"He Stood in the Place of His Son" | Defense FULL Closing | SC vs Rick Chow

Added: 2026-06-02

[00:00:14]I remember growing up and watching shows with my father and I'm old enough to date myself a little bit that we would actually listen to radio shows and one of the radio shows that we would listen to quite often is a guy named Paul And what he would do is he would tell stories.

[00:00:32]And in telling stories, what he would do is tell a story that he thought that everybody actually knew. He would tell a story and he would give details of a story that he thought that everybody actually knew already. And he would tell it and he would tell it in his interesting way, but what he would do is intentionally leave out parts of the story so that people would be a little confused because they'd heard the part of the story that they thought that they knew, but he would leave parts out. And then he would take this huge pause after he was done and everybody think it was over. And then he would say this famous line. He would say, "And now it's time for the rest of the story." And then he would spend the rest of the show telling the listener the rest of the story that they did not know. He would do this because he understood people. He understood that we are a generation of people who simply listen to headlines, listen to flashy things, and don't hear the rest of the story. He understood that if he could tell just small parts of the story and the way that people thought that they understood them and didn't hear the rest of the story, then they would believe things one certain way. And the way that he did it was fascinating. It was interesting. People started to understand that that's the way we have to start listening because if we only hear part of the story, then we can never get to the truth.

[00:01:46]And so as we sit here and get ready for our closing argument, all we're going to do now is tell you the rest of the story.

[00:01:55]I will tell you wholeheartedly, and this might come across as a shock. I agree with some of the stuff that the state of South Carolina said. When they got done with their closing argument, folks next to me said, "Do you want to take that dollar down?" And I said, "No." Because let me tell you with unadabashed honesty, they are 1,000% right about the following statement.

[00:02:18]If Rick Chow executed a human being over a $1 bottle of water, enjoy hell. Let's make that clear. If Rick Chow shot a man in the back stealing $1 bottle of water from his store, you do what you will because there's nothing to justify this back and forth. Was he right? Was he wrong? It doesn't matter. Taking a human life over a bottle of water is absolutely ridiculous. Is wrong under any way that you could possibly look at it. And that's why the state has gone out of their way to put this $1 bottle of water up to put this picture up because they want you to believe that this is what this case is about.

[00:02:56]The rest of the story, it has nothing to do with this water. It doesn't. Because if that was what it was about, this wouldn't be a complicated case.

[00:03:07]As we sit in front of you, the things that we have to talk about is we have to break down everything that we have watched in this case. And we need to break down what the state of South Carolina has presented to you. And as we break it down, we can break it down inside of three classifications. What they've put on the stand. They put on what they call eyewitnesses.

[00:03:24]They put on investigators and they put on experts. You remember those are the three things that they have given us.

[00:03:30]So, first let's talk about the eyewitnesses. And the reason I want to talk about the eyewitnesses first is remember and I wrote down a quote that the state said. CC cameras don't lie.

[00:03:39]For 17 seconds you could have played the camera. For 17 minutes you could have played these cameras. If you remember these witnesses got on the stand. They sat in front of you and they I asked them questions. They looked directly at you. They were talking about what they remembered. They were talking about their memories and how important that is. And then I started asking them questions from right there. You remember? I said no. I'm not trying to be rude, but I remember you talking to 911. Do you remember that?

[00:04:05]>> Yeah. And you said something different to the 911 tape that you're saying right here today. I asked another person, "Isn't it true that we don't interview witnesses together because they can get their stories together and their brains could get something that didn't really happen?" Yeah. And that's on video, correct?

[00:04:23]Cameras don't. Well, and they called 911. And in the 911 call, they said they didn't see anything. Correct.

[00:04:31]Cameras don't lie.

[00:04:34]But don't you remember, and I asked one of the witnesses, "Isn't it true that you told them something and they said that was completely impossible?" Well, yeah. And then they've met with you, THEY'VE TALKED TO YOU, THEY'VE INTERVIEWED YOU AND PUT YOU ON THE STAND, AND YOU TOLD SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

[00:04:48]Cameras don't lie.

[00:04:51]So, why are we sitting here and not WATCHING THOSE VIDEOS? WHY DIDN'T THE state give you THE 911 CALLS? WHY DIDN'T THEY GIVE YOU THE VIDEOS? WHY DID THEY GIVE YOU THE information if cameras don't lie?

[00:05:04]The rest of the story.

