S5232 - All Three Men Found GUILTY In Ahmaud Arbery Case, Debunking BLM Leftist Narrative Over Rittenhouse
All Three Men Found GUILTY In Ahmaud Arbery Case, Debunking BLM Leftist Narrative Over Rittenhouse. Blm Activists have said that our legal system is broken but they got convictions in the Chauvin trial and now in the case of Ahmaud Arbery.
Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self defense and the court agreed
In Georgia 2 men were seeking to make a citizens arrest of a man they thought was stealing from the neighborhood. Travis McMichael pursued Arbery as he ran down the street. He pulled down the street in the direction Arbery was running and exited his vehicle with a shotgun.
Arbery banked right around the truck, crossed left, and began to fight Travis over his shotgun. A Shot went off and Arbery lost his life.
The question in this case is whether the citizens arrest was legal
The Jury found it to be not legal and thus all men involved, including a neighbor who filmed the incident, were found guilty of murder.
#AhmaudArbery
#Rittenhouse
#BLMRiots
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is November 24th, 2021, and our first story.
All three men charged in the killing of Ahmed Arbery have been found guilty.
Not on all counts, but on many of them, especially felony murder.
Now, many on the right are celebrating, saying it's the right verdict.
But that might not be the case.
It seems that with the leftist narrative that a criminal justice system is broken, this is a good opportunity for the right to claim that, see, the system works.
But when you actually look at the details of the case, it actually may be the wrong verdict due to a judge's error.
And we'll get into this in our next story.
It's looking like the Waukesha attack was politically motivated terror, as much as the mainstream corporate press is trying to downplay it.
In our last story, tourists to California are shocked over the insane raids.
80 to 100 people storming into stores and stealing whatever they can.
I'm just shocked there are still tourists in the Bay Area.
And before we get started, leave us a good review, give us five stars, and tell your friends about the show.
So, now, let's get into that first story.
In the criminal trial over the killing of Ahmed Arbery, all three defendants today have
been found guilty.
Now, this case got a lot of attention when all of it first went down.
But over the past couple of weeks, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was underway, and that was more overtly political and dominated the news.
Meanwhile, this trial was going on.
Many of us were passively keeping an eye on it, but it wasn't overtly political.
Well, now we have a verdict.
All three men found guilty, and of course, it has now become political.
You see, a lot of people on the left had been saying the whole time that Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty was proof the system is broken.
But now we have activists outside the court cheering.
In fact, when the judge read the first count against one of the men accused of murder, a man in the courtroom elated, cheered, And the judge said, get that man out of my courtroom, please no outbursts.
These activists are now celebrating.
So is the justice system broken?
Or is it balanced?
In this case, you know, I'll give you my straight opinion.
I think we all watched what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse.
We had a very overtly political story and a lot of interest for us that are politically motivated to figure out what was going on.
This was a Black Lives Matter riot.
It had been going on for several days.
Kyle Rittenhouse went out and was rendering aid to everybody.
And then he ended up firing in self-defense on more than three people.
Shooting three people.
But most of us knew this was self-defense.
In the case of Ahmaud Arbery, this is a story about a young black man who had been entering a home under construction on more than one occasion.
And many people accused him, or believed, accused him of, or believed that he was casing the joint or trying to steal something.
In both stories, we have a group of people believing that they're chasing down justice and attacking someone.
Unfortunately for Ahmed Arbery, he wasn't armed, though he did attack the man in question, and I believe at one point even grabbed their weapon before getting shot and then dying.
It's tragic and horrifying, but these stories Are still vastly different.
And I think even with the conviction here that many people on the right and left are saying was the right call, we're seeing the seriousness of the political imbalance.
Let me explain.
And then we'll go through the news and we'll and we'll I'll give you some updates on what's happening with Rittenhouse and other presses addressing this.
But let me just start off this video by saying in the event of Kyle in the instance of Kyle Rittenhouse, He was attacked by a man, Joseph Rosenbaum.
He fired on Rosenbaum in self-defense after trying to flee and yelling friendly several times.
He was able to protect himself.
Rosenbaum ended up dying.
And then a mob attacked Kyle Rittenhouse.
As Kyle Rittenhouse fled, and then was attacked, hit with the skateboard, knocked to the ground, someone jumped and kicked him in the head, and then he was attacked by two individuals, one with a skateboard, one with a Glock.
He fired in self-defense, and he survived.
And he was put on trial for it.
When we look at this video, outright, we can see that Kyle Rittenhouse was the victim.
He was being attacked by assailants.
And he had to go on trial for it.
Now, the difference with the Aubrey case is that Ahmaud Aubrey did not survive.
It's a serious tragedy.
But once again, it was a group of men who thought they were chasing down justice, who were ignorant, being mindless, didn't know what they were doing, and they ended up on trial.
It's interesting to me.
I'm not going to pretend that it means the world, but it is interesting that because Kyle Rittenhouse survived, they put him on trial and not the mob that attacked him, thinking they were seeking some kind of justice.
And in Georgia, admittedly different areas, different cities, different politicians, and all that I get, the men who thought they were seeking out justice got put on trial and convicted.
So if I were to say that the conservatives are correct, this was the right verdict, I would go on to say, and I think most people on the right would agree, the people who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse, namely the individuals who survived Jump Kick Man and Gage Grosskreutz, should be charged in much the same way the individuals the McMichaels were.
Now, I'm not absolutely convinced the verdict was correct.
I don't know for sure.
It appears the verdict is based on the judge's instructions on citizen's arrest law.
I will say very simply, I don't believe for a minute that Ahmaud Arbery was just jogging.
I think that's overtly naive and I believe it's propaganda.
However, that being said, the man did not deserve to be confronted by a bunch of guys in cars with weapons, and it's a complicated case.
Truth be told, I covered it in detail several, uh, you know, when it happened, I believe it was, you know, almost two years ago.
I have the, uh, we'll pull up the story in a second and go through the details.
I don't think people should be taking the law into their own hands and chasing people down.
I'm also not entirely convinced that murder charges make a whole lot of sense.
But we'll get into it.
Far be it from me to be the arbiter of morality, and this one's particularly tough, and I will say, from the get-go, when I covered this a while ago, and I had much stronger opinions on what went down, my opinions today may be very different for two reasons.
I haven't covered the story in a long time, a lot of the key details I probably won't remember, and my opinion is going to be based on a rather limited understanding of what went down.
Take that into consideration, go back and watch my other videos, and maybe, you know, you'll get a different view of what went down.
I think it may be that murder convictions across the board, even for the guy who was following, are overtly political.
Now, I'm not saying these guys should just be allowed to walk.
Absolutely not.
They confronted a guy because they thought he was trespassing or stealing something with shotguns in a car and tried to detain him.
You try to make a citizen's arrest, you're responsible for what happens.
But let's be real, if a cop was there, cop probably would have chased him down in much the same way.
And if Arbery, you know, fought with the cop, probably the same thing would have happened.
And that cop probably would have been found not guilty on all counts.
I'm not saying that would be the right call.
I'm just saying, you wear a badge, you are allowed to do what these guys did.
I think everybody agrees, and I'm not trying to be... I'm not trying to make, you know, a statement.
I'm... Literally, if you're wearing a badge, you can confront this guy, and you will likely get away with... Well, you'll likely not be found guilty of any crimes if the individual dies.
Let's read the story, though, and we'll go through this.
I want to show you the analysis from Andrew Branca.
As he was covering the tail end of this case.
And admittedly, we're all covering the Rittenhouse case because of the political implications.
I still think this story is important to cover.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, and you'll get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast.
And you will also be supporting our journalists.
We're covering a lot of stories a lot of people don't want to cover.
We got exclusives about Anthony Fauci, NIAID funding the Monkey Torture Island.
We have a story about these sovereign tribal members in Australia asking for international assistance over the COVID lockdowns.
These are a lot of stories you're probably not going to see in the mainstream media, and we are very careful to try and fact-check this stuff and be honest with you.
That being said, smash the like button, share this video right now, let people know what's going on, and let me give you the basic news right now and then talk about the political implications here from the Daily Mail.
White father and son are both found guilty of murder of Ahmaud Arbery after Georgia jury rejected their claim they killed unarmed black jogger in self-defense.
Third defendant is also found guilty.
I'm going to pause right now.
I'm going to be overtly opinionated on this stuff and I will absolutely stress the Kyle Rittenhouse case took precedent because this was about the Black Lives Matter riots, Jacob Blake, and a much bigger story.
