly think it's not a good thing, and I would lean towards something fishy about it, but let's read this.
The protester jolted backward, falling onto the pavement.
Bystanders and medics rushed to his aid.
The suspect, who has not been identified by police, then exited the vehicle as the people who had just
surrounded his car fled in all directions.
He's got a gun, people screamed.
Now I'm going to tell you what.
When the shot rang out, you had dozens of people surrounding his vehicle,
and they all broke and backed off immediately.
I'm sorry, man, but I mean, a jury might view that as justified.
It's not just about him being punched in the face.
It's about the fact that a swarm of protesters were rushing towards his car.
He got attacked.
They were going towards his car.
And so he reacted.
I think you could easily convince a jury that, you know, he didn't kill the guy, he shot him in the arm, he was panicking, he didn't know what was going on, he didn't know where he was.
I think he can easily get off on any kind of charges.
Maybe get some kind of lighter charge pertaining to, you know, negligence or something, but I don't know.
I gotta admit, you're gonna see the lefty ideologues claim this guy was, you know, gunning for a fight, he was premeditated, all of this crazy stuff.
That's propaganda.
We do not know anything.
They say the man ran through the crowd towards the police line.
Once he emerged from the crowd, he walked toward the police with his hands in the air.
He walked nearly all the way up to the police line before officers took him away.
I got a photo.
I'm going to show you a photo.
I got to be careful about showing the video because this is YouTube, unfortunately.
Seattle police said the unidentified suspect is in custody and that a gun was recovered from the scene.
The SFD, the Seattle Fire Department, the SFD, said the 27-year-old victim was transported to the hospital and is in stable condition.
Video footage showed the victim walking down the street with medics while raising his fist in the air.
In one video by photojournalist Alex Garland, the victim identified as Daniel explained what
had happened. I see a car run down the street. I catch him.
I punch him in the face. I hear the gunshot go off in my arm and I move right in time. He said
my whole thing was to protect those people.
Protesters cheered for the man as he passed them in the street on his way to meet the paramedics.
Sunday marked the 10th consecutive day of protests in Seattle over police brutality,
and they've been continuing and there has been still some lower level rioting. I'm sorry, man.
Look.
There's a big difference between someone running up to a building and smashing a window and jumping and grabbing stuff and running out, just like randomly, and what's been going on with the protests, where they overlap with throwing rocks and bottles at people and smashing windows.
That's just rioting, and it's ideologically motivated.
So we did see your standard fare of far-leftists wearing all black, performing their live-action role-play game for the police, where there's no real outcome where they benefit.
This is what I always try to tell these Antifa leftists.
Or people who want to understand them.
Watch any of these videos.
You will see Antifa-associated individuals wearing all black, throwing things at cops.
Ask yourself, why are they doing it?
Well, the only real thing I could consider if we were trying to determine whether or not they actually had a plan is that they're trying to help Donald Trump.
And I mean this seriously.
Think about it.
If their goal was to, I don't know, defeat the police, well, they wouldn't do it that way.
I mean, you've got to deal with reform, you've got to deal with voting, and certainly if you want to defeat them by force, you wouldn't do it by throwing up with some water bottles.
Throwing them.
No, in the end, all that can really happen is, well, there is one potential, but I think for the most part, you will see videos of the protesters throwing rocks and fighting cops.
And already a morning consult poll shows us that Americans, a plurality, 45% believe the protesters are responsible for the violence.
Only 35% blame the police.
Now, those numbers are still awful.
Nobody should be blaming the police.
Nobody should be blaming protesters.
But violence is happening, so someone's going to blame them.
But more Americans believe that the protesters are at fault.
So this is an ideological defeat for these protesters.
Perhaps they know that maybe it's some kind of war of attrition.
Maybe they know that one radical ideologue who gets activated is better than losing ten liberals who won't do anything anyway.
And so they're trying to draw radicals, I guess, or indoctrinate people.
But in the end, ultimately, I think they're just helping Trump.
And whether intentionally or not, throwing stuff at cops is going to get people to say, you know, they want Trump.
Which brings me to the photo I would like to show you.
This is a photo from the scene.
You can see the man here getting out of his car.
I think, in a close-up shot, he looks Latino.
I'm not entirely sure, but he does look Latino.
He's got the wrenches on his sweater.
I don't think anyone's come up with what the symbols are, so maybe you guys know.
But it looks like it might be a reference to army mechanics or something like that.
You can see he's holding a gun and you can see it looks like he's got an extended clip with another clip taped to it.
This guy putting his hands up clearly looks like an anti-fascist type guy.
Here's the man on the ground being treated by medics and here's looks like another protester coming around the The car here.
Here's what I tweeted with this photo.
I think the media is running its 2016 playbook again.
I could be wrong, but I don't see how someone sees an image like this or the week-long riots and thinks, Joe Biden will keep us safe.
I don't think anyone would believe that.
Some people have said, I don't care for my president to keep me safe.
I vote, you know, blah, blah, blah.
And I'm like, nah, dude, people vote because they want to feel safe.
When Donald Trump came out and said that he wanted to use the military, 58% of registered voters agreed.
This is what's really strange about what we've been seeing with the polls.
You know, right now you can actually see here, Trump 41%, Biden 55%.
They're saying, wow, Biden's got a 14 point lead.
And I'm like, that's 2016 playbook, baby!
Accused Trump of all the worst things in the book while keep inundating the press with claims that Trump is going to lose.
It means nothing to me because of what happened in 2016.
And I'll tell you this.
When you look at Trump's overall approval rating, how it doesn't match, Trump's approval rating doesn't match with the national polls, something doesn't make sense.
This has been explained by some people, I believe it was FiveThirtyEight, that said, yeah maybe it was, or Nate Silver specifically, that, actually no, I can't remember where this is from.
They said this may show that Trump has silent voters who won't admit they will vote for him, but secretly will.
That's the point of the secret ballot.
So when asked, they all approve of the job he's doing.
But when they say, would you vote for him?
Oh, no.
Oh, not me.
I wouldn't do it.
And that skews the polling.
More importantly, I don't see how you can have people, registered voters, overwhelmingly agree with Trump on a ton of issues, yet all of a sudden national polling says they're not going to vote for him?
It's beyond just whether or not you support the president.
Now, when it comes to the economy, Trump wins, hands down.
And I think the economy is the most important factor.
I mean, the economy took a major hit.
People are still betting that Trump will fix the economy.
That's according to a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, which was favorable for Biden.
But it showed that when it came to the economy, the American people said Trump will do a better job.
What do you think people are going to vote for?
Do you think they're going to stand up on a soapbox and yell some kind of protest slogan?
Or do you think they're going to slink down and go, let me get some of that green, buddy?
I think they're gonna go for cash.
Trump's the guy who's gonna make your life better and get you the things you want.
Why would they vote for something else?
Take a look at this tweet.
Eddie Zipper tweeted this clip from CNN.
Camerota.
What if in the middle of the night my home is broken into?
Who do I call?
Bender.
Yes, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and myself too, and I know that comes from a place of privilege.
Minneapolis City Council vows to dismantle the police department.
You mean to tell me?
That the 70% or whatever of this country that is white is going to be like, that's a really good point about how we have the privilege to call the police.
I'm going to give that up because other people are scared.
Sorry, man.
I think people are first and foremost selfish.
And I'm not saying that to disrespect anybody or act like people are bad.
I'll just put it this way.
What is this saying on an airplane?
You gotta secure your own mask before securing the mask of those sitting next to you.
That is the mentality of human beings because it has allowed us to survive this long.
There are some people who would sacrifice themselves first and foremost to save others.
Some people would be the first one out of the burning building.
You don't know who you are, I guess, until you're in a burning building.
Everyone likes to think they would be virtuous and noble.
I'd be willing to bet 99% of people just run to the exit.
And then what happens in a lot of buildings, is they all run to the exit, and they get jammed in the... This actually happens.