[00:05:07]I talked to one of the investigators and officers as he took the stand. Remember we asked him what is important as an investigator. It's important to get the facts. It is important to get the information. It's important to get the evidence as close to the incident as possible. So we can do what? Remember the question I asked him. So we can give all the information to the jury.

[00:05:24]The rest of the story. Because what we don't want TO DO IS SUBJECT AND PUT OUR EMOTIONS IN THERE, OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS, our subjective decisions. That's what's happened.

[00:05:35]The rest of the school, but for some reason, the state of South Carolina doesn't want to give it to you.

[00:05:42]One of the witnesses took the stand. If you remember correctly, Detective English took the stand. You remember one of the first ones they put on and they put the videos up on all OF THESE SCREENS, ALL THIS TECHNOLOGY that the state of South Carolina has. And they put up all of it. And one of the clips they put out was of Rick Chow state, you remember? And they played it and it said, "My son saw I didn't initially see my son that he had a gun. So when I looked at his hand and then what did that officer do? He just walked away."

[00:06:13]We knew there was a second part of the video. Cameras don't lie. It would have taken how long was the quote? 17 seconds to play it. Cameras don't lie. And what was the next question from the state of South Carolina? Isn't it true he didn't tell you on that scene blank?

[00:06:32]Cameras don't lie. So, we literally had to make sure you knew the rest of the story. And what did we do to tell you the rest of the story? We brought that other officer on to tell the rest of the story. And you remember it went right together. The rest of that statement my son saw. I didn't see it initially. My son alerted me that he had a gun. So when I I'm gonna go talk to his son, that's when he walked away. And then the statement kept going. Look at his hand. He actually had a handgun in his hand.

[00:07:04]The rest of the story.

[00:07:06]He got up running. Then my son yelled, "He's got a gun." So when I watched, there was a gun IN HIS HAND. THAT WOULD BE SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO tell you, but they needed to be about a dollar.

[00:07:19]They need to scare you. They need to make you afraid. THEY MADE YOU THINK THE GREAT RICK CHOP, THIS EVIL HUMAN BEING OVER HERE KILLED A MAN OVER A DOLLAR.

[00:07:29]And that is disgusting. That is awful.

[00:07:31]That is a warrant. But that's not what happened.

[00:07:35]The rest of the story.

[00:07:37]We don't want to tell you the rest of the story because if you hear it, then you get to make an intelligent decision.

[00:07:42]And we don't want you to make an intelligent decision. We don't want you to hear no 911 calls. We don't want you to watch the videos. We don't want you to HEAR WHAT RICK SAID AT THAT MOMENT, AT that time without a lawyer, without anyone telling him what to say or do.

[00:07:56]We had to play those.

[00:07:59]The rest of the story. And as we get in there and we listen to this and we go through all of this information, it becomes incredibly important.

[00:08:08]We then had investigators take a stand.

[00:08:09]You remember the questions I asked of the investigators and why they were so important?

[00:08:15]the state of South Carolina for you to make a decision has come in front of you and said, "Put witnesses on the stand, guns aren't that bad.

[00:08:24]14-year-old kids have guns all the time."

[00:08:28]And they had witnesses literally with their hands on the Bible looking at you talking about, "Ah, guns are prevalent.

[00:08:34]It's not that big of a deal."

[00:08:37]That was the testimony. I didn't make that up. That was the testimony that they submitted. Do I think they believe ANY PART OF THAT? NOT A LINE OF THAT, but they have emotion.

[00:08:48]They're upset and they want you to believe it's about a bottle of water.

[00:08:55]It's not the rest of the story.

[00:09:01]And then there was an expert who took the stand.

[00:09:05]Do you remember I asked her a very directly question? I had her sit right here. She stood in front of you as if she was Rick Chow.

[00:09:14]And I showed her what we said Mr. Felton could have been doing. And what did she say? Yeah, that's possible.

[00:09:21]The rest of the story. She described the bullet path back to front, right to left, slightly upward.

[00:09:29]The rest of the story. We got to avoid all of that because that changes our narrative.

[00:09:36]So now we go into what they did present and let's talk about the part of the case that we're all wondering about. The thing that everybody's there and if it's in your gut, it should be in everybody's gut. And they spent their entire case, their case was a day and a half and most of it they spent it on one part. The chase. The chase. The chase. They shouldn't have done it. They shouldn't have done it. They shouldn't have done it. You remember one of their witnesses, the investigator got on the stand and I had to ask him the question, "Is there anything illegal about that?" No, sir.

