Today is April sixteenth, twenty twenty one and our first story, the controversial anti riot fail, has passed the Florida Senate and run. The centre is expected to sign it into law. Next week on the right people, Shearing saying this provides more authority for the government to stop people engaged in riots on they're saying it will stifle free speech and it is unconstitutional one. Particular provision would grant immunity in civil cases to people who drive cars through protesters sparking serious debate. Our next story. Facebook is censoring. Several stories about a black lives matter, cofounder buying tons of properties, even people on the left are outraged at this, Report Marxist, is wealthy and buying up property, and our last story, body camera foot was released in the killing of Adam Toledo, a thirteen year old in Chicago showing that he did in fact have a gun, but finding the lovers

He was unarmed now what news organization even cropped, the video. So you can see that this young man is holding a gun. leading to a large debate over whether the police were right or wrong before we get started. Leave us a good review. If you like, the show, give us five stars and if you really like the show share it with your friends, because that will really help now, let's get into that first story conservatives across the country are praising governor, Rhonda, Santos and Republicans in Florida for passing the Anti riot law now governor does. this is expected to sign this bill into law some time next week and it increases penalties for violent riding basically, separating from when I put protesters peaceful too, when it crosses that line and There are some very serious penalties and even civil immunity for some people, if they drive through protests blocking a road

Of course, many people on the left are saying it is unfair to violation of the first amendment and it will be abused. Conservatives, of course, our cheering because the longest time for the past year I mean for law. We have seen anti far black lives matter. Other far left extremist groups go around destroying things burning things and then the press lying about it well. Now, conservatives are fighting back, and many Other states are proposing similar laws if you break the law and commit acts of violence, it is not a first amendment issue. The first moment says peaceably symbol, not violently smash windows, start fires and hurt people, but conservatives best be careful what they wish for while Democrats are saying this bill will be used against them. They're saying it will be used disproportionately to target

wing groups, because conservatives are mad about racial justice protests. Well, there technically wrong, but they get one part right. I do believe these bills will be used disproportionately against Republicans and Republicans should pay attention as to what could happen because the law typically slams the hammer down in any one on the right who dares do anything outside of protest. Conservatives in those parts for the most part, don't actually protest. They don't go on all that much, but sometimes right. Wing groups. When they do. They are smeared in the media. It's called a riot, not a protest and the law comes after them hard several times now we have seen say the head of the FBI or other prominent federal law enforcement, individuals or officials refuse to call out anti fa. So this feels like a bit for many conservatives. Finally, we will have some laws and the opportunity to start

these lunatics feels good, but again what they're doing is already illegal So why pass more laws when it is all ready, illegal, Passing this law won't change. The fact that progressive district attorney's are not prosecuting and these terrorists are being let go in fact it may just backfire on conservatives in the event that they get involved in a protest. I don't know for sure I mean Flora Florida is doing ridiculously well so far in terms of defending people's rights, Rhonda Santas is being praised. Many people are speculating. He could run as trumps new vice president or even at the top of the ticket and twenty twenty four for President come out and champion free speech, slammed big tech censorship and is now passing a law that many conservatives are happy with because they want to see the extremists prosecuted, but also

one more time before we get and all this news you'd understand these things are all ready illegal. Now I get it we're on the verge of mass right. eating Kate tonight we might see major very serious riots in Minneapolis around the country. Saturday could potentially be worse deliberations. Calvin trial begin on Monday, and they could wrap up very quickly and then we'll see massive riots. So perhaps we really do need the ability to prosecute these people. and locked him up. There are many things in this Anti riot bill that are probably there probably good things, but there challenges, because I believe in liberty. It is better that ten guilty persons escaped than one innocent person suffer. And some of these changes pot penalised people or punish them before they ve been convicted of a crime.

I don't know how you deal with these issues, its very challenging and will break them down before we get started. Had over two TIM cast dot com become a member to get access to exclusive members, only section with a bunch of really awesome podcast. Second, with all the people. You know one lovely, Seamus, right, ear use our Jack Murphy got Tom Rogan. We got Jim Hansen and fill a body and we're talking about really interesting things over at TIM cast outcome for the TIM guest Arrow podcast. When you become a member, your supporting my work in the that we get banned or censored and we're going to be launching a ton of really awesome new stuff we ve got new shows coming. We are hiring a ton of people were do. Paranormal on new podcast were taught or potentially into a sit, come even were to make a massive network with your help to check it out, and now, let's get back to the big breaking news and don't forget to lie share subscribe. Had the notification Bout, NBC News reports, Florida Senate passes controversy,

Anti riot bill pushed in wake of black lives, better protests GEO Peak governor round. aunt, is champion the legislation and is expected to sign side as early as next week. They say the bill would increase criminal penalties for assaulting long when officials, while engaging in a riot and facing monuments and other public pop property, public property during riots, it would also penalize local governments that interfere with law enforcement efforts to contain riots and set up a citizen's appeal process. When cities and counties tried to reduce police budgets in response to the riots, the final vote, the Senate was twenty three seventeen with one republican voting with Democrats, the male past, the GNP controlled house in late March. Democratic legislators argue that it would create a chilling effect on first amendment rights and restrict political dissent. Republicans argued that it would protect law enforcement office.

And prevent public disorder. Gop state Senator Ed Hooper, set during the bills. Contentious debate at the legislation was not about racism, but about law order. Democratic state, Senator Jason Pizzo, who criticized the bill tweeted after it passed at this legislative session, will likely get its own custom bow of cards against humanity? Ha ha ha. What a dumb joke. Let me tell you where I think this is this. Could this could be bad and they will get into what rationally gonna see here? There have been numerous videos- mostly I say, Portland and open It's not Florida where conservatives were peacefully protesting. I could you not like walking around waving flags far leftists brutally beat them word the cops. Do the cops formed, a line blocking the conservatives and providing protection for the file left, we see the bias we know where it exists. These cops, don't care about conservatives and

the conservatives were protesting there, that the it was it was. It got to the point so bad. It was that there were actually Conservatives throwing the blue lives matter flag into the dirt and stepping on it, so you give them is this power. Dissent is all descent, so keep that in mind and when they say we must protect free speech rights for everyone, because soon they come for you report begins and conservatives will be wise not to forget it. I understand this. difference being smashing windows and engaging in a riot and a lot of concern. There are probably saying we don't do that. So why should we care? Ok, it's a good point. You should not be doing that, and the first amendment does not allow to do that. So there's no real argument beyond that point. Don't go around breaking stuff and you shouldn't have to worry about getting in trouble for breaking stuff.

