S579 - Florida Passes Anti Riot Bill Granting Immunity To People Who Drive Through Rioters Amid BLM Riots
Florida Passes Anti Riot Bill Granting Immunity To People Who Drive Through Rioters Amid BLM Riots. The bill is expected to be signed into law by Florida Governor Ron Desantis next week.
Democrats and Leftist activists claim it will stifle free speech while conservatives are cheering on the legislation in hopes that it will finally put an end to the ongoing BLM riots and antifa riots
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The controversial anti-riot bill has passed the Florida Senate, and Ron DeSantis is expected to sign it into law next week.
On the right, people are cheering, saying this provides more authority for the government to stop people engaged in riots.
On the left, they're saying it will stifle free speech, and it is unconstitutional.
One particular provision would grant immunity in civil cases to people who drive cars through protesters, sparking serious debate.
Our next story, Facebook is censoring several stories about a Black Lives Matter co-founder buying tons of properties.
Even people on the left are outraged that this purported Marxist is wealthy and buying up property.
And our last story.
Body camera footage was released in the killing of Adam Toledo, a 13-year-old in Chicago, showing that he did, in fact, have a gun.
But many on the left are saying he was unarmed.
Now, one news organization even cropped the video so you can't see that this young man is holding a gun.
This is leading to a large debate over whether the police were right or wrong.
Now, before we get started, leave us a good review if you like the show.
Give us five stars.
And if you really like the show, share it with your friends because that will really help.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Conservatives across the country are praising Governor Ron DeSantis and Republicans in Florida
for passing the anti-riot law.
Now, Governor DeSantis is expected to sign this bill into law sometime next week, and it increases penalties for violent rioting, basically separating from when a protest is peaceful to when it crosses that line, and then there are some very serious penalties and even civil immunity for some people if they drive through protests blocking a road.
Of course, many people on the left are saying this is unfair, it's a violation of the First Amendment, and it will be abused!
Conservatives, of course, are cheering because, for the longest time, for the past year, I mean, for longer, we have seen Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other far-left extremist groups go around destroying things, burning things, and then the press lying about it.
Well, now conservatives are fighting back, and many other states are proposing similar laws.
If you break the law and commit acts of violence, it is not a First Amendment issue.
The First Amendment says peaceably assemble, not violently smash windows, start fires, and hurt people.
But conservatives best be careful what they wish for.
While Democrats are saying this bill will be used against them, they're saying it will be used disproportionately to target left-wing groups because conservatives are mad about racial justice protests, Well, they're technically wrong, but they get one part right.
I do believe these bills will be used disproportionately against Republicans, and Republicans should pay attention as to what could happen, because the law typically slams the hammer down on anyone on the right who dares do anything outside of protest.
Conservatives, for the most part, don't actually protest.
They don't go out all that much.
But sometimes right-wing groups do.
When they do, they are smeared in the media, it's called a riot, not a protest, and the law comes after them hard.
Several times now, we have seen, say, the head of the FBI or other prominent federal law enforcement individuals or officials refuse to call out Antifa.
So this feels like a victory for many conservatives.
Finally, we will have some laws and the opportunity to stop these lunatics.
Feels good.
But again, what they're doing is already illegal.
So why pass more laws when it is already illegal?
Passing this law won't change the fact that progressive district attorneys are not prosecuting and these terrorists are being let go.
In fact, it may just backfire on conservatives in the event that they get involved in a protest.
I don't know for sure.
I mean, this is Florida.
Florida is doing ridiculously well, so far, in terms of defending people's rights.
Ron DeSantis is being praised.
Many people are speculating he could run as Trump's new vice president or even at the top of the ticket in 2024 for president.
He has come out and championed free speech, slammed big tech censorship, and is now passing a law that many conservatives are happy with because they want to see the extremists prosecuted.
But I'll say it one more time before we get into all this news.
You need to understand these things are already illegal.
No, I get it.
We're on the verge of mass rioting.
Tonight, we might see major, very serious riots in Minneapolis and around the country.
Saturday could potentially be worse.
Deliberations in the Chauvin trial begin on Monday, and they could wrap up very quickly.
And then we'll see massive riots.
So perhaps, we really do need the ability to prosecute these people and lock them up.
There are many things in this anti-riot bill That are probably, they're probably good things, but they're challenges because I believe in liberty.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer, and some of these changes penalize people or punish them before they've been convicted of a crime.
I don't know how you deal with these issues.
It's very challenging, and we'll break them down.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member to get access to our exclusive members-only section with a bunch of really awesome podcast segments with all the people you know and love.
Look, we got Seamus right here.
He was on with Jack Murphy.
We got Tom Rogan.
We got Jim Hansen and Phil Labonte.
And we're talking about really interesting things over at TimCast.com for the TimCast IRL podcast.
When you become a member, you are supporting my work in the event that we get banned or censored.
And we're going to be launching a ton of really awesome new stuff.
We've got new shows coming.
We are hiring a ton of people.
We're going to do Paranormal, a new podcast.
We're potentially going to do a sitcom, even.
We're going to make a massive network.
And it's with your help.
So check it out.
And now let's get back to the big breaking news.
And don't forget to like, share, subscribe.
Hit that notification bell.
NBC News reports Florida Senate passes controversial anti-riot bill pushed in wake of Black Lives Matter protests.
GOP Governor Ron DeSantis championed the legislation and is expected to sign as early as next week.
They say the bill would increase criminal penalties for assaulting law enforcement officials while engaging in a riot and defacing monuments and other public property during riots.
It would also penalize local governments that interfere with law enforcement efforts to contain riots and set up a citizen's appeal process when cities and counties try to reduce police budgets in response to the riots.
The final vote in the Senate was 23-17 with one Republican voting with Democrats.
The bill passed the GOP-controlled House in late March.
Democratic legislators argued that it would create a chilling effect on First Amendment rights and restrict political dissent.
Republicans argued that it would protect law enforcement officers and prevent public disorder.
GOP State Senator Ed Hooper said during the bill's contentious debate that the legislation was not about racism but about law and order.
Democratic State Senator Jason Pizzo, who criticized the bill, tweeted after it passed that this legislative session will likely get its own custom box of cards against humanity.
Ha ha ha, what a dumb joke.
Now let me tell you where I think this could be bad, and then we'll get into what we're actually going to see here.
There have been numerous videos, mostly out of say Portland, I know Portland's not Florida, where conservatives were peacefully protesting.
I kid you not, like walking around waving flags.
Far leftists brutally beat them.
What did the cops do?
The cops formed a line blocking the conservatives and provided protection for the far left.
We see the bias.
We know where it exists.
These cops don't care about conservatives, and when the conservatives were out protesting, it got to the point—that's how bad it was—that there were actually conservatives throwing the Blue Lives Matter flag into the dirt and stepping on it.
So you give the police this power.
Dissent is all dissent.
So keep that in mind.
When they say, we must protect free speech rights for everyone because soon they come for you, Republicans and Conservatives would be wise not to forget it.
Now I understand.
There's a big difference between smashing windows and engaging in a riot.
And a lot of Conservatives are probably saying, we don't do that, so why should we care?
Okay.
That's a good point.
You should not be doing that, and the First Amendment does not allow you to do that.
So there's no real argument beyond that point.
Don't go around breaking stuff, and you shouldn't have to worry about getting in trouble for breaking stuff.
I'm always concerned about the addition of new laws, though.
Like I said earlier, it's already illegal.
Just arrest them.
Well, there's new penalties and new protections in the law, so perhaps some of it does make sense.
I give you that warning just to say, make sure you're paying attention to this, lest you regret what you've wished for.
They go on to say, quote, This legislation strikes the appropriate balance of safeguarding every Floridian's constitutional rights to peacefully assemble, while ensuring that those who hide behind peaceful protest to cause violence in our communities will be punished.
DeSantis said in a statement.
Further, this legislation ensures that no community in the state engages in defunding of their police.
Another big component of this.
If a local community wants to strip the budget from their police department, they have to get state approval.
I'm actually not a fan of that.
I think defunding the police is dumb.
I think the police need more funding, better training, seriously better training.
Can we just put more money into that?
I also think police need to be attached to their job more so.
They need to feel passion for their job, and rewarded for their job.
I think cops should get paid more, and I think they should be better trained, and that means we need more funding for police.
