Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now, most of those I would assume are more or
less company policies, policies that, under the right circumstances, may
have exceptions to the rule that you may or may
not have the ability to deviate from if it benefits
the company.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
And oh for the.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Most part, those rules stay the same, where if they change,
you may get an email to introduce the new guidelines.
In law enforcement, we have rules and guidelines we must
follow as well, and many of the day to day
mundane tasks are covered by departmental directives or what is
known as standard operating procedures. These are relatively straightforward and
(00:37):
like in any business, serve as a guideline to how
you handle many situations. There is, though, one other part
that is never talked about in the naive media, and
that is the standard which all law enforcement officers must
follow to protect the rights of citizens of this country
as laid out under the Constitution. Police officers arguably have
(00:59):
the most difficult job in the world, not because they
face obvious dangers around any corner, but because they have
to navigate those dangers while protecting the rights of the crook,
the criminal, the bad guy, the murderer. Now you may
be thinking it can't be that bad.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
The First Amendment the right of free speech, to the
right to express ourselves. But wait, what happens when that
citizen has their phone out recording an arrest on.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
The side of the road. Is that protected? But is
it still.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Okay if they're recording a lifeless body at a murder
scene to post on social media? The Second Amendment protects
our rights to keeping bear arms. But just in the
last four years alone, courts have said we no longer
need a permit to carry concealed in Ohio. Well, that
doesn't apply to a rifle, and that doesn't apply to
(01:52):
school zones. That all doesn't count. But are you okay
if you have a valid THHL license in those area?
Way to say, can a resident of Indiana come here
and carry a concealed license? Carry without a concealed license?
And if you're a juvenile, let's say, sixteen years old,
walking down the street with an open carry pistol, is
(02:13):
that illegal?
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Surprised? Most of the time that is perfectly legal. By
the way, you.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Start to see why it is extremely difficult for an
officer on the street to keep up with every court
decision or new law. That is binding case laws have
to be abided by because of some prior case setting
precedents for let's say, arresting someone or detaining someone for
entering into a home without a warrant, or for dealing
(02:40):
with the car you stopped that smells like marijuana, But
oh wait a second, that's legal now, but you can't
be under the influence of it when you're driving. And
you may be able to search that car if it
smells like burnt marijuana, but if it's not burnt and
it's fresh, you can't search it. Being in law enforcement
and protecting the rights of the citizen is done so
(03:02):
not by some loosely written procedure. Officers are bound by laws, ever,
changing laws in court cases twenty three hundred decisions last
year alone in Ohio district courts that can all have
an impact on how they conduct themselves while protecting society.
(03:23):
The reason I spent this time laying this groundwork is
to show how easy it is for officers to react
in good faith fit end up next year in State
versus Delbert. Now when these cases make its way all
the way to the Supreme Court of the United States,
these cases garner a lot of attention and are binding
to everyone in the country. Some of the most famous
(03:46):
ones that are ingrained into officers from the first days
in the academy through their thirtieth year in this profession
are one such as Terry v. Ohio in nineteen sixty
eight that gave guidance to officers being able to briefly
detain someone if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime
was committed, or the nineteen eighty five case of Tennessee v. Gardener,
(04:08):
which stated that under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search
and seizure, officers can no longer use deadly force in
attempting to stop a fleeing felon unless that person is
believed to pose a threat of serious physical harm to others.
A split second decision officers must calculate when chasing a
juvenile running from a stolen vehicle with a gun in
(04:31):
his waistband, or a juvenile running from a stolen vehicle
with a gun in hand firing a passing motorists, or
a juvenile running from a stolen vehicle with a gun
in his hand down.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
At his side.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Could you make that decision in three seconds or less?
Keep in mind a decision with outcomes that are life
changing that will be judged from the comfort of an
office or a courtroom. These decisions are relatively easy versus
the hundreds of case laws that must be followed in
order to ensure the rapist or the child molester you
(05:04):
just arrested are kept behind bars or they get let
out because you violated their rights in your initial detention
of them, even though there's still a molestor or a rapist.
In nineteen eighty nine, a Supreme Court case was decided
out of an incident in North Carolina that has become
the basis for how we judge any incident in which
(05:25):
force was used by an officer. This is not a suggestion.