The Ahmaud Arbery case is very important But I still have, you know, remember quite a bit about this case, and let me just say, the idea that Ahmed Arbery was just jogging is propaganda, okay?
He didn't live anywhere near this neighborhood.
He had no reason to be jogging in this other neighborhood.
He had repeatedly entered a home that was under construction.
I believe the owner, there was camera footage of it, and I believe the owner was like, hey, we gotta, you know, we don't want this guy doing this.
He's trespassing.
However, I can say overtly and definitively, trespassing does not warrant death.
That should be obvious to everybody, but let's read.
Now, what I think is really interesting is they also go on and say the third defendant is also found guilty.
This was a guy who was just following in his car.
That's why I think this is political.
If it wasn't for the third guy who was filming as they were chasing down Arbery, none of these men would have been charged or convicted.
In fact, this guy thought that this footage would exonerate them, and it got them convicted.
Here's a story from the Daily Mail.
They say, all three defendants in the Ahmed Arbery trial were found guilty of murdering the Black Jogger in February 2020.
The word jogger here is loaded and should not be included in my opinion.
That is analysis, not fact.
There's no fact stating what this guy was doing.
We can simply say there was a guy in this neighborhood entering a building he shouldn't have.
He was chased down and he was killed.
He did confront these guys and there was an argument about this.
When they confront him, he's running away.
They try to stop him.
He goes around the vehicle and then attacks the guy.
He could have just kept running.
It was after he's attacked and his weapon is grabbed, one of the McMichaels fires, killing him.
So let's get into this.
They say, Gunman Travis McMichael was found guilty on the charge of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony.
His father Gregory McMichael was found guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony.
He was found not guilty of malice murder.
Neighbor William Roddy Bryan was found guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony.
He was found not guilty of malice murder and one count each of felony murder and aggravated assault.
After being sworn in more than two weeks ago, the disproportionately white jury heard for more than two dozen witnesses, including gunman Travis McMichael, the only defendant to take the witness stand, and was presented with evidence, photos, police body camera footage, autopsy reports, and more.
McMichael, 35, his father Gregory, 65, and neighbor William Roddy Bryan, Jr., all pleaded not guilty to charges including murder, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment for the killing in the coastal suburb of Satilla Shores on February 23, 2020.
So this was almost two years ago.
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.
The McMichaels told police they suspected Arbery was a fleeing burglar when they armed themselves and jumped in a pickup truck to chase him.
Now, I want to show you this here from Andrew Branca.
He's going to be on TimCast IRL tonight.
We're going to be talking about this, and this will be fascinating.
It's going to be a really important conversation.
There's a lot of stuff here that, look, it's been almost two years, that again, I will admit to say there are details that I don't remember.
But I think it's important to say, all of these conservatives are jumping on the bandwagon saying, see, the right verdict was reached here.
I don't think any of these people know anything about what happened in this case.
And I'll tell you this, I don't know if this was the right verdict, but I would lean towards, I believe it was overly egregious.
I don't like that Ahmed Arbery lost his life.
I am disgusted by the fact that he lost his life.
I believe that if a group of guys in trucks surround me, and a guy's got a shotgun, and they're like, stop, I'm gonna be like, no, and then you gotta make a decision.
Fight or flight.
Just because they believed this guy was committing a crime doesn't mean they have a right to do what they did.
But at the same time, like with Anthony Huber, he didn't know what Kyle Rittenhouse was doing, he thought Kyle Rittenhouse was a bad guy, and he attacked him and Kyle Rittenhouse defended himself.
Interesting.
This idea that these guys... Look, they're not the same cases.
They're similar in some respects.
The McMichaels and this dude were vigilantes.
They believed they had a right to stop this guy.
And when he... Kyle Rittenhouse didn't attack the mob.
He ran from them.
Ahmaud Arbery initiated the fight.
So therein lies the deep question.
Was Travis McMichael allowed to defend himself when Arbery placed his hands on his weapon?
Let me give you some of the details here real quick.
It's from the Wikipedia entry that I do not believe will be entirely fair and accurate, so we'll need to have a bigger... Look, I'm going to say outright, I don't know.
The jury reached its verdict.
I was not as well-versed on this story.
I didn't interview seven witnesses in the Ahmed Arbery case.
We did with Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse was big and it was political.
On February 23rd, 2020, Ahmed Marquez Arbery, they say an unarmed 25-year-old black man
was fatally shot in Stilla Shores.
I don't know why they have to include unarmed.
It's always about propaganda.
They say Arbery had been pursued by three white residents.
Again, I don't know why we have to make this all about race, because we didn't do that with Waukesha, did we?
Travis McMichael and his father Gregory, who were armed, and in one vehicle William Roddy Bryan, who was in another, pursued.
After Travis exited his vehicle and wielded a shotgun, Travis and Arbery engaged in a physical confrontation.
They omit the fact that it's actually Arbery who initiated the confrontation.
During which, Travis shot Arbery.
Police interview transcripts detailed that Gregory initiated the chase after seeing Arbery running past his house.
That, I believe, to be true.
Suspecting that Arbery had committed burglary or theft in Satilla Shores.
But no evidence has emerged of Arbery doing so, and I believe that's correct.
Some people say that he did steal.
I don't believe, as of right now, that there's evidence of that.
Again, you can go watch my other videos where I cover this in greater detail.
But I believe this guy was just leaving.
He was running.
According to police testimony, Brian told police that he saw the chase and joined in independently, but was not sure if Arbery had done anything wrong.
Arbery had entered an under-construction house with no doors five times in five months, including once shortly before the shooting.
But security videos showed that he had not touched or taken anything.
In fact, in one of the videos from, I believe it was just the night before, he walks in, looks around, walks out.
Now, apparently the guy who owned the property took issue with this, word had gotten around, and then they decided to pursue.
The Glynn County Police Department said the Brunswick District Attorneys advised them on February 23rd to make no arrests, while the Brunswick DA's office denied that its top officeholders gave such advice.
Waycross District Attorney George Barnhill twice advised the GCPD to make no arrests, once on February 24th before he was assigned to the case on February 27th, and a second time on April 2nd, while announcing his intention to recuse himself from the case due to his connections between his son and Gregory McMichael.
My understanding is that this is, this is a lot, there's a lot of contested information here.
I believe that the men in question said they were advised to try and make a citizen's arrest.
Again, it gets murky.
I think it's very important people don't jump to conclusions because a lot of the information coming out is as bad as it was in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
But a lot of these details I know to be correct and again, I want to stress, I think it was absolutely wrong that Arbery lost his life in this case.
But let's, let's, let's rewind real quick.
You live in a small community.
A guy who doesn't live there repeatedly enters a building.
Trespassing.
I mean, that's about it, right?
Well, with that, these men decide we're going to stop him the next time we see him.
They did not witness any crimes.
They do not know if this is the guy in question.
It's just someone they don't recognize in their neighborhood.
They pursue.
They go armed.
Should they have been?
Well, here's the challenge.
They have a legal right to keep in bare arms, don't they?
They do.
Well, they want to stop this guy.
They say they want to talk to him, maybe perform a citizen's arrest.
This was a bad idea.
My view of it is, don't go chasing individuals.
Call the police, take the videos, submit it, let them handle this because they have certain legal protections.
Well, these men tried to pursue him.
Again, my understanding is that when Travis McMichael exited the vehicle, they were in front Not behind Ahmaud Arbery.
Ahmaud Arbery goes around the vehicle to the right, but then crosses left and engages with Travis McMichael, getting into a fight with him, grabbing the weapon.
The shotgun is blasted, Ahmaud Arbery takes the hit, and he dies.
It sucks.
Do you blame Ahmaud Arbery?
A lot of conservatives have pointed this out.
Yo, if three guys in trucks are driving around me, they pull up, a guy gets out with a shotgun, you think I'm gonna be like, Do whatever you want.
No, I'll defend myself, too.
In that capacity, I think it's a fair argument that Ahmaud Arbery, seeing a man with a shotgun standing in front of him, decided, I gotta defend myself.
This is a perceived threat.
It's an interesting argument.
I don't know for sure.
What I can say is, I don't know how they get malice murder and felony murder and all of these things across the board.
To say that this was the right verdict to me is actually kind of shocking.
I mean, at the very least, manslaughter, which I believe in Georgia, malice murder is effectively like unintentionally killing someone, you know.
The guy who was following in his car and filmed it, and whose evidence actually sparked the indictment and the conviction, to convict him of murder?
Far be it for me to be the arbiter of morality here.
Let me show you Andrew Branca's assessment here.
This was yesterday, before the verdict came in.
