S580 - Democrat Threats And BLM Riots May Have ALREADY Corrupted Chauvin Trial, Jury May Say GUILTY In Fear
Democrat Threats And BLM Riots May Have ALREADY Corrupted Chauvin Trial, Jury May Say GUILTY In Fear. Democrat Maxine Waters incitement to insurrection and ongoing BLM riots may have jurors terrified over what may happen.
It is possible that regardless of what the jury thinks of George Floyd they are too scared to defy the far left. Though a hung jury also seems like due to a refusal to agree, fear may win out the day.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As the closing arguments are underway in the criminal trial of Derek Chauvin, many fear the jury may simply say guilty because of the ongoing riots, and fears that if they say not guilty, they will face serious and violent ramifications.
Our next segment has to do with what may happen.
Riots erupted over the weekend, and the National Guard even took live fire, with two National Guardsmen being injured and one being hospitalized.
In our last story, Black Lives Matter accidentally protested shortly for an individual after they learned he was killed by police until realizing he was actually a white male in his 20s who was a carjacker.
Before we get started, leave us a good review.
If you like the show, give us 5 stars.
And if you really like the show, please share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
As I am recording this video, the defense in the criminal trial of Derek Chauvin is still giving their closing arguments.
They have not yet concluded.
But I've listened to them so far, and I've listened to the prosecution, and I have to say I'm shocked by some of the things the prosecution brought up as a good argument.
They showed video of George Floyd actively resisting, knowing that he was being arrested, with even a bystander saying, you can't win, just get in the car, and Floyd saying no.
I can't believe they would think that would sway the jury.
And many responses to what I said are in agreement with people saying, you know, it seems like the state is dropping the ball on this one.
However, at the same time, the left is saying the exact same thing about the defense.
I can't believe they would show video of George Floyd begging for his mother and saying he's claustrophobic and the defense thinking that would help them win.
Clearly, we all have our view on this, so I can't make a prediction.
If it were me, after watching all of the evidence, my opinion is, not guilty.
Now, perhaps I could be persuaded on manslaughter, but I think for the most part, not guilty.
But the reality is, a hung jury is a very real possibility, and I don't think the merits of this case have much to do with it.
I believe that we may be looking at a hung jury simply because of the riots, the vandalism, and because of breaking news about one of the witnesses having their homes vandalized.
We know the jury is concerned, at least some of them, that there will be retaliation against them.
There has been reporting that their identities will be revealed once it's considered safe.
That means, in this verdict of Derek Chauvin, which may happen this week or who knows how long it would take, There needs to be a unanimous decision.
So if they vote guilty or not guilty, everyone will know.
They all said yes or no.
Now, if the jury says that Chauvin is guilty, what do they have to worry about?
Nothing.
No conservative is going to show up to their house.
No cop is going to show up to their homes.
They'll be left alone.
If they say not guilty, what will happen?
I think it's clear now, based on the statements of Maxine Waters inciting insurrection, as well as the attack on this witness' home, they know what will come for them, and they expressed this even before the start of the trial.
But it's also possible some of these individuals stand on principle and, based on the evidence, say, I will not.
I will not say he's guilty, based on the evidence I've seen so far.
Analysts over at Legal Insurrection suggest, you know, if it were actually a fair trial, that they believe this would be an acquittal, maybe not on all charges.
One analyst said they would be surprised if Chauvin was acquitted on all charges, or found not guilty on all counts.
So a hung jury is a real possibility.
And in my opinion, I'm kind of leaning towards a hung jury because everyone kind of gets away from the politics if that's the case.
Although I said, look, no conservative is going to show up if they say guilty, there will be a major political uproar no matter what is the result.
But a hung jury means these jurors can be like, don't look at me.
No one agreed and you don't know who said what.
It's actually the safest bet for the jurors.
And that's why I personally, look, my opinion, be it worth very little, I'm not a lawyer and have very little experience in this, I'm leaning towards that being logical.
But I'm going to show you the opinions of some legal experts and what they're saying may happen.
And why their opinion is, there will likely not be, or I should say this was not a fair trial, and the emotion and fear will likely be the driving force, not the actual arguments.
Keep in mind, the prosecution had a ton of support and the defense had just one guy.
Not an easy case.
But the jurors certainly understand what just happened in these past few days.
The Minnesota National Guard took live fire.
Maxine Waters said, no matter what, get in the street and get confrontational.
And a pig's head was left at the former home of a defense witness.
They're coming for these individuals.
Anybody who dares support Chauvin.
Well, let's read the news, read the analysis, and see what's going on.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to get access to exclusive members-only segments.
And we've got a whole bunch of stuff in the works.
We just put up the first episode of the vlog.
If you actually want to see what the house is like, we actually have a video up at TimCast.com.
You can check that one out with a new channel.
And we're going to be starting it up.
You know, new videos probably once a week for the next couple of weeks until we can get someone full-time producing vlogs.
And then it's going to be every single day.
It's going to be a lot of fun.
We launched an expensive race car over a garage.
It went very high and far.
It was fun!
So check it out, TimCast.com.
But don't forget to like, share, subscribe.
Hit that notification bell.
Let's read.
Starting with legal insurrection.
They say live.
Chauvin trial day 15.
Closing arguments and jury instructions.
After more witness and jury intimidation by activists and politicians threatening violence if no murder conviction.
The story, uh, this analysis from Andrew Branca.
I just want to point out something in his analysis right there.
He says, they're threatening more violence unless there's a murder conviction.
Maxine Waters said first degree murder.
Chauvin was not charged with first-degree murder.
He cannot be convicted of something he wasn't charged with.
They're basically saying no matter what happens, get ready, y'all.
And that's why I believe a hung jury may be a very real possibility.
Branca writes, Today we're expecting to hear the closing arguments from the prosecution and the defense, likely with a follow-up rebuttal closing by the prosecution.
As well as to have the jury given the final instructions intended to guide them in their application of Minnesota law to the facts of this case, as they alone determine those facts to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
So far, that's the normal course of business in any criminal trial in America.
What's not normal, of course, is the judicial terrorism raging around the case.
Terror, of course, is the use of non-state violence to achieve a political end.
What we are seeing currently in America is the use of violence to achieve purported justice, in the twisted and profoundly anti-American view of justice that is held by militant factions of such groups as Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and other proponents of mob rage and violence and destruction, in which justice is not defined by the process, but by the outcome.
As one example, in the UK-based Daily Mail, they mention the pig's head.
Given that Broad's testimony, he was the one who had his former home vandalized, in the cases long since over, this cannot be a message targeted at him personally, and there's nothing left to intimidate him about.
No, this can only be understood as a chilling message for the jurors in the Chauvin case, who were not sequestered over the weekend and thus fully exposed to the push news of social media.
Even worse, of course, is that such acts of judicial terror have ripple effects that reach to every other high-profile case that may occur, any time in living memory, of anyone aware of the case.
Every prospective witness, juror, even defense counsel, in the next high-profile case, perhaps the rapidly approaching Rittenhouse trial, will be fully aware of what they can expect if they play any role in defense whatsoever.
This would be bad enough if the acts of judicial terror were limited to a handful of fringe wackos, but it's not.
Apparently, such conduct is gleefully embraced even by America's fringe national-level politicians.
We know what Maxine Waters said.
So moving on, they say, those words said in the midst of a peaceful protest could be interpreted
as merely urging further peaceful efforts.
When said in the midst of a protest already violent, it could only be interpreted as a
call for more violence.
And sure enough, shortly after Waters comments, shots were fired at Minnesota National Guardsmen.