This is not something you can pull in and out
to help or hurt a case. It is a Supreme
Court ruling that every attorney, judge, and law enforcement officer
is bound to is bound to follow unless case law,
of course, changes it in the future. The ruling says
(05:46):
this an analysis of excessive force claim an excessive force
can be aggressively handcuffing someone.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
All the way up to the use of deadly force.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
An analysis should consider whether the search or or seizure
was objectably reasonable based on how a reasonable police officer
would have handled that same situation. The reasonableness of a
particular use of force must be judged from the perspective
of a reasonable officer on this scene, rather than with
(06:17):
twenty twenty vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must
allow for the fact that police officers are often forced
to make split second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain,
and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is
necessary in a particular situation. The reasonableness inquiry in an
(06:41):
excessive force case is an objective one. The question is
whether the officer's actions are objectively reasonable in light of
the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to the
underlying intent or motivation. Those are the words, Those are
the written words from the court that we are bound
(07:04):
to follow. What would a reasonable officer in that same
situation do if it had happened to them a lifelong
criminal pools what looks to be a firearm from their
waistband pointed at the officer who uses deadly forced to
protect themselves, only to find out later it was a
water gun. The officer can be protected under Graham v.
(07:24):
Connor if the objectably reasonablest cause is met. The general public,
the protester on the street, the media do not realize
that officers do not work in a vacuum of doing
whatever the heck they want to do. They are sworn
to protect the rights of citizens, and that means we
have to follow these case laws. It's not a suggestion
(07:47):
or policy that changes overnight. The reason I spent so
much time today on this is because Graham v. Connor
seems to be grossly overlooked as of late. In our
own city last week, a blending the township officer was
indicted on murder charges after a thug suspect, a thug
suspect who had just stolen up to eleven bottles of
(08:08):
alcohol from a store with accomplices previously, had backed into
a handicapped spot and intentionally had no visible tags on
the vehicle, defied twelve lawful commands to exit her vehicle,
and who attempted to murder or impode serious physical harm
by hitting the officer with her vehicle, hitting him enough
(08:29):
that his feet are off the ground. Him, being certainly
in fear for his life, had to make a split
second decision to use force to stop her actions.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Who is now charged with murder?
Speaker 1 (08:45):
What would a reasonable officer in that same position have done?
And what lie was told to the grand jury to.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Get that indictment?
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Guys, at what point do we start holding the citizens
of our community liable for their actions? Certainly, this was
a tragedy that was avoidable. It would never have happened
if Missus Young and the two accompliss did not steal
eleven bottles of alcohol from a business. It would never
have happened. If Missus Young would have complied with a
multiple lawful orders from the officers, It would never have happened.
(09:22):
If Missus Young did not attempt to harm or kill
Officer Grubb with a two thousand pound vehicle. Missus Young
unfortunately is responsible for what happened that day. Her actions
put those events into motion.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Period.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
If you want to see this city survive, we have
to stand up and be as outraged as these opportunistic
lawyers are. Missus Young did not die for stealing bottles
of liquor. Missus Young did not die because she stole
bottles of liquor. She unfortunately died after force was used
against her to stop her actions that could have seriously
(10:03):
harmed or killed a law enforcement officer in our community.
Did that officer deserve to die because she decided to
break multiple laws that day? The indictment of Officer Grubb
should have all of us outraged in the continual encouragement
by a segment of our population who are telling their
(10:23):
youth to not comply with authority should have us furious.
Being a lawful, respectable contributor to society is really easy,
and we can fix these communities with one line. If
you comply, there is a ninety nine percent chance you
will not die.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
It's simple.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
The overwhelming majority of deaths caused by law enforcement after
use of force is due to non compliance. That's why
in my neighborhood there is almost a zero percent chance
of death or serious harm at the hands of an officer.
We teach our kids to be respectful, to be law abiding,
to respect authority.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
We teach them that if you comply, you will get
your day in court. How about that.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Welcome to the new City of Columbus, Andrew Ginther, Mayor,
Gary Tyat Prosecutor. It's time we stood up and fought
for those who protect us. On target, We'll be back
after this break. Welcome back to on Target. If you
didn't catch up broadcasting live from the studios of LAPD,
Firearms and arrange As at nine nine to nine Bethel Road.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
I'm your host, Eric, I got JC on the live line.
I got Ella in this studio.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Got a guest coming up soon, our good friend FOP
president and CPD Lieutenant Brian Steele's coming up with us soon.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
JC.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
Are you there, I am here, I am here. Excellent
monologue today, and I just wish you and I talked
about this. You know, it's got to be citizens responsibility
here sometime it just can't be blamed the police. Blame
the police, nothing will happen.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
There you go and John and Brian's going to talk
about this here shortly. But do you know, I mean,
people don't know the impact. You know, they read in
a headline, they go on about their day. They don't
realize the impact that has on every officer on the street.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
It gets to a point when you say, why should
I show up?