[00:10:05]But that's what they're talking about.

[00:10:07]What? Well, common sense. We don't want you to do it, but it's not illegal.

[00:10:13]That's an important distinction to know.

[00:10:16]This is a store. The testimony was they owned it for 11 years. Margins are small. You've seen the wall of shame.

[00:10:23]People have shot with it. People have stolen.

[00:10:27]Chased them.

[00:10:29]I've been stolen from. I chased the people to Georgia flat out.

[00:10:34]It's their property. They're emotional about it. And that's why he ran after it.

[00:10:39]The question isn't do you think it's right. The question is, is it legal? And then you go to the second part of is it legal? If it was illegal, don't you remember Andy Child said up there on the stand? And Mr. SCOTT GOT RIGHT IN HIS FACE AND HE WAS YELLING AT HIM AND HE WAS GOING ANGRY WITH HIM AND HE WAS SAYING EVERYTHING TO HIM. But the one thing he didn't say to him is, "AND YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH FOLLOWING THIS young man out of the store. AND YOU ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FOLLOWING THIS YOUNG MAN OUT OF the store because he's not he's not liable. He's not criminally liable. He has not been charged and he did not do anything wrong." But when you Monday morning quarterback and come back and look at the situation and say, "Well, why? You know what? They could have done this. They could have done this. They could have done this."

[00:11:23]Because that's what the state's case is.

[00:11:25]Think about it. How many times did you hear throughout the course of this trial, the great STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA SAY THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE. THEY COULD HAVE DONE THIS. They could have done this. They could have done this. They could have done this. They don't have evidence to offer, but they have fear, passion, emotion, and they want to get that out of you. They want that fear, passion, and emotion. And for you to ignore the law. We do not get to take the law the way that we want it to be.

[00:11:49]We take the law the way that it is.

[00:11:53]Let me say that again. We don't get to take the way that we want it to be.

[00:11:58]The solicitor CAN'T SAY, "WELL, I WANT IT TO BE ILLEGAL FOR A SHOPKEEPER TO GO OUT OF THE STORE." SHOPKEEPERS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FOLLOW SOMEBODY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT. ANDY, THAT'S WHAT I WANT.

[00:12:12]That's not the law.

[00:12:16]And then there's one last part that he for some reason has ignored.

[00:12:20]Let's say one of you, just one of you for argument sake are sitting back there and you say, "You know what?

[00:12:27]I think they are at fault in bringing on the difficulty. It may not be legal. It may not be illegal, but I just don't like the fact that they follow him for 130 yards. I do not like the 130 yard. I do not like the 130 yards." Well, the judge is going to charge you on something on the law and it's called withdrawal.

[00:12:46]Let me explain that concept to you.

[00:12:49]Let's say one of you start a fight.

[00:12:51]Let's say I start a fight with Mr. Scott. And let's say I go up to him and I say, "I'm going to get you. I'm going to take you down. I'm going to hurt you." And I start the fight. And I come at him and I'm about to hurt him. And then all of a sudden I said, "You know what? This is stupid. I don't want to do this anymore."

[00:13:08]And I turn around and I'm like, I'm over this. And Mr. Scott brings a knife and comes out. Well, according to their theory, I got to let him stab me.

[00:13:17]According to their theory, I got to let him hurt me even though that I have withdrawn. Well, that is the law of withdrawal.

[00:13:24]If an individual says if they withdraw by words or actions, words or actions, their right to self-defense is back on the rest of the story. And don't take my word for it. The judge is going to instruct you on the law and that's one of the things he's going to talk about.

[00:13:45]So when we talk about the chase, when we talk about why did they run out of the store, when we talk about they shouldn't have gone out of the store, as I told you, you legally have a right. The officer, their own witness has told you they legally have a right. This officer with 25 years of experience dealt with shopping, dealt with this and says, "We prefer you not." Common sense.

[00:14:07]But then there's a last part of that that wasn't on their little pretty board. the right to withdraw.

[00:14:15]When Andy Child testified, when he told you what happened, he said, "I was following. I was running after him. He fell. When he got up, he had this gun.

[00:14:24]And then I went this way."

[00:14:28]And as his hands were up, you remember I asked him directly, "The gun was still pointed at you." "Yes, sir." You were looking directly at the barrel. "Yes, sir." And then what did you hear? I said to my dad, "HE'S GOT A GUN." "HE'S GOT A GUN." AND THEN WHAT DID he say? Did dad say, "DROP IT. STOP. DROP IT." NO.

