Behind the Blue Line: Qualified Immunity Exposed

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Two Cops One Donut podcast.
The views and opinionsexpressed by guests on the
podcast are their own and do notnecessarily reflect the views
of Two Cops One Donut, its hostor affiliates.
The podcast is intended forentertainment and informational
purposes only.
We do not endorse any guest'sopinions or actions discussed
during the show.
Any content provided by guestsis of their own volition and

(00:20):
listeners are encouraged to formtheir own opinions.
Furthermore, some content isgraphic and has harsh language,
viewer discretion advised and isintended for mature audiences.
Two Cops One Donut and its hostdo not accept any liability for
statements or actions taken byguests.
Thank you for listening.
Man, that intro guitar gets meevery time.

(00:50):
That's some smooth playing.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
Welcome back.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
Two cops, one donut.
I'm your host, sergeant EricLevine.
I got with me today the normalcrew.
I got Mr Banning Sweatland asmy co-host what's up, buddy?
And then we got Detective MattThornton two weeks in a row, so
this is a sweet treat.
And then our two special gueststonight is the von kleem from

(01:14):
force science.
What's up, buddy, I know?
And then we got mr bill fold,one of our very own members and
audience members, back again.
How's it going, buddy?
I see y'all chatting in there.
Yep, we see you guys talkingtoday.
Steve Wallace in the house, bythe way, never misses a show.
Today is the episode ofQualified Immunity.

(01:38):
We managed to get just abouteverybody lined up that we were
looking for, uh, just abouteverybody lined up that we were
looking for.
And, uh, today we're going todiscuss between mr vaughn, uh,
and mr billfold and we're goingto go one is pro and one is
against, so and we're going todiscuss who's what and why, and
then we're going to go to y'allin the uh chat and go through

(02:02):
that um, but before we do that,you know we got stuff we got to
get out of the way.
See how everybody's doing, seewhat everybody's up to.
Uh.
Mr billfold, uh, I'm gonna givethe floor to you first, buddy,
how are you?

Speaker 2 (02:15):
man, I'm blessed.
Every day I wake up winning, soyou gotta try to be a loser
after that you can't, you can'tgo wrong there.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Von, sir, you have been a busy man.
I have seen you in the newsrecently, saw you out there on
the sure case I think it's aname was sure in michigan.
You were, uh, you were lookingastute on the stand and um,
owning, absolutely owning.
If you guys ever want to seesomebody own a defendant or a
defense attorney, watch that.

(02:45):
Watch, von.

Speaker 4 (02:46):
Just destroy that dude uh that was not a defense
attorney, that was a prosecutoryes, I, as I said it, I had to
go back in my head.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
I was like no, no, I messed that up yeah.

Speaker 4 (02:56):
Well, I don't know if I, if I, owned anybody, but I
can tell you that case may comeup today during this discussion
about you, about, maybe weshould abolish prosecutorial
immunity for stuff like that.
Amen.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
Defend the community Absolute immunity.
It's not going to be much of adebate up here, bob's too dreamy
to debate.

Speaker 2 (03:22):
I can just coexist with this beautiful man.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
I told him when he put those ear pods in I goes.
Now you kind of look like uhprofessor x.

Speaker 4 (03:34):
We just got to get him in the wheelchair.
Make sure they know why the earpods came in too.

Speaker 1 (03:36):
I think that's an important part of the story yeah
, as we were doing our soundcheck, von decided to go hulk
mode and snap the cord out ofhis microphone and break it, so
now he's on the bluetooth micvon has made fun of people for
wearing these exact headphonesduring podcasts because they
couldn't get their soundssquared away.

Speaker 4 (03:56):
And uh, here I am karma's a bitch von.

Speaker 1 (04:03):
Oh man, all right, let's go over to the chat real
quick.
I see.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Hold on one second, eric, if I may.
I saw that.
Patrick.
Patrick said earlier thatPatrick, true love, said that
he's not feeling good, so he'sjust going to listen in, patrick
, I'm sure somebody else willstep in and do the good work for
you.
Hello, chat, love you guys.

Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yep, we got some from .

Speaker 2 (04:23):
Eric had to do that.
I saw that earlier.
I was going was gonna forget myeyes broke back in my head.

Speaker 1 (04:28):
I can't find you got that effect, buddy.

Speaker 4 (04:33):
I gotta pull off the lighting that the detective
pulled off, so there's no somuch glare on top.
There you go yeah, I did mymakeup.

Speaker 3 (04:39):
Good job, neil.
I love it.

Speaker 1 (04:41):
I did my makeup.

Speaker 3 (04:42):
Good job.

Speaker 1 (04:43):
Neil, I love it yeah.

Speaker 2 (04:47):
I have a face for radio.

Speaker 1 (04:48):
That's the truth.
The motherfucker looked likeduck dynasty reincarnated.

Speaker 2 (04:56):
Matt help me.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
You know what.
He's not here to protect me.
You know who he kind of lookedlike Matt Think of a Christmas
Carol, I think the eightiesversions, version the, the one
of the the ghosts.
He looks like the, the, thefirst ghost, I believe, the one
for christmas past that's one Inever seen, bro, never seen,
that's a scary one when I was akid.

(05:17):
Get the shit out of me, yeah, um, I might have to pull that
picture up, but anyway.
Uh, we got a lot from your chat, matt, so why don't you say
hello to your peoples?

Speaker 3 (05:26):
What's up, people?
I love you.
Guys, all of you Agree,disagree.
You follow me.
I love you.
I appreciate it.
We love good conversation.
That's what we're here for.

Speaker 1 (05:36):
Matt.
You know what one of myfavorite thing about your people
is is how often they tell methat I'm not you.
Oh my gosh.
Yes, we can.
We can air that out right nowfor y'all me and matt almost
every day.
Yes, and we totally agree.
Matt and I are not the samepeople, but I think our hearts

(05:56):
are in the right, right placeand in the same place and that's
why we've lined up, that's whywe do what we do.
We're not always going to, andthat's kind of part of the show.
Y'all.

Speaker 2 (06:06):
If we were the same people that would be really hard
to fit in the underwear.
Y'all would have to both justget one leg hole and it would be
a mess.

Speaker 1 (06:16):
So I'm glad y'all are not the same person Harrison
Brock already starting out thenight.
Good, marine Blood is on, solet's see guys.
Brock already starting out thenight.
Good, marine blood is on, solet's see, guys.
You guys know the game man.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
there's no way in hell that marine blood gets one.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
I don't think so either.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
He's got some settings going on.

Speaker 1 (06:32):
He did show me his settings and they were right.
Unless he switches them backwhen we're done so, everybody
has to keep drinking.
All right, we're lookingthrough.
First and foremost, harrison.
Thank you for the memberships.
I'm looking through the nameshere.
I am not seeing Marineblood, Iam seeing the Big Fish, michelle

(06:52):
, natalie, orange, butterfly.

Speaker 2 (06:54):
Semper Fi Marineblood .

Speaker 1 (06:56):
I'm not seeing it.
Nope, that reminds us.
Hey guys, if you like whatwe're doing, you like the guests
that we get, please helpsupport the show.
If you can't do it financially,like Harrison just did, do it
through follows.
Subscribe to our channel Matt'schannel everybody that's on
there.
Make sure you guys go check outForce Science Vaughn.

(07:17):
I know you're a busy dude, buthow in the world do you get the
energy to do what you do in?

Speaker 4 (07:25):
the world.
Do you get the energy to dowhat you do?
Well, nights like tonight, Ijust grabbed my red bull and uh
you're a couple of those.

Speaker 1 (07:32):
You're a red bull guy .

Speaker 4 (07:33):
Look at you, oh yeah, I'm converted and look they got
these new seasons out, so I gota blue one.
Sometimes I drink red.

Speaker 1 (07:40):
Tonight it's blue.
Tonight it's blue.
Is it got an actual flavor oris it just called blue?

Speaker 4 (07:45):
This one's sea blue, sugar-free Red Bull energy drink
.

Speaker 1 (07:48):
Smart man.

Speaker 4 (07:49):
Sugar-free.
That's going to keep us alivetonight.

Speaker 2 (07:52):
I like it so you guys have me going against a Vaughn
Kleem with wings.

Speaker 3 (07:58):
Thanks a lot.

Speaker 2 (07:59):
Eric, I'm a welder and a fabricator, and this is
the fourth science sorcerer hey.

Speaker 1 (08:09):
I'm glad you brought that up.
First and foremost, thank you,Mom, for sending 10 bucks to the
show.
We love you.
But that brings up a good pointand this is something that I do
.
I have talked to Mr Bullfold,Mr Billfold at length.
I have talked to Mr Bulfold atlength.
The man is a self-taught expert.

(08:31):
He's taught me stuff that I didnot know about qualified
immunity and I will tell youguys this is why I never argue
it because I don't know enoughabout it.
I'm an idiot.
He knows way more than I do,Vaughn obviously knows more than
I do, Von obviously knows morethan I do and Matt has actually
spoke about qualified immunityquite a few times and I bet Matt

(08:51):
would even tell you that he'snot an expert Like we're just
dumb cops and we know what weknow about it and we can tell
when we think it's being abusedor not being abused and stuff
like that.

Speaker 2 (09:03):
Well, if I may jump in, since we got our people in
the house, we got Matt's folks.
I love you guys.
I'm a member over there onMatt's channel as well.
Sometimes we disagree aboutqualified immunity for a
different reason, we'll get toit.
But I wanted to say that Itried not to beat Eric up with
it, but when he said honestly,hey, I don't know, I'm a dummy

(09:25):
on it, I was like, well, ok, butI'm going to tighten you up,
not because I'm trying to beat acop up with ooh, listen to me,
no, but because you deserve toknow why I think qualified
immunity is bad for good cops.
So I was coming at you from theheart.

(09:47):
I had no idea I'd ever have todeal with professor x over here
trying to use force sciencesorcery on me on a live stream
with matt thornton but hey, itis yeah, brother, okay, let's
kick, let's kick this off we are10 minutes in.

Speaker 4 (09:55):
I want imagine we agree on a whole lot of stuff on
this and it's eric's going tobe so upset when we're just
walking the line togetherholding hands pretty much pretty
much you guys know I'm not muchof a planner, um, but on this
one I wanted to get, wanted toget as much planning in as I

(10:16):
could.

Speaker 1 (10:17):
so for those out there that may not be familiar
with what qualified immunity is,I found this little, you know
know, mr Bill of Rights cartoon,if you guys remember those.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
Eric couldn't use the Elmo when I sent him because of
copyright so Right.

Speaker 1 (10:33):
So this one's coming out of US Law Essentials YouTube
channel, so I'm going to givethem credit.
We did not make this.
All All credit goes to them.
I'm going to biggie size thisand we are going to watch what
qualified immunity is.
This is about three minuteslong, but this is also for
people that just listen.
I want to make sure they get agood explanation.

(10:54):
That's quick and this one's notthat bad, so we'll go over it.
It may be a little slated,either for or against.
I'm not 100% sure how you guysare going to take it.
It's all gravy it a littleslated, either for or against.
I'm not 100% sure how you guysare going to take it, but it is
what it is.

Speaker 6 (11:07):
Here we go Introduce qualified immunity In general.
Qualified immunity protectspolice officers and other
government officials in certainlawsuits.
That is, the police officersare shielded or immune from
civil liability.
They cannot be held responsibleif sued.
Qualified immunity applies,provided the police officer made

(11:31):
an honest mistake.
So let's say there's a robberyand a photo of the suspect is
circulated Because of therobbery.
Police officers are on highalert and their top priority is
catching the robber.
Officer Dudley is eager tocatch the suspect and while
driving he sees Pete reading abook by a bus stop, thinking
that the man is the bank robber.

(11:52):
Officer Dudley arrests him,taken into custody, pete is held
for the robbery, but it soonbecomes pretty clear that the
police have the wrong guy andnaturally Pete is furious over
his arrest.
So Pete files a civil lawsuitagainst Officer Dudley for
falsely arresting him.
In his case Pete notes thatbetween the hair, beard and

(12:16):
glasses he and the suspect donot look very much alike and
Pete demands money ascompensation for the wrongful
arrest.
But Officer Dudley's lawyer islikely to raise qualified
immunity as a defense.
He'll argue that even ifOfficer Dudley violated Pete's

(12:36):
rights, officer Dudley should beexempt from liability because
he did not really know that hewas arresting the wrong person.
He'll claim he did notknowingly violate Pete's civil
rights.
He'll also argue that this wasall a reasonable mistake and
even if Officer Dudley wascareless or negligent, he did

(12:58):
not intentionally violate thelaw.
He'll claim that Officer Dudleyreasonably confused Pete for
the suspect while he was drivingby the bus stop.
And if the judge agrees thatthis was a reasonable mistake,
officer Dudley should qualifyfor immunity and he will be

(13:21):
exempt from liability.
To summarize, qualifiedimmunity may shield police
officers and other governmentofficials from liability in
certain civil lawsuits.
If the officer makes areasonable mistake regarding the
law or a reasonable mistake offact, he cannot be held liable
for money damages.
Qualified immunity will notapply in extreme circumstances

(13:46):
where the officer actsincompetently or knowingly or
unreasonably violates a person'srights.

Speaker 1 (13:56):
All right, there we go.
Oh, my God.

Speaker 5 (14:03):
Does that instructor not look like the guy that's the
karate instructor on NapoleonDynamite?

Speaker 1 (14:09):
Sorry, man Go ahead, go ahead.
All right, Mr Billfall, whatyou?

Speaker 2 (14:14):
got.
Okay.
Love you, eric.
That was the absolute worstvideo you could have found,
because none of that was correct.
Because none of that wascorrect, because it literally
said and I took notes that itwas about a reasonableness
standard when qualified immunityis the exact opposite.
We don't let cases get tocourts to be found whether the

(14:37):
protections that the FourthAmendment gives law enforcement
for the reasonableness of theiractions doesn't even get seen.
I don't know what that videowas, but folks, that wasn,
wasn't it?
Y'all do some other research ifyou really want to know, or
stick around, but that wasn't it.
Reasonableness standard is underthe fourth amendment, but
qualified immunity calling forthat, asserting that defense,

(15:01):
has nothing to do with that.
It has to do with a clearlyestablished uh, right at that
time in that judicial districtwhere you're at.
Nothing to do with thereasonable and standard.
I just want to get that out ofthe way.
It's not about I.
I back when I think it wasVaughn can correct me I'll.
I'll hang myself if I speak outof school.

(15:23):
But Pearson versus Ray,qualified immunity count and 67
comes to be out of whole cloth.
But it's more about the goodfaith standard.
You know, hey, he acted in goodfaith, that they're acting in
good faith.
We do this, and that was kindof how it was until 1982, when

(15:44):
we got the clearly establishedpart of the doctrine that came
around okay, so I just I justwanted to lay that out there
like that.
This whole idea that this guyjust said that well, you know
it's, he acted reasonably well,it doesn't even get.
We don't get to that, we don'tget to establish any law because
it doesn't get past qi.

(16:05):
But other than that, I'll letvon have it.

Speaker 4 (16:06):
He's going to straighten me out which got von
I well, I agree that was aconfusing uh video for a
different reason, but I dounderstand the point he's making
.
I I where I might disagree isthat when we talk about clearly
established law which he'sabsolutely right about one of

(16:27):
the points I want to make suregets brought up in this entire
night is the clearly establishedlaw, is the Fourth Amendment,
that's what they're being judgedagain.
Was there probable cause?
Was there reasonable suspicion?
Was the use of force reasonable?
That's the constitutionalstandard.
So we'll stay at the federallevel.
So those are nested in theconcept of clearly established.
I think his points well taken,though Mr Belfort's points well

(16:50):
taken, that we're talking aboutqualified immunity often doesn't
even get to the constitutionalquestion.
It doesn't even get to thereasonableness question it
starts out with was it clearlyestablished?
I think was the point he wasmaking.
But what the question thenbecomes was what clearly
established?
And the answer is was the lawclearly established right?

(17:11):
Was their conduct in thecontext of that law?
Was the violation obvious andbeyond debate?
It has to be so clearlyestablished that it was
obviously obvious and beyonddebate.
So that's sort of where thatjurisprudence has evolved to.
But he's right, it used to be asubjective standard, then it
became an objective standard.
It was a two-part test, then itbecame a two-part test, but

(17:32):
either part could be flipped,and I think Mr Belford pointed
out that sometimes when theyflip it, they don't even get to
the constitutional question.
They don't even get to thereasonableness question when
we're talking aboutreasonableness.
That's what it is, that'sderived from the Constitution.
So tell me what I'm missing.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
I'm sorry, vaughn, I think I was stepping on top of
you and I apologize.
I just want to say that I wantto point out now, because the
chat will pick up on thisClearly established is not baked
into the Fourth Amendment.
Reasonable standard that's notwhat it's about.
Clearly established under thequalified immunity doctrine
means that in this case, did anofficer know, was there a case

(18:13):
already on the books, either aSupreme Court law or in the
judicial district they live in,that had damn, nearly identical
facts and all of these things,things, and then been judged to
have been a constitutionalrights violation?
And then it would.

(18:33):
That's what the clearlyestablishes.
We're not talking about thereasonableness we don't get.
Reasonableness had nothing todo, has nothing to do with
qualified immunity, because wedon't get to.
You know, I appreciate bringingit up.
We're not talking aboutreasonableness.
I mean, I'm talking about itbecause it protects you guys.
I honestly believe that thereasonable witness standard
baked in is baked in, like vonsaid, into protecting good cops

(18:56):
like you.
Gentlemen, it's already therebecause you know we have only
about a third of these cases,these uh 1983 cases that come
people even use qualifiedimmunity.
Why?
Because most cops are doing theright thing and they don't need
to assert qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity is the lastditch effort where they say, hey
, we know that a right wasviolated.

(19:18):
That's not even the question.
Was this happened in this exactway at this exact set of facts,
just nearly identical?
If not, then it doesn't matter.
If a right was violated becausethey have qualified immunity,
we can get into.
If you want to get court cases,you know we come.
Sure Vaughn has them loaded up.
I got them loaded up, but yeahreasonableness has nothing to do

(19:39):
with with what was going on, sothat video is kind of off.
It was leading people down theprimrose path, but that is not
what's going on with qi folks.
It's literally about clearlyestablishing law and I got a
rabbit hole.
We can go down later if y'allwant.

Speaker 4 (19:52):
But yeah, so I I'm going to go back to the question
then is was what clearlyestablished right?
What I understand what you'resaying is to, to answer the
clearly established questioncourts, there's One.
It has to be so obvious that noprior court case is required,
but those are rare and courtsdon't like to rely on the

(20:12):
obvious exception to the clearlyestablished rule that you're
just finding.
What we're talking about is wasit, was their conduct, a
violation of the constitutionalrights, of that individual right
?
This is 1983.
We're talking about violationof constitutional rights under

(20:32):
carlo of law, that is, that it's1983.
Right, so when we're talkingabout a constitutional right,
the constitutional right in ause of force case is the fourth
amendment and the standard forthat right is reasonableness.
And so, if you're looking at,was the officer reasonable in
their conduct in a specificcontext of a case?
The question then is going tobe well, now let's look at other

(20:55):
cases and see if this questionhas been asked and answered.
What I was going to take issuewith was that officers can
reasonably misinterpret the law.
That's a different question,because officers are presumed to
know the law that they'reenforcing.
They might misinterpret theapplication of the law, whether
it applied in a particular case,or whether the violation
occurred because that's just aprobable cause and reasonable

(21:16):
suspicion standard.
That's fair.
But they're presumed to knowthe law that they're enforcing
and so oftentimes they come upand they say, oops, sorry, I
thought it was illegal, I waswrong about that.
That's going to be a moredifficult challenge to assert
qualified immunity against.
So I would go back, because ifwe can't get past this phase of

(21:37):
whether reasonableness is a partof the qualified immunity
analysis, we're not going toreally be able to move on.
So I would just ask and maybewe're talking about the same
thing so, mr bill, for if wetalk about, okay, what has to be
clearly established?

Speaker 2 (21:51):
I will.
I'll set it up for you likethis.
Here's what I'm telling you asa doctrine, qualified immunity
is a judicial drop doctrine.
You're created out of wholecloth by the supreme court.
Okay, now, clearly established,I'm not talking.
There's reasonableness standardhas, you know, created out of
whole cloth by the Supreme Court?
Ok, now, clearly established,I'm not talking.
There's reasonableness standardhas nothing to do with the
prongs of the qualified immunitycase.

(22:13):
And I'll give an example.
I'm out of the 11th Circuit andeverybody knows this is a pretty
big one.
You're going to hear it allacross the way, but most of the
people in the chat have probablyheard this too.
You had Corbett versus vickers.
You know.
It involved a police officer,uh, chasing a subject through a
residential neighborhood andthey catch the subject in the
backyard of a family who'shaving a picnic and stuff, right

(22:35):
.
So the police order everybodyonto the ground, everybody gets
on the ground and everybodycomplies and they arrest the bad
guy who had got in the backyardand everything was good.
Well, the family dog comes out,doesn't attack anyone, but it
comes out in the yard and theofficer unloaded his gun at the
dog, missed the dog, but hit a10 year old child and they were

(23:00):
granted qualified immunitybecause they couldn't find any
facts that matched that case, orwhether it's like Baxter versus
Bracey out of the Sixth Circuit.

Speaker 1 (23:10):
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
You can't jump case to case.

Speaker 2 (23:13):
I'm not jumping, but he said that he doesn't know.
If we can't get past this, I didnot create the doctrine, so
reasonableness does not playinto the qualified immunity
doctrine as it is set up by theSupreme Court.
I'm not making this up.
It's nothing for me that Ican't get past.
I know that it doesn't.
I know what it is and that isthe.

(23:35):
It is not whether aconstitutional right was
violated.
It is whether there was aclearly established case law
with nearly identical facts,either from the Supreme Court or
in the judicial circuit inwhich this case happens.
That is what clearlyestablished means.
It's not about going to thereasonable.
I believe completely that goodpolice are protected by the

(23:56):
reasonable and standard of theFourth Amendment, which is why
only a third of the casesbrought against officials, not
just police, get to talk aboutpolice.
But it's way worse than police.
It's mayors and other peoplelike that are abusing qualified
immunity far more than thepolice are, in my opinion okay,
yeah, all I'm getting at.

Speaker 1 (24:16):
All I'm getting at is when you say a case, don't jump
to another case, let him have achance to oh, I apologize what
you said, so we can.
We can have it run smooth,because if you keep, I know how
you go, you'll go.
So uh, von you gotta retort tothat first case there.