Because people don't check for their exits in buildings, when a fire breaks out, they all cram into one, you know, door, and they get stuck.
Smashed.
Unable to move.
So, side advice.
If you're ever in a building, make sure you know where your exits are.
But anyway, the point is, This woman is saying she wants to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department.
They're calling for disbanding it outright.
The protesters want it to be abolished.
Abolished.
Gone.
No more police department.
Who do you call in the middle of the night?
Well, instead of addressing it, let me just say, that's privilege.
And she goes on to say there are some people who can't do that now.
My response is, sounds like we need reforms.
Think about it.
If you have this really great thing, where like, you can call them and they show up to help you, and there are other people who can't, why would the reaction be, let's take away the good thing from everybody, instead of give the good thing to everybody?
This seems to be the mentality of the far left.
Cut off the tall grass.
It's not, you know, whereas we want a rising tide to raise all ships, they want all ships scuttled and sunk and disheveled on the shoreline, unable to move.
That's what they're proposing.
The police are not all good.
They can't be.
It would be impossible, because we're humans.
But, when I had someone try to break into my house, I called the cops, and they showed up within minutes, and they kept us safe.
In fact, one of the cops was like, if it had been me, I'd have my shotgun, and I'm like, I hear you loud and clear, buddy.
I get it.
The cops know what's up.
They had to come back, actually.
And they did.
And they took a report, and they took care of things.
Nobody died.
Nobody got arrested.
They shooed the guy off.
I don't care.
Because I thought they... I defer to their expertise.
They were quick.
They were reasonable.
Good thing.
I've had good experiences and I've had a ton of bad experiences.
There was a video that was going viral the other day where it shows a woman flagged down a cop car.
She comes out of her car.
Her baby is unresponsive.
An officer jumps out and tries performing some life-saving techniques.
I don't know exactly what I'm assuming.
Maybe like CPR or something on the baby.
Nothing's working.
So this cop, a white man, takes the baby, who is a black woman's baby, a black baby, and he rushes it to the hospital to save its life.
It's an amazing story.
It has nothing to do with race.
But it's going viral because it's showing a cop saving someone's life, and I think because they want people to show their racial issues.
And the argument is, this is why you don't defund the police.
Because they will help you.
There are bad things that happen with cops.
A lot of bad things.
They're mostly in cities like New York.
New York's got serious problems, so let me tell you something.
Even in New York.
Actually, you know what?
In New York, you might find a bunch of crazy people.
But here's what I see happening.
These protesters represent a fringe.
Absolute fringe.
It's something like 16% according to Cato Institute's poll.
So not necessarily... I don't want to go off one poll, but hey, it's what the best we have.
16% want defunding of the police.
And that doesn't mean abolishment.
It could literally mean demilitarization.
It could mean a reduction in staff.
But it doesn't mean you get rid of the department.
The amount of people who want to just completely remove the department, I think, is slim than none.
Microscopic percentages.
90% want the departments to be kept where they are, but most people, around 79% according to the same survey, want reform.
I think we can reassess everything we've been seeing, find a way to build trust in our police departments, help keep our police safer with better guidelines, and I mean safer in many ways, not just, you know, in terms of physical safety, but You know, community trust, cancel culture type stuff.
And body cameras, I think, will be important as well.
There was an NYPD officer who was an advocate for a body cam saying they keep the good cops safe.
And the bad cops don't like them.
Now, I've heard arguments against body cameras.
Don't care.
Wear a body camera, dude.
Seriously.
It'll save your life.
I put a camera in my car when I drive.
You know why?
Because it's not about other people.
It's about you.
You do the right thing.
You try your best.
And other people, they don't.
I'm not a big fan of a surveillance state panopticon kind of thing, but you know what, man?
In certain circumstances, you can keep yourself safe by wearing your cameras.
And I think it would be a good idea.
But let me just break this down.
How many white people do you think are going to stand up and yell, yes, yes, the police are bad!
And then go to the ballot secretly and just be like, oh dear lord, help me keep the police.
This woman, Alison Cameron, says, who am I going to call in the middle of the night?
A lot of people call the police in the middle of the night.
I did.
Do I want to give that up simply because other people can't?
No.
I want to make sure other people can.
And that's called reform of the department.
It's called police accountability.
One proposed solution was dismantling the police unions, which is hilarious coming from the left, mind you.
And then other people are posting things about teachers' unions.
Oh yeah.
I am a big fan of collective bargaining.
I am no fan of union cronyism.
If a bad cop takes bad action, get him out.
And the other problem here is, because of the way the unions work, a lot of cops feel pressured to shut up and not speak out against the bad cops because of the bad things that'll happen to you if you go against them.
Nah.
Let's generate this sense of community with our police, let's build trust, let's institute some reforms, let's figure out safer ways to do policing, to protect the police and the people, and just, man, we gotta solve a problem.
You don't just blow the whole thing up because you've got problems in certain areas.
Man, these people are going to regret it.
I really think so.
In Minneapolis, we're already seeing armed patrols go around because they've lost confidence in police.
Many people in the black community already say not to call the police.
That's unfortunate, but it's a real thing.
Trust me, man, it is.
I grew up on the south side of Chicago, and we were told in some circumstances, do not call the cops, call the fire department.
For real.
The idea was that, at least on the South Side, it didn't matter what your race was.
And that's another thing that bothers me about all this stuff.
Growing up on the South Side, like two blocks from housing projects, man, we had cops mess with us too.
We had people get arrested.
I've been falsely arrested twice.
Twice.
No doubt.
I'm being straight up.
Two bunk arrests.
Okay, one was only half bunk.
They overcharged me because I was skateboarding in Chicago.
But one was a legit false arrest.
I've dealt with it.
And I still don't think even after that we want to get rid of the cops.
But let me just tell you something, man.
On the South Side of Chicago, people would say, if you have a problem with a mental health issue, if somebody you know is, you know, sick or hurt, obviously if it's like a gang shootout, you call the cops, man.
But for most of the things you usually call them for, like emergencies, like someone might be trying to break your house, you call and report a fire.
Because then a fire truck pulls up and it scares people off.
Firefighters aren't equipped to this.
And I'm not saying you should do this.
Absolutely not.
I'm saying this is what people were saying to do because they didn't trust the police.
That's gotta stop.
100%.
A friend of mine said, in response to that poll, about 45% blaming the protesters and 35% blaming the cops.
She said, well, shouldn't it be 1% blaming the cops?
Like, if there is violence, people should be blaming the protesters.
And this is someone who supports the protesters, and I'm like...
It's actually a good point.
It's kind of a weird point for someone to say, because, like, why should we blame the protesters?
But we shouldn't blame either, to be honest.
But no, but it really should be no one blaming the cops.
The cops shouldn't be doing anything where anyone blames them for it.
I think it's fair to say, in a lot of circumstances, the cops get blamed no matter what.
But maybe there's a perception and a policing issue that can reduce that number, and people would then turn to the protesters and blame the protesters, like, stop throwing stuff at cops!
In London, I can certainly see where this goes, with the cops running away.
I kid you not, man.
It's kind of sad.
In PA, I think it was Webster, he had a cop lay down on his belly and put his hands behind his back in front of the crowd, and they all started cheering, and then one guy said it wasn't enough.
That, to me, is a bit too far.
I mean, there are things you can do.
I don't know, I don't know what the answers are though, I'll tell you that.
But watching London where the cops just run away frantically was horrifying, man.
These are fringe zealous, you know, like, fringe zealous, fringe politics, whatever you want to call it.
Having our police run, stand down, is not what needs to be happening.
What people don't understand in these protests Is that the reason why the cops are out there in riot gear is not because they hate you and because they're trying to protect the rich.
It's because we live in a democratic constitutional, we live in a constitutional republic with democratic institutions.
This means people are equal under the law.
It's less to do with how the government is formed.
What this means is if a hundred people come outside and say, whose side are you on?
And a thousand people are in their home saying, protect us.
You are not in the majority and the cops will protect those thousand people.
Right now.
