Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 24, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:51:02

Waiting on Ahmaud Arbery Verdict, Locals Questions & Other Law Stuffs - Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	On the very second there, I almost accidentally clicked on a Pantelis episode has just been released.
	For anybody who doesn't know who Pantelis is, Montreal podcaster, comedian, very smart, very funny guy.
	I've been on his show at least six times now.
	Okay, so this was unplanned, but I've been reading comments to the Arbery trial.
	Well, it's actually the McMichaels trial.
	It's the Ahmaud Arbery shooting.
	He got killed.
	We're going to see what the verdict is going to be as to whether or not it's self-defense.
	Self-defense resulting from an attack while citizens were attempting to perform a citizen's arrest on what they thought to have been a crime committed or whether or not it is actually provocation in the sense that people were using the term in the Rittenhouse case.
	Whether or not it was an unlawful, felonious act of the McMichaels and Roddy, I forget his last name now, to think they were entitled to do this, leading to a death, and whether or not it's felony murder.
	So, I have been reading a lot of the comments.
	It's extremely frustrating.
	And I'm realizing I'm sufficiently insightful to know why I'm getting frustrated.
	I'm getting frustrated because I want to convince people of what I believe, as opposed to just presenting the evidence.
	So that they can come to their own conclusions.
	The evidence that has, in fact, been adduced before the court.
	Where I get really frustrated is when we can't even agree on the evidence that was adduced before the court.
	So I figure we're going to have a discussion.
	Ron Coleman is in the crowd.
	Nate Brody's here.
	I think Eric Hundley might be tuning in.
	This is not the sidebar for the day.
	We have tonight Blake Masters, COO of Teal Capital.
	And running for Congress or Senate, running for office now.
	So it's going to be an amazing sidebar tonight.
	This is not the sidebar.
	This is an impromptu.
	We are going to discuss the Ahmaud Arbery case.
	And if the verdict comes down for whatever the reason within the next whenever, I'm going to cut the stream and then we're going to go to Nate's because Nate had pre-planned and has been broadcasting this live the way Reketa was broadcasting the Rittenhouse trial.
	And this stream is not intended to step on his toes.
	So if the verdict comes...
	I'm going to close this down and then I'm going to go and join Nate on his channel.
	But with that said, people, let me bring in Nate and let me bring in Ron Coleman.
	Gentlemen.
	Hey, Ron!
	How you doing, Nate?
	I'm doing great, man.
	How you doing?
	Let's wait for everyone in the chat to tell us how bad Ron's audio is.
	Ron, say something again.
	The summer's eyes are blue.
	Why do I think that Ron used to be a singer at one point in time?
	A crooner.
	Can you change this to that other view, Viva?
	Yes, hold on a second.
	My nostrils here.
	StreamYard, let me see this.
	Bring it up.
	And, like, this is going to be better.
	Me father kept a boarding house.
	How's that?
	That is beautiful.
	That sounds good.
	Now let me just do one thing.
	I'm going to go to YouTube.
	And I should also mention, we've got a live chat on Locals, so I'll be taking questions from the live chat on Locals, because I know that they're going to have questions as well.
	Put this off here, and let me just see if we're rolling well.
	And we are live streaming simultaneously on Rumble as well.
	I don't know what's going on here.
	There's too many windows up, and I just want to make sure that I've done something proper here.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	We are yellow before we even started, but it doesn't matter.
	I'll ask for that afterwards.
	Okay.
	Oh, yeah.
	So, standard disclaimers, by the way.
	Super chat.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	Rumble rants.
	Rumble takes 20%, so you can feel good supporting on Rumble if you want.
	Yes, you have to have an account if you want to comment on Rumble.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	No election fortification advice.
	Discussion.
	And let's...
	I mean, okay.
	I did not see the Karol Moskowitz.
	Did you see Karol Moskowitz say the verdict is in?
	I have not heard that.
	Nate is following it, so we're going to...
	No, I haven't seen anything yet.
	Apparently, Nate, what's the latest in terms of where they're at in terms of the deliberations?
	Well, it's essentially today.
	The jury just asked for a couple...
	It seemed like last night the jury wanted...
	Believe that they were close to a verdict.
	So everybody knows they deliberated for like five hours yesterday.
	Then at about five o 'clock, the judge said, well, okay, let's see where they're at.
	If a verdict is imminent, we'll stay, but if it's not, we'll go.
	So they brought the joyful woman out.
	She says, well, listen, it's not imminent, so let's go home tonight.
	So he was like, okay, let's go home.
	So he sent the jurors back into the room, and the rest of the jurors in the room were like, no, no, no, no, no.
	Tell them we want to stay, right?
	We are close.
	So then they sent a note out.
	They didn't even send a foreperson, but they sent a note out saying, we want to stay.
	They stayed for like another half an hour.
	They couldn't hash it out.
	And they said they're going to come back this morning.
	So this morning, they've been at it for about an hour.
	And they wanted to look at specifically the videos of Amard Albury getting shot in the 911 call.
	And it was a strange request.
	They said, we want to see the video three times.
	And we want to hear the...
	We want to hear the audio for the 911 call.
	So they did that this morning, and now they're back deliberating.
	So now, you know, all the news media is trying to figure out what the hell all this means.
	Why do you want to see the video, and why do you want to hear the audio?
	So, you know, I'm assuming it's just like Rittenhouse, because we were all scared for a couple of days with Rittenhouse.
	Joey wanted to see that provocation video, because I think you're dotting your T's and crossing your I's.
	But, you know, Joey's unpredictable.
	So we will see.
	I think right now, there's a definite...
	There's a definite split within that jury pool about guilt or innocence.
	Maybe it's on all counts.
	Maybe it's on some counts.
	And I think it has something to do with the McMichaels self-defense claim because they're looking at that self-defense issue.
	That's the reason why you look at those videos, I'm assuming.
	And we'll back it up to the beginning because there are a lot of people who might not be as familiar with the McMichaels-Ahmaud Arbery case as they were with Rittenhouse.
	Bottom line...
	To summarize the facts for anybody who doesn't know, is that the McMichaels' father, son, and Roddy, I forget his last name again, basically see an individual hauling ass down the street on a sunny morning, suspect that he might have been a burglar, suspect that he might have been a burglar or a trespasser from the neighborhood.
	The neighborhood had seen a lot of burglaries over the last weeks, months, maybe a year even.
	They suspect, for whatever the reason, that this individual is the burglar.
	The McMichaels get armed, shotgun, handgun, get in a pickup truck.
	With the Roddy, who also falls in a pickup truck, they pursue Ahmaud Arbery, who I think we all agree now, and I think the prosecution admits, is not jogging through the neighborhood.
	He might very well have been trespassing up to no good.
	He was not jogging like the media said at the beginning.
	But they pursue him for several minutes, five to maybe seven to ten minutes.
	It results in them pursuing him with the trucks.
	At one point, Ahmaud Arbery lunges for or reaches for, apparently, McMichaels'shotgun.
	McMichaels pulls the trigger.
	gets shot once and dies.
	And Nate, you'll fill me in on some of the facts if I overgloss them.
	McMichaels and the individual, I think all three are charged with malice murder, which is basically first degree murder, felony murder, and a slew of other lesser charges.
	Malice murder is...
	You know, first degree, I guess, premeditated, but it doesn't have to be massively premeditated.
	Felony murder, we've seen in Chauvin.
	It's a death resulting in the commission of a felony.
	Is felony murder?
	Seems to be punishable by the same penalty as malice murder, maybe a little less.
	And then some other charges.
	Have I missed any material facts, Nate, that you think is relevant?
	And I'll hit the chat to see if they think I did.
	But have I missed anything material?
	I don't think so.
	I have a quick PowerPoint I shared.
	Because this is my, like, quick five-second recap of everything that happened.
	So if you want to share that, and I'll just run through it real quick.
	And I'm going to say for anybody who didn't hear me say it in the beginning, if the verdict comes down, we're going to shut this down and go to Nate.
	This is not trumping Nates because I know a lot of people are waiting for you, Nate.
	Just so it's clear.
	Okay, let's do this.
	All right, so this is the prosecutor, and their case is that this day, February 23rd, Amart already went into this property and didn't steal anything.
	This was just a criminal trespass, and this is a criminal trespass like many others that day.
	Here's some children also going into that property, and here's a white couple who went onto that property the same day, right?
	So they're saying that all these people together are just committing criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor, and then you can't then chase someone down based on them committing criminal trespass.
	So the prosecutor says that they don't have intent for a burglary.
	You need a tent to steal of a dwelling.
	The prosecutor says they don't have that.
	And if you don't have a burglary, if you don't have a tent to steal for a burglary, then you can't have a citizen's arrest.
	So the prosecutor is essentially saying Arbery was a trespasser, but he wasn't a burglar, and there was no evidence that he was a burglar.
	Just going into the property isn't a burglar.
	You need to prove that he had some intent.
	Since you don't have a burglary, you can't have a citizen's arrest.
	Now, if you don't have a citizen's arrest, then you're not authorized to go out there and stop him and point guns at him.
	Because just like any other citizen, a regular citizen can't go and stop another citizen, detain them, or arrest them because they feel like it.
	They actually have to have probable cause.
	You have to be more or less sure that you have a crime occur.
	And since the false imprisonment, I mean, since the citizen's arrest they're saying was illegal, then if you have a false...
	Arrest as a citizen, that's essentially false imprisonment, right?
	If you put handcuffs on a citizen that's false, then you have false imprisonment.
	And false imprisonment is a felony.
	And since Arbery died in the commission of that felony, that's the felony murder.
	So their counts are malice murder, felony murder, like Viva said.
	Counts of aggravated assault for pointing a loaded shotgun at Arbery, false imprisonment, which is the predicate for the felony murder, and criminal attempts to commit false imprisonment.
	That's for the last guy, Roddy Bryant.
	So this is what they've all been charged with.
	The defense now is making a separate argument.
	Their argument is that there was intent to steal, and that's from these pictures you see now.
	Arbery was in that house multiple times.
	He wasn't just on that video of that house.
	He was on videos of...
	Of other videos around the neighborhood.
	And the police were actually looking for Arbery as a suspected burglar or what's it called?
	I forgot what it's called.
	A burglary suspect or a criminal trespass suspect.
	So he was on the October 25th, November 18th, December 17th, February 11th, and February 23rd.
	So they're saying all of this together would lead a reasonable person to believe that he did have an intent to steal.
	Why the hell are you going into this house in the middle of the night?
	And there's no evidence that he's jogging.
	They even asked people, did you ever see this guy jogging in the neighborhood?
	There was no evidence of that.
	And that's when we get to the dirty toenails issue that they were trying to pass off.
	So the defense is, there was intent to steal.
	This house was a burglary under Georgia law, which is the correct interpretation.
	And since you have this felony...
	Burglary.
	They're able to then chase Arbery and conduct a citizen's arrest because you do have this felony, burglary.
	And that's what they did.
	And these counts, because they were authorized to try to arrest Arbery for the felony of, for the felony burglary he committed previously on February 11th, then they are not guilty.
	So that's essentially what this case has come down to.
	Whether they were authorized to conduct a citizen's arrest on February 23rd.
	For a crime that occurred on February 11th.
	Now, the big part here is that the law in Georgia states that if you're going to conduct a citizen's arrest, it must be contemporaneously done with the act.
	So essentially, you can't have...
	Let's say, for instance, if I'm trying to arrest you on...
	I'm sorry, if I see you commit a crime on February 11th, and then I see you again on February 23rd, I can't arrest you on February 23rd for the crime you committed on February 11th as a citizen, because my right to that extinguishes on that day.
	So that was the law.
	But it was given very...
	Very, very confusing to the jury.
	So the jury, I don't know if they understood that part of it, but that's how the judge read the law.
	And that's why the defense was extremely upset, saying, well, my God, if that's the case, then we've lost.
	But they put up a great fight, and now the jury is looking at whether...
	This was the – the citizen's arrest was lawful, and if the citizen's arrest was lawful, then they have to see if the McMichaels were justified in using the amount of force and whether they're justified in shooting him based on self-defense.
	So that's essentially the nutshell.
	I know it's a lot, but it is.
	No, it's a lot, and it's good because these are the two facts that I think are going to be totally – that are going to be determinate is that even if one assumes that what the crime that he was suspected of committing – Ron, just to let you know, I put you on mute, so if you want to talk, raise your hand and I'll come back to you because there's echo otherwise.
	So this is where I go a little nuts or get irritated trying to have the discussion with people.
	People like to take a screenshot at the last very second and say, Ahmad reached for his gun, therefore he was...
	Therefore, he was armed, and therefore McMichaels are entitled to self-defense.
	Now, I think it was the judge who gave fairly decent jury instructions as to provocation, as to whether or not they had committed the felony, or was it the, I think it might have been the prosecuting attorney.
	And she gave a very good example, a good analogy.
	Typically, analogies are not good, but this one's good because it highlights the fundamental issue here as to whether or not...
	When Ahmaud Arbery grabbed for McMichael's gun, assuming he even did that, I mean, we've seen the video, was he the victim of a felony being committed or was he being lawfully detained under a presumed felony crime that McMichael's thought he'd committed?
	And the analogy that the prosecuting attorney gave was, you rob a liquor store or you rob a convenience store at shotgun, you know, you point a shotgun at the clerk, the clerk swipes away at the gun or tries to grab the gun, the robber is not entitled to self-defense because they're committing a felony of armed robbery.
	And what people fail to, this is where the analogy actually helps people understand, if the McMichaels were participating or conducting what was in fact a felonious false imprisonment, even if they didn't think they were, then the issue becomes whether or not it was the felonious provocation that then no longer allows them to use the privilege of self-defense in the same way we saw in Rittenhouse.
	And so people like to say, he grabbed for the gun, that's it, end of story.
	But that is a screenshot, that's a snapshot.
	Of an event that occurred over five to seven minutes.
	And it would be similar to saying, well, look at this three-quarters of a second.
	Rittenhouse just shot Rosenbaum four times, and therefore it's obvious murder.
	And you sort of ignore everything that preceded or that led up to that.
	And so in the Arbery case, the issue is, okay, that might be one way of interpreting that specific screenshot at the final moment.
	What preceded it was five-plus minutes of pursuit based on the McMichael suspicion that On February 13th, Arbery committed a felony burglary.
	And so then there are two questions here.
	One, even if that's the case, even if they had seen him commit a burglary or had probable cause to suspect he committed a felony 11 days prior, in law, does that give them the authorization 11 days later to conduct a citizen's arrest?
	Question number one.
	Ron, what do you think?
	I don't think so.
	It seems to me like a very good comparison to the...
	To the self-defense discussion, you know, a citizen's arrest is an extraordinary assertion of coercive power.
	It might not be as dangerous as shooting somebody when they are 15, but it might.
	It very well might.
	So for you to have the privilege of being able to assert the right to detain someone and restrain them and Notwithstanding the fact that they're on your, being on someone's property doesn't make you someone's property.
	It just makes you a trespasser.
	So, you know, the fact that I saw, you know, if I saw you on my property a week ago, I see you on my property now, my move is to call the cops.
	Period.
	I'm going to pull this up laser torque because I'm not saying this to be demeaning.
	I don't know if this is intended to be troll, not have a genuine discussion or not.
	Ahmaud Arbery initiated the attack.
	This is ridiculous.
	So I don't know.
	Maybe that's supposed to be sarcasm, humor, or maybe it's a legitimate position.
	For anybody to say that Ahmaud Arbery initiated the attack would have to ignore the fact that he was pursued.
	I won't say chased, hunted.
	I'm not going to use inflammatory language.
	He was pursued by two vehicles.
	And two of three men who were armed.
	He was pursued for minutes, five minutes.
	Maybe he attacked, if you want to call it that, at the very last second.
	But that is after five plus minutes of being pursued by armed men.
	And by all accounts, everybody knew that he was not armed that particular day.
	Everybody admitted that he was not armed.
	So, I don't know if we...
	Yeah, go for it, Nate.
	Well, what happens is that I think people want...
	To believe that Arbery did this to himself and leave out the key facts.
	And that's the same thing.
	And you see this with the Rittenhouse case.
	People want to leave out the key facts to get to their talking points.
	Rittenhouse chased Rosenbaum.
	That didn't happen.
	We all know that didn't happen.
	We watched the video.
	And the same thing here is that people want to just leave out a.k.a.
	Essentially the argument on the other side that I've been seeing is that Two people can chase someone down because they believe they did something wrong.
	And if that person...
	Runs or gets scared or slaps, try to slaps for their gun.
	They can be gunned down in cold blood.
	And then the person can say, I now, you know, I was defending myself.
	And it's the same thing with the clerk at the store.
	That somebody goes to the store to rob the clerk and the clerk slaps at the gun and the person shoots him.
	It's like the person lunged for my gun.
	And then everybody's just saying, well, look, the person lunged for the gun.
	So it's self-defense.
	Like, no, that's ridiculous.
	You're forgetting the part that the person was robbing the other person, right?
	So the key point here is whether this was a lawful.
	Detainment, right?
	And if it was a lawful detainment, then you have self-defense.
	But if this was not a lawful detainment, then you can't just say, well, he lunged at the gun, right?
	It's just like saying the clerk lunged at the gun during the robbery.
	It's the same exact thing.
	And people don't necessarily appreciate it.
	First of all, Eric Hundley in the house.
	Eric, welcome.
	Yeah, you'll let anybody in here, dude.
	I don't know what's wrong.
	America's Untold Stories, Eric Hundley on Locals.
	What is it on Locals, Eric?
	Unstructured.locals.com.
	Unstructured.locals.com.
	Nate, is NateTheLawyer.locals.com?
	Yes.
	I'm going to bring this one up.
	A person commits the offense of burglary when without authority and without the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he enters or remains within the dwelling house.
	Okay.
	This is an argument where we'll grant it.
	He committed a felony on February 13th.
	In law, that would not authorize them to perform a citizen's arrest the day they performed it, 11 days later, when they had no probable cause to suspect he had committed a felony contemporaneously with their attempt at citizen's arrest.
	So let's even agree on that fact, even though it's disputed, but let's agree on it.
	He committed a felony two weeks earlier, 11 days earlier.
	In law, Nate, Ron, Eric, in as much as you can answer it, that would not authorize them to conduct a citizen's arrest.
	The day of, because the day of, contemporaneously with their attempted citizen's arrest, they did not witness or have probable cause a felony had been committed.
	And that's when you get into now, people are going to appreciate the extreme, I guess, the extreme example of holding up a liquor store, you know, armed robbery is clearly felony.
	So is false imprisonment.
	And so if they were not effecting a citizen's arrest, a valid citizen's arrest.
	They were conducting or committing a felony of false imprisonment.