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Why should I go and force the law, Because if
I do that and I'm faced with a situation where
I need to protect myself for others. I mean, we're
talking about a serious situation here. This isn't even a
you know, this is pretty cut and dry that my
whole uh, my whole career can be done, my my family.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
I mean, why you can't pay these men and women.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Enough to do their job correctly in this environment and
this this can be changed in this an environment that
has been directly related to the leaders in this city,
and that that's.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
What's most frustrating.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
Amen, Yep, Jase, Well, I don't want to spend time
on the other stepisode. I know we have a lot
of news to get to. So I know you and
I talked about a bunch of stuff going on.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
What do you have for us?
Speaker 4 (13:11):
Oh? Just yeah, there's a lot of things going on
out there. A couple of things are good. The Ninth
Circuit Court here recently, just this week, actually gave some
pushback against California. As we know, California just pulls laws
up out of their hind end all the time. The
sad thing about this is this law passed in twenty
(13:31):
twenty twenty, that's like four years ago, and they decided that,
you know what, you should only be able to buy
one gun a month period, no matter what. You could
have a family that needs protected. You may want to buy,
you know, some gifts for your twin sons, whatever. Nope,
one gun a month, and that is what they determined
it should be. And of course there's a lot of pushback,
(13:51):
but it took until now four years later that it finally,
you know, elevated itself to the Ninth Circuit Court, which
basically put a permanent injunction on this ridiculous idea that
you can only buy one per month. And why do
we talk about It's California. We all know California is
are weird, but you know it's the governor California who
(14:14):
would love to be the president of the United States.
It's these states that are setting precedents for other states, going, well,
California can do that. Hey, we can do it too.
We may lose, but hey, for four years, we can
stop people. And that is my concern about this. What
I did like about the Ninth Circuit, which has not
been our friend. They have supported a lot of the
(14:35):
post Bruined Decision anti gun rulings out there, but when
they on this particular case, what I liked about it
was they were elevating the Second Amendment to the First
Amendment the third, fourth, fifth, they said, you know, it's
just equal importance. And as they were presenting the case,
the Deputy of Attorney General for California is presenting this
(14:57):
case saying, well, alls were this law just says then
you can own a god, not if you can do it,
and they the judges were not buying that. They said, okay,
so let's compare it to this, because it would it
be absurd to think that the governments could say you
could only buy one book per month because we want
to make sure you really understand the book that you read,
(15:17):
or you can only attend one protest a month because
you know there's some societal drivebacks, drawbacks to attending protests.
These just kind of want to space those out. So
they were equating it with the rest of the amendments
and just saying how foolish it would be. Or if
a lictor store owner could only buy one gun a month,
(15:37):
but he had a gang that was threatening him into
his business and they knew where he lived and they
were threatening him his home, but yet it would take
two months for him to be able to protect himself.
So bottom line is they did a permanent injunction now
against this the sad news was is this was in
effect for four years until we got that. So this
is this part of the scheme, and if this administration
(15:58):
gets in that wasn't the out of nowhere the most
liberal senator in the in all of the United States history.
I believe Kamala Harris and this Yahoo that she post
picked out for for vice president, it just seems that
ther Man agenda would be to disarm the United States.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
So DC, I mean they and they say it. I mean,
it's no longer hidden behind you know what you know
is that what she meant? I mean, we have an
audio clip that will play in the four segment of
in her own words. Every gun owner should listen to that.
If that, if the Second Amendment is important to you,
if if protecting your family and owning firearms is important,
(16:36):
you should hear her in her own words. And you know,
let that be a partial judge on who you're voting for.
Speaker 4 (16:42):
Jeez, you cannot vote for her. If you believe in
that that freedom, in that right and then the Second
Amendment in the Constitution, you believe in the Constitution, you
just can't vote for It's just it would It's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous. Uh here's another news story I thought was
kind of interesting because, hey, Texas AG says, this is
the way that it is. Well, Texas is the huge state.