Judge Walmsley drops the ball on ambiguous citizen's arrest law.
Apparently the jury is to figure out how to apply a citizen's arrest law that befuddles the lawyers and the judge.
I also then want to read you some comments from those who are following the case.
They say...
Today the jury heard the last argument and received their instructions in the Arbery case in which defendants Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael, and Roddy Bryan are each facing a count of malice murder, four counts of felony murder, and then the four predicate felony counts, aggravated assault, false imprisonment.
He says, the entire case essentially hinges on the question of the underlying citizens arrest.
If the effort to make a citizen's arrest of Ahmed Arbery was lawful, then everything that
follows was also likely lawful. Conversely, if the effort to make a citizen's arrest was unlawful,
having that follows was unlawful. And both sides fully understand this.
In particular, ADA Linda Donikowski is fully aware that if she loses the jury on the question of citizen's arrest, she loses the trial entirely.
Naturally, then it's in her interest to have the citizen's arrest statute interpreted as narrowly as possible.
And there's definitely room for interpretation in the statute.
That was first made law back around the Civil War and makes use of legal terms of art that likely don't mean today what they meant back in the day.
Certainly nobody drafting a citizen's arrest statute today would construct it as this one is constructed.
The amount of ambiguity in the statute is really remarkable.
If only because of the statute's brevity.
It is only two sentences long.
Those sentences are...
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.
If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
My own reading of that statute applying normal rules of statutory construction is that the two sentences present two different scenarios for citizen's arrest.
The second sentence refers explicitly to a felony scenario and sets out certain requirements for that scenario that differ from the requirements set out in the first sentence.
My reading is that the first sentence is therefore contemplating the alternative criminal scenario, the non-felony, the misdemeanor.
So if the citizen's arrest is being made for a serious felony like murder, the person making the arrest is required to have a reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion, which Judge Walmsley is interpreting as probable cause, fair enough.
If the citizen's arrest is being made merely for a misdemeanor, however, then probable cause is not enough.
After all, an arrest is a real burden on the person's personal liberty and ought not to be done lightly.
Before we'll allow a citizen's arrest for a relatively minor crime, then—imagine shoplifting, for example—we'll require more than just probable cause.
We'll require that the offense was committed in the presence of the person making the arrest, or that they have immediate knowledge of the offense, perhaps observed from a distance.
So, my reading of the Citizen's Arrest Statute is that the first sentence refers to arrests premised on a misdemeanor offense and the second to felony offense.
ADA Danikowski urges a different reading on the statute.
She argues that the first sentence is supposed to apply to all citizen's arrest, whether for misdemeanor or felony offenses.
Such that any citizen's arrest requires that the offense be committed in the presence of or within the immediate knowledge of the person making the arrest.
The second sentence then adds additional conditions, the probable cause requirement, that must be met in the case of felony arrests.
The construction makes no sense to me, if only from a public policy perspective.
Why?
Because it makes it easier to make a citizen's arrest to constrain a person's liberty if they've merely committed a misdemeanor like shoplifting than if they've committed a heinous felony like murder.
That doesn't make sense to me.
In addition, if we're supposed to read in the present's immediate knowledge into the second sentence, then the probable cause language in the second sentence serves no purpose.
If the offense occurred in your presence or with your immediate knowledge, you have a degree of certainty that's vastly greater than mere probable cause.
You know for a certain the offense happened.
Probable cause is merely a probability that it happened, less than certainty.
It's like saying that before you can make any arrest, you have to be 100% certain of the offense.
But before you can make a felony arrest, you also have to be 51% certain.
That makes no sense.
So as you might expect, I favor my reading of the Georgia statute over that of ADA Donacosky.
And that makes sense.
Donacosky is the prosecutor who wants a conviction.
In any case, however, at the end of the day, the question of how this law is to be applied in this criminal trial is not up to me.
And it's not up to ADA Donacosky.
And most definitely of all, it's absolutely not up to the jury, whose job it is to be the finder of fact.
The person in charge of the law is the judge.
And this judge, Walmsley, abjectly failed to do to determine the law.
And in a trial with three defendants looking at life in prison, that's contemptible professional failure.
Remember, the key issue is whether the two sentences in the citizen's arrest statute are intended to be melded together so that both apply to all arrests or whether the conditions of the first sentence refer to misdemeanor arrests and the conditions of the second refer to felony arrests.
That's the fundamental issue that Judge Walmsley needed to resolve and he did not.
Now, I want to stress There are a lot of conservatives tweeting, this was justice!
Justice was served!
And I'm just like, what?
How?
The media narrative around this was a lie the whole time, just like with Kyle Rittenhouse.
When I dug through this trying to figure out what was going on, we certainly see some culpability for the three men in question, less so for the guy driving and simply filming.
But to act like Ahmed Arbery was simply jogging through this neighborhood where he didn't live miles away from his own neighborhood, it's just... It's pure gullibility!
Do I think this guy deserved what happened?
Of course not!
Did he have a right to defend himself?
You damn well better believe he did.
You pull up in front of me in a truck and get out with a shotgun, and then you think I'm gonna stop for you?
You're nuts.
But in the video, you see Ahmed Arbery go around the truck and then confront McMichael.
The Wikipedia glosses over it and says they engaged in something.
Yet, McMichael isn't the one who charged at Arbery.
Arbery could have turned around and gone the other way.
He could have turned right.
He could have turned left.
He kept running towards them.
It's all on video.
That being said, you don't have a right, in my opinion, to just pull cars around a guy and come out with guns and be like, we're gonna stop you now.
They had not seen him commit a crime other than trespassing.
You want to engage someone accused of trespassing with a shotgun, don't be surprised if they fear great bodily harm and death and feel like they need to defend themselves.
You're standing in front of them with a gun.
But this is a tough legal question that I do not believe amounts to murder.
Felony murder.
Malice murder.
I don't know that justice was served.
I gotta be honest, I didn't follow this closely enough because I was following the Kyle Rittenhouse case, but I certainly covered this in great detail and I can tell you, the entire narrative was that this guy was peacefully jogging down the street when he was hunted down by racists in a lynching.
That was the original narrative.
It was only after the fact we learned that this guy had repeatedly gone into a house that was under construction, seemingly, some people believe, to case the joint.
Now, I can't tell you what his motivation was in going at that building, but I believe it's pure gullibility to think this is just an innocent jogger who decided to stop inside a random building for no reason.
Trespassing?
Numerous times?
Now, I will be fair.
I don't believe that, um, it can legally qualify as trespassing unless they put up a sign saying no trespassing.
So if they didn't have up a sign, because you need to give people notice, and they decide to confront him with weapons drawn, ah, that was a big mistake.
Now a lot of people might argue that, you don't know if this guy's armed, you don't know if he's a criminal or not, but if you want to make the assumption that because a guy entered a building he's going to be armed and deadly, sorry, I think you will lose in court.
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 And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Ultimately what ended up happening, we had a conversation a bit on this, is that the judge ruled, unless the crime was committed in their presence, guilty.
What ended up happening?
The jury came back and said guilty!
And that's the point here brought up by Andrew Branca.
He says, with all of the legal experts in the courtroom, three attorneys for the state and apparently six attorneys for the defense, plus Judge Walmsley, we are going to leave the fate of these three defendants to however the jury decides to interpret an ambiguous statute that appears to befuddle even the experts.
It's ridiculous!
It was the duty of the judge to decisively construct a non-ambiguous jury instruction from this ambiguous statute.
Sure, maybe a later appellate court would decide he'd done it wrong and reverse him, but at least it'd have done it.
I would also note that had Judge Walmsley done his duty and resolved the ambiguity of the statute, there's only one possibly legally sound outcome.
That the two sentences not be conflated but rather treated separately.
Why is that?
Because under the legal doctrine of lenity, When a criminal statute is ambiguous, the ambiguity is always to be resolved in favor of the defendant, never in favor of the state.
It is the government that drafted the statute and passed it into law, not the defendant.
And they left in ambiguity.
That's on the government, not the defendant.
In short, Judge Walmsley dropped the ball on this all-important citizen's arrest jury instruction simply makes this entire trial a little better than a train wreck, and any guilty verdict this jury delivers is inevitably tainted by the failure to provide the jury with clear and unambiguous instructions on the key legal issue in the case.
The issue that determines guilt or acquittal for these three men on charges would put them in prison for the rest of their lives.
It's contemptible.
In any case, here's the entirety of the instruction.
He says, Remember, you carry a gun so you're hard to kill.
Know the law so you're hard to convict.
That is Andrew Branca's law of self-defense little motto there.
I don't know.
