South Carolina's shopkeeper's law provides legal protection for merchants who detain suspected shoplifters on or near their property, but this protection does not extend to pursuing suspects beyond the immediate vicinity, which can transform a lawful detention into an unlawful chase that may constitute the aggressor in a self-defense claim.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
SC v CHOW - C-Store Murder Trial Day 3 Part 2Added:
send someone with more experience.
>> Sir, you're charged with especially aggravated kidnapping. You're also charged with aggravated assault matters and enforcement.
>> You're charged with theft of a firearm worth less than $2,500.
You're talking about stuff that is not great.
>> Hello and welcome to public opinion. I am the recovery addict. Boy, do I have a case for you today.
>> Why is the dog chewing on this guy?
>> I think they have got the wrong guy.
>> Wrong guy and the dog was was biting him.
>> He rubbed him up quite a bit.
>> There's a lawsuit.
>> Nine out of 10 judges for watching the recovery addict live stream in their court.
>> The fireworks are not done.
commentary on me.
I didn't ask you to interrupt that for Trump's sake. You don't put a diplomatic plate on a hoopy.
>> Yeah, do not put a diplomatic do not put a diplomatic plate on a hoopy. Whatever you do, but do come back and hang out with us this afternoon as we continue watching the South Carolina versus Chiao case.
Good afternoon. Welcome to the Court of Public Opinion. I am the recovery addict.
>> Remember in the beginning when we started 110 years ago?
>> Why is there an echo? Hello. Hello.
All right. Welcome. Welcome. First listen to this trial catch up this weekend. Rita, this is a tough one. This is a tough one. I have vacasillated.
I guess you some people could call it flip-flopped on this. And uh I don't know how it's going to end up. I really don't.
But uh but it could end very soon. Even though I I anticipate this might be a lengthy deliberation. So usually when I think it's going to be quick, it it goes a long time. When it's supposed to be long, it goes short. So we'll see what happens. But defense has had one witness up so far. And um why is that blurry?
I'm >> going to sustain my own objection.
I have to turn it off and back on again.
Hold, please.
Okay. Turn off and back on. And now it's still a little blurry.
>> If you could just use your words. more blurry. A little bit better.
I don't want you to be able to like read my the text on my phone, but uh you know, we see everything clearly would be good enough. Red Pen, thanks having you back this afternoon. Appreciate it. Look at this. Uh Tony Zamora, Tony, my friend, attorney level support for 16 months. Tony, I think I think you are an OG. OG helping out the channel in a big way. I appreciate the the updates and information we get. Speaking of updates and information though, >> uh July 1st, July 1st, which is coming rapidly, uh you know, it's going to be May. It's almost over with May. May is almost over. Uh in case you hadn't been tracking the calendar and and mine won't pull up, so I can't show you, but just one second.
Let's see. July 1st or June 1st, excuse me, is Monday. And Monday, we have a hearing back in Utah with Tyler Robinson. So, we're going to be carrying that live uh out of on the Top Rank Media channel and possibly depends on what we're doing here. Um possibly carry it live on the channel, maybe while we're doing Verdict Watch. Depends on how things shape up uh today and tomorrow. So, but either way, you'll be able to find it at least over on Topmark Media. That's an oral arguments hearing in in the Tyler Robinson trial. Get get more of Miss Nester. What more could you want? Cody height member for 11 months.
Next month I got a new caller. Does anybody know the makeup of the jury in this case? No, but we might get a uh might get a court watcher. Maybe. We're keeping our fingers crossed. Evangeline Light gifted a goat tro trophy. I love this one. It almost deserves like a goat yell every time.
Greatest of all time. Thank you very much, Evangelene Light. You are the goat. Um, let's see. Super mom says, "I'm in Indianapolis and my house was shot up 11 times and we knew who done it." And the detective said because it's he said they they did nothing, so cops sometimes don't always help.
And I don't I don't know the background on this particular case in South Carolina enough to say that that was the situation here. I don't know if the store owners were just fed up with, you know, we we call the cops, they show up 6 hours later, we give them the pictures, uh they either don't prosecute or they give them a deal and next, you know, we see the the same person back in our store a week later. No, I I don't know if that was happening and they were just tired of it or if they were just doing what they thought was best and you know, the cops have been very supportive. I don't know. Buffer, I can't read chat very well when on screen at the moment.
Sorry, Josh. I'll take it down. I'll take it down.
Um, our servers are Oh, never mind.
That's That's your buffer sound.
There are times that I have to replay things. It's like, what did they just say? Yes, very often. Oh, look at this.
Holy smokes. Uh Sher Ward just uh Sher Ward just gifted a uh hang make it work. Come on. There it is. A goat trophy as well. Sorry, I have to. And uh Fetn Fetn Sunshine Fetss, thank you very much.
Appreciate it. Fet nose, I think.
Um let's see. Conversely, we reported a bike stolen from a garage months later, says Ripen. Months later, the police called and said they had it. Always make your police report. It can pay off.
Can't I'm I'm a big fan. Okay. I've told you where I stand on this case right now.
>> What is >> Oh, hang on. I've got to I've got to call really quickly.
>> Okay, hang on.
I've rebooted my phone. I'm going to see if this works. Hold on. Hold on.
>> Are you there?
>> Hey, the Brown Barn, are you there?
>> Hey, I'm here.
>> I can hear you now. How are you doing?
>> How?
>> I'm well. How are you?
>> Fabulous.
>> Awesome. I don't know how long we have before they come back. Um, but I wanted to mention something to you that this trial is really making me think a lot about another situation in South Carolina out of Ory County. I don't know if you're familiar with the Welden Boyd Scott Fivey situation in Ory County.
Have you heard anything about that?
>> Um, what state are we in again?
>> In South Carolina. Ory County, South Carolina.
>> Uh, I haven't heard a lot about it. it.
Okay, it's similar to this one and it's just it's making me think a lot about it because it's like at what point does the person being pursued get to defend themselves, >> right? And that happened in this case in Ory County, South Carolina, where allegedly um there was like a road rage incident and they two men in pickup trucks chased another man in a pickup truck for about 10 miles.
>> Wow. That's dedication.
>> And at some point Yeah. And they exceeded like a 100 miles an hour. like the the the guy being pursued was obviously trying to get away.
>> Yeah.
>> Um he did he did brandish his weapon. Um >> the guy does show a weapon >> as one does when you're being pursued for 10 miles at 100 miles an hour.
>> Yeah. So at some point he turned off the main road in the direction of his house and the two men pursuing him continued to follow and um then he pulled over. the the single guy that's got side. He pulled over and allegedly got out of his car with his weapon and said, "Why? Stop following me or why are you following me?" or something like that. And the whole time this the Weldon Boyd guy is on the phone with 911, so this is all recorded.
>> Yeah.
>> Um but they they say, you know, they're saying if he keeps it up, we're going to have to, you know, we're going to put him down. We're going to take him down if he keeps this up as they're pursuing him. And then when he pulls over, they say he raises his gun and um there's no I don't think there's no any eyewitness that that particular thing happened.
They did say that he had the gun, but they shot and killed him. And um >> Wow.
>> The there's no criminal charges in that case, which is interesting. Um the Welden Boyd had the U police chief of Ory County's phone number in his phone and called him directly and so there's a lot of like personal connection >> he has with the police department. Yep.
>> But interestingly the the family did um file a civil suit and there was a stand your ground hearing >> and they neither of these men qualified for immunity in that stand your ground hearing.
>> Yeah. um in the civil.
>> So, it's going to court. It's going to trial is what we're saying, right? But you said no charges filed.
>> No, there are there No, there's no criminal charges. This was just in the civil. Yeah. This was just in the suing that that basically to allow the family to >> pursue civil um litigation against them.
But it's so interesting like at what point did did this young man that was being chased by these other men >> have the right to defend himself >> have the right to defend himself? I don't I don't know how you >> Here's a Here's a thought exercise for you.
>> Is it possible that everyone in this case followed the law with the exception of the young man carrying the gun in the store, which is not relevant? I'll admit that right up front. It's not relevant.
If is it possible that everyone followed the law with the exception of him carrying the the gun or but exclude that >> and we still end up with somebody dead >> with everyone being legally >> where they're supposed to be >> like legally protected in their actions.
So Cyrus had the right to defend himself even though he didn't legally have the right to possess the gun. He had the right to use his gun in self-defense if he hadn't done anything wrong, which from his vantage point, he sure hadn't done anything wrong to these people, >> right?
>> He hadn't hadn't stolen anything from them.
>> He was he was innocent in this altercation, even though it might have looked suspicious or whatever.
>> You don't have to stop when someone tells you to stop. You can run. You can do what you want unless it's the police.
>> They were not the police. They were not the police. Yeah. So it I can look at this and say yes, Cyrus could be in the right to to use deadly force if he was in fear for his life. And we unfortunately tragically aren't able to see, you know, what he thought. But I I'm guessing he probably wasn't just calm, cool, and collected at the moment, thinking, oh, everything's peachy keen at the time that these two men are chasing him.
>> Yeah.
>> Um but if he's in fear for his life >> and he uses or brandishes the firearm in self-defense, doesn't even fire it, right? I think you can say that he was >> right >> within his rights to defend himself >> because he was in fear for his life at the same time >> that the chows were within their rights to shoot to defend any child.
>> Yeah. And then we just have this this tragic tragic scenario where lack of communication has created this no-win situation >> um where somebody has to die and it's >> yeah I really I really was was in support of the state on these charges until I heard Andy Child's testimony and I really think I can get to hearing him say how he was like moving away laterally. Andy Chow was moving away. I I wasn't watching. I was driving and listening, but it sounded to me like he was saying he was moving away laterally.
>> Yeah.
>> And the young man still had the gun, was still able to point the gun, yet still falling down and moving away. So indeed, he could have been shot in the back at the same time he was threatening Andy Chow. It >> Yeah, there's there's a lot. I would say it's what Andy said is possible. The problem is Andy's the only person saying what Andy said, >> right? Andy's the only person saying there's a gun.
>> But a lot of other people can't account for where the gun was.
>> They say, "I didn't see it."
>> Yeah.
>> But there was a gun found. Okay. We we know that it that even the state says the gun was out when he fell the first time that it fell out that it could have fallen out of his his coat, his his hoodie.
>> Um Yeah. So, and there is one of the states witnesses, the guy in the Honda, who who described Andy as having his hands up and backing up into the street.
Um, which would support and that's exactly what he said.
>> I saw a gun, I put my hands up and was backing up.
>> So, >> yeah, it's it's it's tragic.
>> That's a good one. Thank you for choosing it.
>> It's it's not a good one because there's no winners here, right?
So, it's a it's an interest it's good in a very interesting thoughtprovoking way.
>> I'd like there to be a bad guy where we can be like, I'm on the side of right here, right? And this person's wrong.
>> But personally, personally, I don't agree with what the Chows did, even if the law allows them to.
>> I can't tell them no, you can't because I don't like I don't like it.
>> But if they have the right to defend their property, they have the right to even though police said they have the right to pursue him. They have to use common sense, but they have the right to do it. Um, >> that's right.
>> I I think there are better ways to handle problems >> than than what was exhibited here.
>> And and I think there are probably a million different ways this could have ended and opportunities to end it differently than than what it did. So, tragically avoidable.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. But also >> in the rights. Okay. It looks like they're starting up again here.
>> So, the Brown, thanks for the call.
>> We'll look into that. Um yeah, when you have time say that again.
>> Say that again.
>> I said when you have time look into that weld and boy Scotty issue out of Ory County, South Carolina, just read up on it. It's really >> It's interesting and very similar.
Reminds me of this one. So >> I think you guys are trying to get me to go down to a South Carolina case. We might have to make a little road trip.
>> Well, there's no criminal charges in that one. Hey, we got to go to Murdo.
>> Murdo's coming. All right, we got to go.
We got to go. All right, thanks Mark.
We'll see you turn the police off on this papar.
>> Yes, sir. Uh, the last witness who testified, Andy Choy, we put in defense exhibit number three, which was the body warn camera that he testified about. Um, if you remember, we took a pause during his testimony by the uh of the video.
The reason we paused is it was going to get into something about a prior shoplifting. We paused. It was not played for the jury. I think we stopped it in time. I went over to Mr. I think you saw me go over to a state table and tell them that that's why we were pausing because I saw that was coming up during the lunch break where we redacted to take that complete clip out. It has just been muted Mr. Scott completely based upon what the jury heard such as muted out. So we'd like to replace we'll leave it of course. Um but I guess supplement this and make this defense 3A and then before it goes to the jury we would ask that the state have opportunity to review it and make sure it's what I've said here.