(17:04):
There last for twenty four days, and this year, for
the first time, the people who are running the state
fair on Texas State grounds said that no firearms will
be allowed in at all period. And the AG for
Texas go, wait a minute, we have a law that
said if you have a license to carry anywhere on
(17:26):
Texas state property, you have the right to carry. And
they seem to have just decided that, you know what,
that's where it used to be. But the people running
the pair say, now we're going to put a weapons
de section technology in and we're not going to let
anybody in. So on Wednesday, Attorney General Ken Packson of
Texas wrote a lead to the pair saying, if you
don't pick this problem in two weeks, we are going
(17:48):
to sue you and charge you thousands of hours a
day every day until you get it right because it
truly violates the law. And it's nice to have an
attorney general. I mean, you know, we have day Ghost
who's absolutely fantastic, and it's nice that Texas has one.
Two that's saying no, you gotta follow the law, and
(18:08):
that is the way that it is. So that's one thing.
Here's one talking about. I think this with you and
I talked about this, and I think this shows you
where things are going. So the East Coast and the
West Coast has become this just whole harboring for anti
gun dif arm America states. In Washington, especially after the
George Floyd where you know, everyone took over Seattle and
(18:33):
it just they just said, no, we need to defund
the police. We need to get rid of them. That's
what we need to do. We need to make things
safe and the police aren't safe. Well, now, citizens carrying
guns in the state of Washington spiked at above seven
hundred thousand concealed carrier permits now and why because they're
concerned over public safety. So that for the first time
(18:55):
in history, I think it was over a seven hundred
and one thousand concealed license permits have now been issued.
And the reason is is crime is starting to become rapid,
So what are the police doing about it? Well, guess what.
According to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
that the state of Washington's crime rates are rising up.
(19:18):
But the fact is that the state of Washington is
dead last among the fifty states and the number of
commissioned police officers and sheriff deputies per thousand residents, so
crime spiking. They have less police due to their policies
than any other state in the Union. So what's happening.
(19:38):
The citizens are having to defend themselves. So this is
just just goes to show you where we are headed.
And you know, you defund the police, take them off
the streets. And we've seen about the stops and columbuses,
and we talked about that, how much did they're down
and how much crime has been up because they're not
(20:00):
people over anymore, and why would they They're just going
to be on the bad end of it, you know,
the police are it seems to be a target for
the judges and prosecutors versus criminals. And this is what
you get when you have that.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
Jase, we got about a minute and a half here
talk about on a little bit of I guess positive news,
July nicks numbers.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
Oh, this is this is really this is kind of
a big story, all right. So July and we knew
this was coming. But July gun sales were once again
over a million for the month of July. Now why
is that significant. This makes the sixtieth month in a
row where gun sales have been over a million months.
(20:44):
That's five years in a row, every single month. So
that doesn't mean there were just sixty million at a
million a month for five years, for sixty month. No,
during that period of time, nearly sixty eight million firearms
have been so old and have been checked through the
NICK systems. That's the National Cumeral Background Check System averages
over seventeen point three million firearms per year. And this
(21:10):
is they've filded out used guns out of this guns
that are already in this system, so these are new firearms,
and that is absolutely horrendous. The greatest year of all,
of course, was the twenty twenty with the pandemic. Twenty
one million firearms sales alone occurred that one year. So
we'll see estimates now with all these there's over twenty
(21:32):
two million people became new firearms owners in twenty twenty.
But get this, the best estimate of private stock of
firearms in the United States because of the July sales
here now puts it at over five one hundred and
ten million privately owned firearms. And those are only firearms
that have been produced since the year nineteen hundred. Anything
(21:55):
older than that, it's not even fitted in here. So
over five and ten million, so people are out there
and that these people will vote. You know, we'll we
will have a chance to overcome these lies and protect
our Second Amendment freedoms.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Wow, Jasey, let's jump to the bottom of the otter Neews.
We come back on the other side. We're going to
talk to our good friend, Lieutenant and FOP President Brian Steele.
We're on Talking broadcasting live from the studios of LPD
Farms Arranged. We'll be back right after the news. Welcome
back to on Target. I'm your hysteric joined in the
LPD studio. I got JC on the live line, and
(22:36):
I got my other very good friend on the line.
I'm going to go right to him. It is Lieutenant
Brian Steele, President of FOP Live number nine.
Speaker 5 (22:43):
How you doing, Brian, great, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
You know, I leave for two weeks and I come
back and it's like the city's upside down.
Speaker 5 (22:52):
Yeah, listen, this is just another day in Columbus apparently.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Oh geez, so, Brian, I wanted to bring you on
because there's so many things going on right now. We
talked about it in the opening monologue. With this indictment
of the Blendon Township officer, we had a deal Jay
report come out this week. Let's talk a little bit
about the indictment. What's your thought on that? I mean,
you are in touch with the men and women who
are working the streets every day. How was that being
(23:18):
perceived out there?
