11-12-25 - 9am - The Salami Sandwich Verdict

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Brownie.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
I was listening to the blond Lady that interrupts the
end of your show yesterday. They were talking about how
that soap the spencer in the men's room smells like
spicy pickles. It don't smell like pickles. I snuck in
there and beat in it.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Are you are you quite happy now? Why?

Speaker 3 (00:24):
Well, because you you said that you were a little
You're gonna play those rules of engagement ones?

Speaker 1 (00:30):
Probably just the one, yeah, just the ones. It does.
It does walk up to the line. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (00:35):
I don't think it necessarily crosses the line, but I
think it does.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
It's like looking over the edge of the line.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (00:41):
Yeah, it's looking over the edge of the line. And
then I got so attenthee my my lawyer in Tennis
went up. So I totally miss whether or not they actually.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
Included all the elements of the rules of engagement. I
don't believe that we didn't get a text. I don't
think the text number was in there. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (00:59):
Uh, thing about download your podcasts now, I think about streaming.

Speaker 4 (01:03):
It was.

Speaker 1 (01:03):
It was all about the little red microphone catching the
talk back yeah, yeah, the talkback button. Yeah. I would say,
here's what I would say.

Speaker 3 (01:12):
To that particular goober a for effort, Yeah to do though, yeah,
a for effort you would. Uh you you made me
very uncomfortable, not you the listener. Uh So those rules
of engagement are probably going into the archive. But again
I want to emphasize that I'm impressed with your ingenuity

(01:34):
and your creativity. Definitely you got somebody else involved to
so it wasn't just you, you by yourself, you know,
which probably better My guess isn't his life it mostly
is just by himself, which is you know, this was
his excuse to get somebody else involved. So yeah, well, anyway,
let's must get started. But do let me let me
do remind you that our text line is three three

(01:56):
one zero three keyword micro Michael.

Speaker 4 (01:59):
Don't mean no need to text Mandy at that number.
She's not gonna be able to read it.

Speaker 3 (02:04):
Yeah, you don't need to text man, you don't need
to text anybody else in that number. And if you're
texting me at any other number, I'm not reading it
and I'm not seeing it. We have that because of
the nationally syndicated weekend program, which is three hundred and
fifty plus stations, and then we moved we transferred that
from that station over there. Now that I can say KOA,

(02:25):
we transferred it over to KOA. So you've got to
use three three one zero three if you want me
to see your text message. And again we emphasize how
important text messages are and the rules.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Of engagement, although that w one't failed to do so.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
Primarily because it's a great way to if I say
something incorrect, I mispronounce a word, I stumble over a word, Yeah,
I do something stupid, which is has been known to
occasionally happen, then the way for you to derail the
program is to point that out to me on a
text message. Or if there's some subject that is really

(02:56):
just driving you nuts and you really want me to
talk about it, sometimes, particularly if it's a stupid topic,
I'll start chasing the squirrel.

Speaker 1 (03:04):
I want to go back. I am an idiot, and
I freely admit that. See I knew. I don't know
how those got carried over across the hallway. I don't know.

Speaker 3 (03:13):
I don't know how that network thing works, So I
don't know how you were able to I'm the dumbest
son of a bitch in the world right now, Yeah,
I am right now because I'm sitting here working with you,
that's why.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
And you asked for me. I know that's the sad
part I did.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
But you know, as you often say, be careful what
you asked for, right, Yeah, that's right. So I'm stuck now,
and now I can't do anything about it. I forget
whether it was this week or sometime before I came
over here to Kaway.

Speaker 1 (03:42):
Do you remember the guy that threw the subway sandwich?

Speaker 3 (03:44):
In fact, I said something stupid about the subway sandwich.
I said, I forgot whether it was a six foot.

Speaker 1 (03:49):
Or a twelve foot sandwich.

Speaker 3 (03:50):
Did you guys ever sell six or twelve foot subway sandwiches?

Speaker 1 (03:53):
Of course they're the party subs. Yeah, the party subs, okay, and.

Speaker 4 (03:56):
Then people would come in after ordering it and freak out.

Speaker 5 (03:59):
I didn't think was that bad?