Speaker 4 (24:33):
But uh well, first we gotta agree on what the
qualified immunity standard.
It's a two-part test right fromthe supreme court.
Which is the first part is wasthere a constitutional violation
?
The second part, if there was,was a constitutional violation.
The second part, if there was,was that violation clearly
established?
So it's a two-part, and so Idon't think we can get past that

(24:54):
.
The entire foundation ofqualified immunity requires a
constitutional violation, orthey're going to find that it
doesn't apply.
It'll be dismissed on othergrounds.
It's not a 1983 action ifthere's not a constitutional
violation being alleged.
And so you're not even going toget this in front of a court to
assert a qualified immunityclaim if the initial pleadings

(25:14):
don't assert a constitutionalviolation.
And so if it's asserting aconstitutional violation, which
is required to in its pleadings,or it's going to fail for
failure to state a claim, rightFor a 1983 action, specifically,
it has to assert aconstitutional violation.
The constitutional standard,when we're talking about police
seizures and use of force, isthe Fourth Amendment, and the

(25:37):
constitutional standard isreasonableness.
And so I just I don't know howelse to analyze this, because
reasonableness is baked into thetest as soon as they, as soon
as they mention that there isrequired a constitutional
violation um, understand though,if you say it's two-pronged,
and it is two-pronged, and thefact is there have been and we

(26:00):
can go through them, they'renumeric, we can go through them
by volume.

Speaker 2 (26:05):
They have found that, yes, a constitutional, you know
right, was, you know could beviolated here.
But there's no kate like.
Okay, I, I want to try and makethe the chat, not get upset
with everybody.
All right, we're going to talkabout baxter versus bracy.
Okay, I want to show you whatqualified immunity is.

(26:26):
When we talk about the standard, it's had nothing to do with
reasonableness.
All right, it's out of thesixth circuit.
Alexander Baxter was beingchased by his police.
They got him in a basement andhe surrendered to them.
He sat on the ground and put hishands up you know, don't shoot
and about 10 seconds after thatthey deployed the police dog on
him and it got him in the armpitand it chewed him up pretty

(26:47):
good.
And it turns out that he foundanother case in the Sixth
Circuit where a gentleman ranfrom police and surrendered and
laid down and laid down, andthey set the dog on him and it

(27:08):
was found to have violated hisconstitutional rights, because a
reasonable officer would knowthat a man that surrendered
should not be attacked, you know, attacked by a police dog but
because in the other case thegentleman had his hands up like
this on his knees, surrenderingand wasn't laying down.
That was the difference offacts that kept it from being
clearly established enough forhim to move forward, and that's

(27:28):
in the Sixth Circuit.
That's what I'm talking about.
I understand the reasonableness.
I'm not saying people don'texpect cops to be reasonable,
but this idea that thereasonableness standard of the
Fourth Amendment somehow is thereason why we have qualified
immunity cases againstgovernment employees that take
11 years to settle because ofinterlocutory appeals that that

(27:48):
qi gets.

Speaker 1 (27:49):
I mean, I just it's, it's doctrine and it's procedure
, that's all, let me make sureI'm hearing you correctly on
that case, that you just said.
So the reason the qualifiedimmunity wasn't taken away was
because there was clearlyestablished law for somebody
that was proned out that got bitby a dog, yes, but there wasn't
for a person that was kneelingand got bit by a dog, which we

(28:12):
both know is the same fuckingthing.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
Yes, that's exactly what happened.
The CIS circuit held.
They granted qualified immunityto the officer in the Baxter
case because in those priorcases the subject was laying
down, whereas in this caseBaxter was sitting on the ground
with his hands up, and that wasa different fact scenario, as
they said in the case.
So the right not to be attackedby a dog once having

(28:35):
surrendered wasn't clearlyestablished for a person sitting
up and surrendering.
That's what I'm saying.
That's clearly establishedeverybody.
Okay Dang, if I'm wrong, brady,I'm saying that's clearly
established everybody.

Speaker 1 (28:47):
Ok, dang, if I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, he just
thought how demanding thatstandard is.
All right.

Speaker 4 (28:53):
So this is not I mean , this is not even a large
sticking point, because I don'tthink it's going case and the
the constitutional violationthat they alleged was excessive
use of force under the excessiveuse of force under the Fourth
Amendment, claiming that it wasunreasonable.
And so that was the foundation.

(29:14):
And then the next question thatmr Bofill just answered was the
court had to wrestle with well,was this violation being
alleged?
Well, was this violation beingalleged, clearly established as
a violation?
Was the conduct of the officerso obvious and beyond debate
that any reasonable officerwould have known?
You can't do that.
This is excessive.

Speaker 2 (29:32):
That's Vaughn, and I'm telling you the problem with
these situations.
Sir, if I may say and you cango ahead and dig deeper for me,
you probably have Westlaw andall that pulled up.
You can help me out law and allthat pulled up, you can help me
out, but but in this, in in,what I'm saying to you is that
in the case of baxter versusbracy, baxter found a case with
damn near the identical set offacts.

(29:53):
I'm running from the popos.
Oh shit, I'm tired.
They gonna get me because ericlevine can do his pt and now
he's on my ass, mr postman, nowonce I've surrendered and laid
down flat on the ground, 10seconds later they sick a dog on
me.
That case was deemed that areasonable officer should know

(30:15):
that you should not sick anattack dog on a person who has
surrendered.
It was found unconstitutionaland a violation in the Sixth
Circuit.
The problem for Baxter was thathe was sitting up and
surrendered when violation inthe Sixth Circuit.
The problem for Baxter was thathe was sitting up and
surrendered when they sick thedog on him.
The only difference in thatfact scenario was that he was
surrendered already with hishands in the air on his knees,

(30:36):
as opposed to laying prone andsurrendered.
So what I'm saying is theylooked into it.
It is something that in anothercase had already been proved.
A reasonable officer should notdo Vaughn.
In that same circuit they saidhey, you should not sick a dog
on a man who's alreadysurrendered to you.
That's bad Qualified immunitytaken away.
So they already look how hardthe standard is.

(30:56):
You can't even clearlyestablish within the sixth
circuit that being attacked by apolice dog after having
surrendered is aconstitutionally right.
I mean, come on, uh, I'll letyou have it.

Speaker 5 (31:09):
Brother, I gotta send my drink let me just add two
cents on here from a veryexperienced canine handler with
uh, a broken, uh, radius andulna from training.
And yes, it was my dog, hisname was Diesel.
However, in our policy inreference to our dogs that would

(31:34):
engage with a bite, we hadinstructions and if it was
either one of the two situationsthat you just brought up and
our dog was deployed, it wasimmediate termination.
If somebody is listening tocommands, I don't care if it's a
four hour chase and then theyget out on foot and they go, go,
go and then they stop and giveup and then after that point, if

(31:57):
a dog is deployed in the stateof Texas, you're going to look
at criminal charges becauseyou're using force where force
is not justified to that extent.
So I hate and I didn't knowthese two cases.
So now I've got these writtendown and I'm going to.
You know I'm retired and I'mout of the game, but I want to
know for knowledge on more ofthis.
I want to read all the cliffnotes that I can, but right now

(32:20):
I'm just speaking on the canineside of the deployment of a dog
that has the ability to do that.
Shame on somebody doing that.
Period.
I've heard some horse people inthe country man, and that's
absolutely horrible.

Speaker 2 (32:31):
Mr Bannon, what I just want to say to you and I
know you're really proud of whatyou do with those dogs because
those dogs are awesome, awesometo work with.
I love police dogs in general.
They don't violate rights to dowhat they're told to do.
Y'all the ones who violate therights most of them.

Speaker 6 (32:50):
Not you guys.

Speaker 2 (32:52):
Y'all are motivating.
But the problem, banny, isn'twhether or not that type of
force should have been used inthe first place.
It's the fact that in the SixthCircuit we have a case where a
police officer was found guiltyof violating a man's
constitutional rights for usinga police attack dog on him after
he had surrendered and wasprone, and it was established as

(33:13):
law.
But when a man gets attacked bya police dog after he
surrendered more than 10 secondsafter, and then they set it on
him the case, the facts in thatscenario are not enough to
clearly establish the right notto be attacked by a police dog
if you've surrendered.

Speaker 5 (33:30):
This is what we're dealing with with QI.

Speaker 2 (33:31):
I'm not trying to say that cops don't have to make
split second decisions and do alot of difficult things.
I'm simply saying that come on,here we're talking about the
standard of the doctrine.
That's how hard this standardis.
The difference, in fact,scenario was positioned from
kneeling to prone, like we werein Marine Corps on a qualifying
line.

Speaker 5 (33:50):
Yeah, no, and it pisses me off to no end and I'm
trying to keep my cool, calm andcollectiveness.
But a dog handler that goesthrough the amount of training
that I went through, that wouldgo through something as big as
this.
I mean, that animal was aweapon.
When that animal is it lesslethal?
I would say 85%.
Yes, okay, if the dog isproperly trained.

(34:12):
But when somebody gives up likethis and a dog with that type
of ability gets released, Iunderstand the pounds per square
inch.
What can happen to a person,everything, and for them to do
that, I believe that's acriminal act and that's again my
opinion.

Speaker 2 (34:29):
For what it's worth, you better hope that you've made
it to your stomach after you'vesurrendered, because if not,
and that dog rips your testiclesoff, you didn't have a clearly
established right to not havethat castration happen.

Speaker 5 (34:42):
And in that specific case and thank God we're in
America, I can have my opinionon it.
That is, criminal charges forthe officer.
If it in fact is exactly laidout as that, if somebody gave up
, the threat is over and then adog is deployed and an
engagement happens.
I'm sorry, but that officer isgoing to spend some time in jail
and probably go to prison.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
Well, that's what happened in Baxter versus Bracey
.
It was established that he hadsurrendered.
All those facts were he hadbeen surrendered, everybody knew
it.
The man had released the dogafterwards.
That was not the reason why thequalified immunity was granted.
The qualified immunity wasgranted in that regard because
the facts scenario did not makeit clearly established.

(35:25):
It was not established enough.
They hadn't decided theposition standing, kneeling,
prone, yawning, dog, whicheverpositions your body's allowed to
be in for the cops not to havea dog attack you when you
surrendered.
They hadn't been clearlyestablished yet.
And this is what I was trying tobring up just as we frame this
as we start.
I'm not here to talk aboutbashing police officers.

(35:48):
It's the municipal people andthe other things that are
abusing qualified.
I got the stats from there'sshout out to Institute for
Justice.
They do great work.
They had a study that came outlast year called Unaccountable
that followed all seven over 77,000, all the qualified
immunity appellate cases inAmerica from 2010 to 2020.

(36:08):
And they got all the numbers onqualified immunity.
So we can have passionatediscourse back and forth, but I
think now, as people who arebridging the gap and not trying
to let emotions run too high.
We have facts and numbers nowthat we can dig into and see if
qualified immunity is doing whatthe supporters, like some of
you gentlemen, would purportthat it does.

(36:29):
So I'll give it back to Eric orVaughn or whoever.
I'm sorry I get this way, y'all.
I got that tism.
I was on Ritalin as a child,but I got rid of it.

Speaker 4 (36:38):
I got it, eric.
I think we got to go back tohow qualified immunity cases are
pled.
That'll lead us up to why we'reat this point for the
discussion.
Because when, when a plaintiffalleges a violation, right, they
allege the constitutionalviolation of excessive use of
force.
Uh, they say it was clearlyestablished.
And then they make a factualassertion.

(36:58):
Depending on whether they'redoing it at at the uh, at the
motion to dismiss stage, orthey're doing it at a summary
judgment stage, the facts arejust whatever they put on paper,
right, they haven't been tested.
There's no adversarial process.
They just get to put whateverthey want down there and the
judge is required to assume thefacts as pled or true at the

(37:22):
pleading stage.
So for a motion to dismiss,pled or true at the, at the at
the pleading stage, so for amotion to dismiss.
And at the summary judgmentstage they don't have to allege
I mean they unless they'reclearly contradicted by video
evidence or or other witnesses.
Then they're going to give thefactual basis to the plaintiff
and they're going to interpretthose facts in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.
Okay, if you look at the baxtercase and the, what was the other

(37:45):
case of Bracey back.
Oh, campbell, sorry, campbelland Baxter, um understand, when
you're asking a qualifiedimmunity question and this is
critical nobody's tested thesefacts.
The plaintiff has just saidthese are the facts.
The judge, the court looks atit and goes okay, if these are
the facts.
On these facts, facts, if weinterpret them in a light most

(38:07):
favorable to the plaintiff, thenbecause the it's called the
non-moving party right, is therea constitutional violation?
And if there is, would it havebeen clearly, would it have been
obvious to the officers, wouldhave been clearly established
and obvious to the officers thatthere was a constitutional
violation.
On the facts Overwhelmingly,those facts look nothing like
the reality of the event.
Overwhelmingly, those facts arenot tested by experts, they're

(38:29):
not tested by video, they're nottested by adversarial
cross-examination.
They're just facts alleged byplanners.
Some are pretty close, otherones are way outside, just to
get through the courthouse doors.
And so they'll allege all sortsof intentional misconduct,
they'll allege all sorts ofegregious conduct by the police,
just so they can get the casein front of the court, and then

(38:51):
the court has to interpret it intheir favor.
In that case, the twodistinguishing points we said it
was obvious in Baxter that hewas surrendering so that the
officer should have been onnotice.
I don't know anything aboutthose cases other than when I'm
quickly trying to play catch uphere, but the court did
distinguish those two cases onthe facts and so the court found

(39:12):
not the officers, but the courtfound and this may be mr
billfold's whole point is thatit's a court.
The court is the problem, notthe police right?
The court found that thesecases were different enough that
the first case did not provideclearly established guidance to
the officers Because in thatcase they were making at least
according to them, the court.

(39:32):
They were making tacticaldecisions in one case that were
clear and unambiguous, and theother case they were potentially
unclear visibility, ambiguouscircumstances relative to the
continuing threat, ambiguouscircumstances relative to the
continuing threat.
The second one was the officersclaimed that the dispute wasn't
or that the surrender was notunambiguous.
Where one it was, clearly he hadsurrendered.

(39:52):
You can't put a dog on someonewho's clearly surrendered.
In the other, the court foundthat it wasn't clear that he had
surrendered or that they didn'thave a legitimate tactical
purpose for releasing the dog.
Ultimately, the court never gotinto the facts to decide
whether they did or didn't.
So it might be the case thatthey were 100% wrong.
That might be the case.
It might be the case that itwas tactical uncertainty and

(40:15):
ambiguity and they were makingdiscretionary decisions based on
the speed of those decisionsand the court.
And that's what qualifiedimmunity is designed to protect.
And so I think everyone lookingat qualified immunity has to
understand also the first casewhere there's qualified immunity
doesn't provide muchprecedential value to a second
case if the court finds adistinction in the facts

(40:36):
themselves, not just the law.
So I think I mean that's wherethat case got divided.
And every case where the courtsays there's inadequate
precedence, there's inadequatenotice, it's because they've
made a factual distinction, uh,between those two cases.

Speaker 2 (40:53):
Okay, eric, I just want to jump in and say you know
, man, you know I appreciatebond being here.
I appreciate matt's chat forbeing here.
I know, know we're allpassionate.
I'm trying to keep it really100.
What everything Vaughn just saidto me, whether he knows it or

(41:14):
not, speaks against why goodcops don't need qualified
immunity.
Because out of all the 1983cases that are brought, only a
third assert qualified immunity,so 66% don't even do it.
Why?
Because you got body cams thatsay, hey, this guy's full of
shit.
This cop did nothing wrong.
That use of force was a.
Okay, I support it.
I think that he went easy onthis guy.
That guy had a knife out tryingto stab people.

(41:35):
You know I might've smashed hisface.
That cop did great.
All that can happen, okay.
Um, it's only a third of thethose 1983 cases is QI asserted.
It's only a third of those 1983cases is QI asserted.
It's the worst cases of theworst, where they say, yeah,
this looks pretty bad.
Well, but it's not clearlyestablished yet.
So you know the facts.

(41:58):
Because the facts that he'stalking about, von says he's not
sure of them.
I've read through the casestuff.
This has been on the radar formany years, and a lot of the
folks out here in the chat areup on that one as well.
But that was the difference inthe specific facts of the case
was the positioning kneelingversus prone, and they had
already been surrendered.

(42:18):
They were going to be advancingon the general.
It was not even like, oh,what's he doing?
Oh, it wasn't that.
That's already been hashed out.
But just the issue here is,like he said, the interlocutory
appeal.
That's an advantage that QIgets.
Say it's like he said at themotion to dismiss, stage right,

(42:40):
and say, which is a fifth of allinterlocutory appeals, okay,
but the motions to dismiss aresupposed to be hard for the
government to win.
You know they're intended toweek out the, just weed out the
weak cases of bs.
Now, normally like if adistrict court judge, you know,
sees a case that's strong enoughand he goes uh no, you know,

(43:00):
this is obviously a rightsviolation, your qualified
immunity is not granted heimmediately at that point gets
an interlocutory appeal withlike a three judge panel and try
to extend this thing out.
The studies that are out thereshow that it's usually like 23
months longer I believe these QIcases take to work themselves

(43:24):
out.
Um, but I'm going to give aquick example just so we can
take it out of the cop sphere,because I want I don't want this
to be about use of force andeverything is bonds.
The expert in that and he know,I know what I know, he knows
what he knows.
But let's talk about qualifiedimmunity in a different way.
That's not police.
I want to show you what I meanby being a failed.
Okay, mathis versus the Countyof Lyon.

(43:44):
You had a family who had alocal County official, stole
some money, did some malfeasanceand stole a bunch of property
from their family.
Right, the case was started in2017 and the final judgment was
entered in 2019 because ofqualified immunity that they did
multiple times within the samelawsuit.
Literally, if you want, I cansend that to Devon to look at.

(44:16):
But the first partial pleadingswere filed in 2007, may 14th,
and then the court said no, youget no immunity, you're a
scumbag.
Okay, well then the NinthCircuit affirmed the denial of
qualified immunity in a 2-1decision, which is kind of scary
, because one of these folksactually voted to give the guy
qualified immunity, but theother two said, no, no, that's
not it.
So then it went back up 2013,.

(44:36):
Back to the Ninth Circuit, acourt of appeals on qualified
immunity again, and this familyfinally got their thing, 12
years later.
So let's take it out of this.
Hey, we're headhunting cops.
I'm trying to show you that asa judicial doctrine, it's a joke
.
All it does is cause the systemto get bogged up more because
of these appeal.
They get to bite from the appleas many times as they want to.

(44:58):
If they're the police, ok, youtry to get it at the motion to
dismiss because you got thiscase.
Hey, dismiss qualified immunity.
Nope, we're doing good.
And the judge goes no officer,this was really bad.
That's not what's going tohappen here.
You have enough.
It's going forward.
It gets past the motion.
He immediately gets the appeal.
It doesn't even get to get to acourt.

(45:19):
Qualified immunity keeps us fromhaving the jurisprudence and
clearly established law that youguys swear that you want to see
, eric, you want to see some law, some word.
Remember when the Supreme Courtcame down against a moment of
threat and you were a littlebothered that there was no.
They didn't say anything aboutexigency and creating your own

(45:39):
exigency as an officer, likethat officer did, and I was
telling you they're not going tothat has to go down at the
circuit.
You understand that's whatthey're trying not to say
anything because it has to go ondown there, because it's a hot
mess.
You understand what I'm saying?
It's a hot mess the way thatthis situation plays out.
We cannot get any clearlyestablished law because it's not

(46:02):
getting to a jury.
If you were an officer who didnothing wrong and you feel like
you have the evidence to backthat up and they're bringing
this case against you, let's getin front of a jury and prove
that you're full of shit.
Let's handle it.
It doesn't get to juries.
We don't get case law.
We don't get it because it'sbeen dismissed.
At how many different stagesalong the way that case matth

(46:24):
Mathis versus County of LyonVaughn you can jump all over
that one, 12 years.
They robbed a county officialbecause only out of all the
qualified immunity cases thatwere filed between 2010 and 2020
, it was only, I think, 23% wereFirst Amendment stuff, which is
its own interesting data setthat you can jump into with that

(46:47):
, but it wasn't a lot of police.

Speaker 1 (46:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (46:52):
It was the other government actors.

Speaker 4 (46:55):
Hold on, let's see, vaughn, you got anything to
retort on that if one of thegoals of qualified immunity is
to prevent officers from evenhaving to go to trial and to
avoid the inconvenience ofdiscovery and trial and
defending themselves againstdiscretionary immunity, then
qualified immunity is failing inthat regard.

(47:15):
What he's talking abouttypically is if you go to a
motion to dismiss a normativecase and you lose, it goes to
the merits, right, and then youcan file a motion to summary
judgment.
But it goes to the merits.
There's a case for qualifiedimmunity that says if you lose,
even at the motion to dismissstage, you can file an
interlocutory appeal.
You can appeal that decision oryou can let it go to.

(47:37):
Oftentimes you don't haveenough facts because, again, at
the initial pleading that I meanyou see this all the time the
facts on that paper at theinitial pleading that I mean you
see this all the time the factson that paper at the initial
pleading that the court looks atwill almost never look like the
reality of what happened in theevent, and so it doesn't really
give you much precedentialvalue, because when the case is
matured throughcross-examination and additional

(47:58):
discovery, you start to have topiece out some of the more
egregious things that wereclaimed in that case and you'll
see this quite a bit.
But that's just the pleadings.
By the time it gets to motion,the pleadings are accepted and
you get through more discoveryand you get through more.
You know things likedepositions.
You get more witness statements, you get video analysis.
You get expert witnesses tocome in and look at it.

(48:20):
Then you have more facts.
You've sort of fleshed out thefacts and they look, they've
crystallized a little bit morelike what may have happened.
However, there's still a lot ofdisagreement at that point
between what the officers aregoing to say happened and what
the plaintiff is going to sayhappened at at the motion is for
summary judgment.
If you file a qualifiedimmunity at the motion for

(48:40):
summary judgment and you lose MrBillful Dray, you could just
file an interlocutory appeal andyou can file an appeal for that
.
Depending on whether it goesall the way up to the Supreme
Court, you can file theseappeals and this point's well
taken.
It may not get that high, butthey don't take very many of
them, that's for sure right, andso I think less than 50 might

(49:01):
be right.
But the point is when, when youlook at these and and people
are upset about the origin,about the case itself.
And we see this.
The media exposure, thepleadings themselves will allege
horrific facts and theattorneys know that those facts
are not what actually happened.
But the public doesn't knowthat and the media will fan the

(49:24):
flames and they will allegeintentional, gross negligence.
They will, they will allegethings that are absolutely
nowhere near the reality of whatactually occurred, and so the
police are kind of stuck going.
Well, now we have to go to morediscovery.
If we don't get the qualifiedimmunity at the motion to
dismiss, we got to go to qual.
We got to do more discovery,get more facts alleged so that

(49:46):
we can take these new facts tothe next, next phase of the
litigation.
And even there, if you can'tagree on the material facts,
then qualified immunity.
That's often one of the biggestways qualified immunity gets
pierced right Is because theysay look, based on what you're
saying, there's noconstitutional violation, police
officers, but based on whatthey're saying there's no
constitutional violation, policeofficers, but based on what

(50:06):
they're saying there is, andthat a determination of fact is
for the jury.
So the judge will say if andthey remember they have to read
the facts in a light mostfavorable to the plaintiff at
that state.

Speaker 2 (50:16):
Yes, qualified immunity is the only defense
that the plaintiff has todisprove.
Yeah, that's, yeah, you let.
You laid it right out there.
I mean, I love and respect you,vaughn, but I know the chat has
to have their ass itching,because mine is right now.
Listen what you're saying aboutthe discoveries in this.