Speaker 5 (23:20):
Listen? It's a horrific miscarriage of justice. It's as easy
as that. Our legal system depends on unbiased and fair
prosecutorial practices. Bringing in a special prosecutor who's nothing more
than an outside hack to have an indictment is a
sham and this is common post twenty twenty. This is
not the first officer this has happened to. These politically
driven charges simply undermined public trust. And we with the FLP,
(23:43):
are always going to advocate for the truth and the facts.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
What is the I mean, and I honestly don't know.
Why would you bring in a special prosecute? I mean,
don't we have people here that are sensible and ryman?
What is the purpose of bringing in a special prosecutor.
Speaker 5 (23:59):
It's a way to wash your hands of it. It's
a way for the prosecutor to say, oh, we stepped back,
We've brought a special prosecutor. No matter what happens, they
could say, oh, this wasn't our guy, he was simply
a higher gun. Here's the fact, Eric, Miss Young should
be alive. There is no doubt about that.
Speaker 6 (24:14):
Her death is a tragedy.
Speaker 5 (24:16):
The tests, that's a child inside her tragedy. But here's
another fact. Miss Young chose to be a thief, a
career thief. Miss Young chose to disobey the lawful orders
of the officers, and Miss Young chose to strike an
officer with a vehicle. This notion that she was driving
away she didn't mean to do it is nonsense. The
officer's feet were literally off the ground. He had a
(24:36):
split second decision to save his life and lives of others,
and he did so right.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
So let's you look at the video.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
And I've watched it numerous times, as did I'm sure
most people. If if the argument is maybe the officer
shouldn't have been standing where he was, with your.
Speaker 5 (24:54):
Thoughts, so I'm glad. And now when we're talking about
should he have stood there, We're talking about tech, we're
talking about policy, and this is going to be a
two part We're going to talk about we don't look
through the lens of tactics.
Speaker 6 (25:08):
We look through the Supreme Court case Graham versus Connor.
Was the use of force objectively reasonable? And that's important.
The courts are going to look at what was the
severity of the crime. It was not stealing alcohol. It
was flown as he assaulting a police officer.
Speaker 5 (25:22):
They're going to look at the immediacy of a threat.
The officer was literally on the hood of the car
with both feet off the ground, and was miss Young
trying to resist and flee, Yes, she was. For the
critics of standing in front of the car, we could
argue that all day long, one of two things could
be true. Either Miss Young was absolutely no threat at
all to anybody, as some are saying, therefore, if not
(25:44):
a reasonable stand in front of a car, or she
is such a threat to officers and others that he
never should have stood in front of the car. We
cannot have it both ways. Standing in front of the
car removing his firearm, the officer is always looking at
the backdrop. If he stood on the driver's side, he's
now flying bagging his weapon towards the Kroger employee who
reported the crime. If he stands on the passenger side,
(26:05):
he's now pointing his weapon to as a partner. He
can't stand behind the car because now he can't see
anything that's going on in this case in front of
the car. In this scenario, tactically, I don't think he
had any other option.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
So now, I mean, you look at this and and
you might stand back and say, Okay, it will play
out in court. Graham versus Connor will come into play.
It will play out in court. But we've seen it
time and time again with Deputy Mead and Coy and Anderson.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
That it bath basically.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Is a death sentence for their career. And that is
that's just incredible. I mean, to the impact that even
when they are found not guilty, that the impact that
it has on their life and their career.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
What does this do for the officer on the street.
Speaker 5 (26:51):
Day to day, well, an officer in Franklin County, It
makes you not want to work to Franklin County. So
you got to remember, we just had an article on
the Dispatch yesterday from a prosecute from Marion County, So
basically and in his professional opinion, that this never should
have been indicted in the first place. So officers are
thinking themselves, do I work in this county where it's
literally a death sentence to do police work, or do
(27:12):
I go to another county where you're more supportive. Voting matters,
Who you put in office matters. If you want stuff
like this to continue to happen, keep voting for the
people you're voting for. If you want a law and
order county, then maybe maybe follow suit Delaware, Marion, some
of the counties who seem to have it together. And
if you look, crime is nowhere near the same in
those counties as this county.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
And it affects the officer on the street when you
talk to it, and I know you do all the time,
it changes their behavior.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Not in a good way.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
I mean, we want to go out there and enforce
laws and protect the citizens of this city. But when
you have situations like this where the officers say, look
that guy, he looks like he did everything right, and
this is what happened. Why the heck am I going
to put myself in that position? And that's a that
we don't want. I mean, that doesn't lend itself to
(28:04):
a safe city environment.