	And then Ahmaud Arbery is as justified and as bad of a decision as it might have been to try to reach for the gun to protect himself from the felonious false imprisonment.
	And they therefore cannot say self-defense anymore because they were committing the felony like the guy robbing the liquor store.
	So even if we assume that Arbery committed a felony February 11th, my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, it would not have justified the attempted citizen's arrest of the day of because they had no probable cause.
	A felony had been committed that day.
	Or even that they had witnessed.
	I agree.
	Nate, you're on mute.
	I was telling Nate and them, I respond with, so what?
	Like half of the stuff.
	Let's say he did rob the place two weeks ago.
	So what?
	That was then.
	This is now.
	Here is the actual jury instruction about the self-defense law.
	And listen for when the judge said, your right to self-defense extinguishers.
	I shared the video.
	And you'll hear.
	You'll hear it for yourself.
	I'm going to bring this on.
	Just like the Rittenhouse case, let's stop excusing criminals.
	AA was a criminal that was terrorizing an entire neighborhood and when caught, attacked.
	Well, I mean...
	No, no, no, no!
	No!
	That is vigilantism.
	That is exactly what those of us who were rooting for Kyle Rittenhouse...
	Not to be acquitted, we're arguing, is what Kyle was not doing.
	Not that we're saying that I would have sent my kid to do what Kyle did.
	Not that Kyle necessarily exercised the best judgment by going to a dangerous place notwithstanding his desire to be where the action is and maybe help some people.
	For all those reasons, Kyle...
	May or may not have been doing the right thing, but what he wasn't doing was murdering anybody.
	Yeah, the problem here is that they're saying, well, since he's a criminal, he deserves to be shot down in the street like a dog, right?
	That's essentially what they're saying, right?
	He's a criminal.
	We know he's a criminal, so he should be killed because he's, you know, we don't, just so we understand, we live in America, so there's no summary executions for property crimes, for trespassing and stuff like that, right?
	We don't do that.
	And a lot of people think that it's justified that, hey, I have somebody who's going into a house at night, and now that I see him the next day, I can chase him.
	Well, and I'm reading the chat in real time on...
	I'm going to mute Ron again just for one second.
	Okay.
	Someone in the chat, SeanMC723, says, Robert Brown disagrees with your interpretation of the Georgia state law.
	Nate, he interprets that you can, in fact, arrest after the fact.
	After the fact, we're going to have the issue of contemporaneously after the fact.
	Obviously, you can't arrest someone before the fact, so the only question is going to be how far after the fact can you affect a citizen's arrest?
	And then taking the Rosenbaum example, and to illustrate exactly how different it is, imagine Rittenhouse had gone and said, I'm going to arrest Rosenbaum because I think he committed felony child stuff.
	And so he goes with a gun and says, I'm detaining you now.
	I've never seen you do anything.
	I have no idea that you did it.
	I suspect you did because I read your rap sheet.
	And so I'm going to arrest you now.
	And then Rosenbaum resists.
	Kyle's attempted a citizen's arrest.
	And then it escalates because Kyle had a gun.
	That would be more of an analogous comparison.
	And then I think we would say, yeah, Kyle was not trying to affect a citizen's arrest when he was violently pursued.
	He was violently pursued and then defended himself.
	In this case, it was the armed McMichaels who pursued an unarmed individual until they literally, by their own admission, had him cornered like a rat.
	And then he...
	Andrew Branca is in the chat.
	I'm trying to send him the link.
	Send him the link.
	I'm going to try to get to as many questions on the stream as we can.
	Go for it, Nate.
	I followed you, Andrew.
	You need to follow me so I can send you the link.
	Don't follow me.
	I've got to be quite clear.
	If it weren't for our group chat, I wouldn't get any of these links.
	Anka, I know, is a little not as tech-savvy with the Twitterverse, so maybe if anybody...
	Well, I'll send him an email.
	You can send it to him by email.
	I don't know his email.
	And by the way, so Bill Brown from Locals says, it used to read probable suspicion, now it reads probable cause, which are two very different standards.
	Georgia has changed the law since the case, and that is causing the confusion.
	It's overruled.
	Well, the thing is, is that...
	In Georgia, I know a lot of people believe that it should be reasonable suspicion, but there are two issues with that.
	Number one, in Georgia, arrests are defined as needing probable cause.
	So if it's citizen's arrest or any arrest, you need probable cause.
	But also, too, reasonable suspicion is you suspect that a crime may have occurred.
	So you'd be arresting someone suspecting a crime may have occurred, where probable cause is you have a crime that occurred and you're arresting a person because you believe they committed that crime.
	So reasonable suspicion is an investigatory tool for law enforcement that's generally not available to regular citizens just to detain people.
	And I think that's the big confusion.
	But all the case law in Georgia, all the case law in this case, the defense, the prosecutor, the judge, all say that you need...
	Probable cause to make a citizen's arrest.
	That is not in dispute.
	So anybody who's saying that, that's just like Kyle Rittenhouse had an illegal gun.
	It's just fake news.
	Really quickly, Andrew, I filled out the form on the lawofselfdefense.com, the contact form, and sent a link via that.
	So look for Eric Hundley.
	Come in and I don't know if you can access that email or not.
	I don't have any other contact info for you.
	And also, for the last thing with Barnes, Barnes actually watched the judge's instructions, and Barnes says, based on that judge's instructions, it seems like it's a no-brainer, right?
	Because the judge's instructions itself said it had to happen contemporaneously.
	So you can't arrest someone for something that happened a week later.
	You have to arrest them in that moment or contemporaneously.
	That can be, you know, two weeks later, it's just not that.
	This is a great example that people are, like, erasing the whole period of time that happened prior to the incident.
	It's like, okay, yes, he was punching, he was doing all that, but never mind, he was chased by vehicles, cornered like a rat, and there's a certain point, put yourself on the other side, and imagine that it's Antifa, okay?
	And you've pissed them off.
	At a BLM protest or whatever, and they start chasing you.
	What are you supposed to do?
	If you run out of space, this isn't working.
	They keep coming up on you.
	Eventually, if you're cornered like a rat, what does a cornered animal do?
	They come at the attacker.
	And just so no one accuses it, this is a McMichaels statement to the police.
	We had him cornered like a rat.
	Yes.
	And I was just wondering, have you guys not watched the video?
	We watched the video.
	It's the last 30 seconds or of, you know, give or take, of a five-plus minute encounter where if you have an unlawful false imprisonment, a felonious false imprisonment, if someone is chasing you down the street with a gun saying...
	I just want to talk, and they have no business to do it.
	Your response to that is going to be akin, or it may be akin, to the cashier trying to grab the gun of the would-be felonious armed robbers.
	If you want to look at this alone, the last 30 seconds of what happened after they chased him down for minutes, for no lawful reason, at gunpoint, and apparently had pointed the gun at him prior to.
	You may as well just look at the last three-quarters of the second when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum to say that Rittenhouse should go to jail.
	You're ignoring...
	Yeah, sorry, Crawford.
	No, I was going to say you have Dirk Diggler in here too, but here we go.
	It wasn't Antifa.
	I'm using Antifa because I think everybody is getting political in this whole mess.
	I'm just trying to go black and white.
	What's going on here?
	Poor choice of terms.
	How was he actually imprisoned?
	Well, here it is.
	If it wasn't Antifa, it was law-abiding citizens.
	You wait for the cops.
	I reversed that.
	You law-abiding citizens, you wait for the cops.
	You keep following the guy and you call the cops and you just say he's over there.
	Why not?
	Law-abiding presumes a conclusion because the whole issue is if they were carrying out a false imprisonment, they're not law-abiding citizens anymore.
	They are actually committing a felony.
	What is false imprisonment?
	This is what also bothers me.
	Someone said in a Twitter world, and I don't know if it's intended to be sass, tongue-in-cheek.
	Someone stopped me on the street and asked me if I wanted to buy a chocolate bar.
	Was that false imprisonment?
	And I said, well, if they did it at gunpoint...
	It's really good.
	It's really good chocolate.
	It could be.
	But, Nate, false imprisonment.
	Ron, false imprisonment.
	What are the criteria?
	It doesn't mean being locked up behind a door with a key.
	No, no.
	You can...
	I frankly, I mean, I've looked into it because people have asked me the question.
	It's not part of my practice, that's for sure.
	I'm also a commercial investigator.
	But my understanding is that you prevent a person from having his freedom of movement.
	He can't leave the place where he is.
	Under the color of law, you are asserting that you have a legal right to detain that person.
	In order to turn them over to authorities because you're prepared to file a criminal complaint against that person as if you were a police officer.
	Is that right, Nate?
	Say that one more time.
	I'm sorry, you just chopped up a little bit for me.
	But basically, it's once your freedom of movement is being restricted.
	So when an offer, are you being detained?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	And I know we've charged it before in domestic disputes when a woman is trying to leave and the guy grabs her and says, you're not going anywhere, right?
	That's false imprisonment.
	And false imprisonment can also be just commands.
	Like, if I hold a gun to you, stop.
	You're not going anywhere.
	You're falsely imprisoned, right?
	Because of the show of false.
	So false imprisonment isn't just putting you into the thing.
	There's a context to it.
	Michael's never followed.
	He stopped the truck and waited.
	What?
	Factually incorrect.
	They admitted under oath that they chased him and had him cornered like a rat.
	That's what they said.
	So, again, if we're disagreeing on facts, then hopefully that will allow people to come to the proper or a more accurate assessment of this.
	They chased him.
	It's undisputed.
	And I brought up another chat that they chased him and they didn't know why they were chasing him.
	McMichaels himself said, I just want to talk.
	And when asked, you didn't know what he did that day?
	Nope.
	Just wanted to talk.
	Well, some of us might respond differently, but when people are chasing us in, it doesn't matter if they're pickup trucks, when armed individuals are following us down the street, chasing us in vehicles, saying they just want to talk, if anyone thinks that that's, you know, well, he committed a burglary 11 days earlier, even if he did, they have no way of knowing if he had already been arrested for that.
	He probably did, too.
	By the way, I think all of us agree, this is not a nice person.
	We're not sitting there saying that Arbery was a great guy.
	I'm sure he was up to no good.
	He probably was casing the joint.
	All these things can be true, and it can still be wrong.
	There might be that people are analogizing this to a breaking and entering situation in a residence.
	So you're in your house, and someone breaks into your house.
	You are not obligated in virtually every state, as far as I know, to guess that the person is there for a good reason.
	They're now in the place where you sleep.
	They're in the place where you're entitled to a sense of security.
	And you're now entitled to use deadly force up there, depending on the state, under a range of circumstances.
	Because it's a threat per se.
	For somebody to come into your home, then you're essentially in a self-defense situation.
	That's not true in a citizen's arrest situation where it's not your home, not your residence.
	Maybe it's going to be someday.
	Whatever it is, you're not now the police, and you're certainly not an executioner or a jury or a judge.
	And I'm going to bring this one up.
	It's possible that he didn't have him cornered like a rat.
	It's an expression they use in the moment.
	Well, unfortunately or fortunately, it might have been an admission and it's evidence now.
	So that is the evidence.
	And now this is what I mean, like conversation that I think at some point comes to an end because Dr. Johnson, you had previously said they just stopped and waited for him.
	They didn't chase him.
	Disproven.
	And now we move it a little bit.
	The goalpost move.
	They only approached him once.
	They chased him for five minutes.
	Somebody said pursued.
	Okay, they pursued him for five minutes, but pursued implies legitimate...
	I mean, okay, chase, pursued.
	Okay, fine.
	So any smart person would have waited for the cops, but a guilty person would run.
	That's true.
	He might have been guilty.
	He probably had guilty conscience.
	I would ask this person, did he have a legal...
	Was he legally...
	In other words...
	Was he legally mandated to stop, right?
	When the police officer says stop, you're legally mandated to stop, right?
	But if the McMichaels, or if any citizen tells another citizen, stop.
	And if you don't stop, does that mean they can continue to chase you and then gun you down, right?
	If you don't stop?
	What legal reason did they have to stop him?
	And that's where the citizen's arrest thing comes in.
	That's where this whole part comes in.
	Not to strawman.
	Not to chase you down and then gun you down, but to chase you down and then when you react in self-defense to then shoot you and claim self-defense yourself.
	And by the way, I guarantee you I've sped.
	I've gone faster than the speed limit.
	If somebody comes up to me with a gun on the street and says, stop, you're under citizen's arrest because I suspected you of speeding the other day, they might even be right.
	But then does that say, I'm going to stop, a smart person would stop and wait for the cops?
	This is not how society works.
	And it's not the, it's not what was intended to be the power of citizens' arrest.
	And so, you know, a smart person, I don't think it's a question of intelligence or not.
	Someone panicked when they were being pursued by armed individuals in pickup trucks and responded in a way that led to them getting shot.
	Maybe if they had run the other direction, who knows?
	We don't know because you never know.
	You say, oh, you just had to do that.
	Maybe you would have been shot in the back.
	But by the way, if the guilty person would have run, you've achieved your goal.
	You've gotten rid of the guilty person.
	Oh, so you respond to me.
	I'm like, Ron, but they're going to come back tomorrow.
	Tomorrow is another day.
	You don't get to shoot him today because of tomorrow.
	Not even a cop can do that.
	Barnes take...
	This is from the local chat.
	Barnes take last night makes more sense.
	So that is for anyone who would have been on our locals page.
	Would have gotten that as well.
	Let me just see if I can get...
	So if I open carry my weapon, I'm detaining everyone I talk to.
	Bill Brown.
	Only if you point your gun at them and say, stay here, I want to talk to you.
	Only then.
	Only if you're committing the felony of pointing your gun at an individual for no lawful reason.
	Just want to read this.
	Justin Sam, I used to think that Nate is a crazy leftist.
	Watching him the last few weeks proved that he is a man of honor, justice, and fairness.
	My apologizing for judging you too quick.
	God bless you all.
	Thank you very much.
	And Nate, I think everyone can watch all of our panels and think we are all men and women of honor.
	All right, so let me see here.
	Let's get some more...
	Sorry, I'm muted.
	I forgot.
	When I called the Mittenhouse thing, people called me a right-wing lunatic who believed that...
	Who was a white supremacist.
	I was a white supremacist for a while.
	And now it's the exact opposite.
	And the only thing we're doing is saying, just look at the facts as they are, and then we'll see what actually happens.
	And that's the reason why.
	It doesn't matter if you're right, left, but if the facts are just what they are.
	We can't...
	Pretend that the McMichaels weren't out there chasing this guy, weren't out there trying to arrest this guy.
	This is their defense.
	They've said this.
	And now there's consequences if you are wrong.
	If they were wrong with chronic admitted citizens arrest, there are consequences.
	You can't just say, oh, my bad, I didn't know the law.
	My bad.
	You know, ignorance is no defense of the law.
	And if they did what they did lawfully, then I have no issues with that.
	But what they did, it seems to be unlawful based on what I know about the law.
	But that's up to the jury to decide.
	Now, by the way, Callahan1861 on Local says, Viva is very biased against men who drive pickup trucks.
	I, in fact, not only am I not, I love pickup trucks.
	I had a Ford F-150 for a week.
	We put a tarp in the back of the, what do they call that part of the pickup, in the back, filled it with water, and literally turned it into a curl.
	The bed of the truck.
	I love pickup trucks.
	That would be an office upgrade for them.
	They could put a camper shell on it and he'd be back there saying, this is Viva in the upgrade.
	No, but if I didn't live in the city, they're beautiful.
	And by the way, it would make a much nicer office, a much more spacious office than the Subaru.
	So I have no bias against pickup trucks.
	my bias is against men, armed men chasing other men down the street because they suspect them of having committed a crime they could have been in a Prius, it would have been just as shocking and terrifying to me Even the armed, David, I would just say people in vehicles.
	Pacing me or coming after me because maybe they didn't see the rifle.
	Maybe they didn't brandish it or whatever.
	I'll even wipe that out in case that comes up.
	If there are people in trucks and I grew up in a rural area, right?
	If a couple people are in trucks and they're coming after me for whatever reason, I'm booking it.
	And just because somebody says, hey you, what are you doing?
	It's not my obligation to answer.
	They're not cops.
	They didn't identify themselves as cops.
	And even if they did, I don't know if I'd believe it.
	And that's my big issue with it.
	I feel like we're mixing up a lot of things here.
	And I think Arbery is very much probably guilty of everything.
	Evil thoughts in his mind.
	He probably is worried about getting picked up by cops.
	All this can be true.
	But that doesn't mean that you can chase somebody down.
	That doesn't seem right.
	It scares me.
	I don't want to be chased down somewhere.
	No, we've all committed crimes.
	They might not be felonies, although when it comes to tax stuff, who knows?
	This is the David Tola from Locals.
	He says, if I'm not mistaken, Andrew Branca and possibly Barnes said yesterday that Georgia law allows for a citizen's arrest based on a felony committed out of the personal knowledge of the citizens and not necessarily committed immediately before the attempt.
	No time limit.
	Also from the KR trial, two people can both believe they're defending themselves against unlawful force and use the attempt to use force.
	True.
	The mutual self-defense, Legal Eagles video on Rittenhouse, in all its foibles, people can wrongly believe they're defending themselves.
	But I'm not sure that you're mistaken, David Tola.
	I listened yesterday and the day before.
	I think that's not my understanding of what the judge said.
	He said you have to have probable cause to believe that a felony, not a misdemeanor.
	A felony had been committed contemporaneously with the attempted citizen's arrest.
	And otherwise, that's where they're screwed, is the day of they admitted they had no knowledge of anything.
	And they're relying now on what they thought of what occurred 11 days earlier in the hopes that that would give them the grounds to make a citizen's arrest 11 days later.
	Nate?
	Well, play this video because it's going to help because it's going to explain.
	It's going to explain that this is the judge explaining the jury charge, how citizen's law arrest works in Georgia, so we can all hear it.
	Because I know there's probably a lot of confusion.
	So here's what the jury's going to need.
	Tell you how the court's going to charge this.
	I don't read the statute the same way as the defense.
	I read into the statute the first line addresses both felonies and misdemeanors.
	The second sentence narrows that down to felonies.
	It doesn't discount.
	It just says in the case of felonies, if there's an escape going on, then the arrest can be effectuated.
	The way I read that is if it's a misdemeanor, the guy can be arrested, guy, gal, whoever it is, can be arrested by whoever is effectuating the citizen's arrest.
	But if they run, then you can't go chasing after misdemeanors.
	In the case of a felony, you can.
	And a person who is chasing somebody who's escaping on a felony that is Justified upon reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion can effectuate the arrest.
	So the charge that I am going to provide, I'm going to amend a little bit from the state's language, and that is that a private citizen's warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offense or, or in the case of a felony during the escape.
	During the escape.