>> Okay. Then three would not do >> three does not go back to the >> defense almost opened the door to prior >> prior shoplifting.
You want me to replace three three?
Would that be easier?
>> That's fine. Yeah.
>> Madam court ask that she marked that through and then before it goes back to the jury to take it that option to review it to make sure it is what I have said that it is.
>> Thank you. Are we ready to see this? Ready? I'm tell.
So, a federal judge had to apologize to her staff after um getting caught having relations with Atlanta police deputy chief in chambers and everybody heard it.
Oh, yes. As loud, loud as the operative.
I left that part out, red. I was I didn't I didn't think we need to put all the words in, but uh they're both still doing their thing. I mean, not like that thing, but she's still federal judge and he's still police deputy chief.
She gets to keep her robe even if she wasn't used. Never. Never mind. Never mind. There's There's lines. We're not going to say that. We're not going to say that. But uh she was the judge who uh who sentenced Todd Chrysley to prison.
Todd Chrisley was the uh they were TV were they the um Chrysley Knows Best the TV series. I think there was Tax Evasion or something.
Anyway, so that's happening.
She has not been disroed. No, she's she's still um still still at it.
How do we know whether or not Cyrus was reaching for the for the firearm when Chiao pulled the trigger? Two people.
Andy testifies that he saw it and was backing away. And the states witness in the white Honda says he saw Andy with his hands up backing away, which why would you put your hands up and back away from somebody unless unless that situation was as it unfolded. Now the the Honda driver did not see the firearm. He only saw Andy.
Hands up, back away.
You'd have to believe Andy and that that witness.
>> Yeah, there was a state witness that put Andy with his hands up at the scene right at the time of the shooting.
And it was the one it was the one who said he was driving along keeping pace with them watching out his window. He was right there. He was the closest witness to that event. Um but he would have been potentially behind Andy in line with in line with Cyrus. So those three would have been in a line and he would have seen the dad and Andy.
Uh Debbie couldn't have been put his hands up and backed away because he was shot in the back. Cyrus was shot in the back.
car.
I I heard it that he said Andy had put his hand up and backed away.
You heard it as >> Cyrus.
Number one.
>> Thank you, Mr. Carter. You've come pretty good distance today for us. We appreciate that.
>> You are actually investigator car. Is that correct? No sir.
>> All right. I I work I'm a deputy with Lancaster County Sheriff's Office.
>> Deputy then, but your work with that department and other departments prior to that have been as an investigator or investigation of crimes.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Or potential possible crimes.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So, um you know, lawyers are supposed to be very good at asking questions. That's not always the case, as I'm sure this jury has experienced. So if there's a point where I ask a question that makes absolutely no sense to you, do not hesitate to say, "Could you ask me that again?" or "Can you ask it in a different way?" Very content with that.
Okay? Because it's very important that everything that you hear from me by way of a question is understood and that your answers are very clear. So for their understanding. Okay.
>> Thank you, sir. And you're going to have to I'm going to pick on you because before I start, she will grab you by the neck and say you can't nod your head.
You did say Uh-huh. But >> sorry.
>> Yes, I understand. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Be very careful about that cuz you know from you testified before.
>> Yes.
>> Probably dozens of times. So it's it's an easy habit to lapse into. So I'll pick on you before she gets on you. Um, now you were employed at Lancaster >> Lancaster County Sheriff's Office.
>> And you drove there today from there today?
>> Yes.
>> Do you got to work tonight?
>> Yes.
>> Well, I want to ask you a little bit about your law enforcement career. So, prior to working in Lancaster, you call it Lancaster. I call it Lancaster, but and I'm from here, not Lancaster. But where'd you work before that? And just tell the jury if you will, just give them a little quick narrative of the departments you worked in. Um, I'm on year 30. Uh, prior to Lancaster, I worked for Richmond County for 21 years.
And prior to that, I worked Mount Pleasant. I've worked I started my career in North Carolina, Carolina Beach.
>> I can't imagine why you left the beach, but okay. You came inland and prior to all of those three stops with those departments, uh, you went to the criminal justice academy.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Got trained there. Have you worked out of state with law enforcement?
>> So, >> and you worked with the department out of state?
>> I worked in North Carolina with Carolina Beach Police Department. That's where I started.
>> All right. Carol Beach. I got you. All right. Sir, so you were trained at the academy and at the academy you took courses and were trained on things like crime scene investigation.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Witness interviewing.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Uh things that you do when you go to a possible crime scene, the kind of a list of things to do as a as an officer on the scene.
>> Yes, sir. And and just for a moment, I want to dwell there and ask you the um the things you do when you arrive at a a crime scene. Is there a priority or how you approach it? How you're trained to approach a crime scene?
>> Yes, sir. All right. Can you tell them about that? As a an initial responding officer, first is provide aid to a the victim injured. Uh then it's to secure the crime scene, preservation of the evidence and to determine witnesses uh or individuals that may be present who have information regarding what occurred. All right. And and and in terms of identifying witnesses, do you uh is it important to talk with the witnesses, interview them, get information from them?
>> Yes. And is there a preference in law enforcement and in your training about how soon you interview people to get information from you?
>> Yes, sir. And what's that preference? I mean, if it's when you're initially on the arrival on a scene, um if people have information, it's it's important to identify who they are and what it is that they have seen or have not seen. Is it important to do that sooner or later if you got the manpower to do it?
>> Sooner.
>> Why is that?
>> Because the individuals that may be there may not be there when you get to them.
>> Might wander off.
>> Correct.
>> Are there other reasons that make it important to interview them? Uh first, do you interview them? You get the group of witnesses together and interview them together or what do you do?
>> No, I I'll interview them. separately.
>> Why do you do that? So they're their stories aren't tainted or um they don't what's influence somebody else someone else's story. You you want them to be um their own.
>> Taint is a good word.
>> So you're going to try to separate the witnesses and talk to them as soon as you can to get their fresh freshest recollection.
>> Correct. All right. And in the old days before body cameras, you have a notepad have to take notes.
>> Yes, I did.
>> All right. Um, in the incident that we're going to talk about, May 28th of 2023, you didn't need a notepad, did you?
>> No, sir.
>> And that's because you were equipped with body cameras.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Or a you you were equipped with one, but virtually all the officers on the scene had body cameras, as far as you know.
>> Yes, sir.
And so, um, were you or how were you how did you come to find yourself at this scene that you're here to testify?
Dispatch, dispatch was not notified of myself and the other deputies working on my shift at that time of an incident that occurred.
>> Okay. And that was an incident at 7441 Park Lane.
>> Yes, sir.
>> And do you recall that to be an intersection that of Parklane Road and Springtree Road?
>> Correct.
>> That sound right?
>> Yes, sir. There's a gas station on the corner.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So, uh, from the time that you got the dispatch, um, do you recall, and and this has only been 3 years, and I understand that, but, do you have a recollection of how long it took you to get there?
>> At that time, I was on the 77 end of Deca Boulevard. Um, and it took me, you know, running a code of blue lights and siren.
>> Pretty cool.
>> A short Yeah. A short time to get there.
>> Okay. And And can you describe the scene when you arrived there?
>> When I arrived, there was there was a lot of people there. I was trying to figure out who was going on.
But there was a gentleman laying in the grass. There were people around the gentleman and believe fire MS were already on scene.
>> How about members of your department?
>> Um there was one other deputy that was on my ship.
>> You remember his name?
>> Deputy English.
>> Okay. Was he I mean you were working in his department. Y'all working together.
So you you knew him when he >> and um do you recall what roughly had he had accomplished by the time you got there?
>> Well, we both pretty much got it about the same time. He was just a little bit faster than I was. Um he started already had crime scene tape out. He was what I call securing the crime scene or preserving what he's been told at that moment. Uh trying to establish what was going on. Okay. Um the things that you've discussed before that are the priority act actions by officers arriving at the crime scene.
you had a number of people there and you had a per potential crime scene. What measures were taken that you were called to, as you described, preserve the crime scene or segregate it?
Once I was advised of potential evidence that was consistent with what the stories I was being told.
Um the important thing was to make sure that piece of evidence was not removed uh unintentionally uh because it could have its location could have easily disappeared.
Um so we moved the cars, we put crime scene, we expanded the crime scene um area, >> put tape.
>> Yes, with tape >> crime scene tape. Um, >> that's a perimeter away rubbing off the air.
>> Yes. And there was information of a a bag that was thrown off.
I guess it was a a drain, a culvert right there off the road. So, let me let me show you. Space exhibit 12.
Is this that look familiar?
>> Yes.
>> Is that the black bag or >> Yeah, that was the the bag.
>> Okay.
And you you were telling us where that was located. Where was that?
It was in a I guess I don't like to say grassy.
It's the the growth off the side of the uh it's where all the storm workers drains off in and so it was kind of sitting down off of that. So the this crime scene was uh off of a curved roadway.
>> Yes.
>> Spring. And so there was an area uh on without any particular vegetation and then a tree line behind that.
>> Correct.
>> Seem familiar. And and before Well, this culvert that you're describing, was it a paved culvert?
>> I think a portion of it was. Uh then there was concrete. I mean it was but it just for the jury's benefit I don't want to put words in your mouth but it may be easier to just ask you it started at the roadway level and then it went down up or down >> down.
>> All right. It went down to a creek.
>> Yes.
>> And and did you find that or was that pointed out to you in this bag?
>> Um it was pointed out I can't I can't recall where where that information came from. Do you recall how far down the cover it was?
>> It wasn't that far.
5 ft. 10 ft.
>> 10 ft.
>> It wasn't in a creek.
>> No, it wasn't in a creek.
>> Okay. And the um Where was Mr. Chow? This gentleman over here. You didn't know you didn't know Mr. Chow at the moment you arrived.
>> No, sir. I didn't >> learned who he was. during the investigation and you had occasion to be involved in an interview with him. Is that right?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Where was he when you arrived?
>> When I first Yes.
>> made contact with him, he was standing on the sidewalk um right above where P7 was.
>> All right. And and during the time you were there, did you uh have interaction with a young man named Andy Child?
>> I did.
>> And did you learn he was the son of Mr. Chow?
>> I did.
>> Did you learn that he was somehow involved in the incident as a witness or somehow involved?
>> I did.
>> And you were involved in an interview with him?
>> Yes.
>> All right. And and where was he when you arrived? If you recall, >> I don't recall.
>> All right. Well, during the interview that was conducted with your participation, and we'll we're'll come to that in one moment. Where was Mr. Child's son when you and another officer were talking with Mr. Child?
>> He was down.
He was closer to Park Lane on it sidewalk.
>> So, he wasn't standing there listening.
and he was participating in that interview >> and now the interview of Mr. Chow you only how many times did you speak to Mr. child in an interview setting.
>> The only time I interacted splitting this child was when he was stay and um there uh who began the discussion with Mr. Chow that you then walked up to and participated in?
>> Um Deputy Anderson.
>> Okay. Your honor, at this time we'd like and and so was there a point in this interview with uh investigator English that uh you were standing there next to him after a point of he had started before you walked up. Is that correct?
>> Yes, sir.
>> And so at some point as Mr. Child was speaking, uh investigative English went over to talk to someone else and you remained.
>> Yes, sir.
>> And and so uh let me do this. Uh if we may your honor we have talked and and we like to show uh the uh first the interview has already been admitted. Uh it is the interview on scene that English conducted with Mr. Chow with this gentleman.
It takes three minutes.
>> Okay. So they want to show >> the first part of the conversation and then probably the second part as well.
>> So if you'll watch this.
>> Defense says the conversation spans two body camera recordings.
I tell you what happened here.
Um on the way down here we're going to drop Heat. Heat.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Heat. Heat.
my >> So when I >> So you recall much of that?
>> Yes, sir.
>> And that's a accurately portrays what occurred?
>> Yes, sir.
>> And and where were you in that video just for the jury's name? Was that you at the on the right side of the screen?
>> Yeah, deputy English was that's the angle. I was standing sliding on the right.
>> And uh during that period of time when you walked up to participate in the interview, your body camera was activated and the role.
>> Yes, sir.
>> And so, your honor, the second video, well, let's go ahead and offer that. We That's is our extracted satisfy it's already in the states for >> that's what I'm saying for ID up here >> I would I would offer that >> see if the state objects >> authenticated twice >> any Carter's body cam footage will be admitted as defendants for without question.