You've got a lot of people saying this.
These men were simply seeking to defend their neighborhood from burglaries.
There had been a string of burglaries.
I believe a gun had been stolen only a month prior.
This is why the men in question were concerned about whether or not they would be threatened and their lives would be in danger.
To the conservatives coming out and saying that this was the correct verdict, without knowing what happened in this case, I think is also contemptible.
There's a lot of facts that we need to bring back up and if you weren't following this trial and I wasn't I will be the first to admit it now like what four or five times but I did follow the case and these men it was it was I believe in January of 2020 I believe.
They had reported a gun was stolen from a truck.
I think it was one of theirs.
And that tools had been stolen.
So, of course, they were concerned about potential violent attacks.
Ahmaud Arbery, I believe they pulled in front of him.
Travis McMichael gets out of his vehicle with a shotgun.
Arbery runs around the right side of the vehicle and then flanks left and engages Travis.
Now, I will say it again.
You stand in front of me with a shotgun telling me to stop.
Don't be surprised if I'm like, I have no weapon, this guy's got a gun, he's telling me to stop, I don't know what for.
We don't know that Ahmaud Arbery did anything wrong.
Trespassing.
Was he warned not to trespass?
Then probably didn't commit a crime.
And you want to stand in front of me with a weapon?
Don't be surprised if I'm like, I am not going to let you do that.
I tell the stories about how I'm in Chicago and people come up to me and say stuff and I... I get into it with them, right?
So I'm not surprised Ahmaud Arbery did this.
That being said, getting into a fight with someone who's armed, Travis McMichael, his intention was only, as he states, concerned that someone stole a weapon, trying to stop what he believes may have been a crime committed, and he may have the citizen's arrest right on his side.
That wasn't resolved in this case, which means this may go to appeals.
These guys may get out.
I want to show you the comment section.
This is what I find fascinating.
Today, at 10am, one commenter said, I just can't believe that there won't be at least one person on the jury with common sense and moral convictions.
verdict or a hung jury. There simply is no evidence to support any of the charges, and
that is even without considering the defenses of citizen's arrest or self-defense. I just
can't believe that there won't be at least one person on the jury with common sense and
moral convictions." Well, you were wrong, good sir. They said the McMichaels had plenty
of chances to kill him, but they didn't.
He only fired the shotgun when Ahmed attacked him, and Ahmed gamed his attack by going around to the right and taking a hard left right into the McMichaels.
The facts are undisputable.
One said all involved, including the entire city of Brunswick, will face a terror campaign if insufficient guilty verdicts are delivered.
This could be a political verdict.
I remember when I covered this, I was attacked in the media relentlessly because they had their narrative.
I remember talking to friends I no longer talk to over the Rittenhouse case.
They've lost their minds.
And they said, how could you claim that these men shouldn't go to prison for murder?
They hunted down and lynched a jogger.
And I'm like, that's just not true.
The McMichaels, I believe, acted improperly.
I understand what they are claiming.
Maybe they're lying.
But they were in front of Ahmed Arbery.
He was running towards them.
Now the argument became that the neighbor was actually trying to box him in.
I gotta stop for a second and just make sure I say, I didn't watch the trial.
So for all I know, a lot of these details were cleared up and I could be totally wrong on this.
I believe that's important to point out.
All in all, what I can tell you is that they're all guilty of murder.
Every single one of them.
Maybe it is, uh, that I got it wrong.
And I'm willing to accept that.
But it's strange to me that the left will come out and say that Kyle Rittenhouse is proof that our system is broken.
And then what?
A week later?
Like, not even a full week later.
The guys involved in the Ahmaud Arbery killing are all found guilty.
The narrative is bunk.
The justice system has its problems.
Politics plays a role.
I'm not gonna sit here and be like, the system is corrupt and it's ruined.
I actually think we have one of the greatest, with all its faults.
Maybe this is the right choice.
We're gonna have a greater discussion on this later on.
A lot of the points I'm making are based on when I covered this a long time ago, and it's fair to say that the details may have come out that may, you know, I may have gotten wrong.
But I've heard from many individuals that the problem here was the citizen's arrest law.
If these men had a right to confront someone they believed committed a crime, and they had a right to defend themselves, I don't see how it's murder.
Like felony murder.
Malice murder.
I guess what they're basically saying that in the commission of a felony, you know, someone died, it's your fault.
That's what they're getting at.
Not that they like went out there intending to kill.
I'm not a legal expert.
I'm just, you know, my whole position on this is I'm not going to pretend to be the arbiter of morality.
I don't like the media propaganda narrative.
I don't like them omitting details and facts, which I can state, like in the Wikipedia, they're like, they engaged in a fight.
Arbery ran around the truck towards, he ran towards the truck, ran around it, and then engaged them.
You can argue for or against it, like I just did.
But to act like Travis McMichael is the one who ran up to him is not true.
But Travis McMichael is the one who pulled the truck up in front of him, got out with a shotgun.
I suppose you can choose to run away.
Turn around and go the other direction.
Ah, but the neighbor was pulling up behind him in a car too.
And this guy's armed, and you don't know what's gonna happen?
I think this is a fair argument over maybe even felony murder.
So I'll say this.
It may be the correct verdict, but we have to be honest.
And we can't just come out and say, we know for sure, there's arguments to be had.
If the citizen's arrest question was not instructed properly, they're probably going to appeal.
And then it's going to be, this guy did commit a potential crime, a misdemeanor trespass.
Because he had done it several times.
I don't know for sure.
I don't know, man.
I don't know.
I just don't like everyone jumping the gun and saying they know for sure.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be tonight.
We're going to go in greater detail on this stuff with Andrew Branca, who's the self-defense guy.
And this should be interesting.
So go to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL, subscribe, and we will see you live at 8 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
We'll see It's beginning to look like it was an act of terror.
Now, full disclosure, the police have said it was not.
But initially, what did we see?
We saw a vehicle ram through a parade running over dozens of people and several people have died.
The first reaction most people have when they see something like that is Looks like terrorism.
I mean, why would someone go straight down a parade route slamming into people in this way?
Now, initially, they said the driver was fleeing a domestic dispute or some kind of previous knife fight or something like that.
I mean, if that were true, the SUV would have just turned off of the parade, right?
I mean, if you're fleeing a crime, you don't want to draw more attention to yourself, right?
Well, the police said it wasn't terror.
And when Andy Ngo accurately reported this individual had been promoting Black Lives Matter, supporting them on social media posts, and even posting memes in support of black nationalism, I then mentioned it, but even said, we don't know for sure what this guy's motivations are, but here is some of the politics of the guy.
Considering police said they would not at the time rule out terrorism, I thought that made sense.
Well, the mainstream media was outraged.
They actually then came out and said I was a right-wing troll, and they criticized Andy Ngo, and boy were they livid.
Right now, let me show you something.
First, just real quick, from the Daily Mail.
Quote, the old white people knocked dem TF out.
Waukesha suspect shared social media posts promoting violence towards white people and claiming black people were the true Hebrews.
So, this guy's motivations, we can't read his mind.
But here is a guy who's promoted black nationalism, here's a guy who is posted about attacking white people, here is a guy who has posted F the police and posted in support of Black Lives Matter, who then gets in an SUV and rams a parade.
We have new information.
He wasn't fleeing anybody.
We know this.
How?
A police statement.
This guy was driving, Brooks, was driving so slow before he charged towards the parade that a cop was able to walk up, knock on the window, and tell him to stop.
He wasn't fleeing anything.
He was actually just slowly driving towards the parade where an officer at walking speed was able to knock on the window and say stop.
The car then slams onto the gas and starts driving straight down the parade route.
To me, this sounds like terrorism.
Because what would the intent be?
They say that this guy, he's being charged with intentional homicide.
Okay, so let's break it down.
A guy driving a vehicle, driving slowly, cops knock on his window and say, stop.
He slams the gas and as he's been charged, you know, look, it's an accusation.
He then intentionally, as they say, rams children and the elderly, killing several people.
Mostly, I believe, they were all white.
And this guy has on his Facebook page talking about knocking out white people and promoting black nationalism.
And we're supposed to assume that this wasn't terrorism.
Now, it may not have been.
This guy may have just been crazy, and it may not be politically motivated.
But I will point something out.
If a white guy Who had made a bunch of posts on his Facebook page saying all lives matter.
And made racist comments about attacking black people.
Got in an SUV and then plowed through a parade of black people.
We know exactly what the media would say.
Now that's not enough for me to come out here and claim I know definitively that it was intentional terror.
Because I don't play stupid games like they do.
