September 21, 2023 • 31 mins
Thien Ho – DA Sues Sacramento
No Death Penalty For Cop Killer
Hollywood Strikes
New Death Row Execution
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Caf I Am six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
You're listening to the John and Ken Show on demand
on the iHeartRadio app. We're on the radio from one
until four. And gee, I don't know. Maybe you're busy
this afternoon. What you can't get the whole show? You
might work?
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Don't we stop the world to hear the show? No live?
You know, in another universe we do. Maybe you're having
a health crisis, maybe you're having a baby. Maybe there's
something you have to do during this three you might
be giving birth. Anyways, that's what the iHeartRadio app is for.
You can go to John and can on demand podcast
and after you've gone through labor, you can hear the
show later tonight. All right, we're now going to talk
(00:38):
about the vagrant crisis. This time we're going to go
to Sacramento. The District Attorney for Sacramento County, his name
is Tin Hole. He has filed a lawsuit and he
threatened that this was coming against the City of Sacramento
for its quote descent into decay in how it is
(00:58):
handling or completely not handling the growing homeless crisis. And
in the lawsuit they made it clear there's been an
explosive growth in homelessness in the last seven years in
that city, and there's now more homeless people in Sacramento
than there are in San Francisco, which certainly gets a
lot of attention when it comes to homelessness. So we
have a chance now to talk to the DA and
(01:18):
let's get them on the show and get more detail
on this. Ken Ho, welcome to the John and Ken Show.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Thank you for having me on your show.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Gentlemen, Yeah, I think most people when they think of
a district attorney, they think of somebody who prosecutes criminals
for felonies. So explain how you have the power to
file a lawsuit against the city for not taking care
of something like the ramp and homelessness.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
So, first of all, the primary mandate of the DA
is public safety, and so here's how it works. The
public news this law. If can you own private property,
you allow drug dealing, you allow human trafficking, dumping of needles,
the city will come to you and say, you know what,
you need to clean this up. If you don't, they
will go out for you and they'll take you to
court and have a judge force you to clean it
up because you're not following the law. So in the
(02:06):
same way on city property, which is the sidewalks, the fields,
the parks, the City of Sacramento has allowed our unhoused
population to explode by two hundred and fifty percent. And
what they've also done is they have refused the City
of Sacramento to enforce any of the homeless city ordinances,
the unlawful camping, the unlawful stories, the unlawful fire. So
(02:28):
I'm taking them to court. I'm suing them under the
law that they sue other people and forced them to
enforce the law.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
When have you talked with them previously and told them
you're going to do this. Did they get warning to
clean up the city? And have they ignored it?
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Absolutely? So, you know, I first sent the letter and
the prodiding judge of the court said, you know, because
there was a lot of encampments around the courthouse, My
employees were assaulted, court staff, jurors, and the mayor said, Hey,
the DA and the judge are right, We're going to
fix this in two weeks. That was three months ago,
and in that time things have gotten worse. And so
then we sent out a survey to the community asking
(03:10):
how the unhoused has affected their quality of life. And
I mean little kids can't ride their back to school,
little girls can't play soccer because of broken needles on
the field. People are getting assaulted's threatened with rape. And
so then I sent a demand letter to the city
asking them to implement seven eight different items, and I
gave them a time for him to do it, and
(03:31):
they turned around and sort of blamed the county, blame
the courts, blame myself. And so just this week we
decided to sue the city of Settlement. So they forced
the law.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
So they don't have a defense. So far they haven't offered. Well,
the only defense are offering is that they said, we
have engagement in teams out there every day working with
the homeless to bring them inside. But clearly that is
not moving the needle, is it.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Well, they say, oh, they've been able to obtain what
they can successful voluntary compliance. Well, if you walk down
the street in the middle of the night without any
shoes on, you know, alone, come back and tell me
whether or not there has been voluntary compliance. There hasn't been.
So I think that they're going to get crushed a
trial if they want to take it.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
To trial, and if it goes to trial and they
are found that it's found that you're correct, then what
would be the remedy there?
Speaker 1 (04:24):
What would happen?
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Well, we are not asking for money. We are asking
for what they call junctive relief, which means the court
steps in. The court takes supervision of this, and the
court can require the city to do certain things and
one of them is this. At city Hall they only
allow camping at night, but not during the day. They
did that to protect their employees, but they won't extend
that same protection to the rest of the city. I've
(04:48):
asked them over and over again to do that to
the rest of the city, which is during the day,
have our unhous store the property in a safe location,
go get treatment and services at the end of the day.
This isn't about criminalizing home business. It's about getting those
who are homeless mental health and drug addiction services and
encourage them and requiring them to get that so we
can get them off the streets because if not compassionate
(05:08):
for them, but for the rest of us.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Well, here's the thing. I mean, you talk about voluntary compliance,
but apparently that's not happening. So what you are talking
about is some element of enforcement, is it not?
Speaker 3 (05:19):
Absolutely. It starts with enforcement and compliance, and then what
we can do is encouraged through the criminal justice system
acceptance of drug treatment and mental health services to get
to chronically unhoused off the streets.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
You have cited the Sheriff of Sacramento County is apparently
having a better approach than the city. Is that true?
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Yes, So, Sheriff Jim Cooper, he's been out there and
his homeless outreach team. They've cleared about six hundred encampments,
They've contacted several thousand of our un housed and offered services.
And of all the people they've offered in terms of
several hundred people in terms of services and shelter, only
less than a dozen have accepted it. And so what
we need to do is be able to cite and use,
(06:03):
you know, the criminal justice system if you are violating
the law, to encourage treatment. So what we do is
if you get arrested for multiple non valuent offensives, we
stack them up and instead of going to jail, if
you accept treatment and finish that treatment, you won't do
the jail time. That's what we call using that as
encouragement to get the treatment they need and get off
the streets.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
How do you think this happened in these seven years
in Sacramento? And I guess the mayor Darryl Steinberg has
been there about that that long.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
Huh, he's been here seven years. And really this is
a local failure. You know, the governor has given a
lot of resources to the local authorities, a lot of money,
a lot of resources. My question is those resources have
been squandered at the local level. I'm asking for an audit.
Where do those hundreds of millions of dollars go? And
I want a true accounting of what program actually works
(06:51):
and what program doesn't work. And they've had an audit
going down for two years and it's still not done.
And so this is about accountability, full levels and holding
the government accountable.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Where do you think the money is gone? What's your
gut feeling. I mean, that's a tremendous amount of money
for no benefit over a long period of time. Something
really bad is going on.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Well, here's the deal. As part of a civil case,
you were entitled to what we call discovery, which is
we get to ask the production of documents, ask questions,
to take depositions, and so I have a lot of questions,
and the community they have a lot of questions as well.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Do you think that people are behind your effort here
because you know the response normally because this is just politics.