The problem?
I don't mean more funding so that cops can have different kinds of, you know, more powerful weapons or anything like that.
I certainly think a diversity of weapons is good for a police officer, because if they're engaging in a riot, we don't want them shooting people.
You know, beanbags are a little rough.
What else you got?
But then the problem, I suppose, is lowering the cost of conflict increases the likelihood of violence from the left that results in people dying.
So it is a very serious challenge.
But when it comes to taking the budget away from a police department, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for that.
It's not always some ideological, just take their money!
Sometimes it's like, okay, we have too many cops in this area.
We should probably curtail this.
Maybe we have too many meter maids.
We should probably defund that.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet and greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
So I'm not sure on the specifics necessarily, but maybe the state would just be like, yeah,
So, all in all, it's a check on the system.
It's probably not that bad.
Let's read more.
They go on to say, for NBC News, since the deadly January 6th riot at the U.S.
Capitol, at least 13 states have taken up legislation to crack down on protests.
You see how they lie?
The bills are specifically about riots.
They're not the same thing.
But the media is lying to you because they agree with these people and want them to have the ability to smash things with impunity.
They say the push, critics say, is a revival of broader anti-protest efforts that emerged during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations that rocked the country last summer.
In addition to Florida, legislators in Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington filed bills that critics say use the violence of the Capitol to target social justice protests more broadly.
Many of the bills are similar or identical to the ones introduced in those states last year.
The majority of the bills use almost identical language and suggest similar penalties.
Most of them establishing third-degree felonies for property damage, injuring a person, or obstructing roadways, second-degree felonies for destroying or toppling monuments, and first-degree misdemeanors of harassment for confrontations in public spaces, such as confronting elected officials in restaurants.
The legislators also proposed hefty fines and mandatory jail sentences from 30 days to four years, depending on the offense.
The bills in Florida, Indiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Washington would redefine a riot or unlawful assembly as three or more people partaking in tumultuous activity.
I think three is probably too low of a number.
I think someone who's already committing a crime should be punished for it, and I want to point out some things that I'm worried about, and then we'll read a little bit about what we get out of this law, and some of the things to consider.
Check this out.
Property damage, third degree felony.
I think a felony's pretty serious, depending on the property damage.
It should be a little bit more broad than that.
Smashing a window should probably still be a misdemeanor.
Dude, you broke a window.
Property damage exceeding a certain value should probably be a felony, that I understand.
Property damage where you, like, I don't know, blow up a piece of contemporary art which makes a gigantic brass ball roll down a fountain and then crash into the front of a corporate chain coffee store should probably be a felony for a variety of reasons.
Some dumb kid throwing a rock at a window, you probably should get a felony.
There probably should be some serious penalties, but come on, keep it proportional.
Now, They say injuring a person or obstructing roadways.
Dude, dude, dude.
Injuring a person outright should be very, very serious.
Bordering on a high-level misdemeanor.
But obstructing roadways?
I'm not a fan of obstructing roadways.
No, no, I'm sorry.
Civil disobedience is fine.
If they're going to establish a third-degree felony for civil disobedience, nah, I'm not all about that.
I think we want to encourage all the hippy-dippy lefties to sit down, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya.
Nonviolent civil disobedience is peacefully assembling.
It may be...
A nuisance?
That's kind of the point.
If you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.
So we don't want to tell people if you sit down and hold hands, and we walk over, pick you up, and carry you away, you get a felony for that.
Sorry, I'm not all about that.
If people are peacefully in the street holding hands, and the police walk up and say, sir, you're under arrest, and they put their hands behind their back, and they get carried away to the police car or whatever, That's fantastic!
They peacefully assembled, they've made their point, and they're facing a criminal charge proportional to sitting in a street.
I'm not a fan of that.
They say second-degree felonies for destroying or toppling monuments, Yeah, I'm sorry.
I agree with that because these are very expensive pieces of art and history that you can't really replace what they are.
Destroying public property to that degree would likely require a large crowd.
I agree with that.
First-degree misdemeanors of harassment for confrontations in public spaces, such as confronting elected officials in restaurants.
Absolutely not.
No way.
You should be allowed to insult someone to their face.
Sorry.
Now, if you're harassing them, it's a different story.
But it's a misdemeanor, so I'm not really gonna, you know, act like it's all that bad.
You're gonna get a slap on the wrist.
They're gonna harass you and say, get away, you're harassing a public official.
But this should never be a protection for public officials.
It should be a protection for people in general.
Don't go up to somebody and scream in their face.
Guess what?
It's already a crime.
It should not be a crime if you see someone in a public space, I know it's a privately owned restaurant, but it's open to the public, and you go in, and you say, hey Ted Cruz, you know, I don't like you.
It's annoying, but the private establishment needs to deal with that.
You're allowed to say things to people.
Depending on what you do, like getting in their face, threatening, or harassment, which, harassment is what they're specifically referencing, would be repeated, you know, insulting, or berating.
I understand, don't harass people.
Let's try and not go overboard with this because it will be used against conservatives.
Now I want to show you this story.
This is a story from, I believe, this is from March 26th, when the House in Florida passed this.
And they have some criticism from the left.
Republicans say HB1 is about public safety and cracking down on protests that escalate to violent riots.
I can respect that sentiment.
Some protests in Tampa turned violent during the summer, following the death of George Floyd.
Meanwhile, Democrats opened their remarks with a symbolic gesture, speaking for the same length of time as George Floyd laid with a knee on his neck.
The bill lays out the definition of a riot, raises penalties for crimes committed during a riot, and creates a process for state's attorneys to challenge budget reductions to law enforcement.
Democrats say the bill will be applied unequally and used to crack down on peaceful protests for racial justice.
Republicans say the bill doesn't discriminate.
Republicans are correct, but unfortunately, so are Democrats for the wrong reason.
My friends, do you think the establishment that the government is worried about Black Lives Matter and the far left?
Of course they are.
They support this.
You know what they are worried about?
They're worried about a bunch of right-wingers who are engaging in a riot, and those are the people who are absolutely going to face the boot and the book.
It'll be thrown at them.
They said the final vote in the House was 76 to 39 in favor of HB1.
Straight down party lines.
So now we know that it's passed the Senate, and it will likely become law.
But I'd like you to understand why you need to pay attention to this.
Simply go to Google and search for the word riot.
And what do you get?
Well, everyone probably gets something a little different.
Here's what I get.
A damning new report explains the strangest thing I saw inside the Capitol riot.
Second one, after the riot from NBC News.
It's been a hundred days since the Capitol.
Next.
Politico.
Guitarist is first suspect in Capitol Riot.
Oathkeepers plead guilty in riot.
Inspector General, Capitol Riot.
Prosecutors, Capitol Riot.
Document, Capitol Riot.
Politico.
Alabama's woman's case becomes first test of anti-riot law.
Finally.
Something not about the Capitol.
Oh, here's the next one.
Capitol riot.
Capitol riot.
The entire page, save one post, is about right-wing individuals at the Capitol.
It has been 100 days.
And they are still, every single day, basically, basically every day, writing the same stories over and over and over again.
You give the establishment this power, don't be surprised when they crack you over the head with it.
Now, I warned you of this.
Last year, the year before, year before that, when I was watching the rise of the far-left extremist protests, I said, this will give rise to right-wing authoritarianism, and you will not like it.
You see, regular people don't protest.
They sure, absolutely do not riot.
But here's what happens.
Antifa comes out, acts a fool, smashes stuff up, and then regular people say, please give us more law enforcement and more authoritarianism.
And guess what?
Regular people will celebrate it.
I don't.
It's already illegal to commit these crimes.
We don't need more.
unidentified
Just arrest the people who are already doing these things.
There are some provisions for how they can hold rioters for like a weekend or so.
I understand that.
I think that actually might make sense.
But it still is dangerous.
You gotta balance this stuff, man.
The Blackstone's formulation.
I am ever the biggest fan of Blackstone's formulation.
I often try and tell people, especially secular liberal types, That Blackstone's formulation, which is, it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer, is actually rooted in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It's from the Bible!
Amazing.
These values carried on, and then this very smart man, at least in this instance, I haven't read all his works, Blackstone, said, we must protect the innocent even if it means guilty people go free.