I mean, this is scary stuff.
Because I think we're seeing something beyond just what we saw last year.
Minneapolis is preparing for the worst.
They're boarding up and battening down the hatches as they brace for serious unrest as Derek Chauvin's trial enters its final phase and tensions following a drive-by shooting of two National Guardsmen.
I think we know what we can expect.
Something we have not seen in recent history.
I've been covering this stuff for 10 years.
To hear that the National Guard took live fire is shocking to me.
I was on the ground in Ferguson.
I was in Baltimore.
I was in many of these places.
I've been in the West Coast.
I've been on the West Coast during these riots and the East Coast.
Shots fired at the National Guard.
I can only imagine the jury heard this and we've all been talking about it for some time.
A routine question for criminal defense attorneys at cocktail parties is, how can you defend people in court whom you know to be among society's worst criminal predators?
And the fundamental answer to that question, at least for the criminal defense attorney, is because I care desperately about the process of justice generally, and criminal due process in particular.
Denial of the criminal due process to the worst of us can only lead to denial of criminal due process to the rest of us.
And therein lies mob justice, with quotes, and judicial, or even literal, lynching.
The American vision of justice has always been based on that process, and not on the particular outcome in any specific case.
A view which helped ensure the process for all of us, from best to worst, and prioritized process justice over the mob justice.
Going on, he basically says, at this point, it is absolutely apparent that Derek Chauvin can receive nothing like a fair trial in this case.
When I write that, I'm defining fair trial as one involving a process we'd want for ourselves, or a loved one, or even a friend or neighbor.
He says that this is what's being offered to Derek Chauvin as justice is a courthouse surrounded by a violent, raging mob being exhorted to further violence by government officials.
This is the article for the closing arguments, and I have to say I completely agree.
Maxine Waters requested police escort before screed advocating for violence, documents show.
Even CNN reporting Maxine Waters just made a volatile situation much, much worse.
This is terrifying.
And will anything be done about this?
I really don't think so.
Jake Sherman, verified founder of Punchbowl News, NBC News says, Nancy Pelosi to Anne Greyer CNN, Annie Greyer CNN, on whether Maxine Waters needs to apologize.
Quote, no she doesn't.
Maxine talks about confrontation in the matter of the civil rights movement.
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.
I gotta say, I've been reading a lot of his analysis because watching the news, reading about the case, the trial, and watching the trial in question, it seems that Branca is being the most fair.
The media is acting like the defense doesn't exist.
Certainly, I have my bias in thinking the prosecution is doing a bad job, but Branca seems to be mentioning that the prosecution's not doing all that bad.
And even another individual at Legal Insurrection says the prosecution did a good job in their closing arguments.
But he says, I hate to disappoint everybody, but I'm a legal professional.
I don't predict verdicts.
Now, what's his inclination?
He says, My inclination is that ambiguity of facts favor the defense.
It's the burden of the state to prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction after all.
Unfortunately for the defense, the video evidence of Floyd's restraint obviously has an emotional impact on the public generally.
And on many, if not all of the jurors in particular, that can easily separate a verdict from a foundation of reasonable application of law to perceived facts within the constraints of this particular case, to a foundation of emotional outrage and the desire to make a difference and obtain justice in a broader societal sense.
Also, Unfortunately for the defense, the political and social dynamics around this case are of an intensity beyond any I've ever seen in any criminal trial.
Not only are the jurors going to and from the courthouse through riot-like or even actual riotous conditions, we now even have a United States congresswoman on scene outside the courthouse demanding that riots continue if Derek Chauvin is not convicted of premeditated murder, a crime with which he is not even charged in this case.
I want to read you what CNN says after this.
Either a guilty verdict or a not guilty verdict must be unanimous.
Therefore, the entire world will know that every single juror without exception will have voted for whatever verdict is arrived at.
Every juror also knows that their identities will ultimately be released to the public, when safe to do so, if released by the court, perhaps a great deal sooner if leaked.
To what extent are the jurors going to perceive a threat to their safety, and the safety of their families, and to their employment and social standing, if they hand down the wrong verdict?
In this context, it must be said the wrong verdict can only be one of not guilty.
While certainly not all protesters are violent rioters, the violence occurring throughout the area of the courthouse specifically, and Minneapolis and surrounding neighborhoods generally, is being wrought by those who are demanding justice for George Floyd, meaning nothing short of a guilty verdict for Derek Chauvin.
So, However perilous it is to predict the thinking of a jury, and their likely verdict, under the best of circumstances, even for someone who considers himself pretty good at the legal stuff in the legal context, given the tsunami of political and social dynamics around this case, it is difficult to have any degree of confidence that Chauvin's guilt, guilty or innocence, guilt or innocence, will be judged solely on the legal merits of the case.
For what it's worth, if we were sticking strictly to the merits, were I, heaven forbid, on the jury, I would have a sufficient degree of reasonable doubt on each of these criminal charges that I would not be able to vote for guilt on any of them.
That doesn't mean it's a good thing that Floyd died.
It's definitely not.
Nor does it mean that the officers involved did nothing wrong.
It just means that based on the evidence I saw in watching literally every minute of this trial, and having reviewed the relevant law to the best of my abilities, I can't conclude that these criminal charges have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
He says, okay, that's all I have for you today.
We will, of course, be continuing to follow the court, and there's still the closing arguments which are occurring while I'm recording this.
But I would like to show you another bit.
This is an interview from Legal Insurrection with William A. Jacobson, and there's one very interesting point.
Jacobson says, traditionally in Minnesota, third degree murder was essentially the equivalent of firing a gun into a crowd.
It's an inherently dangerous with a likely cause of death, but you just kind of fire it into a crowd, not direct it at one person.
If you're directing it at one person, that would be a different sort of murder charge, and they changed the law.
Basically, the Minnesota Supreme Court said, yes, you can have third-degree murder, even if directed at a single person.
So that was originally thrown out by the trial judge, and the appeals court reinstated it.
So the judge was forced to reinstate it.
So I think it's probably the manslaughter, I mean...
I think that probably is accurate.
If there's a crime here that is an accurate sort of negligent homicide, unlawful negligent homicide here, I would be surprised, you know, if he is found not guilty of all.
He says, but you know, I think there is a basis where if a jury wanted to find reasonable doubt, they can find reasonable doubt here.
But it's not what I'm expecting.
So this is unlike when we followed every day, many years ago, the George Zimmerman case.
I'll skip forward a little bit.
He says, I mean, here Chauvin has a problem, which is if he had just brought George Floyd to the ground, that's justified.
If he had just laid him out for a short period of time, that's justified.
If he had then turned him on his side so he could breathe easier, we wouldn't be here today.
I mean, so that's an extra three to five minutes that I think is probably going to get him convicted.
He's then asked, Katz follows up, who is the interviewer, Now I'm gonna take you out of the legal and put you in the political observer category.
Is the city of Minneapolis ready for what happens when people hear guilty of manslaughter and think that's not good enough?
Williams says, I don't know that the city of Minneapolis is ready for what's going to hit.
I don't know if many cities are ready for what's going to hit.
Because the media has committed malpractice here, as have the activists, and frankly, as have the prosecutors.
The concept that there was a knee to the neck for nine minutes has been disproven by the prosecutors' own witnesses at the trial.
The videotape does not actually show that, particularly when you view it from other angles.
It's a classic example.
It may have been excessive use of force.
He maybe shouldn't have had the pressure on his back and chest for that long, but the concept of a knee to the neck that we hear every single day over and over again is not factually correct.