[00:14:46]There's nothing more withdrawal than that. WHEN HE IS YELLING, "STOP IT.

[00:14:51]DROP." NO.

[00:14:55]That's a withdrawal.

[00:14:58]That's saying, "Look, man. You got it.

[00:15:00]You got the gun. I'm good."

[00:15:03]They love to say that everything could have stopped.

[00:15:06]He could have put the gun down, but we have to ignore that because that's not part of their story.

[00:15:13]We cannot tell that part of the story because it's not necessary.

[00:15:17]And when we tell this story, you might look at me and say, "Oh, Mr. Kent, that's some creative lawyer." No, that's why we played the 911 tape. And in the 911 tape, you heard. That's why we played Andy Child's interviews.

[00:15:32]Didn't hide it. What did he say? Takes only 17 seconds.

[00:15:37]What was the other quote? Better than any eyewitness ever could would have been a video.

[00:15:44]That's what the state said. Better than any eyewitness ever could. So why wouldn't you play? Because it would have been better than any eyewitness ever could.

[00:15:56]Now let's talk about the fact we talked about the store and the things that happened inside of the store. And there might be questions. Why did you guys keep bringing these things up? If you remember, I had the officer on the stand, great officer, great investigator, great person.

[00:16:11]But I had him on the stand and one I was talking about firearms and 14-year-olds and he went back and forth because I don't think they wanted to admit that this is a problem. But the thing that was the most important is I asked him about suspicious suspicious behavior.

[00:16:24]Did something look weird to you when you went back? And he didn't want to admit.

[00:16:28]But use your own common sense on that. I asked him the direct question, looking back through your investigation as you have gone through and looked at the full file and looked at everything now, do you find it weird, odd, suspicious that a young man would go into a gas station without any money with an empty book bag, pull it in the chamber, and then was looking like he was taking stuff off of the counter. I don't find that suspicious.

[00:16:57]I find that answer suspicious.

[00:17:00]The reason we brought this up is not to suggest I don't know what Cyrus was doing. I don't use your common sense and ask yourself.

[00:17:12]That does seem strange. And the reason we bring that up is that would explain why Andy, who was sitting at the front counter looking back, is watching this and going, "He's acting strange.

[00:17:24]He's acting weird. He's putting water back up. Water back up. Water back up."

[00:17:28]It looked weird to me. And then he came up to the counter with his hands in his sleep and there looked to be something heavy in there.

[00:17:35]I didn't know what it was. And so I asked him and he did this and it looked like there was something heavy in there.

[00:17:39]It was the gun. Did Andy know it was a gun? Absolutely not.

[00:17:46]But you can understand why Andy would have said there's something strange going on. His behavior, something in a pocket going weird with the water.

[00:17:55]That's what was strange.

[00:17:59]So that is to explain why Andy made the unilateral decision that there was something strange going on here. And then Andy made the decision to follow him out of the store, chase him, run after him, whatever you want to call, but he made that decision based upon a reasonable belief of what anybody would have thought something strange here.

[00:18:25]I asked the officer again about the suspicious behavior that 24 hours, less than 24 hours before he came into the store, he posted this on his social media. Do you remember? I asked him about it. And not only was it this, this was a clip from a video in which he was pointing a gun at a screen with a laser and a flashing light.

[00:18:51]on his Instagram story.

[00:18:54]You put all that together, you can explain that someone's behavior would have been a little strange and he would have had that firearm with the light on it.

[00:19:05]It makes sense.

[00:19:08]And so that explains why Andy and And don't forget when the officer was talking and asking questions and he went back to the back to look at that video surveillance that they keep talking about. Do you remember how many times he's like I had to look at it two, three times. I had to zoom in on it. He had the technology to see what was taken.

[00:19:23]And he had one time and from his vantage point, something was going on. And so he followed him out the store. He ran after short, whatever you want to call it, the rest of the story.

[00:19:36]And then Andy testified that he threw stuff out of his pocket. REMEMBER MR. SCOTT SAID, "YOU DID NOT TESTIFY TO THAT." I had to show four different times where Andy said he was throwing something out of his pockets.

[00:19:48]four.

[00:19:51]And so he went after him. He followed him. He chased him. He's going after him the entire way.

[00:19:58]And they're right. He fell. He fell hard. And now they're saying, "Well, he would have naturally picked up his gun."