Because we cannot be a society that has the scales weighed in favor of harming the innocent.
It was Otto von Bismarck, I believe, who said it is better that ten innocent people suffer than one guilty person escape, and that it's psychotic because you are balancing the scales towards torturing the innocent.
And if people in society feel that no matter what they do, as innocent individuals obeying the law, they could suffer because of it, they lose faith in the system.
We must protect the innocent.
I try and explain this to people.
That's why it's important to be careful about expanding government authority.
I'd like to show you some very interesting tweets, however, from Mr. Andy Ngo.
I would like to actually argue a little bit in defense of this law.
Because it's not... Look, people say I'm a milquetoast fence-sitter.
Perhaps I'm just a moderate.
I mean, I'm the one who really pushed the meme, so I'll take credit for it.
Someone called me that and I rolled with it.
But I think the issue is that there are considerations.
There are pros and there are cons, and I can't tell you what the future holds.
Andy Ngo highlights this individual.
He says, At the Antifa riot where the Portland Police Union was set on fire, Alma Raven Guido 19 was arrested.
She's charged with felony arson and was found carrying a crowbar, accelerants and lighters.
She was arrested at a riot last year but had those charges dropped.
First, this is a good example of the law already existed.
She was charged with a crime.
They could have prosecuted her and stopped her before she started a fire in this building.
This is a good example of where we don't need the anti-riot law.
We need our officials to do their jobs.
Granted, it's in Portland, but they have progressive district attorneys that are letting these people go.
And what happens when they do?
This next tweet.
Or I should say, this story I just showed you.
She sets fire to a building.
This is interesting.
Andy no says Antifa in Portland are panicking right now that it's been revealed that it was an informant who told
police Who exactly set the police union hall on fire at the riot?
Alma Raven Guido has been charged with five felonies, but was released without bail
I do not believe it is the biggest burden in the world if the state has accused you of something to give you an ankle monitor and say, we are going to be watching you.
That's it.
Or maybe just giving some surveillance to these individuals in some capacity, maybe not an ankle monitor.
I think it's fair to say we'll have some restrictions, because we're trying to balance the interests of the people, the state, and the individual.
We must lean in favor of the individual, which means, let the people go if you're accusing them of a crime until you can prove it, but the state should get some consideration in that capacity, like, these people have a history of doing this, let's at least put an ankle monitor on them.
Then, if they show up at a riot, you can just be like, okay, this person shouldn't be there, and you could arrest them, and then, if they're arrested on the spot, do something about it.
This is what's interesting about the anti-riot bill.
What's interesting about it is that it will be disproportionately used in my opinion.
That's why I have this article about the FBI and Antifa.
But they mention that you can hold people for a certain period of time without bail if they're arrested during a riot.
I'm not sure how I feel about that.
The reason I'll say I'll argue kind of for and against it at the same time is if the cop grabs a random person because they think this person did it and they don't have evidence and they were just there, is that person now going to be held for their first court hearing without bond or bail?
I'm not a fan.
During Occupy Wall Street, there was a guy in a suit who walked out of a bodega.
It's a bodega, you know, corner store.
He apparently was buying an orange soda on his lunch break.
But when he walked out of the door, he was in a crowd of protesters that the police had taken.
They call it kettling.
They take this, like, orange mesh net, and they wrap it around the protesters.
This guy is walking down the street, walking out of a store, and all of a sudden he finds himself wrapped up.
It's like, what's happening?
They arrested him.
Randomly.
Just some guy.
He's wearing a suit.
I mean, come on.
I understand the challenges the police face.
Innocent until proven guilty.
And that's for everyone.
It wasn't a violent protest in New York City.
Well, this guy was furious.
He apparently showed up to court and he was like, I walk out of a store and they arrest me and they didn't care what I had to say.
This is insane.
You can't do that.
I don't think you should be allowed to do that.
I do not believe this state should be allowed to take a guy on his lunch break and put him in jail overnight because he happened to be walking past somewhere.
We have serious challenges in this regard.
This is why I don't know how I feel about this.
The problem is, as I've highlighted with this woman, is that she was released without charge, but, like, you have an informant telling you what she's doing.
She's found with weapons in the clothing of those at the riot.
It's like, at a certain point, you can say, listen, we have more than enough evidence to suggest you were seriously involved, so you're not going to prison indefinitely.
We're just going to hold you until you can get your fair trial.
Maybe that does make sense.
There's got to be a line, I suppose.
Newsmax has a little bit more on the anti-riot law.
The reason I'm highlighting Newsmax is because it is a right-wing source.
And I will also note NewsGuard says they are unreliable.
Take that for what you will.
They say proceed with caution.
They violate their basic journalistic standards.
However, that tends to be the case with NewsGuard and conservative outlets.
Take it for what you will, they say.
Florida Senate has voted to approve an anti-riot bill supported by Republicans.
They're going to mention that this was noted by the Orlando Sentinel.
The newspaper notes that Democrats and civil rights organizations specifically point to the provisions in the bill that, quote, grant civil legal immunity to people who drive through protesters blocking a road.
Prevent people arrested for rioting or offenses committed during a riot from bailing out of jail until their first court appearance and impose a six-month mandatory sentence for battering on a police officer during a riot.
The bill also states that a city cannot reduce its police budget without prior approval from the state in an apparent response to defunding the police.
There are some interesting things there.
Legal immunity to people who drive through protesters blocking a road.
This is civil legal immunity.
What they've stated, the Republicans, they're not talking about someone driving full speed and slamming into protestors.
They're talking about people who are surrounded by protestors.
So I guess the difference here is, if somebody's in their car, and protestors surround them, they're allowed to leave.
Can't sue them.
If someone's in a car, and they approach the protestors, what the city said is, this does not protect you from criminal liability.
Meaning, if you're driving down the road and you see protesters, you slam the gas, you've committed a crime, you're not protected.
If you're a regular person driving down the road at the normal rate of speed, and a group of extremists start screaming and banging on your car, so you press the gas to get through them, you're probably going to be fine.
Sorry, this is nuance, and it does make sense.
We cannot be a society that allows people to rampage through the streets, smashing windows, destroying property, killing people, and attacking people in their cars, and then go, oh no, the person in their car tried to escape!
Bro, if you bring a baseball bat to a car fight, You know, you might get hit.
And I'm not talking about someone targeting the protesters.
I'm talking about if you choose to pick a fight, you are at fault.
I don't care who left, right, up, down, whatever, driving the car.
People in cars should not be going after protesters, period.
But people outside in the streets should not be attacking cars, period.
That's what we see.
It is tough, though.
Politics plays a major role in all of this.
Depending on what you actually see on video determines whether or not you'll get justice.
It's kind of nightmarish.
People thought that the ubiquity of video would save us.
You see that story in South Carolina where that army guy is pushing the young black man.
He's like, get out of here!
You don't belong here!
Interesting.
They said that he's been arrested on battery charges, he's being investigated by the army, Black Lives Matter is protesting his home, and now apparently local witnesses are saying that this young man actually assaulted a woman, and then someone ran to this guy for help to get this guy out of there, and he intervened and shoved the guy in defense of others.
He shouldn't have shoved him.
I think it's kind of in defense of others, yes, but not the immediate.
He shouldn't have shoved him.
The problem is videos uploaded to the internet will always be selective by the activists and the extremists who want weapons for their ideological war.
They believe they are justified in lying to you, which is why this next story is so important.
My shout out to Florida.
Florida viewpoint diversity bills could stifle speech at universities, faculty say.
Aw, poor babies.
There's going to be different opinions in your university and that's stifling your speech.
Don't care.
It's a bill-protecting speech.
And you're mad that it means other people can challenge your ideas.
The left, they are so good at lying.
Anti-racist means you're not racist.
Anti-racist doesn't mean not racist.
Anti-racist just means racist.
It means they want to racially discriminate.
When they talk about stifling speech, what they're really saying is, if your ideas are better than mine, people won't say my ideas, then what am I supposed to say?
Sorry, that's not what free speech means.
So people really like DeSantis.
He's coming out against big tech.
The Republicans in Florida are trying to protect viewpoint diversity.
And you know what the funny thing is?
You have a very large Hispanic population who knows all too well.
Florida is actually Decently diverse in some aspects.
And you have people who fled Cuba and Venezuela and other South American countries where they're like, nah, this socialism stuff ain't it.