	If the observer fails to make an arrest immediately after the commission of the offense, or during escape in the case of a felony, his power to do so is extinguished.
	I'm not going to comment on the legality or illegality, so I'm putting a period at the end of extinguished, and removing the and a subsequent arrest is illegal.
	So, essentially, you have to arrest the person.
	In that moment.
	Two weeks later, it's gone because your power to effectuate that arrest, if you don't catch him that day, is extinguished.
	And that's essentially what the judge is saying.
	Now, it was so bad that even the defense attorneys, this is what they were so upset about because if that's the case, then the McMichaels knows they couldn't have been effectuating a citizen's arrest, a lawful citizen's arrest.
	It was just impossible based on that standard.
	By the way, Nate, we agreed that that could be overturned on appeal, too.
	That's the judge's interpretation.
	That could be overturned.
	And so in this trial, in this particular case, using the facts that are on the ground here, they're in trouble.
	Now, Andrew Branca has a different interpretation of the law, from what I understand.
	Barnes may be as well, and I think we've talked about it.
	It's very possible that an appeal judge may say, no, that's wrong, and then what?
	It's a do-over, right?
	I think people also have to appreciate...
	The McMichaels admitted they had no knowledge of what he had done that day.
	They suspected something was up.
	They had no idea what they wanted to talk.
	That's not how anything was.
	Whatever Bob Barnes said, I'm sure he did not mean that once you see someone commit a felony, you have a rolling permit to chase them down for the rest of time wherever and whenever you might see them.
	That can't be what Bob meant.
	Oh, but Ron, this is only 11 days.
	Here is...
	Go ahead, Ron.
	No, I'm sorry.
	I think we have...
	I think you're breaking up and I'm jumping in when I think you're finished.
	I'm so sorry.
	Go ahead.
	No, I think actually that was just an ellipse.
	I am finished.
	And I'll read this one.
	ChainbreakingSage says, people are experiencing cognitive decline.
	They were obviously acting unlawful.
	It has a cost close to that.
	I guess because of that unlawful behavior, a life was taken.
	I don't think they're guilty of malice murder.
	And I'm not sure what you think of felony murder.
	They're certainly guilty of something, but it's going to be felony murder under Georgia law.
	The only question I think is going to be with Roddy.
	Sorry, Nate, go ahead.
	This is to answer.
	I wanted to answer the law of self-defense.
	Question.
	This is what the defendants, the video that I'm about to play now, is the defendant's opening statements about whether this crime occurred in their presence.
	So this is what the defendants, this is what the defense says, whether it happened in their presence or not.
	So you don't have to take hours, right?
	You want me to bring this up, Nate?
	Yeah, bring this up.
	And you're going to hear the defense attorney's opening statements.
	Let us know whether any of these crimes occurred in their presence.
	Anybody following us on Locals, it seems that the chat on my phone has stopped.
	So I don't know if the chat has gone down on Locals.
	So someone in the chat, if you're able to do both, let me know.
	And I'm going to bring this up in the meantime.
	Booyah.
	It didn't happen in their presence.
	Oh, here it is.
	Play it.
	Sorry.
	There was no crime committed in their presence.
	We're not contending there was a crime committed in their presence, but there was probable cause to believe a felony had been committed and that this man was attempting to escape.
	So if the requirement is that the felony be permitted in your presence and they've conceded that no felony, they're not even contending that, right?
	Then how can you have a legitimate citizen's arrest?
	Maybe law self-defense can square that circle, but it doesn't seem possible.
	Huh?
	He said in the chat that he's at the airport, so he can't join us.
	Defense claim knowledge.
	No, this is them.
	This is them saying it, right?
	This is what they're saying.
	We're not contending it happening.
	We're literally playing it.
	I just want to say one thing here, by the way.
	What separates the way this is framed from a legit criticism, one would say defense claim knowledge.
	When you attack intentions, you've gone from making a point to this borderline trolling.
	Because don't accuse someone of misrepresenting.
	They said the day of they had no idea.
	They just wanted to talk.
	What knowledge they claimed to have had, we've addressed, was the alleged burglary from 11 days prior.
	By the way, Boozy Boomer, not only do we recognize that, but according to the McMichaels themselves and their statements earlier, They didn't suspect burglary, felony burglary earlier.
	They only suspected at worst trespass, which is a misdemeanor.
	And they admitted that to the cops as well.
	So even if we agree, which we don't, but let's just say we do, they had knowledge of a prior felony, they still did not, under the law, apparently, have reason to conduct a citizen's arrest the day of.
	Even if, and if they did have knowledge of trespass...
	You're going to give me a strike on the channel, Nate, if I play a commercial for something else.
	Oh, no, no.
	I'm sorry.
	I was going through it to get the piece where the...
	Get the piece.
	Yeah.
	It's already here, but this piece is the defense attorney literally explaining that if the charge the judge has goes to the jury, that his clients are guilty and they've lost, right?
	So I think people are trying to say, I'm trying to interpret it.
	But it's just like, if you just watch the trial, this is their attorney saying this.
	This is not me.
	I'm not their defense attorney.
	And it's crazy because even when you play the words of the defense attorney, people are still going to say, I'm misrepresenting it.
	That's why we're literally playing you what they're saying, right?
	We're literally playing you what they're saying, and I'm still misrepresenting it.
	Is it lined up now, Nate?
	Oh, yes, it's lined up.
	Okay.
	Add to stream.
	So this is the defense attorney.
	Right after the judge has made this ruling.
	You are directing a verdict for the state.
	And you are rendering the second sentence in which it describes reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion meaningless.
	It's in there, presumably for a purpose.
	It's a different burden than immediate knowledge or presence.
	And so I would urge the court.
	To reconsider and eliminate this, let the state argue what they're going to argue.
	We have built this whole case around the probable cause, the second sentence, last phrase, that Travis McMichael and Greg McMichael had on February 23rd for events that happened previously.
	And you are gutting all of it if you give this particular charge.
	Isn't this something that's decided pre-trial?
	Isn't this something that's worked out before you get in front of the jury?
	Am I nuts?
	Nathan, that was the chat that I just brought up also.
	I mean, that's a legitimate point.
	Shouldn't they have known that one of their grounds of defense was no longer going to exist in order to strategize before trial?
	Yeah, I would suspect so.
	So, you know, I think a lot of people think that we just are making this stuff up, right?
	But this is actually what happens when you watch the legal proceedings, right?
	The judge gave a charge, and the defense knows that, hey, if this charge goes in, we're essentially guilty, right?
	Because we've been arguing for the past two weeks that it didn't happen in our presence, that we're talking about things that happened weeks before.
	And if you're telling us that we can't arrest people for things that happened weeks before, then we're done.
	Right?
	Then we're done.
	And we need you to stop this.
	So, you know, I understand there's a lot of people saying a lot of different things.
	But, you know, let them play for you the clips of the court.
	And if they play for you the clips of the court and they find something different, then I'll be corrected.
	But I bet you anybody else who's arguing with this is not going to be able to point to anything in court that's different than what I'm saying right now.
	And I was saying that avatar fit over Eric's head perfectly.
	If I can bring this back here.
	Hold on.
	There you go.
	No, no, no.
	It's out now.
	Okay, we lost it.
	People are just largely unaware of the actual...
	People are going to say, oh, the McMichaels talk too much.
	Now I want to go back to my original thought of their defense before they talk too much.
	They may or may not have talked too much.
	They may or may not have just told the truth and now are caught in the fact that based on what they did...
	Also, it doesn't really help that McMichaels, Travis himself, had also approached someone living under the bridge with a shotgun because he suspected them of being the thief.
	I mean, what came out of that trial is an individual who seems to be wanting to act like a police officer and going around questioning people armed with a gun.
	And then when the SHIT escalates and hits the fan, things happen.
	But you don't get to wipe your hands and say, well, he attacked me after I pursued him for five minutes in a car, even if he is a criminal in another realm.
	That's not how it works.
	And look, if that's the new standard, go back to my analogy.
	I suspect you have speeding, you know, I don't know if it was felony reckless driving.
	It might have been, stay here until the cops come, and I've got a gun, and if you move, I'm going to blow your head off, and I've got you trapped like a rat.
	Yeah, no.
	In my humble opinion.
	Important we understand the facts before we start coming to our own conclusions.
	The law of self-defense says, court's reading of the statute requires us to believe that the first sentence requires actual knowledge, 100% certainty.
	No, listen, Andrew, you may be right, right?
	The court is wrong on the statute, but...
	You know, I can't tell the judge in Georgia who works with this law every day and knows what's going on that he's wrong on his interpretation, right?
	The jury is bound to follow his interpretation of the law.
	So I agree.
	You may feel it's wrong.
	I may feel it's wrong.
	But you can't say that, you know, that because you believe it's wrong, then the jury should come out the other way.
	It's just like, you know, if that's the law in Georgia and that's the law that the judge says is in Georgia, then I don't think there's any real argument that these people have already conceded.
	The point.
	They've already conceded that the citizen's arrest wasn't, and the jury essentially has to nullify that, right?
	They have to say, well, even though we understand that Georgia law says something different, the defense is saying Georgia law says something different and we're guilty.
	Well, you know, guess what?
	We want you to disregard that and still find us not guilty, still find this citizen's arrest lawful.
	That's essentially what's going on here, based on the law the judge has given us.
	And I'm going to read a question from at JoeMazQ from Locals, because Locals chat is not working on my phone.
	If Arbery closed the distance, isn't he the aggressor?
	Well, go back to the analogy of the convenience store clerk closing the distance when they're being robbed at gunpoint.
	If you're committing a felony and someone closes the distance, you can't use that as the excuse because you've relinquished your right to self-defense through provocation or through committing a felony itself.
	And then another one says, David Tola says, Defendants said trespass.
	Prosecution says misdemeanor.
	Defendants are not conversant with the law.
	Important thing, which we'll come back to.
	Didn't know the difference between misdemeanor trespass and felony burglary, but also didn't know that what looked like simple trespass to them could actually be burglary under Georgia law.
	If you're not conversant with the law, that's one of the reasons why you should not take the law into your own hands, because you might inadvertently be breaking the law when you think you are not, would be my response.
	Who wants to field a response to that?
	No, I do understand.
	Because I want to say, I do understand.
	You had this nut who people were saying that he was some jogger, right?
	He wasn't a jogger.
	Let's just keep it real.
	He's going into this house at night, looking through stuff, scaring these people in this neighborhood.
	You know, the police were going door to door looking for this guy, right?
	And the argument, I think the emotional argument is...
	They should be able to do something about that, right?
	They should be able to stop this guy and try to detain him from doing that, right?
	He should not be able to just do that unwillingly and people just say nothing.
	We were calling the cops.
	Nothing can be done.
	And somebody tried to do something and it went bad.
	So we should cut them a break.
	And we should cut them a break because this bad guy was scaring everybody, right?
	And if you're thinking like that, that's the vigilante.
	That's not Rittenhouse.
	That's the vigilante.
	That's the vigilante saying...
	If the police can't catch them, then we're going to catch them.
	And unfortunately for the McMichaels, if they would have never harmed this guy, if they would have caught him and arrested him that time, then we wouldn't hear anything about it.
	But they killed him.
	And if you kill somebody conducting a false citizen's arrest, that's false imprisonment and that's felony murder.
	And that's what's got the McMichaels all caught up.
	They took a chance and were wrong.
	Sorry, it seems that I have a child who has come home with a sprained finger, which is not an excuse to get home.
	Okay, I want to bring up this.
	Guy Richardson, this is ad hominem.
	I watched the trial.
	I watched closing arguments.
	I've seen the evidence.
	So, you didn't watch the trial.
	Now what?
	Now let's have a disagreement on the actual facts.
	There is video evidence of many people checking out the house.
	Very interesting point here.
	You can't hunt people and illegally detain them.
	Dad standing in the bed of the truck yelling, fighting these morons as self-defense.
	Maybe, but the first part, many people, there was video evidence of multiple people checking out this house.
	Nate, you played it.
	Go down and citizens arrest all of them?
	Just find them?
	Carry guns?
	Just say you just want to talk?
	You just want to see what they were...
	It's not how things work.
	And I just want to bring this one up.
	Jason Duncan says, Viva, what's your thoughts on the jury watching the videos this morning?
	Hung jury.
	My feeling?
	This is my feeling.
	What's the word I was looking for?
	A compromised verdict here or a compromised condemnation here is going to be maybe letting off the guy who was recording.
	That's what I was thinking.
	He's clearly not as culpable.
	Don't do it.
	When he was on with the 911, I think the father, maybe that's what they want to hear.
	How culpable is he?
	Was he actually trying to stop this from occurring?
	Or what was going on?
	I think they're watching.
	This might be my own bias, my own preconceived notions.
	I think they're looking for a way to let the lesser culpable guy off and they're going to find the McMichaels guilty of felony murder, but not malice murder.
	So they're looking at this video and say, all right, because there was an issue as to whether or not.
	What's his last name?
	I don't want to use his nickname.
	Roddy Bryant.
	There's an issue as to whether or not Bryant hit Arbery with his car, thus committing felonious assault, or whether or not Arbery smacked the side of the pickup truck, in which case...
	You know, it wasn't Bryant committing a felony himself.
	And Bryant, I think in his own testimony, said, no, I didn't hit him.
	I wish I had because maybe this all would have ended there and it wouldn't have escalated to him getting shot.
	So I think my impression is that they want to be looking at that video evidence to see if Bryant committed a reasonable felony and contributed to this whole situation or if he was just, you know, a dope with a camera watching stuff escalate beyond anything he could have ever foreseen.
	That's my take, but maybe.
	Take care, Lord.
	He's a really good guy, though.
	I'd love to have him on, too.
	You guys got to check out his stuff.
	It's interesting because when I watch his stuff, I learn so much from Andrew, right?
	My whole Rittenhouse, when I did my Rittenhouse video, I went and checked out Andrew's stuff, and then he had everything.
	So if you really want to get informed about this stuff, we may have this disagreement here.
	But please, don't think that this disagreement is anything about us, you know, me about Andrew.
	Andrew is probably the top lawyer when it comes to self-defense in the country.
	And 99% of the time, if it's a self-defense issue, I would go with what Andrew's saying over what I'm saying.
	So, you know, much respect to Andrew.
	Please, you know, no one would think that I have an issue with Andrew.
	Reading this chat here, rename player.
	False imprisonment, but then self-defense.
	Now, I don't know if that's intended to be ironic because the whole issue is if it's false imprisonment...
	You don't get to claim self-defense until, as we've seen in Rittenhouse, even if you were the original provoker, you then three steps back, de-escalate, and then if they continue to pursue, then it could be conceivably self-defense.
	So I don't know if that's humorous or ironic.
	The way it would have to work, he'd have to run away.
	McMichael would have had to have been running away, and then Arbery would have to continuously chase him.
	Like Rittenhouse.
	I mean, Rittenhouse was running.
	People keep saying he ran over with a shotgun.
	Well, how did Arbery get close enough for him to do that?
	Was he chasing them?
	Was he chasing them for two minutes?
	Or did it finally get to the point that he turned around and went the other way?
	I don't understand.
	I admit, I'm not the brightest candle on the cake, and I'm not a lawyer.
	But last time I checked, he was running, and they pursued him because he started to run.
	Pursued, chased, pick your turn.
	The only reason he was able to attack the person with the shotgun is because that person followed, pursued, chased, cornered, whatever you want to choose, came up and parked the car gently, and they were suddenly there.
	Would he have attacked that shotgun, or would anybody be killed at this point if they did not pursue him?
	And it just boggles my mind.
	Now, it could be...
	Oh, here we go.
	Ultra left.
	My channel.
	Dude, go look on the internet.
	This might be a joke.
	I'm already hearing this.
	I think, certainly, I've got to be guilty on that.
	If there's anyone here in the room who is a syndicalist Marxist...
	Maoist, Leninist.
	How many times did I say the truck was parked and then he went after them?
	Oh, really?
	So it was parked?
	They were just sitting there on the side of the road and Aubrey came running up out of nowhere and attacked him.
	Is that what you're saying?
	Or are you saying they chased him and you put it in park when you already had done all this?
	Come on.
	By the way, I believe in the Rittenhouse verdict.
	This is what's driving me crazy.
	It's not like I support Arbery that he's a friend.
	The guy's probably a scumbag.
	Okay?
	I'm not a fan!
	But good God, I'm just looking and saying that there are problems.
	Now, by the way, also, the interpretation of the law, the judge could be wrong.
	They make a very compelling argument, and I think that that's something that an appeal may be overturned.
	But with the judge's statement, it just seems to me, I don't know, unless it's nullification and the jury's taking the law.
	But I don't know.
	Can I clarify just one fact that I think everybody's missing?
	Before Arbery, before the altercation where he died, the McMichaels admitted...
	That Arbery was about 30 yards away, and they pointed the loaded shotgun and screamed stop at him.
	So I don't think, I don't know what world that we can be living in where that is not provocation.
	That's not the attack, right?
	Pointing a loaded shotgun, somebody saying stop.
	And then Arbery didn't run directly at him.
	Arbery ran around the truck to get away from that.
	So, and then he...
	He ran behind the truck because he said he was first.
	He said he was scared for his father because he was in the back of the truck.
	He couldn't see Arbery, so he ran to see what was going on, and that's when they collided.
	So everybody keeps saying Arbery attacked first.
	That is wrong.
	When somebody points a loaded gun at you and tells you to stop, they are attacking you first.
	Am I right with that?
	If someone puts a loaded shotgun at you and says stop, then I think they're attacking you.
	I don't think you're attacking them.
	So the provocation starts when somebody puts a gun at you.
	I brought up Mr. Obvious's chat, but I was just going to say, Mr. Obvious, first of all, I watched your content and I may agree to disagree on some things, but I'll just agree to disagree on this.
	To say that Arbery attacked is to ignore...
	98% of the sequence of events.
	And it is to ignore the state of the law in terms of what a lawful citizen's arrest is.
	And it's to ignore how Arbery came to be in a position where he was, quoting the McMichaels, cornered like a rat after being pursued by armed individuals in cars.
	So if you take it in that screenshot, we've already addressed it, but if you take that one freeze frame, yep, then Rosenbaum was...
	Now somebody's saying he went behind the truck.
	No, now they're saying he freaking went behind the truck as cover to attack McMichael.
	That's a Mrs. Sandcock.
	What?
	That's a good sucker trap.
	I'm going to start running, and then you're going to chase me, and then I'm going to come around the corner and I'm going to ambush you?
	Does that make sense?
	Wouldn't Arbery have the right to citizen's arrest since he was witnessing false imprisonment in real time?
	He would.
	But what are you going to do?
	Tell the guys with the shotguns to stay there until the police get there?