[00:20:05]That's why this is important.

[00:20:11]He's running. Or let's put it this way.

[00:20:14]Let's try two. One. He's running and it's in his pouch. He falls. The light goes off, but the gun stays in the pouch, I guess. Or the gun comes out, I guess. I don't know. But he picks it up and that's what they just testified to.

[00:20:28]He picked it up. The judge is going to ask tell you something else about defense of others.

[00:20:34]You have the right to act on appearances and you have the right to be wrong.

[00:20:40]He's going to tell you that.

[00:20:42]They just told you. He was running. He fell down and he picked up a firearm.

[00:20:47]ALL THIS STUFF, ALL THIS BACK AND FORTH, HE 100% FROM THE STATE'S MOUTH, HE PICKED UP that firearm.

[00:20:59]You have a right to be wrong.

[00:21:01]You have a right to act on appearances.

[00:21:04]And that's what the judge is going to tell you the law is. And that's from the state.

[00:21:10]Don't you think about that again?

[00:21:15]gets up.

[00:21:18]Medical examiner shocked back angle pointed right to act on appearances.

[00:21:27]Rest of the story or take it another situation. What makes sense? Maybe the maybe the lights on the fire and then as he's running when he falls it that's when it comes off. We don't know because the burden of proof is on the state to prove what happened in that situation. And they've just admitted the one thing we know for a fact is he picked up the firearm. That's from them, not from me. That was their admission.

[00:21:51]And then as he picks up the firearm, then we have to go with Andy's testimony. And he's right. If you don't believe what Andy says, if you think Andy is 100% a liar, you can stop right now. Andy's lying. He made it up. This is completely not true. The gun was never pointed at him. He never saw this silver barrel that he only would have seen after he saw Discovery. He never saw it. And then let's take that ONE STEP FURTHER. NOT ONLY THAT HE must believe that he is a liar, you must believe that Rick Chow is the most creative, smartest person in the history of the world. HE IS CLAIRVOYANT, IF YOU WILL. LET'S GIVE HIM AN OSCAR. RICK CHOW WAS ABLE TO DECIDE. You know what? I want to kill this boy. I need to figure out when he's going to come into the store, when he's going to have a gun, when it's going to be in his pouch. I need to make sure that Andy sees it. And then I need to make sure Andy follows him for the directions. So I need to make sure Andy calls 911 and says exactly what I want him to say. I need to make sure Andy says the exact thing that I'm going to say at the exact time because that's what it would be necessary to believe the state of South Carolina's case to.

[00:22:56]That Riptau set all this up in motion to execute a shoplifter.

[00:23:03]the people he decides needs has to help him make a living.

[00:23:09]It doesn't make any sense.

[00:23:11]And if we take this one step further from the state's theory, Rick Chow is so pissed off, so damn angry about this shoplift. Hates him so much that he executes him.

[00:23:24]Why not shoot him when he gets out of the store?

[00:23:28]Gun's already on his hip.

[00:23:31]Why not walk out of the store?

[00:23:34]Shoplifter $1. He stole shot.

[00:23:40]Shoplifter 10 yards shot. SHOPLIFTER 20 YARD SHOT. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110.

[00:23:48]Why wait 130?

[00:23:50]Unless something changed.

[00:23:53]What changed was somebody pulling a gun and pointing it directly at his son.

[00:23:58]That's what changed.

[00:24:02]If he wanted to execute Cyrus, he could have done it right outside of that suit.

[00:24:08]But we have to ignore that because that would be part of the rest of the story.

[00:24:15]Use your common sense and listen to the evidence, but listen to the witnesses and listen to what they have told you.

[00:24:23]Murder, as the state has told you, is the intentional killing of another human being with malice of forethought without self-defense.

[00:24:31]We have just showed you self-defense and defense of others. The state has melded a little bit of those theories together, but you need to make sure that you understand one without fault in bringing on the difficulty.

[00:24:42]Again, I've explained to you that you have a legal right to follow somebody whether they like what the law is.

[00:24:46]That's what it is.

[00:24:49]And as you're going through that, then you have to talk about imminent danger.

[00:24:53]And this is from the eyes of Andy. And they're trying to mix the two of the things together, but it's under the eyes of Andy at this point.

[00:25:02]As Andy, does he have an fear of imminent danger?

[00:25:07]Was a gun pointed at Andy?

[00:25:10]Would Andy who had withdrawn from the conflict? You got it. I'm over this. No.