The assumption is most people are not protesting and that's a fact.
So the cops are going to come out and say, you are not the majority.
This is not a democratic process.
Now there are problems with police brutality.
Totally think so.
That's why I'm in favor of reform.
Not this though.
Whatever this says about the initial story with the shooting, man, I don't know.
I just view that as an escalation, and it's going to keep escalating, especially as we get towards the election.
So, I guess we'll see how things play out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
We are currently living in two distinct universes.
The timeline has split and somehow these two timelines are running right next to each other, overlapping, causing everyone's minds to break.
The top story for this segment is that shootings and murders rose dramatically in NYC last week amid a backdrop of protests.
Protests which are being supported overwhelmingly by the Democrats who recently took a knee for about nine minutes to support the protests.
Meanwhile, in the other timeline, a dangerous pandemic is sweeping across the nation and we are seeing a major spike and for some reason.
You've got people saying, we can't seem to understand why it is that these COVID cases are on the rise.
Two distinct realities that seemingly make no sense.
The other day on CNN, they're screaming, Trump, Donald Trump, he will not socially distance the press.
This is a violation of CDC guidelines, they say.
Meanwhile, they're out running coverage on the protesters.
Chris Cuomo and their field reporters praising what the protesters are doing.
Well, right now, in the anti-police version of reality, which we're going to focus on, there are major calls to abolish the police.
We actually have historical reference to what happens when there are no police, and you're going to love it.
It's the purge, baby.
Not kidding.
It is the purge.
Apparently, rival businesses went and burned down rival businesses, their opponents.
Dude, crazy!
This happened in Montreal.
It's called the Murray Hill Riot.
I'm gonna read to you about what happened because it does seem like there are some similarities.
There was mass protesting and high crime.
The cops felt stressed and unsupported.
So all the cops shut everything down and then the city devolved into a purge.
It breaks my heart that humans can't function properly.
And I know all the libertarian friends I have are like, we don't need the police to function.
I think we kinda do.
Now this story here, the lead is kinda short, but we're gonna read this because this is where it begins.
Shootings and murders rose dramatically in NYC last week amid backdrop of protests.
They say...
From the New York Post, really short story.
From last Monday to Sunday night, there were 13 murders in the city, compared to 5 during the same week last year.
So that's more than double, almost triple.
The city reported 40 shootings the last week, the most in a week since 2015.
In the same time period in 2019, there were 24 shootings, sources said.
The increase in violence came as demonstrators marched city streets to protest police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
The majority of the protests were peaceful, but on some nights the demonstrations were overshadowed by looting and the destruction of stores in several boroughs.
At least one shooting in Soho last Monday morning was linked to looters, police sources have said.
And of course, here we can see the police, you know, they doing their thing, and they got their guns drawn.
Now, I do think it's fair to point out there are a lot of peaceful protesters, and there are looters, and they're distinct.
But there is an overlap.
There are many ideologically driven looters and rioters.
While this was going on, police resources were strained, and what happened was unfortunately predictable.
Especially for someone like me who is very liberty-minded, right?
I very much fall on the libertarian spectrum.
But the reality is simple.
When most of the cops were too busy dealing with protests, I mean, the math is obvious, right?
They can't be everyone at once.
You have a concentration of police resulting in the forces being spread thin, and then murders and shootings skyrocket.
I'm willing to bet that there's also, uh, what also happened was muggings and other non, you know, lethal instances of crime.
I'm sure there were carjackings.
I'm sure crime across the board went up.
Now, some might argue this is due to the fact that we were under lockdown, and now that we're out of lockdown, people are back in the streets.
No, no, no.
We're not talking about from a month ago.
From a year ago, when there was no lockdown, crime has just skyrocketed, in some instances doubling.
And I'll tell you why.
It's because the police couldn't be there to do anything about it.
Now listen, for the most part, when you're being a victim of a crime, the police come after the fact.
But police are also a deterrent, especially when they're patrolling.
So you could be safer if there's a criminal and they see you and there's a cop there, they're like, I might not do it.
When the police are all in one area and everyone knows, yeah, now's their chance.
They want to abolish the police, and this is what we're going to get.
You think I'm joking, right?
You think it's funny.
Look, this is what you're gonna get, man.
You see this photo?
Ariel Scarcella says, who you gonna call?
This is the new Minnesota Police Squad.
That's the joke going around.
In this image, you can see students from Evergreen College wielding baseball bats.
They think they're tough.
They're not.
They're just fanatics with weapons.
You get rid of the police, you will replace them with fanatics with weapons.
If you've got a problem with police, the history of the formation of police,
the laws around police, and the ideology that developed this country,
hey man, I'm willing to listen to it.
But if you want to tell me that you're going to replace one group of people
you ideologically oppose with those you ideologically support, who are also...
These people, okay?
They actually whacked a guy with a baseball bat.
Why am I going to believe that corruption would go down when you bring together individualized community patrols that are going to do what they want to do, regardless of some overlapping federal authority?
I mean, maybe they'll operate that way, sure, fine, whatever.
But I do not want social justice police.
Sorry.
That's what they're going to make.
Now, many people have brought this up to me, and I had heard about it in the past, but I thought it'd be fun to pull up and explain what exactly will happen when they get rid of the police.
I bring to you now the story of the Murray Hill Riot.
This is an amazing Wikipedia entry talking about Montreal's Night of Terror.
Now, I also want you to realize, we're talking about peaceful old Canada, baby!
Now, this is 1969, fine.
It was a police strike.
Unfortunately, you can't read it all because of the way I have the image cropped, but I can read this.
I'm gonna read it to you.
So, it was 16 hours of unrest because the police, for one day, went on strike.
And immediately, the city purged itself.
I kid you not, this is a crazy story.
The first thing I want to do is read to you from this entry how Steven Pinker describes it.
You might know Steven Pinker.
He's a very influential individual.
I believe he's like an intellectual dark web type.
He talks about how he was an anarcho-lefty.
Until this night when he realized that people will take every opportunity.
And it's unfortunate, man, that we are a bunch of wild animals, I guess, huh?
Humans... Humans are gonna do what they're gonna do unless there are rules and agreement in place and people have deterrence.
Things like that.
My favorite part of this story is how it wasn't just criminals looting to steal.
It was a taxi service burning down their rival company.
That's the purge, man.
And this is what's gonna happen.
Let me read this for you.
They say.
Steven Pinker, the psychologist who was born and grew up in Montreal recalled how the wildcat police strike and the lawlessness that followed changed his views.
He said, As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism.
I laughed off my parents' argument that if the government ever laid on its arms, all hell would break loose.
Our competing predictions were put to the test on 8 a.m., October 7th, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike.
By 1120 a.m., the first bank was robbed.
Only a couple hours!
Wow. By noon, most of the downtown stores were closed because of looting. Within a few more
hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them
for airport customers. A rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer. Riots broke into
several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in a suburban home. By the end of the
day, six banks had been robbed, 100 shops had been looted, 12 fires had been set, 40 car loads
of storefront glass had been broken, and $3 million in property damage had been inflicted,
before city authorities had to call in the army and of course the Mounties to restore order.
This decisive, empirical test left my politics in tatters, and offered a foretaste of life as a scientist.
And right now, We have the Minneapolis City Council forming a veto-proof supermajority announcing they will abolish the police in Minneapolis.
Okay, abolish, whatever it means.
Disband, dismantle, destroy, whatever.
They gettin' rid of they cops.
What do you think's gonna happen to this town of Minneapolis when that happens?
Let me tell you something.
Peaceable Montreal couldn't handle it.
We like to praise Canada.
All of these lefties love to talk about how I'm moving to Canada.
You're gonna move to Canada, and then they never do.
But they think that Canada's a better place.
Okay, that's fine.
Let's say Canada is a better place.
Let's say Montreal is peaceful.
Look at this!
I love that story!
A taxi driver burned down the garage of a limousine service?
They were just going- That was just market competition, complete lawlessness.