The prosecution's own witnesses have acknowledged, and the cause of death by the expert witness is not the knee to the pressure on the neck.
Is the overall restraint of him in the prone position with weight on his back which made it impossible for him to inhale?
That's the cause of death according to them.
It's not the cutting off of blood to the neck.
I don't think that any municipality is ready because the general public and particularly the public who wants a conviction here is convinced of something that's not true.
That there was a knee to the neck so we get this point.
Long story short, It's a classic hands-up-don't-shoot.
The knee was not on the neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds.
It was shifted back and forth.
The true facts of the case suggest that likely no crime was committed.
But what are we going to get?
The likes of Maxine Water saying things so shocking that even CNN comes out against them.
Now I want to show you something else.
Comments that I made while watching the trial.
Effectively note-gathering, but shocking to me, the things I was seeing.
A few tweets I posted.
First, the prosecution is now showing the jury a video of Floyd actively resisting arrest in their closing arguments.
What?
A dude on the sidewalk is telling you can't win and saying go in the car and Floyd refusing.
WTF is this?
Are they trying to lose?
I was shocked.
There's a man on the sidewalk, a bystander, saying, dude, stop resisting, effectively, and Floyd saying, no.
And then when they finally try getting Floyd in the car because he's being placed under arrest, he just stops and goes, I'm claustrophobic, I'm claustrophobic, which is meaningless.
I don't like what happened to Floyd, but the dude was actively resisting and very near actively aggressing, so much so that the prosecution's own witness said, They could have used a taser if they wanted.
The defense brought up that at a certain point, Chauvin could have punched or elbowed Floyd, and that was within the use of reasonable force, but he did not.
He used lesser force.
In another tweet, I pointed out, the prosecution is arguing the cops should not have arrested Floyd, that they should have not put him in the squad SUV.
By what logic should a cop walk a suspect in cuffs to a station instead of driving them?
I'm confused by the argument.
The prosecution was pointing out that when George Floyd said, take me out of the car, they should have.
In what reasonable position would an officer be like, you're under arrest, but we're not going to do anything now?
Placing someone under arrest, the person needs to comply and get in the vehicle.
The prosecution argued they should have taken him out of the car because Floyd asked.
That's insane!
Another tweet.
The prosecution says, quote, maybe it was his enlarged heart, maybe not.
That to me.
It was in the greater context where the prosecution was saying it was the actions of Derek Chauvin.
But that line in and of itself was shocking to me, because he basically argued, would Floyd have died were it not for the actions of Derek Chauvin?
And there's a reasonable argument to say, maybe not, because Floyd would have been somewhere else doing something different.
But then he mentioned maybe it was his enlarged heart, maybe not.
Apparently he had 90% narrowing of his arteries.
Why would you even say something like this?
I'm like, that's reasonable doubt.
It doesn't matter if... Listen, the elements of the case require that Chauvin had done something wrong.
If everything Chauvin did was within the purview of his training and was reasonable use of force, Then it wasn't wrong.
And if it maybe was his enlarged heart, it doesn't matter if Chauvin put him on the ground.
He may have died from an enlarged heart.
I can't believe it.
But I think what we're actually going to see, to be completely honest, is... well, I don't know what we're gonna see.
I think a hung jury is a strong possibility.
Some people terrified, refusing to say guilty, and some people refusing to convict.
It's possible it's all over the place.
It's possible they say, on manslaughter we agreed, but nothing else.
I don't know what the results will be in that case.
But we do have some law changes.
Florida, in the wake of this violence, has passed their anti-riot law, and I just see everything getting worse.
We don't need new laws, in my opinion, especially when prosecutors aren't charging these rioters.
And then, in places like Minneapolis, Maxine Waters, the Democrat, is just going the other direction and inciting the actual riots.
We just see hyper-polarization and a further push into extremism, with everyone believing the other side is more extreme than they are.
Certainly, I think some people are more right than others.
But this is what's going to happen.
Now, I will say, the one thing that has made me feel a little bit better about all of this, is that even CNN is willing to call out Maxine Waters.
Chris Saliza says, It's a fraught moment, coming after four years of a president who weaponized race.
Sure, we get it, orange man, bad CNN, for his political benefit.
He goes on to say, it's in these tense situations when the country's leaders need to lead.
Our officials, like Biden, need to urge calm and restraint while reminding people of our common humanity, which is the opposite of what California Democratic Rep Maxine Waters did over the weekend in Brooklyn Center.
At a Black Lives Matter rally.
Quote, I hope we get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty.
And if we don't, we cannot go away.
We've got to stay on the street.
We get more active, we get more confrontational.
He says, that sort of rhetoric at a moment of such heightened tensions is irresponsible coming from anyone.
Especially irresponsible coming from an elected official like Waters.
Defending herself to the griot in an interview, Waters said, Of course, this isn't the first time she's done something like this, at a rally in June 2018, which came shortly after the White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders had been kicked out of a restaurant.
Of course, this isn't the first time she's done something like this, at a rally in June
2018, which came shortly after the White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders had
been kicked out of a restaurant.
She said, if you see somebody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at
a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you
tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.
In both instances, the one in 2018 and this one, Republicans demanded that House Democrats punish Waters.
Maxine Waters is inciting violence in Minneapolis, so say if Kevin McCarthy.
I'll get into this on the Maxine Waters specifics on what the Republicans want to see from her later on, but I want to stay focused on specifically on The results we will see in this trial.
So everything I've put forward so far shows, at least my view, that at the very least, perhaps legal insurrections, William is correct when he said, maybe manslaughter, a negligent homicide.
Then we have Branca saying, no, probably an acquittal of all counts.
So there's a fair toss-up there.
I mean, it's the same outlet with, you know, individuals of differing opinions, and I think that's the fair assessment.
It could be maybe manslaughter, maybe not.
Murder, I absolutely don't see.
I will say, maybe I should have mentioned this way early on, that I got to do a sort of correction, a literal correction actually, because I was wrong about several instances I was opining on.
I had repeatedly said in the past that I don't think they'll prove intent for second-degree murder.
My mistake was, and I should have caught this, it's the felony murder rule.
What they're arguing is that the assault on George Floyd was felony assault, therefore his resulting death was second-degree murder.
I think this is an insane thing to state.
I don't see how the state could prove that Chauvin in any way assaulted George Floyd, because officers are legally allowed and expected to use force on individuals.
Chauvin arrived based on a priority one call, saw a man actively resisting, the prosecution showed us someone actively resisting, and instead of punching or hitting him or swearing at him, he put him on the ground and within a minute, according to the defense, called EMS.
They're trying to paint it out like he's some demon.
When I think of the very worst, Chauvin's more of a drone.
And I'm not saying that to be offensive as an insult.
I'm saying it quite literally.
He was just there, going through basic training, mindlessly carrying on.
So we can argue maybe that drone-like behavior could be manslaughter, but I'm sorry, not if we're telling people to do it.
You can't have a public job that says, you need to punch someone, and then when they do, say, ah, you punched him, that's assault.
I'm sorry that doesn't work that way.
I think that according to the analysis from Legal Insurrection and many others, the defense witness who testified that putting Floyd in the ground wasn't use of force, that was bad for the defense.
And, you know, Legal Insurrection says the prosecution did well in certain regards.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating What I see from this is a failure to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
What I see from this is a failure to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
I see a guy who got a call, maybe wasn't good at his job, but that's about it.
So there's going to be riots and we're going to suffer because of it.