And then you get Ron DeSantis saying, okay.
And maybe that's why it's happening.
Because people there actually understand just how bad it is to have these lunatics in control of your system.
So, my respect to Ron DeSantis.
I am not a big fan across the board.
I am a fan of these certain things he's done.
There was some certain issue I think about boycott, divest, and sanction, BDS, in Israel, that apparently he's in support of, you know, curtailing certain issues in that regard.
I'm not fully versed on this guy.
I just know that the things that I like, he's doing pretty well on.
Would I consider voting for the guy?
No, that would require going through a ton of his policies.
When it came to Donald Trump, Trump issued a platform.
He said, here are all the things I'm proposing, and I went through them and said, for the most part, I think these are good things.
I'll vote for that.
DeSantis?
I'd have to see something similar, and maybe he's got that, but he's doing really, really well so far.
Florida's anti-riot bill could come back to haunt conservatives.
You think right now you control Florida.
It's good for you.
You empower the state and eventually the Democrats will be in power and they will use this against you.
The same is true for censorship, which is why we must err on the side of liberty.
There are some good things in this bill.
Don't get me wrong.
I think if you get arrested at a riot, being held for a weekend ain't that big a deal.
You get held until your first court appearance.
There could be challenges in that some of these court appearances might take weeks to months to do.
It's where things get tough.
I will always err on the side of not empowering the state, especially when these things are already crimes.
But the civil protections I do understand, so.
We'll see what happens in the future.
DeSantis is gonna sign this.
And considering what's happening next week, maybe it's the right thing.
It's up to you to decide, I suppose.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
We'll talk about this in depth.
So come hang out, and we will see you all then.
It was a story that shocked the nation.
We couldn't believe it.
One of the leaders of Black Lives Matter was buying several homes, even a million dollar home and several half a million dollar homes.
People called it a multi-million dollar home buying spree, but we were shocked.
We believed in their message.
How could it be that someone who says they were fighting for truth and justice turns out to just be a grifter?
How about that?
Well, you may have heard the story, this Black Lives Matter lady bought a bunch of houses.
I gotta be honest, I don't really care all that much if somebody buys houses.
I mean, I think it's great.
She's showing you who she is and what she's gonna do with your money, so if you like that, keep giving her money, fine.
And I also think it's kind of silly, too, because high-level people who are organizing high-level things get paid a lot of money.
That's just the reality of it.
Now, I get it.
People are looking at this lady as a hypocrite because, well, they're supposedly Marxist, or they believe in equity for all peoples, and then they just enrich themselves.
If the lady came out and said she was a staunched, hardcore capitalist, people would be like, congrats on your homes.
Much like Bernie Sanders.
It's like, dude, You made a million bucks.
Good for you, bro.
We're very proud your book sold and you bought several houses, but don't claim to be a socialist when you want to own multiple properties.
I digress.
The big news is that Facebook has blocked the story.
That's right.
You cannot share the story about this BLM co-founder Patrice Concolor's multi-million dollar real estate buying binge.
In this tweet from Abigail Marone, she says, why won't Facebook and Instagram let users share this New York Post story?
And you can see that she was blocked.
You can't share this link.
It goes against our community standards.
Incredible!
It's absolutely incredible.
Well, we have more news.
I'm going to go over the story a little bit about this woman and her homes.
But the big news is the censorship.
It's not just the New York Post that's being barred.
We also have Facebook censoring the Daily Mail story on BLM co-founder's multi-million dollar LA property, Empire.
Users that wanted to share links to DailyMail.com were met with a message that said it couldn't be shared.
The same article in Black Enterprise was allowed to be shared by Facebook users.
Black Enterprise and DailyMail.com both cited the New York Post in their stories.
Twitter recently suspended sports writer Jason Whitlock for sharing the story.
The story noted that Patrice Cullors, 37, had spent $1.4 million on a Los Angeles property, and she also owns several others.
This is not about safety.
This is literally about barring enemies of the political leftist tribe.
That's it.
That's exactly what we're seeing, and it should be obvious to everybody.
There's no reason to ban this story.
Now, we have a statement as to why it happened, but I want to read for you the gist of the story.
We'll talk about who this woman is and what the Daily Mail is saying.
They say, quote, This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy, a Facebook spokesperson told DailyMail.com.
However, other outlets such as Black Enterprise, a media company that covers Black-owned businesses, was allowed to be shared by Facebook users.
It's not the first time Facebook has censored content from conservative voices.
Just last month, the social media platform removed a video interview from Laura Trump interviewing her father-in-law Donald Trump.
Readers of the New York Post on Facebook were also blocked from sharing a story about Culler's multi-million dollar property holdings.
The Facebook spokesperson claimed that the article shared multiple details which could identify the residence of one of the BLM founders in violation of her privacy rights.
As per our community standards, we do not allow people to post personal or confidential information about yourself or of others, the spokesperson said.
We remove content that shares, offers, or solicits personally identifiable information or other private information that could lead to physical or financial harm, including financial, residential, and medical information, as well as private information obtained from illegal sources.
I would like to just briefly pause and mention.
There was a story published recently by a large, a major news outlet, a very large company.
It was lies, and it's, well, I should say it was intentionally manipulative and misleading.
And it included very key details about where I live, making it very easy to find where I live and my house and my studio.
And thus, people doxed us.
Now, I'm not gonna cry and scream, and I want to be fair, it's not the exact same thing.
This news outlet didn't post photos.
I get it.
But Facebook doesn't care.
They're full of it.
It's a lie.
So everybody knows that we're in Maryland, basically.
And this article used the Maryland flag as part of the graphic.
And I'm like, why would you do that?
Why does my location?
They didn't just say the state.
They got very specific on exactly where we were.
Why would you do that?
Making it very, very easy for people to find out where I live.
Why?
A lot of people pointed out the goal was to get me hurt.
To make sure the activists could find out where I live.
But I'll tell you what.
I don't care, okay?
We are in the middle of nowhere.
It's relatively close to DC, I say that all the time.
But we're in a relatively rural mountainous area and you're allowed to be armed.
So I'm not super concerned.
I'm not gonna cry about it.
I'm not gonna run and demand censorship.
The reality is sometimes articles get written about you and they're unfavorable.
But when it comes to Black Lives Matter, we saw this backlash and it was absolutely hilarious.
Not first.
The first thing that happens is they started claiming that it was white supremacist lies to smear Black Lives Matter.
No, it wasn't.
It's people criticizing someone purporting to be a leftist Marxist who's making millions of dollars, or at least their net worth is somewhere in that range.
I'd imagine if they own four homes and one costs 1.4 million, Look, a lot of people maybe don't understand how buying a house works.
Just because she bought a 1.4 million dollar home doesn't mean she has 1.4 million dollars.
She probably got a mortgage.
But it does mean that she probably had to put down, I don't know, at least 5%.
So she had, what, 70k up front?
She probably put down more than that.
Maybe not.
But she still has tens of thousands of dollars from her job that she can put down.
And a 1.4 million dollar property I'd imagine would be something like $7,500 a month on the mortgage.
Maybe more, maybe $8,000.
Especially in the LA area.
I'd imagine it's probably higher.
Well, to be fair...
Interest rates have been low.
So maybe $7,500 a month for one of her homes.
She got, I think, four?
So she's probably spending $15,000, maybe $20,000.
Per month.
Okay, well the other ones, she has three other houses I think are half a million.
So those are probably more in the $4,000 range.
So yeah, looks like she's probably spending about $20,000 a month in mortgages.
If she got mortgages.
$20,000 a month, that means take home!
Take home.
Okay.
So if she's got $20,000 a month, take home.
Uh, and that means she's got other money she's gotta live off of.
I can't imagine she would strain herself all that much.
Maybe if she was bold, she'd use 50% of her after-tax income.
So that means she's probably getting $40,000 a month take-home, which probably means she's making like $75,000 per month from her gigs.
That's my rough estimate.
Maybe she's a bit more bold than that.
Maybe she's like, I only want to spend 10%.
She could be making millions of dollars per year.
And I believe it.
Didn't Black Lives Matter make like a billion something dollars?
Okay.
I worked for nonprofits.
And let me be reasonable with all of you when it comes to this.
First and foremost, the censorship is the biggest issue.