Speaker 3 (04:02):
Six feet versus six inches, yeah, twelve feet versus twelve inches, yes. Anyway,
I said something about the fact that I wasn't sure
that that case should have been brought in the first place,
and as we know, the verdict was that he was found. Now,
I want to make sure you understand something about verdicts
in criminal cases. A not guilty verdict simply means that

(04:27):
the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for
the twelve jurors that all elements, every single element, of
the crime was committed. A not guilty verdict does not
equate to a verdict of innocence. In fact, my entire lifetime,
I only know of one, maybe two, one in Colorado

(04:50):
or I forget where the other one is, where a
judge has been so overwhelmed by the innocence of a
criminal defendant that after the jury returned a not guilty verdict,
the judge actually said, the jury has found you not guilty,

(05:11):
and that is the law, and so you are not guilty. However,
I am going to express my opinion in this case.
In my opinion is that you are innocent of these charges.
You should never been charged in the first place. Then
he went on to lambask the district attorney or the
prosecutor for bringing the charges in the first place. So
this verdict and d C In the Federal District Court

(05:33):
of the District of Columbia, the jury acquitted a guy
be name the Shawn Charles Dunn back on November sixth.
The charge was a misdemeanor assault charge for throwing a
subway salami sandwich. Now I do only the swami sandwich
makes the difference, or not to me salami or you
know it's an Italian or it's a salami.

Speaker 1 (05:54):
You just says salami sandwich. I mean it's heart. It's
in the name. Well on depending on the subway it
hit hard, can I remember?

Speaker 3 (06:00):
Now, with all due respect to when you own subways,
this is a subway.

Speaker 1 (06:04):
In fact, I'm not even sure.

Speaker 3 (06:06):
Yes it does say specifically subway, but this is a
DC Subways chop. So the bread may have been baked
four days ago.

Speaker 4 (06:15):
And it could be toasted too. If you toast one
of those sandwiches can get pretty rough.

Speaker 3 (06:20):
Anyway, he's charged with throwing a subway salami sandwich at
a Customs and Border Patrol officer. Now a lot of
people would hail that verdict as a triumphant active free
speech against federal overreach. But when you look closer, when
I look closer at it, this popped up in my
timeline yesterday over on X which you should be following

(06:42):
me on X at Michael Brown USA. When I looked
upon the case and what was posted on X it
really I'll tell you what this is a case, well,
not a federal overreach, but this is the kind of
case that could erode protection that keep society orderly. It's

(07:07):
one more little notch in the progressive Marxist movement of
people not being held accountable for criminal acts. And this
act to me at first, did seem trivial. You got
a sandwich versus an armored agent. I mean he's in
full body armor. But it does that kind of a
precedent that blurs the line between expression and violence, and

(07:30):
it also potentially invites chaos for law enforcement and quite frankly,
for everybody, you know, all of us as we walk
down the streets. You know, last night you can't call
me paranoid, but which I am sometimes. Last night I
met a friend for dinner at the Dragon. You ever
been to the Columbine Steakhouse over on Federal Boulevard. Just

(07:52):
it's just south of sixth Avenue on Federal Not okay, Well,
it's it's this dive that's been around for I want
to say fifty years or more, and it is one
side is serve yourself. On the other side is table service.
And it's I mean the place truly is at least
fifty or seventy five years old, and it's just you

(08:12):
get a really good steak cooked precisely the way you
want it. You get baked potato fries and you get it.
You get an iceberg lettuce salad with your choice addressing,
and I mean it's just chopped up iceberg lettuce and
that's it. I mean, there's nothing fancy about this place.
Oh they do have a full bar, and it's reasonably priced,
very reasonably priced. But it's on this part of Federal

(08:35):
Boulevard that is just sketchy. And I fully confess this.
So I realized when I get back in the car
last night that, oh, I don't have enough gas to
get all the way back down to Hiland's Ranch. So
I thought, wow, I really love to put gas. You know,
this is late at night last night because I didn't
stay up late. Now I'm a big boy, Now I
can stay up late. And I thought, do I really want?

(08:57):
So I drove down Federal so I found they very
well lit. I think it was a Conicco station. I'm
not sure, but I was obviously exercising as extreme situational awareness,
because that's not exactly the best part of town. That's
in fact, that's the part of town where Dragon and
I have always recommended if you want to buy an
illegal gun or we always have these criminals that somehow

(09:19):
have a felony record, yet they somehow end up owning
a gun, we always recommend it. If you want to
do that too, then place you can do it, just
a Federal boulevard because you always find it there. So
this case of throwing a subway sandwich, I was thinking
about it last night as I was quickly putting just
enough gas in the car to get back into regular civilization.