Because even if the jury concedes, and they say, we'll give you whatever you want, in light of the terror, it's not enough.
Maxine Waters said it.
She wants a conviction and a charge that did not occur.
So I can only expect, based on media malpractice, based on the extremism we're seeing, That there's going to be chaos.
I'll show you this, a live update from 1122 AM from NBC News.
One reporter says, Prosecution asks jurors, would George Floyd have died without Chauvin's action?
Prosecutor Stephen Sleicher asks the jurors, would George Floyd have died that day if Chauvin hadn't restrained him?
Sleicher, addressing the defense's main argument, dismissed claims that a drug overdose enlarged Hart or carbon monoxide killed Floyd.
Use your common sense, believe your eyes, what you saw, you saw.
During testimony, the prosecution played extensive video of Floyd's fatal interaction with police, including video from bystanders, officers, body camera footage, and surveillance video.
I highlight this because it's a good example of, I suppose you can call it the banality of malfeasance.
I don't believe this reporter who made this post is intentionally trying to cause problems, but there's one very important thing I must point out.
She says, Slycher addressing the defense's main arguments dismisses claims that an enlarged heart killed Floyd.
Among other things.
If she had actually shown the quote, where he said, maybe it was his enlarged heart, maybe not, that's a very different context.
While it's fair to say he was attempting to dismiss those arguments, he actually still maintained there was a possibility.
I mean, that's reasonable doubt.
He needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by saying definitively it was not.
We know it was not.
We can prove to you this happened.
The instructions to the jury from the judge were explicitly George Floyd, we must prove his death.
We must prove that the death was caused by Chauvin.
So the only thing the prosecution has going for them, in my opinion, is terror, is throwing a pig's head on someone's house, is rioting and burning things down and shooting at National Guardsmen.
That is horrifying.
And I think that's what they've got going for them.
Now, because of this, we now see Florida's Governor DeSantis has signed the controversial anti-riot bill into law.
It is done.
I'm not a big fan.
You know, I had a conversation with Will Chamberlain on IRL Podcast last Friday, and most people who superchatted seemed to agree with Will.
Being in the street should be a felony.
If you're protesting and you're obstructing a roadway, it's a felony.
I don't agree.
A crime, yes, maybe a serious misdemeanor, but a felony for protesting in the street?
I understand the arguments.
I'm just not convinced that authoritarianism I'm sorry, I shouldn't call it necessarily authoritarianism, but the increase in authority from the state is a solution to the problem when the district attorneys are the ones who are not prosecuting what is already illegal.
I say this of hate crimes.
I say this of terror laws.
If it's already a crime, just prosecute them.
It's a crime.
It's lopsided.
Terror rules the day.
Violence and extremism is working.
And then on the other side, what do we get?
More authority for the state.
When the state had the authority in the first place.
It is a scary day.
It is a bad day for all of us in this capacity.
Because things are only going to get worse from here.
We're gonna see riots like we've never seen before.
But maybe...
Maybe it's not guilty.
Maybe it's guilty.
Maybe it's a hung jury.
I honestly just do not know.
I want to lean towards guilty.
I really do.
But I hold out this belief that there are some people on the jury who will stand on principle and just say, not gonna happen.
I won't do it.
I won't convict him, man.
I won't condemn a man because of rioters.
I have to imagine there are some people on the jury saying, no matter what threat you send my way, I will stand true.
But why should I believe that?
Because we've seen for far too long people who are cowering in fear and hiding and refusing to stand for principle, who would bow down before the extremists and the terrorists out of fear.
Why would the jury be any different?
Maybe they're a better representation of the general public.
Maybe they will stand tall and say no.
Or maybe not.
I guess we'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight.
We're gonna be talking with some of the people covering the riots, and we'll get in-depth on this stuff, so check out youtube.com slash TimCastIRL, 8 p.m.
live, and we'll see you all then.
This past weekend, fear, panic erupted as mass peaceful protests across this country resulted in fires, destruction, injury, several arrests, and even a few National Guardsmen being treated for injuries after taking live fire.
Peaceful protesters are outraged over several police killings.
Doesn't it seem kind of insane to say something like that?
But that's what the media tends to do.
Peaceful protesters with an Apple Store burned to the ground.
Maybe an exaggeration.
An Apple Store was burned out almost completely.
In Portland.
Now, I guess they can't really say you're a peaceful protester when you literally burn down an Apple store.
So we're going somewhere new.
Well, Emmet Week says, marchers set fire at Apple store and shatter windows across downtown Portland after police killing.
The scale of damage tonight recalled the riots last May.
Okay, wait, wait, hold on a minute.
You're gonna call them riots last May, but now you're gonna call these people marchers?
They can't do it.
You know why?
They know that if they call these people rioters, they'll come for them.
So they can call it a riot last May, but right now, no, they're marchers.
March-er.
What is that?
A marching band?
People going around with marching band gear and they're smashing things with their drum sticks or whatever they're doing?
Sure, I guess.
Well, right now, most of you probably know that riots erupted across the country.
Many are concerned that this is going to interfere with the Chauvin trial as closing arguments are set to begin today, and deliberations will begin today as well.
Many fear that because of the mass riots across the country, it is very likely that Well, it's very likely that the jury is going to be scared.
And if they're scared, they will say, please just take away the rights of Chauvin, regardless of the evidence, because we are scared about what will happen to us.
Some jurors have already expressed fear that if people find out who they are, their lives will be ruined.
Oh, and you better believe it.
So I think there's a strong possibility Chauvin is found guilty on all charges.
No joke.
Which brings me to the main story, the most horrifying part of what's going on.
First, I want to show you this from Unicorn Riot.
On April 17th at 11.35 p.m., U.S.
Rep.
Maxine Waters is speaking out about police violence and racism in Brooklyn Center.
We are live now.
We then have this from the Minnesota National Guard.
They say.
This was 1143 AM, April 18th, just around 12 hours later.
A Minnesota National Guard and Minneapolis PD neighborhood security team was fired upon early Sunday morning in a drive-by shooting near Penn Avenue and Broadway in Minneapolis.
The shooting occurred on or about 419 AM.
As a light-colored SUV fired several shots at a Minnesota OSN security team providing neighborhood security, no team members were seriously injured.
Two Minnesota National Guard members did sustain minor injuries from the incident.
One guardsman sustained an injury from shattered glass requiring additional care and was taken to a local hospital to receive treatment.
The other guardsman received only superficial injuries.
So it's just one guard being sent to the hospital, one with superficial injuries.
And I think the officer, the National Guardsman, who went to the hospital for lacerations probably wasn't that severe, but I'd imagine going to the hospital probably meant he required stitches of some sort.
Let me just make this absolutely clear for everybody.
This past weekend, we literally are looking at a story where people opened fire on the Minnesota National Guard.
Is this insurrection yet?
Is it insurrection to shoot at National Guardsmen?
I'd have to say so.
I mean, it was probably insurrection when they were throwing firebombs at a federal building.
But for some reason the FBI is saying, please help us find the people who stormed the Capitol.
Sure, yeah, okay.
But it's just weird that they've done nothing about widespread rioting over the past year.
Why are we sitting here watching this happen?
You know what, man?
Get out of the cities.
I did.
I got away from the city, and for a variety of reasons.
It's nicer.
It's freer.
You know, out in the middle of nowhere, you can kind of just do your thing.
You're not bothering anybody.
You're not being bothered by other people.
It's great.
And I don't got to worry too much about riots, because ain't nobody gonna come riot when there's like a couple houses.