So though he's just doing this because he doesn't like
the way we run the city.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
This isn't about politics. It's about public safety. It's not
about personality. It's not personal it's about public safety. It's
not about partisanship. It's about public safety. And I tell you,
every other day I get stopped by people on the
streets of Sacramento and they say, excuse me, mister Howard,
are you The DA said, yes, thank you for doing
what you're doing. The vast majority of the community is
with us. We are stuck between chaos and compassion. We
(08:01):
can't let people live on the streets this way, and
we can't let people in small businesses shut because of
what's happening on our streets. We need a balance approach.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
So where does this go to a Sacramento County court?
Is that where it goes first?
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Yes, So we filed the lawsuit on Tuesday, So it
goes to Sacramento Superior Court. And there is a private
attorney that's also representing businesses and everyday folks that is
sued as well. So it goes to court, and then
we begin the process of pre trial litigation, asking for
those documents, setting up depositions, serving people with the notice
to come and testify, whether it be the mayor or
(08:35):
whoever else, and asking those tough questions that people want
answers to. And that's really the next process here, making
sure that they are accountable and putting the pressure.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
On them, and a judge will decide this or a jury.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
A jury will decide it. We'll go to a jury,
and then ultimately a judge will decide what remedy in
a sense what happens after that.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
And your job is to prove first of all that
this situation exists, obviously it does, and also that they're
violating the law by allowing it to exist.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Well, I have an email from the city attorney in
which they admitted that in the last year they have
not issued a single citation or prosecutor a single case
of any of these homeless ordinances, not a single one.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
That seems like pretty good evidence. You know, when this
story first came on our radar a few months ago,
we thought that maybe you were going to pursue criminal
charges against some of the city leaders. I guess that
wasn't really going that works.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Well, you know what, there are strategic and evidentiary reasons
for why I proceeded the way I did, and so
we have decided to sue the city civilly, which I'm
entitled to do under the law. It's the civil Code.
The district attorney has authority to prostitute civilly or criminally.
I've chosen in this case for certain reasons, to go
civilly at this time.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Well, it's a pleasure talking to you, and we'll be
watching the story. Hopefully we'll have you back on. Yeah.
Thing makes it way through the courts. Okay, you appreciate
what you're doing. One more quick question.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Any district attorney can do this against any city in
his jurisdiction.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
First of all, I'm the first district attorney in the
entire country to do the Second, this is a California law,
so any district attorney in the state of California can
do this as well.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
All right, all right, we'll talk with you again. Good luck.
I hope you're wildly successful.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Yeah, all right, thank you.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
All right, that's the Sacramento County District Attorney. Tin Hoe
is his name, and he has filed a lawsuit against
the City of Sacramento for not doing enough about the
homelessness crisis. Particularly you heard him mention no enforcement nothing.
He asked for the records from the city attorney of Sacramento.
They're not doing anything.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Maybe George Gascun's replacement will sue the city of Los Angeles.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
For starting Oh yeah, sue Karen Bass. Yeah, that'd be great.
Here you go. You should have brought that up when
you were at the forum the other night.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
I didn't know. I didn't know you could do this.
I mean, I saw this story, but that I wanted.
That's why we wanted to talk to him. It's like,
how does this work? How does a da suice city
for not cleaning up all the vagrants? But you heard
him lay out the playbook there, so we'll see where
this goes.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
You're listening to John and Ken on demand from KFI
AM six forty up on.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
The radio from one to four and after four o'clock.
The iheartapp for the John and Ken on demand podcast,
and if you're just tuning in, you should go to
that podcast and listen to the gentleman we just spoke
with last segment, Sacramento County District Attorney Tin Ho. He's
suing the City of Sacramento for creating block him up
a massive public health and safety hazard by letting a
(11:36):
homeless civil suit.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
But still it'll probably get in the hands of a
judge or a jury who will make some decision as
to whether or not the city has to step up
more to clean up the homelessness problem. And wild card
is maybe they won't. Maybe they'll reject the lawsuit. So
we'll follow that story because it is a unique way
to approach the problem. Yesterday, the big story, of course,
was the La County District Attorney George Gascone announcing the
(11:59):
charges against the man who killed the La County Sheriff's
deputy in Palmdale last weekend. And one thing that was
missing was the death penalty. In fact, Orange County District
Attorney Todd Spitzer just put out a press release this afternoon.
Just can't believe that in this most heinous of crimes,
gunning down a police officer execution style in cold blood
(12:22):
doesn't warrant a shot at the death penalty. Again, Gasconne
added special circumstances to the case. But he was asked
at the press conference about the death penalty and the
killing of a police officer, and his response was if
that would bring the deputy back, that old line. That's
not going to bring the deputy back. That wasn't the purpose.
No one's interesting.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Everybody knows that the deputy can't come back. That's a
fake issue. We know when somebody dies, they're dead. Nobody
said the death penalty was designed to bring the victim back.
I hate when he said that. All the reporters just
stood are mute, dumbfounded. It's like, whoever said that was
(13:04):
the intent of the death penalty to revive the victim?
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Jaez? How do journalists let that pass? We have told
you for years now that bit by bit they chip
away at the criminal justice system. Here's a story that
might surprise you. A man by the name of Derek
Eugene Pettis was a twenty four year old gang member.
(13:27):
In nineteen ninety four, he apparently took the gun from
an LA County Sheriff's deputy named Terence Winger, shot him
in the eye, and then turned and gunned down in
the back. Of police chaplain by the name of Bruce Bryan.
Why are we bringing up this story in nineteen ninety
four because he is now eligible for release, and I'll
(13:51):
repeat he was twenty four at the time. You see
these youth offender laws, they keep kind of lowering the bar.
Most people think, oh, well, that's some that was under eighteen. Well, no,
it dropped from eighteen to twenty. Move from eighteen to
twenty three, and now it's aged twenty six. So since
he was twenty four at the time, he is eligible
for earlier release. This was a retroactive change. Yes, it
(14:16):
was a retroactive change. Yes. See, he first became eligible
for parole in twenty eighteen. He was finally granted it
on a September sixth Parole board hearing. Now it's going
to be up to Newsom to determine whether or not
Pettis is now fifty four, but he does sentenced to
life in prison, but under the youth of fender laws
which came into effect later. Well, because he was twenty
(14:37):
four at the time, they can consider an earlier release.
They get.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Yes, the left wing legislature, the anti cop, pro criminal legislature,
gets this stuff passed through, it's not reported on by
the dumbasses in the media, and we find out years
later that a monster like this, this murderer is may
get out early.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Who knew that? Who knew that you could shoot and
kill people?
