BHS - 8A – The Great Warehouse Push Out | Falling in Love with AI… LITERALLY

The Great Warehouse Push Out! Falling in love with AI… literally. Do They Have a Case’ with Wayne Resnick.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to bill handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
KFI AM six forty bill handle here Monday morning, August
twenty six. Well, that war, regional war in the mid
East has calmed down a little tiny bit. Well, the
war is not yet a massive war yet. And I
explained that this morning at seven am. And you go
back on demand and take a listen to that. And

(00:29):
Kamala Harris bringing in a reported five hundred and forty
million dollars since the launching of her campaign a month ago.
It's pretty impressive. Trump has raised a reported one hundred
and thirty eight million dollars. But Trump's campaign is mature.
Kamala Harris is brand new, so you would think she
would have this initial push. You've heard of Nimby not

(00:52):
in my backyard. I'm going to give you a story
of nim Free not in my front yard. And this
is an LA Time story about Benjamin and Christine Granillo
bought forty years ago a two point two five acre
property in San Bernardino and what's going on in the
neighborhood in Bloomington where they live. Developers are converting the

(01:18):
ten Freeway and adjacent communities into a logistics corridor for
the good ship into southern California, from ports into online shopping.
We're talking about fulfillment centers. We're talking about these warehouses,
warehouses two million square feet right there in Bloomington. They've

(01:39):
already demolished one hundred and seventeen homes and yet another
distribution center. Let me tell you, the Inland Empire is
sort of a center for warehousing. It's unbelievable. So they
decided they weren't going to sell their home to a
developer most half and now looking out of their home

(02:02):
instead of this view they have, they have a view
now of rubble and there'll be a four hundred and
eighty thousand square foot fulfillment center. Their street is going
to become a truck route. Next door will be a
parking lot with hundreds of truck and trailer stalls. And
they didn't sell. Are they completely nuts? Yes they are.

(02:22):
And here's what the City Council of Bloomington did with
the supervisors. They voted to allow all of this to happen.
And of course lawsuits are flying. These hundreds of homes
will be destroyed, and the supervisor said, you know what,
it's a small price to pay, as most of the
cities say, you know why, we're going to get schools,
We're going to get sewers, we are going to get infrastructure.

(02:46):
When you hear about these developers coming in just grabbing
land and putting up a big time density apartments, condos, malls.
Today with developers have to do is they have to
give so much to the city and the neighborhoods. It's
completely insane. It used to be they would just put

(03:08):
up a forty unit apartment building. That's it. They'd get
the permit. It didn't matter what was happening next door
if they got the zoning. Today you want to put
up a forty story or a forty unit apartment building
or condo project or in this case, massive warehouse facilities. Well,
just to give you an idea of what they did.

(03:29):
Just in Bloomington, right they have a two hundred and
thirteen acre industrial park that is a business and they
went in front of the San Bordino County supervisors who
voted four zero to approve, by the way, several thousand
jobs to Bloomington, which is majority Latino, twenty three thousand

(03:49):
residents not rich, and what they're putting in infrastructure, new
streets with traffic lights, sidewalks, a modern sewer system. Oh,
let's talk about a modern school. Because there's a school
right next door that's falling apart, has been put up
there decades and decades ago. They say, we'll buy you

(04:10):
a new school. Just do a land swap. We'll take
the land from the district and we'll buy the land
over there, and we'll build you a new school. They
are spending tens well actually in this case, forty four
and a half million dollars just to the school district

(04:32):
for that school and the jobs. Let me tell you
what developers have to do. You want to put that
forty unit apartment building up, guess what you have to do?
Green belts, improvements to the sewer system, so the entire
area gets it. And so the lawsuits have been flying,
and effectively what they're saying is, we want to keep

(04:55):
our views, we want to keep our community, because this
is going to bust up our community, and it is. Now.
The question is where do you go, Nimby, Not in
my backyard. Let's do it someplace else where, someplace else.
How about San Bernardino is someplace else? Yet at the
same time people live in San Bernardino. And so what's

(05:19):
the answer. You know what, move out of San Bernardino
and move to Beverly Hills. You won't have that problem. Oh,
by the way, you probably could move to Beverly Hills
because these developers, in this case, for example, you sell
to them as those people did neighbors of the Grenillos.