Speaker 5 (28:07):
Now, it erodes public trust and law and order. Look,
our officers have to know they're going to go in
a situation and they're going to have to do their
job and they're going to come out of it. And
we've said this in time and time again, and you're
a law man yourself, we will die for this community.
We will die, put our lives on the line and
literally die because people are worth it. But when you
start looking at you're going to prison for doing your job.
(28:27):
It's why we're in the situation where are today. It's
why recruiting is an all time low, it's why people
are leaving faster than any other profession. All these things
can be changed, though, if we just put the right
people in office that continue to support the officers.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
And another thing too, we're talking to Lieutenant Brian Stale
of CPD FOP President Lies number nine. The other thing too, Brian,
is that these attorneys and I don't know this, you know,
all I do is see what I read in the
paper and so forth. But the attorneys for these families,
they seem so opportunistic. I mean out there spewing rhetoric
that that is not fact based. You know, Oh, she
(29:02):
shouldn't have died for stealing a bottle of liquor.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
No, she didn't die for stealing a bottle of liquor.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
I mean, don't do you see that as well, that
these these attorneys are money driven and and uh don't
have the true uh you know, benefit of the family.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
And mind without.
Speaker 5 (29:21):
This is a business. These are vultures and it's scavengers,
and it's just it's it's money grubbing attorneys. Uh. Look
at how many people of color in this city are
are shot and killed every day. I don't see a
single one of these attorneys coming out and speaking about injustices.
But if it's a police officer, a sheriff's officer, they
know that the government has deep pockets and they're going
(29:41):
to simply try to align their pockets. These attorneys do
not care one bit about miss Young and her family.
And that's what's most sickening about it. It's a business.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Shifting gears a little bit. Brian DJ came out with
some recommendations this week. Anything anything of significance in those reports.
Speaker 5 (30:00):
Yeah, I'm still going through it. Listen, the DJ came
in and they found what every other single person found. Baker,
Hosteller and IG's office internal fairs. They found that ninety
nine point nine percent of the time, Columbus police officers
do it right. And I've said it from day one.
If misconduct is not there, you're gonna find it. If
misconduct is there, you're not going to hide it. Our
officers do an outstanding job. Some of these recommendations are
(30:22):
kind of funny, some being counter fed down in DC.
He's suggesting that maybe instead of the language we currently
have that says an officer will not desist from his
official duties because someone's off in resistance, they're suggesting we
put some language like tactical retreat. So think about that,
your ninety year old grandmother is being raped and about
to be killed, and this suspect, right, this scavenger suspect
(30:45):
is resisting the officer. Perhaps we should retreat and let
him complete his crime. It's ridiculous our jobs to go
in there. You decide whether you want to resist or not.
Either way, we are taking you to the jail either way,
and we are going to use force if we have to.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
That's incredible to suggest that we retreat, And I mean,
what does that lead to in a society, Seriously retreat
if the people resist, That's incredible.
Speaker 5 (31:13):
It makes no sense, It makes no sense. That is
not our job. Our job is to provide a service.
One of those services is enforcing laws and bringing people
to justice. And again I've said from day one, you
come peacefully, we take you peacefully. It's not a problem whatsoever.
We want you to comply, always, always comply. Every one
of these situations we're talking about when an officer used
(31:34):
force up to deadly force, the common denominator is the
person resisted and did not comply.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
A long are the days where you say you have
your day in court in some of these areas, I
tell you, jac you have anything. No.
Speaker 4 (31:47):
I have such respect for what Bob Steele does and
what our officers do. And you know the fact is
this is who they want to blame. And you can't
help but look at the percentages who is committing these crimes.
And we talked about that again last night, Eric, And
when you see the percentages, it just seems to be
(32:09):
just statistically a certain segment of our population and we're
just not addressing it. This crime scene to keep on going,
and you want to blame police for their interaction and
trying to protect themselves and the society. Yet it just
(32:30):
paints this horrible picture, which is kind of what we
ran into in our new story about the state of
Washington with the least number of officers of any per thousand
for any state in the Union. And guess what crime
is right up at? How do you like that? This
is what we're faced with. How do we make this turnaround?