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Shoot one person in the eye and somebody else in
the back, kill them then, and you'll get out in thirty.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Years twenty four years old. This is not a fourteen
year old that did this. Not that I would feel
any more sympathy for a fourteen year old killer, but
twenty four When does that qualify as youthful offender?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
I don't remember this being discussed that you're still protected
by your age when you're twenty four years old.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
It was eighteen. Now it's up to twenty six. Twenty six. Yeah,
they've raised it to twenty six, and you could be
considered a youthful offender if you committed your crime at
twenty six or younger. Stop.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
People have careers and families by age twenty six. They're
married in their own homes by age twenty six.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
This is if you want to murder people, do it
before you're twenty six, so you have a shot at
early release. Who wrote that bill?
Speaker 3 (15:56):
Wait?
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Remember things pass? I don't remember the amendment to make
it up to twenty six, but I remembered the bill
years ago. The youthful offender idea, the idea that, oh,
you know, young people don't have the maturity to understand
what they did. Six Well, yeah, see, I was thinking seventeen. Right,
I don't even like seventeen, but I was thinking seventeen.
But now it's up to twenty six. Yeah, you could
(16:18):
run for political office.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
You could already be discharged from the military with a
full run.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Right, yep. The killer was twenty four at the time,
and his status is applied to retroactively. Oh that means horrible.
It didn't start kicking in when they revised the law.
It can go back to when you were committed to crime,
and if you were under twenty six, you have a
shot early.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
God, we have a lot of evil people who serve
in the legislature. I mean they're flat out evil. They
don't care people die.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
So we won't have even served thirty years. He did
get a life sentence with a chance for parole after
forty years. But here we are not even thirty years
and he has a chance now because of the youth
offender's status.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
They have a lot of that going on. There's a
lot of discounts going on. A few past the age
of sixty. They yeah, give you old persons. Yeah, they
give you elderly parole. All right, we got more coming up.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
You're listening to John and Ken on demand from KFI
Am six forty on the.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Radio one to four after four o'clock. I Heart app
for Johnny can on demand the podcast.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
And leave a message using the app for the moistline.
The calls are coming back tomorrow during the three o'clock hour.
You can use the app the microphone icon or call
the tell free number one eight seven seven Moist eighty six.
You've probably been hearing the news that the writer's strike
could be over soon. It has gone on for more
than one hundred and forty days. The writers went out
(17:43):
before the actors did, and apparently the two sides have
been meeting in one tip that it could be coming
to an end. John is the big wigs, and I
always liked that word. I just wanted to stick it
in big wigs. I've been attending the talk. Some of
them had big wigs. Bob iger Walt, Disney Company chief
executive apparently showed up the head of NBC Universal Studio group,
(18:05):
the Netflix co CEO, Ted Surrandos. These people participated in
the latest meeting, which leads them to believe, don't call
me in until you're gonna close the dale. That's kind
of how the top executives were. They talk. I don't
sit there and listen to the bass say and not
get anywhere. Then just let me I'm not coming. Sounds
like your guy's holding a cigar. I know it's a
(18:28):
fat big wig, right, it's sweating. Well, it says here
they're meeting today and tomorrow. There was some that say,
we're not as close as you think we are. But
last time they met in August apparently was ugly.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Well, because all the executives came in and and gave
them a lecture.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
That's what it said. Yes, they gave them a lecture.
That's what the Writers' Union told their members that all
they did was give us election. They've just berated us
or something like that. That's good negotiating tactic. Go and
break your employees on strike. Sure they're gonna sign. Oh,
probably within an hour.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
They'll sit there and agree. It's like, you know, you're right,
we are a bunch of jack offs. Okay, sure you've got us.
If I tell you, the ego of executives is just astonishing.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
It is absolutely astonishing.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
You've got people who are willing to risk starvation and
homelessness and you're gonna go in and yell at them.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Looks like both sides are motivated to do a deal
because if the strike goes on much longer, it's going
to be tougher to get back on track, even for
the twenty twenty four film slates. So that's what they're
starting to think about now. If the strike goes on,
there won't be much product for people to see in
theaters or even in the streaming services if they don't
pull some kind of a deal outside.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
I may have mentioned this, but this story has stuck
in my head. There's an actor and he appeared on
some show that was a hit. I forget it was
broadcast or cable right, it was a hit, show did
really well, He got paid for his work. Then they
sent it over to one of the streaming services. Well,
he says, in the years since, more people have seen
(20:11):
the show on the streaming service than ever saw it
when it was originally run. He goes, but I don't
get a dime for that. I don't get any money
for you know, the millions of people who've seen it
on streaming all these years. And that's the kind of
thing that they're trying to fix. It is what's the
argument against that.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
In fact, it starts with the pay bump. That's what
y're negotiating, the simple wages, looking for five, six seven
percent increase. But you're right, the second part of this
is viewership data and a payment system based on the
success of the streaming shows. That has been a real
sticking point between the two sides. And that's you know
(20:50):
something because you know, when actors were in sitcoms years ago,
they would be paid per episode, but they'd also hopefully
get a share of what they call the syndication money
down the road when that show keeps running and this
is before streaming, but like when it moves over to
TBS and one of the cable channels and runs, you know,
five episodes a day or something like Friends. Yeah, like
(21:10):
like TBS runs Friends night and day and out big
bang theory, it was probably run one hundred thousand times
every episode. Yeah, I'm guessing that the actors on that
show got a cut of that somehow, besides being paid.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Jerry paid like a more than a million dollars per
episode there for a while. Jerry what's his name, David Well?
Speaker 1 (21:31):
I forgot Larry David. Yeah, they created.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
They became billionaires from that from the syndication sale because
they were the creators.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
You what's the story stick in my head from last week?
Apparently as a book coming out and Larry David went
to a wedding a couple of years ago in France
for some big movie or radio or rather TV executive.
I guess it was at his table at the wedding
Elon Musk and apparently started brating Elon Musk for killing
(22:01):
people because he votes Republican. It was right after the
Texas Rember Velveld, Texas shooting, and I guess there were
witnesses to this, and he just started screaming at Elon
Musk for you have only Republican. You're killing kids. You
know you're killing kids. It almost sounded like the Pop episode.
Yeah right, But apparently that's how he can be in
real life.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Zary tries out material you see, if it makes everybody
uncomfortable enough, and they turn it into an episode Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
I love this line too, because we were just talking
about the last time they negotiated back in August, the
Writers Guild and the studio people. The negotiating committee for
the writers people phrased it this way, and this would
be writers with it. Their counter offer is neither nothing
nor nearly enough. You have to take a moment to
decipher that. All right, they didn't offer us nothing, but
they're not even close to what we need to get right,
So some sort of in between there is all they
(22:49):
could tell the people. But the word coming out this
week especially, I think the tell is the top executives
have shown up to be a part of this. It
just shows you that either were near the end or
they believe it's important that we get near the end.
It's got to be one of the other, or else
they wouldn't waste their time coming to these negotiating sessions.
The top executive heay the money for the streaming. I mean,
(23:10):
you wonder what Bob Iigrew does day by day, but
you know, walking into a meeting of a negotiating meeting
between the Writers Guild and the studios, I don't think
we would be exciting for him. But you've got to
have a lot of arrogance and ego.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Though to electure the people who make billions of dollars
for your company, that's that's that's ob noxious.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
We got the worse side of executives.