>> It's interesting that Mr. Chow says he shoplifted my store and as we were following him down, we yelled at him to drop what he stole. To drop what he stole. So when he's yelling, "Drop it.
Drop it."
Drop what he stole was what I heard.
Not drop the gun, drop the gun.
He also said, "My son saw the gun." Then he sort of says, "Well, I >> I told >> I also saw the >> video we just watched was already in as a states exhibit. Is that correct?"
>> Okay. Maybe I misunderstood what we now like you have seen your body camera footage outside of courtroom this morning or today.
>> Yes, sir. And so you authenticated it to me and I discussed with the sources office that this is his body camera footage. And and is it correct, investigator, that your body camera footage does not include a little bit of what we just saw, but it picks up in the middle of it and continues until the end of your interview with or your interview with Ch.
>> Yes, sir.
>> All right. Just so we all nobody's confused about what we're watching. So what we're is correct that what we're watching are two overlapping videos, two body camera videos. One of English yours is the second one of one continuous processing discussion with Mr. Ch. Is that correct?
>> Yes sir.
>> But English departed at some point and then that's when you step up. So let's see that your honor. Let me just before we we we didn't talk about Sean. I just noted yesterday almost a 4minute video.
Are we playing an entire 4 minutes?
>> That was not No, I think we're playing only I don't know how long it goes, but we're playing only so much of the body cam of this body cam footage that is his interview, not just the channel. I think that goes for what will be admitted into evidence then is my question.
>> Well, your honor, we'll stop it and and redact it, but I don't interview.
>> What?
>> It's all his interview.
>> It's all his interview.
>> Yes.
>> Well, apparently the this body camera footage of your interview with this gentleman is four minutes.
I'll stand ready as long as they can pause. Yeah, just I'm sorry I hate you.
Maybe just approach it really quickly.
Sure.
>> All right. So, this argument back and forth, this is the second body cam that was fought over extensively at the beginning of the trial. During the state's trial, defense wanted to bring this in under objection under the rule of completeness, saying, "We should be able to show this because it's relevant.
It's continuing that same statement that was made. The officer just walked away."
Uh, now it looks like we're going to be watching all of this uh which will give us the rest of the interview um as it occurred. All right, investigator car. A little earlier, uh, we showed you out of the lobby the the footage we're about to see. Um, and it's only all we're offering is your interview, your body camera footage of the balance of the interview with Mr. Chap. That's what you watched outside. Correct.
>> Yes.
>> It was the beginning.
45 in his Yeah.
Shell down right about there.
Then he got up.
>> All right. So, can you um Gosh, I don't know that it's necessary, but it might be helpful. Do you mind stepping down for one second? You have a little pointer would have been using the area that we were talking about at the beginning of your testimony. This culvert where the backpack was found exhibit one can point to that area where the culvert begins in this right here. It's hilarious.
>> And so as you testified before, the bag itself would have been there's a hill there that would have been down the hill some distance, >> right? It's slanted over here.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir.
You just put that up there. I don't I don't think you need to be strapped in.
You're comfortable up there without that seat belt there.
All right, let's resume.
Yeah.
I actually What? Um Yeah. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
I'm behind myself here.
All right. This will be your honor. This is uh has been properly authenticated. And is that your body camera footage?
>> Yes.
>> It's a little late for that. accurately reflects the conversation you had with Mr. Child at the time.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So, your honor, we would offer this as a defense exhibit.
>> Is that evidence for?
>> Well, I think the first thing that you ruled in evidence was the uh was an excerpt of what is already in evidence as a state exhibit. This is a defense exhibit. This was not an evidence.
This is the defendants exhibit four which is already need to get up here and get it.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So, it's been pretty. Thank you.
Now, subsequent to that interview with Mr. Child, did you have occasion to interview Andy Child?
>> Yes.
>> All right. And that is also captured on your body camera.
>> Yes.
>> All right. Um and and between the time that you interviewed and spoke with Mr. Chow and the time that you interviewed Andy Child, which which interview occurred first in time?
>> Uh the interview of Mr. Chow.
>> And do you know what period of time later? How much time between the two interviews?
>> I can't tell you specific.
Did you notice they're talking with each other, getting together?
>> I did not.
>> And Jonathan, so you have viewed outside a few moments ago your interview of Andy Chow.
>> Yes, sir.
>> And did the uh interview on your body camera footage, that was your body camera footage? Yes.
>> Yes, sir.
>> And was it accurate? uh complete as far as you tell.
>> Yes, sir.
>> See that?
>> And your honor, we we intend to offer this. We've authenticated it. This is I'm not sure what where we are on defenses. It's five.
>> How do you get around to hear >> seven?
That's why I went to law school. I'm not very good at numbers yet.
I am thoroughly.
What number is this? This is seven is this is the interview you have reviewed outside which is your interview with Andy Jack which is It's not it's not >> judge confused. We're a little confused.
We're trying to admit the body cam of the second officer which was an interview with Andy Chow.
have no audio.
>> Maybe I would ask this camera authenticated by him and I be allowed to or not. Any objection, Mr. >> Just because what number is this one?
>> I That's where I'm confused.
>> I thought someone said >> confusion is just numbering right now.
>> Okay. No, what you're about to show is number four. Put in >> uh I do not believe so.
>> This one is a body card that was not introduced by this.
>> I'm just trying to figure out a number.
>> Judge is like, I don't care what it is.
I just need to know what the number it's a the evidence identified identification number.
>> Is it four? Is it five? Is it seven?
>> All right. One andy child was marked as four for ID purposes during Mr. Andy Child's testimony.
>> Let's see.
The video you're about to play is seven.
>> Seven.
>> Okay.
>> I'm I'm happy with seven. Sorry.
>> Seven works.
>> Without objection.
>> Okay. Without objection. Number seven.
>> Okay. May May we publish?
>> Yes.
I thought he had to take it out and he just couldn't stand the pocket. Then he after that he started going out the door and so he chased himself out the chaser and he was running back down this way and then I got up once and then he kept going.
right here. And then um that's my dad right here.
I was like running next and then that's my dad.
something my dad shot and then he dropped to the floor. He was like, you know, kind of like pulling his back or something and then he dropped the gun. So my dad like pushed it to that second tree over there and then he was still on the floor conscious and then we called and around that time that's when like the US come down and then the white woman she was so she came down and that's what we noticed she was unconscious.
So she did the tourniquet was doing CPR and so then I left cuz I heard the sirens. Um so I went down to the parking lot and then they started parking like on the outside on parking.
So I was waiting to come down here and then after everyone most of the cars had come down here. I came back and then um you guys had already started putting up the tape. So I just check.
And so other than you when you left the scene that evening, you had no further involvement in this investigation. Is that correct?
>> That is correct.
>> Thank you, sir. Thank you.
>> All right. Defense. We need that too, >> Mr. Chow.
>> Uh, I think so.
>> Yes, your honor. Thank you, sir.
>> All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chow is shackled right now, so he can't let up his shackles in front of the jury if he is going to testify.
Thank you.
Little sidebar behind the bench.
That's the most sidebar of sidebars I've ever seen.
>> The one witness that was described at the scene and seen on the body cam that we have not talked to is the the lady that that was described as the white lady, the EMT.
This might be her.
She was seen in a uh >> this is a police officer. She's wearing a side arm.
>> Do you swear or affirm the testimony in this case the whole truth of God? Thank you. Witness stand and state your for the record.
Shelby, if you'll spell your last name for Mad for me, please.
>> B R A B W E L L.
>> Now, Shelby, I'm going to ask you some questions and I go over rules with everybody so we can understand and be on the same page. Okay.
>> And and that's the first one. Madam court reporter, taking out every word that you're saying so she cannot take things like Mhm. and headshakes. Can we make sure we can speak loud and affirmatively so she can get down and do your work?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Number two, and that's the second one.
She can't take when we talk over one another. So, if you'll allow me to finish my question, I'll give you plenty of opportunity to answer the questions.
Is that fair?
>> Yes, sir.
>> And at some point in time, and she will tell you also, I've been known to speak way too fast and sometimes it's hard to understand my question. So, if you don't understand it or don't ask understanding questions from Senator, anybody else, if you'll ask them to repeat, they'll repeat their question. Is that fair?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Shelby, first of all, if you'll let this jury know who are you, where are you from, a little bit of your background, just let them know who Shelby is.
>> Um, I'm Shelby Bradwell. I'm originally from here. I am a deputy sheriff for Fairfield County. And before that, what did you do?
>> Before becoming a deputy sheriff, I was an EMS student and I did security for a hospital.
>> Um, and you were here under subpoena. Is that correct?
>> That's correct.
>> Ever testified under oath before?
>> No.
>> Okay. So, we'll do this together. Take your time and breathe. We'll get to it.
Shelby, um, we have seen you on some of the body cam footages. Um, will you tell the jury about what you did and you know what case was in? So, if you'll let the jury know, what did you do about the case that we're talking about today?
What was your role?
>> So, basically that day, um, I was a civilian and I stopped and provided CPR, um, to, uh, Cyrus. Um, whenever I pulled up on scene, I noticed that there were three individuals. Um, I pulled in the parking lot of an apartment complex, um, right over there. I ran to where those three individuals were. Um, I asked if help was needed. Um, they stated yes.
>> Let me slow you down real quick. Using words like pronouns like they and so forth. Do you know who they were? We asked you as they needed help.
>> I asked um uh Rick Chow and his son.
>> Did you know them before this?
>> No.
>> Were y'all personal friends or anything of that nature?
>> No, sir.
>> Until I I got your testimony. You were just happened to be driving by?
>> Yes, sir.
>> And again, when you were driving by, what did you see?
>> I seen three individuals on the ground to my left.
>> Okay. And then that's when you stopped your vehicle.
>> That's correct.
>> And now, let's go from there. And so, what happened at that point in time?
>> Whenever I went over there, I asked Rick Child and his son if they needed help. Um, they stated yes. Um, I then told them that I was the ENL student. Rick Child's son, he moved out the way so I can get on the left side of Cyrus. I then checked for a pulse. I didn't feel a pulse, so I started doing um chest compressions. And then as I was doing chest compressions, Rick Child was um doing mouth to mouth. And >> And this is something you were watching yourself like the two of you were there, >> correct? Was anyone else around area while you were doing this that you saw?
>> I don't really remember. Okay.
>> I was just focused like on Cyrus at the moment.
>> Okay. So, go on.
>> Um, as I was doing um chest compressions, he was doing um mouth to mouth. He was um sucking the vomit out of Cyrus's mouth and he was spitting it to the side of him.
>> Hold up. Let Let me go through that again with you. What do you mean? He was sucking the vomit out of the young man's mouth.
>> Um, Cyrus had vomit in his mouth and his airway and he um he bent down and put his mouth over Cyrus's and was um getting the throat out >> as he was doing the mouth to mouth resuscitation.
>> Yes.
>> Have you ever seen anyone do anything like that before?
>> No, sir.
>> Was this Did this just happen one time?
No, he did it multiple times as I was compressing.
Have >> you ever seen anything like that?
>> No, sir.
>> Was he from your prison trying to save the young man's life at this point in time?
>> I think it's fair to say that.
>> Okay. And what happened then as he was doing this on multiple occasions? He um kept spitting it out and then um it was brought to my attention that Cyrus had been um shot and I didn't know where. So they rolled him over and they showed me um his back and I seen the um entry room and um whenever I seen it, I took my shirt off and I was um going to apply a tourniquet. However, I then remembered that you can't apply a tourniquet to the abdomen area. So, um we just left my shirt be and we just left it up under him, rolled him back over and I kept doing um chest compressions.
>> Okay. And did you see during this time Mr. Chow having a conversation with his son or talking about getting their stories together or anything like that?
>> No, sir.
>> And so all you were able to witness is when you got there, Mr. Chow and his son there together.
>> That's correct. And the older child was helping you perform mouth to mouth on the young man at the time.
>> That's correct.
>> And I want to make this clear. You're not saying he was clearing his airways or clearing the vomit out with his fingers and throwing it out. That's not what you saw.
>> No, he was using his mouth >> as he was doing the mouth to mouth resuscitation.
>> That's correct.
>> And so he was doing it the bomb would come out. He'd spit it out and then go back and continue to do mouth mouth resuscitation.
>> Yeah. He I mean he was as I'm compressing he was over Cyrus the entire time. his mouth and he was just sucking it and spitting it to the side.
>> Thank you. That's all the question.
Thank you.
>> Anything else?
>> That's that's basic. Not on the neck, not on the abdomen. Has to be on an extremity.