I'm always concerned about the addition of new laws. The luck I said earlier: it's all ready, illegal, just arrest them well, there's new penalties and new protections and the law, so perhaps some of it does make sense. I give you that just to say, make sure you're paying attention to this, lest you regret what you wished for, they go to cite quote: this legislation strikes the appropriate balance of safeguarding every Floridians constitutional rights to piece of peacefully assemble, while ensuring that those who hide behind peaceful protest to cause violence and our communities will be punished. to Santa said. In his statement further, Latent ensures that no community and the state engages indeed funding of their police. Another big component of this. If a local community wants to strip the budget from their police

and advocate state approval. I M actually not a fan of that. I think defending the places dumb. I think the police need more funding, better training, seriously better training. Let's like can we just put more money into that? I also think police need to be attached to their job more, so they need to feel passion for their job and rewarded for their job. I think cops should be, should get paid more and I think that they should be better trained. That means we need more funding for police. The problem- I don't mean more funding so that cops can have different kinds of you know, powerful weapons or anything like that. I certainly think a diversity of weapons is good for a police officer, because if there are engaging in a right we don't I'm shooting people, you know being bags or a little rough. What else you got, but then the problem, I suppose, is lowering the cost of conflict increases the likelihood of violence on the left that result in people dying. So it is a very serious challenge, but when it comes to taking the budget away from a place department,

Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for that. It's not about some. I it's not always some ideological just take their money. Sometimes it's like. Ok, we have too many cup in this area which are probably curtail this. Maybe we have too many meter maids, which are probably defined that I'm not sure on the specific necessarily, but maybe the state which is big. We don't care about that. So all in all a check on the system. It's probably not that bad, let's read more, they go to safer. Nbc knows, since the deadly January sticks rightly was capital. At least thirteen states have taken up legislation to crack down on. protests, you see how they lie. The bills are specifically about riots. They're, not the same thing with the media is lying to you because they they agree with these people and want them to have your belly dance. things with impunity. They say the push critic say is a revival of broader anti protest efforts that emerged during the black lives matter. Demonstrations that rock the country last summer. In addition to floor

legislators in Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode, Island, Virginia and Washington, filed bills. That critic say, use the violence of the capital to target social justice protests more broadly many of the bills are similar or identical to the ones introduced in those states. Last year, the majority of the bills use almost identical language and suggest similar penalties, most of them establishing third degree felonies for property damage, injuring a person or obstructing roadways secondary felonies for destroying we're toppling monuments and, first degree, misdemeanours of harassment for confrontations in public spaces. Just confronting elected officials in restaurants. The legislators also proposed hefty lines and mandatory jail sentences from thirty days to four years, depending on the offensive. The bills in Florida, Indiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Virginia and Washington would redefine a riot or unlawful assembly as three or more people partaking and tumultuous activity. Think three is probably to lower the number,

Someone who is already credit committing a crime should be punished for it, and I want to point out some things that I'm I'm worried about. Then we'll wait a little bit about we get out of this law and some of the things to consider check this out. Property damage. Third degree felony I think of felonies pretty serious depending on the property damage. It should be a little bit more broad than that smashing windows, Japan. Police they'll be a misdemeanor. Do you broke a window property damage? seating. A certain values should probably be a felony that I understand property. where you like blob piece of contemporary art, which makes a gigantic ass ball rolled down a fountain and crash into the front of a corporate chain. Coffee store should probably a felony for a variety of reasons, some dumb cared for in Iraq. At a window. You probably should get a felony their power We should be some serious penalties, but come on he proportional now. There's a injuring a person or obstructing roadways. Doo doo doo, injuring a person out

It should be very, very serious, bordering on a high level misdemeanor, but obstructing roadways I am not a fan of obstructing roadways? Not I'm! Sorry. Civil disobedience is fine if they are going to establish a third degree felon for civil disobedience? Now, I'm not all about that. I think we want to encourage all the hippy dippy, let These two sit down hold, hands and Saint whom, via that's not nonviolence. Civil disobedience is p fully assembling. It may be nuisance. It's kind of the point if you, peaceful revolution impossible. You make violent revolution inevitable, so we don't tell me if you sit down and hold hands and we walk over pick you up and and carry away you get a phoney for that. Sorry, I'm not all about that. If people are peacefully in the street, holding hands, police, walk up and say, sir you're under arrest, and they put their hands behind their back in the care they get carried away to the to the police car. Whenever that's fantastic, they peacefully assembled, they ve made their point and there

facing criminal charge proportional to sitting in a street, I'm not a fan of that they say secondary felonies for destroying or toppling monuments, yeah, I'm I'm sorry I I would be without because these are very expensive pieces of art in history that are, you can't really replace what they are. Destroying public property to that degree would likely require large crowd we with that first degree misdemeanours of harassment for confrontations in public spaces such as can elected officials in restaurants absolutely not no way. You should be allowed to insult someone through their face. Sorry, now, if you're harassing them with a different story, but A misdemeanor saw not really gonna. U no act like it's all that bad you're going to get a slap on the rest, Laguna Rattoon say get away, you're harassing a public official, but this should never be a protection for public officials. It should be a protection for people in general

don't go to somebody scream in their face, guess what it's already crime? It should not be a crime. If you see someone in a public space and privately restaurant restaurant is open to the public and you go in and you say: hi tech crews. You know, I don't like you it's annoying, but the private establishment needs to deal with that, allowed to say things to people, depending on what you do like getting in their face, threatening or harassment which harassment, which is what their specifically referencing would be repeated. You know it's: insulting or berating. I understand on her ass people. Let's try and not go overboard with this, because it will be used against conservatives nowadays, This story. This is this is a story from. I believe that this is from March twenty six, when the house in four to pass this now some criticism from the left they gonna say, Republican, say hp. One is about public safety and cracking down on protest to escalate to violent riots. I can respect that sentiment. Some protests in Tampa turned violent during the summer, followed. The death of George Floyd me

while Democrats opened their remarked with a symbolic gesture, speaking for the same length of time as George Floyd laid with the knee on his neck, the bill lays out the definition of a riot ridges penalties for crimes committed during a right and create a process for states attorneys to challenge budget reductions and want to law enforcement. Democrat say the bill will be applied unequally and used to crack down on peaceful protests for racial justice. Republican say the bill that indiscriminate Republicans are correct, but unfortunately Sawr Democrats for the wrong reasons. My friends, do you think the establishment at the government is worried about me. Lives matter in the far left. Of course they aren't. They support this. Yet they are worried about their worried about a bunch, a right wingers who are in aging and a riot and those are the people who are absolutely going to face the boot and the book it'll be thrown at him,

Is it a final vote in the house? Was seventy six to thirty nine in favour of h, be one straight down party line. So now we know that its past the the Senate and it will likely become law. I'd like you to understand why you need to pay attention to this simply go to Google and search for the word riot. And what do you get? Well, everyone probably get something a little different, here's what I get. a damning. The report explains the strangest thing I saw inside the capital riot. Second one after the riot from NBC News is, but a hundred days since the capital next guitarist his first aspect and capital riot oath keepers, plead guilty and right inspector general capital, riot prosecutors, capital, Riot Document Capital Riot Politico Alabama woman's case, becomes first test of Anti riot love. Finally, something not about the capital. Oh, here's, the next one capital riot capital Riot, the entire page, save one post is about

right wing individuals at the capital. It has been one hundred days and they are still every single they basically basically every Writing the same stories over and over and over again, you give the establishment this power don't be surprised when the crack you over the head with it. Now I warn you of. last year, the year before year. Before that, when I was why in the rise of the far left extremists protest. I said this will give rise to right wing authoritarianism and you will not like it. You see regular people, don't protest, they sure, as as as as that, they should absolutely do not riot, but he's it happens, anti for comes out, acts, a fool, smashes, stuff up and then right people say: please give us more law enforcement and more authoritarianism and guess what regular people will celebrate it

I don't it's already illegal to commit these crimes. We don't need more just arrest of people, We are already doing these things. There are some provisions for how they can hold rioters for like a weekend or so I understand that I think that actually might make sense, but it still is dangerous. You gotta bounces stuff men, the black stones formulation- I am I ever the biggest fan of black stones formulation. I often try and tell people, especially secular liberal types, that black stones formulae, in which, as it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer is actually rooted in the story of Solomon Gomorrah. It's from the Bible, amazing. These values carried on and then Very smart man, at least Hence our I haven't read all sorts Blackstone said we must protect the innocent, even if it means guilty people go free. because we cannot be a society that has

scales weighed in favour of harm? the innocent, it was Otto. On Bismarck. I believe who said it is better that ten innocent people suffer than one guilty person escape and that a psychotic, because you're bound the scales tool. torturing the innocent, and if people in society feel that no matter what they do as innocent individuals obeying the law, they could suffer because of it, they lose faith in the system. We must protect the innocent. I try unexplained People, that's why it's important to be careful about expanding government authority. I'd like this. some very interesting tweets. However, from MR and you know, I would like to actually argue a little bit in defence of this law, because it's not it's look. People say on the milk, those funds that are perhaps I'm just a moderate, and when I mean I'm the one who really push the means I'll take credit for someone called me that my rolled with it- but I think the issue is that they are considerations