(05:39):
The developer buys houses from them, or for them in
this case, or their neighbor. The neighbor gave up the
land and in exchange what they got was a one
point one to three million dollar piece of property. Their
property was worth two hundred and fifty thousand, and the
developer put up one point two million dollars for a

(06:02):
home for them, completely paid for. That's the way it's
going today because it is so difficult to get the
zoning in exchange, this is what is demanded not only
privately for neighbors, but also publicly for infrastructure for schools.
And uh, what can I tell you? You know, I

(06:25):
understand you don't want to live in a one point
two million dollar home. You'd rather live in your home
in the middle of Bloomington. Well, doesn't work that way.
It's hey, that's the wave of the future. And so
where are you gonna build it out? In the Mohave Desert?
I guess so, oh wait a sec that's land that
is restricted the Mohave Desert. Doesn't that protected land? I

(06:48):
don't know where you go with this, but this makes
sense to me as long it is it not in
my backyard. I know that sounds a touch hypocritical because
I am a hypocrite, But the bottom line is this
actually makes a lot of sense. I mean, thousands of
jobs versus a few hundred homes. Where do you go? Okay,

(07:11):
we can fall Now. I've been in love. You've been
in love and in love with whom, well, certainly your
loved one, But animals you're in love with? Well, how
about AI? And that's the problem. People are falling in
love with. They're getting addicted to AI voices. Even open

(07:34):
AI warns that this using the AI voice can be
quote emotional reliance. This Seagull Samuel, senior reporter for Vox.
Before joining Vox, she was a religion editor Atlantic and
then said, this is our last day together. Now, let

(07:56):
me ask you, she wasn't saying that to you. She
was saying that to the software open Ai tested out
GPT dash four oh latest generation. It speaks in its
own voice, and users were forming an emotional relationship with
what ai. I'm gonna tell you why. On the one hand,

(08:17):
it is dangerous and on the other hand, if you
look at it carefully, you're really falling in love with
straight out a computer and it's not really real even
though it seems real, okay, and open ai, even open
ai thinks there's that risk of this emotional reliance. And

(08:41):
open ai says the ability to complete tasks for the user,
also storing and remembering key details and using those details
in the conversation creates a compelling product experience and the
potential for over reliance and dependence. In other words, we're
doing a great job of basically fooling you into thinking

(09:02):
you're a real talking to a real person, and that's
our success. However, it could really hurt you. At least
they're admitting it, and they're even giving you a warning,
although they're moving balls to the wall ahead with this
open Ai. The I'm talking about the companies that do this.

(09:23):
Open Ai says, the ability to have a naturalistic this
is a quote naturalistic conversation with the user may heighten
the risk of anthromorphisation. I'm always get confused on that.
And that's what we do that giving human like qualities.
We do that to animals, you know, animals that talk
during the commercials. Even Nemo the fish, when he talks

(09:45):
to other fish, fish your friends, not food. Nemo really
doesn't talk to other fish in English, although we connect
with that. Isn't that cute? Right?

Speaker 1 (10:01):
Well, wilbur Hello, wilber.