>> Mel, so it's true that you didn't actually see the shooting, correct?
>> That's correct.
>> And you didn't see any of the events that led up to the chase. Correct.
>> That's correct. Um, and you mentioned that there were three individuals um, at the scene when you got there right?
>> That's correct.
>> Um, one was the defendant ripped out.
>> Correct.
>> And that was the one that shot fire sires in the back.
>> I don't know if that's who shot him cuz I didn't see the shooting occur.
>> Okay. Okay. Did someone tell you that shot shot in the back?
>> Yes.
>> Did they say who?
>> Did they tell me who shot Cyrus or that Cyrus was shot?
>> Just object say nature confirmation who shot.
>> Okay. Um and was one of the three individuals um the kid Cyrus?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Was one one was Annie?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Um so did you talk to Andy on the scene >> when I first arrived?
>> Okay. whenever I was asking, you know, do they need help and stuff, but other than that, um, like I I I don't know who told me that he was shot. They was just like he was shot and like like I said, my main focus was Cyrus at the moment.
So, I don't know which one of them told me that.
>> Okay. So, but you did talk to the younger child.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. And was this when the little boy was still on the ground? Lay on the ground?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, and had police arrived yet when you talked to Andy?
>> No.
>> Okay. Um, when you talked to him before the police arrived, did he ever tell you that the victim pointed a gun at him?
>> No.
>> Did he ever tell you the victim pointed a gun at him minutes before that?
>> No, ma'am.
>> Um, when he I guess when they asked you to go help the little boy that was shot on the ground, did Andy ever tell you, you know, be careful when you go over there because the kid just pointed a gun at me and tried to shoot me?
>> No, ma'am.
No further questions.
>> Just briefly, >> you weren't there as a police officer.
Correct.
>> That's correct.
>> Weren't investigating.
>> That's correct.
>> Weren't interviewing anybody.
>> That's correct.
>> Um, you were just there as actually a concerned citizen.
>> Correct.
>> Thank you so much. Thank you for your time.
>> No, you're on. Thanks for being here.
All right, we going to take a break. I got a matter of law I need to take care of and we'll be back with you as quick as we can.
>> We may be hearing from Mr. Chow.
>> One one of the reason we take a break at this point is if Mr. Chia is getting the shackles removed from his feet prior to walking up to the stand. Let's see if that if that happens.
Attorney keeps looking down at the shackles.
>> Okay.
>> Pointing at him.
>> Is Mr. Chow going to just come forward with him a moment?
>> Yeah.
It's a last minute decision.
Lawyers asked to confer with Mr. Chow uh if to see if he's going to testify.
If they he doesn't, they may rest right here.
Taking the stand is crazy. I agree.
I just I don't think they're going to go to all the way up to uh closing arguments today. That's got to be Monday.
This is East Coast time. There's Mrs. Chow on the end there.
I believe he Yes, he is.
>> Um, is Mr. Child to testify?
Do >> you plan to testify in your own defense, Mr. Ch?
>> No, I don't.
>> No. Okay. Very good.
>> All right. Anything else from the defense?
>> Okay.
>> And the uh So, the defense arrest?
>> Yes, Sean.
Defense will rest in front of the jury.
>> Any reply from the state?
>> Any rebuttal?
>> No, sir. I believe we have >> no rebuttal.
>> Well, if uh if there's nothing further, obviously not going to try to argue the charge today. Um why don't I if y'all have no objection, I'll just go back there and release the jury for today.
I don't need the rest.
I don't need the rest. I mean, I the defense rest.
>> I mean, did you want me to do it in front of the jury or I get to make sure?
Um, Mr. Br, please.
>> We've got a poll up now that the uh all the evidence is in before the jury.
>> Did the state prove the case against Mr. Ciao. The first answer is no. The second answer is yes. Answer carefully. Read the answers carefully. Put in bold so it's easy to uh to see.
Greeners is voting for a ride in.
Interesting listening back to that audio from the body cam that we just had played with Mr. Chiao. He says he didn't see the firearm, but his son did.
And he also said that the gun was in the victim's hand when he fell and pushed it away.
They're also clear that he also says that he yelled to say, "Drop it. Drop what you stole."
Uh, interesting interesting variations to the story.
I I know a lot of you want a third option on this one, but unfortunately the jury the jury only has those two options, guilty or not guilty.
Appreciate uh a couple of you have sent some some laws regarding the shopkeepers law in South Carolina, which does protect shopkeepers on their property.
is specifically what it's uh um what it's written for and it does strongly warn shopkeepers about having very limited protection once they leave their property. Um it it still the actions they took were not illegal. They were not endorsed or or codified in law as legal options for shopkeepers to take, but it wasn't illegal. Um, which I think it would have to be for it to count as uh instigation.
Yeah, my wife's calling me.
Yes.
I know you give the normal admonitions, but seeing that just again the nature of the matter that we're dealing with right now, just the normal admonitions to the jury about the scene and social media and all the other stuff and just reiterating that so we can um keep keep them as true as possible.
Thank you. I'll be back.
>> Thank you.
Judge is present. John, >> anything else from the defense?
>> Your honor, after reviewing all the evidence presented by the defense, speaking with co-consel as well as Mr. Chow at this point in time, defense choose the right.
>> Very good. Um, state going to have anything in reply?
>> Uh, we do not, your honor.
>> All right. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes all the evidence in the case. Um, it is 3:20 on a Friday. Uh, and we still have some legal work to do.
Believe it or not, they they probably won't agree on the law, but I'm going to charge you on. We're going to have a charge conference that that may be rather lengthy and I'm not going to take the chance of y'all getting this case at 5:30 or 6:00 on a Friday afternoon. So, I'm going to excuse you for the weekend.
Again, don't discuss the case with anyone. Uh don't discuss it amongst yourselves, your family. Don't do any research. Stay away from any media coverage of the case. uh don't do any again research on your own like going to the scene or anything like that. Uh we want you to come back in Monday uh fresh and with an open mind and we'll have all our legal stuff ironed out and um we'll hear closing arguments and it'll be your turn to get to work. Um so with that being said, enjoy your weekend. Um but again, just stay away from social media, any media. I don't again I don't want anybody um to be anyway tainted when you come back on Monday. Also um nobody is entitled to get sick over the weekend.
We can't afford to do any more. Just kidding.
>> Don't get sick.
>> Anything else from the defense know? All right, y'all have a good weekend and we will see you Monday morning at 9:30.
So, the jury heads out right now. We might have a charge conference, a heated charge conference, even All right. I guess we need to talk about the charge.
>> Uh yeah, judge renew our motion.
>> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Just judge just renew the motion to direct verdict made the conclusion of the state's case. uh ask you to incorporate the uh comments and arguments that was made at that time and renew them.
>> Okay. I'll uh I'll for the record and for the same reason.
>> All right. So, we need to talk about the charge. Um obviously uh it would be a murder going.
>> Yeah. Y'all you want take about 10 or 15 minute break. You want to do that?
>> All right. We we going to be at about 10 or 15 minutes. Y'all just considerers, what defenses are, you know, the couple areas where the two sides normally disagree >> and then uh we'll uh we'll go from there.
>> I'm sure we'll disagree.
>> Be nice if they can work out the details on this one >> cuz we got a 15-minute break now. Um it would be nice if they could work out the details here. we just argue about the issues where there is disagreement.
Obviously, um it's going to be very important that uh for the defense that they get included in jury instructions that talk about uh the the rights that that Mr. Chow had regretting self-defense and defense of others. Um the state's going to be uh looking more to uh probably talk about the the instigation of the the altercation and say because they chased him off the property. Uh you they they didn't have those rights. They had then started the altercation um and and are not afforded the the right to to lethal force in self-defense when you started it. So we'll see we'll see how this goes. Flight to catch attorney with the light colored suits.
Yes, he's he's a great guy. Kent, I think is his name.
My wife called me to let me know that our neighbors have their house under contract. Like, we didn't know it was up for sale, but it's under contract now.
So, yay.
Um, uh, Chiao's saying defense of others and he didn't have to testify because they were able to bring in that body cam and the body cam is is where he says my son said he had a gun.
I was backing away and I shot him.
Sorry after dark. No, no, no. The juryy's going home. So, we're not going to be staying late today, but we will work a full day. Probably this jury instructions will uh take a bit. Closing is most likely on Monday, according to the judge, as long as we can get things sorted out today.
Forget the water. Focus on the final few minutes. Yeah, this what you I don't think it's fair to look at this and say they shot him over a bottle of water.
I think that's an oversimplification of the facts. Um which which isn't fair in the situation uh to either party.
But it sure doesn't look good, you know.
It sure doesn't look good when you when you when you lay this story out and see how it started and see how it ended. Um, you know, there's there's a line in in anchor and it's like, "Wow, that escalated quickly." Yeah, this escalated quickly. Um, and it went it went from zero to 100 in in no time flat.
Believe the shot in the back and chasing the gate self-defense.
The chasing might depends how the law is interpreted here.
The chasing might, but the shot in the back in and of itself, it it's bad. If it was just one person, it would be bad.
We've got a call trying to come through.
And I've rebooted my phone. Let's see if this will work this time.
Yes, I answered.
Okay. And they hung up. We'll have have to call again. The shot in the back is not a problem um in and of itself. If it were just two people, a victim and the the you know defendant in this case, and the defendant had shot the victim in the back and nobody else was there, it would be very hard to say that self-defense because it's clear they're running away.
Whether there's where there's a third person involved in this um and the altercation is between the victim and the third person. Uh you can have defense of others which is just as strong a defense as self-defense and that can that can apply.
>> Call from Angela.
>> Angela, I fixed my phone. Thank you for your patience. How are you doing?
>> Uh you're welcome. Uh I mean thank you.
Uh I'm doing good. You >> good? Good.
>> I think I I got my hearing back, but uh we'll figure that out later. I hear you.
That's good.
>> You with loud music.
>> Oh, it's more than that. It's way more than that.
>> Yeah.
>> Um uh I'll first think what I'll first say uh what I um in regards to this case. Uh I what I think I think that um I guilty but also not guilty >> to explain their rationale for both because I do want to hear >> I mean I don't know there is like yes he did some stuff wrong he had no right to chase after him as soon as he as soon as the guy exited the the store closed the door lock it up and wait for the police.
So, I don't know. That's where like that's where I'm like guilty not guilty, you know?
>> Yeah.
>> Why did he you know? Uh but uh actually but I was mostly following this case in like uh rewatch crew because I was neck deep in writing a paper which I am hopefully going we are hopefully going to be done. I mean that's the point that's the goal to be done on Sunday and to in on Monday.
>> Um >> let me stop you. The paper sounds fascinating, but let me stop you just a little bit. Would it would it matter I'm not sure if you heard this. Would it matter if the lead investigator on the case said that them chasing um Cyrus was not illegal, but they had to use common sense?
>> That's what I am both guilty and not guilty.
>> I I agree. They did not have a right to chase him. They weren't like they aren't protected under the law. This is the gray. That's why there are charges, right? There's not a a statute that says if if you think they stole, you can chase them until you catch them. Didn't never let them out of your sight. You have the right now. That there nothing like that exists on the books.
>> But there is also not a law that says you can't. What they were doing were was not explicitly endorsed or illegal.
>> That's kind of like the the topic of the paper I'm writing right now. It's not on the It's not illegal, but yet you lose your license if you do it.
>> You know, >> it's it's definitely not recommended.
It's actually recommended against by the police and uh in in that the explanation about the shopkeeper lot.
>> Yeah. They said chasing someone greatly escalates the the probability of the violence escalating of or the the outcome escalating.
>> That's what it says.
>> Yeah.
So that's why I am like in between guilty and not guilty. I guess I guess the jury has to like overcome that burden like figure that out that part. I guess that's why there's like jury instructions to like get over that fact whether or not they think the jury instructions to help them decide one way or the other like I don't know and all the facts of course.
>> Yeah. Well, um, >> it it makes you think. It makes you think. And I'm and I I don't envy the jury. I've I I would say that I'm I'm fairly >> secure in in where I stand right now, but I I'm not 100%.
>> Like I'm not 100% not guilty.
>> You know, was that that's like reasonable doubt. So you should we should vote guilty because we are in between guilty and not guilty. That's reasonable doubt. There shouldn't be like not a centil of not guilty.
If there's like a centil of not guilty, then you will not guilty because it should be like 100%. Not 99.9% but 100%.
Sure.