We have another story.
I want to talk about James O'Keefe, Project Veritas on Wikipedia.
So we'll get into that.
But I do want to say one thing before we move forward.
CEOs of non-profits get paid a lot of money, and they should get paid a lot of money.
If you're purporting to be a Marxist or a leftist, okay, I understand why people are mad at you and calling you a hypocrite.
That's fair.
But if you're part of a non-profit and, you know, your goal is to, say, end breast cancer or raise awareness for it or, you know, testicular cancer, or maybe you're raising an issue about the criminal justice system, If you're running a large non-profit, the non-profit needs the best of the best to run a non-profit.
They have to compete with major corporations for top executives.
That means non-profits must be competitive with the private sector.
Now there is typically a premium, or I should say a I totally respect that.
And then they go and buy homes.
Typically CEOs know if they go and run say Coca-Cola, they'll make 30 million bucks
And if they go and run say Greenpeace, they might make like a million or two
They do make less money, but they still want to be compensated a lot as top talent running a large organization
I totally respect that and then they go and buy homes totally respect that too. I'm a capitalist
I got no issue with that.
So if this lady is successful, by all means.
But here's what I love about this.
Please, just take this and it shows you the hypocrisy.
The lies.
They're just trying to make money.
It's true for many people.
If she wasn't claiming to be a leftist, fine.
Well, honestly, I don't know if she is specifically, but many of these individuals, the leaders of Black Lives Matter, have said they were Marxists.
All right, back to the main story at hand, though.
Facebook is censoring the story.
Look at this.
Here's an image where it says, you know, the Daily Mail story, the post couldn't be shared because it goes against our community guidelines.
Jason Whitlock, you know him, you'll love him.
We've had him on the IRL podcast.
He's a great guy.
He said, do you even comprehend my take?
She had a lot of options on where to live.
She chose one of the whitest places in California.
She'll have her pick of white cops and white people to complain about.
That's a choice, bro.
Well, Jason got suspended.
Jason got suspended on a Twitter over criticizing Black Lives Matter for this.
Well, there it is.
Ben Smith of the New York Times said Facebook on Whyatt blocked the article.
They said the article shared multiple details which could identify the residence of one of the BLM founders in violation of her privacy rights.
And then they go on to say what we already read.
They don't allow posts of personal or confidential information.
They remove content that shares or offers or solicits personally identifiable information or other private information that could lead to physical harm.
Should I go and complain about this article that lied about me?
That gave people information?
It literally told people who my police department was.
Okay?
That was the issue.
It's not hard to locate someone when you know their department because there are many police departments.
And that's what made it particularly easy.
But I'm not going to complain about it.
It is what it is.
The censorship is real, my friends.
And I want to talk about some of the happenings that right now that you may have heard about.
We talked about a bit last night.
And I want to talk about what needs to be done.
Twitter bans James O'Keefe of Project Veritas over fake account policy.
That's a bold statement.
As many of you may have heard, James O'Keefe has announced he will sue Twitter for defamation because they claimed that he was running multiple accounts.
The story from TechCrunch says, Twitter has banned right-wing provocateur James O'Keefe, creator of political gotcha video producer Project Veritas, for violating its platform manipulation and spam policy, suggesting he was operating multiple accounts in an unsanctioned way.
O'Keefe has already announced that he will sue the company.
The ban, or permanent suspension as Twitter calls it, occurred Thursday afternoon.
A Twitter rep said the action followed the violation of rules prohibiting operating fake accounts and attempting to artificially amplify or disrupt conversations through the use of multiple accounts.
This suggests O'Keefe was banned for operating multiple accounts outside the laissez-faire policy that lets people have a professional and personal account and that sort of thing.
Sharp-eyed users noticed that O'Keefe's latest tweet unironically accused reporter Jesse Hicks of impersonation, including an image showing a partly redacted phone number supposedly belonging to Hicks.
This too may have run afoul of Twitter's rules about posting personal information, but Twitter declined to comment when asked.
Update.
The image was, in fact, redacted.
I thought it was done by the person who took the screenshot, but the first digits were removed in the original tweet, so get your facts straight, TechCrunch.
Supporters of O'Keefe say the company removed his account as retribution for his most recent expose involving surreptitious recordings of a CNN employee admitting the news organization has a political bias.
The person he was talking to had impersonating a nurse matched with him on Tinder, Amazing!
I love how TechCrunch absolutely says this.
So, guys, I got an idea.
Can we get this in Wikipedia?
For all of you who track Wikipedia, who are on Wikipedia and are editors, can we now include TechCrunch as a reliable source saying, in an undercover video, I've seen an employee admitted the news organization as a political bias?
Yeah?
Alright.
For his part, O'Keefe said that he would be suing Twitter for defamation over the allegation he operated fake accounts.
Chief Legal Officer Jared T. E. told TechCrunch, James O'Keefe has only one account.
He does not have fake accounts.
Twitter's statement is simply false.
That's particularly interesting that Twitter said that.
For the longest time, I've pointed this out.
They've made this accusation against many people that they operated multiple accounts.
Under what evidence do they have to make that claim?
Now, many of the people who are accused of this did not sue.
I had to wonder.
If they didn't, were they really operating fake accounts?
I don't know.
But I will say this.
James O'Keefe may be the most important individual in the fight for free speech right now.
Obviously I'm speaking up and I'm speaking in defense of James.
And those are important things too.
But James is firing.
He has turned the ship and he is firing the broadside cannons or whatever at the establishment.
And he's not backing down.
And what he's doing is very important.
I look to the people fighting the fight for free speech.
Typically it tends to be a lot of conservatives, simply because conservatives are the ones getting banned.
But it's mostly people who have a more libertarian persuasion and an anti-establishment persuasion.
The people fighting the good fight are not the far left.
And on the right, very few are doing anything substantive.
James O'Keefe has not only sued the New York Times, he has announced a lawsuit against CNN, and now Twitter!
It's amazing because Project Veritas is an undercover journalistic enterprise.
They're an investigative news outlet.
Probably the most important and consequential news outlet that exists today.
I know.
I am very much propping up and giving credit to Veritas, but I have to say this.
I've long talked about the importance of investigative journalism.
I've long stated that in today's day and age, we don't necessarily need opinion people.
We don't need the New York Times writing an article on something we already know.
It's why so many news outlets have shifted to opinion.
Because when the news breaks, we get the fact.
Dog does backflip.
News at 11.
Well, we know the dog, but did the backflip.
Maybe there's some context we need.
We don't need a news outlet to tell us what happened because we heard it the moment it did.
So what news outlets then do is they start opining.
But was it a proper backflip?
Jim, I saw the backflip and it actually turned slightly to the right.
I would say it was more of a flat spin and not so much a backflip.
This is absurd.
That's what they do now.
What does James O'Keefe do?
Project Veritas gets people undercover, they investigate people, and they've had major breaking stories, notably the Epstein story with ABC News.
Now look, a lot of this comes from confidential sources.
They get supplied the information, they publish it, that's what news organizations were supposed to be doing.
It's funny now that Project Veritas is filing these lawsuits because not only are they a news enterprise, but they're becoming a non-profit that challenges the establishment's lies.
So I gotta say something.
I gotta point out Wikipedia, something I brought up yesterday that you may have missed in the IRL podcast.
Go on Wikipedia, and you will see Project Veritas.
Wikipedia states, Veritas is an American far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.
The group produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which use secret recordings to allege misconduct and corruption in mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.
Project Veritas has used an entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos' operations.
You'll notice that I had to blur a portion of this because they publish Veritas' address.
It's not the only article where they publish someone's address, but I'm not going to do the same.
Here's the important part.
Let's talk about a few things.
They say Veritas is far-right.
That's an opinion.
Activist group.
That's an opinion.
Producing deceptively edited videos.
That's an opinion.
They say they allege misconduct and corruption.
Now, that's true.
They do allege that, and that's a fair point in mainstream organizations and progressive groups.
That's a framing issue, but it's still allowed.
A framing issue means they should point out there are other organizations, there have been Republicans he's gone after.
In fact, I think Veritas got a Trump voter arrested for double voting.
Veritas uses entrapment.
Okay, I don't know what that source is, but that's a statement of fact.
To generate bad publicity for its targets and has propagated disinformation.