	Like, you sort of don't have as much bargaining power to effect a citizen's arrest when you are unarmed, surrounded by two cars, three individuals, and two weapons.
	I mean, we'll see.
	It'll all come out.
	Go for it, Nick.
	No, I'm just going to ask.
	I really want to ask the chat.
	What gives these citizens the right to point loaded shotguns at Arbery and demand that he stop?
	That's essentially the question here.
	I'll answer the question.
	What gives them the right to do that?
	They think that this guy was the one responsible for burglaries that occurred 11 days prior and earlier.
	Let's say that he was.
	Let's say that he was.
	And that you know that he was.
	Let's say you just know in your heart and of hearts and you just know that he was 11 days ago.
	Does that still give you the right to pursue?
	Do you have a warrant?
	Like if there was a warrant or a wanted poster or a bulletin from the FBI like with Brian Laundrie because I brought that up.
	The question of, what if a person is wanted?
	Then, maybe.
	But do we have that?
	Joel!
	Joel!
	They know he burgled the neighborhood.
	That means they've got him courted like a rat.
	They should call the cops.
	Oh no!
	Then he's going to run out and the cops won't get him.
	They did call the cops.
	But I'm saying they should have continued waiting and following him.
	And they decided that the cops aren't going to take too long to get here.
	When that happens, that means that's the way it goes.
	I just want to say one thing, by the way.
	They knew they burglared the neighborhood.
	Let's just assume that that's true.
	Even assume they knew that he burglared on February 11th.
	They see him on the street 11 days later.
	How do they know he hasn't been arrested and arraigned?
	How do they know the charges haven't already been brought?
	What does he have to do at that point?
	Does he have to then prove?
	Hypothetically.
	Let's take the Rosenbaum example.
	I know you committed very, very bad offenses against minors in the past.
	I'm going to stop you right now, but I already went to jail.
	I was already arrested.
	I had a plea deal.
	Show me the proof of that on the spot, because I don't believe you.
	And if not, I'm effecting a citizen's arrest for what I know you did in the past.
	I mean, that's going to be the issue in law as to whether or not that's permissible.
	And by all accounts, it doesn't seem that it is.
	I think what we're really hearing here is a great hunger for rough justice, for rough justice.
	And it's understandable.
	People want their homes.
	They want peace.
	They want their property to be reasonably secured.
	Michael, I recognize your picture.
	People want justice to be done.
	They want people who do bad things to be punished.
	They want life to be good.
	We have, however, you don't have to accept social contract construct.
	The deal that we are living in, whether we made it or not, is that we live in a society.
	And in this society, Individuals can't execute justice, whether it's killing someone or merely winging them or throwing a brick at them.
	They're saying the jury's coming in.
	And the jury's coming in, and I thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
	All right, Nate, you're going live, man.
	You've got people watching, right?
	Yeah, we're going live, but are they coming back?
	I'm not sure.
	Okay, well, you know, we'll wait until we're certain, and then we'll see if it's going to be reading the verdict, and then if it is, Nate, we will shut down, and everyone will, if they are so interested, we'll divert to Nate's channel, NateTheLawyer on YouTube, NateTheLawyer.locals.com on Locals.
	Ron, are you on, you're not on YouTube or Locals, are you?
	I am on YouTube, yeah.
	Ron Coleman Lawyer on YouTube, you'll find me there.
	But I'm not going to be screaming, but thanks for the pitch.
	Okay, and then Eric Hunley.
	Oh, there it is right there.
	And I also want to address one analogy where people say, all right, people breaking and entering, if they come into your house, just let them take your stuff.
	In law, by the way, there's a reason why entering a dwelling is treated more seriously than other types of trespass, other types of burglary.
	And that is once you enter someone's dwelling, it's a different realm.
	And if you were reaching for someone's gun that they were holding you at citizen's arrest after you broke into their house, different world.
	Different world because of the contemporaneous nature of the alleged crime being committed, the threat, the invasive nature of the crime being committed.
	But to say here that that's analogous to a breaking and entering, grabbing the rifle of a homeowner who's defending their house from an intruder is the same as this.
	I mean, then we have to disagree or agree to disagree on what we think are apples versus oranges.
	Because there was no fundamental violation of anyone's privacy the moment of.
	There was no immediate threat to anyone's safety except for Ahmaud Arbery, the moment of.
	And the only threat that could ever have existed, which people want to hang their hats on, was when Arbery, after being pursued by armed individuals, effecting an unlawful, arguably unlawful, citizen's arrest, had him cornered like a rat, and instead of him fleeing the other way, he chose to defend himself in an unwise way against two armed individuals.
	Then we are looking at one screen and seeing two different films.
	You know, some of the people were making the analogy to George Zimmerman.
	And just let me explain why that's wrong.
	In the Trayvon Martin case, which I thought George Zimmerman had committed murder, but then after I looked into the case, I said, okay, this was obvious self-defense.
	George Zimmerman did what these guys should have done.
	He got on the phone, he called 911, and he was just following him.
	He was trying to stay behind and follow him.
	He just said, I'm just going to follow him.
	He didn't try to effectuate a citizen's arrest.
	He didn't try to stop the kid.
	He was just following him.
	And it was Trayvon Martin who turned around and confronted Zimmerman.
	And even during that confrontation, Zimmerman was, you know, Zimmerman and Trayvon, they had a fight.
	Trayvon got on top of him and was on top of Zimmerman, punching down on him.
	And then he was able to get his gun out and shoot under that.
	That's a totally different situation than what we have here.
	Because Zimmerman didn't confront Trayvon.
	He didn't try to commit a citizen's arrest.
	If that situation was different, then Zimmerman would have been guilty of murder.
	But in this situation, you cannot try, they were, and this is admitted, they have said they were trying to detain him.
	They were trying to arrest him.
	They were trying to stop him.
	And in that, they killed him.
	Now, they have to be, the law has to justify, they have to be justified within law, that ability to stop just some citizen running down the street.
	And if they're not, then this is murder.
	That's essentially what it has come down to.
	But it's not malice.
	We all agree on not malice.
	No, it's not malice.
	No, no, that's an overcharge.
	Sorry, I almost knocked my phone.
	Yeah, so isn't the key defense whether they had probable cause to believe he had committed a felony?
	Even if mistaken, wouldn't that minimize their guilt?
	Ignorance of the law is no excuse, fundamental principle.
	I think the punishment will be mitigated on the sentence, but not on the actual crime.
	And I want to bring Mr. Obvious up here, because this...
	And we all agree on this is the underlying sentiment.
	Makes sense.
	Cops aren't doing their jobs anymore.
	Crime speeds are exploding everywhere in the U.S. People are afraid and taking matters into their own hands.
	Truly, we live in a society.
	And that is, I mean, that's the underlying issue here is that people are angry at all of this, the social issues, the fact that National Guard not called in, police let Kenosha burn to the ground, crime speed, you know, bail reform is wonky to the point where we see what happens happen.
	And then...
	People want to then say, look, we're going to do it ourselves if you're not going to do it.
	And anybody who resists, we then become self-appointed police.
	And that's, you know, we live in a society, but that's how a society breaks down.
	And especially since I will go back to the fact that this was even in the worst of suppositions, burglary, 11 days earlier, it should never escalate to this 11 days later.
	It shouldn't.
	Arbery was not armed and they knew he was not armed.
	So they didn't have to do anything.
	And they were in, even in their own minds, in no immediate threat if they kept their own distance.
	And it's only when they corner him like a rat that he's even close enough to be able to lunge, grab, put his hand on their weapons.
	And that's as a result of their own felonious wrongdoing at that moment.
	But I appreciate the sentiment, Mr. August.
	I think a lot of people are feeling it.
	But that's how you would try to, you know, you've got to keep that in check.
	And if you're going to do this, you know, do it for the most serious, contemporaneous, like, witness arson the day of.
	Even then, I wouldn't suggest trying to arrest people for arson.
	You never know when they're packing a concealed carry, but...
	Oh yeah, okay.
	Let me see if I...
	Chat is going a little...
	Wild here.
	Okay.
	Nate, you're on mute again.
	I have to run.
	But I do want to say, I do understand the sympathy for the McMichaels in the instance of you got this guy going around the burger.
	He's been there five times.
	You've seen him on all these cameras.
	Yeah, and he was terrorizing the neighborhood.
	I don't think it's wrong to say that.
	These people were scared of him.
	They had the neighbors on.
	But that doesn't give them the right to...
	To do what they did if they didn't do it under the law.
	Just like with a cop.
	If you have someone who's committed a burglary and the cop uses excessive force to take that person down, we don't say, well, the guy was a burglar so he gets it, right?
	We judge and say, well, was this excessive?
	And if it was excessive, then that police officer has to, you know, there's consequences to that because the law doesn't allow that.
	And that's the same thing happening here with the McMichaels.
	Even if you believe they're justified or not in the citizen's arrest portion of it, which it seems like they weren't legally.
	You know, you also have to also understand that they were the aggressors, and they stood there in front of Arbery with a loaded shotgun pointed at him telling him to stop.
	And at that point, they had to be justified in doing it, because if they weren't, that's aggravated assault.
	If someone, just imagine if someone did that to you, right?
	And the worst part about the Arbery thing is they admitted, they didn't even know that he had committed a crime that day.
	When they were asked, what did he do?
	Why are you chasing him?
	They said, we don't know, right?
	We didn't know.
	He's done something in the past.
	That's not enough.
	If we start allowing people to confront people with guns and with those type of facts because we believed he did something in the past, if they're wrong, is that murder, right?
	Is that murder?
	They just happen to be right with Arbery, but they didn't know that.
	They didn't know anything.
	And that's the problem here.
	Okay, now, Nate, if you have to go, go.
	But if they go live with the verdict, let me know.
	And anyone asks why we don't just do it live here?
	Because Nate had this pre-planned, and I am not...
	What's the word?
	I'm not a parasite.
	So Nate had it already pre-planned.
	I haven't been covering the trial live stream like Nate, nor was I doing it with Rittenhouse like Nick.
	So it was pre-planned.
	I just wanted to have this discussion because I've been reading a lot of the comments, a lot of the chats, and people are...
	I think we're in disagreement on certain base facts, but also maybe on base philosophies here.
	So Nate, thank you very much.
	Text me if you go live and I'm out of here in 45 minutes anyhow.
	Definitely.
	See you guys later.
	Batman never killed anybody?
	Well, I'm not sure that Batman never killed.
	No, it is the issue where you can't get agreement on the base facts because people want to sort of abstract the facts or one element.
	To such a degree that it actually just falsifies the freeze frame.
	Let's see.
	I'm going to just take a few more.
	If I can't find the chat here.
	I had someone in...
	Oh, Eric, do you know how I do a poll in real time on YouTube?
	Oh, dude, I've never done one.
	Okay, so I'm not going to take a chance now because I don't want to...
	Well, what are the questions?
	Oh, wait, no, I don't have rights.
	Can a moderator do it?
	See if you can.
	First of all, why are you intentionally ignoring my super chats about the statute?
	I'm not deliberately ignoring anything, so I hate when people impute intentions, Beatrix Kittle.
	I'm not deliberately ignoring anything.
	It's a very lively chat.
	I don't get to everything.
	It clearly said reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion, but judge changed it.
	Why is that wording even in the statute?
	I couldn't field that question, and if the judge changed the law, I mean, if the judge gave...
	Faulty jury instructions, that will be up for appeal.
	The other issue is going to be, anyhow, reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
	They admitted the day of they knew nothing.
	They admitted the day of they knew nothing.
	Then it's just going to be a question of whether or not reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion from something that occurred on February 11th, 11 days earlier, could have ever justified what they did 11 days later.
	They admitted.
	They had no idea what was going on.
	They saw a guy hauling ass down the street, and they got in their pickup trucks and wanted to ask him questions.
	The way they did.
	So the day of, there was no reasonable or probable suspicion by their own admissions.
	I'm honestly stunned that there's this much confusion.
	Really, it does befuddle me.
	It's frustrating.
	And now here someone says, terrorizing.
	The guy lived two miles away and was a runner.
	He could be there in literal minutes on a normal run.
	No sympathy.
	Well, the testimony, first of all, I think nobody's going to pretend that he was jogging.
	He wasn't jogging.
	Even prosecution is not pretending that.
	Terrorizing is the issue.
	This is my problem with the defense's closing arguments, which I watched for people who said I didn't watch it, is that they said, look, he was terrorizing the neighborhood at night.
	The neighbors didn't want to let their kids out at night because at night this person was coming in the pitch darkness to come burglarize premises.
	And yet all of this occurred during broad daylight.
	Where no one was being terrorized.
	There was no, you know, people lingering in the bushes in the dead of night.
	And even what they did, based on what the alleged fears of the terrorizing in the neighborhood were, were incongruent.
	So, there's that.
	Now, I want to bring some...
	I want to just go back to the...
	The chat in Locals is...
	I'm not...
	I don't want to say...
	Okay, there seems to be a discussion among the same people who just don't agree, which I think we're going to agree.
	That people are just going to view this as the way they want to view it.
	Self-defense because he lunged.
	Yeah.
	I don't...
	That's the thing.
	I don't know how you can...
	I think there's an impasse on this.
	And it could be the jury, too.
	But Buxley says, Viva, can you address why you've called the McMichaels an attempted citizen's arrest?
	They were standing still while Arbery ran 100 yards towards them, apparently gaining ground.
	They were in pickup trucks.
	None of this happened by the evidence.
	They were standing still while Aubrey ran for 100 yards toward them, apparently going around and by then unstopped.
	Then Aubrey veered hard left, closed the last few yards to Sun, and wrestled to take his gun.
	The McMichaels admitted they had him cornered like a rat.
	They admitted they pursued him for however many hundreds of meters from the original scene.
	So we can't argue facts.
	And then this is D underscore Wild says, Viva, it would be interesting if you did a poll in YouTube chat, guilty, not guilty.
	Even that would have to be qualified too much, because the question is, guilty of what?
	I don't think they're guilty of malice murder.
	We all agree on that.
	I think we all agree on that.
	I think by the law, they're going to be guilty of felony murder, which, as we've seen in Chauvin, is just as bad as murder itself in terms of sentencing.
	But maybe there's more leeway in terms of...
	And then someone says, if Arbery closed the distance, it's either.
	So I can't answer the same ones over and over again.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	Let me just bring this down, bring this up, and see if we have another chat here.
	Yes.
	I will see it in a bit.
	Okay, let's go.
	Someone's showing me the finger that is swollen.
	Okay, let me see if we got another chat here, and then there's a fundamental philosophical question, and this is Charles Crawford, that I use to determine a bad verdict precedence can be weaponized in the future.
	It's a legitimate point.
	Okay, Viva.
	Please stop blaming the police.
	They are being overwhelmed during these riots, especially the irresponsible defund the police movement by leftists.
	Oh, no, I didn't blame the police.
	Well, first of all, in Kenosha, blame the police.
	The decision was made to pull back.
	That's from the evidence.
	So the decision was pulled back and let Kenosha burn.
	As for the rest, I mean, defunding them, the stresses, the fear that they have to live through to do their jobs where if they, you know, for the one bad apple, they all get painted with the same brush.
	I'm not blaming the police.
	When they do something bad like pepper spray a guy in Tim Hortons for not wearing a face mask, I'll blame those police.
	I'll blame them.
	Those police, not all police.
	Yeah, and in Australia when they're shooting with rubber bullets, a bunch of people running away.
	When they break up a Christmas party and then end up assaulting people for unlawful gatherings, I'll blame those police.
	And I'll blame those laws.
	So, no, that's it.
	So the question, what's he going to be guilty of?
	I think he's going to be found guilty of felony murder.
	And then the McMichaels.
	I don't think Bryant has a reasonable chance of getting off.
	I don't know.
	His lawyer is so obnoxious.
	I wonder if the jury will punish just because they don't like his lawyer.
	His lawyer didn't do all that good of a job.
	The lawyer had to do a decent job in defending Bryant without overtly throwing the McMichaels under the bus.
	He couldn't say they were guilty of all this terrible stuff because then that's a double-edged sword.
	So he did a decent job saying he didn't want to do anything bad.
	If he were trying to have concealed his crime, he wouldn't have handed over all his video evidence.
	But they all talked to him.
	Dude, it was a filibuster and not a closing argument.
	It wasn't great, but just as a pure matter of fact, I mean, this guy, The only thing he was armed with was a camera, and he might have been doing the responsible thing is just record, get everything you need for the cops, and then other people brought other things that are not cameras.
	Under your premise, wanted posters would be felonious provocation, a call to action against a presumed innocent person.
	I'm not sure I follow that.
	I disagree.
	Wanted posters put up by authorities.
	And so there is an acknowledgement.
	Yeah.
	All right, but if you give me the choice of having someone put up a wanted poster, With my face on it and shooting me, I will take the wanted poster because I have a chance of not being shot.
	One step further than that, I even think on the FBI Most Wanted, they do say do not approach, call the authorities if you spot.
	I don't think they say attempt to perform an arrest yourself.
	I assume that the comment, Andrew's comment is if you would put it up yourself because it can't be.
	A felonious provocation if it's done by the police.
	That would not be a felonious provocation.
	And we've got here.
	This happens in South Georgia.
	Not some big city like Atlanta.
	The police should have been there, or at the very least, like the sheriff.
	Okay, so I don't know what this is.
	Do we have violations of 18 U.S.C.
	242 by the defendants in the Ahmaud Arbery case?
	I mean, look, I'm not the American lawyer, and reflexively I couldn't answer, but I will screenshot it.
	Possibly discuss with Robert, unless, Ron, unless you know the answer.
	I think we're in different realms of the practice of law, so that would be...
	I don't even know what that is.
	Wanted posters say to call the cops if you see the person, not chase them down.
	I think that's...
	There we go.
	So, okay.
	Ron, well, you haven't been following it, but I think...
	Oh, somebody pointed out bounty hunters.
	Bounty hunters have a license in many places, so...
	I just want to point that out.
	They do, I believe, have a license from different states, things like that.
	But bounty hunters get in trouble too.
	There are many bounty hunters who go to prison or get in trouble for situations.
	Viva Frye, please stop repeating the line, cornered like a rat.
	We need to clearly describe what the cornering was.
	No.
	It's their line.
	It's their line.
	It's the defense's evidence.
	Please stop repeating the defense's evidence is not a good defense.
	That's what they said.
	And that indicates the fact that they were the pursuers and not being pursued by Ahmaud Arbery who dashed 100 yards down the street to corner them.
	So I'll repeat all the evidence.
	The other evidence that they said is we didn't know what he did that day.
	We had no idea.
	We just got in our pickup trucks and wanted to talk to him.
	And they also admitted that they pointed a loaded rifle at him, which is itself also a felony.