>> So yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> But yeah, I am actually going out also for another reason and uh some something a tradition that uh something nice and why I'm kind of uh hopefully getting my all 100% of my uh hearing back this weekend.
>> Uh unless they do it again, which I hopefully do hope they don't. But uh there's like a tradition here in Sweden that to the graduation season has kicked off and today uh uh PhD students graduated and uh they have a tradition where they have like this whole ceremony that is live streamed on YouTube which I sent link in the discord if you want to check it out. Uh if you don't understand it, it's apparently mostly in Latin. So, >> so you didn't understand.
>> Okay, good.
>> Nobody understands. It's just traditions what we do.
>> Nobody.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Unless you speak Latin, of course. Um, so, but uh you may also see cannons firing because there is a tradition where they fire cannons. You know, the military grade cannon. Okay, maybe not military.
>> I'm thinking like the 1812 overture, like the symphony, like D that song I think and I don't know what that No, that's a different one.
>> Okay. We were talking about whole different things can tenants the real like >> Yeah. Those >> fire smoke >> and they >> Mhm.
>> And I was six minutes walk away from there and it's a hot day of course. We had windows open in the room where me and my group was sitting and working on our paper and the first when we heard the first when we heard the first one we it scared the crap out of us you know we were like what's going on you know like you know you were there sitting writing the paper discussing what you were going to write and all of a sudden you hear a boom >> boom you know >> I tell you you have to get closer you got to be right up there I mean not in front I filmed a lot of cannons being fired for demonstrations, Civil War cannon replicas, stuff like that where um I've even had cameras in front that just get knocked down by the blast of the shock wave even though it's not actually launching a cannonball. It's just like a >> dummy.
>> There's also a video of that in in the server. Just just not that close. There was like a safety I did not it wasn't me who filmed it, so don't blame me for the quality of the video. Uh it was someone else. Um, so you can check it out. Uh, but they fired it 51 times.
>> That's They're just trigger happy heavy >> throughout the day.
>> They're just trigger happy heavy. They can. And so they >> No, apparently they're for it's a 51 year old tradition. So they fire it for every year. Uh, like so next year is going to be 52 52 firings. It's going to be fun.
I'm not I'm going to make sure I'm not in the city or like a safe distance like not earshots.
>> Your grandkids are just going to be like when will it stop? They've been going for three days now.
>> Angela, I've got to go back to the topic here at hand.
>> Sorry. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. But yeah, um back to the topic. I'm sorry for dragging out the the Sorry for dragging. Uh I am um it's going to be interesting to see how the the how long the deliberations will take and I'm looking forward to this charge conference.
>> Yeah, it should be >> how much they will.
>> We get we'll get to hear the law the the latest version of the law explained um which the judge is going to explain to the jury and I think that's going to be critical in deciding this one. Angela, thanks for the call and hope your hearing comes back and we'll see you.
Bye.
>> All right. Uh, Donald King says, "What I sent you said the shopkeeper may detain a shoplifter, but it has to be in close proximity to the crime and they have no legal authority."
>> Call from Allison.
>> Hey, Allison, hang on just one second.
Um, >> okay. Sure.
>> They have no legal authority to chase someone off the property. I agree 100%.
They have they have legal authority. The law protects them as a shopkeeper under the shopkeeper law within their store right outside the store sometimes to their boundary very very seldom beyond that. Um that's the protection but they also were not necessarily prevented by any law from doing what they were doing.
So that when the police say it's not illegal um but you have to sort of use common sense. That's where I was going with that one. Allison in in Texas, how are you doing? Oh, I'm pushing back on that one.
>> Okay, go ahead calling.
>> Go ahead.
>> I'm pushing back. So, for I'll get it out real quick because they'll probably come back, but um earlier someone called and recommended the Scott Spy case. You really if you have like downtime between whatever.
>> Yeah.
>> Um Cat Not Williams did covered it's like a series couple days hearings. It's actually really good to watch whether it's related to stand your ground, but it kind of gives insight on how whether it's civil or criminal. Um it's kind of approached the same way I think. So over the lunch break, um I got sucked into the uh whole shopkeeper or merchant privilege thing and I was looking it up and so what is your stance again on the privilege if it protects >> the law protects in South Carolina the shopkeepers law protects the shopkeeper from those charges of unlawful imprisonment and and you know kidnapping things that that people could charge if they were detaining somebody on their property. uh that was shoplifting. Um the law in South Carolina also allows people to to act on a mistaken belief and protect them in some way of that as well. So if you believed like we used the example that someone was was beating the crap out of somebody and they were about to kill them and you shot them to defend that person they were beating, but what you didn't see was that there was a snake wrapped around their neck and that person was punching the snake trying to get it off them and save their life. uh that law would protect you in the charges that that could potentially be filed um for shooting that person wrongfully. So there's there's some protection there. So even though he hadn't stolen anything, they were acting on the belief that he did and it was a reasonable belief. That's that's very important. It has to be reasonable. Um and and this this law that the we too low says is um um state vicki in South Carolina. Once you pursue someone who is retreating, you lose self-defense claim because you became the aggressor. I my understanding of that one I'll have to read the case law again, but I have I'm a little bit familiar. I think that is actually about someone who is trying to withdraw from um an altercation and and this could be viewed as someone who was >> committing the offense. Yes.
>> In their eyes.
>> Yes.
>> So, I think it doesn't apply directly, although it it's it's definitely something to consider. But go ahead. Set me straight on wherever I'm wrong. It really gets Okay, I'm going to set you straight now. You No, I'm just kidding.
Um Um So, I got sucked into it because I was thinking that can't be that can't be. But it is kind of gray because it only is what case law is. It's when a case comes up and they figure it out and they say, "Okay, now this stands for that." But going back to Scott Spy, it was very simple. The reason it didn't go, they didn't get criminally charged is politics and uh the corruption and shame on Alan Wilson and uh lead whatever for not charging the two. But besides that, it's real simple.
>> The judges, >> you're the aggressor. Oh, shoot. I'll call later then.
>> Alison, I want to hear what you have to say. Please, please do.
>> I do, too.
>> Thank you so much. Bye.
>> All right. Bye, >> Alison. Sounds like she's uh got some great information there.
I'm sure we're going to have more opportunity to talk about this here tonight. So, let's see what they they do. They came back a little bit. Well, no, that's right on time. 15 minutes would be fast for >> us to go through and tell you what we have.
>> Yes.
>> Looks like they have found points of agreement, which is great. That'll speed things up.
>> We're still talking about that. You can talk about the others, >> your honor. We can obviously we're prepared to hear from you. Okay. But there's a concentration over here that really can't occur in the ground the back.
>> They had to take him downstairs to go to the bathroom. So, we haven't really talked to him.
>> Oh, okay.
>> That was the problem.
>> Okay.
Few more minutes.
>> Yes.
>> Pardon? You want a few more minutes?
>> Few more minutes.
>> Yeah. Just call back.
>> Imagine I know what it is. So, take all the time you need.
>> Thank you.
Yeah, that's all we need to do. Okay, >> we're at ease. The judge has not left.
>> Can he Can his wife come over here?
>> Judge gives permission for the wife to to step up. That's interesting. I wonder if the sheriffs are cool with that. But sheriff's are like, "Whoa, you can't come over here." And they just said, "We just talked to the judge." Sheriff says, "No, you can't. He doesn't make the rules. I'm I'm the baiff here.
I'm reading lips. She says no.
>> Allison >> to accept.
>> Wow. Allison. Allison got some drama spilling on.
>> Did they break? Cuz I can't watch it and call you over.
>> They didn't break. But during the break, Mr. Chow went to the bathroom and the lawyers didn't get to talk to him. So, they're asking for more time. The judge has now given the permission for the wife to to come over to >> the area next to Mr. Cow and the baiff doesn't like it and has said no, but the judge has authorized it. So >> Oh, he's nice. Not really.
>> Tell us tell us.
>> I'm not a fan of the judge.
>> Um, okay. So, I will go I'll just go back to try to get it in before they come back.
>> Yeah.
>> So, the privilege for the shopkeeper, what I read, and I'm a reader of like the last 30 minutes >> is they're mainly concerned about civil suits, right? Being sued. Um, and it's like they have that they can protect their property with use of in a reasonable manner.
>> Mhm.
>> Without the use of deadly force. Non deadly force. Okay. And what you said about the property was kind of the limits. You know, I'm sure there's not really a hard limit, but >> So, >> yeah, it has words like near has near, you know, nearby, surrounding area, things like that. So, it's those are up to legal interpretation in every case.
So unless they write it into the charges or the instructions, it's not going to be applicable. I mean, it just cannot because you have it. They're the aggressor. One thing that bothered me, and I'm all over the place. One thing that bothered me is maybe I missed it.
The big thing that bothered me is I couldn't stand the lawyers, how they were attacking witnesses, whichever side. It bothered me so badly, but um the uh Oh, shoot. I'm blinking. So, um, the they're the aggressor, he can defend himself, too. Okay. And usually stand your ground. It's controversial, right? Because it's usually the person that shot first gets to lid and talk about it, right? And stand their ground.
>> And standing your ground implies that you stand somewhere, not chase after someone, right? The word itself. And they never asked, I don't think, maybe I missed it. They never asked like, "Okay, what what were you intending to do when you caught him?" I mean, I just never got the answer. Like, >> oh, they asked they asked the the prosecution grilled Andy on that. And all he would say was, "I was looking to see where he was going." That's all he would say.
>> I What were you going to do when you when you didn't think about that?
>> You know, how far were you going to chase him? I didn't think about that.
What were you going to do if you you know, I don't I don't know. I just wanted to see where he was going.
>> Um, >> right. It does.
>> And he's he is a taxi for his dad. I don't believe him one bit. I mean, I believe he was not natural. I'm not being conspiracy, but for real, it was he the only way his dad could avoid the stand was if he took the hit.
>> Okay.
>> Or like being the one that >> Let me play devil's advocate on that one for just a minute. What we have is almost immediately on the scene, he gives a matching statement to what he said today. He's been consistent across the board. They couldn't catch him on anything other than he said stop when he meant slow down. And it could be interpreted as I stopped running or I changed pace. Um, two times he said he stopped at the corner and then he stopped next to him at arms length away.
And both times he says now he says he continued moving but at a different pace in a different direction.
>> Um, other than that he could not they couldn't impeach him on anything.
>> Um, >> it doesn't matter. He was the aggressor.
He was still the aggressor. But I'm saying testimony wise testimony wise he's he's the first one. You mean he just thought up this story immediately and stuck to it and it was all perfect and there's not a thing that they >> saw the gun at the scene. They saw the gun at the scene.
>> But that's this is like Dexter.
>> This is Dexter level precision though.
>> No way.
>> No. No. No way. No way. But the reason I think that is because one thing I didn't like about this trial, the judge let all the attorneys, especially the defense lawyers pretty much testify by leading.
And it drove me crazy. It drove me crazy because the acting out and everything, it was like this is what they did. They prefaced every introduction each witness with you correct me if I say anything wrong. So basically while I'm asking nonquests and making statements back if you don't correct me they are what they are and a lot of the stuff we're talking about is what the defense or the prosecution but mainly defense stated as a fact of the thing when it was never put in except by their word choices. I mean, it just was like this this if you didn't correct them and they didn't get you get a gotcha with the adjective or whatever. It was like supposedly written in written down on the books and that there was no proof of most of that stuff. It was, you know, somebody's viewpoint.
>> It is it it does come down to a >> he said she said almost situation, >> right? But they were still the aggressors. I mean, I just can't. It's it's like there you have to step back the broad picture. There's not a path for them because they're shopkeepers because they went beyond what was reasonable.
>> Shopkeeper law is not >> and they didn't have a definitive person. They're supposed to detain if they're on property. They can detain usually employees or whoever they suspect. They can detain them with nonlethal force.
>> That that's under shopkeepers. We're not using shopkeeper in this case though.
>> Right. So, that's my point. If we bring that in at all, that's the parameters.
If you take it out, they are the aggressors. Period. What was they had no permission to keep going. They had no objective. He couldn't even say what he's doing. Like, how do people see it?
Okay. If someone's chasing you, take them out. Take out the shop. You can't bring in the shoplifting thing without giving them parameters like giving them limits because it's not limitless. But >> whether it protects civily or criminally, >> I agree. They don't have no they have no protection and they should and probably will be sued civily and most likely be found liable. I think that's 100% right.
They this was a wrongful death. We've got a kid who shouldn't be dead right now.
>> Right. And and he shot him.
>> Mhm.