(09:41):
This incident happened back on August tenth, and if you
remember back in August tenth, this was during Trump's so
called I wouldn't call it this, but people called it
the cabal, referred to it as the militarized takeover of
Well truly was a crime rental city. My very first

(10:02):
trip to d C in the late nineteen seventies early
nineteen eighties was I mean, it was a hell hole.
You walked across Lafayette Park on the north side of
the White House toward Saint John's Church and you entered
into mad Max Area. It was truly Mad Max Area.
So I don't see DC today as being that way,

(10:26):
although like and it certainly take you to places in
DC that are like that. So back on August ten,
that's the time period when Trump had ordered this surge
of federal agents from CBP, ICE and the FBI into
the city, and that became a flashpoint in all the
anti trumpers and what the critics called pro crime activists
all came out and they were all just going crazy.

(10:49):
So this guy named Sean Dunn, he's thirty six years old,
he's an Air Force veteran, and he's a former I
thought he was a current. I knew he'd gotten fired.
I thought he was at the time, But he was
a former employee of the Department of Justice. He worked
at the DOJ as a pairalegal. And he is captured

(11:09):
on video shouting at a group of Customs and Border
Patrol cops, yelling why are you here? I don't want
you in my city, And then he took his foot
long twelve inch not twelve twelve inch swamy sub and
threw it at point blank range at CBP officer Gregory Larmore.

Speaker 1 (11:31):
Now the sandwich.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
Hit and reportedly, according to some stories, if you're into
Lexus nexas and you do a search for this story,
you'll find lots of stories describing it as exploding the
exploding subway sandwich with onions and mustard. Now, the defense
lawyers argued that it stayed mostly in the wrapper and
it didn't cause any real harm.

Speaker 1 (11:54):
And then once he threw.

Speaker 3 (11:55):
The sandwich, because I mean, it takes a tough guy
to throw a sandwich at a cop, right, Well, what
did he do?

Speaker 1 (12:00):
He fled the scene. They got arrested that night at
his home.

Speaker 3 (12:06):
Jean Pierre Jane Piro, the US attorney for the District
of Columbia, you know, former Fox News host. She pushed
for a felony assault charge. She took it to a
DC grand jury. They declined to indict. In August of
this year. He was then charged by her with a

(12:27):
misdemeanor under Title eighteen, which is the criminal Code of
the US Code, Section eleven a one. That particular section
says this, it prohibits forcibly assaulting, resisting, or interfering with
a federal officer in their duties. Now, throwing a subway sandwich,
you would think might be a fairly open and shot case.

(12:50):
The trial was four days in federal court four days
about throwing a sandwich. That's why initially my thought was, Ah,
this was a waste of time. The sandwich. The guy
was in full body armor. Okay, I'm wrong, I'm absolutely wrong.
The jury deliberated for seven hours and then they agreed,

(13:11):
you know, they all came to the agreement and they
delivered the not guilty verdict that some legal experts out
they out there say that it really amounted to jury nullification.
What's jury nullification. Well, that's a very rare but legal
practice where jurors equit based on their conscience even if

(13:32):
the facts and the law point to guilt. So let's
say there are five elements of the crime of forcibly assaulting, resisting,
or interfering with the federal officer and their duties. And
let's say that Judge Piro or her team were able
to prove one, two, three, four, five of those elements

(13:53):
and the facts match up with the elements, and the
defendant is the one rightfully charged with violating Tied eighteen
Section one to eleven A one. The jury goes in
and the jury says, yes, we believe he's guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt based on what the law says is
illegal and what he did, but we don't believe that

(14:16):
he should have been charged in the first place. So
we really don't care. Because the jury can do whatever
they want to do. It it's called jury nullification, so they
can decide that based on their own conscience, that they're
going to find the guy not guilty. And that's why
I said it's so important to understand the difference between
a guilty and a not guilty verdict, because a not

(14:37):
guilty verdict does not mean you're innocent. It simply means
we don't think you've proved all the elements of the crime,
and or as in this case, they thought, you know,
he's probably guilty of violating Title eighteen, Section one to
eleven a one, but we don't think there was any reason.

Speaker 1 (14:58):
To charge this guy.

Speaker 3 (15:00):
In response to that, the Attorney General vowed to crack
down and she said that quote, if you touch any
law enforcement officer, we're going to come after you.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
Now.