	But they cannot hang their hats on at the last moment after all of that Arbery lunch for them, and therefore it's self-defense, because they have maybe relinquished the right to that privilege based on their own felonious conduct.
	All right, this is what we call conservative brain rot.
	Facts are pretty on the side of conviction, but they shot a dark-skinned person, so therefore not guilty.
	I try not to politicize it.
	I just think a lot of people...
	Here's what I think.
	A lot of people were...
	Extremely irritated by the false narrative given the day of, which immediately racialized it, although I think there are some racial undertones in this case, immediately racialized it to a modern day...
	Innocent jogger just going out.
	Innocent jogger.
	So people feel intellectually violated because of how they were lied to the day of, where had the narrative been, yeah, this is a petty criminal who had been burglarized in the neighborhood in the weeks and was pursued unlawfully the day of and shot.
	That narrative would not have rung the same way as LeBron James coming up and saying you can't even jog while black these days.
	And people feel intellectually violated, having been exploited from day one, and that leaves a lingering effect, and that's what I think we're seeing.
	I don't think this is politics.
	I'm not going to say everyone who thinks McMichaels are innocent are racist, because I don't think that's the case.
	I just think people have been tainted by their initial misrepresentations of the facts, and now they want to say, why would they have said he's a jogger if he were a career criminal, therefore it all has to be justified, which is not the case anyhow.
	The police weren't the people who let these cities burn.
	The politicians they worked for were the ones best told them they had to stand down.
	That and the social pressure.
	There's no question.
	The incessant lawsuits about the slightest, I say the slightest, but picking on every individual wrongful act committed by the police to then say that all police are guilty of profiling, abuse, whatever.
	It certainly ties the hands behind the backs of a lot of police who might otherwise intervene, but will be reluctant to do so for fear of reprisals.
	Right.
	I mean, David, be honest.
	If Ethan, when he grows up, says, I want to be a cop, you'd be scared.
	Yeah, I mean, you have to be...
	You have to be a person of conviction on one extreme or the other to want to become a cop.
	You either have to really have a strong feeling for justice and selflessness, or you just have to have a strong feeling for carrying a badge.
	It's sort of like being a teacher.
	I can take the teacher as an analogy.
	I think the majority of them want to do good.
	They want to inform kids.
	They want to be good memories in children's lives.
	Some of them just like the ruler and the power.
	And that's the same across any field, any profession that wields a lot of power.
	If they are found guilty, media's propaganda about broken justice system and Kyle's acquittal will go down in flames will be fun to watch.
	I don't think so, because the same day...
	They'll be like, it's a miracle that they had a judge who stood against the whole racist system and put forth wisdom.
	We're so lucky that there's at least one person there who's on the...
	They will always spin the narrative that it's, you know, against...
	The day of the Rittenhouse acquittal, they were saying, you know...
	A white kid gets acquitted when, from what I understand, a black individual was also acquitted for self-defense the very same day.
	I forget the individual's name.
	They'll spin it by ignoring it.
	When race no longer fits the narrative, it'll be ignored.
	And when it can promote the narrative, it'll be pounded on until people are nauseated.
	And just take the most recent event in Wisconsin.
	That's a vehicle supremacist.
	Because those vehicles are deadly, David.
	That vehicle went and drove itself and attacked a bunch of people.
	You didn't know?
	But it's even worse than that, Eric.
	You remember after the gay pride parade in Florida where a pickup truck slammed into the crowd?
	It turned out to be a total accident.
	The engine was still running and they were claiming it was an act of terrorism.
	But flip the script a little bit and...
	Despite now and evidence that was known relatively shortly after the incident of Facebook social media posts, still not a word.
	You still have CNN saying, we don't know of any motivations and attempting ostensibly to blame it on the individual fleeing from an earlier altercation to suggest it might have been an accident.
	I mean, the media is disgusting.
	Oh, there's even more on the guy.
	Did you see the video where he went up to the guy's house to say, oh yeah, I'm waiting on an Uber and he's getting a sandwich made for him?
	I did not say that.
	He's a winner.
	Roddy Bryan is also guilty.
	He did not just trail the McMichaels.
	He drove on the wrong side of the road to trap Arbery.
	He was an active participant.
	That I can agree.
	We might interpret the facts differently.
	Well, that falls in the felony murder aspect, right?
	If you say that he was part of false imprisonment, then he's going to go down with the rest.
	So, I don't know.
	This rant is confession through projection.
	Viva isn't being entirely honest.
	You're attacking motivations again, being entirely honest.
	He doesn't want to describe the facts.
	Now you're presuming intentions and reading minds, but use euphemisms, and I don't know what euphemisms I'm looking at.
	That's what they said in their own...
	Okay, sorry, I can't entertain it anymore.
	I think people want these guys acquitted in retaliation for the riots last year.
	My instinct is to agree with that, but if you stop and think about where that leads, it's ruinous.
	The court system should not be used as reprisals for previous bad decisions or previous issues.
	These are stand-alone cases that have to be decided on a stand-alone basis.
	Vigilantism does not equal immorality, because legality does not equal morality, and the contradiction this case exposes is: a costume and a badge does, in fact, wrongly grant cops superior rights.
	Most of it will be true.
	We're lawyers, and Eric.
	Exactly.
	Thank you.
	This is a program, we're talking from the perspective of law.
	If you want to have a different stream, unless I'm very mistaken, Viva, this isn't a stream to discuss whether or not we should have a legal system, whether or not, as Michael Malice loves to say, the only real difference between the cops and criminals is, you know, all that stuff.
	Almost everyone who has had an encounter, at least in my part of the country, with a cop has had some really great ones and some where you cannot believe what a punk you have just had to deal with and how aggressive and obnoxious and unnecessary it was.
	And all the things.
	And the whole thing with immunity and the lack of accountability, these are all real problems.
	But we're talking about what the law is.
	Viva, you're wrong.
	The video evidence, AA ran at least 150 feet directly at the McMichaels and lunged at Travis.
	We'll agree to disagree on that evidence being actual evidence because I think that's not the evidence in my understanding.
	And the comparison to the cops, I mean, there's also an issue that cops have training, specific training, about de-escalation.
	Cops have protocol about not escalating situations.
	And one of those protocols is you don't draw and point your weapon at an unarmed individual who's not posing any immediate threat, which is what the McMichaels did.
	Cops have a charter.
	I mean, the big difference is the cops actually have a charter.
	However you want to look at it, whether it's right or it's wrong, they are paid by our tax dollars to perform a service that as a society, now maybe not everybody agrees, but...
	Ultimately, as a society, we are paying them to do this.
	That is their function as given to them from society.
	Now, we can go back and forth, whether it's right or it's wrong or anything else, but comparing a cop to a normal citizen is not appropriate or accurate.
	It's the same way as comparing a soldier to a normal citizen is not accurate or appropriate.
	I'm going to read this one.
	John Halgren says, I truly believe you three are overestimating the standard jury pool.
	The chat is evidence that the verdict is in doubt.
	But I do tend to think that people give themselves a lot more latitude in terms of what they will say or say they believe in internet chat.
	People will be much braver in chat, know-it-all as to what ought to have been done, what they should have done in a chat, than when their actual...
	Identifiable jury members on a jury pool.
	So there is more responsibility on a jury pool.
	I think people tend to, and it's also a lot of the same people repeating a lot of the same points.
	But no, the verdict is in doubt, presumes what the verdict should be.
	I just think, I know what I think based on having seen the evidence and having heard the evidence as presented by both prosecution and defense and the multiple defense because there are three.
	You're using that one line to characterize rather than describing the facts that support false imprisonment.
	That's because you're framing.
	I don't know what that means, but I mean, Michael, I disagree.
	The false imprisonment came from when they had no lawful excuse to perform a citizen's arrest and they attempted to detain an individual through coercion at gunpoint.
	If my understanding of the law is correct and the judge did not rewrite the law in an unconstitutional or appealable manner, They were performing an unlawful citizen's arrest of the day.
	I forget the cornered like a rat part for this.
	When they pursued him and told him to stay there or attempted to stop him to talk to him while brandishing, if not pointing, firearms, that, from my understanding, is false imprisonment.
	Well, I think that's the argument.
	If they have probable cause, it's not false imprisonment.
	If they don't have probable cause, it is.
	Isn't that really how it breaks down?
	I think people agree.
	And the fight is whether they had the right to do it or not.
	So if they did have probable cause, like let's say, hey, stop that.
	He had grabbed a purse and he ran around the corner and they were chasing him and then they grabbed him.
	I think almost everyone would say yes, they did in fact have probable cause to go chase after him to try to recover the property or bring him down.
	Overall argument here is that they did not have probable cause.
	So if you don't have probable cause and you are detaining somebody or attempting to, then you are false imprisoning.
	Am I incorrect on the interpretation?
	Yeah, I mean, I think that's my understanding of the law.
	And I understand also, people, my learning curve was for having covered this for a long time, by the way.
	Robert and I have been talking about this case well before the trial.
	I just haven't done vlogs on it, but we've discussed this during streams.
	Multiple times.
	This is my understanding of the law, of the evidence as it was presented.
	And the probable cause, even reasonable suspicion, you know, setting that, you can lump that together.
	Even if what they had was only reasonable suspicion, if that's the lower bar of what had occurred 11 days earlier, then the question is, even if it were a felony what occurred 11 days earlier, and it's arguable that it was by their own testimony, even if it were a felony.
	That would not entitle them, as far as I understand it, to carry out a citizen's arrest the day of 11 days later, because they had no knowledge of anything that occurred that day.
	And so, you know, what's the time frame?
	You have an indefinite period of time within which to perform a citizen's arrest, even if you know someone committed a felony however long ago?
	That can't be what the law means, because logically, you would have no way of knowing if they've already been punished.
	Or dealt with for the alleged felony.
	So that's the issue.
	And then the issue, another issue.
	And then how long is it?
	It's like, okay, so we have two-week window?
	Or what about five-year window?
	I know they did that five years ago.
	And not just that.
	Well, then someone's going to say, well, that's too long.
	Statute of limitations.
	But the whole issue is like, you don't know what has occurred in between.
	And that's assuming it was a felony.
	By the McMichaels statements, I forget to whom they were speaking.
	They basically admitted they knew it was only trespass, or in their minds it was only trespass, and so they didn't even believe that it was.
	Well, the cop said, because they have a cop when they were, you know, going around with the cops, the cop said, we'll only be able to get them on trespassing, or we're going to get them on trespassing.
	So they did have the knowledge.
	Now, I understand, though, that they may not know that that's a felony versus a misdemeanor, or there could be something lost in there, but then that's that argument of ignorance of the law is not a protection, I think, or something like that.
	Viva, I've shown Barnes' stance repeatedly.
	I'll let Barnes show his own stance.
	You may be accurate, but I'll listen to the individual presenter.
	And I'm going to discuss it with Robert anyhow, so it's not like we're not going to discuss it.
	Sunday, Barnes acknowledged.
	He said, going by the judge's ruling, I don't see how it could go any other way.
	Oh, this is the interesting jury nullification, which I only know what I've learned about jury nullification in the context of my YouTube law.
	Chat and other persons are entitled to their own views.
	100%.
	And I'm not judging them for them.
	I say, we might disagree on the facts, and then we might disagree on the interpretation.
	And I understand the way people feel.
	I just wholeheartedly do not show that view.
	Jurors are as well.
	Jury nullification mistrial happens because difference of aspects views.
	There is a reason why jury selection was two weeks.
	Yes.
	Very, very fair point.
	And the jury nullification, for those who don't know, it's basically the jury saying...
	We don't agree with the law, or we believe that the punishment for that particular law is so egregious that even if we think he is in fact guilty of having committed what is, by the letter of the law, illegal or unlawful, we're going to acquit anyhow.
	Effectively out of protest to what we feel is either an unjust law or an unjust sanction.
	I think there's a good case of that.
	There was a guy, this is actually captured on television, that this person who was a known...
	Criminal with a child, I'll say.
	And he was being escorted by the police at the airport, and there was some guy at a phone booth, and he literally shot him in the head on television, killing the criminal.
	And if I recall, the jury nullified that.
	They just came back.
	Not guilty.
	And just didn't even...
	Because the circumstances, you know, it was the father and the child, this guy was guilty, you know, all this stuff.
	So it can happen.
	Also, one thing, and I did ask about yesterday with Nate, I think that the judge's jury instructions actually allow for nullification in the instructions.
	Because he said, and I'm paraphrasing, but he said that if you cannot find evidence to prove that he did or did not, you must acquit.
	And then he said, but if you do find the evidence...
	And I think those words have weight.
	Must and may are two different things.
	So by saying you may convict is saying, okay, you have permission to convict the person, but not necessarily that you are required to convict the person.
	So that to me is actually saying that nullification.
	Well, my understanding, Ron, you'll correct me, but my understanding is even suggesting jury nullification, if it's via counsel, is unethical, and I think it would be the same for a judge, but I didn't catch that illusion, if that's what you heard.
	I think that's a good pickup.
	I mean, I think it's important for listeners who are familiar with the concept, which I can't imagine there are too many, to understand that what Viva described is not something that happens.
	The jury comes back and says, here's what we think.
	What the jury says is not guilty.
	The reason that they do it is because they decide either of the two reasons that Viva says, or as was very common before the use of federal charges in civil rights cases in certain parts of the United States, because they really didn't care who lynched.
	The black guy, they were fine with it.
	They were 100% fine with it.
	That's a form of jury nullification too.
	And that's why judges can't invite a jury to nullify.
	I think what you heard is not an invitation to nullify or even a permission to nullify, but rather a reluctance on the part of the court to ever tell a jury that they must convict.
	But they just said it on, you must acquit.
	Because of the presumption of innocence.
	That would be my guess, but I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I don't know.
	I'm going to go back to the chat in Locals just to see if I've missed anything.
	David Tola, who's very active in the chat, and I say that thank you for the activity, and it's good to have a discussion here, says jury nullification allows jurors to void the law, at least in the case they're hearing.
	This is not legal advice, people, so if this is not accurate, I'm just reading a chat from locals.
	Nothing jury nullified runaway slave laws as attempts were made to enforce them in northern states to the point they became unenforceable.
	Okay, interesting, and I don't see if we have any more.
	The reason for a jury's decision is unreviewable.
	Also, it's unstated.
	This is from David Toll again.
	It's unstated.
	They just say guilty or not guilty.
	They say guilty or not guilty.
	They don't say why.
	We'll never know what happens until they write their tell-all books.
	That's in a criminal case and in states, which I think is most states, where you don't have what are called special verdicts.
	In a civil case, you have Very frequently, and this is a great matter of contention between the two sides.
	How many questions?
	Will the jury just be asked to decide, was there a breach of contract?
	Or will they be asked to go through a decision tree in which they find certain facts that if you find fact X, then proceed.
	If you find fact Y, then go to the next page because there's been no breach of contract.
	When you have special verdicts, That enables anyone looking at the verdict to understand why the jury at least says they did something.
	As a general rule, in criminal cases, I think those are very unusual.
	Interesting.
	But that makes sense.
	But I mean, we're not talking somebody's life in this instance either.
	That's like getting into financial ramifications, correct?
	Versus, you know, a criminal where obviously the burden is much higher and the jury can just say flat out, not guilty, as you said.
	And I like the fact they don't have to explain why.
	It might be for that reason.
	Right.
	It would be weird for them.
	I think that in general, probably the general trend here is along the lines of the presumption of innocence and the burden on the state to prove guilt.
	I would think that would be it.
	But I'm just guessing.
	Just reading some of the chats here.
	Viva is guilty of doing to the McMichaels what the mainstream media did to Rittenhouse.
	If what you mean is having waited for the entire trial, seen the evidence, listened to the arguments, and then presented both sides for people to come to their own conclusions, then I think we disagree with what the mainstream media did to Rittenhouse.
	Now I believe what I believe after having seen it, and I've watched it with an open mind.
	I was open with my initial perception of this, whereas I said...
	I said the same thing in Rittenhouse.
	The idea that you have people who now either feel empowered or feel required to act in what can be qualified as a vigilante manner because the cops are not there to do it, that's a problem.
	That doesn't mean that they are legally exonerated from everything they do after that moment.
	In Rittenhouse, it's the exact opposite of Arbery.
	Rittenhouse, you had the armed individual who was there doing nothing, being violently and aggressively pursued by individuals who threatened his life.
	In McMichaels, you have the armed individuals pursuing an unarmed man and then escalating the situation accordingly.
	So it's the exact reverse.
	And the comparisons, I find them irritating because it's like we're missing the common point of just, at the very least, qualifying those situations.
	Yeah, well, it's kind of like Binger holding up a single frame that he manufactured to say, look, he may have been pointing the gun at the person.
	And everybody's annoyed with that, right?
	That he's trying to sum up this whole timeline of events into this one thing and saying, oh no, it was really Kyle, which we know is wrong.
	I kind of feel like, you know, uncomfortable or otherwise, you have, again, the same situation.
	The last bit with Arbery took place after a whole lot of other stuff.
	Viva, I don't believe you watched the video of Ahmed chasing down the truck, dropping the hammer, then attempting to tackle the guy with the shotgun.
	I don't even remember a hammer.
	There was no hammer.
	Which hammer?
	Even the prosecution, everybody said that he had nothing on him.
	Viva chased by one vehicle into another containing armed men.
	I think we've reached the end of the fact disagreement.
	Some people are going to say that he charged 150 meters, 150 feet, that he was the violent aggressor, and then somehow put away the five minutes leading up to that.
	That's fine.
	That's what the world is about.
	We know, at the very least, what we disagree on in terms of facts, and we know what we disagree on in terms of conclusions, and now it's just going to be a question of seeing what happens with the jury.
	They've been deliberating.
	Most recent, they were almost ready.
	It sent like they were almost ready to render a verdict last night.
	But then they didn't.
	They came back this morning, asked to re-review some of the video evidence.
	So we'll see.
	Okay, I'll stop reading some of the chat down there.
	And I can't get any more chat from locals.
	So we'll end it here.
	I think we've done it.
	I mean, look, it's out there now.
	The arguments are out there.
	I've gotten off my chest what is driving me a little berserk in terms of people equating this to Rittenhouse, in terms of what I feel to be mischaracterizing or screenshotting an event to then characterize the entire sequence of events, much like what Binger did in Rittenhouse.
	Here's a freeze frame of what appears to be a gun pointing at Binger, not Binger, Jesus, the other guy, Grosskraut or Rosemont.
	For that split second, therefore, that's the act of provocation.
	And I disagreed then and I'll disagree now.
	There was no hammer.
	Well, there are pictures on the internet claiming that there's a hammer.
	I don't know.
	I have to look into it more because they also claim that he was wearing boots and he was, in fact, wearing sneakers.