>> I think that will be squared squared away civily. But where it comes to criminal, I don't I don't see in the law where they couldn't do what they were doing. I see. They they they strayed beyond their protections.
>> You can't be the aggressor.
>> What was the aggression though? There's no contact. They were chasing a threat.
>> You can you can run in public.
>> We're talking 15 seconds.
>> Chasing him.
>> They were >> No, no, no. They were chasing him.
>> They were >> and he was in fear.
>> But the test one they were chasing him saying, "Drop it. Drop what you stole."
>> They can say they said that, but they were chasing him. He was in fear. He was losing items off his person >> or throwing them.
>> It was one aggressor, one person fleeing. So there's another way to look at it. One was chasing, one was fleeing.
If you're fleeing, you're not the aggressor. So you can split it back.
It's to me it's very simple unless they try to bring in some kind of rights. And the only way they brought that in was asking kind of uh equate law enforcement to property rights. And that's silly silly, you know. So then they got it through the detective like saying, "Yeah, well common sense that was not evidence. That was not code. That wasn't law." It was just like cuz nobody >> It was evidence. I take when you say there's no evidence or it's not evidence. If it came in on the witness stand from a witness, that literally is evidence. That is the definition of evidence.
>> He answered to a question the attorney put to him. Then he didn't say it may be his opinion, but it wasn't like this is the law. I guess my point is this. Yeah.
>> Unless they bring in some special rules into the charging or whatever you call it, it's going to be simple. It's going to be forget about the shoplifting. Of course, a jury can consider that like reasonable, but chasing there is no goal. There's no goal other than you could assume the worst. I mean, there is no goal in product of it. They didn't call the police first.
>> I think defense I don't think you have to. Um, I I think uh defense has has some things on their side in that argument. They can say, first of all, no witnesses, zero witnesses say that Mr. Chow was running down the street with his handgun drawn >> looking for a chance to shoot. None of them.
>> It was on his hip.
>> It was on his hip legally.
>> Well, okay. So, he could have a hammer.
He could have his fist. But >> he can have he can have 10 guns. He can have 10 guns legally and it's still not a problem.
>> So, even though he had the gun, it's not a problem. Chasing someone, even when you're carrying a gun, not a problem.
>> But you killed them and you're the aggressor, so it's it matters.
>> And I think that will kind happen in civil court. The the issue I have here is there >> I'mma bet you. I'mma bet you. I'mma bet you. Sorry, >> Alison. You're probably going to win.
You're probably going to win this bet.
I'm telling you. And And I'm I won't get into my reasoning for that, but I >> uh I don't It's I think it's Is it in the law? Is it in the I have no idea. I don't know what South Carolina says.
Does it say that you can't claim self-defense unless you are the aggressor and there's no duty to retreat? I know that.
>> Yeah. It's not this is not a stand your ground is issue. This is defense of others >> because he got because he got he didn't win that. He went to a pre-trial with that and so that got taken like he didn't get immunity on that.
>> By by that by that I believe the the ruling was not that you cannot claim that. It's that there is enough evidence that the the jury can decide that and that will probably be be argued in front of the jury. He can still claim and say if you think this was self-defense, you'd find this not guilty.
>> Um >> it's just called self-defense. Yeah.
>> Right.
>> Instead of standing ground, but um I can't I'm not watching so I don't see what's coming on screen. So boot me down. But um I'm not gonna be long. So I really do think it's literally down to >> I already said it. I don't want to repeat.
>> You've done a fabulous job. I love talking to you. I love it. This is great.
>> Anyway, listen, you need that when there's downtime and you're kind of court hopping and stuff, >> you really It's Mark Tinsley is doing leading up the uh >> Oh, man.
>> Pliff side and he's really good.
>> There is It's like a murder drama. It's great. Yeah, he's awesome. He's my favorite.
>> Like I had a crush on him. He was so good.
>> I think many of us did.
>> They had the hearings posted online. Any downtime, you should look into it. It's really entertaining.
>> I don't What is this? What's this downtime of which you speak? I'm sorry.
>> You're court hopping. You're court hopping. You're court hopping between the bigger cases. And I'm like, >> I know. But >> and I watch you all the time, but I'm like >> Oh, Allison, you are fantastic. Thank you very much.
>> No, because I'm just trying to make you do what I want and that's all.
>> I I appreciate that. Have a good day.
Thank you very much. Call again. I can't wait to talk to you again. Bye.
>> Allison's great.
Um, I agree with Allison. She's fabulous. That was a wonderful, wonderful call. I appreciate that. And uh, and I I like that she stuck to her opinion and and argued it very effectively. Very effectively.
I didn't have a crush on on Tinsley, says Josh. But anyway, I said many of us, I'm not saying that I did either. We might have been the only two who didn't, but uh many of us liked Mark Tinsley from the the uh all Got a Crush. Also, Janet didn't. So, the three of us didn't. Other than that, it's good. Need to hear from Allison Moore. She thinks clearly litigator. I love it. I do. I do. She's She's fantastic.
Um so confused. Don't be confused. Don't be confused. Um I I think it's perfectly okay in this situation. We're going to end the poll in just a minute, but I think it's perfectly okay in this situation to have watched this case, even to watched all of it and just not know where to to end up and or to have a mixed feeling or or to have, you know, started one way and now felt a different way. I think that's perfectly perfectly okay. Allison, I I think if we were to do a poll right now, uh, who is who is more correct, Allison or RA, I think you would win and it would be a landslide.
We're ending the poll. And did the state prove the case against Mr. Chow? And the results, uh, yes, guilty 58%, no, not guilty, 42%.
So, just a a difference of of just a 16% between the two. Is that right? Think so.
You can't use defense of others again if you or the person you're offending incite or provoke the confrontation.
I I'm with you, Donald. I'm just saying that under the acting under mistaken belief doctrine which does not give them the right to chase them but also does not prevent them from chasing they they could be considered by a jury doing something reasonable which is legal and and then and then him running is actually committing the offense. So, in their mind, you've you've got uh you've got the offender who is actively committing the thing, not not trying to back away and say, "Hey, I don't want any part of this." Um and and so in their mind, they're not provoking. It's already been started. He started it in their mind. And it's a mistaken belief 100%. They were wrong.
100%. Andy admitted that on the stand, and they were I'll say that all day long, but it's it gets tricky. Anyway, slice it. This is over bottled water. I I see what you're saying, Tiffany C. And and to back that up, the defense table having all their bottled water be cans of water instead of something that looks a lot like what Cyrus was picking up out of that convenience store that day and put back.
Um, clearly they understand that, you know, in many eyes it's that's that's exactly what it's about.
I'm under the mistaken belief that chocolate doesn't make you fat. I'm with you, litigator. Let's Let's unite, convince the rest of the world. Um although we'll need someone else to be spokesman. I I'm not not eligible for um weight reasons. Uh let's see. If Chow didn't have his firearm, he might have not even attempted to chase him down.
Sinister Soldier, I hear that. But Andy was in the lead. Andy ran first. Chia was following. And Andy didn't have a firearm.
I wonder if that guy they left at the counter just took whatever he was going to buy. It looked like he had a lottery ticket he was trying to turn in. Looked like he had a little uh a little scratcher that maybe had some winnings on it and he was trying to cash in. But I also thought that I'm like, "Well, you've left customers in the store. I wonder if they're going to be like, "Hey, everything's on sale."
I didn't see anything in the the cameras, though. Was he running because he was scared of them or because he didn't want to be caught with an il illegal weapon?
That could have been why he didn't want them to check his pockets if he had a illegal firearm. But they didn't know he had an illegal firearm.
issue to whether or not any lesser included are charged.
>> Judge, we're not asking for any lesser included offense.
>> No lesser included.
>> We discussed that with Mr. Mr. >> They're doing all or nothing. No lesser included.
>> No.
All right. All right. So, other stuff I have in here, um, of course, standard stuff at the front. Um, duties of jury and judge, charge, arrest, indictment, not evidence. Uh presumption of essence, reasonable doubt, definition, credibility of witnesses charge, prior inconsistent statement charge, definition of intent charge, direct circumstantial evidence definitions, expert witnesses, they they defend testify charge and of course murder. murder.
After murder, I have defense of others.
I'm assuming what y'all want to charge.
I the charge that was in the standard book, our standard charges that have been handed down over the years, I did not find to be adequate. So, I have significantly altered it. It didn't number one for whatever reason maybe it's so old it's not being used a lot it didn't incorporate uh that state has the burden of disproving self-defense so I put that in for my new self-defense charge modified a few things um but of course we sent to you but I I incorporated that I assume in the entirety of that charge you'll make adjustments for defense self so you don't you what we can send it to you.
>> I was about to ask if you could just send us while we signed that section and we we need to call through some stuff on that. We can do that.
>> Can I my curiosity always ease me up on the your choice of reasonable doubt? So >> we'll see or is it >> it has both in there.
>> Thank you. This the standard one I know the same thing we used three years ago.
Jack is used several times.
>> No, I know I know what we know what you're charging.
>> Um after that there may be some stuff you want to add to the defense of others.
>> Well, I think we miss Wilson. We look through some uh charges on that been given in other cases. You want Is there anything?
>> Let's see. Basically, the way I did, I described uh defense of others as it was in the other one and then I went through each individual element of self-defense like I typically do in self-defense cases. Um add in at the end after duty to retreat um add in the um which is normally a selfest charge the relative size weight of the parties may be considered inside of the parent or actually need the force in the death of others and the amount of force needed. Um then the next part of that is the exact um calculation that is degree of force which may be needed all all that stuff.
I don't know if y'all went into anything else. Now discharge >> right voluntary val after that there's approximate cause charge which is not standing and that's it.
That's pretty sick.
>> Appearances in >> and also um >> it is in reasonable belief I believe.
>> Does that does yours include the mistake?
>> Yep. I believe is in there.
>> We have mistaken belief coming in.
>> Very good.
>> Also increased risk of harm and the duty to retreat. Uh >> they're just describing these by the headings.
>> No duty to retrieve it increases your risk.
>> That's what you talk about.
>> Yeah. Had no duty to treat by doing so to the person defendant of being killed or suffering serious bodily injuries increased.
>> Okay. And uh we would ask for a sympathy charge.
A verdict in this case cannot be based upon sympathy, compassion, prejudice.
It's in it's in everyone else. It's in that you think special I found what you were talking about earl offended had the right of self-defense or for them have right of self-defense.
It must be shown that the person being defended and the defendant were both without fault in bringing I have that in there. Okay. And I don't have my uh email with me, but only other one comes to mind. This is from Bixby and um I don't think it's typically a problem, but I I don't know if your charge includes it. It stands for the proposition um the burden of the state is carried by disproving any uh one of the four elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
outside of Bixby, which is uh 3 388 SC528.
That's that capital K out of Abbyville.
Uh I think this is a total opinion, but we all know that be the law. Um sometimes it's argued differently, but that says a proper jury charge.
actually said the jury charge on the issue should state the state has the burden of disproving self-defense and dis burdens carried by disproving any one of the four elders not prove the unreason I want to read that case again I I do have some trouble about that isolating that they have to only dispute one of the elements of self-defense but I' I'd like to read that case but that's definitely the law >> yeah I I It's a way to work it and I'm just uh I just like to read the case again if it's all right.
>> Okay. I didn't that case you >> got the my case.
Yeah.
that Bixby uh thing that the state just brought up is huge for the prosecution saying there's case law in Bixby. Um and they gave this the citation that that the state only has to disprove one of the four elements of self-defense, not all of them. And so, I mean, I think the defense obviously doesn't like that.
They'd like them it to say that it has to disprove all the all the elements, but the judge says that's not the law. The law is that they have to disprove one. Um, so we need to look at the elements of self-defense first of all to understand what they are under the law. And then second of all, we need to look at um what the state's done to disprove one of those elements.
Yeah, I'm I'm north of this.
I'm from the northern part of Carolina.
Northern Carolina.
North Carolina. Uh, do what do you think they went with no lessers because even manslaughter would like for him depend on his age? Uh, no. I think I think they they probably got a read on the jurors and they think they have some jurors on their side. If you've got jurors on your side who are firmly on your side, uh, making it an all or nothing case would make them have to fully surrender their position uh to uh to reach a verdict.
So I think it was strategic to say no we don't want lesser included. Lessers can often be seen as a compromise verdict where uh the jury can say like look we don't agree you know jurors 1 through five uh think it's not guilty and jurors you know the the rest of them think it's guilty. 6 through 12 think it's think it's guilty. We're going to settle on a lesser charge where it can be like well we're all just okay with this one. Um I don't like lesser included.