There are pros and cons, and I can't tell you what the future holds. Andy no highlights this individual. He says at the anti for riot where the Portland policing and was set on fire alma, even Guido, nineteen was arrested. She's charged with fairly are and was found carrying a crowbar, accelerants and lighters. She was arrested at a riot last year, but had those charges dropped first, this A good example of the law already existed, she charged with a crime they could have prosecutor and stopped her before she burn this built started. A fire in this building is a good example of where we don't need the anti right law. We need. Our officials to do their jobs granted its in Portland, but they have progressive vision to turn these that are letting these people go and what happens when they do this next week or, I should say the store. I just showed you she's. That's fine

building is interesting. Andy no says Anti thought in Portland are panicking right now that it's been reveal. That was an informant to told police who exact set the police units on fire at the riot alma even Guido has been charged with five felonies, but was released without bail. Why, she was arrested in charge before now. You you ve, got an informant and you evidence there's a reason why we have remained when, when it comes to bail hearings, the reasons why we have bail, I dont think it's always applied evenly and I lean towards let the illness go, but we can have some provisions like an angle, or at least look innocent until proven guilty one hundred percent. I do not believe it is the biggest burden in the world if the state as used you of something to give you an angle, monitor and say we are going to be watching you, that's it or made

just giving some surveillance to these individuals in some capacity aiming at an angle monitor. I think it's fair. They will have some restrictions because it trying to balance the interests of the people, the state and the individual, We must leave in favour of the individual, which means let the people go if Europe who have a crime until you can prove it, but the state should get some consideration in that capacity like These people have a history of doing this. Let's at least put an angle monitor on them. Then they show up at a riot. You can just be like ok, this person shouldn't be there and you could arrest them and then, if there s an on the spot, So it's interesting about the the the Anti Riot bill. what what? What interesting about it is that it is that there is a disk disproportionate. It will be disproportionately is, in my opinion, that's why I have this article

the FBI native up, but they mention that you can hold people for a certain period of time without bail if their arrested during a riot sure I feel about that. The regional sale argue kind of for and against at the same time as if the cop grabs a random person, because they think this person did it and they don't have evidence and areas there, is that person now gotta be held for their first court hearing without without bond or bill, but a fan during Occupy Wall Street. There was a guy in a suit who walked out of about data is about egg out. You know chorister. He apparently was buying an orange soda lunch break, but we walked out of the door. He was in a crowd of protesters at the police, had taken a cot cuddling they take their. They take this like orange mesh nets and they rather on the protesters. Those guys walk down the street walking out of a storehouse any finds himself. Wrapped up

what's happening, they arrested him randomly just some guy he's wearing a suit. I mean come on. I understand the challenges the police face innocent until proven guilty and that's for everyone. It wasn't a violent. Just in New York City. Well, this guy was furious. Parents have the court news, I walk out of a storm, they arrest me. Then it care what I d say. This is insane. You can't do that. I don't think you should be allowed to do that. I do not believe the state should be allowed to take a guy and lunch break and put him in jail overnight, because he happened to be walking past somewhere. We have serious challenges in this regard. This is why I dont know how I feel about this. The problem is, as have highlighted with this woman, is that she was released without charge, but, like you, have an informant telling her tat telling you what she's doing she's found with weapons in the clothing of at the riots Ike at a certain point you can say: listen. We have more than enough evidence to suggest you your seriously involved, so you're not going to prison indefinitely,

We're gonna hold you until you can get your fair trial. Maybe that does make sense. There's gotta be alone. I suppose whose MAX has a little bit more on the Anti riot long. There is no highlighted piloting news matches because it is a right wing source, and I will also note news Guard says they are unreliable. Take that forward for what you will they say person pretty with caution. They violate their basic journalistic standards. Our that tends to be the case with news garden. Conservative outlets take it for what you will they say. Florida Senate has voted to approve an Anti riot bill supported by republic. Then they gonna mention that this was noted by the Orlando Sentinel. The newspaper notes that democratic civil its organization specifically point to the provisions in the bill that quote grant civil legal immunity to people who drive through protesters blocking a road prevent people arrested for writing or offences committed during a riot from bailing out of jail until their first court appearance and

pose a six month, mandatory sentence for battery and a police officer during a riot. The bill, also states that a city cannot reduce its police budget without prior approval from the state and in a pet responds to defining the police. There's some interesting things there. legal immunity to people who drive through protesters blocking a road is a civil legal immunity. What Dave stated Republicans they're not talking about someone driving full speed and slammed in a protest, we're talking about people who are surrounded by protests are so it s the difference here as if somebody's in their car and protestors surround them, they're allowed to leave gets home if someone's in a car and they approach the protests, here's. What the cities as this is not protect. You from criminal liability, meaning If you're driving down the road easy protesters, you slammed the gas, you ve committed a crime, you're not protected. If you are regular

driving down the road of the normal rate of speed and a group of extremists are screaming and bang on your car, so you press the gas to get through them, you're, probably going to be fine. Sorry, this is new ones and it does make sense. We cannot be a society that allows people to rampage to the street, smashing windows, destroying property, killing, people and attacking people in their cars and then go. Oh, no. The person in their car tried to escape row. If you bring a baseball bat to a car fight, you know you, you might get and I'm not talking about someone targeting the protesters I'm talking about. If you choose to pick a fight, you are at fault, I don't care who it left right up down whenever driving the car, people in cars should not be going after protesters period, but people outside in the street should not be attacking cars period,

So we see it? It's tough, though. Politics plays a major role in all of this, depending on what you actually see on video determines whether or not you'll get justice. It's kind of nightmarish people thought that the debate A video would save us. You see the story in South Carolina where that army guy is pushing the young black men I get out of here. You don't belong here interesting. They said that he has been arrested on battery charges, he's being investigated by the army blacklist matters is protesting his home and now, apparently, local witnesses are saying that this young man actually assaulted, a woman

and then someone ran to the sky for help to get this guy out of there and he intervened and shoved the guy in defence of others who should have of them. I think it's it's kind of in defence of others, yes, but not the immediate. He should to shove them. The problem is videos uploaded. The internet will always be selective by the activists and extremists to want weapons for their ideological war. They believe they are justified in lying to you, which is why this next story so important. My shouted to Florida, Florida viewpoint diversity bills could stifle speech at university's, faculty, say: aww, poor babies are going to be different opinions and your university in that stifling your speech. Don't care it's a it's a bill, protecting speech. And your mad that it means other people can challenge your ideas. The left that they are they are. They are so good at lying anti racist is there

If you don't answer you right, this means you're, not race or another, I'm sorry to say, and it hurts like. Adding races doesn't mean not racist. Andy. Racist just means racist. It means they want to racially discriminate. Talk about stifling speaker. There really saying, as if your ideas better than mine people won't say my ideas, then what am I supposed to say? Sorry, that's not what free speech means. So people really like dissenters, he's coming out against big tat. He did. The Republicans in Florida are trying to protect viewpoint, diversity and you're. The funny thing is you very much. Two spanish population, who knows all too well florida- is actually these diverse in some aspects and you have people fled Cuba. Venezuela, another South south american countries, whether like now socialism stop ain't it and then you go. on the Santa Saying, ok, and maybe that's why it's happening because people there actually understand just how bad it is to have these lunatics and control of your system. So my respect around the Santas, I am not a big fan across the board.