	I'll just say the one thing that I did not...
	The one thing I knew that was a bad thing to say in their closing arguments was referring to his dirty toenails.
	I don't know why the defense did that.
	I do know why.
	To show that he wasn't...
	Dogging or to demonize him as a human?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Well, people could claim that, but you and I are both runners.
	And name any runner you know who has long toenails.
	Never mind the dirty.
	Just long toenails.
	Because, like, I've continuously lost a toenail from running.
	And I'm going to guess that you don't have long toenails and you run, right?
	Yes, but I have two questions.
	How did they know the length of his toenails?
	I mean, I...
	They probably guessed and they asked.
	Oh, and there was probably an autopsy.
	The autopsy, I'm sure, showed whatever his toenail length was, etc.
	The reason why I felt it was gratuitous and debasing because I think at that point everyone had agreed that he wasn't a jogger, even the prosecution.
	They did.
	I got the impression it was really to debase him as a human, even if he were a criminal.
	Well, when they say dirty, I think that that's the problem.
	Long, dirty toenails.
	If they said, were his toenails of normal length, short length, or long, and then they could have brought that in.
	I do think that putting the dirty in gives an impression that...
	It was ridiculous.
	What was the attempt to demonstrate how well the witness remembered the encounter?
	It's fair points.
	Except I don't know if they saw it.
	I don't think he had his shoes off.
	I think that that was something determined later on the autopsy, right?
	I said that.
	Maybe I missed that aspect of the evidence.
	I did not get from the evidence that his boots had fallen off or that there was anything contemporaneous about it.
	Well, he wasn't wearing boots.
	That's another misnomer.
	It was actually...
	They call them tennis shoes.
	And that's another question.
	I don't know if they're running shoes or sneakers.
	I don't know.
	Yep, that's it.
	Viva, you seem bright, but I just can't give her the fact that you're a darn Canadian.
	Well, I guess second generation Canadian.
	So I'm Eastern European of descent, if that changes anything.
	But if you got to my one-quarter Polish side, you might even think there's a lot of Polish jokes out there.
	So I'll stop there.
	All right, people.
	That's good.
	We'll keep it under two hours.
	Eric, that'll make it easier to transpose into podcast format.
	Everyone can follow the verdict live when it's coming down on NateTheLawyer's channel.
	Oh, well, GoodLogic just came into the house, so we'll have to go for another few minutes.
	Good job, Logic.
	Yeah, we were hanging up.
	See you, Joe.
	Say a second so we can cut it off the stream.
	We'll stay for a few more minutes now.
	We can't say goodbye right away.
	Have you been watching the stream, Joe?
	For everyone who doesn't know Joe, Joe, who are you?
	Hi, I'm Joe Nierman.
	I'm a New York attorney turned YouTube content creator.
	And I was up till like 5 in the morning on Nick Ricada's stream.
	Oh, good God.
	So, yeah.
	And then I was like, you know what?
	I wake up and I was like, oh, wow.
	I could actually be on Viva's channel.
	This is my virgin entry onto your channel.
	Oh, hang up now.
	See, I feel like we've known each other a lot more than we've done.
	So welcome to the channel.
	Thank you.
	But hold on a second, actually.
	Joe, I want to bring this one up because this is something that...
	Why is it called the Ahmaud Arbery verdict when he isn't on trial-based biased opinion?
	I actually thought about how to frame this because I'm not lacking self-awareness.
	There are three defendants and the issue is around whom the trial has been hinged.
	And so if I were to say...
	Travis McMichaels, I don't know what the father's name is.
	Roddy, what's his face?
	Brian.
	Exactly.
	Do I pick one of the plaintiffs?
	No T on it, just Brian.
	And I know that people are going to think that I'm prone to the victim, alleged victim.
	I'm prone to the deceased.
	I'm not.
	It's just a question of who this trial was framed around for the purposes of keeping a title succinct enough to be on point so that people know what it's about.
	Because if I refer to him as...
	Whatever Roddy Bryant's full name is, I don't think anybody's going to know.
	And if I just say Travis and what's his father's name?
	Gregory.
	Gregory Michaels.
	It becomes too hard.
	This case has been framed as the Ahmaud Arbery case.
	He is not the accused, but that's why.
	So not a question of bias, and I've thought about how to do this.
	And you're not alone with that problem, Vivo, because everyone's struggled, mostly because no one knew the name Michael until this trial started, at least.
	Everyone just knew Ahmaud Arbery's story, the Ahmaud Arbery story.
	So if you call it the McMichael trial, people will know what it is.
	So you're sort of stuck that way.
	So as I was saying, I'm a New Yorker turned YouTube content creator.
	I host a show called Good Logic.
	On that show, I talk law, a lot of politics.
	I'm kind of, people say I'm pretty...
	And I also talk philosophy.
	I enjoy analyzing how people think and what motivates them and discussing and interacting with my viewers about that.
	My goal is really to search for truth and reason.
	And wherever truth and reason take me, that's going to hopefully form my opinion.
	Entirely.
	Now, I'm going to cut you off because that's what rude...
	Oh, sorry.
	People forget that Viva is a hardened criminal ever since he caught that fish with a drone.
	I could have used that as an example.
	But Joe, you've been following this trial.
	You've been live streaming as well.
	I think we've covered it.
	Unless you heard something that you radically disagree with, my question to you is what's your prediction for a verdict?
	I think all three of them are going down for a very long time.
	Now, is it going to be malice or felony?
	Oh, I don't see how...
	We would get malice.
	I mean, it took me a while.
	I actually started, I was so torn about this because I always thought that they were morally wrong.
	I thought what they did was clearly going to set up a situation where this result was, if not predictable, very likely.
	So I always thought they were morally wrong, and I started the trial from a position of thinking that perhaps they were legally correct, that they were walking within the meets and bounds of Georgian law, and that they...
	And because of that, that they theoretically should be, you know, the lawyer in me is saying that they should be, they should walk.
	But then there was actually a moment in the trial where all of that turned.
	And because I felt like if they're justified in everything they're doing here, if it's a proper citizen's arrest, there's no felony, and then they're able to retain the right of self-defense.
	And if they retain the right of self-defense, it looks like it's a struggle for the gun that really they have a decent shot of getting off.
	Not that they should get off, but they have a decent shot getting off.
	All of that changed for me.
	All of that changed for me with a snap of the fingers.
	When Travis McMichael admits that they didn't know what they're arresting him for, to me, that took out the justification for the arrest.
	You have to be able to say, I'm arresting them for burglary.
	I'm arresting them for something that I believe is a valid arrest.
	You have to be able to at least know what you're arresting for.
	If you can't, now...
	Your otherwise valid citizen's arrest becomes false imprisonment.
	And once it's false imprisonment, in that case, you don't have accidental death, you know, protecting you or self-defense.
	Now all of a sudden you're entering into a problem that when there's a death resulting, you have felony murder.
	So I felt that they, I always felt they were morally wrong.
	That error on their part, I felt is what made them legally wrong.
	And that's why I actually flipped after the trial started from thinking that they should walk because that's what the law allowed to send that they probably should not.
	And I doubt that they will walk.
	Well, this is the deal here.
	And it's to your point there, Joe.
	At Viva Fry, wouldn't a guilty verdict imply that citizens'arrests shouldn't be allowed at all since the average citizen wouldn't have the legal knowledge necessary to conduct them safely?
	Well, there's two issues.
	This verdict is not going to have any meaningful lasting impact on citizens' arrest laws, I don't think.
	What this might serve as an example of is...
	Be sure if you're going to do it, and you still have to exercise reasonable proportionate force.
	But the cases where you have citizen's arrest typically are obvious, shoplifting, and even then, they're not armed citizen's arrests escalated to the point of a shooting.
	So the cases in which you would have a typical citizen's arrest, I think, are not going to change.
	Don't do it.
	Don't do it.
	You've got to be out of your mind.
	There's almost never a good reason to do it.
	I love this question.
	I'm sorry.
	If you find yourself in a situation where, well, the guy just keeps showing up and the cops never get here on time, it will be a better investment of your money.
	Cameras.
	Or to hire private security than to attempt a citizen's arrest.
	Because remember, Once you open the door to coercion, you have no ability to control.
	I might do a citizen's arrest, but I'm not prepared to shoot someone.
	Once you start using force, I would just take a baseball bat.
	Forget it.
	You don't know what you're doing.
	You don't know what he's carrying.
	You don't know where it's going to go.
	Don't do it.
	No lawyer on earth would tell you to do a citizen's arrest.
	Well, Joe's coming from the New York side of things, and I think I know what Joe's opinion is going to be.
	I love this question.
	This is the sort of question I actually would raise to my audience, or the questions as far as, you know, should we be allowing citizens to rest, and that sort of nature.
	I love this question.
	And I think, if you think about it as far as, like, what seems moral and proper for society, so the question is...
	Do we want to encourage people to go out there and engage in vigilantism?
	Or do we want to say, you know what?
	If this is a road you want to walk down, if that's what you want to do, you better be a thousand percent sure that you are walking and doing it in accordance with how the state has allotted you that right.
	In other words, we don't want people to just be going willy-nilly, being like, I think that guy over there is a criminal.
	I'm going to go tackle him and be with a baseball bat just to make sure that I catch him.
	That's why they set up the boundaries as to what we can do.
	And that's why I agree totally with Ron.
	Don't do it.
	Certainly don't do it.
	Even if you know the law, don't do it.
	But if you don't know the law very, very well, you really don't want to do it because the next thing you know, you could end up spending the rest of your life in prison if something goes sideways on you.
	If you survive the encounter, you might even, you know, God forbid you really get hurt in the encounter.
	That's far worse.
	But even if you survive the encounter...
	You could still be facing serious legal issues or potentially life in prison.
	And I'm not saying this to be glib.
	Anthony Huber could very well have thought at the time he was performing a citizen's arrest.
	And I just want to bring this one up.
	When you need the police in seconds, they're only minutes away.
	We know the...
	I think it's an actual...
	Is that a selling point?
	That was a catchphrase for a firearm, I believe.
	We agree on that.
	That is not the case here.
	That is simply not the situation here.
	No police were needed in seconds.
	In fact, there was minutes of a pursuit before anything was escalated to the police even being necessary in the first place.
	So it was not the situation of someone breaking into an occupied house.
	Exactly.
	They weren't at home with him in there or something like that.
	They pursued him.
	That changes it all.
	To be fair to that super chat, though, that was exactly what the defense attorney said.
	Or basically something to the effect of when you need to act in seconds, that minutes are useless.
	And that was their selling point that, hey, they've tried using the police and they can never catch him because the police are always minutes away and he gets away in seconds.
	So that's why they formed this whole posse to try catching him.
	But you know what they should have done?
	What they really should have done is they should have called a lawyer like Viva or someone more local.
	And said, if we're going to be engaged in this process, what are we allowed to do?
	What must we do?
	What boxes do we have to check?
	This is why a lot of private security guys are off-duty cops in the same jurisdiction.
	Well, that's the weird thing is that one of these guys was a cop, Ron.
	An ex-cop.
	That's what I'm saying.
	The cops are there minutes away, and, you know, they have these problems.
	If it had been during one of the problems, the situation might have been different itself.
	Had it been one of the evenings of the burglaries where they had witnessed it and they were chasing him.
	Oh, totally agree.
	Or when they accompanied the cops into that building.
	But this was a case where 11 days later, you're saying 11 days ago the cops didn't get there fast enough and nothing happened today that could allow us to do this.
	But we think it might be the same guy.
	I just want to bring this one up.
	I love this.
	DragonSlayer says, thanks.
	You started it all.
	My plethora of virtual lawyers on Facebook.
	Good logic.
	There is no crisis the Democrats won't take advantage of, and there is no crisis the Democrats won't create.
	Shout out.
	I am humbled.
	I penned that orally.
	There's no crisis the Democrats won't take advantage of, and there's no crisis that Democrats won't create.
	I penned that last night on my stream.
	I'm very flattered.
	And I wasn't highlighting that because of the Democrat comment, but rather the starting it all of the YouTube lawyer stuff.
	Legal Eagle for like it or leave it.
	He was there before me.
	But we've certainly blossomed into something beautiful here.
	This is why self-defense is not just a firearm.
	You need situational awareness, including local laws, physical defense training, mace, taser, etc.
	These defendants failed all of that.
	They were stupid and unprepared.
	If you see a purse snatching and capture him, fine.
	But you can't capture a person you suspected of a crime you didn't see at that time.
	Purse snatching is a good example.
	I think you did it seven days ago.
	I'm stopping you today.
	If you see the person running down the street, but even then, we hear stories of people who try to stop muggings and you get stabbed to death.
	Over what?
	I'm with Ron's side.
	Nobody's life was at risk.
	Ever.
	At any point in this situation, until the final moment, and you can qualify it however you want.
	Had it not escalated to that, everyone's life would be different and better today, including the McMichaels.
	Okay.
	So that's it.
	What do we say now?
	Joe, I'm sorry.
	I guess you...
	This is perfect.
	Well, what do you have planned for today?
	Are you going to be covering this too?
	Yeah, I expect...
	So first of all, I'll just share with your audience that I stream nightly from Sunday to Thursday from 10pm till midnight.
	I have a lot of interaction and engagement with my audience and my goal is to make you laugh.
	And if you follow me, while learning about the law and having an interesting...
	Joe's a drinker, folks.
	Joe's drinks.
	He drinks a lot.
	Later, he gets the Moly Bridge.
	And Joe makes the show work.
	And that's why no subscribers to YouTube, because I'm not a drive, but what you see is what you get.
	We have a time of day.
	And, you know, what's on sale at the Shopper's Vineyard.
	Anything's possible.
	I will say this.
	Ron and I live literally three blocks from each other, okay?
	We're genuinely real-life good friends, and our personalities, our online personalities, are like almost polar opposites because I am always raging.
	If I see something that bothers me, I will explode.
	Last night I exploded about the removal of Thomas Jefferson's statue.
	From New York City.
	It's really, really bothered me so much.
	And I explain why.
	It takes me 25 minutes to explain why.
	And the raid just keeps building and building.
	Well, Ron is literally the voice of wisdom.
	It's as if God basically pops down into his brain.
	And I think his voice lowers a few deeper octaves sometimes when he has these just really genuinely brilliant...
	Wisdom.
	So...
	I'm going to bring this chat up here.
	I tried drone fishing and have lost many drones and much of my life savings.
	Thus, I can only contribute to 499.
	I lost...
	I've had drones crash in the water.
	Perfect end of this discussion.
	I spent three hours blow drying a drone that fell in the water and it worked perfectly afterwards.
	Rice.
	Put it in a bowl of rice.
	It's going to take a lot of rice.
	Because of where I live, I witness a lot of crime.
	I will never confront someone outside of saving a life.
	I video everything and send to the police and I think that's the way to do it.
	I'll bring up a lot of these chats before we...
	We're already over two hours, so we'll go a little further.
	The only issue I have is that they should have stayed in the damn truck.
	I do not have an issue with them chasing the guy and having guns, but keep your ass in the truck.
	And they would have avoided a lot of problems by having done that.
	Especially by being in the truck.
	Even if Ahmaud Arbery were going for the weapon the way people think he was, you're in the truck with the doors locked.
	That's not going to happen.
	If someone is in my driveway stealing my car, I have to call the police.
	I cannot go out and confront them per Michigan law.
	I don't know about Michigan law, but I would say...
	I'm sorry.
	Do you know how badly Georgia law was changed as a result of this case?
	This came up that Andrew Branca was on my channel talking about this with Nate the lawyer.
	They modified the law and they made it so bad.
	For self-defense right now in Georgia.
	So if you're living in Georgia, I want to share this with you so you can understand how much...
	Hey, you super chatted yourself.
	It's not me.
	It's not me.
	Well, I'm sorry.
	I'll bring this one up because it's a good question, but go for it.
	But I'll tell you that.
	In Georgia right now, if someone breaks into your house, you're not allowed to hold them there until the police comes by training a gun on them.
	It's a felony, a false imprisonment.
	If someone breaks into your home, the Castle Doctor and...
	Out the window.
	Someone breaks into your home, you are not allowed to hold them there by training your gun on them and waiting for the police to come.
	And if you do, if you do such a thing, and God forbid something happens, you end up, the gun goes off.
	In theory, if you do that...
	And if you're stupid enough to then say, I was training my gun on him after I gave him a Coke and some walnuts.
	Okay.
	I'm just talking about reality.
	It could be on video.
	You could be caught on video.
	No, listen.
	My point is this.
	God forbid.
	I don't even want to talk about that.
	But what I'm saying is, if that happens, you go to jail.
	You literally go to jail for 30 years if that guy ends up dying in your house while you're holding him there.
	You will be in the exact same situation here as the Arbories because under the new Georgia law, even when someone's in your home, you cannot hold him there.
	That is...
	Terrifyingly awful law, which some innocent, really, you know, morally good person who didn't do anything wrong at all is going to be suffering a terrible consequence until that changes.
	And then they'll say, whoa, what do we do here?
	But that's my prediction on that.
	It's unbelievable how they just, they swing the pendulum, they take it, they just rip it across the other direction to such an utterly foolish degree.
	What if you encounter an abducted child and they're abducted?
	I mean, totally different circumstances.
	And also, I mean, all contextual as well.
	What if you think a child's being abducted?
	Because there's a...
	I mean, it's all contextual.
	But we were never in the situation of anyone's life being at risk in this Ahmaud Arbery case until it escalated the way it did.
	There was one red super chat, which I'm going to finally bring up.
	Here we go.
	This was bothering me the whole trial.
	Sorry for bringing this up again, but is it normal to bring three people to one trial?
	I think I know what I think, but I don't know that I should feel an answer.
	Joe, do you have an answer for this?
	I think that this happens frequently in both civil and criminal defense trials.
	When I was taking advanced trial advocacy, one of the best stories, and it was...
	Pretty much all stories.
	Advanced trial advocacy is basically where they teach you how to be Matlock, how to be the guy you see on TV in the courtroom.
	How to be Ron Coleman.
	What are you talking about?
	How to do that in real life the way Ron Coleman does, pretty much.
	And I'm not sorry.
	My understanding, though, is, first of all, they could have requested, in French, it's a splitting of the defendants if they're raising defenses that are mutually incompatible.
	But if the facts are sufficiently similar that you don't want to have multiple trials with multiple potentially contradictory outcomes, then you have them tried at the same time so that you avoid that risk.
	Evidence is the same.
	Parties are the same.
	And you don't want to have, although in this case, a contradictory outcome would have been less likely because they all committed different acts.
	I think they wanted it because Brian's lawyer tried to split from the other two.
	That's what I would have done.