Speaker 4 (23:30):
You're listening to John and Ken on demand from KFI
AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Yeah, we we have execution news.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
Well we do. I mean there was an execution Oklahoma.
But that's not the big story. Although the thing about
that I found weird because some websites like to point
out what the last meal was, and it was meeting
potatoes but throwning there was okra and I stared at
the screen. I said, this guy wanted okra. That's part
of it. Uh, okra, it's a vegetable. Well, what does
it look like? I think it's white. Is it bitter
(24:01):
like you know? Yeah, it sounds like a bitter kind
of green or you know, I think I remember okra?
Speaker 5 (24:07):
Oh no, sorry, isn't it is?
Speaker 1 (24:09):
No, it's gre it's green. Okay, I think it's like
kale is it almost.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
Looks I'm looking at it right now, it almost My
first thought was.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Maybe a green bee.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
You know, remember at the beginning of the panic over
the shutdown, and everybody cleared out the shelves at the supermarkets. Yeah,
the only thing left was okra, And that's right. I
didn't remember what it looked like, but I do remember
that it was sitting there by itself in a basket,
(24:41):
a basket of okra, and everything else was gone, and
I'm thinking, boy, that must taste really bad.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
The big execution story is in Alabama, and here's why.
And we're reading from the New York Times. Bernard E.
Harcourt a professor of law and political theory at Columbia fun.
He began his lead clear represent think people in Alabama's
death row and continues to represent people's sentenced to death.
So clearly, the story we're looking at is very sympathetic
(25:07):
towards the condemned. And what we're talking about in Alabama
is something that's never been done before. They want to
kill their inmates using a brand new method called nitrogen hypoxia. Basic. Well,
I don't know if it's that terrible, but they've been
(25:28):
trying to come up with a new method because the
last time they tried to kill a guy that's been
a pain in the neck murderer, it didn't go well
with the stupid three drug, two drug whatever protocol. So basically,
what they do with nitrogen hypoxia they kill you because
you're going to breathe in high concentrations of nitrogen. It
(25:49):
starves you of oxygen until you die. It's really kind
of simple. They've already distributed the new execution protocol to
all the prison guards getting ready to do this. Is
one hundred and sixty men and women sixty five one
hundred and sixty men and five women waiting execution in Alabama.
(26:11):
When this happens, we're not sure, although we do know
the next innate that's supposed to be in line for this. Basically,
what they do is they put a mask around you
and it pumps nitrogen into your body.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
That's easy, right, So you're breathing, you'll be secured to
you'll be secured to a gurny.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Your nose and mouth would be covered by a mask,
and nitrogen will be pumped into your lungs until you suffocate.
Seventy eight percent of our atmosphere is nitrogen. It is
nitrogen rich.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Oxygen's only twenty one percent, and there's trace elements of
a few other things.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
So do you feel, I mean, are you well, that's
the question suffocate. You know, you would think suffocation can
be of the word is painful, but it can be
and mentally anguished. Right, No, you just go unconscious.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
It's just nitrogen gas renders the subject unconscious. Death ensues
within a few minutes. But what this Bernard Harcourt's worry
about worried about is if the mask does not fit
properly and a little oxygen seeps in, then the person
will be left gasping. See, because I have a little
bit of oxygen that will try to be sucking in,
he will be it won't be completely unconscious, and then
(27:25):
he's gonna suffocate rather than just go unconscious and become
brain dead.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
The man that may be the first to go is
Kenneth Eugene Smith. He's the one I mentioned that was well.
He was in the botched execution last November. They spent
hours on the gurney as they tried to find locations
to insert the intravenous lines without success, and then they
call behole thing off. So he writes, it's hard to
(27:52):
imagine a more ghastly ordeal than the march back a
second time to face the executioner and a new method
of execution that has possibly of it could be of
unknown agony. He's just a bedwetter, this guy.
Speaker 5 (28:04):
You know, I've asked this question before. Why don't we
just give people an overdose of propofol. I don't understand
what's wrong with that, or kill.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Michael Jackson exactly, or shoot them in the head.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Well, but I'm saying that, if we're trying to be humane,
why not do propofol? I mean, when you have Kolonoscopy's right, Ken,
we know you don't even see, you don't know, you
don't know what's going on.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
I like how you bond with Ken because you both
had colonosk Well, because you haven't we know we in
the colonoscary we do.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Yeah. Well, I mean that's the thing Deborah behind pent
to barbital, which they use in Texas, which seems to
have the same effect. You basically just go on into
unconsciousness eventually you die. I don't know why they don't
all use They're claiming they're having trouble getting these drugs,
so all right, but just getting nitrogen wouldn't be as
big a problem.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
I guess it's really it's really easy to kill people,
you know, they used to use this nitrogen method ven
arians did to snuff out your pets.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
You mean the terminally ill pets and stuff or just
pets there's too many of.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
Yeah, well, no, hopefully when they're terminally ill and you
want to put them down mainly.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Yeah, these nitrogen gas. In fact I hand John's right,
he writes, So the mask not fit properly, an oxygen
seep in the person maybe left gasping. It could result
in severe brain damage rather than death.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
They're always worried about murderers gasping during right, during the
killing processes.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
What do you care?
Speaker 2 (29:30):
You care these gasping Would you like a recording of
the uh.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
Of the art that killed? Yeah, he killed a woman
by the name of Elizabeth Doorlean Sennett in nineteen eighty eight.
He was hired to kill her, but she was gas husband. Huh.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
But the victims are gasping as they're bleeding out from
whatever atrocity there was committed.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
So we'll be watching this if they do carry out
the first execution. Now they've handed out the protocols, tells
me there's serious about this, and we don't know whether
it's going to occur this year. But this man would
be the first to go. So you know.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Now, the Venery Association says nitrogen gas is unacceptable for
animals other than chickens and turkeys.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
No, not a fan of ticket and turkeys. So you
can give a nitrogen gas. No dogs or cats, but
tickens and turkeys.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Give the nitrogen exit bag to a turkey because they
don't really are feeling.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Why is it funny? Why is it killing turkeys? It's funny.
It's not killing turkeys. It's funny. The exception being chickens
and turkeys is. But I don't understand that. All right,
we got more coming up. Johnny Kid, KFI as forty
live everywhere. iHeartRadio app Deborah Mark, Are you ready to go?
Speaker 3 (30:45):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (30:45):
I am. I know.
Speaker 5 (30:47):
What I was trying to do is put on a
news station that starts having news at three o'clock, so
I have a TV with news.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
Somebody to steal from you.