(50:38):
Let's only a third of the 1983civil rights violation cases
brought against police assertqualified immunity.
Why?
Because most cops are prettygoddamn good people trying to do
the best they can in shittyplaces, from small towns to big
cities.
All right, that's what I trulybelieve.

(50:59):
But let us not fool ourselves.
But let us not fool ourselvesthat 33% the reason they have to
use QI is because they don'thave all those things that are
already set up to protect you,good officers.
It gets past reasonableness.
They go holy shit, look at thisand it gets past it and it gets
to a point where they justassert QI like brick in the wall

(51:24):
.
Brick in the wall, brick in thewall.
Let's have the cases.
Who cares how long it takes fordiscovery?
The government has all themoney.
You have all the money.
So when it comes to asserting aclaim that basically lets people
whose rights get violated noteven get to redress that it
doesn't get there.
No, we're not going to let ajury of your peers we don't care

(51:44):
about letting them judge thereasonableness, we don't care.
There's no case that says thatyou were standing on one leg
when that cop shot you in yourtesticles.
You weren't, and the other.
The only right was for a manstanding there with both feet on
the ground to be shot in thetesticles and and it's a it's a
violation.
So because you had one leg inthe air when you were shot in
the testicles, it's no clearlyestablished law.

(52:05):
This is the ridiculous standardof QI that we're talking about.
Good cops are already protectedby the reasonableness standard
of the Fourth Amendment, or elsequalified immunity would be
called in all cases, because youdon't need to use it in most
cases, because a lot of peopleare full of shit and hate police
, so they come up with somebullshit.
It easily falls apart anddoesn't have to go anywhere.

(52:25):
You don't have discovery.
It's only that third, where theofficer did some shitty poo-poo
shit and oh, we can't defendthis.
Qi, qi, y'all qi, till thewheels fall off.
That's what we're getting.
I just showed you that it'sjust a way to make things last
longer.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
Hold on.
So if I'm hearing thiscorrectly and I want to get
Vaughn's opinion on this MrBillfold's basically saying that
qualified immunity isn't evenneeded because of the
reasonableness standard and inall these egregious cases where
cops do some really stupid,stupid shit, they're not going
to fall under that reasonablestandard, so they don't need the

(53:06):
QI to begin with.
Is that fair?

Speaker 4 (53:11):
Yeah, but it's, I think it's.

Speaker 2 (53:14):
I mean, it's just the numbers?

Speaker 4 (53:16):
Yeah, I think it.
I think there's someassumptions being made and I
don't know how to.
I mean, I'm going to keep.
I'm going to keep saying thesame thing again, because if
it's that one third of casesthat are the most egregious,
remember they're not the mostegregious conduct by the police,
they're the most egregiousallegations by the plaintiff,
which may look nothing like theactual conduct.
Certainly, some of them doright, we all know bad policing.

(53:39):
But when you talk about thesenumbers, I actually would have
thought it was worse than that,that even less cases were
asserted.
But it depends.
I tried to look up differentresearch and what I found was
some of the research is showinga high level of these cases are
blocking and the other ones areshowing very little of them are
blocked and right now it justdepends on what the metrics are

(54:00):
for determining which case gotblocked on QI.
The point is that fact thatallegation of the worst one that
has never been determined atthat stage it's just a pleading.
So at the qi stage there is noconstitutional violation being
proven, nor that we can say was,was a, was a conducted in this
case.
And I don't.

(54:21):
I don't agree with the, withthe premise that, just because
someone asserts qualifiedimmunity, uh, that's because
they know they don't haveanother defense because of the
way qualified immunity cases arepled Right.
So that's the first thing.
The other thing is theallegation that, yeah, there's

(54:41):
just a premise there that thatone-third of cases is conduct by
the police.
That was so bad they had toassert qualified immunity.
May I pause Vaughn Vaughn,vaughn.

Speaker 2 (54:50):
I hate to be that guy , but you know what you and I.
I respect you and I'm not aprofessional like that, so I'm
just going to get in there.
I am not asserting and if Isaid so it's because in the
interest of brevity and economyof words, and I apologize,
brevity and economy of words andI apologize I'm not saying that
out of that third of 1983 casesthat they do assert qualified

(55:11):
immunity.
I'm not saying all 33% of thoseare egregious.
I'm saying in that 33% is whereyou find all of these egregious
cases that have all of you guysstanding there going what the
hell is happening here?
That's all I meant to say.
I will not say that all 33 are.
I'm saying that all of thecases that stagger the public,
the good people in this chat,those of us on the other side,

(55:33):
I'm not on the other side of thegap, I'm stuck in the middle
and that's where I stay becausethat's how I'll let people walk
on my back to get to the otherside.
You know, nobody wants to havethese uncomfortable
conversations, but I'm going tohave them because a lot of
people in Matt's chat that sayabolish QI, they don't know what

(55:54):
the hell they're talking abouteither when I engage with them
over in that channel, becausethey think that abolishing QI is
going to somehow stop cops fromabusing you.
And it's not 99, and if youwanted to look at where some of
these numbers are, Vaughn, checkout.
Unaccountable from Institute forJustice in 2024.
It had all of the qualifiedimmunity appellate cases between
2010 and 2020, the over 7,000of them.

(56:15):
It breaks it down into minutedetail and we can count these
numbers out, because you'd besurprised, you guys are being
used to be the pawns.
The people who want qualifiedimmunity are those real bad
actors that are screwing youguys over in the buildings that
you work for.
Okay, it's not you guys on thestreet.
That's not where a lot of themost egregious stuff comes from,
and uh, but that's where youcan go for your numbers.

(56:37):
But if you wanted to go to theNorthwestern university law
review, uh, Schwartz has thosenumbers on the qualified
immunity cases.
If you want to go, look throughthat Vaughn and and that's it's
.
It's been picked up by Yale lawreview and a couple other ones,
but I believe Northwestern wasthe first place I had found a
recent updated some of that.

Speaker 4 (56:58):
I read the Yale summary of it, but I would also
I mean, I think the other sideis gonna the other question that
comes from that one-third ishow many of those are the most
egregiously pled cases that theofficers are like I don't even
know what to say to this.
It's so ridiculous that I can't.
I don't even know what to say.

Speaker 2 (57:18):
None of this actually happened then let's get in
front of a jury so they can saythis is, and exonerate that
officer.
We can go about our businessinstead of tying it up for years
and years and years with QI.

Speaker 6 (57:28):
That's what we do.

Speaker 2 (57:29):
Let's get in front of a jury.
We're just I'm.
I hear that you're trying todefend its existence.
But let's get right to it.
You know, when eight, when itwas when Section 1983 was come
up with, it was afterreconstruction, right, ok, and
that like, and there was no.
The word clearly established isnot in the law.
We don't need Congress to fixQI because QI isn't a thing that

(57:51):
exists.
The judicial, the Supreme Court, made it up out of whole cloth,
like the emperor's clothes,like here we give this to you.
It's called the doctrine of QI,but it's not a thing that
exists.
So if you just enforce 1983 theway it's written by Congress,
we'd be good.
But a lot of people don't bringup in this 1899, the civil
rights cases of 1899.

(58:12):
The Supreme Court ruled thatcivil rights violations were a
state's rights issue, not afederal issue.
So between 1899 and the CivilRights Act of 1965, we didn't
have any way to make clearlyestablished law because the
Supreme Court said, hey, civilrights violations, that's not to
do with us, that's states'rights.
And we got Jim Crow out of that.

(58:33):
Thanks, supreme Court.
Okay, so fast forward to 1965,we get the Civil Rights Act and
everything rocking.
Well, hell, we don't make ittwo years until 1967, pearson
versus Ray we create qualifiedimmunity in the.
At this point, before they cameup with clearly established, we
had about 18 or so years of goodfaith.

(58:53):
Good faith that's what we had.
So between 1871 and 1899, allof those civil rights violations
going on in the south.
In 1899 the supreme court saidthere ain't no such thing as a
civil rights case.
Bye.
So there's no clearlyestablished law for that part of
our American history.
And then it's not until 1965 weget a Civil Rights Act that

(59:14):
will allow these things to beenforceable at a federal level.
And we don't get two years intoit before they come up with a
way to make sure that governmentofficials don't even get a case
in front of a jury to say, ok,yeah, you did great or oh no,
you were horrible and you'reguilty of this or this happened.
We don't even get to getclearly established law.
When have we been making theclearly established law If we

(59:37):
had no civil rights law between1871, when the 1983 was created,
and 1964.
So we had two years to clearlyestablish law with a set of
facts.
So if I go beat somebody todeath with us if I drop a cell
phone from on top of building,hit somebody in the head and
kill them?
No, I didn't kill him.
Hey, that there was.
No.
This statute was written.

(59:58):
It's enough about a cell phone.
Yeah, that was.
That's the ridiculous standardwe give cops for this.
Give me exact, specific facts.
That's the ridiculous standard.
We give cops for this.
Give me exact, specific facts.
That's the problem with qi.
That's the problem with howthis goes.
We do not get these things totrial, to establish any kind of
law okay no, I think that's.

Speaker 4 (01:00:18):
That is exactly the point of qi is to avoid going to
trial, right, and that that's apolicy discussion.
Yeah, well, that's the policy.
That's the policy conversationthat took place, right?
Was they wanted to have abalance between accountability
and the reality of making splitsecond decisions, right?

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
Hold on a second.
Let me say something right now,because I know we're going to
get off of it.
I'll put it to you this way Outof all the qualified immunity
cases that they studied between2010 and 2020, right, and we're
talking about this Institute forJustice study they had let me
get my numbers right so I don'tlie to everybody in front of it

(01:00:59):
One-fifth, fully one-fifth, oralmost 20% of those assertions
were completely divorced of anyinvolvement with police or
correctional officers, and justunder one in five, so a little
less than 20 percent of QI casesthat came up in that 10 year
period were First Amendmentcases.
If you dig into the data, youwill see that 50 percent of the

(01:01:21):
First Amendment cases brought upunder 1983, between 2010 and
2020, were alleged premeditation.
Okay, and when I say allegedpremeditation, not spur of the
moment, oh, the officer's got tomake a decision at split second
Life or death, guys, life ordeath.
No, we're talking about, likeEast Cleveland Ohio, william

(01:01:41):
Fambro had a sound truck.
He did like Long Island Auditdid when he got himself a LED
truck that he could go protestthe police, commissioner, and
the people that were going afterhim.
Well, william Fambro, eastCleveland Ohio, gets a sound
truck, the local mayor and hewas running against the local
mayor.
The truck was parked, they saidshe sent the police to go and

(01:02:02):
take away and impound his soundtruck.
That was not a split seconddecision made in the heat of
whatever, and we need to givethese officers and public
officials the ability to do that.
This is a tool to misuse thejudicial system.
We're not talking about secondguessing the heroes, for God's

(01:02:22):
sakes.
We're talking about thedoctrine of QI and how legally
it is screwing the pooch.
We need clearly established law, vaughn.
We shouldn't have a case likeBaxter versus Bracey where a man
has to have.
It's not clearly establishedenough that a man was laying
down surrendered.
They said, yes, that's aconstitutional rights violation.

(01:02:45):
The man had surrendered.
The only difference in factsand if this is a debate we can
have it another time, but I'mtelling you I wouldn't lie to
you, as my papa used to say, Iwouldn't you, just to get you
okay the only difference in thefacts was that one man was
kneeling and one man is prone.
That's qiI, not this.
Well, you know in the heat ofthe circumstances, and I

(01:03:07):
understand the Rehnquist courtand how you cannot judge it in
hindsight, I know all of thethings that the Supreme Court
has said about QI over all theyears, but I really don't give a
shit because, at the end of theday, we don't need to abolish
QI per se.
We need to stop letting theSupreme Court decide to make up

(01:03:27):
a doctrine that has nothing todo with the original language.
Eric, I know you're on the sideover there.
Pull up the statute, pull up1983 and show me where it says
clearly established.
That study that I gave you allearlier.
While Eric's pulling that upand I'm sorry to take over, but
this might be my only shot yousee these pretty guys all the

(01:03:48):
time.
Now listen, 99.98% of all casesthat are denied qualified
immunity, those officers andthose individuals and state
actors are municipallyindemnified and they pay nothing
.
You can name more.
You, as police officer I seefour of them on my screen, more
of y'all can name officerswho've lost their homes or their

(01:04:11):
marriages Due to some bullshitwith their department playing
games with them when they didn'tdo anything wrong and nobody
looked out for him.
Then you can name a cop whoever lost a dime to a qualified
immunity claim.
Vaughn, you know more cops thanI were worldwide.
If do you know any policeofficers who've ever been
financially liable under a 1983claim and never lost in a

(01:04:31):
qualified mean, you had to payout of pocket no, not the, not
the federal.

Speaker 4 (01:04:35):
If they had qualified immunity?

Speaker 2 (01:04:36):
no, yeah, exactly this is what there was punitive
damages, but I don't know, Idon't know in that if you go
back and look at Schwartz'sPaper that was released in
Northwestern Yale, all of them90 the the different studies
argue.
So there's some room for wiggle.
It's either.
The first ones I heard wereninety nine point nine five and

(01:04:57):
the other was ninety nine pointNine eight.
So between a point five and apoint two, you know, come on,
guys.
There's never been a cop loseanything.
You are scaring these youngcops who want to be saying oh,
if you get rid of qualifiedimmunity, nobody's going to want
to be a cop.
Bullshit, bullshit.
It has nothing to do with itbecause you can look into the

(01:05:17):
data.
It's 2025 now.
We have all this data.
The Institute for Justicecompiled all that.
I suggest, vaughn and everybodyon the panel and everybody
watching this, y'all go learnthis.
Stop just jumping in matt'schat.
Going.
Abolish qi, all pigs andtyrants.
Man, get your knowledgetogether and change some police

(01:05:37):
hearts.
That's the only way.
I'm not on this show becauseI'm a superstar.
I'm on this show because I'vebeen digging in eric's ear for
months six, seven months tryingto talk to him about this, and
he keeps saying save it for ashow.
So here we are I saved it foryour show, eric.

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
Well, here it is.
I got it pulled up.
I hope this is what you werelooking for.

Speaker 2 (01:06:01):
Hey man, if you like it, I love it.

Speaker 1 (01:06:05):
It says every person who is under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation,custom or usage of any state or
territory or the district ofColumbia subjects, are or causes
to be subjected any citizen ofthe United States or other
persons within the jurisdictionthereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges orimmunities secured by the
constitution and laws shall beliable to the partyvation of any
rights, privileges orimmunities secured by the

(01:06:26):
Constitution and laws shall beliable to the party injured in
an action lawsuit.
Is this the right one?

Speaker 2 (01:06:31):
Yes, that's the right one.
There's a warning that wastaken out before these codes
were put together.
They weren't in, like you know,42 USC, it was just a bunch of
random stuff.
So some letters, uh, somesentences got taken out of the
original text, but that's prettymuch what it's been the whole
time.
Yeah, I'm going to grab a drink, guys, I'll be right back.

(01:06:52):
Apologize Y'all, do not give mybear any unwanted.
This is all mine.

Speaker 1 (01:06:57):
You're good, uh good.
Now we've got an opportunity tobreathe for a second here.
Uh, Matt, you've got strongfeelings towards uh qualified
immunity as a cop and vaughn, Idon't vaughn.
Have you met matt yet?

Speaker 4 (01:07:11):
no, this is the first time I've seen him on your uh
advertisements, I think, andsome of your screenshots okay.

Speaker 1 (01:07:16):
Well, matt is a cop up in illinois.
Um, we won't say specificallywhere, um, but he's a cop up in
illinois.
How long you been a cop now,matt?
21 years, 21 years and um, mattis very outspoken.
Uh, which is probably one ofthe things that helped put him
on the map is, uh, againstqualified immunity.
Now I fully admit when I,because of my ignorance and not

(01:07:40):
knowing qualified immunity, thatwell, um, I just had a generic
understanding of it, like wewere taught in the academy oh,
it's there, you know, in caseyou were trying to do the right
thing but you fucked up and thensomebody tries to sue you or
whatever that was my basicunderstanding of it had no clue
that anybody that had lost theirqualified immunity like less
than a percent, have ever gonethrough Less than half of a

(01:08:02):
percent Less than half of apercent, let's percent have ever
gone.
Less than half of a percent,less than half of a percent, uh,
but yeah, have gone all the waythrough and actually taken a
hit on it.
Um, but uh, matt is uh matt.
Why don't you go ahead and giveyour stance, buddy?

Speaker 3 (01:08:18):
I just, I just I agree with pretty much what mr
billfold is saying.
I've seen it.
Um, the the dog case is one ofthe main ones.
That's the top one that getstalked about a lot and it's not
justice to me.
Yeah, and if the standard isthe Fourth Amendment, then why
are we messing with that?
I've never understood it.

(01:08:38):
I've seen it emboldenedofficers it's almost like I
picture a guy walking in and hebrave in in a bar because he's
got his big brother behind him.
Um, that's how I see officers.
I've I've seen them.
They get brave and they, they,they.
Their attitudes is I can dowhat I want because I just got
this qi, I can hide behind itand it's uh, all the cases, it's

(01:08:59):
, it's mucked up and and what mrboth, what mr bill for was
saying earlier about thepremeditation?
Uh, these aren't, these aren'tall split second, uh, decisions.
I see blatant that's what Icall out all the time on social
media.
I see blatant violations andthey don't care and there was
the.

Speaker 1 (01:09:16):
there was the video that we watched on here together
.
I think you were on that oneman, I'm not a hundred percent
sure maybe you covered it, butremember there was like a semi
truck on the freeway and theyhad the canine out and you can
see the guy like yeah, he gaveup.
He's like please don't let thatdog.
You can hear him.
Yeah, please don't let the doggo.
I'm giving up.
And they let the dog go, like tome Vaughn, like a case like

(01:09:39):
that, like how does somethingget drawn out Like as long as
some of these cases he's talkingabout, like even on your side
of the house?
Do you agree that that is?
Do you agree that that's aproblem with the system?
That they can just keep drawingthis shit out that long to
where nothing ever comes of it,when it's clear, when you see it

(01:10:00):
in a video and you got it, youcan hear and you see all of this
stuff.
And let's say that people inthe, in the, in the courts, are
like yep, that wasunconstitutional, you violated
his rights, shouldn't let thatdog go, but you did anyway, like
, and they lose qi, like theability to, or they don't lose
it, they just get to keepdrawing out these cases like do

(01:10:21):
you guys hear a cat?
Sorry, I heard a cat.

Speaker 2 (01:10:26):
Hey, I have cats out there fighting.

Speaker 1 (01:10:30):
Yep, there they go.
Okay, it wasn't just me, sorry,mon.

Speaker 2 (01:10:34):
I love my babies.

Speaker 4 (01:10:35):
Yeah Well, no, obviously, qi doesn't protect
any use of force.
That's obviously excessive.

Speaker 1 (01:10:44):
It's not designed for that Right, but that's what I'm
saying.
The problem is it never goesanywhere.
Why doesn't it go?

Speaker 2 (01:10:53):
That's the point.
I love Vaughn, but holy, we allhave to see, guys, we don't get
the clearly established law.
We don't get it Out of all,only 23% of all the qualified
immunity cases that they studied, of over 7,000, were police use
of force.
It's a small number of an evensmaller number of instances.

(01:11:16):
This is not widespread.
We are having people hating oncops like hell over here because
we can't get you guys tounderstand that QI is screwing
you.
You guys are the guys ridingthe damn donkey out here.
Oh, if they get rid of QI,nobody would want to be a police
officer, even though less thanone half of 1% of any cop who's

(01:11:38):
ever been stripped of his QI andfound liable has ever paid a
dime because of municipalindemnification.
But you guys are fighting thefight for QI when y'all are only
23% of the QI cases that werein this largest data set that
they could get, which was all ofthe QI appellate cases between

(01:11:59):
2020, I mean 2010 and 2020.

Speaker 3 (01:12:02):
Okay, I can agree right there.
What he just said if I can stepin for a second, it is it is
fear mongering.
I've heard that since gettingI'm beginning my career, you
need this.
If you only don't have thiseverything, you'll get sued
every week and it's a lot offear mongering.
And what Mr Biffle says is isthe exact opposite of that and
it makes perfect sense.

Speaker 1 (01:12:21):
Okay, Vaughn, what do you got to say to that buddy?

Speaker 4 (01:12:24):
Well, I want to back up a half a second and I'll just
make this point.
It's not just the tense,uncertain, rapidly evolving
circumstances that QI applies to.
So, to Mr Bill Fold's point,not all these cases have to do
with quick decisions, it'sdiscretionary functions.
It's where officers are engagedin discretionary functions as

(01:12:44):
to the threat.
Discretionary functions as tothe response to the threat.
Discretionary function as toreasonable suspicion for a stop.
Discretionary function, I meanthey're just having remember.
There's uncertainty,unpredictability, little
information and time sensitivedecisions being made.
And it's not just police right.
We give immunity to judges whohave years to decide cases.

(01:13:08):
We give immunity to prosecutorswho have years to decide
charging decisions.
The whole purpose of qualifiedimmunity is to protect officers'
discretionary functions, notjust split-second judgments
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:13:18):
This is where I need to jump in.

Speaker 1 (01:13:20):
Holy Christ, eric, you're going to have to block me
out for a minute to uh, I'mgonna move your fucking mic.
Old man, you better but what?

Speaker 2 (01:13:27):
these things that they purport are not what they
do.
And now we have the numbers tohave the honest discussion.
It does not.
If you go and look at thatstudy, because it's all of the
cases out there it makes it 20on average.
Uh, 23 percent longer, Ibelieve it.
I have to go pull up all ofit's.
Literally what qi does isextends out how long these cases

(01:13:52):
take to get through.
It does the exact opposite.
You think that it come on, let'stake the excessive force cop
thing out, but I'm trying to.
Let's not send this back to hey, because because what Vaughn's
saying basically get into thecop world.
Or people who are friendly tothat is saying hey, man, this
protects those guys that arewalking the razor's edge.
They're out there on thebleeding knife of justice to

(01:14:14):
stop and protect you through thenight, and that's what that
says.
But OK, that's not who's usingit.
That is not who's using QI.
That is not what is happening.
Ok, that is not how's using QI.
That is not what is happening.
Okay, that is not how the thatis the QI.
Okay, think about this.
He keeps talking about allthese.
Let a judge decide, let a jurydecide.

(01:14:34):
If it's, if he had to make thatdecision, let me be on the
panel.
I want to hear Banning tell methat this man tried to stab him
and he pulled his, and eventhough he didn't know if he got
the knife away, so he drew downand shot I'll.
I want to hear what banning did.
Let me see the evidence.
Isn't this justice?
Is this not america?
Or do we have these doctrinesthat just let people go?
Oh well, he was leaning sixinches to the left when that cop

(01:14:59):
ran over his foot and broke hisleg, and the last time a cop
did that, the guy was six inchesto the right.
These facts are not clearlyestablished.
Qualified immunity Good day,let's go to the country club.
And this is what we get.
I'm not even trying to be funny, but it is not about these
split.
If it's a split-second decision, vaughn, then stand on it.
I'm a man.

(01:15:19):
I've been in court and stood onmy bullshit.