Who was gonna stop you?
Now, to be fair, the people who talk about the libertarian ideal of getting rid of the police do mention there would be private security keeping things in line.
So, okay, I kinda get that.
But I think right now we're not talking about that.
We're talking about the Minneapolis police saying they will dismantle the police.
I hope they don't do it overnight.
They probably won't, but hey man, these people are nuts if you were to ask me.
They kind of just rush through everything without thinking through.
As soon as that happens, Minneapolis will burn to the ground.
It's different.
A police strike is different.
You know why?
When the police announce they're going on strike, the people of that city say, now's my chance, but I better hurry because the strike could end.
When the police are completely dismantled, they say, now's my chance and I'm gonna enjoy it because ain't nobody coming back to stop me.
What I'm trying to say is, in my opinion, in peaceable Canada, a lot of these people who are committing these crimes were like, we have to rush this and be very careful because you never know, the police are still there, just on strike.
What happens when everyone knows there's no police at all?
Not only that, they're talking about, you know, getting people out of prison, reforming prisons and things like that.
I'm all for reforming prisons and reforming police.
But they're talking about releasing criminals and inmates and things like this.
I'll tell you what's going to happen when you dump a bunch of convicts into a city like they've already done in St.
Louis, mind you.
The Attorney General said all of the people they arrested for rioting and looting had been released previously from the jails over COVID.
And here you go.
So the story of this, I don't want to read too much, but I want to give you a bit of the opening context as to why they say it was happening.
Let me just read the intro for you.
They say the Montreal's night of terror was the culmination of 16 hours of unrest in Montreal, Quebec, during a strike by the Montreal police on 7th of October.
Police were motivated to strike because of difficult working conditions caused by disarming FLQ-planted bombs and patrolling frequent protests.
Montreal police also wanted higher pay, commensurate with police earnings in Toronto.
In addition, the mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, who had been elected as a reformer, who had promised to clean the city up by cracking down on corruption, turned out to be no different from his predecessors, leaving many people disillusioned.
Drapeau's focus on grandiose projects such as Expo 67, instead of trying to improve the daily lives of Montrealers, had also added to the frustration.
Journalist Nick Off D'Amour wrote that by 1969, amongst the working class of Montreal, there was a feeling that Drupal only cared about building the gleaming, modernistic skyscrapers that dominated the city's skyline while being indifferent to their concerns and needs.
Okay.
In Buffalo recently, there was an incident where a 75-year-old man walked up to some cops, they yell at him, push him, he stumbles back, falls over, hits his head, and bleeds out of the ear.
Two of the officers have been charged with second-degree assault, and they have been suspended.
In response, 57 other cops announced they were resigning in support of these cops.
What people don't realize, and they're trying to deflect this, is that while I don't think the guy, I think the old man should have been handled much better, and I think there should be, I don't necessarily agree with second-degree assault, but there should be some charges or some kind of penalty.
Maybe it's just a suspension.
Maybe an internal inquiry to reform some of the practice they take, dealing with individuals, something like that.
But it turns out this guy, in Buffalo, was out on the street arguing with some of the protesters who were, like, there's literally a video of a Black Lives Matter dude being like, this guy's trying to start a fight, man.
And so I don't know exactly who that guy is or why, but they believe this guy came down and was just being contrarian and arguing with people and things like that.
So whatever happened, it seems like he was looking to rile people up, not that he deserved to be pushed by the cops.
But 57 cops resigning isn't the entire police force.
We are seeing a slow trickle out.
There have been a bunch of rumors circulating of Minneapolis police resigning en masse or retiring.
I gotta say, man, I can't confirm all that.
But I believe it.
There have been some journalists who have pointed out in New York about six police are resigning per day.
It's really, really high, but not necessarily really high right now.
And there's probably a big waiting list to become a cop in New York.
But I'll tell you this, man.
I can't imagine a lot of people want to be cops right now.
When we saw in Minneapolis that I think it was the third precinct get raided and all the cops stormed at the back and ran away, I'm sure the first thing they did when they got home was they took off that uniform and put on regular clothes and said, I'm not a cop.
Don't look at me.
Who would want to be a cop right now when your city won't defend you?
When you're not even paid that well?
When you're risking criminal liability for what's going on in the streets?
Look, man, I don't like police brutality.
I think some of these cops have done really, really stupid things.
There's that video of the guy getting shot in the face point-blank with tear gas?
That's insane.
But some of these cops, like the Buffalo ones, they clearly didn't want to knock the guy to the ground.
I think they can get some penalty, but I think the penalty has more to do with administration.
Not criminal.
Listen, if you look up to me and start bickering and yelling and I push you and you fall, I'm gonna get in trouble, okay?
But you will likely get some kind of slap on the wrist.
A second degree assault, not the biggest deal in the world to be honest.
But the fact that, I don't know man, to me it feels like Look, there's an argument about police, that we ask them to go into situations where they're in danger.
And this results in violent confrontation, and people lose their lives.
I think the police are too cavalier with this.
And we've seen some stories, like there's one video, where a guy gets pulled over and ordered out of his van.
He gets out of the van, he's got his hands up, and the cop says, show me your ID or whatever.
And he goes, okay, it's right here.
And he says, grab it.
He goes to grab it, and the cop freaks out and starts shooting him.
It's like, you told him to get his ID.
Like, if you tell someone to grab something, what are you gonna shoot him for?
Then there's also, I believe it was Philando Castile, a legal gun owner, in his car, permitting everything, and the cop just freaked out and shot him.
So, look, there are instances where cops have been too cavalier because they're immune.
How do we find that right balance?
I'll tell you what, I honestly don't know.
It's a really, really difficult situation.
But I'm totally for reform.
And I think because we want to figure out ways where... Look, we have to compromise, you know?
How can we make cops feel safer and more respected?
And be propped up as the heroes they once were, officer-friendly and all that stuff?
We need to reassess this as our cities start growing and getting bigger.
And we deal with these issues.
I want to read a little bit following what Steve Pinker said.
Because they mentioned the taxi incident.
Here's what they say.
As the police were on strike, a crowd of disgruntled taxi drivers belonging to the Mouvement des Libérations du Taxi appeared outside of City Hall at about 6 p.m., supporting the police strike, carrying banners denouncing the mayor, Jean Drapeau, as being corrupt.
After the rally, the taxi drivers formed a convoy that were escorted by the Popeyes Motorcycle Club, the most violent of all of Montreal's many outlaw biker clubs.
Joining the convoy were journalists and members of the FLQ, carrying banners demanding independence for Quebec.
On the street, the convoy encountered a Murray Hill limousine that was forced to stop.
The passengers and driver were allowed to leave, and then the car was smashed to pieces
by the taxi drivers and the Popeyes.
The reason why I wanted to read that to you is because right now there is a huge conflict
between taxi drivers and Uber drivers.
If there are no police, I assure you man, there have been stories in New York.
What happens is, and France especially, really in France for sure.
I remember being told this a couple years ago when Uber was like really contentious.
I don't know if it's still legal there, what's going on.
Taxi drivers would call an Uber from the airport, get in the Uber, and give them an address that was kind of remote.
And when the Uber driver pulled up, a bunch of cab drivers would beat the crap out of the Uber driver and smash up their car.
Because the Uber drivers were destroying the taxi driver's business.
It's funny to see this happening now because we got the same powder keg sitting around.
Now we don't have an FLQ planting bombs, but the cops were stressed out by corruption, bad politics, they wanted more pay, and there were a lot of protests, so naturally, this is what you end up getting.
You are going to see I don't know, man.
Utter bedlam is the only way to put it.
But hey, I guess every so often somebody wants to embark on the experiments.
Let me tell you this.
If you would like to experiment with the process of dismantling your police department to see if we will still get a Montreal Night of Terror-like moment in your town, Feel free to do it, because I don't live there.
And if you do live there, and you don't speak up in support of the police, don't be surprised when they resign, and then you end up with a Minneapolis night of terror.