I'm a fan of these certain thinks he's done there that there was some certain issue. I think about boycott divest and dumb and sanctioned by the US in Israel that apparently he's support of curtailing certain issues? In that regard, I am not fully versed in the sky. I just know that and things that I like he's doing pretty well on what I consider voting for the guy. No, that would require going through a ton of his policies when Data Donald Trump Trump issue AAA platform. Is it here all the things that were frozen? I went through them inside for the most part. I think these are good things I'll vote for that. Just had us This is something similar and maybe he's got that, but he's doing really really well so far, floored as Anti riot bill could come back to haunt conservatives. You think right now you control Florida, it's good for you, you power. The state and eventually the Democrats will be in power and they will use this against you. The same is true for censorship, which is why we must err on the side of liberty. There's some good things in this bill. Don't get me wrong.

I think. If you get arrested at a riot being held for a weekend ain't that big deal, you had Hallelujah fraught first court appearance. there could be challenges and that some of these court appearances might take weeks two months to do so. Are things get tough? will always err on the side of not empowering the state, especially once when these things are already crimes, but the civil war. What protections I do understand so we'll see, see what happens in the future rock dissenters going to sign this and consider what next week. Maybe it's the right thing for you to decide. I suppose I leave their next segments come up to night at eight p m over at Youtube outcomes. Lashed him cast iron Ral, we'll talk about this in depth, so come hang out and we will see. You Then it was a story that shocked the nation. We couldn't believe it, one of the leaders of black lives matter was buying several homes, even a million dollar home and several half a million dollar homes. People called it a multi

billion dollar home buying spree, but we were shocked. We believed in their message. How could it be that someone who says they were fighting for truth and justice? turns out to just be a drifter about that. Well, you may have heard the same this black lives matter, lady bought a bunch of houses. I gotta be honest. I don't really care all that much of somebody buys houses, I mean it's great she's showing you who she is and what she's gonna do with your money. So if you like that, keep giving your money fine- and I also think it's kind of silly to because highly people, war, organizing high level, things get paid a lot of money, that's just the reality of it. Now I get it People are looking at this lady as a hypocrite, because well they're supposed we Marxists or they believe in equity for all peoples in and they just enrich themselves. If a lady came

said she was astonished, hard, core capitalist people, black congrats, on your homes. Much like Bernie Sanders, like did you made a million bucks good for your brow. Were re, proud your books sold in your body. We'll houses, but dont claim to be a socialist when you wanna own multiple properties. I digress. The big news is that Facebook has blocked the story. That's right! You cannot share the story about this, be a lamb, cofounder, Patrice Con Colors malt mill, and dollar real estate buying bench in the street from Abacha Abigail Maroon. She says why won't spoken Instagram. Let users share this near post story and you can see that she was blocked. You can't share this link. It goes against our community standards incredible factually incorrect. Well, we have more news. I want to go over the story a little bit about this, this woman in our homes, but the big noses to censorship. It's not just the new, your posts, that's being barred. We also have,

Facebook censoring the daily mail story on Vietnam. Co founders, multi million dollar allay property empire users I wanted to share links to daily mail. Dot com were met with a message that set it couldn't be shared the same article. And black enterprise is allowed to be shared by Facebook, users, black enterprise and Daily Montcalm, both sighted than your post. In their stories, Twitter recently suspended sportswriter Jason Whitlock for showing the story story noted that Patrice Colors, thirty seven heads one point four million dollars and LOS Angeles property, and she also owns several others. This is not about safety. This is this is literally about barring enemies of the political leftist tribe. That's it that's exactly what we're seeing and it should be obvious to everybody. There's no reason to ban the story. Now we have a statement as to why it happen.

I want to read for you, the gist of the story. Will talk about this woman is in what are what they are merely saying. They say quote this content was move for violating our privacy and personal information policy. A facebook spokesperson tall Daily Imelda come, however, other outlets. It is black as a media company that covers black on businesses was allowed to be shared by Facebook users. So the first time Facebook has censored content from conservative voices. last month the social media platform removed a video interview from Laura Trump interviewing. the law. Donald Trump readers of any are post on. Facebook were also from sharing a story about colors, multi million dollar property holdings. The Facebook spokesperson claimed at the articles jailed shared multiple detail.

which identify the residents of one of the bill. I'm founders in violation of privacy rights as per hour community standards. We do not allow people to post personal or confidential information about yourself or of others. The spokesperson said we remove content that shares first or solicit personally identifiable information or other private information that could lead to physical or financial harm, including financial, residential and medical information, as well as private information obtained from illegal sources. I would like to just briefly pause and mention. There was a story published recent, by a large a major news outlets, a very much copy, it was lies in its it. Why should say it was intentionally, manipulative and misleading and included very key details about where I live, making it very easy to find where I live and my house in my studio and thus people die,

us now, I'm not gonna cry and scream, and- and I'm gonna be fair. It's not the exact same thing, this news, I'll it didn't post photos, I get it, but Facebook doesn't care, there are their full of it. It's a lie: they they they. So everybody knows that we're in Maryland. Basically, and this this article, used the Maryland flag as as part of a graphic and unlike. Why would you do that? Why does my location, they didn't just say the state. They got very specifically exactly where we work. Why would you do that? Making it very very easy people to find out where I live. Why a lot of people pointed out, the goal was to get me hurt to make sure the activists could find out where I live. I ll tell you what I dont care. Okay, we are in the middle of nowhere, we're not while its relatively close DC, so that all the time but died Here we are in a relatively rural mountainous areas and on you're allowed to be armed. So I'm not super concerned, I'm not gonna cry about it.

Run and demand censorship. The reality is sometimes articles get written about you and their unfavourable, but when it comes to black lives matter, we saw this backlash and it was absolutely hilarious, not first. The first that happens is they started, claiming that it was white soup. emphasis lies to smear black lives matter. No, it wasn't its people criticising someone purporting to be a leftist marxist whose make millions of dollars, or at least their net worth, is somewhere in that range and imagined they own for homes and one costs. One point: four million I under a lot of people, maybe donor. Now buying a house works just because she bought a one point. Four dollar home doesn't mean she has one point four million dollars by gonna mortgage, but it does mean that you pay We had to put down on an all at least five percent, so she had what seventy k affront she probably put down more than that, maybe not, but she still less tens of thousands of dollars from her job that you can put down

and a one point, four million dollar property I'd. Imagine would be something like seventy five hundred dollars a month on the mortgage. Maybe more, maybe eight thousand especially in the allay area at imagine. It's probably high well need to be fair. Interest rates have been low, so maybe seventy five hundred bucks a month for one of our homes I think, for so she's, probably spending fifteen, probably fifteen thousand, maybe twenty thousand dollars per month. Ok! Well, the other one just river has, I think, are half a million. So those are probably more in need four thousand dollar range, so yeah looks like she's, probably spending about twenty thousand dollars a month in mortgages. If she got mortgages Twenty thousand dollars a month. That means take home, take home! Ok, so if you ve got twenty thousand dollars a month Montego and that means you ve got other money should not live off of a candle