[00:25:16]Would Andy have had a right to point the firearm and save his own life?

[00:25:22]Reasonable person, a reasonable person in the same situation, what would they have done? And we can take that two ways if we want to argue the states theory.

[00:25:31]Way one, Andy, gun pointed at you, would he have had a right, as he rescends, remember that knife in the back situation, Andy would have had a right to fire to save his own life. But more importantly in the reasonable person uh situation, Rick Chow would have had a right and did have a right to save his son. The strongest evidence that was given in entire this case when the officer got on the stand and I asked him that question and I said, "Have you ever fired your firearm?" "No." "Have you had a have firearm pointed at you?" "Yes."

[00:26:05]"I didn't fire." "What if someone was pointed at your loved one?" "Yeah."

[00:26:10]I asked that same officer the situation when officers are chasing somebody and you chase them incorrectly. Remember we asked him that question. You chase somebody incorrectly. What happens? We chase them incorrectly. It does happen.

[00:26:22]And what would happen if that individual pointed a firearm at you? Remember the example he gave? If someone pointed a firearm as I'm chasing them incorrectly, well, I would tell and they turned around and pointed a firearm at me. I would tell them, "Stop. Drop it." and if they did not drop it, I would fire. It sounds eerily familiar to this case.

[00:26:46]And that's some of the rest of the story that the state of South Carolina for some reason has chosen not to tell us today.

[00:26:53]And then we go duty to retreat or can you retreat? As a person is pointing a firearm at you and you're pulling backwards and someone is saying stop, no, don't.

[00:27:03]That's what duty to retreat is. No one turns and runs.

[00:27:11]The judge is going to tell you, as I mentioned, if we're talking about self-defense, and I've said it several times, you have a right to act on appearances and you have a right to be wrong.

[00:27:24]So, as we sit here and we're in Rick Child's position, we're wondering what Rick Chow is doing. As we've heard this testimony, Rick Child sees a gun pointed at his son. His son says, "As you heard, I was afraid. I was terrified.

[00:27:39]He's got a gun. He's got a gun." To Rick Child, that situation stands in the place of his son.

[00:27:48]This case is not about a daughter.

[00:27:53]This case is not about a shop.

[00:27:58]This case is about a father who sees a gun pointed at his son and had to make a decision.

[00:28:16]I hate it. I did I hate that a young man lost his life.

[00:28:22]I disagree with the state's theory on it's not that big of a deal that kids are going around with guns. I hate it.

[00:28:29]It is a problem and it is a problem in this case.

[00:28:36]I hate that we have sat here and tried to make this about something that's not.

[00:28:43]I've listened to the state of South Carolina's opening statement talk about Cyrus's age, his future, and I understand all of that. I do.

[00:28:53]The one thing that does not know Cyrus's age is that gun.

[00:28:58]Doesn't know how old it is. When a gun is pointed at somebody, you have an option.

[00:29:06]as we sit here and talk about this case and how important the details are that if you step back and look at something one way it's completely different and as you get closer and you look at it more and you look at all of the details you'll never see it differently again and so what I'm asking you to do is focus on the details I wear this suit all the time in trials people say oh you always dress so flashy but you're not flashy I wear this suit all the time because it reminds me that details are the most important thing that can happen. It actually has my name and the pinstripes in it because when you look at it after realize that it's not just a pinstriped suit. It actually has my name just right down the middle.

[00:29:44]And I look at it and it reminds me in cases that if you don't take your step back and look at things in full detail, you will miss it. Like the state of South Carolina has and they want you to miss it. We have to focus on important matters. We have to see the full story.

[00:29:59]You have to ask yourself the question, why don't they want me to know the full story?

[00:30:06]And then finally, for the states case to make any sense whatsoever, we have to go back to our withdrawal situation.

[00:30:23]For the state's case to make any sense whatsoever, you must be comfortable with their theory in that Andy Chow is in the story.

[00:30:33]Andy Child runs out of that store. Andy Child runs out of that store after Cyrus.

[00:30:40]And as he's running out after the person he thinks his shotlifted, Cyrus still points the fire. Andy still has his hands up. His dad is still watching. His dad says, "No, I'm not going to do anything." And Cyrus shoots and kills his son.

[00:30:54]The state wants us to believe that that's legal and that's okay.

[00:31:01]That storeke keepers should let people take stuff out of their store and if you follow them and you get killed it's okay it's not now you know the rest of the