Speaker 4 (01:15:29):
Okay, court and stood on my bullshit.
Okay, I don't have 17 appealsin between.
Yes, I actually made just theopposite point.
I was agreeing with you, mrbill ford.
It's not split second decisionsthat are covered by qa qi only
it's it's any discretionaryfunction.

Speaker 2 (01:15:38):
So when the police are doing surveillance and
making the ultimatediscretionary function is a jury
in this case, vaughn, and weare tired of no cases getting to
a jury.
I love you, vaughn, but listenthe case.
We're not getting clearlyestablished law because we
cannot get to a jury.
All these things you're sayingsound like a lot.
That's the reason why we havejuries in it.

(01:15:59):
So why can't we get these factsin front of one, vaughn?
Let's get it in there.
Why can't we get these facts infront of one bond?
Huh, let's get it in there.
Obviously, you cannot argue fromthe state point of view that QI
helps stop that.
When I just quoted that case toyou out of Nevada, where do I
have to go back and find it?
Where it was 12 years.
Yeah, mathis versus the Countyof Lyon.

(01:16:20):
12 years because the governmentofficial hit up a qualified
immunity appeal so many timesthat it took 12 years.
This is what we're talkingabout.
Get it in front of a jury,vaughn, and I'll exonerate that
good cop or I will bury the badone or whatever it is.
But let's get these things infront of a jury instead of
having no way to clearlyestablish law.

(01:16:41):
Oh, qi, why?
What QI?
Because that two prong youtalked about earlier, even if it
does violate, because it didviolate, but not in the exact.
The cop couldn't have knownbecause there wasn't those exact
facts.
So what?
The sixth circuit was sayingthat, yes, before we found that
a cop should know that a dogattacking a surrendered man

(01:17:02):
laying on his face isunconstitutional.
But in that same sixth circuit,well, god bless, that poor
officer did not have a fuckingclue that setting his dog on, uh
, a person who's kneeling andsurrendered was somehow
unconstitutional.
There's your qi bond.
There it is.
That's how you practice.
That's what we have cases tolook at.

(01:17:23):
We have numbers now and we canbreak them down later when y'all
want, all right mr billfold,I'm gonna let vaughn speak.

Speaker 1 (01:17:29):
I'm gonna mute your shit mute me.

Speaker 2 (01:17:33):
Mute me for real.
I'm gonna see what my cat'sdoing over in this corner all
right, vaughn, sir, your chanceto retort yeah, these are.

Speaker 4 (01:17:43):
Yeah, he's going right to the heart of policy
judgments right andeffectiveness judgments.
If one of the policies was tosave officers money, his point
is it's not really workingbecause officers aren't losing
money.
The problem is what happenswhen you lift QI, and this goes
to the rationale of why theyapplied in the first place.
This is not me making theargument for or against it.

(01:18:03):
I'm just understanding therationale for QI in the first
place.
This is not me making theargument for or against it.
I'm just understanding therationale for QI in the first
place.
Understanding it was if youlift it, how many discretionary
decisions do the police makeevery single day?
And I want you to imagine everysingle person you arrest, every
single person you stop for atraffic stop gets to file a
petition to the court that youviolated their fourth amendment

(01:18:24):
rights.
There's no QI.
Every one of those cases is nowgoing to go to a jury to decide
that this officer didn'tviolate your rights, even in the
most clearly clear cases.
Forget the clear ones, theclose cases, which is where a
probable cause determination, athreat assessment, stopping
somebody for a Terry stop Causeremember those are just
reasonable suspicion.

(01:18:44):
That's the Fourth Amendmentstandard Every single time they
decide they don't like what youdid, which is every time.
Adults don't like to be stoppedand told what to do.
They can sue you and you haveno way to prevent going through
the lawsuit.
So one it's not going to be avery fast process when you start

(01:19:05):
stacking up all those cases.
This is the same rationale thatgoes for why we have
settlements, why we have pleadeals.
That you will absolutelyoverrun the courts is the
rationale behind why there's QI.
It is the rationale why there'ssettlements, why there's plea
deals.
So if you lift QI and allowevery single person who does not
understand why the police didwhat they did in some cases they

(01:19:27):
just don't know the law, theydon't know the facts the
officers had.
They don't understand that thestandard for reasonable
suspicion means you're going tostop a lot of innocent people.
Legally Probable cause meansyou're going to arrest a lot of
innocent people.
Legally it means you're goingto use force on people that
ultimately, after theinvestigation, we find was not
necessary or was, but at thetime, based on what the officers

(01:19:49):
, the information they had, wasreasonable because it's a
probable cause standard.
If you raise QI, every one ofthese judgment calls is now a
potential litigation.
The courts just said we're notdoing that, we're not exposing
every discretionary decision,whether it was fast or slow, to
potential litigation.
No one would sign up for thatjob, not just the ones who are

(01:20:12):
corrupt, but the ones who aretrying to do it correctly, which
is, by the way, just a Terry.
Stop a reasonable suspicion,stop Just doing a basic
investigation would subject youto a lawsuit because there's no
qualified immunity.
Investigation would subject youto a lawsuit because there's no
qualified immunity, and then wewould be relying on plaintiff's
attorneys and the ethics of aplaintiff's attorney to not
bring frivolous lawsuits.
Now, how is that working outright now, where we have a

(01:20:35):
massive amount of thesepleadings that look nothing like
the reality of the event?
Right, the point is to get toclearly establish right, there
has to be an obvious use offorce violation or an obvious
constitutional violation.
I'll stay away from use offorce there has to be an obvious
constitutional violation andthat the facts have to have been
played out that the nextofficer can say, from a notice

(01:20:57):
standpoint right, this is a dueprocess issue.
Officers have to be on noticefor honest accountability.
They have to be able to predictthe lawfulness of their own
behavior, right.
This is plain due process, andwe cannot expect things of
police officers that are beyondhuman performance capabilities.
That's another.
The legal standard isimpossibility, right.
So you have a due processrequirement and you have an

(01:21:18):
impossibility defense.
Qualified immunity is not adefense.
Qualified immunity prevents youhaving to put forward a defense
.
It is immunity.
Qualified immunity is not adefense.
Qualified immunity prevents youhaving to put forward a defense
.
It is immunity.
It prevents you from having toeven entertain the litigation
side of it, and there's a dueprocess for that right, and
we've been talking about that.
You make a pleading, there's aresponsive pleading.
It goes before a court whodecides on its face.

(01:21:38):
Have you alleged aconstitutional violation that
any officer would have knownabout?
And then you get to move to thenext step or you appeal it,
which is his point.
And so that's this one policyargument for why QI is working.
To say, if you did your jobright, let a jury tell you you
did it right, would flood thesystem and nobody I don't think

(01:22:02):
anybody really would take thatjob right, because it's not
about corruption.
It's about the fact that theconstitutional standard is one
of educated judgments anddiscretion at every single stage
.
And so how many times have youarrested someone and you're like
, okay, now that we got moreinformation, this wasn't the
right guy and he wants to sueyou.
And not only this how youragency responds to you being

(01:22:26):
sued matters.
Some agencies will pull you offthe street.
Some agencies are going to tieyou up in that deposition.
They're going to tie you up inthe investigation.
You will not be working,particularly if it's a use of
force case.
So you've got that side of itas well.
All the philosophy behind QI was, if you're going to put these
officers into these decisionswhere they have to make

(01:22:46):
discretionary judgment callsevery single day, maybe dozens
of times a day, we cannot putthem in a situation where
anybody can file a frivolouslawsuit against them and now
they have to go to trial and ajury gets to tell them no, we
now understand what you did wasreasonable.
Because look what's thealternative going to be.
I thought about this as I was,you know, preparing to talk

(01:23:08):
about this today with you guys.
Could you imagine if we toldprosecutors or plaintiff's
attorneys or the communitymembers if you file a lawsuit
against the police a 1983 actionand you lose, you are liable
for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
We will take money from you forfiling a frivolous lawsuit.
We will take money from you forfiling that frivolous lawsuit.
We don't have that right.
The plaintiff's attorneys canfile these suits and they just

(01:23:30):
have to have a good faith basis,which is whatever their client
tells them and what they cansort of manufacture from the
case it has not.
At that stage those facts arenot the actual facts of what
happened.
We cannot look at almost any QIcase and say this is now makes
clearly established law.
Because, to Mr Belfort's point,what is clearly established is

(01:23:52):
you cannot sick a dog on asurrendering person, right, if
that person is obviouslysurrendering, they're not
actively resistant.
It is already clearlyestablished.
You cannot do that.
Even in the Baxter case, thatwas clearly established.
What was not clearlyestablished, according to that
court in their judgment and Idon't know the facts what is not
clearly established is thatunder these facts that would
have been obvious to theofficers.

(01:24:13):
Now I keep hearing he was.
The court said it was.
The court can't say it wasbecause the facts were never
developed.
So Mr Biltfold would respondyes, we'd like them to be
developed, developed.
So Mr Biltfold would respondyes, we would.
We'd like them to be developed.
That's his entire point is letthis get to not not just the
initial pleadings, not just tothe qualified immunity summary
judgment stage.
Get this into an adversarialsystem where the evidence can be

(01:24:35):
fully considered, it can betested through cross-examination
.
We can watch the videos, we canbring in the experts and not
let a jury tell you whether theofficer was correct or not.
If we did that, every singletime someone alleged a
constitutional violation againstthe police, we, we would, we
would, we would come to ascreeching halt.
Right, the entire system wouldcome to a halt.

(01:24:56):
So that's just one of thephilosophies behind it.
As a practical matter, as apractical matter, you can't give
so much weight to the pleadingsat a QI stage, right, and, and
Mr Belfort's pointing to thatparticular one and, by the way,
mr Belfort, I all day long thisis a good discussion for me the.

(01:25:19):
But the idea that those facts,when he says you cannot set a
dog on a surrender in person,right, that is clearly
established.
That was not what that casestood for.
And the fact that the courtsaid well, under these facts,
based on the record in front ofus which, by the way they were
interpreting in favor of theplaintiff, they still found that

(01:25:41):
it was not close enough.
Now here's the other thing I'lltell Mr Billiard Courts get
this wrong.
They get it wrong.
We can find cases where theyget it wrong both directions.
I hate precedential value ofcourts.
I get a court that tells me noreasonable officer could believe
that somebody within 21 feetcan get to you and stab you.
They've said that in a Marylandcase the court decided that a

(01:26:02):
jury could find that someonewith a knife within 21 feet
cannot get you.
It defies the laws of physicsand yet they held that as now
precedent until it got appealedand in that case, after the guy
was shot, he traveled another 30feet.
The point is, these courts arenot in a position at that stage
because they do not have thebenefit of experts in human
performance, they don't have thebenefits of the experts in

(01:26:24):
video, they don't have thebenefits of use of force experts
, or just they don't have any ofthat at that stage.
Now they get a little bit moreof it at the summary judgment
stage, but not at the initialmotion to suppress, which is
just a pleading.
And so this is the challengehere is we're going to look at
cases and we'll all find caseswhere we're like how was
qualified immunity granted inthat case?

(01:26:45):
Or we're going to look at acase, which we see a lot of,
where qualified immunity isdenied and you're like how on
earth is this court denyingqualified immunity in this case?
And I'll say a lot.
Those are the ones that come toour attention and what you
realize is they have tointerpret it in a light most
favorable to the non-movingparty.
So now I want you to imaginebeing a cop and matt I, I

(01:27:06):
appreciate what you're saying.
I don't know any cops eventhink about qualified immunity
in those terms, like they'reeither bad cops that are not,
they're either going to be,they're either going to be rogue
cops that are not.
Uh, I don't know if you're fromchicago.
I I understand chicago.
Talking to some of thelieutenants up there, they've
got bad cops.
They've got really bad, likecriminal gangs working for the

(01:27:29):
Chicago Police Department,according to one of their own
lieutenants.
Ok, fair enough.
Qualified immunity, whether theyhave it or not, is not the
answer to that.
There are other remedies.
In fact, if you got a cop who'scommitting crimes, it's not a
lawsuit that we would actuallybe wanting to go after.
It would be a criminal case,right, and you still got
internal affairs, still gotcriminal cases, you still have

(01:27:51):
other civil lawsuits, but we'requalified immunity is not going
to apply.
But this is the problem.
This is this is how I'm seeingit, and I think our tension
point is we are imagining twothings.
One, that it's qualified mediastage.
What they said in that case,what they said in that pleading,
is what happened.
And then it is egregious policeexample.
To your question, eric,specifically if it's so bad that

(01:28:13):
it would be obvious to anyreasonable officer, qi doesn't
apply.
And you will see those cases aswell.
That's why those cases getsettled.
It's not the QI cases that arethe most egregious, it's the
ones that are most obviouslyexcessive.
They're the ones that are goingto get settled, the ones that
there's a disagreement as to thefacts.
There's a disagreement andunderstanding of the laws

(01:28:33):
applied to those facts.
Those are the ones where QIgets asserted and granted.
If the cop there's going to beplenty of cases where the cop
did something knows he's wrongand they're going to get sued
and they're going to slam downqualified immunity because
that's their right and we canall look at it and go you're not
winning this, you're not goingto win this on the marriage,
you're not going to win this atthe QI stage, and we can all see

(01:28:54):
those cases as well.
But the problem is lifting.
Qi is a protection.

Speaker 3 (01:29:07):
I want every cop to imagine every single Terry stop,
you ever did where you ended upreleasing the guy.

Speaker 4 (01:29:09):
And imagine now you're getting sued and that has
to go to a jury before you getto go back to work.
Oh no, oh no, which takes years, mr Belfort.
That would be years in federalcourt.

Speaker 2 (01:29:14):
Oh no, it already is, because I just gave you a case,
I'm agreeing with you.

Speaker 4 (01:29:19):
I'm agreeing that it's not saving time by taking
it to trial listen, sir.

Speaker 2 (01:29:24):
What I'm saying to you is that only a third of the
1983 cases that are brought havethat qi thing, which obviously
means that the majority of thecases that are still being
brought are being brought andthey're not bringing the
qualified immunity up into it.
So the frivolous cases willstill be frivolous cases.

(01:29:45):
The boogeyman is out of thecloset, but yet they will get
disposed of because they're fullof shit cases.
What I'm trying to say is thatthis QI, it just is not working.
It does not purport to do whatyou have said that it does.
If 99.98% of every cop thatyou're talking to, would you

(01:30:07):
cops want to get out here and dothis job, tell them this you
want to recruit some cops.
Mr Billfold is about to recruitall the cops in America.
Check this out, guys.
Even if you fuck up right andyou lose your qualified immunity
because you know more about penV memes, because you like
snatching people out of cars,but you don't know the five
elements of the First Amendment,trust me, guys, when you lose

(01:30:30):
your qualified immunity and haveto be financially liable, you
will be municipally indemnified.
There's your.
I'm bringing the cops in now.
None of these cops, who evenlose their damn QI pay anything.
Why can we be not honest withwhat's going on?

(01:30:50):
How is it somehow going to?
I don't want any cop who'sscared of losing qualified
immunity to even be a cop,because obviously you don't know
what the hell qualifiedimmunity is.
You don't, you don't, you don't, you know what you're.
If you mess up and lose your qicops, all you cops watch it.
Hey, this is the angry guy.

(01:31:11):
Hey, listen, even if you losethat qi buddy, you won't pay a
dime.
It's proven statistically.
None of these people here onthe panel can argue that it is a
fact.

Speaker 1 (01:31:23):
Numbers don't lie and we, the people, can count but
part of the problem with thatthat that is also in the
equation is you can still loseyour job.
You can still never be a cop.
You can there's.
There's other factors to itother than just qi but have you
guys not?

Speaker 2 (01:31:43):
maybe there's some guys who might need to lose
their damn job being officers?
I think we review some of themon this channel every week.
This is not getting off intothat point, Eric.

Speaker 1 (01:31:53):
Let's talk about qualified immunity, but it's a
factor.
Hold on, sir.

Speaker 2 (01:31:58):
Hold on, but it's a tiny factor.
Look, parsley on top of mysteak is a factor, but it don't
change the sizzle.
Stop, don't play with me, sir.
Look, I love you.
Eric Vaughn talked about allthis stuff about the legal
system, defendants who areaccused of violating the
Constitution.
They have two differentcategories of protection it's

(01:32:19):
substantive and proceduralprotection.
It's substantive and proceduralprotection.
Substantively, the governmentdefendants can only be held
liable for violating theConstitution if they violate
that clearly established right.
That's not in 1983 that youshowed earlier.
It's at any right.
The term clearly establishedwas put in there by the Supreme
Court.
It is not in the law.

(01:32:40):
So we don't have to talk aboutfixing QI.
Stop letting the Supreme Courtpretend that it's in the law.
So we could not.
We don't have to talk aboutfixing qi.
Stop letting the supreme courtpretend that it's following the
law.
It is not following the law.
You pulled it up earlier.
Everybody go look at it.
Clearly established is not.
It says any right, not.
Okay, I want to hear von talkabout that specific part.

Speaker 1 (01:32:58):
Oh fuck, I want to hear him talk about that
specific part.
So we've we've talked about tohear him talk about that
specific part.
So we've talked about it andglossed over it.
But what is this?
Clearly established law part.

Speaker 4 (01:33:10):
Well, there's two parts of it, one.
I would say the other thingthat if the audience isn't aware
, remember it's a civil case, so49 people can agree with the
cop.
If 51 disagree, he's civillyliable.
Right, and that's what theywould constitute as clearly
established.
51% certainty from a civilianjury has decided you are civilly

(01:33:33):
liable constitutes clearlyestablished.
That's insane, right.
So they don't actually ever getto clearly established, unless
we can look at the caseourselves and go, yeah, you do
that, you can't have the guy,and we've all seen those cases
where somebody has obviouslysurrendered.
Now I'm looking at it from avideo, not from the person at
the scene, so I don't know whatthey saw, what, how they

(01:33:53):
interpreted it.
But fair enough, let's imaginethe case where we saw it was the
guy, was done and some.
I got a case right now likethat where I'm not testifying
for the police in this case, butit's clear that this person has
given up and there's forcebeing used.
Okay, great, we got those cases.
The problem is qualifiedimmunity is a protection in

(01:34:15):
civil cases and, yeah, it's noteffective.
He's making the argument and Ithink the statistics show the
officers aren't losing money.
But if you've ever been suedand you know about having to go
to depositions.
You know I had about doingadministrative light duties.
It is going to be a huge mentalstrain and a huge inconvenience
and you're going to be off thestreet in a lot of cases.
Some people work the entiretime, others don't.

(01:34:37):
Okay, fair enough.
Now to your, your, your.
What was the other question,eric, that you want me to
address more specifically?
That there's other avenues bywhich accountability can be held
.
Yeah, yeah, so if an officergoes to the merits, like, let's
say, they do not survivequalified immunity, the case
goes to the merits and the jurydecides by 51% they disagree

(01:35:01):
with the officer.
51% they disagree with theofficer.
Remember, this is anotherincredibly important part of
qualified immunity, because thequestion isn't whether they
violated the right right.
The question that the jurorsare asked to answer is that no
reasonable officer could havebelieved this was okay.
Are you telling me, jury, thatno officer could have believed

(01:35:21):
this was okay?
They have to say yes to holdthem liable.
So let's say 51% of them.
They say well, we have a 51%certainty that he should have
known better, that anyreasonable officer would have
known this.
Okay, that leaves 49% unclear.
Still, and to Mr Belfort'spoint.
These go on for years, whetherit's a qualified immunity or

(01:35:43):
it's a trial.
So qualified immunity is notalways speeding it up but it is
speeding up an awful lot of them.
Right, it's dismissing an awfullot of them quickly.
But the other ones that don'tget initial qualified immunity,
sure they're going to appeal it.
They're going to appeal it.
That's their right.
If they go to trial and say wewant to get it to a jury, that
jury, that jury trial is goingto put them on a docket that is

(01:36:04):
years out, like this is notgoing to speed it up either.
So they find some of them aren't, aren't meeting the policy
objective of preventing themfrom having to drag out and be
distracted from their actualpositions.
Right To have to litigate thesecases, but it does as a
trade-off, because all policydecisions are trade-offs between
accountability and thediscretionary function of the

(01:36:26):
officers.
Right, that's being debated at apolicy level and if we say that
it's not effective, then maybethat from a policy level it's
not effective, right, and theycan look at that.
But what is effective is thatyou are preventing a whole lot
of cases from getting even filedbecause of qualified immunity,

(01:36:47):
where the attorneys are lookingat it going, this isn't going
anywhere, right off its face.
And the ones that do make it tothat point, the ones that are
egregiously pled, may be becausethey reflect egregious conduct,
or may be because they werejust artfully pled that way.
We have no idea until youactually get to the merits of
the case or at least throughsome good discovery.

(01:37:08):
So these are the problems.
I think the biggest problemwith this whole qualified or
using 1983 as a tool foraccountability is the 51%
certainty and then claiming that51% certainty somehow provides
you clear notice that thisconstituted a violation that
wasn't otherwise clear inadvance, if that makes sense.

Speaker 1 (01:37:29):
Gotcha, I'm going to unmute you, mr Belfold, but
before I do, before I do,brother, I've got some videos I
want to pull up that arequestionable of whether
qualified immunity should bepulled or it's the whole reason
it exists and one of the reasonsthat I'm still on the, on the,

(01:37:50):
on the.
I think there should be somequalified immunity.
I'm about I believe it shouldbe tweaked, because I I don't
like some of the stuff, like MrBelford pointed out, like how
it's taken forever or the.
You know, only less than apercent of anybody's ever got
paid out or anything like that.
Like that seems shady.
This does seem something's upwith that.

(01:38:11):
Um, so there's something thatneeds to be fixed.
But, um, the thing that reallyhas me paranoid as a cop is the
lawsuit stuff and being tied upin litigations and not being
able to do your job if yourdepartment pulls you from the
street.
Now, matt, is that somethingthat you've ever considered when
thinking about your qualifiedimmunity stuff?
Like if somebody files just afrivolous lawsuit on you and now

(01:38:34):
you're pulled off the streetbecause that's the policy of
your department.

Speaker 3 (01:38:38):
No, not really.
I mean, I work in a very busycity and I've done everything
you can think of and it's justnever really crossed my mind.
I've just been ethical, done myjob right and, like we were
saying earlier, I mean if you'rea righteous cop, then it's
really not too much to worryabout.
That's why I have an issue withit, because it seems like what

(01:38:58):
may protect me is alsoprotecting someone who's not
righteous.
That's my big issue.

Speaker 1 (01:39:03):
Yeah, yeah, and I think that's fair and and that's
why I'm like, that's why I'm afence sitter on this, like I'm
like I I see both sides, like Idon't, you know, and you know
you may be the most righteouscop in the world, but all they
have to do is file the lawsuitand and tell the lawyer this is
what he did and and that'senough for that lawyer to be
able to file that, couldn't that?

Speaker 3 (01:39:24):
happen with any job or any person I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:39:28):
Listen, listen here.
Okay, think about this Out ofonly one.
I'm going to say this real slowfor everybody, so we can lose
the fear.
I'm going to say this real slowfor everybody, so we can lose
the fear.
Only one third of 1983 casesfor violation of rights.

Speaker 3 (01:39:54):
Only one third have qualified immunity.
We're not talking aboutqualified immunity.