	After it started, he said, if I knew the judge, he kind of complained to the judge saying, if I knew you were going to make this decision, I would have asked for a separate jury from a separate jury.
	And that would have been a big mistake.
	I mean, I think Bryant should have asked for it from the beginning because he is quite clearly, even if you believe guilt or innocence, his fact pattern is...
	Acutely different than the others.
	But when it comes to the felony murder and all you have to do is have participated in the commission of a felony leading to death, this is all one act.
	So same evidence, why have two different trials?
	I'd still want to split off, though, just because you're in there with the guy who actually pulled the trigger.
	And that guilt by association sitting next to him, to me, would be strong.
	And if I was him, I would want to be like, no, that's them other guys.
	Hopefully they get them.
	Bad dudes.
	I wish I never knew him.
	I mean, I'm just being honest.
	I'm not so sure about that.
	It might be that if they're tried together.
	I mean, I think, Viva, in the U.S., you would have to make a motion for a separate trial.
	Joe, I imagine this is what you were going to say.
	You have to make a motion for a separate trial, which the prosecutor doesn't generally want because he's got to then try the case three times.
	The judge doesn't want because he or she's got to try the case three times.
	And you've got a moving target from the prosecution point of view.
	But I was thinking, Eric, that it might be that if you try the guy who's clearly the least culpable along with the other guys, then by contrast, it's obvious how much less culpable you are.
	Anchoring.
	Sure, you've got the anchoring scenario, right?
	Is that how you mean?
	And I think he's saying the opposite.
	I think you were describing anchoring, that when the McMichaels go down, they suck down Roddy Bryan.
	But if he's severed, they wouldn't be anchored.
	He could just say, no, it was those people who were tried away and they went away to prison for a long time.
	Well, that's what I'm saying, but I see Ron's point, too, that you're saying, oh, look, I'm just this dude.
	See, there are really bad dudes here.
	Right, he's saying there's a comparison.
	Yeah, I could see that.
	And yeah, I need to take off, too, folks.
	Okay, well, let's do it.
	We're going to wind it up, everybody.
	Oh, the mistaken identity super chat.
	Look, mistaken identity, I think, is necessarily felonious for the person whose identity was mistaken, which is why leave these, especially, I mean, non-violent, non-urgent, suspected criminality.
	People in the chat saying, you know, he was a criminal.
	And someone talking about Superman, you know, he let the guy go and then the guy killed his grandmother in the movie.
	Now we're getting into, like, Spider-Man.
	Now we're actually getting into, like, Minority Report.
	We're like, okay, this is justified because he would certainly have done something worse had they not done this this day.
	So it was different philosophies, different perspectives, but at least I hope we got some of the facts.
	At the very least, in as much as we think we understand the facts out there, people can come to their conclusions.
	But let's see.
	Verdict, I think, is going to come down today.
	Joe, you're going to be streaming it?
	I think it's going to be on Nate's channel.
	Okay, good.
	So I didn't know if you were trying to...
	Okay, so everyone out there, you may all see us on Nate's channel a little later today, but maybe not me.
	Panel, Eric, Joe, Ron, one last time where everyone can find you, and I will pin it in the pinned comment, starting with you, Eric.
	Just Eric Humley on YouTube, on structured.locals.com, or if you like...
	Different history, America's Untold Stories.
	We just did, well, we've done a lot of Alec Baldwin, if you're interested in that case.
	And we just did a side to the Kennedy assassination.
	There's a J.D. Tippetts who was killed within a half hour of Kennedy and nobody talks about him.
	So we kind of cover the stories that people haven't heard of or they're obscure or they're odd references, but sometimes very significant.
	All right, let's go with...
	Let me see if I can get it.
	Ron, I can't get it.
	Ron, what's...
	Yeah, I mean, if you want to find me on YouTube, YouTube is something I've only been doing, you know, for the last year or so.
	I do have a podcast at ColemanNation, ColemanNation.com.
	If you search the internet for Ron Coleman Lawyer, you must use the word lawyer or you're going to get the bodybuilder and then you might watch for hours before you figure out if the wrong guy.
	I did.
	But Twitter is where you'll mostly find.
	And, yeah, GoodLogic, that's the name of my channel, spelled as you see it here in my tagline, L-A-W-G-I-C.
	That's my YouTube channel.
	I also have a Locals by the same name, GoodLogic.locals.com.
	And make sure, if you haven't signed up yet, BeaverBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	So, hold on.
	Someone had just asked for Jelaine Maxwell update, and as we say this, Gru is in the house, and we're like, every time we want to end this, we can't end it.
	Eric, if you've got to go, Eric, duck out.
	But, Robert, I cannot invite you, and then when you come in at the tail end, I say no.
	I knew it.
	I knew it was going to happen.
	Literally, like, we're at the end.
	So, we're going to go for another few minutes, because I want to ask you, look.
	We'll go over some of the same questions.
	Robert, I've got to get you on the show, by the way.
	I know.
	That's why I was skidding in here.
	I was on my phone on my way into the office and I was looking.
	I'm like, oh, I got to hop on and talk to these guys, but they're probably wrapping up.
	I was skidding in here and I figured you were just wrapping up and then here we are.
	Apologies.
	We're going to go for a few more minutes now and then I'm going to ask you about Jelaine Maxwell because I was going to give the update and someone said, I was going to give the update in a separate video, but you're here.
	Do we have another person in here?
	No, we don't.
	Eric, if you've got to duck out, feel free.
	I'm bummed, too, because I want to talk about Julian Maxwell because he had the Elizabeth Loftus situation and the judge getting appointed to a higher court situation.
	So I hope you guys cover that.
	I think Ron said he had to bail also.
	All right, guys.
	Well, you can bring yourselves out.
	I'm going to stay up here with Robert.
	Awesome.
	I'll stay with you guys.
	Okay, stay, Joe.
	Okay, Robert.
	First of all, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	It's good to see you.
	I had a feeling that was going to happen, so I appreciate you hanging out for a few more minutes.
	We were winding down when Joe popped in in the backstage, and then we were just winding down when we see you, but we've got to...
	I don't know that we can go into any further detail about the Ahmaud Arbery.
	What's your take and what's your prediction?
	On Arbery?
	Oh my goodness.
	You know, I have sort of been covering it topically.
	You know, what I really saw from the...
	I mean, we were covering Rittenhouse pretty much, you know, all day in depth.
	And so I just didn't have a lot of eyeballs on the actual testimony.
	You know, what I read, what I saw, that, you know, I thought the defense did what they could with kind of bad facts.
	You know, I covered this case a year ago when it happened on our channel, and I didn't think it looked good.
	You know, we went through a lot of the statutes and it just sort of looked like, you know, I didn't see how they were going to be able to...
	You know, is it malice murder?
	Is it something where these guys woke up and went out and intended to kill somebody that day?
	I don't think so.
	But I think that...
	The lower forms of homicide are probably something that is going to stick.
	If I had to guess, especially based on the closing arguments, I thought that the prosecution did very well on that.
	I covered that in depth.
	She's very organized, very structured, very persuasive.
	Some people thought she was a little bit condescending to the jurors, but I thought it was actually effective because she was really simplifying the issues for them, and she gave them very clear instructions.
	The defense, I think...
	Like I said, did what they could with kind of a difficult set of facts.
	I thought that Roddy Bryan's attorney was very interesting.
	I mean, we covered him at length.
	I sort of thought he was trying to induce a mistrial by using some provocative language like Black Twitter and Black media and stuff.
	So it was a very interesting case.
	I mean, it was one of those that I kind of wish happened not parallel to the Rittenhouse case because there was a lot of very interesting stuff that went on in there.
	That's fair enough.
	The defense attorneys use some terminology.
	I don't know how would that trigger a mistrial, actually, but practically, other than just being poor representation for the defendants.
	Oh, so what he's doing, yeah.
	And I didn't give you my prediction, so I would say not guilty on the malice murder, but I think that they're going to get caught on the other ones.
	Felony murder for Roddy Bryan, I don't know what...
	I don't know.
	That one's a toss-up.
	I really don't know what the jurors are going to do with that.
	Because his own attorney was a little bit mixing, I think, messages.
	Saying that he was somebody who was far outside of the scope of what they were doing, but also this guy who needed to go and protect his neighborhood.
	So it's sort of splitting hairs, and I'm not sure how the jurors are going to fall on that.
	What's his name?
	Goff is Roddy Bryan's defense attorney.
	Kevin Goff.
	Kevin Goff.
	Kevin Goff rhymes with...
	Yeah, something like that.
	It rhymes with tough.
	Somebody told me it rhymes with cough, so I don't know what's going on.
	That depends on what country you come from when you say cough, because I say cough.
	Okay, so Viva, the way that I was thinking about this, and the way the prosecution actually called him out on this, is early in the trial, he came out and there was the...
	Merritt Lee, I think, is the attorney who's representing the Arbery family in a civil lawsuit.
	He's somebody who's on social media.
	He's on Twitter.
	He's giving interviews.
	He's out there talking about the case.
	And so Guff comes out and says, Your Honor, this guy needs to stop talking about this case because he's out there agitating the crowd.
	And early on, he was saying...
	Things like Black Twitter and things like the Black media.
	And he comes out there and says, you know, this guy is aggravating and agitating Black Twitter.
	And so this is a guy that knows this trial is being streamed nationwide.
	And so he sort of feels like he's kind of poking that demographic on Twitter so that they will take those clips and post it on the Internet and say, this guy is a racist guy from Georgia.
	What that does then is it...
	It sort of creates this loop, this spiral.
	And no more black pastors in court.
	He's out there.
	He's instigating this.
	He's trying to sort of cause a ruckus with this community.
	And then the community then goes out and they're outside the courthouse.
	They're protesting.
	They've got these coffins with George Floyd's name on it and Ahmaud Arbery's name on it.
	They're now doing laps around the courthouse because they're angry and upset.
	And so Guff comes back out and says, look, Judge, this is interfering with the trial.
	We can't have a fair trial, even though he kind of instigated the whole thing.
	And it's interesting.
	I noticed he said it at one point in the closing or leading up to the closing.
	He says there's armed individuals outside.
	I thought he had said it in front of the jury.
	I didn't know that the jury had been recessed from the room.
	So I was like, holy crap, if he just said that, even if it's correct, if the jury was not aware of it, but if he said it and the judge wasn't aware of it, I mean, he's tainting the judge, potentially bringing outside influences to the judge.
	And it's true.
	If he does know, it's going to get on social media.
	The jury is probably still connected.
	It'll get to them.
	So, yeah, interesting.
	What's terrifying is that, which I hadn't really considered, is the judge was outraged in the beginning where he felt that the attorneys used their peremptory challenges to clean out anyone who wasn't white from the jury.
	And it's a little bit scary to think that in 2021 it's possible that he's trying to hold out for what he perceives to be a racist jury and trying to make it a black versus white thing.
	I mean, that's the thought that just crossed my mind as you were going through that entire scenario, because it's either a mistrial or he's trying to play toward genuine racism, which would be shocking in 2021.
	I'm just going to say that...
	And really disappointing.
	Hydra, why didn't anyone tell me from the beginning that my audio was not good?
	I mean, I guess it was good enough, but can anyone hear me now?
	Yeah, that sounds fine to me.
	Okay, because I just plugged in.
	My mic wasn't plugged in, so I was talking through the...
	Doesn't matter, so long as it's been good enough throughout the stream.
	Yeah, sorry, Robert.
	This was to you now.
	I made a comment about racism, you know, about him playing toward racism in 2021.
	Do you think that that's even possible, that that's what's happening here?
	You know, I honestly don't know.
	I don't think that he's dumb.
	I think that he's got a strategy here.
	You know, there was something weird also that happened.
	You know, he's this guy that can really get revved up.
	You can go to like level 9 or 10, you know, at the drop of a hat.
	He just gets, you know, sort of dials up the outrage and you can see him stand up in court.
	He's been arguing for mistrials almost every single day.
	And it's almost on the same, you know, on the same predicate that there's a lot of nonsense that's going on outside.
	And then during closing arguments, he sort of, you know, He ratcheted it up to like eight or nine level in terms of the energy and the language.
	And then he really just ratcheted it all the way down to like a two.
	And then almost like was filibustering, just like droning on and on and on.
	And so I don't know, you know, I don't really know what this guy's doing, but I don't think he's a dummy.
	I think he's, you know, he's trying to make a record of mistrials.
	He's trying to, you know, confuse the jurors.
	I posted on Twitter, I thought maybe one of his strategies was just to be such an outrageous lawyer that the jurors just go, this guy's kind of whacked.
	And, you know, we're not going to, you know, hold Roddy, you know, guilty for having this kind of goofy lawyer.
	You know, the whole thing, he was just kind of, you know, a ride-along.
	And he's not really a part of this case.
	And he had this weird attorney doing weird things.
	And, you know, maybe it's sort of like a distraction tactic.
	I don't know what he's doing, really.
	I couldn't believe some of the language, some of the rhetoric or some of the terminology that he used.
	Couldn't believe it.
	Even if you think it, it's still something you can't say.
	Like, no more black pastors in court.
	This is a racially charged case already to even allude to anything overtly.
	I mean, this is overt, not even an allusion.
	Racial in court representations.
	Not a good strategy.
	What's the demographic breakdown of the jury again, Robert?
	Joe, if you know?
	It's all white.
	It's all white.
	There was one black jury at one point?
	No.
	That was on Rittenhouse.
	Yeah, Rittenhouse, I think, had one.
	And I'm not sure if one non-white person, I don't know what the ethnicity was, but I think Joe's right.
	It's all white on Arbery.
	So what happened was they sort of created a pool from the entire jury pool.
	They created a pool of 48. They narrowed down to like 48 people.
	From this 48, we're going to find our 12. And what they did then was then they started trying to knock off with peremptories.
	And out of that 48, there were 12 black people.
	And the defendants used their peremptories to knock out all 12 black people.
	And the judge was outraged about it.
	And honestly, honestly, just being totally real, if you're sitting there as defense counsel, you're trying to find reasons that you know that this is going to be a racial case.
	You know it is.
	And you're not ethically allowed to knock someone off based on their race.
	It's considered You know, perhaps an ethical violation.
	The Boston Challenge?
	Batson.
	Batson.
	Totally dyslexic.
	And for anyone who was asking, because I thought you only had like four to six peremptory challenges or peremptory strikes, given that there were three defendants, they strategized and used all of their collective peremptory strikes to get rid of potentially what they felt to be unamendable jury members.
	And the judge expressed his belief that they had worked in concert.
	To make sure that he was bothered by the notion that he felt that that may have been going on and then did nothing about it.
	And the upshot is that now Kevin Guth, attorney for Roddy Bryan, as well as all the other attorneys, are talking to an all-white jury.
	And that's why I question whether or not he's directly playing into that race.
	If not of all of them, then certainly of one or two of them to get a hung jury or something of that nature.
	And that's very bothersome.
	Chad is saying that there's one black jury member, or I don't know if it goes by non-white, but...
	Okay, so interesting.
	Yeah, the malice murder.
	It looks like all of us, except for law of self-defense, Andrew Branca, seems to be on the same page that for some of the felony murder charges, at least the McMichaels are likely going to be convicted.
	Questionable for Bryant.
	And then you've got the lesser charges in there as well, but those are the big ones.
	Yeah, Chad's saying there's one black jury member.
	Okay.
	So, with that, I mean, I don't think we can cover this one anymore, but Robert, you're covering thoroughly the Jelaine Maxwell, and people are asking me, first of all, I'm going to cover it, we're going to discuss it, but there hasn't been, the trial hasn't started yet.
	They're not in limine motions, but we're dealing with a lot of pre-trial stuff right now, Robert.
	Yeah, we are.
	We're right in the middle of, I believe they're still doing void-deer, so jury selection, where the judge is, I made a video on it.
	I don't remember what the numbers were, but she wanted to sort of get, you know, the same process we saw in a lot of these other cases.
	Big panel.
	In federal court, it's not the same process that we see in Chauvin or in even the Rittenhouse case where the individual attorneys get an opportunity to ask a bunch of questions of the jurors.
	In Chauvin, we saw very detailed questioning.
	The attorneys brought every juror up and asked them, "What do you do for a living?
	Tell me about your background?" and all of that.
	It's different in federal court.
	So the judge is going to be doing limited voidier, limited asking of the questions.
	And that process started last week, I believe, and it's still going on.
	And then trial is scheduled to start on the 29th, which is going to be Monday.
	So they just had a final pre-trial conference yesterday.
	What's difficult about this case is that it's federal court.
	So you can't record audio and repost it anywhere.
	You can't...
	Record any video.
	They're not broadcasting this anywhere.
	So the only thing that we can do is really go through the minute entries and...
	And listen to what the journalists who are in this observation room that they're setting up.
	I mean, they can't even go in the actual courtroom is what it sounds like.
	So they're piping in the feed from the court into this media room and there's journalists sitting in the media room.
	They can't record anything.
	They can just, you know, write stuff down and tweet about it, I suppose.
	And then we get these court sketch artists and the court sketch artists, you know, can't even draw the likeness of the people who are testifying.
	And there's an order from the judge that said you can't, you know, if you're a sketch artist.
	You know, you basically have to show your sketches to both sides to make sure that you can't make out who the witness was.
	So, I mean, it's like on ultra lockdown mode.
	The only thing that we can do is really go through the minute entries.
	And I got to tell you, this case, I'm a criminal defense lawyer.
	You know, I'm passionate as hell about it.
	I get excited when I see amazing defense work happening.
	And this case, man, I've never seen anything like it.
	It's a multimillion dollar defense.
	They have five or six different lawyers working on the case.
	I just published a video this morning about Glenn Maxwell's defense dream team.
	These are lawyers that are probably, you know, four or five thousand bucks an hour partners at some of the top firms, you know, in the country, in the world.
	They are doing a hell of a job.
	I mean, it's nuts just to watch it.
	And I've got no love for Glenn Maxwell.
	Let me just put it that way.
	But they are doing an amazing job.
	I mean, I've never seen anything like it.
	You were exaggerating by a factor of at least two when you say four to five thousand dollars an hour.
	Or is that actually conceivable in the practice?
	I got to think that's I got to think that's what these people are charging.
	And I'm not joking about that.
	Well, I mean, the whole thing is 20 years ago, 20 years ago, I. I actually met Ben Brofman, and I was told that his hourly 20 years ago was like 1,200.
	And he was like, Ben Brofman of the age was, he was, you know, pretty much one of the top five criminal defense attorneys in the country.
	So if 20 years later, it's double that, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
	My brain goes to, this sounds like potential laundering.
	Jelaine Maxwell's got a lot of money that she might not be able to liberate, but for legitimate purposes.
	For the rest of her life in jail, that money is going to be useless.