Speaker 2 (10:05):
Mister ed the talking horse. So the problem is people
are becoming so addicted to this stuff and it becomes
so real because it used to be early on there
was some kind of system, but it used your voice
to come back and it was a little stilted, and
you could really tell it was a computer or talking

(10:29):
to you. Today, even a loved one, if you have
a recording your dead relative, if you have a recording
even a voice message left all of a sudden with AI,
it can turn into having conversations with a loved one
and that can be dangerous stuff. And as they tell you,

(10:53):
this isn't real at all. What you're talking to is
the machine that has just yet us And no, that's it.
It's a binary system in the end, you're simply talking
to a machine now, a very sophisticated machine that can
mimic human voice, and with algorithms, can actually anticipate what

(11:16):
someone would say based on the entire history of that someone,
every picture, every phone call, every message left right, every
written example, every letter that that person has ever produced.
Putting all of that together, you now are talking to
a computer that's as close to being real, and some

(11:38):
people straight out fall in love with their AI computer
straight out. Hey, what are you wearing tonight? Hey baby,
how about going out tonight? See that that's what scares me?
Your voice? No, No, that could be birth control. I remember,

(12:00):
I remember, yeah, I remember having a conversation. This is
what I'm frightened of is having a conversation from someone
I met, you know, years and years ago, telling me, Hey, Bill,
you're the best I ever had. Thank you for the
two hundred dollars. Okay, I'm gonna leave it at that.

Speaker 1 (12:24):
If you didn't leave anything, you put it all on
the table, you would leave something.

Speaker 2 (12:32):
Hey, Neil, what are you wearing now? This isn't me talking,
This is a computer. Oh my god. Maybe how am
I getting together after the show? All right, we're done.
Let's move on. Okay, since it is a Monday, it
is time for do they have a case with our

(12:52):
guest and part of the show. Do I guess? Now?
Do I actually use that word? You've been part of
the show for so long, Wayne.

Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yes, sir, Plus we're going to be together next week, yeah,
next day through Friday.

Speaker 2 (13:02):
Yep. Now right, Neil is filling in for Gary and Shannon.
I believe, And so you're you're coming aboard, which is
back to old times. You know it's I'm having terror
dreams already about it.

Speaker 1 (13:17):
All right, all right, here we go. I just want
to say before we get in this case, ladies, the
guy who's the subject of this case does appear to
be single, Von Davis. I want you to know something.

Speaker 2 (13:30):
Bill.

Speaker 1 (13:31):
You might think, why is he bringing up an old case?
This is a brand new decision. However, the situation goes
back forty years when Von Davis stabbed to death his
wife and was convicted of second degree murder and went
to prison, came out on parole and shot and killed
his ex girlfriend. So he gets charged for that, and

(13:55):
he decides instead of having a jury trial, he will
waive a jury trial and he will be heard and
sentenced by a three judge panel, which happens, and they
give him the death penalty. Now he goes up on
appeal and he says, you use some things as aggravating
factors in giving me the death penalty that you shouldn't

(14:17):
have used. And the appeals court said, that's right. Go
do it again, you three judge panel. So they get
him again and they go, okay, we will not consider
those things, but we're still looking at the fact that
you stabbed your wife to death before you shot your
ex girlfriend. So death penalty again. He appeals again. This
time he says, when you re sentenced me to death

(14:38):
the second time, you did not take into account my
prison adjustment. I was being a good boy in the prison.
You didn't give it any weight. And an appeals court says,
do it again. Now here's where we get to this case,
because you can imagine how many years this took to
get to this point. He comes back down. It's a

(14:59):
different three j judges because the original three one of
them passed away, two of them retired. Now it's three
different judges. They look at it and they say, just
the fact that you shot this woman after you'd been
convicted of stabbing your wife to death is enough to
give you, yes, sir, for the third time death penalty.

(15:22):
Here's the complaint from him. Now, way back thirty whatever
years ago, when I agreed to waive a jury and
be dealt with by this three judge panel. I agreed
to be dealt with by those three judges. You're not
those three judges. A deal has been broken. I get

(15:45):
another do over, or you have to throw out my
whole case. And the government says the deal you made
was not which three judges. There's no such thing as
making a deal that only certain judges will deal with
your case. That's not what the deal was. In fact,
it wasn't even a deal. You unilaterally waived your jury

(16:08):
trial in favor of three judge panel, which nobody could
have stopped you from doing anyway. So does he again
have a case or has he finally met the end
of the rope?