Speaker 2 (01:39:57):
No, you're not.
I'm getting to the next part.
You want to leave all that bondtalk for 20 minutes?
Then I mean, what do you wantto do, eric?
What I'm saying is that thinkabout the 66%.
You know what's going on withthem.
The same shit you're talkingabout, you're scared of, is cops
getting sued for some bullshit.
It doesn't even have to assertqualified immunity because they

(01:40:18):
do their preliminaryinvestigations and they look
into it and go, oh my goodness,no, the body cam shows none of
this happened, like this personsaid, and they don't even have
to assert the qualified immunity.
That's 66% of the cases.
So 66% of the cases that you'reworried about somebody bringing
again, which is a violation of1983, don't even need cops,

(01:40:41):
don't need to assert it, becausemost of the cops out there are
just trying to do a good job.
But you're scared to death fromyour culture.
That qi is somehow going toruin.
Oh no, if they take the qi, no66 of the 1983 cases, okay, in
which a 1983 lawsuit is brought,the cops don't even the people

(01:41:02):
don't even need to get involvedwith asserting their qualified
immunity because it's just sofull of shit.
So the cases that you'reworried, oh man, cops don't want
to get tied up just becausethey say it Okay, they're going
to do it Comes with theterritory.
Thank God that only half lessthan half of a percent of the

(01:41:22):
cops who've ever lost their QIand were held liable had to pay
a dime because they weremunicipally indemnified.
None of these things that yousay you are afraid of actually
exist and the facts and thenumbers show it.
I'm just trying to help you out.
That's the reason why we're nottalking about the QI cases.
We're talking about the oneswhere cops are doing the right

(01:41:44):
things or the the publicgovernment Agents are doing the
right things.
You know it's.
I Just stop being scared.
You're not going to lose copsif anything.
Or QI only protects the badcops, really, because you're
gonna get the lawsuits, they'regonna come.
What happens in those 66% ofthe other cases that QI is not
asserted Vaughn?

(01:42:04):
What's happening is those aregoing to trial.
Holy shit.

Speaker 4 (01:42:08):
They're going to trial.

Speaker 2 (01:42:09):
And guess what?
But they're not even getting totrial because they're going at
summary judgment.
They're going.
This case smells like a fart ina car and I do not like it.
Therefore, qualified immunityis granted.
This is some nonsense.
Get this shit out of mycourtroom.
That's what will happen if theyeven do it, but so it doesn't.
The cases where the cops arenot doing wrong are the 66

(01:42:32):
percent where they don't evenbother to raise QI.
If QI was effective at savingyou guys, wouldn't y'all use it
100 percent of the time.

Speaker 4 (01:42:40):
So let me answer that the time.
So let me answer that If it wasthat effective?

Speaker 2 (01:42:44):
if it was that effective, wouldn't 100% of all
1983 cases have a QI assertion?
If what you're saying is true,QI existing is the only thing
you're saying.
That's stopping the floodgatesof 1983 lawsuits, when they only
make up a third of the defensesasserted in these lawsuits.

Speaker 4 (01:43:04):
The majority of those that are dismissed.
The majority of the cases thatare dismissed outside of QI that
are filed or for lack ofpersonal involvement, the
officer wasn't involved or thecity wasn't involved.
Failure to state a claim thatmight be like what you've
alleged here isn't even aconstitutional violation.
You failed to state a claim.
There's immunity for themunicipal ones because you're

(01:43:25):
including municipal 1983 actionsin that big subset and they're
also procedural defects.
Like you're in the wrongjurisdiction, you didn't file it
correctly and that has nothingto do with the merits.
Those cases are being dismissedand qi is not being asserted
for a whole host of otherreasons beyond the merits.

Speaker 1 (01:43:45):
Did we lose him?
Okay, hold on, mr Belfold, I'mtrying to get you there, you go.
Okay.
Now I will say, based on whatyou just told me, mr Belfold,
all right, fair, you'veeliminated a lot of that fear
that I would have as far asgetting sued and getting ripped

(01:44:07):
off.
So if that's the process andthat's how it's worked out now
you know this isn't somethingthat I obviously look into a
whole lot because it doesn'taffect me.
I'm not out there violatingpeople's rights or getting
wrapped up in crazy ass cases orany of that stuff, so it's
never really affected me.
Banning have you ever comeclose to any qualified immunity

(01:44:30):
needs?

Speaker 5 (01:44:32):
I've actually testified in a couple and it was
.
It was it needed to betestified in and it made a bad
name and and answers were werewere done at a district level
and it was taken care of andthere was liability on the
department and vicariousliability on that officer.
That were paid and I'm gladthey were.

(01:44:54):
I mean I can't go into thedetails but the courtroom and
the victim got their justice onwhat was deserved on that.

Speaker 1 (01:45:01):
Gotcha Can address this.
Uh um von?
I've heard this in new york andI'm hearing this in colorado
about um they've eliminatedqualified immunity.
Now, from my understanding youcan't eliminate it because it's
the state we're talking statestuff, eric yeah not, not, not
that you did not.

Speaker 2 (01:45:20):
The supreme court's magical look at this thing
called qi I made like pinocchio.
Not that thing.
They're talking about thestate's rights violation.
So any lawsuits brought up instate court, that's what that's
for.
It has nothing to do with the1983 claim no.

Speaker 1 (01:45:35):
No, I get that, yeah, but is there anything to add to
that, Vaughn, other than?

Speaker 4 (01:45:41):
Yeah, I mean their goal in that was to shift.
You know, the officers arefaced with like five percent or
twenty five thousand dollars inpersonal liability which they
can in most cases get insuranceto cover, um and only.
But they only get that limit tothe five percent of the twenty
five thousand dollars, uh,personally, if it was not
intentional or not grossnegligence.

(01:46:03):
So, yeah, they're shiftingliability from municipal paying
it to insurance companies payingit.
That was a big, big part of it.
Mr Buford's spot on it's aboutstate civil rights claims, not
not federal civil rights claims.
So, yeah, it's not, it's notkilling it over there.
They they have, but they havealso the procedural postures

(01:46:26):
later.
So there is more evidencedevelopment in colorado at the
early stages.
So you're not going to be ableto assert it as a motion to
dismiss at the at the initialfiling.
Their procedure requires afuller, uh evolution of the of
the evidence so that they canmake those determinations
earlier with more evidence,which probably, probably is a
good thing.
So, yeah, I don't think that itended up being the death knoll.

(01:46:50):
What it does is it feedsinsurance companies and I don't
think right now I know anyofficers who get a 5% or even a
$25,000 fee against them.
The.
The problem is again remember,49 people can agree with the
officer, 51 disagree and he'spaying 25 000 if, if they they
just decided and they never havevaughn.

Speaker 2 (01:47:11):
I respect.
I respect you a lot, von.
You have no idea.
I've watched hours of youronline the, the type of the, the
fact I see what you bring tothe use of force and
understanding the way that ithappens in human beings and how
we spot these things and how tobetter train police.

(01:47:33):
I appreciate it.
And all these people in herethat are screaming and hollering
, even though they see usbutting heads they, they have no
idea of what you do.
They have no idea of what youdo and I do.
So I just want you to know thatI'm not hot with you in a
personal way, but I do believethat the way you've represented

(01:47:53):
this has been a little bit ofthat cop's plane and shell game.
Most of the time, what QI doesis it wears down worthy
litigants, good plaintiffs whohave good cases get worn down.
And if we have to go to numbersand studies, I'll read from
that part of it.
Interlocutory appeals make up asubstantial portion of
qualified immunity litigationmore than a third, nearly 2,000

(01:48:16):
appeals from 2010 to 2020.
And they appear to be growing.
The data show thatinterlocutory appeals, along
with qualified immunity appeals,generally increased over their
study period and they ended upshowing that between the last
2010 to the last half of thatsection, it went up 20%.
Okay, I had read that earlierin it.

(01:48:37):
Clearly, government defendantsdo not hesitate to take
advantage of these specialrights.
Indeed, interlocutory appealsrepresented 96% of all appeals
filed by defendants.
The prevalence of interlocutoryappeals may explain why the
median duration of a qualifiedimmunity lawsuit in this data
set was three years and twomonths, 23% longer than a

(01:48:59):
typical civil suit upon afederal appeal.
Prior research also suggeststhat interlocutory appeals
contribute to lawsuit length,averaging more than a typical
civil suit upon a federal appeal.
Prior research also suggeststhat interlocutory appeals
contribute to lawsuit length,averaging more than a year 441
days from filing the resolution.
So that is.
There's some numbers for youguys to look at.
This is not about the policeuse of force things.
Qi is such a broken doctrinethat does not do what it's

(01:49:22):
reported to do that it's beingabused by town hall people
working at town hall, policemayors, clerks of court,
everybody and their grandma whoare using this qualified
immunity for just like that caseI gave you earlier, which is 12
years.
Yeah, that might have beenextreme, but this is from
information that was justreleased last year.

(01:49:45):
We can dig into these numbersand have a real conversation.
It lengthens the time thesethings are in court.
So how does qualified immunityin any way lessen the burden on
the legal system?
If you can make that make sense, I'll go do the PT test at the
sheriff's department and andtake my one bullet in the
revolver and totally barney fifeit up in this love it well,

(01:50:11):
you're.

Speaker 4 (01:50:12):
You're.
You're not including all thecases that aren't filed because
of qi, right, and you're not.
You're not including all thecases where you're talking about
the ones that do, that do getinterlocked appeals.
You're telling me how long theyare.
You're not telling me all thecases that got dismissed early
on QI, right.
So the benefit of QI is toprevent, right?
The benefit of QI, the policybehind it, was to prevent

(01:50:35):
official government actors whoengage in discretionary
functions from having to defendthemselves every time they make
a discretionary decision.
Those are not egregious cases.
The filings of those in thatbody of cases you're citing
include absolutely frivolouscases, right?

(01:50:56):
Not the QI cases.
I think you're imagining onethird of these are the most
egregious cases and the policeare not being held accountable,
where QI does not protectofficers from excessive use of
force or constitutionalviolations that are obvious,
that are beyond debate, right?
So if you look at that, if welook at a video or they look at

(01:51:19):
the evidence and they go, anyofficer would have known this
was bad.
These guys are not survivingqualified immunity, right,
they're going to have to go.
So if you're going to find acase where you disagree with the
qualified immunity assertion,we'd have to look at that
specific case and see whatrationale the the court relied
on.
Almost always it's because theydidn't buy the plaintiff's
assertions right.

(01:51:39):
So when we say somebody wassurrendering, for example, and
we're like you cannot stick adog on a surrendering, for
example, and we're like youcannot stick a dog on a
surrendering person, they didn'tbuy that he was obviously
surrendering, such that theofficers would have known that
they didn't buy it.
That was the reason for thedistinction in the case.
That is going to be the biggestdistinction when a case gets

(01:51:59):
qualified immunity and a lot ofus are looking at it and go how
did that happen?
One, because we did not realizethat the factual assertion did
not reflect the reality of thecase, or we put ourselves in a
position that was different thanthe officers at the time.
We had the benefit of outcomebias and certainty bias all the
things we like to talk about andwe watched it on video.
We were not the officers at thescene.

(01:52:20):
The court has to consider itand look through the lens of the
officer at the scene.
So if we look after the factand say this was clearly
excessive, any officer wouldhave known it based on the video
, then we have to take a stepback and go well, the officer is
not the video.
What did that officer know?
And based on what they knew,would it have been obvious that
what they did was illegal?
In the K-9 case, the courtsimply said no and I don't know

(01:52:41):
the case, so I don't know that.
I agree with the court.
You obviously don't.
You know the case more than Ido.
I don't have a position on thatcase of whether it was obvious
or not, but I'm telling you justquickly, looking at that as an
example, the court did not buythat argument that he was
obviously surrendering.

Speaker 3 (01:52:59):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:53:00):
I mean, okay, I really don't.
Uh, one thing about it that'scrazy is that you keep talking
about legalities.
Unlike most legal defenses, inqi, the burden is on the
plaintiff, not the government,to prove that qi doesn't apply
yeah, it's not a defense, though, right, it's immunity, it's not

(01:53:22):
a defense listen, it's okay.
Well, I'll tell you what to uslaymen bond.
When you somebody is bringing acase against you and you don't,
instead of answering for it andgiving your defense in front of
a jury, you go and assertsomething called qualified
immunity.
We'll just call it a defense,because you're asserting it in
court to avoid having anydefense for the case being

(01:53:44):
brought against you.
How fine will we split thesehairs?

Speaker 4 (01:53:47):
von well, that's an important one when you're
talking about burden of proofwhat I'm I'm talking.

Speaker 2 (01:53:52):
If we're talking, not talking about burden of proof,
sir, we're talking about qi.
The problem is that we'relooking at all the ways that it
just does not work.
It doesn't lower the amount oftime cases spend in court.
It's proven, it's in thestudies.
If you want to refute theInstitute for Justice, in their
know they had over 7,000 cases,the largest data set ever gone

(01:54:15):
through, and we actually havenumbers to look at the
accountability, so we can stopwith the cops flaining and all
of these other things.
You keep talking about thelegal aspect because you're a

(01:54:38):
lawyer, right, right and Irespect that.
But we're not even.
We're not even getting to thefact that it gives so much
advantage to the government andthe government actors.

(01:54:59):
Like I was saying earlierbefore, eric went right back to
you to ask prove a governmentdefendant can only be held
liable for violating theConstitution if they violate
clearly established rightSomething made up by the Supreme
Court, not violate a right,like it says in the law.
The Supreme Court added theword clearly established in
front of right.
There we go Boom, but a clearlyestablished right, and like

(01:55:21):
what you're saying about itbeing baked in the Fourth
Amendment or whatever the hell,that was right.
A clearly established right inthese cases means a plaintiff
needs to point to a defendantwho did exactly the same thing
in the same circumstances, thesame set of facts, and was held
to have violated theConstitution.
Otherwise you're out of luck.
Layered on top of that,substantive protection is

(01:55:41):
procedural protection.
Layered on top of thatsubstantive protection is
procedural protection.
Qualified immunity is, if youget it denied at any stage at
motion, dismissed because thejudge is like this is some
bullshit, this is some bullshit.
I've seen a lot of cases,officer, and this is some horse
shit.
It's gone.
Qualified immunity deniedImmediate appeal.
Summary judgment immediateappeal the case I showed you

(01:56:07):
earlier, 12 years.
Why Qualified immunity appeals?
This has nothing to do with oh,who's going to protect these
decisions that cops have to makein the moment?
Listen, out of the one-fifth ofthe cases of 1983 that were
First Amendment 50, over 50percent had alleged
premeditation, like the case Ibrought up with Mr Farnborough,

(01:56:28):
where the mayor sent the policeto take the man's sound truck.
It was all the charges were.
The mayor did the.
The DAs are having a fit withthis nonsense.
Okay, and they're fine.
That woman's going for thequalified immunity.
That's what.
That's why the Institute forJustice has taken that man's
case.
This is not about qualifiedimmunity, somehow protecting the

(01:56:48):
spirit ether for good cops whodon't want to get caught up in a
bad lawsuit by crikey.
No, no, it's not doing that.
That's not what it's doing, andwe have that in the numbers and
we can look at those numbersnow.

Speaker 4 (01:57:01):
Well, the numbers they don't have is how many
people aren't filing the suitsbecause they know they're not
going to go anywhere, right?
And the other thing is, whenyou say that judge looks at that
, he looks at that and he goesno, you're not getting qualified
immunity.

Speaker 2 (01:57:12):
I'm looking at these facts and this is obviously
excessive and this is obviouslya violation like a judge, who's
like a judge who might have saidyou know what I I see a case
out of the sixth circuit thatsays this man who surrendered
and was laying prone andattacked, his rights were
violated.
So I'm taking your qualifiedimmunity and then you file your
interlocutory appeal.
Now you get three judges look atit and they go oh well, it

(01:57:33):
wasn't so clearly establishednow, was it?
This is what I'm getting at.
Yes, Thank you, Vaughn, forbringing that out for me.
That's exactly what I'm talkingabout.
You get to keep appealing.
You get to bite from thatappeal apple.
Oh, taken away.
Oh no, I don't get qualifiedimmunity.
Oh, I get it again now.

(01:57:55):
Oh wait, the judge said, likethe case I gave you, it's not
about cops, and I particularlybrought Mathis versus the County
of Lyon.
So if we take y'all out of thisoh, the QI protects the heroes
and take you out of thatnonsensical it's a silly,
childish way to think, becausethe facts prove that it doesn't.
This is qualified immunity,whether it's police, use of
force or abuse of whateverQualified immunity is used to

(01:58:16):
prolong the litigation.
It is a fact.
The numbers prove that out tobe a fact.
I gave you an example where ittook 12 years to find a bad
government actor guilty.
That is a fact.
So do not say that qualifiedimmunity.
You can't point to anythingthat it's done.
You're saying well, it doesn'tshow this.
There's a lot of things thatdon't show a lot of things,
Vaughn, but the numbers showsomething we should dig into

(01:58:38):
that.

Speaker 4 (01:58:38):
We should dig into these numbers.
Here's what I understand aboutthese cases.
When that judge looks at thatpiece of paper and says this is
obviously a violation and theofficer looks at their attorney
and goes none of that's true,none of that happened.
He goes we're going to appealit, don't worry.
Why do they appeal?
It is because they want to keepthe case in front of judges,
not juries, because they knowthere's jurisdictions where as

(01:58:59):
soon as you get in front of thatjury, it becomes a complete
roll of the dice.
People are convicted all thetime by juries in activist
states and activistjurisdictions where it's 51% and
they know an insurance companyis going to pay for it.
So the jurors have no realincentive to side with a cop,
right?
So they don't want the case togo in front of a jury.

(01:59:20):
Any attorney will tell you thelast place't want the case to go
in front of a jury.
Any attorney will tell you thelast place you want your case
criminal or civilian is in frontof a jury.
You want it dismissed underlegal grounds and procedural
grounds.
That's what QI does.
The second thing is if you lookat that piece of paper and the
judge says this is an obviousexcessive use of force and I'm
going to deny you qualifiedimmunity.
And the entire policedepartment is looking at that

(01:59:43):
officer going.
Based on understanding thiscase, you were within policy,
you within training and theofficer's like none of this and
this pleading happened, none ofit.
And yes, they're going to havean intellectual appeal because
they're not going to roll thedice with a jury and have to get
up and go.
Look, he's lying abouteverything he said in here.
We did not have that vantagepoint.
We were not clear.
The guy had surrendered.
This is what we saw and this iswhat we knew.

(02:00:04):
We made our decisions andthey're discretionary decisions
and maybe you disagree, butreasonable people are allowed to
disagree under the law.
We don't send that to a jury todebate tactical decisions at a
51% certainty.
That's why they keep it inqualified immunity.
That's why they keep it infront of judges.
That's the benefit.

Speaker 2 (02:00:40):
Okay, go back on.
Sorry word.
They pull out what informationthey have, all their, and again
the jury's like this is somebullshit.
This cop did nothing wrong.
I'm sure that bond has workedin cases where juries have come
back and found no wrongdoing, soI don't want to hear this shit
that's not a jury, it's a judge.
The qualifying meeting is ajudge decision I'm talking about
if we get to a jury trial.
You've never, you've never, uh,testified at a jury trial in

(02:01:03):
defense of a cop or anybody elseof use of force.
Is that what you're saying?

Speaker 4 (02:01:07):
Yeah, of course I do and remember at a criminal stage
.
That's beyond a reasonabledoubt.

Speaker 2 (02:01:10):
This is what I'm talking about.
Yes, Vaughn, isn't it crazy howthere was some justice there
and people got in front of ajudge?
Let's get it in front of thejudge.

Speaker 4 (02:01:18):
Yeah, but I've also seen cops go to prison.
I've seen cops go to prisonwhen everybody involved in the
case said he followed policy, hefollowed training, he did
everything he was trained to doEverybody said what he did was
reasonable.

Speaker 2 (02:01:33):
A jury came back and said we would have done it
different.
You're going to prison.
We're not talking aboutcriminal charges.
We, the people, are the oneswho have to worry about whether
the charges y'all write on usstick or not.
We're talking about 1983 civilrights cases and our ability to
redress our government and thefact that QI does not let us.
So I don't want to hearanything about the cops.
I know Eric right now can tellyou a story, I'm sure, of a cop
who was probably a great cop,and there's two other cops doing

(02:01:55):
something, three or four othercops doing something bad, and
all this guy does is like whathappens to a lot of us they send
a blue and white in to pick youup and take you to the
processing and the other peopledid some messed up stuff and
violated rights, and now thatother good cop is caught up in
the mix and getting slammedright.
There's those cases out there,but none of y'all can name a cop
who ever lost two red nickelred pennies rubbed together in a

(02:02:18):
liability.
It's proven in the numbers.
This is what I'm saying.
It's not there.
It is not there.
There are more cases ofofficers being thrown under the
bus and their lives ruined bytheir own people not taking care
of them and looking out forthose good officers because of a
bad culture of corruption thanthere are any cop who's ever.
If you find me one cop who hasever, ever lost their home or

(02:02:43):
anything to acute losing theirQI, ever lost their home or
anything to acute losing theirqi uh assertion and being held
liable for a 1983 violation bond, I will let you put me in a
rear naked choke at that nextexpo that y'all have for police
out there and I'll pretend to bea uh antifa and you can just
beat the shit out of me becauseI know you won't find one.

Speaker 1 (02:03:02):
I know you won't find one time, time, time.
Holy shit, this was good.
All right, listen, we're on thetwo hour mark.
All right, I want to.
I want to do a little.
I want to do a quick littlewrap up.
Um, before we get to thatbanning and matt, this has been
like a show for us, like exactlywhat I was looking forward to

(02:03:26):
all my popcorn we, we, yep, we.
We knew we weren't gonna getentertains me enough.
I deserve to return the favor.
We knew we weren't gonna go awhole lot in, so what I would
like to do is we saw a lot ofyou guys's comments.
We just we didn't want tointerrupt these two, we wanted
to let them go I was trying tokarate, chop me with four
science sorcery so, um, and andone of the things we love about

(02:03:52):
mr billfold and we werediscussing it behind the scenes
is if we can just keep him fromlosing his cool, he can make
waves, and I think I think youwere able to manage it just
enough to.
I think we're getting youaround there, bud.

Speaker 2 (02:04:07):
Well, I'm already there, let me just say something
.
I want to thank Matt Thorne,all right, because that's how I
found you guys.
I want to thank the communityout there.
Coco, I see you, I know, Ithink Shotguns and Tats, all the
rest of y'all I love y'all outthere.
Navia, the one who's got meblocked because she's very
passive, aggressive.
I'm glad.
I'm glad you're here too, gal,it's nice to see you so um but

(02:04:31):
there's no hate and the reason Idon't hate cops anymore because
I really didn't have any usefor anybody in a, in a uniform
after what I've been through,what my wife's been through and
other things.
But matt showed me that youknow, it's like mark twain said
hate, hate is an acid that doesmore damage to the vessel you
keep it in than anything you canpour it onto.
You know what I'm saying and Ihad this hatred and instead
y'all took shots.