But I think it's important to point out you know what the media would be saying.
Everybody does.
Now this guy, it may not have been terror.
I think that's a fair point.
But I want to show you a few things.
First, Stephen Miller.
Waukesha attack is officially gone from CNN's homepage.
Is this a joke?
We just had one of the most substantive terror, well, shouldn't say that.
Substantive attacks we've seen in a long time.
If this was anyone else, they'd be calling it a terror attack.
Even if we didn't know exactly what the political motivations were, when someone gets in a car and rams a large group of people, what's the intent?
So let's ask ourselves a question then.
He's charged with intentional homicide.
He was intending to kill people.
Why?
It's not even a passion crime.
You know, when there's a guy who walks into his bedroom, comes home early from work, and he sees his wife with his best friend, and he screams and starts, you know, beating the crap out of his best friend.
Passion crime.
In the heat of the moment, outrage just went at it.
This guy.
Lurking, driving slowly enough to where the cops could say stop, and then just slams the gas.
Was it impulse crime?
He's like, I'm just gonna run all these people over?
Not even passion?
Just literally decided for, just at that moment, to intentionally kill people.
Don't disregard all the things he's posted about wanting to cause harm to white people.
Or I should say, we have at least one thing he said in that regard.
I'm not going to act like his social media is littered with it.
That's why I think it's fair to say, maybe it wasn't.
Maybe it's a crazy person.
Because that's true too.
I want to show you the definition of terrorism real quick.
Something interesting I've noticed.
Terrorism, and this is according to Google, the unlawful use of violence and intimidation especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims.
Now, I don't know if this guy had political aims.
That's the important part.
This could just be intentional homicide.
Did he actually think there was going to be a political outcome or anything like that?
I don't know.
But based on this post history, this guy wanted to hurt white people and that is political.
Take a look at this.
This is funny.
Where does the word come from?
Late 18th century, in reference to the rule of the Jacobin faction during the period of the French Revolution, known as the Terror.
From French, Terrorisme, or however you pronounce it, Terrorism.
From Latin, Terror.
Wow.
That's really interesting to me.
That the word Terrorism, the etymology is the Jacobins.
The socialists, the far leftists in France, that when they gained power, it was known as the Terror.
I mean, a lot of you probably already know this.
I knew about the Terror, you know, Robespierre and his penchant for moving heads, but I didn't know that terrorism came from the French Revolution.
That, to me, is particularly fascinating.
So now, let's bring it all together.
This is a story from the Daily Mail from the 20th of November.
Yes, that was Kyle Rittenhouse.
And the whole thing will blow up if one more match is lit.
Activist warns after teenager is cleared of gunning down to BLM protesters. Yes, that was Kyle Rittenhouse.
They're going to say that he was cleared of all wrongdoing. Protests emerged.
One activist said at a protest, we're in a tinderbox right now and it feels like all it will take is one more match for the whole thing to go up.
A Black Lives Matter activist yesterday said of the Waukesha attack, he was on scene, it sounds like the revolution started.
The revolution against who?
A bunch of suburban, lower middle class white people?
Who are having a Christmas parade?
That's the revolution?
Not against the government?
It's creepy.
But when you have a story like this on November 20th, with activists saying it's a tinderbox and it is gonna go up, you have people on Twitter calling for revenge, you have people Saturday night live saying, I've seen this before, happens all the time, and then you have an unwell man.
And I think it's fair to point out the dude's crazy.
And maybe not a good example of what Black Lives Matter believes.
Not that I agree with what they believe.
And he sees all of this, and he's already expressed a penchant for causing harm to people based on their race.
And then he gets in his car, lurks around, hits a bunch of people, kills them, injures dozens, severely, critically.
More people may die.
And the police come out and say, it's not terrorism.
In what world It's remarkable to me that every sign points to, even the BLM activists, several have said, this seems like something related to Rittenhouse.
Conservative individuals are saying it.
And journalists that the mainstream media doesn't like.
People like Andy Ngo or me.
Mostly I do commentary, but to be fair, I do a lot of fact-checking and reporting.
And the left hates this too.
I actually call people and get quotes and comments and all that stuff, and we have a news outlet, so yeah, cry more.
Even we look at this and say, how is the mainstream narrative ignoring this and saying it's not terrorism?
Well, I'll be honest.
If this is terror, and I believe it is, and I also believe it's fair to say there's a good possibility it's not, But I believe we are looking at more than enough evidence for a probable cause to be like, this should be treated as terrorism.
If it is, and that narrative is what dominates, this country is a tinderbox.
And it probably will go up.
On November 20th, 2021, the Daily Mail reported this story.
America braced for violent clashes.
We were bracing for violent clashes over the Kyle Rittenhouse case, and then a day later, on November 21st, a guy gets in his car, drives up, in Wisconsin, about an hour from Kenosha, slams the gas, running over dozens of people.
On November 22nd, police recovered the SUV and arrested Darryl Edward Brooks Jr.
Brooks was charged with five counts of first-degree intentional homicide, and they say they will charge him with a sixth soon.
They have not identified an alleged motive, but they believe he acted alone and did not know anyone at the parade.
Police Chief Daniel Thompson said it was not a terrorist event.
How not?
How not?
Police reporter Brooks deliberately targeted the crowd in a zigzag pattern to hit as many people as possible.
So a guy who lives in Milwaukee, not too far from Kenosha, who has posted in support of Black Lives Matter, hating police, and expressed support, or posted memes supporting black nationalism, two days after the Rittenhouse verdict, when activists are saying this country is a tinderbox and people are calling for revenge, a guy gets in his car, for seemingly no reason, and we can't figure out why, and runs these people over.
This is a post that Jack Masobik put up.
This is a walkashawcounty.gov police document about what happened.
Let me read to you, and then you decide.
At approximately 4.35pm, Detective Casey heard via the Waukesha Police Radio that a reserve officer was informed by a citizen that two people were fighting in an area of the White Rock School.
Squads were sent to that area to further investigate.
A few minutes later, Detective Casey heard a horn honking from an area north of his location.
Detective Casey went out onto White Rock Avenue to see where the horn sound was coming from.
He observed that White Rock Avenue was filled with parade participants, as was East Main Street.
He began to see people spreading apart and observed a red Ford Escape driving southbound on White Rock Avenue.
He observed people jumping out of the way of the red Ford Escape.
As the Ford Escape was at White Rock Avenue and East Main Street, Detective Casey stepped in front of the Ford Escape and pounded on the hood of the vehicle and yelled multiple times, STOP!
Detective Casey was wearing a shirt with patches on both shoulders that stated, Waukesha Police, as well as wearing a black hat with white letters on the front of the hat which stated, Police.
Further, he was wearing a neon orange safety vest that stated, Police, on the front and back of it.
So, correction.
It was banging on the hood.
I misread that.
The Ford Escape continued driving, but listen, listen.
This car was going slow enough that a cop walked right up and started banging on the hood.
When this car first started heading down that road, it wasn't just speeding through.
If this was really a pursuit or a guy trying to get away from a domestic or a knife fight, why wouldn't he just slowly turn off the parade route and leave?
How did it happen this way?
Okay, so I wasn't wrong.
continued driving and turned westbound onto East Main Street. At that time, the vehicle was driving
at a slow speed, and the vehicle brushed Detective Casey back off the front of the car, causing him
to be positioned down the driver's side of the vehicle.
Okay, so I wasn't wrong. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Detective Casey went to the driver's side window and
pounded on the driver's side door, yelling stop. Detective Casey subsequently positively
identified the driver as Daryl E.
Brooks, here and after referred to as the defendant.
The defendant drove past Casey and into the parade procession.
Casey chased the vehicle to East Avenue on foot, and he observed the vehicle begin to drive faster.
So, okay.
I had just missed the earlier context of him banging on the hood, so it's even worse than I realize.
When I was reading this, I missed that part where he banged on the hood.
And then, here we have the continue- the vehicle keeps driving at a slow speed enough to where this guy is banging on the door telling him to stop.
So what happened next?
How did this guy go from driving slowly, with a cop banging on his door, to then slamming the gas down, ramming into people?
It wasn't a pursuit.
The police said there was no pursuit.
He could have turned off that road, he could have gone any direction.
Let me show you the map.
We have a graphic from the Daily Mail, breaking down exactly how it went down.
And they show all the victims, the sad stuff.
But take a look at this image.
Let me make it a little bit larger for you.
1.
The parade starts at 4 p.m.
on Sunday.
2.
Red SUV speeds down parade route at 439.
Well, hold on there a minute, Daily Mail.