Disinformation is an opinion.
Conspiracy theories is an opinion.
Why is it that Wikipedia, claiming to be an encyclopedia, can publish opinions?
Section 230, they say.
Let me point something out.
The article has a lock in the corner.
I don't think you can see it in the way I have the article framed, but there's a lock that says that this article is semi-protected.
That means general users are not allowed to post on this.
This is where things get interesting.
If the New York Times takes a letter to the editor, or they, better yet, I don't even want to play the letter game, but let's say the New York Times publishes an article from John Smith.
And John Smith says, James O'Keefe, you know, stole a goat from a farmer's, from a farm.
It's an absurd story.
No one's gonna believe it's true.
Fine, whatever.
But it's a statement of fact published by the New York Times.
I guess theoretically the New York Times could say it was just one of our users who wrote something and then we published it.
It's on our front page.
It wasn't us.
See, here's the point.
At what point does it become speech from the New York Times or speech from Wikipedia?
Wikipedia, they say, it's edited by the users, therefore you can't sue Wikipedia for defamation.
However, this post does not show the users, and it's taking opinion pieces, and Wikipedia then purports it's a fact.
That's the interesting point.
If Wikipedia said it was... It says the free encyclopedia.
Well, encyclopedias have definitions.
Wikipedia, with their masthead over this article, is asserting these things under its brand to be true.
It's one thing when you see on Twitter a username and a statement.
We know who said that.
It's another thing when a bunch of random users we don't know on Wikipedia, and you'd have to go back and look at this massive history to try and find out who wrote these things and what they're saying.
What happens is a random person asserts an opinion.
Wikipedia launders that opinion into a new page that Wikipedia publishes.
I think there's grounds here, and I think Wikipedia needs to be sued.
I've heard it too much, and I just don't care.
The lawyers are like, you're wrong!
You can't, it's section 230, they're protected, they're opinions.
Wikipedia says it's an encyclopedia, encyclopedias are not op-eds.
If Wikipedia is taking opinions from random people, but then publishing it under their masthead as an encyclopedic fact, They are making a statement of fact, not the users.
It's about time people start suing Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, and making these arguments.
And I've heard it from all these lawyers, you can't do it because it's an opinion.
Do it and get case law, get precedent, like James O'Keefe did.
When the judge ruled, of the New York Times.
If your reporters are going to interject opinion, it stands to reason the New York Times should be informing its readers of that.
And based on that, Wikipedia should be sued into oblivion.
If Wikipedia is going to purport opinions as fact, it stands to reason every single one of these pages should say, this is not an encyclopedia, this is an amalgamation of various opinions of random internet users.
It doesn't.
Encyclopedia means something.
So if someone comes to me and says, I think that James O'Keefe smells bad.
That's an opinion.
And then I say, okay, I'm going to take what you said and I'm going to publish it on my page.
Now I can't be sued.
That's insane.
I'm not the one who wrote it.
Wikipedia has protected this article, meaning they have set an editorial standard as to who is allowed to contribute.
It's exactly what the New York Times does when they say only certain people we approve are allowed to contribute.
I've talked to a lawyer about this and they argued, theoretically, that's right, the New York Times should be immune on every single story they write because it's written by users of their website.
I guess you could argue, as employees of the company, they represent the company.
So, compensation?
Is that the line we draw?
Okay, here's what I'll do.
I'll open up a user-generated posting platform where only select users are allowed to post like Wikipedia does.
I won't pay them!
And then what?
They can publish anything they want?
Here's the best part.
NewsGuard has up in the top right, this website is a platform that publishes content from its users that it does not vet.
Information from the source may not be reliable, but it's got an information icon.
It does not show a warning sign.
Alright, that's what I'll do.
I think for TimCast.com, I will approve of a handful of people based on some arbitrary standard and say you can write whatever you want because it's user-generated content.
Sorry.
There's got to be a line.
It cannot be absolute.
I'm actually a fan, in many ways, of Times v. Sullivan, that creates the actual malice standard for public figures.
I need to say things, and sometimes I'm wrong, and I will try to correct them.
But if we didn't have that standard, you'd be sued into oblivion.
The issue is, it's— Section 230 is too much.
These news outlets can lie, fine.
But there needs to be some standard.
If New York Times wants to assert an opinion, then they should have to say it's an opinion.
Because if they say it's a fact, then you should be able to sue them.
Wikipedia is the same way.
In the end, all of these lies and manipulations, they're breaking everything apart.
We'll see what Veritas pulls off, and we'll see what happens with this Facebook censorship, but I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Chicago has released body camera footage of a police officer shooting and killing a 13-year-old boy.
They said that he was armed with a gun, and the story is tragic.
I grew up in Chicago.
I understand this kind of stuff all too well.
I have known people who have been in these situations, and you need to understand this.
First, nobody wanted a kid to die.
I don't even think the cop wanted to be in that situation.
Let's start treating people like humans and start talking about these tragedies and what's causing them.
It's like a Chinese finger trap.
We're missing the big picture.
Chicago has problems.
Gangs give kids guns and tell them to do things in an effort to avoid criminal liability for themselves.
They'll tell the kid, you have to do this.
You want to join the gang?
Here's the gun.
Go shoot that person.
And the kid will do it.
And the argument is, well, you'll get out of jail when you're 18.
And then the adults don't get in trouble.
At least they try not to.
Sometimes they get implicated.
It happens.
Chicago's got problems, man.
Now here's where things get frustrating for those of us who really want to solve these problems and figure out what's going on.
In the body camera footage, the left is now claiming that it shows the child clearly was unarmed.
In fact, that's not true.
But they said he had his hands up and they were empty, and that's true.
This is where things get complicated.
We have this story from the Daily Mail.
Quote, he lied about the police killing a child.
AOC slams prosecutor in Adam Toledo case for telling a judge the boy was holding a gun as she renews attack on system that covers up state violence.
He was holding a gun.
There's video footage of him holding a gun.
The big issue, I suppose, is that when CBS published the story, they cropped the video down so you can't actually see the kid holding the gun.
The kid, apparently, was holding it, tossed it real quick, and threw his hands up before getting shot.
So now there is a still photo going around on the left of a young boy holding his hands up and being shot.
And there is a still photo of a young boy holding a gun.
I think it's a Glock.
Holding a gun and then getting shot.
If you want to understand the truth, you need to understand the whole picture.
The left isn't giving you the whole picture.
They're reactive.
I mean, they're reactionaries.
That means something else.
But they react to things.
They don't investigate things.
So AOC is screaming, and she is wrong!
It's frustrating to have hordes of people smashing windows and burning cities down because they're too stupid to do a Google search.
Now, I don't like to be mean to people, but these people are burning down buildings.
They are violent criminals, and they are stupid people.
And because of that, We all have to suffer.
AOC is a stupid person as well.
U.S.
Rep.
AOC has accused a prosecutor in the Adam Toledo police shooting death of lying in a Thursday tweet.
The prosecutor and Cook County Assistant State's Attorney, James Murphy, told a court earlier this month that the video showed Toledo, a 13-year-old boy who was fatally shot by a Chicago police officer, had a gun in his hand when he was shot.
He did.
Define when he was shot.
What's the time frame?
When the police were chasing after the kid, he was armed.
When the police drew their weapons, he was armed.
And when the kid tossed the gun and threw his hands up, he got shot.
Why?
The problem is, partly for the police.
I'm pretty sure they were yelling, put your hands up, or, you know, drop the weapon.
The problem is, as soon as they make a movement, the cop is like, you don't know what that movement's gonna be, we can't see the future.
So, are they raising their hands, or are they raising the weapon?
So the cop fired.
I don't know what you do in a situation like that.
That's tough.
The kid should not have died.
But he did have a gun.
You wanna talk about whether it's justified or not, by all means do so, but the kid had a gun.
They say, and this is amazing, where the Daily Mail gets it wrong.
I'm gonna fact check them and it's gonna be quite fun.
Video showed Teen, the teen, appearing to drop a handgun and raising his hands right before the cop opened fire.
So you mean he did have a gun in his hand, and then in a tenth of a second, when he drops it and raises his hands, he gets shot.
See how they frame this.
Watch.
Police say the teen had a handgun on him that morning, and that less than a second passed from when Toledo was seen with the gun in his hand to when Stillman opened fire.