(02:04:52):
I've shot shots at bannon, Ishot shots at eric, I'm shooting
shots at von when he'sgaslighting like crazy um, but
at the end, but at the end ofthe day.
But at the end of the day, Iknow y'all care.
We don't have to agree on thesethings, but we have to have the
conversations.
So thank you, matt, forbringing me to these guys
because I don't harass you.

(02:05:13):
But I want everybody fromMatt's channel, if you like this
type of thing, come on back andsee us every week, because we
jump in with both feet and doflutter kicks.
I want to be quiet on that.

Speaker 1 (02:05:23):
Yeah, one of the things that we you know and this
is goes over to matt's channeltoo um, we give you guys.
Look, mr billfold is not a partof the show, but he's on here
getting his voice, he's gettinghis chance to speak.
How much, how often do you seethat in any other thing that's
that has cops involved?
Vaughn, you've been on more copthings than any of us combined

(02:05:45):
on this panel.
Have you ever been a part wherethey actually allow somebody
from the audience to come up anddo something like this?
No, not on podcasts.

Speaker 4 (02:05:56):
We love to do like the community groups.
Just sit in there and sit thereand just take it yeah, the town
halls, the universities, thecommunity groups and just have
these discussions.
We hope that the disagreementsand the gaps are just
misunderstanding of each other'spositions and we can close that
gap.

(02:06:17):
I think today a little bit, meand Mr Belfold have really
gotten into whether therationale and policy behind
qualified immunity is effective,whether it's actually doing
what it's intended to do.
Those are policy discussions,right, that's easy.
I agree, as long as and I don'tthink we disagree on at least
three fourths of that, becauseit's you're right the money

(02:06:39):
incentive is not the bigincentive, so I think that's
failed.
If that was one of the concernsthat the original Supreme Court
who recognized qualifiedimmunity had, then that hasn't
played out as being a concern,and so that's a good thing.
There's other social intereststhat are being balanced with

(02:07:04):
qualified immunity.
We talked about those today,interests that are being
balanced with qualified immunity.
We talked about those today,whether those are being
effectively met or not, one ofwhich Mr Billfold has talked a
lot about, whether it's savingthem time in court, right, and
the research is showing thatthose cases that go are spending
a lot of time, right, I think,proving the negative.
How many cases aren't goingbecause of qualified immunities

(02:07:25):
is tough, right, you'd have totalk to the attorneys and all
the plaintiffs who like, howcome you didn't bring your case
against the cop and like weweren't going to survive
qualified immunity?
Okay, fine, those cases, um.
But I think we're coming downto whether or not qualified
immunity is doing what it'sintended to do, and how do you
protect and and maybe this is aquestion we didn't really get
after too much but do we believethat any protection should

(02:07:50):
exist for people who are engagedin discretionary functions?

Speaker 2 (02:07:55):
any protection.
I would like to say vaughn uhfor on behalf of the community,
because we don't get a chance tosay these things to you.
Police, I'm telling you is thisand even when qualified
immunity was created in pearsonray, it even went on good faith.
But I'm telling you is this andeven when qualified immunity
was created in pearson ray, iteven went on good faith.
But I'm telling, even so, whenit was first pulled out of whole
cloth, the clearly establishedpart, that's 1982, when that

(02:08:16):
mess came in.
But what I want to say to youis this good police are
protected by the reasonablenessstandard of the Fourth Amendment
.
That is why less of those cases, or 100% of all these cases,
would just assert QI right offthe rip.
Most of them don't need to.
They don't need to becausethese cops acted reasonably and

(02:08:38):
they stand on that.
The Fourth Amendment protectsyou guys and it does a great job
and you all have great lawyerswho will defend you.
And I say that because I'veseen good cops and I know
there's good cops out there.
The fourth amendment protectsthem.
What we have proven withnumbers and now, especially
since it's called unaccountablefor all you guys in the audience
, institute of uh for justicedid the study of over 7 000 all

(02:09:00):
the qualified immunity appellatecases in america 20 for 10
years.
The numbers are, we can look atit.
Show this to your friends.
It proves qualified immunitydoes not work.
It does not work.
It makes the average case 23%longer than typical federal
appeal case.
So here's what we know, guys.
When this comes up inconversations outside of here

(02:09:21):
and you're hearing the cops tellyou this and that, go show them
some numbers, because if wecan't be man and woman enough to
sit down and look at numbersbecause everybody can count a
monkey can count to five.
I've seen him do it on his hand, so you know, let's go, we can
sit down and look at thesenumbers.
Qualified immunity is not inany way, shape or form sparing

(02:09:43):
any of these cops.
Any problems.
The cases are going to come,regardless of whether QI is
there.
It's not going to be a hugeincrease.
All qualified immunity reallydoes, guys and let's make sure
they understand it is it makesit difficult for a person whose
rights have been violated toseek redress.

(02:10:04):
That is what qualified immunitydoes.
The Vaughn and I may disagreebecause he hasn't read this, but
who the hell does you peopleneed to read it.
Stop getting on here screamingabolish QI in Matt's channel and
thinking that's going to stopcop abuse.
Because it's not.
Because QI ain't stopped a damnthing yet.
None of those guys who lost it.
They were indemnified, theydidn't pay a dollar.

(02:10:24):
You're not stopping them.
It does not disincentivizeabusive police behavior.
You're going to see the samevideos on Matt Thornton's
channel day in, day out, if heposts them because QI has
nothing to do with it.
So you guys need to study upand learn what it is.
Stop.
Just the same way, these copsare fooling themselves into
thinking that QI helps them orprotects them.
You folks think QIi magically,if they got rid of it, would

(02:10:46):
make cops stop violating rights,and let me tell you that is not
how this works.
They even when they lose qi,they don't pay a dime.

Speaker 4 (02:10:54):
So what we need to do is learn things, become
motivated, become informed andcome on here and battle with
four science wizards yeah, Iwould let me wrap up one, one
very small point of that becauseI don't want to be left silent
on that issue.
I just I would just encouragepeople to relook the distinguish

(02:11:15):
, the distinction you're makingbetween qi and reasonableness,
and the fourth amendment.
I made the case earlier.
They cannot be divorced they.
They operate in tandem.
One you cannot even assert the1983 action without asserting a
constitutional violation.
So start there.
You cannot divorce those things.

(02:11:37):
The reasonableness standard ispart of the entire inquiry and
will never be divorced from thequalified immunity question.
I'll stop there and people cando their own research.
Start with yeah, and then youguys can look at the actual case
.
I'll look at Saucier versusKatz is a good one, or Anderson
versus Crate.
Neither one of those will kindof give you the framework for

(02:12:00):
the filing of the initial QIcases.
Everything else, I'm happy tostand quiet on All right.

Speaker 1 (02:12:06):
And then there's one question came up.
Vaughn, I wanted to give you achance to defend yourself
because I thought this was anunfair statement, but I want to
let you handle this.
Vaughn Kleem defends QI becausehe trains cops to avoid
liability, not to face it.
Of course, he backs the shieldwhen you profit off immunity.

Speaker 4 (02:12:24):
Justice isn't your client yeah, in one sense he's
absolutely right.
We train.
I train cops my whole career toavoid liability because I train
them to make constitutionaldecisions.
So I have focused onconstitutional policing for my
entire career.
I focused on what are calledlaw driven tactics, which means
how do you investigate a case,how understanding what the

(02:12:45):
actual rules are and thensticking within those rules.
So me, and whoever thatcommunity member is, 100% agree
I want constitutional policing.
I want honest accountability aswell.
I've trained cops my entirecareer, for over 30 years now,
to do it right.
No one has ever sued me.
I've never been accused ofbeing unconstitutional.
I do not just defend cops.
We have plenty of cases wherethe cops did everything wrong

(02:13:07):
and we're happy to call them outtoo.
We do civilian cases, we dopolice cases.
So if anyone believes that allwe do is run around defending
cops, that doesn't reflect thereality of my daily existence.
I do understand the sentiment,but yes, I train cops to avoid
liability by doing it right inthe first place I think that's a
fair answer sir

Speaker 2 (02:13:28):
listen, I, I agree.
I.
I don't think that any kind oflike ad hominem attacks or
questioning of von's integrityis getting anything anywhere.
I will say that, um, I'm prettysure there's times where von
would you know, von cannot.
Let's think about this.
Side note sorry, I'm taking upall your time, guys.
Vaughn has probably saw thatsome use of force was not called

(02:13:52):
for.
And guess what?
I'm pretty sure that the peoplethat were trying to defend that
guy, that officer, did not wantVaughn to come in and testify,
even though they might have paidto bring him in and look at it.
So he can't force them to dothis.
Y'all need to have somerealistic expectations, like
we're begging these cops to havesome realistic expectations.

(02:14:12):
But what Vaughn said aboutFourth Amendment, reasonableness
, being married to QI, qi wasjumped on its back.
Okay, guys, because you caneven find something wasn't
reasonable, but it wasn'tclearly established.
We cannot act like that's notpart of it.
Y'all Look into your laws.

Speaker 1 (02:14:27):
Love you, what's up, Appreciate it Before we go.
Matt, you got anything.
Parting words, sir.

Speaker 3 (02:14:36):
I appreciate this.

Speaker 1 (02:14:40):
I learned a lot that's smarter than me.
I love it.
It was great, Banning sir.

Speaker 5 (02:14:46):
No man, 21 years in my career and I've never
personally had to go throughthose numbers because I was
presented general orders andstate law and federal law and
never got close to that grayline.
Several arrests I've arrested,you know, to answer some of
these questions in here.
I hate to say it but I love tosay it as well as I've arrested

(02:15:07):
several cops, whether it be DWI,family violence, smuggling of
drugs, smuggling of money, andyou know, is that something
proud to say?
It is because who knows howlong they got away with it and
I'm glad that I'm the quoteunquote cop that took that
person into custody.
And all those cases, everyone Ijust mentioned, they got time.

(02:15:28):
It wasn't just a oh man, he wasoff on his cop cop, this cop,
that no, they did their time.
So I'm very, very proud tobring that up.
But everybody that came here,from Mr Belfold, from Matt's
page, from Vaughn's to Eric'sand mine that spent the time to
sit here and listen to this,this isa a huge topic that goes
across the world and there's alot of confusion in that and

(02:15:51):
there's a lot of, uh, mistrustthat comes from it across the
country because they don'tunderstand everything, not the
people, but the police juryeverybody else.

Speaker 1 (02:16:01):
So yeah, no, no I'm saying me included, like there's
so much to it.

Speaker 2 (02:16:06):
I fully admit I'm an idiot, like I would really, I
would really like to recommendto my friends here that are in
law enforcement on this panel ofesteemed gentlemen to really
look into that study that cameout and really look at the
numbers, because I don't know.
We've talked about this beforeand you've seen this from
Lawrence Accountability.

(02:16:26):
I sent you a link where a townboard member there was a man
holding a sign with a curse word.
She told the deputy to kick himout.
They kicked him out.
Guy filed a lawsuit.
First Amendment judge deniedqualified immunity.
They came in.
The man came back to that placeand spoke to them and did a
heads up and he talked to allthe law enforcement officers.

(02:16:48):
And I'd like you guys to passthis to your brothers Stop being
the pawns of these governmentactors, because they're the ones
using more QI than you guys anda lot of the times when you're
getting called up on this QIstuff, it's because you violated
a right, because how clearlyestablished must it be that on
time, place and manner, I can bein a public forum with my cell
phone?
Yet how many times do we seepeople getting trespassed from

(02:17:11):
public places and kicked out ofplaces and having all kinds of
crazy charges brought on thembecause of this.
This is clearly established,yet it happens all the time.
So I would tell you, cops outthere, stop letting these folks
turn your badge into their bully.
You know where they hit us overthe head with your badge,
because you're the ones who aregoing to have to run around and

(02:17:31):
beg that these guys like Vaughnget and get y'all some QI,
because you're damn sure itshould have some common sense.
It's not reasonable, but you'llstill get QI Because even
though any reasonable cop shouldknow, hey, this is a First
Amendment, right, it's qualifiedimmunity is the only defense
that I have to disprove as theplaintiff and there's been
nothing else like that in anypart of legality anywhere.

(02:17:52):
And if I'm wrong, vaughn willcorrect me because he's a lawyer
.
But guys, do not let thesefolks weaponize your badges.
They're doing it, we're seeingit every day.
Learn your damn Constitutionand stand on it and tell these
city clerks and everybody elsehey, it's a cell phone camera,
it's not a bomb.
Stop calling my 911 with thisfoolishness.
And you guys need to stopletting them weaponize y'all,

(02:18:14):
because that's when y'all needQI the most, when you can't
defend the shit forreasonableness, because I was
just following orders.
So stop following orders ifthey don't make a damn lick of
sense.

Speaker 1 (02:18:24):
All right, I want to give, uh, some announcements.
We, you know, we don't.
One of the things we don't beatyou over the head with here,
guys, is our sponsors and allthat stuff.
We either do it right at thebeginning or at the end, so you
have to sit there and listen toour crap over and over again.
Um, not that our sponsors arecrap, that's not what I'm
getting at.
But uh, if you guys can take alook, mr bill and I, we're

(02:18:44):
actually sporting some retrorifle tonight.
So shout out to retro rifle,check them out.
Another sponsor of ours isPeregrine.
So this one really kind of onlyapplies to cops and law
enforcement, actuallyprosecutors and filing cases and
stuff like that.
They're another part.

(02:19:04):
It's called Peregrine, like theFalcon.
Yes, peregrineio, yes, sir.
And if you guys check them out,you guys can basically turn
your crappy videos into SherlockHolmes.

Speaker 2 (02:19:20):
From hobo chic to just the sexiest thing ever,
just because of the shirt, Iknow right.
I take the shirt off.
They think I'm Jeff gray orsomething.
Real quick man.

Speaker 1 (02:19:32):
Are we?

Speaker 5 (02:19:32):
able to do one review .
I don't know what everybody'stime is.
I'm up in DC but I'm gettingblown up Like are you guys going
to at least do one body camreview?
So are we?
You know, do we?
Do we have the time, do we not?
Is the population there for it?
If not, we can do it next week.
But just curious.

Speaker 1 (02:19:53):
We can do one.
I can pull one up real quick,you've got to agree with me.

Speaker 5 (02:19:58):
Matt has got a hall pass for a little bit and it
would be great if he could stickaround.

Speaker 2 (02:20:04):
You keep Matt Thornton until he gets drug away
by Tennille.
That's right.

Speaker 5 (02:20:08):
That's right, man, and we all love Matt, we all
love Vaughn, mr Belfort.
I'm very thankful that you'rehere doing this.
We haven't personally connected.
We will.
I don't care if I got to flyout to you.
We can have a beer together andgo down the.

Speaker 2 (02:20:22):
Big spoon or little spoon?

Speaker 5 (02:20:23):
Hey, I'll take both brother, it don't matter to me.

Speaker 2 (02:20:27):
We have to establish these things.
There you go, man.

Speaker 5 (02:20:30):
There you go, yeah, so.

Speaker 1 (02:20:34):
Okay, if you want to listen and dine me Banning.

Speaker 2 (02:20:36):
My favorite crayon is brick.
It's my favorite flavor.

Speaker 1 (02:20:40):
There you go man All four brother Okay.

Speaker 3 (02:20:49):
I got a video pulled up.

Speaker 5 (02:20:50):
We'll do one body cam review.
You're sleeping, Thankseverybody Thanks.
Vaughn, are you good for ashort review?

Speaker 4 (02:20:55):
Yeah, go ahead, I'm still awake.
I've got Red.

Speaker 1 (02:20:57):
Bull, I like it.
All.
Right, let me biggie size this.
We'll go over to the chat.
Okay, real quick, let me goover the.
Uh, what we do here?
Um, let me make thisappropriate size and let me turn
off this ticker on the bottomhere.
So we got more viewing space,Okay.

(02:21:19):
So, um, what we do is none ofus have seen this video.
Um, if any of us have seen itin the past, we'll own up to it.
The whole point of our body camreviews is not to Monday Morning
Quarterback but to kind of putyou in the mindset of how law
enforcement training is acrossthe board.
Now, all of us on here we'veall been cops and we've all been
cops from around the nation, soour training is all slightly

(02:21:42):
different and what we will do iswe will pause as the video
develops and kind of tell youwhat we're thinking and how we
would tackle the next part ofthe call before we see it.
So that's where you're gettingthe insight to how police train,
how we make the decisions wemake.
Most of the time we get on hereand sometimes we seem like

(02:22:02):
Nostradamus.
Sometimes the cops throw us fora loop and we discuss it.
It's kind of fun.
People seem to like that.
Since we were getting requestsfor it, that's what we're doing.
Somebody asked me what I'mdrinking tonight.
You guys aren't going to likeit.
I'm just drinking Liquid Deathtonight, just a carbonated water
.
I did not have anything todrink tonight.

(02:22:23):
It was a hydration day.
That's what I did.

Speaker 2 (02:22:27):
No, you have anything to drink tonight.
So, uh, it was a hydration day.
That's what I did out of no,you gotta spin it.
Man.
Out of respect for all of youpeople, he abstained in order to
give you his full attentionyeah, there's that too.

Speaker 1 (02:22:36):
I just I didn't.

Speaker 4 (02:22:38):
He was like he was like a dad babysitting a
sleepover.
He knew there could be anemergency at any moment.

Speaker 1 (02:22:43):
He had to be sober to get us to the er I didn't want
to say that, but that's prettymuch what happened.
So, all right, let's uh, let'sget to this video here.
Let me unmute it.
We're already big sized.
Um and uh.
Thank you everybody that hassent in monetary donations
tonight.
You really help out the channel.
It doesn't go in our pocket,just goes right back into what

(02:23:04):
we're doing and uh, pays themonthly bills for all the
subscription stuff that we usefor this to make this stuff.
So thank you very much.
If you didn't get a chance tocatch this episode live, it's
going to be available on theaudio podcast and you'll be able
to watch the replay live onYouTube.

Speaker 3 (02:23:33):
Without further ado.

Speaker 1 (02:23:38):
Oh, all right, so um, we've just uh wrecked out.
I think I saw airbags deploy inboth vehicles.
I think most vehicles haveairbag deploys.
It shuts that thing down right.

Speaker 5 (02:23:54):
Depending on your make and model.
Yes, sir.

Speaker 1 (02:23:56):
Yeah, but most of them that car won't drive
anymore.
I don't believe.

Speaker 5 (02:24:00):
I can tell you the old Crown Vix, if the airbag
went off it would still keepgoing.
It would still keep going,would still keep going, just
telling you shout out to my mom.

Speaker 1 (02:24:08):
She gave me another 50 bucks, like she spoiled me.
I feel like it.
It's wrong when it's your momanyway, um country girl, she's
always cheering on my mom, butuh your mom's awesome man.

Speaker 2 (02:24:22):
look, anybody who would take care of you after
being left on her doorstep,that's a good woman, I know,
right.

Speaker 1 (02:24:30):
So for me, guys, if I'm in the car that just got hit
, the patrol car that just gothit I'm assuming the vehicles
have stopped I'm going to unassand I'm going to take cover
either, probably not rightdirectly behind my car, at the
best angle that I can get, whereI don't think that other car
can get to me.
Um, that gives me some cover.

(02:24:50):
Uh, I'm going to go with.
I'm going to go with Mr Bill,fold on this.
What?
What would be your next move,sir you were a Marine?

Speaker 2 (02:24:58):
My next move, if I'm who the guy that just got
whacked.

Speaker 1 (02:25:00):
No, no, no, no, no, no.
You're the, you're the.
You're the officer in the carthat just got hit on.

Speaker 2 (02:25:04):
Oh man I don't know, assess my own injuries.
If I have any injuries, if Idon't, I'll probably have to get
out and look and see how manycars were involved.
Are any bodies laying around?
Does anybody need immediatecare?
Is this car going to staystopped?
I'd have to think of a thousandthings at one time.

(02:25:26):
That's y'all's job.
If anybody needs help because Idon't give a shit about the guy
driving If he hits somebody andsomebody's hurt out there, I'm
going to go help that and letthis guy just Y'all get the
drones on him.

Speaker 1 (02:25:40):
This is what I tell my rookies Scene security,
self-aid, and then we get theinformation.
So scene security, medicalmedical has to come first to me,
because if I'm out of the fightthen I'm no good to anybody.
So my my medical aid.
If I need a tourniquet orsomething serious, then self-aid

(02:26:01):
.

Speaker 2 (02:26:01):
Buddy care to my co-workers and then to the bad
guy um I have a question for youcops, where y'all are giving
the answer have y'all had the?
Does the adrenaline get soamped up, like if you were hit
like that on these in thesescenes, do you have injuries and
you don't realize?
You got really tuned up alittle bit until after
everything's secure and you'relike, oh my god, did somebody

(02:26:22):
hit me with a baseball bat?

Speaker 3 (02:26:24):
yeah, hey, I'm having .

Speaker 5 (02:26:26):
Bill Fulton, I'm going to bring two seconds.
Come over here and just popyour face in here.
So this is Houston Gas.
He was on a family violencecall, that's his real name.

Speaker 1 (02:26:35):
Houston Gas.

Speaker 5 (02:26:36):
Yeah, can't make this shit up in Texas and we're in
DC right now.
But here's the deal, man, hewas on a family violence
disturbance I'm giving you a30,000 foot view dealing with a
call with weapons, and hebasically put his ear up to the
door.
He peacefully was able to getsome people out of the house and

(02:27:00):
then the violent subject in thehouse unfortunately shot him
point blank in the face with a12 gauge shotgun and he was
basically 21 plus.
Surgeries later returned andput that uniform back on to
serve his community and, to givea long story short, he went to
the county jail way after thisand forgave the guy that shot
him.
So we get a true hero in ourpresence that's been watching

(02:27:21):
this.
He's one of my best friends andI just wanted to kind of make
everybody's awareness be knownthat he's in here and this is a
true he.
He's frigging amazing.
He just retired in lawenforcement last month and now
he's in the private sector and Ijust wanted to say he's
watching this and veryenthralled at this conversation.

Speaker 2 (02:27:38):
What was his name?
Again Banning.

Speaker 5 (02:27:40):
Houston Gass, you can .

Speaker 2 (02:27:43):
Google it and find all of them.
Hey, houston, some of thesefolks don't like self-proclaimed
heroes, but we can proclaim youto be a hero.
If somebody else does it, it'snot self-proclaimed.
Hey, I'm glad you made itthrough, man.
I'm glad you found a way tokeep giving back.
That's pretty awesome, man,because the only thing you can
do that lets those kind ofpeople win is to stop pushing.

Speaker 1 (02:28:08):
You're not wrong, man , and I appreciate it, mr
billfold, thank you very much.
Yeah, yeah, man, that's awesome.
Heck, yeah all right.

Speaker 2 (02:28:11):
That's why I, that's why I come here, because I I'm
not these other people.
I don't care if they disagreewith my numbers.
I do not think the majority ofcops are bad.
I just think that when, whenyou do get the bad ones, it
really screws the pooch foreverybody.
But the more I talk to you guys, the more I'm like okay, well,
I'm gonna fight you when you'rewrong and I'm gonna stand with
you when these guys hate on youfor no reason, because there's

(02:28:32):
enough, uh, focus to actuallygetting some work done.
And it's guys like him are thereason why my heart would soften
.
People like matt, soft in myheart, had me a better
relationship with god, you know.
So everything works out great.
And uh, you, uh, you know.
I really appreciate you guys,whether the haters and I'm
already got haters in the chat,so I'm doing great.