This is a good trial. It's had some very interesting moments. I wish the audio were a little better.
>> Yeah. The uh the woman right to the left of the judge is actually the judge's lawyer, her parallegal, his parallegal.
>> And the one next to the flag is Yeah.
>> Couple more things from the adventure.
>> Yeah. Go ahead. All right. Your honor, two things.
Under Nichols, there is state versus nickels. There's language about the ability of the uh person confronted with harm to act maybe in your appearances charge, but since we haven't had a chance to read it, we don't know.
>> So, I would beg your indulgence to give us not right now, but we will get an email off to Rebecca.
>> The language you're looking for? Well, it is language that the defendant does not have to wait for the victim to fire or aim or even aim before acting in in self-defense or defense of others in this kind of situation. So, you think that's the law. It sometimes appears I have this sentence. The defendant does not have to wait until the victim inflicts harm on the person defending >> and has the right to act under the law of self-defense or >> and that's in your appearance. All right. All right, that would satisfy that from clicking on the person that Thank you. Second and last I think is um we are considering a request for an instruction number 16-13-140 and it's in the criminal code. It relates to what's called shop the shoplifter defense shopkeeper defense. Here it is.
>> I'm going to ask you the Wasn't Isn't that more of a a civil?
>> Yes.
>> Like you're not sued for detaining somebody. It It's >> covers criminals.
>> It says in a proceeding and it and it affords a civil an immunity in a civil case where one is sued for acting unreasonably. But we think it it is applicable. Perhaps >> it's a stretch.
I don't think the judge will include this. He consults his lawyer. Champion action >> says in an action brought by reason of having been delayed by a merchant or merchants employees or agent on or near the premises of mer establishment for the purpose of investigation concerning ownership through merchandise shall be sent person delayed in a reasonable manner.
police because they just believe the person had committed the crime of shots in an action which I think when I read the first time off the cuff thought it meant a civil action you know the infinite wisdom legislation made that I'm not certain that I was not able yet to find a case that tells me that that is solely relegated to the civil side we would like your permission to consider it a little bit further, do a little more research, submit charge, proposed charge over the weekend, hopefully tomorrow, uh, and we can take it up very briefly on Monday. But it does relate to your honor and confession with the circumstances here. And uh that is even if only a civil matter is a recognition that a shopkeeper contracted with a set of facts would be reasonably able to detain and implicit in that reasonable pursuit of a person um under the circumstances. And so of course the arguments in this case will turn on the reasonleness of this pursuit which the state will call a chase which we have called jail following.
So we think uh they also call it ask your permission to submit something to you and we'll deal with it expeditiously on Monday morning. Okay.
What's the state position on that?
Completely object to that is completely inapplicable in this case and I don't think it's a criminal offense.
>> Well, I I'm not sure I do either, but I'm certainly not going to preclude this attempt from at least looking into it and submitting some um that does mention, you know, detain detained or delayed on the premises. And actually near I think but uh but they legislature again didn't define near ju just as we so we can all remember what's fresh in our mind there has been absolutely no testimony about any intent to tame anybody the very best it was to follow and to find out the direction where you're going good argument by the state All right.
And I don't even think there were any cases out there citing. Were they came up last week somehow pretty ground, but I'd like little further opportunity to look into it.
We'll get you something tomorrow.
>> Okay. Thanks. I'm not going to look at it.
>> Well, I won't rush. I may later Monday morning. Yes. Thank you.
>> Yes. All the reported cases I think were all civil cases.
>> All right. Anything else?
>> Maybe. I mean there's there's still an argument to be made there.
>> We will be looking toward testify and they can't conserve. You know there's a line in there I always object to about the u constitutional right not to testify.
Sounds like a mob.
I think you just have one line about asserting a constitutional right.
It sounds like something you would say in front of the Senate committee investigating your mom.
the objection right the assertion of his right must not be >> let me let me get this out here before >> it's regarding the shopkeepers protection What are you? The right to remain silent at this point. I have a problem with because the rest of the charge has been made very clear in all discuss something I've objected to.
>> He doesn't like the right to remain silent. At least the way the charge is written.
>> What should I say then? The defendant's failure to testify >> not failure >> cannot be considered or discussed >> must not be considered >> or discussed once >> by you in your deliberation constitution right in the assertion of their right >> constitutional right okay >> that's the strongest >> because it sounds to me like they're invoking sounds to me like they're invoking the fifth amendment which I don't Right.
>> Cuz you want that whole sentence out.
>> You want that whole sentence taken out.
>> The right to remain constitutional right to remain silent. Well, the whole sentence defendant has the constitutional right to remain silent and the assertion of this right must not be considered by you in your deliberation.
>> You can pick up and just say the fact that the defendant does not testify the rest of your charge on that cannot be considered.
>> Two sessions before that. Um and that defendant is not testify to be considered by you in any way in your deliberation and your consideration question or innocence of the defendant.
It must not be considered by you in any manner whatsoever.
So we'll take that we'll take the whole sentence out.
>> No. Okay.
It said it said in there like three times.
>> Yes. To be honest, >> is that a purple power strip?
Just to be clear, Jack says he doesn't like the fifth amendment.
else.
>> All right, we're going to we're going to fade this out. Um, let me let me say this. There's one little bit that the judge uh shared there. They they were talking about the shopkeepers law that right at the very end, the defense asked to include the instruction about the shopkeepers law, about the right they have uh to detain and the protections they have. and the judge is like,"I don't know about that one. Um, I thought that was just for civil. That's a civil protection."
But an argument could be made that no, it's a criminal and a civil protection.
The reason all the case law is civil only is because a case would be dismissed, criminal case would be dismissed because of this law. I think that would be a a stronger viewpoint for the defense to say um you're not going to have these cases because if this is if these facts exist, the shopkeepers law dismisses the case much like it would, you know, finding that it was self-defense would dismiss the case. Um not sure what they're going to argue on Monday uh briefly, but uh it looks like they're pretty much on the same page. The discussions were not quite as heated as as I thought they might be, but it is important that uh we're going to hear a little bit specifically about the self-defense, the right to self-defense as people are getting ready to leave.
Looks like a little prayer group or a little huddle um there group hug. Um that's with Miss Mrs. Cow um there at the in the courtroom. But uh the judge says, "When I was putting in the self-defense jury instruction, I found the pattern self-defense destruction lacking."
And so I added some terminology to it.
Specifically, he says, I added that information that the jury needs to know that the prosecution has the burden to prove that it was not self-defense.
Uh so he's added some terminology. I can't wait to hear what what uh exactly he added, what the wording is there.
That'll be that'll be interesting. What about Cyrus's right to self-defense? I think he was also in the right 100%.
Northwest, he was in the wrong. He could be charged as a under 18 possession of a firearm felony. I I think he could get that, but he also uh in South Carolina law, they they treat this separately. He also had the right to use self-defense.
call from >> Awall.
>> Awall, what's happening, my friend?
>> What's up, Scott and Chap family? Love you all. Hope everybody is good.
>> Yeah, we we are we're really good. It's Friday. It's time to go home. It's 4:20.
I'm I'm I'm not saying that's anything, but it's it's 4:20 on a Friday.
>> Family friendly channel, buddy.
>> I'm just not noting the time. That's all I'm doing.
>> Yeah. Facts.
>> Yes.
>> What's on your mind? H okay.
Everybody knows I'm prodefendant based off the burden of the state, right? I just that's just how I feel.
>> I'm okay with once the evidence comes out that I can say, "Yeah, he's guilty."
It's not I'm not delusional when it comes to just >> always the defendant is always right. No one's ever guilty.
>> Well, oh, no, no. I'm saying that from the Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. Correct.
From the beginning of a trial, I go by the constitution and I want the state to meet their burden. If the state meets their burden, I go guilty. Sure. Do I hold that burden to a level maybe a little too high? That's like I can see how someone could disagree with me like, okay, your position on their burden is so extreme that nobody would get found guilty if everybody thought like me. I understand that I could be a little extreme with that, but here I started off morally guilty, legally not guilty.
>> I watched the evidence and then I went, "Oh, he's morally not guilty."
Right. I started morally guilty.
>> Yeah.
>> But then went morally like, "Oh, he's guilty." And then I had to talk to myself and go, You you got to look at this as as the law, >> right?
>> Right. So, I watched all of this and I called my friend during lunch who disagrees with me on purpose.
>> You phoned a friend.
>> I had a friend who I debate and I had on my podcast. Some weren't able to be aired.
>> It got that contentious, right?
>> Oh, wow.
>> And he disagrees. I mean, he's my best friend, but he disagrees with me just to do it just to like make fun of me because he gets a kick out of it because I'm so passionate.
>> Yeah. He always takes >> But it's fun for him.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. And it's fun for him. But >> after that conversation, I gave him minor details. He didn't know this case, but he knows the law is. And and I'm hearing you talk about the it's not illegal to chase because this is the thing. I keep going back to how I feel morally about this, but I can't do that here. We have to go by the law. If I always claim that, well, then I have to still have that here.
>> If that's my position all the time.
>> So, if you're saying that le not, well, legally they can chase, >> also vigilante justice, they didn't put hands on him.
>> I want to word this carefully. It's not legally they can chase. It's that legally they weren't prevented from chasing him.
Oh yes, my bad. Yes. So they they weren't operating under a protection of a law. They were just not violating any.
>> It was still I think it was a terrible idea. It was really stupid. It's advised against uh in in pretty much every situation. Um even cops are very careful when they take chase and they they have very strict protocols when they chase.
>> So >> and this is the issue I've seen. I I don't not a crazy tangent, but uh I saw some people or seen some people debate, oh, if a cop if this was a cop issue, right? What I mean, this is not uh this is pickle still. I'm talking about the law here. They have a different set of standards when they're in uniform performing their duty. That does not apply to citizens. So when someone can see a cop situation happen, it goes what a reasonable officer would do, not a civilian. So the law explains that differently. You know what I mean? So I'm not I see some people trying to compare that and I go, "Well, this is different. You can't That's apples and oranges. I'm sorry. Respectfully, I disagree. Apples and oranges here." I again based off what you said not illegal like they were allowed to but they didn't break any laws. There's like nothing on the books here. Maybe this will depending on the outcome set a certain precedent.
>> I hope not cuz you know it's just going to cause more problems down the road. We we try to make all these rules to fit every situation and it we turn up you know just causing problems, unintended consequences all over the place. I I think the problem is we have a terrible situation where a lack of communication and and misunderstanding and whether it was intentional or not I we don't know we will never know. Um but it led to a an escalation that resulted in in a terrible terrible tragedy where someone who had not done anything wrong to them.
Okay. And I I I believe that you know take the firearm and his his hoodie out of the question. It's it's not an issue.
They didn't know about it when we went into the store. It's not it's not an issue in this case for this part. They had not he had not done anything to the chows and he ends up dead. I think he 100% had the right to defend himself if he was in fear for his life, which I think he was based on the fact that he ran out of his shoes trying to get away.
Uh >> that's what I debated too. But yes, please elaborate. Yeah.
>> He's in the right. At the same time, the chows aren't in the wrong. They're they're doing they're operating under a mistaken belief. They're trying to detain. The legislature in South Carolina has gone as far as to make shopkeeper laws literally to protect shopkeepers who are trying to stop stop people from stealing from their stores.
They've codified that. They see that's enough of a problem. There has to be protection. So that there's there's some support for what they're doing. They may have taken it too far and the juryy's going to decide if that's reasonable or not. Um but but arguably both of them were looking at this thinking they were in the right.
>> Right.
>> Exactly.
>> So but but here we are saying because somebody died there has to be a bad guy and there might not be one.
>> I said that yesterday. I I don't know how to say this because some people think that the position that I take is cold or my the blood in my veins is cold. That's not what I'm trying to say.
I want everybody to live a happy life.
I'm just saying we have to see this as we're trial watchers, right? So, we are here for the law. We're not here to watch Selling Sunset on Netflix or like, "Did you see what the Kardashians did?"
I'm not judging either way. I'm just saying we're here for the law as trial watchers. But it can somehow as if you watch it long enough you it can get convoluted where it becomes a reality show as a trial watcher because this is your novel. This is not a novel.
These are people's lives and then there's law. So, we have to be careful how we feel about things because if the shoe was on the other foot and this was your family member, I would like to imagine or maybe again I'm assuming you know what that means that you may have a different position if your mother owned a flower shop and this happened and your brother was there and he chased some you get what I mean without difficult without twisting it into a completely different scenario. scenario with family. I would say that my rationale as I'm viewing this right now, if it had been the opposite, if Cyrus had shot Andy and Andy died, I think Cyrus would be protected that this would be considered self-defense.