And again it's fill elections. You've got to elect good people,
and it's you know, this year is probably the biggest
(32:55):
year of all I know he said it year after year,
but this is if the fact, if you look at
what a new administration could do as far as harming
our police, harming our citizens, it's it's very, very, very scary.
So but my hat thought to a ton of steel.
I just really appreciate the fact he's not a desk center.
(33:15):
He's out there working the shifts, working with the people,
and we're very proud to have him as ahead of
our f hop. So thanks for what you do, right well,
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Well, I will let you go, Brian.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
I'm always appreciative of you taking time out of your
Saturday and you are extremely busy and that family time
is important.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
But thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Stop back anytime, let us know what the policy is
on the street with our men and women in law enforcement,
and continue to be safe out there.
Speaker 6 (33:43):
Well.
Speaker 5 (33:43):
I appreciate I'm working the street today three to eleven.
If you need anything, give me a call.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
He can we call you personally? Is that? I mean
I can get out there yourselves.
Speaker 5 (33:50):
That not good a problem, not a problem, but when
the criminals ain't keeping a real call. Brian Steel, I'm
gonna use that as my next to line for really.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
I like that.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
I like that we can have that printed up.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Thank you, everybody, have a great day, all right, Thanks
Lieutenant Brian Steele, FOP Liz number nine, President, good friend
of the show, good friend of the family. Guys, let's
hop to a break and we come back on the
other side. JC, I know has a little bit more news.
There's a couple of exciting things happening right here at
this store, some new products that are coming out and
some new items for sale. We're on Target broadcasting live
(34:21):
from the studios at LPD Farms Range we'll be back
right after the break. Welcome back to on Target time.
Your host Eric joined today in the LPD studios. It's
just JC and me. Actually, Jc's on the liveline. Always
good to hear your voice. Jac I kind of missed
you over those couple of weeks.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Well, I've missed you too, I really have. I welcome back.
I want to get to talk to you and tell
hear more about the tables that you had. But you
said it was a very very safe travels That's amazing.
You leave the United States and all of a sudden, Hey,
it's safe out there, but around here, you know, it's
a little different sometimes. So good to have Bob Steele
(34:58):
on that. And your monologue is a spot on with
with with some of the problems that we are having here.
And I don't know what the solution is.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
I know we got to keep it is. We're in
that fight. We're here these next couple of months. It's
it's a fight. We got to get the word out.
And I truly believe I still have a belief in
the general public that if they knew the facts, I
think that's what it is. John, I don't think I
don't think the general public knows the facts. It's easy
to go out there and protest and not know what
(35:28):
what governs law enforcement or you know, what governs the
actions of some of these officers.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
I think if they.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
Knew the facts, I think it would sway people's decision.
I think they would come to the right conclusions. And
you know, we talk about Kamala and that ticket, I
mean it is an anti gun ticket. It's in their
own words, Ella, do you have that SoundBite from Kamala
pre buy back? Isn't that otherwise known as confiscation?
Speaker 4 (35:56):
Confiscation? And and it's been like five million out there,
people go five million. There's twenty eight million of the ars,
not counting the many other forms of firearms that would
fall into what they call assault weapons, which is a
made up term, but I mean that's the most recent estimate.
(36:19):
Is now it used to be like twenty four Now
they're saying that there's about twenty eight million of these, which,
by the way, folks have been on sale to the
public before the military adopted it since January I think
fourth of nineteen sixty four, So this amounts the sixtieth
year that this has been out there without a single problem.
(36:42):
It's the policies of the people in charge that are
causing the problems. And now it's like, oh, yeah, I'm
going to buy back twenty eight million. Look at Canada
story that I will maybe use next week. But Canada's
buyback mandatory buyback program has this absolutely fallen part just
they cannot come up with the money and it's just
(37:04):
so unsuccessful and they don't quite know what to do
up there.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
It seems to me John that and maybe I could
be wrong here that the overwhelming vast majority of gun
owners or owners of the sporting rifles have them legally
and never commit a crime. Wouldn't it be easier for
the to say, if you commit a crime with these,
the hammer is coming down, you may not see the
(37:30):
day of light. Wouldn't that be a simpler path, maybe
a cheaper path as well? And society, I don't know,
call me.
Speaker 4 (37:37):
Crazy, absolutely, but it doesn't get to their goal of
disarming the American people. I'm seriously just like, hey, what
are you talking about? That is what they're talking about.