Speaker 5 (30:56):
Let me tell you no, it's very hard.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
Seven a half. Oh never mind. Hey, you've been listening
to the John and Ken Show. You can always hear
us live on KFI AM six forty one pm to
four pm every Monday through Friday, and of course anytime
on demand on the iHeartRadio app,
Caf I Am six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
You're listening to the John and Ken Show on demand
on the iHeartRadio app. We're on the radio from one
until four. And gee, I don't know. Maybe you're busy
this afternoon. What you can't get the whole show? You
might work?
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Don't we stop the world to hear the show? No live?
You know, in another universe we do. Maybe you're having
a health crisis, maybe you're having a baby. Maybe there's
something you have to do during this three you might
be giving birth. Anyways, that's what the iHeartRadio app is for.
You can go to John and can on demand podcast
and after you've gone through labor, you can hear the
show later tonight. All right, we're now going to talk
(00:38):
about the vagrant crisis. This time we're going to go
to Sacramento. The District Attorney for Sacramento County, his name
is Tin Hole. He has filed a lawsuit and he
threatened that this was coming against the City of Sacramento
for its quote descent into decay in how it is
(00:58):
handling or completely not handling the growing homeless crisis. And
in the lawsuit they made it clear there's been an
explosive growth in homelessness in the last seven years in
that city, and there's now more homeless people in Sacramento
than there are in San Francisco, which certainly gets a
lot of attention when it comes to homelessness. So we
have a chance now to talk to the DA and
(01:18):
let's get them on the show and get more detail
on this. Ken Ho, welcome to the John and Ken Show.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Thank you for having me on your show.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Gentlemen, Yeah, I think most people when they think of
a district attorney, they think of somebody who prosecutes criminals
for felonies. So explain how you have the power to
file a lawsuit against the city for not taking care
of something like the ramp and homelessness.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
So, first of all, the primary mandate of the DA
is public safety, and so here's how it works. The
public news this law. If can you own private property,
you allow drug dealing, you allow human trafficking, dumping of needles,
the city will come to you and say, you know what,
you need to clean this up. If you don't, they
will go out for you and they'll take you to
court and have a judge force you to clean it
up because you're not following the law. So in the
(02:06):
same way on city property, which is the sidewalks, the fields,
the parks, the City of Sacramento has allowed our unhoused
population to explode by two hundred and fifty percent. And
what they've also done is they have refused the City
of Sacramento to enforce any of the homeless city ordinances,
the unlawful camping, the unlawful stories, the unlawful fire. So
(02:28):
I'm taking them to court. I'm suing them under the
law that they sue other people and forced them to
enforce the law.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
When have you talked with them previously and told them
you're going to do this. Did they get warning to
clean up the city? And have they ignored it?
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Absolutely? So, you know, I first sent the letter and
the prodiding judge of the court said, you know, because
there was a lot of encampments around the courthouse, My
employees were assaulted, court staff, jurors, and the mayor said, Hey,
the DA and the judge are right, We're going to
fix this in two weeks. That was three months ago,
and in that time things have gotten worse. And so
then we sent out a survey to the community asking
(03:10):
how the unhoused has affected their quality of life. And
I mean little kids can't ride their back to school,
little girls can't play soccer because of broken needles on
the field. People are getting assaulted's threatened with rape. And
so then I sent a demand letter to the city
asking them to implement seven eight different items, and I
gave them a time for him to do it, and
(03:31):
they turned around and sort of blamed the county, blame
the courts, blame myself. And so just this week we
decided to sue the city of Settlement. So they forced
the law.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
So they don't have a defense. So far they haven't offered. Well,
the only defense are offering is that they said, we
have engagement in teams out there every day working with
the homeless to bring them inside. But clearly that is
not moving the needle, is it.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Well, they say, oh, they've been able to obtain what
they can successful voluntary compliance. Well, if you walk down
the street in the middle of the night without any
shoes on, you know, alone, come back and tell me
whether or not there has been voluntary compliance. There hasn't been.
So I think that they're going to get crushed a
trial if they want to take it.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
To trial, and if it goes to trial and they
are found that it's found that you're correct, then what
would be the remedy there?
Speaker 1 (04:24):
What would happen?
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Well, we are not asking for money. We are asking
for what they call junctive relief, which means the court
steps in. The court takes supervision of this, and the
court can require the city to do certain things and
one of them is this. At city Hall they only
allow camping at night, but not during the day. They
did that to protect their employees, but they won't extend
that same protection to the rest of the city. I've
(04:48):
asked them over and over again to do that to
the rest of the city, which is during the day,
have our unhous store the property in a safe location,
go get treatment and services at the end of the day.
This isn't about criminalizing home business. It's about getting those
who are homeless mental health and drug addiction services and
encourage them and requiring them to get that so we
can get them off the streets because if not compassionate
(05:08):
for them, but for the rest of us.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Well, here's the thing. I mean, you talk about voluntary compliance,
but apparently that's not happening. So what you are talking
about is some element of enforcement, is it not?
Speaker 3 (05:19):
Absolutely. It starts with enforcement and compliance, and then what
we can do is encouraged through the criminal justice system
acceptance of drug treatment and mental health services to get
to chronically unhoused off the streets.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
You have cited the Sheriff of Sacramento County is apparently
having a better approach than the city. Is that true?
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Yes, So, Sheriff Jim Cooper, he's been out there and
his homeless outreach team. They've cleared about six hundred encampments,
They've contacted several thousand of our un housed and offered services.
And of all the people they've offered in terms of
several hundred people in terms of services and shelter, only
less than a dozen have accepted it. And so what
we need to do is be able to cite and use,
(06:03):
you know, the criminal justice system if you are violating
the law, to encourage treatment. So what we do is
if you get arrested for multiple non valuent offensives, we
stack them up and instead of going to jail, if
you accept treatment and finish that treatment, you won't do
the jail time. That's what we call using that as
encouragement to get the treatment they need and get off
the streets.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
How do you think this happened in these seven years
in Sacramento? And I guess the mayor Darryl Steinberg has
been there about that that long.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
Huh, he's been here seven years. And really this is
a local failure. You know, the governor has given a
lot of resources to the local authorities, a lot of money,
a lot of resources. My question is those resources have
been squandered at the local level. I'm asking for an audit.
Where do those hundreds of millions of dollars go? And
I want a true accounting of what program actually works
(06:51):
and what program doesn't work. And they've had an audit
going down for two years and it's still not done.
And so this is about accountability, full levels and holding
the government accountable.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Where do you think the money is gone? What's your
gut feeling. I mean, that's a tremendous amount of money
for no benefit over a long period of time. Something
really bad is going on.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Well, here's the deal. As part of a civil case,
you were entitled to what we call discovery, which is
we get to ask the production of documents, ask questions,
to take depositions, and so I have a lot of questions,
and the community they have a lot of questions as well.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Do you think that people are behind your effort here
because you know the response normally because this is just politics.