To be honest, you're already getting it.
It's a rock and a hard place, to say the least.
You got cops who just killed a guy, and that's messed up.
But the cops have all been arrested.
The three cops kneeling on George Floyd are being charged with aiding and abetting, and the cop who put his knee on the neck is getting charged with second-degree murder.
We'll see if the charges make it, because they upped him, which is oof.
You can't please the mob, man.
But let me just tell you.
You want to avoid a mob?
You want to avoid riots?
So you agree to dismantle the police?
That just makes no sense.
You're agreeing to more rioting and more mobbing.
To see the Democrats all kneeling.
You see this video of Schumer and Pelosi and everybody kneeling?
I'm like, bow before your new religion.
They're captives.
The religion demands blood and they will give it.
To see American politicians to their knees should be alarming to anybody.
America's the country that says we kneel before no one.
We'd refuse to kneel before a king and kiss the pinky ring, so we said enough, and we severed ties.
Now, we have a political party, the Democrats, that has become increasingly unhinged and is bending the knee specifically to a new ideology.
I understand that conservative Christians bend the knee to their Lord and Savior.
But guess what?
We have a separation of church and state, which has allowed secularists and atheists and agnostics to fight for the position of equality and justice under the law.
That while there is still Christian ideology as a big piece of our legal system—it certainly is, look up the history of Blackstone's formulation—ultimately what it comes down to is we can resist the deeper ideological tenets of the religion.
But we can't stop social justice dogma because it's not technically a religion.
I mean, it is.
It's a non-theistic religion.
People shouldn't be bowing in the Capitol building, and our laws shouldn't be defined by cult ideology.
But it's not religion.
And you can't separate ideology from law because ideology is just how people see the world.
So ultimately what's going to happen?
The Democrats will bend the knee.
Murders and crimes will skyrocket.
The police are about to be disbanded in Minneapolis.
And then the grand experiment will commence once again.
And perhaps it will all lead to a Trump smashing re-election victory?
I don't know.
I do think it's really funny that a poll came out from Esmussen showing that Trump's support among the black community hit 40%.
I find it hard to believe, man.
I really do.
Really, really do.
But it was floating around 30 according to several polls, including Emerson.
It's funny to see that these numbers come out, and all of a sudden, what happens?
Race riots.
Black Lives Matter.
Trump put together a tribute to George Floyd.
Twitter took it down.
I wonder why they did that.
Maybe it's because they don't want Trump to win.
I guess we'll see.
I guess we'll see what happens to Minneapolis, huh?
Stick around.
The next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at timcast.net.
It is my main channel.
If you haven't subscribed, check it out.
And I will see you all there.
Following up on my main channel segment from over at TimCast.net, check it out if you haven't, I wanted to dig into this story about Trump supporters pumping thousands of dollars into AOC's primary opponents' coffers.
Some people would argue this is simply Trump trying to disrupt the Democrats and cause problems.
I think this is actually a sign of where the political mindset of Americans really is.
Ocasio-Cortez is running in a primary against several opponents.
Her most notable is a woman named Michelle Caruso Cabrera, who is a regular old moderate Democrat.
She's written a book where she comes off fairly moderate.
She's actually stated, I think they bring this up, she's refusing to raise taxes during an economic crisis, which is fairly honest.
I mean, how many Democrats are going to straight up say, no, we can't do this?
Michelle Caruso Cabrera.
She lives in the area and regular moderate.
AOC, progressive, calling for defunding the police.
So why would Trump supporters donate to defeat AOC?
For one, I think they have interests and assets in New York City and they don't like what AOC represents or what she's doing.
And if you get rid of the police, those assets are worthless.
But let's be honest, AOC is a celebrity candidate.
A lot of people in this country want real, moderate politics.
I'd love to have a real debate over policy with a Republican and a Democrat and actually talk about issues, but we're not doing that anymore.
Right now, the debates are all based around, are you a civil libertarian who believes in free thought and free expression, or some weird cultist who wants no police?
I guess.
Well, let's read this story.
We'll talk about what's going on.
Fox News says top donors to President Trump are also pumping thousands of dollars into the campaign.
The campaign kitty?
Of the Democratic primary rival to Rep AOC, Michelle Caruso Cabrera.
Records show.
Broadcaster Stanley Hubbard, who contributed $175,000 to the pro-Trump Great America PAC, contributed the maximum $5,600 to Caruso Cabrera, according to OpenSecrets.org, and filings with the Federal Elections Commission.
Cowboy venture capitalist Darren Blanton, who has given $41,000 to pro-Trump campaign entities, also donated $5,600 to Caruso Cabrera.
Now, I'll point out, I looked these here gentlemen up.
I believe Stanley Hubbard lives in St.
Paul, and I believe Darren Blanton is in Dallas.
That's just from a cursory Google search.
I could be wrong about this, but they clearly don't live in New York.
I'm not a big fan of people outside of these congressional districts donating to politicians inside these congressional districts because, well, they're supposed to represent the district, but face it, this is not how politics works right now.
And I've personally donated to some Democrats from districts outside of my own.
Now, that was a while ago, mind you, and I'm never going to do that again.
Straight up.
Not gonna happen.
And that even goes— I did donate to Michelle Caruso Cabrera because I did a segment about her, talking about how she's very, very reasonable and rational, and that's something we need in the Democratic Party.
And so, I did donate, and I'm now looking at the Democratic Party as fully tainted.
For a while, I was hoping that by supporting people like Michelle Crusoe Cabrera, who I will still say I do want her to win.
I do hope she wins.
But this is the last for me.
That's the point I'm making.
I donated to her.
I want to see her win.
Consider this the last, you know, farewell to the Democratic Party for me, because when the moderate Democrats campaigned on reasonable issues and then won, they went straight for impeachment.
So, I'm not confident we're going to get something good out of any of these Democrats.
And to be fair, Well, I do think it's better to have Michelle Cruz O'Cabrera than AOC.
Michelle Cruz O'Cabrera has, you know, as far as I can tell, just wholly supported Nancy Pelosi, which I'm not a fan of either.
But based on who Michelle Cruz O'Cabrera is and what she's written in the past, I do think that she is one of the more moderate Democrats we've seen out of any jurisdiction, and I think she would be a lot better for her district and our country.
So, take it for what it is.
The party as a whole is what you gotta pay attention to.
But I believe that the reason these people are probably donating to her, these Trump supporters, is because... I mean, listen, man.
We all gotta work out of New York City.
We are a nation that relies on a good-functioning government, period, be it local or otherwise.
I mean, it makes sense if you want Los Angeles to run smoothly.
It makes sense if you want New York to, because it affects all of us.
These guys clearly saw a high-profile politician in AOC who is negatively impacting political discourse in this country.
They now have to make a choice.
Are they going to be involved or not?
Well, they clearly decided to get involved.
I believe the congressional race, the primary between Caruso Cabrera and AOC, is the most important congressional race in this country.
Maybe even the most important election for the time being.
I think now as we get into November, Trump's re-election is going to be the most important, but this certainly is one of the most important.
Maybe second to Trump come November, because AOC is the face of the woke progressive nonsense celebrity breakdown.
These people in this ideology, they don't actually want anything.
I mean, they claim to want things, but all they really want is to spread their ideology.
That is like things being washed over and erased with chaos.
That would be the breakdown of the system.
I mean, AOC has recently just backed defunding the police.
She's called for New York City to slash a billion dollars from NYPD's six billion dollar budget in the wake of George Floyd's death.
Now listen, I want to go back and read about these Trump supporters.
I think it's fair to say we can remove some funding from these police departments.
We can get rid of some of, you know, a lot of unnecessary things.
But what you've got to understand about these budgets, people have said, oh, but they have tanks and they have all these things.
And it's like, yeah, a lot of those come from grants from the governments to repurpose what was already bought and paid for.
You see what I'm saying?
I don't think a lot of these police departments should have APCs, mind you, and some actually have tanks.
Now, I mean that really.