The purpose of the Second Amendment wasn't the hunt Everyone
knew you were hunting back then. That's how you got
your food, and it wasn't just your home defense. It
was to protect the people from government. That is why
(38:02):
we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When
you look at it, that's the purpose. It's not to
protect the government from the people. It's to protect the
people from the government and maintain our freedom. But they
just want to overlook that, you know what we really
want because these are really weapons of war. Well guess
(38:23):
what when the Revolutionary Award was fought, Yep, that's what
they were, the weapons of war. We were using the
same weapons that the British were using against us. And
that's just how it evolved. So and they're just aligned
that what you're doing five million, some people say he's
a ten million. Here's over twenty eight million just of
one type of firearm, not including any of the rest
(38:47):
of them. I mean, five hundred and ten million firearms
out there, and they're going to do a buyback program
confiscation really yeah, speaking.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
Of firearms, JC, I'm want to wrap up on a
good note because I feel like it's been a downer
sometimes during the show. But on a good note, we
got a couple of things right now packages at the
store that are really super good. I can't remember if
I talked about him a couple weeks ago or not,
I'm gonna talk about him again.
Speaker 3 (39:14):
Two packages going on.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
These are really good if you happen to be in
private security or have some security element to your career.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
But the first one is it is.
Speaker 1 (39:24):
A Smith and Wesson MMP two point zero, so a
newer Smith and Weston MPs in forty caliber. The package
includes one fifteen round mag and I believe four ten
round mags new and the package is still It includes
a duty type holster, It includes a mag pouch, It
includes John one hundred rounds of ammunition, and that entire
(39:48):
package is four seventy nine.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Four seventy nine incredible.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
Now, if forty is not your thing, we have a
similar package in the forty five. Smith and Wesson MP
forty five comes with a duty holster, comes with a
mag pouch, comes with three regular magazines, and then one
extended magazine. Comes with one hundred rounds of forty five
ACPMO for eighty nine. These are guns John that are
(40:16):
in the boxes still. They've certainly been used before and everything,
but certainly very functioning guns. If you're in the market
two of these two specials here that are great. One
other thing I want to shout out to this coming soon.
I think the date is going to be beginning the
next month. Daniel Defense John we haven't talked about this,
just came out with a nine milimeter rifle. They're also
(40:39):
coming out with it in a pistol format, which we
will have here at the store. They look super neat,
they take CZ magazines. They look to be really really nice.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
If that's something here in the market.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
For oh, that's great. Daniel Defense makes great stuff and
I'm glad they won their court case they had just recently,
so that was a really deal for them too. So
they that's where they were charged because someone had used
the Daniel Defense gun in the Texas and then they said,
well they're marketing to young people and this is the
(41:12):
whole reason, so we want to sue them, and got
thrown out of court. So there was nothing that came
with that. So our friends at Daniel Defense, that's that's
that's good for them. So yeah, quality.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
Firearms and they are they do a very good job
to support the men and women in law enforcement as well.
We know a lot of our men and women here
in the city of Columbus carry Daniel defenses in their
cruisers with them, so with them as long as the
as well as the FN line of firearms very good
at supporting law enforcement. To see any any other final
(41:44):
wards of wisdom, well just not.
Speaker 4 (41:48):
There's just another one. I think we know about the
pistol stabilizing braces. What people may not know is there's
still a few of these floating around to the to
the circuit courts, so and just one one. I mean,
the circuit courts of appeals are the last step before
we go to a Supreme Court. And there's twelve circuit
in the United States and actually Stisted are a federal one.
(42:09):
You can say thirteen. But of these circuit courts, Ohio
is in the sixth circuit court. Decisions are made and
sometimes some courts say, hey, no, this is unconstitutional, and
some say it's constitutional. And when they build up, that's
when it goes to the Supreme Court. So we have
to keep track of these things, and we're hoping that
(42:29):
this year made the Supreme Court will actually make a
decision on MSRs.
Speaker 2 (42:34):
So that's our hope.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
Definitely definitely, guys, thanks for spending the last hour with us.
Good to be back here live at the studios. And
upcoming weeks, we got so much going on with the
election coming up. We have a lot of guests coming
on the show. Bernie Marino is definitely scheduled. We're hoping
to have jd Vant on the show, and much much more.
Pay attention to the OSU football schedule coming up because
that does affect our shows going forward. Top I and
(42:58):
see us here at the store. And as always, guys,
as always, let's be careful out there.