Speaker 3 (15:10):
As I said earlier, he lost his job. But in hindsight,
this acquittal has turned this guy in kind of a
folk hero among all these left being activists. There are
posters of him mid throwing that are popping up all
around the district of Columbia. There's even a GoFundMe raising
money for his defense, and probably, you know, after that,
the lawyers will probably just turn over the extra money

(15:31):
to the MRA. May they'll represent some other defendants in
these in these kinds of cases. But at its core,
here's where I started to change my mind. At its core,
throwing a sandwich at anybody a copper otherwise is not
free speech. It is indeed an act of violence. I

(15:53):
know it's a sandwich, and you know, I might be
more offended by tuna fish that's going to be more
slimy or whatever than say salami. But it is a
clear violation of most statutes in most in fact, every
state of assault and battery. And those are laws that
apply universally and not just to federal agents like you

(16:15):
know from IS or CBP.

Speaker 1 (16:17):
And then you get to our common law.

Speaker 3 (16:21):
Under common law and in statutes in all fifty states,
batteries defined this way, Battery is an intentional, unwanted physical
contact that is harmful or offensive, even if it does
not cause injury. An assault involves creating a reasonable fear

(16:43):
of that kind of contact.

Speaker 1 (16:44):
That's why you have assault and battery.

Speaker 3 (16:47):
So it involves direct offensive touching without consent. So in
this case the specific charge under eighteen section one eleven.
But I think there's a principal larger You can't just
throw food at anyone or anything or another person without

(17:09):
facing some potential criminal charges. And for civilians not in
body armor, it could be a simple assault, which is
a misdemeanor in most states, which is usually punishable by
a fine of maybe up to a year in jail,
or en battery. In DC, simple assault carries similar penalties also,

(17:29):
So this is a slippery slope, and I'll explain why.

Speaker 6 (17:33):
You know, Michael, I don't know if you thought that
soft porn garbage was cute, but it was disgusting. I
won't be listening to your show with you keeping upset
sort of garbage, just telling you you lost a listener.

Speaker 1 (17:54):
Well, mister Redbeard, bye, Yeah. I mean, if one little.

Speaker 3 (18:01):
Thing turns you off, then I would say you are
closed minded and we told you going into that, or
I should say Dragon told you going into that, because
I didn't know what it was. Dragon just said I'm
dancing on a line here. I said, okay, Well, as
long as you think it's that FCC complant dance that line,
and we both agreed we drag and I both agreed

(18:24):
that it was like, Yeah, we didn't like it either,
but we gave the guy credit for being creative.

Speaker 4 (18:32):
And then if you shut your ears off and left
that talk back then and not listen to our explanation
as to that, probably not.

Speaker 1 (18:39):
We won't do that again. Yeah, we are here to misbehave,
but we are here.

Speaker 3 (18:43):
To have fun, and we are here to misbehave, and
we're here to inform and to be serious and have
fun and everything else, which leads me to another point.
Radio is an incredibly intimate medium, and it's even more
so than it was when I was a growing up
because growing up it was predominantly you know, you had

(19:04):
a transistor radio in your bedroom or in the living room,
somewhere you had you know, you had a radio that
you carried with you. And then we had the advent
of the iPod, and suddenly, you know, we got earbuds,
we got headphones, and now we got things plugged in
our ears. And people are listening at work, and they're
listening on podcasts and they're streaming, they're listening every possible
way that you can, that you can possibly imagine. And

(19:25):
I've always believed, and I've always tried to couch this
program as I am talking to you.

Speaker 1 (19:33):
Now, you may think I'm talking to you, but I'm
really just talking to you. Oh you think I'm talking
to you, Yeah, I am talking to you too. I think.

Speaker 3 (19:42):
In fact, in my very early days of radio, I
kept a little toy soldier over here on the console
to remind myself that I was talking to one person,
not talking to you all, not talking to all of you,
talking to one person. And I want the intimacy. I
want the intimacy that you and I are friends, that

(20:05):
you and I have a mental telepathy conversation going on,
that I am telling you exactly what I think, as
if you and I were sitting at where these Starbucks
where the briests are getting ready to go and strike
and sipping at which I don't like coffee, but we're
sipping on, you know, a six shot, you know, cappuccino

(20:26):
or a latte or whatever you say. I don't mean
what you call them, that wouldn't even know what that is.
But you're six shots of whatever it is that you get.
And I'm having a diet coach, and I'm telling you
what I think about things, and You're sending me a
text message about how you think I'm right or wrong
about something. And so it's a very intimate relationship between
me and my audience. And I adore this audience. So

(20:51):
when I get this text from number from Goober Goober
number four seven three five, this says this, Mike. The
text number was included, but mister dumfeces, the audience for
the show is still called the derogatory g name Goober.
So off Koa goes on my radio and a public

(21:12):
file response is sent to the station. By the way,
Democrats mainly call people.