You know, the population density is very, very small.
Well, here's where we're at.
Let me show you this.
Republicans demand action against Maxine Waters after Minneapolis remarks.
I love how they immediately try to make it seem as though, you know, Maxine Waters didn't do anything wrong and Republicans are extremists.
Because Marjorie Taylor Greene is calling for action.
We have a story from Insider.
Marjorie Taylor Greene says she'll introduce a resolution to expel rep Maxine Waters for continual incitement of violence.
I agree with this.
I absolutely do.
Maxine Waters, when she was speaking, the reason I showed you that timestamp, she said, it was first-degree murder.
And if we don't get a first-degree murder charge, then we got to stay in the streets and get more confrontational.
Okay.
The level of confrontation that we're seeing so far is like they're shooting at the National Guard.
But okay, that happened after she said this.
So Marjorie Taylor Greene wants to expel.
Maxine Waters.
What do we get?
The Guardian says, extremist congresswoman.
That's what they call her, an extremist congresswoman.
Sure.
I don't care what you think about Marjorie Taylor Greene, what things she's had in the past.
I'm talking about whether or not Maxine Waters should be removed.
And the answer is yes.
Throughout this past weekend, we saw an Apple store burned, burn, like, burned out.
I don't want to say it burned to the ground, but they destroyed an Apple store.
It was rubble.
It was like, the building was standing, but you could go inside and everything was just destroyed.
You have people live gunfire this past week.
No joke, like active live gunfire ringing out through the air in the Minneapolis area.
We have mass rioting that Willamette Week says is akin to last May's riots.
And Maxine Waters has the nerve to come out and say, do more!
Do more!
Over and over again.
Do more, she says.
Get more confrontational.
Inciting insurrection.
Because it was about five hours Just shy of five hours after she said that, that someone opened fire on the National Guard.
It's absolutely amazing to me to be at this point with the riots and with the Democrats continually inciting and supporting this violence and destruction.
And you know what?
You know what I'm really mad about?
I'm actually at this point mad about the police.
I'm mad about the police, I know.
And I've been saying things like the entire police department of Minneapolis and the surrounding cities should resign.
And all the leftists are like, yes, hear, hear!
And I'm like, not for the reason they're saying.
I'm saying it because...
You have no support.
The people who live there are mad at you.
They don't like you.
They vote against you.
Not all of them, I know.
But enough.
A majority.
The ones who vote for the Democrats.
The Democrats, literally, you have Maxine Waters coming to your town.
It's amazing.
And telling people to burn it to the ground.
Figuratively, I know, but let me just say this.
When she said that Chauvin, what he did was first-degree murder.
First-degree murder is premeditation.
She's arguing that at some point, Chauvin was like, I decided to kill that guy.
That's just insane.
He's not even charged with that.
And she says something to the effect of, if he's not convicted of first-degree murder, then we gotta get out in the streets, and it's like, he wasn't charged with that!
They can't convict him for a thing he wasn't charged with!
Yeah, here we go.
You know, there was a period where cops would typically get found not guilty in most instances.
Why?
Well, because the jury understood that police officers were being asked to go out and do these jobs.
And I was reading this letter that's going viral.
It's being shared around, supposedly from a cop.
I'm not showing it because I can't vet it, but there's a good point made in this letter where the cop says, members of the public expect you to be a medical expert.
That if someone's in distress, you know exactly what to look for and what to do.
They expect you to understand the psychological effects of mental illness and how to respond to people who are mentally ill.
They expect you to be a psychologist.
They expect you to be a medical expert.
They expect you to use the perfect amount of restraint and force against someone who is resisting.
They expect you to be a martial arts master and a marksman.
And it's funny.
It's a really good point.
Cops enforce the law.
They're not masters of every single one of these trades.
And a social worker couldn't do it either.
And it's amazing then that, well, there are still cops who are remaining on the job.
This is what gets me angry.
This letter was basically saying cops should leave.
It's time to leave now.
How long are you going to sit in a police station while it's burning to the ground?
And I'm like, please just do it.
It's a win-win.
They don't want you there.
The people of Minneapolis don't want you there.
They keep telling you to get out and you think I'm protecting people.
They are literally trying to sacrifice you for a political cause while screaming in your face to leave.
And they won't?
I'm sorry, man.
At this point, you have Maxine Waters coming out and saying, do more, encouraging and inciting violence, and you're a cop in this area, and you're like, I'm gonna stay!
Don't expect me to stand up for you.
Sorry.
That cop, Kim Potter, they're apparently, according to Axios, they spent $9,000 barricading her home.
I have no sympathy whatsoever.
Okay, that's not true.
I have some sympathy.
I understand.
I don't blame her for what people are doing to her.
But I am sick of these people sitting in a burning building, and no matter how many times we're saying like, y'all need to get out.
They're like, nah, it's cool, mate.
Or at the very least.
You have a burning police station, and there are several officers surrounded by fire, and the people who set the fire are laughing outside.
And we say, would you like to come out of the building and arrest these people?
And they're like, I might.
I'm gonna stay where I'm at.
It's like, okay, well, I'm gonna tell you something.
There is a figurative ideological fire burning.
And the thing is, you have these cops that are being screamed at by the people of the neighborhood to, you know, let the department burn, not realizing that it's a public service building that they require.
And I think the only way that people will get the message is when the cops finally say enough and just walk away.
That's what this letter was basically saying.
It's time to walk away.
But they won't do it.
Maybe because they're scared, maybe because the money's better, and they feel safer doing this.
Well, I'll tell you what.
If that's the case, don't be surprised when you have a guy wanted for aggravated robbery, armed with a .45, resisting arrest, and you shoot him one time, and they lock you up, and then have to barricade your home.
What did you think was gonna happen?
Did you think that the year-long riots with impunity and support from the Vice President would somehow just sweep past you and you would not be affected by this?
Sorry, man.
Don't expect me— I get it.
You know, I think it's horrifying what's happening to this woman.
I think it's horrifying this young man lost his life.
I don't want anybody to die.
I oppose the death penalty, as most of you know.
But, guy wanted for aggravated robbery with a gun, resisting arrest, and diving into his car?
What am I supposed to say to that?
Don't resist arrest and run.
It's funny when people are like, you know, Ashley Babbitt shouldn't have resisted.
Dude, she was peeking her head through a window.
She shouldn't have gone in the building.
That I get.
But like, she was peeking her head through a window.
She had no idea what was going on.
If a cop comes up to you and grabs you to arrest you, you put your hands behind your back and get arrested.
You deal with it through the process.
We have the luxury of court.
And it's not perfect.
By no means.
The Guardian tries to make it out a bit like Maxine Waters.
They cut out the most important parts of what she said in my opinion.
She said, I'm going to fight with all of the people who stand for justice.
We've got to get justice in this country and we cannot allow these killings to continue.
We've got to stay in the street.
We've got to get more active.
We've got to get more confrontational.
We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.
I think shooting at the National Guard may have been that.
Thanks, lady.
Maybe burning down an Apple store.
Maybe that was it.
Maybe a year of riots.
We know they're serious.
They're insane.
Honestly, at this point, I blame the cops.
You know why?
I blame the cops because They're the ones holding the system up.
They burned so many places to the ground, leaving rubble behind, that many people could not even afford to rebuild, even with insurance.
Because the insurance didn't cover the total costs of the destruction.
It's crazy.
Rubble removal.
And if at that point, all of the cops announced, we will be resigning en masse and you will have no police, this would have ended a long time ago.
There would have been a revolt in the city.
Why?