Speaker 1 (02:28:52):
Does anybody have anything different that they
wanted to do on this call Vaughn.

Speaker 4 (02:28:57):
Yeah, well, I've been in two of those almost just
like that.
One was almost exactly likethat and to to Mr Belford's
point, I there wasn thought assoon as the crash, threw the
thing in park as much as I couldand bailed out and started
checking welfare of the otherperson.
There was no self-assessment,there was none.
It was immediately go check thewelfare of the person in the

(02:29:18):
other car.
One was a van that flipped androlled over.
The other one was an SUV thatgot smashed, knocked me 90 feet
into a field, but in both casesit was get out and sprint to the
other person but there was nothought to it.
It wasn't like I was like I'mgood, I'm going to go sit, it's
just.
That was the job.

(02:29:38):
That was what you're kind ofpredisposed to do.
One of them I had a rookie not arookie, but a civilian ride
along with me and he was frozen.
I came back to check hiswelfare afterwards and he was
bleeding because the airbagdeployed.
He was like I look over and youwere gone and you were already
up there at the van checking onthe guy.
He's like I had no idea whathappened.

(02:29:59):
That's just what happened.
I don't know that there was anytactical assessments After the
fact.
I went and got my shotgun outof the car, my rifle out of the
car because I didn't want themto explode from the fires and
all that good stuff.
But but the first initial jumpwas to get out and go check the
welfare of the bad guy.

Speaker 1 (02:30:15):
Yeah, um, just to, I'm gonna put this out there for
acorn because I wrote it in thechat.
But some other people arewondering where self-proclaimed
hero is.
Uh, he did finally get the bootwhere he, uh he, we can deal
with the.
You guys saw we let you guysinsult us throughout the chat
the whole time.
We don't care, like free speech, baby.
But where we do have problemsis when you start spreading uh

(02:30:39):
slanderous stuff, where you'resaying that we're lying and that
we're putting out uh falsestuff, um, to where I think I
even showed mr billfold.
I gave him every opportunity tofix it and say, hey, man, not
cool, like you can say whateveryou want about us, but just
please don't lie.
Gave him the chance and he'sdoubled down on it.
So then we had to, we had toboot him.

(02:31:00):
Um, that was his own choosing,not ours.
So, yeah, I, I, you guys know Ilet you guys say whatever you
want, don't, don't care, butyou're not going to you're not
gonna lie.
There's a lot of people that doa lot of work behind the scenes,
matt being one of them, banningbe another.
Um, we do a lot of work to putout what we put out and try to
share and do the same mission.

(02:31:20):
And we, god guys, how manytimes do we talk to each other a
day?

Speaker 3 (02:31:25):
100, no that text there's like four of them oh
yeah, we love it.

Speaker 1 (02:31:30):
We just daily of trying to put out good stuff for
y'all and trying to do exactlywhat we said our mission
statement is, and so can't haveyou, patrick.

Speaker 2 (02:31:39):
I'm sorry for the tangents, patrick, I get worked
up.
I've been waiting for this onefor months, so I'm sorry he has
been.

Speaker 1 (02:31:46):
he's been patient.
Alright, let's keep going.
Alright, hopefully we canswitch to a body.
Committee Sounds like he saidhe's split on foot Sounds like
he said, he's split on foot.

Speaker 2 (02:32:04):
We need to get him to where he's lost.
Southbound launch.

Speaker 3 (02:32:08):
Southbound launch.

Speaker 1 (02:32:09):
Southbound launch.
I don't know.
I think he's got something onhis dashboard.
That's why I was worried aboutthat.
He un-assed quick.
That was awesome.
That doesn't, I can tell youguys.
I've watched a lot of dash camvideos of officers.
When them airbags go off, theytake it.

Speaker 5 (02:32:29):
It's harder when it looks.
It's harder when it looks toback into that real quick.

Speaker 1 (02:32:33):
Yep, it's one of the very few reasons I'm a big fan
of having a little pocket knifeon your vest Because you can get
them airbags out of your wayreally quick.
So we've unasked.
Now we've got to figure outwhere this guy's at.
Look at all the smoke.
You might be a little, you know, dazed from the airbags things
to consider.

(02:32:53):
So let's see what happens here.

Speaker 6 (02:33:01):
There we go.

Speaker 1 (02:33:07):
Never liked running body cam.
Oh, we were wielding.
Did you see that one?
The big use of force, guys, I'mlike, oh Lord, um, so uh,
vaughn, take it away on dualwielding.

Speaker 4 (02:33:27):
Well, it's not just dual wielding.
I mean, you're going to debate,I, I don't like foot pursuits
with any gun out.
Uh, by the way, cause theunintended discharge possibility
goes way up.
But a lot of officers, a lot ofofficers, will do foot pursuits
with gun outs, particularly ifthey have to cut a lot of
corners.
Lots of stop and go, stop andgo, stop and go, and I get a lot
of corners, lots of stop and go, stop and go, stop and go, and

(02:33:48):
I get it.
Um, but when you start pullingtwo out so you have force
options, you start get slip andcapture possibilities, which
means you intend to fire one,you end up firing the other.
So dual wielding is bad tactics.
It's bad decision making understress.
Uh, it's a.
It's not something you wouldtrain, but I do understand.
People at least rationallythink well, if I, if, if I need
to go less lethal, I've got thisoption.

(02:34:09):
If I need to go lethal, I'vegot this option.
But those are from a humanperformance standpoint, those
are just bad ideas.

Speaker 1 (02:34:15):
Yeah, Matt, what about you brother?

Speaker 3 (02:34:18):
It just shows that that I mean can't blame him.
He just had a really adrenalinedump.
Uh, he's things are goingfaster, should be slowing down.
Yeah, when you, when you pullboth like that, he's it's
speeding up for him and, and asany fighter would know, you, you
got to slow things down whenthey, when they get fast.
So that's what if I was there?

Speaker 1 (02:34:37):
relax, relax right, right, bend it out in the neck,
get it.
I like it.
All right, all right.
So let's keep going here.
Obviously, try to find somecover, the best you can.
We're kind of running out inthe open, but we're also trying
to keep view on this guy in thenighttime.

(02:34:58):
It's hard to do Watch when heturns that corner.

Speaker 3 (02:35:01):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (02:35:02):
Slow and controlled baby.
Oh, he went in the water.
Oh no, all I'm going to sayright now is you fucking asshole
.
That's exactly.
I'm not going to lie.
If I was on the scene, that'sthe first thing that would have
been out of my mouth, because heknows there's nowhere to go.

(02:35:23):
Why are we doing this?
Right, I don't know what statewe're in, but if it's Florida,
you know there's gators and thatcrap.
See what we could do if we hadbanning, though that doesn't
look like a big body of water.
If banning jumped in, it wouldjust displace the water enough
that we could go get them.

Speaker 3 (02:35:44):
That's a brilliant move.
If you've got guns and drugs,dump it right there in the water
.
Yeah, you're not wrong.

Speaker 5 (02:35:56):
I'll just go in there and wrestle the gators.
Y'all grab him Right.

Speaker 1 (02:36:01):
So now we've got to consider how we're going to.
Here's all the factors that aregoing through my head head.
Can I see his hands?
That's going to be my biggestthing.
Hands are what kills us.
Can I see his hands?
We're going to be challenginghim.
Everybody's going to be rampedup.
I need one voice, so I needsomebody to take command.
Hey, everybody else, shut thefuck up.
Matt's got this.
Matt's the one right in frontof him.

(02:36:23):
Tell him what you need to do,so somebody needs to help take
control, because everybody'sgoing to be chirping and gets
around and get around them yeah,um taser and a big body of
water.
I'm not really sure what the uhscience is behind that, but it's
probably not good no, it's nobueno.

Speaker 4 (02:36:40):
Plus.
I mean at this point, he's anunknown threat.
You don't know.
If you've got weapons, youdon't want to hide behind your
front sight.
You probably need to be findinga position to cover if you got
one.
If you don't, you don't Makeyourself small.
But you covered the other stuff.
One voice Slow things down.
Start giving clear commands.
Taser's not an option in thatbody of water, at that threat

(02:37:02):
level.

Speaker 2 (02:37:02):
Right, I have a question.
Uh, I have a question, non-leoquestion okay, what you got do
they teach?
Look, banning will tell youthis was the funniest thing
about being a marine.
It was when you, when you hadthe guys who couldn't pass a
swim, qual and I'm like dudemarine is in the name, the
water's in there and and do theymake?

(02:37:25):
Uh, they didn't, please.
I have like swim qual you guys.
Are they just hoping this guygets in his core fram shoes and
just hops out, starts wrestlinglike?

Speaker 5 (02:37:35):
steve irwin.
What was?
Hey, hey, hey, the sad.
The sad thing on this is I'mnot going to take the, the, the
panel away here on this.
But when I, when I got in andwe got to that SW2, I believe
what they call it in swim crawl,a lot of my my brothers said so
this is where we learned toswim and I was like oh, where

(02:37:59):
you learned to swim.
He's like, yeah, man, I'm fromTennessee and I've never even
seen the pool, and I'm like,well, you about to see the pool
and the pool's about to see youand you're about to be loaded
down with gear.
There's your fake M16A2 servicerifle that you're about to don,
and we're about to swim andfloat for a long time.
Are you good with that?
And then the drill instructor.

Speaker 2 (02:38:20):
Make a flotation device out of your trousers.

Speaker 5 (02:38:28):
Damn right.
Yes, and I had a lot of extrain my trousers.
Thank you, man.

Speaker 2 (02:38:30):
We're good.
I was just wondering about swimqual for cops.
I mean, do they give y'all anyopportunity to go to the pool
and get laps, or is it just?

Speaker 4 (02:38:38):
you know popping caps .
If you're near a body of water,there's agencies that require
boat rescue, beach rescue, swim,but if you're not, no, I knew
agencies that require, like boatrescue, beach rescue, swim, but
if you're not, no, I knew vonwould know.

Speaker 1 (02:38:51):
Von's got four science.
All right, I'm gonna addressthis.
Uh comment, I'm not really surewhat it's supposed to mean.
Eric and the biggest bitch, letme see your hands.
Yeah, that's the thing thatfucking kills us.
And you just rammed our vehiclehead on, then fled.
It's not things reasonablepeople do so.
Joseph af, um yeah, or joe,joe's, joe's af, whatever your

(02:39:16):
name is.
Uh, yeah, that's not sure whatyou, what you were getting you
get to be the biggest bitch.

Speaker 2 (02:39:21):
I don't appreciate it .
We, we had the tape measure outand we proved that adlin is the
biggest bitch that's true.

Speaker 1 (02:39:28):
Yeah, shirtless too.
Nipple the nipple, all right,let's.
Let's keep going here, allright.
Hands are clear, fairly clear.
Looks like he's got someseaweed in there, um, so I, I'm
okay with that.
Uh, verbal commands try to.

(02:39:49):
You know he's going to be alittle tired.
He ain't getting too far, butwe want to get our distance with
that taser.
They often fail because we'retoo close, we don't get enough
spread, um, so if that's gonna,if that's about to be used, um,
that's what I would be lookingat.
Uh, I think we got enoughpeople there.
I would probably, I, I wouldprobably go hands on here, uh,

(02:40:12):
when he's at his most vulnerable, because he's going to be slow,
lethargic, getting out of thatwater, I don't want to give him
a chance to get his momentumgoing again.
Anybody else got anythingdifferent von you?
Look like a taser guy, yougoing taser.
No, I am not a taser guy, I ammuch moreer.

Speaker 4 (02:40:26):
No, I am not a taser guy.
I am much more like you in thatregard.
I didn't like OC and I didn'tlike tasers.
I would prefer to go hands-on.
But at this point you couldtell him to get on the ground
and do a compliance check.
We would at least encouragethat.
Get a compliance check If he'sgoing to do it.
He's going to do it.

Speaker 1 (02:40:50):
If not, lines check if he's going to do it.

Speaker 3 (02:40:51):
He's going to do it.
If not, you can go hands-on,but at least at least give him
the opportunity to to comply atthis point.
Fair matt, you got anythingdifferent?
No, it looks like he's.
I mean, he's working towardscomplying.
This is usually where I tonethe yelling down and just like
talk to him like a man, likeyou're not going anywhere.
Bro, come on, we want to hurtyou, I'm not a killer I'm not a
horrible cop.

Speaker 2 (02:41:05):
I'd make a horrible cop Cause all of y'all have this
more figured out than I do,cause I get amped up.
Y'all see me talking to thewizard over here.
I'm about to lose my shit.

Speaker 3 (02:41:14):
I can't imagine a son of a bitch.

Speaker 2 (02:41:17):
Running from me and like backhands me.
I might be hunching his leg.
I don't know what would happen.

Speaker 1 (02:41:23):
I think we got a t-.
I think we got a t-shirt.
I think we got a t-shirt ideafor Science Wizard.
I love it.

Speaker 4 (02:41:29):
I don't even know he's talking about me until you
comment.
I was like oh, who's the wizard?
And he was like oh, I'm goingto wear a hat next time one of
them wizard hats.
There you go.

Speaker 2 (02:41:38):
Well, make sure it's not white, I agree with him, but
I find him just attractive andI don't know why I don't blame
you.

Speaker 1 (02:41:46):
You know, Mr.

Speaker 4 (02:41:47):
Belfort.
I started out in the MarineCorps right.

Speaker 2 (02:41:50):
Yeah, marines, make the best soldiers.

Speaker 1 (02:41:54):
Point in words.

Speaker 2 (02:41:56):
My stepfather.
Look, my father was a ranger,my grandfather was a ranger.
My dad said he'd rather have adaughter and a bordello than a
son in the Marine Corps.
So at 17, I signed up and waslike ha ha, show him you signed
up for the bedello for a day.

Speaker 1 (02:42:11):
You son of a.
How did I get me in the wordtitle?

Speaker 2 (02:42:17):
he fucked me up.
I'm gonna go quiet while youcops talk about hold on.

Speaker 1 (02:42:21):
Brandar just sent up a question, uh, probably one
that I really like talking about.
Why don't police have yearly PTstandards?
Most do.
Too many cops resorting tobelts, tools over hands and
skipping hands-on, skippingsteps, yeah, yeah, here's the
problem.
They have a fitness test everyyear but the biggest, fattest

(02:42:46):
guys can still pass it becauseit's very low standard PT.
That's my opinion.
I have a very, I have veryspirited words in my brain that
I can't say out loud, but Ihighly disdain police PT.
I think we don't take it nearlyas serious as we should.

(02:43:06):
But then part of the problem istoo you got cops that have been
out on the streets for 15, 20years and they're broke down,
busted up.
Some of them can't do a lot ofthe motions and stuff that are
required for the PT test.
Well then you got that wholeside of the house.

Speaker 4 (02:43:23):
Add to that, eric, there's a lot of really fit cops
that are over-reliant on theirtools right now.
It's not just about fitness,it's about, as you well know,
just complete lack of training.
So, yeah, there's fat cops whoare really great at jujitsu and
they're quite capable of goinghands-on Kung fu pandas, yeah,
and then there's really fit copswho don't train.

(02:43:45):
So it goes both ways.

Speaker 1 (02:43:46):
They think, because they can bench 300 pounds, that
they can handle anything in afight.

Speaker 4 (02:43:51):
I think it's cute that you think 300 pounds is a
lot of weight.

Speaker 1 (02:43:54):
Even Matt laughed.
On benching.
That is a lot of weight You'rewrong about me.
That's your game.

Speaker 4 (02:44:06):
I think Matt Banning and I both looked at you like oh
, that's cute.
He thinks 300 is a big benchpress.

Speaker 1 (02:44:11):
That's adorable 225 is about the max I can get.
I cannot bench like that.
Y'all are crazy Really.
I wouldn't look at you andguess that at all.
I know, thank you.

Speaker 5 (02:44:22):
That's a good bicep workout.
225, 245 plates in the bar.

Speaker 1 (02:44:26):
You know what?
Let's get to the video.
We haven't gotten halfwaythrough it, sons of bitches Lay
down, lay down, lay down.

Speaker 6 (02:44:38):
Lay down, lay down.

Speaker 1 (02:44:39):
Okay, hey man.
Move in.

Speaker 2 (02:44:44):
Nobody beat the shit out of him.

Speaker 1 (02:44:46):
That's awesome for all those excuses people say.
Cops are always looking to justhurt people.
This dude rammed their car,then ran from him in the water,
which is that's.
That's an asshole move, by theway, uh, but I'm glad he got
himself out.
So he ran in, but he gothimself out, so we can.

Speaker 4 (02:45:08):
We can watch that one clean I think that's why I
think matt would agree at somepoint.
You just calm down and you, you, you're just impressed with
their commitment.
Like the guy was committed,like he's just like a nice try,
man, come on out, lay down, thatwas solid effort and they know
that guy was just excitedbecause he knew he was going to

(02:45:28):
have the best, fucking bestpaperwork ever that night.

Speaker 2 (02:45:32):
He's just going to have to write.
Whoever writes that report out.
It's going to be like thebackstroke was initiated,
subject flailed and had to begrabbed by his fourth point of
contact.
I mean this is great.
That cop knew he didn't have todo shit the rest of the night
but type this up.

Speaker 4 (02:45:49):
I like Brandar 86.
Technically they pulled out infront of him.

Speaker 5 (02:45:55):
That's just right.

Speaker 1 (02:45:57):
We're taking for sure .

Speaker 5 (02:45:59):
Don't forget, Mr Belford was driving that car, so
he may have some.

Speaker 1 (02:46:03):
QI he, he has to go after in about 12 months to
answer for that and in that intoyour point, matt, one of the
things that I've noticed aboutmyself over the last at least 15
years I don't yell at people,like even when it's an amped up
situation.
I'm like hey, like I'm taught,like I'm just trying to talk

(02:46:24):
normal, like calm.
Um, I, I don't know why that isI, I just don't.
I'm not a yeller anymore.
I got out of that pretty,pretty quickly in my first few
years.
I just never really seen theneed to start just absolutely
screaming at the top of my lungs.

Speaker 4 (02:46:42):
Yeah, we try to train that out too early.
I I mean years and years now.
It doesn't ever make sense why,even in training, guys would
get amped up and start yellingand screaming and two seconds
earlier they were perfectly calm.
We call it like they're in theoptimal arousal state.
They're focused, they're doinggood threat assessments and then
, when it's time to make contact, they just escalate and they

(02:47:02):
start screaming.
I'm like what are you doing?
Everything's good.
Just talk to the guy, he canhear you.
We're still fighting that.

Speaker 3 (02:47:13):
I always got on my nerves.
I was just going to make himrun faster.
He keeps screaming.
I was going to run faster, manyeah.

Speaker 1 (02:47:20):
It looks like that was the end of that video.
Since I put him into custody, Ican pull up one more.
If y'all want one more, um,let's see, we don't want a long
one, though, okay, let's uh,let's go with this guy.
Open a new tab.
Boom.
Oh, slow your roll.
Share this tab instead.

(02:47:41):
Biggie size and let's goinstead.
Biggie size and let's go.
Biggie size.
Great 64, 5, 3.
Wait a minute, thank you.
Okay, so right away, the firstthing I noticed is we parked
down the street.
This is typical, standardprotocol for dealing with

(02:48:03):
domestics.
You never want to park directlyin front of the house because
we've been ambushed and thingsof that nature, and this gives
you a chance, especially if youdo what we call staging.
If you're waiting for backup toget there, you'll stage.
So, other than that, anythingelse anybody else notices?

Speaker 2 (02:48:27):
Where's his backup?

Speaker 1 (02:48:30):
I think she's talking to him, I think they're
together, so she probably parkedand he came up.
When I say they stayed, youstayed.
You wait for your backup to getthere and then you go up
together.
What was the call?
What was the original call?
We don't have that information.
That's part of the fun.
We don't look at any of thedetails, we just watch what we
got in front of us and kind ofgo off of that.

Speaker 4 (02:48:50):
Yeah, that's why I did that.
There's so many calls that copshave to do the initial
assessment by themselves.
There isn't going to be abackup.
They're just going up to assessthe scene.
They're going to collectinformation and they'll advise
dispatch if they need anotherofficer there.
Typically, if it'snon-threatening, you probably
aren't going to stage down theblock.
You might, depending on if it'slike an unknown disturbance,

(02:49:10):
call, for example, and you mightjust call, advise on it, park
down the block and then do yourassessment as you walk up.
But many, many, many of thesecases you don't have a back at
this stage because nothing inthe information triggered it.

Speaker 1 (02:49:23):
Right, yeah, like for us, us, we, we never.
If it's a domestic, we don'tapproach alone and we definitely
don't park in front of thehouse.

Speaker 5 (02:49:32):
so that's what we we may.
Even I understand this officer'swalking about 12 inches off
that curb.
Line me just with with sometactical sense.
Even if this is a cat in a tree, if there's no traffic, like
this road is currently showing,I'm going to be about another 36
to maybe 72 inches out more tothe right only because we're

(02:49:53):
able to pie of what's going on.
It may be grandmother giving usinformation.
It may be somebody summoning usthere to end somebody's life
and unfortunately you don't knowwhat that is.
We really don't know what thisis, but you have to treat every
situation as it may go badreally quickly.
Um, and just to be safe aboutit, period.

Speaker 1 (02:50:13):
Yep.

Speaker 5 (02:50:14):
All right, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (02:50:24):
All right.
So we had a guy come out andtake a shooter stance after
saying let me see your hands tothat effect.
Now this is where we don't wanta Monday morning quarterback.
So for me I would hope that Iwould have had the presence of
mind to move to cover and notinto the open.

(02:50:45):
So Banning you got anything onthis?

Speaker 5 (02:50:48):
No.
So where he's at, obviously badguy knows position and that's
bad terminology.
Person with a gun that made thestance knows your position.
Sometimes you have no choicebut to close in that gap and in
that threat.
So you may have to pendulum,start going to the right and

(02:51:08):
utilizing your vision.
While ending that threat,you've got to take in everything
that's going in there.
Yes, what you're taking abouttaking about cover.
If you were to back that up andlook at everything that's on
there, you don't have much totake cover on.
I see a lot of officers thatwill go house to house and
they'll weave on these propertylines.
First of all, you ain't got nobusiness to be on anybody's
property that didn't call.

(02:51:29):
So I have a problem with thatwhen they're walking all up on
somebody's house.
So we're out there on thatpublic street just like
everybody else, and that's whatwe have to us.
If we've got a car that we cango to for taking on fire, great,
we've got a car.
For a moment, the PD canfreaking replace that car if it
gets shot.

Speaker 1 (02:51:45):
If I'm getting shot at everything's on the table In
play, absolutely I don't care.
I'm on it.

Speaker 5 (02:51:54):
What I'm speaking about is when you're walking up
on a cold scene and it's anunknown.
We're not going to utilizepeople's property walking up and
screwing up all their veggiesAnyway, I'm getting in the weeds
on that but utilize what youhave if the shit hits the fan,
but also utilize your tacticalknowledge when stuff like this
happens.