Speaker 1 (21:17):
Names, not others.

Speaker 4 (21:18):
Goober's is a candy. We even got some delivered to
us by some Goober listeners.

Speaker 1 (21:24):
It was delicious.

Speaker 3 (21:26):
Jimmy, help you draft the letter to go into the
public file. I'm more than happy to do that, Goober.
While if if you don't have the ability to be
self effacing, if you don't have the ability to laugh
at yourself, and if you don't have the ability to
be a part of a family of people that have

(21:48):
a good time talking about serious stuff, then maybe you should,
you know, write your letter and put in the public file.

Speaker 1 (21:57):
And go elsewhere.

Speaker 3 (21:58):
You can go over and listen to there's another guy
that's on the air right now who's preaching to you,
So you can go listen to that.

Speaker 1 (22:03):
If you want to. That's fine. But goober.

Speaker 3 (22:07):
While people who do not understand the term might consider
it to be offensive, it is more commonly used in
a lighthearted, friendly or endearing way to describe a silly
person like me, especially when you used jokingly or affectionately
among friends. So if you don't want to be my friend,

(22:28):
if you don't want to be one of our goobers,
that okay, that's fine.

Speaker 1 (22:32):
But I find it really.

Speaker 3 (22:33):
Sad, truly sad that you're offended by that term. It
shows me that you've got mmm, you're just stuffer than
a blame and you're just lighten up, Buco. Lighten up
because on this program you will get insightful, serious information

(22:58):
delivered all usually sometimes because you'll find out if you listen.
But if you're not, that's fine. You'll find that I'll
stumbled over a word, I'll mispronounced something, or I'll get
my words twisted around because I'm going one hundred miles
an hour describing something balls and so it's yeah, earballs,
So it's it's it's your loss because we know what
our numbers are and they're good, and we're happy and

(23:21):
we have a great time. And I would I would
just ask all the other goobers out there, all the
other goobers they've been listening to me for you know,
the past twenty almost twenty years now in radio, that
if if you think after all this time and you
still think it's offensive, well I'm not going to change.
But two, I'd like to hear from you. And on

(23:42):
the other hand, if you understand the whole shick about
goobers and Gooberville, then I'd like to hear from you too.
I would really encourage it with all of the.

Speaker 1 (23:56):
Do you realize what? Do you realize what I was
just talking about.

Speaker 3 (23:59):
I was talking about an assault on a federal law
enforcement officer and giving you a detailed explanation of why
I originally kind of blew that case off because I
thought it was overcharging. And now I've come to realize
that I think I was wrong about that, and I
think it shows that that jury in DC, regardless of

(24:21):
what the evidence said, decided to nullify themselves, and even
though they probably unanimously agreed that he was guilty of
the charges, decided they were going to send the signal
that they didn't want people to be harmed. And so,
in hindsight, my realization is that verdict sends exactly the

(24:42):
wrong message. It makes everybody's lives less safe. It makes
us all subject to anybody who gets poed about anything,
to you be willing to just go throw a sandwich
in your face?

Speaker 1 (25:00):
How would you like that, goober? How would you like that?

Speaker 2 (25:03):
Hey?

Speaker 5 (25:04):
Mo, I still can't find Michael and Dragon? Why you knucklehead?
They're on at eight fifty am and nine am.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
Yeah, but mo, which is it?

Speaker 5 (25:16):
Why I had amight a U? Eight fifty am is
the radio? Nine am is the time? Yeah but mo,
how's a guy supposed to know?

Speaker 1 (25:26):
You, knucklehead?

Speaker 5 (25:27):
You're probably like the rest of the goobers.

Speaker 1 (25:32):
So let's go back to this verdict really quickly of
this guy named Don for throwing the subway sandwich to
a lot of people.