So though he's just doing this because he doesn't like
the way we run the city.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
This isn't about politics. It's about public safety. It's not
about personality. It's not personal it's about public safety. It's
not about partisanship. It's about public safety. And I tell you,
every other day I get stopped by people on the
streets of Sacramento and they say, excuse me, mister Howard,
are you The DA said, yes, thank you for doing
what you're doing. The vast majority of the community is
with us. We are stuck between chaos and compassion. We
(08:01):
can't let people live on the streets this way, and
we can't let people in small businesses shut because of
what's happening on our streets. We need a balance approach.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
So where does this go to a Sacramento County court?
Is that where it goes first?
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Yes, So we filed the lawsuit on Tuesday, So it
goes to Sacramento Superior Court. And there is a private
attorney that's also representing businesses and everyday folks that is
sued as well. So it goes to court, and then
we begin the process of pre trial litigation, asking for
those documents, setting up depositions, serving people with the notice
to come and testify, whether it be the mayor or
(08:35):
whoever else, and asking those tough questions that people want
answers to. And that's really the next process here, making
sure that they are accountable and putting the pressure.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
On them, and a judge will decide this or a jury.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
A jury will decide it. We'll go to a jury,
and then ultimately a judge will decide what remedy in
a sense what happens after that.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
And your job is to prove first of all that
this situation exists, obviously it does, and also that they're
violating the law by allowing it to exist.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Well, I have an email from the city attorney in
which they admitted that in the last year they have
not issued a single citation or prosecutor a single case
of any of these homeless ordinances, not a single one.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
That seems like pretty good evidence. You know, when this
story first came on our radar a few months ago,
we thought that maybe you were going to pursue criminal
charges against some of the city leaders. I guess that
wasn't really going that works.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Well, you know what, there are strategic and evidentiary reasons
for why I proceeded the way I did, and so
we have decided to sue the city civilly, which I'm
entitled to do under the law. It's the civil Code.
The district attorney has authority to prostitute civilly or criminally.
I've chosen in this case for certain reasons, to go
civilly at this time.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Well, it's a pleasure talking to you, and we'll be
watching the story. Hopefully we'll have you back on. Yeah.
Thing makes it way through the courts. Okay, you appreciate
what you're doing. One more quick question.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Any district attorney can do this against any city in
his jurisdiction.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
First of all, I'm the first district attorney in the
entire country to do the Second, this is a California law,
so any district attorney in the state of California can
do this as well.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
All right, all right, we'll talk with you again. Good luck.
I hope you're wildly successful.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Yeah, all right, thank you.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
All right, that's the Sacramento County District Attorney. Tin Hoe
is his name, and he has filed a lawsuit against
the City of Sacramento for not doing enough about the
homelessness crisis. Particularly you heard him mention no enforcement nothing.
He asked for the records from the city attorney of Sacramento.
They're not doing anything.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Maybe George Gascun's replacement will sue the city of Los Angeles.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
For starting Oh yeah, sue Karen Bass. Yeah, that'd be great.
Here you go. You should have brought that up when
you were at the forum the other night.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
I didn't know. I didn't know you could do this.
I mean, I saw this story, but that I wanted.
That's why we wanted to talk to him. It's like,
how does this work? How does a da suice city
for not cleaning up all the vagrants? But you heard
him lay out the playbook there, so we'll see where
this goes.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
You're listening to John and Ken on demand from KFI
AM six forty up on.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
The radio from one to four and after four o'clock.
The iheartapp for the John and Ken on demand podcast,
and if you're just tuning in, you should go to
that podcast and listen to the gentleman we just spoke
with last segment, Sacramento County District Attorney Tin Ho. He's
suing the City of Sacramento for creating block him up
a massive public health and safety hazard by letting a
(11:36):
homeless civil suit.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
But still it'll probably get in the hands of a
judge or a jury who will make some decision as
to whether or not the city has to step up
more to clean up the homelessness problem. And wild card
is maybe they won't. Maybe they'll reject the lawsuit. So
we'll follow that story because it is a unique way
to approach the problem. Yesterday, the big story, of course,
was the La County District Attorney George Gascone announcing the
(11:59):
charges against the man who killed the La County Sheriff's
deputy in Palmdale last weekend. And one thing that was
missing was the death penalty. In fact, Orange County District
Attorney Todd Spitzer just put out a press release this afternoon.
Just can't believe that in this most heinous of crimes,
gunning down a police officer execution style in cold blood
(12:22):
doesn't warrant a shot at the death penalty. Again, Gasconne
added special circumstances to the case. But he was asked
at the press conference about the death penalty and the
killing of a police officer, and his response was if
that would bring the deputy back, that old line. That's
not going to bring the deputy back. That wasn't the purpose.
No one's interesting.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Everybody knows that the deputy can't come back. That's a
fake issue. We know when somebody dies, they're dead. Nobody
said the death penalty was designed to bring the victim back.
I hate when he said that. All the reporters just
stood are mute, dumbfounded. It's like, whoever said that was
(13:04):
the intent of the death penalty to revive the victim?
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Jaez? How do journalists let that pass? We have told
you for years now that bit by bit they chip
away at the criminal justice system. Here's a story that
might surprise you. A man by the name of Derek
Eugene Pettis was a twenty four year old gang member.
(13:27):
In nineteen ninety four, he apparently took the gun from
an LA County Sheriff's deputy named Terence Winger, shot him
in the eye, and then turned and gunned down in
the back. Of police chaplain by the name of Bruce Bryan.
Why are we bringing up this story in nineteen ninety
four because he is now eligible for release, and I'll
(13:51):
repeat he was twenty four at the time. You see
these youth offender laws, they keep kind of lowering the bar.
Most people think, oh, well, that's some that was under eighteen. Well, no,
it dropped from eighteen to twenty. Move from eighteen to
twenty three, and now it's aged twenty six. So since
he was twenty four at the time, he is eligible
for earlier release. This was a retroactive change. Yes, it
(14:16):
was a retroactive change. Yes. See, he first became eligible
for parole in twenty eighteen. He was finally granted it
on a September sixth Parole board hearing. Now it's going
to be up to Newsom to determine whether or not
Pettis is now fifty four, but he does sentenced to
life in prison, but under the youth of fender laws
which came into effect later. Well, because he was twenty
(14:37):
four at the time, they can consider an earlier release.
They get.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Yes, the left wing legislature, the anti cop, pro criminal legislature,
gets this stuff passed through, it's not reported on by
the dumbasses in the media, and we find out years
later that a monster like this, this murderer is may
get out early.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Who knew that? Who knew that you could shoot and
kill people?
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Shoot one person in the eye and somebody else in
the back, kill them then, and you'll get out in thirty.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Years twenty four years old. This is not a fourteen
year old that did this. Not that I would feel
any more sympathy for a fourteen year old killer, but
twenty four When does that qualify as youthful offender?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
I don't remember this being discussed that you're still protected
by your age when you're twenty four years old.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
It was eighteen. Now it's up to twenty six. Twenty six. Yeah,
they've raised it to twenty six, and you could be
considered a youthful offender if you committed your crime at
twenty six or younger. Stop.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
People have careers and families by age twenty six. They're
married in their own homes by age twenty six.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
This is if you want to murder people, do it
before you're twenty six, so you have a shot at
early release. Who wrote that bill?