She would strain herself all that much. Maybe if she was bold use. Fifty percent over Africa income that mean she's, probably gettin forty grand a month, take which probably mean she's, making like seventy five thousand dollars per month from her gigs. That's my rough estimate maybe she's a bit more bold than that may be sure I only want to spend. Ten percent should be making millions of dollars per year and, as I believe it didn't black lives matter me like a billion something dollars. Ok, I work for non profits and look. Let me let me be reasonable with all of you when it comes to this first informed. The censorship is the biggest issue. We have another story. I want to talk about James O, Keefe Budget Gratis Wikipedia, so so what we're going to that? But I do not say one thing before we move forward. See egos of nonprofits get paid a lot of money and they should get paid a lot of money. If you're per

morning to be a marxist or a leftists. Ok, I understand why people are mad at you and calling you hypocrite, that's fair, but if you're, if you're part of a non profit, and you know your goal is to say an brusque and breast cancer or raise awareness for it or you know testicular cancer. or maybe your raising an issue about the criminal justice system, the you're running a large non profit. The nonprofit needs the best of the best to run a nonprofit. They have to compete with major corporations for top executives. That means nonprofits must be competitive with the private sector. Now there is typically a premium or, I should say a benefit for profits in that typically see was no. If they go and run say Coca COLA, they'll make thirty million bucks and if they go

runs a Greenpeace they might make like a million or too they do make less money, but they still want to be compensated a lot as top talent running a large organization. I totally respect that and then they go by homes, totally respect that too My capitalist. I got no issue with that, so this lady, a successful by all means, but here's what I love about this please just take this and it shows you, the hypocrisy. The lies there just trying to make money. It's true for many people, if she wasn't claiming Leftist fine well, honestly, Antonov. She is specifically but many of these these these endeavours. Is that the leaders of black eyes matter have said they were? Marxists, are right back to the main story handle Facebook is censoring. The story look at US here's an image where it says you can the daily a story, the post couldn't be shared because it goes against our community guidelines. Jason Whitlocke, you know, I'm your love. Had among the IRA. Pod gas is a great guy. He's at do even comprehend might take

He had a lot of options on where to live. She chose one of the widest places in California. She'll have her pick of white cops and white people to complain about that's a choice. Bro well, Jason got suspended, and got suspended on under a twitter over criticising blacklist matter. For this latest Ben Smith. The New York Times said the or Facebook on White blocked the art They said the article shared multiple details which could identify the residents one of the bee founders in violation of privacy rights they're going to say what we already read: they don't allow posts of personal confidential information. They remove kind of the chairs are off offers or solicit personally information or other private information that could lead to physical harm don't complain about this article that lied about mean that gave people information it. It literally told people whom I police Department was ok. That was the issue.

it's not hard to locate someone when you know their department, because there are many police departments and that's what made it particularly easy. Burma can complain about it. It is what it is, but censorship is real. My friends and I want to talk about some, some of the happenings that right now you may have heard about. We talk about a bit last night and on to talk about what needs to be done. Twitter bands, James O, Keefe of Project, veritable over fake. Count policy, that's a bold statement, as many of you may have heard. James O Keefe is planning and has announced he will soon twitter for defamation because they claim that he was running multiple accounts. The story from TAT Crunch says: Twitter has banned right wing, provocateur, hey that's an opinion. James O Keefe crater of political gotcha videos, gotcha video producer project, very tough. For violating its platform, manipulation, spam policy, suggesting you operating multiple accounts in an unsanctioned weight,

He has already announced that you will see the company the ban or permanent suspension is where calls it occurred Thursday afternoon a twitter reps at the act while the violation of rules for happening operating, fake accounts and attempting to artificially amplify or disrupt conversations through the use of multiple accounts is as noted here that lead to twitter. This suggests O Keefe was banned for operating multiple accounts outside the laws. If our policy that lets people have a professional and personal account in that sort of thing, sharp eye Users noticed that keeps latest tweet on ironically accused reported as heads of impersonation, including an image showing a partly rejected phone number supposedly belonging to fix this too may have run a foul of twitters rules about posting personal information, but twitter declined to comment when asked uptake. The image was in fact rejected. I thought it done by the person who took a screenshot fur screenshot, but the first digits were in the original tweet. So get your facts straight talk, crunched supporters of O Keefe said the captain

remote his account of retribution for its most recent expos, they involve involving syrup recordings ever seen, an employee. meeting the news organization has a political bias, the person he was two had impersonate a nurse matched with him on tender. Amazing, I loved tat crunch, absolutely says this. So guys, like an idea, can we get this in Wikipedia for all of you? track, Wikipedia who are on Wikipedia our editors. Can we now include tackling reliable sourcing in an undertone you have seen and employ admitted that his organisation as a political bias, yeah right or his part, O Keefe, so that he would be suing twitter for defamation over the allegation operate fake accounts, chief legal officer, Geraghty, told TAT Crunch James, O Keefe has only one account. He does not have bank accounts. Twitter statement is simply false. That's particularly internet twitter said that

the longest time I pointed this out. They have made this accusation against too many people that they operated multiple accounts. Under what evidence do they have to make that claim now? Many of the people were accused of this did not sue, and I don't wonder if they didn't where they really operating. Counts. I don't help, but I will I will say this: James O Keefe may be the most important individual in the fight for free speech right now. Why? Because he's fighting, I know a lot of people speak up. Obviously, I'm speaking up- and I am speaking in defence of James and those are important things too, but James is firing beat heat, he has, he has turned the ship and he is firing the broadside cannons or whatever ass the establishment and he's not backing down, and what he's doing is very important. I look to the people. Fighting the fight for free speech typically tends to be allowed a conservative simply because can serve as the ones getting band

but it's mostly of people who have a more libertarian persuasion and an anti establishment persuasion. The people fighting the good fight are not the far left and on the right, very few are doing anything substantive, James, O Keefe us not only suit the New York I mean he is now- is announced a lawsuit against CNN and now Twitter. It's amazing, because project very toss is an undercover journalistic enterprise. They produce they there an invite. negative news outlet, probably the most important and consequential news outlets that exist today. I know I am very much push propping up and giving credit to divert us, but I have to say that I have long talked about the importance of investigative journalism, I've law, stated that in today's day and age we do I really need opinion people, we don't need the New York Times, writing an article on something already know it's. Why Only news outlets have shifted to opinion because one

whose breaks we get. The fact dog does Backlit news at eleven, where we know the dogma that did did the backlit, maybe some context we need We don't need to lose out to to tell us what happened, because we heard at the moment it did so. What news outlets than do is this our opining, but was it a proper back flip Jim. I saw the backdrop and it actually turned slightly to the right. I would say it was more of a flat spin and not so much a back. Let this is absurd. That's it they do now. What does James O Keefe do? Project Berytus gets people undercover, they investigate people and they ve had major breaking stories, notably the Epstein story, with ABC News. Now look a lot of this kind, confidential sources. They get supplied the information they publish it. That's what news organisations were supposed to be doing its funding. that project very tosses filing these lawsuits, because not only are they a news and enterprise

becoming a nonprofit that that challenges the establishments lies so to say something I got it. I got a point out Wikipedia something I brought up yesterday that you may have missed in the IRA. Pug cast go on Wikipedia and you will see project where toss that Wikipedia States very tosses, an American, far right activist group, founded by James O Keefe and twenty tonnes. The group produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which you secret, recording to allege misconduct and corruption in mainstream media organisations and progressive groups project there doesn't use it entrapment to generate Bab bad, published publicity, forts targets and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories, and its videos, operations, you'll notice that I had to blur a portion of this because they publish verities his address its. the only article where they publish someone's address, but I'm not going to do the same. Here's the important part. Let's talk about a few things:

they say very causes far right. That's an opinion activist group. That's an opinion poll sing. Deceptively edited videos, that's an opinion. They say they allege misconduct and corruption. Now that's true. They do allege that that's affair, point in mainstream organizations and progressive groups as a framing issue, but it still allowed a framing issue- means they should point out. There are other organisations. Urban Republicans he's gone after inventor, think very task. Gonna truck voter arrested for double voting fair tissues, entrapment, ok, that sources, but as a statement of fact, to generate bad publicity for its targets and his propagated disinformation. Disinformation is an opinion. Conspiracy theories is an opinion. Why is it now Wikipedia claiming to be an encyclopedia can publish opinions section two thirty they say. Let me point something out. the article has a lock in the corner and figure out what you can see it in the way. I have that the article framed, but there's a lot that says that this