Speaker 1 (02:52:12):
You have to end that threat.

Speaker 5 (02:52:14):
Who else has he hurt?

Speaker 1 (02:52:15):
Right Vaughn, sir, what do you got so?

Speaker 4 (02:52:18):
far.
It's an ambush right, so youeither close or you get dis, but
you move.
If an officer turned around andsprinted back to the first
position to cover and didn'teven draw their gun, I wouldn't
have blamed them.
If they would have drew theirgun and just started
aggressively getting accuratefire on that person, I wouldn't
have blamed them like there's no, it's just tactical trade-offs
at this point and it's going tobe what your training is.

(02:52:40):
If you've been trained toaggressively attack the ambush
and and fire through the, that'swhat you're going to do.
So it's just bad all the wayaround.
But yeah, ideally you gettingfire on that person as fast as
possible or you getting yourselfin a position of less
vulnerability.
But I don't know where the carwas and there is not a right
answer, there's just a series ofbad choices at this point.

Speaker 2 (02:53:03):
It's bad for everybody.
Yeah, I don't know how y'allthis is where I tell people that
you have to.
The reason I give good copsgrace is because I would not
want to deal with this kind ofthing for a job.
It's bad enough getting burnedwhile being a welder, not, you
know, having to worry aboutsomebody ready to dump on me and
my partner.
That's just not, you know, Imean.
This is why I I want us to cometogether and bridge this gap,

(02:53:25):
because we need good cops, Idon't care what anybody says.
That's why I want to see goodpolicing, because this is the
type of craziness that goes onin the world.
And then it gets a lot worsethan that and some of us may be
able to handle ourselves, butmaybe your neighbor can't.
You know people.
We have high standards andexpectations for cops, because
we need them, because this iscrazy.

(02:53:45):
If that guy comes out, you knowyou got to close with and
destroy.
I'm sorry, I'm just a jarheadand that's what I know, but you
know that guy could come outthat front door.
Now that citizens outside areall about to have a really bad
day because this guy's shootingsomething sideways, I wouldn't
know what to do, and this is Iwant the people that are
watching that hate all cops torealize that there's a lot of

(02:54:07):
bad cops out there, but there'sa lot of folks like this who are
putting their life on the linebecause there could be somebody
in danger, and we need to givethese, these cops, some grace,
because this is some scary shit.

Speaker 1 (02:54:17):
Address this question .
Nubs revenge.
Eric's admitted to being onethat asked for ID on a regular
practice but claimed he does notpush it.
Yeah, so we.
So we've.
We've addressed this before onhere.
Um, I'm of the opinion itdoesn't hurt to ask.
We're information gatherers.
That's what police do we get toa scene, try to get as much
information as we can so we cando the best job that we can do

(02:54:39):
with whatever report is we gotto do, um, or see if there is no
report, or whatever.
Uh, just to do our duediligence.
Um, I don't push it, she'sright.
Um, I also let people know whenit's mandatory and when it's
not.
Say, hey, can I get your ID?
Um, right now it's not requiredUm, I'm just doing it for

(02:54:59):
information gathering, for forwhat we're doing, um, but you
don't have to give it to me.
So I let I let people know.
So I think that's fair.
But do I think it's wrong toask?
Do I think it's the id crack?

Speaker 2 (02:55:11):
I see what you're talking about the id crack only
comes when, when it gets to thatsituation of well you know we
got a call because somebodycalled us that we don't know
yeah, we have to.
The only way for me to figureout exactly what you're doing is
to know where you live and knowyour name.

Speaker 1 (02:55:27):
If.

Speaker 2 (02:55:27):
I have that information, I will
majorifically understand what'sgoing on here.
But I don't have a problem withcops asking because that lets
me flex.
Y'all see how I am.
I'm ready to go with the wizard.
If a cop comes up to me andasks me for my ID and say it's
Eric Levine, he'd be real niceLike hey, hey, buddy, can I get
your ID?
I'd be like probably not, butif you, you know, buy me a drink

(02:55:50):
or something we might couldmake out.
And then he takes it and that'sit.
It's over with, thank you.
Thank you, officer, for givingme the opportunity to assert my
rights and make you look like ading dong, cause somebody like
Eric's going to be like okay,this guy knows what's up, it's
fine, I don't mind him asking.
It's when you try to press meand violate me for it that we're
gonna have an issue, and then Idon't answer questions.

Speaker 5 (02:56:10):
So what you're saying ?
So what you're saying is Igotta buy you better drinks than
what?

Speaker 1 (02:56:15):
you don't have to do nothing but show up with that
speedo on buddy.
I'm pretty sure I have theright to my privacy that you
swore an oath on every singleone of you.
Yeah, I did swear an oath.
So asking for something if Ihave not committed a crime is
actually committing a crime,kind of Stop, stop stop, stop,

(02:56:36):
stop, stop, stop it.

Speaker 2 (02:56:37):
Okay, god damn it.
All right, sorry guys, excuseme, I'm sorry for taking the
Lord's name in vain, but listenhere we have to hold these
police accountable for violatingrights.
We cannot majorifically inventthat.
We have the right not for themto not ask us.
We have the right to say no,stop.
It's not a crime to ask me.
You can ask me.
When the cops used to harass mebecause I lived in the project

(02:56:57):
after my house burned down, theythought I was there to get dope
, so I couldn't make it 15 yardseither direction Either
somebody trying to sell me somehard or soft or the police
wondering what I'm doing.
And I'm gonna tell you the redbandana, bro, yeah.
Well, hey, man, I look at me,I'm.
I'm a hundred miles a dirty,bumpy, dirt road to go down.
But these people, these cops,would ask me sometimes hey,

(02:57:19):
where you coming from?
And I'd go that way, where yougoing, man, man, that way.
Then I'd stare at them.
Thank you, I mean, I love whena cop gives me the opportunity
to exert my rights and stand onit.
You know what I'm saying.
You guys are getting so bentout of shape.
Oh, it's kind of like a crimejust asking me.

(02:57:40):
I just want to feel safe.
You don't have the right to notbe uncomfortable.
They don't have the right toviolate you, so everybody needs
to to come to some middle groundhere where we don't hold.
I don't give a shit if a copcomes up and asks me for my idea
, if I tell him not today.
Homie, they don't do it out herewhere I live, because I had one
cop do it to me twice and hewas new, one of our sheriffs,
and I told hank.
Our sheriff was like, look,tell your deputy to leave me

(02:58:02):
alone, bro, he don't see mebecause I don't get in no
trouble.
But I never had a problem sincethen.
But damn, let them ask whocares?
Are you not big enough, grownenough, citizens?
Do you not believe in yourconstitution, enough to have
some balls and tell a cop, ifyou ask for ID, say no.
But you know, I give you mymom's recipe for sourdough.
I mean, come on and keep itmoving.

(02:58:24):
Are y'all that fragile?
He asked me.
I feel like he really wanted toviolate my rights.
Meanwhile, there's people whoserights are really being
violated and we got to addressthat.
So stop being so damnhypersensitive, holy good.

Speaker 1 (02:58:36):
God Sorry.

Speaker 2 (02:58:37):
I'm out of my soapbox brother.

Speaker 1 (02:58:38):
Let's keep going Shooting and moving.
I like it Shooting and moving.
Good for her engaging.
There we go.
Oh lord, that is a shit show.
There's no right answer.

(02:58:59):
They were you got a shooter onthe move.
I think they did really greatusing that truck and then that
dude popped out from around thecorner and they dealt with it
the best way that they could.
I don't see that I would havedone anything different in their

(02:59:19):
position Banning what do yougot?

Speaker 5 (02:59:23):
I don't have anything right now.
Okay, I just go to the next.

Speaker 3 (02:59:27):
That's just a good old-fashioned game of freeze tag
.
Yeah, that's a terriblescenario.
Terrible, terrible position tobe in Vaughn.

Speaker 4 (02:59:38):
The one thing I noticed was, if you play it back
, he's got both hands in the airas he's running away with this
For like a brief second yeah.
Yeah, it looks like he's doing asurrender, like an evidence of
surrender exactly.
Police are trained to recognizewhat are called tactical feints
or, you know, fake surrenderssort of thing, which is why
sometimes people will say I giveup.

(02:59:58):
I give up, or how that hurts orI can't breathe.
All these things are efforts togain a tactical advantage, in
this case a what looks like areally clear example of faking
surrender to gain a tacticaladvantage.
And then you see how quicklyfrom a human performance
standpoint, having your hands upin the air to firing that gun
is about a 10th of a second.
That's fastest.

(03:00:18):
On average it's a quarter of asecond.
But just because someone hastheir hands up with a gun in, if
they're not activelysurrendering in that moment,
they are still an imminentthreat.
It doesn't mean you have toshoot them, but it means the law
still allows you to.

Speaker 1 (03:00:31):
Right, Acorn Magdum said, but she took cover behind
her partner.
I don't see her taking coverbehind her partner.
I see her.
Either her gun was down or shewas trying to get in a position.
So he didn't swing because lookwhere the bad guy ran he's
running across causing acrossfire amongst the officers

(03:00:52):
play that again, eric, when whenhe pulls out in front of the
truck.
Okay I want you to see where,where they both ran, he ran to
create a crossfire.
I don't think he did thatintentionally, but, um, he ran
and created a crossfire and Isee that she dipped down in
behind her partner, I think, toget on a level shooting field,
so he wasn't shooting over herhead or over her shoulder.
So, boom, they're both lined upright now.

(03:01:18):
The other officer that's to theleft probably doesn't have a
very good shooting lane rightnow because that guy's running
around the truck.

Speaker 2 (03:01:24):
Yeah, he's about to be right in there.

Speaker 1 (03:01:26):
Yeah, so she's got the best line of sight right now
, because that guy's runningaround the truck, yeah, so she's
got the best line of sightright now.
I think she shoots trying.
So now she's coming back andgetting online with her partner
because I think her guns, Ithink her guns down.
So, um, just just my opinionhere, but I think she did a good

(03:01:47):
move here.
So let's keep going.
Yeah, her gun's down.
Now she's getting covered.
She's a lefty, that's herproblem.

Speaker 5 (03:02:12):
Well so so correct me if I'm wrong, but her gun was
out of battery.
We're not doing an admin load,we're not doing a frigging
attack reload and that's andthat's muscle memory.
And I know Bill Folk can comeright up in here with basic
training as a rifleman and comeright in this and the shit meter

(03:02:36):
is going off in the head.

Speaker 1 (03:02:38):
He said it took him three times to get pistol-clawed
so far.
I mean there's no pretty thingin this.
This is never pretty, so to meas a citizen.

Speaker 2 (03:02:52):
What's what's the most bothersome is the person
put his hands up and it lookedlike and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong
it looks like he put his handsup in the air and immediately
dropped down the fire.
I mean, what are you supposedto do with that?
I mean on bond probably dealswith this a lot more in his
cases and he would see a lotmore of that and no but that the
like.
When you talk about the mixedsignals from multiple people

(03:03:14):
talking to a suspect, I alsogotta think what I mean.
If I think you've got yourhands up, I might you know that
woman.
She had a line of sight on him.
Maybe she didn't drop himbecause he had his hands up and
then he dropped him back downlike was it tactical faint von
uh, tactical fainted him that Idon't know how they didn't drop
him earlier.
I'm not even trying to be funny, but like this guy, this guy

(03:03:37):
was a problem.
I don't, I don't, I don't.

Speaker 1 (03:03:40):
It's hard to shoot a moving target, I promise you
that I couldn't do it.
That's why I like shotguns yeah, now I'm glad they got red dots
, cause that significantly helpsyou.
If you, if you've been trainedin them, it helps me so.

Speaker 2 (03:03:52):
I'm pretty nasty with a slingshot, though.

Speaker 1 (03:03:54):
Give me a ball bearing man, I'll pop that We'll
start calling you, david, butyou know, and we don't know if
the suspect's here or not,that's another thing.
We shoot when you shoot papertargets there.
Know if the suspect's here ornot, that's another thing.
We shoot when you shoot papertargets.
There's a difference.
When we shoot paper targets,you get that instant recognition
that you hit your targetbecause you can see the hole.
Uh, it doesn't work that way.

(03:04:16):
When you're shooting the humanbody that's wearing clothing um,
you may get lucky and they'rewearing a bright white shirt and
you happen to hit a spot wherea bunch of blood decides to come
out, but that's not typicallythe case.
You have to shoot and keepshooting based on behavior.
Vaughn, you got anything to addon that?

Speaker 4 (03:04:34):
Yeah, just there's two massive things fighting each
other.
I know I'm reading a lot of thecomments I heard not being
accurate.
The other officer wasn't beingaccurate either.
But your body is fighting everydesire to get out of there and
survive right Whilesimultaneously having to hold
your position and assesssomething that's trying to kill
you.
Those are very difficult things.

(03:04:55):
So to shoot accurately, to findthat site, to actually steady
yourself, to get that to stop,and steady yourself when
somebody's shooting at you, is avery difficult thing to
discipline yourself to do right.
So I, I I never can account forsometimes officers on a run or
suspects on a run will justshoot and hit, hit something

(03:05:16):
right away.

Speaker 2 (03:05:17):
But it doesn't surprise me that these guys are
missing when their body isfighting every instinct to not
be there yeah, there was onlyone instance it looked like to
me when that person had hishands up and kind of crossed his
feet to like step over.
He was walking sideways.
That was the slowest that hegot.
Other than that, that son of agun was like looping and I mean
I wouldn't have been able to hithim.
I ain't gonna lie, I'd have torun up on him and just tried to

(03:05:39):
shoot him point blank.

Speaker 5 (03:05:40):
I'm not playing with him.
I'm going to just add this inthere on a humanistic standpoint
, it doesn't matter how much youtrain, once you have rounds
coming down range at you.
It takes a specific type ofperson to be able to categorize
that in your brain, in yourheart, and return rounds to end
that threat.
And people can argue with meall day long, but until you've

(03:06:03):
had that happen, to you it's adifferent type of thought
process period.

Speaker 1 (03:06:09):
Yep, alright, let's keep going here and see how this
ends up.
I'm hit.

Speaker 3 (03:06:15):
I'm hit.
Oh, he's down Fuck.

Speaker 1 (03:06:23):
Okay, now this is where we can see the adrenaline
and not thinking clearly.
The suspect's down.
Her partner has got security.
Right now she needs to takecare of herself.
She's still got her gun out.
She's still trying to figureout where she's hit Like.

(03:06:44):
This is what we're trying toget to.
It doesn't matter how much youtrain until you go through this.

Speaker 2 (03:06:48):
But Eric, how in the hell can you train this man
being fair to her?
I mean shit.
Maybe she thinks there'sanother dude hanging out there
ready to dump on her.
She just had somebody dump onher.
I mean, as much as I want tohold cops accountable, I can't
criticize this woman, becausewhat do you do?

Speaker 1 (03:07:16):
What do woman?
Because what?

Speaker 5 (03:07:17):
yeah, what do you do?
What do you do when y'allarmchair that one?

Speaker 4 (03:07:18):
for me, is her gun, is her gun cracked too.

Speaker 1 (03:07:20):
Do you guys see that?
Um, it might just be the grip.
It might yeah, because it'ssmooth.
Yep, you're right.
I was like my God her gun gotcracked.
I thought maybe it got shot.

Speaker 5 (03:07:29):
You're such a gun nerd.
She's got a TLR-1 and she's gotan Amazon aftermarket grip on
there.

Speaker 2 (03:07:36):
She got the T-MU grip .

Speaker 1 (03:07:38):
All of a sudden, Banner's in front of the sun.
What happened there, buddy?

Speaker 5 (03:07:42):
I decided to get bright in one time in my life.
Alright, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (03:07:45):
I just wanted to get bright in one time in my life
it's all right.
Oh shit, all right, let's keepgoing.
I'll pull my training kit out,okay, what's up, bro?
You're making me nervous.
There we go.

Speaker 2 (03:07:54):
Yes, turn to get the leg, thank God, I was screaming
inside.

Speaker 3 (03:07:57):
Is that where she got hit the leg?
Fucking hell.

Speaker 2 (03:08:29):
It's all right little mom oh what you got, eric?
Oh shit, eric spotted something.

Speaker 1 (03:08:35):
What you got.
Stay off the fucking radio In agun fight.

Speaker 5 (03:08:42):
Do work, do work, go home, then communicate, eric you
don't need to not drink onthese streams.

Speaker 2 (03:08:48):
Do work, go home, then communicate.
Eric, you don't need to notdrink on these streams because
you get real seriously pissedabout that when you're not
drinking he ain't drinkingtonight, your partner's in a
gunfight.

Speaker 6 (03:08:56):
And you're not in it.

Speaker 2 (03:08:57):
He's more cool when he's drinking.
Right now he's just like God.
How many times have I said itDon't be on the radio, let's get
these handles.

Speaker 1 (03:09:05):
Your partner was in a gunfight and you were trying to
get out on the radio.
You didn't have rounds gettingsent down, rage, you just let
her sit out there and fucking.
Okay, corral it by herself,that is.
We would have had fucking wordsafter this.
Major words Stay off the radio,handle business and then get

(03:09:27):
the information out.
I don't understand where thistraining is coming from, but it
happens so much.
I see it all the time.
Stay off the fucking radio.
Stay off the fucking radio,shit.

Speaker 4 (03:09:43):
It's partly not training, though.
There's a biological imperative.
They feel alone, they feeloverwhelmed and they want
somebody to know and they wantto get people there.
You see it in all these casesand they won't remember even
doing it.
It's like in the middle of afight.
We get people on the radiocalling for backs because they
feel like I'm alone at the worstpossible time of my life and

(03:10:05):
everything is.
I need help.
I want someone to get here.
I want to know I've got helpcoming.
But you're 100% right.
It's the first thing I thoughttoo was get in that fight.
You are the backup.
This is, this is where we we'vegot two officers there already.
We see it mostly when it's asingle officer in the fight and
they're not prioritizing life,they're prioritizing comms and
there's an imperative to do that.

(03:10:25):
This guy needed to realize hewas the back, but even at that I
don't want to be too critical.
I don't know how long it tookhim, whether he did it while
moving to a position to cover,uh fine, whatever.
But your points well taken.
We see that.
But it's really, even withtraining, you're still going to
see the body's imperative.
Overcome that training.
Yeah, because you're just atthe worst point in your life and

(03:10:45):
you want friends there, right?

Speaker 2 (03:10:47):
yeah, it makes me wonder how many times he's been
in that situation because, justas just me personally, it would
seem to me like I'll get on theradio after I'm done shooting at
the person, shooting at myperson.
You know the idea of grabbingmy radio.
Y'all are gonna find out that.
That one second I spent gettingon the radio, 13 got it.

(03:11:07):
No man, my partner's gettingshot at, we're dumping, we're
humping, but we're not gettingon the radio.
It wouldn't even I wouldn'teven think of that.
I'm called just like I do withpolice.
Now I'll call you after I'mdone shoot I like it.

Speaker 1 (03:11:23):
I like it, matt, you got anything, brother?
Oh, he's dealing with a dog orsomething, all right.

Speaker 2 (03:11:30):
Give me one second.
I got a cat over here trying tobring me a baby.

Speaker 1 (03:11:36):
That is not the guy.
I expected to have cats.
No, let's keep going Put thegun down.
All right, she's out.
He's moving the cover.
I like it let it down.
He's trying beautiful.

(03:12:00):
He kept moving, he communicatedhe's moving around.
Uh, I think he knew his gun wasclose to being empty.
I think he was really concernedabout that, which is hard to
think of in a gunfight, so I'mglad he was doing that.
Let's keep going.

Speaker 2 (03:12:17):
Put it down.

Speaker 1 (03:12:21):
And that's what we call suicide by car.

Speaker 5 (03:12:23):
We got it right there and I don't know if it's the
registered owner of this truck,but this guy may have been going
through a lot of stuff.

Speaker 1 (03:12:30):
Oh yeah, DV plates.

Speaker 5 (03:12:32):
It's a disabled vet plate and unfortunately, our
mental health is ridiculous inthis country right now.

Speaker 1 (03:12:40):
All right, all right.
Well, that is all done.
I want to make sure we are ableto say goodbye to Vaughn.
Vaughn's got his batteries aredying in his headset.
I don't even know if he canhear us right now.
Can you hear us?

Speaker 4 (03:12:52):
Well, I can hear you.
I just got a warning sayingcharge me now.
It wasn't, because it wasn't MrBill for it.
I'm assuming it was the headheadset.

Speaker 1 (03:13:03):
Yeah, well, guys, this has been a fun episode.
I had a lot of fun on this one,even though the first two hours
was just watching.

Speaker 5 (03:13:18):
From two cops to everybody watching.
Thanks, yvonne, mr Belfold,matt Eric I mean everybody that
came in here and is puttingtheir comments up, taking time
out of your life for thisimportant subject.
Did we answer everybody'squestions?
No, it doesn't matter.
We could talk about this tillsix o'clock in the morning.
We're not going to answereverybody's questions, but we

(03:13:38):
know there's an issue there andwe will come back and probably
revisit this in the future.
Thank you all so much forcoming.

Speaker 2 (03:13:45):
I just want to ask all the people who aren't law
enforcement, who are like meevery week I'm in that chat with
you, I'm not on this screenCome prepared, come with an open
heart and hold these copsaccountable.
We can do better than justattacks and being nasty.
These guys listen to us.
You want to go to other copchannels and get banned and

(03:14:06):
kicked and stuff and act stupid.
That's fine, but please, wedon't want that.
We want to talk.
Y'all need to be heard.
You're going to be heard here.
So come here and talk with us.
All Matt's people, anybody else, come and talk with us.
If we don't agree, we won'tagree.

(03:14:32):
But please, you guys like thestream if you want to give it uh
, you know the channel asubscribe.
We want y'all here, becausewithout this, conversation.

Speaker 1 (03:14:35):
Nothing is going to change.
It looks like our stream gotpulled.
Yeah, because we're too sexy.
Anyway, all right, von you gotany parting words, sir?

Speaker 4 (03:14:38):
no, thank you guys for the invitation.
Mr bill, you mean mean man,this.
This was great.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate all the homeworkeverybody did to be in this
conversation.
Look forward to joining youguys more on the next ones.
And this is a great, greatforum.
You guys got going here and youguys got great relationships

(03:14:59):
with your, with your chat chatbox Pretty, pretty, pretty
entertaining comments going onin there, but you can tell a lot
of people are paying attention.
So hey, matt, great to meet younice to meet you too, brother.

Speaker 3 (03:15:13):
A lot of respect and love for you, brother well, you
know getting your next shooting.

Speaker 4 (03:15:17):
Give me a call yeah, I saw it Banning alright,
gentlemen, I appreciate you oh,we got banned for YouTube, was
it?

Speaker 2 (03:15:26):
oh, it was the gunshots I bet.

Speaker 1 (03:15:28):
All right, everybody, we're going to try to figure
that out.
But everybody else, thanks.
Have a good night.

Speaker 5 (03:15:33):
Y'all stay here, love y'all, bye.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Behind the Blue Line: Qualified Immunity Exposed

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

All Episodes

Behind the Blue Line: Qualified Immunity Exposed

Stuff You Should Know