Like, I've always been critical of the activists saying they have tanks when they show an APC, but no, I mean, like, legit tanks with treads and, like, .50 cal mounted machine guns, you know, whatever.
So, yeah, maybe police departments don't need that.
But AOC has recently been trying to move over to the mainstream, I think to maintain her job.
But she really does represent the face of the woke far-left Democrats who have been taking over.
That's why people want her to lose.
It's a symbolic victory as much as it is a policy victory.
They say, financier Nelson Patz, who held a lavish fundraiser at his Palm Beach home earlier this year to help raise $10 million for Trump and the RNC, kicked in $5,600 to Caruso Cabrera's campaign.
Venture capitalist Walter Buckley, who donated a million dollars to the pro-Trump Rebuild America Nostra pack, also gave Diné maximum contribution to MCC.
AOC has been at odds with Wall Street and big business, symbolized by her opposition to a scuttled plan for Amazon to reopen a campus headquarters along the Queens waterfront.
Caruso-Cabrera is a former veteran business journalist and CNBC anchor.
They say Caruso-Cabrera is running as a moderate, pro-business Democrat, alternative to Ocasio-Cortez in the 14th congressional district that takes place in a bunch of New York neighborhoods.
I'm not going to read them.
Caruso Cabrera supported the aborted Amazon headquarters and criticized AOC for helping to scuttle it.
Asked about the donations from Trump backers, Caruso Cabrera spokesman Hank Sheinkopf said, AOC's divisive behavior has created the national coalition supporting MCC.
AOC continues to work against our presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden.
AOC prefers to be with Donald Trump 13.7% of the time.
Her vote on SALT was in lockstep with the President, which hurts NY.
He was referring to AOC's vote against a House bill.
I don't think you want to highlight that Trump supporters are donating to you and then come out and just straight up say, an AOC is in alignment with Trump.
That's kind of a silly thing to say.
her voting record. Now, I want to stop here. I think Michelle Cruso Cabrera missed an opportunity
in messaging. I don't think you want to highlight that Trump supporters are donating to you and then
come out and just straight up say an AOC is in alignment with Trump. That's kind of a silly
thing to say. What needs to be said is that Ocasio-Cortez represents the vapid celebrity
leftist Internet culture.
AOC is much less a politician and much more an influencer.
We have seen influencer culture.
We have seen the woman at the Black Lives Matter protest step out of the road and hold up a sign.
That's what Ocasio-Cortez is.
She is a say-anything Democrat.
She got elected because she was some progressive that barely won any votes, and now she's just desperate to win.
New York, as well as the rest of this country, does not want to see a fake celebrity candidate who just postures and grandstands.
They want to see someone who can bring a real argument to the table.
And even though Michelle Carrera, this is what she could have said, even though she opposes Donald Trump, Even Trump supporters recognize the importance of a healthy debate with a real Democrat who wants to discuss real policies to find the right solution.
AOC does not bring that to the table.
That's my view.
That's why I think Michelle Cruz-Cabrera is more important and better than AOC.
Because AOC is the kind of politician who stands there and does a selfie with duck face, okay?
Not always, I get it.
AOC has done some things I think are good.
But for the most part, she just wants to fluff that follower count and maintain this salaried position.
Michelle Crusoe-Cabrera is not a grandstanding famous individual.
Sure, she was on TV, but now she's running for office.
She could have stayed on TV if she wanted that.
Instead, she's talking about things like not raising taxes.
Look at this.
When asked to raise taxes on the wealthy, AOC said yes, as did Batran Khan.
Caruso-Gobera said she opposed raising taxes at all during the fiscal crisis resulting from
the coronavirus pandemic. Think about that.
What Democrat is willing to say, I won't raise taxes on the rich?
That's progressive.
That would collapse a progressive campaign.
Michelle Caruso-Cabrera was honest.
No, we can't do this.
We're in a financial crisis.
Are you nuts?
We gotta get the money circulating again.
I respect that.
I don't completely agree with Michelle Caruso-Cabrera supporting Nancy Pelosi or whatever.
But I'll tell you this, whether you're a progressive, well, the progressives, no, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, I think regular Americans recognize having a real debate on policy is important for a healthy nation.
So you can disagree with Caruso-Cabrera, and that's exactly why I think the Trump backers are actually donating to her.
AOC is the perfect PR campaign for Trump.
He paints the left and Democrats as nuts.
Wouldn't they want AOC to win?
Yeah, if they want Trump to win.
But if they actually just want real debate and a return to normalcy, they would support a normal Democrat to get rid of the celebrity, you know, individual desperate for fame.
That's why I think it's happening.
But you can tell me what you think in the comments.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
The next segment's coming up at— I'm sorry, the next segment will be just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The officer who was responsible for the death of George Floyd was arrested quite some time ago.
The three other officers who were kneeling on his back have also been charged.
Newsweek says prosecutors of George Floyd police officers will struggle to get four convictions, dare I say.
It's a setup.
We've seen it before.
They overcharged these guys and they're not going to win.
And what happens when these officers get off?
They will then scream no accountability because they don't understand how the law works.
Initially, this guy Chauvin was charged with third-degree murder.
Made a whole lot of sense.
They upped it to second-degree murder.
I argue you might actually be able to pull that off because we found out that Chauvin actually worked at the same place as George Floyd.
So you can probably prove a little bit more than just third degree.
These other cops are being charged with aiding and abetting.
Now this is going to be increasingly difficult.
It's already almost a long shot.
It's close to it, right?
These three others?
Definitely.
So what happens when a jury says not guilty because they've been overcharged?
Riots across the country again.
Now I don't know how long this trial and everything will take.
It probably won't be until next year, who knows what, but You know, I don't necessarily mean it's being set up on purpose, but I'll tell you this.
Activists always demand more.
In fact, already we heard from activists saying you should get first-degree murder.
They don't understand what first-degree murder is, and you wouldn't be able to prove it!
In fact, you'd be able to easily disprove it, and then he would get released.
You need to make sure the charges stick, and they're applicable, and the jury can agree with it.
That's law.
It's supposed to be fair, and it is.
First degree doesn't mean, like, necessarily that he's more or less right or wrong.
It just talks about the scale to which he went.
You know, the degree to which he went about ending someone's life.
Let's read this and read what Newsweek says.
They say.
Amid nationwide protests after the killing of George Floyd, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison last week bumped up the top charge against Derek Chauvin, the officer who pinned Floyd's neck under his knee.
Ellison also lodged charges against the other three officers at the scene of aiding and abetting second-degree murder.
Now that the murder charges have been leveled against all four officers, the question is, will they stick?
Prosecutions of police officers are notoriously difficult to win.
And the second-degree murder charges here are quite aggressive.
They wouldn't even be legally possible in most states.
But prosecutors have a real chance of convicting Chauvin, legal experts say.
Winning jury verdicts against at least two of his alleged accomplices will be challenging, though.
The officers were all fired shortly after the incident, and after last week's charges are now in custody.
Their lawyers either declined to comment or did not respond to Newsweek.
The accused officers.
Likely defense strategies are beginning to come into focus.
Clearly, cause of death will be an important issue.
The Hennepin County Medical Examiner found that Floyd died from cardiopulmonary arrest caused by a confluence of circumstances.
These included his being restrained by the officers, including neck compression, but also included severe underlying heart disease and powerful drugs in his system, including fentanyl and methamphetamine.
The country's autopsy report also opened up some obvious avenues of attack for defense lawyers.
Finding, quote, no life-threatening injuries and no specific neck injuries.
In contrast, two medical experts, experts hired by the Floyd family, found that Floyd died from asphyxiation from sustained pressure.
So they believe that the knee on his neck cut the blood flow to his brain.
Another likely focus for the two most junior officers who reportedly earned their law enforcement licenses last August will be chain of command.
During the incident, one of the rookie officers, Thomas K. Lane, repeatedly urged turning Floyd on his sign, apparently to let him breathe more easily, but was overruled each time by Chauvin, the 19-year veteran.