The goal is semi protected. That means joy, Will users are not allowed to post on? This is where things get interesting. If the New York Times a letter to the editor or they a better. Yet honey monoplane lottery their game. But let us say the New York Times publishes an article from John Smith. and John Smith's Smith's as James O Keefe, you know, store a goat from farmers from afar. It's an absurd story. No one's gonna it's true find whatever. But it's a statement of fact published by the New York Times. I guess, theoretically than your time say it was just one of our users who wrote something and then we published it on our front page. It wasn't, does see. Here's the point at what at what point, as it becomes speech in the New York Times or speech from Wikipedia Wikipedia, they say it's edited by the users. Therefore, you can't sue Wikipedia for defamation

over this post does not show the users at its taking opinion pieces and Wikipedia then purports it's a fact. That's the interesting point. If Wikipedia said it wasn't it as the free encyclopedia, while encyclopedias have definition Wikipedia with their masthead over this article is asserting these things under its brand. To be true, one thing when you see on twitter username in a statement we know who said that is another thing: what a bunch of random users we don't know on Wikipedia up and you'd have to go back and look at this massive history to try and find out who wrote these things and what they're saying what happened? as a random person asserts an opinion Wikipedia launderers that opinion into a new page that Wikipedia publishes. I think there's there's grounds here and I think that Wikipedia needs be sued. I've heard it too much and I just don't care

the lawyers were like you're wrong. You can't it's section, two thirty, their protected their opinions computer says it's an encyclopedia cycle piece about up ads if Wikipedia is taking opinions from random people, but then publishing an under their masthead as an encyclopaedic act. They are making a statement of fact, not the users. It's about time We'll start suing. Twitter, Facebook Wikipedia, and making these arguments and I've heard it from all these lawyers. You can't do it because that opinion, do it and get case law get precedent like James O Keefe did when the judge ruled of your time. If you are porters are going to interact opinion, it stands to reason the New York Times should be in. forming its readers of that and based on that Wikipedia could be sued into oblivion. If Wikipedia is going to report, pinions. As fact it stands to reason. Every single one of these pages should say this is now and encyclopedia. This is it.

Regulation of various opinions of random internet users- it doesn't encyclopedia means something. So if someone comes to me and says: I think that James O Keefe smells bad. That's an opinion, and then I say: ok, I'm gonna take what you said and I'm not publish on my page now I can't be sued, that's insane not the one who wrote it Wikipedia has protected this article, meaning they have set an editorial ended as to who is allowed to contribute its exactly what the New York Times, when they say, only certain people we approve are allowed to contribute. I've talked to a lawyer about this and they argued theoretically. That's right, times should be immune on every single story. They right because written by users of their website. I guess you can argue as employees of the company they represent the company, so

compensation is that the line we draw? Ok, here's what I'll do I'll not a user generated posting platform were only select, users are allowed, oppose liquid He doesn't, I won't pay em and then what they can publish anything they want. Here's. The passport news guard has up in the top right. This website is apply from the publishers content from its users. does not that information on the source may not be reliable, but it's got an information icon. It does not show a warning sign it. That's it! That's all. Do I think for TIM, TIM Tim S come. I will approve of a handful of people based on some arbitrary hundred, and so you can write whatever you want, because its user generated content. Sorry there's got to be a line. It cannot be absolute, I'm actually fan in many ways of times we Sullivan that creates the actual malice standard for public figures

I need to say things and sometimes I'm wrong, and I will try to correct them. But if we didn't have a standard you be suited to oblivion. The issue is its two thirty is too much. These new thoughts can lie fine, but there needs to be some standard if a new near times wants to a certain opinion, then nation to say it's an opinion, because if they say it's a fact, then you should be able to sue them Wikipedia the same way. In the end, all of these lies in manipulations, their breaking everything apart see what vartos pulls off and will see what happens with his facebook censorship? Leave it there. Next segments covered up at one p m o this channel thanks bring it out, and I will see you all them Chicago has released body camera footage of a police officer, shooting and killing a thirteen year old boy. They said that he was armed with a gun the story is tragic. I grew up in Chicago

I understand this kind of stuff all too well. I have known people who have been in this. Is that in these situations- and you need to understand- is first, we nobody wanted a kid to die, and I even think that cop want to be the situation but start treating people like humans and start talking about these tragedies with and what's causing them not just its lack of a chinese finger trap. We're we're we're we're we're missing the big picture. Chicago has problems, gangs, give kids guns and tell them to do things in an effort to avoid criminal liability for themselves. They'll tell the kid you have to do is to join the gang. Here's the gunboat shoot them son and the kid will do it in the argument as well: you'll get out a jail when you're right team and then the adults don't get in trouble list. I try not to sometimes they can implicated. It happens. Chuckles got problems, man now. Here's where things get now gets frustrating for those of

you really want to solve these problems and figure out, what's going on in the body camera footage, the left is now claiming that it shows the child clearly was unarmed. In fact, that's well, that's not true, but they said he had his hands up and they are empty, and then true, this we're things get complicated with a story from the daily mail quote: he lied about the police, killing a child, a Yossi slams prosecutor and Adam Toledo case for telling a judge the boy was holding a gun. as she renews attack on system that covers up state violence. He was holding a gun, there's video footage of him holding a gun The big issue, I suppose, is that when CBS published the story, they cropped the video down. So you can't actually see the kid holding the gun, The kid apparently was holding it tossed. It real quick and through his hands up before getting shot,

So now there is a still photo going around on the left of a young boy, holding his hands up and being shot, and there is still a photo of a young boy. Holding a gun appears to bank the clock holding a gun then getting shot. If you want to understand the truth, you need to understand the whole picture. The left isn't giving it the whole picture there, reactive, I'm in the reactionary that that means something else, but that that they react to them. they don't investigate things so a Yossi screaming and she is wrong. It's frustrating to have Words of people, smashing windows and burning cities down because there too stupid to do a google search. None at all to be mean to people, but these people are burning down buildings, their violent criminals and they are stupid people and because that we all have to suffer. I will see, is a stupid person as well. You must

up? Abc has accused prosecutor in the autumn Toledo, police, shooting death of law. In a Thursday tweet the prosecutor and Cook county assistance. It attorney James Murphy, told a court earlier this year. At the video showed Toledo, a thirteen year old boy who was fatally shot by Chicago police officer, had a gun in his hand when it was shot, he did define when he was shot. What's the timeframe when the police were chasing after. kid he was armed. When the police drew their weapons, he was armed and when the kid tossed the gun through his hands up, he got shot why the problem is partly for the police, They were yet, I think, they're pretty sure they were yelling. Put your hands up or you know, dropped the weapon. The problem is as soon as they make a movement. The cop is like that. You you don't know that woman's gonna be. We can't see the future.