Well, when they voted to abolish the police in Minneapolis, local residents started freaking out because crime began skyrocketing.
The city then doubled back and panicked and spent millions to recruit more cops.
Who that?
Who would want to be a cop at this point?
I can't believe there are people staying.
I'm surprised.
I just, I gotta say it.
Well, the official report, shots fired at National Guard and Minneapolis police members.
To me, it's absolutely insane that anybody would sit back and be like, I'm cool with this.
I'm fine with it.
Some people have said to me, Tim, the cops that are willing to stay know that they're being sacrificed but want to protect their communities.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
You know, I hear that.
I can respect it to a certain degree.
But it's wrong.
It is wrong.
If the people voted for Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, and they did, and they both supported the rioters, they did.
Kamala Harris literally solicited donations to get them out of jail, and Joe Biden's staff supported them.
I understand Joe Biden has spoken out against violence, but actions speak louder than words.
The people around him are supporting this.
And the people of Minneapolis and Minnesota voted for these people.
Who are you protecting?
If all the cops just walked out and said, fine, you want to abolish the police, you don't want us here, we will go.
Well then, the people of Minneapolis in three days would be panicking.
You know what it reminds me of?
Have you guys ever seen John Hancock?
That's what it's called, Hancock.
It's Will Smith plays that drunk superhero.
And then, what's that guy's name?
Jason, what's his face?
Tells him, go to jail, and trust me, in a few days they'll be begging for your release.
Because, Jason Bateman, that's his name.
Because they need the superhero.
So, Will Smith agrees to go to jail, and then all of a sudden crime skyrockets, and then they call for his release because they desperately need this superhero.
That's kind of it.
The cops that are sticking around and supporting this are providing just enough support for the community that it placates the politicians while the city still burns.
The cops aren't actually protecting anybody.
They can't stop the riots.
They can arrest some people and the DAs let them go.
And then nothing happens.
So if the cops just walked away, you'd get the same amount of damage, you'd get the same amount of prosecutions, but the people might start going, wait, wait, wait a minute, what's happening?
Minnesota Daily reports, proposed bill would make protesters convicted of an offense ineligible for student loans.
I guess they're going at them where it hurts, I suppose.
The bill comes amid many arrests at protests for Daunte Wright, a young black man, as we understand.
I mean, that's the gist of the story.
These laws, these laws, these laws, they don't do anything.
You know why?
No one is going to get convicted.
The DAs won't prosecute them because people voted for DAs that support the riots.
And the cops aren't smart enough, apparently, to realize that.
So they're going out in the street, making arrests of people.
Who then get cut loose immediately.
You know what I love?
I love.
And I mean this figuratively.
The woman who was accused of burning down the Apple Store in Portland had been previously arrested and had all of her charges dropped.
She could have been in jail for committing crimes and then she would not have been able to burn down an Apple Store.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Not the Apple Store.
The Portland Police Bureau.
And then, when they arrest her for the fire at the Portland Police Bureau, they release her without bail.
It's incredible.
How dumb do you have to be to think you're helping your community by going out there and facilitating the lies of these politicians?
If they wanna pander to ignorant, politically nihilistic, and politically nihilistic individuals, let them do it.
And then when that person wakes up to find that their neighborhood's burnt to the ground, look man, you voted for it.
Here's the problem I see with a lot of arguments.
They assume that these people don't want their homes burned down.
I gotta stop you right there.
If somebody is sitting in their house, watching a video of a house burned to the ground, And then a politician comes on and says, come on man, you know, I support, I support these, you know, rioters.
Kamala Harris is like, donate to get the rioters out of prison.
You're like, I liked it.
You know, I liked the things they're doing.
I'm going to vote for that.
They vote for it.
Their house burns down.
I can only imagine them sitting there smiling, saying, like, I'm so glad my home burned down.
I voted for this.
At the very least, if someone sticks their hand on a fire, I'm like, you chose to do that.
What am I supposed to do?
I am not, you know, the babysitter for you.
You're an adult human being.
This is the world we're in right now.
These people are consistently voting for this insanity, and then the cops go out and just do nothing.
Like, what they do does nothing.
It changes nothing.
And instead, it creates this basic level of resistance that makes some people think nothing can be done.
Well, fine.
Whatever.
I guess.
It's only gonna get worse.
What do you think's gonna happen with Chauvin?
You know what I mean?
Maxine Waters said, unless he gets convicted of first-degree murder.
Okay, well he wasn't charged with that, so that's not gonna happen.
So they're gonna go and burn the city down again.
They just want an excuse.
I don't think they really, in the end, care about Chauvin or the conviction or anything like that.
So I think Maxine Waters should be removed, absolutely.
Just, if we go on the standard of how they treated Donald Trump with the Capitol, He never even directly said to do anything.
In fact, Trump said to be peaceful.
And they called it insurrection.
Why?
Because he kept saying something was wrong.
Fine.
Maxine Waters told people to go do something.
She told them to ramp things up to be more active.
The Chauvin trial is wrapping up very, very soon.
The trial is wrapped up.
Closing arguments... Well, I should say closing arguments are today, so that's trial wrapping up.
Then it's going to go to deliberations.
The jury is going to be sequestered following this.
But I'm also... I just wonder why it is they weren't sequestered over the weekend.
Because I said we're going to see mass riots over the weekend.
The jury is going to watch it all happen because no one can escape this reality.
No one can hide from this news.
And now they're sitting in court going like, well, if we acquit him, they're going to burn my house down.
Congratulations, my friends.
Terrorism has taken over our justice system and that's reality.
I think it's a strong possibility they will convict Chauvin out of fear.
Now, if they stand on principle and on the facts, then I think it's entirely likely that Chauvin may get charged with manslaughter.
I'm sorry, not charged, convicted.
But I think on the merits of the case, not guilty on all charges.
I do think a strong possibility may be a hung jury, meaning that some refuse to convict him and say, I don't care.
Because if it were me, I'd say, you can threaten me all you want.
I'm voting my conscience.
And based on what I've seen so far, I don't think the state has proven anything.
I don't.
I think Chauvin should be acquitted on all charges.
I think the system is broken, I think we should go after the system itself, but throwing an individual under the bus when the system itself, the police department and the state, are responsible for the actions at play, it's a ridiculous notion to me.
And it's to placate the rioters, I suppose, which it won't do, it just fans the flames.
The idea is, the state will throw Chauvin under the bus, It's the system the state created.
Chauvin was following basic training, ground control techniques.
So I'm not happy with how things go down.
I'm not happy with the war on drugs.
But the war on drugs is the state's fault.
It's the federal government's fault.
Not one cop who is like, I'm told to go do this.
I'll tell you this, the cops should leave.
I think there's a strong possibility of a hung jury, but I don't know what's going to happen, so I'm going to be tuning into the closing arguments.
We'll see what happens.
And in my opinion, the state has proven nothing.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Closing arguments are currently underway in the criminal trial for former police officer Derek Chauvin, and we have this story emerging while we're waiting to see what happens with the closing arguments.
Black Lives Matter protesters drop to one knee and prepare to march after hearing Minnesota police have shot dead a man, but backtrack when it's revealed he was a violent carjacker.
What about being a violent carjacker has anything to do with whether they would protest for him or not?
I guess the issue is, maybe it wasn't they found out he was a violent carjacker, because if we look at the patterns in who they would be willing to protest for, crimes committed aren't relevant.
And to a certain degree, I can respect that.
I oppose the death penalty, as I say it very often.