It was 435 that the vehicle was slowly creeping, enough to where an officer was banging on the hood.
Then, banging on the door.
I mean, that sounds like the car was actually going fairly slow for a decent amount of time.
Slams the gas.
Four minutes later, That's right.
Or the times are wrong, and it's possible.
But if the police, in their report, said 435.
Let me make sure I have this correct, because this is very, very important.
At approximately 435 is when all of this starts happening.
So it's within only a few minutes.
He sees this car coming.
He's banging on the hood.
The car is driving slow.
At 439, people see it speeding, and the cop is running after it.
It's probably Detective Casey.
It then starts hitting people.
Driving down the road, straight down this road, straight down it.
I gotta say, this guy did everything intentionally.
He's charged for it being intentional.
He was identified at the scene.
I do believe, and isn't until proven guilty, and grainy photos aren't enough for me, but we do have a lot of public evidence so far.
That being said, I'll need a conviction, mind you, but I believe, should they get one, this charge should be terror.
Posobiec says, One witness indicated, As I continued to watch the SUV, it continued to drive in a zigzag motion.
It was like the SUV was trying to avoid vehicles, not people.
There was no attempt made by the vehicle to stop, much less slow down.
The vehicle passed through the intersection of Main and Buckley Street.
Officer Boutrin concluded that if the driver was lost and attempting to get out of the parade, this would have been a reasonable location for him to stop and exit the parade route.
The vehicle then appeared to rapidly accelerate as Officer Buterin heard tires squeal.
The vehicle took an abrupt left turn into the crowd.
At this point, it was clear it was an intentional act to strike and hurt as many people as possible.
I think any reasonable person who looks at the facts will say this was an act of terror.
Now, I gotta send it back to Stephen Miller.
Stephen L. Miller, at Redsteez on Twitter.
The Waukesha attack is officially gone from CNN's homepage, and he posted this yesterday at 1.49 p.m.
Yesterday?
We're learning more details about this guy?
I think it's particularly interesting that when I made a video yesterday, I think it was two days ago, And I was like, look, the guy supported Black Lives Matter.
Police aren't ruling out terrorism.
Both of which were true.
And then I said, but there's no proof this guy was doing this because of Black Lives Matter.
We have no evidence.
He's not even a suspect.
He's a person of interest.
That's what I said at the time.
But that alone was so threatening to the mainstream media's narrative that a hit piece came out.
Goes viral on Twitter.
I'm still trending for some reason.
Well, I don't care about what the people who live in Wally World have to say about their stupid fake news.
You know it, and I know it.
We know the details of this case, and a reasonable person would conclude, at the very least, an assumption of terror is not unfounded.
And you see how careful I'm still being?
Let me stress this.
It's possible it was not.
It's possible this guy was just whacked out on drugs.
And just freaking out.
And that wouldn't be terror.
But, in the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions, it tends to be the correct solution.
And what that means is, I don't have any evidence the guy was whacked out on goofballs.
I do have evidence he had political feelings and political opinions that were quite strong.
I mean, black nationalism.
He made a post about World War II Germany and the true Hebrews, and it's just an absolute black nationalist insane meme.
He had posts saying, F the police.
He had posts saying, knock out white people.
And then he did.
He got in his car, he drove up there, slowly, and then quickly, ramming into people.
How are we seriously having a conversation that says, this wasn't black nationalist, identitarian, motivated terror?
Because the media lies.
And it's that simple.
And they're deeply offended by me saying, you know, I mean, the whole video I did, if you watched two days ago, you know, on Monday, and I was just like, guys, we can't jump the gun on this one.
We got to be careful.
We don't even know this guy is the actual suspect.
He's a person of interest.
That was enough to trigger them.
How dare you?
Okay.
Well, I'm game.
Because I don't care what these people think.
Let me explain.
There are two different realities.
This we all know.
But this means there are two different political compasses.
Now in the real world, where we have the truth, like, um, what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse?
He didn't cross state lines, he didn't bring a gun to cross state lines, like all of the lies they pushed.
My understanding is that he was actually spending the night in Kenosha, but regardless, when they say he crossed state lines to imply that he was going to a riot, he actually worked in Kenosha, he was at his job in Kenosha, and then went to his friend's house and was handed a weapon he was legally allowed to carry.
We, at TimCast, TimCast IRL, and my show, and the website, have been correct about that the whole time.
You see, in the real world, there's a political compass.
And someone like my good friend Luke Rutkowski, who's on TimCast IRL, is like a center-right, you know, libertarian, but very, like, he's basically an antcap.
But he's like center-right, he's not far-left, he's not far-right.
And then there's me, that's like center-left libertarian, and so I disagree on certain things about, you know, capitalism, and cooperation, and things like that.
But, um, we live in a world of truth.
Now, on the left, what we refer to as the left, is an entirely different political compass.
You have people like Bill Kristol, who are on the right of that compass.
You have people like, you know, Bernie Sanders and Antifa, who are on the left of that compass.
If you are not in that reality, to them, you're all far right, even to the neocons.
And in this political compass, which is like freedom, These people are effectively establishment leftists now.
So when people say Tim Pool's not right-wing, well, they're right.
Because the people who are saying that live in the same universe that I do.
Reality.
Truth.
But if you live in a narrative bubble of lies and manipulation, Then, well yeah sure, I'm not even in that political compass.
So certainly that must be far right.
You see how it works?
Two different realities now.
I don't care what the fake reality thinks.
I don't care what the Daily Beast wants to report.
It's unfortunate they lie to people, but I'll try and convince people of what's true and I'll tell them here are the facts.
But at the end of all of this, when I see them saying, this wasn't terror and trolls are trying to link it to BLM and all that stuff, I'm like, yo, you can say whatever you want in your matrix.
I don't live in your matrix.
And I don't care what you think.
You may as well be a different country.
I care about what's true.
And what appears to be true is that this guy was politically motivated.
This was an act of terrorism.
We don't know definitively, and it's always hard to know definitively.
Until this guy comes out and says it was his intent, we don't know.
And for all we know, the guy comes out and says he was on crazy drugs.
And that could be it.
I mean, you look at the guy's in a suicide smock, his eyes look all crazy, and the reason the police could be saying it's not terror is because they stopped him and they're like, this guy's on a ton of drugs.
For all we know, the dude was, you know, on some crazy uppers and psychedelics or something, all mixed together, and speed and whatever, and he's imagining he's running over a little Godzilla's or something, and he's just like, freaking out.
And that could be simple.
It could be driving under the influence of some serious drugs.
That, I think, is entirely possible.
However, in the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be correct, and because we don't have evidence of drug abuse, right now, or that he was doing any drugs until they released that, the only thing I can say is it looks like terror.
And I will reserve the right to say, if evidence comes out that he was on drugs, well, look, it probably wasn't.
Until then, that's actually the facts.
This is actually what happened.
And now you can decide if you agree or not, and I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
Looting and mass raids.
Recently, about 80 people stormed into a store and started just stealing stuff en masse.
unidentified
25 cars blocking the roads, cops running up trying to grab people.
We had them when I was a kid in Chicago, but kids back then would steal candy bars, not luxury goods.
Well, you see, in California, If you steal less than $950, it's a misdemeanor.
And cops typically don't care to respond to it, so we've been seeing growing brazen thefts, shoplifting sprees, and organized crime.
But you know what?
You've heard that.
And I'm sure news about that right now isn't all that shocking to you.
You wanna know what's shocking to me?
From ABC7 News in San Francisco.
Tourists shocked by spree of organized thefts in San Francisco.
Industry fears crime will deter visitors.
What's shocking to me is that there are still tourists in San Francisco.
I mean it!
I mean, I guess to a certain degree, you expect tourists to go everywhere and to be everywhere because people want to travel.
But first of all, you've got COVID restrictions.
Traveling isn't as fun as it used to be.
It's expensive.
It's hard.
It's kind of annoying.
But okay, people travel.
I traveled recently.
Fine, fine, fine.
But then, of all places, San Francisco?
In Waukesha.
You heard about what happened.
Well, now we're getting news that the perpetrator, alleged perpetrator, runs up to a house and says, hey, I need help.
I'm homeless.
And the guy's like, come on in!
Completely oblivious to the fact that like a block or however far away, really close, this guy ran people over.
So he knocks on the door and says something like, I'm waiting for an Uber, and I'm homeless, and I need help.
And so they let him in, they hang out with him, they make him a sandwich, and then the guy ends up getting arrested or whatever.
So, this dude in Waukesha who was like, I'm gonna do the right thing and let this man in.