so are raising their hands or they raising the weapon for the cop fired, I don't know what you're doing situation like that at stuff. The kids should not have died, but he did have a gun. You wanna talk about whether its justified or not, by all means do so, but the kid had a gun They say this is. This is amazing, with a daily mail gets it wrong, I'm artifact checked them and can quite fun. Video showed teen the teen appearing to drop a handgun and raising his hands right before the cop open fire, a handgun, was also found near where he was shot. You see how they say this appearing to drop, and on whether way way way so you mean he did have a gun in his hand and then in a tenth of a second when he drops it resigned to get shot, see other frame watch police, are the Tina handgun Autumn that morning and that less than a second pass

one delete oversee with a gun in his hand to instalment opened fire. That's true. The cook counties had to turn his office Edna statement. The prosecutor failed to fully inform himself before speaking in court. Errors like that cannot have This has been addressed with the individual involved. The video speaks for itself. A yo see did not accept the ex explanation. The prosecutor did not make an error. He lied. The Democrat Rep from New York Fourteenth congressional district rope. He lied about the police, killing a child ending the This isn't just about consequences for who pulls the trader it's about admitting to and confronting an entire system that exist to protect, defend and cover up state violence that listen. If you want to come out and ragged state violence, all right, I'm down, I just don't believe their genuine. They just want to be the ones who wield the state violence, yet they want to appoint their woke brigade

to be the police, to use state violence and there's a really good example of that in. I think it was Milwaukee when a bunch of black lives matter activists were outside of a man's home and p. testing and in his home he brandished a shot gun when the people I came for him when they yelled called the cops. They were cheering for it when the violence, when the impression from the stated on their side, they're happy so now I dont believe see she is a lie. You're she's very she's varies. Listen. I said she was stupid. Let me clarify that she's very talented and she is very capable and she's Smarten money ways, but maybe I shouldn't underestimated Congress stupid and I should point out. You probably knows what she is doing, that still frame for the newly released footage of the shooting that killed thirteen year old to lead on March. Nine shows it was not holding anything. The footage also shows its hands up when the officer shot him once in the chest, but Pierce show the boy throwing something away that could have been a gun gone at and Gunnar.

It was founded the teens hand, but it is not clear from the footage he was not holding anything when you were shot over the weekend. Prosecutor described the events, the video that have not yet been made public the time, as the judge set bonded a hundred thousand dollars the twenty one year old, who was with Toledo, lawyers prosecuting Reuben Roman, who was represented by a public defender. What are you a charge of record reckless discharge prosecutors told the court that video captured Roman firing shottsford. responded. The scene who dropped gloves on the ground that later tested positive for gunshot. President, the other officer on the scene benches Toledo telling him, stop repeatedly who eventually comply near breakin, a wooden fence prosecutor said a thirteen year. Old boy was then ordered by police to show his hands who counties assistant estate attorney James, where he said prosecutors at the boy was told to drop. It drop it as Toledo with a gun in his right hand, according to prosecutors, turned towards the officer, the officer open fire, hidden, routine ones,

Just the prosecutor then said the gun till it was holding, landed a few feet away, despite it being shown in the now released footage that he was not holding anything when you were shot is the problem. The activists are arguing that the police should have been able to use in a split second, in a high adrenaline moment where a kid is holding on understand. His movements were specifically to raise them now verify their saying. The cop should have immediately recognized his hands were empty, but it was a high intensity moment. Don't say this when they say see his ends were empty. When I got shot, that's not fair. It is fair to say that the cap is the one who wanted his hands up and should not have shocked. That's fair, but the kid did have a gun period. It's it's! It's it's a problem. The kid should have died

They say the Congress has been one of the top critics of lawn force. With this we know protests of it in Minneapolis. As we understand here's the gun, the Chicago Police Department released a photo of the gun that was recovered from the scene after one of its officers kill them Toledo got imagine you know, and presently a member of the squad sat tweeted was thirteen years old in the police executed him executed would be dropping him to his knees and putting a gun to his head This was a chase from a kid who was armed. Chicago has a problem in But this is not how we solve it. It's not. I mean the Chicago police are the worst departments in the country. They are insanely corrupt. They operate black sites. Do that as it's like an marked building where they bring people and beat them into other nasty stuff. There was this

story, but I was electrocuted suspects in Chicago into false confessions. I know cds bad, but let's be honest about what happened. I'd like you to check out the Federalist, the Federalist his ab. Lastly, on the other in the dog house, with DHA, with news garden, you know I use news guard sources for everything on purpose, because I'm gonna fact check these things. I will criticise them if they get things wrong, but the source of information will be news going to check this out news guards as the Federalist is a trash rag. They say it severely violates basic journalistic standards. Is an anonymously owned website that Peter we published false or misleading information and significant news and opinion stories are right that significant here's. The thing, though, in this instance I voted fastening, the Federalist actually is got- has got the factual story.

It says CBS News, edited police body can video to mask teen holding a gun before he was fatally shot now only slow down their federalist. We don't know exactly why they edit it so to say they they did it to do this, I would agree with. Hence, by probably one of the reasons Newsgirl gives them about writing. I would say: CBS News News at its police body, camera footage come up masking teen holding a gun before he was shot the to their implies. It wasn t channel. I dont know that, but there, but there still correct in a broader sense, CBS publishes this. This video, which I'm not gonna, play its newly this body can fudge show Chicago these chasing and fatally shooting thirteen year old, Adam Toledo, Jerry Donley, tweets CBS News, jury version of the police body, camera footage where the right and left edges of the video were trimmed away me The portion of the video Adam Toledo is seen holding

a firearm at one point is no longer visible because it is now just off screen. He then post the full video, and we have many other people, including Ryan Saavedra, who says quote unarmed Andrew Yang tweeted, a child was killed in Chicago. His name was Adam Toledo. He was thirteen, he was unarmed. His hands were up, he wasn't unarmed. That's not true. The problem here is that the left has an opportune need to frame this as hands up, don't shoot by saying his hands were up and then he was shot. That is technically the truth. The best kind of the truth. If you ask me, I am sad sarcastically by the way the reality as cop was it a bad spot kid had a gun in his hand, cops I'd, put your hands up when the kid made his movement. The cops seems to have panicked and shot him. I think it was men. This once tough is. Is this one's really tough cop should not a shot him? That's a fact, but if you ve never been in a high intensity moment,

You you're, not you're, not thinking the same way. You're not like hindsight, is twenty slash, twenty, I'm sure looking back on it now, people are like, but he put his hands up. Cop panicked. I'm sorry, though cop panicking is no excuse for somebody. I remember that story where cop pulled somebody over in the guys, you know get out of his van the cops like you gimme, your your your license and insurance and the gallows eight and then leans into the car and the Congo's. Now now, in the cop shoots the guy several times like you ask them, its wall, it. What are you doing? Scared cops are a problem. The kid should not have been shot but be honest about what But this is not the same story is the guy who got pulled over was asking along a shot, this a kid with a guy and their armed and their running out and the kid has a gun and the cop drop it

Rapid, put your hands up the kid most gets she gets shot. I don't know how you solve these problems, men, I really don't but lying about it, ain't it really! It's funny! That's the Federalist and, as I mentioned, is the is the one lacking credible credit credibility to be fair. The daily mail makes, I think, frames poorly greatly. it meant met many in the lab, say its biased its conservative. Do they do stuff on the left for the left by the time they hated Trump. many news outlets, r, r, R r, giving you this text to Eliza Version that doesn't explain what actually happened within a split second of dropping the gun. He was shot his hands, up its irrelevant in this video. You see him holding the gun. The cop may have decided to shoot the moment. He had the gun and pulled it, and then the king,

no and then he put his finger on the trigger than the kid throws it from his hands up and he's already in the process of being shot. It was a split second, I don't know you saw fence problems, man I think you need to understand that tragedies will happen. No matter what. Unless everyone's got a personal force field that no one gets shot anymore, I don't know how you solve for this, but let me show you what the leftist thing: Bakari sellers verified, twitter, user, three hundred and sixty thousand, Followers CNN and strong law, author of a near times, best seller, sudden, compare Adam Toledo to Kyle Rittenhouse. This is what we're talking about. Ok, Let's compare Adam Toledo took our Rittenhouse Toledo was what,

older, older man. Both were armed, they are engaging in criminal activity and die. They fled from police and then you know there was gunshot residue. They were apparently already discharges and the kid we had a gun. The cop panicked shot him. Did put his ends up current us, the police abandoned the area. Riots had been persisting for a few days. He was my understanding. Right now is legal position of along gun, because I believe that many people are saying he was a minor. You love to have that. That may be the case, but I think right now, there's but he was so. Let's go that undetermined potential illegal or legal were not entirely sure. It was a mass right where a seventeen year old man or someone in the seventies was bashed over the back of had left the bloody because people are trying to burn down his business and several businesses in arguments on fire and cholera mouse was try to put fires out and render aid to the rioters as very different story.