Speaker 2 (16:20):
I think he has met the end of the rope,
and it depends on the language of the appeals court
decision and the language of remanding cases. When a case
is sent down, when an appeals has been filed and
the appeal is granted to the defendant, the court will

(16:41):
send it down for example, another trial or another sentencing.
And the question, and this is in this case, does
it say it will be remanded to the court as
opposed to it is remanded to that judge or that
panel of the court. And I don't think that appeals

(17:01):
Court said that. I don't think names were mentioned, and
they normally don't. It is it goes to the court
and the court said, And the fact that if it's
a different judge, I don't think that matters, because judges
are deemed non biased. It doesn't really matter who the

(17:23):
judge is. It is the system that it prevails here,
and the court met the requirements of the system. He's
a loser and he goes down and he is going
to get the death penalty, which means if this is California,
it means absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, I

(17:44):
heard of defendants asking for the death penalty knowing that
they weren't going to get fried or in this case, injected.
It's because it's better food on death row.

Speaker 1 (17:57):
Yeah, and better conditions in a lot of ways. Well,
so number one, you're right. Number two, serious question is
somebody leaking these cases to you in advance because it's
not just that you got it right. You get it
right a lot, But the thing you said is specifically
what they said. Judges are fungible. It is assumed that

(18:18):
any judge is an unbiased, impartial, reasonably competent judge. That's
why you can never have a dealer or an agreement
that it will only be a certain judge. And can
you imagine if that was the rule every single time
somebody comes back on a remake and the original judge
is not available, that's the end of their case and

(18:39):
they get to walk.

Speaker 2 (18:41):
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. And to answer your question,
does someone leak the case to me? No, No one
leaks the case to me. This is always a case
to first impression where I've heard it for the first time,
a legal term where the court hears it for the
first time. I have heard it for the first time.
Although I must tell you I do have a dartboard

(19:02):
that and sometimes it works.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
It's lucky throws.

Speaker 2 (19:08):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (19:09):
Just to put a cap on what you said. If
it was California, this is Ohio, and he's not going
to get executed in Ohio anytime soon, because you may
recall the governor suspended executions in Ohio, why while they
deal with methods of execution, and.

Speaker 2 (19:25):
The same thing in California has not been eliminated, is
simply on moratorium because of Gavin Newsom. And we'll see.
Are they going to reinstitute it? I'm sure they're not.
Although this Supreme Court is not going to hold it unconstitutional,
it will not. There is no chance that it is
under the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual. As a matter

(19:47):
of fact, they will uphold a traffic ticket that gets
the death penalty. I am convinced of that. Okay, moving on, Wayne, all.

Speaker 1 (19:58):
Right, so you said a lot of these things geop
political things have calmed down, but this woman has not
calmed down from buying a bunch of guns. Here's what happened.
And if you want to know how this can happen,
when I tell you what happened, it's in Arizona. She
shows up at a gun store and she's looking at guns,
and while she's looking at guns, she's on the phone,
and she's also taking pictures of some of the guns

(20:20):
and sending them somewhere. And she ends up buying seven
guns and fills out all the paperwork and off she goes,
and she doesn't take the guns with her. She's gonna
come back and pay for them or pay off the rest,
puts it posit down anyway. She goes, and as soon
as she leaves, the owner of the gun store calls
the ATF and says, hey, man, I'm that was really

(20:41):
sus I'm pretty sure this woman is a straw buyer.
She's not buying the guns for herself. She's not the
actual buyer of the guns. I don't know who is.
I'm just saying you might want to take a look.
So when she comes back to get the guns, the
ATF agent is there and he says, hey, man, I'm
really concerned that you buy these guns for somebody else.