That's true.
The Cook County State's Attorney's Office said in a statement that the prosecutor failed to fully inform himself before speaking in court.
Errors like that cannot happen, and this has been addressed with the individual involved.
The video speaks for itself.
AOC did not accept the explanation.
The prosecutor did not make an error.
He lied, the Democrat rep from New York's 14th congressional district wrote.
He lied about the police killing a child.
Ending this isn't just about consequences for who pulls the trigger.
It's about admitting to and confronting an entire system that exists to protect, defend, and cover up state violence.
Now listen, AOC wants to come out and rag on state violence.
Alright, I'm down.
I just don't believe they're genuine.
They just want to be the ones who wield the state violence.
Yeah, they want to appoint their woke brigade to be the police to use state violence.
And there's a really good example of that in, I think it was Milwaukee.
When a bunch of Black Lives Matter activists were outside of a man's home and protesting, and in his home, he brandished a shotgun.
When the police came for him, and when they yelled, called the cops, they were cheering for it.
When the violence, when the oppression from the state is on their side, they're happy.
So, no.
I don't believe AOC.
She is a liar.
She's very... She's very... Listen.
I said she was stupid.
Let me clarify that.
She's very talented, and she is very capable, and she's smart in many ways.
But maybe I shouldn't underestimate her by calling her stupid.
And I should point out, she probably knows what she is doing.
They say a still frame from the newly released footage of the shooting that killed 13-year-old Toledo on March 29th shows he was not holding anything.
The footage also shows he had his hands up when the officer shot him once in the chest.
Video appears to show the boy throwing something away that could have been a gun.
Gun and gun residue was found in the teen's hand, but it is not clear from the footage he was not holding anything when he was shot.
Over the weekend, prosecutors had described the events of the video, that had not yet been made public at the time, as the judge set bonded $150,000 for the 21-year-old who was with Toledo.
Lawyers prosecuting Ruben Roman, who was represented by a public defender.
He was charged with reckless discharge.
Prosecutors told the court that video captured Roman firing shots before police responded to the scene, who dropped gloves on the ground that later tested positive for gunshot residue.
The other officer on the scene then chased Toledo, telling him to stop repeatedly, who eventually complied near a break in a wooden fence, prosecutors said.
A 13-year-old boy was then ordered by police to show his hands, Cook County's Assistant State's Attorney James Murphy said.
Prosecutors said the boy was told to drop it, drop it.
As Toledo, with a gun in his right hand, according to prosecutors, turned toward the officer, the officer opened fire, hitting the teen once in the chest.
The prosecutor then said the gun Toledo was holding landed a few feet away, despite it being shown in the now-released footage that he was not holding anything when he was shot.
This is the problem.
The activists are arguing that the police should have been able to, in a split second, in a high-adrenaline moment, where a kid is holding a gun, understand his movements were specifically to raise them.
Now, to clarify, they're saying the cop should have immediately recognized his hands were empty, but it was a high-intensity moment.
I'll tell you this.
When they say, see, his hands were empty when he got shot.
That's not fair.
It is fair to say that the cop is the one who wanted his hands up and should not have shot.
That's fair.
But the kid did have a gun.
Period.
It's a problem.
The kid shouldn't have died.
They say, the Congresswoman has been one of the top critics of law enforcement, as we know.
Protests have been in Minneapolis, as we understand.
Here's the gun.
The Chicago Police Department released a photo of the gun that was recovered from the scene after one of its officers shot and killed Adam Toledo.
They go on to mention, you know, I had a Presley, a member of the squad, said, tweeted, he was 13 years old and the police executed him.
Executed.
Would be dropping him to his knees and putting a gun to his head.
This was a chase from a kid who was armed.
Chicago has a problem, man.
But this is not how we solve it.
It's not.
I mean, the Chicago police are one of the worst departments in the country.
They are insanely corrupt.
They operate black sites.
You know what that is?
It's like an unmarked building where they bring people and beat them and do other nasty stuff.
There was this big story about a guy who was electrocuting suspects in Chicago into false confessions.
I know CPD's bad.
But let's be honest about what happened.
I'd like you to check out The Federalist.
The Federalist is absolutely On the, on the, in the doghouse with, uh, with NewsGuard.
You know that I use NewsGuard sources for everything on purpose.
Because I'm going to fact check these things, I will criticize them if they get things wrong, but the source of information will be NewsGuard.
Now check this out.
NewsGuard says the Federalist is a trash rag.
They say it severely violates basic journalistic standards.
It's an anonymously owned website that has repeatedly published false or misleading information in significant news and opinion stories.
Alright, that's significant.
Here's the thing, though.
In this instance, I find it fascinating the Federalist actually has got the factual story.
It says, CBS News edited police body cam video to mask teen holding a gun before he was fatally shot.
Now let me slow down there, Federalist.
We don't know exactly why they edited it.
So to say they did it to do this, I would not agree with.
Hence, probably one of the reasons NewsGuard gives them a bad rating.
I would say, CBS News edits police body camera footage, comma, masking teen holding a gun before he was shot.
The two there implies it was intentional.
I don't know that.
But they're still correct in a broader sense.
CBS publishes this video, which I'm not going to play.
It says, newly released body cam footage shows Chicago police chasing and fatally shooting 13-year-old Adam Toledo.
Jerry Dunleavy tweets, CBS News shared a version of the police body camera footage where the right and left edges of the video were trimmed away, meaning that the portion of the video where Adam Toledo is seen holding a firearm at one point is no longer visible because it is now just off screen.
He then posts the full video, and we have many other people including Ryan Saavedra, who says, quote, unarmed.
Andrew Yang tweeted, a child was killed in Chicago. His name was Adam Toledo. He was 13.
He was unarmed. His hands were up. He wasn't unarmed.
That's not true.
The problem here is that the left has an opportunity to frame this as, hands up, don't shoot.
By saying his hands were up and then he was shot.
That is technically the truth.
The best kind of the truth, if you ask me.
I'm saying that sarcastically, by the way.
The reality is, cop was in a bad spot.
Kid had a gun.
In his hand.
Cop said, put your hands up.
When the kid made his movement, the cop seems to have panicked and shot him.
I think it was...
Man, this one's tough.
This one's really tough.
Cops should not have shot him.
That's a fact.
But if you've never been in a high-intensity moment, you're not thinking the same way.
You're not, like hindsight is 20-20.
I'm sure looking back on it now, people are like, but he put his hands up.
Cop panicked.
I'm sorry though, cop panicking is no excuse for shooting somebody.
I remember that story where a cop pulled somebody over.
And the guy, you know, gets out of his van and the cop's like, can you give me your license and insurance?
And the guy goes, okay.
And then leans into the car and the cop goes, no, no!
And the cop shoots the guy several times like, you asked him to get his wallet, what are you doing?
Scared cops are a problem.
The kid should not have been shot.
But be honest about what happened.
This is not the same story as the guy who got pulled over, who was asked to get his wallet and got shot.
This is a kid and a guy, and they're armed and they're running, and then the kid has a gun.
And the cop, drop it, drop it, put your hands up, the kid moves, the kid gets shot.
I don't know how you solve for these problems, man.
I really don't.
But lying about it ain't it.
I think it's funny that the Federalist, as I mentioned, is the one lacking credibility.
To be fair, the Daily Mail, I think, frames it poorly.
The Daily Mail, many on the left say it's biased, it's conservative.
Dude, they do stuff for the left all the time.
They hated Trump.
Many news outlets are Giving you this textualized version that doesn't explain what actually happened.
Within a split second of dropping the gun, he was shot.
His hands went up.
It's irrelevant.
In this video, you see him holding the gun.
The cop may have decided to shoot the moment he had the gun and he pulled it.
And then the cop... No!
And then he puts his finger on the trigger, then the kid throws it and throws his hands up, and he's already in the process of being shot.
It was a split second.
I don't know how you solve for these problems, man.
I think you need to understand that tragedies will happen no matter what.
Unless everyone's got a personal force field and then no one gets shot anymore, I don't know how you solve for this.
CNN and Strom Law, author of a New York Times bestseller, said, Compare Adam Toledo to Kyle Rittenhouse.
This is what we're talking about.
Okay.
Let's compare Adam Toledo to Kyle Rittenhouse.