when several of the riders try pushing a flaming dumpster into a gas station which would potentially blow it up. Kyle Rittenhouse and his and his crew acted to extinguish that fire. The extremists got angry and then attacked called at Knotts and chased him, and he but it was only after someone fired a gun. Did he turned around and shoot in self defense upon shooting, and in self defense. He then said I'm gonna go get help and he ran to the police and when on one video, so that what happened, what happens? Is I'm getting the police on getting the police? They then set its It's him get em in the chase after him, someone kicked him and shut knocked him to the ground he rolled over. They tried grabbing, has gone. He fired in self defense, putting a bullet in the heart of one man. Then another guy tried grabbing him and he blew his bicep off dolt grab someone's gun Rittenhouse was trying to go to the police and they told him to F off

Basically, you went home and turned himself in the issue as their nowhere near the same things. Police responding to it on an illegal discharge in a city and chasing after sir a kid was armed and then can get shot. Shouldn't happened, but its dramatically dramatically different area where there's no police, ongoing riots and people are attacking a guy who was literally just rendering them aid. Previously cholera mouse was not a criminal who was a lifeguards. My understanding and in my opinion he should not have been a situation either. It should not have happened. The problem is in Chicago with Adam Toledo. The cops intervened in a crime and progress in Canosa. The police did not Compared to car right now are two entirely different things you talk about what should or should not happen with right. Now I hear you there's no real. easy way to understand you know or to now. Everyone thinks there right. Hindsight is twenty twenty

Cow Rittenhouse was trying to defend his area and he was trying to stop the chaos and save lives and they attacked him for it and he defended himself and he was allowed to do he was not a kid who was it a gang who is robbing round the streets are doing these things will see what happens? I think they overcharged him. The bigger question I have, though, in this comparison is the second amendment. Does it apply to minors? In my opinion, yes, it eyes now I know most people won't agree. Conservatives probably won't agree to a certain extent. Liberals definitely won't agree. I would assume leftists probably would agree because they want young, impassioned revolutionaries to be armed, maybe Conservatives probably agree that occasionally have gone if their under proper supervision or org. You know their parent is helping them. Libertarians, prom, he just agree outright. Kid should be led have guns,

I'm not saying that kid's should have guns, but I'm saying the second amendment applies to kids with guns. I believe the constitution applies to everyone now. Some people have said TIM that mean second about me that the council That means people under eighteen should have the right to vote. I do not believe the constitution sets an age limit for voting. I could be wrong about that. Maybe I'm wrong. I think it does, though there are amendments that were added later about you, know: race, national, race and and and and and sex, not national origin. Us things, airports that are you eat that that you can be barred from voting on most of your race or your sex. I don't think there's any of these specific. That says age, though typically the motion does apply to young people. The issue here is that I'll tell you why I think second limit as apply to someone who's thirteen years old back when they wrote this a thirteen year old was, as I know, it's kind of weird, but an adult in that crazy, I mean go. Watch the goat go watch interview the vampire when

It was a Brad Pitt was he's like I was twenty six and I was a man of his age master of my own plantation. That's like yeah people. These days are twenty two energy, a college them have had never had a job before at twenty two, that's insane back, then you'd be sixteen and married and and having your kids, maybe on seventeen or eighteen you'd have kids, you have a family, you weren't adults. I believe they intended for people to have guns. Kids would have to work and needed to be armed and I'm sure there are many young people fighting? I'm not saying we should maintain the idea. Child soldiers are kids, fighting a working factors, and if I did, of course not I'm just saying the constitution applies to everyone, someone is thirteen as constitutional rights. They should be. They have a right to the fourth amendment for the moment, all that stuff, it's not hold true. For the most part, the reason I say though there they have passed laws in the past few years, saying if you're under twenty one, you can't buy guns some some people have tried. I should say

stores have sad. We won't sell guns to people under twenty one, it's a violation of of people's rights. When you say that eighteen is the right age. How long till they say twenty one is the right age: twenty three, twenty six, twenty seven, twenty, eight thirty, thirty five, forty forty one! Where does it? And I mean it seriously? Eighteen isn't betray number set by today's standards. It wasn't always the case. Twenty one is the next arbitrary number. How does it make sense that you can't buy cigarettes in some states until your twenty one? Twenty one that, since aid. I was I was crazy. The legally die for your government, which can drink beer. How stupid, as that These rules seem to be arbitrary. Nowadays and the idea of why don't give alcohol tickets or drugs the kids, I agree with it, but should it shy

a minor be allowed to bear arms one hundred percent, because we are not talking about some kid running around like like a moron with a gun, we're talking about many different circumstances. First, hunting yeah go ahead with their dead. Maybe your Hutton, Turkey, I'm not talking about a five five six. You know our fifteen I'm talking about a shotgun somewhat of a kid needs to defend themselves in the home. Well as reason points on this article. Typically, they do have a right to bear arms in their home in self defence. But what, if you're on your property outside we're gonna go to the movies? Why does your right to self defence end when you're simply walking around? public common area where weren't. What I'm getting to here is the bigger argument to me is that the police chasing after a kid because he was armed or is no justification to shoot. Him, I believe, is wrong. I dont think the cop Could shoot people simply because they have guns it's in the constitution? This is a problem there, a cop

What are you gonna get scared, I shot him. I don't care if like if, if the cop was scheme, Your speaking naughty words, each of you, I understand words, I'm gonna kill you and a gun might to the cops defending himself. But if the consequence, as we were right to bear arms than the burden is on the states, If you see some of the gun you guys gonna got ominous should have. I believe that the constitution says you can have a gun. The kid was running, I get it. The cop was scared. I get it it's a tragedy. This thing should not happen but you'd understand, we can't just assume there's no line that it's just randomly Herman. We need to understand what the rules are. If somebody has a gun. I do not believe that should be the sole justification for getting shot. I dont the capture, developed kids got a gun. Would you do. Approach it better or just let him go, I don't know man. The problem is passing more and more effective laws. The city says no one can have guns. Then you get a kid with a gun to the cop shoot some cuz I supposed to have a gun, you won't drop it. It's going to be a.

Plumb so long as we recognise that some time Maybe the laws are the problem. What would have happened if the cop just said dropped the weapon in the kid ran and the cop didn't give chase, because the kid was allowed to bear arms. I can tell you this The kid would not be dead. The left will try to argue that beckons that your clairvoyance and I am not familiar for this well, he would have had the gun and maybe he would have shot someone. Conservatives might argue that too The gun rights people are really interesting to me, not outside the gun, control people, the gun, control. or interesting because of the same people who are upset this kid got shot but you're the one who wants to ban the gun in the first place, so lonely limitless reboot. Let me end by saying this: the problem I find the that is with mostly the left there, defend this kid, you are, you are the ones who called for this gun control,

Gun control. Result in the cops shoot a kid because he was trying to confiscate that kids gun. That's it it's your fault. I'm done I'll, see y'all at four p dot m over at Youtube: dot com, Timcast thanks for hanging out.