A jury will probably be asked to grapple with whether the more junior officers were justified in deferring to the much more senior officer, Or should have defied him under these life and death circumstances.
I'm gonna stop right there and say, I don't think they're gonna get off on that one.
Nah.
Just following orders, no one's gonna buy that.
Sorry.
It may work in some circumstances, but they would argue, just get up and leave.
If someone tells you to kill someone and you say, okay, yeah, I'm sorry, not an excuse.
You can argue in defense of the cops, I get it.
Nah.
Sorry, man.
Don't care.
If it were me, I believe you have a duty.
If you- If- I think, in fact, this might actually prove fault.
To be honest.
Check it out.
They'll argue.
You knew that this was dangerous.
You repeatedly said we should move him, yet you remained on top of him.
That shows you knew he was in trouble, and you did not move.
You see how that works?
Nah, I don't like that defense one bit.
But still, the point is, trying to get all of these guys is gonna be tough, and when some of them invariably get off, and maybe even Chauvin, like they were saying, it's a long shot, it's aggressive.
What do you think's gonna happen?
I'm not looking forward to it.
They say defending Chauvin himself will be more challenging.
The chilling videos may prove too damning for any lawyer's argument to overcome.
Now, yeah, here's where it comes in, right?
That argument about the other officer who knew, that's gonna paint a bad picture for Chauvin because they're gonna say you were warned repeatedly by the other officer and he was asking you to move and you refused.
What are you gonna get him on?
He was warned, right?
I gotta say though, that's more third-degree murder than second.
As longtime Minneapolis criminal defense lawyer Joe Friedberg puts it, when was the last time you had a guy killed on video while he's begging for his life?
Yikes, man.
To understand the charges and the defenses, first review the grisly facts.
The basics are all fairly clear thanks to police scanner recordings and surveillance video from nearby buildings.
Let me scroll down past this.
They say... I don't want to rehash everything.
on May 25th, an employee of the Cup Foods convenience store at the corner of 38th Street
in Chicago placed a 911 call.
The man had just bought cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill.
The man was still across the street in a parked Mercedes SUV.
Two store employees had asked him to return the cigarettes but were rebuffed.
The man was awfully drunk and he's not in control of himself, the 911 caller said.
I don't want to rehash everything.
I want to get to more of what the charges actively are, right?
So let's move forward.
They say, uh, while on the ground, Floyd continued to reply, I can't breathe, as we know.
At some point, an unidentified officer responded to Floyd, you are talking fine.
Now, this is a serious problem, because we know, even if you're, if you're, like, you can talk when you can't breathe, because exerting pressure is easier than breathing in.
So, think about it, think about it this way.
If you're laying on the ground with someone putting pressure on your back, deflating your lungs is easy because they're putting pressure on you.
Inflating will require you to push up against all of their weight, not something you can easily do.
That may be what happened.
So, I guess all they then do is get into rehashing the story, which I think is unfortunate, because what we need to talk about is... Well, let's read this.
What we need to talk about is, what does it really mean to have second-degree murder charges?
And will they stick?
Let's read, though.
They said, Uh, Officer Lane, one of the least experienced, was evidently uncomfortable with what he was seeing.
Should we roll him on his side, he asked.
No.
Staying put where we got him, Chauvin responded.
I am worried about excited delirium or whatever, Lane said.
That's why we have him on his stomach.
At 822, the officers called for non-emergency medical assistance.
Reporting bleeding from Floyd's mouth, according to the Times and Post accounts.
A minute later, the call was upgraded to an emergency.
With extraordinary precision, the complaints report that Floyd stopped moving at 8.24.24, and that the video, presumably from one of the officer's body cams, appeared to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe at 8.25.31.
Want to roll him on a side lens, Lane said around then.
Kong checked Floyd's pulse and said, I couldn't find one.
None of the other officers moved from their positions, according to the complaints.
Chauvin did not remove his knee from Floyd's neck until 8-27-24, when the EMT ambulance arrived.
Floyd was loaded in on a gurney.
He was pronounced dead at the hospital at 9-25.
Chauvin... So... Okay, here we go.
The charges.
This is what I was looking for.
Sorry, sorry.
The initial charges were filed May 29th.
The manslaughter charge, punishable by up to 10 years, can be proven if Chauvin took Floyd's life with culpable negligence.
The third-degree murder charge, known as Depraved Mind, requires a worse frame of mind, but still one that falls short of an intent to kill.
Though depraved mind might seem a perfect description of Chauvin's apparent indifference to Floyd's desperate pleas, it turns out that there may be a major technical legal hurdle to using the charge in Chauvin's case.
The law doesn't support it.
It says criminal defense veteran Friedberg, who has practiced in Minneapolis for more than 50 years.
He points to an 06 ruling of the state supreme court which held that depraved mind murder cannot occur where the defendant's actions were focused on a specific person.
The law isn't crystal clear on that point, however.
In fact, another Minneapolis police officer, Mohammed Noor, I don't want to rehash all this, I really just want to get to the point where they talk about second degree.
They say felony murder can be charged when someone unintentionally dies during the course of an underlying felony.
Many states require that the underlying felony can be inherently violent crime like robbery or rape.
Minnesota's felony murder law is among the nation's broadest, however, according to Professor Fraze.
The state is one of a minority that permit assaults to serve as the underlying felony, which is what made it possible for Ellison to charge all of these officers with felony murder.
So long as Chauvin intended to inflict bodily harm on Floyd, and he had in fact inflicted substantial bodily harm, he can also be charged with felony murder, if Floyd's death resulted even unintentionally.
If the other officers intended to help Chauvin commit the felony assault, they can be charged as accomplices to felony murder.
Okay.
Well, look, I think you get the point.
They go into a lot more, and it's a bit overly verbose.
The point I'm trying to bring up here, that I want to ask, because unfortunately I do have to keep these short.
My question to all of you is, do you think second degree would stick?
And do you think the overcharging will result in these officers being released?
From the sound of things, it sounds like under Minnesota law, they can absolutely get all of them for this.
That's the argument they put forward.
I gotta say, man, I don't buy a defense that you were just following orders from your superior officer.
If you're leaning on someone who's screaming, I can't breathe, help me, and begging for their life, and you stay, that's on you, man.
That is on you.
Whether or not second-degree murder sticks, however, I don't know about that, man.
And that's the fear.
Will these guys get off, and then will there be more rioting?
Potentially.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
It was supposed to be satire!
It's not supposed to be real!
But the Babylon Bee has come to life.
You see, at a racetrack in North Carolina, they dubbed the race a protest to defy the governor.
I kid you not, Babylon Bee has come to life.
Now, in order for you to truly understand this, I want to show you this satirical article from the Babylon Bee, so you can get the joke.
I'm sure most of you are familiar the Babylon Bee is just a humorous satirical news website and they wrote this story.
Clever churchgoers avoid arrest by disguising themselves as rioters.
You see right now in New York City.
You're allowed to protest.
The DA's office said you will not be charged if you're a Black Lives Matter activist.
However, churches are operating at 25% capacity.
Yeah, sorry.
You want to go worship for your religion?
Not acceptable.
You want to protest the acceptable ideology?
All good.
So the joke is kind of obvious.
You can see it.
They're in a church, but they're holding hammers and masks, broken bottles, and Molotov cocktails.
And on the church wall, it says, no Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA.
Welcome, please enjoy a coffee and join us.
Here's what they wrote.
Religious people in Southern California have found a bold creative solution for in-person meetings in spite of the continuing lockdown.
This past weekend, several area churches attended church services disguised as righteously indignant rioters.
Bravo, bravo.
We already have the righteous indignation thing down, said one church elder.
Now we've simply added black balaclavas, hoodies, Guy Fawkes masks, and baseball bats.
We found that when we do this, we can meet in large groups without much interference from the local authorities.
It's been a delightful experience.
Leaders from Spirit River in the city church in LA County are reporting a successful Sunday service after using this method.