	So get it out, take the chances.
	And if it's out, maybe there'll be a discounted fee.
	I think that comes to mind at those rates.
	But yeah, the most expensive lawyer I could ever think of by Canadian standards might have been $1,500 an hour for tax stuff.
	But anyways, I don't think it's impossible.
	I just think it's...
	And that gets the firm working on a problem.
	That's the lawyer plus the entire team of people grinding into things.
	And these big firms have expert witnesses on retainer and stuff like that.
	It is a defense case that is...
	Something to really admire.
	To give you a quick example of just one thing that happened, I covered this back earlier during the pretrial proceedings, but there was an altercation.
	I'm going to talk about this in broad strokes because it was a while ago.
	But what happened was Galen Maxwell's attorney, her name is Bobbi Sternheim, she's really, really good.
	Was going and doing these jail visits with Galen Maxwell.
	Well, something happened.
	She brought something in that maybe she shouldn't have brought in, like a notepad or something, or she took something out, like a notepad or something almost irrelevant, something that is very, very inconsequential, has nothing to do with anything.
	So somebody from the government sent her an email and said, oh, hey, just a quick reminder.
	We noticed this thing happened during your last jail visit.
	Just a reminder, the prison policies are X, Y, and Z. Something totally innocent.
	So what Bobbi Sternheim does is she says, oh, did you accuse me of breaking the rules?
	Okay, well, how about this?
	I'm going to need to investigate this entire ordeal.
	You're making accusations to me.
	I want the prison policies.
	I want to know who your supervisor is.
	I want to know who is monitoring the footage.
	I want to know, can you see what is being written on my notepad?
	If so, that is a breach of attorney-client privilege.
	And so now this is a constitutional violation for you peering in on my meetings with Glenn Maxwell.
	And so now it turns into this entire investigation.
	It's like she's prosecuting the prison for breaching her...
	Her attorney-client privilege.
	And so every single time that there's anything minute that happens in this case, these defense attorneys, they're just like sharks.
	They just jump right on it.
	They file everything.
	They twist it all up into a million different pieces.
	And you can see it taking place in the court minute entries.
	And it's something to it.
	I mean, it's really amazing.
	So they're going through jury selection.
	They're dealing with issues of admissibility of certain evidence.
	One of the main pieces of evidence is going to be allegedly a page out of, alleged, I'll stop saying allegedly, you know that I mean it, out of Epstein's black book.
	So apparently there's a page which might contain some information, some details on individuals, and they're fighting over the admissibility of that page separated from the rest of the book.
	There's apparently some annotations or modifications to that document.
	So what other, or that piece of evidence and what other evidence?
	Is there a debate over as it relates to admissibility at this stage before we even get started in the trial?
	So there's a lot right now that's happening.
	That's a big one.
	Government Exhibit 52 is sort of that juicy little piece of evidence.
	It's sort of their little black book that Galen and Jeffrey Epstein had by their telephones in their residence.
	And so there was a big fight about this motion that was...
	Still pending.
	And so we'll get there.
	We'll see what the judge has to say about that.
	There's also a subpoena that went out.
	So when Epstein was going through his case and he was being prosecuted, you remember they settled it a long time ago.
	And when they settled this, they created the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund.
	So it's sort of like this insurance agency kind of.
	We're, you know, with millions of dollars.
	And so what people would do, the people who were abused by Epstein, they would just go and essentially file a claim with this compensation fund.
	You know, they'd say, my name is so-and-so, and I, you know, this happened to me at this.
	Date and time and whatever.
	They submit it over to this compensation fund.
	They vet it.
	And they decide whether to issue a claim.
	So this person now signs NDAs or signs a contract, whatever, right?
	And they get compensated however much it is.
	Might be a couple hundred thousand.
	Might be a lot more than that.
	We don't really know.
	And so this process goes on.
	Obviously, Epstein had a lot of victims.
	They're all getting compensated.
	And it's part of this fund that is being administered by this person named Jordana Feldman.
	A side point on this compensation fund, as part of the analysis about whether they're going to award you compensation, whether they're going to grant your claim, they look at whether you have filed charges or taken your claim to law enforcement anywhere.
	So if you're an accuser, you want to go get compensated, it's more likely that you're going to get compensated if you told the police about this or if you have an active prosecution going on.
	If you've reported this to somebody, they're going to consider it to be more of a valid claim.
	Okay, so now...
	A lot of these accusers that are making claims against Galen Maxwell, turns out they also got compensated from the Epstein Victims Fund.
	And now what they want is information about that because this is all impeachment bias material, sort of like the same thing that we saw about from Gage Grosskeritz during the Rittenhouse trial.
	Mark Richards said he had 10 million reasons why he might be fibbing up there on the stand because he had a lawsuit.
	Against the city of Kenosha.
	Same thing here.
	These women is what Galen Maxwell's team is saying.
	They have a bias.
	They have an interest in creating these false claims.
	Epstein's dead against Galen Maxwell so that they can then use that as a prosecution to go get compensation from the compensation fund.
	So now they're saying we want to know what the documents that they filled out said, what was on there.
	It's all impeachment material.
	They say that they were abused by Galen and Epstein.
	So we should be able to impeach them with that.
	We want to know how much they got, when they got it, what they say happened and all the details of that.
	And the judge granted that subpoena.
	I brought up a chat that said, is this the right channel to follow daily updates?
	No, I would stick to Grueler.
	Who's going to be covering this daily.
	I will do the updates, certainly weekly with Barnes.
	So that'll probably be good enough.
	If you can't watch two hours of Grueler every night, you'll get the 30-minute rundown on a Sunday.
	But no, Grueler is doing it.
	I'm not...
	Yeah, I'll do periodic videos, but...
	If I could just take a moment to tell your audience that I discovered Robert shortly before the Chauvin trial began.
	And then I watched his coverage.
	of the Chauvin trial and I really felt he wrote the book for how to cover a trial.
	He was so exceptional in breaking it down in simple and really just breaking down the law and what was happening day by day basis and the role of all the players and he has his whole set up there and I was like I was envious of his ability to convey that so much Such a value of information to his people, so I highly recommend anyone who's interested in following trials.
	Look, I'm obviously going to pitch myself, but I have to tell you, I tip my cap.
	Kate is great.
	Viva was my inspiration for starting my channel, and when it comes day-by-day coverage on a trial, you want to wrap up at the end of the day, there's absolutely nothing like watching The Watchers with Robert Gruller.
	I'm going to pin the comment in there.
	And by the way, it's not shilling when you do it for someone else.
	Then it's just endorsing.
	And unless you're getting a cut, but I don't think Robert...
	I don't get a cut of Robert Gruller.
	I don't get a cut of Robert Gruller.
	I'm just...
	I appreciate his work.
	The same way I appreciate the work of great lawyers like he's describing here.
	And for any lawyer, you see someone who's really good at the craft, you just want to watch the trial because you're like, I just like watching someone work.
	It's like watching...
	Trout go out and hit a baseball.
	You're just in awe of the ability.
	So, too, we're in awe of those New York attorneys who are defense counsel for Jelaine Maxwell.
	And I was expressing my similar admiration for Robert in the way he does his wrap-up at the end of the day on each day of a trial.
	And I'm a buffoon because I just assume that everybody already knows who Robert is because you've been on the sidebar.
	We've been on each other's channels.
	Who are you?
	Where can people find you?
	Yeah, I appreciate that.
	And Joe, thank you very much for saying that, brother.
	I'm humbled, honestly, by everything that's happening.
	I think it's amazing that so many people are interested in the law.
	It's like a dream come true that people are keeping their eyes on the government and the way that we are, and that there's a community of attorneys who are willing to...
	Step out of the comfort zone a little bit and get on here and speak.
	I'm humbled to be in your company and I appreciate you saying that.
	My name is Robert Grueler.
	Of course, I'm a criminal defense lawyer.
	We're in Scottsdale, Arizona.
	My law firm is the R&R Law Group.
	We've got a whole handful of attorneys.
	We do criminal defense law all across Arizona and we host a nightly show that's live called Watching the Watchers.
	It ranges between 4 p.m.
	Arizona, so it's about 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
	Is when it starts Eastern Time.
	And we go live every weeknight.
	And we're typically covering trials, sometimes political news when the trial season is not in motion.
	But we have a good time.
	We're also on Locals, along with Joe, along with Viva.
	So we're all kind of neighbors over there.
	And you can get plugged in with a great community.
	Our mission is accountability, transparency, and justice.
	And so we're constantly shining what we call the Big Beautiful Spotlight.
	We want to keep the pressure on.
	We want to keep covering these cases because we see that a lot of this gets manipulated out there in the media.
	And it's not true.
	It goes through these different lenses and different layers before it reaches the public.
	And so what we're doing here, I think, is really needed to make sure that the truth gets out there.
	So thanks for letting me share all that, Viva.
	I just had to do that.
	I had to do this.
	Exactly.
	That's why I did it.
	I was looking for the Watching the Watchers box cap that you gave me.
	I had it in the background.
	I think my kids took it.
	I have a beautiful box that says Watching the Watchers.
	You're on Locals as well.
	Yeah, we're at...
	Watching the watchers.locals.com.
	I say it about 30 times every day.
	I don't know why.
	I almost forgot it there.
	Good.
	At the very least, everyone is going to find all of the YouTube lawyers who cover different things.
	And Robert, so you do the nightly streams.
	And I know you've been covering Jelaine Maxwell.
	You go through the docket as the docket is updated.
	So that's why I say, like, I'm not doing that.
	So that is where everyone's going to want to go.
	I'll give the recaps and discuss it with Robert.
	But you're definitely doing the daily stuff.
	So the trial starts Monday.
	The jury, there's been issues as to how it's...
	Oh, everyone out there, before you repeat a meme, which is legally inaccurate, people are saying the Rittenhouse trial was broadcast, you know, full footage, cameras, yada, yada.
	Jelaine Maxwell isn't.
	What are they trying to hide?
	It's the difference between state court and federal court.
	So if you share that meme, at the very least, understand the difference.
	From what I understand, it's a bit frustrating.
	None of the federal cases are broadcast live.
	And so there's some cases that are not...
	Not Epstein related that will not be broadcast and not for nefarious cover-up purposes.
	Are there S.H.I.E.L.D.
	laws involved with that too that would make it even trickier because of witnesses being protected?
	There's audio coverage.
	There is audio coverage.
	That's what I heard.
	I did not know that, Robert?
	I'm actually thinking of doing audio streams.
	I wanted to talk to some people about that.
	I'm trying to decide whether it'll be boring or whether having audio coverage would actually work or not.
	I want to listen to the audio first before I commit to anything.
	Is that a real-time audio broadcast or what they had with the judge, the guy in the Flynn case?
	What was his name?
	So I'd be really careful about it either way.
	I'm not sure that you're allowed to even rebroadcast any of the audio from federal court proceedings.
	It's available for the public.
	It's available for the public.
	It's like a public call-in line.
	If you look in our chat on Twitter, you'll see Andrew actually post a screenshot.
	So it's a publicly available number.
	So I think you can call in and listen to it in real time, but if you're broadcasting that...
	And recording it, I think that's where the problem is.
	So you can listen to it and write notes down about it, but I don't think you can record it.
	So even a live stream is going to be recorded.
	I'm not sure.
	I don't know.
	But I thought about that same thing too, Joe.
	And I'd love to be able to do that because this is important.
	This is a very important case.
	It involves some of the most powerful people in the world.
	It's like, how can we get eyeballs on this case?
	And so my only thought is we just got to go through the minute entries.
	And I know it's a little bit tedious.
	It's me reading the docket and going through the motions, but it's all we've got.
	You make it as interesting as it can possibly get.
	I'm going to go crazy.
	What was the judge's name in the Michael Flynn case?
	Was it Emerson?
	It had an E in it.
	Someone help me with that.
	But when there was one of the hearings there, and a lot of people were streaming it or reproducing it afterwards, not appreciating that there was a court order on not reproducing the hearing, even if it was publicly broadcast at the initial time, and it could have been contemptuous behavior.
	And I think a couple of lawyers might have skirted that line.
	Not Rakeda, but others.
	Yeah, federal cases are the ones that should be broadcast.
	I don't trust my government.
	I think most people would agree with that, William.
	Oh, come on.
	Emmett Sullivan.
	Emmett Sullivan.
	Well, there was an E in there somewhere.
	Emmett Sullivan.
	Yeah, so there was a hearing where I think at some point they reminded people, don't rebroadcast it, and someone took to Twitter to say anyone who did just committed a contempt of court.
	Okay, well, now let's really do this, Robert.
	So, ending it on the Jelaine Maxwell update so that there's some evidence that we've discussed that they're debating over.
	There was questions about the subpoena for the witness information.
	There's a debate on whether or not they're going to agree on official documents to make evidence of the age of the alleged victims because that's fundamental to the charges.
	No ruling on that yet as to what's going to be admissible to make the required evidence?
	Yeah, so the birth certificate issue, obviously they're saying that there was trafficking involving...
	Underage people, minors.
	And so they've got to prove that.
	They can't just come into court and say, well, you know, she looked young at the time.
	So they've got to go back and say, back on this date when we're alleging the offense happened, the person who is the alleged victim was in fact a minor.
	And so they're going to have to use, you know, official documents in order to get that in.
	Now, oftentimes in a criminal trial, that's something you just stipulate to.
	You just say, okay, it's a birth certificate.
	Where did it come from?
	Arizona?
	Okay, it came from the Department of Health.
	All right, that's good enough for us.
	We're going to agree that you can use that document because we don't want to have to authenticate it.
	We don't want to have to bring in the custodian of records to come in and say, yes, I work there, and yes, I've been here, and this is our process, and this is how we do it, and lay the foundation in order to get the document in.
	So most people will just stipulate to it.
	Now, Glenn Maxwell, she's got five different defense lawyers that she's paying a lot of money to, so they're, of course, not going to just agree to that.
	So they are now contesting it.
	They're sort of contesting it.
	They're saying, we will agree to the stipulation, but you've got to do all of these other things.
	You've got to jump through all of these other hoops because they'll only stipulate if it serves them.
	If it kind of comes in where there's proper foundation that is being laid and the narrative is being crafted the way that they want it to be.
	So the government is saying, we're not going to do that.
	We're not going to comply with all of those requirements.
	This is a regular business record.
	It's all something that is part of the process.
	So they responded to...
	The defense motion saying, Judge, you should accept this regardless.
	Just let it on in.
	And so that was on the 1122 docket update.
	So as soon as we hop off here, actually, I'm going to look at 1123, which is yesterday.
	And the way that it works is, you know, documents will sort of trickle in late.
	So you can't, you know, 1123 is not really up to date until 1124.
	And then 1125 will have up to dates on 1124.
	So it's, you know, they kind of trickle in even the next morning.
	From the day prior docket.
	And so there's a little bit of a delay on it, but it's already ultra-delayed because what ends up happening here, it's quite frustrating, is before they publish the documents, they send them to the attorneys for redactions.
	So they're already a couple weeks old anyways because they have already gone through a round of redactions.
	They go to the judge and then by the time they get actually filed with the court, they're typically a week old.
	So it's frustrating.
	It's very obtuse.
	You can't see what's going on here.
	And as somebody who wants to study what's happening, it's frustrating.
	You're motivating me to go down to the courthouse and watch this day by day.
	If I can't restream it anyway, I'm an hour train ride away.
	Man on the street.
	Yeah.
	Joey, it would be...
	Look at this.
	Guys, we are winding it up now, but I had to bring Nate in just for the closing.
	I brought up a chat about Jelaine Maxwell's history.
	Robert Barnes and I have discussed it on multiple previous streams where I learned a lot about her father and their history, and it's an interesting one.
	Spook.
	Super spook.
	I know I'm just coming here at the end, but I got to stay with something, my man, Robert.
	Robert, your coverage of these things is fantastic.
	I'm almost hating on you because it's so good.
	He's keeping me on my toes.
	So, Robert, stop doing such a good job because it's forcing me to be better.
	But no, no.
	Listen.
	For all you people, I've been watching Robert's stuff for a while.
	YouTube has been giving him problems, and I know he's too coy to say it, but this guy's stuff is fantastic.
	And it's so...
	It's one of those things where I'll watch your stuff for like two seconds, and then the next thing I know, it's an hour later.
	I'm like, I've watched the whole damn thing.
	Please, don't subscribe to Robert Groomer's stuff.
	It is fantastic.
	And not to say everybody else's stuff is bad, but Robert's stuff is really good.
	When you were talking there, it really looked like Robert Gruller was sticking his hand out and rubbing your shoulder as that was happening.
	I saw that too.
	Good job, man.
	Good job, good job.
	No, Nate, my friend, I really appreciate that compliment.
	I'm trying to keep up with you.
	You are also killing it.
	I appreciate the community that has been built here.
	And it's not possible without everybody sort of jumping in here and being authentic and being real.
	And so I watch everybody else doing that.
	And it inspires me.
	It really does.
	A lot of the times I'm sitting here like...
	Maybe I shouldn't chime in on that, or maybe that's outside of my hula hoop or my comfort zone, but I see you guys out here hopping in here and just throwing your opinions out into the world.
	It really is inspiring, and I think that it's in the direction of good.
	We're all trying to find truth, whatever that means, and we're having a conversation about it.
	I'm really grateful to be in your company.
	One last thing, too.
	America's Untold Stories.
	It's a gem.
	Eric, you gotta know I was gonna bring that up.
	America's Untold Story.
	If you're behind on the Alec Baldwin stuff, you're gonna learn so much stuff you didn't know through America's Untold Stories.
	Mark and Eric are tremendous.
	Tremendous.
	That channel's blowing up like a bomb.
	So if you're missing that, then I don't know what you guys are doing.
	You gotta check out America's Untold Stories.
	Everybody here can attest to that channel and what it's going to do because that is fantastic work.
	Eric.
	If anybody had been watching that, they would have known the news before the news came out, and they would have looked like they could tell the future to people who didn't know better.
	Everybody, with that, I hear a dog whining upstairs, so I do know that I can go for three, four hours, but my dogs can't.
	If there's a verdict today, it's going to be on Nate's channel.
	Joe's going to be there.
	I'll try to pop in.
	Robert, thank you for coming in.
	Better late than never, and thank you for the update on Jelaine Maxwell.
	Maybe we'll do something.
	One of us comes on each other's channel to do the updates for our respective audiences.
	We've got to talk.
	Thank you, Vito.
	Thank you, guys.
	I love you all.
	Thank you very much.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
	I'm going to put everybody's link in the pinned comment in alphabetical order, so I'm not accused.
	Alphabetical order based on first name, so nobody accuses me of anything.
	Just put the non-lawyer last.
	My name is Alfred.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much, and we will see you soon.

▲