I don't think cops should be killing people, but I, as a reasonable person, understand Get a violent criminal, and they have a gun, and you're fighting and resisting, people get shot.
So when Black Lives Matter says, look, we understand this guy was wanted for aggravated robbery, he shouldn't die, I say, okay, I totally understand that.
I wish, you know, Daunte Wright wasn't killed.
I mean, I sincerely mean that.
I want people to be held, you know, I want people who commit crimes to be taken to trial.
Stand before a jury of their peers, so we can show everyone in our community, this is not okay, this is what this person did, and we all accept it as wrong.
When a person dies, it's really hard to do that, and now this officer is going on trial.
I'll tell you what the main thing here is, I think, that really made these people not support the guy who was shot.
The guy was white.
Now look, why would a Black Lives Matter protester march for a white guy who was shot?
We had a 16-year-old kid recently, I can't remember exactly where it was, who had an airsoft gun.
The cops shot and killed him.
They didn't march for him either.
So, you know, I'm genuinely confused if the assertion is they accidentally were protesting for this guy until they realized that he was a violent carjacker.
I'm like, a lot of these guys they march for were violent criminals.
Not all of them.
Some of them are law-abiding citizens.
Some of them are...
Look, man, some of the people who get killed by cops or even get arrested are, in my opinion, doing things that should not be illegal.
But if they're still illegal, you know the rules.
There's a difficult balance between having... Look, not everybody agrees on the same laws.
It's not so simple to just say yes or no, you'll follow the rules.
So, there's complications here.
Let's read this story, see what's going on, and then I want to talk to you about where we're... Actually, let me just tell you what we're going to talk about.
We have stories like this.
Violent carjackers, riots, an Apple store being burned to the ground, which you probably heard in my previous segment.
We have police union buildings being set on fire.
And as right now, as the nation is awaiting the deliberations in the trial of Derek Chauvin, worried about what will happen to this country, what is 60 Minutes doing?
60 Minutes is talking about the far right.
Oh, I'm so worried about the Oath Keepers.
Oh, shut up.
It's been four months and they're still talking about the Capitol.
We live in a digital age.
I'm not worried about the Capitol.
It was secured.
A bunch of dumb people stormed in.
A bunch of other people walked in bewildered, and they shouldn't have done that either.
But we have active riots right now.
Yeah, hilarious.
The Daily Mail reports, demonstrators in Minnesota dropped to their knees and made plans to mobilize the site of a fatal officer-involved shooting before learning the victim they were memorializing was a carjacking suspect who allegedly shot at police.
Since when did that mean anything?
Dante Wright was wanted on an aggravated robbery warrant.
He was known to have been armed with a Ruger .45.
He actively resisted arrest and dove into his vehicle.
Now, the officer, Kim Potter, shot him one time.
He drove off and then died.
Maybe it was a lung shot, sucking wound, something like that.
I'm not entirely sure.
I don't know if they've done an autopsy or anything.
I think it's fair to say she would have been justified in her use of force.
This guy was wanted on a violent warrant and armed.
And he jumped into his car and she didn't know what he was doing.
Now apparently the police department, as most of you know, said she was gonna go for her taser and she made a mistake.
Now she's being charged with manslaughter.
She should just be like, nah, I intended to kill him.
Because I was at, you know, fear for my life and she'd be better off in a legal defense.
Again, I think she was right to go for the taser.
And I think being honest is the most important thing.
If that was the case, let's hear it.
And let's see what the results may be.
But this guy was wanted for a very violent crime and they're still riding on his behalf.
So what about this guy being a carjacker matters to them?
They said the Black Lives Matter protesters who were demonstrating Sunday outside the governor's mansion could be seen in video shot by a local reporter observing a moment of silence when they heard of a police-involved shooting in Burnsville, Minnesota.
This information has not been confirmed, but this group says they're heading there.
Roughly an hour later, Hicks tweeted that the group was heading back to Brooklyn Center, the site of the Daunte Wright shooting, because they need more information about what happened in Burnsville first.
Really?
Yeah, because someone was like, yo, I think that guy was white.
What actually happened in Burnsville was a wild chase on the highway in which a carjacking suspect allegedly shot at police before he was shot dead.
So what?
The suspect, a white male in his 20s, was shot Sunday afternoon on State Highway 13 at the interchange of Interstate 35 West in Burnsville, Minnesota, after police said he abandoned a stolen car, tried to steal two others at gunpoint, and shot at cops.
The horrifying ordeal began in the afternoon when the carjacking suspect was being sought by cops for driving a car with stolen plates.
He would crash the car, only to carjack a woman at gunpoint and take off in her vehicle, police said.
Police continued their pursuit until the suspect shot at them before abandoning the stolen ride.
Video provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation shows the suspect slowing down a white sedan before jumping out and tumbling to the ground.
He can be seen then running into oncoming traffic and pointing his gun at a motorist who appeared to take a sharp left turn toward a grassy median to avoid the man.
There's some photos of the car driving.
Police said the suspects then attempted to carjack another motorist.
While video doesn't capture the fatal confrontation, police said they and the carjacker exchanged fire before the suspect was shot at roughly 3 p.m.
I oppose death penalty.
I'll say it for like the fourth time today.
But I understand what happened.
I understand why this man is dead.
Because people have a right to self-defense.
The officers have a right to self-defense and they're acting in the defense of others.
You have these cops that are being abused, and sacrificed, and smeared, and some of them are just willing to sit there and take it, and not let people have what they're asking for.
I get it.
Without the police, who are you gonna call?
No, seriously.
Now, I personally am a big fan of Second Amendment, and I own many firearms, so I'm not super concerned about who I have to call, but I would.
For a variety of reasons.
If someone was illegally entering my property and there was a reasonable fear of harm, or for our safety, or the safety of others, the first thing I would do is call 911.
I would then get my gun from the safe, because I keep them all safely secure, And I would be prepared to defend myself.
But there are a lot of people who are not prepared to take responsibility for their own defense and for the defense of their loved ones.
And thus, these people are desperate for police.
I think it's about time people got responsible for themselves.
I think if the people of Minnesota and Minneapolis want to protest or... I mean, they actually protested for this, okay?
They dropped to their knee because a guy was fleeing down the highway in a stolen car and shooting at people and carjacking a woman at gunpoint.
And then they're like, oh, maybe we shouldn't protest for this guy.
The other guy was wanted on an aggravated robbery warrant.
It's so it goes.
Well, I think people need to take responsibility and the cops should stop trying to be the responsibility for these people.
The cops in this area, you need to wake up and let people take responsibility for their own actions.
But I guess a lot of these cops probably just want the paycheck.
They're going to say, nope, no officers were wounded in the shooting.
The suspect was taken to the Hennepin County Medical Center where he was pronounced dead.
Quote, all Burnsville police officers wear body cameras and camera data will be handled by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehensions, who will lead the investigation.
A woman identified as one of the attempted carjack victims told the press that the police had no choice but to open fire.
Them officers, they didn't kill him.
They didn't murder him, the woman said.
The guy could have killed me and my six-year-old goddaughter.
He could have killed who knows how many people.
The BLM protesters were roundly mocked on Twitter for appearing to extend sympathy to the suspect before learning he was an alleged violent carjacker.
Quote, I can't imagine this being my life, kneeling for criminals that would run every one of them over if they got in their way.
Need more information?
They found out he was a carjacker firing at the police.
People have been protesting in Minnesota for the past week after the death of Wright, when an officer allegedly mistook her taser for a gun, so we know this.
The closing arguments for the trial are currently underway.