Toledo was with an older man.
Both were armed.
They were engaging in criminal activity.
And they fled from police.
And then, you know, there was gunshot residue.
There were apparently already discharges.
And the kid had a gun.
The cop panicked.
Shot him.
Kid did put his hands up.
Kyle Rittenhouse.
The police abandoned the area.
Riots had been persisting for a few days.
He was, my understanding right now, in legal possession of a long gun, because I believe many people were saying he was a minor.
He wasn't allowed to have that.
That may be the case, but I think, right now, there's a legal argument he was.
So, let's just call that undetermined.
Potentially illegal or legal, we're not entirely sure.
It was a mass riot where a 70-year-old man, or someone in his 70s, was bashed over the back of the head and left bloody because people were trying to burn down his business, and several businesses had already been set on fire, and Kyle Rittenhouse was trying to put fires out and render aid to the rioters.
That's a very different story.
When several of the rioters tried pushing a flaming dumpster into a gas station, which would potentially blow it up, Kyle Rittenhouse and his crew acted to extinguish that fire.
The extremists got angry, and then attacked Kyle Rittenhouse and chased him, and he fled.
It was only after someone fired a gun did he turn around and shoot in self-defense.
Upon shooting the man in self-defense, he then said, I'm gonna go get help, and he ran to the police, and when, on one video, someone said, what happened?
What happened?
He says, I'm getting the police.
I'm getting the police.
They then said, it's him, it's him, get him, and they chase after him.
Someone kicked him and knocked him to the ground.
He rolled over.
They tried grabbing his gun.
He fired in self-defense, putting a bullet in the heart of one man.
Then, another guy tried grabbing him, and he blew his bicep off.
Don't grab someone's gun.
Rittenhouse was trying to go to the police, and they told him to F off, basically.
He went home and turned himself in.
The issue is, they're nowhere near the same things.
Police responding to an illegal discharge in a city, and chasing after a kid who's armed, and then kid gets shot.
Shouldn't have happened, but it's dramatically different from an area where there's no police, ongoing riots, and people are attacking a guy who was literally just rendering them aid previously.
Kyle Rittenhouse was not a criminal.
He was a lifeguard, is my understanding.
And, in my opinion, he should not have been in that situation.
Either, it should not have happened.
The problem is, in Chicago with Adam Toledo, the cops intervened in a crime in progress.
In Kenosha, the police did not.
Compared to Kyle Rittenhouse, they're two entirely different things.
You want to talk about what should or shouldn't happen with Rittenhouse?
I hear you.
There's no real easy way to understand, you know, or to know.
Everyone thinks they're right.
Hindsight is 20-20.
Kyle Rittenhouse was trying to defend his area, and he was trying to stop the chaos and save lives.
And they attacked him for it, and he defended himself.
And he was allowed to do it.
He was not a kid who was in a gang, who was romping around these streets or doing these things.
We'll see what happens.
I think they overcharged him.
The bigger question I have, though, in this comparison is the Second Amendment.
Does it apply to minors, in my opinion?
Yes, it does.
Now, I know most people won't agree.
Conservatives probably won't agree to a certain extent.
Liberals definitely won't agree.
I would assume leftists probably would agree because they want young, impassioned revolutionaries to be armed, maybe.
Conservatives probably agree that a kid should be able to have a gun if they're under proper supervision or their parent is helping them.
Libertarians probably just agree outright.
Kids should be allowed to have guns.
I'm not saying that kids should have guns, but I'm saying the Second Amendment applies to kids with guns.
I believe the Constitution applies to everyone.
Now, some people have said, Tim, that means people under 18 should have the right to vote.
I do not believe the Constitution sets an age limit for voting.
I could be wrong about that.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I think it doesn't, though.
There are amendments that were added later about, you know, race and sex.
Not national origin, I was thinking civil rights.
No, no, you can't be barred from voting on the basis of your race or your sex.
I don't think there's anything specific that says age, though typically the Constitution does apply to young people.
The issue here is that, and I'll tell you why I think Second Amendment does apply to someone who's 13 years old.
Back when they wrote this, a 13-year-old was... I know, it's kind of weird, but an adult.
Isn't that crazy?
I mean, go watch the... Go watch Interview with a Vampire when, uh... Was it Brad Pitt?
Was he... He's like, I was 26 and I was a man of that age, master of my own plantation.
It's like, yeah, people these days are 22 and they're just out of college and they've never had a job before.
Back then, you'd be 16 and married and having your kids.
Maybe around 17 or 18, you'd have kids.
You'd have a family.
You were an adult.
I believe they intended for people to have guns.
Kids would have to work and needed to be armed, and I'm sure there were many young people fighting.
I'm not saying we should maintain the idea of child soldiers or kids fighting or working in factories or anything like that.
Of course not.
I'm just saying the Constitution applies to everyone.
Someone who's 13 has constitutional rights.
They have a right to the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, all that stuff.
It's not held true for the most part.
The reason I say this, though...
They have passed laws in the past few years saying if you're under 21 you can't buy guns.
Some people have tried, I should say.
Some stores have said we won't sell guns to people under 21.
It's a violation of people's rights.
When you say that 18 is the right age, how long until they say 21 is the right age?
21 is the right age. 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 35, 40, 41.
Where does it end?
I mean it seriously.
18 is an arbitrary number set by today's standards.
It wasn't always the case.
21 is the next arbitrary number.
How does it make sense that you can't buy cigarettes in some states until you're 21?
21?
That's insane!
I always thought it was crazy that you could legally die for your government, but you couldn't drink a beer.
How stupid is that?
These rules seem to be arbitrary.
Now, I understand the idea of why you don't give alcohol to kids or drugs to kids.
I agree with that.
But should a child or minor be allowed to bear arms?
100%.
Because we are not talking about some kid running around like a moron with a gun.
We're talking about many different circumstances.
First, hunting.
Go out hunting with your dad.
Maybe you're hunting turkey.
I'm not talking about a 5.56 AR-15.
I'm talking about a shotgun.
So what if a kid needs to defend themselves in the home?
Well, as Reason points out in this article, typically they do have a right to bear arms in their home in self-defense.
But what if you're on your property outside?
What if you want to go to the movies?
Why does your right to self-defense end when you're simply walking around a public common area?
What I'm getting to here is, the bigger argument to me is that the police chasing after a kid because he was armed, or isn't that a justification to shoot him, I believe is wrong.
I don't think the cops should shoot people simply because they have guns.
It's in the Constitution.
This is a problem.
There are cops who are like, he had a gun, I got scared, I shot him.
I don't care!
If, like, if the cop was scared that you were speaking naughty words, he would shoot you, I understand words aren't gonna kill you, and a gun might, so the cop's defending himself.
But if the Constitution says we have a right to bear arms, then the burden is on the state.
If you see someone with a gun, you go, ah, he's got a gun, I'm gonna shoot him.
The Constitution says you can have a gun.
The kid was running.
I get it.
The cop was scared.
I get it.
It's a tragedy.
These things shouldn't happen.
But you need to understand, we can't just assume there's no line.
That it's just randomly determined.
We need to understand what the rules are.
If somebody has a gun, I do not believe that should be the sole justification for getting shot.
I don't.
The cop should have been like, the kid's got a gun.
What do you do?
Approach it better?
Or just let him go?
I don't know, man.
The problem is we're passing more and more restrictive laws.
The city says no one can have guns.
Then you get a kid with a gun so the cop shoots him because he's not supposed to have a gun.
He won't drop it.
It's going to be a problem so long as we recognize that sometimes maybe the laws are the problem.
What would have happened if the cop just said drop the weapon and the kid ran and the cop didn't give chase because the kid was allowed to bear arms?
I can tell you this.
The kid would not be dead.
The left will try to argue, you know, clairvoyance.
I'm not here for this.
Well, he would have then had the gun and then maybe he would have shot someone.
Conservatives might argue that too.
The gun rights people are really interesting to me.
I'm sorry, the gun control people.
The gun control people are interesting because they're the same people who are upset this kid got shot.
But you're the one who wants to ban the gun in the first place!
So let me end by saying this.
The problem, I find, is with mostly the left.
They would defend this kid.
You are the ones who called for this gun control.
The gun control resulted in a cop shooting a kid because he was trying to confiscate that kid's gun.