He wasn't paying attention.
He wasn't watching the news.
He wasn't on social media.
He didn't hear the noise.
He's completely oblivious to what just happened.
And Ford, he let this guy in.
I don't blame the dude for trying to help someone who's homeless.
That's respectable.
But to a certain degree, I kind of have some criticism over his ignorance.
That being said, I mean, you know, there are times where I go to bed and I wake up and it's like, hey, some crazy news event happened, so I'm not overly critical of this guy.
And the reason I bring that up is that when it comes to tourists going to San Francisco, you know, they have no idea what's going on.
But this is a little different.
Don't you have an obligation to look into the city you're going to?
And when you hear that San Francisco has human feces all over the streets and 80 to 100 people looting 12 stores, and then you're like, I can't believe this is happening.
I will not be going to San Francisco anytime soon because I know this is happening.
Well, how has the Democrats, how have they handled this?
So-called experts, I'm sorry.
From the Postmillennial.
So-called experts warn against calling mass burglary events looting.
Yeah, I guess.
Raid is more appropriate, the Postmillennial reports.
Following mass theft in the Bay Area over the weekend, crime experts are warning the public and police not to call mass burglary events looting.
Looting has been deemed a racially charged term by progressive voices as opponents of the label are pushing to call the criminal act organized robbery.
ABC7 News's race and social justice reporter, Julian Glover, said that policing and journalism analysts are cautioning against the use of the term looting after a wave of smash-and-grab robberies devastated the San Francisco community.
Best Buy tumbles as increased theft worsens margin squeeze.
Look at this.
For those that are listening, let me describe it to you.
We have this graphic.
It says, not at its best.
Best Buy plunged for reporting squeezed margins and lower online sales.
They dropped from just over 135, so around 137, to 117, so about 40 points.
Why?
Organized retail crime.
They say it.
Plain and simple.
Defunding the police.
A breakdown in civil order.
And everyone's gonna reap the rewards of that.
It's amazing, isn't it?
It's all seemingly geared towards the Great Reset.
Now, I'm not saying that it's intentionally geared this way.
But it seems like a lot of the things that are taking place just will result in a Great Reset of global capitalism.
Some people have used that phrase literally.
The Great Reset, of course, refers to the World Economic Forum's Great Reset Initiative, but some people have just referred to what's happening as a Great Reset outside of what the World Economic Forum wants, so, I mean, that says a lot, doesn't it?
So here's what you have.
The ports are jammed up.
Supplies can't come in.
Construction grinds to a halt.
No kidding.
I'm trying to get stuff done and they're like, we can't get any more supplies, sorry.
Food prices are going up, way up.
General Mills announced a 20% increase on their foods.
Let's say you're making $15 an hour and you pay taxes.
After taxes, you probably bring home $11 an hour.
So you pay your taxes to the government or whatever.
Now, you go to the store to buy cereal for your kids.
And you can't just buy one box.
I mean, you got kids, you know?
Maybe two kids.
We'll reduce the average because the other thing gearing towards the Great Reset is the reduction in population growth, which, okay.
So let's say you got one or two kids, and you're like, well, we want to buy cereal for the week.
One box is not enough.
You gotta buy two, right?
Well, it's like five bucks a box.
So now you're working a whole hour just to get that cereal for your kid's breakfast.
Don't forget the milk!
That's gonna cost you a little bit more.
Well, General Mills announces the prices are going up, you show up to the grocery store, and you're like, gonna get my cereal, and all of a sudden it's like, I can't afford to buy it.
It's $6 now.
It's gone up 20%.
So now, what do you do?
I guess we'll just get one?
Well, now you don't have as much food at home.
And so all these people say, like, I gotta feed my kids, you know, I can't speak up for what I believe in because then my kids won't have food.
It's actually the other way around.
I know I've said it a lot, but it bears repeating.
It's the other way around.
The more you comply, the less likely it is for your children to eat.
Here's what's happening to Best Buy.
They say burglaries range from dozens of people rushing into stores and grabbing merch to theft by smaller groups, some of them brandishing guns and crowbars.
CEO Corey Berry told reporters Tuesday, Northern California has been a particular trouble spot, she said, but Best Buy has seen pockets of criminal activity all over the country.
We are seeing more and more particularly organized retail crime.
You can see that pressure in our financials, and more importantly, frankly, you can see that pressure with our associates.
It's traumatizing.
I don't know if the people who run these companies actually care that they're being gutted and destroyed by Democrat policies.
They're too stupid.
And it's a good thing they have party member unit Best Buy getting called out because they have a diversity officer cult.
Cult members.
Cult members have religious patrons within their businesses.
Cult members do.
Businesses have merit-based positions.
But anyway, I digress.
Best Buy is getting criticized because after the Rittenhouse verdict, their diversity officer Send in an email saying, you know, there's therapy available.
I'll tell you what.
You want to know why I would divest from Best Buy?
I don't have any stock in Best Buy.
For that reason, a company that's going to prioritize diversity over meritocracy is not going to succeed.
When you have these Democrat politicians who pass these laws which result in mass robberies and burglaries, Businesses are gonna fail.
Divest from them.
Now, I'm not gonna buy stock in any of these companies, but hey, wait a minute.
When big box stores get gutted by robberies and their stock tanks, whose stock is going to go up?
Amazon.
Yeah, because Amazon doesn't have to worry about theft and robberies.
I mean, they do have Whole Foods.
They do have those, you know, those cashierless stores.
But when you want to buy electronics from Amazon, you just order online.
No one can shoplift what's delivered to them.
I suppose you can do upsetting.
That's when you follow delivery trucks and then take the packages, but I suppose someone could.
But that's... it happens.
But for the most part, that's your problem, not Best Buy's.
If they deli... I'm sorry, not Best Buy, Amazon.
If Amazon delivers something to you, And then someone else comes and takes it.
They're gonna be like, how is that our responsibility?
We got it to you.
At that point, the shoplifting is your fault.
They're going to say.
Best Buy flagged the impact of robberies, just as it's struggling to keep pace with soaring investor expectations.
And theft is far from the only financial headache.
While Best Buy topped expectations for third-quarter profit and sales, gross margin, a broad measure of profitability, got hit by stepped-up promotional activity and a drag from a new membership program.
And slowing sales growth suggests that a pandemic-era boom is waning.
Best Buy shares plunged 15% Wow!
In New York, after sliding as much as 17 for the biggest intraday decline since March 2020.
The shares had advanced 38% this year through Monday, outpacing the 28% gained by the S&P 500 index of consumer discretionary companies.
So, you know, all in all, if you invested last year, you're still up.
But man, I gotta tell you, if you bought Bitcoin instead, whoo, you'd have way more money.
But that's not financial advice.
The retailer's credit default swaps widen Tuesday with the cost to protect the company's debt against default rising to the highest level since March.
Gross margin and blah blah blah.
I don't care about that stuff.
What I'm concerned about is policy and how it is impacting our cities, our economy, and regular people's lives.
And as I said, all of this seems geared towards a great reset.
Big box stores struggle.
Small mom and pop shots are forcefully shut down.
Now we're hearing about truckers.
This was reported actually almost a week ago.
Millions of truckers may quit driving because of vaccine mandates.
If the truckers stop driving, that's it.
You're going to be eating farm fresh for the rest of your days, or at least until the truckers come back.
No more strawberries in winter, no more mangoes in cold season, no avocados.
Poor millennials in New York, no avocados for you.
And I personally am not too worried about that.
I actually don't like the fact that we have year-round fruit and produce because, you know, it's out of season and they ship it in.
You should probably eat foods that are better for you and more sustainable.
I know fruits and avocados are pretty good for you, but having them shipped from, like, Mexico and California in winter?
I don't know about all that, man.
I mean, but look, you do you.
If you can, you can.
I also kind of think, you know, I see a lot of people talk about overpopulation and why there is this move towards these policies, and here's my issue.
I believe that we can actually solve these problems through honest means.
Honest is a good way to put it.
What's currently happening with our politicians is they're trying to solve everything through dishonest means.
They're starting fights between political factions, they're lying about their intent, and then people are getting hurt by it.
I suppose the reason is, the view of the elites, people like Bill Gates or otherwise, is that people are too dumb and they'll fight to survive, so you've got to trick them.
How about we just be honest and set some limitations, I suppose?
Not like what they're doing, you know?
I'm not advocating for hard lockdowns, manipulation, fights, and all this stuff.
But maybe we just say, you know, we have some incentives, we try and set some policy towards green energy, like nuclear, for instance.
Here's my issue, here's my issue.