Speaker 3 (15:56):
Wait?
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Remember things pass? I don't remember the amendment to make
it up to twenty six, but I remembered the bill
years ago. The youthful offender idea, the idea that, oh,
you know, young people don't have the maturity to understand
what they did. Six Well, yeah, see, I was thinking seventeen. Right,
I don't even like seventeen, but I was thinking seventeen.
But now it's up to twenty six. Yeah, you could
(16:18):
run for political office.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
You could already be discharged from the military with a
full run.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Right, yep. The killer was twenty four at the time,
and his status is applied to retroactively. Oh that means horrible.
It didn't start kicking in when they revised the law.
It can go back to when you were committed to crime,
and if you were under twenty six, you have a
shot early.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
God, we have a lot of evil people who serve
in the legislature. I mean they're flat out evil. They
don't care people die.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
So we won't have even served thirty years. He did
get a life sentence with a chance for parole after
forty years. But here we are not even thirty years
and he has a chance now because of the youth
offender's status.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
They have a lot of that going on. There's a
lot of discounts going on. A few past the age
of sixty. They yeah, give you old persons. Yeah, they
give you elderly parole. All right, we got more coming up.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
You're listening to John and Ken on demand from KFI
Am six forty on the.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Radio one to four after four o'clock. I Heart app
for Johnny can on demand the podcast.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
And leave a message using the app for the moistline.
The calls are coming back tomorrow during the three o'clock hour.
You can use the app the microphone icon or call
the tell free number one eight seven seven Moist eighty six.
You've probably been hearing the news that the writer's strike
could be over soon. It has gone on for more
than one hundred and forty days. The writers went out
(17:43):
before the actors did, and apparently the two sides have
been meeting in one tip that it could be coming
to an end. John is the big wigs, and I
always liked that word. I just wanted to stick it
in big wigs. I've been attending the talk. Some of
them had big wigs. Bob iger Walt, Disney Company chief
executive apparently showed up the head of NBC Universal Studio group,
(18:05):
the Netflix co CEO, Ted Surrandos. These people participated in
the latest meeting, which leads them to believe, don't call
me in until you're gonna close the dale. That's kind
of how the top executives were. They talk. I don't
sit there and listen to the bass say and not
get anywhere. Then just let me I'm not coming. Sounds
like your guy's holding a cigar. I know it's a
(18:28):
fat big wig, right, it's sweating. Well, it says here
they're meeting today and tomorrow. There was some that say,
we're not as close as you think we are. But
last time they met in August apparently was ugly.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Well, because all the executives came in and and gave
them a lecture.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
That's what it said. Yes, they gave them a lecture.
That's what the Writers' Union told their members that all
they did was give us election. They've just berated us
or something like that. That's good negotiating tactic. Go and
break your employees on strike. Sure they're gonna sign. Oh,
probably within an hour.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
They'll sit there and agree. It's like, you know, you're right,
we are a bunch of jack offs. Okay, sure you've got us.
If I tell you, the ego of executives is just astonishing.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
It is absolutely astonishing.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
You've got people who are willing to risk starvation and
homelessness and you're gonna go in and yell at them.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Looks like both sides are motivated to do a deal
because if the strike goes on much longer, it's going
to be tougher to get back on track, even for
the twenty twenty four film slates. So that's what they're
starting to think about now. If the strike goes on,
there won't be much product for people to see in
theaters or even in the streaming services if they don't
pull some kind of a deal outside.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
I may have mentioned this, but this story has stuck
in my head. There's an actor and he appeared on
some show that was a hit. I forget it was
broadcast or cable right, it was a hit, show did
really well, He got paid for his work. Then they
sent it over to one of the streaming services. Well,
he says, in the years since, more people have seen
(20:11):
the show on the streaming service than ever saw it
when it was originally run. He goes, but I don't
get a dime for that. I don't get any money
for you know, the millions of people who've seen it
on streaming all these years. And that's the kind of
thing that they're trying to fix. It is what's the
argument against that.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
In fact, it starts with the pay bump. That's what
y're negotiating, the simple wages, looking for five, six seven
percent increase. But you're right, the second part of this
is viewership data and a payment system based on the
success of the streaming shows. That has been a real
sticking point between the two sides. And that's you know
(20:50):
something because you know, when actors were in sitcoms years ago,
they would be paid per episode, but they'd also hopefully
get a share of what they call the syndication money
down the road when that show keeps running and this
is before streaming, but like when it moves over to
TBS and one of the cable channels and runs, you know,
five episodes a day or something like Friends. Yeah, like
(21:10):
like TBS runs Friends night and day and out big
bang theory, it was probably run one hundred thousand times
every episode. Yeah, I'm guessing that the actors on that
show got a cut of that somehow, besides being paid.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Jerry paid like a more than a million dollars per
episode there for a while. Jerry what's his name, David Well?
Speaker 1 (21:31):
I forgot Larry David. Yeah, they created.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
They became billionaires from that from the syndication sale because
they were the creators.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
You what's the story stick in my head from last week?
Apparently as a book coming out and Larry David went
to a wedding a couple of years ago in France
for some big movie or radio or rather TV executive.
I guess it was at his table at the wedding
Elon Musk and apparently started brating Elon Musk for killing
(22:01):
people because he votes Republican. It was right after the
Texas Rember Velveld, Texas shooting, and I guess there were
witnesses to this, and he just started screaming at Elon
Musk for you have only Republican. You're killing kids. You
know you're killing kids. It almost sounded like the Pop episode.
Yeah right, But apparently that's how he can be in
real life.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Zary tries out material you see, if it makes everybody
uncomfortable enough, and they turn it into an episode Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
I love this line too, because we were just talking
about the last time they negotiated back in August, the
Writers Guild and the studio people. The negotiating committee for
the writers people phrased it this way, and this would
be writers with it. Their counter offer is neither nothing
nor nearly enough. You have to take a moment to
decipher that. All right, they didn't offer us nothing, but
they're not even close to what we need to get right,
So some sort of in between there is all they
(22:49):
could tell the people. But the word coming out this
week especially, I think the tell is the top executives
have shown up to be a part of this. It
just shows you that either were near the end or
they believe it's important that we get near the end.
It's got to be one of the other, or else
they wouldn't waste their time coming to these negotiating sessions.
The top executive heay the money for the streaming. I mean,
(23:10):
you wonder what Bob Iigrew does day by day, but
you know, walking into a meeting of a negotiating meeting
between the Writers Guild and the studios, I don't think
we would be exciting for him. But you've got to
have a lot of arrogance and ego.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Though to electure the people who make billions of dollars
for your company, that's that's that's ob noxious.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
We got the worse side of executives.