Churchgoers were given bricks and fake Molotov cocktails before they surrounded the church with menacing looks on their faces.
Several deacons then smashed some church windows to make the riot look more realistic.
Unfortunately, onlookers grew suspicious when the massive group of rioters broke out into a round of the smash hit worship song, Reckless Life Engulfment.
Some of the attendees were forced to stage brawls in order to keep up appearances.
According to sources, some churchgoers in the area are planning to continue wearing masks to church, even after the lockdown has ended, in order to hide their identities from Hollywood directors and producers.
Okay, that's the article.
It's funny, right?
It was well-written, but it was just supposed to be a joke.
Well, this is the reality we deserve.
In this story from WSOC-TV 9, North Carolina auto race draws thousands after dumping itself a protest.
And there's the photo.
Everybody gathered around and joined a nice, what was it, a rally car race of some sort or something?
Over 2,000 people, maybe 2,500 people showed up to protest.
Listen, man.
If the government is going to allow protesters, then why wouldn't everyone just say they are?
And that's what they're doing.
The story says, a North Carolina speedway drew a crowd of more than 2,000 spectators in defiance of the state's coronavirus restrictions after declaring the race a protest.
No, no, news outlet, you don't get to say that.
You don't know.
They say straight up they're protesting.
Well, then what are you going to say?
Why do you get to decide whether they're protesters or not?
The governor's office had warned Ace Speedway and Elon that a crowd of more than 25 would violate the state's phase 2 coronavirus restrictions.
But news outlets report that more than 2,000 people attended a race Saturday night.
Ace Speedway workers performed temperature checks before people went inside the track.
A sign from management outside the speedway said, this event is held in peaceful protest of injustice and equality everywhere.
The Alamance County Sheriff's Office said it is evaluating the events.
What are you going to do about it?
That's it?
Now listen, I think the reason they did this is because they had already been actively defying the government and the government had threatened them.
Take a look at this story.
In rural North Carolina, racing fans packed a speedway to defy governor in pursuit of freedom from May 24th.
This is all part of the game of cat and mouse, escalating tensions between the ideologically driven OK laws and regular people and what they want.
I think it's funny that you have this situation unfolding right now because it proves violence works.
What do you think would happen if all of these right-wingers went around with masks, rioting and looting?
I think you'd see that they would eventually bend over backwards to support them.
Unfortunately for now, that's not what's... I should say fortunately for now, conservatives aren't doing this and it's unfortunate the left is doing this and it's even worse that what we get in response to all this Bending over straight for these protesters.
Take a look at what happened last time.
So here's the story from May 24th.
They say, cars kept pulling into the grassy lot surrounding the racetrack.
Their arrival creating a mist of dirt.
I can't stand when journalists do this, man.
I'm sorry.
I'm skipping this.
Don't write me a narrative.
Just tell me what happened.
They said they had come from all over the state, said Ernest Smokey Bear, who was working the front gate and checking people's coolers and bags as they came through.
They'd come from Charlotte and Goldsboro, from nearby Winston-Salem or Burlington, to watch the race cars speed around an oval four-tenths of a mile long.
They'd come for the spectacle of it, for the familiar things they'd missed, the roar of the engines and the vibration on the ground as cars went by, the faint smell of gasoline.
This is an awful article, mind you.
They've been locked up, Yarbrough64 said of the hundreds of people surrounding him while he slowly walked ahead toward the ticket booth.
They want to go somewhere, and this is the only place really legal to come around.
All week, that had been a point of contention.
The legality of this gathering...
When North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper announced that the state would enter Phase 2 of its gradual reopening amid the pandemic, the news came with limits.
Cooper's executive order, for one, prohibited mass gatherings, and those had been defined as any gathering of more than 10 people indoors or more than 25 outdoors.
With about 10 feet on either side of Yarborough, there were more than 25 people.
He didn't mind, nobody here minded, and whatever concerns anyone had were outweighed by the desire to be part of the mutual experience.
Only a few people wore any kind of coverings over their face and bare, the man checking the bags at the gate was among them.
It's been years since we had this many people.
It's amazing.
It's helping their business, dare I say.
But there you go, you can see it right there.
They knew it was illegal, the governor said you couldn't do it, and they went to do it anyway.
Then what happened?
I was recently talking to some locals in my area.
Yeah, they're angry about it.
They have nothing but derision for the governor of New Jersey.
He's out, what, like protesting with people or whatever?
While he's telling other people to lock down?
This was a very clever way to get around this and it was only a matter of time before we saw it.
Because everybody was saying the same thing.
And it was bubbling up so much that the Babylon Bee made a joke article about it.
We cannot have a government that says one ideology is okay and everything else isn't.
We can't have a police department or a DA, like in New York, saying they won't prosecute people who break the law.
Man, think about where we go from this.
What do you think would happen if someone was like, I'm gonna rob a bank in the name of restorative justice for Black Lives Matter?
What are the cops gonna do?
Well, oh, in that regard, we're not gonna charge them all that much.
No, you can't function that way.
You broke the law, you broke the law.
It's already been bumbling up, though.
We have terror laws, we have hate crime laws, and these things are ideological and rather dangerous.
I'm surprised a lot of these things pass the Supreme Court, but they do.
A lot of people have problems with hate crime laws because, look, if I punch you in the face, it doesn't really matter why I did it.
That's the crime.
But if you punch someone in the face and say something that's bigoted or racist or whatever, you get worse charges.
I don't think that necessarily makes sense.
People hate for a lot of reasons, people fight for a lot of reasons, and you hold people responsible based on a uniform law.
We should all be equal under the law.
We shouldn't have... Like, how does it make sense, right?
The First Amendment, it says that, you know, they can't, the Congress can't make a law affecting an establishment of speech or the abridgment thereof or whatever.
But isn't that so if you add on to a law that if someone says something, you change what the violation is?
So look, I'm not here to say we should or shouldn't have that stuff.
I'm just pointing out the concerns there that we have already been seeing ideological application of the law.
Now we've gotten it whole-handedly.
What do you think people are going to do come November?
You know, the polls are saying Joe Biden is skyrocketing with a massive lead.
I just can't believe it.
If people are willing to go to these lengths to stage these big events, bring in thousands of people and claim to support the protest, what do you think that means?
Let me break it down for you.
Now, these people are doing it, obviously, tongue-in-cheek.
A man was speaking, a black man, mind you, who was talking about freedom and defying Roar Cooper.
Now, I hate to say it because I don't think race matters.
It was just an American citizen standing up for his rights.
Much respect to that good sir.
But that's what things are being reduced to because of the intersectional identitarian left.
But anyway, the point is, these are people who are telling you, we're doing this.
How many people do you think claimed they were protesting just to get outside, for real?
I'd be willing to bet a lot of people, well we know some people pretended to protest just to loot.
I've had a lot of people who are just like, I don't want to be inside anymore.
I want to go outside and go for a walk.
So they went out and just walked with the crowd.
That probably made the groups look bigger.
Think about what happens then when New York says they're not going to charge anybody.
You know every single New Yorker is going to be like, finally I can go outside after months.
And what are they going to do?
They're going to walk right behind all the protesters because it protects them.
That's why you can't have ideological application of the law.
Now here you go, man.
They're all convinced their protest is huge and they're gonna win in a landslide and the polls show and all that stuff.
Fine, believe what you want.
I don't believe it.
I don't care.
I just don't believe it.
I have talked to my neighbors, I have talked to regular Americans, I have talked to family, and I am seeing something shocking.
It's the exact same thing we saw in 2016.
I was told by somebody who was in Europe at the time.
Uh, during most of the campaigning.
They said all the news they saw said everyone hated Trump.
Then they flew down to North Carolina and saw nothing but Trump signs everywhere and were shocked.
People really supported the guy.
So, that's what I think will come happen in November.
They can tell us all they want, but people are defying your lockdown orders.
They're not gonna vote for you come November.
But I guess we can only wait and see, so I'll leave it there.