Speaker 3 (25:39):
That might add acquittal that not guilty verdict might feel
like a win against Trump and the crackdown on illegal
immigration is taking place, But actually it's a textbook and
somebody mentioned this in the text lining you knew exactly
where I was going with this. It's a sliper slope
that could end up undermining the rule of law for
all of us.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
Because if a sandwich.

Speaker 3 (26:00):
Throw is going to be excused as harmless protest, or
even worse, free speech, then where's the line. Think about
how the situation could escalate. Well, one, you can start
getting heavier or more disruptive food items. If a slammy
sub is okay, what about a really dense sandwich, something

(26:21):
loaded with fillings. It could sting or bruise or breed,
or a pie, or even a milkshake you know milkshaking
incidents that's pretty popular in politics, modified projectiles. What if
the sandwich had a rock hidden inside for weight, It's
no longer just food, it's a weapon. But if the
rock alone weighs as much as a heavy sandwich, say
one or two pounds, do you still think that's free speech?

Speaker 1 (26:43):
No, it's not.

Speaker 3 (26:44):
Then you have all the issue of weight and material threshold.
How heavy's too heavy? A light A lightweight rock would
that be okay? So it's under a pound, that's okay. No,
you see this as a slipery smoke. There's no universal,
universal acceptable way of throwing something and hitting somebody with something,
And take the cop out of the picture. What would

(27:07):
you do if you were walking down the street, You're
walking down Broadway or Colfax or a federal like I was,
and somebody decides they're going to throw something at you.
Who knows what it is and who knows whether or
not it's dangerous? And then you got the problem of
just the repetition in the scale. Can somebody throw a

(27:27):
hundred sandwiches at different agents or maybe just one agent
all the same day if one is excused, why not
multiple throwings? This won't stop at agents. If it's okay
to Pelton Ice or a CBP officer, why not you?

Speaker 1 (27:42):
Why not me?

Speaker 3 (27:44):
Imagine a protester standing out here because I call somebody
a goober smacking me in the face with a messy sandwich.
Would I have a right to defend myself? I think
I would. Would I have a lawsuit?

Speaker 1 (27:54):
Yes? Could I file a criminal complaint? Yes?

Speaker 3 (27:58):
Law enforcement is not forbidden from responding. We have to
remember that officers can and should use reasonable force.

Speaker 1 (28:05):
To stop threats.

Speaker 3 (28:07):
But in the split second, how do they know it's
just a sandwich and not something lethal.

Speaker 1 (28:13):
You can't.

Speaker 3 (28:13):
You couldn't counter with your own projectile without risking charges yourself.
In reality, all this constitutes battery in every single jurisdiction
in every state in this country. It's illegal, it's unacceptable,
and it's true, regardless of your politics and jury nullification.
I have no problem with jury notification because it is

(28:34):
a check on over zealous prosecutions, but it risks nullifying
laws altogether when the jurors do so based on ideology.
And because we live in such a polarized political society,
this could lead to selective law enforcement excusing a left

(28:58):
leaning throne sandwich while cracking down on a light right
leaning throne sandwich, or vice versa. That would result in
a society where personal safety starts to hinge on the
crowd's sympathies, not impartial justice. So I rethought this a lot.

(29:18):
This is not about stifling descent. Peaceful protest is vital.
I absolutely support peaceful protest. But when your expression, even
with a stupid subway sandwich, turns into throwing it at somebody,
whether it's a cop or somebody standing on the street corner,
that crosses into territory that potentially endangers us all.

Speaker 1 (29:42):
Now his acquittal, I.

Speaker 3 (29:44):
Know too many on the left it probably feels cathartic,
but let me tell you what it really does. It
chips away at that thin line that protects order in
our society. I had a quick overreaction to that story
when it first broke, because there's a lawyor I thought, now,

(30:07):
you know what, there's all of this turmoil going in.
You got people that are throwing rocks and tearing down
statues and doing everything else. You got to be focusing
on them. But the more I thought about it, the
more I realized that no, we let one get away,
and that somebody said on the text line, it is
the broken windows theory. You let little things go like this,

(30:30):
they become in boldened. Oh I can throw a six
inch and I can throw a twelve inch. Now I'll
put a metal rod. I'll put a piece of rebar
in a subway sandwich, you know, bread, and I'll wrap
it up and I'll throw that and I'll break somebody's
nose or guide out somebody's eye. Got to be very,
very careful, and let's not just let the idea that oh,

(30:51):
it's just a subway sandwich. Let's not get that in
the way that if we start letting these things go,
Livan