And for the people of Minnesota, this is the stupidity that you have to deal with, and I tell you this, most of us are going to have to deal with, because I think no matter what happens in the Chauvin trial, it's gonna pop off.
Well, I am honored that we have a powerful press that speaks truth to power themselves and will challenge those who would burn down our cities and leave us threatened and vulnerable.
That's right, they're talking about the Oath Keepers.
I'll tell you this too, the people who stormed the Capitol weren't wearing masks or anything.
They don't have the organizational understanding the left does.
Antifa?
They know what they're doing.
They absolutely know how to organize, and some of these people don't necessarily know why they do what they do, but they do what they're told by these organizations, which allows them to be safe from the government.
In the meantime, while our cities burn, and we're wondering why all of this is happening, we can rest assured that our media will not be reporting on it.
Severed Pig's Head is left outside the home of Chauvin defense witness, who said George Floyd's death was accidental.
You mean to tell me that while things like this are happening, we have what Nancy Pelosi's house was vandalized by the far left?
The media just can't give us an honest understanding of what's going on?
They can't tell us about the far left extremists?
They can't say, who are these people and why are they burning down our cities?
Because they've created an obsession.
They have created an addiction.
And they themselves are addicted and they can't break away.
Let me take you back in time.
Donald Trump announced that there would be a moratorium on several countries.
So this was going to be, you know, they called it the Muslim ban.
Well, he included, I think, Venezuela and North Korea as well.
And then some people were like, there's also many Muslim countries that weren't banned.
The ACLU filed lawsuits.
They said Trump can't do this.
He doesn't have the right.
I respect that.
I respect anybody who's going to challenge the authority of the federal government within reason.
I think the federal government needs to have authority within reason.
And I think they've often, and for the most part, extremely overstepped those bounds.
So I'm like, okay, sue the government.
Sue Trump.
The ACLU ended up gaining a ton of members.
I don't remember exactly, I think this was the moment where the shift at the ACLU happened.
Then when the ACLU defended the people who organized the Charlottesville event, which became a mass riot and chaos and conflict, When the ACLU defended their right to speech, they started bleeding users like crazy.
The ACLU had built an audience of addicted zealot ideologue psychopaths who were giving them money.
The ACLU realized, if we stand up for principle, we're gonna lose money on this one.
My friends, this is called the grift.
The left understands the power of semantics, so they use words in clever ways.
They will refer to me as a grifter, even though my opinions are fairly heterodox, and I say things like that I disagree with the death penalty, I think, you know, we should have a higher progressive tax on higher income earners, much at odds with many conservatives, yet they would claim that I'm being a grifter when I'm staying true to my principles.
Sorry.
Those of you who would sacrifice your principles in the name of tribalism, or who don't have any in the first place, y'all are grifters.
You're pretending to represent something.
You're grifters.
This is what 60 Minutes is.
It's a grift.
It is a con.
It is to keep urban liberals scared and cowering in their bedrooms.
Oh, the far right's coming for me!
Meanwhile, they look out their window and they see Antifa burning down their city and they're like, peaceful protests, talk about cognitive dissonance, and... Ah, just a break from reality, man.
A break from reality.
Do you know what this country would be like without cops?
These people are imagining, like, a bunch of people of different races all holding hands under the rainbow and singing back and forth.
The reality is, initially, without police.
You'd probably have a lot of widespread crime in big cities.
People would be living in fear.
Eventually, I think things could improve in a certain way.
In the country, I think most people would be fine.
In the rural areas.
Because people got guns, and they don't rely on the police all that much.
Which makes me think about the difference in opinions I find very interesting.
You would think it's the people in the cities who would be most interested in maintaining a police force when they've disarmed themselves.
Apparently not!
The people who have voted to take away their right to bear arms are also voting to get rid of the guys with guns who they can call for help.
The people who live in the countryside who defend the cops also decide to defend themselves.
Only one of these is logically consistent.
If you're pro-gun and pro-cop, those don't conflict with each other.
You can still call the police and say, hey, I need some help with this problem, and still be armed and defend yourself.
But it makes no sense to live in a big city and be like, nobody should have weapons, not even me!
I'll call the police!
And then be like, but we should disband the police and bring in social workers.
Okay, I get it.
I guess they're anti-gun for everybody, cops included.
Don't be surprised then when the criminals who have guns will then come and abuse you.
This is the nature of today's political environment.
I think it's time, as many have suggested, that the right needs to recognize their second-class citizens.
If a conservative goes out with an American flag and marches, they'll say it's a far-right extremist.
If a black-clad leftist waving the Antifa flag, which was literally like a communist flag, goes around setting fires and burning things down, they say, marchers and peaceful protesters.
You may have heard in the other segment Willamette Weeks saying, marchers, burn down an Apple store.
But I can tell you the system is absolutely broken, and we are... It's like we drove off the cliff a long time ago.
We're just free-falling now.
The media is obsessed, and they want to make money.
They're driven by ads and subscriptions.
So they're looking to produce the content that will market well.
Scott Adams tweeted something.
He said that at some point, you know, I'll paraphrase, I don't want to misquote him, that there will be mindless drones who just read ad-driven news, and then freethinkers who follow subscription-based news.
I disagree, because my content is both subscription-based and advertising-based, and the Washington Post and the New York Times are subscription-based.
The New York Times makes more money in subscriptions than they do in advertisement.
These companies, they want to get a subscriber, I'll put it this way.
TimCast.com ain't gonna be getting socialist subscribers.
They're not gonna subscribe to my content.
They don't like me.
Okay?
So, why does it matter?
The New York Times is not gonna get a whole lot of conservative subscribers.
They probably have a decent amount.
But there's a lot of people who think they're biased.
So what they do is, they know that they're going to have to attract a certain market, and they're going to produce content to attract subscriptions from people who agree with them and want their confirmation bias.
This is what you can expect in this country moving forward.
Which means, when the Chauvin trial concludes, definitively, and the verdict is in, no matter what happens, the media is going to do everything in their power to make everything as bad as possible.
If they acquit Chauvin on, like, manslaughter, but convict him of second-degree murder, the media will say Chauvin acquitted, because that's the snazzy title.
It's gonna shock people, freak them out, and make them go in the street and burn everything down, because, hey, as you know, the media likes to save.
It bleeds, it leads.
That's their understanding.
We've heard it.
Project Veritas exposed the CNN technical director saying it outright.
It's all good for the networks.
So, for now, They're going after what makes them the most money.
The fear of the far right.
Why?
Because the far right is few and far between.
The far left, however, is massive.
But, it's not brand safe.
And people are obsessed with the far right because some of these people, I mean most of them, agree with Antifa.
So they're not going to stand up against what they agree with, and that's scared of it.
Even though these people are literally burning down their cities, and they should be.
This is what you can expect.
Because the media is driven by confirmation bias.
They're not here to inform you about the most pressing matters.
I'll tell you what I try to do.
I remember people were saying, and I think I brought this up a few days ago, What are you going to do now that Trump's out of office, Tim?
Like, what are you going to report on?
Everyone was talking about how once Trump left, everyone in politics was going to be screwed.
And I was like, dude, I was talking about Sonic the Hedgehog a year ago.
I have no problem talking about what matters most.
We're now looking at Black Lives Matter riots destroying cities, and we're looking at the trial of Derek Chauvin.
I'm covering those things.
And now I'm not particularly interested in the remnants of the Trump era.
I want to know what's going on now, and what's affecting people, and what we should talk about.
But these people talking about the Oath Keepers and talking about Trump?