Speaker 4 (23:30):
You're listening to John and Ken on demand from KFI
AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Yeah, we we have execution news.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
Well we do. I mean there was an execution Oklahoma.
But that's not the big story. Although the thing about
that I found weird because some websites like to point
out what the last meal was, and it was meeting
potatoes but throwning there was okra and I stared at
the screen. I said, this guy wanted okra. That's part
of it. Uh, okra, it's a vegetable. Well, what does
it look like? I think it's white. Is it bitter
(24:01):
like you know? Yeah, it sounds like a bitter kind
of green or you know, I think I remember okra?
Speaker 5 (24:07):
Oh no, sorry, isn't it is?
Speaker 1 (24:09):
No, it's gre it's green. Okay, I think it's like
kale is it almost.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
Looks I'm looking at it right now, it almost My
first thought was.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Maybe a green bee.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
You know, remember at the beginning of the panic over
the shutdown, and everybody cleared out the shelves at the supermarkets. Yeah,
the only thing left was okra, And that's right. I
didn't remember what it looked like, but I do remember
that it was sitting there by itself in a basket,
(24:41):
a basket of okra, and everything else was gone, and
I'm thinking, boy, that must taste really bad.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
The big execution story is in Alabama, and here's why.
And we're reading from the New York Times. Bernard E.
Harcourt a professor of law and political theory at Columbia fun.
He began his lead clear represent think people in Alabama's
death row and continues to represent people's sentenced to death.
So clearly, the story we're looking at is very sympathetic
(25:07):
towards the condemned. And what we're talking about in Alabama
is something that's never been done before. They want to
kill their inmates using a brand new method called nitrogen hypoxia. Basic. Well,
I don't know if it's that terrible, but they've been
(25:28):
trying to come up with a new method because the
last time they tried to kill a guy that's been
a pain in the neck murderer, it didn't go well
with the stupid three drug, two drug whatever protocol. So basically,
what they do with nitrogen hypoxia they kill you because
you're going to breathe in high concentrations of nitrogen. It
(25:49):
starves you of oxygen until you die. It's really kind
of simple. They've already distributed the new execution protocol to
all the prison guards getting ready to do this. Is
one hundred and sixty men and women sixty five one
hundred and sixty men and five women waiting execution in Alabama.
(26:11):
When this happens, we're not sure, although we do know
the next innate that's supposed to be in line for this. Basically,
what they do is they put a mask around you
and it pumps nitrogen into your body.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
That's easy, right, So you're breathing, you'll be secured to
you'll be secured to a gurny.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Your nose and mouth would be covered by a mask,
and nitrogen will be pumped into your lungs until you suffocate.
Seventy eight percent of our atmosphere is nitrogen. It is
nitrogen rich.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Oxygen's only twenty one percent, and there's trace elements of
a few other things.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
So do you feel, I mean, are you well, that's
the question suffocate. You know, you would think suffocation can
be of the word is painful, but it can be
and mentally anguished. Right, No, you just go unconscious.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
It's just nitrogen gas renders the subject unconscious. Death ensues
within a few minutes. But what this Bernard Harcourt's worry
about worried about is if the mask does not fit
properly and a little oxygen seeps in, then the person
will be left gasping. See, because I have a little
bit of oxygen that will try to be sucking in,
he will be it won't be completely unconscious, and then
(27:25):
he's gonna suffocate rather than just go unconscious and become
brain dead.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
The man that may be the first to go is
Kenneth Eugene Smith. He's the one I mentioned that was well.
He was in the botched execution last November. They spent
hours on the gurney as they tried to find locations
to insert the intravenous lines without success, and then they
call behole thing off. So he writes, it's hard to
(27:52):
imagine a more ghastly ordeal than the march back a
second time to face the executioner and a new method
of execution that has possibly of it could be of
unknown agony. He's just a bedwetter, this guy.
Speaker 5 (28:04):
You know, I've asked this question before. Why don't we
just give people an overdose of propofol. I don't understand
what's wrong with that, or kill.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Michael Jackson exactly, or shoot them in the head.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Well, but I'm saying that, if we're trying to be humane,
why not do propofol? I mean, when you have Kolonoscopy's right, Ken,
we know you don't even see, you don't know, you
don't know what's going on.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
I like how you bond with Ken because you both
had colonosk Well, because you haven't we know we in
the colonoscary we do.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Yeah. Well, I mean that's the thing Deborah behind pent
to barbital, which they use in Texas, which seems to
have the same effect. You basically just go on into
unconsciousness eventually you die. I don't know why they don't
all use They're claiming they're having trouble getting these drugs,
so all right, but just getting nitrogen wouldn't be as
big a problem.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
I guess it's really it's really easy to kill people,
you know, they used to use this nitrogen method ven
arians did to snuff out your pets.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
You mean the terminally ill pets and stuff or just
pets there's too many of.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
Yeah, well, no, hopefully when they're terminally ill and you
want to put them down mainly.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Yeah, these nitrogen gas. In fact I hand John's right,
he writes, So the mask not fit properly, an oxygen
seep in the person maybe left gasping. It could result
in severe brain damage rather than death.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
They're always worried about murderers gasping during right, during the
killing processes.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
What do you care?
Speaker 2 (29:30):
You care these gasping Would you like a recording of
the uh.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
Of the art that killed? Yeah, he killed a woman
by the name of Elizabeth Doorlean Sennett in nineteen eighty eight.
He was hired to kill her, but she was gas husband. Huh.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
But the victims are gasping as they're bleeding out from
whatever atrocity there was committed.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
So we'll be watching this if they do carry out
the first execution. Now they've handed out the protocols, tells
me there's serious about this, and we don't know whether
it's going to occur this year. But this man would
be the first to go. So you know.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Now, the Venery Association says nitrogen gas is unacceptable for
animals other than chickens and turkeys.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
No, not a fan of ticket and turkeys. So you
can give a nitrogen gas. No dogs or cats, but
tickens and turkeys.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Give the nitrogen exit bag to a turkey because they
don't really are feeling.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Why is it funny? Why is it killing turkeys? It's funny.
It's not killing turkeys. It's funny. The exception being chickens
and turkeys is. But I don't understand that. All right,
we got more coming up. Johnny Kid, KFI as forty
live everywhere. iHeartRadio app Deborah Mark, Are you ready to go?
Speaker 3 (30:45):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (30:45):
I am. I know.
Speaker 5 (30:47):
What I was trying to do is put on a
news station that starts having news at three o'clock, so
I have a TV with news.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
Somebody to steal from you.
Speaker 5 (30:56):
Let me tell you no, it's very hard.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
Seven a half. Oh never mind. Hey, you've been listening
to the John and Ken Show. You can always hear
us live on KFI AM six forty one pm to
four pm every Monday through Friday, and of course anytime
on demand on the iHeartRadio app,
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.