>> Uh, now I it's still wrong for him to have the gun that you charge him for that. That's great. But I think he had the right in that situation to self-defense. So he was him being in the right with these two people chasing him cuz Cyrus knew he didn't take anything, >> right? Cyrus is like, >> I didn't buy anything and they're chasing me down. These two guys yelling at me, chasing maybe he didn't understand him. I don't know what what he heard. There's all sorts of noise with cars on that street. You saw the body cam. You know what he perceived and everything else. He could have been terrified for his life and literally frantically trying to get his illegal possessed firearm to save himself and he would have the right to do that. And if he managed to pull that off, I would be champion his cause right now >> 100%.
>> Unfortunately, it went the other way.
And I think that >> that they also have that same >> in the they were in they were in the right in their mind and possibly even legally not just because of the mistaken you know protection for mistaken belief. But >> I think my issue here is I'm trying again again morally all of this was uncalled for. This is all unnecessary morally. But I have to disengage from that thought and look at the law as if what the law is like it should be looked at. Lady of Justice is blind for a reason. Blindfolded for a reason. Right. So my I do if I look at this on the timeline I have a hangup that even I said pro defense side that he was going after his son for defense of others and what would happen if my son but then I have to still legally look at it and go yeah but it's not like his son left the store and then the dad ran out and said where's my son. Yeah, there was I felt like they were in cahoot.
>> There was not time to process that thought.
>> Oh, I better uh oh, I'm worried about my son. I better follow. There was not time. It was move, son. Get out of the way. It was he was he was holling. They were they were headed out there to to stop.
>> So, I feel like they were working in conjunction with each other. So, this is why I'm like, I don't know if the defense of others counts here because you ran with your son. It's not like your son left and you're like, "Where is he? Let me go save him." No, you and your son. Let me present this this child.
>> Let's Let's say Let's say Cyrus didn't have a gun and they catch him. They're like, "Hey, give us the water." Right.
>> Mhm.
>> And he says, "I don't have any water. I didn't take any." And they drag him back to the store.
Come back here. We're watching the We're calling the cops. We're watching the footage. And they watch the footage.
I believe the shopkeeper act would protect them had had they caught Cyrus and dragged him back >> and said, "You're staying right here.
You're not going anywhere, son. We know you stole. I don't care. You might have thrown it. We didn't see where it went, but we we've got on video you stole."
And they don't. It's not on video. He didn't steal. I believe the Shopkeeper Act would protect them criminally and civily in that situation.
>> Right. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I agree there. So, we can we can boil it down to just the what happened when the the gun was produced by Cyrus.
>> That's all this comes down to.
>> That's the point of contention that I had with this my friend that I debate with all the time. I was like, "Okay, he said I don't it again, he's only hearing what I'm telling him." So, he doesn't have all the facts, so I can't really take his opinion that good because he's only basing his opinion off of what I'm saying to him. But he's like, "What the happened in the store? Did he steal?" I was like, "He didn't steal." I was like, he's like, "But did they know he didn't steal the water?" I'm like, "I don't think they knew that he did or didn't. I think they thought he did." Right. My only issue is what happened when the Blammy situation happened and that is what I feel like this case should be settled on. Sure. Did the what allegedly they saw in the store play a role? 100%.
>> But it doesn't matter whether he did or didn't. It matters that at that moment who thought what I if I was Cyrus I would have been like oh my god they're chasing me even though I'm 14 and I got to blam me >> I might turn around and go who the heck are you people? So he had the right to defend himself at that point.
>> Yeah >> right. This is why this is so crazy.
>> I I agree and I and I don't think we can boil it down to the value of the item. I I don't think you can say, well, there's a threshold, you know, um if >> Yeah. I'm saying if it was a million dollars or one penny >> if it was >> the store has the right to defend their property cuz everybody goes, "It's only water." I'm sorry. It doesn't matter >> to me. Theft is theft. I'm sorry. You don't have the right to take what's mine.
>> I I might I might personally have a level where I say, "Hey, somebody just took my dollar and I'm like, they probably need it more than me." But if they if they, you know, break into my safe and steal my life savings, I'm not going to be like they probably need it more than me. I I think I have the right to do that, but I don't have the right to tell them what their level is, whether it's a penny or or a billion pennies.
>> Let me read this really quickly because uh South Carolina, this is the shopkeeper law. In any action brought by reason of having been delayed by a merchant or merchants's employee or agent on or near the premises of a merkantile establishment for the purpose of investigation concerning ownership of any merchandise. So basically in any >> civil well it it says action. It doesn't say civil or criminal because there can be criminal actions and civil actions.
Um it shall be a defense to such action if one the person was delayed in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to permit s such investigation so they can stop you even if you didn't steal anything and be protected. Uh and two reasonable cause existed to believe that the person delayed had committed the crime of shoplifting. So that protection uh is is pretty is pretty strong I think on this one. Let me say when it comes to the state, I think there are two things they're going to have a hard time with. The the big challenges they have to overcome. One obviously is proving that it was not self-defense. You have to prove that basically that he didn't point the gun at Andy, >> right?
>> Or or one of the four elements. We're going to have to look at what those are probably on Monday. And the other thing is um something important escaped me. Should have written these down.
>> Uh It was it was a yeah that they were allowed to chase him, right? And not a you know what I mean? See semantics it's like we're not going to argue over semantics because this is a phone call but more or less not legal, not illegal.
It's a gray area like yeah and then citizens arrest comes into play. This can get a little squarely where maybe this case sets precedent over something.
Yeah, it's uh Alex the Dane mom asks, "Okay, but does the law say you can chase them even when they leave the property?" The the law uses the word near.
>> What is near?
>> Now, what's near? If we want to talk legal language, is near 100 yards or a thousand yards?
>> Yeah. So, then that's >> where is in the legal definition of near? That's probably going to be decided in case law >> where they say, "Look, you saw somebody shoplift and hop in a car and drove and you caught up to him on the on, you know, I 85 or whatever, exit 700, >> three states over. Is that still near?"
>> It's like, you know, that was two tanks of gas later. You know, that's not near.
Uh but but obviously there's also a point where he's like, "Yeah, but I was already two steps away from the the the store. They shouldn't have been able to stop me because I wasn't near the store anymore." And there's that's why that's why the Supreme Court takes up appeals to hear cases like this to define right and and set that out.
>> I just think this whole I mean again >> reasonable >> this is why I love Huh. I'm sorry.
>> Oh, sorry. I'm reading some comments here. Jody says Reasonable is not a football field. 15 seconds basically if you can if you can make it out of the store with your item and get and run for 15 seconds. Is that is that where it's free?
You can't chase after that.
And I would also like to say there's a uh there's a comedian, not going to say his name because I don't know copyright, whatever. But he said, "I was watching a football game. I left my couch, went to the refrigerator, got a can of soda, and went back to my couch. Within that amount of time, this human ran 100 yards, scored a touchdown with 12 people chasing him."
Think about that. I left my couch when got a soda came back. He said I had to dodge an ottoman. That was the only thing >> and I missed the play. He did that in real life in real time in a 100 yards.
So time and space and athleticism. I think that gets a little again, isn't that like what uh what ifs and what aboutisms and Monday morning quarterback and oh yeah but what if this but if the law doesn't work with what ifs and what aboutisms in my opinion.
>> Yeah, I'll I'll say this.
>> So I just think this is difficult. I think this is a >> I think this is like a moral problem then there's >> because the outcome was wrong. The outcome was bad >> because he died. Oh, because he passed.
>> I feel the same way about uh that Tatiana Jefferson case with with Aaron Dean. Um he was the officer who responded to to see, you know, there was a call that came in from a neighbor. Oh, we've got a house that's open. He's like, they're afraid. He's afraid there's a burglar in there. He's trying to protect >> the one where they walked in through the side gate.
>> Shoots through the window. Yeah.
>> Right. And they were trying to claim, well, you passed the curdilage of her home when you opened her gate. So like, she almost had the right to aim her blammy. Oh, she did.
>> Out the window.
>> I I I support her 100%. She was in the right to defend herself. She saw somebody outside with a gun. Yes, >> I feel like she was.
>> But I also thought that Aaron Dean was in the right and that was something that should be, you know, it's tragic. It's terrible. It shouldn't happen like that.
that it should be decided civily or you know sorted out civily but civily doesn't bring people back from the dead it just it doesn't we haven't got >> this is why court that can do that >> I'm sorry >> and this is why I love I feel like we have to watch again not you know what let me say it I don't want to project I feel like this is why I watch trials because it has made me smarter when it comes to debating people or seeing situations because it makes me steelman their position which is the opposite position of mine and then I go hm do I even believe what I'm saying if I feelman my opponent and within that process my opponent makes sense then I don't know if I believe my own position then which is difficult to do you got to put your ego aside you got to be a little bit humble but if my opponent's position makes a little bit of sense to I have to sit down, re-evaluate.
What do I really feel? So these thing, these cases go, okay, again, we're not going to go on a tangent on what happened, but okay, none of this, none of this is good. No trial is like, oh my god, we're going to have a trial, so who wins a Lamborghini?
>> Yeah, >> it doesn't like all trials are negative.
it. Let let me s we're looking at this I'm looking at this from a legal standpoint and I hate it.
Honestly, I I hate that we're sitting here saying who's right and who's wrong when when it's wrong that we have a 14-year-old who's dead. Period. That it's wrong. He He paid a price. We can't undo that. But the way the law is written, I believe the Chows might be right. I I I don't think morally the chows were right. I like to think that that I would do something incredibly different in that situation that I would be a >> I agree, you know, that that Cyrus would be my friend if he came to the store in before I assumed he was my enemy.
>> I I would have been like, "Yo, why are you moving so funny? Let me talk to you.
What is your problem? Are you okay? What are you?" Instead of being accusatory or following, I'll be like, "Yo, are you good? What's the matter?" Like are because if I was already suspicious, I want to find out why I feel that way, not him. Why do I consider him suspicious?
>> So I would have to internalize that and go, is he or is this my problem?
>> So then I go, well, okay, let me figure it out. Hey, young man, you good? What's the matter? Uh hopefully he talks to me.
He may not, but at least I did my part.
So I think you're right. Yeah, I uh >> but anyway, I talked to ear off long enough. I tried to make my >> fun. We haven't we haven't talked in a while, so I gave you some extra time. I apologize.
>> Good. Thank you, my friend. Good talking to you.
>> Well, all right. Love you. Love Chad family.
>> Love you, man. Bye.
>> Bye.
>> I I I honestly I think that I I look at this case and I think we can do better, right? That that it shouldn't be this.
It shouldn't be that, you know, we we study the law so we know how far we can push it to to make sure we're right. Um, I think the law should be in place for extreme situations that are are just that rare and extreme. Uh, not that not that we push up to the limit to, you know, to do all we're legally allowed to do because, you know, we're we're looking out for number one.
Uh that's why I have a closing that we do.
You know, I say this every day. Uh but I mean it. I mean it. I I think that if we incorporate just a little bit of kindness in our interactions, not just with the people we know and love, but the people we don't know yet.
It can make a difference and it can save situations like this from ever happening, from ever, you know, developing to this point.
We're going to take the weekend off.
We'll be back again Monday with the the final on this as we go to verdict to watch after after closing arguments. But uh tonight when you go home, please hug the people you love. Smile at someone.
Make their day just a little bit better.
But please stay safe. We go live again on Monday. We'll see you all. You guys have a fantastic weekend.
Be good to each other. Hope I didn't offend anybody.
Some days I don't take take a stance on this and I and I did on this case and I realize it's a it's a hot button issue.
Um I may be wrong and the jury may prove me wrong on Monday and I'm okay with that. Uh but uh you guys are all amazing. Thank you very much. Have a wonderful, wonderful weekend. Watch the podcast if you didn't get it last night because we talk about pizza a lot. And there's a whole thing about caviar that apparently is going to come again on like three podcasts from now where I'm going to be eating caviar for the first time in my life and pro probably for the last as well. So, that's all good. You guys are amazing. Have a wonderful night. Thank you all. I appreciate it.
Mods, you're incredible. Thanks for doing the hard work on this one. Uh you're you're amazing you guys. We good to each other. Bye-bye.
Thank you, sir. You're my new best friend.
Don't miss the forest for
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