(21:03):
What do you have to say about it? She says,
oh no, and he goes, hey, mind if I look
at your phone, and like a dummy, she says sure,
and he goes in there and he opens up WhatsApp
and there's a bunch of messages between her and her
convicted felon son, who is, as you know, not allowed
to buy guns, about her buying all these guns for him.

(21:26):
Boom busted. Now she goes up on appeal and says,
you cannot convict me of making a false statement in
the acquisition of a firearm. Here's why she's got two
arguments argument. The first, criminalizing lying on an ATF form

(21:47):
violates the Second Amendment. I have a right to put
something on the form that I know is not true.
You want to deal with that one for yeah, before
we get to the other one.

Speaker 2 (22:01):
Yeah, that went far. I That, by the way, is
very similar to a case where someone came in robbed
the seven eleven with a gun and argued it is
his Second Amendment right to walk into a seven eleven
and put a gun to a clerk's head and ask
for money. It's a Second Amendment right. That's akin to

(22:22):
that one. Okay, So let's dismiss that one almost immediately. Okay.
Now let's sake as well. Yeah, of course, all right,
let's go on this number two.

Speaker 1 (22:31):
Okay. I mean, there's some creativity at play here, I
will tell you. So the problem is, her son is
a felon, can't have a gun. She bought the guns
for her son, she lied on the form. Here's what
she says. All right, the felon in possession statute is

(22:52):
unconstitutional because it's unconstitutional. My son and actually is legally
allowed to possess these guns. And therefore, when I lied
and said I'm the buyer of the gun, even though
that wasn't true, it's immterial because the person who really

(23:17):
was buying them in essence is allowed to have them
because the statute that forbids him is unconstitutional.

Speaker 2 (23:25):
Okay, well that's no, that's not just creativity, Okay, I mean,
that's right into insanity. This is one of those where
the courts, whichever judge or appeals court heard it, they
go home, or they meet at the water cooler and go,
guess which one I got today? This one is a doozy.

(23:46):
And of course, the felon in possession of a gun,
I don't know if it's ever even been attacked on
constitutional grounds, frankly, because I don't know if what lawyer
would ever make that argument, even a gun advocate, crazy
gun owning lawyer would make that argument. So it was
one of those I think it would have should have

(24:06):
been dismissed with two words no, no, And that would
be the case. So Wayne, don't tell me I'm wrong,
because it's impossible for me to be wrong.

Speaker 1 (24:17):
Oh no, you are right, You are so right. And
here's the best part of this. She comes up with
this convoluted argument first to try to make the case
that the kid is allowed to have guns because the
statute that forbidsham is unconstitutional. Therefore it doesn't matter if
she lied. But here's the crazy thing that she and

(24:37):
her attorneys. In fact, I want to scroll back up
and see if it says who her attorneys were, counsel
Wendy Overmyer, oh from assistant Federal Public Defenders there. Okay,
So here's the thing, and they should have known this.

(24:58):
There's already a Supreme Court that says it doesn't matter
if the real purchaser is allowed to own guns. Lying
about it is material.

Speaker 2 (25:11):
It's lying on a federal form.

Speaker 1 (25:14):
The entire argument that she made was already foreclosed.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
Right, Okay, two easy ones you get. You threw me
two easy ones today. Well, first one legal issue that
should have been discussed and was second one. Thank you
for that. You just added to my percentage of right decisions.
All right, we're done and I will catch you next
toe you next week, yeah, Monday and throughout the rest
of the week. All right, we're done, guys, coming up tomorrow.

(25:41):
It is Amy at five am with a wake up
call and comes back. Thanks Michelle for hanging out twenty
six years on this show and she had to come
back and slum kno Is with us. I don't know
why I mean mentioning his name. Neil and I are
once again here. This is KFI AM six forty Live

(26:02):
everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. You've been listening to the
Bill Handle Show. Catch my show Monday through Friday, six
am to nine am, and anytime on demand on the
iHeartRadio app.