I've always been...
Particularly lefty on a lot of issues, and I actually am more liberal on a lot of things as opposed to libertarian.
I am in the libertarian spectrum, meaning I typically, you know, shy away from centralized authority.
I think it's a bad thing.
But I also think we need to come to some agreements, you know, and compromises.
The problem we have is there are special interests that want to just gut everything.
And this is the establishment elites, the Democrats and the establishment Republicans.
I describe them as the people on the Titanic stealing all the fine silverware and then jumping in the life raft before anyone realized the iceberg hit the ship.
Maybe that's true.
Maybe the ship is sinking and there's no way out.
I don't think so, though.
I think we can actually have honest conversations.
I think most people in this country are willing to have them.
But when you have a mainstream media apparatus that lies, cheats, and steals because they want to extract, and the establishment Republicans and Democrats play to that, then we all suffer.
Take a look at Cal Rittenhouse and the other, you know, other big stories.
The media lied about everything.
I mean, they lie about nuclear power all day and night.
Right now, they're calling what happened in Waukesha an accident.
Imagine if they were just honest and said, this is what happened.
Here's our politicians with proposed solutions.
What do they think is going to happen?
People are gonna just go around just clubbing each other and screaming and... no.
That's actually what the villain in the movie Kingsman wanted.
I think most people will be like, I would like to make a decision based on that information.
Then they would.
Instead, what we get from the elites is lies and manipulation, so people make bad decisions, and it makes things worse.
That's always been my complaint.
And the left used to say the same thing.
You know, if Fox News wasn't lying to people, yeah, well, apparently now it's Fox News not lying to people and you're lying to people.
This is what you get.
Oh, look at this.
Look at this.
Elaine Dart drove from Chico to San Francisco to relax and was met with images of Friday's crime.
It's uncomfortable.
It makes me a little nervous.
According to the SFPD, nearly 12 stores were hit at the same time by a mob of 80 to 100 people.
In Union Square, the Christmas tree and ice rink should be the main focus, but images of the mass theft have gone viral.
Quote, when a crime like this occurs, it's obviously concerning to us as well.
We would hope it doesn't have a long-term impact on our image of the city, but it's a reality we have to deal with.
The executive director of the Union Square Alliance believes the large police presence is not only helping tourists feel safe, but retailers as well.
Hey, I called that out too.
We're at a dark places, my friends.
You know, I said last year that when the chaos gets to a certain point, regular people will demand authoritarianism.
They'll demand police.
And now we have these reports.
The police are making everyone feel safe.
I'm for bail reform.
I'll switch gears a little bit.
You know, we had this guy in Waukesha, and he had jumped bail and committed a whole bunch of crimes, and they let him out on like $1,000 bail.
Yeah, okay, that probably, at a certain point, you're like, no, we're not letting you out, okay?
But on the surface, I'm for bail reform.
Now, a lot of people on the right are criticizing the left over their position on bail reform.
This is wrong.
Bail reform is the correct move.
The left is correct when it comes to bail reform.
The amount of money you have should not be a factor in whether or not we hold you in custody while you are presumed innocent.
Period.
That being said, at a certain point, violent crimes, we remand you.
So the issue is that the guy in Waukesha, he shouldn't have been let out at all.
And that is a problem of the progressive bail reform policies.
But it doesn't change the fact that bail reform is still the right thing to do.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
So long as you have not been proven guilty, you are innocent.
And we, the government, the people, should not be holding you in custody unless there is strong evidence, a judge rules it, and it should not be based on money.
I don't think so.
I think if we're gonna grant you bail, you get your bail.
Period.
If a judge says, you know, look, imagine it this way.
A violent criminal.
He's in court.
And they say this guy's a repeat offender, he's got previous convictions, and we believe he is a danger to the community.
The defense can say that's not true, he's served his community, he paid his debt to society, and the judge can say, where's the evidence?
Okay, look, this is a violent crime.
Because of the heinousness of the accusations, remand to custody for the time being.
I believe that's fair, that's due process.
But most people, they go in, and the state's like, Yeah, we think they're probably a threat, but tell you what, if they give us a thousand bucks, we'll let them go.
And I'm like, no, no, no, no, no.
If they're a threat, they don't go.
Even if they are presumed innocent, because we also have some... the people have rights so much as the person has rights.
I believe that there is some... we can't just say no.
Like, there's reasonableness to this.
That being said, what I am saying is that 95% of all people who are arrested probably should be released on bail, on bond, or whatever you want to call it.
But there is one very important piece to that argument.
I'm also very much in favor of the Second Amendment.
So if I live in a city and there's a violent offender, and you decide that, you know, it's a first offense, so we don't have any proof this person, let's say there's an accusation against someone of a violent offense, that the evidence is circumstantial, I say let him out.
Even if it turns out this individual is guilty.
Why?
Because I will keep and bear arms and take that responsibility unto myself.
The state should not be allowed to lock you up Before you are found guilty by a jury of your peers, except in limited circumstances.
Because that would be reasonable.
Limited circumstances.
And so that means the state would need to present hard evidence.
Here's a photo of the perpetrator with the weapon in question.
Here's a photo of the victim.
Defense.
We contend he's innocent?
Well, the judge says, look, you know, in this count, we're going to keep him in.
We're going to remand.
Okay.
So I think it's still reasonable to do so.
I just believe that most people should be released unless the state, I got to be honest, unless the state can be like, here's a photo of him committing the crime.
It's like, okay, I think this is going to be a pretty open and shut case, but we still need to get this through evidence and have a jury decide, not the prosecution.
But having seen the evidence, yeah, we're not going to let you out.
Preponderance of evidence, I suppose.
I have no problem assuming those risks and saying the state shouldn't have the right to kill people, the state shouldn't have the right to lock people up without due process, because I'll take that responsibility for myself.
You know, all these leftists are saying that vaccines should be mandated.
I disagree.
They shouldn't.
I end up getting COVID.
They all start laughing.
I don't care.
I made my choice.
I took my risks.
Look at me.
I'm fine.
I had it bad, though, by the way.
You know, so I called the doctor.
I got monoclonal antibodies.
You guys probably know the story.
The point is, when it comes to what's happening in San Francisco, let me actually say this.
I'm fine with it.
Actually, I'm all for it.
They voted for it.
They live there, not me.
Who am I to intrude and put my will over their city?
I'm sure the people in San Francisco sat back and watched these people loot and raid their stores and they were like, yeah, and they clapped and cheered for it.
You think I'm kidding?
I'm half kidding.
A bunch of people probably saw it happen and laughed.
And they said, good, I don't care.
Screw these luxury stores.
The problem is the mom and pop shops that end up getting destroyed and can't rebuild.
The big chains have no problem recovering because they have the ability to do so.
They have the funding from elsewhere.
They have subsidization.
They are subsidized by other businesses in their chains.
But!
Far be it from me to tell people of California how to live.
They vote for this stuff non-stop.
So, here's how I'll say it.
I wouldn't live there.
If you, well, that's your choice.
If whatever this is started coming to my town, my city, my neighborhood, I would not want to just have jackboot cops or law enforcement or military coming to round people up.
I'd just say, I want the right to defend myself.
And a firearm.
I got the right to bear arms, and if someone wants to rob me or screw with me and threatens me, I'll defend myself.
I think the main issue is, the left doesn't believe in the right to defend your property.
See, the reason you can defend your property in many places with lethal force is, if you are forced from your property, you could die, especially in the winter.
If a person seeks to enter your property, they could kill you.
And so what ends up happening is if someone enters your property in many states, you can just use whatever force necessary to defend yourself.
It's not your obligation, at least in my opinion, to sit back and wait to figure out what level of threat this person poses to you.
So in many places, if someone's coming to steal stuff, we have a challenge.
I don't think anyone should lose their life over trying to steal a shirt.
But how am I supposed to know that's all you want to do?
I mean, I've seen videos of people just shooting cops for no reason.
Am I supposed to assume you're going to walk in and just be like, I'll leave you alone?
No, man.
Robberies get violent.
And so I don't know what the percentage is, but if it's a .001% chance the person trying to steal the shoes from my store is going to draw a gun and demand the register, And then potentially kill me?
Sorry, you come in and start committing violent acts, I will use whatever force to protect myself.
In these big cities, they don't allow it.
They would say, the person was simply stealing and you caused them harm.
And then we get those stories where it's like, someone came in to steal food and ended up killing the clerk.
Because that happens too.
It's not the victim's responsibility.
You can't blame the victims.
The left loves blaming the victim when it comes to Kyle Rittenhouse.
